With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is not reached on the facts of this case. Accordingly, the Board’s decision not to reopen this claim was not in error. b. Notice of September 1990 RO decision: The appellant contends that he was never notified of the September 1990 RO decision or of his right to appeal it, and that thus that decision is still open. Br. at 19. If the appellant is correct, then this would mean, as discussed in part II.B.4.a., above, that the last final disallowance as to the neuropsychiatric claim would have been the July 1979 Board decision, that Dr. Orea’s 1983 statement would thus constitute new and material evidence to reopen the claim, and that a remand for adjudication on the merits would be required. See Masors and Jones, both supray Hauck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 518, 519 (1994) (per curiam order) (<HOLDING>). This Court has held that there is a

A: holding that where it is conceded that appellant never received notification of any denial  the oneyear period within which to file an nod which commences with the date of mailing of notice of the result of initial review or determination did not begin to run quoting 38 usc  7105b1
B: holding that the time in which to file a petition for review of a commissioners order commences upon the signing of the written order
C: holding that oneyear period commences on date of discovery of the fraudulent nature of the transfer
D: holding that where va never sent the claimant a formal application form pursuant to  3155 the oneyear time period to return it could not have begun to run and therefore the effective date of the claim was the date of the informal claim
A.