Opinion ID: 2399386
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Two Personnel Forms

Text: The August 7 and December 2 Form Ones indicated, by the presence of a computer-printed 1 in box 37, that Mr. Hoage's job was in the Career Service rather than in the Educational Service. Hoage claims that if the president of UDC had seen the second Form One, he would have been less likely to view the 1 on the first form as a typographical error. The trial court, which reviewed the same agency record as the president, also did not have access to this form until after it ruled. Mr. Hoage asserts that he was entitled to have all of the evidence reviewed, not just those parts that UDC saw fit to include in the record. When documents in an agency record suggest more than one possible conclusion, our standard of review operates in favor of the agency finding. If this court, upon examining the record as a whole, concludes that the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence, it must accept those findings, even though there may also be substantial evidence in the record to support a contrary finding. Baumgartner v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief Board, 527 A.2d 313, 316 (D.C.1987) (citations and footnote omitted). This court start[s] from the premise that the agency's decision, like the decision of a trial court, is presumed to be correct, so that the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant or petitioner who challenges the decision. Cohen v. Rental Housing Comm'n, 496 A.2d 603, 605 (D.C. 1985) (citation omitted). The petitioner must present this court with a record sufficient to show affirmatively that error occurred. Cobb v. Standard Drug Co., 453 A.2d 110, 111 (D.C.1982) (cited in Cohen, 496 A.2d at 605). While our rules require the agency to prepare and transmit the record to the court, the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the party challenging the agency's decision, so that it is up to that party to ensure that any gaps in the record are filled. In a case such as this, it is the employee, rather than the university, who has the responsibility to make sure that the president has all the relevant information before making a ruling. [6] The second Form One, dated December 2, was created after the RIF took place and thus did not play any part in the selection of positions to be eliminated. In its order denying Mr. Hoage's motion to disqualify opposing counsel (for, inter alia, allegedly failing to include the second Form One in the record), the trial court wrote that its earlier ruling on the merits rested not on the number of forms, but on the reasons why the change in designation to Career Service occurred, and on the reasons why Hoage could not, as a matter of law, have been in the Career Service. We agree with the trial court that the existence of either one or two personnel forms indicating that Hoage was a career employee does not affect the university's determination that Hoage was a member of the Educational Service, so that the absence of the second form from the record is ultimately irrelevant. There is substantial evidence supporting UDC's conclusion that the 1 on the personnel forms was probably a typographical error, committed by someone who simply typed the wrong number (1 instead of 2) into a computer, where it remained unnoticed and unchanged. Hoage's personnel forms prior to August 7, 1992, stated that he was in the Educational Service ( i.e., they contained a 2 in box 37). His responsibilities did not suddenly change in August 1992; the only change was in the number in box 37. If the university had intended to switch Hoage into the Career Service, there would have been, in addition, a notation to that effect in the Remarks section on the personnel form. No such notation appears in the Remarks section on the August 7 form; the only remarks on that form indicate a change in budgetary ruleresponsibility center. This suggests to us, as it did to the trial court, that the 1 in box 37 was erroneous and did not affect Mr. Hoage's job classification. We find no basis to conclude that the trial court was wrong.