Citation Nr: 1319102	
Decision Date: 06/12/13    Archive Date: 06/21/13

DOCKET NO.  11-27 717	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased rating for degenerative disc disease and joint disease (DDD, DJD), lumbosacral spine, status post laminectomy L3-4 and L4-5 for lumbar canal stenosis, with residual scar, currently evaluated as 40 percent disabling.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

F. Yankey, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1951 to August 1955 and from September 1955 to January 1975.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado.  In a March 2005 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for degenerative disc and joint disease (DDD, DJD), lumbosacral spine, status post laminectomy L3-4 and L4-5 for lumbar canal stenosis.  A 20 percent evaluation was assigned effective May 29, 2003.  A temporary 100 percent evaluation was assigned from September 14, 2004, due to convalescence.  Effective November 1, 2004, the 20 percent evaluation was continued.  In November 2007, the Veteran filed a claim for an increased rating for his service-connected lumbar spine disability, and in an August 2010 rating decision, the RO granted an increased rating of 40 percent, effective November 8, 2007.

In May 2013, the Veteran cancelled a Board hearing scheduled for that month.  He has not requested that the hearing be rescheduled.  Therefore, his request for a hearing is considered withdrawn.  See C.F.R. §20.702(d) (2012).

Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).


FINDING OF FACT

In a June 2013 statement, received prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board was notified that the Veteran wished to withdraw his appeal with regard to the issue of an increased rating for degenerative disc disease and joint disease (DDD, DJD), lumbosacral spine, status post laminectomy L3-4 and L4-5 for lumbar canal stenosis, with residual scar.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant 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.  An appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2011).  Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, appeal withdrawals must be in writing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b) (2012).

In December 2011, the VA certified the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for degenerative disc disease and joint disease (DDD, DJD), lumbosacral spine, status post laminectomy L3-4 and L4-5 for lumbar canal stenosis, with residual scar to the Board.  In his July 2012 VA Form 9, the Veteran requested a Video Conference hearing.  The hearing was scheduled for May 2013, and as noted above, the Veteran cancelled the hearing.  In a subsequently received June 2013 statement, the Board was notified by a member of the MPA Hearing Team that the Veteran wished to withdraw his appeal.  See Routing and Transmittal Slip (Form 3230) dated June 6, 2013.  As the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for degenerative disc disease and joint disease (DDD, DJD), lumbosacral spine, status post laminectomy L3-4 and L4-5 for lumbar canal stenosis, with residual scar was the only issue certified on appeal before the Board at that time, the Board finds that this is the issue the Veteran wished to withdraw his appeal for.  

The Board finds that the June 2013 written statement qualifies as a valid withdrawal of the issue under 38 C.F.R. § 20.204.  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 without prejudice as it relates to this issue.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.



____________________________________________
F. JUDGE FLOWERS
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals



Department of Veterans Affairs