UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

U.S. COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

JEFFERY D. CARTWRIGHT 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) Docket Number: 99-0278 

) PA Number: 99001649 

) 

) 

____________________________ ) 

BEFORE: THOMAS E. MCELLIGOTT 

Administrative Law Judge 

DECISION & ORDER 

I 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This adversary hearing was initiated by the U.S. Coast Guard while performing its 

missions to protect lives and properties at sea and on navigable waters, enforce national laws and 

treaties, preserve marine natural resources, and/or promote national security interests. 

It was brought pursuant to the legal authority contained in 46 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Chapter 

77, including 46 U.S.C. 7701 through 7705; the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

551 through 559; the U.S. Coast Guard Drug Testing Rules included in 46 CPR Parts 4, 5 and 

16, as amended; the U.S. Department of Transportation Drug Testing Rules of 49 CPR Part 40; 

and the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, published in 53 

Federal Register 11970 on 11 Aprill998. 

At the signing and service of the "First Complaint" and the "Second Amended 

Complaint" upon the captioned Respondent, the U.S. Coast Guard was represented by Senior 

Investigating Officer (SIO) Denis John Passero, Lieutenant, and Investigating Officer Thomas 0. 

andler,-cliief Warrant Officer, 60Thanlie time stationedanheiTS. Coast GuardlVI.afine Safety 

1 
Office for the ports and region of Corpus Christi, Texas, 400 Mann Street, Suite 210, Corpus 

Christi, Texas 78401-2046. 

The "First Complaint" was dated September 22, 1999 and the "Second Amended 

Complaint" was dated the same and both were served upon the Respondent, as shown by his 

signature on page 2 of the Complaints. 

The purpose of the "Second Amended Complaint" was merely to amend the statutory 

authority on page one to state not 46 U.S. Code 7704(Q), but correctly 46 U.S. Code 7704~) 

"Use of or Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs" and with the regulatory authority at 46 

CFR 5.35. 

The Respondent was advised in the "First Complaint," and the "Second Amended 

Complaint," that "The Coast Guard has initiated an administrative proceeding against his U.S. 

Coast Guard License and Merchant Mariner's Document (MMD)." 

The Coast Guard listed the following jurisdictional allegations: 

1. Respondent's last known residential address is as follows: 12660 Uhr Lane, 

Apartment 1114, San Antonio, Texas 78217, and his present telephone number is (21 0) 871-

6746. 

2. Respondent holds the following Coast Guard-issued credentials: License number 

844380. 

The factual allegations are entitled- "Use of or Addiction to the Use of Dangerous 

Drugs." The Coast Guard proved that: 

1. On 07 July 1999, the Respondent took a pre-employment drug test. 

2. A urine specimen was collected by (collector) Dr. Murray Lappe, later amended to 

Errol King, of and for Dr. Murray Lappe and/or the company known as Ira Jane Hurst & 

Associates, Lafayette, Louisiana. 

2 
4. The urine specimen was collected and analyzed by the laboratory, LabCorp, using 

procedures approved by the Department of Transportation. 

5. That specimen subsequently tested positive for cocaine metabolite. 

The Coast Guard proposed "Revocation" of Respondent's license in accordance with 46 

U.S. Code 7704. 

Respondent filed his formal "Answer" to these complaints, dated 14 October 1999, in 

which he denied all jurisdictional allegations and their supporting paragraphs and he denied all 

factual allegations and their supporting paragraphs. He affirmatively alleged as a defense the 

expiration of time limitation for service of complaint (46 CPR 5.55). 

It is found that there was no expiration of the time limitations for service of the complaint 

since this incident started at or about 07 July 1999 and the Respondent was served on or about 22 

September 1999 with the complaint. The service of these complaints on Respondent was well 

within the time limits. 

Respondent stated that he wished to be heard on the proposed order. He also 

affirmatively alleged as a defense, "Will bring evidence of tampering with my ingested fluids by 

a individual prior to my test." 

Both the Investigating Officers and the Respondent checked off 08 December 1999 as a 

favorable date for the hearing for both sides. Thus the hearing was so scheduled by the Judge 

and held as requested on 08 December 1999, at the Marine Safety Office Hearing Room, 400 

Mann Street, Suite 210, in the port of Corpus Christi, Texas. On 04 November 1999, the 

undersigned U.S. Administrative Law Judge mailed a Notice of Hearing and Schedule to the 

Respondent and to the Investigating Officers (lOs) advising that the hearing would be held on 

the agreed date, Wednesday, 08 December 1999, commencing at 9:30a.m. (local time) at the 

Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi, 400 Mann Street, Suite 210, Corpus Christi, Texas 78403-

1521. 

3 
In addition, both parties were advised that they were to be present at the hearing with all 

witnesses and/or exhibits or stipulations and be fully prepared to proceed until this matter is 

completed. All witness lists, exhibit lists and/or documents intended to be offered for 

consideration at hearing, must be submitted to the Judge by or before fifteen (15) calendar days 

before the hearing. The Respondent did not respond with any witness lists or exhibit lists by or 

before fifteen ( 15) calendar days before the hearing, but the Investigating Officers did. 

At the hearing, the Judge was present together with the two said Officers from the U.S. 

Coast Guard, but the Respondent was absent, or in absentia. Respondent was, therefore, found 

in default at the hearing. 

As a result of the Respondent's default at the hearing, he was served with an "Order to 

Show Cause" by the Judge, to which he was to reply to by or before 28 January 2000. All 

documents were mailed to Respondent's last known residential address. Respondent again 

defaulted by 28 January 2000. The case is now ripe for decision. 

II 

FINDINGS OF FACT BASED UPON THE ENTIRE 

RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE 

1. It has been established by the Respondent's two defaults, at the hearing and by the 

"Order to Show Cause," and by the documents and evidence produced by the Investigating 

Officers, that the Respondent is in default and, therefore, all jurisdictional allegations and 

factual allegations are found proved by default. 

It is found that the Coast Guard had properly initiated an administrative proceeding 

against the captioned Respondent's license and/or merchant mariner's document (MMD) under 

the statutory authority of 46 U.S. Code 7704(c) when they alleged "Use of or Addiction to the 

Use-o.f Dangero.us Drugs;..:_with the-regulator¥ authority: aDlJ5:::CER Eart:S:;:especiall¥--including 

section 5.35. 

4 
The Coast Guard established that Respondent's last known residential address was as 

listed in the Complaint as 12660 Uhr Lane, Apartment 1114, San Antonio, Texas 78217, fonner 

telephone number (210) 871-6746. 

The Respondent holds the following Coast Guard-issued credentials: U.S. Coast Guard 

License Number 844380 and U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document Number 449-02-7197. 

Factual allegations in the Complaint: the Coast Guard did prove that there was use of or 

addiction to the use of a dangerous drug. The Coast Guard further alleged and proved that on or 

about 07 July 1999, the captioned Respondent took a pre-employment drug test by providing a 

urine specimen for drug testing purposes to his prospective marine employer. The urine 

specimen was collected by the collector, Mr. Errol King, employed by the company Ira Jane 

Hurst & Associates, 221 Southpark, Lafayette, Louisiana 70508. Mr. Errol King had 

approximately eight years of experience collecting urine specimens for drug testing purposes. 

He has tested thousands of donors. He had Respondent identify himself by a picture 

identification card, such as a Coast Guard U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document with his picture 

photograph and/or a State of Texas Driver's License with the same. The Collector carefully and 

properly collected the specimen and completed and signed the collection document. 

Respondent signed copy 4, which is sent directly to the Medical Review Officer. Respondent 

printed his name and signed Step 4, entitled: "To be completed by donor." Respondent gave his 

date ofbirth as 10/17/56, date of collection 7/7/99. Respondent signed his full name Jeffrey 

Dewitt Cartwright, with his then daytime telephone number (210) 871-6746. 

After the laboratory performed its two required tests, namely an Immunoassay Screen test 

and the Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) test, which when combined are most 

5 
reliable and state-of-the-art. They found a positive for cocaine under both tests at the federally 

tested and certified laboratory. 

The Respondent signed the "Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Fonn" in the 

presence of the collector, and the urine specimen was properly collected and analyzed by 

LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, a tested and certified laboratory approved by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. The Respondent's urine specimen tested positive 

for the metabolite of cocaine by both testing methods. The Respondent was then interviewed by 

the Medical Review Officer (MRO), who previously examined the collection documents and the 

laboratory testing results and made efforts to interview the Respondent. After that, the MRO 

confirmed the positive for cocaine in the Respondent's urine specimen on 12 July 1999, as 

shown in IO's Exhibit 4, the "Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form," signed by the 

MRO as a positive for cocaine use. 

The Coast Guard has proved that the captioned Respondent, Jeffrey Dewitt Cartwright, 

was and is the holder of Coast Guard License Number 844380 and U.S. Merchant Mariner's 

Document Number 449-02-7197. He was seeking employment with a marine employer, known 

as Aries Marine, to work under the authority of that license and document, when he tested 

positive for cocaine use on or about 09 July 1999. 

The proper chain of custody, laboratory analysis and Medical Review Officer's 

confirmation verify the complaint's allegations of use of a dangerous drug to be sound. 

