N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ THOMAS J. KOCON,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1560

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 22

- 2719, Judge Joseph L. Falvey

, Jr.

______________________

Decided: September 12, 2023

______________________

T HOMAS J. K OCON , Central Falls, RI, pro se.

J OSHUA D AVID T ULLY , Commercial Litigation Branch,Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent

- appellee. Also repre sented by A MANDA B LACKMON , Y. K EN L EE , Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs , Washington, DC.

______________________ Case: 23-1560 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 09/12/2023KOCON v. MCDONOUGH 2

Before D YK , P ROST , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Thomas J. Kocon appeals to this court from a decisionof the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”)

. T his court ’s ability to review Veterans Court decisions is strictly limited to certain types of issues. Because Mr. Kocon’s appeal do es not raise the types of issues

we can review , we must dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. I

Mr. Kocon served honorably in the U.S. Army from May 1970 to January 1972. In 2003, he was granted disability pension benefits for non

- service

- connect ed schizophrenia , a nd in 2004 , he underwent a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) psychiatric examination confirming he had chronic schizophrenia, paranoid type.
In 2017, Mr. Kocon filed a claim for service

- connected disability compensation for his schizophrenia. A VA regional office denied his claim because it found no connection between his condition and his military service.
Mr. Kocon appealed the regional office’s den ial to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) . I n May 2021, the Board remanded his claim for further development, including obtaining additional records and conducting a new VA mental

- health examination. T he VA then requested that Mr. Kocon provide the names and addresses of private medical care providers who had treated him for schizophrenia. In response, Mr. Kocon identified Dr. Heal e y as having examined him in 1968 during a high school gym class

. The record reflects that the VA attempted to obtain records from Dr. Heal e y but was unable to do so because he was deceased. Case: 23-1560 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 09/12/2023KOCON v. MCDONOUGH 3

In January 2022, Mr. Kocon received his new VA mental

- health examination

. The examiner diagnosed him with schizophrenia, paranoid type. The examiner also (1) found no evidence link ing Mr. Kocon’s condition to his military service

, (2) n oted that Mr. Kocon had no history of mental

health or behavioral issues while in the military and that he rapidly advanced in rank , and (3) observed that there were no records of Mr. Kocon seeking help or treatment for any unusual thinking before or during his military service.

Mr. Kocon’s claim then returned to the Board. He argued that his schizophrenia preexisted and was aggravated by his service

, but the Board rejected that argument , relying on the absence of any psychological condition noted on Mr. Kocon’s service entrance examination

. SApp’x 11. 1 A lthough t he Board addressed Mr. Kocon’s statements concerning Dr. Healey’s examination of him i n high school

, it observed that there was no record of a diagnosis in high school and that Dr. Healey had since died

. See SApp’x 11. The Board also found insufficient evidence that Mr. Kocon’s condition began during or was caused by his military service, noting that (1) his service records included no complaint, diagnosis, or treatment for schizophrenia or any other mental condition; (2) his service exit examination was marked normal under psychiatric clinical evaluation; and (3) review of his mil itary personnel record showed no remarks indicat ing that he was having difficulty —indeed, he was repeatedly promoted. SApp’x 12. The Board also relied on findings from the January 2022 medical examination. SApp’x 13

– 15. Ultimately, the Board denied Mr. Kocon’s claim because there was not enough evidence to show a connection between his condition and his military service

. See SApp’x 16.

1 “SApp’x” refers to the supplemental appendix submitted with the government’s informal brief. Case: 23-1560 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 09/12/2023KOCON v. MCDONOUGH 4

Mr. Kocon appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court. Th e Veterans Court addressed two issues

— first, the Boa rd’s determination that Mr. Kocon’s condition did not preexist service; and second, the VA ’s duty to assist Mr. Kocon in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate his claim. On the first issue, the Veterans Court found no clear error in the Board’s det ermination . SApp’x 7 (discussing the Board’s reliance on the January 2022 VA mental

- health examination and the lack of psychiatric symptoms on Mr. Kocon’s service entrance and exit examinations). On the second issue, the Veterans Court saw no

error in th e VA’s efforts to assist Mr. Kocon. The c ourt observed that the VA tried to obtain records from Dr. Healey but that he was deceased. And

, although Mr. Kocon had

seem ingly objected that the VA did not try to contact two of his friends who were allegedly aware of his condition before he entered service, the Veterans Court determined that (1) there was no evidence that either of these friends created any relevant records, and (2) ther e was no evidence that Mr. Kocon sufficiently identified any such potential records to the VA. SApp ’ x 7

– 8. Accordingly, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. SApp’x 8.
Mr. Kocon timely appealed the Veterans Court’s decision to this court.

II

As we referenced above , Congress has placed strict limits on this court’s ability to review Veterans Court decisions

. We can review only pure questions of law ( for example, what a statute means ) or constitutional issues

. We can not review challenges to h ow the Board determined the facts of a given case or how the Veterans Court applied the law to the case’s facts

. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c), (d).

Mr. Kocon’s appeal raises only factual issues ( which we are unable to review ) or issues that do not impact his claim

. For example, Mr. Kocon seems to argue that his schizophrenia preexiste d his service

. T his is a factual issue that Case: 23-1560 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 09/12/2023KOCON v. MCDONOUGH 5

we can not review

. Mr. Kocon also seems to argue that the VA failed to satisfy its duty to assist him. This argument also invol ves factual issue s that we can not review. See,
e.g. , Lynch v. McDonough , No. 21

- 2224, 2022 WL 726955, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (nonprecedential). Mr. Kocon finally seems to argue that he should not have been drafted into service in the first place

. Setting aside whether this court could even review such an issue

, this issue does not impact the resolution of Mr. Kocon’s underlying claim for service

- connected disability compensation.
Because Mr. Kocon’s appeal does not raise any pertinent issues within our limited jurisdiction, we must dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

C OSTS

No costs. Case: 23-1560 Document: 18 Page: 5 Filed: 09/12/2023