quote:

Another positive test was a result of a PO2 taking his parent's prescription pain medicine for a legitimate injury.

Which is still a positive test for illegal use of narcotics. PERIOD. It might be a matter of mitigation or extenuation, but not a matter of guilt or innocence!

On the matter of presumption of innocence, read up on Coffin V U.S. This is the court case that established this priciple. Read the courts opinion. It seems clear to a simple layman like me that it applies directly to and only to the process by which a jury or judge determines whether or not the Gov't has sufficiently presented a case for CONVICTION. The underlying principle is really simply that the GOVT has the burden of proof IN TRIAL before depriving a person of life, liberty, etc. I didn't see public debate discussed there.

As a former CDAR as well, I will agree that counseling is required prior to seperation in drug cases. Not sure I will ever call it REHAB because one or two council sessions really isnt REHAB in my mind.

The perscription use is an interesting subject. Is it technically illegal? Yes. But I would be lying if I told you I have never done it. I pulled my back laying carpet about a month ago. I took some perscription muscle relaxer my mother in law gave me because I had nothing else. I have no clue what was in it, but my mother in law works for a Doctor, and I feel confident enough to trust she knows what she is giving me. Just my opinion, but if there is a legitimate injury involved, its really not that big of a deal.

Its a whole other issue with abuse, and thats not what I am talking about.

Ill give you another example of how this can happen and not be a big deal. When I was in Cape Cod, I started coughing while sleeping one night. I got up, went down stairs, opened the closet. I grabbed a bottle of liquid cold med that was perscribed for me, I took a swig, set the bottle on the counter and went back to bed. The next mornings I woke up and noticed the bottle on the counter, and it read "Tylenol 3 with Codine". It was for my son who has the same first name.

The next work day, I mentioned what happened to my XO because I wasnt taking any chanced with a test if they had one, but it did show me that these things can happen, and not be something the member should be NJPed for.

T

quote:

but it did show me that these things can happen, and not be something the member should be NJPed for

Tim;
Absoloutely, 100% disagree with you. If it showed up in a pee test, yes, they should be NJPd for it, 100% of the time. An Article 15 hearing, is just that, a hearing. In and of itself, being NJPd is not punishment, guilt or anything of the sort. It is only a method to determine if punishment should be imposed. Hence, that is why it said it is a matter of mitgation or extenuation, not of 'guilt'. The case you described would likely be considered sufficient mitigation and/or extenuation and the Art 15 authority would unlikely impose punishment.

I doubt a ranking O type gets caught by a pee test... likely someother method of investigation... still, the following have been shown to produce false positives in pee tests for coke:

Kidney infection (kidney disease)
Liver infection (liver disease)
Diabetes
Amoxicillin, tonic water

I agree with those here who suspect a single pee test, or even a couple of them would not bring about the arrest of any high ranking Officer in the Coast Guard... too much bad press to follow.

You show your lack of knowledge. Everyone pees when their 'number' is up and every positive test is handled the same way.

...where did you read the word 'arrested'?

quote:

Tim;
Absoloutely, 100% disagree with you. If it showed up in a pee test, yes, they should be NJPd for it, 100% of the time. An Article 15 hearing, is just that, a hearing. In and of itself, being NJPd is not punishment, guilt or anything of the sort. It is only a method to determine if punishment should be imposed. Hence, that is why it said it is a matter of mitgation or extenuation, not of 'guilt'. The case you described would likely be considered sufficient mitigation and/or extenuation and the Art 15 authority would unlikely impose punishment.

And I 100% disagree with you. So the plan is now that we should hold NJP for the sole purpose of embarrassing a member who did absolutly nothing wrong? NJP has become a show now? A circus complete with clowns?

You and I both know that there is really nothing fair about NJP. You and I both know that if a member is standing at one, they will most likely be awarded punishment and contrary to what spin you may place on it here, you and I both know that the CO or OINC usually has their mind made up before he or she even walks in the door.

I will tell you for an absolute certainty that you take me to mast for something I didnt do like picking the wrong bottle, and my response will involve a total of two words. The first word is "****" and the second one is "off" for just wasting my time.

T

quote:

quote:
Tim;
Absoloutely, 100% disagree with you. If it showed up in a pee test, yes, they should be NJPd for it, 100% of the time. An Article 15 hearing, is just that, a hearing. In and of itself, being NJPd is not punishment, guilt or anything of the sort. It is only a method to determine if punishment should be imposed. Hence, that is why it said it is a matter of mitgation or extenuation, not of 'guilt'. The case you described would likely be considered sufficient mitigation and/or extenuation and the Art 15 authority would unlikely impose punishment.

