Citation Nr: 21070319 Decision Date: 11/23/21 Archive Date: 11/23/21 DOCKET NO. 12-26 021 DATE: November 23, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to exposure to ionizing radiation, is dismissed. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss from February 10, 2009, and in excess of 20 percent from May 13, 2021, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT On October 30, 2021, following certification of the appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) and prior to the promulgation of a decision on these matters, VA received written notification from the Veteran requesting to withdraw the issues on appeal. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the substantive appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to exposure to ionizing radiation have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the substantive appeal on the issue of entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing from February 10, 2009, and in excess of 20 percent from May 13, 2021 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the Navy from April 1955 to April 1959 and from July 1959 to August 1979. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Following the Veteran's May 2016 Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), the matters were remanded in December 2016 for additional development and VA examination. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the evidentiary claims file. A July 2021 rating decision granted an increased disability evaluation of 20 percent, effective May 13, 2021, for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability. As the Veteran was not granted the maximum benefits for the entire appeal period, beginning February 10, 2009, this period remains on appeal. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). Thus, the issue of an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss remains on appeal and has been recharacterized as entitlement to compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss from February 10, 2009, and in excess of 20 percent from May 13, 2021. Further, a September 2021 rating decision granted service connection for residual of skin cancer, to include facial scar. The RO's grant of service connection constitutes a full award of benefits sought on appeal. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Veteran has not initiated an appeal with respect to the effective date or disability evaluation assigned and has provided no additional argument. Therefore, as the RO granted the benefit sought on appeal, these issues are no longer before the Board. Shoen v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 456 (1994). Now the matters are returned to the Board. Withdrawal of Appeal 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. Appeal withdrawals must include the name of the veteran, the applicable Department of Veterans Affairs file number, and a statement that the appeal is withdrawn. 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. Id. Following certification of the appeal to the Board and prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, VA received a written notification from the Veteran, signed October 26, 2021, and received by VA on October 30, 2021, in which the Veteran requested to withdraw the issues on appeal. Specifically, the Veteran filled out, signed, and submitted an Appeals Satisfaction Notice form that indicated he was satisfied with the RO's recent decision to grant one or more of his issues on appeal. The form explicitly stated that by signing and submitting the form, the Veteran was requesting to withdraw all remaining issues addressed in the recent Statement of the Case (SOC)/Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and asked the regional office of jurisdiction to discontinue further development actions associated with this appeal. Further, the Veteran identified he signed on his own behalf, and his VA claim file number was included. The Board finds that the withdrawal request is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011). As the Veteran has withdrawn the issues of entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for bilateral hearing loss and service connection for prostate cancer, which are the only matters currently on appeal, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeals and they are dismissed. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Gipson, 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.