U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

24–682 2018

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–10] 

OVERVIEW OF MILITARY REVIEW 

BOARD AGENCIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 2, 2017 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio, Vice Chair 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

DAN SENNOTT, Professional Staff Member 

CRAIG GREENE, Professional Staff Member 

DANIELLE STEITZ, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Coffman, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Colorado, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel .................................................................................... 1 

Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative from Massachusetts, Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel ............................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Blackmon, Francine C., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review 

Boards) .................................................................................................................. 3 

Teskey, Mark S., Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency .............................. 6 

Woods, Robert L., Assistant General Counsel for the Assistant Secretary 

of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs ................................................ 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Blackmon, Francine C. ..................................................................................... 28 

Coffman, Hon. Mike ......................................................................................... 27 

Teskey, Mark S. ................................................................................................ 51 

Woods, Robert L. .............................................................................................. 37 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Coffman ...................................................................................................... 61 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 61 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 65 

(1) 

OVERVIEW OF MILITARY REVIEW BOARD AGENCIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Thursday, March 2, 2017. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:22 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Coffman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. COFFMAN. The subcommittee hearing is called to order. I 

want to welcome everyone to the first hearing of the Military Personnel Subcommittee in the 115th Congress. I wish to congratulate 

the new and returning members of the subcommittee, and particularly congratulate our new ranking member, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who is not here right now, of California. 

I look forward to working with each of you on the important 

issues facing this subcommittee. The purpose of today’s hearing is 

to receive an overview of the military review board agencies. 

The Board for Correction of Military Records and Discharge Review Board provide extraordinarily important services for our service members and veterans. These boards are charged with the difficult mission of correcting errors in, and considering mitigating 

facts and removing injustices from, our military records. 

They receive thousands of applications every year that request 

everything from name changes on personnel documents to discharge upgrades. Over the past several years, many have raised 

concerns regarding application processing, backlogs, and the approval rates for discharge upgrades. 

Many have also raised concerns about the treatment of applicants with PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] or TBI [traumatic 

brain injury] who are seeking discharge upgrades based on mitigating medical facts in order to obtain essential behavioral health 

treatment. 

Congress has passed substantial legislation designed to help 

remedy some of these issues, and the services have continued to 

work to ensure that each applicant receives timely, full, and fair 

consideration for their case. I look forward to hearing whether 

these combined efforts have been effective and if any additional 

legislation may be beneficial. 

I am also interested to hear from the witnesses about additional 

challenges they face in the timely processing of applications and 

what resources are needed to overcome these challenges. 
2 

Finally, I look forward to hearing about ways to improve applicants’ access to the boards by leveraging new technologies like 

video teleconferencing. 

Before I introduce our panel, let me offer the ranking member, 

Ms. Speier—Ms. Tsongas, an opportunity to make her opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coffman can be found in the Appendix on page 27.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MASSACHUSETTS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Speier would be 

here, but an Intelligence Committee briefing had not concluded 

that she had to stay to see through. And so I am happy to be here 

in her behalf and read her opening statement. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing today, 

and thank you to our witnesses for your testimony to the subcommittee. I don’t envy you as you probably have some of the most 

difficult jobs in the Pentagon, but also some of the most important. 

As the civil servants charged with ensuring that the service of 

our military members is fairly characterized and accurately reflected in their records, there are long-term consequences of your 

boards’ decisions. 

Not only financial consequences, although healthcare and education benefits do often hang in the balance, but more significantly, 

those decisions have the potential to make our veterans mentally 

whole and restore dignity and pride to them and their families. 

This is particularly true when we consider that only recently 

have we started to understand the possible behavioral consequences of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, 

chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and military sexual trauma. 

We must make sure that the boards make every possible effort 

to take these factors into account when considering a request to upgrade discharge status. We need to ensure that mitigating conditions are taken into account. 

All too many service members feel that there is a stigma associated with the PTSD diagnosis and may be hesitant to seek appropriate care and documentation. 

All too many military sexual trauma, or MST survivors, an estimated 80 percent, do not report their assault and suffer alone. 

Worst, many sexual assault survivors who received either an honorable or general discharge are also branded with a diagnosis of, 

quote, ‘‘personality’’ unquote, or, quote, ‘‘adjustment’’ unquote, disorders on their DD–214 [Certificate of Release or Discharge from 

Active Duty], when in fact all that has happened is that they were 

sexually assaulted. 

These diagnoses, which have a limited basis in science, make it 

hard for survivors to find employment in the civilian world. One 

survivor told me quote, ‘‘I feel like I have a scarlet letter on my 

chest.’’ And while I am speaking here for Ms. Speier, I have certainly heard the same thing. 

Equitability is another factor that you all must consider. Thanks 

to your staffs for providing recent statistics on the rate of discharge 
3 

upgrades, but I am struck by some of the disparities I see, not just 

across services, but also across the different types of claims. 

To choose one metric, the evidence required to support MST 

claims seems to vary widely across services with some requiring 

formal documentation that a survivor who chose not to report, and 

remember that is 80 percent of all survivors, may not be able to 

provide. 

There may be valid, underlying reasons for these differences, but 

I am sure we all agree that supporting survivors is our top priority. 

I look forward to learning more about the reasoning behind these 

differences today. 

Your jobs are also difficult because your organizations are, frankly, overwhelmed. Your caseload is enormous and the backlogs are 

stunning. That caseload will only expand. 

The President talks about spending billions to increase our military end strength, but that comes with the responsibility to make 

sure that each and every one of these new service members are 

taken care of on the back end of their military careers. Part of that 

task falls to you. 

So I hope we have a chance to talk today about what we can do 

to address that now. Specifically, I would appreciate your views on 

achieving efficiencies through the consolidation of boards across the 

services. Thank you again, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas. We are joined today by 

an outstanding panel. We will give each witness the opportunity to 

present his or her testimony and each member an opportunity to 

question the witnesses. 

We would respectfully remind the witnesses to summarize to the 

greatest extent possible the high points of your written testimony 

in 5 minutes or less. Your written comments and statements will 

be made part of the hearing record. Let me welcome our panel. 

Ms. Francine Blackmon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Review Boards. Mr. Robert Woods, Assistant General Counsel 

for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve 

Affairs. Mr. Mark Teskey, Director of the Air Force Review Boards 

Agency. 

With that, Ms. Blackmon, you may make your opening statement 

please. 

STATEMENT OF FRANCINE C. BLACKMON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (REVIEW BOARDS) 

Ms. BLACKMON. Thank you, sir. Chairman Coffman, ranking 

member, distinguished members of this committee, I thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Army Review 

Boards Agency. 

The Army Review Boards Agency provides the highest administrative level of review for personnel actions taken at lower levels 

of the Army. The agency administers 13 boards to include 3 statutory boards, the Board for Correction of Military Records, the Discharge Review Board, and the Grade Determination Review Board. 

The remaining boards are policy boards. 

The Army Review Boards Agency staff consist of 112 civilian employees and 16 soldiers. In addition, 120 employees serve as volun-
4 

teer board members for the Army Board for Correction of Military 

Records. 

These volunteers are senior civilian employees drawn from across 

the Army secretariat and Army staff. The Army Review Boards 

Agency administratively reviews and corrects service members’ 

records involving impropriety, inequity, changes in policy and law, 

and even human error. 

The Army Review Board Agency acts in the interest of justice, 

applying equity and compassion when considering the merits of an 

individual case. The agency processes approximately 22,000 cases 

annually. 

My vision is for the agency to be adaptable, cohesive, and a collaborative team of highly qualified, responsive, and compassionate 

professionals. I expect them to be dedicated to customer service, 

transparency, justice and equity, and to carefully weigh the interests of soldiers, veterans, the Army, and the public. We strive to 

implement efficient and effective processes with the best technology 

available. 

We recognize that upgrading discharges is one of the most important functions of this agency. The Army has successfully implemented the Secretary of Defense’s 2014 guidance to the Board for 

Correction of Military Records for a request to upgrade a veteran’s 

discharge characterization where PTSD may have been a contributing factor. 

In those cases for veterans who claim PTSD, to include those 

who serve before PTSD was a recognized diagnosis, boards give liberal consideration to evidence of PTSD symptoms in the service 

record or in a diagnosis provided by civilian providers. Moreover, 

special consideration is given to a Department of Veteran Affairs 

diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions. 

To implement 2015 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] 

requirements to enhance participation of behavioral health professionals on these boards, we have added neurologists, a psychiatrist, 

and three clinical psychologists to our medical advisor’s office. 

Agency medical professionals provide in-person or written input for 

board consideration for each of these types of cases. 

Another type of invisible wound in which we liberally consider 

cases are those in which the applicant contends that they were victims of sexual assault while in the military. We recognize that 

many of these assaults were never reported to military law enforcement, meaning there is no corroborating police report for the board 

to consider. 

Because of this, in the last year, we have trained all agency personnel on the markers of sexual trauma so that victims receive the 

most favorable possible outcome from their case. This training was 

provided by a renowned forensic psychologist, and is in addition to 

the statutory requirement for advisory opinions for the Board for 

Correction of Military Records and mental health professionals 

serving on the Discharge Review Board. 

We continually look for ways to better serve the soldiers, veterans, and family members who apply to one of our boards. To this 

end, 2 years ago we made an agency policy change to hold cases 

open 90 days in order to secure corrections to deficient applications. 
5 

Other changes included direct communications with applicants to 

clarify issues or request additional documentation to help their 

cases, as well as conducting periodic board member and agency 

staff training on current service policies and procedures. 

The men and women who serve our Nation, along with their families, are our most important asset. The Army Review Board Agency is one of the ways we take care of our most important asset. I 

thank all of you for your continued support of our volunteer Army 

and the Army Review Boards Agency. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Blackmon can be found in the 

Appendix on page 28.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Blackmon, for your testimony. 

Mr. Woods, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. WOODS, ASSISTANT GENERAL 

COUNSEL FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY 

FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS 

Mr. WOODS. Good morning, Chairman Coffman, ranking member, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am Robert 

Woods, the Assistant General Counsel for Manpower and Reserve 

Affairs. As such, I am the senior legal advisor to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. And on behalf of the men and women of our various naval review boards, I 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to have 

this overview of our review boards. 

Let me start by assuring you that the leadership of the Department of the Navy is committed to assisting our present and former 

sailors and marines with fair and open processes in regard to the 

subjects presented to our boards, including those seeking corrections to their military service records, such as adjustments to their 

discharge characterization. 

Over the past few years, we have paid particular attention to petitions involving invisible wounds. We have conducted outreach sessions with veteran service organizations, provide professional training for our staffs, prioritized the processing of these cases, obtain 

medical review and input, and apply liberal consideration principles to ease the burdens of proof for the veterans. 

However, I do note that every petition is unique, and those involving the effects of service-connected sexual assault, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries, or various mental 

health issues are among the most difficult and complex cases that 

we see at our review boards. 

We are keenly focused on the need for timely resolution of our 

petitions to our boards. As such, we are engaged in efforts to help 

streamline and modernize our processes. However, we also recognize that much of the time needed to properly adjudicate these petitions is related to the increased complexity and volume of the materials presented. 

Now discharge upgrade petitions, including those seeking a 

change in the narrative reason for discharge and/or change in reenlistment codes, are adjudicated by our two primary boards, the 

Naval Discharge Review Board and our Board for Correction of 

Naval Records. These boards are established pursuant to specific 

statutory authority in title 10. 
6 

And in addition to these boards, we also have seven non-statutory boards including the Physical Evaluation Board, the CombatRelated Special Compensation Board, the Naval Complaints Review Board, the Naval Clemency and Parole Board, the Navy Department’s Board of Decorations and Medals, the Disability Review 

Board, and the Personnel Security Appeals Board. 

So with this brief introduction, I, again, appreciate the opportunity to present to you, and I am happy to address any questions 

you may have about our review boards. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woods can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Teskey, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARK S. TESKEY, DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE 

REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY 

Mr. TESKEY. Good morning, Chairman Coffman, ranking member, distinguished members of the committee. On behalf of the men 

and women of the Air Force Review Boards Agency, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear today. With your permission, I am going 

to summarize my remarks and submit the complete statement for 

the record. 

As director of the Review Boards Agency, I am responsible for 

the administration, oversight, and leadership of 10 appellate-level 

administrative review boards, 8 on behalf of the Secretary of the 

Air Force, and 2 on behalf of the Secretary of Defense. 

We receive approximately 15,000 cases annually from actively 

serving airmen, which include regular Air Force, Air Guard, Air 

Force Reserve, and civilian employees, veterans, and their families. 

Our non-statutory Air Force boards adjudicate a wide variety of decisions on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force. 

The Air Force Review Boards Agency strives to quickly and fairly 

adjudicate its cases, and we do so. And we are falling further behind. Over the past 10 years, our business has materially changed. 

Four factors have significantly impacted the Air Force Review 

Boards Agency in both positive and negative ways. 

Our organizational transformation and modernization has solidified our processes, established metrics, and allowed us to leverage 

technology. Our increasing caseloads are increasing and more complex. We have resource constraints and we have legislative and regulatory changes that we are continually implementing. 

In 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the Air Force Review Boards Agency to begin an extensive transformation effort. 

Our transformation efforts were long overdue and created significant challenges because we did them while we continued to process 

cases. 

We did not compromise on quality or fairness, and we implemented these process improvements temporarily sacrificing processing time in the near term with the aim of expanding our capacity and shortening processing time in the long term. 

We quickly realized the additional capacity generated by our 

process improvements was outpaced by an ever-increasing number 

of applications, and those applications were increasingly complex. 

We requested an Air Force manpower assessment in 2013, and 

that helped us determine that the agency was resourced appro-
7 

priately. The assessment revealed significant human resource 

shortfalls and in the budget for fiscal year 2018 we secured an additional 18 military enlisted billets to increase staffing levels. 

We continue to work on monitoring, improving our processes, and 

coordinating with the Air Force leadership to balance our requirements with other critical resource demands like readiness, training, sustainment, and modernization. 

And recent legislative and regulatory changes have also levied 

the additional responsibilities on the boards. A perfect example is 

the emphasis on action on post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain 

injury, and sexual assault and similar injuries. 

The recent legislation required the Discharge Review Boards and 

the Boards for Correction of Military Records to review and consider upgrading discharge characterization of veterans who experience these conditions and were subsequently discharged with 

other-than-honorable discharges. 

Each of the four factors mentioned earlier place increased demands on our agency and its ability to provide prompt relief. We 

are doing all we can internally to secure the resources we need internally within the Air Force and to more effectively perform our 

statutory and regulatory duties. 

We are acutely aware that at the end of every one of our nearly 

15,000 cases each year, there is an airman, a veteran, or a family 

member who is awaiting a decision. We are dedicated to these people and strive daily to provide fairness, equity, due process, and 

justice to all of our applicants. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to appear 

before this committee and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Teskey can be found in the Appendix on page 51.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. According to the Military Discharge 

Review Boards, the data from fiscal year 2016, the Army upgraded 

36 percent of cases with PTSD or TBI. However, the Navy and the 

Air Force only upgraded 18 percent and 15 percent of cases with 

PTSD or TBI respectively. 

Ms. Blackmon, could you please provide an explanation as to 

what the Army is doing differently to ensure that men and women 

who served and were diagnosed with PTSD or TBI receive an upgraded discharge? 

Ms. BLACKMON. Sir, I will tell you when we actually received 

Secretary of Defense Hagel’s guidance in November 2014, one of 

the first things that we looked to do was to make sure that we 

have prioritized the cases. So in other words, they were not a part 

of the first-in, first-out. 

We were very careful to make sure that our mental health providers that actually set the case was very liberal in terms of looking at whether there was actually a nexus between the misconduct 

and the PTSD. 

And so in situations where we were looking at things like alcohol 

abuse or drug abuse and the mental health providers had essentially come back and said we do see a nexus, we were more liberal, 

if you will, in terms of upgrading those specific discharges. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Thank you. 
8 

Following up on my previous question, Mr. Woods and Mr. 

Teskey, could you please explain why the percentage of cases you 

upgraded for those who claim PTSD or TBI are drastically lower 

than the United States Army’s? 

Mr. Teskey. 

Mr. TESKEY. Thank you. We go back and we took a look at the 

numbers and scrubbed those numbers, and we don’t have as many 

discharges that are characterized in an unfavorable light, number 

one. For instance last year, Air Force-wide, we had 155 UOTHCs 

[under other than honorable conditions] and we had 43,000 discharges, roughly. So we don’t have the numbers to deal with that 

the Army has as well. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Mr. Woods. 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir. I haven’t seen any of the cases that the 

Army has given their upgrades to, nor have I seen the cases for the 

Air Force. I can only speak to what the Navy has done. 

And in implementing the same exact principles, which are those 

of liberal consideration in trying to connect the dots between the 

condition of PTSD and the misconduct, these cases are dealt with 

on an individualized basis. 

And typically those that are not upgraded are ones in which we 

have been unable to make that connection between the PTSD and 

the misconduct, or the misconduct was of a nature that it was either fairly severe or it was otherwise intentional or things of that 

nature. 

And so all I can say is that we review each of these cases individually. We spend a fair amount of time on each of them and labor 

on them intently. And so I don’t really know that I can explain the 

differences, quite frankly. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Following my previous question, it is 

my understanding that Discharge Review Boards, DRBs, are only 

located in the Washington, DC area, which means that many veterans would find it cost prohibitive to fly themselves, their attorneys, or their supporting witnesses to testify in person at a DRB. 

Can you please detail how each service is implementing or at 

least testing the use of video teleconferencing, VTC, technology? I 

believe this is an important technology that will allow more veterans to provide personal testimony to the discharge boards without physically being present. 

