general versus nicholson the veterans court erroneous lee determine what's interesting jurisdiction of the one hand i mean there are some cases of ours to cover that say that where the ratios are the kind of applies it's a question of law no question about that on the other hand the question here is was a particular argument or issue presented in the q proceedings during the period of august two thousand and two thousand and five and doesn't the question of whether an argument was made or question presented sound like the fact issue and application a lot of them are fact if you get your facts well it certainly could be viewed that way but i would suggest that the rule of law created in general about the board's jurisdiction and requiring that before the board can exercise jurisdiction there must be a specific allegation presented to and and as a matter of fact based upon the record it's undisputed that that simply did not happen i think you're correct in terms of what general says i agree but again general turns on whether something was the record at nineteen of the join the conduct there is a set of specific allegations made by the veteran also in the record  particularly as they relate to the presumption of soundex and also in the analysis there is no reference to either thirty eight u s c eleven eleven or a level fifty three for the presumption of aggravation and therefore i believe that it is the factual question because the record speaks for itself the record clearly indicates that the requirements of general that the regional office the issue and make a decision before the board can have jurisdiction over the matter clearly a plot now there's also no question here that general post dated the events that happened in the adjudication and cokin that resulted in both a board decision and a decision by the veterans court meaning that there was no general precedent to guide either the board or the veterans court however based upon the rule of law created by the full court in general that law interpreted the regulatory scrutiny the statutory scheme and is therefore a political retroactively and we believe should have been looked at by judge lance considered the rule in general and that it was a change in the law about the procedure that was required to be followed by the board in examining its own jurisdiction to determine whether or not it could look  at a request for revision based upon an allegation of clear and unmistakable air this comes from the case law that requires specific allegations be made in support of a request for revision in this case those allegations were made they simply were not adjudicated if they were not there due to cases then i suppose one could argue that claim still is pending but it certainly is not final for purposes of race just cau and that we believe is the central issue in this appeal that must be resolved as a pure question of law as to whether or not the decision in gerald if you will trumps in this case  e ability of mr cokin to have appeal decided once again by the board based upon a v a decision which actually addressed those allegations concerning whether or not the one nine hundred seventy two good morning your honor please in the court we believe that the case presented at best a challenge to the application of rescue to kind of the facts in this case and for that reason the appeal should be dismissed i think challenging the application the presumption of soundness and aggravation that was addressed by the regional office it was addressed by the board it was addressed by the veterans court there was a final letter and court decision in two thousand and five finding no q based upon that based on five so there was a it was a presentation of a theory of q that the presumptions a sound as an aggravation weren't going to fight to the court is certainly correct that the rating decision by the regional s thirty eight the the board sends the case back to the regional office for consideration of the of the q claims because it had been adequately addressed with me in the holding in general the holding is based upon the failure of the regional office to adjudicate the specific allegations and that's the key in this case in the adjudication there was no consideration of the specific allegations made ninety eight therefore even though you may be correct that that was the intent in two thousand and one for the board to have the reason why office do it that intent did not get realized and the board should have caught that error although at that point they didn't have the benefit of their oath in order to understand that that negated their jurisdiction because even though there had been a to direct them to do that they didn't adjudicate the specific allegations and the government a failure was back was on the part of the r o originally when it went back it didn't in your view address the claim percentage a nineteen that's correct the derives jurisdiction from an appeal of a decision made a non decision a decision that simply does not address the specific allegations is not a viable decision subject to appellate review because there's nothing to review they didn't make a decision on the specific allegations of clear and unmistakable are six of the question