NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7123

STEVE DENAULT, Claimant-Appellant, v.
R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

Steve Denault , of Larimore, North Dakota, pro se. William P. Rayel , Trial Attorney, Commercial Li tigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, fo r respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Deborah A. Bynum , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Liza M. Davis , Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge John J. Farley, IIINOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7123

STEVE DENAULT, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________ _________ DECIDED: July 16, 2007

__________________ _________ Before RADER, BRYSON, and MOORE, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) affirmed the denial of service connection for Mr. Steve Denault’s tinnitus. Denault v. Nicholson , No. 05-1593 (Vet. App. Nov. 3, 2006); Denault v. Nicholson , No. 05-1593 (Vet. App. Nov. 30, 2006). Because this court does not have a st atutory grant of jurisdiction to rule on this appeal, this court must dismiss

. I Mr. Denault served in the Unit ed States Army from June 1980 to July 1982. In August 1996, he filed a claim for service c onnection for tinnitus alleging he suffered acoustic trauma due to artillery fire. In Dece mber of 1996, the D epartment of VeteransAffairs (VA) conducted an audiological exami nation. Finding Mr. Denault's responses inconsistent, the VA conducted a second audio logical examination in January 1997. The VA denied Mr. Denault's claim in Februar y 1997 and again in April 1997 after Mr. Denault's submission of ne w evidence. In January 2002, Mr. Denault attempted to reopen his claim. The VA's regional office declined to reopen his claim. After filing a Notice of Disagreement and a review by a dec ision review officer, Mr. Denault received another audiological examination in April 2003. Mr. Denault's responses were again inconsistent. Mr. Denault then appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board). He submitted a private audiological examination report. The examiner in that report indicated that Mr. Denault's tinnitus may corre late to his exposure to noise while in the military. On review of Mr. Denault's records, the Board found Mr. Denault had presented new and material evidence to r eopen his claim. The Board, however, weighed the evidence and f ound no service connection for Mr. Denault's tinnitus. Thereafter, Mr. Denault appealed to the CAVC . The CAVC affirmed the Board finding that the Board did commit clear error in asse ssing credibility and weight of the evidence. Denault v. Nicholson , No. 05-1593, slip op. at 3 (Vet. App. Nov. 3, 2006).

II This court reviews the validity of stat utes used by the Veterans Court and the court’s interpretation of those statutes. Epps v. Gober , 126 F.3d 1464, 1466 (Fed. Cir. 1997); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d) (2006). This review includes questions of jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1)(C). This court, however, does not review factual determinations by

2007-7123 22007-7123 3 the Veterans Court or that c ourt’s application of law to fact ual situations. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) (2006). In his appeal to this court, Mr. Denault requests that this court review the determinations by the VA and the Board whic h denied his claim for service connection for tinnitus. This court constr ues pro se pleadings liberally. Durr v. Nicholson , 400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Nonetheless, even construing Mr. Denault's pleading liberally, this court underst ands Mr. Denault's request as an invitation to review the factual findings of the Boar d and the VA. Mr. Denault has not pointed to any allegedly incorrect regulatory, statutory, or constitutional interpretati on. Therefore, Mr. Denault has not stated a claim over whic h this Court has jurisdiction. This court must dismiss his appeal.