Note: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-7280
KENNETH A. HALL,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
Kenneth A. Hall, of Selma, Alabama, pro se.
Robert C. Bigler, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With him on
the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director,
and Martin F. Hockey, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J.
Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Jamie L. Mueller, Attorney, United
States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Judge Ronald M. Holdaway
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-7280
KENNETH A. HALL,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
GORDON H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
DECIDED: December 5, 2007
__________________________
Before LINN, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth A. Hall (“Hall”) appeals from a final decision of the United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Hall v. Nicholson, No. 06-802 (Vet.
App. May 17, 2007). In that decision, the Veterans Court affirmed a decision by the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) that determined that his discharge from military
service would be treated as having been under dishonorable conditions, thereby barring
his claim for veteran’s pension benefits. Because we lack subject-matter jurisdiction to
consider the issue that Hall asks us to review, we dismiss Hall’s appeal.
In Hall’s informal brief, he concedes that the decision of the Veterans Court did
not involve the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation, nor did it involve any
constitutional issue. Informal Br. for Pet’r ¶¶ 2, 3. Rather, Hall challenges the decision
by the Veterans Court to affirm the Board’s determination that his discharge from the
military was under other-than-honorable conditions and was based upon an offense
involving moral turpitude, thereby warranting treatment as a dishonorable discharge
under 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d)(3). He asks us to “upgrade [his discharge] to at least
‘general,’” i.e., “to where [he]’ll be eligible for VA benefits.” Informal Br. for Pet’r ¶ 6.
As the Veterans Court observed, the Board’s decision involved a factual finding.
Under the statute that grants us limited jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans
Court, we “may not review (A) 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).
Accordingly, we have no power to consider the issue Hall raises or to grant the relief he
seeks, and his appeal must be dismissed.
COSTS
No costs.
2007-7280 2