NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SAMUEL C. COCO,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1743

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 20-7641, Senior Judge William A. 

Moorman, Judge Grant Jaquith, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________ 

Decided: November 9, 2023

______________________ 

SAMUEL C. COCO, University City, TX, pro se. 

 ROBERT R. KIEPURA, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 23-1743 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2023
2 COCO v. MCDONOUGH

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Samuel Coco, a pro se veteran, appeals a decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals’ finding of no clear and unmistakable error in a rating decision denying Mr. Coco’s service-connection claim for tinnitus. Because we lack jurisdiction to 

decide the issues that Mr. Coco raises, we dismiss his appeal.

BACKGROUND 

Mr. Coco served in the United States Air Force from 

May 1980 to May 2000 as an aerospace ground equipment 

craftsman. Coco v. McDonough, No. 20-7641, 2021 WL 

6143647, at *1 (Vet. App. Dec. 30, 2021) (“Decision”). In 

December 2003, Mr. Coco filed a claim seeking service connection for tinnitus. Id. In a June 2004 rating decision, 

the regional office denied his claim because there was no 

in-service treatment record for tinnitus. Id. Mr. Coco did 

not file an appeal challenging that denial. Id. 

In February 2011, Mr. Coco filed another service-connection claim for tinnitus. Id. In support, he submitted a 

letter from his private physician. Id. After conducting an

examination, an examiner of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) diagnosed Mr. Coco with 

hearing loss and tinnitus. Id. The VA examiner opined

that Mr. Coco’s tinnitus condition was at least as likely as 

not related to his in-service noise exposure. Id. Accordingly, the regional office awarded Mr. Coco service connection for tinnitus, effective from February 2011. Id. 

In 2012, Mr. Coco challenged the February 2011 effective date for tinnitus as well as the June 2004 rating decision denying his service-connection claim, contending that 

the June 2004 decision contained clear and unmistakable 

error (“CUE”). Id. at *2. His CUE claim was referred to 

Case: 23-1743 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2023
COCO v. MCDONOUGH 3

the regional office, which found no CUE. Id. In a March 

2019 decision, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”)

concluded the same. Id. In reaching that conclusion, the 

Board stated that the record at the time of the June 2004 

rating decision was devoid of a tinnitus condition. Id. 

On appeal, the Veterans Court determined that the 

Board erroneously stated that the treatment records were

devoid of tinnitus. Id. at *2. The Veterans Court pointed 

out that the record documented a March 1994 examination

where Mr. Coco stated he would experience ringing in his 

ears “when [it was] real quiet.” Id. at *1, *2. The Veterans 

Court thus remanded Mr. Coco’s CUE claim to the Board 

for readjudication.1 Id. at *2.

On remand, after examining conflicting evidence in the 

record, the Board again found no CUE in the June 2004 

rating decision. Id. at *3–4. The Board took into account

the 1994 examination indicating Mr. Coco experienced 

ringing in ears, as well as Mr. Coco’s lay statements that 

he believed he experienced tinnitus during service. Id. at 

*3. The Board also considered the remainder of the contemporaneous records, including every subsequent in-service examination where Mr. Coco denied hearing ringing in 

his ears. Id. Weighing the conflicting evidence, the Board 

concluded that reasonable minds could have differed as to 

whether the record evidenced an in-service onset for 

1 The Veterans Court also addressed several other 

claims Mr. Coco raised, including his claim for a higher rating for tinnitus, and his service-connection claim for 

Meniere’s disease. Decision, at *2. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s denial of Mr. Coco’s claim for a higher 

rating for tinnitus because he had already received the 

maximum disability rating allowed for that condition. Id. 

As to his Meniere’s disease claim, the Veterans Court explained that because the Board had remanded that claim, 

it was not properly before the Veterans Court. Id. 

Case: 23-1743 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2023
4 COCO v. MCDONOUGH

Mr. Coco’s tinnitus condition, and as such, the record did 

not support a finding of CUE. Id. at *3–4. 

Mr. Coco again appealed to the Veterans Court. The 

Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s no-CUE finding. Id. 

at *5. The Veterans Court explained that, given the conflicting evidence, the Board “plausibly found that reasonable minds could have differed as to whether the appellant 

suffered from chronic tinnitus in service.” Id. at *4. The 

Veterans Court declined to reach the other matters

Mr. Coco raised, including his claims for service connection 

for Meniere’s disease and increased disability ratings for 

various conditions. Id. The Veterans Court explained that 

it lacked jurisdiction over those matters because they were 

not addressed by the underlying Board’s decision. Id. 

This appeal followed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our jurisdiction in cases from the Veterans Court is 

limited by statute. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 

1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We may “decide all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). However, absent 

a constitutional issue, 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). “Although the veterans benefits adjudication 

system is nonadversarial and paternalistic,” to move forward with a claim for benefits, the veteran bears the ultimate burden to show jurisdiction. Butler v. Principi, 

244 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Coco raises three issues. He primarily 

takes issue with the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the 

Board’s finding of no CUE in the June 2004 rating decision. 

