UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_______________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

v. 

RANDY JOE GREEN 

Respondent. 

_______________________ 

Docket Number CG S&R 2010-0372 

CG Case No. 3820152 

DECISION & ORDER

Date Issued: January 4, 2011 

Issued By: Honorable Bruce Tucker Smith 

Administrative Law Judge 

Appearances:

For the Complainant 

LT Charlotte A. Keogh 

U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Paducah 

MSSE4 Tim S. Smith 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley 

For the Respondent 

Randy Joe Green, pro se
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT................................................................ 3 

II. FINDINGS OF FACT............................................................................4 

III. DISCUSSION.....................................................................................6 

A. Burden and Standard of Proof . .........................................................7 

1. Generally .........................................................................7 

2. Drug Cases........................................................................7 

B. Use of, or Addiction to the use of, Dangerous Drugs...............................8 

1. Element One: Respondent was the Individual Tested for a 

 Dangerous Drug.................................................................9 

2. Element Two: Test Results Show that Respondent has Tested 

 Positive for the Presence of a Dangerous Drug...........................10 

3. Element Three: The Drug Test Was Conducted in Accordance 

 with 49 C.F.R. Part 40.......................................................11 

C. Collateral Issues ........................................................................12 

IV. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................... 12 

V. CONCLUSION................................................................................ .14

VI. ORDER..........................................................................................15 

VII. ATTACHMENT A: LIST OF WITNESSES & EXHIBITS........................... 16 

VIII. ATTACHMENT B: SUBPART J, APPEALS........................ ............... 17 

IX. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE............................................... ...............19 
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

On September 24, 2010, the United States Coast Guard (“Coast Guard”) filed an 

Amended Complaint against Respondent Randy Joe Green (Respondent) seeking revocation of 

Respondent’s Coast Guard-issued Merchant Mariner’s License (MML) alleging use of, or 

addiction to the use of, dangerous drugs under 46 U.S.C. §7704(c) and 46 C.F.R. §5.35. More 

particularly, the Amended Complaint alleged that Respondent provided a random urine sample 

that subsequently tested positive for marijuana metabolites. 

On October 11, 2010, Respondent filed his Answer admitting all jurisdictional allegations 

and admitting all factual allegations, save paragraphs four and five of the Amended Complaint. 

On December 9, 2010, the hearing of this matter commenced at the U.S. District 

Courthouse in Paducah, Kentucky. Non-attorneys LT Charlotte A. Keogh and CWO Tim Smith 

represented the Coast Guard; Respondent appeared pro se and was assisted by his non-attorney 

wife, Lisa Green. Both parties appeared and presented their respective cases. Three witnesses 

testified as part of the Coast Guard’s case-in-chief.1 The Coast Guard offered thirteen exhibits 

into evidence, all of which were admitted. 

Respondent called no witnesses to testify. Respondent offered six exhibits, all of which 

were admitted into evidence. 

At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties made their respective final arguments and 

thereafter the court closed the administrative record. 

 

1

 Citations referencing the transcript are as follows: Transcript followed by the volume number and page number 

(Tr. at __ ). Citations referring to Agency Exhibits are as follows: Coast Guard followed by the exhibit number (CG 

Ex. 1, etc.); Respondent’s Exhibits are as follows: Respondent followed by the exhibit letter (Resp. Ex. A, etc.); ALJ 

Exhibits are as follows: ALJ followed by the exhibit Roman numeral (ALJ Ex. I, etc.). 
II. FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. Respondent Randy Joe Green holds a Coast Guard-issued merchant mariner’s 

license. (CG Ex. 1). 

2. On or about July 15, 2010, Respondent Randy Joe Green reported to his place 

of employment, American Electrical Power River Operations (AEP), near 

Paducah, Kentucky, and was immediately thereafter notified of his selection 

for random drug testing. (Tr. at 26). 

3. The process used by American Electrical Power River Operations (AEP) to 

select its employees for drug testing was random. (Respondent’s Answer). 

