mailing obligation for BVA decision); see also Jones and Mindenhall, both supra; Hyson v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 262, 264-65 (1993); Saylock, supra. The “latest address of record” for the appellant was, at the time of the SOC mailing (and still is), “13230 E. 32 Court[,] Tulsa, OK. 74134”. This address was listed as her address on her NOD, the last correspondence from the appellant to VA immediately prior to the issuance of the SOC. The RO, however, sent the SOC to the appellant at the wrong ZIP Code. The Court concludes that the ZIP Code used by VA in forwarding the SOC to the appellant did not match that in “latest address of record”. Because VA used an address other than the one “of record”, VA failed to comply with § 19.30. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 592-93 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Nor do we find persuasive the Secretary’s
holding that a states failure to follow its own procedural regulations does not constitute a violation of due process if constitutional minima are met holding that va must follow its own regulations holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that an employers mere failure to follow its own rules and regulations does not give rise to a protected property interest holding that the board is not free to ignore its own regulations