in this case, I respectfully submit, it does not. I agree with the majority that the decision of the Board in this instance is legally infirm. However, when a case has been developed for over 10 years and there is evidence supporting award of the claim, and the record before the Court permits only one resolution of the key factual issue — whether the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim — reversal, not remand, is warranted. See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 292, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (“Where findings are infirm because of an erroneous view of the law, a remand is the proper course unless the record permits only one resolution of the factual issue.” (emphasis added)); see also Padgett v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 133, 146-47, 151 (2005) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), withdrawn on other grounds, 19 Vet.App. 334
holding that factual conclusions of sentencing court which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence are reviewed for clear error holding preponderance of the evidence must be against a claim before the claim can be denied where factual record is insufficient remand required holding that a claimant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to an administrative claim holding that the factual underpinnings of a restitution order must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence holding that a remand on a claim that could not be supported by the record would be a waste of judicial resources