UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_______________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

JESSIE JAMES JACKSON, JR.

Respondent

______________________________

Docket Number 2022-0088

Enforcement Activity No. 7400084

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: April 2, 2024

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Brian J. Curley

Appearances

For the Coast Guard:

ANDREW S. MYERS, ESQ.

Suspension & Revocation National Center of Expertise

LT. CHRISINA L. JEANES

Marine Safety Unit Morgan City

For Respondent:

JESSIE JAMES JACKSON, JR., pro se
2

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) initiated this administrative action seeking 

revocation of Jessie James Jackson’s (Respondent) Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) Nos. 

 and . 46 U.S.C. 7704. The Complaint alleges Respondent is a user of or 

addicted to dangerous drugs in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 7704(b) and the underlying regulations 

codified at 46 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 16 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. Specifically, the Coast Guard asserts 

Respondent took a non-Part 16 drug test which yielded a positive result for cocaine. 

Respondent filed an Answer on April 18, 2022, denying the jurisdictional and factual allegations 

of the Complaint.

The hearing of this case took place in New Orleans, Louisiana, on January 18, 2023. Lt.

Chrisina L. Jeanes and Andrew S. Myers, Esq., represented the Coast Guard. Respondent 

represented himself. The Coast Guard offered 16 exhibits into evidence, all of which were 

admitted, and presented the testimony of five witnesses. Respondent offered one exhibit into 

evidence, which was admitted, and called no witnesses.1 On April 13, 2023, the Coast Guard 

submitted its post-hearing brief. Respondent did not submit a responsive post-hearing brief. The 

record is now closed, and the case is ripe for a decision. After careful review of the entire 

record, I find the Coast Guard PROVED Respondent is a user of dangerous drugs, and therefore, 

Respondent’s MMC is REVOKED.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

I find the following facts proved by preponderant evidence based on documentary 

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

1. At all times relevant to the instant case, Respondent held MMC No. . [Ex. 

CG-014].

2

1 See Attachment A for a list of the parties’ exhibits and witnesses.

2 The Coast Guard mentioned two MMC numbers for Respondent in the Complaint; during the hearing, the Coast 

Guard only presented evidence as to MMC No. .
3

2. On September 23, 2021, American Commercial Barge Lines (ACBL) offered 

Respondent a position as a deckhand. [Exs. CG-001, CG-004].

3. ACBL requires new hires to undergo both a Coast Guard required pre-employment 

drug test as well as a supplemental employer ordered pre-employment drug test.

[Tr. at 44-45, 48-49; Exs. CG-002, CG-004].

4. ACBL gives notice to new hires of the requirement to pass the supplemental drug test

by notifying them in their offer letter and by verbally advising them. [Ex. CG-004; 

Tr. at 49-50].

5. ACBL sets out its drug and alcohol policy for employees in a written document called 

“Drug and Alcohol Policy.” [Ex. CG-002].

6. ACBL’s Drug and Alcohol Policy contains a supplement that contains additional drug 

and alcohol screening requirements of its customer Seariver Maritime, Inc., also 

referred to as “Exxon Sea River.” [Ex. CG-002 at 4-6; Tr. at 46].

7. ACBL ordered the supplemental, “non-DOT” drug test for Respondent on October 

13, 2021, to satisfy the drug and alcohol screening standards of Exxon Sea River. 

[Tr. at 46].

8. On October 13, 2021, Respondent provided a urine specimen for ACBL’s 

supplemental, non-DOT drug test. [Ex. CG-005; Tr. at 45-46, 50].

9. Christopher Lepre (the collector) collected Respondent’s urine specimen on October 

13, 2021, at the ACBL facility in Convent, Louisiana. [Ex. CG-005; Tr. at 45, 57-

59].

10. At all times relevant to this case, the collector was trained in Department of 

Transportation (DOT) drug test collection procedures. [Ex. CG-006; Tr. at 57-58].

11. At the time of the hearing, the collector did not have an independent memory of 

conducting Respondent’s urine collection, however the collector testified he follows a 

collection process consistent with DOT collection procedures. [Tr. at 61].

12. The collector administered all drug test urine collections, including Respondent’s 

urine collection, as follows [Tr. at 60-64]: 

a. Respondent and the collector met in the room where the collection would take 

place, Respondent removed all items from his pockets, and the collector

checked Respondent’s photo ID to verify Respondent’s identity. [Tr. at 61].

b. After verifying his identity, the collector entered Respondent’s information in 

Step 1 of the Forensic Drug Testing Custody and Control Form (CCF). [Ex. 

