UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_______________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

ERIC NORMAN SHINE 

Respondent. 

______________________________ 

Docket Number: CG S&R 03-0166 

CG Case No. 1671475 

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: November 13, 2008

Issued by: Walter J. Brudzinski, Administrative Law Judge

Appearances:

For Complainant 

 LCDR Christopher Tribolet, Esq. 

Coast Guard Island, Building 54A 

Alameda, CA 94501 

For Respondent 

Eric Norman Shine 

[REDACTED] 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................3

II. FINDINGS OF FACT...........................................................................................................................................5

A. SS MAUI.............................................................................................................................................................5

B. M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON..........................................................................................................................5

C. MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT .........................................................................................................................8

III. DISCUSSION.....................................................................................................................................................10

A. JURISDICTION ...................................................................................................................................................10

B. MENTAL INCOMPETENCE.................................................................................................................................11

C. COAST GUARD’S CASE IN CHIEF......................................................................................................................12

1. Respondent’s Behavior Aboard Vessels .......................................................................................................13

2. Respondent’s Mental Health Evaluations....................................................................................................18

3. Mental Conditions and Danger to Maritime Safety .....................................................................................21

4. The Coast Guard has Satisfied it Burden of Proof ......................................................................................25

D. RESPONDENT’S REBUTTAL...............................................................................................................................25

1. Underlying Reason Behind Charges............................................................................................................26

2. Inappropriate Behavior of ALJ ....................................................................................................................28

3. Coast Guard’s Evidence is Insufficient........................................................................................................30

4. Not Allowed to Present Case.........................................................................................................................33

5. Lack of Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................................................36

6.Proceedings Influence Labor Dispute ...........................................................................................................37

IV. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.........................................................38

V. SANCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................39

VI. ORDER ...............................................................................................................................................................40

ATTACHMENT A ....................................................................................................................................................41

ATTACHMENT B ....................................................................................................................................................61

ATTACHMENT C ....................................................................................................................................................64

2
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On March 6, 2003, the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) issued a Complaint 

against Eric Norman Shine (Respondent) that alleged he is medically incompetent due to a major 

depressive disorder or other psychiatric condition. In this Complaint, the Coast Guard sought 

revocation of Respondent’s Coast Guard issued credentials. Respondent filed a timely Answer 

denying the factual and jurisdictional allegations. This case was heavily litigated and 

approximately 129 documents were filed prior to the original presiding Administrative Law 

Judge’s (ALJ), Parlen L. McKenna, issuance of a Summary Decision. Judge McKenna issued 

his Summary Decision on February 20, 2004, revoking Respondent’s merchant mariner 

credentials. Judge McKenna found Respondent suffered from mental impairment of sufficient 

disabling character which rendered him unable to safely perform his duties aboard a merchant 

vessel. Respondent appealed the Decision and on December 27, 2006, the Vice Commandant of 

the Coast Guard issued a Decision finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed. Appeal 

Decision 2661 (SHINE)(2006). The Vice Commandant vacated Judge McKenna’s Summary 

Decision and remanded the case for hearing. Id. 

 On January 5, 2007, Judge McKenna issued an Order recusing himself from any further 

participation in this matter. On January 30, 2007, the Chief Administrative Law Judge assigned 

the remanded case to the undersigned for adjudication. 

 This case continued to be heavily litigated. More than forty (40) motions, replies, and 

orders were filed prior to this final Decision and Order.1 During the remand, Respondent 

submitted many lengthy motions that individually approached or exceeded 100 pages in length. 

 

1 Attachment A includes a complete index of the filings and issuances made in this case. 

3
These motions raised a multitude of opinions and objections. In an effort to address these and 

other issues, I ordered an in-person pre-hearing conference to be held on October 23, 2007. On 

October 29, 2007, I issued a Memorandum and Order of Pre-Hearing Conference addressing the 

many matters that were heard during the pre-hearing conference. 

On May 20, 2008, a hearing on these matters commenced in Long Beach, California; the 

hearing lasted for four (4) days and concluded on May 23, 2008. I conducted these proceedings 

in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended and codified at 5 U.S.C. 551-

59 and Coast Guard regulations located at 46 CFR Part 5 and 33 CFR Part 20. Lieutenant 

Commander Christopher Tribolet represented the Coast Guard at the hearing. Respondent 

appeared at the hearing pro se. 

 The Coast Guard introduced seventy-one (71) exhibits and the testimony of three (3) 

witnesses. The Respondent offered no witnesses and introduced two (2) exhibits into evidence. 

The witnesses and exhibits are listed in Attachment B. 

On July 9, 2008, Respondent filed a 170 page post-hearing brief entitled 

“CONCLUSONS [sic] OF LAW AND FACT ORDERED FILED BY JULY 10, 2008 – FILED 

UNDER DURESS AND BY COMPULSION.” The Coast Guard chose not to file a post-hearing 

brief. 

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

regulations, and case law, the factual allegation of incompetence, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 7703, 

is found PROVED. 

4
II. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent was the holder of the Coast Guard issued license number 918736 which was 

issued June 1, 2000 and expired on June 1, 2005. (IO Ex. 2).2

 

2. Respondent graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point in 1991. 

(Tr. at 4). 

A. SS MAUI 

3. Matson Navigation Company, Incorporated employed Respondent as a second assistant 

engineer on board the Steamship (SS) MAUI between March 6, 2001 and June 11, 2001. 

(Tr. at 60-63; IO Ex. 3). 

4. The SS MAUI is a 24,544 gross ton, coastwise container ship. (IO Ex. 3). 

5. On June 11, 2001, appropriate authority ordered Respondent to stand watch from 0400-

0800. One of his responsibilities was to oversee the boilers in the engine room. (Tr. at 

64-67; IO Ex. 6). 

6. As a second assistant engineer, Respondent’s job required that he assist in repairs 

conducted in the engine room. (Tr. at 67-74; IO Ex. 7). 

7. On June 11, 2001, Respondent was permitted to go to breakfast while standing watch 

from 0400-0800. Following breakfast, the First Engineer and Chief Engineer ordered 

Respondent to return to the engine room and resume his watch. (Tr. at 66-68). 

8. Respondent refused the direct order to return to his duty station. (Tr. 68, 75-76, 127). 

9. Respondent was discharged for cause from the SS Maui for failure to return to his duty 

station on June 11, 2001. (Tr. at 79; IO Ex. 6, 7). 

10. For unknown reasons, Matson Navigation Company, Incorporated later rescinded 

Respondent’s discharge. (Tr. at 130, 145-46, 151; IO Ex. 8). 

B. M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON 

11. American Ship Management employed Respondent as a third assistant engineer on board 

the Motor Vessel (M/V) PRESIDENT JACKSON between December 2, 2001, and 

January 5, 2002. (Tr. at 202; IO Ex. 4). 

 

2

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

referring to Agency Exhibits are as follows: Investigation Officer followed by the exhibit number (IO Ex. __). 

Citations referencing to Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief are as follows: Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief followed 

by the page number (Rept’s PHB at __ ). 

5
12. The M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON is a 50,205 gross ton, coastwise container ship. (IO 

Ex. 4). 

13. Allen Hochstetler served as the First Assistant Engineer aboard the M/V PRESIDENT 

JACKSON between December 2, 2001, and January 5, 2002 and was Respondent’s direct 

supervisor. (Tr. at 201-240). 

14. Part of Respondent’s duties as a third assistant engineer was to rotate “duty days” with 

the other engineers. During a duty day, the engineer would roam the engine room, 

generally observe and inspect the components therein to ensure the equipment was 

working properly. (Tr. at 202-03). 

15. The “duty day” required an engineer to work eight (8) hours during the day and then to 

be on call during the night. (Tr. at 202-03). 

16. When an engineer is not serving a “duty day,” the First Engineer or Chief Engineer 

assigns the engineer individual tasks to complete. (Tr. at 202-05). 

17. The First Engineer assigned Respondent only simple welding jobs because he deemed 

Respondent not competent to perform many of the tasks a third assistant engineer should 

be capable of performing. (Tr. at 208-09). 

18. When conducting welding operations, the general practice is that a welder advises the 

bridge where the welding is occurring. The bridge then turns off or secures the 

appropriate fire alarm. When the job is complete, the welder so advises the bridge and 

the fire alarm is reengaged. (Tr. at 210-11). 

 

19. During the shifts in question, Respondent would occasionally forget to inform the bridge 

when he completed his welding jobs. As a result, the area Respondent was working 

would be unprotected by fire alarms, affecting the safety of the ship. (Tr. at 211-13). 

20. The engineers aboard the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON conducted firefighter training 

drills. During the training drills, it was common for one member of the team to dress in a 

fire-suit on a rotational basis. The fire-suit includes a breathing apparatus, a full suit, and 

boots ─ it is uncomfortable to wear. (Tr. at 215-16). 

21. Respondent resisted heavily when it was his turn to wear the fire-suit. When he did put 

on the suit, there were instances where he would make a mockery of the drill and disrupt 

training. (Tr. at 216-17). 

22. On one occasion, the engineers discovered a switch in the engine room of the M/V 

PRESIDENT JACKSON but no one knew what it operated. It is dangerous to turn on a 

switch not knowing what it will do. (Tr. at 222-23). 

6
23. The First Assistant Engineer ordered Respondent to trace the switch to its source. Instead 

of tracing the switch, Respondent disobeyed the order and flipped the switch on and off 

several times. (Tr. at 222-23). 

24. On December 24, 2001, the Chief Engineer decided that no one would work on 

Christmas Day except Allen Hochstetler, the First Assistant Engineer, who was the duty 

day engineer. Knowing that Respondent was slow to follow orders, Mr. Hochstetler 

ordered Respondent several times not to work on Christmas Day. Respondent still 

showed up to work on Christmas Day as if it was a normal working day. (Tr. at 224-25). 

25. Appropriate authority ordered Respondent to stand watch in the Engine Control Room at 

0800 on December 31, 2001. Respondent showed up late for duty and received a letter of 

warning. (Tr. at 226-29, 290-94; IO Ex. 10). 

26. Respondent informed the other engineers, including his supervisors, that he had attended 

Kings Point Merchant Marine Academy and that anyone who did not attend Kings Point 

was not as capable as he was. (Tr. at 214-15). 

27. Respondent told Allen Hochstetler that he (Respondent) had sued people in the past who 

have caused him problems. Respondent also told Mr. Hochstetler that he (Respondent) 

had accessed the personnel records of the ship and had the entire crews’ home addresses, 

and knew where Mr. Hochstetler lived. Respondent was not authorized to have access to 

this information. (Tr. at 243-46; IO Ex. 11-12). 

28. The First Assistant Engineer sent an e-mail to his supervisors aboard the M/V 

PRESIDENT JACKSON on January 3, 2002 stating that because of Respondent’s 

aggression and continuous threats of litigation, he feared for his safety and livelihood and 

requested that he not supervise Respondent on the upcoming voyage. (Tr. at 238-41; IO 

Ex. 12). 

29. Donald Bazille, an electrician aboard the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON, wrote a letter to 

American Ship Management on January 3, 2002 stating that Respondent’s continued 

threats of lawsuits had made the entire ship an unpleasant place to work. (Tr. at 247-48; 

IO Ex. 11). 

30. Richard English, the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON’s Chief Mate, wrote a letter to the 

ship’s Master on January 4, 2002. In this letter, Mr. English stated that Respondent was 

the most disruptive crew member he had dealt with during his thirty-three (33) year 

mariner career. He stated that Respondent has made continuous threats of litigation 

against the crew and ship. (Tr. at 247-48; IO Ex. 14). 

31. On January 5, 2002, Respondent was discharged for cause from the M/V PRESIDENT 

JACKSON because of his insubordination, continued intimidation of crew and officers, 

his confrontational attitude, unprofessional behavior, continued threats of lawsuits, and 

aggressive behavior. (Tr. at 250-58; IO Ex. 19). 

7
C. Mental Health Treatment

32. On July 18, 2002, Respondent filed disability insurance paperwork stating he was under a 

doctor’s care and on January 30, 2002 was diagnosed with severe depression. (Tr. at 

357-58; IO Ex. 24). 

33. On October 1, 2002, Respondent sent a letter to the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial 

Association (MEBA) Medical Plans Administrator requesting his medical coverage be 

reinstated. He claimed that Drs. Shafer, Riddle, and Tadros filed the proper insurance 

paperwork for him to obtain coverage. He further claims that he was diagnosed as 

“severely depressed,” suffering from a “mood disorder,” totally unable to work, and was 

treated by Dr. Tadros for emergency mental health care. (Tr. at 358-59; IO Ex. 25). 

34. On November 13, 2002, Respondent filed a request with the Federal Family Education 

Loan Program to defer payment of his loans because he was disabled. He included a 

physician’s statement that on January 30, 2002, he became unable to work and suffered 

from severe depression and “rule out bipolar.” (Tr. at 361-64; IO Ex. 70). 

35. The term “rule out” is a medical term meaning a certain diagnosis has not been 

confirmed, but that the particular diagnosis is highly suspected. (Tr. at 362; IO Ex. 32 at 

162). 

36. Severe depression and bipolar are lifelong conditions and are not temporary. (Tr. at 363-

65). 

37. Dr. Pamela Schafer, M.D. is a psychiatrist who treated Respondent. On February 20, 

2002, Dr. Schafer sent a letter to Respondent informing him he needed to avoid conflict 

since he is “highly irritable and not as aware of it as you should/could/would be. I do

think you need medicine for the irritability, depression, & disrepair.” (Tr. at 369-76; IO 

Ex. 28, emphasis in original). 

38. Dr. Emad Tadros, M.D. is a psychiatrist who treated Respondent. He diagnosed him as 

likely suffering from major depression and suggested that he avoid any stressful changes 

in this life. (Tr. at 358-59, 380-88; IO Ex. 25, 29, 30, 31). 

39. On admission to Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital in San Diego, California on January 21, 

2003, Respondent received a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) of 25-30. He was 

ultimately diagnosed with bipolar manic-depressive disorder and an unidentified 

personality disorder. The diagnosis also mentioned that he likely suffers from narcissistic 

and paranoid personality traits. (Tr. at 404-06; IO Ex. 71). 

40. The DSM-IV is the standard diagnostic and statistical manual used by mental health 

providers in the United States. (Tr. at 383). 

8
41. The DSM-IV contains the GAF scale. This scale is from zero (0) to one-hundred (100), 

with ninety (90) being normal. (Tr. at 382; DSM-IV at 34, (4th Ed. 2003, Text 

Revision)). 

