Opinion ID: 185723
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Service needs

Text: The district court held that the DGC did not adequatelyexplain why the Coast Guard's service needs were bestsatisfied by the various assignments contemporaneous withand including that of Lozowski. Id. at 9. Specifically, thedistrict court thought the Coast Guard had failed to explainwhy Cornejo, who was first on the promotion list, was notassigned to the Seneca, and had failed to show that Rich, whowas assigned to the Seneca, was the best person for the job. Id. at 10. The Secretary maintains that the DGC adequatelyexplained why the needs of the Coast Guard were furtheredby sending Rich to the Seneca and Cornejo to Alaska andthat she did not need to show that Rich was the best personfor the job on the Seneca. We agree. The Secretary is authorized to correct errors and injustices, see 10 U.S.C. s 1552, not to ensure that every assignment best serves the needs of the Coast Guard. Thus, therelevant question is whether the DGC reasonably concludedthat the assignment of Lozowski was neither erroneous norunjust. Indeed, Lozowski agrees with the Secretary that theDGC had no obligation to show that Rich was literally thebest person for the job on the Seneca but rather needed toshow only that the assignments serve[d] the needs of theservice. The DGC clearly met this lower standard. Consider: There was an opening in Alaska, Cornejo wanted it,Lozowski did not, and Cornejo was already in Alaska somoving him would be inexpensive. See DGC Dec. at 6. TheSeneca needed a CWO but could not accommodate a woman. See id. at 6-7. Rich agreed to transfer to the Seneca at nocost to the Coast Guard, thereby opening up his slot on the Thetis. See id. at 6. In these circumstances, the decision toassign Lozowski to the Thetis seems perfectly reasonable as away of meeting the needs of the service.