Citation Nr: 22016348
Decision Date: 03/22/22	Archive Date: 03/22/22

DOCKET NO. 17-34 672
DATE: March 22, 2022

ORDER

The appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left foot calcaneal spurs is dismissed.  

The appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right foot calcaneal spurs is dismissed.

The appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right foot paresthesia is dismissed.

The appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left foot paresthesia is dismissed.

The appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to a compensable rating for a right knee disability is dismissed.

The appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed.

The appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

In July 2019, prior to the promulgation of a decision on the appeal, the Veteran's then-authorized representative notified the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that the Veteran wished to withdraw his appeal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for dismissal of the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left foot calcaneal spurs have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

2. The criteria for dismissal of the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right foot calcaneal spurs have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

3. The criteria for dismissal of the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right foot paresthesia have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

4. The criteria for dismissal of the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left foot paresthesia have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

5. The criteria for dismissal of the issue of entitlement to a compensable rating for a right knee disability have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

6. The criteria for dismissal of the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

7. The criteria for dismissal of the issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from July 2001 to September 2009.  This matter comes before the Board on appeal of June 2013 and July 2013 decisions issued by an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

The Board notes that the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing in his June 2017 VA Form 9, but reported that he wanted to withdraw his appeal when he was contacted about his scheduled Board hearing.  See November 2021 Report of General Information.  Therefore, the request for a hearing before the Board is withdrawn.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). 

Moreover, the Veteran's representative filed a motion to withdraw his representation in a July 2019 statement, explaining he had good cause to withdraw because the Veteran decided to cease all pending claims before VA.  The signed July 2019 statement from the Veteran's representative was sufficient to withdraw the appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (an appeal may be withdrawn by the Veteran or his authorized representative at any time before the Board promulgates a decision).  Additionally, the Board finds good cause to grant the motion to withdraw representation as the appeal was withdrawn effective from the date of VA's receipt of the correspondence.  Id., 38 C.F.R. § 20.6.

(Continued on the next page)

 

As no specific determination with which the claimant disagrees remains for appellate consideration, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal.  The appeal is dismissed.  38 U.S.C. § 7105(d).

 

 

DONNIE R. HACHEY

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Odya-Weis

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.