L7.S. 1>E<PAReTMENT OF IIOME1.AND SECXJRITY 

UNJTEII STATES C'OAS'T GLJARD 

1JNITEI) STATES COAST CilJAKD 

Complainant 

.- -. . 

Ikickl't Niimbcr-: C(i S&K 07-0327 

CG Casc No. 2984077 

I>ECISION ANT) ORDER 

- Issued: Rfay 13,2008 

Issued hv: HON. BRUCE T. SMITH, 

..\dministrative Law .Judge 

Appearances: 

For Complainant: 

I'O Cyrirliia 1)libach 

IaCI)R Melissa llarper 

Cozist Cirlarci Secior- New Orleoi~s 

1615 I'oytlras Sweet 

New Or-lea~~s, l,ot~isi;itia 701 I2 

For Resportdent: 

'~'LI~~III~ Law <:lii~ic 

6329 i;i-ci.ei Stsect 

New Orleans. 1.ouisia11a 70 1 i 8 
'The [isriteti States C:oiist (;u:trci (Coasl Ciuardi initiated this admiiii5trativc actiorl seeking 

revoc>itioti of Williarir S. Matt's (Respondeilt) Merchant Marine 1-icense (Mh.ll>). ritiniber 

11 8.5007. '['his action is l)ro!rgii~ i?orsitarit to the legal aitlhority contairred in 46 1I.S.C:. 3 7703 

itr~l its r~ntlerlyitjg regulations codif'ietl at 36 CFIZ f%rt 5. 

'The original i:oiirpIaiiit. issrtetl o~i Ji11y 5, 2007, chargetl Respondent wit11 one (I) ccinnt 

of Violation of Law or Regulation. The Coast Guard filed an Anientletl Con~plai~~t on January 8, 

2008, which revisecl the regnlatory autliority. The Amended Corllplaint specifically alleges that 

oil April 13, 2007, Stespotitlent retrised to rake a prr-employment tlrug test, a viirlaiion of t!.S. 

laws atid regtilatioils set forth in 46 U.S.(1. 3 7703, 46 C1:R $ 5.33, ant1 49 CFR 8 40.191 .' 

Respondent filed an Answer lo the original Complaint on July 34, 2007. I11 tlie Answer, 

Resp(>ntlent tlerlied the jurisdictiorrai ailti factual allegations. Kesponderlt did riot rile an Answer 

to [lie Anlentlet1 C:omplainl. However, Siespontlent was not required to file an Atiswet- to the 

Ati~ended Complaint since the Amended (.:omplaint was subrnittetl less than twenty (20) ti;lys 

heSore the J:inuary 21, 2008, I~eariilg. 33 C:FIi $ 20.308(a). Since rhe A~nerltled C:oinplaint 

tlid not ci-care airy tie\&' iss~ies, it it~erely provitletl ;I more specific law ant1 regu1;rtion citatioi~, 

Res[toniiwit's t1eni;rl of the allegations it1 his prior Answers ;ire consiileretl an atleqrrate de~iiiil of 

tllc ;illcga~io~rs asserted it1 tlie Atrletrc!eti C:oniplaint. 

On Jn~iiiary 23; 2008, i1 ilenrillg was lieltl oti tiii-se n-ia1ter.s. tlre otiset ofthis he;r!-i~ig, 

;1111I pi-ioi- to atlili-essing the njcrits oS iiie ciisc. ilcspo~ideiit siiitcii lie tiesire~l to he ~.epresenteti hy 

coiinsci; liowcver, lic was, financi;iily iiii.rhic io hire ari atrorncy. The iinilcrsignetl ;tskctl 
12e~pondelit if iie was iirtereretl ill receivitlg free representz~tion horn law striilents, rltriler the 

sii1~esvisi~iii oS iiceiised ;Ittorneys. fsorrt 'Snlane t!niversit.y law School. Respoildent :rccepted the 

oi'ter ilorrr 'Tuiirr~e and moved Col- ;I continiiance of' the hearing in order tti confer will-I tire law 

schotil sepl-eser~tatives. The Consr G~rard made no objections to eitlrer tlie offer by the law school 

to provide legal ;issistatrcc or lo the 111otio11 for cor~tinriance. 

On April 3, 2008, the continucii i-~eziriirg reconve~retl in New O~.le;lnr, 1-oirisian;~. The 

proceetling was cor~tltictetin accortlance witlr the :\dnrinistr;ltive PI-ocetltire Act. as a~rientletl 

arul cotlifieti a( 5 (!.S.C'. 5 55159. ;itid i'oast Ciii;lril procetlt1r;il regulations located at 33 CFR 

t'art 20. l'etty Officer Cynthia Ilri'lcrh ant1 i.ieutenartt (:ornrn:mtler hfelissa inrper representecl 

tile Cozrsr <>~iartI at the lrearirrg. Kesponclent appeared at the tiearing and was represerrled by 

coutisel froin Tularie Law <.:linic, to ii~cltitle Antlrea Wilkes (associ;tte professor), Stacy 

Seicshnaytlre (;issociate p~~ofessor-), GI-eg fzuteneir (student attorney), Arrn;i~iil Perry (stlrdent 

auor~~ey), Jason Knforrry (stiltlent Zittortley), ant! Jason Kuczek istutient attcirney). 

i\ total of' five (5) wil~~esses, iticlt~ding Respontleirt, testifietl at the proceecling. 11~11.il1g 

tire hearirrg, r!ie C'oai C;uaril iirtl-oilirceil six (6) exhihits inlo evidelrce; Respondent itltroducetl 

five (5) exhibit? into evitlei~ce. 'l'tre witrresses ant1 ex'i~ihits are li\letl iri iittael~~rrc~it A. 

