,, . C 

<, 

I..., ... 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

- 4 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD -" 

Complainant - 

VS. 

- 

ROGER DENNIS PHILLIPS ;-.I 

c, - Respondent 

Docket Number: CG S&R 06-0075 

CG Case No. 2576839 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued: September 14,2007 

Issued by: Thomas E. P. McElligott. Administrative Law Jud~e 

Appearances: 

For Complainant 

Lt Therasa Nettesheim. BM1 Shane Hunt, MSTC Jacqueiyn Plevniak 

U.S. Coast Guard 

USCG Sector Corpus Christi 

555 N. Carancahua St., Suite 500 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78478 

For Respondent 

Christopher Dupuy, Attorney-at-Law 

Dupuy & Associates 

2600 South Shore Blvd., Suite 300 

League City, Texas 77573 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) Investigating Officers (10s) initiated this 

administrative action by serving the Complaint on R. D. Phillips personally, seeking revocation 

of Roger D. Phillips' (Respondent) Merchant Mariner's Document (MMD). This action is 

brought pursuant to the authority contained in 46 U.S.C. 7703(1)(B).7704(c) and its underlying 

regulations codified at 46 CFR Part 5 and 33 CFR Part 20.' 

On February 20.2006, the Coast Guard issued and served a Complaint against 

Respondent alleging one (1) count of Use of or Addiction to a Dangerous Drug and three (3) 

counts of Misconduct. Specifically, the Coast Guard alleges Respondent took a pre-employment 

urinalysis test on July 9,2004. This urinalysis, collected in accordance with Department of 

Transportation (DOT) regulations, tested positive for cocaine metabolites. The three (3) counts 

of Misconduct allege Respondent failed to make full and complete disclosures of all previous 

criminal convictions on the Coast Guard license and document applications submitted on August 

15,2003, May 15,2004, and November 13,2005. Respondent filed his Answer to this 

Complaint on February 21, 2006, wherein he denied all jurisdictional and all factual allegations 

contained in the Complaint. 

On February 27,2006, the Chief Administrative Law Judge assigned U.S. Administrative 

Law (ALJ) Judge Thomas E. P. McElligott (the undersigned) to hear and adjudicate this case. 

On August 30, 2006. the undersigned scheduled this matter for a trial-type bearing in Corpus 

Chriski, Texas on November 15,2006. On October 16,2006, Respondent filed a Motion to 

Request to Move 1Iearing Date, Time, and Location. The Court's high volume of cases limited 

~ ~ 

I In the Complaint, the Coast Guard ekes statutory authority 46 6.S.C. 7703(b) for the Misconduct charges. The 

actual regulatory authoriiy for Misconduct is 46 U.S.C. 7703(1)(8). This minor discrepancy is nor found to have 

affected Respondent's actual notice of the Misconduct charges in the Complaint served on Respondent. 
the undersigned's ability to reschedule the hearing. As a result, the undersigned denied 

Respondent's request to reschedule. 

The trial-type hearing convened on November 15.2006 in Corpus Christi. Texas before 

Thomas E. P. McElligott, U.S. Administrative Law Judge deciding cases for the Coast Guard 

and other Federal Agencies. The trial-type hearing proceeded for one (1) day with four (4) 

witnesses sworn and testifying under oath and seventeen (17) exhibits entered into evidence by 

this Judge. The list of witnesses and exhibits is contained in Attachment A. The hearing was 

conducted in accordance with the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act as amended and codified at 

5 U.S.C. 551-59, and Coast Guard procedural regulations set forth in 46 CFR Part 5 and 33 CFR 

Part 20. 

Respondent voluntarily deposited his MMD with the Coast Guard at the conclusion of the 

hearing on November 15,2006. Both parties declined to submit proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. 

After careful review of the entire record, including witness testimony, applicable statutes, 

regulations, and case law, the allegation of User of Dangerous Drugs (first offense) in violation 

of 46 U.S.C. 7704(c), and one (1) count of Misconduct (third offense) in violation of 46 U.S.C. 

7703(1)(B) are found proved. The second and fourth Misconduct offenses are dismissed based 

on lack ofjurisdiction. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

The Findings of Fact are based on documentary evidence, the testimonies of the 

witnesses. and the entire record considered as a whole. 
1. At all relevant times, Respondent was the holder of a Merchant Mariner's Document 

(MMD), Number 0398 16, issued by the United States Coast Guard. (I0 Ex. 1; Tr. at 

80-82).~ 

Factual Allegation 1: Use of or Addiction to a Dangerous Drug 

2. On July 9,2004, Respondent participated in a pre-employment drug test at the 

Occupational Medical Center of West Jefferson. (Tr. at 22-25; I0 Ex. 4, 5, 8). 

3. Approximately twenty (20) minutes elapsed from the time Respondent knew he 

needed to take the pre-employment drug test and the time he actually submitted his 

urine sample for drug testing. (Tr. at 66-67). 

4. Lisa Anne Rollins, a trained urine specimen Collector with approximately ten (10) 

years experience. collected the urine sample from this Respondent for the purposes of 

a tested and certified laboratory performing DOT urinalysis drug tests. (Tr. at 27-29). 

5. Ms. Rollins followed collection procedures in accordance with U.S. DOT standards. 

(Tr. at 28-31; I0 Ex. 5-8). Procedures Ms. Rollins followed include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

a. The Collector verified the identity of Respondent, the specimen provider (Tr. 

at 3 I), by inspecting his Merchant Mariner's Document and/or driver's 

license. 

b. Foliowing collection, Ms. Rollins checked the temperature of Respondent's 

specimen and ensured the sample measured between ninety 190) and one- 

' Citations referencing the transcript are as follows: Transcript followed by the page number (Tr. at -); Citations 

refming to Agency Exhibits are as follows: In\,estigation Officer followed by the exhibit number (I0 Ex. A; 

Respondent's Exhibits are as foiIows: Respondent followed by the exhibit number (Resp. Ex. - ); ALI Exhibits are 

as follows: AtJ followed by he exhibit number (Jud. Ex. -1. 

4 
hundred (100) degrees Fahrenheit within four (4) minutes of its production. 

(10 Ex. 5). 

c. The Collector placed the specimen into tuo (2) separate specimen bottles, 

referred to as a "split specimen." (Tr. at 25; 10 Ex. 5). 

d. Respondent initialed the seals on each urine specimen bottle. (Tr. at 29-30). 

e. Ms. Rollins completed, dated and signed the Custody and Control Form with 

Respondent's identifying information. (Tr. at 28-30; I0 Ex. 8). 

f. Respondent also signed the Collector's Custody and Control Fonn. (Tr. at 29- 

30; I0 Ex. 8). 

g. Each Custody and Control Form contains a unique specimen identification 

number. (I0 Ex. 8). 

h. Occupational Medical Center sent Respondent's split urine specimen to the 

tested and certified Kroll Laboratory in Gretna, Louisiana for testing for drug 

use by Respondent. (Tr. at 30). 

6. Kroll Laboratory received Respondent's urine specimen via a courier service. (Tr. at 

43-44,47-49). The urine specimen arrived with the specimen seals intact. (a,). 

7. Kroll Laboratory tested Respondent's urine in accordance with U.S. DOT guidelines. 

(Tr. at 37-43). 

8. Kroll Laboratory is a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) 

tested and certified laboratory. (Tr. a? 42-43; 10 Ex. 25). 

9. The chain of custody for Respondent's urine specimen \vas intact. (Tr. at 43-45,47- 

49, 136; I0 Ex. 4). 
10. The initial drug screening test of Respondent's urine detected the presence of cocaine 

metabolites, which measured 456 nanograms per milliliter. (Tr. at 59-60). 

1 1. A confirmatory second laboratory test verified the presence of benzoylecgonine, the 

cocaine metabolite, in Respondent's urine sample. (TI. at 45,49,57-58). 

12. Confirmatory testing is performed by the very reliable gas chromatographylmass 

spectroscopy test. (Tr. at 45,47-49). The gas chromatographytmass spectroscopy 

even provides the molecular fingerprint for the specific drugs found in the urine 

sample. (u.). 

13. Cocaine clears the body within twenty-four (24) to seventy-two (72) hours after use. 

(Tr. at 60). 

14. Kroll Laboratory reports all positive drug tests to a medical review officer (MRO). 

(Tr. at 50). It was also done in Respondent R. Phillips case as usual. 

15. Dr. Brian Heinen, an M.D. and Medical Review Officer (MRO), verified 

Respondent's positive drug test. (Tr. at 134-35; 10 Ex. 6). 

16. Dr. Heinen owns Heinen Medical Review, a company that conducts drug testing 

reviews. (Tr. at 131). Dr Heinen has worked as a MRO since 1989. (u.). 

17. Dr. Heinen interviewed Respondent personally on July 12,2004 to determine if a 

legitimate medical or other explanation existed for the positive dntg test. (Tr. at 137- 

39; I0 Ex. 7. S), 

: 8. Respondent informed Dr. Heinen that medication he was taking, included Tyienoi 

PM and multivitamins. (Tr. at 1 17-1 8, 15 1 ; 10 Ex. 7). 

19. Respondent was not taking any prescription medication that could explain the 

presence of cocaine in his body and system. (Tr, at 137-39). 
20. Respondent did not supply Dr. Heinen with a legitimate medical excuse or reason for 

the positive test result. (Id.). 

21. Dr. Heinen informed Respondent of his right to have the split sample retested by a 

second tested and certified laboratory. (Tr. at 139-40; 10 Ex. 7). Respondent did not 

request more testing of the Respondent's split sample. (Tr. at 139-48; I0 Ex. 7). 

22. Dr. Heinen's final determination is tha.t the wine specimen was positive for cocaine 

metabolite and that Respondent had used cocaine. (Tr. at 139; 10 Ex. 8). 

Factual Aller;.ations 2-4: Misconduct 

23. On October 3,2002, the State of Washington convicted Respondent of Interfering 

with Reporting of Domestic Violence and Disorderly Conduct. (Tr. at 92-95, 101, 

106; I0 Ex. 12, 13, 14). Respondent pleaded guilty and received a $575 fine. m.). 

