Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Denied

The Board found that the appellant is not entitled to the proceeds of the veteran's NSLI policy because the veteran had designated his brother as the sole contingent beneficiary in November 1943, and no later designation was found. The appellant argued that she should be named as the sole beneficiary due to her marriage to the veteran and other evidence suggesting he intended to name her.

The deciding factor: No change of beneficiary was found after the initial designation in November 1943.

Claimed conditions
Not specified in this decision
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
September 20, 2001
Citation
0122958

This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0122958.

What this means for you

A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.

What you can do next

Related decisions

Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.

Free starter guide for your own claim

Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.

We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.

We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.

This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.