At the conclusion of the presentation of witnesses and evidence at the December 7, 2020 

Zoom hearing, the Coast Guard moved fur me to hold Respondent's credential pendilg the 

issuance of a decision. See Appeal Decision 2729 (COOK) (2020). However, I determined I 

required more time to analyze whether the Coast Guard proved a prim a facie case of drug use. I 

also noted the Coast Guard had possession of Respondent's credential from September 2019 to 

March 2020, but returned it to him prior to the hearing. Consequently, I denied the motion. 

For the reasons detailed below, I find the Coast Guard PROVED Respondent used a 

dangerous drug. However, I also find Respondent satisfactorily demonstrated cure. Revocation is 

therefore no longer an appropriate sanction. The period of deposit will be converted to an 

OU1RIGIIT SUSPENSION and I find no further sanction is warranted. 

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on a thorough analysis of the parties' Joint Stipulation, 

other documentary evidence, the witness testimony, and the record as a whole. 

I. Respondent holds Coast Guard MMC No.-, issued on January 3, 2017. {Ex.

CG-01).

2. Respondent has no history of actions against his MMC. (Tr. at 166).

3. In August 2019, following a motorcycle accident, Respondent was being treated by his

physician who prescribed opioids for pain. (Tr. at I 67-68; Ex. R-28).

4. Respondent's physician evenrually refused to continue prescribing opioids and instead

recommended Respondent try hemp-based canniboid (CBD) products. (Ex. R-08, R-27).

5. At the time, Respondent was on leave from his position as the first engineer aboard the

vessel MATSON KODIAK. (Tr. at 165).

6. While on leave, Respondent sought several drug tests at Occupational Health Clinic of

Tacoma (OHC'D to determine whether the opioids and CBD were still in his system

before he returned to work. (Tr. at 169).

7. OHCT has a policy of only conducting drug tests if a positive result would be reported to

an employer or other overseeing entity. (Tr. at 61 -62).

8. OHCT personnel did not inform Respondent of the policy, and he would have gone

elsewhere if he had known. (Tr. at 180).

3 
9. OHCT personnel were unaware that Respondent was seeking private testilg and

considered the tests to be required periodic tests under 46 C.F.R. Part 16. (Tr. at 62).

10. collected a urine sample from Respondent on August 14, 2019, 

using the DOT protocols in 49 C.F .R. Part 40. (Ex. CG-04, CG-08, CG-10). 

1 I. Pathology Associates Medical Laboratories (PAML), a SAMHSA-certified laboratory, 

analyzl:d the urine sample fur dangerous drugs, using the DOT protocols in 49 C.F.R. 

Part 40. (Ex. CG-05; CG-07). 

12. The urine sample was positive fur THC-A metabolites. (Ex. CG-09).

13. Dr. Dale Fine, the Medical Review Officer (MRO), contacted Respondent by telephone

and determined there was no legitimate medical reason for the positive result. (Tr. at

108).

14. Respondent requested the split sample be tested. (Tr. at 110).

15. Quest Diagnostic Laboratory, a SAMHSA-certified laboratory, tested the split sample

and detennined it was also positive for THC-A metabolites. (Ex. CG-12; CG-15)

16. Dr. Fine reported the positive result to Paul Tramm, a Coast Guard Investigating Officer.

(Ex. CG-14).

I. DISCUSSION

'The purpose of Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedings is to promote sarety 

at sea. 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a). In furtherance of this goa� ALJs have the authority to suspend or 

revoke Coast Guard-issued credentials or endorsements. See 46 C.F.R § 5. l 9(b). These 

proceedin� are conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act (AP A), 5 U.S.C. § 55 l et

seq. 46 U.S.C. § 7702(a). Administrative actions against a mariner's credentials "are remedial 

and not penal in nanu-e," and are intended to maintain the necessary standards of conduct for 

sarety at sea. 46 C.F.R. § 5.5. 

A. Burden of Proof

Section 7(c) of the APA places the burden of proof on the proponent of a rule or order, 

unless otherwise provided by stanrte. Accordingly, in a suspension or revocation hearing, the 

Coast Guard bears the burden of proof 33 C.F.R. § 20.702(a). Under the APA, the fact-finder 

4 
must consider the ''whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and in

accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence" befure assessing a sanction. 5 

U.S.C. § 556(d). The standard of proof in administrative proceedings is the "preponderance of 

the evidence" standard, meaning a party must prove that "a filet's existence is more likely than 

not." Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 98 (1981); Greenwich Collieries v. Dir., Office of Workers

Comp. Programs, 990 F.2d 730, 736 (3d. Cir. 1993); see also Dir .• Office of Workers' Comp.

Programs v. Greenwich Collieries. 512 U.S. 267 (l 994). 

B. Jurisdiction

Respondent admitted to all jurisdx:tional elements relating to the aUegations. However, 

the burden of establishing jurisdiction nevertheless remains. See, e.g .. Appeal Decision 2656

(JORDAN). Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 7704(c), "[ijf it is shown that a holder has been a user of, or

addicted to, a dangerous drug, the license ... or merchant mariner's document shall be revoked 

unless the holder provides satisfactory proof that the holder is cured." Id.; see also Appeal 

Decision 2668 (MERRILL) (2007). 

The record befure me clearly establishes Respondent was the holder of an MMC at the 

time he submitted the urine sample in question. Here, the Coast Guard alleged Respondent is a 

user of, or addicted to the use of dangerous drugs in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 7704(c); therefure,

Respondent's status as the holder of an MMC establishes jurisdiction fur this suspension and 

revocation proceeding. See Appeal Decision 2668 (MERRILL). 

C. The Coast Guard Proved Respondent Used Dangerous Drugs

Title 46 U.S.C. § 7704(c) mandates revocation of a Coast Guard-issued credential when 

the Coast Guard proves by reliable, credible, and probative evidence that the holder of an MMC 

has used dangerous drugs. A respondent who is shown to have used drugs may avoid revocation 

by providing reliable, credible, and probative evidence of cure. Id., see also Appeal Decision 

2535 (SWEENEY) (1992). 

5 

 







 


C 

The Coast Guard argues fur revocation because it held Respondent's MMC fur less than 

the time it would generally take fur a mariner to complete the cure process. As discussed above, 

this is not in accord with law and precedent, as Respondent has provided satisfactory proof of 

cure. See 46 C.F.R § 7704(b); COOK at 17. I therefore find no further sanction is warranted and 

will therefore convert the period during which hi<; MMC was on deposit to an OUIRIGHT 

SUSPENSION. See COOK. supra. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appropriate sanction in this matter is 180 DAYS of 

OUIRIGHT SUSPENSION. reflecting the perK>d the MMC was on deposit with the Coast 

Guard. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that service of this Decision on the parties and/or parties' 

representative(s) serves as notice of appeal rights set furth in 33 C.F.R §§ 20.1001-20.1004. 

(Attachment B). 

George J. Jonlan 

US Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge 

I Novent>er03, 2021 

Date: 

18