worked for the central intelligence agency and earlier for the military for over twenty seven years that the agency in the fall of ninety ninety nine and i think i j notified him that he was eligible for early retirement programs that they were putting into effect that for he met those eligibility requirements and made the request for retirement when he makes up for qwest he made that request in october of one nine hundred ninety eight what's the evidence for that the evidence we only have was a copy of a copy of a letter he sent to the agency now the difficulty with the evidence in this request in october of ninety ninety eight for early retirement he claims he was offered early retirement yes they sent an offer to all of the real employees of the cia i've got time that they could apply for early retirement that document showing that there was an early retirement period from from i believe september of one thousand nine hundred eight to the end of december but that's not on the record and who was eligible for this early when he program and that he had made application in october he was not separated from the agency until the end of january of the following year so at the time i'd be made  question have you previously filed an application for a time a man says no he never had not file an application with o p m and he understood that i was supposed to answer the question i don't know i don't have  apply to the agency and he did apply to be eighty eight cents a letter they did not ask him to do anything further he was told he met the requirements he said i want to retire they consideration is sufficient to trigger them to continue with what centrally is a ministerial function that they say ok wants to retire which he did there then supposed to process they have no explanation from the a p why they refused to process this request from october through jan well at that time was he even though he had not been removed was removed some kind of removal action in process he will not recover in the end of january i believe it was only under investigation i don't believe the first time the note was notified that he was going to be removed it was three days after he was the removal date was january twenty seventh and i believe it was so he would notif not not so in the october and the october of ninety eight timeframe he's he's under suspension while the investigation is pending then he gets a notice of removal presumably the result of the investigation and qualified the document yes we do in the record there is his form of choose pages twenty through twenty five which show please the court in this p b s decision should be firm because there is substantial evidence which shows that mr siren's was not retiring pursuant to really our opportunity that attempted to get in the cia has to go back let's assume hypothetically that the cia had a notice and it says if you meet the age in time or service requirement you are automatically eligible and will be c v early out  december thirty first let's assume hypothetically that he wrote that and he said i accept i want to retire please process me through and then the agency does nothing doesn't he under those circumstances have a cause of action has i have a right to go back and say you offered me this you promised me know if them to bob i accepted your offer so retroactively you have to implement i don't know that's true you're our reason i say this is  forward and had a letter in which he met i accept so even if the agency in fact didn't affection wait his retirement in that period wouldn't when he prevail in this instance wouldn't have a right to go back and demand the pepi implemented assumes that assumes that he responded in writing and said i accept your offer and he has a no that you can from assume that for purposes of a hypothetical if he had such a proof that he had indeed accepted the unconditional offer hypothetically would he then be entitled to go back and enforce probably not and the reason i say that is because of the particular facts an offer that has been made in the early retire now if that's again that's that's i think it's process getting to her hypothetical what is the answer those facts were to obtain is a difficult he said that it's now undisputed an offer was made and he said subsequently documents came to light or were furnished or whatever that shows the reflected an offer of early there was although you can't specify that the details are precisely who would be covered and was some kind of record suggested as probably sometime early out offer on the table for a certain period it seems that that was thirty six the the one that says that if you've been separated for misconduct you can't qualify for this program is it the government's view that at the time he was arguably hypothetically eligible for early retirement that he arguably came under eighty three thirty six d because he was removed for misconduct and the statute says when you're notified that you're going to be news misconduct doesn't the government have put a burden to come up with the tape paperwork to demonstrate when he was in the notified that he was going to be moved for misconduct and if the only evidence of record shows the date he was removed and nothing's prior to that doesn't that kind of unearth to the detriment of the government  a case that says even if you have not been removed if you are under invested under the subject of investigation that could result in removal you during that period cannot claim early did eighty three third's thirty sixty two refers to this language or duly notified notified that was going to be separate that you're going to be separate and what i'm