[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2709-2714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-01188]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Parts 3, 8, and 20
[Docket No. VA-2024-VBA-0008]
RIN 2900-AR32
Clarification of VA's Processing of Survivors Benefits Claims
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its
adjudication
[[Page 2710]]
regulations concerning survivors benefits claims to ensure that VA
provides the most beneficial outcome for surviving spouses and
children. This final rule clarifies that a surviving spouse or child
claimant for either Survivors Pension or dependency and indemnity
compensation (DIC) is entitled to the greater benefit. Thus, with
respect to claims processing, VA will concurrently deny Survivors
Pension and award DIC, except where paying Survivors Pension would be
more beneficial to the claimant, which will only be the case if the
claimant is the veteran's surviving spouse and the claimant's
application indicates that the claimant does not have any dependents,
is currently in a nursing home, and has applied for or is currently
receiving Medicaid.
DATES: This rule is effective February 23, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Baltimore, Management and Program
Analyst, Pension and Fiduciary Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, (202) 632-8863.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VA has express statutory authority to
prescribe regulations regarding ``the manner and form of adjudications
and awards.'' 38 U.S.C. 501(a)(4). Pursuant to this authority, on March
11, 2024, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 89 FR
17354, to (1) amend 38 CFR 3.5, 3.152, 3.402, 3.502, 3.658, and 3.702
to streamline the process by which VA adjudicates certain claims for VA
survivors benefits while ensuring that claimants receive the greatest
benefit allowed by law, and to (2) replace references to ``death
pension'' with ``survivors pension'' in 38 CFR part 3, and Sec. Sec.
8.4 and 20.104, to align with VA's current usage.
VA provided a 60-day public comment period, which closed on May 10,
2024, and received four comments in response to the proposed rule.
Three comments were from individuals, and one comment was from The City
Bar Justice Center. All comments generally agreed with the goal of the
amendments in the proposed rulemaking. As one commenter explained,
``[t]he proposal aims to accelerate the disbursement of compensation to
eligible survivors and potentially reduce administrative complexities
by simplifying the adjudication process for survivors benefits. In
addition, this could translate to quicker access to financial
assistance for vulnerable survivors, providing relief during a
challenging time.'' VA appreciates the support from these commenters.
Three of the four commenters also offered additional suggestions
with respect to VA's administration of survivor benefits. VA
appreciates the additional suggestions. However, VA believes that the
comments are outside the scope of the rulemaking and VA will not make
any changes to the rule, as proposed, based on the comments received.
VA will respond to the comments for the limited purpose of
demonstrating that the comments are outside the scope of the
rulemaking.
One commenter explained ``[m]y husband recently passed. He was
receiving $5,400.00 a month for benefits. I had to retire to take care
of him. All I am receiving is $1,850.00 for DIC and my retirement. So
anything would be appreciated to help spouses.'' VA provides sincere
condolences for the loss of the commenter's husband. VA notes that this
rule is focused on streamlining the adjudication of survivors' claims
processing with the goal of delivering decisions on claimed benefits
timelier to beneficiaries in need during a difficult time. Benefit
rates are not the subject of this rule, nor would the intent of this
rule allow for an expansion to address benefit rates. VA can only pay
monetary benefits in accordance with the express terms of specific
statutes. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 432 (1990). VA
will not make any changes to the rule, as proposed, based on the
comment received.
One commenter suggested an area of improvement to ``automatically
evaluate DIC applicants for all potential entitlements'' to ``alleviate
the burden on survivors by reducing the complexity and emotional strain
of navigating the benefits process during a period of grief.'' VA notes
that, in the notice of proposed rulemaking, VA expressly stated that
``[t]his proposed rule would only address VA's processing of the
survivors pension claims of surviving spouses and children whom VA has
determined are eligible for DIC.'' 89 FR 17354. VA would like to
highlight that, once a complete claim for DIC or Survivors Pension is
received from a surviving spouse or child, VA is statutorily required
to determine entitlement to DIC and Survivors Pension (as well as
accrued benefits) under 38 U.S.C. 5101(b). Claimants are not required
to file separate claims for those benefits. To the extent the
commenter's concern relates to other survivor benefits, the commenter's
concern is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Furthermore, in
certain situations VA will determine entitlement to service-connected
burial benefits without a specific claim for VA burial benefits
following a grant of DIC benefits. Public Law (Pub. L.) 114-315 allows
VA to grant a service-connected burial allowance to a surviving spouse
without a claim when DIC benefits are granted and the veteran's death
occurred on or after December 16, 2016, which is the enactment date of
Public Law 114-315. VA will not make any changes to the rule, as
proposed, based on the comment received.
