thank you may may please the court this this unfortunate matter had up had a worth rezin as a result of a minor event caused by forced forces outside of the control of the petitioner in this case thomas smith way or i and has resulted in his terminations he was a dedicated federal air marshal with an otherwise unblemished and exemplary record of ten years of on a mission it was a one and a half day mission where he and three other team that bush travelled from philadelphia on a commercial international airline to brussels have their the lack lack of character charge was based a upon a a determination that mr smith had intentionally provided misleading smith miss mr smith render aid to a colleague of his who had been assaulted who was bleeding profusely who had gone with his colleague by ambulance to a local hospital state with him and then returned to his motel room or hotel room and provided a written statement that he was he was focused on the event relating to the well being of his colleague he had given a good faith estimate as to the time of the events in question mr messenger there was also that he had was a cut to his head there were no there was no treatment renter to him at the hospital for four for his head injury other other than to to a address the wasn't treated for any vision problems he didn't complain of headaches he didn't seek any treatment for any issue which could possibly have been related to a memory issue at the time he was in the cited for lack of candor during the investigation that took place when the federal air marshals were interviewed about two and a half months later mr tomorrow and mr messenger were told that the incident had occurred at a particular a period of time based upon ambulance records and based upon hospital records age a specific belief that he was lying to cover up the fact that they were drinking in an impermissible time period and so whether or not he was told the time or whether the others were told the time the fact is there's a to a higher penalty if he fabricated something five in terms of culpability if two individuals in gage in identical conduct it seems to me your whole argument here on  we're here to look at the other ones and the evidence is even before this interview that you claim he should have been told the data he helped another support and courting to support and compelled him into filing a false and student report predating the time period  continued to lie about it interview each other ras the subordinate those are all factual allegations that i know you disagree with but there what that a j found and they're supported by specific pieces of evidence and how can we just sit here and decide your story is better now on appeal i think the fact factual evidence or record which the administrative judge did not consider and which were c don't talk about what did they didn't consider talk about the evidence that a j relied on and why it have in order to reach a substantial evidence finding one must look at the evidence which which which is not supportive of of the tracks from the whole picture both of those reports indicated that the incident happened at approximately eleven thirty pm at when mr out tomorrow was interviewed two months later he  told the investigators that the incident happened at eleven thirty pm after he was shown the ambulance records and the hospital records and was interrogated for four hours he he he this case is about a federal law enforcement officer who betrayed both the public's and his employer's trust he did so repeatedly and attempted to cover it up when the agency discovered snuffy since it fired him it was right to do so there must be sustained three charges against mr smith in this case for lack of candor interfering with an investigation and violation of the t s a his policy on the consumption of alcohol part of mission time ample evidence supporting each one of the charges and they must be  should be affirmed accordingly but this case is really about is about credibility credibility of the petition of tom smith credibility of us federal felony federal air marshals on a mission with him that night credibility of the investigating secret service well as other federal air marshals who are on a ball but who interacted with the petitioner when he returned to philadelphia most of petitioners arguments here are mere disagreements with the mystery judges witness credibility  not explicitly say that he was based on that base them on the witnesses and demeanor the m s b board decided that or hell that the judge at least implicitly made demeanor based credibility time the events the night occurred but at the milly when he testified before the minister and actually was before the minister job she was a little unclear about what the times were and what the mystery judge concluded was that he thought his testimony regarding the timing of the events was more accurate and more reliable only a couple of months after the events versus twenty months after at the time of the the hearing essentially most of the album is the petition makes here all of our challenges to the witness credibility terminations made by mr judge for lack of candor interfering in investigation as well as the alcohol violations around the petitioner claims that the mr judge never took an accounts are in fact the testimony behalf of the other  suspended for thirty days but that suspension of the dues to fourteen days to the extent that mr smith here argues that he was treated unfairly as compared to the federal air marshals what happened was that the agen investigated the three air marshals that were on the mission and that went out that night drinking for nearly eight hours it fairer two of them and suspended one of them with regard to whether to the extent that the petitioners making the argument that the  penalty itself was unjustified first the each one of the first two charges leveled against mr smith lack of candor in interfering investigations alone are are justified the penalty removal of cording to the is on table the penalties and a francis for this court to second guess that the court can only review the penalty determination of the agency if it's totally unwarranted what happened here was that the deciding recommend a penalty based on its own table offenses for federally marcher who repeatedly tried to interfere with investigation violated a significant safety protocol by drinking well within the mission window for that caused concern for the agency and caused him so much trouble later on mr smith never points to any particular investigatory guideline that was violated by the fact that the special agent who was investigating did not disclose to him the fact that the trying to intimidate this his junior probation a federal air marshal that he was supervising as well as his continued intransigence during the investigation that made the agency end up treating him differently and in fact firing him as opposed to fire in the air marshal who was injured that night if it's the kind that have any questions i have a comment it seems to me that the confidentiality markings in your ribs are improper you mark messengers the as confidential the time of the drinking that can name of the cafe where they were none of this is appropriately leave it confidential and you yourself with oral argument disclose some of that information i just don't reasonable manner manner equally to everyone there was testimony by the supervisory special agent the one who supervised the special agent who had conducted the investigation that it was in permissible to tar any any any any individual and mr smith was never questioned on any aspects of interfering with an investigation yet he was charged with that he was to to provide a statement more moreover there is absolutely no evidence that mr smith told mr al to more what to say there was never any  charged with with with a violation the drinking policy was that mr out to more two months after the event in question and after being questioned or interrogated for four hours stated that he