4. Clifford Ray Williamson (Williamson) is employed by West Kentucky Drug 

Screen as a urinalysis specimen collector and has held such position for three 

years and four months. (Tr. 16). In 2007, Williamson received a training 

certificate for Department of Transportation urinalysis collection training. (Tr. 

at 14; CG Ex. 07). His certificate was current on July 15, 2010. 

5. On July 15, 2010, Clifford Ray Williamson made positive identification of 

Respondent Randy Joe Green and thereafter collected a urine specimen from 

Respondent Randy Joe Green. (Tr. at 20-35). 

6. On July 15, 2010, Clifford Ray Williamson (Williamson) completed a 

Custody Control Form (CCF) pertaining to the urine sample collected from 

Respondent. Williamson ensured that unique specimen identification number 

112526314 was assigned to Respondent Randy Joe Green’s sample and that 

the same unique number was indicated on the CCF. (Tr. at 21-25, 33-37). 

7. The urine specimen collection procedures utilized by Clifford Ray Williamson 

and West Kentucky Drug Screen relative to urine specimen number 

112526314 were conducted in accordance with Department of Transportation 

regulations as codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 40. 

8. Clifford Ray Williamson subsequently ensured that Respondent Randy Joe 

Green’s urine specimen, bearing the unique specimen identification number 

112526314, was sent to the Advanced Toxicology Network laboratory (lab) 

via FedEx, where it was received for testing on July 16, 2010. (Tr. at 70; CG 

Ex. 04a, 09a). 

9. Kathy D. Atkins is a certifying scientist employed by Advanced Toxicology 

Network and was employed by that entity on July 16, 2010. (Tr. at 61-62; CG 

Ex. 06ac). 

10. Advanced Toxicology Network, of Memphis, Tennessee, is a Department of 

Transportation “approved” laboratory; meaning that facility has met the 
federally-mandated standards to engage in urine drug testing for federal 

agencies. (CG Ex. 08). 

11. Kathy D. Atkins, certifying scientist, testified that on July 16, 2010, Advanced 

Toxicology Network tested a urine specimen bearing the unique identification 

number. (Tr. at 73-83; CG Ex. 06). 

12. Kathy D. Atkins (Atkins), certifying scientist, testified that the urine specimen 

bearing the unique identification number 112526314 tested positive for the 

presence of the marijuana metabolite. Atkins testified that initial screening, 

by immunoassay, revealed specimen number 112526314 contained fifty-nine 

point one nanograms per milliliter, well in excess of the fifty nanograms per 

milliliter cutoff level established by the Department of Transportation. Atkins 

further testified that confirmatory testing, via gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry, revealed that specimen number 112526314 contained twentysix nanograms per milliliter, which is in excess of the fifteen nanograms per 

millileter cutoff level established by the Department of Transportation. (Tr. at 

75-78). 

13. Kathy D. Atkins, certifying scientist, further testified that the results from 

these separate testing procedures, employed by Advanced Toxicology 

Network on specimen number 112526314 were reflected in Coast Guard 

Exhibit 06, commonly referred to as a “litigation package” and on the Custody 

Control Form (CCF). (CG Ex. 04a, 06). 

14. Kathy D. Atkins, certifying scientist, further testified that the results from 

these separate testing procedures on specimen number 112526314 were then 

forwarded to Dr. Daniel Drew, the Medical Review Officer. (Tr. at 81-83). 

15. The testing procedures utilized by Advanced Toxicology Network laboratory 

and performed on urine specimen number 112526314 were conducted in 

accordance with Department of Transportation regulations codified at 49 

C.F.R. Part 40. 

16. Dr. Daniel Drew, the Medical Review Officer, is familiar with and is certified 

in the utilization of the procedures contained in 49 C.F.R. Part 40. Dr. Drew 

is an appropriately educated, qualified, licensed and a certified Medical 

Doctor. (Tr. at 124; CG Ex. 05b, 05c). 

17. On or about July 19, 2010, Dr. Drew reviewed and verified the results 

generated by Advanced Toxicology Network laboratory from testing 

performed on urine specimen number 112526314. Dr. Drew determined that 

the testing procedures had resulted in a “positive” finding on urine specimen 

number 112526314. (Tr. at 109-112, 122-123, 133). 

18. On or about July 19, 2010, Dr. Drew interviewed Respondent Randy Joe 

Green by telephone to discuss the test results that Dr. Drew had received and 

reviewed from Advanced Toxicology Network regarding urine specimen 

number 112526314. (Tr. at 131). 
19. During his interview with Dr. Drew, Respondent Randy Joe Green did not 

offer an explanation why his urine specimen had tested positive for the 

marijuana metabolite nor did he request a re-test of a split sample of his urine 

specimen. (Tr. at 132-134; CG Ex. 5). 

20. On or about July 19, 2010, Dr. Drew completed the appropriate sections of the 

CCF. (CG Ex. 04b). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Suspension and Revocation proceedings are remedial, not penal in nature and are 

“intended to help maintain the standards of competence and conduct essential to the promotion 

of safety at sea.” 46 C.F.R. §5.5. The Commandant delegated to Administrative Law Judges 

(ALJs) the authority to suspend or revoke a license, certificate, or merchant mariner’s document 

for violations arising under 46 U.S.C. §§ 7703 and 7704. See 46 C.F.R. §5.19. In the instant 

matter, the Coast Guard charged Respondent under 46 U.S.C. §7704(a) and 46 C.F.R. §5.35 

alleging his use of, or addiction to the use of, dangerous drugs. Consequently, the Coast Guard 

seeks revocation of Respondent’s Merchant Mariner’s License. 

It is important to note that 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). Also, 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. 

Appeal Decision 2639 (HAUCK) (2003). 

A. Burden and Standard of Proof 

1. Generally 

The Coast Guard bears the burden of proving the allegations of the Complaint by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 33 C.F.R. §20.701-02. See Appeal Decision Nos. 2468 

(LEWIN) (1988); 2477 (TOMBARI) (1988); See also Dept. of Labor v. Greenwich Colleries, 
512 U.S. 267 (1994); Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 101-3 (1981). To prevail under this 

standard, the Coast Guard must establish that it is more likely than not that the Respondent 

committed the violations alleged in the Complaint. 33 C.F.R. §20.701-702(a). See Herman & 

MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 390 (1983). To satisfy the burden of proof, the Coast 

Guard may rely on direct and/or circumstantial evidence. See generally, Monsanto Co. v. SprayRite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764-65 (1984). These proceedings are conducted under the 

provisions in 33 C.F.R. Part 20, 46 C.F.R. Part 5, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

5 U.S.C. § 551 et. seq. 

2. Drug Cases 

The instant case was brought, inter alia, under the provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 40. 

The law is well settled that in order “to prove use of a dangerous drug, the Coast Guard must 

establish a prima facie case of drug use by the mariner.” See Appeal Decision Nos. 2662 

(VOORHEIS) (2007); 2592 (MASON) (1997); 2589 (MEYER) 1997); 2584 (SHAKESPEARE) 

(1996); 2583 (WRIGHT) (1995); 2529 (WILLIAMS) (1991); 2379 (DRUM) (1985); and 2282 

(LITTLEFIELD) (1982). 

Furthermore, when the Coast Guard’s case is based solely upon urinalysis test results, a 

prima facie case can be made if and only if the Coast Guard initially establishes three required 

elements by a preponderance of the evidence. See Appeal Decision No. 2662 (VOORHEIS) 

(2007). 

If the Coast Guard proves its prima facie case, a presumption then arises that the 

Respondent used dangerous drugs and the burden of rebuttal then shifts to the Respondent. 

Appeal Decisions Nos. 2603 (HACKSTAFF) (1998); 2589 (MEYER) (1997); 2592 (MASON) 

(1997); 2584 (SHAKESPEARE) (1996); and 2379 (DRUM) (1985). If the Respondent does not 

produce any persuasive evidence in rebuttal, the ALJ may find the allegation of dangerous drug 
use proved on the basis of this presumption alone. See Appeal Decision Nos. 2603 

(HACKSTAFF) (1998), 2662 (VOORHEIS) (2007); 33 C.F.R. § 20.703. 

A fortiori, if the Coast Guard does not prove a prima facie case of illegal drug use, no 

presumption arises – and Respondent is relieved of his burden of rebuttal. 

