my first question before you get going is you understand more catch more question when i'm paying the record for us to be honest around here i'm not sure that those exhibits are in the record really i'm not one of the major issues that that we did break raise it in our present chief but but it's he has moved to a different agency and therefore the only issues that remain that i think that mr hu is concerned about is clearing his name with respect to the they had to do work with in the unit that you know that that otherwise would have been performed by mr contractor to contract and so in that respect it would be considered additional work how does that finding of unauthorized contracting about which you're concerned follow him in his employment record while you are believe that it's part of his personal record i believe that still confer standing mr who has a great deal of experience in the federal arena working as a contracting officer representative and so i believe and again no authority but i believe that there is t r long before a finding and if i understand the facts right long before the finding was made of this on authorized commitment so i guess i'm i'm failing to understand how you're asking this court to give you some form of relief that would address any problem that isn't noted by him no longer doing this i don't i don't understand you are correct your honor that the formal finding i was not made for a great deal of a very dark period of time after he was removed as a c o t r but the evidence does show that that the accusation if you will  made by martin walker who was the person that replaced him as the c m t r and who was according to the testimony of mr who is a supervisor not officially for a period of time during the initial part of the first half i should say that your twenty's are fake and so she would tell from the acting deputy director contracting officer the contracting officer representative is generally supervised at least in terms of the contract by the contracting officer in this particular case the deputy director told the contracting officer remove him certain argument you made on appeal for me directly to what you think your strongest argument is on appeal for why we should vacate that was actually made because some of your arguments were not ma below and i understand your argument about they were implicitly decided to somehow there before us but put those off to the side if i don't agree with that what argument did you make below that you're making just on appeal that you think is your strongest ca allegations but no formal finding that he had made an authorised commitment but what but what is the evidence that he is protected disclosure was a possible factor action in that respect the protected disclosure goes to the casket and i think the administrative law judge talked about that a disclosure regarding what he believed to be improper activity by the acting deputy director stanley stanley owner and marlene walker work together they were very close and that therefore when mr holder  taking retaliatory action for that disclosures that mr that made the we also believe that martin walker was taking retaliatory action against him by making these because it was raised in this case there might also be an issue of race in this case one by you and in the brief that's actually the the actual scenario was raised interesting only enough consequences if the government who is such a repeat player we expect them to know and follow the rules tries to use twenty eight j for the purposes of filing so replies you have more text in the twenty eight day letter than you do case and usually it's we've attached the following in case we think it's relevant and then there's a case here you've got whole arguments replying to what's in the reply so it's definitely improper just so so that there's no confusion of all  that assertion and i'm not contending right now that the case is moot because i don't have facts from the records that are around really saying that this matter is looked ok so let me let me help direct your argument which is everything that you say which we've because it wasn't race in the board as far as i'm concerned is not on the table so why don't you just address his remaining arguments to the extent that the government has a response to them because you're of course absolutely correct that if an argument is a whole new basis and it wasn't raised before the board that is not something we can consider on appeal so i don't want to waste your time before your limited time on those arguments because you're right so was not raised with the office of special counsel if you look at the complaint they can filed with the office of special counsel the court will not find that allegation comment that there was an appearance of an improper relationship between him and the contractor that's what he told the board records the board needed to look at the board ma finding on that contention and that would be in the record i page appendix page seven eighty five the board's finding was that own dr russell having the thought that he engaged in a improper funds correct correct that's why we say that that that assertion was not raised with the office of special counsel and when jurisdiction was litigated there was no finding that it came with charge of making and an authorized commitment of government funds does not meet the criteria for being a personnel action under the whistleblower protection act the not only did it it was not raised with the office of special counsel but it didn't have any consequence when the finding was spying are made but what you mean by that you mean if somebody comes in and says my boss has meant misusing federal money that's not a basis for a question of our complain there has to be some personnel action taken in this case there was no personal action taken against him as a result of for example you mean cancellation of the contracts had nothing to do with him he wasn't even  r at the time they were cancelled so how could that be a personnel action against him the non renewal of the contract the joint and that indeed is a different question but if you look at the timeline of these things the cancellation of these contract correct order i just think this is an example of one of the things he's alleging that just can't support his w p a claim because it isn't an action directed at him correct gesture and it didn't i and because the board did not look at what's supposed to be a different act of reprisal and that act of reprisal according to his brief is the finding that he made an unauthorized commitment of government funds what we're saying is that didn't go to the office of special counsel if you want to take it there today you can take it there today there is no statute of limitations so he can go back on but i'm not asking for an improvised it's hard to say that there were it seems like there would not be standing in that because it's not really asking for anything just a just a a declaration  exists to to correct wrongdoing and to give relief to the whistleblower of some sort whether it's correction of his record compensatory damages a new job something  said that the un authorized commitment of government font of funds is a charge that was raised much later it was not part of the jurisdictional rulings and there was never any objection to the jurisdiction