Citation Nr: A21020187 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 190726-40808 DATE: December 17, 2021 ORDER The appeal as to the issue of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for Parkinson's Disease is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT Prior to the promulgation of a decision regarding the issue of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for Parkinson's Disease, the Veteran requested a withdrawal of the appeal of this issue. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for Parkinson's Disease are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1968 to June 1969 with additional reserve service. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the claim in an April 2019 rating decision. On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). This law creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)'s decision on their claim to seek review. This decision has been written consistent with the new AMA framework. The Veteran selected the Hearing with a Veterans Law Judge lane on his July 26, 2019 Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran also indicated that he wanted to appeal Parkinson's Disease and the April 2, 2019 rating decision but did not indicate what specifically with regard to the Parkinson's disease issue he was appealing. The Board notes that the April 2, 2019 rating decision granted service connection for Parkinson's Disease with a 30 percent evaluation effective December 13, 2016 (the date of the claim). Therefore, as reflected on the title page, the Board will construe the Veteran's Notice of Disagreement as contesting the disability rating assigned for Parkinson's disease. Withdrawal of Issue on 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative and must be in writing, except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing. Id. The withdrawal must include the name of the veteran, the name of the claimant or appellant if other than the veteran (e.g., a veteran's survivor, a guardian, or a fiduciary appointed to receive VA benefits on an individual's behalf), the applicable Department of Veterans Affairs file number, and a statement that the appeal is withdrawn. Id. In Acree v. O'Rourke, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an effective claim withdrawal must be (1) explicit, (2) unambiguous, and (3) done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the veteran. 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, in November 2021 correspondence, the Veteran, through his attorney, requested to withdraw the issue of Parkinson's disease. See November 2021 Correspondence. The withdrawal is in writing, includes the Veteran's name and claim number, and clearly expresses the intent to withdraw the appeal. As indicated above, the Board notes that the only issue on appeal with regard to Parkinson's Disease was entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for Parkinson's Disease. Therefore, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration on this issue. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of this claim, and it is dismissed. S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Smith-Jennings, 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.