board's decision affirming revocation order is not supported by substantial evidence specifically the board at two to three of the record stated that there was an absence of any mitigating factors which would allow for a suspension of my clients or to give instead of the revocation because if you recall the regulation that was violated fourteen c of four ninety one point one nine eighty also works with the ministry of long judge the judge said specifically sixteen months the lapse from the time of a flight on october first two thousand and sixteen until the f a a actually issued an emergency order of revocation infirmary seven two thousand eighteen that's the record eight two two three two three three furthermore the judge found that the state of kansas dismissed all charges resulting from the simple possession charge of a controlled substance within the state of kansas the judge also own future wife from criminal charges i don't know so the judge even considering the credibility of my witness and not of his wife said i still don't know if mr siegel admitted to the police officer that the chocolate transporting for commercial purposes and almost a but the regulation prohibits simple possession on the plane and the policy statement says violation will be grounds for revocation absent exceptional circumstances so all of your arguments about how this wasn't a distribution case and i neither him and there have been i'm not advocating that because it was a distribution case it should be thrown out again  challenging the regulation the judge found regulation was violated nor not nor the policy statement setting forth the rule that it's the the governing rule is revocation absent except exceptional circumstance yes we are challenging the policy sa discussion in the government's brief about the a policy that apparently the board is relying upon to revoke my clients are difficult is not in the record more importantly the pilots bill of rights who signed into law in two thousand and twelve rationale of the decision to impose the sanction of reputation is grounded in twenty one fifty point three b right and this court has held the board to task in the past where the board has relied upon information testimony or documenting in its decision that was just reading says that the board is required to examine both potential penalties when faced with an opportunity to suspend or revoke and more importantly where congress creates a regulator discretion to choose between  ellis chosen to impose a more severe penalty if you look at the record in this case there was no evidence whatsoever concerning the sanction the judge even even even our bench in that it is decision determination that certain categories of offenses on their own show that violate or it lacks the qualifications that's a pilot certificate that's not an unusual thing that's an approach that this court has accepted but beyond that the you know petitioner says that the b was required to look at an aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the facts of this case and the n t s b did precisely that you know he tries to claim that they applied the wrong standard but they did not they looked at all of that purportedly mitigating circumstances that sion of ninety one point nine nine hundred eighty did not show a lack of qualifications but certainly the f a a in the end and reasonable here to find that there was nothing that created such an exceptional circumstance