Citation Nr: 21008564 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 18-37 484 DATE: February 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a liver disorder, to include residuals of a liver cancer is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT Prior to the promulgation of a final decision by the Board, in December 2020, the Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for a liver disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to service connection for a liver disorder by the Veteran 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 August 1952 to April 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Board notes that there is no Informal Hearing Presentation of record from the Veteran’s accredited representative, Fleet Reserve Association, as that organization is no longer a co-located Veterans Service Organization at the Board. See September 2020 Board correspondence. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a liver disorder Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. An appeal may be withdrawn in writing or in testimony at a hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204; see Anderson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 542, 547 (1996). The Board notes that "withdrawal of a claim is only effective where the withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant." DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011) (citing Hanson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 29, 32 (1996)). In addition, the Board notes that a withdrawal is effective upon receipt of the request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (b)(3 In the present case, the Veteran has withdrawn this appeal in December 2020. On December 18, 2020, the Veteran was called by Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), which is memorialized in a VA Form 21-0820 (Report of General Information) after the Veteran canceled his scheduled VA examination in conjunction with this appeal. The AOJ contacted the Veteran to determine whether he was willing to report for a rescheduled examination for his pending appeal. In this regard, the Board notes that the Veteran’s appeal was remanded by the Board to the AOJ in September 2020 in part to afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed liver condition. The Veteran received a copy of this Board remand with explanation regarding the need for additional development to assist the Veteran in establishing his service connection claim. However, in the December 2020 report of information, the Veteran stated would like to withdraw his claim for service connection for a liver disorder as the disorder had “resolved”. The examination as requested by the Board remand was therefore not rescheduled. The Board finds that based on this information and the totally of the record, the withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant. The Report of General Information contained the Veteran’s name, address and daytime phone number. The AOJ personnel also checked a box acknowledging that the Veteran was informed that they were the VA employee authorized to receive or request information or statements that may result in a change of benefits, and that the primary purpose for gathering information or statement was to make an eligibility determination. The Board finds that the criteria for a withdrawal of appeal was effectuated on December 18, 2020. The writing component is satisfied by the AOJ memorialization of the phone conversation via a General Report of Contact prepared contemporaneous in time with the phone call. See Hanson v. Brown, supra (accepting a Report of Contact as satisfying withdrawal criteria). As noted, this report of contact contained all necessary information identified in 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (b)(1). 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. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Robert Batten 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.