UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

VS. 

ROBERT MARTIN LARSON, JR. 

Respondent. 

Docket Number: CG S&R 05-0486 

CG Case No. 2455787 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Issued: Julv 16,2007 

Issued bv: Thomas E. P. McElti~ott, U.S. Administrative Law Jude 

Avvearances: 

Investigating Officers 

LT John Luff and 

CWO John Fayard 

U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit 

800 David Drive, Room 232 

Morgan City, Louisiana 70380 

For the Coast Guard 

Lany P. Boudreaux, Esq. 

409 Green Street 

P.O. Box 650 

Thibodaux, Louisiana 70301 

For the Respondent 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

In the discharge of its duty to promote the safety of lives and properties at sea, in ports 

and waterways, the United States Coast Guard Investigating OMicers ("10s") initiated this 

administrative action. They were requesting a trial-type hearing before and by a U.S. 

Administrative Law Judge and seeking Revocation of the Coast Guard issued Merchant 

Mariner's License and Merchant Mariner's Document ("MMD) issued to Robert Martin Larson, 

Jr., the Respondent herein ("Larson" or "Respondent"). This action was brought pursuant to the 

legal authority contained in 46 U.S. Code ("'USC") 7703 and the proceedings were conducted in 

accordance with the procedural guidelines at the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 551- 

559,46 Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR") Part 5 and 33 CFR Part 20. The Investigating 

Officer's ("TO'S") motion to amend the Complaint was granted. 

The Coast Guard 10s filed and served personally on Respondent the original Complaint, 

via Certified Mail, Return Receipt, on or about August 24,2005. The Complaint was against 

Respondent's Coast Guard issued License and Merchant Mariner's Document. alleging 

Respondent committed one count of Misconduct by being intoxicated in violation of his 

employer's, Kevin Gros Marine, Inc., safe work practices and also jumping the fence at the 

Louisiana Offshore Oil Port ("LOOP") after Respondent was refused admission by a guard due 

to his intoxication. The 10s originally requested a sanction of five (5) months outright 

suspension of Respondent's Coast Guard license and document for only those alleged violations 

at the LOOP. 

Respondent's attorney. Larry P. Boudreaux, requested and was granted an additional 

thirty (30) days to file an Answer to the original Complaint. He did this on or about November 

21,2005. Respondent's attorney filed his Answer on or about banns-ry 9,2000 to the original 
Complaint, admitting the jurisdictional allegations but denying all of the factual allegations. On 

June 5,2006, the hearing was scheduled by and before Thomas E. P. MeElligott, a U.S. 

Administrative Law Judge ("ALP) deciding Coast Guard cases, to commence on September 26. 

2006, in the trial-type hearing room at the Marine Safety Office, in Morgan City, Louisiana. 

The Coast Guard sewed on Respondent and Respondent's attorney and filed an Amended 

Conlplaint on or about June 13,2006. The Amended Complaint, with the concurrence of the 

ALJ, superseded the original Complaint. The Amended Complaint contained a total of three (3) 

counts or charges; two (2) counts under 46 CFR 5.27, alleging Misconduct and a third count 

alleging conviction under the U.S. National Driver Register Act, 46 USC 7703(3). 

Under the first Misconduct charge, the Coast Guard alleged in the Amended Complaint 

that on September 13,2003, on Respondent's license and MMD renewal application filed with 

the U.S. Coast Guard's Regional Examination Center, completed and signed by Respondent, the 

Respondent failed to disclose previous Respondent's drug use. 

The second Misconduct charge again alleged the July 30.2005, alcohol use and the 

LOOP fence jumping incidents. The Amended Complaint also alleged a Driving Under the 

Influence ("DUI") conviction of Respondent on or about October 3 1.2005, by a state, city or 

county criminal court. 

The Investigating OEcers sought Revocation of the Respondent's U.S. Coast Guard 

Merchant Mariner's License and his U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's Document in the 

Amended Complaint under 46 USC 7703. 
This matter proceeded to a trial-type hearing at the Marine Safety Unit trial-type hearing 

room, in Morgan City, l,ouisiana, on September 26,2006, before Thomas F. P. McEliigott, U.S. 

Administrative Law Judge. The Respondent's attorney, the Respondent and the Investigating 

Officers were present throughout tbe hearing. Both sides made opening statements summarizing 

what they intended to show occurred in these matters. The Investigating Officers offered six (6) 

documentary exhibits, which were admitted into evidence by the undersigned Judge and three (3) 

witnesses who testified under oath, one of whom testified via telephonic testimony in accordance 

with 33 CFR Part 20.707. The Respondent through his attorney offered nine (9) exhibits and two 

(2) witnesses. The Respondent's nine (9) exhibits were admitted into evidence by the 

undersigned Judge, and one (1) Respondent's character witness. The Respondent was also called 

to testify under oath by his attorney. The Investigating Officers produced three (3) witnesses. 

There were a total of five (5) witnesses testifying under oath in this trial-type hearing and the 

undersigned admitted fifteen (1 5) of the offered exhibits into evidence. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Tbe Findings of Fact are based upon a thorough and careful analysis of the documentary 

evidence, the testimonies of witnesses under oath and the entire hearing record considered as a 

whole, as weil as the applicable laws. 

1. The Respondent was issued by the U.S. Coast Gwd his original 1600 Gross Tons 

("6-7':') Merchant Mariner Mate's License #842104 on or about October 23, 1997, having 

an expiration date of October 23; 2002. On October 3 1.2003, the Respondent received 

from the U.S. Coast Guard his second issue of the 1600 GT Mate's License, Serial 

fi1084482, having an expiration date of October 3i, 2008. (18 Exhibit #I). 
2. The Respondent was issued his original Merchant Mariner's Document (MMD) on or 

about August 5, 1997. On October 3 1,2003. the Respondent was issued his second 

MMD. Serial Number 006849 and having an expiration date of October 3 1,2008. (10 

Exhibit #I). 

3. On March 21,2002, the Respondent's urine tested positive for use of the dangerous drug 

cocaine after a random chemical test by a certified laboratory of Respondent's urine 

specimen and confirmed by a Medical Review Officer. (10 Exhibit #2). 

4. l'he Respondent admitted to this drug use and entered and later completed a drug cure 

program as part of a Suspension and Revocation Consent Agreement between 

Respondent and some other Coast Guard IOs, on or about April It, 2002. (I0 Exhibit 

#3). 

5. At the Coast Guard Regional Examination Center at the port of Houston, Texas, on 

September 13,2003, during the process of renewing his license, the Respondent 

completed, signed and certified that all the information on his Coast Guard issued 

credentials renewal application was true and correct. (10 Exhibit #l). 

6. At the Coast Guard Regional Examination Center in Houston, Texas, during the process 

of renewing Respondent's Coast Guard license, the Respondent wrote and signed that he 

had never been a user of a dangerous drug. He wxote this and signed it on or about 

September 13,2003. (10 Exhibit #I). This was on the U.S. Coast Guard's renewal 

application fom that Respondent completed, signed and filed with the Coast Guard at its 

Regional Examination Center. 

7. The Respondent also pled no contest to the offense of Driving While IntoxicatedSubsequent, on October 3 1,2005. (10 Exhibit #4). 
8. The Respondent was employed by Kevin Gros Marine. Inc., on or about July 30,2005, as 

the master or captain of the Offshore Supply Vessel SEA BROOKE. (Hearing transcripts 

beginning at page 54). 

9. Respondent as the captain of the SEA BROOKE was required by law to have a Coast 

Guard issued merchant mariner's captain's or master's license. (Transcripts beginning at 

page 54). 

10. Respondent's maritime employer, Kevin Gros Marine, inc. had a zero tolerance drug and 

alcohol policy in force on July 30,2005. The Respondent was made aware of that policy 

around the time Respondent was first employed by this maritime corporation or 

company. (I0 Exhibit #5). 

1 1. The Respondent was detained by the Greater Lafourche Harbor Police Department, on 

July 30,2005, in Louisiana. He was issued a police summons for criminal trespass and 

disturbing the peace by public intoxication on or about that date. (10 Exhibit #6). This 

was the date involving Respondent's intoxication and the climbing of the LOOP fence to 

get hack to the vessel Respondent was assigned and hired for. Respondent and his two 

(2) crew members together left the vessel docked at a LOOP area dock and went 

shopping and drinking alcoholic beverages ashore. 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The U.S. Coast Guard had and has jurisdiction over both the Respondent's Coast Guard 

issued merchant marine license and his MMD. Respondent applied for and filed for the 

renewal of those two credentials at the Coast Guard Regional Examination Center in 
Houston, Texas, on or about September 13,2003. 46 CFR S.S7(b) states that a person is 

considered to be acting under authority of the license, certificate or document while 

engaged in official matters regarding the license, certificate or document. The renewal of 

these credentials is specifically cited as an official matter in that regulation, 49 CFR 5.57 

(b). 

2. The Respondent used a dangerous drug, to wit: cocaine, in March of 2002. A "dangerous 

drug" is defined as a narcotic drug, a controlled substance, or a controlled substance 

analog (as defined in section 102 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 

1970). 46 1i.S. Code 2101(8)(a). A "narcotic drug" includes "[c]oca leaves, except coca 

leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of 

ecgonine of their salts have been removed. [The term also includes] [clocaine, its salts, 

optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers." 21 U.S. Code 802(17). 

3. Respondent on his signed, completed and filed with the Coast Guard renewal application, 

on September 13,2003, stated and wrote on page 2, Section 111, Respondent's answer 

was "No" to the question, "Have you ever been a user oflor addicted to a dangerous drug, 

including marijuana?" 

4. The U.S. Coast Guard had and has jurisdiction over both the Respondent's U.S. Coast 

Guard issued merchant mariner license and his MMD, on Count 2, Conviction under the 

National Driver Register Act. 46 U.S. Code 7703(3) required merely that the Respondent 

hold the credentials and not that he be acting the aulbority of those credentials. A 

plea of 'Wo Contest-' amounts to a conviction for Coast Guard credentialing purposes. 

- See the definition of "Conviction" under 46 CFR 10.103 for licenses and for documents 
see 46 CFR 12.01-6. Driving Phihife Intoxicated - Subsequent is within the purview of 

the U.S. National Driver Register Act. Appeal Decision 2613 (SLACK) (1999). 

5. The U.S. Coast Guard had and has jurisdiction over the third factual allegation, the 

LOOP fence jumping incident involving intoxication of Respondent because the 

Respondent, despite going ashore or away from his assigned vessel. was acting under the 

authority of his license. Though not necessarily controlling, 33 CFR 95.01 5(b) is 

persuasive on this issue: 

For purposes of this part [intoxicated operation], an individual is 

considered to he operating a vessel when: The individual is a 

crewmember (including a licensed individual), pilot or watch stander not a 

regular member of the crew, of a vessel other than a recreational vessel. 

6. also in Appeal Decision Number 2624 (DOWNS) Year Decided (1 999). In that case 

the Commandant decided on appeal that a master or captain was acting under the 

authority of his license, and therefore subject to revocation, despite the fact that he had 

not been onboard the vessel for 12 hours when he refused a reasonable suspicion 

chemical drug andlor alcohol test. Respondent's employers conferred and decided based 

upon telephone notification that the Respondent Downs had been found by police to be 

intoxicated and in possession of a "crack pipe," reasonable cause existed to obtain a urine 

sample from the Respondent for the purpose of testing him for drug usage by his 

maritime employers. 

DISCUSSlON 

A major purpose of Coast Guard suspension and revocation trial-type hearings is to 

promote safety of lives and properties at sea. in ports and related waternays, 46 U.S. Code 7701. 
These hearings are remedial in nature and do not affix criminal or civil liability. 46 CFR 

5.501; Ameal Decision 2639 (HAUCK) (2003). 

The U.S. Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S. Code 551-559, applies to this 

Coast Guard suspension and revocation trial-type hearings before a U.S. Administrative Law 

Judge. 46 USC 7702(a). The APA authorizes sanctions to be imposed if. upon consideration of 

the entire record as a whole, the allegations are supported by reliable, probative and substantial 

evidence, 5 U.S. Code 556(d). "'The term substantial evidence is synonymous with 

preponderance of the evidence as defined by the [U.S.] Supreme Court." A~oeal Decision 2477 

(TOMBAR11 (1988). The burden of showing something 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 [the judge] may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade 

the budge] 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 

re Winshig, 397 U.S. 358,371-72 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring) (brackets in original)). 

Under the procedural and substantive rules, laws and regulations of the Coast Guard, the 

Investigating Officers bear the burden of proving their allegations by a preponderance of the 

evidence. 33 CFR 20.701,20.702(a). Therefore, the Coast Guard Investigating Officers must 

prove with reliable, credible and probative evidence that Respondent more likely than not 

committed the violations they alleged in the amended Complaint. 

Under the first Misconduct charge, the Coast Guard Investigating Officers alleged that on 

September 13.2003, on his written, signed and filed by Respondent license and RlMD renewal 

application, the Respondent failed to disclose and denied previous drug use of cocaine. The 
Respondent admitted this lack of disclosure but claimed this omission was an error, hence an 

unintentional omission. This is a remedial proceeding where specific intent is not at issue. 

In Appeal Decision 2608 (SHEPHERD2 (1999), the Appellant argued that the U.S. 

Administrative Law Judge should have dismissed the Misconduct specifications charging 

submission by Respondent of a fraudulent application written and signed by Respondent Larson 

because the Coast Guard Investigating Offtcers did not allege or prove specific intent. In 

upholding after appeal the U.S. Administrative Law Judge, the Commandant stated and ruled on 

the appeal: 

I have previously held that specific intent is not a prerequisite element of a 

charge of misconduct or a violation of law or regulation in suspension and 

revocation hearings which are by their nature remedial in nature. & 

Appeal Decisions 2496 (MCGRATH); 2490 (PALMER); 2286 

(SPRAGUE); 922 (WILSON); 2445 (MATHISON); 2248 (FREEMAN). 

(T)he Coast Guard was not required to allege specific intent nor was it 

required to offer any proof of specific intent. The specifications at issue 

were part of a misconduct charge in which specific intent is not an 

element. 

In Appeal Decision 2025 (ARMSTRONG) (1975), the Commandant stated, "The truth of 

information provided by applicants for documents and licenses is essential to the discharge of the 

Coast Guard mission of protection of life and property at sea." 

In Appeal Decision 2569 (TAYLOR) the Investigating Officer sought an order of 

revocation because of a fraudulent application and after the proofs were offered and completed, 

the ALJ decided to accept the Investigating Officer's recommendation. Although not insisting 

on revocation. the Commandant did find it appropriate. Wkitc doing so, he state& 

In Apueal Decision 2205 IROBLES), 1 said, "...if a fimd in the 

procurement of a license is found, revocation (not a suspension or a 

suspension or probation) is the only appropriate disposition when a 

hearing under R.S. 4450 has been accorded.'. Although ROBLES 

involved a fraudulently obtained license, and this case involves a MMD, 

the principle is the same. As explained in Appeal Decision 2025 
@RMSTRONGI, information concerning the drug use background of an 

applicant is a crucial factor for the Coast Guard in deciding whether to 

issue seaman's papers because an applicant's character relates to the risk 

he may pose to the seafaring world. Consequently, the truth of 

information provided by applicants for licenses and documents is essential 

to the Coast Guard's ability to discharge its mission of protecting life and 

property at sea. Id. 1 therefore hold that fraud in the procurement of any 

license, certificate, or document is a clear threat to the safety of life or 

property. As such, the ALJ's revocation of the MMD was neither an 

abuse of his discretion nor inappropriate.' 

And finally in Appeal Decision 2613 (SLACK) (1999), the Commandant in an Appeal 

Decision reaffirmed that revocation is an appropriate sanction for fraud in the procurement of a 

Coast Guard issued official credential. In the SLACK case and its subsequent Appeal Decision, 

the Coast Guard filed and served on Respondent a misconduct charge that alleged the 

Respondent-Appellant wrongfully made fraudulent or false statements on his Merchant 

Mariner's license renewal application. Concerning the misconduct charge, the Commandant 

stated on appeal, "I have previously stated that where fraud in the procurement of a license is 

proved by Investigating Officers in a suspension and revocation proceeding, revocation in the 

ggly appropriate sanction. &Appeal Decisions 2570 (HARRIS); 2346 (WILLIAMS); a 

(ROBLES); 2569 (TAYLOR)." Emphasis in the original. 

%em language undouhtedl) shows the Commandant considers submitting and filing a false or fraudulent 

license or document (MMD application a threat to the public welfare. This once again sbows that intent is not an 

element in regards to a fraudulent application 

Protection of Public Health and Safety 

Lhtc ~:icnic!~t n:',~ )?h~l)li:. st~li,itc ~L~~LI:C !s sh< ~!cn'ct~wi LIT 111~. p!~l~lic'\ ..~cI~ it~v~!g. II! l..t.t.itcq.S~at~!, \,. 

I)oti?rnc.ig?. 1ZO \' \ .:.I: ! iu.1:). rhc ;I. Sj 5:1preirir ('<t11!1 <ir~t~rd thid?iettd:lnr'. cot!\ ~ction under rhc 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which subjected the defendant to criminal penalties even 

though he was not aware that he was committing any wrongdoing. More recently, in United States v. Park, 

421 U.S. 658 {1975), the [U.S.] Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Dottenveich by holding that it 

was not necessary to prove knowledge or intent in a prosecution under this statute. A Little Knowledge 

Can Be a Dangerous Thin% Slate of New Jersey v. Robertson & The Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act 

of 1987. Barn Capp Pace Environmen&l Law Revieit, VOLUME 15, SPRWC 1998, NO. 2. 

h~:/~www.~~w.~ace.eduipelr!v~ll5no2 1998,bca~a.hlm! 
The Commandant has held and ruled that information concerning the drug use 

background of an applicant is a crucial factor for a Coast Guard Regional Examination Center 

Credential Examiner in deciding whether to issue seaman's or mariner's documents. An 

applicant's character relates to the risk he may pose to the seafaring world. A Coast Guard 

Regional Examination Center Credential Examiner cannot make a correct determination without 

accurate and truthful information filed by the applicant in his written and signed renewal 

application. Intent is not an element when a mariner submits an inaccurate or untruthful or false 

credential application and intent is not an issue in this case. It is found that the Coast Guard has 

proved its case and revocation of both affected merchant mariner credentials is the appropriate 

sanction for that lack of accuracy and/or truthfulness. 

The "Driving While Intoxicated - Subsequent" conviction is at least the Respondent's 

second Driving Under the Influence ("DUI") conviction and adding in the LOOP intoxication 

and fence jumping incident (which I find properly charged and proved at this hearing), I count 

four substance abuse incidents (three alcohol incidents and a drug incident) in a five-year period 

by Respondent. This five-year period also included at least two forced substance abuse cure or 

drug cure attempts by two separate sovereigns of this captioned Respondent Larson. 

Further, I take official notice that as early as 1997 this Respondent raised his hand and 

took an oath in a formal ceremony swearing that he would faithfully and honestly, according to 

his best skill and judgment, without concealment or reservation, perform all his duties as 

required by law 46 CFR 10, including 46 CFR 10 202(dj. 
SANCTION 

ORDER 

L T IS IPEIREIIV ORDERED Uiat a11 tllree aiIegations in the Amended Con~plaint served 

\i.cll bcfore the ilearing date on Respondent and Respondent's attorney in the above captioned 

administrative proceedings and trial-type hearing are found proved. All the Respondent's Coast 

Guard issued U.S. Merchant Mariner's licenses and documents are Revoked. Respondent and 

Respondent's attorney are ordered to immediately deliver Respondent's U.S. Coast Guard issued 

said licenses and documents, if they have not already done so, to the Coast Guard Investigating 

Officers at the Marine Safety Unit in Morgan City. Louisiana, by mail, overnight deliver service 

or in person. 'The address of the Commanding Officer, Assistant Chief Investigating Officer. 

