1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant

vs. 

RODNEY DARRELL CURLEE 

Respondent

_________________________________ Docket Number 2014-0271 

Enforcement Activity No. 4900578

ORDER VACATING DECISION AND ORDER 

ORDER GRANTING COAST GUARD MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER 

DECISION AND ORDER 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On July 7, 2015, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued a Decision and Order 

in this case. That Decision and Order followed a hearing on the Coast Guard’s charges against 

Rodney Darrell Curlee (Respondent), which sought revocation of his Coast Guard–issued 

Merchant Mariner’s Credential (MMC) alleging use of, or addiction to the use of, dangerous 

drugs—a violation of 46 U.S.C. §7704(c) and 46 C.F.R. §5.35. More particularly, the Complaint 

alleged that on April 28, 2014, Respondent submitted to a random drug test by providing a urine 

sample that subsequently tested positive for amphetamines. 

 On October 22, 2014, Respondent filed an Answer admitting all jurisdictional allegations 

and admitting some factual allegations. 
2 

On January 28, 2015, the hearing commenced in the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 

Courtroom, Hale Boggs Federal Building, New Orleans, Louisiana. Lieutenant Katrian M. 

Hernandez and James D. Fayard of Sector Lower Mississippi River appeared on behalf of the 

Coast Guard; Jeffry L. Sanford, Esq., appeared on behalf of Respondent, who was also present in 

court. At hearing, the Coast Guard presented no witness testimony and offered six exhibits into 

evidence, all of which were admitted into the record. 

At the hearing, Respondent admitted that on April 28, 2014, he was serving as captain, 

“running the boat at the time” when he was ordered by his marine employer’s safety 

representative to submit to a random urinalysis. (Tr. at 33). The testing was conducted 

pursuant to his marine employer’s drug policy. (CG Ex. 1). Drug testing was, and is, a 

requirement imposed upon all licensed mariners. Respondent was operating under his 

credential at the time he was both operating the vessel and at the time he was selected for 

chemical testing. Hence, it is clear that jurisdiction existed at the time of the original 

Complaint and hearing, as it does now, in this case. 

Also at the hearing, Respondent admitted all of the elements of the Coast Guard’s prima

facie case, to wit: Respondent admitted he was the individual tested for drugs; the urine 

specimen he provided tested “positive” for the presence of amphetamines; and the test of his 

urine specimen was conducted in accordance with 46 C.F.R. Part 16 and 49 C.F.R. Part 40. (Tr. 

29-46). Respondent also testified that he had/has a lifetime medical diagnosis of Attention 

Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD/ADHD) which has been, and is 

presently, treated by the use of Adderall. (Tr. 42, 67, 90-91). Respondent testified that at the 

time he was selected for random testing, he used Adderall, an amphetamine, to treat his 

ADD/ADHD disorder; albeit without a then-current prescription from a licensed physician. (Tr. 

41, 43-44). 
3 

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

regulations, and case law, the court found that Respondent admitted all elements of the Coast 

Guard’s prima facie case; therefore, the court found the allegations as set forth in the Complaint 

were proved. 

The Coast Guard’s original Complaint sought revocation of Respondent’s credential. 

Title 46 U.S.C. §7704(c) mandates that a Coast Guard issued credential shall be revoked if it is 

proven “that the holder of the credential has been a user of, or addicted to, the use of dangerous 

drugs, unless the holder provides satisfactory proof that the holder is cured.” Id. (emphasis 

added). The statute does not define what “cure” means. However, the concept of “cure” is 

typically discussed in that line of cases flowing from Appeal Decision 2535 (SWEENEY)

(1992).1 

The cure set forth in SWEENY is a rigorous course of conduct whereby a respondent 

must not only participate in an active rehabilitation program, he must also submit to random 

urinalysis testing for a full calendar year. At the time of the hearing, Respondent had not proved 

“cure” as that term had been previously defined by Coast Guard case law. Thus, revocation of 

Respondent’s credential was mandatory in this case. 

However, this case was, from the outset, extraordinary. The undersigned Administrative 

Law Judge specifically found that: 

 

1

 SWEENEY defines “cure” as: 

1. The respondent must have successfully completed a bona fide drug abuse rehabilitation 

program designed to eliminate physical and psychological dependence. This is interpreted to 

mean a program certified by a governmental agency, such as a state drug/alcohol abuse 

administration, or in the alternative, certified by an accepted independent professional 

association, such as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations 

(JCAHO). 

