says this is sort of appendix eleven eighteen with reference to the criteria for a seventy percent disability rating as shown in an extract from the v a s r d ye looked at those ratings and they have tillis each one of those symptoms and address whether or not they exist in the in th grading scale and getting back to judge lynn's question looking at that section there is a discussion of a seventy percent disability rating sort of conflict the page on to a one one one night and it says the consultant places probative value in  reading determination by the d p a there was no rating determination by the e p a there's going to parent confusion that the consultant believes there was a seventy percent rating for him in the record when there was not and the only discussion of that f r day in any seventy percent rating is in the context of context of dismissing the pope at a value of a rating that wasn't before the consultant there was some confusion and then he goes on to match up the ga high school which that scale and if you look at the receipt of the regulations thirty percent is described as definite and you can see is that how it ties definite that's a quotation from that source he's characterized that independently as a model and that's of me we have many many cases that make clear that it's not necessary for for a board to sort of articulate with great particularities every basis for a solution and there is a presumption of regularity that the board considered all the evidence before so if we conclude that the standard for before the board as that's the full record was before the board then here's your argument that well they just haven't explained enough about how they got from a to b knowing on this non argument argument is not withstanding the presumption is we know what law they discussed and applied and that was the wrong law as argued well i must might mark my assumption is that you know that we disagree with you on that point all right well my second answer your honor is that if you take the actual undisputed findings of fact as to this killer disability which are extraordinarily severe weekly suicidal ideation that can only be matched with a seventy match the record a little bit with the listed symptoms and just for a second i'll say that you know i think you're right that my naked cute depression or whatever the many symptoms are difficulties in relationships and there are thirty or forty different things there how could i substitute my judgment for that of these a fact and we can't revisit that certainly l o l i was a finding by the formal physical evaluation board and that was what i was the less was the point that the doctors looked at all that the physicians looked at all that and they said only in the seventy percent category of not back in the thirty i checked that off when i was doing this little exercise but the doctor looked at all this and said well conceivably that's not a evaluation board and made and found those specific findings the problem with what the normal physical evaluation board did with did tribute some recent times including for most of your sentence to borderline personality disorder so that decision w diagnosis of borderline personality disorder mr taylor's most severe symptoms were all attributed to wear line personality disorder we significantly discounted her really and so that initial decision by the form of physical evaluation  well we have to distinguish between how she appeared on the day versus the overall judgment of the right and yes she may have appeared well groomed and therefore doesn't fit that one box of seventy but against weekly suicide deviations social isolation these standard to refute this record of this court in this type of proceeding is that you review the decision below without deference in other words you apply the same standard as the trial were to and in assessing the propriety of the correctness of the board's actions that means that you cannot overturn the decision of alone lets you find that it's arbitrary and capricious or under supported by substantial evidence there is substantial evidence in the record to support that decision but look the trial for media finding of fact zat the physical evaluation board did in fact use the was arbitrary or givens up the fact that a lot of the evidence was originally considered in conjunction with the determination of by borderline personality disorder you said that was that was disorder was not correct and then there is there are sort of i guess there's no clear articulation of the reassessment if you will of the fact finding with regard record clearly shows that the board had all of the evidence before the presumptive we considered all of that evidence i said i'm convinced that the board was aware of the standards in the v a s r t and normally presume that they were properly applied but we have no articulation in either the medical consultants report or the board's opinion of that of that determination that appeared before the informal evaluation board to reassess whether or not she was able to remain on active duty and if not the percentage rate and its ability that for her from as part of that proceedings she appeared before a psychiatric board to assisting have to psych up to psychiatry one of whom personally interviewed her they prepared a psychiatric attendance when you look at that of determination to the physical evaluation for the formal physical evaluation board that poor taking that same evidence to include looking at the psychiatric  wrote a report where they recommended that she be permanently retired and that she received thirty percent disability rating in accordance with the vat for r d in the near it if they explicitly stated that they were referring to the vassar r d and that she should receive thirty percent there is no mention that they took into account any of her borderline personality disorder diagnosis they do reckon