Scott testified, "I would have answered my phone because on a cell phone it ... tells you if you have a missed call or a voice mail. I have never received ... one call from there.” 4 . According to Graham, because Scott had not come in to be interviewed, DDS had told BRA to remove her from “all customer contact.” If BRA had not removed Scott, Graham testified, it would have had to explain why not to DDS’s Incident Management Investigative Unit. 5 . The ALJ consequ ome instances where we have found that substantial evidence in the record dictated a different result as a matter of law, we have reversed without remanding for additional fact finding.”) (citing Odeniran v. Hanley Wood, LLC, 985 A.2d 421, 425, 430 (D.C .g., D.C. Dep’t of Mental Health v. Hayes, 6 A.3d 255, 259 (D.C.2010) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Hawk One Sec., Inc., 3 A.3d 1142,
holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance holding that employees conviction for possession of a controlled substance constituted gross misconduct