Citation Nr: 18141919
Decision Date: 10/11/18	Archive Date: 10/11/18

DOCKET NO. 16-36 719
DATE:	October 11, 2018
ORDER
The appeal regarding entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected degenerative changes, left knee with genu valgum, status post medial tibial osteotomy, is dismissed.
FINDING OF FACT
In December 2017, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that a withdrawal of the appeal is requested.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for withdrawal by the Veteran of the appeal have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty from February 1981 to July 1986.  
Left Knee 
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  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017).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. 
In the present case, in a December 2017 correspondence, the Veteran indicated that he was submitting “this letter to remove any misunderstood request for consideration of increase with regards to the following disabilities:” which included his left calf atrophy rated 30 percent; left knee instability rated 10 percent; and degenerative left knee rated 10 percent.  
The Veteran was notified in April 2018 correspondence that action had been discontinued on his claims for increased rating based on his December 2017 request.  The Veteran was notified that if he did not intend to withdraw his claim for increased ratings, he had 30 days to provide the AOJ with that information and if he did not notify the AOJ within 30 days, the Veteran would need to resubmit his claim on the appropriate form and will be considered as of the date of receipt of the completed claim.  
Thereafter, in an April 2018 Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran indicated that it was/is his “sole intent to remove any request for an increased with regards to the SPECIFIC disabilities listed in [his] letter date December 16, 2017” and “hereby request the removal of consideration of an increased rating.”  Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran has withdrawn his increased rating claim.




(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
Hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration of this issue.  Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the issue and it is dismissed.
 
DONNIE R. HACHEY
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	S. Schick, Associate Counsel