UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

HOWARD GLEN ODOM, 

Respondent. 

Docket Number CG S&R 02-0656 

CG Case No. 1695093 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued: April 23, 2003 

Issued by: Thomas E. McElligott, Administrative Law Judge 

Appearances: 

For the U.S. Coast Guard: 

Lieutenant Robert L. Helton, Investigating Officer, Marine Safety Office Corpus 

Christi, Texas, 555 N. Carancahua Street, in the port of Corpus Christi, Texas 

For the Respondent: 

Respondent failed to appear at his hearing, after being given due and adequate 

notice. 
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This adversary hearing was initiated by the U.S. Coast Guard in the 

performance of its missions to protect life and properties at sea, enforce national laws 

and treaties, preserve marine natural resources and/or promote national security 

interests. 

This hearing was brought pursuant to the legal authority contained in 46 U.S. 

Code Chapter 77, including 46 U.S. Code 7701 through 7705; the U.S. 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. Code 551 through 599; 46 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Parts 4, 5 and 16, as amended and 49 CFR Part 40. 

At the signing and service of the official U.S. Coast Guard Complaint1

, the 

U.S. Coast Guard was represented by Investigating Officer Lieutenant Robert L. 

Helton, at the time stationed at the Marine Safety Office, for the port and city of 

Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Respondent Howard Glen Odom failed to appear at the hearing, although he 

had been discussing the hearing date with the Investigating Officer a few days prior to 

the hearing. Respondent was sent a "Scheduling Order- Notice of Hearing" on 

December 3, 2002, to his last known residence address, addressed to him as Howard 

G. Odom. It advised him of the date of the hearing, Wednesday, March 26, 2003; the 

time of the hearing, 9:00a.m.; and the place of the hearing, U.S. Coast Guard Marine 

Safety Office, 555 N. Carancahua, Suite 500, Corpus Christi, Texas 78478. The 

1 During the pendancy of this case, the U.S. Coast Guard transferred from the Department of 

Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. Pursuant to the Savings Provision 

of HR 5005 Section 1512 (PL 107-296), pending proceedings are continued notwithstanding 

the transfer of the agency. 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 2 
"Scheduling Order- Notice of Hearing" was signed by Janice Emig, Legal Assistant, 

and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). 

The hearing proceeded upon the following Complaint, which was served 

personally upon the Respondent. The Complaint was served against the Respondent, 

Mr. Howard Glen Odom, with identifying license number 842339, issued by the U.S. 

Coast Guard. It was served at his last known residence address. Respondent was 

charged under the statutory authority of 46 U.S. Code 7704(c), for Use of or 

Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs, with regulatory authority supported by 46 

Code of Federal Regulations 5.35. The Complaint was signed by Lieutenant Robert 

L. Helton, on October 28, 2002. The Complaint alleged the following factual 

allegations: "Use of or Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs." The Coast Guard 

alleged further that: 

1. On September 26, 2002, the Respondent [Howard Glen Odom] 

submitted to a drug screen (urinalysis). 

2. A urine specimen was collected by Medical Arts Clinic, 1731 W. 

Wheeler, Aransas Pass, TX 78336. 

3. The Respondent signed a Federal Drug Testing Custody and 

Control Form on September 26, 2002. 

4. The urine specimen was analyzed by LabCorp Occupational 

Testing Services using procedures approved by the Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

5. That specimen subsequently tested positive for Cocaine and results 

verified by Stuart B. Hoffman, MD, MRO. 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 3 
The proposed order by the U.S. Coast Guard Investigating Officer was 

revocation in accordance with 46 U.S. Code 7704. Respondent, in response to this 

official Complaint, signed an official Answer on November 16, 2002, wherein he 

printed his name as "Howard Odom" and then signed his signature. Respondent did 

not admit or deny all jurisdictional allegations. Respondent did not admit or deny all 

factual allegations and did not affirmatively allege any defense. Respondent did state 

that he wished to be heard on the proposed order, so the hearing was scheduled so the 

Respondent might put in his defense, if any. Respondent faxed in his Answer, as he 

so stated on his Certificate of Service, to the ALJ Docketing Center in Baltimore and 

to the Investigating Officer at the Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Lieutenant Robert L. Helton's case included an Opening Statement, a Closing 

Statement, and the sworn testimony of four (4) witnesses, including the specimen 

collector, Ms. Erin Alecia Russell, of Medical Arts Clinic; the Laboratory Director 

and Certifying Scientist from LabCorp, a certified laboratory, Dr. Bradley E. Black; 

another Certifying Scientist from LabCorp, Ms. Martha Juanita Mitchell; and a 

Medical Review Officer, Dr. Steve Shvartsblat, MD and MPH. Dr. Shvartsblat 

graduated from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Magna Cum 

Laude in Internal Medicine and served as a General Medical Officer in the U.S. Air 

Force. Dr. Shvartsblat received his Doctor of Medicine Degree from the UCLA 

School of Medicine, in Los Angeles, California. 

In addition to the witnesses who gave their sworn testimony under oath, we 

had ten (1 0) exhibits offered by the Investigating Officer and admitted into evidence 

by the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing, held as scheduled, on March 26, 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 4 
2003, at the Marine Safety Office, in the port and city of Corpus Christi, Texas, with 

Lieutenant Robert L. Helton representing the U.S. Coast Guard. 

II. FINDINGS OF FACT BASED UPON THE ENTIRE HEARING 

RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE 

1. At all relevant times herein mentioned and specifically including the dates on or 

about September 26, 2002, the captioned Respondent, Howard Glen Odom, was 

the holder and acted under the authority of the captioned identifying and unique 

U.S. Coast Guard issued Merchant Mariner's License Number 842339, Issue 

Number 1, issued by the Coast Guard Regional Examination Center, in the port 

and city of Houston, Texas. The license expiration date is February 26, 2003, and 

' 

certifies that Howard Glen Odom is licensed to serve as a Master of near coastal 

steam or motor vessels of not more than 100 gross tons for the term of five (5) 

years from the date of February 26, 1998. Although the license expired on 

February 26, 2003, Respondent has a year from that date to renew his license 

without taking any further tests, by applying to any U.S. Coast Guard Regional 

Examination Center, in the United States. If Mr. Odom applies after that one (1) 

year's extension, from February 26, 2003, he will have to pass all tests to qualify 

for the same license. 

2. The Investigating Officer, Lieutenant Robert L. Helton, proved with credible 

evidence that was substantial and probative in nature, that the captioned 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 5 
Respondent, Howard Glen Odom, with the said license number, did on September 

26, 2002, while serving as the Master aboard the Motor Vessel (M/V) JETTY 

BOAT, submitted a urine specimen and subsequently tested positive for the use of 

cocaine, following a random drug screen urine collection, by his marine 

employer. The evidence was proven through the testimony of the witnesses, 

which I find credible, who collected and processed Mr. Odom's urine sample and 

through the ten (10) documentary exhibits admitted into evidence. 

3. On October 28, 2002, Lieutenant Robert L. Helton, Investigating Officer, served 

the captioned Respondent with the official Complaint, with the charge of"Use of 

or Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs," under the authority of 46 U.S. 

Code 7704( c). At the time, Lieutenant Helton explained Respondent's rights, the 

course of action available to Respondent, the nature of the proceedings against 

Respondent, and the substance of the charges and Complaint against him. The 

Respondent was provided with a copy of the Complaint, with page 3 of the form 

outlining and summarizing Respondent's rights. Respondent was asked by 

Lieutenant Helton if he had any questions with regards to the Complaint. The 

Respondent verbally acknowledged that he understood all that had been explained 

to him and signed the Complaint form, acknowledging receipt. 

4. The Respondent requested time to consult with an attorney prior to submitting his 

formal Answer to the Complaint. The Respondent was advised that he had twenty 

(20) days in which to submit his written formal Answer. The Respondent 

submitted his written formal Answer to the Complaint on November 26, 2002, but 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 6 
failed to admit or deny any jurisdictional allegations, any factual allegations, and 

he failed to provide any affirmative defense. 

5. On September 26,2002, the captioned Respondent, Howard Glen Odom, while 

holding and serving under the authority of his U.S. Coast Guard issued License 

Number 842339, and thereby serving as Master or Captain of the M/V JETTY 

BOAT, did submit a urine sample, as required and requested by his marine 

employer, for its random drug testing program. His marine employer at the time 

was KHS Enterprises, Inc. His marine employer utilized the Maritime 

Consortium, Inc. to oversee and do their urine specimen collecting for the drugtesting program. The urine sample that Respondent provided on September 26, 

2002, was properly analyzed by a nationally recognized and certified laboratory, 

LabCorp, and subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine 

metabolites. This specimen was then confirmed as a positive for cocaine 

metabolites in Respondent's urine specimen by a Medical Review Officer. The 

Medical Review Group included Dr. Stewart B. Hoffman, Chief Medical Review 

Officer; and also Dr. Steve Shvartsblat, MD, Magna Cum Laude graduate of 

UCLA in Internal Medicine and a U.S. Air Force General Medical Officer before 

he became affiliated with the group of Medical Review Officers involved in this 

case. 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 7 
III. ULTIMATE FINDINGS 

1. The Complaint and its supporting factual allegations are found proved by the 

credible, reliable, probative and substantial evidence in this case, including the 

witnesses who testified credibly under oath and the ten (1 0) exhibits admitted into 

evidence. 

2. The donor's identification number is shown on Investigating Officer's (IO's) 

Exhibit 5, for Howard Glen Odom. The trained and experienced collector, Ms. 

Erin A. Russell, collected the urine specimen, on September 26, 2002, she had the 

Respondent sign the collection form, where the Respondent signed and printed his 

name and gave his daytime and evening telephone number and date of birth. 

Respondent printed his name as "Howard G Odom" on the collector's copy of the 

"Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form." The laboratory's copy is now 

part ofiO's Exhibit 5. Page 1 of6, ofiO's Exhibit 5, shows the certified 

laboratory was LabCorp Houston Toxicology, located at 7202 North Gessner 

Road, Houston, Texas 77040. After the two (2) required tests at the laboratory, 

the urine specimen was found positive for cocaine metabolites, as attested to and 

signed by Martha Mitchell, MT (ASCP), the said laboratory's Certifying 

Scientist. The Medical Review Officer's affiliated with Dr. S. B. Hoffman, 

located at 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90036, phone 

number (800) 762-3623, confirmed the positive found by the laboratory's after 

they were unable to contact the donor Respondent because Respondent would not 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 8 
return their telephone calls. The laboratory findings of positive were confirmed 

by the Medical Review Officer, on or about September 28, 2002. 

3. The "Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form" was signed by a Medical 

Review Officer of the same MRO group, known as Choicepoint, of Los Angeles, 

California. Dr Bertram Lee, one of their Medical Review Officers of the Medical 

Review Officer Services Group, signed the Respondent's collection form as 

positive for cocaine. The MRO company's full title is Choicepoint MRO 

Services, of Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, also at 

www.choicepoint.com. 

4. The quantitative level found by LabCorp, signed by the certified scientist, Ms. 

Martha Mitchell, showed that the specimen identification number 0084386077 

and Respondent's social security number was positive for the cocaine metabolite 

at 249 ng/mL. This is well above the required minimum. 

5. The urine specimen collector, Ms. Erin Alecia Russell, of Medical Arts Clinic, of 

the port of Aransas Pass, Texas, made a photocopy of Respondent's driver's 

license, which again showed his name as Howard Glen Odom. It gave his date of 

birth and his official driver's license number and identification card from the 

Texas Department of Public Safety. The photocopy is now IO's Exhibit 10. Any 

document that spells his name as "ODEM" is hereby corrected. 

6. Further evidence offered by the Investigating Officer included IO's Exhibit 1, the 

Maritime Consortium notification of positive test results of cocaine. IO's Exhibit 

2 is the official Complaint served upon the Respondent. IO's Exhibit 3 is 

Respondent's formal Answer to the official Complaint that Respondent filed by 

Odorn Decision & Order - Page 9 
fax with the ALJ Docketing Center, in Baltimore, Maryland. IO's Exhibit 4 is the 

certified Laboratory Corporation of America, Houston, Texas 77040, located at 

7207 North Gessner Road, pages 1 -29, their LabCorp Analysis Package. IO's 

Exhibit 5 is the Choicepoint MRO Services Information Package, from their 

office in Los Angeles, California. IO's Exhibit 6 is the MRO's Qualification 

Package. IO's Exhibit 7 is a copy of Respondent Odom's U.S. Coast Guard 

issued license, obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard Regional Examination Center, 

at 8876 Gulf Freeway, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77017. IO's Exhibit 8 is the 

qualifications of the MRO who testified in the case, former U.S. Air Force doctor, 

Steve Shvartsblat, MD. IO's Exhibit 9 is a blown up copy of the "Federal Drug 

Testing Custody and Control Form." IO's Exhibit 10 is a photocopy of the 

driver's license of Mr. Howard Glen Odom, provided by him as identification to 

the urine sample collector, on the date he gave his urine specimen. 

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Administrative Law Judge have 

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this hearing under the provisions of 46 U.S. 

Code Chapter 77, including 46 U.S. Code 7701 through 7705; and specifically 

including 46 U.S. Code 7704(c); the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. 

Code 551 through 559; the U.S. Coast Guard's 46 Code of Federal Regulations 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 10 
Parts 4, 5 and 16, as amended; and U.S. Department of Transportation's Rules at 

49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 40. 

2. The Complaint and its supporting factual allegations and jurisdictional 

allegations are found proved by a preponderance of the reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence. 

3. The entire Complaint is found proved by a preponderance of the reliable, 

probative, substantial and credible evidence. 

V. OPINION 

The above Preliminary Statement, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

are incorporated herein as if set forth as if in full. 

Pleadings~ including Complaints, can be amended to conform to the evidence. 

Kuhn v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 183 F.2d, 839, 841 (D.C. Cir 1950). 

This case falls within the guidelines of 46 U.S. Code Chapter 77, including 46 

U.S. Code 7704. 

Conference sworn telephonic testimony has been upheld on appeal. 46 CFR 

5.535(£). Appeal Decisions 2538 (SMALL WOOD); 2503 (MOULDS); 2492 

(RATH); and by 2476 (BLAKE), affd sub nom Commandant v. Blake, NTSB Order 

EM-156 (1989); affd sub nom Blake v. U.S. Department of Transportation and 

NTSB, No. 90-70013 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 11 
Drug testing of employees' urine samples has been upheld by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Bluestein v. Skinner (U.S. DOT Secretary) and 

U.S. FAA, 908 F.2d 451 (9th Cir. 1990); Cert. Den. By U.S. Supreme Court at 112 L. 

Ed. 2nd 1042 (1991). Additional U.S. Supreme Court Decisions with similar rulings 

and authority are National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 109 S.Ct. 1384 

(1989); Skinner (U.S. DOT Secretary) v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 109 

S.Ct. 1402 (1989). 

Other decisions upholding drug testing of certain employees include 

American Federation of Government Employees v. Skinner, (U.S. DOT), 885 F.2d 

884 (D.C. Cir. 1989); National Federation of Federal Employees v. Cheney, 884 F.2d 

603 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 113 (4th Cir. 1989); and Harmon v. 

Thornburgh, 878 F.2d 484, 487-488 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 

The Complaint and its allegations are ruled proved and the findings in this 

matter have been found to be supported by a preponderance of the credible, reliable, 

probative and substantial evidence. Steadman v. SEC, 450 US 91, 67 L.Ed. 2d 69, 

101 S.Ct. 999 (1981); Commandant's Appeal Decision 2468 (LEWIN); 46 U.S. Code 

Chapter 77; 5 U.S. Code 556(d); and Title 46 CFR 5.63. 

The Respondent is advised of the right to appeal in accordance with the 

attachment enclosed herein. 

The captioned Respondent did violate the sections above cited of the U.S. 

Code, and the supporting regulations promulgated thereunder, and also company 

policy by failing a drug test wherein Respondent was proved to be positive for 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 12 
cocaine metabolite, thereby proving his use of cocaine. In light of the facts and 

applicable law, the following Order will be entered in this case. 

After the 10, Lieutenant Robert Helton, proved his case, he offered evidence 

that Respondent had a prior case where it was found proved by an 10 in HoustonGalveston, Texas that Respondent previously refused to give his urine sample for 

drug testing and an Administrative Law Judge decided to Order Twenty-two (22) 

months Suspension of his License. Respondent did not sign a receipt for this 

Decision and Order and therefore it was not yet officially served on Respondent. 

Respondent never deposited his said License for that twenty-two (22) month outright 

suspension of Respondent's said Coast Guard issued License to a U.S. Merchant 

Marine Officer. 

VI. ORDER 

That any and all U.S. Coast Guard issued licenses and documents issued to the 

captioned Respondent, Howard Glen Odom, are hereby REVOKED; that all U.S. 

Coast Guard Regional Examinations Centers are advised that they should not renew 

Respondent's licenses or documents, or issue a new one, following this Decision and 

Order. 

Some people refer to the procedures following as the U.S. Coast Guard's 

"Administrative Clemency Board Program." Procedures are provided by which a 

person, or Respondent, whose U.S. Merchant Mariner's License and/ or Document 

has been revoked, may apply to any Commanding Officer of a Marine Safety Office 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 13 
of the U.S. Coast Guard, after an applicable waiting period, for the issuance of a new 

license or 

Done and dated on this 23rd day of April, 2003 

Houston, Texas 

c~=~l·-·# ! 

Odom Decision & Order - Page 14