NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2008-7037 

OLIVER C. GEBHART, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Oliver C. Gebhart, of Oregon, Missouri, pro se. 

Armando Rodriguez-Feo, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. With him on the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney 

General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. 

Of counsel on the brief were David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and 

Tracey P. Warren, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department 

of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr. 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-7037 

OLIVER C. GEBHART, 

 Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 07-1764, Judge 

Alan G. Lance, Sr. 

 __________________________ 

 DECIDED: August 8, 2008 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER, LOURIE, and PROST, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Oliver C. Gebhart appeals the final decision of the United States Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for extraordinary 

relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND 

On July 2, 2007, Mr. Gebhart filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature 

of a writ of mandamus, asking the Veterans Court to order the Secretary to comply with 

a June 6, 2006 remand order from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). On 

September 27, 2007, the Veterans Court denied Mr. Gebhart’s petition, concluding that 

mandamus was not warranted under the circumstances, noting that “[t]he Secretary has 
complied with the terms of the Board’s remand without unreasonable delay, the 

petitioner has been informed of his appellate rights, and his appeal will be certified to 

the Board in due course.” On November 14, 2007, the Veterans Court denied Mr. 

Gebhart’s motion for reconsideration and entered judgment. Mr. Gebhart appeals the 

judgment of the Veterans Court. 

DISCUSSION 

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals of 

Veterans Court decisions. In review of a Veterans Court decision, this court decides “all 

relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions” 

and sets aside any regulation or interpretation thereof “other than a determination as to 

a factual matter” relied upon by the Veterans Court that is “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an 

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to 

constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, 

authority, or limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; or (D) without observance of 

procedure required by law.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). Except to the extent that an 

appeal of a Veterans Court decision presents a constitutional issue, this court “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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

On appeal, Mr. Gebhart does not address the decision of the Veterans Court 

denying his petition for mandamus.1

 As previously noted, the Veterans Court explained 

 1

 Similarly, Mr. Gebhart did not address the decision of the Veterans Court 

in his previous appeal to this court from an order of the Veterans Court denying an 

earlier petition for mandamus. See Gebhart v. Nicholson, 154 Fed. Appx. 207, 209 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Gebhart does not address the decision of the Veterans Court or 

reference his petition.”). 

2008-7037 2
its denial of mandamus by stating that “[t]he Secretary has complied with the terms of 

the Board’s remand without unreasonable delay, the petitioner has been informed of his 

appellate rights, and his appeal will be certified to the Board in due course.” While we 

have jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s denial of mandamus in some 

circumstances—including those involving the interpretation of a regulation or statute, 

see Lamb v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002)—we do not have jurisdiction 

to consider Mr. Gebhart’s appeal of the Veterans Court decision in this case because 

any such challenge would involve factual determinations and/or the application of law to 

the facts of this case. 

Mr. Gebhart’s brief on appeal also raises allegations unrelated to the Veterans 

Court’s decision denying mandamus, including an argument regarding the denial of 

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (“ROTC”) credits at Washington University. While Mr. 

Gebhart’s arguments on this point are far from clear, he appears to argue that the denial 

of ROTC credits violated, inter alia, equal protection rights and the Civil Rights Act of 

1964. We note that the Veterans Court decision, however, did not decide any 

constitutional issues. Additionally, we note that Mr. Gebhart’s characterization of a 

question as constitutional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdiction that we 

otherwise lack. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining 

that an appellant’s characterization of a question as constitutional in nature does not 

confer upon us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack). In these circumstances, we 

conclude that Mr. Gebhart’s undeveloped references on appeal to the Constitution are 

insufficient to provide a basis for this court’s jurisdiction. 

2008-7037 3
2008-7037 4

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing analysis, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

COSTS 

Each side shall bear its own costs.