NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-7181 

RONALD E. GOVAN, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Ronald E. Govan, of Loganville, Georgia, pro se. 

Roger A. Hipp, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With 

him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, 

Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were 

David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Jamie L. Mueller, Attorney, 

United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

 

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

Judge Lawrence B. Hagel 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-7181 

RONALD E. GOVAN, 

 Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

____________________________ 

DECIDED: August 10, 2007 

____________________________ 

Before RADER, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit 

Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

Ronald E. Govan appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(Veterans Court) affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (Board) decision that Govan 

was not entitled to an effective date for a 100 percent disability award earlier than 

February 25, 2002 for a service-connected generalized anxiety disorder. Govan v. 

Nicholson, No. 05-1174 (Vet. App. Feb. 28, 2007). Because Govan does not present 

an issue on appeal that falls within the statutory grant of jurisdiction for this court, we 

dismiss. 

BACKGROUND 

Govan is a veteran that served in active duty for the U.S. Marine Corps from July 

1971 until March 1975. In September 1975, he filed a claim for disability compensation 
or pension for an anxiety disorder. In January 1976, a Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional 

Office awarded Govan a 10 percent disability rating for service connection for anxiety 

neurosis, effective April 1, 1975. After subsequent requests for an increased rating, the 

VA increased Govan’s disability rating to 30 percent effective March 3, 1998, and to 100 

percent effective February 25, 2002. Govan filed a notice of disagreement, which he 

then appealed to the Board. The Board determined that Govan’s earlier claims for 

increased ratings had not been finally adjudicated and that Govan was entitled to a 

disability rating of 50 percent effective August 1997 through February 2002. The Board 

also concluded that a disability rating greater than 50 percent was not warranted earlier 

than February 25, 2002. Finally, the Board considered the VA’s duty to assist pursuant 

to 38 U.S.C. § 5103A and concluded that the VA met its statutory obligations by 

obtaining all relevant evidence identified by Govan to support his claim. 

Govan appealed to the Veterans Court, asserting that the Board erred in finding 

that the evidence of record did not support more than a 50 percent disability rating prior 

to February 25, 2002. Govan also alleged that the VA failed to satisfy its duty to assist 

by not obtaining his Social Security Administration records. 

The Veterans Court concluded that the Board’s determinations with respect to 

the appropriate disability ratings and effective dates were not clearly erroneous and that 

the Board properly concluded that the VA met its statutory obligation to assist the 

veteran in obtaining all evidence identified by Govan to support his claim. Govan, slip 

op. at 6-7. This appeal followed. 

2007-7181 2
ANALYSIS 

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited. We have 

jurisdiction to “review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or 

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). 

However, unless a constitutional issue is presented, we may not review factual 

determinations or the application of law or regulation to a particular set of facts. Id. at 

§ 7292(d)(2). 

On appeal, Govan contends that the Veterans Court erred by improperly 

weighing the evidence, failing to address the evidence that supported his claim for an 

increased disability rating at an earlier date, including evidence of Secondary 

conditions, and misapplying the standards with respect to the VA’s duty to assist Govan 

in obtaining relevant evidence to support his claim. These issues, however, which 

relate either to factual determinations or application of law to the facts of the case, are 

not within the jurisdiction of this court to review. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

Finally, Govan contends that that his constitutional, regulatory, and statutory 

rights have been violated by the Veterans Court decision. In further explaining this 

issue, Govan reiterates his contentions with respect to what the evidence shows in this 

case. This court must look beyond the appellant’s characterization of the issue to 

determine whether it falls within the jurisdiction of this court. Flores v. Nicholson, 476 

F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Having reviewed Govan’s contentions, we discern no error of regulatory or statutory 

interpretation nor a Constitutional issue raised by his allegations. 

2007-7181 3
2007-7181 4

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed. 

COSTS 

Each party shall bear its own costs.