Mrs. Edwards had a right to seek waiver of any amount owed. Because the duty to sympathetically read pro se pleadings applies, at a minimum, to pleadings related to the provision of VA benefits, and Mrs. Edwards’ May 2000 submissions were related to the provision of VA benefits, we need not decide if the duty to assist applies to a request for waiver or if the duty to sympathetically read pleadings applies to any and all pro se submissions to the Secretary, as opposed to those submissions that are related to VA benefits. Inasmuch as it is clear that the Board did not sympathetically read Mrs. Edwards’ May 2003 submissions related to her $2,366 indebtedness, this matter will be remanded for the Board to do so in the first instance. See Beverly v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 394, 405 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Richardson v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 64, 72
holding that the interpretation of a veterans filings is a factual inquiry holding that when a defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel the trial judge must conduct an inquiry into the claim holding that whether a sympathetic reading of a veterans filings raises a claim is a factual inquiry holding that whether the plaintiffs reliance on a negligent misrepresentation is justified generally raises a question of fact holding that a claim that is constitutional in name only does not create jurisdiction over an appeal from the veterans court