UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_______________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

JACK ANTHONY JORY 

Respondent 

_______________________ 

Docket No: 08-0471 

CG Enforcement Activity No: 3356914 

 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued: December 5, 2008 

Issued by: HON. BRUCE T. SMITH, 

Administrative Law Judge 

Appearances: 

For Complainant: 

Mr. Robert Foster 

LT Beth Gregorich 

USCG Sector Mobile 

For Respondent: 

Jack Anthony Jory, pro se
2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is an action arising under 46 U.S.C. § 7702(d) resulting from the Coast Guard’s 

temporary suspension of Jack Anthony Jory’s (Respondent) certificate and merchant mariner’s 

document. Coast Guard regulations, 33 C.F.R. § 20.1201(a), et seq., dictate that whenever the 

Coast Guard suspends a merchant mariner’s license or documents without a hearing, expedited 

hearing procedures are triggered. 

On November 3, 2008, the Coast Guard seized Respondent’s merchant mariner’s 

credentials and served him with a copy of the Complaint on the same date. 

 On November 6, 2008, the undersigned convened a telephonic prehearing conference 

with the parties. The Coast Guard was represented at that hearing by Mr. Robert Foster and 

Petty Officer John Norsworthy. Respondent appeared pro se. At the telephonic pre-hearing 

conference, the undersigned fully advised Respondent of his procedural due process rights. 

Likewise, during the hearing, Respondent filed his Answer to the Complaint orally, as is 

appropriate under 33 C.F.R. § 20.1202(b)(2). Finally, at the close of the prehearing conference, 

the undersigned established expedited discovery and hearing. 

On November 7, 2008, the Coast Guard filed a Motion to Amend the original Complaint 

to include relatively minor factual amendments. There being no apparent prejudice to 

Respondent, the undersigned granted leave to Amend the Complaint on November 10, 2008. 

Prior to the hearing in this case, the parties engaged in discovery—in particular, 

Respondent requested, and was granted, several subpoenas to assist him in his prehearing 

preparation. 

At 1:00 pm, CST, on November 20, 2008, the undersigned convened the expedited 

hearing in the Federal District Courthouse, Mobile, Alabama, in accord with the provisions of 33 

C.F.R. § 20.1201. Mr. Robert Foster and LT Beth Gregorich represented the Coast Guard. 
3

Respondent appeared, pro se. The undersigned engaged in a colloquy with Respondent 

regarding his choice to proceed pro se. (Tr. 5 - 6). 

Both parties presented opening statements. In its case-in-chef, the Coast Guard called 

three witnesses to testify. Likewise, the Coast Guard offered eight (8) items into evidence. All 

eight (8) items were admitted. Thereafter, Respondent testified on his own behalf and called two 

witnesses to testify. Respondent offered one (1) item into evidence which was also admitted. 

See Attachment A. 

After both parties rested, the undersigned asked each for post-hearing briefs and written 

closing arguments. The Coat Guard submitted its post-hearing brief on November 25, 2008. 

Respondent’s brief was received by the undersigned on December 1, 2008. On December 2, 

2008, the undersigned closed the administrative record and began final deliberations. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

evidence and the entire record taken as a whole. 

1. At all relevant times mentioned herein and specifically on November 3, 2008, 

Respondent, Jack Anthony Jory, was the holder of Coast Guard issued merchant 

mariner's license and merchant mariner's document. (CG Ex. 1). 

2. On November 3, 2008, Jack Anthony Jory served aboard the M/V Sea Fox as an Able 

Seaman, in the employment of Global Industries Offshore, LLC (Global), and under 

the command of Captain Jeff Cunningham. (CG Ex 3; Tr. 24). 

3. Captain Cunningham served as ship’s security officer aboard the M/V Sea Fox. (Tr. 

20 – 22). 

