is recognized by the United States Department of the Army.... R. at 24 (emphasis added). The above-quoted statement did not inform her that § 3.203(a) allows her to submit certain documents, “such as a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, or original Certificate of Discharge without verification from the appropriate service department.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a) (emphasis added); see Soria, supra. The above-quoted statement, as well as being incomplete, also may imply that the appellant’s only avenue of showing qualifying service is “a certification from [ARPERCEN]”. Hence, a reasonable person, upon receiving such notice, might well be discouraged from submitting to VA any § 3.203(a)-qualifying documents in their possession. Cf. Mayfield, 19 Vet.App. at 125 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the RO compounded this problem
holding that the faa controllers fully performed their duty to the plaintiffs based on what they knew and should have known about a planes lack of deicing equipment holding that the government must prove actual subjective knowledge and that a defendant may not be convicted on just what he should have known holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding that reasonable person would have known based on ros relatively contemporaneous communications about what evidence was missing in order to substantiate claim holding that immunity extends to actions that do not violate norms of which a reasonable person would have known