Jose Remilien v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOSE REMILIEN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-1931
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20-7704, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: November 14, 2023
______________________
J OSE REMILIEN, Fort Lauderdale, FL, pro se.
AUGUSTUS J EFFREY G OLDEN, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. B OYNTON, CLAUDIA B URKE, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Before D YK, CHEN, AND STOLL , Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1931 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 11/14/2023

-- 1 of 4 --

REMILIEN v. M CD ONOUGH 2
P ER CURIAM .
Jose Remilien appeals the final decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ decision denying Mr. Remilien
benefits because he did not have qualifying military service
to make him eligible to receive veteran benefits. We must
dismiss because we lack jurisdiction to hear Mr. Remilien’s
appeal.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Remilien contends that he served in the United
States Army from November 1996 to April 2007. To qual-
ify for veteran benefits, a service member must establish
that he or she has veteran status. A veteran is “a person
who served in the active military, naval, air, or space ser-
vice, and who was discharged or released therefrom under
conditions other than dishonorable.” 38 U.S.C. § 101(2).
The Board determined Mr. Remilien lacked the requi-
site service to be eligible for veterans benefits because nei-
ther Mr. Remilien nor the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) were able to locate any records to verify his dates of
service. SAppx.1 12–14. In September 2014, Mr. Remilien
filed claims for service connection for several asserted men-
tal health conditions. SAppx. 10. When the VA regional
office requested verification of his service, Mr. Remilien in-
dicated that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation) was
destroyed in a fire. SAppx. 12. Mr. Remilien was unable
to provide any other discharge documents or other docu-
ments to prove that he served in the active military.
SAppx. 12. As such, in November 2014, the VA regional
office submitted a request to the relevant service depart-
ment, seeking Mr. Remilien’s service records to establish
his service, but the service department responded that it
1 Citations to “SAppx.” refer to the supplemental ap-
pendix filed by the Government.
Case: 22-1931 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 11/14/2023

-- 2 of 4 --

REMILIEN v. M CD ONOUGH 3
was unable to find Mr. Remilien’s information in the online
system. SAppx. 12. Over the next several years, at the re-
quest of the Board, the regional office conducted multiple
searches at multiple locations for any documentation that
would verify Mr. Remilien’s military service. See
SAppx. 12–13. These searches yielded none. Conse-
quently, based on the service department’s certification
that Mr. Remilien had no active service as a member of the
U.S. Armed Forces, the Board found that “[he] did not have
verifiable military service for VA purposes to establish en-
titlement to VA benefits.” SAppx. 14.
Mr. Remilien appealed and the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims affirmed the Board’s decision. Remilien
v. McDonough, 2022 WL 1055486, at *1 (Vet. App. Apr. 8,
2022); SAppx. 1–2. Given the VA’s efforts to locate Mr. Re-
milien’s service documentation, the Veterans Court deter-
mined the Board did not err in finding that Mr. Remilien
did not have the requisite service to apply for VA benefits.
Remilien, 2022 WL 1055486, at *1; SAppx. 2. Now,
Mr. Remilien appeals and asks this court to review the fac-
tual determination that he lacked qualifying military ser-
vice.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is
limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may review “the
validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of
law or of 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.” “Except to the extent that an appeal . . . presents
a constitutional issue,” 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); see, e.g., Conway v. Principi,
353 F.3d 1369, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Case: 22-1931 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 11/14/2023

-- 3 of 4 --

REMILIEN v. M CD ONOUGH 4
Mr. Remilien asks this court to review the factual de-
termination that he lacked qualifying military service.
Mr. Remilien asserts that the Board’s decision relied on in-
correct dates of entry and release, and he provides updated
dates. Appellant’s Br. 2–3.2
We lack jurisdiction over Mr. Remilien’s appeal be-
cause the Board’s determination of veteran status, upheld
by the Veterans Court, is a finding of fact. See Rubia
v. Shinseki, 524 F. App’x 707, 711 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (non-
precedential). It does not involve the validity or interpre-
tation of a statute or regulation. Nor does it raise any
constitutional issues. See Appellant’s Br. 2. Rather, the
appeal essentially asks us to make a factual determination
in Mr. Remilien’s favor as it relates to qualifying military
service. Therefore, we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
2 Citations to Mr. Remilien’s informal brief reflect
the pagination applied by this court’s electronic case files
system.
Case: 22-1931 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 11/14/2023

-- 4 of 4 --