Citation Nr: 18150649 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 16-24 941 DATE: November 15, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, for accrued benefits purposes, is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation, claimed as heart condition, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus type II, for accrued benefits purposes, is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for lung cancer, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, for accrued benefits purposes, is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In correspondence received in April 2018, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the appellant and her representative indicated that the appellant wished to withdraw her appeal with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, for accrued benefits purposes. 2. In correspondence received in April 2018, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the appellant and her representative indicated that the appellant wished to withdraw her appeal with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation, claimed as heart condition, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus type II, for accrued benefits purposes. 3. In correspondence received in April 2018, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the appellant and her representative indicated that the appellant wished to withdraw her appeal with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for lung cancer, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, for accrued benefits purposes. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal have been met with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, for accrued benefits purposes. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2018). 2. The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal have been met with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation, claimed as heart condition, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus type II, for accrued benefits purposes. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2018). 3. The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal have been met with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for lung cancer, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, for accrued benefits purposes. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from May 1969 to November 1975 and November 1975 to November 1977. He was the recipient of the Good Conduct Medal on two occasions. He died in March 2014. The appellant is his surviving spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. Following the Veteran’s death in March 2014, the appellant filed a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD), received in March 2014. A Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued in May 2016. A timely substantive appeal was received in May 2016. A Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) was issued in March 2018. While the appellant submitted a VA Form 9 in March 2014 requesting a travel Board hearing, no SOC had yet been issued. She stated in her May 2016 substantive appeal that she did not want a Board hearing. The issues on appeal originally included entitlement to service connection for tinea cruris. Before the appeal was certified to the Board, however, in a March 2018 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for tinea cruris, claimed as rash, with scarring of groin area and left lower extremity, for accrued benefits purposes. This decision constitutes a full award of the benefit sought on appeal with respect to that claim. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Board observes that the RO is still taking action on the claim of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for the Veteran’s lung cancer. See September 2018 Deferred Rating Decision and October 2018 medical opinion request. This issue is not before the Board at this juncture. Withdrawal of Claims Under applicable criteria, 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 (2012). An appeal as to any or all issues involved in the appeal may be withdrawn on the record at a hearing or in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204. Withdrawal may be made by an appellant or by his or her authorized representative. Id. In the present case, the appellant indicated, on a signed Appeals Satisfaction Notice received on April 23, 2018, that she: ha[d] received the recent correspondence regarding the decision to grant one or more of [her] issues on appeal. Based on the decision rendered, [she was] satisfied and wish[ed] to withdraw all remaining issues associated with this appeal. By signing and submitting this form, [she was] asking to withdraw all remaining issue(s) contained in [her] recent Statement of the Case (SOC)/Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and ask the regional office of jurisdiction to discontinue further development actions associated with this appeal. On such Notice, it was explained that the appellant should only return the document if she no longer wanted to pursue the remaining items contained in her SSOC. A copy of such signed Appeals Satisfaction Notice was submitted by her representative. This Notice was received following issuance of the March 2018 rating decision granting service connection for tinea cruris and the March 2018 SSOC addressing the issues listed on the cover page of this decision. The Board finds that the April 23, 2018, written withdrawal is explicit and unambiguous, and was made with a full understanding of the consequences of such action. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011); 38 C.F.R. §20.204 (2017); see also Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Hence, there remain no allegations of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to these claims. Under these circumstances, these issues are no longer within the Board’s jurisdiction. See Hamilton v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 528 (1993) (en banc) aff’d, 39 F.3d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that the Board is without the authority to proceed on an issue if the claimant indicates that consideration of that issue should cease). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of these issues, and they are dismissed. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Behlen, Associate Counsel