Citation Nr: 18142866 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 16-18 445 DATE: October 17, 2018 ORDER The claim for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a lumbosacral strain is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with cognitive disorder is remanded. 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 for the claim of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for lumbosacral strain, is requested. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran for the claim of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for lumbosacral strain, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1977 to November 1983 and December 1990 to June 1991. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a lumbosacral strain. 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204.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 Veteran or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. In the present case, the Veteran has withdrawn his appeal for the claim of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for lumbosacral strain; hence, in regard to this claim, there remain no allegations of error of fact or law for appellate consideration. Specifically, in December 2017 written correspondence, the Veteran requested to withdraw his appeal for the issue “[a]waiting placement on the [Board’s] docket” pursuant to notification he received in November 2017. As the claim of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for lumbosacral strain was the issue for which an appeal to the Board had been completed, the Board construes the withdrawal to apply only to that issue. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of this claim and it is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD with cognitive disorder is remanded. In an October 2013 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for PTSD with cognitive disorder and assigned a 50 percent rating, effective September 18, 2012. In September 2014, the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) with respect to this issue and indicated that he sought a 70 percent rating. An April 2016 rating decision increased the rating for PTSD to 70 percent, effective September 18, 2012. The notification letter accompanying the decision stated that since the rating decision awarded him the 70 percent rating he indicated he sought, the decision represented a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal. However, on his April 2016 VA Form 9, Substantive Appeal, the Veteran continued to indicate that he disagreed with the 70 percent rating for PTSD, and in October 2016 the RO again issued another rating decision, continuing the 70 percent disability rating. To date, however, no statement of the case (SOC) has been issued to address the Veteran’s continued disagreement with his rating for PTSD. In light of the above, the Board must take jurisdiction over this issue for the limited purpose of remanding for issuance of an SOC. 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(c); see Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Furnish the Veteran an SOC regarding the issue of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD. Advise him of the time limit for perfecting the appeal of these claims and that the issue will NOT be returned to the Board for appellate consideration following the issuance of the SOC unless he perfects his appeal with the submission of a substantive appeal. M. Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD LM Stallings, Associate Counsel