![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.4166666666666665in"
height="0.8958333333333334in"}

**\
**The Center for Plain Language is a non-profit, federally tax-exempt
organization advocating for clearer language to the public from the
government and business.

We were interested to see the opening sentence of this VA proposed
regulation, stating that "The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
proposes to reorganize and rewrite in plain language its regulations
involving VA benefits claims." Imagine our disappointment when, instead
of a plain language document, we found a traditionally-written,
confusing, poorly organized regulation.

This proposed rule is not in plain language. It fails to adhere to the
principles in the Federal Plain Language Guidelines
\[http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines/bigdoc/TOC.cfm\]. Aside
from using "must" for requirements, we are at a loss to identify its
plain language attributes. Indeed, this is a very poorly written
document, in some places so confusing it is impossible to figure out
what VA means.

We ran a page of the proposal through a computer-based editing program,
Stylewriter. This program gives documents scores for overall style,
sentence length, and passive verb index. The regulation earned the
following scores:

Overall style: 152 (dreadful)

Sentence length: 48 (unreadable)

Passive verb: 175 (bad) -- this was its best score.

Here are some of the ways this document fails to adhere to plain
language principles.

1\. Plain language recommends 40 words as the maximum sentence length,
with an average of 20 words per sentence. This document far exceeds
those limits. Consider this one horrifying 86-word sentence:

"Where payments of death pension, death compensation, or DIC to a
surviving spouse have been discontinued because of remarriage or death,
or where a child becomes eligible for DIC by reason of turning 18 years
old, and any necessary evidence is submitted within 1 year after the
date of a request from VA, an award for the child named in the surviving
spouse's claim will be made on the basis of the surviving spouse's claim
having been converted to a claim on behalf of the child."

There is an unlimited supply of periods in the universe. We recommend
that VA take more advantage of them.

2\. Plain language recommends writers show a strong preference for
active verbs, since passive verbs often confuse the listener and fail to
clarify who is responsible for what. This document is full of passive
verbs. Consider the sentence above. All the verbs except "becomes
eligible" are passive verbs---one active verb out of five.

3\. Plain language recommends using pronouns to speak directly to the
reader. Research shows that documents that use pronouns are more
successful in communicating. Pronouns are absent from this document.
Here's just one short example of what VA could have done using pronouns
and making other plain language improvements:

Original: "If the evidence requested is not submitted within 1 year
after the date of VA's request, payments may not be made for the child
for any period prior to the date of receipt of a new claim."

If you don't send us the information we ask for within a year, we may
not make payments for the child until we get a new claim. (And does that
"may not" mean "we will not" or "it's possible we won't"?)

4\. Plain language recommends straightforward wording, with the main
idea expressed in an active sentence. Any exceptions or explanations
should follow the main thought. It's hard to find any passage in this
proposal that adheres to that recommendation. Wording is complex and
confusing. The document is full of cross-references, creating a research
project for any reader. Clearly, the authors of this rule did not
consider the reader. Look at this passage:

"Upon the receipt of notice of the death of a veteran, VA will forward
the appropriate application for execution by or on behalf of any
dependent who has apparent entitlement to death compensation, death
pension, or dependency and indemnity compensation. If it is not
indicated that any person would be entitled to such benefits, but an
accrued benefit that has not been paid during the veteran's lifetime is
payable, VA will forward the appropriate application to the preferred
dependent. VA will include notice of the time limit for filing a claim
for accrued benefits in letters accompanying applications for such
benefits."

There are many problems with this passage, but consider just this
phrase---"If it is not indicated that any person. . . "

Who fails to indicate it? The dependent who wrote to VA or VA's records?
I guess it must be the dependent, because if VA knows where to send the
application they must have the information in their records. But is the
person writing for an application required, at this point in the
process, to demonstrate that they or the person they represent would be
entitled to benefits?

To summarize, these are just some plain language faults of this
document. This is not a plain language regulation. Not even close. The
VA is attempting to foist off a traditionally written, obscure
regulation as plain language. Saying you wrote something in plain
language does not make it so. If VA really wants to help veterans, it
needs to rethink and rewrite this entire document. The Center for Plain
Language would be glad to offer further advice on how to do that.

Annetta Cheek, Chair

Center for Plain Language