meaning thereof. Nor is there any evidence to show that the appellant was incompetent, or otherwise incapable of handling her affairs. R. at 5. The Court holds that the Board’s factual determinations that (1) the evidence did not demonstrate that the appellant did not receive the notice of her indebtedness, and (2) there was no evidence showing that the appellant was incompetent or otherwise incapable of handling her affairs were not “clearly erroneous.” See Gilbert, 'supra; 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4). The Board properly presumed that the appellant received the notice in the normal course absent a showing by the appellant that she did not. 38 U.S.C. § 5302(a) (payee must demonstrate to Secretary’s satisfaction that notification was not actually received); see McCullough, 15 Vet.App. at 275 (<HOLDING>). The appellant’s assertion that mental illness
holding that the invocation of a presumption of notice requires the agency to prove that the notice was properly addressed holding that notice of administrative forfeiture sent to prisoner did not require actual notice to the property owner only notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action holding that claimants statement that she did not recall receiving the notice of indebtedness did not constitute clear evidence to rebut the presumption that notice was properly sent holding that upon receipt of the important notice a conclusive presumption of notice was established holding that denial of receipt of notice of trial did not rebut presumption of trial courts certificate of mailing of notice requiring an evidentiary hearing