duty as a part of the settlement agreement remember she did not have to return to duty she that maybe was facing a trial date summary judgment denial and a back pay calculation of more than a million dollars but we know all those facts and get what you think are your strongest points on how the navy breached the settlement agreement government says there were reasons why they didn't have a financial manager she was allowed to work so what are her damage well she's just an argument with some of them i'm sorry rather than just having something to argue about how was she her she was she was hurt in the same way that she was hurt from the standpoint that although she had she was at the payroll to the extent that her that her their ability to have promotional opportunities was fresh refresh rate it to the extent that by the time she found out her motion for plumeria injunction that she was not given any work for almost nine months frustrated her ability to do to be a functioning employee at the department of the navy and so that there i guess my question is then why wouldn't you mean there are different types of breaches of contract  say that people who reviewed her appointment file demonstrate that it's not there now may not have been done in sixty days might not of it is not there now and you know piece of evidence you put forth no piece of evidence that would suggest it hasn't been  unged there's no copy currently floating around that you're aware of that show it well to the extent that she's no longer in federal employees but i would argue that you believe given the fact that the defendant has given us two versions within this litigation of the opi file one version that has a set of documents and another version that has at least one and another set of documents are one document that is not in the other version raise questions about whether or not this is actually the her official file and i would argue your honor i would submit to you that the affidavits and declarations offered by the defendant by the navy on that score raises a raises an issue of fact about whether this that this was a reconstructed file that at least at some point before she left the navy that file was not expunged and to the extent that the fellow might not have been a sponsor or you in to the extent that she was trying to get additional opportunities for your transfer or reassignment and other applications  it may be an issue of fact as to whether or not that those that information in o p s may have contributed to her inability to move within the within the government so there's two pieces of my question that the first is if we're talking about the non  specific performance requirement right correct ok now you're saying that that they also could have flowed into other kinds of damages because there were other opportunities is there anything in the record that specifies that that she applied for a different position and wasn't able to get it because she didn't do the right amount the right kind of work or that there was a transfer of that she sought and didn't get it because of a breach by the navy of the non monetary portions of contract i believe there is  i'm not sure i'm going to if i'm going to be able to to put my finger on it immediately but i believe that there is not only testimony but i believe there's testimony that is incorporated in the opportunities within the navy there's also i believe record evidence about conversations that she had with the with the navy after she came back in november of two thousand and two and there's a letter in effect every look at every yesterday there's a letter from the navy's attorney relative to a conversation that they that she was having wit attorney about it tempting to get miss for franklin mason a reassignment or a transfer right but there was nothing that that's just because she didn't want to be working with particular people or she wanted other kinds of operative was no reference to that be something that would either have in the hands of cork her resume on given her step increase or more pay and there's nothing like  would be its clear would provide them with monetary really well you know what to the extent that the conversations surrounding her return to duty and that's why it's that's why may please the court the court should affirm the decision of the court of federal claims on off recounts this recount one in two there's no liability and no damages now it's true that the navy did not hire this financial manager position that this is not a material breach of the settlement agreement she got a comparable experience performing comparable work to supervisors with comparable financial backgrounds it's important to note that the supervisor she did work for panics and later kept her and then the program manager mr  they would have been supervising this financial manager that she was supposed to report to at that position ever been funded take now that the that maybe this settlement agreement certainly had some financial obligations but it could have a lot of other stuff that the navy said it was going to do then and putting aside the question of whether you can incorporate other surrounding conversations but even just in the document itself the navy said it was going to do a lot of things and so it's not good enough for the navy just to say gave her all the financial benefits that the settlement agreement promised and to say the rest of it was sort of up to us whether or not we could pull it off and they actually entered into a sort of an agreement that suddenly case where they were facing some serious liability and they committed to do certain things yes turn several points on the first is that they fulfilled the rest of obligations that don't have financial components or just the training such as the o p s the navy  that she worked on amending current policies and procedures and oversaw financial management trends that's all in this two thousand valuation that's what she was doing the first two years of records also full of instances of other financial work for example there are several e mails one dealing with budget questions from the department of the big department of the navy review that's at appendix eight one eight there's a couple of e mails regarding the trying in your review of commitments and obligations report and that financial staff of this office was directed to review all outstanding financial commitments and liquidate obligations unpaid balances and that's at appendix two sixty nine and to sixty seven she also was doing a financial handbook she's supposed to incorporate her thoughts and ideas in that  eight twenty three and five ninety four and then finally captain her and tried to give her this monthly variance assignment in the variances were to look at the budget and see the execution and figure out what was the variance how does it vary  damages to your knowledge was there anything in this record that established for example that as a result of one of the breaches she alleges that she wasn't able to gain promotion or employment and or mobility or something i'm not aware of anything like that in the records you're also speak to the reconstructed file because i didn't think the reconstructed file had attentional or move all in it either i thought that the record shows that appellant counsel said well there were two honor the personnel file that's in the record first of all it's immaterial his original reconstructed that doesn't matter in the settlement agreement simply says expunged the files the navy did that there was a human resources employee in two thousand and five with the there is simply nothing in the record showing that the navy didn't expunge the files and even if it didn't even if there was something in the record which there's not she's not proving any damages she hasn't shown that she tried to get other jobs with this file and those were denied for example miss franklin mason in her reply brief points to one line of testimony at page nine ninety nine in the appendix saying that she sent penn ixus letter of recommendation out to other to vacancy announcements that's not sufficient that there's no indication of whether nightly but even offered her a job on that that's literally the entirety of the record on whether or not she saw other jobs so that it's unclear whether or not she was denied any jobs and to work even whether in five years of being at the navy miss franklin mason was given in the first three years clerical assignments in oracle assignment and no financial work no serious five hundred financial work the mr franklin mason i submit to you provided material facts appendix to write a letter of recommendation so that she could leave and it's within the context i believe it's in the record where she says i've not doing any i'm not i'm not doing the things that i thought i was going to be doing while i was here help me get out and if you compare the letter of recommendation with a the performance evaluation and the and the in the position description