NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

04-7114 JOHNNY J. JONES, Claimant-Appelllant,

v. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________ _________ DECIDED: December 10, 2004

__________________ _________ Before RADER, Circuit Judge , ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge , and DYK, Circuit Judge

. RADER, Circuit Judge

. Johnny J. Jones appeals an order of the United Stat es Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) vacating and remanding the decis ion of the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) that refused to reopen Mr. Jones’ claim for service connection for paranoid schizophrenia. Jones v. Principi , Vet. App. No. 01-1372 (Mar. 2, 2004). Because the issues appealed by Mr. Jones are not the subject of a final decision of the Veterans Court, Mr. Jones’ appeal is dismissed

. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Jones served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 1972 to August 1980, and on active duty for training in the Naval Reserves in August 1981, August 1982, August 1983, August 1984, and December 1984. In December 1986, Mr.Jones filed a claim with the VA for service connection for a nervous condition. The Department of Veterans Affa irs (VA) denied Mr. Jones’ cl aim, which dec ision was not appealed. In May 1991, Mr. Jones attempted to r eopen his claim for service connection. The VA regional office found that Mr. Jones had failed to present new and material evidenc e and refused to reopen his claim. The Board affirmed the decis i on of the VA regional office. Mr. Jones appealed the Bo ard’s decis ion to the Veterans Court. Jones , Vet. App. No. 01-1372. The Veterans Court vacated the Board’s decision for failure to comply with the notic e requirem ents of 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) (2003) and the pertinent implementing regulations found at 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) (2003). Id. at 2-3. The Veterans Court did not reach t he merits of Mr. Jones’ claim, but instructed the Board t o allow Mr. Jones to submit additional eviden ce and raise his arguments for reopening his claim. Id. at 3. II. DISCUSSION This court’s review is limited to final decis ions of the V e terans Court. Willia ms v. Princip i , 275 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Allen v. Principi , 237 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted); Dambach v. Gober , 223 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); Caes ar v. West , 195 F.3d 1373, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999 ) (citations omitted). Rem ands to administrative agencies are not generally considered final dec isions. Myore v. Principi , 323 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Caesar , 195 F.3d at 1374 (citing Cabot Corp. v. United States , 788 F.2d 1539, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).

04-7114 2Mr. Jones argues that the Veterans Cour t failed to address the statutory and regulatory language of section 5103(a) and section 3.159(b). Because the Veteran s Court vacated and remanded the Board’s decision for a complete failure to consider section 5103(a) and section 3. 159(b), the Veterans Court did not construe the language of those sections in renderi ng its decision. Because th e Veterans Court remanded the case for a new determination c onsidering t hose sections, no final dec ision interpreting those sections exists for this court to re view. Because Mr. Jones’ arguments on appea l regard the application of sections 5103(a) and 3.159(b) and t he merits of his case, all of which has been remanded for c onsi deration by the Board, th is court must therefore dismiss Mr. Jones’ appeal.

04-7114 3