Citation Nr: 22008366
Decision Date: 02/14/22	Archive Date: 02/14/22

DOCKET NO. 19-09 105A
DATE: February 14, 2022

ORDER

The appeal for a higher rating for an abdominal scar is dismissed.

The appeal for service connecting for a ventral hernia is dismissed.

The appeal for service connection for endometriosis is dismissed.

The appeal for service connection for residuals of uterine cancer/uterine prolapse is dismissed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

At the pre-hearing conference prior to her scheduled February 2022 Board hearing, the Veteran notified the Board that she wished to withdraw all the issues on appeal, namely, service connection claims for ventral hernia, endometriosis, residuals of uterine cancer/uterine prolapse, and an increased rating for an abdominal scar.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 The criteria for dismissal have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

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  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision.  38 C.F.R. § 19.55.  Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.  

At the pre-hearing conference prior to her scheduled February 2022 Board hearing, the Veteran expressly withdrew all the issues on appeal.  The Board engaged in a long discussion with the Veteran, her representative and her husband about the state of the current appeal.  The Veteran on several occasions indicated that she was satisfied with the state of all the issues over which Board jurisdiction had been conveyed.  The primary issue of concern to her was whether a clear and unmistakable error (CUE) had been made in failing to assign a compensable rating in the 1989 rating decision that granted service connection for chronic pelvic inflammatory disease with salpingitis and secondary infertility.  Unfortunately, the Board does not have jurisdiction over this issue at this time. The Veteran is encouraged to file a CUE claim should she believe a mistake was made as discussed at the pre-hearing conference.

No allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration were raised with respect to the matters the Board had jurisdiction over.  Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is therefore dismissed.

 

 

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Q. Wang, 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.