Attorney Jvncs Wilson and the Senior Investigating Officer is: U.S. Coast Guard Marine Sdety 

Unit, 800 Dzvid Drive, Room 232, Morgan City, Louisiana 70380; telephone: 985-380-5339, 

fa: 985-380-5379. 

f1,EASE TAKE NOTICE tliat the seivicc of this Decision and Order on ihc 

iicspondcnt 1,arson 2nd Rcspondcm's tiionicy scr\~cs as noticc to tho Respondent of iiis rig!;! to 

appez!: thc procedi!!-ei for 1vi:ich arc set i'o?h in 33 CFR pa-i 20: I~lci~ding 33CFR 20.1 001 

o 0 (See Atvachmcnt D). 
DOCKET NUMBER CG S&R 05-0486 

ATTACHMENT A 

WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS 

WITNESS LIST (FIVE) 

COAST GUARD'S WITNESSES (3) 

1. Mr. Armojen Canrrelle, Jr., General Manager of Kevin Gros Offshore, Inc., LLC, of 

Larose, Louisiana Respondent's marine employer company 

2. Mr. Randy Chiasson, Police Officer with the Greater Lafourche Port Commission Harbor 

Police in Louisiana 

3. Ms. Stephanie Marie Tastet, Security Guard for Sutton Guard Company at the MI Dock 

at Fourchon (Loop Guard) 

RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES (2) 

1. Mr. Michael J. Smith, Owner of Sun Towing Corp. and Present Employer of Respondent 

2. Mr. Robert Martin Larson, Jr., Respondent 

EXHIBIT LIST (SEVENTEEN) 

COAST GUARD'S EXHIBITS (6) 

10 Ex. 1 Respondent's written, dated and signed '-Application for License as an Officer, 

Staff Officer, or Operator and for Merchant Mariner's Document", Completed, Signed and Dated 

by Respondent on September 13,2003 

I0 Ex. 2 A Screen Print Abbreviation from the marine Information for Safety and Law 

Enforcement" (""MIS1,E) Database, Concerning Respondent 

I0 Ex. 3 A prior case Settlement Agreement Signed by the U.S. Coast Guard other 

Investigating Officers and the captioned Respondent Larson on April 11,2002, and a related 

Consent Order Signed by U.S. ALJ Eduin M. Bladen 
I0 Ex. 4 Certified Court Minutes of the Conviction of Respondent for the Driving Under 

the InRuence ("DUI") Respondent Committed on May 21,2005 

I0 Ex. 5 Substance Abuse Policy between Respondent and Respondent's Merchant Marine 

Employer, Kevin Oros Marine, Inc., Dated August 24,2004 and signed by Respondent, Larson 

I0 Ex. 6 Complaint Incident Report of Criminal Trespass and Intoxication at the Louisiana 

Offshore Oil Port ("LOOP") by Respondent Larson on July 30.2005 

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS (11) 

Resp't Ex. 1 Not Offered 

Resp't Ex. 2 Letter from Sun Towing Corp, Dated June 19,2006, Concerning Respondent's 

Employment with the Company 

Resp't Ex. 3 Letter of Recommendation Signed by Respondent's friend, Karl Miller, on July 1, 

2006 

Resp't Ex 4 Letter of Recommendation Signed by Respondent's friend, Captain Tom 

O'Farre11, on July 28, 2006 

Resp't Ex 5 Not Offered 

Resp't Ex 6 Certificate, Dated December 14,2005, Showing Respondent Larson's Completion 

of the Williamson County Victim Impact Panel Program, Sponsored by Mothers Against Drunk 

Driving (MADD), Heart of Texas Chapter 

Resp't Ex 7 Community Service Restitution (CSR) Log, Proving Respondent Completed 

Community Service 

Resp't Ex 8 Community Service Restitution ("CSR") Attendance Log, Verifying that 

Respondent Attended the Program 

Resp't Ex 9 Respondent's Alcoholic's Anonymous-Narcotics Anonymous ("AA-NA") 

Attendance Log 

Resp't Ex 10 Copy of William C. Yoakum's. Respondent Larson's Probation Officer's, 

Business Card and Proof that Respondent Underwent Individual Counseling with The Resiliency 

Program 

Resp't Ex i I The Resiliency Program Letter Dated September 15,2006, concerning 

Respondent Larson's Progress in the Program 
DOCKET NUMBER CG S&R 05-0486 

ATTACHMENT B 

JUDGE THOMAS E. P. MCELLIGOTT'S RULlNGS ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT 

PROPOSED BY THE U.S. COAST GUARD lNVESTIGATING OFFICERS 

U.S. COAST GUARD vs. ROBERT MARTIN LARSON, JR. 

