was tainted by the presence of the altered document, that determination was subject to deferential review on a record that contained the document, and the document was not removed from the record in subsequent proceedings. 576 F.3d at 1299-1300. The Federal Circuit remanded for a de novo determination of the veteran’s 1977 claim, implicitly declaring the April 1980 Board decision nonfinal. Id. at 1300. Hence, if a prejudicial due process violation occurred in this case, the 1983 Board decision may not stand in the way of a possible grant of service connection for left hip bursitis effective as early as the date of his original claim for those benefits in April 1982. R. at 929-30; see Cushman, 576 F.3d at 1300; see also Gambill v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Turning to the merits of Mr. Hime’s argument,
holding that harmless error analysis is inappropriate in a powers case holding that the denial of due process in a particular case is subject to harmless error analysis holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding improper vouching is subject to harmless error analysis