eligible before he was convicted he was innocent until proven guilty he was eligible when we applied for the benefits with zero pm he was a eligible when this case went before they  good regard to that eligibility well i don't think you can look at i mean i don't think we can look at that conviction in the context of this appeal because we have to he immediately started trying to actually before we got a civil judgment immediately started trying to collect all these in a it's so we had enjoying him from getting as into this and when we got the civil judgment and we started sending them to the government to get life insurance benefits and retirement benefits they said well he hasn't been convicted of a profit so therefore you're not  titled to so then we're faced with the dilemma well we've got a civil judgment against this gaffe how do we get these benefits and stop them from getting and that's when we when asked for the term of which incident nominally the lunts some payment is an anomaly in this section it does not it and it does not have the binet it's all the other the other payments in there it's the only one that's not a s lump sum and then said it wanted to serve backwards to meet the financial demands resulting from the loss of a spouse which is understandable but in this context and a map table it makes that needs money we're talking about given that spells an opportunity to monetize this in a bit in order to get money quickly like the tax refund you can monetize monetize those forces like a life that is the decision of o p m would you because clearly the f r f u r s laws and regulations provide for the payment of the basic employee death benefit eligible spouses of an employee or member of congress who die after completing at least eighteen months of credit credit or creditable civilian service correct that the passage that i just read indicates or limits to the spouse when read on the whole what opium was doing was distinguishing between the basic way that it has and the federal employee life insurance has nothing to do with anything because that is not what the letter let's go back to the letter that was sent to o p m mind you i haven't seen then to o p m on january twenty second that all of which discussed the assignment question right correct and they never cleaned a benefit based on her being our mothers spouse why because nobody ever thought she was her mother's that is a separate thing and th his whole matter and she never paid any insurance premiums you moods that the end of the qantas the death benefits are gone not you know why not what was the realm of the when o p m doesn't even address the question that's been home to well the remedy what is the limit well if you never address the issue in front of it that is o p m never address the basic employee death benefit at all and they never issued an opinion about the basic employed death benefit then then of course then the employer is still entitled to have it you're going on on that issue and you're still entitle to request having decision by o p m it's correct but in this particular case o p m denied the basic employee death benefit judge may hear correctly raised the question well those that subsequent conviction relate back well what that is according to you in a decision that says petitioners argument about the federal employee group life insurance policy and specifically petitioner in the argument that assigned is appropriate because assignment was accepted with regard to the federal employee group life insurance policy that have an appeal on any issues that you bring to o p m that would never regret your only right is to hope that you get a judgment that act that these in your paper i think that the way that the government would phrase it would be that are i'm sorry i didn't understand what you read that that that this that this court caton where appropriate affirm the fort on grounds other than those rely upon rendering its decision  absence of regulations determined so we look to corresponding regulations we don't necessarily mean to imply to the court that merely a statement that any citation of the right is the fifth by any stretch instead all we're doing is an absence of any particular regulations that o p m does something that it never has disclosed the notice and comment google making and has not officially adopted that they are going through life c s r s regulations to  affably that there is a fallback provision that's the way i understand it but i think we would be here looking at it and the standard of eight four seven a b which is different and it looks  it looks at it is the individual who has received the payment or they without fall in would recovery be against equity in good conscience and we think in lot of awful circumstances if the money was