4. On November 3, 2008, Captain Cunningham gave Jack Anthony Jory specific orders 

regarding one of the ship’s anchors. Captain Cunningham specifically told Jack 
4

Anthony Jory to attend to a bow anchor and line to ensure it did not bang against the 

vessel’s guard in anticipation of high seas. Captain Cunningham ordered Respondent 

to take appropriate steps (such as ensuring the ratchet binder was tight) to ensure 

neither banged against the guard or the vessel’s hull. (Tr. 26-28). 

5. During the early morning hours of November 3, 2008, at approximately 0300 hours, 

Captain Cunningham was awakened from his sleep by the sound of an anchor 

banging against the hull of the M/V Sea Fox. Captain Cunningham departed his 

cabin, went to the deck of the vessel and prepared to secure/tighten the slack anchor 

chain and line. (Tr. 26-28). 

6. As Captain Cunningham secured the anchor, Respondent confronted him. Captain 

Cunningham reprimanded Respondent for failing to attend to the anchor chain and 

line as previously ordered. (Tr. 27 – 31). This reprimand was followed by 

Respondent’s use of vulgar and defiant words to the Captain. (Tr. 27-28). 

7. Thereafter, Captain Cunningham departed the deck and went below to create a 

written report relative to the incident on deck involving Respondent. After 

completing the report, Captain Cunningham went to the galley, where he found 

Respondent. Captain Cunningham offered the document to him and asked him to 

read and sign it. Respondent refused to read or sign the report and, again, responded 

with vulgarity. (Tr. 27 – 31). 

8. Captain Cunningham turned around to return to the wheelhouse and Respondent 

lunged at him, trying to grab the paper out of Captain Cunningham’s hand. 

Respondent knocked Captain Cunningham’s hand down, causing a pen to fall out of 

his hand. (Tr. 27 – 31). 
5

9. At approximately 0517 hours on November 3, 2008, Captain Cunningham contacted 

his employers and supervisors at Global informing them of Respondent’s threatening 

conduct. (CG Ex. 6; Tr. 30,67-69). 

10. At approximately 0630 hours on November 3, 2008 and upon guidance from his 

employers, Captain Cunningham relieved Respondent of his duties and confined him 

to his quarters (which included Respondent’s stateroom, galley and smoking area). In 

response, Respondent stated to Captain Cunningham “I will kill you.” (CG Ex 6, 7; 

Tr. 31, 59 and 60). 

DISCUSSION

The purpose of Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedings is to promote safety 

at sea. See 46 U.S.C. § 7701. Title 46 CFR § 5.19 gives Administrative Law Judges authority to 

suspend or revoke a license or certificate in a hearing for violations arising under 46 U.S.C. § 

7703(5). Under §7703(5), a Coast Guard issued credential may be suspended or revoked if the 

holder of that credential is a security risk [who] poses a threat to the safety or security of a 

vessel. 

Title 46 of the United States Code section 7702(d) provides that the Secretary of 

Transportation, or his delegee, may, temporarily, for not more than 45 days, suspend and take 

possession of a mariner’s license or document. However, in the case of a temporary suspension 

an expedited hearing under subsection (a) shall be held within 30 days after the temporary 

suspension. The government is obliged to prove that: 

(A) That individual performs a safety sensitive function on a vessel, as determined by the 

Secretary; and 

(B) There is probable cause to believe that the individual ... (iv)is a security risk that 

poses a threat to the safety or security of a vessel... 

See also 46 U.S.C. § 7703(5). 
6

Burden of Proof 

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, applies to Coast Guard 

Suspension and Revocation hearings before United States Administrative Law Judges. 46 

U.S.C. § 7702(a). The APA authorizes imposition of 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 rules and regulations, the burden of 

proof is on the Investigating Officer to prove the charges are supported by a preponderance of 

the evidence. 33 CFR §§ 20.701, 20.702(a). “[T]he term ‘substantial evidence’ is synonymous 

with ‘preponderance-of-the-evidence’ as defined by the 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)). Therefore, the Coast Guard must prove 

by credible, reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that Respondent more-likely-than-not 

committed the violation charged. 

In the instant case, the Coast Guard was obligated to prove by substantial evidence that 

Respondent performed a safety sensitive function aboard the M/V Sea Fox and that there is/was 

probable cause to believe that Respondent is a security risk that poses a threat to the safety or 

security of a vessel. 

The facts of this case are straightforward and are generally uncontested by Respondent 

(Tr. 83-89). 
7

On and before November 3, 2008, Respondent served as an able seaman aboard the 

Global’s vessel “M/V Sea Fox” as one of a crew of eight. (Tr. 22). At all relevant times herein, 

the M/V Sea Fox was underway in the Gulf of Mexico and under the command of ship’s Master, 

Captain Jeff Cunningham. (Tr. 22). 

While at sea, each member of the eight-person crew of the M/V Sea Fox and each 

worked a twelve hour shift; thus ensuring that the vessel was manned with a captain, able-bodied 

seaman, ordinary seaman, engineer and oiler. (CG Ex. 2; Tr. 24). The M/V Sea Fox is 

approximately one-hundred-eighty feet long with a weight of approximately one-hundredseventy gross tons. (Tr. 42 – 43.). Each member of the four-person watch was essential to the 

safe operation of the vessel of that size and weight. 

a. Respondent performed a “safety sensitive function” on the M/V Sea Fox. 

The Coast Guard defined those duties that constitute a “safety sensitive” position include: 

control, navigation or management of a vessel; operation of propulsion, pump, electrical and 

related mechanical systems; lifesaving, firefighting, and communication equipment; mooring, 

anchoring, and towing cargo; and fuel handling, vessel stability or watertight integrity. See

generally, http://www.uscg.mil/d5/dapi/programs.asp. 

Here, Respondent was assigned the task of securing an anchor cable and safety chain 

connecting one of two ten-thousand pound bow anchors. See infra. Clearly, that task falls within 

the ambit of a “safety sensitive” position as defined by the Coast Guard and, by reference, the 

Secretary of Transportation. 

Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulation section 104.200, et seq. is read as the 

Secretary’s delegation of authority to the owner of a marine vessel to prescribe and define the 

“security organizational structure” for each vessel and to provide to crewmembers the support 
8

necessary to exercise security duties. Id. at §104.200(b)(1). Likewise, 33 C.F.R. § 104.205, 

bestows upon the ship’s Master nearly exclusive authority to define the various security and 

safety roles of his crew members. 

In the instant case, Global did promulgate such a security plan. (CG Ex. 5 and 8). Jeffery 

Lynn Daley testified that he is the Global “company security officer.” (Tr. 65). Mr. Daley 

testified that the ship’s Master is ultimately responsible for security of the vessel under the 

Global security plan. (Tr. 69). 

Aboard the M/V Sea Fox, Captain Cunningham was not only ship’s Master, he also 

served as ship’s security officer. (Tr. 20, 22). Captain Cunningham testified that one of his 

duties aboard the M/V Sea Fox was to protect against “...terrorist threats, outside attacks, from 

threats from within.” (CG Ex. 5 at p3, “Safety Rep Expectations” and p. 4 “SOR/BBSI”; Tr. 55). 

Hence, as the person dual-hatted as both ship’s Master and as ship’s security officer, 

Captain Cunningham was responsible to define what personnel would staff a given safety and 

security position and what acts constituted a threat to the safety and security of the M/V Sea Fox. 

Captain Cunningham specifically assigned to Respondent the task of securing an anchor at sea. 

That tasking was designed to ensure the safety of the vessel. Respondent, therefore, clearly 

performed a “safety sensitive function” on the M/V Sea Fox vessel, as that role is defined by the 

Secretary, his designee the Coast Guard or his ultimate designee, Captain Cunningham. 

The undersigned notes, with particularity, that in his post-hearing submission, 

Respondent entered a response of “no contest” to the Coast Guard’s allegations that he “is a 

security risk that poses a threat to the safety or security of a vessel.” (See Respondent’s written 

Closing Argument.) 

b. There is probable cause to believe that Respondent is a security risk that 

poses a threat to the safety or security of a vessel. 
9

During the late-night hours of November 2, 2008, as he was going off-shift, Captain Jeff 

Cunningham gave specific guidance to Respondent about securing one of the vessel’s two bow 

anchors, in the face of anticipated high seas as a result of the vessel’s change of direction. (Tr. 

26). Each bow anchor weighs approximately ten-thousand pounds (Tr. 42) and is secured by an 

inch-and-an-eighth wire rope and a safety chain. (Tr. 44 – 45). Captain Cunningham directed 

Respondent to secure an anchor chain in a particular fashion to ensure that the chain/cable and 

anchor did not bang against the guard or hull of the vessel. Captain Cunningham testified that 

during the early morning hours of November 3, 2008, he was awakened by the sound of an 

anchor banging very loudly against the M/V Sea Fox’s hull. Captain Cunningham then went 

topside to address the problem. (Tr. 27). As Captain Cunningham undertook the manual task of 

securing the anchor chain, Respondent presented himself. Thereafter, the Captain admonished 

Respondent for Respondent’s failure to secure the anchor chain as previously directed. (Tr. 28.) 

After an angry exchange of words with Respondent, Captain Cunningham went below to 

fill out an incident report—and thereafter sought out Respondent for him to review and sign the 

report. When Captain Cunningham found Respondent in the galley, another heated exchange 

occurred, culminating in Respondent lunging at Captain Cunningham (in an apparent attempt to 

retrieve the written report) and striking his hand in an attempt to grab the written report. (Tr. 

29). 

Thereafter, Captain Cunningham again admonished Respondent that his behavior was 

unacceptable and after another series of angry words between the men, the Captain departed to 

communicate with his superiors at Global. (CG Ex. 6 – 7; Tr. 30). At approximately 0600 hours 

on November 3, 2008, and after receiving guidance from his superiors at Global, Captain 

Cunningham informed Respondent that he was relieved of his duties and that he was confined to 

his quarters. (Tr. 30). 
10

Respondent remained defiant. As Captain Cunningham testified: 

His initial response was, ‘I don't think I can do that.’ I explained to him, this is 

not an option, you're confined to quarters, this is where you can go. You're 

relieved of duty and I will get you off the vessel as soon as I can. He had turned 

around to go down the stairs and stopped about halfway and made the comment, 

‘[W]ell, you better never cross my path.’ So, I asked him, what do you mean? 

He said, ‘I will kill you.’ I said, that's nice, Jack. He said, ‘[W]ell, maybe not on 

the boat, but if I ever see you on land I will kill you.’ And then he left the 

wheelhouse. 

(Tr. 30 – 31). 

Captain Cunningham testified that Respondent spoke those words with “hate and malice 

in his voice.” (Tr. 33). It is important to note that determining the weight of the evidence and 

making credibility determinations as to the evidence is within the sole purview of the ALJ. 

Appeal Decision 2640 (PASSARO) (2003). I find Captain Cunningham’s testimony to be 

credible. 

Some of the events of November 3, 2008 were witnessed by another crew member, 

Ordinary Seaman Brock Picard, who testified regarding his daily duties aboard the M/V Sea Fox. 

(Tr. 58). Mr. Picard was in the wheelhouse of the M/V Sea Fox at approximately 0600 hours on 

November 3, 20087 and witnessed the confrontation between Respondent and Captain 

Cunningham and testified as follows: 

And a few minutes after six Mr. Jack Jory came into the wheelhouse and Captain 

Jeff proceeded to tell him that he was relieved of all duties, he was confined to 

quarters and he could go into the galley and smoking area. Mr. Jack then told him 

he didn't know if he could comply with that and Captain Jeff told him again, 

‘[Y]ou are relieved of all duties, you are confined to quarters, you can go in the 

galley, you can go in the smoking area and, you know, he can go to bed.’ Jack 

started to walk down the stairs and he looked back and he said, ‘[Y]ou better 

never cross me again.’ And Captain Jeff said, ‘[O]h, what are you going to do?’ 

Mr. Jack said, ‘I'll kill you.’ I mean, he said it pretty serious. To me, I took it 

seriously. It was shocking. And after that Captain Jeff said, ‘[O]h, that's just 

great.’ And Mr. Jack walked out of the wheelhouse...To me, I mean, he seemed 

serious. I took it seriously, as well as Captain Jeff. It didn't sound like a joke to 

me. It shocked me. He seemed like he was being very straightforward with it. 

(Tr. 59 – 60). 
11

Given the opportunity to witness Mr. Picard’s testimony first-hand, I find him to be a credible 

witness. 

Following this encounter, there were apparently no other serious confrontations between 

Captain Cunningham and Respondent. Later, Respondent was removed from the vessel and the 

matter reported to the Coast Guard. 

Following the Coast Guard’s case-in-chief, Respondent testified on his own behalf. It is 

particularly noteworthy that Respondent did not deny the allegations made against him, nor did 

he refute the testimony of his Captain, Jeff Cunningham. (Tr. 83-89). Neither did he refute the 

testimony of his crewmate, Ordinary Seaman Brock Picard, who also witnessed Respondent’s 

threat against the Captain’s life. 

Thus, it is plain: That by threatening his Captain’s life, there is probable cause to believe 

that Respondent is a security risk that poses a threat to the safety or security of a vessel. 

Respondent’s Rebuttal 

Interestingly, Respondent averred that it was his duty to “challenge” his Captain’s orders. 

(Tr. 85 – 86). Respondent testified, essentially, that his “challenge” or questioning of his 

Captain’s orders was justified, despite the fact that his disobedience resulted in several 

confrontations with Captain Cunningham. While the undersigned perceives Respondent’s 

testimony as sincere and thoughtful, the Respondent is clearly wrong in his belief that he was 

entitled to “challenge” the authority of his ship’s Master. 

From time immemorial -- and for reasons rooted in safety – the authority of a ship’s 

captain while at sea is nearly absolute. Absent a patently illegal order, a crew-member is bound 

to follow his captain’s orders without question. This principle has been enunciated throughout 

the history of maritime jurisprudence. See The Shawnee McKenna, et al v. The Shawnee, 45 F. 
12

769 (E. D. Wisc.,1891). “The primary and paramount duty of the sailor is implicit obedience to 

every lawful command. He cannot be permitted to debate the propriety of the master’s orders, 

and courts of admiralty will not tolerate hesitation in prompt and active obedience.” Id. at 771. 

In more recent times, the Commandant of the Coast Guard restated the same timehonored rule. In Appeal Decision 2616 (Byrnes) (2000), the principle was restated: “The orders 

of the Master of a vessel are given special recognition and protection by the laws of not only the 

U.S. but of the international community. The Master has a great responsibility in ensuring the 

safety of his vessel and crew. It is general maritime law’s long recognition of the Master’s 

responsibility for the safety of the ship that serves as the basis for the authority of the Master to 

order an individual [to comply with his orders.]” See also, Norris, Martin J., The Law of 

Seamen, Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 1970, Vol 1, 3rd ed., at 609. 

Here, Respondent was plainly wrong in his failure to obey his Captain’s lawful orders 

and, sadly, even more greatly at fault for threatening his Captain’s life. 

In is post-hearing written submission, Respondent makes reference to an out-of-court 

communication he had with a naval architect. Since that communication was not part of the 

evidence submitted at the hearing and because, even if true, it is irrelevant to the instant 

charges—the undersigned gave no weight or credibility to that “evidence.” 

Respondent’s post-hearing submission raises the question of whether 46 U.S.C. §7701, et 

seq. intends to define “security risk” as inclusive of seamen aboard a marine vessel. He cites 

portions of the legislative history for the proposition that the term “security risk” means a post9/11 external terrorist threat, and not a seaman situated similarly to Respondent. While no 

appellate case law construes the phrase, I am confident that the term “security risk” broadly 

encompasses a wide variety of contingencies defined by the Coast Guard, tradition and law of 

the sea and by the Master’s own judgment, supra. 
13

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

the United States Coast Guard and the Administrative Law Judge in accordance with 46 

U.S.C. § 7704, 46 C.F.R. Part 5, and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. 