24. On August 15, 2003, Respondent executed, in writing, his completed, signed and 

dated original filed application for a U.S. Coast Guard MMD. (I0 Ex. 9). 

25. On May 15,2004, Respondent executed, in writing, an application for raise in grade 

to his MMD. (I0 Ex. 10). 

26. The Coast Guard issued the upgraded MMD on July 6,2004. (10 Ex. 1). 

27. On November 13,2005, Respondent executed, in writing, his original application for 

a Merchant Mariner's License. (I0 Ex. 10). 

28. On each application (filed on August 15,2003, May 15,2004, and November 13, 

2005), there were three (3) boxes inquiring into whether the applicant had ever been 

crilninally convicted. (10 Ex. 9-1 1). The application questions are as follows: 

a. Have you ever been convicted of violating a dangerous drug law of the United 

States, District of Columbia, or any state. or territory of the United States? 

(including marijuana) 
b Have you ever been convicted by any court - including military court - for an 

offense other than a minor traffic violation? (Conviction means found guilty 

by judgment or by plea and includes eases of deferred adjudication (no 

contest. adjudication withheld, etc.) or where the court required you to attend 

classes, make contributions of time or money, receive treatment, submit to any 

manner of probation or supervision, or forgot appeal of a trial court finding. 

Expunged convictions must be reported unless the expungement was based 

upon a showing that the court's earlier conviction was in error.) 

c. Have you ever been convicted of a traffic violation arising in connection with 

a fatal traffic accident, reckless driving or racing on the highway or operating 

a motor vehicle while under the influence of, or impaired by, alcohol or a 

controlled substance? 

29. Respondent marked "X in the "No" column for all three boxes. (10 Ex. 9-1 1) 

30. Respondent admits to being convicted of an offense other than a minor traffic 

violation. (Tr. at 92). 

DISCUSSION 

A major purpose of Coast Guard suspension and revocation trial-type hearings and 

proceedings is to promote safety of lives, vessels and properties at sea and in our port areas. 

46 U.S.C. 7701(a). To assist in this goal, ALJs have authority to suspend or revoke mariner 

documents for violations arising under 46 U.S.C. 7703-04. 46 CFR 5.19(b). Under Coast 

Guard procedural rules and regulations, the Coast Guard 10s bear the burden of proof and must 

prove the Complaint's allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. 33 CFR 20.701, 

20.702(a). 

1, Jurisdiction 

Neither the Coast Guard 10s nor Respondent addresses the issue of jurisdiction in depth. 

The Coast Guard's Complaint attempts to establish jurisdiction by merely citing to statutory 

authority 46 U.S.C. 7703 and 7704. Resp3nde~fi.s Answer simply states he Lacks sufficient 
knowledge or information to admit or deny the jurisdictional allegations. However, jurisdiction 

is a question of fact and must be determined before the substantive issues of the case are decided. 

- See Appeal Decision 2620 (COX) (2001). In this case. the allegations raise jurisdictional 

concerns that need to be addressed. 

The Coast Guard iswed a Complaint against Respondent alleging four (4) offenses. 

Factual allegations two (2) and four (4) create the greatest jurisdictional concern. These offenses 

allege Respondent committed two (2) acts of Misconduct by submitting fraudulent applications 

for an original MMD and license on two separate dates: August 15,2003 and November 13, 

2005, respectively. 

The undersigned has authority to adjudicate charges of Misconduct if the "misconduct 

occurred while performing under authority of a document or license." See Appeal Decision 

2025 (ARMSTRONG) (1975). However, when an individual is applying for an original 

credential, that person is not in possession of the credential for which he is applying. @. Since 

the credentials do not yet exist, it would be "factually impossible for him to have acted under 

authority of the [credentials]. . . ." - Id. 

In this case, the Coast Guard 10s allege Respondent submitted a fraudulent application 

for an original MMD and Coast Guard License on two separate dates: August 15,2003 and 

November 13,2005, respectively. Since Respondent did not possess Coast Guard credentials at 

the time of application. he was not "acting under'' these credentials. Therefore, the undersigned 

lacks jusisdiction." 

The Coast Guard also alleges Respondent committed one (1) count of ,Visconduct by 

filing with a Coast Guard, Regional Examination Center (REG) a fraudulent MMD upgrade 
application on May 15,2004. The undersigned has jurisdiction to rule on this allegation. When 

a mariner applies for a renewal or upgrade to credentials, the mariner is "acting under the 

authority" of that credential. 46 CFR 5.57; See also Apneal Decision 2433 (BARNABY) 

(1986). Even when an original credential is issued upon the submission of false information, 

Coast Guard policy affords a mariner the right to a hearing if charges are alleged during the 

renewal or upgrade to the original credential. See USCG Marine Safety Manual, Volume 3, 

Chapter 1, Paragraph F. The USCG Marine Safetv Manual states: 

The S&R process should also be sought when it is discovered upon reissue of 

a license that the applicant's original license was initially issued by fraudulent 

means. Licensed mariners holding second and later issuance license have 

acquired "property interest" in the license. This "property interest" is 

protected by the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments of the [U.S.] Constitution. 

