Court notes that 38 U.S.C. § 1541 ("Surviving spouses of veterans of a period of war”) contains the “entitled to receive” language. Although it is extremely difficult to understand precisely to what claim this letter refers (because it was sent after the non-service-connected pension had been awarded), there is no indication that it was referring to the appellant’s DIC claim. Even if it were, the confusion between service connected and non-service connected described at the outset of this footnote would render the information in the letter sufficiently confusing so as to vitiate any possible compliance with section 5103(a). See Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103, 125 (2005), appeal docketed, No. 05-7157 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2005). 5 . Cf. Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119, 123 (1993) (<HOLDING>) id. at 126, and noting " 'underlying concepts
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 holding that language utilized in appeals notice accompanying board decision satisfactorily explained how and when to pursue bva reconsideration and to appeal to this court also recognizing that portion of such notice might be confusing holding that before the board of veterans appeals bva relies in rendering a decision on a claim on any evidence developed or obtained by it subsequent to the issuance of the most recent statement of the case soc or supplemental soc with respect to such claim the bva must provide a claimant with reasonable notice of such evidence and of the reliance proposed to be placed on it and a reasonable opportunity for the claimant to respond to it 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 the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant