of the government's testimony on that subject turning to what the administrative judge found that he said he certainly did not make an adverse finding and i think it would be it would be it would contradict this court's hold this court's finding larson in other cases to say the administrative judge can make an adverse credibility finding can conclude in effect that my client lied under oath simply through silence moreover i would point out to you that there is no evidence or indication in the record that my client thirty c judge the violation of the statute first and foremost is in order to remedy it first and foremost is an order of compliance directing the agency to reconstruct the hiring process in in compliance with law my cli was from he was at the base and he was given the deposition what would happen to him well judge if you prevail it's not it's not this this is the reconstruction is kind of us is the standard remedy in this type of case and what typically the non veterans who applied the government itself actually cites to the applications that we do have in the record and so it's in a sense the government speaking out of two sides of its mouth on the one hand it wants to say the destroyed opticians work with cereal on the other hand i basis at all it's in fact contrary to federal regulation with the job posting and the federal register state that an application can get any written format there's no dispute that the only are the or b are in the are our documents in a written format your officer it's not just my contention judge or my client's contention that mr gentry agreed on the record that the o r be shows the tabulation in months mr cook occupied each position that he had in the army and he also testified to the kind of document that is familiar with that people is not so familiar with because he said this a three eighty four three to four three to five in the record because of because they deal with lots of veterans because they place many people into the military so if it one extreme you have the application  application in french for some comprehensible this is at the opposite extreme this is a this is a core military document that that the government's eye witness that testified miller with and testified that it shows exactly what we say it shows shows the tabulation in months it shows the tabulation was no contrary testimony that he had and it is a matter of record that he was an aviation supply maintenance officer at fort bragg and he testified there was no testimony the contrary that was essentially the military equivalent of the civilian this is a civilian version of that same job that he was applying for court this court should affirm the decision of the board because mr cook and all failed to demonstrate that the army violated any veteran's preference stature in particular five u s c section thirty three eleven two thirty three thirteen and thirty three zero nine one in determining that he was unqualified for the supervisory equipment specialist position for which he applied this court should also affirm the board's decision saying m motion for an adverse inference and the shifting of the bird proof based upon the destruction of certain documents because the administrative judge did not abuse his discretion in denying that motion family the administrative judge as a decision in this particular case they're not the jury or in light of the evidence that existed particularly the usera claim there are seven veterans who applied for this position seven veterans who applied six were determined to be qualified the only one who wasn't determined to be qualified was mr cook and all he wasn't determined to be qualified because of what was on his resume it had nothing to do as the administrative judge stated with respect to the fact that he had military i mean besides the fact that it defie allegation of false the cation of documents and these documents were your originals of what he allegedly falsified so in that case the petitioner knew exactly what the documents held in his view he said they would it would exculpate him in this case we don't know what the documents were we can use any logical inference to say they were peripheral at best i mean there are only two possible the twelve applications that could have anything to do with with you sarah for example and they were to non veterans who were determined to be qualified and you know using pure speculation should could have shown some difference in the analysis that applied with respect to those two two applications but even those veterans did make the certificate of eligible so if the army was going to discriminate on the basis of military experience for whatever reason shows i do not dramatically disagree with what mr herring represented to the court i believe that the the best i do disagree with him on one point and that is i think there is a clear finding by the administrative judge that it was are two things first of all if you look at the record that i've got units that are put together from the original application does not include the or i do not know what it is but it's in a separate place but the reason that's important is if you look be wrong and the reason that particular possibility your daughter is because we have you know a second resume that was submitted a third resume that was submitted various notices of disagreement and all sorts of filings that came in at different times i would process don't passes muster well mr gentry explains that on j one seventy three he states there is no requirement for my staff to interpret any personnel administrative formats other than those required for federal civil service employment notably requesting the vacancy announcement that such other forms be provided with your rsum neither is it required that my staff have a comprehensive knowledge of the military personnel assignment system inclusive of military occupational seri military training doctrine and significant assignment systems or military grades and ranks that is the way that the personnel office operates within the army corps way of operating within the same environment  you can just give those bits and pieces of information then respond to our request for information where you got a package in the way we used to be packaged and now what mr gentry is saying that we do not want to transform a document ourselves onto your resume you put on your resume what the dates are who worked in that position and demonstrate why you qualify for the position don't leave it up to the personnel office to try to understand what could be an emissary of documents for an endless amount of positions and try to transform it themselves into your resume and for example let's look at the orbit let's actually look at the lower body and try to translate it even if even if we get that far what it sa position why did he put that on his first resume but let's look what it says here it says that he spent nine months in the first position and three months in the second position wooster companies are on his third resume says he spent fourteen months in one position and four months in the other so the very document that he relies on shows that he eats that would have the bare minimum twelve months of requirements for the position and that would only be if he can substantively fulfill the requirements for all twelve of those months that every one of those requirements of each of this time is a bit different from the eight and nine years of requirements that mr black and the other veterans and the other disabled veterans who made the certificates of eligible eligibility had  he says he worked in this position which the never be said he worked at it three months from nineteen ninety nine to nine hundred eighty nine what does that mean one day one month two months three months and this tower did not understand what he meant by that so even if you use the position that puts him between two years and three years but after all that what mr gentry says i think it's better to there i think if you look at all that three of his resumes if you look at the documents that were submitted late if you look at the documents that  army does not consider it our policy not to consider i think it's there if he does another resume and list this in the appropriate fashion which we can consider for and subsequent position he never said based upon the information that was position the issue is whether mr kirk and all demonstrated that he was qualified for the position and he did not and it was the army had a reasonable process this required and able to to to assure that that happens was a reasonable analysis that was applied here a reasonable determination was made that he didn't qualify there is a reason why six veterans qualified and mr kirkland dog didn't it's because of a combination that he  knowing the characteristics and properties of the helicopter's just wrong right now i believe it's a right if you give credit to the army i believe it's still wrong your honor i believe if you look at his resume because what she was operating on she could not tell that information if you look at the yes that's it page three sixty eight we walk him through every single resume confirm that each one individually independently conveyed that information and he said yes each time and i also think that i so appreciate the government's can there i think that the governing council just said that you are beat this show and finally i think the government's counsel pointed out that if the subsequent resumes had more detail about other positions they were also relevant to the job opening that's simply besides the point there's no requirement  had showed that he the qualified for the job would surely cannot be disqualifying he actually had more experience than he showed on his first resume and finally the government makes reference to miss telegraph testimony that put out a couple of things about that first of all this court can decide what we have to give just all of his testimony based on other evidence and in the record we have here the applications which are clear on their face and show what experience mr kirk and all had and secondly was taught also when she said that she couldn't inclusion your honors let me just say that if the thirty three eleven which requires which requires agencies to take into account the material experience all material experience or preference all dual veterans doesn't apply to mr kirk and it's difficult to see how it can apply