Citation Nr: 18141143
Decision Date: 10/09/18	Archive Date: 10/09/18

DOCKET NO. 16-20 712
DATE:	October 9, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for bilateral plantar fasciitis is dismissed.
FINDING OF FACT
In April 2016 and September 2016, and prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) received telephone calls from the Veteran wherein he expressed his desire to discontinue the instant appeal because he was satisfied with the 30 percent evaluation granted in an April 2016 rating decision.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal as to the issue of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for bilateral plantar fasciitis have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2018).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active service from August 2010 to January 2011, and from August 2012 to August 2013.
Entitlement to an Initial Evaluation in Excess of 30 Percent for Bilateral Plantar Fasciitis
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.  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204.  Withdrawal may be made by a veteran or by his or her authorized representative.  Id.
An April 2016 VA Form 27-0820, Report on General Information, documents a phone call from the Veteran to VA.  The Veteran reported that he agreed with the April 2016 rating decision increasing his initial evaluation for bilateral plantar fasciitis from 10 percent to 30 percent.  It further reports that the Veteran requested that the Regional Office “continue forward with the” Veteran’s October 2015 Notice of Disagreement.  The Board notes that the October 2015 Notice of Disagreement appealed only the single issue that is the subject of this dismissal.
A September 2016 VA Form 27-0820, Report on General Information, documents a second phone call from the Veteran regarding his appeal.  The Veteran is reported as having stated that he received an increased evaluation and “would like to close the case.”  
In light of the two phone calls placed by the Veteran stating that he is satisfied with the 30 percent initial evaluation granted in the April 2016 rating decision, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. The Board finds that the Veteran’s request to withdraw his appeal on this issue was explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences. He clearly knew he was withdrawing his appeal and that no further action would be taken – “close the case”. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal as to this issue and it is dismissed.
 
MICHAEL A. HERMAN
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Douglas M. Humphrey, Associate Counsel