Citation Nr: 22016134 Decision Date: 03/21/22 Archive Date: 03/21/22 DOCKET NO. 12-29 274 DATE: March 21, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits, to include the preliminary matter of entitlement to recognition of the Appellant as the surviving spouse of the Veteran, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran and his widow (hereinafter E.S.) were married in January 1940. 2. The Appellant is not the Veteran's surviving spouse. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Appellant is not entitled to recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran and is therefore not entitled to DIC benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (3), 1304, 1310, 1311, 1318, 1541, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.50, 3.53. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service in the Philippine Commonwealth Army from December 1941 to October 1944. He died in October 1944. The Appellant claims to be his surviving spouse for VA DIC benefits purposes. Governing law provides that benefits may be paid to the surviving spouse of a veteran if certain requirements are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1304, 1310, 1311, 1318, 1541. A "surviving spouse" is defined as a person who was the spouse of a veteran at the time of the veteran's death, and who lived with the veteran continuously from the date of marriage to the date of the veteran's death (except where there was a separation which was due to the misconduct of, or procured by, the veteran without the fault of the spouse) and who has not remarried or (in cases not involving remarriage) has not since the death of the veteran lived with another person and held himself or herself out openly to the public to be the spouse of such other person. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.50. A surviving spouse of a veteran who died before January 1, 1957, is eligible to receive DIC benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 1316(a)(1). This case has a long and complex history. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) will refer to the claimant in this case as "the Appellant." In January 1940, the Veteran and E.S. were married when E.S. who was born in October 1919 was 19 years old. The Veteran was killed in action in 1944 while serving with the Philippine Army and E.S. was noted to be his widow. In March 1946, an affidavit was submitted from L.B. and A.C. indicating that E.S. had eloped with a man, M. (later identified at M.A.), leaving her two children by the Veteran in the care of their maternal grandfather, G.P. In August 1948, a VA claim for life insurance was submitted by G.P. in which he listed E.S. as the Veteran's wife. In July 1949, an Application for DIC was received from T.S., the Veteran's father. E.S. was listed as the Veteran's spouse, but her whereabouts were listed as unknown as she had eloped with M.A. The Board notes that the Appellant contends that T.S. reported that she had died, but in this document, he did not report that she had died, but that she had eloped with M.A., and he did not know her address. In May 1950, a parish priest indicated that the Veteran and E.S. married in January 1940. In May 1950, the Veteran's father, T.S., submitted a statement opposing G.P. as the guardian of the Veteran's two sons. Also, an affidavit indicated that the Veteran's two children were being neglected. The baptismal certificate of the son of the Veteran and E.S. was also received and they were listed as the parents. In March 1953, death compensation was awarded to the Veteran's parents. In June 1953, the claim by the Veteran's father, T.S., for life insurance was denied. In June 1953, death compensation was awarded to the Veteran's father as the guardian of the Veteran's children, so on their behalf. In May 1954, correspondence from E.S. was received in which she requested to be the guardian of the Veteran's minor children. In June 1954 she requested the same and indicated that she had left the children in her father's care. In March 1955, the RO requested marriage and birth information from E.S. In May 1955, E.S. responded that she had a child after the death of the Veteran by another man, but did not know the man's whereabouts. She requested death benefits be awarded to her. The Veteran's parents submitted a statement that they support the Veteran's children who were in their care. A June 1955 General Counsel opinion stated that the evidence of record indicates that the appellant was married to M.A. at the time of their elopement in March 1946 and apparently did not return to her children until 1954; therefore, she has the burden of overcoming such an indication of remarriage by clear and convincing evidence showing to the contrary. While there is no evidence in the folder of a record of such a marriage and claimant denies that she has remarried, such is not sufficient to overcome the positive indications that they are married. In view of the foregoing, it is the opinion of this office that the status of the claimant as the unremarried widow of the veteran is not established after March 31, 1946. In June 1955, VA denied E.S.'s claim for National Service Life Insurance as well as death compensation, finding that she had not overcome evidence that showed she had remarried in March 1946 following the Veteran's death. The VA memorandum also noted that the Veteran's two minor children had been left in the care of their maternal grandfather and later were transferred by authorities to the guardianship of their paternal grandfather. Also dated in June 1955 is a document from the Philippine Armed Forces Office of the Judge Advocate General distributing the Veteran's arrear pay and allowances to the legal guardian of the minor children, T.S., and reflecting that E.S. had died in March 1945. However, no death papers were included. In June 1957, E.S. corresponded with VA and said she was not married to M.A. In response, VA replied that she was not determined to be the unremarried widow of the Veteran. In September 1963, E.S. wrote VA asking for help obtaining any benefits owing to her as the surviving spouse of the Veteran. She indicated that her sons were now independent and did not share any of their VA monies with her. VA replied that she was not entitled to death compensation as she had not remained unmarried following the Veteran's death. VA issued a consistent letter in response to an October 1987 inquiry by E.S. In May 1988, E.S. requested restoration of death benefits and stated that her common-law husband left her in 1984. In July 1988, VA responded and requested information. Then, in an October 1988 letter, VA indicated that no response was received from her. In May 1995 E.S. provided information regarding her January 1940 marriage to the Veteran. In September 1995, VA replied that additional information was needed. No response was received. In February1997, correspondence was received from E.S., followed by an April 1997 statement and documents. E.S. submitted her birth certificate which spelled her name as "[REDACTED];" however, an affidavit was received from two witnesses indicating that this was the wrong spelling of her name. In May 1997, VA requested additional information. In January 1998, VA denied E.S.'s claim on the basis that VA still considered her to be married to M.A. She then submitted an August 1998 affidavit of neighbors indicating that she was not married to M.A. In November 1998, VA continued to deny the claim because pertinent information had not been received. Thereafter, E.S. indicated that she could not furnish a divorce certificate, but had essentially been abandoned by M.A. and was divorced in May 1990. At this juncture, E.S. at this point had acknowledged in the record a common-law or ceremonial marriage to M.A. In July 2005, E.S. submitted an application for DIC benefits and provided evidence that M.A. died in May 2005. In August 2005, the RO indicated that a change in law effective October 1998 permitted the award of DIC benefits if entitlement was otherwise warranted and a surviving spouse's remarriage following the death of a veteran is terminated by death, divorce, or annulment. The RO recognized E.S. as the Veteran's surviving spouse and granted benefits from June 1, 2005. In February 2006, E.S., made a claim for retroactive pension. She submitted certification of her marriage to M.A. in 1969. As noted, he had died in May 2005. In April 2006, her claim for pension was denied on the basis that the Veteran's service in the Philippine Commonwealth Army did not qualify for pension benefits. In August 2008, the Manila RO requested a field examination after the financial institution identified on E.S.'s direct deposit sign-up form advised that it had not certified the electronic funds transfer account number on that form. Since the RO was unable to contact E.S. at the mobile or home telephone numbers in her file, because she was 90 years old, and because "the signature affixed on her [direct deposit sign-up form] looks somewhat different from her specimen signature on file," the RO asked that an investigator to verify whether E.S. was still alive and handling her financial affairs. The field investigator's report stated that E.S. had "never resided at her supposed present address" in the New Salem Barangay in the Municipality of Bayugan City and was "completely unknown to its residents" and other local interviewees. The investigator stated that the address at which he was seeking E.S. had been changed from a previous address in January 2008 "as per [a] seemingly fictitious" change of address form and concluded that this is apparently to mislead the VA on her exact whereabouts and to conceal her death. In this change of address [form], the beneficiary's signature had significantly differed from her old signature, such as her signature in the barangay clearance dated July 24, 2007[,] she submitted to the VA. By most indications, she died after this dateJuly 24, 2007. The investigator indicated that he "verified" E.S.'s. "possible death" from the Bayugan City civil registrar, although he