UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

BRANDON SCOTT CORSE 

Respondent

_________________________________ Docket Number 2010-0084

Enforcement Activity No. 3675024

DEFAULT ORDER

Date Issued: October 15, 2010

Issued By: Honorable Bruce Tucker Smith

Administrative Law Judge

Appearances:

For the Complainant 

LT Barbra Wilk

U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Morgan City 

For the Respondent

Brandon Scott Corse, pro se
On September 23, 2010, the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Morgan City 

(Coast Guard), through Investigating Officer (IO) LT Barabra Wilk, filed a Motion for Default 

Order (Motion) seeking Revocation of Respondent Brandon Scott Corse’s (Respondent) 

Merchant Mariner’s License for his failure to file an Answer to the Complaint issued by the 

Coast Guard on February 12, 2010. As a result of the Motion, a complete review of the record in 

this case was made.

On April 27, 2010, the present proceeding was assigned to the undersigned for 

adjudication. Accordingly, a thorough review of the record file reflects that the Complaint was 

served upon Respondent, via U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Certified Mail, Return Receipt, on 

March 8, 2010.1 On April 12, 2010, the Coast Guard subsequently filed a Motion for Default 

Order (Initial Motion) averring that Respondent’s failure to timely file an Answer to the 

Complaint constituted an admission of the factual allegations and a waiver of Respondent’s right 

to a hearing on the matter. On May 6, 2010, the court denied the Coast Guard’s Motion for 

Default on the grounds that the Coast Guard failed to comply with 33 C.F.R. §20.310(b). On 

June 2, 2010, the Coast Guard filed another Motion for Default Order (Second Motion) again 

averring that Respondent’s failure to timely file an Answer to the Complaint constituted an 

admission of the factual allegations and a waiver of Respondent’s right to a hearing on the 

matter.2 

On August 5, 2010, in an abundance of caution and concern for Respondent’s due process 

rights, the court ordered a telephonic pre-hearing conference for purposes of determining why 

Respondent failed to file responsive pleadings in the instant matter. Notice of the telephonic 

conference was transmitted to Respondent on August 5, 2010, via FedEx. On August 19, 2010, 

 1 The Coast Guard established that service was effected upon Respondent by filing a Return of Service and a Proof 

of Service on March 12, 2010. 

2 “Each motion must include . . . proof of service under section 20.304(d).” 33 C.F.R. §20.310(b). 
the court convened a telephonic pre-hearing conference. LT Wilk appeared on behalf of the 

Coast Guard; Respondent appeared on his own behalf. Respondent indicated he wished to defend 

the allegations set forth in the Coast Guard’s Complaint but was unclear how to complete the 

Answer form. The court, in the presence of LT Wilk, explained each portion of the Answer form 

to Respondent. Given Respondent’s desire to participate in the proceedings and the Coast 

Guard’s failure to file a Return and Proof of Service of the Second Motion,3 the court instructed 

Respondent to file his Answer not later than September 3, 2010. The court also set a hearing date, 

as well as initial and further discovery deadlines. (Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum and 

Order issued August 23, 2010). 

On September 23, 2010, the Coast Guard filed a third Motion for Default Order (Third 

Motion) again averring that Respondent’s failure to timely file an Answer to the Complaint 

constituted an admission of the factual allegations and a waiver of Respondent’s right to a 

hearing on the matter. On October 6, 2010, the Coast Guard properly filed a Return of Service 

along with Proof of Service indicating service via USPS Certified Mail, Return Receipt was 

attempted on Respondent. The Return Receipt indicates the postal service attempted delivery on 

September 27, 2010 and October 5, 2010. The postal service left a notice each time delivery was 

attempted. Also on On October 6, 2010, the court scheduled a second pre-hearing telephonic 

conference with the parties. Notice of the telephonic conference was transmitted to Respondent 

on October 6, 2010, via FedEx. On October 15, 2010, the court convened the scheudled prehearing telephonic conference with the parties. LT Wilk appeared on behalf of the Coast Guard; 

Respondent appeared on his own behalf. 

The court inquired why Respondent failed to file an Answer. Respondent informed the 

court that he “hadn’t had time.” Respondent later advised the court that he “never received an 

Answer form” and later, advised the court that he “had lost the Answer form.” Respondent’s 

 

3 Id. 
reasons, particularly his decided lack of candor, fail to persuade the court that a denial should be 

entered against the Coast Guard’s Third Motion. Therefore, the pending third Motion for 

Default Order is hereby GRANTED. The court finds Respondent in DEFAULT; the sanction 

of default is appropriate herein under the provisions of 46 C.F.R. §5.569. Respondent’s default 

in the instant matter shall constitute an admission of all facts alleged in the Complaint and a 

waiver of his right to a hearing on those facts. 33 C.F.R. §20.310. 

WHEREFORE,
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the allegations set forth in the Complaint are deemed 

PROVED. Accordingly, the court finds that the proposed sanction is appropriate under the 

provisions of 46 C.F.R. §5.569.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Respondent Brandon Scott Corse’s Merchant 

Mariner License is REVOKED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Respondent Brandon Scott Corse must immediately 

surrender his Merchant Mariner License issued to him by the U.S. Coast Guard to the nearest 

Coast Guard Marine Safety Office or mail those documents to the following Coast Guard office: 

United States Coast Guard, Marine Safety Unit Morgan City, Investigations Division, ATTN: LT 

Wilk, 800 David Drive, Room 232, Morgan City, Louisiana 70380-1304. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that if Respondent Brandon Scott Corse continues to use his 

Coast Guard-issued Merchant Mariner License, he may be subject to criminal prosecution.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that under 33 C.F.R. § 20.310(e), for good 

cause shown, an Administrative Law Judge may set aside this finding of Default. Respondent 

may file a motion to set aside the finding with the ALJ Docketing Center, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Service of this Order of Revocation upon Respondent serves as notification of appeal rights as 

set forth in 33 C.F.R. Subpart J, § 20.1001. (Attachment A). 

__________________________________________________

HON. BRUCE TUCKER SMITH

US COAST GUARD ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Date: October 15, 2010
ATTACHMENT A

SUBPART J, APPEALS

33 CFR 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: 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.

(b) 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 proceeding, 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.

33 CFR 20.1003 Procedures for appeal.

(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 Administrative 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 the 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 of the 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, 

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.