Citation Nr: 18154066
Decision Date: 11/29/18	Archive Date: 11/28/18

DOCKET NO. 15-21 378
DATE:	November 29, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is dismissed.
FINDING OF FACT
In October 2018, prior to the promulgation of a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision, the Veteran’s representative notified the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that the clamant wanted to withdraw his appeal as to the denial of his claim for a TDIU.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for withdrawal of a Substantive Appeal as to the claim for a TDIU have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from June 1976 to June 1979.
In October 2018, the Veteran withdrew his video hearing request.  
The record also shows that additional evidence was added to the record since the issuance of the July 2016 supplemental statement of the case.  Nonetheless, given the withdrawal below the Board finds that the Veteran is not prejudiced by not requesting a waiver or remanding the appeal for agency of original jurisdiction review of the additional evidence before adjudicating the appeal. 
The TDIU Claim
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  A Substantive Appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.202.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.  
Here, in October 2018, the Veteran’s representative notified VA that the claimant wanted to withdraw his appeal as to the denial of his claim for a TDIU  
VA received this withdrawal before the Board issued a decision.  The Board also finds that the withdrawal was: (1) explicit; (2) unambiguous; and (3) done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the Veteran.  See Acree v. O’Rourke, 17-1749; DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (2011); also see Tomlin v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 355 (1993) (the transcript of a personal hearing may act as a substantive appeal).
(Continued on the next page)
 
Therefore, the Board finds that there remains no allegation of error of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to this issue.  Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review it and it is dismissed.
 
JOHN J. CROWLEY
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Neil T. Werner, Counsel