| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2593 - MOWBRAY | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By order dated September 6, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at
Norfolk, Virginia, revoked Appellants license and all other licenses, merchant mariner's documents,
certificates or authorizations whatsoever issued by the Coast Guard to Appellant, based upon finding
proved one specification of negligence, one specification of violation of law and two specifications of
violation of regulation.
The single specification of negligence alleged that on February 21, 1995, while serving as operator
aboard the tug TICONDEROGA, Appellant negligently failed to immediately notify the Captain of the
Port of a hazardous condition (as defined in
33 C.F.R. § 160.203) in violation of 33 C.F.R. § 160.215, to wit: the sunken barge MC 10 and tug
ECCO III near the Hampton Roads Entrance Reach. The single specification of violation of law alleged
that Appellant failed to display Appellant's license within 48 hours after employment on the tug
TICONDEROGA in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 7110. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the first
specification of violation of regulation upon finding it to be duplicitous of the single specification under
the charge of negligence. The second specification of violation of regulation alleged that from February
18, 1995, though February 21, 1995, while serving as operator aboard the tug TICONDEROGA,
Appellant allowed an individual to serve aboard the vessel without a valid Merchant Mariner's
Document in violation of 46 C.F.R. § 15.401. The third specification of violation of regulation alleged
that during the same time period, Appellant also was employed aboard the vessel without all crew
members subject to the random drug testing requirements of 46 C.F.R. Part 16 in violation of 46 C.F.R.
§ 16.320(f). | Appeal No. 2593 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/14/1997 | 8/14/1997 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2594 - GOLDEN | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By order dated March 2, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at
St. Louis, Missouri, suspended Appellant’s license based upon finding proved two specifications
of negligence. The first specification alleged that on June 7, 1993, Appellant failed to properly
navigate an integrated tug and barge (ITB) on the Cuyahoga River, causing an allision between
the ITB and the M/V AGAWA CANYON (CANYON). The second specification alleged that,
approximately one hour later, Appellant failed to properly navigate the ITB, causing an allision
between the ITB and the M/V SEAGULL (SEAGULL).
The hearing was held on October 21, 1993. Appellant entered a response denying the charge and
specifications.
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer offered into evidence ten exhibits and the testimony of
three witnesses. Appellant offered into evidence four exhibits and his own testimony. The
Administrative Law Judge offered into evidence the testimony of one witness.
The Administrative Law Judge issued a written Decision and Order on March 2, 1995. It
concluded that the charge of negligence and the two supporting specifications were found proved.
The Administrative Law Judge suspended Appellant’s license outright for a period of two
months, with a two month additional suspension, remitted after 12 months of probation.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 21, 1995. The appeal was perfected on June 3,
1996, after Appellant received an extension. | Appeal No. 2594 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 12/1/1997 | 12/1/1997 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2595 - UCCELLO | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By order dated June 13, 1996, the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at
Washington, D.C., revoked Appellants license based upon finding proved a charge of violation of law or
regulation. The supporting specification alleged that, while serving as the operator of an uninspected
towing vessel under authority of the above-captioned license, Appellant was intoxicated in violation of
46 U.S.C. § 2302(e) and 46 U.S.C. § 7703.
The hearing was held on November 1, 1995, at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London,
Connecticut. Appellant entered a response denying the charge and specification.
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer offered into evidence two exhibits and the testimony of five
witnesses. Appellant offered into evidence 11 exhibits, his own testimony, and the testimony of one
witness.
The Chief Administrative Law Judge issued a written Decision and Order on
June 13, 1996. It concluded that the charge of violation of law and regulation and the supporting
specification were proved. Based on the fact that Appellant was serving a probationary period under a
previous suspension and revocation hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge suspended Appellants
license for three months in accordance with the Decision and Order in Administrative Law Judge Docket
No. 01-0069-TEM-94, U.S. Coast Guard v. License NO. 675013. Additionally, based on the finding in
this case, the Chief Administrative Law Judge revoked Appellants license but stayed the revocation for
one year after the expiration of the three month suspension.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and perfected it on June 20, 1996. | Appeal No. 2595 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 12/23/1997 | 12/23/1997 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2604 - BARTHOLOMEW | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated August 4, 1997, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at
Houston, Texas, revoked Mr. Darrell Ray Bartholomews ("Appellant") license based upon finding
proved one specification of misconduct. The specification for the charge of misconduct alleged that
Appellant, while acting under the authority of his license, serving as master aboard the M/V ED, did, on
December 8, 1996, wrongfully test positive for alcohol, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.041.
The hearing was initially scheduled to be held on January 14, 1997 at Beaumont, Texas. Appellant
moved for a change of venue to New Orleans, Louisiana. The Administrative Law Judge granted this
motion and set the hearing for March 27, 1997 in New Orleans, Louisiana. After the change of venue
was granted, the Investigating Officer in New Orleans attempted to contact Appellant, but was
unsuccessful. The hearing was opened in New Orleans on March 27, 1997, but the Appellant was not
present. The Investigating Officer requested a continuance because the Coast Guard had been unable to
contact Appellant and to gather additional evidence. The continuance was granted and the hearing was
continued until April 29, 1997. The Coast Guard attempted, but was unable to contact Appellant. The
hearing was again opened on April 29, 1997 and the Appellant was not present. The Investigating
Officer requested a continuance in order to line up the witnesses and further attempt to reach Appellant.
The continuance was granted and the hearing was continued until May 28, 1997. The Coast Guard
attempted, but once again was unable to contact Appellant. On May 28, 1997 the hearing was opened.
Appellant was not present. | Appeal No. 2604 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 11/6/1998 | 11/6/1998 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2605 - DANIELS | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 USC § 7702 and 46 CFR § 5.701.
By an order dated August 28, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at New
Orleans, Louisiana revoked Mr. William Gary Daniels’ ("Appellant") document based upon a finding of one charge
of misconduct: Use of a Dangerous Drug. The specification alleged that Appellant, while the holder of the
captioned document, provided a urine specimen which tested positive for marijuana metabolites, thereby indicating
use of a dangerous drug, to wit: marijuana.
The hearing was held on April 9, 1996, and May 29, 1996, in New Orleans, Louisiana. Appellant entered a
response denying the charge and specification.
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of three witnesses and six exhibits.
In defense, Appellant introduced into evidence his own testimony. Appellant also introduced two exhibits
into evidence.
The Administrative Law Judge issued a written Decision and Order ("D&O") on August 28, 1996. The
Administrative Law Judge concluded that the charge and the supporting specification were proved and
revoked Appellant’s document. | Appeal No. 2605 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 1/19/1999 | 1/19/1999 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2606 - SWAN | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 USC § 7702 and 46 CFR § 5.701.
By order dated February 16, 1996, the Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast
Guard at Seattle, Washington, revoked Appellant’s license and document based upon a finding of
a proved charge of misconduct: use of a dangerous drug. The single specification supporting the
charge alleged that Appellant was, as shown by a positive drug test, a user of marijuana.
The hearings were held in Seattle, Washington, on December 20, 1995, and February 8, 1996.
Appellant, represented by counsel, entered a response denying the charge and specification.
The Administrative Law Judge introduced into evidence thirteen exhibits. The Coast Guard
introduced into evidence seven exhibits and the testimony of four witnesses. Appellant
introduced into evidence two exhibits, his own testimony, and the testimony of one witness. The
parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of two exhibits. | Appeal No. 2606 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/19/1999 | 2/19/1999 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2607 - ARIES | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated October 3, 1996, the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard
at Washington, D.C., revoked Appellant’s license based upon finding proved one specification of misconduct and
one specification of violation of law. The specification for the charge of misconduct alleged that Mr. Aries,
while acting under the authority of the captioned documents, wrongfully made false statements on his
Merchant Mariner’s License renewal application. The specification for the charge of violation of law alleged that
Mr. Aries, while serving as the master of the M/V CAPT DOUG, being the holder and serving under the authority
of the captioned documents, anchored the M/V CAPT DOUG in a narrow channel in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 2009(g).
The hearing was held on July 8, 1996 at the Nassau County District Court in Freeport, NY. Appellant entered
a response denying both charges and the specifications thereunder.
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of two witnesses and twelve exhibits.
At the close of the Coast Guard’s case, the Appellant moved to dismiss the charges. The Administrative Law
Judge denied the motion without prejudice. In defense, Appellant introduced into evidence his own testimony and
the testimony of two witnesses. Appellant also introduced seven exhibits into evidence. Both parties
submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. | Appeal No. 2607 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/17/1999 | 3/17/1999 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2608 - SHEPARD | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 USC § 7702 and 46 CFR § 5.701.
By Final Decision and Order dated December 8, 1997, the Chief Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") of the United States Coast Guard at Tampa, Florida, revoked
Mr. Charles R. Shepherd’s ("Appellant") license and document based upon findings proved the
charges of use of a dangerous drug, misconduct, and violation of law. The use of a dangerous
drug charge was supported by one specification which was found proved. The misconduct charge
was supported by six specifications, which were found proved. One specification was found not
proved and five other specifications were dismissed with prejudice. The violation of law charge
was supported by two specifications, which the first specification was found proved. The second
specification was found not proved.
The hearing was held on May 22, 1997, and June 27, 1997, at the U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine
Safety Office, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, Florida. Appellant entered a response denying each
charge and specification.
During the course of the hearing the Coast Guard Investigating Officer (I. O.) introduced into
evidence the testimony of seven (7) witnesses and twenty-six (26) exhibits. In defense, Appellant
entered into evidence the testimony of four (4) witnesses and nineteen (19) exhibits. | Appeal No. 2608 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 6/24/1999 | 6/24/1999 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2609 - DOMANGUE | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated May 22, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast
Guard at New Orleans, Louisiana revoked Mr. David Domangue’s license and document upon
finding proved one charge of misconduct. The charge was supported by two specifications. The
first specification alleged that Appellant failed to comply with Seacor Marine, Inc.’s ("Seacor")
written substance abuse policy, in that he arrived for work on January 11, 1996, as mate onboard
the M/V BIGORANGE 30 with a blood alcohol level over 0.04%. The second specification
alleged that Appellant, a crewmember of the M/V BIGORANGE 30, acting under the authority of
his document and license, did, on January 11, 1996, exceed the standards of intoxication as
specified in 33 C.F.R. § 95.020.
The hearing was opened at 0930 on March 12, 1996 in New Orleans, Louisiana. Appellant
requested, via letter, a continuance. The continuance was granted and the hearing was continued
until 1000 on March 28, 1996. The hearing proceeded on
March 28, 1996. Prior to the start of the continued hearing, Appellant contacted the Investigating
Officer to inform him he that he was running late but was on his way to the hearing. The hearing
was further continued until 1115 to accommodate Appellant. Appellant failed to arrive at the
hearing. The hearing proceeded in his absence. | Appeal No. 2609 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 6/24/1999 | 6/24/1999 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2610 - BENNETT | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.607.
By a Decision and Order (“D&O”) dated January 28, 1998, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Baltimore, Maryland declared the Master 1600 Gross Ton Inland license (“Master 1600”) of Mr. Walter J. Bennett (“Appellant”) void ab initio and suspended Appellant’s Master 500 Gross Ton Inland license (“Master 500”) for six months and thereafter placed Appellant on a twelve month probationary period based upon finding proved one specification of misconduct.
The specification for the charge of misconduct alleged that Appellant, while acting under the authority of his Master 500 license, did wrongfully, knowingly, and fraudulently submit and sign a letter that falsely claimed sea time that Appellant needed in order to qualify for an upgrade of his license (from Master 500 to Master 1600).
The suspension and revocation hearing was held on June 19 - 20, 1997, in Baltimore, Maryland. On March 16, 1998, Appellant filed a petition to reopen his hearing (“Petition”). On March 25, 1998 Appellant also filed an appeal (“Appeal”) to the Chief ALJ’s D&O. Appellant subsequently requested to amend that Appeal to add an additional argument and to include additional information that Appellant claimed was newly discovered evidence. By an order (“Order”) dated May 22, 1998, the Chief ALJ of the United States Coast Guard at Baltimore, Maryland denied the Appellant’s Petition. | Appeal No. 2610 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/4/1999 | 8/4/1999 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2602 - TERRY | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated October 2, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast
Guard at Jacksonville, Florida revoked Mr. Marcus Terry’s ("Appellant") license upon finding
proved one charge of "Conviction for a Dangerous Drug Law Violation." The specification for
the charge of Conviction for a Dangerous Drug Law Violation alleged that Appellant, the holder
of the captioned document, was, on or about November 15, 1993, convicted of possession of a
dangerous drug with intent to distribute, to wit: Crack Cocaine.
The hearing was held on September 26, 1995 in Jacksonville, Florida. Appellant was charged
with Misconduct, supported by one specification and Conviction for a Dangerous Drug Law
Violation, supported by one specification. Appellant entered a response of deny to the charge of
Misconduct. Appellant entered a response of no contest to the charge of Conviction for a
Dangerous Drug Law Violation.
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of one witness and
seven exhibits. In defense, Appellant introduced into evidence his own testimony and the
testimony of two witnesses. The Investigating Officer withdrew the charge of Misconduct.
The Administrative Law Judge issued a written Decision and Order ("D&O") on October 2, 1995.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded, based on Appellant’s answer of no contest, that the
charge of Conviction for a Dangerous Drug Law Violation supported by one specification was proved. The Administrative Law Judge revoked Appellant’s document. | Appeal No. 2602 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/23/1998 | 7/23/1998 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2603 - HACKSTAFF | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By order dated 8 June 1993, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at San Diego,
California revoked Appellant's License and Merchant Mariner's Document upon finding proved the charge of
use of dangerous drugs. The single specification supporting the charge alleged that, on or before 16 March
1993, Appellant used marijuana, based upon a urine specimen collected on that date which subsequently tested
positive for the presence of marijuana metabolites.
A hearing was held at San Diego, California on 27 May 1993. Appellant appeared with professional counsel by
whom he was represented throughout the hearing and this appeal. Appellant denied the charge and specification
per 46 C.F.R. § 5.527. The Investigating Officer (IO) introduced into evidence five exhibits and the testimony of
two witnesses. After the government rested, and after the ALJ denied Appellant's motion to dismiss, Appellant
testified in his own behalf and introduced three exhibits. At the end of the hearing, the ALJ rendered an oral
decision in which he found that the charge and specification were proved. The ALJ's written decision and order
were entered on 8 June 1993 and were served on Appellant on 25 June 1993. Appellant filed notice of appeal on
14 June 1993. Appellant perfected his appeal by filing a brief on 16 November 1993, within the filing
requirements of 46 C.F.R. § 5.703. Thus this appeal is properly before me.
Appearance: David W. Tiffany, attorney for Appellant, Centerside Tower I, 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite
1108, San Diego, CA 92108, (619) 528-2335. | Appeal No. 2603 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/10/1998 | 8/10/1998 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2614 - WALLENSTEIN | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated February 17, 1998, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Norfolk, Virginia revoked Appellant’s above-captioned license and document, upon finding proved a charge of use of a dangerous drug. The single specification supporting the charge alleged that Appellant was, as shown by a positive drug test, a user of cocaine.
The hearing was held on January 15, 1998, in Portland, Maine. Appellant appeared with counsel and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of four witnesses and five exhibits. Appellant introduced into evidence his own testimony, one additional witness and two exhibits.
The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order was served on Appellant on February 17, 1998. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 12, 1998 and received a copy of the transcript on April 1, 1998. Appellant perfected this appeal on April 22, 1998. This appeal is properly before me.
APPEARANCE: Phillip J. Kaplan, Esq., 350 St. Marks Place, Staten Island, N.Y. 10301, for Appellant. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer was Chief Warrant Officer Charles S. Rathgeber. | Appeal No. 2614 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/2/2000 | 2/2/2000 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2615 - DALE | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated October 3, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Long Beach, California, suspended Appellant’s above-captioned license and document, upon finding a charge of misconduct proved. The charge was supported by two specifications. First, Appellant wrongfully refused to submit to random urinalysis, and second, Appellant wrongfully failed to join his vessel.
The hearing was held on August 27, 1996, in Tampa, Florida. Appellant appeared with non-professional counsel and entered a response denying the charge and specifications. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of two witnesses and sixteen exhibits. Appellant introduced two exhibits, no witnesses, and chose not to testify. The charge was found proved, and Appellant’s license and document were suspended outright for six months and for an additional six months suspension on twelve months probation.
The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order was served on Appellant on November 13, 1996. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 25, 1996, and was sent a copy of the transcript on April 19, 1997. Appellant perfected this appeal on June 14, 1997. This appeal is properly before me. | Appeal No. 2615 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/2/2000 | 2/2/2000 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2616 - BYRNES | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By order dated December 5, 1997, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Baltimore, Maryland, suspended Appellant’s merchant mariner’s document upon finding a charge of misconduct proved. Two of the four specifications supporting the charge of misconduct were found proved. The first of the proved specifications alleged that Appellant, while under the authority of his merchant mariner’s document aboard the S.S. EXPORT PATRIOT, had intoxicating beverages within his quarters in violation of ship regulations. The second of the proved specifications alleged that Appellant, while under the authority of his merchant mariner’s document aboard the S.S. EXPORT PATRIOT, wrongfully disobeyed a lawful command of the Master to submit to a chemical test.
The hearing was held in New York, New York, on May 5 and 7, 1997. Appellant was represented by counsel and entered a plea denying each specification under the charge of misconduct. The ALJ heard eight (8) witnesses and entered nine (9) exhibits into evidence.
The ALJ issued a written Decision and Order (D&O) on December 5, 1997. He found the charge and two of the four specifications proved, and ordered that the Appellant’s merchant mariner’s document and all other Coast Guard issued documents and licenses suspended for a period of six (6) months to begin upon the immediate surrender of such documents to the nearest Coast Guard station. Additionally, the ALJ ordered that if the Appellant was found liable for any other offenses, including the use of drugs, alcohol, failure to obey orders, or similar substantial violations, within the twelve (12) months immediately following the end of the original six (6) month suspension period, all of the Appellant’s Coast Guard issued licenses and documents would be automatically revoked. | Appeal No. 2616 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/2/2000 | 2/2/2000 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2617 - LAMOND | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated August 29, 1995 and amended June 13, 1996, a United States Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge in Portland, Maine, suspended Appellant’s Merchant Mariner’s Document for six months, with six additional months suspended on one year’s probation. The order, as amended on June 13, 1996, specifically excluded Appellant’s Coast Guard License.
Appellant was charged with misconduct and violation of regulation. The misconduct charge was supported by two specifications: first, Appellant wrongfully assaulted another seaman, and second, Appellant disobeyed a direct order by refusing to take a chemical test for intoxication. The violation charge was supported by one specification: that appellant was intoxicated while serving as quartermaster on board a vessel inspected under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33 and 33 C.F.R. § 95.020(c).
The hearing was held on August 8, 1995, in Portland, Maine. Appellant represented himself and entered a response denying each charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of three witnesses and five exhibits. Appellant testified under oath on his own behalf, but did not introduce witnesses or exhibits. The charge of misconduct: committing a violent act against another person was found not proved. The charge of misconduct: failure to comply with the master’s lawful order was found proved. The charge of violation of a regulation: serving as quartermaster while drunk, was found proved. Appellant was sentenced to six months suspension outright and another six months suspension on twelve months probation. | Appeal No. 2617 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/2/2000 | 2/2/2000 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2618 - SINN | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated July 18, 1997, a United States Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge at Baltimore, Maryland, suspended Appellant’s Merchant Mariner’s License for one month, with four additional months suspended on sixteen months probation.
