the question before this reviewing tribunals is whether this court i'm sorry whether the government is going to be allowed to deprive an outstanding employee twenty years service a computer whiz with the naval criminal investigative services of her right the justice of her well or in retirement pay and benefits will the government be allowed to inflict such a draconian result after any basis for her removal had been invalidated on the first appeal this court decided in poland that the claims court erred in denying jurisdiction under the tougher act and so this court said no we will not allow the government to deny hold her right to seek justice i'm sorry that the court said two different things and that difference seems extremely important jurisdiction and that the only remedy was one in the m s p b this is in august of twenty ten and at that point you knew that the only way to challenge the removal was to go to the end of the and it took twenty one months ten decision but that the m s t b was the only forum for challenging the remov and this is our third time here and hope to achieve hopefully the proper final result well frankly i'm sorry you said they didn't handle it properly you mean  opening brief eight points of extraordinary circumstances that support a good cause plus had no twelve and then in the reply brief three additional point the case is just overflowing with good cause for a how one had to go to the court i'm not sure you understand the question your honor the distinction between criteria on pre removal you know a distinction between your arguments with respect to whether or not the kid to refile within thirty days after receipt of file o p m decision but in no event later than december second two thousand and five and she filed six and a half years later i don't i don't understand why it isn't done timely well there are a number of reasons that go if you find that she was led to believe when she was told that she had to file by december second later than december second two thousand true that's uncontroverted but the judge didn't turn around and say incidentally if we don't have the o p m decision unfortunate because this approach the client mrs hall was led to believe that if she was going to nothing with respect to the m s p the going through to the round of litigation in the court of federal claims not to twenty one months after this court definitively said in presumably they would have given given given them the money and then she would have gone back to the m s p b and litigators about about the removal but there was nothing in the september order that said you have to wait until a favorable ultimate determination on the underlying issue to come back you are known that's correct your honor but it did say the pm decision was the basis for putting this over and o p m was the deciding body and it did not say however incidentally if you don't agree with the opium decision and the fact that he had already told her i'm going to follow what the agency's position is on this unless there's some other controlling fart and what i guess what i don't understand is maybe you've convinced me now that there is a basis for confusion about whether she had to file by december second two thousand and five or within thirty days after the ultimate o p m decision even if it was after that date but the problem is she didn't file within thirty days after the o p m decision while so i don't understand where the good cause exists for her i understand your point of confusion and i am sympathetic to it but then she didn't follow that rule either but she couldn't refile with the board with an of thumb for to do this in one hundred twenty days or something but within the space of a short period of time that would have come to this court and then this court in say two thousand and seven instead of two thousand and twelve would have determined the proper interpretation of its misconstrued roni institution in january of the ocean search incidentally this is our final decision and if you want to take it any further you have to go to a but in no event later than to mean that you have to come back and the thirty days after the o p m season may come back because we could've been that the opium season she may have been satisfied with this and found no need to come back for the board i do have a problem with that december state because it may come back after the o p m decision but you have to come back even if you don't get a no camp decision what was she coming back where or for she would come back to the board really to to to say i don't have an opinion susan the immensely the judge was a issued another i believe one can't be necessarily both the opium did not say anything about the boy's do speeches because it couldn't it had no responsibility in the new jersey sion to do so it merely told me that all there is that that was the and and still waiting more than three years before they came back to the board so there were several opportunities at which miss hall couldn't read her appeal offered this charles to the board and she refused to do so not only  use to do so she did not come back to the board to fill in clarification had all moment she had counsel she had specific language in there saying no no later when and if she thought well no later than meant one the administrative judge or pm or anybody else no one ever says that the board did not have jurisdiction over ms hall's in this charge or really over the issue of accordingly and so had she come back to the board and in these times that she could hear she could've avoided maybe having to come to court because she did not know how the board would would rule on the discharge issue has she come back to the board the board would have issued a decision on the discharge issue and once she if she was satisfied with it that would of course been in the open you know but if she was not satisfied with she could have come to the board with harkin to come to do you think if she had come then promptly there after our last decision that maybe there would be a different good cause you mean you found a home yes i'm talking about when we made clear that the only place which she could agreed in the administrative judge agreed it would be a good idea to get the get give o p m a first crack at at least a eight core if not a decisive legal issue you're not suggesting that that was actually necessary because o p m is at best an agency interpreter of the statute given deference under chevron presumably but evidently border all that's why we mention these words may come back thirty days after as opposed to shout but in no event later than the sum of the second two thousand and five that's why we know that was not a necessary not over courtly that particular issue and that's why it was particularly helpful when the administrative judge dismissed without prejudice so that an o p m decision could be  recognized that was going to be dispositive that was the beating heart of the whole takes and that's why we're here today and the agency by its misconstruction and distortions of the courtly law caused the delays that followed from that and it's an ancient maxim of course that one should not profit or benefit from his own wrong here the agency had misconstrued the statute and then that got us into this procedural prop that  of the consequences of not returning true that you would lose your appeal rights that was missing and the o p m decision incidentally never makes any reference whatsoever to an s p b it just says your next one is federal court and that's what she did after she got counsel the length of delay is really not an issue here because the government has not provided you with any other kinds of prejudice and they have not been prejudiced in any way whatsoever by the delay here that's highly significant they haven't even discussed it in their briefs and the hoover tape shows it is somewhat  in this whole track this marathon quest has been this for and we're asking you to look carefully at this in terms of reigniting the second flame of justice and order the board to reinstate her to the new to the n c i a physician which she excelled so that she could qualify for her retirement of twenty years which she richly deserved and she won't be stripped of that and order her back pay the irksome case came down december thirty first of two thousand and thirteen and the postal clerk there was ordered by the board after a couple of appeals  i think that it's important for this court to send out a message to federal employees that management cannot fire them for fulfilling one of the highest duties of an america service not a paid vacation let the nation know that if a federal employee is removed for serving on a jury that employee will be made whole and this is a