Louis Vaughns v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LOUIS VAUGHNS,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2026-1441
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 25-816, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: June 8, 2026
______________________
L OUIS VAUGHNS , SR., Gilmer, TX, pro se.
L AURA O FFENBACHER ARADI, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by ERIC P. BRUSKIN, P ATRICIA M. M C CARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE; EVAN SCOTT G RANT , BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, Office of
General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 26-1441 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 06/08/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

VAUGHNS v. COLLINS 2
Before P ROST , HUGHES , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Louis Vaughns appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that af-
firmed in part and remanded in part a decision of the Board
of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). Because we lack jurisdic-
tion over the issues Mr. Vaughns raises on appeal to us, we
dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Vaughns served on active duty in the Army from
December 1963 to December 1966 and again from Febru-
ary 1967 to December 1972. App’x 18.1 This appeal con-
cerns his claims for service connection for (1) peripheral
nerve disability and (2) eye disability, both due to his al-
leged exposure to herbicides while stationed in Korea.
App’x 21. Mr. Vaughns currently has service connection
for chloracne due to herbicide exposure.2
In rating decisions dated May 2013 and January 2015,
a regional office (“RO”) of the Department of Veterans Af-
fairs (“VA”) denied service connection for Mr. Vaughns’s
two medical conditions. S. App’x 1–20.3 These claims were
appealed and remanded numerous times. Eventually, in
1 “App’x” refers to the appendix filed by
Mr. Vaughns.
2 The Veterans Court and Board both noted that
Mr. Vaughns’s original grant of service connection for
chloracne was based on herbicide exposure in Vietnam,
even though the record indicates Mr. Vaughns never
served in Vietnam. App’x 10. The Board found this “clearly
erroneous.” Id. Regardless, Mr. Vaughns’s existing service
connection for chloracne is not at issue on appeal.
3 “S. App’x” refers to the supplemental appendix
filed by the government.
Case: 26-1441 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 06/08/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

VAUGHNS v. COLLINS 3
February 2024, the RO denied service connection for
Mr. Vaughns’s two medical conditions, S. App’x 16–20,
which Mr. Vaughns appealed to the Board.
On January 23, 2025, the Board issued a decision deny-
ing Mr. Vaughns’s eye disability claim and remanding his
peripheral-nerve disability claim. App’x 17–37. As to the
eye disability claim, the Board found that the weight of the
evidence was “against a finding that [he] was exposed to
herbicide agents during service in Korea.” App’x 23. How-
ever, as to the peripheral-nerve disability claim, the Board
was concerned about the “incomplete information availa-
ble,” App’x 34, and remanded with instructions to conduct
a new VA examination “to determine the nature and etiol-
ogy of any peripheral nerve disability present,” App’x 35.
Mr. Vaughns appealed that decision to the Veterans Court.
On November 7, 2025, the Veterans Court issued a de-
cision affirming the Board’s denial of the eye disability
claim and remanding the peripheral-nerve disability claim
back to the Board. App’x 7–13. The Veterans Court deter-
mined that the Board had erred in its analysis of herbicide
exposure insofar as it “outsourced its factfinding responsi-
bilities to the RO.” App’x 11. In spite of that, the Veterans
Court determined, as to the eye disability claim, that any
error regarding herbicide exposure was harmless because
“the medical opinions on record already accounted for the
possibility of herbicide exposure and still weighed against
the claim.” Id. As to the peripheral-nerve disability claim,
however, the Veterans Court determined that the Board’s
error could impact the claim, so it remanded the matter for
the Board “to correct its error and readjudicate the periph-
eral nerve disability [claim] accordingly.” App’x 13.
Mr. Vaughns moved for panel review, which the Veter-
ans Court granted. The Veterans Court adopted the single-
judge decision as its decision. App’x 5–6. This appeal fol-
lowed.
Case: 26-1441 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 06/08/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

