fifty combat veterans preference we believe that is shown in the face of this record with regard to judge mormons decision where he starts off by saying that the court  held a condition to far and in terms of tone threshold perceptions and speech recognition measurements susceptible to way observation now translating  that is saying that it wasn't what i experience it was rather what i experienced in this rifle training non combat duty i've read that when you look at the palette of the veterans they are you saying that while i was in service i was exposed to a lot of loud voice and of different language going back and forth between the issue of auditory trauma something that would cause her to lose her and the conclusion from that that the person lost three things that were part of this one is the of it the auditory trauma of loud loud noise and the second is injury right then and there that might have been caused fair that our cases have said kind of a lot of issues for applies to both of the first but not to the connection from the in come that injury suffered as a result of that's why i'm here is i think that what you that actually said with regard to eleven fifty four is that we were only looking at veterans cases in terms of a three but you've also said that there seems to be a separate and distinct three step analysis with regard to eleven fifty four claims w it out through although it seems every professional every audiology professional who was asked for an official opinion said or did not say that the relationship the nexus was possible instead consistently said that it would be speculative that gap between refusing that this was something that was a the court ward the court gave weight dispositive way to that that there was no one no professional that it was at least as likely as not if not more likely than not it is there are gaps in the record here as it was produced that may have th i don't believe there's a gap in the record in the sense that there's out there in the world something that would verify mr varies but it wasn't verified i mean this is really the question  professional said it was speculative leaving the impression that it was an overreach to suggest the relationship i don't believe that's the only way one could look at th asked at that time because it was an odd claim for veterans that for any causal link they didn't ask whether people just in their early thirty's have severe hearing loss or whether it could be related to being in combat gear or anything like that so what we have it is the nexus between the service time and early in life hearing l can't hear and if there wasn't the intervening hearing examination in the one thousand six this wouldn't be much of a client because when you wait too long it is quite possible that no one can associate what's happening with you now with something that happens you fifty years ago but that's not this record and that's not what the v a did with this case so what we can actually see from this record is that fifty years later no professional person is willing to speculate that there's a relationship he currently has hearing because of the intervening time period unclear that the doj o d s is resolved in favor of the veteran so here we have professionals who don't say the way they don't say it's more likely than not that there nature of the disability is something which is according to the record is known to increase with choices so where is the principle of if you  have to put my hand up to my ear because i came in evidence one o one we were all in school they called the way people are in fact capable of talking about things that were within the experience of everyone a lay person can testify that the car was going very fast down the top of the veteran a layperson can testify that when i take my glasses off i can't see the  l when i put them on your back again and a lay person can tell you that people tell me that i can't hear and i'm a pain to talk to because i don't  because it says that the eleven fifty four presumption days with the veterans it is not a so called whole presumption that once you accept that the person can testify to the combat trauma there's no longer a presumption it says presumption sticks with the veteran including that there is it with leadership or nexus and that's not unusual for this court