Citation Nr: 21041014 Decision Date: 07/07/21 Archive Date: 07/07/21 DOCKET NO. 19-30 920 DATE: July 7, 2021 ORDER The legacy appeal seeking an increased evaluation for service-connected bilateral hearing loss, currently evaluated noncompensably (zero percent) disabling prior to December 21, 2015, 10 percent disabling from December 21, 2015, to June 27, 2016, and 40 percent disabling from June 28, 2016, to the present, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT Prior to the issuance of a decision on the appeal, the Veteran withdrew his legacy appeal seeking an increased evaluation for service-connected bilateral hearing loss, currently evaluated noncompensably disabling prior to December 21, 2015, 10 percent disabling from December 21, 2015, to June 27, 2016, and 40 percent disabling from June 28, 2016, to the present, and elected to opt-in to the modernized review system under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) by filing a June 2021 VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher Level Review in response to a May 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of the legacy appeal seeking an increased evaluation for service-connected bilateral hearing loss, currently evaluated noncompensably disabling prior to December 21, 2015, 10 percent disabling from December 21, 2015, to June 27, 2016, and 40 percent disabling from June 28, 2016, to the present have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1966 to June 1989. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran expressed timely disagreement with this determination, and the present appeal ensued. The Veteran's appeal was previously before the Board in April 2020, when it was determined that remand was necessary to ensure that VA fulfilled its duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating his appeal. The Board's prior remand directives and the subsequent actions of the AOJ will be discussed below. Notably, in a May 2021 rating decision, the AOJ partially granted the Veteran's appeal seeking an increased evaluation for service-connected bilateral hearing loss; the noncompensable evaluation was increased to 10 percent from December 21, 2015, to June 27, 2016, resulting in further staging of this evaluation. As this did not represent a full grant of the benefits sought, the issue remained in appellate status, was readjudicated by the AOJ in the concurrently issued May 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), and has been recharacterized as stated on the title page to reflect this partial allowance. The Veteran's legacy has been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. 1. The legacy appeal seeking an increased evaluation for service-connected bilateral hearing loss, currently evaluated noncompensably disabling prior to December 21, 2015, 10 percent disabling from December 21, 2015, to June 27, 2016, and 40 percent disabling from June 28, 2016, to the present After the AOJ substantially completed the Board's April 2020 remand directives, he and his private attorney were issued an SSOC in May 2021 which continued to deny his appealed issue. In May 2021, the Veteran's attorney submitted a completed opt-in to the modernized review system under the AMA (VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher Level Review) in response to the May 2021 SSOC. Accordingly, the Veteran's legacy appeal of this issue is withdrawn. As the Veteran withdrew his legacy appeal of this issue, the Board no longer has jurisdiction to readjudicate it, and it must be dismissed. It appears the AOJ has not yet acted on the Veteran's request for readjudication under the AMA via the Higher-Level Review lane, and the matter is REFERRED for consideration. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Scott W. Dale, 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.