Citation Nr: 22014580 Decision Date: 03/14/22 Archive Date: 03/14/22 DOCKET NO. 17-45 263 DATE: March 14, 2022 ORDER The appeal to establish entitlement to service connection for a skin condition is dismissed since withdrawn. The appeal to establish entitlement to service connection for headaches also is dismissed since also withdrawn. FINDING OF FACT On a November 2021 VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), so received prior to the promulgation of a decision in this appeal, the Veteran withdrew his claims for service connection for a skin condition and headaches. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria are met for withdrawal of the appeal of these claims. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from October 1977 to February 1978 and on active duty (AD) from April 1978 to November 1979. In December 2019, the Board remanded these claims of entitlement to service connection for a skin condition and headaches, also claims for an acquired psychiatric disorder including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and for a sleep disorder including insomnia, back to the local Regional Office (RO), so back to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), for further development and consideration that included obtaining any outstanding VA and private treatment records relevant to these claims and then having the Veteran undergo VA compensation examinations for medical nexus opinions that were needed to assist in deciding these claims. To this end, the Veteran underwent the requested examinations in January 2020, and the reports provided the needed information, so the additional development directed to occur on remand since has been accomplished. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Indeed, in an August 2020 rating decision since issued, on remand, a Decision Review Officer (DRO) at the RO granted the claim for service connection for PTSD (also claimed as sleep problems) and assigned an initial 70 percent rating for it retroactively effective from July 2, 2014. As that was a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal, that claim is no longer before the Board unless in response the Veteran separately appeals the rating and/or effective date assigned for this now service-connected disability. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (indicating he must separately appeal these "downstream" issues). Regarding the remaining claims for service connection for a skin condition and headaches, the Board may dismiss any appeal that 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 by the appellant or authorized representative. Id. A written withdrawal must be in writing and include (1) the name of the Veteran or the name of the claimant or appellant if other than the Veteran, (2) the applicable VA file number, and (3) a statement that the appeal is withdrawn. If the appeal involves multiple issues, the withdrawal must specify that the appeal is withdrawn in its entirety or list the issues withdrawn from the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b)(1). On a November 2021 VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran indicated that he was satisfied with his current disability benefits. He more recently reiterated his withdrawal of this appeal during a February 2022 telephone conversation. See VA Form 27-0820, Report of General Information. His request to withdraw his appeal of these remaining claims is "explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action." DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (2011); see also Acree v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Since the Veteran has withdrawn his appeal of these claims, there remain no allegations of error of fact or law for appellate consideration concerning them. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of these claims, and it is summarily dismissed. KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mukherjee, Cameron B. 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.