NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHERYL L. SWANSON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

SLOAN D. GIBSON, 

Acting Secretary 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. Bartley. 

______________________ 

Decided: June 11, 2014

______________________ 

CHERYL L. SWANSON, of Lucasville, Ohio, pro se. 

NATHANAEL B. YALE, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. 

With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Assistant 

Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Acting 

Director, and SCOTT D. AUSTIN, Assistant Director. Of 

counsel on the brief were Y. KEN LEE, Assistant Deputy 
2 SWANSON v. GIBSON

General Counsel, and CHRISTINA L. GREGG, Attorney, 

United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Before PROST,

∗ Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

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. Swanson raises no issue within our jurisdiction, we 

dismiss her appeal. 

∗ Sharon Prost assumed the position of Chief Judge 

on May 31, 2014.

1 Ms. Swanson filed a motion requesting oral argument 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. Swanson’s case, we 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, 2014. We 

grant this motion, and we have considered all of Ms. 

Swanson’s submitted supplemental documents. 

 
SWANSON v. GIBSON 3

BACKGROUND

Ms. Swanson served on active duty in the U.S. Air 

Force from June 1973 to February 1975, and in the 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. Swanson claims that she suffered a neck injury, a 

head injury, and a traumatic brain injury in a car accident while she was serving in the Air Force. However, 

there is no indication of the accident or of any resulting 

injuries in her service records.2 A medical examiner 

concluded that Ms. Swanson’s cervical spine condition had 

a “clear onset” 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 symptoms of a head injury after she was injured at the Boy 

Scout Camp. 

Next, Ms. Swanson claims that she suffers from mitral valve prolapse. However, both her service treatment

records and later medical records show no complaints, 

treatments, or positive test results for this problem.3 

Because Ms. Swanson did not present any medical evidence connecting these conditions 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 claims. 

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.

 
4 SWANSON v. GIBSON

Ms. Swanson underwent a hysterectomy in October 

2006, and the Veterans Court granted a service connection 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 seeks benefits for residuals from that surgery premised upon the medical treatment she received. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s denial 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 

invoke our jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292.

DISCUSSION

We have limited jurisdiction to review appeals from 

the Veterans Court. While we review challenges to the 

validity of statutes or regulations as well as constitutional 

issues, we lack jurisdiction to review challenges to factual 

determinations. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. And if we determine that we lack jurisdiction over all claims, we are 

forced to dismiss an appeal.

In Ms. Swanson’s informal brief in support of her appeal, she alleges that the Veterans Court decided a constitutional issue, over which we would have jurisdiction 

under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). She then alleges that her due 

process rights were violated because she was a victim of 

sexual discrimination, but she does not explain why she 

believes 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.” She 

also cites Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979), a case 

that addressed discrimination in the workplace on the 

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 Veterans 
SWANSON v. GIBSON 5

Court’s affirmance of the Board’s decision. Therefore, she 

has not raised 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 support this allegation with anything more than the phrase 

“controversies to which the United States shall be a part” 

followed by citations to two Supreme Court cases addressing the scope of the judicial power under Article III. Ms. 

Swanson has offered no explanation as to why these 

Supreme Court cases are applicable to her appeal. Therefore, Ms. Swanson has also not raised any issue concerning the validity or interpretation of any statute, 

regulation, or rule of law relied upon by the Veterans 

Court that could provide a basis for our jurisdiction.

Finally, Ms. Swanson questions the inclusion in her 

claims file of an article from 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 she 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 signed a form which authorized DAV to act on her 

behalf with regard to claims for benefits. Evidence indicates 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 including 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.

CONCLUSION

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.
6 SWANSON v. GIBSON

DISMISSED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.