r three point three zero four f change the some parishes but i believe it's five now used to be three etc is a liberalizing statute and it but it has to be followed by the veterans and strange and we did not in this competition pits and action examination that was not final probably if you look at that example it has you have to look at the lay state the psychologist who did that is not a c anything about the lay statement he just reports that it was there he doesn't but what he really does report is assess it his opinion his opinion he says i know that anonymous used me that it nonconsensual a homosexual male on male i psec that it is not within the spirit within the spirit of the of the d yes your argument is that we even though we normally don't have jurisdiction over credibility determination if it's a credibility determination that's really really wrong we would have  get they have to get information from other sources and then to doing that they have to be fair about it and they have to they have to follow the rules the rule book in fact that they're allowed to consider and they will consider lay evidence doesn't mean that the back of the the psychologist did not make any evaluation with respect to the delay statements and yet the form he used the very form he used indicates on it they that analyze anything he just said to me when i when we asked him to please look at the fact that the that the board made this distinction between showering bathroom is the location of your courage he said want to look to him like you didn't that we have is set that this is the rising century and i don't think that's disputed and the implementation of it is an interpretation or required that the veterans court two experts in p t s d from the veterans administration themselves who said this man has it has nothing to do with that subsequent alleged incident and it has nothing to do is that it was just it is from what happened in england and that they did not balance they basically one state who had that wife statement that she said he told me he was sexually assaulted she told me the name of the man he was different we became divorced shortly after his result soon after  the liberalizing statute and he reasons that statute requirement that be that the secretary essentially give special credence to record special treatment regulation it that it permits veterans who develop p t s d as a result of an in service personal fault to submit types of evidence that they otherwise might not be able to make such records from repriced centers  d tests statements from friends and family about behavioral changes but what it doesn't do is change the board's role as the finder of fact to weigh the evidence that it receives and that's that's what the board did here is except will provide but she does have a pretty good point that despite all the other details she has in that letter they rejected it solely because she used the word shower when he used the word after i mean if that seems like a pretty basle way for the boy to just decide not to consider that that may be true your honor but that's just not something that this court can review in fact that that distinction that the board relied on that distinction between this is all disparity or the the difference between the british and the american understanding of those terms wasn't something that was before the board when the man's decision it wasn't something that was before the r o when it made its decision although that the that the board in its motion for reconsideration denied motion for reconsideration but sent the the ex wife's clarifying statement to the regional office and that's something that could form the basis maybe you need a new material evidence down the road but again that's just not something that at this level the court can can and doctors wanted in so much say that if he couldn't he just said he thought he was weak and weak connection and you know that that does that make that may seem seem strange that was his medical thing and i don't have any any reason to it to try to question that much for that the board again looked at that determination and found that he had weighed all the evidence and consider the facts and again own his own statements and mr also for the first time today is right to due process claim that claim does not raise below the wasn't raised in this briefing and can now be a basis and that is that is in the records was attached to a motion that was not in the record before the the regional office of the board when they made their decisions in the matter and was that the grounds for the refusal to consider  excuse me on was that the reason that the the board refused to consider it know the reason the board refused to reconsider if it was not the reconsideration challenge was premised on a  basis for a new and material evidence reopened right yes and i'm just trying to understand what the what the for its using to consider this or that it wasn't board's reasons and bases necessarily requires the board to apply a lot of facts and that's something that's outside this this court's jurisdiction and the fifth the last point that mr burrell raised about it could do that but you didn't hear that that determination was backed up by several pages of analysis of the evidence and explaining why some evidence was more persuasive than and the other so i'm not sure here what the board could have done in addition to that to reach a conclusion you pose matter is is contained in the bo all nice if it was but and we don't we still we might just go home they don't like if it is they don't like case you know if there's something about the case is unusual these personal these non combat personal