Namely, that the Respondent was found to have cocaine in his urine specimen. The 

Investigating Officers stated on the record at the hearing that the Respondent, Mr. Cartwright, 

had previous opportunities to start to prove cure and show his intent to work on a drug 

ehabi-1-itation--pro-granr.-H-owever, R-espond-ent-ch-ose!lut-to-du-su:-Tlre-requirements-ro--pro ve 

6 
cure of cocaine use were discussed with the Respondent by the Investigating Officers prior to 

the hearing date. During the course of the investigation, several attempts were made by the 

Investigating Officer to discuss these drug rehabilitation procedures, including during the 

discovery stage. The Investigating Officer pointed out that the Respondent failed to provide or 

file any list of witnesses or documentary exhibits, which the Judge's Office requested in the 

"Notice of Hearing" sent to the Respondent. Contact with Mr. Cartwright was further 

complicated for the Investigating Officers, later, because his telephone was disconnected. The 

Coast Guard seeks "Revocation" of the captioned Respondent's U.S. Merchant Mariner's 

License and U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document. 

III 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS 

The "Complaint" and its supporting allegations and paragraphs are found proved by a 

preponderance of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence and also by default by the 

Respondent, both at the hearing and after the "Order to Show Cause" following the hearing, up 

to and including 01 February 2000. The "Complaint" proved Respondent's "Use of or Addiction 

to the Use of Dangerous Drugs," (cocaine) under 46 U.S. Code Section 7704(c). The supporting 

allegations in the "Complaint" above are found proved. 

IV 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction over 

the subject matter of this hearing under the provisions of 46 U.S. Code Chapter 77, including 46 

U.S. Code, sections 7701 through 7705; the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. Code, 

7 
sections 551 through 559; 46 CFR Parts 4, 5 and 16, as amended, and 33 CFR Part 20 ofthe 

U.S. Coast Guard; and 49 CFR Part 40 of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

2. The supporting jurisdictional and factual allegations of the "Complaint" served upon 

the Respondent are found proved by a preponderance of substantial evidence of a reliable and 

probative character and by Respondent's two defaults, both at the hearing and following the 

"Order to Show Cause" following the hearing. 

3. The "Complaint" of"Use of or Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs" (cocaine) 

in violation of 46 U.S. Code 7704(c) is found proved by a preponderance of the evidence and by 

default. 

v 

OPINION 

The above Preliminary Statement, Findings of Fact and Conclusions ofLaw are 

incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 

46 U.S. Code 7704 is entitled "Dangerous drugs as grounds for revocation." Paragraphs 

(b) and (c) state as follows: 

"(b) If it is shown at a hearing under this chapter that a holder of a license, 

certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document issued under this part, 

within 10 years before the beginning of the proceedings, has been convicted of 

violating a dangerous drug law of the United States or of a State, the license, 

certificate, or document shall be revoked. 

(c) If it is shown that a holder has been a user of, or addicted to, a dangerous drug, 

the mariner's document shall be revoked unless the holder provides satisfactory 

proof that the holder is cured." 

Respondent violated 46 U.S. Code section 7704(c) above, and 46 CFR Parts 4, 5 and 16 

8 
It has been determined in the case of the Transportation Institute, SIU and MEBA v. the 

U.S. Coast Guard and DOT, 727 F.Supp. 648 and 1990 AMC 494 (1990), as well as by the U.S. 

Supreme Court, that such human urine drug testing is reasonable and does not violate the Fourth 

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. National Treasury Employees v. Von Raab (U.S. Treasury 

Department), 489 U.S. 656, 109 S. Ct. 1384 (1989); and Skinner (U.S. Department of 

Transportation) v. Railway Labor Executives' Association, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S. Ct. 1402 

(1989). The same determination was reached in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of 

Columbia in the case of Hannon v. Thornburg, 878 F.2d 484,487-488 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 

Conference sworn telephonic testimony has been upheld on appeal. [46 CFR 5.535(f)] 

Appeal Decisions 2538 (Smallwood); 2503 (Moulds); 2492 (Rath); and 2476 (Blake), aff'd 

sub.nom., Commandant v. Blake, NTSB Order EM-156 (1989); aff'd sub.nom. Blake v. U.S. 

Department ofTransportation and NTSB, No. 90-70013 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The charge and supporting specification ruled proved and the findings in this matter have 

been found to be supported by and in accordance with a preponderance ofthe reliable, probative 

and substantial evidence. Steadman v. SEC, 450 US 91, 67 L.Ed. 2d 69, 101 S. Ct. 999 (1981); 

Commandant's Appeal Decision 2468 (Lewin); 46 U.S. Code Chapter 77; 5 U.S. Code 556(d); 

and Title 46 CFR 5.63. 

