Citation Nr: 21075249
Decision Date: 12/20/21	Archive Date: 12/20/21

DOCKET NO. 19-12 320
DATE: December 20, 2021

ORDER

An initial rating in excess of 30 percent disabling for ischemic heart disease is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

In May 2019, prior to promulgation of a Board decision, the Veteran withdrew the appeal for an initial rating in excess of 30 percent disabling for ischemic heart disease.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for dismissal of an initial rating in excess of 30 percent disabling for ischemic heart disease 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 March 1967 to October 1969.

The case is on appeal from a September 2018 rating decision.  While the claim was in appellate status, the RO issued a May 2019 rating decision increasing the disability evaluation for ischemic heart disease from 10 percent disabling to 30 percent disabling.

An initial rating in excess of 30 percent disabling for ischemic heart disease.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed.  An appeal may be withdrawn by the Veteran or representative.  38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

In May 2019, the Veteran and his representative submitted a statement.  In doing so, the Veteran stated, "I have received the recent correspondence regarding the decision to grant one or ore of my issues on appeal.  Based on the decision rendered, I am satisfied and wish to withdraw all remaining issues associated with this appeal.  By signing this form, I am asking to withdraw all remaining issue(s) contained in my recent Statement of the Case (SOC)/Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and ask the regional office of jurisdiction to discontinue further development actions associated with this appeal."

The Board finds that the Veteran's withdrawal of the issue on appeal is "explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant."  DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011); see also Acree v O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018).  The withdrawal was made expressly by the Veteran and his representative in writing.

Therefore, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with regard to this issue.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

RYAN T. KESSEL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	S. Becton, 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.