clear that my client was suffering from a mental impairment so severe as to it it is ability to understand his rights below mr action burge i have seen this sort of issue many times i've never seen a record where there was such great care taking to review and double review and consult with professionals and rican so professionals to ascertain the competen not the procedure in of itself but the conclusion of the conclusions from that procedure because of the inconsistency within those procedures well when you have multiple medical professionals and people who have worked extensively with your client making judgments how does this court lay them aside just based on your apprehensions well it's hard call prefer recall correctly from the records those further medical inclusions were much later not he didn't actually see my client versus the doctor and forget her name who did see my client who initially diagnosed my client with major severe  connotations and also the culpability of understanding what it is that you do or don't need to do it's clearly translated where you're standing is that she said the chief stein is only able to function in many aspects of his life that remains capable of handling his own affairs partly due to him allowing his wife to manage him in his of fears daily his capacity to make decisions at work is very questionable  it seems to me a slightly different posture even the one you're you're presenting respectfully i disagree if you have to do everything under the guidance of someone else because you're not competent to do it on your own remains capable of handling his affair and the guidance of his wife partly goes on the state partly due to partly due to him allowing his wife to manage human like constantly you're determining if somebody is competent to stand trial it doesn't mean that they don't have psychological problems right it means that they can't make real decision help of his wife without the help of someone assisting him which of course the question is then what is it what is he competent to do and the poor low number determined that that was growing and we're the one here is arguing especially the opposing counsel that what we're believing that force that the military is way be doing its job in good faith and correcting the law well the same deference needs to be given to the  competent based on the fact that he is non psychotic and currently working he's currently working but if i recall correctly he was having problems at work i thought he got pretty good ratings for his work who suggested look you got ten percent just run with it that wasn't the case here i mean what seems to be that's that's not all that jagger says it seems to me that there were other factors involved that was studied was interested in continuing his military career in the reserves right to stand it and there were some concern about the higher disability rating and that might impact th a lot of things discussed with his counsel and lots of factors presented that were considered no you make you may conclude that rush was basically good price but it's over it's strikes me as being a little  t a little bit good not to recognize that there were factors here or there were presented to him and factors that he considered in making this decision but again it all still boils down to said told him which was he take the ten percent and run and i mean i understand what you're saying that there are other factors involved but ultimately you're going to know it was good advice in point given the various options that he had and the various then is an issue of fraud because the the attorney the jag officer who is acting on behalf of not her not her client the veteran but the military was giving him misleading advice that say that the military is deliberately downsizing or downgrading the disability ratings it's an issue saving money we're all of financial firms today i respect that but it doesn't get the military or the government or anyone to violate my client's rights you're taught it's ingrained in the military from day one day you work for the military the military will protect you the military will mislead you but once you're her or once you've screw they don't want to hear from you because you're a drain on the system you're out promoting not contributing to the cost appropriate standard at the board apply in determining that mr stein is competent and the significance of that finding it in confidence and his waiver of his right to a formal physical evaluation board first the broa wide upon inconsistences in mr stein's medical military medical records which the board determine reflected his tendency to tailor his reporting of his symptoms and medical history to his their subjective recollections and that's what psychiatry in it is not no it's not honoring and if i can do to bridge analysis was that his reporting of his symptoms and his medical history was on and that's based upon demonstrated inconsistency in his previous report that but again back to my original question to the court said it was all subjective recollections first of all putting aside the fact that where it was and what you went through was all not there was one based upon the symptoms the the vast or requires a look at the individual's condition or any alternative to work at his reported symptoms with the poor would determine here was a pattern of inconsistency is in his medical records demonstrated his proclivity to state his medical history and his symptoms in a manner that benefited him at a particular time and that's a good thing i actually made its own psychological determination absolutely not your honor what the what determined to be it was there was a long pattern of misleading statements of symptoms and medical history and that was reviewed by the naval counsel the personnel boards and their medical experts as well can reach the same conclusion so based upon information that the veterans administration didn't have the board essentially concluded there was an extensive pattern here of misreporting medical history and symptoms when on that basis the board determined that his complaints to the veterans administration and veterans administration subsequent diagnosis was subject to question and will be a meeting a difference between seventy percent and ten percent no your honor because i was there actually  rendered his medical history suspect got it so that was the end of the inquiry for his psychological analysis right now that he lied with respect to how much the blood went much further and as detailed in the analysis of the navy council personnel board advisory what extensively at the v a records the board noted in fact that a v a clinical psychologist analyzing mr stein's records concluded the possibility that that is symptoms were not consistent with this functioning and additional psychological testing the phrase was used the possibility that he was overstating the symptoms couldn't be ruled out and additional psychological testing might reveal that there is no evidence in the existing record which is not you know were frozen to the twenty seven of the court's decision the quote absurd that in response to the judge advocate general investigation into mr stein's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel mr stein did not raise that issue in the court proceedings at all and in fact the record reflects he didn't respond to lieutenant pinto art statements made in the course of an investigation conducted by the office of the judge advocate general at all in the corrections when your honor and they quit the court's decision it page seven ninety five there's a long paragraph discussing discrepancies between the v a system and the navy and we don't agree with that and mr nine the military looks at the service member and determines those conditions which are unfit and then the military or determines assigned to the disability rating for those he was still able to perform substantially many of his military duties so the military if you were took a look at a snatch shot of his condition the informal physical evaluation board and based upon the factors noted by the naval counsel personnel boards but they afford and the woods decision afforded it less weight but the gravity of the points decision was that the information mr stein was providing for the purpose of diagnosis to medical professionals wasn't reliable and that was based upon the numerous inconsistency as noted in the in his medical history provided the navy at various points in time this information was an ability to the veterans administration when it made its determination so what the word was confronted with was a long history of pre understand the definition of p t s d is broad enough to include possibly the circumstances described here but the actual literal reading it the d s m four definition suggests a greater immediacy if you would of a form so it doesn't and then was with the navy because at the time it destroyed its looked at the service member determines the existence of an unfitting condition makes a determination whether that condition is permanent and if it is they waited for disability on that basis the navy assign separation pay or permanent disability retired pay they take a snapshot of the service member it has to be permanent and they do it subsequent deterioration of the service member under the statutory scheme is designed to be handled by the reference administrator in response to determinations of fitness and the percentage of disability and that's exactly what happened in this case and the reason for that holding an analysis of story clear because if there's a formal physical evaluation board here and you'll be testimony and evidence as  doesn't exist this case is a classic example of an individual after a specific thing wait the procedure that might if you would answer the court's questions and explain the basis for the diagnosis and the basis for the  was first stated by the court of claims and gallery and that's a case medically discussing what constitutes a disability for the purpose of twenty five or one but the basic cases and which was to be unaware of the circumstances and unaware of his need to follow  institute legal proceedings that that's not the case here he wasn't aware of the circumstances and was aware of the need to do it once you have the fact that the individual has that level of awareness which we don't we lower court's finding on actually the a military medical discharge of ten percent so it's not that he was successful low it was because currently we end up bringing some bells to get them put them on notice that records of all this furthermore the v a is forced to have a copy of the military records when it's doing its diagnosis of god veterans including the alleged inconsistency of my client these inconsistency could easily be