Citation Nr: 25004909 Decision Date: 04/10/25 Archive Date: 04/10/25 DOCKET NO. 14-43 193 DATE: April 10, 2025 ORDER 1. Entitlement to an initial increased disability rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in excess of 30 percent prior to June 28, 2011, and in excess of 50 percent thereafter is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due solely to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on an extraschedular basis is dismissed. 3. Entitlement to a TDIU rating due to all service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On March 28, 2025, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran submitted VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review, following notification on January 29, 2025 of a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), which denied entitlement to an increased disability rating for PTSD, and TDIU. 2. The submission of VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review withdraws a legacy appeal in favor of adjudication under the framework of the Appeals Modernization Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the legacy appeal of the issue of entitlement to an increased disability rating for PTSD were met on March 28, 2025. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the legacy appeal of the issue of entitlement to TDIU on an extraschedular basis based solely on the Veteran's PTSD were met on March 28, 2025. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the legacy appeal of the issue of entitlement to TDIU rating based on all service-connected disabilities were met on March 28, 2025. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from November 1965 to November 1967. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a January 2019 videoconference hearing. In a March 2022 decision, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to an initial increased disability rating for PTSD from June 28, 2011, and his claim of entitlement to a TDIU rating based on all service-connected disabilities, and remanded the issue of entitlement to TDIU based solely on PTSD for referral to the Director of Compensation Service (Director). After an administrative review by the Director determined that an extraschedular TDIU rating was not warranted, the Board denied the Veteran's claim for a TDIU rating due solely to service-connected PTSD in a November 2022 decision. The Veteran appealed both the March 2022 and November 2022 Board decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In November 2022, the Veteran and the Secretary of VA (parties) entered a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (November 2022 Joint Motion), vacating and remanding the March 2022 Board decision as it related to the Veteran's claims for an increased rating for PTSD and TDIU due to all service-connected disabilities for the failure to address an argument raised by the Veteran relating to the period on appeal. The Court granted the November 2022 Joint Motion the following week. Following the July 2024 Joint Motion, the Veteran submitted a private vocational assessment in October 2024 in which the Veteran contended that his PTSD symptoms had worsened. The vocational assessment addressed the Veteran's occupational functioning back to 2009. The Veteran's representative requested that the Veteran's claims be remanded in order to obtain an updated VA examination and updated treatment records. Additionally, the representative stated that the Veteran does not waive initial consideration of this newly submitted evidence by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). In December 2024, the Board remanded the Veteran's claims in order to obtain updated treatment records, schedule an updated VA psychological examination, and issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). Following the directed development, an SSOC was issued in January 2025, which continued to deny the Veteran's claims. There has been substantial compliance with the December 2024 remand directives and the matter is again before the Board. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In response to the January 2025 SSOC, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review, opting out of the legacy appeals system, and into the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) in March 2025. 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. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the AMA. This law creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. An SSOC was issued to the Veteran on January 29, 2025, denying the within claims. Thereafter, on March 28, 2025, the Veteran opted into the AMA system by filing a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review from the January 2025 SSOC, specifically acknowledging that he was withdrawing the eligible appeal issues from the legacy appeals system. The Board is honoring the Veteran's choice to participate in AMA, as he elected the modernized review system by submitting VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review in March 2025, opting-in from the January 2025 SSOC. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400(c)(2), 19.2(d). When pending appeals are withdrawn, there is no longer an allegation of error of fact or law for appellate consideration. In such circumstances, dismissal of the appeal is appropriate. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction under the legacy system of appeals to review the claims of entitlement to TDIU and an increased disability rating for PTSD, and the claims are dismissed. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Wonderling, Gabriel N. 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.