the veterans court erred in this case by relying on an interpretation a section thirty eleven that categorically characterized all of this charge for alcohol rehabilitation failure as willful misconduct jones i don't want to interrupt your train of thought proceedings before the regional office in montgomery are highly relevant to this case because they're investigating whether mr martin suffers from a psychiatric disorder and whether that disorder is occurred during service  those sorts of facts are the sorts of facts or would be irrelevant to a factual determination about whether his feeble occasion failure may have been not will fall so those are the sort of facts that would have been important had the district or had the board  no your honor it would certainly be helpful if it's in the regional office they discover evidence of the service connection with his psychiatric disorders but even if they don't we think alcohol rehabilitation failure is not always  misconduct and that was the basis of the veteran court's ruling here and requires reversal as the am a case and the government appears to agree that agree the location failure sometimes maybe but it's not always the result of  would be misconduct and see it has to come with a certain state of mind rehabilitation failure all by itself refers just to a state of affairs he did not get to the point at which a no longer had the problematic condition it doesn't say anything at all all by itself about conduct as if that's right your honor the question would be in a factual finding would be why his rehabilitation what conduct or misconduct did he engage in that caused him to fail at rehabilitation and the army regulations indicate for example that an individual can be a rehabilitation failure because he's in a overcome his addiction or because even he needs inpatient treatment that he cannot receive in the army so he's discharged for rehabilitation failure those are situations don't involve misconduct or if they even if drinking is misconduct it's certainly not willful in those circumstances an inability to overcome an addiction is not willful misconduct and that's why there can't be this sort of bright line rule that the board in the veterans court adopted here calling all rehabilitation failure and the result of willful misconduct now that's not to say that a discharge for rehabilitation failed could never be the result of willful misconduct certainly of a soldier's superior orders him to enroll in the program and his response is that he understands he has an alcohol abuse problem but he would just simply rather spend his free time playing video games than going to rehabilitation has no interest in those counseling classes he refuses to get any of that there was no need for the v a to notify and assist mr martin and substantiate his claims because they did not need an abortion i need any evidence to decide this question so it's clear that the board made a decision as a matter of law the board did cite to the disability compensation statutes which you do and you include i believe which i was referencing that congress did change and then those statutes to include the results of alcohol abuse at that important response to the court's decision by congress was not approached with the question of whether all the rehabilitations all that statutes that have to do with willful misconduct should have this change they just addressed their change to what the court had it certainly an indication that and for me it's certainly an indication that congress does not believe that alcoholism is always willful misconduct and they carved it out at least and that circumstance and here of course the question is not as it is not about whether alcoholism as is the question of the proper characterization of the board's decision a legal question or something other than a question it does not matter which label and then are important places appeals has the ability to review legal matters in factual matters some factual matters are so clear that they get reversed we're not really in that position where we actually don't have jurisdiction to review  factual questions or the application of law to facts so we don't get to say well this is at some extreme and of of error on a factual question and and hence my question about whether the characterization by the veterans court of the board decision is self the legal characterization or something other than such now before the veterans court mr martin did argue that he was discharged for another reason not for our whole rehabilitation failure but for physical disability the veterans court agreed that that is a factual question  then it's a firm and necessarily relied on the premises affected by the board that because he was discharged for rehabilitation failure therefore as a legal matter he was discharged for willful misconduct that sound legal premise that it would be whether alcohol abuse or alcohol rehabilitation failure could constitute will for misconduct and those sides agree that that it can and so for that reason the veterans conduct and it is indeed listed as something distinct from further alcohol abuse in the army regulation treatment or that something like that and maybe that would be that might change the character of their of their discharge but that would be something that's addressed in the first instance before before that individual discharge me i think it's important to note that  individual is not discharged for being an alcoholic discharge for alcohol abuse failure to rehabilitate and there's and there's a i think a significant difference there certainly people can be alcoholics and control their  alcoholism and be successful members of the military this is not the case here can you just clarify something i think you explained and i think the documents