Citation Nr: 20006495 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 16-02 686 DATE: January 28, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for Meniere's syndrome prior to July 19, 2019 is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In October 2019, prior to promulgation of a Board decision, the Veteran withdrew his appeal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for Meniere’s syndrome prior to July 19, 2019. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for Meniere’s syndrome prior to July 19, 2019 by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1984 to January 1990 and September 1999 to March 2002. This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) is from a July 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned during a hearing in August 2016; a transcript of the hearing is of record. In September 2018, the Board remanded the matter for additional development. In a September 2019 rating decision, the RO granted a 100 percent rating for Meniere’s syndrome, effective July 19, 2019. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for Meniere's syndrome prior to July 19, 2019. 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204.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. § 20.204. The withdrawal of a claim is only effective where the withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant. DiLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011). In November 2010, the Veteran filed a claim for a rating in excess of 30 percent for Meniere’s syndrome. After a September 2019 rating decision granted a 100 percent rating for Meniere’s syndrome, effective July 19, 2019, the Veteran submitted an Appeals Satisfaction Notice that clearly states he was satisfied with the decision and that he was withdrawing all remaining issues associated with the appeal. The form instructed the Veteran to only return the statement if he was no longer pursuing any remaining items on a statement of the case or supplemental statement of the case. See October 2019 Correspondence. A September 2019 supplemental statement of the case addressed the rating prior to July 19, 2019 and the withdrawal clearly satisfies the requirements for withdrawing an appeal and demonstrates the level of understanding needed to effectively withdraw and appeal as set forth in DiLisio. Hence there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. The Board notes that a month after the Veteran withdrew his appeal, his representative submitted a brief in favor of a higher rating for Meniere’s syndrome prior to July 19, 2019, which was followed by a second similar brief in January 2020. While the arguments presented attempt to pursue the appeal, the Board is not persuaded that these statements negate or call into question the validity of the withdrawal of the appeal. As neither statement even acknowledges that the Veteran withdrew his appeal in October 2019 or tries to explain why the withdrawal should not be accepted, it does not appear that the representative is even aware this action was taken. As the Veteran has the authority to withdraw his appeal and after having done so with full understanding of the consequences and in compliance with applicable regulations, the withdrawal is found to be valid. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this issue and it is dismissed. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Bredehorst 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.