Citation Nr: 18141696 Decision Date: 10/11/18 Archive Date: 10/11/18 DOCKET NO. 12-21 019A DATE: October 11, 2018 ORDER The appeal of whether the change in copayment status from exempt to means test required for the periods of August 3, 2010 through July 30, 2012, was proper is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In a correspondence received in April 2017, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran—through his authorized representative—that a withdrawal of this appeal was requested. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of whether the change in copayment status from exempt to means test required for the periods of August 3, 2010 through July 30, 2012, by the Veteran—through his authorized representative—are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204.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 the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. The Veteran had active duty service from July 1983 to July 1986. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from June 2011 and March 2012 letters of determination by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Eligibility Center (HEC), which resulted in a change in the Veteran’s copayment status from exempt to means test required for the period of August 3, 2010 through July 30, 2012. In his August 2012 substantive appeal, VA Form 9, the Veteran requested a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in March 2017, during which the Veteran and his representative indicated that they thought the hearing was for a claim of compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 and not as to the copayment status change issue. The undersigned Veterans Law Judge closed the hearing to allow the Veteran and his representative to review the physical claims file before deciding whether to continue with the hearing or to withdraw the issue. In correspondence received and associated with the claims file in April 2017, although dated by the Veteran’s representative the same date as the March 2017 hearing, the Veteran and his representative indicated that he desired to withdraw his notice of disagreement, appeal, and hearing request. Accordingly, as the Veteran has withdrawn the appeal of the propriety of the change in his copayment status for the period of August 3, 2010 through July 30, 2012, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration at this time. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review that appeal and it is dismissed. REFERRED As noted above, the Veteran and his representative indicated during the March 2017 hearing before the undersigned that they believed that the hearing was related to a claim of compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. The Board notes that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied reopening a claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a left arm fracture (claimed also as a left arm disorder) in a June 2014 rating decision; the Veteran was informed of that decision in a June 2014 notification letter. The Veteran did not submit a notice of disagreement within one year of that notification letter, and therefore it appears that the section 1151 claim is final and the Board does not have any jurisdiction over that claim at this time. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.1103. However, it does appear that the Veteran recently submitted a September 2018 statement and additional evidence pertaining to the section 1151 issue. Accordingly, the issue of whether new and material evidence has been received with respect to a claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a left wrist fracture (claimed also as a left arm disorder) was raised in a September 2018 statement, although a formal application for a claim of benefits was not received at that time. Accordingly, this issue is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for appropriate action respecting that issue. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Peters, Counsel