noted that the assistant local civil registrar "testified that the name of the beneficiary could not be found in their civil registry of deaths." The field examination report recommended terminating VA benefits. In November 2008, the RO received a letter from E.S. asking why her DIC benefits had been discontinued. In February 2009, a letter was received from E.S. with a photograph and fingerprints. In May 2009, she indicated that she was living with her daughter, [REDACTED]. The Board notes that later, [REDACTED] would be indicated to be E.S.'s niece. In January 2010, the RO again requested a field examination to determine whether E.S. was alive. In April 2010, the field investigator reported that he personally interviewed E.S. and verified her identity, but found her to be physically weak and no longer mentally competent to handle her own affairs. According to E.S.'s niece (previously identified as her daughter) who accompanied her, E.S. was manipulated into filing an erroneous change of address request by a "claims fixer," and her actual address was in Poblacion Barangay in the Municipality of Barobo. The examiner recommended resuming DIC benefits, but withholding payment until a legal custodian could be appointed. The Board notes that this is standard VA procedure when a guardian/fiduciary is required. In June 2010, the RO resumed DIC benefits from November 2008 and approved an additional allowance for aid and attendance benefits for E.S. from April 2010. The RO withheld payment pending the appointment of a guardian. In a September 2010 rating decision, the RO found E.S. to incompetent to handle disbursement of funds. Thereafter, another field examination was conducted. The November 2010 field examination report indicated that investigators attempted to visit E.S. at the address she provided in the April 2010 interview but that she could not be located there, and that neighbors and local residents could not provide any information regarding her identity or whereabouts. When investigators received a telephone call from a person identifying herself as E.S.'s niece, she advised them to meet her at a location that the investigators found did not exist and made other suspicious statements; they suspected this was an effort by "claims fixers" to "entrap" them. Based on these events and concerns about their safety in the local municipality, the investigators concluded that the individuals were attempting to hide E.S.'s whereabouts or, possibly, evidence of her death, and recommended terminating her DIC benefits and cancelling the retroactive benefits check. A claim for death pension was submitted. In March 2011, correspondence was sent to E.S. because the claim from [REDACTED] was not signed by E.S. In March 2011, the RO indicated that VA benefits were terminated because the whereabouts of E.S. were unknown and additional information was needed. Thereafter, a letter was received which was supposedly signed by E.S. An April 2011 internal VA correspondence reflected a suspicion of fraud in this case. In June 2011, another field examination was conducted at a local hotel. The interview was held with a person purporting to be E.S., [REDACTED] (the niece), and a man purporting to be a relative who refused to give his name. The investigator noted that identification documents provided by these persons contained discrepancies regarding E.S.'s birth date, that a housing verification had clearly been forged, and that the niece gave conflicting, dubious, and insufficient answers to questions and explanations for previous confusion in contacting E.S. Based on the evidence in the file, especially the June 1955 Philippine JAG document indicating that E.S. had died in March 1945, and the ignorance of the beneficiary interviewed at that time about information in the VA claims file, the investigator concluded that E.S. was already deceased at the time of first contact with VA in August 1963, that all subsequent correspondence from "E.S." was fraudulent, and that individuals appearing at VA interviews as E.S. had been impostors. The examiner recommended terminating DIC benefits. In June 2011, the RO also concluded that E.S. had died in March 1945. In August 2011, E.S. was notified that the claim was denied because she could not be recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse and the RO terminated DIC benefits. The Appellant subsequently initiated (and later perfected) an appeal to the Board of this decision. She submitted correspondence from the police , the mayor, the acting postmaster, and the office of Punung Garanday indicating E.S. was alive. Also submitted was a certification from the Philippine National Statistics Office stating that there is no record of E.S.'s death in March 1945 in the Municipality of Matalom. Information also indicated that death records dated January 1900 to July 1963 had been destroyed in typhoons. In November 2011, a woman claiming to be E.S. appeared at the RO, accompanied by a man purporting to be her neighbor. He explained that E.S. had a twin sister, also named [REDACTED] (hereinafter "claimed twin"). He indicated that it was this twin sister who had married M.A. and originally sought VA benefits pretending to be E.S., but the real E.S. discovered this in 2005 and then filed benefits on her own behalf which were granted. It was further indicated that E.S.'s father-in-law, the Veteran's father, had falsely reported her death back in the 1950's to obtain guardianship of the Veteran's minor children and to apply for VA benefits. After reviewing the conflicting evidence, in August 2012 the RO continued to deny restoration of DIC benefits. In October 2012, the Appellant appealed to the Board, asserting the contentions regarding a fraternal twin sister and the father-in-law matter. She subsequently submitted copies of: (1) photo identification issued December 2009 by the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office verifying that E.S. is the surviving spouse the Veteran; (2) an undated passbook issued by the Philippine Veterans Bank to E.S.; (3) a June 2013 "Certification" that E.S. resides in the Poblacion Barangay in Barobo Municipality; and (4) a photograph of a woman purporting to be E.S. holding the front page of a local newspaper. The Appellant provided various contentions in the appeal. She indicated that she left her two children in the care of their father-in-law, the Veteran's father. She did not initially know that benefits were claimed for the children or by her in-laws. She also did not know that her claimed twin made a claim for benefits. She indicated that it was her claimed twin, not her, who was married to M.A. She indicated that she had lived with them, but was assaulted by M.A. She said her claimed twin was eventually awarded VA benefits that were due to her, but they were cut off and her claimed twin's whereabouts were unknown. She indicated that she had been swindled by her claimed twin and also taken advantage of by others. In a February 2014 decision, the Board denied restoration of DIC benefits. The Board found that the probative value of photographs and affidavits submitted to substantiate that the claimant was, in fact, E.S. was outweighed by the June 1955 Philippine JAG document indicating that E.S. had died in March 1945 and the VA field examinations determining that E.S.'s whereabouts were unknown. The Appellant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Court found that the Board failed to offer adequate reasons or bases for determining that the Appellant cannot be E.S. because it failed to address evidence suggesting that E.S, did not die in March 1945. Also, the Court indicated that the Board should have addressed the June 1955 VA General Counsel memorandum that indicated that E.S. was alive at that time and seeking guardianship of her two minor children with the Veteran and entitlement to VA benefits. The Court indicated that the Board did not discuss this arguably favorable evidence in its decision, thereby rendering its reasons or bases inadequate. Moreover, the Court stated that the Board failed to discuss additional evidence that arguably undermined its determination that E.S. died in March 1945. For example, the Board did not discuss the probative value of photo identification issued by the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office in December 2009 stating that E.S. is the surviving spouse of the Veteran or the October 2011 Philippine National Statistics Office certification stating that there is no record of E.S.'s death in March 1945 in the Municipality of Matalom, the jurisdiction in which she married the Veteran in January 1940. Also, the Board's reasons or bases did not address the explanation offered by the Appellant that, in the 1950's, the Veteran's father falsely reported her death in 1945 to obtain guardianship of her children and access to VA survivor benefits. Similarly, the Court noted that the Appellant had alleged that sometime around 1994, benefit payments to her father-in-law were "cut off" because VA "found out that [she] was still alive." This evidence and these assertions appeared to contradict the Board's finding that E.S. died in March 1945, are potentially favorable, and should have been discussed by the Board. The Court set aside the Board's decision and remanded the case for readjudication consistent with the Court's May 2015 decision. In March 2016, the Board remanded this case to obtain additional evidence. The Board noted that in support of her claim, the Appellant had submitted multiple photos asserting that she is the Veteran's widow, and had also submitted multiple affidavits from individuals claiming that she is E.S. The Board noted that a statement from the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines dated June 1955 documents the Veteran's widow, E.S., as having died in March 1945. However, the death certificate of E.S. is not associated with the record. In this regard, a document from the Republic of the Philippines Office of Civil Registrar indicates that the records of deaths from 1900 to 1963 filed in the archives of that office were