he was adversely affected by the disclosure of his records. Id. at 153. We affirm the district court’s decision on the grounds that Mandel failed to prove that he was adversely affected by the disclosure. We, therefore, do not address whether OPM’s disclosure constituted a routine use, nor do we address OPM’s argument that Mandel effectively waived the protections of the Act by appealing OPM’s unsuitability determination, and thereby placing the records into issue. Id. at 152-53. On appeal, Mandel contends that the district court erred in holding that he failed to show that he had been adversely affected by the disclosure of his records. Mandel asserts that OPM’s disclosure of his records to two witnesses in order to' prepare them to testify at the administrative appeal resulted in th (<HOLDING>); Hewitt v. Grabicki, 794 F.2d 1373, 1379 (9th
holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a  1983  cause of action holding that the plaintiff demonstrated pretext in part by establishing a causal connection holding that a history of substance abuse is only a mitigating factor when a causal connection exists between the alcohol and drug abuse and the crime recognizing that a strong causal connection is required quotation omitted holding that causal connection exists where investigation was initially caused in significant part by the disclosure