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

Heading: Lozowski's Alternative Grounds

Text: Lozowski contends principally that the judgment of thedistrict court can be upheld on the alternative ground that theDGC arbitrarily and capriciously ignored the Coast Guard'shaving violated two of its own regulations in assigning her tothe Thetis. Lozowski also presents a hodgepodge of othergrievances, none of which has any merit.
Lozowski argues that in making the relevant assignmentsthe Coast Guard violated Article 1-B-3 of the Military Civil Rights Manual (MCRM), which prohibits discrimination onthe basis of ... sex. She contends that Gray assigned herto the Thetis because the Commanding Officer (CO) of theThetis wanted a female CWO and because Gray felt he had toassign one. Lozowski implies that the Coast Guard wantedher to serve as a role model, mentor or leader for womenon the Thetis. In response, the Secretary correctly notes that Lozowskifailed to raise before the Board the argument that she wasassigned to the Thetis because that ship's CO wanted awoman assigned. Indeed, in her brief to the Board Lozowskinever even mentioned the provision of the MCRM upon whichshe now relies. Rather, Lozowski argued principally that herassignment disregarded the normal process of working downthe [CWO] promotion list. The closest she came to herpresent argument was to claim that the Coast Guard disregarded Article 4.A.7.a.3 of its Personnel Manual, which sayswomen will not be arbitrarily denied an assignment solelybecause of lack of a second woman. Specifically, Lozowskiargued that the Coast Guard had violated this provision byassigning her to the Thetis in order to provide a companionfor the new proposed female ensign, an argument Lozowskihas since abandoned. Absent exceptional circumstances, Lozowski cannot rely incourt upon an argument not made to the Board. See Flynnv. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, 269 F.3d 1064,1068-69 (D.C. Cir. 2001), in which this court instanced thefollowing types of exceptional circumstances: cases involvinguncertainty in the law; novel, important, and recurring questions of federal law; intervening change in the law; andextraordinary situations with the potential for miscarriages ofjustice. Id. at 1069. Because Lozowski's claim does not fallwithin any of these categories and she does not offer anyother compelling reason for doing so, we decline to considerthe argument she failed to present to the Board. In anyevent, it is difficult to see how the DGC could have actedarbitrarily or capriciously in failing to address an argumentnever presented to her. Lozowski also claims on appeal that the Coast Guard'sdisparate treatment of Rich and Cornejo on the one handand of herself on the other violated the anti-discriminationprovision of the MCRM. Again, however, Lozowski neverraised the MCRM before the Board. Furthermore, this claimwas rejected by the DGC because there was no evidence thatany favoritism shown Rich and Cornejo was motivated bytheir gender. See DGC Dec. at 9. On appeal Lozowskipoints us to no such evidence that was overlooked by theDGC. Consequently, we cannot affirm the judgment of thedistrict court on the ground that the assignment decision wascontrary to Article 1-B-3 of the MCRM.
Lozowski argues that by failing to assign Cornejo to theSeneca the Coast Guard violated Article 1-D-9.a of its Personnel Manual, which states: Candidates recommended forappointment are listed by the selection board in order of theirfinal scores on eligibility lists. The eligibility lists establishthe precedence of candidates in each specialty. In response,the Secretary argues that the regulation requires only thatcandidates be promoted in rank order, not that each beappointed to the specific vacancy that opened the door forhis or her promotion, which would not necessarily serve theneeds of the service. Thus the Coast Guard could assignCornejo to Alaska rather than to the Seneca as long as it didnot promote him out of order, that is, after Lozowski. We conclude the DGC reasonably determined that theCoast Guard did not violate any regulation by assigningCornejo to Alaska and not to the Seneca. See DGC Dec. at 5. Article 1-D-9.a of the Personnel Manual and the Declarationsof CWOs Prohaska and Gray all support the Secretary'sposition that the Coast Guard could permissibly assign Cornejo to Alaska as long as he was not promoted after Lozowski,and the declarations support the Secretary's assertion that infact Cornejo was not promoted after Lozowski.
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.