Citation Nr: 21067329
Decision Date: 11/03/21	Archive Date: 11/03/21

DOCKET NO. 18-06 790
DATE: November 3, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus also is dismissed.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1958 to April 1965. 

In his January 2018 Substantive Appeal to this Board, on VA Form 9, the Veteran requested a hearing at a local Regional Office (RO) before a Veterans Law Judge of this Board, also known as a Travel Board hearing.  Hearings before this Board consequently were scheduled for in March and July 2020 but both times were postponed. Moreover, the Veteran subsequently withdrew his hearing request during an October 2021 telephone call, so his hearing that had been rescheduled for that same month was cancelled. See October 16, 2021 VA Form 27-0820, Report of General Information. 

 

During that same October 2021 telephone call, and as documented on the VA Form 27-0820, Report of General Information, dated October 16, 2021, the Veteran also indicated that he is no longer interested in pursuing this appeal so requested that it, too, be withdrawn.

The Board may dismiss any appeal that 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal may be by the appellant or authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204; Anderson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 542 (1996). Withdrawal of a claim is only effective where the withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (2011); Hanson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 29 (1996). A withdrawal is effective upon receipt of the request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b)(3).

The VA Form 27-0820, Report of General Information, dated October 16, 2021, meets these requirements for withdrawal of the appeal of these claims. Moreover, although the U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court/CAVC) has distinguished written withdrawals from those, instead, done on the record orally during a hearing, here, the Veteran ultimately elected not to have a hearing concerning these claims, and by all accounts his request to withdraw the appeal of these claims is "explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action." DeLisio, 25 Vet. App. at 57; see also Acree v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

 

Lastly, although the Veteran requested withdrawal over the telephone, the conversation was reduced to writing by documenting it on the VA Form 27-0820, Report of General Information, dated October 16, 2021. See, e.g., Tomlin v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 355, 357-58 (1993) (explaining that hearing testimony, once transcribed, can satisfy the requirement that a statement be "in writing").

The appeal of these claims consequently is summarily dismissed.

 

KEITH W. ALLEN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Mukherjee, Cameron B.

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.