Citation Nr: 18141713 Decision Date: 10/11/18 Archive Date: 10/11/18 DOCKET NO. 09-10 981A DATE: October 11, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent prior to April 12, 2010, for left knee osteoarthritis with infra-patellar bursitis status post anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for the period from April 12, 2010, to November 30, 2016, for left knee osteoarthritis with infra-patellar bursitis status post ACL repair is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent on or after November 16, 2016, for left knee osteoarthritis with infra-patellar bursitis status post ACL repair is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with major depressive disorder is dismissed. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation prior to April 27, 2010, for sinusitis with rhinitis and deviated septum is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for the period from April 27, 2010, to July 30, 2017, for sinusitis with rhinitis and deviated septum is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 50 percent on or after July 30, 2017, for sinusitis with rhinitis and deviated septum is dismissed. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for migraine headaches prior to April 12, 2010, is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for the period from April 12, 2010, to July 30, 2017, for migraine headaches is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 50 percent on or after July 30, 2017, for migraine headaches is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to an effective date prior to April 12, 2010, for the assigment of a 20 percent evaluation for left knee osteoarthritis with infra-patellar bursitis status post ACL repair is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to November 16, 2016, for the assignment of a 30 percent evaluation for left knee osteoarthritis with infra-patellar bursitis status post ACL repair is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to July 30, 2017, for the assignment of a 50 percent evaluation for sinusitis with rhinitis and deviated septum is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to July 30, 2017, for the assignment of a 50 percent evaluation for migraine headaches is remanded. FINDING OF FACT In a March 2018 notice of disagreement, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated that he was satisfied with the evaluations assigned to him and that he only wanted the evaluations to be effective from an earlier date. There is no remaining case or controversy regarding the issues of entitlement to an increased evaluation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The issues of entitlement to increased evaluations are dismissed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.101, 20.200, 20.202, 20.204 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1994 to June 2007. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2007 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. A videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in March 2014. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. The appeal was remanded in June 2014 and August 2016 for further development. In an October 2017 rating decision, the RO increased the evaluation for migraine headaches to 50 percent, effective from July 30, 2017, and the evaluation for sinusitis and rhinitis with deviated nasal septum to 50 percent, effective from July 30, 2017. The RO also increased the evaluation for left knee osteoarthritis with infra-patellar bursitis to 20 percent effective from April 12, 2010 to November 30, 2016, and to 30 percent effective from November 30, 2016. 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 (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. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal of an appeal will be deemed a withdrawal of the Notice of Disagreement and, if filed, the Substantive Appeal, as to all issues to which the withdrawal applies. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(c). In a March 2018 notice of disagreement, the Veteran indicated that he was satisfied with the evaluations assigned, but that he disagreed with the effective dates assigned for the increased evaluations. As such, there is no case or controversy, as there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to the claims for an increased evaluation. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of these issues, and they are dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND As noted above, in a March 2018 notice of disagreement, the Veteran indicated that he was satisfied with the ratings assigned, but that he disagreed with the effective dates assigned for the evaluations that were increased in the October 2017 rating decision. A statement of the case has not been issued; therefore, a remand is necessary. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999) (holding that where a claimant has submitted a notice of disagreement, but a Statement of the Case has not yet been issued, a remand to the RO is necessary). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should issue a Statement of the Case to the Veteran and his representative addressing the issues of entitlement to earlier effective dates for the assignment of increased evaluations for left knee osteoarthritis, sinusitis, and migraine headaches in the October 2017 rating decision. The Veteran and his representative must be advised of the time limit in which he may file a substantive appeal, if he so desires. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (b) (2017). These issues should only be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration if an appeal is properly perfected. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Saikh, Associate Counsel