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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
1 “Veterans Court Decision” refers to the Veterans
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.
2 “2018 Board Decision” refers to the Board decision
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.
4 “Informal Opening Br.” refers to Mr. Chapman’s
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.”).
Chapman v. McDonough
Combined Opinion