Citation Nr: 0810623 Decision Date: 03/31/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 99-04 636 ) DATE ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a fall manifested by slurred speech due to trauma, claimed as secondary to the veteran's service connected back disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a fall manifested by a right arm fracture, claimed as secondary to the veteran's service connected back disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Saira Sleemi, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Regional Office (RO) denied service connection for residuals of a fall manifested by a skull fracture, a brain hemorrhage, a right clavicle fracture, hearing loss in the right ear, slurred speech and a right arm fracture as secondary to the veteran's service connection back disability by a rating decision dated July 1997. The veteran filed a substantive appeal. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the case to the RO for procedural due process reasons in July 2000, and for further development of the record in December 2000. Additional development was undertaken by the Board in October 2002. In September 2003, the Board granted service connection for residuals of a fall manifested by a skull fracture and a fracture of the right clavicle claimed as secondary to the veteran's service connected back disability, effectuated by the RO in a November 2003 rating decision. The Board also remanded the issues of service connection for residuals of a fall manifested by a brain hemorrhage, right ear hearing loss, slurred speech and a right arm fracture for further development. In an August 2007 rating decision, the RO granted secondary service connection for residuals of a fall manifested by right ear hearing loss and a brain hemorrhage. Therefore these two issues have been resolved and are not on appeal before the Board. See generally Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Barrera v. Gober, 122 F.3d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In view of the foregoing, the only issues remaining on appeal are those listed on the title page. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran served on active duty from May 1966 to December 1966. 2. On March 11, 2008, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant, through his authorized representative, that a withdrawal of this appeal is requested. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of a Substantive Appeal by the appellant, through his authorized representative, have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. A Substantive Appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 (2007). Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2007). The appellant, through his authorized representative, has withdrawn this appeal and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs