1995 and September 1997 regional office decisions, his appeal will be dismissed. In addition, the Board decision on appeal will be vacated because the Board erred to the extent that it entertained such an improper “claim” without imposing the strictures of finality. See Smith (Irma) v. B ished opinion). The Court notes, however, that Mr. Rudd is not without recourse, as he remains free to file a motion to revise based upon clear and unmistakable error with respect to the March 1995 and September 1997 regional office decisions. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that his arguments on appeal all pertain to the duties to notify and assist and that such arguments would be of no avail in the clear-and-unmistakable-error context. See Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 165, 179 (2001) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); see also Cook, 318 F.3d at 1344-47 (holding
holding that the notice requirements of section 101101 do not apply to employees because they are not governmental units holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes holding that more stringent requirements of  1823e do not apply retroactively holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2255 motions holding that the notice requirements of 38 usc  5103a do not apply to motions based on clear and unmistakable error