Merchant Mariner Credentials Suspension & Revocation Lawyer
A Coast Guard Complaint seeking suspension or revocation of your Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) is the most serious action the government can take against your maritime career. Revocation is permanent. Deadlines are short. And the written Answer you file — within 20 days of being served — becomes the foundation of your entire defense. Korody Law represents merchant mariners in suspension and revocation proceedings nationwide, with over 70 years of combined experience defending clients against the U.S. Coast Guard.
When the Coast Guard serves you with a Complaint seeking suspension or revocation of your MMC, the clock starts immediately. Failure to file a written Answer within 20 days of service — or within any extension granted — results in a default decision, and the Coast Guard's Proposed Order (normally revocation) becomes final. Do not wait. Contact Korody Law the day you receive a Complaint.
On This Page
- What Is MMC Suspension and Revocation?
- Grounds for MMC Suspension or Revocation
- The 2023 NDAA — New Coast Guard Authority for Sexual Misconduct Cases
- How the S&R Proceeding Works — Step by Step
- The Written Answer — Your Most Critical First Step
- Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Hearings
- Appeals — Commandant, NTSB, and Federal Court
- How Korody Law Defends Merchant Mariners
- Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Cases — Special Considerations
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Related Practice Areas
What Is MMC Suspension and Revocation?
A Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) — formerly known as a Merchant Mariner's Document (MMD) or license — is the federally issued credential that authorizes a mariner to serve aboard U.S.-flagged vessels in a licensed or credentialed capacity. Without it, a mariner cannot work. The U.S. Coast Guard has statutory authority under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 to suspend or revoke an MMC when a mariner is found to have violated applicable statutes, regulations, or conduct standards.
A suspension is a temporary withdrawal of the MMC for a defined period. The mariner cannot work during the suspension period, but the credential is restored upon its expiration. A revocation is permanent — the mariner loses all rights and privileges associated with the credential. Unlike a suspension, revocation eliminates the mariner's ability to work in a credentialed capacity unless they successfully appeal the decision or apply for a new MMC after a specified waiting period. For many mariners, revocation is effectively a career-ending event.
The Coast Guard initiates approximately 400 to 600 suspension and revocation (S&R) cases each year. These cases are prosecuted by the Coast Guard's Suspension and Revocation National Center of Expertise (SRNCE), a specialized prosecutorial unit that handles S&R complaints from across the country. The SRNCE operates with dedicated attorneys who are experienced in MMC enforcement — mariners facing S&R proceedings deserve equally experienced and dedicated defense counsel.
Your MMC is your livelihood. Every day without your credential is a day without income. Every day without experienced defense counsel is a day the Coast Guard has to build its case unchallenged. Korody Law puts up a barrier between you and the government from day one — protecting your rights, protecting your credential, and fighting for your career at sea.
Grounds for MMC Suspension or Revocation
The Coast Guard may seek suspension or revocation of an MMC on a variety of grounds. Understanding the specific basis alleged in the Complaint is essential to building an effective defense — each ground has different evidentiary requirements, procedural considerations, and available defenses.
| Ground | Statutory / Regulatory Basis | Key Defense Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Drug Offense | 46 U.S.C. § 7704; 46 C.F.R. Part 16 | Chain of custody challenges; testing methodology; medical review officer analysis; rehabilitation evidence; mitigating circumstances |
| Incompetence | 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1)(A) | Challenge the factual basis; demonstrate competence through experience and training record; expert testimony on applicable standards |
| Misconduct | 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1)(B) | Challenge the evidentiary basis; witness credibility; investigative deficiencies; proportionality of sanction |
| Negligence | 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1)(C) | Causation analysis; industry standard of care; contributing factors beyond mariner's control |
| Violation of Law / Regulation | 46 U.S.C. § 7703(1)(D) | Applicable law or regulation interpretation; whether the regulation applies to the mariner's specific conduct; technical defenses |
| Sexual Harassment | 46 U.S.C. § 7704a (NDAA 2023) | "Official finding" interpretation; due process challenge to mandatory sanction; prior proceeding record challenge; scope of expanded definition |
| Sexual Assault | 46 U.S.C. § 7704a (NDAA 2023) | Mandatory revocation if "official finding" within 10 years — challenge the finding itself; procedural defenses; definition of "official finding" |
| Conviction of Crime | 46 U.S.C. § 7703(2) | Nature and age of conviction; rehabilitation since conviction; applicable waiting periods; proportionality |
The Complaint will identify one or more of these grounds and will allege specific facts in support. Every allegation must be carefully analyzed — admitted where accurate and unavoidable, denied where incorrect or legally insufficient, and explained in context where mitigation is available. A poorly drafted Answer that over-admits, under-explains, or misidentifies the applicable legal standards can permanently damage the case.
