Opinion ID: 210041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Mr. Terio served on active duty in the United States Armed Forces from February 1948 to February 1950. In July 1997, he applied for vocational rehabilitation benefits with the Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Division (“VR&C”) of the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”). In an April 1998 letter, the VR&C officer informed him that the VA would pay for tuition and books, but would not cover a subsistence allowance or transportation costs. In a subsequent letter, the officer informed him that he did not meet the requirements for the rehabilitation plan for self-employment. Mr. Terio appealed these actions and several other actions by the VA to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). On January 11, 2005, the Board denied his appeals of both the transportation allowance and the self-employment program and noted that Mr. Terio had withdrawn his other appeals, namely, regarding entitlement to prosthetic devices and to housing assistance. Thereafter, Mr. Terio appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court. On May 1, 2006, the Veterans Court issued an order denying Mr. Terio’s motion for reconsideration of an earlier order. First, the court stated that the issue raised in the motion for reconsideration was not before the court and that the motion, therefore, constituted a frivolous filing. Then, the court admonished him for repeatedly failing to follow the court’s rules and heed the court’s orders. Finally, the court gave Mr. Terio an additional fourteen-day extension in which to file his brief in compliance with the court’s rules. Rather than filing his brief with the Veterans Court, Mr. Terio instead filed an appeal with this court. We dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Terio v. Nicholson, 197 Fed. Appx. 927 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In a memorandum decision dated August 30, 2007, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision denying his entitlement to prosthetic devices, housing assistance, 2008-7029 2 transportation, and the self-employment program. The court concluded that it could not address his constitutional arguments because he had not made specific arguments regarding how he had been denied due process or equal protection. The court further rejected his argument that the Board erred in consolidating his two appeals under a single docket number because, as indicated in a prior order, the court did not have jurisdiction to address this contention. The Veterans Court entered judgment and this appeal followed.