Bac-A v. West, 13 Vet.App. 308, 311 (2000) (providing that even prior to the Court’s clarification of the caselaw governing compliance with Board remands, “there was ample regulatory language and case law requiring the Board to assure that its adjudication was undertaken only after the compilation of an adequate record”). Additionally, the Secretary has not demonstrated how the manner in which the Court reviews the Board’s findings of fact is in any way relevant to the Board’s responsibility to ensure that the Secretary carries out his obligation to assist the veteran in processing his claim, to return a medical opinion where it is inadequate, and provide an adequate statement supported by a reasonable basis in both fact and in law. See Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541 (<HOLDING>); Douglas v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 19, 26
holding that the governments position must be justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person and have a reasonable basis in both law and fact citations omitted holding that congress did not want the substantially justified standard to be read to raise a presumption that the government position was not substantially justified simply because it lost the case citations omitted holding that given creditors pro se status the complaint was substantially justified as it had a reasonable basis in fact and law and it would be unjust to penalize her for having only a lay persons knowledge of the law holding that the governments position must have a reasonable basis in both law and fact citations omitted holding that for the administrative position of the government to be substantially justified it must have a reasonable basis both in law and fact