Citation Nr: 21028676 Decision Date: 05/11/21 Archive Date: 05/11/21 DOCKET NO. 13-01 377 DATE: May 11, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure, is dismissed. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent prior to May 2, 2019 and in excess of 60 percent thereafter, for diabetic retinopathy is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In August 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision by the Board, the Veteran submitted correspondence stating that he wished to withdraw from appellate review his claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder, and entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent prior to May 2, 2019 and in excess of 60 percent thereafter for diabetic retinopathy. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal are met; the Board does not have appellate jurisdiction to review the claims of entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder and entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent prior to May 2, 2019 and in excess of 60 percent thereafter for diabetic retinopathy. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7105(a), 7108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.55, 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1967 to May 1970. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2011 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Board, in September 2019, remanded the claims of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as due to diabetes mellitus, skin disorder, to include as due to herbicide exposure, and hypertension, to include as due to herbicide exposure, and to include as due to service-connected disabilities, for further evidentiary development. The Board also remanded the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for bilateral diabetic retinopathy for further evidentiary development. In an October 2019 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for erectile dysfunction and service connection for hypertension. That action constituted full grants of the benefits sought, and are no longer on appeal. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The RO, in a July 2020 rating decision, increased the initial rating for diabetic retinopathy with right retinal detachment, pseudophakia and macular edema, to 60 percent disabling, effective May 2, 2019. The grant of an increased rating during the course of an appeal does not affect the pendency of that appeal. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). As the maximum benefit has not yet been awarded for the entire period on appeal, the claim is still in controversy and on appeal. Id. In July 2020, a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) was issued for the issues of entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder and entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent prior to May 2, 2019 and in excess of 60 percent thereafter for diabetic retinopathy. As such, the matters again are before the Board. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). A substantive appeal may be withdrawn by the Veteran or his representative at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.55, 20.205(a). In August 2020, the Veteran submitted an Appeals Satisfaction Notice. The Notice indicated that the Veteran was in receipt of recent correspondence regarding the decision to grant one or more of his issues on appeal, and that based on the decision rendered, he was satisfied and wished to withdraw all remaining issues associated with his appeal in his recent SSOC. The Veteran stated that he no longer wanted to pursue the appeals of entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder and entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent prior to May 2, 2019 and in excess of 60 percent thereafter for diabetic retinopathy, as contained in his SSOC. The Appeals Satisfaction Notice was co-signed by his accredited representative. Clear intent to withdraw the claims is expressed. A withdrawal is effective when received by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.55, 20.205(b)(3). Withdrawal does not preclude filing of a new appeal, a request for higher level review, or a supplemental claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205(c). As the Veteran has properly withdrawn the appeal prior to a final Board decision, the Board no longer has appellate jurisdiction and can take no further action on these matters. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204(b), 20.1100(b). WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G.A. Ong, 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.