being submitted without argument on the breeze they are appeal number zero seven tax thirty seventy nine re boggle versus merit system protection board an appeal number zero seven times five zero five one watson versus united states argument list consists of one case appeal number zero six sesh thirty four twenty four rods vs department of interior mr james welcome welcome back to our corporate afternoon to you please proceed administrative judge after extensive discussion of the position description langridge in duties went on to carefully assess the evidence of what he actually did and it seems to me that the tension between what the position description says or what the title of the job is vs the hour by hour day by day week by week activities of the  the don't you have to get over the obstacles that there's a finding of fact based on the testimony of your own witnesses that a minority of the time of this employee was spent doing things that the reg described as earnings the super special early retirement points yes but the fundamental when you read those it seems to me clear that congress did not intend to allow these special retirement credits to be earned by people who in ordinary conversation we might all call last horseman officers but instead intended to restrict the special credits for toward early retirement to a fairly small subset of those law enforcement officers who are exposed almost constantly to high danger and high rigor because they're actually around criminals most of the time now if that's anywhere near a fear characterization of the statu he did but it was a very small portion of the total time that's the problem he he may have been on patrol seventy percent of the time as it is the witness for the second period testified but he so adverse to your client in this particular case on his own evidence is in the question of the agency evidence says one thing and your evidence says the the other here your evidence is the only evidence and and on that very evidence the administrative judge as i read his decision basically said yeah i did some arresting interrogating etc but very little mostly did routine patrol and perfectly important perfectly useful perfectly finding that my i don't look unreasonable in the light of that testimony now i find it very hard to to see any kind of small that's a even approaching reversible error in the immaterial it wouldn't matter what level commission he had if in fact he was only investigating chasing detaining questioning criminals one percent of the time he can't make it  extraordinary reason or excuse that would justify not including it in your brief we probably shouldn't entertain it because the in his grave brief his miranda warnings doing all the things that bring the proper bells to get legal status to beat cop although under considerable pressure times is probably just going to be patrolling court case law there is this line that is drawn between generalized patrol duties and a special investigative law enforcement to be certain that i'm taking notice of the general patrol that is in a less than general national park and suddenly all park rangers were on high alert and were continually round the clock required to be at their post and so forth  do it if we know that there is threat and rampage in the national park so i'm sure there's some sort of ongoing continuous threat and the national park service instruct its rangers to go out to see precedent for a different reason altogether that is not the position here well are you are you kind of defend the idea that there might be an unfair result here isn't your position simply that the regs says what it says basically this is a pretty much of a hopeless line of approach on the part of the people who are essentially patrol pipe law enforcement people as opposed to detective type log for some people much writing thank you both take the appeal under adviseme