Jerel T. Jenkins v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JEREL T. JENKINS,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1379
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-1029, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: July 29, 2025
______________________
M ICHAL L EAH K ANOVSKY, Bergmann & Moore, LLC,
Rockville, MD, argued for claimant-appellant. Also repre-
sented by G LENN R. BERGMANN , THOMAS POLSENO .
Y ARIV S. PIERCE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented
by WILLIAM JAMES G RIMALDI, PATRICIA M. M CCARTHY,
Y AAKOV R OTH ; TYRONE COLLIER, BRIAN D. G RIFFIN , Office
Case: 24-1379 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

JENKINS v. COLLINS 2
of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before TARANTO , H UGHES , and STARK , Circuit Judges.
H UGHES , Circuit Judge.
Appellant Jerel T. Jenkins appeals a non-final remand
order from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims. Because, with limited exceptions not applicable
here, we may not review a non-final order, we dismiss.
I
Mr. Jenkins served in the United States Army from
January 2002 to February 2005. J.A. 425. Because Mr. Jen-
kins tested positive for marijuana in October 2004, he was
separated from service for misconduct and received a gen-
eral discharge under honorable conditions. J.A. 478–84.
He filed a claim seeking compensation for post-trau-
matic stress disorder (PTSD) in April 2012, J.A. 459, and a
claim seeking compensation for depression in June 2015.
J.A. 3, 377–80. The Regional Office (RO) denied service
connection for both conditions, J.A. 425, 356, and later is-
sued a statement of the case again denying service connec-
tion for “a chronic psychiatric disability to include post-
traumatic stress disorder.” J.A. 307.
Mr. Jenkins appealed the denial to the Board of Veter-
ans’ Appeals. J.A. 298–99. The Board remanded the issue
of whether Mr. Jenkins was entitled to service connection
for an acquired psychiatric disorder because it found that
no VA examiner had opined on whether the presumption of
soundness had been rebutted with respect to such a disor-
der. J.A. 243–44. On remand, the RO again denied service
connection. J.A. 189–90. And on appeal, the Board affirmed
the denial. J.A. 18.
Case: 24-1379 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

JENKINS v. COLLINS 3
Mr. Jenkins appealed to the Veterans Court, which va-
cated and remanded the portion of the Board’s decision re-
garding service connection for an acquired psychiatric
disorder because it held the Board provided inadequate
reasons and bases supporting its decision. J.A. 11–12. The
Veterans Court identified several errors: The Board failed
to address whether the VA had satisfied its duty to assist
and the VA’s delay in mailing the supplemental statement
of the case; relied on a repealed provision of law to review
evidence that Mr. Jenkins submitted in September 2021;
and failed to explain why it found that the medical opinion
of a VA psychologist rendered in December 2020 was ade-
quate. J.A. 10–11.
Mr. Jenkins timely appealed.
II
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Under § 7292, we
have exclusive jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court’s
interpretation of any statute or regulation, but we are
barred from review of “(A) a challenge to a factual determi-
nation, 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).
“While 38 U.S.C. § 7292 does not articulate a finality
requirement, we have declined to review non-final orders
of the Veterans Court and ‘concluded that finality is a ju-
risdictional requirement.’” Winterbottom v. McDonough,
124 F.4th 933, 935 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quoting Ravin v.
McDonough, 107 F.4th 1357, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2024)). Non-
final orders include remand orders. Adams v. Principi,
256 F.3d 1318, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In Williams v. Prin-
cipi, we articulated a narrow exception to the finality re-
quirement that applies when three conditions are satisfied:
(1) the Veterans Court issued a clear and final decision on
a legal issue that (a) is separate from the remand proceed-
ings, (b) will directly govern the remand proceedings, or,
Case: 24-1379 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

JENKINS v. COLLINS 4
(c) if reversed by this court, would render the remand pro-
ceedings unnecessary; (2) the resolution of the legal issue
adversely affects the party seeking review; and (3) there is
a substantial risk that the decision would not survive a re-
mand, i.e., that the remand proceeding may moot the issue.
275 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
III
Mr. Jenkins acknowledges that the Veterans Court’s
remand order is not a final decision but contends that the
Williams exception to finality applies. Because the Veter-
ans Court issued its remand order for procedural reasons
without ruling on the merits of Mr. Jenkins’ legal argu-
ments, we disagree.
Mr. Jenkins’ appeal does not meet the first Williams
condition. Despite his argument to the contrary, the Veter-
ans Court did not make any definitive legal ruling that the
presumption of soundness in 38 U.S.C. § 1111 does not ap-
ply to alcohol and drug abuse disorders. See J.A. 9–10.
Mr. Jenkins will be free on remand to argue about the ap-
plicability of the presumption of soundness to his asserted
claim.
Failure to establish the first Williams condition is
enough to require dismissal, but Mr. Jenkins also fails to
establish the second and third conditions.
Regarding the second condition, Mr. Jenkins does not
show how he will be adversely affected by the remand or-
der. On the contrary, the remand order was in his favor
because it required the Board to provide more specific rea-
sons and bases for its denial. To the extent Mr. Jenkins
suggests that the agency might further develop the record
to add unfavorable evidence, he has not cited any statutory
authority or governing precedent that prohibits the agency
from further developing his claim on remand. Such devel-
opment on remand is within the discretion of the agency
and may be necessary in order to address whether the
Case: 24-1379 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

JENKINS v. COLLINS 5
agency met its duty to assist and other evidentiary require-
ments. The cases Mr. Jenkins invokes for support, includ-
ing Dambach v. Gober and Allen v. Principi, are not to the
contrary. In Dambach the legal issue was the evidentiary
burden to be imposed, not the specific evidence to be devel-
oped. 223 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Because the
Veterans Court’s interpretation of the statute would have
altered the evidentiary burdens on remand, there was a
substantial risk that remand would make the statutory in-
terpretation question unreviewable. Id. And in Allen v.
Principi, we reviewed a non-final remand order because
the Veterans Court’s interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 1110
would have erroneously precluded certain evidence alto-
gether. 237 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Finally, Mr. Jenkins cannot satisfy the third Williams
condition because there is no risk that his legal arguments
will not survive a remand. Any legal arguments he may
have about the interaction of the presumption of soundness
in 38 U.S.C. § 1111 and the bar on compensation in
38 U.S.C. § 1110 “if the disability is a result of the veteran’s
own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs” can be
raised to the Veterans Court and to this court if the remand
does not result in a compensation award.
IV
We have considered Mr. Jenkins’ remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Because the decision
that Mr. Jenkins challenges is a non-final remand order
and does not meet the Williams criteria for an exception to
the finality requirement, we dismiss his appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1379 Document: 43 Page: 5 Filed: 07/29/2025

-- 5 of 5 --