Citation Nr: 1322950	
Decision Date: 07/18/13    Archive Date: 07/24/13

DOCKET NO.  12-04 488	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in Honolulu, Hawaii


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for bilateral diabetic retinopathy.


REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	Hawaii Office of Veterans Services


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Kristy L. Zadora, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active duty service from January 1965 to December 1968.

This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arose from a March 2011 rating decision in which the RO denied the Veteran's claim for a compensable rating for bilateral diabetic retinopathy.  In September 2011, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD).  A statement of the case (SOC) was issued in February 2012 and the Veteran filed a substantive appeal (via a VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals) later that month. 

A review of the paperless, electronic (Virtual VA) VA claims processing system reveals VA treatment records dated through May 2012; such records were considered by the RO in the June 2012 supplemental SOC.


FINDING OF FACT

In June 2013, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran withdrew from appeal the claim for a compensable rating for bilateral diabetic retinopathy.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to the claim for a compensable rating for bilateral diabetic retinopathy are 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

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.  A Substantive Appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.202.  Appeals withdrawn on record at a hearing are an exception to the requirement for a written withdrawal.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b). 

As noted above, in a signed June 2013 statement, the Veteran indicated that he wished to withdraw from appeal the claim for a compensable rating for bilateral diabetic retinopathy.  Thus, no allegations of errors of fact or law remain for appellate consideration with respect to this matter.  Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the matter on appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.



____________________________________________
JACQUELINE E. MONROE
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals



Department of Veterans Affairs