NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT G. THORNTON,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7107

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-2059, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch.

______________________ 

Decided: December 15, 2015

______________________ 

ROBERT G. THORNTON, Corona, CA, pro se.

SARAH CHOI, 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; Y. KEN LEE, MEGHAN ALPHONSO, Office of 

General Counsel, United Stated Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC.
2 THORNTON v. MCDONALD

______________________ 

Before MOORE, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Robert G. Thornton appeals the denial of his petition 

for a writ of mandamus by the United States Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Thornton, an Army veteran, sought serviceconnected benefits for hearing loss, tinnitus, and a psychiatric condition. In December 2012, a VA Decision 

Review Officer (“DRO”) issued a rating decision to

Mr. Thornton. In response, Mr. Thornton filed a notice of 

disagreement in November 2013. On June 4, 2014, the 

DRO issued a rating decision increasing Mr. Thornton’s 

benefits. On the same day, the DRO issued a Statement 

of the Case (“SOC”) denying entitlement to earlier effective dates for Mr. Thornton’s benefits. The SOC informed 

Mr. Thornton that an appeal “must be filed within 60

days from the date that the [VA] mails the Statement of 

the Case to the appellant, or within the remainder of the 

1-year period from the date of mailing of the notification 

of the determination being appealed, whichever period 

ends later.” Mr. Thornton filed an appeal on January 28, 

2015, requesting the VA regional office to forward his 

appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals. Separately, on 

February 2, 2015, Mr. Thornton filed a Privacy Act request with the Secretary of the VA, seeking specific 

documents from his claim file. 

On May 18, 2015, Mr. Thornton petitioned for a writ 

of mandamus from the Veterans Court to compel: (1) the 

VA to forward his appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals and (2) the Secretary to comply with his Privacy Act 

request. On June 12, 2015, the VA regional office informed Mr. Thornton that his appeal was untimely, and 
THORNTON v. MCDONALD 3

provided instructions regarding how to appeal the untimeliness decision. And on June 15, 2015, the Secretary 

responded to Mr. Thornton’s Privacy Act request by 

forwarding a copy of his entire claim file, and included

instructions on filing a Privacy Act appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. We may review legal questions such as those relating to the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). 

We may not review factual determinations or application 

of law to fact, except to the extent an appeal presents a 

constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2). These statutory 

limits on our jurisdiction extend to our review of the 

Veterans Court’s denial of a writ of mandamus. Beasley 

v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Just as 

a veteran’s “choice to present [a] legal question in a petition for mandamus does not deprive this court of jurisdiction,” id., a veteran’s choice to present a factual question 

or the application of law to fact in a petition for mandamus does not expand this court’s jurisdiction. 

Here, the Veterans Court found that Mr. Thornton 

failed to demonstrate entitlement to the writ because he 

did not demonstrate that he lacked adequate alternative 

means to relief. Specifically, the Veterans Court found 

that Mr. Thornton had been provided with information on 

how to appeal both the VA’s determination that his January 2015 appeal was untimely and the Secretary’s handling of his Privacy Act request, and that both of these 

alternative avenues were available at the time of the 

Veterans Court’s review. 

Because Mr. Thornton’s appeal here raises a factual

dispute regarding timeliness and fails to allege any legal 

error with the Veterans Court’s denial of the writ, we do 

not have jurisdiction to review the denial. Mr. Thornton’s

attempt to frame this factual issue as a due process 
4 THORNTON v. MCDONALD

violation does not change the purely factual nature of his 

complaint and his allegations of spoliation of evidence 

also do not raise any legal error with the Veterans Court’s 

denial of the writ. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.