1. On October 23, 1997, the Respondent was issued his original 1600 [Gross Tons] GT 

Mate's License #842104 having an expiration date of October 23,2002. On October 31, 

2003, the Respondent received his second issue 1600 GT Mate's License, Serial 

#I084482 having an expiration date of October 3 1,2008. (I0 Exhibit #l.) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

2. On October 23, 1997, the Respondent was issued his original Merchant Mariner's 

Document having an expiration date of October 23,2002. On October 3 1,2003, the 

Respondent received his second MMD, Serial Number 006849 and having an expiration 

date of October 3 1,2008. (TO Exhibit #l.) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

3. On March 21,2002, the Respondent Larson tested positive for cocaine on a random 

chemical test. (10 Exhibit #2.) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

4. On April 11,2002, the Respondent entered and completed a drug use cure program as 

part of a Suspension and Revocation Consent Agreement between himself and the Coast 

Guard prior Investigating Offices. (I0 Exhibit #3.) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

5. On September i3,2003, at the Coast Guard Regional Examination Center in the Port of 

Houston, TX, during the process of renewing his license, the Respondent certified that all 

the information on his application was tnie and correct. (I0 Exhibit #I.) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

6. On September 13,2003, at the Coast Guard Regional Examination Center in Elouston, 

'IX. during the process of renewing his license, the Respondent Larson indicated he had 

never been a user of a dangerous drug. (TO Exhibit #I .) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 
7. On October 3 1,2005, the Respondent Larson pled no contest to the offense of Driving 

While Intoxicared - Subsequent. (10 Exhibit #4.) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

8. On July 30,2005, the Respondent was under the employment of Kevin Gros, Marine, 

Inc., as the captain of the Offshore Supply Vessel Sea Brooke. (Transcripts beginning at 

page 54.) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

9. The captain of the Sea Brooke was required by law to have a Coast Guard issued license. 

(Transcripts beginning at page 54.) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

10. Kevin Gros, Marine, Inc., had a zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy in force on July 

30.2005, and the Respondent was aware of that policy. (10 Exhibit #5.) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

11. On July 30,2005, the Respondent Larson was detained at the Greater Lafourche Harbor 

Police Department, Louisiana, and was issued a summons for criminal trespass and 

disturbing the peace by public intoxication. (10 Exhibit #6.) 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

JUDGE THOMAS E. P. MCELLIGOTT'S RULINGS ON THE 

ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PROPOSED BY 

THE U.S. COAST GUARD INVESTIGATING OFFICERS 

1. The Coast Guard had jurisdiction over both the Respondent's license and his MMD when 

he applied for the renewal of those credentials at the Coast Guard Houston Regional 

Examination Center on September 13,2003. 46 CFR 5.57 9(b) states that a person is 

considered to be acting under the authority of the license, certificate of document while 

engaged in official matters regasding the license. certificate or document. The renewal of 

these credentials is specificaily cited as an official matter in that regulation. 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

2. In March of 2002.. the Respondent used a dangerous drug, to wit: cocaine. A '-dangerous 

drug'' is defined as % narcotic drug, controlled substance. or a controlled substance 

analog (as defined in section 102 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 
1970). 46 U.S. Code 2101(8)(a). A "narcotic drug" includes "[c]oca leaves, except coca 

leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of 

ecgonine or their salts have been removed. [The term also includes] [clocaine, its salts, 

optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers." 21 U.S. Code 802(17). 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

3. On his September 13,2003, renewal application the Respondent indicated on Page 2, 

Section 111 his answer was "No" to the question, "Have you ever been a user ouor 

addicted to a dangerous drug, including marijuana?" 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

4. The Coast Guard had jurisdiction over both the Respondent's license and his MMD on 

Count 2, Conviction under the National Driver Regis&ation Act. 46 USC 7703(3) 

requires merely that the Respondent hold the credentials and not that he be acting under 

the authority of those credentials. A plea of "No Contest" is a conviction for Coast 

Guard credentialing purposes. See the definition of "Conviction" under 46 CFR 10.103 

for licenses and 46CFR12.01-6 for documents. Driving While Intoxicated Subseauent 

is within the purview of the National Driver Registration Act. Aa~eal Decision 2613 

(SLACK) (1999). 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

5. The Coast Guard had jurisdiction over the third factual allegation, the LOOP fence 

jumping incident, because the Respondent, despite being away from his assigned vessel, 

was acting under the authority of his license. Though not necessarily controlling, 33 CFR 

95.15@) is persuasive on this issue: 

For purposes of this part [intoxicated operation], an individual is 

considered to be operating a vessel when: The individual is a 

crewmember (including a licensed individual), pilot or watch stander not a 

regular member of the crew, or a vessel other than a recreational vessel. 

Also, in Appeal Decision 2624 (DOWNS) (1 999), the Commandant decided that a master 

was acting under the authority of his license, and therefore subject to revocation, despite 

the fact that he had not been onboard the vessel for 12 hours when he refused a 

reasonable suspicion chemical test. Respondent's supervisors conferred and decided 

based upon telephone notification that the Respondent tiad been found by police to be 

intoxicated and in possession of a "crack pipe,'" reasonable cause existed to obtain a urine 

sample from the Respondent for the purpose of testing him for drug usage. 

RULING: ACCEPTED 
DOCKET NUMBER CG S&R 05-0486 

ATTACHMENT C 

.JI'D<;E THO31AS K. P. MCELI.IC;OTT'S RCLISGS OK THE RI.:VISKD FIKI)IYC;S OF 

FACT PROPOSED HY RESPONDENT'S .4TTORNEY, LARRY P. HOUDREAI'X. OF 

THIBOI)AI;X, LOl'ISI..\NA 

1. On July 3dh, 2005 Robert M. Larson, Jr. (LARSON) was employed by Kevin Oros 

Marine, Inc. (GROS) as Captain aboard the MN SEA BROOKE which, at ail times 

pertinent, was docked and not in service at a facility located at Port Fourchon in 

Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. 

RULING: NOT ACCEPTED. Although the vessel was docked, it was ready for 

service and it could be called out in a moment's notice by the vessel's owners or 

operators. Respondent and at least a crew of two more men were assigned and paid 

as captain and crew for that vessel, on that date. 

LARSON and a deckhand, Foster Miller (MILLER) and an engineer, Danny Leach, went 

on authorized shore leave to purchase provisions. Each individual needed specific 

personal items and went on shore to purchase these items at a local store. While on shore 

the trio visited a bar and consumed alcoholic beverages. The preponderance of the 

evidence suggests that one or both of the other crewmembers consumed more alcohol 

than LARSON. 

RULING: THE FIRST SENTENCE IS ACCEPTED; THE LAST SENTENCE IS 

NOT ACCEPTED. The preponderance of the credible evidence does not suggest 

that one or both of the other crewmembers consumed more alcohol than Captain 

LARSON, Respondent. 

LARSON and the crewmen had left the vessel by foot but got a ride back to a security 

gate. When the group arrived at the security gate the security guard, Stephanie Tastet, an 

unarmed, female security guard. who had been on the job seven months with no prior 

experience, refused entry because they appeared to be under rhe influence. 

RULING: ACCEPTED 

In order to return to the vessel the trio scaled a high metal fence LARSON, without 

incident. FOSTER, whoever [sic], was highly intoxicated, was injured. As a resuti of 

this incident LARSON and the other crew members were terminated by GROS for 

violation of its substance abuse policy and LARSON was arrested by Officer Randy 
Chiasson of the Harbor Police and charged with trespass, a misdemeanor grade offense 

under Louisiana Law. LARSON was ejected from his home by his wife, however, the 

parties reconciled, following a brief separation. LARSON described this experience as a 

"wake up" call and the low point of his life. 

RULING: ACCEPTED. 

2. LARSON failed a job-required drug screen by testing positive for cocaine in March, 

2002. 

RULING: ACCEPTED. 

He self reported this information to the Coast Guard. This matter was later the subject of 

a "settlement agreement" between the United States Coast Guard and LARSON that was 

approved by an Administrative Law Judge. As a result LARSON's Coast Guard 

document was suspended from 4-1 1-02 for a period of fourteen (14) months. During this 

time LARSON worked as a construction worker at a substantial reduction in income. On 

an application, dated October 1,2003 or September 13,2003, for renewal of his Coast 

Guard document, LARSON failed to answer questions in the affirmative relative to prior 

drug use and suspension of his Coast Guard document. 

RULING: ACCEPTED. 

The Coast Guard was a party to the settlement agreement, was aware of the 

circumstances and LARSON acted upon the advise and/or representations made to him 

by the Coast Guard representative who signed the settlement agreement, that it was not 

necessary for him to disclose this information on the renewal application. 

RULING: THIS PARAGRAPH OR SENTENCE IS NOT ACCEPTED, as it is not 

found credible. 

3. On May 21,2005 [Respondent] was convicted of a DWI offense in Texas for which he 

was placed on active probation that expired on or about October 3 1.2006. LARSON's 

current Coast Guard document does not come up for renewal until 2008. Since this 

conviction LARSON has addressed his dcohoi probienl by attending AA meetings and 

completing a course of cornsoling with The Resiliency Program is equivalent to a repeat 

offenders program, Topics covered in the counseling included fife style issues. values, 

self-esteem, positive thinking versus irrational beliefs, responsibility, 

physiologicalipsychologid effects of drugs. alcoholism, chemical dependency, how 

drug abuse affects family members, co-dependency, Al-Anon. treatment options, 12 step 

self help groups, peer pressure. relapse prevention, problem solving and action planning. 

