Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01562/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01562-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felicia N. Jones
Appellant
Denis McDonough
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

FELICIA N. JONES,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2024-1562

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 22-6407, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________

Decided: December 5, 2024

______________________

FELICIA N. JONES, Houston, TX, pro se. 

 LAUREL DON HAVENS, III, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also 

represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.,

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________

Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2024
2 JONES v. MCDONOUGH

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Felicia N. Jones appeals a decision of the Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), affirming 

the Board of Veterans Appeals’ (Board) decision finding 

that Ms. Jones is not a veteran and therefore not entitled 

to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. For the 

following reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

In 2011, Ms. Jones requested military service records 

from the Army Human Resources Command Contact 

Center (AHRCCC). S. Appx. 19.1 The AHRCCC did not 

provide Ms. Jones any records because the social security 

number Ms. Jones provided belonged to a deceased person. 

Id. 

In 2013, Ms. Jones submitted an application to the 

Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) 

requesting correction of her middle name and her social 

security number. S. Appx. 17. Ms. Jones provided two 

supporting documents belonging to a “Felicia Nichole 

Jones,” listing the same social security number the 

AHRCCC found belonged to a deceased person. S. Appx. 

20–23. The ABCMR returned her application because (1) 

Ms. Jones did not provide copies of documents showing the 

incorrect middle name, and (2) there was a discrepancy 

with the social security number provided. S. Appx. 16. 

In 2015, Ms. Jones filed a claim for disability 

compensation with the VA indicating she served in the U.S. 

Army Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC). 

S. Appx. 14. Ms. Jones alleged she had served under the 

1 “S. Appx.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix 

filed with the Informal Response Brief. 

Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 12/05/2024
JONES v. MCDONOUGH 3

name Felicia N. Henderson. S. Appx. 1. The VA requested 

Ms. Jones’ service records, but the National Personnel 

Records Center did not have any records for Felicia N. 

Henderson. S. Appx. 1. The VA denied Ms. Jones’ claim for 

compensation because “participation in JROTC is not 

considered active duty and, therefore, does not give you the 

legally required Veteran status for eligibility for VA 

benefits.” S. Appx. 14. Ms. Jones filed a notice of 

disagreement with the VA’s decision. 

In 2017, the VA conducted another search for Ms. Jones’

military records, but none were located. S. Appx. 2. The 

VA asked Ms. Jones to provide any copies of records she had 

in her possession. Ms. Jones provided a copy of DD Form 

214, which listed “Henderson, Felicia Necole,” had 0 years, 

0 months, and 0 days of service, and was awarded the 

“Medal of Freedom, Combat Purple Heart, Humatation 

[sic].” S. Appx. 13. 

The Board found Ms. Jones had no service in the 

Armed Forces, and her claim must be denied because of 

lack of legal entitlement. S. Appx. 8. The Board explained 

that Ms. Jones’ claim indicated she served in JROTC in 

1989 in one document, and in the Army in 1989 in another. 

Id. Ms. Jones “provided service personnel and medical 

records for a servicemember who shared her first and last 

name, but who had a different social security number, date 

of birth, and dates of service. The servicemember in 

question died on December 31, 1992.” Id. The Board 

determined Ms. Jones had no periods of active duty service, 

and participation in JROTC does not demonstrate she is a 

veteran. Id. Ms. Jones appealed to the Veterans Court.

The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. 

Before the Veterans Court, Ms. Jones argued she had 

received honorable service in the Army from January 1989 

to October 2022, and her award of Medal of Honor was 

pending. S. Appx. 3. She also argued the Board’s decision 

included Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE), and 

Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 12/05/2024
4 JONES v. MCDONOUGH

improperly applied several statues and regulations. Id. 

The Veterans Court found Ms. Jones did not explain with 

any specificity how the Board erred, and her cited statutes 

and regulations were not pertinent to the Board’s decision. 

S. Appx. 4. As to Ms. Jones’ new argument regarding her 

service from 1989 to 2022, the Veterans Court concluded 

that while it could hear the argument in the first instance, 

it would exercise its discretion to decline to do so. S. Appx. 

4–5. The Veterans Court’s decision was based on the fact 

that Ms. Jones submitted records and statements with 

conflicting dates of service, names, and Social Security 

numbers, and did not challenge the Board’s finding that the 

records did not belong to her. Id. Ms. Jones appeals. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We “have 

exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to 

the validity of any statute or regulation or any 

interpretation thereof [by the Veterans Court] . . . and to 

interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the 

extent presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C.

§ 7292(c). Absent a constitutional challenge, we may not

“review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a 

challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a 

particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

On appeal, Ms. Jones argues the Veterans Court erred 

in (1) its interpretation of “Rule 55,” (2) failing to provide 

her military benefits, (3) not accounting for stating Ms. 

Jones is a veteran on a document, (4) not applying “the 

Honorable Discharge Award with the benefits,” (5) not 

immediately giving housing provisions or benefits, (6) 

violating her constitutional rights, and (7) CUE. See 

Appellant’s Informal Br. 3. Ms. Jones also invokes the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) without explanation. 

Id. Because Ms. Jones’ challenges are all factual in nature, 

we do not have jurisdiction.

Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 12/05/2024
JONES v. MCDONOUGH 5

Ms. Jones asserts the Veterans Court interpreted “Rule 

55,” and cites to Massie v. Shinseki, 724 F.3d 1325, (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Appellant’s Informal Br. 2. However, neither 

the Veterans Court’s decision nor Massie discuss “Rule 55.” 

Nor did the Veterans Court interpret any other statutes or 

regulations. S. Appx. 1–5. 

Ms. Jones argues the Veterans Court violated her 

constitutional rights by ridiculing her about being 

unrepresented. See Appellant’s Informal Br. 3. Ms. Jones 

does not point to any statement made by the Veterans 

Court, and we do not see any ridicule of Ms. Jones in the 

Veterans Court’s decision. On the contrary, the Veterans 

Court noted its duty to sympathetically read Ms. Jones’ 

pleadings. S. Appx. 3. Ms. Jones’ “characterization of [a] 

question as constitutional in nature does not confer upon 

us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.” Helfer v. West, 174 

F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Ms. Jones argues the Veterans Court erred in its 

analysis of CUE. See Appellant’s Informal Br. 3. The 

Veterans Court noted that Ms. Jones argued “CUE,” but 

did not explain with any specificity how the Board erred. 

S. Appx. 3–4. The Veterans Court therefore declined to 

determine CUE. Again, we see no argument on appeal over 

which we have jurisdiction. 

Ms. Jones appears to argue the Veterans Court failed 

to apply the EAJA. Appellants Informal Br. 3. However, 

Ms. Jones does not explain how she believes the EAJA 

applies to her case. [W]e may review the Veterans Court’s 

interpretation of the EAJA de novo,” but we lack 

jurisdiction over the application of EAJA to the facts of a 

case. Cavaciuti v. McDonough, 75 F.4th 1363, 1367 (Fed. 

Cir. 2023). The Veterans Court did not mention, let alone 

interpret the EAJA. We, therefore, lack jurisdiction over 

this argument as well.

Ms. Jones’ remaining arguments raise either factual 

issues, or the application of the law to the facts of this case, 

Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 5 Filed: 12/05/2024
6 JONES v. MCDONOUGH

which we also do not have jurisdiction to review. 38 U.S.C.

§ 7292(d)(2).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 6 Filed: 12/05/2024