Appellant was charged with misconduct, violation of regulation and violation of law. The misconduct charge was supported by one specification: Appellant wrongfully operated the M/V LRS RENAISSANCE in the vicinity of Cape May Harbor without a valid Certificate of Inspection while carrying more than six passengers for hire. The violation of regulation charge was supported by two specifications: first, Appellant failed to provide the required passenger safety orientation before the M/V LRS RENAISSANCE got underway with more than six passengers for hire in violation of 46 C.F.R. § 185.506; and, second, Appellant failed to provide a written report of marine casualty in violation of 46 C.F.R. § 4.05-10. The violation of law charge was supported by one specification: Appellant failed to have his Merchant Mariner’s License posted in a conspicuous place in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 7110.
The hearing was held on June 17, 1997, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Appellant represented himself and entered a response denying each charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of nine witnesses and eight exhibits. Appellant introduced into evidence the testimony of one witness and testified under oath on his own behalf. He introduced two exhibits into evidence. All charges and specifications were found proved. Appellant’s License was suspended for one month, with four additional months suspended on sixteen months probation. | Appeal No. 2618 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 4/27/2000 | 4/27/2000 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2619 - LEAKE | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By Decision and Order dated September 29, 1998, the Chief Administrative Law Judge ("CALJ") of the United States Coast Guard ("Coast Guard") found proved charges of negligence and violation of regulation and their supporting specifications against Robert John Leake ("Appellant"). The CALJ based this Decision and Order on a Joint Motion of Settlement and Request for Entry of Consent Order ("Joint Motion") entered into by the pro se Appellant and the Coast Guard on or about September 4, 1998. The Joint Motion provides, inter alia, that: (1) the Appellant enters a plea of "no contest" to the charges and specifications; (2) the charges and specifications are found proved; (3) the sanctions are one month outright suspension and six months suspension on a twelve month probation; (4) Appellant understands and knowingly and intentionally waives the right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the agreement; (5) Appellant waives all right to judicial review or otherwise contest the validity of the consent order; (6) the order will have the same force and effect as an order made at a full hearing; and (7) Appellant was advised of his due process rights to a hearing and knowingly and intentionally waives that right. | Appeal No. 2619 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/28/2000 | 8/28/2000 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2620 - COX | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an Order dated March 11, 1999, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Norfolk, Virginia, suspended Appellant’s above captioned license upon finding proved a charge of misconduct. The single specification supporting the charge alleged that Appellant, while acting under the authority of the above captioned license, did make threats against the first mate.
The hearing was held on January 20, 1999, at Saint Paul, Minnesota. Appellant appeared without counsel and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced six exhibits and the testimony of three witnesses. Appellant introduced one exhibit and chose to read a statement.
The ALJ’s initial Decision and Order (D&O) dated February 19, 1999, was served on Appellant on that date. After the ALJ’s final Order of March 11, 1999, an Order of Clarification was issued on April 15, 1999. Appellant filed a pro se Notice of Appeal along with a supplemental statement. This matter is properly before me.
APPEARANCE: Appellant represented himself pro se. The United States Coast Guard Investigating Officer was Chief Warrant Officer William G. Perkins. | Appeal No. 2620 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 1/22/2001 | 1/22/2001 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2611 - CIBULKA | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated June 25, 1997, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard
at Houston, Texas, revoked Appellants above-captioned license, upon finding the charge of "conviction
for a dangerous drug law violation" proved. The supporting specification that was found proved alleges
that Appellant, "being the holder of the captioned license, [was] on March 25th, 1997, processed by the
County Court at Law of San Patricio County, Texas and [was] issued an order of deferred adjudication
of guilt after pleading nolo contendere to the misdemeanor offense of possession of marijuana on or
about December 7, 1996."
A hearing was held on May 22, 1997 in Corpus Christi, Texas. Appellant appeared with counsel and
entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer (I.O.)
introduced seven exhibits. Appellant introduced four exhibits and chose not to testify. There were nine
(9) Joint Selected Procedural Exhibits.
The charge was found proved, and Appellants license was revoked.
The ALJs Decision and Order (D&O) was served on Appellant on July 2, 1997. Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal on July 28, 1997. On September 8, 1997, Appellant requested additional time to obtain
a copy of the transcript for submission with Appellants brief. This request was sent to the ALJ
Docketing Center in Baltimore, MD. On September 25, 1997, the Legal Assistant to the ALJ who issued
the D&O sent the original appeal transcript and one copy to the ALJ Docketing Center. The Legal
Assistant stated in the memorandum accompanying the transcripts that neither the Appellant nor his
attorney had requested a copy of the transcript. On September 29, 1997, Appellant requested, via ALJ
Docketing Center, another extension of time. Because the Appellant had not yet received a copy of the | Appeal No. 2611 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/16/1999 | 8/16/1999 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2612 - DEGOUGH | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated September 15, 1998, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Houston, Texas revoked Appellant’s above-captioned license and document, upon finding proved the charge of use of a dangerous drug. The supporting specification found proved alleges that Appellant, “being the holder of above captioned license, [was] found to be a user of dangerous drugs, to wit: cocaine, as a result of a random drug screening test collected on February 11, 1998, and by a confirmatory test conducted on February 17, 1998.”
There were three hearings held on May 22, June 26, and June 30, 1998, each in Galveston, Texas. Appellant appeared with counsel and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of four witnesses and ten exhibits. Appellant introduced two exhibits, four witnesses, and chose to testify. The charge was found proved, and Appellant’s license was revoked.
The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order was served on Appellant on September 22, 1998. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 15, 1998, and was sent a copy of the transcript on October 26, 1998. Appellant requested an extension of time to file an appeal on November 12, 1998. An extension of time was granted until November 27, 1998. Appellant perfected this appeal on November 25, 1998. This appeal is properly before me.
APPEARANCE: James T. Liston, Esq., 7322 Southwest Freeway, Suite 1100, Houston, Texas 77074, for Appellant. The United States Coast Guard Investigating Officer was Chief Petty Officer Jim M. Scogin. | Appeal No. 2612 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 10/5/1999 | 10/5/1999 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2613 - SLACK | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By Decision and Order (“D&O”) dated May 3, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the United States Coast Guard at Houston, Texas, revoked Mr. Jeffrey A. Slack’s (“Appellant”) license based upon finding proved one specification of misconduct and one specification of violation of law. The specification for the charge of misconduct alleged that Appellant, while acting under the authority of the above captioned license, wrongfully made fraudulent statements on his Merchant Mariner’s license renewal application. The specification for the charge of violation of law alleged that Appellant, while being the holder of the above captioned license, was convicted of an offense described in Section 205(a)(3)(A) of the National Driver Registration Act of 1982.
The hearing was held on February 27, 1996 in Toledo, Ohio. Appellant entered a response denying each charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of three (3) witnesses and six (6) exhibits. In defense, Appellant entered into evidence his own testimony, the testimony of three (3) witnesses, and twelve (12) exhibits. The ALJ entered into evidence eight (8) procedural exhibits.
