court if i might draw the court's attention very briefly to some essential facts st of all the allegation against the strikes that was present this morning was that on fifteen separate occasions in order to obtain leave she submitted altered medical documentation the st thing that needs to be considered that in the eleven of those fifteen instances she was not requiring that medical documentation  required to have medical documentation pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement to make a very long story short if you're absent three days or less you don't need the documentation additional fourteen out of those fifteen agency purported it to be and as the arbitrator found if you boil it down to the essence what we presented at the arbitration hearing was comparative evidence of people whose offenses were more severe than hers who were not fired she was fired the most egregious comparison is an individual who was a three time offender who had been suspended for seven days for the st violation fifteen days the nd time and what the agency posted to contradict what we posed were tases where people actually were supposedly fired although in the brief they conceded that one of those three was not the human relations or the human resources rather excuse me the human resources witness for the agency said the reason we fired those people and didn't fire the people that we allege were the appropriate comparatives was because those people didn't enjoy a fin monetary benefit in the saving to the employees on where someone who is able to stay at home without any penalty doesn't get not prove with a wall right it depends whether there are th there can be but it has to be found that the absence without leave results in some other problem and of failure to perform or something of that sort but a wall itself is is universally recognized is not in and of itself a disciplinary matter i  think that they think is the key here is that the burden is on the agency to show that if she if an employee is treated differently then somebody who we allege is has been treated more favorably for a same or more egregious offense it's the agency's burden to establish why there's a difference and the evidence of that is extremely weak it is a single single statement by the h r witness that these other folks enjoyed a financial benefit i can't meet the burden of showing that there is a reason for a motion a more severe and more severe penalty on someone who's offense is so there's more on that person who's you in the same position who's been treated differently that's enough even though there are several others who are treated the same way but i don't concede that anybody was treated the same way because i just assume that there are let's assume that we have six people who were in the same circumstances that the agency treated five of them in the same way but treated one better than the employee who's on the i don't know if there is in front line i don't know if there's a i think that you have to look at it from the perspective of why is the agency treating somebody who was entitle to take leave the eleven of the fifteen times or is it i would have to seize it can't always be consistent right the to be situations that they can't remember the can and can't always be consistent they may make mistakes they may treat one person differently but don't we have to look to see whether it's a pattern of treating other people suspension and then on the rd for removal and then resigned the day before he was fired no that person has got a forty five day suspension and given a last chance agreement there's later testimony that that person then later violated the last chance think the court is asking for you and your you you understand that i understand what your point is but i think the court's looking for a bright line distinction that doesn't exist and can't exist i think that this is implied in your question judged that you have to look at the totality of circumstances and i think the board was wants when it's said rather than have an endless debate try to find this nonexistent right one will put the burden on the agency to show why somebody is treated more personnel policies and social security administration if you're absent three days or less unless you're on leave restriction which she was not i addressed that in the breach you do not have to do anything other than call in and say i'm sick i won't be in to that your client didn't get a game and i think that we did i didn't like he didn't see it i didn't see any testimony in the record specific testimony to the fact that she wasn't required to get these things i see that in your br service was a reasonable question should be answered in the affirmative to go directly to the discussion that you could just having with my opponent if i direct the court's attention to what convicts to ninety which is the collective bargaining agreement and it is a clause that determines when you do not have sick leave an agency grants it to you anyway knowing that you'll come back and pay it back when you return and so one of the things that's required is a medical certificate that substantiates a serious illness or injury exists as well as some factors are balancing tasks so no one factor weighs heavier than the others and so what the agencies are able to do is look at all of the various status factors and weigh them it's not a question becomes if there is inconsistency are there other mitigating factors that you can look at or other douglas fact yes but we were friends as well and the exhibits concerning the characters that i believe that we've been talking about it seems that we don't know that fairness requires that so that the court has a complete record and under a can really only way and i mean sure the matter is that if your  specifics involved in the comparative cases and you had an opportunity to present them to us to you and you didn't do that understood your honor but the arbitrator didn't comply with his responsibility has responsibilities only to supply us with the dog and treat your honor to think we're under the rules i will do whatever the court permits me to do but i think going to is a matter of fairness those exhibits should be before the court they are referred t in the transcript that you do have and they're discussed in that transcript if the court doesn't think that's adequate then i again request that we be allowed to supplement let me just say your honor judge judge can response to your question what do you do if briefly mention it's discussed in the brief there were two other douglas factors for which one there was no evidence that a lesser penalty was even considered that is a douglas factor that is part of the equation part of the calculus and in terms of trust  we discussed at length in the brief that miss miss scares me that miss ragsdale was always a trusted employee a that she was allowed to work from the time the agency d st had knowledge that there had been altered records which was in april until