With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". RO decision disallowing the claim. However, that document indicates that the statements on it were transcribed “for subsequent presentation to ... the Board”, and, hence, that document might not have been filed with the RO, as an NOD must generally be under section 7105(b)(1). See also 38 C.F.R. § 20.300 (1993). In any event, it is not necessary for the Court to determine whether that document could be a valid NOD because the January 30,1991, VA Form 1-9 filed by the appellant with the RO (and date-stamped as received by the RO on February 5, 1991) satisfies the requirements for a valid NOD with respect to the December 19, 1990, RO decision disallowing her claim and is sufficient to give this Court jurisdiction over the claim. See Malgapo v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 397, 398-99 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Hamilton, 4 Vet-App. at 538 (implicitly

A: holding that va form 19 can be valid nod
B: holding only defenses that would be valid in rendering state can be relied upon by courts of another state
C: holding that performance may be valid acceptance
D: holding that such provisions are valid
A.