Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01020/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danny O. Jelks
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DANNY O. JELKS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1020

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-1896, Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley.

______________________ 

Decided: February 8, 2016

______________________ 

DANNY O. JELKS, Birmingham, AL, pro se.

KRISTIN MCGRORY, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

SCOTT D. AUSTIN; SAMANTHA ANN SYVERSON, Y. KEN LEE, 

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 16-1020 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/08/2016
2 JELKS v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and LOURIE,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Danny O. Jelks (“Jelks”) appeals from the decision of 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) affirming the decision of the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that denied entitlement to an 

effective date prior to February 11, 2003 for service connection for degenerative disc disease (“DDD”) with thoracolumbar scoliosis. See Jelks v. McDonald, No. 14-1896, 

2015 WL 4591686 (Vet. App. July 30, 2015) (“Opinion”). 

Because Jelks’ arguments on appeal only challenge factual findings and an application of law to the facts of his 

case, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Jelks served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 

June 1977 to November 1980 and from September 1981 to 

December 1985. In January 1990, he filed a claim at the

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) for disability 

benefits for a “back injury.” Opinion, 2015 WL 4591686,

at *1. A VA Regional Office (“RO”) denied the claim in 

April 1990, and Jelks appealed to the Board.

In November 1990, the Board found that Jelks suffered from “congenital scoliosis of the thoracolumbar

spine” and that “a chronic back disorder was not incurred 

in or aggravated by the veteran’s active service.” Resp’t’s 

App. (“R.A.”) 40. The Board therefore denied service 

connection for thoracolumbar scoliosis. R.A. 41. Jelks did 

not timely appeal from that decision, which then became 

final.

Subsequently, in December 1994 and July 2001, Jelks

sought to reopen the previously denied claim, but the RO

denied his requests in April 1995 and August 2001, reCase: 16-1020 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/08/2016
JELKS v. MCDONALD 3

spectively. R.A. 32. Jelks did not appeal from those

decisions, which also became final.

On February 11, 2003, Jelks filed another request to

reopen his claim for “a back condition originally diagnosed 

as scoliosis.” Opinion, 2015 WL 4591686, at *1. After 

further development of the record, in April 2009, the 

Board awarded service connection for DDD with thoracolumbar scoliosis. In May 2009, the RO implemented the 

Board decision and assigned an effective date of February 

11, 2003, the date of the request to reopen the claim.

Jelks disagreed with the assigned effective date and 

appealed to the Board. Before the Board, he testified that 

he initially filed a claim for service connection for his back 

condition in 1986, while being treated at a VA facility and 

within one year from the date of his discharge from service. Id. He thus argued to the Board that his claim had 

remained pending since 1986.

In May 2014, the Board denied entitlement to an effective date prior to February 11, 2003 for service connection for DDD with thoracolumbar scoliosis. R.A. 25–35. 

The Board determined that February 11, 2003 was the 

date when Jelks filed the claim that ultimately led to the 

grant of service-connected benefits for his back disorder, 

and that his January 1990, December 1994, and July 

2001 claims were all denied by final decisions. The Board 

acknowledged Jelks’ allegation that he filed a claim for 

disability benefits in 1986, but found no record evidence 

indicating that such an alleged claim was ever filed. R.A. 

33. The Board also reasoned that, even assuming that 

Jelks had filed such a claim in 1986, the subsequent 1990 

decision denying his claim for service connection for a 

back injury would have terminated the pending status of 

any such alleged prior claim. R.A. 33–34 (citing Williams 

v. Peake, 521 F.3d 1348, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

Jelks then appealed to the Veterans Court. Before 

the Veterans Court, he argued that he “filed his original

Case: 16-1020 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/08/2016
4 JELKS v. MCDONALD

service connection claim in January 1990,” R.A. 18 (emphasis added), and that his initial claim was for a “back 

injury,” whereas the November 1990 Board decision 

denied disability benefits only for thoracolumbar scoliosis,

Opinion, 2015 WL 4591686, at *2. He thus asserted that 

his initial claim for benefits for a back disability other 

than thoracolumbar scoliosis remained pending and was 

not adjudicated until the April 2009 award of service 

connection for DDD with thoracolumbar scoliosis. Id.

