this is a difficult circumstance for everyone because we're just on the phone and you can't see us so i ask you to listen carefully for when the judges start talking there's a little bit of a lag time and i know it's difficult but it and if you want to use up that time that's up to you but i'll try to help you reserve if you want to thank you your honor ok you can go ahead and start now who evaluated ms reed's files concluded that the symptoms and ms reed state of mind during her dark period internal quote from him interfered with her ability to attend and notification of attend to the notification of being terminated for a w o l in a timely manner and possibly to fully understand the implications of those notifications close internal quote close quote isn't he doesn't say more likely than not how can we even pay attention to that your honor i think this is within the standards of what a forensic assessment does i think it would be he would be unprofessionally giving the opinion if you were to be more more resolute in his opinion than this because any time a forensic examiner does or i'm sorry a forensic psychologist does an assessment of something that of a state of mind that occurred so many years ago by their very nature they have to give a hedged assessment and that's what he gave in in this particular case  on page twenty two of the very you say i'm quoting now a days determination that dr brannaman was not credible is an abuse of discretion and is unsupported by the evidence close quote foundation because i'm very concerned about that possibly yeah and then i suppose i certainly would be too from the other side i understand that you know dr ben i'm an on the in my view the blue grave you say it again i'm quoting on one hand ms reads st line supervisor trusted mis read to do or job right up until or removal and on the other hand the deciding official decided  could not be trusted and had to be fired i find that somewhat misleading and i want when you tell me why it isn't because we know that the st line supervisor wasn't informed about the investigation against mis tell she was terminated so how is that relevant evidence leave it it's relevant evidence because that supervisor is i mean i suppose i suppose i will st off i'd like to say the agency as a whole is understood that it's freed was able to continue in a position don't see it the way you do ok i am asked to be determined that after her terminations from social security mrs reed applied for unemployment benefits that wasn't mentioned in the blue very telling i think it's relevant i mean you have the knowledge to go ahead and do that well with all respect i don't believe it's particularly she had been terminated because she can go to work and in so you know the operative facts in this particular case were disclosed the mistake in the key the key issue on which are substantial evidence arguments are her basis you know whether this this this incorrect statement she was not a will was lacking candor when she had made disclosures to the to the just volunteer that she had been terminated for not going to work she had affirmatively said i wasn't terminated or able i don't have the words correctly but she firmly trusts the able if you thought you had been terminated for not going to work why would you address this other specific charge which was the actual basis for terminations you know i don't know the answer that question your honor and and i don't i don't think the petitioner has had any good reason when she testified to it that was the one of the biggest issues in our case of course and that's why when when i well if the problem isn't the problem the board thought she was making a false statement and get a leaper and therefore found her testimony not credible and if that's the case how do we would do any of that given our very deferential standard view and credibility determination well i think i think a lot of it comes down to the faulty analysis of the mental health issues that were in play here you know and myth sources just say that that's where this court establishes that a faulty analysis can be a stepping stone to a finding but again let me let me interrupt you because it seems to me you're talking about two different issues i don't see any allegations that she was suffering from mental health issues that prevent from being truthful today investigators it was the mental health issues surrounding around her removal but if she if she was not suffering from mental health issues have prevented her from being truthful to the investigators then why would she volunteer a statement that she wasn't removed for being a ball when all she needed to do was tell them the gators what she thought was the truth get it i mean you have your alternative you have your view of the tags and the government and the board have their view of the facts of one is it was a simple mistake and one is that it was a lie and that doesn't that just come down terminated for not going to work because she literally wasn't showing up to work for for many many months and so her mental health issues were so severe and it was after martin just so you know you're in your rebuttal time  proffered to the board but instead simply found evidence to be of little probative value when weighing it second the board's decision demonstrates that the administrative judge identified and balanced all relevant factors in determining that the penalty of removal was reasonable and under the circumstances even as a judge contrary to mysteries assertions did not fail to consider relevant mitigating evidence including evidence concerning her mental health but rather simply found that evidence incomplete information point as mr marson pointed out misread does not contest at the information she gave regarding the reason for the termination was incorrect and that was that she stated that she was not let go for being a wall when in fact she was ministration for being able regarding whether she gave it incorrect information knowingly substantial and substantial evidence supports the board's finding that misread knowingly did provide that information incorrectly after fully considering the evidence and assessing the credibility of testifying witnesses including mr reed the board concluded that it was simply improbable that her medical condition caused misread not to have remember the reason for her s s a germination office of personnel management for a security clearance investigation and she recounted then the reason she had been let go by the s s a and that was for her failure to return to work when her supervisor was no longer approving her leave requests additionally as this court discussed with mr martin it was miss reed who volunteered the term a while during the twenty thousand interview and the board as a credibility matter determined that that further discredit her her credibility her credibility before the board show that her medical condition played a role in her inability to or her lack of candor in that november th an interview in the board judge also then explain why on the other hand he found evidence which is not its function i substantial evidence review standard contends that the board failed to consider mitigating circumstances in particular the evidence regarding our mental health however as the mission of judge's opinion evidence is both a deciding official and the board considered this evidence but evidence much of which was not specifically mentioned in the administrative judge's opinion but is contained in the appendix but also because not of given deference to the agency's penalty determination because the agency deciding from douglas doesn't mandate that all factors be considered in every case without regard to their relevance right that's correct and petition and contends that these are two the most relevant elements and they were not considered or not adequately heavily i'm quoting weighed heavily against potential some of the relevancy of considering a lesser sanction is diminished by or limited rehabilitation potential of the federal service employee right saying look at chance for example as a general proposition i agree your honor i believe that again in this case they the main issue is that there is deference to consideration given to tantamount to not concerning a factor at all and again in this case i believe that that was relevant given the significant mental health issues which i know i don't have time to go through all of them but many of them were not mentioned by the again with dr brende him and report an assessment as well and many of those were not discussed and specifically dealt with by either the agency or the administrative judge and think in their oh honor just just that you know as as you all are likely aware the medical evidence when when it exist is is often given significant weight and again here it was minimized it was not given significant weight and there was no serious consideration of the lesser penalties especially in light of the medical evidence that by itself is significant