The Court has held that "reversal is the appropriate remedy when the only permissible view of the evidence is contrary to the Board's decision." Gutierrez v. Principi, 19 Vet. App. 1, 10 (2004). 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." Tucker v. West, 11 Vet. App. 369, 374 (1998); Johnson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 7, 10 (1996). But a remand unnecessary when it "would result in [the Court] unnecessarily imposing additional burdens on the [Board and the Secretary] with no benefit flowing to the veteran"); cf. McGraw v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 138, 142 (1994) (Board's failure to discuss an ambiguous notation in light of the overwhelming medical evidence was, at most, harmless error).