mED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMEW OF HOMELAND SECUWY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complau~ant 

vs. 

DAVID G. WRIGHT 

Respondmt 

ORDER OF REVOCATION 

Issued: Aumt 12,2f@ 

Issued bv: mchel J. Devine. Administrative Law Jadne 

This Order is issued in accordance with 33 CFR 20.902(c), which authorizes the issuance 

of an initial oral decision. The Unitcd SStas Coast Guard initiated this administrative action 

seeking revocation of the Merchant Mariner's Document issued n, David G. Wright, the 

respondent in this case. Tbe Complaint dated April 1,2008 alleges that Respondent, a holder of 

Coast Guard issued tredcntials, violated 46 U.S.C. 7703 (3) {convictxoa under Xationai Driver 

Registration Act - DUI on February 24,2006) and 46 U.S.C. 77043) md 46 CFR 535 by 

cnnvidian for dangerous drug law violations on F"ebruary 1. 23306 md September M, 2Bfif; 

On .4pri! 21,2008, Respondent, Chrougb cotmsel, fired an Answer in whzch he did not 

mntcst the jurisdictional allegations and be admitted the convictions but requested a ptdnj3hcat 

short of~evoca~ition. On April 23,2008 the Coast Guard filed a MoGoa for Surnwary Dedsron 
asserting thwe were no genuine issues of material fact and seeking revocation of Respondent's 

MMD in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7704Fb) as stated in the Complaint. On Mag 28,2008 the 

undersigned issued an Order Partially Grantzng the Motion for Summary Decision. Althougb the 

allegdtions regarding the convictions for a dangerous drug law were found pmwn, the 

undeni~ed ruled that in keeping with existing authority revocation, is not mandatory and the 

Respondent is entitled to a hearing to determine an appropriate sanction. 

An evidentiary hearing was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on August 8,2008. The 

hearing was conducted in accordance with Ad~nistrative Procedsre Act, mended and codified 

at 5 U.S.C. 5.51 -59, Coast Guard Adminisvtttive Procedure statute codified at 46 U.S.C. 7702, 

and the procedural regulations codified at 33 CFR Part 20. 

At the hearing, LT J. D. Butwid entered an appearance on behalf of the Coast Guard. 

Respondent &so appeared at the hearing pro se, without the assistance of professional legal 

counse1. Respondent had previously been represented by Attorney Robert Wells. but Attorney 

Wells withdrew from representation @hibit A). Respondent stated he understood his ri@ts as 

noted in the Complaint and desired to continue representing himself. He also had his father, 

George Wright with him and asked if he could stay at counsel table and assist him. The Coast 

Guard did not object and the request was granted. At the outset the undersijped addressed the 

previous ruling that granting in part summaty decision. Witb regard to the charge relating to the 

dr~ving under the influence conviction, there was no citation to a regulation m 46 CFR Part 5. If 

the charge were considered a charge of mimadud under $6 CMF 5.27 Lbea it wrag noted &at 

there was no jnrisdiffional &%@tion or proof tisat &e heEeasc related lo any a&on undtrr the 

autho*ity of kis merchant marker's document. The Coast Guard asserted that the charge was not 

misconduct and that vtotation of law (46 USC ?703(3)) was properly degd and pmven. 
Although 46 CFR 5.33 was not cited in the Complaint, the statute was specifjcauy included in 

the chage and therefore it was adequately charged and proven. 

After opening statements by both sides, the &~oast Guard presented the worn testimony 

of two witnesses, and offered six exkibits into evidence, which were admitted into evidence 

Respondent presented tbe testimony of his father, George Wrigkt regarding his rehabilitation 

efforts and Respondent also testified on his own behalf at the hearing, but did not offer any 

additional cxhibits into evidence. The witness and exhibit list are contained in Attachment k 

At tbc conclusion of the heariry~, an oral decision was issued - noting that as previously 

ruled the two dangerous drug convictions and the driving while intoxicated conviction were 

proven, and finding that both the jurisdictional and factual allegations were proved in keeping 

with the previous ruling on &e Coast Guard's summary decision motion. An order of revocation 

was issued. The findings of fact and conclusions of law may be summarized as follows: 
Fil@DIh'GS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF UW 

I. Respondent David G. Wright, and the subject matter of this proceeding is within the 

jurisdiction of the Coast Guard vested under the authority of46 U.S.C. Chapter 77. 

2. On February 1,2006, Respondent was convicted of possa~sio~ of THC (a dangerous 

drug offense). 

3. On Febmary 24,2006, Respondent was conicted of Operating a vehicle while under 

the influence. 

A. On September 20,2006, Respondent was convicted sf a felony offense of delivering 

THC (a dangerous drug). 

5. The Respondent has previously been found in violation of regulatians with regard to 

his document and received a suspension pursuant to a Suspension and Revocation 

Decision and Order issued May 25,2006. 

6. The Respondent completed a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program in the state of 

Wisconsin in October 2006. 

7. The Coast Guard bas proved by a preponderance of reliable and credible evidence 

that Respondent has been convicted of two offenses involving dangerous drugs under 

46 U.S.C. 7704 and the underlying regulations. 

8. Tk Respondent was positive for methadone on a July 7,2008 urinalysis test that was 

part of his probation. 

8. The fact of the convictjons and the rimalters admitted into cvidem durhg the hearing 

have been considerd in detemigng an appropriate sanction. 
IT IS HEREBY ORDEmD THAT the Merchant Mariner's Docmmt and all other 

Coast Guard licenses, certrficates and documenis issued to Rvndent David F. Wright are 

REWom. 

PLEASE TAKE NOT'TCE that, within three (3) years or less, Mr. Wright may file a 

motion to reopen this matter and seek modification of the order of revocation upon a showing 

that the order of revocation is no longer valid and the issuance of a new license, certificate, or 

document is compatible with the herequirement of good discipline and safety at sea. The 

revocation order may be modified upon a showing that the individual: 

(1) Has su-sfully completed a bona fide drug abuse rehabilitation program; 

(2) Has demonstrated complete non-association with dangerous drugs for a minimum of 

one year following completion of the drug rehabilitation program; and 

(3) Is actively participating in a bona fide drug abuse monitoring program. 

- See 33 CFR 20.904; 46 CFR 5.901. The drug abuss monit~ring prograrn must 

incorporate random, unannounced testing during that year. &peal Decision 2535 (SWEENEY) 

PLEASE TAKE FVRTBR NOTICE that Sewice of this Order on you serves as 

notice of your right to appeal as set forth in 33 C.F.R. Uf.1001-1003, (Attachment a. 

Done and dated August 12,2008 

Norfolk, VA 

~bjnisvhw Judge 
rnAmMEN'TA 

WITNESS AND EXBIBIT LIST 

coast Guard Witnesses 

JoJm Cassady 

Angela Gumieny 

Respondent WitnessesGeorge Wright 

David G. Wright 

Coast Guard Exhibits 

1 CG0719B (Application for Merchant Mariner" Document and attachments by 

Respondent). 

2 Investigative Request and Respondent Information 

3 AJJ Decision and Order issued May 25,2006 

4 Chronological Log of Probation 

5 Rules of Community Supervision (probation) 

6 Rcspondcnt Positive drug screen (July 7,2008) 

Respondent Exbibits 

A. Withdra~val from representation of Respndent by Attorney Robert WeIfs