in this case the regulation is very specific it says that the award will be severed by the rating board only if there is op if it's obviously warranted by a clear error shown by the evidence in the file at the time the prior decision was rendered therefore the analysis has to be limited to what the records show at the time what judge larry shown by the evidence in the file at the time and if the court had all the evidence before it and if you couldn't looking at all that evidence poku clear and unmistakable error there there'd be no way to prove that you can't right but the difficulty here is when what the court below did was to say that mr kelly's allegation of clear and unmistakable error in this decision was a mere disagreement a fa and it can't be it can't be a real weighing of the evidence because there's no evidence to reweigh the pivotal question here is whether or not based upon the undisputed facts why was there a clear and unmistakable error in having granted service connection in the first place and there was no evidence of a clear and unmistakable error they revisited this matter several times to determine whether or not this did or did not relate to service whether it was or was not a condition that preexistence or what was relied upon in one thousand forty six was evidence from another examination which said that the condition existed before but that already in the record is already in the record right no that was not in the record at the time that the original decision was granted and rendered expatiate you're telling me that what they used in forty six and to me the ultimate question here for this court is whether or not this is what is not a question of law when you ask for review because if you say that you cannot  is you're saying that when the severance occurred it relied on different evidence than the original decision to award service connection yes your honor how do i know that it's in the record the  the records at the joint appendix thirty eight thirty nine the decision which granted was made based upon the evidence in the file at the time of this decision in may of one nine hundred forty four mr kelly underwent a examination in october of one thousand nine hundred eighty five that's in the record at the next two pages at thirty eight and thirty nine based upon those symptoms as described by the conclusion was is that they discontinued the deficiency diagnosis since the patient did not give regulation that expressly permits consideration of evidence after the decision but in one thousand and forty four the regulation was limited to the evidence in the file at the time in because it doesn't arise to the level required by the regulation the level required by the regulation is that it must be manifestly obvious that there was a clear and unmistakable error in making the grant if there is no the veterans court the interpretation that they relied upon was that it mr kelly's allegations arose or constituted a mere disagreement with how the fact or way that is a misinterpretation of this regulation this regulation does weighing of the evidence it requires evidence showing that there was a clear and unmistakable error in other words you have to be able to identify in the decision where the v a later decided to show and undebatable mistake was made that same burden is imposed on the v a in order to sever a grant and as a matter of law based upon the record and the evidence that existed in the files in one nine hundred forty four there is no factual or legal basis upon which there could have been a showing of there was a question a lot rather than just a question of fact what what is the how would you characterize the c d c s legal ruling as to the meaning of the regulation that was wrong that law based upon the evidence in the file at the time because such an allegation is by its nature a mere disagreement with how the facts were with and that simply precludes the review me please the court i think i'm going to start with the argument mr carpenter presented here today as opposed to the argument that you present a brief my view is that the argument that you presented here today to you argument because  but to the extent that he then claimed that the evidence was samal turned back to the initial argument which is that as as i think judge phrased the question alluded to veterans court decision here doesn't contain an interpretation or elaboration upon evidence that there was error and forty four decision in this case would require this court to waive the evidence he characterized it as based on a difference of opinion the v a one hundred forty six and their decision memo said that it was clear in a mistake well evidence that i for this court to disagree with the v a however would require it to weigh the weigh the evidence and weigh the facts which is not permitted to do that that review is in the purview of the board of veterans appeals which conducted a thorough examination of the facts here twice in fact once for mrs kelly and one for her husband before he passed away and both times determined that the determination was correct in order to frame his argument somewhat to leave argument he makes the sort of absolutist position that  dick clear unmistakable error in the severance regulation at the time could never be based on the same evidence because that would render it a mere difference of opinion as judge moore's question intimated however that would undermine the entire purpose  i only have one comment your honor based upon the government's presentation and that is that this appeal does not ask you to look at whether the board misapplied this regulation this case ask you to i'm still having trouble understanding that we where the veterans court pardon me if i'm asking you to cover a ground that you've already covered but i am still not i'd still don't understand exactly what you think the court got wrong with respect to the interpretation of the regulation focusing on interpretation of the regulation what language did they read and misread in the regulation the basis for their affirms as articulated in page eight of their definition was that the argument that was being presented was a mere disagreement with the way in which the weighed the evidence in nineteen forty six all right that is a misinterpretation of the regulation because because the regulation is predicated upon evidence at the time that showed a clear and unmistakable error you can't be re weighing evidence there you have a legal question as to whether or not there was evidence that