Opinion ID: 346586
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Based on Promotion List Expiring October 30

Text: 33 As we have indicated above, the trial court failed to make any finding in regard to the plaintiff's contention that because of discrimination she was not promoted from a highly qualified status promotion list as of October 30, 1972. The plaintiff was placed on this list April 30, 1972, and the list terminated October 30, 1972. It would appear that the effective date of any incident concerning this list and the VA's failure to promote her from it would be that date upon which a less-qualified male was promoted over her. However, the official VA file concerning her complaints shows that no promotions from the list occurred after April 30th. The government argues that Ettinger's failure to develop any facts of record establishing that a man had been promoted from the list within thirty days before November 17, 1972, establishes that she has not met the requirements of timely exhaustion; we agree. We have been unable to find in the record any specific discovery request on this issue after the remand in Ettinger I. That opinion stated: 34 Should the district court determine that Ettinger's recourse to the counselor was timely, it should proceed to trial de novo of those substantive allegations of discrimination set forth in the amended complaint and submitted to the VA for adjustment. 35 Id. at 652. 36 Thus, the plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to show that promotions occurred after April 30th but failed to do so. For the reasons stated, it was harmless error, if error at all, for the district court not to discuss this issue in its opinion. In addition, it would appear that the above considerations demonstrate that this claim is substantially without merit. 37 For the reasons stated, an order will be entered reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.