NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ARMANDO MONTELONGO,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1130

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-2946, Judge Robert N. Davis.

______________________ 

Decided: February 11, 2016

______________________ 

ARMANDO MONTELONGO, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

MEEN GEU OH, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

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

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

ELIZABETH M. HOSFORD; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, JONATHAN 

KRISCH, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 
2 MONTELONGO v. MCDONALD

Before MOORE, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Armando Montelongo appeals from a decision by the

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) 

that affirmed a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(“Board”) denying disability benefits for dizziness and 

vertigo secondary to service-connected hearing loss and 

tinnitus. Because we lack jurisdiction over the issues Mr. 

Montelongo raises on appeal, we dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Montelongo served on active duty in the United 

States Army from March 1954 to December 1958 during 

the Korean Conflict Era and Peacetime. In February 

2010, Mr. Montelongo filed a claim for, inter alia, serviceconnected hearing loss and tinnitus. In 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) awarded Mr. Montelongo service connection for tinnitus with a 10% disability 

rating effective as of the date of his claim. Mr. Montelongo appealed to the Board, arguing that he was also entitled to service connection for a disability manifested by 

dizziness and vertigo, including as secondary to his service-connected hearing loss and tinnitus. 

The Board denied Mr. Montelongo’s claim. It found, 

as a matter of fact, that Mr. Montelongo did not exhibit 

dizziness or vertigo during his service or within one year 

of his separation from service. It further found that Mr. 

Montelongo’s dizziness or vertigo was not causally related 

to any injury he received during his active service or to 

his service-connected disabilities. In making these findings, the Board recognized that, through no fault of Mr. 

Montelongo, the pertinent service treatment records were 

not available for review. In such situations, the Board 

explained that the VA has a heightened obligation to 

explain its findings and conclusions and to carefully 

consider the “benefit-of-the-doubt rule.” Resp’t’s App. 17. 
MONTELONGO v. MCDONALD 3

The Board considered a number of Mr. Montelongo’s 

medical records, including private records from 2011 and 

2012, and VA medical records from 2012 and 2014. It 

found that the private medical record concerning the 

cause of Mr. Montelongo’s dizziness conflicted with the 

VA medical record addressing causation, and that, of 

these two records, the VA medical record was more probative. It found the private record did not articulate a 

rationale for linking Mr. Montelongo’s dizziness to his 

service-connected injuries and was based on factual 

inaccuracies whereas the VA medical record provided a 

detailed rationale as to why Mr. Montelongo’s dizziness 

was at least as likely to be caused by non-service-related 

injuries as service-connected injuries. It noted that, while 

the VA examiner could not identify the cause of Mr. 

Montelongo’s dizziness without resort to speculation, none 

of the likely causes that the VA examiner did identify 

were related to Mr. Montelongo’s service or his serviceconnected disabilities. 

The Board also found that Mr. Montelongo was neurologically normal according to his separation examination 

report and that, according to the most credible evidence of 

record, Mr. Montelongo himself dated the onset of his 

dizziness to about 2001, around 43 years after his separation from service. The Board considered whether service 

connection could be granted on a presumptive basis for a 

chronic disability. It determined that service connection 

could not be granted on this ground because there was no 

medical evidence of dizziness or vertigo occurring during 

Mr. Montelongo’s service or within one year of his separation from service and because the evidence did not sufficiently establish continuity of his dizziness symptoms 

since his service. The Board thus found that the preponderance of the evidence was against finding a link between Mr. Montelongo’s dizziness or vertigo and his 

service or service-connected injuries. Because the Board 

found the preponderance of the evidence was against 
4 MONTELONGO v. MCDONALD

Mr. Montelongo’s claim, it reasoned that the benefit-ofthe-doubt rule did not apply. 

On appeal, the Veterans Court affirmed. It determined that the Board did not clearly err in relying on the 

VA medical record or in assessing the relative credibility 

and weight that it gave to each medical record. It similarly found that the Board did not err by not applying the 

benefit-of-the-doubt rule because this rule only applies 

when the evidence is equally balanced and the preponderance of the evidence weighed against Mr. Montelongo’s 

claim. Mr. Montelongo timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans Court 

is limited by statute. While we have jurisdiction to review 

and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or 

regulation or interpretation thereof and over relevant 

questions of law, we may not review challenges to factual 

determinations or to the application of a law or regulation 

to the facts of a particular case unless an appeal presents 

a constitutional issue. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c), (d)(1), (d)(2). 

Mr. Montelongo argues that the Veterans Court 

wrongly affirmed the Board’s decision denying his claim 

for dizziness and vertigo disability benefits as secondary 

to his service-connected tinnitus. He argues that the 

Board failed to consider whether the medical records it 

relied upon were adequate, and that the Board’s decision 

contradicted the VA’s 2014 ratings decision granting 

service connection for tinnitus. Specifically, he argues 

that the Board erred in finding the private medical record 

of less probative weight than the VA medical record 

because the VA relied on the private medical record when 

it granted service connection for tinnitus in the 2014 

ratings decision.

These challenges are either questions of fact or go to 

the appropriate weight given to the evidence. Whether a 
MONTELONGO v. MCDONALD 5

medical opinion is adequate is a question of fact, outside 

the scope of our jurisdiction. Prinkey v. Shinseki, 735 

F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Similarly, we do not 

have jurisdiction to review the relative weight assigned to 

various portions of Mr. Montelongo’s medical history. See 

Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.