morning your honour's worse for sure for of the appellant the reason i did ask for that might be a drop of an unusual form and it is because i think the case is very straightforward it boils down to is intentionally deceived about his retirement options that all it needs to happen is that there has to be a statement statement has to be misleading guy has to rely on it that's it well it was given choices given choices that's true and he chose to uphold their well he chose and a voluntary retirement is not appealable the only thing that's an issue in this case is not whether he he offered to do that he said no that won't work we need somebody permanent they don't get anybody permits had he there is there was and he also admitted the supervisor also  womack could have been one of those people what they did was they used t v wires until the end of the year from july to the end of the year that was admitted the supervisor mr medina fully admitted mr  been one of those people so he tricked them he not maybe even if the court believes that there was a need for this permanent position position was never advertised judge the board i believe found that the reasons for the reassignment were legitimate because at number one there was a need at glencoe and number two that as capable as he was and as good a record as he had the fact was that mr womack had been in this at fort benning for fifteen years and that they needed someone who had more hands on in the field experience to be teaching this dance class and a j said those reasons were established now for that reason there was no  coerced because substantial evidence supports and you don't really challenge the two points about the legitimacy of the recently on which humans religious there is there is something called that and then they're starting there's there's there's something called need was unhappy about this period between end of june and the end of december he could have refused and could have stayed there and he could have refused then he would have been fired but he chose not to do that he was faced with the decision of leaving at the end of june to an extended to july i don't recall ok but what level is faced with the choice of leaving at the end of june at the end of july  and why does the judge accept that there was a legitimate reason to reassigned him ok to the point where someone had to be hired at clinical because nobody testimony and you challenge chip which is fair enough on appeal but the a j accepted wisdom that dina's testimony and i can't say that substantial evidence doesn't support it the fact that they just never heard of anybody for that job the fact that they they didn't hire anyone there are various reasons why they didn't hire someone they couldn't suddenly there were financial restrictions there was sequestered so the quest ration and the burden  but but none of that none of that was all that was asked at the hearing the judge himself asset question and the end didn't get any satisfactory response if you look on page one hundred dollars of the and so he did and again  it doesn't have to be an intentional thing but the question at the end of the day was this guy cord had been one of the people who do this at the end of the year there's no reason why he should have been and you're saying this all came out in the question with respect to the question of when he would actually leave the judge exactly that's right  thank you this lesson may please the court the ministry of just correctly found that petitioner did not meet his burden to establish that his retirement was involuntary therefore the imus p p did not have jurisdiction over this appeal to overcome the a presumption that his retirement was voluntary petitioner must show either that it was the result of agency misinformation and deception or that it was coerced by the agency and to establish coercion petitioner must show three things st the agency effectively imposed the terms of the resignation nd petitioner had no realistic alternative but to resign and a rd the resignation was the well from the record it's clear that mr medina testified that he did respect petitioner's work and his career and that was one of the reasons he wanted to transfer him to this position where they needed an experienced instructor and also because of the complaints that had been going on within the agency about his extended tenure in his current position which was unprecedented most other instructors there sort of for five years and he had been there for fifteen so there was pressure to move him back into the field over to another position however i would note that the legitimacy of the reassignment is not being challenged in this case if petitioner wanted to challenge that he should have refused to resign and then allowed the agency to fire him and then he could have appealed that removal decision so the only thing he's challenging here is whether or not the change in the retirement date  rendered his retirement involuntary and that that's petitioner's burden to establish that and he simply hasn't produced convincing evidence that the fact that the date was moved up from his desire  december to eventually july means that she had no choice but to resign resign so and actually the agency showed flexibility in assigning his retirement date by agreeing to extend the date to july from june which was their original choice for him to retire at his request so there's simply no evidence of coercion here in the selection of the retirement age as an employee have absolute right to determine over time of the i mean in general the ways are allowed to choose their retirement it's however there is a standard of reasonable in this in this case when one when did this begin to november nine more months to december is not consistent with the agency's need to fill that position with a permanent this was february th when he said i like to resign in december right so that her solicitor was yeah  that the position wasn't advertised prior to their decision to reassign to that position and he doesn't say anything about it not being advertised after he had declined the position and so that the only evidence in the record is that medina was asked at the hearing what are you doing to fill this position now when you said we're continuing to use temporary instructors to fill it doesn't say the agency never tried to fill it it  as i stated the agency had an operational need to permanently fill the f l e t c position and after producer had declined the transfer and an extended detail by an employee who has already announced his retirement did not and the lack of coercion in the selection of the retirement date is further demonstrated by the fact that the agency agreed to extend the retirement age by one month at petitioners request if petitioner did not wish to accept the assigned day he was free to either reconsider his decision to retire allow the agency to remove or reconsider his decision to accept the transfer and take the transfer position and but instead he chose to accept the retirement dat july and voluntarily retired so because position did not meet its burden to rebut the presumption that his retirement was voluntary the what he ended up doing over there was using the t v wise and he says yes and why ninety one of the people i could have been doing that in two thousand and sixteen was mr womack and he says yes ok so that's evidence that they didn't fill the position afterwards page one hundred of the record the judge does asks him before he left he says i know you said you've been out of your position for about a year the tire and this hearing was in october of two thousand and eight ok so he was out of there certainly sometime in two thousand and seventeen and before you left had that position a clean called and filled and a witness says i'm not sure what they did because in two thousand and seventeen and you go through a whole thing about what happened in two thousand and seventeen ok that circumstances can change soon the agency thought it had to and the a j found that d based upon what had occurred prior to this dispute about the actual departure date that on page one hundred he was sad it wasn't filled in two thousand and sixteen because of everything that you're suggesting and in fact in two thousand and seventeen something happened and that made about when are you going to retire he or he said i will retire and you said at the beginning that it was a voluntary retirement and this whole question only rose when they were discussing  what date are you going to leave and as it was a letter said he could've said i'm not happy with this i'm going to stay here and he could have been fired then challenge that our cases make that clear and the cases of made that clear in circumstances which were d much stronger i think than in this case in that he much more would we just circumstances well i mean i don't know that you need such egregious circumstances i mean the question is was it an offer to for him to have relied on the state and and if that if you met that threshold you know he doesn't need twenty people saying the same