UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_______________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

HEATH SPENCE 

Respondent. 

______________________________ Docket Number: CG S&R 04-0509 

CG Case No. 2197901

 

DECISION AND ORDER

Issued: February 9, 2005

Issued by: Peter A. Fitzpatrick, Administrative Law Judge

Appearances:

For Complainant 

ENS Jon D. Lane 

Jerry Crooks 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads 

200 Granby Street 

Norfolk, VA 23510-1888 

For Respondent 

Mr. Spence Did Not Appear 

 
2

I. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began when the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against the Respondent under 

the statutory authority contained in 46 U.S.C. § 7703 and the Coast Guard regulation codified at 

46 C.F.R. 5.27. Mr. Spence is the holder of a Coast Guard issued Merchant Mariner’s 

Document. In the Complaint the Coast Guard alleged that “. . . on 20 June 2003 the respondent: 

wrongfully disobeyed the orders of the master while at sea aboard the S/S ARGONAUT by 

failing to remain seated and silent during a crew meeting and ultimately failing to return to his 

quarters when ordered.” The Coast Guard sought the Outright Suspension of Mr. Spence’s 

Merchant Mariner’s Document for three months and an additional three months suspension 

remitted on twelve months probation. The Respondent’s Answer denied all Jurisdictional and 

Factual Allegations of the Complaint. The case was assigned to this Judge and the hearing was 

scheduled at Norfolk on January 5, 2005. 

The hearing convened as scheduled and the Investigating Officers were present. The 

Respondent did not appear. At the outset I reviewed the notice provided Mr. Spence regarding 

the time and place of the hearing. The case was assigned for hearing on January 5, 2005 in the 

Order dated October 29, 2004. It was served on Mr. Spence at his Barataria, Port of Spain, 

Trinidad, West Indies address. That address was provided by the Respondent in his Answer. 

Mr. Spence wrote an undated letter received November 25, 2004 requesting a 

continuance and change of venue of the hearing. Those requests were denied by Order dated 

December 9, 2004. Finally, the Respondent called the undersigned’s office on January 4, 2005 

requesting a continuance. That request too was denied. (Transcript, TR 14). 

The Investigating Officer stated at the hearing that he tried to contact the Respondent a 

number of times after Mr. Spence was served with the Complaint but those efforts were 
3

unsuccessful. (TR 11). The day before the hearing Mr. Spence called the Coast Guard Marine 

Safety Office Hampton Roads and told one of the officers that he (Spence) was sick and would 

not attend the hearing. (TR 12). No such representation was made by the Respondent to the 

undersigned’s office in the other telephone call that same day. (TR 14). 

It is clear from the record here that Heath Spence was aware of the date and place of the 

hearing but chose not to attend. Good cause has not been shown to justify his absence. 

Accordingly, it was announced that the hearing would proceed as scheduled and it would be 

conducted in absentia pursuant to 33 CFR § 20.705. A default judgment was not entered 

however and the Investigating Officer was advised that despite the Respondent’s absence, the 

Coast Guard continued to have the burden of proving the elements of the Complaint. (TR 15). 

The Coast Guard presented three witnesses including LT Gonzales, Captain Bruno 

Ravalico, Master of the SS ARGONAUT, and Robert James Peterson, Second Mate aboard the 

SS ARGONAUT. Ten exhibits were offered and admitted on the record. They are identified on 

Attachment B. 

At the conclusion of the Coast Guard’s case, the Investigating Officer presented his 

closing statement. (TR 68-74). Thereafter, I announced that the elements of the Complaint were 

proved by the preponderance of the evidence and that the sanctions proposed by the Investigating 

Officer – that the Respondent’s Merchant Mariner’s Document be suspended for six months 

including three outright and three remitted on one year probation – would be adopted. (TR 77-

79). 
4

II. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Heath Spence is the holder of a Merchant Mariner’s Document last renewed by the 

Coast Guard on February 7, 2002. It authorizes him to serve as Able Seaman aboard U.S. 

vessels. (Coast Guard, CG Exhibit 1). 

2. On April 16, 2003 Mr. Spence signed Articles of Agreement to serve aboard the 

ARGONAUT as Able Seaman - Bosun. (CG Exhibits 2, 3, 5). Captain Bruno Ravalico signed 

the agreement for the vessel. (CG Exhibit 4). 

