legal decision when the lower court remanded it to the board and made an interpretation of the law which well  and it bounced back to the board the legal question will be avoided altogether because the lower court the veterans court is telling the court that it is a factual question under the law and the claim could also extent that the i mean it seems to me you're arguing that since it's a legal question we said source short circuit the remain and process and decide it now so you don't have to go through that remained but we've rejected that argument on numerous cagers occasions as for the meeting the williams criteria argument becomes unnecessary because you went on review and that's why we have this non final principle that it goes back to the so the bork and then they were to bed and then this appeal would have been obviated altogether so to the extent that that that's the case this there's also the question of whether the veterans court failed to comply with the mandate of this court and that is a legal question that th court does have jurisdiction over and so the extent that they did with the require strict compliance but we still would have jurisdiction to hear that after final appeal wouldn't the question of whether whether the the court and the work complied with our m we're we're beyond the point in time when that issue is right for this court to address whether the mandate was complied with to the extent that because like because in this case the court has given very underside of issues before the veterans court they don't have discretion to to be remanding this question of whether it wasn't the question of loft was already decided here at the federal circuit the federal circuit to add to the factions part you veterans part make this decision you veterans were make this decision it was a question of law for the veterans court to me there were no other issues except the question of mandate is is right for appeal to that i don't know what you're saying this word right it's not whether it's right or not it's whether it's a final decision or fits within the narrow williams criteria suitable for view which and  here i mean obviously if you win it yes but that that's the case always if you like i mean are you saying that our mandate was so clear that it was you know an exceptional circumstance and use of discretion for the veterans court to remain direction to the court is completely clear and there is no there is no other issue should be decided that a court should not have remanded to the board for any decision as to those are stablish doesn't mean the connection between the two his own legal conclusion it's still factual question isn't it i don't think that it is your honor because this is an element of the rules this is an element that must be and it's a similar determination the court decided whether the combat stressors were consistent with the circumstances conditions or hardships of service that's what rule that's what the statute says eleven fifty fo three we have to the court has to determine whether it's consistent with the places types and circumstances of service and after that it has to go once test and once a legal determination has been made then it would have to be it can't possibly be the case that you can get an intermediate appeal to correct a legal air when a remit is still necessary to establish a claim your your ultimate claim for a bit when the your honor and the veterans court decision was not the final decision this court made review in addition to the issue of whether or not this court would up it's only have the opportunity to review the legal issue of consistency consistency being legal or factual with which we agree that there would alternately it's unity on appeal to review that it is a loser say it was a legal issue your honor we're not as familiar with colusa but we do not impediment being placed upon him in the advancement of his claim your honor and again on appeal he can appeal any adverse ruling from the board and we think that this distinguishes the case that pla rely on adams versus principi in that case the court remand the court agreed to review that the remaining was revealed all because the veterans court in that case it dealt with the issue of had the secretary rebut it presumption the opposite what the veterans court is saying is it's sending the case back to the board but giving mr sanchez navarro a further opportunity to develop the record on this issue of consistency so so in addition to so we think that then basically says these are historical facts that have to be found by looking at the service record looking at the historic the human histories that these are these are findings that have to be made and we would also point out in the court of the veteran services so it's a factual inquiry that needs to be made by the court and finally we would also point out your honor that the book would never actually made the record the record was not developed under three point three zero three f three as the court noted in its first decision the court said the board in the veterans court considered this case under the introductory paragraph of three point three zero four f rather than under three point three zero four f three and simply determine veterans late testimony was not credible so when this case was first before the board was first below the record was not it was not developed under the correct standard so there isn't a record that was developed under three point three zero four your honor briefly i'd like to address the secretary's contention and that that there were still factual determination to be made under three point three zero three the regulation that governs service connection his military occupational specialty was a combat elbow asked his record shows that he participated and guard duty along the d m z and all of th the board is is now all able to make a separate decision as to the factual basis for these stressors and the place tim circumstance of the veteran service that's already been done it is redundant and it leaves open the opportunity for the board to make a finding against the back trend where as it is not a question of fact for the board it is a legal question for the court to make and with that honors i would submit respectfully that we request the court to find that the proviso under three point three zero four