not dispute the fact that the BVA decided that issue correctly. Therefore, this Court should affirm the decision of the Board. A remand should be based on some type of error committed by the Board. The majority’s opinion basically says “try again,” without pointing to any error committed by the Board. The reason for the majority’s action is that their decision is based on an issue raised sua sponte. The appellant has not addressed a possible claim for total disability based on individual unemployability that may be still pending before VA. If there is one, she is free to pursue it without a remand from this Court. See Hanson v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 29 (1996) (stating that an unadjudi-eated claim generally remains pending before VA until withdrawn); Meeks v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 284 (1993) (<HOLDING>). This Court has consistently held that it will
holding that a board affirmance of an ro decision subsumes that decision holding that prior ro decision that had not become final was not subject to cue collateral attack holding that a claim before an ro remains pending until a final decision is rendered holding that the ros failure to issue an soc prevented the disputed ro decision from becoming final and appealable to the board and the claim therefore remained pending holding vcaa inapplicable to claim that ro decision contained cue