NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

WILLIE RAY MAZON, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2010-7126 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 08-651, Judge William A. 

Moorman. 

_________________________ 

Decided: December 10, 2010 

_________________________ 

WILLIE RAY MAZON, La Grange, Texas, pro se. 

KENT C. KIFFNER, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

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

With him on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and TODD M.

HUGHES, Deputy Director. Of counsel on the brief were 
MAZON v. DVA 2

MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, 

and Y. KEN LEE, Staff Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Willie Ray Mazon appeals the final decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”) that affirmed the decision of the Board 

of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) finding no clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in a 2002 Board decision denying Mr. Mazon an effective date earlier than March 21, 

1989, for his service connected psychiatric disability. 

Mazon v. Shinseki, No. 08-0651 (Vet. App. June 30, 2010). 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION

I. 

Mr. Mazon served on active duty with the United 

States Army from August to November of 1976. On 

March 21, 1989, he submitted a claim to the Waco Regional Office (“RO”) of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(“VA”) seeking service connection for mental illness. 

Subsequently, in November of 1990, the VA awarded Mr. 

Mazon service connection for psychiatric disability, and in 

May of 1991, the VA rated his disability noncompensable, 

effective March 21, 1989, the date he submitted his claim 

to the RO. After subsequent proceedings, the VA increased the disability rating to 100 percent, effective 

March 21, 1989. In March of 2002, the Board denied Mr. 
3 MAZON v. DVA

Mazon’s claim for an earlier effective date, In re Mazon, 

No. 92-17 859 (Bd. Vet. App. Mar. 21, 2002), and on 

January 15, 2008, the Board denied his claim of CUE in 

the 2002 decision. In re Mazon, No. 05-31 243 (Bd. Vet. 

App. Jan. 15, 2008). The Board’s 2008 decision denying 

Mr. Mazon’s CUE claim was affirmed by the Veterans 

Court on June 30, 2010, Mazon v. Shinseki, No. 08-0651 

(Vet. App. June 30, 2010), and Mr. Mazon timely appealed 

that decision. 

II. 

This court’s ability to review a decision of the Veterans Court is limited. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we 

may review “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] 

Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . 

or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination 

as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” We have exclusive 

jurisdiction “to review and decide any challenge to the 

validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation 

thereof brought under [38 U.S.C. § 7292], and to interpret 

constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent 

presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. 

§ 7292(c). However, except to the extent that an appeal 

from a decision of the Veterans Court presents a constitutional issue, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a 

factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or 

regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

In his brief on appeal, Mr. Mazon acknowledges that 

the decision of the Veterans Court did not involve the 

validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation. He 

also acknowledges that the Veterans Court did not decide 

any constitutional issues. At the same time, he does not 

raise any constitutional issue, any issue concerning a rule 
MAZON v. DVA 4

of law, or any challenge to the validity or interpretation of 

any statute or regulation relied upon by the Veterans 

Court. Rather, he challenges the court’s affirmance of the 

Board’s denial of his CUE claim by generally arguing that 

he should have received an effective date earlier than 

March 21, 1989. This line of argument, however, involves 

a clear application of law (the law governing the effective 

date of a claim) to the facts of a particular case (Mr. 

Mazon’s mental condition and his claim based upon that 

condition). For that reason, Mr. Mazon’s claim is beyond 

the scope of our jurisdiction. 

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 

No costs. 

DISMISSED