With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". entirely on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Schroeder. See Appellant’s Br. at 11-12. The appellant in Schroeder appealed a Board decision denying him service connection for a bilateral eye disorder on a direct basis and as a result of Agent Orange exposure. See id. at 1267. On appeal, this Court concluded that the Board had erred in finding the Agent Orange claim not well grounded. This Court, however, affirmed the Board’s decision denying service connection on a direct basis on the basis that that “claim” was not well grounded. As discussed above, the Federal Circuit expressly rejected this Court’s decision that two different theories equaled two separate claims and that the duty to assist attached to one theory but not the other. See supra pp. 550-51; Schroeder, 212 F.3d at 1271 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, VA had itself misconstrued the

A: holding parent entitled to credit for any social security disability benefits paid to child as a result of parents disability
B: holding that once a veteran has properly made  a  claim for a current disability as a result of a specific inservice occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury the agencys duty to assist  attaches to the investigation of all possible inservice causes of that current disability including those unknown to the veteran
C: holding that section 511a of title 38 did not preclude a state trial court from requiring the payment of child support from va disability benefits because the state court was not reviewing the administrators decision finding the veteran eligible for specific disability benefits
D: holding evidence of a 13 permanent partial disability insufficient to establish disability for purposes of ada
B.