familiar with the new tool for managing BSA examinations. Id. Walker’s demonstrated technical expertise in BSA/ AML compliance examinations undermines the plaintiff’s contention that he was significantly more qualified than Walker with respect to the first QRF. 10 . The plaintiff argues that the Panel arbitrarily and inconsistently ranked the candidates. Pl.’s Opp’n at 32. The plaintiff’s argument, however, consists of taking small snippets of the selectees’ written application materials and interview responses out of context and offering his opinion of how these responses should have been rated. Id. at 32-33. This criticism does not help the plaintiff meet his burden of showing that he was significantly better qualified. See Brown v. Small, 2007 WL 158719, at *7 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2007) (<HOLDING>) (citing Hammond v. Chao, 383 F.Supp.2d 47, 57
holding that the plaintiffs assessment of the candidates qualifications cannot demonstrate a pretext for discrimination holding that plaintiff was entitled to submit coworkers assessment of his work to show employers stated factual basis for adverse action was pretext for discrimination holding that even if plaintiff could demonstrate that failed drug test proffered by defendant as ground for dismissal was in error that showing would not demonstrate that reliance on test was pretext for discrimination holding that a plaintiff may rely on the same evidence to prove both pretext and discrimination holding that a reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for discrimination  unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason