Source: https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/army-jag-school-criminal-law-deskbook-volume/military-justice-system-overview/court-martial-jurisdiction/urinalysis/constitutionality-of-urinalysis-program/consent-urinalysis.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:45:38+00:00

Document:
A urinalysis is constitutional if obtained with consent. Mil. R. Evid 314(e).
Consent must be voluntary under totality of the circumstances. United States v. White, 27 M.J. 264 (C.M.A. 1988).
Consent is involuntary if commander announces his intent to order the urine test should the accused refuse to consent. Mil. R. Evid. 314(e)(4).
give a sample. See also United States v. Vassar, 52 M.J. 9 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (permissible to use trickery to obtain consent as long as consent was not coerced).
United States v. Radvansky, 45 M.J. 226 (C.A.A.F. 1996).
consent to urinalysis in the face of a command request.
a search does not render all subsequent consent involuntary.
But see United States v. White, 27 M.J. 264 (C.M.A. 1988).
(dicta). See also United States v. McClain, 31 M.J. 130 (C.M.A. 1990).
involuntarily even though commander had probable cause to order urinalysis.
relaying official asks for consent (which later is found to be invalid).
coercive and consent was given voluntarily.
Consent. It’s OK to Trick. United States v. Vassar, 52 M.J. 9 (C.A.A.F. 1999).
NCO told accused he needed to consent to urinalysis because of a head injury.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.