,:lStcr c21-eliil review ol lire elltir-e recortl, inclirilitrg wiiness teslimony, ;~ppliczible sttittites, 

rcgij!atioris, JIICI c;~sc law, liie allegation oi' Violation of I,aw or Kegrllatior~ ill vio1:itiorr 0146 

II.S.('. \i 7703 is ktrintl NO[' PROVf3). 
1. Respondent is the l~older of MILK ni~ntber 1 185097. (Gov't Ex. I - pg. 6). tie is licerlsetl 

as a inaster of' stearn or motor vessels of 11ot mol-e than I00 gross registered tons 

(tioniestic tonnage) upon near coastal waters. (u.). 

2. Respo~~dent was issued his Mbll.. on March 30, 2007. (u.). 

3. On April 13, 2007, Respontleiit drove from his llorne (I:erriday, Louisiana) 10 Phil 

iji~ilheau Ofl'shore (Calliano, Lor~isiaria) seeking employmerit for a captain's position. 

(Tr. at 26, 143-45; Gov't Ex. I). 

3. 1'11il Ciilill>eati Ofkhore hat1 etnploytnent crppirrti~tiities imci Respondent filled oiit an 

:ipplication. (rr. at 26, 137; Cov't Ex. I). 

5. The positiorr Respondent soi~ght recpiretl a Coast Guard license. (u.). 

6. Conditions for employment with Phil C;oilheai~ Offsltose recluirctl Resporlder~to take and 

pass a pre-employn~eilt dr~~g test.(Tr. at 29, 35-37, 51). Respondent was instructeci to 

subrnit to a drug lest at <:omple~e 0ccupation;il lfealttl Services. (Tr. at 20-30, 147). 

7. Respolltle~it arrived at Complete Occtipational Ilealth Ser\giccs around 1 1 :00 a.m. on 

April 13, 2007. (Tr. at 14<)-50). 

8. Respondent signed in at Corrrplete Occ~~pational I~lealtlt Services ancl waited to take the 

tlriig tesi. ('s t I I j Wlrilc waiting, fiespontlent called Mike Guidry. Us. at 151; 

iiov't ik. I- j7g. 9-liij. 

0 Mr. Gttidry \mu ;I bo:lt captain cii-ii,ioyetl by Cheramie Marine on April ID, 2007. (Tr. a1 

120: iiov'r iix. 1 - pg. 8). ilcspoiicleiir picri~)irsIy workcii for (:!ier.;~rnie Marine ;inti 

~Ievelo~~eii ;i iiosc woi-kiiig i-clationslii~: will? hlr. Giiitiry. I' t i 't x 1 pg. 

8). 
10. While speaking with Responclent, Mr. Ciuiciry ofl'ered Respondenr a job wit11 Cheramine 

Marine. (Tr. at 153-54; Gov't Ex. 1, pg. 9-19). Respondent decided to accept this 

position and left Complete 0ccup:ttional I~Iealth Service.; prior to anyone calling Iris name 

for testing. or. at 154-55). 

1 I. Rcspnntlent worked for Cherarnie Mitrine fro111 May 1. 2007 until July 27, 2007. (Tr. at 

124-26). 

12. IIailey Angelette is a collector at Complete Occ~ipationt~l FIealtli Services. ('1'r. at 60). 

Ms. Angelelre was ceslifietl to ~mrk its a collector on April 4, 2007. (1-r. at 110; Gov't 

Ex. 2) 

13. Ms. Angelette filled out a Custody and Control Fornt (CCF) for Kespontlent on April 13, 

2007. ('Tr. at 63; Ciov't Ex. 1, 4a). This form is used when conducting drug screens. 

(U.). 

14. Ms. Angeletle intlicatetl or1 the CCF t11at the first i~rirle sample provided by Respondetlt 

had no ternperutui-e. (Tr. at 68; Gov't Iix. 3, 4a). Ms. A~lgelette wrote "Donor refused 

2ntl coilectioiiiDoiior tliscasdetl 1st sample" on tk~c CCF. (Tr. at 66; (2ov't Ex. 3, 4a). 

1-5. Ms. Angelelte does not know Recpo~~dent and does not retnember liespondent con~i~lg in 

for n drug screen on April 13, 2007. ('l'r. at 76-77), 

16. Ms. Angelerte ohtaineti Respondent's social seo~rity number Srorn previous paper-work 

:inti usctl this paperwork to fill in Responticnt's sucial qecurity on the April 13, 2007 

('iis!irtiy ;inti C'ointrol Form. !kJ.). 

17. Tiic C:iisrody anti C:c;irtr-01 I'oi-in iiiiiicatcs 1i1;lt Kesponcieint ilisc:o.tleti hi.; usinc siimple antl 

thiit rlie iiriiic sample was tleiivcreci 11) hi: testing Iahoriitory by DlJI.. (Tr. at 106, 114 

15: Gov'! 1%. 3; -l(a)). 
1 X. Cornplete Occupational tlealth Services zompleteti a fifriil report which states Respondent 

ref~isetl the pre-employment drug screen. (Tr. at 101-02, 107; Resp't Eix. A - pg. 1). 

I'lris report cotrtains tlre ?r.tetlical Revie\v Officer's (MRO) signature stamp, hilt Ms. 

Angelette act~ially filled out tlre form. (M.) 

19. The MRO tiid not review the CTF, (M.). The CCF was ~tsctl to create the final report. 

(M.). 

20. 'The final report indicates IZespt~ntle~it took ;I two-panel cirirg screen on April 13, 2007. 

(12esp't Ex. /; --- pg, 1 ). The f:C:li itidicates ll~ar Re.;ponilei~t took :I five-panel drug screen 

on April 13, 2007. (C;ov3t Ex. 3: 4a). 

21. Complete 0ccup;rtional Ilealth Services has 110 tlocuments kotn April 13, 2007 that 

cotrtain Respontlent's sigl~ature. (Tr. at 105). 

22. Ms. Ai~gclette does not remember anyone horn Complete 0cc11pation;il Ilealth Service 

calling Phil G~rilheau Ofl'shore to inhrm thern Respondent refosed to test. (TI-. at 106). 

23. Ms. Artgelette makes no lnerltion in Respondent's filc that he attempted to rake the drug 

test or illat he asked for help to fake tlre test. ('rr. 211 109). 

24. 'The US. Coast Cirta~.d received Phil (;~iilhea~l Offstlore's letter reporting Respondent's 

allegetl rel'iisal io suhmit to 21 prc-en~ployrnent ilrrlg scrceri examinzition sotnelirne 

hetwcetl M;iy 14, 2007 ant1 hlzry 21, 2007. (Tr. at 134; Kesp'r Ex. C). 

, I lie pposc (>I C7o;ist Ciaai-ii ~nspcnsion ii~iti 1-evocatioii j?roceeili~?gs i\ to proiiiotc safety 

at sen. 4 J.. 770 'lo assist in this goal, i\ilr!rit!isi~~;itive 1.i1v; Jrrtlges ('4l.J~) have !he 

:tu!htrriiy in srispenc! or revoke iiiiiririer licer~ses if ihc !it:~rii;cr coirii~iits air act of' i~iolnfioi~ oi law 
or reg~ilation during the pcrfcir~~iance ctt tiis tiiities. See 46 1J.S.C:. 3 7703. [Jntler Coast Guarcl 

p~)ce(lural rules and regui:rtio~is, the Coast Ciunrd hettrs llie burden of proof arid shall prove any 

violation by a prepontierarrce of the evidence. & 33 CFlZ $ 20.701 -702; see also AJ& 

Decisioii 2485 (YA'IES) (1989). In tlris case, the Coast Guard seeks to prove Respontle11t 

coinniitted a violation of law or regnlatiorl. 

.Itirisdiction 

Juristlictio~is 3 q~~estio~i of fac~ ant1 must be tleter~nir~etl before the srrhstantive issues of 

the case ;ire iiecidecl. Anileal Decisiori 2620 iC.:O;Y) (2001). liiiiler 46 lJ.S.C. $ 770111)(ij, the 

Coast Guard has juristlictional autllority 10 revoke a respondent's license if the responclent 

vioi;tted 21 regulatiorr while acting under the authority of tiiat iicense. A rnal-iner is consiciered to 

he acting itniter at~thority of a lice~ise when he is engagetl in ;m act required by an employer as a 

conditio~~ oi'employitlent. 46 CFK 5 5.57(a)(2). In this case, Respoiiilent is charged wit11 refusal 

to take a pre-e~nploynrent drug test, a vioiatioti of 49 CFR 5 40.1'1 1. Sirice the test was a 

co~~tlition of employment, Responderlt's allegcd refusal to test would have occ~~rred while he was 

acting ir~~der ;~t~thority of his license. Tlicrehre, if' Responder~t did I-ef~rre to test, lire undersigned 

tias jiiristiictionnl autt~oriiy to revoke Responder1t's license. 

Ilefitsal to Test 

I he tern1 "rci\ls;~l to ict" is ticfirieti a\ a refiisai to take a tir~ig test :IS set fort11 ill 49 

$ 40.1. tinder illis regitlatioti, an crnpl~tyee is itruticl 10 liavc reliiseti a tlriig lest if the 

einployiii: kiiis "lo se~n;~in ;it :he teitiiig sits i~~ilil the iestirrg pi'jcess IS complete . . . ." 40 CFR 3 

0. Iij). l'he ici-ail cinpiiiycc iitcliii!e\ "appiicaiits ior e11tploy111crii suhjeci to prc-- 

erriploytnic~rtcstiiig." 4') i:FR 3 40.3. If illc eriiployee ieaves tire testing sire liciore the testing 

coiilmciices, tilt cirtpioyce is tleeir~ctl 1101 to t~iisc reftiset1 ttic lest, 10 C:FK $ 40.1 "i (a)(?) 
'lestirig coniiiiences when, iri the presence of both the collector arid employee being tested. a 

collectioii corliz~iner has been selectetl arrtl its seal is broken. 39 CFR 6 40.63, I9 l (c). If a 

mariner refirses to test, the rn;rrirrer will have violateti a regl11:rtiuii ancl his license is subject ro 

revocation. St.e 46 IJ.S.C:. 5 770'3,ih CFR 6 5.33.49 C:I:R 5 40.191 

In this case, the Coast C;uarti argues tbat on April 13, 2007, IZesporrtient zr~tplietl for artci 

was ofiretl a boat captain position with Phil Gtiilheai~ Offshore or1 condition that he pass ;I preemploymerit ill-ug test. (7'1.. :it 13). 011 that same day, Respondent proceedetl to 21 testing fzicility 

ailti provitled a irriiic szitnple. (@.). 'Tlie ('ozist Giiartl's alleges that tile Ilespontierrt pt-ovided a 

urine sa111ple ariti that the uritie sanlple fell outside of the temperature limits zrncl that ihe collector 

asked Respondent fol- a second saniple. (Id.). The Coast Guard alleges that the Respontletlt then 

vefrrsed to provide the seconci satnple atrd left the testirrg facility. (kJ.). The Coast Guartl alleges 

these actions co~lstittrte a refr~sal to rest. 

By cont~~tst, 12rspo11dent argues (hat he arrivetl at the collection facility, hut never 

provideti a urine sample. (Tr. at 20-21). Sliortly after cliecking into the collection fzrcility and 

while sitting in tile w;iitir~g rttortl. Itespotrtlent states that rniitle a relepllorre call to a11 eriiployec of 

('iierasnie Maritic anti was of'kreti a;oh. ('Tr. at 19-20). Resportdent asserts thar he decitletl to 

ziccepr rlrc offer. Irorn Cherarnie Mar-itre arrtl left the iestirig Cacilily itrror to the cornmeticement of 

the lesti~iy. (kJ.). 

