NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-7104 GARYSON FORD, Claimant-Appellant,

v. JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secret ary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

Garyson Ford , of Brooklyn, New York, pro se. Maame A.F. Ewusi-Mensah , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depar tment of Justice, of Wash ington, DC, for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas , Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr. , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Tracey P. Warren , Attorney, Office of the G eneral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affa irs, of Washington, DC. Appealed from: United States Cour t of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge Ronald M. HoldawayNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-7104

GARYSON FORD , 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 06-1175, Judge Ronald M. Holdaway.

_________ __________________ DECIDED: October 10, 2008

_________ __________________ Before RADER, LINN and MOORE, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Garyson Ford appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), Ford v. Peake , No. 06-1175 (Vet. A pp. Feb. 27, 2008), affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision denying entitlement to an earlier effective date of servic e connection for schizophrenia. Because Mr. Ford raises only a new, fact-based challenge on appeal, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Ford served on active duty from Ma rch 1977 to September 1979. In April 1983, the Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) deni ed him service connection for a nervous condition. After denyin g multiple subsequent claims for service connection, the RO granted service connection in October 1998 and assigned a 100% disability ratingeffective November 30, 1993. Mr. Ford fi led a claim in November 2002 seeking an earlier effective date. The RO denied this claim in Ju ly 2003, and Mr. Ford appealed to the Board. The Board found that Mr. Ford was entitled to an earlier effective date— January 2, 1990—because a claim he had filed on that date was still pending when the RO granted service connection. Mr. Ford also argued before the Boar d that the RO committed clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a November 1983 rating decision by failing to assist him in obtaining records to support his claim for service connection. The Board rejected this argument on the basis that “ under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(d) (2005) , a failure to fulfill VA’s duty to assist a claimant with the development of facts relev ant to his claim is not an example of a situation constituting CUE.” Mr. Ford appealed to the Veterans Cour t. He argued only that VA “should have examined the weight and credibility of the evidence” before the RO in November 1983. Because Mr. Ford had not made this argument before the Board, the Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Ford’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Ford appeals the Veterans Court’s decis ion, and we have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). Our jurisdiction is lim ited to considering “c hallenge[s] to the validity of a stat ute or regulation or any interpreta tion thereof” and to “interpret[ing] constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision.” Id. Absent a constitutional issue, we ca nnot review factual determinations or “challenge[s] to a law or r egulation as applied to the fact s of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2). Moreover, we cannot review ne w challenges not raised in the Veterans Court. See Boggs v. West , 188 F.3d 1335, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

2008-7104 22008-7104 3 Mr. Ford does not challenge the validity or interpre tation of a statute or regulation. Mr. Ford does not even appeal the only issue decided by the Veterans Court in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction—i .e., failure to raise before the Board that VA should have examined the weight and credibi lity of evidence before the RO in November 1983. Instead, Mr. Fo rd simply argues that he is entitled to an earlier filing date. This challenge to the application of law to fact is not within our jurisdiction. Thus, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. COSTS
No costs.