support this that the initial discharge was for alcohol abuse which period i think yeah the no no no that i talked to was it's a gash rehabilitation facility it's virtually illegible but it's whatever eighteen and then there was a connection claim and find that there's a service connected psychiatric disability that may be related to his alcohol abuse i think is assume we presume we didn't have affected i think what he would have to do is go back to the board for correction of military records and resolving what's already disgracefully longstanding proceed what what i would suggest well i think that what we're what the secretary is limited by statute to considering  from combining or consolidating and reviewing and resolving the issues concerning this matter well these are they're they're two different programs under two different beneficial effect for him in the current proceeding i think you said that he would have to go back to the board of corrections and get the reasons changed and things to get some wonder why what that might be one way he could get the benefit why is that the only way and what i'm thinking of is that if indeed there is a case specific factual in florida into what conduct and with what intent led to the rehabilitation failure that a finding in the other proceedings that he had a psychiatric problem that may under in particular under the one hundred sixty four opinion administrator opinion that in any event that he had a psychiatric problem that contributed to lead to cause the soon continuing drinking that i will assume underlies the rehabilitation failure why wouldn't that be enough to lead without a change of of record of reason in the order of correction to a favorable decision on the educational benefit claim here go back to the statute which the thirty eleven and really focuses on in you know why was he discharged and it was the discharge for a physical or mental condition not characterized as a disability and did not result in the individual's own willful misconduct but did interfere with the individual performance of duty that strikes me as a determination that is for the military are early on said the parties agree that certain conduct underlying a rehabilitation failure can be mis what can be willful misconduct i've not sure i heard you say must rehabilitation failure failure constitute willful misconduct or to put it another way can rehabilitate himself here or alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse even or easier position that at least the drinking part always constitutes looking right i mean if so what we have to look to is the guidance from the disability opponent i think one of the reasons we look at is the reason for the g i bill in the first place which was to provide educational benefits to those who volunteer for military service and who complete their terms of service so generally speaking if you have a three year term in service and you complete that three year term and service congress has decided that that there are some educational assistance will be provided to you and there are very narrow exceptions if you don't complete your term of voluntary service if you have a service connected disability in this particular exception for being discharged for medical or to the condition that's not a result of willful misconduct and it makes sense that congress that is an individual who doesn't complete their term of service because they abuse alcohol and aren't able to continue no to be to provide educational benefits for in the same way that someone who is able to complete their military service i think that's the distinction i think between that and someone who is able to complete their their voluntary term of service but who has a medical administrative administration nine eighty eight opinion of you think that says and if so where that a person who has the condition of being of having alcohol dependence and of not directly address out the whole event itself and whether simply drinking because of alcoholism is willful misconduct that only and only addresses the result of behaviors that one then takes afterwards  firmed in this oral argument that it is conceding that the board categorical ruling was an error because alcohol rehabilitation failure is not always willful misconduct that's enough of a ground to reverse here and point out that the factual record but undeveloped below and underdeveloped because the board ruled that mr martin didn't have the opportunity to develop the record because it could the board's rule as a matter of law on this case needs factual development as your owners pointed out the proceedings before the montgomery regional office might be highly pertinent to these proceedings precisely because a judge try to point that the evidence that mr martin's rehabilitation failure was influenced or caused by a psychiatric disorder but certainly indicate that his rehabilitation failure was not the result of willful misconduct but the might might that taking him out of the other precondition of not being not caused by a disability it's it's that is that a good question your honor nothing that said board should address below here the board did not address the other factors of death of this category this exception and whether his psychiatric disorder was considered a disability humor to go back and have his military record corrected by the word it's not a necessary next step it's certainly an option but one of the other options we argued that mr martin could prove that his rehabilitation failure was not the result of willful misconduct even without having to change his records to show that he was he was discharged of some other reason it could be correct that he was discharged for rehabilitation failure and yet that failure could be the result of something other than