NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DOUGLAS C. CATO, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2460

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 17-1186, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________ 

Decided: December 13, 2017

______________________ 

 DOUGLAS C. CATO, JR., Lafayette, LA, pro se.

 ANDREW JAMES HUNTER, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also 

represented by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN,

JR., TARA K. HOGAN. 

______________________ 
2 CATO v. SHULKIN

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and STOLL,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant Douglas C. Cato appeals an order of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”) dismissing his appeal as untimely. For the reasons set forth below, this court lacks jurisdiction to review 

the timeliness of Mr. Cato’s appeal.

I 

Mr. Cato had active military service from December 

1975 to July 1976. In May 2006, a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Regional Office denied reopening of Mr. 

Cato’s claim of entitlement to service connection for 

schizophrenia, simple type. On June 6, 2016, the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) likewise denied service 

connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder with 

anxiety and schizophrenia. On the same day, the Board 

mailed a copy of its decision to Mr. Cato. Later that year, 

on December 14, 2016, a VA Regional Office also mailed 

Mr. Cato a copy of the Board’s June 2016 decision.

On April 26, 2017, Mr. Cato filed a notice of appeal of 

the Board’s decision. Because the notice was filed more 

than 120 days after the Board mailed its decision to Mr. 

Cato, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs moved to dismiss 

Mr. Cato’s appeal to the Veterans Court for lack of jurisdiction. In response to the Secretary’s motion, Mr. Cato 

claimed that the Secretary had not mailed the decision to 

the correct address. The Secretary filed a response and 

declaration showing that the Board’s decision was indeed 

mailed to Mr. Cato and that there was no indication that 

the mailing was returned as undeliverable. Further, the 

Secretary noted that the copy of the decision mailed by 

the VA Regional Office had been mailed to the same 

address, and there was no indication that the second
CATO v. SHULKIN 3

mailing was returned as undeliverable. Finally, the 

Secretary noted that Mr. Cato had used multiple versions 

of the same address throughout his appeal. 

The Veterans Court dismissed Mr. Cato’s appeal on 

July 14, 2017, holding that Mr. Cato had not provided the 

clear evidence necessary to rebut the presumption of 

regularity that the VA had properly mailed a copy of the 

Board’s decision to him. The Veterans Court found no 

evidence that the letter was improperly addressed or that 

it was not delivered. Further, the Veterans Court noted 

that the address used matched the address where other

VA correspondence had been received and that there had 

no been suggestion of a change to Mr. Cato’s address. As 

such, the Veterans Court found that Mr. Cato had not 

overcome the presumption of regularity and, accordingly, 

dismissed his appeal as untimely. See 38 U.S.C. § 7266; 

U.S. Vet. App. R. 4(a).

The Veterans Court entered judgment on August 15, 

2017, and Mr. Cato timely appealed to this court. 

II

The jurisdiction of this court to review the decisions of 

the Veterans Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292; see also Toomer v. McDonald, 783 F.3d 1229, 1234 

(Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, unless an appeal presents a 

constitutional issue, this court is prohibited from reviewing “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a 

particular case.” § 7292(d)(2).

Mr. Cato argues on appeal that he did not receive the 

Board’s decision by mail. The Veterans Court considered 

Mr. Cato’s explanation for his untimely filing, but found 

that he had not provided the clear evidence necessary to 

overcome the presumption of regularity that applies to 

public officers. This presumption of regularity presumes, 

in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, that 
4 CATO v. SHULKIN

public officers have properly discharged their official 

duties. Butler v. Principi, 244 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 

2001). Put another way, the doctrine “allows courts to 

presume that what appears regular is regular.” Id. This 

presumption has been applied to the Board’s mailing 

procedures. See Toomer, 783 F.3d at 1235. 

To the extent that a challenge to the presumption of 

regularity involves factual findings or an application of 

law to the facts of a particular case, this court is expressly 

prohibited from reviewing such a challenge. See 

§ 7292(d)(2); Toomer, 783 F.3d at 1236 (stating that this

court lacks jurisdiction to reexamine “factual findings and 

the weight of the proffered evidence” regarding the presumption of regularity). Accordingly, because Mr. Cato’s 

appeal turns solely on the Veterans Court’s application of 

the presumption of regularity to the evidence presented in 

this case, this court does not have jurisdiction to review 

Mr. Cato’s arguments.

This appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.