Ms. Blackmon, why don’t we start with you? 

Ms. BLACKMON. Sir, in November of last year we actually reinstated our regional traveling panel. The first one was held in Atlanta, Georgia. We had potential—I think there were 26 people 

that had signed up to actually participate. We actually received 19. 

We are looking to host our next panel in March over in Dallas, and 

we are looking to conduct these on a quarterly basis. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Mr. Woods. 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir. Our Discharge Review Board attempted to 

use video teleconferencing at one point, but we have run into a 

number of security-related struggles through our communications 

systems with the Navy. 

And so as an alternative, we have turned to telephonic interviews for personal appearances. And we have actually had quite a 
9 

bit of success with them. We find that the petitioners appear to be 

somewhat more relaxed in their own environment, able to—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. So I just want to make sure that when you speak 

to telephonic, that is not VTC? 

Mr. WOODS. That is correct. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Oh, it is VTC? 

Mr. WOODS. It is not. 

Mr. COFFMAN. It is not VTC. Okay, please. 

Mr. WOODS. Exactly. It is through just a normal telephone line. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. WOODS. And we have a conversation with them and let them 

present any materials that they care to present and any arguments 

that they care to present. And we have had some very good success 

with that, both from the standpoint of having an increased rate of 

petitioners showing up to the actual personal appearance. 

Whereas, when we were having them in person, and we still do 

have some in person if folks are in the area or if they want to travel here, they are certainly able to have an in-person one at the 

Washington Navy Yard. 

We do not have a traveling panel that goes around the country. 

And we have found that the new telephone usage has really improved the capability of folks to come and do their presentation, 

and they seem to be satisfied with that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. All right. Mr. Teskey. 

Mr. TESKEY. Our Discharge Review Board does do a traveling 

VTC. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. TESKEY. We do it at Robins Air Force Base in San Antonio, 

Texas, and then on the west coast. We typically have one member 

of our Discharge Review Board travel and set it up, and we hold 

it on a base. 

Part of that is to verify who is coming, so that we know who they 

are. And the other challenge that we have is getting past our own 

firewalls. We are evaluating other technology approaches to try to 

use something like Skype or FaceTime, but that is in the evaluation stage. 

Mr. COFFMAN. So what would you—it would seem like Skype 

would be fairly simple and would have the same principles of VTC. 

Well, I guess it wouldn’t. You would—yes. No, I think it would. 

Mr. TESKEY. It would. We have it in our military networks. Obviously, with security concerns—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Right, okay. I see, 

Mr. TESKEY [continuing]. We have a problem getting past our 

firewall. 

Mr. COFFMAN. That is—— 

Mr. TESKEY. That is our challenge. 

Mr. COFFMAN. I get you. All right, that is—I understand that. 

Okay. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. I would like to follow up on the issue 

of video, VTC technologies, and the use of that so that those who 

are seeking to have their characterization changed have that opportunity to make the personal story. 
10 

And I would sort of like to extend it to the BCMRs [Boards for 

Correction of Military Records] where that is not the case, where 

the right to make that statement personally doesn’t exist. And so 

the issue of the VTC is sort of a follow-on issue. 

And I know that the Human Rights Watch has really been carefully considering the ways in which these decisions are being made, 

and I think a former staff member on one of the boards made the 

point to the Human Rights Watch the importance of a personal appearance at the DRB as being, quote, ‘‘huge’’ and possibly, quote, 

‘‘the difference between getting an upgrade or not.’’ 

So in that context, last September there is here a Military Sexual 

Assault Prevention Caucus, and we hosted our second briefing on 

male military sexual assault. And at that briefing we heard from 

Heath Phillips, a former sailor who was repeatedly raped and retaliated against by fellow sailors and his chain of command as well. 

Phillips eventually left his ship saying, quote, ‘‘I couldn’t take it 

no more,’’ unquote. Phillips said, quote, ‘‘I was not going to go out 

to sea with these men and deal with this every single day,’’ unquote. 

So he agreed to an under-other-than-honorable discharge rather 

than facing a court-martial for going AWOL [absent without leave]. 

And he said, quote, ‘‘After being subjected to countless sexual assaults, beatings, threats, humiliation, in constant fear, a total basket case, I would have signed a deal with the devil himself to escape the torture I kept getting while onboard the ship,’’ unquote. 

And while the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] has found 

that he has PTSD that is 100 percent service-connected, he is still 

fighting after 20 years to get his discharge characterization upgraded. So he has told my staff, quote, ‘‘That my strong belief is 

if I am allowed a personal hearing and look them in the eyes and 

they could hear about my life and what I went through, the decision would not be denied.’’ 

So again, in the context of the BCMRs, I would just like to hear 

your thoughts on the feasibility of rethinking, of affording petitioners who requested an opportunity to appear. And as you are 

considering the use of video technology, whether or not that might 

be permitted in, you know, that more narrow version might be permitted in the BCMR context. 

And then we will start here with you. 

Ms. BLACKMON. So ma’am, as I had indicated, we do within our 

Discharge Review Boards have the VTC capability. And so a situation as you had described, that would be certainly one that we 

would have had the traveling panels with the VTC equipment. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So even though it is in the BCMR context, as opposed to the—— 

Ms. BLACKMON. Or BCMR, so with the personal appearance, 

typically we only do about two or three per year. With the Army, 

we are looking at a magnitude about 14,000 cases that we adjudicate, you know, with a record review. And so those individuals 

that do feel that their stories are compelling, there is an opportunity to do a personal appearance. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And how to make that decision since it is not a 

right, it is a discretionary decision on your part? 
11 

Ms. BLACKMON. We essentially look at the records itself to see is 

there insufficient evidence within the material that the applicant 

has provided. 

And if we think there is information that is not there, that is 

lacking, then there is an opportunity to bring them in to get additional information. That would be one of the opportunities that we 

would look at to actually, you know, bring them in to say that we 

just don’t have sufficient evidence with the records review. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So this gentleman obviously served in the Navy, 

and the Navy has a different approach. I would welcome your 

thoughts. 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. That is a tragic case, and 

I am sorry to hear the suffering that he is going through. The problem with having the personal appearances at the Board for Correction of Naval Records is really one of resources and the magnitude 

of the number of cases that we deal with there. 

We actually haven’t given consideration to perhaps having some 

type of a set-aside for discharge review cases because that is a 

smaller portion of our overall work requirement there. So that is 

something that we certainly could look at. 

But typically what happens when a person petitions and requests 

a personal hearing, they are asked what the purpose of that personal hearing is. What do they want to accomplish with that personal hearing? 

And in the few cases that I have seen where those have been requested, they really don’t articulate the type of rationale that you 

just described. I think that rationale that he just gave would probably be compelling if it was articulated to the board. But as far as 

I know, I have not seen that type of an argument made to garner 

a personal hearing. 

As I said, the magnitude of the caseload that we have at the 

board and the resources that we have, if we added personal hearings, a considerable number of them anyway, it would really stall 

things out considerably. And we are already pretty much at maximum capacity. So I think that would be problematic, but we would 

certainly be interested in considering it. Thank you. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, we will certainly go back and revisit this 

with this gentleman who, as I said, has come to speak before the 

Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus and follow on. But I 

can’t imagine that he is alone in his story. And I do think even 

though it might be costly, we are talking about something that has 

a real impact on people’s lives. 

I have one more question if I could? Between 2000 and 2009, government reports reveal that thousands of service members were 

discharged improperly for a, quote, ‘‘personality disorder’’ unquote, 

many of whom were rape victims. 

Though their discharges were usually honorable, the narrative 

reason for discharge on their discharge paper, DD–214, unfairly labels them as having a, quote, ‘‘personality disorder’’ unquote. This 

is deeply stigmatizing and may prevent them from getting jobs or 

benefits. 

Brian Lewis, a survivor of male sexual assault who also has 

briefed the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus as well as 

testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has 
12 

said that as a result of his personality disorder diagnosis, he carries his, quote, ‘‘discharge as an official and permanent symbol of 

shame on top of the trauma of the physical attack, the retaliation, 

and its aftermath,’’ unquote. 

For veterans whose doctors confirm that they do not have a personality disorder, what prevents your offices from changing the 

narrative reason for discharge to the neutral, quote, ‘‘secretarial 

authority,’’ unquote, as was done after the repeal of ‘‘don’t ask/don’t 

tell’’ for those who were discharged for their sexual orientation? 

And I will start to the right here since I kind of short-circuited 

you in the previous round. 

Mr. TESKEY. So could you repeat the last part of the question, 

ma’am? 

Ms. TSONGAS. So, you know, for veterans whose doctors have confirmed that they do not have a personality disorder, what prevents 

your offices from changing the narrative reason for discharge to the 

more neutral, quote, ‘‘secretarial authority’’ unquote, which was 

done after the repeal of ‘‘don’t ask/don’t tell’’ for those who had 

been discharged for their sexual orientation? 

Mr. TESKEY. Nothing prevents us, and we have, our Board for 

Correction of Military Records had considered exactly the type of 

cases that you are talking about, and we have changed the narrative or the reason for discharge on the 214s. 

So we do that on ‘‘don’t ask/don’t tell’’ on a regular basis. We 

have done it on sexual assault, sexual trauma cases as well. So we 

do address that. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Do you have some sense of what the metrics are? 

Is it routine, automatic, or is it a complicated process? 

Mr. TESKEY. So it is not a complicated process. Is it routine? We 

have a presumption or we regularly consider the facts of the case, 

and then we make an assessment. And we go back and forth with 

the applicant as well. 

When we do our, they submit the case, we evaluate it, and then 

we provide our analysis back to the applicant to see if they have 

anything additional they want to add, because we try very hard to 

be transparent and fair. 

Then they get a chance to respond, and then we, there can be 

this back and forth a couple of times so that they have the opportunity to submit additional information to prove their case. 

But what I found in reading the opinions of our board members 

is they are very generous, and they attempt to go out of their way 

to find a solution that is the right solution for the applicant. 

I have only been in the job since about December, so I am the 

new person on the table. But what I have seen is our members are 

very honorable and they are very considerate, and they really, really try to do the right thing. 

Ms. TSONGAS. That is good to hear. Mr. Woods. 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, ma’am, I think based on the factual pattern 

that you presented, I would find it to be highly unlikely that we 

wouldn’t change not characterization necessarily, but the reason for 

discharge to secretarial determination. 

If the person presents medical evidence that refutes the original 

diagnostic, or even it might not have been a diagnostic, it may have 

just been simply an administrative determination of a personality 
13 

disorder without a medical determination. That is entirely possible, 

especially back in the Vietnam era and later before, you know—or 

more recent times when we have become a little bit more aware of 

these kinds of situations. 

So we certainly have the capability of doing it and especially if 

there is refuting medical evidence. And in all of these cases, we do 

have them reviewed by a medical practitioner to try to determine 

whether or not there is evidence that would suggest that, in fact, 

there may have been a personality disorder situation. But that is 

not a change that we would be particularly reluctant to make, 

quite frankly. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Do you have any sense of the numbers of the Air 

Force that has that? 

Mr. WOODS. I am sorry, I don’t. But I am happy to get those. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Actually I would ask the question—I would like to 

ask that, if you could get back to me? 

Mr. WOODS. I will take that for the record. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Yes, okay. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 61.] 

Ms. BLACKMON. So ma’am, I would say very much like the Air 

Force and the Navy, the Army as well, as long as we have the appropriate documentation, we routinely change the narrative to reflect secretarial authority. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, all. Appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas. 

The statistics for approved discharges, discharge upgrades, appear low. What is the most common reason these applications are 

disapproved? What can the review boards do to help improve the 

quality of these applications? And lastly, can you explain how you 

apply quote/unquote, ‘‘liberal consideration’’? 

Ms. Blackmon, we will start with you. 

Ms. BLACKMON. So sir, in terms of the reasons that we routinely 

deny would be for cases where we see there is not a nexus. For instance, we had a situation with an individual that had documented 

PTSD, and so as we looked at the specific case, there were instances with drunken and disorderly conduct, which the mental 

health providers could determine that there was a nexus between 

that misconduct and PTSD. 

However, in the same vein, there were challenges where this 

same individual had stolen checks from a roommate of about $500, 

taken them to the American Express, cashed them, and basically 

was larceny and forgery. So that particular instance, the mental 

health providers looked at it and said there was not a nexus between the misconduct and the PTSD. And so often we have cases 

that kind of mirror that. 

On the converse side of the house, we had a situation where 

there was an individual that came in, that essentially said, you 

know, ‘‘the Army separated me with a disability separation. I was 

a rape victim.’’ She says, ‘‘I think it should have been a disability 

to retirement.’’ 

Unfortunately, the perpetrator had individuals that could corroborate his story. But as we looked at the case, we kind of looked 

at the behavior of the applicant and we could see that there was 
14 

a downward spiral in behavior after this particular incident had 

happened. We saw the applicant had become indrawn, inwards, 

sullen. 

And so with that, we said there has to be a nexus. And so with 

that, we basically took her from a 20 percent disability separation 

to a 60 percent disability retirement and paid her back pay to 

2002. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Woods. 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Oh, I am sorry. Ms. Blackmon, can you explain 

how you—do you feel like you have adequately explained liberal 

consideration? 

Ms. BLACKMON. Consideration? Exactly, because I think without 

that ability to say that it is black and white, we were looking at 

things that said there may not necessarily be the documentation 

there, but if you looked at—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Ms. BLACKMON [continuing]. The markers, per se, there were 

other things that existed—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Ms. BLACKMON [continuing]. Where we considered it liberally as 

opposed to just—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Very good. 

Ms. BLACKMON [continuing]. A black and white case. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Mr. Woods. 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir, first to the examples. We have provided a 

couple of examples in the written testimony, and I can summarize 

two of them that reflect both sides of the coin. 

The first was a Marine corporal who deployed in 2004 for Operation Iraqi Freedom, was suffering from PTSD as a result of that 

service, engaged in a single incident of marijuana use, positive at 

some point. And ended up with a disciplinary action and an unfavorable discharge. 

That was a case that we took into the board, reviewed the facts. 

And the fact that it was a one-time event, that it appeared relatively close after his return from the AOR [area of responsibility], 

and the fact that he did have a recognized diagnosis of PTSD, we 

thought that it made sense that that was likely to have a causal 

connection, and as a result we upgraded that particular discharge. 

On the other side of the coin, we had a Marine sergeant who had 

deployed twice, once in 2005 and the other in 2008, I believe, both 

for 6 months in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And after his 

return he was engaged in some misconduct, illegal drug use in particular, and was actually scheduled for separation. 

But in light of his performance and his combat tours and things 

of that nature, they held his discharge in abeyance and said we are 

going to, you know, hold this out there on the event that you are 

able to remain out of trouble for the next year. 

Unfortunately, 2 months later, he got in more trouble and was 

caught purloining copper gutters from a government building that 

were valued at about $15,000 and selling them downtown to a local 

salvage yard. 

And as a result of that, he was disciplined and set up for a discharge board before a board of officers where he was represented 
15 

by counsel. That board of officers saw the evidence of the theft and 

as a result voted unanimously that he should have an under-otherthan-honorable-conditions discharge. 

We couldn’t find the connection there between the PTSD and the 

theft, and that was a case in which we did not grant relief. And 

so I don’t want to say those are typical necessarily. 

But in a large sense they are in that, you know, when we are 

talking about singular incidents of misconduct relatively connected 

to the combat service and/or the PTSD issue and then a discharge, 

those are cases in which we would be more likely to grant relief. 

Whereas, if you are engaged in some type of conduct that is of 

the nature I just described or something along those lines, some 

type of intentional crime or harm that they did to someone, those 

are the cases in which we are going to be less likely. I think you 

asked a couple of other questions within there as well—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Sure. 

Mr. WOODS [continuing]. And—address those as for you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Yes. Just one follow-up on the—— 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN [continuing]. On the case that you—— 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN [continuing]. Just described. What was it? Do you 

recall if that was non-judicial punishment or did it receive summary special general court-martial? 

Mr. WOODS. It appears that they took action via non-judicial 

punishment, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. They did? Okay, very good. 

Mr. WOODS. Back in preparation for the discharge board. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Okay, so what can the review boards do to 

help improve the quality of these applications? 

Mr. WOODS. Right. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Yes. 

Mr. WOODS. Well, that has been part of our outreach program of 

late, and we have been reaching out to veteran service organizations. In fact, our Naval Discharge Review Board created a pamphlet, which I believe we have provided to your staffs, that describes the process, gives them insight as to how to proceed in presenting their case and their petition to the board. And so they have 

been distributing those pamphlets. We also have information on 

our websites. 

And in addition, when a petitioner files their appeal, if it appears 

to our folks that there is either insufficient evidence to support 

their package, or we have some questions about it, there is a fair 

amount of back and forth between the staff and the petitioner. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. WOODS. And so those are some of the ways that we attempt 

to help folks proceed in front of our boards. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. Teskey. 

Mr. TESKEY. So to start out with, I will piggyback on what Mr. 

Woods was saying as far as how we are improving our process and 

how we are improving the applicants’ ability to file claims or to file 

corrections, we do just as Mr. Woods said. 
16 

When we do get an application, we have a lot of back and forth 

between the applicant and our claims examiners so that we can 

distill down what they need and what they can get. We also at 

times go to the record centers, go to the various sources of information on their behalf as well and request records. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. TESKEY. As part of our process, we also request advisories 

from the people who own the policies throughout the Air Force so 

that we can be further educated in our board. And we serve those 

advisories on the applicant as well so they are aware of what is 

going on. 

We have a reading room so that they can research our past 

cases. We are looking at—we have digitized our process—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Well, you—— 

Mr. TESKEY. Yes. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Teskey, when you say reading room, of course 

you are referring to that—— 

Mr. TESKEY. It is a virtual reading room, yes. 

