225, 227 (1991) (noting that although “the underlying determination may be factualfj ... whether those facts are sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement that clear and unmistakable evidence be shown is a legal determination subject to de novo review”). This Court is required to make an independent determination whether the record contains clear evidence of sufficient weight to rebut the presumption of regularity and whether the Secretary has presented evidence showing that he complied with his mailing obligation under the statute or that there was actual receipt. See Woods, 14 Vet.App. at 220-21 (concluding that presumption as applied to Secretary’s mailing of RO notice oí decision to veteran was rebutted and Secretary failed to meet his burden); Piano, 5 Vet.App. at 26-27 (<HOLDING>); Ashley II, 2 Vet.App. at 311 (same). 1.
holding that absent evidence that claimant took affirmative steps after filing va form 19 substantive appeal to bva to change address he provided on it bva was entitled to rely on that address as being his last known address under 38 usc  7104e and to use it for purposes of mailing copy of its decision holding that after presumption of regularity of mailing was rebutted secretary did not meet his burden of establishing that bva decision was mailed to veteran as required by section 7104e holding that bvas use of incorrect address in mailing bva decision to appellant constituted clear evidence rebutting presumption of regularity inasmuch as it showed that mailing appeared to be irregular f  quoting ashley ii 2 vetapp at 309 holding that denial of receipt of notice of trial did not rebut presumption of trial courts certificate of mailing of notice requiring an evidentiary hearing holding that because veteran had never before submitted due process issue to bva he had not exhausted his administrative remedies and court declined to address merits of that claim