one year of enactment of the Public Law does not apply to a surviving spouse seeking reinstatement of DIC. Rather, reinstatement of DIC benefits is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 5110(g) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.114, which permit reinstatement of DIC based upon sua sponte review by the Secretary or upon request by the surviving spouse, with an effective date up to one year earlier than such review or request. Accordingly, the Board’s decision denying DIC will be reversed and the matters remanded for reinstatement of DIC and a determination of the proper effective date. See Gutierrez v. Principi, 19 Vet.App. 1, 10 (2004) (reversal is the appropriate remedy in cases in which the only permissible view of the evidence is contrary to the Board’s decision); Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App. 369, 374 (1998) (<HOLDING>). On remand, Mrs. Frederick may present, and
holding that remand is appropriate where 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 holding that it is appropriate to remand to the plan administrator when the administrative record is incomplete holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding that remand is the appropriate remedy where inter alia the board has incorrectly applied the law holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate