With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". caused or aggravated by service-connected peptic ulcer disease, rather than due directly to any incident of active service.” R. at 8. The Board did not provide a sufficient explanation of the reasons or bases for concluding that the appellant’s arguments were competent to limit VA’s development and adjudication of the case. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) (requiring the Board, in rendering its decision, to provide a written statement of the reasons or bases for its “findings and conclusions[ ] on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record”); see also Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494-95 (1992) (indicating that evidence regarding medical diagnoses provided by a person without “medical knowledge” is not probative); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 56-57 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, I disagree with the majority’s

A: holding that boards failure to comply with precise requirement of city ordinance did not render its decision void where transcript of proceedings before board was sufficient to assure meaningful review of boards decision
B: holding that because pennsylvania law limited a state courts review of a zoning boards decision to the issue whether the boards determinations were supported by substantial evidence the rookerfeldman doctrine did not prevent the plaintiffs from filing a federal action claiming that the zoning board had engaged in disability discrimination following a state courts review of the boards determinations
C: holding that the fact that the merit systems protection boards decision differs from the presiding officials does not alter the requirement that we evaluate the boards final decision under the substantial evidence standard
D: holding that the boards statement of reasons or bases must be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the boards decision as well as to facilitate review in this court
D.