two but i'm judged cancelled did take partial judicial notice of a document he noted that the document was ordered by congress or contracted it was published and it was accepted by the what issues really presented here for us to decide and whether or not th agency severely limited because number one they don't have an attorney number two i don't think you can expect a veteran to be able to call information this particular document was prepared by institute of medicine it was  last reply with then also mean that no further information could ever be submitted or anything could be got as of course attention in such a case if we had been able to come into the actual may please the chorus we wish practive lee requested this appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction all of the issues that are being brought to the court's attention involve the application of more the fact basically the situation that the veteran was faced with is that the veterans courts record five statures thirty eight u s c seventy two fifty two the veterans courts review of a board decision is limited to the record of the proceedings before the secretary in the board so what the veteran was trying to do before the veterans court was to head various stark image to the record through various notions of judicial notice wor instructive possession and to all comment the record before the veteran scored so what's involved here is the application of the law to the fact that all that was going on in the veterans the argument with regard to constructive notice is a application of precedent there's no specific regulation issue it's precedent of the veterans court so it's the application of that precedent to two particular documents the two documents being the two reports that are discussed in the veterans court's decision the first one being noise and military service and the second one being those are the only two documents where the argument was made that they come within the constructive possession doctrine and the decision of the veterans court apply and it's it's doctrine to the facts of the case was simply that these are not the type of documents that one would reasonably be expected to be included in the record before the board therefore they do not come within that doctrine there's nothing these are general documents they don't have any connection to the veterans so what the veterans court did is apply it stockton's to the facts of the case and that's exactly what's being argued here that  that was somehow erroneous but it's still a question of the application of doctrine of veterans court precedent to the facts of the case so it's beyond the court's jurisdiction that's also true of of the judicial notice doctrine in the trying to find the documents or find some way to reintroduce them into a file where they were missing that's my understanding of it because they always speak of there is a test is to determine whether or not the document be a generated i would submit that is generated between mr month ingo and these but apparently the department of justice very kindly submitted several documents within their joint appendix which are which were culled from the the record before the agency