The 2023 NDAA — New Coast Guard Authority for Sexual Misconduct Cases
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2023 enacted 46 U.S.C. § 7704a — a sweeping new statute that fundamentally changed how the Coast Guard handles sexual harassment and sexual assault cases in S&R proceedings. Just as Congress transformed military justice over the past decade to address sexual misconduct in the armed forces, it has now done the same for the merchant marine. Mariners facing sexual harassment or sexual assault allegations must understand what this statute means for their cases — and why they need experienced counsel immediately.
Mandatory Revocation for Sexual Assault
Under 46 U.S.C. § 7704a, revocation is mandatory if it is shown at a hearing that the MMC holder has been the subject of an "official finding" of sexual assault within the previous 10 years. This means the Administrative Law Judge has no discretion — if the "official finding" is established, revocation follows automatically. The key battleground in these cases is the definition and application of "official finding" — challenging the prior finding itself, its applicability to the 10-year window, and whether the underlying proceeding met due process standards.
Mandatory Suspension or Revocation for Sexual Harassment
For sexual harassment cases, 46 U.S.C. § 7704a requires that the MMC must be suspended or revoked if the holder is the subject of an "official finding" of sexual harassment within the past 5 years. The statute removes much of the ALJ's discretion regarding the sanction. The Coast Guard can seek revocation even where the conduct might previously have resulted in a shorter suspension. This makes early legal intervention — before any "official finding" is made by a company or the Coast Guard — absolutely critical.
The Expanded Definition of Sexual Harassment
The definition of sexual harassment under 46 U.S.C. § 2101(46) is deliberately broad. Key points that mariners must understand:
- The alleged victim does not need to be of the opposite sex
- The alleged harasser can be anyone — a superior, a co-worker, a subordinate, or a supervisor in an entirely different department or area
- The alleged victim does not need to be the direct target of the conduct — anyone affected by the behavior may be a complainant
- The definition includes verbal conduct, physical conduct, and conduct that creates a hostile work environment, not just direct advances or quid pro quo conduct
- A single incident, if sufficiently severe, can constitute sexual harassment
The "Official Finding" Problem
46 U.S.C. § 7704a was written specifically to avoid re-litigating sexual assault and sexual harassment claims before Coast Guard ALJs. The statute uses a prior "official finding" — from a company investigation, a Coast Guard investigation, a court, or another adjudicative body — as the trigger for mandatory action. This means that the battle over the MMC may effectively be decided at the company or investigative level, before any Coast Guard proceeding begins. Mariners under investigation by their employer or the Coast Guard for sexual misconduct need legal counsel from the first moment — not after the investigation concludes.
How the S&R Proceeding Works — Step by Step
Understanding the suspension and revocation process — and where defense opportunities exist at each stage — is essential to building an effective strategy. The S&R process has formal procedural requirements that must be followed precisely, and missing any of them can have permanent consequences.
-
Investigation — Company and/or Coast Guard
Most S&R proceedings begin with an investigation — either a company-level inquiry aboard ship or ashore, a Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) investigation, or both running simultaneously. This is the most critical stage for protecting your rights. Statements made during company or Coast Guard investigations can and will be used later in the S&R proceeding. Mariners should obtain counsel immediately upon learning of any investigation — before any statement is made to the company, the Master, or the Coast Guard. The MSIB 1-23 reporting requirements mean that once a report is made, the investigation process moves quickly and with limited ability to shape outcomes after the fact.
