decision predates the enactment of the VCAA, “[r]emand is required so that the Board may determine the applicability of the VCAA to the [appellant’s] claim.” Appellant’s Br. at 4. The Secretary argues that the Court should affirm the September 2000 BVA decision because that decision is support ucklinger v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 435, 436 (1993). With respect to the appellant’s argument that the portion of the September 2000 Board decision that determined that he had not presented a valid CUE claim as to the June 1994 RO decision should be vacated and the matter remanded for readjudication in light of the enactment of the VCAA, that argument is unavailing because the Court has interpreted the VCAA as having no application to CUE claims. See Parker v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 407, 412 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 165, 178-79
holding vcaa inapplicable to claim that ro decision contained cue holding that cue existed in ro decision that had reduced veterans benefits where court found that it is evident that cue existed therein holding that prior ro decision that had not become final was not subject to cue collateral attack holding that cue motion is not claim for benefits and that vcaa definition of claimant cannot encompass person seeking revision of final decision based on cue holding that pursuant to 38 usc  5109a a final ro decision may be revised upon a showing of cue