to provide substantial evidence showing that the recipient was not at fault the burden then shifts back to o p m to refute the substantial evidence you know show that the episode was not that's in the that's a burden that the conclusions a fact about her ability to do certain things that seem to be supported by the record and again i may if i was balancing them have her vote for you but i don't see how that the board's conclusion are not supported by substantial evidence not the the lady opinion of an administrative law judge regarding what britney being could or couldn't do does not rise to the level of substantial evidence when compared to the evidence from her long term treating neurologist that based on the substantial lesion bird in her brain she could not have or it would not be surprising that she would misunderstand the instructions that she received from two thousand and five in two thousand and six that without more the statement that it would not be surprising that she would misunderstand those instruction based again i think you know you very sympathetic case i mean if i were the board judge i may have come out differently but the problem is you're arguing the evidence in favor of you the board judge looked at  despite her her condition she was able to live on her own she was able to handle the details of her divorce and the like and that to me seems substantial evidence to support the decision the board's decision that she was on a capable of  of doing what she was supposed to do isn't that i mean isn't that a real problem is that there's there's competing evidence and you know again it's it's not for us to really scale it even if the scale is like this they still win it as long as it's something that a reason one person i think could come up with that conclusion in your answer as that burden is defined in o p m guidelines it the burden evidence must be more than just the same amount of evidence it must be it must be significantly more in order to refute or show that her evidence evidence had been refuted or overcome by the speculation of the administrative law judge that based on the fact that she could live on her own and participated in her voice that she could ignore  own is contradicted by the social security determination that she is entitled to social security disability benefits because under the social security contains the criteria for determining disability for multiple sclerosis and living on your own is perfectly consistent with disability for multiple sclerosis the question is what happens when the symptoms flare up because of stress or effect and in brittany brings case her neurologist said that she has the highly inflammatory disease in because of the condition but because of thousand and twelve which was when her duty of rose she made her diagnosis with respect to twenty fourteen which was when o p m caught up with brittany payne your honor that it was not it would not be surprising that she made mistakes and failed to before o p m caught up with her in twenty fourteen that was i believe the intent of what she was saying but the blue book determination that social security used to determine that britney brain was disabled under  social security criteria can be referred to by this court because the fact that britney qualified for social security disability is what prompted the overpayment in the first place met in the first instance and as the court noted the standard here is whether or not the administrative judge's decision is supported by substantial evidence to the board properly considered the evidence for you know we may not be able to do it this seems incredibly stingy of o p m and unfair i mean this woman is a debilitating condition she may have known at one time that she should have not kept this money she said that obviously but she it was three years later her disease of progress she was undergoing what by all accounts is a stressful divorce in that seems to be a perfectly logical explanation for why joint credit card that at about eighteen thousand dollars and in return she would have taken over of the mortgage of the home however at the time and twenty thirteen and her own declaration to the washington state court she stated that she rejected this offer because the mortgage had was currently at about two hundred thirty thousand dollars whereas the property was only assessed at hundred forty four thousand dollars so she was rejecting it because she believed the mortgage that dollars credit card debt and that is not quite correct because while she was the one making the payments her husband was her ex husband was ordered to make payments of two hundred fifty dollars a month for fifty four months in order to cover his half of that joint credit card liability so here ms bain with able to use the o p m overpayment arms to pay off and more quickly than she otherwise would have been able to a debt with a nine point nine percent annual interest rate your own or this case is very much like catherine king versus o p m at seven thirty you have third thirteen forty two in that case this court reversed its germination of the board regarding an overpayment because a waiver of recovery because the board failed to credit substantial evidence demonstrating that and accordance with appropriate regulations that the recipient substantial evidence that brittany provided that she is not at fault with the waiver there's no question that the expert opinion of the neurologist that shake it is not surprising that she would not have remembered those overpayment instructions and particularly under the circumstances of this case where she applied for social security supplemental income which would not have affected her o p m benefits and she fully disclosed to social security that she was receiving her federal employee disability benefits in her social security application and when the lump sum was awarded rather than social security notifying o p m they gave the lump sum to brittany and it was years later before they conducted one of their periodic checks that they referred to in that letter of two thousand and five to come up with overpayment that they finally discovered the overpayment in this instance and for over two years a woman with a disabling condition of her brain deteriorating from within the government gave her the twenty five thousand six hundred fifty four dollars and left it in her hands and it was only later years later that o p m kyra it is against equity in good conscience in this case for the united states government not to use presently available technology to detect those overpayments and to conduct the periodic checks more quickly so that circumstances like this do not  because the board failed to credit that substantial evidence and it replaced it with what the a l j thought was a rational basis for