NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOSE REMILIEN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1931

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 20-7704, Judge Scott Laurer.

______________________ 

Decided: November 14, 2023

______________________ 

JOSE REMILIEN, Fort Lauderdale, FL, pro se. 

 AUGUSTUS JEFFREY GOLDEN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

Before DYK, CHEN, AND STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 22-1931 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 11/14/2023
2 REMILIEN v. MCDONOUGH

PER CURIAM. 

Jose Remilien appeals the final decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ decision denying Mr. Remilien

benefits because he did not have qualifying military service 

to make him eligible to receive veteran benefits. We must 

dismiss because we lack jurisdiction to hear Mr. Remilien’s 

appeal. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Remilien contends that he served in the United 

States Army from November 1996 to April 2007. To qualify for veteran benefits, a service member must establish 

that he or she has veteran status. A veteran is “a person 

who served in the active military, naval, air, or space service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under 

conditions other than dishonorable.” 38 U.S.C. § 101(2).

The Board determined Mr. Remilien lacked the requisite service to be eligible for veterans benefits because neither Mr. Remilien nor the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) were able to locate any records to verify his dates of 

service. SAppx.1 12–14. In September 2014, Mr. Remilien 

filed claims for service connection for several asserted mental health conditions. SAppx. 10. When the VA regional 

office requested verification of his service, Mr. Remilien indicated that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation) was 

destroyed in a fire. SAppx. 12. Mr. Remilien was unable 

to provide any other discharge documents or other documents to prove that he served in the active military. 

SAppx. 12. As such, in November 2014, the VA regional 

office submitted a request to the relevant service department, seeking Mr. Remilien’s service records to establish 

his service, but the service department responded that it 

1 Citations to “SAppx.” refer to the supplemental appendix filed by the Government.

Case: 22-1931 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 11/14/2023
REMILIEN v. MCDONOUGH 3

was unable to find Mr. Remilien’s information in the online 

system. SAppx. 12. Over the next several years, at the request of the Board, the regional office conducted multiple 

searches at multiple locations for any documentation that 

would verify Mr. Remilien’s military service. See 

SAppx. 12–13. These searches yielded none. Consequently, based on the service department’s certification 

that Mr. Remilien had no active service as a member of the 

U.S. Armed Forces, the Board found that “[he] did not have 

verifiable military service for VA purposes to establish entitlement to VA benefits.” SAppx. 14.

Mr. Remilien appealed and the Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims affirmed the Board’s decision. Remilien 

v. McDonough, 2022 WL 1055486, at *1 (Vet. App. Apr. 8, 

2022); SAppx. 1–2. Given the VA’s efforts to locate Mr. Remilien’s service documentation, the Veterans Court determined the Board did not err in finding that Mr. Remilien 

did not have the requisite service to apply for VA benefits. 

Remilien, 2022 WL 1055486, at *1; SAppx. 2. Now, 

Mr. Remilien appeals and asks this court to review the factual determination that he lacked qualifying military service.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is 

limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may review “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.” “Except to the extent that an appeal . . . presents 

a constitutional issue,” we “may not review (A) a challenge 

to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or 

regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 

38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); see, e.g., Conway v. Principi, 

353 F.3d 1369, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Case: 22-1931 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 11/14/2023
4 REMILIEN v. MCDONOUGH

Mr. Remilien asks this court to review the factual determination that he lacked qualifying military service. 

Mr. Remilien asserts that the Board’s decision relied on incorrect dates of entry and release, and he provides updated 

dates. Appellant’s Br. 2–3.2

We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Remilien’s appeal because the Board’s determination of veteran status, upheld 

by the Veterans Court, is a finding of fact. See Rubia 

v. Shinseki, 524 F. App’x 707, 711 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (nonprecedential). It does not involve the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation. Nor does it raise any 

constitutional issues. See Appellant’s Br. 2. Rather, the 

appeal essentially asks us to make a factual determination 

in Mr. Remilien’s favor as it relates to qualifying military 

service. Therefore, we dismiss.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

2 Citations to Mr. Remilien’s informal brief reflect 

the pagination applied by this court’s electronic case files 

system.

Case: 22-1931 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 11/14/2023