june fifth two thousand and six and ivory decision came for came forward in june twenty second on june twenty second a few weeks later certainly there was an opportunity for all parties including the board wasn't the decision here in august and the decision issue  specifically enters orders that contemplate an ongoing dialogue between the parties as to what the inferred clambers will be and you have it you have decisions that are frequently turned around before the same administrative judge within a matter of weeks this this  drafted in general terms respectfully under the statute is drafted in specific terms because it is limited by the opening phrase under the new personnel management system so effectively the m s p be can which is designed on its face to restore the right of appeal to the m s p b which was taken away in the one nine hundred ninety six legislation it doesn't say a specific section seventy seven  applies it makes a general statement it appears on its face to say we now want to create a new avenue to restore the traditional authority of the  it doesn't limit the authority of the board it says you can now appeal to the bor normally an appeal to the board gives the board the authority to award back pay yes your honor but it does not appear to do so in this case i don't understand how you get there i mean what why does it have to specifically we've heard to the section number of the backpay act when it doesn't refer to any other section numbers and them  avenue of appeal to the board it doesn't say anything about the kinds of remedies that would be granted it seems to assume that everybody knows what the board usually does and that they're now going to create th peavey's authority to here matters to our own appeal under g three is specifically limited and specifically constrained to matters that are under the new personnel management system and the new personnel management system is define notwithstanding the provision of title i don't understand what you're saying that the g two comes before g three doesn't it yes you're on and it says title five does not apply to the new personnel management system doesn't yes  that's pretty clear and but don't you still have the problem of why you didn't raise that as my colleague suggests judge walker they are i think in the image of p v context although we would in a court i do agree they find out that the way that this was raised in an ideal world would not be after the fact would not be in the context of an enforcement proceeding however the bottom line in this case is we we should allow that to obscure the fact that the bottom line is is a sovereign immunity issue and mr gonzalez to this day cannot show that the were committed in error of law in denying him back pay under the back pay act and that's that that's should be the end of the matter  seems pretty clear that you decided to give him four months it's not that big a deal and you decided to let him have it you didn't appeal why the collateral attack well your honor for making that decision in the first place your honor that the truth of the matter is that between two thousand and between two thousand which is the anatomy of the ford at and the two thousand and five ira decision the board at the agency routinely awarded back pay so you can read the amendment in two thousand as allowing back pay for five years is what you're saying i just don't think any well your honor i have heard your honor i have no i have nothing in the record that allows me  should all take great comfort in the fact that the agency even five years after the fact decided to re evaluate whether sovereign immunity had been waived and decided to get it right after irene we want to what do you understand read to me on y action too as generator points out takes away more appeal makes these various section seventy seven a one at center in applicable and then they come in two thousand and they change it what do you understand they were doing in two thousand that by the by the new amendment it took away it took away all the statutory authority in the one nine hundred ninety six the generator points out in subsection two so what authority is being restored in two thousand and a employees are now the sub sections of title five that are listed under g two so if this is this is the essence of the bennett case your honor this is the board saying we can intervene have jurisdiction to which is integrated as now to part of to h age yes g to age in other words you can obtain your position that you added the subsection g and the subsection age within section g to have it but my question is where does it say it took away the authority it said the provisions don't apply and now it's restoring the authority which sections now apply that didn't apply before none except for the provisions that are provided the new provisions that were provided for in the updated g two in other words the two thousand and then act specified what things you could appeal and what things you could achieve and it did not include beckett right that's correct your hon  an opportunity to write it in and for reasons that are unclear did not i think it's an important point to make drugs that mr gonzales was not without a remedy that would provide him back  specifically had he gone it appears to me that had he gone through the p m s procedure specifically the f a a appeal procedure which is a specific procedure that all of that that provides for the payment of agency funds