back now are only does not mean the time of the demotion and the time of the disability return she wants to have the motion vacated right so that she can be restored to a yes level eighteen for that interim period of time from the period of time from when she was demoted right because that affects the amount of money that she will receive in her disability retirement good but if it was the back pay for that period of time when he should have been with her purpose is that she got the disability retirement she wants to have the calculation disability retirement base the level that she should have been is now if you use a court finds the motions turn it around and we were to find that the motion was permissible but that there's something wrong with the what's the consequence there be given that she took disability retirement between i gather after the kind of proposal it's a complicated question ron and i don't have a good answer for you on what i would say in you made arguments with your stick to both and i'm just wondering if the second isn't really moot i think it effect that has been mooted by reason of the fact that the postal service has conceded that she got workers compensation that is this is this is i think more important terms of the nation as the predicate for their terminating her was the fact that she had been on leave without pay for some period and pending during that whole but i think what's contemplated is if you cannot perform the essential functions of your position and you are eligible as opposed to eligible for disability retirement then the  make it clear and i think also f makes it clear that then your support they're supposed to wait and see what happens with a disability retirement application to see if you get it you're not supposed to be terminated or what your work i mean he would issue of money and i think it relates to the fact that there is a employee who worked twenty one years postal service thirty one years total for the government who felt that what was done there are lies on justified and was wrong and it was an attack upon her integrity as a human being and as an employee and it is important to her that which keep this believed to be too  acts that the motion and the terminations they were recognize that this was not done properly this it make a difference in terms of the monetary calculation i think it will in terms of the calculation of disability ret for her because what happened to her she is strongly believes and i think it's supported by record was merely conscious the agency really is supposed to follow its own rules and regulations and with respect to the motion that was not that she's held accountable for the actions or responsibilities of someone else i don't i don't think that's really disputed here that is at page one sixty four of the joint appendix with robert harding who is the proposing officials being questioned about why he put fifteen pips into effect when he first got the  in other offices where the postmaster's were you know there if it is if it is was an officer in charge there should be the officer in charge that illustrates the point he didn't know that mrs king wasn't the postmaster in her mind that this is king wasn't going to stay there that she held back a fifteen the office and tried to convince her all you really don't want to be postmaster here just do the administrative duties for now i'll see her and she's a snap of money operation within the same month she does know already acting incomes robert as the now manager he doesn't even know the office hasn't been transferred to the suspect and proceeds on the assumption that he has been disability retirement now they're there may be a disagreement between me and mr nolan but it's also my understanding and i'm sorry this is all outside the record but obviously it's later than the time of the board motivation but it's also my understanding that recovers to invoke the rights under the worker's comp scheme to restoration and if she disagrees in our decision to restore her at that point the board has jurisdiction over that that that claim so there is no and on that issue i just wanted to respond to some of the things that mr no one had said about who in fact is was operating this this post office during roman time and the testimony was that  king returned to the post office january two thousand and one and mr snapp was put in the post office and tell about a month later four five weeks later he was sister now that was done to allow her to get caught up on on the mission the duties of the office that's exactly what ms moore did she gave mr snapp who was an operational supervisor to the article post office for thirty days or so significance of the pip is not that it is directed at her prior performance before that point but it it was a management tool that mr i don't need to act to track all of the post offices and in the baltimore district that were  underperforming relative to our standards so it was it was for the whole post office it was for the whole post office in fact she testified that every every post master who's on isabel into that category got a pip for example ms moore who had her individual performance before january first now there is some significance to the pick because what it did is it listed a number of things that the office was to improve on and which mr out was going to hold ms king accountable for delayed email the housekeeping the overtime hours of the clerks in the carriers things like that the pip also set up the system is right oh set aside one day every week to have a telephone conversation with each of these fifteen postmasters miss king did that for the entire time until march when she went out on administrative leave she never in that time said to mr otto i'm not responsible for the clarksville post office she acted as if she were responsible she believed herself to be responsible in these weekly conferences with mr rada now going forward the testimony was that in early february mr snap actually is no longer resident in clarksville he gets recall back to the baltimore district home office to assist mr otto who's unfamiliar with the race in baltimore he's come from the west coast and so for the last month prior to march sixth two thousand and one there was no one else resident in the car to the post office with supervisory of forty other than the  january eighth not knowing that she was returning and when she returns he he leaves he's in fact protests and i wish she had not seen him a day since january two thousand and one so when you look at factually what was going on on the ground in clarksville there was a thirty day period or thereabouts for five weeks for mr snapp was there to help her persuade and to the recommendations of the climate assessment and that from that went on she was there so that and then i obviously with respect to this this are going about nine seven ones clearly we're not proud of the fact that our paperwork is trailing behind what's what was going on in that actual post office but it's not uncommon  mr snapp was never that night someone was never executed for the time that mr snapp was there in late two thousand when mr person was out it's often the case that we need someone to fill in for a week or two years something like that  want what is the right way to deal under the manual with someone who is both in the estimate of the postal service disabled but is eligible for disability retirement is that person separated for disability or i mean i have and they having trouble with this definition of section which is contrary to the usual all agencies these things are expressed which is you say this person is disabled they can be separated for disability and they are entitled at that point to apply for and they will be eligible for disability retirement your manual seems to they can be separated produce a building in their on their own to try to figure out where they can handle the issue but for somebody who is eligible for retirement there are two different groups one of which rid of them but you have to go through the whole medical cost right which we all is in under the regulations all you can do and then you have a special case of mental disability rights which you say but as i understand that what really was in the way the and then subsequent to that point we sent her a notice saying actually invoking three sixty five point three four to see about b and leave without pay status for a year or with this on our list of things that probably in our image we have so many men that probably need to be changed one one thing and i want to point out before my time as is up is in addition to the air which is certainly one of our carried on leave without pay or separated unless the employee aleck's to use sick or in the worker's comp regulation that covers the entire federal workforce not just specific to us in this case  she was absent due to a compensable injury and the regulation then gives us the discretion to either continue to carry her on leave without pay or to separate her and less she's elected to use a can and leave so she's actually trying to use the worker's comp status to void the rights under the elm and in fact the exact opposite is true what the album does is is implement this provision in the c f r and actually give the employee an extra year of leave through to the point where another if you can recall a brief letter sent to the wall address after a psychiatric evaluation saying it was accept claim we go for a period of time through almost the conclusion of the hearing and senate and it's my position but she's not right about that if you mean it seemed to me that if i understood the board case what you can deal with you can't make the person able in other words if they're getting benefits from the appear to be the case of however my argument is that under the facts of this case determination disability never would have happened had the coin been approved when it should have been approved or she knew about his father see a seven and had gone back to the point her seat and i don't believe that applies to this list king but it applies to someone who isn't eligible for disability retirement because of the definition of correct exactly so then you really farther down then they deal later with people who are eligible but people under see are people who are not for disability time so they brought the whole action on the wrong sect presume it that it should never been bothered to get it if they didn't bring it then she should have been given the opportunity to make the application and get the disability retirement and if she doesn't make the application and she did then  but it is important your honor to prosecute this case in a way that if something was done wrong to me it was late it should be reversed and if nothing else there's even if there's no economic consequence then at least she