UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STA TES COAST GUARD 

UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA 

UNITED STA TES COAST GUARD 

vs. 

MERCHANT MARINER DOCUMENT 

Issued to: MAUREEN ANN MIKAN 

DECISION OF THE 

VICE COMMANDANT 

ON APPEAL 

NO. 2 6 7 3 

This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 USC§ 7701 et seq., 46 CFR Part 5, 

and the procedures in 33 CFR Part 20. 

By a Decision and Order (hereinafter "D&O") dated July 13, 2006, Judge 

Anthony B. Canorro, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter "ALJ") of the United 

States Coast Guard at Seattle, Washington, dismissed, without prejudice, the Coast 

Guard's Complaint against Ms. Maureen Ann Mikan (hereinafter "Respondent") upon 

determining that Respondent had voluntarily surrendered her merchant mariner document 

on June 14, 2006. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On May 1, 2006, the Coast Guard issued a Complaint against, and sought 

revocation of, Respondent's merchant mariner document alleging use of or addiction to 

the use of dangerous drugs. [Complaint at 2, D&O at l] After an approved extension of 

time in which to file her Answer, Respondent filed an Answer to the Complaint on June 

19, 2006, wherein she admitted all jurisdictional allegations and agreed to the Coast 

Guard's proposed order ofrevocation. (Answer at 1; D&O at 1] Thereafter, on June 14, 
MIKAN NO, 2 6 7 9 

2006, Respondent entered into a Voluntary Surrender Agreement and surrendered her 

merchant mariner document to the Coast Guard in Honolulu, Hawaii. [Voluntary 

Surrender Agreement; D&O at I] 

The ALJ issued a D&O on July 13, 2006. The D&O dismissed, without 

prejudice, the Coast Guard's Complaint against Respondent due to the fact that 

Respondent had entered into a Voluntary Surrender Agreement with the Coast Guard. 

Respondent filed a letter, addressing the allegations contained within the Coast Guard's 

(then dismissed) Complaint on August I 0, 2006. Although the applicable procedural 

regulations, at 33 C.F.R. Part 20, require the filing of both a Notice of Appeal and 

Appellate Brief to perfect an appeal in Coast Guard suspension and revocation cases, in 

the interest of fairness, I will recognize Respondent's letter as meeting the procedural 

requirements. Therefore, this appeal is properly before me. 

APPEARANCES: Respondent appeared prose. The Coast Guard was 

represented by LT Bryan D. Johnson of U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu, Hawaii. 

FACTS 

At all times relevant herein, Respondent was the holder of the Coast Guard issued 

merchant mariner document at issue in these proceedings. 

Due to the fact that Respondent entered a Voluntary Surrender Agreement with 

the Coast Guard to, among other things, avoid bringing the case to a hearing before a 

Coast Guard AU, the factual allegations that support the Complaint, other than merely 

being set out in the Complaint, have not been vetted through an administrative 

proceeding. However, the facts relevant to this proceeding do not involve the facts that 

support the Coast Guard's initial drug use Complaint; instead, the facts relevant here 

2 
MIKAN NO. 2.6 7 

center on Respondent's signing of a Voluntary Surrender Agreement with the Coast 

Guard. To that end, the record shows that on June 14, 2006, Respondent signed and 

dated a Voluntary Surrender Agreement, deposited her merchant mariner document with 

the Coast Guard, and waived her right to a hearing in the matter. [Voluntary Surrender 

Agreement; D&O at 1] 

BASIS OF APPEAL 

Respondent asserts on appeal, among other things, that she made a mistake and 

incorrectly filled out her Answer to the Complaint and wants her merchant mariner 

document returned to her. [Appeal Brief] In so stating, Respondent makes no mention of 

the Voluntary Surrender Agreement. Given the existence of that Agreement, however, 

the only argument that Respondent can now make is that the Voluntary Surrender 

Agreement, or Respondent's entering into it was, in some manner, flawed or inconsistent 

with the applicable law and regulations. As such, this decision will focus on the seminal 

issue: whether the ALJ erred in dismissing the case upon accepting the Voluntary 

Surrender Agreement signed by the parties. 

