q wasn't met if there wouldn't have been clearly a different result well there clearly what a bit a different result on that there would have been that reconsideration that was required under three point one five six c and that is where is service department records that were not associated with the claims filed at the time of the original decision in this case of one thousand seven hundred four when the secretary amended this regulation he amended it with the express intention of clarifying the meaning and stated quite clearly that the meaning after the amendment is the same as the meaning prior to the amendment and that meaning was this that this regulation was designed to be a reveal regulation to a for that for in the benefit of a reconsideration of his or her original claim that is a different process a different proceeding than the proceeding took place in one nine hundred seventy four or the proceeding the footlights in two thousand and two what took place in two thousand and two was a traditional reopening under three point one five six a this court in blue bar recognize the three point one five six c provides an exception to three point one five six and that exception is a subtle difference there is no statutory predicate to this regulation this previously been received it was required to go back and review due to the flame that was made by mr brown in one thousand seventy four that has never happened in this case he has a regulatory right to that and he is prejudiced when that right is not provided in the context of a few it is also a manifestly different outcome if the better print is entitle to a substantive right from and does not receive that substan conclusion by both the secretary and the veterans corps is premised upon a misunderstanding a mis reading of what is required by three point one five six eight what is required by three point one five six c is a mandatory not permissive reconsideration the failure to provide that reconsideration is the resulting manifestly different outcome because what needs to be order in the under the authority of this regulation then to simply acknowledge the receipt of those and then gives you a confirming decision more is required under three point one five six c as the secretary described in his  published interpretation of three by one five six e is to ensure that the harm done to the vet for either the a failure in its duty to assist to get relevant service department records is given the opportunity secretary is required to reconsider that is not what happened the one nine hundred seventy four and that's not what happened in two thousand and two this court must recognize that t v all right that is afforded under three point one five six   the what is dealt with in this case is a question of how three point one five sixty operates what was contemplated by the secretary when he wrote that  regulation when he amended the regulation the secretary made it very clear what the purpose and function of three point one five six seat was that function was not carried out in this case either in one nine hundred seventy eight or in two thousand and two what was carried out in two thousand and two was a reopening under three point one five six a not a reconsideration under three month one five six it and as a result they assigned the effective date as of the date of the receipt of new material evidence they didn't reconsider the original claim in one thousand nine hundred eighty four of the this is clearly described by the secretary as the claimant should not be harmed by an administrative deficiency of the government the administrative deficiency of the government was in the failure to get these service department records that were available and ultimately relied upon by the v a when they made the grant but what's required under three point one five six c is that at any time the v a receives service department records that were not part of the record at the time of the original adjudication there must be a reconsideration of the original claim that requires a exception to the finality of the board decision in one nine hundred seventy four which took was a direct appeal of the original denial in one thousand seventy four and it is an exception to the finality of these subsequent intervening decisions because three point one five sixty argument there is an actual question there there's also a factual question as to materiality problem here where the veterans court said it is found it is undisputed that these six reports were not the basis of reopening  is the evidence that shows up that's important that's material is that mr brown found his private doctor who said who gave him a declaration saying i recall treating you for this not in service but shortly after and because the issue here isn't were you ever sick while you were in the service the question is did you have the scatcherd condition is there a basis for service connection for this gadget condition so that when months later he presented his private doctor plus this forward records are considered they didn't help achieve service connection and he brought them forward again in the court here said federal circuit said those aren't your records but about the train journey law what effect does that have in this case  your honor we think it doesn't affect the outcome here in blue law the the new version of the regulation is if anything more favorable to veterans but in blue other the corps looked at it and said yes the wording has changed but the intent frankly has not changed it's the same intent as the all regulation which is if there is a new and material evidence we go all the way back so it's still the same point the older version of the regulation has that exact language and it specifically defines new as evidence new evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to the eight to agency decision makers so we think very clearly under the older version of the regulation well the new so is in any part of the new thing i believe the blood decision says it is that the intention here was always to keep that that the reason for the change was because for whatever reason some people had been reading new and material to mean you don't go back you can't even consider going back to the original state so that was the intention and that's what this korean flu boss said the other issue here of course is the outcome we have to manifestly change and in order to show that earlier relation to it under the old regulation mr brown have to show that the records clearly support the early state and we don't think you can show that he hasn't raised an argument for why he didn't show that and the veterans court pointed that out to him as well his argument is the fact of a review is a manifest change and that frankly honor on bly these six reports clearly support the earlier day but he has even raised the argument and the veterans corps particularly call that pulling out he didn't raise that argument there an argument there either he's just said well the fact that i get a review even if i get the same ultimate result even though i'm not giving an argument why i get the same substandard result is a mammoth change and that is not the law certainly the early it certainly going back to the earlier date would be a substantial change but that's not the army's making me sing the fact of consideration alone regardless of outcome is not is enough and that is not how  of the secretary's description of his interpretation of the meaning of the amendment to three point one five six so how can it not include an emmy it's got to be newer material right no rathe explained is that what we should improve all that is not what you said in book by and that's why blue bot is distinguishable in this case because this case deals directly with the meaning of three point one five six seek in the yes the intent to correct the prior administrative error or the intent that it be an exception to finality that intent remains the say the understanding that was described in blue bob is different then the context in which this case is presented because this case is presented first in the con i guess i guess i was speaking about the intent that any new evidence presented at a later date must be in fact luke not something that's  there is nothing in the regulation that that says which is important but more importantly it's not a question of whether it's ever been considered the question is whether it was considered properly as required by three point one five this argument and the some extent undermines it but in blue box this court was not asked to interpret the meaning of three point one five six c in the context of whether or not there was or wasn't previous confirm decision that was afforded mr brown in one nine hundred seventy eight that type of decision that is contemplated under three point one five six seat the type of decision that is contemplated under three point one five six c is a do over you begin again you the race what happened you were race the fidelity of the seventy four reigning decision you were raised the finality of the board decision in the one nine hundred seventy four and you start a new you reconsider hundred seventy four claim of the new that didn't happen in one thousand seventy eight and most importantly it didn't happen in two thousand and two and two thousand and two demonstrates why the change of the law is necessary recognize the secretary's administrative or of interpretation when he amended that regulation and used the phrase new material when that phrase was in fact removed from the regula