Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07685-05
Original file (07685-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37c~51OO
TJR
Docket No: 7685-05
9 May 2006




This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 May 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command and the Navy Environmental Health Center, copies of which are attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions from the Navy Environmental Health Center dated 29 November 2005 and the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 January 2006.

Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.

Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant
to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

 Sincerely,


W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director





Enclosures



















2



DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CENTER
620 JOHN PAUL JONES CIRCLE SUITE 1100
PORTSMOUTH VA 23708-2103

         5355
         SerFA-DL/ 001481
         29 Nov 2005

        
From: Commanding Officer, Navy Environmental Health Center      
To: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records, 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100

Subj: COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF

Ref: (a) BCNR ltr AEG: Docket No. 07660-05 of 25 Oct 05

End: (1) BCNR file with Service Record
(2) M. A. Clinical Chemistry, 49: 1037-1038.

1. In response to the request in reference (a), enclosure (1) was reviewed and the following comments are provided regarding contention that his positive drug test result is attributed to ingestion of hemp-based health food products.

 a. During the past eight years, many scientific studies have been conducted and published that have evaluated the impact of consuming hemp food products on drug test results. More specifically, numerous studies have addressed whether or not ingestion of foods or nutritional supplements containing hemp seeds or hemp-seed oil could cause an individual to test positive on a urinalysis drug test for THC (the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana). As discussed in enclosure (2), THC content in these hemp products varied over a broad range and variations in the amounts taken make it difficult to offer a general statement about whether use of these products could produce a positive urine drug test for THC. The lack of information provided by concerning the specific product he allegedly used as well as amount of product consumed further hamper the ability to provide an accurate interpretation for the Board in this case. As advised in enclosure (2), “the interpretation of positive urine tests for marijuana should be made with care and on a case-by-case basis. Claims of ingestion of foodstuffs containing hemp-seed oil should be verified by analysis of the products ingested to determine the THC dose allegedly ingested and to determine whether the THC metabolite concentration in the urine is consistent with the dose ingested”. Therefore, it is not possible to make a recommendation in this case because of the unavailability of all of the pertinent information.

2. If you have any questions, please contact Past, Ph.D., MSC, USN, Navy Drug Testing Program
 Manager at (757) 953-0750, DSN 377-0750, pastm@nehc.med.navy.mil or her deputy, at, DSN 377-0751, @nehc.med.navy.mil if additional information is required.
By direction
Copy to: (w/o ends)
 NMSC (Mr. )






Practical Challenges to Posit~”” Drug Tests for Marijuana -- ElSohly 40 ‘(7): 1037 -- Clini... Page 1 of 5
         Laboralory       I
 Clinical Chemistry

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Institution: NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER Sign In as Customer/Member
QUICK SEARCH:    [advanced]
Author: Keyword(s):
 Goj~

Year: FV0I: ~‘Page: ~

Clinical Chemistry 49: 1037-1038, 2003; 10.1373/49.7.1037
(Clinical Chemistry. 2003;49: 1037-1038.)
© 2003 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Editorial

Practical Challenges to Positive Drug Tests for Marijuana

Mahmoud A. ElSohly

ElSohly Laboratories, Incorporated, 5 Industrial Park Dr., Oxford, MS 38655
and National Center for Natural Products Research, The University of
Mississippi, University, MS 38677


 With the advent of drug testing in the workplace and the consequences of a positive drug test, several issues have arisen in defending or explaining a positive result for a given drug of abuse. Marijuana is the illicit drug with the highest percentage of positives in workplace drug testing. Consequently, marijuana was the first such drug for which excuses were provided to explain the positive test result.

Passive inhalation was the first defense offered. This prompted several studies to ascertain whether passive inhalation of marijuana smoke could produce a positive drug test (1)(~)(~)(4). The majority of these studies showed that although passive
This Article

I Extract FREE

~        Full Text (PDF)

~        Submit a response

~        Alert me when this article is cited

~        Alert me when eLetters are posted

~        Alert me if a correction is posted
Services

~        Email this article to a friend

~        Similar articles in this journal

~        Similar articles in ISI Web of Science

~        Similar articles in PubMed

~        Alert me to new issues of the ournal

~        Download to citation manager

~        Cited by other online articles

~        Search for citing articles in:

ISI Web of Science (3)

 Google Scholar
~        Articles by ElSohly, M. A.

~        Articles citing this Article
PubMed

~        PubMed Citation

~        Articles i~yfjSohly, M. A.

 Related Collections
~        Drug Monitoring and Toxicology
 inhalation of marijuana smoke under certain circumstances could produce detectable concentrations of ~-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (TLIC) metabolite in urine, those concentrations were not above the cutoffs used under the federal workplace drug testing guidelines (50 ~xg/L for screening and 15 ~tg/L for confirmation). One study (5~, however, showed that concentrations above these cutoffs could be attained when the exposure conditions were very severe and, hence, unrealistic. Today, passive inhalation is not nearly the issue that it was at the beginning of drug testing in the workplace.

The second issue was passive ingestion. Unknowing ingestion of marijuana tea, brownies prepared with marijuana, or the like was the line of defense that followed passive inhalation. Although studies were carried out to investigate this issue (~)(2), there was no question that if someone orally ingested cooked marijuana, urinary excretion of l.~-9-THC metabolite would correlate with the amount ingested. The issue was whether the concentrations found in the urine at a specific time after ingestion could be explained in the absence of a detectable biological activity at the time of ingestion. This issue still has no
          (22)
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/fulI/49/7/1 037      11/23/2005
Practical Challenges to Positi”’~ Drug Tests for Marijuana -- ElSohly 4017): 1037 -- Clini... Page 2 of 5


 definitive resolution in light of the fact that individuals have explained that there was alcohol consumed with the meals, which could mask the effects of marijuana.

Over the last few years, hemp-seed oil and hemp-seed products have come to the forefront of defense issues in marijuana cases. Hemp seeds and hemp-seed oil are products that have been legal, that are being ingested by individuals for health reasons (hemp-seed oil is Known to contain high concentrations of unsaturated fatty acids), and that were thought, until recently, to contain no THC. The fact that these products do contain THC presents a challenge in prosecuting positive marijuana-use cases. The seriousness of the issue was demonstrated by studies in which an individual or a few individuals ingested a hemp-seed product (hemp-seed oil or hemp-seed-oil capsules), and the THC metabolite was measured in their urine ($)(9)(l 0)(1i). Hemp-seed oil is presumed to be prepared from the fiber-type cannabis, which contains very low concentrations of THC. If, however, the oil is prepared from drug- type seeds with a high THC content, the oil will contain higher concentrations of THC. Moreover, the presence of THC in the cannabis seeds is attributable to adherence of the resin to the outside of the seeds as a result of physical contact with the plant material during processing. As the oil is pressed out of the seeds, it extracts THC from the exterior seed coat. Plant particles present with the seeds will also be extracted by the oil, increasing the THC content of the oil (12). Therefore, the THC content of the oil is a function of the type of seeds (fiber- or drug-type) and the presence of leaf debris. Analysis of a wide variety of hemp-seed products and hemp-seed oil has revealed a broad range of THC content (anywhere from a few mg/L to >200 mg/L). This variation in the THC content coupled with variations in the use patterns of these products among individuals (from the equivalent of 1 mL of oil in the form of soft gelatin capsules to 1 tablespoons of oil) make it difficult to offer generalized statements about whether the use of hemp-seed products could produce a positive urine drug test.

Recently, the hemp-seed industry has made an effort to lower the THC content of the seeds by including a wash step before pressing or by shelling the seeds. Shelled seeds were found to contain very little THC (in the range of 2 ttg/g). A study was therefore initiated by Leson et at. (13) to investigate the possibility of a positive urine drug test as a result of daily ingestion of various amounts of these “new’t preparations, with total daily doses of THC ranging from 0.09 to 0.6 mg (equivalent to 45-300 g of hulled hemp seeds containing 2 /Lg/g THC or 19—120 mL of hemp-seed oil at 5 mg/L THC) in the form of blends of hemp- seed oil and canola oil to achieve the required dose of THC in a total of 15 mL of oil. The study design was based on the premise that if one ingested hemp-seed oil on a regular basis (daily), analysis of the urine after several days of ingestion would reveal detectable urine concentrations at times after steady- state conditions were achieved.

