Case: 23-1876 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 10/04/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GROVER MARTIN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1876
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-1669, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: October 4, 2023
______________________
GROVER MARTIN, Biloxi, MS, pro se.
MATTHEW PAUL ROCHE, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY; JONATHAN KRISCH, Y. KEN LEE, Office of Gen-
eral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Af-
fairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 23-1876 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 10/04/2023
2 MARTIN v. MCDONOUGH
______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Grover Martin appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming
the denial by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) of
service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Be-
cause Mr. Martin’s appeal raises only issues outside this
court’s jurisdiction, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Martin served on active duty in the U.S. Army from
January 1988 to April 1990. In June 1989, Mr. Martin’s
commanding officer referred him for a mental health eval-
uation. Based on that evaluation, Mr. Martin was diag-
nosed with Axis I alcohol dependence with occupation
problems, a personality disorder not otherwise specified
(“NOS”), and a mixed personality disorder with narcissistic
and immature features. The evaluating psychologist ex-
plained that “[t]he alcohol problem can be treated in the
Army, however the Personality Disorder is a long standing
pattern of behavior and not amenable to short term ther-
apy.” SApp’x 35. 1 The psychologist advised that the per-
sonality disorder diagnosis “supports an administrative
separation.” SApp’x 35.
In March 1990, a separation examination found Mr.
Martin to be “psychiatrically normal.” SApp’x 4. In April
1990, Mr. Martin separated from service with an honorable
discharge based on alcohol rehabilitation failure.
Mr. Martin first applied for disability benefits for a psy-
chiatric condition in August 1997. After denial of service
1 “SApp’x” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
with the government’s informal response brief.
Case: 23-1876 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 10/04/2023
MARTIN v. MCDONOUGH 3
connection in November 1997 and January 1998, Mr. Mar-
tin requested that his application for disability benefits be
reopened in June 2007. The VA regional office denied his
June 2007 claim. However, in 2011, the Board reopened
Mr. Martin’s claim and remanded his case to the VA re-
gional office to obtain VA treatment records and schedule
a new examination.
In 2013, Mr. Martin underwent a VA mental health
evaluation. The examiner concluded that it is “less likely
as not that [Mr. Martin’s] current psychotic disorder ha[d]
its onset in service,” or that the disorder “was aggravated
by service or is otherwise related to service.” SApp’x 45.
Based on that 2013 medical opinion, in 2016 the Board de-
nied Mr. Martin’s claim. In 2020, the Veterans Court set
aside the Board’s decision for failure “to provide an ade-
quate statement of reasons or bases for relying on the Au-
gust 2013 VA examination.” SApp’x 6. On remand, Mr.
Martin underwent a new medical examination in July 2021
and was afforded a VA addendum medical opinion in Sep-
tember 2021 “in which the examiner opined that during
service or currently the appellant did not have any [ac-
quired psychiatric disorder (“APD”)] that had its onset in
service or was otherwise related to service.” SApp’x 6. In
March 2022, the Board again denied the claim. SApp’x 15.
On April 28, 2023, the Veterans Court affirmed, deter-
mining that Mr. Martin had not shown that “the Board
erred in denying service connection for an APD.” SApp’x 6.
The Veterans Court considered Mr. Martin’s argument
that the Board made its decision based on medical records
with incorrect identification numbers but concluded that
“[d]espite the appellant’s observation that there are minor
discrepancies with his rank and identification number in a
few records, the appellant has failed to identify a Board er-
ror because there is no suggestion that the records relied
on by the Board were not the appellant’s.” SApp’x 7.
Mr. Martin appeals.
Case: 23-1876 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 10/04/2023
4 MARTIN v. MCDONOUGH
DISCUSSION
This court has limited jurisdiction to review Veterans
Court decisions.
38 U.S.C. § 7292. We may review ques-
tions of law, such as the interpretation of a statute or reg-
ulation relied upon by the Veterans Court in issuing its
decision.
Id. § 7292(a). “However, except with respect to
constitutional issues, we may not review challenges to fac-
tual determinations or challenges to the application of a
law or regulation to the facts of a case.” Cavaciuti v.
McDonough,
75 F.4th 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing
38
U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)).
Mr. Martin argues that the medical records related to
his discharge from service are fraudulent and that the Vet-
erans Court “failed to acknowledge the fraudulent medical
records.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 4. Specifically, he ar-
gues that the identification numbers listed on some of the
medical records related to his discharge do not match his
social security number. He asserts that “[n]one of the per-
sonality disorders in the [service medical record] has the
appellant[’s] identification number.”
Id. at 5. For this rea-
son, he argues that his “personality disorder is clearly
fraud,”
id., that he was “unlawfully and unjust[ly] sepa-
rated from the US Army,”
id. at 6, and that “[f]raud can’t
be the reason and bas[is] for separation or denying service
connected disability benefits,”
id. In support of these
points, Mr. Martin raises
38 U.S.C. § 6103(a), Executive
Order 9397, and
Pub. L. No. 93-579, sec. 7(B),
88 Stat. 1896
(1974).
Id. at 3–5.
We lack jurisdiction over the allegations raised in Mr.
Martin’s appeal. Mr. Martin disputes whether certain of
his medical records, which the Board relied on in issuing
its decision, contain the correct social security number.
This presents a factual question about the accuracy of the
records and the Board’s reliance on that evidence. We are
unable to consider these factual questions on appeal. King
v. Shinseki,
700 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Case: 23-1876 Document: 20 Page: 5 Filed: 10/04/2023
MARTIN v. MCDONOUGH 5
(explaining that “[a]bsent a constitutional issue, this court
is precluded from reviewing challenges to factual determi-
nations or challenges to an application of law to fact” and
“[b]ecause [claimant] only challenges the evaluation and
weighing of evidence, this court lacks jurisdiction over this
appeal.”). Therefore, we are unable to consider Mr. Mar-
tin’s arguments regarding incorrect identification num-
bers.
Additionally, although we acknowledge the statutes
and other authorities Mr. Martin cites, they do not create
a legal issue that we may review. We may review a deci-
sion of the Veterans Court when that decision is based on
an interpretation of a statute, regulation, or rule of law.
38
U.S.C. § 7292. Here, however, when the Veterans Court’s
decision considered whether the Board erred in denying
Mr. Martin’s service-connection claim, it did not consider
or interpret
38 U.S.C. § 6103(a), Executive Order 9397, or
Public Law No. 93-579, as cited by Mr. Martin, and there-
fore the Veterans Court’s decision was not based on those
provisions. Mr. Martin has not explained why the Veter-
ans Court should have applied these provisions or how con-
sideration of these provisions would have changed the
Veterans Court’s decision. We conclude that the cited pro-
visions do not raise a reviewable legal issue in this case.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Martin’s arguments and deter-
mine we lack jurisdiction over his appeal. For the foregoing
reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