destroyed by typhoons, and therefore a transcription from the Register of Deaths or death certificate could not be issued. However, the document further notes that for every registered death, the office submits a copy of the certificate of death to the Office of the Civil Registrar General, National Statistic Office in Manila. Also, notably, there was no indication that any further development was taken with respect to contacting this office. As such, the Board found that on remand, a copy of E.S.'s death certificate, if one exists, should be obtained through the appropriate agency and associated with the record. Additionally, an RO report dated November 2011 noted that a woman claiming to be the Veteran's widow came to the RO with R.C., a neighbor of hers, in an attempt to verify her as being the Veteran's widow. However, she did not have any documentation at that time which verified her as the Veteran's widow. On the contrary, R.C. stated that E.S. had a twin sister named E.P.A. who shared her same first name who was the one who was married to M.A. Further, R.C. reported that it was the claimed twin who pretended to be the Veteran's widow when a claim for VA benefits was filed and that real E.S., upon learning this, filed for benefits of her own. The Board observed that the record does not indicate any evidence that the claimed twin could be located or that she exists. Indeed, other than these new statements of record, there is no indication that the Veteran's widow had a twin sister. In light of these ambiguities, the Board also found that on remand, the RO should obtain a copy of the claimed twin's birth certificate. The Board provided the various spellings which had been used for the Veteran's widow for the purposes of searching for her records. In accordance with the Board's remand directives, the RO submitted two letters to the Philippine Statistics Authority in November 2019, requesting the record of birth and death for E.S., supplying various iterations of her first name and maiden name. A response from the Philippine Statistics Authority received in January 2020 indicated the request could not be granted because sensitive personal information could not be provided without the consent of the individual whose personal information is being requested unless it was being made by the owner themselves or their duly authorized representative; their spouse, parent, direct descendant, guardian or institution legally in charge of them; the court or proper public official whenever absolutely necessary in administrative, judicial or other official proceedings to determine the identity of the person; and in the case of the person's death, the nearest kin. The Philippine Statistics Authority indicated that the public officials described in its letter are "those clothed with authority to issue [a] subpoena" however the letter does not indicate that the Philippine Statistics Authority considered and rejected finding that VA met the definition of a court, or that a claim for benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs was not an administrative proceeding. As such the Board determined that another remand was appropriate for another attempt to obtain records verifying E.S.'s death. The Board further noted that a letter from the Philippine Statistics Authority indicated that "E.S." could request copies of the civil registry document from which the RO could then verify. While the RO informed the Appellant of the Statistics Authority's response in a March 2020 letter, it requested that she provide a copy of the "birth record/certificate" and not evidence verifying that she was still alive. Moreover, the letter did not inform the Appellant that she could purportedly obtain this evidence herself (assuming she was the real E.S.) and submit it in support of her claim. In addition to the above, the RO also submitted a letter to the Armed Force of the Philippines, Judge Advocate General in January 2020, requesting records verifying the death of the Veteran's spouse in March 1945. However, no response had been received from the Armed Force of the Philippines, Judge Advocate General. Pursuant to the Board's June 2020 remand, the RO requested verification of E.S.'s death, or lack thereof, from the Philippine Statistics Authority. A December 2020 Philippine Statistics Authority response appeared to indicate that the record was not available, but then noted that a copy of such record could not be released pursuant to internal regulations. Thus, the Philippine Statistics Authority ultimately provided a negative response to the request for the E.S.'s death record. However, the RO did not then ask the Appellant to provide all necessary and proper authorization for VA to obtain verification of a lack of records pertaining to E.S.'s death, as the Board directed. Additionally, the Board notes that the December 2020 PSA response further indicated that a request for verification of authenticity of a civil registry document provided by a private party could be submitted to the PSA, along with a photocopy or