Note: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-7229 

LEE E. JONES, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Lee E. Jones, of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, pro se. 

Tara J. Kilfoyle, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With her on 

the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, 

and Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. 

Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Y. Ken Lee, Attorney, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

 

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

Judge Mary J. Schoelen 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-7229 

LEE E. JONES 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

___________________________ 

DECIDED: December 5, 2007 

___________________________ 

Before GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit 

Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

Lee E. Jones (“Mr. Jones”) appeals the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims (“CAVC”) order affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) 

decision not to reopen a claim for entitlement to benefits. Jones v. Nicholson, No. 05-

1175 (December 22, 2006). The CAVC determined that Mr. Jones failed to 

demonstrate error in the notice provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). 

Id. For the reasons stated herein, we dismiss the appeal. 
BACKGROUND 

Mr. Jones served on active duty in the military service in Vietnam. Personnel 

records show that he committed several offenses resulting in two Court-Martial 

convictions and two nonjudicial punishments. In 1968, Mr. Jones was discharged under 

other than honorable conditions. When he applied for disability compensation the 

following year, Mr. Jones learned that the character of his discharge precluded his 

eligibility for VA benefits. He subsequently received a clemency discharge for 

completion of alternate service pursuant to Presidential Proclamation Number 4313. 

However, in a 1987 decision, the VA Regional Office determined that “[a] clemency 

discharge does not entitle or reinstate entitlement to benefits.” Mr. Jones did not appeal 

the 1987 decision and it became final. 

In 1995, Mr. Jones reapplied for disability compensation, which the VA Regional 

Office again denied based on the character of his original discharge. On appeal, the 

Board determined that Mr. Jones did not submit “new and material evidence” sufficient 

to reopen the 1987 decision. Due to a change in the law during the pendency of the 

appeal, the CAVC vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the issue pursuant to 

the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (“VCAA”). On remand, the Board 

determined that VA made reasonable efforts to notify Mr. Jones of the information and 

evidence needed to substantiate his claim, and any error in the chronological 

implementation of the VCAA was harmless. 

Mr. Jones appealed to the CAVC. He presented “a single argument – that VA 

did not notify him of the evidence necessary to substantiate his claim pursuant to 

38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b).” The CAVC determined that Mr. Jones 

2007-7229 2
failed to identify with any specificity any particular inadequacy in the notice provided. 

The CAVC therefore affirmed the decision of the Board. 

Mr. Jones filed an appeal to this court. 

DISCUSSION 

We have limited jurisdiction to review a decision of the CAVC. Bonner v. 

Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We may only review with respect to 

the validity of a rule of law, statute, or regulation, or any interpretation thereof, which the 

CAVC relied on in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). We may not review a 

challenge to a factual determination, nor may we review a challenge to a law or 

regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

On appeal, Mr. Jones argues that the CAVC considered the wrong military 

records. He alleges to have two sets of military records, only one of which includes an 

order that his discharge was under honorable conditions. Mr. Jones alleges that the 

order was not in the records considered by the Board and therefore not in the records 

considered by the CAVC. He also argues that the CAVC failed to consider his Purple 

Heart award. 

Mr. Jones’ arguments concern the character of his discharge, which was not an 

issue before the CAVC. The only issue before the CAVC was whether VA complied 

with the notice requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). 

Mr. Jones has not alleged any error in this determination, and we do not consider his 

arguments made for the first time on appeal. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Sturman Indus., Inc., 

387 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, Mr. Jones’ arguments concern factual 

issues over which we have no jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (d)(2). 

2007-7229 3
2007-7229 4

CONCLUSION 

We conclude that this court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Jones’ appeal. It 

is therefore dismissed. 

No costs.