that his debt was $11,538. R. at 627 (“[Y]ou were paid $11,538.00 more than you were entitled to receive.”). The appellant’s February 2010 NOD contained a clear expression of disagreement with the RO’s calculation of the debt amount, which was sufficient to initiate an appeal of that issue. R. at 77 (“I feel I should only have to pay back the money paid to me after the letter I received in September [2009].”); see Jarvis v. West, 12 Vet.App. 559, 562 (1999) (reviewing the language and context of an NOD to determine its scope); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 (2015) (requiring that an NOD be written “in terms which can be reasonably construed as disagreement with [an adverse AOJ] determination and a desire for appellate review”). Yet, the RO failed to recognize his disagreem 0-41 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the debt continues to be in
holding that the boards finding that a matter was not before it because a substantive appeal had not been filed was error and determining that because a timely nod had been submitted and the ro never responded by issuing an soc as required by law and regulation the proper remedy was to vacate the board decision as to the matter and remand to the board for appropriate procedural compliance specifically the issuance of an soc holding that a board affirmance of an ro decision subsumes that decision holding that because the appellant had filed an nod the board should have remanded that issue to the ro not referred it there ifor issuance of an soc holding that the ros failure to issue an soc prevented the disputed ro decision from becoming final and appealable to the board and the claim therefore remained pending holding the board must either obtain a waiver or determine whether a claimant will be prejudiced by the boards adjudication of a question or issue in an appeal not otherwise decided by the ro otherwise it must remand for the ro to decide the question in the first instance