NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WILLIAM STEPHEN HALL,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7036

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-671, Chief Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold.

______________________ 

Decided: June 8, 2015

______________________ 

WILLIAM STEPHEN HALL, Jacksonville, FL, pro se.

MELISSA BAKER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., SCOTT D.

AUSTIN. 

______________________ 
2 HALL v. MCDONALD

Before PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

William Hall appeals from a decision of the Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) upholding 

the denial of his request for restoration of benefits withheld during his incarceration following his felony conviction. Because Mr. Hall has not raised any issues within 

our limited jurisdiction, we must dismiss his appeal.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Hall served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 

August 1975 to February 1977, and was subsequently 

assigned a 50 percent disability rating for a serviceconnected physical condition. Hall v. Nicholson, No. 04-

1753, 2007 WL 413032, at *1 (Vet. App. Jan. 18, 2007). In 

August 1991, Mr. Hall was convicted of a felony and 

incarcerated. Id. Under Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) regulations, a veteran who is incarcerated for more 

than sixty days while receiving benefits will have those 

benefits reduced. 38 U.S.C. § 5313(a) (“[A]ny person who 

is entitled to compensation . . . who is incarcerated . . . for 

a period in excess of sixty days for a conviction of a felony 

shall not be paid such compensation . . . for the period 

beginning on the sixty-first day of such incarceration and 

ending on the day such incarceration ends, in an amount 

that exceeds—(A) in the case of a veteran with a serviceconnected disability rated at 20 percent or more, the rate 

of compensation payable under section 1114(a) of this title 

. . . .”); 38 C.F.R. § 3.665 (implementing 38 U.S.C. 

§ 5313(a)); Hall v. West, 217 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 

(denying Mr. Hall’s assertion that 38 U.S.C. § 5313(a) and 

38 C.F.R. § 3.665 violate “the provisions of the United 

States Constitution that prohibit impairment of the 

obligation of contracts, illegal searches and seizures, bills 
HALL v. MCDONALD 3

of attainder, ex post facto laws, cruel and unusual punishment, double jeopardy, excessive fines, and deprivation 

of life, liberty and property without due process or equal 

protection of laws”) (non-precedential). The VA accordingly reduced Mr. Hall’s benefits. 

Mr. Hall appealed his reduction in benefits to the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), arguing that he was 

entitled to full benefits during the period of incarceration 

because his conviction was overturned. See 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.665(m) (“If a conviction is overturned on appeal, any 

compensation or DIC withheld under this section as a 

result of incarceration for such conviction (less the 

amount of any apportionment) shall be restored to the 

beneficiary.”). The Board reviewed the court decisions 

and VA communications discussing Mr. Hall’s conviction

and held that the evidence did not reveal that his conviction was overturned or otherwise vacated. The Board 

then issued a decision affirming the denial of Mr. Hall’s 

claim.

Mr. Hall appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court, which affirmed the Board. Mr. Hall appeals. 

DISCUSSION

This Court lacks jurisdiction to review a challenge to 

a factual determination or a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case, except to 

the extent that the appeal involves a constitutional question, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), but this Court has jurisdiction to review a decision on a rule of law or an 

interpretation of a statute or regulation, see id. § 7292(a).

Mr. Hall admittedly does not challenge the validity of 

a rule of law, statute, or regulation, or any interpretation 

thereof. See Appellant’s Brief at 1 (responding “no” to the 

second and third questions). Instead, Mr. Hall’s appeal 

centers on his contention that he is entitled to benefits 

under 38 C.F.R. § 3.665(m) because his conviction was 
4 HALL v. MCDONALD

overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit. Both the Board and Veterans Court 

considered the decisions and mandates issued by Florida 

state courts, the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida, and the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and determined that at 

no point was Mr. Hall’s conviction overturned. Because 

the only issue presented to this Court is Mr. Hall’s disagreement with the Veterans Court’s determination that 

his conviction was not overturned, we must dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

No costs.