Opinion ID: 494572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Agency Determination

Text: 15 Reuber next contends that the censorious letter constituted ... a determination by NCI to reprimand him, 47 and that this determination in turn was based upon a number of NCI record documents that were inaccurate and irrelevant. 48 According to Reuber, NCI thereby transgressed Section 552a(e)(5) of the Privacy Act, which provides that each agency shall maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determination about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination. 49 16 The District Court stated unequivocally that [t]he ... letter [of reprimand] itself did not represent an NCI determination. 50 The decision to reprimand Reuber was made by Hanna, a Litton official, who also gauged its severity. 51 The District Court thus found no agency action, without which no claim lies under Subsection (e)(5). 17 Reuber nonetheless divines some ambiguity in the court's finding and invites us to adopt his reading of the court's opinion, which is that Hanna simply effectuated an NCI determination. This argument is strained at best; the District Court left no doubt that it fully intended to rule against Reuber on this score. The court's finding is far from clearly erroneous, and we accordingly affirm it.