42. A GAF of 20-30 is characterized by behavior that “is considerably influenced by 

delusions, or hallucinations, or serious impairment in communication and judgment, e.g. 

sometimes incoherent, acts grossly inappropriately, suicidal preoccupation, or inability to 

function in almost all areas. Stays in bed all day. No job. No friends.” (Tr. at 412). 

43. A personality disorder “is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that 

deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture. It is pervasive and 

inflexible. It has an onset in adolescent or early adulthood. It is stable over time and 

leads to distress or impairment.” (Tr. at 414). 

44. Personality disorders are not treatable and last a lifetime. (Tr. at 416, 483). 

45. Personality disorders normally manifest in early adulthood. (Tr. at 414,553). 

46. “Narcissism is a self-grandiose opinion of yourself and stature. A narcissistic personality 

disorder is a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy.” (Tr. at 

415). 

47. An individual who is bipolar manic will act in an uncontrolled manner. (Tr. at 417). 

Such behavior will often result in increased productivity but the activities will often be 

nonproductive and self-destructive. (Id.). 

48. An individual who is bipolar depressive will suffer from symptoms of depression which 

can affect cognitive thinking. (Tr. at 417). 

49. Dr. Francine Kulick, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist who conducted a mental health 

examination of Respondent. This examination was conducted as part of Respondent’s 

lawsuit against American Ship Management. (Tr. at 423-38; IO Ex. 32 at 162). 

50. Dr. Kulick diagnosed Respondent as having a major depressive disorder and a personality 

disorder with paranoid, obsessive-compulsive, and narcissistic features. (Id.) 

51. Dr. Kulick diagnosed Respondent as having a “rule out” diagnosis of delusional disorder. 

(Id.) 

52. Respondent took the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) test on 

January 29, 2003. The results show that he has a moderate to severe level of functional 

instability. Test diagnoses show Respondent has emotionally explosive personalities to 

include paranoid personalities and states, passive aggressive personalities, atypical 

depressive, and suicidal thoughts. (Tr. at 429-35; IO Ex. 32). 

9
53. Major depression is caused when there is a chemical imbalance in the brain. Although 

medication can treat the imbalance, the individual will always have the disease. 

Precipitating events, such as job loss and bereavement, can trigger an episode of major 

depression. (Tr. at 436). 

III. DISCUSSION

The purpose of Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedings is to promote safety 

at sea. 46 U.S.C. 7701. To assist in this goal, Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have the 

authority to revoke mariner credentials if a mariner commits an act of incompetence when acting 

under the authority of those credentials. See 46 U.S.C. 7703.3 Under Coast Guard procedural 

rules and regulations, the Coast Guard bears the burden of proof and shall prove any allegations 

of incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. See 33 CFR 20.701-702; see also Appeal 

Decision 2485 (YATES)(1989). In this case, the Coast Guard seeks to prove Respondent is 

medically incompetent. 

A. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is a question of fact and must be determined before the substantive issues of 

the case are decided. Appeal Decision 2620 (COX)(2001). Under 46 U.S.C. 7703(1), the Coast 

Guard has jurisdictional authority to revoke a respondent’s license if the respondent committed 

an act of incompetence “when acting under the authority of that license . . . .” A mariner is 

considered acting under the authority of their license if the holding of that license is required by 

law or is required by an employer as a condition of employment. 46 CFR 5.57(a); see also

Appeal Decision 2615 (DALE)(2000); Appeal Decision 2393 (STEWART)(1985). 

In this case, the Coast Guard asserts Respondent is medically incompetent; therefore, his 

merchant mariner license should be revoked. The Coast Guard alleged Respondent, while 

 

3

 Since the alleged factual allegations occurred between March 6, 2001 and March 6, 2003 (filing of Complaint), all 

statutory and regulatory references, unless procedural in nature, will reflect the 2001-2003 laws. 

10
serving aboard the Steamship (SS) MAUI between March 6, 2001 and June 11, 2001, and the 

Motor Vessel (M/V) PRESIDENT JACKSON between December 2, 2001 and January 5, 2002, 

committed acts of incompetence. During these dates, Respondent was the holder the Coast 

Guard issued license number 918736. (IO Ex. 2; Tr. at 101). 

Respondent’s employment aboard the SS MAUI and M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON 

satisfies the “required by law test.” The SS MAUI is a 24,544 gross ton coastwise container ship 

whereas the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON is a 50,205 gross ton coastwise container ship. (IO 

Ex. 3, 4). Title 46 U.S.C. 8701 requires individuals serving on coastwise vessels over 100 gross 

tons to hold a Coast Guard issued credential. Because Coast Guard issued credentials are 

required for service aboard the SS MAUI and M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON, such service on 

those vessels constitutes “acting under the authority” of the credentials. See Appeal Decision 

2414 (HOLLOWELL)(1985) (interpreting the predecessor statute to 46 U.S.C. 7701 and 46 CFR 

12.02-7). Thus, the Coast Guard has established Respondent was acting under the authority of 

his credentials while serving aboard the SS MAUI and M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON. As such, 

the Coast Guard has jurisdiction to determine if Respondent committed an act of incompetence 

while working under those credentials.

B. Mental Incompetence

 The term “incompetence” is defined as “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 CFR § 5.31. A person who suffers from mental incompetence 

may not “serve aboard any vessel, whether in port or at sea, in any capacity in which he could 

cause serious harm to himself, to others, or to the vessel itself.” Appeal Decision 2181 

11
(BURKE)(1980). The Coast Guard may investigate and issue a Complaint if reasonable grounds 

exist to believe the holder of a Coast Guard issued credential committed an act of incompetence 

while acting under the authority of that credential. See 46 CFR sections 5.101(a) (1) and 

5.105(a). An ALJ finding of mental incompetence “must rest upon substantial evidence of a 

reliable and probative character showing that the person charged suffers from a mental 

impairment of sufficient disabling character to support a finding that he is not competent to 

perform safely his duties aboard a merchant vessel.” Appeal Decision 2417 (YOUNG)(1985). 

Ordinarily, allegations of mental incompetence should be based upon evidence subsequent to any 

fit for duty examination and issuance of a merchant mariner credential. Appeal Decision 2280 

(ARNOLD)(1982). 

C. Coast Guard’s Case in Chief 

In this case, the Coast Guard alleges Respondent suffers from a major depressive disorder 

or other psychiatric condition which renders him medically incompetent. The Coast Guard first 

seeks to prove these allegations by providing evidence that Respondent exhibited erratic 

behavior while serving as an engineer aboard the SS MAUI and the M/V PRESIDENT 

JACKSON. The Coast Guard also introduced reports from numerous psychotherapists who 

treated Respondent. These reports diagnosed Respondent as suffering from major depression 

and personality disorders. Finally, the Coast Guard presented expert witness testimony of Dr. 

Arthur French, M.D. Dr. French has knowledge of which medical conditions, including 

psychiatric, can affect maritime safety. Dr. French testified that Respondent’s psychiatric 

disorders, which manifested while serving aboard the SS MAUI and M/V PRESIDENT 

JACKSON, undoubtedly makes Respondent a danger to maritime safety. 

12
1. Respondent’s Behavior Aboard Vessels 

Respondent graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point in 1991, 

obtained a Coast Guard issued merchant mariner license, and has served aboard several marine 

vessels as an engineer. (Tr. at 4; IO Ex. 32). The Coast Guard alleged Respondent displayed 

erratic and paranoid behavior while serving aboard marine vessels. Specifically, the Coast 

Guard provided evidence of Respondent’s irrational behavior while working as an engineer on 

the SS MAUI and the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON. The Coast Guard believes the evidence 

shows that Respondent has a mental impairment which affects his ability to serve safely aboard 

maritime vessels. 

 SS MAUI

Between March 6, 2001, and June 11, 2001, Matson Navigation Company employed 

Respondent as a second assistant engineer on board the 24,544 gross ton coastwise SS MAUI. 

(Tr. at 60-63; IO Ex. 3). Cecil Ray was the SS MAUI’s Chief Engineer during this time period 

and was Respondent’s supervisor. (Tr. at 62). Mr. Ray graduated from the California Maritime 

Academy in 1970 and is a well respected mariner. (Tr. at 56-60). Mr. Ray testified on behalf of 

the Coast Guard concerning Respondent’s actions onboard the SS MAUI. 

On June 11, 2001, Respondent was ordered to stand watch from 0400 to 0800 in the SS 

MAUI’s engine room. (Tr. at 64-67; IO Ex. 6). Respondent’s principle responsibility was to 

oversee the boilers, which were experiencing problems and in need of repair. (Id.). During his 

watch, Respondent was permitted to obtain breakfast, but was ordered to return to his watch 

station after eating breakfast. (Id.). However, following breakfast, Respondent told his 

supervisors that union rules prohibited him from continuing to stand watch and he refused to 

return to his duty station. (Tr. 68, 75-76, 127). 

13
As the Chief Engineer, Mr. Ray was in Respondent’s chain-of-command and served as 

Respondent’s supervisor aboard the SS MAUI. (Id.). A command structure and the ability of 

individuals to follow orders are very important aboard merchant marine vessels as it promotes 

safety at sea. (Tr. at 78). Respondent’s refusal to return to work negatively impacted the ability 

of the Chief Engineer to complete the needed repairs to the boiler, creating a potential safety 

issue. (Tr. at 74-75, 134-35). While an employee has the right to refuse an order which would 

put someone in danger, Respondent’s refusal to work was based on a contractual dispute. (Tr. at 

68, 140). As a result, Respondent was discharged for cause from the SS Maui for failure to 

return to his duty station on June 11, 2001. (Tr. at 79; IO Ex. 6, 7). Matson Navigation 

Company later rescinded Respondent’s discharge; it is not known why the discharge was 

rescinded (Tr. at 130, 145-46, 151; IO Ex. 8). 

Respondent’s refusal to work on June 11, 2001 was not an isolated incident. Mr. Ray had 

the opportunity to work with Respondent over a period of about six (6) months and found 

Respondent very hard to supervise and direct. (Tr. at 96-97, 165-80). In a performance 

evaluation of Respondent, Mr. Ray wrote “Mr. Shine is a professional victim. He can never 

accept fault for his own actions or lack there of . . . [h]e lacks the skill to be a [second assistant 

engineer and] lacks the personality to seek knowledge from his fellow engineers.” (Tr. at 92-94; 

IO Ex. 7). Mr. Ray testified that while Respondent is intelligent, he is very difficult to work 

with, has a hard time focusing on his job, and should not be serving as a merchant mariner. (Tr. 

at 180). I find Mr. Ray’s testimony highly credible. 

MV PRESIDENT JACKSON

Between December 2, 2001, and January 5, 2002, American Ship Management employed 

Respondent as a third assistant engineer on board the 50,205 gross ton coastwise MV 

14
PRESIDENT JACKSON. (Tr. at 202; IO Ex. 4). Mr. Allen Hochstetler served as the First 

Assistant Engineer aboard the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON during this time period and was 

Respondent’s direct supervisor. (Tr. at 201-240). Mr. Hochstetler testified on behalf of the 

Coast Guard concerning Respondent’s actions aboard the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON. I find 

his testimony to be highly credible. 

Part of Respondent’s responsibilities aboard the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON were to 

rotate “duty days” with other engineers. (Tr. at 202-03). A duty day required the engineer on 

duty to roam the engine room, keep an overall eye on everything, and ensure the equipment was 

working properly. (Id.). When an engineer was not serving a “duty day,” the First or Chief 

Engineer assigned that engineer various tasks. (Tr. at 202-05). Respondent did not have the 

skills or desire to accomplish many of the tasks a third engineer was expected to undertake. (Tr. 

at 208-09 and his inability to perform complicated tasks interfered with the ability of the First 

Engineer to effectively delegate work within the engine room. (Id.). However, Respondent was 

capable of completing simple welding jobs and was often assigned such tasks. (Id.). 

When conducting welding aboard a vessel, the welder needs to secure the fire zone in the 

area of the ship in which he is working. (Tr. at 210-11). This is accomplished by informing the 

bridge that welding is occurring and the bridge then turns off the fire alarm. (Id.). After the 

welding is finished, the welder informs the bridge the work is completed, and the bridge 

reengages the fire alarm. (Id.). When Respondent conducted welding, he would frequently 

forget to inform the bridge when he completed his work. (Tr. at 211-13). As a result, the area 

Respondent was working would be unprotected by fire alarms, affecting the safety of the ship. 

(Id.). Respondent’s supervisors informed Respondent such actions were unacceptable and he 

needed to be more diligent. (Id.). 

15
The engineers aboard the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON also conducted firefighter 

training drills. (Tr. at 215-16). During training drills, it was common for one member of the 

team to dress in a fire-suit. (Id.). The fire-suit included a breathing apparatus, a full suit, and 

boots ─ it was uncomfortable to wear. (Id.). While each member of the team was ordered to 

wear the suit, Respondent would always protest greatly when it was his turn to put on the suit. 

(Tr. at 216-17). When Respondent would eventually dress in the suit he would proceed to make 

a mockery of the drill and disrupt the training. (Id.). 

While Respondent did eventually obey orders to wear the fire-suit, Respondent did not 

always obey direct orders. For example, an unknown-switch was discovered in the engine room 

of the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON. (Tr. at 222). Mr. Hochstetler ordered Respondent to not 

turn the switch on, but instead to trace the switch to its source; it can be dangerous to turn on a 

switch not knowing what it will do. (Tr. at 222-23). Instead of tracing the switch, Respondent 

disobeyed the order and flipped the switch on and off several times. (Id.). 

Another example of Respondent’s inability to follow orders concerns his actions on 

Christmas Day 2001. On December 24, 2001, the Chief Engineer decided that no one would 

work on Christmas Day except Mr. Hochstetler, who was the duty day engineer. (Tr. at 224-25). 

Knowing Respondent was slow to follow orders, Mr. Hochstetler ordered Respondent several 

times not to work on Christmas Day. (Id.). However, Respondent still showed up to work on 

Christmas Day and proceeded as if it was a normal working day. (Id.). 

Respondent’s failure to effectively follow orders was not the only manner in which he 

created a disruptive environment aboard the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON. He was often 

confrontational with other officers and crew. For example, Respondent frequently informed 

other engineers, including his supervisors, that he attended Kings Point Merchant Marine 

16
Academy and that anyone who did not attend Kings Point was not as capable as he. (Tr. at 214-

15). Respondent would also inform crew members that he would sue anyone who caused him 

problems. (Tr. at 243-46; IO Ex. 11-12). In addition to this implicit threat, Respondent told Mr. 

Hochstetler that he had access to the personnel records of the ship and he knew the entire crews’ 

home addresses, including where Mr. Hochstetler lived. (Id.). Mr. Hochstetler believed 

Respondent assertions even though Respondent was not supposed to have access to this 

information. (Id.). 

Mr. Hochstetler was concerned about Respondents actions and wrote an e-mail to his 

supervisors on January 3, 2002. (Tr. at 238-41; IO Ex. 12). In this e-mail, Mr. Hochstetler 

stated because of Mr. Shine’s aggression and continuous threats of litigation, he feared for his 

safety and livelihood and requested that he not supervise Respondent on the upcoming voyage. 

(Id.). This was not the only letter filed with the ship’s chain-of-command addressing concerns 

related to Respondent. Donald Bazille, an electrician aboard the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON, 

wrote a letter to American Ship Management on January 3, 2002. (Tr. at 247-48; IO Ex. 11). In 

this letter, Mr. Bazill stated Respondent’s continued threats of law suits had made the entire ship 

an unpleasant place to work. (Id.). Richard English, the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON’s Chief 

Mate, wrote a letter to the ship’s Master on January 4, 2002. (Tr. at 247-48; IO Ex. 14). In this 

letter, Mr. English said Respondent was the most disruptive crew member he had dealt with 

during his thirty-three (33) year mariner career. (Id.). 

On January 5, 2002, Respondent was discharged for cause from the M/V PRESIDENT 

JACKSON because of his insubordination, continued intimidation of crew and officers, 

confrontational behavior, continued threats of lawsuits, and aggressive behavior. (Tr. at 250-58; 

IO Ex. 19). 

17
2. Respondent’s Mental Health Evaluations 

ALJ Ordered Medical Evaluation

In this case, the Coast Guard alleges Respondent is medically incompetent due to a major 

depressive disorder or other psychiatric condition. Per the regulations, “[i]n any proceeding in 

which the physical or mental condition of the respondent is relevant, the ALJ may order him or 

her to undergo a medical examination.” 33 CFR 20.1313. Since this case concerns 

Respondent’s mental condition, the undersigned issued an order directing Respondent to undergo 

a medical examination by psychiatrist Dr. Nathan Lavid at government expense. During the 

hearing, Respondent stated Dr. Lavid called Respondent as his house in an attempt to schedule 

an appointment. (Tr. at 12-13, 797-98). Respondent took great offense to Dr. Lavid’s call and 

found it an invasion of privacy. (Id.). Respondent’s position is that Dr. Lavid’s staff should 

have called Respondent to make the appointment; he believes Dr. Lavid calling himself shows 

prejudice. (Id.). As a result, Respondent refused to undergo the ALJ ordered medical 

examination. (Id.). 

A respondent’s refusal to undergo an ALJ ordered medical examination may be sufficient 

grounds for the ALJ to infer the results of such an examination would have been adverse to the 

respondent. 33 CFR 20.1313. While Respondent asserts Dr. Lavid is prejudiced, Respondent’s 

only basis for this determination is that Dr. Lavid called Respondent to make an appointment. A 

doctor’s attempt to schedule an appointment does not establish prejudice and is not sufficient 

grounds to refuse a medical examination. As a result, an inference is drawn, in accordance with 

33 CFR 20.1313, that the results of the examination would have been adverse to Respondent. 

18
Respondent’s Admissions and Medical Record

During the hearing, the Coast Guard introduced medical records and admissions made by 

Respondent concerning his mental health. As no physician-patient privilege exists in suspension 

and revocation hearings, the Coast Guard is allowed to introduce such evidence as long it is 

relevant to the charges alleged. See 33 CFR 20.802, 46 CFR 5.67. Since this case concerns 

Respondent’s mental condition, Respondent’s medical records and admissions concerning his 

mental health are relevant. Furthermore, in light of Respondent’s refusal to be examined by a 

court appointed psychiatrist, these documents are of significant probative value. The following 

is a summary of Respondent mental health admissions and records. 

Dr. Pamela Schafer is a psychiatrist who treated Respondent. (Tr. at 369-76; IO Ex. 28). 

On February 20, 2002, Dr. Schafer mailed a letter to Respondent informing him his insurance 

would cover an additional twenty-seven (27) sessions. (Id.). Within the letter, Dr. Schafer also 

informed Respondent she did not think he should leave town for school. (Id.). She wrote, “I 

think that you are too ill and will just get into more conflict there. You need time away from the 

conflict. You are highly irritable and not as aware of it as you should/could/would be. I do think 

you need medicine for the irritability, depression, & disrepair.” (Id. – emphasis in original). 

On October 1, 2002, Respondent filed a letter with his health insurance company 

requesting his medical coverage be continued. (Tr. at 358-59; IO Ex. 25). Respondent stated he 

was diagnosed as being “severely depressed” and suffering from a “mood disorder.” (Id.). 

Respondent asserted his condition made him unable to work; he was being treated for emergency 

mental health care; and he needed his insurance to continue so he could continue his 

psychotropic medication. (Id.). 

19
On November 13, 2002, Respondent filed a request with the Federal Family Education 

Loan Program to defer his educational loan payments because he was disabled. (Tr. at 661-64; 

IO Ex. 70). Within this request, a physician stated that on January 30, 2002, Respondent became 

unable to work and was diagnosed with severe depression and rule-out bipolar. (Id.). The term 

“rule out” is a medical term meaning a certain diagnosis has not been confirmed, but the 

particular diagnosis is highly suspected. (Tr. at 362; IO Ex. 32 at 162). 

On January 21, 2003, Respondent was admitted into Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital in San 

Diego California. (Tr. at 404-06; IO Ex. 71). During his stay, Respondent was diagnosed with 

bipolar manic-depressive disorder, an unidentified personality disorder, and likely suffering from 

narcissistic and paranoid personality traits. (Id.). The psychiatrist treating Respondent was Dr. 

Emad Tadros. (Id.). Dr. Tadros treated Respondent for several months prior to the January 21, 

2003 hospital admission and had previously diagnosed Respondent as likely suffering from 

major depression. (Tr. at 358-59, 380-88; IO Ex. 25, 29, 30, 31). 

While at Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital, Respondent was given a Global Assessment of 

Functioning (GAF) rating of twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) upon admission. (IO Ex. 71). The 

GAF is a scale used by mental health professionals to assess a person’s current mental state. (Tr. 

at 382-84). This scale is from zero (0) to one-hundred (100), with ninety (90) being normal. 

(Id.). A GAF rating of twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) is characterized by behavior that “is 

considerably influenced by delusions, or hallucinations, or serious impairment in communication 

and judgment, e.g. sometimes incoherent, acts grossly inappropriately, suicidal preoccupation, or 

inability to function in almost all areas. Stays in bed all day. No job. No friends.” (Tr. at 412). 

On January 23, 2003, Dr. Francine Kulick, a licensed psychologist, conducted a mental 

health exam of Respondent. (Tr. at 423-38; IO Ex. 32 at 162). This exam was conducted as part 

20
of Respondent’s lawsuit against American Ship Management. (Id.). Dr. Kulick diagnosed 

Respondent as having a major depressive disorder and a personality disorder with paranoid, 

obsessive compulsive, and narcissistic features. (Id.). She stated there is a “narcissistic quality 

is Mr. Shine’s grandiosity about his accomplishments.” (IO Ex. 32 at 162). Dr. Kulick also 

wrote that Respondent has a rule out diagnosis of delusional disorder and consistent with this 

diagnosis, Respondent “seems to feel conspired against and the victim of an injustice that must 

be remedied by legal action.” (Tr. at 423-38; IO Ex. 32 at 162). She asserts Respondent’s work 

is the focus of his life; however, his personality disorders create longstanding problems with his 

jobs. (IO Ex. 32 at 163). 

On January 29, 2003, Respondent took the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory2 (MMPI-2). (Tr. at 429-35; IO Ex. 32). The test results found Respondent has a moderate to 

severe level of functional instability. (Id.). It further indicated that Respondent has emotionally 

explosive personalities to include paranoid personalities and states, passive aggressive 

personalities, atypical depressive, and suicidal thoughts. (Id.). 

3. Mental Conditions and Danger to Maritime Safety 

Coast Guard regulations do not list specific mental conditions that disqualify a mariner 

from holding a merchant marine document or license; however, the Coast Guard provides 

guidelines for evaluating a mariner’s medical eligibility in its published Navigation and Vessel 

Inspection Circular (NVIC 2-98). (Tr. at 328-43; IO Ex. 63, 64). NVIC 2-98 addresses some, 

but not all mental health disorders which may disqualify an individual from holding a merchant 

mariner credential. (Id.). Examples of potentially disqualifying disorders include: having been 

diagnosed with a primary psychosis, having a condition requiring the use of psychotropic 

medications, and exhibiting suicidal behavior. (Id.). If a mariner is found to have a 

21
disqualifying mental disorder and is denied a Coast Guard issued credential, the mariner may 

request a wavier from the National Maritime Center. (Tr. at 339-47; IO Ex. 64). Dr. Arthur 

French is Chief of the Medical Evolutions Branch at the National Maritime Center. (Tr. at 323). 

His department is responsible for determining if a mariner’s medical condition will affect marine 

safety and if a wavier should be granted. (Tr. at 346-47). 

Dr. Arthur French testified on behalf of the Coast Guard and provided an opinion on how 

Respondent’s mental condition could affect marine safety. Dr. French entered the Coast Guard 

Academy in 1969, attended medical school in 1984, and continues to serve with the Coast Guard 

as a medical doctor. (Tr. at 323-27). Dr. French is knowledgeable on issues concerning mental 

health and has treated patients with psychiatric disorders. (Id.). Dr. French is not a psychiatrist 

and is not an expert at the diagnoses of mental conditions. (Tr. at 547, 558-59). However, a 

review of Dr. French’s background and testimony establish that Dr. French has a strong 

understanding of how individual medical conditions can affect safe maritime operations. 

Therefore, instead of providing a diagnosis of Respondent, Dr. French reviewed the diagnoses 

previously made on Respondent and discussed how such medical conditions could affect 

maritime safety. Dr. French’s testimony was found to be highly credible. Dr. French concluded 

that a mariner with Respondent’s medical conditions would represent a great danger to himself 

and to others if allowed to operate under merchant mariner credentials. (Tr. at 638). I accord 

great weight to Dr. French’s opinion. 

As addressed above, Respondent has been diagnosed as suffering from several severe 

mental health conditions to include: mood disorders, personality disorders, and delusional 

disorder. Dr. French asserts that each of these conditions can affect a mariner’s ability to safely 

perform duties aboard a vessel. Let us first consider Respondent’s mood disorders. 

22
Respondent was diagnosed as suffering from two (2) mood disorders, to include a major 

depressive disorder and as experiencing manic episodes. Major depressive disorder is caused by 

a chemical imbalance in the brain and results in loss of concentration and affects an individual’s 

cognitive thinking. (Tr. at 417, 436, 476). Precipitating events, such as job loss and 

bereavement, can trigger episodes of major depression. (Id.). Likewise, manic individuals will 

often behave in an uncontrolled manner. (Tr. at 417-18). Such behavior may result in increased 

productivity; however the activities will often be ineffectual and self-destructive. (Id.). An 

individual who suffers from major depressive disorder and is manic is considered to be bi-polar 

manic depressive. Dr. French states the physical and cognitive manifestations of a person 

suffering from bi-polar manic depressive disorder are not conducive to a safe maritime 

environment. (Tr. at 416-17, 424-25). The ability to be in control of ones actions and to have 

rational thinking is necessary for adequate performance when working under maritime 

credentials. (Id.). While mood disorders can be treatable, they are lifelong conditions and are 

not temporary. (Tr. at 363-65, 480). Respondent provided no evidence he is currently seeking 

treatment for his mood disorders. 

Respondent has also been diagnosed as suffering from, or has been deemed likely to 

possess, several personality disorders to include, narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive, and 

paranoid personality disorders. An individual with a narcissistic personality disorder will display 

a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy. (Tr. at 415); DSM-IV at 714 

(4th Ed. 2003, Text Revision). An individual with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder is 

preoccupied with interpersonal control at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiently. 

DSM-IV at 725. An individual with a paranoid personality disorder displays a pattern of distrust 

of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent. DSM-IV at 690. Personality 

23
disorders are not treatable, last a lifetime, are always present, and get better or worse depending 

on the conditions. (Tr. at 416, 480-83). Dr. French attributes Respondent’s argumentativeness, 

inflexibility, and inability to follow orders as outward manifestations of his personality disorders. 

(Tr. at 446, 480-84). Such behaviors result in more mishaps aboard maritime vessels. (Id.). 

Individuals with these types of personality disorders are dangerous to maritime safety. (Tr. at 

480-84). 

Finally, Respondent was also diagnosed as likely suffering from a delusional disorder. A 

person suffering from a delusional disorder will have one or more non-bizarre delusions that 

persist for at least a month. (Tr. at 437; DSM-IV at 323). Consistent with this diagnosis, a 

doctor who treated Respondent stated that “Mr. Shine seems to feel conspired against and the 

victim of an injustice that must be remedied by legal action.” (Tr. at 438; IO Ex. 32 at 162). Dr. 

French states that such delusional thoughts can be exacerbated by precipitating events and a 

stressful environment. (Tr. at 556) 

Dr. French summarizes his testimony by stating Respondent suffers from a bad disease 

and “is not medically, physically competent to hold a mariner’s credential.” (Tr. at 638). 

Certain events and environments can exacerbate Respondent’s mental conditions, which cause 

delusional thoughts, paranoia, and aggression. (Tr. at 556-57). Dr. French states that while 

Respondent might be able to function in a job which entails very little social interaction, 

Respondent certainly is not able to function aboard a merchant vessel. (Id.). A merchant vessel 

creates lots of stresses on individuals, is very structured, and has a para-military environment. 

(Id.). Dr. French asserts that “[t]he personality disorders that Mr. Shine has are not consistent 

with the safe operation in that environment.” (Tr. at 557). 

