however in that two thousand and nine board decision immediately after the section you quote the board explicitly says and i'm going to quote what they said indeed nowhere in the lengthly motion is explained why thirty eight and i had signed smith either when skeets emphasis added by the board and i tried to do that isn't that exactly what we said in shedden exactly duty is service connected the veteran seeking compensation must still show the existence of a present disability and there is a causal relationship between the present disability and the injury to sears or aggravation of a preexisting injury or diseas during active duty and that's the part you're on of that i believe that the two thousand and nine board's decision both left out and failed to correctly apply when reviewing the nine hundred ninety four board decision or whether or not the presumption in that case had or had not been correctly plot in other words it's the existence of the causal relationship which we believe exists in this case that did not creating a presumption relevant to the nexus requirement no snowman no and and that's why the focus below was incorrect on the line of duty determination as being the exclusive function of want to fuck one o five creates the presumption that if something happened during service then that is will be deemed to be service connected in order to get  while the veterans court misinterpreted that one o five did not create a presumption that the reason that shedden was not reversed but was in fact the firm was because in shed and there was no evidence a causal relationship in this case in one thousand nine hundred four there was evidence of a causal relationship because the evidence showed that there was an injury to the back during service and that there was post service court said in its decision that there was no need for the board to discuss one o five in its nine hundred eighty four decision and that is a misinterpretation of the statute because that statute is pertinent to the entitlement of a veteran to the statutorily created presumption that when an injury takes place during service it will be deemed to be service connected and there shall be top and station paid in the event that there is evidence of a causal relationship between the current disability demonstrated post service and what happened during service what the benefits court did was to rely on that portion that i cited from the board's decision in two thousand and nine and say that that was not necessary for the with regard to the injury in this case that took place during the period of active duty and once again or did they not allow for that because they said you know it didn't occur in the line of duty they didn't afford him the benefit of that presumption they didn't say that this injury is acknowledged to have occurred during service and therefore we will presume that this condition is deemed to be service connected and you'll receive compensation only if there is no medical nexus and what they didn't say in one thousand eighty four was is that you were entitle to the benefit of that presumption and then make the examination as to whether or not there was or was not evidence relating the current disability to the injury and service and in this case there was ecstatic evidence well but that  was evidence it's irrelevant no one in our jurisdiction and i'm not asking this court to examine what took place in one thousand nine hundred four i'm asking this court to examine what the veterans court did in reviewing the two thousand and nine decision and the court below said that the two thousand and nine decision was not required to have required consideration of one hundred five in one nine hundred eighty four and that is a misinterpret is about line of duty or whether the injury was the result of some sort of will pull negligence that what they said is you can't link up these two injuries are too much time has passed there's no showing of christie it turned out that fin was wrong and done it but only after an additional medical report was provided there was no showing at the time i can't revisit those facts that i agree with them or not i just i don't see how this is a statutory interpretation argument or a printer see the regulation that's being interpreted i don't know the statute that the statute was relied upon by mr mayberry when he presented his allegation presumption is irrelevant they assumed the entitlement in that regard they just said there's no consul but they didn't say that in one nine hundred eighty four except on the basis of continuity of symptomatology what they should have done was to afford him the benefit that his injury was deemed to have been service connected as required by you i didn't do that nine hundred eighty four but the veterans court seems to suggest that they did that they still insist their decision on causation a hinge their decision causation when they made the statements about from the city of the symptomology and so that's a factual findings that the veterans were expressing its beliefs about facts that the board reach five a is a limited presumption limited to line of duty but it is not limited to line of duty with respect your honor it is entitle to the presumption of service connection no no no no no what about di case your honor the court below of specifically relied upon one o five and a and said that one o five a was not necessary and it was necessary because in shedden this court said that one hundred five a affords the betfred a presumption of service connection and it is unfair to categorize it as merely limited to a line of duty determination that was wh afforded that if the in affording was the benefit of the presumption of service connection had one o five a been afforded with regard to the line of duty or beyond the mind to know with regard to the presumption of service connection to presume that is back injury was service connected if there was ecstatic evidence in one thousand eighty four that connected the post service disability and in this record there was fact question the board said there was an effect and court said there wasn't at the time the board was reviewing it we can't get at the fact question di says in the present case di did not show a causal relationship between this in service and post service medical presumption as you well know cannot fill that gap and therefore irrelevant but in this case your honor if you provide that and the extant evidence exists what showing of a causal relationship but this arises in the context of chill your honor in the context of q what is to be reviewed by the board in two thousand and nine not by the board in two thousand and four is whether or not there was x that evidence of that causal relationship he was entitled to the benefit of one of five a in both nine hundred eighty four and in two thousand and nine and a review of the ex evidence he didn't get that in any of the board's decisions and the court below said that was not necessar to receive compensation for a current disability i'm not sure that mr carpenter is all that clear who says it's service connected well that's the whole ball of wax right service connection is everything which would include the nexus so i don't see how  between the two and checking one o five gives you a whole hog service connection therefore you saying that necessarily includes next right i mean isn't that one way to understand the argument he's making i know it's a bit confusing right that it is that says one way that you could characterize the argument in that case  there would be no need to ever engage in a service connection analysis because then basically every veteran be presumed to be entitled to compensation it would basically obviate the entire service  it is not automatically presuming compensation for current disability and it says that even after applying the section one hundred five a presumption it is still necessary to show the extent to show the existence of a present disability that first factor and also called the relationship between the present disability and the in service injury that third factor seven is very clear but it's confusing i mean the confusing part of for me is that they talk about th line of duty during your job correct service connection should be all three factors in order that that are required to establish compensation for disability so either the case of control by the courts precedent and shut and die old then calmly make one last effort service connection in the context of one of five based upon this court's decision in shatt a stab which is the in currents element that an injury was incurred in order to receive compensation you must not only show in currents but you must show a current disability and that that current disability is related to service it is currents that the injury was incurred during the service while in active duty but that element is only one of three elements necessary to receive compensation our view is is that having not been afforded the benefit of the one hundred five a presumption that in currents was denied mr mayberry in the one nine hundred eighty four decision we raised that issue before the board in two thousand and not based upon the fact that we were required to show that had there been it and affording of that presumption of in currents that there would have been a manifestly different outcome and the manifestly different outcome would have occurred because there was evidence x stamped in one thousand nine hundred four for the board in two thousand and nine to have revised the decision in two thousand thousand eighty four but for the failure to correctly consider and apply one of the five days presumption and it is precisely the confusion about the presumption i do not believe that it is a fair statement that service connection equates to the elements of compensation service connection in the context of one o five a deals only with the element of the current thank you very much