Citation Nr: 22017298 Decision Date: 03/24/22 Archive Date: 03/24/22 DOCKET NO. 17-40 791 DATE: March 24, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, to include cataracts has been withdrawn, and the appeal is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for a breathing condition has been withdrawn, and the appeal is dismissed. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia has been withdrawn, and the appeal is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At his November 2021 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran expressed his desire that his appeal of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, to include cataracts, be withdrawn. 2. At his November 2021 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran expressed his desire that his appeal of entitlement to service connection for a breathing condition be withdrawn 3. At his November 2021 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran expressed his desire that his appeal to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia be withdrawn. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, to include cataracts by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for a breathing condition by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the request to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia by the Veteran 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 in the United States Army from November 1958 to February 1962. This case comes on appeal of an April 2016 rating decision. The Veteran testified before the Board at a November 2021 virtual hearing, and a transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. Withdrawn Appeals 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, to include cataracts 2. Entitlement to service connection for a breathing condition 3. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia 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 the present case, at his November 2021 hearing, the Veteran requested to withdraw the issues of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, entitlement to service connection for a breathing condition, and the request to reopen the previously-denied claim of entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia. The Veterans Law Judge assigned to the hearing informed the Veteran of the consequences of the withdrawal, and the Veteran expressed his understanding. Therefore, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration on these issues. Accordingly, those appeals are dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran underwent VA hearing loss and tinnitus examinations in March and July 2016. In each of those examinations the Veteran denied the current presence of tinnitus. However, in his November 2021 hearing, the Veteran reported that he had experienced a ringing and buzzing in his ears since service. Notably, the Veteran explained that he had simply gotten used to the noise, thus raising the possibility that he did not understand the questions at his examination. Moreover, the Veteran is in receipt of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, related to in-service noise exposure. Thus, there remain open medical questions as to whether the Veteran's current complaints of tinnitus were caused by an in-service noise injury, are secondary to service-connected hearing loss, or had an in-service onset. Given this updated information regarding a current diagnosis, a new medical opinion is necessary to address the etiology of the disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a medical opinion from an appropriate examiner addressing the Veteran's tinnitus, as documented in his November 2021 Board hearing. The examiner should review the claims file, to include a copy of this Remand, and the opinion should include discussion of the Veteran's documented history and assertions. If the examiner determines that physical examination or live interview with the Veteran is necessary to provide an opinion, such should be arranged. The examiner should then render an opinion, as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., there is approximately a 50 percent or greater probability) that the disability had onset in, or is otherwise related to service. In doing so, the examiner should address the Veteran's November 2021 Board testimony in which he described tinnitus as an ongoing noise since service that he had gotten used to. The examiner should also note that VA has previously recognized that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is causally related to in-service noise exposure. The examiner should also render an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the disability was caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The examiner should set forth all findings, along with complete rationale for the conclusions reached, in a printed report. Complete rationale should include an explanation of the evidence used in support of the conclusion, as well as an explanation as to why such evidence supports the conclusion. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Giaquinto, 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.