the spill has two issues two main issues first the duty to assist requires the v a to make all possible efforts to obtain relevant records including reserve records and post treats or service records second fundamental fairness requires that the appealing veterans be allowed to reply to arguments raised by the secretary's brief the decision of the veterans court below is wrong on both counts and it should records and the set you did not require that the second one is this that the court imposed an active duty requirement on triggering the duty to assist in obtaining the reserve records and treat post service records and that requirement is not contained in the statute the idea as to the person i agree that that the fort was wrong as to what the standard is again my question is is it clear that they actually applied the wrong standard a course legal analysis if it if it quotes the wrong standard in the plies it to facts that it shouldn't have that is necessarily misinterpreting him is applying the law and applying it to standard a slight obligation of identification but it doesn't arise for identification for v a records it's only providing information sufficient to for the v a to identify so that the veteran self not have to identify the v a is on records he only misinterpreted the law if the court misinterpreted the law and gets the facts wrong just because he gets it just because the court gets the facts wrong doesn't destroy jurisdiction jurisdiction is only destroyed if the only issue is the the determination of fact if the court came across some cases where they seem to say that there is no relevance requirement but i will concede for the sake of this well it's not every portion of the stats i understand that your honor but and i didn't cite it in the briefing so i won't raise it up here but i will concede that there is a relevance requirement but in this this court  more also held that the v a cannot refuse to obtain records based on a prejudgment of relevance without without obtaining them just based on the timing alone rights of the elements determination has to be made once the records  received some sort of medical examination where this would have come to light during his or service or during a post service back to his active service workers don't even back up his claim that these events are for that is section fifty one of the three eight required to be a to order a medical examination and that's another point that we think the gets into our reply brief issue but the board incorrectly used its own medical judgment to determine that they did not  he said that he wanted to tough it out when these things happened to him it appeared in the record but as the age during reserve service as he maybe he was visiting v a doctors we don't know the situation but it's possible that some of his symptoms did get recorded in the records when those records have that's absolutely right around he says he received medical treatment he sought out help and for some reason it does not appear in the record now that the nets a credibility determination that we can review i'm not asking that the court move we're not asking the court to review the factual determination we're asking the court to instruct the veterans court to apply the correct standard for all of these discrete issues the adequate identified standard was it was improperly interpreted the there is no active duty requirement for relevance relevance should not be pre judged based on timing of facts just as this court is instructed in more so we're not asking what we're not we're not saying that the court took the correct law and got the wrong result and therefore we want this court to fix it we're saying that the veterans court misinterpreted the law but incorrectly and therefore got the wrong result that we think when this court instructs the veterans court to fix its misinterpretation that it will get the correct result or not asking this court to do that factual determination like to spend the last few minutes of my time discussing this reply brief issue the veterans court own rules in this court's precedent require that appealing veterans be given to reply to arguments raised in the secretary's brief thirty eight scuse me veterans court rule twenty eight c the veterans courts rule given an opportunity to respond in his opening brief at the veterans court mystery's argued that the v a the board should have ordered a medical examination to determine the ologies in  symptoms of squint in response to that on page fifteen of the secretary's brief as appendix seventy nine secretary argued that the board did not have to do that because in its opinion if those injuries ha actually occurred they would have been recorded that argument opened the door for mystery's stuff through and reply as the veterans courts rules and this court's precedent entitles him so i think it's fairly straightforward actually took place during that the service are you saying that that's a medical opinion not that that's that is the conclusion but there's a specific medical judgment that underpins that conclusion and that is that the types of injuries that are complained of would have been recorded had they occurred in the detail case law in our briefing below analyzing why that in this particular case that was an incorrect medical judgment because in certain cases the board can do that but in this case it cannot it depends on the type of injuries complained of for example with this compound fracture then it's reasonable for the board to say yeah that would have appeared if it had actually occurred but in cases like this where there's internal injuries where there's injuries to join since and to and not to count on fractures and things like that  may please the court i like to first start with the coup the standard that the court articulated in its decision on page thirteen of the appendix the veterans court correctly and in the twenty eight day letter that mr barker asked had submitted that there is a repeated paragraph that has the same correct quotation that doesn't necessarily mean that the incorrect standard is appl so the decision on review here doesn't include that error the appendix at thirteen correctly notes the standard and then on pages fourteen and fifteen of the appendix there's a discussion and  specifically the veterans court discusses the adequately identified requirement for for private treatment records and also talks about identification for v a records which is required that there must be some information sufficient to locate the records but does not apply that standard for service records and that's what's at issue here it was either this but is it your position