-
Coast Guard Complaint Filed by SRNCE
The Coast Guard's Suspension and Revocation National Center of Expertise (SRNCE) reviews the investigation and, if it determines sufficient basis exists, files a formal Complaint against the mariner. The Complaint identifies the specific statutory and regulatory violations alleged, the factual basis for each allegation, and the Proposed Order — the sanction the Coast Guard is seeking (suspension for a defined period, or revocation). The Complaint is served on the mariner, triggering the 20-day Answer deadline. Do not ignore a Complaint. Default results in the Proposed Order becoming final.
-
Written Answer — 20-Day Deadline
The mariner's written Answer is the most consequential document in the entire S&R proceeding. It must be filed within 20 days of service of the Complaint — or within any extension specifically granted. The Answer responds to each numbered allegation in the Complaint, admitting or denying each specific factual assertion, and may raise affirmative defenses. A poorly drafted Answer can waive defenses, create admissions, and permanently damage the case. The Answer should be prepared by experienced S&R defense counsel who understands both the procedural requirements and the strategic implications of every admission and denial.
-
Pre-Hearing Proceedings and Discovery
After the Answer is filed, the case proceeds through pre-hearing proceedings before a Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The mariner has the right to discovery — obtaining documents, reports, and other evidence from the government. Pre-hearing motions may be filed to challenge the admissibility of evidence, contest jurisdiction, or resolve preliminary legal questions. This phase also includes identifying witnesses, preparing expert testimony where needed, and developing the full defense evidentiary record.
-
ALJ Hearing
The S&R hearing before a Coast Guard ALJ is a formal administrative proceeding — similar in many respects to a civil trial, though with streamlined discovery rules. The Coast Guard presents its case through witness testimony and documentary evidence. Defense counsel cross-examines government witnesses, presents the defense case, and argues the applicable legal standards. The mariner may testify. Expert witnesses may appear. Both sides typically submit closing briefs. The ALJ hearing is the mariner's best and often only opportunity to present evidence and argument before a decision is made.
-
ALJ Decision
After the hearing, the ALJ reviews all evidence and issues a written decision. Possible outcomes range from dismissal of the Complaint to various sanctions, including suspension for a defined period or revocation. The ALJ's decision must be supported by the evidence in the record. If the ALJ finds against the mariner, the decision can be appealed — first to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and then to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and if necessary to the federal courts.
-
Appeals — Commandant, NTSB, Federal Court
An adverse ALJ decision is not the end of the road. The mariner may appeal to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, then to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and ultimately to the federal courts of appeals. Each level of appeal has its own procedural requirements and deadlines. The quality of the hearing record — the evidence presented, the objections preserved, and the legal arguments made at the ALJ level — determines what arguments are available on appeal. Planning for the appellate record begins on day one of defense, not after an adverse decision.
The Written Answer — Your Most Critical First Step
The Answer to the Coast Guard's Complaint is not a form — it is a strategic legal document. Every word matters. Every admission becomes part of the permanent record. Every denial must be supportable. Every affirmative defense must be specifically raised or it may be waived. Filing an Answer without the guidance of experienced S&R defense counsel is one of the most consequential mistakes a mariner can make.
What a Strategic Answer Does
- Responds specifically to each numbered paragraph of the Complaint — admitting accurate facts, denying inaccurate allegations, and explaining context where relevant
- Preserves all available affirmative defenses — procedural defects, jurisdictional challenges, due process arguments, and substantive defenses
- Does not concede legal conclusions disguised as factual allegations — a critical distinction that inexperienced counsel frequently miss
- Positions the case for the most favorable possible proceeding — whether that is a negotiated resolution, a hearing, or appellate review
- Establishes the defense narrative from the outset — framing the case in terms favorable to the mariner before the government has locked in its theory
- Requests any hearing election or procedural relief that must be sought in or with the Answer
Common Answer Mistakes That Damage Cases
- Over-admitting: Admitting allegations in ways that concede more than the actual facts require — particularly dangerous in drug and sexual misconduct cases where the framing of the admission matters enormously
- Failing to deny legal conclusions: Allowing the government's legal characterizations of conduct to go unchallenged by treating them as factual matters
- Missing affirmative defenses: Failing to raise procedural defects, rights violations, or technical defenses in the Answer, where they may be waived
- Filing without counsel: Self-represented Answers routinely contain admissions that permanently harm the mariner's position before a single piece of evidence is presented at hearing
- Filing late: Missing the 20-day deadline — or failing to secure an extension before the deadline passes — results in default and the automatic imposition of the Proposed Order
- Ignoring the "Proposed Order": Failing to specifically challenge the sanction sought, including mandatory revocation provisions under 46 U.S.C. § 7704a
Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Hearings — What to Expect
The ALJ hearing is the centerpiece of an S&R proceeding. It is the mariner's best opportunity to present evidence, challenge the government's case, and argue for a favorable outcome. ALJs are stationed in major coastal cities across the country, with oversight from the Chief ALJ at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Understanding how the hearing works — and how to prepare for it — is essential.
The Hearing Structure
S&R hearings follow a civil trial-like structure with opening statements, presentation of evidence, witness testimony, cross-examination, and closing argument. Both parties submit pre-hearing briefs and propose findings of fact and conclusions of law. The hearing is on the record — a verbatim transcript is prepared and becomes the basis for any appeal. Rules of evidence are somewhat relaxed compared to federal court, but the ALJ has authority to exclude unreliable or prejudicial evidence.
The Mariner's Burden
In S&R proceedings, the Coast Guard bears the burden of proof — it must establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. However, once the Coast Guard establishes a violation, the mariner bears the burden of demonstrating mitigation and arguing for a lesser sanction. For cases involving "official findings" under 46 U.S.C. § 7704a, the statute significantly constrains the ALJ's discretion regarding sanction, making the defense more focused on challenging the "official finding" itself.
What We Do at Hearing
We develop cross-examination themes that expose weaknesses in the government's witnesses and evidence. We present the mariner's case — mitigation evidence, rehabilitation documentation, expert testimony, and the mariner's own account. We make timely objections and preserve the record for appeal. We submit post-hearing briefs that apply the law to the facts in the most favorable possible framing. And we fight to preserve every available appellate argument in case the ALJ's decision is adverse.
Important: The Coast Guard's SRNCE attorneys are experienced, specialized S&R prosecutors. They handle these cases every day. A mariner appearing at a Coast Guard ALJ hearing without experienced defense counsel is at a severe disadvantage — not because the process is unfair, but because the advocate on the other side of the table is a trained professional. Korody Law provides equally skilled and experienced representation at every hearing.
Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Cases — Special Considerations
The 2023 NDAA fundamentally changed the landscape for sexual harassment and sexual assault cases in the merchant marine. The Coast Guard has been armed with new enforcement tools, mandatory sanctions, and a simplified path to revocation that was designed to mirror the military's approach to sexual misconduct accountability. For mariners facing these allegations, the stakes have never been higher — and the defense must begin earlier than ever.
Defense Must Begin at the Company Level
Because 46 U.S.C. § 7704a relies on "official findings" — which can be made by a company or employer, not just the Coast Guard or a court — the battle over the MMC often begins at the ship or company level, during the employer's internal investigation. A mariner who allows an internal company investigation to produce an unfavorable finding without legal involvement may have already lost the credential fight before the Coast Guard files its Complaint.
Korody Law intervenes at the company investigation stage — advising mariners on their rights, managing communications with the employer and the Master, and working to prevent the creation of an adverse "official finding" that will be used as a mandatory trigger in the subsequent S&R proceeding.
CGIS Investigation Defense
The Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) conducts criminal investigations into alleged sexual assault and sexual harassment aboard U.S.-flagged vessels. Like NCIS in the military context, CGIS agents are trained criminal investigators. Statements made to CGIS investigators can be used in both the criminal proceeding and the administrative S&R proceeding. Mariners should not speak to CGIS without counsel — the same rights that protect military service members from compelled self-incrimination protect merchant mariners in federal proceedings.
The Two-Track Problem
Sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations aboard ship create a two-track problem for the mariner: a potential criminal prosecution under applicable federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. for conduct aboard U.S.-flagged vessels on the high seas), and a parallel S&R proceeding that can proceed independently of any criminal case. An acquittal in the criminal case does not prevent the Coast Guard from proceeding with S&R on the same underlying facts — the S&R proceeding uses the lower "preponderance of evidence" standard and can rely on evidence that may have been excluded from the criminal trial.