3. The ARGONAUT (Official No. 601377) is a freighter 585 feet in length, which 

displaces 17,902 gross tons. (CG Exhibit 8). The vessel is owned by Argonaut Vessel Trust of 

Wilmington, DE. (Id.). The manning requirements of the ship, as pertinent here, include six 

Able Seaman. (Id.). 

4. On June 20, 2003 the ARGONAUT was at sea returning to Salerno, Italy from the 

Middle East. (TR 30). On that day the Master called a safety meeting of the entire available 

crew to discuss routine items (slippery decks, faulty rails, etc). (TR 37). Near the end of the 

meeting the crew was given the opportunity to voice their concerns and Mr. Spence asked why 

the fact that the sole female crewmember aboard was sleeping with another member of the crew 

was not “brought up.” (TR 38). Captain Ravalico responded that the matter was not an 

appropriate issue for that meeting and would not be discussed.1

 Bosun Spence persisted and the 

Captain repeated his position that it was not an appropriate topic for discussion. (TR 38). 

Spence repeated his demands three more times until the Captain ordered Spence to leave the 

 

1

 Previously, Captain Ravalico had contacted the Coast Guard and requested that an investigation of sexual 

harassment against the female crew member mentioned be conducted. The Coast Guard had completed that 

investigation prior to this meeting. (TR 37, 38). Captain Ravalico had relieved some members of the crew who 

were involved in that prohibited activity. (TR 43). Those activities included making catcalls at her in the mess hall, 
5

meeting. (TR 39). The Bosun refused to leave and stood up. The Captain also rose and the 

situation became “. . . more and more heated.” (TR 39). Next, the Captain told Spence he was 

relieved of his duties and again he was ordered to leave the meeting, go to his room and remain 

there until further notice. (Id.). Mr. Spence refused and the Captain and Spence approached one 

another. (Id.). At that point the officers stood in support of the Captain and some of the crew 

members responded in kind to support the Bosun. (Id.) 

5. At that point the female crewmember was in tears and was “breaking down hollering 

and screaming.” (TR 39, 40, 59-60). The other crewmember mentioned was visibly 

embarrassed. (TR 60). Again, the Captain ordered Spence to leave the room. Finally, the 

Master ordered the Chief Engineer and Chief Mate to escort Spence from the room. (TR 60). 

This time the Bosun finally left the meeting. (TR 60). The Bosun was relieved of his duties, 

confined to his room, and fired when the vessel returned to Salerno, Italy. (TR 44, 46). 

6. Mr. Spence was Discharged for Cause (Sexual Harassment) on June 24, 2003. (CG 

Exhibit 5). 

III. 

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED

1. This proceeding is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act , which is 

incorporated into these proceedings under 46 U.S.C. 7702, which reads: 

§ 7702. Administrative procedure

(a) Sections 551-559 of title 5 apply to each hearing under this 

chapter about suspending or revoking a license, certificate of 

registry, or merchant mariner's document. 

 putting her laundry on the deck on display, and constant complaints that she was receiving favorable treatment. (TR 

38). 
6

2. 46 U.S.C.§§ 7701-7705 are the relevant portions of the Federal statute governing the 

suspension and revocation of merchant mariners' licenses and documents. 46 U.S.C. § 7703 

reads in pertinent part: 

§ 7703. Bases for suspension or revocation 

A license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document issued 

by the Secretary may be suspended or revoked if the holder-- 

 (1) when acting under the authority of that license, certificate, or 

document-- 

 (A) has violated or fails to comply with this subtitle [46 USCS §§ 

2101 et seq.], a regulation prescribed under this subtitle [46 USCS §§ 

2101 et seq.], or any other law or regulation intended to promote marine 

safety or to protect navigable waters; or 

 (B) has committed an act of incompetence, misconduct, or negligence; 

3. The term Misconduct which is involved here, is defined at 46 C.F.R. 5.27 as follows: 

 § 5.27 Misconduct. 

 Misconduct is human behavior which violates some formal, duly established 

rule. Such rules are found in, among other places, statutes, regulations, the common 

law, the general maritime law, a ship's regulation or order, or shipping articles and 

similar sources. It is an act which is forbidden or a failure to do that which is 

required. 

IV. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Respondent was acting under the authority of his Merchant Mariner’s Document 

when he was serving aboard the ARGONAUT on June 20, 2004 when the incident giving rise to 

the Complaint here occurred. 

2. The Coast Guard has jurisdiction in this case under the provisions of 46 U.S.C. § 

7703. 

3. The allegations of the Complaint are PROVED by a preponderance of the evidence. 
7

V. 

