NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

JACK M. FEAZEL, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2012-7061 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in Case No. 10-4077, Judge John J. 

Farley, III. 

___________________________ 

Decided: May 14, 2012 

___________________________ 

JACK M. FEAZEL, of West Monroe, Louisiana, pro se. 

KENNETH S. KESSLER, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. With him on the brief TONY WEST, Assistant 

Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and 
FEAZEL v. SHINSEKI 2

STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM, Assistant Director. Of counsel on 

the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

__________________________ 

Before BRYSON, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Jack M. Feazel appeals from an order of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) upholding the denial of service connection for 

basal cell carcinoma (skin cancer), arteriosclerotic heart 

disease, and a cerebrovascular accident with left-side 

weakness (stroke). Because the issue in this case is not 

within our jurisdiction to decide, we dismiss the appeal. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Feazel was on active duty in military service from 

February 1945 to December 1946. His service medical 

records were destroyed in a 1973 fire at the National 

Personnel Records Center (“NPRC”). In 1993, Mr. Feazel 

was denied service connection for skin cancer, heart 

disease, and stroke, all as secondary to mustard gas 

exposure. In February 2008, Mr. Feazel filed a claim to 

reopen those claims. After the regional office denied Mr. 

Feazel’s request to reopen, Mr. Feazel appealed to the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Board subsequently 

reopened and remanded all of Mr. Feazel’s service connection claims so that the regional office could request information from Mr. Feazel regarding his treatment in 

private hospitals for in-service exposure to mustard gas. 
3 FEAZEL v. SHINSEKI

In response to a May 2010 letter from the regional office, Mr. Feazel provided no information regarding his 

treatment at private hospitals. However, he stated that 

after being exposed to mustard gas he was transported to 

the base dispensary at Camp Wolters, Texas, and remained there for two or three days before returning to 

training. In July 2010, the Appeals Management Center 

informed Mr. Feazel that any medical records from Camp 

Wolters would have been archived at the NPRC and 

would have been destroyed in the 1973 fire. 

The Board subsequently denied Mr. Feazel’s claims 

for service connection. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.316, a veteran 

can establish service connection for certain diseases by 

proving in-service exposure to mustard gas and a diagnosis of a listed disease. The Board noted, however, that 38 

C.F.R. § 3.316 does not list basal cell carcinoma, heart 

disease, or stroke as presumptively related to mustard 

gas exposure. The Board considered Mr. Feazel’s contentions that his disabilities were related to mustard gas 

exposure but found that his statements alone were not 

sufficient to support his claim. See Colantonio v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (the Board may 

determine, after considering a veteran’s lay testimony 

regarding etiology, that it is insufficient to show service 

connection). The Board also considered whether there 

was direct evidence of service connection. Mr. Feazel did 

not contend that he was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma, heart disease, or stroke during service or within 12 

months of his separation from service. In addition there 

was no evidence linking any of those diseases to incidents 

that occurred during Mr. Feazel’s service. In fact, the 

first evidence of each of those diseases appeared decades 

after Mr. Feazel’s separation from service. The Board 

therefore denied Mr. Feazel’s claims for service connec-
FEAZEL v. SHINSEKI 4

tion. The Veterans Court affirmed that decision on appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. This court’s jurisdiction over 

appeals from the Veterans Court is limited to deciding the 

validity of a decision of the Veterans Court on a rule of 

law, the validity of any statute or regulation, or any 

interpretation of a statute or regulation relied upon by 

that court in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (c). 

Except in cases presenting constitutional issues, this 

court lacks jurisdiction to 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)(2). 

On appeal, Mr. Feazel does not contend that the Veterans Court made any error of law or failed to decide any 

issue correctly. He asks only that we review the decision 

of the Board and render a new decision based on the 

record. Such a review would require us to review factual 

determinations, such as the credibility of Mr. Feazel’s lay 

evidence linking mustard gas to his current disorders. 

Because reviewing factual determinations is not within 

the jurisdiction assigned to us under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, we 

cannot provide him with the relief he seeks. We therefore 

dismiss this appeal as outside the scope of our jurisdiction. 

No costs. 

DISMISSED