nies on the  that's the council then that council took into account her borderline personality disorder and they referenced that the symptoms that she expressed in terms of suicidal ideation is an ability to consideration of the borderline personality disorder the council's decision recommended that she be recommended as did the informal maybe you can help just address this question it strikes me that the because when you look out the secretary of the councils person or the secretary of the air force personnel council's decision they do take into account the borderline personality when they said that she should separated with a ten percent disability rating when you look at the medical consultants report he says that decision was in here and that he recommends that the thirty percent as recommended by the physical evaluation fo reinstated so for the board of corrections to military record what was before them was the decision of the secretary of the air force to separate miss taylor with a ten percent disability rating based erroneous consideration of the borderline personality disorder if we did we did a medical consultant take into account the evidence with regard to suicidal  honor in terms of what did he specifically consider or not consider in his report he says he considered the entire medical file in front of him and didn't well let's let's let's give him credit for that and let's also agree that there is evidence of suicidal kiddie age yes ron so then what is this what do we make of the fact that record in time and in the last section of the medical consultants report she acknowledges there may be gaps in the record a to the medical evidence warranting and seventy percent he afforded ms taylor an opportunity to present at the sean bell campus that had not previously been presented which would warrant a seventy percent says maybe she didn't have anything else with the question then is well i mean maybe he didn't consider the evidence and didn't find it credible credible or even in the big picture analysis concluded that that was not that that didn't justify a seventy percent award but here's what we have no nothing to review because there is no statement that indicates anything other than the fact that i looked at everything your honor the focal point is not whether or not she should receive the seventy percent of the focal point the thirty percent supported by two stands for evidence and the record shows that it is when you look at it entirely we have a different sense about it but i would submit that in in every case where someone argues that a seventy percent rating might apply and there is a certain minimal threshold showing made thirty percent would be supported by substantial evidence so you would argue that well in every case just grant thirty percent because substantial evidence supports it if there's contrary evidence that supports seventy percent and you take it all into account when the argument is that substantial evidence doesn't thirty percent when you look at what miss taylor is asking she is asking this court to take the same medical evidence that different sets at least four different sets of medical professional evaluated throughout the proceeding and the highest reading that any of those medical professions found was thirty percent she is asking this court just disregard that this regard out cherry found that she was not suffering from suicidal ideations but when she appealed to the physical evaluation board that's when she reported the weekly suicidal ideations so that the board was aware that but they also found that problems were resolving she was visiting from psychotherapy she had seen that psychiatry she was on medication all of those factors when to that she was a seventy percent disabled so each seventy percent disability now if that were in fact all that it would take to get the seventy percent we would submit that seventy percent would be the norm because most individuals were poor weakly suicidal ideations we have doctors who evaluated the evidence and they did consider her self reported symptoms but they found that the medical evidence in the evaluation and took fifty pills that was that was the situation which led to her and her officer said how could they have like chatter the hospital the day later your honor that was those that was the situation which led to her initial medical board which led to her being placed on the t d r and which led to where we are now with the permanent twenty terms of what was in front of the board when they made the thirty percent diagnosis that she had been on the t v r l for eighteen months she was released and she have participated in seventy therapy sessions with a psychiatry is she was on medication so the specific leave the night where she was trying to take her own life that it was more of a personality conflict so now that now your honor is the evidence the substantial evidence supports the permanent so i think  associated with seventy percent there's no additional way need to be done there digital factors yes and there needs to be showing that it impacts your work in school and social environment those findings are there is without doubt the case said that the seven seventy percent rating that is it's incorrect or correct based on whether on the decision based on one of the symptoms or before twelve i mean really what we're looking that what we're looking at seventy percent is whether the ultimate based on this evidence in the testimony we suicidal ideations this is not just some random some purport this is a factual determination that can't be revisited now and it certainly didn't be supported by the medical records and if you take  medical evidence and match it to the thirty seven percent is the only answer one final point if you look it was a medical consultant yes she did not look at the severe sentence she looked at one thing the g s for which he had just moderate