she has no personal knowledge that that
individual was, in fact, the veteran, her testimony is not
competent to establish such a fact.
As for the arguments from the appellant's representative that
a person's signature changes over time, the Board notes that
VA OIG reviewed examples of the veteran's signatures and
handwriting between 1957 to 1996, a considerable period of
time. VA OIG concluded that there were sufficient examples
of the veteran's handwriting to make a determination as to
the authenticity of the veteran's signature on the April 1996
beneficiary designation form. There is no expert opinion
holding otherwise. Also, as for the appellant's suggestion
that the veteran was taking medication in 1996 that affected
his handwriting, that argument is not persuasive. First, she
has submitted no expert evidence establishing that this was
the case. Second, VA OIG, when examining examples of the
veteran'sof the veteran's life insurance proceeds, is the
last valid designation made during his lifetime, and the
appellee is entitled to the life insurance proceeds.
The appellant has also argued that the 1991 designation of
beneficiary was invalid either (a) because the veteran made
statements and took actions indicating his intent to leave
the NSLI proceeds to her, and/or (b) because the veteran was
drinking alcohol heavily in 1991 and the change of
beneficiary was invalid because he was under the influence.
As for the first argument, the appellant could prove, by
clear and convincing evidence, that the veteran intended that
she should be the beneficiary and that he took overt action
reasonably designed to effectuate that intent. As for the
second argument, the appellant could prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the veteran's intent and that
he did everything reasonably necessary,