our next cage is johnson versus of scientific certainty the four in the military has erred in the diagnosis and treatment of my client privilege or for correctly client i see a lot of attention paid to the qualifications of the various professionals that to work with mr johnson but as a that we have a great number of people who have spent time with him why why would we make some great legal distinction based on whether they spent an extra year or two in force graduate studies because your honor that's what sets them apart that's what makes them the expert that makes done the individuals for actually qualified to make these determinations with all due respect your honor if i came in here to start arguing died you know obviously one party or another is obviously going to have a dispute with them but he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder ninety one ninety seven ninety eight th eleven years after the discharge we have a series of further diagnoses but only one at the time believed that the military would actually do what was correct what would they should have done and because they didn t realize that he needed to go back with this report and it's not in the regulations that was not new was it then the report was based on an earlier existing service and yet no one of proper qualifications ever examined the situation additional medical practitioners actually look at the the record to make a determination that those individuals were not qualified to make the kind of season that's a death however recognizing after the fact that they used inappropriate that the professionals and then he realized that he needed to get it done which he dead and this isn't a situation where he came back ten years later and said ok now i have an expert he was on top of it and if i can move away from that for just a second and go to the fact that ultimately this report or course are not fact finders this core in the lore or are not a  super or fraction and they are not subject matter experts when it comes to these medical reports should be properly incorporated there which i would argue therefore that since we didn't have the workforce didn't have jurisdiction to hear the matter that following list when they should have sent it back i would argue that this court should send them back and if we need to focus if you on the simpl the date on the claims court didn't have jurisdiction to have you the c m l action with the claims court could have done is when they sent the claim back they should have also insisted that the new medical of federal claims and the board below is supported by substantial evidence here the only mental health professional to examine mr johnson while he was still in the military was a navy psychologist who examined him over a four month period and diagnosed him with an adjustment disorder every mental health professional who diagnosed him up until two thousand and four confirmed that diagnosis mr johnson never reported signs inconsistent with that diagnosis and the treatment for that diagnosis worked up behavioral health care clinic did their report for the b b c in our april two thousand and six mr johnson was given an opportunity to respond to it what he did was he ran out and got the report from dr matter now which he submitted with his response to the behavior health care clinic report so not only was he could he have gotten friends or pork before his application he could have gone out after seeing that the navy psychiatry's through viewed his case didn't agree with him and got the forensic psychiatric report at the time he failed to do so so i would argue that it is a new under the navy's regulations now mr mr johnson is also making the regulatory peel here do we have jurisdiction over that you don't he didn't have jurisdiction well the issue wasn't raised below but if it had been properly raised below or something it's raised properly because he was proces doing his best job he could and so now we have before us do we have the government's position is that this court and a quarter for claims would have jurisdiction because under the a p a section seven zero four it dives out from the district court jurisdiction over a p a challenges where another court can provide full and adequate remedies the injunction preventing the agency from enforcing the regulation his relief is a relief that the court of federal claims traditionally can give to someone seeking correction of the military one of the federal claims has no ministr court that court has jurisdiction not the district courts notes the government's view that if that's properly before us we can deal with correct let me ask you and your you know the government had the same problem that some of us have been having which is trying to figure out who is who and what their credentials are for those of us who think graduate credentials have some meaning let me be sure i understand who is who allowed to go into the board and that's the question of whether the executive director has authority under the statute to to preclude the board from even dealing with that question or to question that it's one whether the executive director has the power it's also caro who was a staff psychiatrist for the v a so it is not as if until two thousand and four he had never been seen by a medical psychiatry's he didn't seem by the so basically what the board had before it was a series needed who were not navy personnel now and both of whom said bipolar well there were also in may of two thousand and five we got a report from a doctor joyce odes who out who is a psychiatry of the report he got after the end and the report which followed diagnosing him with bipolar disorder did not offer a retrospective opinion as to whether he had life or disorder well he was in the military so those are the certified psychiatry s and his opinion is the same in face on the same evidence and so the government would would contend that the report is in fact redundant rather or not you can say that perhaps arose psychiatry still also contested the validity of sl out that questions really whether or not one can look back fifteen twenty years and diagnosed bipolar disorder because it does require contemporaneous examination of of the patient and so this is certainly is  statute makes reference to one of its function is to correct an injustice i take it the government's position is that a chief petty officer who resigns after eighteen years of exemplary service two years short of a retirement qualification i wonder how many species never do that but the government's position that his thing that makes it somewhat mentally suspect anyway i would i would suspect it does actually because i can't imagine why  the rather good jobs that chief petty officers have why he would lead two years short of retirement particularly if he was having any kind of emotional problems unless those emotional problems come now interfered with his judgment which i suppose of bipolar illness might have but in any event i take the government's position there's no injustice and holding him to what might some some people might think of as it quite irrational act given his history i think if you look at the record it actually reveals rational reasons why he might have done what he did the first was that he going to go into business well know that he was given remote tours and it was causing family shrouds and it the record reflects that he was going to be sent on another remote tor at the time he decided to voluntarily separate from the navy so i would hope the government intended that that's a rational reason for leaving the service after eighteen years  they're asking for where's the jurisdiction the government can send them what then given a remedy they cannot give the remedy that to mr johnson's request enabling statute and re mynd for review by the full board and that's the relief that they're seeking that wouldn't serve as an injunction of any kind to the agency for using that regulation obviously perhaps it could be used later in another so you're going to be stopping one action and requiring another that's not an injunction they would be saying that in this case the executive directors review of the motion for reconsideration was improper and reminding for  by the full board in your views that that would not require invalidation of regulation but only in validation of his action correct government makes a nice stink points i'd like to make throughout the record there is no clinical consistent natural evidence that shows that he's suffering from adjustment disorder there are plenty of medical records from the time that he was in the navy and also afterwards was getting treated by a pension for mental the essence and i was puzzled as to why he suddenly chose to go to the board for the correction of records because in the cases we get from that board well better off here better off there we need to remember that the military and the v a are two distinct separate pots of money that's my point that they are entitled to do that they are entitled to both that and also whether it's an issue of money some simply want the recognition that they were injured in the military and they should receive a medical separation for retirement because that helped them down that if it's an extra medal that they are entitled to they went through a campaign they deserve to read and they entitle to where there's a good number of my cases that i deal with aren't so much about money it's about the on the name who basically said that his security clearance needs to be removed that he needs to be watched and if this continues on there needs to be an administrative done so but the command decided no we're going to keep him doing what he's doing pressure and he felt that he would not get a fair shake in the military because his mental health issues were not being properly addressed and he was getting retribution from his command while he was seeking help from the v a there are plenty of is simply missing disingenuous also when you have that kind of adjustment disorder for well over ten plus years there has to come a point where someone says a maybe this is an adjustment disorder e in that case how does the veterans tend playing this the veterans pro veterans and chief justice raider pointed out that we give deference to pro s the report that we provided that my client provided before the scene on his request reconsideration why not hear what he has to say my time is up