our next case this morning has go the mandate a hearing was held over the course of two days and people wrote found that there was not a usera violation in that the  because the direct supervisor of ms godfrey a woman named angela havens investigated proposed and decided her remov when in fact that supervisor ms hagan is was the target of criticism and the target of a claim of hostile work environment that ms godfrey had assert the removing person in the investigating person being the same i would distinguish that because in dishonor oath that person was not the target of that type of criticism that we have in this biased but didn't the board in this instance determine that even this did not demean or in any way carry improper feelings towards this  that year two thousand and eight the topic of the meeting was how could ms godfrey catch up from a backlog of two hundred forty one cases that it had accumulated when she was at the military service so it's a topic that the probability of actual bias understood there's two versions to every story assuming hagan's is one hundred percent right in her earlier version if she were found but there's the probability of bias then come into it well but see we have to deal with one store we have to deal with the facts as they're presented by to us by the war and that shows no threatening no right well but if i could ask the court to hear an additional item that was in the record that apparently the board overlooked because godfrey then asked to be you're trying to create a situation where you're saying your military service prevents you from catching up on the work and further that if throws into the mix an allegation that godfrey was late in service and supposedly these late delivery of the military orders to payments created an environment where agents had every reason  resulting therefrom against them so the record did have in there and then the court did overlook it and it didn't overlook it because it wasn't viewing things through the constitutional prism we don't know that but put recovered days after this court issued its mandate is that a coincidence i suggest not if you look at the chart on fifteen every time she ran away a military leader there was a counteraction within denied it had a three month period and a three day extension which wraps speired in january of two thousand and nine they don't move for then they let eight months go by she would leave the military service again the just to give you some of the flavor of the earlier proceedings in this case involved derogatory information in ms godfrey's official personnel file that by virtue of settlement offending material she makes a copy for on record because she knows the litigation involved here this could be useful as she gives it to her supervisor the supervisor keeps going to lock and key doesn't destroy the worst finding yes well that's not a connection to her other than they work for the same agency the manager of the same havens keeps the material to see look at the material to it had offensive material it's in there but the since two sever complaint and we submit that in this case there was abundant information and that the court below erred by not considering all the evidence and taking into account the first count or due process argument in fact we did my own latter contesting the removal which was through the fifteen day period where we had a right to contest it neatly lays out the constitutional argument the two thousand and nine  days before the hearing didn't correlate a constitutional issue he claimed that we had raised harm resulting from procedural error i submit your orders that's a distinction without a difference and that we have certainly preserved when i think we begin is the court of knowledge and disarm no that the law presumes that a supervisor is capable of changing their mind when they have the opportunity to hear the evidence presented by the employee against her and the administrative judge concluded that there was no evidence that ms havens expressed syllabi towards her due to her military service so she didn't have the opportunity to present a case that haven's was biased against taking these actions against her for some legitimate reason and she did not meet her burden in that in that regard with respect to the missing  file the six pages that contends were not before the board as mr godfrey's counsel knowledge is all the facts supporting her constitutional argument were before the board and were considered and to the extent that the