Court Opinion

ID: 9391842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 15:00:55.578602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:19.365934
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1979    Document: 23     Page: 1   Filed: 05/03/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                TYRONE A. ANDREWS,
                  Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

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

                        2022-1979
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-7410, Judge William S. Green-
 berg.
                 ______________________

                   Decided: May 3, 2023
                  ______________________

    TYRONE A. ANDREWS, Staley, NC, pro se.

     IOANA CRISTEI MEYER, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Y. KEN LEE, ANDREW J.
 STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United States De-
 partment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 22-1979     Document: 23     Page: 2    Filed: 05/03/2023

 2                                    ANDREWS   v. MCDONOUGH

                   ______________________

     Before PROST, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) took nearly
 17 years to adjudicate Tyrone Andrews’ request for an ex-
 tension of his vocational rehabilitation benefits. When the
 VA finally denied his request, Andrews asked for equitable
 relief. When the VA declined to grant such relief, Andrews
 appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”),
 which determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the VA’s
 decision. Andrews then appealed to the Court of Appeals
 for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), which affirmed.
 He now appeals to us.
     While we are sympathetic to Andrews and agree that
 no veteran should be mired in the VA benefits system for
 nearly two decades without a decision, the Board correctly
 determined it had no jurisdiction to hear Andrews’ appeal.
 Accordingly, we affirm the Veterans Court.
                               I
     Andrews served on active duty in the U.S. Marine
 Corps from 1982 to 1985. After he left the service, the VA
 awarded him disability benefits with an effective date of
 August 1986. Andrews used his disability benefits to pur-
 sue vocational rehabilitation and employment (“VR&E”)
 benefits and ultimately completed an associate degree.
 When Andrews sought additional benefits in 1992 to help
 him complete his bachelor’s degree, the VA informed him
 it had found him rehabilitated on July 21, 1991, making
 him ineligible for further vocational rehabilitation benefits.
      On August 5, 1992, Andrews filed a notice of disagree-
 ment and appealed to the Board. He did not receive a de-
 cision until May 27, 2009, nearly 17 years later. The Board
 denied his appeal.
Case: 22-1979    Document: 23      Page: 3    Filed: 05/03/2023

 ANDREWS   v. MCDONOUGH                                     3

     In 2013, Andrews sought equitable relief under
 38 U.S.C. § 503 on account of the VA’s 17-year delay. The
 regional office (“RO”) recommended denying the requested
 relief. The VR&E Service agreed with that recommenda-
 tion.
     Andrews then appealed to the Board, which deter-
 mined it lacked jurisdiction to grant equitable relief. An-
 drews appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing, among
 other things, that the agency record was incomplete and
 seeking a remand for the RO to look for missing documents.
 The Veterans Court affirmed, reasoning that § 503(a) de-
 terminations are committed to the sound discretion of the
 Secretary and, hence, are unreviewable by either the Board
 or the Veterans Court. See Andrews v. McDonough, No. 20-
 7410, 2022 WL 1744401, at *2 (Vet. App. May 31, 2022).
 Andrews then timely appealed to this Court.
                              II
      Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
 Court is limited. We may only review “relevant questions
 of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory
 provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). We may not review ei-
 ther “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a chal-
 lenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a
 particular case.” § 7292(d)(2).
      The Board’s jurisdiction does not reach requests for eq-
 uitable relief under § 503. See Burris v. Wilkie, 888 F.3d
 1352, 1357-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Congress did not intend for
 the Veterans Court to exercise equitable authority re-
 served for the Secretary.”). Rather, the Board’s jurisdiction
 is limited to matters arising under 38 U.S.C. § 511, which
 concerns VA benefits and not equitable relief.            See
 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). Accordingly, as the Veterans Court
 also recognized, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear An-
 drews’ claim for equitable relief.
Case: 22-1979    Document: 23      Page: 4    Filed: 05/03/2023

 4                                   ANDREWS   v. MCDONOUGH

     Andrews presents several arguments for a more favor-
 able outcome, but each lacks merit. First, Andrews argues
 that 38 U.S.C. § 503 requires the Secretary to make any fi-
 nal determinations under his or her own signature, so the
 VA violated the law when an officer of the VR&E Service
 signed on behalf of the Secretary. 1 In fact, however, the
 Secretary has delegated his power to deny equitable relief
 to his subordinates – the governing regulations explain
 that the Secretary only reviews requests for relief upon a
 favorable recommendation from an “initiating office,”
 38 C.F.R. § 2.7 – and we are not aware of any basis to con-
 clude this delegation was improper.
      Second, Andrews objects to the supposed dismissal of
 (1) his civil rights complaint against his VA counselor and
 (2) his vocational plan disagreement. He contends that dis-
 missal of these issues violated rights protected under the
 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitu-
 tion. The Board decision giving rise to this appeal, how-
 ever, pertains only to the April 2017 denial of Andrews’
 request for continued VR&E benefits. To the extent that
 the other issues about which Andrews now complains are
 distinct from the denial of equitable relief, they are beyond
 the scope of the matter before the Court. Consequently, the
 Veterans Court made no error in not addressing these is-
 sues.

     1    As Andrews failed to make this argument below,
 we would normally deem it forfeited and, accordingly,
 would decline to consider it. See Pavo Sols. LLC v. King-
 ston Tech. Co., 35 F.4th 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). But
 because he proceeded pro se, we will consider his position.
 See Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
 2002) (“[I]n situations where a party appeared pro se before
 the lower court, a court of appeals may appropriately be
 less stringent in requiring that the issue have been raised
 explicitly below.”).
Case: 22-1979      Document: 23      Page: 5   Filed: 05/03/2023

 ANDREWS     v. MCDONOUGH                                     5

     Third, and finally, Andrews alleges that the VA is im-
 properly withholding part of the relevant record. As we
 have previously held, “[t]he completeness of the record pre-
 sents a question of fact outside of this court’s jurisdiction.”
 Jones v. Wilkie, 918 F.3d 922, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In any
 event, the VA took measures to verify the record and in-
 vited Andrews to review and supplement it, which he de-
 clined to do. The VA concluded there were no further
 actions it could take regarding the completeness of the rec-
 ord and the Veterans Court considered the issue resolved.
 See Andrews, 2022 WL 1744401, at *2 n.1. We see no basis
 to provide Andrews relief.
                               III
     Again, while we are sympathetic to Tyrone Andrews
 and the delay he experienced, the Veterans Court correctly
 concluded that the Board lacked jurisdiction over his ap-
 peal. Accordingly, we affirm.
                         AFFIRMED
                             COSTS
 No costs.