agency's brief and that passage basically says that the charge improper conduct upon which ms couey was removed did not include an allegation of intent the agency says that twice in this brief once at page twelve and once that page twenty based on that argument number one that statement number one i would say that supports our argument that there was no evidence of intent offered before the merits as this protection board but the agency also says that since its charge did not include an allegation of intent therefore the judge's merit systems judge's burdening them with the requirement of intent was harmless error because the judge found intent and therefore no no harm no foul in the situation i would respectfully disagree with the agency and argue  based on their statement admission of what you might call it there was no intent involved in the charge here number one that proves that there was no sustaining of a charge of that should not  sustaining of the charge this court still recently and during our liberty but in order to sustain a charge of intentionally submitting false information the agency must prove to the one that the employee knowingly surprise supplied long information and two that the employee did this with the intention of defrauding the agency so in liberty this court did not use a title or a charge like or misrepresentation it said to sustain a charge of intentionally submitting false information you have to have both elements and the agency did or did not succeed under the second element of intent the second challenge to the agency's default to a position based upon their statement of absence of intent is that in the before the pour the agency did that make this argument the agency allowed the administrative judge to conduct a hearing and did not make this argument they hold a judge you've heard us with the obligation of proving intent we shouldn't have to do so this argument that intent was not a part of the charge has been broached before you and should not be accepted for that reason alone i'm a little unclear i understood and maybe we're not that far apart i understood that the agency was saying this person was removed for improper time sheets or whatever they're doing they're not in fact accurate information as to what they were actually doing correct are you saying that they can't be removed for submitting an accurate time sheets that you not what i understand the court in leather literary merit and the court in other cases meant when they talked about intent intent in that sense is motivation and specifically motivation to get some material i would say that without an deference is pure speculation to say if you take the position she did this but she didn't do it in order to satisfy record if i may give an example an extreme example an example to explain what i mean by speculation a person robs a bank we find out that that person also has a mortgage on his or her home it would be speculation in my opinion to say the person who rob a bank in order to make a i was trying to say in my example you can't because there's a after the fact but in this particular case is the second reason you care because it is undisputed that she also the actual work on those days that's not argued to be erroneous or improper so what you would be suggesting is on a specific day she does her social work and then for some reason that we don't know she fills out a form saying she here we're dealing as is you know it's going to be i mean they are i mean among the things they talk about is that one particular case she duplicate i mean she you know you should have only had one entry with respect to a case and over a period of time she did the same thing over and over again so it increased whatever had every measure up but it increased the ultimate homework of her work no you wouldn't it wouldn't increase the output if if a two to one extent that she would it work that she was actually doing on other cases was submission for production there's no there's no she wasn't working on commission so she wasn't working she didn't get more money if more specific question these listing of all of these cases with a list in cases of her first the cases that she actually acted on earth all of these the cases that the we have evidence that she performed actual work that's not disputed on pages one forty two one eighty one now we're into your opponent time do you wish to use a sa purpose which was to ultimately disrupt the government or something what is intent mean it would be the third one that you said intent to deceive the government not necessarily but to deceive the government so that she make sure or at least have some notion that there was some something that she could benefit from from having to see i mean just deceive require intent to deceive require that that that you have to show that there would have been something to be gained deceive that it wasn't accidental but there is another element of personal benefit that benefit doesn't necessarily have to be a monetary benefit here the benefit was that production star and production standard was required for her upon how many times she for example double or triple counted one case it appears that she would not have made it and what she did mean it there are other things that she may have been entitled to in terms of exceeding performance  the performance standard was part of her performance evaluation if you exceed that performance and there you are in valuation could be better than satisfactory and that case for example she could get a quality step increase if your know she fixed forty eight additional records and that number forty would have entitled her to something more than she otherwise would get under her performance review or whatever and that there were any analysis in that regard do it's not enough to say that well she had no reason to do this but the minimum standards well even a few men were meeting the minimum standards mean she was protected against being remo that's correct your honor there are several reasons why she might do it one would be just mean enough requirements and the other would be whatever she could get from exceeding a performant so there is evidence and intent to deceive and there is evidence of a evidence presented by her other than a vague allegation of some animosity with her supervisor and that there would be any reason for someone else to have created these and planted them in the record decision most to believe that he didn't find her a credible witness who she denied that these were things that she had submitted and yes that he did not make an explicit finding that that would be implicit by finding that the government alleged in the charge and since then if that as has been admitted is a part of the charges an element of the charge you can't sustain the charge on implication or speculation of benefit first private by the administrative judge and possibly by the score the courts the court speaks of it in terms of implication i respectfully disagree and say it's speculation there are a lot of possibilities of why but at least ms cooley deserved to be able to challenge the private was asserted by the agency she had to have a hearing and she thought to testify and she could that their charge labor provides not a meaningful description of the charge and agency would be would be free to prove any conduct generally relating to the conduct describe specification as long as that conduct could be characterized as well inappropriate in quote or misconduct in quote such a regimen would be inconsistent with due process we are not many of which were flawed and i believe that provided that deny her due process with respect to specificity but the more specific than i would be process rose what we're talking about here  her denial of the opportunity to respond to the implicit or speculative reasons as to why she might have been a bit she never had an opportunity you have to respond if if all of you had