on in may of two thousand and twelve and the reaction in his office was the use it was not appropriate to take any sort of further ration process war allowing you from asian to be transmitted from one agency to another and secondly you did not have the expertise the area of security clearances is broken down to where one person does th was not entitled to a security clearance in those a process in place for for doing this in and would go back to the question of did was there a real belief that there was a national security usual here national security issue present here we've submitted a he didn't really believe that he was looking for some way to get a rally the prior c act and he did that by me he needs a proper disclosures both on the telephone the case was decided in summary judgment the record doesn't support the record doesn't support the for example the district court's finding that she admitted wrongful or the dispute violated the government district court decision or fighting so for example common sense or that he acted with due diligence and we think there's certainly an alternative view of the government is that you was a mission of his own that he was engaged in so sort your honor suggested and we had no argument at any point that they are in permissibly broadway word and they were not subject at it notice and comment and they were duly promulgated we've had no argument that the plaintiff was not put on notice there by so what we really have is two questions is the disclosure compatible with the purpose from which the records recollected and so district court said there was no real argument on that point below from the pla but i'm happy to talk about it and second of all assuming there is no compatibility does the disclosure here fall within either one of the other or both of the routine uses and we think it actually falls comfortably within  both we've heard most likely throughout this case and indeed an oral argument a notion that the prosecutor here was overzealous and we would characterize it is appropriate please tell us and i could talk more about that but instead we urge you to the court has to get there but the district court didn't need to because that has nothing to do with the language of the routine uses and that's where we think that this case ultimately should be decided where the district court did decided on the compatibility test with the district court or embrace the third circuit in a nice circuit tast story at least that it applied it although this circuit notably has not done so the only discussion of this circuit has had about the compatibility test in those decisions is the u s postal service in this case in one nine hundred ninety three that's nine f thirty one thirty eight and among three judges there were  opinions there actually judge silverman expressed sympathy with that standard which requires something bordering on identity the purpose of collection in the purpose of disclosure a very aggressive standard asked is there a conflict between the purpose of quite in the purpose of disclosure and if there is no conflict then it is compatible with you could also describe it as consistent with and i think either one of those is more a concrete relationship where similarity or a meaningful degree of convergence which is where the third have a third circuit expressed it and that's because the purpose of the collection was to protect national security by ensuring that  officer charged with granting the very top security clearances was doing so faithfully to the regulations that govern it and it was truthfully participating in investigations that good directly to national security and the purpose of disclosure was to ensure exactly the same thing for exactly the same complete employer elsewhere in there are employee elsewhere in the national security community so  in his deposition and there's no contrary evidence he had a collaborative process with these are his supervisor after he drafted it and went back and forth several times where each of them was making changes is or the supervisory special agent signed off on it and there is also testimony that john ryan who is the second level supervisor also was involved with that so this is not an asian off on a frolic and detour there are procedural steps in there and it might or not have gone all the step was the office decided to refer this case to the usa in d c for possible criminal prosecution and again there was an contradicted testimony that agent he consulted with with ryan and they jointly decided to make that referral that prosecutor declined prosecution but again he was working collaboratively and then before there was any disclosure at all he reached out to his supervisor and blue and lou who were in the personnel security division to see whether they thought that was an appropriate step when he was told weeks explicitly that it was because his own agency couldn't do anything about it and that makes sense because in his that position he explained that his job as an investigator is to gather relevant facts and then present them to somebody who can make a security determination and maybe then the clearance w it's more sensitive so in the government's if you hear this fall squarely within the law enforcement routine use plaintiff spends a lot of ink talking about well it's a it's a question of facts well no it's not there the entities charge of making security clearance decisions need full access to even unsubstantiated and doubtful information in order to make sensible sensitive predictive judgments so here in one of the agenc formal findings that were not just fishy if they did we say she did but even if she did that was only one of the several things that found it found this she falsely denied knowing that walker who was an applicant had a premier previous criminal conviction but if his how does he do that to my knowledge and then found she may have provided false information to an o p m investigator so these findings are not contradicted they are borne out by record  evidence and at the very least they are potential violations of law or regulations and given the fact it is comfortably within the national security routine to use them potentially somebody who is from a supervisor and not the documents say that he's reaching out to another agency use is ok or that it's been approved by anybody in the chain of command and in fact one of the emails that the government relies upon the focus of the courts and else as the district courts analysis on the release of the reporter is fundamentally misplaced because the key is or will need disclosure then jeda laid out pretty