N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ LABANA V. ANDRUS, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2015

- 7072

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 14

- 1098, Judge Margaret C. Bartley.

______________________

Decided: Se ptember 11, 2015

______________________

L ABANA V. A NDRUS , New Iberia, LA, pro se.

D ELISA S ANCHEZ , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washin gton, DC, for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., S COTT D. A USTIN ; M EGHAN A LPHONSO , D AVID J. B ARRANS , Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.ANDRUS v. MCDONALD 2

______________________

Before P ROST , Chief Judge, M OORE , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Labana Andrus appeals from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a decision by the Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”) that her dependency and indemnity compens ation (“DIC”) benefits we re properly terminated. Andrus v. McDonald

, No. 14

- 1098 (Vet. App. Feb. 18, 2015) (A. 1– 6)

. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

. B ACKGROUND Alfred Andrus served on active duty in the U.S. Army from June 1977 to December 1985. He began receiving disabili ty compensation sometime thereafter and on March 8, 2003, he married Ms. Andrus. Ten months and two days after the marriage, Mr. Andrus died of service

connected cardiorespiratory arrest, stage IV congestive heart failure, and acute renal failure.
The Dep artment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) granted DIC benefits to Ms. Andrus effective February 1, 2004. Seven years later, the VA wrote to Ms. Andrus that it was stopping the DIC benefits because she did not qualify for them

. The VA explained that Ms. Andrus could challenge the decision by submitting proof that she had children with Mr. Andrus or had been married to him for over a

year

. T he VA subsequently notified Ms. Andrus that it had terminated the DIC benefits but that she would not have to repay the amounts mistakenly paid to her from 2004 to 2011

. Ms. Andrus appealed the termination of her DIC be nefits to the Bo ard . She argu ed that she had “won” her DIC case

, that she was experiencing financial hardship,ANDRUS v. MCDONALD 3

and that it was unfair for the DIC payments to stop after having been paid for seven years. The Board denied the appeal, concluding that the DIC benefits were properly terminated

. T he Veterans Court affirmed

, concluding that Ms. Andrus did not meet at least one of the three alternative requirements for DIC benefits: (1) she did not marry Mr. Andrus within 15 years of the period of service in which he incurred the condition that caused his death; (2) the marriage was not for at least one year; and (3) no children were born to her and Mr. Andrus before or du ring the marriage

. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1 304 , 1310(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.5 0, 3.54(c)

. Ms. Andrus appeals.

D ISCUSSION Our jurisdiction for review ing Veterans Court dec isions is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). We have jurisdiction over “ all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory prov isions,” but lack jurisdiction over challenge s to factual determinations or the application of law to the facts of a

case. Id.

Ms. Andrus argues that the Veterans Court erred in affirming the termination of her DIC benefits

. She argue s that the termination was unfair and result ed in financial hardship for her

. She argues that her benefits should not have been terminated because she had not remarried. She argues that the Veterans Court ignored Mr. Andrus’s desire for the VA to “take care of” his two step

- children. Appellant’s Br. 1. The VA argues that Ms. Andrus does not raise any i ssues that fall within our jurisdiction. W e agree with the VA

. As acknowledged b y Ms. Andrus in her informal brief, t he Veterans Court did not interpret any statute s or regulations or decide any constitutional issues. I ts dec ision involved only factual determinations and application of law to those facts

. Ms. Andrus does not appeal any questions of law and instead only challenge s the VeteransANDRUS v. MCDONALD 4

Court’s determina tion that she does not qualify for DIC benefits based on the facts of her case

. This question is beyond the scope of our jurisdiction.

C ONCLUSION Because we do not have jurisdi ction over Ms. Andrus’s appeal, we dismiss

. DISMISSED

C OSTS

No costs.