EARSON has also been active in the 12-step comnnrutiv and has been sober since July 
30,2005. At no time did LARSON drink on a vessel, either on 5-30-05 and on the other 

days when he received the DWI convictions. LARSON addressed his drug problem by 

completing an extensive drug rehabilitation program as a condition of the settlement 

agreement with the Coast Guard. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that 

LARSON is substantially rehabilitated and is motivated to continue his recovery and live 

a drug/alcohol free lifestyle. 

RULING: THE LAST TWO SENTENCES ARE NOT ACCEPTED. They were 

not shown or established in the hearing to be credible. 

4. LARSON lives with his wife of twenty-one years and supports her and his son, who is in 

college. 

RULING: ACCEPTED. 

5. LARSON is a key, valued employee of his present employer, Sun Towing Corporation, 

as he is DP certified. His employer, Mike Smith, testified that he would literally have to 

close the doors of his business if LARSON's license was revoked and he could no longer 

work for his company, an event that would severely impact Sun Towing, its employees, 

LARSON and the local economy. 

RULING: NOT ACCEPTED. This has not been proven. I do not find such 

statements credible in this document or in the hearing. 

.IL'I)<;E THOMAS 1.:. P. MCELLIGOTT'S KliLlN<;S ON THE <:ONCLtJSLOKS OF 

LAM PROPOSEL) BY KESP0R'L)ENT'S A'I'I'OKNEY. LARRY P. BOIJDKEAI!X, OF 

THIBODAUX, LOUISIANA 

1. The Coast Guard has proved that LARSON's actions on July 30,2005 constitute 

misdemeanor grade "misconduct" as defined in 46 CFR 5.27, consisting of trespass as 

defined by Louisiana Law. 

2. The Coast Guard has proved LARSON's actions regarding the renewal application 

submitted in 2003. however, his actions do not constitute "misconduct" as he did not 

intentionally misrepresent or fail to disclose information that the Coast Guard already 

was aware of due to its participation in the settlement agreement which resulted in the 

voluntary suspension of LARSOEj's captain's license for one year and an economic 
hardship to him. In addition, LARSON acted upon responsibilities made to him by the 

Coast Guard representative who signed the "Settlement Agreement" that the matter was 

closed. 

RULING: NOT ACCEPTED, not credible, including the last sentence. 

3. The Coast Guard has proved that LARSON received a DWI conviction in 2005, however, 

this conviction is subject to the provisions of 46 CFR 10.201 gt seq. which involve an 

evaluation period between the date of his conviction and when his license comes up for 

renewal. In accordance with determining the selection of an appropriate order 46 CFR 

5.569 provides that the ALJ should consider remedial actions which had been undertaken 

independently by the respondent, the prior record of the respondent, considering the 

period of time between prior aets and the act or offense for which he is presently charged 

is relevant, and evidence of mitigation or aggravation. In addition, the Court must 

consider the provisions of CFR 10.201 which require that the Court consider proof of 

completion of an accredited alcohol or drug abuse rehabilitation program, active 

membership in a rehabilitation or counseling group, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or 

Narcotics Anonymous, character references from persons who can attest the applicant's 

sobriety, reliability and suitability for employment in the merchant marine including 

parole or probation officers, steady employment, successful completion of all conditions 

of parole or probation. The Court finds that the letters of reference by his co-captain, 

Tom O'Farell and of his lifelong friend, Carl Miller and the testimony of his employer 

and his testimony establish that LARSON has complied with all of these conditions in 

such a manner that reflects favorably on the Court's decision in this matter. 

RULING: NOT ACCEPTED as credible based upon all the evidence and record 

considered as a whole. 

4. The Court finds that an appropriate order in this matter would be an admonition as 

provided by 46 CFR 5.19 and 5.567(a). 

RULING: NOT ACCEPTED. See Commandant's Appeal Deeisions cited by the 

Investigating Offleers and others, such as A~aeal Decision 2613 (SLACK) (1999) where 

it was held that a plea of "No Contest" is a conviction for Coast Guard credentialing 

purposes. See the definition of "Conviction" under 46 CFR 10.103 for licenses and 46 

CFR 12.01-6 for documents. Driving While Intoxicated - Subsequent is within the 

anal Driver Registration Act. Se 

(1999. The approplSate order is 

US. Coast Guard issued U.S. Merchant Mariner's Licenses and Documents and all 

other U.S. Coast Guard issued merchant mariner credentials to Respondent, when 

applying the applicable statutes, regulations and appeal Decisions mentioned in this 

entire Decision to Respondent Lamon's case. 
DOCKET NUMBER CG S&R 05-0486 

ATTACHMENT D 

NOTICE OF 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 IJ. S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing 

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

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 foliowing 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, -- 

(I) 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 nil1 

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

33 GFR 20,1003 Procedures for appeal. 

(a) Each party appealing the AI.Jis 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 speciftc objections to the 

decision or ruling. Tne brief must set forth, in detail, the -- 
(i) Basis forth e 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 he 

untimely. 

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

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

If the party filing the reply hrief 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 hrief, unless -- 

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

(2) The Commandant has granted leave to file an added hrief, 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 afitm, 

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

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.