UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

DWAYNE K. RHODES, 

Respondent. 

Docket NuJ;11ber CG S&R 02-0428 

CG Case No. 1639750 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued: January 14, 2003 

Issued by: Thomas E. McElligott, Administrative Law Judge 

Representing the U.S. Coast Guard: 

Marine Science Technician First Class (MST1) T. Blaine Hoover and Lieutenant 

Andrew Williamson, both Investigating Officers stationed at the Marine Safety 

Office for the ports of Houston to Galveston, 9640 Clinton Drive, Houston, Texas 

77029. 

Representing the Respondent: 

Dwayne K. Rhodes, 756 Orleans, Corpus Christi, Texas 78415 
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

The Coast Guard Investigating Officers alleged in their Complaint that the 

captioned Respondent failed a drug test for methamphetamines and amphetamines. 

Therefore, they seek Revocation of Respondent's U.S. Merchant Mariner's 

Document, issued to him by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

This adversary hearing before the above Administrative Law Judge is brought 

pursuant to the legal authority contained in 46 U.S. Code Chapter 77, specifically§§ 

7701-04 (West Supp. 2000); the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. Code§§ 

551-59 (West Supp. 2000); Rules of Practice, Procedure, and Evidence for Formal 

Administrative Proceedings of the Coast Guard, 33 C.P.R. Part 20 (2000); Marine 

Investigation Regulations- Personnel Action, 46 C.P.R. Part 5 (1999); Chemical 

Testing, 46 C.P.R. Part 16 (1999); and Procedures for Transportation Workplace 

Drug Testing Programs, 49 C.P.R. Part 40 (1999). 

On December 11, 2002, a hearing before the captioned Judge for the above 

captioned matter convened as scheduled in the hearing room located in Houston, 

Texas. This administrative hearing was commenced against the captioned 

Respondent, Dwayne K. Rhodes, through service of a Complaint, by certified mail, 

return receipt, by the Investigating Officer (IO), Lieutenant Robert L. Helton, 

presently stationed at the Marine Safety Office (MSO) for the port and region of 

Corpus Christi, Texas. The Complaint alleges a statutory violation charging the 

Respondent with the Use of or Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs in violation 

of 46 U.S. Code§ 7704(c) (West Supp. 2000). The Complaint seeks the revocation 

2 
of the Respondent's U.S. Coast Guard issued Merchant Mariner's Document (MMD) 

Number 258250607. 

The Investigating Officers' Complaint served upon the Respondent alleged 

the following Factual Allegations: 

"1. On March 27, 2002, the Respondent submitted to a random 

urinalysis. 

"2. A urine specimen was collected by San Augustine Industrial Clinic, 

321 W. San Augustin,- Deer Park, TX. 

"3. The Respondent signed a Federal Drug Testing Custody and 

Control Form on March 27,2002. 

"4. The urine specimen was analyzed by One Source Toxicology using 

procedures approved by the Department of Transportation. 

"5. That specimen subsequently tested positive for 

Amphetamine/Methaphenamine [sic]and results verified by Ricky 

McShane, MD, MRO." 

The Complaint was dated July 2, 2002, and requested a hearing at the Marine 

Safety Office, Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Later when Lieutenant Helton found out that the Respondent had moved his 

residence to Deer Park, Texas, a suburb of Houston, he filed a motion and requested a 

change of venue for the hearing to Houston, Texas. The undersigned Judge, without 

objection by Respondent and with the agreement of the Senior Investigating Officer 

in Houston, granted this request. The case was then accepted and transferred to the 

Marine Safety Office for the ports and region of Houston to Galveston, Texas. Later 

the Investigating Officer from the Marine Safety Office Houston-Galveston requested 

a continuance of the case. Without objection, the Judge granted this continuance of 

3 
the hearing date to December 11, 2002, in Hou$ton, Texas. Respondent was 

previously notified of this hearing date and place. 

The Complaint was served personally upon the Respondent, as shown by IO 

Exhibit 10, the U.S. Post Office Domestic Return Receipt for the Complaint. 

Subsequently the Respondent completed and signed a formal Answer to the 

Complaint and filed it with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Docketing Center. 

The Respondent in his Answer denied all Factual Allegations in the Complaint and 

requested a hearing before a U.S. Administrative Law Judge. 

The Complaint and Respondent's written Answer were filed with the U.S. 

Coast Guard, Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center, Baltimore, Maryland and 

this matter was assigned to the undersigned Judge. 

