Citation Nr: 22016359 Decision Date: 03/22/22 Archive Date: 03/22/22 DOCKET NO. 16-04 719 DATE: March 22, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In February 2022, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that a withdrawal of this appeal was requested. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant or his authorized representative have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran, the appellant in this matter, served on active duty from February 1968 to July 1968. He also had service in the Army Reserves. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from the January 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the hearing transcript is of record and has been reviewed. In June 2021, the Board remanded the claims for service connection for a traumatic brain injury (TBI), claimed as severe headaches; a bilateral hearing loss disability; and for an acquired psychiatric disability for further development. In December 2021, the claim for service connection for a TBI was granted and separately, service connection for tension headaches as secondary to a TBI was also granted. As the benefit sought by the Veteran was granted, the claims are no longer on appeal and the only claims that remain before the Board are the claims for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability and an acquired psychiatric disorder. Withdrawal of Appeal 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.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. Id. In Hembree v. Wilkie, the United States Court of Appeals for of Veterans Claims held that written withdrawals of an appeal are governed by the application regulations instead of DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011) (requiring a withdrawal to be explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences.) See 33 Vet. App. 1,7 (2020). The applicable regulation is 38 C.F.R. § 19.55, which requires that the withdrawal includes the name of the Veteran and the file number. Additionally, the Veteran or representative must specify that the appeal is withdrawn in its entirety or list the issue(s) withdrawn from the appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b)(1). Under 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(c), withdrawal of an appeal will be deemed a withdrawal of the Notice of Disagreement as to all issues to which the withdrawal applies. In the present case, the Veteran has withdrawn his appeal and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. On February 2, 2022, the Veteran submitted an Appeals Satisfaction Notice, which contained the language, "Based on the decision rendered, I am satisfied and wish to withdraw all remaining issues associated with this appeal." Under the paragraph which read, "Please only return this document if you no longer want to pursue the remaining items contained in your Statement of the Case (SOC)/Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC)," the Veteran printed and signed his name and VA claim number and dated the document. This withdrawal is effective upon receipt. Accordingly, the criteria for withdraw of this appeal have been met. Thus, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. The appeal is dismissed. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Moldawer, 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.