that spoke to our evidence is way particularly in the context of a call in for a psychiatric disability can i just you know just to save some time here i mean i appreciate your argument respect to the arguably or hide in our broad statements certainly subject to construction broad statements by the single judge non presidential panel here but at the bottom it seems to me going back to the briefing and the record that the issues your client raised with respect to the violation of those regulations seem to my mind at least to be very fact that's based to be the kind of weighing of evidence so where is the board might have been wrong if they did if they really meant to the c b c may be wrong if it really meant that regulations at no time no way shape or form irrespective of the argument can be  the opposite is not true which is that you can't you're if you're raising subjects a fact base that it could not be a subject of the ceiling and i wrong about that you know i think you're correct about that but i think my point is which was on appeal to the veterans court it was not simply a matter of how they were the it was a matter of there being no evidence that spoke to the veterans disability at the point at which he asked for an increased rating there was absolutely no evidence senate was consistent with the ten percent  service connected psychiatric disability if that's the case in this is not a matter of waiting evidence it's a matter of was there any evidence to justify a ten percent rating and that's why i think i emphasized in the briefing the fact that it seems that the veterans corps and the b d a you know i i respect my adver having any substantive discussion of that evidence and you know that that's one fundamental problem i have with the challenge to be a decision of but also basically tell me what the various court is due this is saying you know here's the law how we see it and it makes it a very simple analysis if you present  and just when you address the argument that has been made by the by you i mean the veterans court if you're simply going to say that well are those regulations have to do with waiting  the veterans court handed down since we have judicial review but did the case law says you've got to do more the veterans court seems to be saying if it involves facts  provisions were incorrectly applied second to the alleged error must be undebatable not merely the disagreement as to how the facts were waiting for evaluated that's from the seminal case on q russell versus princip so it when i read that that doesn't mean to me that q cannot involve how the facts were waived i think the court  board was in nineteen eighty four when the this issue was before the board of veterans appeals there was no evidence other than evidence from one this gentleman every symptom to his service connected disability well there is my q i think those two things just do not end up how can you have ascribed all the symptoms to the service connected disability when every piece of evidence except for a piece of evidence that's eighty years old says that you severely impaired he he had significant a pair impairment were in and ninety in the eighty four report but there was something in the record when the board said the september eighty two d h also a kind that the veteran was fully oriented and had a good memory and did not have any problems psychiatry this kind of was on the on the edge of saying well you know he does seem to have some symptoms that might be  think that any that the veterans court decision here the judgment was correct and you know it we can look at that one sentence defy we can we read this opinion without when we're not talking about how somebody took two sacks and put more weight on one and on the other we're talking about where a whole full of facts were found to be absolutely incorrect how is that question of w misinterpretation of q by the veterans court so that on that question of q what is the government's position with regard to these particular regulations that have been alleged is the government's position that there can never reservations and this is where we leave back and forth from the c usually to the other reason basis because you're right they found that but they found that on the basis of what the c a b c acknowledges were at least two major fact lines that were wrong at least in the board's two thousand and ten opinion is never going to constitute q if you like but that's the mere way that's not actually what a sad i mean if that were what and said then we'd be a little less uncomfortable with what they said that whenever you have anything to do the statement that the president persuaded certainly seems to suggest that the veterans court in this case with reviewing this particular case these particular allegation of violations of regulations and reaching  can i ask you something that is the clarification that but you probably know the answer but did did the board acknowledge some error in disregarding earlier available fast that is in its twenty ten decision did it acknowledge any error in what it had done in one thousand nine hundred eighty four and say even acknowledging that error those changing of correcting them would not have met the standard for manifest error that is it would not have clearly resulted in the country this is in or did not even overstatement about that the c b c made in its that crucial sentence that could result from persuasive sentence and i think the concern here was maybe that the non prejudicial not and here is not manifest finding itself tainted by some kind of error and that's what i guess i'm trying to get a grip on whether whether  assassin well why don't you keep it to two pages search or and then submit it within five working business days if that's reasonable and then the other side will come five days to respond not to see the same amount number of if if the vendor is alleging q saying that there was no evidence contemporary evidence in one nine hundred eighty four that justified a finding that recognizing that well they even said they were granted him the benefit of the doubt and they were resolving the question of which of the two psychiatric disabilities service connected not service a medication that's normally given for people with psychosis and being described by his treating psychology psychiatry system by a psychologist who gives him  o various tests to see what his disability is how can you say that