The expert witness admitted on cross-examination that after his review of the test he could not determine whether appellant would have actually “felt the effects” of the drug. Neither the government nor military judge followed the cross-examination with any further questions of the expert that would address this conclusion by the expert witness. The expert witness never discussed the relevance of his conclusion in light of the tested nanogram level recorded for appellant’s sample. We are left with a record containing no meaningful expert interpretation of the test results and no explanation of how the test results can be relied upon given that the expert cannot conclude what amount of marijuana consumed at any given time and cannot state that the appellant ever experienced the effect of the drug. The government presented no other evidence of appellant’s wrongful use of marijuana apart from the positive test and expert interpretation. Under these circumstances, we find the evidence failed to provide us with a sufficient basis to draw the permissive inference of knowing, wrongful use of marijuana and we further find that the evidence, taken as a whole, did not support the finding of guilty for the wrongful use of marijuana specification at issue.
We find the evidence factually insufficient to support appellant’s conviction of Specification 3 of Charge IV, wrongful use of marijuana. See Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987). The finding of guilty for this specification is set aside and the specification is dismissed.