1370 (Fed.Cir.1997); Mayfield, supra, the Court will reverse in part and vacate in part the June 2003 Board decision and remand the matter for expeditious further development and issuance of a readjudicated decision supported by an adequate statement of reasons or bases, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1318, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 7104(a), (d)(1); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.22 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), (c); Wingo, Carpenter, and Green, all supra; Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 394, 397 (1991), all consistent with this opinion and in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 7112 (requiring Secretary to “take such actions as may be necessary to provide for the expeditious treatment by the Board of any claim that is remanded to the Secretary by the Court”); see Vargas-Gonzalez v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 222, 225-30 (2001) (<HOLDING>), and in accordance with all applicable law and
holding that section 302 of veterans benefits improvements act of 1994 publ no 103446  302 108 stat 4645 4658 predecessor of section 7112 applies to all elements of claim remanded by the court or board holding that freestanding predecessor of section 7112 applies to all elements of claim remanded by the court or board holding that vbia  302 applies to all elements of a claim remanded by court or board holding that vbia  302 applies to all elements of claim remanded by court or board holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board