| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 mariners 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 Appellants 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 2588 - LASORSA | U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
vs.
LICENSE NO. 694718
Issued to Steven J. Lasorsa
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DECISION OF THE
VICE COMMANDANT
ON APPEAL
NO. 2588
This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By order dated February 5, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at
Norfolk, Virginia, suspended Appellants license based upon finding proved a charge of negligence and a
charge of violation of law or regulation. The single specification supporting the charge of negligence
alleged that Appellant failed to adequately navigate the M/V GRANITE STATE (O.N. 646798) while
mooring, causing the vessel to allide with a moored barge. The specification supporting the charge of
violation of law or regulation alleged that Appellant failed to give notice to the Coast Guard of the hull
damage which materially and adversely affected the seaworthiness of the M/V GRANITE STATE.
Hearings were held in Portland, Maine, on October 25, 1995, and December 5, 1995. Appellant was
represented by counsel and entered a response denying both charges and specifications. The
Administrative Law Judge introduced into evidence one exhibit. The Investigating Officer introduced
into evidence eight exhibits and the testimony of five witnesses. Appellant introduced into evidence four
exhibits, his own testimony and the testimony of one other witness. | Appeal No. 2588 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/13/1997 | 8/13/1997 | | 11/27/2017 |
| 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 | 2589 - MEYER | U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
vs.
LICENSE NO. 740972
AND
MERCHANT MARINER’S
DOCUMENT NO. [REDACTED]
Issued to Kenneth E. Meyer
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DECISION OF THE
COMMANDANT
ON APPEAL
NO. 2589
This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated February 26, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast
Guard at Norfolk, Virginia, revoked Appellant’s above-captioned license and Merchant Mariner’s
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 in Norfolk, Virginia, on February 13, 1996. Appellant appeared pro se and
entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard Investigating Officer
introduced into evidence the testimony of four witnesses and nine exhibits. Appellant introduced
into evidence his own testimony. | Appeal No. 2589 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/5/1997 | 8/5/1997 | | 11/27/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2590 - LISTON | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
vs.
MERCHANT MARINER’S DOCUMENT
NO. Z (REDACTED
Issued to Michael L. Liston
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DECISION OF THE
COMMANDANT
ON APPEAL
NO. 2590
This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated December 15, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast
Guard at Jacksonville, Florida, 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 Tampa, Florida, on December 12, 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 three witnesses and seven
exhibits. Appellant introduced into evidence his own testimony and four exhibits.
The Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order (D&O) was served on Appellant on
December 18, 1995. Appellant received the transcript of the hearing on January 29, 1996.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on January 16, 1996, and perfected it on March 29,
1996. | Appeal No. 2590 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 8/5/1997 | 8/5/1997 | | 11/27/2017 |
| 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 | 2585 - COULON | U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
vs.
License No. 601260
Issued to: JOHN F. COULON, Appellant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DECISION OF THE
VICE COMMANDANT
ON APPEAL
NO. 2585
This appeal is 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 license for three months, based upon finding
proved, a charge of negligence. The single specification supporting the charge alleged that, while
serving as Captain aboard the M/V EARLY BIRD on August 23, 1992, the Appellant negligently
moored to a Conoco oil and gas platform by failing to adhere to the posted sign indicating not to
tie up to the platform.
The hearing was held at New Orleans, Louisiana, on December 15, 1992, January 13, 1993, and
March 2, 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 into evidence seven exhibits, the testimony of three witnesses and his own
testimony.
After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the charge and specification were
proved. He served a written order on Appellant suspending the captioned license, 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. | Appeal No. 2585 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/21/1997 | 7/21/1997 | | 11/27/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2586 - GREEN | U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
vs.
LICENSE NO. 625896
Issued to: Scott R. Green, Appellant
____________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DECISION OF THE
VICE COMMANDANT
ON APPEAL
NO. 2586
This appeal has been taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By order dated March 13, 1995, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at
Jacksonville, Florida, suspended Appellants license for four months based upon finding proved a charge
of negligence. The single specification supporting the charge alleged that on or about September 23,
1993, Appellant failed to heed navigation information and negligently grounded his vessel and tow in
the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), near North Miami, Florida.
The hearing was held at Miami, Florida, on May 24, 1994. Appellant was represented by professional
counsel and entered a response denying the charge and the specification. The hearing was continued on
September 2, 1994, and December 22, 1994.
During the hearings, the Coast Guard Investigating Officer introduced into evidence 17 exhibits and the
testimony of two witnesses. Appellant testified on his own behalf and offered 20 exhibits and the
testimony of four witnesses. The Administrative Law Judge entered five exhibits into the record.
At the end of the hearing on December 22, 1994, the Administrative Law Judge gave the parties the
opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and closing arguments. The
submissions provided by each party were added to the record. On March 3, 1995, the Administrative
Law Judge informed both parties that he found the Coast Guards case proved and requested submission
of Appellants prior record from the Coast Guard and any evidence in mitigation from the Appellant. | Appeal No. 2586 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/21/1997 | 7/21/1997 | | 11/27/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2587 - Hudson | U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
vs.
LICENSE NO. 82831
Issued to Eric H. Hudson, Appellant
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DECISION OF THE
VICE COMMANDANT
ON APPEAL
NO. 2587
This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By order dated February 22, 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 violation of law or regulation. The first specification alleged that on June 12,
1993, while serving as operator of the M/V MISS KATE, Appellant failed to maintain a proper
lookout by all available means, in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 2005 (Rule 5 of the Inland Navigation
Rules). The second specification alleged that Appellant also failed to sound a danger signal in
violation of
33 U.S.C. § 2034 (Rule 34 of the Inland Navigation Rules). The Administrative Law Judge
dismissed one specification of negligence as vague, and likewise dismissed the charge. The
Administrative Law Judge also dismissed two other specifications of violation of law or
regulation upon finding them to be legally insufficient in accordance with 46 C.F.R. § 5.33.
The hearing was held and completed on November 17, 1993. Appellant, appearing pro se, entered
a response denying the charges and specifications. | Appeal No. 2587 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/21/1997 | 7/21/1997 | | 11/27/2017 |
| Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 2584 - SHAKESPEARE | U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
vs.
LICENSE NOS. 641035 AND R35012
Issued to David R. Shakespeare
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DECISION OF THE
COMMANDANT
ON APPEAL
NO. 2584
This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7702 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.701.
By an order dated February 1, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge of the United States Coast Guard at
Jacksonville, Florida, revoked Appellants above captioned licenses, 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.
Hearings were held in Savannah, Georgia, on December 29, 1995, and January 26, 1996. Appellant
appeared pro se and entered a response denying the charge and specification. The Coast Guard
Investigating Officer introduced into evidence the testimony of four witnesses and twelve exhibits.
Appellant introduced into evidence his own testimony and five exhibits.
The Administrative Law Judges Decision and Order (D&O) was served on Appellant on February 5,
1996. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 4, 1996 and perfected it on March 28, 1996. | Appeal No. 2584 | Suspension and Revocation Appeals Authority | 7/10/1997 | 7/10/1997 | | 11/27/2017 |