>' ' 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

JAMES EUGENE COLLIER, 

Respondent. 

Docket Number CG S&R 03-0384 

CG Case No. 1813318 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued: February 26, 2004 

Issued bv: Peter A. Fitzpatrick, Administrative Law Judge 

APPEARANCES 

FOR THE COAST GUARD 

LTJG Boris K. Towns 

ENS Matthew Spolarich 

Marine Safety Office Morgan City 

800 David Drive, Room 232 

Morgan City, LA 70380 

FOR THE RESPONDENT 

Captain Robert K. Lansden, Esq. 

125 East Pine Street 

P.O. Box 473 

Ponchatoula, LA 70454 
I. 

PRELIMNINARY STATEMENT 

This case began on June 24, 2003 when the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against the 

Respondent, James Eugene Collier, under the statutory authority contained in 46 U.S.C. § 7703. 

Mr. Collier is the holder of Coast Guard-issued license number 930641 and a merchant mariner's 

document. The Coast Guard alleged that on May 20, 2003 Respondent refused a "[r]andom drug 

test while assigned to the M/V PETER CALLAIS (1062383)." The Investigating Officer sought 

the revocation of Captain Collier's Coast Guard-issued license and document. An amended 

complaint containing this same allegation but different address for the Respondent was filed on 

August 26,2003. 

The Respondent's Answer admitting all jurisdictional allegations of the Complaint was 

submitted on September 3, 2003. That Answer denied the factual allegations of the Complaint 

and asserted that Captain Collier "Did not refuse drug test." 

The case was assigned to this Judge and it was scheduled for hearing on January 7, 2004 at 

Morgan City, LA. See Orders dated September 9, September 15, and December 10, 2003. On 

January 5, 2004 Respondent filed a Motion and Order of Dismissal with attached Exhibits. The 

Coast Guard filed their Response to the Motion and Order of Dismissal on January 6, 2004. 

Witness and exhibit lists were timely served by the parties and the hearing commenced as 

scheduled. The Investigating Officers, the Respondent and his counsel were present. At the 

outset, I denied the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. (Transcript, hereinafter TR, 15). During 

the hearing, the Coast Guard sponsored six witnesses and nine exhibits which were admitted on 

the record. The Respondent testified and recalled one of the Coast Guard witnesses, Richard C. 

Savoie. Respondent offered five exhibits which were admitted. The exhibits and witnesses are 

2 
identified in Appendices A and B. 

After the testimony was completed and rulings made on the exhibits, both sides presented 

oral closing arguments. At that point, I announced that the allegation of the complaint that 

Respondent refused a random drug test was proved and that the remaining issue to be decided 

was the nature of the sanction to be issued against Captain Collier's license and document. The 

parties were given until January 21, 2004 to submit pleadings on the appropriate sanction. The 

Investigating officer's submission was served on January 21, 2004. Respondent did not submit a 

pleading. This case is now ripe for decision. 

II. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. James Eugene Collier is the holder of United States Coast Guard issued license number 

930641 which authorizes him to serve as "Master of steam or motor vessels of not more 

than 100 gross registered tons (domestic tonnage) upon near coastal waters; also, Mate of 

steam or motor vessels of not more than 200 gross registered tons (domestic tonnage) of 

not more than 500 gross tons (ITC) upon near coastal waters." The license was issued on 

March 19, 2001 and expires on March 19, 2006. Mr. Collier also holds a merchant 

mariner's document. 

2. The M/V I PETER CALLAIS is an oil service vessel, 145 feet in length and 40 feet at the 

beam. (TR 278). It is designed to carry equipment such as "Yokohama fenders" to 

allowed oil tankers to transfer fuel to smaller ships. (TR 279-280). The vessel is four years 

old and owned and operated by Abdon Callais Offshore, LLC. (TR 280). On May 20-21, 

2003 the vessel was on charter to Skaugen Petro Trans of Houston, TX. (TR 281 ). At that 

time it was in standby status at Dosco docks in Fourchon, Louisiana (TR 179, 223). 

3 
3. Abdon Callais crews the M/V I PETER CALLAIS so that it is available for 24 hours service 

under the vessel's Certificate oflnspection. (TR 141-142, 223-224). The crew includes 

one Master, a licensed mate, and two deckhands. (TR 74). On May 20, the Respondent 

was serving as Master and James Strickland was the mate. Both the Master and mate are 

required to hold a Coast Guard-issued license to operate the vessel. (TR 77, 92, 93, 122, 

141-142, 199-200). 

4. Abdon Callais Offshore has a strict policy prohibiting the crew from leaving the vessel 

during the assigned work period. (TR 223-224). Crews work 28 days on and 14 days off. 

The crew can use the phone at the dock but even trips to buy groceries are not allowed 

without permission. (TR 72,75-78, 109-110, 142-143, 148). The crew change is 

scheduled as near as possible at the end of the 28-day period. The full complement of two 

licensed personnel and two deckhands is required by the company to be aboard the vessel 

at all times. Otherwise, the vessel would be unseaworthy and unable to sail. (TR 75-76). 

5. The Certificate .of Inspection allows for a single licensed Master when the vessel is 

engaged in 12 hours service. (TR 283-284). To meet the requirements of the charterer 

Skaugen Petro Transport, Abdon Callais manned the vessel for 24 hours service which 

required two licensed officers. (TR 141-142). 

6. James Eugene Collier was serving as Master of the vessel on May 20, 2003 when the 

incident involved here occurred. (TR 104). He was required by Abdon Callais Offshore to 

hold a Master's license to operate the vessel as a condition of his employment. (TR 49-50). 

On that date, the vessel was moored at Fourchon, Louisiana and there were five members 

of the crew. (TR 49-50, 60). They included Captain James Collier, Licensed Mate Larry 

Strickland and three others. (TR 49-50). 

4 
7. Abdon Callais Offshore publishes a safety manual and a drug and alcohol policy manual 

and employees are expected to read it. (TR 52-53). Captain. Collier acknowledged this 

fact when he signed his employment application. (Exhibit I0-4, p.6; TR 54-55). Abdon 

Callais Offshore has a zero tolerance policy with regard to the use of drugs and alcohol on 

its vessels. (TR 53-54). 

8. Captain James Collier began his recent employment with Abdon Callais on December 11, 

2000. (Exhibit I0-4). He became the so-called "first" Captain or Master on the M/V/ 

PETER CALLAIS in October 2002. (TR 235). Captain Collier, as with the other crew 

members, worked 28 consecutive days aboard the vessel followed by a 14 day off duty 

period. (TR 240, 272, 284-285). His duty period immediately preceding the event here 

began on April 21, 2003 and he was scheduled to be relieved at the crew change at 0800 on 

May 21, 2004. (TR 240, 285). 

9. Collier was due to be relieved by the licensed mate James Strickland on May 21,2003. 

John Rowell was scheduled to relieve Strickland as the licensed mate at that same time. 

(TR 240-243). 

10. On May 20, 2003 the day before the scheduled crew change on the 21st, Captain Collier 

served the 0600-1800 watch and left the vessel at 1930. (TR 239-252). He went home to 

Lockport, Louisiana which is located approximately 45 minutes from Fourchon. (TR 252). 

When he left the vessel, Collier told the mate Strickland that he was going home for a 

"little while and be back in the morning for crew change." (TR 125. See also TR 147). 

Collier left his "stuff' on the boat. (TR 126). He did not receive a relief and the vessel was 

manned at that point by one licensed officer (Strickland). (TR 288-289). Captain Collier 

5 
did not notify Abdon Callais Offshore that he was leaving the PETER CALLAIS. (TR 

289-290). 

11. Lafourche Services, Incorporated is the company that conducts Abdon Callais Offshore's 

drug testing program. (TR 81). A random drug test for all crewmembers serving aboard 

the M/V PETER CALLAIS was scheduled for approximately 2300 on May 20,2003. (TR 

166-168). During that evening James Strickland called the Respondent at home and 

advised him of the impending drug test. (TR 253). Captain Collier called Abdon Callais 

Offshore and spoke with Robert Lasseigne, the company's Personnel Coordinator. Mr. 

Lasseigne instructed Collier to return to the vessel to take the drug test but the Respondent 

replied that he had imbibed a couple of drinks and would not pass the alcohol test. (TR 99-

1 00). (See also Tr. 253-254, 286, 287). Captain Collier did not return to the vessel and did 

not take the drug test. (TR 100, 108, 182-183). 

12. Mr. Saint Pierre conducted the drug tests on behalf of Lafourche Services aboard the 

PETER CALLAIS on the night of May 20,2003. (TR 179). He administered the test to 

three crew members and filled out a Drug Testing Custody and Control Form containing 

the Respondent's Social Security Number. (Exhibit I0-8). The form contains the 

collector's remarks "Refusal to Test." (Exhibit I0-8). Mr. Saint Pierre did not see Captain 

Collier aboard and was told by Abdon Callais's representative that Collier "had walked off 

the boat and refused to test." (TR 180-182). 

13. The following day, Collier returned to the vessel and removed all his possessions. (TR 

259). On May 22, two days after the drug test, he handed Mr. Richard Savoie, the 

company's Human Resources manager, a letter of resignation. (Exhibit I0-5). It reads as 

follows: 

6 
"This is to inform you of my official resignation, as of 18:00 Hrs. May 

20th 2003." 

14. Ultimately, Captain Collier was fired by the company for refusing to take the drug test. 

(TR 273). 

III. 

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED 

A. Procedural Matters 

1. This proceeding is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act , which is incorporated 

into these proceedings under 46 U.S.C. 7702, which reads: 

§ 7702. Administrative procedure 

(a) Sections 551-559 of title 5 apply to each hearing under this chapter about 

suspending or revoking a license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's 

document. 

2. 46 U.S.C.§§ 7701-7705 sets out the general procedures governing the suspension and 

revocation of merchant mariners' licenses and documents. 46 U.S.C. § 7703 provides in 

pertinent part: 

7703. Bases for suspension or revocation 

A license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document issued 

by the Secretary may be suspended or revoked If the holder--

(1) when acting under the authority of that license, certificate, or 

document--

(A) has violated or fails to comply with this subtitle, a regulation 

prescribed under this subtitle, or any other law or regulation intended to 

promote marine safety or to protect navigable waters; or 

(B) has committed an act of incompetence, misconduct, or negligence; 

7 
3. The regulations governing the performance of chemical tests for dangerous drugs adopted 

by the United States Depa~ment of Transportation are codified at 49 CPR§ 40. The 

specimen collection procedures are set out at 49 CPR § 40.25. 

4. The Coast Guard regulations governing chemical testing for dangerous drugs are codified 

at 46 CPR§ 16. 

5. The Rules of Practice, and Evidence, for Formal Administrative Proceedings of the Coast 

Guard which apply to this proceeding are codified at 33 CPR§ 20. 

IV. 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The Respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §§ 

7702-7703. 

2. The Factual and Jurisdictional Allegations of the Complaint are proved by the preponderance 

of reliable, credible and substantial evidence. 

v. 

OPINION 

1. Captain Collier is charged with Misconduct for refusing "a random drug test while assigned 

to the M/V PETER CALLAIS." Misconduct is defined at 46 CPR§ 5.27 as human behavior 

which violates some formal duly established rule. Such rules include " ... statutes, 

regulations, the common law, the general maritime law, a ship's regulation or order, or 

shipping articles and similar sources." It is an act which is forbidden or a failure to do that 

which is required. 

8 
Title 46 USC § 7703 provides in pertinent part, a Coast Guard-issued license may be 

suspended or revoked if the holder, when acting under the authority of that license, has 

committed an act of misconduct. The term "acting under authority of license" is defined at 

46 CPR§ 5.57 which provides that a person employed in the service of a vessel is considered 

to be acting under the authority of a license when the holding of such license is ( 1) required 

by law or regulation; or (2) required by an employer as a condition for employment. In this 

case, the Respondent was required to hold a Master's license to operate the M/V I PETER 

CALLAIS both by regulation and by his employer as a condition of employment 

First, the PETER CALLAIS's Certificate of Inspection requires a licensed Master to 

operate the vessel. (TR 74). Indeed, two licensed individuals with appropriate Master's 

licenses are required to be aboard when the vessel is engaged in 24 hours service. (TR 141-

142, 223-224). Captain Collier was Master and First Captain aboard the PETER CALLAIS 

and thus allowed Abdon Callais Offshore to operate the vessel in accord with its Certificate 

oflnspection. Title 46 U.S.C. § 8101 makes it clear that an inspected vessel cannot be 

operated without the crew required by the Certificate of Inspection. 

Second, there is no question that Abdon Callais Offshore required Captain Collier to 

hold an appropriate Coast Guard-issued Master's license to serve as Master of that vessel. 

(TR 74, 91, 92, 122, 199-200). Thus, the holding ofthat license was a condition of Captain 

Collier's employment. 

2. Turning now to the events of May 20, 2003, it is clear that Captain Collier returned to the 

PETER CALLAIS as Master on April 21, 2003 to commence his 28 day service period. (TR 

240). He was scheduled to be relieved at the crew change at approximately 0730 on May 21, 

2003. (TR 124). At that time the licensed Mate (Strickland) was scheduled to become the 

9 
new Master or First Captain of the vessel. (TR 138, 139, 240). Also, a third licensed officer 

(John Rowell) was scheduled to relieve the Mate thus keeping the vessel fully manned with 

two licensed officers. (TR 134-135, 318-322). 

Moreover, there is no question that Abdon Callais Offshore maintained a strict policy 

of requiring all crewmembers to remain aboard the vessel during their 28 day service period. 

(TR 77-78). About the only exception to that rule was to allow crewmembers to use the 

telephone at the dock. (TR 142). As the company's Human Resource Manager testified (TR 

319): 

A. No. They are not to leave the vessel under any 

circumstances unless the office authorizes it. We, as far as, personals, 

groceries, we have it delivered to the vesselThe company considered the vessel to be unseaworthy if the full complement of two licensed 

officers and two deckhands were not aboard. (TR 77). 

After Captain Collier served his 12 hour watch (0600- 1800) on May 20, 2003, the 

licensed Mate Strickland relieved him to serve the Mate's watch (1800- 0600). (TR 139). 

At that point, Captain Collier told Strickland that he was going home and would be back in 

the morning. (TR.137). Collier did not inform the company he was leaving the vessel. (TR 

289). At approximately 1930 on that evening (May 20, 2003) Collier went ashore and was 

met by his wife who drove him home to Lockport, LA about 45 minutes from the dock at 

Fourchon. (TR 249-252). Before he left the vessel, he signed off on the billing logs as 

Master showing the vessel at Fourchon on standby at 2400 on May 20, 2003. (Exhibit I0-6). 

Collier told Strickland that he was going home and would be back in the morning in time for 

the crew change. (TR 125, 147). Collier "left his stuff on the boat" and Strickland thought 

Collier intended to return. (TR 126). 

10 
Later that same evening the company scheduled a random chemical test for dangerous 

drugs and alcohol. James Strickland called Collier at his home and advised him of the 

impending test. (TR 252-253). In turn, Collier called the company Personnel Coordinator, 

Robbie Lasseigne, and asked what was going on. (TR 253). Lasseigne told him to go back 

to the vessel but Collier refused. (TR 253-254). Collier testified at the hearing that he had 

been drinking wine and did not think he would pass the alcohol portion of the test. (TR 287). 