scanned copy of the submitted document, and that PSA would provide a verification of the consistency of the contents of such document. Further, an apparent October 2011 certificate from the prior Philippine National Statistics Office, submitted by the Appellant, apparently certified that there was no record of death for E.S. The certificate, however, did not include all name spelling variations that have appeared in the record for E.S., and the certificate also indicated that further verification of death could be made from the local Civil Registry Office of Matalom, Leyte. Based on the foregoing, the Board remanded the case again in August 2021. Although authorizations were then requested from the Appellant for VA to obtain verification from the Philippine Statistics Authority, but response was received from her. At this juncture, the Board initially notes that VA has exhausted efforts to ensure a complete record in this case. In light of the responses received from the offices contacted, and in view of the Appellant's failure to provide the necessary information, further efforts to supplement the record would be futile. E.S., if alive, would be over 100 years old. The Board finds that the Appellant's contentions that she is E.S. who had a claimed twin who initially secured VA benefits as the widow of the Veteran are not credible. At the outset, the real E.S. was not honest regarding her marital status. The most probative evidence of record shows that she eloped after the death of the Veteran with a man, later identified at M.A. (his first name was sometimes shortened to begin with an "R") according to her own father and her father-in-law as well as two contemporaneous witnesses. She left her sons by the Veteran in the care of her father as their guardian. Their guardianship was later transferred to the Veteran's father and they were raised by the Veteran's parents who applied for and received VA benefits. There is no indication in the record that family members provided any death papers for E.S. In May 1954, correspondence from E.S. was received in which she requested to be the guardian of the Veteran's minor children and she indicated that she had left the children in her father's care. The June 1955 General Counsel opinion stated that the evidence of record indicated that E.S. was married to M.A. at the time of their elopement in March 1946 and apparently did not return to her children until 1954; therefore, she had the burden of overcoming such an indication of remarriage by clear and convincing evidence showing to the contrary. Thus, the opinion indicated that the status of E.S. as the unremarried widow of the Veteran was not established after March 31, 1946. E.S.'s claim for National Service Life Insurance as well as death compensation were denied on that basis. Although a June 1955 is a document from the Philippine Armed Forces Office of the Judge Advocate General indicated that E.S. had died in March 1945, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence shows that she was still alive. There were no death papers associated with that document or since that time. In contrast, the documents from family members, the affidavit, and other evidence showed that she (E.S.) was still alive when she made her initial claim for VA benefits. That being noted, she was dishonest with VA regarding her marital status when she tried to obtain benefits as the Veteran's unremarried spouse since she was either the common-law or ceremonial spouse of M.A., which she later admitted in 1988. M.A. later died in 2005. In July 2005, E.S. submitted an application for DIC benefits and in August 2005, the RO indicated that a change in law effective October 1998 permitted the award of DIC benefits if entitlement was otherwise warranted and a surviving spouse's remarriage following the death of a veteran is terminated by death, divorce, or annulment. The RO recognized E.S. as the Veteran's surviving spouse and granted benefits from June 1, 2005. Even though E.S. had been dishonest about her marriage to M.A., once VA had a record of his death and she reapplied for VA benefits, she was entitled under VA law and regulations to those benefits. In August 2008, a field examination was conducted. The investigator indicated that it was likely that E.S. had died after July 24, 2007. Thereafter, another field examination was conducted to determine whether E.S. was alive. In April 2010, the field investigator reported that he personally interviewed E.S. and verified her identity, but essentially found her to be no longer mentally competent to handle her own affairs. The examiner recommended resuming DIC benefits, but withholding payment until a legal custodian could be appointed. At this point, the Board has no reason to doubt the verification that E.S. was alive by the VA field investigator, based on the information available to him at that time. Thereafter, DIC benefits were resumed from November 2008 with additional allowance for aid and attendance benefits for E.S. from April 2010, but the retroactive payment was withheld pending the appointment of a guardian per VA policy when a fiduciary is needed because a beneficiary is incompetent. When a November 2010 field examination was conducted, however, there were numerous suspicious irregularities. E.S. could no longer be located at the address she provided in April 2010 and that neighbors and local residents could not provide any information regarding her identity or whereabouts. When investigators received a telephone call from a person identifying herself as E.S.'s niece, she advised them to meet her at a location that the investigators found did not exist and the investigators felt that there was an effort to "entrap" them. Based on these events and concerns about their safety in the local municipality, the investigators concluded that the individuals were attempting to hide E.S.'s whereabouts or, possibly, evidence of her death, and recommended terminating her DIC benefits and cancelling the retroactive benefits check. In June 2011, another field examination was conducted at a local hotel. The interview was held with a person purporting to be E.S., [REDACTED] (the niece), and a man purporting to be a relative who refused to give his name. The Board finds that subsequent to the April 2010 field examination, E.S. either died or her whereabouts were no longer known. At this point, the Appellant, as assisted by an individual identified as her daughter or niece, falsely presented the Appellant as E.S. for the purpose of obtaining VA benefits. At the June 2011 interview, the investigator noted that identification documents provided by the Appellant and those accompanying her contained discrepancies regarding E.S.'s birth date, that a housing verification had clearly been forged, and that the "niece" gave conflicting, dubious, and insufficient answers to questions and explanations for previous confusion in contacting E.S. These findings alone, i.e. that Appellant would submit false documents and conflicting information in pursuit of a claim, speak badly of her credibility and raised significant doubts regarding the statements and documentation she has submitted in support of this claim. Moreover, the Appellant has presented, in conjunction with her appeal of the August 2011 denial of her claim, further statements which are inconsistent with the documentary record. For example, she asserts that she left her sons in the care of her father-in-law as their guardian. This is inaccurate. The record shows that E.S. left her sons in the care of her own father, G.P. Later, during E.S.'s absence, the guardianship was transferred to the Veteran's father. Both G.P. and the Veteran's father indicated that E.S. had eloped. Moreover, as noted above, the Board simply does not find credible the assertion that E.S. had a fraternal twin with the exact same name who was the person really married to M.A. and who initially filed a claim for VA benefits. There is no information from any official source to corroborate this assertion and, as set forth above, the Appellant's statements made in pursuit of a claim for monetary benefits are suspect at best. The record shows that it was E.S. herself who eloped with M.A. as indicated by her father, two contemporaneous witnesses, her father-in-law, and as later shown in documents with regard to their marriage. The Board also finds that it was E.S. who initially attempted to obtain guardianship of her sons when she returned in 1954. The Board does not find plausible that given the numerous items of correspondence from E.S.'s own family and the Veteran's family from the time period when she left her sons and then when she returned that there was any claimed twin who was attempting to be the guardian of the Veteran's sons. The Board also noted that the Appellant indicated that the claimed twin was a "fraternal twin;" thus not identical, so their appearances would have been different. Further, with regard to any current statements indicating that the Appellant is E.S., i.e., from the police, the mayor, the acting postmaster, and the office of Punung Garanday, the Board does not find them probative because the Board believes that the Appellant and her associates presented fraudulent evidence to those individuals, as well, to establish that she is E.S. As set forth above, the appeal derives from an August 2011 determination that the Appellant cannot be recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse and so she does not have entitlement to DIC benefits. The Board finds that although the record shows that E.S. did not die in 1945, the record supports that she either died in 2010 or went missing. In any event, the Appellant in this case is not E.S. based on the probative findings in the cited field examinations and the numerous inconsistent and false statements made by her, as indicated. Accordingly, the Appellant is not the surviving spouse of the Veteran. As such, she is not entitled to DIC benefits based on his service. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Connolly 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.