UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

FRANK JAMES BOSLET, JR.

Respondent

_________________________________

Docket Number 2012-0207

Enforcement Activity No. 4284716

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: October 23, 2012

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Walter J. Brudzinski

Appearances:

For Complainant

LT Jonathan D. Shumate

LT Colleen Smith

Coast Guard Sector New York

212 Coast Guard Drive

Staten Island, NY 10305

For Respondent

Ryan A Dornish, Esq.

Law Office of Ryan A. Dornish

16 Haze Way 

Lopatcong, New Jersey 08865
2

SUMMARY

Coast Guard credential holder Frank James Boslet, Jr. was convicted of Driving Under 

the Influence of Alcohol (DUI), second offense. The Coast Guard initiated this administrative 

action against Mr. Boslet’s credentials alleging this conviction violates 46 U.S.C. § 7703(3) and 

the circumstances warrant revocation.1 The undersigned found the violation of 46 U.S.C. § 

7703(3) proved through summary decision and now finds the facts and circumstances of this case 

warrant REVOCATION. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In its Complaint, the Coast Guard alleged as follows: 

1. On or about May 25, 2011, Respondent was a holder of Merchant Mariner License # 1515577 

and Merchant Mariner Document # 200470.

2. On May 25, 2011, Respondent was convicted in the State of Pennsylvania of Driving Under 

the Influence of alcohol, a violation of Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, Section 

3802(b)(second offense), by the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County.

3. A state conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is an 

offense described in the National Driver Register Act, 49 U.S.C. 30304(a)(3)(A), and constitutes 

a wrongful violation of 46 U.S.C. § 7703(3).

4. As evidence in aggravation under 33 C.F.R. § 20.1315(a)(4), on January 9, 2006, Respondent 

was convicted in the State of New Jersey of Driving While Intoxicated in violation of New 

Jersey Statute 39:4-50(a), by the Greenwich Township Municipal Court.2

In his timely Answer, Respondent denied the jurisdictional allegations as well as factual 

allegations 2 and 4 on the grounds that his two convictions were under appeal. Respondent 

indicated he lacked sufficient knowledge to admit or deny factual allegation number 3 and 

requested a hearing which the undersigned scheduled for June 26, 2012 in New York, New York. 

 1 Respondent holds a Coast Guard issued license, an endorsement, and a document which are all now referred to as 

Merchant Mariner’s Credential(s) (MMC) and will be referenced in this decision and order as credential(s) or MMC. 

See 46 C.F.R. § 10.107(b).

2 The New Jersey statute refers to the offense as Driving While Intoxicated. See CG Ex. 06. The applicable 

Pennsylvania statute refers to the offense as Driving Under the Influence. See CG. Ex.04. For the purpose of this 

decision and order, the terms Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) are 

synonyms.
3

Respondent did not dispute the fact that he was convicted as alleged so the Coast Guard 

moved for Summary Decision. During a pre-hearing teleconference, the undersigned granted 

Summary Decision in part and denied it in part finding both convictions proved under 46 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(3) but leaving the matter of sanction to be determined after the parties present evidence at 

the hearing. The undersigned also denied Mr. Boslet’s request to stay the proceedings until all 

appeals were exhausted. Exhaustion of all appeals in National Driver Register Act convictions is 

not a genuine issue of material fact under 46 U.S.C. § 7703(3) requiring resolution prior to 

initiating these administrative proceedings which are for the purpose of promoting safety at sea. 

See 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a). The hearing remained scheduled for June 26, 2012. 

The undersigned granted the Coast Guard’s motion to supplement its witness and exhibit 

list and granted Respondent’s motion to start the proceeding at 10:00 a.m. instead of 9:30 a.m. 

The undersigned also notified Respondent that he “shall bring to the hearing all licenses, 

certificates, or documents subject to this proceeding pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 5.521.” 

Memorandum and Order of Pre-Hearing Teleconference at 2; see also Scheduling Order-Notice 

of Hearing at 2. 

The hearing took place as scheduled in New York, New York and conducted in 

accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 46 C.F.R. Part 

5, and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. Respondent was unable to produce his credentials at the opening of the 

hearing in accordance with 46 C.F.R. § 5.521; therefore, he completed a Lost Credential 

Affidavit as required by section 5.521 which the undersigned marked as ALJ Ex. 01. At the 

hearing, the Coast Guard submitted one additional exhibit and offered the testimony of one 

witness, Mr. Richard Hendrick, a Commissioner with the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of 

the State of New York (New York State Pilots Commission).3

 Respondent testified on his own 

 3 Coast Guard Exhibits 01 through 08 were previously admitted for the purpose of ruling on the Motion for 

Summary Decision. 
4

behalf and offered the testimony of two witnesses, Mr. Andrew McGovern, President of the New 

Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association, and Mr. George Canvin, Jr., Captain and Full Branch 

New York Sandy Hook pilot. Respondent did not submit any exhibits. 

Following the in-person hearing the parties submitted post hearing briefs in accordance 

with 33 C.F.R. § 20.710. Respondent did not propose findings of fact or conclusions of law. 

The Coast Guard’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are transcribed and ruled 

upon in Attachment B. This matter is now ripe for decision. 

BURDEN OF PROOF

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, applies to Coast Guard 

Suspension and Revocation trial-type hearings before United States Administrative Law Judges 

(ALJs). See 46 U.S.C. § 7702(a). The APA authorizes sanctions if, upon consideration of the 

entire record as a whole, the charges are supported by reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 556(d). Under Coast Guard procedural rules and regulations, the 

burden of proof is on the Coast Guard to prove that the charges are supported by a 

preponderance of the evidence. See 33 C.F.R. §§ 20.701, 20.702(a). “The term substantial 

evidence is synonymous with preponderance of the evidence as defined by the U.S. Supreme 

Court.” Appeal Decision 2477 (TOMBARI) (1988); see also, Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 

107 (1981). The burden of proving a fact by a preponderance of the evidence “simply requires 

the trier of fact ‘to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence 

before [he] may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade [the judge] of the 

fact’s existence.’” Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers 

Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (citing, In re Winship, 397 U.S. 

358, 371-2 (1970) (Harlan J., concurring) (brackets in original)). Therefore, the Coast Guard 

must prove by reliable, probative, and credible evidence that Respondent more likely than not 

committed the violation charged. 
5

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on a thorough and careful analysis of 

documentary evidence, testimony of witnesses, and the entire administrative record. 

1. At all relevant times, Respondent, Frank James Boslet, Jr. was a holder of Merchant Mariner 

 License #1515577, Merchant Mariner Document # 200470, and a radar observer 

 endorsement. See CG Ex. 01; Tr. at 156.

2. Respondent was also a holder of New York (NY) and New Jersey (NJ) state pilot’s licenses. 

 See CG Ex. 08 and 09. 

3. U.S. Coast Guard licensed mariners, including state pilots, are in safety sensitive positions 

aboard vessels and any impairment due to alcohol is a serious risk to the safety of life or 

property at sea. See CG Exs. 08 and 09; Tr. at 29-30, 45, 74, 84-6. 

4. A NY or NJ state pilot working in New York and New Jersey harbor may be in command of 

large vessels 300-800 feet in length, carrying millions of gallons of hazardous cargoes such 

as petroleum and dangerous chemical products, which can cause significant structural, 

environmental, and economic damage if a collision or spill occurs. See Tr. at 31-2, 74, 86-8. 

5. On May 25, 2011, Respondent was convicted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of 

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, high rate (BAC 0.10 - 0.16), second offense, in 

violation of Title 75 Pa. Consolidated Statutes, section 2802. See CG Exs. 02 and 04.

6. The Pennsylvania Court sentenced Respondent to serve not less than thirty (30) days nor 

more than six months in the Monroe County Correctional Facility; to pay a fine in the 

amount of $750.00, plus costs; to attend and successfully complete the DUI Multiple 

Offender Program’s drug and alcohol treatment requirements; and, it suspended his license 

for a period of twelve (12) months. See CG Ex. 03.

7. The Pennsylvania Court deferred Respondent’s sentence pending the outcome of his appeal 

and set bail in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). See CG Ex. 03. 
6

Matters in Aggravation 

2006 DUI Conviction:

8. On January 9, 2006, Respondent was convicted in Municipal Court, Greenwich Township, 

New Jersey of Driving While Intoxicated, in violation of Title 39 New Jersey Statutes, 

Section 4-50(a). See CG Ex. 05 and 06. 

9. On May 11, 2007, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the 

conviction which was originally adjudicated in Municipal Court on January 9, 2006. See CG 

Ex. 07. 

10. Respondent registered a 0.12 in two separate breathalyzer tests administered in connection 

with his 2006 conviction. See CG Ex. 07. 

11. In 2006 Respondent sped his vehicle 62 miles per hour in a 50 miles per hour zone while 

intoxicated. See CG-07; Tr. at 78, 110.

12. After his 2006 DUI conviction, Respondent testified he completed a substance abuse 

program that included a “victim’s panel” regarding driving under the influence, yet in 2011 

Respondent was again convicted of DUI. See Tr. at 121, 134-5.

13. In 2006, the New York State Pilots Commission suspended Respondent’s NY State pilot’s 

license for 6 months followed by 1 year probation. See CG Ex. 08; Tr. at 27, 235-7. 

14. The New Jersey Maritime Pilot and Docking Pilot Commission (NJ State Pilots Commission) 

suspended Respondent’s NJ State pilot’s license for 1 year because of his 2006 DUI 

Conviction. See CG Ex. 08; Tr. at 27, 126, 134-5.

2011 DUI Conviction:

15. Respondent’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) on his 2011 DUI conviction was 0.10 which is 

classified as a “high rate of alcohol.” See CG Exs. 02, and 04. 

16. The NJ State Pilots Commission suspended Respondent’s NJ State pilot’s license indefinitely 

pending the outcome of his 2011 DUI conviction appeal. See CG Ex. 09. 
7

17. The NJ State Pilots Commission has a presumptive penalty of revocation upon a second DUI 

conviction. See Id.

18. The NY State Pilots Commission revoked Respondent’s NY State pilot’s license on July 5, 

2011 because of the second DUI conviction and several “misrepresentations about not 

holding multiple driver licenses.” See CG Ex. 08. 

Facts Pertaining to Credibility Determinations

19. In 2006, the NY State Pilots Commission unanimously held that Respondent filed two false 

“Motor Vehicle Certification and Authorization Statements” with the Board for his 2005 and 

2006 state maritime pilot’s license renewals. See Tr. at 27, 38-9, 47, 78-9, 110; CG Ex. 08. 

20. After Respondent’s NY State pilot’s license suspension in 2006, the NY State Pilots 

Commission found that he continued to sign and file false and misleading “Motor Vehicle 

Certification and Authorization Statements” with the NY State Pilots Commission for his 

license renewals through 2009. See Tr. at 27, 38-9; CG Ex. 08.

21. The NY State Pilots Commission found that Respondent lied while testifying under oath 

during his January 2011 hearing when he claimed he did not renew his NY driver’s license. 

Id.

22. The NY State Pilots Commission found Respondent misused the New York addresses of the 

Hudson River Pilots Association apartment, the Yonkers pilot station, and pilot launch 

operator to falsely claim NY residence and improperly obtain his NY State driver’s license, 

as well as his NY Lifetime Sportsman License, when in fact his actual residence was in New 

Jersey. See Tr. at 27, 38-9, 47, 80, 112; CG Ex. 08.

23. The NY State Pilots Commission found Respondent submitted false and misleading 

information on his 2009 New Jersey driver’s license renewal application to the NJ State 

Department of Motor Vehicles claiming he did not have a valid license in another state when 

in fact he had a valid NY driver’s license at the time. See Tr. at 27; CG Ex. 08.
8

24. The NY State Pilots Commission found Respondent submitted false and misleading 

information on his April 2010 NY driver’s license renewal application to the NY State 

Department of Motor Vehicles claiming he did not have a valid license in another state when 

in fact he had a valid NJ driver’s license. See Tr. at 27, 140-3; CG Ex. 08. 

25. In 2011, the NY State Pilots Commission revoked Respondent’s NY State pilot’s license 

because of his deceptions, misleading statements, and two DUI convictions were 

“unbecoming a pilot” and rendered him “undeserving of the trust of the Board and the State 

of New York.” See Tr. at 27-8, 38-9, 44-5; CG Ex. 08. 

PRINCIPLES OF LAW

“The purpose of Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedings is to promote safety 

at sea.” 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a). “The administrative actions against a license, certification or 

document are remedial and not penal in nature. These actions are intended to help maintain 

standards for competence and conduct essential to the promotion of safety at sea.” 46 C.F.R. § 

5.5. Under 46 C.F.R. § 5.19 (b), the Commandant of the Coast Guard “has delegated to ALJs 

the authority to admonish, suspend with or without probation or revoke a license, certificate or 

document issued to a person by the Coast Guard under any navigation or shipping law.”4

Title 46 U.S.C. § 7703(3) states that “[a] license, certificate of registry, or merchant 

mariner’s document issued by the Secretary, may be suspended or revoked if the holder - -

within the 3-year period preceding the initiation of the suspension or revocation proceeding is 

convicted of an offense described in section 30304(a)(3)(A) or (B) of title 49.” Title 49 U.S.C. § 

30304(a)(3)(A) and (B), set forth the following offenses respectively: “operating a motor vehicle 

while under the influence of, or impaired by, alcohol or a controlled substance;” and, “a traffic 

 4 The Coast Guard now refers to licenses, certificates of registry, and documents as credentials. 74 Fed. Reg. 11,216, 

11,196 (March 16, 2009). 
9

violation arising in connection with a fatal traffic accident, reckless driving, or racing on the 

highways.”

ANALYSIS

Mr. Boslet’s 2011 DUI conviction constitutes an offense described in 49 U.S.C. § 

30304(a)(3)(A), the National Driver Registry Act. Accordingly, the undersigned found it 

violated 46 U.S.C. § 7703(3). The only issue remaining is to determine the appropriate sanction. 

Coast Guard regulations and appeal decisions do not provide or suggest to the 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) a specific penalty for 46 U.S.C. § 7703(3) violations based on 

DUIs or multiple DUIs. See Table at 46 C.F.R. § 5.569. Title 46 C.F.R. § 5.569(b), however, 

provides the following factors for the ALJ to consider when selecting the appropriate sanction 

order: the prior record of the respondent, considering the period of time between prior acts and 

the act or offense for which presently charged is relevant; remedial actions which have been 

undertaken independently by the respondent; and, evidence of mitigation or aggravation. The 

regulations also provide guidance to investigating officers that they may seek revocation “when 

the circumstances of an act or offense found proved or consideration of the respondent’s prior 

record indicates that permitting such person to serve . . . would be clearly a threat to the safety of 

life or property, or detrimental to good discipline.” 46 C.F.R. § 5.61(b). The guidance provided 

to the investigating officers can be helpful to the ALJ in applying the foregoing factors.

The above 46 C.F.R. § 5.569 factors to consider when selecting the appropriate sanction 

order are very similar to the character issues and violations of law criteria the Coast Guard 

considers when accepting or rejecting an applicant for Merchant Marine Credentials. Those 

criteria are found in the Marine Safety Manual (COMDTINST M16000.8B) Vol. III, Ch. 3, 

sections A, C, D, and F. The Marine Safety Manual is not binding on the ALJ but is helpful 

when seeking further agency interpretation of the 46 C.F.R. § 5.569 factors. This is especially so 

in this case because the Marine Safety Manual speaks directly to DUI convictions. 
10

The criteria for analyzing DUI convictions from the Marine Safety Manual are as 

follows: “number and severity of the convictions, recency of the convictions, and evidence of 

rehabilitation/reform.” See Marine Safety Manual Vol. III, Ch. 3, section (F)(1) on page 3-7. 

These criteria are consistent with the language of 46 C.F.R. § 5.569 and help to provide a 

suitable analysis framework to determine an appropriate sanction. The undersigned, therefore, 

uses the language in the Marine Safety Manual as additional guidance when analyzing the 

following 46 C.F.R. § 5.569 factors: the prior record of the respondent; remedial actions 

independently undertaken by Respondent; and other aggravating or mitigating factors: which 

have been undertaken independently by the respondent; and, evidence of mitigation or 

aggravation. 

Prior Record of Respondent

“Convictions for driving while intoxicated/driving under the influence are considered to 

be more than minor traffic violations and reflect unfavorably on the applicant’s suitability to be 

entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of the license.” Marine Safety Manual Vol. III, Ch. 

3, section F on page 3-7. Respondent has been twice convicted of DUI offenses. His first 

conviction occurred in New Jersey in 2006. The evidence shows that the arresting officer pulled 

Respondent over for driving 62 miles per hour (mph) in a 50 mph zone. See CG Ex. 07. After 

failing three field sobriety tests, Respondent informed the officer that he had been drinking beer 

and registered a 0.12 on two separate breathalyzer tests. Id. The breathalyzer results subjected 

Respondent to a more severe penalty even though it was his first offense. See CG Ex. 06. The 

Court sentenced Respondent to pay fines and costs and suspended his driver’s license for seven

(7) months. In separate administrative actions, Respondent’s New York and New Jersey State 

pilot’s licenses were suspended. See CG Exs. 08 and 09. The New York State Pilots 

Commission also ordered Respondent to attend an approved substance abuse program. See Tr. at 

121, 134-5; CG Ex. 08 at 10. 
11

Respondent’s second conviction occurred in Pennsylvania in 2011. He was convicted of 

DUI second offense, “high rate of alcohol.” See CG Exs. 02, 03, and 04. A blood test revealed a 

Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.10. See CG Ex. 08 at 2. As a result of his second 

conviction, the Court sentenced Respondent to serve not less than thirty (30) days nor more than 

six (6) months in jail and pay a fine of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) plus costs. See CG 

Ex. 02 at 13-14; CG Ex. 03. The Court also suspended Respondent’s driver’s license for twelve 

(12) months and ordered him to attend and successfully complete the DUI Multiple Offender 

Program’s drug and alcohol treatment requirements. See CG Ex. 02 at 9; CG Ex. 3. The Court 

stayed that sentence pending exhaustion of appeals. See CG Ex. 03.

