Citation Nr: 21015663 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 15-36 619 DATE: March 18, 2021 ORDER The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service, to include on a secondary basis, for pinguecula is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral cataracts is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for low back disability is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In January 2019 written correspondence, the Veteran withdrew the claim of entitlement to service connection, to include on a secondary basis, for pinguecula. 2. In January 2019 written correspondence, the Veteran withdrew the claim of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral cataracts. 3. In January 2019 written correspondence, the Veteran withdrew the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for low back disability. 4. In May 2019 written correspondence, the Veteran withdrew the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of entitlement to service connection, to include on a secondary basis, for pinguecula are met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (2019). 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral cataracts are met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (2019). 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for low back disability are met.  38 U.S.C. § 7015 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (2019). 4. The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder are met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1968 to May 1970. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2013 and May 2014 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) and were previously remanded by the Board in December 2018. The December 2018 Board decision also remanded the issues of entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to a service-connected disability (TDIU) prior to August 6, 2012 and entitlement to Dependents Educational Assistance prior to August 6, 2012 further development. Within 60 days of the issuance of the December 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), the Veteran opted into the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), by submitting a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) in January 2021. The Veteran’s appeal as to the claims of entitlement to a TDIU prior to August 6, 2012 and Dependents Education Assistance prior to August 6, 2012 have been docketed in the Board’s modernized appeals system in accordance with his January 2021 Notice of Disagreement. As such, they will be adjudicated in a separate AMA decision. Withdrawn Appeals (Continued on the next page)   In January 2019 and May 2019 written correspondence, the Veteran indicated that he wished to withdraw his appeals as to the claims of entitlement to service connection for pinguecula, an initial compensable rating for bilateral cataracts, an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a low back disability, and an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. An appeal may be withdrawn in writing or during a hearing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. Withdrawal may be made by the claimant or by his or her authorized representative.  38 C.F.R. § 19.55.  The Veteran withdrew his appeals regarding the above-mentioned issues in writing in January 2019 and May 2019, and there remains no allegation of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. As such, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these claims. Thus, the appeals as to the claims of entitlement to service connection for pinguecula, an initial compensable rating for bilateral cataracts, an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a low back disability, and an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder are dismissed. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Houle, 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.