UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant

vs. 

GERALD W. STRICKHOUSER 

Respondent

_________________________________ Docket Number 2009-0120 

Enforcement Activity No. 3430193

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: September 21, 2009

By Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Walter J. Brudzinski

Appearances: 

For Complainant 

LT Sara M. Ellis-Sanborn, USCG 

Marine Safety Unit Cleveland 

1055 East Ninth Street 

Cleveland, OH 44114 

For Respondent 

Thomas E. Cafferty, Esquire 

Law Office of Thom Cafferty 

608 Madison Avenue, Suite 1600 

Toledo, OH 43604 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §§ 7703(2) and 7704, and its underlying regulations found at 33 

C.F.R. Part 20 and 46 C.F.R. Part 5, the United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) initiated this 

administrative action to suspend Gerald W. Strickhouser’s (Respondent) Merchant Mariner’s 

Credential (MMC) for twelve (12) months.1

 

The Coast Guard issued its Original Complaint on March 12, 2009, charging Respondent 

with a “Conviction that would preclude the issuance of MMC” in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 

7703(2). Specifically, the Coast Guard alleges that on February 25, 2009, Respondent was 

convicted of Reckless Operation [of a vessel] by the State of Ohio. 

In his timely Answer, Respondent admitted to all jurisdictional and factual allegations but 

disagreed with the Coast Guard’s proposed twelve (12) month sanction.2

 

The parties and the undersigned conducted a hearing on June 11, 2009 at the Celebrezze 

Federal Building, 1240 East 9th Street, Courtroom 3013, Cleveland, Ohio 44199. Lieutenant

Sara M. Ellis-Sanborn, Senior Investigating Officer, Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, and Gary F. 

Ball, Esquire, U.S. Coast Guard National Maritime Center, appeared on behalf of the Coast 

Guard. Thomas E. Cafferty, Esquire, of Toledo, Ohio appeared on behalf of Respondent. The 

Coast Guard presented the testimony of two (2) witnesses and introduced seven (7) exhibits. 

Respondent presented the testimony of three (3) witnesses, including testimony on his own 

behalf, and introduced two (2) exhibits. The undersigned admitted all exhibits. The witness and 

exhibit lists are contained in Attachment A. 

On July 27, 2009, Respondent and the Coast Guard submitted post hearing briefs, 

including proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 557(c) 

 

1 The Coast Guard now refers to a license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner’s document as a merchant 

mariner credential or (MMC). See, 74 Fed. Reg. 11,196 (Mar.16, 2009). Therefore, all references to licenses, 

certificates of registry, or merchant mariners’ documents will be referred to in this Decision and Order as an MMC.
and 33 C.F.R. § 20.710. Those submissions, together with the undersigned’s corresponding 

rulings, are contained in Attachment B. On August 11, 2009, the Coast Guard and Respondent 

submitted reply briefs. 

After careful review of the entire record, including the applicable statutes, regulations, 

and case law, I find the Coast Guard PROVED that Respondent’s conviction of “reckless or 

unsafe operation of a vessel, water skis, aquaplane,” in violation of Ohio Revised Code 1547.07 

is an offense that would preclude the issuance of MMC under 46 U.S.C. § 7703(2). 

FINDINGS OF FACT

 

2 Respondent did not admit that his conviction was an offense that would prevent the issuance or renewal of an 

MMC. 

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

evidence and the entire record taken as a whole. 

Respondent’s Arrest for Operating a Vessel Under the Influence 

 
1. At all relevant times Respondent, Gerald W. Stickhouser, was the holder of Coast 

Guard Merchant Mariner License Number 1097652 (hereinafter referred to as 

Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC). (Respondent’s Answer; Stipulation; Tr. at 7, 8, 

and 10).3

2. Respondent has held a Coast Guard issued MMC since April 17, 1990. (Tr. at 118) 

(Resp. Ex. A). 

3. Respondent’s current MMC expires in March, 2010. (Tr. at 97). 

4. Respondent operates a charter boat, mostly for fishing, out of Lakefront Marina, Port 

Clinton, Ohio. (Tr. at 119).

5. Respondent and his passengers started fishing on the morning of August 29, 2008. 

(Tr. at 119). 

6. On August 29, 2008, Officer David L. Goodwin of the Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Watercraft, was on patrol in his vessel with Officer J. Beard, 

also of the Division of Watercraft, and Agent James A. Vasek of the United States 

Boarder Patrol, Customs and Border Protection. (IO Ex. 2; Tr. at 16). 

7. At approximately 9:46 PM, the officers observed Respondent’s vessel not displaying 

any navigation or cabin lights after dark just outside of Put-in-Bay Harbor in Ottawa 

County, Ohio. 

8. Put-in-Bay Harbor is a popular recreational boat harbor which other vessels were 

transiting at that time. (IO Ex. 1; Tr.13-16). 

9. The officers’ initial attempts to get Respondent’s vessel to stop were met with no 

acknowledgement despite Officer Beard shining a bright flashlight on the operator, 

Gerald W. Strickhouser. (IO Ex. 1; Tr. at 17). 

 

3 Citations referencing the transcript are depicted as follows: (Tr. at __). Citations referring to Investigation Officer 

exhibits are depicted as followed: (IO Ex. __). Respondent’s Exhibits are depicted as follows: (Resp. Ex. __). 
10. As the officers’ vessel approached Respondent’s vessel, they observed the passengers 

in Respondent’s vessel making furtive movements, “hiding stuff and shuffling around 

the cabin.” (Id.). 

11. As the officers’ vessel drew closer to Respondent’s vessel and after repeated attempts 

to get the attention of Respondent who was operating his vessel, Respondent 

eventually turned around, acknowledged the officers’ and slowed down. (Id.). 

12. The officers then conducted a side by side boarding with their starboard side secured 

to Respondent’s port side. (Id.). 

13. There were six (6) passengers in Respondent’s 28 foot, inboard, Bertram cabin 

cruiser. (IO Ex. 1; Tr. 17, 39). 

14. Respondent stood up, turned, and stumbled out of the captain’s chair, catching 

himself on the back of his seat. (Tr. at 18; IO Ex. 1). 

15. Concerned for Respondent’s safety, Officer Goodwin then decided to side-tow 

Respondent’s vessel back to Put-in-Bay Harbor. (Id; IO Ex 1). 

16. Officer Goodwin radioed for backup due to the disorderly nature of the passengers; 

subsequently, law enforcement personnel from the Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office 

and Customs and Border Protection Marine Interdiction responded. (Id; IO Ex. 1). 

17. After securing the vessels to the dock, Officer Goodwin conducted a safety inspection 

of Respondent’s vessel and subsequently escorted Respondent to the concrete dock to 

interview him about the events of the evening and his sobriety. (Id.). 

18. The officers did not establish whether the six (6) passengers had hired Respondent to 

take them out on his vessel. (Tr. at 40). 

19. Officer Goodwin smelled a strong and distinct odor of alcoholic beverage on 

Respondent’s breath; that Respondent’s eyes were watery and bloodshot; that his 

 
speech was mumbled, slurred, and confused; that his face was flushed red; and that he 

appeared sleepy, tired, and indifferent, but was otherwise cooperative. (Tr. at 19, 32, 

33; IO Ex. 1). 

20. In response to Officer Goodwin’s request to produce identification, Respondent 

looked through his wallet for approximately one (1) minute; Officer Goodwin then 

spotted the drivers’ license in the wallet and pointed it out to Respondent. (Id.). 

21. Officer Goodwin had Respondent perform field sobriety tests which include the 

alphabet test, the backwards count from 25 down to 1, and the finger count test. (Id; 

IO Ex. 1). 

22. Respondent performed poorly on his field sobriety tests and towards the end of the 

tests, he was dancing to the music being played nearby. (Tr. at 23, 32-33; IO Ex. 1). 

23. Based on the results of field sobriety battery of tests, the horizontal gaze nystagmus 

test, and the totality of Respondent’s actions, Officer Goodwin believed that 

Respondent was impaired. (Tr. at 35-36; IO Ex. 1). 

24. Respondent refused to provide a blood, breath, or urine sample for analysis. (Tr. at 

23, 34, 37). 

25. At approximately 10:30 PM on August 29, 2008, Officer Goodwin arrested 

Respondent for “Operating Under the Influence” and read him the standard Miranda 

warnings. (Id; IO Ex. 1). 

Faulty Equipment 

26. Officer Goodwin found no vessel registration or documentation paperwork on 

Respondent’s boat. (Tr. at 26). 

27. Officer Goodwin observed that the “throwable” personal flotation device was not 

serviceable. (Tr. at 27, 41; IO Ex. 7). 
28. Respondent’s vessel is required to have at least two (2) B-1 fire extinguishers in good 

and serviceable condition, Office Goodwin found one B-2 fire extinguisher not in 

serviceable condition, and that Respondent’s vessel had no B-1 fire extinguishers 

aboard. (Tr. at 27, 41). 

29. Officer Goodwin also found no sound producing device on Respondent’s vessel 

although Respondent was required to have one. (Tr. at 27-28). 

30. Officer Goodwin found no lights were operating on Respondent’s vessel. (Id.). 

31. Respondent claimed he had no navigational lights because a “fuse blew.”(Tr. at 119). 

32. Respondent claimed that he did not use any flashlights or other means of light to 

signal his location because “it might have been hard to find the flashlights. I thought 

it was better to get back to the dock.” (Tr. at 129). 

33. Respondent admitted he was “operating recklessly that night.” (Tr. at 131). 

34. Respondent also received citations for operating a vessel without navigational lights 

and for having an unserviceable type 4 PFD. (IO Ex. 1). 

Respondent’s Refusal to Submit to Breath or Blood Test 

35. Respondent gave no physical or medical reason for his refusal to submit to any 

chemical test of breath, blood, or urine. (IO Ex. 2; Tr. at 37-38). 

36. Because Respondent refused to submit to a chemical test and gave no physical or 

medical reason, Officer Goodwin “impounded” the registration decals of 

Respondent’s vessel by removing its state decals, thereby invalidating its registration, 

which meant that the vessel could not be used for one year, and would have to be 

removed from the water the following day. (Tr. at 37-38; IO Ex. 1, 2). 

37. Officer Goodwin believed Respondent was a threat to his passengers and the other 

boaters in the area because of Respondent’s poor judgment in operating his vessel 
without navigational lights well after sunset, his impaired state, and because several 

of the passengers were found in possession of drugs. (Tr. at 43-44). 

38. There was an abundant amount of beer, empty beer cans and bottles on board. (IO 

Exhibits 4, 5, and 6). 

Respondent’s Conviction of Reckless or Unsafe Operation of a Vessel 

39. On February 25, 2009, in Ottawa County Municipal Court, Ottawa County, Ohio, 

Respondent withdrew his previous plea of “Not Guilty” to “Operating Under the 

Influence” and pled “No Contest” to the amended charge of “Reckless or unsafe 

operation of vessel, water skis, aquaplane” in violation of Section 1547.07, Ohio 

Revised Code. (IO Ex. 2). 

40. Pursuant to his plea, the Court found Respondent Guilty of “Reckless or unsafe 

operation of a vessel, water skis, aquaplane” in violation of Ohio Revised Code 

1547.07. (IO Ex. 2). 

41. The Court sentenced Respondent to ten (10) days in the Ottawa County Detention 

Facility but suspended that sentence on condition that Respondent commit no similar 

offense within the next year, and attend, complete, and pay for a First Offender 

program in lieu of the required 72 hours in jail. The Court also ordered Respondent to 

pay a $250 fine plus costs. (Tr. 59-61, 99; IO Ex. 2). 

42. In addition to imposing limited driving privileges on Respondent’s operator’s license, 

the Court also ordered the Division of Watercraft to return Respondent’s vessel 

registration documents solely for purpose of work privileges and permitted 

Respondent to renew his vessel Registration in March 2009. (Tr. at 126; IO Ex. 2). 

Respondent’s Character and Prior Record 

43. Everett Bryan Azbell testified that, in his opinion, Respondent is a reliable and 

capable boat operator. (Tr. at 105). 
44. William Dale Karlovetz testified that he does not believe Respondent has sobriety 

issues and is unaware Respondent has had any marine casualties, including 

groundings, oil spills, collisions, or passenger injuries. (Tr. at 111). 

45. Mr. Karlovetz also testified on cross examination that intoxicated recreational vessel 

operators are a hazard to boating safety. (Tr. at 114).

46. Respondent has no prior disciplinary record with the Coast Guard. (Tr. at 116, 118; 

Resp. Ex. A). 

47. Respondent’s “Abstract Driver Record” for the State of Ohio shows an accident dated 

February 9, 2007, a conviction for speeding, and seat belt violation on October 30, 

2007. (Tr. at 117; Resp. Ex. B). 

48. The Ottawa County Municipal Motion and Order to amend the charge to Reckless 

Operation reflect Respondent has “no priors.” (IO Ex. 2).
DISCUSSION 

The purpose of Coast Guard Suspension and Revocation proceedings is to promote safety 

at sea. 46 U.S.C. § 7701(a). Title 46 C.F.R. § 5.19 gives Administrative Law Judges authority 

to suspend or revoke merchant mariner credentials for violations arising under 46 U.S.C. §§ 

7703 and 7704. If a merchant mariner credential holder is convicted of an offense that would 

prevent the issuance or renewal of an MMC his or her MMC may be suspended or revoked. 46 

U.S.C. § 7703(2). 

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. 

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. 5 U.S.C. § 

556(d). Under Coast Guard procedural regulations, the burden of proof is on the Investigating 

Officer to prove the charges are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 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). 

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, 371-72 

(1970). (Harlan, J., concurring) (brackets in original)). Therefore, Investigating Officers must 

prove by credible, reliable, probative and substantial evidence that a respondent more likely than 

not committed the violation charged. 
Conviction of an Offense that Would Prevent Renewal of Respondent’s License 

Title 46 United States Code section 7703(2) provides that a merchant mariner’s credential 

(MMC) may be suspended or revoked if the “holder is convicted of an offense that would 

prevent the issuance or renewal of a license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner’s 

document.” 

Due to the innumerable types of statutory crimes, there is no exhaustive list of specific 

offenses that would prevent the Coast Guard from issuing or renewing an MMC. Instead, the 

table at 46 C.F.R. § 10.211(g) contains broad, non-exclusive categories of offenses. Coast Guard 

officials then apply the criteria listed § 10.211 to evaluate applicants’ criminal convictions, 

determine the appropriate minimum and maximum assessment periods, and eventually decide 

whether to issue or renew the MMC. 

To determine the safety and suitability of an applicant for an MMC, 46 C.F.R. § 

10.211(a) prescribes that an applicant must provide written disclosure of all convictions not 

previously disclosed to the Coast Guard. If the applicant’s criminal record leads the Coast Guard 

to determine an applicant is not a safe and suitable person or cannot be entrusted with the duties 

and responsibilities of the MMC, the application may be denied. 46 CFR § 10.211(d). 

The Coast Guard uses Table 10.211(g) to evaluate applicants with criminal convictions. 

That table lists the major categories of crimes and is not to be considered an all-inclusive list. As 

explained by Mr. Crouse, if an applicant is convicted of an offense that does not appear on the 

list, the Coast Guard will make an analogous comparison to determine an appropriate assessment 

period by using the table as a guide. Once the Coast Guard establishes the minimum and 

maximum evaluation periods, paragraph (i) of 46 C.F.R. § 10.211 prescribes the evaluation 

procedure as follows: 

If a person with a criminal conviction applies before the minimum 

assessment period shown in table 10.211(g) or established by the 

Coast Guard under paragraph (g) of this section has elapsed, then 
the applicant must provide, as part of the application package, 

evidence of suitability for service in the merchant marine . . .. The 

Coast Guard will consider the applicant’s evidence . . . and may 

issue the MMC . . .. If an application filed before the minimum 

assessment period has elapsed does not include evidence of 

suitability for service in the merchant marine, the application will 

be considered incomplete and will not be processed by the Coast 

Guard. 

Paragraph (j) provides that the Coast Guard will normally grant the application if it is 

submitted between the minimum and maximum assessment periods unless there are offsetting 

factors. This is consistent with Mr. Crouse’s testimony. Paragraph (k) provides the Coast Guard 

will normally grant the applicant an MMC if the applicant applies after the maximum assessment 

period unless the Coast Guard considers the applicant to be unsuitable. Paragraph (l) provides 

guidelines for alcohol or dangerous drug related convictions or National Driver Register 

convictions. If an application is disapproved, the Coast Guard notifies the applicant in writing the 

reason for disapproval. 46 CFR § 10.211(e). After requesting reconsideration, the applicant may 

appeal. See 46 CFR § 1.103. 

On February 25, 2009, Respondent was convicted of “Reckless or unsafe operation of 

vessel, water skis, aquaplane” in violation of Section 1547.07, Ohio Revised Code. “Reckless or 

unsafe operation of a vessel, water skis, aquaplane” is not listed in the Table. 46 CFR § 

10.211(g). 

Prior to hearing, Respondent’s counsel objected to the Coast Guard’s use of evidence 

concerning Respondent’s behavior and events surrounding his arrest and conviction, arguing that 

46 U.S.C. § 7703(2) requires only the judgment of conviction and other evidence that the 

conviction would preclude the issuance or renewal of an MMC. The undersigned denied that 

motion. Clearly, a conviction of an offense entitled “Reckless or unsafe operation of vessel, 

water skis, aquaplane” is an offense that is analogous to “reckless driving” and would prevent the 

issue or renewal of an MMC because it is relevant to whether an applicant is a safe and suitable 
person to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of the MMC. Examining Respondent’s 

behavior and events surrounding his arrest and conviction are also relevant in suspension and 

revocation proceedings to determine appropriate remedial measures to help maintain standards 

for competence and conduct essential to the promotion of safety at sea. 

Respondent’s counsel also motioned to exclude Mr. Crouse’s testimony in the following 

areas: the circumstances leading to Respondent’s conviction; Coast Guard guidelines concerning 

the evaluation of probation; Coast Guard guidelines concerning evaluation of unacceptable 

character traits or habits of life which would prevent the issuance of an MMC; and, Coast Guard 

guidelines concerning assessment periods after applicants are released from prison on relevancy 

grounds. Further, Respondent’s counsel asked that Mr. Crouse’s testimony not include his 

opinions on whether a certain conviction not described in the 10.211(g) Table is analogous to 

Respondent’s conviction and whether Respondent would be issued an MMC if he were to apply 

today. The undersigned denied that motion as well. The Coast Guard’s interpretation and 

application of its own regulations are legitimate factors to be considered in deciding whether 

Respondent’s conviction would prevent the issuance or renewal of his MMC and whether the 

proposed sanction meets appropriate statutory and regulatory objectives. 

During Mr. Crouse’s testimony, counsel for Respondent argued that looking beyond the 

bare conviction is contrary to Coast Guard policy. In support of his argument, counsel cites the 

Coast Guard Marine Safety Manual at Volume III, Chapter 3, page 35, paragraph (d) which 

states: 

 the following guidelines should be provided by evaluating 

applicants with criminal convictions: When evaluating a criminal 

conviction’s record, remember they had their day in court defended 

by legal counsel. Do not allow yourself to be placed in the position 

of retrying the evidence that led to the conviction. The applicant 

will generally try to minimize the outcome of the convictions by 

introducing their perception of whey they were convicted. This 

view is self-serving. Convictions should be taken at face value. 

