| 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 | 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 | 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 BartholomewÂ’s ("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 | 2591 - WYNN | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated June 26, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard
at Jacksonville, Florida, revoked Appellant’s above-captioned license and document upon finding
a charge of use of a dangerous drug and a charge of violation of law or regulation proved. The
single specification supporting the charge of use of a dangerous drug alleged that Appellant was,
as shown by a positive drug test, a user of marijuana. The first specification supporting the charge
of violation of law or regulation alleged that Appellant, after failing the drug test and
surrendering the captioned license to the Coast Guard, accepted reemployment and acted under
the authority of the license in violation of 46 C.F.R. § 16.201(e). The second and final
specification supporting the charge alleged that Appellant, while acting under the authority of the
captioned license, failed to submit to a required drug test while employed by Seatow Sarasota in
violation of 46 C.F.R. § 16.201(e).
The hearing was held in Cortez, Florida, on May 25, 1995. Appellant appeared pro se and entered
a response denying the charges and specifications. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer
introduced into evidence the testimony of five witnesses and ten exhibits. Appellant introduced
into evidence his own testimony and one exhibit.
The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order (D&O) was rendered on June 26, 1995. | Appeal No. 2591 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/5/1997 | 8/5/1997 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2592 - MASON | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R.§ 5.701.
By an order dated December 21, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast
Guard at Norfolk, Virginia, revoked Appellant’s above-captioned license and document, upon
finding a charge of use of a dangerous drug proved. The single specification supporting the
charge alleged that Appellant was, as shown by a positive drug test, a user of marijuana.
The hearing was held on December 6, 1995, in Portland, Maine. Appellant appeared pro se and
entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Administrative Law Judge
introduced into evidence seven exhibits. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into
evidence the testimony of three witness and five exhibits. Appellant introduced into evidence his
own testimony and three exhibits.
The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order (D&O) was served on Appellant on
December 29, 1995. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 25, 1996, and received a copy
of the transcript on February 16, 1996. Appellant’s appeal was perfected on April 13, 1996. | Appeal No. 2592 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/6/1997 | 8/6/1997 | | 11/28/2017 |
| 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 AppellantÂ’s 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 AppellantÂ’s 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 AppellantÂ’s
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 AppellantÂ’s 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 | 2596 - HUFFORD | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated September 6, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast
Guard at Seattle, Washington, revoked Appellant’s above-captioned license, upon finding a
charge of use of a dangerous drug proved. The single specification supporting the charge alleged
that appellant was, as shown by a positive drug test, a user of marijuana.
The hearing was held in Valdez, Alaska, on August 8, 1995. Appellant appeared pro se and
entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Administrative Law Judge
introduced into evidence nineteen exhibits and the testimony of one witness. The Coast Guard
Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of three witnesses and five exhibits.
Appellant introduced into evidence his own testimony and eight exhibits.
The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order (D&O) was rendered on September 6, 1995.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and perfected the appeal on September 28, 1995.
Appellant moved for a reopening of the hearing or for a reconsideration of the Decision and
Order on September 6, 1995. The Administrative Law Judge denied the motion by order dated
September 7, 1995. | Appeal No. 2596 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 1/15/1998 | 1/15/1998 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2597 - TIMMEL | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated May 27, 1994, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard
at Jacksonville, Florida, suspended Appellant’s above-captioned license, upon finding a charge of
negligence proved. The single specification supporting the charge alleged that Appellant failed to
safely navigate the M/V NECHES (hereinafter NECHES), running the vessel aground twice.
Hearings were held in Tampa, Florida, on January 19, 1994, and on February 2, 1994. Appellant
entered a response denying the charge and specification.
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence 19 exhibits and the testimony of
six witnesses. Appellant introduced into evidence five exhibits, his own testimony, and the
testimony of four witnesses. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
The Administrative Law Judge issued a written Decision and Order (D&O) on May 27, 1994. It
concluded that the charge of negligence and the supporting specification were proved. The
Administrative Law Judge suspended Appellant’s license for a period of one month, remitted
after three months probation. | Appeal No. 2597 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/1/1998 | 3/1/1998 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2598 - CATTON | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated June 10, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard
at St. Louis, Missouri, revoked Appellant's merchant mariner’s license, upon finding proven 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 a dangerous drug, to wit; Marijuana.
A hearing was held in Cincinnati, Ohio on June 8, 1995. Appellant was represented by counsel
and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating
Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of five witnesses and seven exhibits. Appellant’s
counsel introduced into evidence the testimony of two witnesses and one exhibit. At the close of
the hearing, the record was left open for a reasonable time in order to allow Respondent an
opportunity to submit results of a retest of his original urine sample and to explore the possibility
of submitting results of a hair follicle test. Appellant submitted the results of the retest of the
urine sample, but did not submit to a hair follicle test.
The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order of Revocation was served on Appellant on
June 12, 1996. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on July 10, 1996, and was granted an
extension until September 23, 1996, to file his brief. Appellant perfected his brief on September
22, 1996. | Appeal No. 2598 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/23/1998 | 3/23/1998 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2599 - GUEST | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By order dated October 12, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at
Norfolk, Virginia, suspended Appellant's license based upon finding proved the charge of misconduct.
