VI. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n1. At all relevant times, Respondent was a holder of Coast Guard-issued Merchant Mariner\u2019s Credential. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. The GIS BLAKELY was not randomly selected by a scientifically valid method wherein each vessel in the marine employer\u2019s fleet was equally subject to selection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. Respondent underwent a urinalysis April 13, 2013, which followed the guidelines set for drug testing by the Department of Transportation in 49 C.F.R. Part 40. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
5. The initials on Respondent\u2019s \u201cA\u201d and \u201cB\u201d urine samples were written by Respondent. The initials were not forged. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
6. Respondent\u2019s \u201cA\u201d and \u201cB\u201d urine samples were tested at Department of Transportation-approved laboratories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
7. Respondent\u2019s \u201cA\u201d and \u201cB\u201d urine samples tested was positive for cocaine metabolites. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
VII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n1. Respondent and the subject matter of this hearing are properly within the jurisdiction vested in the Coast Guard under 46 U.S.C. \u00a7 7704(c); 46 C.F.R. Parts 5 and 16; 33 C.F.R. Part 20; and the APA as codified at 5 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 551-59. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. Respondent was not properly ordered to submit for testing in accordance with 46 C.F.R. Part 16 in that he was not randomly selected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. Respondent was the individual who was tested for dangerous drugs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
4. Respondent\u2019s urine specimen tested positive for dangerous drugs <\/p>\n\n\n\n
5. Respondent\u2019s drug test was conducted in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 40. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
6. Respondent is not a user of, or addicted to the use of dangerous drugs. 46 U.S.C. \u00a77704(c); 46 C.F.R. \u00a75.35. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
VIII. DECISION <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe allegations as set forth in the Complaint are found NOT PROVED. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
IX. ORDER <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE per 46 C.F.R. 5.567. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that service of this Decision on the parties and\/or parties\u2019 representative(s) serves as notice of appeal rights set forth in 33 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 20.1001 \u2013 20.1004. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
How does this affect the mariner?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nA question that should be asked is how does this decision affect the test result and SAP and Return to Work requirements?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The correct answer is that the decision of the ALJ only affects the ability of the individual to hold a Federal issued license. It does not affect the test result at all. The verified test result by the MRO<\/strong> is still in effect. That means that the individual still has to go through the SAP and Return to Work process. The decision of the ALJ does NOT overturn that requirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n++++++++++<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Doing selections of a company’s employees to take a random test is a way of life for many C\/TPA and companies. They do this without questioning if the particular program used will stand up in court or before a Federal Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) if challenged. The DOT Agencies require that the random selections be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":51810,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"51535,56554,50967,50850,50992,51355","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50897"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50897\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/51810"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nationaldrugscreening.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}