the next case for argument is fifteen three one five two p board does not dispute that a march twenty twelve meeting took place and in fact the board held that mr cable's allegations are sufficient taken as true to establish that he made a protected disclosure at that march twenty fourth meeting a protected disclosure regarding the agency's data collection and data management failures in the national campaign against hiv aids in fact the board does not retreat from its statement in its final order that it goes without saying that the potential harm raised by mr cable's allegations  serious and the board does not dispute that mr cahill sufficiently alleged that adverse hat actions were taken against him and within a reasonable time of this protective disclosure the only issue here is whether or not team lead and given the severity of mr cales allegation indeed they go to the very heart of the data collection of data management responsibilities of the agency at that certainly is enough to impute knowledge to her a constructive knowledge treated this says that individual action by individual action for jurisdictional issues no in fact i know we cite a precedent on this point in our in our brief but for example  allegation it doesn't want them together to require that all of her because after we say if we find one allegation is enough then the whole case will come in front of us even or does it go on and separate and say ok you've got occasionally against him that had knowledge of this protected disclosure then those would be considered at a hearing on the merits thank you i think it's important to know that the non frivolous allegation standard at this point doesn't require mr cable to actually prove his ca that were in fact at the march twenty twelve meeting and i just double check something that least registered as significant to me when i first came across there were only two or three people under those tit branch u c s b and the quantitative science and data management group or to us d m and these are actually specifically defined groups within that center for disease control's national center for hiv aids which is a obviously  the non frivolous allegation standard is designed to test the sufficiency of mr cahill's allegations and as our position that the sufficiency of his allegations is enough to pass muster under the non frivolous allegations standard taken is true his further add to that and show that his allegation is indeed not frivolous because they in fact confirm one the miskin that's herself personally had knowledge of the disclosure whether or not she was at the meeting herself  or was simply told about this her role as an assistant branch chief she may have been told about this by the actual branch chief but whether she found out about it one way or the other is really beside the point it's the adequa fact than the non frivolous allegation standard and here in the fourth century required research able to prove the sufficiency of this allegation but this court case law and the board's case on its own regulations clearly establish that the non frivolous before the a j and before the board and never in my reading records you can tell correctly from did the government of the agency bring forward the paucity of the evidence with regard to whether or not these these individuals were at the meeting the people took action against him knew about right crazy to not make this argument the board consider the evidence and made its own determination on this issue that is not a bit problematic i mean it seems like the other side  mean obviously there's a little confusion even to this day in the government's brief about who or what all people were talking about and what individuals were involved this is another risk and really a problem for the board to  in the first instance on their own and its decision with this issue was never discussed or debated or raised in the briefing below well if i could point out the administrative judge issued a jurisdictional order in the underlying case jurisdiction over this ira claim it's the second paragraph down on this page says not frivolous allegation that a protected disclosure activity was a contributing factor in the decision to take or fail to take a personal action against you is a detailed factual allegation that you just closed one of the above matters or engaged in one of the protected activities and that agency officials responsible for the personal action were aware of your just going for activity and acted within such a time that a reasonable person could find that the he says i said this the agency doesn't come back and say who the heck are these people management not even a number i drifted in front of it could be any number of people why at that point  here when we hear just have a generalized assertion that these groups of people were at this meeting that does not meet the standard of providing sufficient evidence to create a material fact issue or jurisdiction the cases that petitioner relies on in order to support his claim are actually actually involved much more specific allegations then this case for example the colbert case but isner alleges that in that case the appellant did not complaints and that her input was used on his performance evaluation which is a pretty direct allegation of knowledge also identified another supervisor and manager called l and g and it appear that that supervisor had requested a summary review board of the can't be like cases like that because only then would be up to the agency to appeal and presumably you do that very often right perhaps but essentially given given the standard which is stated can't just be any allegation it has to be it has to mean something if the word non frivolous is in there it can't just be generalized allegation and we would also argue that accepting such a generalized allegation as in this case would only encourage distinctiveness of the fact that the agency didn't challenge the specificity of this occasion if it were in another case highly general let's call this general or something more general the agency says that's not enough that the claimant has an opportunity to try to be more specific and if he or she cared that tells you something but here we don't have we don't have the inference that might be drawn from the inability to get more specific because there wasn't an opportunity well again i would just i would just emphasize that petitioner was represented by an attorney but the judge issued a jurisdictional order which is very protected and they just never reached the issue of whether their knowledge timing test was mine i don't know if that was a specific strategy on the part of the agency or just that was that was the issue the main issue before them at the time once that issue was resolved and of the arguments there but petitioner was informed of his burden and he had the opportunity to preventing issues that he wished to brief and present any evidence that he had he also and i also know that the of petitioners allegations if i could just say something quickly about regard to those notes though they're on page eighty three twenty two of the record the march twenty second two thousand and twelve bullet points out some of the individuals that she identifies as being at the meeting are different from the categories that petitioner identifies for example she doesn't identify any she was too young managers as being at the meeting and most of the people that are the alleged so to be clear this at these allegations that mr cahill made were not in fact generalized allegations they were specific they didn't fight specific titles of individuals who were at the meeting at the march twenty twelve meeting conclus reflected in the record exactly how many games are in our understanding again not reflected in the record what thirteen yes and we're talking about a number of people who could fall into this category again not in the knowledge of these protective disclosures whether they were one of the team leads or managers that was actually there or whether they heard about it or it was imputed to them from people who were actually in attendance these are small groups it's in a group on the management side we do know from the e mails that mr cahill submitted in response to the order to show jurisdiction there's e mails and performance evaluations signed by the branch chief and the assistant branch chief q s d m for example so we know that those individuals are specific late in a fight as once would fall under the management title of but we don't have specific numbers of who's at whose at this who is in these groups branch chief this was typical parlance within the agency to describe people in this manner and if the board in fact had a question as to whether or not these allegations were specific enough to identify people their proper remedy would have been dreaming and acting administrati