Korody Law's background in military justice — where the same two-track dynamic exists between court-martial and administrative proceedings — gives us unique expertise in managing parallel criminal and administrative proceedings simultaneously. We coordinate the defense strategy across both tracks to protect the mariner's rights and career at every level.
Reporting Requirements Under MSIB 1-23
MSIB 1-23 (February 9, 2023) established reporting requirements for sexual misconduct on U.S. vessels. Once a report is made — to the employer, the Master, the Coast Guard, or any responsible party — the formal investigative process begins, and statements made during that process can be used in both criminal and S&R proceedings. The time to involve counsel is before any statement is made in response to a complaint — not after the investigation has run its course.
How Korody Law Defends Merchant Mariners
Korody Law brings more than 70 years of combined experience defending clients in adversarial administrative and criminal proceedings against the federal government — including representing mariners in Coast Guard S&R proceedings before Administrative Law Judges. Our approach is the same one we apply to court-martial defense, security clearance defense, and Board of Inquiry proceedings: engage early, control the record, and fight on every front simultaneously.
Investigation-Phase Intervention
We engage at the company or CGIS investigation stage — before any "official finding" is made, before any statement is locked in, and before the formal S&R process begins. The earlier we are involved, the more options we have to shape the outcome at every subsequent stage. We advise mariners on their rights, manage communication with the employer and investigators, and work to prevent the creation of adverse findings that will be used as triggers in the S&R proceeding.
Answer Drafting and Filing
We draft the Answer to the Coast Guard Complaint — the most consequential document in the S&R proceeding. Every allegation is evaluated carefully. Every admission is limited to what the facts actually require. Every available defense is preserved. Every procedural deadline is met. The Answer we file positions the case for the most favorable possible hearing or negotiated resolution.
Evidence Development and Mitigation
We build the defense evidentiary record: rehabilitation documentation, employment history, drug treatment completion records, character references, expert reports on testing methodology, and any other evidence that supports a favorable outcome. Mitigation that is credible, specific, and tied to the applicable legal standard — not generic character letters — is what moves ALJs. We develop mitigation that speaks the language of the proceeding.
ALJ Hearing Representation
We provide full representation at the Coast Guard ALJ hearing — from opening statement through closing brief. We cross-examine government witnesses to expose investigative failures, evidentiary weaknesses, and procedural defects. We present the mariner's case, prepare the mariner for testimony when advisable, and argue the applicable legal standards with precision. We preserve the record for appeal at every step.
Appeals — Commandant, NTSB, Federal Court
An adverse ALJ decision triggers a multi-level appellate process — Commandant of the Coast Guard, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the federal courts of appeals. We evaluate every adverse decision for appellate grounds, file disciplined and targeted appeal briefs, and pursue the mariner's case through every available level of review. The quality of the hearing record we create at the ALJ level determines what is available on appeal.
Parallel Criminal Defense
When a sexual assault or drug allegation also results in federal criminal charges, we coordinate the S&R defense with the criminal defense simultaneously. The same evidence, the same witnesses, and the same legal arguments appear in both proceedings — inconsistent positions across the two tracks can be devastating. We build an integrated defense strategy that protects the mariner in both forums at once.
Received a Coast Guard Complaint? The 20-Day Clock Is Running.
Every day without experienced defense counsel is a day the government has to build its case. The Answer deadline does not stop for anything. Contact Korody Law today for a free, confidential consultation — and let us protect your credential and your career.
Frequently Asked Questions
These are the questions merchant mariners most frequently ask when they contact Korody Law about an S&R proceeding.
-
Note the date you were served and calculate your Answer deadline immediately — 20 days from service, absent an extension. Then contact experienced S&R defense counsel before you do anything else. Do not attempt to draft the Answer yourself, do not contact the SRNCE attorney listed on the Complaint, and do not assume your union representative or company attorney will represent your individual interests strategically. The Answer you file is the most consequential document in your case — it must be prepared by counsel who understands both the procedural requirements and the strategic implications of every admission and denial.
-
If you fail to file a written Answer within 20 days of service of the Complaint — or within any extension specifically granted by the ALJ — the Coast Guard may seek a default decision. In a default proceeding, the allegations in the Complaint are deemed admitted and the ALJ may enter the Proposed Order stated in the Complaint as the final decision. In revocation cases, this means permanent loss of your MMC without any hearing. Missing the Answer deadline is one of the most catastrophic mistakes in any S&R case — there is virtually no excuse for it with competent counsel engaged from day one.
-
Not automatically — but the 2023 NDAA's "official finding" mechanism makes a company finding extremely dangerous. If the Coast Guard treats the company's finding as an "official finding" under 46 U.S.C. § 7704a, it can use that finding to support mandatory suspension or revocation without fully re-litigating the underlying conduct at the ALJ hearing. The key issues are: whether the company's investigation meets the definition of an "official finding" under the statute; whether the finding was made within the applicable lookback period (5 years for harassment, 10 years for assault); and whether the due process afforded in the company proceeding was sufficient. These are precisely the kinds of technical but consequential legal arguments that experienced S&R defense counsel must make.
-
In many cases, yes — unless the Coast Guard obtains an interim suspension order or a court order suspending the credential pending the outcome of the proceeding. In the absence of such an order, a mariner who has filed a timely Answer may generally continue working while the case proceeds. However, this depends on the specific circumstances, the nature of the allegations, and whether the employer will allow the mariner to continue working during the proceeding. We advise mariners on the specific employment and credential status questions applicable to their case as an integral part of our representation.
-
Yes — there are often significant defense opportunities in drug-related S&R cases. Common defenses include: chain of custody challenges (was the sample properly collected, labeled, stored, and tested?); laboratory methodology challenges (was the testing conducted at a certified lab using proper procedures?); Medical Review Officer (MRO) process challenges (was the MRO's review conducted correctly?); and prescription drug defenses (was there a lawful prescription for the substance detected?). Even where a positive test cannot be directly challenged, mitigation evidence — rehabilitation completion, treatment, sobriety documentation, and employment history — can support a reduced sanction or suspension rather than revocation.
-
A suspension is a temporary withdrawal of the MMC for a defined period — days, months, or years. The credential is restored at the end of the suspension. A revocation is permanent — the mariner loses all rights and privileges associated with the credential indefinitely. Unlike a suspension, revocation eliminates the mariner's ability to work in any credentialed capacity unless they successfully appeal the revocation or apply for a new MMC after a specified waiting period. For this reason, fighting for suspension rather than revocation — or for the shortest possible suspension period — is a core defense objective in every S&R case.
-
Yes. An adverse ALJ decision can be appealed to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, then to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and ultimately to the federal courts of appeals. Each level has its own procedural requirements and strict deadlines. The NTSB, in particular, has authority to review the factual and legal basis of the ALJ's decision and can reverse or modify an adverse ruling. Federal court review is available in appropriate cases. The quality of the hearing record — the objections preserved, the evidence presented, and the legal arguments made at the ALJ level — determines what appellate options are available.
-
Yes — emphatically. Under 46 U.S.C. § 7704a, a company "official finding" of sexual harassment can become the mandatory trigger for MMC suspension or revocation in a subsequent Coast Guard S&R proceeding. The Coast Guard statute was specifically designed to avoid re-litigating the underlying conduct before an ALJ — meaning the company investigation outcome may functionally determine the MMC outcome. The time to fight for a favorable finding is during the company investigation, not after. Contact Korody Law immediately if you are under any investigation — company, CGIS, or Coast Guard — involving allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault.
Your MMC. Your Livelihood. Defend Both.
Korody Law has represented merchant mariners in Coast Guard suspension and revocation proceedings involving drug offenses, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and other alleged violations. We understand the 20-day Answer deadline, the SRNCE prosecution approach, and the 2023 NDAA's mandatory sanction provisions. If your MMC is at risk, contact us today. Your first consultation is free and confidential.
Korody Law, P.A. · 630 West Adams Street, Suite 208, Jacksonville, FL 32204 · Nationwide MMC Defense