At the hearing six (6) witnesses testified under oath. Five (5) for the 

Investigating Officer and the Respondent testified on his own behalf. There was also 

some telephonic testimony from a lady representing the Nueces Occupation Medicine 

Clinic, 7406 Upriver Road, Corpus Christi, Texas 78409, regarding Respondent 

Dwayne K. Rhodes' later application for a position or job with Petroleum Service 

Corporation. The later examination dates were on March 29, 2002 and/or Apri11, 

2002. She was called because the Respondent insisted initially and in his Opening 

Statement that he had taken and passed a drug test for Petroleum Service Corporation 

by providing a urine sample on the very next day following his March 27, 2002 urine 

sample for tests for Adams Land & Marine, Ltd. However, as shown by IO's Exhibit 

15 and Respondent's Exhibit 1, Respondent's later physical examinations were 

conducted on March 29, 2002 and his drug test urine specimen, the second one, was 

4 
not taken from him until March 29, 2002, or five (5) days later, on April1, 2002. 

Since there are thirty-one (31) days in March, April1, 2002, was five (5) days later. 

In addition to the testifying six (6) witnesses, this Administrative Law Judge 

admitted into evidence fourteen (14) of the exhibits offered by Investigating Officer 

Hoover. IO Exhibit 13 was not offered and therefore was not admitted. One exhibit 

consisting of several pages was offered by the Respondent and was admitted into 

evidence by the Administrative Law Judge and marked as "Resp Ex 1 ". This made a 

total of fifteen (15) exhibits admitted into evidence by this Judge. 

II. FINDINGS OF FACT BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD 

CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE 

1. At all relevant times herein mentioned and specifically on and about March 27, 

2002 through April1, 2002, the captioned Respondent, Mr. Dwayne Kelley 

Rhodes, was a holder in possession of a U.S. Coast Guard issued, Merchant 

Mariner's Document Number 258250607. 

2. The captioned Respondent gave his first urine specimen for drug testing at the 

request of his prospective marine employer, Adams Land & Marine, Ltd, on 

Wednesday, March 27,2002, while applying for employment under the authority 

of his U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document. Later a notification letter from Adams 

Land & Marine, Ltd. was received by the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office 

Corpus Christi, Texas, stating a failure of the drug tests by the Respondent. 

5 
3. The Respondent was later charged by the Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi, 

Texas to appear before the Administrative Law Judge at a hearing in Corpus 

Christi, Texas. Lieutenant Robert Helton, of the Marine Safety Office Corpus 

Christi, Texas later asked for and was granted a change of venue for the 

Respondent to appear before the Judge on September 5, 2002, in Houston, Texas 

without objection by the Respondent and the Senior Investigating Officer for 

Houston to Galveston, Texas. 

4. Later an Investigating Officer of the Marine Safety Office for the region of 

Houston to Galveston then asked for and was granted a continuance of the hearing 

date, without objection by the Respondent. The Respondent was then scheduled 

and did appear before the Administrative Law Judge, on December 11, 2002, in 

Houston, Texas for a hearing to defend against the charge of "Use of or Addiction 

to the Use of Dangerous Drugs." 

5. Lieutenant Robert Helton had prior contacted the Respondent at his residence and 

explained Respondent's rights to him and served the Complaint by certified return 

receipt U.S. mail on the Respondent, on July 6, 2002. Respondent completed his 

formal written Answer to the Complaint and forwarded it to the ALJ Docketing 

Center in Baltimore, Maryland by express courier service, on July 20, 2002. 

6. Prior to Respondent's filing of his Answer to the Complaint, the substance of the 

charge was explained to the Respondent by Lieutenant Robert L. Helton, of the 

Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi, Texas. Included in the 

conversation of advices to Mr. Rhodes, was his right to an attorney, his right to 

witnesses and relevant evidence subpoenaed on his behalf, his right to cross6 
examine or question witnesses testifying against him, his right to introduce 

relevant evidence into the record and also his right to remain silent if he so 

wished. 

