but i don't see that there was a discussion that's true any psychiatric disorder or any any mention of the p t s d no your honor and in fact if the v a had acted as it was required to act by law this matter could have been terminated by that determination and ate an aisle of the request for reopening because that medical record that he referred to was in fact not at that time new and injury levels however in this case the issue was whether or not the board action or simply under the veterans court decision and godfrey it is and then under the v a s later then the to the same regulation in two thousand and eleven over for us has the same effect as a treatment that the significance is in this case in the same year that this referral was made the v a or the veterans court decided to godfrey that very question and it was in fact your honor based upon the d a s practice that they created referrals by the board in the same manner that they treated remains and as a consequence the board or a citizen at the v a was under a procedural obligation to take action no action was taken in this case that constitutes a procedural taking no action is not taking appropriate action and you know action b is no action always an appropriate yes wrong because as judge rayna pointed out in fact there was a statement in support of cla that referred to a specific period of hospitalization that had taken action on that could have easily been disposed of how do we know that how do we know that that would have been disposed of or you're saying that who say take appropriate action that that includes your argument why couldn't this alternatively be looked at as an informal claim jurisprudence in the evolution of jurisprudence on informal cleaving seems to include something written on the back of a cocktail napkin and handed to the v what i was trying to doing footnote was to clarify that the board made a character a characterization of it being a claim for that excess disorder and it was unclear from the record why the board chose to do that that was the point of the footnote that i am acknowledging that the statement unsupported claim does not make a specific reference to post traumatic stress disorder you also say the nervous condition was not suggesting is simply that there is less of a lack of clarity in the board's decision for why it shows to do what it did when it made the referral and that made the referral for a specific condition where as is recognizing the presence in this case before it all of a claim by the claimant and especially telling him to do nothing until the v a asks so if it's normally a referral is most don't believe there is any fault but also a point here is that if there is no claim to be adjudicated by the regional office the regional office is not required by section nineteen point nine according to you that no claim was actually made and therefore nothing very tough statement in support of claims and the second paragraph the veteran notes also have been treated for a nervous condition since march of night eighty five currently i am hospitalized for this condition and and then he goes on and talks about about the time being effective on march ninety three why why isn't that a claim for innovation decision and why would that be the basis for