To limit the number of samples to be analyzed and still obtain meaningful data, urine samples were collected 4—8 h after dosing on days 9 and 10 and after 1 and 3 days of dose termination. With the exception of one urine specimen from the 0.6 mg daily dosing, all urine specimens failed to screen positive for cannabinoids at 50 ~.tg/L. Furthermore, the highest gas chromatography—mass spectrometry (GC/MS) confirmation concentration in any of the urine samples was 5.2 ~tg/L, far below the 15 ~tg/L GC/MS confirmation cutoff used in regulated drug testing. The shortcoming of this study was the limited number of urine collections, although the 4—8 h delay was designed to achieve collection at times



 http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/f~~~/49/7/~ 037
11/23/2005
• Practical Challenges to PositiIT9 Drug Tests for Marijuana -- ElSohly 40(7): 1037 -- Clini... Page 4 of 5


 Medline [Order article via Infotrieve]
 9.       Lehman T, Sager F, Brenneisen R. Excretion of cannabinoids in urine after ingestion of cannabis seed oil. J Anal Toxicol 1997;21 : 373-375.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrievej
10.      Constantine A, Schwartz RH, Kaplan P. Hemp oil ingestion causes positive urine tests for &- tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid. J Anal Toxicol 1997;2 1:482-485. ISI Medline Order article via Infotrieve]
11.      Bosy TZ, Cole KA. Consumption and quantitation of &-tetrahydrocannabinol in commercially available hemp seed oils and products. J Anal Toxicol 2000;24:562-566.[ISI][Medline] Order article via Infotrieve]
12.      Ross SA, Mehmedic Z, Murphy TP, ElSohly MA. GC/MS analysis of the total delta-9-THC content of both drug- and fiber-type cannabis seeds. J Anal Toxicol 2000;24:71 5-717.[ISI] Medline [Order article via Infotrievej
13.      Leson G, Pless P, Grotenhermen F, Kalant H, ElSohly MA. Evaluating the impact of hemp food consumption on workplace drug tests. J Anal Toxicol 2001 ;25:691 -698.fISI Medlinej {Qrcler article via Infotrievej
14.      Gustafson RA, Levine B, Stout PR, Klette Kt, George MP, Moolchan ET, et at. Urinary cannabinoid detection times after controlled oral administration of A9-tetrahydrocannabinol to humans. Clin Chem 2003;49:1 114-1 124.j~bstract/Free Full Text


5420
PERS-671
25 JAN 06


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD OF CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS FOR BCNR MATTERS (PERS-31C)
Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF
Ref: (a) PERS-31C memo 5420 of 3 Jan 06
 (b)      OPNAVINST 5350.4C

End: (1) Administrative Separation Processing Notice, Administrative Board Procedure of 22 February 01
1. In response to reference (a), subject member’s BCNR petition and available naval records have been reviewed. Member’s request to correct errors and/or remove injustices in his service record is necessarily disapproved.

2. Per reference (b), Navy’s policy for drugs is “Zero Tolerance.” Commanding officers must first determine whether there is credible evidence of illegal drug use. If the answer is yes, the commanding officer must, at a minimum, process for administrative discharge. Disciplinary proceedings are, of course, at the discretion of the commanding officer.

3. SNM’s commanding officer, after reviewing all pertinent information, determined that an incident of drug abuse had occurred. SNM was afforded all applicable due process protections in accordance with Department of Defense and Navy Regulations. Review of all legal documents in SNM’s EMPRS file records SNM refused imposition of nonjudicial punishment, but later waived his right to legal representation, and waived his right to an Administrative Separation Board, enclosure (1) germane. lAW Navy policy, SNM was processed for administrative separation.

4. My point of contact is Mr who can be reached at
(DSN) 882-4266 or (C)    (901) 874-4247.
Head, Navy Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Prevention r gram
(PERS-671)




Document Pages
Page 3 of 17










         IFrom: Co        cer SUbIUaflflC  dronS    rtUnht,Norfolk   ~        UIC 31624
         I        REAS     R ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION PRO  MILPERSMAN REP
         iiejcast orable characterization of service possible is Un4~r    Than Honorable conditions.

