Citation Nr: 18147403 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 14-24 336A DATE: November 5, 2018 ORDER The claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is dismissed. The claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is dismissed. The claim for entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is dismissed. The claim for entitlement to service connection for hypertension is dismissed. The claim for entitlement to service connection for acid reflux is dismissed. The claim for entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease is dismissed. The claim for entitlement to service connection for residual of a scar from heart surgery is dismissed. The claim for entitlement to service connection for a residual scar on the left knee is dismissed. The claim for entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed. The claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date for a chest scar is dismissed. The claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date for a left knee scar is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 3. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea. 4. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for hypertension. 5. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for acid reflux. 6. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease. 7. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for a scar from heart surgery. 8. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for a residual scar on the left knee. 9. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD. 10. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to an earlier effective date for a chest scar. 11. Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in his September 2018 SSOC response that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to an earlier effective date for a knee scar. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 4. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 5. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for acid reflux have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 6. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 7. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a scar from heart surgery have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 8. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for a residual scar on the left knee have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 9. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 10. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for a chest scar have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 11. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for a knee scar have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. [Deny] REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from November 1965 to October 1969. The veteran or the veteran’s representative may withdraw an appeal as to any or all issues on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(a). Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, withdrawal must be in writing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b)(1). A withdrawal is effective when received provided that receipt is prior to the issuance of a decision by the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b)(3). Withdrawal of a claim constitutes a withdrawal of the notice of disagreement and, if filed, the substantive appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(c).  In a September 2018 SSOC response letter, the Veteran indicated his desire to withdraw his appeal. The withdrawal is in writing and has been associated with the Veteran’s claims file. There remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the issues on appeal and they are dismissed. John Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Snoparsky, Associate Counsel