OPINION

A. General

1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 

7703, which authorizes the Coast Guard to suspend or revoke a Coast Guard issued license or 

Merchant Mariner’s Document for, among other thing, acts of Misconduct. In these 

proceedings, the Coast Guard has the burden of proving the allegations in the Complaint by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 33 C.F.R. §§20.701 and 20.702; Appeal Decisions 2468 

(LEWIN), 2477 (TOMBARI). See also Dept. of Labor v. Greenwich Colleries, 512 U.S. 267 

(1994); Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 100-103 (1981). This proceeding is conducted under the 

provisions of 33 C.F.R. Part 20, and 46 C.F.R. Part 5, and the Administrative Procedure Act, as 

amended and codified in 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. 

In the Complaint dated September 20, 2004, the Coast Guard alleged that Mr. Spence 

committed Misconduct by wrongfully disobeying the orders of the Master while at sea aboard 

the SS ARGONAUT by failing to remain seated and silent during a crew meeting and ultimately 

failing to return to his quarters when ordered. The term Misconduct is defined in Coast Guard 

regulations as human behavior that violates a formal duly established rule. Such rules are found 

in statutes, regulations, the common law, the general maritime law and in a ship’s regulations or 

orders and similar sources. (46 CFR § 5.27). It is an act which is forbidden or the failure to do 

an act that is required. (Id.). 

 It is now well established at law that good order and discipline aboard ship and the safety 

of the crew requires mariners to obey the lawful orders of the Master. Appeal Decision 2616 

(BYRNES), p. 10. As the Commandant has recognized, the orders of the Master of a vessel are 
8

accorded “special recognition and protection” in this nation as well as the international 

community. (Id.). The Master has the great responsibility for ensuring the safety of his vessel 

and its crew and the law recognizes that duty as the basis for his authority to issue orders. (Id.). 

See also 46 U.S.C. § 11501. Over one hundred years ago the Supreme Court stated in this regard 

in The Styria, 186 U.S. 1, 22 S.Ct. 732 (1901): 

The Master of a ship is the person who is entrusted with the care 

and management of it, and the great trust reposed in him by the 

owners, and the great authority which the law has vested in him, 

require on his part and for his own sake, no less than for the 

interest of his employers, the utmost fidelity and attention. 

Moreover, the shipping articles here, (Articles of Agreement between Master and Seaman 

in the Merchant Service of the United States) signed by Mr. Spence and Captain Ravalico on 

April 16, 2003 require the seaman to conduct himself in an orderly manner and to be obedient to 

the lawful commands of the Master. (CG Exhibit 4). As the Commandant has stated in Appeal 

Decision 2150 (THOMAS), (p. 2): “A seaman who is bound by legally constituted articles of 

agreement may not fail to obey lawful orders during the existence of the lawfully incurred 

obligation.” There is no question therefore that Heath Spence, the Bosun on the ARGONAUT 

on June 20, 2003, was obligated to obey the lawful orders of Captain Ravalico, the Master of that 

vessel. 

Next, it is necessary to review whether the orders involved here were lawful. See 

(Appeal Decision JOHNSON), (pp.2-3). In this instance, Captain Ravalico had convened a 

routine safety meeting for the crew while the ARGONAUT was returning to Salerno, Italy from 

the Middle East. Near the end of the meeting, the Bosun Spence accused the single female 

crewmember of having sexual relations with another member of the crew. As Second Mate 

Peterson testified at the hearing, Spence’s accusation was totally inappropriate at this public 
9

safety meeting and it served no purpose whatsoever to air this matter at that meeting. (TR 61). 

Peterson continued that it was “ridiculous and foolish” to make these statements in public to the 

crew. (TR 62). The Second Mate testified that it “made sense” for the Captain to cut off the 

discussion of this topic by ordering the Bosun to sit down and stop. (TR 62). When Spence 

refused, the Master ordered Spence to leave the room and return to his cabin. (Id.) After more 

refusals to obey, Spence was relieved of his duties and ultimately escorted from the room. (TR 

60). 

These orders were lawful and appropriate to the situation. (TR 61). Both Captain 

Ravalico and Second Officer Peterson testified at the hearing to the increasingly heated 

confrontation by the Bosun toward the Master. Captain Ravalico testified that in all his over 30 

years of sailing, he had never experienced a situation like the one involved here. (TR 46). The 

Bosun’s behavior created a chaotic and confrontational atmosphere which nearly resulted in 

“blows” between some of the crew and the officers. (TR 43-44). When the Bosun brought up 

the alleged sexual relationship of the two crewmembers the Master ordered him to sit down and 

be quiet. (TR 58). The Bosun refused and replied that he had something to say and wasn’t gong 

to sit down until he was finished. (TR 59). The Master ordered him to desist a number of times 

but the Bosun persisted and refused to obey. (TR 42, 59). At that point Captain Ravalico 

ordered the Bosun to leave the meeting and return to his room. (TR 59). Again, the mariner 

refused to obey. (TR 59-60). Finally, Captain Ravalico relieved Spence of his duties, ordered 

him to leave the meeting, confined him to his cabin and had him escorted out of the meeting. (TR 

59-60). Theses were lawful and indeed reasonable and necessary orders under the 

circumstances. 
10

The Commandant has held that the second consideration in determining whether the 

offense of disobedience to a lawful order has been committed is whether the mariner had 

knowledge of the order. See Appeal Decision JOHNSON, supra at 2. Captain Ravalico and 

Second Officer Peterson testified that they were certain that Spence heard and understood the 

Master’s orders but he refused to obey. (TR 42, 61). This testimony is very credible that the 

Bosun was fully aware of the orders involved but intentionally refused to comply. 

The third element of the offense is whether the mariner had a duty to obey the order. The 

evidence in this case as recited earlier, reveals that Mr. Spence signed Articles of Agreement to 

serve as Boson-Able Bodied Seaman aboard the ARGONAUT on April 16, 2003. Captain 

Ravalico too signed that Agreement. The Articles specifically required Spence to obey the 

lawful orders of the Master. Spence’s behavior here violated the express terms of that 

Agreement as well as the long standing law of the sea which imposed upon him the duty to obey. 

See BYRNES supra at 11. This element of the offense is present in this case. 

Finally, the review must examine whether the mariner failed to obey the Master’s orders. 

Both Captain Ravalico and the Second Officer testified that Spence continued to verbally 

confront the Master after he had been ordered repeatedly to sit down and be silent. (TR 38, 58-

59). Next, when the Bosun refused to obey he was ordered to leave the room and return to his 

cabin. (TR 39-44, 59-61). Again the Bosun refused to obey. It was only when the Captain 

ordered the Chief Engineer and the Chief Mate to escort Spence to his room that he finally 

complied. (TR 60). Clearly, Mr. Spence disobeyed the numerous orders issued by the Master. 

Moreover, when asked whether there were any reasons why the Respondent could not 

have complied with the Master’s order, the Second Officer responded “No” as follows: 
11

No. The orders were simple and very easy to comply with. 

He was asked to either first sit down and stop talking, you know, 

discontinue this topic of conversation or this topic of meeting. So 

that was very simple to comply with. And it would have been wise 

as well easy for the bosun to just remove himself from the room 

when he was told to do so. Either of those were straightforward 

and easy enough for him to follow through. 

(TR 63) 

Mr. Spence’s disobedience here is particularly egregious since he, as Bosun, is the 

leading member of the deck crew and is responsible for supervising less experienced mariners. 

He is the one who sets the example to the other members of the deck crew. Mr. Spence’s 

behavior must have been very damaging to the crew morale and to good order and discipline on 

the vessel. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Jurisdictional and Factual Allegations of the 

Complaint are PROVED. 

VI. 

ORDER

The Investigating Officer is seeking an Order suspending Mr. Spence’s Merchant 

Mariner’s Document for six months; three month as Outright Suspension and three months to be 

remitted on twelve months probation. (TR 78-79). That request is reasonable under the 

circumstances of this case. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT all elements of the Complaint filed against Heath 

Spence on September 20, 2004 are PROVED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Merchant Mariner’s Document and all other 

credentials issued by the U.S. Coast Guard to Heath Spence are SUSPENDED OUTRIGHT for 

THREE months commencing on the date they are in the possession of the Coast Guard. In 

addition, Mr. Spence’s credentials are suspended for an additional THREE months but that 
12

suspension will not become effective provided he does not violate any law or regulation relating 

to marine safety or to the illegal use of drugs or alcohol during the 12 months period 

immediately following the end of the period of Outright Suspension. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Heath Spence is to tender his Merchant Mariner’s 

Document and all other credential issued by the Coast Guard immediately to the nearest Coast 

Guard Marine Safety Office or mail those credentials to the following office. 

