UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

vs. 

MERCHANT MARINER'S LICENSE 

No. 849615 

CAMERON J. LEWIS 

APPEARANCES: 

Robert Foster, Esq. 

PO Brett Major, 

For the Coast Guard 

Docket Number 

CG S&R 00-0469 

Coast Guard Case Number 

PA 00001267 

Cameron J. Lewis, Hearing held in absentia 

For the Respondent 

BEFORE: Hon. Parlen L. McKenna 

United States Coast Guard 

DECISION AND ORDER 

---···"--~--· 

This suspension and revocation proceeding was instituted by the United States Coast 

Guard in the discharge of its duty to promote the safety of life and property at sea. It was 

brought pursuant to the legal authority contained in Title 46 U.S.C. § 7701-7705 and was 

conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 46, code of Federal 

Regulations (CPR) part 5 and Title 33 CPR part 20. 

The hearing in this matter commenced at the U.S. District Court, Panama City, Florida, on 

November 8, 2000. Petty Officer Brett Major and Robert Foster, Esq., USCG duly authorized 

Investigating Officers of Marine Safety Office, United States Coast Guard, appeare~ for and 

represented the Coast Guard. The Respondent failed, to appear at the hearing and pursuant to 

regulations, the hearing was held in absentia. A record of the hearing was made by Professional 

Court Reporting Services, Inc., of Panama City, Florida. A list of the witnesses who testified and 

the exhibits entered into evidence are set forth in the Attaclmient A. 
... ·-·-·· •······-·····------·--·--------u--~ 

On July 20, 2000, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 7704 and 46 

C.F.R § 5.35 charging the Respondent with Use of or Addiction to Dangerous Drugs as follows: 

ALLEGATIONS: Use of or Addiction to Dangerous Drugs 

(1) That on May 10, 2000, the Respondent took a Pre-employment drug test; 

(2) That a urine specimen was collected from the Respondent by K. Chouest of LaFourche 

Service, Inc.; 

(3) That the Respondent signed a Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form; 

( 4) That the urine specimen was collected and analyzed by Pharmchem Laboratories, Inc., 

.. __ _ .JJfiil1g_ptQ9egures_gRPIQV~d by....t@ Unite_g_Still:efi.De.Rartmen.t Q(.'f.rw:l.SIJortation;_g_nd_ _ _ ___ . 

(5) That the specimen subsequently tested positive for Marijuana Metabolite. 

On August 3, 2000, the Respondent filed his answer to the Complaint arguing that his 

rights were somehow violated since no legal counsel was present. As an affirmative defense, the 

Respondent argues that (1) his specimen was tampered with and/or was not his; and (2) that there 

was a mistake in processing the specimen. Finally, the Respondent argues that he had asked for, 

but was not given, a re-test of his sample. 

The Respondent failed to attend the hearing that was duly scheduled for November 8, 

2000, in Panama City, Florida. At the commencement of the hearing, the Investigating Officer 

proffered a letter from the Respondent dated November 5, 2000. The Investigating Officer stated 

that he had received the letter the night before the hearing. This letter has been marked and 

admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. B. Therein, the Respondent states: 

"I, Cameron John Lewis, do hereby resign as a 100 ton Captain of the merchant marine. I 

resign in protest!! Prior to the preemployment urinalisis I had n:ot worked on a motor 

vessel or in the marine industry for 8 months. Therefore you are judging me on my 

aledged private life and this has nothing to do with a vessel or related incident. There 

were no laws broken on any motor vessel. 

I feel to lose my license and be forced into a rehab is unjust and harsh punishment for 

failure of a preemployment test. There was no incident however you are taking my 

license and asking me to give up my personal freedom for a year in order to regain my 

Captain's license. That license means I have no personal and private rights. Therefore 

until the regulations are changed for the betterment of the mariner I don't want your 

license! 

I am being punished for my own private lifestyle. My freedom is worth more than my 

100 ton Captain's license so I no longer wish to argue this point. 

Revoke my license and please leave me and my family alone." 

2 
46 CPR§ 5.203 provides that a Respondent may voluntarily surrender his license in preference 

to appearing at a hearing. Based upon Respondent's Exhibit No. B, it appears to the undersigned 

that the Respondent wishes to avail himself of this regulation. This determination is made despite 

the fact that the Respondent has not filled out the Coast Guard standardized forms to voluntarily 

surrender his license. Accordingly, the Respondent's letter will be treated as a Motion to dismiss 

based upon the fact that he surrenders his Merchant Mariner's license. That Motion is hereby 

granted without prejudice to the Coast Guard to refile should the circumstance of this case so 

warrant. 

Importantly, 46 CPR§ 5.203(b) sets forth the conditions the Coast Guard establishes in order for 

a Respondent to effectuate a voluntary surrender to avoid a hearing. These conditions are set 

forth as follows: 

( 1) The surrender is made voluntarily in preference to appearing at a hearing; 

(2) All rights to the license, certificate or document surrendered are permanently 

relinquished; and 

(3) Any rights with respect to a hearing are waived. 

In Respondent's Exhibit No. B, Mr. Lewis states that he "hereby resign[s] as a 100 Ton Captain 

of the Merchant Marine;" until the regulations are changed so that he is not forced into 

rehabilitation for a year so that he can get his license. back. The Respondent feels that such a 

punishment is excessive and unduly harsh. Indeed, the Respondent notes that he had not worked 

in the maritime industry for eight (8) months prior to this pre-employment drug test. Under this 

circumstance, the Respondent does not feel it is fair to punish him for his "own private lifestyle" 

In closing, Mr. Lewis writes "revoke my license and please leave me and my family alone". 

Neither the Coast Guard nor myself learned that the Respondent would not attend the hearing 

until just prior to it's commencement. Since the Coast Guard was prepared to present it's case 

and I wanted to consider how I would treat Respondent Exhibit No. B and Mr. Lewis' failure to 

attend the hearing, the Coast Guard was directed to proceed with the hearing in absentia. Thus, 

while this matter has been dismissed without prejudice, an adjudication on the merits is also 

made in the event that the Respondent in the future disputes that his actions constituted a 

voluntary surrender under 46 CPR § 5.203(b ). 

DISCUSSION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

The Respondent was charged in this case with "Use of Dangerous Drugs" which is defined for 

the purposes of these remedial suspension and revocation proceedings in 46 U. S. Code § 7704. 

The allegation supportive of that charge alleged, that on May 10, 2000; the Respondent used a 

dangerous drug, to-wit, Marijuana Metabolite. The Coast Guard meet its burden of establishing a 

prima facie case against the Respondent. 

3 

,... 
46 U.S.C. § 7704(c) 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 cured. 

46 U.S.C. 7704(a) defined "dangerous drug" to include marijuana metabolite (as defined in 

section 102 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 

802) (Present version at 46 USC 2101(8a)). In drug use cases, the only authorized sanction is 

revocation unless the Respondent successfully demonstrates cure 46 U.S.C. 7704(c); 46 CPR 

____ j_.59; Appeal Decision 2476 (BLAKE)affd sub nom Commandant v. Blake, NTSB Order EM156 ( 1989); and 2518 (RENNARD). The burden of establishing cure is on Respondent. -Appeal--

Decision 2526 (WILCOX). The Respondent failed to meet that burden since he did not attend 

the hearing or present any rebuttal evidence. 

An examination of the law applicable to this case discloses that 46 U.S.C. § 7704 and its 

predecessor 46 U.S.C. § 239(b) have been in existence for a great many years. These statutes 

have enunciated the declared policy of keeping the merchant vessels of our country free of drugs 

in the interest of the safety of life and property at sea. In an early case (Appeal Decision No. 314-

Roman) the Commandant expressed the same policy of these requirements as: 

"Offenses involving the unlawful possession, use, or sale of narcotics are considered 

among the pernicious arising within the administration of the Coast Guard. It is considered 

that no greater single threat to the safety of a vessel or its personnel exists than a person 

under the influence of narcotics and the Coast Guard will act protectively to remove such 

offenders". 

After considering all of the evidence, the factual allegations were found to be PROVED. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. Cameron J. Lewis, the Respondent, was at all times relevant herein the holder of Merchant 

Mariner's License No. 849615. Respondent's license was issued at New Orleans, LA and expires 

on March 11, 2003. It authorizes him to serve as: Master of Steam or Motor Vessels of not more 

than 100 Gross Tons upon near Coastal Waters (no additional endorsements) (See Government 

Exhibit No. 2). 

2. That this matter is hereby dismissed without prejudice based upon the Respondent's voluntary 

surrender of United States Coast Guard License No. 849615; and assuming arguendo that no 

such voluntary surrender was made, the foregoing Findings of Fact are set forth disposing of this 

case on the merits. 

3. In connection with a random drug screening required by his employer (C & E Boat Rentals), 

Respondent we~t to LaFourche Service, Inc., in Golden Meadow, Louisiana on May 10, 2000, 

under the supervision of Kritty Chouest and submitted a urine sample. This urine sample was 

identified as sample No. 246142880. Collection of the sample and its preparation for shipment to 

the testing laboratory was done in complete accordance with the procedures prescribed by 

applicable regulations (See 46 C.P.R. Part 16 and 49 C.P.R. Part 40). 

4 
4. There were no discrepancies from the normal routine. As part of the collection procedure, 

Respondent signed a certification that he had provided the sample identified as 246142880. He 

also certified that the sample bottle was sealed with a tamper proof seal in the presence with the 

above-noted identification number affixed to the sample's seal (See Government Exhibit No. 3). 

5. The sample was sent by courier with a fully documented chain-of custody certification to the 

Pharmchem Laboratores, in Fort Worth, Texas. The sample arrived at Pharmchem on May 12, 

2000, and wru; given Accession identification number of"994796145". A full and proper analysis 

of an aliquot (portion) of the sample, made in full accordance with all of the applicable 

regulations, was completed on May 15, 2000 (See 46 CFR Part 16 and 49 CPR part 40). The 

initial screening, performedby "Enzyme Immunoassay" testing, revealed a "Positive" test result 

- -;h.o-Wing the pl-;sent~o:fTHC-metabolite atleveTsin-excess- ofthe- Cut-offamour£ off5nglmi ----

The actual test showed 43 ng/ml (See Government Exhibit No. 4). 

6. A final report showing the "Positive" result was fonvarded by Pharmchem Laboratories to 

Seacon on May 15, 2000. Seacon was under contract to perform the Medical Review Officer 

(MRO) functions required under the applicable regulations. (See 46 CFR Part 16 and 49 CFR 

Part 40). A Medical Review Officer (Dr. Ronald N. Padgett) employed by Seacon reviewed the 

case. The Respondent declined the right to speak with the Medical Review Officer. After a 

complete review of the case, the Medical Review Officer found no alternate medical explanation 

for the positive test results. 

7. On May 25, 2000, this finding was conveyed to C&R Boat Rentals and to the U. S. Coast 

Guard, Marine Safety Office, Panama City, Florida by Mr. Billy Webb, an administrative 

assistant for Seacon (See TR at Page 8). 

8. Timely and proper notice was given to the Respondent of the date, time and place of the 

hearing as required by 33 C.F.R. § 20.304(D) (See Government Exhibit No. 1). 

9. Pursuant to a hand-written letter submitted by Respondent on November 5, 2000, Respondent 

writes that he wishes to resign his license, however, he does so in protest; that prior to the preemployment drug test he had not worked in the merchant marine industry for eight months; that 

it's unfair for him to lose his license under those circumstances for a year to go through Sweeny 

cure and be forced into rehabilitation; and that there was no mariner incident or casualty as a 

result of his testing positive. Respondent further states that the Coast Guard is depriving him of 

his personal and private rights and that until the regulations are changed for the betterment of the 

mariner, he doesn't wish to have his license (See Respondent's £\·hibit No. B). 

10. By the submission of the above detailed evidence, the Coast Guard has presented a prima 

facie showing that the Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. § 7704 as charged~ 

11. The Respondent not being present, nor appearing by and through counsel, presented no 

rebuttal. 

12. The Respondent failed to meet his burden to rebut this prima facie showing. Thus, the 

allegation stand PROVED. 

5 
. ·------- ...... ---·--··-·---·-·-···--··---····---· 

13. Tlhe acts and conduct of Respondent are within the suspension and revocation jurisdiction 

providled by Title 46 U.S.C. § 7704 and 46 C.F.R. Part 5. 

14. Tihe Respondent's prior disciplinary record, maintained by the U. S. Coast Guard, was 

examiined by me in accordance with 46 C.F.R. § 5.565 after a finding of PROVED was entered. 

The reteord indicates that Respondent has a "negative" prior record (See Government Exhibit No. - . 

7). 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Th~ Respondent and the subject matter of the hearing are within the jurisdiction vested in the 

_____ J]nitedl Staj~_Co13,s_1 Guardgy_16_1J.S.C::._§]]04.__ __ _______ _ _________________ _ 

2. Th~ allegation supportive of the Charge of Use of Dangerous Drugs (marijuana metabolite) is 

proved! by reliable, probative and substantial evidence, that is, by the preponderance of the 

evidemce. 

Basedh:upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and for good cause shown, it 

is herefuy 

ORDERED 

1I'HA T pursuant to" 46 CFR § 5.203(b ), this Matter is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT 

JPREJUDICE as a result of the Respondent's voluntary surrender of his Merchant Mariner's 

!License No. 849615; Alternatively, should the Respondent dispute that his actions in this 

a:;ase constituted a voluntary surrender, after a full and fair hearing on the merits, it is 

fuereby found that Merchant Mariner's License No. 849615 issued to CAMERON J. 

!LEWIS be, and it hereby is REVOKED. 

Datedl: January 10, 2001 

Alamreda, California 

6 

Ron. PARLEN L. MCKENNA 

United States Coast Guard