assault he would suggest that five can easily be read as the more specific because it does was it only refers to a fear of a hostile military activity and that that is more specific than the general interpretation of the meaning of that for it was as used in the regulation and in the regulation is several specific examples however in the published interpretation of that regulation that says therefore if a veteran experienced witnessed or was confronted with an event involving actual or threatened or serious injury or the threat to the physical integrity of civilians then the event were qualified as a stress or it seems to me that what awful military activity is referring to is the specific type of stressor that is covered by this regulation the regulation also indicates that in order to qualify there has to be invented or circumstance within the meaning of this rule the interpretation also indicates that by connection the phrase or characterization of possible military or terrorist activity to define the type of stressor that qualifies under this regulation  sense of actual threat of injury to the individual whether they will oversee the art certainly falls in that category sounds as though you're saying that you know just a fight over who's go pay for the pier is covered by this regulation well i think in that extreme example i would have to accept that under the definition as i read the interpretation by the b s a that yes such a circumstance w covered however in this case what we're talking about is the representation by that person that a superior individual within the military hierarchy and abused him in a way in which it produces the type of behavior that is described in this regulation and therefore he should be entitled to the benefit of that consideration by the board under seventy one o in the in the text of the regulation as written they limit the list of examples to that type of circumstance as i read to you from the interpretation that the v a itself interpret this is being far more broad than that type of situation certainly it is intended in the main to cover those types of circumstances and not allow those types of circumstances to not be considered but that does not mean as the v a has clearly indicated in its interpretation then there are other circumstances so long as it produces the requisite level of fear on the part of the individual and that figure is the triggering circumstance for the determination as to whether or not a particular event or circumstance applies because we're dealing here with one  a disability and that is post traumatic stress disorder if the bar fight would have resulted in a broken arm there would be no question that that would be considered as a basis for the  happens and if the bar fight did not result in a broken arm but simply resulted in a fear that later developed a psychiatric disability than that psychiatric disability could not be compensated for unless there was credible evidence supporting the fact that incident took place in this incident issued in this circumstance this or farmer is saying that he was attacked by is girls and that that attack resulted in addressing sexual abuse and quote abuse by military personnel of subordinate military personnel and the a clearly said of the matter outside the scope of this rule that he had no point sought this rule as addressing personal  three the whole idea here was to realize that the current environment combat isn't the only major source of p t s d but also being in a combat like situation described it where you're faced with by terrorism is regulation aren't just hours of the court and need not decide those limits and aren't you but he's not saying i have i understand the argument as far as not saying that this is a terrorist activity in fact terrorist act it was not a military activity just because out three point one lie five defines hostile force as an entity whose actions are taken to further or enhance anti american military political o excluded the consideration of three and five was the only regulation that could be considered for the issue that's what i was just writing that that that it's a sexual assault and the argument there and it didn't say possible military and terrorist activity it frames it in the alternative and therefore it is critical to understand what the meaning is and in my view the only way we can derive the meaning from this is my looking at the interpretation that was offered in their published interpretation of what they intended to be covered by this regulation i think another moti to the extent that it involves possible military personnel yes you know in other words whether the activity that is generated is in the context of a military activity in this case it was the relationship between the well actually the point that we're trying to make is that when a military personnel injures a no other person in the military and there are psychological consequences that produce both fear and result in host service disability from post traumatic stress disorder that should be content civil and should be considered under the provisions of three which is not to say that nephi should not be considered in the first instance but f five is a higher evidentiary requirement because there is still the need to produce some corroborative evidence in the context of s five this is a much lower evidentiary threshold because if they simply upon the reported threats are and whether the reported stress or if it's within the definition that is provided under f three if it is within that definition then the regulation mandates that there must be