but the problem is that when she was before the board at two thirty two of the appendix what she seems to be complaining about is that the lead agency didn't tell her that she was entitle to take time off for medical treatment it rather then that they denied time off because and they were trying to get rid of her because she's a veteran and she's been out of work quite a bit but there's no evidence of them on the shoe they were doing because she was a veteran while the evidence doesn't come in until hearing your honor we have a case called dick arm we have a decision call dig which says that while there's no summary judgment procedure before the board on a variety of claims that you nonetheless have to do something more than make a conclusory allegation that for nearly a year and from harm from those of us department of labor they were all in hell that was mentioned three apartment justice they said they were going to take it up a little higher and i never heard back on it that is a criminal violation under i believe five u s c eight but what does that have to do with your veteran status of it anyhow they were holding the documents because they wanted to get rid of her she beat her over and over again she was a veteran she was at it work for injuries and they wanted to get rid of  service connected injury they i'm sorry i don't know how to turn off i just got it he shouldn't be in the courtroom  funny response brief day seventeen and section three the agency's decision was based on an invalid contract is it raised in your opening that's what the judge said the judge did this gets back to last chance agreement which was the contract both parties agree that they entered a contract with the individual waves didn't waive her or appeal rights enjoyed after she looked it over decided she wanted just dismissed the case and said well it's neither party was correct they did she did not waiver rights and it was right in the face of what the statutes day and with the contract law is therefore she should  action and therefore in this case the petitioner just simply doesn't draw such a connection she makes allegations that x y and z have been due to her military service but she doesn't say any evidence or any even any argument visions with evidence a ploy there are well i don't i don't know that evidence specifically is required but at least argument or evidence is required something more than just a conclus allegation is certainly required so although mr may be correct that she's not she's not required to prove her allegations at the non frivolous allegation stage it just has to be something more than more than non  and with regard to you petitioners allegations about the last chance agreement the judge properly found that her appeal was untimely filed nine months leave with no good cause shown for the delay so back pain at the emergency room on october third thirty first two thousand and thirteen as well as a physician's letter indicating that was he was feeling ill due to that injury and dehydrated in the following weeks however the m on a lack of jurisdiction and i've also known even without the l c a she was previously noticed for removal in two thousand and twelve and was given many warnings about on schedule absent taking too many to support his feelings allegations she argued one that the contract was illegal because they tried to overwrite the us department of labor and the she cannot be terminated without a right to abort hearing she has a right to file to the board because of a veteran status now you don't have to tie active duty or reserve  duty to be protected under userra if you are a veteran its core has repeatedly held as as supreme court you are still protected under userra they knew she was a veteran they knew they wanted to get rid of her for illegal reasons they knew the board would not uphold their former plans when saying they knew they knew what it is but that's not the same thing as evidence the evidence submitted was when she got h they fell back on a last chance agreement which was the legal term they got rid of or where if they had cheat they would have been able to get rid of or if they didn't have the agreement they would have been able to get rid of or if if they gave a forty five things this this was a person that if she was hit by a truck when she was working with the postal service she's had problems ever since she got her to be in fact true she went to work for the postal service she's been in and out of work for years because the to go around the postal service right now and you know i don't say this with any benefits but the postal service is under a lot of pressure right now to cut back on employees they couldn't cut back and this one and worker's comp is one of the top issues that pops up with all the agencies as being the most expensive and cutting down on the on the agency cost is a good reason to want to get rid of somebody and if you want to do it as easily as possible without a court hearing