Citation Nr: 21010725 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 14-33 210 DATE: February 25, 2021 ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for chest pain. 4. Entitlement to service connection for scars of the hands and back. 5. Entitlement to service connection for hair loss. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury (TBI). ORDER The appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disability is dismissed. The appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is dismissed. The appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for chest pain is dismissed. The appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for scars of the hands and back is dismissed. The appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for hair loss has been withdrawn. The appeal on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury (TBI) is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In January 12, 2021 correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disability. 2. In January 12, 2021 correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability. 3. In January 12, 2021 correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to service connection for chest pain. 4. In January 12, 2021 correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to service connection for scars of the hands and back. 5. In January 12, 2021 correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to service connection for hair loss. 6. In January 12, 2021 correspondence containing a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his appeal related to entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury (TBI). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disability by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to service connection for chest pain by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 4. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to service connection for scars of the hands and back by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 5. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to service connection for hair loss by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 6. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the Veteran on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury (TBI) by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from November 2008 to November 2012. The Veteran had service in Afghanistan and was awarded the Afghanistan Campaign Medal and Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, among other decorations. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2015, the Veteran testified at a travel board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. The issues were previously remanded by the Board in May 2018. The Veteran was subsequently afforded a battery of new VA examinations. Duties to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2018). Review of the claims file indicates the Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination for his claimed conditions in July 2013, and that his examination was cancelled when the Veteran did not appear. The Veteran’s claims were subsequently denied. In his February 2014 Notice of Disagreement (NOD), the Veteran wrote that he was never contacted about his examinations and was out of the country at that time. Previously, in May 2018, the Board observed that the record does not contain a copy of an examination notification letter that was allegedly returned as undeliverable. In light of Veteran’s satisfaction with his appeals following the Board Remand, this is no longer at issue. The Veteran in this case has not referred to any deficiencies in either the duties to notify or assist; therefore, the Board may proceed to the merits of the claim. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015, cert denied, U.S.C. Oct. 3, 2016) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board....to search the record and address procedural arguments when the [appellant] fails to raise them before the Board”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to an appellant’s failure to raise a duty to assist argument before the Board). The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-130 (2000). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability 3. Entitlement to service connection for chest pain 4. Entitlement to service connection for scars of the hands and back 5. Entitlement to service connection for hair loss 6. Entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury (TBI) Only an appellant, or an appellant’s authorized representative, may withdraw an appeal. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (a). Appeal withdrawals must include the name of the veteran, the name of the claimant or appellant if other than the veteran (e.g., a veteran’s survivor, a guardian, or a fiduciary appointed to receive VA benefits on an individual’s behalf), the applicable Department of Veterans Affairs 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. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (b)(1). Withdrawal of an appeal will be deemed a withdrawal of the Notice of Disagreement and, if filed, the Substantive Appeal, as to all issues to which the withdrawal applies. Withdrawal does not preclude filing a new Notice of Disagreement and, after a Statement of the Case is issued, a new Substantive Appeal, as to any issue withdrawn, provided such filings would be timely under these rules if the appeal withdrawn had never been filed. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (c). The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to identify the specific determination with which the claimant disagrees. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (d). By way of history, in a December 2020 Rating decision, the RO granted several claims. The issues on the title page remained on appeal. The Board observes that the Veteran is now in receipt of a 90 percent combined rating from November 3, 2012. Next, on January 21, 2021, VA received a completed VA Appeals Satisfaction Notice dated on January 12, 2021. In the Appeals Satisfaction Notice, the Veteran informed the Board that he wished to withdraw his current appeals. The Veteran signed the document. The Appeals Satisfaction Notice corresponds to the six issues on appeal before the Board listed in the December 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these issues on appeal. Therefore, these issues on appeal are dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). In reaching these conclusions, the benefit of the doubt rule is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Bodi, 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.