is no longer available for a misfiled NOA, Mr. Rickett presents two arguments in support of jurisdiction over a timely, yet misfiled NOA, i.e.: (1) the notice of appel notice of appellate rights was adequate with regard to how and when to file an NOA). I note, however, that it may yet be demonstrated that the panoply of information provided in the current notice of appellate rights provided by the Secretary is simply too much information to fulfill either the Secretary’s statutory requirement to provide notice how to appeal a Board decision to the Court, 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a); Thompson v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 169, 177 (1995), or traditional due process and fair process requirements regarding notice and an opportunity to be heard. Cf. Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290, 1298 (Fed.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>), Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119, 123 (1993)
holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding in the context of section 341 fifth that the mere existence of federal agediscrimination laws apparently including the adea does not create a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution in the form of job entitlements for government employees over a certain age holding that applicants for welfare benefits had a property interest or legitimate claim of entitlement and were entitled to due process to protect that interest holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment holding that a state tort claim is a species of property protected by the due process clause