Citation Nr: 22034167 Decision Date: 06/10/22 Archive Date: 06/10/22 DOCKET NO. 16-48 628 DATE: June 10, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 a right eye disability is dismissed. Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 a left eye disability is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT On May 25, 2022, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) received notification from the Veteran, through his authorized representative, reflecting that a withdrawal of this appeal is requested. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran's 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 had a period of active duty service in the United States Marine Corps in November 1972. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision. In a June 2021 decision, the Board remanded the case to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development and adjudication. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. In August 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. A June 2020 letter subsequently informed the Veteran that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the August 2019 hearing was no longer employed by the Board. The letter also advised the Veteran of his right to request another optional Board hearing, and the Veteran's representative responded in July 2020 that the Veteran wanted another Board hearing. In March 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Transcripts from both proceedings are associated with the claims file. The record contains an April 2, 2021, Privacy Act submitted by the Veteran's representative for a copy of the March 2021 Board hearing transcript. The record shows that an April 2, 2021, letter addressed to the Veteran and copied to his representative stated that a copy of a January 2020 transcript was being sent rather than the March 2021 transcript that the representative requested. The representative also submitted an August 5, 2021, Privacy Act request for a copy of a July 2021 VA examination. The representative then submitted additional statements following up on this request in November 2021 and February 2022. However, the Board considers these requests duplicative, as the Veteran's representative already has access to the Veteran's entire electronic claims file, including the requested records, via the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). Therefore, the representative's request for access to the identified documents has already been fulfilled and no further action is required. 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. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Following the Board's June 2021 remand, the AOJ issued a November 2021 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) in connection with this appeal. The Veteran's representative later submitted a December 2021 statement in response to this SSOC in which the representative requested a virtual Board hearing for the Veteran's 38 U.S.C. § 1151 claims on appeal. In accordance with this request, a May 16, 2022, letter that was sent to the Veteran and copied to his representative notified him that he was scheduled for a virtual Board hearing on September 6, 2022. The Board notes that the Veteran's authorized representative is attorney Alexandra M. Jackson. On May 25, 2022, the Board received a statement on letterhead from this representative's law firm that included the signature of another individual listed on the letterhead, Victoria L. Bishop, who stated that she was signing the statement for Alexandra M. Jackson. In this statement, the Veteran's representative noted that she was submitting a formal request to cancel the hearing scheduled for September 6, 2022, as the Veteran had no benefits left to be received. Although the representative added that it would be greatly appreciated if her office could be contacted to confirm that the matter would be rescheduled, the Board finds that the inclusion of this statement was a clerical error as the initial statement clearly reflects that the representative was requesting to cancel rather reschedule the September 6, 2022, Board hearing. The Board consequently finds the December 2021 request for an additional Board hearing to be withdrawn. The Board also finds that the representative's statement that there were no benefits left for the Veteran to receive reflects that there is no remaining case or controversy as to the issues on appeal, and the Board therefore construes the statement as a withdrawal of the appeal in its entirety. In the present case, the Veteran, through his authorized representative, has withdrawn this appeal and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K.C. Spragins, 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.