INSIGHTS

Walter J. Brudzinski is the Chief Administrative Law Judge for U.S. Coast Guard. He has been a Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge 

since 2003 and was appointed Chief Judge in 2013. He 

is a graduate of the University of Maryland and George 

Mason University School of Law and additionally holds a 

Master’s and Ph.D. in Judicial Studies from the University 

of Nevada as well as Certifi cates in Judicial Development 

from the National Judicial College. Chief Judge Brudzinski has lectured extensively on Administrative Adjudication, including presentations before the ABA’s Section on 

Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, the Federal 

Bar Association, the Admiralty and Maritime Claims and 

Litigation Forum, and the University of Toulon, France.

He has also authored countless articles on suspension 

and revocation proceedings and other relevant topics in 

trade journals and other venues. Initially appointed Administrative Law Judge by the Social Security Administration 

in 1996, he was previously an Assistant and later a Deputy 

Commonwealth’s Attorney in Virginia Beach. He served 

in the Coast Guard as a commissioned offi cer afl oat and 

ashore and was a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern 

District of Virginia. He was admitted to practice in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania; the U.S. District Court for 

the Eastern District of Virginia; the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Fourth Circuit; the Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces; and, the Supreme Court of United States.

Coast Guard Administrative Law Judges hear and decide 

Merchant Mariner Credential suspension and revocation 

cases as well as cases initiated by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies the Coast Guard supports. 

Without a doubt, the nation’s 210,000+ credentialed mariners want to know that when their credentials come into 

question from the regulatory branch that these matters will 

be handled fairly. To that end, the U.S. Coast Guard recently implemented Policies and Procedures to, among other 

things, improve communications during the suspension and 

revocation process. These include recently issued Commandant Instructions (5830.3) which implements policies and 

procedures concerning permissible and prohibited communications for personnel involved in investigating, prosecuting, adjudicating, and appealing suspension and revocation 

cases. We caught up with Judge Brudzinski in May, and he 

provided a primer on the sometimes misunderstood, but 

he says, fair and transparent methods with which the Coast 

Guard goes about this critically important function. 

Tell us about the ‘S&R’ Process in plain language.

The suspension and revocation (S&R) process requires 

investigating, advocating, decision-making, adjudicating, 

and appealing. Initially, the Offi ce of Investigations and 

Analysis oversees the investigation of marine casualties or 

matters pertaining to the conduct of persons applying for 

or holding a merchant mariner’s credential. With the assistance of its S&R National Center of Expertise, it initiates 

S&R proceedings. The Offi ce of the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge then conducts hearings and decides questions of 

fact or law while the Offi ce of the Judge Advocate General 

provides legal advice to Coast Guard representatives. Finally, an independent entity within the Offi ce of the Judge 

Advocate General reviews and prepares appeal decisions for 

the Commandant or Vice-Commandant’s consideration. 

Communication, apparently, is an important part of 

these proceedings. Why?

The S&R process relies upon careful coordination of activities among those personnel responsible for adjudication 

to ensure it is carried out expeditiously. It is therefore necessary that those personnel communicate regularly to disChief Administrative Law Judge,

United States Coast Guard 

Walter J. 

Brudzinski

12 MN June 2017
INSIGHTS

cuss matters critical to the management of the Coast Guard 

S&R process. Those communications must also protect the 

due process rights of respondents from infl uences that are 

not part of the record or “ex parte” communications. 

Tell us more about these ‘Ex Parte Communications.’

The law prohibits ex parte communications. The Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. § 551(14) defi nes “ex 

parte communication” as “an oral or written communication 

not on the public record with respect to which reasonable 

prior notice to all parties is not given, but it shall not include 

requests for status reports on any matter or proceeding covered by this subchapter.” The Coast Guard’s S&R procedural 

regulations at 33 C.F.R. § 20.205 provide ex parte communications are governed by 5 U.S.C. § 557(d). That U.S. Code 

section prohibits interested persons outside the agency from 

making an ex parte communication to the Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ) relative to the merits of the proceeding or 

to persons in the agency responsible for the decision making 

process except as authorized by law. It also prohibits ALJs or 

other agency employees responsible for the decision making 

process from making ex parte communications relative to the 

merits of the proceeding to any interested person outside the 

agency. Title 5 U.S.C. § 554(d) (1) provides the presiding 

ALJ shall not “consult a person or party on a fact in issue unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.” 

