That’s exactly what he means. From that same passage in EPoE:
“The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct.”
And right after he closes out the part about action by saying “Action is, by definition, always rational”, he switches back to talking about ends:
“One is unwarranted in calling goals of action irrational simply because they are not worth striving for from the point of view of ones own valuations.”
If you’re interested, that passage is probably one of the best places to look:
The Distinction Between Means and Ends: The “Irrational”
That’s a contradiction of terms. The entire reason you include the term “absolute” is to distinguish it from the individual. When you say something is “absolute” you are indicating that it is true regardless of circumstances of any kind. If you make the caveat that you are confining “absolute” to a realm only within a specific set of circumstances, then the term loses its meaning and becomes — to use Mises’ term — pleonastic.
What you did there is a perfect example of what is commonly referred to as “over-thinking”.
In that same passage I’m recommending to you, Mises discusses what “absolute rationality” would mean:
“It has never been disputed that man does not always act correctly from the objective point of view; that is, that either from ignorance of causal relations or because of an erroneous judgment of the given situation, in order to realize his ends he acts differently from the way in which he would act if he had correct information. In 1833 the method of healing wounds was different from that used in 1933, and in 2033 still another way will presumably be thought suitable. Statesmen, field marshals, and stock-market speculators act differently at present from the way in which they would act if they knew exactly all the data needed for an accurate judgment of conditions. Only a perfect being, whose omniscience and omnipresence would enable him to survey all the data and every causal relationship, could know how each erring human being would have to act at every moment if he wanted to possess the divine attribute of omniscience. If we were to attempt to distinguish rational action from irrational action, we should not only be setting ourselves up as a judge over the scales of value of our fellow men, but we should also be declaring our own knowledge to be the only correct, objective standard of knowledge. We should be arrogating to ourselves the position that only an all-knowing being has the power to occupy.”