UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

EDDIE FRANKLIN YOUMAN

Respondent

_________________________________ Docket Number 2013-0345

Enforcement Activity No. 4714049

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: April 09, 2014

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Dean C. Metry

Appearances:

LT John D. Nee &

CWO Greg E. Cable

Sector Jacksonville

For the Coast Guard

Thomas A. Boyd, Jr., Esq.

For the Respondent
2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) initiated this Suspension and Revocation 

proceeding seeking revocation of Respondent Eddie Franklin Youman’s Merchant Mariner’s 

Credential (MMC) Number 000168571. This action is brought pursuant to the authority 

contained in 46 U.S.C. § 7704(c) and its underlying regulations codified at 46 C.F.R. Part 5 and 

33 C.F.R. Part 20.

On September 13, 2013, the Coast Guard issued a Complaint charging Respondent with 

violating 46 U.S.C. § 7704(c), alleging one count of Use of, or addiction to the use of dangerous 

drugs pursuant to 46 C.F.R. § 5.35. Specifically, the Coast Guard alleged that on July 18, 2013, 

Respondent participated in a post-accident drug screening and tested positive for cocaine 

metabolites. 

A hearing on this matter was held on February 11, 2014 in Jacksonville, Florida. The 

hearing was conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as amended 

and codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-59, and Coast Guard procedural regulations set forth in 46 

C.F.R. Part 5 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. Lieutenant John Nee and Chief Warrant Officer Greg Cable

represented the Coast Guard. Mr. Thomas Boyd, Jr., Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent. 

At the hearing, the Coast Guard presented testimony of three (3) witnesses and offered 

eleven (11) exhibits, all of which were admitted into the record. Respondent did not present any 

witnesses or offer any exhibits into the record. The list of witnesses and exhibits is contained in 

Attachment A. On March 18, 2014, the Coast Guard filed a Post-Hearing Brief. On March 31, 

2014, Respondent filed a written Closing Argument. 

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

statutes, regulations, and case law, the undersigned finds the Coast Guard PROVED one count 

of Use of, or addiction to the use of dangerous drugs pursuant to 46 C.F.R. § 5.35. Accordingly, 
3

Respondent’s MMC is REVOKED. 46 U.S.C. 7704(c); 46 C.F.R. 5.569; Appeal Decision 2535 

(SWEENEY) (1992). 

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Findings of Fact are based on a thorough and careful analysis of the documentary 

evidence, testimony of witnesses, and the entire record taken as a whole.

The Injury

1. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Respondent was a holder of Merchant Mariner 

Credential No. 000168571. 

2. On July 18, 2013, while the M/V RESOLVE was docking near Galveston, Texas, the 

Captain of the vessel, William Rapone, received a call on the radio indicating 

Respondent, the bosun, had fallen down. (Tr. at 14-15) (CG Ex. 1). 

3. Shortly after receiving the radio call, Captain Rapone spoke with Respondent, in-person, 

on the bridge-way, and inquired as to whether Respondent was injured. Respondent 

indicated he was okay, and did a “little jog or dance” in place to demonstrate he was not 

hurt. (Tr. at 15, 18, 52).

4. Captain Rapone testified that other than doing a little dance to demonstrate he was fine, 

Respondent’s behavior did not appear out of the ordinary. (Tr. 52). 

5. After the Captain left the bridge, he spoke with members of the crew who had witnessed 

the incident, and determined the incident was more serious than Respondent had 

indicated. As such, he made a phone call to the medical service used by the M/V 

RESOLVE; the medical service indicated they wanted to evaluate Respondent on shore. 

(Tr. at 16-17).

6. Captain Rapone called the Coast Guard to inform them of the incident and initiated 

alcohol and drug testing of Respondent. (Tr. at 17-19, 24) (CG Ex. 1, CG Ex. 2).

7. Captain Rapone reported the incident to the Coast Guard after determining Respondent 

could not be treated on the vessel and required medical treatment beyond first aid. (Tr. at 

18-19, 24-25) (CG Ex. 1, CG Ex. 6). 

