When a service member tests positive on a urinalysis, the laboratory process, command notification, and decision to prefer charges can take weeks or months. Members understandably ask whether that delay violates their right to a speedy trial, and specifically how the 120-day rule in Rule for Courts-Martial 707 applies to a drug case built on a urinalysis result. The accurate answer is that RCM 707 sets a defined clock, but that clock does not begin when the sample is collected or when the laboratory reports a positive. It begins only when a specific triggering event occurs, and the time spent processing and confirming the urinalysis usually falls before that trigger.
What RCM 707 actually measures
RCM 707 requires that an accused be brought to trial within 120 days after the earliest of three events: preferral of charges, the imposition of pretrial restraint under the relevant rule, or the entry of a reservist on active duty for the purpose of court-martial. The key point for urinalysis cases is that none of these triggers is the collection of the sample or the return of the laboratory result. A positive urinalysis sitting in a forensic toxicology report does not, by itself, start the speedy trial clock. The clock starts when the command formally prefers charges, or when it places the member under qualifying restraint, whichever comes first.
This is why a delay between the urinalysis collection and the eventual charging is not, on its own, an RCM 707 problem. During that period the command is typically waiting on the laboratory, conducting an inquiry, and deciding whether to proceed. Because no triggering event has occurred, the 120-day period has not yet started to run.
How the clock stops
Just as the clock has a defined start, it has a defined stop. Under RCM 707, the accused is brought to trial for purposes of the rule at arraignment, the point at which the accused is called upon to plead. Arraignment, not the verdict, stops the 120-day count. So the government’s obligation is to move from the triggering event to arraignment within 120 days, accounting for any properly approved exclusions.
Excludable delay
RCM 707 allows certain periods to be excluded from the 120-day computation. Pretrial delays must be approved by the appropriate authority. Before charges are referred, delays approved by the convening authority or a military judge are excluded; after referral, only the military judge may approve excludable delay. In a urinalysis case, a common source of excludable time is a delay needed to obtain or interpret laboratory documentation, to secure a defense expert, or to accommodate a litigation schedule, provided the delay is sought and approved on the record rather than simply assumed. The party seeking exclusion should document the reason, because unapproved delay counts against the government.
The interaction with re-preferral and dismissal
Drug cases sometimes involve charges that are dismissed and later re-preferred, for instance when the government refines the specification after reviewing the laboratory package. As a general matter, when charges are dismissed without a purpose to evade the speedy trial rule, the clock can restart and a new 120-day period begins on the date of dismissal. If, however, a dismissal and re-preferral is a subterfuge to manufacture more time, that maneuver will not be rewarded and the original clock may continue to control. The distinction turns on the government’s good faith, which is a fact-specific inquiry.
RCM 707 is not the only protection
A member should not assume that meeting the 120-day rule ends the speedy trial analysis. Article 10 of the UCMJ imposes a separate and more demanding obligation when an accused is in pretrial confinement, requiring the government to proceed with reasonable diligence. Satisfying RCM 707 does not automatically satisfy Article 10. There is also the constitutional speedy trial right, which is analyzed under a balancing approach considering the length of the delay, the reasons for it, the assertion of the right, and any prejudice. So even where the urinalysis processing pushed charging far past the collection date, a member who was not in qualifying restraint generally relies on the constitutional analysis for that pre-preferral period rather than on RCM 707.
Raising the issue
The remedy for an RCM 707 violation is dismissal of the affected charges, which may be with or without prejudice depending on the circumstances. The issue is raised by a timely defense motion to the military judge. The defense should reconstruct the timeline carefully, identifying the date of the triggering event, every period of claimed excludable delay and whether it was properly approved, and the date of arraignment. For the pre-charging stretch tied to laboratory processing, the defense should consider whether a constitutional or Article 10 argument fits the facts better than RCM 707.
Practical guidance
A member in a urinalysis case should preserve the full chronology: the collection date, the laboratory report date, the date of any restraint, the preferral date, and the arraignment date. Counsel can then map that timeline onto RCM 707, isolate any delay that was not validly excluded, and decide which speedy trial theory is strongest. Because the laboratory phase ordinarily predates the trigger, the most productive RCM 707 arguments usually concern unexplained delay after preferral or restraint rather than the time spent confirming the positive result.
Conclusion
Under RCM 707, delayed charges in a urinalysis case are addressed by recognizing that the 120-day clock starts at preferral, qualifying restraint, or reservist activation, not at sample collection or laboratory reporting, and stops at arraignment. Properly approved delay is excluded, and dismissals made in good faith can restart the clock. Because much of the urinalysis processing occurs before any trigger, members often must look to Article 10 or the constitutional speedy trial right to address pre-charging delay, while reserving RCM 707 for unjustified time after the clock begins.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.