7. The following exhibits were admitted into evidence at the hearing before this 

ALJ: 

a. IO Exhibit 1 is a letter from marine employer Adams Land & Marine, Ltd. 

informing the U.S. Coast Guard of Respondent's drug test failure for use of 

amphetamines and methamphetamines. 

b. IO Exhibit 2 is the official Investigating Officer's Complaint served by 

Lieutenant Robert Helton on the Respondent by certified mail, return receipt. 

c. IO Exhibit 3 is a true photocopy of the Respondent's U.S. Coast Guard issued 

U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document Number 258250607. 

d. IO Exhibit 4 is a certified true copy ofthe first urine collector's copy of the 

Federal Drug Testing Custody & Control Form number 100238252, signed by 

the collector of the urine specimen, Mr. Donovan K. Del a Cruz and 

Respondent. 

e. IO Exhibit 5 is the litigation package from the certified laboratory, One 

Source Toxicology. It contains a forwarding letter dated August 27, 2002, 

explaining what is contained in the litigation package, as well as a brief 

explanation ofhow a urine specimen is handled and tested. It includes a table 

of contents and a copy of Federal Register Volume 67, Number 148, dated 

Thursday, August 1, 2002, certifying One Source Toxicology Laboratory as a 

qualified drug-testing laboratory for the U.S. Department of Transportation 

7 
and U.S. Coast Guard. It further contains a curriculum vitae or resume for 

Mr. Steve Harris, the Laboratory Director and Certifying Scientist for the 

laboratory; the laboratory copy of the Federal Drug Testing Custody and 

Control Form; the positive test report from One Source Toxicology for the 

specimen with its identification (ID) number; the Internal Chain of Custody 

Batch Document for batch number ND 032701, containing sequence number 

2, accession number 645652; as well as the preliminary screening data in the 

GC/MS Aliquot Chain of Custody Confirmation Worklist Document, dated 

March 27, 2002, containing sequence number 17, accession number 645652 

and also the data from the second confirmatory laboratory test on the first 

urine sample. 

f. IO Exhibit 6 is the Medical Review Officer's (MRO's) copy of the Federal 

Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. 

g. IO Exhibit 7 is the curriculum vitae or resume of Dr. Ricky M. McShane, the 

Medical Review Officer (MRO) in this case. 

h. IO Exhibit 8 is the notification from the Medical Review Officer for the 

positive test results for use of amphetamines and methamphetamines by 

Respondent. 

1. IO Exhibit 9 is the written Answer completed and signed by Respondent 

Dwayne K. Rhodes, as his Answer to the Investigating Officer's Complaint. 

Respondent denied all factual allegations in the Complaint. 

8 
J. IO Exhibit 10 is a Domestic Return Receipt by the U.S. Post Office, proving 

personal service on the Respondent of the Complaint, by Lieutenant Robert 

Helton, of the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi, Texas. 

k. IO Exhibit 11 is the undersigned Judge's Ruling on Motion for Change of 

Venue from Corpus Christi, Texas to Houston, Texas, without objection. 

1. IO Exhibit 12 is the undersigned Judge's Order of Continuance of the hearing 

at the request of the Investigating Officer for the Marine Safety HoustonGalveston, without objection, ordering the hearing to commence on December 

11, 2002, in Houston, Texas. 

m. IO Exhibit 13 was never offered and therefore was not admitted into evidence. 

n. IO Exhibit 14 is the application for employment filled out and signed by the 

Respondent for marine employer Adams Land & Marine, Ltd. 

o. IO Exhibit 15 contains reports from Petroleum Service Corporation for 

Respondent's drug test on his second urine sample taken on April1, 2002. 

8. In Respondent's opening statement, his main defense was that he gave a second 

urine specimen to another employer the very next day that was reported negative 

for drug use. Respondent gave a second urine specimen for a pre-employment 

test for Petroleum Service Corporation of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. However, all 

the related hearing records, exhibits and written reports admitted into evidence 

prove that the time for his donation of the second urine specimen for the drug test 

under the Department of Transportation (DOT) program was either on March 29, 

2002, two (2) days later, or five (5) days later, on Apri11, 2002, from the date of 

the first urine specimen. 

9 
9. Mr. Steve Harris, the Laboratory Director and also a Certifying Scientist 

employed by One Source Toxicology (the original certified laboratory), with 

about three (3) years of experience as a Laboratory Director, testified that even 

after one (1) day a later human urine sample, with even higher numbers than 

Respondent tested positive for, has tested negative one (1) day later. This could 

be expected. Respondent's giving of the second urine specimen was actually two 

(2) to five (5) days later, not one (1) day later, as Respondent testified to. I find 

the testimony by the Respondent not credible as compared to the testimony of the 

five (5) listed witnesses testifying for the Investigating Officers, whom I do find 

credible. They are neutral and disinterested witnesses testifying to what they did 

and know. The exhibits, records and reports in evidence prove the second urine 

sample was given two (2) to five (5) days later. As the Medical Review Officer 

and the Laboratory Director credibly testified, the human body is continually 

flushing such drugs out of the body. Thus, later produced urine samples can 

easily be reported negative. This does not disprove that on the day of the first 

urine specimen for drug tests Respondent was found by the certified laboratory in 

or above the positive ranges for drug use. 

