UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 03-152
G ER MAN L. M AT TH EWS , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided January

26, 2005 ) Kenneth M. Carpenter , o f T op e ka , K a ns a s, wa s o n th e br ie f f or the a pp e lla nt.
Tim Mc Cla in , Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Joan E. Moriarty, Deputy

Assistant G ener al Counsel; and Michae l J. Burdick, all of Washington, D.C., we re on the brief

for the a ppellee.
Be fore STEI

NB ERG, GREENE, and H AGEL , J ud ge s. STEI NB ERG, Judge : On J anuar y 23, 2003, veter an Ge rman L . Matthews (the appellant) , throug h counsel, filed a

Notice of Appea l (NOA) seekingrevie w of a n October 23, 2002, Boa

rd of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de cision that determined that he had not filed a timely Substantive Appeal to the Boa

rd in order

to appea l an Aug ust 1995 decision of a D epar tment of Veter ans Affa irs (VA)

re g ion a l of

fi c e (R O) . Re c or d ( R.) a t 3. Th e pa rt ie s e a c h f

ile d b ri e fs , a

nd the a pp e lla nt f ile d a re ply brief. O n September 13, 2004, the Court , b y single -judg e orde r, af

firmed the B oard de cision. Matthews v. Principi , No. 03-0152, 2004 WL2085520, at *6 (Ve t. App. 2004). Ther eaf ter, the appellant f

iled a timely motion for

rec onsideration or, in the a lternative, f or a pa nel dec ision. The Court will gra

nt the appellant' s motion for a panel de cision, withdraw the sing le-judg e orde r, and issue this opini on in its st ead. F or the re asons set for th below, the Court wi l l af fi rm t h e Board decision.2 I. Re le va nt Bac kgr ound I n J une 1975, the Boa

rd denied the veter an' s claim for se rvice connec tion for a disability of the left e y e base d on its determination that he had bilateral macular atrophy prior to service and that that c on dit ion

wa s n ot a g g ra

vate d d ur ingse rv ic e . R. a t 44 . I n J anu ary 19 95 , h e fi le d a c la im t o
re op e n h is p re vio us ly

a nd fi na lly dis a llo wed cla im. R. a

t 61 ; see 3 8 U

. S

. C

. § § 5 1 0 8 , 7 1 0 4 ( b )

. In Aug ust 1995, the VARO found that new and materia l evidence had not bee n prese nted and de nied his c laim to reopen. R. at 65- 69. Throug h his repre sentative at the time, Peter L ink of the B linded Veter ans Association (B.V.A .), the veteran submit ted additi onal evidence (R. at 77-80), and the RO, in April 1 9 9 6 , a g a in d e n ie d h is c la im to r e o p e n ( R. a t 9 1

- 9 2 )

. I n M a y 1 9 9 6 , h e f il e d a N o tic e of Di sa g re e me nt (

NO D) (R . at 94 ), a nd

on Augus t 26 , 1996 , th e RO iss ue d a Sta te me nt o f t

he Ca se (SOC) (R. at 103-11)

. I n a letter dated Oc tober 8, 1996, to the Dire ctor of V A' s Compensation and Pe n s i on Service (C&P Servic e), James Haf ey of B .V.A. re quested that the c laim to reopen be revie wed, and h e a tt a c h e d a le tt e r d a te d Se p te mb e r

1 1 , 1 9 9 6 , f

r o m M r
. L in k

. R. a t 1 1 3

- 1 4

. T he

a tta c he d le tte r n ote d, a mon g oth e r t hin g s, that th e RO " ha s re fu se d to i ssu e a [n SO C] in r e sp on se to the NOD" , that Mr. L ink had spoken with the R O t o find out why an SOC was not issued, and that the RO' s response " was to issue anothe r rating de cision". R. at 114. I n May 1997, the veter an appointed his c urre nt c ounsel, Kenne th M. Carpente r, t o repla ce Mr. L ink as his repre sentative. R. at 122. In a letter dated that same m onth to the R O, Mr. Carpe nter noted that, as of that date, the RO had failed to issue an S OC in response to the Ma y 1996 NOD a

nd demande d that the RO issue an S OC

. R

. at 123-24. B y letter in re sponse, the RO informe d Mr. Carpe nter that a

n SOC was sent to the veter an on August 27, 1996, and that bec ause he had not filed a Substantive Appe al to the B oard, the RO decision had be come final. R. at 126- 27. I n a letter date d J ul y 29 , 19 97 , to the RO , M r. Carp e nte r r e qu e ste d a c op y of the ve te ra

n' s " c omp le te c la ims fo lde r" in o rd e r " to c on fi rm the a c c ur a c y

a nd c omp le te ne ss o f t

he re c or ds [] an d f

or his us e in pursuing his disabilit y claim." R. at 131. I n response to that letter, on August 12, 1997, the RO sent to M r
. Ca

r p e n te r a c o p y o f th e c la im s f il e
. R. a t 1 3 5

. I n a le tt e r d a te d in October 1997, Mr. Carpe nter a g ain re quested a copy of the SOC. R. at 149-51. On J anuar

y 13, 1 9 98, the RO sent to Mr. Carpe nter a copy of the August 1996 SOC and

n o t ed(1 ) t h at a c o p y

o f t h at S OC h ad b ee n s en t i n Au gu s t 1 9 9 7 as p ar to f a re s p o n s e t o t h e v et er an 's3

reque st for the c laims file and (2) that in that prior response, the R O had sent the veter an " ever y thing dated thru [sic] August 12, 1997". R. at 161. I n a letter dated Ma rch 4, 1998, Mr . Carpente r stated that he c on sid e re d th e date of se rv ic e of

the SOC to be Janu a ry 13 , 199 8, and re qu e ste d th a t th e RO

acc ept that letter a s a VA F orm 9 (Substantive Appea l to the Boa rd). R. at 163-64. I

n a June 2000 SOC, the RO determined that the Substantive Appe al filed in Ma rch 1998 was not timely

rec eived. R. at 2 1 8

. T h e RO n o te d , a mo n g o th e r th in g s , th a t th e SO C w a s p a rt o f th e c o mp le te c o p y of the claims file that had be en sent to Mr. Car penter on Aug ust 12, 1997. Ib id

. In J uly 2000, the veter an timely appea led that deter

mination to the Boar d. R. at 220-28. I n the Octobe r 2002 B VA dec ision here on a ppeal, the B oard deter

mined that the veter an had not filed a timely

Substantive Appeal a s to the Aug ust 1995 RO decision and that that RO decision was fina l. R. at 3. In so concluding , the Boa rd found that copies of the SOC were se nt to the vetera n and to the B .V.A. on August 27, 1996, and that a S ubstantive Appea l as to the RO decision wa s not fi le d w ith in 6 0 d a y s th e re a ft e r. R. at 3- 4. Th e B oar d f ound that th e pr e su mpt ion

of re g ula ri ty in mailing the SOC wa s "suf ficiently trig g ere d by

the notation (' cc: B VA' [(an acr ony m for the B linded Veter ans Association)]) made in the orig inal [S OC that is] reta ined .

. . in the claims folder," that the SOC was not ret u rn ed as undelivera ble, and that the pr esumption of regularity in mailing had not been r ebutted. R. at 4-5.

II. Ana lys is A. P artie s' C ont e ntio ns On appe al, the appe llant contends that the Oc tober 1996 letter from Mr. Hafe y

and the attache d copy

of Mr. L ink's Septe mber 11, 1996, letter constitute clea

r evide nce t o re but the p r e s u mp ti o n o f

r e g u la r it y in th e ma il in g o f

th e SO C t o th e a

p p e ll a n t’ s th e n - r e p r e s e n tati v e. Appellant' s Br ief (B r.) at 7. The appellant also argues that the fir st tim e that the RO provide d a copy of the SOC t o h i s repr esentative as re quired by section 7105(d) (3) wa s on J anuar y 13, 1998, afte r
re pe a te d r e qu e sts fr om h is r e pr e sen tat iv e, and that on Marc h 4 , 1 99 8, the a

pp e lla nt f ile d a tim e ly Substantive Appea l. Br

. at 9, 15-16. I n response , the Secr etar y argues that the a

ppellant’s re liance

o n t h e S ep t em b er

1 9 9 6 l et t er

fr o m M r. L i n k , as we l l as s u b s eq u en tl et t er s fr o m t h e ap p el l an t 's

curr ent re prese ntative, Mr. Carpe nter, re iterating the same a ssertion of no n re ce i p t of the SOC, do4

n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f t h e " c l e a r e v i d e n c e " r e qu i r e d t o r e b u t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f r e g u l a r i t y. Secre tary ' s Br . at 6-7. The appellant c ounters that he has prese nted more tha n his unsupported statement of nonr ece ipt; he asserts that the state ment of nonre ceipt is from his f ormer a ccr edited repr esentative and that such st atement is supported by additional documentar y evidenc e conf

irming t h e n o n re ce i p t

. R ep l y

Br

. at 2

. H e n o t e s t h at M r. Ha fe y 's Oc t o b er 1 9 9 6 l et t er

an d M r. L i n k 's Se pte mbe r 1 99 6 le tte r a

nd the su bs e qu e nt le tte rs fr om M r. Carp e nte r n ote d th e fa ilure of the RO to provide the SOC and demanded that one be sent. Reply Br

. at 3-4. He arg ues that the re quisite clear

e vid e nc e is p ro vid e d b y

the re pe a te d e ff

or ts o f h is r e pr e se ntativ e to o bta in a c op y of the SOC . Re ply Br . at 5. B. Appli cable Law and Regulati on s Pursuant to 38 U.S.C

. § 7 1 0 5, the filing of an N OD initiates appe llate re view in the VA administrative adjudication process, a nd the re quest for a

ppellate r eview is c om p l eted by the claimant' s filing of

a Substantive Appea l afte r an SOC is issued by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a) , (d)( 1), (d )( 3) ; see Rowe ll v. Principi , 4 Vet.App. 9, 14 ( 1993). Onc e a c laimant has file d an NOD , the

re sp on sib ili ty

sh if ts t o th e RO to i ssu e a n SO C; the c la ima nt mus t the n fil e a Sub sta

nti ve Ap pe a l to perf ect a n appea l to the Boa

rd. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 5( d) (1 ), (d )( 3) ; Ro we ll , 4 Vet .Ap p. at 1 6. "A Sub sta nti ve Ap pe a l c on sis ts o f a pr op e rl y c omp le te d V A F or

m 9, ' Ap pe a l to B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls, ' or

c or re sp on de nc e c on ta ini ngthe ne c e ssa ry inf or ma tio n. " 38 C.F .R. § 2 0. 20 2 ( 20 04 ); see Y T v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 195, 199 (1996). Section 7105(d)( 3) provides: "Copies of the [ SOC]

. . . will be submitt ed to the claimant and to the claimant' s repr esentative, if there is one. The c laimant wi ll be af for deda per io d o f si x ty

day s fr om th e dat e th e [ S OC ] is mai led to fi le th e for mal app eal ", 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3), or may file the a ppeal within the re mainder of the one- y ear

period be g inning on the date on w hich notice of the RO decision being appea led was ma iled, whicheve r per iod ends la te r, 38 C.F .R. § 20 .3 02 (b )(1) (20 04 ); se e Ma so n ( Sa ng e rn e tta

) v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 44, 55 (1 99 5) . T he re g ulatio ns fu rt he r p ro vid e that th e SOC " wi ll be fo rw a rd e d to the a pp e lla nt at th e la te st

a dd re ss o f r e c or d a

nd a se pa rate c op y pr ov ide d to his or h er repr esen tativ e (i f a ny ). " 38 C.F .R. § 19.30(a) (2004). The 2004 edition of the Code of F eder al Reg ulations provisions quoted above have not c hang ed in any

materia l respec t from t hose in eff ect in 1996. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.30(a) ,5

20.202 (conta ining the te rm " VA F orm 1-9" , which wa s replac ed in 1996 wit h the t erm " VA F orm 9", 61 F ed. Reg . 20450 (May 7, 1996)), 20.302( b) (1995)

