rights is inadequate; and (2) the Court should exercise its authority to deem the NOA filed with the Court on the date it was misfiled with the Secretary. 1. Notice of Appellate Rights. I agree with the majority that the appellant fails to demonstrate that the notice of appellate rights provided in this case was so confusing to the appellant that it failed to serve its purpose. Certainly, the appellant established that the notice of appellate rights is confusing, but in his own words he admitted that he erred in mailing his NOA to the correct address, in part, due to his “haste,” and, ultimately, he was able on review to discern the requirement to file his NOA with the Court (albeit, only after calling the Court and being so informed). Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252, 255 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Irwin, supra at 134 (stating that
holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal holding that defendant bears burden at punishment phase to prove issue of sudden passion by preponderance of evidence holding that appellant bears burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence holding defendant bears burden of establishing affirmative defense of official immunity recognizing that the defendant bears the burden of establishing that plain error was prejudicial