NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

06-7029

JOE A. BROWDER, JR., Claimant-Appellant,

v.
R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________ DECIDED: June 9, 2006

__________________________

Before SCHALL, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM.

DECISION Joe A. Browder, Jr., appeals the decisi on of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veter ans Court”) denying his clai m for service connection. Browder v. Nicholson , No. 04-352 (Vet. App. Oct. 13, 2005). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.DISCUSSI ON
I. Mr. Browder served on active duty in the U.S. Army from August 1974 to Augus t 1975. Browder , slip op. at 1. In September of 1996 a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Regional Offic e denied Mr. Browder’s cl aim for service connection for alcohol abuse and polysubstance dependence. Mr. Browder appealed that decision to the Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”). On June 16, 2003, the Board denied Mr. Br owder ’s claim for service connection, findin g that drug addiction and al cohol dependency are not co mpensable disabilities

. Browder v. Nicholson , No. SS 406 82 6139 (Bd. Vet. App. June 16, 2003). Mr. Browder appealed to the V e terans Court, arguing that the VA committed certain procedural errors, alt hough he did not chal lenge the Board’s le gal c onclus i on. See Browd e r , slip op. at 1. The Veterans Cour t affirmed the Board’s denial of Mr. Browder’s claim, explaining t hat “[i]rre spective of whether alcohol abuse and polysubstance dependence are developed during serv ice, t he law prohibits an award of service connection for those conditions.” Id. , slip op. at 1-2 (citi ng 38 U.S.C. § 105(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(d)). This appeal followed. We have jurisdicti on over a final decisio n of the Veterans Court pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).
II. On appeal, we will set aside any legal interpretation of t he Veterans Court that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise no t in accordanc e with law. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). We may not, howev er, review a challenge to any factual

06-7029 2determination or a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); see Leonard v. Gober , 223 F.3d 1374, 1376 (Fed. Cir

. 2000) (“Section 7292(d)(2) expressly bars us from reviewing challenges to the application of law to the fact s of a particular case. We mu st therefore dismiss Leonard’s appeal [regarding the applicat ion of equitable tolling to the fa cts of her case] for lack o f subject matter jurisdiction.”); Alb un v. Bro w n , 9 F.3d 1528, 1529- 30 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (recognizing that “in appeals from the Cour t of Veterans Appeals , Congress denied this court the usual broad scope of re view and limited this c o urt’s re view to certain statutory, regulatory, and constitutional iss u es”). On appeal, Mr. Brow der contends that th e Veterans Court failed to properly review his claim. He assert s that the Veterans Court viol ated 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.319(b)(1) based on the facts of his case. The government responds that this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal becaus e the Veterans Court’s decision involv ed the applic ation of law to fact. The gov ernment is c o rrect that we lack ju risdiction. T he Veterans Court applie d the law to the facts. As noted, we may not review a challenge to a factual determination or a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to t he fa cts of a particular case. Mr. Browder does not suggest that the Veterans Court misint erpreted any statutes or regulations . Instead, he argues the facts of his case, something that this court cannot review. We do not have jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s determination in this

case.

06-7029 3For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Mr. Browder’s a p peal for lack of jurisdiction. No costs.

06-7029 4