The drug and alcohol test was conducted at approximately 2300 hours for all 

crewmembers aboard the M/V PETER CALLAIS on the night of May 20,2003. Lafourche 

Services Incorporated was the firm responsible for conducting Abdon Callais Offshore's 

drug and alcohol testing program. Jeremiah Saint Pierre and Craig Hendrix from Lafourche 

testified regarding the conduct of the tests aboard the vessel that night. Mr. Saint Pierre was 

given a work order to go to Dosco Docks at Fourchon, LA at 9:00PM to do testing on all the 

crew aboard the PETER CALLAIS. (TR 98, 178-179). Mr. Saint Pierre did not encounter 

Captain Collier on the boat and he was unable to test him. (TR 182-183). The collector 

filled out a copy of the Drug Testing Custody and Control form with the Respondent's Social 

Security Number and entered the remark: "Refusal to Test." (Exhibit I0-8). After the tests 

on the other members were completed, the Respondent called Mr. Saint Pierre at home and 

said he had "walked" and would not be coming back to the boat. (TR 182-183). 

3. The testimony of James Strickland regarding Captain Collier's statement that he was gong 

home and would return in time for the crew change the next morning and that Collier left his 

stuff aboard is challenged by Captain Collier. The Respondent asserts that his relationship 

with Strickland was not harmonious and that the Mate's testimony is not correct. Collier 

11 
,, . 

claims that he was properly relieved by Strickland at the end of the Captain's watch at 1800 

and that he shook the Mate's hand and told hiin "It's all yours." (TR 271). 

I have listened to the testimony of both men and believe the Mate's statements are 

credible. I believe Captain Collier fully intended to come back to the vessel in time for the 

crew change. He did not notify anyone at the company that he was leaving the vessel at that 

time. (TR 289). Indeed, this is not surprising in view of the company's strict policy of 

prohibiting the crew from leaving the vessel during their 28 day duty period. (TR 77). Also, 

by his absence, the vessel was short the required number of two licensed personnel and thus 

could not have responded to all customer calls. As Mr. Dufremes, Abdon Callais Safety 

Coordinator, explained (TR 213-214): 

A. Because a vessel can be called to go on a job at anytime. I mean, 

it wouldn't be practical to allow your mate or your captain to leave the 

vessel, and they live an hour away, and the customer calls and tell you, "I 

need the boat to leave, now, to come offshore with supplies," or "I need the 

boat to leave, now, to come offshore because I need fuel, water," or "I have 

a injured person offshore, I need to get him in." I mean, you can't wait for a 

captain to return to a boat or a mate to return or a deckhand. 

4. Captain Collier's defense to the charge of refusing to take the drug test is that he was relieved 

by the licensed mate at 1800 on May 20, 2003 and went home and was off duty at 1930 that 

evening. Thus, he was not required to return to the vessel for the test because he was no . 

longer a member of the crew. Respondent continues that the licensed Mate Strickland was 

scheduled to relieve him as Master of the vessel at the crew change the next morning on the 

21st of May and that the change was made instead at 1800 on the 201

h when Strickland 

relieved him. Since such relief is a relatively informal matter and usually accomplished 

orally, Captain Collier maintains that nothing further was required. He testified too that the 

vessel was at the dock and that Strickland's relief (Rowell) was on the way to the vessel. 

12 
Finally, he urged that the vessel's Certificate of Inspection allows one licensed Master 

instead of two when the vessel is engaged in 12 hour service. Since no trips were scheduled 

on the night of the 20th, the requirements of the Certificate of Inspection were met and the 

vessel was manned to sail. 

I rejected this argument at the hearing and affirm that ruling now. (TR 345-346). The 

evidence is very clear in this case that the PETER CALLAIS was manned for 24 hour service 

and the company employed two licensed personnel to be on board at all times. As the 

company's representative testified, the vessel had to be ready to respond to their customer's 

requests for service and it could not be known what trips would be involved. (TR 213-214). 

The company considered the PETER CALLAIS to be unseaworthy and unable to sail if two 

licensed personnel were not aboard. (TR 77). After Captain Collier left the PETER 

CALLAIS at 1930 on May 20, 2003 the vessel was short one of those required licensed 

officers. 