The prohibition of consultation found in section 554(d) (1) 

applies to persons inside or outside the agency concerning 

facts in issue. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 514 (1978).

Okay – Give us some general guidelines as to how 

personnel should conduct themselves.

To preserve the integrity and decisional independence of 

the S&R process, the directive’s general guidelines prescribe 

that personnel conducting S&R matters are not to discuss 

the merits of any pending S&R case between or among 

themselves or with persons outside the Coast Guard until 

after fi nal disposition. Final disposition occurs when all appeals have been exhausted or the time for appeal has expired. 

The merits of a pending matter are any substantive considerations, such as a fact in issue, taken into account in deciding 

a case. Procedural inquiries, status reports, settlement discussions, or other communications that are administrative in nature are not discussions on the merits and are not prohibited. 

What is the Coast Guard doing about training in this 

important mission?

The ALJ Program does not provide training to Coast 

Guard units. However, it does participate in meetings to 

discuss legal updates affecting S&R proceedings. Representatives from other CG units may also attend. Any presentations or briefi ngs, if in written or transmittable form, will be 

placed on the internet for public view at http://www.uscg.

mil/alj/general_info.asp. The Office of Investigations and 

Analysis develops policies and procedures for training Investigating Offi cers in the fi eld. Training Center Yorktown 

uses this information to develop the curriculum for the 

S&R and Investigating Offi cer training course. Personnel 

from components within the Offi ce of the Judge Advocate 

General, the ALJ Docketing Center which is a detached 

unit of the Offi ce of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

and the Headquarters Offi ce of the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge may participate in the training courses in the 

capacity of providing an overview of their roles and missions. All Coast Guard personnel attending as instructors, 

lecturers, or students from all Coast Guard entities are not 

to discuss the merits of any pending S&R case. 

Are there specifi c guidelines for any pending cases?

Coast Guard personnel participating in a pending S&R 

case or who have developed or are developing a position 

in a pending case are not to communicate on the merits 

of that case with any ALJ or ALJ employee who advises an 

ALJ in that case or any factually related case except on the 

record. Any senior member in the chain of command of a 

Coast Guard member or employee participating in an S&R 

hearing is to avoid communicating with any ALJ or ALJ 

employee regarding the merits of a pending case or any factually related case. A Coast Guard ALJ’s Paralegal Specialist 

is the appropriate point of contact for questions concerning 

a case’s status, pre-hearing conferences, procedural issues, or 

other questions unrelated to the merits of a pending case. All 

persons may contact the ALJ Docketing Center to inquire 

on a case’s status, procedural issues, technical questions, 

website assistance, as well as other questions unrelated to 

the merits of a pending case. The ALJ Docketing Center is 

staffed by two attorneys, the hearing docket clerk, two court 

reporter/legal assistants, and two administrative assistants. 

ALJ Docketing Center personnel are not prosecutors or investigators but they do provide support to the ALJs and interested parties. The Offi ce of Investigations and Analysis exercises program oversight for investigation and prosecution 

of S&R cases with assistance from the U.S. Coast Guard’s 

S&R National Center of Expertise and the Investigations 

National Center of Expertise. As such, there are no prohibitions on communications within and between these entities, 

and with Investigating Offi cers. The Offi ce of Maritime and 

International Law, within the Offi ce of the Judge Advocate 

14 MN June 2017
General, provides counsel to the Offi ce of Investigations 

and Analysis in all legal matters including S&R proceedings. As such, there are no prohibitions on communications 

between these entities. However, there must be no discussion on the merits of pending S&R cases by these entities 

with other personnel in the Offi ce of the Judge Advocate 

General assigned to prepare proposed decisions on appeal or 

review. Those preparing proposed decisions may, however, 

seek general assistance or guidance from the Offi ce of Maritime and International Law, the Offi ce of Investigations and 

Analysis, or other CG entities regarding current laws, recent 

decisions, Coast Guard policies, or marine safety practices to 

aid them in preparing appeal decisions as long as the merits 

of any pending S&R case are not discussed. 

