is an exception to finality it was not necessary for him to appeal if he has a valid three thousand one hundred and fifty six claim based on new service department records there which was a form twenty were not relevant to any matter in dispute so this court was not required to would you tecate what a proper reconsideration must look like the scope of a reconsideration review was not an issue the parties agreed that being had sufficiently considered the form twenty and there was no claim that the form twenty led to a duty to assist to move our case did not go into any detail as to what requirements of c one were not met here by contrast the new service records documenting stressors and combat were relevant to the reason for the two thousand and two denial going you're saying that the only thing that can be reconsidered in a reopening is is the aspect of the reopening that that the veteran asked to be considered currently suffering from a disability that normally is a requirement for granting relief of any sort that you have a current disability and why doesn't that in of itself into the end and they made that determination based on all the evidence including the service records and so forth why doesn't that into the inquiry at that point and avoid the need for a retrospective but what would the relief be because they're finding that he is not currently disabled how does that give them a hook to say that he gets some kind of benefit there is he is currently v a should explain to the examiner that stage two latents can be considered i believe that would answer your question as to what could happen to the claimants mr morris suffered from doing what judge gratian was concerned about maybe even if we agree with you that the two thousand and eight decision was wrong and should have looked at other things how do we get around the fact that it's that specific argument regarding the need to redo the adjudication based on his combat status before the veteran scored you mention brief before the veterans court that he was in combat but i didn't think that you made that express argument beds it's in the principal reason for this court eventually i guess but it was for the veterans quite as far as i could tell there was no discussion of the combat presumption specifically before the veterans court that is correct the discussion concerning the effect of the two thousand and ten memo which verifies combat and that was the the board in two thousand and eight had specifically stated three point one hundred and fifty six dollars c and held it there was no basis for relief under that section would you still be arguing that that two thousand and eight decision was not foreclosing later raising of the same point if all they had done was cite to three point one five six that would not have been enough we would her to review the substance of the two thousand and eight boards analysis and determine whether or not  cannot be raised again a rue breathed out one by six feet i guess or i guess their argument is that they in two thousand and eight and correct me if i'm mistaken about this that they didn't raise the three point one five six argument and that the board didn't address the three one hundred and fifty six argument and then what you have now is a different proceeding where that issue has been raised and that there shouldn't be any foreclosure from as a result of the two thousand and eight decision because it was addressing a different section of the so certainly we can't review later on every single error and then earlier decision but is there anything to the argument that the agency the agency then has to consider the service department records that's what happened here in two thousand and eight so there's earlier when mr morse's claim was denied for lack of a stressor in two thousand and two there was a to make sure that the better and not the benefit of records that were missing or classified at the time that his or her claim was being adjudicated that is what happened here with respect to those earlier records and that is afford never said what it was doing exactly but why did the board reopen in the st instance if it wasn't solely to look at the existence of the service connection we need to consider but but what i'm trying to understand is kaiser says that if if new documents are provided new service documents are provided that that you're only supposed to consider those to the extent they're they're relevant to a matter in dispute as of that point in time the fact of a p t s d diagnosis was not in dispute as to that discord in this case found right even the only i understand the veterans court to have addressed the whole question of whether the two thousand and four and subsequent events constituted a reopening or a reconsideration was that said that they called it a reopening but in fact they did everything that would have been required for reconsideration is that this is that your take on the veterans courts approach yes they may have been the new we associate but certainly blue ball the definitive case on reconsideration says that that is all that's required is that the veteran given the benefit of those service department records now being before the fam what happened here let me ask you a question about this the argument that in a simple and makes about stage rating so let's assume that setting aside all findings and just assumes facts that he is saying i think that there are a stage ratings are possible but i had understood that as a predicate for even stage ratings you have to have a  fact that he did not have a current disability would make it impossible for the two thousand and eight board to grant relief is that right to back in sermons looking at missing service department records so the veteran continuously had the present disability and then the records that were missing or associated with the file he would get  that if you look at that two thousand and six examination it's not really a situation where you said that the disability ended in fact under his analysis he would say he never had p t s d because he says one of the primary bases for his conclusion is that there just that the stressors identified work intense enough and that there was no combat stress or so therefore the stressors or there's also evidence of p t s d from other sources and this is that appendix ninety one the examiner mentions prior family history of alcoholism and abuse and suggests that the p t s d may derive from multiple sources so i think the examiner is not saying that mr morse didn't at times have p t s d was he saying is that with the service connection for from mr moore his eight are you saying they they found he didn't have it the the medical opinion said he did not have it although i think the qualification probably be that he didn't but if you look at what he's saying he's just saying there's not a service connected to stress or didn't mention the new service department records even though they were before it i suppose the just didn't consider them say hypothetically they didn't think they were relevant but they don't mention them at all in the decision where are we do does that mean that the issue under thirteen point one five six c can be brought again in some later proceeding the of the opinion why they didn't discuss them but they just don't discuss them does that mean that later on the veteran can come in and say they didn't do what they had to do under one of fifty six c now i'm entitled to start a new proceeding so i think it's a if the veteran can show that the records weren't considered then it's essentially that if i misunderstood it's essentially the same situation as the pre consideration mention that the veteran still can't bring the claim but if it's something that the records were associated with the claim filed but then again got lost in a drawer somewhere that it could be a situation as if those records  board and the board didn't mention them you'd be in the same such a similar situation here where the better would have to appeal the decision and say well the board didn't properly reconsider them under three dollars sixty cents the better and could years later come back and say well they were is not disabled by two thousand and eight the claimant still has a present disability in two thousand and four when the claim is filed to respond to one of the judge on in the decision of the two thousand and eight board i think what the court needs to keep in mind is the very important difference between a reopening and a reconsideration the secretary has argued that journed until tomorrow morning at ten a