10. The President of Adams Land & Marine, Ltd., Mr. Michael K. Swift, testified 

under oath that his company would not have paid about $128.00 or so for all the 

tests on the Respondent if Respondent had told them Respondent was also 

applying for another or second job with Petroleum Service Corporation, on or 

about the same day. This credible testimony also contradicted Respondent's and 

again showed Respondent's credibility was lacking. 

10 
11. The trained and experienced collector of the urine specimen, Mr. Donovan K. 

Del a Cruz, testified that he carefully collected Respondent's first urine specimen 

and properly filled out the collection form on the day in question in front of the 

Respondent and sent it on to the certified laboratory. 

12. The Laboratory Director and Certifying Scientist, Mr. Steve Harris, employed by 

the certified laboratory, One Source Toxicology, testified that the laboratory 

performed the two required special DOT tests on Respondent's first urine 

specimen and both resulted in a positive for amphetamines and 

methamphetamines. He testified that the mere fact that Respondent passed a test 

for another laboratory by giving a later specimen at least a day or two later would 

not contradict the first specimen test results because the human body is 

continuously flushing out the dangerous drugs, as Medical Review Officer, Dr. 

Michael M. McShane, also testified to. They both testified that the body is 

continuously flushing out these types of drugs and so once they get down to a 

certain level in the human urine they will not test positive. Mr. Steve Harris 

testified this negative second test could be done on a urine sample given one day 

later. However, Respondent's second urine sample was only produced for testing 

two (2) to five (5) days later. A urine sample given two (2) to five (5) days later 

would easily test negative. 

13. We also had testimony by doctor and MRO, Ricky M. McShane, stating that 

when he notified the Respondent ofhis failing of the first urine drug test, the 

Respondent did not ask for another drug test of his initial urine specimen, even 

11 
though Respondent's original urine sample had been put into two separate 

specimen bottles and then sent directly to the first certified laboratory. 

14. Lieutenant Robert L. Helton, the Investigating Officer at the Marine Safety Office 

Corpus Christi, Texas testified credibly that he had properly advised the 

Respondent of his rights in these hearings and proceedings; and served the 

Investigating Officer's Complaint on the Respondent in this matter, well before 

the hearing date. 

III. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Respondent Dwayne K. Rhodes and the subject matter of this hearing are clearly 

and properly within the jurisdiction of the United States Coast Guard and the U.S. 

Administrative Law Judge in accordance with 46 U.S. Code Chapter 77, 

including, 46 U.S. Code§ 7704 (West Supp. 2000); U.S. Department of 

Transportation's (DOT's) 49 C.P.R. Part 40 (1999); and the U.S. Coast Guard's 

(USCG's) 46 C.P.R. Parts 5 and 16 (1999); 33 C.P.R. Part 20 (2000); and 33 

C.P.R. Part 95. 

2. At all relevant times, the captioned Respondent was the holder of and acted under 

the authority of his U.S. Coast Guard issued Merchant Mariner's Document while 

applying first for a job or position in the U.S. Merchant Marine with Adams Land 

& Marine, Ltd. and later with Petroleum Service Corporation for a position as a 

"shore-side tankerman" as Respondent called it. 

12 
3. The chemical urinalysis drug test on the first urine samples submitted by the 

captioned Respondent, on Wednesday, March 27, 2002, was satisfactorily 

performed without any fatal errors. It was performed in substantial compliance 

with DOT and USCG chemical urinalysis drug testing requirements and rules 

including, 46 C.P.R. Part 16 (1999) and 49 C.P.R. Part 40 (1999). They were 

supported and determined by the required two certified laboratory drug tests 

supported by a qualified and certified drug testing laboratory, one certifying 

scientist and laboratory director, and one qualified Medical Review Officer, to be 

POSITIVE for amphetamines and methamphetamines. Thus, proving the use of 

dangerous drugs, namely amphetamines and methamphetamines, by the 

Respondent, on or before March 27, 2002. 

4. The Complaint "USE OF OR ADDICTION TO THE USE OF DANGEROUS 

DRUGS" is found PROVED by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, 

substantial and credible evidence by considering the entire hearing record 

considered as a whole. 

5. It is well settled in the law that findings may conform the pleadings to the proof. 

It is found that on the day in question, March 27, 2002, Respondent submitted his 

first urine specimen for a pre-employment drug test to the said Adams Land and 

Marine, Ltd., a U.S. Merchant Marine employer, in accordance with the U.S. 

Department of Transportation and the U.S. Coast Guard rules for such drug tests. 

13 
IV. OPINION 

Some major purposes of Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedings 

and hearings before U.S. Administrative Law Judges are to promote safety at sea and 

in our nations coastal areas, ship channels, port cities and navigable rivers and oceans 

waterways. See 46 U.S. Code§ 7701 (West Supp. 2000). "If it is shown that a 

holder has been a user of, or addicted to, a dangerous drug, the license, certificate of 

registry, or merchant mariner's document shall be revoked unless the holder provides 

satisfactory proof that the holder is cured." 46 U.S. Code§ 7704(c) (2000); see also 

COMMANDANT'S APPEAL DECISION 2535 (SWEENEY). "If an individual fails 

a chemical test for dangerous drugs under this part, the individual will be presumed to 

be a user of dangerous drugs." 46 C.P.R. § 16.201(b) (2000). 

On March 27, 2002, the captioned Respondent submitted his first urine 

specimen for chemical urinalysis drug testing that was analyzed by two different 

approved test methods by a federally approved, tested and certified testing laboratory. 

This laboratory reported the Respondent's urine specimen to be "positive" for the 

presence of amphetamines and methamphetamines. These laboratory test findings 

were later supported by the credible testimony of the Laboratory Director and the 

Medical Review Officer (MRO) assigned to Respondent's case. 

The statutory wording of 46 U.S. Code§ 7704(c) (2000) clearly shows that 

even a one time use of a dangerous drug constitutes grounds for revocation unless the 

mariner shows satisfactory proof that he is cured. See 46 U.S. Code§ 7704(c); see 

also APPEAL DECISION 2535 (SWEENEY). 

14 
The Investigating Officer has the burden of proof in a Coast Guard suspension 

and revocation proceeding and hearing before a U.S. Administrative Law Judge to 

prove a prima facie case by the preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent is 

a user of or is addicted to the use of a dangerous drug. See 46 U.S. Code § 7704; 33 

C.P.R.§ 20.701-02 (2000); see also APPEAL DECISION 2379 (DRUM) (stating 

U.S. Coast Guard Investigating Officer has the burden of proof to establish or show 

drug use). 

The captioned Respondent submitted his first urine specimen for a chemical 

urinalysis drug test on March 27, 2002 that was tested, analyzed and confirmed by 

two tests by an independent, approved and certified laboratory that resulted in a 

positive test result during both tests for the presence of amphetamines and 

methamphetamines. The Laboratory Certifying Scientist and Laboratory Director and 

the MRO found and·testified credibly to support these positive results. The 

Respondent's March 27, 2002 first urine sample resulted in two (2) positive test 

results. This created the presumption and more that Respondent used a dangerous 

drug on or before March 27, 2002. See 46 C.P.R.§ 16.201(b) (1999). The 

Respondent's evidence and claims did not properly contradict nor rebut the 

Investigating Officers' strong and persuasive evidence. 

The Respondent's own Exhibit 1 contains a page wherein the Respondent's 

signature, with his printed name above it, shows the second urine sample date was 

five (5) days later, on April1, 2002. The document is entitled "Petroleum Service 

Corporation Drug and Alcohol Testing Consent Form." IO Exhibit 15 also shows a 

Drug Testing Custody and Control Form showing the Respondent giving his second 

15 
urine specimen on Aprill, 2002, with Respondent's signature, and was given at the 

Nueces Clinic, in Corpus Christi, Texas, which was the collector company for the 

later urine sample or second urine specimen from the Respondent for Petroleum 

Service Corporation. 

As a professor of mine in law school use to say, "The palest ink is better than 

the strongest memory" or the written records and reports are better than the strongest 

memory. Especially when the memory of the Respondent is wishing or trying to 

exonerate himself from a failure to pass proper drug tests. 

It is found that Respondent's second urine sample was provided no earlier 

than March 29, 2002, two (2) days later, and was probably provided on Aprill, 2002, 

a full five (5) days later. Thus, its results are irrelevant and nonpersuasive. The 

results of the second urine sample do not contradict the results of the first urine 

sample tests results, as detailed above. Respondent stated he has a wife and young 

children at home. His prior residence was at Corpus Christi, Texas. He moved for 

his job or position to Deer Park, Texas and now has moved back to Corpus Christi, 

Texas. 

V. ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent's U.S. Merchant Mariner's 

Document Number 258250607, all duplicates and all other valid unexpired Coast 

Guard documents, licenses, certificates and authorizations whatsoever, are hereby 

REVOKED. This revocation WILL BE STAYED upon a filing by the Respondent 

16 
within thirty (30) days after receipt of this Decision and Order that the Respondent 

has notified the Coast Guard Senior Investigating Officer at Marine Safety Office 

Houston-Galveston that he has enrolled to enter or entered into a Coast Guard 

approved drug rehabilitation program with the specific intent to complete the 

requirements of cure, in accordance with 46 U.S. Code Section 7704(c) and the 

Commandant's Appeal Decision SWEENEY, cited above. 

The Respondent's U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document, all duplicates and all 

other Coast Guard licenses whatsoever will then be SUSPENDED and deposited with 

the Senior Investigating Officer for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of 

the hearing, December 11, 2002, when Respondent's MMD was deposited with the 

Investigating Officer in this case, T. Blaine Hoover, MST1, of the Marine Safety 

Office Houston-Galveston. It is to be deposited for a period of at least twelve (12) 

months to allow the Respondent time to complete the requirements of cure. 

Following Respondent's successful completion of cure, the Respondent's U.S. 

Merchant Mariner's Document, all duplicates and all other Coast Guard documents, 

licenses, certificates and authorizations whatsoever shall be subject to a twelve (12) 

month probation period whereby no charge relating to drug possession or drug use 

under 46 U.S. Code§ 7703 or§ 7704 can be proved against the Respondent without 

violating this probation resulting in Revocation of all Coast Guard issued credentials 

issued to Respondent. 

OTHERWISE, if Respondent does not so enroll within thirty (30) days after 

receipt of this Decision and Order, the Respondent's U.S. Merchant Mariner's 

Document and all duplicates and all other valid and unexpired Coast Guard 

17 
documents, licenses, certificates and authorizations whatsoever are REVOKED 

OUTRIGHT. 

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that any party may file a notice of appeal 

from this decision within thirty (30) days. If neither party files an appeal pursuant to 

33 C.P.R. Subpart J, this Decision and Order will constitute the final Coast Guard 

action. An appeal notice, if any, shall be served on all parties and filed with: U.S. 

Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center, Attention: Hearing Docket 

Clerk, Room 412,40 S. Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022, phone number 

(410) 962-7434, fax number (410) 962-1742; AND with the undersigned Judge, at 

8876 GulfPreeway, Number 370, Houston, Texas, 77017-6542, fax number (713) 

948-3372. See enclosure of33 C.P.R. Subpart J. 

The rules and procedures for appellate review are found in 33 C.P.R. Part 20, 

Subpart J, specifically,§§ 20.1001-1103. A copy of Subpart J has been provided to 

the Respondent as part of the service of this order. 

Each party appealing this Decision and Order has sixty days ( 60) following 

the issuance of this decision or following receipt of the transcript to file an appellate 

brief. An appellate brief shall be served on all parties and filed with: U.S. Coast 

Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center, Attention: Hearing Docket 

Clerk, Room 412,40 S. Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022, phone number 

(410) 962-7434, fax number (410) 962-1742; AND with the undersigned Judge, at 

8876 GulfPreeway, Number 370, Houston, Texas, 77017-6542, fax number (713) 

948-3372. 

18 
Procedures are provided by which a person, or R~spondent, whose U.S. 

Merchant Mariner's License and/or Document has been revoked, may apply to any 

Commanding Officer of any Marine Safety Office of the U.S. Coast Guard for 

administrative clemency. This is also known as applying to the Coast Guard 

"Administrative Clemency Review Board." These rules and conditions are found in 

46 Code ofPederal Regulations (C.P.R.) Subpart L (46 C.P.R. 5.901, 5.903, and 

5.905) entitled "Issuance of New Licenses, Certificates or Documents After 

Revocation or Surrender," and also can be found in the U.S. Coast Guard Marine 

Safety Manual at most Coast Guard Marine Safety Offices .. -··-

/~~~~~@~ (/' ' /.'.· 

Thomas E. McEtlott 

Administrative L, -w udge 

U.S. Coast Guar 

et" Done and dated on this of .. 

Houston, Texas (" 

19