24
4. The Coast Guard has Satisfied it Burden of Proof 

The Coast Guard introduced substantial evidence establishing Respondent suffers from 

many severe mental health conditions, to include mood disorders, personality disorders, and a 

delusional disorder. As Respondent refused to undergo an ALJ ordered medical examination, an 

inference is drawn that the court ordered test would have confirmed Respondent suffers from 

these mental health conditions. In additional to medical records, the Coast Guard introduced 

evidence of Respondent’s disruptive behavior aboard the SS MAUI and M/V PRESIDENT 

JACKSON. The Coast Guard’s expert witnesses testified that these actions, which include 

argumentativeness, inflexibility, and inability to follow orders, are outward manifestations of 

Respondent’s psychiatric disorders. Such behaviors result in more mishaps aboard maritime 

vessels and are not conducive to safe maritime operations. The undersigned finds the Coast 

Guard introduced substantial evidence of reliable and probative value which established 

Respondent suffers from a mental impairment which renders him unable to safely perform his 

duties aboard a merchant vessel. Absent a rebuttal of such evidence, the Coast Guard has put 

forth sufficient evidence establishing Respondent is a danger to himself and others, and should 

not be allowed to serve aboard a maritime vessel. 

D. Respondent’s Rebuttal

Respondent’s actions throughout these proceedings have been very erratic and difficult to 

understand. Respondent’s filings were often in excess of 100 pages in length and lacked 

coherent trains of thought. During the hearing, Respondent was very combative with all parties, 

made continuous interruptions of the judge and witnesses, and showed total discontent for the 

proceedings. The undersigned inquired with Respondent of why he continuously interrupted the 

judge and Respondent replied, “[b]ecause you’re not a real judge.” (Tr. at 116-17). In 

25
accordance with 33 CFR 20.202(i), the undersigned was well within his power to exclude 

Respondent from the hearing for disrespect and rebellious conduct. However, taking into 

consideration Respondent was pro se and the Coast Guard charged Respondent with suffering 

from a mental impairment, the undersigned permitted Respondent to remain at the hearing. 

Furthermore, due to the convoluted nature of most of Respondent’s arguments, it would have 

been within the power of the undersigned to dismiss such arguments outright as being not 

probative and without merit. However, the undersigned has attempted to decipher Respondent’s 

arguments. After reviewing the transcript in-depth and upon studying Respondent’s 170 posthearing brief topics (which contained no subtitles, subsections, or enumerated findings of fact 

and conclusions of law), the undersigned determined Respondent’s arguments fall within five (5) 

general categories. These categories are, (1) there is an inappropriate underlying reason behind 

the charges, (2) the ALJ acted inappropriately during the hearing, (3) the Coast Guard failed to 

present evidence of incompetence, (4) Respondent was not allowed to present his case, and (5) 

this is a military tribunal which has no jurisdiction over Respondent. These five (5) arguments 

will be addressed below. 

1. Underlying Reason Behind Charges 

 Respondent asserts his competency is not the real reason why the Coast Guard has 

initiated these proceedings against him. Instead, Respondent states “[s]omething is very wrong 

here and it is not a problem with the Respondent, it is what he knows and what the Coast Guard 

continues to try and quash and not allow to be heard, and not just now, but for the past five years 

or more” (Rept’s PHB at 14). Respondent believes the Coast Guard has levied the charges 

against him as part of a larger plan to attack American shipping interests and likewise improve 

Europe’s maritime fleet. (Rept’s PHB at 77). Respondent asserts, 

26
There is much, much more going on here, and no matter what one 

wants to imagine or believe the Coast Guard is being used as a Trojan 

Horse of sorts to administratively attack and injure American Flag 

shipping, and American Flag Federal Maritime Officers and crew, 

while the Germans begin to set to sea in numbers not seen since before 

World War II. One needs to stop and think about what the European 

Union actually is, and what it has been up to since the end of World 

War II before dismissing any of this or working aggressively to 

declare the Respondent ‘incompetent.’ Anyone who moves in this 

direction, rather than moving toward informing NAVAL 

INTELLIGENCE is and should be considered a spy and enemy of 

Americans. 

(Rept’s PHB at 77) 

 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The matters going on with former Governor and Attorney General Don 

Siegelman from Alabama, those that have occurred with Military Cpl. 

Pat Tillman, and CIA Agent Valerie Plume, Boarder Patrol Agents 

Jose Campean and Ignacio Ramos and other are all tied to these instant 

matters, as are the recent firing of the 8-9 U.S. Attorneys as one of 

them Carol C. Lam has been involved in these matters directly and 

was one of the 8-9 who were terminated, and there are many others as 

well. 

(Rept’s PHB at 56) 

Respondent believes the Coast Guard targets mariners who stand up to such injustice. 

And, since Respondent rocked the boat by reporting a violation (whistle blowing) aboard the 

merchant marine vessel SS Comet, the Coast Guard has targeted Respondent. (Tr. at 35). 

Respondent believes that while the investigating officer, LCDR Tribolet, is trying to cover “up 

the incidents from the SS Comet,” he does not think LCDR Tribolet is aware of the grand 

scheme of the government to dismantle American shipping. (Rept’s PHB at 18). However, 

Respondent believes LCDR Tribolet “is becoming more and more aware [of the conspiracy], or 

willingly looking the other way as he has been placed on Notice.” (Id.). Respondent asserts that 

he is now being treated like a Japanese prisoner during World War II and what the Coast Guard 

27
is doing to him is “nothing less then a ‘twist’ of sorts on ‘water-boarding’.” (Rept’s PHB at 24 – 

emphasis in original, 72). 

Respondent provided no evidence of the allegations he alleges. For example, Respondent 

did not provide documentary or testimonial evidence addressing his “whistle blowing” actions 

aboard the SS Comet or why such actions relate to this case. The allegation of a governmental 

wide conspiracy to dismantle American shipping is also not supported by evidence. However, 

the lack of such evidence is immaterial. The purpose of these proceedings is not to review 

evidence and determine why charges were brought. Instead, the purpose of these proceedings is 

review evidence and determine if a mariner committed an act of incompetence. See 46 U.S.C. 

7701, 7703. Respondent’s allegations that the charges were brought because of an improper, 

alternative reason are found to be without merit and are irrelevant. 

2. Inappropriate Behavior of ALJ 

Respondent argues that the actions of the undersigned during the hearing were 

inappropriate and clearly demonstrate a “stacking of the deck” against Respondent. For 

example, Respondent claims the undersigned purposely delayed lunch on the second day of the 

hearing because he knew Respondent did not have the opportunity to eat breakfast. (Rept’s PHB 

at 69). Respondent states, “after the Respondent had somehow weathered the first day of the 

proceedings, Respondent raised the issue of when the proceedings might break for lunch as it 

was 11:45 am and Respondent had not had an opportunity to eat in the morning.” (Rept’s PHB 

at 69; Tr. at 429, 452). Lunch was not taken until 12:25 pm. (Tr. at 452). Respondent also 

claims he was treated unfairly because the air conditioning in the courtroom was not operating 

well. (Rept’s PHB at 68, 74). In an effort to suggest the Coast Guard is skilled at “playing 

games,” Respondent states “[o]ne can easily forget about the broken AC in Room ‘5150’ of the 

28
Glen Anderson Federal Building . . . .” (Id.). In a more serious allegation, Respondent also 

accused the undersigned of instigating many ex-parte communications during the hearing. 

Respondent asserts the undersigned committed these, along with other, inappropriate actions 

during the hearing. 

Such allegations are somewhat difficult to address because of their frivolousness. 

Respondent’s assertion the undersigned “delaying” lunch until 12:25 pm in an effort to impair 

Respondent is false. First, 12:25 pm is not a “late” time to take lunch and, second, lunch was 

taken at this time in an effort to allow a witness to finish his testimony at an appropriate point. 

(Tr. at 452). Respondent’s allegation the undersigned intentionally broke the air conditioning in 

the courtroom to impair Respondent is also false. While the courtroom was not overly cool, the 

air conditioning was working. And, upon a request from Respondent, the undersigned’s law 

clerk asked the buildings’ maintenance staff to attempt the lower the courtroom’s temperature. 

 Respondent also asserted that these proceedings were rife with ex-parte communications. 

These accusations are without merit; neither the undersigned nor did his staff discussed the 

merits of the case with either party separately. As set forth in 5 U.S.C. 557, unless both parties 

are present, an interested person is prohibited from making statements, to an ALJ, relevant to the 

merits of a pending proceeding. This is not Respondent’s definition of an ex-parte 

communication. Respondent asserts any communication “off the record” is ex-parte, even if 

such communications include both parties. (Rept’s PHB at 87; Tr. at 85). Respondent considers 

all pre-hearing telephone conferences ex-parte unless recorded. (Id.). Respondent also asserts 

communications between himself and fact witnesses are ex-parte communication. (Tr. at 75-77). 

For example, a Coast Guard witnesses testified as to Respondent’s actions aboard a merchant 

29
mariner vessel. (Id.). Respondent believes communication between that witness and himself, 

while on board the vessel, are ex-parte communications. (Id.). 

 Respondent’s definition of ex-parte communication is clearly divergent from the type of 

ex-parte communications restricted within statutory and case law. At no time did the 

undersigned or his staff discuss the merits of the case with any interested person unless both 

parties were present. Respondent’s allegation that these proceedings were rife with ex-parte 

communications is found to be without merit. 

3. Coast Guard’s Evidence is Insufficient 

Respondent argues the Coast’s Guards evidence establishing incompetence is insufficient 

and flawed in several ways. First, Respondent attempts to discredit the testimony of Dr. French, 

the Coast Guard’s expert witness, by asserting he is not an expert in the interpretation of medical 

records. Respondent’s supports this assertion by stating Dr. French is neither a psychiatrist nor 

does he make mental health diagnoses. (Rept’s PHB at 135-43). These facts are not in dispute. 

However, Respondent attempts to expound upon his argument by stating that since Dr. French is 

not a psychiatrist, he is also not qualified to review or interpret mental health reports. (Rept’s 

PHB at 141). Such assertions are incorrect. 

As previously stated, Dr. French has served as a medical doctor within the Coast Guard 

for over twenty (20) years, treated patients with psychiatric disorders, and has extensive 

knowledge concerning the field of mental health. Furthermore, Dr. French’s position as the 

Chief of the Medical Evaluation Branch at the National Maritime Center has allowed him to gain 

considerable expertise in reviewing mental health diagnoses and making determinations on how 

such diagnoses can affect maritime safety. Dr. French’s opinion assisted the trier of fact not 

only in understanding the nature of Respondent’s medical conditions but also how those 

30
conditions affect his ability to perform the duties of a licensed merchant mariner. His knowledge, 

skill, training, and experience were very helpful in determining the central fact in issue. 

Therefore, I find Respondent’s assertion that Dr. French lacks the required expertise to evaluate 

and comment on mental health evaluations to be without merit. 

Second, Respondent asserts the Coast Guard introduced little to no evidence from “health 

care providers” establishing Respondent suffers from a mental impairment. (Rept’s PHB at 87, 

144-45). Upon citing to Webster’s Dictionary and the Federal Register, Respondent states that 

“the basic understanding and definition that can be drawn from these are that a ‘Health Care 

Provider’ is someone who is contracted with and so as to provide health care services to an 

individual as agreed to by that individual.” (Rept’s PHB at 146-47 – emphasis omitted). Since 

Respondent made no agreement with the Coast Guard or the undersigned to obtain health 

services, Respondent asserts the Coast Guard and undersigned are not “Health Care Providers” 

and are therefore unable to diagnose Respondent or interpret his medical records. (Rept’s PHB 

at 149). Furthermore, in accordance with Respondent’s definition, the Coast Guard introduced 

no documentation from a “true and proper ‘HEALTH CARE PROVIDER” of Respondent . . . .” 

(Id.). Respondent’s position is that since the Coast Guard lacks sufficient diagnoses of 

Respondent from proper “health care providers,” the Coast Guard cannot find Respondent 

medically incompetent. 

Respondent’s argument is convoluted and flawed. Neither the regulations nor case law 

require the undersigned to base his finding of mental incompetence upon the diagnosis of “health 

care provides” as defined by Respondent. Instead, an ALJ finding of mental incompetence 

“must rest upon substantial evidence of a reliable and probative character showing that the 

person charged suffers from a mental impairment of sufficient disabling character to support a 

31
finding that he is not competent to perform his duties aboard a merchant vessel.” Appeal 

Decision 2417 (YOUNG)(1985). As addressed above, the Coast Guard has introduced 

substantial evidence comprised of witness testimony and exhibits establishing Respondent 

suffers from several severe mental health conditions, to include mood disorders, personality 

disorders, and a delusional disorder. Respondent’s argument that no “health care provider” has 

diagnosed Respondent as suffering from mental incompetence and therefore the charges are 

unsubstantiated is without merit. 

A third manner in which Respondent attempts to discredit the Coast Guard’s evidence is 

by inquiring with Dr. French as to why he gave little weight to the mental health evaluation 

provided by Dr. Richard Rappaport, M.D. (Tr. at 533-34). Pursuant to a request from Peter 

Forgie, Esquire, Respondent’s prior counsel, Dr. Rappaport conducted a psychiatric examination 

of Respondent on August 1 and 22, 2003. (IO Ex. 68 at 757, IO Ex. 69 at 777). This 

examination concluded that Respondent is “too smart for his own good and parts of the world 

were not ready for him . . . Eric is not ‘crazy.’” (IO Ex. 68 at 769-71). Dr. Rappaport’s report 

which found Respondent competent, was in stark contrast to other evaluations which found 

Respondent suffered from severe mental health impairments. (IO Ex. 68; Tr. at 440-445). 

Respondent inquired with Dr. French as to why he did not give as much weight to Dr. 

Rappaport’s mental health evaluation as Dr. French gave to other evaluations. (Tr. at 533-34). 

Dr. French testified that Dr. Rappaport’s evaluation contained extraneous and trivial 

information, did not appear to be objective, and failed to give a comprehensive evaluation. (Tr. 

at 534.). For example, Dr. Rappaport’s report did not provide a standard Axis 1-5 diagnosis of 

Respondent, the report’s verbiage such as “the world is not ready for him” is generally not used 

when making mental health evaluations, and the report did not detail Respondent’s past medical 

32
history. (Tr. at 440-44, 472-73, 534). Dr. Rappaport’s report stated there is no evidence 

Respondent is incompetent or unable to perform his duties. (Tr. at 443-44). Such a finding 

clearly failed to consider Respondent’s extensive mental health history. In accordance with Dr. 

French’s opinion, the undersigned finds Dr. Rappaport’s report failed to provide a 

comprehensive evaluation of Respondent and therefore accords it less weight than accorded the 

other evaluations. 

