Citation Nr: 21062559 Decision Date: 10/08/21 Archive Date: 10/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-48 944 DATE: October 8, 2021 ORDER As the appeal has been withdrawn, the claim for service connection for an undiagnosed illness manifested loss of appetite, weight dysfunction, and fatigue, as due to an undiagnosed illness, is dismissed. As the appeal has been withdrawn, the claim for an increased rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with ethanol abuse (ETOH), previously characterized as an insomnia disorder with anxiety disorder, in excess of 30 percent prior to August 22, 2017, is dismissed. As the appeal has been withdrawn, the claim for a rating in excess of 30 percent for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with chronic diarrhea and hemoptysis is dismissed. As the appeal has been withdrawn, the claim for a rating in excess of 30 percent for migraine headaches is dismissed. As the appeal has been withdrawn, the claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for a right wrist strain with tendonitis is dismissed. As the appeal has been withdrawn, the claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee strain with tendonitis is dismissed. As the appeal has been withdrawn, the claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee instability is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT On March 17, 2018, prior to promulgation of a decision in the appeal, written notification was received from the appellant that a withdrawal of his appeal in its entirety was requested. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant of the claim for service connection for an undiagnosed illness manifested loss of appetite, weight dysfunction, and fatigue, as due to an undiagnosed illness, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant of the claim for an increased rating for PTSD with ETOH, previously characterized as an insomnia disorder with anxiety disorder, in excess of 30 percent prior to August 22, 2017, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant of the claim for a rating in excess of 30 percent for GERD with chronic diarrhea and hemoptysis in have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 4. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant of the claim for a rating in excess of 30 percent for migraine headaches have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 5. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant of the claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for a right wrist strain with tendonitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 6. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant of the claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee strain with tendonitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 7. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant of the claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee instability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). During the appeal, a February 2018 rating decision increased the 30 percent rating, which had been in effect since August 11, 2013, to 100 percent effective August 22, 2017 for the Veteran's service psychiatric disorder, which was previously recharacterized from an insomnia disorder with anxiety disorder, to posttraumatic stress disorder with "ETOH" (ethanol abuse). Service connection was granted for several other disorders with appropriate ratings being assigned, and service connection was denied for several other disorders including acrophobia, anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, manic depression, and panic attacks. Also, entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on housebound (HB) criteria being met was granted from August 22, 2017, and basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) was established from August 22, 2017. This resulted in a combined disability rating of 100 percent from August 22, 2017. Dismissal The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 C.F.R. § 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 by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(a). The withdrawal should be filed with the agency of original jurisdiction until the appellant filing the withdrawal receives notice that the appeal has been transferred to the Board; thereafter, a withdrawal should be filed at the Board, 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(2). The withdrawal must include the name of the veteran, the applicable VA file number, and a statement that the appeal is withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b)(1). Generally, 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). Withdrawals are effective when received by the agency of original jurisdiction, but after the appeal is transferred to the Board it is effective when received by the Board, if a Board decision has not been promulgated. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b)(3). Withdrawal of an appeal will be deemed a withdrawal of the Notice of Disagreement as to all issues to which the withdrawal applies. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(c). In the present case, the RO received written notification (Statement in Support of Claim) on March 17, 2018, from the appellant that he wished to withdraw all issues on appeal, and that he was discharging his attorney as his representative. That notification was prior to the Board letter of February 21, 2019, notifying him that his appeal has been placed on the Board's docket. The March 17, 2018, notification from the Veteran contained his name, signature, claim number, date, and identified the issues as those addressed in the August 2017 statement of the case (SOC) (as stated on the title page hereof). Also, the withdrawal was submitted before a final Board decision was issued. Moreover, a March 19, 2018, Report of General Information, VA Form 27-0820, reflects that the Veteran inquired whether his correspondence withdrawing all issues on appeal had been received, and he was informed that his inquiry and his withdrawal of all issues from appeal would be noted in his file. Thereafter, an RO letter of March 26, 2018, noted that action on his appeal had been discontinued and listed all seven issues which had been on appeal. He was informed that the withdrawal of his appeal was based on his written request of March 17, 2018. In the Veteran's September 2017 VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board, he had requested the opportunity to testify at a videoconference. Although he withdrew his appeal, in error he was informed that a videoconference was scheduled for August 6, 2020. Thereafter, in a signed letter dated July 21, 2020, the Veteran cancelled that videoconference, stating that he was currently rated 100 percent disabled and "no longer need to have my claims appealed." Thus, he confirmed his prior withdrawal of his appeal in its entirety. Hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration as to the matters of (1) service connection for undiagnosed illness manifested by loss of appetite, weight dysfunction, and fatigue as due to an undiagnosed illness; (2) an increased rating for PTSD with ETOH prior to August 22, 2017; (3) an increased rating for GERD with chronic diarrhea and hemoptysis; (4) an increased rating for migraine headaches; (5) an increased rating for a right wrist strain with tendonitis; (6) an increased rating for a left knee strain with tendonitis; and (7) an increased rating for instability of the left knee. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these matters, and the appeal of these matters is dismissed. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Fussell, 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.