With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". there is also no obvious connection between the alleged statements by Phelps and Owens and the December travel request denial. Nurriddin has neither shown that the denial of travel requests was an adverse action nor provided evidence for a rational fact-finder to conclude that NASA’s explanation for the denial of his travel requests is a pretext for retaliation. Hence, this claim, too, fails. 5. Designation as AWOL for 59 Days in 2000 Nurriddin alleges that he suffered from discrimination and retaliation when he was temporarily listed as AWOL from September 12, 2000, through December 1, 2000. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 121. NASA does not dispute, though it might have, that being designated AWOL constitutes an adverse employment action. Compare Ware v. Billington, 344 F.Supp.2d 63, 77 (D.D.C.2004) (<HOLDING>), with Brown v. Snow, 407 F.Supp.2d 61, 65

A: holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment
B: holding that the plaintiffs placement on paid administrative leave constituted an adverse action for purposes of a first amendment retaliation claim
C: holding that termination is an adverse employment action
D: holding that designation as awol constituted an adverse action
D.