Citation Nr: 20008465 Decision Date: 01/31/20 Archive Date: 01/31/20 DOCKET NO. 15-36 781 DATE: January 31, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for seasonal allergic rhinitis (claimed as allergies), to include as due to radiation exposure and herbicide exposure, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis congestion, to include as due to radiation exposure and herbicide exposure, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT In written correspondence received in October 2019, the Veteran withdrew his claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the Veteran for service connection for bilateral pes planus 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 in the United States Army from March 1973 to March 1976 and from August 1990 to May 1991. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from March 2014 and March 2017 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2017, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. In September 2018, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus to the RO for further development. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.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 October 2019, after the appeal was certified to the Board, the Veteran submitted a written statement requesting to withdraw his appeal for service connection for bilateral pes planus. The Veteran’s October 2019 withdrawal statement was accompanied by a cover letter from the Veteran’s representative also requesting   that the appeal be withdrawn. Thus, there remains no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this claim and service connection for bilateral pes planus is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for seasonal allergic rhinitis and sinusitis congestion, to include as due to radiation exposure and herbicide exposure In February 2018, the Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) as to his service connection claims for seasonal allergic rhinitis and sinusitis congestion. To date, the RO has not yet issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) with respect to these claims, which is the next step in the appellate process. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.29; Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. at 240-41. Consequently, these matters must be remanded to the RO for the issuance of an SOC. The Board emphasizes that to obtain appellate review of any issue not currently in appellate status, a perfected appeal must be filed if the Veteran wishes to continue his appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.202. On remand, the Veteran will have the opportunity to file a timely substantive appeal if he wishes to perfect an appeal as to this matter. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Furnish to the Veteran an SOC with respect to the claims of entitlement to service connection for seasonal allergic rhinitis and sinusitis congestion, to include as due to radiation exposure and herbicide exposure, along with information on how to perfect an appeal if he so wishes.   The Veteran is reminded that to obtain appellate review of any matter not currently in appellate status, a timely appeal must be perfected. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Amanda Purcell, Associate 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.