Case: 20-1778 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 02/03/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PAUL D. JOHNSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DAT TRAN, ACTING SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2020-1778
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-7030, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
Decided: February 3, 2021
______________________
PAUL D. JOHNSON, Raiford, FL, pro se.
MICHAEL D. SNYDER, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
JEFFREY B. CLARK, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.,
LOREN MISHA PREHEIM; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE,
Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 20-1778 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 02/03/2021
2 JOHNSON v. TRAN
Before PROST, Chief Judge, SCHALL and REYNA, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Paul D. Johnson appeals the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus to com-
pel the Secretary of Veteran Affairs to ascertain the nature
of certain (counterfeit) checks deposited into Mr. Johnson’s
inmate trust fund account. See Johnson v. Wilkie, No. 19-
7030, 2019 WL 6315416 (Vet. App. Nov. 26, 2019). For the
reasons below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Johnson is a veteran who served in Vietnam in
1968. But this appeal does not involve service-connected
benefits (or any benefits at all). Rather, the compensation
Mr. Johnson received—which he apparently is not entitled
to and did not request—consisted of counterfeit checks.
Mr. Johnson is incarcerated in Florida. In February
2018, two checks were deposited into Mr. Johnson’s inmate
trust fund account, in the amounts of $2,784.49 and
$706.51. For each check, the account statement listed the
remitter as “VA Administration.” In August 2018, the Flor-
ida Department of Corrections (“FDC”) informed Mr. John-
son that his checks from the “VA Administration” had been
returned and determined by the Internal Revenue Service
to be “counterfeit.” S.A. 17–18. The FDC then placed a lien
on Mr. Johnson’s account in the amount of $3,491.00 (the
total amount of the two February 2018 checks). S.A. 16.
Seeking to unfreeze the funds, Mr. Johnson requested
a waiver of indebtedness from the Department of Veterans
Affairs (“VA”) in January 2019. S.A. 19–20. In May 2019,
the VA informed Mr. Johnson that based on its records he
“[is] not in receipt of compensation or pensions benefits.”
S.A. 24. The VA further explained that its “records do not
reflect any monetary payment being issued to
Case: 20-1778 Document: 41 Page: 3 Filed: 02/03/2021
JOHNSON v. TRAN 3
[Mr. Johnson]” and that “[c]urrently [Mr. Johnson] ha[s]
no pending claims with the VA Regional Office.” Id.
Subsequently, in August 2019, Mr. Johnson submitted
a petition to the Veterans Court for a writ of mandamus to
compel the VA to “resolve the issue of the alleged Counter-
feit Checks” deposited into Mr. Johnson’s inmate trust
fund account, remove the $3,491.00 lien placed thereon,
and forgive any debt related to the counterfeit checks. The
Veterans Court denied Mr. Johnson’s petition for lack of ju-
risdiction, concluding that “[t]he information before the
Court indicates that VA has nothing directly to do with this
controversy.” See Johnson, 2019 WL 6315416, at *2. The
Veterans Court noted that “Mr. Johnson does not dispute
the checks deposited in his inmate trust account were coun-
terfeit and not issued by VA” and that “[Mr. Johnson’s] pe-
tition never asserts that he is entitled to receive VA
benefits.” Id. at *1. The court also found that “the evidence
supplied by VA confirms that [Mr. Johnson] is not [entitled
to VA benefits]” and that “there are no issues involved here
that could properly be the subject of an eventual Board de-
cision.” Id. at *1–2. Mr. Johnson appealed.
DISCUSSION
We have limited jurisdiction to review decisions by the
Veterans Court. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (d)(2), except to
the extent that an appeal presents a constitutional issue,
we may not “review (A) a challenge to a factual determina-
tion, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to
the facts of a particular case.” See also Conway v. Principi,
353 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]e cannot review
applications of law to fact.”). We have jurisdiction, how-
ever, to “decide all relevant questions of law.” 38 U.S.C.
Case: 20-1778 Document: 41 Page: 4 Filed: 02/03/2021
4 JOHNSON v. TRAN
§ 7292(d)(1). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to re-
view any of the issues raised by Mr. Johnson. 1
First, Mr. Johnson argues that the VA should be con-
sidered a “party” to this controversy and that the Veterans
Court erred in finding that the VA was not directly in-
volved. Mr. Johnson’s theory appears to be that the VA is
directly involved because his inmate trust fund account
statement listed “VA Administration” as remitter of the
checks in question. This is perhaps the decisive issue. But
the Veterans Court’s determination that the checks were
counterfeit and not issued by the VA “is a factual question
over which we lack jurisdiction.” Roberts v. Shinseki, 647
F.3d 1334, 1339 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Indeed, in his reply
brief, Mr. Johnson acknowledges that his assertion that
the VA remitted the checks challenges a factual determi-
nation by the Veterans Court.
Second, Mr. Johnson asserts that the VA had a duty
under the United States Code and Code of Federal Regula-
tions to report the issue of the counterfeit checks to appro-
priate authorities but failed to do so. In support,
Mr. Johnson cites 31 U.S.C. § 310 and 38 C.F.R. §§ 1.203–
1.204. In particular, Mr. Johnson points out that 38 C.F.R.
§ 1.203 states that “[i]nformation about actual or possible
violations of criminal laws related to VA programs, opera-
tions, facilities, or involving VA employees . . . will be re-
ported by VA management officials to the VA police.” But
the Veterans Court found that the counterfeit checks did
not arise from any VA program or benefit. Johnson, 2019
WL 6315416, at *1. Thus, 38 C.F.R. § 1.203 does not confer
jurisdiction here. Nor do the other statutes and regula-
tions cited by Mr. Johnson. The Veterans Court only ap-
plied the relevant law to the facts of the case. Absent a
constitutional issue, we do not have jurisdiction to review
1 We have also considered Mr. Johnson’s “Memoran-
dum in Lieu of Oral Argument” (ECF No. 39).
Case: 20-1778 Document: 41 Page: 5 Filed: 02/03/2021
JOHNSON v. TRAN 5
the application of law to fact. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); see
also Conway, 353 F.3d at 1372; Payne v. McDonald, 587 F.
App’x 649, 651 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that we do not
have jurisdiction to consider a “mere recitation of statutes
and regulations contemplat[ing] a legal question[] [that]
nevertheless fails to identify how the Veterans Court mis-
construed the statutes and regulations or improperly de-
cided a rule of law”).
Third, Mr. Johnson requests a “remedy” from the VA
or another agency to address the issue of the counterfeit
checks. But the Veterans Court found that there are no
issues involved here that could properly be the subject of
an eventual Board decision. Johnson, 2019 WL 6315416,
at *2. The Veterans Court further determined that it had
no authority to order the VA to compel other entities to in-
vestigate the counterfeit checks under the circumstances of
this case. See id. at *1. We do not have jurisdiction to re-
view such application of law to fact. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
Fourth, Mr. Johnson requests relief under 38 U.S.C.
§§ 503, 5120, and other related statutes and regulations re-
garding benefits administered by the VA. However, the
Veterans Court found that Mr. Johnson is currently not en-
titled to receive VA benefits. This is a factual question over
which we lack jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Johnson’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.