Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07053/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Z. Guajardo
Appellant
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FRANK Z. GUAJARDO,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7053

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-321, Judge Lawrence B. Hagel.

______________________ 

Decided: June 5, 2015

______________________ 

FRANK Z. GUAJARDO, Houston, TX, pro se.

COURTNEY D. ENLOW, 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., 

ALLISON KIDD-MILLER; DAVID J. BARRANS, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-7053 Document: 9-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2015
2 GUAJARDO v. MCDONALD

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Frank Guajardo appeals from the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(Veterans Court) dismissing his appeal of the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation under 

38 U.S.C. §§ 1310 and 1318. Guajardo v. McDonald, No. 

14-0321, 2014 WL 5591084 (Vet. App. Nov. 4, 2014) 

(Veterans Court Decision). We dismiss this appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Guajardo is the son of deceased service member 

Alfredo Guajardo. On July 3, 2008, Mr. Guajardo, who 

has cerebral palsy and is paraplegic, filed a claim for 

dependent and indemnity compensation (DIC) with the

Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). The DVA Regional Office initially denied Mr. Guajardo’s application on the 

ground that Alfredo Guajardo’s discharge from service 

had been dishonorable. After further processing of Mr. 

Guajardo’s claim, the DVA issued a supplemental statement of the case, stating that because Alfredo Guajardo 

had in fact been honorably discharged, Mr. Guajardo met 

the basic eligibility requirements for DIC. The DVA then 

denied Mr. Guajardo’s claim on the merits. 

The Board denied Mr. Guajardo’s claim on appeal. 

First, noting Alfredo Guajardo’s honorable discharge, the 

Board found that Alfredo Guajardo’s death was due to 

squamous cell lung cancer which was not related to his 

military service. It therefore determined that Alfredo

Guajardo’s death was not service-connected and consequently that Mr. Guajardo is not entitled to DIC under 

§ 1310. Second, the Board found that Alfredo Guajardo 

was not in receipt of, or entitled to receive, compensation 

Case: 15-7053 Document: 9-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/05/2015
GUAJARDO v. MCDONALD 3

at the time of death for a service-connected disability or 

disabilities rated totally disabling. See 38 U.S.C. § 1318; 

38 C.F.R. § 3.22. It therefore found that Mr. Guajardo is 

not entitled to DIC under § 1318. 

Mr. Guajardo appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing that because Alfredo Guajardo’s discharge was honorable, Mr. Guajardo is entitled to DIC. Veterans Court 

Decision at 1. The Veterans Court dismissed, finding that 

Mr. Guajardo did not raise any allegations of error in the 

Board’s decision. See id. Mr. Guajardo filed subsequent 

correspondence indicating his disagreement with the 

Veterans Court Decision and again arguing that he is 

entitled to DIC because his father was honorably discharged from service. The Veterans Court construed the 

correspondence as a motion for reconsideration. It then

denied Mr. Guajardo’s motion, finding reconsideration 

unnecessary because the Alfredo Guajardo’s honorable 

discharge had been acknowledged by the Board and was 

not in dispute. Mr. Guajardo appeals. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. We have jurisdiction to 

review a decision of the Veterans Court “with respect to 

the validity of a decision of the Court on a rule of law or of 

any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof . . . that was relied on by the [Veterans Court] in making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (2012). Except 

where an appeal raises a constitutional issue, we lack 

jurisdiction to review a “challenge to a factual determination” or a “challenge to a law or regulation as applied to 

the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).

Mr. Guajardo argues on appeal that he should be 

awarded DIC under § 1318. Appellant’s Informal Br. 1. 

Section 1318 provides that entitlement to DIC may exist 

even if a veteran’s death is not service-connected if, 

Case: 15-7053 Document: 9-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/05/2015
4 GUAJARDO v. MCDONALD

among other things, the veteran “was in receipt of or 

entitled to receive . . . compensation at the time of death 

for a service-connected disability rated totally disabling . . .” § 1318. Mr. Guajardo acknowledges that his 

father’s death was not service-connected. He asserts, 

however, that as the disabled child of a veteran, he is 

entitled to DIC under § 1318 because his father was 

honorably discharged from military service. Id. 

We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Guajardo’s appeal. Mr. 

Guajardo’s argument challenges the Veterans Courts’

application of law to the facts of his case. He does not 

identify any error of law or statutory interpretation in the 

Veterans Court Decision, nor does he argue that his appeal raises a constitutional issue. Instead, he argues that 

the DVA erred in finding that he is not entitled to DIC 

because the evidence establishes that his father was 

honorably discharged from service. Mr. Guajardo’s entitlement to DIC depends on facts relating to Alfredo 

Guajardo’s death and his entitlement to disability benefits 

at that time. Resolution of the dispute identified by Mr. 

Guajardo would require us to apply the legal requirements of § 1318 to the particular facts of Mr. Guajardo’s 

case. We lack jurisdiction to do so.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-7053 Document: 9-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/05/2015