Citation Nr: 21009270 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 13-09 129A DATE: February 22, 2021 ORDER The appeal for entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for actinic keratosis and eczema is dismissed. The appeal for entitlement to a compensable evaluation for surgical scars of the right and left knees is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT On March 13, 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, VA received notification from the Veteran that he wanted to withdraw his appeals for the issues of entitlement to increased evaluations for actinic keratosis and eczema, right knee surgical scars, and left knee surgical scars. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran have been met for the issue of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for actinic keratosis and eczema. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran have been met for the issue of entitlement to a compensable evaluation for surgical scars of the right and left knees. 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 1986 to June 1988 and from January 1992 to April 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from July 2010 and December 2012 rating decisions. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in September 2016. A transcript is of record. In February 2018, the Board dismissed the issues of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus and a thyroid disorder; entitlement to increased ratings for service-connected bilateral hearing loss, a thoracic spine disability, and right knee disability. The Board also remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for irritable bowel syndrome, neck, right ankle, and left ankle disorders; the issues of entitlement to increased evaluations for dysthymia, actinic keratosis and eczema, and bilateral plantar fasciitis and pes planus; and the issue of whether the reduction of the disability rating for painful surgical scars of the right and left knees was proper. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. In a December 2019 rating decision, the Regional Office (RO) granted service connection for irritable bowel syndrome, a cervical spine disorder, a right ankle disorder, and a left ankle disorder. The agency of original jurisdiction’s (AOJ) grant of service connection for these issues constitutes a full award of the benefits sought on appeal. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, these matters are no longer on appeal, and no further consideration is necessary. In a December 2019 rating decision, the RO also restored a 10 percent evaluation for the service-connected painful surgical scars of the right and left knees. The restoration of the rating constitutes a full award of the benefits sought on appeal with respect to the reduction issue. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, that matter is no longer on appeal, and no further consideration is necessary. In addition, in a December 2019 rating decision, the RO increased the evaluation assigned for the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD and major depressive disorder (previously rated as dysthymia) to 70 percent effective from May 1, 2010. The RO also increased the evaluation assigned for the service-connected bilateral plantar fasciitis and pes planus to 50 percent effective from May 1, 2020. The RO specifically noted that the determinations were considered a full grant of the benefits sought on appeal for these issues, and the Veteran has not expressed further disagreement with the awards. In an April 2013 substantive appeal, the Veteran indicated that a 50 percent evaluation was warranted for his service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder. He also stated that a 30 percent evaluation was warranted for his service-connected bilateral plantar fasciitis and pes planus. In June 2019, the Veteran stated that VA examination findings confirmed that his previous symptoms of dysthymia were 70 percent disabling. He also stated that VA examination findings confirmed that his bilateral plantar fasciitis and pes planus was 50 percent disabling. Based on the foregoing and the Veteran’s clear intent to limit his appeals, the Board finds that the AOJ’s grant of a 70 percent evaluation for PTSD and major depressive disorder (previously rated as dysthymia) and a 50 percent evaluation for plantar fasciitis and pes planus constitutes a full award of the benefits sought on appeal. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 39-39 (1993). Therefore, the issues are no longer in appellate status, and no further consideration is necessary. The Board notes that the Veteran was previously represented by Vietnam Veterans of America; however, he revoked that representation in October 2019. Therefore, the Veteran is currently unrepresented before the Board in this appeal. Law and Analysis 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 his authorized representative. Id. On March 13, 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, VA received notification from the Veteran that he wanted to withdraw his appeals for the issues of entitlement to increased evaluations for actinic keratosis and eczema, right knee surgical scars, and left knee surgical scars. Thus, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to these claims. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of these issues, and they are dismissed. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Wulff, 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.