UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_______________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

WAYNE A. SAVOIE 

Respondent. 

______________________________ 

Docket Number: CG S&R 05-0008 

Case No. 2238983 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: June 10, 2005

Issued by: Jeffie J. Massey, Administrative Law Judge

Appearances:

For Complainant 

ENS Timothy Tilghman 

LCDR Ronnie Patrick 

U.S. Coast Guard 

MSO Morgan City 

800 David Drive 

Morgan City, La 70380 

For Respondent 

Kevin Broussard, Attorney 

 
 2 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 7, 2005, the United States Coast Guard (“USCG” herein) initiated an 

administrative proceeding against credentials issued to Wayne A. Savoie by the USCG. 

Specifically, it was alleged that, while a holder of Coast Guard issued credentials, 

specifically on August 30, 2004, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty and was 

subsequently convicted of the offense of Possession of Cocaine in the 16th Judicial 

District Court in the State of Louisiana. 

On January 10, 2005, Respondent’s Answer was received by the Docketing 

Center. In his Answer Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations, but denied the 

factual allegations and requested to be heard on the proposed order. 

 A hearing was duly scheduled and convened in Houma, Louisiana on April 14, 

2005. The USCG did not call any witnesses. Their case in chief consisted solely of the 

introduction of a Judgment of Conviction, reflecting Respondent’s conviction for the 

offense of Possession of Cocaine on August 30, 2004.1

 The Respondent testified on his 

own behalf, and multiple exhibits were entered into evidence through his testimony.

 At the end of the testimony, the evidentiary record was closed. Both sides waived 

the filing of written proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the filing of 

post-hearing briefs. 

 

1 Technically, the document was titled an “Extract of Minutes.” It detailed the 

Respondent’s appearance in court that day as well as the entry of a plea and the sentence 

imposed by the Court. 
 3 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On and about August 30, 2004, the Respondent was a holder of a Coast Guard 

License and a Merchant Mariners Document. 

2. On and about August 30, 2004, the Respondent appeared as a Defendant in 

the 16th Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana and entered a plea of 

“no contest” to the charge of Possession of Cocaine.2

3. On and about August 30, 2004, the presiding judge of the 16th Judicial District 

Court accepted Respondent’s plea and sentenced him to three years of 

imprisonment, suspended for a period of three years probation. Other 

conditions of probation were imposed as well. 

DISCUSSION

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §551, et seq, governs Coast 

Guard suspension and revocation hearings. 46 U.S.C. 7702(a). The APA only authorizes 

sanctions to be imposed if, upon consideration of the record as a whole, the charges are 

supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. 556(d). “The term 

substantial evidence is synonymous with preponderance of the evidence as defined by the 

Supreme Court.” Appeal Decision 2477 (TOMBARI) (1998). The burden of proving a 

claim 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 

 

2 The Complaint alleges that the Respondent entered a plea of “guilty” to the charge, 

because there is a conflict within Exhibit IO-01. In this case, a plea of “no contest” has 

the legal equivalency of a plea of “guilty”, so I find this variance between the complaint 

and evidence in the case to be of no consequence. 
 4 

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)). Under Coast Guard procedural 

regulations, the Coast Guard bears the burden of proving the charges by a preponderance 

of the evidence. 33 CFR 20.701, 20.702(a). Therefore, the Coast Guard must prove with 

reliable and probative evidence that Respondent more likely than not committed the 

violations charged. 

 Prior to the passage of the 2004 Coast Guard Authorization Bill, Title 46 U.S.C. 

§7704(b) provided as follows: 

 If it is shown at a hearing under this chapter that a holder of a license, 

certificate of registry, or merchant mariner’s document issued under this 

part, within 10 years before the beginning of the proceedings, has been 

convicted of violating a dangerous drug law of the United States or of a 

State, the license, certificate, or document shall be revoked. [emphasis 

added] 

A “dangerous drug” is defined as “a narcotic drug, controlled substance, or a 

controlled substance analog (as defined in section 102 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse 

and Control Act of 1970).” 46 U.S.C. 2101(8a). 

If it is shown that a holder of a license, etc, has been a user of, or addicted to, a 

dangerous drug, the USCG issued credentials held by the person shall be revoked unless 

said person provides satisfactory proof that he or she is cured. See 46 U.S. Code § 

7704(c). See also APPEAL DECISION 2535 (SWEENEY). 

With the passage of the 2004 Coast Guard Authorization Bill (effective in or 

about August 2004), the language of 46 USC §7704(b) was amended to provide for the 
 5 

revocation or suspension of USCG issued credentials upon proof of a conviction of a 

dangerous drug law.3

The evidence presented in this proceeding clearly indicates that on August 30, 

2004, the Respondent entered a plea of “no contest” to the charge of Possession of 

Cocaine in a Louisiana District Court, and was placed on three years probation for that 

offense. Thus, the factual allegations of the Complaint are proven. 

Through the testimony of the Respondent, the record also clearly indicated that at 

the time of Respondent’s arrest for this offense, and at the time of his conviction in 

August 2004, he was not a user of a controlled substance. In fact, the evidence supports a 

finding that, at no time relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was a user of a 

controlled substance. 

Through the Respondent’s testimony, the evidence showed that he has a previous 

conviction for Possession of Cocaine (in 1996—at which time he was using both crack 

cocaine and powder cocaine) and that this conviction resulted in a previous revocation of 

his USCG issued credentials (in 2001). At or about the time of this revocation, the 

Respondent took “the cure” (beginning with a twenty-six day residential treatment stay in 

January 2001) and, as a result of Administrative Clemency proceedings, had his 

credentials restored. 

Respondent testified that he was arrested for this offense in May 2004. At the 

time, an acquaintance offered him $200 cash for a ride from Morgan City to Houma, and 

Respondent’s acquisition of a rock of crack cocaine for his—the acquaintance’s—use. 

 

3 As of the date of this Decision, the USCG has not acted to amend underlying regulatory 

provisions so that they are consistent with the amended provisions of §7704(b). 

However, the undersigned is statutorily authorized to consider suspension (in lieu of 

revocation) as an appropriate sanction in this proceeding. 
 6 

Respondent said he agreed to these requests because he wanted/needed the money to buy 

his wife a present. 

After his arrest, chemical test results indicated he was positive for cocaine. 

According to the Respondent, this was a result of his trying to swallow all of the crack 

cocaine as he was being stopped by the police (immediately after making the buy).4

 

Respondent testified that this was his only “dirty” test in four years. Documentary 

evidence admitted into the record confirmed this testimony. 

Further documents introduced into evidence during the Respondent’s testimony 

reveal that his co-workers and supervisors think very highly of the Respondent’s work 

ethic and level of competency as a seaman. Additionally, these persons report no 

evidence of a controlled substance problem during the time they have known and worked 

with the Respondent. 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. On and about August 30, 2004, the Respondent was a holder of a Coast Guard 

issued License and a Merchant Mariners Document. 

2. On and about August 30, 2004, the Respondent appeared as a Defendant in the 

16th Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana and entered a plea of “no 

contest” to the charge of Possession of Cocaine.5

3. On and about August 30, 2004, the presiding judge of the 16th Judicial District 

Court accepted Respondent’s plea and sentenced him to three years of 

 

4 A small corner of the rock fell to the floorboard, and this was the basis of the possession 

charge. 

5 See Footnote 2, supra. 
 7 

imprisonment, suspended for a period of three-years probation. Other conditions 

of probation were imposed as well. 

4. The Respondent was addicted to cocaine in 1996, and did not take the necessary 

steps to treat his addiction until January of 2001. 

5. In 2002, Respondent initiated Administrative Clemency proceedings, and, as a 

result, his USCG issued credentials were returned to him. 

6. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been a “user of” or “addicted to” a 

controlled substance since he entered a residential treatment facility in January 

2001. 

7. The cocaine the Respondent purchased in May 2004 was not purchased for his 

(Respondent’s) personal use. 

8. The Respondent’s testimony was credible. 

9. The factual allegations of the complaint were proven b y a preponderance of the 

evidence. 

SANCTION

Under the provisions of 46 USC §7704(b), as amended by the 2004 Coast Guard 

Authorization Bill, the undersigned has the discretion to enter an Order of revocation or 

an Order of suspension. Based on the background material reviewed by the undersigned 

relevant to the amendment of §7704(b), it appears that this amendment was possibly 

motivated by the desire for the USCG and certain respondents to be able to enter into 

settlement agreements for a sanction less than revocation in those cases where the 

Respondent had provided proof of a “cure” for his or her addiction. 
 8 

Under the facts of this case, it is likely that the USCG was unwilling to enter into 

a settlement agreement with the Respondent because of the prior Administrative 

Clemency proceedings. While this is understandable, the USCG’s unwillingness to 

consider suspension as a sanction in this proceeding in no way prohibits the undersigned 

from considering suspension as an appropriate sanction. 

 Under the facts of this proceeding, the undersigned has considered whether or not 

the conduct engaged in by the Respondent is a threat to marine safety. Clearly, there is 

no longer a question of addiction to or use of controlled substances by the Respondent. 

Accordingly, the Respondent does not pose a threat to marine safety in that regard. If he 

is a threat to marine safety at all, it is because he exercised extremely poor judgment 

when he agreed to perform an illegal act on behalf of an acquaintance. The fact that he 

was motivated by his desire to obtain spending money for a present for his wife provides 

an explanation for his conduct but does little to mitigate or excuse the level of 

irresponsibility exhibited by his decision to commit a criminal act for the benefit of his 

acquaintance. 

