Adjudicate civil penalty cases in support of the Commandant’s maritime safety and security strategy to compel compliance with federal 

laws and regulations, and deter violations in the maritime domain. By balancing national interests, fairness, and the fundamental right 

to due process, we promote protection of the environment, and the safety and security of vessels, facilities, ports, and waterways. 

Newsletter Date

April 2011

Coast Guard Hearing Office 

“Hearing Office is our Name, 

Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim”

Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Volume 11

GREETINGS 

From Robert Bruce

Chief, Coast Guard Hearing Office 

 HEARING OFFICE NEWS 

 Greetings,

Spring is finally here, and that means warmer 

weather and a new boating season in many parts of 

the United States. With more people out on the water, Coast Guard units will have more opportunities to 

board boats to check for compliance with U.S. laws. 

Very likely, that will result in more civil penalty cases 

forwarded to the Hearing Office for adjudication. We 

will see many cases where recreational boaters or fishermen are cited for failing to have required safety 

equipment onboard, for having unserviceable safety 

equipment, or for failing to have their safety equipment readily available for use. Of course, this doesn’t 

have to be the case. There are resources that can help 

recreational boaters and fishermen educate themselves about safety requirements and ensure that they 

are in compliance before they are boarded. For instance, at http://www.uscgboating.org/fedreqs/

default.html (copy this web address and paste it into 

your browser) you can find a guide to federal requirements for recreational boats. I won’t say that this 

guide includes everything you need to know as a 

boater, but at eighty-six pages it contains a lot of good 

information about the requirements that are enforced 

by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard also has a web 

site for fishermen: https://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/

portal/ep/channelView.do?channelId=-

20581&channelPage=%2Fep%2Fchannel%

2Fdefault.jsp&pageTypeId=13489. Among other 

things, this site has links to various safety flyers that 

explain federal safety requirements for commercial 

fishing vessels. It is in your interest to know the rules 

and operate safely on the water. 

* * * * * * * * 

The Coast Guard Hearing Office has a new addition to 

our staff. She is Lieutenant Commander Michele 

Bouziane, and she is serving as one of our Hearing 

Officers, which gives us a total of three Hearing Officers, at this time. This should make it possible for the 

Hearing Office to process civil penalty cases more 

quickly as they are sent here. Not that speed is as 

important as fairness, or achieving compliance with 

the law and deterring further violations. By all indications, LCDR Bouziane is happy with her new assignment, and the rest of the Hearing Office staff is 

happy to have her join us. 

Articles in this issue:

 

Coast Guard Civil Penalty Hearings Explained...p.2

Civil Penalty Timelines...p. 3

Final Decision Options...p.4

Who’s in command? The “Paper Captain” and the elements of 46 U.S.C § 12131 violations...p.6
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XI Newsletter Date: Apr 2011 

2

by 33 CFR 1.07-25. These are statements identifying 

the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged 

violation which the party wishes to dispute or explain, 

or for which s/he wishes to provide mitigating evidence. When a Hearing Officer receives a party’s request for a hearing and no issues in dispute are specified, typically the hearing officer will write back to the 

party and allow additional time to present such issues 

before scheduling a hearing. Once the issues are received by the Hearing Officer, hearings are promptly 

scheduled. If a party does not specify the issues in 

dispute, the applicable regulations will generally preclude consideration of those issues, which may result 

in a party forfeiting his/her right to have a hearing at 

which his/her issues can be considered. Specified issues in dispute may be amended at any time up to 10 

days before the scheduled date of the hearing.

Hearings are currently held in person at the Hearing 

Office in Arlington, Virginia, or via video teleconference (VTC) for parties not wishing to travel to Arlington. VTC hearings are typically conducted at the 

Coast Guard District Office closest to where the party 

resides. 

At a typical hearing, only the party, his/her representative (if applicable), any witnesses whose testimony 

s/he wishes to offer, and the Hearing Officer are present. Parties are often surprised learn that boarding 

team members or representatives of the charging unit 

are not present for cross-examination. Coast Guard 

civil penalty hearings are not subject to the stricter 

procedural requirements of an Administrative Procedures Act (APA) hearing on the record. There is no 

right to cross-examine witnesses. But the Party may 

request that the Hearing Officer assist in obtaining 

the personal appearance of a witness that the party 

cannot obtain on his or her own. The process for requesting such assistance is prescribed in 33 CFR 1.07-

50. 

At the hearing the party may offer any facts, statements, explanations, sworn or unsworn testimony, or 

other exculpatory items which bear on the material 

issues or which may be relevant to the size of an appropriate penalty. Upon hearing all of the evidence 

the party has presented on the specified issues, the 

hearing is closed and the Hearing Officer issues a final determination in writing. If the party desires to 

submit additional information, evidence, or other 

[Civil Penalty Hearings continued on next page]

COAST GUARD CIVIL PENALTY 

HEARINGS EXPLAINED 

CDR Mark Hammond

So you’ve just received a Preliminary Assessment Letter (PAL) from a Coast Guard Hearing Officer notifying you of a civil penalty action against you for an alleged violation of federal law. The PAL: 1) provides 

notice of the alleged violation(s) and the preliminary 

penalty amount assessed; and 2) describes available 

options that must be exercised within 30 days. One 

such option is to request a hearing in the matter. In 

accordance with due process rights, you (“the party”), 

are afforded an opportunity to be heard. This article 

briefly outlines the Coast Guard’s civil penalty hearing process (including the procedure for requesting a 

hearing) and provides some insight as to what a party 

who requests a hearing can expect.

The regulations governing the conduct of Coast Guard 

civil penalty hearings are found at Title 33 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1.07-55. Hearings 

are informal, non-judicial administrative proceedings. 

Hearings are held to provide the charged party an opportunity to present evidence in defense, extenuation, 

and mitigation pertaining to the alleged violations in 

their case. That is, a party is given the opportunity to 

present evidence to show that either the violation(s) 

did not occur (defense); the violation(s) did occur but 

here’s why (extenuation); or that the violation(s) occurred but here’s why the final civil penalty amount 

should be less than what was preliminarily assessed 

(mitigation).

A party’s request for a hearing must be submitted in 

writing. The party must specify the issues s/he 

wishes to raise in dispute at the hearing as required 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XI Newsletter Date: Apr 2011 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIVIL PENALTY TIMELINES 

 

LCDR Michele Bouziane

Observance of the timelines set forth in 33 C.F.R. Part 

1, Subpart 1.07, ensures not only efficient Coast 

Guard civil penalty processing, but also procedural 

due process for the party concerned. Timelines are in 

maroon type below. 

After receipt of a letter/notice (called a “Preliminary 

Assessment Letter,” or “PAL”) from a Coast Guard 

Hearing Officer, indicating that the party is alleged to 

have committed a violation of statute or regulation, 

the party, or counsel for the party, has 30 days to take 

one of the following actions (33 C.F.R. § 1.07-25):

 Provide written evidence and arguments (for example, that the violation 

did not occur, or that the civil penalty 

should be reduced for stated reasons 

and provide evidence to justify reduction of the penalty); or

 Pay the amount specified in the PAL; or

 Request a hearing in writing specifying 

the issues in dispute (see article explaining civil penalty hearings, this issue, p. 2).

The PAL and accompanying pamphlet, which are intended to help a party understand his/her options, 

should be thoroughly read upon receipt.

If a party does not respond to the PAL, the Hearing 

Officer will make a final determination based on the

[Civil Penalty Timelines continued on next page] 

[Civil Penalty Hearings continued from previous page]

submission in writing after the hearing, 

s/he will normally have 10 days after the hearing to do 

so.

A verbatim transcript of the hearing is not routinely 

made. If a party wishes to have a transcript of the 

hearing, s/he must arrange and pay for a recorder and 

any copies of the transcript, including copies that 

must be furnished to the Coast Guard in case of an 

appeal. 

It is important to note that there is no “extra credit” 

for attending a hearing. The Hearing Officer’s duty is 

to consider the Coast Guard’s evidence as provided in 

the case file, and evidence in defense, mitigation and 

extenuation provided by the party, whether presented 

at a hearing, or presented in writing in lieu of a hearing. Often parties will request a hearing only to repeat what had already been provided to the Hearing 

Officer in written submissions. It is a better use of 

the hearing process for the party to provide additional issues or evidence for the Hearing Officer to 

consider beyond what has already been presented and 

included in the case file. 

* * * * * * * 

 

 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XI Newsletter Date: Apr 2011 

4

The Hearing Officer forwards all materials in the case 

to the Commandant not later than 30 days after receipt of the appeal, or after the District Commander 

has had an opportunity to comment.

At any time prior to final agency action in a civil penalty case, a party may petition to reopen the hearing 

on the basis of newly discovered evidence (33 C.F.R. § 

1.07-80). Following a denial of a petition to reopen, 

the party is given 30 days to file an appeal if one has 

not already been filed, or to amend (change) an appeal 

which has already been filed. 

Within 30 days after receipt of the Commandant’s decision on appeal, or the Hearing Officer’s decision in a 

case in which no appeal has been filed, the party must 

submit payment of any assessed penalty to the address specified in the assessment notice (33 C.F.R. § 

1.07-85).

* * * * * * * 

[Civil Penalty Timelines continued from previous 

page] 

evidence already before him/her, which usually results 

in a Final Assessment Letter to the party imposing 

the penalty amount stated in the PAL. 

Note: It’s in the party’s best interests to respond in a 

timely fashion to the PAL, especially if the party requires more time to bring his/her vessel into compliance. The Hearing Officer may grant a 20-day extension if the party explains why s/he needs more time. 

A party should retain a copy of all receipts for items 

purchased to bring his/her vessel into compliance, and 

send a copy of the receipt/s to the Hearing Officer. A 

mere assertion in a letter that all violations have 

been corrected, without supporting evidence, is 

unlikely to be persuasive. 

The Hearing Officer will want to have evidence of 

compliance. For example, a receipt, and/or a picture 

of new Visual Distress Signals or Personal Flotation 

Devices, arranged so that the vessel number can also 

be seen in the picture, will provide support for a statement that the required equipment was purchased to 

comply with the law.

After 30 days, the party no longer has a right to a 

hearing, however, the Hearing Officer may still grant 

a request for a hearing, at the Hearing Officer’s discretion.

At any time up to 10 days before the scheduled date of 

the hearing, a party can submit a change to the issues 

in dispute. Changes to the issues in dispute requested 

by the party later than 10 days before the scheduled 

date of the hearing are subject to the discretion of the 

Hearing Officer.

An appeal from the decision of the Hearing Officer, 

and any supporting brief, must be submitted to the 

Hearing Officer within 30 days from the date of receipt of the decision. Otherwise, the appeal is barred, 

and the Hearing Officer’s decision becomes the Coast 

Guard’s final action in the case (33 C.F.R. § 1.07-70).

The Hearing Officer provides a copy of the appeal and 

any supporting brief submitted by the party to the 

District Commander who referred the case. The District Commander then has 30 days to submit any comments to the Hearing Officer (33 C.F.R. § 1.07-75).

 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XI Newsletter Date: Apr 2011 

5

from receipt of this letter, my decision becomes the Coast Guard’s final action on this 

case (Emphasis added). 

So, there are four options for the charged party after 

the final decision assessing a penalty is issued:

1. Pay the final penalty amount;

2. Appeal the decision based on the evidence already considered and in the case file;

3. Request to reopen the case to consider evidence 

not previously available and include a good reason 

why the evidence was not previously available; or

4. Do nothing, in which case the file will be forwarded to collections.

If the charged party wants to submit evidence or information to be considered in mitigation or extenuation, it is in his/her best interests to respond to a 

PAL in a timely manner, before a final decision is 

made. If one waits to respond with evidence in defense, extenuation, or mitigation until after a final 

decision has been made, the Hearing Officer may not 

be persuaded that there is good reason not to consider the evidence untimely, and let the final decision 

stand.

 

* * * * * * * 

 

 

 

FINAL DECISION OPTIONS 

 

CDR Evan Hudspeth

Generally within 60 days after a preliminary assessment letter (PAL) and case package has been sent to 

the charged party, the Hearing Officer will consider 

all of the evidence provided and make a final decision. 

In a final letter to the charged party, the following 

information is included regarding the charged party’s 

options:

You may appeal my decision to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. You have 30 days 

from the date you receive this letter to do so. 

If you decide to appeal my decision, address 

your appeal to the Commandant of the Coast 

Guard but mail it to me. I will then send the 

appeal forward with the official case file. Title 

33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1.07-70, 

expressly limits matters on appeal to those 

issues that were properly raised before the 

Hearing Officer and jurisdictional questions. 

That is, aside from jurisdictional questions, 

matters on appeal are limited to those issues 

raised before me prior to my final decision in 

this case. If you find you have newly discovered evidence to be considered following my 

final decision, you may petition me to reopen 

your case. The petition to reopen must be in 

writing and explain why the evidence was not 

presented for my consideration during the 

course of the adjudication of your case. I may 

reopen your case if I find that the evidence 

will have a direct and material bearing on the 

issues and there is a valid explanation as to 

why the evidence was not and could not have 

been produced during the adjudication of your 

case. My decision regarding the petition to 

reopen will be rendered in writing. If you do 

not appeal my final decision within 30 days 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XI Newsletter Date: Apr 2011 

6

WHO’S IN COMMAND? 

The “Paper Captain” and the elements of 46 U.S.C § 

12131 violations

 

CDR Mark Hammond

This article briefly discusses violations of section 

12131 of title 46 of the United States Code, often referred to as “paper captain” violations. This law requires that a documented vessel be placed under the 

command of a U.S. citizen.

The Hearing Officer must find prima facie (Latin for 

“at first sight” or “on first appearance”) evidence that 

a violation occurred in order to proceed with a preliminary assessment and adjudication of a civil penalty 

case. In other words, the evidence in the case file is, 

on its face or at first appearance, sufficient to support 

each element of the charge/charges. As with any case, 

a clear understanding of the essential elements of the 

particular statutory or regulatory cite alleged to have 

been violated will help in determining what constitutes sufficient supporting evidence.

Consider this hypothetical scenario: A documented 

commercial fishing vessel is boarded at sea by the 

Coast Guard. During the boarding, the person observed at the helm operating the vessel is identified as 

a non-U.S. citizen/permanent resident. Another person on board (a U.S. citizen) identifies himself to the 

Coast Guard boarding team as the vessel’s “captain.” 

He also presents a crew list which lists him as the 

“captain.” Looks good on paper, right? 

During the course of the boarding, however, the vessel’s “captain” displays little knowledge of the operation of the vessel and the location of important documents and required safety equipment on board. Additionally, he appears to rely exclusively on the experienced “deckhand” (the person previously observed at 

the helm) to answer the boarding team’s questions as 

well as operate the vessel. In contrast to the clueless 

“captain,” the experienced “deckhand” demonstrates a 

thorough working knowledge of all aspects of the vessel’s operation, and other crewmen aboard the vessel 

tell the boarding team that he “gives all the orders.” 

The boarding team notes that the “deckhand” maintains his personal effects in the captain’s quarters 

while the “captain” shares a berthing space with the 

rest of the crew. The boarding team concludes that 

the vessel is actually under the command of the nonU.S. citizen and, consequently, the vessel owner is 

charged under 46 U.S.C. § 12131 for failing to comply 

with the U.S. citizen in command requirement. 

According to 46 U.S.C. § 12131(a), “a documented vessel may be placed under the command only of a citizen 

of the United States” (exceptions to this requirement 

are documented vessels with only a recreational endorsement, and unmanned barges operating outside of 

the territorial waters of the United States). Obviously, in order for a violation to occur under this cite, 

the vessel involved must be a documented vessel and 

the person in command of the vessel must not be a 

U.S. citizen. Evidence of vessel documentation and 

crew citizenship status is fairly straightforward. 

In the typical “paper captain” case described in the 

scenario above, however, presenting persuasive evidence of who was in command of the vessel can sometimes present a bit of a challenge.

We often see cases where vessel owners, in an apparent attempt to circumvent the requirements of 46 

U.S.C. § 12131, establish different positions on board 

their vessels in writing such as a “fish captain,” or 

they’ll have a “master” and a “captain” on board, each 

with separate and distinct duties.

For example, in some cases the U.S. citizen “master” 

will be designated in writing as having overall responsibility for the general care of vessel and cargo, but 

the non-U.S. citizen “captain” or “fish captain” will be 

the designated person having responsibility for the 

operation and safe navigation of the vessel, and the 

[Continued on next page]
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XI Newsletter Date: Apr 2011 

7

 

DECKPLATE RIVETS 

 

For alleged violations under 46 USC § 8103 it is 

a good practice to ensure that the correct citation for the violation is reflected on the Enforcement 

Summary (ES). The evidence must directly support 

the citation on the ES. With respect to violations 

under 46 USC § 8103, citing the entire section can be 

ambiguous and confusing. The case package should 

cite the specific subsection alleged to have been violated, such as 46 USC 8103(i). Cases submitted to 

the Hearing Office without the correct cite will typically be returned to the program manager. (See Volume 3 of our Newsletter, the "Special Edition," for 

useful information in preparing § 8103 violations for 

referral to the CGHO.)

Always check for applicability when selecting an 

appropriate cite for an alleged violation. Improper cites will result in the return of the case to the 

program manger and the halting of the adjudication 

process. The following are some common errors encountered by the CGHO: (1) using a cite pertaining to 

a recreational vessel when the subject vessel in the 

case is a commercial fishing vessel; (2) citing for a 

missing Certificate of Number or temporary certificate on board when the vessel is a documented vessel; (3) citing for missing safety equipment that is not 

required due to vessel length, gross tonnage, or route 

of service; (4) using the "applicability" or "definitions" 

cite as the charging cite; (5) using a cite directed at a 

vessel operator when the party is charged as the vessel owner.

Sometimes important information is missing 

from the violation narrative. Here are some examples:

46 CFR § 25.30-20: Does the vessel have a fixed fire 

extinguishing system in the machinery space?

46 CFR § 28.145: The vessel routinely travels within 

how many miles of the coastline?

And remember that the Inland Navigation Rules are 

now contained in title 33 (Navigation and Navigable 

Waters), Part 83, of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

and should be cited accordingly.

* * * * * * * 

[“Paper Captain” continued from previous page]

care/conduct of the crew. The documentation laws 

contained in 46 U.S.C. Chapter 121 and 46 C.F.R. 

Part 67 generally require that U.S. documented vessels must be owned and under the control of U.S. citizens. Among other things, control refers to the right 

to direct the operation of the vessel. Actual control 

as a matter of fact is more important than a person’s 

title. Accordingly, the law refers to the person in 

command of the vessel and not to the “master” or 

“captain.” If command of a vessel is split between 

two or more persons, and one of the persons in command is not a U.S. citizen, then the vessel is not 

“under the command only” of a U.S. citizen. 

Whether the evidence is submitted by the Coast 

Guard in support of a violation, or by a charged party 

to show that there was no violation, what will be 

most persuasive to a Hearing Officer is detailed 

documentation of crew responsibilities, knowledge 

and experience, as well as witness statements from 

other crewmembers regarding who controls the operation of the vessel. That kind of evidence is likely 

to carry more weight than a bare assertion that a 

U.S. citizen was the “master” or “captain.” 

* * * * * * * 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XI Newsletter Date: Apr 2011 

8

MORE DECKPLATE RIVETS 

For cases involving more than one charge, the 

Violation details and Factual Elements contained 

in the Enforcement Summary should be tailored to 

the specific charge. It is not helpful to the Hearing 

Officer if all factual elements are repeated (cut and 

pasted) for every charge, whether they are relevant or 

not.

For cases involving recreational boats discovered 

in use with no State registration numbers affixed 

to the hull, the applicable regulatory cite is Title 33 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 173.15. 33 

CFR 173.15(a) states: “Except as provided in 173.17, 

no person may use a vessel to which this part applies 

unless (1) It has a number issued on a certificate of 

number...(2) The number is displayed as described in 

173.27.” While 33 CFR 173.27 prescribes the manner 

in which the required numbers must be displayed on a 

vessel, it is 173.15 that sets forth the requirement for 

the numbers to be displayed. 

A Hearing Officer may, in computing a final assessment for a violation, consider a party’s compliance efforts as a mitigating factor. When submitting a receipt as evidence of efforts to achieve compliance, send a quality copy of the receipt; don’t send the 

original receipt. Mail sent to the Hearing Office is 

subject to irradiation screening, which usually renders 

original receipt paper unreadable. An unreadable 

document is not helpful to the Hearing Officer. 

A party’s timely compliance, after being notified 

of a violation, does not guarantee a reduced penalty amount. The Hearing Officer weighs all the evidence in the case file, considers violation history and 

makes an appropriate final determination based on all 

relevant circumstances. An aggravated or egregious 

violation may warrant some penalty, even if the party 

immediately corrects the deficiency. 

* * * * * * * 

 

K N O T 

(Knowledge Note Or Tip) The Coast 

Guard may issue a "Notice of Violation" (NOV) in many of the same situations that can result in a civil penalty case. The proposed penalty amounts associated with the NOV are 

determined by policy in the Notice of Violation User's 

Guide, COMDTINST M5582.1A. The charged party 

may choose to pay the proposed penalty, or decline the 

penalty. The back of the NOV document explains that 

choosing to decline the NOV "...will result in the case 

file being sent to a Coast Guard Hearing Officer for a 

determination. After the Hearing Officer makes a preliminary determination, you will be afforded the opportunity to respond to the allegations or request a 

hearing." It is important to note that the Hearing Officer is not bound by the proposed penalty in the declined NOV or COMDTINST M5582.1A. Once the 

case file is forwarded to the Coast Guard Hearing Office for adjudication, the proposed penalty amount 

derived from COMDTINST M5582.1A is only one of 

many factors the Hearing Officer may consider in determining the appropriate penalty amount, if a violation is proved. The Hearing Officer's assessed penalty 

amount, therefore, may be greater than, less than, or 

equal to the NOV proposed penalty amount.

* * * * * * * 

 

 
Hearing Office is our Name, Maritime Safety and Security is our Aim

Coast Guard Hearing Office Vol: XI Newsletter Date: Apr 2011 

9

WHAT’S IN A NUMBER? 

A number is nothing in and of itself. A number is a 

creation used in counting and measuring. Numbers 

can convey “magnitude “ or “degree.” Numbers are 

relative and can be expressed as a ratio or percentage. Sometimes numbers are used simply as convenience for certain functions such as telephone numbers, lock combinations, etc. Today we hear much 

about business measures or business metrics. Often 

these “metrics” are used to measure the success or 

failure of a desired outcome. 

Here are some Coast Guard Hearing Office metrics 

that provide a “how goes it” glimpse into our work:

Number of case files received by the Coast Guard 

Hearing Office with violation dates in 2008: 945 

Number of case files received by the Coast Guard 

Hearing Office with violation dates in 2009: 1440 

Number of case files received by the Coast Guard 

Hearing Office with violation dates in 2010: 1345 

Number of case files received by the Coast Guard 

Hearing Office with violation dates in 2011: 82 

Number of case files received by the Coast Guard 

Hearing Office in 2010 regardless of violation date: 

1420 

Number of preliminary assessments issued in 2010: 

1391 

Number of final assessments issued in 2010: 759 

Number of violation case files returned to the program manager for deficiencies in 2010: 150 

Number of hearings held in 2010: 12 

* * * * * * * 

JUST FOR FUN 

Alicia Scott, YN2 Pamela Conlee, and YN2 Victor Anderson

 

1.What Coast Guard ship was the last to be 

decommissioned that fought at Pearl Harbor on 

December 07, 1941? 

 

2.In what year was the first Coast Guard helicopter mercy mission flown? 

 

3.What is the location of the first Coast Guard 

Air Station that opened in 1920? 

 

4.During the American Civil War, what ship 

fired the first naval shot? 

 

5.What is the mascot for the Coast Guard 

Academy? 

 

ANSWERS

Harriet 1.Taney; 2.1944; 3.Morehead City, NC; 4.

Lane 5.Bear named Objee