After c;iseiiil rcvie~v of the errtire rccc>rd. the rrrrdersigneti finds Respondciit's rectrlleciion 

or lire evelits lo hi, tile tnost accirrnie. 

Coast (;uarrl?s li:vidence 

7i~,Yfi/ll~~fly of fl(lihj~ ~t~?~g~~I~~lf<~ 
The Coast Ciuartl's case rests primarily i~porr the testimony of klailey Angelette. bls, 

Angelette is a specirnen collector with Corrrplete Occrrpat iorral He:rlth Services and testilied that 

she woiiltl liave been the person to collec~ IZespoiiderir's urine on Apr-il 1.3, 2007. (TI-. LII 60.69). 

Ms. Angelette receiveii trailring on Departmesit of Tr:lnsportatiorr collection procetlures anti 

ohtaii~ctl her collector's certii'ication on April 4, 2007, nine (9) days before allegedly collecting 

Kespontle~lt's specirnen. (Tr. at 6 1-61, 1 10; Gov't Ex. 2). She contlucts approxirna~ely tliiny 

(30) to fifty (50') ilrirg collections a (jay ar~tl r~r~ilerstantlahly does not sjiecifically remernher 

Recpo~itleiit's April 13, 2007, specimerl collection. (Tr. at 77, 95). Since Ms. Angelette has no 

intlepeniient recollection ol' the events from that clay, the hasis of her testirnony is tierived 

entirely fron~ ;I fl1istody Control From (CCF) she filled out arrd signed on !he day in cjuestioil. 

(Tr. at 76-77,95; Cjov't Ex. 3, 321). The CCF is n cirairr ctf ctrstody Sorrn that collectors use when 

collecting urine specisriens. ('l'r. at 63). 

Ms. Ailgelctte testifies that pi-ior to j~erforming a drug screen, lt~e information in "Step I" 

ol'riic CCF is filled in. (TI.. at 63-65, 76-77, 9'1; Ciov't Ex. 3, 4a). Sucll inlorrnation iriclr~tles tile 

rralne of the etnpioyer, tests lo he perforined, arid social secllrity number of the employee. (kJ.1. 

Ms. Angeletie ohtainetl IZespoi~tlerrt's social security from Respondent's prior files which were 

or1 11;iritl ni C:orrlpletc Cfcc~~patiotr;~l Ilealth Services. (u.; Gov't fix. 3. 4aj. Ms. Angelette 

iesiilles that she rtccivetl a urine s;il?rple frorri Resposrtlent, hut the sarrlple fell outsitle of rl~e 

irplxopri;ite tc~npcrnturc I-a~lge. il-r. at 65-68; Gov't Ex. 3. 4a). She then tisketi Kespontlctlt to 

1'1-ovitic an aiitlitio~ial s:iri-rplc, hilt I<espo~rtlcnt rcftlseti axid he tliscaitleil his first sarr~ple. (id) 

MA. A~,gclettc ilocs nor sltccificaliy ren~cii~her these evcilrs. bi~r icstii'ieti as io what tile (:[:I: 

ir~d~ca~etl, (Tr :I{ 66). 
Several tliscrepancies were noted oil paperuwik prepared hy C:ornplete Occiipatioiial 

I-lealth Services. J:irsi, a iiotation or1 the April 13, 2007, C:CF indicates that Respondent's 

speciiireil was released to DFlL for delivery to the iesting laltoralory. (Tr. at 106, 113-1 5: Gov't 

Ex. 3, 4). This is in conflict with another notation which states "donor tiiscarded sarnple." 

) Ms. A~lgelette testified that the specirrlen was not releasetl LO DHI- and, :is a matter of pure 

roilline, she autotr~:rtic:illy ~iiakes a not;~lion th:it pecirnens are released to Dl-11.. (TI-. at 1 1.5). 

Second, the CC:J indicates itrat ;I five-panel test was to he perforrnetl on fiesponilent's urine 

sainpie. (Gov't Ex. 3, 4a). fiowever, i:oi-iiplerc Occupational ileaith Services final report (iitled 

in-FIouse Drug Screen) for Respondent's April 13, 2007 drug screening iildicates rhat a twopanel test was performed. (Resp't Ex A - pg. 1). Ms. Angelette was not questiorled on this 

discreparrcy. Thirtl. the Medical IZeview Officer's (MRO) signature appears on the final repon 

esiahlishi~lg that Resporrtient's April 13, 2007, tlrrig screetling was invalid hecause of refusal. 

(Rept's Ex. A --- pg. I ). f~lowever; Ms. Angelelte lestifieci that the MRO never reviewed the CCF, 

upon which the final repon is haseti. r. at101-0) She also testified rhat she filleti ot~the 

final report ;tr~tl tlrat rlie MRO's signarure stainp was iihed at the bottom of ilia1 document; Ms. 

