have to go she did in good faith the fact is correct that we would argue respectfully that we were not required to negotiate my client one case not understand but you say that's wrong but all i'm saying is they haven't fixed on the final amount that your client is entitle to or the trapline has to repay that's still an open question as no i don't think dyspeptic because i think by the judge's order my client the agency is not required to pay my client anything because she is alleged respectfully wrongfully that my client did not participate you don't think you can go back and say ok here's the information you want to please go do the computation only if this court romancer to the administrati tape that we allege that he said that and you ever given them a number when you say the back pay which he's owed they've come up even though maybe it hasn't been definitive but i saw three numbers thrown out on the other side reviewing the history of what went down here and i discussions a lot of back and forth but then a lot of stop starts and when you think the government if you think what the government was to offer was offering was wrong isn't it kind of up to you to tell them what's wrong with it so we can move forward on this so they've done the calculations a certain way and i don't really have any idea where we've come through all of this litigation and all these litigation costs and i still don't know where you are o i don't know if the judge isn't necessarily required to sit down and force the parties to settle that's up to the parties and there been discussions so i don't know that and you went through mediation just me so how many more resources have to be expended this is not i understand this retirement stuff and it's all fairly complex in that universe but it's not that complex i don't and i don't know you're saying this spreadsheet isn't adequate and maybe it is maybe it isn't but i haven't seen w you've pointed to why it's inadequate and they seem the wrong numbers of the numbers wrong are the categories wrong are the questions they're asking wrong i don't have any idea what your view is exactly and so don't you think by this time the should be some record of your view on this i mean how is the government supposed to proceed i mean your view is that they were not performing expeditiously in good faith well how are they supposed to proceed if they've got no feedback from your side well i clearly off the record so you had an expectation that the a j here would sit there and decide what calculation was correct if it should hold the hearing i think she could have done that that issue could have been oppressed and should be addressed by an administrative judge  complaint is we don't understand what they've done so let's ask them to explain it or do you i'm really perplexed at how things went down here it seems like a lot of time has passed and a lot of resources including traditional resources have been expended and i don't know how this ends and it seems to me that it by this juncture you or your side arguably would have had enough information to at least come forward and either complain about what the government was putting forth or come up with your own calculations look you guys know me sixty thousand dollars and here's why and that's never been done right well i don't know of the standard again i don't know what discussions were at that the petition level between the kill it's kind of your responsibility to kind of know if the history of experiences here is relevant to our adjudication of this issue it's not really satisfactory for you all to you to say i don't know i don't know that's and you agreed that should have been done yes absolutely but ok and you don't know whether your client represented around a percentage ever did that right ok can i just ask you a background question for just just a little perplexing in my experience doing some of these cases and that is this is what happened in two thousand and twelve they were going to remove your client and the same day that he was supposed to be removed he voluntarily retired is that right removed and then he retired i mean neither neither scenario makes sense to me either he was removed and then he retired or he retired first and then he was removed i don't think you can remove somebody who's already retired i don't now i think it was something to  you judges order the administrative judge's order was to reinstate yeah but within a particular period of time and i think the government agrees he wasn't reinstated within that parliament or half of the time limit ran he was in fact their record i mean it can you your answer jed i think preface started with it could we don't deal with hypotheticals here if he did he apply for jobs and they went to the agency of the agency said he was removed for misconduct and therefore he didn't everybody seems to agree on the facts upon correct about it that he was that there was reinstated but he wasn't reinstated within the applicable condiment of the order so what i was injured by that what do you want the board to do but there's perfectly reasonable for the point of view of your client which is if we go through resenting the retirement and then having to restore it there's a message involved so but at the end of the day when you resisted that they know there are records of how much he received in retirement that offsets whatever calculations he would be done do you have a number and you presented a number i've looked at the other day and calculated a number of approximately ninety thousand dollars to over we're arguing about is what sort of money should or change hands in that brief period that would be corrected for pretty much we will get again believe that it should be a december thirtieth twenty fourteenth date for the retirement not december a practical significance that's correct i think with maybe the exception i'd not sure if it effects of social security and that may be an issue that i think we have to he's also receiving social security at that well incorrect correspondence from the army that uses a never ever thirtieth date and then plaintiff goes out from that one month thirty days and gets to december thirtieth but i will note first again the army's correspondence was incorrect the correct date is in calculations done the first one we owed him a little money the second one he was overpaid and then the third one he was overpaid by a lot it was something like eight thousand or thirty thousand eight thousand and then fifty thousand yeah ok so once the eight thousand number went out there it's that we don't owe you anything it was retained counsel and then once counseled out on board essentially just for whatever reason and again i understand it wasn't this council substantive communication effectively stopped can i just ask you i mean it gives that's probably correct but let's keep in mind that the spreadsheet before that still said that it was eight thousand and the as as your honour's all noted when it was before the board position or had the opportunity to go through all of these spreadsheets and say here is the correct calculation here are all the ways that the government is wrong and here is the number of years what should have happened but and that could have happened but the more fundamental part is that it didn't even  of interrupted you say that could have happened to you saying it did happen i don't know i don't know whether it happened or not i all i can look at is there their brief and i know that their brief before in their position for enforcement does not say your honor here's what we're up they failure to come up with a number what is the effect what is that they failed to do that they had to do they fail to partner provide all the data and participate in the process with army counsel to to get to a number what they did provide they didn't they did that the most fundamental thing is that we have under the statute we have to verify whether or not there's any outside a plane and come right and we did not have  i know that he said he didn't have certain military orders and i know that he said he didn't have certain things and then he was able to produce them later but as far as tax documents for those it would end regardless of whether or not i had them the more fundamental point is the fact that the army went in this transition from a sort of a settlement posture to a ok you you are you know you are forcing us to do the calculation once it has to do that calculation under the statute it's not at liberty to sort of just take positions word for it that he doesn't have any outside employment the army needs to verify that it needs to come to a correct amount so there where do we find he just decision the specific findings of what  that he said he couldn't locate i mean can you really do not ice somebody payment because he can't locate the documents i mean i think if they have it i mean it i guess they're hit they're his documents he's aware of all of them lisa when he's aware of yes you are i mean i understand but he's aware of this situation he's been in th you know he's been in this litigation for a long period of time he's aware of the situation he's aware of the opportunity for backpay i can't think of a better circumstances under which there is an obligation to keep to keep good records and i also don't think that has got any money as he didn't reached out and said look we understand we need some additional documents or requesting those documents we'd like some additional time in order to do so but there's nothing in the record about that will easily answer judge they can just refer to two and three it seems to me that the eight a j we lied it keeps going on four and five yes and talks about a protracted period of non response of miss to the agency inquiry so it seemed i read this as being war then just he didn't come up we don't think we owe you anything but we'd like to settle this maybe there's a small amount that we can come to agreement on now when we get to you know i'll delineated by appendix four and five when we get to appendix four and five now we have council on board which is an odd time admitted communication to stop but that is when substantive communication effectively stopped the only communication on the record and slade on four and five for how long to substitute mutation saw for about eight march or the only communication that occurred was communication regarding scheduling times to talk but again i'm on this record it's unclear and that whether or not those conversations ever took place in fact i w with that you are believe i've touched on the failure to cooperate in good faith i've touched on the reinstatement issue barring any additional questions for the from the court for all these reasons and those presented in response brief respectfully ask this court to affirm the decision of the merits system's protection or