NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SHERWOOD BROWN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2020-1536

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-2926, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,

Jr.

______________________

Decided: September 3, 2020

______________________

SHERWOOD BROWN, Oklahoma City, OK, pro se. 

 ASHLEY AKERS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

ETHAN P. DAVIS, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT 

EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR. 

 ______________________

Case: 20-1536 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2020
2 BROWN v. WILKIE

Before DYK, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Sherwood Brown appeals the decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans 

Court”), finding that Mr. Brown had disclaimed any challenge to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision 

from which he had appealed. We dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Brown served in the Navy from August 1960 to 

February 1961. Mr. Brown was awarded benefits for service-connected bilateral osteochondritis of the knees effective September 1, 1994, service-connected degenerative 

joint disease of the lumbar spine effective November 8, 

2000, and a total disability rating based on individual unemployability as a result of service-connected disabilities 

(TDIU) effective September 1, 1994. Mr. Brown has not 

been awarded benefits based on a finding of a service-connected condition for his feet. 

In July 2014, a Veterans Affairs regional office (“RO”) 

issued a rating decision that addressed Mr. Brown’s knees, 

back, and feet. The July 2014 rating decision did not assign 

a new effective date for Mr. Brown’s service connection for 

his knees or back and did not award Mr. Brown service connection for his feet. In a letter dated July 25, 2014, the RO 

notified Mr. Brown of the rating decision and advised him 

that in order to seek review from the Board, any Notice of 

Disagreement (“NOD”) would have to be postmarked 

within one year of the decision, here no later than July 25, 

2015. Mr. Brown did not file a notice of appeal within the 

one-year period.

Case: 20-1536 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2020
BROWN v. WILKIE 3

On December 28, 2015, well after the one-year period,

Mr. Brown submitted a NOD to the Board, seeking a combined rating of 50 percent for disabilities of the knees, back, 

and feet, for the period from April 1961 to September 1994. 

On October 17, 2017, the Board found that the December 

28, 2015, NOD “did not address any issue on which 

[Mr. Brown] received notice of a decision one year prior to”

the date of submission and instead appeared to address issues in the July 2014 rating decision. App’x 5.1 The Board 

therefore dismissed Mr. Brown’s NOD as untimely under 

38 U.S.C. § 7105.

Mr. Brown appealed the October 17, 2017, Board decision to the Veterans Court. The Veterans Court twice ordered Mr. Brown to submit a brief “telling the Court what 

he believe[d] [was] wrong with the October 17, 2017[,]

Board decision.” App’x 10–11. In response to the second 

request, Mr. Brown replied with a note written on a copy of 

the Veterans Court’s second order that read, “Nothing, Not 

being appealed by veteran.” App’x 11 (emphasis omitted).

The Veterans Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that “Mr. Brown ha[d] plainly indicated 

that he [did] not wish to appeal the decision from which he 

originally filed a[] [Notice of Appeal (“NOA”)].” Id.

Mr. Brown appeals. 

DISCUSSION

We have limited jurisdiction to review decisions by the 

Veterans Court. Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336 

(Fed. Cir. 2010). We have exclusive jurisdiction to review 

and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or 

1 “App’x” refers to the appendix attached to the government’s response brief.

Case: 20-1536 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 09/03/2020
4 BROWN v. WILKIE

regulation or any interpretation thereof and to interpret 

constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). 

Except to the extent that an appeal presents a constitutional issue, we may not review a challenge to a factual determination, or a challenge to a law or regulation as 

applied to the facts of a particular case. Id. § 7292(d). “If 

an appeal to this court from the Court of Veterans Appeals 

does not raise a constitutional question, a question as to 

the interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision, or the interpretation or validity of a regulation relied 

upon by the Court of Veterans Appeals, section 7292(d) requires this court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Albun v. Brown, 9 F.3d 1528, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

The Veterans Court’s dismissal rested on its finding of 

fact that “Mr. Brown ha[d] plainly indicated that he [did] 

not wish to appeal the decision from which he originally 

filed an NOA.” App’x 11. The Veterans Court thus determined that, “[b]ased on Mr. Brown's clarification” to the

Veterans Court, Mr. Brown was “not appealing anything in 

the October 17, 2017, Board decision from which he filed 

his NOA,” and the Veterans Court therefore had no jurisdiction over Mr. Brown’s appeal. Id. In this court, 

Mr. Brown appears to be challenging the Veterans Court’s 

factual determination that Mr. Brown was not appealing 

the October 17, 2017, Board decision. See Informal Op. Br. 

1. Mr. Brown argues that the Veterans Court’s determination was incorrect. Id.

Mr. Brown does not dispute the interpretation or validity of any statute or regulation, nor does this appeal raise 

a constitutional question. Id.; see also Appellant Mem. In 

Lieu of Oral Arg. 1–3. Although Mr. Brown may contest 

the Veterans Court’s findings, we do not have jurisdiction 

to review the Veterans Court’s factual determinations. 38 

U.S.C. § 7292(d). We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction.

Case: 20-1536 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 09/03/2020
BROWN v. WILKIE 5

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 20-1536 Document: 29 Page: 5 Filed: 09/03/2020