NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

HENRY F. GILCHRIST, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2011-7113 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case No. 10-3190, Judge Ronald M. 

Holdaway. 

___________________________ 

Decided: August 5, 2011 

___________________________ 

HENRY F. GILCHRIST, of Chesnee, South Carolina, pro 

se. 

SARAH A. MURRAY, Attorney, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. 

With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and KIRK 

MANHARDT, Assistant Director. 
GILCHRIST v. DVA 2

__________________________ 

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Henry F. Gilchrist appeals from the decision of the 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) 

dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the 

Veterans Court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction 

over Mr. Gilchrist’s appeal, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Gilchrist seeks “benefits at 100% unemployable.” 

This request was originally denied by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO) in 2010, and Mr. 

Gilchrist appealed the decision to the Board of Veterans 

Appeals (Board). The Board remanded the appellant’s 

claim to the RO for further consideration and development. Mr. Gilchrist filed a Notice of Appeal from the 

Board’s decision. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Citing our decision in Kirkpatrick v. Nicholson, 417 

F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Veterans Court held the 

Board’s remand was not a final decision. Accordingly, the 

Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Gilchrist’s appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction. The Veterans Court explained Mr. Gilchrist’s response did “not adequately address the issue of 

the Court’s jurisdiction to review the instant appeal.” 

Appellee’s Infr. Br. App. 1. The Veterans Court indicated 

that, “[i]f and when a final Board decision is issued on 

remand, any matter determined in such a decision may be 

appealed to this Court.” Id. Mr. Gilchrist appeals the 

dismissal of the Veterans Court to this court. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292. 
3 GILCHRIST v. DVA

DISCUSSION

The jurisdiction of this court to review Veterans Court 

decisions is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We have 

jurisdiction to review a decision “with respect to the 

validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of 

law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual 

matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in 

making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). If an appeal 

does not present 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). 

The Veterans Court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review Mr. Gilchrist’s appeal related to his 

disability rating. “Section 7252(a) provides jurisdiction 

for the Veterans' Court to review ‘decisions of the Board of 

Veterans' Appeals.’ Our case law and section 7104(d)(2) 

define a Board decision as including an order granting 

appropriate relief or denying relief.” Kirkpatrick, 417 

F.3d at 1364 (remand for additional examination is not a 

“decision”). The Board’s remand is not a final decision 

within the meaning of 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). The Board 

order must either grant or deny the veteran’s request for 

relief to constitute a final decision. Id. at 1365. 

In this case, the Board remanded Mr. Gilchrist’s claim 

to the RO for further consideration and development. 

Like Kirkpatrick, the remand order here did not grant or 

deny relief to Mr. Gilchrist. Because Mr. Gilchrist’s 

remand order is not a final decision, the Veterans Court 

correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction. Accordingly, 

we affirm. 

To the extent Mr. Gilchrist asks us to review facts 

concerning his disability rating, we lack jurisdiction. 38 
GILCHRIST v. DVA 4

U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). We have considered Mr. Gilchrist’s 

other arguments and find them not persuasive. 

AFFIRMED 

COSTS

No costs.