Citation Nr: 20050155
Decision Date: 07/28/20	Archive Date: 07/28/20

DOCKET NO. 20-07 138
DATE: July 28, 2020

ORDER

The issue of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for non-allergic rhinitis is dismissed.

The issue of entitlement to an effective date prior to July 11, 2017 for service connection for non-allergic rhinitis is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

In July 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that a withdrawal of his appeal for entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for non-allergic rhinitis and for entitlement to an effective date prior to July 11, 2017 for service connection for non-allergic rhinitis, was requested. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for non-allergic rhinitis by the Veteran have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

2. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to an effective date prior to July 11, 2017 for service connection for non-allergic rhinitis by the Veteran have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from May 1983 to December 1989.

The claimant or the claimant’s representative may withdraw an appeal as to any or all issues on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 (a).  Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, withdrawal must be in writing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 (b)(1).  A withdrawal is effective when received provided that receipt is prior to the issuance of a decision by the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 (b)(3).  Withdrawal of a claim constitutes a withdrawal of the notice of disagreement and, if filed, the substantive appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 (c). 

In the present case, in a July 2020 letter the Veteran, through his attorney, has withdrawn his appeal and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration.  As he was represented he is presumed to have 

 

knowledge of the impact of this action.  Having met the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 20.205, the Veteran has withdrawn his substantive appeal with respect to the above referenced issues. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal for these benefits and the appeal as to these issues is dismissed.

 

 

MICHAEL D. LYON

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	K. Scanlan, 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.