between i'm not contesting what's there this thing is not leading the decision it doesn't seem like he made any rely possibility is that sort of speculation that they were friends to me like as there was evidence in two respects first mr hawtrey gave something of a description of the person who had made the statement he complained about and that description seem to apply to mr and secondly as the supervisor went out to the front desk and as i recall observed this macbeth still on that station with the security guard mr hawtrey had had said there were two people there a lady and a security guard and the one who said the offending remarks was the lady not the security guard so when the supervisor goes out there a of evidence that it was mis mcbeth the dispute seems to be about exactly what she said know there is evidence in the form of hearsay of what he said in his letter and what he said in his face to face complaint with the supervisor so it is hearsay but it does describe the content of what he quo or what i'm suggesting is that if there was some evidence that somebody else wrote this letter walker had nothing to do with it that would impede the reliability of the hearsay statements that the letter contained but the fact adjudicated and along with a discussion by judge kline of the seriousness of the multiple incidents why why wouldn't we be acting appropriately to treat proven i'm granting for purposes of the argument at least that he not only mentioned it but that he relied on in part but i'm suggesting to you that when you read his whole discussion of totally it it might seem very clear to a fair reading that even without any prior disciplinary record he still would have upheld the penalty on the grounds that the incidents witness if they're in the courtroom they're observing your demeanor and yet there are lots of cases where you revert to finding that there wasn't substantial evidence to support it that ability to terminations what you just said can't be correct  disheveled and i just thought she was making it up now to be one thing but i don't see anything like that in here yes he saw her yes he saw mr stevens of course but he doesn't tell us anything about what he did really  told them which one was lying assuming one of them was lying so therefore how are we to conclude that we should accept the credibility assessment  testimony that's ridiculous that doesn't verify the truthfulness of what he says orally it just means he's writing it and saying it maybe is lying both sides or maybe he's telling the truth both times but you can't get any help on deciding live versus truth by the fact she was an instructed she doesn't say she wasn't three males she said i thought i didn't know how to do this right so i didn't want to do it and i told my supervisors that that i don't know if that's true i don't know if that's a good explanation or not but but but but after fifteen it really starts at the bottom of the prior he refers to the proposed never adjudicated two week suspension for misconduct as described there under three separate headings and then the think we're reviewing and perhaps among other things the correctness of the agency's ruling that this penalty was not grossly disproportionate to the proven misconduct but if that penalty reasonable  ruling depended in any significant way on the fourteen day incident which was never proven then it seems to me it's tainted by that and we have to send it back to the ha the prior disciplinary record fourteen sixteenth's of which should have been in that charges that i don't think i'm going to agree with you we flip it around and he was relying eighty percent of the seriousness of the charges and only twenty percent of the prior record then maybe you're right but since he doesn't give us any clue of the relative footnote here like you had back to footnote seventy six even aside from prior misconduct the seriousness of the charges all alone would justify the group if he had said that you might have a very strong position