CG-005; Tr. at 61-62].
4

c. The collector donned gloves, picked up a sealed collection kit, opened the kit, 

and provided the urine collection cup to Respondent. [Tr. at 62].

d. The collector directed Respondent to wash his hands and then take the 

collection cup to the stall to fill the cup with approximately 60 milliliters of 

urine. [Tr. at 62].

e. When Respondent returned to the collector with the filled collection cup, the 

collector used a temperature strip to test the temperature of the sample to 

determine it was in the acceptable range. [Tr. at 62-63].

f. After determining the urine specimen was within the acceptable temperature 

range, the collector poured the urine from the cup into two split specimen 

bottles, in Respondent’s presence. [Tr. at 62-63].

g. The collector then completed Step 2 of the CCF, indicating the urine specimen 

was in acceptable temperature range and the collection was a “split” specimen 

collection. [Ex. CG-005; Tr. at 63].

h. The collector then affixed the seals from Respondent’s CCF to the split 

specimen bottles and wrote the date on the seals, in Respondent’s presence. 

[Tr. at 63].

i. The collector asked Respondent to verify the number on the seals matched the 

number on Respondent’s CCF. Respondent then initialed the seals. [Tr. at 

63].

j. The collector then placed the sealed split specimen bottles into a pouch and 

Respondent completed Step 5 of the CCF. [Ex. CG-005; Tr. at 63].

k. The collector completed the collection by completing Step 4 of the CCF, 

placing the laboratory’s carbon copy of the CCF into the pouch, sealing the 

pouch in front of Respondent, and giving Respondent the donor’s carbon copy 

of the CCF. [Ex. CG-005; Tr. at 64].

l. The collector placed the sealed pouch in a secure location at the collection site 

prior to releasing the pouch to the delivery service for delivery to the 

laboratory. [Tr. at 64].

13. The CCF identified Respondent’s urine specimen as Specimen ID # 8144219. [Exs. 

CG-005, CG-007].

14. Quest Diagnostics (Quest) performed the testing of Respondent’s urine specimen. 

[Exs. CG-007, CG-015].

15. At all times relevant to the instant case, Quest was certified by the Department of 

Health and Human Services to meet federal standards to conduct urine drug testing. 

[Tr. at 73-74; Ex. CG-008].
5

16. Quest received Specimen ID # 8144219 on October 16, 2021, with the split specimen 

bottle seals intact. [Exs. CG-007, CG-009; Tr. at 77].

17. Specimen ID # 8144219 was given accession number 363050E for laboratory 

tracking purposes. [Ex. CG-007; Tr. at 76].

18. At no time during Quest’s possession of Specimen ID # 8144219 was the chain of 

custody compromised. [Tr. at 77-78, 82; Exs. CG-007, CG-015].

19. At all times relevant to this case, Quest used quality control measures to ensure its 

testing equipment was accurate, including calibrating the instruments that perform the 

initial and confirmation testing of specimens, and participating in proficiency testing

with laboratory certifying bodies such as the College of American Pathologists. [Tr. 

at 75].

20. The initial screening cut-off level for positive cocaine tests is 150 ng/mL; the 

confirmatory test cut-off level is 100 ng/mL. [Tr. at 83, 86; Ex. CG-015 at 74].

21. Specimen ID # 8144219 tested positive for cocaine metabolites in the initial 

screening. [Tr. at 84; Ex. CG-015 at 36, 49].

22. Quest performed confirmatory testing using mass spectrometry and determined 

Specimen ID # 8144219 tested positive for cocaine metabolites at 179 ng/mL. [Tr. at 

85-86; Ex. CG-015 at 74].

23. The drug test results for Specimen ID # 8144219 were reviewed and approved by a 

Certifying Technician/Scientist at Quest. [Tr. at 87; Ex. CG-009; Ex. CG-015 at 74].

24. Dr. Stuart Hoffman, M.D., performed a review of Respondent’s drug test results in 

October 2021. [Tr. at 101; Ex. CG-010].

25. At all times relevant to the instant case, Dr. Hoffman was a licensed physician and 

certified Medical Review Officer (MRO) and was employed at First Advantage, a 

company that provides MRO review of drug test results for employers. [Tr. at 101-

106; Ex. CG-011].

