west point for four years in the one thousand nine hundred and seventy s he went on to serve in the military retired as in town a colonel with the army that service is not at issue in this case his service with the army he later all went on to become in two thousand and one  so that in order to figure out which individuals are going to get the benefit of what the act is it looks at their eligibility date yes it does look at eligibility but it also prior to the n c a a it was questionable fundamental question of what is eligible ready civilian service under eighty or ten does it i mean you're asking us implicitly say that this provision and the ready defense authorization act it doesn't talk to the fundamental how implicitly ready amended the definition of civilian service explicitly the n b a doesn't say whether or not eligibility falls within that that service dollars or four sub be defined civilian service to do service part they indicate that there is for that in addition to the nature of what's at that service actually is these individuals or students the trainees there are not active duty military the potential is that they do become officers later on after they finish their education but at the time they are in that that service it doesn't really count for much it doesn't count for military retirement purposes specially for officers so that i mean that happens all the time with all kinds of civil service do there are certain positions in the federal ready government that you work busy for the federal government you get paid by the federal government and it's not credible it's not it's not even that if it makes you eligible it's not creditable at all so the fact that conducts mais honorably served at these military academies and not get credit for them sometimes why isn't that just a function of congress decision not to put it towards either military or ready civilian service although it's clear now well i think we all agree that you can use it to out oil but it's still the baseline for civilian annuities has always been five years of civil service and i don't understand how something that specifically defined in the statute as military service could ever be considered towards that basic eligibility requirements well your honor respectfully i believe it's just the nature of  somewhat confusing o p m could do a much better job of clarifying things everybody knows this but you know that isn't an argument for somehow stopping the government or you know reading th some other way right that's what richmond says sure and you're on there i understand you're on the panel for read which is not presidential position that weighs in favor of the respondents here which toronto you were  military type attack on to their five year requirement your are saying that at that service it's its own hype or it just like to do a status technicians national technician would that would be ok if you had some  statutory ready language that said that you have the opposite that specifically departments cadet services military service yes but we believe that if we read section one thousand one hundred and fifteen of the n t a further it does apply to any of with the and it falls under the eligibility requirements can i follow up on something i think i heard you say that at least i didn't remember did you made it make a reference to an o so st what does it say and nd did you put that in your brief yes it is in the brief and i can say to the page and a brief and but what page and that whole nd paragraph on the bottom some are awaiting that regulation to find civilian service to include among other things service or that indicate that there are score which we believe provide substantial evidence that could that service is treated quite differently i'm sure military service for example five of us in twenty one dollars of them to include on your definition of an employee an individual who works in various positions at the u s naval academy get the support substantial evidence that the military academies are treated differently than other military components we understand it's been this close pressed i don't understand that argument is i'm just saying some people that work at the academy are in the civilian service and some are in the military yes but that's true even at military bases there are tons of civilian service employees at military bases that are not enlisted or otherwise officers that do work on a military base and perform civilian service the fundamental difference is is their service defined as military service or civilian service and there the only decision on point is the brown decision that the respon the military service to count civilian service for purposes of south wishing and to a civil service and our position is actually much more narrow it's not all military service for this particular that sir but how do you presuming the logical extension of your argument is not that if you want to buy back military service you can buy back five years of military service if civilian service and then get a civil service  well logically yes but well i mean we're not dealing with the ones we're not dealing with just the facts as applied to your case we have to deal with the logical ready close attentions of that and i mean it seems fairly unlikely that congress intended somebody to be able to serve in the military never serve a single day of civilian service but buy back five years or however many years and get a civil service annuity instead of a military service  also that non presidential opinion makes that same conclusion our position here is not sure of military service like active duty titles and even title thirty two dollars you know how much your client had to pay in a contribution and standing here today i don't see any reason that that couldn't happen in read your honor or contributions taken out while he was in the civilian service as is a step secretary i believe that i believe it to be true and your you know rules or regulations that are out there to guide the public and then you've got counselors who are working with those rules or regulations and they're telling people it's a player in this case you i agree with you the manual is very confusing and you've got a good argument i mean what i'm just trying to get with here to say what the government doesn't care that there is a manual out there that is perhaps misleading certain the government point it explains that military service can't be used to satisfy a threshold civilians or parliament by statute the kid at time is military service under this section eighty four dollars on the definitions  retirement if they had five years of military service came to work through the civil service after five years in the civilian service they'd be eligible for a new i'm talking about a situation like that someone served a long time in the military as a military pension i thought there was something in the opium manual about the vigeland you had to wave off your military would know that you know civilian so generally there wouldn't be double counting you wouldn't you wouldn't be receiving military retirement and civil service or time for the same for the general speaking for the same years specifically at appendix five thousand four hundred and twenty two dollars b two point once one which talks about individuals in the government who have less than five years can use their military service to be counted as civilian service and that's their own