says i'm seventy eight or two says now can be appointed and removed without respect to the laws regarding the competitive service the board has correctly held and o p m correctly s traditional appeal for nonprofit so it will except the service employees congress responded with a remedial legislation and if it's a very specific legislation it says any number eligible subsurface employer with two years of service has due process rights and then has exceptions congress consider whether to make exceptions and kids what would it be but all right here's here's a problem you're on a there's no doubt that the current seven eight zero to allow almost leaves intact seventy five eleven which is appeal rights for veterans those in which the agency specific law headquartered appeal rights for all employers is included veterans there's no logic you know the congress saw in which congress barred due process and adverse actions for all employers o p m says you can tell that  be hired and fired without respect to civil service was including the bedrooms preference act this seventy five and amended seventy five eleven doesn't create rights for any employee in those agencies page five ninety three  is a specific so this says the secretary has the the right to make laws in appointments and those of employees if you look at it if you look at for appointments and removals and when that particular statute was read minds to the present statute which is thirty u s c seventy eight to the legislative history i understand you're saying i believe in that particular statute said that it made no substantive changes if you look at five u s c seventy found eleven the brewer only has a jurisdiction this granted to it by statute long rule or regulation is something to really what b has done was to look at the legislative history and look at the thirty eight us c seventy eight on to showing that the secretary has a right to make these language you're relying on preceding language and then say preceding language plus the statement that they didn't want to change anything leads us to interpret this properly but i thought you conceded that this language would not cover this well i think amendment no preceding language with this language problem her or not however i think you would i think it would not cover up because i would not cover the r or i think she she would have rights under the no she would not have  canteen service as i said earlier it is it is our view that the board only has it jurisdiction that is granted by low regulation the plane to the petition has put forward no law rule or regulation that f r seven fifty two for one it says that if you exclude other stances the other statutes the other statutes covers veterans preference so if a person is a veteran w general stature dealing with say five five u s c seventy five eleven which is a general statute excluding any including certain types and qualities that does not eliminate a specific statute there still have the response bill to deal with the town of this issue of the appeal because she was approximately one year late before that issue of time is to the extent that the petitioner has are going to put something in the brief regarding the timing of this issue that issue has no jurisdiction over the appeal and i'll leave the rest of my time to read yes or into mr be service does have some employees who are preference eligible and it's their position that if those employees were terminated they would have the right to appeal that terminations to the p p now with respect to the plain language of section seventy two a what says and this is under section entitled positions where which are excluded under region three statutory authority and what it says is discussion with agencies to suggested the o p m that some minor changes would clarify the meaning of section seven fifty two got for a one to twelve pertaining to these employees whose positions have been excluded by statute from the point of provisions of title five united states code and in some cases other provisions as well the problem with trying to characterize the groups of positions that are excluded by statute in the coverage of chapter seventy five of title five united states code but not specified in the d p a exclusions is that congress has used variable language to describe these exclusions from exceptions to the pointing requirements of the competitive service two exclusions from all provisions of title five the most commonly used language however provides appointing authority for the agency head quote without regard to the provisions of title five united states code governing appointments in the competitive service and quote or in some cases quote without regard to the civil service laws in any given to us and simple and i can your honor what they're saying here is that the most commonly used language in statutes to explain that employees are accepted from chapter seventy five protections is were regarded the provisions of title five united states code governing appointments in the competitive service that title some chevron deference is that an agency that is the supplementary information to o p m regulations which were passed to clarify which employees were subject to the civil  s we should construe competitive service to include competitive and acceptance services that the government well our position would be your honor that even if you just were to take the literal language although it says competitive although it says competitive service we believe that the plain meaning of the language as though pm supplementary permission points out that's the language that's most commonly used to denote that employees are not  i'm not sure that it's ultimately necessary to decide this to decide this case because as chavez pointed out there is this predecessor statute section forty two zero two five which said that  although it did change it to the language as it relates currently it made specific note in section five a of the mandatory act that it was not changing the substance of the provision of all which is how shall those arrived at its conclusion and were placed by the sections those sections may not be construed as making a substantive change in the law as replaced the laws enacted after december first one nine hundred eighty one that are inconsistent with this act supersede this act to the extent of the consisten and if you take a look at section forty two zero two five what that says again is that as a general proposition all employees of the veterans canteen service can be appointed and removed without regard to civil service laws now carves out  small exception when it says that the veterans preference act but that very small and discrete exception applies only to preference eligible employees the rest of the employees who aren't preference eligible are subject to the general prohibition effectively excluded by an agency statutory authorities forever sacra protections whether the incumbents were preference eligible or non they continue to be excluded as all the i'm saying is that if prior to the  process acts act early employees of an agency were excluded because congress said these people shall have no due process rights the due process act didn't amendments didn't make a change in  and there isn't a court of opium and i believe that it's all one thing you're either screwed from chapter seventy five or you're not and if there's an exclusion then everybody is excluded otherwise  we congress passed an amendment to chapter seventy five or can exist at the time that says non profits eligible employees have to process ways that back in one hundred forty six congress intended to say they can't do it we can't do that but that's it you can hack it it's thinkable that there's a law that set us only only seventy law said the management can hire and fire without respect to civil service laws