In July 2015, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board 

decision denying an effective date prior to February 11, 

2003 for service connection for DDD with thoracolumbar 

scoliosis. Id. at *4. The court found no clear error in the 

Board’s factual findings relating to the effective date. The 

court also found that, even assuming that Jelks had been

led to believe that the VA had bifurcated his initial claim 

for benefits for a back injury into two claims—one for 

thoracolumbar scoliosis and one for a more general back 

disability—the express language of the November 1990 

Board decision was sufficient to inform him that both 

claims were denied and that no part of his back injury 

claim remained pending and unadjudicated. Id. at *3.

The Veterans Court accordingly entered judgment in 

August 2015. Jelks appealed to this court, seeking to 

invoke our jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a Veterans 

Court decision is limited. We may review a Veterans 

Court decision with respect to the validity of a decision on 

a rule of law or the validity or interpretation of any 

statute or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans 

Court in making the decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Except with respect to constitutional issues, 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.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).

Case: 16-1020 Document: 19-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/08/2016
JELKS v. MCDONALD 5

Jelks argues that the VA has “kept some of my medical records hidden and . . . those records will clearly help 

me substantiate my claim.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 1. 

He alleges that the VA intentionally withheld his medical 

records for the period between 1986 and 1990 and altered 

other records in his file. He also alleges that the VA 

concealed evidence of a claim for service connection for his 

back condition that he allegedly filed in 1986. Additionally, he appears to ask this court to review the effective date 

for a disability claim relating to his feet. 

We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal

because the Veterans Court’s decision did not involve 

questions concerning the validity or interpretation of a 

statute or regulation. Jelks also concedes that the Veterans Court did not decide any constitutional issue. Appellant’s Informal Br. 1. In affirming the Board on the 

February 11, 2003 effective date, the court merely reviewed the Board’s factual findings for clear error and 

applied established law to the particular facts of the case. 

The court did not elaborate on the meaning of any statute 

or regulation, or make a decision on a rule of law.

Indeed, Jelks does not allege that the Veterans Court 

misinterpreted any particular regulation or statute. Nor 

does he assert that the regulation or statute that was 

applied by the court was invalid or that the court misstated the law in its analysis. Rather, the arguments presented by Jelks suggest that he only disagrees with the 

Board’s and the Veterans Court’s factual findings and 

their application of the existing law to the facts of his 

case. To the extent that Jelks argues that he filed a claim 

for service connection for a back condition in 1986, that is 

purely a factual question, presented to and addressed by 

the Board, which is not within our jurisdiction to review.

The record shows that Jelks’ principal argument before the Veterans Court was that his January 1990 claim 

for a general back injury remained pending because the 

Case: 16-1020 Document: 19-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/08/2016
6 JELKS v. MCDONALD

Board’s November 1990 decision only addressed thoracolumbar scoliosis. R.A. 15–23. He did not argue to the 

Veterans Court that he originally filed the serviceconnection claim for his back condition in 1986 or that the 

VA failed in its duty to assist in connection with that 

alleged claim. Likewise, he did not make any argument 

concerning the effective date of a disability claim relating 

to his feet. Thus, we decline to consider those arguments 

for the additional reason that Jelks failed to properly 

raise them to the Veterans Court. Boggs v. West, 188 F.3d 

1335, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

We have considered the remaining arguments presented in Jelks’ informal appeal brief, informal reply

brief, and subsequent supplemental filings, but find them 

to be unpersuasive or beyond our jurisdiction to review. 

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1020 Document: 19-2 Page: 6 Filed: 02/08/2016