N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



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

______________________

ARTHUR GARCIA,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1905

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22

- 1713, Judge Michael P. Allen.

______________________

Decided: October 5 , 2023

______________________

A RTHUR G ARCIA , San Antonio, TX, pro se.

M EREDYTH C OHEN H AVASY , Commercial LitigationBranch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B RIAN M. B OYN TON

, W ILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI

, P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY

.

______________________

Before D YK

, T ARANTO

, and C HEN

, Circuit Judges

. Case: 23-1905 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 10/05/2023GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH 2

P ER C URIAM

.Arthur Garcia, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, proceeding pro se, appeals from a decision issued of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Boar d”) denying entitlementto an initial disability rating greater than 10% for (1) limitation of extension of the right hip, and (2) degenerative arthritis of the right hip. The Veterans Court also declined
to address Mr. Garcia’s clear and unmistakable err or (“CUE”) claim, holding that CUE claims must be firstraised at the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (“RO”). Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Garcia’s appeal, we dismiss

.
B ACKGROUND

Mr. Garcia served on active duty in the United Stat esAir Force from August 1962 to August 1964 and from August 1990 to August 1991 and for many years in the Air

Force Reserve. Garcia v. McDonough , No. 22

- 1713, 2023 WL 153405, at *1 (Vet. App. Jan. 11, 2023). Mr. Garcia has litigated his disability claim s relating to his right hip forseveral years before the RO and the Board. Service connection was granted to a limited extent and eventually, in this case, the Board granted Mr. Garcia a total disability rating based on individual unemployability, effecti ve May 1, 2012. Id. I n the same case, the Board denied Mr. Garcia entitlement to an initial disability rating greater than 10%for (1) limitation of extension of the right hip, and (2) degenerative arthritis of the right hip. Id. Mr. Garcia appealed, a nd the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that Mr. Garcia failed to carry his burden
to establish error in the Board’s decision. Id. This appeal
followed. Case: 23-1905 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 10/05/2023GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH 3

D ISCUSSION

The jurisdiction of this Court to review the decisions of
the Vetera ns Court is limited by statute, permitting us to review only “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); Flores

Va z quez v. McDonough , 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “Except to the extent that an appeal under thischapter 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 appli ed to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

In his briefing on appeal, Mr. Garcia has raised no coherent argument that the Veterans Court failed to properly interpret a statute or regulation or address a constitutional question. We ha ve examined the Veterans Court decision and found no issue within our jurisdiction as to the rating decisions. As to Mr. Garcia’s CUE claim regarding a 1992 denial of service connection, that issue, as the Veterans Court noted below, must be first raised with the RO. Just as the Veterans Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue in the first instance, we do as well. Garcia , 2023 WL 153405, at *2.

Because the Veterans Court opinion did not elaborate on the meaning of any statute, regulation, or cons titutional question in its decision, we lack jurisdiction.

D ISMISSED

C OSTS

No costs. Case: 23-1905 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 10/05/2023