. This Court has held that the law pr esumes the r eg ularity of the administ rative process " ' in the abs ence o f cl ear ev id ence t o t he co nt rary .'" Mi nd e nh all v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 2 7 1 , 2 7 4 (1 994) (quoting A s h l ey v . Derwinski ( Ashley I ), 2 Ve t.App. 62, 64-65 (1992) ). I n the abse nce of clea r evidenc e to the contr ary , that presumption applies to VA' s mailing a n SOC in t he same manner that it a pplies to the Boa

rd' s mailing a

decision. See Crain v. Principi , 17 Ve t.A pp . 182 , 186 (2 00 3) ; YT

, 9 Vet.App. at 199 (quot i n g Mi nd enh all , s up ra , an d

ci t i n g As hle

yI, su pra ). I n o rd e r f

or thi s presumption to attach, VAmust mail not ice to the latest addre ss of rec ord for the claimant a

nd the claimant' s repr esentative, if any

. S ee Cra in , 17 Ve t.A

pp . at 18 6; see also Ashley v. De rwinski ( Ashley II ), 2 Ve t.App. 307, 3 0 9 (1 992) (c oncluding that mailing of notice of B oard de cision pursuant to 3 8 U.S.C. § 7104(e) must be sent to cla imant at claimant' s "la st known addre ss" of

rec ord). In Ashley I

I , th e Court

state d a s f

oll ow s: Where a n appe l l an t submits clear e vidence to the eff ect that the [Board' s] "regular" mailing pr actice s are not reg ular or that they wer e not followed, the Sec reta

ry is no longe r entitled to the benef it of the pres u mp ti o n a n d th e b u r d e n s h if ts to th e Se c r e ta

r y to e s ta b li sh that t h e [ Boa rd] decision was mailed to the ve tera n and the ve tera n 's repr esentative, if any , as re quired by 38 U.S.C. § 7104(e). Ashley I I , 2 Ve t.A pp
. a t 30 9; see Ashle

y I , 2 Ve t

. Ap p
. at 6 6 (q u o t i n g United States v. Rose s , 706 F.2d 1563, 1567 (F ed. Cir. 1983) (" ' The pre sumption [of officia l r eg ularity may also] operate[] i n reve rse. I f [a mailing] appea

rs irre g u l ar , it is i rre g ular, a nd the burde n shifts to the proponent to show the contra ry .' ")

. A mere asser

tion of nonrec eipt of a V A dec ision, without more, does not establish the " clea r evidenc e" neede d to r ebut the pre sumption of reg ularity of a V A mailing. Ashley I I , 2 Vet.App. at 30 9; c f. Chute v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. 3 5 2 , 3 5 3 (1 9 9 1 ) ( p er cu ri am o rd er ) ( h o l d i n g t h at cl ai m an t 's

asser tion of nonrec eip t o f Bo ar d decision wa s not sufficient by itself to rebut pre sumption of

re g ula ri ty , b ut t hat su c h a sse rt ion

tog e the r w ithe vid e nc e of c la ima nt' s h a vin g ma de inq

uir ie s to veter ans serv ic e o f

f ic e r a f te r d e c is io n h a d

b e e n ma il e d

a n d la c k o f e v id e n c e f

r o m V A o f

h a v ing mailed dec ision rebutted such presumption). Once the pre sumption has been re butted, the burde n6

shifts to the Secreta

ry to showthat regular mailing prac tices we re f ollowed in mailing the doc ument in q ue sti on in ac c or da

nc e wi th ap pli c a

ble law an d re g ulatio n – he re , the Se c re tary mus t de mon str a te that the SOC was mailed to the claimant’s repr esentative as required by section 7105(d)(3) a nd YT , 9 Vet.App. at 199, or that the cla imant's r ep re sentative a ctually rec eived the SOC. See A shley II , 2 Ve t

. Ap p
. at 3 0 9

. I f t h e S ec re t ary fa i l s t o ca rr y

t h i s b u rd en a s t o m ai l i n g, t h e p er i o d fo r f i l i n g a Su b s tantive Appea l does not beg in to run until t he def ect is cur ed (i.e ., here , when the c laimant’s repr esentative actua lly

rec eived the SOC). See id. at 311.

C. A pp lic ation o

f L aw t o Fa c ts For purposes o f this case , the Court assumes, without deciding , that the pre sumption of regularity attache d to the RO’s mailing a copy of its Aug ust 1996 SOC t o the cor rec t addre ss of the

a pp e lla nt’ s for me r re pr e se ntativ e , Mr. L ink

. (T he Court no te s tha t th e a pp e lla nt i s not challeng ing the attac hment of the pre sumption but argues only that there is clear

evidenc e to re but the presumption. Reply

Br . at 5.) The Court further assumes, wit hout deciding , that the pre sumption that the R O m ailed the SOC to the appe llant’s former repr esentative pursuant to sec tion 7104(e) wa s
re b u t t edb y

"cl ea r e v i d en ce " –

t h at i s , t h at , i n co n

j u n ct i o n wi t h t h e ap p el l an t 's as s er t i o n o f Mr

. L i n k 's

no nr e c e ipt

of a c op y of the Au g us t 19 96 SOC , th e a pp e lla nt s ub mit te d " c le a r e vid e nc e " of re bu tta l, in t he fo rm of le tte rs fr om Mss rs
. Ha fe y a nd L ink , of the B .V .A .' s h a vin g ma de inq uir ie s to the RO afte r the SOC had bee n mailed to the appe llant. See Chu te , su pra . The Court conclude s that, even assuming that the Sec reta ry was e ntitled to the presumption and t h at t h e appe llant rebutted it, the Secr etar y has demonstrated that any potential defe ct in the

ma ili ngwa s c ur e d b y

the re c e ipt

by the a pp e lla nt' s c ouns e l, M r. Carp e nte r, of a c op y of the SOC in Aug ust 1997. See Clark v. Principi , 1 5 V e t.A pp . 6 1, 63 -6 4 ( 20 01 ); Ashley I I , su pra . I t is undisput ed that Mr. Car

pe nte r r e c e ive d th e a

pp e lla nt' s c la ims fi le in Aug us t 19 97 a nd that th a t c la ims fi le contained the Aug ust 1996 SOC. R. at 135, 161, 227. In response to the RO' s statement (in the 2000 SOC on the tim e lin e ss i ssu e ) t

hat th e Au g us t 19 96 SOC wa s in t he c la ims fi le wh e n it

wa s se nt t o Mr . Ca rp e nte r i n A ug us t 19 97 , M r. Carp e nte r d ir e c tly a dd re sse d th a t st a te me nt a s f oll ow s: The fina l contention of the [] RO in the 2000 SOC[ ] appe ars to be that the ve te ra n' s n e w r e pr e se ntativ e , K e nn e th M

. Carp e nte r, ha d the du ty once he rec eived the C-[f]ile on Au gu s t 1 2 , 1997, to first sear ch throug h the veteran' s C-file and locate the Aug ust 1996 SOC. Then7 Mr. C ar p enter

was to re alize that the [] RO had not provided the v e te r a n ' s p r e v io u s r e p r e s e n tati v e with th e A u g u s t 2 6 , 1 9 9 6 , [S O C] , and that now the ve tera

n and his repr esentative had 60 day s in which to file a VA 9

. This is absurd. Ag ain, the duty is not upon the v e t e r a n ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o o b t a i n a c o p y o f t h e A u g u s t 1 9 9 6 S O C

. It is the responsibility of the [] RO to pr ovide the veter an with a copy of the SOC. Any

thing short of

mailing a copy of the SOC, and only

the S O C , t o t h e v e t e r a n ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f a i l s t o f u l f i l l t h e [ ] R O ' s d

u t y. R. at 227 (Substantive Appea l on untimeliness is sue). The a ppellant' s arguments are to no avail, because the undi sputed fac ts are that in responding to the RO' s statement, Mr. Carpe nter did not dispute the RO' s assertion that the August 1996 SOC was in t he claims file provided to him; rathe r, he stated onl y that he shoul d not be required to search its contents to find the SOC. That continues to be c ounsel' s argument. Acc ording ly , it is undi sputed that Mr. Carpente r was in a ctual rec eipt of a c opy of the SOC in Aug ust 1997. I n addition, the Court notes that Mr. Carpe nter' s contempora neous re quest to the RO for the claims file and his st atement to the RO that he had not be en provide d with a copy of t he S OC contra dicts his statement that at the t i m e t h at h e r ec ei v edt h e c l ai m s fi l e h e d i d n o t"r ea l i z e th at t h e [ ] R O ha d n o tp ro v i d edt h e v et er an 's previous re prese ntative with the Aug ust 26, 1996, [ SOC] ". Com pa re R. at 129 (Jul y

22, 1997, letter from Mr. Carpente r to RO requesting SOC) with R. at 131 (Jul y 29, 1997, letter fr om Mr. Carpente r to R O r e qu e sti ngc omp le te c la ims fi le ); se e als o R. at 123-24 (May 1997 letter from Mr. Carpe nter to RO asserting that RO had fa iled to issue SOC). The Court there fore holds that the m anner in which the appellant' s counsel re ceive d a copy of the SOC in Aug ust 1997 was sufficie nt to cure any potential defe ct in the Secr etar y ' s mailing of the SOC in August 1996 to the appe llant's the n-re prese ntative. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3); 38 C.F .R. § 1 9. 30 (a ); Cla rk, 15 Ve t.A pp . at 64 ; Ashley I

I , 2 Vet.App. at 309. Under the particula r circ umstances pr esente d here , wh er e t h e appellant' s counsel knew or believe d, at the time that he reque sted the RO to send him the claims file, that the RO h ad n o t sent the appe llant's f ormer repr esentative a copy

of the SOC and whe re c ounsel had spec ifically reque sted in J uly

1997 the "c omplete claims file" in order " to confirm the a ccur acy and complete ness of the r ecor ds[] and for his use in pursuing the disability claim" (R. at 131), c ounsel' s rec eipt, in response to that re quest, of the c la ims fi le in Au g us t 1997 , whi c h cla ims fi le c on ta ine d the SOC , c ur e d a ny po te nti a l de fe c t in8

t h e m ai l i n g o f t h e S OC t o t h e ap p el l an t 's fo rm er re p re s en t at i v e
. In d e e d , i n l i gh to f c o u n s el 's

a sse rt ion that he wa s r e qu e sti ngthe c la ims fi le " fo r u se in purs uin g the dis a bil ity c la im" , it se e ms dis ing e nu ou s fo r him

to s ta te that he sh ou ld n ot b e ob lig a te d to " se a rc h th ro ug h th e ve te ra n' s C- fi le and locate the Aug ust 1996 SOC." R. at 227. Moreove r, the Court notes that the a ppellant has not demonstrated that his counsel' s looking throug h the claims file at that time was a n impossibl e or particula rly onerous task. Cf. W

ood v. De rwinski , 1 V e t.A pp . 1 90 , 1 93 (1 99 1) (n oti ngthat " du ty to assist is not alway s a one- way street" ). Be cause of the Court' s holding he rein that a ny potential mailing defec t was cured under the particula r circ umstances of

this case by

the ac tual rec eipt by

the appellant’ s counsel in Aug ust 1997 of a copy of t he August 1996 SOC, the 60-day period for

filing a Substantive Appeal be g an to run at that time. See Cla rk, su pr a . There fore , even a ssumin g that the Marc h 1998 letter fr om the appellant’ s counsel constituted a Substantive A ppeal, that Substantive A

ppeal would have be en due not later than in Oc tober 1997 a nd it was not filed within the requisite period. Although the re mig ht be a que stion whether the O ctober 1996 letter , t o gether with the attache d September 1996 le tter,

c on sti tut e d a

Sub sta nti ve Ap pe a l ( see Ar c hb old v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t.A

pp . 1 24 (1 99 6) (c on c lud ingthat, wher e appe llant did not rece ive SOC, corre sp o n dence from appe llant that contained infor mation require d under 38 C.F .R. § 20.202 constitu t ed S u b stantive Appea l)), in light of the appe llant’s state me nt i n h is b ri e f t

hat he is not

asser ting that those c ommunications constituted a Substantive Appea l (Br . at 13 ) t he Court will not review the Boa rd’s de termination on that issue (R. at 6). Ac c or din g ly , th e B oa

rd ’s de te rm inatio n th a t no tim e ly Sub sta nti ve Ap pe a l w a s fi le d a s to t he Au g us t 1995 RO decision and that that de cision thus became final and una ppeala ble to the B oar d will be aff irmed.

IV. Conclusion T h e C o u rt gra n t s t h e ap p el l an t 's m o t i o n f o r a p an el d ec i s i o n an d

wi t h dra ws t h e C o u rt 's September 13, 2004, s i n gl e-judg e orde r. B ased on the fore g oing a naly sis and upon consideration of the pa rties' pleading s and the re cord on a ppeal, the Court holds t h at t he appe llant has not demonstrated that the Boa rd commi tted err or – in its finding s of fact, conclusions of law, c ompliance with proce dural re quirements, or a rticulation of re asons or ba ses – that would warrant r ever sal or9

rema nd under 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(a) or (d)( 1), 7105, or 7261, or 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.30(a) , 2 0.202, 20.302(b)( 1). Ther efor e, the Court af firms the Oc tober 2002 B oard de cision. AFF I RMED.