N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ HELEN J. TURNER,

Claimant

- Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, S ecretary of Veterans Affairs , Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 7074

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 11

- 3745, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch.

______________________

Decided: September 12

, 2013

______________________

H ELEN J. T URNER , of Tallahassee, Florida, pro se.

A USTIN M. F ULK , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litig ation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent

- appellee. With him on the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY , Acting Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Dire ctor, and S COTT D. A USTIN , Assistant Dire ctor. Of counsel on the brief were D AVID J. B ARRANS , Deputy AssistantTURNER v. SHINSEKI 2

General Counsel

, and S AVANNAH H. C ONNALLY , Attorney

, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

______________________

Before R AD ER , Chief Judge, D YK , and T ARANTO , Ci r cuit Judges.

Per Curiam.
Helen J. Turner appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Vet erans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision by the Board of Veterans Appeals (“ Board”) denying her son Omar Turner entitle ment to benefits . The Veterans Court correctly determined that the statute authorizes benefits for children with birth defects who are born to female Vietnam veterans

. See 38 U.S.C . § 1815. Howe ver, b ecause t he appellant does not contend that she is a Vietnam veteran, her son is not eligible for benefits under the statute. Therefore, w e affirm

. B ACKGROUND Appellant Helen J. Turner’s son, Omar Turner, su ffers from ailments including infantile autism, juvenile arthritis, and lupus. Omar Turner’s father is a Vietnam veteran who served on active duty from December 1971 to December 1973. See 38 U.S.C. § 1831(2) (defining “V ietnam veteran”) ; see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.815(c) . Ms. Turner states that she is not a vete ran , and has never been to Vietnam

. In December of 2007, Ms. Turner filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Aff airs (“VA”) on her son’s behalf. She alleged, inter alia, that her son’s medical problems were due to his father’s exposure to Agent Orang e in Vietnam. She sought entitlement to benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1805, which authorizes benefits payable
to “ any child of a Vietnam veteran for any disabilityTURNER v. SHINSEKI 3

resulting from spina bifida suffered by such child ,” and 38 U.S.C. § 1815, which authorizes be nefits payable to “the child of a woman Vietnam veteran,” see id. § 1811, for

“ any disability resulting from

. . . cove red birth defects,”

see id. § 1815. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1812(a), § 1815

covers , with certain limitations not at issue here

, those birth defects identified by the Secretary as

birth defects of children of women Vietnam vete rans that
(1) are associated with the service of those veterans in the Republic of Vietnam du ring the Vietnam era; and
(2) result in permanent physical or mental disability

. S ee id § 1812(a) ; see also § 1812 (b) ( stating limitations).
The VA regional office denied Ms. Turner’s claim. Ms. Turner filed a Notice of Disagreement, and the regional office confirmed its denial. In December of 2009, Ms. Turner appealed to the Board.
In November of 2011, t he Board denied Ms. Turner’s claim. The Board denied entitlement under § 1805 b ecause it wa s undisputed that Omar Turner did not have spina bifida. The Board denied entitlement under § 1815 because Ms. Turner wa s not a Vietnam veteran. Al though Omar Turner’s father wa s a Vietnam veteran, t he Board concluded that “there is no legal basis upon which to award benefits [for disabilities other than spina bifida] due to [ the father’s] exposure to Agent Orange in V ietna m.” J.A. 17.
Ms. Turner appealed to the Veterans Court , which held that she had abandoned her claim for benefits for spina bifida under § 1805 by failing to pursue it on a ppeal

. See Helen J. Turner v. Eric K. Shinseki

, Sec’y of Veterans Affair s, No. 11

- 3745

, 2013 WL 344532 , at *3 n.2TURNER v. SHINSEKI 4

(Vet. App. Jan. 30, 2013). With respect to her claim under § 1815, the Veterans Court held that the Board had correctly interpreted the pertinent statutory and regul atory provisions

, and that there was no legal basis for entitlement. Id

. at *3.
Ms. Turner timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).

D ISCUSSION On appeal, Ms. Turner argues that, contrary to the Veterans Court’s holding, the statute authorizes the payment of benefits to her son. We review statutory interpretations by the Veterans Court de novo. Cayat v. Nicholson , 429 F.3d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Ms. Turner first contends that the Veterans Court erred in interpreting the Veterans Benefits and Health Care Impr ovement Act of 2000 , which created § 1815. See P ub

. L. No. 106

- 419 , 114 Stat. 1857

– 1859 (2000), codified as amended at 38 U.S.C. § 1811

– 1816. Ms. Turner argues that the statute authorizes benefits for the children of female and male Vietnam veterans

. However, her arg ument is foreclosed by the plain language of the statute, in which the relevant subchapter is titled , “Children of Women Vietnam Veterans Born With Certain Birth D efects. ” See id.

, 114 Stat. 1857 (emphasis added)

. Fu rthermore, the statut e defines an “eligible child” as an “individual who .

. . is the child .

. . of a woman Vietnam
veteran [and] was born with one or more covered birth defects,” 38 U.S.C. § 1811 (emphasis added) . “Covered birth defects” are defined as certain “birth defects of children of women Vietnam veterans ,” 38 U.S.C. § 1812 (emphasis added). Thus , it is clear that Congress inten ded to authorize bene fits for the children of female, n ot male, Vietnam veterans. We conclude that the Veterans Court correctl y construed the statute to author ize benefits only for the children of female Vietnam veterans

.TURNER v. SHINSEKI 5

Next, Ms. Turne r argue s that the VA was bound to award benefits to children of male Vietnam veterans because the VA had published benefits guidelines stat ing that the children of male Vietnam veterans were eligible for birth defect related benefits

. However, even if the publication were somehow pertinent, it would not support her argument

. The 2007 VA publication Ms. Turner mentions appears to be VA Pamphlet 80

- 07

- 01, Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents (2007), which correctly states that children of male or female Vietnam
veterans may receive benefits for spina bifida, while children of female Vietnam veterans can receive benefits for oth er covered birth defects. See id. at 89

– 91. The 2010 version of the publication is not materially different. See VA Pam phlet 80

- 10

- 01, Federal Benefits for Veterans: Dependents & Survivors 92, 101 (2010).
Finally, Ms. Turner argues that there is a “basi s in VA Law for payment involving disabilities other than [the basis provided by] Public Law 106

- 419. ” Appellant’s Br. 2. However, Ms. Turner does not identify any other
statute authorizing the award of benefits to the child of a male Vietnam veteran on the basis of birth defects other than spina bifida. As discussed above, the provision authorizing the VA to pay benefits to children with spina bifida is inapplicable here because the Board found that Omar Turner does not have spina bifida, and Ms. Turner has not challenged that finding

. Ms. Turner has not identified any other statutory provi sion that might a uthorize the VA to pay bene fits f or her son.
We conclude that the Veterans Court correctly held that the statute does not authorize the VA to award benefits to the children of male Vietnam veteran s on the basis of birth defects other than spina bifida. We have considered Ms. Turner’s other arguments, and find them without merit.

AFFIRMEDTURNER v. SHINSEKI 6

C OSTS

No costs.