With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to have been able to designate a beneficiary other than her spouse, she could have named a different beneficiary if she obtained spousal consent or a lost spouse waiver. Because she did not perform either of these acts, the Estate is not and never was eligible to be designated a beneficiary of her benefits. (See id.) Therefore, the Estate is neither a beneficiary within the meaning of ERISA nor within the meaning set forth in the SPD. The “mere possibility” that the Estate could have been designated a beneficiary of Mrs. Park’s pension benefits had she submitted a retirement application and obtained Mr. Park’s consent or successfully sought a lost spouse waiver, is “[injsuffi-cient to confer status under § 1132.” Coleman v. Champion Int’l Corp., 992 F.2d 530, 533 n. 6 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (citing Keys v. Eastman Kodak Co., 739 F.Supp.

A: holding that the son of a pension plan participant who had not been designated to receive any of his fathers pension benefits stood no closer to beneficiary status than any other person
B: holding that in a bivens action service upon employee in his official capacity does not amount to service in his individual capacity
C: holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets
D: holding that a pension plan participants son not designated a beneficiary lacked standing to maintain an erisa action in both his individual capacity and his capacity as the representative of the deceased participants estate
D.