VA notice informing appellant of possible entitlement to DIC); Saylock v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 394, 395 (1992) (as to mailing of RO decision). In Ashley II, the Court stated as follows: [W]here an appellant submits clear evidence to the effect that the BVA’s “regular” mailing practices are not regular or that they were not followed, the Secretary is no long an incorrect address for a claimant constitutes the “clear evidence” needed to rebut the presumption of regularity that the BVA properly mailed notice of its decision to the claimant under section 7104(e), which requires the notice of a BVA decision to be sent to the claimant at the claimant’s “last known address” of record. Fluker v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 296, 298 (1993); Piano v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 25, 26-27 (1993) (per curiam order) (<HOLDING>). This Court also has held that the presumption
holding that mailing of titleregistration forms satisfied mailing requirement because they contributed to success of the scheme holding that bvas use of incorrect address in mailing bva decision to appellant constituted clear evidence rebutting presumption of regularity inasmuch as it showed that mailing appeared to be irregular f  quoting ashley ii 2 vetapp at 309 holding that absent evidence that claimant took affirmative steps after filing va form 19 substantive appeal to bva to change address he provided on it bva was entitled to rely on that address as being his last known address under 38 usc  7104e and to use it for purposes of mailing copy of its decision recognizing that proof of a business system of preparing and mailing letters and compliance with such a custom in the particular instance is sufficient to establish proof of mailing holding that after presumption of regularity of mailing was rebutted secretary did not meet his burden of establishing that bva decision was mailed to veteran as required by section 7104e