ENS Jon D. Lane 

Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads 

200 Granby Street 

Norfolk, VA 23510-1888 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Heath Spence is hereby prohibited from serving 

aboard any vessel requiring a Merchant Mariner’s Document issued by the U.S. Coast Guard 

until the suspension described herein is served. 

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 A). 

________________________________________ 

PETER A. FITZPATRICK 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

U.S. COAST GUARD 

Done and dated on this February 9, 2005 

Norfolk, Virginia 
13

ATTACHMENT A

NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RIGHTS

33 CFR 20.1001 General. 

(a) Any party may appeal the ALJ's decision by filing a notice of appeal. The party 

shall file the notice with the U. S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing 

Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore, 

MD 21201-4022. The party shall file the notice 30 days or less after issuance of the 

decision, and shall serve a copy of it on the other party and each interested person. 

(b) No party may appeal except on the following issues: 

(1) Whether each finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence. 

(2) Whether each conclusion of law accords with applicable law, precedent, and 

public policy. 

(3) Whether the ALJ abused his or her discretion. 

(4) The ALJ's denial of a motion for disqualification. 

(c) No interested person may appeal a summary decision except on the issue that no 

hearing was held or that in the issuance of the decision the ALJ did not consider 

evidence that that person would have presented. 

(d) The appeal must follow the procedural requirements of this subpart. 

33 CFR 20.1002 Records on appeal. 

(a) The record of the proceeding constitutes the record for decision on appeal. 

(b) If the respondent requests a copy of the transcript of the hearing as part of the record 

of proceeding, then, -- 

(1) If the hearing was recorded at Federal expense, the Coast Guard will provide 

the transcript on payment of the fees prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45; but, 

(2) If the hearing was recorded by a Federal contractor, the contractor will 

provide the transcript on the terms prescribed in 49 CFR 7.45. 

33 CFR 20.1003 Procedures for appeal. 

(a) Each party appealing the ALJ's decision or ruling shall file an appellate brief with the 

Commandant at the following address: U.S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge 

Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; 

Baltimore, MD 21201-4022, and shall serve a copy of the brief on every other party. 

(1) The appellate brief must set forth the appellant's specific objections to the 

decision or ruling. The brief must set forth, in detail, the -- 
14

(i) Basis for the appeal; 

(ii) Reasons supporting the appeal; and 

(iii) Relief requested in the appeal. 

(2) When the appellant relies on material contained in the record, the appellate 

brief must specifically refer to the pertinent parts of the record. 

(3) The appellate brief must reach the Docketing Center 60 days or less after 

service of the ALJ's decision. Unless filed within this time, or within another 

time period authorized in writing by the Docketing Center, the brief will be 

untimely. 

(b) Any party may file a reply brief with the Docketing Center 35 days or less after 

service of the appellate brief. Each such party shall serve a copy on every other party. 

If the party filing the reply brief relies on evidence contained in the record for the 

appeal, that brief must specifically refer to the pertinent parts of the record. 

(c) No party may file more than one appellate brief or reply brief, unless -- 

(1) The party has petitioned the Commandant in writing; and 

(2) The Commandant has granted leave to file an added brief, in which event the 

Commandant will allow a reasonable time for the party to file that brief. 

(d) The Commandant may accept an amicus curiae brief from any person in an appeal of 

an ALJ's decision. 

33 CFR 20.1004 Decisions on appeal. 

(a) The Commandant shall review the record on appeal to determine whether the ALJ 

committed error in the proceedings, and whether the Commandant should affirm, 

modify, or reverse the ALJ's decision or should remand the case for further 

proceedings. 

(b) The Commandant shall issue a decision on every appeal in writing and shall serve a 

copy of the decision on each party and interested person. 
15

ATTACHMENT B

WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS

WITNESS LIST 

COMPLAINANT’S WITNESSES 

1. LT John Gonzales 

2. Bruno P. Ravalico 

3. Robert J. Peterson 

EXHIBIT LIST 

COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS 

CG Exhibit 1 - Merchant Mariner Document File 

CG Exhibit 2 – Merchant Mariner’s Renewal Document 

CG Exhibit 3 – Copy of Merchant Mariner’s Document 

CG Exhibit 4 – Articles of Agreement 

CG Exhibit 5 – Particulars of Engagement/Discharge 

CG Exhibit 6 – Certificate of Discharge 

CG Exhibit 7 – Crew List 

CG Exhibit 8 – Certificate of Inspection 

CG Exhibit 9 – Certificate of Documentation 

CG Exhibit 10 – Logbook Excerpt