Is the UBEN 161 Election Form Rule mandatory rather than directory?

The Regents argues that the other important administrative policies underlying Plan Regulation 12.03 (ensuring "consistent" treatment of all employees, creating clear rules to avoid disputes among potential beneficiaries, and reducing the possibility that it will be subject to multiple claims) would be undermined by permitting less than strict compliance with Plan Regulation 12.03, and thus the UBEN 161 Election form rule is mandatory rather than directory. However, the Watenpaugh and Coughlin courts rejected similar arguments, holding that administrative reasons underlying the strict rule do not take precedence over the employee's earned right to designate a beneficiary where, as here, the employee's intent was clear and the employee affirmatively took all reasonable steps to do so. ( Watenpaugh, supra , 51 Cal.2d at pp. 680-682, 336 P.2d 165 ; Coughlin, supra , 152 Cal.App.3d at pp. 74-75, 199 Cal.Rptr. 286.) This is particularly true in this case in which strict enforcement of the rule would result in a complete forfeiture. (See Irwin v. Irwin (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 317, 322, 138 Cal.Rptr. 9 ["it is basic that the law abhors forfeitures and that statutes or rules must be ... construed to avoid them whenever possible"]; see also O'Dea, supra , 176 Cal. at p. 662, 169 P. 366.)