190702-23196

• Court: Board of Veterans' Appeals
• Decided: April 30, 2021
• Docket: 190702-23196
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Citation Nr: AXXXXXXXX Decision Date: 04/30/21 Archive Date: 04/30/21

DOCKET NO. 190702-23196 DATE: April 30, 2021

ORDER

The issue of the propriety of the proposed reduction of bilateral plantar fasciitis from 30 percent to 0 percent is dismissed.

Service connection for bilateral pes planus is dismissed.

Whether the discontinuance of special monthly compensation (SMC) effective September 1, 2018, was proper, is dismissed.

Service connection for prostatitis is dismissed.

Entitlement to a compensable rating for hemorrhoids is dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

Prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received written correspondence from the Veteran requesting to withdraw his entire appeal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to the issue of the propriety of proposed reduction of bilateral plantar fasciitis from 30 percent to 0 percent have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to the issue of service connection for bilateral pes planus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

3. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to the issue of whether the discontinued SMC effective September 1, 2018, was proper, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

4. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to the issue of service connection for prostatitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

5. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to the issue of entitlement to a compensable rating for hemorrhoids have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Coast Guard from July 1993 to August 1997 and in the U.S. Air Force from August 1998 to August 2018. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a May 2019 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

The Veteran timely appealed the decision via a VA Form 10182 and requested a hearing.

The Board may dismiss any appeal that 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.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 or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

The Board emphasizes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims has held that DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (2011) does not apply to written withdrawals of an appeal. Instead, the regulation controls when the veteran or his or her representative submits a written withdrawal of an appeal. Hembree v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 1, 7 (2020).

In January 2021 written correspondence, the Veteran explained that he wanted to “revoke and cancel my entire appeal and request for a hearing and for an appeal.” The Veteran’s written correspondence included his name, the last four digits of his file number to adequately identify his case, and he requested that his entire appeal be canceled, thereby meeting the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 for withdrawal.

Because an effective withdrawal is of record, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this appeal because there are no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

WILLIAM H. DONNELLY

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. Seay, 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.