Charlie J. Jackson v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHARLIE J. JACKSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-2339
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-3623, Chief Judge Margaret C.
Bartley, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: April 10, 2025
______________________
CHARLIE J. J ACKSON, Paris, TX, pro se.
RAFAEL SHAPIRO, 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, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Case: 24-2339 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

JACKSON v. COLLINS 2
Before D YK, STOLL , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Charlie J. Jackson appeals pro se from a decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We
lack jurisdiction and accordingly dismiss.
I
Mr. Jackson served in the U.S. Marine Corps from
April 1972 to April 1975, and from May 1975 to Decem-
ber 1977. In 2005, Mr. Jackson was granted service con-
nection for bilateral hearing loss and was assigned a
10 percent disability rating by a regional office of the De-
partment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). See Jackson v. Wilkie,
No. 20-1017, 2020 WL 7413867, at *1 (Vet. App. Dec. 18,
2020). He appealed that decision to the Board of Veterans’
Appeals (“Board”), seeking an increased disability rating.
The Board denied his claim. He appealed to the Veterans
Court, which remanded the case for further development.
See id. at *4.
Since the Veterans Court’s initial remand, Mr. Jack-
son’s hearing-loss claim has shuttled back and forth be-
tween the regional office and the Board. The upshot of this
years-long process is that, on December 14, 2021, an exam-
ination by the VA demonstrated that Mr. Jackson suffered
100 percent bilateral hearing loss, and his service-con-
nected bilateral hearing loss was increased to 100 percent
in August 2022. In 2023, the regional office determined
that Mr. Jackson was entitled under VA regulations to spe-
cial monthly compensation (“SMC”) for his bilateral hear-
ing loss with an effective date of December 14, 2021. Mr.
Jackson is currently pursuing an earlier effective date for
his SMC in proceedings before the regional office.
In June 2023, Mr. Jackson filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus with the Veterans Court. The court construed
Case: 24-2339 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

JACKSON v. COLLINS 3
the petition as a “request that the [c]ourt compel VA to
award an earlier effective date for the award of SMC” for
his hearing loss. S. App’x 3.1 The court held that Mr. Jack-
son had not proven his entitlement to a writ of mandamus
because he failed to show “that he lack[ed] adequate means
to obtain the desired relief through the ordinary appeals
process.” Id.2
Mr. Jackson appeals.
II
Our jurisdiction over the Veterans Court’s rulings is
prescribed by statute. We may review “the validity of a de-
cision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or 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.” 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(a). Except for constitutional issues, we are pre-
cluded from reviewing “a challenge to a factual determina-
tion,” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to
the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2). In the con-
text of an appeal from the Veterans Court’s denial of a writ
of mandamus, we have jurisdiction to review “non-frivolous
legal question[s]” raised by the appeal. Beasley v. Shinseki,
709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
On appeal, Mr. Jackson appears to argue that the court
“overlooked . . . non-constitutional questions,” such as
1 Citations to “S. App’x” are to the supplemental ap-
pendix filed by the government.
2 We note that the Veterans Court also found that
Mr. Jackson had articulated an alternative theory that “the
award of SMC was a full grant of benefits [that] negatively
affect[ed] any pending appeal related to the schedular eval-
uation for his hearing loss or relevant effective dates.”
S. App’x 3. This theory, whatever its scope, is not pressed
on appeal.
Case: 24-2339 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

JACKSON v. COLLINS 4
whether “administrative avenues for review are constitu-
tionally adequate.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 2. He con-
tends that the Veterans Court failed to decide whether it
had changed its “interpretation of ‘settlement agreement
law.’” Id. In reply, Mr. Jackson expands on this latter the-
ory, referring to a “Rule 33 conference” between the “[De-
partment of] Justice and [his] lawyers.” Appellant’s
Informal Reply Br. 2. Finally, he appears to raise a due
process challenge on the ground that he is entitled to “ade-
quate notice of the judicial disposition of [his] claim and
adequate opportunity to challenge an adverse ruling.” Id.
at 5.
Although we are sympathetic to Mr. Jackson’s frustra-
tions with the extended duration of proceedings to resolve
his claims, we must dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion. Mr. Jackson does not challenge the Veterans Court’s
interpretation of any rule of law, statute, or regulation. He
does not allege that the Veterans Court applied the incor-
rect legal standard, nor has he developed a “non-frivolous
legal question” for us to review. Beasley, 709 F.3d at 1158.
To the extent that Mr. Jackson asserts we possess ju-
risdiction because the Veterans Court altered its interpre-
tation of “settlement agreement law,” Appellant’s Informal
Br. 2, he fails to provide any facts sufficient for us to assess
such a claim. Indeed, the government disclaims knowledge
of any such settlement conference, Appellee’s Informal
Br. 17, and the record before us is devoid of any discussion
of a settlement agreement.
For similar reasons, we lack jurisdiction over the due
process challenge raised in Mr. Jackson’s appeal. An ap-
pellant must do more than merely characterize an issue as
constitutional to properly invoke this court’s jurisdiction.
See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(emphasizing that this court lacks jurisdiction over claims
that are “constitutional in name only”).
Case: 24-2339 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

JACKSON v. COLLINS 5
We have considered Mr. Jackson’s remaining argu-
ments and do not find them persuasive.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2339 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 04/10/2025

-- 5 of 5 --