Citation Nr: 18149689 Decision Date: 11/13/18 Archive Date: 11/13/18 DOCKET NO. 16-03 387 DATE: November 13, 2018 ORDER Whether new and material evidence has been submitted sufficient to reopen the claim for service connection for a back disability, also claimed as a pinched nerve is dismissed. Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), also claimed as anxiety disorder is dismissed. REFERRED The issues of entitlement to increased ratings for chondromalacia patella of the left knee and a left knee scar were raised by the Veteran at his November 2018 Video Conference Hearing and are referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for adjudication. FINDING OF FACT At his November 2018 Video Conference hearing, the Veteran stated on the record that he wished to withdraw his appeal of the issues of service connection for a back disability and PTSD. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of the issue of service connection for a back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017). 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of the issue of service connection for PTSD, also claimed as anxiety disorder, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from Mach 1981 to May 1984. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge during a November 2018 Video Conference hearing. The issues of increased ratings for left knee chondromalacia patella and a left knee scar were raised by the Veteran at the November 2018 Video Hearing. Upon careful review of the evidence of record, Board finds that the Veteran did not file a timely appeal regarding those issues. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). Upon careful review of the claim file, the Board notes that, after the issuance of the September 2013 rating decision, which adjudicated the issues of service connection for a back disability and PTSD, the Veteran filed a September 2014 Notice of Disagreement (NOD). In that NOD, the Veteran’s attorney stated that the Veteran was additionally requesting an increased rating for his service-connected knee disability and service connection for the scar on his left knee. The Board notes that those issues were new claims that were not included in the Veteran’s December 2012 application for benefits. The AOJ adjudicated the new claims and issued a January 2015 rating decision continuing the 10 percent rating for the left knee and granting service connection for a left knee scar with a noncompensable rating. The rating decision was provided to the Veteran in a January 8, 2015 notification letter. The Veteran did not file an NOD to the rating decision or submit additional medical records relevant to the increased rating claims in the subsequent year. In January 2016, a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued regarding the issues of service connection for a back disability and PTSD. The Veteran’s attorney then filed a Formal Appeal that was received by the AOJ on January 19, 2016, more than a year after the issuance of the January 2015 rating decision. In the Formal Appeal, the attorney stated that the “SOC never addressed increased rating on knee or service connection for knee scar.” The Board notes that the SOC did not address those issues as the Veteran had not filed an NOD regarding those issues and they were therefore not on appeal. The Board does not have jurisdiction over the increased rating issues, and they are referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(b). 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted sufficient to reopen the claim for service connection for a back disability, also claimed as a pinched nerve 2. Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), also claimed as anxiety disorder An appeal may be withdrawn by an appellant or his or her authorized representative 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. At the November 2018 Video Conference Hearing, the Veteran confirmed on the record that he wished to withdraw his appeal of the issues of service connection for a back disability and PTSD. The undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge advised the Veteran of the impact of such a withdrawal and the Veteran confirmed his wish to withdraw. As the Veteran confirmed on the record that he wished to withdraw his appeal regarding these issues after being advised of the impact of the withdrawal, the Board finds that the withdrawal was explicit, unambiguous and done with the full understanding of the consequences of such an action. See DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (2011). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the issues of service connection for a back disability and PTSD, and the appeal as it pertains to those issues is dismissed. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. E.I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Arnold, Associate Counsel