veterans it was a veteran but it was under several he was on active duty he was an active reservist ok so dr are you asking for an inference there when when the government hires non service members minutes left you can continue talking o he lost a right or benefit of employment and three that his service was a substantial or motivating factor for the loss of the right or benefit and the administrative judge in this case properly found that although he had possibly made it on for for the st two requirements he did not make one for the rd the mr judge gave petitioner ample opportunity to meet its burden of making a non trivial a celebration of jurisdiction by issuing an eight page jurisdictional order that explained the requirements what about these number think people who were allegedly hired for the same position well he did not actually allege those people were hired for the same position in the same location that he was applying for he just said the agency hired seventeen people during the period in which according to petitioner they were claiming that they had budget cuts and they could fill his position as i call the record employment home a substantial period of time something all in the order of years so i assume that those fourteen people were hired over that period of years i believe it was months but i'm not sure  but also he never actually received an offer of employment he received a pre offer letter and then subsequently it's not clear exactly what happened but the agency eventually told him the position have been eliminated so  they could have been aware of it through the means given the liberal way that you say or allegations are construed at the jurisdictional stage the judge sort of accepted that that that was possibly alleged  usera allegation without prejudice because he had not exhausted his procedures at the m c g so that portion of it was then heard by the atmosphere the the corps never made a ruling about he sara violation one way or the other except to dismiss it without standard and in response to his allegation somewhere in the breaks that the particular position for which he applied was filled by somebody is relative right i don't know if it was more specific the of course was not in the service corners well he didn't make any allegations of regarding that person's military status at all so he just said he was the brother of a local provide any further evidence or argument and i wrote i would point out that petitioner was represented by an attorney at all stages of this proceeding as well so petitions allegations do nothing to provide the required link between his military service and the non selection for example petitioners claim that the job he applied for was later given but given to the brother of a political candidate did not allege anything about that person's military status and his claim that the agency hire seventeen people during the time he was not hired also did not allege anything specific about which positions those individuals were hired for and that it was the same position that he was had applied for so these allegations are nothing that he was not hired because of his military service correct it can be