Maurice A. Walker, Ii v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MAURICE A. WALKER, II,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1783
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-1052, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,
Jr.
______________________
Decided: July 15, 2026
______________________
MAURICE A. WALKER, II, Wilmington, DE, pro se.
AN H OANG, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divi-
sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by WILLIAM
J AMES G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M. M CCARTHY , B RETT SHUMATE;
EVAN SCOTT G RANT , D EREK SCADDEN, Office of General
Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1783 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

WALKER v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before D YK and REYNA, Circuit Judges, and BISSOON,
Chief District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Maurice Walker, appearing pro se, appeals the judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims, which affirmed a determination by the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals denying an earlier effective date for ser-
vice-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Walker served in the United States Air Force from
1985 to 1992. In July 1992, he applied for the Department
of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Vocational Rehabilitation and
Employment program (“VR&E”). The VR&E program
helps veterans explore employment options and address
education needs. Veterans are eligible for the program if
they establish a service-connected disability that limits
their ability to work. See generally 38 U.S.C. § 3102. In
December 1992, the VA denied Mr. Walker’s application
because he had not established the required service con-
nection. ECF No. 25 at 25.2
On June 5, 1996, Mr. Walker filed for VA benefits due
to several claimed disabilities, including pseudofolliculitis
barbae, sinusitis, eczema, viral syndrome, flat feet, tinni-
tus, and hearing loss. Over the next few years, Mr. Walker
underwent medical treatment and examinations at the
1 Honorable Cathy Bissoon, Chief District Judge,
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
2 ECF No. 25 corresponds to Mr. Walker’s “Addi-
tional Supplemental Appendix.”
Case: 25-1783 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

WALKER v. COLLINS 3
Wilmington VA Medical Center. The VA granted
Mr. Walker a 10% disability rating for chronic sinusitis,
although it is unclear from the record before us when the
VA reached this determination.
On December 3, 1997, Mr. Walker submitted VA Form
21-4138, titled “Statement in Support of Claim.”3
SAppx13.4 In relevant part, the statement read, “I am fil-
ing a claim under 38 U.S.C. [§] 1151 for ‘multiple and ag-
gravated disabilities’ caused by the Wilmington[,] DE
VAMC during the period from March 97 through the pre-
sent.” Id. The statement also explained that “I’ve had ag-
gravated disability; anxiety and stress disorder and
aggravated service connected disability for which I have
claim [sic] for increased severity” and “I am requesting
compensation due to these circumstances.” Id.
In March 1998, the VA denied compensation under
38 U.S.C. § 1151, the statute providing benefits for persons
disabled by VA treatment or vocational rehabilitation. The
VA explained that it “did not find anxiety or stress disorder
resulted from VA medical or hospital treatment.” ECF
No. 25 at 32–35. The VA continued a 10% chronic sinusitis
rating.
Mr. Walker submitted another application for the
VR&E program, identifying the 10% chronic sinusitis as a
service-connected disability. According to Mr. Walker, he
participated in the VR&E program from February 1998 to
October 2010, during which he attended college and
worked “VA-sponsored” jobs.
3 We refer to this statement as the December 1997
statement.
4 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix ac-
companying the Secretary’s Informal Brief, which is dock-
eted at ECF No. 8.
Case: 25-1783 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

WALKER v. COLLINS 4
On October 22, 2010, Mr. Walker filed a claim for ser-
vice-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).
The VA denied the claim, and Mr. Walker filed a Notice of
Disagreement. In July 2015, the VA granted Mr. Walker
service connection for PTSD effective October 22, 2010.
Seeking an earlier effective date, Mr. Walker appealed
the VA’s determination to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(“Board”). In November 2022, the Board denied an effec-
tive date prior to October 22, 2010. He appealed the
Board’s decision to the United States Court of Veteran
Claims (“Veterans Court”). During the appeal, the parties
filed a joint motion for remand, agreeing that “the Board
erred by failing to provide an adequate statement of rea-
sons or bases to support its determination that the effective
date for the grant of service connection for PTSD could not
be based on an informal claim received in December 1997.”
SAppx3. The Veterans Court granted the motion and re-
manded to the Board.
In January 2024, the Board again denied an effective
date for service-connected PTSD earlier than October 22,
2010. SAppx14–26. Mr. Walker argued before the Board
that he was entitled to an effective date of December 3,
1997, the date that he submitted his December 1997 state-
ment, because that submission contained an “informal
claim” for service-connected PTSD. SAppx17. The Board
analyzed the content of the December 1997 statement and
concluded that it is a claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C.
§ 1151 but “not a claim for service connection for PTSD.”
SAppx18–23. Thus, the Board determined that “there are
no formal or informal claims for service connection for an
acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, prior to Oc-
tober 22, 2010.” SAppx14.
Mr. Walker appealed to the Veterans Court, and on
February 12, 2025, the Veterans Court affirmed.
SAppx2–7. Before the Veterans Court, Mr. Walker argued
that the Board failed to apply a “liberal and sympathetic
Case: 25-1783 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

WALKER v. COLLINS 5
reading” to the December 1997 statement and further
failed to provide “adequate reasons or bases” for denying
an effective date for service-connected PTSD prior to Octo-
ber 22, 2010. ECF No. 25 at 7. The Veterans Court disa-
greed, reasoning that “Mr. Walker’s assertions are vague
and unconvincing and there is a plausible basis in the rec-
ord for the Board’s determination that the December 1997
statement did not raise an informal claim for service con-
nection for anxiety and stress.” SAppx7. On March 13,
2025, the Veterans Court entered judgment. SAppx1.
Mr. Walker appeals.
D ISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review appeals from the Veterans
Court is limited. We have jurisdiction to review the valid-
ity of a decision of the Veterans Court on a rule of law, stat-
ute, or regulation relied on by the Veterans Court.
38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). But unless an appeal presents a con-
stitutional issue, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a
factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regu-
lation as applied to the facts of a particular case.”
Id. § 7292(d)(2).
Mr. Walker primarily challenges the effective date as-
signed for his service-connected PTSD. He urges this court
to “establish, determine veteran’s earliest effective date by
law.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 1–3. But questions about
when a claim for benefits based on PTSD was first made
are questions of fact over which we have no jurisdiction to
review. Butler v. Shinseki, 603 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (“We agree that the factual findings of when a disa-
bility was claimed or service connection established are not
subject to our review.”); Malikulmulk v. McDonough,
845 F. App’x 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[D]etermination of
the effective date is a question of fact which we lack juris-
diction to review.”).
Case: 25-1783 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

WALKER v. COLLINS 6
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Walker’s other arguments and
find them unpersuasive. Because Mr. Walker has not
raised an issue within our jurisdiction, we dismiss his ap-
peal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1783 Document: 31 Page: 6 Filed: 07/15/2026

-- 6 of 6 --