The ALJ issued a Decision and Order (“D&O”) on May 3, 1996. The ALJ found the misconduct charge and supporting specification proved and the violation of law charge and supporting specification proved. Upon a finding of proved, the ALJ revoked Appellant’s license.
The D&O was served on Appellant on May 6, 1996. Appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely notice of appeal on May 29, 1996. Appellant requested a transcript which was received on August 8, 1996. The appeal was perfected on October 7, 1996. Therefore, this appeal is properly before me. | Appeal No. 2613 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 12/23/1999 | 12/23/1999 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2627 - SHAFFER | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702, 46 C.F.R. § 5.701, and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated June 8, 2000, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at New Orleans, Louisiana, found proved a charge of misconduct with one supporting specification. The single specification alleges that Appellant, did, on July 7, 1999, while employed as a tankerman at Economy Boat, provide an adulterated urine specimen as evidenced by nitrate found during a drug test administered on the urine specimen collected on that date.
At a hearing held on January 12, 2000, at the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the Appellant appeared with counsel and entered a denial of the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced eleven exhibits and called four witnesses. Appellant introduced two exhibits and called four witnesses. The ALJ introduced two exhibits. The charge and specification were found proved and Appellant’s license and document were revoked.
The D&O was served on Appellant on June 8, 2000. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on July 6, 2000, and an appeal brief on October 20, 2000. A supplementary appeal brief was filed on November 20, 2000. This appeal is properly before me.
APPEARANCE: Madro Bandaries, Esq., Post Office Box 56458, New Orleans, Louisiana 70156-6458 for the Appellant. The Investigating Officer was LT(jg) Christopher J. Gagnon, U.S. Coast Guard. | Appeal No. 2627 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/25/2002 | 2/25/2002 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2628 - VILAS | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.1
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated November 22, 1999, an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Alameda, California suspended Appellant's
license for sixteen (16) months, ten (10) months OUTRIGHT and the remaining six (6)
months remitted on eighteen (18) months probation after finding proved a charge of
negligence, with one underlying specification alleging contributing to the grounding of
the tank ship which he was piloting. | Appeal No. 2628 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 5/2/2002 | 5/2/2002 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2629 - RAPOZA | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 USC 7704, 46 CFR 5.701, and 33 CFR Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated December 14, 2000, an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Seattle, Washington, revoked Respondent’s abovecaptioned
license and document, upon finding the charge of conviction for a dangerous drug law
violation proved. The supporting specification that was found proved alleges the Respondent
“[w]as convicted of violating a dangerous drug law of the State of Washington for the wrongful
possession of cocaine on or about April 27, 2000.”
A hearing was held on December 14, 2000, in Seattle, Washington. Respondent appeared
with counsel and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard
Investigating Officer (IO) introduced two witnesses and eight exhibits. Respondent introduced
five exhibits. Respondent’s Exhibits 3 and 4 were duplicative of IO Exhibits 5 and 6. IO
Exhibits 3, 4 and 8 were excluded from evidence as irrelevant. The charge was found proved,
and Respondent’s license and document were revoked. | Appeal No. 2629 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/31/2002 | 7/31/2002 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2630 - BAARSVIK | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 USC 7702, 46 CFR 5.701, and 33 CFR
Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated March 27, 2000, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard suspended Respondent’s above-captioned license for 30 days in addition to placing Respondent on a three month probationary period based upon finding proved one charge of negligence and one charge of misconduct. At the time of the hearing, there was one specification under the charge of negligence and one specification under the charge of misconduct. Under the charge of misconduct, the specification alleged that the Respondent wrongfully navigated the M/V KATAMA in conditions of restricted visibility by failing to comply with 33 USC 1602, International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, (COLREGS) Rule 6 – Safe Speed, contributing to the grounding of the M/V KATAMA outside the marked channel. Under the charge of negligence, the specification alleged that the Respondent, while serving as master of the M/V KATAMA on January 15, 1999, negligently operated the M/V KATAMA by failing to operate at a safe speed. These charges were brought on July 9, 1999. | Appeal No. 2630 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/6/2002 | 8/6/2002 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2621 - PERIMAN | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.1
By an order dated March 26, 1999, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United
States Coast Guard at Norfolk, Virginia revoked Appellant’s above-captioned license
upon finding proved a charge of use of a dangerous drug, based upon a positive
urinalysis.
This remands the case for consideration of evidence for the most part developed
by Mr. Periman after the hearing as to (1) violations noted by the National Laboratory
Certification Program in the procedure used in testing the Appellant’s sample; (2) false
testimony by the Director of Lab Operations (no longer employed at the lab) about his
credentials; (3) misinformation provided to appellant about his right to have another lab
retest his sample; and, (4) premature disposal of appellant’s sample, precluding further
testing. | Appeal No. 2621 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 1/22/2001 | 1/22/2001 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2622 - NITKIN | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701, and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Final Order dated May 26, 2000, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Miami, Florida suspended Appellant’s above-captioned license for five (05) months; the first month suspension was outright and the remaining four (04) months were remitted on twelve (12) months probation. By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated April 14, 2000, the ALJ had found proved a charge of misconduct alleging a violation of Rule 34 (d) of the 1972 Collision Regulations (COLREGS). The Appellant had also been charged with two additional specifications of misconduct (violating Rules 14 and 8 (e) of the COLREGS) and a charge of negligence supported by a single specification. However, the ALJ found these additional allegations not proved. Accordingly, this appeal involves only the charge and specification of misconduct, violation of Rule 34 (d), for failure to sound the danger signal under circumstances in which it is required.
The hearing was held on November 9 and 10, 1999 in Miami, Florida. Appellant appeared with counsel and entered a response denying the charges and specifications. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer (I.O.) introduced into evidence the testimony of five witnesses and thirteen exhibits. Appellant introduced into evidence his own testimony, three additional witnesses and two exhibits. | Appeal No. 2622 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/15/2001 | 3/15/2001 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2623 - LOVE | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7704 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701,
and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
On September 9, 1999, the United States Coast Guard initiated an administrative
proceeding in the above captioned matter by filing a Complaint against John P. Love, Jr.,
charging him with the use of a dangerous drug in violation of 46 U .S.C. § 7704( c ). The
complaint alleged that Appellant took a drug test and tested positive for marijuana
metabolite. On October 27, 1999, the then assigned Administrative Law Judge, Judge
H.J. Gardner, granted Appellant's motion and dismissed the Complaint ruling on the
basis of the parties' written submissions. In accordance with Department of
Transportation (DOT) Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504 (EAJA) settlement
procedures, agency counsel agreed to enter into a settlement with Appellant on an
appropriate award for attorneys' fees and expenses. On December 23, 1999, Appellant
filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) (who assumed responsibility for
the case upon the retirement of Judge Gardner) a Stipulation for Attorneys Fees and
Expenses along with an application for attorney fees and expenses. On April 28, 2000,
the CALJ issued an Order to Show Cause why the fee application should not be denied.
