Citation Nr: 18153778
Decision Date: 11/29/18	Archive Date: 11/28/18

DOCKET NO. 14-38 236A
DATE:	November 29, 2018
ISSUES
1. Whether new material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for upper back disability including degenerative arthrosis of cervical spine. 
2. Whether new material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for defective vision (claimed as a condition of the eyes).
3. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 
4. Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss.
5. Entitlement to service connection for breathing problems.
6. Entitlement to a disability rating greater than 20 percent prior to August 10, 2016, and to a disability rating in excess of 40 percent thereafter, for degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine.
7. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for loss of upper teeth, residuals of injury. 
8. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for tinea pedis. 
ORDER
Whether new material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for upper back disability including degenerative arthrosis of cervical spine is dismissed. 
Whether new material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for defective vision (claimed as a condition of the eyes) is dismissed.
Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is dismissed. 
Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is dismissed.
Entitlement to service connection for breathing problems is dismissed.
Entitlement to a disability rating greater than 20 percent prior to August 10, 2016, and to a disability rating greater than 40 percent thereafter, for degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine is dismissed.
Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for loss of upper teeth, residuals of injury is dismissed. 
Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for tinea pedis is dismissed.
FINDING OF FACT
In August 2016 correspondence, as well as prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeals, the Veteran withdrew his Substantive Appeal with respect to all of the issues on appeal: whether new material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claims for service connection for upper back disability including degenerative arthrosis of cervical spine and defective vision; entitlement to service connection for PTSD, hearing loss, and breathing problems; entitlement to a disability rating greater than 20 percent prior to August 10, 2016, and to a disability rating greater than 40 percent thereafter, for degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine; and entitlement to compensable disability ratings for loss of upper teeth, residuals of injury, and tinea pedis.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for withdrawal of all of the issues on appeal, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b) (2), (d) (5) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to January 1992.
This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Montgomery, Alabama. 
DISMISSED CLAIMS
The Board may dismiss any appeal that 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. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, appeal withdrawals must be in writing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2017). In August 2016 correspondence, as well as prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran withdrew his Substantive Appeal with respect to all of the issues on appeal: whether new material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claims for service connection for upper back disability including degenerative arthrosis of cervical spine and defective vision; entitlement to service connection for PTSD, hearing loss, and breathing problems; entitlement to a disability rating greater than 20 percent prior to August 10, 2016, and to a disability rating greater than 40 percent thereafter, for degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine; and entitlement to compensable disability ratings for loss of upper teeth, residuals of injury, and tinea pedis and, therefore, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration regarding these issues. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal, and they are dismissed.

 
MICHAEL A. PAPPAS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	R.M.K., Counsel