Citation Nr: 25005565 Decision Date: 04/24/25 Archive Date: 04/24/25 DOCKET NO. 14-14 663 DATE: April 24, 2025 ORDER 1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent prior to January 15, 2025, and in excess of 50 percent thereafter, for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) on an extraschedular basis is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On March 20, 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 a January 31, 2025 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 service connection for bilateral hearing loss were met on March 20, 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 were met on March 20, 2025. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty service from August 1965 to August 1967. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) via videoconference during a May 2017 Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) hearing. Most recently, the Board remanded this matter in July 2024 for the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). In a January 2025 rating decision, the Veteran was granted an increased disability rating of 50 percent for PTSD effective January 15, 2025. An SSOC was issued concurrently, which denied entitlement to TDIU and for an increased rating for PTSD in excess of 30 percent prior to January 15, 2025, and in excess of 50 percent thereafter. 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.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. Following development as directed in the July 2024 Board remand, an SSOC was issued on January 31, 2025, denying the within claims. Thereafter, on March 20, 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.