 This evidence of extremely poor judgment must be balanced, however, with the 

evidence provided by way of the letters and evaluations provided by his co-workers and 

at least one supervisor. This evidence supports a finding that the Respondent’s judgment, 

as related to his duties at sea, is adequate and does not pose a threat to marine safety. 

 Accordingly, based on the entire record before me, the evidence supports a 

sanction of something less than revocation in this proceeding. The regulations governing 

these proceedings include a table of suggested sanctions for various “offenses” that may 

be the subject of a suspension and revocation proceeding. This table, found at 46 CFR 
 9 

§5.569 is advisory in nature, and should be used in conjunction with mitigating or 

aggravating factors present in a particular proceeding. 

 Contained in this table is a suggested range of suspension for the offense of 

“Failure to comply with U.S. law or regulations,” which is one to three months. I find 

this stated “offense” to be the most analogous to the facts of this proceeding. Further 

consideration of the facts of this proceeding, especially the seriousness of the offense 

committed by the Respondent (purchasing drugs on behalf of another person) leads me to 

conclude that an order of suspension for a period greater than that suggested in this table 

is appropriate. 

 Based on the entire record before me, and taking into consideration all matters 

discussed herein, I find a suspension of the Respondent’s USCG issued credentials for a 

period of four months appropriate. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all credentials issued to the Respondent by the 

United States Coast Guard are hereby SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR 

MONTHS EFFECTIVE AS OF JULY 11, 2005. You must surrender all documents in 

your possession to the Coast Guard on or before that date. If you knowingly 

continue to use your documents during the period of suspension, you may be subject 

to criminal prosecution. 
 10 

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 A). 

Done and dated June 10, 2005. 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

________________________________________ 

JEFFIE J. MASSEY 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

U.S. COAST GUARD 
 11 

ATTACHMENT A

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. 
 12 

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

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

(i) Basis for the appeal; 

(ii) Reasons supporting the appeal; and 

(iii) Relief requested in the appeal. 

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

appellate brief must specifically refer to the pertinent parts of the 

record. 

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

after service of the ALJ's decision. Unless filed within this time, or 

within another time period authorized in writing by the Docketing 

Center, the brief will be untimely. 

(b) Any party may file a reply brief with the Docketing Center 35 days or less 

after service of the appellate brief. Each such party shall serve a copy on every 

other party. If the party filing the reply brief relies on evidence contained in 

the record for the appeal, that brief must specifically refer to the pertinent 

parts of the record. 

(c) No party may file more than one appellate brief or reply brief, unless -- 

(1) The party has petitioned the Commandant in writing; and 

(2) The Commandant has granted leave to file an added brief, in which event 

the Commandant will allow a reasonable time for the party to file that 

brief. 

(d) The Commandant may accept an amicus curiae brief from any person in an 

appeal of an ALJ's decision. 

33 CFR 20.1004 Decisions on appeal. 

(a) The Commandant shall review the record on appeal to determine whether the 

ALJ committed error in the proceedings, and whether the Commandant should 

affirm, modify, or reverse the ALJ's decision or should remand the case for 

further proceedings. 

(b) The Commandant shall issue a decision on every appeal in writing and shall 

serve a copy of the decision on each party and interested person. 
 13 

ATTACHMENT B

WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS

WITNESS LIST 

COMPLAINANT’S WITNESSES 

None 

RESPONDENT’S WITNESSES 

Wayne Savoie 

EXHIBIT LIST 

COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS 

IO Ex. 1 Judgment of Conviction 

IO Ex. 2 Administrative Clemency Package (Offered, then Withdrawn; USCG did 

not have a copy for the record) 

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS 

Ex 1 Log of Attendance Pages (seven pages) 

Ex 2 Chemical Test Results (twenty-four pages) 

Ex 3 Letter and two evaluations from Captain Finnley 

Ex 4 Letter from Gibson 

Ex 5 Letter from Ramsey 

Ex 6 Letter from Moore 

Ex 7 Letter from Conheeney 

JUDGE’S EXHIBITS 

None 
 14 

ATTACHMENT C

RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF 

LAW

COMPLAINANT’S PROPOSED FINDINGS

Waived 

RESPONDENT’S PROPOSED FINDINGS 

Waived 
 15 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that I have forwarded the attached document by the manner 

indicated below to the following persons: 

 ENS Timothy Tilghman 

 U S Coast Guard 

 Morgan City MSO 

 800 David Drive Room 232 

 Morgan City, LA 70380 

 (via First Class Mail) 

 Kevin E. Broussard, Attorney at Law 

 209 West Main Street, Suite 300 

 New Iberia, Louisiana 70560 

 (via First Class Mail) 

 

 ALJ Docketing Center 

 U.S. Custom House, Room 412 

 40 S. Gay Street 

 Baltimore, MD 21202 

 (via FedEx delivery) 

 

 _____________________________ 

 Livia Torres, Paralegal Specialist to 

 Jeffie J. Massey 

 Administrative Law Judge 

Done and Dated on June 10, 2005 at 

New Orleans, Louisiana