Citation Nr: 21076558 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-18 217 DATE: December 27, 2021 ORDER The appeal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right knee limitation of flexion and in excess of 10 percent for right knee limitation of extension is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT On July 21, 2021, the Veteran submitted a written letter to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction, requesting the withdrawal of his appeal for entitlement to a higher rating for right knee limitation of flexion and extension. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for dismissal of the appeal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right knee limitation of flexion and in excess of 10 percent for right knee limitation of extension are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Army from January 1998 to December 2000. The Veteran requested a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge. The hearing was scheduled for July 2019. On the day of the hearing, the VA received a written request from the Veteran to reschedule his hearing. The hearing was rescheduled for September 2019. The Veteran failed to report to the hearing scheduled in September 2019, and did not request his hearing be rescheduled. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right knee limitation of flexion 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee limitation of extension 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.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. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Appeal withdrawals must be in writing, include the name of the claimant, the applicable claim number, and a statement that the appeal is being withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. §19.55 (b). If the appeal involves multiple issues, the withdrawal must specify that the appeal is withdrawn in its entirety, or list the issue(s) withdrawn from the appeal. The Board remanded the above listed issues in May 2021. On July 21, 2021, the Veteran submitted written correspondence requesting the Board remand be cancelled, and that his claims for entitlement to a higher rating for right knee limitation of flexion and extension be cancelled. The statement included the Veteran's name, VA file number, a statement of withdrawal, and identified the specific issues which the Veteran wanted withdrawn. Accordingly, the Veteran's statement satisfies the requirements outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Despite the Veteran's clear and unambiguous withdrawal of these claims, the September 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case, while it did acknowledge the Veteran's July 2021 correspondence, adjudicated a denial of the claim, rather than dismiss the claim as the Veteran requested. The Veteran's representative also acknowledged the Veteran's July 2021 correspondence, but argued for the claims to be granted. The Veteran's July 2021 correspondence clearly indicates he no longer wishes to pursue the claims for increased rating for the right knee limitation of flexion and extension. Further demonstrating his desire, the Veteran cancelled the associated VA examination for the knee claims. The Veteran also has corresponded with the VA since July 2021 about other claims and issues before the VA; however, he has not corresponded about the right knee increased rating claims. There is no evidence the Veteran believes this claim to be ongoing, or that he wishes to pursue the claim. In fact, all indications from the Veteran are the opposite, that he does not wish the claims for an increased rating for right knee limitation of flexion and extension to continue. The Board finds the issues of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right knee limitation of flexion and in excess of 10 percent for right knee limitation of extension to be withdrawn. Thus, the issues are no longer within the Board's jurisdiction and is dismissed. See Hamilton v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 528 (1993) (en banc), aff'd, 39 F.3d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1994). MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Rekowski 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.