With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub.L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat.2096 (R. at 3-4), the VCAA does not apply to CUE claims. See Livesay v. Principi 15 Vet.App. 165 (2001) (en banc). Although the appellant submitted an NOD as to the June 17, 1976, RO decision, he did not submit a Substantive Appeal after receiving the July 1976 SOC; we will therefore assume, arguendo (bid see the discussion at the end of the Analysis regarding the adequacy of that SOC), for the purpose of the CUE claim on appeal, that the June 1976 RO decision became a final decision. See 38 U.S.C. § 4005(c) (1970); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 19.118, 19.153 (1975); Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 542, 546 (1992). Such a final decision is a prerequisite for a CUE collateral attack. See Norris (Robert) v. West, 12 Vet.App. 413, 422 (<HOLDING>). An RO decision that has become final

A: holding that cue existed in ro decision that had reduced veterans benefits where court found that it is evident that cue existed therein
B: holding that pursuant to 38 usc  5109a a final ro decision may be revised upon a showing of cue
C: holding that prior ro decision that had not become final was not subject to cue collateral attack
D: holding that a judgment as to the title in a prior litigation was not subject to collateral attack
C.