Citation Nr: 21003547 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-06 007 DATE: January 21, 2021 ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic bronchitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea. 3. Entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss disability, currently assigned a noncompensable disability rating. 4. Entitlement to an increased rating for ischemic heart disease, currently rated as 30 percent disabling. 5. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). ORDER The appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic bronchitis is dismissed. The appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is dismissed. The appeal on the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss disability, currently assigned a noncompensable disability rating is dismissed. The appeal on the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for ischemic heart disease, currently rated as 30 percent disabling is dismissed. The appeal on the issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In September 15, 2020 Correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic bronchitis. 2. In September 15, 2020 Correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea. 3. In September 15, 2020 Correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss disability, currently assigned a noncompensable disability rating. 4. In September 15, 2020 Correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to entitlement to an increased rating for ischemic heart disease, currently rated as 30 percent disabling. 5. In September 15, 2020 Correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic bronchitis by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss disability by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 4. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for ischemic heart disease, currently rated as 30 percent disabling by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 5. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1969 to November 1972. The Veteran’s DD-214 shows that he is the recipient of several medals, including the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, and the Vietnam Service Medal with Two Bronze Stars, indicating service in the Republic of Vietnam. Exposure to herbicide agents has been conceded. This matter is before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from April 2015, January 2016, and May 2016 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in July 2019. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the claims file. The issues currently before the Board were previously remanded in November 2019. Days later, in a November 2019 Rating decision, the RO granted several other claims. The Board observes that the Veteran is now in receipt of a 100 percent combined rating from December 7, 2015. Duties to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2018). Significantly, the Veteran failed to report for a series of VA examinations in February 2020. Later, in September 15, 2020 Correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran withdrew his appeals currently before the Board. The Veteran in this case has not referred to any deficiencies in either the duties to notify or assist; therefore, the Board may proceed to the merits of the claim. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015, cert denied, U.S.C. Oct. 3, 2016) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board....to search the record and address procedural arguments when the [appellant] fails to raise them before the Board”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to an appellant’s failure to raise a duty to assist argument before the Board). The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-130 (2000). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic bronchitis 2. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea 3. Entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss disability, currently assigned a noncompensable disability rating 4. Entitlement to an increased rating for ischemic heart disease, currently rated as 30 percent disabling 5. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) The Board incorporates its discussion from the sections above by reference. Only an appellant, or an appellant’s authorized representative, may withdraw an appeal. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (a). Appeal withdrawals must include the name of the veteran, the name of the claimant or appellant if other than the veteran (e.g., a veteran’s survivor, a guardian, or a fiduciary appointed to receive VA benefits on an individual's behalf), the applicable Department of Veterans Affairs file number, and a statement that the appeal is withdrawn. If the appeal involves multiple issues, the withdrawal must specify that the appeal is withdrawn in its entirety, or list the issue(s) withdrawn from the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (b)(1). Withdrawal of an appeal will be deemed a withdrawal of the Notice of Disagreement and, if filed, the Substantive Appeal, as to all issues to which the withdrawal applies. Withdrawal does not preclude filing a new Notice of Disagreement and, after a Statement of the Case is issued, a new Substantive Appeal, as to any issue withdrawn, provided such filings would be timely under these rules if the appeal withdrawn had never been filed. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (c). The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to identify the specific determination with which the claimant disagrees. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (d). By way of history, in a November 2019 Rating decision, the RO granted several claims. The issues on the title page remained on appeal. Next, the Veteran was sent an August 21, 2020 VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice to complete if he was satisfied with his appeals. In a September 15, 2020 Correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his current appeals. The Veteran signed the document. The Appeals Satisfaction Notice corresponds to the five issues on appeal before the Board listed in the August 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these issues on appeal. Therefore, these issues on appeal are dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Neither the Veteran nor his Agent has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). In reaching these conclusions, the benefit of the doubt rule is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Bodi, 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.