In this case, the Coast Guard issued Respondent an upgraded MMD on July 6,2004. (10 

Ex. 1). Since that time, Respondent has relied upon the validity of that document for 

employment. (I0 Ex. 1; Resp't Ex. A, B; Tr. at 81-85). Respondent's reliance upon his MMD 

generates due process rights. Therefore, Respondent is entitled to a due process trial-type 

hearing if disciplinary actions affect his upgraded MMD. The undersigned concludes 

jurisdiction exists to determine if Respondent committed Misconduct by filing a fraudulent 

MMD upgrade application on May 15,2004. 

In addition to the three (3) Misconduct allegations, the Complaint also alleges Use of or 

Addiction to Dangerous Drugs. When the Coast Guard cbrges a respondent with Use of or 

Addiction to Dangeroils Drugs, jurisdiction is established solely upon a showing that Respondent 

3 Whiie the ALJ lacks jurisdiction to make a ruling on the misconduct charges for ?he original credential 

applications, such ccredniials "need not be returned as it was void ab initio and appellant has no interest in it." 

Amed Decision 2035 I~4RbISTRONGJ (1975). 
is the holder of a license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's d~cument.~ See Avpeal 

Decision 2560 (CLIFTON1 (1995). Since the allegations of drug use arose while Respondent 

held an upgraded MMD, jurisdiction exists.' 

Having established proper jurisdiction for factual allegations one (1) and three (31, the 

substantive issues of this case are now discussed, 

11. Use of or Addiction to Use of Dangerous Drugs 

In this case, the Coast Guard 10s allege Respondent is a User of or Addicted to the Use 

Dangerous Drugs, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 7704(c). Thus, the Coast Guard seeks revocation of 

Respondent's MMD in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7704(c) and 46 CFR 5.569. 

a) Applicable Law 

Marine employers must conduct pre-employment testing for dangerous drugs on all 

employees who will serve as crewmember. 46 CFR 16.210. A mariner's Coast Guard 

issued credential is subject to revocation upon proof, to include failing a pre-employment drug 

test, that the mariner is a user of or addicted to a dangerous drug unless satisfactory proof of cure 

is established. 46 U.S.C. 7704(c); see Appeal Decision 2634 (BARRETTA) (2002). 

In these proceedings, the Coast Guard bears the burden of proof and must prove the 

allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. 33 CFR 20.701,20.702(a). To successfully 

establish drug use, the prepondermce of evidence standard requires the Coast Guard to "prove 

(I) that tte respondent was the person who was tested for dangerous hgs, (2) that the 

4 "If it is shown that a holder [of a license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document] has been a user 

of, or addicted to, a dangerous drug, the license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document shall he 

revoked unless the holder provides satisfactory proof that the holder is cured 46 U.S.C. 77041~). 

The allegations of drug use occuned while Respondent was working under his upgraded MMD. Respondent's 

original MMD was issued on September 3,2003. (10 Ex. 10). Respondent was issued an upgraded MMD on July 
respondent failed the test, and (3) that the test was conducted in accordance with 46 C.F.R. Part 

16." Appeal Decision 2603 (HACKSTAFF) (1998). Proof of these elements establishes a prima 

facie case of Use of a Dangerous Drug. @. A prima facie case shifts the burden of going 

forward with evidence to the respondent to rebut the presumption of drug use. @. If the 

respondent fails to produce convincing evidence in rebuttal, the ALJ may find the charge proved 

on the basis of the presumption alone. @. 

b) Prima Facie Case Proved 

In this case, Respondent participated in a pre-employment drug test and provided his 

urine sample for drug testing on July 9,2004. (Tr. at 24-28, 117-19; I0 Ex. 4, 5,8). The usual 

and required initial testing determined Respondent's sample to be suspect positive for cocaine 

use by Respondent. (Tr. at 44,49,59-60). This first laboratorq test detected the presence of 

cocaine metabolites at 456 nanograms per milliliter, well above the regulated minimum positive 

of 300 nanograms per milliliter. (Tr. at 59-60); See 49 CFR 40.87. The second laboratory 

confirmatory test, known as the gas ehromatography/mass spectroscopy test, confirmed the 

presence of cocaine metabolites in Respondent's urine specimens. (Tr. at 45,47-49,58-59). 

Dr. Heinen, M.D.. the Medical Review Officer (MRO), received and verified the 

laboratory's test results. (Tr. at 131-39; I0 Ex. 7.8). Dr. Heinen interviewed Respondent in an 

effort to detennine if a legitimate medical explanation or excuse existed for Respondent's 

positive drug test. () During the interview, Respondent informed MRO Dr. Neinen that 

kspondent was taking Tyienoi PM ad multivimins, (Tr. at 139: I0 Ex. 7). Such medications 

do not account for the cocaine in Respondent's urine and system. (Tr. at 137-139: 10 Ex. 7,8). 

