us court erred when it held that without specific evidence of in service events mr predecessor not entitled to service connected benefits as a matter of law under the correct legal standard mr premises post service way statements regarding in service well what we're arguing that the board we argued that the board erred when it failed to consider those in service symptoms in the late statements of in service evidence so we would argue that there was legal in the court's decision but we're not asking you here in the more instance of the legal error in the board's in the bursa session was the failure to was very similar actually to the veterans course legal error in this case which is the failure to make any credibility assessment regarding the in service symptoms of schizophrenia and the late statements regarding and services of the of the board knew the terminations of the doctors assessment was more credible statements which seems to me to be fact determinations beyond our jurisdiction well with that with the board and the veterans court found in this case was not that the in service symptoms were incredible what they found was and they quoted the v a examiners  and they say to the v a examiners findings that the statements of in service events were to lucius there's been no finding by either the veterans court the board or the v a examiners that his statements that he experience board decision but that there is a mistake in the veterans work where does that leave us i think what what's an issue here is what the veterans court did in its decision and this court can find that the veterans court made an error and in excluding mr prince's post service statements of in needs to look at this case under the proper legal standard which recognizes that if the schizophrenia began in the service then in service and currents can be shot so i think that if this court finds that the veterans court applied an incorrect legal standard to this case this court should remain to the board i'm sorry man to the veterans court for a new decision an application of the proper legal standard and then talks about and in service of that pouring current so it seems to me like they knew that he was arguing not just that this happened in service because i mean it's pretty clear that everybody thinks this was a pollution but also that a statement should be considered they knew he was arguing his in service symptoms could support in service and currents but despite the use of the word in currents in that one particular sentence the veterans court's decision should be read as a whole and in the very next sentence is where they describe their definition of in currents that vary using to make the decision in this case so regardless of the use of the word occurrence in the very next sentence they state without evidence of in service event like when we flip that and say they're applying the product standard here in the second set and so we're talking about they're just specifically responding to the arguments you made on appeal to the veterans court where it did talk about the credibility of his account of  consistent so starting in april one thousand nine hundred three he talks about how he goes into treatment and he talks about having auditory hallucinations since he was in his twenty's which does correspond with service and this april nine hundred ninety three treatment provider actually states i consider him reliable in his reports that he actually experienced auditory hallucinations in his twenty's moving on  we have a may two thousand and three private treatment record which is cited in the opening brief at pages thirteen and four where the treatment provider notes client has been experiencing psychotic symptoms since  seventy eight when he was in the army at fort bliss we also have it but this was all in the record before that or right this was in the record before the board as and it was in the port looked at all of this and they determined th medical examination report was an incredible a so whether he had any in service occurrence of schizophrenia or not well if they found that the medical examination reports were more credible and they're finding that his term we argued that it was erroneous because of the failure to render a credibility determination regarding the symptoms and service so that's that's what the problem here is that the veterans court never addressed any of these issues nexus so the veterans court doesn't reach the question of nexus because of the credibility because of its determination that only the events need to be  seeming to suggest that for schizophrenia there has to be a determination of a stressor and that the delusional  were real and therefore there was no stress or they seem to have confused the standard for p t s d with the student for schizophrenia no i don't think that's what the veterans courts doing here that that sentence starts out with in other words so it's trying to restate the principles that it sat earlier in the paragraph and their manner of that paragraph as that she just observed does indicate that the veterans court understood that an in service event that would have been incorrect but what happened here is that the board considered all of that evidence the board considered all of the theories of an currents including in service manifestation and that j s and what you're saying that how can it be th attacked so these are the latest statements about the alleged events in one nine hundred seventy eight reasonably raise the issue of whether his accounts meet the second element of an in service occurrence to support his claim for service connection and the remainder of that reading it as he's saying that this in service event meets the in current it does say o currents instead of in currents but in in the immediately preceding paragraph refers to the three step test and it seems to just mistakenly have said not trying to show that he had a stress or because that's a pia p t s d student or he's trying to show that he had delusions while in service to support a claim for schizophrenia your honor i think the best way to read his arguments and veterans court and the way the veterans court understood them is that he was arguing that he had an in service event that caused his later schizophrenia and the veterans court noted that his for his two arguments were connected at the first argument w that the the board the board fail to consider credibility about these whether these claims in service events actually happened and in the veterans court again it's six the veterans court addresses that referring expressly to quote his late statements regarding the claim to events in service and when the board at the outset starts to address mr price's second argument it's still referring to those same way statements the other the other issues about in service into mythology was simply not race to the board and it's already been rejected by the primary it wasn't resident racism veterans court had already been rejected by the board and so the veterans court well really truly was just supplying normal principle under according to the veterans courts own decision it understood that it was simply applying normal principles of law to the facts as presented by mr prentice and again the legal citations it points to are instruct an appropriate place statement to squirt evidence and that it doesn't seem to me that the veterans court properly considered that argument if he'd made it i think you're saying he didn't make it he never he did not make it and in fact in his statements for example it j thirty three the veteran said that he believed we were more liberally construed these pleadings given that he's a veteran and a schizophrenia veteran too i mean it's not particularly clear to me one way or another may have been a fine job addressing the correct standard but he was entitle to argue before the veterans for that they made a factual error and if he was already removed before then it's where they made a factual  and address factual issues that have already been rejected by the board i'd like to also address this party address this as a matter of law statement in a sentence challenged by mr  really all that that sentence is saying is that when step of the three the familiar three step process for showing service connection when step two is not satisfied there can be no service connection for guard lists of the merits currents and here at the veterans court is saying it will not review the nexus arguments by mr paradis because it's already found that there was no in service in currents because sleeping and of the alleged drug use he was arguing those as evidence of next s and we know that because it j eight to ten the veteran at the very first full paragraph the veteran yes so that's he's describing that as being evidence that it has that that the board improperly did not consider whether those events actually and i don't see where does he say that the ok i think the best place to look is in the reply brief actually that's the clearest statement of his arguments about in currents and there he is pointing to these late statements of one nine hundred seventy eight and also the only are trying to decide whether he raised them well because it's not really a question of waiver your honor it's more a question of did the veterans court apply a legal standard that's incorrect and it did not because it simply cited to normal the veterans court made no finding the misoprostol not raise an argument regarding service symptoms for it rather the veterans course state is a matter of law he's not in total service connection without in service of that and then the very last sentence in its sentence reads a surface treatment record suggested the possibility they had it in this ng for several weeks i read that as suggesting evidence to show that this actually happened and you go further on onto the next page on one of the seven the bottom of that carry over paragraph the other service and medical personnel records offer consistency core corroboration to his reported nine hundred seventy eight incident which seems to me to read the alleged so the better it was it was part of the focus of the brief but the argument we were raised risk was stronger than that and i'm sorry broader than that and looking beyond page one eighty six with a brief we do also discuss in service symptoms such as trouble sleeping mentioned during his discharge which this try to examination which may indicate early manifestations of his schizophrenia especially since insomnia and difficulties in sleep of continuously in symptoms indors by mr prentice so we are talking there about him so his own statements of in service symptoms and then looking at page page one eighty nine of the joint we we we we compare this case to two dots and and discuss how the court found that the border area when it prematurely conclude the evidence lacked showing up in service occurrence without first make a credibility determination of the layout of this that's not limited just to the in service statements that these events are being being drugged and taken to a camp  page one ninety we state the record contains lay statements along with other helpful evidence reflecting possible in service and currents that may have led to the development of the problem is that sta out of context might support you but when you read most of the factual descriptions here it's talking about all his allegations that these events actually happened that caused his schizophrenia not that his later allegations that th happens were evidence of a schizophrenia that would be a determination i think for the veterans court to make in the first instance here they made no determination that we had waived any arguments regarding in service symptoms we discussed in service symptoms in the brief