Citation Nr: 18140136
Decision Date: 10/02/18	Archive Date: 10/02/18

DOCKET NO. 16-33 402
DATE:	October 2, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for residuals of pharyngitis is dismissed.
FINDING OF FACT
In a letter dated on June 20, 2018, and electronically date-stamped as received by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) on June 29, 2018, the Veteran requested withdrawal of his appeal for a compensable disability rating for residuals of pharyngitis; this withdrawal was explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action by the Veteran.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal on the issue of entitlement to a compensable disability rating for residuals of pharyngitis by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Air Force from November 1958 to November 1966.
The Veteran appointed his current service representative to represent him before VA by filing a completed VA Form 21-22 at the AOJ in December 2016.
In June 2018, the Veteran requested that his appeal for a compensable disability rating for residuals of pharyngitis be withdrawn.  See 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017).  As is explained below, this withdrawal was explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action by the Veteran.  See also Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 14959, adopting the rule of DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 58 (2011).
Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for residuals of pharyngitis
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. § 7105 (West 2012).  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017).   Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative.  Id.  In Acree, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the withdrawal must be explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action by the appellant and the subsequent Board dismissal must include findings as to all three elements.  See Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 14959, adopting the rule of DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57-58 (2011). 
As noted in the Introduction, after the Veteran perfected a timely appeal on his claim for a compensable disability rating for residuals of pharyngitis, he explicitly, unambiguously, and with a full understanding of the consequences of such action, withdrew this claim in a letter dated on June 20, 2018, and electronically date-stamped as received by the AOJ on June 29, 2018.  The Board finds it highly persuasive that the Veteran knew the consequences of this withdrawal because he has been represented by his service representative throughout the appeal period.  He also understood the consequences of this withdrawal because he continues to pursue other claims for VA disability compensation at the AOJ that are not currently before the Board.  Having reviewed the record evidence, the Board finds that withdrawal of this claim was explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action by the Veteran.  See Acree, 891 F.3d at 1009.  Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
 
R. FEINBERG
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Michael T. Osborne, Counsel