Citation Nr: 21025892 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 16-28 099 DATE: April 29, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left knee condition has been withdrawn. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bladder condition, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT In December 2019 correspondence, before the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran, through his authorized representative, indicated a withdraw of the claim for entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition by the Veteran’s authorized representative 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 from June 2007 to December 2012. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Baltimore, Maryland. In a June 2016 VA Form 9 Formal Appeal to the Board, the Veteran requested a Board hearing via videoconference. In July 2016 correspondence to the Board, the Veteran’s attorney clarified that the Veteran wishes to have a Travel Board or video conference hearing, whichever is first available. The Veteran was notified in September 2019 correspondence from the Board about a scheduled October 2019 hearing. In early October 2019 correspondence from the Veteran’s attorney, the Board was notified that the Veteran moved, and the new address was provided. In a separate October 2019 letter, the Veteran’s attorney requested a 90-day extension and a stay to submit additional evidence and argument and further indicated that the scheduled October hearing was not needed. A new video conference Board hearing was scheduled in January 2020. The 90-day extension and stay were granted in October 2019 correspondence. The rescheduled hearing was waived in January 2020 correspondence. Thus, the Board deems the request for a hearing to have been withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). During the appeal, a June 2016 Decision Review Officer Decision granted service connection for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with an evaluation of 30 percent and effective date in December 2012. As this rating decision represents a full grant of the benefits sought on appeal with respect to that claim, and the Veteran has not appealed either the evaluation or effective date assigned, this matter is no longer in appellate status. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM 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. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the Veteran or by his authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205(a). Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, withdraw of an issue must be done in writing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205(b). In December 2019 correspondence, the Veteran, through his attorney, indicated that the Veteran wished to withdraw his appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition, insofar as it was one of the remaining issues listed in a May 2016 Statement in Support of the Case (SOC). The Board finds that the Veteran’s written notification qualifies as a valid withdrawal of the issue. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. After a thorough review of the claims file, the Board notes the Veteran’s attorney requested a status update as to the claim for service connection of a left knee condition in November 2020 correspondence. This inquiry is insufficient to reinstate the appeal or withdraw the prior withdrawal as it was filed well beyond one year after notice of the rating decisions. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205(c); Hanson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 29, 31 (1996). Since the Veteran has withdrawn this claim, there remain no allegations of error of fact or law for appellate review. The Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal as to the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition, and it is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran originally claimed entitlement to service connection for a bladder instability condition. See April 2013 VA 21-526EZ Fully Developed Claim. A thorough review of the Veteran’s medical records shows multiple bladder condition diagnoses including detrusor instability (overactive bladder) and nocturia with urgency. The Veteran was afforded a May 2014 VA examination wherein no bladder condition diagnosis was confirmed. However, a review of the claims file shows the Veteran has continued to complain about a bladder condition including in an October 2014 treatment record that noted the Veteran’s bladder condition is related to his now service connected OSA. In December 2019 correspondence, the Veteran’s attorney explicitly raised a new theory for entitlement to service connection for a bladder condition to include as secondary to the Veteran’s service connected OSA. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to specifically evaluate the nature and etiology of a bladder condition under this new theory, and such should be afforded on remand. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: After completing any development deemed necessary, afford the Veteran a VA examination to ascertain the current nature and etiology of his claimed bladder condition. The claims file must be reviewed by the examiner. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any diagnosed bladder condition had onset during or was caused by the Veteran’s active service, or, in the alternative, whether it is at least as likely as not that any diagnosed bladder condition was caused or aggravated (worsened beyond natural progression) by any service-connected disabilities (as listed in a December 2019 rating decision), specifically obstructive sleep disorder. If aggravation is found, the examiner should specify the baseline level of severity of the bladder condition before the chronic worsening and the level of severity of the bladder condition after the chronic worsening. All opinions and conclusions must be supported by a rationale. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Banks, Associate 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.