Citation Nr: A21020195 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 190819-26948 DATE: December 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED) has been withdrawn and is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 0 percent for low back scarring has been withdrawn and is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for compression fracture of T12 with intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) (back disability), from February 14, 2019, has been withdrawn and is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, from February 14, 2019, and in excess of 20 percent from March 25, 2020, has been withdrawn and is dismissed. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity, from February 14, 2019, and in excess of 20 percent from March 25, 2020, has been withdrawn and is dismissed. REFERRED The Appellant indicated that he is seeking higher level review (HLR) of his claims of entitlement to include service connection for ED and increased ratings for scar, back, and lower extremity radiculopathy. See May 2020 VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher-Level Review. The Board notes that VA sent the Veteran a letter indicating his May 2020 HLR request could not be processed because he had claims pending at that time. See May 21, 2020 VA Correspondence. Thereafter, the Veteran's representative indicated the Veteran, prior to filing his request for HLR, received confirmation from the Board that his withdrawal had been received, and in any event, the Veteran wished to purse his HLR claim, presently. See July 2021 Representative's Correspondence. As such, the Appellant's request, as outlined in his May 2020 Request for Higher-Level Review and July 2021 correspondence, is referred to the regional office (RO) for any appropriate action. FINDING OF FACT On March 27, 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran's representative that withdrawal of the appeal is requested. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED) by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 0 percent for low back scarring by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for compression fracture of T12 with intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) (back disability), from February 14, 2019, by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 4. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, from February 14, 2019, and in excess of 20 percent from March 25, 2020, by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 5. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity, from February 14, 2019, and in excess of 20 percent from March 25, 2020, by the appellant (or his or her authorized representative) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Appellant (Veteran) served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1982 to July 1985 and from August 1989 to September 2002. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2019 Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In his August 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (NOD), the Veteran elected the Hearing option; therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). In this regard, the Veteran withdrew his appeal in March 2020. Accordingly, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). Lastly, the Board notes that the Veteran is in receipt of a combined 100 percent disability rating from March 25, 2020. As such, considering the 100 percent rating, the issues are effectively moot. WITHDRAWAL 1. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction 2. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 0 percent for low back scarring 3. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for back disability from February 14, 2019 4. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, from February 14, 2019, and in excess of 20 percent from March 25, 2020 5. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity, from February 14, 2019, and in excess of 20 percent from March 25, 2020 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 Veteran or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. On March 27, 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran's authorized representative requested a withdrawal of the Veteran's claims. The withdrawal request has been documented in the Veteran's claims file. (Continued on the next page) The Board concludes that the Veteran has withdrawn his appeal and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher M. Davidson 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.