points based on his veteran status, this claim is not addressed in the Board’s decision currently on appeal. We take notice, however, that Mr. Grayton’s VEOA claim is being pursued in a separate appeal currently pending before the Board. See Grayton v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. SF-3330-16-0552-I-1 (Notice of Appeal). Because Mr. Grayton’s VEOA claim has yet to be decided by the Board, there is no final decision with respect to his VEOA claim. Mr. Grayton’s appeal based on the VEOA is therefore premature and we lack jurisdiction to consider it at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (2011) (providing that this Court has jurisdiction to review a “final order or final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board”); see also Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361-63 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). On appeal, Mr. Grayton also asserts that he
holding that the courts jurisdiction is limited to the appeal of final board decisions that are adverse to the claimant holding that the term final and conclusive precludes judicial review of army claims decisions holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions holding that cue review applies only to prior final decisions of agencies of original jurisdiction ros and not to prior decisions of the board holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions