With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has been explained as follows in syllabus point one of Cahill v. Mercer County Board of Education, 208 W.Va. 177, 539 S.E.2d 437 (2000): Grievance rulings involve a combination of both deferential and plenary review. Since a reviewing court is obligated to give deference to factual findings rendered by an administrative law judge, a circuit court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the hearing examiner with regard to factual determinations. Credibility determinations made by an administrative law judge are similarly entitled to deference. Plenary review is conducted as to the conclusions of law and application of , law to the facts, which are reviewed de novo. See also Martin v. Randolph County Bd. of Educ., 195 W.Va. 297, 304, 465 S.E.2d 399, 406 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In syllabus point one of Randolph County

A: holding that the court must first review the aljs decision for correct legal principles before applying the substantial evidence standard to uphold a finding of no disability
B: holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion
C: holding that we review factual findings underlying a decision to apply a sentencing enhancement for clear error and give due deference to the district courts application of the guidelines to the facts
D: holding that we must uphold any of the aljs factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence and we owe substantial deference to inferences drawn from these facts
D.