Citation Nr: 1305448	
Decision Date: 02/14/13    Archive Date: 02/21/13

DOCKET NO.  12-24 040	)	DATE
	)


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



THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 18, 2007, for the award of service connection for coronary artery disease, with pacemaker placement (CAD).  

2.  Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for CAD.



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

K.S. Hughes, Counsel




INTRODUCTION

The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from November 1966 to August 1969.  These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2011 rating decision of the St. Paul, Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which granted service connection for CAD (previously sick sinus syndrome with symptomatic bradycardia with pacemaker) and assigned ratings of 100 percent rating (under 38 C.F.R. § 4.29, for hospitalization) from September 18, 2007, 10 percent from December 1, 2007, and 30 percent from May 17, 2011.  The Veteran's claims file is now under the jurisdiction of the Muskogee, Oklahoma RO.  An interim, July 2012 rating decision, found there was clear and unmistakable error in the ratings assigned for the CAD by the September 2011 rating decision, and assigned an increased (to 30 percent) rating from August 5, 2010.  In his August 2012 VA Form 9, substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a Travel Board hearing.  In October 2012, he indicated that, instead of a Travel Board hearing, he wanted a videoconference hearing.  Such a hearing was scheduled for February 12, 2013; however, in a statement received on February 11, 2013, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request.  In his appeal the Veteran had been represented by attorney Polly Murphy.  In February 2013 he withdrew the power of attorney for Ms. Murphy, indicating he felt there had been a favorable resolution of his claims.  


FINDING OF FACT

On February 11, 2013, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran in writing that he felt there had been a favorable resolution of his claims seeking an effective date earlier than September 18, 2007, for the award of service connection for CAD and an increased rating for CAD; there is no question of fact or law remaining before the Board in these matters.



CONCLUSION OF LAW

Regarding the claims of entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 18, 2007, for the award of service connection for CAD and to an increased rating for such disease, the criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant are met; the Board has no further jurisdiction in these matters.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2012).


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA)

The VCAA, in part, describes VA's duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits.  See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a).  The VCAA applies to the instant claims.  However, given the appellant's expression of intent to withdraw his appeals in the matters of the effective date for the award of service connection and the rating for CAD, further discussion of the impact of the VCAA on the matters is not necessary.

Legal Criteria, Factual Background, and Analysis

The Board has jurisdiction where there is a question of law or fact on appeal to the Secretary.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7104; 38 C.F.R. § 20.101.  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.  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision in a matter.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204.  Withdrawal may be made by the appellant.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204.

In a written statement received in February 2013, the Veteran indicated that he wished to withdraw his appeal seeking an effective date earlier than September 18, 2007, for the award of service connection for CAD and an increased rating for CAD (he felt there had been a favorable resolution and requested the appeals be closed).  Hence, there is no allegation of error of fact or law for appellate consideration in these matters.  Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in these matters, and the appeal must be dismissed.


ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.


____________________________________________
George R. Senyk
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals


Department of Veterans Affairs