claimant stopped working at the end of August and that she voluntarily left work in October. But the board has not explained how both of those things can be true. To the contrary, it seems apparent that, if claimant had stopped working at the end of August, she could not later quit work in October. And if she did not quit working until October, she must still have been working up until that point. Relatedly, the board’s order does not explain the apparent tension that arises if claimant’s separation from work did not occur until October, given that her benefits were retroactively denied back to September 2, 2012. Those unexplained inconsistencies in the board’s order demonstrate that, at the very least, the order is not supported by substantial reason. See Hamilton, 266 Or App at 682 (<HOLDING>); Federal Express Corp. v. Estrada, 275 Or App
holding that an order was not based on substantial reason when the board failed to show how the facts that it identifies connect to its conclusion holding that the board did not abuse its discretion by dismissing an untimely appeal where the appellant failed to respond to a board order to show cause holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause