Citation Nr: 21000982 Decision Date: 01/06/21 Archive Date: 01/06/21 DOCKET NO. 17-44 989 DATE: January 6, 2021 ORDER The appeal seeking service connection for Gulf War undiagnosed illness, manifested by chronic fatigue, headaches, joint pain, cardiovascular signs, menstrual disorders, muscle pain, a skin condition, and sleep disturbances, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In a November 2020 written statement, and prior to the promulgation of a decision in this appeal, the Veteran requested to withdraw her pending claim seeking service connection for Gulf War undiagnosed illness. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1979 to October 1999, including foreign service in Southwest Asia. For her meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Army Commendation Medal and the Southwest Asia Service Medal with two Bronze Service Stars. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeal (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board previously remanded this appeal in January 2019 for additional development, which has since been completed. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). At that time, the matter on appeal included Gulf War undiagnosed illness as manifested by gastrointestinal disorders. In a September 2020 rating decision, the Veteran was awarded service connection for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and hiatal hernia. The Board finds that this constitutes a complete grant of the Veteran’s request for compensation for gastrointestinal symptoms, such that the matter on appeal has been recharacterized as set forth herein. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a grant of service connection extinguishes appeals before the Board). The Veteran is now in receipt of the maximum combined evaluation, effective July 8, 2019. As such, any future awards of service connection or higher ratings will bear no impact on her compensation payments. Turning to the current appeal, 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Here, the Veteran submitted an Appeals Satisfaction Notice in November 2020, signaling her desire to withdraw the remaining (and recharacterized) Gulf War undiagnosed illness appeal. This communication clearly identifies the Veteran and her VA appeals number, and contains a clear statement of intent to withdraw the matter on appeal. Such sentiment is further corroborated by an accompanying cover letter from the Veteran. Thus, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed. Briefly, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s representative submitted a Post-Remand Brief in December 2020, requesting that service connection be awarded in this case. However, a withdrawal is effective when received. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b)(3). Moreover, the Veteran has not indicated the understanding that this matter remains on appeal, nor has she submitted evidence or argument on her behalf since the November 2020 withdrawal. See Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37 (2009). Accordingly, the representative’s statement does not negate the Veteran’s withdrawal in this case. Kate E. Kovarovic Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J.R. Higgins 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.