as far as it goes. Nevertheless, it is subject to a significant caveat that the Secretary ignores in defending the inconsistent interpretations. While an agency is not locked into the first interpretation of a statute it embraces, it cannot simply adopt inconsistent positions without presenting “some reasoned analysis.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 57, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (quoting Greater Boston Television, 444 F.2d at 852); see also Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 187, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991); Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. F.C.C., 265 F.3d 313, 322 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied sub nom. National Ass’n of State Utility Consumer Advocates v. F.C.C., 535 U.S. 986, 122 S.Ct. 1537, 152 L.Ed.2d 464 (2002); Skubel v. Fuoroli, 113 F.3d 330, 336 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>)(internal citations and quotation marks
holding that the failure to articulate the basis for declining jurisdiction may be clear error holding that the alj did not consider the vocational experts testimony on crossexamination and failed to articulate a basis for rejecting this evidence which was a basis for remand holding that attorneys are not debt relief agencies holding that cue review applies only to prior final decisions of agencies of original jurisdiction ros and not to prior decisions of the board holding that ajdministrative agencies must articulate a logical basis for their decisions