Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 03/15/2024
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`RONALD LOUIS CHAPMAN, SR.,
`Claimant-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
`VETERANS AFFAIRS,
`Respondent-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2023-1834
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
`Veterans Claims in No. 21-4919, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
`Jr.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: March 15, 2024
`______________________
`
`RONALD LOUIS CHAPMAN, SR., Zachary, LA, pro se.
`
`
` GALINA I. FOMENKOVA, 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; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of Gen-
`eral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Af-
`fairs, Washington, DC.
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 03/15/2024
`
`2
`
`CHAPMAN v. MCDONOUGH
`
` ______________________
`
`Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and DYK, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Ronald L. Chapman appeals a decision of the Court of
`Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) that af-
`firmed in part a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
`(Board). Because we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Chapman’s
`appeal, we dismiss.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Mr. Chapman served on active duty in the U.S. Army
`from June 1980 to February 1981. Veterans Court Deci-
`sion at 2.1 In February 1981, he applied for disability ben-
`efits for a left ankle condition. Id. The Department of
`Veterans Affairs (VA) granted a service connection but as-
`signed a 0% rating. Id. In January 1989, Mr. Chapman
`requested a rating increase for his left ankle disability and
`reported issues in his right foot and knee. Id. In May 1989,
`he applied for disability benefits for a right foot and knee
`condition. Id. The VA denied both claims in June 1989.
`Id. at 3. Mr. Chapman appealed to the Board, and in July
`1991, the Board granted an increase to 10% for the left an-
`kle disability but found no right leg disability had been
`demonstrated. Id. Mr. Chapman did not appeal.
`In September 1993, Mr. Chapman sought another rat-
`ing increase for his left ankle disability and a service con-
`nection for his right ankle. Id. The VA denied both claims
`in May 1995. Id. Mr. Chapman filed a Notice of
`
`
`“Veterans Court Decision” refers to the Veterans
`1
`Court decision found in Mr. Chapman’s Appendix, ECF 10-
`2 at 5–15. The pages cited correspond to the page numbers
`of the decision itself.
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 03/15/2024
`
`CHAPMAN v. MCDONOUGH
`
`3
`
`Disagreement for the May 1995 decision but only men-
`tioned the left ankle claim. Id.
`In August 2003, Mr. Chapman filed a claim for bilat-
`eral knee disorders and a right ankle condition. Veterans
`Court Decision at 3. The VA eventually awarded him a
`20% disability rating for both the right knee and right an-
`kle conditions with an effective date of August 5, 2003. Id.
`at 4. In February 2014, Mr. Chapman filed a Notice of Dis-
`agreement challenging the effective date for both condi-
`tions. Id. In November 2016, after a series of denials, he
`appealed to the Board. Id. In December 2018, the Board
`issued a decision denying earlier effective dates for multi-
`ple conditions, including the right knee and right ankle
`conditions. 2018 Board Decision at 9–12.2 The Board
`found that Mr. Chapman’s 1989 claim was adjudicated and
`became final after the Board’s July 1991 decision, and that
`his 1993 claim was denied in the VA’s May 1995 rating de-
`cision, which he did not appeal. Id. at 10–11. The Board
`thus denied Mr. Chapman’s claim for an earlier effective
`date for service connection. Id. at 11–12. Mr. Chapman
`appealed to the Veterans Court.
`The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. Vet-
`erans Court Decision at 8–9. The court concluded that the
`Board did not clearly err in finding that any prior right an-
`kle and knee claims had been finally adjudicated. Id. Spe-
`cifically, the court reasoned that the Board had a plausible
`basis to find that the July 1991 decision and the May 1995
`decision both denied Mr. Chapman’s claims for a service
`connection for his right ankle and knee conditions. Id.
`
`
`“2018 Board Decision” refers to the Board decision
`2
`found in Mr. Chapman’s Appendix, ECF 10-2 at 16–32.
`The pages cited correspond to the page numbers of the de-
`cision itself.
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 03/15/2024
`
`4
`
`CHAPMAN v. MCDONOUGH
`
`Thus, the court affirmed the Board’s denial of an earlier
`effective date. Id. at 11. Mr. Chapman appeals.3
`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 with respect to constitutional issues, 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).
`On appeal, Mr. Chapman argues the Board clearly
`erred regarding his claims for an earlier effective date for
`his right ankle and knee conditions. Informal Opening Br.
`at 2–7.4 He argues the Board incorrectly interpreted the
`Board’s July 1991 decision as adjudicating his 1989 claim.
`Id. at 5 (citing Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990)).
`He also argues the Board failed to follow the benefit of the
`doubt rule when reviewing his form filed in January 1989.
`Id. at 6–11 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 3007(b) (1988) (benefit of the
`doubt doctrine), 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (reasonable doubt regu-
`lation), and 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (informal claim regulation)).
`Mr. Chapman further argues the Board failed to appreciate
`his Notice of Disagreement for the May 1995 rating deci-
`sion was an appeal of the entire decision. Id. at 14–15. He
`
`
`3 The Veterans Court remanded Mr. Chapman’s
`claims for an earlier effective date for a left knee disability,
`bilateral pes planus, and a 20% rating for a left ankle dis-
`ability. Mr. Chapman does not appeal the remanded
`claims.
`“Informal Opening Br.” refers to Mr. Chapman’s
`4
`Informal Brief, ECF 18-1 at 4–17.
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 03/15/2024
`
`CHAPMAN v. MCDONOUGH
`
`5
`
`contends there was a question of doubt as to his right knee
`and right ankle conditions based on his filings in January
`1989, September 1993, and August 1995 such that the Vet-
`erans Court should have reversed the Board’s decision. Id.
`at 15–17.
`Each of Mr. Chapman’s arguments either challenge
`factual determinations or the application of laws or regula-
`tions to the facts of his case. We lack jurisdiction over these
`arguments. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). For example, Mr.
`Chapman argues the Veterans Court’s decision does not
`mention the form he filed in January 1989, which identified
`issues with his bilateral knees and right ankle. Informal
`Opening Br. at 4. This argument challenges a factual find-
`ing in the record, which is not subject to our review. He
`also argues the Veterans Court erred because the Board’s
`1991 decision does not mention his right knee or right an-
`kle conditions. Id. at 4–5. This argument challenges the
`Veterans Court’s application of the law to the facts of his
`case. Veterans Court Decision at 8–9. We do not have ju-
`risdiction to review application of law to facts. 38 U.S.C.
`§ 7292(d)(2).
`Mr. Chapman argues we have jurisdiction over his ap-
`peal because he cited statutes and regulations in his brief.
`Informal Reply Br. at 2–4. Our jurisdiction is determined
`based on whether the case presents a question of law, in-
`cluding interpretations of constitutional and statutory pro-
`visions. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d). Mr. Chapman cited statutes
`and regulations in his brief, but the Veterans Court did not
`interpret any laws or regulations in its decision. Instead,
`the Veterans Court reviewed the Board’s decision for clear
`error. Veterans Court Decision at 8–9 (citing Gilbert, 1 Vet.
`App. at 53 in applying the “clearly erroneous” standard of
`review). This application of law to the facts of the case is
`not subject to our review.
`Mr. Chapman’s other arguments essentially ask us to
`review
`the record and Board’s decision on
`the
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1834 Document: 33 Page: 6 Filed: 03/15/2024
`
`6
`
`CHAPMAN v. MCDONOUGH
`
`determination of his effective date for service connection,
`which are factual findings not subject to our review. Butler
`v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2010).5 Because
`Mr. Chapman disputes factual findings and the application
`of laws to the facts of his case, we lack jurisdiction over his
`appeal.
`
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered Mr. Chapman’s remaining argu-
`ments and find them unpersuasive. Because his appeal
`does not raise issues within this Court’s limited jurisdic-
`tion, we dismiss.
`
`DISMISSED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`
`5 Mr. Chapman’s mention of due process does not
`suffice to raise a constitutional issue within our jurisdic-
`tion. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) (“[The appellant’s] characterization of [a] question as
`constitutional in nature does not confer upon us jurisdic-
`tion that we otherwise lack.”).
`
`