both so to cover there the fact that very quickly both have both to be only relevant witnesses there was no other person who was present when that order was given according to testimony of either they're both are in similar positions to observe both have similar qualities of character both have similar qualities of bias and as to the probability or improbability both involve either one is an accusation that a supervisor with no history went and took part in letter asking i want i want to credibility decision credibility terminations to be able to use all that's made whether that's by this court or whether it's by kicking that down to make a decision or one of the lower levels that decision was never made it was simply breeze past whether or not an order was ever given to begin with we can't make that credibility determination i understand you can't but on the other hand you could send it back for credibility determination the here did it this decision is supported by the evidence by the credibility to determinations that they didn't make by the by substantial evidence aren't you asking us to rule on something that just could be like harmless or if if it if it was or i don't think that is armchair there's because so much of what's relevant in a charge like that  she testified was that she does not remember giving that order which is as close to a non denial denial as a person can get i will tell you that if i read her position even if i didn't remember exactly what orders i've given one way or the other i would tell you i would never make an order like that or involved ordering someone to do something i have a conflict of interest even where i not sort of person that i was afraid of said i would never get an order for that so how how how can it how can it be the credibility determination and canst the the version of that i got an order against your client was presenting i think that the the judge i believe the judge made a mistake i believe that what the judge did was simply rule regarding there were so many conflicts that really pointed out in other testimony by other witnesses that the judge largely skimmed over the issue of that and simply looked at was there sufficient basis to determine credibility for the witnesses who saw the fight was there enough credibility to decide whether or not robin rogers was telling the truth in her statement about the conversations that she had with mr saying  his role in taking her statement but the problem is that ignores that there is a motive allegation and i think that what happened is the judge the judge treated this is if all actions are public regardless of motive and an attempt to deceive and the charge of interfering with an investigation requires an intent to deceive requires an attempt to prevent the investigation from moving forward and that element was never discussed one way or the other both what happened so what's wrong with those five things other than you think people leave the wrong person what's what's wrong with those findings besides the sites the credibility record but that's what the what the if you want to go looking for one more what more is or if the issue is that what he admitted to he didn't meant changing the substance of her statement what he admitted to was making a clarification on time whether she was using military or regular time for clarity and the second issue that he admitted was that he had asked her to not use pronouns and make clear which individuals he was referring to she was referring to solely aimed towards making the statement what clear well i guess i don't know why him interfering with of the finding then pressured her into writing a statement which did not accurately capture her own observations and instead was what the appellant believed had occurred why the matter is whether or not they said well you should make sure we get a statement from her that doesn't go to whether or not he should have gotten a state from her  to his conduct and what he did in trying to interfere with the statement so i'm not even understanding what that threshold matter is dispositive of anything it's my understanding you though that you have already made the difference between whether or not he was told to go make sure she writes to understatement just because it appeared well i'm short on time and there are other issues of like to address but again this is this in the was reasonable in behaving as they did in this case you have my client was giving will was yelled at by employees who then turned around walked away my client bought the encounter was over the employee then came back record as part of her statement mr singh is testimony before the administrative judge was that it was fairly benign in that he claims he was only intended to change your use of pronouns and her recording of time but ms rogers is testimony the content of miss rogers a statement since he was a party to the investigation that was going to be undertaken and so long the administrative judge looked at that and the board itself quoted that testimony that to oversee her actual writing of the statement and involve himself in the substance of what she was writing and that was what the interference charge was based upon with his involvement as i said injection into the substance of what board's view that was immaterial because what he did was beyond simply going and getting a statement from his rogers he involve himself in the substance of her statement had to correct her that as i said as i was saying not only  use of pronouns and time but as mr rogers testified you know mr singh also attempted to correct mr rogers when she started to require that she had seen slapping going on by both individuals against each other he corrected her and said no there was no slapping and at that point she removed her cell from the room and disposed of her statement as she believes they're going to think it's relevant though as to whether or not he was instructed to at least talk to her over see whatever wo isn't it relevant as to whether or not he was in fact instructed to make sure she did her statement or whatever rather we don't believe it is relevant because as i say as i mentioned a moment ago if we get out of the charge of would have supported the more penalty with respect to specification one just briefly your honor there was testimony from multiple witnesses that what mr singh did here went far beyond simply defending himself while all witnesses testif that he was seeing slapping j s himself not simply defending himself and the ministry of justice of italy made credibility determinations based on the competing testimony from all of those witnesses versus mr saying on whether different story substantial evidence this court under review under the deferential standard we maintained at a minimum cannot conclude that that penalty under these facts is found by the administrative judge was grossly disproportionate based on the events administrative judge found however the board's prior decision in the power to a case provides a series of factors that the board said may be appropriate in considering whether removal should be mitigated to a lesser penalty but as the administrative judge found in this case some of those factors did not actually tip in favor of mr singh because in fact he wasn't involved at the outset of this incident he his own testimony is that j s followed potential altercations and second as the administrative judge failed unlike in the boucher case there was also the second specification of interference here which made this an entirely different case such that there was a penalty as an agency i'd like to go back to the file for decision the the administrative judges decisions about the factors required ignoring the pin underlying facts in found her and then making up a factual distinction later sure that wasn't a case where found she was attacked and defended himself felt sure left the room after somebody who'd been harassing him for months threatened him put down something came back and punch the degree of the degree of agitation was much much lower in terms of what was done to felt sure that she was aggressively hostile ie commented on criticized it was all verbal there were threat action on the other hand in this case mr singh was attacked by it by this underlying no the judge then makes this distinction based on the second charge that occurs at the same time however that's not one of the standards in faster and faster does very specifically talk about the existence of prior discipline further the fact that nobody decided that  judge simply ignore the fundamental rights that my client has under and under board law and in doing so i'll put my claim the position where he faced far more severe discipline than he should have and while we