Note: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7225

VICTOR W. THACKER, Claimant-Appellant,

v. GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Se cretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. Victor W. Thacker , of Gray Court, S outh Carolina, pro se. Gregg M. Schwind , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Ju stice, of Washington, DC, fo r respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler , Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Deborah A. Bynum , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was David J. Barrans , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Appealed from: United States Cour t of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge William A. MoormanNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7225 VICTOR W. THACKER, Claimant-Appellant,

v. GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

___________________________ DECIDED: October 25, 2007

___________________________ Before NEWMAN, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Victor W. Thacker (“Thacker”) appeals from the decision of t he United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Thacker v. Nicholson , No. 04- 2092 (Vet. App. Feb. 28, 2007). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying Thacker’ s claim for service connection for heartrelated health problems, including coronary ar tery disease and myocardial infarction. Because this appeal involves only issues that fall outside this court’s jurisdiction, we dismiss

. BACKGROUND Thacker served in active military dut y from September 1968 to August 1972 and from July 1985 to October 1994. While in ac tive service, in 1989, Thacker was exposedto an electric current and received a seve re shock, for which he received medical treatment. Thereafter, Thacke r made numerous complaints of chest pain. Thacker was diagnosed with possible angina in S eptember 1990, while still in ac tive military service. Thacker suffered an inferior myocardial in farction in February 1997. He was diagnosed with coronary artery disease in April 1998, and has since continued to suffer from heartrelated health problems. Thacker filed a claim for service connec tion for his heart condition in September 1997. A Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) regional offi ce (“RO”) denied Thacker’s claim in January 1999. In May 2003, the B oard concluded that two prior VA cardiac examinations had not considered sufficiently whether any of Thacker’s heart problems were related to his service, and, pursuant to the VA’s duty to assist, remanded the case for further evaluation. In an opinion dat ed July 21, 2004, after Thacker’s third VA medical exam, the Board upheld the VA’s conc lusion that Thacker’s heart disability was not service connected, and concluded that the VA had satisfied its duty to assist. Thacker appealed to the Veterans Court, cha llenging the Board’s conclusion that his VA cardiac exams had satisfied the VA’s dut y to assist and asserting that the exams failed to consider the possib ility of nexus between his electrical shock and his cardiacrelated health problems. It found that Tha cker had received three medical examinations performed by the VA, at leas t one of which directly addressed the claimed connection between the electric shock and his heart condi tion. The court noted that all three examinations concluded that hi s heart condition was not service related. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the Board’s dete rmination that there

2007-7225 2had been no violation of the duty to assist was not clearly err oneous and was supported by plausible evidence in the record. Thacker appeals. DISCUSSION We have jurisdiction to review “the validit y of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any stat ute or regulation . . . or any in terpretation thereof . . . that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in ma king the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). However, we “may not review (A) a chall enge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to t he facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Thacker primarily argues that the Veter ans Court and the Boar d did not properly weigh the medical evidence that his heart-re lated health problems were caused by the electrical shock he suffered while in active service. This argument challenges the factual determinations reached by the Boar d and found by the Veterans Court to be supported by the record and not clearly err oneous, and is not within our jurisdiction. Construing Thacker’s pro se submission liberally, Durr v. Nicholson , 400 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005), it appears that he may also raise the same duty to assist argument that he made before the Veterans Court, assert ing that his VA cardiac examinations did not explore adequately t he possibility of a connection between the electrical shock and his heart-related health pr oblems. The Veterans Court rejected the factual premise of this argument, Thacker v. Nicholson , No. 04-2092, slip op. at 3, and this court is without jurisdiction to re view this factual determination. Finally, Thacker asserts that he was not afforded an opportunity to appear in person before the Board. While it is possible that such an argument could be liberally

2007-7225 32007-7225 4 construed to raise a Due Process challenge, T hacker’s argument in this regard fails to raise a substantial constitutional claim becaus e there is no constitutional right to appear in person before the Board. Accordingly, this argument is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court. See Ferguson v. Principi , 273 F.3d 1072, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding veteran’s meritless argument in voking statutory interpretation insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court). Thacker’s appeal is dismissed

. No costs.