If NJP isn't punishment then what's the P stand for?

Spam;
OK, a Captains Mast otherwise know as an Article 15 proceeding is the means to determine if punishment will be awarded. And to answer your question - the P stands for proceedings. Art 15 proceedings are 'non-judicial' in nature.

Tim;
I can only speak from my experience in Art 15s. Which is:

Subject of two of them.
First one CO found not enough evidence to convince him I did what the XO said I did.

Second one, Capt found that I met 3 out of four elements of the charge and therefore handed out punishment. Later, he recieved some intense training and a letter from the Admiral accepting my appeal.

Mast Rep for ~35
Command Chief in about ~30 of them

For the 30 that I was Command Chief in, yes I would agree that in most of them the Capt already had a good idea whether or not he thought the member commited the act. There is a simple reason for that! If the PIOs investigation did not reveal substantial evidence that EVERY ELEMENT of at least one of the ARTICLEs was met, there would be no mast! Many of those, the first thing the CO did would be to dismiss several 'charges' as unfounded and concentrate on the ones that appear founded. Well before the actual mast itself, he has all of the eveidence. Now, what was almost never decided before the mast in those 30+ cases was if and/or what the punishment would be. (Every CO does it differently). Most often what the accused SAID and how they acted as well as what the person Chain of Command said, had a huge affect on the punishment handed out, if any. I witnessed MANY 180 degree changes in the COs thoughts. (again - every CO is different and until you get invovled behind the scenes, you will never know this).

Now, make sure you caught my comment about "if caught by a pee test." It should be up to the Commanding Officer to look into the eyes of the person and examine the evidence presented, not anyone else. The case where you reported ASAP to the XO, then I would probably have 'quized' you to make sure the blood levels reflect a likelyhood of your story, and patted you on the back for your integrity.

PS: and hell yes, MASTs are often held as 3 ring Circus with clowns, with no intention to hand out actual punishment, but with the intention to make a significant emotional impact on the member or others. Actually have seen a couple held KNOWING that the member would be found not guilty of any wrongdoing. They were held to ensure all hands that a specific matter was addressed in an open and actually very fair manner.

quote:

Originally posted by gaylordstevens:
the following have been shown to produce false positives in pee tests for coke:

Kidney infection (kidney disease)
Liver infection (liver disease)
Diabetes
Amoxicillin, tonic water

.

This is an Urban Legend, none of those above conditions or substances will produce the cocaine metabolite which is screened in a urinalysis and provides a positive result.
Many have attempted to make this assertion but chemistry says otherwise. Those excuses / allabys hold no water (or urine as the case may be)
Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
hell yes, MASTs are often held as 3 ring Circus with clowns, with no intention to hand out actual punishment, but with the intention to make a significant emotional impact on the member or others. Actually have seen a couple held KNOWING that the member would be found not guilty of any wrongdoing. They were held to ensure all hands that a specific matter was addressed in an open and actually very fair manner.

As someone who has been to mast (or what I like to refer to as "putting with the Captain") There are few things in life more terrifying than standing across the green table cloth from the Skipper. It leaves a lasting impression on the member and all those invited in to watch in the case of an open mast proceeding. I believe some of our DOD counterparts call it "fire for effect" it works.
Cheers!

I went to mast twice, and both were slam dunks for the Capt. I made it easy by not saying a word other than hello, yes, and good bye sir.
We were living in wild times!

Peace,
Dick

This message has been edited. Last edited by: asm3driscoll,

I went to mast many years ago for being awol for a few days...My punishment was 3 weeks restriction and 3 weeks extra duty at the O Club...Man, I sure ate good those 3 weeks...Thought about going over the hill again...

Gunk

[QUOTE]Originally posted by retiredandlovingit:
I am not ready to make a decision on this one. could be an over zealous CGI.

I thought Coast Guard Institute (CGI) only handled EOC Tests and Educational assessments?

I got written up once during my career - a day late coming back from emergency leave where I took care of a very sick mom who was dying from a brain tumor. I had received verbial authorization from the command OOD for the leave and confirmed the time to report back 2 times with the OOD. Somehow, the message got garbled when it came up to the XO.

I took advantage of my option to turn down the CO's NJP and requested a court martial at PACAREA.

Needless to say, the next day, the charges were dropped and magicly dissappeared, leaving me with a clean record.

