at 467. The Court explained that such a result would be inconsistent with “[t]he responsibility for decision ... placed on the Board” by 29 U.S.C. § 160(c). 340 U.S. at 492, 71 S.Ct. at 467. Rather, the Court concluded that when the NLRB and an AU disagree, federal courts should determine whether the NLRB’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 496, 71 S.Ct. at 469. The fact that the NLRB and the AU have reached different conclusions does not modify the “substantial evidence” standard, but rather is simply one factor to be considered in determing whether this standard has been satisfied. Id. Universal Camera has been applied in circumstances closely analogous to the present situation. See, e.g., Jackson v. Veterans Administration, 768 F.2d 1325, 1329-31 (Fed.Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original); WHW Enterprises, Inc.
holding that boards failure to comply with precise requirement of city ordinance did not render its decision void where transcript of proceedings before board was sufficient to assure meaningful review of boards decision holding that the boards statement of reasons or bases must be adequate to enable a claimant to under stand the precise basis for the boards decision as well as to facilitate review in this court holding that because pennsylvania law limited a state courts review of a zoning boards decision to the issue whether the boards determinations were supported by substantial evidence the rookerfeldman doctrine did not prevent the plaintiffs from filing a federal action claiming that the zoning board had engaged in disability discrimination following a state courts review of the boards determinations holding that the fact that the merit systems protection boards decision differs from the presiding officials does not alter the requirement that we evaluate the boards final decision under the substantial evidence standard holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school boards president constituted the decision of the board