NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FRANCOIS G. DUMAINE,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-2332

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 20-3414, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, 

Jr.

______________________ 

Decided: May 10, 2022

______________________ 

FRANCOIS G. DUMAINE, Venice, FL, pro se.

 REBECCA SARAH KRUSER, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, MARTIN F.

HOCKEY, JR. 

______________________ 

Case: 21-2332 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2022
2 DUMAINE v. MCDONOUGH

Before TARANTO, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Francois G. Dumaine appeals the decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’

(“Board”) denial of his request to reopen his disability benefits claim for type 2 diabetes mellitus. See Dumaine v. 

McDonough, No. 20-3414, 2021 WL 2669283 (Vet. App. 

June 30, 2021). For the reasons below, we dismiss for lack 

of jurisdiction. 

I 

Mr. Dumaine served on active duty from March 1966 

to December 1967, and from January to December 1967, he 

was stationed at the joint U.S. Army/U.S. Air Force/Royal 

Thai Air Force base near Korat, Thailand. Dumaine, 2021 

WL 2669283, at *1. In August 1997, Mr. Dumaine was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Id. Approximately 

five years later, he filed a disability benefits claim with the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) seeking service 

connection for his diabetes on the basis that he was exposed 

to Agent Orange while stationed in Thailand. Id. After the 

VA regional office (“RO”) denied his claim, Mr. Dumaine 

appealed to the Board. Id. at *1–2. The case went between 

the RO and the Board several times over the next decade. 

Id. Finally, in September 2013, the Board denied service 

connection after finding that Mr. Dumaine was not exposed 

to any herbicides during his service. Id. at *2. Because Mr. 

Dumaine did not appeal the September 2013 Board decision, that decision became final. Id.

In October 2016, Mr. Dumaine filed another claim for 

disability benefits based on the same theories of Agent Orange exposure that he previously presented. See id.; see 

also J.A. 20. The RO construed Mr. Dumaine’s filing as a 

request to reopen his original claim and denied that request after finding Mr. Dumaine had not presented any 

Case: 21-2332 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2022
DUMAINE v. MCDONOUGH 3

new and material evidence. Dumaine, 2021 WL 2669283, 

at *2. Mr. Dumaine appealed to the Board, which likewise 

concluded there was no new and material evidence and denied the request to reopen. Id. Mr. Dumaine then appealed 

to the Veterans Court. Id. Reviewing the Board’s decision 

for clear error, the Veterans Court found none and affirmed 

the Board’s denial of Mr. Dumaine’s request to reopen. Id.

at *3–4. Mr. Dumaine now appeals the Veterans Court’s 

decision. 

II 

As set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), we have limited 

jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court. Except to the extent that an appeal presents a constitutional 

issue, we “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). We have jurisdiction, however, to “decide all 

relevant questions of law.” Id. § 7292(d)(1). Because we 

lack jurisdiction over the only issue presented by Mr. Dumaine, we accordingly dismiss this appeal. 

Mr. Dumaine fails to raise a question of law pertinent 

to this appeal. He alleges in his informal brief that the Veterans Court’s decision “involve[d] the validity or interpretation of” two statutes, 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a), 

and one Veterans Court case, Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. 

App. 23 (1990), noting without further explanation that 

“new and material evidence was submitted.” Appellant’s 

Br. at 1. But, contrary to what Mr. Dumaine suggests, the 

Veterans Court did not rely on, let alone interpret, the authority he identifies in concluding that there was no clear 

error in the Board’s decision. For instance, 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7252(a) grants the Veterans Court “exclusive jurisdiction 

to review decisions of the Board,” and 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) 

sets the deadline by which a notice of appeal must be filed 

at the court. Frankel, in addition to holding that a religious 

marriage ceremony is irrelevant to determining eligibility 

Case: 21-2332 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 05/10/2022
4 DUMAINE v. MCDONOUGH

for spousal death pension benefits, establishes the procedure by which a single Veterans Court judge would consider and decide cases identified for summary disposition. 

1 Vet. App. at 25–26. Here, the Veterans Court cited the 

two statutes and Frankel to establish its jurisdiction over 

the underlying Board decision and the appropriateness of 

single-judge disposition, respectively. Dumaine, 2021 WL 

2669283, at *1. 

The remainder of Mr. Dumaine’s informal brief consists of factual allegations directed to disputing the VA’s 

position that Agent Orange was not used or stored at the 

Korat base and to establishing the merits of his claim. Appellant’s Br. at 2; see also Appellant’s Reply Br. at 1–3. He 

requests that we “overturn the VA’s decision in this matter” and direct the VA to award him a 60% disability rating 

retroactive to 1967. Appellant’s Br. at 3. But the merits of 

Mr. Dumaine’s claim are not on appeal and, in any event, 

we lack jurisdiction over such a challenge. See 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(d)(2). The same is true with respect to Mr. Dumaine’s argument that “new and material evidence was 

submitted” warranting reopening his claim. Appellant’s 

Br. at 1. As we have previously held, this is “an issue that 

is ‘either a factual determination [ ] or the application of 

law to the facts of a particular case [ ] and is, thus, not 

within this court’s appellate jurisdiction.’” Melo v. Wilkie, 

742 F. App’x 502, 504 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Barnett v. 

Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also 

38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 21-2332 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 05/10/2022