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”); Smallwood v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 93, 97 (1997) (noting that where the Board found that a medical examiner stated that the appellant’s foot odor “would seem to preclude employment in a confined space with other workers,” this disability “seems to suggest that he may qualify as an exceptional case under [§ ] 3.321” and remanding for Board to consider whether the claim for an increased rating of the appellant’s service-connected osteomyelitis should be referred to the appropriate VA official to determine whether an extraschedular rating under § 3.321(b) would be appropriate); Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 88, 95-96 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Fanning v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 225, 229 (1993)
holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board holding that procedural requirements of  3321b1 do not derogate the obligation of the board to seek out all issues which are reasonably raised from a liberal reading of the documents or oral testimony submitted prior to the board decision holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board holding vagenerated documents to be in the possession of the secretary and the board at the time of the board decision and thus constructively part of the record of proceedings as mandated by 38 usc  7252b holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings