Citation Nr: 18140524 Decision Date: 10/03/18 Archive Date: 10/03/18 DOCKET NO. 14-34 638 DATE: October 3, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a diabetic eye disability, as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II, is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Prior to the promulgation of a decision on the appeal, the Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for a diabetic eye disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal for the issue of entitlement to service connection for a diabetic eye disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in from August 1962 to September 1966, and from January 1973 to February 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an April 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In an October 2014 statement from his representative, the Veteran withdrew his appeal for entitlement to service connection for a diabetic eye disability. 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. A substantive appeal may be withdrawn by a veteran or his authorized representative in writing or at a hearing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. As there remains no allegation of error of fact or law for the Board to address with respect to this issue, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the issue and dismissal is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND While the Board regrets additional delay, the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to a TDIU must be remanded for further development. Appellants are entitled to a review of claims denied by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). This review is performed by the Board and must be based on the entire record and upon consideration of all evidence and material of record. Id. Simply put, appellants are entitled to a second look at all evidence and decisions made by VA. There are limited exceptions to this general principle. For example, appellants can waive initial review of evidence by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) and allow the Board to issue a decision based in part on evidence that has not been reviewed by the AOJ. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304. This provision, however, applies only to evidence that has been submitted by the appellant or his or her representative. It does not apply to evidence added to the file by VA. In this case, additional evidence was added to the file by VA since the last statement of the case (SOC), including VA treatment records and examinations dated through August 2018. As no supplemental statement of the case was issued after the submission of these records, remand is required so that this new evidence can be reviewed in the first instance by the AOJ. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.31. The Board also notes that among the medical evidence added to the Veteran’s claims file since the most recent SOC is evidence suggesting an increase in the severity of certain service-connected disabilities, particularly his heart disability. Prior to adjudicating the Veteran’s TDIU claim, the AOJ should perform any additional development deemed necessary, including scheduling VA examinations to determine the current severity of any service-connected disability and their impact on his ability to work. (Continued on the next page) The matter is therefore REMANDED for the following action: Review the additional evidence added to the record since the September 2014 statement of the case, complete any development deemed necessary in light of the new evidence, to include scheduling the Veteran for VA examinations, and readjudicate the claim on appeal. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Scarduzio, Associate Counsel