NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

REJEANIA L. MILLER,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DAVID J. SHULKIN, SECRETARY OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1003

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 16-1064, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

______________________ 

Decided: February 15, 2017

______________________ 

REJEANIA L. MILLER, McLoud, OK, pro se.

BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., L.

MISHA PREHEIM; Y. KEN LEE, AMANDA BLACKMON, Office 

of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 
2 MILLER v. SNYDER

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Rejeania L. Miller seeks review of an order that the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) issued in Rejeania L. Miller v. Robert 

A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 16-1064 

(Vet. App. July 14, 2016). In that case, the Veterans Court

dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) for lack of jurisdiction. Because 

the Veterans Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the 

appeal, we affirm.

I 

Ms. Miller is the former spouse of veteran Joseph E. 

Strayhorne, who served on active duty from April 1985 to 

May 1993. In May 2008, Ms. Miller filed a claim for 

apportionment of Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) 

benefits on behalf of her then-minor child, Tameisha D. 

Strayhorne. The VA Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma reviewed and denied Ms. Miller’s requested apportionment for benefits for Ms. Strayhorne. Ms. Miller 

promptly filed a notice of disagreement in accordance with 

38 C.F.R. § 19.24. In response to this notice, the Regional 

Office prepared a statement of the case in accordance with 

38 C.F.R. § 19.26, indicating that it was denying the 

requested apportionment of benefits because Mr. Strayhorne neither filed for nor received benefits previously. 

After a series of remands to the Regional Office, the 

Board issued its decision denying Ms. Miller’s claim, 

concluding that “the claim for apportionment of [Mr. 

Strayhorne’s] VA benefits must be denied because there 

are no benefits which may be apportioned.” Appellant’s 

App’x 20. Three months later, Ms. Miller filed a motion 

for reconsideration with the Board. The following month, 
MILLER v. SNYDER 3

while her motion for reconsideration was pending, she 

filed a notice of appeal with the Veterans Court. Id. at 3–

5. The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal, concluding 

that the finality of the Board’s decision abated when Ms. 

Miller filed her motion for reconsideration. Id. at 1–2. Ms. 

Miller appeals the Veterans Court’s dismissal. 

II

On appeal, Ms. Miller asks us to reverse the Veterans 

Court and award her the disability compensation she 

originally sought before the Board. In support, Ms. Miller

focuses on the underlying merits of her benefits claim

first, and on the timeliness of her request for reconsideration and notice of appeal second. Appellant’s Br. 1–2. 

Regarding Ms. Miller’s arguments that the Veterans 

Court did not provide her with a fair and impartial consideration of the medical evidence submitted, we note that 

the governing law does not allow us to review her arguments. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c); see also Wanless v. Shinseki, 

618 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Regarding the timeliness of her appeal, although Ms. 

Miller argues that she filed her notice of appeal and 

request for reconsideration in a timely manner, this does 

not change the result here. Under the relevant statute, 

the Veterans Court can only hear “final” Board decisions. 

38 U.S.C. § 7266(a). But by the mere filing of her request 

for reconsideration, the Board’s decision was made no 

longer final. Linville v. West, 165 F.3d 1382, 1386 (Fed.

Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); see also Fithian v. Shinseki, 

24 Vet. App. 146, 149 (2010). Thus, the Veterans Court 

could not hear Ms. Miller’s appeal after she filed her 

reconsideration request. 

Accordingly, we affirm the Veterans Court’s dismissal 

for lack of jurisdiction. As the Veterans Court noted, 

however, Ms. Miller may appeal the Board’s decision to 

the Veterans Court within a renewed 120-day period if 
4 MILLER v. SNYDER

the Board denies her request for reconsideration. See

Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 241, 249 (1991). 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

The parties shall bear their own costs.