[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Her next case for today is Boynton v. Hunter, appeal number 23-1830.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
Mr. Strong, you can start whenever you're ready.

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
May it please the court, I'm Tom Strong for Michael Boynton.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
Excuse me.

[00:00:22] Speaker 03:
During the 1985 crisis in Beirut, the Marines deployed Mr. Boynton and his co-pilot and friend, known as Zippy, to the USS Iwo Jima.

[00:00:33] Speaker 03:
In pitch black, Zippy and Michael were flying an attack helicopter.

[00:00:38] Speaker 03:
During a difficult maneuver with four other helicopters, theirs stalled and crashed in the Indian Ocean.

[00:00:45] Speaker 03:
The cabin filled with water and gas and began to sink.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
Though Michael surfaced, his friend drowned below.

[00:00:54] Speaker 03:
Fast forward to now, when the Veterans Court and the board have overlooked CFR 4.126 and USC 7104A.

[00:01:07] Speaker 03:
Foundational rules that require the board

[00:01:11] Speaker 03:
to consider all of the evidence of record, regardless of when the evidence was submitted.

[00:01:19] Speaker 03:
In 2018, Mr. Boynton testified to the board he became physical with his wife and had to take seven or eight Xanax to keep from hurting his boss.

[00:01:31] Speaker 03:
He also told the board and two private examiners that PTSD led him to think about killing himself all the time.

[00:01:42] Speaker 03:
The VA found that these symptoms supported a 100% rating for PTSD, but only for 2018 to 2020.

[00:01:49] Speaker 03:
The board and Veterans Court were oddly silent about this evidence that had supported a 100% rating.

[00:02:01] Speaker 03:
They chose to limit its application to 2018 to 2020, creating an evidentiary blackout period.

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
But this limitation led the board and the Veterans Court to violate rules that require the board to consider all of the evidence of record.

[00:02:22] Speaker 03:
A requirement that exists even before analyzing factors like relevance and favorability to determine whether a discussion of the evidence is required.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
We can tell the board overlooked these rules and then excluded evidence from the blackout period for several reasons.

[00:02:42] Speaker 03:
First, the board said in its opening pages that this period was not before the board.

[00:02:49] Speaker 03:
The board uses this phrase in this and other contexts to signal that it's excluding evidence from any consideration.

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
At page 14 of the appendix, the board defines a PO period.

[00:03:06] Speaker 04:
Counsel, I read the Veterans Court's decision to be saying that they don't agree with you on that point.

[00:03:17] Speaker 04:
They say there's a presumption that the board considered all the evidence, and we don't see enough here to conclude otherwise.

[00:03:27] Speaker 04:
So why isn't that a legitimate analysis?

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
So what happened in this case is, so at page 14 of the appendix, the board defines appeal period.

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
And this is counter to what the Veterans Court is saying in its decision.

[00:03:45] Speaker 03:
It defines appeal period, and that definition excludes the blackout period.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
OK, just to interrupt, but that is the correct appeal period.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
Right?

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
That is the period for which your client was challenging his rating.

[00:04:01] Speaker 03:
So what the Veterans Court did is that it analyzed the period before this blackout period, and the Veterans Court analyzed after the blackout period.

[00:04:15] Speaker 03:
So there's this hole in the Veterans Court's analysis, because it didn't apply these two

[00:04:21] Speaker 03:
provisions of law that require the Veterans Court to have something to attach the presumption to.

[00:04:29] Speaker 03:
Because it says that the board says it's not before the board, and then the court says that this is a period that's not an issue.

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
And so because- I was just trying to point out, it was not an issue because you had 100% rating during that period.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
We can argue over, and we may or may not have jurisdiction, we can argue over what the implications of that statement are, but it is correct that there was no appeal with respect to that June or January 18 to June 2020 period.

[00:04:59] Speaker 03:
The evidence during that period is absolutely before the board and it's absolutely before the Veterans Court.

[00:05:07] Speaker 03:
And the reason it's before the board and it's before the Veterans Court is because of 7104A.

[00:05:13] Speaker 03:
which says that all the evidence and material of record are before the board.

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
So what the board did is it basically created an evidentiary record.

[00:05:25] Speaker 03:
It split it into three periods.

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
But you're not quibbling with 100%.

[00:05:30] Speaker ?:
Great.

[00:05:30] Speaker 01:
We're not.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
We're talking about the... Yes, yes, we like the 100% rating.

[00:05:35] Speaker 03:
We're talking about these periods where it's less than 100%.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
So the period where it's 70%, which is post-June 2020, and then the period that is pre-January 2018.

[00:05:46] Speaker 03:
That's really what we're focusing on are these two other periods.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
We can tell that the board overlooked these rules and excluded evidence from the back out period.

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
This is really one of the key points that we wanted to make, was that at page 14 of the appendix, the board defines the period on appeal to exclude the blackout period.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
Just so I can follow you, when you say blackout period, what do you mean by that?

[00:06:22] Speaker 03:
I'm talking about this period where it didn't consider the evidence.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
That's what I thought.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
Go ahead.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
So it's saying that this period where there's between 2018 and 2020, they're saying we're not going to consider the evidence in that period as well.

[00:06:39] Speaker 03:
The best and clearest example of excluding evidence from the blackout period was that Mr. Boynton submitted a March 2016 private exam, but he submitted it about a week into the blackout period.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
So the board ignored the March 2016 exam, even though it bore on the rating period

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
I thought we were concerned with an April 2018 exam.

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
There's a March 2016 that you think was overlooked?

[00:07:07] Speaker 02:
So it was submitted in January 2018.

[00:07:10] Speaker 04:
So it was a March 2016 exam, but because it was submitted in this... But your briefing really focuses on the April 2018 exam, right?

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
It does focus on that.

[00:07:23] Speaker 03:
That's true.

[00:07:23] Speaker 03:
But this piece of evidence, we're saying that the evidence from 2018, so there's testimony before the board that wasn't considered, there's also this... Actually, that's mentioned on page 814.

[00:07:36] Speaker 04:
April 14 says in April 2018, the veteran testified.

[00:07:42] Speaker 04:
Is that what you're talking about?

[00:07:43] Speaker 03:
It says that the veteran testified before, but it's giving a historical perspective.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
When it's talking about, it's giving it in a procedural context.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
It's not weighing the evidence.

[00:07:55] Speaker 03:
In either of these places where we talk about the April 20th.

[00:07:58] Speaker 04:
What do you do about the fact that

[00:08:01] Speaker 04:
You know, the board says it has to assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence and seems to recognize that it needs to consider all the evidence.

[00:08:09] Speaker 04:
We got the Veterans Court saying there's a presumption that there was consideration of the evidence.

[00:08:15] Speaker 04:
And you're saying that there is a determination that they didn't consider the evidence just because it's not mentioned.

[00:08:22] Speaker 04:
But there's nothing, I mean, what do you have, if anything, that says we expressly are not considering this evidence?

[00:08:28] Speaker 03:
So several times, and the DOJ points this out in the DOJ briefing, it says that the board says, we've considered the evidence for the entire appeal period.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
But if you look at page 14 of the appendix, it defines the appeal period to exclude these blackout dates.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
And it says that it's not before the board.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
So it doesn't.

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
What's that in particular?

[00:08:53] Speaker 03:
At the very bottom of appendix, page 14.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
You can see that it says it's not before the board.

[00:08:59] Speaker 03:
And it's defining the appeal period there.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
And then later on, like five pages later, it says... It doesn't say we're not going to consider the evidence that was during that time period.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
We've already talked about this.

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
I think it's just telling you, it's just saying, why isn't it reasonable to read this as simply saying that nobody's appealing this period?

[00:09:21] Speaker 03:
Because what it...

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
In the board decision and in the Veterans Court decision, his key evidence, his 100% PTSD evidence, there's evidence of harm towards other people.

[00:09:35] Speaker 03:
And that only takes place in the 100% rating.

[00:09:38] Speaker 03:
It doesn't discuss that evidence.

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
And it's really suspicious that it doesn't talk about the pieces of evidence that supported 100% rating.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
because it's only applying it to pre-January 2018 and post-2020.

[00:09:53] Speaker 03:
And it's saying that we're going to basically make the evidentiary record, split it into three pieces for each of the stage rating periods.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
And so it's not looking at

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
the other evidence from the other periods.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
It's siloing the evidence in time based on the time that it was submitted to the VA.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
What if I don't agree with you that that's what the board did?

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
Then where's your appeal?

[00:10:24] Speaker 04:
Are you raising a legal issue or is it just a question of fact because you are complaining about the weight that the board gave to that evidence?

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
So the Veterans Court still made a mistake.

[00:10:36] Speaker 03:
So we can say that if you assume that the board considered all of the evidence, we can still analyze the Veterans Court, because we believe that the Veterans Court made the same mistake, that it said that this was a period that was not an issue.

[00:10:52] Speaker 02:
says that in page two of the Veterans Court's decision.

[00:11:07] Speaker 03:
Decision that you think is incorrect so on page two of the veterans course decision It says that the two that mr.. Boynton Sites it identifies evidence.

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
Can you show me where on page two?

[00:11:21] Speaker 03:
It's at the bottom of page two second sentence up from the bottom This argument suggests no excuse me I

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
It's the part of the decision where it says that it's the period not in issue.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
And he says that Mr. Boynton identifies evidence from a period not in.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
No, I'm sorry.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
It's the third sentence up.

[00:11:54] Speaker 03:
He also identifies evidence from 2018 which pertains to a period not at issue.

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
That is the period where all his most important evidence is.

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
But first of all, that period is not at issue in this appeal, but second of all,

[00:12:10] Speaker 02:
They don't say, therefore, the board is free to ignore that evidence, do they?

[00:12:16] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:12:16] Speaker 03:
But what the Veterans Court has done is it's treated it as per se irrelevant.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
It's saying that because it's from this period, it's treating the evidence itself as irrelevant.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
And so it never ends up discussing all of the testimony that he gave to the board about his PTSD.

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
It is the most salient of all the evidence.

[00:12:40] Speaker 02:
And at the bottom of 2 carrying on to 3, as I'm sure you know, the Veterans Court goes on to say, the board did not mention certain pieces of evidence, but that is not enough to overcome the presumption that the board reviewed and considered that evidence.

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
But that analysis only pertains to the evidence in the 70% rating period and the 70% rating period.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
Why doesn't that presumption apply to all the evidence in the record?

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
It should.

[00:13:11] Speaker 03:
It should.

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
But what they've done is they've said it's not an issue.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
So by saying the evidence is not, by not considering that evidence at all, it doesn't apply to presumptions.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
So can I ask you something?

[00:13:22] Speaker 04:
It says there's a sentence that wraps pages appendix two and three.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
And it says, oh, the board did not mention three pieces of evidence in this case.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
That is not enough to overcome the presumption.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
I read this as one of those three pieces of evidence because above in the first sentence it identifies what the evidence is and one of them is the 2018 exam that you are talking about.

[00:13:47] Speaker 04:
So why isn't this reference to three pieces of evidence including evidence from the period

[00:13:54] Speaker 04:
Not an issue.

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
I don't know why the Veterans Court wasn't more explicit about what evidence.

[00:14:00] Speaker 04:
I'm asking you, to me it seems explicit.

[00:14:02] Speaker 04:
Why is it not explicit?

[00:14:04] Speaker 03:
On one point, on the April 2018.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
But that also, there was also another reason that the board didn't consider that exam.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
And it was found two years before the board's decision, in this case, right now.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
that the Veterans Court reviewed, it had found that inadequate.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
So it may not have reviewed that, because in September 2018, it had been found to be inadequate.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
So that could be a reason why.

[00:14:33] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
Should we hear from the government now?

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
You're way up well into your battle time.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
You left one of your papers up there.

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
May I please report?

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
Mr. Boynton's appeal should be dismissed or alternatively the Veterans Court's decision should be affirmed.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
I'll begin with jurisdiction.

[00:15:23] Speaker 00:
And I'll start by directing the Court's attention to Appendix 3 and 4, where the Veterans Court sums up its analysis.

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
And what the Veterans Court says is, in short, a total disability rating contemplates extreme symptoms.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
And this is entirely consistent with this Court's case law in Vasquez-Claudia, which the Veterans Court cites.

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
And the Veterans Court says, Mr. Boynton identifies a handful of evidence

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
and symptoms that went unaddressed by the board.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
But he identifies nothing that relates to the 100% rating level.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
And the court can find no symptoms like those listed in the 100% rating anywhere in Mr. Boynton's file.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
So that shows that the Veterans Court is looking both at the arguments Mr. Boynton made and looking at the record itself and deciding, based on this holistic review, that the board's fact finding

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:
on the 100% rating was supported by the record.

[00:16:22] Speaker 00:
So that's a factual conclusion that this court doesn't possess jurisdiction to review.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
And in our view, that would be dispositive.

[00:16:30] Speaker 04:
Why doesn't that last sentence show that maybe it seems inconsistent with some evidence that might have been relied on to show 100% rating during the not-appealed period or what's being referred to as a blackout period?

[00:16:44] Speaker 04:
I'm just wondering, why doesn't that

[00:16:46] Speaker 04:
sentence and the court can find no symptoms like those listed in the 100% rating anywhere in Mr. Boynton's file, why doesn't that suggest that maybe they did not consider particular evidence?

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
Well, so this is another important point.

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
So the record includes not just a board decision from 2021, but also an earlier board decision from 2018.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
And that earlier board decision, which didn't come up in Mr. Boynton's opening argument, analyzes this evidence in a much higher level of detail than the argument suggested.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
So if you look at the record as a whole, what it shows is that, yes, Mr. Boynton did get a friendly 100% rating for the 2018 to 2020 period.

[00:17:29] Speaker 00:
At the same time, the board found in 2018 that the basis for that rating, the 2018 private medical exam, wasn't detailed enough to show what the symptoms were

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
that would support the 100% rating.

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
So it's true that the private medical examiner did check a box that said total occupational and social impairment.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
But the board said in 2018, there is not enough for us to decide, based on this exam, what those symptoms are, which is why there was a remand, which is why the board looked at the issue again in 2020.

[00:18:03] Speaker 00:
So I think the Veterans Court's

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
analysis here is consistent with the record evidence.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
And it's not clear to me, anyway, from Mr. Boynton's briefing which particular symptoms would be comparable in severity to those set forth in the 100% rating, which as the Veterans Court notes, are very extreme symptoms like delusions, hallucinations, spatial disorientation.

[00:18:30] Speaker 00:
So if you look at it at the symptom-based level, it's just not obvious.

[00:18:34] Speaker 00:
And that's what

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
The board said in 2018.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
That's what the board said in 2021.

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
And then there's the broader question of the touchstone of this analysis.

[00:18:46] Speaker 00:
And I'm moving now from jurisdiction to the merits to answer Judge Solis' question.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
But the touchstone of this analysis is total social and occupational impairment.

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
And Mr. Boynton, to my knowledge, was working through the entire relevant period.

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
He seems to have had a quite stressful, demanding job working for the federal government.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
He seems to have maintained a stable family relationship, albeit strained, as the board acknowledges.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
So these are all factors that are inconsistent with the idea that 100% rating was warranted here.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
So the Veterans Court's analysis is consistent with a reasonable review of the record, which is because the Veterans Court has already done this analysis, that's one reason this court doesn't have jurisdiction.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
But if the court decides it does have jurisdiction, the fact that the Veterans Court's analysis is reasonable and is supported by a lot of analysis from the board, including the 2018 board opinion, which I don't think we can exclude from this analysis.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
Because in 2021, the board is writing against the backdrop of that earlier decision.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
The 2018 board had remanded because it didn't find the 2018 private medical exam to be adequate to support 100% rating.

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
So the board is starting with that presumption and then picking up the ball from there and running forward with the other evidence.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
But to require the 2021 board to repeat everything that the 2018 board had said just would be unnecessary and not a requirement found in the law.

[00:20:21] Speaker 02:
One of the arguments in Mr. Boynton's brief, I think it happens to be in the blue brief at 10, but I'll take you to it.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
He says it's illogical to determine

[00:20:30] Speaker 02:
that the symptoms that led to a 100% rating in a particular month, the blackout period, were irrelevant to a period only a few months later, especially when I guess there's evidence, unfortunately, that his PTSD condition was expected to worsen.

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
So he's saying it's illogical to treat as irrelevant evidence from the middle 100% period, at least when you're looking at the rating in the later period.

[00:21:00] Speaker 02:
Do you agree with that and how does that impact this appeal?

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
A couple of points.

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
The first point is I don't think that's what happened here.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
Our position in terms of what the board should do, and I think this is consistent with what the board said and what the Veterans Court did, the board should look out for the 2020 forward rating period.

[00:21:20] Speaker 00:
The board should

[00:21:21] Speaker 00:
start with this 2020 exam, which is a very probative piece of evidence about that, but it should look at it in the context of the whole record.

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
We would certainly agree with that as a general legal proposition, and the board again says that in language that the court drew Mr. Bortons' counsel's attention to.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
There's no per se categorical exclusion of evidence that's contemplated in what the board's doing here or what the Veterans Court's doing here.

[00:21:49] Speaker 00:
What there should be is a fact finding done by the board based on that evidence and an explanation that the Veterans Court can review for why the board did what it did.

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
And then there's a question of what this court can review based on what the Veterans Court did.

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
So one, the board should look at the record as a whole.

[00:22:15] Speaker 00:
Two, there should be some reasonable basis for what the board did that's explained.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
And there are going to be questions on what this court's jurisdiction review that.

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
But just looking at what the board explained here, and again, we would focus both on the 2021 board decision and the 2018 board decision.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
and say, it's pretty clear why the board did what it did.

[00:22:36] Speaker 00:
That is, that the 2018 board decision found inadequate for rating purposes

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
for the purposes of 100% rating, the private medical examiner opinion, because it just wasn't adequately explained.

