found and health specifically on the issue of appropriate alternate adequate remedy that because the secretary through the board chairman had issued the policy that was in dispute that it would be frivolous sorry it would be futile for mr roboto to attempt to appeal it to the secretary or the board chair and mr evans case the court said just the opposite that he was to appeal his points of law which are on the process and his constitutional issues to the poor i believe and we have submitted that this was an incorrect court was that the process of bond which that decision was reached violated the statutes and his constitutional rights because the board the decision was made by the s director under the fast letter process the issue with the veterans court decision is that it assumes that there was an avenue to the board why couldn't you  veteran and his counsel is to be kept in the dark about the process at that point that's all we knew we certain did is really came into possession of the documents that actually know anything about the of the crime persion of the facet which would be in effect on appeal which we have fought we have filed an appeal with the regional office to the board is awaiting processing at the regional office it explicitly states on page three which is appendix forty nine that all records related to the scene p review are to be removed from the claims file the board will never get to review the decision of seen peter rector director cuts back what they are or would have done why when you appeal to the board what you're going to appeal you're going to appeal that this final decision which would have been batted this c p director right that's the only thing you could appeal that's the decision you received as to your benefits the audit going back a little bit further and to speak of this case which showed the doc who answered my question nobody else would you appeal other than  this guy and in this i'm going to be able to appeal the decision ah right now i'm not sure why you have an interest in telling the office how it makes its decisions that's another question i mean nathan they make their decision and then you have a chance to be the issue the issue here is the futility of the quick of entrance court decision to go back through the board the board in this case has already has already ruled on this specific issue on the remainder of the veterans court in two thousand and seven the very distant the very basis for the decision which is not before the court because it was just issued in may for the for the return going back the board is that a a september two thousand and four medical report says that mr evans does not have service related to rob that that is the very decision the secretary with the other statutes those are the issues we raise not whether it was a sort of fifty one thousand dollars or five thousand dollars but you raise a good issue here the secretary calls a quality assurance program called assurance program to my experience of thirty years plus in the nuclear industry we have to get a quality assurance does not dictate results and identifies issues had to the line and the line decides if there is some communication here perhaps it would have considered some of the issues  appeal policies to the secretary are is futile here they they did similar in it was cheaper they said if there is some basis for considering whether there would be adequate relief the court at least is required to explain it i just assume that this is a veteran system requires that type of of consideration here they're supposed to be a balancing of the  haven't seen it in the april decision yet again points back to the same reason that was already admitted to the secretary not to be tractors no mention of any other review other than the procedure the process of blindness read it was applied last year it can't be undone by any rule making finding on the current process he suffered whatever he suffered under the old process which they did it conceded by changing the process if you read is made it very clear that the board has full produce to make whatever judgments it needs to make right i do not see the nineteen point five as being clear on this point and i would raise the issue of gardiner interpretation of st with the statute then then we need to go to statute was his instructions which the word itself appears in zero seven nineteen it says this instruction be followed in the so you're arguing you'd like to argue for a position which hurts the veterans ability to bring issues to the board you want to bond the board's hands and make it harder for the board to reach all the issues that it would like to reach in behalf of the veteran what i would what mr evans is asking for is that his case be properly which can be at the board and has been regulated and i decided to use says that every issue is open to the board and you want to say no we don't want that we'd rather make it harder and hurt the veteran because we want to make some legal point i respectfully disagree and i would also add that by placing special reviews on people based on what they're doing or is that is hurting veterans mr ed has been fighting seventeen years for this so he gets additional reviewing and bite mission about twenty five percent of the special reviews result in taking away all the money from the veterans i would argue that is what was driving this trial in a broader sense to prevent which would help veterans veterans are being paralyzed by both of these are bound to follow what the syrian rebel group says not what they think there if they disagree with the c and p service there of course free to go back to c p service and say i think you've overlooked this piece of evidence or we have a new piece of back and let's say let's see this is something more clear like a regulation that the board would undoubtedly be required to follow simply because that would be futile does not entitle anyone to  perceives notice that's the decision that triggers the appeal rights for the veteran and which provides the board its jurisdictional basis to look at the decision to know about so the earful two thousand and eight r o decision here which gave an effective percent rating for this particular disability you need to have evidence of five things and you only have evidence for the are oh so thirty percent rating it's not appropriate here the r o can then go back and tell the better we still need evidence on this fifth piece of information now that may be correct or that may be incorrect but that is an issue that the board is well quipped to decide and mr evans may have his claim completely vindicated by the board without ever referencing simpler because it is an issue of mandamus i mean to the extent that there is a debate or a dispute about what the fast letter procedures are whether it was pre pre filing decision that was reviewed or a final decision or review that this court can review and all of those things will take its course and mr evans writes here can be vindicated wholly by by and by the consideration of all of those normal honor for an additional reason that of course even if the board can't consider that sutter under seventy two sixty one of the veterans corps is empowered to set aside actions secretary which the vetera the board can say here that we agreed we want you to do what we told you to do three years ago four years ago whenever we get the board to go back they will go back and apply the fastener again and they can say no we don't agree with it the issue is mr evans that titian the court not just to undo this to him but to really get the fast literacy ended and to look at the constitutional issues the board can't do that either because it is an applies here these are the merits that we want to raise to the court because we are going to be stuck in this with the board the board will find that we will not as we go back to yarrow they apply the special procedures to people who have been fighting for their benefits for the without this document your challenge or its subsequent version mr evans would had his check there is no other review he's been through the three reviews that are in the regulations and the normal process not target quality driver making the right decision they're targeting where can we get the most money back there's a reasonable size and that's what i just conclude with that the healthy debate we're talking about him is that says that is a basis for not enforcing exhaustion but that is why the court should handle this especially in a new court that it eventually scored where there is no such law on this other than on the side of mr abbott if you they can turn this down but they need to explain