good afternoon your honor michael grant for the plaintiff helen in this case there's three issues on appeal here two are substantive one is procedural i would like to start with  are it was the bonus specifically set out as an incentive to recruit here a pilot up to pilots out from the private sector into this national guard dual status technician position then maybe  have that handy for that i don't believe i'm the retention bonus was contested by the government in this case that she was now but it may make a difference to what the g s twelve i believe in this case in the bonus that was given to her was indeed told to her it was a bailable to on the civilian part of her dual status job she was a civilian during the week in this technician position and the military status of the simply that one week imprimatur two weeks per year under the georgia air national guard ok but but the problem i'm she works for the georgia department of defense but yet was paid by the federal government under a g s twelve status and on the position was specifically created under the national guard technicians act that allows the national guard for the first time in not to sixty eight should include these dual status employees because during the week they are hired as civilians and they are paid overtime monogrammed that but if he were right under the equal pay act or type of seven or any laws that apply to civilian federal employees because every dual status technician hired by the national guard are across the country week one during the week and she got her civilian paycheck from the federal government under g as well and she got the regular pay that every member of the national guard gets that comes once per mon however often becomes but she was not paid by one source to pay the two separate your well the money all came from the federal government but actually was paid for her civilian job zooming in the military can command well i think we get back to how the national guard technicians act and i'm not to sixty eight to find this position and specifically sixteen it and specifically in the definition of this dual status technician calls it a the military dual status technician is a federal civilian employee and is assigned to a civilian at the underlying employment position is it is it in the realm of the civilian employment or is it in the round up the military part of this position we can attend the core  of congressional intent to the contrary and when one looks at the specific definition of dual status employee in the technicians act which specifically caused it was that this technician or if congress would it don't mean to be unfair if congress had deleted the text in the technician act that lays out all the provisions i have just read to the court then i would agree that clearly congress was changing its approach position a technician at which i didn't mention before is the fact that the employment of staff technicians is primarily minister by the state adjutant general not by civilian managers so if that provision was changed basically if you repeal correct but in the absence of something clear in the legislative history saying that that would be my position would congress amended the the fair labor standards act in one thousand seventy four to include the federal civilian employees in the legislative history of that they specifically used the word and any other civilian employees working for the armed services this was a short time after congress enacted the national guard technicians act where again they specifically call the dual status technicians federal civilian employee s with regard to the retaliation case the court of claims relies on of two decisions the of hendrix and also the pauls neither of those two cases explain why controlled by a military that does not make the military employees of the checkout personnel that a p x are clearly not military i'm employees but up the chain of command if you go high enough proper business we would ask that it be transferred to the district or under this course by our producer that is she was not addressed and not raised at the lower or because it came on the court's decision on its own