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 United States Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that affirmed the decision of the Board 

of Veterans Appeals (“Board”) finding no clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in an 

October 1966 regional office (“RO”) rating decision 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 on 
interpretation of his medical records, an issue of fact, we lack jurisdiction. The appeal is 

therefore dismissed. 

DISCUSSION 

I. 

The relevant facts are not in dispute. Mr. Guillory served on active duty in the 

U.S. Army from June 1964 to October 1966. Final Decision, slip op. at 2. In May 1966, 

he received multiple injuries from a gunshot wound to the head while serving in 

Vietnam. Id. After his discharge, the RO issued a decision in which it awarded Mr.

Guillory service connection for multiple disabilities 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 1991, Mr. Guillory requested an increased evaluation for special monthly

compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance. Id. In a letter dated

March 30, 1992, the Department of Veterans Affairs granted Mr. Guillory an increased

award for special monthly compensation, effective May 1992, based on a determination 

that Mr. Guillory had a service-connected seizure disorder ratable at 100 percent. Id. 

Mr. Guillory was also informed that he was entitled to special monthly compensation

because of the severity of his service-connected disabilities, including the need for aid 

and attendance. Id. 

In October of 1997, Mr. Guillory requested review of his file to determine whether 

he was being paid the appropriate rate. Id. Mr. Guillory sought retroactive pay for aid

and attendance, asserting that he had required aid and attendance since 1966 and that

he had otherwise been underpaid for his disabilities since that time. In October 2001,

05-7114 2
the RO determined that Mr. Guillory was not entitled to an earlier effective date for 

special monthly compensation based upon a need for regular aid and attendance. Mr.

Guillory appealed this decision to the Board. 

Before the Board, Mr. Guillory alleged, among other things, CUE in the action of

the RO following his discharge, assigning a 10-percent rating for skull loss under 

Diagnostic Code 5296. Mr. Guillory asserted that the evidence in his claims file showed 

that, at the time of the October 1966 RO decision, in addition to skull loss, he also 

suffered from brain hernia, which corresponds to the criteria for an 80-percent disability 

rating under Diagnostic Code 5296. On April 22, 2003, the Board found that there was

no evidence of CUE in the RO’s assignment of a 10-percent rating for skull loss

because the evidence of record did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under

Diagnostic Code 5296. After the Veterans Court affirmed the decision of the Board, Mr.

Guillory appealed 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, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; 2) contrary to constitutional right, 

power, privilege, or immunity; 3) outside the Veterans Court's jurisdiction or a violation 

of statutory right; or 4) not in accordance with the required procedure. Maxson 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 regulation as applied to the facts of a specific case. Id.; 38 U.S.C.

§ 7292(d)(2). 

05-7114 3
On appeal, Mr. Guillory argues that he is entitled to compensation under 38 

C.F.R. § 4.71a (1967). According to Mr. Guillory, the evidence in his claims file shows 

that, at the time of the October 1996 RO decision, he had skull loss with brain hernia,

which corresponds to the criteria for an 80-percent disability rating under Diagnostic

Code 5296 of section 4.71a. Mr. Guillory argues that if his medical records had been 

analyzed correctly, the Board and the Veterans Court would have come to a different 

conclusion in this case. Mr. Guillory does not challenge the validity or interpretation of 

the laws governing CUE, or any other laws relied upon by the Veterans Court in denying 

his claim of CUE. Moreover, Mr. Guillory does not argue that procedures and 

regulations were not properly followed. Mr. Guillory’s appeal raises purely factual 

issues. Accordingly, it is beyond the scope of our jurisdiction. See Helfer v. West, 174 

F.3d 1332, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Guillory’s appeal is dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. 

05-7114 4