8. Respondent was ultimately diagnosed with a non-displaced ankle fracture due as a result 

of his right ankle getting caught in the bight of a tug line messenger. (CG Ex. 1). 
4

The Collection Process

9. Captain Rapone has been a Department of Transportation (DOT) certified urine collector 

since July 2012, and has completed approximately fifteen (15) urine specimen 

collections. (Tr. at 28-29, 71) (CG Ex. 4).

10. On July 18, 2013 at approximately 11:05AM, Captain Rapone collected Respondent’s 

urine specimen in the hospital space of the M/V RESOLVE; the specimen was collected 

within thirty-two (32) hours of the Respondent’s injury. (Tr. at 30, 33, 35, 40) (CG Ex. 2, 

CG Ex. 5).

11. The hospital space aboard the M/V RESOLVE is controlled; only the Captain and the 

medical officer have keys. (Tr. at 42, 64, 77). 

12. Respondent produced a sufficient amount of specimen; the specimen appeared normal 

and was within the proper temperature range. (Tr. at 32).

13. Captain Rapone sealed the two urine vials containing Respondent’s specimen and had 

Respondent initial them. He then packed the bottles in a pouch provided and placed the 

pouch inside a box with a completed Custody and Control Form. (Tr. at 32-33, 35, 37-

38) (CG Ex. 5).

14. As there were no valid shipping labels aboard the vessel, the specimen remained in the 

hospital space until July 24, 2013, when, while docked in Baltimore, the Captain 

provided the box containing the specimen to an agent from Wilhelmsen Ship Service. 

(Tr. at 45-46, 48-49, 57, 63-64, 76). 

The Testing Process

15. Anne Roberts, a Lab Manager/Responsible Person for Quest Diagnostics (Quest), 

testified Quest received Respondent’s specimen on July 25, 2013, with the bottle seals 

intact. (Tr. at 89-91, 143, 150) (CG Ex. 8). 

16. Quest Diagnostics extracted an aliquot from Bottle A of Respondent’s specimen and

conducted initial testing on a properly calibrated Olympus machine. As Bottle A yielded 

a non-negative result, it was sent for confirmatory testing. (Tr. at 93-94, 109) (CG Ex. 8). 

17. Mickey Grover, the verifying scientist, confirmed the initial testing results after having 

examined the machine calibration and chain of custody documentation. (Tr. at 110-11) 

(CG Ex. 8).

18. A second aliquot was taken from Bottle A of Respondent’s specimen for Gas 

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) testing. (Tr. at 109-110) (CG Ex. 8).

19. The confirmatory test yielded a result of 236.73 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of 

benzoylecgonine, a cocaine metabolite; the cutoff is 100 nanograms per milliliter. (Tr. at 

121-22, 183-84) (CG Ex. 8). 49 C.F.R. § 40.87(a). 
5

20. Ms. Roberts testified there is no over-the-counter substance that can cause a positive for 

benzoylecgonine. (Tr. at 158). 

21. Ms. Roberts testified that cocaine is generally out of the system within seventy-two (72) 

hours; Dr. Jerome Cooper, the Medical Review Officer (MRO), testified cocaine usually 

stays in a person’s system for two to four days depending on various factors such as the 

person’s metabolism, weight, exercise habits, and hydration. (Tr. at 156, 184-85, 205).

22. At all relevant times herein, Quest was a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) certified laboratory. (Tr. at 119) (CG Ex. 13). 78 Fed. Reg. 

39757 (July 2, 2013).

23. Anne Roberts testified Quest Laboratory conducted the testing in accordance with 49 

C.F.R. Part 40. (Tr. at 119). 

24. Mickey Grover signed the Control and Custody Form, certifying Respondent’s sample as 

positive for cocaine and faxed the form to the MRO for review. (Tr. at 116) (CG Ex. 8).

25. Dr. Jerome Cooper, a certified MRO, testified he called Respondent, who could not 

provide an explanation for the positive test. (Tr. at 177, 187-89) (CG Ex. 9, CG Ex. 11, 

CG Ex. 13).

