Opinion ID: 185723
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of gender

Text: Lozowski argues that in making the relevant assignmentsthe Coast Guard violated Article 1-B-3 of the Military Civil Rights Manual (MCRM), which prohibits discrimination onthe basis of ... sex. She contends that Gray assigned herto the Thetis because the Commanding Officer (CO) of theThetis wanted a female CWO and because Gray felt he had toassign one. Lozowski implies that the Coast Guard wantedher to serve as a role model, mentor or leader for womenon the Thetis. In response, the Secretary correctly notes that Lozowskifailed to raise before the Board the argument that she wasassigned to the Thetis because that ship's CO wanted awoman assigned. Indeed, in her brief to the Board Lozowskinever even mentioned the provision of the MCRM upon whichshe now relies. Rather, Lozowski argued principally that herassignment disregarded the normal process of working downthe [CWO] promotion list. The closest she came to herpresent argument was to claim that the Coast Guard disregarded Article 4.A.7.a.3 of its Personnel Manual, which sayswomen will not be arbitrarily denied an assignment solelybecause of lack of a second woman. Specifically, Lozowskiargued that the Coast Guard had violated this provision byassigning her to the Thetis in order to provide a companionfor the new proposed female ensign, an argument Lozowskihas since abandoned. Absent exceptional circumstances, Lozowski cannot rely incourt upon an argument not made to the Board. See Flynnv. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, 269 F.3d 1064,1068-69 (D.C. Cir. 2001), in which this court instanced thefollowing types of exceptional circumstances: cases involvinguncertainty in the law; novel, important, and recurring questions of federal law; intervening change in the law; andextraordinary situations with the potential for miscarriages ofjustice. Id. at 1069. Because Lozowski's claim does not fallwithin any of these categories and she does not offer anyother compelling reason for doing so, we decline to considerthe argument she failed to present to the Board. In anyevent, it is difficult to see how the DGC could have actedarbitrarily or capriciously in failing to address an argumentnever presented to her. Lozowski also claims on appeal that the Coast Guard'sdisparate treatment of Rich and Cornejo on the one handand of herself on the other violated the anti-discriminationprovision of the MCRM. Again, however, Lozowski neverraised the MCRM before the Board. Furthermore, this claimwas rejected by the DGC because there was no evidence thatany favoritism shown Rich and Cornejo was motivated bytheir gender. See DGC Dec. at 9. On appeal Lozowskipoints us to no such evidence that was overlooked by theDGC. Consequently, we cannot affirm the judgment of thedistrict court on the ground that the assignment decision wascontrary to Article 1-B-3 of the MCRM.