[00:22:48] Speaker 01:
You may have just said this or I missed it, but what is your number one best argument to rebut what Appellants Council said that the blackout period was not considered?

[00:23:02] Speaker 01:
What's your best argument?

[00:23:07] Speaker 00:
It would be a combination of the board saying, of the board in 2021 referencing

[00:23:12] Speaker 00:
the 2018 Medical Examiner Report.

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
So that's that Appendix 20.

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
So and then that refers back to the earlier board finding where it details its analysis.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
I'm not asking you to go in and pore through that and recite it.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
But you're so prepared.

[00:23:42] Speaker 01:
What does that say in Appendix 20?

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
Why is that such a strong point to convince us that the blackout period was in fact considered?

[00:23:49] Speaker 00:
Well, again, I think what Appendix 20 has to be read in light of Appendix 385.

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
So I'm going to read them together.

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:23:55] Speaker 00:
So Appendix 20 says,

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
He submitted a private examination from April 2018, suggesting that his symptoms were worse.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
However, the board found this examination inadequate for rating purposes.

[00:24:07] Speaker 00:
Accordingly, the board remanded for a new examination.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
And then that takes us to Appendix 385 and 386, which is where the board says, the 2018 board says, the board acknowledges

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
The 2018 DBQ that was submitted from a private examiner, which indicates that the veteran has total occupational and social impairment.

[00:24:27] Speaker 00:
But then the board goes into 385 to 386.

[00:24:31] Speaker 00:
And the court will see that the board says there just isn't enough explanation.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
There are some unexplained discrepancies here in the 2018 exam.

[00:24:41] Speaker 00:
So I would pair that fact finding by the board with the veteran's court's statement at appendix

[00:24:53] Speaker 00:
I believe it's three and four, where the Veterans Court says, we have looked ourselves at everything.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
We have looked at the symptoms identified by Mr. Boynton.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
And the Veterans Court would be allowed to just look at the issues raised by Mr. Boynton in his brief, because that's generally what appellate courts do.

[00:25:11] Speaker 00:
But the Veterans Court said, we didn't stop there.

[00:25:13] Speaker 00:
We can find no symptoms like those listed in the 100% rating anywhere in Mr. Boynton's file.

[00:25:19] Speaker 00:
So there's no indication that it thinks a certain period of time is off limits there.

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
Happy to address any other questions court has.

[00:25:27] Speaker 00:
If none, we ask the court to dismiss or alternatively affirm.

[00:25:30] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:25:31] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:25:32] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:25:36] Speaker 04:
Mr. Strong, I'll give you an additional two minutes rebuttal if you need it.

[00:25:42] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:25:43] Speaker 03:
So I'll just make two points.

[00:25:45] Speaker 03:
The symptoms that the veteran that led to the PTSD, the 100% rating.

[00:25:50] Speaker 03:
It was the persistent danger of self-harm or harm to others.

[00:25:54] Speaker 03:
And the evidence that supported that was his discussion of violent impulses towards his wife and his boss that took place during the blackout period.

[00:26:05] Speaker 03:
The next thing is, it's one thing to say that the blackout period is not at issue for raiding purposes.

[00:26:15] Speaker 03:
It's another thing to say that it's not an issue in terms of evidence, for the evidence that it offers during that period.

[00:26:24] Speaker 03:
And that's the distinction that we're arguing.

[00:26:28] Speaker 03:
The last points, before I came in today, I asked myself, what could get overlooked in this litigation that I wouldn't be able to live with if I didn't tell the court?

[00:26:39] Speaker 03:
And so I just wanted to direct its attention to the full story of the helicopter crash and Mr. Boynton's friendship with his co-pilot at Appendix 1211.

[00:26:48] Speaker 04:
Unfortunately, you know, I mean, I understand what you're saying.

[00:26:54] Speaker 04:
We're absolutely sympathetic to Mr. Boynton, but that's not something that we consider.

[00:27:01] Speaker 04:
We don't even have jurisdiction over factual questions, right?

[00:27:04] Speaker 03:
I think that the context that it brings into it may bear, but absolutely, Your Honor, you do not have jurisdiction over those facts.

[00:27:16] Speaker 03:
The next thing would be Appendix 515 to 519, where he gives his testimony about the violent impulses.

[00:27:24] Speaker 03:
It's unguarded, and it's historical, and it relates to the other periods.

[00:27:30] Speaker 03:
And those two things are what I would ask the court to consider.

[00:27:37] Speaker 04:
OK, thank you, counsel.

[00:27:39] Speaker 03:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:27:39] Speaker 04:
Thank you.