the board decision by the bedrooms court was based upon an allegation of clear and unmistakable air which is no different than the reviewer acquired by the veterans court for any other appeal which the veterans court in what is this go of review what does that phrase mean to you i know this is standard of review and i know there are criteria for review i have no idea what his scope of review is the legal standards upon which the veterans court should conduct review of the decisions of the board of veterans appeals and that in that context they specifically identified the analysis that was to be made for instance if a material finding of fact was made that that was subject to reversal further that if a determination of any kind was made by the veterans corps or excuse me by the board  with that that the case the forest is a cute case that's correct and in which the reviewing judge said that but for the instructions in evidence he would articulated early on in its archer case that when the court was reviewing matters that involved allegations of clear and unmistakable error that it was not reviewing the substantive allegations it was reviewing absolutely correct but what the court did in evans was different the even bought board in evidence articulated that the court cannot review a q motion under the same standard by which it were views matters on direct appeal there is no support for that statement which is the statement that we believe flomax judge greenberg in this case because he reads evans that there are two separate standards there is a standard for see if there is substantial evidence in the records of forth the fact finding in which we look to see if there's arbitrary and capricious action by the decision maker none of that's thank you for quoting from mars because you see me from having to do it there are those three criteria in march and they're quite different for the court to be concerned about let me move to a slightly different argument which you didn't make and i wonder why at the end of the opinion by the judge greenberg i think it was yes he says in its decision t board cited evidence that the court has previously found sufficient to deny a motion for revision based on q i gave that the appellant was capable of coherence and lo thought the court need not address the appellants arguments further and it is regrettably forced to affirm the decision on appeal that's a very strange position i don't understand that i'm sure the government will explain it to me but what he seems to be saying is that a motion for revision based on a q can be decided simply if the appellant was capable of coherent and logical thought was clearly wrong so what are we to make of that why aren't you talking about that problem instead of go before you knew i would say something i don't understand help me well the reason it is your honor is that the judge greenberg made it clear that he was relying upon the direction from the in bonn court in evans and that direction of the in bond court in evans was that there were two different standards whether you call it scope of review or you call that legal standard for review that there are separate standards i have i need to respond to judge pros point relative to morris in morse morse is discussing what the appellant needs to establish in order to show that there was a clear and unmistakable error that is different under the holding in archer from the review of a decision by the board that there was no clear and unmistakable error in other words the veterans court is not reviewing the substance of the allegations whether it met the criteria set out in morris or made before the veterans court and the veterans court has to look at the allegation of error not made in the underlying challenge decision but that of vermin of error that is made in the board's decision the veterans court made it clear in archer that they are reviewing what the board decided not reviewing what the agency in the st instance or a board decision decided to determine whether or not that decision was clear and unmistak error that is what their own case law tells them to do along comes evans in bach never mentions archer and sets out specifically that there are two separate criteria there simply cannot be and this court cannot look at the plain language of seven thousand two hundred and sixty one dollars and say that there is one stand for clear and unmistakable error decisions that are on appeal and one standard for decisions that they refer to as direct appeals that are based upon any other decision that the board would make on any other type of client it's no use arguing that we should use of proof of evidence which is not actually f as you're arguing and should disapprove of the evans rule to the extent if this court reads evans as apparently judge greenberg read evans that there are two different standards then yes this court should reject that portion of evidence and by the way the decision in evans has already been rejected by this court in its decision in andrew's on the merits that the failure and that was in two thousand and fourteen and this court in two thousand and sixteen in the andrews decisions rejected that the allegation of clear and unmistakable error for the failure to adjudicate is the legal basis for all let's talk a little bit about evans because that seems to be a problem evans starts out here saying more over other evidence supports the board's finding that the evidence of you think evans is the is the culprit in this whole thing what is what is the evil in all of this that we have to on the scrambled i don't think there is one i think that  evidence including the dissent from judge greenberg who penned the opinion here and what we see in judge greenberg's opinion which is rather strident and exhibits frustration it's simply different tribunal's all applying standard and frankly an example of given his opinions extraordinary judicial restraint he looks at the board decision and says the outcome determinative piece and that seems to be the piece that's frustrating certain tribunals in certain cases right where there are difficult facts with difficult facts can make bad law have to apply this to enter and when the arbitrary capricious standard is applied to or decision that says look if i look at all of this it's not outcome determin coherent and logical thought period end of sentence and then he says i need not address any other argument i can't be right is it is that right is that what is that what the law of q is that if the board cites evidence that the appellant was capable of coherent and logical thought that's the end of any hue complaint can that be right well i think in the context of that opinion that is the point where judge greenberg reached a wall i'll come to terms that the presence of that evidence which is what the board relied on right and in a more fulsome manner than if the court goes back and looks in the record at the board opinions as opposed to judge greenberg's for frustrated opinion there is more explanation of the various diagnoses and the things that we find there but in sort of almost in shorthand judge greenberg gets to that point have paragraphs of adjectival descriptions of a man and what he's suffering and then attempt to reach a decision and then you have a board coming in applying to see we stand here decades later trying to reason through that and a veterans court one further level of remove coming out and now we already got another level from one of the things about this case undirected collateral feel that i think it highlights the care that's always implicit in the standards of review their applied collateral their view that we recognize the distance from the fact find the distance from the initial determinations and to try to frame those reviews in a way that respects interest respects that dissent and i think that when one looks in the final analysis that this case even for that difficult record in all those years everybody did their job along the line the yarrow looked at the evidence and made a determination there's no allegations that evidence wasn't looked out for something missing the board came in applied the correct standard wrote up reasons and analyses that the bettors court accepted the veterans court came in applied the correct standard arbitrary capricious and the timing of the decision was correct and i think that's and this case there's no nothing else more has got going for it in this case is that the veteran has been on seventy percent schizophrenia that's at different levels and things like that ok that you're in the rather bizarre way and ok pays its ten percent increments up to ninety percent but the difference between ninety percent and one hundred percent in terms of money is i believe about forty five percent in america so the difference between whatever he was rated less than a total schedule or rating would be paid at the total rate and then he would be paid the difference between the scheduler and the talking with what do you want us to do you want us would be very helpful to all practitioners and the court to understand what scope of review is about and how that is not about anything this standard of review is what it is what's important and is does seven sixty one articulate that standard of review and i believe that it does and that it identifies the specific standard of review that the veterans court has to apply when reviewing these decisions and  forgive me if judge greenberg were to have believed as he seems to in his opinion that the benefits should have commenced in one thousand nine hundred and eighty based upon the private doctor statement that that