26. Respondent was not taking any medications that could have resulted in a false positive 

for cocaine. (Tr. at 190).

27. Dr. Cooper testified heat and time should not impact the validity of a urine sample. (Tr. 

at 193-94, 199-202, 211-12). 

28. Dr. Cooper certified Respondent’s sample as positive for cocaine. (Tr. at 186, 191) (CG 

Ex. 10, CG Ex. 12). 

DISCUSSION

The purpose of Coast Guard Suspension and Revocation proceedings is to promote safety 

at sea. 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a). In furtherance of this goal, Administrative Law Judges have the 

authority to revoke a mariner’s license, certificate or document for violations arising under 46 

U.S.C. § 7704. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.19(b). Under 7704(c), a Coast Guard issued license, 

certificate or document shall be revoked if the holder of that license or certificate has been a user 

of or addicted to dangerous drugs, unless the holder provides satisfactory proof that the holder is 

cured. See also Appeal Decision 2634 (BARETTA) (2002); Appeal Decision 2535 
6

(SWEENEY) (1992) (rev’d on other grounds); see also Appeal Decision 2546 (SWEENEY)

(1992) (reaffirming the definition of cure established in Appeal Decision 2535 (SWEENEY)).

The Coast Guard chemical drug testing laws and regulations require maritime employers 

to conduct pre-employment, periodic, random, serious marine incident, and reasonable cause 

drug testing to minimize the use of dangerous drugs by merchant mariners. See 46 C.F.R. Part 

16. The marine employer’s drug testing program must be in accordance with the applicable 

statutes, regulations, and Appeal Decisions. See generally 49 C.F.R. Part 40 and 46 C.F.R. Part 

16. If an employee fails a chemical test by testing positive for a dangerous drug, the individual is 

then presumed to be a user of dangerous drugs. 46 C.F.R. § 16.201(b). 

However, in order to establish the 46 C.F.R. § 16.201(b) presumption, the Coast Guard 

must prove (1) that the respondent was the person who was tested for dangerous drugs, (2) that 

the respondent failed the test, and (3) that the test was conducted in accordance with 46 C.F.R. 

Part 16. Appeal Decision 2603 (HACKSTAFF) (1998). See also Appeal Decision 2584 

(SHAKESPEARE) (1997).

On September 13, 2013, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint alleging Use of, or addiction 

to the use of dangerous drugs pursuant to 46 C.F.R. § 5.35. Specifically, the Complaint alleges 

that Respondent took a post-accident drug test which yielded a positive result for cocaine 

metabolites.1

 46 C.F.R. § 16.240. 

Title 46 C.F.R. § 16.240 states as follows: “[t]he marine employer shall ensure that all 

persons directly involved in a serious marine incident are chemically tested for evidence of 

dangerous drugs and alcohol in accordance with the requirements of 46 CFR 4.06.” Title 46 

C.F.R. § 4.06, in turn, provides that “[d]rug testing must be conducted on each individual 

 1 Although Respondent did not raise this, the undersigned notes the Complaint alleges Respondent took a “postaccident” drug test instead of a “serious marine incident” drug test. 46 C.F.R. § 16.240. The undersigned finds this 

linguistic distinction immaterial. See Appeal Decision 2585 (COULON) (1997) (explaining administrative 

proceedings require only notice pleadings). 
7

engaged or employed on board the vessel who is directly involved in the [serious marine 

incident].” 46 C.F.R. § 4.06(b)(1). The regulations explain the definition of “serious marine 

incident” includes:

An injury to a crewmember, passenger, or other person which 

requires professional medical treatment beyond first aid, and, in 

the case of a person employed on board a vessel in commercial 

service, which renders the individual unfit to perform routine 

vessel duties; 46 C.F.R. § 4.03-2.

Burden of Proof

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Title 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, applies to Coast 

Guard Suspension and Revocation hearings before Administrative Law Judges. 46 U.S.C. § 

7702(a). The APA authorizes sanctions if, upon consideration of the entire record as a whole, 

the charges are supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 556(d). 

