With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held, nevertheless, that the doctrine of equitable tolling did not apply, and dismissed Mr. Santoro’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction as untimely filed. Mr. Santoro filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking opportunity to argue for application of equitable tolling. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denied the motion to reconsider. Mr. Santoro appeals the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ dismissal. He argues that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims misconstrued 38 U.S.C. § 7266, and erred in refusing to treat as timely the July 1998 notice of appeal under the presumption that the VA General Counsel’s office acted with administrative regularity. Mr. Santoro also argues that the Court of Appeals for Veterans 1225 (Del.1997) (<HOLDING>). In view of the above, the Court of Appeals

A: holding that whether an incorrect zip code on a notice of sale is properly addressed is a question of fact
B: holding that although an address in which the zip code is incorrect may be properly addressed an address in which both the zip code and the street address is incorrect is not properly addressed
C: holding that an incorrect zip code does not render an otherwise proper address improper
D: holding that service was not defeated by an address with an incorrect zip code
A.