regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). Mr. Stevens makes several fact-based arguments in his informal brief, none of which fall within this court’s jurisdiction. First, Mr. Stevens contends that he is entitled to “service-connected compensation” because the nature of his injuries is “consistent” with his claim that he was injured during an on-duty fall. In other words, Mr. Stevens contends that the Board’s determination that a preponderance of the evidence was against a finding of service connection for the injury was wrong. Whether Mr. Stevens’ injury is service connected is a question of fact though, and we do not have jurisdiction to reweigh the evidence considered by the Board. See Waltzer v. Nicholson, 447 F.3d 1378, 1380 (Fed.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Second, Mr. Stevens questions whether the
holding it is a question of fact holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court holding that a challenge to the proper weight of the evidence is a question of fact outside this courts jurisdiction holding that a claim that medical records were falsified was a factual question outside of the courts jurisdiction