disagreement is filed ... within the prescribed period, the action or determination shall become final.”); 38 U.S.C. § 5109A(a) (“A [final] decision by the Secretary ... is subject to revision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error. If evidence establishes the error, the prior decision shall be reversed or revised.”); 38 U.S.C. § 5103 (1995) (“If such evidence is not received within one year from the date of such notification, no benefits may be paid or furnished by reason of such application.”); 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (“If new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been [finally] disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of that claim.”); Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 310, 315
holding that cue motion is not claim for benefits and that vcaa definition of claimant cannot encompass person seeking revision of final decision based on cue holding that the statutory scheme provides only two exceptions to the rule of finality of va decisions a cue claim and a claim to reopen based on new and material evidence holding that once a regional office decision is final a claimant may only attempt to overcome the finality of that decision in one of two ways a request for revision of the decision based on clear and unmistakable error or a claim to reopen based upon new and material evidence holding abuse of discretion is established if district court decision was based on an error of law holding that the finality of a contracting officers determination was suspended during his review of a request by the contractor to reconsider the final decision