(Tr. at 78-79). 
Mr. Crouse’s response to Respondent’s counsel was that the above section is contrary 

only to the sentence, “convictions should be taken at face value.” The undersigned agrees. 

When making an analogous comparison of an applicant’s criminal conviction to the 

categories listed in the 10.211(g) Table, it is necessary to look into the underlying facts 

surrounding the offense. If an applicant’s judgment of conviction is clear on its face and fits 

easily into one of the categories listed in the 10.211(g) Table, the applicant’s further 

characterization of the evidence previously heard by the Court is inappropriate. For example, an 

applicant with a “rape” conviction is a good example. “Rape” clearly fits into the category of 

Sexual Assault (rape, child molestation) listed in the 10.211(g) Table. To prove “rape,” the 

prosecution must prove that the victim did not consent. Therefore, an applicant representing to 

the Coast Guard that the victim in his rape conviction “consented” would be self-serving and 

inappropriate. 

However, the above referenced guidelines in the Marine Safety Manual do not preclude 

an evaluator from obtaining further information to perform an analogous comparison of a 

conviction that is not listed in the 10.211(g) Table to determine the minimum and maximum 

assessment periods. Further, the applicable guidelines in the Marine Safety Manual do not 

preclude the Administrative Law Judge from determining whether the conviction is an offense 

that would prevent the issue or renewal of an MMC, and, if so, an appropriate sanction in the 

interest of promoting safety at sea. 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent and the subject matter of this hearing are properly within the jurisdiction 

vested in the Coast Guard under 46 U.S.C. § 7703(2); 46 U.S.C. § 7704(b); 46 CFR 

Parts 5 and 16; 33 CFR Part 20; and the APA codified at 5 U.S.C. 551-59. 
2. The Coast Guard PROVED by the preponderance of reliable, probative, and credible 

evidence that “Reckless or unsafe operation of vessel, water skis, aquaplane” in 

violation of Section 1547.07, Ohio Revised Code, is analogous to “Reckless Driving” 

which is listed under “Vehicular Crimes” in the 10.211(g) Table. 

3. “Reckless Driving” is an offense that would prevent the issue or renewal of an MMC. 

4. The Coast Guard PROVED by the preponderance of reliable, probative, and credible 

evidence that Respondent’s conviction of “Reckless or unsafe operation of vessel, 

water skis, aquaplane” in violation of Section 1547.07, Ohio Revised Code is an 

offense that would prevent the issue or renewal of an MMC. 

5. Respondent has no prior Coast Guard disciplinary record. 

SANCTION

The authority to impose sanctions at the conclusion of a case is exclusive to the ALJ. 

Appeal Decision 2362 (ARNOLD) (1984). Title 46 U.S.C § 7703 allows suspension or 

revocation of a mariner’s MMC for conviction of an offense that would prevent the issue or 

renewal of an MMC. Title 46 C.F.R. § 5.567(a) provides for admonition, suspension with or 

without probation, or revocation. 

The table at 46 C.F.R § 10.211(g) prescribes minimum and maximum assessment periods 

of one (1) year to two (2) years for convictions of Reckless Driving. Although it is one of many 

factors that may be taken into consideration, the assessment period is not used by the ALJ to 

determine the sanction in suspension and revocation cases. As explained above, the Coast Guard 

applies the assessment periods to determine whether and when to issue or renew merchant 

mariner’s credentials of applicants with criminal convictions. 

The Suggested Range of Appropriate Orders Table at 46 C.F.R. § 5.569 (Table) lists 

sanctions for offenses committed while a respondent was acting under the authority of his or her 

MMC. While the instant offense is not listed in that Table, the listed offenses that resemble 
Respondent’s conduct can be used as a framework to fashion an appropriate sanction in this case. 

For example, suspension of 1 to 4 months for possession of intoxicating liquor; 2 to 5 months for 

improper performance of duties related to vessel safety; 3 to 6 months for failure to perform 

duties related to vessel safety; 2 to 6 months for negligently performing duties related to vessel 

navigation; and 3 to 6 months for neglect of vessel navigation duties. The table also suggests 12 

to 24 months for refusal to take a chemical test. 

Aggravating Factors 

The facts show Respondent’s conviction of Reckless Operation of a Vessel involved 

alcohol, not only its possession, but also its use to the extent that Respondent was impaired. By 

piloting a vessel with six (6) passengers, he placed himself, his passengers, and other boaters at 

risk. Respondent elevated that risk because his navigational lights were inoperative. He further 

elevated that risk by having no additional lights or a warning device to alert other vessels in the 

area. Moreover, Respondent deliberately chose to disregard a law designed to promote safety on 

Ohio’s waterways by refusing to take a required chemical test for blood alcohol. This refusal 

exacerbated his previous display of poor judgment which he could have mitigated somewhat by 

his compliance. In short, his refusal to test was conduct not “compatible with the requirement of 

good discipline and safety at sea.” 46 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(1). 

