what he would be entitled to based on the solution of the notice error is it is it your argument on the second point that that resolution of the q claimants would actually moot the other question about whether he received notice that is true your honor because notice error and it would be it would be unnecessary and unnecessary to resolve the notice error if the two claim errors were resolved mr lawson favor however mr lawson has a couple more steps in this case to get to benefits based on key claim errors because the board found that he had not adequately raised q so he needs that decision reversed and then he also needs a decision on the merits of the q claim errors so he have potentially two visits back to the board before you can get resolution of that where is the notice erowid entitle him to benefit based on resolution just one error well it doesn't actually cut against you in some ways because if you still got to stuff left i mean one of your argument clients to me is that that sense should be bounced back and forth they shouldn't have to have all these if the resolution the q claim error at best would allow every man from the veterans court to assess a gag question of whether he's properly raised and under the proper standard is and isn't doesn't that cut against the argument that we shouldn't be bouncing back and forth well if you silly the cuban marriage should be resolved in the same time so they have a chance of getting the resolution of that error sooner rather than later it doesn't make sense to send him back to c section seventy six one provides that the veterans court should decide those issues that are necessary to its decision and here in order for there to be a decision on the entirety of mr lawson's claim that it is necessary for resolve and move the cue claim  apply a more lenient standard or to a consideration of whether the q claim was a raise to samurai that's correct mr lawson is entitled to a liberal and sympathetic reading of his allegation of to the board erred by not giving that reading to the am not sure that it would necessarily preclude that as a practical matter the board is not going to change its adjudication of that question because the record is closed the question of whether or not mr the papers mr lawson submitted to the agency already sufficiently raised to that's based on the documents that are already before the board so this is not a situation where on remand there's going to be new evidence or argument it's already there so what will happen under the current stay the veterans court three men order it's going to go back to the board of the notice air and nothing's going to change on which you claim  men would permit reopening of the record but typically you have a case where there's a medical issue here it's not something where there's anything to add to the record the issue is whether or not mr lo there was a notice in other words was it received by him in the mail that is not the reading that i give to the veterans court decision or that the is correct about his court decision the veteran's court stated that resolving whether sent to the correct address there's no dispute that the address was john a sixty six eighty two of the record is not mr lawson's address where the government says that it didn't dispute that point but it did dispute whether or not it was received  address of record that's up if you look at section thirty eight or thirty eight u s c section seven one else four and seven one hundred five it states that the mainland dates determines when the clock starts for the veteran to file a claim so unless the notice is mailed to the correct address the veteran is potentially short at part of his time period to follow notice of disagreement to keep his clock to keep his claim alive so that's when the problems with the agencies position i that somehow he received actual no that somehow this got to him at a later date that that cures the failure to provide note but it doesn't because he is entitled to notice on a timely basis under the statute and unless the unless the agency sends the in this case it was an adequately delivered because of the incredible zip code and i when you look at this has added the p o box and service street address is not a case where potentially one digit off might have resulted and the mailman notice is the presumption of regularity and mailing and given the incorrect address here that presumption is gone and there's not really anything that the agency can do to rebut or to restore that presumption given the fact that mr criteria first that there is a clear and final issue a final decision on a legal issue that if reversed by the court would render the ring and proceedings unnecessary so here the question of whether or not section five one zero four a requires that the claim provide actual notice to his last address of record if decided and mr lawson favor would move the need for a rematch the second million criterion requires that the resolution of the legal issues must adversely affect the part of the review here the resolution in the board determines that mr lawson did in fact receive notice it would result in him not receiving benefits for the time period from nov eighth two thousand to until june twenty first two thousand and four and then in addition to being subjected to the unnecessary proceedings additional proceedings on the notice issue and the delay incumbent and that is also an independent harm to mr lawson that caused by the error in the statutory interpretation and then the third and finally impress hearing on requires that there must be a substantial r decision would not survive three manned and here that is the case because first b if if the board does make a finding mr lawson in fact did not receive the notice the the legal issue becomes moot but also because of the separate to claim errors moot if we disagreed with you on the notice question but agreed with you that the that the court should have a draft whether or not the suit claims need to be remanded as well would the that there can't be any resolution of the re man that's not you know that wouldn't have to later be set aside because it was legally inappropriate conclusion that of course we wouldn't just i'm just approval rating right question that in a letters mailed to a post office box and sent to the wrong zip code that it goes to and hire a different post office the postal clerk them inserts that  are really two prongs to that the first is that mr lawson raises noticed issue for the first time before the veterans court and the veterans court recognized that it is prohibited by statute from making factual determination in the first instance and that the proper thing to be this is a hypothetical but perhaps there could be an issue where the veteran calls the v a and says i didn't get the letter and then it's recent or here or there could also be  ultimately determined that mr lawson did not receive notice to be denial of the two thousand and two plane once he received a denial of the exact same plane or excuse me when he was granted service connection and an effective date on his two thousand and four pla evidence that would be that would be not to his benefit he would have resolution earlier which may be an advantage but i think that everyone agrees that to the extent that someone can wait or meet the criteria found that he had made it to plane to a final board decision and not succeeded on that challenge then he wouldn't be able to make additional arguments on that that doesn't make any sense well with the only question to playing allowed him to perfect his cue plain and describe he hadn't even identified a final aroer board decision that he thought that there was too in this gives him an opportunity to do that i rather than simply generally that enable a veteran to supply additional evidence to the board and refine their arguments and the mall principle should be affirmed if a court has no further questions we ask that the  and include the same period as a notice there therefore the principal small even if it is valid it does not apply in this case even if we agree with that what if we hold the government to their concession and say that the  include full development of the q claim in this matter and that to the extent that there's any question about whether it was properly raise any arguments that need to be made can be made right now before the board does q there's not really much that can be added to the record here daryn decisions the board decisions they're all in the record so there won't be any new evidence and likely not new argument so although in theory there may be some ability to develop the claim the reality is that given the nature of the queue where the queue claim error stand in this case there is not the other words you told us to begin with we shouldn't assume this but because the record would be closed couldn't be reopened would never