Citation Nr: 21064219
Decision Date: 10/19/21	Archive Date: 10/19/21

DOCKET NO. 18-07 581
DATE: October 19, 2021

ORDER

The appeal seeking service connection for a right eye disability is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

In a March 2021 Appeals Satisfaction Notice received prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran requested that the entire appeal be withdrawn.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal seeking service connection for a right eye disability are met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, served on active duty from March 1955 to August 1976.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In May 2019, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c) and 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b). 

By way of procedural background, in its July 2020 decision, the Board granted the Veteran's petition to reopen his claims seeking service connection for right eye and back disabilities and remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability, a back disability, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus.

In a March 2021 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and a back disability.  This is considered a full grant of the benefits on appeal for those claims, and they are therefore no longer before the Board for appellate consideration.  AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993).

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.  In Hembree v. Wilkie, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that written withdrawals of an appeal are governed by the applicable regulations instead of DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011) (requiring a withdrawal to be explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences).  See 33 Vet. App. 1, 7 (2020).  The applicable regulation is 38 C.F.R. § 19.55, which requires that the withdrawal include the name of the appellant and the file number, and a statement that the appeal is withdrawn.  See 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b)(1).  The Veteran or representative must also specify that the appeal is withdrawn in its entirety or list the issue(s) withdrawn from the appeal.  Id.  Under 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(c), withdrawal of an appeal will be deemed a withdrawal of the Notice of Disagreement as to all issues to which the withdrawal applies.

In a signed March 2021 Appeals Satisfaction Notice following the March 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), the Veteran expressed his desire to withdraw all remaining issues associated with this appeal.  As noted previously, the only issue remaining on appeal before the Board is entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability, given the RO's awards of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and a back disability in a March 2021 rating decision.  The March 2021 Appeals Satisfaction Notice includes the name of the Veteran, the file number, and a statement that the appeal is withdrawn.  For these reasons, the Veteran's entire appeal is deemed to be withdrawn.

As the Veteran withdrew his appeal, 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.

 

 

S. B. MAYS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	C. M. Gill, 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.