Citation Nr: 21005460
Decision Date: 02/01/21	Archive Date: 02/01/21

DOCKET NO. 14-31 060
DATE: February 1, 2021

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

On September 1, 2020 prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant that a withdrawal of this appeal is requested.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant 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 September 1966 to September 1968.

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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.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.  

In the present case, the Veteran submitted an Appeals Satisfaction Notice in September 2020, stating that he received the recent correspondence regarding the July 2020 rating decision to grant his issue on appeal he wishes to withdraw the remaining issues associated with his appeal. 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.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s representative submitted an Informal Hearing Presentation in November 2020. The statement fails to address the Veteran’s signed September 2020 Appeals Satisfaction notice or to allege that the Veteran now wishes to proceed with his appeal after submitting the September 2020 notice. According to 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (b)(3), the Veteran’s withdrawal is effective upon the date of its receipt in September 2020. The Board finds that the language used in the September 2020 Appeals Satisfaction Notice is clear and unambiguous, and it is indicative of an informed and purposeful decision. See DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (2011). 

 

R. FEINBERG

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. St. Laurent, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.