Case: 22-2095 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 11/03/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DONALD RIVERA,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-2095
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-0247, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: November 3, 2023
______________________
DONALD RIVERA, Algodones, NM, pro se.
BRENDAN DAVID JORDAN, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of Gen-
eral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Af-
fairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 22-2095 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 11/03/2023
2 RIVERA v. MCDONOUGH
______________________
Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Donald Rivera served with the United States Air Force
from June 1972 to June 1976; he injured his back in 1973
while loading weapons. The matter in dispute is the effec-
tive date of his disability compensation for degenerative
bone disease and stenosis of the lumbar spine.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional of-
fice denied an effective date earlier than Mr. Rivera’s ap-
plication date of August 25, 2006, rejecting his argument
that he had attempted to file an application in 1976 but a
VA representative told him he was not eligible for compen-
sation and refused to complete the filing of his application.
He appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or
“Board”), seeking an effective date retroactive to 1976. The
Board upheld the denial, 1 and the Court of Appeals for Vet-
erans Claims (CAVC or “Veterans Court”) affirmed after
proceedings including a remand. 2
Mr. Rivera raises constitutional and statutory ques-
tions. On review of all the issues, we affirm the decision of
the Veterans Court.
1 Rivera v. McDonough, No. 08-21 909 (Bd. Vet. App.
Apr. 25, 2018) (“Board Op.”).
2 Rivera v. McDonough, No. 15-3303, 2016 WL
7438770 (Vet. App. Dec. 27, 2016) (“Remand Dec.”); No. 20-
0247, 2022 WL 1284531 (Vet. App. Apr. 29, 2022) (“CAVC
Op.”).
Case: 22-2095 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 11/03/2023
RIVERA v. MCDONOUGH 3
BACKGROUND
At the time of Mr. Rivera’s “processing out” at Travis
Air Force Base in 1976, Rivera AF Form 452, dated June 5,
1976, “noted recurrent back pain.” Board Op. at 8. The
Board recited, “[T]he Veteran was advised that he was en-
titled to file an application for compensation from VA and
that he did not wish to [file] an application for disability
compensation at this time and understood that he may do
so at a later date.” Board Op. at 13; see “Serviceman’s
Statement Concerning Application for Compensation from
the Veterans Administration” dated June 5, 1976.
Mr. Rivera completed an application for disability com-
pensation on August 25, 2006. Based on that application,
the VA awarded 10% disability by Rating Decision dated
August 27, 2007, with compensation payable from August
25, 2006, in accordance with statute:
[38 U.S.C. § 5110(a)](1) Unless specifically pro-
vided otherwise in this chapter, the effective date
of an award based on an initial claim, or a supple-
mental claim, of compensation, dependency and in-
demnity compensation, or pension, shall be fixed in
accordance with the facts found, but shall not be
earlier than the date of receipt of application there-
for.
Mr. Rivera filed a Notice of Disagreement, stating that the
effective date should be retroactive to June 1976, in light of
an alleged 1976 application attempt which he claimed was
refused by the VA. The VA did not agree to the earlier ef-
fective date, and he appealed to the Board.
The Board held a hearing in June 2014. Mr. Rivera
testified that the VA representative who, in June 1976, was
filling out the application on his behalf, refused to complete
the application when he learned that Mr. Rivera’s injury
occurred at the Air Force base rather than in combat and
that he had not served in Vietnam. Mr. Rivera testified
Case: 22-2095 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 11/03/2023
4 RIVERA v. MCDONOUGH
that the VA representative tore up the application. The
Board held that Mr. Rivera was not entitled to the 1976
effective date. He then appealed to the Veterans Court.
On December 27, 2016, the Veterans Court vacated the
2014 decision, holding that the Board:
provided an inadequate statement of reasons or ba-
ses for its treatment of the appellant’s lay testi-
mony regarding a written communication created
with a VA employee in June 1976 evidencing his
intent to apply for disability benefits . . . . Specifi-
cally, the Board never made a credibility determi-
nation regarding the evidence.
CAVC Remand Dec. at 3 (citing Washington v. Nicholson,
19 Vet. App. 362, 367–68 (2005) (holding that the Board
has the duty to determine the credibility and probative
value of the evidence)). The Veterans Court mentioned the
possibility of entitlement to the filing date of an “informal
claim” in appropriate circumstances. Id. at 3. The court
remanded to the Board for further consideration.
The Board held a second hearing, at which Mr. Rivera
again testified regarding the alleged application attempt in
1976. The Board again denied the 1976 effective date, re-
citing credibility factors including inconsistent statements
concerning the 1976 events, the absence of any corrobora-
tion, and the thirty intervening years of inaction. Board
Op. at 12–13. The Board summarized:
Given the varying statements as to whether or not
paperwork was started and if it was started how
much information was included on any alleged ap-
plication, the Board finds that the Veteran’s state-
ments are inconsistent with each other and the
probative contemporaneous written evidence rec-
ord. Other than the Veteran’s statements, there is
no tangible evidence that an informal claim or
Case: 22-2095 Document: 20 Page: 5 Filed: 11/03/2023
RIVERA v. MCDONOUGH 5
written communication was created that identified
the benefits sought prior to August 25, 2006.
Id. at 13.
The Veterans Court affirmed, stating that while “the
Court is sympathetic to the appellant’s circumstances, the
Board has properly considered the lay testimony in the de-
cision on appeal; the Court discerns no clear error in the
Board finding the veteran’s statements inconsistent and
unsupported by the rest of the evidence of record.” CAVC
Op. at 3.
Mr. Rivera appeals. He argues that the VA misin-
formed him in 1976, that he has been treated unfairly and
in violation of his statutory rights as a veteran, and that
his constitutional right to due process has been violated.
DISCUSSION
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
This court has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292 at
least because Mr. Rivera has presented a constitutional is-
sue. The government has not argued that Mr. Rivera failed
to present his constitutional challenge to the Veterans
Court, so the Veterans Court’s affirmance of the Board’s
decision denying the requested earlier effective date neces-
sarily rejected this challenge, which suffices for jurisdic-
tion. See Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1338, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc), superseded in part by statute,
Veterans Benefits Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-330, tit. IV,
§ 402(a), 116 Stat. 2820, 2832; see also Morgan v. Principi,
327 F.3d 1357, 1360–64 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Lamour v. Peake,
544 F.3d 1317, 1320–21 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
This court reviews legal determinations de novo. See
Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002). As
relevant here, although we have some review authority
over facts that bear on constitutional issues, see 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2) (making exception for constitutional issue to
Case: 22-2095 Document: 20 Page: 6 Filed: 11/03/2023
6 RIVERA v. MCDONOUGH
the bar of our review of factual matters), any such review,
consistent with general appellate practice, must give at
least the usual deference to the factfinder’s credibility de-
terminations. See, e.g., Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d
1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451
F.3d 1331, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Inwood Labs.,
Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 856 (1982); Tiger Lily
Ventures Ltd. v. Barclays Capital Inc., 35 F.4th 1352, 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2022).
The Credibility Determination
The Veterans Court focused on the “credibility” of Mr.
Rivera’s argument that in 1976 he attempted to apply for
disability compensation, and that a VA employee misin-
formed him concerning entitlement. The court recognized
that such an event can warrant relief, suggesting the pos-
sibility of an “informal claim” in the absence of actual fil-
ing. However, the Veterans Court also had concerns with
Mr. Rivera’s descriptions of this 1976 event, and instructed
the Board to probe this aspect.
On remand the Board conducted a second hearing, at
which Mr. Rivera testified. The Board wrote a detailed ex-
planation of its conclusion that Mr. Rivera had not credibly
established that he attempted to file an application in
1976. The Board recited inconsistencies in his various de-
scriptions of the 1976 events, and the absence of any cor-
roborating evidence. Board Op. at 1. The Board again
denied Mr. Rivera’s request for retroactivity to 1976.
Mr. Rivera returned to the Veterans Court, which held
that it “discerns no clear error in the Board finding the vet-
eran’s statements inconsistent and unsupported by the rest
of the evidence of record.” CAVC Op. at 3 (citing Hicks v.
Brown, 8 Vet. App. 417, 422 (1995) (the Veterans Court re-
views Board decisions for clear error)). On resolution of its
concern for credibility, the Veterans Court affirmed that
the August 25, 2006 application filing date is the effective
date for compensation for Mr. Rivera’s spine condition.
Case: 22-2095 Document: 20 Page: 7 Filed: 11/03/2023
RIVERA v. MCDONOUGH 7
CAVC Op. at 3. Credibility is a factual finding, and we see
no basis for disturbing the credibility-based rejection of Mr.
Rivera’s allegations of what occurred in June 1976.
Legal Issues
Mr. Rivera argues that he was denied due process be-
cause the VA improperly denied him the opportunity to ob-
tain the benefits to which he is entitled by statute. As the
government points out, “a court ruling against a litigant
when it finds his arguments unconvincing is not a denial of
due process,” Gov’t Br. at 10, for the two evidentiary hear-
ings before the Board provided Mr. Rivera with the “oppor-
tunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner,’” Edwards v. Shinseki, 582 F.3d 1351,
1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424
U.S. 319, 323–33 (1976)).
Mr. Rivera suggests that his due process rights were
violated by VA when, he alleges, VA impaired his ability to
file for benefits in June 1976. But his allegations about
June 1976 are the essential premise of this contention.
And those allegations were rejected by the Board, the Vet-
erans Court affirmed that rejection, and, as we have con-
cluded above, we have no sound basis for disturbing that
ruling. Like the Veterans Court, we have no occasion to
explore the scope of due process rights if Mr. Rivera’s alle-
gations about what transpired in June 1976 were accepted.
Mr. Rivera states that the Board, in its initial decision
in 2014, applied the incorrect standard of “clear and unmis-
takable error” to Board review of the action of the regional
office, instead of reaching an independent decision. How-
ever, this criticism was mooted when the Veterans Court
vacated the Board’s 2014 decision and remanded for deter-
mination of credibility. The Veterans Court stated:
“Though the appellant credits a disgruntled VA employee
with the destruction of his application for disability bene-
fits, this Court has already remanded the matter to the
Case: 22-2095 Document: 20 Page: 8 Filed: 11/03/2023
8 RIVERA v. MCDONOUGH
Board for it to properly consider this lay testimony.” CAVC
Op. at 3.
Finally, Mr. Rivera cites to a number of statutes and
regulations in his filing in this court. But he has not iden-
tified any such statute or regulation that the Veterans
Court expressly or necessarily ruled on in a way that has
been shown to be incorrect and material to the outcome.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Veterans Court’s decision that the effec-
tive date for Mr. Rivera’s compensation award is the 2006
application date.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.