VA received a comment from The City Bar Justice Center which
expressed support for VA's efforts in the proposed rule and shared
additional recommendations for areas of further improvement. The
commenter's recommendations and VA's response are highlighted below.
Risk of Delaying Benefits if Entitlement Rules Change
The commenter noted that it is ``possible that the rules relating
to DIC and survivors pension could change in the future, including
changes that could allow some access to both DIC and survivors
pension''. To avoid ``delaying their receipt of increased or additive
benefits,'' the commenter encourages VA to consider a method in which
claimants are ``approved for both DIC and survivors pension on their
first claim.''
VA understands there is a possibility that legislative amendments
to statute in the future may provide simultaneous grants to both DIC
and Survivors Pension benefits. However, VA is bound by current
statutes when providing regulatory guidance. Any amendments to these
statutes would require action by Congress. Following any legislative
change, VA would amend its regulations to align with the statute;
however, VA is unable to alter its regulations in any manner that would
conflict with an existing statute. VA will not make any changes to the
rule, as proposed, based on the comment received.
DIC and Survivors Pension are both periodic monetary benefits. 38
U.S.C. 101(14) and (15). Thus, receipt of those benefits involves
payment. By statute, ``payment of monetary benefits [is] based on an
award.'' 38 U.S.C. 5111(a). Under existing regulations, ``not more than
one award of pension . . . or [DIC] may be made concurrently to a
dependent'' even in the event the veteran in question had multiple
periods of service. 38 CFR 3.700; see also 38 U.S.C. 5304. Therefore,
if, as in the commenter's hypothetical, ``a surviving spouse or child
currently entitled to DIC . . . later prefer[s], or [is] additionally
entitled to, a survivors pension,'' VA would have to ``award''
Survivors Pension before the claimant
[[Page 2711]]
would begin receiving Survivors Pension.
While VA has express statutory authority to promulgate regulations
with respect to the ``manner and form of . . . awards,'' 38 U.S.C.
501(a)(4), VA must exercise that authority within the bounds
established by the ``best'' reading of the pertinent statutes. See
Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 395 (2024). The best
reading of a statute `` `is determined by reference to the language
itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the
broader context of the statute as a whole.' '' Valladares v. Ray, 130
F.4th 74, 80 (4th Cir. 2025) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519
U.S. 337, 340 (1997)); see Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 408 (A statute's
``best meaning'' is ``necessarily discernible'' ``deploying [the] full
interpretive toolkit.'').
Black's Law Dictionary defines ``award'' as a ``grant by formal
process or by judicial decree.'' AWARD, Black's Law Dictionary (12th
ed. 2024); see Glover v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 127 F.4th 1278,
1286 (11th Cir. 2025) (recognizing that, where a statutory term is
undefined, dictionary definitions provide useful guidance). Under
current statute, an ``award [is] based on an initial claim [ ] or a
supplemental claim.'' 38 U.S.C. 5110(a). Moreover, when VA issues a
decision on a claim, the claim is either ``allowed'' or ``disallowed'',
38 U.S.C. 7104(b), and the benefits sought by the claimant are either
``granted'' or ``denied'', Maggitt v. West, 202 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed.
Cir. 2000); see also 38 U.S.C. 5104(b) (distinguishing ``denial'' and
``grant'' in delineating the information that must be included in a
decision notice). To ``allow'' means ``to recognize as a right or
privilege; to accord as a legal entitlement.'' ALLOW, Black's Law
Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), while to ``disallow'' means ``[t]o
officially reject,'' DISALLOW, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024).
To ``grant'' means ``to approve, warrant, or order,'' GRANT, Black's
Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), while to ``deny'' means ``to refuse to
allow,'' DENY, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024).
With respect to DIC and Survivors Pension specifically, 38 U.S.C.
