Citation Nr: 18145321
Decision Date: 10/26/18	Archive Date: 10/26/18

DOCKET NO. 14-16 275
DATE:	October 26, 2018
ORDER
The appeal as to the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss is dismissed.
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded.
FINDING OF FACT
In September 2016, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated that he wanted to withdraw his appeal for the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the Veteran of the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss 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 April 1964 to August 1965.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from March 2012 and May 2012 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon.
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  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017).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 his authorized representative.  Id.  
In correspondence received in September 2016, the Veteran withdrew the appeal as to the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss.  Thus, there remain no allegations of error of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to this claim.  Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of that issue, and it is dismissed.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Board requested and received an advisory medical opinion from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) regarding the claim for service connection for a back disorder.  The Veteran and his representative were sent a copy of the opinion and given 60 days to submit further evidence or argument.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.901, 20.903.
Thereafter, the Veteran provided an additional statement in September 2018.  He also submitted additional evidence, including lay statements from other individuals, and indicated that he did not waive the RO’s initial consideration of the additional evidence.  Instead, he requested that his case be remanded to the RO for consideration of the new evidence in the first instance.  The Veteran further noted that he intended to submit additional post-service medical records.  Therefore, the case must be remanded to the AOJ for consideration of the evidence and an issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) if the benefit is not granted.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
The AOJ should consider all of the evidence of record, to include any evidence received since the last supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and adjudicate the issue on appeal.  If the benefits sought are not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a SSOC and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review.

 
J.W. ZISSIMOS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	D.S. Chilcote, Associate Counsel