on a previous Agency decision that has become final. See Jarrell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 326, 332 (2006) (en banc) (noting a request for revision on the basis of CUE “is a collateral attack on an otherwise final benefits decision on the basis of a specific allegation of CUE”). It is not a claim for benefits, although it is related to benefits, and the duty to assist does not apply. See Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). There can be no dispute that a request for waiver of indebtedness is related to VA benefits. The indebtedness in this case arose from an overpayment of benefits, 06) (remanding for the Board or regional office to give a sympathetic reading to pro se application for benefits); see also Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). B. The $12,347 Indebtedness At oral argument,
holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it holding that the interpretation of a veterans filings is a factual inquiry holding that a claim that is constitutional in name only does not create jurisdiction over an appeal from the veterans court holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation holding that whether a sympathetic reading of a veterans filings raises a claim is a factual inquiry