Blieden, Francis Keffler, Mark Phillips, Carlos Montoya, and Ann Jodway to expose “their inconsistencies, and bias.” Kreso does not explain who these witnesses are, at what stage in the proceedings they testified, or what he believes to be their alleged inconsistencies and biases. In discussing this claim, the district court concluded several of. these witnesses did not testify at the DAB hearing either because Kreso successfully had them removed from the witness list or because Kreso made no effort to obtain their testimony at the hearing. In his opening brief, Kreso does not identify the efforts he undertook to call the remaining individuals as witnesses at the DAB hearing, or how any such efforts were thwarted by the VA. See West v. Grand Cty., 967 F.2d 362, 369 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In his reply brief, however, Kreso asserts he
holding that plaintiff did not receive adequate process during posttermination hearing because she was not given opportunity to crossexamine witnesses accusing her of drinking on the job and coming to school inebriated holding the government was required by law to correct a defendants misrepresentations at a sentencing hearing and doing so did not violate the plea agreement holding a due process claim failed because the plaintiff did not seek to require a witnessess attendance at a posttermination grievance hearing and was not inhibited or restricted from doing so holding that due process does not require the state to provide an impartial decisionmaker at the pretermination hearing where posttermination remedies are available holding that a limited pretermination hearing was sufficient where it was followed by a more comprehensive posttermination hearing