BVA Case 23-6144: Back

The following month, in a letter addressed to the appellant at Bellini Way in Sacramento , VA advised him that his claim for benefits for PCS had previously been denied and that he needed to submit new and material evidence to reopen the claim.

The RO,in October 1987, again advised the appellant that his claim had been previously denied and that he needed to submit new and material evidence to reopen it.

The RO determined that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence and therefore declined to reopen the claim.

In a July 2021 decision,the Court determined that the Board failed to make the necessary factual findings to permit the Court to review the Board's conclusion that the February 1978 decision was mailed to the appellant at the correct address.

In a JMR that the Court granted in November 2022,the parties agreed that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for finding that the Sullivan Lane address was the proper address for [the a]ppellant at the time of the mailing of the [February] 1978 rating decision.

Appellant The appellant first argues that the Board's conclusion that the February 1978 rating decision was mailed to the proper address and that he had not presented clear evidence to rebut the 4 Case:23-6144 Page: 5 of 21 Filed:10/08/2024 presumption of regularity is clearly erroneous.

He notes that the Court has held that VA's use of an incorrect address for a claimant is clear evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity, and therefore the Board's finding that he had not rebutted the presumption is clearly erroneous and must be reversed.

Next,the appellant avers that the Board erred in concluding that the September and November 1980 statements reflect that he had actual knowledge of the February 1978 denial or that he had actually received that decision.