Acree v. O’Rourke — Oral withdrawal of a VA appeal is effective only if explicit, unambiguous, and made with full understanding of the consequences

Lawrence Acree appealed after the Board dismissed seven of his claims based on his hearing-room statement that he was withdrawing them. The Board relied on 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 and the Veterans Court affirmed, reasoning that the transcript showed the withdrawal was explicit and unambiguous. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that a verbal withdrawal at a Board hearing is effective only when it is explicit, unambiguous, and made with full understanding of the consequences, adopting the DeLisio standard for oral withdrawals at hearings. The court concluded that the Veterans Court erred by failing to require the Board to address the veteran’s understanding of the consequences of withdrawal. Because the record contained no finding on that issue, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for further development.

A veteran’s oral withdrawal of an appeal at a Board hearing is effective only if the withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and made with full understanding of its consequences.

A hearing transcript alone is not enough if it does not show informed intent to withdraw. The Board must ensure the veteran actually understands that the claim is being abandoned and what that means for future adjudication.

This decision strengthens procedural protection around appeal withdrawals and prevents inadvertent forfeiture of claims. It is especially useful where a veteran has mental health impairment, limited representation, or a confusing hearing record.

Treating a brief hearing exchange as a valid withdrawal without addressing whether the veteran understood the consequences.

At a Board hearing, a veteran says he wants to drop several issues after the judge lists them. The transcript is clear that he said ‘yes,’ but nothing shows he understood the legal effect. Under Acree, the Board should not dismiss those issues without confirming informed withdrawal.

Use this case to challenge Board dismissals based on oral withdrawal language that is ambiguous or incomplete. It is particularly helpful when the record lacks an explanation of consequences or when the veteran’s capacity is in question.

DeLisio v. Shinseki, Warren v. McDonald, Isenbart v. Brown, Hensley v. West, Comer v. Peake, Barrett v. Nicholson