Citation Nr: 18146509 Decision Date: 10/31/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 16-24 089 DATE: October 31, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for recurring gall bladder inflammation is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In his March 2017 correspondence to the Board, the Veteran stated he wished to withdraw his compensation claim appeal before the Board could hear his case, adding that he no longer wishes to pursue this matter any further and he agrees and accepts the prior ruling in his case. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss have been met and the appeal as to this issue is withdrawn. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for recurring gall bladder inflammation have been met and the appeal as to this issue is withdrawn. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force from April 2002 to April 2008 and from January 2009 to March 2010. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to service connection for recurring gall bladder inflammation is dismissed. Dismissal An appeal consists of a timely filed notice of disagreement in writing and, after a statement of the case has been furnished, a timely filed substantive appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.200. A substantive appeal may be withdrawn by an appellant or an appellant’s authorized representative at any time before the Board promulgates a final decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (b). Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, appeal withdrawals must be in writing. At the outset, the Board notes that the evidence of record shows that a May 2016 rating decision granted the Veteran’s claim of service connection for tinnitus at a 10 percent disability rating, effective October 17, 2011. Additionally, a July 2016 rating decision, noting that, although upon examination the Veteran did not fully meet the diagnostic criteria for a clinical diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he did meet the criteria for other specified trauma-and-stressor-related disorder (i.e., subthreshold PTSD). Based on the April 2016 VA examiner’s opinion, the decision granted service connection for that disorder at a disability evaluation of 30 percent. At that point, the Veteran’s remaining claims on appeal were entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and entitlement to service connection for recurring gall bladder inflammation. In his March 2017 correspondence to the Board, the Veteran stated he wishes to withdraw his “appeal request for my Compensation Claim Appeal before the Board is to hear my case.” He added that he no longer wishes to pursue this matter any further and he agrees and accepts the prior ruling in his case. The Veteran’s letter was preceded by two weeks by the Board’s letter to him stating his appeal is on the Board’s docket and he has 90 days to change his representative or submit evidence and any such request or submission should be sent to the Board. The Board is satisfied that this letter was sufficient notice to the Veteran that his appeal had been transferred to the Board, further confirmed by his own withdrawal letter following soon after, which he sent to the Board and not to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). 38 C.F.R. 20.204 (b)(2). (Continued on the next page)   As the two outstanding claims mentioned above were the only claims on appeal to the Board before it received the Veteran’s withdrawal letter and the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 now have been met, the Board finds the Veteran has withdrawn his substantive appeal with respect to service connection for hearing loss and service connection for recurring gall bladder inflammation. There remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal for these claims. N. RIPPEL Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. Franke, Associate Counsel