Under Coast Guard procedural rules and regulations, the burden of proof is on the Coast 

Guard to prove that the charges are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 33 C.F.R. §§ 

20.701, 20.702(a). “The term substantial evidence is synonymous with preponderance of the 

evidence as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Appeal Decision 2477 (TOMBARI) (1988). 

See also Steadman v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 U.S. 91, 107 (1981). The 

burden of proving a fact by a preponderance of the evidence “simply requires the trier of fact ‘to 

believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in 

favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the [judge] of the fact’s existence.’” Concrete 

Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern 

California, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 371-72 (1970) (Harlan, 

J., concurring) (brackets in original)). 

Therefore, the Coast Guard Investigating Officer must prove by credible, reliable, 

probative, and substantial evidence that Respondent more likely than not committed the violation 

charged. 
8

Prima Facie Case of Use of a Dangerous Drug

The Coast Guard bears the burden of proof and must prove the allegations by a 

preponderance of the evidence to prevail. 33 C.F.R. §§ 20.701, 20.702(a). Generally, in a drug 

case based solely on urinalysis test results, a prima facie case of the use of a dangerous drug is 

made when the following three elements are established: 1) the respondent was the person who 

was tested for dangerous drugs; 2) the respondent failed the drug test; and 3) the test was 

conducted in accordance with 46 C.F.R. Part 16.2 Appeal Decision 2603 (HACKSTAFF)

(1998). See also Appeal Decision 2653 (ZERINGUE) (2002). 

In the instant case, the Coast Guard demonstrated Respondent’s drug test was conducted 

in accordance with 46 C.F.R. § 16.240. At the hearing, Captain Rapone credibly testified he 

reported Respondent’s injury to the Coast Guard after determining Respondent could not be 

treated on the vessel and required medical treatment beyond first aid. (Tr. at 18-19, 24-25) (CG 

Ex. 1, CG Ex. 6). Accordingly, Respondent’s injury constituted a serious marine incident for 

which drug testing was required. 46 C.F.R. § 4.03-2; 46 C.F.R. § 4.06(b)(1). Thus, Respondent 

was properly ordered to submit to the drug test. 

The Coast Guard also demonstrated Respondent’s specimen was both collected and 

tested in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 40. Captain Rapone, who collected the specimen 

aboard the M/V RESOLVE, has been a Department of Transportation (DOT) certified urine 

collector since July 2012. (Tr. at 28-29, 71) (CG Ex. 4). Captain Rapone credibly testified that 

he sealed the two urine vials containing Respondent’s specimen, had Respondent initial them, 

and then packed the bottles in the pouch provided. (Tr. at 32-33, 35, 37-38) (CG Ex. 5). While 

the vessel was docked in Baltimore, Maryland, Captain Rapone provided the box containing 

 2 46 C.F.R. Part 16 requires, in part, that chemical testing of personnel be conducted in accordance with the 

procedures detailed in 49 C.F.R. Part 40. 
9

Respondent’s urine sample to an agent from Wilhelmsen Ship Service for transfer to Quest 

Diagnostics (Quest). (Tr. at 45-46, 48-49, 57, 63-64, 76). 

Anne Roberts, the Lab Manager/Responsible Person testified Quest received 

Respondent’s specimen on July 25, 2013, with the bottle seals intact. (Tr. at 89-91, 143, 150) 

(CG Ex. 8). Ms. Roberts explained the testing process, and testified the drug screening was 

conducted in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 40. (Tr. at 119). Quest is a Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) certified laboratory. 78 Fed. Reg. 39757 

(July 2, 2013). 

Ms. Roberts explained the Documentation Package provided by Quest, noting Quest first 

extracted an aliquot from Bottle A of Respondent’s specimen for initial testing. (Tr. at 93-94, 

109) (CG Ex. 8). As the test yielded a non-negative result, the specimen was sent for 

confirmatory GC/MS testing. (Tr. at 109-110) (CG Ex. 8). The confirmatory test, conducted on 

a second aliquot from Bottle A of Respondent’s urine specimen, yielded a result of 236.73 

nanograms per milliliter of benzoylecgonine, a cocaine metabolite; the regulatory cutoff is 100 

nanograms per milliliter. (Tr. at 121-22, 183-84) (CG Ex. 8). 49 C.F.R. § 40.87(a). 

The laboratory certified Respondent’s sample as positive for cocaine on the Custody and 

Control form, then faxed the form and results to the Medical Review Officer (MRO), Dr. Jerome 

Cooper. (Tr. at 116) (CG Ex. 8). Dr. Cooper, a certified MRO, credibly testified he called 

Respondent, who was unable to provide any explanation for the positive test results. Although 

Respondent indicated he was taking pain medication, Dr. Cooper explained the pain medication 

could not have resulted in a positive test for cocaine. (Tr. at 190). Dr. Cooper further testified 

he advised Respondent of his right to request a re-test within seventy-two (72) hours. (Tr. at 

189-190). Accordingly, Dr. Cooper certified Respondent’s sample as positive for cocaine. (See

Tr. at 191) (CG Ex. 12). 
10

The undersigned finds the Coast Guard demonstrated that Respondent was tested for 

dangerous drugs in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 40 and 46 C.F.R. Part 16, and tested positive 

for use of a dangerous drug. Appeal Decision 2603 (HACKSTAFF) (1998). See also Appeal 

Decision 2653 (ZERINGUE) (2002). As such, Respondent is presumed to be a user of 

dangerous drugs. 46 C.F.R. § 16.201(b). Respondent may rebut this presumption by producing 

evidence that (1) calls into question any element of the prima facie case, (2) indicates an 

alternative medical explanation for the positive test result, or (3) indicates Respondent’s drug use 

was not wrongful or not knowing. Appeal Decision 2560 (CLIFTON) (1995). 

Respondent’s Rebuttal

Although Respondent did not call any witnesses or introduce any exhibits into evidence, 

at the hearing and via Closing Brief, Respondent presented a series of arguments suggesting the 

Coast Guard failed to prove its case.

First, Respondent asserts that “[t]he Coast Guard put no evidence on that Mr. Youman 

was addicted to any drug. The only evidence the US Coast Guard put on was that Mr. Youman 

had cocaine metabolites in his system after breaking two bones in his right leg on July 18, 2013.” 

Respondent further argues the amount of the cocaine detected in his system, 236 ng/ml, was low. 

Respondent noted some of the witnesses testified they had seen cocaine levels upwards of 

100,000 ng/ml. To this end, he suggests “[t]here is no testing that can be done to determine if a 

person has taken cocaine one time or is an addict.”

These arguments are without merit. The controlling case law does not require the Coast 

Guard to demonstrate habitual use, drug-induced behavior, or high volume usage of a dangerous 

drug; rather, the Coast Guard need only demonstrate use of a dangerous drug, which it may do 

through the proper introduction of urinalysis results. Appeal Decision 2603 (HACKSTAFF)

(1998). See 46 C.F.R. § 5.35 (“Use of, or addiction to the use of dangerous drugs”). Further, the 

applicable regulations, 49 C.F.R. Part 40, clearly provide that the confirmatory cutoff level for 
11

the cocaine metabolite is 100 ng/ml. 49 C.F.R. § 40.87(a). Respondent’s test indisputably 

yielded a result greater than the confirmatory cutoff level. 

Respondent next argues his specimen was left unrefrigerated for seven days, and suggests 

“[t]he testimony was clear that the samples would degrade over time and that bacteria would 

grow in the urine.” However, at the hearing, Dr. Cooper, a certified MRO, testified heat and 

time should not impact the validity of a urine sample. (Tr. at 193-94, 199-202, 211-12). Further, 

there is nothing in the record to suggest heat, time, or bacteria could cause metabolized cocaine 

to appear in human urine.

Respondent also argues Anne Roberts and Dr. Cooper “weren’t really experts in the 

ultimate question in this case.” Respondent suggests Ms. Roberts was not a toxicologist, and Dr. 

Cooper “spent a total of five minutes working on the case, and had no means of backing up his 

opinion that the test should be okay even if the sample was left unrefrigerated for seven days.” 

Respondent also argues that Dr. Cooper’s responses “were vague at best,” and that neither he nor 

Ms. Roberts “is able to actually prove what they have been asked to testify to.” Respondent 

suggests “the old axiom that 10 guilty men should go free before one innocent man is convicted, 

holds true in this case.” 

Respondent’s general assertion that Dr. Cooper was “vague” and did not spend a 

sufficient amount of time on the case is unavailing. Upon review of the record, the undersigned 

finds Dr. Cooper was a credible witness who complied with the MRO’s duties as outlined in 49 

C.F.R. Part 40. See 49 C.F.R. § 40.123. Respondent did not allege Dr. Cooper, who is properly 

qualified as an MRO, violated any particular regulatory provision; instead, Respondent seems 

only to generally assert that Dr. Cooper should have spent more time on Respondent’s case and 

should have given more particular answers in his testimony. (CG Ex. 9). Such an assertion does 
12

not call into question any element of the prima facie case.3 See Appeal Decision 2560 

(CLIFTON) (1995). 

Respondent further asserts that “Dr. Cooper testified there are other ways to get cocaine 

in your system other than taking it illegally, such as medical procedures and drinking certain 

types of tea...[t]his was not disproved at trial by the US Coast Guard.” However, as discussed, 

Dr. Cooper credibly testified he phoned Respondent to inquire whether there was any alternate 

explanation for the cocaine in his system; there was not. (Tr. at 177, 187-89, 197-98) (CG Ex. 9, 

CG Ex. 11). Respondent did not allege to Dr. Cooper, at the hearing, or in his brief, that he had 

undergone any medical procedure or consumed any tea that could account for the cocaine in his 

system. The Coast Guard is not required to affirmatively prove Respondent did not have a 

medical procedure or consume tea when Respondent himself does not even allege he has done 

so. 

As to the laboratory testing process, Respondent notes a rack jam occurred during the 

testing process “that caused a malfunction of the testing equipment,” and that Ms. Roberts did 

not investigate this rack jam. He also notes that Ms. Roberts’ speculation as to what happened 

with the equipment “is not a valid evidence to base this Court’s decision on.” Respondent 

further contends Ms. Roberts’ testimony is nothing more than unreliable hearsay.

At the hearing, Ms. Roberts explained the laboratory litigation packet documented a rack 

jam on the Olympus analyzer, and, as a result, the urine samples on that particular machine were 

transferred to another Olympus analyzer. (Tr. at 97, 159-60). Respondent does not allege, and 

the evidence does not indicate, the rack jam compromised Respondent’s test results in any way; 

to the contrary, the record shows Quest corrected the rack jam, documented the issue, and 

 3 Along these lines, Respondent also asserts “[i]t is not Mr. Youman’s fault that Captain Rapone had only done a 

few urine collections and didn’t know he was to get the samples to Quest as soon as possible or at least refrigerate 

the bottles.” To the extent Respondent argues Captain Rapone was unqualified as a collector, the undersigned notes 

the Captain has been a certified DOT collector since July 2012 and conducted the collection in accordance with 49 

C.F.R. Part 40. (Tr. at 28-29, 71) (CG Ex. 4). 
13

transferred Respondent’s specimen to another Olympus analyzer. Id. Such a transfer does not 

undermine the accuracy of Respondent’s test. See Appeal Decision 2625 (ROBERTSON)

(2002) (explaining “the testing procedure is not vitiated where the infractions do not breach the 

chain of custody or violate the specimen’s integrity.”). 

The undersigned finds Ms. Roberts credibly explained the testing process based on the 

laboratory testing package. (CG Ex. 8). See Appeal Decision 2641 (JONES) (2003) (explaining 

hearsay evidence, including documentary evidence containing hearsay, is admissible in Coast 

Guard Suspension and Revocation proceedings). 33 C.F.R. § 20.802. Respondent provided no 

evidence to suggest anything documented in the laboratory package was inaccurate in any way. 

Next, Respondent argues the medical officer of the M/V RESOLVE, James Anderson, 

had access to the hospital where Respondent’s sample was temporarily stored. To this end, 

Respondent suggests “Mr. Anderson had a key to the hospital and could have been in and out of 

the hospital a number of times during the week after Mr. Youman’s injury...[w]hether he did 

anything with the urine bottles or not, we will never know.”

This argument is also unavailing. An ALJ is not required to infer any deliberate acts of 

tampering or gross negligence in the handling of a specimen when none has been shown. Appeal 

Decision 2560 (CLIFTON) (1995) (citing Gallagher v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 953 F.2d 1214, 

1218 (10th Cir. 1992)). Further, the record indicates Quest received Respondent’s specimen on 

July 25, 2013, with the bottle seals intact. (Tr. at 89-91, 143, 150) (CG Ex. 8). 

Last, Respondent seemingly calls into question the chain of custody of his specimen. In 

this regard, Respondent notes Captain Rapone waited to ship Respondent’s urine specimen 

because he did not have a FedEx label aboard the M/V RESOLVE. (See Tr. at 49). As such, the 

specimen remained in the vessel’s hospital until the M/V RESOLVE arrived at port in Baltimore, 

Maryland. Respondent contends the Coast Guard did not call the agent from Wilhelmsen Ship 

Service as a witness and suggests “the chain of custody was broken sufficiently to not allow the 
14

taking of Mr. Youman’s Credential.” Respondent also argues that “the chain of custody was 

broken on numerous occasions to people that handled the bottles of urine that should have 

testified at the trial. [sic].” 

The purpose of the chain of custody is to ensure “the chances of a specimen being 

altered, contaminated, switched, or lost are minimized and that the test results provided are, in 

fact, those of the indicated specimen.” Appeal Decision 2606 (SWAN) (1999) (quoting Appeal 

Decision 2555 (LAVALLAIS) (1994)). In the instant case, the Coast Guard proved the test 

results provided came from Respondent’s urine specimen. 

Respondent’s specimen remained in the M/V RESOLVE’s secure hospital space until 

Captain Rapone provided the box containing the specimen (inside two sealed vials inside a 

sealed pouch) to an agent from Wilhelmsen Ship Service. (Tr. at 72, 76-77). The specimen was 

then shipped to Quest via FedEx. (See Tr. at 142, 161). When Respondent’s specimen arrived at 

Quest, the seals were still in place on the vials. (CG Ex. 8) (See Tr. at 87-89). 

The laboratory assigned a unique accession number to Respondent’s specimen to track 

his sample throughout the testing process. (CG Ex. 8) (Tr. at 88). Ms. Roberts then credibly 

explained exactly how Respondent’s specimen was tracked and logged throughout the testing 

process without irregularity. (See Tr. at 92-93). See Gallagher v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 953 

F.2d 1214, 1219 (10th Cir. 1992).

None of Respondent’s arguments, either collectively or individually, sufficiently (1) call 

into question any element of the prima facie case, (2) indicate an alternative medical explanation 

for his positive test result, or (3) indicate his drug use was not wrongful or not knowing. Appeal 

Decision 2560 (CLIFTON) (1995). Accordingly, Respondent has failed to rebut the Coast 

Guard’s prima facie case. 
15

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. At all relevant times, Respondent was a holder of Coast Guard issued Merchant Mariner 

Credential 000168571. 

2. Respondent and the subject matter of this hearing are properly within the jurisdiction 

vested in the Coast Guard under 46 U.S.C. § 7704(c); 46 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 16; 33 C.F.R. 

Part 20; and the APA codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-59.

3. Respondent submitted to a drug test following a serious marine incident. See 46 C.F.R. 

§ 16.240. 

