Felicia N. Jones v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FELICIA N. JONES,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1562
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-6407, Judge Coral Wong
Pietsch.
______________________
Decided: December 5, 2024
______________________
FELICIA N. JONES, Houston, TX, pro se.
LAUREL DON HAVENS, III, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also
represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.,
PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2024

-- 1 of 6 --

JONES v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and STOLL, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Felicia N. Jones appeals a decision of the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), affirming
the Board of Veterans Appeals’ (Board) decision finding
that Ms. Jones is not a veteran and therefore not entitled
to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. For the
following reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
In 2011, Ms. Jones requested military service records
from the Army Human Resources Command Contact
Center (AHRCCC). S. Appx. 19.1 The AHRCCC did not
provide Ms. Jones any records because the social security
number Ms. Jones provided belonged to a deceased person.
Id.
In 2013, Ms. Jones submitted an application to the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)
requesting correction of her middle name and her social
security number. S. Appx. 17. Ms. Jones provided two
supporting documents belonging to a “Felicia Nichole
Jones,” listing the same social security number the
AHRCCC found belonged to a deceased person. S. Appx.
20–23. The ABCMR returned her application because (1)
Ms. Jones did not provide copies of documents showing the
incorrect middle name, and (2) there was a discrepancy
with the social security number provided. S. Appx. 16.
In 2015, Ms. Jones filed a claim for disability
compensation with the VA indicating she served in the U.S.
Army Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC).
S. Appx. 14. Ms. Jones alleged she had served under the
1 “S. Appx.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix
filed with the Informal Response Brief.
Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 12/05/2024

-- 2 of 6 --

JONES v. MCDONOUGH 3
name Felicia N. Henderson. S. Appx. 1. The VA requested
Ms. Jones’ service records, but the National Personnel
Records Center did not have any records for Felicia N.
Henderson. S. Appx. 1. The VA denied Ms. Jones’ claim for
compensation because “participation in JROTC is not
considered active duty and, therefore, does not give you the
legally required Veteran status for eligibility for VA
benefits.” S. Appx. 14. Ms. Jones filed a notice of
disagreement with the VA’s decision.
In 2017, the VA conducted another search for Ms. Jones’
military records, but none were located. S. Appx. 2. The
VA asked Ms. Jones to provide any copies of records she had
in her possession. Ms. Jones provided a copy of DD Form
214, which listed “Henderson, Felicia Necole,” had 0 years,
0 months, and 0 days of service, and was awarded the
“Medal of Freedom, Combat Purple Heart, Humatation
[sic].” S. Appx. 13.
The Board found Ms. Jones had no service in the
Armed Forces, and her claim must be denied because of
lack of legal entitlement. S. Appx. 8. The Board explained
that Ms. Jones’ claim indicated she served in JROTC in
1989 in one document, and in the Army in 1989 in another.
Id. Ms. Jones “provided service personnel and medical
records for a servicemember who shared her first and last
name, but who had a different social security number, date
of birth, and dates of service. The servicemember in
question died on December 31, 1992.” Id. The Board
determined Ms. Jones had no periods of active duty service,
and participation in JROTC does not demonstrate she is a
veteran. Id. Ms. Jones appealed to the Veterans Court.
The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision.
Before the Veterans Court, Ms. Jones argued she had
received honorable service in the Army from January 1989
to October 2022, and her award of Medal of Honor was
pending. S. Appx. 3. She also argued the Board’s decision
included Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE), and
Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 12/05/2024

-- 3 of 6 --

JONES v. MCDONOUGH 4
improperly applied several statues and regulations. Id.
The Veterans Court found Ms. Jones did not explain with
any specificity how the Board erred, and her cited statutes
and regulations were not pertinent to the Board’s decision.
S. Appx. 4. As to Ms. Jones’ new argument regarding her
service from 1989 to 2022, the Veterans Court concluded
that while it could hear the argument in the first instance,
it would exercise its discretion to decline to do so. S. Appx.
4–5. The Veterans Court’s decision was based on the fact
that Ms. Jones submitted records and statements with
conflicting dates of service, names, and Social Security
numbers, and did not challenge the Board’s finding that the
records did not belong to her. Id. Ms. Jones appeals.
DISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We “have
exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to
the validity of any statute or regulation or any
interpretation thereof [by the Veterans Court] . . . and to
interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the
extent presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(c). Absent a constitutional challenge, 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, Ms. Jones argues the Veterans Court erred
in (1) its interpretation of “Rule 55,” (2) failing to provide
her military benefits, (3) not accounting for stating Ms.
Jones is a veteran on a document, (4) not applying “the
Honorable Discharge Award with the benefits,” (5) not
immediately giving housing provisions or benefits, (6)
violating her constitutional rights, and (7) CUE. See
Appellant’s Informal Br. 3. Ms. Jones also invokes the
Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) without explanation.
Id. Because Ms. Jones’ challenges are all factual in nature,
we do not have jurisdiction.
Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 12/05/2024

-- 4 of 6 --

JONES v. MCDONOUGH 5
Ms. Jones asserts the Veterans Court interpreted “Rule
55,” and cites to Massie v. Shinseki, 724 F.3d 1325, (Fed.
Cir. 2013). Appellant’s Informal Br. 2. However, neither
the Veterans Court’s decision nor Massie discuss “Rule 55.”
Nor did the Veterans Court interpret any other statutes or
regulations. S. Appx. 1–5.
Ms. Jones argues the Veterans Court violated her
constitutional rights by ridiculing her about being
unrepresented. See Appellant’s Informal Br. 3. Ms. Jones
does not point to any statement made by the Veterans
Court, and we do not see any ridicule of Ms. Jones in the
Veterans Court’s decision. On the contrary, the Veterans
Court noted its duty to sympathetically read Ms. Jones’
pleadings. S. Appx. 3. Ms. Jones’ “characterization of [a]
question as constitutional in nature does not confer upon
us jurisdiction that we otherwise lack.” Helfer v. West, 174
F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Ms. Jones argues the Veterans Court erred in its
analysis of CUE. See Appellant’s Informal Br. 3. The
Veterans Court noted that Ms. Jones argued “CUE,” but
did not explain with any specificity how the Board erred.
S. Appx. 3–4. The Veterans Court therefore declined to
determine CUE. Again, we see no argument on appeal over
which we have jurisdiction.
Ms. Jones appears to argue the Veterans Court failed
to apply the EAJA. Appellants Informal Br. 3. However,
Ms. Jones does not explain how she believes the EAJA
applies to her case. [W]e may review the Veterans Court’s
interpretation of the EAJA de novo,” but we lack
jurisdiction over the application of EAJA to the facts of a
case. Cavaciuti v. McDonough, 75 F.4th 1363, 1367 (Fed.
Cir. 2023). The Veterans Court did not mention, let alone
interpret the EAJA. We, therefore, lack jurisdiction over
this argument as well.
Ms. Jones’ remaining arguments raise either factual
issues, or the application of the law to the facts of this case,
Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 5 Filed: 12/05/2024

-- 5 of 6 --

JONES v. MCDONOUGH 6
which we also do not have jurisdiction to review. 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(d)(2).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1562 Document: 34 Page: 6 Filed: 12/05/2024

-- 6 of 6 --