Citation Nr: 22017975 Decision Date: 03/27/22 Archive Date: 03/27/22 DOCKET NO. 20-12 624 DATE: March 27, 2022 ORDER The appeal as to the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In a February 2022 written submission, received prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal of the matter, the Veteran (through his representative at the time) indicated that he wished to withdraw the sole issue on appeal, which is entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD; there is no question of fact or law in this matter remaining for the Board to consider. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal are met as to the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1967 to May 1970. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2018 rating decision by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), which continued a 70 percent rating for the Veteran's PTSD. Thereafter, a September 2019 rating decision by the AOJ again continued the 70 percent rating for his PTSD. In November 2019, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) on a VA Form 21-0958 (Notice of Disagreement) to the December 2018 rating decision with regard to the rating assigned for his PTSD. Because the November 2019 NOD was timely with regard to appealing the December 2018 rating decision, and the appeal of this issue was thereafter perfected by a March 2020 VA Form 9 (Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals) following the issuance of a January 2020 statement of the case (SOC), the Board finds that the appeal has been properly docketed in the legacy appeals system. On the Veteran's March 2020 VA Form 9, he requested a hearing before the Board, and such a hearing was scheduled for March 2022. However, in a February 2022 written submission, he (through his representative at the time) withdrew his request for a Board hearing in conjunction with his request for withdrawal of the appeal. Also in this February 2022 submission, the Veteran's former representative, a private attorney, filed a motion to withdraw representation and provided good cause therein, and also included a signed statement certifying that a copy of the motion was sent to the Veteran, setting forth the address to which the copy was mailed. Accordingly, this motion to withdraw representation is granted. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.6(a). As the record does not contain any current executed form (either a VA Form 21-22 or a VA Form 21-22a) appointing a valid representative in this case, the Board proceeds with the understanding that the Veteran is appearing pro se. 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 Veteran or by his authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. In a February 2022 written submission, received prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal of the matter, the Veteran (through his representative at the time) indicated that he wished to withdraw the sole issue on appeal, which is entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD. [While the issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU rating) was raised in the context of this PTSD increased rating claim which was filed on October 17, 2018 (per Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009)), the AOJ has since granted a TDIU rating effective October 17, 2018 (i.e., for the entire period of claim). Because this award represented a total grant of the TDIU rating sought on appeal, the issue of a TDIU rating is not before the Board.] As the Veteran has knowingly and voluntarily withdrawn the appeal of this issue (i.e., entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD) in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 19.55, there remains no allegation of error of fact or law for the Board to address. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of this issue, and the appeal in this matter must be dismissed. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. B. Yantz, 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.