NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

ROBERT L. BELCHER, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, 

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2011-7181 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in Case No. 09-622, Judge William P. 

Greene, Jr. 

___________________________ 

Decided: July 24, 2012 

___________________________ 

ZACHARY M. STOLZ, Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick, 

LLP, of Providence, Rhode Island, argued for claimantappellant. Of counsel was THOMAS R. BENDER. 

STACEY K. GRIGSBY, Attorney, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assis-
BELCHER v. SHINSEKI 2

tant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, 

and MARTIN F. HOCKEY, Assistant Director. Of counsel on 

the brief were MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant 

General Counsel, and DANA RAFFAELLI, Attorney, United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, 

DC. 

__________________________ 

Before LOURIE, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

INTRODUCTION

Veteran Robert L. Belcher (“Belcher”) appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims (“Veterans Court”) in Belcher v. Shinseki, No. 09-

0622, 2010 WL 5377718 (Vet. App. Dec. 21, 2010). In its 

decision, the Veterans Court affirmed the December 12, 

2008 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) 

that denied service connection for post-traumatic stress 

disorder (“PTSD”). Specifically, the Board denied Mr. 

Belcher’s claimed in-service stressors finding that they 

could not be corroborated. Belcher, 2010 WL 5377718, at 

*1. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Belcher served on active duty with the Marine 

Corps from November 1952 to October 1955. On September 8, 2005, he filed a claim for disability compensation 

for PTSD. Mr. Belcher claimed that his PTSD stems from 

two incidents or stressors: (1) a near drowning experience 

in a swimming pool during boot camp; and (2) an amphibious landing training in Iwo Jima where Mr. Belcher 

and several others fell into the ocean. On March 14, 2006, 

a Department of Veterans Affairs regional office (“RO”) 

denied the claim, finding that his claimed stressors could 
3 BELCHER v. SHINSEKI

not be corroborated and that he lacked a confirmed diagnosis of PTSD. In response to the decision, Mr. Belcher 

filed a notice of disagreement and requested a hearing 

before a decision review officer. On April 10, 2007, the 

RO issued a statement of the case, denying the claim for 

lack of evidence corroborating the occurrence of the alleged in-service stressors.

Mr. Belcher appealed to the Board. Upon acknowledging that Mr. Belcher had a provisional diagnosis of 

PTSD,1 the Board began its analysis with a discussion of 

Mr. Belcher’s claimed stressors. The Board found that 

the record, including testimony from Mr. Belcher, his 

wife, and friends, did not contain credible supporting 

evidence that his claimed stressors occurred. To begin, 

the Board determined that Mr. Belcher did not engage in 

combat and, thus, could not avail himself of the more 

relaxed evidentiary standard for combat-related stressors 

under 38 U.S.C. § 3.304(f). With respect to his claimed 

stressors, the Board explained that the boot camp incident was anecdotal in nature, and as a result, unverifiable. The Board also found no evidence in the record to 

support Mr. Belcher’s account of the amphibious landing 

exercise. Therefore, on December 12, 2008, the Board 

denied Mr. Belcher’s claim for entitlement to disability 

compensation for PTSD. 

On appeal to the Veterans Court, Mr. Belcher argued 

that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of 

reasons or bases for its determination that his claimed in-

 1

 According to 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) 

of this chapter; (2) a link, established by medical evidence, 

between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and 

(3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed inservice stressor occurred. 
BELCHER v. SHINSEKI 4

service stressor, related to the alleged events in Iwo Jima, 

could not be corroborated. Belcher, 2010 WL 5377718, at 

*1. In particular, he argued that his stressor was verified 

by: (1) his lay statements that allege that he fell from a 

ship near Iwo Jima, cut his hand, and nearly drowned; (2) 

records that show he was on a ship near Iwo Jima; and (3) 

evidence of a scar on his hand at separation from duty. Id. 

The Veterans Court affirmed the December 2008 Board 

decision. Mr. Belcher timely appealed his case to this 

court. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). We have 

jurisdiction to review a decision of the Veterans Court 

“with respect to the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] 

Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . 

or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination 

as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). 

Our authority extends to deciding all relevant questions 

of law, and we can set aside a regulation or an interpretation of a regulation relied upon by the Veterans Court 

when we find it to be “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse 

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; 

contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or 

immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or 

limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; or without 

observance of procedure required by law.” Jones v. West, 

194 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(d)(1). This court’s jurisdiction, however, does not 

extend to the ability to review factual determinations or 

the application of a law or regulation to a particular set of 

facts unless a constitutional issue is presented. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(d)(2). 
5 BELCHER v. SHINSEKI

Here, the Veterans Court found that the “record failed 

to reveal documentation of the triggering event or any 

records of Mr. Belcher’s medical treatment following the 

incident.” Belcher, 2010 WL 5377718, at *1. For example, 

although recognizing that Mr. Belcher has a scar on his 

hand and that he was stationed aboard a ship near Iwo 

Jima, the Veterans Court determined that these facts do 

not serve to corroborate the alleged in-service event 

claimed to be the triggering stressor. Id. The Veterans 

Court did not require corroboration of every detail of the 

alleged stressor, but nevertheless, concluded that the 

evidence presented was insufficient to provide support 

that he fell from a ship, nearly drowned, and injured his 

hand. Id. Thus, the Veterans Court held that the Board’s 

finding was plausibly based on all of the evidence of 

record and supported by an adequate statement of reasons or bases. Id. 

We have no jurisdiction over this case because the 

Veterans Court’s decision was based on factual determinations and/or the application of a law or regulation to a 

particular set of facts. Under the guise of a legal challenge, Mr. Belcher contends that the Veterans Court 

applied “too stringent a standard under both 38 U.S.C. 

§ 1154(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f).” Specifically, he argues 

that the Veterans Court erred by requiring “meaningful 

support” to his allegation that he fell from a ship, nearly 

drowned, and injured his hand when the statute and 

regulation require only “credible supporting” evidence 

that the stressor occurred. The Veterans Court’s use of 

the word “meaningful” as opposed to “credible,” however, 

is a distinction without a difference in this instance. A 

review of the Veterans Court’s decision shows it did not 

interpret a rule of law or any statute or regulation or any 

interpretation thereof. Rather, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s finding that the evidence did not 
BELCHER v. SHINSEKI 6

support Mr. Belcher’s claimed non-combat related 

stressor. Thus, Mr. Belcher’s arguments merely challenge 

the weight given to the evidence, which we lack jurisdiction to review. See, e.g., Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 

1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The weighing of this evidence is 

not within our appellate jurisdiction.”). This appeal is 

therefore dismissed. 

DISMISSED 

No costs.