The D.C. police department's third ranking official and a deputy chief provided false information to a police panel that investigated alleged improprieties and possible criminal violations in the department's controversial drug screening program, according to a report summary on the probe.

D.C. Police Chief Maurice T. Turner Jr. announced plans to reprimand Carl V. Profater, assistant chief for administrative services and the department's number three official, and Deputy Chief Jimmy L. Wilson, former head of the internal unit charged with investigating corruption, including drug use among D.C. police. Turner's 11-page statement was issued Friday night.

Turner also plans to reprimand Capt. Robert J. Noyes, a former drug screening official, according to the statement. The panel found that Noyes had violated department rules governing the anonymity of the tests.

In a 17-page summary, the in-house panel of police officials appointed by Turner last summer said it had found no basis for the allegations brought by two drug screening workers of potential criminal violations and tampering with testing procedures. It called the integrity of the drug testing program "intact."

But the panel cited "several instances of negligence, oversight, deviations from procedures and poor judgment" and urged Turner to take "appropriate action."

Profater, Wilson and Noyes could not be reached for comment yesterday. A police spokesman said that no police officials, including Turner, would comment on the report. A spokesman for Mayor Marion Barry said he would not comment.

The probe of the drug screening program was triggered when the two workers made allegations in letters to Barry and U.S. Attorney Joseph E. diGenova. The employees, Marguerite Anastasi and Vernon Richardson, alleged "misconduct and possible criminal violations" by D.C. police officials including bribery, tampering with physical evidence and violations of standards of conduct.

The letters described a May 30, 1985, incident in which a lieutenant up for promotion to captain returned for an unprecedented second urine test after clinic workers initially found his first sample tainted with marijuana. The lieutenant's second sample was not tested at the clinic, as is routine, but was taken along with four other samples to the offices of the Internal Affairs Division, the internal watchdog then under Wilson's command, according to the report.

The samples, which are not supposed to leave the clinic except for confirmation tests, were hand-carried on a commercial airline the next morning by Noyes and a police sergeant to a confirmation lab in North Carolina. Normally, samples are sent for confirmation tests by overnight mail. No marijuana was found in the second sample or confirmed in the first, and the lieutenant received his captain's bars on June 7, 1985.

Two years later, Richardson, who had taken the second sample from the lieutenant, saw the same official sitting on a police panel taking action against another officer whose urine had tested positive for drugs. Richardson then recounted the incident to his supervisor, Anastasi, and the two went to union officials, who brought their allegations to authorities.

According to the report, several officials contradicted Profater's testimony that he knew nothing of the 1985 incident until the letter to Barry surfaced more than two years later. "The committee concludes that Asst. Chief Profater had knowledge of the taking of the second sample on May 30, 1985, and participated in its implementation," the report summary said.

The summary said that Wilson had testified that he got approval for the second test from Turner and Assistant Chief Ronal Cox, who headed the panel and is now retired. But, the summary added, Wilson's testimony was contradicted by Turner and Cox.

"Wilson usurped the authority of the {drug screening} clinic personnel, injecting his own judgment into an area where others had the requisite expertise and responsibility to handle the situation," the summary stated.

"Wilson should have foreseen that this could have created the impression that the department not only lacked confidence in its own drug screening program, but was simply not as concerned about accuracy when it came to lower ranking police officers."

Panel members recommended that Turner take action against Profater and Wilson for "errant judgment" and "action {that} contributed to the perception that there are improprieties and favoritism in the department's drug screening process."

A reprimand is the strictest form of disciplinary action short of sending a policeman before a trial board for possible termination, fines or suspension. Reprimands against high-ranking officials are rare and are considered a possible impediment to career advancement.

Sources close to Turner said the chief has dreaded taking disciplinary actions against Profater and Wilson, both longtime members of his inner circle as well as close friends. Turner declined to comment.

Turner's reluctance contributed to a nearly two-month delay between the completion of the panel's report Nov. 24 and Friday's announcement and prompted the chief to order release of the report late on the eve of a three-day holiday weekend in a effort to minimize publicity, according to police and union sources.

Turner said in his statement he would accept the panel's recommendations to change some procedures in the drug testing program, including replacing officers with civilians, saving portions of urine samples in case results are contested, and improving security for screening rooms.

But Turner rejected the recommendation that all personnel currently at the clinic be replaced.