Case: 19-2317 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 12/23/2020

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

EUGENE COSTELLO, Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2019-2317 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 18-3462, Judge Amanda L. Mere- dith. ______________________

Decided: December 23, 2020 ______________________

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by JEFFREY B. CLARK, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.; MARTIE ADELMAN, Y. Case: 19-2317 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 12/23/2020

2 COSTELLO v. WILKIE

KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________

Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. WALLACH, Circuit Judge. Appellant, Eugene Costello, appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap- peals that denied Mr. Costello’s request to revise a Decem- ber 1965 rating decision. Costello v. Wilkie, No. 18-3462, 2019 WL 2261275, at *4 (Vet. App. May 28, 2019); see J.A. 16 (Judgment); see also J.A. 27 (1965 Rating Decision), 86–104 (Board Decision). Mr. Costello failed to present to the Veterans Court the sole issue he now raises on appeal— namely, “[t]he correct interpretation of the phrase ‘recog- nized as symptomatic of brain trauma’” as used in Diagnos- tic Code 8045 of 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a (1965). Appellant’s Br. 11. Compare id. at 1, 3–11, with J.A. 105–16 (Mr. Cos- tello’s Brief to the Veterans Court). See In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“It is well-established that a party generally may not challenge an agency deci- sion on a basis that was not presented to the agency.”). Ac- cordingly, Mr. Costello’s appeal is DISMISSED