Accordingly, Dr. Heinen did not find a satisfactory medical explanation for Respondent's 

6. 2004 00 Ex. 1) The Coast Guard alleges Respondent tested positive for a pre-~mployment drug test on July 9, 

12 
positive drug test. @.). Dr. Heinen testified that the drug test was conducted in compliance 

with all Federal requirements. (Tr. at 136; 10 Ex. 8). The imrnunoassay test, the gas 

chromatography/mass spectroscopy test, and the MRO testimony support the allegation of 

cocaine use by Respondent. (Tr. at 40-49,139: I0 Ex. 8). Given all the above, the Coast Guard 

10s established and proved a prima facie case of dangerous drug use. 

c) Respondent's Attorney's Rebuttal Unpersuasive 

Respondent and Respondent's attorney rebut the prima facie case on three points. First, 

Res~ondent's counsel asserts that a person would have to be "crazy" to ingest cocaine while 

having advance knowledge of a "voluntary drug test." (Tr. at 66, 118, 174). While not 

necessarily a persuasive argument, Respondent is correct it would be foolish to ingest cocaine 

prior to taking a pre-employment drug test. However, in this case, Respondent did not have 

advance notice of the drug test. (Tr. at 66). Respondent testifies that only twenty (20) minutes 

elapsed between the time he knew of the required pre-employment drug test and the time he 

actually submitted Respondent's urine sample for drug testing. (Tr. at 66-67). Respondent had 

no advance knowledge of the drug test. Therefore, this argument fails. 

Second, Respondent's attorney asserts that the MRO failed to notify Respondent of his 

right to test the split specimen, (Tr. at 174-75). Following a positive test of an employee, a 

MRO must notify the employee of the procedures for requesting a second testing of the split 

urine specimen. jee 49 CFR 40.153. However. counsel's assertion is directly refuted by 

Respondent's om testimony. (Tr. at 139-140,146). Respondent testified that "has asked [if I 

wanted a retest]." (Tr at 146). The question in dispute is, after being asked, did Respondent 

request a test of his split sample? The MRO testifies he informed Respondent of the right to test 

2004. (Complain:). 

13 
the split sample. that he provided a telephone number to Respondent to call within three (3) days 

if Respondent wished a second laboratory test of the split sample, and that Respondent made no 

request to test the split sample. (Tr. at 139-40,146; 10 Ex. 7). This testimony by the MRO is 

found credible. Respondent's testimony is contradictory to the MRO's testimony. Respondent 

testifies the MRO transferred Respondent to a nurse following his request to test the split sample. 

(Tr. at 140, 146). Respondent then testifies that while he was talking to the nurse, his cell-phone 

lost coverage. (Id.). Respondent states he was unable to call the nurse back since he did not 

have the nurse's number. (u.). Respondent admits he made no attempt to obtain the nurse's 

number, such as calling information. (Id.). Respondent also states be did not have a chance to 

call the nurse since he was "going straight back on the boat" where Respondent was working. 

(Tr. at 146). Assuming that Respondent's testimony is credible (which the undersigned does not 

find), Respondent's testimony still establishes that Respondent made no concerted effort to call 

the nurse or the MRO to mange for further testing by a second laboratory. 

Third, Respondent asserts he took medication that explains the presence of cocaine in his 

urine or system. (Tr. at 117-18). During the hearing, Respondent testifies he took Anbesol (or a 

similar type substance) for a tootha~he.~ (Tr. at 117- 18). Respondent testifies "I found out 

Anbesol . . . had a caine." (Tr, at 118). Presumably, Respondent is asserting Anbesol is a 

cocaine derivative and its use could be mistaken for cocaine use. The burden is on Respondent 

to establish a legitimate explanation for the presence of an illegal drug in his urine or system. 

- See Avaeal Decision 2637 (TUgeBEVILLE) (2003); See also 49 CFR 40.137(c), However. 

Respondent provides no explanation of how Anbesol could be mistaken for cocaine. Respondent 

6 On July 12, 2004, the MRO interviewed Respondent to determine if a legitimate explanation existed for 

Respondent's positive drug test. (Tr. at 137-39; 10 Ex. 7,s). During this interview, Respondent did not inform the 

MRC) he was taking knbesoi. a,). The MRC concluded that Respondent had not &en any medication that could 

explain the cocaine in his urine and system. @,). 

14 
provides no medical expert testimony, no dental history of his toothache, no prescriptions or 

receipts showing purchase of Anbesol, and no product information detailing the ingredients of 

Anbesol. Respondent failed to provide a legitimate medical reason explaining the presence of 

cocaine in his system and urine sample. 

Respondent has not successfully rebutted the established and proven presumption of drug 

use. Accordingly, the Coast Guard's allegation of Use of or Addiction to a Dangerous Drug is 

Proved. 

111. Misconduct 

In this case, the Coast Guard alleges Respondent committed an act of Misconduct by 

failing to make a full and complete disclosure of all previous criminal convictions on his signed 

and filed application for upgrade of his MMD. The Coast Guard Investigating Officers seek 

revocation of Respondent's MMD. 

a) Applicable Law 

Misconduct is defined in 46 CFR 5.27 as "human behavior which violates some formal, 

duly established rule," such as those found in the common law, the general maritime law, a 

ship's regulation or order, or shipping articles. It is an act that is forbidden or a failure to do 

what is required. $ee 46 CFR 5.27. Specific intent is not an essential element of the charge of 

misconduct. & Appeal Decision 2607 (ARIES) (1999). 

