An internal D.C. police memorandum, written in early December, proposes a new program to randomly test officers and officials for drugs and recommends that any department member who "undermines the integrity or circumvents the procedures" be fired.

The proposal, a copy of which was obtained yesterday by The Washington Post, has been reviewed by at least 14 top department officials and has been submitted to police union leaders for comment. It is to be submitted to Police Chief Maurice T. Turner Jr. for final approval.

The proposal would significantly expand the department's current urine screening program, which has been the focus of sharp controversy in recent months over whether testing procedures and results were being manipulated.

Currently, the department does not conduct random testing but screens the urine from four specific classes of officers: new officers, those up for promotions, any officer accused of substance abuse, and all officers 35 years and older during their annual physicals.

In addition to those tests, which would continue under the new proposal, a computer would regularly select names of officers from all ages and ranks for random testing.

The proposal is the department's most comprehensive set of standards and procedures for random drug testing, police sources said. It also represents the first time the department has outlined punishments for officers or officials who attempt to undermine any drug screening program.

Although the new proposal recommends firing officers who undermine the program's integrity, Turner chose to reprimand, rather than dismiss, three officials who were criticized in the program's most publicized disciplinary action.

On Jan. 15, Turner announced that an internal investigation had rejected allegations by two drug-screening employees that test results had been manipulated to allow a lieutenant to win promotion after he had failed his first test.

But at the same time, a summary of the probe said the panel found that two top officials -- Assistant Chief Carl V. Profater and Deputy Chief Jimmy L. Wilson -- gave false information to the panel.

Turner said he would reprimand 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 programs." In addition, Turner said he would reprimand Capt. Robert J. Noyes, a former drug screening official, for violating department rules governing the anonymity of the tests.

Turner's handling of the investigation has been bitterly criticized by police union officials, who last week called on Mayor Marion Barry to mount an independent investigation of the drug-testing program. Union officials said tougher disciplinary action was warranted in the case.

Neither Turner nor police department spokesman William White III could be reached yesterday for comment on the new testing proposal.

The memorandum recommending that violators be fired, bears the initials of Profater, whose administrative services bureau oversees the current drug screening program. The memo notes that he signed it on Dec. 9.

Although the special order memo is dated Dec. 8, it was not sent to the police department union until Jan. 15, after the report of the controversial drug screening investigation was released, according to a police source. It also was sent to the District's corporation counsel and the city administrator for comment, according to the memo.

A police source familiar with the memo said yesterday that it was "probably a coincidence" that it was sent to the union and city officials in the midst of the controversy.

Gary Hankins, chairman of the labor committee of the Fraternal Order of Police, would not comment on the substance of the proposal, which he said he received Friday. Hankins said he will distribute the proposal to the union's executive board for consideration.

Hankins said the union has long opposed any attempt to conduct random drug screening because "in the past, the department failed to articulate a set of objective standards for the selection of officers for urine samples, and members feared that the program was not being administered fairly."

Under the proposal, the names of 20 department members of all ranks would be randomly selected each week for urinalysis.

The penalty for "the confirmed finding of an illicit or controlled substance in the urine, the refusal of a member to submit to a drug test, or the involvement of a member in any action which undermines the integrity of the drug testing program or circumvents the procedures established by this department in conjunction with this program" would be termination, the order said.

According to the draft order, the administrative services officer, who is Assistant Chief Profater, would be in charge of initiating firing based on a recommendation by the Internal Affairs Division, which was headed by Wilson until he was promoted to commander of the 6th police district.

According to the memorandum, the random-testing proposal "is being initiated to ensure the public's trust in our department."

The current program became the focus of serious public controversy last summer when two drug-screening workers alleged numerous improprieties in letters sent to Barry and U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

The letters described a May 30, 1985, incident in which a lieutenant seeking promotion received an unprecedented second test after clinic workers found his first urine sample tainted with marijuana.

The second sample was not tested at the department's drug clinic, as is routine, but was taken to the Internal Affairs Division, the internal watchdog then under Wilson's command, according to police investigators.

The lieutenant was promoted to captain after the sample was hand-carried to a North Carolina laboratory, where no marijuana was found.

According to a summary of the department's internal investigation, several officials contradicted Profater's testimony that he had not known of the incident until he saw the letter sent to Barry two years later. It also rejected testimony from Wilson that he had gotten permission for the second test from Turner.

"We'll probably also forward a copy to the mayor for his consideration as he reviews our request for an independent person to consider the appropriateness of the chief's actions and the findings" of the internal investigation of the department's drug testing program,}," said Hankins.

The police department union has denounced Turner's actions, and Hankins has charged that the report shows violations that merit more tougher

"We'll probably also forward a copy to the mayor for his consideration . . . . "

-- Gary Hankins

disciplinary action than reprimands.

In a strongly worded letter sent to Mayor Marion Barry on Thursday, Hankins asked him to force police officials to disclose all the findings of the investigation, saying Turner "was taking extraordinary measures to conceal" key findings by the investigative panel. He called on Barry to conduct a new, independent investigation of the program and to take disciplinary action against any officials found guilty of misconduct.

Hankins said last night that he would probably send the newest proposal to Barry. "We'll probably forward a copy to the mayor for his consideration as he reviews our request for an independent person to consider the appropriateness of the chief's actions and the findings" he said.END NOTES