Citation Nr: 19116262 Decision Date: 03/07/19 Archive Date: 03/06/19 DOCKET NO. 16-03 573 DATE: March 7, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT In his October 2018 Video Conference Board Hearing, and prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran explicitly, unambiguously, and with understanding of the consequences, expressed his desire to withdraw his appeal as to the issue of service connection for tinnitus. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from May 1953 to May 1957. In October 2018, the Veteran and his daughter testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a Video Conference Board Hearing. A transcript of that hearing is included in the Veteran’s claims file. Entitlement to Service Connection for Tinnitus 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. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204.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 a veteran or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. During his October 2018 hearing, the Veteran clearly and unambiguously stated that he wished to withdraw his appeal as to the issue of service connection for tinnitus. The Veteran was informed that a withdrawal would mean the Board would not decide whether he was entitled to service connection for tinnitus and the Board would only decide his service connection claim for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran stated that he understood the consequences of his action. Accordingly, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration, and the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal as to this issue. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.204; Acree v. O’Rouke, 891 F.3d 1009, 1014-15 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Veteran’s appeal regarding his claim for service connection for tinnitus is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss Is Remanded In an April 2015 Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran contends that VA failed to assist him in developing his claim because VA did not afford the Veteran a VA examination. The Board agrees, and concludes a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination. The Veteran’s VA treatment records document bilateral hearing loss and his use of hearing aids. He served as a photograph interpretation specialist. He states that he was exposed to very loud engine noise because his duties included recovering film cannisters from aircraft located on the flight line. He reports that he was not provided hearing protection and did not wear hearing protection when he collected the film cannisters. The Veteran’s April 1957 separation examination showed that the Veteran’s hearing was within normal limits upon his separation from active service. The Veteran stated that he first noticed his hearing worsened in the 1980s and 1990s. He believes his exposure to noise from aircraft engines caused his bilateral hearing loss. A VA examination is needed to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral hearing loss. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-84 (2006). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of bilateral hearing loss. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in- service injury, event, or disease, including the Veteran’s exposure to noise from aircraft engines while he was on the flight line to recover film. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Douglas M. Humphrey, Associate Counsel