carpenter appearing on behalf of mr bob who already section three point one five six of title thirty the federal regulation was misinterpreted by the veterans court when it failed to recognize that the v disagree because the veterans court relied upon an interpretation of three one hundred and fifty six see that the board had applied the correct legal principles underlying that regulation in order to occur apply the correct legal principles as the court found the board did in the decision that was on appeal to the veterans court they necessarily had to interpret those regulations and the legal principles that they found had been correctly a plot so this is not a question of application of law to fact this is a question of interpretation of those legal principles that are articulated in three one hundred and fifty six seat and those legal principles require that the v a immediately upon receipt of certain relevant service department records that had not been previously associated with the veterans claims file is required to reconsider the original claim that's not what happened here so is that your for a medical up in right now where in your august two thousand and fifteen motion she motion to the board ready did you make that theory when we made it in the motion we did not wear because to follow up on judge uses the question it looked like you identify three specific possibilities of q and none of them are to q late in the way you articulate them now and so the concern is that there's a jurisdictional problem in light of our andre case and i apologize your i when i was attempting to say was is that we articulated the basis of q the clear and unmistakable error allegation as the failure to correctly apply we did not articulate in that request for revision the specific arguments that are being made now why aren't you the hard i mean who is a different beast and a director or b if you had made these in a direct  yes it does your honor and i'm suggesting that the allegation that three one hundred and fifty six e was not correctly applied by the board is a sufficient arctic that's not good enough that's a general allegation that this regulation wasn't proper point you didn't raise this are specific argument to the board and if that's correct an error on great president wouldn't that that transport have lacked or stiction to hear that argument as a that would be correct ok i mean i'm not trying to trick you i know you know this i mean and with the level of specificity but i appreciate your candor answering i have it and i think that that's important your honor because what we're reviewing here is not the allegation that was made what we're reviewing here is the decision that was made by the board or excuse me by the veterans court sure but but if the veterans court didn't have jurisdiction then the absence of it the fact that they went ahead and heard your argument have andre the allegation was completely different than the allegation that had been made and decided by the board that's not the case here now you're correct that you can interpret andre to require the much more sophisticated level of allegation then is required but this is not an on break shift from one theory to another the theory remained the same that the board did not correctly applied three point one five six see the i may i get that can you i'm a little confused as to what relief you're asking for here it is again or i mean i  know the full well understand it's euclid case where generally what happens is you show some mistake a fact or some mistake of law that in it titles you to a specific form are girlie usually benefits or something like i don't records and they're going to have the same fact finding and that this is the earliest diagnosis of onset of p t s d that may be wrong but that's what we have in the records so what effective date can you get earlier than september two thousand and three it's not a question of getting an earlier effective date it's a question of getting the benefit of the secretary's regulation the secretaries regulation under three one hundred and fifty six c is fundamentally different than the secretary's regulation on the three point one q case we can't go beyond the already existing record what's going to happen that will change even if you get the benefit of a different level review under three one hundred and fifty six c when you have in the record the reconsideration that was never afforded to mr so george that to me doesn't tell me anything about what relief you're expecting to get really have that brief consideration because this is all about effect of a right he has he has a service connection now for p t s d so what are you trying to get from this reconsideration no you're not i am not that certainly is mr george's ultimate goal make no mistake about that the relief that mr george seeks is the relief that he was entitle to do in two thousand and seven right but what i'm asking is if we give you that relief when you go back to the board what are you going to do and what are you going to argue i'm going to argue to the mr george you mean based on an entirely new record no based upon the record as it existed in two thousand and seven when the v a received the supplemental service before and that's the problem i don't see is there a document you can point me to in the pre any existing records that would establish anything to show that he has an earlier diagnosis of p t s d we're still we're going to go through all this process and come back around made based upon a adjudication under three one hundred and fifty six the earliest possible effective date under three point one five six a was the day of the original claim that finality of the one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight decision that made the original denial that original denial was based upon the fact that he didn't meet the diagnostic criteria because he didn't have a verified stressor the new because of the administrative error made by the v a i but you if we want a record of you you might have an avenue to extend this all back with a new medical of valuation that might predate it past few one thousand and three but in acute case we can't go beyond the record i just don't you keep saying all this stuff but i don't know i don't see a path for you based upon the record to get back past two thousand and three your are if your analysis is correct then there is no effective remedy for mr george mr george has no remedy under your interpretation of q now i suppose the other possibility types of errors that are remediable under q a failure of the duty to assist as you standard not the b s interpretation isn't it and no your honor because three point one five six seat as interpreted by the secretary when you published the amendment in two thousand and six to this regulation described it as remedial described as entire it that the purpose was to correct the administrative error this court by adopting this view by dopping the contrary view precludes the implementation of the intent of the secretary in three one thousand five hundred and sixty three point one five six in this case was never used all that was used was three one hundred and fifty six and the attempts to pretend that three point one side a little lost is i don't know what tool you want the v a and the board to pick up and use that they didn't use before i mean you're saying that this was all done under regulation exits should have been done under regulation why and so i want it done under regulation and i'm trying to locate what's the difference here the difference is what did they not do that they were supposed to do specifically and don't say a regulation that they failed to reconsider when they received the service relevant service department records i want you to ask mr george for all records you might have i want this rector's active medical exam to take place all of that came in anything that was available came in and there was an evaluation you don't want to call that a reconsideration i get that but i don't understand why as a practical functional matter there wasn't busy an actual neat evaluation a reconsideration of this particular veteran's possibility of having had onset of p please the court at appendix ninety seven and ninety eight is the two thousand and thirteen me and order and they specifically paragraph by paragraph lay out everything that your honor judge chen just told i just noted should be done to reconsideration can suss out from the blue brief is that whereas the focus previously used to be on the late testimony mr george's hoping that additional development additional duty to assist work might  provide some better foundation for the late testimony but he has the going back to nine hundred and ninety seven i mean and you know yes your honor that i thought your friend just agreed that it had to be on the record he did when pressed by your honor but in the brief that's the only thing that seems to be identified as what could be different if it was remanded again and so that's the reason why we know that that allegation of q is a breach of the duty to assist which cannot be to under three one hundred and fifty six e three they looked at all the evidence including the retrospective medical opinion to determine whether or not there was any evidence of p t s d prior to the date that he had previously been assigned they found that there wasn't any and so there was no basis under sea for there's no adequate medical support for a retroactive disability evaluation back to nine hundred and ninety seven dollars it's unclear what additional reconsideration of the one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven claim could have taken place i think you don't just look back and do new medical examinations you basically start over which could require new medical evidence or the like it's a burden in this instance they did get a medical opinion after the newly medical opinion after the three point one five six c regime and that's before right i'm saying i guess one of thinking is his argument what you get three point one five six the remain and you get another new medical  about the what exactly is the level of specificity you need to raise in a revision motion right well i mean the board's regulations say it needs to be specific allegations require the motion whi requirements of that and andrea in providing a very specific set of errors with respect to the treatment of the late testimony in his reply here he says that his general allegation was inexplicably intertwined within that there's no president standard was used the board never made a decision on this the question that the veterans court was task facing and so seventy to fifty two should have precluded the veterans who were considering that question so that is jurisdiction so as a practical matter the veterans court consider did he raise any of his original q arguments to the better of court and did they consider them i think and i don't believe so your honor i don't have the record doesn't have his brief to the veterans court but certainly there's no discussion you claim raised later on if you don't disagree that we could outright dismiss it is certainly within the court's hour to board it allows for mr george in my view to proceed further in this matter based upon the fact that the matter was never