Citation Nr: 22017507 Decision Date: 03/25/22 Archive Date: 03/25/22 DOCKET NO. 20-30 478 DATE: March 25, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to increases in the staged ratings assigned for diabetes mellitus (currently rated 10 percent disabling prior to January 14, 2016, and 20 percent thereafter) is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. FINDING OF FACT During his November 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran explicitly and unambiguously withdrew his appeal of entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD with full understanding of the consequences of such action. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 7, 1964, to July 2, 1966, and from July 18, 1966, to September 10, 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from August 2015 and December 2016 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the August 2015 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for diabetes mellitus and right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, each individually rated 10 percent disabling and effective November 24, 2014. In correspondence received on January 14, 2016, the Veteran requested an increased rating for his diabetes, but did not in any way indicate his disagreement with the August 2015 rating decision. A July 2016 rating decision increased the rating for diabetes mellitus to 20 percent effective January 14, 2016. Veterans generally have one year from the mailing date of the notice of a rating decision to file a notice of disagreement with that decision. New and material evidence received prior to the expiration of this period, however, will be considered to have been filed in connection with a claim that was pending at the beginning of the appeal period. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). When new evidence is submitted within the one-year period of appeal following the issuance of a rating decision, the claim remains pending until VA provides a determination that directly responds to that new submission under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). See Beraud v. McDonald, 766 F.3d 1402, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, new and material evidence was received within one year of the August 2015 rating decision, including an April 2016 VA diabetes mellitus examination. Additionally, the Veteran also filed a notice of disagreement in August 2016, also within one year of the August 2015 rating decision. Accordingly, the Board finds that there is no question that it has jurisdiction over the issues addressed in the August 2015 rating decision. In November 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of that hearing is of record. In a November 2021 rating decision, the AOJ granted entitlement to TDIU with an effective date of November 24, 2016. This is considered a full grant of the benefit sought as TDIU was granted for the entire period on appeal; accordingly, this issue is no longer on appeal. See generally Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 356 (2018). Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD is dismissed. During his November 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran explicitly and unambiguously withdrew his appeal of a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD with full understanding of the consequences of such action. The Board finds that there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with respect to this issue. Accordingly, as the Board has no further jurisdiction to review an appeal on this matter, it is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to increases in the staged ratings assigned for diabetes mellitus (currently rated 10 percent disabling prior to January 14, 2016, and 20 percent thereafter) is remanded. The medical evidence associated with the record appears to be incomplete. In a March 2016 VA Form 21-4142, Authorization to Disclose Information to the VA, the Veteran identified private treatment records from Methodist Minor Medical Center. Unfortunately, there is no indication that an attempt has been made to obtain such records. As private treatment records are likely to contain pertinent information related to the Veteran's claim (including whether he has ever taken oral hypoglycemic agents), they should be obtained. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. 3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Service connection for right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy was granted in an August 2015 rating decision. The Veteran appealed these ratings in an August 2016 notice of disagreement. A statement of the case (SOC) has not yet been issued. Thus, remand is necessary. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain, if possible, records of relevant private evaluations and treatment the Veteran has received, to include records from Methodist Minor Medical Center. The Veteran must assist in the matter by identifying his private healthcare providers and by submitting releases for VA to obtain any private records identified. 2. Send the Veteran and his representative an SOC that addresses entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent each for right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. If the Veteran perfects an appeal by submitting a timely VA Form 9, the issues should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration as appropriate. 3. If upon completion of the above action the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for diabetes mellitus remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Matta, 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.