VAUGHNS v. COLLINS 4
D ISCUSSION
We have limited jurisdiction to review appeals from the
Veterans Court. We can review “all relevant questions of
law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory
provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). However, “[e]xcept to
the extent that an appeal under this chapter presents a
constitutional issue,” we may not review “a challenge to a
factual determination,” or “a challenge to a law or regula-
tion as applied to the facts of a particular case.” Id.
§ 7292(d)(2).
Before us, Mr. Vaughns makes numerous arguments,
but he fails to identify a genuine legal issue within our ju-
risdiction. We address his arguments in turn.
I
As to the peripheral-nerve disability claim, which the
Veterans Court remanded to the Board, Mr. Vaughns ar-
gues that the Veterans Court erred in interpreting the
term “near” in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iv) as it relates to his
proximity to the Korean Demilitarized Zone (“DMZ”),
where he was allegedly exposed to herbicides.
Mr. Vaughns also argues that the Veterans Court misap-
plied the statute setting forth the VA’s duty to assist claim-
ants in obtaining evidence, 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, as it extends
to herbicide-use records.
We generally lack jurisdiction to consider appeals from
non-final orders. See Ravin v. McDonough, 107 F.4th 1357,
1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Mr. Vaughns has not demon-
strated that the conditions for deviating from that rule are
satisfied. Williams v. Principi, 275 F.3d 1361, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2002). The Veterans Court here directed the
Board to conduct further factual development regarding
Mr. Vaughns’s proximity to the DMZ during his service.
And Mr. Vaughns’s argument that VA should pursue some
additional “classified” herbicide-use records is a dispute
over the adequacy of developing the factual record.
Case: 26-1441 Document: 40 Page: 4 Filed: 06/08/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

VAUGHNS v. COLLINS 5
Appellant’s Br. 9. Neither issue raises a legal question
within our jurisdiction.
II
Mr. Vaughns makes three additional arguments,
mainly concerning his eye disability claim.
First, Mr. Vaughns argues that the Board reversed a
binding favorable finding without applying the clear and
unmistakable error (“CUE”) framework required by 38
U.S.C. § 5104A and 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). We disagree. Ra-
ther than reversing any favorable finding concerning the
issues that were under review, the Board assessed herbi-
cide exposure anew solely as part of its consideration of his
eye disability and peripheral-nerve disability claims.
App’x 17–37. Mr. Vaughns’s chloracne service connection
was never under review, and was not revised or severed.
Furthermore, the Veterans Court resolved the issues be-
fore it on other grounds, holding that any error in the
Board’s herbicide exposure analysis was harmless as to his
eye disability claim. Thus, the Veterans Court’s decision
did not implicate the CUE framework, and this appeal pre-
sents no legal issues to resolve on those grounds.
Second, Mr. Vaughns argues that the Veterans Court
erred in its harmless-error analysis by misapplying legal
precedent. However, Mr. Vaughns’s complaints do not re-
flect the application of an incorrect legal standard as much
as a disagreement with the Veterans Court’s reliance on
certain evidence, which is a fact issue. See Memorandum
In Lieu of Oral Argument at 4 (May 20, 2026), ECF No. 37.
The Veterans Court’s harmless-error determination is in-
herently fact-dependent and is not subject to this court’s
review. See Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302
(Fed. Cir. 2007); Conway v. Principi, 535 F.3d 1369, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]e would surpass our jurisdiction if we
were to apply the harmless error rule . . . to the facts of this
case.”).
Case: 26-1441 Document: 40 Page: 5 Filed: 06/08/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

VAUGHNS v. COLLINS 6
Third, Mr. Vaughns generally challenges factual find-
ings or the application of law to fact, which we cannot re-
view. Specifically, Mr. Vaughns challenges the adequacy
of medical opinions relied on by the Board in denying his
eye disability claim, and whether the Board provided an
adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decisions.
These are matters involving factual determinations or the
application of law to the facts of this case, and therefore fall
outside this court’s jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
CONCLUSION
Mr. Vaughns’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdic-
tion.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1441 Document: 40 Page: 6 Filed: 06/08/2026

-- 6 of 6 --