Citation Nr: 21009105 Decision Date: 02/19/21 Archive Date: 02/19/21 DOCKET NO. 20-11 265 DATE: February 19, 2021 ORDER As the claim is withdrawn, the claim of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 50 percent prior to August 16, 2016 for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is dismissed. As the claim is withdrawn, the claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) prior to August 16, 2016, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT On December 18, 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Appellant (Veteran), through his authorized representative, that a withdrawal of this appeal is requested. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim for entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 50 percent prior to August 16, 2016 for PTSD, by the Veteran, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim for entitlement to a TDIU prior to August 16, 2016, by the Veteran, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1978 to September 1982. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Initially, the Veteran appealed a January 2010 rating decision in which the RO denied service connection for PTSD. The Board remanded the case in August 2014 and October 2017 for additional development. Subsequently, in an April 2018 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for PTSD and assigned an initial 50 percent rating effective February 17, 2009, the original date of claim, and then assigned a 100 percent rating effective August 16, 2016. The Veteran’s attorney timely appealed the initial 50 percent evaluation assigned for PTSD for the period prior to August 16, 2016, and also argued that TDIU (previously denied in a July 2010 rating decision) was part and parcel of the Veteran’s increased rating claim for PTSD under Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009); therefore, the Veteran was also entitled to a TDIU prior to August 16, 2016. Thus, the remaining issues on appeal are framed as entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD prior to August 16, 2016 and entitlement to a TDIU prior to August 16, 2016. In an August 2020 Decision Review Officer (DRO) rating decision, the RO increased the evaluation of the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD from 50 percent to 100 percent disabling effective February 17, 2009 and found the disability to be permanently and totally disabling. Additionally, the RO determined that the issue of entitlement to a TDIU had been rendered moot by virtue of the assignment of a 100 percent disability rating for the entirety of the appeal period. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent prior to August 16, 2016 for PTSD is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to August 16, 2016 is dismissed. Issues 1-2. 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 by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. The withdrawal must be filed with the Board and include the name of the veteran, the applicable VA file number, and a statement that the appeal is withdrawn. If the appeal involves multiple issues, the withdrawal must specify that the appeal is withdrawn in its entirety or list the issue(s) withdrawn from the appeal. Withdrawals are effective when received by the Board if a decision has not been promulgated.  38 C.F.R. §19.55. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. Withdrawal may be made by a veteran or by an authorized representative and must be (1) explicit, (2) unambiguous, and (3) done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action by the appellant. Acree v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2018); DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 5758 (2011). In the present case, on December 18, 2020, the Veteran, through his authorized representative, has withdrawn this appeal. In a signed statement dated December 10, 2020 which accompanied the attorney’s request for withdrawal, the Veteran stated that he wished to withdraw the appeals of entitlement to an increased evaluation and earlier effective date for PTSD and entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran’s request was made with full understanding of the consequences and in consultation with his attorney. The Board notes that to the extent the Veteran incorrectly characterized his appeal as an earlier effective date claim for PTSD, as discussed above, the issue is accurately characterized as entitlement to an initial increased rating for PTSD in excess of 50 percent prior to August 16, 2016 (the stage of the appeal period prior to the assignment of a 100 percent schedular rating). The Board further notes the Veteran is not service connected for any disabilities other than PTSD. In addition, he has been assigned a 100 percent permanent and total schedular rating effective February 17, 2009, the original date of claim. Under such circumstances, the claim for a TDIU is moot, as the Veteran will receive no additional benefits, even if a TDIU were to be granted. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242 (2011); Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008). 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. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Krunic, 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.