Citation Nr: 0815027 Decision Date: 05/07/08 Archive Date: 05/14/08 DOCKET NO. 05-23 692 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Diego, California THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder due to head injury. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a nervous disorder, also claimed as anxiety. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: California Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD April Maddox, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from December 1952 to December 1956 and again from September 1958 to October 1959. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2002 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. The veteran testified before the undersigned at a Travel Board hearing in August 2007. A transcript of this hearing is associated with the claims file. The issues of service connection for bilateral eye and knee disorders are addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision below and are REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. FINDING OF FACT In August 2007, the veteran submitted a statement in which he expressed his wish to withdraw his appeal concerning the issue of service connection for a nervous disorder, also claimed as anxiety; this request was reiterated on the record at the August 2007 travel Board hearing. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of a Substantive Appeal by the veteran concerning the issue of entitlement to service connection for a nervous disorder, also claimed as anxiety, are 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 FINDING AND CONCLUSION In August 2007, the veteran submitted correspondence to the RO wherein he indicated that he wished to withdraw his appeal concerning the issue of service connection for a nervous disorder, also claimed as anxiety. 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 A Substantive Appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 (2007).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 veteran has properly withdrawn his appeal concerning the issue of service connection for a nervous disorder, also claimed as anxiety, and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this issue and it is dismissed. ORDER The appeal concerning entitlement to service connection for a nervous disorder, also claimed as anxiety is dismissed. REMAND During the August 2007 travel Board hearing the veteran testified that he received treatment at the VA medical center in Loma Linda in the 1990s for bilateral eye and knee disorders. Specifically, the veteran testified that he received several injections in his knee caps for knee pain and had his eyes examined annually. The earliest VA outpatient treatment record in the file is dated in January 2000. Furthermore, this January 2000 treatment report notes several medical tests performed in October 1999. However, there are no October 1999 treatment records in the file. Therefore it appears that there are missing VA outpatient treatment reports that have not yet been associated with the claims folder and a remand is required. Also, after the August 2007 travel Board hearing the veteran submitted several signed statements from private doctors (Dr. F.F., Dr. A.M., and Dr. M.B.) regarding treatment of either his eyes or knees. However, treatment records from these doctors are not of record. Since the Board is remanding this case for VA outpatient treatment records, the RO should attempt to obtain these private treatment records as well. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should obtain all VAMC records from Loma Linda for the veteran's period of outpatient treatment in the 1990s. If these records are unobtainable a negative reply must be noted in writing and associated with the claims folder. 2. The RO should request from the veteran and his representative all private treatment records from Dr. F.F., Dr. A.M., and Dr. M.B. The claimant should either submit the records himself or provide the necessary authorization to the RO (it would expedite the case greatly if the veteran were to obtain these records himself). Once obtained, the RO should request these records. All documents regarding this request must be permanently associated with the claims folder. If the records are unobtainable, a negative reply must be noted in writing and associated with the claims folder. 3. After completing any additional necessary development the RO should readjudicate the appeal. If the claim is still denied the RO must furnish the veteran and his representative with a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and allow the veteran an opportunity to respond. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). ______________________________________________ STEVEN L. KELLER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs