Citation Nr: 21070900 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/26/21 DOCKET NO. 18-21 711 DATE: November 26, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT On May 8, 2018, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran notified VA that he wished to withdraw his appeal with respect to the issues of entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder and right knee disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal for entitlement to service connection for right hip disorder by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal for entitlement to service connection for right knee disorder by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from October 1965 to October 1969 and earned a Purple Heart for combat service in the Republic of Vietnam. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 Regional Office (RO) rating decision, which in pertinent part, denied service connection for right hip condition, right knee condition and bilateral hearing loss. In his April 2018 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a Board videoconference hearing. In October 2021, he withdrew his Board hearing request. Withdrawals The Board may dismiss any appeal which does not 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal and may be made by the appellant or the authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(a). For written withdrawals of an appeal, the regulation applicable to withdrawals is controlling. See Hembree v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 1, 8 (2020) (written withdrawals need only comply with 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b), renumbered as 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b)). It requires, among other things, that the withdrawal be in writing, by the appellant or his or her representative, and include the file number and a statement that the appeal is withdrawn. The Court summarized: "When the Board must analyze whether a written withdrawal is effective, its chief questions are whether the written withdrawal falls under § 20.204(b) and, if so, whether it complies with that regulation's requirements. If the answer to both questions is yes, then that is generally the end of the matter." Hembree, 33 Vet. App. at 7. In this case, the record includes a statement received by VA in May 2018 that was signed by the Veteran. It included the name of the Veteran and claim number. It stated that the Veteran desired to "formally withdraw my appeal for Service Connection for a right hip condition claim and Service Connection for a right knee condition claim." With this background, the Board finds the statement received in May 2018 satisfied the written withdrawal requirements outlined in the applicable regulation. Id. It contains the necessary information and is clear that a withdrawal is requested for these issues on appeal. Therefore, the Veteran has withdrawn his appeal service connection for a right hip disorder and right knee disorder. There remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with regard to these claims. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal for these claims, and these claims are dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Although the Board regrets the delay, another VA audiology examination is needed for this claim. The December 2014 VA audiology examination did not report the audiogram and word recognition scores. In his September 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD), the Veteran expressed concern that the audiologist was ill at the time of examination and his illness may have affected the examination report. Another audiogram is not of record. Disability due to impaired hearing is specifically defined in the regulations, and thus the audiogram results are critical to the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The Veteran reports that he receives all of his medical care through the Ann Arbor VA Medical Center (VAMC). See September 2015 NOD. Ann Arbor VAMC records from December 2014 to March 2018 are of record. They reflect that the Veteran was an established a patient in December 2014 and reference an October 2014 audiogram. A complete copy of all Ann Arbor VAMC records for the Veteran prior to December 2014 and from March 2018 is needed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(3). Then, for the October 2014 audiogram and any other audiogram referenced in Ann Arbor VAMC records, ensure a complete copy of the audiogram with reported hearing acuity thresholds is available and that any associated speech discrimination test is clearly identified. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(c)(2), 3.385. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain Ann Arbor VA treatment records for the Veteran prior to December 2014 and after March 2018. Ensure that a complete copy of the October 2014 audiogram is available. Review the newly received VA treatment records to ensure any additionally referenced audiogram has specific hearing acuity measurements reported and that for any reported speech discrimination score, the identity of any speech discrimination test is clearly reported. If the October 2014 audiogram or any other audiogram referenced in Ann Arbor VAMC treatment records cannot be located or is found not to exist, obtain a response from the VA medical facility confirming that such audiogram does not exist and prepare a memorandum to the file. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for an examination by a state licensed audiologist to determine the Veteran's current decreased hearing acuity and whether any hearing loss is related to service. The audiologist should also provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any hearing loss experienced by the Veteran in either ear since approximately August 2014 either: (1) began during active service; (2) manifested within one year after separation from service; OR (3) is related to an in-service injury or disease, including noise exposure while working at air bases and under combat conditions in Vietnam. The Veteran's statements regarding both noise exposure and decreased hearing should be considered credible. The audiologist must provide reasons for each opinion given. Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. D. Simpson, 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.