entitled to the benefit of the presumption and the burden shifts to the Secretary to establish that the BVA decision was mailed to the veteran and the veteran’s representative, if any, as required by 38 U.S.C. § 7104(e). Ashley II, 2 Vet.App. at 309; see Ashley I, 2 Vet.App. at 66 (quoting United States v. Roses, 706 F.2d 1563, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1983)) (“ ‘The presumption [of official regularity may also] operate[ ] in reverse. If [a mailing] appears irregular, it is irregular, and the burden shifts to the proponent to show the contrary’ ”). An assertion of nonreceipt of a VA decision alone does not establish the “clear evidence” needed to rebut the presumption of regularity of the mailing. Ashley II, 2 Vet.App. at 309; cf. Chute v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 352, 353 (1991) (per curiam order) (<HOLDING>). This Court, however, has held that VA’s use
holding that presumption of regulari ty was rebutted where secretary could not show that va had mailed notice of bva decision and appellants letters appeared to reflect that he was seeking information regarding status of bva review thus indicating that he had not received that notice holding that absent evidence that claimant took affirmative steps after filing va form 19 substantive appeal to bva to change address he provided on it bva was entitled to rely on that address as being his last known address under 38 usc  7104e and to use it for purposes of mailing copy of its decision holding that after presumption of regularity of mailing was rebutted secretary did not meet his burden of establishing that bva decision was mailed to veteran as required by section 7104e holding that because veteran had never before submitted due process issue to bva he had not exhausted his administrative remedies and court declined to address merits of that claim holding that the defendant did not require advance notice where he could not show how he was prejudiced by late notice or how he could have been helped by additional notice