1317(a) states ``[e]xcept as provided in subsection (b), no person
eligible for [DIC] by reason of any death occurring after December 31,
1956, shall be eligible by reason of such death for any payments under
[ ] provisions of law administered by the Secretary providing for the
payment of . . . death pension.'' Subsection (b) states ``[a] surviving
spouse who is eligible for [DIC] may elect to receive death pension
instead of such compensation.'' Black's Law Dictionary defines
``[e]ligible'' to mean ``fit or proper to be selected or to receive a
benefit; legally qualified for an office, privilege or status,''
ELIGIBLE, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), and defines ``elect''
to mean to ``choos[e] from several different rights or remedies in a
way that precludes the use of other rights or remedies,'' ELECTION,
Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). This language makes clear that,
under existing law, no person is legally entitled to both benefits for
concurrent periods. Therefore, VA is without authority to award or
otherwise approve both benefits in the first instance. Rather, the
allowance of one requires the disallowance of the other.
Pursuant to statute, a claim is deemed disallowed once ``sufficient
notice has been provided so that a [claimant] would know, or reasonably
can be expected to understand that [the claimant] will not be awarded
[the] benefits . . . asserted in [the] pending claim.'' Jones v.
Shinseki, 619 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (addressing decisions of
the Board of Veterans' Appeals); see also Deshotel v. Nicholson, 457
F.3d 1258, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (reaching the same conclusion with
respect to decision of an agency of original jurisdiction). Thus, the
commenter's characterization of the principle that an award of DIC will
result in a denial of Survivors Pension as a ``new rule[ ] of
adjudication'' is not accurate. Rather, the principle reflects the
natural effect on a Survivors Pension claim of notice informing a
claimant that VA has awarded DIC and that DIC and Survivors Pension
cannot be paid concurrently. In this rulemaking, VA is simply stating
this principle explicitly.
Burden on Surviving Spouses and Children To File Multiple Claims
The commenter also states that ``[i]t is very possible that a
surviving spouse or child currently entitled to DIC may later prefer,
or be additionally entitled to, a survivors pension. As we have laid
out, the Proposed Rule currently contemplates that should their needs
or eligibility change, a surviving spouse or child would need to
reapply for the benefits that they were automatically denied under the
new rules of adjudication. We again applaud the intent of expediting
the processing of claims for DIC and survivors pension, and understand
the intent behind a system that would automatically deny benefits that
such claimant would not be entitled to receive today, regardless of the
determination, but want to ensure that the burden of such subsequent
reapplication process (should benefit entitlements change) is properly
understood and considered by the VA before enacting the Proposed
Rule.'' The commenter suggests that ``modification of the proposed
rule'' to ``allow[ ] for the eventual full adjudication of both DIC and
survivors pension claims for all who apply. The result will be that
there is no longer a requirement to submit a subsequent claim, and no
delay in receiving benefits should entitlements later change.'' VA
appreciates the commenter's concern. However, VA does not agree with
the commenter's premises that, under the proposed rule, claims may
remain unadjudicated indefinitely or that the proposed rule creates a
new obligation to reapply for benefits if entitlements change.
In a VA decision, benefits are either ``awarded'' or they are
``denied''. See Jones, 619 F.3d at 1373; Deshotel, 457 F.3d at 1261.
When making decisions on claims for benefits, ``[t]he Secretary shall
decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision.'' 38
U.S.C. 511(a). Yet, a ``decision regarding a claim for benefits might
not resolve, or even address,'' all questions that must be resolved in
order for benefits to be awarded. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156,
1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is so because, if a particular question is
resolved in a manner that bars entitlement, it is not ``necessary,'' to
address other questions before concluding that the claim must be
denied. 38 U.S.C. 511(a).
Based on this principle, with respect to Survivors Pension, VA has
promulgated other regulatory provisions that ``prevent[ ] VA from
developing a case when the evidence clearly shows that a claimant is
not entitled to the benefit.'' Net Worth, Asset Transfers, and Income
Exclusions for Needs-Based Benefits, 80 FR 3840, 3844 (January 23,
2015). Basic entitlement to Survivors Pension exists if the veteran had
qualifying wartime service and the surviving spouse or child has an
annual income not in excess of the applicable maximum annual pension
rate and a net worth within the applicable limit. 38 CFR 3.3(b)(4).
Under existing regulations, VA will ``deny'' pension if any one of
these criteria is not satisfied. See 38 CFR 3.274(b) (``VA will deny .
. . pension . . . if a claimant or beneficiary's net worth exceeds the
net worth limit.''); 38 CFR 3.274(e) note (``If the evidence shows that
net worth exceeds the net worth limit, VA may decide the pension claim
before determining if the claimant meets other entitlement factors.'');
38 CFR 3.274(e)(2) (recognizing that VA is not required to calculate
net worth if the claimant or beneficiary does not satisfy
[[Page 2712]]
the other eligibility factors in Sec. 3.3(b)(4)). In this rulemaking,
VA is simply explicitly stating that the same principle also applies to
cases in which a Survivors Pension claimant has already been found
entitled to DIC: once the claim for DIC is allowed, no further findings
are necessary to determine that the survivors claim must be disallowed.
Once a claim is disallowed, benefits generally will not be awarded
absent another filing by the claimant, generally either an action in
continuous pursuit of the prior claim in accordance with 38 U.S.C.
5110(a)(2), or a subsequent claim based on either new evidence, 38
U.S.C. 5108, or a change in law, see Frederick v. Shinseki, 684 F.3d
1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Applicable statute contemplates that VA
may identify and grant previously filed claims that benefit from a new
law upon its own initiative, but it does not relieve claimants from
having to file a claim for benefits under a new law when the VA does
not do so.). More specifically, in the event a surviving spouse
eligible for DIC had been previously denied pension but needed to
reapply based on being in a nursing home at Medicaid expense, this fact
alone would be new and relevant evidence and a sufficient predicate for
a supplemental claim under 38 U.S.C. 5108. Thus, while the commenter is
correct that, if a change in entitlement occurs, the claimant would
have to reapply, the obligation already exists under current law and
flows from the fact that the prior claim was disallowed as a matter of
law. To the extent the commenter asks VA to reconsider these settled
aspects of law, that request is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
See Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 88 F.3d
1191, 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an agency does not
``reopen an issue by responding to a comment that addresses a settled
aspect of some matter'').
The commenter also expressed concern that ``often the veteran,
surviving spouse or child is in the best position to apply for all
benefits in the first instance, ideally as soon as possible after they
conclude their service. Required evidence and documentation becomes
much more difficult to procure or maintain as time goes on.'' VA
appreciates this concern. However, the premise that this rulemaking
creates additional evidentiary obligations appears to be based on a
misunderstanding of current law. All relevant evidence that is
submitted to VA prior to the issuance of a decision is part of the
record for that decision. See Veterans Just. Grp., LLC v. Sec'y of
Veterans Affs., 818 F.3d 1336, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, any
evidence submitted by the claimant in connection with an earlier claim
for DIC and Survivors Pension would be considered in the adjudication
of the later claim for those benefits. Therefore, the fact that the
initial claim was denied does not create an obligation to submit
duplicative evidence.
In addition, VA notes that eligibility factors pertaining to
relationship, income and net-worth for Survivors Pension are subject to
change over time. By statute, ``as a condition of granting or
continuing pension'' VA ``shall require that any such applicant or
recipient promptly notify the Secretary whenever there is a material
change'' in income, net worth, or dependency status. 38 U.S.C. 1506.
Under the commenter's proposal, these obligations would exist from the
date of the grant of DIC, regardless of whether the individual ever
actually becomes entitled to Survivors Pension. Under VA's proposal,
however, VA would only require a surviving spouse or child to submit
annual income and estate information for subsequent periods if the
individual files a new claim. VA respects and appreciates the
recommendations proposed by this commenter; however, VA will not make
any changes to the rule, as proposed, based on the comment received.
Based on the foregoing, VA adopts the proposed rule as final,
without changes.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14192
VA examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive
Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011), which direct
agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563. This final rule is a
deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.
Economic Impact: VA has determined that there are no transfers or
costs associated with this rulemaking. Moreover, it will help VA
deliver decisions on claimed benefits and services timelier to
beneficiaries in need and reduce the burden on claimants to submit
additional information that was omitted from their original submission
for a benefit they may not even be claiming. VA has also determined
this rule is deregulatory as it streamlines the adjudication of
survivors benefits by reducing duplicative claims processing and
eliminating unnecessary determinations for a lesser VA benefit when
entitlement to a greater benefit is established.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612). There are no small entities involved with the process and/or
benefits associated with this rulemaking. Therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C.
1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on
State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Although this final rule contains a collection of information under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3521), there are no provisions associated with this rulemaking
constituting any new collection of information or any revisions to the
current collection of information. The collection of information for 38
CFR 3.152 is currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and has a valid OMB control number of 2900-0004.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C.
801 et seq.), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
designated this rule as not satisfying the criteria under 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects
38 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Health care, Pensions, Veterans, Vietnam.
[[Page 2713]]
38 CFR Part 8
Life insurance, Military personnel, Veterans.
38 CFR Part 20
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Veterans.
Signing Authority
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this
document on September 30, 2025 and authorized the undersigned to sign
and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication electronically as an official document of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Gabriela DeCuir,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR chapter
1 as set forth below:
PART 3--ADJUDICATION
Subpart A--Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation
0
1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A, continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 3.5 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 3.5 Dependency and indemnity compensation.
* * * * *
(c) Exclusiveness of remedy. (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, no person eligible for dependency and indemnity
compensation by reason of a death occurring on or after January 1,
1957, shall be eligible by reason of such death for survivors pension
or death compensation under any other law administered by the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
(2) A surviving spouse who, but for the surviving spouse's
eligibility for dependency and indemnity compensation, would be
eligible to receive survivors pension at the rate provided for in 38
U.S.C. 5503(d) will receive survivors pension instead of such
compensation.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1317)
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 3.152 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (b)(1) as paragraph (b)(1)(i); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 3.152 Claims for death benefits.
* * * * *
(b)(1)(i) * * *
(ii)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section, an award of dependency and indemnity compensation to a
surviving spouse or child will result in the denial of survivors
pension.
(B) With respect to a claim by a surviving spouse, if the evidence
establishes that, but for the surviving spouse's eligibility for
dependency and indemnity compensation, the surviving spouse would be
eligible to receive survivors pension at the rate provided for in 38
U.S.C. 5503(d), survivors pension will be paid instead of such
compensation.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1317)
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 3.402 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 3.402 Surviving spouse.
* * * * *
(d) Medicaid-covered nursing home care. (1) If a surviving spouse
described in Sec. 3.152(b)(1)(ii)(B) stops receiving Medicaid-covered
nursing home care, dependency and indemnity compensation, if otherwise
in order, will be effective as of the date Medicaid coverage ceased, if
a claim for dependency and indemnity compensation is received within
one year of the date Medicaid coverage ceased; otherwise, it will be
effective as of the date of receipt of claim or date entitlement arose,
whichever is later.
(2) If a surviving spouse who is receiving dependency and indemnity
compensation and who, but for eligibility for dependency and indemnity
compensation, would be eligible for survivors pension, begins receiving
Medicaid-covered nursing home care, survivors pension will be effective
as of the first day of the month after dependency and indemnity
compensation was discontinued, if a claim for survivors pension is
received within one year of the date dependency and indemnity
compensation was discontinued; otherwise, it will be effective as of
the date of receipt of claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is
later.
0
5. Amend Sec. 3.502 by revising the heading of paragraph (f) to read
as follows:
Sec. 3.502 Surviving spouses.
* * * * *
(f) Medicaid-covered nursing home care. * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 3.658 [Amended]
0
6. Amend Sec. 3.658 by, in paragraph (b), removing the words ``or
compensation'' and adding, in their place, the words ``or death
compensation''.
0
7. Amend Sec. 3.702 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 3.702 Dependency and indemnity compensation.
* * * * *
(d) Finality of election. (1) Except as noted in paragraphs (d)(2)
and (g) of this section, an election to receive dependency and
indemnity compensation in lieu of death compensation is final, and the
claimant may not thereafter reelect death compensation in that case. An
election is final when the payee (or the payee's fiduciary) has
negotiated one check for this benefit or when the payee dies after
filing an election but prior to negotiation of a check.
(2) A surviving spouse's receipt of survivors pension at the rate
provided for in 38 U.S.C. 5503(d) in lieu of dependency and indemnity
compensation will not be a bar to the surviving spouse's receipt of
such compensation in the event the surviving spouse becomes ineligible
for survivors pension at the rate provided for in 38 U.S.C. 5503(d).
* * * * *
0
8. Amend part 3, by removing the words ``death pension'', wherever it
appears, and adding, in its place, the words ``survivors pension''.
PART 8--NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE
0
9. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1901-1929, 1981-1988, unless otherwise
noted.
Sec. 8.4 [Amended]
0
10. Amend Sec. 8.4, in the introductory text and paragraph (b), by
removing the words ``death pension'' and adding, in their place, the
words ``survivors pension''.
PART 20--BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS: RULES OF PRACTICE
0
11. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and as noted in specific sections.
Sec. 20.104 [Amended]
0
12. Amend Sec. 20.104, in paragraph (a)(4) by removing the words
``death
[[Page 2714]]
pension'' and adding, in their place, the words ``survivors pension''.
[FR Doc. 2026-01188 Filed 1-21-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P