Angelette is liot aware if the MRO actually reviewed the firial report. (Id.). 'I'liese discreparlcies 

give reason for concern, especially considering tllar Ms. Arigclettc's testi~no~iys cievelopetl 

entirely Sronr this paperwork anti riot Sroni perstrnal knowledge, 

7i~.stimoi~y of td~lii~iie ~'(I~L'NI~x 

Fi'l~i: Coasi (;ii;iril also i.iiiics iq?cm ti" kstii~io-i~y of Mcl;:liit: Kxlcaiix, his. Rai!e;rur is thc 

excccitive ;~.ssiii:,~ii rr,c!-i:irge of sitle,. logistics. iiirc! 1:ersorinci 1.0s Phil f;irilhc;i~i C!fihore. iTr. a( 

2.526). %I<. 13ailcaiix tesrificii die w;is woi-king ;iI i'lii! C;riilhe;iil Ol'l.hore, oii <\pril 13, 2007, 

wheii iicspo!~tieiit c;ii~ic ro ilie oilice seeking cinpii~yn~eri~ for :i captniii's positiori. jl'r. at 2-5-26). 
kls. 1Snticairr testified tlrai Kespontlent filled out an 21pplieation arid she was prepzired to offer 

liiiri a position Li,llowirrg {lie cornpletion of a pre-employment physical and drug screen. (Tr. at 

2 37) She then called Cornplete Occupational f~lealtti Services and irifonnetl tliern that she 

would serld Iiespontlerrt over to ohtain a drug screening. (Tr. at 29-30). Ms. Bade:r~rx testifies 

Kespontlent left to ohtniii the drtrg sc.reening 2nd he retril-net1 to her of-Sice later in the clay with a 

fixm intlicaiing he rcl'tlsetl ihc tirug test. (u.). 

f'rior to Kesponticlit retnning to I'liil (?uilheau Ofl'shore, Ms. Uatleatix testifies tlrzir a Mr. 

Joe! i:ulli!ove cz~lletl her office, ('I'r. at 38, 511-57). Joey Fnllilove manages Complete 

Occrrpational Iiealtli Services. ('I'r. at 54). Ms. Badeai~v testified tliat 141s. 1:irllilove informed he1 

that Kespondetit had asked how ro LIse fake r~riire sample. (Tr. at 38, 54-57). Odtlly, Ms. 

Batleaux aliegeci that Mr. Eulliiove hati never iiatl atiyone ask how to Sake a urine sample helre. 

(Id.). Sl~ortly artel. this telephone call, hfs. Badeaux lestifies Kespontlent ret~~rrieti to Phil 

(;trilbeau Oft'sl~ore and spoke with her hoss, Phil (;uilheaii. (Tr. at 31,38, 51-57). Slie Lirrther 

claims that she overlteartl Kespo~ideni say that he reftrsetl !tie test hecallse he wol~ld have tested 

poitive for ma,-ijn;ii~a. (7'1.. ;I! 3 132, 43-44). bls Ratlea~rr testifietl that Mr. <;ailbeau toltl 

Kesporrtlerrt to cal~ri tlowrr, to take a tirug awrlreiless clays, to come back ill a (ew tlays, arrd he 

worrld tl~ci~ ~scconsider Responderrt i'or crrrpioyn~c~it. 1-1'1.. a! 40-44). Slit Srirther testifies the she 

cailed Respitt~tlerit oil May 7, 2007. to sce if tic 1i;ttl cnrolictl in ;I tlriig awareness prograrn. (Tr. 

at 44). 

i'he irr~tlersigrietl i'i!ltls Ms. B:idc;~~ru'i testirncii~y ~vholiy iiiiperst~;iuive :r11t1 s~~ccific;~llv 

ili.;corrr~ts rniijiir portioifi 01' it. iri:-st, riioat r?f his. Radcairu's icsiimony is h;rsed iipoil i-rcars;if 

cvitler~cc. LVi-rile 1ic;rrs;ry cvitier~cc i~llo~vc(l iii strspci~siori arid revt~catioii proceedir~gr, hearsay 

cvitiericc ii ie\i rclizihii? iii:~il i'ii~st1i;iriti kiitiwlctlgc, 7l1e icstilnony auilioi- written statements of 
Joey Ft~llilove ant1 Pfiil C;uilheau wot~ltliave heen vitally ititpoiIan1 in coirohotariiig the 

tetimotiy oi hls. Radcaox. Their respective :rhsences spe;iks volt~rnes ahorit the creclibility of 

Ms. fi:itieaux's allegatiorrs. Second; Ms. Batlezmx testified that Mr. Fullilovz s:tys he was 

shocketl that Respondent asked fiow to fake ;I urine sample and that irti one liacl never made such 

21 seciuest. However. Ms. Angelette, the collector, had neither a recollectitin of ltespirntient 

asking such a cl~iestioii rror any recollection of Respondent ;it all. If such t~ ilr~iclue i~icideilt had. 

in i'i~ct ticc~u-reti, surely (lie collectcrr woultl liave semenrhercd or :it least noted it on [he CCF. 

Third, the undersigiied find.: it highly iinlikely illat Respoirtlenl, a newly licenseti Captail], would 

admit to snioking nlari,juana to a pcrteritial employer. Furriiermore, it is utilikely Mr. Grtilbeau 

woultl maintain art interest in hiring IZesporrdcnt after he adrnittetl to taking drilgs. It is also 

~iiilikely tlrat Ms. Radea~~x initiated a call to Respondent, on May 7, 2007, to see if Respondent 

had enrolletl in a tlrtrg rehahilitatio~~ prograrrr. Such corrcem, for a ilorr-employee, sceins 

~inlikely. 

The undersigned llelieves t11;tt hls. Raileaux and Phil Grrilbeau Offshore were angered 

when Respondent tutnecl down their job offer alrtl ;iccepted e!nploymer~r elsewhere. Per the 

regulations, potentic~l etriplopel.~ :we I-etlc~ireil to pion~l,tly repor! failed tlr~~g tesis to the C:oast 

Gtiaz.tl. 46 C:.I;.R 3 l h.20l(c). IFlowever, lire Coast C?tlw.d did IIO~ receive Phil Gt~ilheau Offshore 

letter repiirting Resporlilent'i allegeti reirrsai to iesr until sorrrctinre between May 14, 2007 airtl 

hltiy 23. 200'7, ;I month ;ifte~- the ;rilegetl reCtrs:~l lo iesr. C~I-, at134; Kesp't Ex. C). Tliis letter 

inus i~irdiriet! anti was >el!! ;rircr M\. Butleaiiu's ieicphorle caii ti1 Rcipoirdcni, on May 7, 2007. 

