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

Heading: Other grievances

Text: Lozowski presents a list of miscellaneous grievances, noneof which has merit. First, she argues that it was unfair to assign her to the Thetis on the ground that she had notpreviously had sea duty. There is no evidence, however, thatthis is why the Coast Guard assigned her to the Thetis. Nowhere did Gray give that as a reason and the DGC merelyobserved that it was not unreasonable to assign her to theThetis because, among other things, she had not previouslyhad sea duty. See DGC Dec. at 8. Second, Lozowski argues that her storekeeper backgroundand Cornejo's food service background were used as a pretextfor not assigning Cornejo to the Seneca. For evidence of thisshe points to the eventual assignment to the Seneca of CWOSmith (who had a food service background). As the Secretary explains, however, having a storekeeper background wasa preference for assignment to the Seneca, not a requirement. Third, Lozowski argues that it was unfair for the DGC tofault her for not seeking special consideration in light of herdesire to be near her disabled mother in Boston when Rich,the CWO on the Thetis, was not required to apply for specialconsideration in order to express his preference for transferring to New England to be near his family. As the Secretarypoints out, Rich, unlike Lozowski, made his preferencesknown to Gray before, not after, the assignment decision wasmade. Fourth, Lozowski argues that she should have been assigned to a CWO position at the Telecommunication andInformation Systems Command where she was already working. The Secretary contends that this position opened up andwas filled several months before Lozowski was eligible forpromotion. That the opening in D.C. came available and wasfilled before Lozowski was eligible for promotion finds support in Declarations of CWOs Lineberry and Doster. Fifth, Lozowski complains that her assignment to the Thetis was irregular in that the vacancy on the Thetis existedonly because Rich was going to be transferred to the Seneca. Lozowski fails to point to any legal error or injustice in thisarrangement, however; the DGC's conclusion that new vacancies need not be filled with new CWOs from the promotion list, DGC Dec. at 5, finds support in the Declarations ofCWOs Prohaska and Gray. Finally, Lozowski argues that events subsequent to herdeclining the assignment -- Rich stayed on the Thetis, nofemale CWO or ensign was assigned to the Thetis, and aCWO with food service background was sent to the Seneca --show that her and the related assignments did not further theneeds of the service. On the contrary, that Rich did not go tothe Seneca tends to show that the arrangement was notdesigned to do him a favor; that no woman was assigned tothe Thetis casts doubt upon the idea that the CO of theThetis demanded a woman; that the ensign was not assignedto the Thetis suggests, if anything, that the ensign was to beLozowski's companion, not vice versa; and that Smith wasassigned to the Seneca, as already discussed, signifies nothing.