Citation Nr: 20052947 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 15-33 861 DATE: August 10, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a brain injury is dismissed. Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 20 percent for left radial head fracture, for the period March 19, 2012 through November 3, 2014 is dismissed. Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 20 percent for left radial head fracture, since January 1, 2015 is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In June 2020 and August 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notifications from the Veteran requesting a withdrawal of all remaining appeals. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of service connection for a brain injury are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of a disability rating higher than 20 percent for left radial head fracture, for the period March 19, 2012 through November 3, 2014 are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of a disability rating higher than 20 percent for left radial head fracture, since January 1, 2015 are 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 July 1984 to January 2001. In August 2016, he testified at a videoconference hearing held before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is of record. The case was remanded by the Board in July 2018 for additional development. A May 2020 rating decision granted service connection for thoracolumbar degenerative disc disease, with spinal stenosis, spondylosis and occipital infarct with residual headaches. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction’s (AOJ) grant of service connection for these issues constitutes a full award of benefits sought on appeal. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Veteran has not initiated an appeal with respect to the effective dates assigned and has provided no additional argument. Therefore, as the AOJ granted the benefit sought on appeal, these issues are no longer before the Board. Shoen v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 456 (1994). 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.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. Id. In June 2020, the Veteran submitted an Appeals Satisfaction Notice indicating that he was satisfied with the recent decision to grant one or more of his issues on appeal. The notice explicitly stated that by signing and submitting the form, the Veteran was requesting to withdraw all remaining issues addressed in the recent Statement of the Case (SOC)/Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and asked the regional office of jurisdiction to discontinue further development actions associated with this appeal. In a written statement received in August 2020, the Veteran reiterated his request that all current claims be dismissed as he had been awarded 100 percent disability. See VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, dated August 3, 2020. The Board finds that the withdrawal requests are explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011). As the Veteran has withdrawn these issues of entitlement to service connection for brain injury and entitlement to a higher evaluation for left radial head fracture, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeals and they are dismissed. Thomas H. O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J.R. Bryant 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.