Citation Nr: 22014228 Decision Date: 03/11/22 Archive Date: 03/11/22 DOCKET NO. 19-17 194 DATE: March 11, 2022 ORDER The appeal for the issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for major depressive disorder is dismissed. The appeal for the issue of entitlement to service connection for bipolar II disorder (including hearing voices and sleep pattern disturbance) is dismissed. The appeal for the issue of entitlement to service connection for left ankle disorder is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In December 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) received notification from the Veteran through his representative that he wanted to withdraw the appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran 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 September 1981 to January 1988. This case comes before the Board on appeal from an August 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (previously 38 C.F.R. § 20.204). In a December 2020 written statement, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran through his representative that he wanted to withdraw his entire appeal. Given that there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal, and it is dismissed. In reaching this decision, to ensure acknowledgment of the related submissions on the Veteran's behalf, the Board notes that the original appeal certified from the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) included all three issues above. While the Veteran was awaiting a Board hearing, the AOJ granted service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar subtype, with tardive dyskinesia, and moderate alcohol use disorder, assigning a total (100 percent) evaluation, and entitlement to Chapter 35 Dependents' Educational Assistance benefits effective from July 12, 2019, in a September 2019 rating decision. The Board also notes that decision appears to represent a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal as to the bipolar II disorder claim, which would make the appeal as to that issue moot. In any event, the issue has been dismissed as part of the Veteran's requested withdrawal for the purposes of clarity. The Veteran did not express disagreement with any aspect of the September 2019 rating decision under the required procedures. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that a separate notice of disagreement must be filed to initiate appellate review of "downstream" elements such as the disability rating or effective date assigned). In a November 2020 written statement, the Veteran's representative indicated that the Veteran wanted to withdraw his hearing request, as he was satisfied with the grant and evaluation assigned for the mental health disability, but he wanted the Board to consider awarding an earlier effective date for the grant of that benefit. Notwithstanding any questions of the timeliness or format of this request, the representative then submitted the December 2020 written statement above, indicating that the Veteran contacted the representative and wanted to withdraw his entire appeal, to include any potential earlier effective date for a grant of his benefits. The representative confirmed this request in a February 2022 written statement. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Postek, 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.