Citation Nr: 1829897	
Decision Date: 10/02/18    Archive Date: 10/19/18

DOCKET NO.  15-45 992	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in Denver, Colorado


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.


REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	Colorado Division of Veterans Affairs


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Rothstein, Associate Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1967 to January 1971.

This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arose from a December 2013 rating decision in which the RO, inter alia, granted an increased, 50 percent rating for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), effective July 29, 2013, and denied service connection for tinnitus.  In June 2014, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) with this denial as well as with the assigned rating for his service-connected PTSD.  

In a November 2015 rating decision, the RO awarded an increased, 70 percent rating for the Veteran's service-connected PTSD, effective August 24, 2015.  Also, in a November 2015 statement of the case (SOC), the RO expanded the appeal to also encompass the matter of entitlement to a TDIU due to PTSD (consistent with Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009)).  In that SOC, the RO also denied the new TDIU claim, denied ratings higher than those already assigned for the Veteran's service-connected PTSD, and continued to deny service connection for tinnitus.  In December 2015, the Veteran filed a substantive appeal (via a VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals) only with respect to the service connection claim for tinnitus.

In his December 2015 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a Board hearing at the RO.  However, in letters dated in February 2016, June 2016, November 2016, and February 2017, the Veteran withdrew this request.  In an August 2017 correspondence, the Veteran's representative requested a Board video-conference hearing, and such hearing was scheduled for October 1, 2018.  However, as explained below, the Veteran withdrew his appeal, and the hearing was cancelled.


FINDING OF FACT

In September 2018, prior to the promulgation of an appellate decision, the Veteran notified the Board that he wished to withdraw the claim pending on appeal.
CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal are 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 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.  Id.

In the present case, in a September 2018 correspondence, the Veteran withdrew from appeal the pending claim for service connection for tinnitus.  Thus, no allegations of errors of fact or law remain for appellate consideration..  Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal,  and it must be dismissed.


ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.




____________________________________________
JACQUELINE E. MONROE
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals



Department of Veterans Affairs