Citation Nr: 18139628
Decision Date: 09/28/18	Archive Date: 09/28/18

DOCKET NO. 17-17 774
DATE:	September 28, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected lumbosacral strain is dismissed.
Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited and painful abduction prior to May 19, 2017 is dismissed. 
Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited and painful abduction from May 19, 2017, is dismissed.
Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited flexion is dismissed. 
Entitlement to service connection for a left calf condition is dismissed.
Entitlement to service connection for a left thigh muscle condition is dismissed. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In an August 2018 correspondence, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran expressed her desire to withdraw her appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected lumbosacral strain.
2. In an August 2018 correspondence, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran expressed her desire to withdraw her appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited and painful abduction prior to May 19, 2017.
3. In an August 2018 correspondence, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran expressed her desire to withdraw her appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited and painful abduction from May 19, 2017.
4. In an August 2018 correspondence, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran expressed her desire to withdraw her appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited flexion.
5. In an August 2018 correspondence, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran expressed her desire to withdraw her appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left calf condition.
6. In an August 2018 correspondence, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran expressed her desire to withdraw her appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left thigh muscle condition.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.  The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal as to the issue of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected lumbosacral strain have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2017).
2.  The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal as to the issue of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited and painful abduction prior to May 19, 2017, have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2017).

3.  The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal as to the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited and painful abduction from May 19, 2017, have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2017).
4.  The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal as to the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited flexion have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2017).
5.  The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left calf condition have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2017).
6.  The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left thigh muscle condition have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105 (b)(2) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Veteran served on active duty from June 1980 to October 1980.
The Board notes that although the Veteran previously requested a videoconference Board hearing, based on her withdrawal of her pending appeals, the Board finds that the request for a videoconference Board hearing has been withdrawn. 
Withdrawal
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. § 20.204.  Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his authorized representative.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (c) (2017); see also DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011).   Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, appeal withdrawals must be in writing and meet certain requirements set forth by regulation.  They must include the name of the appellant, the applicable file number, and a statement that the appeal is being withdrawn.   38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (b) (1) (2017).
In an August 2018 correspondence, the Veteran, through her representative, withdrew her appeal for the claims pending before the Board.  This includes the Veteran’s claims for entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected lumbosacral, entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited and painful abduction prior to May 19, 2017, entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited and painful abduction from May 19, 2017, entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left hip trochanteric bursitis with limited flexion, entitlement to service connection for a left calf condition, and entitlement to service connection for a left thigh muscle condition.
The withdrawal was effective immediately upon receipt by VA.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (b)(3) (2017).  Given the above circumstances, the Board finds that the Veteran’s withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action.  See DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011).  Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran has withdrawn his appeal and there remains no allegation of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration.



(continued on the next page)


Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and the claim is dismissed.
 
YVETTE R. WHITE
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	D. Abdelbary, Associate Counsel 

For A Complete Guide To VA Disability Claims and to find out more about your potential VA disability case and how to obtain favorable VA Rating Decision! Visit: VA-Claims.org

For More Information on Veterans Disability Compensation Benefits! Visit: DisableVeteran.org ~ A Non-Profit Non Governmental Agency


Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.