Respondent’s second DUI conviction also resulted in revocation of his New York State 

pilot’s license and an indefinite suspension of his New Jersey State pilot’s license. See CG Exs. 

08 and 09. If his 2011 conviction is upheld on appeal then the presumptive penalty for his New 

Jersey State pilot’s license is revocation. See CG Ex. 09. 

Respondent’s convictions occurred approximately five (5) years apart. The record shows 

five years between convictions was significant enough for Respondent to receive serious fines, 

incarceration, and professional sanctions. Five years is also sufficient to show more of a 

behavioral pattern that poses a threat to safety at sea rather than isolated incidents of bad 

judgment. 

Remedial Actions Independently Undertaken by Respondent

Respondent produced no evidence demonstrating rehabilitation and reform and no 

evidence demonstrating he is taking responsibility for his actions; therefore, there is no evidence 

of independent remedial action. Mr. Boslet has not yet fulfilled the drug and alcohol treatment 

requirements as the result of his 2011 DUI conviction because the Court stayed his sentence 

pending exhaustion of appeals. 
12

Mr. Boslet describes the circumstances surrounding his 2006 arrest and conviction as 

follows:

I was driving a red car at the time, which is the same as another car that had 

outrun this Greenwich Police Department. And so immediately the officer turned 

around, as soon as he saw my car. And I pulled over, because I thought he was 

after somebody else, and he pulled in behind me and then stated that I was 

speeding, when I wasn’t.

So, consequently, it was push to shove, and I went to court with him; he lied 

under oath; and he worked for the police department for less than three years and 

then was fired. And I now have it under post-conviction relief, to try to get it 

reversed.

Tr. at 120.

Mr. Boslet describes the 2011 DUI arrest and conviction as follows:

I went out to dinner, one time in a month, and upon leaving there . . . I finished 

dinner at about 10:00. I didn’t have anything else to drink all night. I waited 

around until 3:00 in the morning. I was pulled over because I was the only car on 

the road, and the officer at the time tried to accuse me of all kinds of things, 

which I was acquitted of, except for the blood alcohol, which wasn’t . . . wasn’t 

addressed properly. But it’s now under appeal. 

Tr. at 122.

Later in his testimony, Mr. Boslet states “[w]ell, the first officer was a rookie officer and 

didn’t last three years on the force. And the second one is only . . . under two years on the force 

at the time. But I think both of them had a problem talking to somebody that’s older than them, 

and that might be what the extent of it is.” Tr. at 145. According to Mr. Boslet, he has just 

happened to be pulled over twice, in two different states, by two different police officers who 

both had the same problem with him. Moreover, he has encountered two different situations in 

which the persons conducting breathalyzer and blood alcohol tests did not do things properly. 

See Tr. at 122; CG Ex. 07 at 3. 

Mr. Boslet could not testify consistently regarding his current alcohol consumption. 

First, he testified “I seldom drink. About every, maybe, couple weeks, but that’s about it.” Tr. at 

126. And, he has “[a] couple drinks, and that’s it, with dinner.” Tr. at 127. Yet when he was 
13

explaining to the undersigned how he has taken responsibility for his actions he testified that 

“I’m not drinking at all, so I have taken some responsibility in trying to make sure this never 

happens again.” Tr. at 152. Moreover, Respondent testified he does not have a problem with 

alcohol. Tr. at 127, 162. Respondent’s inconsistent and self serving statements are unconvincing 

in the face of two DUI convictions.

Respondent further testified that after his 2006 conviction, he completed a substance 

abuse program. See Tr. at 121. He stated the program included classes, experts, group therapy, 

and a victim’s panel. See Tr. at 134-5. There is no evidence the substance abuse program 

helped Respondent because he was again convicted of DUI in 2011. In 2006, his driver’s license 

and his state pilot’s licenses were suspended, yet those suspensions did not deter him from again 

exhibiting the same lack of judgment. 

The Coast Guard argues revocation is the most appropriate sanction because Respondent 

will be required to demonstrate to the clemency board he has rehabilitated himself, changed his 

behavior, and is once again a person to be entrusted with credentials. If the sanction were 

suspension, he would not be required to go through such a process. See Tr. at 170-2; see also

Complainant’s Post-Hearing Brief at 7. The undersigned finds this argument persuasive and 

consistent with the purpose of suspension and revocation proceedings - promoting safety at sea. 

See 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a). This finding is further supported by Respondent’s lack of contrition at 

hearing and his own statements that he does not believe he has a problem with alcohol, even after 

being convicted of two DUIs. Moreover, the New York and New Jersey State Pilots 

Commissions have determined that Respondent is not to be entrusted with State pilot’s licenses 

because of his DUIs and his less than forthcoming behavior. The undersigned is therefore 

convinced Respondent must demonstrate rehabilitation and disassociation from alcohol to the 

Coast Guard’s satisfaction before he can be entrusted with credentials. 
14

Evidence of Aggravation or Mitigation 

Respondent’s counsel argues “Mr. Boslet’s two arrests had nothing to do with his job. 

They were when he was away from work. When he’s on the job . . . he has an exemplary safety 

record. He is one of the best pilots that there is . . . .” Tr. at 173. Respondent similarly argues 

he is a good pilot with a clean employment record and he never uses alcohol when he is working. 