OPINION 

In Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedings, the purpose of a 

Voluntary Surrender Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is to provide a mariner the 

option to avoid appearing at a hearing where the underlying factual allegations in the 

Complaint are litigated. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.203. In order for an Agreement to be valid, it 

must meet certain substantive and procedural requirements. See 46 C.F.R. § 5.203. 

Indeed, the applicable regulations make clear that the Agreement must contain the 

following stipulations: 

3 
MIKAN N0.2 67 3 

(1) The surrender is made voluntarily in preference to appearing at a 

hearing; 

(2) All rights to the license, certificate or document surrendered are 

permanently relinquished; and, 

(3) Any rights with respect to a hearing are waived. 

46 C.F.R. § 5.203(b)(l)-(3). In addition, the agreement may not be "accepted by an 

investigating officer unless the investigating officer is convinced that the holder fully 

realizes the effect of such surrender." 46 C.F.R. § 5.203(c). 

The record shows that the Agreement into which Respondent entered states, in 

relevant part, as follows: 

I, Maureen Ann Mikan, being advised that I am currently under 

investigation by the Coast Guard for use and possession of dangerous 

drugs, do hereby voluntarily surrender to the U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Honolulu, Hawaii, my U.S. Coast Guard issued Merchant Mariner 

Document. .. and any other Coast Guard issued credentials, in preference to 

a hearing before a U.S. Administrative Law Judge. I understand that I 

relinquish all rights to said credentials. 

I understand that in order to have my License or Document returned to me 

or to re-apply for a new Coast Guard issued License and/or Document, I 

will have to apply for Administrative Clemency in accordance with 46 

C.F.R. subpart L including proof of cure as defined by the Coast Guard. 

I have read the above agreement and fully understand its meaning. 

[Voluntary Surrender Agreement] The agreement is subsequently signed by both 

Respondent and the Investigating Officer responsible for handling the case on behalf of 

the Coast Guard. [Id.] 

It is apparent from the text of the Agreement that the three stipulations required by 

46 C.F.R. § 5.203 were addressed. [Id.] First, the Agreement states that the surrender is 

made voluntarily and in preference to an administrative hearing. [Id.] Second, the 

4 
MIKAN NO. 26 73 

Agreement recites that all rights to the subject credential are relinquished. [Id.] Finally, 

the first and second paragraphs of the Agreement, when read in conjunction, clearly 

indicate that all rights to have an administrative hearing to litigate the matter have been 

waived. [Id.] 

The only remaining requirement is that before accepting the Agreement, the 

Investigating Officer must be convinced "that the holder fully realizes the effect of such 

surrender." 46 C.F.R. § 5.203(c). To this end, the At:irreement states that Respondent has 

"read the above agreement and fully understand[s] its meaning." There is no requirement 

that the Investigating Officer reduce to writing on the Agreement that she or he believes 

the holder fully realizes the effect of the Agreement and document surrender. [Id.] 

The record shows that Respondent has not at any time during the course of these 

proceedings, alleged that she was pressured or coerced in any manner to sign the 

Agreement and, moreover, that she does not now, nor has she ever, indicated that she did 

not understand the nature of the Agreement and the implications of signing it. [Appeal 

Brief] As shown in the analysis above, the Agreement that Respondent entered into is 

valid and complies with all of the mandates of 46 C.F.R. § 5.203. Respondent has 

already surrendered her merchant mariner document to the Coast Guard. As such, if 

Respondent wishes to secure the return of her credential, she must petition the Coast 

Guard for Administrative Clemency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 46 

C.F.R. Part 5, Subpart L. 

CONCLUSION 

The findings of the ALJ had a legally sufficient basis. The ALJ's decision was 

not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous. Competent, substantial, reliable, and 

5 
MJKAN NO. 2673 

probative evidence existed to support the findings of the ALJ. Therefore, I find that 

Respondent's basis of appeal is without merit. 

ORDER 

The Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge, dated at Seattle, 

Washington on July 13, 2006, is AFFIRMED. 

/1 V.S.CREA 

L J .( /\-- Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard 

--v--- Vice Commandant 

Signed at Washington, D.C. thisd-r of ~...r(j( , 2008. 

6