Citation Nr: 22014443 Decision Date: 03/12/22 Archive Date: 03/12/22 DOCKET NO. 18-20 315 DATE: March 12, 2022 ORDER As the appeal has been withdrawn by the Veteran, the issue of the propriety of the award of an apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In February 2022, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, VA received notification from the appellant that he sought to withdraw the issue on appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdraw of an appeal by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant is the Veteran who disputes the award of an apportionment to his estranged spouse, S.L. (initials used for privacy). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Propriety of the award of an apportionment 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.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. In the present case, the appellant has withdrawn this appeal. In April 2017, VA received a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with the March 2017decision, where the AOJ granted an apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits in the amount of $200.00 per month to S.L. beginning November 1, 2015. In March 2018, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) and the appellant filed a substantive appeal in response. See Form 9 (March 2018). The matter was certified for appellate consideration in June 2018. On February 1, 2022, VA received a written letter from the appellant that expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal. Within the letter, the appellant requested the letter be accepted as his written formal request to withdraw his appeal hearing scheduled February 2, 2022, and that he no longer wished to contest the prior ruling in the matter. The appellant signed and dated the statement. See Correspondence (February 2022). On February 2, 2022, a representative from VA's Hearing Management Branch contacted the Veteran by phone to ask if he was aware of the scheduled hearing and the appellant responded he did not want a hearing. See VA 27-0820 Report of General Information (February 2022). The February 2022 Report of General Information contained the name of the Veteran, the applicable VA file number, and a statement from the Veteran that he withdrew his request for a hearing. See also, DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, (2011) (holding that withdrawal of a claim for VA disability benefits is only effective where the withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant). Based on the foregoing, the Board finds the criteria to withdraw the appeal have been met. Though the first February 2022 written correspondence does not contain the Veteran's claims number, it does contain a statement that the Veteran desired to withdraw the appeal and the Veteran's name. The second February 2022 correspondence contains his applicable VA file number. When viewed collectively, the two communications clearly reflect the appellant's expressed intent to withdraw the appeal pending before VA. The withdrawal of the appeal is both explicit and unambiguous and was done with the full understanding of the consequences. Hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Pendleton, N. 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.