Mario D. Covington v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARIO D. COVINGTON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2026-1100
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 24-1751, Judge Amanda L. Mere-
dith.
______________________
Decided: June 2, 2026
______________________
MARIO D. COVINGTON, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
CATHERINE M. YANG, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE;
EVAN SCOTT G RANT , BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, Office of General
Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Case: 26-1100 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

COVINGTON v. COLLINS 2
______________________
Before P ROST , CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Mario D. Covington appeals a final decision of the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”)
affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“Board”) denial
of his request for an effective date prior to June 9, 2017, for
service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).
We lack jurisdiction over his appeal and, accordingly, dis-
miss.
I
Mr. Covington served on active duty at times between
August 2007 and January 2011. On July 15, 2011, he filed
an informal claim for service-connected PTSD with the De-
partment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Three days later, he
submitted medical records related to his claim. The VA re-
sponded with a letter acknowledging the informal claim
and explaining that, in order to process it, Mr. Covington
would need to complete, sign, and return an application en-
closed with the letter. Mr. Covington did not return the
application; he made no further submissions to the VA un-
til years later when, on June 9, 2017, he filed a claim for
depression (a claim later amended to include other condi-
tions, including substance abuse).
In April 2019, the VA granted Mr. Covington service
connection for PTSD and substance use disorders, result-
ing in a 100% rating, effective June 9, 2017. Believing he
was entitled to an effective date of November 25, 2010 – the
date on which he was formally medically discharged from
service – Mr. Covington filed a Notice of Disagreement with
the Board. The Board denied Mr. Covington an effective
date prior to June 9, 2017, and the Veterans Court af-
firmed. This appeal followed.
II
Case: 26-1100 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

COVINGTON v. COLLINS 3
We have limited jurisdiction over appeals from the Vet-
erans Court. See Conyers v. McDonough, 91 F.4th 1167,
1170 (Fed. Cir. 2024). “Except to the extent that an appeal
. . . presents a constitutional issue, [we] may not review (A)
a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to
a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular
case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Mr. Covington alleges sev-
eral errors in the Veterans Court’s decision, but none con-
fer us with jurisdiction.
First, Mr. Covington appears to allege the Veterans
Court erred in not finding the Board committed clear and
unmistakable error (“CUE”) in failing to grant him an ear-
lier effective date. However, Mr. Covington did not present
a CUE issue at the Veterans Court and, consequently, that
court did not address CUE. We lack jurisdiction to consider
a CUE claim that has not properly been raised below. See
Belcher v. West, 214 F.3d 1335, 1337 (Fed Cir. 2000) (find-
ing no jurisdiction to review an issue not raised to Veterans
Court); see also George v. McDonough, 596 U.S. 740, 744
(2022) (“At any time, a veteran may ask the Board or re-
gional office to revise a final benefits decision on grounds
of ‘clear and unmistakable error.’”) (emphasis added); see
also 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a)(1)(vii) (CUE filing requirements).
Next, Mr. Covington contends that he should be enti-
tled to an earlier effective date under 38 C.F.R
§ 3.1(p). Section 3.1(p) merely defines what materials con-
stitute a claim. At best, Mr. Covington only challenges how
the definition described in § 3.1(p) (and the claims process
outlined in other regulations, such as 38 C.F.R § 3.155(a))
were applied to his claim. But we lack jurisdiction to re-
view how these regulations were applied to the specific
facts of Mr. Covington’s claim.
Finally, Mr. Covington points to additional medical
records he submitted after his July 15, 2011 informal
claim. But he does not develop an argument regarding
Case: 26-1100 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

COVINGTON v. COLLINS 4
these records or show how they give us jurisdiction over his
appeal.
III
We have considered Mr. Covington’s remaining argu-
ments and find they do not demonstrate that we have ap-
pellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
we dismiss.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1100 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 06/02/2026

-- 4 of 4 --