his wife, the appellant, that she would
receive all his insurance and military benefits should
anything happen to him.
In a May 1997 statement, the appellee stated that the veteran
did not leave Mexico and visit California at any time between
mid January and late May or early June of 1996.
In April 1997, VA's Office of Inspector General (OIG)
conducted forensic analysis of fifteen documents signed by
the veteran between 1957 and 1996, including the two
beneficiary forms. Based upon this analysis, OIG concluded
that the veteran could not be identified or eliminated as the
signature on the 1996 beneficiary designation form. It was
requested that additional documents be obtained for
comparison.
Additional examples of the veteran's signature were obtained,
to include VA medical records that he signed in 1996. In
October 1997, OIG conducted forensic analysis of the
additional evidence. Based upon thisanalysis, OIG concluded
that the veteran did not sign the 1996 beneficiary
designation form. The veteran's known signatures, prior to
and since the April 1996 beneficiary form, were consistent
with each other, but not with the beneficiary form. Although
a medical record the veteran signed in September 1996 showed
marked deterioration, which could be expected due to illness,
the letter forms, slant, and height ratios of the letters
were basically the same when compared to the veteran's prior
signatures.
In November 1997, the appellant was advised that her claim
for the proceeds of the veteran's life insurance was denied
and that the appellee was entitled to the insurance.
In April 1998, the appellant had a personal hearing at the RO
in San Diego. Her representative disagreed with OIG's
conclusion that the 1996 signature was a forgery, arguing
that there was no supporting rationale for