a notice error is not prejudicial, it must find that, “despite the error, the adjudication was nevertheless essentially fair.” Overton, 20 Vet.App. at 435 (citing McDonough, supra). In this case, it is evident that VA’s failure to provide notice in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3) did not constitute prejudicial error. Assuming arguendo that the appellant put forth sufficiently specific allegations of prejudice (see Appellant’s Br. at 13), the Court holds that YA has rebutted those allegations and demonstrated that no prejudice resulted from the § 3.304(f)(3) notice error. At several points in the record, the appellant demonstrated his actual knowledge of the amended provisions of § 3.304(f) and his ability to submit supporting evidence thereunder. See Sanders, 487 F.3d at 889 (<HOLDING>); Overton, 20 Vet.App. at 438-39 (finding that
holding that a plaintiff can establish a causal link by showing that the employers decision  was based in part on knowledge of the employees protected activity holding that any error in the exclusion of evidence is cured by the subsequent admission of the evidence holding that the party asserting notice error has the burden of demonstrating prejudice holding that the secretary may demonstrate that an error is nonprejudicial by a showing that the purpose of the notice was not frustrated eg by demonstrating  that any defect was cured by actual knowledge on the part of the claimant holding that the purpose of rule 15 was not frustrated by the district courts denial of leave to amend because the intent of the rule is to assist the disposition of litigation on the merits of the case rather than have pleadings become ends in themselves