Case: 23-1575 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FRANKLYN M. SOODEEN,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2023-1575
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 21-7123, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: December 7, 2023
______________________
FRANKLYN M. SOODEEN, Kew Gardens, NY, pro se.
ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN B. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY; BENJAMIN ISAAC HERSKOVITZ, Y. KEN LEE, Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 23-1575 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2023
2 SOODEEN v. MCDONOUGH
______________________
Before TARANTO, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Franklyn M. Soodeen served in the United States
Army from 1968 to 1970. In 2021, he applied to the De-
partment of Veterans Affairs for disability benefits, claim-
ing entitlement based on a back condition he said was
connected to his service—specifically, to an accident he
said occurred before his discharge. The relevant regional
office of the Department and then the Board of Veterans’
Appeals rejected the assertion that the back condition was
service-connected and therefore denied the claim for bene-
fits. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed the Board’s decision.
Soodeen v. McDonough, No. 21-7123,
2022 WL 17985187
(Vet. App. Dec. 29, 2022). Mr. Soodeen appeals.
Mr. Soodeen challenges the Veterans Court’s affir-
mance of the Board’s decision for three reasons. First, he
argues that the Board erred by giving the existing contem-
poraneous evidence in his service files more weight than
his present testimony. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2–3;
SAppx. 10–11. 1 Second, he asserts that more service rec-
ords must exist than those which were supplied to the De-
partment for consideration of this matter, thus disputing
the Board’s finding that “[t]here is no indication that any
other military records remain outstanding.” SAppx. 10;
Appellant’s Informal Br. at 2–3. Third, he argues that the
Board, which cited
38 U.S.C. § 5107, did not properly apply
the benefit-of-the-doubt rule of § 5107(b) when weighing
the record evidence. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 3; SAppx.
7.
1 “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
by the Secretary in this court with its brief as appellee.
Case: 23-1575 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 12/07/2023
SOODEEN v. MCDONOUGH 3
We lack the authority to review Mr. Soodeen’s appeal.
Mr. Soodeen challenges only the Veterans Court’s affir-
mance of the Board’s factual determinations and the
Board’s application of law to facts, and he neither raises a
constitutional issue nor identifies a legal issue decided by
the Veterans Court. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 1–2 (Mr.
Soodeen’s statement that the Veterans Court’s decision did
not “involve the validity or interpretation of a statute or
regulation” and did not “decide constitutional issues”). The
relevant statute defining our jurisdiction declares that,
when no constitutional issue is presented, we “may not re-
view . . . a challenge to a factual determination, or . . . a
challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a
particular case.”
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). That bar applies
to preclude review of the challenge to the weighing of evi-
dence. See Maxson v. Gober,
230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (“The weighing of this [record] evidence is not within
our appellate jurisdiction.”). It applies as well to preclude
review of the challenge to the application of the benefit-of-
the-doubt rule of § 5107(b). See Ferguson v. Principi,
273
F.3d 1072, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he Board . . . deter-
mined that the requirement that there be ‘an approximate
balance of positive and negative evidence’ was not met,
meaning § 5107(b) was not applicable. This involves no in-
terpretation of the statute. . . . Thus, under subsection
(d)(2) this court does not have jurisdiction over the ap-
peal.”).
Because we do not have the authority to review Mr.
Soodeen’s challenges to the Veterans Court’s decision, we
must dismiss Mr. Soodeen’s appeal for lack of subject-mat-
ter jurisdiction.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
DISMISSED
