that found the 1973 RO decision to be final is SET ASIDE, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 1 . Although a request for revision on the grounds of CUE is frequently referred to as a "CUE claim” or a "claim of CUE,” the Court will use the statutory and regulatory language, as appropriate. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109A, 7111; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 20.1400 (2005). 2 . The 1983 Board decision replaced the 1981 Board decision that subsumed the 1979 RO decision, see 38 U.S.C. § 7103(a); Link v. West, 12 Vet.App. 39, 45 (1998) (once a case is reconsidered by Board, reconsideration decision constitutes final decision of Board and previous Board decision is nullified) (citing Smith (George) v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 546, 550 (1996) (en banc)); see abo Herndon v. Principi, 311 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (2004). 3 . The Court
holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board holding vcaa inapplicable to claim that ro decision contained cue holding that prior ro decision that had not become final was not subject to cue collateral attack holding that a board affirmance of an ro decision subsumes that decision holding that a claim before an ro remains pending until a final decision is rendered