See Tr. at 119-120, 127, 133, 152, 155, 161-2, and 174. Witnesses also testified Mr. Boslet is a 

skilled and experienced pilot. See Tr. at 59, 102-3. That Respondent’s arrests occurred “when 

he was away from work” is accorded less weight because a proved allegation under 46 U.S.C. § 

7703(3) does not require a violation to occur while a mariner is “acting under the authority of his 

license” or otherwise “at work.” It requires only that a respondent be a holder and that the 

violation under 49 U.S.C. § 30304(a)(3)(A) or (B) occur within the last 3 years. 

Counsel for Respondent also claims “Mr. Boslet’s two arrests had nothing to do with his 

job.” Tr. at 173. That claim is misplaced. The New York State Pilots Commission believed his 

2006 DUI conviction sufficiently related to his job that it ordered Respondent to attend an 

approved substance abuse program. Further, 46 U.S.C. § 7703(3) identifies convictions of the 

following offenses under 49 U.S.C. § 30304(a)(3)(A) and (B) that will subject a holder to 

suspension or revocation of his or her Coast Guard issued credentials: “operating a motor vehicle 

while under the influence or impaired by, alcohol or a controlled substance” or “a traffic 

violation arising in connection with a fatal traffic accident, reckless driving, or racing on the 

highways.” By enacting 46 U.S.C. § 7703(3), Congress determined these behaviors warrant 

suspension or revocation because they relate to a person’s suitability or fitness to hold Coast 

Guard issued credentials, even though the behaviors occur behind the wheel of a car and not 

while operating a vessel.

The Coast Guard also interprets 49 U.S.C. § 30304(a)(3)(A) and (B) in its Marine Safety 

Manual wherein it states “[a]lthough an individual's motor vehicle record may not be directly 
15

related to his or her maritime career, a record of alcohol or drug related, or other motor vehicle 

offense(s) indicates that the individual may have a disregard for his or her own safety or the 

safety of others and therefore may not be suitable for maritime employment.” Marine Safety 

Manual Vol. III, Ch. 3, section 3-A-3 on page 3-2. “Convictions for driving while 

intoxicated/driving under the influence are considered to be more than minor traffic violations 

and reflect unfavorably on the applicant’s suitability to be entrusted with the duties and 

responsibilities of the license.” Id. at 3-F on page 3-7. (Emphasis added). Respondent’s 

behavior resulting in two DUI convictions therefore reflects unfavorably on his suitability to be 

entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a licensed credential holder. 

Claims that Respondent has an exemplary safety record; is one of the best pilots; has a 

clean employment record; and never uses alcohol when he is working are accorded less weight 

because the two DUI convictions are more probative on his suitability to be entrusted with the 

duties and responsibilities of his credentials going forward. Further, those claims do not mitigate 

the concerns for safety at sea. DUI convictions indicate he may have a disregard for his own 

safety or the safety of others. It is important to recognize that the concept of sanction in 

suspension and revocation proceedings is not intended to be penal in nature. It is intended to be 

remedial and “to help maintain standards for competence and conduct essential to the promotion 

of safety at sea.” 46 C.F.R. § 5.5. 

Respondent’s Coast Guard issued credentials allow him to do many things, including the 

safety sensitive function of piloting a large vessel. The safety concerns regarding a person with 

an alcohol problem piloting vessels include reaction time and having the vessel under control. 

See Tr. at 29-31. The vessels Respondent pilots can be as long as 800 feet and may contain 

hazardous cargo such as oil and liquefied gases. See Tr. at 31-2; 86-8. The need to have trusted 

pilots is made clear in the following testimony of Andrew Walter McGovern, President of the 

New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association: 
16

[W]hen you are piloting a ship, it’s not like driving a car, where you’re thinking 

maybe ten seconds ahead. You’re thinking 15 minutes ahead of what’s gonna - -

because it takes that long for a ship to react. So, you know...obviously we don’t 

want anyone that’s either under the influence of either drugs or alcohol piloting a 

ship . . . [t]hat would definitely be, you know, a great danger.

Tr. at 85-6.

In view of the foregoing, Mr. Boslet’s DUI convictions breach the trust placed in him that 

he will exercise sound judgment when acting under the authority of his credentials. This breach 

of trust creates an unacceptable risk to the safety of life and property at sea. 

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS

At the hearing there was a great deal of testimony concerning Respondent’s truthfulness 

and trustworthiness exhibited during the New York State Pilots Commission proceedings. The 

Commission found that Respondent filed two false Motor Vehicle Certification and 

Authorization Statements for his 2005 and 2006 pilot’s license renewals; the Commission also 

found that Respondent continued to file false and misleading Certification and Authorization 

Statements through 2009. See Tr. at 38-9, 135-7; CG Ex. 08 at 4-5, 10-14. The Commission’s 

records show that Respondent represented he had only a valid New Jersey driver’s license when 

in fact he also had a valid New York driver’s license. See CG Ex. 08 at 4 and 14; Tr. at 38-9. 

The Commission also found that Respondent represented to the New Jersey State Pilots 

Commission on his NJ State pilot’s license renewal documents from April 2005 through March 

2009 that he had only a New Jersey driver’s license when in fact he also had a valid New York 

driver’s license during that same time period. See CG Ex. 08 at 13; Tr. at 38-9. 

The Commission further found that when Respondent renewed his NY driver’s license on 

April 7, 2010, he informed the NY Department of Motor Vehicles he did not have a valid 

driver’s license in another state when in fact he had a valid NJ driver’s license. See CG Ex. 08 at 

11, 13 and 14. When Respondent was arrested for DUI in Pennsylvania on October 31, 2010, he 

presented a valid New Jersey driver’s license. See CG Ex. 08 at 11. 
17

The NY State Pilots Commission found that Respondent used the Hudson River Pilots 

Association apartment in Rensselaer, NY in 2007 as his residence when he purchased his NY 

resident lifetime sportsman hunting and fishing license as well as when he renewed his NY 

driver’s license in 2010. See CG Ex. 08 at 11. The Commission further found that during this 

time period, Respondent maintained his residence in NJ. See CG 08 at 5. 

During the 2011 New York State Pilots Commission hearing, Respondent stated he did 

not renew his New York driver’s license, rather, he received a new one in the mail. See Tr. at 

39; CG Ex. 08 at 3. The Commission determined this statement to be false because it found that 

Respondent applied for his NY driver’s license renewal in person. See Tr. at 39; CG Ex. 08 at 

14. When questioned during the instant hearing, Respondent testified he “misspoke” at the NY 

Pilots Commission hearing when he said New York automatically sent him a license when in 

fact New Jersey automatically sent him a license. See Tr. at 128. On cross-examination he 

could not to explain when he applied for these various licenses or when he was living in New 

York or New Jersey; nor could he provide any details or specifics to show that the findings of the 

Commission were unfounded or inaccurate. See Tr. at 147. 

During the instant hearing Respondent had further instances where he “misspoke.” See

Tr. at 137. For example, when his attorney asked him if both New York and New Jersey pilot’s 

licenses “were suspended or just one” as a result of his 2006 DUI conviction, Respondent stated 

“[j]ust New Jersey.” See Tr. at 121. This statement was not true because his New York State 

pilot’s license had been suspended for six (6) months plus probation for one (1) year. See Tr. at 

135-7; CG Ex. 08. When his attorney asked him whether the Pennsylvania judge revoked his 

driving privileges or fined him as a result of his 2011 conviction, Respondent stated “[n]o.” Tr. 

at 123. His attorney’s next question was “[s]o you still haven’t dealt with any sentencing, as far 

as that’s concerned?” Respondent again testified “[n]o.” Id. These statements are not true. As 

a result of his 2011 conviction the Pennsylvania judge sentenced Respondent to at least 30 days 
18

and no more than 6 months incarceration, suspended his driver’s license for one year, and 

assessed a fine of $750 plus costs. See CG Exs. 02 at 9, and 03. 

Respondent’s Merchant Mariner Credentials consist of a license, a document, and an 

endorsement. When the undersigned asked him to produce his credentials at the beginning of the 

hearing as required by 46 C.F.R. § 5.521, Respondent produced an expired Merchant Mariner’s 

License. Not until the undersigned specifically questioned him about the need for his current 

license did Respondent divulge he could not locate it. Standing alone, this may not seem like a 

deceitful act, but when viewed with other evidence, it tends to support a finding that Respondent 

is not credible. For example, Respondent did not timely report his DUI arrests (Tr. at 47-8, 121, 

128-9); he misrepresented what state he held a valid driver’s license in and where he was a 

resident (Tr. at 38-9, 44-7; CG Ex. 08); and, he was not forthcoming that both his pilot’s licenses 

were suspended in 2006 and that he had in fact been sentenced for his 2011 conviction (Tr. at 

121, 123, 135-9). When combined with the foregoing acts, submitting expired credentials shows 

Respondent to be untrustworthy and therefore not credible. 

I find therefore, that the testimony of Coast Guard witness, Mr. Richard J. Hendrick is 

credible. Further, I find the testimony of Respondent’s witnesses, Mr. Andrew W. McGovern 

and Mr. George A. Canvin, Jr., is credible. Finally, I find the testimony of Respondent, Mr. 

Frank J. Boslet, Jr., is not credible and therefore accord his testimony less weight. 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent Frank J. Boslet, Jr. and the subject matter of this hearing are properly 

within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Administrative Law Judge in 

accordance with 46 U.S.C. § 7703; 46 C.F.R. Part 5; and 33 C.F.R. Part 20.

2. Respondent’s May 25, 2011 conviction of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol is 

an offense described in the National Driver Register Act, 49 U.S.C. § 30303(a)(3)(A).

3. Respondent’s Pennsylvania conviction of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol was 

within 3 years preceding this suspension and revocation proceeding.
19

4. A conviction under the National Driver Register Act within the 3 year period 

preceding the initiation of this suspension and revocation proceeding constitutes a 

violation of 46 U.S.C. § 7703(3).

5. Respondent’s Merchant Mariner Credentials are subject to suspension and revocation.

6. Respondent’s Pennsylvania conviction is his second conviction for Driving Under the 

Influence of Alcohol since 2006. 

7. Respondent’s behavior resulting in two DUI convictions reflects unfavorably on his 

suitability to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a licensed credential 

holder.

8. Mr. Boslet’s convictions breach the trust placed in him that he will exercise sound 

judgment when acting under the authority of his credentials. 

9. This breach of trust creates an unacceptable threat to the safety of life or property at 

sea and is detrimental to good discipline in the merchant marine. 

DECISION

After careful review of the entire record taken as a whole, including witness testimony, 

applicable statutes, regulations, and case law, I find the Coast Guard PROVED by a 

preponderance of reliable, probative, and credible evidence that the appropriate sanction for 

Respondent, Frank James Boslet, Jr.’s violation of 46 U.S.C. §7703(3) is REVOCATION. 

WHEREFORE, 
20

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all of Respondent Frank James Boslet, Jr.’s Coast 

Guard issued credentials are REVOKED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondent finds his lost credentials, he is to 

return same to the Investigating Officer immediately in accordance with the Lost Credential 

Affidavit he executed on June 26, 2012. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that service of this Decision and Order on the parties and/or 

parties’ representative(s) serves as notice of appeal rights set forth in 33 C.F.R. §§ 20.1001 –

20.1004, attached hereto as Attachment C. 

__________________________________________________

Walter J. Brudzinski

Administrative Law Judge

United States Coast Guard 

Date: October 23, 2012
21

ATTACHMENT A

WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS:

Witnesses:

For the Coast Guard:

1. Mr. Richard Joseph Hendrick, Commissioner, New York State Pilots Commission. 

For Respondent:

1. Mr. Andrew Walter McGovern, President, New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association

2. Mr. George A. Canvin, Jr., Captain, Full Branch New York Sandy Hook Pilot 

3. Respondent, Frank James Boslet, Jr., testified on his own behalf

ALJ Exhibit:

ALJ-01: U.S. Coast Guard “Lost Credential Affidavit” for Coast Guard Enforcement Activity 

Number 4284716.

