Citation Nr: 23026537 Decision Date: 05/10/23 Archive Date: 05/10/23 DOCKET NO. 16-19 832 DATE: May 10, 2023 ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed. Entitlement to total disability due to individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to January 23, 2021 is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT In April 2023, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran's representative that a withdrawal of the issues of entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD and to TDIU prior to January 23, 2021 is requested. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran of the issues of entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD and to TDIU prior to January 23, 2021 have been met. 38 U.S.C. §7105; 38 C.F.R. §19.55 (2022). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from March 2001 to December 2004. In June 2022, the Veteran testified under oath at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. An August 2022 Board decision dismissed the Veteran's appeals for entitlement to nonservice-connected pension, recognition of S. as the Veteran's dependent spouse for VA purposes, and recognition of E. and L. as the Veteran's dependent stepchildren for VA purposes. The Board also granted a rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for his PTSD and TDIU as of January 23, 2021. The Veteran appealed the August 2022 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The parties submitted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) in March 2023, asking that the August 2022 Board decision be vacated only as it pertained to the issues of entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD and to TDIU prior to January 23, 2021. In April 2023, the Court granted the JMPR and remanded the issues on appeal for readjudication in accordance with instructions set out in the JMPR. The Board notes that the Veteran's attorney submitted correspondence in April 2023 asking to be withdrawn as the Veteran's representative. However, good cause for withdrawing services as the Veteran's representative was not provided, and there is no indication that the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 20.6 regarding notice to the Veteran have been met. While the correspondence lists the Veteran as a "cc", the Board finds that this is not equivalent to providing the required signed certification that notice was provided to the Veteran in terms of ensuring that the Veteran was properly notified of the request to withdraw. Moreover, the Veteran has not submitted correspondence terminating the Veteran's attorney as his representative or an updated VA Form 21-22. Therefore, the Board denies the attorney's request to withdraw as the Veteran's representative at this time. The Board highlights for the Veteran's attorney that the complete requirements for a motion to withdraw services as the Veteran's representative are outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 20.6. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD 2. Entitlement to TDIU prior to January 23, 2021 An appeal may be withdrawn by an appellant or his or her authorized representative as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. The Veteran's representative submitted an April 2023 written statement stating that the Veteran was withdrawing his appeal of the issues pending before the Board, which include the issues of entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD and to TDIU prior to January 23, 2021. As the Veteran submitted a written statement indicating in clear language that he wished to withdraw his appeal, the Board finds that the withdrawal was explicit, unambiguous, and done with the full understanding of the consequences of such an action. See DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (2011). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the issues on appeal, and the appeal is dismissed. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Bock 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.