Citation Nr: 21021089 Decision Date: 04/09/21 Archive Date: 04/09/21 DOCKET NO. 15-17 916 DATE: April 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for bilateral hearing loss is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for septoplasty is dismissed. Entitlement to a total rating for compensation based on unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In March 2021, prior to promulgation of a Board decision, in response to a January 2021 rating decision that granted a separate rating for headaches, the Veteran expressed his satisfaction with the decision and expressed his desire to withdraw all remaining issues in the January 2021 supplemental statement of the case. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for septoplasty have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a TDIU have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran was on active duty from January 1963 to November 1971. This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) is from a January 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded these matters in July 2018. As a result of the remand, a January 2021 rating decision granted service connection for headaches that are associated with the Veteran’s service-connected septoplasty. In August 2018, the Veteran’s attorney withdrew his representation and since then the Veteran has continued with his appeal pro se. Increased Rating 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for septoplasty. 3. Entitlement to a TDIU. 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. The withdrawal of a claim is only effective where the withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011). As noted, the Board remanded the issues on appeal in July 2018, which was done in part to determine if the Veteran had headaches associated with his septoplasty. In a January 2021 rating decision, the RO granted a separate noncompensable rating for headaches. In March 2021, the Veteran submitted an appeals Satisfaction Notice that states: I have received the recent correspondence regarding the decision to grant one or more of my issues on appeal. Based on the decision rendered, I am satisfied and wish to withdraw all remaining issues associated with this appeal. By signing and submitting this form, I am asking to withdraw all remaining issue(s)contained in my recent Statement of the Case (SOC)/Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and ask the regional office of jurisdiction to discontinue further development actions associated with this appeal. Please only return this document if you no longer want to pursue the remaining items contained in your Statement of the Case (SOC)/Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). The Veteran signed and dated the notice. See March 2021 Correspondence. (Continued on the next page)   The Board finds that the communication adequately satisfies the requirements for withdrawing an appeal and demonstrates the level of understanding needed to effectively withdraw an appeal as set forth in DeLisio. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011). Hence, there remain no allegation of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these issues and they are dismissed. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Bredehorst, 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.