All quite often, military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

I was placed on report and went to mast once in my ten years. And I was foulnd not guilty. Had an overzealous GMC that wrote up 3-4 of us at the same time.

quote:

Originally posted by Wray:

quote:

I am not ready to make a decision on this one. could be an over zealous CGI.

Cliff, I think this is way above their (CGIS) heads & level of expertise....

Wray...

And why would that be Wray?

Two of the main Task Forces we are on around the country are HIDTA and OCDETF.

Most of our civilian agents have come to CGIS from other agencies, bringing with them many years of criminal investigative experience to the table.

And as for being "overzealous" as retiredandlovingit referred to the investigation, we don't go around just looking for things to investigate, for the most part.

Commands come to us, usually in the form of a phone call, E-mail, or formal letter, predicating the case to us for investigation. And not all cases are proven; we disprove allegations, also.

Or another LE agency comes to us to assist them with an investigation. One of our mandates is to participate on task forces and assist other agencies.

So with all of that said, I'll repeat my original question: And why would that be Wray?

BTW, hope you and yours are surviving Fay okay.

In my experiences and travels cocaine usually does not mysteriously appear in someone's urine without their ingesting it (more often then not voluntarily) first.

I am reminded of a Mast that I was appointed as a rep (the other SK1 and I were "co-Mast" reps). A PO2's urinalysis came back positive for PCP.

This was during the early 80s when it was possible to get a page 7 if your **** Test recorded a 50 nanogram or less level of THC - the page 7 would read (words to the effect) "you are living a lifestyle that may cause you problems in the future..."

Anyway the defense given was he had gone to a party, ate some cake, and felt funny...the Captain (James Prout, D9 Chief of Personnel) asked him several times when the party was to which the PO gave the same date - repeatedly...Finally, after the reps and division officer said their "he's a good worker, etc." the good Captain said he had heard enough. He asked the when did it happened question one last time. After he asked he then asked the PO2 if he had anything else to say (No sir he replied). So the smart Captain said he had one question to ask - Here it is: So PO soandso, if you went to a party on July 1st 1982 and ate a piece of cake and then felt funny and you didn't tell anyone, why is it that your urinalysis, taken on May 20, 1982 - almost a month and a half earlier - why is that urinalysis positive for PCP?

OOPS. Many jaws hit the floor (including mine). Slam bam. Reduced 2 grades to SN, suspended reduced to PO3!!!

Absolute best surprise mast ending I've ever seen!

From my CDAR Days I remember that there was a zero tolerance on drugs but treatment was to be made available; only 1 alcohol incident was allowable. I went to Level III Treatment for Alcoholism in 1991; with no Alcohol Incidents; but I sure had a drinking problem...almost 17 years later I still haven't had a drink! Best thing ever happened to me...........

The Coast Guard and my agency belong to the same Homeland Security Department...besides being a military service you're still a Federal Law Enforcement Agency; ZERO TOLERANCE must be the way it is.....

Fightining in the mess hall (honor guard), and late for duty (ready crew) on the morning the Prinsendam caught fire in the gulf of Alaska, bad timing? I had a long flight to Cordova in the back of a Canadian Buffulo to relieve the crew I was supposed to be with, to think of how much trouble I was in. I think if I asked for a courtmartial they might have said , OK?

Jerry,
I made my statement based on past experience with some CGI agents... as Cliff noted, I believe they were over zealous & ill informed, for what ever reason.

That was about 20 years ago.. I have also received an e-mail from a friend (CG agent) enlightening me on a few things.. I suspect in this day and age this may not be above their "level of expertise"... I also suspect my experience with the them was one of the unfortunate ones where I wasn't dealing with the "sharpest knives in the drawer"... Their "boss" got fired... & they lost their case. That should tell you something.

At any rate.... perhaps those of today are better trained and have more experience. Keep in mind, I retired 9 years ago.... things change.

Wray...

The days of CGI agents working for the District Admiral went away in 1996 when CGIS was stood up and the central Directorate was established at HQ.

CGIS became a HQ element no longer subordinate to the Districts, enabling agents to conduct a complete and through investigation without improper influence or interference.

Most of our RACs and SACs/ASACs are now civilian agents. Guys like Dave still run RAC offices, but that's becoming the exception, not the norm.

We are in a large hiring mode right now for civilian agents. There are two openings posted on USAJOBS right now, with several dozen more to come.

Well, enough with hijacking the thread. Back to the Case of Cap'n and Coke...