veterans court cared when it refused to apply the benefit of the doubt the claimant rule when it addressed whether mrs burton was going to mr burton for at least one year before his death the second issue is whether  when it held that the secretary did not violate his duty to notify and assist mrs burton in obtaining that evidence necessary to substantiate her claim turn to the first issue the supreme court official stated that a court's ta constraints separate benefits provisions intervention scheme is to quote give each as liberal constructions for the benefit of the better and as a harmonious interplay of the separate provisions permanence that principle is consistent with the proclaim for that principle there the court construe rather plain language that said a person a person shall appeal veterans court decision within one hundred twenty days and even though the court if you know the language and that's section said shall evidence how the record of the primary show on appeal is whether that standard of proof applies in this particular instance we argue that it does not primarily because of that benefited that statute section one fifty one of seven b also because of the proclaiming canons and finally because of the proof of marriage regulation thirty eight c f r a three point two a five a and that proof of marriage regulation simply would have no meaning it would either be superfluous or an operative if as  is not established by one of the following types of evidence you look silly to state law so the there with section three point two above a we see a line has been crossed between state and federal law evidentiary rules come from federal law specifically for the t r three point one j where they define marriage but again that particular regulation doesn't even use the word use the word true so the users there is an instruction so yes your honor and on to the second issue  with respect to oh wait wait a minute before you move on i mean three point one jason's marriage is defined and a marriage valid under the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage if mrs bur unable to establish a common law marriage by clear and convincing evidence then she would not have a marriage valid under the law of the place where she resides at the time of the marriage so the right time in which she and would and the second point is that the law of the place in the background of the benefit of the doubt principle in the proclaimers can and in the existence of the proof of marriage regulation is at least in biggest does that refer to the merely to state what all means or does he have any common understanding of these words a marriage valid under alabama law at the time she was married your honor only if the statute picks up both the elements and the burden of proof but it shouldn't do so because of the under that reasoning there would be no reason for the perfect marriage regulation to exist but i mean there is in fact a marriage as your honor recognized the one of the preceding provides and has been construed by the secretary of the department of justice in this court to obviate the need to have standards to have stevo standards governing this particular scenario particulars there is no need for a marriage to be recognized for the personal purpose of the federal veterans benefits purposes and benefits even if it is not recognized under state l in other words it does not matter if a marriage cannot be recognized under state law and it is recognized under federal law it's just as one of protection one of three a demonstrates not a concern at issue here i don't understand your argument is that convoluted way of saying one of those three also has a provision by which you can still be recognized as married under the veterans laws even then don't meet the state requirements like in the instance where you are unaware or cartoon like the purposes of all laws of minister by the secretary in a court according to the law of the place where the parties beside the standard definition of the word prove a need to prove by show by satisfactory evidence and that is exactly what the veterans court  say that the marriage must be valid in accordance with the law of the sea so the extent that this is burden acknowledging that three point two zero five talk about evidence and also incorporate state was in three point two a five particular state now there's no there's no way that you can argue that the subsequent enactment of a statute basically adopting that regulation and another regulation that says the evidence you have to submit must be in a right not the exact language but it is in effect here it's written a little differently but this new regulation doesn't have that definition of marriage as being in accordance to state law and then that term marriage is incorporated into three point two a five and b so that would be our reason why the regulations reflect the longstanding interpretation of the statute but we believe that's too clear on its face and  already been considered and it if applied at all it's applied very close to a civil we believe that we think it's clear that this is not a closed case but even setting out aside for a moment in the court hot pete opinion that came out in two thousand me the court said that it should take care not to invalidate otherwise reasonable agencies regulations a lot simply because they do not provide or cloke proclaim an outcome in every case now here the mrs bird if if you want to seven be replied it's possible that she would get a better outcome but there could be cases in which of a widow or widower a new common marriage wants to take advantage of if you want to seventy's benefit of the doubt standard but there are also children of the veteran from a prior marriage who also think they are entitled to the veterans benefits and they would not come in second in line to why the sense that the time a veteran soldier and to be denied declined that she laid out all the facts demonstrating a common law marriage and i think that her view as i understand it is the v a s then ought to tell her under what particular every veteran aware of every possible tangentially related thing but in a case where there really is only a couple of possible provisions and the veterans courts on notice not regarding the underlying facts and that's as i understand her argument and that argument has a little here because in this case and you can't escape the fact that the facts of this case are that mrs berger came in and said that she was aware that alabama permitted common law marriage and that she met requirements of alabama's common law marriage so there was no no in order to for the da to know that there was a potential one of three a flame out there which that was not it would have had to analyze her claim and in bringing to the putin said you don't meet the requirements of one of three feet but even even if they did do that one up for you doesn't come into play in this was a legal impediment to the marriage that the claimant unaware of so he said that she admitted she knew that phil alabama of last common law marriage she was taking herself out of the running for one of three a she admitted that the state allows one marriage so there was no way for b h know that she would later committed say well there was some other legal impediment to my meeting the common law marriage requirements  but if for instance in this case mrs burton had indicated that she had a common law marriage but she lived in a faith that didn't permit common law marriage it's possible that an actually there may have been some this court is one quote that the inflexible application of traditional legal terminology to a unique administrative procedure that doesn't easily succumb to concepts from adversarial litigation such as burden of proof that morning should and should play a role here here in light of the benefit of physical structure of the v a but it seems the court is stated that quote there is no room for such adversarial concepts as strict adherence to burden of proof and that makes sense in light of the sectarians promulgated of three point two five a i still i cannot envision a scenario where three point two a five day where you make proof is established play any role whatsoever if the secretary's position is correct that one  incorporates all elements from state law the only way for there to be a quote harmonious interplay between those two provisions is to have the state law elements come from one of the three c but the burden of proof for the standard of proof comes from clear and convincing standard of proof applies as a second mrs burns filed her initial application the secretary knew that she could need not meet the one year requirement through a ceremonial marriage because they were married in two months before mr burton die marriage your honor no case is ever held that all legal impediment would not include a state that recognizes a common law marriage but it does include a state that doesn't understand what's the impact of the legal impediment is that she did not have knowledge of the clear convincing proof element we cited on page and the board of veterans appeals has agreed with that pro choice approach on page twenty six footnote four of our a plot to set a case where the board of elections appeals allowed marriage to be