as to the amount of the debt and issued an SOC in September 2010 that only addressed gnize the status of the issue when it simply-stated that “the claims file does not specify the exact amount of the overpayment calculated by the RO.” R. at 4. Contrary to the veteran’s contentions, the proper remedy in such a situation is not for the Court to decide this fact-specific issue in the first instance or to remand it to the Board for initial adjudication. See Appellant’s Br. at 10-11; Reply Br. at 3-4. Rather, the appropriate course of action is to remand that issue to the Board with instructions to further remand it to the RO for issuance of an SOC that includes the exact amount of the debt and an explanation as to how it was calculated. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 119, 132 (1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet.App. 238,
holding that the ros failure to issue an soc prevented the disputed ro decision from becoming final and appealable to the board and the claim therefore remained pending holding that an associations president who was not a party before the board of appeals was not entitled to appeal the boards decision granting a zoning application that his association had opposed in the board proceedings holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding that the boards finding that a matter was not before it because a substantive appeal had not been filed was error and determining that because a timely nod had been submitted and the ro never responded by issuing an soc as required by law and regulation the proper remedy was to vacate the board decision as to the matter and remand to the board for appropriate procedural compliance specifically the issuance of an soc holding that because the appellant had filed an nod the board should have remanded that issue to the ro not referred it there ifor issuance of an soc