UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

VS. 

GUS JOHNS, 

. - Respondent r;' 

... 

i " 

Docket Number CG S&R 04-0430 pi 

CG Case No. 2170580 I,-, .: 

C3 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S THIRD MOTION TO REOPEN 

PROCEEDINGS 

Issued : March 8,2007 

Issued by: Walter J. Brudzinski, Administrative Law Judee 

This matter came to be heard on Respondent's Third Motion to Reopen received 

at the ALJ Docketing Center in Baltimore on January 29,2007 and subsequently 

forwarded to the undersigned for adjudication on February 6, 2007. In his Third Motion 

to Reopen, Respondent states that he "feels the basis for revocation is no longer valid . . 

that he has not had any negative incidents with law enforcement . . . has completed an 

assessment and classroom program . . .has been gainfully employed . . . that his 

documents were revoked because of a refusal to submit to chemical drug tests . . . a 

misunderstanding on my part. . . good work history, along with a (negative) criminal 

history. . . and, the maritime industry is in need of experienced and knowledgeable 

operating engineers. . . ." 
Background 

On August 19, 2004, the Coast Guard issued a Complaint alleging that the 

analysis of Respondent's urine specimen obtained from a random drug test revealed that 

it had been altered. Subsequently, the Respondent was charged with wronghlly refusing 

to submit to a required chemical test. 

On August 27,2004, Respondent entered into a Misconduct-Refusal to Test 

Settlement Agreement. The Agreement provided, among other things, that Respondent 

ctlroll in and successfully complete drug rehab by February 25,2005; attend a substance 

monitoring program (such as AA/NA) for a minimum period of one-year following 

successful completion of the drug rehabilitation program; participate in a random, 

unannounced drug testing program following successful completion of the drug 

rehabilitation program during which time the Respondent is to undergo at least 12 

random drug tests conducted in accordance with DOT procedures under Title 49 CFR 

Part 40; obtain and file a copy of the Medical Review Officer's (MRO) letter indicating 

that Respondent is drug-free and that the risk of Respondent's subsequent use of 

dangerous drugs is sufficiently low to justify return to work. The Respondent and the 

Investigating Officer submitted their Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement 

and Entry of Consent Order on that same day. 

On September 2,2004, the undersigned reviewed the Agreement and, finding it to 

be fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 CFR 

20.502, issued a Consent Order Approving Settlement Agreement. The Consent Order 

states that it constitutes the full, final, and corllplete adjudication of this proceeding. It 

was faxed to the Investigating Officer and mailed to the Respondent that same day. 

Shortly thereafter, the case file was closed and forwarded to the ALJ Docketing Center. 
First Motion to Re-Open 

On September 2,2004, the ALJ Docketing Center received two letters from 

Respondent, one dated August 24,2004 and the other dated August 30, 2004. Both 

letters were not part of the record when the undersigned reviewed the file and issued the 

Consent Order. In the August 24'h letter, Respondent states that it is the written answer to 

the Complaint issued by the Coast Guard in his case. He states that he does not contest 

any of the allegations in the Complaint; that he did donate the urine specimen; and that he 

adulterated the specimen. Further, Respondent states that he "had attended a wedding the 

day prior [to the test] and had indulged in about 8 poppy seed cakes and panicked, fearing 

a false positive would show up." He went on to say that he has been working under his 

license since 1982 and had never had drug or alcohol addictions. 

In the August 3oth letter, Respondent states, 

Recognizing that I signed the 'Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and 

Entry of Consent Order' on 27 August 2004 under duress, (emphasis added) 

statement 5 states that I waive any right to appeal, however, I did not read this 

until now, 30 Aug. '04. I did wish to file an appeal because I feel that I have been 

a victim of misunderstanding, as a refusal to submit to a chemical drug test was 

not based on a drug or alcohol use, but simply a misunderstanding on my part, as 

stated, I over-indulged in poppy seed cakes the day before and was told it would 

bring a false positive on the pre-employment UIA. I offered to re-test that day but 

was told it was up to the company. The MRO already filed the results with the 

C.G. as I was enroute via airplane to the shop and could not be reached. Is it still 

possible to file an appeal after signing the agreement? Enrolling in a drug 

rehabilitation program would be pointless as I have not been exposed to drugs or 

drug use since returning from Viet-Nan? service in 1970. I have pursued a drug 

and alcohol free sea-going career for the past 29 years and at my age cannot find 

alternative employment. Thank you for your consideration. 

Because Respondent's letters were not clear whether he was attempting to appeal 

(which he waived in his Settlement Agree~nent) or was attempting to have the Consent 

Order vacated and his case reopened, the ALJ Docketing Center returned the case file to 

the undersigned for further action as appropriate. 
The Coast Guard Investigating Officer submitted a written respolise in the form of 

a sworn affidavit opposing reopening. He also details the circumstances surrounding the 

settlement discussions and Respondent's decision to enter into an agreement as being in 

his best interest. 

In my Order of September 23,2005, I found that Respondent did not present any 

change in fact or law or otherwise show good cause sufficient to justify reopening this 

case. Further, I found nothing in the public interest to warrant reopening. Respondent 

admitted the facts alleged in the Complaint. He entered into the Settlement Agreement 

freely, without reservation or duress. The Investigating Officer informed him that a 

condition of the Settlement Agreement required that he attend and successfully complete 

a substance abuse rehabilitation treatment program. Respondent indicated that it was 

okay with him since he did not have a drug problem and he was glad that his license and 

MMD were not going to be revoked. Further, I found no evidence that the Coast Guard 

made a threat to Respondent. 

Second Motion to Re-Open 

011 August 20,2006, Responde~~t once again motioned to Re-Open this case. 

Respondent's motion was almost word for word the same as his initial motion of August 

24, 2004. However, he attached a three page, undated letter entitled "In depth statement 

of facts." In that statement of facts, Respondent states that he had successfully completed 

the drug assessment program and that the alcohol and substance abuse Outpatient 

Treatment Coordinator could not recommend nor enroll him in a substance abuse 

monitoring program because there was insufficient evidence of chemical dependency and 

that he could skip part "c" and part "d" of the Settlement Agreement (one year period and 

12 random, unannounced d~ug tests). He stated that his successful conlpletion of alcohol 

and drug information school is sufficient to satisfy the requirements and that it would be 

illegal for him to enroll in that oue year program. 
The Investigating Officer stated that Respondent has provided no evidence that he 

has completed paragraphs 2c, 2d, and 2e of the Settlement Agreement which was 

supposed to be con~pleted by February 23,2005. Further, the Investigating Officer stated 

that the MRO sent a letter stating that the "Respondent to date has failed to follow up 

with him on any of the terms required in the Coast Guard Settlement Agreement." The 

Investigating Officer stated that Respondent was informed that if he failed to provide 

evidence and documentation demonstrating completion of the conditions of this 

Agreement by February 23,2005, his credentials would be revoked. Therefore, on 

September 13,2006, I found that Respondent had failed to complete paragraphs 2c, 2d, 

and 2e of the Settlement Agreement and denied his second Motion to Re-Open. I also 

found that "[mlerely providing a name and phone number of the alcohol and substance 

abuse outpatient treatment coordinator does not discharge his obligations under the 

Settlement Agreement which specifically provides that the MRO will determine whether 

Respondent is drug free. . . ." 

Notice of Failure to Complete Settlement Agreement 

The Coast Guard had rejected Respondent's evidence of completion and on 

September IS, 2006, the Investigating Officer filed his Notice of Failure to complete 

Settlement Agreement. Under the tenns of the Agreement, the records at the ALJ 

Docketing Center and Respondent's Merchant Mariner's Records will be modified to 

reflect that the stayed order is in full force and effect unless the Respondent requests a 

hearing before an Administration Law Judge by fihng a written request with the Hearing 

Docket Clerk within 10 days after receiving the notice of failure to complete. Respondent 

did not file a request for hearing. Therefore, h~s license and document have been revoked 

in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 
Third Motion to Re-Open 

In Respondent's Third Motion to Re-Open, he invokes the administrative 

clenlency aspects of 33 CFR 20.904(f) which specifically provides that 

Three years or less after an S&R proceeding has resulted in 

revocation of a license, certificate, or document, the 

respondent may file a motion for reopening of the 

proceeding to modify the order of revocation with the ALJ 

Docketing Center. 

(1) Any motion to reopen the record must clearly state why the 

basis for the order of revocation is no longer valid and how 

the issuance of a new license, certificate, or document is 

compatible with the requirement of good discipline and 

safety at sea. 

(2) Any party who does not respond to any petition to reopen 

the record waives any objection to the motion. 

Respondent's motion states that he feels the basis for revocation is no longer 

valid. However, Respondent introduces no evidence why it is no longer valid. Further, 

Respondent does not present any evidence demonstrating substantial compliance with the 

terms of the Settlement Agreement he entered into on August 27, 2004. No facts have 

changed since his first motion to re-open was denied. His position appears to be that his 

obligation to complete the terms of the Settletnent Agreement was discharged by the 

substance abuse outpatient treatment coordinator's opinion. 

The Coast Guard's response objects to the Motion to Re-Open because 

"Respondent failed to complete the following conditions: attend a substance abuse 

monitoring program such as (AA/NA) for a minimum period of one-year following 

successful completion of the drug rehabilitation program; participate in a random, 

unannounced drug-testing program for a minimum period of one-year following 

successful completion of the drug rehabilitation program, which involved completing 
twelve (12) random drug tests conducted in accordance with Department of 

Transportation procedures found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 40; 

and Obtain and file a copy of the Medical Review Officer (MRO) letter that indicates the 

respondent is drug free and the risk of respondent's subsequent use of dangerous drugs is 

sufficiently low to justify return to work." 

Respondent's problems began when he adulterated his specimen. He exacerbated 

his problems by failing to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This 

noncompliance formed the basis upon which his license and document were revoked. His 

Third Motion to Re-Open advances no evidence why the basis for that revocation is no 

longer valid and that issuing a new license and document are compatible with the 

requirement of good discipline and safety at sea. 

WHEREFORE, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Third Motion to Re-Open is 

DENIED. 

Done and dated March 8,2007 

New York, NY 

,WALTER J. BRUDZINSICI 

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard