Heinemann v. Dept. Of Veterans Affairs ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    __________________________
    MARK HEINEMANN,
    Claimant-Appellant,
    v.
    ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
    AFFAIRS,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    __________________________
    2012-7043
    __________________________
    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
    Veterans Claims in case no. 11-0932.
    ___________________________
    Decided: April 10, 2012
    ___________________________
    MARK HEINEMANN, of West Hollywood, California, pro
    se.
    AMANDA L. TANTUM, Trial Attorney, Commercial Liti-
    gation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department
    of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee.
    With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attor-
    ney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and SCOTT D.
    AUSTIN, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were
    HEINEMANN   v. DVA                                         2
    MICHAEL J. TIMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel,
    and AMANDA R. BLACKMON, Attorney, United States
    Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
    __________________________
    Before MOORE, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    Mr. Heinemann appeals a decision by the Court of
    Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming
    the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board’s) decision denying
    his claim for service connection for a heart disorder,
    seizures, a chronic lower back disorder, and ulcerative
    colitis. Because the Veterans Court did not misinterpret
    
    38 U.S.C. § 1154
    (b), we affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Mr. Heinemann served on active duty in the U.S.
    Army between 1968 and 1970. While his service over-
    lapped with the Vietnam War, Mr. Heinemann was
    stationed in Korea, as a sentinel on the perimeter of a
    guard post in the Demilitarized Zone. App. 14. During
    this time he received combat pay. 
    Id.
    Before the Board, Mr. Heinemann argued that he
    should be given the benefit of 
    38 U.S.C. § 1154
    (b), which
    applies to “any veteran who engaged in combat with the
    enemy in active service with a military . . . organization of
    the United States during a period of war.” The Board,
    however, found that Mr. Heinemann did not engage in
    combat with the enemy during his service. App. 13. In
    reaching this conclusion, the Board found that Mr.
    Heinemann’s evidence was rebutted by his medical and
    service records, which failed to indicate that Mr. Heine-
    mann actually engaged in combat with the enemy during
    his service. App. 15-16. For example, Mr. Heinemann
    3                                         HEINEMANN    v. DVA
    claimed he was involved in a jeep accident resulting from
    an enemy landmine, but the Board was unable to locate
    any evidence of this accident in either Mr. Heinemann’s
    service personnel records or service treatment records.
    The Board also made credibility determinations based on
    the fact that Mr. Heinemann’s recollection conflicted with
    his service records. App. 16-25. As a result, the Board
    ultimately denied Mr. Heinemann’s request for service
    connection.
    Mr. Heinemann appealed, and the Veterans Court af-
    firmed the Board’s decision. Mr. Heinemann now appeals
    to our court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    38 U.S.C. § 7292
    .
    DISCUSSION
    The scope of our review of a Veterans Court decision
    is limited by statute. We only have jurisdiction to “to
    review and decide any challenge to the validity of any
    statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . and
    to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions.” 
    38 U.S.C. § 7292
    (c); see also 
    38 U.S.C. § 7292
    (a). We review
    the Veterans Court’s legal determinations de novo.
    Prenzler v. Derwinski, 
    928 F.2d 392
    , 393 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
    Unless the appeal presents a constitutional issue, how-
    ever, we do not have jurisdiction to review “a challenge to
    a factual determination, or a challenge to a law . . . as
    applied to the facts of a particular case.” 
    38 U.S.C. § 7292
    (d)(2).
    Mr. Heinemann argues that the Veterans Court mis-
    interpreted 
    38 U.S.C. § 1154
    (b). He claims that “the law
    states every veteran who served during the Vietnam era,
    no matter where they served” gets a presumption of
    service connection. The plain language of § 1154(b),
    however, requires that “the veteran must have engaged in
    combat with the enemy.” Stone v. Nicholson, 480 F.3d
    HEINEMANN   v. DVA                                        4
    1111, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also 
    38 U.S.C. § 1154
    (b)
    (“any veteran who engaged in combat with the enemy”).
    “[A] veteran’s participation in combat is a prerequisite for
    the application of § 1154(b). Thus, if a veteran is not
    found to have engaged in combat with the enemy . . .
    § 1154(b) has no application.” Stone, 480 F.3d at 1113. It
    is not enough that Mr. Heinemann served during the
    Vietnam era; he also had to engage in combat with the
    enemy to get the benefit of § 1154(b).
    The Board found that Mr. Heinemann failed to estab-
    lish that he engaged in combat during his service. The
    Board thus concluded, and the Veterans Court affirmed,
    that § 1154(b) did not apply. We cannot review the fac-
    tual finding that Mr. Heinemann did not engage in com-
    bat, and the court’s interpretation of the statute was not
    otherwise erroneous. As a result, we affirm the Veterans
    Court’s decision on the merits of the claim.
    Mr. Heinemann also raises the possibility that he was
    denied due process during the prosecution of his claim, as
    evidenced by the fact that “[t]he Court of Veterans Ap-
    peals violated the law several times” by allowing “the VA
    Lawyers to get an extension months after the legal limits,
    but refused to allow me an extension” despite his medical
    needs. Claimant-Appellant Informal Br. at 1. It is within
    our jurisdiction to review a factual determination if it
    presents a constitutional issue. 
    38 U.S.C. § 7292
    (d)(2).
    There is nothing in the record, however, indicating that
    Mr. Heinemann requested and was denied an extension,
    or that the government was granted an extension beyond
    the legal limits. Likewise, Mr. Heinemann fails to explain
    how any grant or denial of an extension prejudiced him so
    as to deny him his due process rights. As such, we con-
    clude Mr. Heinemann failed to establish a due process
    violation. We have considered Mr. Heinemann’s addi-
    5                                     HEINEMANN   v. DVA
    tional arguments on appeal and find them to be without
    merit.
    AFFIRMED
    COSTS
    No costs.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-7043

Judges: Moore, Clevenger, Reyna

Filed Date: 4/10/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024