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

86–727 2015

BEYOND TRANSFORMATION: REVIEWING 

CURRENT STATUS AND SECONDARY EFFECTS OF 

VBA TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND 

MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2014 

Serial No. 113–51 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

PAUL COOK, California 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

DAVID JOLLY, Florida 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JON TOWERS, Staff Director 

NANCY DOLAN, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

JON RUNYAN, NEW JERSEY, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

PAUL COOK, California 

DAVID JOLLY, Florida 

DINA TITUS, Nevada, Ranking Minority 

Member 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 

Beyond Transformation: Reviewing Current Status and Secondary Effects 

of VBA Technology ............................................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Hon. Jon Runyan, Chairman .................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Statement of Mr. Gerald T. Manar, Deputy Director, National Veterans Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States .......................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 37 

Statement of Mr. Jeffrey C. Hall, Assistant National Legislative Director, 

Disable American Veterans ................................................................................. 7 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 41 

Statement of Mr. Zachary Hearn, Deputy Director for Claims, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division, The American Legion ................................. 9 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 46 

Statement of Mr. Frank Logalbo, National Service Director, Wounded Warrior 

Project ................................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 49 

Statement of Mr. Eric Jenkins, Rating Veterans Service Representative, Winston Salem Regional Office, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO and the AFGE National VA Council .......................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 53 

Statement of Ms. Diana Rubens, Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ..................................................... 24 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 57 

Accompanied by: 

Mr. Richard Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Accompanied by: 

Ms. Lorraine Landfried, Deputy Chief Information Officer for Product 

Development, Office of Information Technology, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Statement of Richard W. Thomas, Director, Healthcare Operations, Defense 

Health Agency ...................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 61 

Accompanied by: 

Mr. Dave Bowen, Director, Health Information Technology, Defense 

Health Agency 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Paralyzed Veterans of America .............................................................................. 63 

Vietnam Veterans of America ................................................................................. 64 

Letter From: Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking Minority Member to Hon. Eric K. 

Shinseki ................................................................................................................ 69 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(IV) 

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD 

Questions For the Record ........................................................................................ 69 

Questions From: Dina Titus and Responses From: VA ........................................ 71 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(1) 

BEYOND TRANSFORMATION: REVIEWING CURRENT STATUS AND SECONDARY EFFECTS 

OF VBA TECHNOLOGY 

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND

MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jon Runyan [chairman of 

the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Runyan, Lamborn, Bilirakis, Cook, 

Titus, O’Rourke, Ruiz, Negrete-McLeod. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF JON RUNYAN, CHAIRMAN 

Mr. RUNYAN. Good afternoon, and welcome, everyone. This oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and 

Memorial Affairs will now come to order. 

Today’s hearing will focus upon technological initiatives of the 

Veterans Benefits Administration as well as the secondary effects 

of those initiatives. 

Specifically we will hear information on the status of the Veterans Benefits Management System 6.0 release and the Veterans 

Relationship Management System including e-benefits. 

We will also address the recently implemented secure electronic 

transmission of service treatment records between healthcare artifacts the image management solution of the Department of Defense 

and VA’s VBMS. 

Additionally, the subcommittee will seek information on VA’s 

work credit system within the new electronic framework of their regional offices, the national work queue, and the proposed rule of 

VA as to standardized forms. 

Many of these new technology solutions will reduce reliance on 

paper-based processes and were designed to simplify and streamline the VA’s services to veterans, their families, and survivors. 

To the extent that they increase efficiency, they lead to faster 

and more accurate outputs to beneficiaries. I remain eager to work 

alongside the VA to implement this reasonable path forward. 

I am optimistic that many of the efforts the VA has employed to 

date have made a positive change. However, I caution that in the 

department’s efforts to reach the numeric goal of the 125 days 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
2 

pending for claims in 2015, VA must not prioritize an appearance 

of success above actual qualitative improvement. 

And I assure you that this subcommittee will labor to hold focus 

upon the quality of both VBA’s process and outcomes. 

We will hear today that there have been both progress and problems. VBMS consistently experiences serious latency problems with 

regular weekly, sometimes daily outages. Why do these latency 

issues continue and how are the regional offices dealing with this 

complication? 

VA indicates that VBMS has been successfully deployed the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals. I believe that to be true at a superficial 

level, but I am aware of the functional quagmire of VBMS at BVA. 

If we take your statements at face value, it would appear that 

BVA is productively chugging along with no problems. However, we 

know that BVA does not have the necessary functionality in VBMS 

for indexing and file maintenance and continues to experience 

issues with load time, misplaced documents, and, again, latency. 

Additionally, VA’s obligation to properly safeguard personal information is paramount. VA represents that the technology tools 

are accredited and secured under VA’s strict security standards to 

combat evolving cyber security threats. Yet, in recent weeks, e-benefits was compromised to an unknown extent. 

The personal information of thousands of veterans was revealed 

and this simply was unacceptable. It would go without saying, but 

I will say it nonetheless, this lack of security is of tremendous concern. 

One other area that we will hear about today is VA’s proposed 

rule that would require claims to be filed on a standard form and 

would also require appeals to be initiated using a standard form. 

Finally, we will be examining VA’s transition to what it refers to 

as a national work queue, meaning that claims are processed by 

the next available VA employee, not necessarily the next local VA 

employee, and in particular examining the effects that such model 

has on local representation. 

I look forward to hearing both the department’s explanation of 

the desired change as well as the comments of the various interested organizations that are seated in our first panel this afternoon. 

And with that, I will begin the introductions. Will the first panel 

be seated at the witness table. 

Our first panel today will include Mr. Gerald Manar, deputy director of National Veterans Service with the Veterans of Foreign 

Wars of the United States; Mr. Jeffrey Hall, assistant national legislative director with Disabled American Veterans; Mr. Zachary 

Hearn, the deputy director for Claims, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division with The American Legion; Mr. Frank Logalbo, 

the national service director with the Wounded Warrior Project; 

and Mr. Eric Jenkins who is here in representation of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO, and the 

AFGE National VA Council. 

Once we conclude with panel one, we will move on to panel two 

which consists of representatives from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs and the Department of Defense. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
3 

For VA, we will hear from Ms. Diana Rubens, deputy under secretary of Field Operations, accompanied by Richard Hipolit, the assistant general counsel, and by Ms. Lorraine Landfried, deputy 

chief information officer for Product Development, Office of Information Technology. 

And from the Department of Defense, we will hear from Major 

General Richard Thomas, director of Healthcare Operations, Defense Health Agency, who is accompanied by Mr. Dave Bowen, director of Health Information Technology, Defense Health Agency. 

With those introductions complete, I thank you all for being with 

us today and now yield to the ranking member, Ms. Titus, for her 

opening statement. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I think some of the things I am going to say in the opening statement echo some of the points that you have already made, but 

sometimes it does not hurt to hear them twice. This is a very important hearing and I appreciate your calling it. 

I want to commend the VA for its efforts to address the claims 

backlog. I know last fiscal year, the VA completed a record 1.7 million claims. You reduced the time veterans have to wait for their 

claims and you cut the backlog by 35 percent. 

So if you continue along these lines, I suspect that at this rate, 

you’ll reach the secretary’s ambitious goal by next year. 

But I also want to thank the stakeholders who have joined us 

today because we would not be where we are in reducing the backlog if it were not for the help that you have been giving our veterans and the advice that you gave us and the VA on how to tackle 

this challenge. Your help is very much appreciated by both the veterans and by us. 

We are confident that the VA has seen an increase in production 

due to some of the mandatory overtime and the implementation of 

provisional ratings, but results of the new electronic claims system, 

the VBMS, are unfortunately mixed reviews and despite the promises that we heard of how they were going to make the system 

more efficient and effective. 

According to the strategic transformation plan, the VA expected 

to reduce the backlog by 345,000 claims based on the efficiencies 

from utilizing this system alone, just because of that. We’re hopeful 

that that occurs. 

However, we remain concerned about that because as VBA staff 

and stakeholders continue to question the efficiencies that have 

been gained during this system, there have been excessive down 

times, latency, lack of access to the system for the VSOs via that 

stakeholder enterprise portal, and these are all problems that we 

hope will be able to be addressed. 

And as the chairman pointed out, just last week we learned of 

yet another VBMS outage and then a few days later the media reported that a data breach in e-benefits had led to the release of 

personal information for some 1,400 veterans. 

So needless to say we are not overly impressed by the system’s 

security, efficiency, or effectiveness at this point and we are looking 

to see some improvements as we move forward. 

Adding to this challenge has been the VA’s continued lack of 

transparency regarding the performance of specific VA regional ofVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:19 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\86727.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
4 

fices. For months, the VA has shuffled claims among the ROs and 

then reported that the struggling offices have been improving. 

Now, I have dealt with this firsthand with the performance of 

the Reno regional office which serves all the veterans in Nevada 

and some in California. It was one of the worst in the country, had 

one of the longest delays and one of the biggest backlogs. 

Well, now I have learned that half of their workload was brokered to other stations around the country. That work was actually 

completed in those other stations, but the Reno RO was given credit for reducing its backlog. 

Now, because of that, I wonder, and it remains unclear, if the 

poor performers have really gotten any better or if they are going 

to improve in the future or if we are addressing the real cause of 

the problem and not just the symptoms. 

While veterans might be served in a timelier fashion through 

brokering, and it is a good thing in the short term, it is not a solution in the long term. It is imperative that we know not only how 

well our veterans are being serviced but how well the VA regional 

offices that are serving them are really performing. 

This is particularly important as you move towards this national 

work queue where many veterans’ claims will be sent to other 

states or other parts of the country to be worked on. 

Just in closing, I would like to state that earlier this year, our 

subcommittee worked on a bipartisan package of bills that was designed to speed up the benefits process for veterans. The House has 

passed most of these bills, and I hope that the Senate will soon address them and send them to the President for his signature. 

Some of these will be very important as you move towards that 

national work queue including my bill, Pay As You Rate. So I hope 

that we can work on those to provide a more timely delivery of payments. 

Additionally, I hope that the VA is looking towards the national 

work queue as a way not just to moving cases from the under performing to places where they can be addressed more quickly but as 

a way to specialize in medical conditions in certain offices that are 

especially challenging like military sexual trauma and traumatic 

brain injury. That could be a potential game changer if you focus 

on specializing and not just on shuffling the chairs around. 

So with that, I would like to restate and emphasize our commitment to the VA, proud of the good work that you do. I know VA 

employees work hard and this is not an easy process. This committee wants to be your partner. We want you to tell us if something works, help us understand if something is not working, and 

then be forthright when there are problems so that we can try to 

address it. 

So thank you all for being here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Ms. Titus. 

And with that, I know Mr. O’Rourke does have an opening statement, but protocol says I ask Mr. Cook first. 

Mr. COOK. [Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. O’Rourke is recognized. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I just ask unanimous consent to 

submit my opening statement for the record. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Without objection, so ordered. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
5 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Ms. Negrete-McLeod, anything? 

Mrs. Negrete-McLeod. [Nonverbal response]. 

Mr. RUNYAN. We welcome our first panel, and, Mr. Manar, you 

are now recognized for five minutes for your oral testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF GERALD T. MANAR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN 

WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; JEFFREY C. HALL, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED 

AMERICAN VETERANS; ZACHARY HEARN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR CLAIMS, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION DIVISION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; FRANK 

LOGALBO, NATIONAL SERVICE DIRECTOR, WOUNDED 

WARRIOR PROJECT; ERIC JENKINS, RATING VETERANS 

SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE, WINSTON–SALEM REGIONAL 

OFFICE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO AND THE AFGE NATIONAL VA COUNCIL 

STATEMENT OF GERALD T. MANAR 

Mr. MANAR. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and 

Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present to you the views of the members of the Veterans of Foreign 

Wars of the United States and its auxiliaries on these important 

topics. 

While workload remains near historic highs and quality remains 

problematic for VA, these are not VA’s biggest problems in our 

view. What confronts VBA is a problem in leadership, leaders at 

the top so intent on meeting arbitrary goals by 2015 that they have 

systematically suborned the legal, regulatory, and policy protections granted veterans over the last 75 years. 

I say this today with the full knowledge that the Veterans of Foreign Wars has largely supported this leadership as they move to 

transform the claims processing system. However, VBA policies 

and practices in claims processing have increasingly become hostile 

to the interests of veterans. 

Secretary Shinseki established aggressive goals for VBA in both 

claims processing and timeliness by declaring 125 days as the maximum time in which to process a claim with 98 percent quality by 

2015. It appears that VA leadership long ago realized that they 

could not process all claims within 125 days. 

In the past few years, the true workload has reached over two 

million claims and appeals. Today there are over 1.7 million compensation, pension, and education claims and appeals. 

Instead of fully fixing its problems, VA leaders redefine them. 

Since VA could not reduce the entire 1.7 million workload of claims 

and appeals to a reasonable level by 2015, they decided to define 

the workload as only disability claims requiring rating action. 

Like a mantra, they have repeated that redefinition over and 

over until the media and Members of Congress use it when talking 

about the backlog. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
6 

Seven hundred thousand disability claims are pending today, just 

41 percent of all the claims and appeals VA has to work in its regional offices. 

Next VA decided to focus its entire workforce on reducing pending disability claims, leaving nearly 60 percent of the workload 

nearly untouched. The cost of this neglect is found in two examples. 

In the past three and a half years, dependency claims, perhaps 

the simplest of claims that VA can process, have grown from about 

40,000 to nearly 235,000. 

Because appeals do not fall within the definition of backlog, VBA 

has consistently diverted appeals’ staff to work disability claims. As 

a consequence, appeals have grown from 252,000 to over 268,000 

in just the past year. 

The definition of quality has also changed in several ways. VA’s 

central office directives have relaxed development requirements to 

allow rating specialists to make decisions using evidence considered inadequate just a few years ago. Claims are decided faster but 

often less favorably to veterans. 

In addition, VA is moving to an issues-based method for determining quality levels. This is significantly different than the casebased method used when Secretary Shinseki set his goal of 98 percent quality. The new method makes VA look better while making 

the same number of mistakes. 

What you see here is a cold-blooded assessment by VA officials 

that if they cannot achieve their goals under the current standards, 

they will change the rules to meet their goals. VA is proclaiming 

vast improvements when, in fact, they have only changed the way 

they look at quality. 

Proposed regulation AO81 styled standard claims and appeals 

forms is another attempt by VA to change the playing field. We discuss this at length in our written testimony. This regulation 

change is not about requiring standardized forms. VA has had 

standardized forms since at least the 1930s. It is about reducing incoming claims and depriving thousands of veterans each year of 

millions of dollars in earned benefits. 

There will be a profound and negative effect on veterans seeking 

benefits if VA implements these changes. 

Congress has spent 75 years or more working to construct a benefit system which is veteran friendly, a system which recognizes 

the contribution of the men and women who have worn the uniform 

of the United States. 

VA proposed to make rigid a claims processing system which was 

constructed with the purpose of helping veterans who may not 

know every rule and policy. VA leaders have apparently decided to 

ignore the injunction of Omar Bradley, administrator of the Veterans Administration following World War II, who stated we are 

dealing with veterans, not procedures, with their problems, not 

ours. 

And, finally, we ask this committee to examine what VA leadership is doing. Examine the methods they are using to redefine 

problems so they can reach their self-created artificial goals. 

We ask Congress to block any attempt by VA to reduce rights 

that veterans and other claimants currently have to submit inforVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:19 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\86727.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
7 

mal claims to VA and we ask this committee to force VA to address 

all pending issues and appeals, not just disability claims. 

America’s veterans did not sacrifice their time, their bodies, or 

their lives to be run over by a bureaucratic train racing to declare 

victory by 2015. They deserve more respect than that for their service to our great Nation. 

Thank you for the opportunity of speaking to you today, and I 

will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD T. MANAR APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Manar. 

With that, I will recognize Mr. Hall for five minutes for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY C. HALL 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the 

subcommittee, on behalf of DAV and our 1.2 million members, we 

appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding VBA’s technology initiatives. 

Let me begin today by sharing some insights from a recent unannounced visit to the Newark VA regional office which is the only 

fully electronic regional office within the VA. 

All claims processing performed in Newark today is for all intents and purposes completely paperless. During my visit to Newark, I was able to see virtually every step of the process from the 

intake processing center through the steps of the development in 

the core lane concluding with a fully digital claim file being reviewed in the VBMS and a final rating being prepared in the 

VBMSR program. 

Not having seen more than a demonstration of VBMS prior to 

my Newark visit, I now have greater confidence in the overall performance of VBMS and I am reassured that it actually works as 

promised. 

In speaking with many of the employees at the Newark VA regional office, morale was much higher than it was in the past and 

it is growing every day. Employees I visited with feel VBMS and 

the new organizational model while not perfected allow for greater 

productivity, speed, accuracy, and accountability in completing 

their work, albeit they do realize there will be routine improvements in the VBMS system and not without problem. Yet, they are 

optimistic that as their proficiency using the new system escalates, 

they will be able to demonstrate the increases in all measurable activities. 

Recognizing the fact that no modern IT system or software is 

ever truly finished, it is vitally important. So in addition to the 

funding required for maintenance of the VBMS system, VBA must 

continue to make significant investments in the VBMS development for as long as this system is capable of meeting VBA needs. 

Like VBMS, the e-benefits system has been in place for more 

than a year and while the e-benefits system is working and claims 

are being submitted and received electronically as intended, it is 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
8 

certainly not without obstacles which must be overcome as they 

arise and without delay. 

One of the first obstacles encountered within the e-benefits system was veterans not being able to set up their account due to 

problems with the inaccurate information maintained by the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System or DEERS. This remains a major problem for many veterans, especially older veterans, and must be resolved. 

Mr. Chairman, clearly VBA would like to see more veterans file 

their claims electronically and DAV has been the leader amongst 

VSOs in increasing the number of claims filed electronically. However, more than a lack of interest from a veteran is the problem 

of gaining access which the veteran cannot resolve on his or her 

own. 

Simply put, if more veterans filing claims electronically is desired by VBA, then their system needs to be capable of basic matters such as access. 

Certainly there are some ongoing issues with the technology. 

However, DAV remains supportive of VBA’s transformation efforts 

and veterans being able to submit claims electronically through the 

e-benefits system or on their behalf through the stakeholder enterprise portal with the assistance of our national service officers. 

However, the SEP is dependent upon a veteran being required to 

have an e-benefits account which means without e-benefits access, 

we cannot file electronic claims for our clients. We are hopeful that 

changes will occur in the near future so that we can file electronic 

claims directly with the VBA through the SEP system without the 

need of going through the e-benefits. 

With new technology in place, VBA is now looking at the prospect of a national workload management model which we believe 

falls in line with similar VBA strategies such as centers of excellence and centralized mail centers. 

When considering a major change to the claims process such as 

a national workload management model or anything of a centralizing nature, thoughtful deliberation must be given to the impact 

of removing the benefit of face-to-face interaction with VBA which 

at the very least could be hindered. 

As we have done for nearly 100 years, DAV will continue to 

evolve and adapt to any changes in the claims process. However, 

any change to the claims process must include VSOs from the earliest planning stages possible. 

And, finally, Mr. Chairman, with respect to VA’s proposal to require all claims and appeals to be filed on standard VA forms, DAV 

understands the stated intent of VA’s proposed amendments to promote submission of claims and appeals in standard formats in 

order to capture data for a paperless claims and appeals system. 

However, we have concerns about the proposed rule and the consequential adverse effect upon veterans. 

To be clear, DAV takes no issue with the veterans being required 

to submit their claims and appeals on standardized forms. It is not 

new. We do, however, take exception to eliminating the informal 

claims processing which is also contained within the proposal, 

thereby causing veterans to lose their rightful entitlements such as 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
9 

retroactive monetary benefits just so the VBA can speed the process. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY C. HALL APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

With that, I will recognize Mr. Hearn for five minutes for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ZACHARY HEARN 

Mr. HEARN. Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the committee. On behalf of our national commander, Dan Dellinger, and the 2.4 million proud veterans serving veterans in The American Legion, I want to take a 

moment to thank you for bringing us here to share our views and 

insights about VA’s technological transformation. 

Really this is not a pro forma thank you, but we generally want 

to say thank you for listening. You treat us as partners. This committee recognizes that we are in a unique position to speak for 

what the veterans in America want. We are the voice of those veterans and you listen to us. You think about what we have to say 

and you consider our experience. 

You are working together with us to try to make this work for 

the veterans because that is what we are all here for. We are trying to make the system work for the veterans. This is a partnership and partnership includes dialogue. 

You have received our testimony, the testimony of all my colleagues, and VA’s testimony. The way technology impacts the office 

environment for VA is going to change a lot of things. Some of 

those changes are going to be good. Some of those changes may not 

be so good. We know we are all probably going to see changes that 

nobody saw coming. 

But I have talked to veterans. I have talked to many of the over 

2,900 American Legion accredited representatives throughout the 

country. I have talked to my colleagues here and we can see a lot 

of flags that come up when we think about how some of these 

things will affect veterans’ claims. Our voice is important. 

We stated in our testimony the most important factor going forward is what changes are going to make the system better for veterans, not easier for VA, better for veterans. 

Is it better for veterans to force them to use an electronic process 

when according to the Census Bureau roughly half of elderly Americans, a large and vulnerable portion of the veterans’ population do 

not have regular Internet access? Does that make things better for 

veterans or easier for VA? 

The American Legion is honored to help bring veterans to VA in 

a manner that makes things easier for VA. We are partners serving veterans. VA and The American Legion are partners designed 

to advocate on behalf of the 21 million veterans. 

The American Legion took the lead in promoting the fully developed claims process with veterans and enabled VA to report a reduction in how long it takes to process claims. We do the work up 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
10 

front and hand it off to VA. VA turns things around faster for veterans and the veterans get their results faster. That is the ultimate 

win. That is why we do this. 

But the choice has to stay with the veteran. First and foremost, 

we have to make sure that any changes implemented are there to 

serve the veteran. VA can assure they are making the right decisions to serve veterans by expanding the inclusion of The American 

Legion and other VSOs as full partners in this process. 

Very early on in the planning of what would later become VBMS, 

VA used to regularly work with the VSOs and we were able to 

point out things like that early versions did not include an integrated power of attorney to ensure veterans’ representatives were 

seeing the information needed to help veterans with their claims. 

We worked together and helped to keep the focus on what was 

going to help the veteran. 

You have reviewed the written testimonies. You have seen some 

specific issues we have raised. We recognize the importance of technological advances to improve the VA claims process. However, any 

process implemented must be advantageous to the veteran. We appreciate VA’s efforts to expedite the claims process, but it cannot 

be on the backs of veterans. 

The most important thing I want everyone here to take away 

from this is how important it is to recognize all of us as fully participating partners, veterans, VSOs, VA, Congress, and to keep the 

goal as what is the best way to deliver benefits to veterans who 

have been disabled serving their country. That more than any 

number or metric needs to be the target. 

Again, I offer my sincere thanks for recognizing the importance 

of the voices of 2.4 million veterans and the greater community of 

veterans they serve and for giving us a share in the dialogue at 

this table, and I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ZACHARY HEARN APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Hearn. 

With that, I will recognize Mr. Logalbo for five minutes for his 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK LOGALBO 

Mr. LOGALBO. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and 

Members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing 

and for inviting Wounded Warrior Project to testify today. 

In working daily with wounded warriors, we appreciate what advanced technology can bring to claims and adjudication, but the efficiency that technology delivers is not an end in itself. Fundamentally this system must serve our veterans. 

Let me provide some context by reference from our most recent 

annual survey. With almost 14,000 responses, nearly all the warriors we surveyed were injured during post 9/11 service. Almost 60 

percent of those injured resulted from IEDs, other blasts, and more 

than 44 percent reported traumatic brain injury. Seventy-five percent of the respondents had PTSD, the most commonly reported 

condition. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
11 

While many of our warriors rely on computers, many do not. 

Some with invisible wounds like PTSD, anxiety, TBI have comprehension difficulties or experience anxiety, frustration with computer technology. Many have high anxiety relating to information 

security. The recent data breach on VA’s e-benefits Web site will 

very likely heighten that concern, maybe even irreversibly. 

VBA must meet the veterans where they are. Technology may be 

the way to reach optimal efficiency, but VA’s highest obligation 

must be to the veteran and it must accommodate the veteran, not 

the other way around, even at modest cost to peak efficiency. 

The principle would seem beyond question and a system long 

celebrated as for its pro-claimant, veteran-friendly policy, but a recent rule making proposal would abandon the core tenet of that 

policy. 

Under that proposal, VA would throw out current rules that aim 

to minimize the burden initiating a claim and allow benefits to be 

paid at the earliest possible date. It would abolish rules that permit a veteran to file an informal claim and receive benefits paid 

from the date of informal claim that is filed. Instead, it would push 

the veterans to file claims electronically and penalize those who do 

not. 

VA would levy that penalty by setting new effective date rules 

on benefit awards with one rule for electronic filers and a different 

harsh rule for filing claims via paper. 

Here is how it would work. A warrior who suffers from multiple 

injuries from an IED would have to list specific disabilities on a 

claims form. If the veteran could not identify all the disabilities 

and simply wrote multiple injuries, VA could not consider that, 

they would consider it as an incomplete claim. 

If the veteran had filed electronically, VA would preserve the effective date of filing as that date. If the veteran had submitted that 

same incomplete claim on paper, the veteran would be penalized by 

deferring establishment of an effective date until the claim becomes 

complete. The difference could mean a loss of thousands of dollars 

for that veteran. 

In essence, pro-claimant VBA policies would abandon any attempt to achieve efficiency and speed. We certainly do not oppose 

VA’s becoming more efficient and timely, but it must comply with 

the laws centered on serving a veteran. 

If new policy is that efficiencies trump veterans’ rights, then 

Congress must make the judgment, not the secretary. VA’s proposal would also undermine that safeguard to appellate rights. 

Regulations that now permit any expression of disagreement to 

be taken as a notice of disagreement would be discarded. Instead, 

veterans would have to use specific forms to file a notice of disagreement. Omitting any required information would render the 

veteran’s notice incomplete. 

And a veteran who is unable to complete a form successfully 

within 60 days would forfeit the right to appeal. Individually and 

collectively, these changes go much too far. 

Moreover, the department’s single-minded pursuit of efficiency 

fails even to acknowledge that applicants for veterans’ benefits 

have a constitutionally protected property interest in their application for benefits and are entitled to due process. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
12 

Rather than protecting that property interest, VA aims to establish procedures that would shrink it. And for the first time, it 

would create a substantial distinction between electronic and nonelectronic claims. We see no basis in law to establish this twotiered discriminatory system. 

In striving for efficiency, the proposed rule would create barriers 

that would deny veterans benefits to which they are entitled. While 

Congress may elect to take steps to streamline claims and appeals 

processes, a department charged with administering the law may 

not unilaterally block statutory pathways to veterans’ benefits. 

VA describes the effect of the rules it wants to abolish as time 

consuming, but Title 38, the laws VA administers say nothing 

about speed. 

VA’s statutory authority to establish online tools to facilitate 

claims and processing is not in doubt. Its authority to develop 

standard forms is not questioned. Many veterans may find online 

tools helpful, but VA goes too far in trying to establish procedures 

that will result in veterans losing benefits to which they are entitled. 

In the final analysis, the secretary’s duty is to administer the 

law, not to rewrite it. Several important interests are at stake here. 

The first is adherence to the law. The second is preserving proclaimant adjudication system. 

The third is protecting veterans who for a reason including disability, hardship, remoteness, or fear, they do not have online access to a computer cannot reasonably be expected to communicate 

through that modality, and, finally, preserving congressional prerogatives. 

Given the importance of each of those interests, we ask the subcommittee to press the VA to withdraw its proposed rule making. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK LOGALBO APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Logalbo. 

With that, I will recognize Mr. Jenkins for five minutes for his 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC JENKINS 

Mr. JENKINS. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and 

Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

share views, discuss our concerns, and provide recommendations 

regarding the VBMS implementation on behalf of AFGE members 

working daily processing these claims. 

I am a rating specialist at the Winston-Salem regional office 

where I worked for the past nine years. I am a disabled marine and 

a combat veteran who served during Operation Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. I have a deep personal and 

loyal commitment to serving veterans. 

I work with VBMS and VBMSR on a daily basis. The constant 

latency, technical issues, and frequent VBMS shutdowns make it 

difficult for me and others to serve veterans accurately and effectively. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
13 

In the last week, the VBMS system was shut down for more than 

a day and VBMS was restarted four other times during the week. 

Because I work in a completely paperless system, all of the work 

I had completed during the day was now inaccessible until the system restarted. 

AFGE recommends the formation of an ongoing stakeholder work 

group to allow AFGE and veteran service organizations to work 

with management to address these serious implementation issues. 

VBA employees, many of whom are veterans themselves, are 

deeply committed to completing claims as quickly and accurately as 

possible for our brothers and sisters who served so honorably. But 

during these shutdowns, the employees I speak of, many managers 

do not give them excluded time needed even though they are already facing intense production quotas, performance improvement 

plans, and possible termination. 

Excluded time is a longstanding policy in VBA that not only protects employees but also ensures that they have the sufficient time 

to focus on their work serving veterans. 

AFGE recommends that VBA work with all the stakeholders to 

develop an effective contingency plan for VBMS shutdowns. Improvements to VBMS go hand in hand with fixing VBA’s currently 

work credit system. 

I am a current member of the National RVSR Performance 

Standards Work Group which is a joint venture with both management and labor that created the most recent RVSR standards. 

The current work credit system creates performance standards 

that are arbitrary, inconsistent, and focus too much on quantity 

over quality. VBA has never had a formal work credit system based 

on actual data that reflects the amount of time required to process 

specific types of claims and their components. 

Given VBA’s current transformation strategy, AFGE believes 

that the timing is ideal for a time motion study to be created, a 

formal work credit system. AFGE recommends that the committee 

adopt an approach similar to the one proposed by S. 1982 to form 

a stakeholder work group to overhaul the current system. 

AFGE also should have a more meaningful role in the implementation of veterans’ relationship management initiative. It is always 

good policy to include employees’ perspectives in any new initiatives. AFGE has not been given the opportunity to contribute to 

this implementation. 

We also recommend better integration of DoD’s file system 

named HAIMS for greater ease in transmitting medical evidence 

between DoD and VA for claims processing. 

AFGE remains cautious regarding VBA’s national work queue 

strategy including the methods VBA will use to assign work. If an 

office is considered under performing by VBA, there are concerns 

that they will now be starved for cases. 

Employees in these offices might lose certain essential skill sets 

if they are deprived of special issue cases. 

We were pleased to hear of Under Secretary Hickey’s commitment to improving VBA’s current resource allocation model so that 

struggling ROs are not arbitrarily deprived of resources. Therefore, 

we urge the committee to review the current resource allocation 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
14 

model and encourage VBA to expedite reforms, especially in light 

of the rollout of any national work queue strategy. 

Finally, AFGE is very troubled by a recent announcement that 

VBA is considering the use of outside contractors for dependency 

claims instead of continuing to use the experienced VBA employees. 

VBA intends to begin the program in March. AFGE strongly 

urges Congress to prohibit this counterproductive and illegal solution to the claims backlog. Past evidence with other contracts such 

as the ACS contract demonstrates that contracts can actually add 

to the backlog. 

The ACS contract was cancelled after only nine months. It wasted VA resources and taxpayer money and forced veterans to wait 

longer for their benefits. 

Once again, I would like to thank the committee for providing 

AFGE the opportunity to share our views, and I will be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC JENKINS APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX] 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. 

And with that, I will start a round of questions, giving each 

Member five minutes. 

And my first question is actually for you, Mr. Jenkins. Just asking you to elaborate a little bit on HAIMS and VBMS and how you 

indicate that the integration is not working that well. 

Mr. JENKINS. I do not work with it directly. It usually is on the 

hospital side, VHA side. But dealing with VSRs who actually process the pre-development side say that some of the information they 

are getting or some of the STRs, which are servicemen’s treatment 

records, are not being uploaded properly and sometimes they are 

mixed with one veteran or veteran’s information. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Okay. I know the problems we have been having. 

Obviously, those continue with your experience there. 

Next question, Mr. Manar, in your written testimony, you state 

your concern that over the past year, the focus of achieving the secretary’s goals of ending the backlog by 2015 and achieving 98 percent accuracy in the claims processing has taken on a life of its 

own and that the goal is no longer to help all veterans but create 

appearance of success by changing the playing field. 

I think this is a concern shared by me and this whole committee 

and not just in the context which arose in your written testimony. 

Would you please comment, in your organization’s experience 

how VA loses its sight of its mission to help veterans in favor of 

trying to present favorable image of the department. Please provide 

specific examples of how as you noted that the VA has changed the 

playing field in order to effect the appearance of success towards 

its goal of eliminating the backlog. 

Mr. MANAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start with the second question first, examples of how VA 

has changed the playing field. There have been many court cases 

as well as VA regulations and I believe statute that requires the 

VA to provide reasons and bases for the decisions that they make, 

especially when they are negative decisions. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
15 

However, starting with a project that VA initiated two and a half 

or three years ago, they removed a substantial part of reasons and 

bases out of rating decisions. And in the letters that are sent to 

claimants, they tell claimants basically conclusions. They do not explain the analysis or reasons why certain evidence was found to be 

wanting or substandard. They simply conclude that it was not sufficient to grant the benefit. 

This is an example of depriving veterans of the information they 

need in which to determine whether they should appeal a case. 

And as I mentioned earlier, appeals are now at 268,000 controlled 

by VA. The lack of information that veterans receive when they 

have received decisions may very well account for some of those appeals. 

In addition, we have a recent example, the over two-year-old case 

review project, VA letter 201305 issued in April of last year directed rating specialists to rate on the evidence of record. 

Now, two-year-old claims and many one-year-old claims are old. 

Many of them were old because they were difficult cases. They 

were not able to get all the evidence that was necessary and, yet, 

the VA blatantly told their rating specialists to rate based on the 

evidence of record. 

In some cases, they issued what they called provisional ratings 

and left it up to the veteran to decide whether or not they would 

submit additional evidence throughout the year. If they failed to 

submit any more evidence, the decision became final. 

Many of these decisions were negative or, if not negative, not at 

the full benefit level that the individual might have obtained had 

they completed development. 

So these are just two examples of how VA has moved in addition 

to all the things that we said about their proposal to change regulations to eliminate informal claims, to change the appeals process 

in this AO81 that we talked about earlier. 

Mr. RUNYAN. So in your opinion, VA is less helpful to the veteran 

in changing the policy on how they respond? 

Mr. MANAR. They have decided or so it appears that it is much 

better for them if they can move cases quickly. They will take less 

flack than if they continue the process of deliberately developing 

and acquiring the evidence necessary to make reasoned and substantial decisions. 

And it appears, as one of my colleagues pointed out, that VA is 

more and more moving to make changes not by improving their 

performance but by eliminating policies or procedures that affect 

rights of veterans so that they are making these changes seeking 

to make improvement on the backs of veterans. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Manar. 

With that, I will recognize the ranking member, Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate all of your concerns about the standardized form, 

and I know that Beto has some legislation that would address it. 

So I would just like to turn my attention to the problem of transparency. 

I wonder if you all would address the fact that as we move towards this national queue, and as cases are moved from one regional office to another. What kinds of problems are you having 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
16 

tracking things, getting updates, getting information about the case 

for the veterans that you serve and what recommendations do you 

have for making that better because it looks like that is the way 

it is all moving? 

We can start at this end maybe. 

Mr. JENKINS. It is my understanding, ma’am, that it has not 

taken place yet. They are moving towards it, but the work queue 

has not formally—— 

Ms. TITUS. That part is true, but they are already brokering 

claims 

Mr. JENKINS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TITUS [continuing]. From one regional office to another. 

Mr. JENKINS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TITUS. That is kind of a similar problem, I think. Maybe I 

am wrong about that. 

Mr. JENKINS. Yes, ma’am. Well, during the two-year initiative, 

our regional office brokered quite a few claims. I started off in what 

was called Quick Start which was a national mission. It was similar to benefits on delivery, BDD, if you might have heard of that. 

So many of the claims we were working, the two-year-old claims 

were brokered to other regional offices to speed up the process to 

help veterans get the benefits quicker. But in doing so, it left a void 

at our regional office once the two-year-old initiative was finished. 

So that left individuals not having an amount of work to work. 

So then we started working cases that are in a service center 

which we are still brokering cases to this day. And it leaves people 

wondering. We have many people saying I do not have work today, 

I do not have any. Although there is a backlog, you are still having 

individuals saying I do not have enough work for the day. 

Personally I have emailed my manager saying I need work, I 

need something to do. 

Ms. TITUS. That is interesting. That is the opposite problem—— 

Mr. JENKINS. Yes. It is not an every-day thing, but it does happen. 

Ms. TITUS. Okay. What about from the veteran standpoint when 

his or her case is brokered to some other place, what is your ability 

to help track it or get information? 

Mr. HALL. Well, I will start. I do not know if anybody wants to 

answer that. But, you know, with brokering claims just looking at 

it from that aspect is not inherently a bad thing. It is much worse 

in the paper form than it is in the electronic form it would seem. 

Now, that would be because when you are taking a file and you 

are transferring the whole file, then I do not have access to that 

file if it is sitting in your VA regional office. 

Ms. TITUS. Uh-huh. 

Mr. HALL. So that is something that may be better in this particular, you know, electronic system that they are using. 

To answer your question from a veteran’s standpoint, sure, you 

know, veterans, they contact us as a representative to find out answers. They contact the VA for the same answers whether they 

have representation or they are calling, you know, without. 

And they would like to speak to somebody in the RO which they 

filed the claim or which they thought they filed the claim, but they 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
17 

may get somebody on the call center that is sitting in Cleveland 

when they filed their claim from New York City. 

So that was something that was very difficult to overcome and 

assist a veteran and let them know when you call, you are not 

going to be speaking to somebody in this particular RO unless you 

call our office as a representative. But when you call VA, you are 

going to be talking to somebody in another RO. 

That was a big problem for quite a while because, and it may be 

not that it resolved, but more along the lines that veterans just 

gave up, you know. I am not going to call there because I am going 

to be talking to somebody from somewhere else and I want to talk 

to somebody in the RO that is making my decision. That is what 

veterans like. That is something that is at risk with the national 

work, you know, management model. 

And, again, DAV, we would like to know more about what their 

plan is. And I understand that it may have been something that 

they used, you know, in the process of completing all of the oldest 

claims first, using kind of a brokering style. 

So whether the person is sitting in Reno, you know, when the 

claim was filed on the East Coast, it is really not going to matter 

much on the VA end of it. But, again, as my testimony points out, 

you know, this is going to be at the risk of face-to-face service to 

veterans. And it seems like the more technology we have, the more 

fragmented that service to a veteran becomes. 

Ms. TITUS. Any additional comments? 

Mr. MANAR. If I might, one of the problems, one of the big problems that we see is that whenever VA develops a new software program, VBMS is the most recent example of this, their focus is on 

getting a system up and running for VA claims processors and developers and all the people who are going to use it on the VA side. 

And it is almost as if service organizations are an afterthought. 

With this Administration, certainly give them credit, they have 

certainly given us more access. We have more interaction almost 

on a weekly basis than we have had under previous administrations. But still what we lack today is a really functional work 

queue that we can manage our own work, look at cases that may 

have been brokered either electronically or in paper. Finding information or being given notice of decisions that have been made at 

other offices on cases that originated in our office is lacking. 

So VA has a long way to go, I think, before we can have this true 

partnership where we are working in sync together to help veterans with their claims. 

Mr. HEARN. Yeah. Some of the problem, I think, is when you 

start talking about brokering claims out, you have got several 

issues. People who reside in states or locations where their regional 

office is managed effectively and things go on relatively smoothly, 

they almost feel like they are being punished because they are 

doing things well. 

But the other thing, too, is a lot of the work and effective service 

with an effective regional office is the relationship is what the important part is between the service officer and VA. If you have a 

claim now that has gone out to a different location clear across the 

country, that relationship is severed. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
18 

When they went to this type of setup with pension and they had 

consolidation models that occurred in Philadelphia and Minnesota 

and other places, that is one of the problems that our service officers felt was that this relationship where I could go up a flight of 

steps, talk to a rater, and try to work something out that we differed about just at the local level there, that is severed. 

And the other thing, too, when you are talking about national 

work queue, and this is something that we have talked about internally that we have specific concerns about, is that if you have a situation where a veteran is—let’s say he is trying to get service connected or she is trying to get service connected for four or five conditions and there is a way to maybe have these conditions interrelate with each other and you are just looking at it and you are 

saying this rater over here, you need to work on the feet, this rater 

over here, you are working on the ankles, this rater over here, you 

are working on the knees, and they are going to look on it as a direct service connection, but you can grant service connection for 

one of those conditions that could have caused or aggravated the 

other two conditions, if you have got this separated process, who 

is going to go back and look at this and say, well, these things 

could have either manifested secondary or have been aggravated by 

the service-connected condition that somebody at a different regional office granted. 

Ms. TITUS. My time is out, so I will ask you to be brief. 

Mr. LOGALBO. Yes, very brief. One of the direct points I would 

like to make when you look at VA in controlling workload and 

shifting resources to different ROs to manage that workload, one 

thing I would like to point out is making sure a training initiative 

is set out. 

Like as you discussed, PTSD, MST, TBI, if there are specialized 

areas or areas of concern, make sure that there are training initiatives, quality review process to make sure that the veteran or family member is getting the correct decision the first time. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank the gentle lady. 

With that, I will recognize Mr. Cook. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wonder if you could do me a favor, the whole panel. And, you 

know, by the way, I want to thank you all for your service. The 

young marine there, he will kind of realize with me I always boil 

it down to the KISS principle. Keep it simple stupid. 

Now, what we have been talking about, if you can bear with this 

dumb marine up here right now, based upon what you say, and 

each one of you I’m going to ask and we’ll put it in terms of combat 

ready or non-combat ready, what we are talking about, I’m getting 

the feeling that in most instances, this whole evolution, what we 

have been talking about is non-combat ready. 

And I use that phrase because we are talking about so many people. So if you could kind of bear with me and just I am putting you 

on the spot, but—and, by the way, you guys are right there with 

the troops. You know, you hear what is going on, everything, and 

you are our eyes and ears. And so that is why I am asking you to 

do it. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
19 

So if you feel comfortable with making that rating or you can do 

the old A, B, C, D, F or what. 

Sir. 

Mr. JENKINS. Well, as a marine, I would like to take this first. 

As you may be able to relate to, a battalion commander does not 

do anything without talking to his sergeant major. 

Mr. COOK. Absolutely. 

Mr. JENKINS. And the way VBMS has been implemented, management saw this, but they did not speak to the people who are actually implementing it. And you cannot go to war unless your 

troops are ready. You can send somebody out there, but you are 

going to have a lot of body bags to fill. 

Mr. COOK. Not combat ready? 

Mr. JENKINS. Not combat ready. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you. 

Sir. 

Mr. Logalbo. And, yes, I do agree with Mr. Jenkins as well, is 

you need to speak to the folks on the ground. You need to speak 

to the RVSRs. You need to speak to the VSRs. You need to speak 

to the folks on the ground to get the input not only to go through 

some of the challenges with the system but also make the system 

that much better. So I agree in the same analogy. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. HEARN. The American Legion conducts regional office review 

visits periodically throughout the year and we have heard similar 

concerns by service officers and also by employees within VA. So, 

I mean, as far as recent months, I cannot say for certain if that 

shift has changed opinion. But over the last year, I would not say 

that it is combat ready at all, no. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you. 

Mr. HEARN. Thank you. 

Mr. COOK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hall. Well, as you know, especially in combat, if you do not 

have effective communication, somebody is going to die. So from a 

combat ready perspective, I would say this. There is a lot of 

positives going on in VA as my testimony points out, but combat 

ready and putting it in that terms, I would not send it. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, sir. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. MANAR. I have to agree with my colleagues. VA is doing, despite the negative nature of my oral testimony, VA is doing many 

things simultaneously and they are working hard. They are doing 

a lot more than any of their predecessors ever did, but we are not 

ready for prime time. 

Mr. COOK. And, by the way, I appreciate your candor. And to do 

this, that is a tough question to respond to. And as I said, I appreciate that. 

What I would also like in the remaining time, not right now, but 

if your organizations that you represent, I do not want a five, tenpage analysis of this, I basically want something very, very simple, 

five things that are working correctly, five things that are not 

working correctly, and five recommendations. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
20 

Now, as I said, no acronyms. If you can put it in military jargon. 

You are dealing with Paul Cook here. I am not a rocket scientist. 

But by doing that, and I try to do this when I talk to veterans and 

what have you, and it is like you got to talk to the troops and you 

got to put it in the language of the troops, and then you can do 

something in the language of the troops. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, I recognize Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I first want to thank you and the ranking member for your leadership on this committee. The fact that we are hearing from all the 

folks who are in the front lines on these issues, the VSOs who are 

helping out, their members and other veterans to make sure that 

they have the advocacy necessary to complete their claims, get a 

reasonable response in a reasonable amount of time including coming up to Congress to testify is greatly appreciated. 

Hearing from those who are actually working within the VA on 

the front lines is also appreciated, and then to have that followed 

up by our representatives from the VBA is great. So I really appreciate the format and the content of this hearing. 

And I want to follow-up on Mr. Cook’s request and just ask that 

as you respond to him, you respond to everyone on this committee. 

We could all benefit from the response and the experience and wisdom that you can share with us. So I look forward to getting that. 

I wanted to thank you for the very critical but I think very constructive feedback on where we are with the VBA right now. 

And to Mr. Manar, I think you essentially made the point in your 

testimony that we are dealing within the confines of a zero sum 

game. And so if we prioritize resources to resolving the disability 

claims that are in need of a rating, we suffer in other key areas 

that VBA is working on. And we can put more resources into that 

system, but ultimately we are going to have to prioritize, decide 

what is important and what we are going to follow and look at. 

And you gave some examples of, I believe, if I am quoting you 

correctly, dependency claims going from 40 to 235 thousand outstanding. 

Mr. MANAR. That is correct. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I am looking at the IDES backlog for soldiers who 

are transitioning out and I especially think of those who are at 

Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas at the WTU who are languishing when 

we have, I believe, a 15-day goal that is now averaging 143 days 

before we can get a response. So those are some other examples. 

But given that system, how would you better prioritize the work 

that VBA is doing? If it is not correct to prioritize disability claims 

awaiting ratings over these other areas, what is the best way to do 

this? 

Mr. MANAR. Thank you. 

First of all, it is important to recognize that until the last five 

or six years, seven years, VBA was chronically short changed over 

decades in terms of staffing it needs to process claims. One of the 

reasons why the workload and backlog grew in the 1990s and then 

accelerated after the turn of this century is because of staffing levels that existed at least back into the 1970s. I hate to be a histoVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:19 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\86727.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
21 

rian about that, but that is what brought us to this point in time, 

I think. 

Congress has done an awful lot to up the staffing of VA and they 

have made a lot of progress because of the additional people, FTE 

that you have given them. And all of us are grateful for that. More 

veterans have been served because of your actions than would have 

been without it. 

But that does not mean that VBA is staffed at the appropriate 

levels even now. Now we live in a world where there are tight 

budgets and I doubt that you all can scrape together a whole lot 

more people to give to VA to process claims. 

So to your question, what can VA do? It is a question of managing the workload. They have in terms of appeals, they have designated decision review officers and support staff in each regional 

office and, yet, because of their drive to work over two-year-old 

cases and then over one-year-old cases, many of those people have 

not worked a significant number of appeals in, well, it is going on 

a year, more or less. 

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals is running out of appeals work 

to work as are staffed at the board because work is not flowing to 

the board. VA needs to release those people and let them get back 

to work. 

A business practice that has been ongoing which caused this 

drastic increase in dependency claims, VA for decades had this policy that you could not close out an end product on a rating decision 

until you not only notified the veteran about what they were going 

to get, but you worked every issue that was related to that including dependency. 

Well, what has been going on for the last three years is, and it 

may have started in the regional offices, but it has never been corrected by central office, to the best of my knowledge, and that what 

has been going on is that people have got to the point where they 

are notifying the veteran about the decision and they just roll that 

dependency issue over into a separate end product. 

And they do not deal with it. They have got the evidence. In most 

cases, they have got, you know, the marriage dates and birth certificates and all the rest of the stuff that they need to pay benefits, 

but they just roll over for another day. And that accounts for a 

large number of those things. 

But the problem is that managers are not managing their work. 

They are being driven by the directives of central office. This is 

what you are going to do and these are the goals that you are going 

to reach, and they are not allowed to do the things that they should 

have been trained to do and many of them want to do and that is 

to manage the work. 

In Reno, as an example, I learned just the other day fully developed claims which are supposed to be fast tracked average 263 

days in Reno to be completed and that if it is one or two issues, 

they will put them in a fast track lane. If it is three or more issues, 

then it just gets mixed in with the regular work. 

Well, what is the point of all of that? How does that help veterans? How does it help VA? You have got claims that are in many 

instances ready to rate at that point, to resolve, and, yet, you just 

throw them in the mix where they get older and older. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
22 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Mr. Manar, let me interrupt for just a 

minute—— 

Mr. MANAR. Sure. 

Mr. O’ROURKE [continuing]. Only because my time is expired and 

it is obviously a question that deserves a longer answer than we 

have time to give today. And I would love ultimately to hear from 

everyone. If there is a second round of questioning, I will pose that 

same question to everyone else. 

But I really would like to know whether there, because you spoke 

a lot about process improvements, whether there is any wisdom to 

prioritizing certain workload over other workload within the VBA 

as it appears that we are doing to the point that you made earlier 

or whether it can be handled through other means. 

And so look forward to getting that back from the other panelists 

and also your recommendations per Mr. Cook’s request. 

With that, I will yield back to the chair. Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank the gentleman. 

With that, I will recognize Mr. Ruiz. 

Mr. RUIZ. I would like first of all to thank you all for coming here 

and for being so honest in your assessment and willing to roll up 

your sleeves and get this fixed. 

At this point, I can yield my time to Beto O’Rourke so that you 

can get your answers from the other members. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

If the other members of the panel would like to answer that 

question about prioritization of certain claims or work activities 

within the VBA over others, I would love to get your answer. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HEARN. Last year, The American Legion started working 

pretty heavily with VA and the White House on this FDC process. 

And one of the things that we discovered when we would go out 

to these different regional offices, and it was a common line that 

was used whether it was in Indianapolis or Oakland or Nashville, 

was if everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. 

That was a line from the employees. That was not a line from 

a VSO. It was not a line from a department service officer. So there 

appears to be some consternation, and maybe Mr. Jenkins can explain that a little bit further, too, that even internally that there 

is not a recognition. 

We believe and we have bought in on this fully developed claim 

process. However, if, like what Mr. Manar said, if it is going to go 

into a 235-day chute to get the claim done, then it serves nobody 

any good. 

I mean, as far as we are concerned, if the veteran is giving everything to VA to rate the claim and it is ready to go, go ahead and 

make that a priority. I mean, I am really kind of surprised that it 

has expanded to that point in roughly 12, 14 months. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Could I just elaborate on one thing that Zach had said 

and that is, you know, the FDC program, it is probably one of the 

more exciting things happening that is making a positive difference. 

And you can look directly at the Chicago VA regional office and 

see the time lines and how long it takes for a claim. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
23 

At the same time, you know, I think VA’s overall is somewhere 

near 25 percent of all claims are fully developed. But let’s not forget they are fully developed because of the veteran and because of 

the VSOs. So we are doing a lot of the legwork, the majority of it, 

and presenting it to the VA where it makes their job much easier. 

We are happy to do that. We hope to gain even more of that. 

In DAV, our number of FDC claims is increasing more. I mean, 

that is what we do. Educate the client or the veteran to make sure 

that they know the most advantageous way to help them navigate 

the system, number one, but also tell them, listen, if you can do 

all of this, you are not going to have a year to wait. You will be 

much quicker in your decision, maybe 120 days, depending on that 

RO. 

So that is something that needs to be constantly promoted not 

just through the VSOs to the people that we serve, but VA needs 

to do a much better job in getting that message out. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I do not know if anyone else would like to comment. I do want to follow-up on your remarks by saying that we 

had hoped that the VA would elect to administratively implement 

the Faster Filing Act, which recently passed the House of Representatives, which would require them to notify veterans and 

VSOs that are assisting them in filing their claims of the fastest 

response time based on the different kind of claims you choose. 

So I do not like the new rule making from the VBA and I do not 

like this forcing veterans and VSOs to use these standardized 

forms. I believe in empowering the VSOs and the veterans with the 

information being perfectly transparent and allowing them to make 

the decision that is in their best interest given what they are willing to do, realizing the average wait times. 

In El Paso where we recently had wait times up to 470 days to 

hear back from the Waco Regional Office, it is now down much 

lower than that. We wanted to be able to tell veterans if you file 

a fully developed claim and you file it online, you can get that back 

in under a hundred days on average and you are eligible for a full 

year’s retroactive—retroactive benefits. 

I would love the VA to do a much better, more aggressive job of 

pushing that information out there. If we cannot get them to do it 

administratively, we hope that will become law soon and do exactly 

what you are asking us to do. 

I have got about 30 seconds left on Mr. Ruiz’s time for anyone 

who would like to add. 

Mr. LOGALBO. Yes, I would like to. 

And what we are discussing is how we are empowering and embracing the warriors and the veterans as we look forward face and 

helping them with claims. When you are actually out there as helping a warrior with a fully developed claim or guiding him through 

the process and teaching him how to navigate and understand the 

process, that is where you are going to get more buy-in and the 

claims are going to be done a lot quicker. 

When folks, as you see in Houston, when they reached out to a 

number of folks regarding appeals to clarify issues to be that forward-facing, veteran-centric focus, they were able to reduce time 

lines because now the veteran understands the process, the eviVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:19 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\86727.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
24 

dence needed. They work hand-in-hand not creating a process that 

is separate and distinct. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, and thank you for the responses. 

It looks like the time has elapsed. I guess parliamentarily speaking, I yield back to Mr. Ruiz. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUNYAN. The gentleman yields back. 

In the essence of time in getting to the next panel, I am going 

to ask all members to submit any additional questions for the 

record and we will ask the gentlemen to please respond in a timely 

manner and also please respond to the subcommittee with Mr. 

Cook’s request. We would like to get that to all of our members 

here. 

So with that, thank you all for your testimony and your service, 

and you are now excused, and we welcome the second panel to the 

table. 

At this time, I welcome panel two including Ms. Diana Rubens, 

deputy under secretary for Field Operations, U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, accompanied by both Mr. Richard Hipolit, assistant general counsel, and Ms. Lorraine Landfried, deputy chief information officer for Product Development. 

I also welcome Major General Richard Thomas, director of 

Healthcare Operations of the Department of Defense Agency or Department of Health Agency who is accompanied by Mr. David 

Bowen, director of Health Information Technology. 

We appreciate all of your attendance here today. Your complete 

and written statements will be entered into the hearing record. 

And, Ms. Rubens, you are now recognized for five minutes for 

your oral testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF DIANA RUBENS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR FIELD OPERATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF DIANE RUBENS 

Ms. RUBENS. Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss VA’s transformation initiatives. 

I would like to start by providing an update on our progress in 

eliminating the backlog. During fiscal year 2013, VA completed a 

record 1.17 million claims with a 90 percent accuracy at the claim 

level and 96 percent accuracy at the medical-issue level. Since its 

peak in March of 2013, the backlog has been reduced by 35 percent 

and the overall inventory has been reduced by 22 percent. 

Also important, the average number of days rating claims have 

been pending has also been reduced, meaning that today, veterans 

are waiting 111 days fewer than they were last year at this time 

for a decision. 

None of this progress would be possible without the tremendous 

support from our partners, including this subcommittee, the remainder of Congress, our veteran service organizations, and, of 

course, our unprecedented effort and dedication of the VBA employees, 52 percent of whom are veterans themselves. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
25 

I would like to update you on a few key initiatives. Our veterans 

relationship management initiative is providing veterans with 

seamless, secure, and on-demand access to benefits, information, 

and services. Veterans now have improved access to benefits information from multiple channels, on the phone, online, and through 

our shared VA DoD portal called e-benefits. 

From fiscal year 2009 to 2013, the number of contacts with VA 

through these channels increased from 9.1 million to 56.3 million. 

Currently VA has over 3.3 million e-benefits users representing a 

51 percent increase from fiscal year 2012. 

Our stakeholder enterprise portal is a secure Web-based entry 

point that complements e-benefits and gives VSOs access to assist 

veterans with electronic claims submissions. Over 1,200 registered 

users across 75 organizations can check the status of claims, review 

payment history, and upload documentation on behalf of the veterans they represent all within a digital environment. 

Our digits-to-digits initiative scheduled for implementation this 

fiscal year will enable VSOs to submit claims directly using their 

own claims management systems. 

Our Veterans Benefits Management System was deployed six 

months ahead of schedule in June of 2013. After development over 

the course of 18 months with side-by-side end users and our SMEs 

with programmers, we continue to monitor and solicit feedback 

from partners as well as end users. 

In December of 2013, VBMS entered generation three of our system development increasing system functionality, adding more 

complex automation capabilities, reducing dependency on legacy 

systems, and enabling the capability to accept veterans’ electronic 

service treatment records from DoD through HAIMS so that STRs 

will be available for servicemembers separated after January 1st, 

2014 when they file their claims. 

VBA also established our Veterans Claims Intake Program to 

streamline the process for receiving paper records and data in 

VBMS. As of January 10th of this year, VCIP had converted from 

paper and uploaded into VBMS more than 430 million images. 

As I turn to our national work queue, VA transitioning into a 

paperless process, we are in a better position to adopt a national 

workload strategy that is boundary-free and improve our capacity 

to serve veterans. 

In April of 2013, VBA’s oldest claims initiative aimed at expediting decisions for veterans who had waited the longest, we redistributed claims across the Nation to best utilize resources of all regional offices. The success of this initiative demonstrates the potential for a national workload management strategy by optimizing 

every member of our VBA workforce. 

Our national work queue is being developed in a two-phase approach. In phase one, claims will be managed from a central location and routed, based on individual station capacity, with the first 

filter for a claim being the one in which the state where the veteran resides, as well as other national priorities. In phase two, 

claims can be routed to individual employees based on the nature 

of the claim and the skill set of the claims processor. 

Our employee performance standards are routinely evaluated 

and revised to keep pace with changes in process and technology. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
26 

With VBA’s transition to electronic claims processing, it is more 

important than ever to consider the impact of technology on employee performance and ensure that the expectations of our workforce align with the tools employees have to complete their work. 

Revised standards were most recently implemented in 2013 and 

a further revision to VSR and rating VSR standards were last week 

presented to our national labor partners and is in the final stages 

prior to implementation. 

A recently proposed rule is intended to get benefits to veterans 

quickly with the most accurate decision possible. The rule would 

require claims to be filed on a standard form and would require appeals to be initiated using a standard form whenever one is provided for that purpose. The proposed rule does not require veterans 

file electronic claims in order to receive benefits. 

VA gave interested members of the public the opportunity to 

comment on the proposed rule from October 30th through December 30th. We are currently carefully reviewing the 53 comments 

that we received from stakeholders and will be responding to them 

in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. 

While we know there is more work to be done to reach our goals, 

we know that the gains we are making in information technology 

and automation of our processes are critical. In going forward, we 

will need to sustain the resources for programs like VBMS in order 

to eliminate our backlog in 2015 and achieve our quality goals. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy 

to entertain any questions you or other members may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANA M. RUBENS APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Ms. Rubens. 

With that, I recognize Major General Thomas for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. THOMAS 

Major General THOMAS. Well, good afternoon. 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

the department’s successful implementation of a new capability 

which claims adjudicators may electronically request and receive 

complete electronic DoD service treatment records, or STRs, for 

newly separated servicemembers. 

I would also like to recognize and thank the previous panel members, the VSO members for their continuing service to our country. 

I am accompanied today by Mr. Dave Bowen to my left, the chief 

information officer for the military health system, and this oral 

statement is provided on behalf of both Mr. Bowen and myself. 

Just last month, the DoD delivered on our commitment to make 

certified, complete, electronic STRs available in support of the Veterans Benefits Administration’s transition to a fully digital environment for claims processing. 

We are now providing the VA with access to electronic STRs for 

servicemembers who separated or were discharged after January 

1st, 2014 in our Health Artifact and Image Management Solution, 

or the HAIMS, repository. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
27 

Now, to achieve this goal, the DoD significantly revised our 

HAIMS deployment strategy. Working closely with our VA partners, the DoD established a tiger team of experts to plan and develop the required secure system interface needed to allow the VA 

to query the HAIMS repository for relevant STRs. Now, this tiger 

team is critical to ensure that the resulting solution would align 

with the disability benefits claims adjudication workflow. 

Now, the process for digitizing a servicemember’s STR and making it retrievable by the VBA begins with the DoD personnel scanning any paper-based elements of a newly separating 

servicemember’s service treatment record. The digitized STR comprised of both scanned information and existing digital content 

from the servicemember’s DoD electronic health record is then submitted into the HAIMS repository and made available to the VA 

as a single record. 

When a separated servicemember or a veteran files a claim, a 

VBA claims adjudicator then establishes a claim in the Veterans 

Benefits Management System. The system initiates an automated 

request for the STR and when the requested record has been located and retrieved, the system alerts the claims adjudicator that 

the STR is available to support the claims process. 

The process I just described supports probably the most important contribution the DoD makes to the VA’s effort to expedite the 

claims processing for our veterans. By providing the VA with the 

complete, certified, electronic STRs at the point of a 

servicemember’s separation, the DoD helps to ensure the claims adjudicators have the military service-related healthcare evidence 

needed to adjudicate a VA disability claim. 

Now, we are quite pleased with the successful and ongoing collaboration with our VA colleagues to deliver this needed service to 

our veterans. 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and distinguished 

subcommittee Members, this concludes my oral statement. Mr. 

Bowen and I would be happy to answer any questions that you or 

the subcommittee members may have. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. THOMAS APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX] 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Major General Thomas. 

And with that, I will start a round of questioning, and my first 

question is for Mrs. Rubens. 

Although in your introduction to testimony you note that veterans may submit claims electronically through e-benefits’ Web 

site, you glossed over the recent e-benefits system defect in which 

thousands of veterans may have had their personal information 

broadcast to other users. 

Have there been any other problems such as outages, glitches, or 

information compromises associated with the VA’s e-benefits portal 

since the most recent breach of the veterans’ personal information 

on January 15th of 2014? 

And I know for a fact yesterday there was actually an outage of 

e-benefits because I received it about 4:40, 4:45 last night. So I 

would like to hear your response to that question. 

Ms. RUBENS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
28 

Obviously we take very seriously the security of our personally 

identifiable information of our veterans. Ms. Landfried is prepared 

to speak to the specifics of last week, but I will tell you that we 

continue to work very closely from a business and OIT side as we 

identify these kinds of issues. 

Ms. Landfried. 

Ms. LANDFRIED. Thank you. 

First, before I start, I would like to apologize to any 

servicemember, any veteran, or their family member who may have 

had their information viewed by another veteran who was on the 

system on the evening of January 15th. We hold ourselves to a very 

high standard in the Office of Information Technology and during 

that incident, we did not meet that standard. 

The specifics of what happened, we were doing an update to a 

system that feeds into e-benefits. We completed the update. After 

an install, we verify to see if it is working. During that verification, 

we discovered that users on the system were able to see information about other users. 

As soon as we found out that the newly installed software was 

the cause, we removed that software from the system and verified 

that the potential to see another person’s information while you 

were viewing your own no longer existed. 

Then as a further precaution, we took the e-benefits system offline so that we could do a review end-to-end to make sure that 

there were not any other vulnerabilities. We waited until that Sunday morning to bring the system back online working with our 

VBA colleagues to make sure that when we did bring the system 

online that the VBA call center was staffed. Even though it was on 

a weekend, we did this just in case any of the veterans using the 

system coming back online had any questions or concerns or saw 

anything out of the ordinary. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Have there been any other issues? The committee 

received notification of an outage as of last night, so what are the 

other issues? 

Ms. LANDFRIED. The incident last night, although e-benefits was 

impacted, it was actually an issue at the Austin data center with 

domain controllers. If users were able to refresh their browser a 

few times, the issue cleared. The duration of the impact really was 

dependent on how long it took for that to reset. 

So the issue was not with the e-benefits system, but to an end 

user that does not really matter because they were not able to get 

to the system at the exact time that they needed it. 

Mr. RUNYAN. A department official also stated that up to 5,351 

people may have been affected by this defect. How was this number 

determined and is VA confident that this number is accurate? 

Ms. LANDFRIED. Sure, I will take that. Yes I am confident that 

that number is accurate. Whenever there is an incident, as I explained the first thing we look at is, what was the cause, so that 

we can get systems back and operational for VBA and our veterans. 

As soon as we did that and determined that we had stopped the 

problem, we then examined all of our audit logs so that we could 

determine exactly who was on the system at the time that the incident occurred and what functions they were using. The problem 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
29 

was contained to four or five functions on the system, so it was not 

every system or every function that you could get to on the e-benefits portal. 

I am confident in that number because that is the maximum 

number of people who were on the system at that time. They were 

the maximum number of people who could have potentially viewed 

another veteran’s information. 

According to, all of the logs that have been examined at this 

point, the actual number of veterans whose information was potentially seen by another veteran on the system was 1,362. 

I failed to mention before that, whenever there is a potential Pll 

loss there are two things that we do at the department. One is, we 

communicate it. We notify Congress. We work with our VSO partners to get the message out to them. I put out a blog post. 

And then in parallel, we have a data breach core team that looks 

to make sure that all of the material is complete and then determines what the remediation should be for the people that were potentially impacted. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

I would like to continue that, Ms. Landfried, if you do not mind. 

I appreciate what you do when a problem like that happens, but 

I would ask you two things. One is, has that data breach team 

completed its investigation and made any recommendations, and 

what safety provisions have you put in place to keep this from happening again? 

Ms. LANDFRIED. Sure. First of all, the data breach core team is 

wrapping up their review and they have begun the notification 

process. Letters have started going out to the impacted people, and 

part of the remediation that has been offered is how to get free 

credit monitoring in the event that any of the information that was 

viewed by other people on the system falls into the wrong hands. 

In terms of how we respond to the event, as Ms. Ruben said, we 

take very seriously our obligation to protect veterans and their personal information as if it were our own. So we have a multilayered 

defense in place to combat, you know, whatever the issue might be. 

That includes monitoring outside the VA network by external 

partners; monitoring internally of the VA network; monitoring of 

our servers, our applications, as well as desktop devices. It is sort 

of a defense in-depth type of strategy to make sure that information is protected to the best of our ability. 

Ms. TITUS. So is it just back to business as usual or are you putting in place something new to keep this problem from recurring? 

Ms. LANDFRIED. With this particular problem it was a combination of events that happened. There was the software that we put 

in that did not behave which caused e-benefits to expose information that it shouldn’t have. We have put additional error handling 

in e-benefits to make sure that should it ever see that same error 

condition, that we won’t have that same condition. 

We have also reviewed all of our other applications that have 

similar features to make sure that they also have appropriate error 

handling in case they ever encounter this problem. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
30 

Now, I will go back to my previous problem which is the 

brokering of cases. I know in Reno 5,000 cases have been brokered 

to other places around the country. And my question is, that is 

kind of lipstick on a pig. I mean, you are dealing with the symptoms, but not the causes of the problem. Now, in the short term, 

those 5,000 cases may get decided quicker, but still there is a problem at the Reno office if they couldn’t handle it. 

Also, I wonder, does a case have to get to be stale or get to sit 

around for a long time or almost be at the status of being part of 

the backlog before it is brokered? You know Reno is not going to 

be able to do it. Why don’t you just broker those cases up front and 

then figure out some way to fix the Reno office? Would you answer 

that for me. 

Ms. RUBENS. Sure. Thank you, ma’am. 

I understand your concern that brokering them out is not necessarily addressing the issues that we have got in Reno and I want 

to assure you that we are doing two things. 

First and foremost, obviously, is working to get veterans who 

have been waiting the longest their decisions, and at the same 

time, working with the Reno regional office to ensure that we are 

maximizing the efficiency and ensuring the accountability throughout the chain so that the work being done in Reno continues to 

work. They have got great quality today, but also work to improve 

timeliness and output to ensure that they are capable to providing 

the service to the veterans of Nevada. 

We will continue to use that approach so that we are, one, taking 

care of veterans, and, two, ensuring that the systems that are in 

place in Reno are working the way that they should to improve the 

output in the performance of the Reno regional office itself. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentle lady. 

With that, I recognize Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Rubens, thank you for your answers so far and for being responsive to me and to our office, accompanying us to the Waco regional office to look at the backlog issue there, which, as I noted 

earlier, has gone from something like 470 days on average to, I 

guess, close to 250, which is not yet near where it should be, but 

much better than where it was. And so we hope that it continues 

to move in that direction. 

I have three questions that I hope to be able to get you to answer 

today. There are so many issues brought up by the representatives 

from the VSOs and the gentleman from the AFGE, but one that I 

want to focus on is the assertion made by Mr. Manar that in 

prioritizing disability claims that need to be rated, we are not committing the necessary resources to take care of other critical VBA 

responsibilities. He mentioned a few. I mentioned a few in my response to him. 

Could you comment on that and let us know whether or not that 

is the case? 

Ms. RUBENS. Thank you, sir. 

And I would tell you that as we are prioritizing not only the 

aging claims, I will remind us all that we also established, of 

course, those priorities for the Congressional Medal of Honor recipiVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:19 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\86727.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
31 

ents, our former POWs, homeless, terminal, extreme financial 

hardship, as well as our fully developed claims, in an effort to ensure that we were addressing all of those. 

When you talk about the fact that we had a record year for 

claims processed in the rating bundle, I would draw to your attention that we have also had a record year for the number of nonrating claims that we completed, and so I would tell you that we 

are continuing to work, whether it is across non-rating or appeals 

work to ensure we are accomplishing work across the spectrum. 

I know we talked at some length about where we are at with our 

IDES work. I would tell you that VBA has also worked to improve 

the outcomes on behalf of those servicemembers going through the 

IDES program. Our Seattle regional office is processing for the 

army. We have added resources, 180 folks last year, and, of those, 

we recently promoted and sent to training another 36 rating specialists who are going to make those decisions on the claims on 

both preliminary and final ratings in the decisions, working with 

the army to agree on our approach as to how we work towards 

those claims. And so we are taking a holistic approach and working 

all of the veterans’ claims. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. So if I could just summarize it to a one-word answer, it would be, no, we are not suffering in other areas for 

prioritizing the disability claims and the other issues that you 

raised? 

Ms. RUBENS. Correct. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Okay. How would you then explain how far off 

the mark we are when it comes to IDES, and I realize the steps 

that you just outlined that you are going to take to rectify the problem, but if our goal is 15 days and we are at 143 days, how did 

that happen and how soon or can you make a commitment to the 

date on which we will be back to 15 days or get to 15 days in the 

first place? 

Ms. RUBENS. So I would tell you that the outcome of being as far 

behind as we are is a number of issues to include our inability to 

keep up with the surges in work that we began to receive through 

the IDES program. As we made those adjustments, our ability to 

turn claims processors from other work and into the IDES work 

and get them trained up is something that has taken us some time. 

We are very much engaged in doing that. 

We have plans in place that will get us for both pre-lim and final 

decisions caught up by March and October of this year in conjunction with the agreement that we have got with the army. I have 

continued to have regular and ongoing calls with our folks in Seattle to ensure that we are working to those goals and we continue 

to anticipate meeting them. We have also used some resources from 

our Providence IDES processing center to help back down that time 

and age for our army participants in the IDES program. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And to put a point to it, we will be at 15 days 

at what point? 

Ms. RUBENS. So I guess the 15 days, if I recall, really is the upfront component and there are pieces of the IDES program that 

start with the claims intake, the getting the exam accomplished. 

And I would like to make sure that I am referring to the right target of 15 days with you so that I am not misleading you. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
32 

Mr. O’ROURKE. The VA has two parts of this; the Department of 

Defense has the rest. I am looking at the VA rating which is one 

of those parts which—the first VA rating which has a goal of 15 

days. The actual in the case that we are looking at is 191 days. The 

Army average is 143 days. That is the one I want to know when 

we are going to be able to get to our goal. 

Ms. RUBENS. So as we work to the agreement with the army 

about which we would, I will say tackle first, we determined that 

we would complete the final rating initially. Those are the 

servicemembers who have gotten not only the preliminary from us, 

but finished the work with the army on the MEB/BEB process. 

That target is March and it is August of this year that we are targeting the preliminary rating in 15 days. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Okay. And then we won’t have time for your response because I have run out of time, so I will just pose my third 

question as an appeal. You heard from the VSOs in terms of their 

feelings about the standardized form, and I understand the logic 

behind implementing that and the rule, but I think you have heard 

about the discomfort and distress and the disservice that we might 

end up doing to our veterans with that rule. So I would appeal to 

you to use something like the Faster Filing Act to allow veterans, 

VSOs to file a claim in whichever way they think is best. 

But make sure that we are very transparent with the information about how soon that claim is likely to be resolved based on 

current trends, which, again, you can elect to implement administratively. The VA has chosen not to, so the legislation has passed 

the House. Before that becomes mandated by law, we just appeal 

to you to implement that administratively. I think that could do a 

world of good given how much harm we fear this rule may do. 

So, with that, I will yield back to the chairman. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, I recognize Mr. Ruiz. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you all for coming today and thank you for your 

efforts in trying to fix this problem. I am interested in the e-benefits program and initiative and I am assuming that this program 

will allow users to file and follow their claims from their own home, 

correct, Ms. Rubens? 

Ms. RUBENS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUIZ. Okay. So the whole purpose is to have our veterans log 

on so they can have an easier way to file and follow their claims. 

So what are you doing to train and educate our veterans and our 

volunteer veteran service officers and those in the community who 

work with veterans to utilize this e-benefits, and how is it getting 

all the way into the community at the grassroots level? 

Ms. RUBENS. Terrific. Thank you very much. 

And, yes, in fact, we believe that e-benefits is going to give us 

that, and our veterans, frankly, that simpler process for them to 

come in online, upload documents, check their status of claims, as 

well as 58 other self-service initiatives. 

As we work to get the word out, frankly, it has been an acrossthe-board push educating—starting here with members of the committee and staff, with our VSO partners, and press releases, as 

well as information that we regularly post up online. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
33 

Any outreach event, frankly, sir, that we go to, we also have 

members, whether it is from our benefits assistance service here in 

Washington or our regional offices across the country, out at those 

outreach events with an e-benefits site working to get folks informed about e-benefits, and for those that are not registered for 

a premium account so that they can, in fact, make use of all of 

those online services. 

Mr. RUIZ. A lot of our veterans are more senior and not very 

computer savvy, so they would require some hands-on training 

walking through with computers. Do you have those training workshops, not just lectures or panels or flyers, but actual training for 

veterans? 

Ms. RUBENS. So I would refer back to the veterans who participate in our outreach events. If they come in, we will work with 

them to show them, whether that is in our outreach event or in our 

regional office, to show them how to get into e-benefits and use it. 

I would tell you we are very much engaged and our VSO partners 

have been awesome in helping to ensure knowledge about e-benefits and utilizing e-benefits is there. 

Also, for our veterans who are not computer literate, as we continue to build that functionality for our stakeholder enterprise portal, it will allow our VSO partners who hold power of attorney for 

those veterans to come in and submit claims online on behalf of 

those veterans who are not computer friendly. 

Mr. RUIZ. Now, we are starting a veterans university in our district where we are going to train and educate a lot of our veterans 

and our veteran service officers in the area to really help them 

learn the system and learn what they qualify for and train them 

on how to help other veterans. 

I would like to invite your experts into the district to do a series 

of these for our VFWs, our American Legion, and our other VSOs, 

and our veterans in my district so that we can help them access 

their claims better. 

Ms. RUBENS. Wonderful. We would like to be at any outreach 

event you might hold. 

Mr. RUIZ. Okay. 

Ms. RUBENS. Great. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, I am actually going to have another round of questions. We are going to have votes here pending in the next five, ten 

minutes maybe. 

I have two questions, one for Ms. Rubens and one for Major General Thomas, and I will start with Ms. Rubens because some of the 

VSO testimony contradicts some of the things you actually said in 

your opening statement. All of the VSOs had testimony that contained some negative feedback on the proposed rule to require the 

use of standardized claims forms. 

In part, some of these concerns include the elimination of all informal claims, the creation of a new, arbitrary—burden on claimants to submit a completed claim suggesting that the VA will not 

work a claim until the veteran complies with certain bureaucratic 

hurdles. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
34 

Can you explain from the department’s perspective how this new 

rule would benefit the veteran? 

Ms. RUBENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I will start and if Mr. Hipolit has something to add, I will 

turn to him. I will tell you that organizationally VBA continues to 

look at how do we gain efficiencies in processing claims because we 

think that will help us process claims more quickly and to a higher 

degree of quality for our veterans if we can readily identify the veteran and the issues claimed in evidence that is either available or 

attached. 

To that end, we have gone through the regulation proposal. We 

have gathered 53 sets of comments, many from our VSO partners, 

and many with great, thoughtful information that we are going to 

cull through very closely. And as we work to publish the final rule, 

obviously, we will work to address every one of those comments. 

Mr. Hipolit, is there something that you might add to that? 

Mr. HIPOLIT. I would just like to add that although the proposed 

regulation would do away with the term informal claim, there are 

still certain aspects of the old system that would be preserved in 

the rule to the benefit of veterans, particularly in the electronic filing environment. If a veteran comes in and starts to develop a 

claim and has what we would call an incomplete claim under the 

rule, that would still serve to preserve their effective date. 

We have also made it clear that in cases where there is medical 

evidence that would allow an increase in benefits, a VA exam or 

whatever that could be the date of a placeholder that could then 

be the basis for an effective date if the veteran came in and filed 

a claim within a year there after. 

So some aspects of the old system are still preserved, even 

though the term informal claim is no longer used. As was mentioned, though, a lot of the VSOs did have concerns about the impact of the rule, and there may be changes to what has been proposed in a final rule. 

We have greatly appreciated receiving those comments. We are 

in the process of analyzing those in depth now and we are going 

to certainly take those into account moving forward. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Every single VSO that sat up there had a concern 

about it. 

I think, Mr. Hipolit, you have addressed it, and, Ms. Rubens, you 

have addressed it a little bit, but it is a concern that they all have. 

And just make sure when you go through the process that you are 

weighing concerns the way they should be weighed. 

My next question is for Major General Thomas. 

Both DoD and VA state in written testimony, the deadline for 

implementing HAIMS transfer of digital STRs to the VA was met, 

but at a the recent oversight visit, subcommittee staff was informed that there had been some complications with the rollout. 

Can you detail these complications and then state what has been 

done to fix those problems? 

Major General THOMAS. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

You know, I think the initial rollout here is really to get the system to IOC or initial operating capability. They have goals and 

milestones to get to the FOC and there is a targeted date for that. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
35 

And I know that, specifically, there were some issues working 

with the VA here to address a certain timeout issue affecting subscription service to obtain the—or to retrieve the full service treatment record. 

And I will defer to Mr. Bowen, if you want to give any more specific details about complications? 

Mr. BOWEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, we do have some issues we are working through. 

They are involved around some of our workflow processes on the 

DoD side still needing to be refined. I know we have had one instance where a document was misclassified and so it showed up in 

the wrong section of the service record that transferred over to the 

VA, but, nonetheless, was there. The system worked as planned. 

We just put the document into the wrong section. So we are working on that. 

We have some issues around duplicate records showing up on the 

VA side. We are working through those issues. We believe that 

may be a user education issue on the VA, where the claimant has 

actually requested multiple times, so working through that. 

Teams are looking at the details of all of these issues. We are 

logging them. We are tracking them, and the teams are meeting 

every single day to work through these issues, research the problems, and get them resolved. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just ask Ms. Rubens how station targets are set for VA 

regional offices? We have discovered, of course, especially in Reno, 

that they are not being met. I wonder if those targets are realistic 

and what happens to hold offices accountable that do not meet 

those targets? 

Ms. RUBENS. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

Targets are based on the resources within each regional office. 

The expectation that a resource from one office will be equivalent 

to the resources in another office, and so from one RO to another, 

it is based on how many individuals they have working within the 

service center to make decisions. And I would tell you that in any 

instance where a regional office is not meeting its targets, feedback 

is ongoing and appropriate accountability measures are taken. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentle lady, and thank all of you for 

being here with us today. 

The panel is excused. I appreciate the time and attention that 

went into preparing your remarks for today. 

VBA is moving forward in a positive direction with technological 

updates to its processes, but it is obvious that there will be continuing growing pangs along the way. It is frustrating when the department delivers a message that everything is going as planned 

when we know that is not always the case. 

Accordingly, I would ask you all to, again, keep communication 

open with this subcommittee. 

I would also ask unanimous consent that all members have five 

legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any 

extraneous material. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
36 

I thank the Members for their attendance today, and this hearing is now adjourned. 

[The Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America appears in Appendix] 

[Whereupon, at 6:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
37 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERALD T. MANAR

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF

THE UNITED STATES

On behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United 

States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

present our views on the current status of Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) 

transformation and secondary effects of VBA technology. 

The wide ranging focus of today’s hearing on the status of VBA’s transformation 

and intended and unintended consequences of these changes is both apt and timely. 

VBA is moving forward so quickly and on so many fronts to modernize its claims 

processing tools that it is only appropriate that all of us pause from time to time, 

and determine where the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is at in the process 

and examine the effects of this massive effort. 

While the VFW is both an observer of these changes and a participant in many 

of them, and we have some knowledge and understanding of all the topics you are 

interested in today, we will confine our comments to three issues which concern us 

the most: VA’s national work-queue strategy within Veterans Benefits Management 

System (VBMS); how that strategy will affect VFW representational activities; and 

the recently proposed rule mandating electronic forms and its potential impact on 

veterans and veterans’ rights. 

VA’s National Work-Queue Strategy 

VA has one of the most geographically diverse claims adjudication operations of 

any federal agency or department in the federal government. Claims processing occurs in VA regional offices found in every state. Several states have two regional 

offices; California has three. Regional offices also exist in Puerto Rico and the Philippines. In addition, claims processing has been further dispersed to other locations, 

including Sacramento and Orlando. Claims intake sites, and some claims processing 

personnel, are also located on scores of military bases around the nation. 

Even with this widespread diffusion of personnel, claims processing is still largely 

worked on by staff in the office with jurisdiction over the geographic area in which 

the veteran lives. Except for several counties in the southern part of the state, for 

instance, New Jersey claims are processed in Newark; claims submitted by residents 

of Nevada are processed in Reno; and claims from veterans living in California are 

adjudicated in San Diego, Los Angeles or Oakland. However, for at least 30 years, 

VBA has increasingly transferred cases from offices with high workloads to those 

more capable of processing the work more quickly—a process called brokering. VBA 

has developed tools to assess the capacity of offices to handle more work and moved 

the work to those locations. 

The VFW has often been critical of the practice of brokering work. All too often, 

VBA has chosen to move work around rather than address the problems extant in 

overburdened offices with overworked staff. Inadequate training, poor management 

and other factors have not always been addressed in a timely manner in order to 

fix known problems and ameliorate the need to transfer work to another office. 

Further, the practice of brokering work has the unintended consequence of undermining the ‘‘ownership’’ of claims that many VA employees feel, which has a subtle 

but real effect on the quality of development and decisions in cases not from their 

state. Poor quality of decisions in brokered claims has been a common complaint of 

veteran service officers and VA employees alike. While VBA claims that quality of 

brokered work is no different than work that is not brokered, the near constant cacophony of reports to the contrary makes us question VBA’s claims. 

We are in the midst of a great and long overdue renaissance in claims processing 

technology. While we may still talk about the electronic transfer of claims from one 

office to another, the reality is that the only thing transferred is the authority to 

work a claim, or pieces of that claim, to an office other than the one with jurisdiction over it. For the first time in its history, VBA has the capability to develop a 

claim in Phoenix, rate a claim for PTSD in Pittsburgh and evaluate the other 

claimed conditions in Jackson. The question is not whether they can do this. It is, 

rather, how they can do this while ensuring that veterans receive quality correspondence from Phoenix and legally correct decisions from Pittsburgh and Jackson. 

The VFW generally supports VBA’s modernization efforts, recognizing full well 

that in order to be effective, it must take advantage of all the resources and assets 

it has available to it. The VFW has worked with VBA administrators, innovators 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
38 

1The national VFW employs service officers at the Board of Veterans Appeals supporting 

claimants who have appealed to the BVA. Other national service officers work at over 16 military installations helping service members understand VA benefit programs and, where appropriate, file a claim for compensation. 

and contractors over the past three years, often on a daily basis. The VFW, along 

with other major Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs), have cooperated with VBA 

by providing not just our time, ideas and observations, but also by providing personnel to work side by side on specific projects. 

Even though we are living through an unprecedented period of cooperation and 

transparency, we find that significant gaps exist in what we are allowed to see and 

comment on. For instance, other that talking to us about the vision of developing 

a national work-queue, of truly nationalizing the work to more effectively deal with 

workload peaks and valleys, VBA leadership has not yet presented us with a coherent picture of their vision nor have they sat down to explore with us how representatives from veterans service organizations fit into that plan. 

Impact of A National Work-Queue Strategy on Service Organization Representation 

Over the past few years, as the major VSOs sat with VBA personnel and contractors to discuss how accredited service officers will access and use VBMS, SEP, D2D 

and other programs, they often seem confounded and occasionally confused by the 

divergent business models that exist between VSOs. There are two basic business 

models between the major VSOs. The VFW and the American Legion service programs generally follow a federal model: most representational activity is performed 

at the local regional office level by service officers employed by the respective organizational Departments or states. For instance, the VFW Department of Michigan 

employs the VFW service officers who work in Detroit. While the national VFW contributes to Michigan’s service program, the employees do not work for the national 

organization.1

This business model works best when local service officers work with and support 

local veterans and other claimants. The claims are worked in the regional office 

where they are collocated which allows them to develop professional relationships 

with local VA personnel. This close proximity allows them to get problems corrected 

quickly and informally, helping veterans receive the benefits to which they are legally entitled and avoiding unnecessary appeals. 

Other VSOs, such as the Disabled American Veterans and the Military Order of 

the Purple Heart, employ a cadre of national service officers. While these service 

officers may be stationed in the various regional offices, they work for the national 

organization. The national organization in this business model may find it easier to 

repurpose or redirect their service officers and can tell them which cases they are 

to review regardless of geographical boundaries. While there are significant differences in these two business models, under the current work processing system 

employed by VA, both models work similarly. In both, local service officers assist 

claimants, review decisions made by VA and work to get mistakes corrected without 

the need to appeal. 

Today the work queue provided to service officers only shows the work in the office where they are situated. While the service officer can search for a specific claim 

and view whatever information is available in VBMS and Virtual VA for any case 

in the VA system, they must do this on a case by case bases since the current work 

queue does not show work outside the geographical boundaries of the office in which 

they work. 

There are over 4,000 Illinois cases brokered from the Chicago regional office to 

other offices around the United States. Our service officer currently has no way to 

obtain a list of all Illinois VFW cases being worked in another VA office. Although 

he may have helped many of these claimants file a claim with VA, he is unable to 

identify which cases have been brokered or what is being done with them unless 

he searches these cases one by one. VA can and should do better. 

Under a national work-queue plan, VA must accommodate the service organizations which have represented veterans for decades. It is not enough to allow service 

officers in Detroit to review a file and rating for a claim brokered to Detroit from 

Fargo. VA must allow the service officer in Detroit to review a Michigan claim 

which was developed three states away and rated in Utah. VA is developing this 

capability for its claims personnel. It is critical that VSO service officers are not left 

behind. 

This, then, comes full circle to our previous comments about VBA’s failure to sit 

down with VSOs, discuss the needs of each service organization, explore in a robust 

and frank manner how VBA systems can be modified to allow for the various busiVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:19 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 Y:\86727.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
39 

2 ‘‘Any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under 

the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, from a claimant, his or her duly 

authorized representative, a Member of Congress, or some person acting as next friend of a 

claimant who is not sui juris may be considered an informal claim. Such informal claim must 

identify the benefit sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been 

filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution. If received within 1 

year from the date it was sent to the claimant, it will be considered filed as of the date of receipt 

of the informal claim.’’ 38 CFR 3.155(a) 

ness models employed by the various VSO’s and then commit to making these system changes concurrent with developing a national work-queue. 

VA Proposed Rule AO81–Standard Claims and Appeals Forms 

VA published a proposed rule on October 3, 2013, which caught the attention of 

the veteran community. Disguised as a proposal to require claimants to complete 

standardized forms, it actually proposed to: 

• Eliminate all informal claims—— • Create a new and arbitrary burden on all claimants to submit a ‘‘complete 

claim’’ before VA is required to take any notice of a claim. 

• Advance the concept that VA will work no claim until a veteran first complies 

with every arcane bureaucratic requirement it creates. 

The comments of the VFW, along with over 60 other responses, were submitted 

by the December 30, 2013, deadline. Every major veteran service organization, and 

virtually all of the other respondents, opposed these changes. 

Over the past five years, the VFW has been generally supportive, both publicly 

and privately, of the focus and vision of both Secretary Shinseki and Under Secretary for Benefits Hickey. Together they have accomplished more, and advanced 

VBA further than all of their predecessors for at least the previous decade combined. However, we have become increasingly concerned over the past year that the 

focus on achieving the Secretary’s goals of ending the ‘‘backlog’’ by 2015 and achieving 98 percent accuracy in claims processing has taken on a life of its own; that 

the goal is no longer to help all veterans but to create the appearance of success 

by changing the playing field. 

These regulatory proposals change the playing field for veterans. In order to force 

them to use specifically designated forms, VA makes it demonstrably harder for veterans to begin a claim. Under current law, a claimant need only submit a communication to VA indicating his or her intent to file a claim for one or more benefits. 

If a formal application is not of record, VA is obligated to send the claimant an application to complete. The claimant has one year in which to return the completed 

application. If benefits are awarded, benefits may start as early as the date of receipt of that first communication.2

If these changes go into effect, that first communication can no longer act as an 

effective date, nor does it compel VA to respond to the veteran. VA may eventually 

send a letter to the veteran stating the communication was received. However, VA 

will not take any action until the veteran fully completes and returns a required 

form. Omission of a single required entry means that the veteran has not submitted 

a ‘‘complete claim’’ and VA will continue to do nothing. 

While surely not intended by Secretary Shinseki, the implementation of these 

changes will result in substantial delays in veterans being able to file a ‘‘complete 

claim’’ and a substantial reduction of benefits because the date of claim is delayed 

by months while veterans are forced to comply with arbitrary administrative requirements. The backlog will be reduced, not because VA is more efficient, but because it tells thousands of veterans that they have not filled out VA forms to its 

satisfaction. Because a date of claim is not established until VA accepts an application as ‘‘complete,’’ veterans will lose months of benefits. These proposed changes 

are not in keeping with the veteran friendly laws enacted by Congress over the last 

four score years. 

The VFW believes that there is an alternative to this draconian and heavy handed 

approach. The acceptance of an informal claim in the absence of a ‘‘complete claim’’ 

does not harm VA. It is nothing more than a place holder. If a claimant submits 

a ‘‘complete claim’’ within one year, then VA can use the date of receipt of the informal claim as a possible effective date as is currently allowed by law and regulation, 

allowing VA to obtain the data it wants from claimants in the form it wishes to receive it, regardless of the initial informal claim. However, claimants are not harmed 

because, under current law, they have one year in which to submit a claim form 

satisfactory to VA. 

The authors of these proposed changes must believe themselves to be clever, because while doing away with informal claims they create the concept of an ‘‘incomVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:19 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 Y:\86727.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
40 

3Monday Morning Workload Report, http://www.vba.va.gov/reports/mmwr/, January 27, 

2014. VA reported that dependency claims, controlled by End Product (EP) 130 totaled 235,189; 

74.2 percent were pending over 125 days. In the last 42 months the number of dependency 

claims has grown 474 percent from 40,990 in June 2010. 4Fast Letter 10–22, Fully Developed Claim Program, June 15, 2010, states in part: Consider 

any communication or action that shows intent to apply for benefits under the FDC Program 

as an informal FDC. [emphasis supplied] Upon receipt of an informal FDC: Advise the claimant 

to complete and return a formal claim within one year to receive benefits from the date of receipt of the informal claim. 

plete claim’’ only for claims started electronically. Incomplete electronic claims can 

be completed at any time within a year after they are started, and VA may use the 

date the claim was started electronically as the date of claim. They create a special 

incentive for claimants who are aware of, and comfortable with the online application process. VA elects to penalize claimants who do not have a computer, access 

to the Internet, an e-Benefits account, or just like to sit at the kitchen table and 

complete a paper form. 

It is strange that VA chooses to not just incentivize the filing of an electronic 

claim; instead they have decided to penalize veterans who write a letter or fill out 

most of a prescribed form by delaying the start of any earned benefits by many 

months. The Internal Revenue Service incentivize Americans to file electronically by 

processing refunds with lightning speed. However, they do not reduce a refund simply because the filer chooses to send in a paper form 1040. 

VA has proven that it can process claims submitted electronically much faster 

than those received on paper. Many dependency claims filed electronically today can 

be worked in minutes while over 235,000 previously filed paper claims continue to 

wait.3 What more incentive do people need? It is VFW’s contention that these draconian measures are unneeded to encourage many thousands of veterans to file electronically. 

There is one other consequence of the elimination of the informal claim. The Fully 

Developed Claim (FDC) program, created by VA to encourage veterans to accomplish all required development before submitting a claim to VA in exchange for expedited claims processing, will be dealt a severe and likely fatal blow. In Fast Letter 

10–22, Fully Developed Claim Program (June 15, 2010), specifically addresses and 

endorses the use of informal claims in FDC claims. Veterans may notify VA that 

they intend to file a claim under the FDC program. VA acknowledges that notification and tells the veteran that they have one year in which to submit a complete 

FDC.4

Implementation of the changes proposed by VA to eliminate informal claims will 

take away a major incentive offered to veterans for accomplishing their own development. Without the ability to file an informal claim, veterans stand to lose months 

of retroactive benefits if they chose to submit an FDC. We fully anticipate that veterans will decide that the cost of delay in filing a claim is too great. Without the 

ability to file an informal claim they will elect to file a standard claim and forgo 

the FDC program. Currently, over 27 percent of disability claims submitted to VA 

are accepted as Fully Developed Claims. Implementation of this rule will eliminate 

this vast savings of VA manpower overnight. 

The VFW does not oppose the use of standardized forms, nor do we oppose the 

required use of such forms in order to complete a claim for benefits. However, the 

proposed elimination of the ability to file an informal claim will have a profound 

impact on every veteran who does not or cannot use a computer to start a claim. 

This proposed rule will take away a basic and fundamental right that has existed 

for many decades. It unnecessarily increases the complexity of starting a claim with 

VA, and will substantially reduce the amount of compensation awarded to veterans 

and other claimants. Further, because VA will not count any attempt to file a claim 

until the veteran has filled out every form to VA’s satisfaction, it will have the effect 

of reducing pending claims, making VA appear to be more efficient than it really 

is. 

The VFW opposes these proposed changes. We believe them to be unnecessary to 

accomplish VA’s stated objectives and harmful to veterans and other claimants. We 

have talked to VA leadership about these proposed changes with little apparent result. We ask Congress to take action to protect the ability of claimants to file an 

informal claim, whether electronically or on paper. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions you or the committee may have. 

Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
41 

Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, VFW has not received 

any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2013, nor has it received any federal grants in 

the two previous Fiscal Years. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFERY C. HALL

DAV ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the DAV (Disabled American Veterans) and our 1.2 million members, 

all of whom are wartime wounded and injured veterans, thank you for asking DAV 

to testify before the Subcommittee today regarding the current status of the many 

technological initiatives occurring in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), 

including the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) 6.0, Veterans Relationship Management (VRM), e-Benefits, Stakeholder Enterprise Portal (SEP), the 

work-credit system in an electronic environment, national work-queue strategy, and 

the potential impact of the proposed rule mandating the use of standardized forms 

within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As the nation’s leading veterans 

service organization (VSO) assisting veterans seeking disability compensation and 

other benefits, DAV has tremendous experience and expertise relating to the processing of claims as well as the various ways veterans may appeal adverse actions 

and decisions. 

Mr. Chairman, I recently had the opportunity to accompany DAV National Service 

Director Jim Marszalek on a visit to the Newark, New Jersey, VA regional office 

(VARO). As you may know, the Newark VARO is the only fully electronic regional 

office within the VA, also known as an ‘‘e-VARO.’’ All claims processing performed 

in Newark today is fully electronic and for all intents and purposes, completely 

paperless. 

Upon receipt of a claim for benefits on a standard VA Form 21–526 by the Intake 

Processing Center (IPC), employees first check the system to determine if an electronic record already exists. If no electronic record exists, the IPC begins building 

the veteran’s electronic file (e-File) by first establishing where the paper file is currently located and then requesting the file be sent to the scanning facility where 

it will be converted digitally and become the base of the e-File. IPC employees then 

input the basic information from the paper claim into a newly created VBMS record, 

including the specific contentions or issues being claimed. Based upon the number 

and/or complexity of the issues being claimed, IPC employees then assign the claim 

to one of the corresponding processing lanes: Express for one or two issue simple 

claims, Core for most standard claims with less than eight issues, and Special Ops 

claims with more than eight issues or complex claims, such as post traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD), military sexual trauma (MST), or traumatic brain injury (TBI). 

After the IPC has created the VBMS record, the paper claim is sent to the centralized scanning facility to be converted digitally in the same manner as the paper 

claims file. 

For veterans who visit the Newark VARO wishing to file a claim, computers are 

available so the individual can create an e-Benefits account and file their claim electronically. Help is available if needed. Should that individual have paper evidence 

to submit along with the claim, it can be scanned and uploaded in Newark or it 

may follow the same path as above, being sent to the scanning facility, depending 

on the amount of the paper evidence. Clearly, for those submitting claims electronically via e-Benefits, the less cumbersome initial processing is for VBA. For veterans 

who want DAV to represent them and file their claim through SEP, we also begin 

that process by having them establish an e-Benefits account. 

Once the now electronic claim has been received in the corresponding lane by an 

assigned Veterans Service Representative (VSR), development can begin. Each day, 

the VSR opens his or her work queue, selects a case, and begins undertaking the 

necessary development. The VSR may be requesting service or private treatment 

records, a VA physical examination and Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), or 

other necessary development. Not only does this assist greatly with organization 

during claims development and working with the veteran’s information, it provides 

tremendous benefit in productivity and output, having everything electronic and at 

a person’s fingertips. 

Being able to actually watch a working demonstration from a Rating Veterans 

Service Representative (RVSR) proved to be invaluable during the visit to Newark. 

When RVSRs come in each day, they are greeted with a much more harmonious 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
42 

working environment, with neat work spaces instead of the customary mountains 

of paper and files that used to be there waiting for them. Now all of a veteran’s 

claims and related information has been converted electronically within the VBMS 

system to be process or searched; and by more than one user at a time if necessary. 

When the RVSR opens the work queue, he or she is able to quickly ascertain what 

has been done and what needs to be done in each respective case. The RVSR is able 

to review the veteran’s e-File and see all of the development as it relates to the 

claim, tab certain information and make notes. When the case is ready for rating, 

the RVSR opens the VBMS rating program (VBMS–R) on a second screen program 

to prepare the actual rating. Gone are the stacks of paper and cumbersome files laid 

in front of an RVSR, replaced with two computer screens, one for the VBMS showing the veteran’s e-File with tabbed notes to review for quick reference, and the 

other opened to the actual VBMS–Ready for the RVSR to input pertinent information and produce a final rating with much greater ease than in the past. 

In speaking with many employees at the Newark VARO, including the leadership, 

they uniformly told us that employee morale is higher than in the past and growing 

every day. Employees feel VBMS and the new organizational model, while not perfected, allow for greater productivity, speed, accuracy and accountability in completing their work. Employees realize there will be continuous upgrades and improvements to the VBMS system, but they believe that as their proficiency using 

the new system rises, they will be able to demonstrate further increases in all measurable activities. 

It is important to note that no modern IT system or software is ever truly ‘‘finished’’ and therefore it is vitally important to continue making significant investments in VBMS development in order to allow this system to be capable of meeting 

VBA’s needs. For example, the coding and embedding of rating calculators inside the 

VBMS remains a labor-intensive, time-consuming process and one that needs to continue as the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) is continually updated in 

the future. Furthermore, as new IT technologies emerge, and new requirements for 

the VBA are identified, the VBMS must evolve to address those needs and opportunities, requiring an aggressive development program that has sufficient resources, 

in addition to funding just required to maintain the current IT hardware and software. 

Mr. Chairman, while a backlog of claims pending longer than 125 days still exists 

in Newark and nationally, there are measurable signs of progress resulting from 

VBA’s transformation efforts. The number of claims in the backlog is down by about 

one-third, the total number of pending claims has been reduced by about one-fifth 

and the average days pending continues to drop as the oldest claims are now being 

processed first. Questions remain as to whether this progress can be sustained two, 

five or 10 years from now, and based only on the currently available data and information from the VBA, it is not certain whether this level of progress will be sufficient to meet the Secretary’s ambitious 2015 goals. Nonetheless, DAV continues to 

support VBA’s transformation efforts through our working partnership and we remain optimistic that the documented progress is not simply short-term progress 

that will stall; rather, it is progress that must be sustained and accelerated if VBA 

is to finally eliminate the backlog. 

Veterans Relationship Management (e-Benefits & SEP) 

Although not as well known as VBMS, the VRM systems are equally important 

to the current transformation. The VRM system provides both veterans and VSOs 

the ability to file claims electronically. Like VBMS, the e-Benefits system with 

VONAPPS Direct Connect (VDC) has been in place for more than a year. While 

VBMS is the paperless, rules-based system VBA uses to create electronic files, manage workflow, and determine ratings, the e-Benefits and SEP systems were created 

to allow veterans to file claims electronically and manage benefits online. 

Notwithstanding the recent problems related to the security of the e-Benefits system, in general over the past two years it has been working as intended. More and 

more claims are being submitted and received electronically; however, there have 

been obstacles to be overcome, some of which still remain. One of the first obstacles 

veterans encountered in e-Benefits was problems with inaccurate information maintained by the Department of Defense in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). When a veteran’s personal information is inaccurate in the 

DEERS system, such as one incorrect digit in a birth date, the veteran is unable 

to set up an e-Benefits account until that information is corrected. The system does 

not provide adequate support and correction. Such a problem can be a daunting task 

that causes some veterans to become frustrated, abandon the process and possibly 

not file a claim at all. Although this seems to occur more frequently with older vetVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:19 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 Y:\86727.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
43 

erans less familiar with computers and the Internet, it is nonetheless a major obstacle that must be corrected immediately. 

Many of our DAV clients have reported problems trying create an account and file 

a claim electronically. DAV service officers work diligently with our clients to find 

solutions, but it can take a great deal of time to resolve these issues with DEERS 

before the e-Benefits system will allow a veteran to create an e-Benefits account and 

file a claim electronically. 

Mr. Chairman, VBA wants more veterans to file claims electronically and DAV 

has been the leader among VSOs in increasing the number of claims filed electronically. However, regardless of the level of interest from veterans for electronic filing, 

if access continues to be a problem for many veterans, particularly when they are 

not given information or tools to resolve those problems, there will be too many veterans who walk away from e-Benefits. Nonetheless, DAV is fully committed to promoting electronic filing of claims through e-Benefits, or on their behalf through the 

SEP with the assistance of our National Service Officers (NSOs). Even SEP, however, is dependent upon a veteran having an e-Benefits account in order to receive 

official information from VBA, thus heightening the need for VBA to resolve the 

issue with VSOs’ ability to file claims directly in SEP without the need to do so 

through e-Benefits. 

The SEP is a crucial IT component for reforming the claims process because it 

allows our NSOs the ability to file a veteran’s claim electronically, accept a power 

of attorney (POA), and upload evidence, while being fully integrated with VBMS. 

The SEP allows DAV and other VSOs to do for veterans what the VDC and e-Benefits allows veterans to do for themselves, but with the benefit of assistance and expertise of an experienced representative. Early problems with the SEP development 

were encountered with access as well. Essentially, VSOs were not able to access any 

information about a claimant they represented through VBMS unless the POA box 

was properly checked. Although this issue has been addressed and resolved to a degree, the problem still persists in certain locations and leaves our VSOs unable to 

assist a client even with simple matters such as obtaining the status of a claim in 

VBMS. Like e-Benefits, the VBA must continue to address and resolve these types 

of problems in VBMS with immediacy to ensure that DAV and other VSOs are able 

to fully represent veterans in this electronic environment. 

Work Credit in an Electronic Format 

DAV has long said that the only real solution to the claims backlog is the development of a new claims processing system that focuses on quality and accuracy, not 

just production and timeliness. While accuracy has been and remains one of the performance standards that must be met by all employees, current performance standards adopted in recent years have done little to create new incentives to promote 

quality above production. As new processes and technologies come online, such as 

VBMS and the new organizational model, it is vital for the VBA to make timely adjustments to outdated performance standards to ensure that production pressures 

not outweigh the goals of accuracy and quality, while creating a systematic accountability for work-credit that would function with the new organizational model and 

within the electronic environment. Implementation of the new organizational model 

has changed the roles and workloads of VSRs and RVSRs, which requires consistent 

adjustments to be made to performance standards. For instance, employees handling complex Special Ops claims should not be held to the same performance levels 

in terms of claims completed per day as those handling simpler Express claims. Although VBA revised its performance standards and work credit system, further refinement is needed to create the proper system of work incentives. 

DAV believes it to be absolutely imperative for the VBA to develop a scientific 

methodology for measuring the resources (primarily personnel) required to accurately and timely process the current and future anticipated workload as well as develop a new data-driven model for allocating those resources among VAROs. Crucial 

data needed to establish a sound performance plan or work-credit system is readily 

available in the VBMS and includes such information as specific development or rating actions, workload management, quality, accuracy, output, as well as the correct 

application of pertinent laws and regulations. 

Mr. Chairman, as the transformation to a completely paperless system changes 

the dynamics of the daily business of assembling, developing and processing claims, 

VBA must also change VBA’s work-credit strategy to ensure each employee is properly credited for the work they complete. DAV believes VBA must take the time now 

to ensure development of a new performance plan and work-credit system within 

an electronic environment , not only to hold management and employees accountable, but perhaps more importantly to ensure proper resources and staffing can be 

calculated and provided. It is also essential for the proper allocation of those reVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:19 Mar 12, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 Y:\86727.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
44 

sources and staffing in the most prudent and forward-thinking manner. Additionally, it is absolutely crucial for VBA to look back at claims accuracy rates using 

STAR and other reviews to continually adjust these standards so that they have sufficient resources not just to process the workload of claims, but to make sure that 

they are doing them right the first time. 

National Workload Management Model 

Another top priority for VBA, VSOs and veterans is the timeliness of processing 

claims. While demonstrated progress was achieved last year in reducing the backlog 

of claims, other VBA initiatives such as a national workload management model, 

Centers of Excellence and centralized mail centers, are being proposed, developed 

and tested. 

Although we have not yet seen detailed information of any national workload 

management model, our understanding is that this will allow all claims to be processed nationally by VSRs and RVSRs, regardless of their physical location or the 

origin of the claim. This is essentially the same approach VBA took last year when 

they processed all claims pending more than two years within a short period. With 

all claims now being submitted and/or converted electronically, claims processing 

can be done by any fully trained VSR or RVSR regardless of their location. This approach is not unlike the process of brokering claims from one VARO to another 

when assistance is needed, which VBA has relied heavily upon over the years. So 

taking the basic concept of brokering claims and VBA’s ‘‘all hands’’ strategy they 

used last year to process the oldest claims and applying it to national workload may 

have the potential for success; however, we would like to know more details of how 

this type of model would work. 

For the past several years, VBA has discussed the general concept of establishing 

Centers of Excellence, wherein specific VAROs would be designated to process specific types of claims for the entire country. For example, a particular VARO would 

be designated as a Center of Excellence for claims involving PTSD, MST, and TBI, 

and all claims containing such conditions would be processed by that facility for the 

entire country. 

While Centers of Excellence could relieve the majority of VAROs from processing 

some of the more time consuming, complex claims, it must be done properly, with 

certain principles guiding such a model. One key question is whether claims split 

by issues and processed by multiple centers. What would happen when a VARO receives a claim for PTSD and an orthopedic condition – would the origin VARO process the orthopedic condition or would a PTSD Center of Excellence process all 

issues? Such questions are crucial and we believe that VBA must move in a deliberate and thoughtful manner to ensure that Centers of Excellence are truly ‘‘excellent,’’ not just ‘‘centers.’’ 

VBA has already begun progress towards testing centralized mail centers, each 

designated to perform all initial intake processing for a designated group of VAROs. 

For instance, there may be one such mail center located in Wisconsin to receive all 

incoming mail from five or six VAROs, wherein all initial intake processing will be 

accomplished in the same manner as each respective VARO does at present. Eventually, claimants may no longer send paper documents to their respective VAROs, 

instead sending all documents directly to the mail center, as is done for some other 

government agencies, such as for passports. 

As we have done for nearly 100 years, DAV will continue to evolve and adapt to 

any changes in the claims process; however, such fundamental, structural change 

to the claims process should include VSOs in the planning process from the earliest 

planning stage possible. When considering a major change to the claims process 

such as a national workload management model or anything of a centralizing nature, thoughtful deliberation must be given to the impact of removing the benefit 

of face-to-face interaction between highly-trained VSO service officers and VBA, 

which at the very least would be hindered. 

Mr. Chairman, the process of veterans submitting claims and receiving personal 

assistance from VBA has been around much longer than computers and automation. 

Many wounded, ill and injured veterans have relied heavily upon personal assistance to help them navigate the complexity of the claims process. While a national 

workload management model may be a potentially important strategy for VBA’s 

goal of reducing the backlog, equal consideration must be given to the effect it will 

have on individual veterans. We know that many veterans rely heavily on personal 

interaction and assistance to help navigate VBA’s complex system; how will service 

be affected when a claim is filed by a veteran residing in one state but processed 

by a VBA employee in another state? 

We have already seen the challenges of creating the national call center, wherein 

veterans often call and end up speaking with someone far removed from the VARO 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
45 

of original jurisdiction. DAV NSOs routinely receive complaints from veterans who 

are unable to speak to a person in the call center or if they are able to get through, 

someone who is unable to answer basic status questions. Such problems with VBA’s 

call centers have caused many veterans to lose some confidence in VA and the 

claims process. 

Would a national workload management model, centralized mail center, or Centers of Excellence further fragment personal contact for veterans? DAV understands 

the need for and embraces change; however, these changes must be done thoughtfully to ensure that they are equally positive for veterans and VBA alike. Some of 

the changes, like e-Benefits, involve ‘‘self-service,’’ wherein veterans, especially those 

without representation, can be much more immersed in the claims process; however, 

there are and will always be many who cannot and must rely heavily upon personal 

contact with their local VARO. This is not to say a national workload management 

model or anything of a centralizing nature will not work, but we believe every effort 

must be made to preserve the benefit of local claims processing first, and then perhaps allowing all claims over a designated amount for each VARO to be processed 

within a national workload management model. 

Standardized Forms 

Finally Mr. Chairman, VA is proposing to amend its adjudication regulations and 

the appeals regulations and rules of practice of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(Board), in order to require all claims to be filed on standard forms prescribed by 

the Secretary, regardless of the type of claim or posture in which the claim arises; 

and, to require that VA would only accept an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the agency of original jurisdiction 

as a Notice of Disagreement if it is submitted on a standardized form provided by 

VA for the purpose of appealing the decision, in cases where such a form is provided. 

DAV understands the stated intent of VA’s proposed amendments as an effort to 

improve the quality and timeliness of processing claims and appeals. The purpose 

of the regulatory change is to promote submission of claims and appeals in standard 

formats in order to capture data for a paperless claims and appeals system. Nonetheless, we have concerns about the proposed rulemaking and the consequential adverse effect upon veterans. 

First, requiring a veteran to submit a claim on a standardized form is not a new 

concept. In fact, claim for disability benefits is defined under title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.151(a) as ‘‘[a] specific claim in the form prescribed by the 

Secretary must be filed in order for benefits to be paid.’’ So requiring a veteran to 

file a claim on a standardized form is the current practice; however, the real question is how the new proposal would impact the effective date of a claim received. 

Currently, when a claim is received on a form not prescribed by the Secretary, 

it is an informal claim, which, by definition under title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.155 is ‘‘[a]ny communication or action, indicating an intent to apply 

for one or more benefits . . .’’ provided the informal claim identify the benefit 

sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim on a prescribed form 

has not been submitted, VA will then provide the veteran the proper application for 

execution and the veteran would have one year to complete then submit the required form(s). Should the veteran submit the required form(s) seven months later, 

benefits would be payable retroactively to the date the informal claim was received 

by VBA. This proposal goes much further than requiring a standardized form to be 

used; it effectively removes the preservation of date of claim by eliminating the informal claim from the process. Under this proposed rule, if a veteran does not submit a claim in the standardized format, they too will be provided the form; however, 

if that same veteran does not submit the proper forms until seven months later, 

that will be the effective date of the claim—not the actual date the veteran submitted his or her non-standard form claim, thereby losing entitlement to seven 

months of benefits. 

DAV takes no issue with veterans being required to submit their claims on standardized forms, because that is not the root of what is being changed. This proposed 

rule will cause many veterans, who may have needed that seven months due to illness or other reasons, to lose the benefit of the informal claims process, unless they 

file their claim electronically; for those individuals their effective date will be preserved. Whether this is meant to entice veterans to file their claims electronically, 

clearly there will be veterans who stand to lose their rightful benefits. We have submitted our comments to the proposed rule and call upon Congress to further examine this matter, as it will have a major adverse impact on veterans and the benefits 

they need and earned. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
46 

1 VA Office of the Inspector General (VAOIG) Report 12–00244–241 ‘‘Claims Folder Storage 

at the VA Regional Office, Winston-Salem, North Carolina’’ August 9, 2012 

This proposed rule also seeks to require veterans to submit their notice of disagreement on a standard form. As we have stated, DAV does not have an issue with 

requiring the use of a standard form, which may make it easier for VA to extract 

pertinent information as to what the veteran disagrees with; however, this proposal 

will cause many veterans to lose their appeal rights. Quite simply, under this proposal if a veteran does not use the standard form and complete exactly as directed, 

no additional time period will be provided to the veteran for correction. The appeal 

period will simply end. Currently, veterans are allowed one year to appeal any VBA 

decision. If a veteran submits his notice of disagreement on day 365, he or she will 

still have 60 days from the date of the Statement of Case to submit the actual appeals form, VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals. We have submitted 

our comments to this proposal as well; however, this is another example of making 

this non-adversarial process adversarial and unnecessarily complicated, especially 

for veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a distinction being created between those who possess the 

resources and capabilities to meet the electronic claims filing requirements, and 

those who are not able to do so. VA serves veterans and claimants of all diverse 

backgrounds, with varying physical and mental capabilities, education, and financial 

resources. Some claimants, particularly those of limited financial means and those 

with severe mental or physical impairment, will be penalized by not retaining some 

measure of accommodation for allowing an effective date for entitlement to benefits 

to be based upon the receipt of communication expressing such belief. 

Setting aside special consideration for claimants capable of filing electronically, 

and excluding those who cannot, will cause a certain portion of the eligible claimant 

population to be treated differently. Based on resources, electronic access and capabilities, one group of claimants will receive special consideration for the effective 

date of a claim, while the other group, of limited resources, will be penalized with 

a later date based on receipt of a complete application. 

Because of this disparity, and its effect on a claimant population that may require 

extra assistance, we recommend that an incomplete electronic or non-electronic 

claim, to be considered a request for an application of benefits under the proposed 

provisions of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, section 3.155(c), be established 

as the effective date of entitlement if an appropriate complete application is received 

within one year of the date the Secretary notifies the claimant and the claimant’s 

representative, if any, of the information necessary to complete the application. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any 

questions from you or members of the Subcommittee. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ZACHARY HEARN

DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR CLAIMS VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION DIVISION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is in the midst of a massive transformation of the manner in which they do business, the business of processing disabled veterans’ claims for benefits. In an attempt to move beyond the legacy system 

of paper files that threatened the physical integrity of their own buildings under the 

massive weight of backlogged disability claims, 1 VA has promised an electronic operating environment, the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) that will 

move the agency into the 21st century and eliminate many problems that have 

caused the current backlog of claims. 

While The American Legion has long maintained no electronic system can be a 

complete panacea for the myriad problems that plague the disability claims system, 

VBMS will offer some improvements and does offer opportunities to help alleviate 

some problems that contribute to lengthy delays for disabled veterans. However, the 

change to the new system also presents new concerns, new challenges, and without 

careful consideration of the impact of these changes, veterans could be negatively 

affected by the changes. The most important consideration moving forward is that 

VA must include veterans as stakeholders in the decision making process about how 

to proceed into this brave new world of electronic claims processing. Nobody is better placed to see the impact on veterans than Veterans Service Organizations 

(VSOs) such as The American Legion, who provides accreditation to over 2,900 service officers across the nation to serve the needs of veterans navigating the complex 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
47 

2 ‘‘RIN 2900–AO81-Standard Claims and Appeals Forms’’-78 Fed. Reg. 65,490 (October 31, 

2013). 3http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/Profile-of-Veterans-2011.pdf 

4http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-569.pdf 

disability claims process. Our American Legion service officers have already helped 

nearly 11,000 veterans file new claims this fiscal year, and are proud to serve and 

represent over 720,000 veterans nationwide. 

It goes without saying that any changes to the process need to focus, not on what 

makes things easier for VA, but on what makes the process best able to serve veterans. After all, the entire purpose of the VA is to serve those who have borne the 

battle for this nation, and their surviving spouses and orphans. 

While there are many areas potentially affected by the changes to the new electronic system, The American Legion would like to focus on three areas for the purposes of this testimony. The American Legion is concerned about recent attempts 

by VA to force veterans into options which may not be in their best interest; about 

how a move to divide work hinted at in testimony from VA may impact the claims 

process; and how splitting claims and opening up the processing to a cloud network 

may negatively impact the ability to communicate between VA and the VSOs who 

represent veterans, to the detriment of those veterans’ claims. 

Veterans Losing the Ability to Choose 

Recently, in the Federal Register, VA promulgated a proposed rule change 2

which, though potentially innocuous on the surface, could negatively impact veterans. The change, insisting that all initial claims must be filed on a specific VA 

form, effectively eliminates the current ‘‘informal claim’’ which has been important 

for protecting the effective dates of veterans’ claims. 

Through the elimination of the traditional informal claim, VA eliminates the opportunity to create an effective date at the point where the veteran opts to pursue 

a disability claim. Our understanding of the proposed regulation affects only the veterans seeking disability compensation through non-electronic means. If a veteran 

applies for disability compensation through electronic means through the submission of an ‘‘incomplete application’’, VA will establish an effective date at the time 

of the incomplete application submission as long as the veteran submits a complete 

application within one year. 

Through adoption of these changes, VA will essentially create a division between 

veterans with Internet access and those without Internet access. According to the 

National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, the average age of male veterans was 64 years old in 2011; 3 the United States Census Bureau reported that 

only 45.5 percent of Americans (veteran and non-veteran) age 65 and older have access to the Internet from any location. 4 Assuming these statistics are similar in the 

veteran community as the non-veteran community regarding Internet accessibility, 

VA could be potentially eliminating for millions of veterans an appropriate effective 

date simply by virtue of whether the veteran has access to the Internet. 

Beyond the issue surrounding informal claims is the status of inferred claims. The 

proposed regulation suggests that the veteran would no longer be permitted to receive a grant for service connection based upon an inferred claim as the veteran 

never filed for the claim. Frequently, a veteran may have secondary or aggravated 

conditions by a service connected condition the veteran is seeking. If the veteran receives the appropriate nexus statement supporting this relationship either from a 

VA medical professional or an outside medical professional, the veteran under current regulations is entitled to receive these benefits; however under this proposal, 

this would not occur. 

Ultimately, The American Legion is concerned VA is sacrificing veterans’ choices 

and options in the interest of making the claims system easier for VA to work with. 

However, the disability claims system does not exist to serve VA; it exists to serve 

the veterans disabled through service to their country. 

While it may be beneficial, both for veterans and the VA, to have veterans submit 

claims in a certain fashion, such as through the Fully Developed Claims (FDC) process or through the e-Benefits portal, not every veteran is going to find that choice 

in their best interest or find that choice to be the one that meets their particular 

set of needs. There are better ways to approach channeling veterans towards the 

proper path for receiving benefits. Legislation such as the ‘‘Veterans Benefits Claims 

Faster Filing Act’’ (HR 1809/S 1148) provides information to veterans and allows 

them to make the choice that best suits their needs. Through this information, 

many veterans will see the benefits of applying through the FDC program, or of filing electronically. Veterans will still be encouraged and channeled towards the better options, but only if that’s the option that works best for that veteran. We cannot 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
48 

5Witness Testimony of Mr. Tom Murphy, Director, Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs—December 4, 2013 6 6 38 CFR § 3.310(a) 

take away veterans’ rights to choose the options for their claims that best suit their 

needs. 

Splitting The Issues 

In his testimony before this committee on December 4, 2013, VA’s Director of 

Compensation Service Tom Murphy edged toward the notion in his responses to 

questioning that VA may soon be able to split multi-issue claims and send the individual issues to those best able to process that medical concern. This sort of proposal, seemingly simple at the outset, has potential ripple effects both good and for 

ill. 

In his testimony, Director Murphy notes VA’s concern about the rising complexity 

of VA claims. According to Murphy the average VA claim now contains 7.2 medical 

issues for consideration.5 In conversations with claims raters, many American Legion Department Service Officers (DSOs) report they are told VA employees are expected to process five claims per day to meet their work product goals. Even simple 

math means a VA employee is expected to read, analyze and apply all existing rules 

and regulations to 36 distinct medical issues in a single day, or 180 medical issues 

per week. Clearly, it’s worth looking at how work credit is counted if this is the 

workload raters are expected to accomplish. 

However, the solution cannot be as simple as merely splitting the issues off into 

individual chunks and distributing the work amongst many. In addition to the more 

traditionally understood method of service connection for a disability—that the injury or disease had its onset during the veteran’s period of active service—veterans 

are also entitled to service connection for a disability ‘‘ . . . which is proximately due 

to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury.’’ 6 If a veteran’s multi-issue 

claims are to be split up, with the individual issues farmed out to multiple VA employees, there must be a mechanism in place that will still look at the whole picture 

of the veteran and determine the possibility of secondary service connection. Exactly 

what this means or how it could be best implemented still requires consideration. 

It may be as simple as providing each overall claim with an overseer to ensure 

the entirety of the veteran’s claim remains in focus. It may be more complicated, 

such as issuing instructions to the physicians who examine the veterans and provide 

opinions, as well as the raters who render the final determination along the lines 

of: 

This veteran is being evaluated for service connection for [X] condition. Service 

connection is allowed through direct linkage to an event or disease occurring 

during active duty service and/or through secondary service connection, wherein 

the current disability is caused or aggravated by a service connected condition. 

The veteran is ALSO being evaluated for service connection for [Y] and [Z] conditions. In your opinion/decision, please address whether those conditions, individually or in concert, are as likely as not contributory to the cause or aggravation 

of [X] condition. 

In essence, such a divided process would likely need to expand the reliance on hypothetical consideration within the claims system. Whether this would be effective 

or not, or whether it would ultimately be in the best interest of veterans will require 

a good deal of further discussion. Suffice to say, while there may be some benefit 

to ensuring that VA’s 100 best evaluators of mental health disorders work on the 

lion’s share of mental health claims, the implementation of such a plan is unlikely 

to be a simple or smooth transition process. There are going to be many questions 

raised, and the needs of veterans must be considered at every step along the way. 

The VSOs must be included in VA and congressional decision making along this 

road. 

Processing In The Cloud 

One of the other concerns raised by VBMS’s ability to split claims into individual 

issues and redirect them throughout the entire cloud of the nationwide system is 

the breakdown in communication between VA employees and the VSOs that represent veterans, as well as the communication factor for veterans themselves. Past 

VA experiments in moving claims out of the Regional Offices (ROs) in which they 

are filed have caused problems. 

In 2008 and 2009 respectively, VA’s Pension Management Centers (PMCs) took 

on the additional task of processing responsibilities for death pension applications 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
49 

7 VAOIG Report 10–00639–135 ‘‘Veterans Benefits Administration Review of Pension Management Centers’’ March 30, 2011 8 VAOIG Report 10–00639–135 ‘‘Veterans Benefits Administration Review of Pension Management Centers’’ March 30, 2011 9 American Legion Resolution No. 25: ‘‘The American Legion Policy on Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) Consolidation Efforts’’—MAY 2009 

and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) claims.7 In addition to the 

problems caused increasing the backlog on these death pension and DIC claims because the PMCs were not equipped to adequately process the volume directed to 

them,8 The American Legion Department Service Officers (DSOs) reported an even 

greater problem. Whereas when these claims were still located in the ROs, the 

DSOs were able to communicate regularly with the VA staff processing the claims 

and ease the process along for the widows and widowers, in the PMCs communication was next to impossible. When the delays started piling up, DSOs, working on 

behalf of the recently widowed surviving spouses, some of the most vulnerable clients, couldn’t even get basic information about the claims. 

In a successful RO, the relationship between the VA staff and the VSOs working 

for veterans in that office is one of open communication. Often, the people involved 

can talk together and solve a lot of problems quickly and without extra bureaucratic 

red tape. When people work together as partners it is a lot easier to get things done, 

to the benefit of veterans. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship. 

An American Legion DSO can spot a situation where a veteran’s claim was denied 

because VA failed to consider important evidence and raise that issue with the rater 

and coach before the decision is promulgated. Often times VA and the VSOs agree 

and can save a lot of time for the veterans, who otherwise would have to submit 

to a lengthy appeals process that can add years, not months to the total claim time. 

Furthermore, this helps keep claims off of VA’s active inventory if the situation can 

be resolved reasonably. Similarly, sometimes a VA employee working on rating a 

claim will notice a veteran, despite being prompted by a letter, has failed to submit 

critical evidence. Many employees will pick up the phone, or jog down a flight of 

stairs or two to find the veteran’s service officer and see if they can rapidly acquire 

the evidence and help move the process along. They can speak to each other in short 

hand because they both know exactly what’s needed in the complicated claims system. It helps the VSOs and it helps VA, but most importantly, it helps the veterans 

get timely, accurate decisions. 

What The American Legion found in the consolidation of death pension and DIC 

claims to the PMCs was that this easy communication was shut down. Even though 

VA intended to help the claims process by consolidating, when they ran into trouble, 

the communication with the key partner—the VSOs—was hindered by geography 

and lack of infrastructure to address this vital back and forth between rater and 

DSO. 

The American Legion believes this would not happen if VSOs were a vital part 

of the planning stages of any consolidation or workflow change plans.9 Currently, 

the VSOs are not as included in that process as we would like them to be. Before 

VA lunges forward with another scheme to alter the manner in which they process 

claims, it would behoove them to ensure they have on board all the partners who 

could help them to be successful and fully supportive. 

On behalf of National Commander Dan Dellinger and our 2.4 million members, 

The American Legion would like to thank the Committee for their consideration of 

the many ramifications of VA’s electronic transformation. The American Legion 

looks forward to working with the Committee, as well as VA, to ensure the new electronic system is effectively implemented to fulfill the most important goal: getting 

veterans the benefits they deserve in a timely manner. For additional information 

regarding this testimony, please contact Mr. Ian de Planque at The American Legion’s Legislative Division, (202) 861–2700 or 

f 

ideplanque@legion.org. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK LOGALBO

NATIONAL SERVICE DIRECTOR, WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for holding this hearing relating to VBA technology, and for inviting 

Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) to provide testimony. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
50 

1Franklin, et al, 2013 Wounded Warrior Project Survey Report, July 2013. 

2 Id. 

3See J. Hicks, ‘‘VA software glitch exposed veterans’ personal information,’’ Washington Post 

(Jan. 22, 2014), accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/01/ 

22/va-software-glitch-exposed-veterans-personal-information/. 4 78 Fed. Reg. 65,490 (Oct. 31, 2013). 

5 Id. 

6 38 C.F.R. sec. 3.155(a). 

As an organization that works daily with wounded warriors, to include advising 

and assisting them in securing VA benefits to which they are entitled, we believe 

we can provide a helpful perspective to your inquiry this morning. 

WWP recognizes and appreciates the advances technology can bring to claims adjudication. All of our benefits staff gained adjudication and advocacy experience in 

an era of paper-filled claims files and manual processes. Yesterday’s development 

and adjudication processes are not a model for the 21st century, and it would be 

foolish for us to insist that VBA roll back the changes it has instituted and cling 

to last century’s processes and systems. But as VBA continues to build out streamlined, technologically-based systems and capabilities, it must also be mindful of 

those it serves. 

VA’s troubled experience with a longstanding claims backlog is an inescapable reminder of the need for changes. The backlog has certainly highlighted both inefficiencies in the system and opportunities for shrinking that backlog through smart 

use of technology and streamlining. Certainly the system should become much more 

efficient. But efficiency is not an end in itself. Fundamentally, this system must 

serve veterans who have incurred disability in service. And even as the computer 

and internet-based tools have largely become the predominant mode of communication and commerce, they are not necessarily the means by which each of our veterans communicate or transact business. Some wounded warriors do not have ready 

access to this technology, some may not be computer-literate, and some may be anxious about or otherwise uncomfortable with using these technologies. It may not ‘‘optimize efficiency,’’ but VBA must accommodate those warriors, not the other way 

around. 

Let me provide some context to amplify the point, by reference to our most recent 

annual survey, which is based on almost 14 thousand responses (more than 50% of 

the nearly 27 thousand wounded warriors we surveyed).1 Nearly all respondents 

(98.7%) reported that they experienced at least one injury during their post 9/11 

service. Almost 60% of these warriors’ injuries resulted from blasts, including IEDs, 

mortar, grenades, and bombs. The survey showed that the most commonly reported 

injuries were PTSD (75%), anxiety (74%) and depression (69%). More than 44% reported traumatic brain injury (TBI). Among those reporting multiple injuries or 

health problems, more than two-thirds reported between three and seven injuries 

or health problems.2

My staff and I have found that some warriors who have sustained invisible 

wounds, like PTSD, anxiety, and TBI have comprehension-difficulty with, or experience anxiety or a high degree of frustration with computer technology. It is also not 

unusual for warriors with these conditions to have higher levels of concern with, or 

even serious anxiety relating to, information-security. The recent data-breach on 

VA’s e-Benefits Web site 3 will very likely heighten that concern, perhaps irreversibly. 

We raise these examples to highlight a point. This system must meet these veterans where they are. Even as technology provides VBA the means to do its work 

with greater efficiency, its highest obligation must be to the veteran. It would follow 

that VA must accommodate those who, for whatever reason, cannot or choose not 

to, employ that technology in filing or appealing claims, even at some modest cost 

to peak ‘‘efficiency.’’ 

Such a principle would seem beyond question in a system long celebrated for its 

pro-claimant, veteran-friendly policy. But a recent VA notice of proposed rulemaking, ‘‘Standard Claims and Appeals Forms,’’ 4 (hereinafter, ‘‘the NPMR’’) would 

abandon a core tenet of that policy. 

VA would eviscerate ‘‘current rules [which] are meant to minimize the burden associated with initiating a claim, and allow benefits to be paid from the earliest possible date if the claim is ultimately granted.’’ 5 At the heart of the current system 

is VA’s longstanding acceptance of an ‘‘informal claim’’ for benefits, that is, ‘‘[a]ny 

communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits.’’ 6

VA now proposes to redefine what is meant by a claim for benefits. While 38 C.F.R. 

sec. 3.1(p) currently defines the term ‘‘Claim-Application’’ to include an ‘‘informal 

communication in writing . . . ’’, that ‘‘informal communication’’ would no longer be 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
51 

7 See, R. Riley, ‘‘The Importance of Preserving the Pro-Claimant Policy Underlying the Veterans’ Benefits Scheme: A Comparative Analysis of the Administrative Structure of the Department of Veterans Affairs Disability Benefits System,’’ 2 Veterans L. Rev. 77 (2010). 8Wounded Warrior Project, Comments on RIN 2900–AO81—Standard Claims and Appeals 

Forms (Dec. 24, 2013) at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=VA-2013-VBA-0022- 

0027. 9 Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F. 3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

recognized as a ‘‘claim,’’ under VA’s proposal. Instead, VA would require all claims 

to be filed on standard forms. It proposes to ‘‘incentivize’’ submission of claims to 

facilitate efficient processing by establishing new rules governing effective dates of 

awards that for the first time would draw a distinction between ‘‘electronic’’ and 

‘‘non-electronic’’ claims. VA’s rule changes would actually penalize veterans who do 

not submit claims online. 

We offer an illustration of how these proposed rules would work. A warrior who 

suffered multiple injuries from an IED explosion might have difficulty with the 

question on VA’s application for compensation, Form 21–526, that asks for a listing 

of specific disabilities, and might instead simply answer ‘‘multiple injuries.’’ VA 

would likely deem that an ‘‘incomplete claim.’’ Under the proposed regulation, if the 

veteran had submitted that claim electronically, VA would allow the veteran to preserve the filing date as the effective date for an award of benefits. But if the veteran 

had submitted that same incomplete claim on paper, he or she would be penalized. 

Instead of allowing the veteran that early effective date, VA would defer the effective date until the claim had become ‘‘complete,’’ with the result that the veteran 

could lose thousands of dollars. 

Under the VA’s NPRM, what has long been hailed as ‘‘the pro-claimant policy’’ 7

underlying the veterans’ benefits system would give way to an overriding emphasis 

on achieving ‘‘efficiency,’’ ‘‘speed,’’ and a ‘‘modernized process.’’ WWP does not contest the challenges facing the Department in managing a claims backlog, nor are 

we opposed to achieving greater efficiency and timeliness of claims processing and 

appellate review. We certainly appreciate as well that the Department has statutory 

authority to prescribe rules and regulations and to prescribe forms of application for 

benefits. But the Department’s exercise of that authority must remain faithful to 

a statutory scheme that is centered on serving the veteran. In our view, if efficiency 

and modernization are to be given primacy over longstanding rights that have been 

afforded veterans under the Department’s benefits system, Congress must make 

those changes. Consistent with that view, our comments to the NPRM urged that 

the Secretary withdraw the proposed rulemaking.8

In essence, the proposed rule would upend important principles cemented in law 

and regulation. Among them, it would abolish a principle and practice that permits 

a veteran to file an informal claim and receive benefits paid from the date that informal claim is filed. The proposed rule would also for the first time effectively create a two-tier system that distinguishes substantively between veterans who have 

the capability of interacting with VBA online and those who do not, rewarding one 

and penalizing the other. (Under the NPRM, a claimant who by reason of disability, 

lack of computer access, or otherwise is unable to file a claim online would forfeit 

a statutory entitlement to an early effective date under circumstances where that 

initial claim was incomplete.) Procedural rules critical to safeguarding appellate 

rights would also fall under the NPRM. Regulations that now permit any expression 

of disagreement to be taken as a notice of disagreement would be discarded, to be 

overtaken by a first-time requirement that a veteran must file any notice of disagreement on a specified form. Moreover, omitting required information would 

render the veteran’s NOD ‘‘incomplete,’’ and were the veteran unable to complete 

the form (or unsuccessful in doing so) within a 60-day ‘‘grace period,’’ the veteran 

would forfeit the right to appeal. 

In our view, these changes go much too far, and cannot be squared with the statutory framework the Secretary is charged to administer. Moreover, with the Department’s seemingly single minded pursuit of speed and ‘‘efficiency,’’ its rulemaking 

pays insufficient attention to other critical interests here at stake. Of great concern, 

the NPRM fails even to acknowledge that applicants for veterans’ benefits have a 

constitutionally protected property interest in their application for benefits and are 

entitled to constitutionally prescribed procedures in connection with their claims for 

benefits under the Due Process clause. 9 Rather than protecting that property interest, the NPRM proposes to establish procedures that would literally shrink it. 

In striving for efficiency, the proposed rule would create real barriers that risk 

denying veterans benefits to which they are entitled. While Congress may elect to 

take steps to streamline claims’ and appellate processes, a Department charged with 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
52 

10 10 38 U.S.C. sec. 301(b). 11 11 38 U.S.C. sec. 501(a). 12 38 U.S.C. sec. 5102(a). 13 38 U.S.C. sec. 5102(b). 14 38 U.S.C. sec. 5110(b)(2)(A). 15 15 38 U.S.C. sec. 7105(b). 16 16 Id. 17 78 Fed. Reg at 65495 (October 31, 2013). 18 18 Id. 

administering the laws providing benefits and other services to veterans 10 may not 

unilaterally block statutory pathways to veterans’ benefits. While the Secretary has 

authority to prescribe rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out 

the laws administered by the Department, those rules must be ‘‘consistent with 

those laws.’’ 11

Those laws are clear. Section 5102 of title 38 codifies the principle of an informal 

claim, namely a ‘‘request made by any person claiming or applying for, or expressing 

an intent to claim or apply for, a benefit . . .’’ 12 (Emphasis added.) Such an expression of intent to apply for or claim a benefit triggers an obligation on the Secretary’s 

part to ‘‘notify the claimant and the claimant’s representative, if any, of the information necessary to complete the application.’’ 13 Under section 5102(c), the veteran 

has one year within which to complete that application. Where that veteran ultimately submits a fully developed claim within that year, section 5110(b)(2)(A), (as 

amended by Public Law 112–154) allows the veteran to preserve the date of submittal of that application as the effective date of an award of benefits. (‘‘The effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran who submits an application therefor that sets forth an original claim that is fully-developed (as determined by the Secretary) as of the date of submittal shall be fixed in accordance with 

the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date that is one year before the 

date of receipt of the application.’’) 14

The Department’s proposal is tantamount to a plan to graft onto this statutory 

framework an utterly novel distinction between claimants who file completed electronic claims—who would gain the benefit of such earlier effective date—and nonelectronic filers who would not. We see no basis in law for such a two-tiered system, 

or any reasonable basis to discriminate between these two classes of claimants. 

The NPRM runs similarly afoul of the law in proposing to limit substantially the 

manner in which a claimant may initiate appellate review. The statutory provisions 

governing the initiation of appellate review are prescriptive only insofar they impose 

a time limit within which a notice of disagreement (NOD) must be filed, 15 and provide that the NOD ‘‘must be in writing.’’ 16 The Department, by administrative fiat, 

would effectively rewrite that clear statutory provision to redefine the phrase ‘‘in 

writing’’ to mean a completed and timely submitted copy of a mandatory form where 

(under proposed new section 38 C.F.R. sec. 19.24(c)) ‘‘a form may be considered incomplete if any of the information requested is not provided, including . . . for compensation claims . . . if it does note enumerate the issues or conditions for which 

appellate review is sought, or does not provide other information required on the 

form to identify the claimant, the date of the VA action the claimant seeks to appeal, and the nature of the disagreement . . .’’ 17 The NPRM would convert what 

is a permissive statutory pathway to appellate consideration into a closed-door policy under which the ‘‘VA would not accept as an NOD any other submission expressing disagreement with an adjudicative determination’’ 18 than the fully completed 

form. 

As with other changes it seeks to institute through the NPRM, VA characterizes 

the regulations it seeks to revise or abolish entirely as involving time-consuming 

processes or as barriers to processing cases more expeditiously. We see nothing in 

the statutory fabric to suggest that speed is an end in itself. While WWP would welcome greater timeliness of claims processing and appellate review, those objectives 

should not be achieved at the expense of longstanding, statutorily-based procedural 

safeguards. 

VA’s statutory authority to establish online tools to facilitate claims-filing and 

processing is not in doubt. Its authority to develop standard forms is not questioned. 

Many veterans may see benefit to employing such tools–at their option. But VA goes 

much too far in seeking to impose procedural requirements under which some veterans will lose benefits to which they are entitled. It runs that grave risk under circumstances where its rationale is at odds with the very statutes the Secretary is 

to carry out as well as with a longstanding pro-claimant regulatory framework that 

it proposes to abandon in significant part in the name of ‘‘modernization’’ and efficiency. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
53 

In the final analysis, the Department’s determination to effectively reinvent some 

of the most fundamental elements of the claims-filing and appellate-review-initiation to achieve greater speed and efficiency are, in our view, simply beyond the 

Secretary’s powers. Mr. Chairman, we trust you would agree that the Secretary’s 

duty is to administer the law, not to rewrite it. 

Many interests are at stake here: adherence to law; preserving a pro-claimant adjudication system; protecting veterans who—for reasons including disability, hardship, remoteness, or fear—do not have effective online computer access or cannot 

reasonably be expected to communicate through that modality; and preserving congressional prerogatives. Given the importance of each of those interests, we ask the 

Subcommittee to press VA to withdraw its proposed rulemaking. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC JENKINS

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO AND THE AFGE 

NATIONAL VA COUNCIL

Executive Summary 

The American Federation of Government Employees and the AFGE National VA 

Council (hereinafter ‘‘AFGE’’), the exclusive representative of employees processing 

disability claims at the Department of Veterans Affairs (Department) Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Regional Offices (ROs) supports the Department’s transformation efforts and appreciates the opportunity to share views on behalf of our 

members working on the frontline processing claims. AFGE appreciates the opportunity to share our views on the implementation problems associated with VBMS. 

Our greatest concern with transformation is VBMS’ regular shut downs. AFGE 

urges the Committee to require VBA to create a national plan in conjunction with 

AFGE when VBMS is inoperable as well as provide employees with excluded time. 

AFGE also urges the Committee to address VBA’s broken work credit system that 

is currently not based on data. AFGE also urges the Committee to ensure that 

AFGE has a more active role in discussions related to new initiatives. 

VBMS Updates 

AFGE consistently receives reports from members at ROs nationwide regarding 

shutdowns and technical problems with VBMS. AFGE would like to remain a strong 

partner with VBA to improve VBMS to better process claims and to make the system more user friendly. AFGE requests the establishment of a working group to improve VBMS, which would include AFGE, management, and VSO stakeholders. 

Since the program’s expansion, the additional users have exacerbated existing latency problems with VBMS. Employees on the east coast report that the system experiences latency as more users log on to VBMS (as the other time zones begin arriving to work). AFGE has reported the latency issue to VBA management consistently throughout VBMS’ rollout. 

AFGE members also report that VBMS shuts down on roughly a weekly basis. 

AFGE regularly receives reports from ROs nationwide of VBMS shut downs. For example, during the last month, VBMS shut down on roughly a weekly basis. The 

shut downs varied from just over an hour to spanning multiple days. 

During each of these shutdowns, the majority of employees were not provided 

with excluded time. Excluded time protects employees from missing performance 

standards based on situations beyond their control. Inoperable software should qualify for excluded time since employees are being judged during shut downs on their 

performance within VBMS. 

When VBMS shuts down, employees are directed to use VBA’s legacy software 

(RBA 2000) that does not use electronic files. However, newer employees have no 

training in RBA 2000, meaning they cannot be productive during shutdowns. New 

employees must be trained in RBA 2000 in the event of a VBMS shut down. Employees also receive far lower work credit when completing work in RBA 2000 (or 

any other work that is not completed in VBMS), meaning their performance standard will be even more difficult to achieve when VBMS is experiencing shut downs 

and technical problems. There is also limited work to complete in RBA 2000 since 

most claims are now paperless. AFGE fully agrees with VBA that when system shut 

downs threaten the service we provide to our veterans, every effort must be made 

to remain productive during the work day. AFGE urges the Committee to require 

VBA to develop a plan for when VBMS is inoperable, and AFGE must be at the 

table when creating this plan. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
54 

Offices also report inconsistencies in how managers deal with completing work 

when VBMS is shut down. As mentioned above, some managers direct their employees to begin work in RBA 2000 or other non-electronic work. We also urge other 

ROs to follow the lead of the San Diego RO where employees received training when 

VBMS is not functioning, which is a productive use of time. 

Beyond shut downs, AFGE members reported other issues with VBMS. Claim authorization is not yet completed in VBMS, so VSRs cannot complete promulgation 

of claims. For development and rating, VBMS separates these two tasks in different 

programs, meaning employees must exit the program and reenter in order to switch 

from development to rating. This extra step inhibits efficiency, slows down employees, and hurts veterans. 

Another malfunction reported by VSRs and RVSRs occurs when additional paperwork enters the system from a claim that is being processed; sometimes, the information disappears for several days. The employee’s performance is impacted by this 

malfunction and the veteran may receive a claim decision with an error. If information is not present when an employee completes a claim due to a system malfunction, VBA should not punish the employee for that error. 

AFGE remains frustrated with the lack of success of VBMS. Our members are all 

motivated to serve veterans as quickly and effectively as possible. AFGE believes 

that when VBMS is shutdown, VBA must make all efforts to ensure that any production slowdown is avoided while not punishing employees for any inadequacies of 

the system. 

Undersecretary Hickey has mentioned the opportunity for employees to provide 

feedback to her regarding VBMS’ functionality through weekly conference calls. 

While AFGE applauds Undersecretary Hickey for stating her interest in hearing directly from front line bargaining unit employees (BUEs), this phone call does not 

include sufficient input or participation from AFGE, resulting in too few BUEs on 

the calls. The phone calls should include AFGE as the exclusive representative of 

these employees. Without the union present, many employees fear retaliation from 

management for any negative feedback related to VBMS. Undersecretary Hickey 

has stated clearly that she would like to hear any negative feedback related to 

VBMS so that we can all continue to improve the system. With active, ongoing 

union involvement, this information sharing can be accomplished. We urge VBA to 

work directly with AFGE to ensure sufficient participation of BUEs on these calls. 

AFGE Recommendations 

• AFGE urges the Committee to require VBA to provide employees with excluded time when VBMS is not operational. 

• The Committee should require VBA to develop a contingency plan for operations when VBMS is shutdown to maintain productivity and not negatively impact employees’ performance ratings. AFGE should have a seat at the table 

when creating this plan. 

• AFGE should have an ongoing, meaningful role in providing feedback to VBA 

and the Committee must involve AFGE in the feedback loop for improving 

VBMS. 

Current Work Credit System Problems 

VBA has never had a formal work credit system based on actual data that reflects 

the amount of time required to process specific types of claims and their components. VBS should not deprive employees of the proper credit for critical work needed to process claims accurately and timely the first time. The broken work credit 

system creates performance standards that are arbitrary, inconsistent, and focus too 

much on quantity over quality. 

The agency has made a few perfunctory efforts to establish a more reliable set 

of measures over the years. However, AFGE has not seen any work credit study or 

work credit system based on actual data. Given VBA’s current transformation and 

the national rollout of VBMS, AFGE believes the timing is ideal for a scientific 

based time motion study to create a formal work credit system. 

The first essential step is to develop an inventory of tasks that employees must 

complete on a daily basis. The current work credit system does not include an inventory of employees’ daily tasks. 

Some of the main problems with the current work credit system include: 

• Lack of consistency 

• Lack of a solid methodology 

• Failure to update its ‘‘system’’ 

• Lack of participation from the front line employees and veterans service officers with direct knowledge of the work process 

• Lack of work credit for a variety of tasks 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
55 

The only study AFGE is aware of is the 2008 IBM Gap Analysis study. However, 

the study is outdated now with VBMS’ implementation. 

In 2013, AFGE conducted an informal survey of Regional Offices to identify how 

well the current work credit system measures (or does not measure) the hours and 

skills required to complete different tasks. Responses from employees working in approximately a dozen different offices indicated widespread inconsistencies in how 

much work credit is awarded for the same tasks. Perhaps more troubling, employees 

in every Regional Office and position are required to perform daily tasks for which 

they are provided zero credit or only partial credit. By denying credit for significant 

tasks, the current work credit system increases workplace stress, puts pressure on 

employees to rush through claims, and results in unwarranted negative performance 

ratings. 

AFGE encourages the House of Representatives to endorse the approach set forth 

in Chairman Sanders’ S. 928, which is currently in the Senate VA Committee’s Omnibus legislation S. 1950. Chairman Sanders’ approach brings the major stakeholders to the table, including management, employees, and VSOs, into a working 

group. The working group would be tasked with evaluating and recommending 

changes to the current work credit system based on data. This approach encourages 

productivity, while ensuring employees will be evaluated fairly and accurately. 

More specifically, employees reported that they receive inadequate or zero work 

credit for the following tasks: 

• Productive time lost due to breakdowns in VBMS: As noted earlier, 

VBMS still has frequent and significant malfunctions, at both the RO and national levels. 

Æ VBA must create a standardized plan to keep ROs productive during 

VBMS shutdowns, as well as grant excluded time. Employees must not be 

evaluated based on the system becoming inoperable. 

• Deferred ratings: Deferred ratings occur on a daily basis in Regional Offices. It is important to spend time on these issues since the veteran should be 

assisted and informed accurately about additional medical evidence they will 

need for their claim. RVSRs do not receive any credit for cases where there is 

a deferred rating an RVSR may work on a case where the veteran has claimed 

ten issues, but only two can be rated. The RVSR must spend significant time 

on the other eight issues, but will receive no credit for this. 

Æ VBA must provide credit for employees giving deferred ratings. 

• Multi-issue and complex cases: VSRs are not given adequate credit for rating a case with significantly more issues or complexity. Given VBA’s segmented 

lanes initiative with VBMS, this problem is now exacerbated. Employees receive 

additional credit for completing cases with at least three issues. VSRs do not 

receive any additional credit for developing a case with thirty issues versus a 

case with three issues. Employees also are denied sufficient credit for processing 

cases involving complex claims such as military sexual trauma and TBI. 

• RVSRs Working Development: RVSRs regularly work on developing cases. 

Sometimes, RVSRs will receive a case to rate that needs additional development. Other times ROs do not have the proper ratio of VSRs to RVSRs; consequently, there are not enough cases to rate. When a case needs additional development, RVSRs do not receive credit for this work. 

Æ VBA must provide credit for VSR work done by RVSRs. 

• Mentoring: Experienced processors often mentor newer employees, an essential role for ROs. Congress and VBA have long recognized the benefits of mentoring from experienced employees, yet claims processors receive no credit for 

assisting or mentoring newer employees. 

Æ VBA must provide adequate credit for mentoring by experienced employees. 

• Training: Employees are not given sufficient work credit for time spent during training. Often times, training is shifted away from classroom instruction 

to reading slides or a packet at their desk with less time allotted by managers 

than required by the curriculum. 

Æ VBA must provide adequate time and work credit for training. 

The absence of a valid work credit system exacerbates the well documented problem of VBA managers manipulating backlog data to improve performance measures. 

Veterans who fought for this nation deserve to have their claims processed in a 

timely manner, and waiting over two years for a decision from VBA is unacceptable. 

While undergoing transformation, VBA must accurately determine productivity and 

quality and judge an employees’ performance based off of data driven metrics. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
56 

Veterans Relationship Management Initiative 

VBA has not provided AFGE with an opportunity to play an active role in the 

implementation of the majority of aspects with the Veterans Relationship Management (VRM) initiative. It is both good policy and required by our labor management 

contract to engage in meaningful discussions and bargain over changes to the workplace and new initiatives. AFGE did sign a memorandum of understanding with VA 

on the Customer Relations Management and Unified Desktop aspects on February 

9, 2012, two of the VRM aspects. AFGE urges VA to approach us with other initiatives for employee input moving forward and to comply with its contractual obligations to notify us of new pilot projects and initiatives. 

Contracting 

AFGE recently learned that VBA is considering the use of an outside contractor 

for dependency claims, work which is currently completed in ROs nationwide. VBA 

plans on beginning the program in March. AFGE strongly urges Congress to prohibit this counterproductive and illegal solution to the claims backlog. The FY2009 

Omnibus Act, P.L. 111–8, Division D, §735 prohibits work last performed by federal 

employees from being given to contractors without first conducting a formal cost 

comparison. Past evidence with other contracts, such as the ACS contract, demonstrates that contracts can actually add to the backlog. With the ACS contract, the 

files set for development were not processed for 9 months and then were sent back 

to the ROs where they were processed. This contract hurt taxpayers, wasted VA resources, and forced veterans to wait longer for their benefits. 

HAIMS and VBMS 

Currently, HAIMS, DoD’s file system, and VBMS are not well integrated, resulting in unnecessary delays and a worsening of the backlog. The number of delays 

in claims for veterans would be greatly improved if these two systems were in sync. 

AFGE encourages VA and DoD to integrate their two files systems for greater ease 

in transmitting medical evidence for claim processing. 

National Work-Queue Strategy 

VBA plans on using a national program to assign work to ROs nationwide, once 

all of the files have been digitized. For example, if a veteran submits a claim with 

ten contentions, and one is PTSD, the PTSD claim may be sent to a different RO 

than the rest of the claim. AFGE remains cautious regarding VBA national work 

queue strategy. 

Specifically, AFGE has concerns over how VBA plans on assigning work through 

the national work queue strategy. For example, AFGE has not received a definition 

of an ‘‘under performing office.’’ There may be discrepancies in the levels of production between offices, but this must be clearly defined before VBA begins diverting 

cases away from an RO. If an office is considered under performing by VBA, there 

are concerns that they will now be starved for casework. Also, supposedly high performing offices may fall further back in the pack with the additional casework. 

Undersecretary Hickey has referred to improving VBA’s current resource allocation model, where struggling ROs are starved of resources (while higher performing 

offices receive additional resources). However it appears that little progress has 

been made. Therefore we urge VBA to review its resource allocation model. While 

implementing any national work queue strategy, VBA must simultaneously review 

and change its resource allocation model. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input from AFGE and its National VA 

Council on this important legislation. 

Eric Jenkins Bio 

Eric Jenkins works as an RVSR in the Winston Salem RO. Eric has worked at 

VBA for 9 years, first as a VSR for 6 years, and now as an RVSR for nearly 4 years. 

Eric is a 15 year veteran of the Marine Corps and a service connected veteran. He 

is a combat veteran, deployed in Afghanistan and in Iraq for both Operation Desert 

Storm and Iraqi Freedom. Eric also works as a shop steward in AFGE Local 1738. 

Eric graduated from North Carolina State University with a degree in political 

science. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
57 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANA M. RUBENS

DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR FIELD OPERATIONS VETERANS BENEFITS

ADMINISTRATION (VBA) 

Good Morning, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss VA’s transformation initiatives with a focus on technology, workload management, and a proposed rule to require standardized forms. I am accompanied today by Mr. Richard Hipolit, Assistant 

General Counsel and Ms. Lorraine Landfried, Deputy Chief Information Officer for 

Product Development in the Office of Information and Technology (OIT). 

Backlog Update 

I would like to start by providing the Subcommittee with a brief update on our 

progress to date in eliminating the disability claims backlog. During fiscal year (FY) 

2013, VA completed a record 1.17 million claims with 90-percent accuracy at the 

claim level and 96-percent accuracy at the medical-issue level. Claim-level accuracy 

measures the accuracy of the entire claim, regardless of the number of medical 

issues. The claim is either 100 percent accurate or 100 percent in error. However, 

medical issue accuracy evaluates individual medical conditions. Since its peak in 

March 2013, the backlog has been reduced by 211,000 claims, or 35 percent, and 

the overall inventory of pending claims has been reduced by 200,000 claims, or 22 

percent, through the end of December 2013. The average number of days rating 

claims are pending has also been reduced from a peak of 281 days in March 2013, 

to 170 days at the end of December 2013, meaning Veterans are currently waiting 

111 fewer days for a decision than they were just 9 months ago. 

None of this progress would be possible without the tremendous support VA receives from its partners including this Subcommittee, the rest of Congress, our Veterans Service Organizations (VSO), and county and State Departments of Veterans 

Affairs. Our progress is also the result of the unprecedented effort and dedication 

of VBA employees, 52 percent of whom are Veterans themselves, and the support 

provided by our partners in VA’s OIT and the Veterans Health Administration. Veterans themselves have contributed to our progress by participating in the Fully Developed Claims program and submitting claims electronically through the e-Benefits 

Web site. We appreciate the support of all of our partners and stakeholders as we 

continue working to eliminate the claims backlog, and we fully expect the reductions 

in backlog to continue. 

Technology-Focused Transformation Initiatives 

VA’s Transformation Plan includes initiatives to retrain and reorganize our people, streamline our business processes, and build and implement new secure technology solutions that are getting us out of paper-bound, manual processes to improve our service to Veterans, their families, and Survivors. The Department takes 

seriously our obligation to properly safeguard personal information. The technology 

tools being developed to transform VBA are accredited as secure under VA’s strict 

security standards. These products are protected by VA’s numerous scanning tools, 

firewalls, and network and host intrusion prevention systems, as part of VA’s arsenal to ensure a strong, multi-layered defense to combat evolving cyber security 

threats to VA’s sensitive personal information and VA information systems. 

At the Subcommittee’s request, I would like to update you on a few key technology 

initiatives that have had a significant impact on our increased production and quality and show promise for the way ahead. 

Veterans Relationship Management (VRM) 

VRM continues to engage, empower, and serve Veterans and other clients with 

seamless, secure, and on-demand access to benefits information and services. Veterans now have improved access to benefits information from multiple channels— 

on the phone, online, and through our shared Department of Defense (DoD)/VA portal called e-Benefits. From FY 2009 to FY 2013, the number of contacts with VA 

through these channels increased from 9.1 million to 56.3 million. 

Currently, VA has over 3.3 million e-Benefits users, representing a 51-percent increase from FY 2012. Through 58 self-service features, e-Benefits users have generated over 410,000 requests for official military personnel documents, 405,000 requests for VA guaranteed home loan certificates of eligibility, 31 million claim status requests, and over 3.4 million self-service letters. Additionally, there has been 

a steady increase in electronic claim submissions for disability compensation benefits. Since October 2012, over 40,000 compensation claims and 44,000 dependency 

claims have been submitted online, and VA expects electronic claims submissions 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
58 

to continue to increase. Over 50 percent of dependency claims submitted online via 

the automated Rules Based Processing System are now processed in 1 business day. 

VA is relying on VSOs to continue to perform their vital advocacy and assistance 

role within VA’s transformed benefits delivery model. The Stakeholder Enterprise 

Portal (SEP) is a secure, Web-based entry point that complements e-Benefits and 

gives VSOs and other authorized advocates access to assist Veterans with electronic 

claim submissions. Using the portal, 1,200 registered users can check the status of 

claims, review payment history, and upload documentation on behalf of the Veterans they represent—all within a digital environment. When filing a claim online 

in e-Benefits, a Veteran can request the assistance of a VSO by choosing from a list 

of accredited representatives in VA’s database. When logging into SEP, the chosen 

VSO representative is alerted to the Veteran’s request, and upon acceptance, is 

given power-of-attorney authorization to access the Veteran’s claim and assist with 

preparation. Once the VSO representative believes the claim is ready for submission, he or she can send notification back to the Veteran in 

e-Benefits, and the Veteran submits the claim to VA. 

VBA ‘‘Digits to Digits’’ is a technology initiative which will enable VSOs to submit 

claims directly to VA using their own claims management systems. It is scheduled 

for implementation in FY 2014. This machine-to-machine interaction will benefit 

Veterans by accelerating the speed in which claims are filed. Veterans’ representatives will also benefit by being able to leverage their current claims management 

systems and reduce printing and shipping expenses. The eight current pilot participants include: AMVETS; and the States of California, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. 

Telephone systems improvements have also increased access to benefits information and services. Eight call centers now utilize a consolidated queue to improve efficiency and utilization of call agents. The consolidated queue allows calls to be routed 

to the next available agent with the appropriate skill set. Veterans and other callers 

have also benefited from the Virtual Hold feature, which automatically calls the individual back. More than 10 million calls have been returned since this feature became available in September 2011; and in FY 2013, VBA had a 95 percent reconnect 

success rate. Additionally, callers have the option to pick a date and time for VA 

to call back. JD Power and Associates found that callers who use VBA’s Virtual 

Hold feature have a customer satisfaction score 11 points higher than the customer 

satisfaction scores for non-Virtual Hold callers. 

VBA also improved the tools that call agents use. Unified Desktop technology was 

deployed to over 750 agents at the National Call Centers. This technology combined 

13 separate applications into one consolidated view of the Veteran. Call agents can 

now access the caller’s contact history and utilize ‘‘smart scripts’’ to provide quick, 

consistent, and high-quality responses to callers. For example, Unified Desktop technology has helped VBA reduce the length of calls by an average of 30 seconds for 

354,000 callers requesting benefits letters since June 2012. 

Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) 

VBMS, VA’s Web-based electronic claims processing system, was deployed to all 

56 regional offices 6 months ahead of schedule in June 2013. VBA has also successfully deployed VBMS to the Appeals Management Center, the Records Management 

Center, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), all National Call Centers, and all 

VA medical centers. More than 25,000 unique end-users throughout VA have access 

to VBMS. This technology helps us move away from paper-based to electronic claims 

processing and begin to gain processing speed within a digital claims processing environment. Currently, more than 78 percent of our claims inventory which equates 

to 535,000 claims can be processed electronically, which is an increase from 32 percent in June 2013. In addition, VBMS improves access, drives automation, and enables greater exchange of information and increased transparency to Veterans, our 

workforce, and other stakeholders. 

The evolution of VBMS is occurring across four distinct generations of development. Generation One of VBMS began in 2010 with the conceptualization, piloting, 

development, and deployment of baseline system functionality with improved quality and efficiency. The development of Generation One of VBMS concluded with the 

successful implementation of Release 4.1 in January 2013. 

As we moved into the development of Generation Two of VBMS, the focus was 

on building additional system capabilities while leveraging simple automation features. VBA deployed three major Generation Two software releases: VBMS 4.2, 5.0, 

and 5.1. These releases included improvements to correspondence and work queue 

tools, additional rating functionality, and more extensive data exchange and system 

integration capabilities. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
59 

In December 2013, VBMS entered Generation Three of system development with 

the Release 6.0. The focus of this generation of development are increasing system 

functionality, adding more complex automation capabilities, reducing dependency on 

legacy systems, and enabling the capability to accept Veterans’ electronic service 

treatment records (STR) from DoD. VA has been actively working with DoD to accelerate development of the Healthcare Artifacts and Image Management Solution 

(HAIMS) so STRs would be available in the HAIMS repository for Servicemembers 

separated from January 1, 2014, forward. We have developed an automated interface capability to enable the secure electronic transmission of disability benefit 

claimants’ STRs between DoD’s HAIMS and VBMS. With the HAIMS–VBMS connection, VA can now retrieve certified and complete electronic versions of STRs for 

Servicemembers separating on or after January 1, 2014. This major milestone for 

VA and DoD reduces the amount of time it takes VA to gather required evidence 

and helps improve the accuracy of claims decisions. 

Release 6.0 also contained the first generation of awards functionality, integrated 

additional correspondence functionality, and delivered initial capabilities to the 

Board. With this release, Board end-users now have access to a unique eFolder view 

with the ability to maintain notes on documents and enter bookmarks within the 

eFolder. 

Release 6.1, which is scheduled to deploy in March 2014, will continue to focus 

on increased automation by mapping and pre-populating Disability Benefits Questionnaires and Evaluation Builders. This release will also integrate VA’s legacy electronic records store, ‘‘Virtual VA,’’ to reduce our dependency on legacy systems. 

Throughout 2014, VA will continue to gather end-user feedback on VBMS, assess 

and validate the effectiveness of the claims processing model as a whole, and implement improvements as needed. 

Generation Four of VBMS, which is scheduled to be deployed sometime in 2015, 

will capitalize on efficiencies and quality improvements gained during the previous 

year. VA will utilize enhancements made in Generation Three to identify additional 

automation and process improvement opportunities that can be incorporated into 

Generation Four, allowing employees to focus on more difficult claims by reducing 

the time required to process less complex claims. 

VBA established the Veterans Claims Intake Program (VCIP) in 2012 to streamline the process for receiving records and data into VBMS and other VBA systems. 

VCIP converts claims and other paper records into a digital format that is usable 

within VBMS. Under VCIP, documents are scanned and converted into electronic 

format, and important information and data are extracted and populated in an electronic folder accessible to claims processors through VBMS. As of January 10, 2014, 

VCIP has converted from paper and uploaded into VBMS more than 430 million images. 

Workload Management 

As we continue to execute our claims Transformation Plan, we are adjusting the 

way we manage and measure our work. Leveraging technology, we are finding ways 

to more efficiently manage claims to deliver more timely and accurate decisions to 

Veterans, their families, and Survivors. As workload management is adjusted and 

new technology is introduced, we are also evaluating how work credits and performance management should change. 

National Work Queue 

Historically, regional offices have been primarily dedicated to processing claims of 

the Veterans living within the state or area of jurisdiction. These jurisdictional 

boundaries were driven by limitations of operating a paper-based system, where 

claims records and files were physically stored, processed, or mailed between the 

Veteran, the regional office, and the closest supporting VA medical facility. This geography-bound process led to significant inefficiencies and variances in timeliness 

in overall claims production. As VA transitions to a paperless claims process, we are 

in a better position to adopt a national workload strategy that is ‘‘boundary-free’’ 

and thus improve overall production capacity to serve Veterans in the same way 

they served—side by side without regard to state affiliation. 

VBA’s previous ‘‘brokering’’ strategy helped balance the inventory of pending 

claims across regional offices to better serve Veterans, their families, and Survivors. 

Dedicated brokering centers were established at 15 regional offices to handle claims 

from regional offices with workload challenges and claims associated with national 

priority missions, such as the special processing of Agent Orange claims subject to 

the provisions of the Nehmer court decision. While somewhat effective in handling 

‘‘surge’’ work, these brokering centers did not fully optimize capacity that still existed within regional offices from a national perspective. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
60 

In April 2013, VBA launched its Oldest Claims Initiative to expedite decisions for 

Veterans who had waited at least 2 years for a decision on their claim. VBA redistributed the oldest claims across the Nation to best utilize the resources of all regional offices. This centralized workload management and redistribution achieved 

excellent results. Within 2 months, we completed more than 97 percent of the 

67,000 claims identified for processing under the 2-year initiative. In June, the focus 

turned to completing all claims that had been pending more than 1 year. VBA completed 98.2 percent of the claims that were pending over 1 year by October 31, 2013. 

Over 500,000 Veterans received decisions on their claims under this initiative. VBA 

could not have accomplished these results without the capability to nationally manage the workload without jurisdictional borders. VBA’s experience in managing this 

initiative demonstrates the potential of a national workload management strategy 

for improved benefits delivery by optimizing every member of the VBA workforce. 

The new paperless claims processing environment offers even greater potential for 

more streamlined and efficient processing, with claims being directed to the right 

decision makers at the right time, no matter where that decision maker is physically located. 

The national work queue is being developed in a two-phased approach. In Phase 

I, claims will be managed from a central location and routed based on individual 

station capacity as well as national priorities. With more claims being processed 

electronically, centralized management will enable VBA to more easily adjust workload distribution. In Phase II, claims will be assigned to different regional offices 

based on claim-specific data. Assigning claims to employees based on specific characteristics of a claim will improve the timeliness and accuracy of decisions. 

As VA implements the national work queue, Veterans will still be able to visit 

regional offices or call our National Call Centers for personal assistance with their 

claims. They will also be able to go online to check the status of their claims and 

explore other self-service features. VSOs and other authorized representatives will 

still have full access to claims information for the Veterans they support through 

SEP. Congressional staff will have access to VBA employees as they do today to 

check on the status of a constituent’s claim. The electronic claims process provides 

real-time updates, no matter where the claim is assigned for processing. 

Work Credit System 

In conjunction with the advancements in technology, VBA is diligently working 

to update performance tracking mechanisms. To create organizational consistency, 

VBA maintains performance standards for timeliness and accuracy. These standards 

are routinely evaluated and revised to keep pace with changes. With VBA’s transition to electronic claims processing, it is more important than ever to consider the 

impact of technology on employee performance and ensure the expectations of our 

workforce align with the tools employees have to complete their work. 

In response to organizational and process changes, VBA regularly revisits and revises performance standards. These standards have historically been developed via 

a committee consisting of representatives from the Compensation Service; Pension 

and Fiduciary Service; Office of Field Operations; Human Resources; our labor partners; field managers; and subject matter experts. Revised standards were most recently implemented in February 2013, and a further revision to Veterans Service 

Representative (VSR) and Rating VSR production and quality standards was recently presented to our national labor partners and is in the final stages prior to 

implementation. VA works diligently to ensure standards are developed that accurately align performance expectations with the overall organizational mission and 

goals, as well as the current claims processing environment. 

Currently, VBA uses the Automated Standardized Performance Elements Nationwide (ASPEN) system. ASPEN is a proprietary software system that does not connect to VBA information systems. Because of the existing limitations and growing 

challenges from using a proprietary software product in a developing VBA digital 

environment, VBA is addressing the need for performance management services. In 

November 2013, VBA established a team to capture business requirements for new 

performance management services. These new services will enable current, realworld scalability and unlimited configurability, with powerful security features to 

provide the support and functionality necessary to integrate into our existing and 

future systems. 

Proposed Rule To Require Standardized Forms 

In order to get benefits into Veterans’ hands as quickly as possible, with the most 

accurate decision possible, VA has proposed a rule that would require claims to be 

filed on a standard form and would require appeals to be initiated using a standard 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
61 

form whenever one is provided for that purpose. VA’s proposed rule does not require 

that Veterans file electronic claims in order to receive benefits. 

VA gave interested members of the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule from October 30 through December 30, 2013. VA is carefully reviewing 

the 53 comments it has received from stakeholders and will be responding to them 

in accordance with regular Administrative Procedure Act procedures. 

Conclusion 

While we know there is more work to be done to reach our goals, the combined 

effects of our Transformation Plan are having a significant impact. The gains we 

are making in information technology and the automation of our processes are critical, and going forward, we will need to sustain the resources for programs like 

VBMS in order to eliminate the backlog in 2015 and achieve our quality goals. FY 

2014 is a crucial year in our transformation, and I look forward to your continued 

support and commitment on behalf of Veterans, their families, and Survivors. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to entertain any 

questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

STATEMENT BY RICHARD W. THOMAS

DIRECTOR, HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS AND CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, DEFENSE

HEALTH AGENCY

AND

MR. DAVID M. BOWEN, DIRECTOR, HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DEFENSE

HEALTH AGENCY

Executive Summary 

As a direct result of the collaborative efforts by DoD and VA, Veterans Benefits 

Administration (VBA) claims adjudicators who use the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) in all 56 VA Regional Offices now have the capability to retrieve certified and complete electronic versions of the DoD Service Treatment 

Records (STRs) for Service members who separated or were discharged after January 1, 2014, to assist in processing disability benefits claims. This enables VBA to 

process future Veterans’ disability claims for newly separating Service members in 

a fully digital claims-processing environment; reduces the amount of time it takes 

to gather required evidence; and helps to improve the accuracy of disability claims 

decisions. 

DoD is responsible for providing VA with Service members’ information to allow 

accurate and fair claims adjudication. STRs provide the necessary military service 

related healthcare evidence needed to reach a decision of a Service connection on 

a VA disability claim. VA has recently required that these records be certified prior 

to transfer from the DoD to VA. DoD subsequently issued policy to ensure compliance. 

The certification process requires that the final military treatment facility (MTF) 

for each military Service verify the completeness of each Service member’s STR at 

the point of separation from military service. When the MTF certifies the STR, it 

indicates to VA that no further records exist and the STR for the Service member 

is complete as of the date of certification. 

In January 2013, in support of VBA’s transition to a fully digital environment for 

claims processing, DoD committed to accelerate the deployment of the Health Artifact and Image Management Solution (HAIMS) for the purpose of transferring electronic STRs to VA. DoD committed to the development and implementation of a secure interface to allow VA to query the HAIMS repository for relevant STRs effective not later than January 2014. We have achieved this goal. 

To do this, DoD revised its HAIMS deployment strategy, refocused its training 

strategy to deliver training to Patient Administration Department (PAD) personnel 

and clinic administrative staff, and formed a VBA interface ‘‘tiger team’’ to plan and 

develop the automated interface. The certification process was also modified to ensure that the complete STR has been uploaded and is retrievable from HAIMS. In 

DoD, the process begins with authorized DoD personnel scanning the paper-based 

elements of a newly separating Service member’s STR. This and the Service member’s DoD electronic health record, is submitted into the HAIMS repository and 

made available to the VA as a single record. HAIMS now fully supports the electronic transfer of digital STR information, including military and private-sector 

treatment records, to VA. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
62 

As of December 31, 2013, the Services stopped mailing hard copies of STRs to the 

VA and the STR scanning process commenced on January 2, 2014. 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for extending the invitation to discuss the collaborative actions taken by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) to enable the secure electronic retrieval of disability benefits claimants’ 

certified Service Treatment Records (STRs) by VA. As a direct result of our collaborative efforts, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) claims adjudicators who use 

the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) in all 56 VA Regional Offices 

now have the capability to retrieve certified and complete electronic versions of 

STRs for Service members who separated or were discharged after January 1, 2014, 

to assist in processing disability benefits claims. Achieving this milestone represents 

a meaningful step forward – it enables VBA to process future Veterans’ disability 

claims for newly separating Service members in a fully digital claims-processing environment; reduces the amount of time it takes to gather required evidence; and 

helps to improve the accuracy of disability claims decisions. 

DoD is responsible for providing VA with Service members’ information to allow 

accurate and fair claims adjudication. STRs, in particular, are an important part of 

that information in that they provide the necessary military service related 

healthcare evidence needed to reach a decision of a Service connection on a VA disability claim. Because of the reliance on this information, VA has recently required 

that these records be certified prior to transfer from the DoD to VA. DoD subsequently issued policy to ensure compliance with this process. 

The certification process requires that the final military treatment facility (MTF) 

for each military Service, including the National Guard and Reserve component, 

verify the completeness of each Service member’s STR at the point of separation 

from military service. When the MTF certifies the STR, it indicates to VA that no 

further records exist and the STR for the Service member is complete as of the date 

of certification. 

In January 2013, in support of VBA’s transition to a fully digital environment for 

claims processing, DoD committed to accelerate the deployment of the Health Artifact and Image Management Solution (HAIMS) for the purpose of transferring electronic STRs to VA. Specifically, DoD committed to the development and implementation of a secure interface to allow VA to query the HAIMS repository for relevant 

STRs effective not later than January 2014. We have achieved this goal. 

In order to accommodate this new requirement, DoD revised its HAIMS deployment strategy by realigning technical resources to support HAIMS deployment, refocusing its training strategy to deliver training to Patient Administration Department (PAD) personnel and clinic administrative staff, and forming a VBA interface 

‘‘tiger team’’ to plan and develop the automated interface. The certification process 

was also modified to ensure that the complete STR has been uploaded and is retrievable from HAIMS. As a result of this focused effort, HAIMS fully supports the 

electronic transfer of digital STR information, including all military and private-sector treatment records, to VA. 

Funding for this effort included Joint Incentive Funds (JIF) used to support the 

Military Departments’ procurement of high-volume scanning equipment and additional personnel to digitize paper-based medical information for newly separating 

Service members. 

As of December 31, 2013, the Services stopped mailing hard copies of STRs to the 

VA and the STR scanning process commenced on January 2, 2014. The process for 

digitizing a Service member’s STR and making it retrievable by VBA begins with 

authorized DoD personnel scanning the paper-based elements of a newly separating 

Service member’s STR. The digitized STR, comprised of the scanned information 

and digital content from the Service member’s DoD electronic health record, is submitted into the HAIMS repository and made available to the VA as a single record. 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the distinguished 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The Secretary of Defense is committed to ensuring that information is made available to VA when a 

Service member’s status changes to civilian status as a Veteran and he or she files 

a disability benefits claim. DoD continues to work closely with VA to ensure that 

important information regarding a Service member, including relevant medical information, is available for ongoing healthcare delivery or adjudication of VA benefits. 

We look forward to your questions. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
63 

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the Subcommittee, 

Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the opportunity 

to offer our views on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) current status of its 

transformation and the secondary effects of the Veterans Benefits Administration’s 

(VBA) use of technology. While PVA has been encouraged by many of the effects 

that the integration and wide-spread implementation of technology has had, we still 

have concerns that we have expressed in the past, both to VBA and to Subcommittee members and staff. 

As VA progresses in its new processing model for disability compensation claims, 

we are seeing a flurry of activity and updates to the Veterans Benefits Management 

System (VBMS). Currently VBMS 6.0 appears to be on target, but this timeliness 

does not necessarily address the real potential problems. This system has been able 

to accommodate many of the myriad of adjustments designed to standardize and 

automate VA claims processing and access to information. The tradeoff has been the 

often incompatible gateways to retrieve information, such as the need to access multiple systems with various passwords to retrieve required information. These VBA 

problems are short term, however, because VBMS will ultimately morph into the 

Stakeholder Enterprise Portal (SEP), a secure web-based portal which facilitates access to VA systems under a single umbrella. VBMS is currently being utilized to 

implement scheduled program releases at this point because SEP cannot be programmed in time to accommodate the targeted release dates. Incremental program 

changes are thus being made in VBMS and will be available in the SEP Portal 

when VBMS effectively morphs into SEP. This update will greatly simplify access 

to all available VA systems via a single gateway. 

Supporting the improvements to VBMS is the national work queue strategy within VBA which is a critical and reasonable component of VBMS. The system was designed to be fluid and to facilitate the movement of work where it can best be done. 

In the past the only way an NSO could review a claim was to have the C-file on 

their desk. The significant impact of VBMS will be to expand their capability beyond 

the confines of the office which will help to reduce the backlog and maintain the 

reduction, though PVA still has concerns with the backlog simply moving into the 

appeals realm. 

In conjunction with the queue strategy is the work credit system which has always been a problem with VBA, and the automated IT component of this issue 

doesn’t change the situation. The issue stems from what is measured and how the 

date is utilized once it is collected. This issue has historically steered VBA in the 

wrong direction when it comes to resource allocation, which is the end result of the 

application of work measurement data. Under Secretary of Benefits Hickey has been 

wise not to strip resources from offices that place on the lower end of the work 

measurement graph as that doesn’t address the real problem. 

One concern that PVA and other Veterans Service Organizations (VSO) have recently expressed is VA’s recent statements on requiring electronic forms submission. 

This plan, if enacted, would significantly disadvantage veterans in seeking their 

earned benefits. If a veteran doesn’t express his intention to secure a benefit on the 

right form, he or she won’t be recognized as having made a claim. The burden is 

on the veteran and VA’s duty to assist will be seriously diluted, potentially interfering with a veteran’s access to their rightful benefit. This is a path that PVA cannot endorse. 

PVA’s major concern at this point is the ability of VBA employees to effectively 

comprehend and implement the new transformation initiatives as these new programs are rolled out. VA employees are conscientious, hard working individuals, 

however, the ongoing changes have always been a challenge, as it would be for any 

employee. In addition, PVA has often testified on the lack of good training programs 

by VA that provide adjudicators with the base of knowledge needed for the complicated job of claims processing. Additionally, there often seems to be difficulty in 

getting the new policies, procedures or processes down to the lowest staff level. We 

believe this trend continues despite the transformation. 

VBA has implemented a policy of designating super users to receive extensive 

training on new transformation applications, and these employees are subsequently 

directed to train their fellow employees on the use of the program. Our concern in 

this area is that the employees selected to receive this training may be highly qualified and may have the requisite IT skills to effectively utilize the full potential of 

the new initiative, but the employees that this person is designated to train, may 

not be as IT savvy. The potential for major misunderstandings is an aspect that cannot be ignored. PVA is concerned that the transformation initiatives can only work 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
64 

if there is adequate effective training and this may or may not be correlated with 

the number of documented hours recorded for this purpose. 

The process of transformation has progressed to the point where turning back is 

not an option, nor is redesign of the entire process feasible. Unfortunately, if this 

training plan was a bad decision, it will not be known until it is too late. Thus we 

reiterate our concerns that PVA has emphasized in the past that the success of 

VBMS greatly depends on the process design, like rules-based processes, and supportive technologies like Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) calculators, that undergird the system. This is the challenge for a rules-based computer system, it does 

not have the human interaction to fully understand the circumstances of a specific 

injury, particularly for those with catastrophic disabilities. The numerous issues 

faced by veterans with catastrophic injuries create a complex set of outcomes that 

cannot be easily reconciled by logic-based systems that cannot appreciate nuance in 

disability assessments. Calculators used in rules-based systems historically fail to 

compute the right ratings for persons with multiple issues. This type of decision 

analysis uses decision trees that attempt to enable the rater to simplify and resolve 

complex questions. This technique, however, can be problematic when the analysis 

involves highly qualitative assessments that are reduced to binary choices. 

In summary while we see many obstacles to the progress of transformation based 

technologies, we see the potential to overcome these problems by empowering first 

line supervisors to effectively manage their employees. This level of management is 

responsible to evaluate the ability of their employees to effectively utilize the tools 

that are available to them. They are the ones who must decide if it is necessary 

to forgo a short term gain by requiring additional training for an employee who is 

not able to effectively utilize the potential time savings afforded by any of the new 

automated features of claims processing. While there is great pressure to increase 

efficiency and to reduce the claims backlog, employees must be properly trained and 

motivated by their first line supervisor. If not, they are simply moving the backlog 

downstream to the detriment of the veteran. 

One final concern we have is recognition of the fact that VBA transformation initiatives are being scrutinized by multiple interested parties, not the least of which 

is this Subcommittee as well as other members of Congress. While oversight is critical, excessive reporting requirements and requests for responses to defend actions 

discovered in investigative committee reviews can be unreasonably burdensome and 

time consuming. This can also cause the parties to focus more on protecting their 

own jobs than on providing the best services for our veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank you once again for allowing us to address 

VBA’s technology transformation. We continue to hope that the advances in technology use will benefit all veterans, but VA must remember that technology is not 

the easy fix many portend it to be. This is particularly true when considering those 

with catastrophic disabilities. 

PVA would be pleased to take any questions for the record. 

Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives 

Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the following information is provided regarding federal grants and contracts. 

Fiscal Year 2013 

National Council on Disability—Contract for Services—$35,000. 

Fiscal Year 2012 

No federal grants or contracts received. 

Fiscal Year 2011 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, administered by the Legal Services Corporation—National Veterans Legal Services Program—$262,787. 

f 

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA

SUBMITTED BY JAMES R. VALE, ESQ., DIRECTOR, VETERANS BENEFITS PROGRAM

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and other members of this distinguished and important committee, Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) appreciates 

the opportunity to offer our statement for the record concerning VBA Technology. 

Please know that VVA appreciates the efforts of this committee for the fine work 

you are doing on behalf of our nation’s veterans and their families. There are 5 

issues we would like to bring to your attention. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
65 

I. Scanning Veterans Claims Folders (CFILES) 

VBA has to complete its transformation from paper to electronic files if it is going 

to make significant progress in improving its timeliness in claims processing. To accomplish this huge undertaking VBA is scanning millions of veterans’ claims folders 

(CFILEs). These CFILEs are the agency’s official record of the veteran’s current 

claim and any past claims and appeals. These CFILEs can range from less than 50 

pages to literally thousands of pages (enough to fill several filing cabinet drawers). 

Inside a CFILE 

On the left flap is the accounting and payment history. The middle section should 

contain, in chronological order, the initial claim form (21–526), reopened claims, private medical records, past rating decisions, other evidence submitted by the veteran 

or the veterans representative, evidence added by VA (such as printed pages from 

the Veteran’s medical records from VA hospitals), evidence from other agencies 

(such as the Social Security Administration), and all correspondence sent to the veteran. The right flap contains the veteran’s Power of Attorney form (VA Form 21– 

22), and DD214. 

The service treatment records (STRs) including the veterans military medical and 

dental records are contained in a large envelope, usually attached in the middle section of the CFILE. The STRs contain the veteran’s enlistment physical, contains outpatient treatment records, and separation physical. Lab results (usually on sticky 

notes) are stuck on the outpatient treatment notes. X-rays are also included. Older 

records are usually hand-written and hard to read. Records from WWII are very 

delicate and require careful handling. 

Once the first CFILE is completely full a second folder is created (Volume II), 

then a third (Volume III), and so on. Sticky notes are used to help flag key parts 

in the file. Highlighting is also used. All the volumes are bound together by large 

rubber bands. 

Unfortunately, Veteran Service Officers all too often find the paper documents in 

CFILES in complete disarray. For whatever reason, these documents are not in 

chronological order, but in random order, much like what is left over after playing 

a game of ‘‘52 Pickup.’’ Sometimes documents from other veteran’s CFILEs get 

mixed in. I personally have seen a CFILE containing documents from 3 different 

veterans. 

Not all CFILEs are Scanned 

VSOs were promised by VA the CFILEs would be scanned and searchable. To 

date, VA says 82% of the CFILEs are scanned. This 82% are initial claims, and do 

not include over 800,000 reopened claims, appeals, dependency claims, and claims 

already decided. We understand VA has had to prioritize which CFILES get scanned 

first, and noticed this massive scanning effort has led to delays in veterans claims 

at ROs across the country, but we recognize this is a temporary situation. 

CFILEs are not Fully Searchable 

The VA promised efficiencies would be gained by the electronic CFILEs being 

searchable. In practice, what has happened is after each page is scanned it is 

grouped together with similar documents and categorized under a specific label. 

Only the label, and not the document’s contents, are globally searchable in VBMS. 

To search within the document you must open it and perform a separate search 

within that document (if it was scanned using Optical Character Recognition or 

OCR). What we now have is a pile of paper being replaced with a ‘‘Pile of PDFs.’’ 

VBA should be appropriated sufficient funding to ensure that each veteran’s electronic CFILE is truly searchable without having to open each document separately. 

Opening each document separately delays adjudication, and may actually prevent 

some VA attorneys and Veteran Law Judges from seeing important documents if 

they rely solely on searching the document labels and do not open every single document. 

CFILE Pages are Mislabeled 

VVA represents veterans at the Board of Veterans Appeals, and our appellate attorneys have noticed a problem with pages in electronic CFILES in VBMS being 

mislabeled. For example, our attorneys’ legal briefs and third party correspondence 

have frequently been mislabeled as ‘‘Board of Veterans Appeals Decisions.’’ Consequently, we are concerned this is a much broader problem given the large scale 

of scanning that is taking place across VBA. We suggest this mislabeling problem 

be looked at more closely. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
66 

Quality Control Concerns 

As mentioned previously, CFILES range in size and content. Also, documents contained in these CFILEs may be single or double sided. Many of these pages have 

staples, paper clips, or sticky notes or flags which have to be removed before being 

scanned. This is a labor-intensive and mistake prone process. How do we know both 

sides of each page was scanned? How do we know all the pages were scanned? What 

if the scanned image is illegible? Once the paper CFILE is destroyed, there is no 

going back if a quality problem is later discovered with the electronic copy. This potentially creates an electronic ‘‘St. Louis Fire’’ for veterans whose files were either 

not scanned completely, or have illegible scans. 

VBA plans to retire scanned CFILEs, but no official decision has been made on 

what to do with the STRs. They are DoD property, but DoD does not want the STRs 

back. VA does not want to continue paying to store them. Prior rating decisions contained in the paper CFILE may not be accessible in legacy VBA systems such as 

Virtual VA. 

VVA recommends retiring the entire CFILE to NARA. That way if there is ever 

a problem with the scanned file the Veteran can go back to the paper file. Otherwise, we will have a situation similar to what is found within the airline industry 

where the airlines claim 98% of passenger baggage makes it to their destination, 

but if you are part of the unlucky 2% whose bags didn’t make it, you are out of 

luck. Here, veterans whose CFILES were not completely scanned or have scanning 

errors may face denials by VA, much like their predecessors whose military records 

were destroyed by the infamous 1973 St. Louis Fire. 

II. VA National Work Queue 

VBA has Regional Offices in every state, some states (NY, PA, & TX) have 2 ROs, 

and CA has 3 ROs. VBA is trying to balance its work across its 57 regional offices. 

VBMS will give VA the opportunity to balance its workload across all these ROs. 

It may also allow the creation of Centers of Excellence for complex or difficult claim 

issues such as PTSD, TBI, hearing loss, and vision loss. This could improve the consistency of rating decisions, especially for those conditions that are not adjudicated 

very often, but are complex. For example, vision loss conditions make up only 1.5% 

of all service connected conditions (2012 VBA Annual Report), but tend to be very 

difficult and challenging for RVSRS to adjudicate. Using the National Work Queue 

vision loss claims from around the country could be channeled to specific RVSRs 

who are experienced in rating these types of claims. Furthermore, RVSRs at every 

RO could be incentivized to become Subject Matter Experts in particular claims. 

Need for Formal Process To Resolve VSO Sign off Issues 

As a service officer I have signed off rating decisions at the rating table, and in 

the cases where I found an error in a rating decision I was able to go straight to 

the RVSR (or the RVSR’s Coach) and get the issue immediately resolved, thus saving the RVSR a quality review error, and saves the veteran a lengthy 2–3 year appeal. This is a win/win for the veteran and the VA. 

Not every RO allows service officers access to RVSRs. Some ROs only allow the 

service officer to meet with the RVSR’s coach (when the coach can be found. They 

are very busy and can be hard to locate). VVA proposes ‘‘office hours’’ at each RO 

so the service officer can get the issue resolved without the RVSR or coach being 

interrupted throughout the entire work day by service officer inquiries. 

Now that VBMS is here, VBA needs to establish a formal process to deal with 

service officer sign-offs. If a claim is to be signed off by a service officer in VBMS 

via SEP, how do sign-off issues get resolved if a service officer finds an error in a 

rating decision? This become a bigger problem if the service officer is not located 

at the same RO that generated the decision. VVA proposes a ‘‘Dispute Queue’’ be 

created where the service officer can send the rating decision for review by the 

RVSR or Coach. 

The advantages of a National Work Queue have to be carefully balanced with the 

disadvantages. The service officer who is on station and has face to face contact with 

the RVSRs and DROs is a more effective advocate for veterans than those service 

officers who are not on station or do not have access to adjudicators. If designed 

correctly, the National Work Queue can help effectively balance workloads within 

an RO and across multiple ROs, but carefully planning must be taken to ensure the 

working relationship between service officers and RVSRS is not weakened. 

III. Issues With Stakeholders Enterprise Portal (SEP) 

SEP allows VSO many benefits including the ability to accept or reject a veteran’s 

request for representation, submit a claim electronically for a veteran (either take 

over a claim that was started in e-Benefits, or submit a whole new claim in SEP), 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
67 

and check the veteran’s claims status. It basically allows the VSO to see what the 

veteran sees in e-Benefits. SEP holds great potential to enable VSOs to better serve 

veterans, but it does have a few issues that need to be addressed. 

Veteran Must Already Have an e-Benefits Account 

In order for a VSO to submit a claim for a veteran via SEP, the veteran must 

already have already created an e-Benefits account. Currently it is not possible to 

submit a claim for a veteran via SEP if the veteran does not have an e-Benefits 

account. VA is working on a solution. 

POA Request Glitch 

In response to multiple VSO requests to improve VA policy governing VA Form 

21–22 ‘‘Appointment of Veterans Service Organization As Claimant’s Representative,’’ known as the ‘‘POA Form,’’ VA created functionality in e-Benefits to allow veterans to select their representative online rather than submitting a paper 21–22 

form. VSOs were told the veteran can submit a POA request in e-Benefits, and that 

this request would appear in the VSO’s ‘‘Service Representation Request’’ queue in 

SEP where the VSO can click a button to accept or decline the request. The veteran’s e-Benefits account would receive an immediate response from SEP once the 

VSO accepts or declines the POA request. 

Unfortunately, due to a programming bug or glitch, there is a communication 

error between e-Benefits and SEP that is preventing the veteran’s e-Benefits account from updating with the new POA request status after the VSO accepts or rejects the POA request. Thus, the VSO must contact the veteran directly by phone, 

email, or paper letter to communicate the acceptance or rejection of the veteran’s 

POA request. Imagine a VSO finding 1,000 POA requests to respond to in SEP. 

That is 1000 phone calls, emails, or paper letters that need to be generated. This 

creates an unnecessary burden on VSOs, and needs to be corrected by VA as soon 

as possible. 

Out of Date POA Database Impacting e-Benefits 

A veteran’s ability to find an accredited service officer in e-Benefits is significantly 

impacted because the database maintained by the VA Office of General Counsel 

(OGC) used to feed into e-Benefits is woefully out of date. 

The VA Office of General Counsel (OGC) only has 4 FTE to monitor approximately 30,000 accreditations (service officers, attorneys, and VA Agents), and these 

staff are responsible for maintaining the online database that feeds into the POA 

request feature in e-Benefits (see: http://www.va.gov/ogc/apps/accreditation/). 

The lack of resources at OGC to monitor these accreditations is well documents 

by the Government Accountability Office in its report ‘‘Improvements Needed to Ensure Claimants Receive Appropriate Representation.’’ The GAO recommended the 

VA OGC, ‘‘. . . take steps to ensure an appropriate level of staff and IT resources 

are in place to implement the requirements of the accreditation program.’’ GAO–13– 

643: Published: Aug 1, 2013. Publicly Released: Aug 30, 2013. Available: http:// 

www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-643. 

Although some short-term fixes are being made to help clean up the database, the 

long-term solution is for OGC to allocate sufficient FTE to this important OGC function so that the database is up to date. 

IV. Diffused Accountability 

VBA has to transform its paper-based claims system into a modern, electronicclaims based system, and is making great progress. However, unless structural 

changes are made to VBA’s organizational structure, no amount of technological 

transformation will fix VBA’s underlying and deep-rooted problem: the existing separation of VBA’s Operations and Policy Functions. 

There are at least two major structural/corporate culture barriers that need to be 

changed at VBA. First, the bifurcation of separate reporting lines of managers between ‘‘operations’’ and ‘‘policy’’ does not make sense. It only creates too many middle managers and disperses accountability. This needs to be corrected at VBA (and 

at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as well we might add), for the same 

reasons of reducing managerial slots and affixing clear accountability. The second 

is the fact that nobody ever got in trouble at Compensation & Pension for saying 

‘‘No.’’ The default position needs to change from ‘‘No’’ to ‘‘how do we get to yes?’’ 

VVA commends VBA on the progress it is making to become an electronic claims 

system, but strongly urges VBA’s organization structure also undergo transformation. 

VVA Proposed Rule Rin 2900–AO81—Standard Claims and Appeals Forms 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
68 

VVA understands the VA’s stated intent to improve the quality and timeliness of 

the processing of veterans’ claims for benefits and appeals, and in principle, we do 

not oppose VA modernizing its claims system and use of standardized forms. However, we find many of these proposed rule changes in RIN 2900—AO81, as currently 

written, do NOT have the intended effect of increasing efficiency, and are in fact adverse to veterans’ interests by formalizing the claims and appeals processes to the 

point where benefits are unfairly restricted. 

Although the title of this proposed rule is, ‘‘Standard Claims and Appeals Forms,’’ 

the proposed change goes well beyond mandating the use of forms. VA proposes to: 

• Eliminate all informal claims, potentially costing veterans millions of dollars 

in retroactive payments currently allowed under existing law. 

• Essentially change a claim from an application of ‘‘formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit’’ to ‘‘a written communication requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a specific benefit 

under the laws administered by the VA.’’ This gives VA the opportunity to raise 

the bar to an unreasonable level where veterans are denied claims for issues 

that are not specifically claimed. 

• Create the concept of a ‘‘complete claim,’’ and providing VA the opportunity 

to unfairly deny claims for failing to meets its arbitrary standards of what it 

deems to be ‘‘complete.’’ Veterans’ claims should be decided on their merits, and 

not summarily dismissed for failing to dot every ‘‘I’’ and cross every,‘‘t’’. 

Currently, the claims clock starts when a veteran submits an informal claim, and 

the veteran has 365 days to follow up with the formal claim and evidence to perfect 

the claim. VBA policy makers claim this hurts and unfairly skews VA’s claims timeliness statistics. There is nothing in Title 38 that prohibits VBA from starting the 

claims clock from when the formal claim is received. Thus, VA could start the claims 

clock when the formal claim is received rather than eliminating informal claims. 

This would reduce VBA timeliness statistics by up to 364 days without costing veterans the retroactive awards they are currently entitled to under the existing informal claims process. 

VVA has serious concerns that these proposed changes are adverse to many classes of veterans—especially Vietnam Veterans—seeking VA benefits under Title 38, 

and some of these proposed changes may be in direct violation of existing court rulings. Furthermore, some of these proposed changes may not pass Constitutional 

muster given they appear to run afoul with the Due Process and Equal Protection 

Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The end result of these proposed changes, if enacted, would be a significant departure from the longstanding, ‘‘nonadversarial and 

pro-claimant’’ VA system originally intended by Congress. 

Although VA is granted authority under 38 U.S.C. 501(a) to make regulatory 

changes, these proposed regulatory changes appear to be ultra vires. Therefore, VVA 

strongly opposes these proposed changes as currently written and urges that they 

be withdrawn. 

Mr. Chairman, VVA thanks you and this subcommittee for the opportunity to 

present our views for the records regarding today’s hearing ‘‘Beyond Transformation: Reviewing Current Status And Secondary Effects Of VBA Technology’’. 

February 5, 2014 

Vietnam Veterans Of America 

Funding Statement 

The national organization Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is a non-profit veterans membership organization registered as a 501(c)(19) with the Internal Revenue 

Service. VVA is also appropriately registered with the Secretary of the Senate and 

the Clerk of the Senate of Representatives in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. 

VVA is not currently in receipt of any federal grant or contract, other than the 

routine allocation of office space and associated resources in VA Regional Offices for 

outreach and direct services through its Veterans Benefits Program (Service Representatives). This is also true of the previous two fiscal years. 

For Further Information, Contact: 

Director of Government Relations Vietnam Veterans of America. (301) 585–4000, 

extension 127 

James R. Vale, ESQ. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
69 

Mr. James Vale is the National Service Director and Senior Attorney for Vietnam 

Veterans America. He is a licensed attorney from the State of Washington, leads 

a legal team of 6 appellate attorneys, and oversees accreditation, training, and VBP 

Program compliance for over 600 accredited service officers. He has been an accredited service officer for 10 years and is accredited by the Associates of Vietnam Veterans, American Legion, Blinded Veterans Association, and Vietnam Veterans of 

America. He has represented veterans for VA claims at the VA Seattle Regional Office and at the Board of Veterans Appeals. 

Mr. Vale is a former Government Relations Intern with the Blinded Veterans Association, and a former David Isbell Summer Law Clerk with the Veteran Pro Bono 

Consortium. He is a past-presenter at the National Organization of Veterans Advocates (NOVA), has written an article in the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP), The Veterans Advocate, and has a column in VVA’s Magazine, The 

Veteran. 

Mr. Vale is a disabled Navy Gulf War-era Veteran and is legally blind. He earned 

his Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Master of Aeronautical Science 

(MAS) from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, and Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Education Specialist Degree (Ed. S.) from the University of Arizona, and Juris Doctorate (JD) from Seattle University School of Law. He is also 

a graduate of both the VA Blind Rehabilitation Service and the VA Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment Program. 

Mr. Vale resides with his wife Rowena and his daughter Gabrielle in the DC 

metro area. 

f 

LETTER FROM HON. TITUS TO HON. SHINSEKI

February 27, 2014 

The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki 

Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

In reference to our Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

hearing entitled, ‘‘Beyond Transformation: Reviewing Current Status and Secondary 

Effects of VBA Technology’’ that took place on February 5, 2014, I would appreciate 

it if you could answer the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on 

April 10, 2014. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for materials for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively and singlespaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Carolyn 

Blaydes at Carolyn.blaydes@mail.house.gov. If you have any questions, please call 

(202) 225–9756. 

Sincerely, 

Dina Titus, Ranking Member Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and 

Memorial Affairs 

f 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD–VA 

Production 

1. Can you please explain, in detail, how station targets for VA Regional Offices 

are created? Consistently committee staff has found that station targets are not 

being met. Are the station targets unrealistic? If not, what is being done to hold 

offices accountable for not reaching their targets? 

2. The most recent performance data available in ASPIRE is more than two 

months old. Can VA commit to providing Congress and the public with timely information regarding the performance of VA Regional Offices? 

3. How does VBA define an under performing office? 

4. What are the performance standards for individuals working in the various segmented lanes? How many claims is a VSR/RVSR expected to complete if the work 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
70 

in the ‘‘express lane’’, the ‘‘core lane’’, the ‘‘special operations lane’’, and on non-rating work? 

a. Do these standards vary by office or are they the same across the country? 

b. If the standard is the same but actions are weighted, please provide us an 

index explaining how different actions are weighted. 

5. Can we please receive a briefing and documentation on the NLA pilot? 

6. Can VA please provide the formula for determining ‘‘claims produced per Direct 

FTE’’ on the executive dashboard as well as the figures used in that calculation? 

7. VARO Directors indicated that they are challenged to provide incentives to employees. Can you please provide the code/regulation that governs RO leadership’s 

abilities to provide such incentives? 

8. How many provisional rating decisions have been made since the inception of 

tactic. 

a. How many of those claims have been appealed? 

9. How many VA Regional Office Director positions are currently vacant? How 

long have they been vacant for? 

National Work Queue 

1. One of the concerns raised in the VFW’s testimony is the fact that service officers are not provided lists informing them of what claims have been brokered? How 

does VA currently inform the VSO’s of the location of brokered claims, and how does 

VA expect this to change moving forward? 

2. Why was the national work queue not communicated to Congress prior to its 

implementation? 

3. In a National Work Queue, how will poor performing offices and employees be 

held accountable? 

4. How will the resource allocation model be modified in consideration of the National Work Queue? 

5. According to the fact sheet provided to the committee on February 3, 2014, with 

regards to the National Work Queue, VBA has suggested that they will support 

medical-issue and skill-based workload distribution. Can you please expand upon 

this; will this be for all medical conditions, what are VBA’s intended goals? 

6. What is the Area Director’s role in the new model and who specifically will 

manage workload at the National level? 

7. VSOs are concerned about losing the ability to have face-to-face interaction 

with the VA employee processing the claim. How is VA going to ensure VSO service 

officers can contact the case workers? 

8. What is VA doing to ensure the ‘‘sense of ownership’’ is not undermined as the 

claims are sent to other regions? 

9. Please provide statistics on the quality of brokered and non-brokered claims. 

10. In the future phase of NWQ, how is VA ensuring that the holistic view of complex claims is retained as the individual issues are sent off to other regions and employees? 

11. How is the VA going to allocate resources (FTE, budget, etc.) to high and low 

performing ROs? 

12. There is concern that previous attempts to centralize claims for death pensions and Dependency and Indemnity Claims (DIC) were problematic with high 

error rates and delays. Is VA incorporating any lessons learned from that experience? 

e-Benefits 

1. What percent of claims are being submitted through e-Benefits? What are VA’s 

goals for online claim submission? 

2. Can you please provide the findings of the breach core data team’s investigation 

to the committee? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
71 

HAIMS 

1. Is the VBMS–HAIMS interface fully operational? How many service and treatment records has VA retrieved using the HAIMS interface? The November update 

to the Transformation Plan indicates DoD committed to providing 100% complete 

searchable electronic records, has DoD now met its commitment and is this capability fully rolled out at all 56 VAROs? 

2. Where is HAIMS scanning conducted? 

VBMS 

1. What is the total for VA spending on VBMS from inception? 

Work Credit 

1. Can VA provide an update on the current work credit system and any labor 

agreements and discussions? 

2. Can VA provide the committee with a copy of the AFGE labor agreement? 

IDES 

1. In the hearing VA suggested that it would eliminate the backlog of IDES claims 

by March (Final Rating) and August (Initial Rating). Can VA please provide additional clarity on its plan to achieve this goal? 

2. Can more claims be brokered to the Providence DRAS to reduce the wait times 

of Servicemembers waiting on rating decision from the Seattle DRAS? 

3. Can more IDES ratings decisions be brokered to additional VA Regional Offices? 

4. Numerous references have been made to negative experiences from the SM’s 

in IDES with regards to QTC physicians and facilities. How is VA checking the 

quality and consistency of the QTC examinations, facilities, and personal? 

f 

RESPONSES FROM VA TO HON. DINA TITUS

Question 1: Can you please explain, in detail, how station targets for VA Regional Offices are created? Consistently committee staff has found that station targets are not being met. Are the station targets unrealistic? If not, what is being 

done to hold offices accountable for not reaching their targets? 

VA Response: The performance of regional offices (RO) is evaluated against national and RO-specific targets that are based on the Veterans Benefits Administration’s (VBA) strategic goals. These targets are established at the beginning of each 

fiscal year (FY), across all the business lines and for a variety of measures, including quality, timeliness, production, and inventory. Challenging performance expectations are established that build on the previous year’s performance, giving consideration to current staffing levels and anticipating that each RO is working to ensure 

the most efficient utilization of those resources. RO directors are held accountable 

for their performance, which is reflected in their end-of-year evaluations. As appropriate, performance improvement plans are put in place for employees and closely 

monitored by the area director. 

Question 2: The most recent performance data available in ASPIRE is more than 

two months old. Can VA commit to providing Congress and the public with timely 

information regarding the performance of VA Regional Offices? 

VA Response: VBA has increasingly been asked for production statistics that reflect the status of claims actually being worked at each RO, referred as claims at 

the Station of current Jurisdiction (SOJ), instead of the production credited to the 

station where the claim was originally received, referred to as Station of Origination 

(SOO). We acknowledged this requirement in recent changes to the Monday Morning Workload Report, which now shows production statistics for each RO both before 

and after any brokering of claims to or from other ROs. As brokering will continue 

to increase in FY 2014 and FY 2015, VBA adjusted the data for ASPIRE to reflect 

SOJ versus SOO in our monthly statistics towards achieving our FY 2015 goals. We 

have recalculated the previous months of ASPIRE data in FY 2014 accordingly and 

reposted October 2013 through January 2014. These new files were available online 

on March 7, 2014. February end-of-month data for Compensation and Pension was 

posted to ASPIRE on March 11, and we expect to continue publishing prior-month 

data to ASPIRE no later than the 10th business day of the following month. We 

apologize for any confusion that may have resulted during this changeover period. 

Question 3: How does VBA define an underperforming office? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
72 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 86727.002
73 

Question 5: Can we please receive a briefing and documentation on the 

NLA pilot? 

VA Response: VBA can provide a briefing at the Committee’s convenience. 

The Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) notification letter automation 

(NLA) automates the award notification letter with very little manual handling by 

the end user. The expectation is that the implementation of this new process will 

reduce the time that claims await award generation and authorization. This allows 

VBA employees to focus their critical expertise on award processing. The new process will facilitate standardization of the letters nationwide in a way not previously 

possible. The new system supports much more rapid language changes than legacy 

products, facilitating timely updates to our standardized system language. 

This functionality uses rules-based logic to drive generation of notification letters 

based on various inputs as part of a rating decision or award action. Prior to this 

automated process, users were required to manually select paragraphs to populate 

the notification letter. 

The Portland RO began the VBMS NLA pilot in August 2013, and it is being used 

by two of the RO’s teams (Express and Non-Rating). The Lincoln RO began piloting 

VBMS NLA in November 2013. 

Program successes include: 

• 365 automated letters were generated as part of the pilot. 

• 84percent of automated letters generated after VBMS 6.0 release. 

• The VBMS NLA pilot supported and led to incorporation of NLA functionality 

in the VBMS–Awards application. 

• Time-study results showed a 40 percent reduction in letter generation time 

and resources using the VBMS NLA process, compared to the traditional legacy 

system processing. 

The Lincoln and Portland ROs are currently piloting VBMS NLA. National deployment of the VBMS–Awards application with the embedded NLA functionality is 

currently in the planning stages. 

Question 6: Can VA please provide the formula for determining ‘‘claims 

produced per Direct FTE’’ on the executive dashboard as well as the figures used in that calculation? 

VA Response: Claims produced per direct full-time equivalent (FTE) employees 

represents total claims completed during a given month divided by the cumulative 

FTE employees for that month. Since rating claims are processed by both compensation and pension employees, cumulative end of month FTEs for both business lines 

is used. 

Direct FTE includes VSRs, RVSRs, Decision Review Officers (DRO), Pension and 

Veterans Service Center field employees such as Claims Assistants, Fiduciary employees, National Call Center employees, Military Service Coordinators, Homeless 

Veterans Coordinators, and Women Veterans Coordinators. The end of month February calculation was based on 14,101 direct FTEs. 

Question 7: VARO Directors indicated that they are challenged to provide incentives to employees. Can you please provide the code/regulation that governs RO 

leadership’s abilities to provide such incentives? 

VA Response: RO directors are allowed to provide performance incentives under the 

following statute, regulations, and publications: 

• 5 United States Code, Chapter 45 - Incentive Awards; 

• 5 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 451 – Awards; 

• 5 CFR, Part 531, Subpart E – Quality Step Increases; 

• VA Handbook 5017 – Employee Recognition and Awards; and 

• Office of Personnel Management publication ‘‘Human Resources Flexibilities 

and Authorities in the Federal Government.’’ 

VBA utilizes a three-tier incentive program to recognize individuals and ROs for excellent performance during the fiscal year. 

Individual recognition (level one) awards are given to those employees whose performance significantly exceeds their performance requirements. All performance requirements for claims processors contain critical elements for both quality and timeliness/production. At the heart of the performance award program is a foundational 

focus on quality. Group awards (level two) are made to offices or elements of offices 

that achieve and exceed performance targets, including all claims accuracy goals. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
74 

Special contribution awards (level three) are reserved for recognition by the Under 

Secretary for Benefits. 

Question 8: How many provisional rating decisions have been made since the inception of tactic? 

a. How many of those claims have been appealed? 

VA Response: Between April 19, 2013, and November 2013, approximately 14,500 

provisional ratings were completed (7,300 for 2-year claims and 7,200 for 1-year 

claims). This represents approximately two percent of the rating-related decisions 

made under the Oldest Claims Initiative through November 8, 2013. 

In April 2013, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) implemented a temporary 

initiative to expedite compensation claims decisions for Veterans who had waited 

one year or longer. Between April 19, 2013, and November 8, 2013, VA claims raters 

made provisional decisions on some of the oldest claims in inventory, which allowed 

Veterans to begin collecting compensation benefits more quickly, if they were eligible. 

Provisional decisions were based on all evidence VA had received to date and during 

the time the claim had been pending.Provisional rating notices noted the evidence; 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
75 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 86727.005
76 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 86727.006
77 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 86727.007
78 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 86727.008
79 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 86727.009
80 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 86727.010
81 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 86727.011
82 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 86727.012
83 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 86727.013
84 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 86727.014
85 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 86727.015
86 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 86727.016
87 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 86727.017
88 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 86727.018
89 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 86727.019
90 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 86727.020
91 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 86727.021
92 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 86727.022
93 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 86727.023
94 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 86727.024
95 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 86727.025
96 

already had a decision made on them, and brought to the DRO’s attention because 

of some conflict with the facts or law as applied in the case. This would also apply 

to any cases assigned to the DRO by Veterans Service Center management based 

on the complexity/sensitivity of the case. This credit does not apply to routine rating 

development cases and, again, can only be claimed exclusive of any other weighted 

action listed above. 

3. The case credit review for an SOC [EP 172 or 174] should be taken per the 

parameters in M21–4 Appendix C. Concerning formal hearings (EP 174), a full case 

credit is only available if the formal hearing is actually held; otherwise, the only 

credit available is the 1/2 case for preparation time, if applicable. 

4. The term ‘‘DRO decision’’ is defined as any rating related to an appeal where 

the DRO has made a favorable decision requiring some type of award action. Separate DRO decision and rating decision documents for the same issue are not required. 

5. Weighted case credit for non-appeal cases is the same as the RVSR weights. 

SUCCESSFUL LEVEL: Three weighted cases per day (cumulative) 

INDICATORS: Production reports 

Leave, union time, special projects or assignments pre-approved at the discretion 

of the supervisor, and 2nd signature reviews (of trainees only) are considered deductible time. 

ELEMENT 3 – CUSTOMER SERVICE 

Functions as a team member to enhance resolution of claims and customer service 

contacts by work actions. Maintains professional, positive, and helpful relationships 

with internal/external customers by exercising tact, diplomacy, and cooperation. 

Performance demonstrates the ability to adjust to change or work pressures, to 

handle differences of opinion in a businesslike fashion, and to follow instructions 

conscientiously. As a team member, contributes to the group effort by supporting fellow teammates with technical expertise and open communications and by identifying problems and offering solutions. Successful achievement in this element reflects support of all scorecard goals. 

SUCCESSFUL LEVEL: No more than three instances of valid complaints or incidents. 

INDICATOR: Verbal and/or written feedback from internal and/or external customers. Observations by a manager with the complaint documented. 

A valid complaint or incident is one where a review by the supervisor, after considering both sides of the issue, reveals that the complaint/incident should have 

been handled more prudently and was not unduly aggravated by the complainant. 

Disagreeing, per se, does not constitute ‘‘discourtesy’’. Valid complaints or incidents 

will be determined by the supervisor and discussed with the employee. 

ELEMENT 4 – TIMELINESS 

Works in a manner that supports and contributes to meeting established Veterans 

Benefits Administration timeliness requirements. 

At present the timeliness element is not officially measured. Methods are currently 

being discussed concerning accurate and equitable ways to measure appeals timeliness. At that time, this element will be revisited. 

ATTACHMENT A 

Were all claimed issues addressed? 

Were all inferred issues addressed? 

Were all ancillary issues addressed? 

Was effort to obtain all indicated evidence documented? 

Was requested VA exam necessary and appropriate or was a necessary exam requested? 

Was all evidence received prior to denying claim? 

Was the grant or denial of all issues correct? 

Were there percentage evaluations assigned correct? 

Was the combined evaluation correct? 

Were the effective dates correct? 

Was all of the applicable evidence discussed? 

Was the basis of each decision explained? 

Æ 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER