PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §§ 7703(4) and 7703(1)(B), and its underlying regulations at 33 

C.P.R. Part 20 and 46 C.P.R. Part 5, the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) initiated this 

administrative action to revoke Corinthis E. Thomas's (Respondent) Merchant Mariner's 

Credential (MMC).l 

The Coast Guard issued its original Complaint on January 28,2011, charging Respondent 

with two (2) counts ofincompetence in violation of46 U.S.C. § 7703(4) and 46 C.P.R. 5.31, and 

one (1) count ofmisconduct in violation of 46 U.S.c. §7703(1)(B) and 46 C.P.R. 5.27. 

"Incompetence is the inability on the part of a person to perform required duties, whether due to 

professional deficiencies, physical disability, mental incapacity, or any combination thereof." 46 

C.P.R. § 5.31. "Misconduct is human behavior which violates some formal, duly established 

rule. Such rules are found in, among other places, statutes, regulations, the common law, the 

general maritime law, a ship's regulation or order, or shipping articles and similar sources. It is 

an act which is forbidden or a failure to do that which is required." 46 C.P.R. § 5.29. 

Under 46 U.S.C. § 7703(4), "[a] license, certificate ofregistry, or merchant mariner's 

document issued by the Secretary may be suspended or revoked ifthe holder-- ... (4) has 

committed an act of incompetence relating to the operation of a vessel." Under 46 U.S.C. § 

7703(1)(B), "[a] license, certificate ofregistry, or merchant mariner's document issued by the 

Secretary may be suspended or revoked ifthe holder-(l) when acting under the authority ofhis 

license, certificate, or document. .. (B) has committed an act of misconduct or negligence." 

I As ofMarch 16, 2009, Merchant Mariner's Credential (MMC) includes license, certificate ofregistry, or merchant 

mariner's document. MMC). See, 74 Fed. Reg. 11,196 (Mar. 16, 2009). 

2 
On the charges of incompetence, the Coast Guard alleges that on December 6, 2007, 

Respondent suffered from hallucinations, anxiety, and agitated behavior rendering him unable to 

perform his duties as Able Seaman aboard the MAERSK MONTANA, including being 

prescribed anti-psychotic medication and hospitalization for a psychotic disorder. 

The Coast Guard further alleges that on April 30, 2010, Respondent suffered from 

hallucinations, schizophrenia, irrational behavior, mood changes, and paranoia. He was admitted 

involuntarily to Trinitas Psychiatric Behavioral Health Hospital and issued anti-psychotic 

medication. As a result ofhis condition, he was unable to perform his duties as Able Seaman 

aboard the HORIZON TRADER. 

Regarding the misconduct allegation, the Coast Guard alleges that on February 25,2010, 

while serving onboard the LTC CALVIN P. TITUS Respondent brandished a crowbar while 

aggressively threatening and verbally assaulting the ChiefMate. This conduct resulted in 

Respondent receiving an Official Reprimand and Termination which rendered him unable to 

perform his duties as Able Seaman. 

Pursuant to 46 C.F.R. Table 5.569, "[t]he only proper order for a charge of incompetence 

found proved is revocation." Concerning a proved charge ofMisconduct for violent acts against 

other persons (without injury), the Table suggests range from 2 to 6 months. In this case, the 

Coast Guard proposed Revocation ofRespondent's MMC in accordance with the Regulations. 

On February 18, 2011, Respondent filed his timely Answer denying all jurisdictional and 

factual allegations. In his Answer, Respondent agreed with the proposed hearing dates ofApril 

19th, 20th, or 21st, 2011 and the proposed hearing location at the Alexander Hamilton Customs 

House, 1 Bowling Green, Room 302, New York, NY 10004. 

3
 
On March 28,2011, the undersigned issued a Scheduling Order - Notice of Hearing 

setting the hearing for April 20, 2011 at the Alexander Hamilton Customs House, 1 Bowling 

Green, Room 302, New York, NY 10004 beginning at 9:30 a.m. The Scheduling Order also set 

the dates for the parties to file their respective witness and exhibit lists. 

In accordance with the Scheduling Order, the Coast Guard submitted its Notice of 

Expected Witnesses and Exhibits on April 4, 2011. Respondent did not file a Notice ofExpected 

Witnesses and Exhibits. On April 13, 2011, the Coast Guard filed a Motion for a Pre-Hearing 

Conference to be conducted via telephone. The undersigned granted the Coast Guard's Motion 

and scheduled a pre-hearing teleconference for April 18, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. 

On April 18, 2011, the undersigned conducted a pre-hearing teleconference. 

Representatives from the Coast Guard called into the conference using the toll-free number 

pursuant to the instructions contained in the Scheduling Order - Pre-Hearing Teleconference 

issued on April 14, 2011. At approximately 2:30 p.m. on April 18, 2011, thirty (30) minutes 

before the pre-hearing conference was set to begin, the Respondent faxed several documents to 

the undersigned. None ofthese documents expressed that Respondent was unable to attend the 

pre-hearing teleconference on April 18, 2011 or the in-person hearing on April 20, 2011. 

Respondent did not call the toll free number for the pre-hearing teleconference as instructed. 

During the Pre-Hearing Teleconference, the Coast Guard moved for default pursuant to 33 

C.F.R. § 20.310. The undersigned took the motion under advisement, providing the Respondent 

an opportunity to appear at the in-person hearing scheduled for April 20, 2011. 

On April 20, 2011, the undersigned and Coast Guard personnel appeared at the 

Alexander Hamilton Customs House, 1 Bowling Green, Room 302, New York, NY 10004 at 

9:30 a.m. for the in-person hearing on the above-referenced allegations against Respondent 
contained in the Complaint. Respondent did not appear at 9:30. The undersigned then recessed 

the hearing for over an hour, providing Respondent more time to appear. After the one hour 

recess, Respondent still did not appear. The Coast Guard made an oral motion to find the 

Respondent in default for failure to appear at the pre-hearing teleconference and the in-person 

hearing. Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 20.705, the undersigned did not grant the Coast Guard's motion 

as the Regulation provides Respondent thirty (30) days to show "good cause" as to why he did 

not appear at the in-person hearing. Therefore, on April 20, 2011 the undersigned issued an 

Order for Respondent to Show Cause by May 20,2011 as to why he did not attend both the prehearing teleconference andthe in-person hearing. 

On May 5, 2011, the undersigned received a facsimile from the Respondent stating that "I 

Corinthis E. Thomas Respondent for the telephonic testimony failed to contact Hon. Walter J. 

Brodzinski at 3:00 p.m. EDST. Denied the use ofthe telephone at the Seafarer Union Hall which 

is located at 1640 Dauphin Island Pkwy., Mobile, AL 36605. Port Agent Jimmy White denied 

the privilege oftelephone. Secretary Julie assist with fax but no phone use." In a separate note 

from Respondent also sent on May 5,2011, Respondent states "I'm writing to request a hearing 

movement due to travel expense the hearing is schedule [sic] for May 20,2011. I'm asking for 

the rite [sic] to have my hearing in Mobile, AL, are [sic] New Orleans, LA." Finally, on May 19, 

2011, Respondent faxed a third note to the undersigned stating "I am addressing the ALJ for 

good cause for my failure to appear before administrative hearing May 20, 2011. Reconizing 

[sic] my incarceration in a local jail and reluctant to seek legal representation. For this hearing I 

am addressing the ALJ for time extension once again in good cause." 

After careful review ofthe entire record, including the applicable statutes, regulations, 

and case law, I find the Respondent's stated reasons for failing to appear at the in-person hearing 

5 
or the pre-hearing teleconference are unsufficient to show good cause. Thus, the Coast Guard's 

Motion to find the Respondent in default is GRANTED. 

Pursuant to 33 C.P.R. § 20.310 (c), default by the Respondent constitutes an admission of 

the facts alleged in the Complaint and a waiver ofhis right to a hearing on those facts. The 

admitted facts alleged are sufficient to prove two (2) counts of Incompetence under 46 U.S.c. § 

7703(4) and 46 C.P.R. § 5.31 and sufficient to prove the one count ofMisconduct under 46 

U.S.c. §7703(1)(B) and 46 C.P.R § 5.29. Under 46 C.P.R. Table 5.569, "the only proper order 

for a charge ofincompetence found proved is Revocation." Since the facts alleged in the 

Complaint are deemed admitted due to Respondent's default, the Respondent's MMC is hereby 

REVOKED. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

The Pindings ofPact are based on a thorough and careful analysis ofthe documentary 

evidence and the entire record taken as a whole. 

1.	 Respondent, Corinthis E. Thomas, was the holder ofCoast Guard Merchant Mariner 

Credential Document Number USA000028990 (hereinafter referred to as MMC) issued 

on September 15,2009. (CG Ex. 1; Resp. Ex. 3).2 

2.	 The Coast Guard filed the Complaint against Respondent on January 28, 2011. (ALJ Ex. 

1 at 2). 

2 Citations referring to Administrative Law Judge Exhibits from the Record are depicted as follows: (ALJ Ex. ---l; 

Citations referring to Investigating Officer Exhibits that were supplied by the Coast Guard with the Notice of 

Witnesses and Exhibits List on April 4, 2011 are depicted as follows: (CG Ex. ---l; Citations referring to exhibits 

provided by the Respondent are depicted as follows: (Resp. Ex. -->; Citations referencing the transcript from April 

20,2011 are depicted as follows (Tr. at---l. 

6 
3.	 Respondent's MMC reflects his address as 635 4th Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11232. (CG Ex. 

1; Resp. Ex. 3). 

4.	 The Coast Guard first attempted to serve Respondent at his Brooklyn address. (ALJ Ex. 1 

at 4). 

5.	 The Coast Guard also attempted to serve Respondent at other addresses. (Tr. at 7:21 ­

8:6). 

6.	 The Respondent was eventually served with the Complaint at an address in Mobile, 

Alabama. (ALJ Ex. 2 at 4). 

7.	 Respondent filed his timely Answer to the Complaint on February 18,2011. (ALJ Ex. 3). 

8.	 In his Answer, Respondent agreed to the hearing location at the Alexander Hamilton 

Customs House, 1 Bowling Green, Room 302, New York, New York 10004 and to the 

proposed, hearing dates ofApril 19th, 20th, or 21 st of2011. (ALJ Ex. 3). 

9.	 On or about February 21,2011, Respondent was arrested and/or "booked" at Mobile 

County Metro Jail. (Resp. Ex. 5). 

10. On March 22, 2011, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge (AU) issued a 

Scheduling Order setting the hearing for April 20, 2011 at the Alexander Hamilton 

Customs House, 1 Bowling Green, Room 302, New York, NY 10004 starting at 9:30 

AM. (ALJ Ex. 4). 

11. On or about April 1, 2011 Respondent received the Scheduling Order at his Alabama 

address and signed for it. (Tr. at 4:22 - 5:3 and 9:6 - 10; ALJ Ex. 5 at 3). 

12. Respondent provided a telephone number to the Coast Guard but it was disconnected 

when the Coast Guard attempted to reach Respondent at that number. (Tr. at 8:11 -17). 

13. The Coast Guard found a different phone number associated with Respondent and 

7
 
provided it to the undersigned ALl. Neither the undersigned ALl nor the Coast Guard 

was able to reach Respondent at this number as it too has been disconnected.
 

(Tr. at 8:17 - 22 and 9:22 - 10:7).
 

14. On April 4, 2011, pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Coast Guard submitted its Notice 

ofWitnesses and Exhibits. 

15. On April 14, 2011, the Coast Guard moved for a pre-hearing conference because its 

Notice ofWitnesses and Exhibits and accompanying evidence sent to Respondent via 

express courier had been returned. (ALl Ex. 6). 

16. On April 15, 2011, the undersigned issued a Scheduling Order for a Pre-Hearing 

Conference (Teleconference) to be held on April 18, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. EST. This 

Scheduling Order contained a toll free 800 number for all parties to call and the code to 

enter the conference call. (ALl Ex. 7). 

17. Respondent received notice ofthe Scheduling Order ofthe Pre-Hearing Teleconference 

on April 15, 2011. (ALl Ex. 8 at 2-4). 

18. On April 18, 2011, at approximately 2:30 p.m. EDST Respondent faxed several 

documents from Seafarers Union International ("SIU") to the undersigned ALl under the 

subject "USCG Pre-Hearing Conference." (Resp. Exs. 1,2, and 3). 

19. Respondent failed to appear at the pre-hearing teleconference at 3:00 p.m. EDST by 

failing to call the provided 800 number or otherwise. (ALl Ex. 9; Resp. Ex. 4). 

20. On April 18, 2011, the Coast Guard made an oral motion to find the Respondent in 

default for failure to appear at the pre-hearing teleconference pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 

20.310 which the undersigned took under advisement, providing Respondent an 

opportunity to appear at the in-person hearing on April 20, 2011. (ALl Exs. 9 and 10). 

8 
21. On April 20, 2011, the undersigned and representatives ofthe Coast Guard appeared at 

the Alexander Hamilton Customs House, 1 Bowling Green, Room 302, New York, NY 

10004 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an in-person hearing on this case. (Tr. at 1: 1 - 7:7). 

22. Respondent failed to appear for his in-person hearing at the Alexander Hamilton 

Customs House on April 20, 2011 at 9:30 AM. (Tr. at 1:1 - 7:7). 

23. The undersigned recessed the in-person hearing for approximately one hour to give the 

Respondent additional time to appear. (Tr. 6:18 -7:15). 

24. Respondent did not appear at the in-person hearing on April 20, 2011 or at any time 

thereafter. (Tr. at 5:4 - 21, 7:8 -11, and 11:12 -12:1; ALJ Ex. 11). 

25. The Coast Guard once again made an oral motion to find Respondent in default for 

failure to appear at both the in-person hearing and the pre-hearing teleconference. (Tr. at 

12:4 - 11). 

26. Pursuant to 33 C.P.R. § 20.705 the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause on April 

20,2011 directing the Respondent to show good cause by May 20,2011 for his failure to 

attend the in- person hearing on April 20 and the pre-hearing teleconference on April 18. 

(Tr. at 12:12 - 13:9; ALJ Ex. 10). 

27. On May 5, 2011, the undersigned received a facsimile from Respondent stating that he 

"failed to contact Hon. Walter J. Brodzinski at 3:00 p.m EDST" because he was denied 

the use of the telephone by port agent Jimmy White at the Seafarers Union Hall and also 

stating that Respondent requests a hearing in Mobile, AL or New Orleans, LA. (Resp. 

Ex. 4 at 3). 

28. On May 19, 2011, the undersigned received another facsimile from Respondent stating he 

failed to appear at the in-person hearing because he was incarcerated and was reluctant to 

9 
seek legal representation for this hearing. He included a copy of an "inmate card" 

indicating that his "book date" at the Mobile County Metro Jail was February 21, 2011. 

(Resp. Ex. 5). 

The purpose ofCoast Guard Suspension and Revocation proceedings is to promote safety 

at sea. 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a). Title 46 C.F.R. § 5.19 gives Administrative Law Judges authority 

to suspend or revoke merchant mariner credentials for violations arising under 46 U.S.C. §§ 

7703 and 7704. The Coast Guard's procedural regulations on default are as follows: 

Under 33 C.F.R. § 20.310, 

(a) The ALJ may find a respondent in default upon failure to file a 

timely answer to the complaint or, after motion, upon failure to 

appear at a conference or hearing without good cause shown. 

[Emphasis added]. 

(b) Each motion for default must conform to the rules ofform, 

service, and filing ofthis subpart. Each motion must include a 

proposed decision and proof ofservice under section 

20.304(d). The respondent alleged to be in default shall file a 

reply to the motion 20 days or less after service ofthe motion. 

(c) Default by respondent constitutes, for puposes ofthe pending 

action only, an admission of all facts alleged in the complaint 

and a waiver ofher or his right to a hearing on those facts. 

[Emphasis added]. 

(d) Upon finding a respondent in default, the ALJ shall issue a 

decision against her or him. 

(e)	 For good cause shown, the ALJ may set aside a finding of 

default. 

33 C.F.R. § 20.310. 

10 
Under 33 C.F.R. § 20.705, 

The ALJ may enter a default under 20.310 against a respondent 

threatening to fail, or having failed, to appear at a hearing unless, ­

(a) Before the itme for the hearing, the respondent shows good 

cause why neither the respondent nor his or her representative 

can appear; or 

(b)	 30 days or less after an order to show good cause, the 

respondent shows good cause for his or her failure to appear. 

33 C.F.R. § 20.705 

Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) defines good cause as "a legally sufficient reason 

... Good cause is often the burden placed on a litigant (usually by court rule or order) to show 

why a request should be granted or an action excused." The Regulations do not further define 

"good cause." Prior Commandant Decisions on Appeal are guidance for what constitutes "good 

cause." 

The Commandant has held that incarceration of a respondent subsequent to his receipt of 

Notice ofHearing and Charges does not constitute good cause for a failure to appear at a 

Suspension and Revocation proceeding. Appeal Decision 2564 (MANUAL) (1995). Also, the 

Commandant has upheld an ALI's finding that ongoing cancer treatments to a respondent's 

father and inability to locate witnesses do not constitute "good cause" for the purpose of 

postponing a hearing. Appeal Decision 2645 (MIRGEAUX)(2004). Finally, the Commandant 

has held that lack of finances without prior notice to the Coast Guard is not good cause to fail to 

appear at a hearing. Appeal Decision 1323 (CUNNINGHAM)(1962). 

In MANUEL, the respondent failed to appear at the scheduled hearing because he was 

incarcerated. Although the respondent attempted to contact a Coast Guard Marine Safety Office 

regarding his incarceration, he did not inform the ALJ ofhis incarceration or his inability to 

11 
appear at the hearing. The respondent was properly served with the Notice ofHearing and had 

notice of the time and place ofthe hearing. Moreover, the respondent had the name, address, and 

phone numbers for the ALJ but did not contact the ALJ by phone, mail or any other means. The 

ALJ found that the respondent had the ability to communicate as shown by his phone call to the 

Marine Safety Office and that even ifthe respondent were incarcerated, he could have written a 

letter prior to the hearing date.3 

In CUNNINGHAM, the Commandant held that a mere statement that lack of finances 

was the reason for a failure to appear at the hearing was not acceptable where the record does not 

show that the respondent made the situation known to the Coast Guard to make other 

arrangements. 

In MIRGEAUX, the Commandant upheld the ALl's decision finding a respondent in 

default after he did not appear for his hearing. The respondent asked the ALJ for a postponement 

ofthe hearing prior to the scheduled hearing date because his father was undergoing cancer 

treatment and the respondent was having difficulty contacting two unnamed witnesses. The ALJ 

denied respondent's request and directed the respondent to appear at the scheduled hearing time. 

The respondent did not appear and the Judge held him in default for failing to appear without 

good cause. The Commandant upheld the ALl's finding stating that "scheduling ofhearings is 

solely within the discretion ofthe ALJ" and that the ALJ did not err in denying the request for a 

postponement. 

3 MANUEL and CUNNINGHAM were decided under the pre-l 999 rules which allowed for proceeding with the 

hearing without the respondent. The current rules do not allow for in-absentia proceedings, but instead have a 

procedure to fmd the respondent in default for failure to appear at the hearing. 

12 
APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS
 

"The Respondent has a duty to provide the Coast Guard with his proper address." Appeal 

Decision 2645 (MIRGEAUX)(2004) (citing Appeal Decision 1399 NOVAK). According to 

Respondent's MMC (a copy of which he sent to the undersigned on Apri118, 2011) 

Respondent's address is 635 4th Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11232. (Resp. Ex. 3 at 2; CG. Ex. 1). 

Finding Respondent was not at that address, the Coast Guard Investigating Officer ascertained 

whether there were alternative addresses and eventually served him at an address in Mobile, 

Alabama in order to be absolutely sure Respondent was provided notice. (Tr. At 7:21 to 8:11). 

Respondent has never, and does not now, claim that he did not receive any of the Scheduling 

Orders or other documents sent by the undersigned or the Coast Guard. In fact, the record shows 

that Respondent himself signed for most of the documents served on him. (ALI Exs. 5, 8, and 

12). Therefore, Respondent had sufficient notice that the in-person hearing was scheduled for 

April 20, 2011 and the pre-hearing teleconference was scheduled for April 18, 2011. 

As in MANUEL, Respondent, Corinthis E. Thomas, received notice ofthe charges 

against him and the date, time, and location ofthe hearing. Also similar to MANUEL, 

Respondent Corinthis E. Thomas, clearly had the ability to communicate with the ALI prior to 

the scheduled hearing date ofApri120, 2011. Respondent submitted documents to the ALI on 

Apri118, 2011 with the subject "USCG Pre-Hearing Conference" thus showing that Respondent 

was aware ofthe teleconference occurring on that date. Additionally, Respondent had the 

ability to communicate with the ALI as shown by his faxing several documents to the 

undersigned on Apri118, 2011. At no time prior to the hearing did Respondent infonn the ALI 

or the Coast Guard ofhis inability to attend the hearing in New York City ofApri120, 2011. 

13 
Respondent makes two assertions in an attempt to show "good cause" for failure to 

appear at the in-person hearing on April 20, 2011. First, in a facsimile sent to the undersigned on 

May 5, 2011, Respondent claims he is financially unable to attend the hearing. (Resp. Ex. 4 at 

3). Second, in a facsimile sent to the undersigned on May 19,2011, Respondent claims he was 

incarcerated and thus unable to attend the hearing. (Ex. 5 at 1). 

As to Respondent's first assertion of good cause for lack of finances: the Commandant 

held in CUNNINGHAM, that a mere statement oflack of finances as the reason for a failure to 

appear at a hearing is insufficient where the respondent did not make the situation known to the 

Coast Guard. Similarly here, Respondent asserted that he could not afford to attend-tlIe hearing 

in New York as the reason he needs to have the hearing in Alabama or Lousiana. (Resp. Ex. 4 at 

3). Respondent never made this situation known to the ALJ or the Coast Guard until May 5, 

2011, two weeks after the scheduled hearing date. Additionally, Respondent does not provide 

any supporting documentation that tends to show a lack of financial means to attend the hearing. 

Respondent's self-serving statement, standing alone, is insufficient to satisfy the "good cause" 

requirement ofthe Regulations. 

