The appeal for entitlement to an effective date prior to October 31, 2019, for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed.

Citation Nr: A26069910 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 220413-235416 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER The appeal for entitlement to an effective date prior to October 31, 2019, for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is dismissed. The appeal for entitlement to an initial increased evaluation for PTSD in excess of 30 percent prior to July 15, 2021, is dismissed. The appeal for entitlement to an initial increased evaluation for PTSD in excess of 50 percent from July 15, 2021, is dismissed. The appeal for entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service connection for degenerative disc disease other than intervertebral disc syndrome and spinal stenosis is dismissed. The appeal for entitlement to service connection for bulging disc in neck is dismissed. The appeal for entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability is dismissed. The appeal for entitlement to an effective date prior to March 1, 2021, for service connection for tinnitus is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT On September 30, 2025, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran's representative that the Veteran wished to withdraw the pending appeal. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to an effective date prior to October 31, 2019, for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been met. 38?U.S.C. §?7105; 38?C.F.R. §?20.205. 2. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to an initial increased evaluation for PTSD in excess of 30 percent prior to July 15, 2021, have been met. 38?U.S.C. §?7105; 38?C.F.R. §?20.205. 3. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to an initial increased evaluation for PTSD in excess of 50 percent from July 15, 2021, have been met. 38?U.S.C. §?7105; 38?C.F.R. §?20.205. 4. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service connection for degenerative disc disease other than intervertebral disc syndrome and spinal stenosis, have been met. 38?U.S.C. §?7105; 38?C.F.R. §?20.205. 5. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for bulging disc in neck have been met. 38?U.S.C. §?7105; 38?C.F.R. §?20.205. 6. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability have been met. 38?U.S.C. §?7105; 38?C.F.R. §?20.205. 7. The criteria for dismissal of an effective date prior to March 1, 2021, for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38?U.S.C. §?7105; 38?C.F.R. §?20.205. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 2003 to August 2003 with additional time in the Reserve that included inactive duty for training from May 2002 to December 2002. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from April 2021 (tinnitus), May 2021 (neck/hip), and October 2021 (PTSD/ degenerative disc disease) rating decisions issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Relevant here, in a November 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ, the Veteran sought entitlement to service connection for low back pain, hip pain, bulging discs in neck, and military sexual trauma. In a March 2021 VA Form 21-526EZ, the Veteran filed for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The RO denied entitlement to service connection for a neck disability, left hip disability, back disability, and PTSD in a March 2020 rating decision. The RO granted entitlement to service connection for tinnitus in the April 2021 rating decision on appeal and awarded a 10 percent evaluation effective March 1, 2021. In March 2021, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of the March 2020 decision. In May 2021, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior March 2020 decision and denied entitlement to service connection for a neck disability and a left hip disability. With respect to the Veteran's claims for entitlement to service connection for low back pain and PTSD, although the Veteran initially requested Higher-Level Review when submitting the March 2021 VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review, the Higher-Level Reviewer determined that there had been a duty to assist error and transferred the claims to the Supplemental Claim decision review option for additional development. In the October 2021 Supplemental Claim rating decision on appeal, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for PTSD and awarded a 30 percent evaluation from October 31, 2019, and a 50 percent evaluation from July 15, 2021. The RO granted entitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease other than intervertebral disc syndrome and spinal stenosis and awarded a noncompensable evaluation effective October 31, 2019. In the April 13, 2022, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. The Board notes that the Veteran's representative identified an "October 41, 2019" rating decision as the decision on appeal with respect to the Veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 50 percent for service-connected PTSD. The Board notes no such rating decision exists in the Veteran's claims file, and it appears that the listed decision date is a typographical error. Thus, the Board has liberally construed the 10182 as appealing the October 14, 2021, rating decision. As an initial matter, the Board notes that an Appointment of Individual as Claimant's Representative (VA Form 21-22a), appointing Raymond Raulerson, was received in March 2021. In April 2022, the Board issued a docketing letter notifying the Veteran that her VA Form 10182 had been received and that her appeal had been placed on the docket. The letter stated that the Veteran had 90 days from the date the Board received her Board Appeal request to change representation. In February 2024, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-22a appointing Al Giordano as her representative. VA mailed notice to the Veteran and Mr. Raulerson that his appointment was revoked. See Attorney Revocation Letter (receipt date December 24, 2024). A Board hearing was scheduled for October 6, 2025, and notice was mailed to the Veteran and Mr. Giordano. See BVA Hearing Scheduled Letter (receipt date July 9, 2025). The Board notes that in September 2025, the Veteran's representative, Mr. Giordano, submitted correspondence in an attempt to withdraw as the Veteran's representative three years after the appeal had been filed. The Board finds that this September 2025 correspondence does not constitute a valid withdrawal of representation per 38 C.F.R. § 20.6 because it does not include a statement of good cause for withdrawal. For this reason, the Board continues to recognize Mr. Giordano as the Veteran's representative for purposes of this appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(b)(1). 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 Veteran, or by her representative.?Id.?If a written withdrawal includes the name of the appellant and the file number and unambiguously?identifies?the claims to be withdrawn, then the withdrawal will be considered valid.?Hembree v. Wilkie, 33?Vet. App.?1, 7 (2020) (written withdrawals need only?comply with?38?C.F.R. §?20.204(b), renumbered as 38?C.F.R. §?19.55(b)).? On September 30, 2025, the Veteran's representative submitted correspondence and requested the Veteran's hearing be cancelled and the pending appeal be withdrawn. See Third Party Correspondence (receipt date September 30, 2025). The Veteran's representative included the Veteran's name and file number and requested the appeal be closed. The Veteran's representative stated, "[t]he Veteran no longer wishes to pursue this claim before the Board." The Board notes the Veteran has no other appeal streams pending before the Board. Accordingly, the Board finds the regulatory criteria have been met. In light of?the foregoing, there?remain?no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration, and the appeal must be dismissed. Rebecca N. Poulson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Houman, Kelsey J. 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.