NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________

ARTHUR GARCIA, San Antonio, TX, pro se. 

 MEREDYTH COHEN HAVASY, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI,

PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.

 ______________________

Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

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

PER CURIAM.

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 (“Board”) denying 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. The Veterans Court also declined 

to address Mr. Garcia’s clear and unmistakable error 

(“CUE”) claim, holding that CUE claims must be first 

raised at the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (“RO”). Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Garcia’s 

appeal, we dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Garcia served on active duty in the United States 

Air 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 claims relating to his right hip for 

several 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, effective May 

1, 2012. Id. In 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, and 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: 10/05/2023
GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH 3

DISCUSSION

The jurisdiction of this Court to review the decisions of 

the Veterans 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); FloresVazquez v. McDonough, 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 

2021). “Except to the extent that an appeal under this 

chapter 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 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 have 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 constitutional 

question in its decision, we lack jurisdiction. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1905 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 10/05/2023