With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". certain procedural , advantages in attempting to present and develop direct-service-connection claims does not mean that any of those claims necessarily have merit. That is what the claims-development process under § 3.311 is designed to determine, just as is the duty to assist that attaches under section 5107(a) as to well-grounded claims, regarding which the Court has emphasized:“The amount of evidence sufficient to make a claim well grounded differs from the amount sufficient for an award of service connection”, Meyer v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 425, 432 (1996); “to be well grounded a claim need not be supported by evidence sufficient for the claim to be granted. Rather, the law establishes only a 'preliminary threshold of plausibility”. Robinette, 8 Vet.App. at 76; see also Alemany, supra (<HOLDING>). It must be remembered that the § 3.311

A: holding medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as possible suffices for that aspect of wellgroundedclaim requirements
B: holding that no federal nexus is required
C: holding that there was no new and material evidence to reopen claim where newly presented evidence was not accompanied by any medical evidence indicating a nexus to service
D: holding service requirements under fedrcivp 4 to be jurisdictional
A.