Opinion
Civil Action No. 6:00-CV-111-C
April 30, 2002
ORDER
Came on for trial the above-styled and -numbered cause. Both parties appeared and announced ready.
The Court, having heard the evidence and argument of counsel, makes the following findings of fact.
1. On September 21, 1972, Plaintiff Shirley Stovall was appointed to a Student Aid position at Kelly Air Force Base (KAFB) in San Antonio, Texas.
2. Plaintiff graduated from high school in 1973 and continued to work at KAFB while she attended college as a Student Trainee.
3. Plaintiff's personnel records for the time she was in college reflect that she was a Student Trainee.
4. Prior to January 10, 1977, Plaintiff was classified under occupational code "334," the occupational code for Computer Programmers:
5. On September 15, 1996, DPCCO, a Department of Defense Personnel Office, issued a letter indicating that Plaintiff's occupational code was "335," the code for the Computer Clerk and Assistant series.
6. On January 10, 1977, Karen Fell, the Designated Appointing Official at Kelly AFB issued a correction SF-50 (Notification of Personnel Action) "in accordance with DPCCO ltr dated 15 Sep 1976" changing Plaintiff's occupational code from Student Trainee (Computer Programmer), GS-0334 to Student Trainee (Computer Aid), GS-0335.
7. Some of Plaintiff's personnel records created prior to January 10, 1977, were marked with pen/pencil corrections crossing out "334" in the occupational code block and writing "335."
8. In March 1977, DPCCO issued a "Revision List" naming five students participating in the Student Trainee program.
9. Ms. Stovall was named on the Revision List with her occupational title (i.e. Student Trainee (Computer Aid)) and her occupational code (i.e. 335).
10. Subsequent personnel forms for placing Plaintiff on Leave Without Pay status and Return to Duty status list Plaintiff's occupational code as "335" and her title as "Student Trainee (Computer Aid)."
11. Plaintiff's Position Description dated July 16, 1976, shows that Plaintiff was designated as a Student Trainee (Computer Programmer), GS-334, but it was crossed out and replaced with "Computer Aid" and GS-335.
12. The corrections on the July 16, 1976 Position Description refer to the DPCCO letters of September 16, 1976, and March 7, 1977, as the reason for the correction.
13. On January 16, 1978, Plaintiff was converted from her Student Trainee (Computer Aid) position with occupational code of "GS-0335" to a career conditional appointment as a Computer Programmer, occupational code "GS-0334."
14. Plaintiff has worked in this capacity ever since, although her duty location changed to Goodfellow Air Force Base.
Based upon the above findings, the Court makes the following conclusions of law;
1. Plaintiff does not seek damages or allege that any adverse actions were taken as a result of the records at issue.
2. Even assuming the' changes were made as Plaintiff requests, they would have no effect on her employment financially, professionally, or otherwise.
3. The only issue in this amendment lawsuit is whether the records concerning Plaintiff's occupation code while she was a Student Trainee are timely, accurate. relevant and complete.
4. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by preponderant evidence, that (1) the records are not accurate as they stand, and (2) the amendments she seeks reflect the events that occurred. Mervin v. F.T.C., 591 F.2d 821, 827 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (plaintiff bears the burden of showing inaccuracy in Privacy Act amendment suit).
5. The Court is not charged with determining whether Plaintiff was properly classified as a Computer Clerk/Assistant (335) or Computer Programmer (334).
6. Determinations concerning position classification are neither appealable under the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), nor subject to collateral attack under the Privacy Act. Kleiman v. Dep't of Energy, 956 F.2d 335, 338 (1992) (rejecting request to amend OPF by changing position titles); Barnhart v. Devine, 771 F.2d 1515, 1524-26 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (direct challenge to a position classification, brought for the first time in district court, would not be authorized under the CSRA).
7. Moreover, agencies are not required to maintain perfect records under the Privacy Act standard for accuracy. Rather, agencies must maintain records with "such accuracy, relevancy, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in a determination." See Marcotte v. Sec'y of Defense, 618 F. Supp. 756, 762 (1985); 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5).
8. The fact that KAFB did not prepare an SF-52, Request for Personnel Action, is immaterial. First, an SF-52 is not needed to correct a mistake. See Guide to Processing Personnel Actions (Defendants Appendix pp. 4-9).
9. Second, and more importantly, the Privacy Act is not concerned with the process of creating records, but with the accuracy of the records that are created.
10. As long as the records reflect the events as they occurred, which they do, Plaintiff has no remedy under the Privacy Act. Similarly, even if Plaintiff never received her copy of the SF-SO that corrected her occupational code, her case must fail because the records reflect the events that actually occurred.
11. As long as the records are accurate, relevant, timely and complete, even if imperfect, OPM and Air. Force have fulfilled their obligations under the Privacy Act.
12. Thc Court concludes that the records are, in fact, accurate, relevant, timely and complete.
Judgment shall be entered for Defendants in accordance with the above findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff shall bear all costs of court
IT IS SO ORDERED.