(Gov'i Ex. 1 - pg. 4). It is believet1 tlirii tltiriiig iliii reiepiiorie czhll, Ms. Hittlcarix lc;~riirti t11;ii 

Kcspo~rtleiit w;iq iiii lorrges intei-esiccl iii employnicrrt with Plril C;iiiIheaii Offslrorc anti was ringry 
wit11 ~ei~torrtient.~ Icjllowing this telephone call, Ms. Ratlearlx mailed the letter to the Coast 

Guard inS(orn~ii~g then1 ctf Respondent's 1-ef'~tsa1 to test. bls. Radeairr's orrly explanation for the 

late mailing was chat, "I iiiaiied it when I rntiiled ir. I thoiight hlr. M;ttt was going to conre hack 

:ifid, yii~t know - - ." (Tr. at 48). This raises an iilferei~ce of a ii~hrication motivated by 

Respondent's refiisal of employment tint1 significantly discredits tile testiinony of Ms. Badeaux. 

Respondent's Rebuttal 

IZespondent's rehrittal of the Coast Gtiard's case concerns m:rinly the chain of evelits at 

the collection i'aciliiy. 12erpoi1derit acknowledges that oil April 13, 2007, he tlrove to Phil 

Chilheau Offshore ant1 sought erriployrnetit. (Tr. at 144-47). After completing :In application, lie 

was offered employment on the contiirgency that he pass tlie drug screening artd physical. (Id.). 

Re\pontlent left Phrl C;nrlhe;~u Olfsliore ancl proceeded to Complete Occup;~tlonal Flcaith 

Services to obtair~ the tirug screening and physical. (Tr. at 149-50). CJpon arrive at the facility, 

Respondelit signet1 in and sat dowil in the waiting rooin. (Tr. at 151 J. 

While wnitilig to be tested, Respondent decided to call Ciuitlry, a boat captain 

yvorkirig for Clieranlie hlaril~e. or. at 129, 15 1 ; Gov't Ex. I - pg. 8-1 9). Kcsporltle?~! previorrsly 

workcti for Cheramie Marine and tieveloped a close working relationship witti Mr. Guidry. (Tr. 

;it 117-38; Gov't Ex. 1 - pg. 8). Resporrdeiit infornieci Mr. Guitlry that he hat1 olttnilted his 

c:iixaiti's iicerisc arttl was goilig to lakc n posirioit wit11 I'hil C~~iill~ei~rt Offshore. ('l'r. at 19-54). 

blr. (iuitiry toltl 12espoi1dci1t that Phil (;itilhcau was :I diit'ictrit tnaii to work for nr~il Cherarnie 

' .?iii:iie 1:iiniey. I<csjl<ii:iiciit ii;irici.. tesiific:l iii;i: ilic i;tlkr.ii i:r Mc l%aiic;!iir !:i; Ma; 7, 1007. ' 02. Ms. 

Iinlc? !e\rrfic!i ti;:!t Ms. H;!dt;iiix ;isl!i.d cis Ke\pi?ridr.nt itnil k'ls i'iiiiey irifoi-mr~i lici- liial Rci~~orliicr~r birrs worhiiig. 

(id.). 1Jnii:i hcuiing r1li:c i<eijri:!iiIri1! wiis woi-king. Ms. li:!deauv. tii.ri!siie rude ;ind inbisieii tin oi>!;~ining ,! telcpliiine 

IIII to I Uesiiil~!, . Ms. 1:inIi.) diil not iiace ;I!? ;~irciir.iic ielepiii)nc iiiimbes Sos Kespi~iiiicii:. (@.i. 

I it til !I! . 31~ 0 1 I! y ~t's ! I!. i.. iVliili. ihc iin!lersigile:l d#)es 

i;ncler~ianii !lir pii\sihle eif-ses~ii7g !eiiiiiioiiy ot Kesponrlziiii fiance, ihi\ rcsrir~ioriy i10i.s hcip ci!:ri:lish wiiy hi, 

!iiiiIz;rirx u<iiilit w:iii iiiiril iiircr !hi\ ielcplioiie ;;ill 10 iii;rii tile !e!tei- I:: thc Ct,arr (;i!,inl in:'~,i-iiiisig them 01' 

ICeipi~n(1erit'~ rwiitiai iii ie51 
Marine wonld like to hire Respondent as :I captain. (kt.). Respondent decided to accept the 

position and left Complete Occnpational 'leait11 Services. iTr. at 154). Respondent testilied that 

nii one called tiis name while he was waiting, lie did not fill out any paperwork, and ire provitied 

no tisine sample. (rI'r. at 154-61). 

Iiespontlent's testimony is corrobornteti by testimony 1'1-om Mike Gnidry. 111 a depositictn, 

Mr. (;uicIry testifietl tirat Respontlent ci~lled hinr April 13, 2007. (Gov't Ex. - pg. ')-I 1,17-19). 

Mr. C;uitlsy says Responclent inforrnetl lrin~ that he was going to accept :I joh with Phil Guilheau 

Offshore ancl he w:~s getting reatly to take a drug test. j. Mr. Gilirlry testified he told 

Responclent !hat he shoultl not (lo rh;it, Phil Gniiheau was a difficult man lo work for, ant1 

Respondent should come back to work for C:lierarrtie Marine. . Mr. Goidry states 

Respontlent was very happy with the job offer. (Gov't Ex. - pg. 19). On May 1, 2007, 

Respondent successf~~lly corrtpleteti a tisng screen at C:onrltlete Occupational Llealth Services for 

tlre position he accepted with C'lrcrarnie Marine. (Rept's E5x. A -- p. 8). Also on this (late, 

Complete Occupatiorral IIealth Services obti~irictl records detriiling Respondent's physical health, 

to incl~~tle his pulse, vision. and hl(!ocl pressure. (Rept's Ex. A -- p. 7). Responrlent worked for 

(Iherasnie Marine l'rorn May I, 2007 1111til July 27, 2007. (Ts. at 126). 

