With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 7 (1999) (“a breach of the duty to assist ... cannot form the basis of a CUE claim”); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377, 383-84 (1994); see also Hayre, 188 F.3d at 1330-32 (ratifying Cajfrey, supra). Second, the Court’s authority to consider claims of CUE in Board decisions is premised upon, inter alia, 38 U.S.C. § 7111, which took effect on November 21, 1997. See Pub.L. No. 105-111, 111 Stat. 2271 (1997) (the provisions of Pub.L. 105-111 “apply to any determination made before, on, or after the date of the enactment.”). Section 7111 requires that such arguments must be raised to the Board in the first instance and decided by the Board on the merits; they may not be raised in the first instance on appeal to the Court. See 38 U.S.C. § 7111(e); Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d 776 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The record shows that the appellant made no

A: holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court
B: holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear a cue claim raised for the first time on appeal
C: holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal
D: holding that the court has discretion to hear or to remand legal arguments raised for the first time on appeal
B.