Citation Nr: 18149712 Decision Date: 11/14/18 Archive Date: 11/13/18 DOCKET NO. 15-27 626A DATE: November 14, 2018 ORDER The appeal for entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 11, 2003, for the grant of service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD), status-post myocardial infarction, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In a November 2018 letter, prior to promulgation of a decision in this appeal, the Veteran, through his attorney, requested that the claim for an effective date earlier than August 11, 2003, for the grant of service connection for CAD, status-post myocardial infarction, be withdrawn. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal for entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 11, 2003, for the award of service connection for CAD 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 Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to June 1969 in the United States Army. This matter comes on appeal before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a November 2011 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that there are four additional appeal streams pending at the RO. The first appeal stream includes the issues of an increased rating claim for the service-connected kidney stones and for an earlier effective date for the increase in rating for the kidney stones that stems from a January 2018 rating decision. The second appeal stream includes whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the service connection claims for diabetes mellitus, a lumbar spine disability, and a cervical spine disability that stems from a February 2018 rating decision. The third appeal stream stems from a separate February 2018 rating decision that denied service connection for hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea and denied an earlier effective date for a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU). The fourth appeal stream includes a claim for an increased rating for posttraumatic stress disorder, for an earlier effective date for an increased rating for the posttraumatic stress disorder, and for an earlier effective date for the award of special monthly compensation that stem from a June 2018 rating decision. The Board notes that all four appeal streams are currently being developed at the RO at the post-notice of disagreement stage. The RO has not yet issued SOCs regarding these claims. The Board acknowledges that ordinarily those claims should be remanded for issuance of a SOC pursuant to Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). However, the electronic Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System (VACOLS) indicates that all four of the Veteran’s notices of disagreement have been acknowledged by the RO and additional action is pending in the four appeal streams. Therefore, this situation is distinguishable from Manlincon, where a notice of disagreement had not been recognized. As such, the Board need not direct the RO in a remand to address these claims at this time. The Board also acknowledges that an SOC was issued in September 2018 for an appeal for an effective date earlier than August 11, 2003 for the grant of service connection of a CAD disability based on clear and unmistakable error. See also July 2016 Report of General Information. A substantive appeal was filed in September 2018; however, the Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. Therefore, this issue will be addressed in a separate decision after he has been afforded his Board hearing. The Veteran waived a hearing before the Board for the issue addressed in this appeal in his August 2015 substantive appeal, via a VA Form 9. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 11, 2003, for the grant of service connection for CAD is dismissed. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. A Substantive Appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. In November 2018, the Veteran’s attorney requested that this claim be withdrawn. The Veteran has not subsequently indicated that he wished to continue the current appeal. (Continued on the next page)   When a pending appeal is withdrawn, there is no longer an allegation of error of fact or law with respect to the determination that had been previously appealed. Consequently, dismissal of the pending appeal is the appropriate disposition. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (d). Accordingly, further action by the Board concerning this claim is not warranted, and the appeal is dismissed. Id. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Harper, Associate Counsel