Mr. COFFMAN [continuing]. It is available online? Okay. Very 

well. 

Mr. TESKEY. Yes. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. TESKEY. And we also, as part of our modernization, we are 

looking at trying to facilitate electronic submissions and electronic 

applications. But, you know, we still have security issues—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Sure. 

Mr. TESKEY [continuing]. And we are working through that. But 

we are trying to make this more accessible. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. TESKEY. Okay. So do you—and then I will go on to the 

other—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Liberal consideration. Yes. 

Mr. TESKEY. Pardon me, sir? 

Mr. COFFMAN. Liberal consideration. 

Mr. TESKEY. Okay. So liberal consideration, I can give you an example of where we use liberal consideration. First off though, 

whenever we deal with liberal consideration in our Discharge Review Board and our BCMR, we serve, we review the Secretary’s 

memo, the Secretary of Defense’s memo on liberal consideration. 

We also, the Secretary of the Air Force penned a memo on what 

liberal consideration means and we give that to the members as 

well. So we reiterate that and we hammer that home. We also deal 

with that through training of our members. 

So then I will give you an example of liberal consideration. We 

had a member who was an air controller over in Afghanistan, had 

a number of tours over there. Got PTSD, was diagnosed over there. 

But he sought some self-medication, and he got himself into trouble, and he just shared some of the medication Xanax with some 

of his colleagues. 

He also was married and he committed adultery. As part of his 

discharge, he was originally proposed for a court-martial. He took 

an Article 15. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 
17 

Mr. TESKEY. And then he got an under-other-than-honorable-conditions discharge. He applied to the Discharge Review Board. We 

gave liberal consideration to the PTSD and the nexus between that 

and the drugs and the adultery, and the things that happened over 

in the theater, and we upgraded his discharge to a general underother-than-honorable-conditions. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you very much. 

And I would like to now defer to the ranking member, Ms. 

Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And again, I apologize for 

the delay in my arriving, but as I think you have been told, I was 

in an important Intelligence Committee meeting. 

So one of the things that I am concerned about is the fact that 

there are such disparate grants provided by the various services. 

And for instance, the Army granted upgrades for four out of eight 

requests at 50 percent, the Air Force at 20 percent and the Navy 

at 11 percent. 

And I would like to see it standardized because I think for our 

military service members, they should all be treated the same. And 

I don’t know that they are being treated the same, and I don’t 

know that outside of conversations you may have with each other 

from time to time, whether they truly are being treated the same. 

So let me ask you, Mr. Woods. You have the lowest percentage, 

and in particular as I look at MST, the others were at 50 percent 

and 20 percent, and you were at 11 percent. I have talked to all 

of you privately and have asked for additional information, which 

I think will certainly inform our work as we move forward on this 

issue, but I would like for you, in particular, Mr. Woods, to comment. 

Mr. WOODS. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. I think that our dealings 

with these cases is such that I am not sure how to suggest consistency across the three services, and I am not sure there isn’t consistency is the first point, because we have not really studied 

whether there is or there isn’t. 

Obviously, the numbers would not reflect consistency, but given 

the nature of each individual case and the fact that they are determined individually based on the merits of those particular cases, 

in any given year or period, those numbers can certainly fluctuate. 

And I can’t tell you that we aren’t doing very similar things in the 

Navy boards as they are in the other services boards. 

I can at least—those—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Well, for instance, Mr. Teskey, when he met with 

me, made a compelling case that in the Army they bend over backwards, give the benefit of the doubt, go the extra mile. And I didn’t 

hear that when you met with me. 

Mr. WOODS. Right. 

Ms. SPEIER. So not that you can extract anything from conversations, and that is why we would like to look at the cases themselves—— 

Mr. WOODS. Certainly. 

Ms. SPEIER [continuing]. Redacted, of course. But it would seem 

to me that there would be great benefit for standard policies to be 

put in place that would, you know, guide your decision making so 
18 

that someone in the Navy who is making a request for an upgrade 

is treated the same way as someone in the Army. 

Mr. WOODS. Makes total sense to me as well, and I am hopeful 

that—— 

Ms. SPEIER. So let us look at—— 

Mr. WOODS [continuing]. That we are doing the same types of 

standards, but I can’t tell you for sure whether we are or we aren’t. 

Ms. SPEIER. Well, let’s just look at military sexual trauma. 

Mr. WOODS. Sure. 

Ms. SPEIER. Fifty percent grants in the Army and 11 percent 

grants in the Navy. 

Let me ask Mr. Teskey. How do you evaluate these cases that 

you would have 50 percent of them being changed? 

Mr. TESKEY. Well, I am the Air Force, ma’am. 

Ms. SPEIER. Oh, I am—— 

Mr. TESKEY. So—— 

Ms. SPEIER [continuing]. I am sorry. 

Mr. TESKEY. It is all right, but I don’t want to presume to speak 

for the Army. And that would be Ms. Blackmon. 

Ms. SPEIER. No, and I misspoke and I apologize, Ms. Blackmon. 

I got your services—so let’s go to you, Ms. Blackmon. 

Ms. BLACKMON. Yes. As I had indicated earlier, when we initially 

got the PTSD guidance in November 2014 that Secretary Hagel 

had sent out, I said we also need to apply the same very liberal 

consideration for military sexual trauma. And so we started to do 

certain things like training. 

For instance, last November, we brought in a renowned psychologist by the name of David Lisak that trained the entire workforce 

on sexual assault and what did that mean. Not necessarily just because there wasn’t a police report or a CID [Army Criminal Investigation Command] report, that there were other markers that the 

board and the workforce should be considering as they actually 

wrote the case. 

And so as they started to look at it, it wasn’t just very a black 

and white situation where it is we have this documentation, or because there was a lack of documentation we are going to deny it. 

It was more how can we say that there are other things that are 

happening that could suppose sexual assault as opposed to, no, it 

did not happen. 

We also brought in a panel of sexual assault survivors that kind 

of talked to the workforce as well to say as a result of that act, 

these were the things that manifested themselves within me as an 

individual and as a person. 

So that as our analysts, when we are writing the record of proceedings, they had the ability to kind of understand the impact of 

what that meant and what was happening to the victim, if you will. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. With that background, Mr. Woods and Mr. 

Teskey, have you, for instance, brought in sexual assault survivors 

to have them explain to your board members the experience and 

the ramifications? 

Mr. WOODS. To my knowledge, we have not brought in sexual assault survivors to do that. However, in response, back in the December timeframe, this past December, in some of our outreach efforts and then discussions with representatives from Human 
19 

Rights Watch and in taking into consideration a report that they 

issued, we got concerned that perhaps we weren’t paying the type 

of attention to some of these cases as we need to. 

And as a result, we partnered with our Department of the Navy 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and were able to 

have four of their subject matter experts, a medical doctor, a clinical psychologist, a trauma nurse, and a criminologist, take and 

look at the cases that we had done with regard to the sexual assault trauma over the past, give or take, 2-year period, 2015 and 

2016. 

And they reviewed approximately 86 cases in great detail, with 

a view toward trying to determine whether or not we could establish some type of policy that would help us be cognizant of the concerns and issues that presented in these types of case, or as if we 

were missing something. 

And honestly they struggled in their review trying to connect the 

dots in the cases that we denied. They felt that the cases that we 

granted made a lot of sense. 

And what they recommended and what we are about to enter 

into is an agreement with them to use their expertise to gain advisory opinions. And we are even considering having one of their experts sit on any panel at the Board for Correction of Naval Records 

that would involve a claim of sexual assault. 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. We are going to be running out of time, so Mr. 

Teskey? 

Mr. TESKEY. So this past January we provided training to our 

Board for Correction of Military Records, which all the panel members are volunteers. We had a panel come in for about 2 hours 

of—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Of sexual assault survivors? 

Mr. TESKEY. Not of survivors, but of mental health professionals 

and people who specialize in sexual assault to educate them on, as 

Ms. Blackmon was saying, on some of the characteristics and 

markers and to provide that training. That is one. 

We also have our psychiatrists who are members of the board on 

those kind of cases for the Discharge Review Board. They provide 

advisories to the Board for Correction of Military Records on any 

situation where there is an allegation of sexual assault, sexual 

trauma. 

So we do go out of our way to make sure that our members are 

educated, and as a result of our training this past year as well, we 

believe that more frequent engagement internally with our members on discussing these cases and bringing these issues up is required. And we are looking at probably doing kind of a 6-month 

check-in with everybody for about a half a day on some of these 

issues that we need to drive home. 

Ms. SPEIER. So here is an area that I am very concerned about. 

If you had the Members of Congress, who, when they left office 

under whatever circumstances, had a similar ranking of honorable, 

general, or less-than-honorable, a lot of Members would leave with 

less-than-honorable discharges because of their behavior here. 

Now, they leave and they go out and they continue with their 

lives and presumably get jobs and do well. I worry about the service members who have been labeled with a general discharge or 
20 

less-than-honorable and the likelihood of them ever getting employment. 

Now, I can tell you that there have been circumstances that I 

have seen where persons in civil society who have committed felonies can come back to the courts subsequently and make the case 

that they have been upstanding citizens for a period of time and 

have those felonies reduced to misdemeanors. And then be much 

more likely to find employment. 

I really want us to think about whether or not we should create 

a mechanism within these boards that will allow individuals to 

come back subsequently, after a period of years, make the case for 

their good behavior and potentially have those discharge identifications upgraded. And that is more a comment than anything else, 

but hopefully we can talk further about that and maybe do something in the NDAA about that. 

I would like to just spend a couple of minutes on VSOs [veteran 

service organizations]. To what extent have you incorporated feedback or recommendations from VSOs? 

Ms. Blackmon. 

Ms. BLACKMON. So ma’am, we have—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Oh, could you please—let us go forward with more 

questions, but please limit your responses a little quicker please if 

you could. Thank you. 

Ms. BLACKMON. Okay, sir. So, ma’am, we have had almost 100 

engagements with veteran service organizations where it is an opportunity to provide them feedback on what we do, and an opportunity for us to actually hear the things that we may not be doing 

that are so well. So we do have that interaction with them frequently. 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. Mr. Woods. 

Mr. WOODS. Likewise, we are engaged with the veteran service 

organizations quite a bit. As I have said before, we have created 

pamphlets for their use to distribute to those who are engaged in 

their organizations and we have tried to educate them on our processes. And we are happy and continue to do so. I can’t say that we 

have done 100, but we have done quite a few outreaches as well. 

Ms. SPEIER. Have they made recommendations that you have 

embraced? 

Mr. WOODS. Other than some of the things that we have been 

doing, which is to better inform the petitioners of materials that 

they might consider providing if they can to enhance their case. 

Also, too, one of the things that we have done in the Board for 

Correction of Naval Records is in any case where we have denied 

relief, we provide a short explanation of why that relief was denied 

and what the record was lacking such that if they feel that they 

can gather that information, they can come back and re-petition for 

reconsideration of that decision. And so with new and material evidence, if they present that, then we do that. 

So we have tried to explain to them instead of just getting a 

sheet of paper that essentially says denied, we have tried to educate them a little bit in that process at the end if we haven’t been 

able to do that on the front end. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. Mr. Teskey. 
21 

Mr. TESKEY. So we have not had that kind of outreach and engagement with the VSOs. However, one of the things as I came in 

in December, we have been looking at how we are going to pursue 

an outreach and education and communication plan. So that is one 

of the things we have been considering. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. So to the extent that they provide you with 

recommendations, would you also provide them to the committee so 

we will have the benefit of knowing what they are looking for? 

Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Speier. 

If we could, just one remaining question and to all three of you. 

Do the boards have a feedback mechanism to inform the services 

of common personnel record errors you are seeing? 

Ms. Blackmon. 

Ms. BLACKMON. I would have to take that for the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 61.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Woods. 

Mr. WOODS. Same. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Teskey. 

Mr. TESKEY. I have talked with our personnel folks in A1 [Air 

Staff office of Manpower and Personnel] as well about setting that 

up, because we feel like there needs to be a feedback loop so that 

they can correct things before we have to fix them. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. TESKEY. So we are setting that up. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Very good. Okay. I wish to thank the witnesses for their testimony this morning. This has been very informative. There being no further business, the subcommittee stands 

adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 2, 2017 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 2, 2017 

(27) 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 2, 2017 

(61) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN 

Ms. BLACKMON. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) does have feedback 

mechanisms to inform the Army of common personnel record errors. Since ARBA 

is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA (M&RA)), we have direct access to the personnel policy makers for the 

Army on a weekly, if not daily, basis. Additionally, ARBA’s mission has a direct relationship with the Army G–1, the Human Resources Command (HRC), the Office 

of The Surgeon General, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of The 

Judge Advocate General. Accordingly, ARBA has frequent dialogue, meetings, and 

policy discussions with each of these offices, since many of our cases originate with 

them and/or ARBA works closely with the organizations for advisory opinions. 

Therefore, it is common practice to share with each of these organizations reoccurring personnel record errors that can be corrected through policy, procedures, and 

command guidance. [See page 21.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

Mr. WOODS. The Department of the Navy (DON) Boards change and will continue 

to change the narrative reason for discharge to ‘‘Secretarial authority’’ in petitions 

where there’s sufficient evidence that the person doesn’t actually have a personality 

disorder. We have and will continue to apply the SECDEF Hagel memorandum 

standard of ‘‘liberal consideration’’ to invisible wound cases (MST/PTSD). This 

memorandum was dated 3 Sept 2014, Subject: ‘‘Supplemental guidance to Boards 

concerning veteran’s claims to PTSD disorder.’’ In FY16, the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) adjudicated five petitions in which the Petitioner reported having been the victim of MST and had been issued a DD214 annotated with a narrative reason of ‘‘personality disorder.’’ The NDRB changed this narrative to ‘‘Secretarial authority’’ in the two petitions that presented evidence that the Petitioner did 

not have a personality disorder. All five of these petitioners were reviewed by 

trained medical personnel (Psychiatrist or Clinical Psychologist) and the medical 

evidence in the three petitions that were denied contained evidence that supported 

the original narrative reason. Following the hearing before the Subcommittee, the 

Director of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, on her own initiative, ordered 

a review of previously adjudicated petitions that requested a change of the narrative 

reason of ‘‘personality disorder.’’ This review identified eleven cases in which the Petitioner reported having been the victim of MST. The Director reviewed these cases 

and determined that the panels that had decided those cases did not appear to have 

properly applied the standard of ‘‘liberal consideration.’’ Therefore, she directed that 

these cases be re-adjudicated by new panels with proper instruction on the standard 

of ‘‘liberal consideration.’’ As a result, all eleven petitions were granted a change of 

the narrative reason for discharge to ‘‘Secretarial authority.’’ In addition, the 

Board’s professional staff received refresher training on the standards for assessing 

these types of petitions. Finally, it should be noted that the DON is working with 

DOD Separation Standardization Working Group reviewing DOD Non-Disability 

Mental Condition Separations. This group is, among other things, reviewing whether to retire many of the specific non-disability mental health separation program 

designator codes that drive the narrative reasons in block 28 of the DD Form 214, 

such as personality disorder. [See page 13.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 2, 2017 

(65) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

Ms. TSONGAS. Statutory deadlines requiring the BCMRs to complete 90 percent 

of their cases within 10 months create enormous pressure to move cases quickly. 

Moreover, as the forces downsize, the expected caseloads for the boards may increase. Yet over the past decade staffing for the boards has stayed the same or decreased. 

a. What is the scope of the resource challenge that you face and how might Congress help? b. Without increased staffing, how can you ensure that cases are adequately reviewed, records are collected, and that veterans’ claims are given full and 

fair consideration? 

Ms. BLACKMON. a. Through the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) business 

processing reengineering efforts, we have collected data which helped the United 

States Army Manpower Analysis Agency to validate a requirement for 25 additional 

employees, which will return the agency to the 2002 baseline. ARBA is working with 

the Army Staff to authorize and hire additional staff. 

b. As cases have become more complex, processing times are lengthening. However, the agency focus remains on giving each applicant’s claim full and fair consideration while providing determinations in a timely manner, within current case 

processing capacity. We expect that our business process reengineering and 

leveraging new technologies will allow for more efficient and timely processing of 

cases. 

Ms. TSONGAS. We know that PTSD is more prevalent among sexual assault survivors than among combat veterans: an estimated one in three sexual assault survivors experience PTSD, as opposed to a 10 to 18 percent prevalence rate of PTSD 

for combat veterans. Because the vast majority of sexual assault survivors do not 

report that they were victimized, however, they may not have been formally diagnosed with PTSD while in service. Accordingly, how do you intend to ensure that 

the protections for former service members diagnosed with PTSD in the NDAA for 

FY 2017 are also extended to victims of sexual assault? 

Ms. BLACKMON. The Army Review Boards Agency provides special processing for 

cases in which the applicant contends they were a victim of sexual assault. ARBA 

recognizes that many of these assaults were never reported to military law enforcement, meaning there is no corroborating police report for the board to consider. 

Similar to ARBA processing of PTSD claims, the applicant is asked to provide any 

additional documentation they have related to their claim while their case is placed 

on administrative hold. Each case is reviewed by the psychiatrist or psychologist on 

the ARBA staff and they either participate as a board member or provide an advisory opinion for board consideration. In compliance with applicable law, any written 

advisory opinion they render is provided to the applicant for review and response 

prior to consideration. In the fall of 2016, all agency personnel were trained on 

markers of sexual trauma by a renowned forensic psychologist and were briefed by 

a panel of sexual assault survivors on the impact to them as sexual assault victims. 

This training is in addition to the statutory requirement for advisory opinions or 

serving board members as described above. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Federal regulations require the BCMRs and DRBs to make all their 

decisions publicly available. Moreover, decisions are required to be indexed ‘‘in a usable and concise form so as to enable the public to identify those cases similar in 

issue together with the circumstances under and/or reasons for which the board 

and/or Secretary have granted or denied relief.’’ In this way, applicants and their 

lawyers should be able to search for cases to determine applicable standards and 

present their arguments accordingly. However, in reality, the reading rooms are 

very basic, consisting of a list of case numbers. Except for the Coast Guard, which 

has a bare-bones indexing system, none of the services indexes its cases at all. 

a. What constraints prevent the boards from indexing and summarizing case decisions? b. Why do each of the services use different computer systems for maintaining its records? Why wouldn’t it be more efficient and cost effective to consolidate 

data systems? 
66 

Ms. BLACKMON. a. The Army Review Boards Agency posts redacted versions of the 

records of proceeding or the case report and directives that provide a summary for 

applications considered by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records and 

the Army Discharge Review Board respectively. The documents are posted quarterly 

and organized by year and case number. The advance search feature of the reading 

room support a basic word search of the documents. Efforts to go back and modify 

over 111,000 documents would require significant, intensive manpower efforts; however, going forward we will overhaul search functionality, and enhance user experience through intuitive interface and instructional content. 

b. ARBA currently uses a case tracking system specifically developed for Army 

Review Boards Agency requirements. As a part of the agency’s business process reengineering, requirements are being identified for a replacement system that meets 

the unique future needs of the Army Review Boards Agency. This review will certainly provide the opportunity for the Army to consider the ‘‘consolidated data systems’’ approach. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Statutory deadlines requiring the BCMRs to complete 90 percent 

of their cases within 10 months create enormous pressure to move cases quickly. 

Moreover, as the forces downsize, the expected caseloads for the boards may increase. Yet over the past decade staffing for the boards has stayed the same or decreased. 

a. What is the scope of the resource challenge that you face and how might Congress help? b. Without increased staffing, how can you ensure that cases are adequately reviewed, records are collected, and that veterans’ claims are given full and 

fair consideration? 

Mr. WOODS. While we have complied with the mandate contained in 10 U.S.C. 

§ 1559 to maintain or exceed our staffing levels on hand in 2002, we realize that 

without continued efforts to increase the number and quality of staff and to improve 

our technology support protocols, we will not be able to meet the statutory deadline 

goals for processing petitions. In that regard, we have programmed for additional 

staff in the coming Fiscal Years and are in the process of upgrading our technological capabilities. Our workload has increased significantly in the intervening 

years since 2002 in terms of the number of cases received, complexity of cases, as 

well as an exponential increase in FOIAs, phone calls, emails, constituent Congressional inquiries, and the like. With continued growth in cases, it will continue to 

be difficult to meet the 90 percent goal in the near term. We are hopeful that we 

will eventually be able to routinely meet this goal as we increase our staffing levels 

and finalize our technological improvements. We remain committed to providing our 

Sailors, Marines and veterans with full and fair consideration of their petitions in 

as timely a manner as possible. 

Ms. TSONGAS. We know that PTSD is more prevalent among sexual assault survivors than among combat veterans: an estimated one in three sexual assault survivors experience PTSD, as opposed to a 10 to 18 percent prevalence rate of PTSD 

for combat veterans. Because the vast majority of sexual assault survivors do not 

report that they were victimized, however, they may not have been formally diagnosed with PTSD while in service. Accordingly, how do you intend to ensure that 

the protections for former service members diagnosed with PTSD in the NDAA for 

FY 2017 are also extended to victims of sexual assault? 

Mr. WOODS. The Department of the Navy is currently working with the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense in development of supplemental guidance related specifically to sexual assault and sexual harassment cases. We anticipate guidance by this 

summer. In the meantime, we generally apply the SECDEF Hagel memorandum 

standard of ‘‘liberal consideration’’ to these invisible wound cases. This memorandum was dated 3 Sept 2014, Subject: ‘‘Supplemental guidance to Boards concerning veteran’s claims to PTSD disorder.’’ We also seek advisory opinions whenever there is evidence in the record, or a reference by the veteran, to sexual assault 

or harassment. We have an ongoing commitment to our veterans who have suffered 

invisible wounds. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Federal regulations require the BCMRs and DRBs to make all their 

decisions publicly available. Moreover, decisions are required to be indexed ‘‘in a usable and concise form so as to enable the public to identify those cases similar in 

issue together with the circumstances under and/or reasons for which the board 

and/or Secretary have granted or denied relief.’’ In this way, applicants and their 

lawyers should be able to search for cases to determine applicable standards and 

present their arguments accordingly. However, in reality, the reading rooms are 

very basic, consisting of a list of case numbers. Except for the Coast Guard, which 

has a bare-bones indexing system, none of the services indexes its cases at all. 
67 

a. What constraints prevent the boards from indexing and summarizing case decisions? b. Why do each of the services use different computer systems for maintaining its records? Why wouldn’t it be more efficient and cost effective to consolidate 

data systems? 

Mr. WOODS. The Board for Correction of Naval Records is currently developing a 

website that will allow indexing of summarized cases and enhanced search capabilities. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Statutory deadlines requiring the BCMRs to complete 90 percent 

of their cases within 10 months create enormous pressure to move cases quickly. 

Moreover, as the forces downsize, the expected caseloads for the boards may increase. Yet over the past decade staffing for the boards has stayed the same or decreased. 

a. What is the scope of the resource challenge that you face and how might Congress help? b. Without increased staffing, how can you ensure that cases are adequately reviewed, records are collected, and that veterans’ claims are given full and 

fair consideration? 

Mr. TESKEY. a. What is the scope of the resource challenge that you face and how 

might Congress help? The scope of the resource challenge the Air Force Review 

Boards Agency (AFRBA) faces is substantial. According to a 2013 manpower assessment, updated in 2015, the AFRBA is manned at 49 percent against validated requirements. While the agency is currently authorized 107 positions, the assessment 

indicated that 218 positions are required to keep pace with the current workload, 

resulting in a shortfall of 111 positions. This shortfall is predominantly attributable 

to the dramatic increase in caseloads across the agency over the last several years. 

In 2008, the agency received over 9,100 cases; however, in subsequent years, cases 

received increased over 70 percent to more than 15,600 cases annually. These shortfalls dramatically impact the ability of all of our boards to ensure that all petitions 

receive full and fair consideration while also complying with statutory and regulatory timelines for adjudication. This is most acute in the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) where Title 10, U.S.C., Section 1557 requires 

the AFBCMR to adjudicate 90 percent of cases received during a fiscal year (FY) 

within ten months of receipt, with no individual case exceeding 18 months. The 90 

percent requirement became effective for cases received during FY11. The AFBCMR 

adjudicated 96 percent of the nearly 2,400 cases received in FY11 within 10 months. 

For cases received during FY12, the last time we were able to comply with this 

mandate, the AFBCMR adjudicated 92 percent of over 2,900 cases received in FY12, 

an increase of more than 500 cases for adjudication than in the previous FYs. With 

2,900 cases received for adjudication becoming the new normal, and with no requisite increase in staffing, the average age of a case at closure grew to ten months 

for cases received during FY13. As a result, the Board was only able to adjudicate 

52.5 percent of almost 2,900 cases received during FY13 within ten months. The average age of a case at closure continued to climb, resulting in the Board adjudicating 

only 27.5 percent of the approximately 2,900 cases received in FY14 within ten 

months. The Secretary of the Air Force issued reports to Congress required by 10 

USC 1557 for cases received in FY13 and FY14 and will issue a similar report this 

summer describing our inability to comply with the 90 percent mandate for cases 

received during FY15. We expect the reported compliance rate will continue to drop 

into the foreseeable future. Because individual board shortfalls, such as in the 

AFBCMR, can affect operations across the entire Agency, it’s also important to consider manpower requirements in the AFRBA’s other major boards. For example, neither the AF Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) nor other SAF Personnel Council 

(SAFPC) boards have the same statutory completion and reporting requirements as 

the AFBCMR. Nonetheless, the increasing case intake has the impact of creation 

of case load backlog and its nexus to critical staffing shortages is similar across the 

agency. Due to the existing manpower and increasing workload challenges, over the 

past several years, the AFRBA underwent an extensive transformation effort performing business process re-engineering across doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership, personnel, facilities, and policy domains. These efforts resulted in 

numerous efficiency and effectiveness improvements including streamlining and 

digitizing all adjudication processes, Agency-wide organizational structure changes, 

and development of shared-service model directorates to share limited specialized 

and common resources such as doctors, lawyers, and case intake personnel. These 

improvements have provided some offsets to our manpower and caseload issues but 

have not resolved them. Anecdotally, these changes lead us to believe we remain 

substantially under-resourced but we could operate at a manpower level slightly less 

than the 2015 Manpower Assessment requirement, but still above what is currently 

resourced. As such, Congress can help address the resource challenges by directing 

a new manpower study to accurately measure service review agency manpower re-
68 

quirements and by regularly updating the personnel baseline found in 10 USC 

1559(b). 

b. Without increased staffing, how can you ensure that cases are adequately reviewed, records are collected, and that veterans’ claims are given full and fair consideration? Without increased staffing, we accomplished extensive business process 

re-engineering to help mitigate our resulting case adjudication issues and help ensure cases are adequately reviewed, records collected and veteran’s and current 

service member claims are given full and fair consideration. However, due to increased caseloads (caused by growing applications and an increase in the complexity 

of the cases submitted often including multiple requests and issues with more supporting documentation), without a corresponding increase in manpower, we can only 

fully ensure full and fair consideration to our veterans and service members with 

a corresponding increase in case processing times, often in non-compliance with congressional direction. 