Coast Guard Exhibits:

CG-01: U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation System (MMLD) 

document listing Respondent’s Merchant Marine License number and Merchant Mariner 

Document number (1 page).

CG-02: Certified Disposition of Respondent’s 2011 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) 

Conviction from the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, PA (14 pages).

CG-03: Certified Sentence Order for Respondent’s 2011 DUI Conviction from the Court of 

Common Pleas of Monroe County, PA (4 pages).

CG-04: Copy of Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Annotated: 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann § 3802 

(Driving Under Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance) (4 pages).

CG-05: Certified Disposition of Respondent’s 2006 Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) 

Conviction from Greenwich Township Municipal Court, NJ (3 pages).

CG-06: Copy of New Jersey Statutes, Annotated: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:4-50 (Driving While 

Intoxicated) (7 pages). 

CG-07: New Jersey v. Boslet, 2007 WL 1373820 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. May 11, 2007) 

(affirming Respondent’s January 9, 2006 DWI conviction) (4 pages).
22

CG-08: Sanction, Opinion, & Order by the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of 

New York revoking Respondent’s New York State Hudson River Pilot License, 5 July 2011 (16 

pages).

CG-09: “Resolution and Order” from The New Jersey Maritime Pilot & Docking Pilot 

Commission suspending Respondent’s New Jersey Maritime Pilot license until a final decision 

with regard to his appeal of the May 25, 2011 DUI conviction (3 pages).

Respondent Exhibits:

Respondent did not offer any exhibits into evidence.
23

ATTACHMENT B

Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent provided further 

argument in his post-hearing brief. 

COAST GUARD’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent’s 2006 Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) conviction was not merely for 

operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Rather, in addition to drinking alcohol and 

operating a motor vehicle, he sped the vehicle 62 miles per hour (MPH) in a 50 MPH 

zone while intoxicated, further increasing the danger to himself and others. (Ex. CG-07; 

Tr. 78, 110).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.

2. In 2006, the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of New York (NY) 

unanimously held that Respondent filed two false Motor Vehicle Certification and 

Authorization Statements with the Board for his 2005 and 2006 state maritime pilot 

license renewals. (Ex. CG-08; Tr. 27, 38-39, 47, 78-79, 110). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED to the extent that this was the testimony of 

Commissioner Hendrick and the finding of the NY State Pilots Commission in 2006. 

3. In 2006, Respondent’s NY maritime state pilot’s license was suspended for 6 months 

followed by 1 year probation for his 2006 DUI conviction and false filings with the 

Commission. (Ex. CG-08; Tr. 27, 135-137).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.

4. Respondent was required by the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of New 

York to attend a substance abuse program for his 2006 DUI conviction, yet he proceeded 

to commit a second crime of DUI in 2010, leading to his 2011 DUI conviction. (Ex. CG08; Tr. 27, 126, 134-135). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.

5. Even after Respondent’s NY state maritime pilot’s license suspension in 2006, he 

continued to sign and file false and misleading “Motor Vehicle Certification and 

Authorization Statements” with the NY Pilot Commission for his license renewals 

through 2009. (Ex. CG-08; Tr. 27, 38-39). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. This was the testimony of Commissioner 

Hendrick and the finding of the NY State Pilots Commission during Respondent’s 2011 

hearing.
24

6. In 2006, the New Jersey (NJ) Maritime Pilot and Docking Pilot Commission 

suspended Respondent’s NJ Maritime Pilot License for 1 year for his 2006 DUI 

Conviction. (Ex. CG-08, CG-09; Tr. 27, 121).

 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED

7. Respondent lied while testifying under oath to the Board of Commissioners of Pilots 

of NY during his January 2011 board hearing, when he claimed he did not renew his NY 

driver’s license. (Ex. CG-08; Tr. 27, 38-39).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. This was the testimony of Commissioner 

Hendrick and the findings of the NY State Pilots Commission during Respondent’s 2011 

hearing.

8. Respondent misused the New York addresses of the Hudson River Pilots Association 

apartment, Yonkers pilot station, and pilot station launch operator, in order to falsely 

claim NY residence and improperly obtain his NY State Driver’s license, and his NY 

Lifetime Sportsman license, even though his actual residence the entire time was in New 

Jersey. (Ex. CG-08; Tr. 27, 38-39, 47, 80, 112). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. This was the testimony of Commissioner 

Hendrick and the findings of the NY State Pilots Commission during Respondent’s 2011 

hearing. 

9. Respondent submitted false and misleading information on his 2009 New Jersey 

driver’s license renewal application to the New Jersey (NJ) State Department of Motor 

Vehicles claiming he did not have a valid license in another state, even though he did 

have a valid NY driver’s license at the time. (Ex. CG-08; Tr. 27).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. This was the testimony of Commissioner 

Hendrick and the findings of the NY State Pilots Commission during Respondent’s 2011 

hearing. 

10. Respondent submitted false and misleading information on his April 2010 NY 

driver’s license renewal application to the NY State Dept of Motor Vehicles claiming he 

did not have a valid license in another state, even though he did have a valid NJ driver’s 

license. (Ex. CG-08; Tr. 27, 140-143).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. This was the testimony of Commissioner 

Hendrick and the findings of the NY State Pilots Commission during Respondent’s 2011 

hearing. 

11. In 2011, the Board of Commissioners of Pilots of the State of New York revoked 

Respondent’s NY State Pilot’s License because Respondent’s deceptions and misleading 

statements and his two convictions for DUI were “unbecoming a pilot” and rendered him 

“undeserving of the trust of the Board and the State of New York.” (Ex. CG-08; Tr. 27-

28, 38-39, 44-45).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.
25

12. Respondent was made aware by the NJ Maritime Pilot and Docking Pilot 

Commission that NJ law specifically provides for a presumptive penalty of revocation of 

a state pilot license if a New Jersey Maritime Pilot receives a second DUI conviction. 

