Opinion ID: 185723
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Double-billeting

Text: The district court also questioned the DGC's explanationwhy the Coast Guard was willing to double-billet Cornejo butnot Lozowski. Lozowski II, No. 98-0922 at 10-12. The DGCexplained that there was no downside to double-billetingCornejo in Alaska while there were two downsides todouble-billeting Lozowski in D.C.: (1) the Coast Guard wouldbe allowing Lozowski to avoid an assignment due to a depressed housing market; and (2) the Coast Guard would haveto fill the position on the Seneca with CWO Smith, the nextperson on the list, who unlike Lozowski and Rich, did nothave the desired storekeeper background. DGC Dec. at 9. We think the DGC's explanation, though cursory, is adequate. The district court appears to have accepted thatLozowski's desire to avoid a loss on the sale of her home wasan invalid reason to double-billet her in D.C. Lozowski II,No. 98-0922 at 11. We agree; the Coast Guard could reasonably conclude that accepting this reason would open itself tonumerous similar requests whenever and wherever the housing market is depressed, making it difficult to fill manyassignments. The district court explained its disagreement with the DGCas follows: It makes little sense to deem that a priorpreference [namely, Lozowski's preference to stay in D.C. forunstated reasons] cannot be accommodated because a new,invalid, reason for sustaining the preference [Lozowski's desire to avoid selling her home at a loss] arose subsequently. Id. The DGC, however, did not say that Lozowski's subsequent preference in any way diminished the validity of herprior preference. Instead, the DGC held that the decision toassign Lozowski to the Thetis in spite of her preference forstaying in D.C. (at that time for no stated reason) wasreasonable, see DGC Dec. at 8, and that Lozowski's subsequent reason for wanting to remain in D.C. -- to avoid losing money upon the sale of her home -- did nothing to alter thatbalance, see id. at 9. In any event, it is apparent to us that the decision todouble-billet Cornejo but not Lozowski was a reasonable one. Assigning Cornejo to Alaska meant Lozowski did not have tobe transferred there, her least preferred location. The DGCin her decision noted Lozowski's desire not to go to Alaska,id. at 7, and Gray had said that this was one reason hethought Lozowski was well-suited for the Seneca. Thus,double-billeting Cornejo enabled the Coast Guard to accommodate both his preference and Lozowski's, while doublebilleting Lozowski would have accommodated only her preference. Similarly, the Coast Guard's desire to assign Lozowski toeither the Seneca or the Thetis because she had a storekeeper background was a reasonable ground for not doublebilleting her in D.C. The district court's reasoning -- thatthe subsequent assignment to the Seneca of Smith, who had afood service background, shows that Lozowski's storekeeperbackground played no role in Gray's initial decision to assignCornejo to Alaska and Lozowski to the Seneca -- is notpersuasive. See Lozowski II, No. 98-0922 at 12. Because aCWO's background is merely one factor in an assignmentdecision, the assignment of a CWO with one kind of background does not mean that a different kind of backgroundwas not preferred. Consequently, we conclude that both theDGC's explanations for not double-billeting Lozowski in D.C.were reasonable.