of recovery of that overpayment. R. at 4-5. The Court has jurisdiction to review referred issues only to the extent that the appellant argues that remand, rather than referral, was appropriate. See Young v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 201, 202-03 (2012) (en banc order); Link v. West, 12 Vet.App. 39, 47 (1998) ("Claims that have been referred by the Board to the [regional office] are not ripe for review by the Court.”). Mr. Dent has not challenged the propriety of the Board’s referral. The Secretary informs the Court that the Milwaukee Pension Management Center subsequently denied the waiver request in a June 16, 2014, decision. Dec. 18, 2014, Secretary’s Response. The Court will not address the Board’s referral of the waiver issue. See Pederson v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 276 (2015) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 2 . By way of background, "improved pension”
holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal holding that an appellate court has discretion to consider an issue not argued by the parties holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding that the court has discretion not to consider an issue abandoned on appeal holding that where an appellant fails to raise arguments regarding an issue on appeal that issue is deemed abandoned