4. The drug test, which was conducted in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 40 and 46 C.F.R. 

§ 16.240, was positive for cocaine.

5. The Coast Guard PROVED by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and credible 

evidence that Respondent is a user of or addicted to dangerous drugs. 46 U.S.C. § 

7704(c); 46 C.F.R. § 5.35. 

SANCTION

When the Coast Guard proves that a mariner has used or is addicted to dangerous drugs, 

any Coast Guard issued licenses, documents, or other credentials must be revoked unless cure is 

proven. See 46 U.S.C. 7704(c); 46 C.F.R. 5.569; Appeal Decision 2535 (SWEENEY) (1992). 

Absent evidence of cure or substantial involvement in the cure process, an ALJ must revoke a 

respondent’s license and document under 46 U.S.C. 7704(c). See also Appeal Decision 2634 

(BARRETTA) (2002), Appeal Decision 2583 (WRIGHT) (1997). 

In the instant case, Respondent did not present any evidence of cure or substantial 

involvement in the cure process. Accordingly, the undersigned is precluded from issuing an 

Order other than revocation.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the allegations as set forth in the Complaint are 

found PROVED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Respondent Eddie Franklin Youman’s Merchant 

Mariner’s Credential Number 000168571 is hereby REVOKED.
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Respondent shall immediately surrender any and 

all of his Coast Guard-issued credentials to the Coast Guard Investigating Officer.

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 C.F.R. §§ 20.1001 – 20.1004. 

(Attachment B).

SO ORDERED.

__________________________________________________

Dean C. Metry

U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge

Date: April 09, 2014
17

Attachment A

Coast Guard’s Witnesses

1. Captain William Rapone

2. Anne Roberts

3. Dr. Jerome Cooper

Coast Guard’s Exhibits

1. CG-2692, Report of Marine Casualty

2. CG-2692B, Report of Required Chemical Drug and Alcohol Testing Following a Serious 

Marine Incident

3. NOT OFFERED OR ADMITTED

4. Collector Training Certificate

5. Collector Copy of Custody and Control Form

6. M/V RESOLVE Medical Log Sheet

7. NOT OFFERED OR ADMITTED

8. Quest Diagnostics Lab Litigation Package

9. Dr. Jerome Cooper MRO Certification Letter

10. MRO Copy of Control and Custody Form

11. MRO Worksheet

12. MRO Final Report

13. Resume of Dr. Jerome Cooper
18

Attachment B

33 CFR 20.1001 General.

(a) Any party may appeal the ALJ’s decision by filing a notice of appeal. The party shall 

file the notice with the U. S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center; 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore, MD 21201-

4022. The party shall file the notice 30 days or less after issuance of the decision, and 

shall serve a copy of it on the other party and each interested person.

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

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

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

public policy.

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

(4) The ALJ’s denial of a motion for disqualification.

(c) No interested person may appeal a summary decision except on the issue that no 

hearing was held or that in the issuance of the decision the ALJ did not consider evidence 

that that person would have presented.

(d) The appeal must follow the procedural requirements of this subpart.

33 CFR 20.1002 Records on appeal.

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

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

of proceeding, then, --

(1) If the hearing was recorded at Federal expense, the Coast

Guard will provide the transcript on payment of the fees prescribed in 49 CFR 

7.45; but,

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

the transcript on the terms prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45.

33 CFR 20.1003 Procedures for appeal.

(a) Each party appealing the ALJ’s decision or ruling shall file an appellate brief with the 

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

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

Baltimore, MD 21201-4022, and shall serve a copy of the brief on every other party.

(1) The appellate brief must set forth the appellant's specific objections to the 

decision or ruling. The brief must set forth, in detail, the --

(i) Basis for the appeal;

(ii) Reasons supporting the appeal; and

(iii) Relief requested in the appeal.

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

brief must specifically refer to the pertinent parts of the record.

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

service of the ALJ’s decision. Unless filed within this time, or within another 

time period authorized in writing by the Docketing Center, the brief will be 

untimely.
19

(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.