UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

CINDY STAHL 

Respondent

_________________________________

Docket Number 2015-0078

Enforcement Activity No. 5072179

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: October 22, 2015

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable George J. Jordan

Appearances:

CWO Brian M. Hennessy

Sector Puget Sound

For the Coast Guard

Tyler W. Arnold, Esq.

For the Respondent

ORDER MEMORIALIZING DECISION ON THE RECORD

The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard or Agency) initiated this proceeding by 

filing a Complaint against Cindy Stahl (Respondent) on March 18, 2015. The Complaint alleged 

that Respondent committed misconduct by acting as Master of the uninspected towing vessel 

(UTV) SHANNON on February 17, 2015, in direct violation of 46 U. S. C. §8904(a) as 

prescribed by 46 CFR §15.610. The Coast Guard sought a sanction of a 12-month outright 

suspension of Respondent’s Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC).
Through her attorney, Respondent filed an Answer on May 15, 2015. She denied certain 

jurisdictional and factual elements and sought a formal hearing.

The hearing took place on October 7, 2015 at the Jackson Federal Building in Seattle, 

Washington. At the start of the hearing, Respondent’s attorney informed me that Respondent 

intended to change her Answer and admit to the allegations, but still wished to be heard on the 

sanction. Respondent verbally confirmed this on the record. I therefore found the allegations 

PROVED BY ADMISSION and proceeded to hear arguments as to the sanction.

According to Coast Guard regulations, “[t]he selection of an appropriate order is the 

responsibility of the Administrative Law Judge, subject to appeal and review. The investigating 

officer and the respondent may suggest an order and present argument in support of this 

suggestion during the presentation of aggravating or mitigating evidence.” 46 C.F.R. § 5.569(a). 

I am not bound by the Coast Guard’s recommendations.

In determining an appropriate sanction, an ALJ may consider the following factors: (1) 

remedial actions which have been undertaken independently by Respondent; (2) the prior record 

of Respondent, considering the period of time between prior acts and the act or offense for which 

presently charged is relevant; and (3) evidence of mitigation or aggravation. See 46 C.F.R. § 

5.569(b). The rules include Table 5.569, Suggested Range of an Appropriate Order, which “is for 

the information and guidance of Administrative Law Judges and is intended to promote 

uniformity in orders rendered. This table should not affect the fair and impartial adjudication of 

each case on its individual facts and merits.” 46 C.F.R. § 5.569(d).

In Coast Guard suspension and revocation cases, “[t]he sanction imposed in a particular 

case is exclusively within the authority and the discretion of the ALJ,” who is not bound by the 

scale of average orders. Appeal Decision 2628 (VILAS)(2002). “In the absence of a gross 

departure from the Table of Recommended Awards, the order of the ALJ will not be disturbed 

on review.” Id. However, in Coast Guard v. Moore, NTSB Order No. EM-201 (2005), the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) disapproved an order revoking a mariner’s MMC 

because the Coast Guard did not prove, and the ALJ did not find, specific factors in aggravation 

sufficient to depart from the guidance provided in Table 5.569. The NTSB stated that “unless 

and until the Coast Guard changes its regulation, we will not uphold an upward departure from 

the policy currently embodied in the Coast Guard's regulation without a clearly articulated 

explanation of aggravating factors.” The NTSB has reiterated its position in Commandant v. 

Ailsworth, NTSB Order No. EM-211 (2012). The Commandant discussed and has followed the 

NTSB’s position in Appeal Decision 2690 (LANGLEY)(2011) and Appeal Decision 2702 

(CARROLL)(2013).

Table 5.569 provides that the usual sanction for misconduct is a one- to three-month 

suspension. Here, the Coast Guard sought a twelve-month suspension and Respondent argued 

that a four-month suspension was appropriate.

The Coast Guard entered four exhibits as evidence that Respondent has had numerous 

suspension proceedings initiated against her in recent years. Evidence of a prior record is 

admissible under 33 C.F.R. § 20.1315 as long as it is less than ten years old. Here, it is clear 

Respondent was issued a Warning in Lieu of Civil Penalty on March 1, 2013. (Ex. CG-1). 

Pursuant to a settlement in a separate case in September 2013, she was assessed a three-month 

suspension remitted on 12 months’ probation. (Ex. CG-2). The Coast Guard brought a third 

action against her in September 2014 and the parties agreed to a settlement in which her license 

was suspended for two months. (Ex. CG-3). In light of her prior record, the Coast Guard argued 

that Respondent has displayed a flagrant disregard for the law and an aggravated sanction is 

warranted. (Tr. pp. 9-10).

Respondent did not dispute that the Coast Guard had taken these prior actions against her 

MMC, but argued that a four-month suspension was still above the range specified in the table. 

She believed that the fact she admitted to the allegations and was willing to take responsibility 
for her actions was a mitigating factor, and also stated that a twelve-month suspension would put 

her out of business. (Tr. pp. 2, 11).

After hearing the parties’ arguments, I issued an Order on the Record, suspending 

Respondent’s MMC for six months. As I explained to the parties at the hearing, a six-month 

suspension is significantly more than the base sanction for misconduct in Table 5.569. Due to her 

previous record, which is recent and includes serious offenses, I found an upward deviation from 

the Table to be warranted. However, the offense underlying the allegations in this matter was not 

as serious in nature as some of those prior offenses. Specifically, in the past Respondent has 

fallen asleep while having direction and control of the UTV SHANNON, resulting in a 

grounding, and has also intentionally impeded ferry traffic in the Puget Sound. (Ex. CG-2 and 

CG-3; Tr. p. 10). Here, she assumed direction and control of the UTV SHANNON while her 

license was suspended, but at a time when the vessel was not towing a barge and was moving 

approximately 200 yards from one berth to another. Another licensed Master was nearby but did 

not have direction and control of the UTV SHANNON. (Tr. p. 12). Although the Coast Guard 

stated it had evidence of other times Respondent may have acted as Master while her MMC was 

suspended, it did not charge her with those instances and I have not made any findings as to 

them.

While Respondent’s decision to operate a vessel while her MMC was suspended is a very 

serious violation, after considering all the evidence regarding the incident and the factors in 

aggravation and mitigation, I found the Coast Guard’s suggested penalty to be too harsh under 

the circumstances. I therefore assessed a sanction of SIX MONTHS OUTRIGHT 

SUSPENSION, beginning immediately, and retained Respondent’s MMC. I have since 

transferred custody of that MMC to the Coast Guard by an Order dated October 15, 2015 and 

have provided a receipt to Respondent. Should Respondent decide to appeal this Decision and 

Order, instructions are provided in Attachment A.
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Allegations in the Complaint are found PROVED 

by ADMISSION; and 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s Mariner’s License is 

SUSPENDED for SIX MONTHS commencing October 7, 2015. 

Service of this Decision and Order upon Respondent provides notice to Respondent of 

appeal rights as set forth in 33 CFR Subpart J, Section 20.1001. 

__________________________________________________

George J. Jordan

US Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge

Date: 

October 22, 2015
Attachment A: 33 C.F.R. Part 20, Subpart J – Appeals

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.