Court Opinion

ID: 9378398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 15:00:55.930161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.141768
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1530    Document: 31     Page: 1   Filed: 03/10/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 GEORGE L. FRANCIS,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2022-1530
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 21-358, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
 dith.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: March 10, 2023
                  ______________________

      J. BRYAN JONES, III, J B Jones III LLC, Lafayette, LA,
 for claimant-appellant.

     NATHANAEL YALE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, SAMANTHA ANN SYVERSON,
Case: 22-1530    Document: 31     Page: 2    Filed: 03/10/2023

 2                                    FRANCIS   v. MCDONOUGH

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

     Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     George L. Francis appeals from the decision of the
 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the
 Veterans Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Vet-
 erans’ Appeals (“the Board”) that denied Francis’s supple-
 mental claim of service connection for prostate cancer
 based on exposure to herbicides while on temporary duty
 in Thailand. Francis v. McDonough, No. 21-0358, 2021 WL
 5903366 (Vet. App. Dec. 14, 2021) (“Decision”). For the rea-
 sons detailed below, we dismiss Francis’s appeal for lack of
 jurisdiction.
                        BACKGROUND
      Francis served on active duty from January 1963 to
 January 1967. For a portion of that time, he was assigned
 to an air base in Japan. In January 2007, Francis filed a
 claim with the United States Department of Veterans Af-
 fairs (“VA”) seeking service connection for a prostate ail-
 ment, contending that he had been exposed to herbicides in
 Vietnam, Japan, and Thailand while guarding buildings
 and aircraft that contained herbicides. In July 2007, Fran-
 cis further asserted that he had been on temporary duty to
 Vietnam and Don Muang Air Base in Thailand, where
 herbicides were stored. The VA regional office (“RO”) sub-
 sequently denied service connection for Francis’s prostate
 claim.
     Consistent with that decision, the VA received a letter
 from the National Personnel Records Center (“NPRC”) ad-
 vising that it could not verify Francis’s temporary duty in
 Thailand and Vietnam. Francis then submitted a letter
 stating that while stationed in Japan, he had been
Case: 22-1530     Document: 31     Page: 3    Filed: 03/10/2023

 FRANCIS   v. MCDONOUGH                                      3

 redirected to Don Muang Air Base to participate in an op-
 eration called Air Boon Choo, and that he had a layover in
 Vietnam for several days. In March 2020, Francis filed a
 supplemental claim for a prostate ailment, and following a
 VA examination, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
 In April 2020, the Joint Services Records Research Center
 (“JSRRC”) reported that there was no documentation that
 Francis or any personnel assigned to his squadron had
 temporary duty at Don Muang Air Base. The RO subse-
 quently denied compensation for Francis’s prostate cancer.
 Francis then appealed to the Board.
      The Board denied Francis’s claim for service connection
 for prostate cancer. It recognized Francis’s contentions
 that he had been exposed to herbicides while serving in
 various countries, including Thailand, but, after reviewing
 the record evidence, the Board determined that the evi-
 dence did not show that Francis was exposed to herbicide
 agents in service. With respect to his purported temporary
 duty in Thailand, the Board found that during the relevant
 time period, the reports of his unit did not identify any tem-
 porary duty assignments, and that the histories addressed
 in the JSRRC report did not identify that he or anyone from
 his squadron was sent to Don Muang Air Base. The Board
 concluded that the JSRRC and the NPRC reports were the
 most probative and persuasive evidence of the circum-
 stances of Francis’s active service, as they were from offi-
 cial sources, and the evidence of record did not demonstrate
 service in Thailand or otherwise establish exposure to
 herbicides. Francis then appealed to the Veterans Court.
     The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. In
 reaching its holding, the court determined that the Board
 did not clearly err when it denied service connection based
 on herbicide exposure, instead finding Francis’s argument
 to focus primarily on “the weight the Board afforded the
 evidence,” an insufficient basis for clear error. Decision at
Case: 22-1530     Document: 31      Page: 4    Filed: 03/10/2023

 4                                      FRANCIS   v. MCDONOUGH

 *3. Francis timely appealed the Veterans Court decision to
 this court.
                          DISCUSSION
     Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
 Court is limited. We may review the validity of a decision
 with respect to a rule of law or interpretation of a statute
 or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans Court
 in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). However, ex-
 cept with respect to constitutional issues, we may not re-
 view challenges to factual determinations or challenges to
 the application of a law or regulation to the facts of a case.
 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
     In reviewing a Veterans Court decision, we decide “all
 relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitu-
 tional and statutory provisions,” and set aside any inter-
 pretation thereof “other than a determination as to a
 factual matter” relied upon by the Veterans Court that we
 find to be: “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
 or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to
 constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in
 excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitations, or in
 violation of a statutory right; or (D) without observance of
 procedure required by law.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). We re-
 view questions of statutory and regulatory interpretation
 de novo. Mayfield v. Nicholson, 499 F.3d 1317, 1321 (Fed.
 Cir. 2007) (citing Prenzler v. Derwinski, 928 F.2d 392, 393
 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
     Francis argues that the Board erred in finding that
 there was no evidence from the JSRRC that Francis or any
 member of his unit was sent to Don Muang Air Base in
 Thailand. He notes that the JSRRC acknowledged that his
 unit participated in Air Boon Choo, a joint military exercise
 conducted at Don Muang Air Base. Francis adds that alt-
 hough the JSRRC did not specifically mention his unit be-
 ing present in Thailand, it also did not specifically exclude
 it and that the Board should have given him the benefit of
Case: 22-1530     Document: 31      Page: 5     Filed: 03/10/2023

 FRANCIS   v. MCDONOUGH                                        5

 the doubt under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) instead of improperly
 applying a higher standard of proof. Lastly, Francis
 acknowledges that although we typically lack jurisdiction
 to address the application of law to the facts of a Veterans
 Court case, Bailey v. Principi allows us to address the ap-
 plication of law when the material facts are not in dispute
 and the adoption of a legal standard would dictate the out-
 come of a case. 351 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
     The government responds that we lack jurisdiction to
 hear this appeal because the Veterans Court did not inter-
 pret any statute or regulation but instead applied estab-
 lished law to the facts. Specifically, the government
 asserts that reweighing or reconsideration of evidence is
 outside the scope of our jurisdiction. Regarding Francis’s
 benefit of the doubt argument, the government argues that
 application of a statute to the particular facts of a case is
 generally outside of our jurisdiction.
     We agree with the government. We lack jurisdiction to
 entertain Francis’s appeal, which consists of challenges to
 the Veterans Court’s review of the Board’s factual determi-
 nations and its application of law to particular facts. The
 heart of Francis’s appeal involves a challenge to a factual
 finding—whether Francis served in Thailand—to support
 his claim to herbicide exposure. The Board found that he
 had no service in Thailand and the Veterans Court found
 no clear error in that finding. Reviewing that evidentiary
 finding is outside of our jurisdiction.
      Francis’s invocation of the benefit of the doubt rule fails
 to provide us with jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Ap-
 plication of the benefit of the doubt rule to the facts of a
 particular case is outside of our jurisdiction, and Francis
 cannot rely on the limited jurisdictional exception articu-
 lated in cases such as Bailey v. Principi because the mate-
 rial facts of his service in Thailand are not undisputed. 351
 F.3d at 1384 (explaining that this court may review the ap-
 plication of law to facts where “the material facts are not
Case: 22-1530    Document: 31     Page: 6   Filed: 03/10/2023

 6                                   FRANCIS   v. MCDONOUGH

 in dispute and the adoption of a particular legal standard
 would dictate the outcome”).
                       CONCLUSION
     We have considered Francis’s remaining arguments,
 but we find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons,
 we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                       DISMISSED
                          COSTS
 No costs.