Citation Nr: 18156389 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/07/18 DOCKET NO. 14-12 042 DATE: December 11, 2018 ORDER The appeal with respect to an initial compensable rating for right epididymo-orchiectomy is dismissed. The appeal with respect to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for osteoporosis with associated thoracic wedge compression fractures, prior to March 14, 2011, in excess of 20 percent from March 14, 2011 through July 21, 2016, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, is dismissed. The appeal with respect to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for osteoporosis with associated cervical endplate pathology, prior to July 21, 2016, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, is dismissed. The appeal with respect to an initial rating in excess of 40 percent for radiculopathy of the right upper extremity associated with osteoporosis with cervical endplate pathology, is dismissed. The appeal with respect to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for radiculopathy of the left upper extremity associated with osteoporosis with cervical endplate pathology, is dismissed. The appeal with respect to a rating in excess of 30 percent for right femoral and ilioinguinal nerve impairment, is dismissed. The appeal with respect to a rating in excess of 10 percent for status post right inguinal hernia repairs, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In November 2018 correspondence, prior to the promulgation of a Board decision, the Veteran’s attorney representative requested withdrawal of the appeal of all issues. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of the issue of an initial compensable rating for right epididymo-orchiectomy have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of the issue of an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for osteoporosis with associated thoracic wedge compression fractures, prior to March 14, 2011, in excess of 20 percent from March 14, 2011 to July 21, 2016, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of the issue of an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for osteoporosis with associated cervical endplate pathology, prior to July 21, 2016, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 4. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of the issue of an initial rating in excess of 40 percent for radiculopathy of the right upper extremity associated with osteoporosis with cervical endplate pathology, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 5. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for radiculopathy of the left upper extremity have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 6. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of the issue of a rating in excess of 30 percent for right femoral and ilioinguinal nerve impairment, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 7. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of the issue of a rating in excess of 10 percent for status post right inguinal hernia repairs have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1959 to March 1962. This case comes to the Board from February 2012, June 2012, September 2012, and March 2016 rating decisions. In August 2014, the Veteran appeared at a videoconference Board hearing. In February 2016, the Board dismissed the claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for mild compression fracture of C5 with degenerative changes, and granted an intermediary initial 10 percent rating for osteoporosis with associated cervical endplate pathology, since March 14, 2011. The Board remanded the issues of a rating in excess of 10 percent for osteoporosis with associated cervical endplate pathology, along with the higher rating claims for right epididymo-orchiectomy, osteoporosis with associated thoracic wedge compression fractures, right femoral and ilioinguinal nerve impairment, and status post right inguinal hernia repairs, as well as TDIU, for additional development. The Board notes that although the Veteran filed a May 2016 notice of disagreement (NOD) with the March 2016 rating decision implementing a 10 percent rating for osteoporosis with associated cervical endplate pathology, from March 14, 2011, as reflected in the February 2016 Board decision, that issue was already on appeal. In view of the withdrawal of the appeal in its entirety as detailed below, the Board will not further address the reference in the NOD to the effective date assigned for the higher rating. In addition, in a September 2017 rating decision, the rating for osteoporosis with associated cervical endplate pathology was increased to 20 percent, from July 21, 2016, and separate 40 and 30 percent ratings, respectively, were assigned for associated radiculopathy of the right and left upper extremity. The Board takes jurisdiction of these ratings as they are part and parcel of the cervical spine rating issue on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71(a), General Rating Formula for Disease and Injuries of the Spine, Note (1). As such, the issues are restyled as reflected on the title page. Further, the September 2017 rating decision reflects a grant of a TDIU and Dependents’ Educational Assistance. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS 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. An appeal may be withdrawn by the Veteran or representative on the record at a hearing, or in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. In November 2018, the Veteran’s attorney submitted a statement. In doing so, the Veteran’s attorney representative stated, “Pursuant to my client’s request, we wish to withdraw all open and pending appeals at this time.” The Board finds that the Veteran’s withdrawal of the entire appeal is “explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant.” DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011); see also Acree v O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This was an express statement made by an attorney representative. Therefore, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with regard to this appeal. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Taylor