Citation Nr: 20003022
Decision Date: 01/14/20	Archive Date: 01/14/20

DOCKET NO. 15-10 477
DATE: January 14, 2020

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

On November 30, 2019, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant that a withdrawal of this appeal is requested.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 (2019).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had active service from November 1965 to August 1967 and from July 1969 to May 1971, including in combat in the Republic of Vietnam from April 1966 to May 1967 and from August to September 1969.  He also had additional unverified service.

This appeal has a long and complicated procedural history.  

Most recently, in June 2018, the Board remanded this appeal to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development.  A review of the claims file shows that there has been substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives.  The Board directed that the AOJ attempt to obtain the Veteran’s service personnel records, service treatment records, and updated post-service treatment records.  All of these records subsequently were associated with the claims file.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); see also Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (1999) (holding that another remand is not required under Stegall where the Board’s remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff’d, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (2002).

In November 2019 correspondence, the Veteran’s attorney attempted to withdraw his representation of the Veteran by sending a letter to the Board.  Although the attorney stated in his November 2019 correspondence that the Veteran had been notified of this (attempted) withdrawal, the Board observes that, given his experience litigating before VA, he should be well aware of the regulations governing withdrawal of representation which do not permit withdrawal by letter alone.  In other words, the Board finds that the November 2019 letter from the Veteran’s attorney does not comply with the regulations governing withdrawal of representation by an attorney and cannot be accepted as a valid withdrawal of representation in this appeal.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.608 (2019).  Thus, the Veteran remains represented by his attorney in this appeal.

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. § 20.205.  Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative.  38 C.F.R. § 20.205.  

In the present case, the appellant has withdrawn this appeal in its entirely by submitting a letter dated on November 18, 2019, and date-stamped as electronically received by VA on November 30, 2019; hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to any of the Veteran’s currently appealed claims.  Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed.

 

 

R. FEINBERG

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Michael T. Osborne, Counsel

The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.