The single specification supporting the charge alleged that between February 25 and June 1, 1994, while
serving as master of the OVERSEAS ALICE, Appellant failed to ensure the maintenance of the lifeboats
as required by 46 C.F.R. §§ 33.01-15 and 33.25-20.
The hearing began on May 23, 1995, and was held for three consecutive days at Boston, Massachusetts.
Appellant was represented by professional counsel and entered a response denying the charge and
specification.
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence nine exhibits and the testimony of four
witnesses. In defense, Appellant offered into evidence two exhibits and the testimony of eight witnesses,
including himself.
Both parties submitted proposed findings and were given the opportunity to submit written closing
arguments. The Administrative Law Judge issued a written Decision and Order (D&O) on August 3,
1995. It concluded that the charge and specification of misconduct were found proved.
A request for an Oral Hearing on the issue of mitigation was submitted by Appellant and was granted by
Order dated September 7, 1995. The Hearing was held on September 28, 1995, at Boston,
Massachusetts. The Appellant offered the testimony of one witness, himself. The Administrative Law
Judge entered one exhibit into evidence. | Appeal No. 2599 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/27/1998 | 3/27/1998 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2600 - TRENTACOSTA | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated October 13, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast
Guard at New Orleans, Louisiana, suspended Appellant’s license based upon finding proved one
specification of negligence. The specification alleged that on February 10, 1994, while operating
the M/V EDWIN N BISSO (hereinafter BISSO) on the Lower Mississippi River during
conditions of restricted visibility, Appellant failed to navigate with due caution by not obtaining
or properly using information available from radar observations to determine if risk of collision
existed, thereby contributing to a collision with a passenger ferry. The Administrative Law Judge
dismissed one other specification of misconduct upon finding that it was not proved.
The hearing was held on July 5, 1994. Appellant entered a response denying the charge and
specification.
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer and Appellant introduced into evidence stipulated
testimony of six witnesses from a prior administrative hearing involving the master of the ferry
involved in this collision. The Coast Guard introduced no other testimony or exhibits into
evidence. In defense, Appellant introduced into evidence his own testimony and the testimony of
two witnesses. Appellant also introduced six exhibits into evidence. Both parties submitted
proposed findings and conclusions of law. | Appeal No. 2600 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 12/23/1997 | 12/23/1997 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2601 - MCCARTHY | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By order dated February 9, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at
Jacksonville, Florida, revoked Appellant's merchant marinerÂ’s license upon finding proved a charge of
negligence. The single specification supporting the charge was found proved. The specification alleged
that appellant, while serving under the authority of his license as a pilot aboard the tankship COASTAL
MANATEE, failed to navigate with due caution resulting in the grounding of the tankship COASTAL
MANATEE.
The hearing was held in Savannah, Georgia, on November 7, 1995. Appellant was represented by
counsel and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating
Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of six witnesses. The Investigating Officer also
introduced 12 exhibits into evidence. Appellant introduced into evidence the testimony of two witnesses
in addition to his own testimony. Appellant introduced two exhibits.
The Administrative Law Judge issued a written Decision and Order (D&O) on February 9, 1996. He
found the charge and supporting specifications proved, and stayed the revocation of AppellantÂ’s license
for six months pending proof of completion of a training program. If respondent submitted proof of
completion of the program at the end of the six-month period, the Administrative Law Judge indicated
he would entertain a request to substitute an order providing for an outright suspension during the
aforementioned six months plus an additional suspension of 12 months on 24 months probation.
Otherwise, the revocation was to be in full force and final. The Decision and Order were served on
Appellant on February 12, 1996. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 11, 1996, and
perfected it on March 18, 1996.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Frederick Bergen, 123 East Charlton Street, Savannah, Georgia, 31401. | Appeal No. 2601 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 6/15/1998 | 6/15/1998 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2574 - JONES | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated March 25, 1993, an Administrative Law Judge
of the United States Coast Guard at Seattle, Washington,
suspended appellant's license for two months, remitted upon nine
months probation, upon finding a negligence charge proved. The single specification supporting the charge alleged that
Appellant, while serving as the master of the charter boat MYRNA
BEA VII, did on July 22, 1992, navigate the vessel in such a
manner as to cause the vessel to ground on Roland Bar Rapid in
the Snake River.
At the hearing held at Lewiston, Idaho, on January 27,
1993, Appellant was represented by counsel. On counsel's
advice, Appellant denied the charge and its supporting
specification.
During the hearing, the Coast Guard Investigating Officer
introduced into evidence one exhibit and the testimony of two
witnesses.
In defense, Appellant offered into evidence four exhibits
and the testimony of two witnesses. | Appeal No. 2574 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 1/22/1996 | 1/22/1996 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2575 - WILLIAMS | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702 and
46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated November 7, 1994, an Administrative Law Judge
of the United States Coast Guard at Mobile, Alabama revoked
Appellant's License based upon finding the use of a dangerous
drug charge proven. The single specification supporting the
charge alleged that on or about May 12, 1994, Appellant
wrongfully used cocaine as evidenced by a drug test and the urine
specimen collected on that date.
The hearing was held at Mobile, Alabama on August 12, 1994. Appellant elected to represent himself and entered a response
denying the charge and the specification.
During the hearing, the Coast Guard Investigating Officer
(hereinafter "Investigating Officer") introduced into evidence 10
exhibits, and the testimony of five witnesses. All of the
witnesses testified via telephone. In defense, Appellant offered
into evidence 10 exhibits. | Appeal No. 2575 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 6/25/1996 | 6/25/1996 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2576 - AILSWORTH | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated December 3, 1992, an Administrative Law
Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Norfolk, Virginia,
revoked Appellant's merchant mariner's license. The revocation
was based upon finding proved charges of violation of law, negligence, and misconduct. The two specifications supporting
the negligence charge alleged that on September 13, 1991,
Appellant, while acting as master of the towing vessel, M/V
JACQUELINE A, under the authority of the above captioned
license, negligently navigated the vessel resulting in an
allision with a privately owned dock and vessel in the Wicomico
River; and, on that same date, failed to maintain a proper
lookout. The specifications supporting the charge of misconduct
alleged that on September 13, 1991, Appellant wrongfully worked
on his vessel for more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period and
wrongfully failed to give his name,
address, and identification of his vessel to the owner of the
property damaged. The violation of law charge was supported by
a single specification alleging that on October 18, 1991,
Appellant, while acting as master of the towing vessel, M/V
JACQUELINE A, under the authority of the above captioned
license, wrongfully worked for more than 12 hours in a 24 hour
period. The hearing was held at Norfolk, Virginia, on February
11, 12, and 13, 1991. Appellant appeared personally with legal counsel at the hearing. Appellant denied all charges and
specifications. | Appeal No. 2576 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/7/1996 | 7/7/1996 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2577 - WAYMAN | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702 and
46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated April 18, 1994, an Administrative Law Judge
of the United States Coast Guard at Seattle, Washington, issued
an admonition to Appellant based upon finding proved charges of
negligence and misconduct. The single specifications supporting
each charge allege that on or about August 13, 1993, while
serving as master of the M/V RIVER QUEEN, Appellant negligently (Charge I) and wrongfully (Charge II) allowed the vessel to be
under the direction and control of an unlicensed individual in
violation of 46 C.F.R. 15.515(b).
Following a prehearing conference on February 1, 1994, the
hearing was held at Seattle, Washington, on March 15, 1994. At
the hearing, Appellant was represented by professional counsel
and entered a response denying all charges and specifications.
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into
evidence five exhibits and the testimony of one witness. In
defense, Appellant offered into evidence four exhibits and the
testimony of four witnesses, including himself. | Appeal No. 2577 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/10/1996 | 7/10/1996 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2578 - CALLAHAN | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702 and
46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated December 14, 1994, an Administrative Law
Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Morgan City, Louisiana,
revoked Appellant's License and Document based upon finding
proved the charge of misconduct. The three specifications
supporting the charge alleged that on or about March 23, 1994,
Appellant wrongfully (1) refused to provide a specimen for a post
incident drug test, (2) failed to obey an order of the master
regarding the navigation of the vessel, and (3) departed the
vessel without being relieved as the licensed mate. The hearing was held at Morgan City, Louisiana, on October
5, 1994. Appellant was represented by professional counsel and
entered a response denying the charge and all specifications.
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into
evidence the testimony of three witnesses. In defense, Appellant
offered into evidence one exhibit and testified on his own
behalf. The Administrative Law Judge admitted two additional
exhibits on the record. | Appeal No. 2578 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/22/1996 | 7/22/1996 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2579 - OCONNELL | This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702
and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated October 7, 1994, an Administrative Law
Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Seattle, Washington,
revoked Appellant's license and document based upon finding
proved the charge of use of a dangerous drug. The single
specification supporting the charge alleged that on or about
August 23, 1993, Appellant wrongfully used cocaine as
evidenced by a drug test and the urine specimen collected on
that date.
A hearing was held at Seattle, Washington, on October 21, 1993. Appellant elected to represent himself and entered a
response admitting the charge and specification.
During the hearing, the Coast Guard Investigating Officer
introduced three exhibits into evidence. Appellant offered
eight exhibits into evidence and testified on his own behalf.
The Administrative Law Judge added 12 additional exhibits to
the record. | Appeal No. 2579 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/19/1996 | 8/19/1996 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2573 - JONES | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated July 13, 1993, an Administrative Law Judge
of the United States Coast Guard at Morgan City, Louisiana,
revoked appellant's license and merchant mariner's document upon
finding a misconduct charge proved. The three specifications
supporting the charge alleged that Appellant, while serving as the operator of three different towing vessels, did, without
consent, on three occasions, i.e., on or about August 29, 1992,
July, 1990, and August, 1990, act in a perverse manner by
fondling the anal area or genitals of the deck hand on each of
the three vessels.
At the initial hearing on April 7, 1993, the Appellant
appeared without counsel. In response to the Administrative Law
Judge's inquiries, the Appellant indicated he wanted
representation by professional counsel. Appropriately, on his
own motion, the Administrative Law Judge continued the hearing
until April 28, 1993, to allow Appellant to obtain
representation. At the April 28, 1993, hearing, and thereafter,
the Appellant has been represented by counsel. On counsel's
advice, Appellant denied the charge and its supporting
specifications. During the hearing, the Coast Guard Investigating
Officer introduced into evidence six exhibits and the testimony
of three witnesses. In defense, the Appellant and his wife
testified. | Appeal No. 2573 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 1/17/1996 | 1/17/1996 | | 11/28/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2564 - MANUEL | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated February 19, 1993, an Administrative Law
Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Norfolk, Virginia
revoked Appellant's merchant mariner's document. The revocation
was based upon a finding of proved the charge of use of a
dangerous drug. The specification supporting the charge
alleged that on or about September 24, 1992, Appellant failed a
chemical test for dangerous drugs, to wit: marijuana.
The hearing was held at Norfolk, Virginia on January 27,
1993. Appellant did not appear at the hearing. The
Administrative Law Judge found Appellant had been adequately
notified of the date and place of the hearing and proceeded with
the hearing in absentia. The Administrative Law Judge
entered an answer of "deny" to the specification and the charge
alleging use of a dangerous drug.
After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge rendered a Decision in which he concluded that the charge and specification
had been found proved. He served a written Order on Appellant
revoking merchant mariner's document No. 423-82-9398 and all
other licenses and authorizations issued to Appellant by the
Coast Guard. The Decision and Order was served on June 16, 1993. | Appeal No.2564 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/24/1995 | 3/24/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2565 - COULON | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated July 6, 1993, an Administrative Law Judge of
the United States Coast Guard at New Orleans, Louisiana,
suspended Appellant's seaman's license for three months. The
suspension was based on a finding of proved the charge of
negligence. The specification supporting the charge alleges,
that while serving as captain aboard the M/V EARLY BIRD on
August 23, 1992, the appellant negligently failed to take prudent
action by wrongfully mooring to West Delta block 45G, a Conoco
oil and gas platform, and failing to adhere to the posted sign that read, quote, "Blow-down, do not tie up."
The hearing was held at New Orleans, Louisiana, on
13 January and 2 March 1993. Appellant was represented at the
hearing by professional counsel. At the hearing, Appellant
entered an answer of "deny" to the specification and the charge.
The Investigating Officer introduced four exhibits and the
testimony of two witnesses into evidence. In defense, the
Appellant offered seven exhibits in evidence, the testimony of
three witnesses, and his own testimony.
After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge rendered a
decision in which he concluded that the charge and specification
had been found proved. He served a written order on Appellant
suspending license No. 601260 and all other licenses issued to
the Appellant by the Coast Guard for a period of three months.
The entire decision was served on July 6, 1993. Appeal was
timely filed.
APPEARANCE: Attorney David E. Cole of Marrero, Louisiana. | Appeal No. 2565 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 4/11/1995 | 4/11/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2566 - WILLIAMS | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated 1 December 1992, an Administrative Law Judge of
the United States Coast Guard at Seattle, Washington, suspended
Appellant's license and document for the period 6 May 1992 to 21
August 1992 (during which period both had been voluntarily
deposited with the Coast Guard per 46 C.F.R. 5.105(c)), plus an
additional three months' suspension remitted on twelve months
probation, upon finding proved a charge of misconduct. The three
specifications supporting the charge alleged that Appellant
permitted an unqualified and unlicensed individual to assume
direction and control of the M/V SEA VIKING, in violation of 46
U.S.C. 8904(a); failed to take adequate precautions in an
overtaking situation to avoid a collision with F/V LEVIATHAN, a
violation of 33 U.S.C. 1602; and failed to take early and
substantial action to keep well clear of F/V LEVIATHAN, a violation of 33 U.S.C. 1602.
Following a prehearing conference on 28 July 1992, a hearing was
held at Seattle, Washington on 20 and 21 October 1992.
Appellant appeared at the prehearing conference and hearing with
professional counsel by whom he was represented throughout the
proceedings. Appellant denied the charge and all specifications
as provided in 46 C.F.R. 5.527. The Investigating Officer
introduced into evidence two exhibits and the testimony of
four witnesses. Appellant introduced a total of seven exhibits
and the testimony of three witnesses including the respondent
himself. In addition, the Investigating Officer and Appellant's
counsel agreed to a stipulation of facts (Agreed Exhibit 1).
Following the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge rendered a
decision in which he found that the charge and three
specifications were proved. His written decision and order were
entered on 1 December 1992, and were served on Appellant's
counsel on 15 December 1992. | Appeal No. 2566 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 5/2/1995 | 5/2/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2567 - PEREIRA | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S. C. 7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated August 12, 1993, an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) of the United States Coast Guard at Norfolk, Virginia
suspended Appellant's document outright for six months, with a further six months' suspension on twelve months probation, upon
finding proved a charge of misconduct. The sole
specification supporting the charge alleged that Appellant, while serving as QMED-Electrician aboard M/V PFC WILLIAM B. BAUGH, O.N. 674269, under authority of his document, on September 2, 1992, while said vessel was at Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory (B.I.O.T.), wrongfully submitted falsified work reports for fan tests. A hearing was held at Norfolk, Virginia on July 28, 1993.
Appellant did not appear at the hearing, nor was he otherwise
represented during the proceedings. After inquiry on the record
as to the facts of service of the charge and notice of the hearing,
the ALJ permitted the hearing to proceed in absentia, as
provided in 46 C.F.R. 5.515.The ALJ denied the charge and
specification on behalf of the Appellant as provided in 46 C.F.R.
5.527. The Investigating Officer (IO) introduced into evidence ten
exhibits and the testimony of three witnesses. A letter from Appellant seeking to change the date and location of the hearing
was introduced as an exhibit for Appellant. The ALJ
had previously denied Appellant's request by letter. TR at 20,
ALJ Ex. I. At the end of the hearing, the ALJ rendered an oral
decision in which he found that the charge and specification were
proved. Appellant filed notice of appeal on August 27, 1993,
apparently based on a telephone call through which he learned of the ALJ's oral decision. The ALJ's written decision and order were
entered on September 15, 1993, and were served on Appellant some time prior to September 24, 1993. | Appeal No. 2567 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 6/20/1995 | 6/20/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2568 - SANCHEZ | NO. (REDACTED) issued to: Angel SANCHEZ, Appellant, and
NO. (REDACTED) issued to: Ivan R. CORALIZ, Appellant, and
NO. (REDACTED) issued to: Edwin G. MATHIS, Appellant, and
NO. (REDACTED) issued to: Jose M. RIVERA, Appellant, and
NO.(REDACTED) issued to: Roberto VALENTIN, Appellant, and
NO. (REDACTED) issued to: William VIUST, Appellant, and
NO. (REDACTED) issued to: Luis A. DAVILA, Appellant, and
NO. (REDACTED) issued to: Hector M. RESTO, Appellant, and
NO.(REDACTED) issued to: Felix PRIETO, Appellant.
These nine appeals have been consolidated for decision after
having been taken singly for appeal in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701. The appeals have been consolidated
for the following reasons: In all nine cases, the charges and
evidence were substantially identical; all nine cases involved
the same Investigating Officer (IO), Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ), and counsel for the various Appellants; pleadings and
argument by both the Coast Guard and counsel for the Appellants
were substantially identical; and the Decisions and Orders
issued by the ALJ were substantially identical. Furthermore, my
disposition of these nine appeals is the same because it turns
on the same point in each record, as described infra. By order
dated 18 May 1993, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the
United States Coast Guard at San Juan, Puerto Rico suspended
Appellants' Ordinary Seaman documents for three months, with an
additional six months' suspension on twelve months of probation,
upon finding proved a charge of violation of law. The sole
specification in all cases alleged that Appellants, while acting
under the authority of their documents, on or about specified
dates between 13 April 1992 and 16 June 1992 fraudulently obtained Able Seaman endorsements in violation of 18 U. S. Code
1001. | Appeal No. 2568 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | | | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2569 - TAYLOR | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated June 16th, 1993, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
of the United States Coast Guard at Houston, Texas, revoked
Appellant's merchant mariner's document (MMD) upon finding proved
a charge of misconduct. The charge was supported by a total of four specifications. The first three specifications alleged that
Appellant, while serving as able seaman aboard the M/V THUNDER,
under authority of his document, on or about November 6, 1992,
failed to return to the vessel by the time ordered; was
wrongfully absent from his duties without authority; and
wrongfully failed to perform his duties. The fourth
specification alleged that Appellant, while acting under the
authority of his MMD, submitted a fraudulent application for a
supplemental MMD on or about June 4, 1992 by answering "No" to
the question asking if he had been convicted for other than minor
traffic offenses, when in fact he had three "DWI" convictions and
12 other assorted convictions.
A hearing was held at Houston, Texas, on May 25, 1993.
Appellant was present at the hearing and represented himself
throughout the proceedings. | Appeal No. 2569 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/25/1995 | 7/25/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2570 - HARRIS | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated May 19, 1994, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Norfolk, Virginia, revoked appellant's license upon finding proved charges of use of dangerous drugs, addiction to the use of dangerous drugs, and misconduct. The single specifications supporting each of the first two mentioned charges alleged that Appellant, while being the holder of the captioned license, during the approximate period of August 1985 until April 1987, did, respectively, use, and was addicted to the use of, cocaine, a dangerous drug. The two specifications found proved under the charge of misconduct alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001, in that while acting under the authority of the captioned license: the Appellant wrongfully and fraudulently certified on his April 1, 1991, license application that he had never used or been addicted to the use of narcotics; and, that while giving sworn testimony during an admin-istrative proceeding against his license on January 27, 1993, the Appellant wrongfully lied under oath by falsely claiming to have never used drugs. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed two additional specifications, not dis-cussed herein, under the misconduct charge, as being subsumed within the two specifications paraphrased above.