Ms. TSONGAS. We know that PTSD is more prevalent among sexual assault survivors than among combat veterans: an estimated one in three sexual assault survivors experience PTSD, as opposed to a 10 to 18 percent prevalence rate of PTSD 

for combat veterans. Because the vast majority of sexual assault survivors do not 

report that they were victimized, however, they may not have been formally diagnosed with PTSD while in service. Accordingly, how do you intend to ensure that 

the protections for former service members diagnosed with PTSD in the NDAA for 

FY 2017 are also extended to victims of sexual assault? 

Mr. TESKEY. The AFRBA makes a concerted effort to ensure the liberal consideration provisions in the FY 2017 NDAA are afforded to both combat veterans and 

victims of sexual assault. The Agency is aware that many sexual assault survivors 

may not report an incident for fear of reprisal, embarrassment, or an attempt to 

blame the victim. There are still others who may exhibit an overt mental impediment to duty and proceed to complete their term of service, only to develop delayed 

post-service symptoms of PTSD. Consequently, the Agency considers the probative 

value of post-service examinations and disclosures made to Department of Veterans 

Affairs (DVA) medical officials, or other civilian medical sources, in assuring a fair 

and equitable opportunity for redress is offered. Close scrutiny of administrative 

records and performance reports is made in search of signs of unexplained diminution of performance or commission of minor disciplinary infractions in a previously 

exceptional performer. As a preventive measure in future cases, the Air Force Surgeon General has also established policy that will ensure all female service members 

are screened on the subject of possible military sexual trauma (MST) before clearance for separation for any reason to assure the possible existence of MST has been 

taken into consideration prior to a final personnel decision or action; whether a voluntary early separation, completion of required active service, or an involuntary separation. The Secretary of the Air Force recently issued written guidance on invisible 

wounds and sexual assault to the AFBCMR, which adjudicates the vast majority of 

these petitions. This guidance ensures we make a concerted effort to obtain copies 

of military personnel and service treatment records from the National Personnel 

Records Center (NPRC), as well as any post-service treatment records from the 

DVA. The Secretary’s guidance directs the Board to apply liberal consideration of 

PTSD in discharge upgrades for both sexual assault victims and combat veterans 

in accordance with the Secretary of Defense guidance issued in 2014. The Board follows Title 10, U.S.C., Section 1552(g) and requires a written opinion from a staff 

psychiatrist in cases relating to a mental health diagnosis rendered during military 

service. We also obtain mental health opinions even when the diagnosis is made 

years after discharge when the case qualifies for liberal consideration of PTSD. The 

AFDRB strictly follows the requirements prescribed in Title 10, U.S.C., Section 1553 

and includes a board member who is one of our staff psychiatrists when reviewing 

cases related to a mental health disorder diagnosed during military service or PTSD 

or TBI diagnosed on active duty as a consequence of a contingency deployment. We 

also ensure liberal consideration of PTSD is applied to both sexual assault victims 

and combat veterans in accordance with the recently enacted provisions of the Fiscal 

Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. In all cases where MST, PTSD, TBI 

or a Mental Health (MH) condition is either diagnosed or contended, a one of our 

staff psychiatrists thoroughly reviews the applicants medical records and is a voting 

panel member. Under the guidelines of the 2014 NDAA and updated by the 2016 

NDAA, the AFDRB gives express liberal consideration and full acknowledgment to 

all diagnoses and contentions during deliberation. If a nexus between the conditions/ 

situations and the misconduct can be garnered, it is fully adjudicated within these 

NDAA guidelines and constraints. The AFDRB recognizes that an applicant may not 

have reported being a victim of MST during service. The AFDRB will ensure that 

any undocumented contention regarding MST will the same scrutiny and consider-
69 

ation of a documented MST. The AFDRB has also implemented reporting procedures for applicants that have not previously reported being a victim of MST. The 

PDBR reassesses the accuracy and fairness of the disability ratings assigned to Veterans who were separated from the Armed Forces due to unfitness between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2009, with a combined disability rating of 20% or 

less and were not found to be eligible for retirement. The PDBR has two additional 

permanent civilian psychiatrists assigned as adjudicators who review all cases with 

PTSD as the unfitting condition. (The PBDR psychiatrists are in addition to those 

supporting the AFBCMR and AFDRB.) To date, the PDBR has adjudicated over 

10,500 applications, 457 of the cases adjudicated were veterans separated with 

PTSD, of which 21 were the victims of sexual assault. In 78% of those PTSD cases 

adjudicated, the Board recommended increase in assigned disability ratings that resulted in change of the disability discharges to disability retirement, retroactive to 

the original date of separation. In June 2012, the Secretary of Defense committed 

the PDBR to a comprehensive review for Veterans whose PTSD and other mental 

health diagnoses may have been changed to their possible disadvantage or eliminated during the military Disability Evaluation System process. In March 2013 notification letters were mailed to 8,900 former service members resulting 1,185 applications. The PDBR determined inappropriate change in diagnoses were made in 

12% of those cases reviewed and recommended corrective actions to the military departments. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Federal regulations require the BCMRs and DRBs to make all their 

decisions publicly available. Moreover, decisions are required to be indexed ‘‘in a usable and concise form so as to enable the public to identify those cases similar in 

issue together with the circumstances under and/or reasons for which the board 

and/or Secretary have granted or denied relief.’’ In this way, applicants and their 

lawyers should be able to search for cases to determine applicable standards and 

present their arguments accordingly. However, in reality, the reading rooms are 

very basic, consisting of a list of case numbers. Except for the Coast Guard, which 

has a bare-bones indexing system, none of the services indexes its cases at all. 

a. What constraints prevent the boards from indexing and summarizing case decisions? b. Why do each of the services use different computer systems for maintaining its records? Why wouldn’t it be more efficient and cost effective to consolidate 

data systems? 

Mr. TESKEY. a. What constraints prevent the boards from indexing and summarizing case decisions? Under our most-recently archived AFRBA Case Management 

system (CMTS), a rudimentary ad-hoc index of case types and applicant issues was 

accomplished internal to the AF Review Board Agency as necessary. This index did 

not feed any data management or reporting capabilities. Further, an index capability on the reading room did not exist; the indexing was cost/labor prohibitive; and 

it was determined that it provided no added value at the time. The capability was 

set aside as the agency selected a new case management system (CMTARS). The 

system does allow for a level of tracking commensurate with congressional reporting 

requirements for specific issues which could potentially be leveraged into a meaningful index. This would require significant increases in manpower specifically for 

this purpose and also require funding for technological upgrades to reading room capabilities. As the Reading Room site is maintained by the Army, we would work 

with the Army to explore a more automated means for doing this. A typical Googlelike search function exists for the existing Army-hosted reading room. 

b. Why do each of the services use different computer systems for maintaining its 

records? Why wouldn’t it be more efficient and cost effective to consolidate data systems? All service BCMR/DRB reading rooms are hosted on the same website, which 

is maintained by the Army. We can work with DOD to design additional features 

to make it easier for applicants and their attorneys to search precedent cases. Data 

management systems are each procured under DOD rule sets to ensure the range 

of their needs are addressed. If a common data system were to be procured it would 

need to be directed and funded by DOD. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Why are only two years of Physical Disability Board of Review decisions currently published in the Boards of Review Reading Room, and what kind 

of resources would be required to publish and index decisions going further back? 

Mr. TESKEY. The PDBR was enacted as part of NDAA 2008 and began adjudicating cases in June 2009. PDBR decisions dating back to 2009 were previously published to the Boards of Review Reading Rooms. However, personally identifiable information was found on documents published to the reading room and all decisional 

documents from each board were removed from the reading rooms and returned to 

the originator for review to verify PII was removed prior to re-posting. The PDBR 

is currently in the process of reviewing previously posted decisions and posting as 

the reviews are completed. The PDBR currently has approximately 2,700 cases 
70 

pending review. The PDBR has requested reserve augmentation to assist with an 

increased workload and plans to task the additional personnel with completion of 

the reading room review immediately upon arrival. Of note, this issue is not exclusive to the PBDR. The AFDRB has experienced similar PII issues and has approximately 2500+ cases to review/redact from years preceding 2013. 

Æ