appealed to this Court only upon the filing of a new Notice of Appeal with the Court not later than 120 days after the date on which notice of the Board’s new final decision is mailed to the appellant. See Marsh v. West, 11 Vet.App. 468, 472 (1998). VACATED AND REMANDED. 2 . On remand, this interpretive question involves consideration of the requirement that "interpretive doubt” be resolved in favor of the claimant. See Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118, 115 S.Ct. 552, 130 L.Ed.2d 462 (1994). 3 . The Court notes that, although veteran status is an element of every claim, failure to give section 5103(a) notice as to status where that fact is not in dispute will always be nonprejudicial to the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2); cf. Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103, 129 (2005) (<HOLDING>). 4 . We note that in Soria v. Brown, the U.S.
holding that a second deficiency notice issued for a taxable year was valid where it determined a deficiency in a different type of tax than did the earlier deficiency 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 appellant must identify with considerable specificity how 38 usc  5103a notice was defective holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law