Citation Nr: 1322091 Decision Date: 07/10/13 Archive Date: 07/18/13 DOCKET NO. 04-19 875 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with paranoid schizophrenia, to include depression. 2. Whether the Veteran is competent for the purpose of direct receipt of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation benefits. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Young, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1978 to June 1979, and was honorably discharged. This appeal is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2004 rating decision of the Montgomery, Alabama, VA Regional Office (RO), which denied the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. In June 2012 the Board granted service connection for PTSD and added the issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include schizoaffective disorder, but not including PTSD, under Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), and remanded that issue for further development. That same matter, which is restated as entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD with paranoid schizophrenia, to include depression, has been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. In a September 2012 rating decision (notice sent to the Veteran in December 2012) the RO determined that the Veteran was not competent to handle disbursement of funds. The Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement with that determination in December 2012. A statement of the case (SOC) has not been issued by the RO regarding this matter. As will be explained below, an SOC must be provided to the Veteran. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1998). The issue of whether the Veteran is competent for the purpose of direct receipt of VA compensation benefits is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. FINDING OF FACT In a statement received on June 5, 2013, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran withdrew her appeal seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD with paranoid schizophrenia, to include depression; there is no question of fact or law remaining before the Board in this matter. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of a Substantive Appeal by the Veteran are met; the Board has no further jurisdiction in the matter of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD with paranoid schizophrenia, to include depression. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 7104, 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION 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. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. An appeal may be withdrawn in writing or on the record at a hearing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b). Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(a). On June 5, 2013 the Veteran submitted a written statement to the Board requesting withdrawal of her appeal. The only issue pending before the Board on June 5, 2013 was entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD with paranoid schizophrenia, to include depression. The Veteran has therefore withdrawn her appeal in this matter. Hence, there remains no allegation of error of fact or law as to such issue for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review an appeal in the matter, and it must be dismissed. ORDER The appeal in the matter of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD with paranoid schizophrenia, to include depression is dismissed. REMAND As explained above, it was determined in a September 2012 rating decision (notice sent to the Veteran in December 2012) that the Veteran was not competent to handle disbursement of funds. In December 2012, the Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement with that determination. She has not been provided an SOC or an opportunity to complete her appeal in this matter. Therefore, an SOC must be provided to the Veteran regarding this matter. Manlincon, 12 Vet. App. 238. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: Issue the Veteran an SOC in the matter of whether the Veteran is competent for the purpose of direct receipt of VA compensation benefits. The Veteran should be advised of the time period in which a substantive appeal must be filed in order to obtain appellate review of that issue. The matter should be returned to the Board for further consideration only if the Veteran files a timely Substantive Appeal. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). ______________________________________________ JOHN L. PRICHARD Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs