appendix including his social security number i mean there are at least almost ten pages in which you have this information and you should have redacted it's my understanding our clerk's office has contacted you or tried to on multiple occasions about this  unsuccessful in getting a hold of you would you like to submit a redacted version of the appendix in electronic form so that we don't have the veterans private social security number on our web page  i guess i don't really even understand your citation to that case because here the board didn't say they weren't qualified to testify the board simply looked at the nature of the testimony and found like it found that it didn't really support the position for instance you've got somebody who says well i heard from someone else that something else occurred and the board just said that's just not enough i never said the mere fact that it's a lay person testifying means it's not enough well the issue here is that the board and the veterans court found that the lazy statements alone were not enough to substantiate the claim well they didn't believe that as just he says they looked in and said here's what they did not believe them experienced the claimed stress or it's the whole problem is there's nobody to document whether it be in writing or in oral testimony that he witnessed icicles falling down and killing people bulldozers going over tens and destroying people there's no question that the man has p t s d there's no question he had military service the question is there are unable to document any of these events even occurring much less that he witnessed these events because simply being present you know at a base where something happened that you didn't witness wouldn't be give rise to a stressor that they can't even establish there's no evidence that these events even occurred there are military medical records of the individuals who were harmed by the falling icicles of the bulldozer there's nothing and then those witnesses that came along they just said one of them said oh yeah i heard that stuff happened to do but i also didn't have any firsthand knowledge of either the events or whether mr breslin was present there and just so maybe it was just they didn't disregard them they paid attention to them and they said there is nothing in the history not medical history there's nothing in the history that indicates this event occurred which is the same here here's a hearsay statement and that or the book says and says well let's see if we can find anything that supports that that doesn't mean that they're found writing it means they're saying well this is inherently unbelievable but maybe we can find something that shows that it was true hearsay is always inherently a believable but in this context we're not dealing with your sixty that's we're dealing with you are going with some hearsay statements when somebody says i've heard that's that something i've heard from someone else is not hearsay in this context there were icicles that fell and impale to fellow soldiers the only the only people that could witness that were the two soldiers that true there could be there could be people who witnessed the bodies there could be people who witnessed you know them being treated medically there could be you know there could be all kinds of things and one of like so let's just take these but he statements one of them the board said we can't even find couldn't even find evidence that he ever served with this individual at that particular location well that would segue into the second argument being that they did request the proper records in violation of the remailer for d d they specifically unfortunately in their request they only half whether or not d d served with the appellant and company b and where they got that information from who knows and the board and then the veterans court finds that well that's complying with the remainder orders man i can understand why you're expressing some dissatisfaction with that and i understand your argument completely and if we had jurisdiction over things like that that would be a very compelling statement the problem is we don't know that's that's whether or not they comply with the riemann order is a question of fact and whether or not they asked for service records for the whole company versus a particular pl two i know i'm not getting these words right just bear with me but you know that that's all factual and congress didn't see fit to give us the authority because you could be one hundred percent right and probably are about everything you're saying right now but i'll see how i have the authority to give you any relief based on that particular failure of the factual question is pollsters whether or not the incidents actually happened or if you have a soldier who served in a remote base up in alaska and remembers incidents of fellows service members being being harmed or killed that is that is a some sort of positive factual sora lot of things i heard in the army that i couldn't say actually occurred but if you have three separate statements bolstering your claim i think mr pressure himself never even says he witnessed any of these things he said he walked past icicle place thirty later and it create demand out but i mean the he doesn't say that he was in the zone to witness these things cracked certainly and that's not the you know issue here is not whether him walking past the icicles just before they fell is enough to qualify for a claim post traumatic stress disorder that's you know we can't even get to that level if the board and the court says well these these events didn't happen which is basically what this happening here that they've board says we're going to completely downgrade these these stressors because there's no evidence in the record that they occur but there is evidence in the record that the kurds you have three they were ordered to ascertain whether he served with the veteran issue and they went back and performed and to narrow the search and concluded he didn't serve with them there's no evidence i'm serving with them in your argument is perfectly well when i ask you for them to look for the entire records from and i think what it was one hundred sixty nine one hundred seventy one for every individual sort of the military they were simply ordered to determine whether or not d d served on that same crater due process violation could be when there's an order from the board specifically saying determine whether or not d d served with the about i was the one and they frankly just don't do that the v a just ignores it where in europe idle time i just give the government a chance says that complying with the remand order it involves making factual determination so at the very least applying the law to the facts against the when we have a constitutional issue we're allowed to dig into the facts correct well and which involves a number of factual determination that were made by the board nothing has been pointed out as to why any sort of that process we from from the documents it's apparent that there were at least two battalions which i would assume could be anywhere from five hundred to a thousand soldiers each battalion so potentially good so that certainly there were at least general requests made by the v a to j s r c to try to determine whether d d actually served entire battalion service thin was compliance with with this remand order and you know mr brush is not challenging the standard which would be a legal issue with regards to whether or not  you know whether or not substantial compliance was the stand or whether the board said it could be minimal compliance sensually just asking this court to make a factual determination with regards to what exactly be aided in complying with this remand order as i say as we've just pointed out we think if it ever got to that point that the v a did substantially comply but as reflected in the diamond vs principally case we certainly do not think that that's an issue that this court has jurisdiction to entertain we'd also like to address the issue of the latest  credibility findings as to the statements it looked at the statement of the veteran which essentially said that he had heard stories which were certainly hearsay and they pointed to that as a reason to downgrade the credibility and probative value of that statement that veteran there's no evidence that he witnessed this event happened he heard it second or third hand the same is true of testimony from the veteran d d there's been a number of efforts made to attempt to determine whether he actually served at the time of mr gresham but those were unsuccessful and so we  hundred sixty six it says this is from the board it's as if insufficient information is a record to verify such as the veteran to provide evidence that he indeed served together in one nine hundred seventy the a reached out to the to mr gresham asking for that information and it's apparent from the records that mr gresham never responded so the v a attempted to reach out obtain that information from mr brusha who may have some information if you was a buddy as to what you know when he served in additional information  there are any further questions or simply the last first choice of incredible that his service personnel records and the military records which fail to document the alleged stress or as well as the lack of any mental health problems until two  him that show that he was experiencing mental health problems while he was in service the board if you can and did almost the exact same thing they said well we're going to disregard those body statements because there is nothing in the service medical that's what the board the statements there is no evidence corroborating that d d served with the veteran in addition the statement from b c noted that he recalled hearing stories about the icicle incident and bulldozer incident but a statement clearly reflects that he did not witness the events or have any first hand knowledge of them neither statement provided dates or names of the individuals involved and neither statement establishes that the veteran with the alleged incidents i mean they're not saying that by definition lay statements can't be enough in the absence of documentation that might be destroyed what they're saying is these lay statements were not andy says b c says i heard stories about what we read from a falling  large falling icicles that killed two men coming out of planes all that door one winter another words it looks to me like he's saying i don't know which winter that was i just heard stories of that happening one winter the difference here that if if there would have been a body statement to say i saw the icicles fall and the board still says well there's nothing in the service medical records then that's a violation again what's what's the what's the difference how can you wait can't have it with the difference