James M. Hooks v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JAMES M. HOOKS,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1301
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 21-731, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: July 12, 2024
______________________
K ENNETH M. CARPENTER , Law Offices of Carpenter
Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.
Also represented by KENT A. EILER.
MEREDYTH C OHEN HAVASY , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
Also represented by BRIAN M. B OYNTON, WILLIAM J AMES
G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ; AMANDA BLACKMON,
Case: 23-1301 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 07/12/2024

-- 1 of 2 --

HOOKS v. MCDONOUGH 2
BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States
Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before CHEN, STOLL , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
James M. Hooks appeals the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
Court) affirming the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals (Board) finding no clear and unmistakable error in a
2002 administrative decision by the Department of Veter-
ans Affairs (VA). Hooks v. McDonough, No. 21-0731, 2022
WL 4285679 (Vet. App. Sept. 16, 2022). The VA found that
Mr. Hooks’s discharge under other than honorable condi-
tions was “considered to have been issued under dishonor-
able conditions” due to Mr. Hooks’s “willful and persistent
misconduct.” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d), (d)(4) (2002).
Mr. Hooks makes the following arguments to this court: (1)
section 3.12(d)(4) has no statutory predicate; (2) the plain
meaning of “willful and persistent conduct” is ambiguous;
and (3) the Veterans Court erred by relying upon a misin-
terpretation of the term “persistent,” as used in section
3.12(d)(4) as codified at the time of the VA’s decision. Be-
cause Mr. Hooks did not present these arguments to either
the Board or the Veterans Court, Mr. Hooks may not do so
here. See Gurley v. McDonough, 23 F.4th 1353, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2022) (arguments not raised to the Veterans Court are
forfeited).
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Veterans
Court.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1301 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 07/12/2024

-- 2 of 2 --