 d
          I
         tion is approved it will result in discharge,    ~Ud discharge release from active duty to a reserve      V
eat, transfer from the selected reserve to the i         dy reserve, or release from custody or control oL~t~N
4’
          S~~OU ARE ENTITLED TO THE BELOW RIGI*    APPROPRIATE
         BLOCK)
 ELECT I





summarized in unclassified fo
          To request an Admimstrati                 (Failure to appear without good cause constitutes~
         waiver of the ri t to be         a        the Administrative Board.
                   tation at th     ••~~ Board       ualifled counsel.       -
         T’)      tion at         4’nistrative Board       civilian counsel at our own
 If applicabIe4o
understanding t a ction to the next inferior pay grade to transfer ma 4irected
          if I am bein     for misco        securi or homosexual con -~      ~‘
         To present e~t   demonstrating that I do not engage in, attempt to~n      in, have
          propensi         e in, or intent to engage in homosexual acts (For”I~i~osexual   

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06158-01

    Original file (06158-01.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    g. A Navy pharmacologist submitted a report to the ADB in which she stated that both marijuana and hemp will produce the metabolite THC. The majority notes that the DAA.R reporting the accession urinalysis was apparently never acted upon by anyone and it was not considered in the discharge processing. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04106846C070208

    Original file (04106846C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She notes that the UCMJ action states that she violated Article 112a, wrongful use of marijuana, a schedule I controlled substance, when her letter of reprimand and polygraph test results clearly show that she did not use a controlled substance, but rather, exercised poor judgment by using a dietary supplement, hemp seed. The applicant also states, in effect, that if she truly violated Article 112a, under the “zero tolerance” rule her UCMJ action would not have been filed in her restricted...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100659C070208

    Original file (2004100659C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, the following corrections: removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), administrative separation board (ASB) proceedings and promotion flagging orders from his official military personnel file (OMPF); a change to the narrative reason for his discharge; promotion to lieutenant colonel with a date of rank of 15 August 2000 and back pay for 20 years; and issue of a Twenty-Year Letter, dated on or about 5 March 1999. The applicant states, in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084908C070212

    Original file (2003084908C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests reconsideration of previous application to correct his military records by backdating his date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the rank of chief warrant officer three (CW3). After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence presented, the board of officers found the applicant innocent of the allegation that he had abused the illegal drug – marijuana, that his unknowing ingestion was from an over-the-counter product called Hemp Liquid Gold. Army Regulation 600-85,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050010886C070206

    Original file (20050010886C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that the Record of Nonjudicial Punishment (DA Form 2627), dated 28 February 2003, be set aside, with all rights, privileges and property restored; that it be removed from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); that the Officer Evaluation Report (OER), dated 29 November 2002, be removed from his OMPF; that his administrative separation be reversed and his records corrected to reflect that he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 12...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01329

    Original file (BC-2005-01329.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s squadron commander made the recommendation to the Air Wing commander. On 13 October 2000, her commander notified her of his intent to impose NJP and to discharge her from the NYANG for violating NY State law by wrongfully using THC, a controlled substance. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant contends the cutoff level for determining a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01329_2nd_Board

    Original file (BC-2005-01329_2nd_Board.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s squadron commander made the recommendation to the Air Wing commander. On 13 October 2000, her commander notified her of his intent to impose NJP and to discharge her from the NYANG for violating NY State law by wrongfully using THC, a controlled substance. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFBCMR Medical Consultant contends the cutoff level for determining a...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016278

    Original file (AR20060016278.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On 1 December 2005, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 27 December...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01735

    Original file (BC-2003-01735.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant request the Article 15 and resultant punishment, be set aside and promotion to the grade of master sergeant, effective 1 October 2000. An Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) found that he did commit drug abuse on an experimental basis and since it was not likely to reoccur, recommended that he be retained in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...

  • CG | BCMR | Discharge and Reenlistment Codes | 2011-060

    Original file (2011-060.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of the Personnel Manual for procuring “fraudulent enlistment, induction or period of military ser- vice through deliberate, material misrepresentation, omission or concealment of drug use/abuse” receives a JDT separation code, an RE-4 reenlistment code, and “Fraudulent Entry into Military Service, Drug Abuse.” ALCOAST 081/93, issued by the Commandant on August 20, 1993, states that the posi- tive reporting level for THC in a urinalysis was decreased from 50 ng/ml to 15 ng/ml because clinical...