and occupational experience and opine that his disabilities did not ‘preclude all forms of substantially gainful employment.’” 2 Vet.App. at 28. As the Court stated in Gleicher, when the Board fails to relate an appellant’s educational and occupational history to his disabilities, the Board “comes very close to placing upon the appellant the burden of showing he can’t get work.” Id. The statement provided by the Board in the present case is almost indistinguishable from the statement provided in Gleicher. Such reasoning was inadequate in Gleicher, decided more than two decades ago, and it is inadequate today. Consequently, I would remand the issue of TDIU to the Board to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. See Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App. 369, 374 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, I must respectfully dissent. 8 .
holding that remand is the appropriate remedy where inter alia the board has incorrectly applied the law holding that it is appropriate to remand to the plan administrator when the administrative record is incomplete holding that remand is the appropriate remedy where the board has incorrectly applied the law failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determinations or where the record is otherwise inadequate holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error