With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of valid military service by [ARPERCEN].” R. at 30 (emphasis added). Second, the RO repeated this misstatement of the law (again assuming that § 3.203 applies here) in the August 2000 SOC cited by the Board. Although the SOC accurately quoted § 3.203 in the section entitled “Pertinent Laws and Regulations” (R. at 38), the “Reasons and Bases” section on the very next page contained the same inaccurate (again assuming that § 3.203 applies) statement of law (noting that “basic eligibility to VA benefits may be established only upon verification of valid military service by [AR-PERS-COM]”). R. at 38-39 (emphasis added). In addition, the SOC postdated the May 2000 initial unfavorable agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision in the instant case. See Pelegrini, 18 Vet.App. at 120 (<HOLDING>). Having found a notice error, the Court must

A: holding that section 5103a notice must precede initial aoj adjudication on serviceconnection claim
B: holding because an initial order contemplated the subsequent entry of a judgment the initial order was not considered a final adjudication
C: holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits
D: holding that appellant must identify with considerable specificity how 38 usc  5103a notice was defective
A.