of requirement of the notice of decision and reasons therefore and provisions v a did not inform mr archbold in its august one thousand and fifty three dollars letter of the decision on any particular claim it told him only that his prior rating a convalescent rating at one hundred percent which he was going to eventually be reduced had been reduced to twenty percent it did not identify any of scars for donor sites for the skin grafts on his hands that notice did not notify him either that v a was no longer rating him or that just simply had dropped off the rating for his facial injuries which he had been service connected for his claim was granted the issue is whether or not notice of the decision and reasons for it and the additional language of provisions allows the agency to do no more than say your overall rating will be reduced to twenty percent without informing him of the very essential issue of what claims are actually being rated how that that decision was reached the particular claim that has been decided and that in a case where that the issue is the rating that it also must identify and disclose to the veteran reading assigned to that particular claim this court's recent decision in rule i think it's very instructive and perhaps even authoritative on that question construed in one thousand nine hundred and two notice regulation that is does not track word for word with three dollars however it has it contains the same essential elements and particularly notice of the decision and notice of the provisions of the decision in the back case although the court the court therefore did not go on to look whether or not this one might be an implicit denial case arguably it may have been but nobody raised that and the veterans court didn't rely on it so in that context rule then construed what was required a notice to be explicit and i would submit that notices either an implicit or explicit and in this case mr archibald's notice was intended to be urged should have been and explained explicit notice and rule held at the very least at the very least the v a must identify the cla because the v a did not provide an adequate notice and argue that finality did not attach to that reading decision it remains pending to it should remain pending to this day all of the subsequent not lie in that circumstance where there is not a final decision the veterans court likewise in one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine did not have jurisdiction to review the board's decision on c we because that decision was complete bar in this case or in the veterans court rather the veterans court still has recalled judgments after the appeal time had expired because of lack of jurisdiction and that's the snyder case  because the award exceeded the scope of the waiver of sovereign immunity in that case we think your honor that the appropriate test the balance has the interests of anality with the interests of the integrity of the court as well as fairness to the parties is that which the supreme court discussed and united student aid funds and that was a r of the mandate and the judgment for lack of jurisdiction to be limited to the exceptional basis of when the court lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction this is that decided by the veterans court be a legal analysis of the veterans court in determining the question of race you caught it correctly what's correct and it focused on it was based on facts found by the veterans court which exception to the general rule that a collateral attack on jurisdiction is not allowed and that was because in that case there was a question of sovereign immunity and that's not present here  freestanding anality challenge should not be allowed as the court concluded in knowles and none of the exceptional circumstances identified by courts in the decision cited by mr archibald exists here there proof thank you your honor almost all of the arguments which the secretary presented represented the disto difference in the parties reading of the case law that's covered in the briefs and less not give the agency does not get bored jurisdiction over it a separate sealy theory they're just not the same thing it is the same as though the court  remain ended in a reading decision for a broken leg and the board then also took jurisdiction of a p t s d claim separate claims each separate claim has to be the subject of a notice of case the agency was not required to give specific reasons or bases for its decisions not required to explain them well i would note number one that natalee it was based on a new statute and the court question is whether it adequately gave notice of what that decision was the your bones and what did they decide and what the claim was decided regardless of whether they explained it adequately the veteran was entitle