BVA9410280
DOCKET NO.  92-00 908     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office and Insurance
Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to the proceeds of the veteran's National Service
Life Insurance (NSLI) policy, [redacted].

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Raymond F. Ferner, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or
Board) on appeal from administrative decisions of the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office and Insurance Center
(RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The veteran had active
service from September 1942 to January 1945, and he died in
November 1986.  The appellant in this case is the veteran's
sister, J. T. K., and the appellee is his daughter, K. T.

A November 1988 administrative decision determined that the
appellant was entitled to the proceeds of the veteran's NSLI
policy.  A January 1991 administrative decision subsequently
determined that the appellee was entitled to the proceeds of the
veteran's NSLI policy.  The appellant appealed that determination
to the BVA, and the case was received at the Board in February
1992.  An August 1992 BVA decision affirmed the RO's January 1991
administrative decision.  The appellant appealed the Board's
decision to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court),
and in an Order, [citation redacted]), the Court vacated and 
remanded the case for compliance with the appellant's motion for 
remand and the Secretary's response.  (Copies of all attached.)

In the Secretary's response, the VA General Counsel raises
various matters relating to a claim by the veteran's son, [redacted],
for the proceeds of the NSLI policy in question.  These
matters are referred to the Insurance Center for appropriate
action.

REMAND

The question for resolution in this case appears to be whether
the veteran signed the September 1977 designation of beneficiary
for his NSLI policy.  A September 1988 Report of Investigation of
the VA Office of Inspector General offered an opinion that the
veteran "cannot be identified or eliminated as the possible
author of the signature."  A second Report of Investigation from
the VA Office of Inspector General, dated in August 1990,
concluded that the veteran was not the author of the signature on
the beneficiary designation dated in September 1977.  However,
the integrity of the August 1990 Report of Investigation has been
questioned.

The controversy stems from the opinions reached regarding the
authorship of the veteran's signature on a December 1979 quit-
claim deed.  The August 1990 Report of Investigation concluded
that the appellant was the author of the veteran's signature on
that deed, while a report of a private analysis of the signature
dated in October 1982 concluded that another sister of the
veteran had signed the deed.

Despite the fact that both the private handwriting analysis and
the August 1990 Report of Investigation reach a similar
conclusion that the veteran did not sign the December 1979 quit-
claim deed, the appellant's representative has pointed out in a
brief to the Court that, because of the technical nature of the
issue involved in this case, and the BVA's lack of experience in
the field of handwriting analysis, expert evidence is needed so
that the BVA can come to a reasoned decision.  Further
handwriting analysis was requested.  While the Court's Order in
this case did allow the Board the option to resolve the conflict
in the evidence without such additional expert evidence, we deem
it advisable to obtain further expert handwriting analysis.  In
this regard, we note that the Court directed the VA to consult
with the appellant and the appellee to try to secure agreement as
to the selection of such an expert.

Therefore, in order to attempt to resolve conflicts in the
evidence, we are of the opinion that further development of the
case is necessary.  Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the
following action:

The Insurance Center should contact the
appellant and the appellee in an attempt to
secure agreement on the selection of an
expert to analyze the signature on the
September 1977 beneficiary designation to
determine whether the veteran was the
author of that signature on the beneficiary
designation.  If agreement is not reached
between the parties, the Insurance Center
should select a reputable independent
handwriting expert to analyze the signature
on the September 1977 beneficiary
designation.  Copies of all three
handwriting analysis reports should be
furnished to that expert, as well as copies
of all signatures analyzed in all such
reports.

When the development requested has been completed, the case
should again be reviewed by the Insurance Center on the basis of
the additional evidence.  Unless the matter is resolved, the
appellant and appellee should be furnished a supplemental
statement of the case and be afforded the applicable period to
respond before the record is returned to the Board for further
review.

The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional development,
and the Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of
the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time.  No
action is required of the appellant or the appellee until
contacted by the Insurance Center.

        WARREN W. RICE, JR.
JACQUELINE E. MONROE

          CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals.  This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board
on the merits of the appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1993).