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

05-7114 JOHN L. GUILLORY, Claimant-Appellant,

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

__________________________ DECIDED: August 4, 2005

__________________________

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge , SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. DECISION John L. Guillory appeals from the final decision of the Unit ed States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“V eterans Court”) that affirm ed the decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”) finding no cl ear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in an October 1966 regional office (“RO”) rating decis ion awarding him a 10-percent rating for a skull injury. Guillory v. Principi , No. 03-678 (Vet. App. Jan. 4, 2005) (“ Final Decision ”). Because Mr. Guillory’s arguments on appeal regarding his CUE claim rely solely oninterpretation of his medical records, an issue of fact, we lack jurisdiction. The appeal is therefore dismissed

. DISCUSSI ON
I. The relev a nt facts are not in dispute. Mr. Guillory s e rved on a c tive duty in the U.S. Army from June 1964 to October 1966. Fina l Dec i sion , slip op. at 2. In May 1966, he received multiple injuries from a guns hot wound to the head while serving in Vietnam. Id. After his discharge, the RO issued a decision in which it awarded Mr. Guillory service conne ction for multiple disa bili ties including, effective October 27, 1966, a 10-percent disability rating for a skull injury under 35 U. S.C. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5296 (1966). Id. In June 19 91, Mr. Guillory reque sted an inc r eased eva l uation for specia l mo nthly compensation based on the need fo r regular aid and at tendance. Id. In a letter dated March 30, 1992, the Department of Veterans Affairs granted Mr. Guillory an increase d award for s pecial monthly compensation, effective May 1992, bas ed on a det ermination that Mr. Guillory had a serv ice-c onnected s e izure disorder ratable at 100 percent. Id. Mr. Guillory was also informed that he wa s entitled to specia l monthly compensatio n because of the severity of his service-conne cted disabilities, including the need for aid and attendance. Id. In October of 1997, Mr. Guillory requested re view of his file to determine wh ether he was being paid the appropriate rate. Id. Mr. Guillory sought retroactive pay for aid and attendance, asserting that he had required aid and a ttendance since 1966 and tha t he had otherwise been und erpaid for his disabilities s i nce that time. In October 2001 ,

05-7114 2the RO determined that Mr. Gu illory was not entitled to an earlier effective date for special monthly compensati on based upon a need for regular aid and attendance. Mr. Guillory ap peale d this decision to the Board. Before the Board, Mr. Guillo ry alleged, amo ng other thi ngs, CUE in the actio n o f the RO following his discharge, assigning a 10-percent rating for skull loss under Diagnostic Code 5296. Mr. Guill ory asserted that the evidence in his c l aims f ile showed that, at the time of the Oc tober 1966 RO decision, in add ition to skull los s , he also suffered from brain hernia, which corresponds to the cr iteria for an 80-percent disability rating under Diagnostic Code 5296. On April 22, 2003, the Board found that there was no evidenc e of CUE in the RO ’s assignment of a 10-perc ent rating for skull loss because the evidenc e of record did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under Diagnostic Code 5296. After t he Veterans Court affirmed the decis ion of the Board, Mr. Guillory ap peale d to this court. II. We have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Veterans Court to determine if its interpretation of a statute or regulation was 1) arbitrary, capricious, a n abuse of discretion, or otherwis e not in ac cordance with la w; 2) contrary to constitutional right, power, priv ilege, or im munity; 3) outside the Ve terans Court's jurisdic tion or a violation of statutory right; or 4) not in a ccordanc e with the required procedure. Maxs on v. Gober , 230 F.3d 1330, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . We do not have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Veterans Court as to (1) a challenge to a factual determination; or (2) a challenge to a law or regul ation as applied to the facts of a spec ific case. Id. ; 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

05-7114 3On appeal, Mr. Guillory argues that he is entitled to compensation under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a (1967) . According to Mr. Guillo ry, the evidenc e in his claims file shows that, at the time of the October 1996 RO de cision, he had sk ull loss with brain hernia, which corresponds to the criteri a for an 80 -percent disab ility rating unde r Diagnostic Code 529 6 of section 4.71a. Mr. Guillory ar gues that if his medical records had been analyzed c o rrectly, the Board and the Vet e rans Cour t would have come to a different conclus i on in this case. Mr. Guillory does not challeng e the validity or interpretation of the laws governing CUE, or any other laws relied upon by the Veterans Court in deny ing his claim of CUE. Moreover, Mr. Guillor y does not argue that procedures and regulations were not properly follo wed. Mr. Guillory’s appea l raises pu rely factual issues. Ac cordingly, it is bey ond the scope of our jurisdiction. Se e He lfer v. West , 174 F.3d 1332, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

. For the foregoing re asons, Mr. Guillory’s appea l is dismisse d for lack of jurisdiction.

05-7114 4