evaluated the allegations to make a determination as to whether or not jurisdiction that hearing stage would would would be appropriate for mr wood in this case the facts that were presented discover massive government fraud which resulted in the convictions of some government employees to the tune of one hundred thousand dollars and he was subsequently ordered to mr perry he did resign didn't he he did resign  and of course the the board looked at the facts and said there's really no non frivolous allegation they have because clearly voluntary your honor i think that from one of the difficulties that was encountered in this case was there appeared to be a lack of clarity in the standard used by the ministry of judge it's much as much akin to the situation occurred at least in my opinion garcia case and  frivolous allegation that would support the conclusion that his resignation was involuntary and wasn't that indeed the standard that was supplied when you look at the initial decision sufficient that were not frivolous in order to to maintain jurisdiction of the stage but if a substance of the decision was right even if perhaps the right flank which wasn't used a lot of the churn in the system send it back with full confidence that employee's petitioner's main argument is in regards to the tolerable working conditions there are several facts laid out throughout this case from the a c complaint to the response of the show cause order and the resignation itself regarding told working conditions and in the ministry of judge focused almost exclusively no pages one through six on the issue of what of whether the case was meritorious as opposed to whether there were told the working conditions so could have accepted the transfer accepted that emotion and challenge it from within however his opportunities who would have been limited to challenge both of those why should his opportunities be enlarged by his resignation which which he chose for whatever reason to do that's an excellent point and i think that when you look at the record as a whole and  how he got to this point starting essentially in two thousand and two thousand and two when when all these difficulties the roads which lead to the separate o s c complete which i'm not going to address the super but he alleged the supervisors got very upset with him because he would destroy coupons people are making humiliating remarks of rumors going around people are talking to him christie the personnel action that was taken against him was related to charges of insubordination and cetera and as i read the record seems to be he submitted a lot of those is that right well your honor i looked it over because i realized that's one of the government's arguments but i think that what he's saying is he's not contesting the fact that he made phone calls from his office he's contesting some of the statements that he made he  contesting that and in most of these charges if that wasn't within the purview of the orders that he received and so if ultimately i guess nursy approach if the court did review and evaluate for jurisdiction of the hearing and we got past that because otherwise it would be dismissed at that stage but don't you have to establish here you're you're claiming that he was coerced into resigning that it was not a voluntary act he was coerced because of all of this and don't you have to establish that that the agency knew that there was no basis for it taking the personal actions in order to establish coercion i think  and if that is indeed the standard that i think it is then where is the norm for alist allegation that the government knew that it had no basis for taking this action on your honor i think as i read the be valuated in terms of the intel the working conditions i don't know if i mean i understand the soundness of it of the charges to be evaluated but that's something i thought that there went to the first prong  and resigns which is effective the day before he has to do this he's got one family car that's in the record he can't take transportation because difficult because of because of the night shift as opposed to if he'd been transferred to headquarters which is also a record he's done during the day or taken some other options i think that there were just a few other points that are important to consider and i think that to be the case i says it well the most important points to consider that those most proximate to the date of resignation is still timing can be considered previous to  resignation he felt to make any religious allegations that the agency imposed the terms of his resignation he felt to make a nice criminal allegations they had no reasonable alternative and he f make a not frivolous allegations that the board could not that the agency could not substantiate the insubordination charges against him but he didn't say that the working conditions were intolerable  continue to endure an intolerable situation you're saying that that is inadequate what mr would characterize as intolerable working conditions it's not tolerable working conditions so that's not a different question trust exactly i thank you for that correction that's exactly what i mean that these allegations that he calls intolerable the demotion the transfer do not amount to intolerable conditions under he had relatives that live there we don't know anything about all we know is that he claims that he did that he had no way of getting from where he lived to where he was transferred has stated that a longer commute demotion stigma from coworkers is not enough to state that it's intolerable leads to the decision to resign and also at the time that the for me this decision it was make it was making the decision under the knowledge that he had asked for a transfer that was even longer commute that was even longer so wasn't an abuse of discretion going to be overlap between the jurisdiction of determination and the merest determination but the difference are that the facts are considered in so far still involuntary and i don't believe that that the element of the garcia test there was definitely no way of the merits because mr emmett the allegations he had made it in supporting so there was no need to go into the motives george did some fact well your honor it was it was it was not relevant and necessary because the poor determined that the charges could be substantiated but the poor when a step further and also till those retaliation charges and said that they were not frivolous because of the person that made the final determination mr bowtell had nothing to do and nothing to do with the issue of  coupons or the retaliation claim he was the person that made the final determination so when a step further determined that it wasn't relevant because the time does not stand but also went the next step and said or some type of other just antidiscrimination statutes but of course this case predated garcia which church things have changed since they didn't resign because he didn't like the parameters of the job anymore distance traveled on the requirements of the job he didn't like them a most who resigned the new year and it was not able the allegation was that he was not able given the short amount of time do you think the commute the fact that it was a night shift at walter reed to gain either public accomplish because he's faced with the fact that no one family car there they both work they would have to work different shifts and this just wasn't enough time to to arrange these three just supporting the statement that the question i  standard and there is just i think a little bit of lack of clarity and we would ask that you consider that and permit us reversal and remain and if we get remarried and we still have to prove