Citation Nr: 1320855	
Decision Date: 06/27/13    Archive Date: 07/05/13

DOCKET NO.  09-16 116	)	DATE
	)
	)

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


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of endometrial cancer.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. H. Stubbs, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from January 1981 to April 1988.  She had a subsequent period of service in the United States Air Force Reserve, and the Veteran was placed on the retired reserve in October 1998.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2008 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma which declined to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, and denied entitlement to service connection for residuals of endometrial cancer.  The Veteran timely appealed both denials to the Board.

Although the Veteran requested a hearing before a Board member on her May 2009 substantive appeal, she withdrew her request in writing in July 2010.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.702(e); 20.704(e) (2012).

This appeal was previously before the Board in June 2012.  The Board reopened the claim of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder and remanded the claims so that treatment records could be requested, the Veteran's dates of service could be verified, and the Veteran could be scheduled for VA examinations.  The case has been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration.

In April 2013, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for bipolar disorder and provided an initial 100 percent rating, effective the date of the Veteran's claim (April 30, 2008).  As this represents a full grant of the benefit sought, the issue is no longer before the Board.  See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a grant of service connection extinguishes appeals before the Board).  Furthermore, the Veteran has not expressed disagreement with either the disability evaluation (she has been granted the highest schedular evaluation available) or effective date assigned.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (c) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103 (2012).

As will be discussed below, the Veteran has withdrawn her remaining appeal.


FINDING OF FACT

In correspondence received by VA in May 2013, the Veteran specifically indicated that she wished to withdraw her remaining issue on appeal.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for a withdrawal of the Veteran's substantive appeal have been met as to her claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of endometrial cancer.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200 , 20.202, 20.204 (2012).


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

An appeal consists of a timely filed Notice of Disagreement in writing, and after a Statement of the Case has been furnished, a timely filed Substantive Appeal.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.200.

A Substantive Appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204(b).  Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, appeal withdrawals must be in writing.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b).

As noted above, the Veteran perfected an appeal as to her claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of endometrial cancer.  Significantly, in correspondence received by VA on May 20, 2013, the Veteran specifically indicated she wished to withdraw her remaining appeal.  See the Veteran's May 20, 2013 Appeals Satisfaction Notice. 

The Veteran's request to withdraw this remaining issue was made in writing, on forms that contain her name and file number as is required by 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b).  The Board accordingly finds that the Veteran's withdrawal request qualifies as a valid withdrawal of her perfected appeal for entitlement to service connection for residuals of endometrial cancer.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.204.  Accordingly, there remains no allegation of error of fact or law for appellate consideration as to this issue, and it is dismissed.


ORDER

The appeal of entitlement to service connection for residuals of endometrial cancer is dismissed.




____________________________________________
DAVID L. WIGHT
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals



Department of Veterans Affairs