Case: 23-1386 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2024
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROBERT E. RANDOLPH,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1386
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-5809, Judge Coral Wong Pi-
etsch, Judge Michael P. Allen, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: April 18, 2024
______________________
ROBERT E. RANDOLPH, Baton Rouge, LA, pro se.
KELLY GEDDES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, DEREK SCADDEN, Office of
Case: 23-1386 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 04/18/2024
2 RANDOLPH v. MCDONOUGH
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Claimant-Appellant Robert E. Randolph appeals pro se
from a June 16, 2022 United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) decision, Randolph v.
McDonough, No. 20-5809, 2022 WL 2167995 (Vet. App.
June 16, 2022) (“Decision”), affirming a July 1, 2020 Board
of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) order that dismissed Mr.
Randolph’s clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) claim re-
lating to his June 1987 rating decision, S. App’x 11–14. 1
Specifically, Mr. Randolph’s CUE claim was dismissed as
moot because the Veterans Court found the June 1987 rat-
ing decision was not final as to the denial of sinusitis. S.
App’x 14. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss Mr.
Randolph’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Randolph served honorably in the U.S. Marine
Corps from 1981 to 1984. Decision at *2. In January 1985,
Mr. Randolph filed a claim for disability benefits. Id.; S.
App’x 40–43. In June 1985, he received a rating decision
granting benefits for service-connected hypertension and
reactive airway disease (“RAD”) with obstructive ventila-
tory impairment. S. App’x 44.
In March 1987, Mr. Randolph filed a request for
“reevaluation of [his] sinus condition.” S. App’x 45. In June
1987, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) issued a
rating decision denying service connection for the claimed
1 “S. App’x” refers to the corrected supplemental ap-
pendix, ECF No. 24, filed by the Respondent-Appellee.
Case: 23-1386 Document: 39 Page: 3 Filed: 04/18/2024
RANDOLPH v. MCDONOUGH 3
sinus condition. Decision at *2; S. App’x 47–48. This deci-
sion was then treated as final. Decision at *2; see also S.
App’x 59.
Mr. Randolph, now referring to his sinus condition as
sinusitis, requested an increase in his RAD rating and re-
quested an amendment to his claim to include service con-
nection for chronic sinusitis, deviated septum, and sleep
apnea in January 2008. S. App’x 57; see also S. App’x 58–
60. In February 2009, the VA issued a new rating decision
that continued Mr. Randolph’s RAD and hypertension rat-
ings without increasing them and denied Mr. Randolph’s
request for service connection for a sinus condition, devi-
ated septum, and sleep apnea. S. App’x 58–60. In the 2009
rating decision, the VA asserted that Mr. Randolph had
been “previously denied service connection for [a sinus]
condition;” Mr. Randolph had not timely appealed that de-
cision; and that June 1987 rating decision was final. S.
App’x 59. In response, Mr. Randolph filed a Notice of Dis-
agreement, alleging that he “d[id] not recall filing the
claim” for sinusitis and had no “recollection of ever having
received a copy of any decision in that regard” (i.e., the
June 1987 rating decision). S. App’x 61–62.
In June 2012, the VA regional office (“RO”) issued a
Statement of the Case, reiterating that the June 1987 rat-
ing decision was final and stating that the decision “d[id]
not contain clear and unmistakable error.” S. App’x 64–66;
Decision at *2. Mr. Randolph subsequently appealed to the
Board, arguing that he had included in his March 1987 fil-
ing informal claims of sinusitis and rhinitis, and that the
VA had erred in denying those claims because the June
1987 decision had resulted from CUE. S. App’x 68; see gen-
erally S. App’x 67–76. In December 2014, the Board upheld
the RO’s findings of finality and no CUE. Decision at *2;
S. App’x 79–80, 84, 91. Mr. Randolph then appealed to the
Veterans Court, once again arguing that the June 1987 de-
cision was nonfinal because he had never received it. De-
cision at *2; S. App’x 112.
Case: 23-1386 Document: 39 Page: 4 Filed: 04/18/2024
4 RANDOLPH v. MCDONOUGH
In August 2016, the Veterans Court vacated the
Board’s December 2014 decision and remanded for further
proceedings because the Board had “failed to provide an
adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determina-
tion that the June 22, 1987[] rating decision was final and
that the appellant ha[d] not rebutted the presumption of
regularity that VA notified him of that rating decision.”
Randolph v. McDonald, No. 15-1380, 2016 WL 4247148, at
*2 (Vet. App. Aug. 11, 2016); S. App’x 110–14.
In December 2017, the Board again found the June
1987 rating decision was final and denied Mr. Randolph’s
motion for revision of that rating decision based on CUE.
Decision at *3. Mr. Randolph again appealed to the Veter-
ans Court. Id.
In February 2019, the Veterans Court reversed the
Board’s December 2017 decision that the June 1987 rating
decision was final, otherwise vacated the Board’s Decem-
ber 2017 decision, and remanded the matter to the Board
for re-adjudication. Randolph v. Wilkie, No. 17-4864, 2019
WL 848748, at *3–4 (Vet. App. Feb. 22, 2019); S. App’x 119.
On remand, in July 2020, the Board concluded it “ha[d]
no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the motion for
revision of the June 1987 rating decision based on clear and
unmistakable error” because the June 1987 rating decision
was now nonfinal as to the denial of service connection for
sinusitis and thus Mr. Randolph’s CUE motion was not
ripe for appeal. S. App’x 11, 13; Decision at *3. The Board
referred the matter “to the agency of original jurisdiction
(AOJ) for consideration and any action deemed appropri-
ate.” S. App’x 13. It also noted that his remaining argu-
ments were not properly before the Board, because Mr.
Randolph did not perfect the corresponding appeals. S.
App’x 12, 14. Mr. Randolph appealed the Board’s July 2020
decision to the Veterans Court. Decision at *3.
In June 2022, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s
July 2020 decision. Decision at *3. It noted that because
Case: 23-1386 Document: 39 Page: 5 Filed: 04/18/2024
RANDOLPH v. MCDONOUGH 5
“the June 1987 rating decision was not final and . . . CUE
motions can attack only final decisions,” Mr. Randolph’s
“motion for revision based on CUE was moot,” and “[t]he
matter has been properly returned to the RO because the
[Veterans] Court found that the RO never properly notified
the appellant of the June 1987 rating decision.” Id. This
appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited. Cavaciuti v. McDonough, 75 F.4th 1363,
1366 (Fed. Cir. 2023). We may review “all relevant ques-
tions of law, including interpreting constitutional and stat-
utory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). 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). As we explain below, we are
without jurisdiction to address the issues raised by Mr.
Randolph’s appeal.
Mr. Randolph argues that “[t]he Veterans Court erred
in its application of a rule of law and the interpretation of
a statute when it determined that the Board did not err
when it dismissed [his] appeal, rather than remanding or
referring the matter back to the regional office for further
adjudication.” Attachment to Appellant’s Br. 1 (emphases
added); see also Appellant’s Br. 2 (“[T]he Board and the
Veterans Court did not properly apply the rule of law set
forth by this Court in AG v. Peak . . . .”).
Appeals generally challenging the Veterans Court’s ap-
plication of a rule of law to the facts of a specific case fall
outside this court’s jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2);
Leonard v. Gober, 223 F.3d 1374, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(“Section 7292(d)(2) expressly bars us from reviewing chal-
lenges to the application of law to the facts of a particular
case.”). Mr. Randolph’s arguments concerning the pur-
ported failure of the Veterans Court to correctly apply a
Case: 23-1386 Document: 39 Page: 6 Filed: 04/18/2024
6 RANDOLPH v. MCDONOUGH
rule of law to his case therefore fail to establish our juris-
diction over this appeal.
In his opening brief, Mr. Randolph acknowledges that
the Veterans Court’s decision did not involve the validity
or interpretation of a statute or regulation and that the
Veterans Court did not decide any constitutional issues.
Appellant’s Br. 1–2. In an effort to salvage jurisdiction, Mr.
Randolph argues in his reply brief that the Veterans Court
improperly interpreted 38 C.F.R. § 3.103. 2 Appellant’s Re-
ply Br. 5. However, Mr. Randolph fails to explain how any
interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 3.103, which broadly ad-
dresses procedural due process and other rights of veterans
before the VA, has affected his case or even what portion of
that lengthy regulation he believes is at issue. See Appel-
lant’s Reply Br. 5. Mr. Randolph’s “mere recitation of a ba-
sis for jurisdiction” is therefore insufficient to establish our
jurisdiction over this appeal. Livingston v. Derwinski, 959
F.2d 224, 225 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Helfer v. West, 174
F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that jurisdic-
tion that is otherwise lacking is not conferred by “simply
put[ting] a ‘due process’ label on [a] contention” that is
“constitutional in name only”).
To support his assertion that we have jurisdiction over
this appeal, Mr. Randolph cites Bean v. McDonough, 66
F.4th 979 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Appellant’s Reply Br. 10. How-
ever, that case is inapposite. In Bean, this court had to
determine whether “the Veterans Court correctly
2 Mr. Randolph also clarifies that his legal interpre-
tation argument, first raised in his reply brief on appeal, is
solely focused on this regulation rather than another stat-
ute. See Appellant’s Reply Br. 5 (“The only issue in this
appeal is my entitlement to the due process protections set
forth in 38 C[.]F[.]R[.] [§] 3.103, and the Board’s interpre-
tation of that statute following the Veterans Court’s re-
mand . . . .”) (emphasis added).
Case: 23-1386 Document: 39 Page: 7 Filed: 04/18/2024
RANDOLPH v. MCDONOUGH 7
interpreted the legal requirements of . . . the Board’s juris-
dictional statute[] and . . . its own jurisdictional statute.”
66 F.4th at 987. The issue of the Veterans Court’s inter-
pretation of a statute therefore fell squarely within our ju-
risdiction. See id.; 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). Here, Mr.
Randolph fails to explain how the Veterans Court’s deci-
sion in any way interpreted the legal requirements of any
rule of law or statute, much less either its or the Board’s
jurisdictional statute, nor does he urge an interpretation
that would have led the Veterans Court to an alternative
disposition.
Mr. Randolph further argues that the Board erred in
holding that only one of his four claims was before it on
appeal and that it should have found that all four of his
claims were before the Board. Appellant’s Reply Br. 2. To
the extent Mr. Randolph challenges the Board’s under-
standing of the precise scope of the 1987 claim referred to
the RO for issuance of additional decisions, id. at 2, 4–5, we
lack jurisdiction over such factual disputes and arguments
concerning the application of law to facts. 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2); see also Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Whether a veteran has raised a particu-
lar claim is a factual determination, outside the purview of
our appellate authority.”); Bonner v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d
1323, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he interpretation of the
1975 claim is essentially a factual inquiry, and it is beyond
our jurisdiction to make that determination.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). And any error the
Board made in determining the scope of the 1987 claim
would have no bearing on its decision to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction because there would still be no final decision to
support a CUE motion. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) (“At any
time after a decision is final, the claimant may request, or
VA may initiate, review of the decision to determine if
there was a clear and unmistakable error in the decision.”)
(emphasis added). The appropriate avenue to challenge ei-
ther the Board’s or the Veterans Court’s interpretation of
Case: 23-1386 Document: 39 Page: 8 Filed: 04/18/2024
8 RANDOLPH v. MCDONOUGH
the scope of the 1987 claim is to appeal any newly issued
RO decisions. As for this appeal, “look[ing] to the true na-
ture of the action,” Livingston, 959 F.2d at 225, we find no
issue involving the validity or interpretation of any statute,
regulation, or rule of law over which we can assert jurisdic-
tion. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Mr. Randolph’s claims thus
lie beyond this court’s jurisdiction. See id. § 7292(d)(2).
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Randolph’s other arguments
and find that none of the arguments raises a nonfrivolous
issue over which we can assert jurisdiction. For these rea-
sons, we dismiss Mr. Randolph’s appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.