2. The respondent must have successfully demonstrated a complete non-association with drugs 

for a minimum period of one year following successful completion of the rehabilitation 

program. This includes participation in an active drug abuse monitoring program which 

incorporates random, unannounced testing during that year. 
4 

Respondent had/has a lifelong medical diagnosis of Attention Deficit 

Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, for which Adderall was/is a 

medically appropriate therapy. 

Although on or before April 28, 2014, Respondent did not have a current prescription 

for the use of Adderall, his use of Adderall was medically necessary and appropriate. 

The Coast Guard never produced any evidence that Respondent had used, or was 

addicted to, illicit drugs in the manner contemplated by the strictures of 46 U.S.C. §7704(c) and 

46 C.F.R. §5.35. 

On November 16, 2016, and pursuant to the provisions of 33 CFR §20.309, the Coast 

Guard and Respondent jointly filed a Motion to Vacate the July 7, 2015 Decision and Order on 

the basis of new and additional evidence in this case: to wit, proof of Respondent’s “cure” as that 

term is defined by SWEENEY and its progeny. Based upon the court’s examination of that new 

evidence and, particularly upon the representations of Coast Guard counsel, the parties’ joint 

Motion to Vacate the court’s July 7, 2015 Decision and Order is hereby GRANTED. 

II. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ANSWER 

Also on November 16, 2016, the Coast Guard moved the court to allow an amendment of 

the original Complaint. Respondent joins in that Motion and files an Amended Answer in 

response to the Amended Complaint. There being good cause to do so, and there being no 

obvious prejudice to either party, the court hereby GRANTS the parties’ joint Motion to Amend 

the Complaint and to File an Amended Answer to the amended Complaint. 

The Amended Complaint alleges that on April 28, 2014, Respondent was employed by 

Deloach Marine of Port Allen, LA, as a relief captain aboard the tow vessel CITY OF PORT 

ALLEN. The Amended Complaint further alleges that, as an employee of Deloach Marine, 

Respondent knew of and was subject to his employer’s “Controlled Substances/Illegal Drugs & 

Alcohol Testing Policies & Procedures.” The Amended Complaint further alleges that on April 

 
5 

28, 2014, Respondent possessed amphetamine salts (Adderall) without an authorized medical 

prescription, while on board the CITY OF PORT ALLEN, in violation of the Deloach drug 

policies and procedures. The Coast Guard alleges that Respondent’s possession of Adderall, 

while aboard his employer’s vessel, without a valid prescription, constitutes Misconduct as 

defined by 46 USC §7703(1)(b) and 46 CFR §5.27. The Coast Guard seeks 12 months 

suspension of Respondent’s MMC as a sanction for the alleged Misconduct. 

In his Amended Answer, Respondent admits all jurisdictional and factual allegations in 

the Amended Complaint and specifically agrees with the proposed Order. 

III. DISCUSSION 

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

at sea. See 46 U.S.C. §7701. Pursuant to 46 C.F.R. §5.19, an ALJ holds the authority to suspend 

or revoke a license or certificate in a hearing for violations arising under 46 U.S.C. §7703 and/or 

§7704. 

Determining the weight of the evidence and making credibility determinations as to the 

evidence is within the sole purview of the ALJ. See Appeal Decision 2640 (PASSARO) (2003). 

Additionally, the ALJ is vested with broad discretion in resolving inconsistencies in the 

evidence, and findings do not need to be consistent with all of the evidence in the record as long 

as there is sufficient evidence to reasonably justify the findings reached. Id.; Appeal Decision 

2639 (HAUCK) (2003). 

In their Joint Motion, the parties specifically stipulate that the evidence and testimony 

received by the court in the original January 28, 2015, hearing is undisputed and “may serve as 

the basis for a future decision by the ALJ under 33 CFR 20.902 if the current Decision and Order 

is vacated.” Therefore, the parties asked the court to adjudicate this matter anew, based upon the 

extant record and the evidence newly received from Respondent. 
6 

A. Jurisdiction 

“The jurisdiction of administrative bodies is dependent upon the validity and the terms of 

the statutes reposing power in them.” Appeal Decision 2620 (COX) (2001) (quoting Appeal 

Decision 2025 (ARMSTRONG) (1975)). “Where an Administrative forum acts 

without jurisdiction its orders are void.” Appeal Decision 2025 (ARMSTRONG)

(1975). Therefore, establishing jurisdiction is critical to the validity of a proceeding. 

Appeal Decisions 2677 (WALKER) (2008); 2656 (JORDAN) (2006). 

In order to establish jurisdiction in this case, the Coast Guard must prove that the acts of 

Negligence and/or Misconduct occurred while the Respondent was “acting under the authority of 

his MMC.” 46 U.S.C. §7703. Appeal Decision 2425 (BUTTNER) (1986) plainly states that 

jurisdiction is a question of fact that must be proven by the Coast Guard. “A person employed in 

the service of a vessel is considered to be acting under the authority . . . [when a credential is] (1) 

Required by law or regulation; or (2) Required by an employer as a condition for employment.” 

46 C.F.R. §5.57(a). Accordingly, if neither of the criteria set forth at 46 C.F.R. §5.57(a) is met, 

then the Coast Guard has no jurisdiction for a Suspension and Revocation proceeding. Appeal 

Decision 2620 (COX) (2001) further adds that jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown and will 

not be presumed. See also Appeal Decision 2025 (ARMSTRONG) (1975). 

In his Amended Answer, Respondent admits all jurisdictional allegations in the Amended 

Complaint. 

Moreover, at all relevant times herein, Respondent was on his marine employer’s payroll; 

serving aboard his marine employer’s vessel, the CITY OF PORT ALLEN. Respondent admits 

that on April 28, 2014, he was serving as captain, “running the boat at the time” when he was 

ordered by his marine employer’s safety representative to submit to a random urinalysis. (Tr. at 

33). The testing was conducted pursuant to his marine employer’s drug policy. (CG Ex. 1). 
7 

Inasmuch as Respondent served as a captain on a vessel that required a credentialed Master, the 

character of Respondent’s employment was clearly within the scope of his MMC. In that regard, 

the court finds jurisdiction appropriate in a case such as the one at bar. See Appeal Decision 

2615 (DALE) (2000). Here, the court has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter at 

hand. 

B. Burden of Proof 

In this case, like all Suspension and Revocation cases, the Coast Guard bears the burden 

of proof to establish the requisite facts mandated by the organic statute, 46 U.S.C. §7703, and the 

implementing regulations, 46 C.F.R. Part 5 and Part 10, Subpart B; 33 C.F.R. Part 20. The 

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

and Revocation hearings before United States ALJs. The APA authorizes imposition of 

sanctions if, upon consideration of the entire record as a whole, the charges are supported by 

reliable, probative and substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. §556(d). The Coast Guard bears the 

burden of proof to establish the charges are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 33 

C.F.R. §§20.701, 20.702(a). Similarly, a respondent bears the burden of proof in asserting any 

affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. 33 C.F.R. §§20.701, 20.702; Appeal 

Decisions 2640 (PASSARO) (2003); 2637 (TURBEVILLE) (2003). “The term substantial 

evidence is synonymous with preponderance of the evidence as defined by the U.S. Supreme 

Court.” Appeal Decision 2477 (TOMBARI) (1988) (citing Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 107 

(1981)). 

The burden of proving a fact by a preponderance of the evidence “simply requires the 

trier of fact ‘to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before 

[he] may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the [judge] of the fact’s 

existence.’” Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 
8 

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

concurring) (brackets in original)). 

As per 46 U.S.C. §7703(1)(B), a mariner’s credential may be suspended or revoked if 

that mariner has committed an act of Negligence or an act of Misconduct. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard is obligated to prove by credible, reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence that Respondent more-likely-than-not committed the acts alleged in the 

Amended Complaint. 

C. Misconduct 

Misconduct is defined in 46 C.F.R. §5.27 as human behavior which violates some formal, 

duly established rule. Such rules are found in, among other places, statutes, regulations, the 

common law, the general maritime law, a ship’s regulation or order, or shipping articles and 

similar sources. It is an act which is forbidden or a failure to do that which is required. 

In this case, the court finds that Respondent committed Misconduct when he violated his 

employer’s drug policy prohibiting the use of “illegal drugs” and defined those substances as 

“any drug . . . (b) which is legally obtainable, but has not been legally obtained.” (CG Ex. 1).2

Once again, in his Amended Answer, Respondent admits all of the factual allegations 

contained in the Amended Complaint. 