As to Respondent second assertion of good cause, he claims that he was incarcerated and 

thus had good cause for his failure to attend the hearing. (Resp. Ex. 5 at 1). As the Commandant 

held in MANUEL, incarceration is not necessarily good cause for failing to appear at the 

hearing. Here, Respondent was incarcerated after he had been served with the Complaint and 

after he filed his Answer. (ALJ Exs. 2 and 3; Resp. Ex. 5 at 1). Further, the information 

Respondent provided shows only his "book date" which was February 21,2011. (Resp. Ex. 5 at 

2). Respondent's documents shed no light on whether he was incarcerated on April 20, 2011. In 

fact, the record shows Respondent was not incarcerated on April 18, 2011 because he was at SID 

14 
in Mobile, Alabama faxing documents to the ALI (Resp. Exs. 1 and 2) and on April 21, 2011 he 

signed for the Order to Show Cause. (ALI Ex. 12). Under MANUEL and the facts in this case, 

it would not make any difference whether Respondent were incarcerated. IfRespondent needed 

a postponement or a change ofvenue for the hearing as a result ofhis incarceration, he could 

have made the situation known to the ALI at that time. Respondent made no mention ofhis 

incarceration until May 19,2011 almost one full month after the hearing. 

Respondent's assertaion oflack offinances and incarceration are untimely an insufficient 

to support of finding of "good cause" and without merit. Concerning Respondent's claim that he 

was denied use of a telephone to participate in the pre-hearing teleconference is also without 

merit. Respondent faxed several documents to the undersigned prior to the teleconference on 

April 18, 2011. The fax cover sheet and the other documents made no mention ofhis being 

refused a telephone. (Resp. Exs. 1 and 2). 

In summary, the record shows Respondent failed to appear at the pre-hearing 

teleconference and at his in-person hearing. The record also shows he had notice of all the 

proceedings and had the ability to communicate with the ALI via facsimile as well as the Postal 

Service. Therefore, Respondent has failed to show "good cause" for his failures to appear at the 

pre-hearing teleconference and at the in-person hearing. 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1.	 Respondent received sufficient notice ofthe pre-hearing teleconference and the inperson hearing. 

2.	 At all relevant times, Resondent had the ability to communicate with the ALI and 

the Coast Guard. 

15 
3.	 Respondent has not shown "good cause" for failing to appear at the pre-hearing 

teleconference or the in-person hearing. 

4.	 Respondent is in DEFAULT for failing to appear at the pre-hearing teleconference 

on April 18, 2011 and at the in-person hearing on April 20, 2011. 

5.	 DEFAULT constitutes an admission of all facts alleged in the Complaint and a 

waiver of Respondent's right to a hearing on those facts. 

6.	 The allegations in the Complaint are proved by admission in accordance with 33 

C.F.R. § 20.310 (c). 

7.	 Finding the Incompetence allegations proved by admission, as well as the 

Misconduct allegation proved by admission, Respondent's MMC must be Revoked 

in accordance with 46 C.P.R. Table 5.569. 

16 
DECISION 

Respondent, Corinthis Emile Thomas, failed to appear at the scheduled pre-hearing 

teleconference and the in-person hearing and has failed to show good cause. Therefore, I find 

Respondent, Corinthis Emile Thomas, in DEFAULT. Default by Respondent constitutes, for 

puposes ofthe pending action only, an admission of all facts alleged in the Complaint and a 

waiver ofher or his right to a hearing on those facts. The allegations in the Complaint are 

proved by admission in accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 20.310 (c) and Respondent's MMC must be 

revoked in accordance with 46 C.F.R. Table 5.569. 

WHEREFORE, 

17
 
ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Coast Guard's Motions for Default are 

GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent, Corinthis E. Thomas's MMC and all 

other documents and certificates held by Respondent are REVOKED. Respondent is to 

surrender his MMC to the nearest Coast Guard facility immediately. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that service ofthis 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). 

Walter J. rudzinski 

Administrative Law Judge
 

United States Coast Guard
 

Date: June 2, 2011 

18 
ATTACHMENT A - EXHIBIT LIST
 

ALJ EXHIBITS: 

1.	 U.S. Coast Guard's Complaint filed January 28,2011 (4 pages). 

2.	 Amended Certificate of Service ofComplaint to Respondent's Alabama address and 

Return ofService for Complaint dated February 17,2011 (4 pages). 

3.	 Respondent's Answer filed February 18, 2011 (2 pages). 

4.	 Scheduling Order - Notice ofHearing dated March 28,2011 (2 pages). 

5.	 Certificates ofService of Scheduling Order - Notice of hearing, indicating that C.
 

Thomas signed for the parcel (4 pages).
 

6.	 U.S. Coast Guard's Motion for Pre-Hearing Conference dated April 13, 2011 (1 page). 

7.	 Scheduling Order - Pre-Hearing Conference dated April 14, 2011 (2 pages). 

8.	 Certificates of Service of Scheduling Order - Pre-Hearing Conference, indicating that C. 

Thomas signed for parcel (4 pages). 

9.	 Memorandum and Order ofPre-Hearing Teleconference dated April 18, 2011 (2 pages). 

10. Certificate ofService ofMemorandum and Order ofPre-Hearing Teleconference (4 

pages). 

11. Order to Show Cause dated April 20, 2011 (3 pages). 

12. Certificate of Service ofOrder to Show Cause, indicated that C. Thomas signed for parcel 

(4 pages). 

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: 

1.	 Facsimile from Corinthis E. Thomas via Seafarers International Union ("SIU") regarding 

"Pre-Hearing Conference" - received April 18, 2011 at approximately 2:30 p.m. (2 

pages). 

2.	 Facsimile from Corinthis E. Thomas via SID regarding "Pre-Hearing Conference"­

received April 18, 2011 at approximately 2:30 p.m. (8 pages) (documents regarding 

medical evaluations). 

3.	 Facsimile from Corinthis E. Thomas via SID regarding "Pre-Hearing Conference"­

received April 18, 2011 at approximately 2:30 p.m. (3 pages) (documents regarding 

Respondent's MMC). 

4.	 Facsimile from Corinthis E. Thomas received May 5,2011 (3 pages) (documents 

regarding the denial ofphone privileges at SIU and requesting hearing in Alabama or 

Louisiana). 

5.	 Facsimile from Corinthis E. Thomas received May 19, 2011 (3 pages) (documents
 

regarding incarceration in local jail in Alabama).
 

COAST GUARD EXHIBITS: 

1.	 Respondent's MMC Data printout from MISLE. (l page). 

19 
ATTACHMENT B
 

TITLE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS
 

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
 

PART 20 RULES OF PRACTICE, PROCEDURE, AND EVIDENCE FOR FORMAL
 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COAST GUARD
 

SUBPART J - APPEALS 

§ 20.1001 General. 

(a)	 Any party may appeal the ALl'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: Hearing 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. 

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

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

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

public policy. 

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

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

(a)	 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. 

(a)	 The appeal must follow the procedural requirements ofthis subpart. 

§ 20.1002 Records on appeal. 

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

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

ofproceeding, then, -­

(1) If the hearing was 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 was recorded by a Federal contractor, the contractor will provide 

the transcript on the terms prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45. 

§ 20.1003 Procedures for appeal. 

20 
(a) Each party appealing the ALl's decision or ruling shall file an appellate brief with the 

Commandant at the following address: U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge 

Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; 

Baltimore, MD 21201-4022, and shall serve a copy ofthe 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 the appeal; 

(ii) Reasons supporting the appeal; and 

(iii) Relief requested in the appeal. 

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

must specifically refer to the pertinent parts ofthe record. 

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

of the ALl's decision. Unless filed within this time, or within another time period 

authorized in writing by the Docketing Center, the briefwill be untimely. 

(a)	 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. 

Ifthe party filing the reply briefrelies on evidence contained in the record for the 

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

(a)	 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. 

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

an ALJ's decision. 

§ 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, 

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

proceedings. 

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

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

21