Citation Nr: 20052907 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 16-19 135 DATE: August 10, 2020 ORDER The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 60 percent for status post myocardial infarction with coronary artery disease and aortic regurgitation (disregarding a temporary 100 percent rating in effect from August 17, 2016 to November 30, 2016) is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for atrial fibrillation is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an increased rating for diabetes mellitus type II with onychomycosis, rated as 10 percent disabling prior to April 2, 2014 and 20 percent disabling thereafter, is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to July 17, 2013 and from April 14, 2014 is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In written correspondence received in August 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran expressed his desire to withdraw his appeal with respect to the claims listed above. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal regarding the claims of entitlement to increased ratings for status post myocardial infarction with coronary artery disease and aortic regurgitation, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus type II with onychomycosis, peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, and adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features; entitlement to service connection for tinnitus; and entitlement to a TDIU prior to July 17, 2013 and from April 14, 2014 by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from December 1965 to February 1969. These issues were previously remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in March 2019. Withdrawal and Dismissals 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 Veteran or by his or her authorized representative. Id. Here, in August 2020, prior to the promulgation of a Board decision with respect to these matters, the Veteran submitted a statement indicating that he wished to withdraw his appeal. Accordingly, the Board finds that the appeal with respect to the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to increased ratings for status post myocardial infarction with coronary artery disease and aortic regurgitation, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus type II with onychomycosis, peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, and adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features; entitlement to service connection for tinnitus; and entitlement to a TDIU prior to July 17, 2013 and from April 14, 2014 has been withdrawn. See DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011) (holding that 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). As there are no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration at this time, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal, and the claims listed above are all dismissed. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Minot, 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.