that conclusion.
The representative further argued that signatures change over
time and submitted additional writing samples from the
veteran.
The appellant testified that she was present in 1996 when the
veteran signed the beneficiary designation form. She stated
that she did not know the veteran had designated the appellee
as the beneficiary of his insurance until he told her he had
done so, but that he wanted to change it back to the
appellant. She stated that the veteran had been a heavy
drinker, and she believed that he was under the influence of
alcohol when he had changed the life insurance beneficiary to
the appellee. She also stated that perhaps because of the
medication the veteran was taking during chemotherapy, his
handwriting was affected.
J.H. testified that she was also present in 1996 when the
veteran signed the beneficiary designation form. She stated
thatthere was no time during which he was not aware of
his actions and their consequences. She also stated that the
veteran never underwent chemotherapy, since his cancer was
not diagnosed until shortly before his death.
The appellee submitted statements from D.H. and K.H. D.H.
knew both the appellant and the veteran. The veteran had
told D.H. that the appellee would get his life insurance
proceeds. The veteran wanted this known because the
appellant had changed the beneficiary with a forged
signature. K.H. had witnessed the May 1991 beneficiary
designation. She stated that at the time of the veteran's
death, he still wanted his benefits to go to the appellee.
In March 1999, the appellant had a hearing before the
undersigned. Her representative argued that she was entitled
to the benefit of the doubt, since the first OIG analysis was
inconclusive. M. testified