Citation Nr: 21003575 Decision Date: 01/22/21 Archive Date: 01/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-08 667 DATE: January 22, 2021 ORDER The appeal of the claim for service connection for a right foot disability is dismissed. REMANDED Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) is remanded. Service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. Service connection for hypertension is remanded. Service connection for a headache disability is remanded. Service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. FINDING OF FACT In April 2020, after certification of the appeal to the Board and prior to the promulgation of a decision, the Veteran requested that the appeal for service connection for a right foot disability be withdrawn. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal for entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1982 to August 1985 in the United States Marine Corps. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned during a virtual hearing. A transcript of the hearing is included in the electronic claims file. 1. The appeal of the claim for service connection for a right foot disability is dismissed. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific errors of fact or law in the determination being appealed. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. During the April 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran explicitly, unambiguously, and with a full understanding of the consequences, withdrew his appeal of the claim for service connection for a right foot disability. See Hearing Transcript, p. 2. He indicated he was withdrawing the claim because it was his left foot, not his right foot, that was fractured during service. The undersigned explained that withdrawing the claim meant that it would be dismissed and would not be decided among the other claims in the present appeal. The Veteran confirmed his understanding of the impact of a dismissal and his desire to proceed with withdrawing the claim. The record thus demonstrates that the consequences of the withdrawal were fully understood. See Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the claim for service connection for a right foot disability and it is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 2. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 3. Service connection for tinnitus is remanded. 4. Service connection for PFB is remanded. 5. Service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. 6. Service connection for hypertension is remanded. 7. Service connection for a headache disability is remanded. 8. Service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. 9. Service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. The claims remaining on appeal must be remanded in order to obtain a legible copy of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs). While the RO has obtained records, the quality of the uploaded images is poor and majority of the documents are illegible. Moreover, the RO must ensure that all STRs associated with the file pertain to the Veteran. While the Veteran had a different first and last name during military service (J.W.), many of the STRs currently in the file depict another name, E.R., at the top of the page, along with a date and another number; it is unclear to what this refers. Additionally, the current record contains only three pages of post-service medical evidence. The Veteran was discharged from military service in 1985, more than 35 years ago. Although he testified at the hearing that he has not continuously received medical care over the years, he should be provided an additional opportunity to identify any outstanding post-service medical records while the appeal is pending in remand status. Finally, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination for any claim. VA must provide a medical examination and medical opinion when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the VA to make a decision on the claim. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-82 (2006). The matter of a current disability is unclear for several of the claims given the near absence of post-service medical records, even considering Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Assuming the present service treatment records correctly pertain to the Veteran, the records document PFB and treatment for the left foot, hypertension, and headaches during service. However, at present, there is no indication, other than the Veteran's report, of an association between his disabilities and service. Should any of the above development indicate such a relationship, the Veteran should be afforded VA examinations as needed. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s complete service personnel records and service treatment records. Document all requests made and all responses received. In doing so, ensure that all STRs of record pertain to the Veteran. While the Veteran had a different first and last name during military service (J.W.), many of the service treatment records currently in the file depict the name, E.R., at the top of the page, along with a date and another number. If these records nonetheless pertain to the Veteran, clarify the meaning of the “E.R.” notation for the file. 2. Contact the Veteran and invite him to identify any outstanding evidence generated since his 1985 discharge, either VA or private, pertaining to the claims on appeal. The RO/AMC must thereafter request and obtain any outstanding VA treatment records, as well as any private records upon his completion of a VA Form 21-4142. (Continued on the next page)   3. If, and only if, the above development reveals an indication between a current disability on appeal and service, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to obtain an opinion addressing the nature and etiology of the disability. A complete explanation should be provided for all opinions rendered. The examiner must address whether it is at least as likely as not that the current disability began during active service or is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Smith, 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.