to Dr. Bailey’s August 1993 BMAO. That opinion was obtained after the issuance of the October 1991 SSOC (R. at 838), and the appellant was not thereafter afforded an opportunity to respond or to submit additional evidence. See Williams, 8 Vet.App. at 138. Moreover, even if such an opportunity had been provided, the very use of the BMAO by the Board without a discussion of compliance with applicable regulations would have raised the same questions raised in Austin and Williams about the process by which the BMAO was obtained and used. However, the Austin violation can result in an unfair adjudication and a remand only if the Court determines that the denial of the § 1310 DIC claim was properly reopened by the Board. See Edenfield v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 384, 390-91 (1995) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); White (Frank) v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 247, 252
holding that court would not impose penalties for failure to comply with licensing requirements in addition to those specifically set out in statute holding failure to comply with  851b was harmless error in part because defendant did not comply with  851c procedures for challenging prior convictions 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 where appellant did not submit permit application until four years after the ordinance in question was amended appellant had no vested rights holding that because appellant had failed to submit wellgrounded claim boards failure to comply with fairprocess requirements enunciated in thurber 5 vetapp at 126 was not prejudicial