Title 46 GFR 10.201 jh) and 46 GFR 12.02-4(c) provide that applicants appi~ ing andor 

renewing a license or MMD "'must provide written disclosure of all prior convictions (as defined 

in 512.01 -6) at the tlme of application." An individual applying for a MMD or license has actual 

notice of this requirement as the application itself asks whether the Respondent applicant has 

"ever been convicted by any court - including military court - for ax7 offense other than a minor 
traff~c violation." (10 Ex. 9-1 1). The application specifies that even expunged convictions need 

to be disclosed.' (Id.). The purpose of regulations governing the issuance of licenses and 

certifications in Parts 10 and 12 is to determine an applicant's qualifications and whether they 

are competent to serve in a particular position on a iJ.S. merchant vessel. 46 CFR 10.101(a); 

46 CFR 12.01-l(a)(l). This is clearly a duly established rule requiring applicants to disclose 

their criminal convictions when executing by completing and signing such an application, the 

violation of which would be misconduct. 

h) Respondent9s Failure to Disclose a Prior Conviction 

On October 3,2002, the State of Washington convicted Respondent for Interfering with 

Reporting of Domestic Violence and Disorderly Conduct. (Tr. at 92-95, 101, 106, 114; I0 Ex. 

12, 13,14). Respondent pleaded guilty and received a $575 fine. (a). Respondent failed to 

disclose this criminal conviction on his MMD upgrade application filed, completed and signed 

by Respondent on May 15,2004. (10 Ex. 10). 

Respondent admits to his arrest for Domestic Violence and Disorderly Conduct, his 

conviction of these charges, and to paying a fine in regards to the convictions. (Tr. at 92, 106). 

IIowever, Respondent also admits to marking on his signed application that he had not been 

'-convicted by any cout" on the application in question. (Tr. at 85-86,90-91). Respondent 

explains this inconsistency by testifying that the Judge who in Washington State convicted 

Respondent of the criminal offense told Respondent the conviction would not appear on his 

record. (Tx. at 106-08). This is not credible. Since he was under ihe impression that no record 

would be made of the conviction, Respondent contends he did not need to disclose the 

7 The application defines "conviction." "Conviction means found guilty by judgment or by plea and includes cases 

of deferred adjudication (no contest, adjudication withheld, etc.) or where the court required you to attend classes, 

make contribution of time or money, receive treatment, submit to any manner of probation or supervision, or forgo 

16 
conviction. (Tr. at 108, 112-14). In essence, Respondent argues he did not disclose the 

conviction because he did not think the Coast Guard would find out about the conviction. Coast 

Guard MMD applications explicitly require applicants to report all convictions, even expunged 

convictions. (10 Ex. 9-1 1). Respondent's testimony is not credible.' Respondent was clearly 

aware of his prior conviction and purposely denied receiving the conviction on his Coast Guard 

signed by Respondent applications because he did not think the Coast Guard would discover the 

conviction. 

Respondent's nondisclosure of his Domestic Violence and Disorderly Conduct 

conviction is a direct violation of his duty to disclose prior criminal convictions on Coast Guard 

completed and signed by Respondent applications as required by 46 CFR 10.201(h) and 46 CFR 

12.02-4(c). This failure constitutes an act of misconduct. 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. In regards to factual allegation first offense and factual allegation third offense, 

Respondent and the subject mater of this hearing are properly within the jurisdiction of 

the United States Coast Guard and the U.S. Administrative Law Judge in accordance with 

46 U.S.C. 6301,7703(1)(B),7704(c); 46 CFR Part 5; and 33 CFR Part 20. 

2. Respondent was the holder of and acted under the authority of his U.S. Coast Guard 

issued Merchant Mariner's Document (MMD) Number 039816. 

appeal of a trial court finding. Expunged convictions must be reported unless the expungement was based upon a 

showing that the coua's earlier conviction was in error." (10 Ex. 9-1 1). 8 Respondent submitted evidence fPom a web based criminal history search. (Resp't Ex. C). This report found no 

record of Respondent's criminal history in Washington State. (Id.). Interestingly, Respondent generated this report 

on August 15,2003, the same day Respondent filed his original application for a MMD. (Resp't Ex. C; KO Ex. 9). 

Presumably, Respondent initiated this search because he worried his prior conviction would be discovered. After 

determining the conviction was not on file. Respondent proceeded to lie, under oath, that he had received no prior 

convictions. 
3. On July 9,2004, Respondent participated in a pre-employment drug test and tested 

positive for benzoylecgonine (cocaine metabolite). 

4. Respondent's positive drug test created the presumption that he is a user of dangerous 

drugs. 46 CFR 16.201(b). 

5. Respondent failed to rebut the presumption and evidence that he is a user of dangerous 

drugs. 46 CFR 16.201@). 