The charge and suppmiing specification rule proved and the findings in this matter have 

also been found to be supported by Commandant's Appeal Decisions 2535 (Sweeney I), reversed 

on other grounds sub. nom. Commandant v. Sweeney, NTSB Order No. EM-152 (1992), 2526 

(Wilcox), 2522 (Jenkins), 2383 (Swiere), 2330 (Strudwick) and 2557 (Francis); and the Decision 

of the Vice Commandant on Review Number 18 (Clay); the Commandant's Appeal Decisions 

9 
U.S. Department of Transportation's 49 CFR Part 40; and the U.S. Coast Guard's 46 CFR Parts 

4, 5 and 16, as amended. 

The Respondent is advised ofhis right to appeal in accordance with Subpart J of33 CFR 

Part 20, which is enclosed herein. 

After findings were made upon the record, Respondent's prior record was inquired into. 

It was stipulated that the Respondent had a clear prior disciplinary record with the U.S. Coast 

Guard before failing this drug test for cocaine use. 

The Respondent has two choices. One is letting his document be revoked and then he 

can try to get his captioned license/document replaced or reinstated by filing an administrative 

clemency application. The details of the procedure are spelled out in the last paragraph below. 

The Respondent's second choice is if he goes to and enrolls within thirty (30) days of the 

date of this decision in a proper drug rehabilitation program for cure of drug use, then he would 

have an opportunity to get his captioned license and/or document back in approximately thirteen 

(13) to fourteen (14) months. Thus, ifRespondent, within thirty (30) days of the date of this 

"Decision and Order" is mailed to him, advises the Senior Investigating Officer in Corpus 

Christi, Texas, in writing, with documents from the rehabilitation program as evidence that 

Respondent has already entered or enrolled to start a proper drug rehabilitation program, with a 

letter from the administrator or coordinator of that program, U.S. Administrative Law Judge will 

modify this Order accordingly. Otherwise, the Order will be one of"Revocation" of 

Respondent's captioned U.S. Merchant Mariner's License and Document. Respondent can 

telephone the investigating officers at the Marine Safety Office in Corpus Christi, Texas for 

more infonnation on these local rehabilitation programs in or near San Antonio, Texas. 

10 
Respondent can also call Dr. Suzanne Sergile or Dr. Bertrane Lee, the Medical Review 

Officers in Los Angeles, California, affiliated with Dr. Murray Lappe, in care oflra Jane Hurst & 

Associates, 221 Southpark, Building B, P.O. Box 82113, Lafayette, Louisiana 70598. The phone 

number is (318) 837-1616 and fax phone number is (318) 837-2406. 

If the captioned Respondent, J. D. Cartwright, fails to enroll in a proper drug 

rehabilitation program within thirty (30) days from the date this "Decision and Order" is mailed 

to him, then the order will be as follows: 

VI 

ORDER 

Based upon the facts, the applicable law and the entire record, and the fact that the 

captioned Respondent has not shown he has entered into, or is willing to enroll quickly in a 

proper drug rehabilitation program, the captioned Respondent's U.S. Coast Guard Merchant 

Mariner's License and U.S. Merchant Mariner's Document are hereby REVOKED. This 

includes all duplicates of that document and any other U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's 

Licenses or Documents issued to this Respondent that have not expired. The captioned 

Respondent's said Merchant Mariner's License and Document are to be delivered by hand or 

mail to the Senior Investigating Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, 400 Mann 

Street, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-2046, telephone number (361) 888-3192, extension 261. 

The procedures following are known as the "U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Clemency 

Program." Procedures are provided by which a person, or Respondent, whose U.S. Merchant 

Mariner's license and/or document have been revoked and surrendered, may apply to any 

Commanding Officer of a Marine Safety Office of the U.S. Coast Guard, after an applicable 

w-ait-i-ng peri-od, for the~i.-ssuance of a new-lTc-errs-e-on:locument-:-lhese rules ana conditions are 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

11 
found in 46 CFR Subpart L (46 CFR sections 5.901, 5.903 and 5.905) entitled "Issuance ofNew 

Licenses, Certificates or Documents After Revocation or Surrender." 

Whether to grant clemency will be decided upon by the Coast Guard "Administrative 

Clemency Review Board" (ACRB), in accordance with Commandant's G-MOA Policy Letter 8-

96, dated 26 November 1996 and the Marine Safety Manual (MSM), Volume V, Chapter 11 

(Commandant's Instruction M16000.10), and 46 CFR Subpart Labove. 

Dated: 0 7 J/ ~ '2000 

Copy: 

MSO Corpus Christi, Attn: L T Fassero, 10 

Jeffery D. Cartwright, Respondent 

CCGDOS(m) 

UW44 E. rl!y;# 

THOMAS E. MCELLIGdfT 

Administrative Law Judge 

12