Court Opinion

ID: 9896755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 16:01:29.83453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:02.901495
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1931    Document: 21     Page: 1   Filed: 11/14/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    JOSE REMILIEN,
                    Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                        2022-1931
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-7704, Judge Scott Laurer.
                 ______________________

                Decided: November 14, 2023
                  ______________________

    JOSE REMILIEN, Fort Lauderdale, FL, pro se.

     AUGUSTUS JEFFREY GOLDEN, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

       Before DYK, CHEN, AND STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1931     Document: 21     Page: 2    Filed: 11/14/2023

 2                                   REMILIEN v. MCDONOUGH

 PER CURIAM.
     Jose Remilien appeals the final decision of the United
 States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the
 Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ decision denying Mr. Remilien
 benefits because he did not have qualifying military service
 to make him eligible to receive veteran benefits. We must
 dismiss because we lack jurisdiction to hear Mr. Remilien’s
 appeal.
                        BACKGROUND
      Mr. Remilien contends that he served in the United
 States Army from November 1996 to April 2007. To qual-
 ify for veteran benefits, a service member must establish
 that he or she has veteran status. A veteran is “a person
 who served in the active military, naval, air, or space ser-
 vice, and who was discharged or released therefrom under
 conditions other than dishonorable.” 38 U.S.C. § 101(2).
      The Board determined Mr. Remilien lacked the requi-
 site service to be eligible for veterans benefits because nei-
 ther Mr. Remilien nor the Department of Veterans Affairs
 (VA) were able to locate any records to verify his dates of
 service. SAppx. 1 12–14. In September 2014, Mr. Remilien
 filed claims for service connection for several asserted men-
 tal health conditions. SAppx. 10. When the VA regional
 office requested verification of his service, Mr. Remilien in-
 dicated that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation) was
 destroyed in a fire. SAppx. 12. Mr. Remilien was unable
 to provide any other discharge documents or other docu-
 ments to prove that he served in the active military.
 SAppx. 12. As such, in November 2014, the VA regional
 office submitted a request to the relevant service depart-
 ment, seeking Mr. Remilien’s service records to establish
 his service, but the service department responded that it

     1   Citations to “SAppx.” refer to the supplemental ap-
 pendix filed by the Government.
Case: 22-1931     Document: 21      Page: 3    Filed: 11/14/2023

 REMILIEN v. MCDONOUGH                                        3

 was unable to find Mr. Remilien’s information in the online
 system. SAppx. 12. Over the next several years, at the re-
 quest of the Board, the regional office conducted multiple
 searches at multiple locations for any documentation that
 would verify Mr. Remilien’s military service.            See
 SAppx. 12–13. These searches yielded none. Conse-
 quently, based on the service department’s certification
 that Mr. Remilien had no active service as a member of the
 U.S. Armed Forces, the Board found that “[he] did not have
 verifiable military service for VA purposes to establish en-
 titlement to VA benefits.” SAppx. 14.
     Mr. Remilien appealed and the Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims affirmed the Board’s decision. Remilien
 v. McDonough, 2022 WL 1055486, at *1 (Vet. App. Apr. 8,
 2022); SAppx. 1–2. Given the VA’s efforts to locate Mr. Re-
 milien’s service documentation, the Veterans Court deter-
 mined the Board did not err in finding that Mr. Remilien
 did not have the requisite service to apply for VA benefits.
 Remilien, 2022 WL 1055486, at *1; SAppx. 2.           Now,
 Mr. Remilien appeals and asks this court to review the fac-
 tual determination that he lacked qualifying military ser-
 vice.
                          DISCUSSION
     Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is
 limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may review “the
 validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of
 law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation
 thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter)
 that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the
 decision.” “Except to the extent that an appeal . . . 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); see, e.g., Conway v. Principi,
 353 F.3d 1369, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Case: 22-1931    Document: 21      Page: 4   Filed: 11/14/2023

 4                                  REMILIEN v. MCDONOUGH

     Mr. Remilien asks this court to review the factual de-
 termination that he lacked qualifying military service.
 Mr. Remilien asserts that the Board’s decision relied on in-
 correct dates of entry and release, and he provides updated
 dates. Appellant’s Br. 2–3. 2
     We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Remilien’s appeal be-
 cause the Board’s determination of veteran status, upheld
 by the Veterans Court, is a finding of fact. See Rubia
 v. Shinseki, 524 F. App’x 707, 711 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-
 precedential). It does not involve the validity or interpre-
 tation of a statute or regulation. Nor does it raise any
 constitutional issues. See Appellant’s Br. 2. Rather, the
 appeal essentially asks us to make a factual determination
 in Mr. Remilien’s favor as it relates to qualifying military
 service. Therefore, we dismiss.
                       DISMISSED
                           COSTS
 No costs.

     2   Citations to Mr. Remilien’s informal brief reflect
 the pagination applied by this court’s electronic case files
 system.