Citation Nr: 23049331
Decision Date: 09/07/23	Archive Date: 09/07/23

DOCKET NO. 12-20 097
DATE: September 7, 2023

ORDER

The appeal for the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is dismissed.

The appeal for the issue of entitlement to service connection for headaches (also claimed as residuals of a head injury), to include as secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

In August 2023, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) received notification from the Veteran that she wanted to withdraw the appeal.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1980 to September 1983.  She also served in the Arizona Army National Guard and the California Army National Guard, including a period with the Active Guard Reserve and periods of active duty for special work (ADSW).  The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) determined that the relevant periods of ADSW from April 1990 to August 1994 and from July 1995 to May 1996 are active duty. See September 2016 Board remand; October 2016 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) memorandum.  The AOJ also granted service connection for PTSD based on a period of active duty for training from February 1987 to May 1987, and as such, it constitutes a period of active service for VA compensation purposes.  See 38 U.S.C. § 101(21)-(24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6.

This case comes before the Board on appeal from a December 2010 rating decision issued by VA. 

A hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2014.  A transcript of the hearing is of record.  

The Board decided other issues on appeal and/or remanded issues for further development in December 2014, September 2016, February 2019, and January 2023.  While the case was most recently in remand status, the AOJ granted service connection for hair loss in a July 2023 rating decision.  The Veteran has not expressed disagreement with any aspect of that determination.  See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  The earlier procedural history of the case is outlined in the 2019 and 2023 Board decisions.  The case has since returned to the Board for appellate review.

Law and Analysis

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.  Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55.

In an August 2023 written statement, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that she wanted to withdraw the appeal.  Given that there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration, the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

J.W. ZISSIMOS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Postek, 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.