Case: 24-2339 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 04/10/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CHARLIE J. JACKSON, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2024-2339 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-3623, Chief Judge Margaret C. Bartley, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Judge William S. Green- berg. ______________________

Decided: April 10, 2025 ______________________

CHARLIE J. JACKSON, Paris, TX, pro se.

RAFAEL SHAPIRO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. ______________________ Case: 24-2339 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 04/10/2025

2 JACKSON v. COLLINS

Before DYK, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Charlie J. Jackson appeals pro se from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We lack jurisdiction and accordingly dismiss. I Mr. Jackson served in the U.S. Marine Corps from April 1972 to April 1975, and from May 1975 to Decem- ber 1977. In 2005, Mr. Jackson was granted service con- nection for bilateral hearing loss and was assigned a 10 percent disability rating by a regional office of the De- partment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). See Jackson v. Wilkie, No. 20-1017, 2020 WL 7413867, at *1 (Vet. App. Dec. 18, 2020). He appealed that decision to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”), seeking an increased disability rating. The Board denied his claim. He appealed to the Veterans Court, which remanded the case for further development. See id. at *4. Since the Veterans Court’s initial remand, Mr. Jack- son’s hearing-loss claim has shuttled back and forth be- tween the regional office and the Board. The upshot of this years-long process is that, on December 14, 2021, an exam- ination by the VA demonstrated that Mr. Jackson suffered 100 percent bilateral hearing loss, and his service-con- nected bilateral hearing loss was increased to 100 percent in August 2022. In 2023, the regional office determined that Mr. Jackson was entitled under VA regulations to spe- cial monthly compensation (“SMC”) for his bilateral hear- ing loss with an effective date of December 14, 2021. Mr. Jackson is currently pursuing an earlier effective date for his SMC in proceedings before the regional office. In June 2023, Mr. Jackson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Veterans Court. The court construed Case: 24-2339 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 04/10/2025

JACKSON v. COLLINS 3

the petition as a “request that the [c]ourt compel VA to award an earlier effective date for the award of SMC” for his hearing loss. S. App’x 3. 1 The court held that Mr. Jack- son had not proven his entitlement to a writ of mandamus because he failed to show “that he lack[ed] adequate means to obtain the desired relief through the ordinary appeals process.” Id. 2 Mr. Jackson appeals. II Our jurisdiction over the Veterans Court’s rulings is prescribed by statute. We may review “the validity of a de- cision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or 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.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Except for constitutional issues, we are pre- cluded from reviewing “a challenge to a factual determina- tion,” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2). In the con- text of an appeal from the Veterans Court’s denial of a writ of mandamus, we have jurisdiction to review “non-frivolous legal question[s]” raised by the appeal. Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2013). On appeal, Mr. Jackson appears to argue that the court “overlooked . . . non-constitutional questions,” such as

1 Citations to “S. App’x” are to the supplemental ap- pendix filed by the government. 2 We note that the Veterans Court also found that Mr. Jackson had articulated an alternative theory that “the award of SMC was a full grant of benefits [that] negatively affect[ed] any pending appeal related to the schedular eval- uation for his hearing loss or relevant effective dates.” S. App’x 3. This theory, whatever its scope, is not pressed on appeal. Case: 24-2339 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 04/10/2025

4 JACKSON v. COLLINS

whether “administrative avenues for review are constitu- tionally adequate.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 2. He con- tends that the Veterans Court failed to decide whether it had changed its “interpretation of ‘settlement agreement law.’” Id. In reply, Mr. Jackson expands on this latter the- ory, referring to a “Rule 33 conference” between the “[De- partment of] Justice and [his] lawyers.” Appellant’s Informal Reply Br. 2. Finally, he appears to raise a due process challenge on the ground that he is entitled to “ade- quate notice of the judicial disposition of [his] claim and adequate opportunity to challenge an adverse ruling.” Id. at 5. Although we are sympathetic to Mr. Jackson’s frustra- tions with the extended duration of proceedings to resolve his claims, we must dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdic- tion. Mr. Jackson does not challenge the Veterans Court’s interpretation of any rule of law, statute, or regulation. He does not allege that the Veterans Court applied the incor- rect legal standard, nor has he developed a “non-frivolous legal question” for us to review. Beasley, 709 F.3d at 1158. To the extent that Mr. Jackson asserts we possess ju- risdiction because the Veterans Court altered its interpre- tation of “settlement agreement law,” Appellant’s Informal Br. 2, he fails to provide any facts sufficient for us to assess such a claim. Indeed, the government disclaims knowledge of any such settlement conference, Appellee’s Informal Br. 17, and the record before us is devoid of any discussion of a settlement agreement. For similar reasons, we lack jurisdiction over the due process challenge raised in Mr. Jackson’s appeal. An ap- pellant must do more than merely characterize an issue as constitutional to properly invoke this court’s jurisdiction. See Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasizing that this court lacks jurisdiction over claims that are “constitutional in name only”). Case: 24-2339 Document: 19 Page: 5 Filed: 04/10/2025

JACKSON v. COLLINS 5

We have considered Mr. Jackson’s remaining argu- ments and do not find them persuasive. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.