Citation Nr: 21040470 Decision Date: 07/03/21 Archive Date: 07/03/21 DOCKET NO. 15-05 241 DATE: July 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for coronary artery disease (CAD), status post myocardial infarction, to include the propriety of temporary total ratings for convalescence following surgery, prior to January 20, 2020 is dismissed. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to January 28, 2013 is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT 1. In March 2021, prior to promulgation of a Board decision in the appeal, the Veteran submitted an Appeals Satisfaction Notice withdrawing his appeal concerning all issues contained in the March 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for coronary artery disease (CAD), status post myocardial infarction, to include the propriety of temporary total ratings for convalescence following surgery, prior to January 20, 2020 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to January 28, 2013 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to October 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a November 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Veteran testified at a January2018 Board video-conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ); a copy of the transcript is of record. These matters were previously remanded by the Board for further development in June 2018 and December 2020. In a March 2021 rating decision, the Veteran was granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. This is considered a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal and, as such, is no longer before the Board. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for CAD prior to January 20, 2020 2. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to January 28, 2013 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.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 appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Prior to promulgation of a Board decision, in March 2021, the Veteran submitted an Appeals Satisfaction Notice indicating that he was satisfied with the decision rendered and wished to withdraw all remaining issues associated with his appeal. Specifically, he indicated that he wished to "withdraw all remaining issue(s)" contained in the recent Statement of the Case (SOC)/SSOC and to discontinue further development actions associated with this appeal. The Appeals Satisfaction Notice also instructed the Veteran to only return the Notice form if he no longer wanted to pursue the remaining issues contained in the SOC/SSOC. Here, the March 2021 SSOC clearly listed the issue of entitlement to a TDIU prior to January 28, 2013 and a rating in excess of 30 percent for coronary artery disease (CAD), status post myocardial infarction, to include the propriety of temporary total ratings for convalescence following surgery, prior to January 20, 2020 and the Veteran's Appeals Satisfaction Notice was provided with the March 2021 SSOC. As the Veteran, in written correspondence, explicitly and unambiguously expressed his intent to withdraw these issues, his withdrawal was effective immediately, and there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. See Hembree v. Wilkie, 2020 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1677 (Aug. 31, 2020) (holding that written withdrawals need only comply with 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b), re-designated as 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(a)). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these claims and the appeal is dismissed. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kelsey Love, 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.