Opinion ID: 755736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Access to Records

Text: 36 Major Gowan argues that the Air Force violated the Privacy Act by not turning over all materials in response to his Privacy Act request. Specifically, he complains that he did not receive the materials contained in the attorney working file (the file set up by Gampel which included Major Kehl's Ethics file and Major Ruppert's papers) until more than six years after his first Privacy Act request, four years after he filed this case in the district court. 37 The Privacy Act grants individuals access to their records. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(1). However, only records kept in a system of records are subject to the provisions of § 552a(d). See Wren v. Heckler, 744 F.2d 86, 89 (10th Cir.1984). The Privacy Act defines a record as any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency ... that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(4). A system of records is defined as a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5). To redress violations of § 552a(d)(1), the district court may award injunctive relief, and, if the plaintiff has substantially prevailed in the action, attorney fees and costs. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(1)(B), (g)(3). 38 The only file in existence at the time of Major Gowan's first request was the Ethics file. By the time of his second request, the Ethics file had been incorporated into an attorney working file. The district court concluded that neither the Ethics file nor the attorney working file were maintained in a Privacy Act system of records, and that those files were not retrievable by means of Major Gowan's name or other identifier. On appeal, Major Gowan argues that (1) the designate Ethics was in fact an identifier personal to Major Gowan, so that the Ethics file was part of a system of records and thus subject to the Privacy Act, and (2) even if the Ethics file was not part of a Privacy Act system of records, it should have been because it was used in determining Major Gowan's rights, privileges, and benefits. 3 39 Major Gowan contends that Ethics was in fact a code word referring to him, and thus in effect was a personal identifier. We recognize the possibility that an unscrupulous person may try to mask a record properly subject to the Privacy Act by labeling it with a generic code word that effectively acts as a personal identifier. However, the testimony before the district court does not indicate that here the designation Ethics equals an identifying particular assigned to the individual. Major Kehl testified that his file was not a folder about any individual in particular, and that at the time of the investigation into Major Gowan's activities there was other information in this file about people other than Mr. Gowan, because my evaluation of ethics issues included other people besides Mr. Gowan. On this record, we must conclude that the word Ethics was not a personal identifier of Major Gowan and we do not find the district court's rulings regarding those documents to be clearly erroneous. See Wren v. Heckler, 744 F.2d at 89 (documents contained in files entitled Regional and Field Hearing Office were not part of a system of records because they were not retrievable by plaintiff's name or other identifying symbol even though they contained information about the plaintiff); see also Hudson v. Reno, 130 F.3d 1193, 1206 (6th Cir.1997) (notes kept in locked drawer in file labeled as First Assistant's file not part of a Privacy Act system of records even though they contained information about the plaintiff). 40 Alternatively, Major Gowan contends that the file should have been put into the system of records under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5)--which directs agencies to maintain complete and accurate records to ensure fairness in determinations--because Major Kehl, Major Ruppert, Gampel, and Lt. Colonel Brower actually used the file in making decisions about him. Although the court may award damages, attorney fees and costs upon finding that an agency intentionally and willfully failed to maintain records with such accuracy and completeness as to ensure fairness, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(g)(1)(C), (g)(4), the record on appeal does not demonstrate that Major Gowan raised this issue in the district court. The district court never addressed the issue, and the pretrial report does not adequately set forth the contention that the files should have been maintained in a Privacy Act system of records. Although Major Gowan asserts that he raised the issue below in his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, that filing has not been submitted as part of the appellate record. Because it is impossible to review the arguments made before the district court, we decline to address this issue on appeal. See United States v. Vasquez, 985 F.2d 491, 494 (10th Cir.1993) (When the record on appeal fails to include copies of the documents necessary to decide an issue on appeal, the Court of Appeals is unable to rule on that issue.); 10th Cir. R. 10.3 (When the party asserting an issue fails to provide a record sufficient for consideration of that issue, the court may decline to consider it.).