A hearing was held on January 12, 1994, in Baltimore, Maryland. Appellant denied the charges and supporting specifications. On February 16, 1994, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order finding the above charges and supporting specifications proved. Arguments in mitigation and aggravation were held on April 19, 1994. Appellant was represented by the same counsel at both of these proceedings. | Appeal No. 2570 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/28/1995 | 7/28/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2571 - DYKES | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated September 7, 1993, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Mobile, Alabama, revoked Appellant's duly issued Coast Guard license and
merchant mariner's document upon finding a use of dangerous
drugs charge proved. The single specification supporting the
charge alleged that Appellant, while being the holder of the
above captioned documents, was found to be a user of dangerous
drugs, to wit: marijuana, as a result of chemical tests
conducted on a urine sample he provided on or about March 31,
1993.
The hearing was held at Mobile, Alabama, on August 27,
1993. At the hearing, Appellant, after being advised of the right to
have counsel represent him, chose to represent himself.
Appellant answered "no contest" to the charge and its supporting
specification. | Appeal No. 2571 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 11/6/1995 | 11/6/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2572 - MORSE | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated 28 April 1993, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
of the United States Coast Guard at Houston, Texas, suspended
Appellant's merchant mariner's license outright for three months,
with a further six months' suspension on 24 months' probation, upon finding proved a charge of negligence. The charge was
supported by three specifications. All three specifications
concerned Appellant's actions while serving under the authority
of his license as Master of the small passenger vessel MAALAEA
KAI II, O.N. 900366, on 18 December 1992, while the vessel was
underway off Molokini Crater near the island of Maui, Hawaii.
The three specifications alleged that Appellant failed to take
action to avoid a collision with the vessel IDLE
WILD; failed to sound a danger signal; and failed to keep a safe
distance from the moored dive boat ONELOA which then had divers
in the water. | Appeal No. 2572 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 11/17/1995 | 11/17/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2562 - BEAR | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. #
7702 and 46 C.F.R. # 5.701.
By an order dated December 5, 1992, an Administrative Law
Judge of the United States Coast Guard at Honolulu, Hawaii,
revoked Appellant's Merchant Mariner's Document and License
upon finding proved a charge of use of dangerous drugs. The
single specification supporting the charge alleged that, on or
about November 18, 1991, Appellant wrongfully used cocaine as
evidenced by a urine specimen collected on that date pursuant
to a pre-employment drug test program by his prospective
employer, Hawaiian Tug and Barge Corporation. .
The hearing was convened in Honolulu, Hawaii, on June 3,
1992, and then reconvened on December 5, 1992, after a
continuance requested by Appellant. Appellant was represented
by professional counsel. Appellant entered a response denying
the charge and specification. The Investigating Officer offered 13 exhibits into evidence, nine of which were admitted.
One of these exhibits [I.O. Ex. 13] was a "Litigation Package"
from Nichols Institute that contained 11 documents concerning
the testing and re-testing of Appellant's urine sample.
The Investigating Officer also introduced the testimony of
one witness. Appellant introduced 5 exhibits into evidence
and introduced the testimony of two witnesses, one of whom
testified by a written stipulation entered into between the
Investigating Officer and Appellant. In addition, Appellant
testified under oath in his own behalf. | Appeal No. 2562 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/1/1995 | 3/1/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2563 - EMERY | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By an order dated May 12, 1993, an Administrative Law Judge
of the United States Coast Guard at Detroit, Michigan suspended
Appellant's license and merchant mariner's document, upon finding
charges of "Misconduct" and "Violation of Law" proved. The
single specification of the charge of Misconduct alleged that on
August 4, 1992, Appellant reported to his place of employment, in
anticipation of operating a passenger vessel, while being
wrongfully intoxicated. The single specification supporting the
charge of Violation of Law alleged that on or about September 20,
1991, Appellant was convicted in Michigan State Court of driving
while intoxicated.
A hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan on April 1, 1993. Appellant entered an answer of "No Contest" to the charge of
Misconduct. As to the charge of Violation of Law, the Appellant
admitted the facts asserted and that they constitute a violation
of law under 205(a)(3)(A) of the National Drivers Register Act
of 1982 (23 U.S.C. 401 note), an offense described in 46 U.S.C.
7703(3) as a basis for suspension or revocation of a merchant
mariner's license or document. However, the Appellant contended
that 46 U.S.C. 7703(3) was unconstitutional and asked the court
to note his position for purposes of appeal. The Administrative
Law Judge stated he had no jurisdiction to rule on constitutional
issues, and noted the issue for appeal. The Investigating
Officer introduced seven exhibits into evidence. | Appeal No. 2563 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/28/1995 | 2/28/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2555 - LAVALLAIS | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
BACKGROUND
By order dated September 8, 1992, an Administrative Law Judge
of the United States Coast Guard at New Orleans, Louisiana,
revoked Appellant's merchant mariner's document upon finding a
use of dangerous drugs charge proved. The supporting
specification, which was also found proved, alleged that
Appellant was a user of cannabinoids, based upon laboratory tests
of his urine conducted at Compuchem Laboratories, Inc.
(Compuchem).
Appellant represented himself at a hearing held at Mobile,
Alabama on August 23, 1992. His wife, Helen Lavallais, appeared
with him. At the hearing, Appellant entered ananswer of "guilty
with an explanation" to the charge and specification. The
Administrative Law Judge, after listening to the Appellant's
explanation, which in essence was a denial of knowingly ingesting marijuana, directed the Investigating Officer to produce
evidence. The Investigating Officer introduced into evidence
four exhibits, and the testimony of three witnesses. In defense,
Appellant offered two exhibits.
The Administrative Law Judge advised Appellant that if the
charge was found proved, an order of revocation would be required
unless Appellant provided satisfactory evidence of cure. After
the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge rendered a written
decision and order, and concluded that the charge and
specification had been found proved. The order, dated
September 8, 1992, revoked the above captioned documents issued
to Appellant by the Coast Guard.
Appellant submitted timely notice of appeal in accordance
with 46 C.F.R. 5.703(a) and then timely completed his appeal on
November 8, 1992. Therefore, this appeal is properly before the
Commandant for review. | Appeal No. 2555 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2/14/1994 | 2/14/1994 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2556 - LINTON | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated August 10, 1992, an Administrative Law Judge
of the United States Coast Guard at St. Louis, Missouri revoked
Appellant's merchant mariner's document upon finding a use of
dangerous drugs charge proved. The single specification
supporting the charge alleged that Appellant, while being the
holder of a merchant mariner's document, was tested on or about
December 14, 1989, and found to have marijuana cannabinoids
present in his body.
At the hearing held at Portland, Oregon on September 27,
1990, Appellant appeared with counsel. On counsel's advice,
Appellant denied the charge and its supporting specification.
During the hearing, the Coast Guard Investigating Officer
(hereinafter "Investigating Officer") introduced into evidence 10 exhibits, and the testimony of four witnesses. In defense,
Appellant offered into evidence five exhibits, and his own sworn
testimony.
After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge rendered a
decision in which she concluded that the charge and specification
had been found proved. On August 10, 1992, the Administrative
Law Judge issued a written order revoking Appellant's Coast Guard
issued Merchant Mariner's Document No.(REDACTED).
Appellant timely filed an appeal on August 21, 1992, and,
after receiving an extension, timely completed his appeal on
June 18, 1993. Therefore, this appeal is properly before the
Commandant for review. | Appeal No. 2556 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 3/29/1994 | 3/29/1994 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2557 - FRANCIS | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By an order dated November 19, 1991, an Administrative Law
Judge of the United States Coast Guard at New Orleans, Louisiana
revoked Appellant's license and merchant mariner's document, upon
finding a use of dangerous drugs charge proved. The single
specification supporting the charge alleged that, on or about
January 28, 1991, Appellant was tested and found to be a user of
a dangerous drug, to wit, tetrahydrocannabinol.
The hearing was held at New Orleans, Louisiana on November 6,
1991. Appellant waived his right to representation by
professional counsel and appeared on his own behalf, pro se. Appellant entered an answer of "no contest" to the charge and
specification. The Investigating Officer introduced six exhibits
into evidence, and the Appellant made unsworn statements on his
own behalf. Appellant also produced a document related to his
participation at a drug rehabilitation program. Portions of that
document were read and discussed on the record. | Appeal No. 2557 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 5/6/1994 | 5/6/1994 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2558 - GANTT | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702
and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated November 2, 1992, an Administrative Law Judge
of the United States Coast Guard at Washington, D.C. suspended
Appellant's Coast Guard duly issued license for a period of
twelve months. Appellant's license was further suspended for an
additional six months remitted on twelve months probation. The
order was rendered after finding misconduct and violation
of regulation charges proved. The seven specifications
supporting the misconduct charge allege that, Appellant,
while serving as Master on board the M/V MISS ALICE, MD 2445J,
under the authority of the captioned license on or about August
7, 1992, did wrongfully, (1) operate the vessel with more than
six passengers, a violation of 46 U.S.C. 3311, (2) fail to
comply with the drug testing requirements of 46 C.F.R. 16.230,
(3) operate the vessel beyond the scope of his license, a violation of 46 U.S.C. 8902, (4) operate the vessel without
an acceptable backfire flame control, a violation of 46 C.F.R.
182.15-7(b), (5) operate the vessel without an approved
personal flotation device for each person aboard, a violation
of 46 C.F.R. 180.25-5(a), (6) operate the vessel without
railings of proper height, a violation of 46 C.F.R.
177.35-1(d), and (7) operate the vessel without a stability
letter issued by the Coast Guard, a violation of 46 C.F.R.
170.120. The single specification supporting the
violation of regulation charge alleges that, Appellant,
while serving as Master on board the M/V MISS ALICE, MD 2445J,
under the authority of the captioned license on or about
August 7, 1992, did wrongfully operate the vessel without a
pollution placard posted, a violation of 33 C.F.R. 155.450. | Appeal No. 2558 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 5/17/1994 | 5/17/1994 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2559 - NIELSEN | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By an order dated May 21, 1992, an Administrative Law Judge
of the United States Coast Guard at Long Beach, California,
revoked Appellant's Merchant Mariner's Document upon finding a
use of a dangerous drug charge proved. The single
specification supporting the charge alleged that Appellant
wrongfully used cocaine as evidenced by the results of a random
screening test administered on or about January 19, 1992.
