Citation Nr: 21003258 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 19-17 166 DATE: January 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT On March 25, 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant, through his authorized representative, that a withdrawal of this appeal is requested. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant, through his authorized representative, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had service in the United States Army National Guard from February 1955 to January 1958, with various periods of active duty for training. The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1958 until his honorable discharge in January 1961, and he had additional service in the United States Army from March 1961 until his honorable discharge in March 1983. He served in the Republic of Vietnam, where his awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart Medal, and Combat Infantryman Badge. The Board thanks the Veteran for his service to our country. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2018 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.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. Id. In June 2019, the Veteran perfected his appeal of the August 2018 rating decision to the Board by submitting a VA Form 9, in which he requested a videoconference hearing. A February 2020 letter advised the Veteran that a hearing on his appeal was scheduled for April 10, 2020. In March 2020, the Veteran submitted a statement regarding his service-connected back disability. Later that same month, and prior to the promulgation of a decision, the Veteran’s authorized representative submitted correspondence stating the Veteran “is scheduled for a BVA hearing on April 10, 2020. He would like to withdraw his hearing request and his appeal.” See March 2020 Statement in Support of Claim. The Board notes the March 2020 statement from the authorized representative identified the Veteran and the VA file number, and explicitly and unambiguously withdrew the appeal for an increased rating for the back disability, as the hearing for that appeal was scheduled for April 10, 2020, and it was the only appeal pending at the Board at that time. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that a withdrawal of a claim is only effective where the withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant. See Delisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011). When analyzing the third DeLisio element, the Court must make a “finding regarding whether [an appellant] understood the consequences of withdrawing [their] claims.” Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the statement was clearly signed by the Veteran’s representative and left no doubt that it was his intention to withdraw his appeal regarding this issue at that time. Although the Board later sought clarification of the illegible statement submitted by the Veteran in March 2020, an appeal withdrawal is effective when received by the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205(b)(3). In the present case, the appellant has withdrawn this appeal, 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, and it is dismissed. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Grace Johnk, 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.