A Navy petty officer second class charged with possessing anabolic steroids while deployed faces prosecution under Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which criminalizes the wrongful possession, use, manufacture, and distribution of controlled substances. Anabolic steroids and testosterone are controlled substances within the scope of that article. A charge is not a conviction, however, and Article 112a contains built-in requirements that the government must prove and that the defense can attack. The available defenses fall into several categories, ranging from challenges to the core elements of the offense to challenges to how the evidence was gathered.
The elements the government must prove
To convict under Article 112a for wrongful possession, the government must prove that the accused possessed a controlled substance, that the possession was wrongful, and that the accused knew of the presence of the substance and knew of its contraband nature. Each of these is a potential defense axis. The prosecution must establish them beyond a reasonable doubt, and a gap in any one can defeat the charge.
Attacking wrongfulness: prescription and authorization
The single most important word in Article 112a is “wrongful.” Possession is not criminal if it is authorized. For a sailor charged with steroid possession, a valid prescription or other lawful authorization is a complete defense to wrongfulness. Anabolic steroids and testosterone have legitimate medical uses, and a member who possesses them pursuant to a genuine prescription, used consistent with that prescription, has not committed a wrongful act.
This defense requires careful development. The defense examines whether a prescription existed, whether the possession was consistent with it, and whether any military authorization or treatment by a medical provider supports lawful possession. Where the member was prescribed testosterone for a documented medical condition, the wrongfulness element may fail outright. Using medication prescribed to someone else, or using a prescribed medication in a manner inconsistent with the prescription, does not get this protection, so the precise facts of the prescription matter.
Attacking knowledge: innocent or unknowing possession
The government must prove the accused knew the substance was present and knew it was contraband. A person cannot be convicted of possessing a controlled substance that they did not know was present, under their control, or contraband in nature. This opens several factual defenses.
Unknowing possession can arise where the substance was placed among the member’s belongings without their awareness, where the member possessed a container or supplement believing it to be something lawful, or where the member did not realize that a product contained a controlled substance. Supplement-related cases are common, because some products marketed as workout aids may contain prohibited substances without the user’s knowledge. If the member honestly did not know that what they possessed was a controlled substance, the knowledge element is not satisfied. The defense develops the factual basis for that lack of knowledge through the member’s account, the labeling and source of the product, and any corroborating circumstances.
Attacking possession itself: control and attribution
Possession requires that the accused exercised control over the substance. In a deployed environment, sailors often share berthing, lockers, and common spaces, which can make attribution genuinely contested. If steroids were found in a shared space, the defense can argue that the government has not proven this particular sailor possessed them as opposed to someone else who had access. Constructive possession requires proof of knowledge and control, and mere proximity to a substance in a shared area does not by itself establish that a specific person possessed it.
Challenging how the evidence was obtained
Deployment does not lower the legal standards for searches and seizures or for questioning. Several procedural defenses can apply.
First, the search that produced the steroids may be challenged. If the search of the member’s belongings, locker, or quarters was unlawful, the evidence may be subject to suppression under the Military Rules of Evidence. Whether the search was authorized by proper command authority, supported by probable cause, or justified by a recognized exception is a fact-specific inquiry that does not relax simply because the unit is deployed.
Second, any statement the sailor made can be challenged under Article 31. If investigators or a superior acting in an official capacity questioned the member as a suspect without advising the member of the nature of the accusation, the right to remain silent, and the warning that statements may be used at a court-martial, the statement is treated as involuntary and generally inadmissible. Under Military Rule of Evidence 305, such a statement is analyzed for admissibility under Military Rule of Evidence 304, and the government bears the burden of proving admissibility once the defense moves to suppress. These protections apply fully in a deployed setting.
Third, the chain of custody and laboratory analysis can be contested. The government must reliably establish that the substance is what it claims and that it is connected to the accused. Breaks in the chain of custody, mishandling in austere conditions, or deficiencies in testing can undermine the reliability of the government’s proof.
Unlawful command influence and procedural integrity
Deployed commands operate under intense pressure, and the defense should remain alert to unlawful command influence, which can taint a prosecution if commanders improperly pressure witnesses, the convening authority, or the proceedings. Where present, unlawful command influence can warrant significant remedies. While it is not a defense to the elements of the offense, it is a recognized basis to challenge the fairness and integrity of the court-martial.
Putting the defense together
In practice, defending a deployed steroid-possession charge means working through each layer: whether the possession was authorized by a prescription, whether the sailor knew the substance was present and contraband, whether the sailor actually controlled it as opposed to others with shared access, whether the search and any statements were lawfully obtained, and whether the government can reliably prove the substance’s identity and connection to the accused. Several of these defenses can be raised together, and the strongest cases often combine an elements-based attack with a suppression challenge.
The bottom line
A Navy E-5 charged with steroid possession while deployed has multiple potential defenses under Article 112a. The possession may not be wrongful if supported by a valid prescription or authorization. The knowledge element fails if the sailor did not know the substance was present or did not know it was contraband, which includes genuine innocent-ingestion and unknowing-supplement situations. Possession itself may be contested where the substance was found in a shared space. And the evidence may be suppressible if the search was unlawful or if statements were taken in violation of Article 31, protections that apply with full force even on deployment. The right combination depends on the specific facts, which is why early consultation with a qualified military defense attorney is essential.
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.