that service records do not include reserves service record that is not our position your honor what the issue here is is a factual one which is that the board below this that appendix forty three specifically finds that the service medical records are complete that  includes that includes the reserve records which on page forty excuse me twenty one of the supplemental it has an x this is part of the chronological record of care there's a there are several pages of discussion from fifty five to fifty seven and then there is also in this kind of logical record of medical care a nutrition of his just charge there's no indication that  records are missing any medical records are missing from that reserve service period it is it is the v a s practice and it is the navy's practice at this time prior to one thousand nine hundred for all service records records as well as active records get sent currently they're sent somewhere else but prenatally for they were all sent to the national personnel records center and that's where these these records were obtained so all of the records are there and and as noted in pages two and three of the supplemental appendix there's no active service during the period of reserve service and that's what mr excuse me what the is court discusses that that there's no training there's no active duty training during that reserve service judy there's nothing that would indicate in the record from his d d to want for from the medical records or even fine or that they decided that they didn't have them your honor if the board determined that the service medical records were complete that what was sent from the national person the personal record setter included all of his medical records and  fifteen of the appendix that are his court notes that if there's an error in that it is in that the record somehow that there was a period of active service or there was something that wasn't recorded you can't correct that but the the full record for both his service record and his his his reserves service and his active service studi are comprise service medical records that are complete and that's what the relevant in certain circumstances your honor yes but that does i do want to know that counsel suggested that there's no relevance requirement and that in fact the v a must go and get all  relevant standard which is stated explicitly in the statute is meaningful and does not mean that the v a must go get records to determine whether they are relevant in certain circumstances you can determine that they're not relevant but that's not what the veterans court did here what we're dealing with is it is a factual finding that the records are complete because the service records are complete because during the period of a standby reserve  judy without any period of active duty either training or otherwise one would not necessarily expect any service medical records to exist one would expect private treatment records to be a political during that period but not but not service records or perhaps v a records again so serco so you're saying you can see there's no burden on the veteran with her thank you but then you're saying we just assume they were completely because it wouldn't necessarily expect  it's not an assumption that it's complete but rather that there is an expectation that when the records purport to be complete there's no evidence that they're incomplete there's no with its regulations that when the v a concludes that this the records are complete it doesn't have to continue looking for records just because there is an allegation that perhaps maybe there might be something missing it's making a factual finding that they're complete and that's something this court can't review so that's a factual determination and it's not requiring an identification by the this is not under an adequately identify standard but rather a determination of whether these records are complete and here given the evidence below the board looked at these records saw that there were more than two pages there approximately fifty pages of medical records which is in the supplemental appendix mostly scanning spanning from one thousand fifty five to fifty seven for his period of active service but there are notations about his his discharge from reserve duty so again there's no indication that they they were truncated or that there was something missing they they covered that whole period and so they are complete and that's what different from the identification requirement for for private treatment records and for the i records with respect to excuse me with respect to the  to the extent that claim an appellant is arguing that the court should have applied its discretion differently and should have come up with a different determination  arguing that the whole rule of requiring a reply brief or requiring issues to be raised in the first instance in the opening brief rather than in the reply brief carino i is controlling here that the the general rule is one that that the veterans court has the authority to impose and has the  the way that the veterans court viewed this this new issue was that what happened is in the opening brief the claimant of excuse me the claim question and and wasn't about a matter cole determination wasn't about this issue from kahana all of these issues were newly raised and it's reply brief and the veterans court acted well within its discretion to say that's a new issue and that's something that we're not going to consider just as this court and from can apply its discretion in determining whether a reply brief is raising a new issue and might not consider a new issue on reply  well within that that the statutory language that says that the veterans court can make rules in practice that doesn't mean that every single instance of it application of it s discretion will be one that ends up in the that or in its favor sometimes just as with other issues of veterans court destruction in applying its its rules of practice  in the interests of fairness in the interests of finality sometimes that means that the veteran can't make new claims unless you're the court has further question and we respectfully request laid out in the opening brief can't be mentioned in the reply brief but that's not what that's not what the general rule of reply groups is it's not the specific rule of cardinal cardinal specifically as a qualifier that you can't raise an issue in the reply that hasn't been considered by the secretary hasn't been considered in the secretary's brief that happened here and that's why the reply brief argument should be considered i mean this this idea that the pro veteran canon doesn't apply here