a result of political action certainly and before i answer your question that's when i do want to make clear that that question is not actually in this court because it wasn't considered by the board but to answer your question i think it helps if we go back to the beginning of this case and how we got here in this case has been from the beginning about partisan politics which of course is one of the two frowns on which mr sweeting could obtain jurisdiction as a probationary employee and visual and unfortunately we don't have the records from that remain proceeding because they have been destroyed but in that room and proceeding mr sweeting alleged that he was a remember member of the republican party and that the other individuals involved were records but you know how that allegation well you know so i'm looking at what he put forward that you are arguing about i guess i have the same question that i think judge lynn had where is or what is the significance of relevance of these documents now you say well that isn't before us but sure it is because we're deciding whether they were great the collateral stoppel of plaice and in order to justify it not apply and you've got to demonstrate that you are so this is a different this is a different case than the one adjudicated so we have to demonstrate that the new evidence is material to the question whether he has non frivolously alleged partisan political reasons and that is the question that the board didn't consider have attachments which is that appendix one twelve which is the letter explaining that several of the other students against whom so your allegations were made and who like mr sweeney denied those allegations dismissing him was protection will and again you have to pair that with the background of this case and i recognize it would be ideal if he had reiterated his prior allegations here he is a pro se litigant and so it is pleadings you need to be liberally construed there's no effect of collateral estoppel there has to be something that if you can point to that makes that connection otherwise it would be like him submitting his high school yearbook and saying hey this is new evidence evidence which was under a different standard all they say the sum total of the board's analysis on to reality is that the contents of the documents quote addresses the merits of the appellant's claim and is not material to the jurisdiction issue that statement simply does not make sense for a probationary employee like mr sweeting in order to invoke the board's jurisdiction he has to make a non frivolous allegation that his determination was based on marital status which he tell me if we just disagreeing on the consequence of that or whether we're reading it differently is this takes me is absolutely fine because when they were saying its content addresses the merits of the claim it goes to judg if we were in the merits now and he had passed that threshold jurisdiction that perhaps maybe at some level that would be relevant to say you were treated differently than other people and therefore this wasn't the appropriate remedy but they said no no no that's not what this is a what we're here to educate which is it's relevant to the jurisdictional question about political affiliation one i think that's what they're saying and two i don't see how given the record that we have before us you can call that into question i think they looked at the documents they said there's nothing here about political affiliation political affiliation non frivolous allegation is what we're here to decide so i don't see what the problem is with that sentence honestly certainly they didn't say that part of the problem at the board and again it this underscores that the problem here were speculating about what the board what might well no i'm reading it i mean you i mean we can create a displayed about parsing the words any and the definition of any words but i'm telling you how i read it and i think that's a straightforward reading i mean if we had two we may end every case because two people disagreed about precisely what they said would be no trouble here i agree i don't think it's a question of position let me address  it's to me incoherent to say that something is relevant to the merits of his claim namely i was terminated based on partisan political reasons but not relevant to the jurisdictional issue namely have i made a describes the allegations that were made against mr sweeting the allegations are made against other students and then walks through the investigation of the allegations and shows that mr sweeting like the other students denied that you use marijuana but unlike the other students mr sweeting was the first like of the training center and then we know later terminated by the agency whereas the other students as we see in the appendix are attachment c which is  individuals involved in the incident were members of the democratic party and then we have documentary evidence that clearly shows that the basis for is termination was protection will that taken together has to be within a non trivial us allegation case even given that the board should have considered this as a request to reopen it would be a waste of resources to be on the cased to and instruct the board to consider it thank you to the point that we've been discussing about whether mr sweeting's new documents are material to his claim again i don't think that there's been no confusion since the so taking all this in combination you have an allegation of person political discrimination and documentary evidence of differential treatment it's very difficult to see how that is not happening first of all how that doesn't move  available here it describes the of the documents and in particular attachment a an attachment scene showing the differential treatment and does have a test room b which is not a new document that's simply to show that he was terminated whereas the other