Citation Nr: 21000258
Decision Date: 01/04/21	Archive Date: 01/04/21

DOCKET NO. 18-52 061
DATE: January 4, 2021

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by myofascial pain, to include as secondary to cervical radiculitis, is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

In November 2020, VA received written notification that the Veteran requested to withdraw her claim for entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by myofascial pain, to include as secondary to cervical radiculitis. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by myofascial pain, to include as secondary to cervical radiculitis, by the appellant have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1987 to July 2001.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from January 2017 and May 2017 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In September 2019, the Board, in pertinent part, remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea, vaginitis, sexual dysfunction, and myofascial pain for further development. Following the requested development, the RO, in an August 2020 rating decision, granted service connection for sleep apnea, vaginitis, and female sexual arousal disorder. 

The RO issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) in August 2020, addressing the issue of entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by myofascial pain. Subsequently, a docketing letter was issued to the Veteran in November 2020, informing her that her case had returned to the Board and had resumed its place on the docket.

In November 2020, the Veteran submitted a written correspondence, specifically referencing the Board’s docketing letter, and indicated that she was satisfied with the results of the determinations and wished to withdraw her pending appeal. The Board finds that this written withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204; see also Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (2018). Since the Veteran has withdrawn the issue, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this issue, and the claim is dismissed.

 

 

Thomas H. O'Shay

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Hite, 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.