Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01170/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Angela D. Nails
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ANGELA D. NAILS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1170

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-2749, Chief Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold.

______________________ 

Decided: June 10, 2016

______________________ 

ANGELA D. NAILS, Brownstown, MI, pro se.

ERIC LAUFGRABEN, 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.,

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; Y. KEN LEE, DEREK SCADDEN,

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Case: 16-1170 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/10/2016
2 NAILS v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Angela D. Nails appeals from the decision of the Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). We 

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Nails served honorably on active duty in the U.S. 

Army from April 1981 to August 1982. In February 2008, 

she filed a claim for service-connected disability compensation (“disability claim”) for a left foot condition and for 

nonservice-connected pension benefits (“pension claim”). 

The Veterans Affairs’ Regional Office (“RO”) denied her 

disability claim based on its finding that her left foot 

condition was not related to her military service. The RO

also denied her pension claim, noting that she had not 

served during a period of war. She appealed the decision 

to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). In the meantime, she filed new disability claims for a right foot condition and major depression (“depression claim”) in January 

2014, which were both denied by the RO in June 2014. In 

August 2014, the Board issued its decision on her claims 

from 2008, granting her disability claim for residuals of 

her left ganglion cyst removal surgery, but denying her 

pension claim.

Ms. Nails appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court, arguing that (i) the Board erred in denying her 

pension claim, and (ii) she is entitled to her depression 

claim. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s denial of 

Ms. Nails’ pension claim, reasoning that the Board’s 

finding that she did not serve during a period of war was 

not clearly erroneous. As to her depression claim, the 

Veterans Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because 

she had not appealed the RO’s June 2014 decision denyCase: 16-1170 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/10/2016
NAILS v. MCDONALD 3

ing her depression claim to the Board. Ms. Nails appeals 

the Veterans Court’s decision.1

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review the decisions by the Veterans Court is limited by statute. We may review a Veterans Court’s decision “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).

We first address Ms. Nails’ pension claim. Nonservice-connected pension benefits are needs-based and 

have certain eligibility requirements. A threshold requirement for eligibility is that the veteran served “during 

a period of war.” 38 U.S.C. § 1521(j) (2002); see also 38 

C.F.R. § 3.3(a)(3) (2013). The term “period of war” is 

defined in 38 U.S.C. § 101(11) (2002) to include, among 

others, the Vietnam era, which ended on May 7, 1975, and 

the Persian Gulf War, which began on August 2, 1990. 

There is no recognized period of war between the Vietnam 

era, which ended on May 7, 1975, and the Persian Gulf 

War, which began on August 2, 1990. Mason v. Principi, 

16 Vet. App. 129, 131 (2002).

 

1 Ms. Nails asks us to “grant court appointed counsel,” Appellant Br. 2, but we do not have any procedure to 

appoint counsel. Wickliffe v. Brown, 1 F.3d 1252, 1252 

n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (unpublished); see Guide for Pro Se 

Petitioners and Appellants ¶ 1, 

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Pro%20Se

%20Guide.pdf. 

Case: 16-1170 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/10/2016
4 NAILS v. MCDONALD

Ms. Nails’ challenge to the Veterans Court’s determination of her veteran status does not raise a legal issue 

over which we have jurisdiction. The Board made a 

factual finding that Ms. Nails served in the Army from 

April 1981 to August 1982, which was affirmed by the 

Veterans Court. It is undisputed that there is no recognized period of war in 1981 or 1982, and Ms. Nails does 

not raise any issues over the validity or interpretation of a 

statute or regulation. Ms. Nails’ challenge thus requires 

us to evaluate the Board’s factual finding or at most 

application of law to the facts, to which we lack jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Ms. Nails’ appeal as to her pension claim is dismissed. 

We next address Ms. Nails’ depression claim. 

Ms. Nails contests the Veterans Court’s determination 

that it lacked jurisdiction to consider her depression claim 

because she had not appealed the RO’s decision. Whether 

the Veterans Court possessed jurisdiction over Ms. Nails’ 

appeal is “an issue of statutory construction that we 

review without deference.” Howard v. Gober, 220 F.3d 

1341, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).

The Veterans Court correctly dismissed Ms. Nails’ depression claim under a proper interpretation of 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7252. The Veterans Court’s jurisdiction “is premised on 

and defined by the Board’s decision concerning the matter 

being appealed, and when the Board has not rendered a 

decision on a particular issue, the [Veterans Court] has no 

jurisdiction to consider it under section 7252(a).” Howard, 

220 F.3d at 1344. Because Ms. Nails had not appealed 

the RO’s 2014 decision on her depression claim to the 

Board, the Veterans Court lacked jurisdiction over her 

depression claim.

CONCLUSION

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to 

Ms. Nails’ claim for nonservice-connected pension beneCase: 16-1170 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/10/2016
NAILS v. MCDONALD 5

fits. The Veterans Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over Ms. Nails’ depression claim is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1170 Document: 18-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/10/2016