NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER A. VACA,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-2022

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 19-8745, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________ 

Decided: October 7, 2021

______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER A. VACA, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

 RAFIQUE OMAR ANDERSON, Commercial Litigation 

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

TARA K. HOGAN. 

 ______________________ 

Before PROST, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 21-2022 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2021
2 VACA v. MCDONOUGH

PER CURIAM. 

Christopher Vaca, a United States Army veteran, appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in Vaca v. Tran, No. 19-8745, 2021 WL 

422506 (Vet. App. Feb. 8, 2021). Mr. Vaca raises a number 

of arguments asserting that his disability ratings decisions 

should be corrected because they contain clear and unmistakable error (CUE). Because Mr. Vaca’s challenges on appeal involve the application of law to fact, we dismiss for 

lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Vaca served in the United States Army from November 1992 to November 1996. Shortly thereafter, 

Mr. Vaca sought benefits for certain service-related disabilities—retropatellar pain syndrome of both knees, tinea 

pedis for his left foot, and low back pain. On May 14, 1997, 

the Veterans Affairs Regional Office (1) granted service 

connection for retropatellar pain syndrome for both knees 

and assigned a single, combined 10 percent rating; 

(2) granted service connection for tinea pedis for Mr. Vaca’s 

left foot, but assigned a noncompensable rating under the 

applicable rating criteria at the time; and (3) denied service

connection for low back pain because Mr. Vaca had not submitted evidence of a “permanent residual or chronic disability” (i.e., there was no evidence of a current back 

disability). SAppx. 87–89.1 No notice of disagreement was 

filed, and therefore these determinations became final.

In 2004, Mr. Vaca sought service connection for tinea 

pedis of his right foot. SAppx. 76. The Regional Office denied service connection because the evidence did not show 

a chronic disability. Id.

1 “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed 

by the Government.

Case: 21-2022 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2021
VACA v. MCDONOUGH 3

In 2009, Mr. Vaca sought increased benefits for his 

knee and foot conditions, which were granted by the Regional Office. SAppx. 75–80. Regarding Mr. Vaca’s knee 

disability, the Regional Office found an increased disability 

based on a 2009 examination and thus granted individual 

10 percent ratings for each knee (rather than the single 10 

percent rating for both knees together). SAppx. 75, 77. For 

Mr. Vaca’s foot condition, the Regional Office reopened 

Mr. Vaca’s claim for service connection for his right foot (in 

addition to his left) based on the new 2009 examination, 

granted service connection for the right foot, and assigned 

a 10 percent rating for his bilateral condition. 

SAppx. 76–77.

In 2012, the Regional Office made a decision to recoup 

an overpayment of benefits to Mr. Vaca in 2009 by reducing 

his disability compensation. SAppx. 9. This was because 

Mr. Vaca had received active service pay for five days in 

2009, and thus was not entitled to disability compensation 

at the same time. Id.; Appellant’s Br. 13.2

In 2014, Mr. Vaca filed a motion to revise, on the basis 

of clear and unmistakable error (CUE), the 1997 and 2009 

ratings determinations as well as the 2012 decision to reduce compensation to offset an overpayment by the agency. 

SAppx. 66–67; see SAppx. 2. The Regional Office denied 

CUE. SAppx. 66–74. The Board affirmed. SAppx. 12–28. 

The CAVC affirmed. SAppx. 1–10; Vaca, 2021 WL 422506, 

at *7. 

Mr. Vaca now appeals to this court.

2 “Appellant’s Br. __” refers to pages in Mr. Vaca’s 

informal brief as numbered by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.

Case: 21-2022 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 10/07/2021
4 VACA v. MCDONOUGH

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court

is limited. We are permitted to “decide all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). But we cannot 

review a challenge to a factual finding or a challenge to a 

law or regulation as applied to the facts of a case, except to 

the extent that an appeal presents a constitutional issue. 

Id. § 7292(d)(2); Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336

(Fed. Cir. 2010).

On appeal, Mr. Vaca makes a number of arguments 

challenging the Veterans Court’s decision, but they all involve challenges to the application of the law to the facts in 

Mr. Vaca’s case—questions that we may not review.

For instance, construing Mr. Vaca’s brief liberally, we 

understand Mr. Vaca to argue that the Veterans Court’s 

decision is in conflict with Veterans Court cases in which 

the court remanded due to inadequate VA medical examination. Appellant’s Br. 5 (first citing Reonal v. Brown, 

5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993); then citing Stegall v. West, 

11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); and then citing Barr v. Nicholson, 

21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007)). None of those cases involved 

claims of CUE. Here, the Veterans Court simply applied 

the established law to the facts of Mr. Vaca’s case in rejecting his argument of CUE based on inadequate examination. SAppx. 4–5 (citing George v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 318, 

327 (2020) (“[A] duty-to-assist error is not sufficient to constitute CUE.”)); Vaca, 2021 WL 422506, at *3.

As to Mr. Vaca’s argument that the Veterans Court decided constitutional issues, we understand Mr. Vaca to 

first argue that the Board failed to reference certain medical evidence. Appellant’s Br. 6–7. This, however, is not a 

constitutional issue but instead is a challenge to the application of the law to the facts of Mr. Vaca’s case, as it challenges whether the Board gave adequate reasons for its 

decision. Buchert v. Shinseki, 423 F. App’x 988, 990 

Case: 21-2022 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 10/07/2021
VACA v. MCDONOUGH 5

(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[D]etermining whether the Board provided a sufficient statement of the reasons for its decision 

involves the application of law to facts.”). We therefore do 

not have jurisdiction to consider this question. The second 

issue we understand Mr. Vaca to raise in this section is 

that the VA failed in its duty to assist by “explain[ing] fully 

the issues and suggest[ing] the submission of evidence.” 

Appellant’s Br. 6–7 (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(d)(2)). But 

as stated above, this is an application of law to fact, not a 

constitutional issue, and we therefore do not have jurisdiction to consider this question. Mr. Vaca’s characterization 

of these arguments as constitutional does not give this 

court jurisdiction over those questions. Helfer v. West, 

174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Mr. Vaca also appears to challenge the Board’s determination that the 2009 Regional Office decisions became 

final because he did not submit a notice of disagreement. 

Appellant’s Br. 8. Mr. Vaca contends that “[w]hether a 

[n]otice of [d]isagreement [Appeal] is adequate is an appealable issue.” Id. (fourth alteration in original). It is unclear how this would affect Mr. Vaca’s case, where he does 

not assert that he ever filed a notice of disagreement 

(timely or not, adequate in substance or not). Thus, 

whether or not the adequacy of a notice of disagreement is 

an appealable issue, it does not apply to Mr. Vaca’s appeal.

Mr. Vaca also argues that the RO committed CUE by 

failing to notify him of the statutory or regulatory basis of 

his benefits reduction due to the overpayment when he was 

simultaneously receiving active duty pay. Appellant’s 

Br. 13–14. The Board and the Veterans Court rejected this 

contention, both pointing to 38 U.S.C. § 5304(c), which forbids “compensation . . . for any period for which such person receives active service pay.” Both the Board and the 

Veterans Court noted that Mr. Vaca failed to provide any 

legal authority that would support his claim that the Regional Office was required to notify him of the basis of the 

reduction and that its failure to do so was therefore CUE. 

Case: 21-2022 Document: 22 Page: 5 Filed: 10/07/2021
6 VACA v. MCDONOUGH

SAppx. 9, 24–25; Vaca, 2021 WL 422506, at *6. The 

Board’s and the Veterans Court’s decisions were merely applications of the law regarding CUE and 38 U.S.C. 

§ 5304(c) to the facts of Mr. Vaca’s case. Such decisions are

not within our jurisdiction to review.

The remainder of Mr. Vaca’s challenges are, likewise, 

directed to issues regarding the application of law to fact. 

See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 9 (arguing the Regional Office “incorrectly applied statutory and regulatory provisions”), 

10–11 (same), 14 (“error in its application of 38 CFR section 3.156”). For instance, several of Mr. Vaca’s arguments 

simply argue that the Regional Office erred in denying a 

higher rating or denying an earlier effective date. See, e.g., 

id. at 11–13. In other words, Mr. Vaca is arguing not that 

the Regional Office wrongly interpreted a statute or regulation but that its application of the statute or regulation 

to Mr. Vaca’s facts was erroneous. We are unable to decide 

the merits of these arguments as they are outside our jurisdiction.

We have considered Mr. Vaca’s remaining arguments 

on appeal and we conclude that none are within our jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the arguments

raised on appeal, we dismiss.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 21-2022 Document: 22 Page: 6 Filed: 10/07/2021