Nevertheless, and consistent with the parties’ stipulation regarding the evidence and 

testimony received at the original January 28, 2015 hearing, the undersigned Administrative Law 

Judge makes the following findings of fact. 

 

2

 Likewise, Respondent’s possession of amphetamine, a controlled substance, without a prescription, violates 21 

U.S.C. §844, which provides in part: “It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a 

controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a 

practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this 

subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter.” 
9 

IV.FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. At all relevant times, Respondent was a holder of a valid Coast Guard-issued 

Merchant Mariner’s Credential. (Answer). 

2. At all relevant times, Respondent’s marine employer, Deloach Marine, 

maintained a company drug policy prohibiting the use of “illegal drugs” and defined 

those substances as “any drug . . . (b) which is legally obtainable, but has not been 

legally obtained.” (CG Ex. 1). 

3. On April 28, 2014, Deloach Marine randomly selected Respondent to submit to a 

urinalysis. (Tr. at 32 – 35). 

4. On April 28, 2014, Respondent provided a urine specimen to Charles Hall, a 

certified drug collection specialist, for drug analysis. (Tr. at 36 – 37; CG Ex. 2, 5). 

5. On April 28, 2014, Respondent signed a Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control 

form, bearing a discrete identification number assigned to his urine specimen. (Tr. at 

37; CG Ex. 3). 

6. On April 28, 2014, Respondent’s urine specimen was collected and processed in 

accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 40. (Tr. at 37). 

7. On April 30, 2014, Respondent’s urine specimen, bearing the same discrete 

identification number as listed on his Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control 

form, was tested by One Source Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., Pasadena, Texas, a 

Department of Transportation (DOT)-certified drug testing laboratory. (CG Ex. 5). 

8. On May 1, 2014, Respondent’s urine specimen, bearing the same discrete 

identification number as listed on his Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control 

form, tested positive for amphetamines. (CG Ex. 5). 

9. On May 2, 2014, Dr. Russell J. Green, a DOT-certified Medical Review Officer 

(MRO), telephoned Respondent and reported the positive drug test results to 

Respondent. (Tr. at 38 – 41; CG Ex. 4). 

10. Prior to his random drug test, Respondent knowingly possessed Adderall, an 

amphetamine, without a prescription. (Tr. at 41). 

11. Respondent has taken Adderall since he was five years old and was medically 

diagnosed with either Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder (ADD/ADHD). (Tr. at 42; Resp. Ex. C, D, E). 

12. Respondent told the MRO that he had taken his wife’s Adderall for treatment of 

his ADD/ADHD. (Tr. at 38; CG Ex. 4). 

13. The MRO did not review Respondent’s medical history or review other 

biomedical factors related to Respondent’s use of Adderall. 
10 

14. Dr. Benjamin Allen Root is Respondent’s current treating physician. On August 

5, 2014, Dr. Root prescribed Adderall to Respondent to help Respondent “concentrate 

on his job as well as activities of daily living.” (Tr. at 66 – 68). 

 The court finds that on or before April 28, 2014, Respondent committed Misconduct 

because he knowingly violated his employer’s drug policy by possessing a controlled substance 

(his wife’s Adderall) while aboard his employer’s vessel, without a valid, current medical 

prescription. Thus, the allegations in the Amended Complaint are PROVED. It must be noted, 

however, that the gravamen of the offense, here, is a technical one. The medical testimony 

revealed that Respondent carried a life-long medical diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder for which Adderall is the appropriate therapy. In this instance, Respondent failed to 

obtain a current, valid prescription from his physician before taking his wife’s Adderall. 

V. SANCTION 

The authority to impose sanctions at the conclusion of a case is exclusive to the ALJ. 46 

C.F.R. §§5.567; 5.569(a); Appeal Decision 2362 (ARNOLD) (1984). The nature of this nonpenal administrative proceeding is to “promote, foster, and maintain the safety of life and 

property at sea.” 46 U.S.C. §7701; 46 C.F.R. §5.5; Appeal Decision 1106 (LABELLE) (1959). 

The Coast Guard seeks a twelve-month suspension of Respondent’s credential. 

Moreover, in their Joint Motion, the parties specifically stipulate that “the time that has elapsed 

since July 7, 2015, the date when Respondent’s credential was revoked, should be counted as 

credit toward the completion of any term of suspension ordered as a sanction” in this case. 

In determining an appropriate sanction for offenses for which revocation is not 

mandatory, an ALJ should consider: any remedial actions undertaken by a respondent; 

respondent’s prior records; and evidence of mitigation or aggravation. See 46 C.F.R. 

§5.569(b)(1)-(3). 
11 

In this case, the Coast Guard PROVED Misconduct as alleged in the Amended 

Complaint. 

Remedial Action: Respondent provided significant new evidence of independent, 

remedial action undertaken by him which, indeed, mitigate any sanction that might be imposed. 

See 33 C.F.R. §5.569(b)(1). The court points with specificity to Respondent’s newly-offered 

Exhibits G and H, provided as part of the parties’ instant Joint Motion. Those documents are 

entirely consistent with Dr. Root’s prior testimony that Respondent carries a lifelong medical 

diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder for which Adderall is a medically 

appropriate treatment. The new documents also suggest Respondent’s attentiveness to his 

medical condition and the legally-responsible way he has ensured his compliance with his 

employer’s Drug Policy. The court also notes Respondent’s honesty, candor and cooperativeness 

with the Coast Guard throughout these proceedings.3

 3

 Respondent testified credibly that he had taken Adderall, an amphetamine, since he was five years old; the 

time he was diagnosed with either Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 

(ADD/ADHD). (Tr. at 42). Respondent also provided his medical records, dating from 1993, which substantiate a 

life-long diagnosis of ADHD. (Resp. Ex. C, D, E). Respondent explained that at the time he was randomly selected 

for drug testing, he was taking his wife’s Adderall because he could not afford to for both he and his wife to be seen 

by a physician to obtain a prescription for the medication. (Tr. at 43). 

Dr. Benjamin Allen Root, Jr., Respondent’s treating psychiatrist, testified that Respondent had a longstanding diagnosis that mandated the use of Adderall for the treatment of ADD/ADHD. Moreover, Dr. Root 

provided a current medical diagnosis of Respondent’s ADD/ADHD, consistent with Respondent’s long-standing 

medical history. (Resp. Ex. A, B) 

Dr. Root testified at length regarding Respondent’s medical history and that because of his current 

diagnosis of ADD/ADHD Respondent “needs Adderall to help him control his symptoms.” (Tr. at 60 – 67; Resp. 

Ex. B). Dr. Root further testified that on August 5, 2014, he renewed Respondent’s prescription for Adderall and 

specifically noted that Respondent should be taking that drug to help him “concentrate on his job as well as activities 

of daily living.” Respondent remains under Dr. Root’s care. (Tr. at 66 – 68). 

The court finds Dr. Root highly credible. Dr. Root’s professional involvement with Respondent is a major 

consideration, as is Dr. Root’s review and explanation of Respondent’s significant medical history. 

Likewise, the court finds Respondent to be highly credible. The court gives great weight to his candor and 

gives particular weight to the fact Respondent made significant declarations against his own interest by freely 

admitting he violated his company’s policy against taking prescription drugs without a prescription. Such an 

admission could have resulted in both his firing and a criminal prosecution. Thus, the undersigned finds 

Respondent’s testimony highly credible in this case. 

Equally important to the court’s deliberation is Respondent’s marine employer’s letter to the court; written 

“with full knowledge of Mr. Rodney Curlee’s positive U/A for amphetamines.” That letter states, in part, that 

Respondent: 

Is always willing to go the extra mile to do a job completely, correctly, safely and on 

time. Despite his young age, his hard work and dedication has (sic) paid off, making him 

one of [our] most valuable Mariners. 
12 

Thus, the court hereby imposes a twelve-month suspension of Respondent’s MMC; said 

suspension to commence on July 7, 2015 and to conclude July 6, 2016. In short, Respondent is 

given credit for the time his license was previously revoked. That period is now properly 

classified as a suspension, not a revocation, and that having served that twelve-month 

suspension, his MMC should be returned to him forthwith. 

VI. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. At all relevant times, Respondent was the holder of a valid Coast Guard-issued 

Merchant Mariner’s Credential. 

2. At all relevant times, Respondent’s marine employer maintained a written policy 

prohibiting employees from using otherwise legal drugs without a valid medical 

prescription. 

3. On April 28, 2014, Respondent was randomly selected to provide a urine 

specimen for drug testing. His selection was made by a 

scientifically/mathematically valid means. 

4. On April 28, 2014, Respondent’s urine specimen was properly collected by a 

DOT-certified urine specimen collector. 

