With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Federal Circuit upheld this Court’s decision in Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380 (Fed.Cir.1996), aff'g 8 Vet.App. 1 (1995), concluding that the Board must preliminarily decide that new and material evidence has been presented in a ease it has previously adjudicated, before addressing the merits of the claim. Barnett, 83 F.3d at 1383. This is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. Moreover, once the Board finds that no such evidence has been offered, that is where the analysis must end. Barnett, 8 Vet.App. at 4. The Board’s review of the evidence of record is necessary to determine whether new and material evidence has been submitted, but a “review [of] the former disposition of the claim” (§ 5108, supra) by the Board is beyond its jurisdiction. Barnett, 83 F.3d at 1384 (<HOLDING>); see also McGinnis v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 239,

A: holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board
B: holding that the united states court of federal claims does not have jurisdiction over a new claim or a claim of different scope that was not previously presented and certified to the contracting officer for decision
C: holding that the board does not have jurisdiction to consider a claim which it previously adjudicated unless new and material evidence is presented
D: holding that material submitted by appellant that is cumulative of evidence previously of record is not new
C.