Communication guidelines for individuals reporting or 

investigating an incident of alleged ALJ misconduct must 

follow procedures established at: 

www.uscg.mil/alj/docs/ALJIPP_5830.1_ALJ_Program_

Investigations_and_Complaints_Against_ALJs.pdf.

The directive does not prohibit communications among 

the above referenced entities concerning data bases or relevant systems and procedures necessary for the effi cient 

administration of the S&R program such as the Marine 

Information System for Law Enforcement (MISLE).

Are there guidelines prepared to guide Administrative Law Judges in how they conduct themselves and 

handle individual cases?

Coast Guard ALJs are permitted to consult with ALJ 

Program attorneys on all matters including the merits of 

pending cases. ALJ Program attorneys are responsible for 

advising and assisting Coast Guard ALJs in carrying out 

their responsibilities. ALJ Program attorneys are also permitted to consult with other ALJ Program attorneys but are 

expected to avoid ex parte discussions with an ALJ Program 

attorney that previously assisted an ALJ disqualifi ed from 

hearing that case and with decision makers responsible for 

preparing proposed decisions on appeal. Coast Guard ALJs 

are also permitted to consult with one another on pending 

matters but are expected to avoid ex parte discussions with 

an ALJ previously disqualifi ed from hearing that case and 

with decision makers responsible for preparing proposed 

decisions on appeal or review. Taking action to address 

known misconduct is the ALJ’s obligation under the Model 

Code of Judicial Conduct. To avoid communications with 

investigators, prosecutors, or appellate review personnel, 

ALJs shall report incidents of misconduct by a Coast Guard 

Representative to the Director of Judicial Administration 

who will report the incident to the appropriate authority 

within the Offi ce of Investigations and Analysis or the Offi ce of the Judge Advocate General for further inquiry. In 

the event an ex parte communication involving the merits 

of a pending case occurs, the presiding ALJ will place it in 

the record in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 557(d)(1)(C).

What about Guidelines for the Offi ce of the Chief Administrative Law Judge?

As the advisor and special assistant to the Commandant 

on S&R matters and as adviser to the Judge Advocate General in the preparation of the fi nal action of S&R proceedings, 

advisory communications are permitted under 46 C.F.R. § 

1.01-20(c) and may include discussions of the law or case 

administration but not facts relevant to the merits of a pending case. In handling inquiries and requests to examine and 

copy records, ALJ Docketing Center personnel are guided 

by procedures in 33 C.F.R. § 20.903 and 46 C.F.R. Part 5 

and are not to discuss the merits of any pending case or reveal 

pre-decisional information. When coordinating responses to 

Freedom of Information Act requests with CG-094, personnel in the Offi ce of the Chief Administrative Law Judge are 

not to discuss the merits of pending S&R cases or reveal predecisional information. Personnel in the Offi ce of the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge are not to discuss the merits of 

pending S&R cases with other members of the Coast Guard 

during congressional inquiries and regulatory meetings.

What is the S&R Proceedings Working Group and 

what do they do?

To ensure the integrity and effi cient administration of 

the S&R process, the Vice Commandant established an 

S&R Working Group consisting of personnel from the Offi ce of Investigations and Analysis, to include the S&R National Center of Expertise, the Offi ce of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, and the Offi ce of the Judge Advocate 

General. It will meet semi-annually to discuss regulatory 

issues or concerns, congressional inquiries, MISLE issues 

or concerns, procedural issues or concerns, training, action 

items, and new business. S&R Working Group meetings 

are not to discuss the merits of any pending S&R case.

Sum up for us the core values of your group of Coast 

Guard professionals.

Coast Guard ALJ’s carry out duties in an environment 

that refl ects the Coast Guard’s core values of honor, respect, and devotion to duty. ALJ’s are dedicated to performing their duties fairly, impartially, and in a manner 

that secures the trust and confi dence of the regulated community, the Coast Guard, and the general public. 

INSIGHTS

16 MN June 2017