e mail message i've read the text tried to figure out what a fairly can be thought to mean i'm not aware of any other document that would arguably show bias on the part of mr andrews i'm not aware of any document in which a bias on the part of the other members of the rating board so i don't know what you're talking about once you get beyond that e mail well the issue is was this not only was it biased or was it was  also consult a twenty year record of pretend in v a medical facilities that that would be part of the basis of their final opinion along with statements that your client had written it wasn't reasonable about that thrust of the communication by induces is as i understand it is also check the documentary record of his medical file from multiple a medical facilities in the v a system over a bucko thinks it's two thirds skeptical so that's not a lot you know you have to be some kind of standard here you know you're reading a lot into this it seems like to me  it seemed to be his message can equally be read to say that other than possibly assertions by the veteran there's no source indicated in the psychiatry this earlier report think that he was worth by intrusive method because her second opinion said something different from her first opinion now if you had testimony from her saying that she was terrified you could depose or as a part of the m s p v proceeding to the caller's alive witness you could call andrews as a live witness you're saying maybe and we've also called her up on the phone and scared to death by threatening statements but you don't know because you didn't check you just have a letter and you're asking us to construe the letter the way you can screw it it looked to me like it's equally amenable to a very innocent construction so  know that everything a veteran told me until i heard there's no thank you and he can hear what he says is the description of the incident at the end of it active duty period doesn't correlate with the particular mental disorder t so he's the source in both cases that's right nato his self description of what the experience near the end of active duty is what the psychiatry looked that to try to see whether that looked like an last paragraph correct i mean i understand you to be saying if this was simply an email writ said please check with the doctor negating to see if there is any evidence to support or opinion that would be a problem you think the there's the thumb on the scales with respect to the first two sentences of that paragraph yes i don't think the fact that the same dish provide any rationale suggest you haven't shown the end he rushed to get which i believe she did this is not on the procedure here was the rating decision at the regional office mean by mr andrews online or by multiple decision makers i'm not clear on that i think it was  follow up report from the lady psychiatry's was submitted in response to mr andrewes request and then what happened who decided what it appears to mr enders and so made the decision alone at age twenty six on twenty review by the veterans board of appeals is the novel that that automatically cures any tainted decision by regional office official i do not believe there is a case in point the trying to she'll forgive was terrified by the answers message or let's even suppose that endless cauldron said even more forceful things than some of the statements in the e mail message and let's suppose that as a result her second report can call it was way more negative then she would have had to be absent report in front of them and it's in my hypothetical version of fact it's going to be a tainted unreliable report so why wouldn't that taint the entire proceeding in front of the board despite the the novo standard of review well if if every that if it's a close psychiatric question obviously a very pitifully disturbed individual alcohol abuse drug abuse on and on and on over a very long period of time some very and so the question is whether the later diagnosis of bipolar disorder correlates with some facts that occurred during active duty that would create a basis of saying there is a service connection for this particular disorder the bipolar disorder versus there was some other psychiatric problem in spain is during active duty but different from the bipolar disorder from which he has suffered in recent years that feels like a kind of a close call or a lot of psychiatry's might even disagree and yet the board doesn't have any psychiatric testimony other than these sort of canned reports well i think your  regular basis of the discharge i think on reliability is the term that is used in the board i don't think it's based on psychological or psychiatric behaviors yeah i mean after the are not necessarily or so likely they are not necessarily correlated but i'm wondering maybe this was part of what ted bucko is wondering whether something that occurred in spain that was shortly thereafter diagnosed as merely situational disorder might be symptoms that would also be consistent with bipolar disorder as later officially diagnosed well again as not wa argument is that mr andrews was biased because he wasn't satisfied with the evidence that he had before and in order to determine whether his satisfaction or lack of satisfaction indicate a bias you have to look at the and i mean you would accept the proposition that that the veteran in this case mr jackson is entitled to their an impartial consideration of this claim is correct his contention is that i didn't receive due process because i did not receive their non biased consideration my claim the psychiatrist was pressured by another individual to come around to a particular point of view hence i did not get there and unbiased consideration my claim why is that not affair constitutional due process quite well and they lose on the merits yes possibly i don't know open point yeah ok well now moving are you saying that to be free standing within the meaning of our case law is that the alleged constitutional claim have to be in pyar separate  of what we're saying is that in order to look at whether there are problems in the process you have to look at them yeah but but but not only is america the claims he's saying look at the andrews e mail and look at the change of position by the psychiatry and then draw the inference is that that kind of sounds like it is free standing because it's based primarily on the andrews even well again their argument is not that the violation of due process contention now if in fact one were to conclude that there was a violation of due process in this case as being hypothetical it would not mean that mr jackson when it would mean the system but you would say that your contention of the you say there was no violation of due process and i guess you would say that assuming there was such a violation the remedy would be to send it back for a clean process right versus west to federal circuit case from two thousand and their use you seem to be saying that there can't be a constitutional claim because a veteran doesn't have a protected property interest in the receipt of the benefits apply for my understanding you correctly the paragraph that begins in the middle of page twenty of the read three yes what do you really saying you say you say quote he does not have a protected property interest in the receipt of such benefits period end quote so you seem to be saying somebody applying for veterans benefits can never have a due process though it's statutes that and the reason i say that is two reasons first of all this with the board consider this case in two thousand and four which was a couple of years for canada but that by itself is not up to term but if you look at what the board said and s not saying there was coercion in terms of mr alexander piece of the the psychiatrist but rather she was given the wrong standard but that would not be a constitutional violation would it that we have jurisdiction  here i mean if in fact the one the supervisor says the doctor considered under the standards that may or may not be correct information but assume it's incorrect it's not a constitutional issue which is