this issue because Mr. Hayre cannot prove that the missing SMRs would manifestly change the outcome of the 1972 rating decision. Consequently, we affirm the decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims holding that Mr. Hayre’s claim of CUE was not well-grounded. Furthermore, a breach of the duty to assist in this case would not be an error of the sort that should be contemplated in the CUE analysis because the original RO decision in 1972 is not final for purposes of appeal. tating that where an appellant and his representative had not properly been furnished with a Statement of the Case, the period in which to appeal the adjudicative determination in question never commenced to run and that determination was not final); see also Ashley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 307, 311 (1992) (<HOLDING>). A breach of the duty to assist in which the
holding that although the state court affirmed the zoning board of appeals dismissal of plaintiffs appeal the statecourt judgment did not trigger rookerfeldman where the complaint did not allege that the judgment itself violated federal law holding that a court of veterans appeals decision interpreting 38 usc  8713 overruling the secretarys prior interpretation and remanding back to the board was a final and appealable decision holding that a board decision is required to vest the court of veterans appeals with jurisdiction over a claimants appeal holding vagenerated documents to be in the possession of the secretary and the board at the time of the board decision and thus constructively part of the record of proceedings as mandated by 38 usc  7252b holding that where the board did not mail decision in accordance with the provisions of 38 usc  7104e the period within which to appeal to the court of appeals for veterans claims did not commence to run