Mitigating Factors

Fellow MMC holders testified that although intoxicated recreational vessel operators are 

a hazard to boating safety, Respondent is a reliable and capable boat operator with no known 

sobriety issues, no prior marine casualties; and no prior disciplinary record with the Coast Guard. 

These administrative actions against Respondent’s MMC are “remedial and not penal in 

nature . . . [and] are intended to help maintain standards for competence and conduct essential to 

the promotion of safety at sea.” 46 C.F.R. § 5.5. Although Respondent’s conduct was 
inconsistent with conduct necessary for good discipline and safety at sea, there is no evidence 

that he has a history of such conduct which would call into question his fitness to hold an MMC. 

The record shows Respondent’s vessel registration was suspended until March of 2009. 

From March of 2009 to the present, Respondent could have operated his vessel, either carrying 

passengers for hire or for recreational purposes. Suspending his MMC will not keep him from 

operating his vessel for recreational purposes, even with other people on board, but it will 

prevent him from carrying passengers for hire. Any suspension period at this point will 

necessarily encompass winter months during which operating under the authority of his MMC 

would be minimal, if at all. Therefore, the suspension period must be long enough to prevent 

Respondent from operating under the authority of his MMC during those times in which it will 

best promote safety at sea. In consideration of the foregoing, a sanction of ten (10) months 

outright suspension is appropriate. 

WHEREFORE, 
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent, Gerald W. Strickhouser’s MMC and all 

other documents and certificates held by Respondent are SUSPENDED outright for a period of 

ten (10) months. Respondent is to surrender his MMC to the Coast Guard immediately. 

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

representative(s) serves as notice of appeal rights set forth in 33 CFR 20.1001 – 20.1004. 

(Attachment C).

__________________________________________________ 

Walter J. Brudzinski 

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard 

Date: September 21, 2009
ATTACHMENT A – EXHIBIT LIST

COAST GUARD EXHIBITS 

1. Investigation and Report of Arrest 

2. Audio Recording of Respondent’s Field Sobriety Tests 

3. Judgment of Conviction 

4. Photograph of alcoholic beverages on board Respondent’s vessel 

5. Photograph of alcoholic beverages on board Respondent’s vessel 

6. Photograph of alcoholic beverages on board Respondent’s vessel 

7. Photograph of unserviceable flotation device. 

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS 

A. Respondent’s previous applications for MMC renewal 

B. Respondent’s Abstract of Driving Record, one page 

OFFICIAL NOTICE AT THE REQUEST OF THE COAST GUARD 

1. Title 46 CFR 10.211 as amended by 74 Fed. Reg. 11,196, 11,216, Mar. 16, 2009. 

2. Ohio Revised Code Section 4511.20 

3. Ohio Revised Code Section 1547.70 
ATTACHMENT B

Coast Guard’s Proposed Findings4

1. On August 29, 2008, the Respondent, Gerald W. Strickhouser, was cited for operating his 

vessel without navigation lights, for having onboard four unserviceable type-4 Personal 

floatation Devices, and for operating his vessel while under the influence. CG Ex. 01, Tr. 

at 24-39, 64. 

ACCEPTED IN PART AND INCORPORATED. Officer Goodwin cited Respondent for 

having “one” unserviceable Type 4 PFD onboard. (Tr. at 26-27; IO Ex. 1). 

2. On February 25, 2009, the Respondent, Gerald W. Strickhouser, was convicted of 

violating Ohio Revised Code 1547.07, Reckless or unsafe operation of vessel, waterskis, 

aquaplane. CG Ex. 03, Tr. 50-51, 59-61, 99-100. 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. 

Coast Guard’s Proposed Conclusions of Law 

1. At all times relevant, Respondent was a holder of the Coast Guard issued U.S. Merchant 

Marine Officer license, No. 1097652. 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. 

2. Respondent was convicted of Reckless or Unsafe Operation of a Vessel, in violation of 

Ohio Revised code 1547.07. 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. 

3. A conviction for Reckless or Unsafe Operation of a Vessel, clearly represents a hazard to 

marine safety and, as such, shall be viewed as meeting the basis for a Conviction to 

Prevent Issuance or Renewal of a License, Certificate of Registry, or Merchant Mariner’s 

Document, as contemplated in 46 U.S.C. 7703(2). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. “Reckless or unsafe operation of a vessel” is 

analogous to “Reckless Driving,” listed under “Vehicular Crimes” in table 10.211 (g). 

Respondent’s course of conduct during the evening of his arrest is highly relevant on his 

fitness and suitability for an MMC. 

4. A conviction for Reckless or Unsafe Operation of a Vessel is analogous to the conviction 

for Reckless Driving, as outlined in 46 C.F.R. Table 10.201(h). As such, a similar 

 

4

 ALJ’s rulings on proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 

557(b)(3). 
assessment period shall be applied to an applicant possessing a conviction for Reckless or 

Unsafe Operation of a Vessel. 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED as noted in # 3, above. 

 

Respondent’s Proposed Findings of Fact 

1. At all relevant times mentioned herein, Respondent is the holder of a Coast Guard issued 

license, which was renewed on or about March 23, 2005. (Tr. at 95:23 -96:6). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. 

2. Respondent has held a Coast Guard issued license since April 17, 1990. (Tr. at 118:8) 

(Resp. Ex. A). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. 

3. Respondent has no prior Coast Guard disciplinary record. (Tr. at 118:18-21) (Resp. Ex 

A). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. 

4. Witness E.B. Azbell has had professional contacts with the Respondent on commercial 

vessel operations out of Port Clinton, Ohio, and attested to Respondent’s capability, 

reliability and sobriety. (Tr. at 104:23-106:2).

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. 

5. Witness W. D. Karlovetz is a charter boat captain who is personally familiar with the 

through his work as a charter boat captain in Port Clinton, Ohio. Mr. Karlovetz is not 

aware that Respondent has caused any marine casualties, whether Respondent has 

received any passenger complaints, or whether Respondent has any issues with sobriety. 

(Tr. at 111: 6-25). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. 

6. Other than minor traffic offenses, Respondent has no prior motor vehicle convictions in 

the State of Ohio. (Tr. at 111: 6-25). 

ACCEPTED IN PART to the extent that Respondent’s “Abstract Driver Record” for the 

State of Ohio shows an accident dated February 9, 2007 as well as a conviction for speeding 

and seat belt violation on October 30, 2007. 

7. On or about February 25, 2009, Respondent was convicted of Reckless Operation of a 

Boat, a violation of Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) § 1547.07, in the Ottawa County 

Municipal Court. (CG Ex. 3). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. 
8. Respondent properly answered the Coast Guard’s complaint and did not admit that he 

was convicted of an offense that would preclude the issuance of an MMC (pleadings). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. Respondent’s Answer in paragraph #1 states, I 

admit to jurisdictional allegations and that I was convicted of a reckless operation on 

February 25, 2009.” The Coast Guard PROVED that “reckless operation” is an offense that 

would preclude the issuance of an MMC. 

9. When reviewing an applicant’s criminal record for renewal of an MMC, and it is 

discovered that the applicant is convicted of an offense that does not appear in Table 

10.211(g), the Coast Guard uses the table as a guide to determine whether there should be 

an assessment period prior to renewing the MMC. (Tr. at 61:4-11). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED to the extent that the evaluation process looks for an 

analogous offense in the table. 

10. During the course of a mariner criminal background investigation, conducted for the 

purpose of determining whether an applicant’s MMC should be renewed, the Coast 

Guard considers many factors, including the mariner’s Coast Guard disciplinary record, 

character references and employment history. (Tr. at 83:2-6, 87:22, 88:4) (46 C.F.R. § 

10.211 (i), 10.211 (l)). 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. 

11. Coast Guard witness J. Crouse has no training or experience in the evaluation of an 

application for issuance or renewal of an MMC. (Tr. at 68:7-12). 

REJECTED. The regulations at 46 C.F.R. § 10.211 provide that the Coast Guard conduct a 

criminal record review to determine the safety and suitability of an applicant. The process 

allows for reconsideration and appeal. The training, experience, and expertise of all 

personnel who evaluate an applicant’s criminal record are matters of agency policy and 

discretion. Further, Mr. Crouse has overseen approximately 50 to 60 thousand evaluations of 

merchant mariner applications. Of these evaluations, he has personally handled 

approximately 2 thousand. 

12. Coast Guard witness J. Crouse does not have the authority to issue or renew an MMC. 

(Tr. at 71:22, 72:2). 

REJECTED. MMCs are issued or renewed under the authority of the appropriate Coast 

Guard official. As Chief of the Safety and Suitability Evaluation Branch of the National 

Maritime Center, Mr. Crouse has been delegated the authority to carry out marine safety 

functions listed in 46 C.F.R. § 1.01-15 (c), including credentialing. 
13. Prior to testifying, Coast Guard witness J. Crouse did not review Respondent’s Coast 

Guard disciplinary record, character references and employment history. (Tr. at 83: 7-11, 

88:9-12). 

REJECTED. Mr. Crouse’s testimony was helpful to the ALJ to determine whether 

“Reckless Operation of a Vessel” would be analogous to the offenses listed in Table 10.211 

(g) which would trigger an assessment period. He also testified that despite Respondent’s 

clean record, an assessment period for a criminal conviction would not be automatically 

eliminated. 

14. Prior to testifying, Coast Guard witness J. Crouse did not review the statutory elements of 

the Ohio State offenses of “Reckless Driving” or “Reckless Operation of a Boat” (Tr. at 

73:23, 74:3). 

REJECTED. Mr. Crouse’s analysis of the two offenses as analogous was reasonable and 

sufficient to fulfill the requirements of a criminal record review under 46 C.F.R. § 10.211. 

Respondent’s course of conduct on the evening of his arrest is highly relevant on hid fitness 

and suitability for an MMC. 

15. Prior to testifying, Coast Guard witness J. Crouse did not conduct an evaluation of 

Respondent’s record. (Tr. at 89:4-7). 

REJECTED. Respondent’s record is not relevant on the narrow legal issue of whether his 

conviction of “Reckless Operation of a Vessel” constitutes an offense that would prevent the 

issuance or renewal of an MMC. Mr. Crouse testified that despite Respondent’s clean record, 

an assessment period for a criminal conviction would not be automatically eliminated. 

16. Coast Guard policy guidance to evaluation personnel states that convictions must be 

taken at face value. (Tr. at 78:20, 79:7). 

REJECTED. As explained in the Decision and Order, if an applicant’s judgment of 

conviction is clear on its face and fits easily into one of the categories listed in table 10.211 

(g), the applicant’s further characterization of the evidence previously heard by the Court is 

inappropriate. This does not obviate the necessity to look further into the facts and 

circumstances surrounding the conviction if necessary to conduct a full evaluation of an 

applicant’s criminal record in order to determine suitability for an MMC. 

17. There is no Coast Guard policy or regulation that states that evaluation personnel should 

consider the circumstances surrounding an arrest, including the conduct of the person 

arrested, when evaluating an applicant’s criminal conviction record to determine whether 

an MMC should be renewed. (Tr. at 78:20, 79:7).

REJECTED. It is inconceivable that Coast Guard policy on evaluating criminal convictions 

is to intentionally overlook circumstances surrounding an arrest, including the conduct of the 

person arrested. The conduct surrounding Respondent’s arrest for Reckless Operation of a 

Vessel is conduct displayed on the vessel that Respondent uses to carry passengers for hire. 

Respondent’s course of conduct on the evening of his arrest is highly relevant on his fitness 

for an MMC. 
18. The Ohio offense of Reckless Operation of a Boat (R.C. § 1547.07) is not specifically 

described in Table 10.211 (g). (Tr. at 61:1-3); (46 CFR § 10l211 (g)). 

ACCEPTED. Its absence from 10.211(g) Table does not mean that the Coast Guard will 

overlook the offense when examining an applicant’s criminal record to determine the safety 

and suitability of an applicant for an MMC. As stated in footnote 2 to 10.211 (g) Table, 

“[o]ther crimes will be reviewed by the Coast Guard to determine the minimum and 

maximum assessment periods depending on the nature of the crime.” 

19. Respondent’s Coast Guard disciplinary record was offered for admission into evidence 

without objection. 

ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED. The disciplinary record’s relevance is independent 

of the narrow legal issue of whether Respondent’s conviction constitutes conviction of an 

offense that would prevent the issuance or renewal of an MMC. 

Respondent’s Proposed Conclusions of Law

1. The intent and act elements of Ohio R.C. §§ 1547.07 and 4511.20 are not the same. 

REJECTED. There is no statutory, regulatory, or policy requirement that the elements or 

precise acts must be the same as the crimes listed in 10.211(g) Table. “The table lists major 

categories of criminal activity and is not to be construed as an all-inclusive list. If an 

applicant is convicted of an offense that does not appear on the list, the Coast Guard will 

establish an appropriate assessment period using the list as a guide.” 46 C.F.R. § 10.211(g). 

2. For the purpose of 46 CFR § 10.211 (g), the Ohio offenses of Reckless Driving (Ohio 

R.C. § 4511.20) and Reckless Operation of a Boat (Ohio R.C. § 1547.07) are not 

analogous. 

REJECTED, for the reasons stated in the comments to Respondent’s Proposed Conclusion 

of Law above. Both offenses involve operating a vehicle, either an automobile or a vessel. 

How an applicant operates vehicles, especially a vessel with six (6) other people on board, is 

directly analogous and highly relevant on the safety and suitability of an applicant for an 

MMC. 

3. For the purposes of a suspension and revocation hearing held to determine whether a 

mariner was in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 7703(2), a mariner’s conviction of the Ohio 

offense of Reckless Operation of a Boat (Ohio R.C. § 1547.07) is not a conviction of an 

offense that would prevent the renewal of an MMC. 

REJECTED, for the reasons set forth above. 

4. Because it failed to review statutory evaluation factors, the Coast Guard did not perform 

a complete review of Respondent’s file to determine whether his conviction for Reckless 

Operation of a Boat would have been the conviction of an offense that would prevent the 

renewal of his MMC. 
REJECTED, for the reasons set forth above. 

5. Respondent’s Coast Guard disciplinary record may be admitted into evidence. 

ACCEPTED. Respondent’s entire record was admitted into evidence as Resp. Ex. B. 

6. Pursuant to this proceeding under 46 U.S.C. § 7703 (2), Respondent was not convicted of 

an offense that would prevent the renewal of his MMC. 

REJECTED, for the reasons set forth above.