increase over the twenty five years that he was employed so it's essentially an annuity where's that reflected in the record the difference you're on i don't believe it is reflected in the record  honour's i believe that the board made three substantial material errors that i believe require a reversal of the board's denial i think first the board simply ignored the special coverage  employee like dr saad was entitle to and those special coverage rules applied specifically to employ was employed by the federal government that same elizabeth hospital before one thousand nine hundred eighty seven before the time the hospital transitioned from federal control to control by the district of columbia was it was dr percent covered by f e r s before the transition i believe he was and i believe that the war essentially concluded that he was well how do you respond to the government's argument that it couldn't have been covered by that by f d r s because his appointments were temporary with no retirement coverage prior to october one eighty seven yes your honor his that is the appointment we start out with the proposition that every employee is covered by some sort of retirement system unless excluded by law or regulation and so to directly answer the question then again or focusing on c gets to continue that coverage after the transition and the reason why it converts from first to c s artist after the transition is because employees that went from federal employment to employed by the dish of columbia could not firms it had to stay only as a federal employee so it transitioned from first the c s r s and that's that's exactly what the special coverage rules were intended to cover he isn't a unique situation a very odd situation i don't think it's quite frequent that there would have been employees in that position but she was one of those employees and he was subject to that and should be allowed to get the benefit of that  there are two other issues that i believe are worth meriting it in terms of the errors that the board committed the first is the number of credible source that hart i mean i think the core of the government's argument is that because he had nonpermanent appointments he wasn't covered by first i don't even read the briefs i don't believe the talk about first of all in there wer retirement coverage to be fair dr precisely is correct that if he was covered by first part of transition may have been able to retain c s r s benefit the position in the handbook that the exclusion for firms as opposed to c s are asked are much different that they are not the same exclusions and they are much more refined in fact that there appears to be only one real significant exclusion that's at section ten a one point three dash five a handbook talks about temporary employees serving on appointments other than provisional permits of one year or less than about twelve  about the fact that if you are an employee like dr saad who would have been covered by first before the transition would have been this this whole matter has sort of not a stomach your honor we have had trouble since the beginning we have a sort of a parallel proceeding going on in addition of columbia addressing those type of make clear in our brief dr saad is only ever implied that he was covered by for he's never actually come out and said he's got my first cruise never taken this argument a step further and developed and said these are the requirements for us and this is what you have to do to meet it because if he did take that next step it would be clear that he's not subject first now if we look at the handbook and if we look at the regulations they make clear that to be eligible for for us not only you have to have the five year credible service requirements you also have to be in a position that's subject to social security withholding and doctor preside certainly was not in fact there was never some sites here regulations we can go to chapter ten of the opium hambrook and this is something that dr sachs counsel referred to in his reply brief he talks about the limited exclusions to first coverage versus c s r s coverage well there's a obviously there are more exclusions for c s r s coverage than for first coverage but in the very first sentence it says that the employee has to be subject to oas d i i taxes otherwise known as social security taxes so again you wanted to address your question and your point not only would he have to meet the five year credible service requirement he would also have to be in a position subject to social security withholding was he saw you kids he was not in fact this is actually in the record five it's hard to see i apologize you can see that these are for quality originals but in the center of the page sixty five we have a box right down to the middle that says retirement x twenty nine and says eleven fica otherwise known as social security you have if we look at page sixty four this is actually a correction it's a personnel form that corrects people sixty five record and changes his coverage from eleven fica to twelve not this also was reference on page fifty nine it was the occasion that changed you case of the change we understand it is it was a mistake another mistake by the government and this time around it improperly coded him at that time as being subject for social security with holding when he was not if we look at page fifty nine just let's that act what's the date on those two documents so that date and again these are the two thousand and nine if we look at counting down from the top one two three four paragraphs and we have a sentence that begins from the middle of the page initially he was a row recently covered by fica however a correction t if we take this these statements these arguments one step further than just a blanket statement yes i was covered we look and know he doesn't need either requirement the five year service requirement or the withholding for social security requirements so you know any way you look at this any way you slice it whether you look at c s r of benefits or first benefits dr personifies just in eligible and while it's unfortunate what happened to him that in d c government employee made a mistake twenty eight years ago improperly coded him that mistake cannot move or ride statutory requirements for eligibility to either federal annuity and so that's our bottom line and we think at the end of the day even though there's a lot of talk about exclusions he's just not eligible and he wasn't and that's clear from the record somewhere i know the answer to stop a law against the government i mean that's a general principle but somewhere it seems to me he has something to say about how he planned his life for twenty eight years and was then faced with think toll no sorry we made a mistake you use the and then subsequently for twenty years to pay stubs that she would receive c s r s benefits if she did not and so that's why i included that i think unfortunately this was a problem that was bigger than just dr scott situation but if we look at the record and i'm not sure we're going to have these problems with what happened but if we look we have in appendix fifty four this is a bulletin and this is from government was very clear about who had seen it was this qualify for federal retirement coverage and you know i'll read from the top of fifty five to get in with quote the federal employee who has no prior  district in a c s r s coverage position is not eligible to retain or a team c s r s coverage those employees would be covered by the district or tyrant benefit program so again even though there was a mistake in one thousand and nine it was always clear what the federal government intended and i also believe it was clear what the d c government intended and unfortunately that was a mistake that was made but at the end of the date it appears that dr sock was eligible for the d c five contribution plan and the contributions that syrian just very briefly your honour's and just pick up from the last point that sort of a can contention are not understanding that that what happened as dr sachs left with no retirement that everything that he had originally that he was given back those fica contributions as a result of these proceeds that that is part of the true up that's part of the true up that that government tried to give him his c s r s to doctrines plus fica contributions of back in a lump sum and so here let's go ahead and give it also security and security so so my response to your question your honor is that no i don't believe it is a retroactive creditable serves i believe it's an incorrect statement to say that he had to have five years before the transition that the there's no question there's a factual matter he did not have five years stored in it if for the transition was ninety seven i believe it's