The instant case is based solely upon the results of a random urinalysis test. The Coast 

Guard proved the three required elements of a prima facie drug case by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Accordingly, the Coast Guard can rely upon the presumption that the Respondent used 

or was addicted to dangerous drugs. 

After careful consideration of the testimony at the hearing and of the entire record, the 

court finds that the Coast Guard established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent 

used, or was addicted to the use of, dangerous drugs; accordingly, the charge is found PROVED. 

B. Use of, or Addiction to the use of, Dangerous Drugs 

As recited supra, to establish a prima facie case based solely on a urinalysis test, the 

Coast Guard must show that: (1) the Respondent was tested for a dangerous drug, (2) the 

Respondent tested positive for a dangerous drug, and (3) the test was conducted in accordance 

with 49 C.F.R. Part 40. Appeal Decisions Nos. 2662 (VOORHEIS) (2007); 2603 

(HACKSTAFF) (1998); 2592 (MASON) (1997); 2589 (MEYER) (1997); 2598 (CATTON) 

(1996); 2584 (SHAKESPEARE) (1996); and 2583 (WRIGHT) (1995). Each of the three 

elements is discussed in turn, as each relates to Respondent herein. 

1. Element One: The Respondent Was the Individual Who Was Tested for a 

Dangerous Drug 

Proof of the first element “involves proof of the identity of the person providing the 

specimen; proof of a link between the respondent and the sample number . . . which is assigned 

to the sample and which identifies the sample throughout the chain of custody and testing 
process; and proof of the testing of the sample.” Appeal Decision Nos. 2662 (VOORHIES) 

(2007); 2603 (HACKSTAFF) (1998). 

Here, the uncontroverted proof established that on or about July 15, 2010, Respondent 

reported to his place of employment, American Electrical Power River Operations (AEP), near 

Paducah, Kentucky and was immediately thereafter notified of his selection for random drug 

testing. (Tr. at 26). In his Answer, Respondent admitted that the process used by AEP to select 

its employees for testing was, indeed, random. 

Clifford Ray Williamson (Williamson), an employee of West Kentucky Drug Screen, 

testified that he had worked as a urinalysis specimen collector at West Kentucky Drug Screen 

since 2007. (Tr. at 16). The record reveals that Williamson received a training certificate for 

Department of Transportation urinalysis collection training in 2007. (Tr. at 14; CG Ex. 07). His 

certificate was current on July 15, 2010. 

On July 15, 2010, Williamson made positive identification of Respondent and thereafter 

collected a urine specimen from Respondent. (Tr. at 20-35). Williams subsequently ensured that 

Respondent’s urine specimen was assigned a unique specimen identification number: 

112526314. The urine specimen collection procedures utilized by Williamson and West 

Kentucky Drug Screen relative to urine specimen number 112526314 were conducted in 

accordance with Department of Transportation regulations codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 40. After 

Respondent’s urine specimen was collected, it was thereupon sent via FedEx to the Advanced 

Toxicology Network laboratory (lab) where it was received for testing on July 16, 2010. (Tr. at 

70; CG Ex. 04a, 09a). 

Thus, the Coast Guard proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent 

was the person who was tested for a dangerous drug on July 15, 2010. 
2. Element Two: Test Results Show That a Party Has Tested Positive for the 

Presence of a Dangerous Drug 

Here, the Coast Guard offered sufficient evidence that a urine sample provided by 

Respondent and identified by the unique identification number 112526314 tested positive for the 

marijuana metabolite. 

Specifically, the uncontroverted proof established that Advanced Toxicology Network, of 

Memphis, Tennessee, is a Department of Transportation “approved” laboratory; meaning that 

facility has met the federally-mandated standards to engage in urine drug testing for federal 

agencies. (CG Ex. 08). 

Kathy Atkins, a certifying scientist employed by Advanced Toxicology Network, 

testified that on July 16, 2010, a urine specimen bearing the unique identification number 

112526314, was tested for the presence of drugs . (Tr. at 73-83; CG Ex. 06). Atkins testified 

that the urine specimen bearing the unique identification number 112526314 tested positive for 

the presence of the marijuana metabolite. Atkins testified that the sample bearing the unique 

identification number 112526314 was subject to both an initial and a confirmatory testing 

procedure. Atkins testified that the initial screening of the sample, by immunoassay, revealed 

that specimen number 112526314 contained fifty-nine point one nanograms per milliliter, well in 

excess of the fifty nanograms per milliliter cutoff level established by the Department of 

Transportation. Atkins further testified that confirmatory testing, via gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry, revealed that specimen number 112526314 contained twenty-six nanograms per 

milliliter, which is in excess of the fifteen nanograms per millileter cutoff level established by the 

Department of Transportation. (Tr. at 75-78). 

The testing procedures utilized by Advanced Toxicology Network laboratory and 

performed on urine specimen number 112526314 were conducted in accord with Department of 

Transportation regulations codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 40. 
Thus, the Coast Guard has met its burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the 

evidence relative to the second element: that the Respondent’s urine specimen tested positive for 

the presence of a dangerous drug. 

3. Element Three: The Drug Test Was Conducted in Accordance with 49 C.F.R. 

Part 40 

It was the Coast Guard’s responsibility to prove that the urine specimen testing 

procedures were accomplished in compliance with the rules set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 40. 

Here, the Coast Guard met its burden of proof. Ms. Atkins’ testimony, together with 

Coast Guard Exhibit 06, sufficiently establish that the testing performed on Respondent’s urine 

specimen was conducted in accordance with the provisions of 49 C.R.R. Part 40. Although 

Respondent did highlight some irregularities in the “paperwork” associated with the testing 

procedures, none of those anomalies constitute a “fatal flaw” in the testing procedure or an 

interruption of the chain of custody. 

For these reasons, the court concludes that the Coast Guard proved by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the drug test(s), here, were conducted in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 40. 

C. Collateral Issues 

As indicated supra, Respondent did highlight some irregularities in the “paperwork” 

associated with the testing procedures. Specifically, Respondent pointed out that the CCF (CG 

Ex. 4a,b,c) incorrectly lists “West KY Drug Screen, 1700 KY Ave, STE 114, Paducah, KY 

42001” as the “Collection Site Address.” In reality, the Respondent’s specimen was collected at 

his place of employment, AEP River Operations. 

Respondent also correctly pointed out that Atkins failed to print her full first, Middle 

Initial and Last Name on the CCF (CG Ex 06d) and that she made a unique personal mark, in 

lieu of her actual initials, throughout the Advanced Toxicology Network litigation report (CG 

Ex. 6). 
Further, Respondent notes that 46 C.F.R. §16.201 requires the mariner’s employer to 

“report the test results in writing to the” Coast Guard. (Resp. Ex. E). Respondent noted that his 

employer sent an electronic mail, or e-mail, containing such notification to the Coast Guard in 

lieu of a “writing.” (Resp. Ex. A). The court regards an electronic mail, or e-mail, to comport 

with the requirements of 46 C.F.R. §16.201. 

It is well-settled Coast Guard law that “minor technical violations” of the regulations do 

not violate due process unless the infraction breaches the chain of custody or violates the 

specimen’s integrity. Appeal Decisions 2633 (MERRILL) (2002); 2603 (HACKSTAFF) (1998). 

Respondent cited a number of flaws in the “paperwork.” None of them, however, 

constitute “fatal flaws.” These are no more than insignificant minor technical errors. Such errors, 

although suggestive of a miniscule inattention to detail, do not rise to a level which offends due 

process by a breach in the chain-of-custody or violates the specimen’s integrity. Thus, such 

errors are non-fatal flaws. See, e.g., 49 C.F.R. §40.83(c)(3) and §40.83(d). 

IV. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Respondent Randy Joe Green holds a Coast Guard-issued Merchant Mariner’s 

License. 

2. Pursuant to his employer’s random urinalysis, Respondent Randy Joe Green 

provided a urine sample to West Kentucky Drug Screen on or about July 15, 

2010. 

