United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KRISTOPHER CRANFORD, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2021-1973 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19-6580, Judge Joseph L. Falvey, Jr. ______________________

Decided: December 19, 2022 ______________________

KENNETH DOJAQUEZ, Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

KYLE SHANE BECKRICH, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Y. KEN LEE, Office of Gen- eral Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Af- fairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Case: 21-1973 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 12/19/2022

2 CRANFORD v. MCDONOUGH

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HUGHES. Concurring Opinion filed by Circuit Judge REYNA. HUGHES, Circuit Judge. Kristopher Cranford appeals a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the denial of his request for benefits. Because Mr. Cranford is not a “veteran” entitled to receive benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 101(2), we affirm. I Mr. Cranford is a former service member for the United States Army. In 2011, while on active duty, he was charged with possession and use of Spice, an unregulated intoxi- cant, in violation of a lawful general order. Captain Lucas Lease recommended that Mr. Cranford be tried by general court-martial and forwarded the charges to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Erick Sweet. Cranford v. McDonough, No. 19-6580, 2021 WL 787510, at *1 (Vet. App. Mar. 2, 2021). LTC Sweet received the charges and recommended that a pretrial investigating officer be appointed. Id. In response, Mr. Cranford submitted a request to be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial. Id. In that doc- ument, Mr. Cranford stated that he “underst[oo]d that [he] may request discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial be- cause . . . [the] charges . . . against [him] under the Uni- form Code of Military Justice [(UCMJ)] . . . authorize the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.” Id. (final alteration in original). Mr. Cranford further admitted guilt for at least one of the charges and acknowledged that, by accepting a discharge in lieu of trial by general court- martial, he would instead qualify for an “other than honor- able” (OTH) discharge, potentially barring him from receiv- ing benefits. Id. Case: 21-1973 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 12/19/2022

CRANFORD v. MCDONOUGH 3

Captain Lease and LTC Sweet recommended that Mr. Cranford’s request for discharge be approved. Id. at *2. The general court-martial convening authority agreed and or- dered that Mr. Cranford receive an OTH discharge in lieu of trial. Id. Mr. Cranford was then separated from service. Mr. Cranford later filed a request for benefits with a Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office. The regional office de- nied that request on the grounds that Mr. Cranford’s dis- charge status barred him from receiving benefits. Cranford, 2021 WL 787510, at *2. Mr. Cranford then filed a Notice of Disagreement, to which the VA responded with a Statement of the Case affirming its prior determination. Id. Mr. Cranford appealed the VA’s decision to the Board