On June 16, 2000, the CALJ issued an Order approving the settlement stipulation in the
amount of $10,000. On July 6, 2000, Appellant filed a letter with the CALJ requesting some revisions to the text of the fee decision, specifically, the deletion of perceived
inaccurate statements. Appellant's letter did not make a supplemental EAJA application.
On July 18, 2000, the CALJ issued an order denying this request. On August 14, 2000,
Appellant filed a supplemental EAJA application for attorney fees. On November 15,
2000, the CALJ issued an order denying the supplemental EAJA application for
attorney's fees. | Appeal No. 2623 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 9/11/2001 | 9/11/2001 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2624 - DOWNS | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.7011. By order dated September 17, 1999, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Beaumont, Texas, revoked Appellant’s License and Document based upon finding proved a charge of misconduct. The specification supporting the charge alleged that on or about October 22, 1998, Appellant wrongfully refused to provide a urine specimen for a reasonable cause drug test.
The hearing was held at the United States Attorney’s Office, 350 Magnolia Street, Suite 150, Beaumont, Texas, on May 4, 1999. The Appellant appeared pro se and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officers introduced into evidence I.O. Exhibits 1 through 18 and the testimony of three witnesses. In defense, Appellant entered into evidence Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 6. At the end of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge made an oral finding that the charge and specification were found proved, then issued his order on September 17, 1999, which revoked Appellant’s license and merchant mariner’s document. | Appeal No. 2624 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 10/22/2001 | 10/22/2001 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2625 - ROBERTSON | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 (b) and 46 C.F.R.
§ 5.701.1
By an order dated January 7, 1999, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the
United States Coast Guard, revoked Respondent’s license, captioned above, upon finding
proved a charge of Misconduct. The single specification supporting the charge of
Misconduct alleged that, Gary Lewis Robertson, “while serving as operator of the M/V
FRED JORGER, O.N. 642287, an uninspected towing vessel of more than 26 feet in
length, and acting under the authority of the above captioned license, did on May 6,
1998, wrongfully refuse to submit to a reasonable cause chemical test required by your
Marine Employer MEMCO Barge Line, Inc. of Cape Girardeau, Missouri. In that you submitted a urine sample that subsequently was found to have been adulterated, and thereby deemed a refusal by the Medical Review Officer.” [Trial Record (Tr.) at 8-13; Decision and Order (D&O) dated March 2, 1999, page 2]2 | Appeal No. 2625 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/13/2002 | 2/13/2002 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2626 - DRESSER | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.1
By an order dated February 4, 1999, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at New Orleans, Louisiana, revoked Appellant’s license and document. Appellant was charged with use of a dangerous drug in a single specification based on a positive test for marijuana.
The hearing was held on April 29, June 11-12 and 24, 1998, at New Orleans, Louisiana. Appellant was represented by legal counsel and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of twelve witnesses and twenty-three exhibits. Appellant introduced into evidence the testimony of three witnesses and nineteen exhibits and testified on his own behalf. The charge and specification were found proved and Appellant’s license and document were revoked.
The ALJ’s Decision and Order (D&O) was served on Appellant on February 4, 1999. Appellant filed a notice of appeal with the ALJ on February 19, 1999. Appellant filed his appeal on March 17, 1999. Appellant filed a Motion to Disqualify the Commandant on April 9, 1999, and requested that the Motion and decision be made part of the record of this action. Appellant filed a second Motion to Disqualify the Commandant on August 4, 1999, and requested that the Motion and decision be made part of the record of this action. Appellant also filed Motion to File a Supplemental Brief on November 22, 1999. The Coast Guard granted this Motion and accepted the Supplemental Brief. This matter is properly before me for review.
APPEARANCES: Mr. J. Mac Morgan, Esq. for Appellant. The United States Coast Guard Investigating Officer was Lieutenant Commander Laticia J. Argenti, USCG. | Appeal No. 2626 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/19/2001 | 2/19/2001 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2631 - SENGEL | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.1
By Decision and Order (D&O) dated October 22, 1998, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Norfolk, Virginia revoked Appellant’s above captioned license and document upon finding proved the charge of use of a dangerous drug. The single supporting specification was found proved based on a positive drug test for marijuana.
The hearing was held on April 23, 1998, at the Maine Maritime Academy in Castine, Maine and June 18, 1998, at the Federal District Courthouse in Portland, Maine. The Appellant appeared without counsel and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of seven witnesses and seven exhibits. Appellant introduced into evidence the testimony of five witnesses and five exhibits. The ALJ introduced into evidence six exhibits. The charge was found proved and Appellant’s license and document were revoked. | Appeal No. 2631 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/7/2002 | 8/7/2002 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2632 - WHITE | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 USC §7704, 46 CFR §5.701, and the procedures in 33 CFR Part 20.
By an Order dated September 5, 2000, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Seattle, Washington, revoked Respondent’s above captioned merchant mariner’s document upon finding proved a charge of use of a dangerous drug. The single specification supporting the charge alleged that on
July 22, 1999, Respondent had cocaine metabolite present in his body as shown by a random drug-screening test.
A hearing (hereafter referred to as Hearing I) was held on January 27, 2000, in Juneau, Alaska. Subsequent hearings were held on May 17, 2000, and May 25, 2000, in Juneau, Alaska (hereafter referred to collectively as Hearing II). Respondent appeared with counsel and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of five witnesses and ten exhibits. Respondent introduced into evidence his own testimony, one additional witness, and one exhibit. | Appeal No. 2632 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/9/2002 | 8/9/2002 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2633 - MERRILL | This appeal is taken by the United States Coast Guard (Appellant) in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702, 46 U.S.C. § 7704, 46 CFR § 5.701, and 33 CFR Part 20. By a Decision and Order dated November 1, 2000, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at New Orleans, Louisiana dismissed Appellant’s complaint against Randal D. Merrill (Respondent) after finding not proved a violation of use of a dangerous drug as set forth in 46 U.S.C. § 7704. The ALJ determined that Respondent’s injury, discussed more fully below, could not be categorized as either a marine casualty or a serious marine incident and was, therefore, not within the scope of 46 CFR Part 16.1 Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Respondent’s employer lacked the authority to require Respondent to submit to a drug test. [Decision and Order (D&O) dated November 1, 2000, page 7] Although the hearing was completed and all evidence was presented and placed in the record, the ALJ did not consider evidence of Respondent’s positive test result after making his initial conclusion that Respondent’s sample did not fall within the scope of the Coast Guard’s drug testing regulations. Upon determining that “[t]he drug testing of Mr. Merrill on 11 November 1999 was not in accord with U.S. Coast Guard regulations for chemical testing of mariners as set forth in 46 CFR, Part 16” [D&O at 4], the ALJ summarily concluded his analysis and did not reach the penultimate issue of whether Respondent was a user of dangerous drugs.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY | Appeal No. 2633 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 9/3/2002 | 9/3/2002 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2634 - BARRETTA | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702, 46 U.S.C. 7704(c),
46 C.F.R. 5.701, and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated June 18, 2002, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Norfolk, Virginia, revoked on a conditional basis the Respondent’s above captioned license. The Respondent was charged under 46 U.S.C. 7704(c) with the use of a dangerous drug in a single specification based on a positive test for marijuana and the charge and specification were found proved by the ALJ. The ALJ, in issuing his conditional revocation, ordered the Coast Guard to temporarily return the Respondent’s license for two months (July and August 2002) to allow the Respondent to work under the license providing launch service at a marina in Provincetown, Rhode, Island. [D&O at 10] The D&O allowed Respondent, during July and August 2002, to provide “launch service at Provincetown to and from the dock at Provincetown Marina.” [D&O at 10] Pursuant to the conditional revocation, the Respondent would continue with her drug rehabilitation program during and beyond this two-month period in order to prove she was cured in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7704(c) and my decision in Appeal Decision 2546 (SWEENEY). The Respondent was also required to participate in a “random, unannounced drug-testing program for a minimum of one year following completion of the rehabilitation program” and be “subject to increased unannounced testing for up to 60 months.” [D&O at 8-9] | Appeal No. 2634 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 9/6/2002 | 9/6/2002 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2635 - SINCLAIR | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702, 46 U.S.C. 7704(c), 46 C.F.R. 5.701, and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated February 14, 2001, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Houston, Texas, revoked Respondent’s above captioned merchant mariner’s document and license upon finding proved a charge of use of a dangerous drug. The ALJ stayed his order contingent upon a showing by the Respondent that he had enrolled to enter or had entered a certified drug rehabilitation program to complete the steps necessary to prove cure, as required by 46 U.S.C. 7704(c) and Appeal Decision 2546 (SWEENEY). Respondent was required to do this within thirty days of receipt of the ALJ’s D&O. The thirty day period expired with Respondent failing to enroll in a drug rehabilitation program resulting in revocation of the above captioned merchant mariner document and license. | Appeal No. 2635 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 10/3/2002 | 10/3/2002 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2636 - HOSKINS | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 USC § 7702, 46 USC § 7704, 46 CFR § 5.701, and the procedures in 33 CFR Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated January 9, 2002, Edwin M. Bladen, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Seattle, Washington, revoked Erick L. Hoskins’ (Appellant) merchant mariner document. The Appellant was charged under 46 USC § 7704(b) in a single specification based on a conviction of a State of Washington dangerous drug law. The charge and specification were found proved by the ALJ.
The D&O was served on the Appellant and the Coast Guard on January 9, 2002. The Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on February 4, 2002, and subsequently filed his appeal on March 5, 2002. The matter is properly before me.
APPEARANCES: Shane C. Crew, Esq., 720 Olive Way, Suite 1301, Seattle, Washington, 98101 for Appellant. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer was Chief Warrant Officer Clarence C. Rice, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Settle, WA 98134-1192. | Appeal No. 2636 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 1/26/2003 | 1/26/2003 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2637 - TURBEVILLE | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. §7702, 46 U.S.C. §7704(c), 46 C.F.R. §5.701, and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated January 22, 2002, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Baltimore, Maryland, revoked Respondent’s above captioned merchant mariner’s document upon finding proved a charge of use of a dangerous drug.
The single specification supporting the charge of use of a dangerous drug alleged that on March 22, 2001, Respondent had marijuana metabolites present in his body as was revealed through a random drug test. The hearing was held on October 30, 2001, in Baltimore, Maryland, where Respondent appeared with counsel and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced three witnesses and five exhibits. Respondent introduced into evidence his own testimony, the testimony of three additional witnesses, and seven exhibits. A joint stipulation of fact was introduced. The ALJ’s D&O was served on Respondent on January 24, 2002, and Respondent filed a notice of appeal on February 14, 2002. Respondent filed his appeal on March 25, 2002, in a timely manner. This appeal is properly before me. | Appeal No. 2637 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/6/2003 | 3/6/2003 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2638 - PASQUARELLA | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702, 46 U.S.C. 7704(c),
46 C.F.R. 5.701, and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Coast Guard found the charge of use of a dangerous drug proved during a hearing on July 30, 2001. At Mr. Pasquarella’s (Respondent) request, the ALJ continued the hearing until January 30, 2002. On January 30, 2002, the ALJ directed the Coast Guard to return the Respondent’s merchant mariner document. In a Decision and Order (D&O) dated February 19, 2002, the ALJ at Alameda, California, revoked the Respondent’s merchant mariner document pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 7704(c), but the ALJ stayed his order of revocation pending Respondent’s completion of the cure requirements set forth in Appeal Decision 2535 (SWEENEY).
The Coast Guard filed its notice of appeal on March 1, 2002, and received an extension to file its brief by June 25, 2002. The Coast Guard filed a timely brief on May 30, 2002. In its appeal, the Coast Guard requested a reversal of the D&O, a remand of the case to the ALJ to properly apply the cure process as described in SWEENEY, and instructions to the ALJ to have Respondent deposit his document with the Coast Guard. Respondent did not file a reply brief in this matter. This appeal is properly before me.