3. Respondent Randy Joe Green’s urine sample, bearing unique specimen 

number 112526314, was collected by West Kentucky Drug Screen in 

accordance with Department of Transportation regulations codified at 49 

C.F.R. Part 40. 

4. Respondent Randy Joe Green’s urine specimen, bearing the unique specimen 

number 112526314, was tested by Advanced Toxicology Network laboratory, 

a Department of Transportation-approved facility for the testing of human 

urine for the presence of drugs. 

5. Respondent Randy Joe Green’s urine sample, bearing unique the unique 

specimen number 112526314, was tested by Advanced Toxicology Network 

in accordance with Department of Transportation regulations codified at 49 

C.F.R. Part 40. 
6. Respondent Randy Joe Green’s urine specimen tested positive for the 

presence of the marijuana metabolite. 

7. Respondent Randy Joe Green’s urine specimen was subject to an initial 

screening, by immunoassay. That initial test revealed specimen number 

112526314 contained fifty-nine point one nanograms per milliliter; in excess 

of the fifty nanograms per milliliter cutoff level established by the Department 

of Transportation. Confirmatory testing, using gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry, revealed that specimen number 112526314 contained twentysix nanograms per milliliter, which is in excess of the fifteen nanograms per 

milliliter cutoff level established by the Department of Transportation. 

8. Results from testing on Respondent Randy Joe Green’s urine specimen, 

number 112526314, were forwarded to Dr. Daniel Drew, the Medical Review 

Officer, for review and confirmation. 

9. Dr. Daniel Drew is certified by the Department of Transportation as a 

qualified Medical Review Officer. 

10. Dr. Daniel Drew confirmed the positive results of the laboratory testing 

conducted by Advanced Toxicology Network. 

11. On or about July 19, 2010, Dr. Daniel Drew conducted a telephone interview 

with Respondent Randy Joe Green. Therein, Respondent Randy Joe Green 

did not request a re-test of his urine specimen nor did he offer and explanation 

of why his urine had tested positive to the presence of the marijuana 

metabolite in his body. 

V. CONCLUSION 

After careful consideration of the testimony and documentary evidence offered at the 

hearing, and of the entire record, the court finds that the Coast Guard met its burden to establish 

that: (1) the Respondent was tested for a dangerous drug, (2) the Respondent tested positive for a 

dangerous drug, and (3) the test was conducted in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 40. Hence, a 

presumption of illegal drug use is established. Respondent, in turn, offered no evidence 

sufficient to rebut this presumption. Thus, the allegations contained in the Coast Guard’s 

Amended Complaint are PROVED. 

WHEREFORE, 
VI. ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Respondent’s Coast Guard-issued Merchant 

Mariner’s License is REVOKED. Respondent is hereby directed to surrender his Merchant 

Mariner’s License to the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit, 225 Tully Street, 

Paducah, Kentucky, 42003 immediately. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTE, that issuance of this Decision and Order serves as the parties’ 

right to appeal under 33 C.F.R. Part 20, Subpart J. A copy of Subpart J is provided as 

Attachment B. 

__________________________________________________ 

Bruce Tucker Smith 

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard

Date: January 04, 2011
VII. ATTACHMENT A: LIST OF WITNESSES & EXHIBITS

Coast Guard Exhibits (Not seriatim) 

1. Respondent’s license 

2. Radar observer certificate 

07. Williamson certificate 

04a. CCF 

04b. CCF Copy 2 

04c. CCF Copy 3 

05. Confidential positive report 

05a. MRO punch list 

05b. Dr. Drew’s cv 

05c. Dr. Drew’s Certificate 

06. Litigation packet 

08. Fed. Register. Vol. 75, No. 129 p. 39023 

09. List of approved Department of Transportation laboratories 

Respondent Exhibits 

A. Keogh e-mail 

B. Quest diagnostics sample CCF 

C. AEP employee handbook 

D. CFR extract 

E. CFR extract 

ALJ Exhibits 

none 

Coast Guard’s Witnesses 

 Clifford Ray Williamson 

Katherine Atkins 

Daniel C. Drew, M.D. 

Respondent Witnesses 

none
VIII. 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 C.F.R. 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 C.F.R. 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. 
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.