of the [C]ase,” (Record (R.) at 6), and Mr. Coker fails to provide any specificity with regard to the inadequacy of the notice that the Board found he had received. The Court requires that an appellant plead with some particularity the allegation of error so that the Court is able to review and assess the validity of the appellant’s arguments. See U.S. Vet.App. R. 28(a) (requiring appellant to provide the Court with a brief presenting all issues on appeal); but see U.S. Vet.App. R. 28(i) (suspending Rule 28(a) and allowing a pro se veteran to submit an informal brief). This is also a general requirement in all appellate courts, see Fed. R.App. P.R. 28, and is clearly applicable to pleadings raising notice error in this Court. See Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103, 111 (2005) (<HOLDING>), appeal docketed, No. 05-7157 (Fed. Cir. June
holding that search warrant was constitutionally defective because it did not require notice holding that the defendant did not require advance notice where he could not show how he was prejudiced by late notice or how he could have been helped by additional notice holding that any board reasonsorbases deficiency in discussing how section 5103a  3159b1 notice has been satisfied would of necessity be nonprejudicial to claimant where claimant re  ceived compliant notice holding that section 5103a notice must precede initial aoj adjudication on serviceconnection claim holding that appellant must identify with considerable specificity how 38 usc  5103a notice was defective