Citation Nr: 21013341 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 15-45 714 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER The legacy appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is dismissed. The legacy appeal as to the issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen previously denied claims of entitlement to service connection for a right ear hearing loss disability, a back disability, a right knee disability, and a left knee disability, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT A February 2019 Report of General Information, received prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, shows that the Veteran contacted the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) to clarify that she wished to withdraw her entire appeal to the Board, which included a claim of service connection for sinusitis; and, claims to reopen previously denied claims of service connection for a right ear hearing loss disability, a back disability, a right knee disability and a left knee disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of a legacy substantive appeal 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 with the United States Army from October 1981 to October 1985. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a December 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which, in pertinent part, denied service connection for sinusitis and found that new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claims for service connection for a right knee disability, a left knee disability, a back disability and a right ear hearing loss disability had not been received. The Veteran’s notice of disagreement (NOD) was received in January 2014. The RO issued the statement of the case (SOC) in November 2015, and the Veteran’s VA Form 9, substantive appeal was received in December 2015. 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.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 by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. In February 2015, the RO issued a rating decision denying special monthly compensation for aid and attendance. The Veteran’s NOD was received later in February 2015. In July 2015, the Veteran requested a complete review by a Decision Review Officer (DRO) including a DRO hearing. In December 2018, the RO informed the Veteran that she was scheduled for a DRO hearing in January 2019. In a December 2018 written statement, the Veteran requested that the VA cancel her pending hearing and cancel her appeal. In January 2019, the RO sent correspondence to the Veteran indicating receipt of her request to withdraw her appeal as to the issues of entitlement to service connection for sinusitis and whether new and material evidence had been received sufficient to reopen the claims for service connection for a right knee disability, a left knee disability, a back disability and a right ear hearing loss disability. However, because it was not clear whether the Veteran wanted to withdraw the appeal to the Board and/or whether she wanted to withdraw her pending NOD as to the issue of entitlement to special monthly compensation based on the need for Aid & Attendance of another person (the RO had not yet issued a Statement of the Case addressing this issue), the RO requested clarification. A February 2019 VA Form 27-0820, Report of General Information reflects that the RO contacted the Veteran by phone call to request clarification regarding her request to withdraw her appeal. She confirmed that she wanted to withdraw all issues on appeal to the Board as listed in the November 2015 SOC, as well as the claim of entitlement to special monthly compensation for which an SOC had not yet been issued. The Veteran stated that she is now receiving treatment for all issues, including the back, knees and sinuses, and as such she is satisfied with her current benefits and does not want to continue pursuit of any other issue or disagreements. Additionally, the record reflects that at the time of her request to withdraw the appeal, she was in receipt of a combined 100 percent schedular rating, plus TDIU; and, SMC at the “s” rate, all of which was effective prior to the date of her claim in this appeal. Accordingly, the Veteran’s withdrawal of this appeal is explicit and unambiguous, and dismissal is warranted. L. B. CRYAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Modesto, Victor 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.