of benefits based on the monthly amount prescribed by statute in 1969 ($411.69) and in the months after February 1969 through July 1996; he is not entitled to receive an award based on the 1996 monthly amount ($3,104.00) for each of the months in between 1969 and 1996 because that amount was not provided for by statute during all of those months. Contrary to the appellant’s argument, see Appellant’s Br. at 5, 9-10, nowhere does section 5109A(b) provide that the corrected decision shall have the effect that the prior decision containing CUE had never been made; rather, the statute provides, in effect, that the erroneous decision, when made, was decided correctly. Moreover, the appellant’s argument that his case is distinguishable from Smith (Claudus) v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 227 (2000) (<HOLDING>), aff'd sub nom. Smith v. Principi, 281 F.3d
holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal holding that 38 usc  503 is not express waiver of sovereign immunity that would permit interest payment on award of pastdue benefits holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity holding that 28 usc  1331 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity