absence. 38 U.S.C. § 5303(a); see R. at 341. In reviewing the 1997 Board decision for CUE, the 1999 Board decision likewise construed the regulation as requiring some type of evaluation by the adjudicators of the veteran’s offered reasons, adequately explained its mstances” Did Not Exist The appellant’s final argument, that the 1997 Board committed CUE when it found that the record did not contain adequate objective evidence to render his reasons “compelling,” amounts to no more than a disagreement with how the Board weighed the facts and, as such, cannot serve as a basis for establishing CUE. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(d)(3) (2001); Crippen and Fugo, both supra. The Court notes that although the appellant in his reply brief (see Carbino v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 507, 511 (1997)) (<HOLDING>), referred to evidence of record (Reply Br. at
holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived holding that raising issue for first time in reply brief is contrary to courts rules of practice and procedure holding argument is waived when raised for first time in reply brief holding an appellant who raised an issue for the first time in his reply brief waived the claim