26. First Advantage received a report of a positive drug test result for Specimen ID # 

8144219 from Quest on or about October 27, 2021. [Tr. at 107; Exs. CG-009, CG010].

27. On October 27, 2021, Dr. Hoffman attempted to contact Respondent by telephone to 

discuss the positive drug test result; after leaving a message for Respondent, 

Respondent did not return the MRO’s phone call. [Tr. at 112-113; Exs. CG-010, CG012]. 

28. Dr. Hoffman verified on October 29, 2021, that Specimen ID # 8144219 tested 

positive for cocaine. [Ex. CG-010].
6

III. DISCUSSION

The purpose of Coast Guard suspension and revocation (S&R) proceedings is to promote 

safety at sea. 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a). Under 46 U.S.C. § 7704(b), an MMC shall be revoked if the 

holder has been a user of, or addicted to, a dangerous drug, unless the holder provides 

satisfactory proof that he is cured. See generally Appeal Decision 2634 (BARRETTA), 2002 

WL 32061809; Appeal Decision 2535 (SWEENEY), 1992 WL 12008768. Pursuant to 46 C.F.R. 

§ 5.19, Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) have authority to admonish, suspend, or revoke an 

MMC for violations arising under 46 U.S.C. § 7704. The Coast Guard charged Respondent with 

use of, or addiction to, a dangerous drug under § 7704(b) because Respondent’s urine allegedly

tested positive for cocaine in an employer-directed drug test. After careful review of the entire 

record, I find the Coast Guard PROVED the charged violation.

A. Jurisdiction

Under Coast Guard caselaw, jurisdiction is a question of fact and must be determined 

before the substantive issues of the case are decided. Appeal Decision 2620 COX, 2001 WL 

34080159, at *2. When the Coast Guard charges use of, or addiction to, a dangerous drug, 

jurisdiction exists so long as the respondent holds a credential at the time the Coast Guard 

initiates the proceedings. Appeal Decision 2712 (MORRIS) 2016 WL 692747, at *3; Appeal 

Decision 2721 (TOWNSEND), 2018 WL 8244643, at *4. Here, the record shows Respondent 

held MMC No. when the Coast Guard filed the Complaint initiating the case, and 

Respondent offered no evidence to challenge this fact. [Ex. CG-014]. Accordingly, I have 

jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. 

B. Burden of Proof

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

suspension and revocation hearings before ALJs. 46 U.S.C. § 7702(a). Under Coast Guard 

procedural rules and regulations, the burden of proof is on the Coast Guard to prove the charges 
7

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 WL 1024602, at *3; 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 or she] 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 must 

prove by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that Respondent more likely than not 

committed the charged violation.

C. Use of, or Addiction to, a Dangerous Drug

Here, the Coast Guard alleges Respondent is a user of, or addicted to, a dangerous drug

as prohibited by 46 U.S.C. § 7704(b) and 46 C.F.R. § 5.35. Specifically, Respondent’s urine

allegedly tested positive for cocaine metabolite in an employer-directed drug test administered 

on October 13, 2021. 

Generally, there are in two types of drug tests the Coast Guard relies on—tests ordered 

pursuant to 46 C.F.R. Part 16 (Part 16 drug tests), and those not ordered pursuant to 46 C.F.R. 

Part 16 (Non-Part 16 drug tests). See generally Appeal Decisions 2668 (MERRILL) (2007), 

2007 WL 3033593; 2625 (ROBERTSON) (2002), 2002 WL 32061801; 2545 (JARDIN) (1992), 

1992 WL 12008778; 2704 (FRANKS) (2014), 2014 WL 4062506. An employer conducts a test

pursuant to Part 16 only for one, or more, of the following reasons: 1) pre-employment testing; 

2) periodic testing; 3) random testing; 4) testing resulting from serious marine incidents; and 5)

reasonable cause testing. See 46 C.F.R. §§ 16.210-16.250. Commandant Decisions on Appeal 
8

(CDOAs) sometimes refer to Part 16 tests as “government-ordered” tests because “the employer 

acts as an instrument or agent of the Government.” Appeal Decision 2704 (FRANKS) (2014), 

