UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

JOSHUA JAMES SHELDRICK 

Respondent. 

Docket Number: CG S&R 04-0572 

CG Case No. 2227646 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

DISPOSITION AND ORDERING USCG TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED 

Issued: November 30,2004 

Issued by: Jeffie J. Massey, Administrative Law Judge 

BACKGROUND 

On November 10, 2004, the United States Coast Guard ("USCG" herein) filed a Motion 

for Summary Disposition ("Motion" herein), pursuant to the provisions of33 CFR §20.901. In 

the Motion, the USCG requests that the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issue a Summary 

Disposition Decision and Order against the Respondent Joshua James Sheldrick ("Respondent" 

herein), revoking all Coast Guard issued documents held by the Respondent. 

On November 30, 2004, Respondent filed his "Motion to Countermove Against 

Apposing [sic] Affidavit" ("Response" herein), generally arguing against the relief requested by 
2 

the USCG. Respondent makes numerous references to the documents attached to the USCG 

Motion; however, it is not necessary for purposes of this Order to discuss in detail the 

claims/ arguments advanced by the Respondent in his Response. 

DISCUSSION 

In its Motion, the USCG alleges that there are no genuine issues of material fact in this 

proceeding. The USCG alleges that the Respondent failed to disclose all of his prior convictions 

on his application for a Merchant Mariner's Document and application for a raise in grade. The 

USCG attaches two applications-the first an application for first issue (Exhibit 1 to the Motion) 

dated August 22, 2000; and the second an application for a raise in grade (Exhibit 2 to the 

Motion) dated December 18, 2001. The Motion specifically alleges that the Respondent failed to 

disclose a July 1999 conviction for driving without proof of insurance (in Florida), and a July 

2000 conviction for driving without a valid drivers license (also in Florida) on his August 2000 

application. 

The Motion further alleges that the Respondent failed to disclose a conviction for breach 

of peace or disorderly conduct in September 2001 (again in Florida), and a conviction for fail to 

yield blue lights and driving while under the influence (DUI) in October 2001 (in Mississippi). 

Attached to the Motion are various records which the USCG alleges support its request for 

summary disposition. A quick summary of those documents is as follows: 

(1) Abstract of Court Record (Mississippi) 

Charge: fail to yield blue lights 

Date of violation: 10/30/01 

Judgment of Court: Guilty 

Court date: 00//0 

Fine paid: $100 (plus assessment) 
3 

' 

(2) Abstract of Court Record (Mississippi) 

Charge: DUI- FIRST OFFENSE 

Date ofviolation: 10/30/01 

Judgment of Court: Guilty 

Court date: 00//0 

Fine paid: $250 (plus assessment) (to attend alchol [sic]accessment [sic] 

program in Florida) 

(3) Courtviewer Records Search (Escambia County Florida Clerk ofthe Cir. Court) 

Offense: Proof oflnsurance Required 

Offense Date: 7/14/1999 

Disposition Date: July 21, 2000 

Disposition Code: Disposed Other than Hearing (Infraction) 

. Fine paid: $48 (plus clearance fee) 

(4) Courtviewer Records Search (Escambia County Florida Clerk of the Cir. Court) 

Offense: Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct 

Offense Date: 5/09/2001 

Disposition Date: 5/30/2001 

Disposition Code: Disposed By Plea (Guilty/Nolo) Criminal 

Punishment: Adjudication Withheld; Probation 6 months (Probation Terminated 

on 12/7/2001) 

(5) Courtviewer Records Search (Escambia County Florida Clerk of the Cir. Court) 

Offense: No Valid Drivers License 

Offense Date: 8/14/1999 

Adjudication: Guilty 

Disposition Code: Disposed By Plea (Guilty/Nolo) Criminal 

Disposition Date: 2/4/2000 

----------P+"uni-8-hment: 30 days connnitment to Gounty--;Jail;--btrt 10 days---suspe-nrud'l-fe~df.'-; -------

Fined $2001 

Per the provisions of §20.901(b), a summary disposition is appropriate only when there 

are no material issues of fact present in the proceeding. In its Motion, the USCG alleges that 

the attachments to its Motion provide all the proof necessary for the undersigned to determine 

that there are no material issues of fact in this proceeding. Turning to the Complaint, I note that 

the USCG joins two separate factual allegations in one paragraph charging Misconduct. 

Specifically, they allege Respondent committed Misconduct by failing to disclose "prior 

1 With respect to this incident, the Respondent apparently missed his first court date, was arrested on a 

capias warrant, found in contempt of court (probably from the missed court date), was given credit for 10 
4 

convictions" which resulted in "fraudulent statements" on "two separate occasions." The first 

occasion would have been his August 22, 2000 application. The second occasion would have 

been his December 18, 2001 application. 

The August 22, 2000 Application 

In response to the question about his history of convictions for offenses other than minor 

traffic violations, the Respondent indicated "no." In response to the question about his history 

of convictions for traffic violations arising out of a fatal traffic accident, reckless driving, racing 

on the highway, or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of or impaired by 

alcohol or a controlled substance, the Respondent indicated "no." 

Turning to the court records and abstracts attached to the USCG's Motion, 

documentation for two convictions prior to August 22, 2000 are noted: first, the February 4, 

2000 conviction for ''no valid drivers license"; and, second, the July 21, 2000 conviction for 

"Proof oflnsurance Required."2 Clearly, the Respondent's August 22, 2000 application does 

not give the USCG notice ofthese convictions. The question at issue, however, is whether or 

not he was required to give notice of these two convictions on his application. A plain reading 

of the questions to which the Respondent answered "no" does not indicate that he would have 

been required to advise the USCG of these two convictions-both are traffic offenses. The 

records do not indicate that there was a fatality, reckless driving, racing on the highway, or 

driving under the influence involved with either incident. (Even where the records indicate there 

was a car wreck, this is not the legal equivalent of a conviction for ''reckless driving", as 

contemplated in the question on the application.) Accordingly, the undersigned cannot agree 

days time served, ordered to pay restitution (there was a car wreck involved with this incident), failed to 

pay restitution in a timely manner, then ultimately paid all monies due. 
5 

with the USCG that a summary disposition is appropriate with respect to a charge of 

Misconduct based on fraudulent statements on the August 22, 2000 application. 

The December 18, 2001 Application 

In response to the question about his history of convictions for offenses other than minor 

traffic violations, the Respondent indicated "yes." In response to the question about his history 

of convictions for traffic violations arising out of a fatal traffic accident, reckless driving, racing 

on the highway, or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of or impaired by 

alcohol or a controlled substance, the Respondent indicated "yes." The explanatory statement 

attached to this application contained a statement to the effect that the Respondent had been 

convicted in December of 1997 of reckless driving. He further claimed that ''this" was "on 

record" at the Regional Exam Center in New Orleans. 

Turning to the court records and abstracts attached to the USCG's Motion, 

documentation for one conviction between the August 22, 2000 application and the December 

18, 2001 application is noted: the May 30, 2001 conviction for Breach ofPeace or Disorderly 

Conduct, for which the Respondent received a probated sentence. The record also indicates 

charges of"fail to yield blue lights" and "DUI", both offenses occurring on October 30. 2001. 

However, contrary to the USCG assertions, the records obtained by the USCG and attached to 

its Motion do not indicate a date of conviction for these two offenses. I cannot find that the 

Respondent made a fraudulent statement on his December 18, 2001 application with respect to 

these two charges based on the record before me. Accordingly, a Motion for Summary 

Disposition is not appropriate with respect to an allegation of Misconduct based on the omission 

of these two incidents from the Respondent's disclosure. 

2 It appears that the USCG misquoted the actual conviction dates for these offenses in its Motion. 
6 

As for the May 30, 2001, conviction for Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct, I do not 

have sufficient information in front of me to determine whether or not this conviction 

constitutes a conviction for an offense "other than a minor traffic violation." To determine this 

with certainty, I would need to know the specifics of how the breach of peace or disorderly 

conduct was committed, a:s some state statutes provide a variety of ways that these offenses can 

be committed, including with a motor vehicle. In so far as the failure to disclose this offense is 

concerned, I therefore cannot find it appropriate to grant the USCG Motion in so far as it is 

based on a charge of Misconduct based on the Respondent's failure to disclose the existence of 

this conviction. 

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Per the provisions of 46 CPR §5.55, the USCG is limited in its ability to bring allegations 

of Misconduct against Mariners such as Respondent. Within §5.55, specific time limitations are 

established for the service of Complaints on Respondents based on various offenses. With 

respect to Complaints charging Misconduct, unless the underlying incident is among those 

specifically listed in §5.59(a) or §5.61(a), the general three year limitation established in 

§5.55(a)(3) applies. In this proceeding, that means that the allegation of Misconduct with respect 

to disclosures not made in connection with the Respondent's August 2000 application are barred 

as a matter oflaw. 

In this proceeding, for whatever reason, the USCG chose to join what could have been 

·two separate and distinct charges of Misconduct into one charge. The Complaint in this case 

requires the USCG to prove BOTH ofthe factual allegations underlying the one charge of 

Misconduct if it wants to prevail in this proceeding. In other words, the manner in which the 
7 

USCG chose to present its Complaint means that the facts alleged with respect to fraudulent 

statements on the August 2000 AND the December 2001 applications must both be proven in 

order for one finding of Misconduct to be entered in this proceeding. 

Because it appears that an allegation ofMisconduct based on the August 2000 application 

are barred as a matter oflaw by the provisions of §5.55(a)(3), it would be appropriate for the 

undersigned to dismiss the Complaint in this case, because of the way the USCG chose to plead 

its case. 

Before entering an Order of Dismissal of the Complaint in this case, the undersigned is 

Ordering the USCG to Show Cause why the Complaint in this proceeding should not be 

dismissed. Specifically, if the USCG has a reason under the law why the Misconduct 

allegation-so far as it is based on the August 2000 application is not barred as a matter oflaw, 

then the USCG should file a brief containing that reason no later than close ofbusiness· on 

December 10, 2004. 

Should the USCG wish to abandon its allegation of Misconduct, so far as it is based on 

statements made in the August 2000 application, it would be possible for this proceeding to 

survive if a properly worded Amended Complaint was filed. That would depend, of course, on 

whether or not the USCG has, in its possession, (1) proof that the Respondent was actually 

convicted (as opposed to being charged) with the offense ofDUI prior to his December 2001 

application; and (2) proof that the May 2001 conviction for Breach of Peace or Disorderly 

Conduct was something other than a minor traffic violation. If such proof does not exist, the 

undersigned respectfully suggests that the USCG re-evaluate the appropriateness of the 

Complaint against the Respondent. 
8 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the USCG's Motion for Summary Disposition is hereby 

DENIED. Further, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the USCG file, on or before December 10, 

2004, a brief explaining the grounds that exist, if any, upon which the allegations in this case can 

proceed against the Respondent, under a properly plead Complaint. 

Done and dated November 30, 2004. 

New Orleans, Louisiana