UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES COAST GI;"ARD 

********************************** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD * Docket No. 00-0553 

vs. 

WILLIAM G. BULLOCK, JR. 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Case Number P A00000543 

********************************** 

DECISION AND ORDER 

PETER A. FITZPATRICK 

Administrative Law Judge 

APPEARANCES 

FOR THE COAST GUARD 

L T Edmond Miner 

L T Steven Lowe 

United States Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office 

103 Commercial Street 

Portland, ME 04101-4726 

FOR THE RESPONDENT 

Robert G. Bullock, Jr., Pro Se 
I. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This case began when the United States Coast Guard filed a Complaint against the 

Respondent William G. Bullock, Jr., holder of License Number 913020 and Merchant 

Mariner's Document No. 219-68-4970 on August 31,2000 under the statutory authority 

contained in 46 U.S.C. § 7703. In the Complaint, the Coast Guard alleged that Mr. 

Bullock failed a Pre-employment drug test on January 19, 2000. 

Mr. Bullock filed a timely Answer to the Complaint on September 16, 2000. The 

Answer admitted all Jurisdictional and Factual Allegations but the Respondent wished to 

be heard on the proposed Order. In the Complaint, the Investigating Officer sought the 

Revocation of Mr. Bullock's Coast Guard License and Merchant Mariner's Document in 

accord with 46 U.S.C. § 7704. 

A hearing was scheduled for October 25, 2000 at Portland, ME and the 

Respondent and the Investigation Officers appeared at that session. Mr. Bullock affirmed 

his Answers of Admission to the Complaint and sought a less severe sanction against his 

license and document. 

The Coast Guard presented the following witnesses: Mr. Frank Rios, the 

Collection Site Person, Quest Diagnostics, Inc; Mr. George M. Ellis, President Greystone 

Health Sciences Corporation; Dr. David M. Katsuyama, M.D., Medical Review Officer; 

and Mr. James Callies, Scientific Director for Quest Diagnostics Substance Abuse 

Testing Laboratory, San Diego, CA. The documentary evidence submitted included 

copies of the Drug Testing Custody and Control Form, the testing laboratory report, and 

the Quest Diagnostics Litigation Package. See Appendix A for a complete listing. 

2 
Mr. Bullock testified on his own behalf and introduced various commendations, 

letters of recommendation, certificates, and professional achievements. Some of these 

were marked for identification at the hearing. Others were referred to at that time and 

submitted later. They are now included in the record. See Appendix B for a description 

of these exhibits. The case is now ripe for decision. 

II. 

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED 

A. Procedural Matters 

1. This proceeding is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act , which is incorporated 

into these proceedings under 46 U.S.C. 7702, which reads: 

§ 7702. Administrative procedure 

(a) Sections 551-559 of title 5 apply to each hearing under this chapter about 

suspending or revoking a license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's 

document. 

2. 46 U.S.C.§§ 7701-7705 sets out the general procedures governing the suspension and 

revocation of merchant mariners' licenses and documents. 46 U.S. C. § 7704 provides in 

pertinent part: 

§ 7704. Dangerous drugs as grounds for revocation 

(c) If it is shown that a holder has been a user of, or addicted to, a 

dangerous drug, the license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's 

document shall be revoked unless the holder provides satisfactory proof 

that the holder is cured. 

3. The regulations governing the perfonnance of chemical tests for dangerous drugs adopted 

by the United States Department of Transportation are codified at 49 CFR § 40. The 

specimen collection procedures are set out at 49 CFR § 40.25. 

3 
4. The Coast Guard regulations governing chemical testing for dangerous drugs are codified at 

46 CFR § 16. Specifically, 46 CFR § 16.201(b) provides that 

Subpart B -Required Chemical Testing 

§ 16.201 Application. 

(b) If an individual fails a chemical test for dangerous drugs under this 

part, the individual will be presumed to be a user of dangerous drugs. 

5. The Coast Guard Rules of Practice which apply to this proceeding are codified at 33 CFR § 

20. 

III. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

A. Jurisdictional Allegations Admitted by the Respondent 

L The Respondent is the holder of License No. 91320. 

2. The Respondent is the holder ofMerchant Mariner's Document Number 219-68-4970. 

B. Factual Allegations Admitted by the Respondent 

1. On January 19, 2000 Respondent took a Pre-employment drug test. 

2. A urine specimen was collected by Frank Rios of Quest PSC. 

3. The Respondent signed a Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. 

4. The urine specimen was collected and analyzed by Quest Diagnostics, Inc. using procedures 

approved by the Department of Transportation 

5. That specimen subsequently tested positive for Marijuana Metabolite. 

4 
IV. 

OPINION 

A. General 

1. The Coast Guard has jurisdiction over Respondent and this matter pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 

7704, which states that "if it is shown that a holder has been a user of, or addicted to, a 

dangerous drug, the license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document shall be 

revoked unless the holder provides satisfactory proof that the holder is cured." The Coast 

Guard has the burden of proving the charge and its supporting specification by a 

preponderance of the evidence or "by substantial, reliable and probative evidence. 11 46 

C.F.R. § 5.539; 46 C.F.R. § 5.63; Appeal Decision No. 2603 (HACKSTAFF) (1998); See 

also, Dept. ofLaborv. GreenwichColleries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994); Steadman v. SEC, 450 

U.S. 91, 100-103 ( 1981 ). The proceeding is conducted under the provisions in 46 C.F.R. Part 

5, 33 C.F.R. Part 20, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. 

2. Mr. Bullock admits all allegations of the Complaint but urges that the sanction of Revocation 

is too severe given his alleged innocent exposure to marijuana smoke and his commendable 

career in the Merchant Marine. With respect to the fmmer, he asserts that he was required to 

live with certain unidentified musicians in the New York area for nine days while he was 

waiting for an assignment aboard ship. There he was exposed to marijuana smoke from 

others although he himself did not use the illegal drug. He claims that this exposure from 

passive inhalation of the drug used by his co-residents caused the positive results of the drug 

test here. He also asserts that the life of a merchant mariner is not an easy one and that his 

record of commendable service should be considered before his license and documents are 

revoked. 

5 
3. Mr. George Ellis testified about the effects of second hand marijuana smoke on a non-smoker 

and stated that the regulations have included a cut off level ( 15 mg/ml) to deal with this 

circumstance. He testified that studies have shown that even under the most intense passive 

exposure to marijuana smoke the test subjects have not tested positive under the Federal 

guidelines involved here. Even if Mr. Bullock's claims were substantiated, which they are 

not, the evidence here is persuasive that the Respondent would not have tested positive under 

the circumstances he described. 

4. Mr. Bullock's claim that he did not use marijuana but was the innocent victim of its use by 

others is difficult to believe in light of his record. In June 1992 he plead No Contest to the 

charge Use of Dangerous Drugs after failing a chemical test for dangerous drugs on 

December 16, 1991. There too, the illicit drug was marijuana. See United States Coast 

Guard v. William G. Bullock, Jr. (Docket No. 05-0015-PAF-92B). His license was 

suspended for six months for that offense. 

5. I am of the opinion that Mr. Bullock has had an opportunity to overcome his drug usage and 

has failed to do so. In view of the statutory mandate set out at 46 USC § 7704( c), I have no 

choice but to apply the law. Mr. Bullock is a drug user and his continued service in the 

merchant marine cannot be allowed. Apparently, he has decided to continue his use of 

marijuana rather than stop and save his career at sea. Unfmiunately, his license and 

document must be Revoked. 

6 
v. 

ORDER 

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT License No. 91320 and 

Merchant Marine Document No. 219-68-4970 are hereby REVOKED. 

P~~A. /:P~ou~··· FITZPATRIC 

~J Administrative Law Jud · · 

United States Coast Guard 

Done and dated this f:2.Y of November 2000 at 

Norfolk, Virginia 

7