Citation Nr: 1237673	
Decision Date: 11/02/12    Archive Date: 11/09/12

DOCKET NO.  07-16 613	)	DATE
	)


On appeal from the decision of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), evaluated as 30 percent disabling prior to November 5, 2009.

2.  Entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD, evaluated as 70 percent disabling from November 5, 2009.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and son


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Rebecca Feinberg, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1969 to June 1972.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2005 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  The Veteran presented testimony during a Board hearing before the undersigned Acting Veterans Law Judge in November 2009.  Thereafter, the Board remanded the Veteran's case to the RO in February 2010 and August 2011.

Also on appeal when the Veteran's claims were previously before the Board in August 2011 was a claim of entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation purposes based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU).  However, in a June 2012 rating decision, the RO awarded entitlement to a TDIU, effective November 5, 2009.  This represents a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal, and the claim is no longer before the Board.  Nevertheless, the Veteran submitted a written statement in August 2012, in which he indicated that he would like VA to drop this claim.  As such, it is no longer before the Board.

The issue of entitlement to an increased rating for hearing loss has been raised by the record but has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over this claim at this time and refers this matter to the AOJ for appropriate action.



FINDINGS OF FACT

1.	The Veteran in this case served on active duty from November 1969 to June 1972.

2.	On August 16, 2012, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant and his authorized representative that a withdrawal of this appeal is requested.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2012).


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 2002).  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2012).  Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204.  In the present case, the appellant, though his own statement and a statement from 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.




		
T. MAINELLI
	Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals




Department of Veterans Affairs