i don't think that it was introduced as an exhibit i don't believe that part of this right but there was a there was a whole issue about the idea mail because he was charged with in may twenty first even as the case progress became a power it was it was alleged by the you can see that it was inappropriate because it was a violation of the marine corps chain of command that policy is talk to your supervisor first then you go to the next picking one it was the one when they were clear that they regarded the e mail list the most serious because what happened was for four of the failures to follow instruction failures to meet these  given a five day suspension so you know that four of those for you to follow those deadlines deserve a five day suspension and then what happened the e mail came along that they took away that they rescinded the fine day suspension and they because there was two more instances of missed deadlines and the authorised absence for a day and so the fourteen day suspension just to make terminations based on the two more missed deadlines one think it warrants removal well i don't have an argument with the five i don't have an argument with it jumping from five to fourteen my argument is fourteen determination and my argument is based on this if you look at the fourteen day suspension the charges that were actually based on on on on that were more serious then the charges that are of the removal they actually took one charge pal what about the a well very well they've actually terminated him for for a group of charges that are less serious than what was in the fourteen days suspension and that's basically my art it's just did if you if you plot the line of reasoning that was based on two charges with a terminations based on four charges and they said well you can't it's unreasonable to jump from a five day to a time nation based on a doubling of the charges because number one one of the charges was not  a fourteen day because of that charter and that proposed suspension they were alleging that mr dietrich intentionally missed these deadlines deliberately not following instructions and  discretion is because you've got a terminations for although one or two more charges they are less serious charges and also there is an after he told me to do so and we had been but he did it he had met with the librarian two weeks before he was told to do so so while he didn't follow the instruction he did do what he was told to do he just did before he was told to do and some of these things have these kinds of explanations attached to them so that we have technical violations either but when you get to the substance it's  did not it was not within his chain of command there was a local in the resources office he did not go to that human resources office instead he went to the human resources in the city now they are correct that the human resources in the  you could go through there or there was human resources office at their base that you go to to file a grievance and he was counseled on the number of options that were available to me this was not an option that was available to him and yet continue i'd like to just briefly we are going to one more point with regard to the difference between a fourteen day suspension and ultimately a removal i think ultimately while  whistleblowing tried to we didn't raise any charges but i would say that what he was doing in terms of the complying would fall under the protection of whistleblower act if he wanted to bring one but he did he did he did and joint appendix is the page where the deciding official concedes that the most of the offenses read be characterized as minor offenses except the email offense which he regards as insubordination and insubordination is considered more serious than failing to meet a deadline and so i think it is the most serious that i disagree with counsel that he was charged with anything other than one email the record is not entirely clear of what e mail that is because they don't lay students may twenty one and there were several e mails that were discussed throughout the case the agency said that it was the may thirty first e mail not the e mail sent more than the the e mail set forth in the charge was not attached to the charges so we assume that the agency is right when they say that it's been one thirty first e mail i stand corrected that was introduced as an exhibit  of the administrative law judge is not a part of this record and we will certainly submit they had after after today's hearing when he was only charged with one e mail there was some discussion about him having been for the chain of command policy but he was not charged with violating that policy except with regard to this one e mail there were no repeated e mails forming the basis of the ch