At that hearing, Mr. Coker noted his belief that his April 1993 request for a compensation and pension examination constituted a claim for service connection for hallux valgus. The failure of the Board to discuss these issues is error. See Suttmann, supra; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 593 (1991) (Board is required to consider all evidence of record and to discuss in its decision all potentially applicable provisions of law and regulation); see also Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.pp. 369, 374 (1998) (“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, a remand is the appropriate remedy.”); Meeks v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 284, 288 (1993) (st 372 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Marciniak v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 198, 201
holding that where the record is insufficient to show that the alleged error occurred the presumption that the trial court acted without error must prevail holding issue not properly before the appellate court where appellant fails to demonstrate where in the record an issue was raised in the district court holding that error will not be presumed from a silent record and that without the relevant transcript there is insufficient evidence to review the alleged error and the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error in the record holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that in appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error