Citation Nr: 21002519 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-19 791 DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER The issue of whether the character of the Veteran's discharge for the period of service from March 1977 to March 1979 bars entitlement to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation benefits is dismissed. The claim of entitlement to service connection for gastritis has been withdrawn. The claim of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) has been withdrawn. The claim of entitlement to a compensable rating for facial scars associated with PFB has been withdrawn. REFERRED The issues of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, thumb disability, left wrist disability, tinnitus, and a breathing condition were raised in a an April 2012 claim but have not been initially adjudicated; thus, these issues are referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for adjudication. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served from March 1977 to April 1983 and received a dishonorable discharge following a court-martial. 2. In the Veteran’s March 2017 Substantive Appeal, he specifically contested the Regional Office (RO) finding that his first period of service from March 1977 to March 1979 was dishonorable for VA purposes. 3. Subsequently, the RO revised this determination and deemed the Veteran’s first period of service from March 1977 to March 1979 honorable, and his second period of service from March 1979 to April 1983 dishonorable. 4. The Veteran’s claim with respect to the character of his discharge from the period of service from March 1977 to March 1979 has been granted; thus, there remains no case or controversy before the Board regarding this claim. 5. In March 2020, the Veteran submitted a statement withdrawing the remaining claims listed on appeal in conjunction with his attorney’s appellate brief. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of the issue of whether the character of the Veteran's discharge for the period of service from March 1977 to March 1979 bars entitlement to VA compensation benefits have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of entitlement to service connection for gastritis by the appellant and his attorney have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for PFB by the appellant and his attorney have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 4. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of entitlement to a compensable rating for facial scars associated with PFB by the appellant and his attorney have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty service with the United States Army from March 1977 to April 1983. He received a dishonorable discharge following court-martial. The instant matter is on appeal from a January 2013 decision. 1. The issue of whether the character of the Veteran's discharge for the period of service from March 1977 to March 1979 bars entitlement to VA compensation benefits The Veteran initially filed a claim for benefits in April 2012, and he sought service connection for a bilateral knee disability, pes planus, a thumb disability, a left wrist disability, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and a breathing condition. In January 2013, the RO denied entitlement to VA benefits due to the character of the Veteran’s discharge from service. In the Veteran’s March 2017 Substantive Appeal, he specifically requested that the period of service from March 1977 to March 1979 be deemed honorable, as reflected in one of his DD-214s. Neither the Veteran nor his attorney contested the determination pertaining to his second period of service, from which he was dishonorably discharged following court-martial proceedings. The RO subsequently revised its determination with respect to this first period of service, and the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection, including compensation benefits, in a June 2018 rating decision based upon his first period of honorable service. Furthermore, the most recent March 2020 appellate brief submitted by the Veteran’s attorney does not take issue with the updated characterizations of the Veteran’s periods of service, but instead indicates that the underling claims from April 2012 were not initially adjudicated by the RO following the honorable designation for the first period of service. Thus, the issue of whether the character of the Veteran’s discharge from his first period of service from March 1977 to March 1979 has been resolved in his favor, and this grant reflects a full grant of benefits sought on appeal as the Veteran did not contest the determination regarding his second period of service from March 1979 to April 1983. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. Here, as the Veteran’s first period of service was deemed honorable, there is no remaining allegation of error of fact or law in this claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105(d) (5); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.7, 20.101, 20.1405(g). Accordingly, the Board concludes that there is no case or controversy within the Board’s jurisdiction and the Board will dismiss this matter as a matter of law. 2. The claims of entitlement to service connection for gastritis, a rating in excess of 10 percent for PFB, and a compensable rating for facial scars associated with PFB 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. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. In the present case, the Veteran and his attorney have withdrawn the remaining issues on appeal in March 2020 and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of these issues and they are dismissed. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Fisher, 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.