The hearing was held at Long Beach, California on March 24,
1992. Appellant waived his right to representation by
professional counsel and appeared on his own behalf. Appellant
entered an answer of "no contest" to the charge and specification
as provided in 46 C.F.R. 5.527. The Investigating Officer introduced two exhibits into evidence. The Appellant introduced
no evidence on defense. After the Administrative Law Judge
found the charge and supporting specification proved by the
Appellant's answer of "no contest," one additional Investigating
Officer exhibit and two exhibits from the Appellant were admitted
in aggravation and mitigation.
The Administrative Law Judge's written decision and order
revoking all licenses and documents issued to Appellant was
entered on April 13, 1992. Service of the decision and order was
made on April 23, 1992. Subsequently, on May 5, 1992 the
Appellant filed a petition to reopen the hearing. This petition
was denied on May 21, 1992. On May 19, 1992 Appellant filed a
notice of appeal. After receipt of the hearing transcript,
appellant perfected his appeal by timely filing an appellate
brief on September 3, 1992. | Appeal No. 2559 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 1/25/1994 | 1/25/1994 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2560 - CLIFTON | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702
and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
By order dated April 21, 1993, an Administrative Law Judge of
the United States Coast Guard at Seattle, Washington, revoked
Appellant's Merchant Mariner's Document upon finding proved the
charge of "USE OF A DANGEROUS DRUG." The supporting
specification found proved alleges that Appellant, "being the
holder of the above captioned document, did, on or about
11 September 1992, at Anacortes, Washington, wrongfully have
Cocaine metabolite present in your body as revealed through a
drug screening test."
The hearing was held at Seattle, Washington, on March 2,
1993, and April 13, 1993. Appellant was represented at the
hearing by professional counsel. At the hearing, Appellant
entered an answer of "denied" to the specification and charge of
use of a dangerous drug. The Investigating Officer introduced
in evidence six exhibits and the testimony of four witnesses. In
defense, Appellant offered in evidence two exhibits and the
testimony of three witnesses. Appellant was fully advised by the Administrative Law Judge that if the charge was found proved,
an order of revocation would be required unless Appellant
provided satisfactory evidence of cure. After the hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge rendered a written decision and order in
which he concluded that the charge and specification had been
found proved and that Appellant did not provide satisfactory
evidence of cure. His order, dated April 21, 1993, revoked the
above captioned documents issued to Appellant by the Coast Guard. | Appeal No. 2560 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 1/27/1995 | 1/27/1995 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2551 - LEVENE | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C.
7702 and 46 C.F.R. 5.707.
BACKGROUND
By order dated September 25, 1992, an Administrative Law
Judge of the United States Coast Guard at New York, New York
revoked Appellant's seaman's documents upon finding proved the
charges of misconduct and violation of law. The misconduct
charge, supported by two specifications, alleged that Appellant,
while serving as Second Assistant Engineer aboard the S/S
RESOLUTE, Official Number D612715, on or about June 30, 1991,
while the vessel was at sea, wrongfully (1) assaulted and
battered the Third Assistant Engineer, William P. Jeuvelis, by
strangling him with a strand of wire, and (2) assaulted another
crewmember, Franklin Sesenton, by threatening him with a steel pipe. The violation of law charge, also supported by two
specifications, alleged that Appellant wrongfully (1) operated
the vessel while intoxicated, in violation of 33 C.F.R.
95.045(b), and (2) refused to be tested for evidence of dangerous
drugs and alcohol use, in violation of 33 C.F.R.
95.040.
The Administrative Law Judge issued his decision and order on
September 25, 1992. On October 22, 1992, Appellant filed a
notice of appeal. On November 25, 1992, Commandant (G-MMI)
extended the time for Appellant to file a completed appeal to
December 21, 1992. Appellant timely submitted his completed
appeal and, accordingly, this appeal is properly before the
Commandant for review. | Appeal No. 2551 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/27/1993 | 8/27/1993 | | 11/30/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2552 - FERRIS | This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7702
and 46 C.F.R. 5.701.
BACKGROUND
By order dated January 29, 1992, an Administrative Law Judge
of the United States Coast Guard at Portland, Maine, revoked
Appellant's seaman's documentsupon finding proved the charge of
"USE OF A DANGEROUS DRUG." The supporting specification found
proved alleges that Appellant, "being the holder of the above
captioned license and merchant mariner's document, were, on or
about 20 February 1991, in the City of Boston, Massachusetts,
tested and found to be a user of a dangerous drug, to wit:
Tetrahydrocannabinols (THC)."
The hearing was held at Portland, Maine on October 11, 1991.
Appellant was represented at the hearing byprofessional counsel.
At the hearing, Appellant entered ananswer of "deny" to the specification and charge of use of a dangerous drug. The
Investigating Officer introduced in evidence ten exhibits, and
the testimony of three witnesses. In defense, Appellant offered
in evidence five exhibits.
Appellant was fully advised by the Administrative Law Judge
that if the charge was found proved, an order of revocation would
be required unless Appellant provided satisfactory evidence of
cure. After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge rendered a
written decision and order in which he concluded that the charge
and specification had been found proved and that Appellant did
not provide satisfactory evidence of cure. His order, dated
January 29, 1992, revoked the above captioned documents issued to
Appellant by the Coast Guard. | Appeal No. 2552 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 9/9/1993 | 9/9/1993 | | 11/30/2017 |