APPEARANCES: Respondent, Randy Pasquarella, pro se. The Coast Guard Investigating Officers were Lieutenant Benjamin Benson, Petty Officer Rachel Lynn, and Petty Officer Laura Barkins, stationed at Marine Safety Office (MSO) San Diego, 2716 North Harbor Drive, San Diego, California 92101. | Appeal No. 2638 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/6/2003 | 3/6/2003 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2639 - HAUCK | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702, 46 C.F.R. § 5.701, and 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated October 2, 2001, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard suspended Respondent, William C. Hauck’s, above-captioned license outright for a period of twelve (12) months based upon finding proved one charge of negligence and three charges of violation of law or regulation. At the time of the hearing, there was one specification under the charge of negligence and one specification under each of three charges of violation of law or regulation. Under the charge of negligence, the specification alleged that the Respondent, while serving as master of the M/V ST. LUCIE on July 29, 2000, negligently operated the M/V ST. LUCIE by failing to navigate the vessel with due caution, contributing to an allision with Bethel Bank Daymarker Number 19 (LLNR 12497), causing substantial damage. Under the first charge of violation of law or regulation, the specification alleged that on July 29, 2000, while serving as Master of the M/V ST. LUCIE, the Respondent failed to maintain a proper look-out for the prevailing circumstances and conditions, by failing to comply with 33 U.S.C. § 2005, Inland Navigation Rules, Rule 5 – Look-out, resulting in the allision of the M/V ST. LUCIE with the charted aid to navigation, causing substantial damage. | Appeal No. 2639 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/10/2003 | 3/10/2003 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2640 - PASSARO | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 USC § 7701 et seq., 46 CFR Part 5, and 33 CFR Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated March 19, 2002, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Alameda, California, suspended Mr. Passaro’s (Respondent’s) license and document for twelve (12) months, six (6) months outright and the remaining six (6) months remitted on twelve (12) months probation, upon finding proved a charge of misconduct. The specifications found proved alleged that on February 8, 2001, Respondent, while serving as duty engineer aboard the M/V LIBERTY WAVE and while acting under the authority of the above-captioned license and document, responded to two separate high water alarms by pumping bilge water directly overboard, bypassing the Oily Water Separator (OWS), in direct violation of the Vessel Instruction Manual and Chief Engineer’s Standing Order requiring that all overboard discharges be passed through the OWS. | Appeal No. 2640 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/31/2003 | 8/31/2003 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2641 - JONES | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702, 46 C.F.R. § 5.701, and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated June 12, 2002, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at New Orleans, La., revoked Mr. Jones’ (Respondent’s) merchant mariner document upon finding proved a charge of misconduct. The specification found proved alleged that “[o]n August 3, 2001, Respondent refused a random drug test ordered by Kirby Corporation.” | Appeal No. 2641 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/31/2003 | 8/31/2003 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2642 - RIZZO | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 USC § 7703, 46 CFR § 5.701, and 33 CFR Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated August 27, 2001, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Baltimore, Maryland, suspended Appellant’s license for two (2) months outright upon finding proved a charge of negligence. The specifications found proved alleged that on January 30, 2000, Appellant, while serving as operator of the tug JOHN TURECAMO and while acting under the authority of the above-captioned license, navigated the tug in such a manner as to cause the barge PEQUECO II to sink in the upper Chesapeake Bay, just south of Turkey Point, resulting in approximately 100 gallons of diesel oil pollution, a five week salvage response and approximately $150,000 in damages. | Appeal No. 2642 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/23/2003 | 8/23/2003 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2643 - WALKER | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702, 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1), 46 C.F.R. § 5.701, and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated June 18, 2002, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at New Orleans, La., suspended Milton Walker’s (Respondent) above captioned license upon finding proved charges of negligence and misconduct. The negligence and misconduct specifications found proved alleged that:
On or about 5 August 2001, Respondent, while operating an airboat owned by Louisiana Swamp Tours, deliberately and wantonly perpetrated the following acts against the owner of a rival swamp tour boat company and his passenger, who were both in a small pleasure boat: (a) overtook the small pleasure boat at high speed, approaching to within 3 feet of the port side of the small boat and throwing water into the small boat; (b) stopped 10-20 feet in front of the small boat and revved his engine, causing spray and water to spray into the small boat and its occupants; and (c) then turned and headed directly toward the small boat as if he was going to ram it, only turning away at the last second.
The negligence and misconduct found proved by the ALJ occurred in Jefferson Parish, La. | Appeal No. 2643 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/2/2004 | 2/2/2004 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2644 - SHINE | On November 23, 2003, Eric Norman Shine (Respondent) filed an Appeal of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Parlen McKenna’s Order dated November 20, 2003, denying his Motion for recusal/disqualification of the ALJ. On appeal, Respondent asserts that the ALJ should be recused “due to numerous, if not enormous conflicts of interest, which are clear in the manner by which these very proceedings have and continue to be taken place, both in form and function and lack thereof.” [Respondent’s Appeal of Judge McKenna’s November 20th, 2003, ‘Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Recusal’ (Respondent’s Appeal) at 4]
The ALJ Docketing Center forwarded Respondent’s Appeal on November 24, 2003. In addition to forwarding Respondent’s Appeal, the Docketing Center forwarded Respondent’s Motion for Recusal of Judge Parlen L. McKenna (filed by and through his attorneys of record), the Coast Guard’s reply to that Motion, and Judge McKenna’s Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Recusal. Based upon a review of those documents, I find that Respondent’s Appeal is not ripe for review. | Appeal No. 2644 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/2/2004 | 2/2/2004 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2645 - MIRGEAUX | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq.,
46 C.F.R. Part 5, and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated December 30, 2002, an Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Seattle, Washington, revoked
Steven A. Mirgeaux's (Respondent's) above-captioned license upon finding proved a
charge of use of a dangerous drug.
The specification found proved alleged that Respondent tested positive for
amphetamine/methamphetamine as part of a random drug screening conducted on
April 2, 2002. | Appeal No. 2645 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 4/5/2004 | 4/5/2004 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2646 - MCDONALD | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. §7701 et seq., 46 C.F.R. Part 5,
and the procedures set forth in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated November 9, 2001 , an Administrative Law
Judge (AU) of the United States Coast Guard at Houston, Texas, suspended
Dominic McDonald's (Respondent's) above-captioned merchant mariner document and
license for twelve months upon finding proved a charge of misconduct.
Respondent was charged with a single specification of misconduct under
46 U.S.C. § 7703 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.27, in that while engaged in official matters under the
authority of his license and merchant mariner document, Respondent wrongfully refused
to submit to required chemical testing for dangerous drugs by providing a substituted
urine specimen during a pre-employment drug screening on July 31, 2000. The pre employment
drug screening was in preparation for Respondent's bidding on union
contracted work as required by the Masters, Mates, and Pilots Union. The specimen that
Respondent submitted was later determined to have been inconsistent with human urine.
Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Galveston, Texas, determined that Respondent's alleged
submission of non-human urine constituted a refusal to submit to a urinalysis test
pursuant to 46 C.F.R. § 16.105. As a consequence, Marine Safety Unit Galveston sought
revocation of Respondent's license and merchant mariner document. | Appeal No. 2646 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 4/5/2004 | 4/5/2004 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2647 - BROWN | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq.,
46 C.F.R. Part 5, and the procedures in 33 C.F.R. Part 20.
By a Decision and Order (D&O) dated May 20, 2003, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at New Orleans, Louisiana, revoked Joseph Ricardo Brown’s (Respondent’s) merchant mariner document upon finding proved a charge of use of or addiction to the use of dangerous drugs.
The specification found proved alleged that Respondent tested positive for marijuana metabolite as part of a random drug screening conducted on November 24, 2002. | Appeal No. 2647 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 5/18/2004 | 5/18/2004 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2648 - RESERVED FOR CONTINUITY | Reserved for Continuity
No decision for this number | Appeal No. 2648 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | | | | 11/28/2017 |