to include Forms 509 and 75 in the Record of Proceeding, a decision that Barney is bound by. “It is well settled that a person is bound by the consequences of his representative’s conduct, which includes both his acts and omissions.” Rowe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 802 F.2d 434 (Fed.Cir.1986) (collecting cases). Thus, the actions of Barney’s attorney in this proceeding were legally the actions of Barney himself and those actions have not been shown to be prejudicial. Barney also argues that the ultimate finding on service connection was clearly erroneous because it conflicts with a 1991 medical record that allegedly shows a service connection. We lack jurisdiction, however, to review the factual determination of service connection. Johnson v. Derwinski, 949 F.2d 394, 395 (Fed.Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). And, in any event, the 1991 medical record
holding that a denial of entitlement to service connection is a factual determination that we may not review holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination of the conduct in which defendant engaged but that we review de novo the district courts determination of whether that conduct constitutes relevant conduct for purposes of ussg  1b13a2 holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination as to whether prior cases were consolidated for sentencing under ussg  4a12a2 and that we give the court due deference in its application of the guidelines to that determination holding that although we typically review award or denial of attorneys fees and costs for an abuse of discretion where district court denies attorneys fees and costs based upon legal determination that a party is not a prevailing party we review the determination de novo