Citation Nr: 18141529 Decision Date: 10/10/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 17-67 612 DATE: October 10, 2018 ORDER Whether new and material evidence has been received by VA sufficient to reopen a previously-denied claim to establish service connection for a lung disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In a June 2018 statement, and prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran’s accredited representative asserted that the Veteran wished to withdraw his appeal for the issues of (1) whether new and material evidence has been received by VA sufficient to reopen a previously-denied claim to establish service connection for a lung disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, (2) entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, and (3) entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran’s representative for the issues of (1) whether new and material evidence has been received by VA sufficient to reopen a previously-denied claim to establish service connection for a lung disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, (2) entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, and (3) entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from February 1953 to February 1956. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from an August 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota. In December 2017, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). The hearing was scheduled for June 2018, but Veteran’s accredited representative submitted a statement earlier that month asserting that the Veteran wanted to withdraw his prior hearing request. Accordingly, the request for the hearing is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (d) (2017). 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received by VA sufficient to reopen a previously-denied claim to establish service connection for a lung disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, is dismissed. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, is dismissed. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 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, 20.204(b) (2017). Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, appeal withdrawals must be in writing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (c) (2017) (as amended by 68 Fed. Reg. 13,235 (April 18, 2003)). In June 2018, prior to the promulgation of a decision, Veteran’s accredited representative submitted a statement asserting that the Veteran wanted to withdraw his appeal with regard to the issues of (1) whether new and material evidence has been received by VA sufficient to reopen a previously-denied claim to establish service connection for a lung disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, (2) entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation, and (3) entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include as due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation. As such, the criteria have been met for withdrawal of the Veteran's appeal as to these issues. Accordingly, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal with regard to these issues, and they are dismissed. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Scott W. Dale, Counsel