THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, May 14, 1995 TAG: 9505140031
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: By KERRY DEROCHI, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Long : 153 lines
Workers at a laboratory that screens thousands of Navy drug tests have been accused of altering data and failing to adhere to key scientific standards while processing urine specimens.
Test results from 150 drug samples screened between October 1993 and May 1994 were changed to mask quality control problems, according to the findings of an in-house investigation of the Navy Drug Screening Laboratory at the Norfolk Naval Air Station.
While there was no indication that the tampering resulted in false positives, the accusations have threatened the prosecution of sailors charged with drug use based on the Navy's random testing.
Defense attorneys, angered by the findings, are seeking relief from military judges and administrative boards in charge of passing judgment on the drug cases. They are asking that convictions be overturned and cases reheard because of ``credibility issues'' raised by the laboratory's report.
``It's a shame,'' said Michael F. Fasanaro Jr., an attorney in Virginia Beach, who recently represented two sailors accused of using drugs.
``If the person is guilty, they ought to be convicted on legitimate evidence and not on something that is manufactured.''
The controversy has prompted Navy Surgeon General Vice Admiral Donald F. Hagen to ask for a second, independent review of the laboratory and its practices. The Navy has asked a civilian forensic toxicologist from California to look over the data.
The initial in-house review, completed in July 1994, identified two civilian employees as having altered the data, though both denied involvement. The employees were removed from their jobs in the laboratory's screening division to receive ethics training. They have since been returned to their posts.
Navy officials, while acknowledging problems at the lab, said their response has been quick and thorough.
``I'm confident that we took the appropriate action to prevent any such alterations from occurring again,'' said Navy Cmdr. Henry Lewandowski, commanding officer of the laboratory.
``The employees at the Navy drug screening lab at Norfolk are qualified, well-trained professionals. I have every confidence in their performance and in the integrity of the drug screening process.''
The controversy comes as the Navy prepares to close the facility and move the work to a similar laboratory at the Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida.
An estimated 300,000 samples have been processed through the Norfolk laboratory each year. The urine specimens are being forwarded to the Florida lab.
Word of the altered data first surfaced in April 1994.
An employee, whose name has been withheld by the Navy, was processing a drug screen on April 18, 1994 when the quality controls which were supposed to come out as positive instead returned negative - indicating a problem in the test.
The employee told a co-worker about the negative result. The co-worker, according to the in-house report, showed the employee how to ``fix'' the problem by going into the computer and editing the data to make it look like the controls had come out positive.
``We finished up for the night and went home,'' the employee later told Cheri Baird, a lab chemist who was appointed to investigate the allegations.
``I didn't know what to do at this point. I could not sleep for a couple of days. I knew I did not feel good about what had been done.''
The employee then told the supervisor about the altered data.
Less than two weeks later, the investigation began and the results of more than 270,000 samples screened between June 1993 and May 1994 were reviewed.
A final report, completed July 12, 1994 and sent to the Navy Environmental Health Center, found that employees had manually altered the test results of 150 patient and control samples.
There was no indication that the actual urine specimens were touched.
The employees, according to the report, simply used a computer software editing program to make the results fall within a scientifically valid range. In addition, the employees violated laboratory standards by switching the racks that held the control samples used to ensure screening is accurate.
``Data alterations and Laboratory Operating Procedure violations can be devastating to the image of the Navy drug testing program,'' said Cmdr. Marilyn Past, former commanding officer of the laboratory, in the July report. ``The problem is not one of technology but one of personal integrity.''
The report also stated that there was no evidence of tampering that resulted in a negative test being returned - wrongly - as positive.
Urine specimens that come back as positive are subjected to two more screenings - including a more expensive test called Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry - to confirm the initial report.
``I want to emphasize that a thorough investigation of this incident revealed that no specimens were wrongly reported as positive,'' Lewandowski said. ``There was never any impact on individuals.''
Defense attorneys who handle many of the Navy's drug cases argue that tampering of any kind destroys the scientific validity of the tests. They question how the Navy could proceed with cases against sailors while knowing that employees had violated key safeguards in performing the screenings.
They pointed to the high stakes involved in the random drug testing - the cornerstone of the Navy's ``zero tolerance'' policy toward drugs. Sailors ranked E-4 and above who test positive for marijuana, cocaine or other drugs are automatically processed for discharge. Junior sailors may be given a second chance, if their command believes it is warranted.
``Irregularities are irregularities,'' said defense attorney Greg D. McCormack. ``If you have employees intentionally committing irregularities in the standard operating procedures, it undermines the credibility of the lab.''
McCormack and other attorneys also have criticized Navy officials for failing to inform them of the investigation and even denying - in court - that there were problems at the laboratory.
Fasanaro, a former military lawyer who now practices in Norfolk, said he learned of the July report in December - after representing two sailors convicted of using marijuana.
The prosecutor in both cases, Marine Capt. Laurel Woods, contacted Fasanaro after the November trials to inform him of the laboratory problems.
Fasanaro said Woods told him she was angry that the information had not been given to her prior to the cases.
At issue was the testimony of a laboratory employee who, during the two court martials, had certified the lab results and vouched for the validity of the tests. The employee did not mention any of the problems outlined by the in-house investigation.
Woods, a lawyer with the Navy Legal Service Office in Norfolk, declined to be interviewed.
``The lab people did not level with her,'' Fasanaro said. ``Had they leveled with her, she would have viewed the case much differently.
``We feel it could have made a difference.''
On Jan. 3, Fasanaro asked the convening authority to set aside the court martial verdicts and allow the cases to be reheard because of the testimony concerning the laboratory. His request is being reviewed by lawyers for Rear Adm. Paul D. Moses, the commander of the Norfolk Naval Base.
Fasanaro's efforts soon drew the attention of other defense attorneys, who began petitioning the courts to allow them access to the laboratory report.
McCormack, who was also a military lawyer, said he recently used the evidence in two separate trials, both of which returned acquittals for his client. He said jury members in both courts-martial told him later that the questions about the validity of the lab results played a key role in the dismissals.
In an interview, McCormack said he was disturbed that the employees identified as having altered the data were still working at the laboratory. He questioned how the Navy could ensure that such tampering would not continue, even when the work is switched to the Jacksonville lab.
``When you've got employees tampering with results or the blind quality controls, you've got intentional misconduct which borders on a criminal activity,'' McCormack said. ``The employees who we know were intentionally tampering with the results and data are still there.
``Clearly, anytime you have people being told their urine samples are being handled by people who have done this, it's scary. You're talking about a person's career, and family.'' ILLUSTRATION: Color photo
PAUL AIKEN/Staff
PFC Sam Gamboa, of Odessa, Texas, gives some Marine-style
encouragement to PFC Jamee Laskowski, from South Bend, Ind., at the
festival at Ocean View Saturday. The Marines, part of a logistics
unit stationed at Little Creek, took this first-round tug.
by CNB