Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
had the error not occurred.”); Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 488, 498 (2010) (per curiam) (“[T]he assessment of prejudice generally is case specific, demonstrated by the appellant and based on the record.”); see also Hensley v. West, 212 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“[A]ppellate tribunals are not appropriate fora for initial fact finding.”). Accordingly, because the Board erred by failing to provide Mrs. Reliford with the opportunity to waive substitution and prejudiced her by failing to adjudicate her accrued-benefits claim against the proper factual background, the Board decision on appeal will be set aside and remanded for adjudication of Mrs. Reliford’s claim based on the file as it existed at the time of her husband’s death. See Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App. 369, 374 (1998) ; see also Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that remand is the appropriate remedy 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
B. holding that remand is the appropriate remedy where inter alia the board has incorrectly applied the law
C. holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings
D. 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
E. holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.