2. At all relevant times mentioned herein and specifically on November 3, 2008, 

Respondent, Jack Anthony Jory, was the holder of merchant mariner's license and 

merchant mariner's document number. 

3. At all relevant times mentioned herein, and specifically on November 3, 2008, 

Respondent performed a safety sensitive function aboard the M/V Sea Fox. 

4. On or about November 3, 2008, Respondent did assault his ship’s Master, Captain Jeff 

Cunningham by lunging at him while trying to grab a paper out of Captain Cunningham’s 

hand and thus striking his Captain’s hand. 

5. On or about November 3, 2008, Respondent did threaten the life of the ship’s Master, 

Captain Jeff Cunningham, while underway aboard the M/V Sea Fox. 

6. Respondent poses a security risk and a threat to the safety of a marine vessel.

CONCLUSION

After careful consideration of the testimony and documentary evidence offered at the 

hearing, and of the entire record, I find that the Coast Guard’s case against Respondent is 

PROVED. 

WHEREFORE, 

 ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Merchant Mariner’s Documents, Merchant 

Mariner’s Licenses, and all other credentials issued by the U.S. Coast Guard to Jack Anthony 
14

Jory are REVOKED, per the requirements of 46 U.S.C. § 7704, commencing on the date they 

were in the possession of the Coast Guard. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Jack Anthony Jory is to tender any other valid 

Merchant Mariner’s Documents, Merchant Mariner’s Licenses, and all other credential issued by 

the Coast Guard in his possession immediately to the nearest Coast Guard Marine Safety Office 

or mail those credentials to the following office: United States Coast Guard Sector Mobile, 

Investigations Department, Bldg 101, Brookley Complex, South Broad Street, Mobile, Alabama, 

36615-1390. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Jack Anthony Jory is hereby prohibited from 

serving aboard any vessel requiring a Merchant Mariner’s Document or Merchant Mariner’s 

License issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTE that issuance of this Decision and Order serves as the parties’ 

right to appeal under 33 C.F.R. Part 20, Subpart J. A copy of Subpart J is provided as 

Attachment B. 

Done and Dated on this 5th day of December, 2008 

New Orleans, LA 

 

__________________________ 

 Honorable Bruce Tucker Smith 

 Administrative Law Judge 

 United States Coast Guard
15

ATTACHMENT A

EXHIBIT LIST 

Coast Guard Witnesses 

1. Jack Cunningham, Captain of Sea Fox 

2. Brock Picard, Ordinary Seaman 

3. Jeffery Delay, Global Industries Security Officer 

Coast Guard Exhibits 

1. U.S. Coast Guard License and Merchant Mariner’s Document issued to Jack Anthony 

Jory 

2. Certificate of Inspection for Offshore Supply Vessel named Sea Fox 

3. U.S. Coast Guard License and Merchant Mariner’s Document issued to Jeffrey Lee 

Cunningham 

4. Global Industries, Ltd., Daily Vessel Log Book entry for the Sea Fox dated November 3, 

2008 

5. Global Industries certified copies of: 

Safety Representative Expectations 

Time Card for 11/02/08- 11/04/08 

Letter dated 11/13/2008 from Human Resources Manager 

6. E-mail from Caption of the Sea dated 11/3/08 at 5:17 a.m. regarding Jack Jory Discipline 

Report 

7. Company Vessel/Facility Security Investigative Report regarding Jack Jory Threats to 

Captain dated 11/3/08 

8. Affidavit of Jeffery Daley, Company Security Officer dated November 17, 2008 

Respondent Witnesses 

1. Jack Anthony Jory, Respondent 

Respondent Exhibits 

A. Contact Information for Global’s Safety Officer