N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


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

______________________
CHERYL L. SWANSON, Claimant

- Appellant,

v.

SLOAN D. GIBSON
, Acting S ecretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 7042

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 12

- 265, Judge Margaret C. Bar tley.

______________________

Decided: June 11, 2014

______________________

C HERYL L. S WANSON , of Lucasville, Ohio, pro se.

N ATHANAEL B. Y ALE
, Trial Attorney, Commercial Lit igation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent

- appel lee. With him on the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY
, Assistant Attorney General, R OBERT E. K IRSCHMAN
, J R
., Acting Director, and S COTT D. A USTIN
, Assistant Director

. Of counsel on the brief were Y. K EN L EE , Assistant DeputySWANSON v. GIBSON 2

General Counsel, and C HRISTINA L. G REGG , Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Was hington, DC.

______________________

Before P ROST
, ∗ Chief Judg e , T ARANTO and C HEN
, Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. Cheryl L. Swanson seeks review of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) finding no clear error in the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision denying Ms. Swanson’s claims for : (1) service connection for a cervical spine condition, residuals of a head injury, and a mitral valve prolapse; and (2) benefits for residuals of a hysterectomy. 1 Because Ms. Swans on raises no issue within our jurisdiction, we dismiss her appeal.

∗ Sharon Prost assumed the position of Chief Judge on May 3 1 , 2014.

1 Ms. Swanson filed a motion requesting oral arg ument in this case on June 4, 2014. However, as noted in our Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants, oral argument is rarely needed in pro se cases. See Guide for Pro Se Petitioners (Feb. 11, 2014), http://www.cafc. uscourts.gov/images/stories/rules-ofpractice/pro _se_ updated _2- 11

- 2014.pdf

. After reviewing Ms. Swa n son’s case, w e conclude that oral argument would not assist the court in deciding this appeal and, therefore, we deny the motion. Ms. Swanson also filed a motion to supplement the record on June 4, 201 4 . We grant this motion

, and we have considered all of Ms. Swanson’s submitted suppl e mental documents.SWANSON v. GIBSON 3

B ACKGROUND
Ms. Swanson served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from June 1973 to February 1975, and in th e U.S. Navy from March 1977 to March 1979. Her service treatment records reflect psychiatric and gynecological problems, but no heart, neck, or upper spine problems.

Ms. Swa n son claims that she suffered a neck injury , a head injury, and a traumatic brain injury in a car acc ident while she was serving in the Air Force

. However, there is no indication of the accident or of any resulting injuries in her service record s. 2 A medical exam iner concluded that Ms. Swa ns on’s cervical spine condition had a “clear o nset” in 2002, twenty

- three years after she left the military and after she was injured at a Boy Scout

camp. Similarly, her medical records only indicate sym ptoms of a head injury after she was injured at the Boy Scout Camp.

Next, Ms. Swan son claims that she suffers from m itral valve pro lapse

. However, both her service treatment records and later medical records show no complaints

, treatment s, or positive test results for this problem. 3

Because Ms. Swanson did not present any medical e vidence connecting these condition s to her military service, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s denial of Ms. Swanson’s cervical spine condition, head injury, and mitral valve prolapse claim s

.

2 There is also no indication of the accident or of any resulting injuries in the additional medical records that Ms. Swanson submitted to the court on June 4, 2014.

3 Again, there is no mention of this condition in the medical records that Ms. Swanson submitted on June 4,
2014.SWANSON v. GIBSON 4

Ms. Swa n son underwent a hysterectomy in October 2006, and the Vet erans Court granted a service conne ction for this procedure. She currently has a fifty percent evaluation, and she is also receiving special monthly compensation for loss of a creative organ. Ms. Swanson

now se e ks benefits for residuals from that surgery pre mise d upon the medical treatment she received. The Vete rans Court affirmed the Board’s deni al of Ms. Swanson’s surgical residual claim because the surgery was not performed in an approved facility.

Ms. Swanson then appealed to this court seeking to
i nvoke our jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292.

D ISCUSSION

We have limited jurisdiction to review appeals f ro m the Veterans Court

. While we review challenge s to the validity of s tatute s or regulation s as well as constitutional issue s , we lack jurisdic tion to review challenge s to factual determinations

. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. And i f we dete rmine that we lack jurisdiction over all claims , we are forced to dismiss an appeal.

In Ms. Swanson’s informal brief in support of her a ppeal, she alleges that the Vetera ns Court decided a const itutional issue, over which we would have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). She t h en alleges that her due process rights were violated because she was a victim of sexual discrimination, but she does not explain why she believ es she has experienced discrimination. Instead, Ms. Swanson submitted a letter

, dated October 9, 2009, from a licensed psychologist which states that Ms. Swanson “reports a history of sexual trauma in the military.” S he also cites Davis v. Passman , 442 U.S. 228 (1979), a case that addressed discrimination in the workplace on th e basis of sex and the Fifth Amendment

. This statement, even when considered along with the psychologist’s letter, does not support Ms. Swanson’s contention that her
constitutional rights were violated by the VeteransSWANSON v. GIBSON 5

Court’s affirmance of the Board’s d ecision

. Therefore, she
has not raise d a genuine constitutional issue that could provide a basis for our jurisdiction.

Ms. Swanson also argues that the Veterans Court failed to decide an issue correctly, but she does not su pport this allegation with anything m ore than the phrase “controversies to which the United States shall be a part” followed by citations to two Supreme Court cases addres sing the scope of the judicial power un der Article III. Ms. Swanson has offered no explanation as to why these Supreme Court cases are applicable to her appeal. Ther efore, Ms. Swanson has also not raised any issue concer ning the validity or interpretation of any statute, regulation, or rule of law relied upon by the Vet erans Co ur t that could provide a basis for our jurisdiction.

Finally, Ms. Swanson questions the inclusion in her claims file of an article f ro m the Portsmouth Daily Times

, dated March 20, 2007

, that discusses a lawsuit she filed against the Boy Scouts as a result of an alleged head injury s he suffered while at a Boy Scout camp ground

. At the time the article was submitted, Ms. Swanson was represented by Disabled American Veterans (“DAV”) , and she sign ed a form which authorized D AV to act on her behalf with regard to claims for benefits. Evidence ind icates that DAV submitted the Portsmouth Daily Times article to be included in her file

. In any event, on appeal Ms. Swanson has not alleged nor is there any indication that includin g this article in the file resulted in any prejudice

. Therefore, Ms. Swanson has not raised any additional arguments that grant our court jurisdiction over her appeal.

C ONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Ms. Swanson has failed to raise any issue that could provide a basis for our jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal.SWANSON v. GIBSON 6

DISMISSED

C OSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.