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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.