BVA9502254 
DOCKET NO.  93-06 286     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office and Insurance
Center in St. Paul, Minnesota

THE ISSUE

Whether the veteran's National Service Life Insurance (NSLI)
policy, FJ [redacted] may be reinstated.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Raymond F. Ferner, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or
Board) on appeal from an August 1992 letter to the appellant from
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office and
Insurance Center in St. Paul, Minnesota (RO), which denied the
benefit sought on appeal.  The appellant appealed that decision
to the BVA, and the case was received at the Board in March 1993.
The veteran, who had active service from June 1941 to February
1946 and from July 1947 to March 1948, died in July 1992.

REMAND

The RO has denied the appellant's claim for the proceeds of the
veteran's NSLI insurance policy on the basis that the policy
lapsed in January 1973 and was not in force on the date of the
veteran's death in July 1992.  The RO indicated that notice of
the lapse in the insurance was sent to the veteran in August
1973.  However, the appellant has contended that notice of the
lapse of the insurance was not received by the veteran.

A review of the August 1973 notice discloses that it was mailed
to the veteran at [redacted],
but this address does not appear at any other place in the
veteran's insurance or claims files.  A VA Form 572 (Request for
Change of Address) contained in the claims file submitted by the
veteran in September 1973, not quite two months after the August
1973 notice, indicates that the veteran's old address was
[redacted], and that his new address
was [redacted].  The veteran's
insurance file contains a post card (VA FL 20) from the RO to the
San Jose postmaster requesting a current address for the veteran
in September 1973 which contains the same addresses as were
provided by the veteran on the VA Form 572.

It is not clear to the Board where the address on the August 1973
notice was obtained, but the record does not reflect that the
correspondence was returned to the RO as undeliverable.  It is
also unclear what bearing or significance, if any, there would be
for the appellant's claim if the address on the August 1973
notice was incorrect.  The Board believes that further
information from the RO concerning the address in the August 1973
notice would be helpful.  See United States v. Chemical
Foundation, 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) ("The presumption of
regularity supports the official acts of public officers and, in
the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume
that they have properly discharged their official duties.").  See
also Ashley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 62, 64 (1992), mot. for
recons. granted, 2 Vet.App. 307 (1992).

Therefore, in order to give the appellant every consideration
with respect to the present appeal, it is the Board's opinion
that further development of the case is desirable.  Accordingly,
this case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO is requested to provide any
available records which would demonstrate
that the address on the August 1973 notice
to the veteran of the lapse of his
insurance policy was correct.  If such
records are unavailable, the RO is
requested to describe the procedures
utilized in maintaining the current address
of an insured veteran and the procedures
utilized in generating and mailing a VA
Form 29-389C-1.  Lastly, if the RO is
unable to verify that the address on the
August 11973 notice to the veteran was a
correct address, the RO is requested to
discuss what effect, if any, the lack of
notice of the lapse of the insurance policy
would have on the appellant's claim.

When the development requested has been completed, the case
should again be reviewed by the RO on the basis of the additional
evidence.  If the benefit sought is not granted, the appellant
and her representative should be furnished  a supplemental
statement of the case, and be afforded a reasonable opportunity
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.  The
appellant is free, of course, to submit any additional evidence
she desires to have considered in connection with her current
appeal.  No action is required of the appellant unless she is
notified.

          CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be
assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination.  This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.

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 your appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1993).