Citation Nr: 21001136 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 16-33 255 DATE: January 7, 2021 ORDER The appeal for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed. The appeal for service connection for skin cancer, due to Agent Orange exposure, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In October 2016, prior to the promulgation of a Board decision on the appeal, the Veteran requested a withdrawal of his claims. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal for service connection for PTSD by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b) (redesignated as 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b), effective February 19, 2019). 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal for service connection for skin cancer, due to Agent Orange exposure, by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b) (redesignated as 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b), effective February 19, 2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1963 to September 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.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 Veteran or by his authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. In the present case, the Veteran first indicated that he was not interested in pursuing a PTSD claim at a scheduled June 2016 VA examination. Subsequently, in October 2016, the Veteran called the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), which is memorialized in a VA Form 21-0820 (Report of General Information) stating that the Veteran would like to drop his pending appeal. The Report of General Information contained the Veteran’s name, address and daytime phone number. The AOJ personnel also checked a box acknowledging that the Veteran was informed that they were the VA employee authorized to receive or request information or statements that may result in a change of benefits, and that the primary purpose for gathering information or statement was to make an eligibility determination. The Veteran’s representative was carbon copied on the matter. The Board finds that the criteria for a withdrawal of appeal was effectuated. The writing component is satisfied by the AOJ memorialization of the phone conversation via a General Report of Contact prepared contemporaneous in time with the phone call. In this way, the claim before the Board is similar to the facts found in Hanson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 29 (1996), which involved a written notation of the veteran’s discussion with a social worker. In Hanson, the Court held that a withdrawal was valid because there was no indication that the veteran was misguided or lacked understanding of the consequences of his actions. Moreover, Hembree v. Wilkie, No. 18-3856 has held that written requests to withdraw an issue on appeal in the legacy system are governed by 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b) (redesignated as 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b), effective February 19, 2019), as opposed to the standard set forth in DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, (2011) and adopted in Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Applying 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (b)(1) (redesignated as 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b), effective February 19, 2019, the October 2016 report of contact contained all necessary information. 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. D. Johnson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Vuong, 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.