will interplay the funds and of course the issue is who should get the funds from life insurance policy is better member of the army left active duty in the army while he was in the army he married mr norton transfer to dig georgia national guard and then was in the process of coming back to oregon apparently and joining the oregon national guard is fine i was either in transit or it's just very risky he died a few weeks after he arrived here  in a motorcycle accident unrelated to his military duty the issue came back when after the death kimberly norton came to oregon having learned of his death and while in the military department pursuant to their survivor instead apparently there's a copy at his home she leaves accompanied by another service member retrieves this document brings him back the only one that's ever been found the circumstances prompted missed whether or not one was a forgery colonel mcrae who was the person directly responsible for the administration of the insurance program says in his letter and later confirmed by colonel crick who was the chief of staff of the military department has parameters under which in effect the change must occur i submit to the court that that's important i think and would submit that the trial court analyzed this maybe from a nonmilitary approach but it's certainly important in a military probe anybody that's been in military knows that there is a valid basis for putting some guidelines on when and how you change a life insurance policy you have young soldiers that are subject to influence and we have had certain stances historically in the military where he's coming enders have influenced soldiers to make beneficiary changes and their service members have had influence soldiers to make that fishery changes naming themselves and so the military and active reasonable regulations assess and if we're going to do this and we're going to make it effective and we're going to provide this insurance a soldier we want to make sure that it's a mystery administered properly and we want to make sure that when a soldier makes these changes is that knowing intelligent thought out and approved change we can't tell a soldier who you can and can't leave to but we can make sure that that soldier receives the necessary here's the other just think what you're on about what's received military the military and as you will note from colonel mcrae and colonel fred they both said the military department did not receive a change well now in your view is that not a proper change of beneficiary it would have then if during would have called up colonel mcrae or any other direct chain of supervisory chain of command and said and i do this and it colonel mcrae would have said yes you can do it or i'm putting you in a duty status for the purposes of doing it and it could have been affected now and under supervision means more than just being under the supervision necessarily mean i have to approve every change beneficiary oh you do you have any easier example maybe for me to explain ordinarily the way these changes occurs under two circumstances either when an organization is the point actually there's three circumstances when the organization is the point and the organization goes through what we call it deployment readiness exercise and the whole unit shows up in all of these sections of the s t l i section the administrative section the medical section the jag section all show up and all the supervisor there are there and we know that each soldier is going to be asked about his or to make a change clearly a direct supervision research constrains the other circumstances when a soldier comes into a unit he transfers an earth transfer and now they will review of with him that is an official program the third would be a soldier just wanting to make a change but everybody in this organization says it was that one specialist bacon should have done or should have been directed to do was go to his unit he was a member of the twenty for twelve forty nine engineer battalion this was after the military department headquarters which is the positive or e for these records and so they are there really is under these circumstance i t and i think under agency time since she probably has a parent authority although not actual authority why why shouldn't we read this to allow a proper legally affective if anybody told specialist bacon or they are in the equal rank nobody told him and there is nothing in the record that says anybody ever than during said to him i can do this or you can create your own apparent or the originals not the file why is that we don't know the originals not of the unit why is that we don't know the only copy we have is the one that during step i got from his home now you know and we know know he got married there is evidence in the record that there was some strain there about the circumstances you can take this to if you want to argue hypotheticals he's at home if his parents find out he's married they're not happy about it during talks about the life insurance or whatever he goes now ok i want to make my parents happy but we don't know all we know is what the record is and the record is there is nothing to prove that that document was perceived for the change was effective importing to military rules regulations and according to the statute and the insurance jurors own guidelines and that's the issue but i submit to the court you don't have to decide whether or not one and if properly presented with the regulation and perhaps with an explanatory declaration as to the underlying facts by her commander i mean i can conceive of a situation where the district court might say there really isn't a material dispute over the facts or here's what the regulations that is here here are the circumstances under which she might have been authorized or not authorized and i find as a matter of washe want to make a change in beneficiary form and there was either some edge in circumstances or a reason that she couldn't send them to their unit take their unit was in eastern oregon as opposed to dallas or salem and there was a reason that she  does that mean she knew what was going on is that i don't know what thomas exactly was really worth but but but what is the best and most complete evidence in the summary judgment rec if that is that she was not authorized to receive our position is whether or not she was authorized to act authorized to receive it she in fact did receive it she may have violated army regulations but that should be held beneficiary destination form accurately represents disenchanting of the army or an insurance company prescribe exactly what the required before they change the beneficiary  that that that's talking about prior to payment we'll tell you about when the designation is now yeah i think so i think the rule that we're talking about here is is that the beneficiary designation for thi know does it make a difference that she didn't sign the monsters and i don't know why not and not in my view it does not think you know my position is that in the in the final analysis of the thing that's not going to make any difference at all what it i think what matters here is to stand as colonel mcrae says it's it's it's  gart policy that that that was violated by duress about a violation of policy by the soldier should not affect the the they're i think they're there they're they're military jobs where the same they were in the records division and they were on duty that's that's part of their duties both of them where they're authorized to prepare and receive these kinds of documents for their unit or for the entire department of i mean i thought i heard your opposing counsel suggest that the reason this didn't comply with the army regulations was that even if frazier have been authorized  beneficiary forms that day and it was filled out her presence that it would have to be somebody would have to specifically authorize a member of another unit like big to come to her office to complete the form in military part handle this sort of paperwork for the members of her unit whatever it was not the members of her unit or as counsel represented back you know when when there's a mobilization they did it and that is to protect soldiers from should we still advise changes in beneficiaries and undue influence in doing so the problem here is that you're asking us to sort of been the regulations a little bit because of the unusual facts situation we hear before before us and i don't know how far we can go with their recovery if the intent is to rigidly comply with the regulations in order to protect the beneficiaries from real advice change well i think i think part of the enchant and part and the what the courts of basic inquiry should be is what was the intent of the soldier here i mean he attempted to comply and do what he needed to do he did what he was told to do the fact that the army personnel didn't follow their own regulations shouldn't shouldn't be used against him in his choice of  was she was sitting at the desk next to where they were working she saw him something she nearly was she knew what the form that they were preparing which she identified as the one she saw him prepare and she doesn't explain that she was what her normal practice would have been for me presumably she's supposed to keep at least one if not more of the copies when someone comes in calls i think for that if i recall correctly that the regulations a member gets one one goes to finance and one goes someplace else but she doesn't offer any explanation as to why she didn't follow the city where you are right fraser didn't follow it right went through the settlement conference procedure in order to be authorized through c v rather than just being on duty but you're right or the problem i say yes the problem i have with even raising the issue of race or it's never been raised before they have never contended that frazier received all they've ever contended was frazier was a witness but counsel did say that there is greater after exercise the same level of authority and although fraser was never specifically