to start by referring to the guidelines that were attached to the government's brief and in particular on page two it says it must be remember these guidelines are generally they're not hard and fast rules are to be applied mechanically mindlessly in all cases and each overpayment case is unique with its own set of circumstances inequities reason and common sense  and so what's our standard offering feel for whether or not the o p m apply the simple test and common sense or not mindless is that what your argument is is that they didn't apply this that is my argument specific standards without reference to the particular circumstances in this case what it is what exactly are you seeking here on behalf of your client  me make certain assertions about he would have retired or whatever that's not a feel that we are we would see that we've had you are seeking that they're not the recovery of the c m applied standard of we cover you would be against equity and good conscience right that's correct all right so you're not claiming financial hardship under was claiming under a that he would be getting an excess of eight hundred dollars i'll pay so this he any same as hair confirm that mr chalets is told you'll be getting eight hundred dollars and he buys thousand two thousand and ten sometime it doesn't even recognize some kind of in congruity in buying it up to four hundred when he already knows that it's eight hundred that that was only after some sixteen months when he was receiving the eight hundred fifty nine dollars per month right and he's but it's buying it up to four hundred one thousand and that's when that's also the same time money later  month later when he was advised that he was but doesn't he see any income grow to the month before when he buys it up if i really believe that it's over eight hundred and the as a part of guarantee why should he pay the extra money that that is the question look larry it is a question you doubt and let me answer it this way just i think one has to put oneself in the position of a government employee who not sophisticated and is not aware and frankly this is is a sophisticated enough at least to write down the name of the person who tells him he's going to get eight hundred dollars a month because if there's no recovery would be unconscionable in my understanding i can't put my finger on it now and the stuff that he got everybody who gets the first check or whatever gets a notice that you know this is tentative and we don't know we can recover your overpaid so he ha back i mean this happens i guess i'm fortunately pretty routinely that somebody gets more money that it shouldn't notify upfront that this isn't your final thing and we're still doing the calculation yes it's unfortunate but why is this different than every other case you suggest and every time o p m overpay someone obviously if somebody is getting more upfront they have a reason to believe that's what they're going to be getting through sure why is that enough twenty percent of the regulation where i'm changing is that this is exceptional exceptional because of the amount of difference because the difference here is so much calculations here beyond that why is that i mean there is a provision in the regulations that say that if it would cause financial hardship then that's an argument that could be made for o considering you're not relying on that why is the difference of the amount of efficient just say it would be unconscionable to cover the him up i think this long period in which they didn't demand payment right away they gave him a long period interest free of eighty dollars to take of that and say this is a hardship for me can you cut it down to forty and extended over you know no you did not do that and i would just say this and then i'll reserve the rest of my time  under the totality of the circumstances i would suggest that what happened here is the equivalent to that for mental reliance if in fact he had relied on something something that he was told by somebody else and that gets gets me back to what i say about a government employee for a government employee to understand we have to distinguish between o m making that determination and the department which is working i think is a stretch i think and if in fact there were o p other than the fact that it was the department of labor which is the same government and the same employer time of the government now mr didn't s m is the only part of the government that can actually do either the the formal in the informal estimate and the ultimately make that calculation and the reason is wrong that people move around in the government to change jobs they work part time for time there's a lot of information that can go into this number it's a complicated i'm looking at it i'm looking at the letter says that are all retirement benefits yes or so and it a government worker gets letter from profit three hundred forty dollars yes you're out of it so obviously the government also had the estimate i mean one head of the government says i'm going to give you three hundred forty dollars the other had gives them a hundred  the six eighteen months if they're there in this case it took approximately sixteen months before he got the letter and he i mean there are elements along the way of sixteen months for the government to figure out that his his they were overpaying on it your honor he was he was being paid on an interim basis so he understood with i mean that he was getting some money on an interim basis because that final number hadn't been figured it couldn't be figured until certain dominoes not one of which was he had to have the election which he made in october of two thousand tents that he ate that's when he wrote a check for six hundred seventy two dollars he had to make that election so that once all the pieces are together then o p m has the final number basically you know go and go without the money until the paperwork is that so they get the money on an interim basis so all this information is gathered and processed and then once the final numbers is created either some is taken out to make up for that their overpayment to the fact that he was a part time person so where they just actually doubling it because they hadn't factored in part time that it is my understanding is your honor if that is the case that if that is that it's something that has to be hand computed more or less because every every time he works less than a full shift or full amount it has to go in to see what percentage he's ultimately working over all this time to o p m can come up with a number that's a that that is an estimate by the agency o p m is the only agency within the united states is authorized to actually make the payment they actually have to do their own number crunching so there could be some people who work part time at what agency third basis that he could have asserted which was financial hardship and he did if he had and the question would be ok if we're i mean wow that's a lot of money for go and bring it back and we're going to put this person in a bad financial position he chose not to shirk that and that was not unconscionable it would also swamp the seventeen months one on month sixteen finally getting the information necessary to compute the amount of snow yes you're on it i mean it could is that's not an obsessive delay it was not found to be by by that the administrative judge in your own right we don't believe it is because that the question of unconscionable it is a look at the all the circumstances and whether it would be u he had a chance to assert that but there's none of that is in the record it's just that oh this happened to go on for a number of months and so no your honor under just a and what they were trying to him in spinella was just a length of time that alone is not enough to show before you can be detrimental on the position or himself that he bought the car for ten thousand that it's risky estimated the resale value at nine thousand certainly that's that's not direct every revocable and in fact in the guidelines in the o car and moreover the board found that he did not show that he would not have bought the car on the bus for war in fact what all what that the a j found quote simply put the appellant did not change his position on the the standard of review it's o p m has discretion here and that fact the statute says it in no uncertain terms recovery of payments that that that may be made from an individual when in the judgment of the o p m the and then it goes on so left just very briefly first of all as to financial hardship on the fact is that the situation he had some resources and the and to assert that he absolutely could not afford this at the time would have been on trip on the other hand he did choose to retire and told and said that he did it on his understanding that was going to get something in the neighborhood of eight hundred dollars per month which is what he said he needed to retire in fact he's had to take out a reverse mortgage on his home it's nothing that o p m did and that gets back to the essence of my argument for a government employee to make the distinction between what o p m does and what he's told and i would suggest c never received that there's nothing in the evidence in the record to indicate that he did so o p m failed to do was make a  c took that money in good faith and is not now able to get back to work so has to live with that all we are asking is that he not have to reimburse money he