6. The factual allegation, first ofYense, of "USE OF OR ADDICTION TO A 

DANGEROUS DRUG" against Respondent is found PROVED by a preponderance of 

the reliable, probative, substantial and credible evidence and testimony as taken &om the 

record considered as a whole. 

7. On October 3,2002, the State of Washington convicted Respondent of Interfering with 

Reporting of Domestic Violence and Disorderly Conduct. 

8. Respondent failed to disclose his criminal conviction on his MMD upgrade application 

filed with the U.S. Coast Guard on May 15,2004. 

9. The factual allegation, third offense, of "MISCONDUCT" against Respondent is found 

PROVED by a preponderance of the reliable and credible evidence and testimony as 

taken from the record considered as a whole. 

10. All other "MISCONDUCT" allegations are DISMISSED because of lack of 

jurisdiction. 

SAVCTPOM 

The authority to impose sanctions at the conclusion of a case is exciusive to the ALJ. 

Aapeal Decision 2362 (ARNOLD) (1984). Title 46 CFR 5.569 provides the Table of Suggested 

Rmgs of Appropriate Orders (Tabie) for various offenses. The pqase of this Table is to 
provide guidance to the ALJ and promote uniformity in orders rendered. Appeal Decision 2628 

PILAS) (2002), ard by NTSB Docket ME-174. 

When the Coast Guard proves that a merchant mariner has used or is addicted to 

dangerous drugs, any Coast Guard issued licenses, documents, or other credentials must be 

revoked unless cure of drug use is proven. 46 U.S.C. 7704(c); 46 CFR 5.569; ADDeal 

Decision 2535 (SWEENEY) (1992). Absent evidence of drug use cure or substantial 

involvement in the cure process, an ALJ must revoke a respondent's license and document under 

46 U.S.C. 7704(c). Appeal Decision 2634 (BARRETTA) (2002). 

Here, the Coast Guard 10s proved and the undersigned found Respondent used a 

dangerous drug. Neither Respondent nor Respondent's attorney presented any evidence that 

Respondent took any steps to participate in the drug cure process. Therefore, I am precluded 

from issuing an order less than revocation. 

In addition to the Coast Guard proving Use of Dangerous Drugs, the Coast Guard has 

also proved Respondent committed Misconduct by failing to disclose his criminal conviction on 

the MMD upgrade application. When a Coast Guard issued licenses, documents, or other 

credentials are procured via fraud, the only appropriate sanction is revocation. See Appeal 

Decision 2346 (WILLIAMS) (1984); See also Auoeal Decision 2613 (SLACK) (1999). In this 

ease, the facts establish Respondent made fraudulent statements on his signed MMD renewal 

application? Respondent had actual knowledge of his prior conviction and purposely denied 

receiving this conviction on his signed and filed Coast Guard application. Respondent's use of 

fraudulent statements to procure an upgraded MMD requires an order of revocation 

9 A "frauddent statement" is one made by the respondent with either actual or constructive knowledge that the 

declaration is rnateriai!y flawed or false. Aomal Decision 809 (MAFrOUESl jl955j. 

19 
WHEREFORE, 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document Number 039816, 

and all other valid licenses, documents, and endorsements issued by the U.S. Coast Guard to 

Roger D. Philips are REVOKED. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that service of this Decision on the parties and/or parties' 

representative(s) serves as notice of appeal rights set forth in 33 CFR 20.1001-20.1004. 

(Attachment B). 

Done and dated September 14,2007 

Houston, Texas 

// 

THOMAS E. P. MCELL~OTT 

U.S. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

U.S. COAST GUARD 
U.S. COAST GUARD vs. ROGER DENNIS PHILLIPS 

DOCKET NUMBER CG S&R 06-0075 

ATTACHMENT A 

WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS 

WITNESS LIST 

COAST GUARD WITNESSES 

10 Witness 1 Lisa Rollins, Experienced Collector of Urine Specimens 

I0 Witness 2 Patricia Pizzo, Vice-president of Operations and Laboratory 

Director of Toxicology, Co-Responsible Person 

I0 Witness 3 Brian Heinen, MD. .and Medical Review Officer 

10 Witness 4 Roger Dennis Philips, Respondent, Resident of Corpus Christi, 

Texas 

RESPONDENT WITNESS 

Resp't Witness 1 Roger Dennis Philips, Respondent, Resident of Corpus Christi, 

Texas 

EXHIBIT LIST 

COAST GUARD EXHIBITS 

10 Ex. I Copy of U.S. Merchant Marine Docmei~t 039816 Issued by U S, Coast 

Guard to Respondent R. D. Phillips 

10 Ex. 2 Not Submitted 

10 Ex. 3 Not SubmiPted 
I0 Ex. 4 

IO Ex. 5 

I0 Ex. 6 

I0 Ex. 7 

I0 Ex. 8 

I0 Ex. 9 

I0 Ex. 10 

I0 Ex. 11 

I0 Ex. 12 

10 Ex. 13 

I0 Ex. 14 

I0 Ex. 15 

Laboratory Chain of Custody Forms 

Rigdon Marine Notification of Positive Test Result for Cocaine 

Heinen Medical Review OMicer's Qualification Package 

Heinen Medical Review Officer Verification Worksheet 

Medical Review Officer's Chain of Custody Forms 

August 2003 Application for License as an Officer, Staff Officer. or 

Operator and for Merchant Mariner's Document, by Respondent 

May 2004 Application for License as an Officer, Staff Officer, or Operator 

and for Merchant Mariner's Document, by Respondent 

November 2005 Application for License as an Officer, Staff Officer, or 

Operator and for Merchant Mariner's Document, by Respondent 

National Crime Information Center Report for Respondent 

Washington State Uniform Criminal Court Docket 

Roger D. Phillips Case Financial History 

Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 128 - U.S. DOT List of Approved 

Laboratories 

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS 

Resp't Ex. A Offshore Express, Inc. Letter Concerning Employment of Rodger D. 

Phillips 

Resp't Ex. B Offshore Express, Inc. Letter Concerning Employment of Rodger D. 

Phillips 

Resp't Ex. C Criminal History Web Search Transcript 

SUDICIAL EXHIBIT 

Jud. Ex. 1 Kmll Laboratory Computer System Screen Print-Off 
U.S. COAST GUARD vs. ROGER DENNIS PHILLIPS 

DOCKET NUMBER CG S&R 06-0075 

ATTACHMENT B 

NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RIGHTS 

33 CPR 20.1001 General. 

(a) Any party may appeal the ALJ's decision by filing a notice of appeal. The party 

shall file the notice with the U. S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing 

Center; Attention: Wearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore, 

MD 21201-4022. The party shall file the notice 30 days or less after issuance of the 

decision, and shall serve a copy of it on the other party and each interested person. 

(h) No party may appeal except on the following issues: 

(1) Whether each finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence. 

(2) Whether each conclusion of law accords with applicable law, precedent, and 

public policy. 

(3) Whether the ALJ abused his or her discretion. 

(4) The ALJ's denial of a motion for disqualification. 

(c) No interested person may appeal a summary decision except on the issue that no 

hearing was held or that in the issuance of the decision the ALJ did not consider 

evidence that that person would have presented. 

(d) The appeal must follow the procedural requirements of this subpart. 

33 CFR 20.1002 Records on appeal. 

(a) The record of the proceeding constitutes the record for decision on appeal. 

(b) If the respondent requests a copy of the transcript of the hearing as part of the record 

of vroceedinlr. then. -- 

-(I) 1f thehearing ~~as recorded at Federal expense, the Coast Guard will provide 

the transcript on payment of the fees prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45; but, 

(2) If the hearing wai recorded by a Federal contractor, the contractor will 

provide the transcript on the terns prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45. 

33 CFR 20.1003 Procedures for appeat. 

(a) Each party appealing the ALJ's decision or ruling shall file an appellate brief with the 

Commandant at the following address: U.S. Coast Guard Adrninishative Law Judge 
Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; 

Baltimore, MD 21201-4022, and shall serve a copy of the brief on every other party. 

(1) The appellate brief must set forth the appellant's specific objections to the 

decision or ruling. The brief must set forth, in detail, the -- 

(i) Basis for tb e appeal; 

(ii) Reasons supporting the appeal; and 

(iii) Relief requested in the appeal. 

(2) When the appellant relies on material contained in the record, the appellate 

brief must specifically refer to the pertinent parts ofthe record. 

(3) The appellate brief must reach the Docketing Center 60 days or less after 

service of the ALJ's decision. Unless filed within this time, or within another 

time period authorized in writing by the Docketing Center, the brief will be 

untimely. 

(b) Any party may file a reply brief with the Docketing Center 35 days or less after 

service of the appellate brief. Each such party shall serve a copy on every other party. 

If the party filing the reply brief relies on evidence contained in the record for the 

appeal, that brief must specifically refer to the pertinent parts of the record. 

(c) No party may file more than one appellate brief or reply brief, unless -- 

(1) The party has petitioned the Commandant in writing; and 

(2) The Commandant has granted leave to file an added brief, in which event the 

Commandant will allow a reasonable time for the party to file that brief. 

(d) The Commandant may accept an amicus curiae brief from any person in an appeal of 

an ALJ's decision. 

33 CFR 20.1004 Decisions on appeal. 

(a) The Commandant shall review the record on appeal to determine whether the ALJ 

committed error in the proceedings, and whether the Commandant should affirm, 

modifl, or reverse the ALJ's decision or should remand the case for further 

proceedings. 

(b) The Commandmt shall issue a decision on every appeal in writing and shall serve 

a copy of the decision on each party and interested person. 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have forwarded the attached document by First Class Mail, postage 

prepaid to the following persons: 

LT Therasa Nettesheim 

USCG Sector Corpus Christi 

555 N Carancahua St, Suite 500 

Corpus Ghristi, TX 78478 

Christopher Dupuy, Esq 

Dupuy & Associates 

2600 South Shore Blvd, Suite 300 

League City, TX 77573 

ALJ Docketing Center 

US Customs House 

40 S Gay St, Room 412 

Baltimore, MD 2 1202 

Done and Dated September 14,2007 

Houston. TX 

/,alegal Specialist 

,/