See Appellant Informal Br. 1–2; see also Reply Br. 2–4. 

Mr. Coco’s briefing also references several claims the 

Case: 23-1743 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2023
COCO v. MCDONOUGH 5

Veterans Court declined to address for lack of jurisdiction. 

Appellant Informal Br. 1–2. Lastly, Mr. Coco characterizes 

his arguments as constitutional violations. Id. We address 

each issue in turn. 

First, Mr. Coco’s CUE argument reduces to a factual 

challenge that falls outside of our jurisdiction. Mr. Coco

disagrees with the Board’s no-CUE finding on remand from 

the Veterans Court. According to Mr. Coco, the Veterans 

Court’s affirmance of the Board’s no-CUE finding was “contrary” to its previous remand decision. See id. at 2; see also 

Reply Br. at 3. We disagree. 

A remand from the Veterans Court does not equate to 

a mandate that the Board must reach a contrary conclusion. To constitute CUE, an alleged error made by the 

agency must have been “outcome determinative.” Natali v. 

Principi, 375 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations 

omitted). In other words, the error must have been the 

type “that would manifestly change the outcome of a prior 

decision.” Id. (citation omitted). On remand from the Veterans Court, the Board considered the 1994 examination

referencing ringing in the ears, which was the key contradictory evidence resulting in the remand. The Board accounted for that evidence, as well as Mr. Coco’s lay 

testimony, but found them insufficient to support a finding 

of CUE given contrary evidence in the record. See Decision, 

at *3–4. Applying the correct legal standard, the Board determined that the record at the time of the June 2004 rating decision, considered as a whole, did not support finding 

that any outcome-determinative error had been made by 

the agency in its rating decision. 

Although Mr. Coco disagrees with the Board’s no-CUE 

conclusion, he does not identify any legal error in the 

Board’s or the Veterans Court’s decision. Nor does his 

claim involve the Veterans Court’s interpretation of a 

Case: 23-1743 Document: 14 Page: 5 Filed: 11/09/2023
6 COCO v. MCDONOUGH

statute.2 His contention requires this court to entertain a 

challenge to a factual determination and how the Board applied established law to facts. Such a challenge, however,

falls outside of this court’s jurisdiction. Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Our jurisdictional statute precludes appellate review of factual 

matters and the application of law to facts.”); see also 

38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

Second, we reject Mr. Coco’s attempt to reassert on appeal his claims that the Veterans Court declined to address 

for lack of jurisdiction. See Appellant Informal Br. 2 (referencing his claims to service connection for Meniere’s syndrome and higher disability rating for various conditions). 

The Veterans Court is statutorily prohibited from “making 

factual findings in the first instance” or adjudicating claims 

that the Board’s decision did not address. Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). 

As the Veterans Court explained, its jurisdiction was “limited to review of final Board decisions” and the Board’s decision on appeal only addressed Mr. Coco’s CUE claim, not 

2 Mr. Coco’s citation to Dittrich v. West, 163 F.3d 

1349 (Fed. Cir. 1998) is unavailing. Mr. Coco appears to 

rely on this case for the proposition that the law does not 

“authorize a regional office to review collaterally an earlier 

Board decision on the same operative facts.” Reply Br. 4. 

In Dittrich, this court discussed a then-recent change in the 

law and explained that it allows “only the Board itself, not 

a regional office, to conduct CUE review of its prior decisions.” Dittrich, 163 F.3d at 1352–53; id. at 1353 (“Nothing 

in title 38 or elsewhere authorizes a regional office to review decisions of the Board.”). Here, on remand from the 

Veterans Court, it was the Board that conducted CUE review of its prior decision, not the regional office. We discern no conflict with the law, and Mr. Coco does not identify 

any. 

Case: 23-1743 Document: 14 Page: 6 Filed: 11/09/2023
COCO v. MCDONOUGH 7

the other claims. Decision, at *4. We discern no error in 

the Veterans Court’s analysis that it lacked jurisdiction to 

consider those other claims. 

Lastly, Mr. Coco’s characterization of his arguments as 

constitutional does not cure the jurisdictional deficiency. 

Mr. Coco’s informal briefing alleges the Veterans Court’s

decision is “contrary [to] Article III of the U.S. Constitution.” Appellant Informal Br. 1–2. Even liberally construed, as we read pro se filings like this, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), Mr. Coco merely labels his 

contentions as constitutional and does not raise any discrete constitutional issue. However, labeling an issue as 

constitutional “does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we 

otherwise lack.” Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999). 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Coco’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1743 Document: 14 Page: 7 Filed: 11/09/2023