[brief] (Raised below at Pa1-151).  The ALJ in its Decision generally directed the Board to stay true to the fact that it is governing over a remedial statute that must be liberally interpreted to effectuate purpose; which is to protect the disabled police officer or firefighter; not exalt faulty and twisted tortured logic to achieve a result where the Board can in blanket fashion deny even the taking of a retirement disability application as to anyone that is permanently disabled who signs a good faith amicable agreement with the employer.  This Court like the ALJ is anticipated to have no difficulty finding that the Board took a series of fatal missteps in failing to marshal the undisputed facts regarding that the MOU’s purpose which was to facilitate the disability retirement application of an officer that was no longer for duty due to a traumatic event where the discharged his weapon to ward off a potentially deadly attack.  Despite the fact that the only evidence in the case which was presented corroborated [...]’s and the [...]’s account that the MOU involved an amicable agreement between [...] and the [...] which was done strictly to facilitate a complicated retirement/disability process and complex reconciliation of financial payments to [...] in accordance with the SOA contract, the Board disgorged itself of true facts and simply chose to inject its indefensible and wholly unsupported judgment that the MOU was a *quid pro quo* to avoid a disciplinary process.  The Board’s denial letters blocking [...]’s application do not cite one scintilla of factual evidence to support this erroneous and misguided theory.  The Board as the ALJ pointed out ignored the fact that the [...] supported [...]’s application for disability retirement recognizing that [...] was totally disabled as a result of the near death experience emotional trauma caused from the shooting incident.  The Board never disputed [...]’s claim to permanent disability.  The Board never sent [...] for an IME.  Despite this fact the Board in ruling against [...] claimed in an imaginary endeavor to speculate and suppose that [...] might regain fitness for duty one day in the five-year statutory period whereby he would if he regained fitness need to report for work.  The Board claimed that this fact made processing [...]’s disability application impossible since the MOU would not allow for his return to the [...] when the five-year period had run its course almost entirely.  The Board disregarded the fact that [...] would never regain fitness as the mental health therapist’s lengthy in-depth October of 2020 report on this point was unequivocally clear and undisputed.  The Board in late 2022 when it issued its final ruling against [...] still relied on this imaginary view that he might regain fitness in five-year period and could not return to [...] making him in the Board’s view ineligible to receive benefits from the [...].  This is incredulous given that five years had already passed when the Board made its final decision, and that [...] could seek work in any other police department in New Jersey if the impossible happened and he regained fitness to serve magically, which is an impossibility by any rational analysis.  (Pa124-130).