(Ex. CG-09; Tr. 65-66, 113, 134).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.

13. Due to Respondent’s two DUI convictions, the NJ Maritime Pilot and Docking Pilot 

Commission suspended Respondent’s NJ maritime state pilot’s license indefinitely until 

his second DUI conviction has been fully appealed. (Ex. CG-08, CG-09; Tr. 27, 133).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.

14. If Respondent’s second DUI conviction is upheld by the Pennsylvania courts, then 

his New Jersey State pilot license will almost certainly be revoked. (See Ex. CG-09; Tr. 

66-67, 113, 133-134; 154).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.

15. U.S. Coast Guard licensed mariners, including state pilots, are in a safety sensitive 

position aboard vessels. Any mariner in command of a vessel that might be impaired due 

to alcohol consumption is a serious risk to the safety of life or property. (See Ex. CG-08, 

CG-09; Tr. 29-30, 45, 74, 84-85, 86).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.

16. A NY or NJ state pilot working in New York and New Jersey harbor may be in 

command of large vessels 300-800 feet in length, carrying millions of gallons of 

hazardous cargoes such as petroleum and dangerous chemical products, which can cause 

significant structural, environmental, and economic damage if a collision or spill occurs. 

(Tr. 31-32, 74, 86-88).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.

17. Respondent has not attempted to seek rehabilitation or remediate the behaviors that 

led to his two DUI/DWI convictions. (Ex. CG-08; Tr. 33, 150-151, 162-163). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.

COAST GUARD’S PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Table 5.569, the Suggested Range of an Appropriate Order, found in 46 CFR § 5.569 

does not provide specific guidance as to the appropriate order in a DUI conviction case, 

let alone a multiple DUI/DWI conviction case. 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED.
26

2. Multiple DUIs, and especially multiple DUIs in combination with other aggravating 

factors, are grounds for revocation. (See Decision and Order (TEMPLET) (February 3, 

2000, docket 00-0035, ALJ McElligott presiding) (revoking mariner’s credential who had 

received three DUI convictions and who had submitted fraudulent information on his 

application to renew his license); Decision and Order (BOTTONE) (September 22, 2009, 

docket 2009-0329, ALJ Brudzinski presiding) (finding “the circumstances surrounding 

Respondent’s apprehension and arrest for drunk driving on count two and the fact that 

Respondent fraudulently submitted his CG-791B reapplication in count three would 

justify Revocation on each count independently,” and indicating a single DUI conviction 

by itself is sufficient cause for a sanction of revocation); see also 46 CFR § 5.61(b); 46 

USC 7703(3)). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED to the extent that the facts of this case, including 

Mr. Boslet’s two DUI convictions, warrant a sanction of revocation.

3. Multiple aggravating factors exist in this case, which warrant revocation of 

Respondent’s merchant mariner credentials.

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED
27

ATTACHMENT C

TITLE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS 

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 

PART 20 RULES OF PRACTICE, PROCEDURE, AND EVIDENCE FOR FORMAL 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COAST GUARD

SUBPART J – APPEALS

33 CFR 20.1001 General.

(a) Any party may appeal the ALJ's decision by filing a notice of appeal. The party 

shall file the notice with the U. S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing 

Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore, 

MD 21201-4022. The party shall file the notice 30 days or less after issuance of the 

decision, and shall serve a copy of it on the other party and each interested person.

(b) No party may appeal except on the following issues:

(1) Whether each finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence.

(2) Whether each conclusion of law accords with applicable law, precedent, and 

public policy.

(3) Whether the ALJ abused his or her discretion.

(4) The ALJ's denial of a motion for disqualification.

(c) No interested person may appeal a summary decision except on the issue that no 

hearing was held or that in the issuance of the decision the ALJ did not consider 

evidence that that person would have presented.

(d) The appeal must follow the procedural requirements of this subpart.

33 CFR 20.1002 Records on appeal.

(a) The record of the proceeding constitutes the record for decision on appeal.

(b) If the respondent requests a copy of the transcript of the hearing as part of the record 

of proceeding, then, --

(1) If the hearing was recorded at Federal expense, the Coast Guard will provide 

the transcript on payment of the fees prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45; but,

(2) If the hearing was recorded by a Federal contractor, the contractor will 

provide the transcript on the terms prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45.
28

33 CFR 20.1003 Procedures for appeal.

(a) Each party appealing the ALJ's decision or ruling shall file an appellate brief with the 

Commandant at the following address: U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge 

Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; 

Baltimore, MD 21201-4022, and shall serve a copy of the brief on every other party.

(1) The appellate brief must set forth the appellant's specific objections to the 

decision or ruling. The brief must set forth, in detail, the --

(i) Basis for the appeal;

(ii) Reasons supporting the appeal; and

(iii) Relief requested in the appeal.

(2) When the appellant relies on material contained in the record, the appellate 

brief must specifically refer to the pertinent parts of the record.

(3) The appellate brief must reach the Docketing Center 60 days or less after 

service of the ALJ's decision. Unless filed within this time, or within another 

time period authorized in writing by the Docketing Center, the brief will be 

untimely.

(b) Any party may file a reply brief with the Docketing Center 35 days or less after 

service of the appellate brief. Each such party shall serve a copy on every other party. 

If the party filing the reply brief relies on evidence contained in the record for the 

appeal, that brief must specifically refer to the pertinent parts of the record.

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

(1) The party has petitioned the Commandant in writing; and

(2) The Commandant has granted leave to file an added brief, in which event the 

Commandant will allow a reasonable time for the party to file that brief.

(d) The Commandant may accept an amicus curiae brief from any person in an appeal of 

an ALJ's decision.

33 CFR 20.1004 Decisions on appeal.

(a) The Commandant shall review the record on appeal to determine whether the ALJ 

committed error in the proceedings, and whether the Commandant should affirm, 

modify, or reverse the ALJ's decision or should remand the case for further 

proceedings.

(b) The Commandant shall issue a decision on every appeal in writing and shall 

serve a copy of the decision on each party and interested person.