5. On May 1, 2014, Respondent’s urine specimen was properly collected and tested 

in a DOT-certified drug testing laboratory. His sample tested positive for 

amphetamines. 

6. Adderall, an amphetamine, is a prescription medication for the treatment of 

Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. 

7. Respondent had/has a lifelong medical diagnosis of Attention Deficit 

Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, for which Adderall was/is a 

medically appropriate therapy. 

 

(Resp. Ex. F). 

The same letter also described Respondent’s voluntary assessment and education at “Correctional 

Counseling” in Jackson, Mississippi, after the events of April 28, 2014. (Respondent’s Ex. F). Although the 

evidence in this case establishes a violation of 46 U.S.C. §7704(c), the undersigned believes that the totality of the 

circumstances and the evidence suggests that Respondent is a strong candidate for clemency. Respondent’s use of 

Adderall was, and is, medically appropriate. The undersigned urges the Commandant, in any future decision relative 

to Respondent’s application for renewal of his MMC, to consider that Respondent’s use of Adderall was supported 

by medical evidence and is consistent with safety at sea. 
13 

8. Although on or before April 28, 2014, Respondent did not have a current 

prescription for the possession or use of Adderall, his use of Adderall was 

medically necessary and appropriate. 

VII. ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

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

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

5 and 16; 33 C.F.R. Part 20; and the APA as codified at 5 U.S.C. §§551-59. 

2. On April 28, 2014, Respondent was the holder of a valid Coast Guard-issued 

credential and was also acting under the authority of his credential when aboard 

his employer’s vessel and when ordered to submit to a random urinalysis. 

3. Respondent was properly ordered to submit for testing in accordance with 46 

C.F.R. Part 16 in that he was randomly selected by a scientifically/mathematically 

valid method. 

4. Respondent’s urine specimen was collected in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 40, 

subparts D and E. 

5. Respondent’s urine specimen was tested in accordance with the provisions of 49 

C.F.R. Part 40, subparts F and G. 

6. The results of Respondent’s urine specimen test revealed the presence of 

amphetamine, a dangerous drug. 

7. Respondent possessed Adderall on April 28, 2014, while aboard his employer’s 

vessel, without a valid/current medical prescription for Adderall and by so doing, 

violated his employer’s drug policy. 

VIII. CONCLUSION 

The Coast Guard PROVED that Respondent committed Misconduct by possessing 

Adderall while aboard his employer’s vessel without a valid or current medical prescription for 

the Adderall. This, in violation of Respondent’s employer’s drug policy. 

IX. ORDER 

Respondent’s Coast Guard-issued credential is SUSPENDED for twelve months, said 

suspension to commence retroactively on July 7, 2015 and to conclude July 6, 2016. In short, 
14 

Respondent is given credit for the time his license was previously revoked. Respondent’s MMC 

should be returned to him forthwith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

__________________________________________________ 

Bruce Tucker Smith 

US Coast Guard 

Administrative Law Judge

Date: November 18, 2016
15 

ATTACHMENT A: WITNESS & EXHIBIT LISTS 

Coast Guard Exhibits

1. Deloach Marine Controlled Substances policy 

2. Charles D. Hall DOT Certification 

3. Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form – Copy 3 

4. Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form – MRO copy 

5. One Source Toxicology Laboratory “litigation package” 

6. Random Selection methodology 

Respondent Exhibits

A. Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Benjamin Allen Root, Jr. 

B. Root letter 

C. Psychological evaluation 

D. Medical report 

E. Children’s medical group report 

F. Louisiana Marine letter 

G. Letter from Dr. Root, dated September 9, 2016 

H. Adderall prescription, from Dr. Root, dated October 17, 2016. 

ALJ Exhibits

None 

Coast Guard’s Witnesses

None 

Respondent’s Witnesses

Rodney Darrell Curlee 

Benjamin Allen Root, Jr., MD 
16 

ATTACHMENT B: SUBPART J, APPEALS 

33 C.F.R. §20.1001 General. 

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

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

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

MD 21201-4022. The party shall file the notice 30 days or less after issuance of the 

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

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

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

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

public policy. 

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

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

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

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

evidence that that person would have presented. 

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

33 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §20.1003 Procedures for appeal. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(i) Basis for the appeal; 

(ii) Reasons supporting the appeal; and 

(iii) Relief requested in the appeal. 

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

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

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

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

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

untimely. 

(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. 
17 

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 C.F.R. §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.