2014 WL 4062506, at *5, 9. 

The Coast Guard may also rely on non-Part 16 tests. Employers order these tests for 

reasons other than the regulatory five reasons, usually a reason set forth in the employer’s 

handbook/and or drug testing policies. The Coast Guard may use a non-Part 16 drug test result 

to attempt to prove use of, or addiction to, a dangerous drug, “provided that the test and its 

associated positive result are found to be reliable.” Appeal Decision 2720 (ARGAST) (2018), 

2018 WL 8244642, at *10 (citing Appeal Decision 2704 (FRANKS) (2014), 2014 WL 4062506).

The Commandant has approved use of non-Part 16 drug tests as evidence of use of, or 

addiction to, a dangerous drug:

The mere fact that the specimen collection was for a purpose other than 

one authorized and subject to Coast Guard regulations is not reason to 

exclude the evidence. ...as long as the evidence is relevant and material, 

and not inherently incredible, it can be considered in a suspension and 

revocation hearing. It is the province of the Administrative Law Judge to 

determine whether it is reliable and probative and to determine the 

weight that the evidence will be accorded. 

Appeal Decision 2560 (CLIFTON) (1995), 1995 WL 17010110, at *6. 

(internal citations omitted).

When an employer directs an employee to undergo a drug test for reasons other than 

those required under Part 16 “the employer is not acting as an instrument or agent of the 

government, the constitutional harms that Part 16 seeks to avoid are absent, and the Coast Guard 

may place in evidence facts that tend to show drug use in order to prove a charge in accordance 

with 46 C.F.R. § 5.35.” Appeal Decision 2704 (FRANKS) (2014), 2014 WL 4062506, at *9.

Even if an employer is acting outside of Part 16 when administering a drug test to an 

employee, the Commandant recognized a need to evaluate the purpose set forth by the employer 

for conducting drug testing. The Commandant stated in Appeal Decision 2704 (FRANKS), “[a] 
9

complaint based on an alleged employer-required test independent of Part 16 should be subjected 

to close scrutiny to ensure that Part 16 has not been circumvented.” (FRANKS), 2014 WL 

4062506, at *n.1.

Often, the evidence offered by the Coast Guard in non-Part 16 drug test cases is very 

similar to evidence offered in Part 16 drug test cases, because marine employers often utilize 

very similar procedures to conduct both Part 16 and non-Part 16 tests. For instance, marine 

employers may utilize specimen collectors that follow DOT (i.e., 49 C.F.R Part 40) guidelines 

for urine collection and laboratories that follow DOT guidelines for specimen testing. Thus,

oftentimes the evidence presented by the Coast Guard to prove use of, or addiction to, a 

dangerous drug in non-Part 16 drug test cases mirrors the evidence used in Part 16 drug test 

cases.

Having set forth the differences in suspension and revocation proceedings based on Part 

16 and non-Part 16 drug tests, I turn to the case at bar. The drug test administered to Respondent 

was a non-Part 16 drug test. Therefore, the Coast Guard must demonstrate 1) Respondent 

participated in an employer-ordered drug test, 2) Respondent was the person tested for dangerous

drugs, 3) Respondent tested positive for a dangerous drug as listed in 46 C.F.R. § 16.105, and 4) 

the drug test results are scientifically reliable.

1. Respondent Participated in an Employer-Ordered Drug Test

Regarding the first element, whether Respondent participated in an employer-ordered 

drug test, Respondent accepted an offer of employment from ACBL on September 23, 2021. 

[Exs. CG-001, CG-004]. ACBL requires new hires in applicable positions to undergo a preemployment drug test (i.e., DOT test) to satisfy the Coast Guard’s regulatory requirements found 

at 46 C.F.R. § 16.210. Personnel at ACBL refer to this pre-employment drug test as a “DOT 

test,” which is synonymous with a Part 16 drug test. [Tr. at 44-45, 48-49; Exs. CG-002, CG004]. 
10

After a new hire successfully passes the DOT test, ACBL requires the new hire to attend 

orientation. [Tr. at 44]. At orientation, ACBL requires new hires to undergo a supplemental 

drug test that is not required by Coast Guard regulations, and ACBL considers this drug test a 

“non-DOT test.” [Ex. CG-004; Tr. at 45]. ACBL gives notice to new hires of the requirement to 

pass the supplemental drug test by notifying them in their offer letter and by verbally advising 

them. [Ex. CG-004; Tr. at 49-50].

