when they don't have the authority to do so she did not have the authority to make that decision and for the board to state that actually happened by using his birth where but apart from that point you're also contending that there were procedural procedural errors here and that you say occurred in the course of the proceed right yes and one of them is that the charges weren't sufficiently detailed that's right that's correct and so what other errors where there aside from that she was supposed to have an opportunity to respond to those those charges they're not detail which hampered her effort to   the time was not in compliance with the requirements of the regulations right that's correct statute when the when she received a notice she was told she had ten days requesting a conference with the postmaster to give her side of indicators that she did not see them either but no i don't think she ever got back to work but with respect to the fire of those fission information in them for her to make a determination so that you could stipulate to that but i think she m the harmless and error standard was changed in a material way which seems to me perhaps inconsistent with the notion of a form of therapy though the one of the standard approved in cornelius was whether the error might have caused the agency to reach a conclusion different after cornelius it was amended to say that you have to show that would likely to cause the agency to reach a different result that second standard seems to be directly inconsistent with a harmless error standard in the judicial context which is the standard that was approved in cornelius could you tell me how it is possible that the standard that the board has now apply was i think under both standards it's still the employees burdens of proof of the evidence well sure but the problem is that the board here applied the wood standard rather than the my standard and if it applied the wrong standard for harmless error no we have to send the case back to be adjudicated under the correct harmless  regulations the wood standard that was right so i've they're wrong if that's the wrong standard now we have to send it back to the board to apply the correct standard if the correct standard is the earlier standard that is the mike standard that we have to send back that would require the court to invalidate the regulation ye problem is that in cornelius the supreme court said we read the statute as adopting the judicial standard for harmless error the board has now departed from the judicial standard for harmless error it has put in a much more stringent standard than existed before a much more stringent standard than is applied in the courts and a much more stringent standard than was approved in corn i just i'm not sure that that's that's really the case that it's all that difficult to satisfy but certainly in the context of this case  if if the regulation is permissible this is not the case in which the whole that it is permissible because in a story never even a list that any of the errors here were harmful so that the standard was never there was never really applied you know you don't need to apply a standard because you know you don't even get there is if you don't have an allegation of there then what does it matter whether it's likely or not like the whether whether it would be harmful or not i mean i'm not understanding why she has to put in evidence other than the existence of the errors of the new and my experience the application of the harmless error standard is the sort of look at the if you look at the record you look at the errors and you make a judgment as to whether they might have led to a different result there's no extraneous evidence that's brought in the harmful error question john that that would not be consistent with this court's precedents a statutory error is per se na na na na that's not what i'm suggesting i'm suggesting that the test as to whether it's harmful or not is whether it might have led to a different result not larger context of the civil service reform and here where congress is the purpose of the civil service reform act is due to alleviate the problems of the federal government not being able to take ads actions against employees because of all these technicalities converse that we're trying to make we're trying to let the government be more efficient and effective in taking ever so clearly how it's importing a harmless error standard for the first time the question is what is the harm most arest and i don't understand that our prior cases have addressed that question whether it's might or would we haven't addressed the question of whether the revision of the regulation is a lawful change to the substantial evidence that brought enough to cover a harmful or yes of the you're saying it's not before us because it was not argued but isn't that particular issue x y and z it would have made difference she didn't make she just simply did not make that allegation  both parties no longer than twelve pages and try to submit them within fifteen days know but we talk about it but it's not really covered specifically to especially dealing with the regulations in ultimately like let's try to get them in within fifteen days from today