your client came in and said yeah i get it i was sorry and i'll take my medicine for whatever that amounts to and can't that just be a reference to  to show my client real ability so you're saying there wasn't any procedural problem of bringing the charges laid but you're saying it establishes that after the offense for which she admitted was committed he behaved himself and established a good i mean directly good appendix one at page one when it says tag lee of vs department of veteran affairs agency is that the agency says here was only approximately four years which somewhat tempers their significance that's his time with the agency how can that possibly be interpreted as his time with one what this says it says his time with the agency that's correct your honor is timed with the hour and i can't add language to what they say but he was only a chief of police diminished by the fact that his extensive service occurred prior to being promoted to a supervisor position remember that the reason that one to the reasons that this case aggravated is that he's the chief of police and  says board may mitigate to the maximum reasonable penalty ok corrector now i looked up the word mitigate it says means to make more to make more or become less severe or intense ok so mitigate it means greater to make the penalty less severe or intense well they didn't do that here they kept it what it was so the word mitigate itself seems to say you make the penalty less severe or less intense that's the word we used in one chance but they didn't do that here ok there are first of all in the charts it was actually reversible error for amnesty to mitigate lower than the maximum reasonable pouty where the agency was silent about what it with them done otherwise and so you have to look very closely at the procedures that are laid out in that decision and so what we have to say is what's the maximum reasonable penalty for this offense correction was this would you agree this ng or that of all the charges that were originally brought this one and the charge with respect to using the wrong parking place in other words putting his personal vehicle in a government vehicle parking spot with the two least significant charges absolutely not if you're considering that argument and matching walking down stairs and asking  duty security officer to drive a vulture and that's basically what he did in this case and not just in aggravation of miss you but you don't think though that you think you don't think of all the charges that were generally broad of the two lesser charges i would have thought the major charges were the ones about supposedly helping these two gentlemen who to me were guards get a job and arguably about using the flashing red light when the policem stopped him and it would seem to me that looking at the charges these are legit this one is less severe than the ones i just described two points first wh this is especially the support of persons fourteen year interpretation doesn't seem fair to me and i expect the b o j to be fair your honor we represent the agency the agency testified at the at the word that they would have removed him for this offense along and the board twice found that testimony to be reasonable not be on the balance tolerable balance or reasonable ness and this you that's the end of the case ok but if we agree there was an error here we would send it back to the board for a determination of a penalty correct less than removal so that if you look at the val said that he would review removal for that task well let me ask you though but what if what if it's determined obviously you wouldn't urge this result but what if it's determined that the penalty removal here when all the douglas factors was on reasonable what what should we do at that point what would you tell us to do you know i would i guess i would say that th removed but i mean well if you remember the agency if we did that the agency could say impose a suspension a retroactive suspension you would be suspended for thirty days that would be taken out of his back pa is the what would happen with the mr singley seems to be saying i think you may be correct that if we go that route we would send it to the board to send it to the agency to determine a lesser penalty