Secondly, Mate Strickland relieved Captain Collier ofthe watch at 1800 on May 20, 

2003 but not the position as the vessel's Master. That particular relief was to occur the next 

morning at the crew change. Indeed, the Captain told the mate he would return for the crew 

change. Moreover, Captain Collier did not notify Abdon Callais Offshore that he was off 

duty almost 12 hours before the scheduled crew change. When he did contact the company 

Personnel Coordinator he was told to return to the vessel to take the drug test. The company 

understood he was the Master of the vessel at that time. (TR 108-1 09). 

In sum, Captain Collier was the vessel's Master at the time the drug and alcohol tests 

were administered. He was required to be on board until the crew change the following 

13 
morning. He was obligated to take the company ordered drug test and he refused to do so. 

The Coast Guard's allegations in the Complaint are PROVED. 

5. The remaining issue to be considered is the nature of the order to be issued against Captain 

Collier's license. There is no question that Abdon Callais Offshore had a drug and alcohol 

policy in effect when the Respondent was hired and on May 20, 2003 when he refused to 

return to the PETER CALLAIS to take the chemical drug and alcohol test here. When he 

was hired on December 11, 2000 he agreed to abide by the rules set out in those company 

manuals. (Exhibit I0-4, p. 6). Also, he agreed to submit to a drug urinalysis at that time and 

was notified that "Drug and alcohol testing will be done at unscheduled intervals, including 

random, post accident, probable cause, and etc." (Exhibit I0-4, p. 10). 

The Investigating Officer seeks revocation of the Respondent's Coast Guard credentials 

on the grounds that a refusal to test is an attack upon the effectiveness of the drug testing 

program itself. In Appeal Decision 2578 CALLAHAN (1996), p. 8, the Commandant stated 

that " ... if mariners could refuse to submit to chemical testing, it is difficult to imagine why 

anyone that may have used drugs would ever consent to be tested." See also Appeal 

Decision 2624 (DOWNS) (2001), pp. 18-19); Appeal Decision 2641 (JONES) (2002). The 

Commandant held in CALLAHAN supra that the refusal to submit to a post accident 

chemical test raises serious doubt about a mariner's ability to perform safely and competently 

in the future (CALLAHAN at p. 8). In DOWNS supra at p. 18-19, the Commandant held 

that doubt about the ability of a mariner to perform may even be a stronger consideration 

where the mariner's conduct, behavior and appearance are the basis for a probable cause test. 

In this case, the Investigating Officer asserts that there should not be a sanction less 

than revocation where a random test is refused since it is a test designed to prevent the type 

14 
of conduct which the mariners in CALLAHAN (marine casualty) and DOWNS (driving 

while intoxicated) exhibited. The Coast Guard contends that there should be no difference in 

the sanction for refusal to take a drug test regardless of the circumstances. Moreover, the 

Investigating Officer asserts that a random test like the one involved here is a preventative 

test designed to remove mariners from duty before they are involved in a casualty or become 

intoxicated and are unable to perform safely. 

After considering this argument, I am persuaded the Investigating Officer is correct. A 

mariner's refusal to take a chemical test for drugs and alcohol when ordered to do so by his 

marine employer, as part of the required Coast Guard drug testing program (as here), 

regardless of the type of test is involved (post accident, pre-employment, random, probable 

cause, or periodic), must result in the revocation of that individual's Coast Guard-issued 

license and document. There can be no distinction between the type of DOT drug test 

involved and the sanction issued. Each type oftest is an integral part of the congressional 

and Coast Guard's effort to root out substance abuse in the merchant marine. All refusals 

raise the specter of the mariner's use of illicit drugs and place in doubt the ability of a 

mariner to safely carry out their duties and responsibilities on the vessel. These 

considerations are particularly applicable in this case when the Master of the vessel refused 

to take the drug/alcohol test. Clearly, he must be held accountable for such action. 

15 
VI. 

ORDER 

For all of the foregoing reasons Respondent's Coast Guard-issued license number 930641 

and his Merchant Mariner's Document are HEREBY REVOKED. 

Done and Dated on February~~, 2004 at 

Norfolk, Virginia 

~FI~PAT Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard 

16