Citation Nr: 21014337 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 15-42 544A DATE: March 11, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to the right to claim the proceeds of a National Service Life Insurance Policy (NSLI) ([REDACTED]) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran did not have an active NSLI Policy at the time of his death. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing the Appellants’ entitlement to the proceeds of a NSLI policy for the Veteran have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1917, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 8.2. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1942 to June 1945. The Veteran was awarded decorations including the Bronze Star Medal, a Purple Heart, and a Combat Infantryman Badge for his honorable service. The Veteran passed away in December 2001. The Appellant is the Veteran’s grandson. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 decision. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in June 2017. A transcript of that hearing is of record. This matter was previously remanded by the Board in August 2017. The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with its remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 1. Entitlement to the right to claim the proceeds of a National Service Life Insurance Policy (NLSI) ([REDACTED]) The Appellant contends that he is entitled to the proceeds of NSLI policy [REDACTED] because he believes that the Veteran paid the necessary premiums to maintain the policy. A NSLI policy is a contract between a Veteran and the Federal Government which assigns legally binding duties and responsibilities to each party. Lee v. West, 13 Vet. App. 388 (2000). The Appellant has stated that NSLI policy [REDACTED] is the only policy he contends was in effect. Therefore, the Board will only discuss policy [REDACTED]. In September 1965, the Veteran applied for NSLI policy [REDACTED]. A December 3, 1965 letter informed the Veteran that because he has the disability of asthma, the VA cannot issue him a policy under the $15.75 premium rate under which the Veteran applied. The letter explained that if the Veteran wishes to continue his insurance, he must pay the correct premium of $19.68. The letter further explained that failure to respond would mean discontinuation of any protection at the expiration of 31 days from the date of the letter. There is no evidence that the Veteran responded within 31 days of the December 3, 1965 letter. In July 1966, VA refunded the $15.75 that he had paid on the NLSI policy [REDACTED]. Later that month, the Veteran wrote a letter expressing confusion about the refund and requesting an explanation. An August 1966 VA letter again explained that the Veteran’s asthma condition prevented him from qualifying for the old premium rate, and noted that the Veteran’s life insurance was disapproved when no reply or additional payment was made within 31 days of the December 3, 1965 letter. The Veteran expressed his desire to appeal in a September 1966 letter, and stated that he had complied with every request. A VA letter from later that month reiterated the higher premium, and requested proof of payment of the missed premium, such as a cancelled check. There is no evidence that the Veteran provided the requested proof of payment. The Appellant’s argument, as expressed in the June 2017 hearing, is essentially that the Veteran sent the requested premium in a timely manner, but that it was lost in the mail. He also argues that VA did not respond to the Veteran’s September 1966 request to appeal the denial. The Appellant believes that the full record is not associated with the claims file, and that if it were, it would show that the Veteran had paid for the insurance. He has expressed concern because he was told that the record was lost. The Board finds that the record does not reflect that the Veteran paid the increased insurance premium. There is no indication that the Veteran responded to the September 1966 letter requesting proof of payment of the missed premium, nor is there any evidence of such proof of payment. The Appellant’s belief that the Veteran paid the premium is based upon his knowledge of the character of the Veteran. The Board has great respect for the Veteran and his service as well as the Appellant’s devotion to the Veteran’s memory and legacy. However, the Board cannot accept the Appellant’s knowledge of the Veteran’s character as evidence that he paid the premium in question. Nor can it accept the Veteran’s September 1966 statement that he complied with every request as proof that the Veteran sent the required premium. The law requires proof of mailing of the premium, such as an independent proof of postmark, a dated receipt, or evidence of mailing apart from a person’s own self-serving testimony. Rios v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 481 (2007). The Appellant has expressed concern that evidence of proof of payment was separated from the rest of the file, or is indicated in the redacted portions of the file he was provided. He reports that he was told at one point that the file was lost. An August 2017 letter from the Office of the General Counsel clarifies that although the Veteran’s file had been described as lost in the past, the complete file was located and sent to the Appellant as well as associated with the claims file. The Board has reviewed the file, and does not find evidence at this point in time that it is incomplete. As to the Appellant’s concerns regarding the redactions in the file, the Board notes that the location of the redactions indicate that they are simply redactions of personal information such as addresses. The redactions in the September 1966 letter about which the Appellant expressed particular concern have faded to the point that it is clear the redacted information is simply the Veteran’s address at the time, the file number, and the medical condition that caused him to be subject to higher premiums. This information is not relevant to the disposition of the claim. (Continued on the next page)   As to the Appellant’s contention that VA did not respond to the Veteran’s request to appeal the discontinuation of his insurance, the Board notes that VA did respond with a September 1966 letter informing the Veteran of how he might prove that he had paid the premium. The record does not reflect that the Veteran responded to this letter. There is no basis to find that the Veteran paid the higher premium noted in the December 1965 letter, nor that he continued paying premiums from that date until his death in 2001. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the NSLI policy [REDACTED] had lapsed or discontinued, and was not in effect at the time of the Veteran’s death. The Appellant’s claim is thus denied. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Budd, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.