Citation Nr: 22035546 Decision Date: 06/17/22 Archive Date: 06/17/22 DOCKET NO. 13-04 724 DATE: June 17, 2022 ORDER The appeal is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT On April 13, 2022, VA received written notification from the Veteran requesting that all issues remaining on appeal be withdrawn. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION This appeal arises from an August 2018 rating decision in which the Regional Office (RO) granted service connection for major depressive disorder with panic disorder and awarded an initial 50 percent rating, effective September 28, 2017. The Veteran disagreed with the initial rating and effective assigned to his service-connected major depressive and panic disorder disability and, in his September 2018 notice of disagreement, raised the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) In April 2020, the Veteran perfected an appeal that included the issues of entitlement to an earlier effective date and increased rating for major depressive disorder with panic disorder, entitlement to a TDIU, as well as entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected pseudofolliculitis barbae and the propriety of the reduction of a 60 percent rating for service-connected pseudofolliculitis barbae. Those issues were certified to the Board in May 2020. In June 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge via video conference. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. In February 2022, the Board restored the 60 percent rating for service-connected pseudofolliculitis barbae but denied the claims of entitlement to a rating in excess of 60 percent for pseudofolliculitis barbae and entitlement to an earlier effective date for major depressive disorder with panic disorder. The Board remanded the remaining claims on appeal for additional evidentiary development. All requested development has been conducted and the claims have been returned to the Board. 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected major depressive disorder with panic disorder, to include an initial rating in excess of 50 percent prior to March 23, 2022 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities The requirements for making a written withdraw of an appeal are set out in 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. By regulation, a veteran's "appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal." 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(a). To be effective, the "withdrawal[] must be in writing [and] must include the name of the veteran, the name of the claimant or appellant if other than the veteran (e.g., a veteran's survivor, a guardian, or a fiduciary appointed to receive VA benefits on an individual's behalf)." Id. (b)(1). The withdrawal must also include "the applicable Department of Veterans Affairs file number, and a statement that the appeal is withdrawn." Id. "If the appeal involves multiple issues, the withdrawal must specify that the appeal is withdrawn in its entirety, or list the issue(s) withdrawn from the appeal." Id. When deciding whether the withdrawal is valid, the Board should ordinarily confine itself to examining the written submission to determine whether it complies with the requirements laid out in the regulation. Hembree v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 1, 6 (2020). If the withdrawal includes the name of the veteran, the file number, and unambiguously identifies the claims to be withdrawn, then the written withdrawal will be considered valid, and the Board need not look to other evidence to find it so. Id. As noted, in February 2022, the Board remanded the claims of entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected major depressive disorder with panic disorder and entitlement to a TDIU. In March 2022, while the appeal was in remand status, the RO prepared a rating decision in which it (in pertinent part) increased the disability rating assigned for service-connected major depressive disorder with panic disorder to 100 percent, effective March 23, 2022. In March 2022, the RO also prepared a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in which it continued to deny entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran was provided notice of the RO's determinations on April 1, 2022. The Veteran subsequently submitted an "Appeals Satisfaction Notice" which acknowledged receipt of the recent correspondence regarding the decision to grant one or more of the issues on appeal and stated that he was "satisfied and wish[ed] to withdraw all remaining issues associated this appeal." The Veteran signed and dated the notice and included his social security number. He also included a hand-written statement which indicated that he no longer wanted to pursue the TDIU issue contained on the previous SSOC. See Appeals Satisfaction Notice received on April 13, 2022. The Board finds the Veteran's written withdrawal received on April 13, 2022 was valid and unambiguous as to the issues that he wished to withdraw, as it identified "all remaining issues associated with this appeal." Parenthetically, the Board notes that following receipt of the April 2002 written withdrawal, the Board sent the Veteran a letter in May 2020 that informed him that there were two issues on appeal, e.g., entitlement to an increased rating for a psychiatric disability and entitlement to a TDIU, and requested that he clarify which issues, if any, were being withdrawn. The May 2020 letter informed the Veteran that the withdrawal must be in writing and signed and also stated that, if the Board did not hear from him in 30 days, the Board would review all issues on appeal. In June 2020, the Veteran called the RO and stated that, in response to the May 2020 letter, he wished to withdraw the appeal for TDIU and the increased rating claim for a psychiatric disability. While the Veteran's June 2020 statement was received by phone and, thus, is not a valid withdrawal as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 19.55, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran's verbal statement serves to confirm him intent to withdraw all of the issues remaining on appeal, as reflected in his April 2022 written correspondence. Indeed, because the April 2022 written withdrawal was valid and is effective when received, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55(b)(3). M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Turnipseed, 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.