of valid military service by [ARPERCEN].” R. at 30 (emphasis added). Second, the RO repeated this misstatement of the law (again assuming that § 3.203 applies here) in the August 2000 SOC cited by the Board. Although the SOC accurately quoted § 3.203 in the section entitled “Pertinent Laws and Regulations” (R. at 38), the “Reasons and Bases” section on the very next page contained the same inaccurate (again assuming that § 3.203 applies) statement of law (noting that “basic eligibility to VA benefits may be established only upon verification of valid military service by [AR-PERS-COM]”). R. at 38-39 (emphasis added). In addition, the SOC postdated the May 2000 initial unfavorable agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision in the instant case. See Pelegrini, 18 Vet.App. at 120 (<HOLDING>). Having found a notice error, the Court must
holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits holding that appellant must identify with considerable specificity how 38 usc  5103a notice was defective holding that section 5103a notice must precede initial aoj adjudication on serviceconnection claim holding because an initial order contemplated the subsequent entry of a judgment the initial order was not considered a final adjudication holding that any board reasonsorbases deficiency in discussing how section 5103a  3159b1 notice has been satisfied would of necessity be nonprejudicial to claimant where claimant re  ceived compliant notice