Citation Nr: 18143085
Decision Date: 10/18/18	Archive Date: 10/17/18

DOCKET NO. 18-14 033
DATE:	October 18, 2018
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
FINDING OF FACT
On July 2, 2018, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant, through his then-authorized attorney, that a withdrawal of this appeal is requested.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty from August 2011 to April 2015.  
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from September 2015 and October 2017 rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
The Veteran was represented by an attorney through relevant portions of the appeal period until June 2018.  At that time, a correspondence was received from his attorney stating that his office had concluded representation of the Veteran’s VA disability case.  His attorney included in his correspondence a signed statement from the Veteran indicating he wished to withdraw the claims discussed below.  Accordingly, this dismissal is promulgated without representation of the Veteran.
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  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204.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.  In the July 2018 statement, the Veteran withdrew his appeal as to the issues of increased ratings for a mood disorder, and bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy.  
The Veteran had also made clear throughout the appeal that the issue of a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability is “part and parcel” to his claims of increased ratings and that as a result of Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), TDIU claims are no longer freestanding claims.  See e.g. September 2016 notice of disagreement, and November 2017 correspondence from the Veteran’s former attorney. The Board, thus, deems the Veteran’s withdrawal of the increased rating claims to be a withdrawal of the TDIU claim of which it is a part. 
(Continued on the next page)
 
Therefore, in the present case, the Veteran has withdrawn this appeal and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration.  Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed.
 
D. Martz Ames
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	A. Rocktashel, Counsel