Citation Nr: 21064021 Decision Date: 10/18/21 Archive Date: 10/18/21 DOCKET NO. 13-30 560 DATE: October 18, 2021 ORDER The appeal seeking service connection for a heart disorder is dismissed. REMANDED Prior to January 29, 2015, entitlement to a rating greater than 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain disorder with depression disorder secondary to service-connected disabilities ("PTSD") is remanded. After January 29, 2015, entitlement to a rating greater than 70 percent for PTSD is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual employability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. FINDING OF FACT In a September 2021 written statement provided by his representative, the Veteran requested to withdraw the appeal seeking service connection for a heart disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal seeking service connection for a heart disorder by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1986 to October 1996 and March 2003 to July 2004, including foreign service in Kuwait. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and Southwest Asia Service Medal with three Bronze Service Stars. In December 2018, the Board granted a 50 percent rating for PTSD prior to January 29, 2015, and denied a rating greater than 70 percent thereafter. The Board also remanded the pending heart and TDIU appeals for further development, which has since been completed. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In November 2019, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), thereby vacating the Board's PTSD denials and remanding the matters for further consideration. Withdrawal 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.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. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. In a September 2021 written statement provided by his representative, the Veteran clearly requested to withdraw his claim seeking entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder. In doing so, he directly indicated his desire that only the PTSD and TDIU claims remain on appeal. This withdrawal was in writing from the Veteran's attorney, contained the Veteran's name and his VA file number, and reflected a clear desire to withdraw the issue of entitlement to service connection for a heart disability. The September 2021 letter from the Veteran's attorney thus meets each element to be considered a valid withdrawal under 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Thus, the Veteran has offered an explicit and unambiguous request to withdraw the identified appeal, with the full understanding of the consequences of such action. Accordingly, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration, and the appeal seeking entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is hereby dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay this will cause, further development is necessary prior to the adjudication of the remaining appeals. As noted in the JMPR, there are two points of development required. First, there is evidence that the Veteran participated in a VA vocational rehabilitation program; related records may be relevant to the pending appeals and must be obtained. Briefly, the Board acknowledges a March 2020 letter which informs the Veteran's representative that his Privacy Act request for documents related to the Vocational Rehabilitation program cannot be found. However, this letter simply indicates that these records are not currently associated with the Veteran's claims file, not that they are entirely unavailable. Second, the claims file contains three VA treatment records which note that the complete health note cannot be viewed. On remand, efforts are required to secure a copy of these records. As the Veteran associates his unemployability with his PTSD, the appeals are inextricably intertwined. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The Board also notes that the Veteran submitted VA Form 21-8940 in September 2021, but failed to identify his last known employer(s) thereon. Clarification on this point would be beneficial to the adjudication of the appeal and is requested at this time. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (participation in the VA process is a "two-way street"). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Identify all VA treatment records which indicate that the complete employee health note cannot be viewed (including from April 15, 2013; October 29, 2012; and March 14, 2012). Then, contact the relevant VA Medical Centers (VAMC) and request complete copies of these health notes. All actions to obtain the requested records should be fully documented in the record, including any negative response from the VAMC(s). 2. Obtain and associate with the claims file any records pertaining to the Veteran's October 2010 vocational rehabilitation application and consultation, including any subsequent counseling records. Again, all actions to obtain the requested records should be fully documented in the record, including any negative response from VA. [CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE] 3. Provide the Veteran with a VA Form 21-8940 and 21-4192 and request their completion, particularly with respect to his last known employers. Allow a reasonable amount of time for response, and if a response is received, conduct all development indicated by such response, to include the provision of VA Form 21-4192 to the Veteran's last identified employers. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Kovarovic, 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.