Coast Guard I'aileri to ('rove Case 

111 these prtrceedingh, the C'oast Gua1.d beats tllc husclen of proof and ti~ust prove any 

violt~tio~r by:I prepontlcrtincz ol'tlie cviclencc. iii illis case, it1 order to prove Sailtire to test, the 

Co~ist C;iia~-d ncctictl to prove Rcspontlciii ielt C'oinplcic Occupational iiealli? Services al'ler- tile 

. . co?i!rrizrlccrilezlt of 111e ~Iritg icst i11g fi~-ocess. IIIC Coast {.h~:~i.ci's cast restccl 11rinriirily OII [lie 

collector's testinroriy. 'I'lie collcctoi.. ivlio had only niiie (9) days of expwicnc~c prior to teting 

Rcsp(fixlzri: <:?I illrri! 13; 2007. !i;iti iio ri~collection of Respoiidciit, ifci. testirnoriy was based 
etitirely from a cnstociy anti control ibrm. fhis fomi contained significa~it errors, to include 

iildicatiiig Rcspontleni's wine was botlr tiiscarded aiicl sent to the testing 1:iboratory. Wliei~ 

cluestioned on tlrese errors, the collector testifieti she just a~~tomatimlly fills out the Sornr. 'l'he 

Ibrrri also i~ldicatetl Respontlent was going to have :I five-panel test, while the final report 

indicated Respontlerlt was going to 1i;ive a two-panel test. 'The collector also testifietl that the 

medical rcview officer never reviewed this form. l'lie reliability of this form is serionsly in 

douht. 

-!'he Coast Ciuarc! also relied upo1r tlie testinrony of Ms. F3;ltieanx. She gave very 

damaging testimony :ihotrl Respondent, stating lie atlmittzd to smoking rnarijuaiia and he asked 

how to Cake a urirre sample. However, Ms. B:rdeaux's testinioily was based altliosr entirely on 

hearsay evidence, l:urthermore, evicle~rce was given that raises an iriference ti~at Ms. Radeanx 

filhricated portions of her testimony. 'I'his fabrication was likely rnotivatetl by Responiient's 

refus;il to obtain crnpioyme~it with Phil Cri~ilbeau Offshore. 

The untlersigi-red fir~ds the testimony of I\'espontlerrt and his supporting witnesses 

creciihlc. Rcsltoutlcnt urrivctl at Complete Occ~rpntionai tlealth Services on April 13. 2007, with 

rhc inrelit to coml)leie a tlrug screerri~ig. Ilowever, while waiting to he tested. Respondent 

I-eccivetl a joij offet- that he percrivctl to he better. I~le rherefore tlcc~tled not to take tire position 

wit11 Phil <;irill,e:~t~ Offshore and leii the testirig hcility bcl'ore testi~rg began. 
2. Res1x)rrcleru ;~rsivecl at arrived ai Cor~lpleic Occupational Health Services or1 Apl-il 13, 

2007, ii~terrcling to take a pre-employment dnlg test. 

3. Respol~tient tleceiveci to leave Complete Occupational Health Services prior to the 

commencemerrt of the iirug testirrg process. 

4. The fiict~~iil ;allegation "Violation of Law or Regulation" against Responcietrt is Sound 

NO'T PK0VI':I) by a pi-eporicle~.ance of the reliable ;inti credible evidence :inti testimony 

as taken from tlre record coilsitlereel as ti wlrolc. 

IT IS HERII:IIY OKl)Ii:KI<I> that the aliegatro~l ol "V~olation of Law or Regui~tion" 

again\[ Rcipontlent 15 lo~~ircl not p~ovetl 

P1,EASII: TAKE NOTICE that service ot this Decisiorl on {tie parties and/or parries' 

reprcsentative(s) serves as notice of appeal rights set forth in 33 CFR $ 20.1001---20.1004. 

(iUtachmenr I3). 

1)one ailti tlated blay 17, 2008 'it 

New Orletirr\. 1.4 Z.@. ~... 

BON. BKUCIC T. S 

iidininistrative Law .fudge 

Finiled Ciater, Coast (;uartl 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certiflt that 1 have forwz~rded the attached tloc~imcnt by Facsimile to the 

following persons: 

I.CI)R Melissa Fla~~er_ 10 

PO Cynthia Dubach, 10 

USCG Seclor New Orleans 

161 5 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, LA 701 12 

Fax: (504) 589-4244 

Andrea Wilkes, Esqi~ire 

Tulane Law Clinic 

6329 Freret Street 

New Orleans, LA 701 18 

Fax: (504) 862-8753 

I hereby certlip that I have fonvarded the attached document by hand deltvery to the 

thllowlng 

ALJ Docketing Center 

Attention: I-fearing Docket Clerk 

40 South Gay Street, Iioom 4 12 

Baltimore, blLl21202 

Done and dated the 14"' of May, 2008 at 

Balt~more. Maryland 

Paralegiil Specialist 
ATTACtiitlENT A 

\VlTXESS AN]) EXHIBIT LISTS 

fvIrrsfi;ss I'IS'ICOAS'I' GIJARI) WI'I-NESSI<S 

Ciov't Witness 1 h4elanie Radeatix 

Gov'i Willless 2 I lailey Allgelelie 

Ciov't Witnes, 3 Ilino Cherarnie (via telephone) 

RESP0NI)ENT WITXESSISS 

Itesp't 1 Williairl S. Malt 

Resp't 2 Janice Firrlcy 

COAST GUARD EXHIIHTS 

Gciv't Ex. 1 Phil Ciiiilber~ii Ofl'shorel Irrc, rile 

Gov'i Ex. 3 t'etiesai Drug 'Testirig C:i~stotly ant1 C:oiitroI I'orrn, Copy i -- Iahora~osy 

(:oi'y 
RESPONDENT EXHIHITS 

Resp't Ex. it C:oiiipleie Occupational lHealth Services, t.IC file 

Resp't Ex. 13 1-8 1~3gllr photographs 

Resp't Ex. C Stip~il;~tioil 

Kesp't Ex. D Call Detail for wirriess leleplior~e nrimher 

Kesp't Ex. 15 Staternelit of AI~Y Marie Roach 
ATTACHMENT B 

NO'I'ICE OF ilDMIIVISTKA'TI\E APPEAI, RIGZITS 

33 CFK 5 20.1001 General 

(;ij Any party sriay appeal the .41J's tlecisiori hy filing ;I notice of appeal. The party 

sh;ill file tlie notice with tlie IJ. S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Juclge 13ocketing 

Center; i'itteiition: Hearing Docket ('Icrk; Koorn 412; 40 S. Gay Street; Raltinrore, 

MI> 2 1201 -4022. The party shall file the notice 30 days or less after issiiance ofthe 

decision, anti shall serve a copy of it oil tile other party aritl eilcl~ inlei-estetl pcrst~n. 

(h) No party may appeal excepl on the followisig issues: 

(I) Wlietlrer each iiiiciing of f;tct is snpportctl hy srihstilritial evidence. 

(2) Wl~ether each ct)rrclusioi~ of law accords with applicable law. precedent, ant1 

~x~hlic policy. 

(3) Wlietl~er the AIJ ahiised his or hel- discretion. 

(4) Tlie ALJ's denial of a motion for disqualificatioti. 

(c) No interested persorl lrray appeal a srirrtmary decisioti except on the issue that IIO 

hearing was held or th;~t iit tlte issuarice of the decision the A1.J (lid not consider 

evidence ihat that person ivo!~ltl have presented. 

((1) 'She appeal ni~ist follow the procedural requil-ernenis of tl-11s subpart 

33 CFR 5 20.1002 Records on appeal. 

(aj 7'lre recorii of the pn,ceet!is~g constitiltes tile recorcl for decision on appeal. 

(h) IS the respondent reqnests a copy of the trarrscript of the hearing as part of tlie record 

of proccetling, theii. -- 

(I) If the liear-irrg was recorded at i;cdcr;ll expense, ttie (:oasl Guitrd will provide 

the it.:lnscript oii paymctrt of tire lees [~rescrihecin 49 C:FK 7.35; but, 

12) IS the hearing was recordccl by a fetleri~l contrrictor, the contractor will 

provitlc ttrc 11-aiiscrip~ on [lie tcrnis prescriheci in 4'9 f:FR 7.45. 

33 C'VK 5 20.1003 L'rocetlr~res for appeal. 

lii) f:k~cll 1321rtY~ i!p!3e;di1ig tile l%i..J'5 c!i.cisiixl g.)r !-~lIll~lg slri111 file ill1 a~3pc~lale bl-ier \vltil tile 

C'oi~iri~niiiiai~r atile ioiic?wiirg adtircss: (1.5 C'r>:\;i <;iiar-ii /itirrri~iisiraiivc Law Jutigc 

1)ockeiirig ('enti.?; Attciitiot?: ilc;isi~?g Docket Cler-k; 22otim 112; 40 S. Gay Slscet: 

13aIiiriiore, 1211) 21 201 -4022; ant1 shall ?el-vc a copy oi'thc brief on every otller party. 

(11 '['lie appc1I;itc hi-ief iirnst set i;~t-tii tile appellarii's hpccific oib~ectioi~s to tile 

:iccisitin or riiliilg. 7~11~ hriei iniist set hrtli, in tlctziii, the ~- 
ii) Basis for the tippeal; 

(ii) Keiisons snpporiing the appeal; and 

(iii) Relief recliiestecl in tile appeal. 

(2) When the appellant relies irri ~liaterial contaiiied in the record, tlle appellate 

hrief mt~st specif'ic:illy refer to the pertirient parts trf rhi: record. 

(?) 'The appcllaie trrief ni~ist reach the Docketing Center 60 days or less aiter 

service of tile All's tlecision. Lisiless filed withi11 this time, or withiri airother 

lime pel-iocl a1rthorized in writing by the Docketing Ceriter, the briei' will be 

tititimely. 

(h) Arly party inay file a reltly brief with the Docketirrg Center 35 days or less after 

service oi' the appellate hrief. Each sucir par,ty shall serve a copy oti every other party. 

if tlic pariy filing the reply brier relie on evidence coritairied in the record fix the 

appeal, that brief must specifically refer to ihe pertirrent parts of tile recortl. 

(c) No party may file rnore than one appellate brief or reply brief, unless -- 

(I) The party has petitioned the Cornmanciar-ir in writing; and 

(2) The Cotnrnandant has g~xnted leave to file an added brief, in which event the 

Conrmandant \vill allow a reasonable time for the pa~ty to file that hrief. 

(ti) ?'Ire Clonirrianclant nlay accept arr clmicus c.rtricre irriet' from any person in an apl~eal of 

;in ASJ's decision. 

33 CFK $ 20.1004 1)ecisions on appeal. 

(a) 'The Commandant shall revicw the record on appeal to cleterrnitre whether the AI,J 

coiiiriiillcd error in :he procectlings, and wliether the Corr-irnandant should affiriii, 

modiSy, or reverse tile AS..i's decisiori or stioriltl retnand the case for Sttrtller 

proceedings. 

(h) Tlie C:ornniandarit shall issue ;i tlecisiori oil evcry appeal in writirig ant1 shall serve 

a copy of lire ilecision on cach party arltl i~itcrestetl person.