independent verification in said i have sufficient corroborating evidence excuse me credible supporting evidence which is the statutory requirement under three point three zero four ad how did they i mean i thought all they did was look at all the others seventeen the board said because they reported stress or cannot be independently verified as required by thirty eight c f r three point three zero four the claim for service connection for p t s d must be denied that's a disorder is a delayed onset condition and this case this court has has found that to be true in the case that me versus brown and acknowledging that sure but that still doesn't mean that this evidence is a pro behavior after he was out of service the letters don't talk about the stress or they don't say he told us he underwent this stress or so the problem is is that it's not just a question of what he was diagnosed with and what can't support his diagnosis the question is is there any evidence that corroborates the stressor and there's and what the board found is that those letters related to his post service sense these are specific positive information yes you are but again that the board relied on those to say that mr bialys testimony to the experience of personality changes immediately following service or contradicted as true that he told the the day that he did not suffer from a terrible experience he can change his mind but they get to decide which version of his story is true don't that they do your honor but in making that sisters letters speaks to the stress or this is just letters speak to the personality changes experienced by the stressor and again part of the court's decision was finding that mr bialys testimony was contradicted by his negative because yet there anything direct for example the letter that the embassy wrote and he said i've been instructed to drive in ninety three and to carry a gun and i think they're going to kill me he went to the embassy and told him that story they want him a letter that says when we're talking about assaults that we we allow corroborating evidence to come from other sources that that that other sources other than an actual report of the assault at the time that that somehow lessens the actual evidence and that no regulation no your honor but again that the evidentiary burden is that there must be sufficient cor performance evaluations against this triviality as opposed to what three point three or four at said they didn't really hold it against him they basically said yes there were some going to perform and they said that that could corroborate to some extent but the fact that he bounced back and did substring their own incompetent medical judgment for p t s d diagnosis to say that a person who has experienced a traumatic event can no longer receive high marks and service i think the fact that mr viale received negative performance reviews goes to show that he had disagreements with his superiors which does corroborate mr beyond stress or what do you see in distinction between failing to report viale later on in life began to understand not only the effect that the experience it had on him but also the impact of p t s d itself and at that point sought medical treatment and again because p t s d is a delayed onset evidence if i get it and we don't get a read way out that is the way we're trying to verify the words decision and look and i suspect it was too late for you because it probably wasn't at the veterans court either but it seems to me that meaning it is true isn't it that that there are certain things like the songs that not only won't get reported at the time for all the reasons that are discussed in those opinions  and contemplated by the regulation but sometimes we look at the nine even years later because of the stigma that comes along with with with emitting there may be an easier with sexual assault and that's not  kicked in p t s d or a mental problem is that there was no evidence that he had any performance problems during the relevant time period and now the board seems to be saying well and also the fact that when he he didn't like the sixty eight he had there was evidence in the in their medical history form any suggestion that he had not experienced any sort of dramatic event are denying any psychiatric symptoms so much been made about the fact  that that someone that suffers from p t s d might not experience the onset of p t s d for years later but but whether there is the historical fact of an event can be proved whether there's evidence at the time  service the board looked at evidence subsequent to service suggesting that was a case and also looked at evidence in the form of statements he made to to a doctor in two thousand and two before the claim had been filed suggesting that before service  letters with respect to p t s d is a reversible legal error as counsel really acknowledge you have to consider the unique evidence for each situation and that was not done here and the second point is that as your honor pointed out had you really been threatened he would have reported it is not a sufficient basis to night clane whether it's for a sexual assault or another type of incident that would not have been reported but don't you don't see a difference between just testimony to that in fact that might explain his explicit iow it seems to me that there has to be a difference between not reporting something which is certainly understandable terms of sexual assault and even assault by that i mean frankly if i thought somebody was trying to murder me i you know i you know at a command structure i might be even more afraid to report it but specifically that i had that happen i mean what else i mean otherwise you're saying the failure to report it can't be good enough but the failure but the specific to that also can't be good enough so you're almost asking us to create a presumption in favor of that from story and there are presumptions for certain types of