cargo feels the decision of the veterans court indicating that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue presented cartwell veterans or we believe that the issue of entitle an extra schedule rating was part and parcel of the rating assigned is service connected disability which he had been litigating with the v a since since the decision by the veterans co inconsistent with this court's decisions in roberson and in comber that claim involving an extra scheduler rating for a total rating based upon a lot of delivery is not separate from is this case different from the claim that issue of entitle him to an extra schedule rating is part and parcel of his claim at one point in time because he was misinformed that he could not qualify because he didn't meet the schedule requirements he decided to withdraw he is a pro se claimed he simply did not understand correctly that he could be entitled to that without meeting the schedule requirement later when he was ultimately  he ultimately read a stamp which that and in going to fact he was eventually awarded an additional disability for depression that was related his underlying condition as a consequence of this continuous claim from one nine hundred ninety six always included his entitle me to a total rating based upon unemployability he withdrew that issue from his appeal and then he read asserted and it seems to me your honor that consistent with this court's decision in both roberson comber what is it issue here is whether or not the board error by failing to adjudicate that was that or was that not reasonably rails it was reasonably raised because he asked a second tom and it was reasonably there i sign it right now back to have already decided it and decided it adversely in its back before but it's being treated as a new claim it is not a new claim it is part and parcel of this claim what they are adjudicating is the new claim that they received in two thousand and five this claim started in one nine hundred ninety six what makes this case identical to comber is that ultimately this is about the effective date if there is an award and honor he withdrew it because as a pro se claimant he was misled that he could have only qualified for that condition if he met the scheduler requirements that is simply not the law he is a title to consideration of an extra scheduler rating under the second subsection a four point one six whether he meets the schedule requirements or not but more importantly in this case two things fundamentally training one they add in depression when they add depression as a secondary condition is forty percent rating is thirty percent rating qualified him for the schedule requirements for i knew he didn't understand that but he did understand that he was still unable to work the border should have understood that when that matter came before the war in the decision that was appealed to the veterans court they never addressed i knew in addition to that he additionally qualified independent of the depression award when the board added two additional secondary disability ratings which in combination with a forty percent rating added to a singular condition rated sixty percent because all of those conditions under four one six are considered as part and parcel of a single disability because they all have the same in the illogical babies and in fact the depression is part of the same  qualified had this issue in front of the board on the record and instead of deferring the determination as to what the correct reading is for his service connected disability for his pending claim from hundred ninety six they disposed of it that was an error at the very least they should have deferred it and said this issue is back before the agency really raised on the question about why bill if the favorable actions that we have taken have allowed the benford to once again meet the scheduler requirements and this matter will not be finally disposed of on this plane the nine hundred ninety six point until you determine whether or not he is or isn't entitle the eligibility for an extra schedule rating had that happened mr cardwell would not have had would appeal to a court would not have had will be able to this court and would have been able to take that issue back before the agency and then come back before the board on his nine hundred ninety six claim as to whether or not the issue of his entitle me to an extra schedule rating has in fact been in existence since one nine hundred ninety six that he has been look behind what they actually use in terms of the words that characterize their claim to give them the benefit that they're raising this claim he doesn't need that benefit he raised in express words and then he withdrew it just as express case at the joint appendix of page fifty two they had an a five b claim for individual unemployability as him having been received in two thousand and four they treated that as a separate claim they even adjudicated all at the same time so i don't have to really litigate whether or not my claim did or didn't start in one thousand nine hundred eighty six he attempted to bring that to the attention of the court when he appealed the board's decision which ignores it the bor the court below said they didn't have jurisdiction that jurisdictional determination is simply wrong they did mr cardwell was adversely affected by the failure granted and then he had to litigate it to get it raised from twenty to forty from fording to include the two additional extremity ratings in this last board decision and to add to with depression want the board considered t d the claim was not withdraw the same piece of paper that he filed with the v a that said please consider me for unemployed ability also said and i'm impressed and the regional office went ahead and disagreement anywhere within within his records as to that issue that's one of the regs that's under the regs your honor and with out a notice of disagreement the board has no jurisdiction to consider you whether explicitly raise implicitly raise with the notice of disagreement is the basis for the establishment of the course or section first place exactly what's supposed to happen happened in this case the regional oppositions the decision as to maybe a couple of different issues brought up and here there were a couple of different regional office decisions and then he said he was a cargo filed notices of disagreement as to both the t d i you and as to his lower back and then the regional office as it's supposed to under the regulations issued statements of the case explaining exactly why he's not entitled to the various things he has been or and why isn't how to what to what he's been granted and at that point under the regulations he has to say to them perfect his appeal as those issues he wants to appeal and say which issues he doesn't want to appeal and he said explicitly i want to withdraw teenie idea at that point in less and less he uses the savings provision and within a year piles another it's a disagreement the board simply l ahead and granted him and it worked for depression and then the board said you get ten percent for each of your legs as well so there was a lot of sympathetic reading going on here there's no question but the board did have jurisdiction to consider to you because there was no notice of disagreement anywhere and it wasn't until two thousand and seven he bought he said you know i would like you to consider t d i during that point it has to be a new claim it's the most sympathetic thing the regional office can do with that piece of paper because there's there's police and court seems to me that the v a wants to have it both ways they want to claim that this is about claim vs issue and that if he withdraws his issues that he is forever prohibited from doing that and then they want to pretend even though they acknowledge that he said well i really am still unable to work due to my service connected disability that that somehow is not reasonably raising that issue for consideration by the board and that is a new claim see they wanted to start it over in two thousand and four they want to start it over in two thousand and seven when this is part and parcel of a nine hundred ninety six cla matter that began at the time that the appeal period began now that was in two thousand and seven forget about two thousand and four and two thousand and five when he reasserted for the third time his desire for a total rating based upon unemployability that was information that the board had in the record of proceedings when it was before the v a would suggest that this is about their regulation and the withdrawal of the appeal this is not about withdraw the appeal the court below didn't say he withdrew the appeal the court said they didn't have jurisdiction that jurisdictional determination is at odds with this court's decision in ro person an income or because this court said that it is reasonably rains and judge or you ask the question is whether or not there wasn't another explicit claim there was another explicit claim where he put it before them again they tried to start this in new in two thousand and four if they've now started new in two thousand and seven but it is part and parcel of the one nine hundred ninety six claiming that's what mr card wanted the court to do when he said but they didn't adjudicate they didn't consider my entitlement to the maximum rating available under four one six a and i was entitle to that the court should katyn the board's decision as to the maximum rate of the denial of a last bad total rating because there was the issue of extra schedule or that was still pending had they done that then that issue would have been then rejoin what the v a wishes to do is to say well we have issues here and if you withdraw an issue then you have somehow dismembered that issue from the claim that can't possibly be the law the law under roe person and comber is is that there is no separate claim for t v i knew so what was withdrawn if there is no separate playing what was were withdrawn was he said he didn't want them because he had been told wrongly that he didn't qualify this court in this should not be a trap for the unwary but that's precisely the trap that was set for mr cardwell in this case whether intended or not he didn't get the benefit of the  the board and the board was required to consider all issues reasonably raised this issue was recently raised this issue was part and parcel of his one thousand nine hundred six claim and should have been considered by the veterans for the search for the question