the a j was right or wrong the issue before us is whether the board is right or wrong because it's only the board the a j act for the board lest the board act for itself and here the board acted for itself so the question is in your brief you make the following comment you say the m s b the opinion in order to provide expensive commentary regarding symon statements to the o s i agent at the end of this commentary the m s b b states that it was quote it was not a palace place however to determine that the agency's investigation was unnecessary and he had no right to address what he saw as a problem by committing deceptive acts and omissions in an attempt to thwart the agency's efforts and that's what the board said and you said there is no supporting evidence for that is it your position that whatever the appellant's duties were at the agency they included determining whether an agenc investigation was necessary and that he had the right to address what he saw as a problem by committing deceptive act is that your position in part because i don't what were  to ensure there was not another needless report of survey there was no missing server point there was a problem in the database a different serial number that was in the database because of the swapping i was and it is it his job to take matters into his own hands and outside of the normal procedure of correcting that error which would be to go back and correct the database he says well just scratch this off and state which is why didn't he just tell someone of his perception of the solution rather than taking matters into his own hands  but isn't that lead to the problem is horrible and doesn't the government's penalties somewhat find justification in the fact that if they can't trust people to approach them with their view of the problems and just try and solve them on their own then there'd be chaos within the supply corps wouldn't there the fact that there was this troop surge for service people knew was missing good faith and in fact what he did may have been a very reasonable thing to do in terms of saving the government money but the question before us counsel is whether the board heard in saying that by these actions investor at least it's doesn't it seem to you that the board was at least within the range of reasonableness because we have to find that the board acted arbitrarily to preciously like a bunch of idiots  nobody in their right mind for them thought this don't you think that was within the board's purview to say golly no matter how good a guy you thought he was he was sort of getting in the way of this people perceived as an awful lot of waste of time and effort already you know that just wasn't just call meeting those server was ever missing that's correct so in point of fact mr simmons was right that it wasn't a server missing it's just a mix up on the serial he actually was that the server was missing and simmons apparently was aware of the fact that there was an extra server and seems to me this is just you know too into it's for  story that takes a year to investigate this and the outcome is no servers missing that i read something something's something's missing in my understanding here what i'd refer you to is the testimony of mr weber the deciding to the truth or was he trying to trying to convey the truth to the agency disappear the agency all the aggravation of investigating something that didn't need to be investigated well you know i point to mr simmons previous statements on that case is not whether anything ever actually went wrong or whether anybody should act or we have been prosecuted or so but the question is if the air force decides to