Citation Nr: 21003251 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 15-29 871 DATE: January 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 40 percent for a back disability is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran indicated in a December 2019 hearing that he would like to withdraw his appeal regarding entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from February 1878 to February 1982. The Veteran previously had a hearing in July 2018, but a full transcript was not able to be transcribed. Thus, the Veteran had another hearing in December 2019 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. However, this hearing transcript abruptly ended. The veteran or the veteran’s representative may withdraw an appeal as to any or all issues on appeal. Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, withdrawal must be in writing. A withdrawal is effective when received provided that receipt is prior to the issuance of a decision by the Board. 38 C.F.R. Withdrawal of a claim constitutes a withdrawal of the notice of disagreement and, if filed, the substantive appeal. In his December 2019 hearing, the Veteran indicated his desire to withdraw his appeal for service connection for a left knee disability. 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. REASONS FOR REMAND The Board finds a remand is warranted for several reasons. While the Veteran indicated in a December 2020 correspondence that he did not want a third hearing and he wanted his decision decided by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, the Veteran may not have been aware that his December 2019 hearing transcript was not completed and therefore, all of his contentions and statements are not before the Board. Therefore, the Veteran must be afforded an opportunity for a new hearing. In any event, in his December 2019 hearing, the Veteran reported he had private treatment records for his back. However, those treatment records have not been associated with the file. Therefore, attempts should be made to obtain more information about these records from the Veteran and to associate these records with the Veteran’s file. Lastly, in his December 2019 hearing and in other correspondence, the Veteran has said his back disability has prevented him from working. Therefore, information regarding the Veteran’s employment status should be sought. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain any of the Veteran’s outstanding medical records and associate them with the claims file, to include private treatment records or VA records. If possible, the Veteran himself should submit any pertinent evidence regarding the condition at issue in order to expedite the claim. 2. Contact the Veteran and his representative to determine whether the Veteran wants another hearing before the Board due to the incomplete transcript of his December 2019 hearing. (Continued on the next page)   3. Send the Veteran Form 21-8940 and invite the Veteran to submit additional information regarding his employment status. 4. After the requested development has been completed, together with any additional development as may become necessary, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, issue to the Veteran and the Veteran’s representative a supplemental statement of the case and give an opportunity to respond thereto. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Snoparsky 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.