Citation Nr: 1318598	
Decision Date: 06/07/13    Archive Date: 06/11/13

DOCKET NO.  09-31 669	)	DATE
	)


On appeal from the decision of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus, claimed as secondary to service-connected bilateral 5th toe deformity with calluses and osteoarthritis.  

2.  Entitlement to an evaluation for mood disorder associated with tinnitus in excess of 30 percent prior to, and in excess of 50 percent from January 14, 2010.  

3.  Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for bilateral 5th toe deformity with calluses and osteoarthritis from August 29, 2008, and to a compensable evaluation from January 23, 2012.  


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Christopher Maynard, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active service from August 1967 to September 1970.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2008 decision by the RO which denied, in part, an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for mood disorder and a compensable evaluation for the bilateral 5th toe deformity, and a March 2010 decision that denied service connection for bilateral pes planus.  

By rating action in November 2009, the RO assigned an increased rating to 10 percent for the bilateral 5th toe disability; effective from August 29, 2009.  By rating action in March 2012, the RO granted an increased rating to 50 percent for mood disorder; effective from January 14, 2010, and reduced the 10 percent rating for the bilateral 5th toe disability to zero percent; effective from January 23, 2012.  By rating action in September 2012, the RO granted entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability (TDIU).  


FINDING OF FACT

On May 28, 2013, prior to the promulgation of a decision in this appeal, the Board received notification from the veteran, through his authorized representative, that a withdrawal of this appeal is requested.  



CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran 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 FINDING 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 Veteran (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.  




		
KIMBERLY OSBORNE
	Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals




Department of Veterans Affairs