it please the court the case in front of us really is the case to try and obtain the attorney's fees and there are two basic arguments  is a little bit tricky in terms of what kind of case law is in from the court and i just want to make sure that i say gave out the time periods  accurately because i'm not sure it was fully fleshed out in the in the briefs in a way that makes it as clear as it could be there are two separate issues depending on  timing the the the first decision is in december to terminate mr dobbs boyer as a temp as a probationary employee and he's not given his appeal right in february they rescinded it give him his back pay and then they they almost immediately give him another notice of germination where they tell me has his appeal right and then second germination is effective march eleventh two thousand then that initial decision determining that the case is moot is issued in april april twenty eighth two thousand so those two separate issues one is whether or not the case was moved in february as soon as the  december removal action was rescinded the backpay was granted and the second question is whether the action was moved on march eleventh when the second germination took effect i think it was move it both times but there's different precedent that comes into play so i wanted to make the distinctions here since the decision was rendered in in april april twenty eighth if the disk if the case had been mooted by march then it was moot and so there's no clue we'll never have to discuss the issue of whether it was  moved immediately in february if it was moved by by march that it was moved when the decision was made and it was definitely moved in march because of the the precedent which who's terminated you can't make them be retired ok anyway then is that the deal there are cases that once once the person has been totally fine and then you can get involved with with deciding that  and benefit and secondly to have their records corrected and the board found the records work corrected and that supported substantial evidence in the record and even mr dog didn't say  know that the records were correct probably correct and he only says well i don't know for sure if they were ok so the back pay the records everything's gone the only remaining basis for i don't think you have to reset issue for the reasons i just described because the march events in the case and so forth if you do reach to k if you do reach that second issue as to whether or not the board has the power to and i could run through for you saying that when you rescind the removal action you have to put the employees back into active duty i don't believe that's the case but it is it is  that stated just as a proposition sounds kind of self evident that if if a person was working and they get fired then the remedy is to get the job back so i wonder whether those cases are really mean what what are they saying as opposed to manage the work force and knew from penalty cases i'm sure you'd be well familiar if in the service the efficiency of the of the service is permitted and there are only limited exceptions that define the jurisdiction of the m s p b e and those are adverse personal actions in other words if it's not an adverse personal action the interest p p is no business generally i getting involved with how the agency decides to run its workforce to the same position they were in before in other words their return to the same subject to the same discretion of the agency to run its workforce that existed right in it's a disputed  if the employee is returned to to this job status he's he's returned to the same status it was december fourteenth the day before the first removal action on that day the agency would have been freed to put him on administrative leave so long as it were that maybe certain limits in terms of constructive suspension what of it but what consequences flow from being on administrative leave on such things as a cool of retirement credit and so forth is that is are there consequences that the difference between administrative leave and active duty that would affect a person's it we're returning him to duty but immediately putting him on administrative leave so he's going to stay home for the next fourteen years until he's eligible for retirement will pay and he'll kill a crew of even someone is that is that where you are going with this well i'm not saying that there's no outside limits on how the press can be put on administrative leave because i don't think that's really the issue in other words there may be some links of time were ministry of leave or some there may be some circumstance where it's for less than i think it's fifteen or fourteen days players but i don't suppose that the agency could say and situation where the well maybe maybe your position is different from from the supposition but if the agency said well  creating jurisdiction for the emmis p p that it doesn't ordinarily have because there was a rescission that i suggest is wrong the only situation where something like that might be appropriate i think is when you when you have a temporary action under this specific statutory provision implementing regulations that permit when there's been a become more involved know that you can order the agency how they want to have to treat their employee during during the appeal process and this is specifically addressed and that's a little bit different but in other words otherwise and in this case i think that subject to to you know the reasonable and ordinary private lives of the agency now having said all this for a year i'm sixty five you have any final thoughts for  was it was found by the board that is a factual matter he was put on active duty for an hour and that would be sufficient but my concern is if the port relies on that hour the court will be making for the first