Citation Nr: 20003089 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 12-28 041 DATE: January 14, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to a rating higher than 30 percent for a retinal tear of the left eye has been withdrawn. REMANDED Entitlement to a rating higher than 30 percent prior to March 12, 2015, and higher than 50 percent from March 12, 2015, for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for diabetes mellitus is remanded. FINDING OF FACT At a November 2018 hearing before the Board, and prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran withdrew the claim of increased rating for a left eye retinal tear. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal for a rating higher than 30 percent for a retinal tear of the left eye by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1956 to October 1976. These matters are before the Board on appeal from a May 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a November 2018 hearing. A transcript of that hearing is of record. The issue of individual unemployability is referred back to the RO for adjudication. Withdrawal Increased rating for a retinal tear of the left eye 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204.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 the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. At a November 2018 hearing before the Board, the Veteran withdrew the appeal for the above claim and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and the claim is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND Increased ratings for PTSD and diabetes mellitus The Board finds that new VA examinations are required to properly assess the current severity of the above listed disabilities. The Veteran was provided VA examinations in March 2015. While, generally, the mere passage of time is not a sufficient basis for a new examination, further allegations of a worsening condition have been set forth by the Veteran since the prior examination. Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174 (2007). Specifically, at a November 2018 hearing, the Veteran and his representative asserted that both disabilities had worsened since the prior examinations. Therefore, remand is necessary to obtain a current examination for each disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate any pertinent VA or private medical records that are not already of record with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of symptoms. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and social and occupational impairment due to his PTSD alone. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of service-connected diabetes mellitus. The examiner must review the claims file, including the January 2019 private disability benefits questionnaire, and should note that review in the report. Any indicated diagnostic tests and studies must be accomplished. The examiner should specifically state whether the Veteran’s diabetes requires regulation of activities, which is defined as the avoidance of strenuous occupational and recreational activities, or diet. The examiner should state the frequency of required visits to a diabetic care provider. The examiner should state whether or not there have been episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring hospitalization, and if so, the frequency and number of times per year. The examiner should state whether more than one daily injection of insulin is required. The examiner should describe all symptomatology of diabetes mellitus. The rationale for all opinions should be provided DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Ahmad 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.