Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): § 1521(a), (e). C. Board Application of 38 U.S.C. §§ 1513, 1521 Without considering section 1513, the Board applied section 1521(e) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.351(d)(2), concluding that, without a disability rated as total or permanent, “the provisions for special monthly pension at the housebound rate are not for consideration.” R. at 9. Mr. Hartness argues that the Board erred because it failed to apply section 1513 when considering whether he is entitled to a special monthly pension under section 1521(e). We agree. The Board’s analysis and finding that Mr. Hartness was not entitled to a special monthly pension based on permanent housebound status, without consideration of section 1513, is clearly erroneous. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a), (d)(1); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 52 (1990) (<HOLDING>). On remand, the Board will apply the following 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing a finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed (B) holding that the court of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence and may only set aside the finding if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust (C) holding that error is harmless if there is substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction (D) holding that although there was evidence of discrimination based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive discharge (E) holding review of sufficiency of evidence of juvenile adjudication is same as reviewing substantial evidence to support a criminal conviction
Output (English): holding that error is harmless if there is substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction