Citation Nr: 21007163 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-11 366A DATE: February 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the service-connected lumbar strain from August 9, 2011 is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT Per January 2021 correspondence from the Veteran, prior to the promulgation of a Board decision in the present appeal, the Veteran asked to withdraw this appeal, which includes the claim of entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the service-connected lumbar strain from August 9, 2011. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal for entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the service-connected lumbar strain from August 9, 2011 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 October 1999 to May 2009. This matter is on appeal from a March 2012 rating decision issued by the Regional Office (RO) in Decatur, Georgia. The Veteran testified in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Board videoconference hearing in March 2019 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The hearing transcript has been associated with the record. This matter was previously before the Board in July 2019. The Board denied an increased disability rating for the service-connected lumbar strain in excess of 10 percent from August 9, 2011 to November 27, 2018, and granted an increased disability rating of 20 percent for the service-connected lumbar strain from November 27, 2018. The Veteran appealed the July 2019 Board Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).   A June 2020 Order by CAVC adopts a May 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties. The parties agreed that the Board did not discuss the medical findings in the disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) conducted on October 5, 2018. The parties also agreed that the Board should explain whether the September 2012 and November 2018 VA examinations adequately address functional loss according to Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33-36 (2017) (explaining that before an examiner can conclude that an opinion on functional loss cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, the examiner must elicit and consider information from the veteran or other sources about any additional functional loss experienced during a period of flare-ups and provide either an estimate of additional range-of-motion loss in degrees or an explanation for why such an estimate cannot be given). These matters were before the Board again in October 2020. The Board remanded the issues in order to obtain VA examination addendum opinions in order to adequately address functional loss. The VA examination addendum opinions were issued in December 2020. In a December 2020 rating decision, the RO granted a rating of 20 percent for the lumbar disability from August 9, 2011. A December 2020 supplemental statement of the case denied a rating in excess of 20 percent for the lumbar disability from August 9, 2011. Entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the service-connected lumbar strain from August 9, 2011 is dismissed. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege a specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. A veteran may withdraw a substantive appeal by telling the Board of the decision to withdraw either in writing or on the record at a Board personal hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Per the January 2021 from the Veteran, prior to the promulgation of a Board decision in the present appeal, the Veteran asked to withdraw this appeal, which includes the claim for an increased disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the service-connected lumbar strain. The Veteran submitted an “Appeals Satisfaction Notice” which indicates that, based on the decision rendered, the Veteran would like to withdraw all remaining issues on appeal. As the appeal is withdrawn, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration as to this issue. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the issue on appeal, and it must be dismissed. J. PARKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Costantino, 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.