and with regard to the secondary factor that was necessary in order form the actual retaliatory motive of deciding official that there was an action that occurred  see mr barrett and mr botha were it's our position that they were similar situated mr mess up was the deciding official or excuse me was the first line supervisor similar thing to somebody else nobody were trying to show that design was similar not that that indicates a pattern but only that it lends credence to mr bones position that he was set up to fail  in that everything stemmed from the assignments that he could he claims that he couldn't complete they were assignments that were theoretical in nature it was idle not given the resources that two statements that were very similar that were made again and if the if the and two responses that were very similar however it's not calling that a pattern only calling that a design and second grades they had with the individual that counted and they pushed it when in the past six years he had an informal exemption with the command which said well you just need to carry that individual build account credit card and it's ok we will make you use it but within a few months of him actually going out and meeting these allegations they started pushing him about it and they knew that he had this pride because when he started with the second round in eighty six years before months after he actually made those allegations so i mean i understand the pattern argument is we however i don't think that in this case we're arguing the pattern we're only arguing from the government thank you and me please the court this question is firm the decision of the board and find no clear and hurtful abuse of discretion in the administrative judge's decision to disallow the rebuttal testimony  statement to the fire or the about you know like the firing of the thirty days and he says no i never made that statement well why shouldn't they be allowed to introduce the witness to say don't believe anything he says on anything  well maybe my answer will focus on one of the federal rules of evidence but of course before going that specific it's important to keep in mind that federal rules of evidence do not governing board proceedings rather they are helpful guidance to the board but given that standard needed to introduce extremes again and last it also had some purpose other than purely attempting to challenge mr messages credibility mr bowen seems to recognize that he is reply brief of course here the good of the three guy are factors only two were at issue the motive any motive to retaliate and then the strength of the evidence in support of the removal hearing the evidence in support of the removal is allegations are would spy on mr jones contention that he was idle that he was put with regard to the individual account that he wasn't allowed to travel because he apparently had a completed these  assignments that were apparently critical but he couldn't complete because he was a program manager who's used to having contractors and resources and he wasn't allowed to have those resources so although there have been removed because the administrative judge could find that he wouldn't be able to prove or the agency would be able to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they would have removed him in that there would be a  with respect to the extrinsic evidence were contradicting mr madoff specifically with regard to an incident that a j allowed us to go into in my opinion presumably in order to matter finally i think that there's a public policy issue in that we want to have whistleblowers to keep making whistleblower allegations we don't want to chill and curb low level or speed by not granting occurred i mean when you would have to have the opportunity to present an hour of evidence which you know puts potentially could've resolving any you know appeals as to that i mean if we got that evidence and maybe when he would come here and