The ACBL offer letter given to Respondent stated, “To maintain a drug-free workplace, 

ACBL may perform a second post-offer drug test during the orientation. ACBL is subject to 

Department of Transportation (DOT) / United States Cost Guard (USCG) regulated substance 

abuse testing; therefore, you will participate in random drug testing throughout your career as a 

vessel employee.” [Ex. CG-004 (emphasis in original); Tr. at 49-50]. ACBL’s Drug and 

Alcohol Policy contains a supplement that contains additional drug and alcohol screening 

requirements of its customer Seariver Maritime, Inc., also referred to as “Exxon Sea River.” [Ex. 

CG-002 at 4-6; Tr. at 46].

On October 13, 2021, ACBL ordered Respondent to submit to a supplemental “nonDOT” drug test to satisfy the drug and alcohol screening standards of Exxon Sea River. [Ex. 

CG-005; Tr. at 44-46, 50]. The advisements regarding a second, supplemental drug test in the 

offer letter and Drug and Alcohol policy make clear that Respondent was participating in a drug 

test not required under Part 16, and thus, that ACBL was not attempting to circumvent the 

requirements of Part 16. See (FRANKS), 2014 WL 4062506, at *n.1. Accordingly, I find 

Respondent participated in an employer-ordered drug test, pursuant to the company’s drug and 

alcohol policy.
11

2. The Employer’s Collection, Laboratory Testing, and Verification Procedures 

Demonstrated Reliability 

Regarding the second, third, and fourth elements discussed above ((1) Respondent was 

the person tested for dangerous drugs, (2) Respondent tested positive for a dangerous drug, and 

(3) the non-Part 16 drug test results are scientifically reliable). All of these elements are satisfied 

by evidence of ACBL’s collection, laboratory testing, and verification procedures. I find the 

Coast Guard proved each of these elements by substantial evidence, as discussed below.

a. The Collection Process Was Reliable

ACBL contracted with Premier Occupational Medicine (Premier) to perform specimen 

collections. [Tr. at 45; Ex. CG-009]. Premier employed Christopher Lepre (the collector) as a 

specimen collector. [CG-005; Tr. at 57-59]. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the 

collector was certified in collection procedures meeting DOT drug testing program standards set 

forth in 49 C.F.R. part 40. [Ex. CG-006; Tr. at 57-58].

On October 13, 2021, the collector went to ACBL’s orientation facility in Convent, 

Louisiana and collected a urine specimen for drug testing from Respondent. [Ex. CG-005; Tr. at 

57-59]. At the time of the hearing, the collector did not have an independent memory of 

conducting Respondent’s urine collection. However, he testified he conducted all drug test 

collections, including Respondent’s on October 13, 2021, in a manner consistent with the DOT 

collection training he received. [Tr. at 61]. Accordingly, the collector administered 

Respondent’s urine collection as follows.

Respondent and the collector met in the room where the collection would take place, 

Respondent removed all items from his pockets, and the collector checked Respondent’s photo 

ID to verify Respondent’s identity. [Tr. at 61]. After verifying his identity, the collector entered 

Respondent’s information in Step 1 of the Forensic Drug Testing Custody and Control Form 

(CCF). [Ex. CG-005; Tr. at 61-62]. The collector donned gloves, picked up a sealed collection 
12

kit, opened the kit, and provided the urine collection cup to Respondent. [Tr. at 62]. The 

collector accompanied Respondent to the restroom area and directed Respondent to wash his 

hands or use hand sanitizer and then go into a stall to fill the collection cup. [Tr. at 62]. 

Respondent returned to the collector with a filled collection cup and the collector tested the 

specimen’s temperature to ensure it was in an acceptable range. [Tr. at 62]. 

The collector then poured the urine from the collection cup into two split specimen 

bottles, in Respondent’s presence. [Tr. at 62-63]. The collector then affixed the seals from 

Respondent’s CCF to the split specimen bottles and wrote the date on the seals, in Respondent’s 

presence. [Tr. at 63]. The collector asked Respondent to verify the number on the seals matched 

the number on Respondent’s CCF. Respondent then initialed the seals. [Tr. at 63]. The 

collector then placed the sealed split specimen bottles into a pouch and Respondent completed 

Step 5 of the CCF. [Ex. CG-005; Tr. at 63]. The collector completed the collection by 

completing Step 4 of the CCF, placing the laboratory’s carbon copy of the CCF into the pouch, 

sealing the pouch in front of Respondent, and giving Respondent the donor’s carbon copy of the 

CCF. [Ex. CG-005; Tr. at 64]. The collector placed the sealed pouch in a secure location at the 

collection site prior to releasing the pouch to the delivery service for delivery to the laboratory. 

[Tr. at 6]. When the specimen was received by the laboratory, the laboratory noted on the CCF 

that the seal was intact, indicating the specimen was not tampered with or damaged during 

delivery. [Ex. CG-007].

Considering this evidence, I find the Coast Guard presented substantial evidence that 

Respondent’s urine was collected in a manner that maintained the specimen’s integrity. In other 

words, there is substantial evidence that Respondent provided the urine specimen at issue in this 

case.
13

b. Laboratory Testing of Respondent’s Specimen Was Reliable

Quest Diagnostics (Quest) performed the testing of Respondent’s urine specimen. [Exs. 

CG-007, CG-015]. At all times relevant to the instant case, Quest was certified by the 

Department of Health and Human Services to meet federal standards to conduct urine drug 

testing. [Tr. at 73-74; Ex. CG-008]. 

Quest received Respondent’s urine specimen (identified as Specimen ID # 8144219 on 

the CCF) on October 16, 2021, with the split specimen bottle seals intact. [Exs. CG-007, CG009]. The laboratory report produced by Quest showing Quest’s handling of the specimen 

throughout the initial and confirmation tests demonstrates the chain of custody was not 

compromised at any time. [Tr. at 77-78, 82; Exs. CG-007, CG-015].

At all times relevant to this case, Quest used quality control measures to ensure its testing 

equipment was accurate, including calibrating the instruments that perform the initial and 

confirmation testing of specimens, and participating in proficiency testing with laboratory 

certifying bodies such as the College of American Pathologists. [Tr. at 75].

The initial screening cut-off level utilized by Quest for positive cocaine tests is 150

ng/mL; the confirmatory test cut-off level is 100 ng/mL. [Tr. at 83, 86; Ex. CG-015 at 74]. See

also 49 C.F.R. § 40.85(a). Specimen ID # 8144219 tested positive for cocaine in the initial 

screening. [Tr. at 84; Ex. CG-015 at 36, 49]. Quest performed confirmatory testing using mass 

spectrometry and determined Specimen ID # 8144219 tested positive for cocaine metabolites at 

179 ng/mL. [Tr. at 85-86; Ex. CG-015 at 74]. The drug test results for Specimen ID # 8144219 

were reviewed and approved by a Certifying Technician/Scientist at Quest. [Tr. at 87; Ex. CG009; Ex. CG-015 at 74].

Considering the evidence above, I find the Coast Guard presented substantial evidence

that the laboratory testing of Respondent’s urine was performed in a reliable manner, and thus 

that Respondent’s urine did test positive for cocaine.
14

c. MRO Verification of Respondent’s Positive Drug Test Result Further 

Supports Reliability of the Drug Test

Dr. Stuart Hoffman, M.D., performed a review of Respondent’s drug test results in 

October 2021. [Tr. at 101; Ex. CG-010]. At all times relevant to the instant case, Dr. Hoffman

was a licensed physician and certified MRO and employed at First Advantage, a company that 

provides MRO review of drug test results for employers. [Tr. at 101-106; Ex. CG-011]. 

First Advantage received a report of a positive drug test result for Specimen ID # 

8144219 from Quest on or about October 27, 2021. [Tr. at 107; Exs. CG-009, CG-010]. On 

October 27, 2021, Dr. Hoffman attempted to contact Respondent by telephone to discuss the 

positive drug test result; after leaving a message for Respondent, Respondent did not return the 

MRO’s phone call. [Tr. at 112-113; Exs. CG-010, CG-012]. The purpose of the MRO 

interviewing the individual is to allow the MRO to determine if there is a legitimate medical 

explanation for the positive result. [Tr. at 105-106]. In this case, Respondent did not return the 

MRO’s phone call and thus never offered a reason that would provide a legitimate medical 

explanation for the positive result. On October 29, 2021, Dr. Hoffman verified Specimen ID # 

8144219 tested positive for cocaine. [Ex. CG-010].

Here, the MRO’s review and verification of the positive drug test result lends more 

support for the reliability of the drug test, and therefore, the result of the drug test. Considering 

the evidence as a whole, I find the Coast Guard showed the drug test and its associated result 

were reliable. Thus the Coast Guard established a prima facie case of use of, or addiction to, a 

dangerous drug.

3. Respondent Did Not Present Evidence to Rebut the Prima Facie Case Made by 

the Coast Guard

If the Coast Guard establishes a prima facie case of use of, or addiction to, a dangerous 

drug, the burden then shifts to the respondent to produce persuasive evidence to rebut the Coast 

Guard’s case. See Appeal Decision 2603 (HACKSTAFF), 1998 WL 34073115, at *1. If a 
15

respondent’s evidence sufficiently rebuts the Coast Guard’s prima facia case, the burden of 

producing evidence of a respondent’s drug use returns to the Coast Guard, which always bears 

the ultimate burden of proof on this issue. Id.; 33 C.F.R. § 20.703(b). 

Here, Respondent did not testify and did not present any witnesses. [Tr. at 118-123]. 

Respondent moved for the admission of one exhibit, a letter from an employer (not ACBL) 

stating Respondent has been subject to random drug testing since December 2022. [Ex. R-001].

I admitted the letter into the record. Respondent’s evidence—the letter—does not shed any light 

on whether he was a user of, or addicted to, a dangerous drug when he submitted to the drug test 

at issue in this case in October 2021. Accordingly, Respondent did not present any evidence to 

rebut the Coast Guard’s prima facie case.

IV. SANCTION

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

revocation of all Coast Guard issued licenses, documents, and other credentials is the appropriate 

sanction unless cure is proven. 46 U.S.C. 7704(b); 46 C.F.R. § 5.59; Appeal Decision 2535 

(SWEENEY), 1992 WL 12008768, at *2. Although, the authority to impose sanctions at the 

conclusion of a case is exclusive to the ALJ, the case law makes clear the only appropriate 

sanction for use of or addition to dangerous drugs is revocation. Appeal Decision 2362 

(ARNOLD) 1984 WL 564475, at *4; Appeal Decision 2535 (SWEENEY), 1992 WL 12008768, 

at *2. 

Here, the Coast Guard proved by preponderant evidence that Respondent was a user of, 

or addicted to, a dangerous drug. To demonstrate cure, Respondent would have to show 1) 

successful completion of a bona fide drug abuse rehabilitation program, and 2) one year of 

complete non-association with drugs after completion of the rehabilitation program, including 

participation in an active drug abuse monitoring program that incorporates random drug testing. 

(SWEENEY), 1992 WL 12008768 at *4. Respondent offered one exhibit to attempt to show
16

evidence of cure—the letter of his employer stating he has participated in random drug testing 

since about 2022. [Ex. R-001]. Respondent’s evidence is not sufficient to show cure, because it 

does not demonstrate completion of a bona fide drug abuse rehabilitation program, nor does it 

provide enough information, i.e., the date and details of each drug test, to demonstrate one full 

year of complete non-association with drugs. Accordingly, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 7704(b) and 

46 C.F.R. §§ 5.59 and 5.569(d), the appropriate sanction is REVOCATION.

WHEREFORE,

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Merchant Mariner Credential No. , and all 

other valid licenses, documents, and endorsements issued by the Coast Guard to Respondent are 

REVOKED. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, within three (3) years or less, Respondent may file a motion 

to reopen this matter and seek modification of the order of revocation upon a showing that the 

order of revocation is no longer valid and the issuance of a new license, certificate, or document 

is compatible with the requirement of good discipline and safety at sea. The revocation order 

may be modified upon a showing that Respondent:

(1) has successfully completed a bona fide drug abuse rehabilitation program;

(2) has demonstrated complete non-association with dangerous drugs for a minimum of 

one year following completion of the drug rehabilitation program; and

(3) is actively participating in a bona fide drug abuse monitoring program.

See 33 C.F.R. § 20.904 and 46 C.F.R. § 5.901. The drug abuse monitoring program must 

incorporate random, unannounced testing during that year. Appeal Decision 2535 (SWEENEY), 

1992 WL 12008768, at *4.
17

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, the parties’ appeal rights are set forth in 33 

C.F.R. 20.1001 – 20.1004. (See Attachment B).

SO ORDERED.

Done and dated this 2

nd day of April, 2024

New Orleans, LA

______________________________________

Brian J. Curley

Administrative Law Judge

United States Coast Guard
21

ATTACHMENT B

Notice of 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 issupported 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.
22

(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.