service this is not in dispute this was true in her prior job when she was a high level official the state department continued and her most recent job at the general services administration for her efforts however she has not been shown appreciation for her public service instead she has been retaliated against as a whistle blower and most recently removed from a job in which she undisputedly was successful and sent him to a job where she has no  duties this is undisputed in this case because some but the issue is whether there was clear and convincing evidence that she would have been transferred anyway correct and that is correct why was the war wrong the board was wrong because the board relied on conclusion administrative judge who specifically relied on the findings of a internal investigation that the agency did and that the reliance on this constituted a clearance law this investigation which occurred in approximately two thousand two thousand and one is not a sin it was not  these vague conclusions importantly if you can you elaborate on that i mean she did not have the opportunity when the administrative judge is hearing to show that what was said in management in court documents was erroneous should not have the opportunity she did not have the opportunity at the time the report was being i think you're aware that's not what i asked you examined whoever went to management that put the complaints that were then recorded in this management inquiry document and show that in fact this was of incorrect well actually now since most of the plants were anonymous and that just goes to show how this report so called report was well couldn't ship pointed that out to the board of the judge could have report that were important and were mine on the the ministry of judge were not any specific allegations of wrongdoing as a matter of fact administrative judge says at least three times there was no specific find to give any wrongdoing  port came up all those was never released at the time the part however says there were vague ideas about raul and other things in the office and only when the agency needed to be decided they wanted to take action years later against mission rick they pulled this report out of the drawer and then all of a sudden it was like oh we have this long history problem that you play attack the credibility of that reporter in the hearing and a j could get it whatever way he or she that because she was never given the opportunity she was never given the opportunity to file a grievance at the time if there had been some sort of finding in this report that something who had occurred the passage of time  rebut what was happening in this so called report was a seems to be in to insist with the way these court proceedings operate the fact that there are documents  and that was that was not that was not that was not done but what we did introduce at the hearing was uncontested years long years long history and actual performance reviews which which demonstrated dipping titian or was an outstanding employee and she received each year the highest rating and that the board accept those and that she did except that so the board had the evidence you want it or did you try to exclude of fact that they're entitled to give it there's this is evidence this is evidence that was so extreme in the sense that in that it was so extreme waiting there to school because we we the mystery judge erred however by ignoring the un the uncontested record of what was important the performance reviews are intended to provide a contemporaneous record of what is happening with the employee none of these so called allegations from the so called report ever appeared there was no reason for us to think that such that the weight of the court would outweigh the meaningful documentary record of the performance reviews and if i may be the second issue here which is important to this court we respectfully suggest you consider is that what happened here was  of what is now what is now becoming more and more common a federal claimant virtual the employment or tech or teleworking in this in most cases however this is this kind of arrangement is done for the benefit of an employee employees extended the opportunity to do this on a voluntary basis please discretion in this case however this was turned upside down agency to work virtually the same the things she looked at previously with respect your honor that is not correct the agency you just seen it's pretty states that she declined she never declined there was never any specific job any any any place where she cooperated in trying to put forward resumes or the like is i think that other job cheney ransome it a miss the resume really doesn't matter to me about those other jobs or to merely her position was abolished they transferred or which they have the right to do to another position how is it a geographic person that would all she did was the workforce in the same building because the critical difference is that that's in that's where we'll find ourselves that's the catch twenty two we're trying to highlight is it in this case reverchon will employment is being used as a club against a whistleblower and not something for the benefit she's been isolated isolated from others she's been given no significant work for four or four years and in this is and the agency and the swim afterwards will be able to  understand exactly what time period we're talking it was years earlier the that this process went on this process when i was at least two years or two years later so let's assume it's december thirty first two thousand and nine because you haven't given anything within the year two thousand and nine and then my understanding was that sometime in either two thousand and ten or by the for end of the first half or twenty eleven the ship with knew about the management inquiry report is i was roughly july two thousand and eleven middle of two thousand  this is when this is when she found out for the first time that there was anything adverse to her in this report when the agency decided they wanted to do something and they having no other documentary record of any lack of under performance on her part they pull people out that which was an informal inquiry done by low level employees in the in the central human human getting your brief which seems to me to be troubling and that is that the board has no jurisdiction to consider the due process file issue i simply don't understand that if it's going to if there had been a motion to exclude this cases that i cited state that the in an irate appeal the jurisdiction the scope of review for the board is limited to the issue of reprisal for whistleblowing so the law certainly can decide whether had raised that argument before the board the new central requirements of due process are known as an opportunity to be heard in this case the petitioner knew of the report in the middle of two thousand and ten she the the what has happened here is they are going to have the opportunity is result of what they're doing is to try withdraw this teleworking privilege that they have it any bringing it to the board does not mean it's not but that's i mean if the agency sent her a letter saying we're going to remove the tell our inner privileges that she keeps going to work in new york and it's doing their job and they don't do anything about it conditional things that happen happened before we would have jurisdiction well that's what the conundrum here is that they've created the situation where the employee then will be faced with with with no option other than to other than do the other option if that agency actually believes that a a child or a position that she can work out of it teleworking capacity forever if that's the case then whatever section is there for us to consider well