Citation Nr: 21067470 Decision Date: 11/04/21 Archive Date: 11/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-28 755 DATE: November 4, 2021 ORDER The appeal for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder has been withdrawn. REMANDED Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for resection of the large intestine is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder is remanded. FINDING OF FACT On March 12, 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant, through his authorized representative, that a withdrawal of this appeal is requested. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal for an earlier effective date for posttraumatic stress disorder by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) 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 October 1971 to April 1974. A hearing was held before the undersigned veterans law judge in June 2021. The transcript is of record. During the hearing, the VLJ clarified the issues, asked if there was outstanding evidence and held the file open for the submission of evidence. Such actions comply with 38 C.F.R. § 3.103. 1. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.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. Id. In the present case, the appellant, through his/her authorized representative, has withdrawn the appeal for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder and, hence, there remain no allegations of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. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for resection of the large intestine is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder is remanded. In recent correspondence, the Veteran asked that VA produce the qualifications of the examiners that performed the Veteran's VA examinations. The correspondence did not specify which issue or which examination the information was being requested for, so the Board will remand both issues. "Since the veteran is obligated to raise the issue in the first instance, the veteran must have the ability to secure from the VA the information necessary to raise the competency challenge. Once the request is made for information as to the competency of the examiner, the veteran has the right, absent unusual circumstances, to the curriculum vitae and other information about qualifications of a medical examiner. This is mandated by the VA's duty to assist." Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; Harris v. Shinseki, 704 F.3d 946, 948 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, remand to obtain the requested information is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and add to the claims file information to demonstrate the qualifications of the compensation and pension examiners that evaluated the Veteran for his large intestine injury and for his PTSD (such as a curriculum vitae and other credentialing documents, which may be redacted as deemed warranted). 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Creegan, Amanda 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.