convoluted equation that they have come up with that we contend not consistent with the statute well i'm sure there are not be additional amount that mr couey has calculated versus what the up to the point that they felt that they were appropriate but then we went to trips to the border and the last one they decided that after they said back for jurisdictional grounds clearly  whether we can read the statute slightly different for someone who performed no part time work after that particular cutoff date that the statute provides cummings didn't invent the can the problem we may have when we hear from from the government is that the statute doesn't seem to make that distinction in a statute says the employee who service includes service that was performed on a part time basis well that's mr clean you know that part time basis occurred before and me the cutoff statute doesn't have any distinction about where he performed the part time service it's since simply for someone who whose service was performed on a part time basis that's why would we make what would be kind of read into the statute a distinction well since his part time basis came out after rather than before will apply a slightly different rule was this the statute is  part service it doesn't apply to all service so that gets us back to do we read in a and tend to apply this even board could be a factor that the decision of the a j is wrong because of collateral estoppel that's correct the government has conceded the board was wrong correct you believe the board w wrong i have no choice but to believe the board wrong what is the proper disposition for us at this point day by going the board was wrong and send it back to the board and say to the board we now know the question that was raised by mr specter after all these years which is how do you actually go about doing it if you have you're absolutely correct we're it's not that what we're going to do i think that i mean i think that that's one option the other option is to finally is to actually indicate since it's been brought up on appeal i think that  respondent has noted the danger of chase and said well we can break up anything even though the collateral estoppel basically they can see that kind of was wrong but they also say there was an alternative finding but there really wasn't  probably small percentage difference i think it's twenty eight percent versus thirty percent but i can come up with some hypotheticals in which that too high to different high three will bring about dramatically different is i think someone needs to address that i'm not sure it's us at this point are you well well perhaps the best thing would be brief with respect to nickel arctic and the reason for that is that this nickel did not have any part time service covered by its ts so that section eighty three thirty  of calculating and it would be applied serviced on or after seven point six zero pm should continue to apply the old way to all service prior to that date congress knew how to use term part time service and service be read in the context of the limitation that congress placed on it which is that all eighty three thirty nine only applies to service performed on or very close to be six so the total service has to be because congress precluded o p m from using applying eighty three thirty nine to any service prior to the date of an accident and it's account for how much of your time is actually spent part time but twelve total service in the post eighty six and nobody isn't the same as using the statute to calculate could prien eighty six and what he doesn't the proration backer include total service that seems to be the plain language of the statute and following a little on what my colleague suggested it sounds cold service how can you limit the total service to just half the calculation when you have to produce as part of  the enterprise because congress is limited to using eighty three thirty nine to service her after six so when we use the term totals so for example mr cleave after nine hundred eighty basically says that it only applies prospectively it doesn't really deal it's a rarity for us because first you can come into effect until january first of nine hundred eighty seven so obviously you would have to say anything for years so put this in the we did have basically first go around but we did get it between the first time this case was up here and it shows the chair of the house civil service committee so those are his interpretation of this and he clearly