promotion a seven year gap in her record that was not caused by her caused by the military granted as the b c m are noted that there are many nontraditional past that many military members take however this was not my client's choosing this was not something she voluntarily did she was passed away from corporate motion incorrectly improperly by the military and the military was definitely promote who needs needs to promote doesn't appear and i'm trying to piece this all in with the chronology of when when was whistleblowing brought my washed up and i apologize i don't have the is at one point days but i can tell you that her whistle blowing activities occurred before the open arms were issued but if i'm reading the sentence correctly from the first part it says that it was because of her seven year gap or near seven year gap in service that ultimately did not allow her to purr to break the record and it do get the veterans and the military personnel some greater deference when it comes to these types of issues granted this is not a v a case and granted it is not a social security appeals this is a military think what i'm saying is that to the extent that your client is now complaining are now arguing that she was treated unfairly because ramos was prejudiced against us is it too late for her to go is as a major priority be considered for the for her first election or they give her two full o p r is to accumulate a record of performance and they did what the other thing that was required was correcting for that gap by indicating that that  time frame when she was out of the service did not have a p r hers was no fault of her own that that is all that is required when they bring them back again so they actually accounted for it and gave her that time frame on her she was brought back in  by putting the correction in her records that it was not of her own doing that it was just that it was not of her own doing and actually corrected and showed that that gap was not her fault and then they went and gave her time to cumulate that record of performance the board because of that unfortunate situation that she was placed in in the first instance or she was brought back was given a chance to throw the board when they brought her back in as a major ninety five give careful consideration to ensure that she would be given a fair chance to be promoted to lieutenant colonel before they brought her back and specifically why they took that time to make a reasoned decision correct all her records and give her opie ours and give her a solid chancery promote it as the board said in its most recent decision in two thousand and two when she now challenges her promotion to lieutenant colonel they said that that promotion lieutenant colonel is incredibly competitive it's based on the whole person concept there are other officers that have different career path went through her service and i mean the time period for that if she had felt that that remedy that relief in ninety five was dot sufficient it then the time to challenge that was certainly before now before now that she is dissatisfied with the ultimate result not being promoted and dissatisfied with the ultimate result of the board what she is trying to do now is to bootstrap back in a different challenge which is something that the board adequately considered in reached a reason that decision this court can only overturn that decision and who found it to be arbitrary capricious unsupported by substantial evidence or contrary law in this case the board considered all of her submissions they considered the fact that she had this gap in service they are right yes your honor she made those missions before she initially wanted to the board the submissions were considered first by the air force personnel center in their advisory opinion then they were then she had a chance to respond to the air force personnel that advisory opinion before the board and then that submissions as well as her response the air force personnel center was considered began to hire her prior to the time the board reached this decision and they said they explicitly considered all of her submissions and found that  she failed to demonstrate evidence existence of error injustice and they found that she had not produced the evidence to show that she would not have been selected had it not been for the interruption in her career when the thing that's that really about infractions so serious that the persons in charge are removed and along comes a seven year gap because of essentially retaliation for the whistleblower so after seven years finally through the fullness of bureaucratic procedures she's restored and now seven years old who doesn't have the continuity perhaps the record bserves a serious infraction taking place on the base all the time they keep their peace they don't blow the whistle they proceed through their career wherever promotions  and i see end of it it's not how whistleblowing statutes are supposed to work and so if you look at how it has to work maybe it shouldn't have been  actual standard is for the selection and the promotion of officers is well within the province of the military we have to defer to the military in that respect and it's their it's their province it's their they're the ones that are co to rank and promote officers and truly determine who has the most stellar record of performance and who is worthy of promotion and that's not something that the courts nor nor i nor the government or anybody is competent to do that of the military that's a that's a matter of military deference to promote in rank officers in this case the military when they brought her back in in ninety five gave reason to consideration and did what they believed was fair to hold yes your honor it's the civilian board that is rejecting those recommendations of the civilian board that looked at the entirety of the major mind as to me as submissions and determined that she had not produced sufficient evidence to show area justice that day they reviewed every single one of her submissions they reviewed the fact that the board took painstaking efforts in ninety five to correct her records and do what they believed was fair to allow her a fair chance to be promoted but maybe since instead of saying use fear is to simply not give credit for the service because there was a gap perhaps what is clear under these circumstances is to say that because her absence was not all do her making it was something beyond her control simply because she was so and that she should be given credit for that time in the sense of having whatever performance reports exist that reflect what performance she would have provided during those missing years when the words she she's competing against officers that are full cry her performance rather than saying well she only had two years versus others that had seven years what they should otherwise it's like dead on arrival because she's she's competing with people that have many more years forms the military quite frankly did not think so and that is that's well within their discretion in a similar situation arose in the where there was a similar period of gaps and there was a there was a long time that five year service break and they in that chance and that the board they found that the board was arbitrating precious because they did not have a fair chance to compete and they specifically said that what is required is to allow them to bring them back it account for the seven year gap which are that account for the which they did specifically in this case of forty nine indicating that no reports were available based upon not based on no fault of her own because they cannot go back and create hypothetical performance reports without the time actually happening and then to give her a chance to compete on new records and in this case they found that the giving her these two records were sufficient to build a competitive record of performance to compete for promotion to lieutenant colonel that military personnel decision as to the fact of whether two records were sufficient but but in ninety five they certainly thought it was and she certainly thought it was by not challenging it at the time or not not not address in any way until now years incredibly competitive they give her they gave her every opportunity what they believed to be a fair and equitable opportunity groupie promoted and she was not on the board reviewed her entire submission her entire records with all due these generals opinions as well as every argument they presented and it found that ultimately she didn't come forward with the clear and convincing evidence injustice and they found that this hard non selection there was no error and ultimately the people who didn't it's my understanding that the board accounts for those gaps by it by saying that they have no gaps with the fault of their own however i would have to get back to  on the actual or put it on the end as to whether or not those situations do exist your honor but it is my understanding that in cases of this when somebody is removed and in other cases where there are issues that lead to gaps in the standard process is to say that there are no reports of valuable due to no fault of their own and we would submit your honour's that unless this court has any further questions that the decision of the board is not arbitrary the people against whom she competed had stronger records were taking didn't seem that they thought that her record would have been stronger than the others but for the