UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF' TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

1 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ! 

's Document 

Issued to: 

Robin D. Johnson 

Respondent .. .. 

Docket No. 00-0782 

PA No. 00002045 

Before: Archie R. Boggs 

Administrative Law Judge 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This proceeding is brought pursuant to the authority contained in 5 USC 551-559; 46 

USC Chapter 77; 46 CFR Parts 5 and 16; and 33 CPR Parts 20 and 95. 

Robin D. Johnson was served with a Complaint dated 20 November 2000 which was 7 

-. 

issued by a U.S. Coast Guard Inve~ti~ating'Officer, LT Scott Johnson of the Marine Safety 

Office, New Orleans, LA.. 

The Complaints alleged statutory authority as 46 USC 7704 (c) Use of or Addiction to 

the Use of Dangerous Drugs, and regulatory authority as 46 CFR 5.35. 

The factual allegations read as follows: 

"The Coast Guard alleges that: 

1. On February 10, 1999 Respondent took a random drug rest. 

2. Respondent signed a Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control 

Form. 
3. The urine specimen was collected and analyzed by Premier 

Analytical using procedures approved by the Depathnent of 

Transpor(ation. 

4. That specimen subsequently tested posirive for cocaine 

metabolite. 

LCDR Andrew Nonis and LT Scott L. Johnson presented the case for the 

Coast Guard. The Respondent, Robin D. Johnson, although advised ofhis right to be 

represented by professional counsel, acted as his own attorney. 

In his answer, which was filed on 8 December 2000, Mr. Johnson denied the 

jurisdictional and factual allegations. At his request a hearing was held at the Marine 

Safety Offlce, 1615 Poydras Street, New Orleans on 16 May 2001. 

In support of the Complaint the Investigating Officer called three witnesses; (1) 

Christina Brugman, field supervisor for Secon, 260 La Rue France, Lafayette, LA, 

which company collected a urine specimen from Mr. Johnson on 10 February 1999 for 

a random drug test on board the MN Miss Jean; (2) Steve Edward Hams, scientific 

director for Premier Analytical, the laboratory which tested Mr. Johnson's specimen; 

and (3) Brian N. Heinen, who served as Medical Review Officer for Mr. Johnson's 

specimen. *. 

The Investigating Officer also introduced three exhibits. 

1.0. Exhibit No. 1 -a coovof a comnleted Federal Drun Testing - 

FO*, copy NO: 4, for a specimenkith LD No. 

which was Mr. Johnson's specimen collected on 10 

1.0. Exhibit No. 2 - another completed copy of the Drug Testing 

Custodyand Control Form, copy No. 2,2"* original, for the same 

specimen. 

1.0. Exhibit No. 3 -a laboratory report from ATN (parent company of 

Premier Analytical), Channelview, Texas, which indicates that Mr. 
Johnson's specimen with an ID No sted positive for 

cocaine. 

Mr. Johnson did not call any witnesses or produce any exhibits. 

" 

At the conclusion of the hearing the Administrative Law Judge took the matter under 

advisement. It is now concluded that the Complaint is proved by reliable, substantial, and 

probative evidence. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On 10 February 1999 Mr. Johnson furnished a urine specimen for a random drug test 

on board the MN Miss Jean. 

2. Mr. Jeff Ronkartz collected the specimen for Premier Analytical, a urine collection 

company for Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. 

3. Mr. Ronkartz is no longer employed by the coliection company and his whereabouts 

are unknown. Mr. Drugman, who is field supervisor for the company, witnessed the 

collection %om Mr. Johnson on board the Miss Jean on I0 February 1999. The 

collection was properly done in accord with the regulations. 

4. The specimen was sent to Premier AnaJytical and it tested positive for cocaine . 

metabolite at that laboratory. 

5. Dr. Heinen, who is the Medical Review Officer, conducted a telephone conversation 

4th Mr. 01 ,on concerning the positive result. .. y 

6. Mr. Johnson did not offer any explanation to Dr. Heinen for the presence of cocaine 

in his specimen. 

7. Dr. Heinen documented his interview with Mr. Johnson, and he concluded that Mr. 

Johnson's urine specimen testedpositive for cocaine, and he so notitied the company. 
ULTIMATE FINDINGS 

The evidence shows that the specimen which Mr. Johnson gave on 10 February 1999 

tested positive For cocaine metabolite and did, indeed, contain cocaine metabolite. The 

testing was in accord wit11 the Coast Guard regulations for chemical testing of mariners as 

set forth in 46 CFR Part 16. 

.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

The Respondent and the subject matter of this hearing are within the jurisdiction 

vested in the U.S. Coast Guard under the provisions of 46 USC, Section 7704. 

Complaint, proved. 

OPINION 

The regulations which empower the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct chemical testing of 

mariners are set forth in 46 CFR Part 16. Those regulations list five different categories for 

testing as follows. - 

-. 

I. Pre-employment 

2. Periodic 

3. Random 

4. Serious marine incident 

5. Reasonable cause tested 

Mr. Johnson was required to take a random test while sening on board Miss 

Jean 

Mr. Johnson did not offer any defense. He contended that he requested the 

Medical Review Officer to order a test of a new specimen of his urine. He explained that 
he did not want a retest of the original specitnen because that specimen tested positive. 

That request was, of course, not granted hy the Medical Reviw OFticer. 

The Complaint is proved. 

The law governing Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedingsinvolving 

rlrugs is well settled. 46 USC 7704@ provides: 

"If it is shown that a holder has been a user of, or addicted to, a dangerous 

drug, the license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document 

shall be revoked unless the holder provides satisfactory proof that the 

holder is c~ired." 

Absent proof of cure by a Respo~ds2t who.has been found to be a user of, or 

addicted to, a dangerous drug, the "Administrative Law Judge is without discretion to 

issue an order less than revocation." Aupeal Decision 2535 (Sweeney). 

ORDER 

That merchant mariner's document NO.-, and all other valid licenses, 

documents, and certificates of service issued to you by the United States Coast Guard, or 

any predecessor authority, now held by you, be and the same are hereby REVOKED. * 

-. 

Merchant mariner's document no-s in possession of the Coast Guard. 

The rules governing appeals are attached hereto. 

&&.a- t$,. 

ARCHIE R. BOGGS 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

~ated:- ~a~ 2001 

New Orleans, Louisiana 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document(s) upon the following 

parties and limited participants (or designated representatik~es) in this proceeding at the address 

indicated by Facsimile: 

LT Andrew Norris 

Marine Safety Office New Orleans 

1615 Poydras Street, Suite 737 

New Orleans, LA 701 12 

(FAX#) 504-589- 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document(s) upon the following 

oarties and limited participants (or designated representatives) in this proceeding at the address 

indicated by First class Mail: 

I hereby certify that I have this day forwarded the attached document by Federal express to the 

following person: 

ALJ Docketing Center 

United States Coast Guard -. 

40 South Gay Street 

Baltimore, MD 21202-4022 

b8d Doris Mich /$/J 

Legal Assistant 

~ated 30 ~ay 2001 

New Orleans, Louisiana