board was required to consider the animal that in theory at the veterans court the secretary of lead the board never consider the am a voting theory or provided an examination for it and the secretary defended that he didn't have to the veterans court h secretary did have to consider the amber alert in theory but found that over the secretary's objection the secretary had already considered the m a living theory the court also how they didn't have to write an examination the parties agreed on a fact court made a factual finding to know of it when it determined that the board did something that the that the agency did something of the agency advised the court it did not do and that was the inquiry that overstepped the board scope of review under seven thousand two hundred and sixty one your honor that was a fact that neither party that both parties agree to the four did not engage in that inquiry that the that the veterans court decided to find didn't know and that was outside of the of i'm a little confused look quarter veterans claims considered whether or not the board had adequately considered the m o theory and concluded that it had  is that sat in the st and the fact finding wasn't the adequacy your honor whether of the board's consideration the fact finding your honor was whether the board considered it at all and the agency and the secretary had already advis important in addition to seven thousand two hundred and sixty one because this was the agency not arguing that it didn't that isn't consider the m a voting theory this was the agency informing the court of the justification or its decision and even then the court used a different justification than illegally erroneous defense under robot as the veterans court did hold however the veterans court made a factual finding in order to justify the board's decision on a basis that the board the agency itself never actually provided you know it is this is why under underwrote the the veterans court has already held that the agency had it not engaged in the m a loading theory would have committed a legal air the veterans court was only able to  that the veterans court overstep its over review when admitted to noble finding of fact that the order did something that the that the agency identified to the court that it did not do in order to justify an agency decision under entirely new overall requirement to satisfy a claim here entitlement to compensation is that mr flores needed to demonstrate a present disability in currents or aggravation of a disease or injury and then an excess and the condition that he was claiming was a low back condition and the board found in the veterans court in reviewing the board's decision found that it accurate adequately explained its rationale for finding that two of those requirements were not met once there was no injury whatsoever in service to the lower back and two there was definitely no nexus because of all the other injuries that occurred in the and ninety s when mr flores was serving as a police officer so is it the government's position so therefore parsing whether or not which of the two reasons things that happened to him that he was alleging residual of an injury and the evidence does not establish the existence of spawn's ulos is thesis and the condition for which and that's the condition for which service connection was initially claimed and the finding of fact was that the back condition now president in  are one it's as judge dyke stated we do to the extent that secretary made an incorrect legal statement in its argument we don't disagree with the veteran courts  conclusion that there is only one disability claim here and only one claim with two theories and i do bring up the one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven decision because of the procedural history which led to the secretary real question is does the government actually give a damn about anything let me direct you to page four of the red brief ok and section two having a of the united states navy not in the united states army he didn't have a drill sergeant as his reference in the racing at least some of it he probably had a drill board adequately considered this other allegation of an injury from loading ammunition was a finding of fact from the veterans or so there's not really an issue here that this court has jurisdiction to consider providing information as to what the board considered when it made its decision is not a legal statement or a legal argument that it's a statement of fact as to what the agency itself it and the agency is in not only the best but really the only possible position to speak to what the agency get this was an incorrect factual statement and under general if we can't believe the justifications for an agency's decision and we can't really exercise judicial review of an agency effectively because the courts have to take into account with a measure of integrity what the secretary means when he says what he did now that would mean that it would otherwise be unable to review any agency action and that's why it's important that the secretary advised the veterans board as to exactly what he was doing when he affirmed the board decision and the veterans court that it was would have been legal error had the veterans court taken that information from the agency under advisement because of the veterans and because the board had to consider the ammo that in theory that's because mr ford's reopened when he degenerative changes only fourteen months not two years only fourteen months after mr flores left the service which which indicated to the examiner given her expertise and ten years of experience in the field related to his military service period of military service not just specifically to the cox