whole notion of what restoration to the status quo is is mistaken because everybody here the government clued it assumes that should be going back to the fire and you state your pre nine and now he would have retired if  issue with the board is that the government has taken the position position that in the absence of the resignation he would have been removed and you said no no no no no that's just not true what is true that in the absence of this may simply to rebut their presumption that that's why he was removed and that's why there's a complaint is they shouldn't be should have been resigned in december no the seventy should wrong in the board agreed with him because rather than retiring him they qualified it is a resignation i'm not sure i understand the details but it is a given but the fact is that he was retired within a couple of months so  he chose to retire and also appealed his proposed removal day and that's that was when it got really remanded back to the board the board should have said again for the reasons that become another to you can do that a new not retroactive the impact of this is really seismic in cases where there's for proposed  one hundred fifty thousand this is a retired brother maker with thirty year disabled veteran with thirty year almost thirty years of service pays me to give him his decor under the voluntary resignation meanwhile he was were reinstated pay back pay except or as a reward of the agency and it comes when the agency removed him retroactively then the inquiry should have been agency which is to say in the decision that he has to just he was free to do because he never had the opportunity to take when you look he's fired you look at this this personnel file this charge for all these egregious and made up reasons ok does was his personnel file that's what he wanted to  out so it's clear just by that fact alone shows that he was never put in a status quo ante if he's going to be in a status quo ante he should have you got to put it back to december third and say it's your choice now today and if he  errors of one sort or another this isn't this the kind of case that shouldn't be brought to this full scale appellate process aren't there rudeness in their room to correct the record or whatever it is that something which has become magnified polarized mushroom and when all that this employee why did you do it apparently was entitle to do was to come out of this with a clean record in order for mister baldwin to come out of this with what the court is referring to is a clean record he would have to have for tired as of december third two thousand and seven and take ten percent reduction in his annuity which he would then and he's been collecting the additional ten percent for over three years now he would actually have to refund the government in order to get the outcome that he is looking for the only reason he got the increase to new knees because he took the resignation once the resignation is off the books and he agrees to retirement as of december third two thousand and seven and then he has to take the reduced annuity which is why it is human resources people were telling him in the beginning you have to resign there's dispute about that that their intent was to let them know you must resign now and then and then retire two months from now if you want the increased annuity mr baldwin thought he could retire that day and get the increased annuity two months later he was wrong there's no question about that  whatever for him just going away quite right the only way that pete could have gotten the increased annuity that he wanted to still collecting is if you design it but then you wouldn't have the right to appeal the removal the resignation lost side is if i'm understanding was suggesting that he wanted to be able to retire so he could have a clean record and not have any of this business on his record but you're saying and other parts of what he suggested suggested that no the whole well what he got in was that he had applied for retirement after after the resignation was put in place it was awarded he started collecting these retirement with the increased annuity and that was never rescinded there was no need to rescind that retirement that the government there was a mess up here in the board had to be fixed but what he wanted at the get go was to retire and also to have the removal on his record and the ability to challenge that removal and your position i guess is that's didn't want to have a resignation for three months and then every tired reason that was critical was because he wanted to be able to appeal the removal to the n s p that that's currently it was never his intention i mean he he wanted  he wanted to do recent on the only reason he complained about being resigned as opposed to being retired was because he always intended to and obviously did challenge the remove or keep the people on the record and challenge that's correct and throw doubts that his resignation was taken off the books the removal was restored and he has the right to appeal and he also has the benefit of the increased retirement annuity that he got by virtue of that resignation he's gotten more money what of if he was put in the status quo ante in this case and he's now accept or is removed removed right but if he would if he won you know i'm not saying the agency would do this because he never argued this below he said mr or mr baldwin specifically argued before the board on this peter far that he would be in a worse position if he had retired respected december third two thousand and seven because he'd have to take a cut in his annuity and would actually owe money to the government it's not until now that he's saying well all i really wanted was the clean record that was  what he was arguing below right now is not to make the opposite bright in december he want the ability to be able to challenge right the removeable and which is precisely why he appealed the resignation of those two retired and he also won to government does is it has an unsubstantiated claim of removal and says we're going to remove you without good reason but if you if you retire instead then we won't we won't remove we won't move you that's not what happened here well that's why i bought a computer simply because those are the cases i've been to we re all someone wants to do is get away with a clean record it seems to me that the opposite was true here that first and foremost he wanted to be able to challenge as well and also in those cases because there's no real removal on the books back pay is appropriate because the agency has to go back and actually come in and actually start legitimate removal proceedings there was never a question here that the removal proceedings were legitimate even the board when the board found me that this there was jurisdiction over the involuntary resignation in its two thousand  specifically found that mr baldwin had not made a non privileged allegation that the removal of procedure that the removal action was substantiated and he had not been shown that he was coerced into his retirement resignation the sol here when the status quo ante basically just put him back in a situation where he was removed and he had to make a choice whether to retire or resign he chose to take deferred annuity and he's now in the situation he was in in december under some are there two thousand seven stopped although the board in its two thousand and eight decision found that he mr baldwin had not made a non frivolous allegation that the removal is unsubstantiated there was never a full merits review of the removal itself so that still remains to be  d i mean that's correct your honor mr and mr baldwin's argument that the impact in this case will be seismic is just not correct there have been numerous cases where the status quo ante has not required reinstate situation they would have been absent the involuntary action and that's exactly what happened here and there's no change in the law on the story with respect to mr ballance claim that the opium guidelines didn't permit this agency issues the new supposed removal in this case that was october fifth the decision letter didn't come out to november twenty seventh and the effective date was december third two thousand and seven mr just briefly mr baldwin claims that this the mistake was corrected in july ninth two thousand and nine year and a half after the fact you know how and fifty thousand dollars later attorney's fees which he still hasn't been after drained like that and he's supposed to defend the removal action ok which he can't and we've had to peel that  ruled against us now four times is pinning her decision she denied the attorney she's that's why this is turning into a sproule type situation if you win the involuntary resignation then ok and then the agency can resignation that's all you're going to win because the agency which is what happened here would put themselves back in the status quo ante which is what's wrong with this case this is what we've been trying to argue all along the great distress call antic goes to the  the petitioner not the agency the agencies action in retroactively removing him it was not in accordance with law the issue about whether putting this whole thing came back to  she was removed from the most information about retirement she retired she appealed whether retirement was voluntary not the ministry judge says i don't see a suit i think it is voluntary resignation but under maze i'm going to hear your argument r six seventy those are contemporary cases the best of all once they determine it it's not you're not put in a better place because you had a decision letter issued which is what the holding