As the record shows, the undersigned has been provided a substantial amount of 

documentary and witness testimony concerning Respondent’s mental health and actions aboard 

maritime vessels. This evidence, as detailed above, sufficiently establishes Respondent’s mental 

condition would create a danger to himself and others if allowed to serve aboard maritime 

vessels. 

4. Not Allowed to Present Case 

During the hearing and in his filings, Respondent asserted he was not allowed to present 

his case. Respondent’s two (2) chief-complaints are that he was unable to call witnesses and was 

not allowed to introduce exhibits. Such accusations are false. The issue of the allowance of 

witnesses is addressed first. On May 1, 2008, Respondent filed a Motion that was in essence his 

witness list. Within this Motion, Respondent listed 130 separate witnesses, including, Senator 

Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Admiral Thad Allen, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the undersigned, 

the undersigned’s paralegal, the undersigned’s attorney-advisor, and all personnel working in the 

ALJ Docketing Center. Respondent demanded “[a]ny and all individuals identified or unidentified at this point in time who have any knowledge of Coast Guard’s EXHIBITS or 

WITNESSES are considered to be a part of the Respondent’s EXHIBIT LIST and also 

33
WITNESS LIST.” (Rept’s Motion - May 1, 2008). Respondent stated he required subpoenas 

issued by the undersigned for all witnesses. 

 In a May 12, 2008 Order, the undersigned denied Respondent’s request for subpoenas. 

Citing to 33 CFR 20.608, the Order stated any party may request the ALJ issue subpoenas for the 

attendance of witnesses at a hearing; however, subpoenas for witnesses will be limited to those 

whose testimony is deemed likely to be relevant to the issue at hand. See Appeal Decision 2328 

(MINTZ)(1983); See 33 CFR 20.608. Respondent submitted an exhaustive witness list and 

failed to provide a summary of the expected witness testimonies. Respondent also failed to 

establish why each witness’s testimony would be relevant. Having failed to comply with the 

regulations, Respondent’s request for subpoenas was denied. The order did not restrict 

Respondent from calling witnesses to testify, telephonically or in person; the order merely denied 

Respondent’s request for court ordered subpoenas. 

 Respondent continued to assert that “[n]o matter how you look at this, the Respondent 

was denied, multiple times the ability to have any witnesses WHATSOEVER at the proceedings. 

. . .” (Rept’s PHB at 163). Respondent declared the denial of his subpoenas is the same as 

denying him a right to call witnesses. (Id.; Tr. at 54-55, 197-99, 644). Respondent further 

believes it is the duty of the Coast Guard to find his witnesses and order them to the hearing. 

(Tr. at 644). When the undersigned informed Respondent it was not the responsibility of the 

Coast Guard or the undersigned to locate Respondent’s witnesses, Respondent sarcastically 

stated “I understand that it’s hard for Homeland Security to find Senator Feinstein or some of the 

other individuals [on Respondent’s witness and subpoena list].” (Tr. at 625). Such statements 

typify Respondent’s conduct and convoluted actions throughout the proceedings. Respondent 

was provided ample opportunity to call witnesses that would attest to relevant facts, but 

34
Respondent choose not to call such witnesses. Respondent’s assertion that he was denied the 

ability to call witnesses is wholly false. 

 In addition to alleging he was unable to call witnesses, Respondent also alleges he was 

unable to introduce evidence. (Tr. at 708-09). On the third-day of the hearing, following the 

Coast Guard’s case-in-chief, Respondent was offered the opportunity to put forth evidence. (Tr. 

at 658-60). At the beginning of the third-day, Respondent provided the Coast Guard and the 

undersigned a stack of documents which Respondent intended to introduce as exhibits 1-180. 

(Tr. at 658-65). However, these documents were not marked, tabbed, or arranged in any 

organized manner. (Tr. at 663-64). Respondent requested he be allowed to go through each 

document and match up the stack-of-paper with his exhibit list. (Tr. at 664). Respondent started 

to sort through and discuss his exhibits; however, considering the time it would take for 

Respondent to organize 180 exhibits individually, the Coast Guard offered to assist in the sorting 

and marking of documents. (Tr. at 669-73). Respondent appreciated the offered help; a recess 

was taken, and the parties attempted to organize Respondent’s documents. (Id.). 

Following the recess, the Coast Guard stated they would not object if Respondent’s 180 

exhibits were entered in bulk. (Tr. at 678). The undersigned agreed to admit all of Respondent’s 

exhibits, but Respondent objected. (Tr. at 678-779). Respondent stated he had not had the 

opportunity to review his exhibits and was not sure if there were issues of privacy or privilege in 

the documents he intended to introduce. (Tr. at 681). Furthermore, the documents were still out 

of order and did not match Respondent’s exhibit list. (Tr. at 689-95). Respondent stated he had 

the documents copied at Kinko’s and it was not his fault the exhibits were mixed-up. (Id.). 

Respondent was clearly unprepared and unwilling to introduce exhibits; the hearing was 

postponed for the day in order to allow Respondent to further organize his exhibits. (Tr. at 784-

35
85). The undersigned informed the parties the hearing would commence the next morning and, 

since the Coast Guard did not object to the introduction of Respondent’s exhibits, Respondent’s 

exhibits would be entered in bulk the following morning. (Id.). 

At the beginning of the fourth-day of hearings, the undersigned inquired with Respondent 

if he was prepared to introduce evidence; however, Respondent stated he was still not ready to 

introduce exhibits. (Tr. at 863). Respondent then proceeded to assert that the undersigned 

lacked jurisdiction and did not have authority over Respondent. (Tr. at 789-91, 891). Only two 

(2) of Respondent’s exhibits, which were introduced on the third-day of hearings, were entered 

into evidence.4

 (Tr. at 793-94, 898). Respondent made no attempt to introduce the remainder of 

his 180 exhibits. (Tr. at 793-94, 898). Respondent’s assertions that he was unable to introduce 

evidence are without merit. The Coast Guard did not object to the entering of any of 

Respondent’s exhibits and the undersigned proposed multiple times that Respondent’s exhibits 

may be entered into evidence. Respondent himself, having not organized or reviewed his 

exhibits, chose not to introduce his own exhibits. 

5. Lack of Jurisdiction 

Respondent has maintained throughout these proceedings that proper authority for 

jurisdiction is lacking. Respondent states that the Coast Guard “believes and asserts, that now as 

a Special Branch of the Military that it can ‘Regulate’ civilians affairs let alone adjudicate them.” 

(Rept’s PHB at 100). Respondent thinks only shipping commissioners, serving under the 

Shipping Commissioner’s Act of 1871, have the jurisdictional authority to initiate an 

administrative proceeding against Respondent. (Rept’s PHB at 128; Tr. at 891-904). 

 

4

 These exhibits were designated as Respondent’s Exhibits 179 and 180. (Tr. at 660-668). Exhibits 1-178 were not 

entered into evidence. 

36
Respondent states the shipping articles are constitutional in nature because the founding fathers, 

not statutory law, enacted them. (Tr. at 38). Respondent’s argument is that since the 

undersigned is not a shipping commissioner, the undersigned has no authority to adjudicate these 

matters. Respondent believes these proceedings are therefore unconstitutional and are like a 

“Special Court Martial coupled with a Medical Board all carried out by a Branch of Military 

upon an alleged civilian that is not in this Unformed Branch of [self-declared] ‘Military 

Service.’” (Rept’s PHB 12, 73, 106). Respondent cannot understand why a “military branch” is 

“prosecuting” a civilian. (Rept’s PHB at 51, 127). 

Respondent’s assertion that only shipping commissions have jurisdictional authority to 

adjudicate these matters is without merit. Respondent was the holder of Coast Guard issued 

credentials, and in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 7703, the Coast Guard has jurisdictional authority 

to revoke Coast Guard issued credentials if the holder is found to have committed an act of 

incompetence while acting under those credentials. As addressed above in the jurisdiction 

section of this Decision and Order, the undersigned found Respondent was acting under the 

authority of his license during factual allegations alleged by the Coast Guard. In accordance 

with the statutory law, the Coast Guard does have jurisdictional authority to take action against 

Respondent’s credentials. Respondent’s assertion, that only shipping commissions may initiate 

administrative proceedings against Coast Guard issued credentials, is without merit. 

6. Proceedings Influence Labor Dispute 

Respondent argued in both his Post Hearing Brief and during the hearing that these 

proceedings were initiated as a means of influencing a labor dispute. (Rept’s PHB at 15, 74; Tr. 

at 41, 64, 361). Respondent believes the Coast Guard intentionally inserted itself into a preexisiting labor dispute and “[t]his very type of behavior, to favor on side in any sort of labor 

37
dispute, shows just what the Coast Guard is really up to . . . .” (Rept’s PHB at 15, 74). 

Respondent cited to 46 CFR 5.71 which states the Coast Guard shall not exercise its authority for 

the purpose of favoring any party in a maritime labor controversy. (Id.). 

Respondent’s assertion that these proceedings are invalid because they are intended to 

influence a labor dispute is without merit. First, Respondent has failed to provide evidence that a 

labor dispute exists. A labor dispute “includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions 

of employment . . . regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of 

employer and employee.” 29 U.S.C. 113(c). During the hearing, Respondent presented no 

witness or documentary evidence detailing the alleged employment controversy. Nor has 

Respondent articulated how the Coast Guard is favoring a party in the alleged labor controversy. 

And second, even if Respondent had provided evidence that a labor dispute existed, action can 

be taken if maritime safety is a concern. In accordance with 46 CFR 5.71, if the “the safety of 

the vessel or persons on board is presented, the [maritime labor dispute] shall be thoroughly 

investigated and when a violation of existing statutes or regulations is indicated, appropriate 

action will be taken.” In this case, the Coast Guard alleged Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 7703 

by committing an act of incompetence. Substantial evidence has established that Respondent’s 

mental incompetence has manifested in Respondent acting erratically while serving aboard 

maritime vessels. Such manifestations of mental incompetence are not conducive to safe 

maritime operations. As such, even if a maritime labor dispute existed, the Coast Guard can 

intervene since Respondent’s mental incompetence affects maritime safety. 

IV. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent, Eric Norman Shine, and the subject matter of this hearing are within the 

jurisdiction vested in the Coast Guard under 46 U.S.C. 7703. 

2. Respondent suffers from bi-polar, manic depressive disorder. 

38
3. Bi-polar, manic depressive disorder negatively affects a person’s ability to think 

rationally and is not conducive to safe maritime operations. 

4. Respondent also suffers from several personality disorders to include, narcissistic, 

obsessive-compulsive, and paranoid personality disorders. 

5. Individuals with the above mentioned personality disorders are argumentative, inflexible, 

have a difficult time following orders, and present a danger to maritime safety. 

6. Respondent suffers from a delusional disorder which makes him feel conspired against. 

7. Respondent is not currently seeking treatment for his psychiatric disorders. 

8. Respondent’s disruptive and erratic behavior aboard the SS MAUI between March 6, 

2001 and June 11, 2001, and the M/V PRESIDENT JACKSON between December 2, 

2001 and January 5, 2002, affected the safety of those vessels. 

9. Respondent’s disruptive and erratic behavior aboard the SS MAUI and M/V 

PRESIDENT JACKSON, which include argumentativeness, inflexibility, and inability of 

follow orders, were outward manifestations of Respondent’s psychiatric disorders. 

10. Respondent is suffering from mental impairments of sufficient disabling character to 

support a finding that he is not competent to perform safely his duties aboard a merchant 

vessel. 

V. SANCTION

Pursuant to the Table of Suggested Range of an Appropriate Order codified in 46 C.F.R. 

5.569(d), the only proper order for a charge of Incompetence found proved is Revocation. The 

Commandant has repeatedly held that a person suffering from a psychiatric disability should not 

be permitted to serve aboard any vessel in a capacity in which he could cause serious harm to 

himself, to others, or to the vessel itself. See Appeal Decision 2514 (NILSEN)(1999); see also

Appeal Decision 2460 (REED)(1987). Accordingly, outright Revocation of Respondent’s 

license and merchant mariner credentials is the only appropriate order. 

WHEREFORE, 

39
VI. ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all valid licenses, documents, and endorsements issued 

by the Coast Guard to Eric Norman Shine are REVOKED. Respondent shall turn over his 

license together with other Coast Guard issued credentials, if any, to the Investigating Officer 

immediately. 

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 C). 

Done and dated November 13, 2008 

New York, New York 

________________________________________ 

HON. WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

U.S. COAST GUARD 

40
ATTACHMENT A

CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY -- PLEADINGS FILED PRIOR TO REMAND

DOCUMENT DATE RECEIVED/ISSUED

1. LETTER FROM USCG TO DR. EBAD TADROS January 30, 2003 

 (with attachments) 

2. THE COMPLAINT March 6, 2003 

 Initiated by MSO SAN FRANCISCO BAY 

 Collected By: USCG Gathered; LT TRIBOLET, 

 Witnessed By: USCG Witness; LT BRIAN HILL 

3. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND March 24, 2003 

4. REPLY OF USCG TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

 OF TIME TO RESPOND March 27, 2003 

5. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND ORDER DENYING IN 

 PART RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

 TIME TO RESPOND March 28, 2003 

6. ANSWER OF RESPONDENT ERIC NORMAN SHINE April 9, 2003 

7. NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO JUDGE MCKENNA April 10, 2003 

8. USCG MOTION FOR PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE April 11, 2003 

9. ORDER GRANTING IN-PERSON PREHEARING 

 CONFERENCE FOR MAY 14, 2003 IN ALAMEDA, CA April 15, 2003 

10. USCG MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ON 

 RESPONDENT’S THIRTEEN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES May 1, 2003 

11. RESPONDENT’S ERIC NORMAN SHINE’S REQUEST FOR 

 EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO USCG 

 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES May 2, 2003 

12. USCG REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR 

 EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO U.S. COAST 

 GUARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES May 5, 2003 

13. ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME May 6, 2003 

41
14. RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL’S 

 APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 

 ERIC NORMAN SHINE & REQUEST TO CONTINUE BRIEFING 

 RESPONSE DATE AND PREHEARING CONFERENCE UNTIL NEW 

 COUNSEL IS APPOINTED May 12, 2003 

15. REPLY OF THE CG TO WITHDRAWAL OF HAIGHT, 

 BROWN & BONESTEEL, LLP AS ATTORNEYS 

 FOR RESPONDENT (includes a 21 page attachment) May 13, 2003 

16. ORDER (Granting Motion to Withdrawal; allowing Respondent 

 Until May 20, 2003, to obtain new counsel; on or before May 

 30, 2003, Respondent shall file a Reply to CG’s Memorandum 

 of Points & Authorities; and pre-hearing conference set for 

 June 3, 2003. May 14, 2003 

17. USCG EXHIBIT LISTS (listing 1-64 CG Exhibits) May 27, 2003 

18. LETTER FROM SHAWN STEEL TO JUDGE MCKENNA May 28, 2003 

19. RESPONDENT’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 

 OF JUNE 3rd HEARING: TO BE TAKEN AND CONSIDERED 

 UNDER SEAL May 30, 2003 

20. ORDER (Denying Respondent’s Ex Parte Motion for 

 Continuance) May 30, 2003 

21. ORDER (Respondent agrees to Filing a Notice of Appearance by 

 New Counsel by June 9, 2003) June 3, 2003 

22. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE June 9, 2003 

23. USCG MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PRODUCTION OF 

 MEDICAL, PSYCHOLGICAL & DISABILITY RECORDS June 9, 2003 

24. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OPPOSE 

 MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL, 

 PSYCHOLOGICAL & DISABILITY RECORDS June 13, 2003 

25. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO VACATE PRIOR 

 COURT ORDERS June 13, 2003 

26. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY June 13, 2003 

42
27. REPLY OF THE CG TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

 TO VACATE PRIOR COURT ORDERS & MOTION TO 

 DENY NEW AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES June 17, 2003 

28. REPLY OF THE CG TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

 FOR DISCOVERY June 17, 2003 

29. LETTER FROM C.A. TRIBOLET TO NAVAL MEDICAL 

 CENTER DAN DIEGO June 17, 2003 

30. REPLY OF THE CG TO RESPONDENT’S REQUEST 

 FOR EXTENSION TO FILE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES June 19, 2003 

31. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE June 19, 2003 

32. RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO 

 FILE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES June 19, 2003 

33. ORDER – NOTICE OF HEARING June 20, 2003 

34. RESPONDENT’S AMENDED ANSWER OF 

 ERIC N. SHINE (original document) June 25, 2003 

35. RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO USCG’S REQUEST 

 FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS AND/OR THE 

 ACQUISITION OF RESPONDENT’S MEDICAL/ 

 PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORDS (original document) June 25, 2003 

36. RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO 

 FILE AMENDED ANSWER June 26, 2003 

37. ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 

 OF JUNE 3RD PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE June 30, 2003 

38. ORDER DENYING IN PART RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

 FOR DISCOVERY June 30, 2003 

39. ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR PRODUCTION 

 OF MEDICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL & DISABILITY 

 RECORDS July 1, 2003 

40. REQUEST CONTINUANCE OF HEARING July 4, 2003 

(Doc. # 40 is missing from the case file)

41. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING 

 UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION July 7, 2003 

43
42. ORDER (denying Motion for Continuance of the July 22, 2003 

 hearing) July 7, 2003 

43. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME WITHIN 

 WHICH TO EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS July 7, 2003 

44. RESPONDENT’S WITNESS LIST July 7, 2003 

45. USCG WITNESS LIST July 7, 2003 

46. ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

 TO STAY July 7, 2003 

47. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (affirmative defenses) July 8, 2003 

48. ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S REQUEST 

 FOR EXTENSION TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER July 8, 2003 

49. ORDER REJECTING RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE 

 DEFENSES THAT ASSERT LACK OF JURISDICTION 

 AND AUTHORITY July 9, 2003 

50. ORDER (submission of summary as to what Respondent 

 believes each witness will testify) July 9, 2003 

51. SUBPOENA RESPONSE OF DR. EMAD TADROS July 10, 2003 

 (with attachments) 

52. LETTER FROM PAMELA R. SCHAFER, M.D. TO 

 COMMANDING OFFICER, ALAMEDA, CA July 11, 2003 

53. USCG MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE & DATE-CERTAIN 

 FOR PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL AND OTHER 

 RECORDS July 11, 2003 

54. USCG NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND CHANGE 

 OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER July 11, 2003 

55. LETTER FROM GEORGIANA G. RODIGER, Ph.D. TO 

 COMMANDING OFFICER, ALAMEDA, CA July 15, 2003 

56. ORDER (Granting of CG unopposed Motion for Continuance. 

 Hearing reschedule to August 25, 2003, San Diego) July 15, 2003 

57. USCG MOTION FOR MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION July 15, 2003 

44
58. LETTER FROM PAMELA N. LAIDLAW, PH.D. TO 

 COMMANDING OFFICER, ALAMEDA, CA July 16, 2003 

59. RESPONDENT’S OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR 

 MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION July 16, 2003 

60. LETTER FROM PETER S. FORGIE TO JUDGE MCKENNA 

 (Re: designation as the agreed Medical Examiner) July 16, 2003 

61. LETTER FROM ROBERT C. STREFLY, PH.D TO 

 COMMANDING OFFICER, ALAMEDA, CA July 17, 3004 

62. MEMORANDUM FROM D.A. HOPPER, LT TO BRIAN HILL, LT 

 RE: SUBPOENA DUCES DECUM; DR. DOUGLAS RIDDLE July 18, 2003 

63. LETTER FROM C.A. TRIBOLET TO PETER FORGIE July 21, 2003 

64. USCG WITNESS SUMMARY July 21, 2003 

65. AFFIDAVIT REGARDING ACQUISITION OF 

 MEDICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORDS July 21, 2003 

66. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 

 SUBMIT WITNESS SUMMARY July 22, 2003 

67. ORDER (Granting Respondent’s unopposed Motion to Extend 

 Time to Submit Witness Summary List from July 21, 2003 to 

 July 25, 2003) July 22, 2003 

68. SCHEDULING ORDER - NOTICE OF HEARING DATE 

 CHANGE July 23, 2003 

 

69. USCG NOTICE OF INTENT TO DELAY OBJECTION TO 

 RESPONDENT’S WITNESS LIST & TO DELAY 

 PROVIDING A REBUTTAL WITNESS LIST July 24, 2003 

70. RESPONDENT’S WITNESS SUMMARY AS REQUIRED 

 BY COURT ORDER July 25, 2003 

71. DECLARATION OF CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FROM 

 MARY R. July 25, 2003 

72. RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER TO 

 SHOW CAUSE RE: CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE 

 DEFENSES (includes a 66 page attachment) July 25, 2003 

45
73. RESPONDENT’S SECOND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY July 28, 2003 

74. USCG REPLY & MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT’S 

 WITNESS LIST AND WITNESS SUMMARY July 29, 2003 

75. USCG REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO 

 COURT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE July 29, 2003 

76. ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S SECOND MOTION 

 FOR DISCOVERY July 30, 2003 

77. ORDER REGARDING PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION July 30, 2003 

78. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

 ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTON OF MEDICAL AND 

 PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORDS July 31, 2003 

79. USCG REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT 

 ORDER REGARDING PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION August 1, 2003 

80. RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER REGARDING 

 PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION August 1, 2003 

81. USCG REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR 

 RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER REGARDING 

 PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL 

 RECORDS August 2, 2003 

82. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

 MEDICAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORDS August 4, 2003 

83. ORDER (denying Respondent Motion for Reconsideration of 

 the psychological examination) August 4, 2003 

84. FACSIMILE TO PETER FORGIE FROM CINDY ROBERSON August 6, 2003 

85. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING 

 USCG TO TRANSMIT DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS 

 AND/OR EXHIBITS DIGITALLY OR ELECTRONICALLY August 6, 2003 

86. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

 THE COURT’S ORDER OF AUGUST 4, 2003 CONCERNING 

 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM August 6, 2003 

46
87. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER PRECLUDING 

 PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORDS AND TESTIMONY AT 

 HEARING August 6, 2003 

88. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF 

 SUBPOENA’S FOR ATTENDANCE AT HEARING August 6, 2003 

89. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING 

 CLARIFICATION OF USCG ALLEGATIONS 

 REGARDING “MENTAL INCOMPETENCE” AND/OR 

 “MEDICAL INCOMPETENCE” August 6, 2003 

90. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING August 6, 2003 

91. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO SET SETTLEMENT 

 CONFERENCE August 6, 2003 

92. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 

 OF USCG ALLEGATIONS August 12, 2003 

93. REPLY MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT ERIC SHINE 

 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

 THE COURT’S ORDER OF AUGUST 4, 2003 CONCERNING 

 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM August 12, 2003 

94. ORDER (granting joint agreement for settlement conference) August 13, 2003 

95. RESPONDENT’S REQUEST OF TRANSCRIPTS OF ALL 

 PROCEEDINGS August 15, 2003 

96. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER PRECLUDING 

 USE OF MEDICAL RECORDS FOR ANY PURPOSE August 15, 2003 

97. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER PRECLUDING 

 EVIDENCE OF ANY COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN 

 RESPONDENT ERIC SHINE AND HIS PRIOR ATTORNEYS August 15, 2003 

98. RESPONDENT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S ORDER 

 OF AUGUST 4, 2003, CONCERNING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL 

 EXAM (duplicate filing of Aug 12, 2003) August 15, 2003 

99. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER THAT ALJ HAS 

 THE ABILITY TO ORDER THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE 

 AT A LOWER GRADE AS OPPOSED TO REVOKING 

 LICENSE August 15, 2003 

47
100. OPPOSITION TO UNITED STATES COAST GUARD’S 

 MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT’S WITNESS 

 SUMMARY August 18, 2003 

101. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER APPLYING 

 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE BENCHBOOK TO 

 THESE PROCEEDINGS August 19, 2003 

102. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER PRECLUDING 

 INTRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENTS AUTHORED 

 BY RESPONDENT ERIC SHINE COMPLAINING 

 ABOUT HIS UNION August 20, 2003 

103. RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO COAST GUARD TO 

 SHOW CAUSE RE: CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES August 23, 2003 

104. USCG REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR 

 ORDER APPLYING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

 BENCHBOOK TO THESE PROCEEDINGS August 25, 2003 

105. USCG MOTION (no title specifying filed Motion) August 25, 2003 

106. USCG REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER 

 PRECLUDING EVIDENCE OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN 

 ERIC SHINE AND HIS PRIOR ATTORNEYS August 25, 2003 

107. RESPONDENT’S BRIEF RE: COAST GUARD’S BURDEN 

 OF PROOF & PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORDS/EXAMINATION August 25, 2003 

108. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO ORDER PARTIES INTO 

 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION August 26, 2003 

109. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER CORRECTING 

 THE COURT’S ORDER OF JULY 30, 2003 August 28, 2003 

110. RESPONDENT’S THIRD MOTION FOR DISCOVERY August 28, 2003 

111. ORDER (denying Respondent’s Motion requesting that the 

 Procedural and evidentiary guidelines in Longshore & Harbor 

 Workers Compensation Act be utilized in this proceeding) August 28, 2003 

112. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER REGARDING 

 JURISDICTION OVER RESPONDENT ERIC SHINE August 28, 2003 

48
113. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES AND 

 MOTION FOR REMAND August 29, 2003 

114. ORDER (denying Respondent’s August 20, 2003 Motion) September 2, 2003 

115. USCG REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR 

 COAST GUARD TO TRANSMIT DISCOVERY 

 DOCUMENTS AND/OR EXHIBITS DIGITALLY OR 

 ELECTRONICALLY September 2, 2003 

116. ORDER (denying Respondent’s August 15, 2003 Motion) September 2, 2003 

117. ORDER (denying Respondent’s motion to be provided 

 transcripts) September 3, 2003 

118. ORDER GRANTING MOTION IN PART & DENYING 

 MOTION IN PART September 3, 2003 

119. ORDER (90 day continuance from Aug 26, 2003) September 4, 2003 

120. ORDER (granted in part/denied in part to Respondent’s 

 August 6, 2003 Motion) September 4, 2003 

121. ORDER DIRECTING PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION September 5, 2003

(Doc. # 121 is missing from the case file) 

122. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ORDER CLARIFYING 

 THE COURT’S STATEMENTS REGARDING THE 

 PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION September 5, 2003 

123. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ORDER PARTIES 

 INTO ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

 (denying Respondent’s Motion dated August 6, 2003) September 8, 2003 

124. FINAL ORDER DIRECTING PSYCHOLOGICAL 

 EXAMINATION September 8, 2003 

125. ORDER DENYING MOTION AS MOOT September 9, 2003 

126. ORDER REJECTING CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE 

 DEFENSES September 9, 2003 

127. ERRATA ORDER September 9, 2003 

128. ORDER (denying Respondent’s Motion dated August 28, 2003) September 10, 2003 

49
129. USCG CONTINGENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

 JUDGMENT September 10, 2003 

130. LETTER FROM FORGIE JACOBS & LEONARD TO 

 LT BRIAN HILL September 10, 2003 

131. ORDER RULING ON RESPONDENT’S PROPOSED 

 WITNESS LIST September 12, 2003 

132. COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS 

 RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE 

 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR 

 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AND FOR DAMAGES; 

 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL September 12, 2003 

133. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

 AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION September 12, 2003 

134. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR 

 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION September 12, 2003 

135. RESPONDENT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & 

 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

 FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER & 

 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION September 12, 2003 

136. DECLARATION OF PETER FORGIE IN SUPPORT OF 

 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

 ORDER, AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION September 12, 2003 

137. ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF 

 RELATED CASES AND MOTIONS FOR REMAND September 12, 2003 

138. LETTER FROM LENA INGRANDE TO JUDGE MCKENNA September 16, 2003 

139. RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO FINAL COURT ORDER 

 DIRECTING PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION September 16, 2003 

140. USCG REPLY OF THE COAST GUARD TO RESPONDENT’S 

 PROPOSED SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS TO 

 DR. HAROUN September 16, 2003 

141. RESPONDENT’S PROOF OF SERVICE September 16, 2003 

50
142. LETTER TO DR. ANSAR HAROUN FROM JUDGE 

 MCKENNA September 17, 2003 

143. RESPONDENT’S STATEMENT OF ATTEMPTED 

 COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER REGARDING 

 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION September 19, 2003 

144. ORDER AND NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY September 23, 2003 

145. ORDER ISSUED BY HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN 

 (United States District Court, Southern District of California) 

 DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER September 23, 2003 

146. LETTER FROM LT BRIAN HILL TO PETER FORGIE 

 RE: SETTLEMENT REQUIREMENTS September 25, 2003 

147. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 OF COURT’S ORDER AND NOTICE OF FAILURE 

 TO COMPLY September 30, 2003 

148. DECLARATION OF PETER FORGIE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 

 FOR RECONSIDERATON OF COURT’S ORDER AND NOTICE 

 OF FAILURE TO COMPLY September 30, 2003 

149. RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF ALJ 

 HON. PARLEN L. MCKENNA October 1, 2003 

150. AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC NORMAN SHINE IN SUPPORT 

 OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF ALJ 

 HON. PARLEN L. MCKENNA October 1, 2003 

151. RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO CONTINGENT 

 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT October 1, 2003 

152. DECLARATION OF ERIC SHINE IN SUPPORT OF 

 HIS OPPOSITION TO COAST GUARD’S MOTION FOR 

 SUMMARY JUDGMENT October 1, 2003 

153. DECLARATION OF RICHARD G. RAPPAPORT, M.D. 

 (with attachments) October 1, 2003 

154. USCG REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR 

 RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S ORDER AND 

 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY October 1, 2003 

51
155. OPPOSITION TO CONTINGENT MOTION FOR 

 SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ATTACHED IS COURT 

 REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT ETC., RECEIVED 

 OCTOBER 8, 2003) October 2, 2003 

156. USCG REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO 

 CONTINGENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT October 3, 2003 

157. USCG REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

 FOR RECUSAL October 6, 2003 

158. RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO USCG’S REPLY TO 

 OPPOSITION TO CONTINGENT MOTION FOR 

 SUMMARY JUDGMENT October 7, 2003 

159. LETTER FROM DEBRA M. GUNDY, DOCKET CENTER TO 

 COMMANDANT (G-LMI) November 4, 2003 

160. ORDER – OFFICIAL NOTICE OF THE DIAGNOSTIC 

 AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL 

 DISORDERS, FOURTH EDITION, TEXT REVISION 

 (DSM-IV-TR) November 18, 2003 

161. ORDER – NOTICE OF INTENT TO GRANT COAST 

 GUARD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION AND 

 ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO SUBMIT A 

 BRIEF DETAILING ANY AND ALL ALLEGED 

 SUBSTANTIVE ERROR’S THE RESPONDENT/ 

 COUNSEL WILL ASSERT ON APPEAL November 19, 2003 

162. ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION 

 FOR RECUSAL November 20, 2003 

163. RESPONDENT’S APPEAL TO THE USCG 

 COMMANDANT IN RESPONSE TO JUDGE MCKENNA’S 

 NOVEMBER 20, 2003, “ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S 

 MOTION FOR RECUSAL” (Volumes I, II and III) November 24, 2003 

 

164. LETTER FROM KENNETH V. WILSON TO 

 COMMANDANT (G-LMI) Re: Respondent’s Appeal November 24, 2003 

165. RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S NOTICE 

 OF INTENT TO TAKE OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DSM-IV-TR November 24, 2003 

166. RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER 

 DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE BRIEF December 2, 2003 

52
167. ORDER & CLARIFICATION AS REQUESTED BY 

 RESPONDENT REGARDING PROPOSED TAKING 

 OF OFFICIAL NOTICE OF DSM-IV-TR December 10, 2003 

168. RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER OF 

 CLARIFICATION; REQUEST FOR HEARING December 12, 2003 

169. FACSIMILE FROM SCOTT DOW TO JUDGE MCKENNA January 5, 2004 

170. RESPONDENT’S APPEAL TO USCG COMMANDANT 

 REGARDING ALJ RECUSAL (Reassertion of Appeal) January 12, 2004 

171. ORDER (Clarification Re: Counsel’s representative to 

 Respondent) February 5, 2004 

172. RESPONDENT RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT 

 ISSUED FEBRUARY 5, 2004; REQUEST FOR 

 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE February 10, 2004 

173. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL (On USCG’s Decision 

 On Appeal – Appeal Decision No. 2644; Motion to the Ninth Circuit 

 to proceed in Forma Pauperis under 28 USCA 1915 OR as a “Seaman” 

 under 28 USCA 1916) with attachments February 17, 2004 

174. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY DECISION February 20, 2004 

175. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL(S) March 9, 2004 

176. LETTER FROM KENNETH V. WILSON, DOCKET CENTER TO 

 ERIC N. SHINE Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL March 12, 2004 

177. DENIAL OF STAY UNDER 46 CFR 5.707 AND ISSUANCE 

 OF PROTECTIVE ORDER March 29, 2004 

178. NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL April 12, 2004 

179. PROTECTIVE ORDER April 20, 2004 

53
ATTACHMENT A (cont’d)

CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY -- PLEADINGS FILED AFTER REMAND

DOCUMENT DATE RECEIVED/ISSUED

1. DECISION OF THE VICE COMMANDANT ON APPEAL (NO. 2661) December 27, 2006 

2. ORDER OF RECUSAL ISSUED BY ALJ PARLEN L. McKENNA January 5, 2007 

3. NOTICE OF REMAND ASSIGNMENT TO ALJ WALTER BRUDZINSKI January 30, 2007 

4. LETTER TO ALJ BRUDZINSKI FROM PETER S. FORGIE, 

 FORGIE & LEONARD DATED MARCH 8, 2007 

 (to advise the ALJ that he does not represent respondent) March 8, 2007 

5. ORDER (to parties to advise ALJ of availability to participate in 

 a Pre-hearing Conference by April 17, 2007) March 28, 2007 

6. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF “NOTICE OF 

 REMAND ASSIGNMENT”; NOTICE OF INCORPORATION OF 

 RELATED INFORMATION; AND NOTICE OF RELATED CASES; 

 NOTICE OF RECEIPT AND LIMITED RESPONSE TO 

 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI’S ORDER 

 OF MARCH 28, 2007 April 17, 2007 

7. SCHEDULING ORDER – NOTICE OF HEARING (hearing scheduled 

 to commence on September 25, 2007, Long Beach, CA) June 20, 2007 

8. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY LCDR CHRISTOPHER A. TRIBOLET 

 ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD August 27, 2007 

9. COAST GUARD’S MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 

 PENDING REVIEW OF RESPONDENT’S APPEAL BY THE 

 COMMANDANT August 27, 2007 

10. COAST GUARD’S REQUEST FOR PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE August 27, 2007 

11. NOTICE OF PRE-HEARING TELECONFERENCE (Pre-hearing 

 teleconference scheduled for September 5, 2007 at 12:00 (PST)) August 28, 2007 

12. VARIOUS NOTICES (FIRST PAGE ONLY) IN WHICH THE 

 RESPONDENT ATTEMPTED TO FILE VIA FACSIMILE September 5, 2007 

13. NOTICE OF DEFICIENT FILING ISSUED TO RESPONDENT 

 FROM ALJ DOCKETING CENTER September 6, 2007 

14. NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL HEARING (“In-Person” Pre-hearing 

 Conference scheduled for September 25, 2007) September 6, 2007 

54
15. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION REGARDING UNKNOWN 

 STATUS OF APRIL 17TH, 2007 MOTION AS FILED BY ALLEGED 

 RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO ALJ ORDER OF MARCH 28, 2007 

 THAT ALLEGED RESPONDENT RESPONDED TO BUT 

 COMPLAINANT DID NOT, DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 September 10, 2007 

16. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO 

 “NOTICE OF APPEARANCE” OF AND BY LT. TRIBOLET – 

 [NOW LCDR] DUE TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; AND 

 PREVIOUS AND ONGOING PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT; 

 DERELECTION OF DUTY; AND FAILURE TO “APPEAR”, 

 DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 September 10, 2007 

17. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION REGARDING RECUSAL 

 OF ALJ BRUDZINSKI DUE TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, 

 DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 September 10, 2007 

 

18. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO 

 UNTIMELY APPEARANCE BY LCDR TRIBOLET; AND DUE TO 

 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND PROSECUTORIAL AND 

 PROCEDURAL MISCONDUCT, DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 September 10, 2007 

19. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO 

“MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING REVIEW OF 

 RESPONDENT’S APPEAL BY THE COMMANDANT” AS 

PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE; OPPOSITION TO MATTERS 

 BEING TAKEN OUT OF ORDER, DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 September 10, 2007 

20. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION TO SEPT. 5TH, 2007 

 PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE AND DEFEREMENT OF ALL 

 MATTERS TO SEPT. 25TH HEARING AND CONVERSION OF 

 SEPT. 25TH “HEARING” TO INITIAL APPEARANCES AND 

 DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CONCERNS; 

 VACATING ORDER FOR SEPT. 5TH CONFERENCE, DATED 

 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 September 10, 2007 

21. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION ON ERRATA TO 

 CORRECT MISSING ORDER FOR SEPT. 25TH HEARING, 

 DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 September 10, 2007 

22. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION REGARDING UNTIMELY 

 NOTIFICATION OF CALENDARED SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2007 

 “HEARING” AND DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS ARISING 

 THEREFROM AND CONVERSION DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 September 10, 2007 

23. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF MOTION REGARDING UNTIMELY 

 RECEIPT OF NOTICE, MOTION AND ORDER FOR SEPT. 5TH 2007 

 “TELE-CONFERENCE” DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 September 10, 2007 

55
24. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE [ONLY] OF ERRATA; AND NOTICE 

 [ONLY] OF MOTIONS IN OPPOSITION AND CORRECTION OF 

 SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS AFFECTING 

 DUE PROCESS AS PRESENTED WITHIN COMMANDANT’S ORDER 

 ON APPEAL TO “VACATE ORDER FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT”, 

 DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 September 10, 2007 

25. COAST GUARD’S NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY FOR THE 

 SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 PROCEDURAL HEARING September 12, 2007 

26. RESPONDENT’S SECONDARY NOTICE; AND INITIAL 

 UNPERFECTED MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO “MOTION FOR STAY 

OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING REVIEW OF RESPONDENT’S APPEAL 

 BY THE COMMANDANT” AS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE; 

OPPOSITION TO MATTERS BEING TAKEN OUT OF ORDER; 

 NOTICE AND MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO UNAVAILABILITY 

 FOR THE SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2007 PROCEDURAL HEARING September 17, 2007 

27. NOTICE AND ORDER OF PROCEDURAL HEARING (“In-Person” 

 Pre-hearing Conference rescheduled to October 23, 2007) September 19, 2007 

28. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF; AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION 

 TO “NOTICE OF DEFICIENT FILING” AS FRIVOLOUS AND 

 WITHOUT MERIT; NOTICE AND MOTION IN RESPONSE AND 

 DECLARATION OF “NOTICE OF DEFICIENT FILING” AS MOOT, 

 IMMATERIAL AND INACCURATE, DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 September 20, 2007 

29. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE; AND MOTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO 

 “NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY FOR SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2007 

 PROCEDURAL HEARING; ADDITIONAL NOTICE OF MOTIONS 

 FOR RECUSAL OF MR. TRIBOLET DUE TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

 AND MISCONDUCT; AND SECONDARY NOTICE AND INITIAL 

 MOTION OF RECUSAL OF ALJ [AS UNPERFECTED], 

 DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 October 1, 2007 

30. ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 October 11, 2007 

31. NOTICE AND ORDER OF PROCEDURAL HEARING October 11, 2007 

32. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE; AND UNPERFECTED MOTIONS ON 

 INITIAL PRIMA FACIE SHOWING TOWARD RECUSAL; 

 AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND INVESTIGATORY; 

 PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT; SECOND NOTICE 

 AND AMENDED OF RELATED CASES W/ATTACHMENTS , DATED 

 OCTOBER 23, 2007 October 26, 2007 

33. TRANSCRIPT (CONDENSED VERSION) OF THE OCTOBER 23, 2007, 

 IN-PERSON PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE IN LONG BEACH, CA 

56
34. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF ERRATA ON SERVICE FOR: NOTICE; 

 AND UNPERFECTED MOTIONS ON INITIAL PRIMA FACIE SHOWING 

 TOWARD RECUSAL; AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND 

 INVESTIGATORY; PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT; 

 SECOND NOTICE AND AMENDED OF RELATED CASES, 

 DATED OCTOBER 26, 2007 October 30, 2007 

35. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE October 29, 2007 

36. LETTER TO ERIC SHINE (RESPONDENT) FROM LCDR TRIBOLET 

 (COAST GUARD) WITH ATTACHED COPY OF “COAST GUARD 

 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES DATED 

 MAY 1, 2003”, DATED OCTOBER 29, 2007 November 5, 2007 

37. LETTER TO ERIC SHINE (RESPONDENT) FROM LCDR TRIBOLET 

 (COAST GUARD) RE: EXHIBITS. COAST GUARD’S EXHIBITS 

NOS. 1 THROUGH 64 ATTACHED DATED NOVEMBER 9, 2007 November 29, 2007 

38. COAST GUARD’S REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE February 22, 2008 

39. ORDER DIRECTING PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION February 26, 2008 

40. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE; AND MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO 

 “ORDER DIRECTING PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION” 

 [ISSUED FEBRUARY 26, 2008 BY LCDR. WALTER J. BRUDZINSKI – 

 ACTIVE DUTY COAST GUARD] AS PROCEDURALLY, 

 SUBSTANTIVELY, LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; 

 OPPOSITION TO MATTERS BEING TAKEN OUT OF ORDER; 

 OPPOSITION TO DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS AND INTENTIONAL 

 SPOLIATION OF RECORDS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE RECORDS HAVE 

 EVEN BEEN CREATED; NOTICE; AND MOTION REGARDING ORDER 

 AND RECUSAL OF SAID DOCTOR, DATED MARCH 26, 2008 March 27, 2008 

41. COAST GUARD’S MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE, 

 DATED MARCH 24, 2008 March 28, 2008 

42. COAST GUARD’S MOTION AND REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S 

 “NOTICE” DATED MARCH 26, 2008 March 31, 2008 

43. STATUS NOTICE AND ORDER (Hearing scheduled to commence 

 May 20, 2008, Long Beach, CA; Supplemental or resubmission of 

 exhibit/witness list due May 1, 2008; Motions for Telephonic Testimony 

 due May 1, 2008) April 11, 2008 

44. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE; AND MOTION IN RESPONSE AND 

 OPPOSITION TO THE COAST GUARD / JAG PROSECUTOR 

 LCDR. CHRISTOPHER TRIBOLET’S “MOTION FOR STATUS 

 CONFERENCE” [WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED IN A TIMELY 

57
 FASHION AND NO ABILITY TO RESPOND HAS BEEN ALLOWED]; 

 NOTICE; UNPERFECTED [PARTIAL] ANSWER TO APRIL 11, 08 

 “STATUS NOTICE AND ORDER” NOTICE; AND MOTION AS 

 ANSWER TO OR IN RESPONSE TO “COAST GUARD’S MOTION 

 AND REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S “NOTICE” DATED 

 MARCH 26, 2008 . . . NOTICE; AND MOTION IN OPPOSITION 

 TO “ORDER DIRECTING PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION . . .”, 

 DATED APRIL 15, 2008 April 16, 2008 

45. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (RULING ON RESPONDENT’S 

 “NOTICE AND MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO ORDER DIRECTING 

 PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION. MOTION DENIED) April 16, 2008 

46 RESPONDENT’S NOTICE; AND MOTION TO DEMAND A FULL, 

 FAIR, OPEN, VISUALLY AND AUDIBLY RECORDED HEARING 

 ON MAY 20, 2007 TOWARD ALL MATTERS IN THIS ENTIRE 

 PROCEEDING, DATED APRIL 22, 2008 April 28, 2008 

47. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE; AND MOTION IN OPPOSITION AND 

 RESPONSE TO COAST GUARD’S “MEMORANDUM AND ORDER” 

 ISSUED APRIL 16, 2008, DATED APRIL 23, 2008 April 28, 2008 

48. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE; AND MOTION IN OPPOSITION 

 AND RESPONSE TO COAST GUARD’S “STATUS NOTICE AND 

 ORDER” ISSUED APRIL 11, 2008, DATED APRIL 28, 2008 May 1, 2008 

49. COAST GUARD’S REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S APRIL 22, 2008 

 MOTION May 1, 2008 

50. COAST GUARD AMENDED WITNESS LIST May 1, 2008 

51. COAST GUARD’S AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST (to include 

 Exhibit Nos. 32A; 58A; 65; 66; 67) May 1, 2008 

52. COAST GUARD’S MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY May 1, 2008 

53. LETTER TO RESPONDENT FROM ALJ DOCKETING CENTER 

 TO INCLUDE A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF ALL 

 ACTIVITIES, MOTIONS, ETC. IN THIS MATTER, PURSUANT TO 

 RESPONDENT’S REQUEST May 1, 2008 

54. ORDER (denying Respondent’s Notice; And Motion to Demand a 

 Full, Fair, Open, Visually and Audibly Recorded HEARING on 

 May 20, 2007 Toward All Matters In This Entire Proceeding) May 2, 2008 

55. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE; AND MOTION IN RESPONSE AND 

 OPPOSITION TO “STATUS NOTICE AND ORDER” AS 

 PERTAINING TO WITNESS LIST; AND NOTICE; AND MOTION 

 IN RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO “STATUS NOTICE AND 

 ORDER” AS PERTAINING TO EXHIBIT LIST, DATED MAY 1, 2008 May 6, 2008 

58
56. ORDER (denying Respondent’s motion for oral hearing on all 

 notices and motions, separately convened from the hearing on the 

 allegation. Respondent’s request to plead to the charges is DENIED) May 7, 2008 

57. ORDER DIRECTING PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION May 7, 2008 

58. SCHEDULING ORDER – NOTICE OF HEARING May 7, 2008 

59. LETTER TO ERIC SHINE (RESPONDENT) FROM LCDR 

 TRIBOLET (COAST GUARD) WITH ATTACHED DOCUMENTS 

 RECEIVED FROM DR. FRENCH, DATED MAY 9, 2008 May 12, 2008 

60. ORDER GRANTING COAST GUARD’S MOTION FOR 

 TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY May 12, 2008 

61. ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTIONS OF MAY 1, 2008 May 12, 2008 

62. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE; PETITION AND COUNTERCLAIM TO 

 UNTIMELY FILING AND NOTICE OF COAST GUARD’S LETTER 

 AND ATTACHED DOCUMENTS DATED 09 MAY 08 AS 

 FORWARDED ON FROM COAST GUARD CHIEF MEDICAL 

 OFFICER CAPTAIN FRENCH LEAVING INSUFFICIENT NOTICE 

 FOR TRIAL PREPARATION FOR SIMULTANEOUS PUBLIC 

 TRIAL AND UNNOTICED AND UNCALENDARED PUBLIC 

 HEARING ON PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH EXAMS, UNDATED May 22, 2008 

63. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE; MOTION; PETITION AND 

 COUNTERCLAIM IN RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO 

 UNTIMELY FILING AND NOTICE OF COAST GUARD MILITARY 

 JUDGE’S “SCHEDULING ORDER – NOTICE OF HEARING” AS 

 ISSUED BY LCDR. ALJ / MLJ BRUDZINSKI ON MAY 07, 2008 

 FOR TRIAL ON MAY 20, 2008 LEAVING INSUFFICIENT NOTICE 

 FOR TRIAL PREPARATION”, UNDATED May 22, 2008 

64. RESPONDENT’S PETITION FOR LEGISLATIVE /EXECUTIVE 

 AND JUDICIAL NOTICE AS TO HR 2830, DATED MAY 19, 2008 May 22, 2008 

65. RESPONDENT’S UNPERFECTED [PARTIAL] AMENDED WITNESS 

 LIST AND [PARTIAL] SUMMARY, DATED MAY 20, 2008 May 27, 2008 

66. LETTER FROM THE COAST GUARD TO THE ALJ RE: TRANSCRIPT 

 OF HEARING, DATED JUNE 3, 2008 June 4, 2008 

67. POST HEARING BRIEF SCHEDULING ORDER June 10, 2008 

68. AFFIDAVIT AND DECLARATION OF RESPONDENT 

 LT ERIC N. SHINE ON COAST GUARD “KANGAROO COURTS” 

 AND NEED OF TRANSCRIPTS DATED JUNE 11, 2008 June 16, 2008 

69. CORRESPONDENCE FROM RESPONDENT TO LINDA JACKSON, 

 CEO/PRESIDENT OF PREMIERE ANALYSIS, UNDATED June 17, 2008 

59
70. RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF FILING OF: COUNTER-COMPLAINT 

 AGAINST COAST GUARD, ALJ/LCDR. BRUDZINSKI, ADM. CREA, 

 ADM ALLEN, AND LCDR. TRIBOLET, ET AL AND CONCLUSIONS 

 OF LAW AND FACT AS ORDERED TO FILE BY COAST GUARD 

 BY JULY 10, 2008, DATED JULY 9, 2008 July 11, 2008 

71. RESPONDENT’S “CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FACT ORDERED 

 FILED BY JULY 10, 2008” “FILED UNDER DURESS AND BY 

 COMPULSION” DATED JULY 9, 2008 July 11, 2008 

72. “REGARDING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FACT – ORDERED 

 BY JULY 10, 2008” “FILED UNDER DURESS AND BY 

 COMPULSION” SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT, DATED 

 JULY 22, 2008 July 23, 2008 

73. DECISION AND ORDER November 13, 2008 

60
ATTACHMENT B

WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST 

Respondent Witnesses – no witnesses called 

Coast Guard Witnesses 

1. Cecil Ray 

2. Allen Hochstetler 

3. Dr. Arthur French, M.D., CAPT USPHS 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Respondent Exhibits 

179. Articles Referenced by Dr. French and Letter

180. Amnesty International Article 

 * Exhibits 1-178 were not entered into evidence 

Coast Guard Exhibits 

1. The Complaint 

2. License, Merchant Mariner Document and STCW certificate 

3. Certificates of Discharge from the vessel MAUl, and “Coast Guard Vessel 

Documentation” printed out for the MAUl 

4. Certificate of Discharge from the vessel PRESIDENT JACKSON, and "Coast 

Guard Vessel Documentation" print out for the PRESIDENT JACKSON 

5. MATSON OER completed by Captain Marshall, dated 04/09/2001 

6. Letter of Discharge for cause, signed by C/E Ray, dated 06/11/2001 

7. MATSON OER completed by Chief Engineer Ray dated 06/11/2000 

8. Mr. Percival's letter to Mr. Shine dated 08/27/2001 

9. Letter of Warning, signed by C/E McMillan dated 12/28/2001 

10. Letter of Warning signed by C/E McMillan dated 12/31/2001 

11. Mr. Bazille's letter to ASM management dated 01/03/2002 

12. Mr. Hochstetler's email to ASM management dated 01/03/2002 

13. Mr. Hochstetler's fax to Mr. Morgan dated 02/08/2002 

14. Chief Mate English's letter to Capt Kovary dated 01/04/2002 

15. Mr. Soderlund's letter to Chief Engineer McMillan dated 01/04/2002 

16. Captain Kovary's e-mail to ASM management dated 12/31/2001 

17. Captain Kovary's e-mail to ASM management dated 01/02/2002 

18. Captain Kovary's e-mail to ASM labor relations dated 01/03/2002 

61
19. Entry of Official Logbook of the PRESIDENT JACKSON dated 01/05/2002 

20. State of California, Notice of Automatic Disability Payment effective 1/30/2002 

21. Complaint in the Matter of Eric Shine v. Matson, dated 10/05/2001 

22. MESA Benefits computer printout dated 06/03/2002 

23. MESA Statement of Claim for Members signed by Respondent and dated 

 06/07/2002 

24. Respondent's appeal to the State of California concerning disability, dated 

 07/18/2002 

25. Respondent's letter to the MESA Plan dated 10/01/2002 

26. EDD Disability Status Inquiry, submitted by Respondent, dated 09/18/2002 

27. Plaintiff Eric Shine's Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories 

dated 10/10/2002 

28. Dr Schafer's letter to Respondent dated 02/20/2002/ 

29. Dr Tadros' letter to MEBS Plans dated 10/04/2002 

30. Dr Tadros' psychiatric evaluation of the Respondent dated 09/20/2002 

31. Dr Tadros' letter ''To Whom It May Concern" dated 11/22/2002 

32. Dr. Kulick's report on the Respondent's psychological condition dated 

02/20/2003 

33. Regional Exam Center file of Eric Shine 

34. Coast Guard investigation of Respondent's misconduct on the MV SUE 

LYKES on 04/01/1995 

35. Chief Engineer's letter to ASM concerning the Respondent's termination from 

CAPE ISABEL dated 05/08/2000, and Letter of Disciplinary Warning, dated 

05/30/2000 

36. MATSON's response to NLRB investigation concerning Respondent's allegations 

 dated 09/27/2001 

37. Withdrawal of NLRB charges against MATSON at Respondent's request, dated 

 11/01/2001 

38. Respondent's letter to Mr. Morgan dated 11/14/2001 

39. ASM response to NLRB complaint concerning Respondent's termination from the 

 CAPE ISABEL, dated 11/15/2001 

40. Withdrawal of NLRB charges against ASM 

41. Respondent's letter to Senior Chief Fong (MSO San Francisco), dated 11/17/2001 

42. Respondent's letter to ASM CFO, Captain Kovary, dated 12/30/2001 (1700 hrs) 

43. Respondent's letter to ASM CFO, Captain Kovary, dated 01/05/2002 (0800 hrs) 

44. Respondent's letter to ASM CFO, Captain Kovary, dated 01/05/2002 (1608 hrs) 

45. Respondent's e-mail to ASM CFO (Ms. Collins) dated 01/06/2002 

46. Mr. Morgan's letter to the Respondent dated 01/08/2002 

47. Respondent's letter to LT Tribolet (MSO San Francisco), dated 01/09/2002 

48. Respondent's letter to ASM CFO (Ms. Collins) dated 01/16/2002 

49. LT Wiley's investigative findings 

50. LT Wiley (MSD Unalaska, Alaska) e-mail to Captain McCormick (PRESIDENT 

 JACKSON) dated 01/25/2002 

51. Respondent's letter to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, dated 01/28/2002 

52. Coast Guard investigation of the SS COMET, dated 01/29/2002 

53. Respondent's letter to CDR Metruck (MSO San Diego), dated 05/16/2002 

62
54. Respondent's e-mail to Mr. Farley (Coast Guard Headquarters), dated 05/18/2002 

55. LCDR Kummerfeld (MSO LAlLB) e-mail to CDR Cummings (MSO LAlLB), 

 dated 05/21/2002 

56. Respondent's e-mail to Mr. Farley (Coast Guard Headquarters), dated 05/22/2002 

57. Coast Guard findings in the investigation of the MORMACSUN, as of 

 05/22/2002 

58. Withdrawal of Mr. Haney as Respondent's attorney, dated 06/18/2002, and 

 associated documents 

59. Respondent's e-mail to the FBI, dated 07/08/2002 

60. Respondent's e-mail to RADM Stewart, William Schubert, etc, dated 12/27/2002 

61. Respondent's letter to Norm Mineta (Secretary of Transportation) dated 

03/01/2003, Respondent's "Post-It Note," appended to MSO LAlLB's letter dated 

June 10, 2002 the Coast Guard's final agency action dated 4/11/2003 

62. Respondent's e-mail to LT Tribolet (MSO San Francisco) dated 05/06/2003 

63. NVIC 6-89 

64. NVIC 2-98 

65. Official Navy Service Record of Mr. Shine 

66. Policy letter detailing DD-214 

67. Certain Department of the Navy Policies pertaining to issuance of Form DD-214 

68. Declaration of Richard Rappaport 

69. Declaration of Peter Forgie, Esquire 

70. Temporary Total Disability Deferment Request 

71. Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital Report 

63
ATTACHMENT C

NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RIGHTS 

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; 

64
(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.

65
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Decision and Order by express 

mail courier (Federal Express) upon the following parties and limited participants (or designated 

representative) in this proceeding at the addresses indicated as follows: 

LCDR Christopher A. Tribolet 

Coast Guard MLCPAC 

Building 54A, Coast Guard Island 

Alameda, CA 94501 

Telephone: (510) 437-3330 

Facsimile: (510) 437-3341 

Eric Norman Shine 

[REDACTED] 

USCG – ALJ Docketing Center 

40 South Gay Street, Room 412 

Baltimore, MD 21202-4022 

Telephone: (410) 962-7434 

Facsimile: (410) 962-1746 

Done and dated November 13, 2008 

New York, New York 

___________________________________ 

Regina V. Maye 

Paralegal Specialist to the 

Administrative Law Judge 

Telephone: (212) 668-2970 

Facsimile: (212) 825-1230 

66