Citation Nr: 18144079
Decision Date: 10/23/18	Archive Date: 10/23/18

DOCKET NO. 15-05 762
DATE:	October 23, 2018
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
FINDING OF FACT
In correspondence received in June 2018, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran’s representative indicating that the Veteran wanted to withdraw his appeal.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal have been met with respect to the issue of entitlement to nonservice-connected pension.  38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (2014); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active military service from December 1977 to February 1980.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2014 determination issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pension Management Center (PMC) located in St. Paul, Minnesota.  
In the Veteran’s February 2015 substantive appeal (VA Form 9), he requested a Board hearing, which was subsequently scheduled in June 2018.  Although the Veteran was duly notified of the time and date of the hearing, he failed to report and neither furnished an explanation for his failure to appear nor requested a postponement or another hearing.  Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.702(d) (2017), when a Veteran fails to appear for a scheduled hearing and has not requested a postponement, the case will be processed as though the request for a hearing had been withdrawn.  Thus, the Board will proceed with consideration of the appeal based on the evidence of record.
1. Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension 
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 (2014).  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017).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 Veteran or by his or her authorized representative.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 
In the present case, in correspondence received in June 2018, the Veteran’s representative indicated that the Veteran wished to “drop” the issue of entitlement to nonservice-connected pension.  He explained that the Veteran understood that his service dates do not fall within an eligible period for pension purposes.  In an appellate brief received in October 2018, the Veteran’s representative indicated that it did not believe that the Veteran’s claim was inappropriately denied.  
The Board finds that the Veteran’s representative’s written statement of withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action.  DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017).  Hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to this claim.  Under these circumstances, the issue on appeal is no longer within the Board’s jurisdiction and is dismissed.  See Hamilton v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 528 (1993) (en banc), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that the Board is without the authority to proceed on an issue if the claimant indicates that consideration of that issue should cease).

 
K. Conner
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	C. Jones, Counsel