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

26–496 PDF 2017

VA: PATH TO REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 1, 2017 

Serial No. 115–16 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matthew Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

John Sarbanes, Maryland 

JONATHAN SKLADANY, Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

BRICK CHRISTENSEN, Senior Military Advisor 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Ron DESANTIS, Florida, Chairman 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma, Vice Chair 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Member 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 1, 2017 .............................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Pamela S. Mitchell, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Human Resources and Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Mr. Nicholas Dahl, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Irene J. Barnett, Ph.D., Director of the Bedford Office for Audits and Evaluations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

APPENDIX 

VA Office of Inspector General Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays 

at the Atlanta VA Medical Center Report, submitted by Mr. Hice ................. 38 

Letter of March 1, 2017, from the American Federation of Government Employees, submitted by Mr. Lynch ........................................................................ 60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

VA: PATH TO REFORM 

Wednesday, March 1, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:28 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives DeSantis, Duncan, Amash, Hice, Lynch, 

Demings, DeSaulnier, and Sarbanes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The Subcommittee on National Security will come 

to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any 

time. The chair notes the presence of our colleagues from the full 

Committee of Oversight and Government Reform. We appreciate 

your interest in this topic and welcome your participation today, 

when you get here. 

I ask unanimous consent that all members of the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform be allowed to fully participate 

in today’s hearing. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

With a new administration and VA Secretary, we have an opportunity to set a new course at the Veterans Administration. The VA 

is the topic of our first subcommittee hearing for a reason. This 

subcommittee stands foursquare behind our veterans and is committed to ensuring that veterans receive the benefits they have 

earned. 

Over the past several years, the VA has not lived up to the promises that have been made to our Nation’s heroes. Many veterans 

have experienced significant problems receiving the health care 

they deserve. The problems and scandals of the last few years have 

undermined faith in the VA. 

The point of this hearing today is to shed light on the continuing 

cases of fraud, waste, and abuse at the VA that require reform. The 

2014 wait-time scandal brought to light a number of serious 

abuses. That has, sad to say, not been fully corrected. For example, 

the VA charged a doctor with prescribing high amounts of opiates 

to patients receiving care for mental health. This doctor received 

several thousands of dollars in bonus money 9 months after an OIG 

report exposed his poor prescription practices. 

In addition, one VA senior executive volunteered to transfer to a 

new office. The new position required less responsibility, but this 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

employee still received relocation incentives and the same annual 

salary of over $180,000. 

VA staff members in a southern Arizona VA manipulated patient 

wait times in order to meet incentive requirements and national 

scheduling procedures. These staff members received bonuses even 

though they were not meeting national scheduling standards. Another doctor, this time in a Pittsburgh VA, received a $62,895 

bonus for implementing an infection prevention program. Three 

days before receiving this bonus, the VA Office of Inspector General 

issued a report finding that six veterans died from Legionnaires’ 

disease because of systematic failures. 

In an Atlanta VA medical center, there was a backlog of 300 unsettled background investigations for new hires because of human 

resource delays. 

These are a few of the examples that demonstrate the need for 

reform. 

Now Secretary Shulkin has set out a vision for improving some 

of VA’s programs to better serve our veterans. One of Secretary 

Shulkin’s top priorities is to reshape the Veterans Choice Program. 

This includes removing a rule regarding veteran’s ability to seek 

care at non-VA facilities. It’s important to remove obstacles that 

make it difficult for veterans to receive medical care. The Choice 

Program needs to serve its intended function, and if that requires 

congressional action, then Congress should act forthwith. 

The new Secretary will also prioritize, improve mental health 

care. According to recent VA statistics, an average of 20 veterans 

died from suicide each day in the year 2014. These statistics reveal 

the need to improve quality of care and suicide prevention. 

We have today representatives from VA’s Office of Inspector General to report on some of these troubling cases. We are also joined 

by Acting Assistant Secretary Pamela Mitchell, here to testify on 

behalf of Secretary Shulkin. It is my hope we can have an honest, 

frank, and positive discussion of the VA’s shortcomings and chart 

a course to reform. 

One reform that I’ve proposed is to expand treatment options for 

veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress by authorizing the 

VA to link veterans suffering from PTS with a specially trained 

service dog, which has proven to be effective with private organizations. For those that have tried more conventional forms of treatment and experienced no relief for their suffering, this could actually be a lifesafer, and we’ve had veterans say that their life has 

been saved because of a service dog. 

Just as we ensure that warfighters have every resource available 

to protect them from the dangers of the battlefield, so too must we 

provide the veterans transitioning to civilian life with the resources 

to treat the invisible and lingering effects of the realities of war. 

The lives of our returning soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 

are at stake. We can’t afford to fail them after they served us. 

Those who risked their life for this country deserve the absolute 

best care upon their return. Time is of the essence. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. 

And I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee who 

hails from the Super Bowl champion Boston area, yet another title, 

Mr. Lynch. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Mr. LYNCH. You are very kind, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

courtesy as well. 

And just because this is our first subcommittee hearing in the 

new session, I just want to say that I’d again like to express my 

commitment to working with you and your very capable staff. 

You’ve got great—we both have great staff here that work on behalf of the American people. And I think that our bipartisan oversight work will prove critical to identifying existing and emerging 

threats. It will also further the important national security missions carried out by Federal agencies and our dedicated military 

and civilian personnel on behalf of the American people. 

Chief among these missions is ensuring that more than 21 million brave men and women who have served in defense of our Nation and represent America’s veterans community receive the quality of care and the opportunity to transition to a civilian life that 

is commensurate with their service and their sacrifice. To this end, 

I welcome today’s hearing to examine ongoing reform efforts of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. And I’d also like to thank our witnesses for helping the committee with its work. 

It is my understanding that this hearing will focus on recent 

audit work conducted by the Office of the VA Inspector General 

and to examine so-called recruitment, retention, and relocation incentives that were previously awarded to certain senior level and 

VA central office employees. In particular, a January 2017 audit report that was issued by the inspector general determined that, absent additional reforms, the VA will risk spending an estimated 

$158.7 million in unsupported bonuses and forfeiting $3.9 million 

in bonuses that should be recouped through fiscal year 2019. And 

I agree with the chairman that this area merits meaningful congressional oversight. 

However, I would also urge that our subcommittee examine a 

more immediate and serious threat that is facing our veterans community, and that is, quite frankly, the negative impact on veterans 

services that will be caused by President Trump’s executive memorandum to establish an indefinite, indiscriminate hiring freeze 

within the Federal Government. This action stops all Federal agencies from hiring full-time Federal workers, including individuals to 

fill 9,000 vacancies at the VA serving critical functions. The predictable consequences will be to degrade the essential services that 

our veterans and the American public rely on, rescind the opportunities that America’s veterans have earned. And for that reason, 

veterans organizations, ranging from the American Legion, the 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, VFW, and the DAV, 

Disabled American Veterans, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 

America, continue to underscore the devastating effects of the hiring freeze on our returning servicemen and -women. 

As I noted in a letter signed by 107 Members of Congress urging 

President Trump to reconsider his decision, past hiring freezes enacted during both Democratic and Republican administrations have 

proven to decrease government efficiency, accountability, and 

transparency at the expense of public services and the American 

taxpayer. 

As reported by the independent Government Accountability Office in its seminal 1992 report examining the governmentwide 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

freezes implemented under both President Reagan and President 

Carter, these actions severely disrupted critical agency operations 

and diminished Federal oversight of agency programs. I would note 

that one Carter administration hiring freeze caused a clerical staff 

shortage at the VA medical center that required healthcare professionals to prioritize administrative duties over their core job functions. Not surprisingly, this led to increased patient wait times and 

severe delays in the processing of medical examinations. 

The report also found the hiring freeze, quote, ‘‘caused decreased 

oversight of Federal programs, making it more difficult for the inspector general officers to do their jobs,’’ close quote, something we 

should remember as we review the critical work of the inspector 

general for Veterans Affairs today. 

Moreover, the current hiring freeze is already having a drastic 

impact on the ability of our veterans to transition back to civilian 

life. That’s because America’s veterans make up one-third of our 

Federal workforce and new hires at the Department of Defense, the 

VA, the Department of Transportation, and other agencies nationwide. According to the Office of Personnel Management, veterans 

hiring in the Federal Government has also risen significantly in recent years, with Federal agencies hiring an estimated 6,000 more 

veterans in fiscal year 2015 than the previous year. That’s a total 

of 71,000 new veteran hires and a veteran hire percentage of 32.5 

percent within the Federal Government. 

So you see, by instituting a hiring freeze in the Federal Government, we’re blocking out, we’re freezing the opportunity of returning veterans to go to work. More than 31,000 of these new hires 

hired within the Federal Government were disabled veterans, including over 21,000 veterans with a disability rating of over 30 percent. 

In order to ensure that the Federal Government does not close 

its doors to America’s veterans seeking to continue to serve the 

American people in a Federal Government job, I recently introduced H.R. 1001, the Veterans Federal Hiring Protection Act. This 

legislation would simply exempt veterans from the hiring freeze 

within the Federal Government and is even more critical at a time 

when the Bureau of Labor Statistics just reported an unemployment rate for our newest generation of veterans of 6.3 percent in 

January of 2017. That’s an increase from 5.7 the previous year and 

represents over 200,000 Iraq and Afghan veterans who are looking 

for work right now. H.R. 1001 has been cosponsored by over 25 

Members of Congress. And I strongly urge my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle to join me in this effort. 

In his joint address to Congress last night, President Trump stated, quote, ‘‘Our veterans have delivered for this Nation, and now 

we must deliver for them,’’ close quote. So the Federal hiring freeze 

will make it extremely difficult to live up to that promise. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today’s hearing, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman yields back. Thank you. 

I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any members 

who would like to submit a written statement. 

We’ll now recognize our panel of witnesses. I’m pleased to welcome Ms. Pamela Mitchell, Acting Assistant Secretary at the Office 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

of Human Resources and Administration within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Nicholas Dahl, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations within the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; and 

Dr. Irene Barnett, Director of the Bedford Office of the Audits and 

Evaluations within the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Welcome to you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. So if you can please rise and raise your righthand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the that testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth so help you God? 

Thank you. Please be seated. All witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, we’d appreciate it if you 

would please limit your testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be part of the record. 

Assistant Secretary Mitchell, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF PAMELA MITCHELL 

Ms. MITCHELL. Good afternoon, Chairman DeSantis, Ranking 

Member Lynch, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss internal controls for use of recruitment, 

relocation, and retention incentives, commonly known as the 3Rs, 

within the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

VA requires talented employees, including highly trained 

healthcare professionals, to serve the needs of our Nation’s veterans. We’re competing in tough labor markets for skilled personnel, both in the public and the private sectors. The 3Rs are important human resources tools to help us remain competitive in recruiting and retaining the best personnel to serve our veterans. To 

that end, we very much appreciate the inspector general’s recommendations to improve controls over use of the 3Rs, as outlined 

in their January 2017 report. This report was based on incentives 

awarded during fiscal year 2014. 

I’d like to draw your attention to what the Department has done, 

both in the years prior to and following the period covered by the 

IG report, to more effectively manage use of the 3Rs. First, I’d like 

to note that the size of the VA workforce has increased by 22.5 percent since 2011, from about 296,000 employees to about 362,000. 

During that same period, we decreased spending on the 3Rs by 50 

percent, from approximately 144 million in 2011 to approximately 

72 million projected for 2017. 

In April 2015, we centralized processing of all senior executive 

personnel actions under the Corporate Senior Executive Management Office, or CSEMO, implementing additional internal controls 

for 3R payments to senior executives. This ensures that proper justifications are made to support payment of incentives and that executives are fulfilling agreed-upon service periods or that they 

repay or request a waiver from repayment. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

As a result of this centralization, our use of retention incentives 

for executives in particular has decreased dramatically. From approximately $390,000 in fiscal year 2014 to about $17,000 in fiscal 

year 2017 to date. 

Our VA handbook on pay administration was significantly revised back in April 2013 to require an explanation of an organization’s workforce and succession plan as part of the request for or 

review of a retention incentive. 

We’re in the process of further updating the handbook to reinforce that requirement by requiring a senior leader to certify that 

this plan was reviewed. This process will also require the signatory 

to attest that all incentives have been reviewed for compliance with 

VA policy and that appropriate action has been taken to initiate 

debt collection from individuals who did not fulfill their required 

service obligation. 

In the meantime, VA has published interim guidance emphasizing that HR specialists must obtain authorization for an incentive from the appropriate official prior to including one in a vacancy announcement. Significantly, this interim guidance also includes tools to assist our hiring managers and HR professionals, 

helping ensure they follow proper procedures when offering an incentive. Additionally, we’ve developed training designed to help 

them and us to help eliminate potential misuse of these flexibilities. And this year, we will ask each administration and staff office 

to submit a report on the incentives they authorized during 2016 

certified by the most senior leader in each organization. 

In closing, I’d like to express on behalf of the VA workforce our 

commitment to the Department’s mission to serve veterans. To accomplish that mission requires continued competition for top talents in tough markets, particularly in the private sector for 

healthcare professionals. The 3Rs are key human resources tool we 

need to help us in that competition, particularly when we are faced 

with serious hiring challenges. We are also committed to ensuring 

careful consideration and effective oversight of 3R use in the VA. 

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Mitchell follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26496.001

STATEMENT OF PAMELA S. MITCHELL 

PRINCIPAL DEPUTY AND ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA) 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

MARCH 1, 2017 

Good afternoon, Chairman DeSantis, Ranking Member Lynch, and Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss internal controls for use of 

Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention Incentives within the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA). 

Introduction 

VA requires talented employees, including highly trained health care 

professionals, to serve the needs of our Nation's Veterans. We are competing in tough 

labor markets for skilled personnel, both in the public and private sector. To remain 

competitive in recruiting and retaining the best personnel to serve our Veterans, we 

must rely on tools such as incentives to address staffing difficulties, and awards to 

recognize superior performance. Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention Incentives 

(3Rs) are important human resources tools designed to help agencies attract and retain 

employees, particularly when faced with serious hiring challenges. Incentives may only 

1 
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26496.002

be authorized when the hiring manager fully justifies the difficulty of filling a position with 

a highly qualified candidate or retaining an employee likely to leave without offering an 

incentive. 

A recruitment incentive may be paid to an employee who is newly appointed to 

the Federal Government, if the agency has determined that a position is likely to be 

difficult to fill without the use of an incentive. VA requires hiring officials to carefully 

consider and fully document a number of factors before concluding that a recruitment 

incentive is required. For example, managers must consider whether candidates with 

the required competencies for similar positions have been successfully hired within the 

last six months; what salaries are usually paid outside the Federal Government for 

similar positions; what turnover has been for similar positions over the last six months; 

what special or unique competencies are needed; what attempts have been made to 

use non-pay incentives such as work schedule flexibilities; and whether the position is in 

a desirable geographic location. 

A relocation incentive may be paid to a current employee who must relocate to a 

different geographic area to accept a position if the agency determines that the position 

will likely be difficult to fill in the absence of an incentive. A hiring manager must 

thoroughly consider the factors noted above in evaluating whether a relocation incentive 

is justified. 

2 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26496.003

A retention incentive is an incentive an agency may pay to a current employee if 

the agency determines that the unusually high or unique qualifications of the employee, 

or a special need of the agency for the employee's services, makes it essential to retain 

the employee and the employee would be likely to leave the Federal service. The 

responsible manager must fully document why an employee would be likely to leave 

without an incentive. For example, the manager must consider the following: availability 

and quality of candidates in the labor market who have the competencies required for 

the position; successful efforts within the last six months to recruit and retain employees 

with similar competencies; special or unique competencies required; efforts to use nonpay authorities to retain the employee; or the extent to which the employee's departure 

would affect VA's ability to perform a mission critical function. 

Inspector General Report 

The Office of Human Resources and Administration (OHRA) received a draft VA 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) report on July 5, 2016, titled Audit of Recruitment, 

Relocation, and Retention Incentives. The OIG used fiscal year (FY) 2014 data in 

conducting its audit, and found that the VA "needs to improve controls over its use of 3R 

incentives to ensure these pay authorities are strategically and prudently used to assist 

in the recruitment and retention of highly qualified employees in hard-to-fill positions." 

The VA concurred with the 1 0 recommendations in the report: 

3 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26496.004

Recommendation 1: OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration review and update procedures and add 

internal controls for Administrations to ensure recruitment and relocation 

incentives are fully justified and authorized before being included on vacancy 

announcements for hard-to-fill positions or before the final selectee is identified in 

cases where a position is not filled through a vacancy announcement. 

Recommendation 2: OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration review and update procedures and add 

internal controls for the Corporate Senior Executive Management Office to 

ensure Senior Executive Service recruitment and relocation incentives are fully 

justified and authorized before being included on vacancy announcements for 

hard-to-fill positions or before the final selectee is identified in cases where a 

position is not filled through a vacancy announcement. 

Recommendation 3: OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration review and update procedures and add 

internal controls for Administrations to monitor compliance with its employee 

certification requirement before relocation incentives are authorized for payment. 

Recommendation 4: OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration review and update procedures and add 

internal controls to monitor the Corporate Senior Executive Management Office's 

4 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26496.005

compliance with the employee certification requirement before Senior Executive 

Service relocation incentives are authorized for payment 

Recommendation 5: OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration review and update procedures and add 

internal controls for Administrations to monitor facilities' compliance with 

developing workforce and succession plans to reduce the risk of long-term 

reliance on retention incentives. 

Recommendation 6: OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration review and update procedures and add 

internal controls to monitor the Corporate Senior Executive Management Office's 

compliance with developing workforce and succession plans to reduce the risk of 

long-term reliance on retention incentives for Senior Executives. 

Recommendation 7: OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration monitor the Corporate Senior Executive 

Management Office to ensure its technical review and recommendations to the 

VA Chief of Staff regarding Senior Executive Service incentives are prudent and 

in full compliance with the VA Handbook 5007/46. 

Recommendation 8: OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration assess the feasibility of limiting the 

5 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26496.006

number of consecutive years employees in specific occupations, or groups of 

employees in specific occupations, can receive retention incentive payments. 

Recommendation 9: OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration review and update procedures and add 

internal controls for Administrations to monitor facilities' compliance with the VA 

Handbook 5007/46 requirements to initiate debt collection from individuals who 

did not fulfill their recruitment, relocation, or retention incentive service 

obligations. 

Recommendation 10: OIG recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources and Administration examine the capabilities of the HR Smart 

personnel system to determine the extent to which it is possible to develop an 

incentive-specific automated alert that notifies Human Resources (HR) personnel 

when employees have outstanding recruitment, relocation, or retention incentive 

service obligations. 

The VA OJG released its final report on the 3Rs on January 5, 2017, and closed 

recommendations 2, 4, and 8 based on actions already executed. VA continues to 

implement the remaining OIG recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: VA published Human Resources Management Letter 

No. 05-16-03 on July 8, 2016, and expects the final policy to be incorporated 

6 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26496.007

in the VA Handbook 5005, Staffing, by late summer 2017. This guidance 

prescribes procedures to be used when offering recruitment and relocation 

incentives and relocation expenses. 

Recommendation 3: VA revised the VA Handbook 5007, Pay 

Administration, to require HR Offices to ensure an employee maintains proof 

of residency in the specific geographic location for the duration of the service 

period by requesting periodic proof of continued residency from the 

employee. HR Offices are already responsible for ensuring an employee has 

established a residence in the new geographic location before a relocation 

incentive payment is processed. We expect the updated policy to be 

published by late summer 2017. 

Recommendation 5: The VA Handbook 5007, part VI, chapter 3, was 

significantly revised in April2013. Part of this major revision required a 

narrative explanation of an organization's workforce and succession plan to 

eventually eliminate or reduce the need for retention incentives. We are 

updating the Handbook to enhance the certification process and template to 

include certification that each retention incentive included workforce and 

succession plans to reduce the risk of long term reliance on retention 

incentives. We expect the updated policy to be published by late summer 

2017. 

7 
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26496.008

Recommendation 6: The VA compensation policy, which specifically 

addressed all of the 3Rs, was signed and implemented in September 2016. 

The Corporate Senior Executive Management Office is working across the 

Department to establish and validate competencies for all executives, which 

will become the foundation of the VA Talent Management System and will 

inform succession planning decisions. 

Recommendation 7: The VA compensation policy for senior executives and 

equivalents, which specifically addressed the 3Rs, was signed and 

implemented in September 2016. VA has ensured greater accountability over 

its use of the 3R incentives for its executive cadre by conducting a thorough 

analysis of every incentive package pertaining to senior executives across the 

VA. The Corporate Senior Executive Management Office ensures that each 

incentive is fully justified and meets the stringent criteria outlined in the Code 

of Federal Regulations and VA policy, prior to recommending approval to the 

VA Chief of Staff. 

Recommendation 9: The VA Handbook 5007, Pay Administration, was 

revised to require all requests for waivers due to breach of service obligations 

to be submitted, through channels, to the Assistant Secretary for Human 

Resources and Administration. Requests for waivers were previously routed 

to the original approval official. This change elevates all requests for waivers 

to a higher level and will require technical review In the VA Central Office. 

8 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26496.009

Additionally, the VA Handbook 5007 will be revised to include an enhanced 

review process and template requiring certification that appropriate action has 

been taken to initiate debt collection, as appropriate. We expect the updated 

policy to be published by late summer 2017. 

Recommendation 10: VA's shared service provider for HR Smart has 

provided us with cost estimates to update the system. We have received 

approval for funding to allow us to modify the system. Upon release of the 

funds, anticipated for later this year, we will move forward with this 

modification. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, we take appropriate use of the 3Rs very seriously. As noted, we made 

improvements in managing these incentives before the VA OIG audit began, and 

continue to increase our ability to provide effective oversight of these essential 

compensation flexibilities. Unfortunately, the multi-year restrictions on employee 

awards and incentives that were enacted as part of the Comprehensive Addiction & 

Recovery Act of 2016 significantly inhibit our ability to use these tools as intended to 

help attract and retain employees when faced with serious hiring challenges. We ask 

that VA be afforded the opportunity to exercise budget flexibility in determining how best 

to apply our resources for desired outcomes. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs needs 

this flexibility if he is to transform VA. Without getting the right people and retaining 

9 
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26496.010

them, this will be a very difficult task. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this 

subcommittee; I look forward to your questions. 

10 
17 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Dahl, you’re up for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS DAHL 

Mr. DAHL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lynch, and Members 

of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

on the Office of Inspector General’s work related to two key human 

capital programs, the 3R incentive program and the drug-free 

workplace program. 

VHA provides health care to about 7 million veterans each year 

through a large network of medical centers and outpatient clinics. 

To accomplish this, VHA employs over 350,000 people, including 

physicians, nurses, other healthcare professionals and administrative employees. VHA uses human capital flexibilities, such as the 

3R incentives, to attract and retain talented employees for its medical facilities. These incentives provide VA with important tools to 

fill positions that support the agency’s critical mission. In fiscal 

year 2015, VA spent more than $67 million on 3R incentives, with 

VHA accounting for almost all of this spending. 

When used prudently and properly, recruitment and relocation 

incentives help VA attract qualified candidates with in-demand 

skills and competencies who would otherwise not consider working 

in the Federal Government or working at locations where positions 

are difficult to fill. Retention incentives enable VA to retain employees whose services are essential to its mission and who would 

otherwise leave Federal service. 

VA also administers a drug-free workplace program, which 

serves an important role in VA fulfilling its responsibility to protect 

patients and employees. VA has a designated safety-sensitive occupational series that require drug testing as testing-designated positions, including positions such as physicians, nurses, and police officers. There are three key parts of this program: first, pre-employment drug testing for testing-designated positions; second, random 

drug testing of employees in testing-designated positions; and, 

third, drug testing of employees when there is a reasonable suspicion of on-the-job drug use or where drug use is suspected following a workplace accident or injury. 

In January, we reported VA needed to improve controls over its 

use of 3R incentives to ensure these pay authorities are strategically and prudently used to assist in their recruitment and retention of highly qualified employees in hard-to-fill positions. We determined VA’s controls over the incentives were inadequate and 

projected VA would spend almost $159 million on unsupported incentives in fiscal years 2015 through 2019. 

Specifically, we reported the following related to VHA’s use of 3R 

incentives: First, about 33 percent of the recruitment incentives 

VHA awarded in fiscal year 2014 were not properly authorized. 

Next, about 64 percent of the relocation incentives VHA awarded 

were not properly authorized. And, finally, about 69 percent of retention incentives VHA awarded did not include adequate workforce and succession plans. 

We made 10 recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for 

Human Resources, including recommendations to review and update procedures to ensure recruitment and relocation incentives are 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

justified and properly authorized and to develop internal controls 

to monitor compliance with developing succession plans to reduce 

VA’s reliance on retention incentives. 

The Assistant Secretary concurred with our recommendations 

and provided responsive corrective action plans. We consider three 

recommendations closed due to actions VA has already taken, and 

VA continues to work on implementing the remaining recommendations. 

In March 2015, we issued a report detailing the results of an 

audit of VA’s drug-free workplace program. We identified program 

weaknesses in three areas. First, pre-employment applicant drug 

testing: For that, we reported VA did not ensure compliance with 

policy to drug test all applicants selected for testing-designated positions prior to appointment. Instead, VA only selected about 3 of 

every 10 applicants for testing. 

Second, employee random drug testing: We estimated VA 

achieved a national drug testing rate of 68 percent of employees selected for random testing in fiscal year 2013. 

And, finally, reasonable-suspicion drug testing: VA lacked sufficient oversight practices to monitor whether facilities referred all 

employees with a positive drug test result to the employee assistance program. Based on our work, we determined VA’s program 

was not accomplishing its primary goal of ensuring illegal drug use 

was eliminated. We made five recommendations, of which one remains open. 

In conclusion, VA has faced significant challenges in recruiting 

staff into key positions such as physicians and nurses. While we 

recognize the importance of VA having the ability to use the 3R incentives to meet staffing challenges and strategically manage its 

workforce, the results of our audit demonstrate that VA needs to 

take action to improve the management of its 3R incentive program. Also, in the absence of effective oversight of its drug-free 

workplace program, VA may not be adequately reducing the risks 

to the safety and well-being of veterans and employees. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and we would be 

happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the 

subcommittee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Dahl follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26496.011

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS DAHL 

DEPUTY ASSIST ANT INSPECTOR GENERAL 

FOR AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HEARING ON 

"ASSESSING VA'S HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT RISKS" 

MARCH 1, 2017 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today on the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) work related to two key VA 

human capital programs-the Recruitment, Relocation and Retention incentive 

program; and the Drug Free Workplace program. I am accompanied by Irene Barnett, 

Ph.D., the Director of the OIG's Audit Operations Division in Bedford, Massachusetts. 

BACKGROUND 

Providing health care to our nation's veterans is one of VA's key responsibilities. The 

Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides inpatient and outpatient health care to 

about 7 million veterans each year through a network of over 140 medical centers and 

about 1,200 outpatient clinics in the community. To accomplish this mission, VHA 

employs over 300,000 employees including physicians, nurses, other healthcare 

professions, and administrative employees. 

VHA uses human capital flexibilities such as recruitment, relocation, and retention (3R) 

incentives in order to attract and retain top talent for its medical centers and clinics. 

These incentives provide VA, as well as other federal agencies, with important tools to 

fill positions that support the agency's critical mission. In fiscal year (FY) 2015, VA 

spent more than $67 million on 3R incentives, with VHA accounting for almost all of this 

spending. Used prudently and properly, recruitment and relocation incentives help VA 

attract highly qualified candidates with unique and in-demand skills and competencies 

that would otherwise not consider working in the Federal government or at locations 

where positions are difficult to fill. Similarly, retention incentives enable VA to retain 

employees whose services are essential to its mission and who would otherwise leave 

Federal service. Effective use of these incentives requires robust workforce 

development and succession planning to include developing strategies to address 

current and future staffing needs. 

VA's 3R incentive policies and procedures are the responsibility of VA's Office of 

Human Resources Management (OHRM). OHRM administers the program as set in VA 

Handbook 5007/46, Pay Administration. The Corporate Senior Executive Management 

Office (CSEMO) is responsible for conducting technical reviews of Senior Executive 

Service (SES) 3R incentives to ensure compliance with VA Handbook 5007/46. The 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26496.012

CSEMO Executive Director makes recommendations to the Secretary, or his designee, 

to approve or deny these 3R incentive requests for employees occupying positions 

centralized to that office, including SES employees, Title 38 SES-equivalents, and 

senior-level or scientific and professional positions. Human Resources Management 

Officers within each VA Administration are responsible for administering 3R incentives 

locally. Medical Center Directors are the approving officials for recruitment and 

relocation incentives of up to 15 percent of salary for VHA employees in non-centralized 

positions under their jurisdiction. 

There are several components to VA's 3R incentives: 

• Recruitment incentives may be paid to full or part-time employees newly 

appointed to Federal service for positions that are likely hard to fill without an 

incentive. 

• Relocation incentives may be paid to full-time Federal employees for positions 

that are likely hard to fill without an incentive. 

• Retention incentives may be paid to full or part-time employees or a group of 

employees if they possess unusually high or unique qualifications and are likely 

to leave without an incentive. 

VA Handbook 5007/46 requires: 

• VA Form 10016, Justification and Authorization of Recruitment and Relocation 

Incentives, be used to document the justification, authorization, and approval of 

all recruitment and relocation incentives. 

• Employees establish a residence in the new geographic area and submit a 

written self-certification that includes the employee's new address to the Human 

Resources office in order to generate payment of a relocation incentive. 

Whereas 3R incentives are tools VA can use to attract and maintain top talent, its Drug 

Free Workplace Program is intended to ensure that VA's workforce of physicians, 

dentists, nurses, police officers, firefighters, motor vehicle operators, and other 

employees carry out their missions without the influence of illicit drugs that could risk the 

safety of veterans and VA employees. Over 200,000 VA employees are in occupations 

that are subject to random drug testing. 

The Federal Drug-Free Workplace Program was initiated by Executive Order 12564 in 

1986 with the goal of a drug-free Federal workplace and made it a condition of 

employment for all Federal employees to refrain from using illegal drugs on or off duty. 

The following year, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 100-71, Supplemental 

Appropriations 1987) designed to establish uniformity among Federal agencies' drug 

testing, confidentiality of drug test results, and centralized oversight of the drug testing 

program. 

Within VA, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources Management is 

responsible for the implementation of the Department's Drug-Free Workplace Program. 

2 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26496.013

Drug Program Coordinators at each VHA facility are responsible for scheduling drug 

tests each month for randomly selected employees. There are several components to 

VA's Drug-Free Workplace Program, including: 

• Pre-employment applicant testing of final selectees for Testing Designated 

Positions (TOPs). 

• Random monthly drug testing of employees in TOPs. Human Resources officials 

are responsible for properly coding employees in TOPs with the drug test code in 

VA's personnel information system and to ensure that randomly selected 

employees are drug tested. 

• Drug testing of employees when there is reasonable suspicion of on-the-job drug 

use or where drug use is suspected following a workplace accident or injury. 

VA'S MANANAGEMENT OF RECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND RELOCATION 

INCENTIVES 

In January 2017, we reported VA needed to improve controls over its use of 3R 

incentives to ensure these pay authorities are strategically and prudently used to assist 

in the recruitment and retention of highly qualified employees in hard-to-fill positions. 1 

We determined VA's controls over 3R incentives were inadequate and represented 

about $158.7 million in unsupported spending and about $3.9 million in repayment 

liabilities projected for FYs 2015 through 2019. 

Specifically, we identified the following concerns: 

• Recruitment Incentives - We found that of the estimated 1,546 recruitment 

incentives VHA awarded, about 33 percent were not properly authorized, 

representing about $6.7 million in unsupported spending in FY 2014, and about 

$33.3 million projected for FYs 2015 through 2019. We also found that the only 

two SES recruitment incentives awarded in FY 2014, totaling about $97,000, 

were not properly authorized, representing about $485,000 in unsupported 

spending projected for FYs 2015 through 2019. This occurred because VHA and 

CSEMO most frequently failed to obtain pre-authorization for recruitment 

incentives before the incentives were advertised on vacancy announcements. 

Pre-authorization is a necessary control to ensure senior officials support that a 

position is in fact hard to fill. In the absence of this control, VA has little 

assurance these incentives were used prudently to strategically recruit qualified 

candidates for hard-to-fill positions. 

• Relocation Incentive - Of the estimated 727 relocation incentives VHA awarded 

in FY 2014, about 64 percent were not properly authorized. We also found that 

most of the nine relocation incentives awarded to non-SES VA Central Office 

(VACO) employees and all the relocation incentives awarded to SES employees 

were not properly authorized. This occurred because VA and CSEMO did not 

ensure that relocation incentives were properly pre-authorized. We identified 

' Audit of Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention Incentives, January 5, 2017. 

3 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26496.014

instances where relocation incentives were authorized after the final selectee 

was identified to fill a position, or even after an employee was brought on board. 

Improperly authorized relocation incentives for VHA, non-SES VACO employees, 

and SES combined represented about $8.7 million in FY 2014; and about $43.7 

million in unsupported spending projected for FYs 2015 through 2019. 

Human Resources Management Officers did not enforce VA's requirement that 

employees self-certify they moved to their new position's geographic location 

before authorizing relocation incentive payments. VHA authorized relocation 

incentive payments before employees certified they moved to a new geographic 

location for about 41 percent of the estimated 727 relocation incentives it 

authorized. We also found that local Human Resource Management Officers 

improperly authorized relocation incentive payments for almost all SES 

employees and non-SES VACO employees before ensuring employees certified 

they moved to the new geographic location. 

• Retention Incentives - While there are no limits on the number of years an 

employee can receive retention incentive payments, according to VHA, 

employees were paid retention incentives an average of almost 4 years. Of the 

estimated 1,719 retention incentives VHA awarded, about 69 percent did not 

include adequate workforce and succession plans. 

This occurred because approving officials approved retention incentives without 

ensuring that workforce and succession plans included details on efforts to 

reduce or eliminate the need for the incentive. The purpose of workforce 

succession plans is to help VA reduce its long term reliance on retention 

incentives. We also observed that facilities did not actively pursue and 

successfully administer workforce and succession plans as required by VA 

Handbook 5007/46. We estimated VA spent about $16 million in FY 2014; and 

an estimated $80.1 million for FYs 2015 through 2019 on VHA and non-SES 

VACO retention incentives that lack adequate workforce and succession plans. 

Almost all SES retention incentives ( 1 0 of 11) were approved without workforce 

and succession plans that detailed efforts to reduce or eliminate the need for the 

incentive. SES employees received retention incentives an average of over 5 

years. We estimated SES retention incentives awarded without a workforce and 

succession plan detailing efforts to reduce or eliminate the incentive represented 

an estimated $1.1 million projected for FYs 2015 through 2019. 

This occurred because CSEMO did not carry out its responsibility to advise 

management officials on the application of regulations and procedures, as well 

as conduct technical reviews to ensure the completeness of SES incentives. We 

found that a former acting executive director of CSEMO and the former deputy 

director of CSEMO made recommendations in a memo to the former VA Chief of 

Staff to approve 9 of 11 SES retention incentives despite noting for each 

incentive that VHA needed to develop workforce and succession plans. While a 

4 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26496.015

former acting executive director and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

CSEMO did not effectively carry out their responsibilities when they advised the 

former VA Chief of Staff to approve these retention incentives without adequate 

workforce and succession plans, this former VA Chief of Staff also did not fulfill 

his responsibilities. 

• Repayment Liabilities - VHA also did not enforce repayment requirements for 

about 55 percent of the estimated 238 incentives for which employees did not 

fulfill their recruitment or relocation service obligations. We estimated VHA's 

inaction resulted in an employee repayment liability of about $800,000 in FY 

2014; and $3.9 million projected for FYs 2015 through 2019. This occurred 

because VA's previous personnel system, Personnel and Accounting Integrated 

Data (PAID) system, lacked capabilities to issue alerts when employees 

receiving incentives change jobs, locations, resign, or their employment was 

terminated. VA's PAID system was replaced by HR Smart in June 2016. 

However, we observed during a demonstration of the HR Smart system that the 

system lacks alerts specific to a 3R incentive. As a result, Human Resources 

personnel must manually review an employee's HR Smart record to determine 

what kind of service obligation prompted the alert. Furthermore, Human 

Resources personnel can override these alerts without supervisory approval. 

We made ten recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and 

Administration. They are summarized below: 

• Reviewing and updating procedures for Administrations to ensure recruitment 

and relocation incentives are justified and properly authorized 

• Reviewing and updating procedures for Administrations to add internal controls 

to ensure that the employee self-certification requirement is fulfilled before 

relocation incentive payments are authorized 

• Developing internal controls for Administrations and the CSEMO to monitor 

compliance with developing succession plans to reduce VA's reliance on 

retention incentives 

• Developing internal controls for Administrations to monitor facilities' compliance 

with initiating debt collection when employees do not fulfill their incentive service 

agreement 

• Reassessing the capacities of the HR Smart system to reduce VA's incentive 

repayment liability risks. 

The Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration concurred with our 

recommendations and provided corrective actions plans that were responsive to our 

recommendations. We consider three recommendations related to: (i) improving 

CSEMO's internal controls and procedures over the advertisement of SES recruitment 

and relocation incentives; (ii) the payment of SES relocation incentives; and (iii) the 

feasibility of limiting the consecutive number of years retention incentives are paid to 

employees or groups of employees in certain occupations closed due to actions the 

5 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26496.016

Assistant Secretary took at the time we published our report. VA continues to work on 

implementing the remaining seven recommendations. 

VA'S MANAGEMENT OF THE DRUG FREE WORKPLACE PROGRAM 

In March 2015, we reported VA needed to improve the management of its Drug-Free 

Workplace Program to ensure the program was effective in maintaining a workplace 

that is free from illegal drug use. 2 We identified program weaknesses and determined 

VA's Program was not meeting its primary goal of ensuring that illegal drug use was 

eliminated to the extent feasible and VA's workplace was safe. 

Pre-Employment Applicant Drug Test 

We reported that VA's OHRM did not ensure facility Human Resource Management 

Officers complied with VA's policy to drug test all applicants selected for a TDP prior to 

appointment. Instead, VA tested about 3 of every 10 applicants selected for a TDP for 

pre-employment drug testing. If a tested applicant has a verified positive test result, VA 

should decline extending a final offer of employment. While VA's Drug-Free Workplace 

Program Handbook states every individual tentatively selected for employment in a TDP 

is subject to a drug test before appointment, OHRM officials interpreted this language 

as meaning only some finalists for TOPs needed to be drug tested before being 

appointed. Because of this interpretation, we estimated approximately 

15,800 (70 percent) of the nearly 22,600 individuals VA reported appointing into TOPs 

during FY 2013 were not drug tested before being hired. 

Employee Random Drug Testing 

We estimated VA achieved a national employee random drug testing rate of 68 percent 

of the 3,420 employees selected for random drug testing in FY 2013. Of 22 randomly 

selected facilities we reviewed, 4 did not test any randomly selected employees, 10 had 

compliance rates ranging from 31 to 89 percent, and 8 tested at least 90 percent of their 

randomly selected employees. Facility Coordinators could not explain why the majority 

of the 32 percent of employees were not tested. 

We also estimated at least 19,100 (9 percent) of about 206,000 employees in TOPs 

were not subject to the possibility of random drug testing because they were not coded 

with a Drug Test code, as required, in VA's personnel information system. Those not 

subjected to random drug testing included physicians, nurses, and addiction therapists. 

In addition, VA may have incorrectly identified as many as 13,200 employees with the 

Drug Test code-meaning, employees in positions that do not usually require random 

drug testing were subject to testing. We found VA did test non-TDP employees, which 

has the unintended consequence of reducing the probability that employees in high-risk, 

safety sensitive TOPs were selected for drug testing. 

Reasonable Suspicion Drug Testing 

OHRM lacked sufficient oversight practices to monitor whether facilities referred all 

employees with a positive drug test result to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). 

VA's Drug-Free Workplace Program Handbook requires facilities to refer all employees 

2 Audit ofVA's Drug-Free Workplace Program, March 30, 2015. 

6 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26496.017

with a positive drug test result to its EAP for assessment, counseling, and referral for 

treatment or rehabilitation. However, facility Coordinators reported that only 17 of 51 

employees who tested positive for drugs as a result of reasonable suspicion or after a 

workplace accident or injury were referred to their facility's EAP. 

We made five recommendations to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human 

Resources Management. These recommendations included: 

• Ensuring all final selectees for TOPs complete pre-employment drug testing prior 

to appointment 

• Increasing accountability to ensure all employees selected for random drug 

testing are tested 

• Improving the accuracy of Drug Test coding in VA's personnel information 

system 

• Implementing procedures to ensure Custody and Control forms are accurately 

completed 

• Ensuring compliance with Program requirements, such as referring employees 

who test positive to the EAP. 

The then Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary concurred with our recommendations and 

provided action plans that were responsive to our recommendations. This included a 

plan to require mandatory pre-employment drug testing of all candidates selected for a 

TOP. Action in response to four of the five recommendations has been completed. VA 

continues to work on actions to ensure the accuracy of Drug Test coding in its 

personnel information system. Recently, VA notified us that they continue to work with 

their personnel information system business partner to implement this recommendation. 

We will continue to track their progress until we receive documentation that action is 

complete. 

Human Resources Delays 

In January 2017, we reported on delays in the processing of certain human resources 

functions at the Atlanta VA Medical Center (VAMC). 3 We conducted our work to assess 

allegations that there was a backlog of unadjudicated background investigations4 and 

mandatory drug testing for new hires in TOPs 5 did not occur for a period of at least 6 

months between 2014 and 2015. We substantiated both allegations. Regarding the 

allegation that the Atlanta VAMC did not administer the Drug-Free Workplace Program 

for 6 months, we found no drug testing was completed at the VAMC from November 

2014 through May 2015. This lapse occurred because the facility Coordinator left the 

position in September 2014 and the alternate Coordinator did not assume the collateral 

duties required of this position. Further, other VAMC Human Resources personnel 

were unaware of the Drug-Free Workplace Program responsibilities. Despite the lack of 

drug testing for 6 months, we found no indications VA management was aware of the 

lapse. Because no drug testing occurred, the Atlanta VAMC lacked assurance that 

3 Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC, January 30, 2017. 4 An adjudication is considered backlogged after 90 days without a determination. 5 There were also no monthly random drug tests for current employees in TOPs. 

7 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26496.018

employees who should have been subject to drug testing remained suitable for 

employment. We made five recommendations in the report: 

• Develop an action plan to ensure staff have appropriate background 

investigations and determinations are accurately recorded 

• Ensure all suitability adjudicators receive the mandatory training and background 

investigation required for the position 

• Provide training to all human resources staff on the requirements of the 

personnel suitability program 

• Ensure human resources staff are trained on the requirements of the Drug-Free 

Workplace Program and the responsibilities of their positions 

• Review the Drug-Free Workplace Program on a regular basis to ensure 

compliance with regulations and that employees hired during gaps are subject to 

corrective testing. 

The Atlanta VAMC Director concurred with our recommendations and reported that 

action has been taken with regards to the Drug-Free Workplace Program. When we 

receive documentation of action related to those recommendations, we anticipate 

closing them. 

CONCLUSION 

Over the past several years, VA has faced si~nificant challenges in recruiting staff into 

key positions such as physicians and nurses. VA recognizes the importance of using 

the 3R incentives to meet future challenges to place high quality candidates into key 

positions. The results of our audits demonstrate that VA needs to take action to 

improve the management of its 3R Incentive Program and its Drug-Free Workplace 

Program. While 3R incentives can help VA strategically manage its workforce, VA 

needs to improve its controls to address the weaknesses we identified in its oversight of 

3R incentives. Improved succession planning can strengthen VA's current and future 

organizational capacity and align its use of 3R incentives to address its workforce needs 

strategically. Furthermore, in the absence of effective oversight over its Drug-Free 

Workplace Program, VA may not be adequately reducing the risks to the safety and 

well-being of veterans and other VA employees. To that end, we concluded VA lacked 

reasonable assurance that it is achieving a drug-free workplace. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and we would be happy to answer any 

questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

6 OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Occupational Staffing Shortages, September 1, 

2015; OIG Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Occupational Staffing Shortages, 

January 30, 2015; 0/G Determination of VHA Occupational Staffing Shortages, September 28, 2016. 

8 
27 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Dr. Barnett, you’re up for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BARNETT. Thank you very much, but my colleague, Nick 

Dahl, gave our official statement. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Wonderful. 

Well, I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Secretary Mitchell, in a recent news article, Secretary Shulkin 

noted that one of his top priorities is to reform the Veterans Choice 

Act. How will the VA go about doing that, or how will the Secretary go about doing that? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Chairman DeSantis, I have no personal knowledge of that that I can offer. But I do know that the Secretary is 

going to be testifying next week. 

Mr. DESANTIS. In front of the House VA Committee? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I believe that’s correct. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Are you familiar with the interview he gave to 

Stars and Stripes a couple days ago? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I’m not extremely familiar, no, sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So he wants to eliminate the 40-mile, 30-day rule 

for non-VA care under the Veterans Choice Act. I support that. I 

wonder, though, would that require a change of statute, or does he 

think he can do that through the regulations? I guess you don’t 

know that? 

Ms. MITCHELL. No, sir. That’s not within my purview or area of 

expertise. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, we would like to know because I think that 

is something that veterans have been frustrated with. Congress 

passed this several years ago. There was a lot of fanfare about it. 

It just has not actually done the job, and it has not met the obligations. 

Let me ask you this, Secretary Shulkin in a recent interview on 

FOX News stressed the importance for VA employees to have due 

process. So what is exactly the process for firing an individual 

within the VA? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, there are different processes depending on 

the situation. There are conduct-based issues that occur, and there 

are performance-based issues that occur. And so they take different 

paths, and then there are also different processes depending on 

whether it’s a title 5 employee or a title 38 employee. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So conduct-based is misconduct you’re saying. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Correct. 

Mr. DESANTIS. People that do something wrong. I guess if you 

were to be convicted for something somewhere, that would obviously be an issue. 

Performance-based, let’s talk about performance-based. What is 

the process if somebody is a poor performer? How would the VA 

move to get that person out if they are not serving the veterans 

well? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, typically, the first thing that would happen 

is that there would be a discussion between the supervisor and the 

employee. And that would be followed by what’s called a performance improvement plan, or a PIP, and then an employee is given 

a period of time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. How long typically? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

Ms. MITCHELL. At least 30 days, but sometimes longer. It may 

depend on what the actual issue of performance is. And so then 

there’s a period of time to look at, is the individual improving? Are 

there still issues to look at that? And then, if there is no improvement over a period of time, which again may vary, then a variety 

of things could happen. There has to be a proposal made as to what 

the employee’s notified as to what will happen, and then a decision 

is made. 

Mr. DESANTIS. By who? 

Ms. MITCHELL. By the—well, if we’re talking about a GS employee, so it would be the hiring—I’m sorry—the supervisor who 

would make a decision typically, or it could go up to higher level. 

Again, it’s going to depend on the level of what we’re talking about. 

But typically the supervisor would be working with the employee 

on this and making different decisions. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Do you know how many human resources employees at the VA were terminated last year or the year before? 

Ms. MITCHELL. No. I’m sorry. I don’t have that detail. But I 

would be happy to take that for the record. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Yeah, we would definitely like to get that. 

In his interview, Secretary Shulkin claimed that he would fire 

any VA employee who had been complicit in any waste, fraud, or 

abuse, but I think that’s a little bit easier said than done, given— 

I mean, you articulated a relatively complex process. Is there any 

way that this can be streamlined so that, when we identify examples of poor performance or misconduct, that this can be dealt with 

very expeditiously? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, I know that we have had a team working 

with staffers here on the Hill to take a look at that. I know that 

a bill was introduced yesterday, and we’re currently reviewing that 

right now. 

Mr. DESANTIS. In the same interview, the Secretary said that he 

would like to use whistleblowers to bring issues to the forefront. I 

take this to mean that the Secretary believes that whistleblower 

process either has been inadequate or needs somehow to be reformed. Do you have any idea how he intends to do this? Is it going 

to be a revised process? Or what hasn’t been done up to this point 

that now is going to be done? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I’m sorry. I don’t have any knowledge of that, but 

again, I would be happy to take that for the record. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, I appreciate your testimony. 

My time has expired. I want to recognize the ranking member 

now, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, I want to thank the witnesses for your attendance 

and for helping us. 

Ms. Mitchell, thank you for the wonderful care that many of our 

veterans receive at the VA and for all the good work that you do. 

Mr. Dahl, Dr. Barnett, thank you very much for your oversight 

because I think the work that you do makes sure that we meet our 

obligations that we owe to our veterans. So I don’t see an adversarial relationship here. I see people trying to do good work, and 

I see the Office of the Inspector General as just trying to make sure 

that we keep our game at a level that it should be. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

Let me ask you, though, we’ve talked a little bit this morning 

about the hiring freeze in the VA and across the Federal Government. A lot of people don’t realize that about 30 percent of the employees for the Federal Government that work in the Federal Government are veterans. And it’s even higher at the VA. We have 

about 32.5 percent of the people who work at the VA are veterans. 

So I have three major VA hospitals in my district. One is in Brockton. One is in West Roxbury. And one is in Jamaica Plain. I’m a 

frequent flier to those hospitals. And I typically will just pull people aside and talk, whether they are orderlies or maintenance or 

nurses or docs or therapists. I’ll often ask them how they came to 

work at the VA. And I don’t think I’ve met anybody yet who was 

not a veteran. So maybe that’s just in my district. But I am enormously proud of the work that they do there. 

I know that we had problems down in Phoenix with the VA. Very 

unfortunate. We even had problems in a couple of other cities as 

well. I think San Antonio was one, but I’m very happy to say that, 

when the VA went back—and I know the Inspector General’s Office 

was involved in that, and we did a whole assessment—my three 

hospitals got very, very high marks, as did the Bedford facility, 

which has a state-of-the-art Alzheimer’s facility there. So I know 

this committee, we often have criticisms, but I don’t want it just 

to be about criticisms. I want to understand you understand we appreciate the good work that’s being done. 

I have amazing people who work at the VA all around this country. And I know more personally the ones in my district, and they 

are a blessing each and every day what they for our veterans. 

And what concerns me is this hiring freeze. So we have critical 

positions that are—about 9,000 positions are vacant right now at 

the VA. And these vacancies serve critical functions. And so I 

would like to ask Ms. Mitchell, can you tell me what the impact 

would be if we continue this hiring freeze that prevents us from 

filling those critical positions, especially—especially—with candidates who are veterans who normally would have a preference 

but now are being shut out? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Thank you for that question. First of all, let me 

say that, by virtue of the authority conferred by the Presidential 

memorandum, then Acting Secretary Bob Snyder took fairly immediate action to exempt a number of positions from the hiring freeze 

as tied to public safety. And so those essentially included folks involved in providing direct patient care as well as our cemetery 

workers who take care of burials for our veterans and their families. So that itself was a large mitigating factor. And we continue 

to look as we move forward as to whether there are other positions 

that should be considered for exemption. 

Mr. LYNCH. I’ve had veterans come to me, though, in radiology 

and other positions that are not exempted. So they’ve been stopped. 

A Navy veteran just last week trying to get on at the VA and is 

being prevented because of the freeze. So what about the positions 

that have not been exempted? There are a lot of them, based on 

the material I was given. There are there are a lot of positions that 

are not exempt. 

Ms. MITCHELL. That’s correct. 

Mr. LYNCH. What will be the impact on those? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, it is too early right now to assess the impact because we’re about 30 days in. I think the most important 

thing I could tell you is that we continue to look at vacancies. And 

our leaders across the Department continue to look at the impact 

in their various areas. And certainly, as appropriate, we’ll be coming in and asking for relief. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. 

Let me ask the same question to Mr. Dahl over at the VA Office 

of Inspector General. I know, in the past, the inspector generals 

have been critical of this type of freeze back when President 

Reagan did it and back when President Carter. This is not a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans have tried this approach in 

the past, and it’s had disastrous effects, but I would like to hear 

from you in terms of what you think this might lead to. 

Mr. DAHL. A hiring freeze is definitely going have an impact on 

our immediate operations. We’ve been fortunate that Congress has 

been supportive recently to help us right-size. Historically, we are 

a small office of inspector generals, especially when compared to 

the size of the overall Department and the budget of the overall 

Department. Fortunately, we have got a 4-year appropriation. 

We’ve been given additional money to beef up our staff. But we 

have about 100 open positions right now below our ceiling. We’ve 

made the determination about half of those meet the exemptions 

because they deal with public safety or national security, but that 

leaves half of our positions that we have not exempted. So that will 

impact our ability to provide the level of oversight that we should 

be providing. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. That’s fair enough. And I know I’m over my 

time. So I appreciate that. And is it fair to say that the longer this 

freeze goes on, the more difficult it becomes? 

Mr. DAHL. I would say so. I mean, obviously the Department will 

probably feel some impact too, but their operations are going to 

continue—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. 

Mr. DAHL. —without the bodies we need to provide the level of 

oversight that we should by providing. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I will note for the record the VFW head—national commander 

actually spoke with Secretary Shulkin about this hiring freeze effect on the VA. And he reported that the Secretary’s response was 

that the agency was satisfied with the exemptions. I just wanted— 

I know you can’t necessarily speak for him as we had asked earlier, 

but that’s what we have from the VFW. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida. We’ve 

actually had her husband testify with the joint committee here last 

Congress. We want to first welcome you to the committee. It is 

good to have another Floridian, and you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you again to our witnesses for being here today and 

for the critical role that you are doing for our country. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

In holding this hearing on VA’s path to reform, we should not 

lose sight of I think the larger issue, that far from progress on reform, veterans face substantial harm, I believe, from President 

Trump’s hiring ban. 

Secretary—or Assistant Secretary Mitchell, are you aware of the 

number of unfilled job openings at the VA? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Right now, we have approximately 48,000 vacancies. In the neighborhood of 36,000 of those have been exempted 

from the hiring freeze. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Do you know how many jobs openings are from 

the Veterans Benefits Administration? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I can take a moment to look that up very quickly, 

or I can take that for the record. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Please take it for the record. 

Also, to Secretary Snyder, Secretary Snyder has exempted over 

90 occupations from President Trump’s recently announced hiring 

ban. Do you know if Secretary Snyder exempted any occupations 

within the VBA, any specific occupations? 

Ms. MITCHELL. No. There were no occupations exempted within 

the VBA. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. For fiscal year 2017, the VA requested funding 

from VBA to hire an additional 300 claims processors. Would you 

agree that the VA cannot now hire these additional claim processors because of President Trump’s hiring ban? 

Ms. MITCHELL. At this point, they are not exempt positions. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. They are not exempt positions. Okay. Just a second. 

The VA recently noted that it, and I quote, ‘‘has made dramatic 

progress in reducing the backlog and proving timeliness of decisions and reducing the overall pending inventory of disability rating claims while at the same time improving the quality of its decisions.’’ Secretary Mitchell, how will President Trump’s hiring ban 

impact the VA’s progress on this front? 

Ms. MITCHELL. At this point in time, I know that VBA is monitoring that very closely. And we are only about a month into the 

hiring freeze. So it is a little early to give you a strong assessment 

on that. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Would you say you’ve seen no change at all in the 

timeliness of the decisions, of the process at all within the last 

month? 

Ms. MITCHELL. That’s not within my area of responsibility. So I 

would be happy to take that for the record for you. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. HICE. [presiding.] All right. 

I am going to recognize myself. I want to begin with the Office 

of the Inspector General and the report, the review of alleged 

human resources delays in the Atlanta medical center. I would ask 

unanimous consent for it to be added to the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HICE. I have a great deal of issues, specifically with this report that has come out, and I want to thank you for being here, 

but it outlines some serious failures in the Atlanta VA. And in particular, some things that came out of great concern personally was 

the failure to conduct drug tests on employees, and they also alVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:37 Aug 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26496.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

lowed over 200 employees who had not completed background 

checks to work directly with some of our veterans for several 

months and, in some cases, even years. This is a huge VA medical 

center in Atlanta, servicing some well in excess of 100,000 veterans 

a year. And I’m just curious how many of these people had no drug 

test or background checks? How many veterans potentially, if you 

can use the word, were exposed to these types of individuals, and 

why were they note adequately checked? 

Mr. DAHL. Congressman, there was just a lack of appropriate 

oversight at the facility to ensure that the drug test program was 

being administered. The person that was responsible for the program left. The backup person did not take on the responsibilities 

as they should have. This happened for a 6-month period. I can’t 

tell you how many people should have been subjected to the drug 

testing during the 6-month period. But they certainly were coming 

into contact with the patients and other employees at the medical 

center. 

Mr. HICE. And how long did that take, did that last? 

Mr. DAHL. Well, there was a 6-month period where there was no 

drug test at all. 

Mr. HICE. Is that normal? 

Mr. DAHL. No, sir. 

Mr. HICE. How long typically? 

Mr. DAHL. Well, we’d like to think that every facility would be 

conducting whatever drug testing they should be. But we have 

known from other work that there are facilities that don’t conduct 

the test or conduct a low percentage of the test that they should. 

Mr. HICE. Ms. Mitchell, have measures been taken to ensure that 

this won’t happen again. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes, sir, they have. Beginning in October of 2015, 

our local drug program coordinators began certifying monthly that 

employees selected for random drug testing were in fact tested. 

And in November of that year, our own office began reviewing that 

data for compliance, and we have continued to do that. 

Subsequently, we are also working with our IT side of the house, 

not the Office of Information Technology, but with our partner to 

ensure that we have an automated way of making sure that everyone who should be considered for random drug testing is in fact 

considered. 

Mr. HICE. So are you saying that specific to the Atlanta VA or 

across the board? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Across the—— 

Mr. HICE. So are there any other medical centers where this type 

of thing could be happening? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I don’t have any personal knowledge of that. 

Mr. HICE. Well, shouldn’t you? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Well, if I were to say to you, could it be happening, I think it would be—— 

Mr. HICE. And my question is, are there measures to ensure that 

it is not and that it will not happen? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Those were the measures, sir, that I was just 

talking about. 

Mr. HICE. And those are for all our VA medical centers? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Yes, yes, they are, sir. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

Mr. HICE. So you can ensure that that’s not going to happen 

again. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Exactly. That’s why those measures were put into 

place. 

Mr. HICE. And the same would apply to the drug testing? 

Ms. MITCHELL. That’s correct. 

Mr. HICE. All right. And the background checks. 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir, I’m not personally involved in the background checks. 

Mr. HICE. Who is? 

Ms. MITCHELL. It is another office within VA, but I would be 

happy to take that for the record. 

Mr. HICE. I would like that. Have there been any VA employees 

who have been fired for this or any management level who let this 

slip through? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir, I’m not aware of that, but I would be happy 

to take that for the record. 

Mr. HICE. I would like that for the record. It seems to me—would 

you not—would all of you not agree that this is inexcusable? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir. 

Mr. HICE. Then why is there no consequences? 

Ms. MITCHELL. Sir, I don’t have enough personal knowledge to 

comment on whether or not there have been consequences as I sit 

here today. Again, I would be happy to take that for the record. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. 

All right—Dr. Barnett, is there any recommendations that are 

coming down the pike timeframewise for corrections of these type 

of thing that you’re aware of? I just wanted to give you an opportunity to weigh in. 

Ms. BARNETT. We have one outstanding recommendation that 

still exists from a national drug-free workplace audit that we conducted. That was issued I want to say about a 1–1/2 year ago, closer to 2 years ago, where we did a random sample of facilities and 

then checked to see to what extent random drug testing was going 

on at that time. And there was one outstanding recommendation 

that still exists with that report, and that is specifically related to 

ensuring that folks in the occupations that are considered high risk 

or drug-testing-designated positions are in fact coded as such in 

VA’s personnel system, which is the new HR smart system, so that 

those folks are actually eligible to be selected for random drug testing because, once you are an employee at VA and you are in a 

drug-testing-designated occupation—physicians, police officers, 

those sort of folks—you are eligible to be selected on a monthly 

basis for random drug testing. So random drug testing at the facilities should be occurring once a month. The folks at HR&A randomly selects employees. They then communicate those names 

down to the facility level. And then in the HR department, at a facility level, there’s a drug testing coordinator, and it’s that person’s 

responsibility then to inform those employees and have them go to 

the lab to submit a urine sample. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. All right. I thank you. 

My time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 5 minutes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

I’m glad to be back on the Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee. This is my first hearing since I’ve come back after 10 

years of being gone. 

Mr. HICE. We’re glad to have you back. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

And I want to thank the panelists for coming and testifying obviously on a very important topic. And I share some of the concerns 

that I know have already been expressed about this hiring freeze 

and its impact on the agency. Obviously, we know that the VA has 

had some challenges, and those need to be addressed at various 

levels, and we want to make sure that’s done, and input from the 

OIG periodically is certainly critical to that. 

But if you step back and look at the overall context for this conversation, the hiring freeze and the impact that it’s going to have 

on the ability of the agency to function at a high level and to meet 

the needs of the populations that it serves is obviously at stake 

here. So you’ve got two or three impacts that I know others have 

already called attention to, but I want to reiterate one is just the 

service to all the veterans out there who benefit from the VA and 

what it has to over. And you impose this draconian hiring freeze 

when you have thousands and thousands of positions that are 

open, and that’s going to aggravate a situation in which the agency 

can’t deliver at the level that it should be able it to deliver. 

Secondly, as has been pointed out I know by a number of my colleagues, many of those who are currently employed by the VA, but 

certainly many who could be hired if the freeze was not in place, 

are veterans themselves and are bringing a very special set of experiences and perspectives and qualities to the job that I think are 

indispensable to the mission of the agency and the way that it 

functions. 

And, thirdly, just to bring it back to the hearing today, obviously, 

a hiring freeze and other kind of resource restrictions on the VA 

that are imprudent can have an impact on the ability of the IG and 

others to do the work that they need to do as well. So all around 

it doesn’t seem like the freeze is a good idea. 

What I wanted to ask you, Ms. Mitchell, if you could respond, I 

imagine that the VA does focus groups, surveys with the folks that 

are served by the agency, as well as being in regular contact I’m 

sure with various veteran services organizations, and that that contributes to the perspective that you have on what the impact of a 

freeze can be. In other words, as you’re doing these surveys, as 

you’re getting this information, you may be identifying in that way 

that there are certain needs of the agency that need to be met that 

are going unmet because positions are not being filled or, alternatively, that there are certain strengths of the agency that we 

want to maintain that could be imperiled by not being able to keep 

positions filled going forward. So I was interested just to get your 

thoughts based on the kind of information feedback that you get 

from the populations that are served by the agency on exactly what 

some of the impacts of this freeze could be. 

Ms. MITCHELL. So I have not seen anything since the hiring 

freeze began indicating anything like that, but I would be happy 

to take that for the record. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Mr. SARBANES. Are there surveys that have been done previously? In other words, it would be very interesting to know if 

some surveys or feedback you’ve received since the freeze has been 

put in place, but are there surveys that have identified needs that 

you think relate to the hiring freeze in terms of whether those 

needs can be adequately met going forward given that a freeze is 

now in place? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I have not seen a survey myself indicating that. 

I know that different surveys are done. So I would certainly be 

happy to take that for the record. 

Mr. SARBANES. Yeah, that would be interesting for us to get here 

in the committee because I think that might give us some additional context and perspective on the potential impact that this 

freeze is going to have going forward. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HICE. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Duncan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m sorry I had to be in some other meetings, and so I may ask 

something that’s already been asked. I’m especially interested in 

this Veterans Choice Program and how it’s working out. My staff 

Allen Johnson tells me that there’s a billion dollars of unused funding in that pot. Are the veterans—are they not happy with that 

program for some reason? How is it working? Who can tell me 

about that? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I’m afraid that’s not within my area of responsibility, but I would be happy to take that for the record. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, all right. Anybody else? 

Mr. DAHL. Sir, I’m with the Inspector General’s Office. We have 

done work in Choice. I believe we have a report coming out as soon 

as tomorrow on Choice, and we have other work in the pipeline. I’d 

be happy to speak with the folks in our organization if you’re interested in a briefing on the results of our work. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I am very interested in that, how it’s working. And I understand that there’s some interest in trying to remove some of the requirements, like the distance and so forth, and 

the make it—give it a little more flexibility. I’m also—I didn’t know 

about this big drug losses or theft of these opioids. It said—the report I have says it jumped from 200—these losses or theft at Federal hospitals jumped from 272 in 2009 to almost 3,000 in 2015. 

What is the story behind that, or what are we doing about that? 

Mr. DAHL. Well, within the Office of Inspector General, we do 

have an active investigation program that looks at drug diversion 

by VHA employees within facilities for their own personal use, or 

diversion for illegal sale. I’m not within the Office of Investigations, 

but I’m sure we could provide you more information on that if 

you’re interested. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, I would. All right. Since I struck out on my 

first two questions, I guess, let me ask you this, and this goes back 

several years ago. But I saw on 60 Minutes several years ago that 

there were some VA hospitals that had very low occupancy rates 

at that time, and I remember they mentioned one in Philadelphia 

that had only a 40-percent occupancy rate. Are there other VA hosVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:37 Aug 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26496.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

pitals that are not being utilized at this point, any place that we 

know of? 

Ms. MITCHELL. I hate to be the one to say ‘‘strike three,’’ but unfortunately, that’s also not within my area of responsibility, but I’d 

be happy to get back to you on that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Well, I would be curious about that too so— 

all right. Well, I think that’s pretty much what I was interested in. 

I would like some additional information on all three of those topics 

if you can provide them for me. 

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HICE. I thank the gentleman. 

And I would like to thank each of our—- yes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I just have a brief bit of business 

here. I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter to President Trump requesting him to reconsider the Federal 

hiring freeze, signed by I think 120 Members of Congress. 

I also have a letter from J. David Cox, Sr., Eugene Hudson, Jr., 

and Augusta Thomas from the American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL–CIO, regarding the hiring freeze and its impact 

on veterans. 

And then we have a study, ‘‘Employment of Veterans in the Federal Executive Branch,’’ by the United States Office of Personnel 

Management. I would like to have these entered into the record if 

I may. 

Mr. HICE. Without objection so ordered. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. HICE. Again, I’d like to thank each of you witnesses for taking time to appear before the subcommittee today. 

I ask unanimous consent that members have 5 legislative days 

to submit questions for the records. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(37) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26496.019

Veterans Health 

Administration 

Review of 

Alleged Human Resources 

Delays at the Atlanta 

VA Medical Center 

January 30, 2017 

15-03401-76 
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26496.020

CARDS 

DFWP 

FY 

NACI 

OIG 

OPM 

PAID 

PIPS 

TDP 

VA 

VAMC 

VHA 

ACRONYMS 

Consult, Assist, Review, Develop, and Sustain 

Drug-Free Workplace Program 

Fiscal Year 

National Agency Check with Written Inquiries 

Office oflnspector General 

Office of Personnel Management 

Personnel and Accounting Integrated Data 

Personnel Investigations Processing System 

Testing Designated Position 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Veterans Affairs Medical Center 

Veterans Health Administration 

To report suspected wrongdoing in VA programs and operations, 

contact the VA OIG Hotline: 

Website: www.va.gov/oig/hotline 

Email: vaoighotline@va.gov 

Telephone: 1·800-488·8244 
40 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26496.021

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 

Results and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 2 

Finding 1 The Atlanta VA Medical Center Experienced Delays in Adjudicating 

Background Investigations .................................................................................. 2 

Recommendations ............................................................................................... 6 

Finding2 The Atlanta VAMC Drug-Free Workplace Program Lapsed for a Period 

of 6 Months ......................................................................................................... 8 

Recommendations ............................................................................................... 9 

Appendix A Background ....................................................................................................... 11 

AppendixB Scope and Methodology .................................................................................... l3 

AppendixC Management Comments .................................................................................... 14 

Appendix D OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ........................................................ 17 

AppendixE Report Distribution ............................................................................................ \8 
41 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26496.022

Highlights: Review of Alleged Human 

Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

Why We Did This Review 

The VA OIG received allegations in March 

and April2015 that the Atlanta VA Medical 

Center (V AM C) had a backlog of 

more than 300 unadjudicated background 

investigations and that mandatory drug 

testing of new hires did not occur over a 

6-month period. 

What We Found 

We substantiated both allegations. Multiple 

VA officials confirmed that the Atlanta 

V AMC had a backlog of unadjudicated 

background investigations by mid FY 2015. 

For example, the Director of VA Central 

Office's Personnel Security and Suitability 

Service told us that the Atlanta V AMC had a 

backlog of about 200 unadjudicated 

background investigations as of July 2015. 

An adjudication is considered backlogged 

after 90 days without a determination. In 

addition, Atlanta human resources personnel 

acknowledged a backlog dating as far back 

as 2012. 

The lack of available records limited our 

ability to quantify the extent of the backlog. 

However, we substantiated that backlogs 

were occurring by determining that the 

average adjudication processing time at the 

V AMC was about 170 days from January 

2015 through June 2015. 

We also substantiated that the Drug-Free 

Workplace Program (DFWP) was not 

administered from November 2014 to 

May 2015. 

These lapses occurred because records 

within the personnel security program were 

VA OIG 15-03401-76 

inadequate, policies were not implemented 

as required, and human resources staff were 

not adequately trained. Finally, V AMC 

management did not ensure the continuity of 

the DFWP when the former coordinator left 

the position in September 2014. 

Without proper controls over these human 

resources functions, the Atlanta V AMC 

cannot reliably attest to the suitability of its 

staff, exposing veterans and employees to 

individuals who have not been properly 

vetted. In addition, the facility lacks 

assurance that employees in Testing 

Designated Positions remain suitable for 

employment. 

What We Recommended 

We recommended the Medical Center 

Director assess the human resources 

program and ensure staff receive appropriate 

background investigations, provide training 

on the requirements of the personnel 

security program, and monitor the DFWP. 

Agency Comments 

The Atlanta VA Medical Center Director 

concurred with our reconunendations. We 

consider the corrective action plans the 

facility submitted acceptable and will follow 

up on their implementation. 

LARRY M. REINKEMEYER 

Assistant Inspector General 

for Audits and Evaluations 

January 30, 2017 
42 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26496.023

Allegations 

Background 

Investigations 

Drug-Free 

Workplace 

Program 

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

INTRODUCTION 

In March and April 2015, the VA OIG received allegations identifYing 

delays in human resources activities at the Atlanta VA Medical Center 

(V AMC). Specifically, the complainant alleged that: 

• The employee and labor relations division had a backlog of 

over 300 unadjudicated background investigations. 

• Drug testing of new employees did not occur for a period of at 

least 6 months. 

All VA employees are evaluated and determined suitable for work through a 

background investigation process. VA determines the level of investigation 

by the sensitivity of the incumbent's position and rates the position as low, 

moderate or high-risk. At minimum, VA employees receive a National 

Agency Check with Written Inquiries (NACI) investigation to verity the 

individual is suitable for employment. 

Positions that are determined to be in higher risk categories, such as human 

resources personnel, police officers, information technology specialists, and 

hospital administrators, require an additional review. Specifically, these 

positions require either a moderate-risk or high-risk background 

investigation. Employees are often allowed to begin work before 

background investigations are complete. Upon favorable determination, a 

certificate of investigation is included in the employee's personnel folder. 

The Drug-Free Workplace Program (DFWP) establishes mandatory 

guidelines for Federal drug testing. VA Handbook 5383 designates 

safety-sensitive occupational series, such as physicians, nurses, police 

officers, and all Senior Executive Service employees, as Testing Designated 

Positions (TDPs). 1 Components of DFWP include pre-employment 

applicant testing, random monthly testing of employees in TDPs, and 

reasonable suspicion testing of on-the-job drug use. 

1 VA Handbook 538311, Part l, Appendix A 
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26496.024

Finding 1 

Background 

Criteria 

VA OIG 15-03401-76 

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Atlanta VA Medical Center Experienced Delays in 

Adjudicating Background Investigations 

We substantiated that the Atlanta VAMC had a backlog of unadjudicated 

background investigations as of mid-FY 2015, but the lack of available 

records limited our ability to quantify the extent of the backlog. This 

occurred because (i) the Atlanta V AMC management did not maintain 

adequate internal controls, including adequate records, within its personnel 

security program; (ii) Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and VA 

policies were not implemented as required, including local standard 

operating procedures for the V AMC; and (iii) human resources staff were not 

adequately trained to perform required functions. 

Without proper record keeping and timely processing of employee 

suitability, the Atlanta V AMC cannot reliably attest to the status and 

suitability of its staff. In addition, veterans and employees are at risk of 

exposure to individuals who have not been properly vetted. 

Individuals appointed to a position in VA must be determined suitable for 

Federal employment through a background investigation appropriate to the 

risk-level of the position.2 New employees are permitted to work during the 

background investigation process. Designated human resources personnel 

adjudicate the results, consider any negative information, and validate 

suitability for employment. Adjudicative decisions are recorded in VA's 

Personnel and Accounting Integrated Data (PAID) system and OPM's 

Personnel Investigations Processing System (PIPS). Appendix A provides 

additional information on background investigations. 

VA Directive 0710 requires human resources staffto ensure appointees and 

employees in low-risk or non-sensitive positions have background 

investigations initiated and adjudicated at the local level within established 

time frames 3 However, the directive does not specifically set a time frame 

for completion. Adjudications are considered backlogged after 90 days 

without an adjudicative determination, according to VA's Personnel Security 

and Suitability Service. VA Directive 0710 further states that only 

appropriately trained personnel are to make adjudicative determinations.4 

Adjudication includes reviewing the effect of any derogatory information 

resulting from the investigation on the individual's suitability for 

employment. 

2 VA Directive 0710, Paragraph 2(h)(4) 3 VA Directive 0710, Paragraph 3(g)(4) 4 VA Directive 0710, Paragraph 3(g)(4) 

2 
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26496.025

What We Did 

What We 

Found 

Example 1 

To determine the validity of the allegation, we obtained testimonial and 

documentary evidence from OPM, VA Central Office Personnel Security 

and Suitability Specialists, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) human 

resources consultants, and the Atlanta V AMC leadership and human 

resources staff. We reviewed available personnel and security files, 

investigation certifications, employee data, and applicable policies and 

procedures. 

Multiple VA officials and our review of recently completed adjudication 

records confirmed the VAMC had a backlog of unadjudicated background 

investigations during calendar year 2015, including carryover actions from 

2014. The Director of VA Central Office's Personnel Security and 

Suitability Service told us that the Atlanta V AMC had a backlog of about 

200 unadjudicated NACI background investigations as of July 2015. The 

office considered adjudications backlogged after 90 days without a 

determination. 

In addition, VHA's internal Consult, Assist, Review, Develop, and Sustain 

(CARDS) review identified a backlog of NACI documents and Special 

Agreement Check adjudications in Atlanta as of February 2015. Finally, 

Atlanta V AMC human resources personnel acknowledged identifying a 

backlog of suitability adjudications dating as far back as 2012. For example, 

OPM completed an investigation on July 16, 2012, but the Atlanta VAMC 

human resources staff did not make a fmal detennination until May 5, 2015, 

for a total processing time of 1,023 days, or 34 months. 

The lack of records in regard to adjudicating the results of background 

investigations limited our ability to quantify the extent of the backlog. To 

assess whether adjudication processing delays increased significantly, we 

reviewed processing times for 100 individuals who began employment in 

calendar year 2014 and for whom the VAMC had adjudication responsibility. 

Processing times were measured from when OPM completed the individual's 

investigation until the V AMC made its suitability determination. From April 

to October 2014, it took an average of 27 days from the close of the 

background investigation to make an adjudicative determination. However, 

from January through June 2015, that average increased to about 170 days.5 

Specific examples include: 

OPM completed an investigation on August 11, 2014, but the Atlanta 

V AMC human resources staff did not make a final determination 

until May 5, 2015, for a total processing time of 267 days, or nearly 

9 months. 

5 The Atlanta V AMC did not complete an adjudication from October 2014 to January 2015. 
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26496.026

Example2 

Why This 

Occurred 

Internal 

Controls Wero 

Not 

Implemented 

VA OIG 15-03401-76 

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

OPM completed an investigation on September 30, 2014, but the 

Atlanta V AMC human resources staff did not make a final 

detennination until May 27, 2015, for a total processing time of 

239 days, or nearly 8 months. 

The backlog of unadjudicated background checks occurred because the 

Atlanta V AMC did not maintain adequate internal controls within its 

personnel security program. Specifically, management did not implement 

VA and VHA policies through local standard operating procedures nor did 

they use generally accepted tools available from OPM. Additionally, staff 

processing suitability determinations lacked the appropriate training and 

investigation level required to process cases. 

The Atlanta VAMC did not have a local suitability adjudication policy. 

VHA Handbook 0710.01 establishes requirements for facilities to set local 

policies and procedures to ensure that mandatory personnel screenings are 

accomplished and documented.6 The handbook also provides a sample 

policy that outlines steps required and explains the roles and responsibilities 

of assigned individuals.7 The Atlanta VAMC provided a draft policy for our 

review. However, according to Atlanta V AMC personnel, the draft policy 

was developed after the start of our review and, as of September 2016, 

remained in a draft status. 

Human resources data at the Atlanta V AMC were inadequate for monitoring 

workload and performance due to long-standing weaknesses in how the 

facility collected and recorded the data. V AMC management and human 

resources staff could not account for the adjudicative status of personneL 

We also found that VA' s PAID system was not up to date in comparison 

with OPM data for that facility. Specifically, over 65 percent of PAID 

records for Atlanta V AMC personnel contained data that were erroneous or 

did not match the corresponding record in OPM's security and suitability 

investigations index. 

In addition, the Atlanta V AMC did not conduct quarterly reviews of 

Personnel Suitability and Security Files prior to our review, as required by 

VHA guidance. Human resources personnel must review 10 percent of new 

appointments quarterly to determine if investigations were completed 

accurately, timely, and by the appropriate pcrsonnel.8 This internal control is 

intended to identify issues in the adjudicative process. The responsible 

official stated that he was unfamiliar with the requirement and that quarterly 

reviews had not been conducted prior to the OIG's review. Subsequently, 

6 VHA Handbook 0710.1, Paragraph 2(d) 7 VHA Handbook 0710.1, Appendix C 8 VHA Handbook 0710.1, Appendix C, Paragraph 3(1) 

4 
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 26496.027

Suitability 

Adjudicators 

Lacked 

Appropriate 

Investigation 

and Training 

What 

Resulted 

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

the Atlanta V AMC began conducting these reviews in the fourth quarter of 

FY2015. 

Finally, the Atlanta VAMC also did not have access to OPM's PIPS. We did 

not identify a requirement for facilities to use PIPS during personnel 

screenings. However, according to the Director of VA' s Personnel Security 

and Suitability Service, PIPS is a generally accepted tool used across VA. 

Suitability personnel with access to PIPS can directly connect to OPM's 

database, which allows them to review and process background 

investigations more efficiently. In August 2015, the Atlanta VAMC reported 

that a security clerk had submitted an application for access to PIPS. As of 

July 2016, no Atlanta VAMC personnel had access. 

The Atlanta V AMC staff who were assigned adjudication responsibilities 

were not qualified to process suitability adjudications from January 2014 

through September 2015. OPM guidance requires adjudicators to have 

high-risk background investigations.9 During the scope of our review, all 

three Atlanta V AMC staff assigned adjudicative responsibilities lacked a 

high-risk background investigation required for their role. Further, personnel 

records indicate that none of those individuals had ever been investigated at 

that level. W c identified two human resources staff members with high-risk 

background investigations. However, neither staff member was assigned 

adjudicative responsibilities. 

In addition, adjudicators at the Atlanta V AMC did not receive appropriate 

training to adjudicate determinations. VA Directive 0710 requires that only 

appropriately trained personnel may make adjudicative determinations. 10 

Furthermore, in July 2014, the interagency Suitability and Security Clearance 

Performance Accountability Council issued the National Training Standards 

requiring all adjudicators to receive training. Agencies had until 

October 1, 2015 to ensure that all final suitability determinations were 

processed by a trained adjudicator. As of December 2015, according to the 

Associate Medical Center Director, only one human resources staff member 

at the Atlanta VAMC had received that training and assumed adjudicative 

responsibilities. The Acting Human Resources Officer confirmed that this 

remained the case as of July 2016. 

Without proper controls to accurately record adjudicative determinations and 

the timely processing of employee suitability, the Atlanta VAMC cannot 

reliably attest to the status and suitability of its staff. In addition, errors in 

suitability determinations occurred because human resources staff were not 

properly trained to process them. We also identified several positions at the 

Atlanta V AMC that did not have the proper background investigation 

9 Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations §731.106 and OPM !NV 15, Paragraph 2.0 10 VA Directive 0710, Paragraph 3(g)(4) 

VA OIG 15-03401-76 5 
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 26496.028

Management 

Comments 

VA OIG 15-03401-76 

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

completed for the designated risk category of the position. For example, 19 

of 37 human resources specialists only had an NACI, even though a 

moderate-level investigation is required to maintain the position. Also, a 

nurse who began working in 1998 received only a fingerprint screening and 

never had an investigation. 

Facilities are required to determine the sensitivity of a position and complete 

the adjudication process. If the facility cannot expeditiously and accurately 

ensure that employees are suitable for their positions, veterans and 

employees are at risk of exposure to individuals who have not been properly 

vetted. 

Recommendations 

1. We recommended the Medical Center Director assess the human 

resources program at the Atlanta VA Medical Center to develop an action 

plan to ensure all medical center staff have appropriate background 

investigations and determinations are accurately recorded. 

2. We recommended the Medical Center Director ensure all suitability 

adjudicators receive the mandatory training and background investigation 

required for the position. 

3. We recommended the Medical Center Director provide training to all 

human resources staff on the requirements of the personnel suitability 

program to include generally accepted resources and tools to standardize 

the processing of background investigations. 

The Atlanta V AMC Director agreed with our findings and recommendations, 

stating that, effective August 23, 2016, the facilities Human Resources 

Management Service was organizationally realigned under her direct 

supervision. Additionally, the new Human Resources Management Officer 

started September 26, 2016, and recruitments have been posted for other 

critical staff who will oversee the Atlanta VA Personnel Security and 

Suitability program. 

The V AMC Director stated that a workgroup will be chartered to review and 

streamline the background investigation and adjudication process. A 

database will be established to monitor and benchmark performance in 

comparison with practices across VA. Policy on the personnel security and 

suitability program will also be expedited. The VAMC Director anticipated 

implementation of the corrective actions by March 24,2017. 

The V AMC Director also stated that the facility will train a minimum of 

three human resources staff in the adjudication process as training becomes 

available. In the interim, the Veterans Integrated Service Network 7 Deputy 

Human Resources Office will assist in the adjudication process. The V AMC 

6 
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 26496.029

0/G 

Response 

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

Director anticipated implementation of the corrective actions by 

March 24,2017. 

Finally, the V AMC Director has tasked the Human Resources Management 

Officer to provide training to Atlanta human resources staff. Access to 

OPM's Personnel Investigations Processing System will be requested for all 

appropriate human resources staff. The Medical Center Director anticipates 

implementation of these corrective actions by November25, 2016. 

Appendix C provides the full text of the VAMC Director's comments. 

The Atlanta VAMC Director's comments and corrective action plans are 

responsive to the intent of the recommendations. We will monitor 

implementation of planned actions and will close the recommendations when 

we receive sufficient evidence demonstrating progress in addressing the 

issues identified. 
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 26496.030

Finding 2 

Background 

Criteria 

What We Did 

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

The Atlanta VAMC Drug-Free Workplace Program 

Lapsed for a Period of 6 Months 

We substantiated that the Atlanta VAMC did not administer the DFWP for a 

period of 6 months. Specifically, from November 2014 through May 2015, 

no drug screenings were completed or documented by medical center 

personnel. According to the Acting Human Resources Officer, drug 

screening resumed in June 2015. The lapse in the program occurred because 

the former DFWP Coordinator left the position in September 2014 and the 

alternate coordinator did not assume the collateral duties required of this 

position. In addition, other human resources staff were unaware of their 

responsibilities under DFWP. As a result, the Atlanta V AMC was not in 

compliance with the DFWP Program and lacked assurance that employees in 

Testing Designated Positions (TDPs) remained suitable for employment. 

A previous OIG report, the Audit of the Drug-Free Workplace Program, II 

identified weaknesses in VA's controls of pre-employment applicant drug 

testing and random employee drug-testing requirements. We recommended 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources Management 

implement processes to adequately monitor local compliance with VA's 

Drug-Free Workplace Program requirements. 

Local facilities conduct random monthly drug testing of TDPs and are 

required to issue an individual notice to all employees in TDPs explaining 

that their position will be subject to random testing. Samples are sent to VA' s 

Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory in Minneapolis, MN, and 

reported to local-level Medical Review Officers, who are required to review all 

tests. 

VA Handbook 5383 requires the facility human resources officer to assure, 

through consultation with the medical review officer, that a drug test has 

been conducted on individuals selected for screening and determine whether 

the test result is a verified positive result.I 2 In addition, all drug-testing 

information must be maintained in a secure location for 3 years.I 3 Custody 

and Control forms are sequentially numbered and must be used in that 

order. 14 

To determine the validity of the allegation, we obtained testimonial and 

documentary evidence from the Atlanta V AMC. In addition, we requested 

evidence of random drug testing from May 2014 through May 2015. We 

11 Report No. 14-02383-175, March 30,2015 

"VA Handbook 5383, Paragraph ll(f) 13 VA Handbook 5383, Paragraph 14( e) 14 VA Handbook 5383/5, Part II, Appendix B, Records 
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 26496.031

What We 

Found 

Why This 

Occurred 

What 

Resulted 

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

also interviewed human resources staff and the medical review officer 

responsible for administering the DFWP. 

The Atlanta V AMC did not conduct drug screenings for a period 

of 6 months. Specifically, we requested evidence of drug testing for the 

period of May 2014 through May 2015. However, the Atlanta VAMC could 

only provide Custody and Control forms 15 from May through November 

2014. Furthermore, human resources personnel acknowledged that the 

DFWP was not administered or tracked between November 2014 and May 

2015. Finally, the medical review officer stated that no requests were 

received from the Atlanta V AMC Human Resources Department during this 

period despite receiving screening requests from outlying clinics. According 

to the Acting Human Resources Officer, drug screenings resumed in June 

20 15 during our review. 

Atlanta V AMC leadership did not properly manage or provide oversight for 

the DFWP. According to the Associate Medical Center Director, V AMC 

leadership was not aware of how personnel changes affected the program or 

that drug screenings did not occur. Specifically, when the former DFWP 

Coordinator left the position in September 2014, V AMC leadership did not 

ensure the alternate DFWP Coordinator assumed the collateral duties. In 

addition, according to the Associate Medical Center Director, the DFWP was 

not discussed during regular management meetings and the human resources 

staff did not report the lapse in the program. 

As a result, the Atlanta VAMC was not in compliance with DFWP and 

lacked assurance that employees in TDPs remained suitable for employment. 

In addition, veterans and patients at the V AMC were put at potential risk to 

exposure to employees who were not properly vetted and deemed suitable for 

providing services at the facility. 

Recommendations 

4. We recommended the Medical Center Director ensure the Atlanta VA 

Medical Center human resources staff, to include the Drug-Free 

Workplace Program Coordinators and Medical Review Officers, are 

properly trained on the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace 

Program and the responsibilities of their positions. 

5. We recommended the Medical Center Director review the Drug-Free 

Workplace Program on a regular basis to ensure compliance with 

15 Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control forms are documents used to establish a paper 

trail and track seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical and 

electronic evidence of human urine specimens. 

9 
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 26496.032

Management 

Comments 

0/G 

Response 

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

regulations and that employees hired during screening gaps are subject to 

corrective testing. 

The Atlanta V AMC Director agreed with our findings and recommendations, 

stating that the facility appointed a DFWP Coordinator and alternate 

coordinator to oversee the program. The coordinators have participated in 

DFWP awareness training provided by VA Central Office, to include duties 

and responsibilities of the position, and are involved in all communication 

related to DFWP. In addition, human resources staff will be trained to 

ensure the maintenance of a safe and drug-free workplace for all Federal 

workers. 

The V AMC Director also stated that DFWP Coordinators will certifY 

100 percent of TDPs are in compliance with DFWP objectives. The 

coordinators will provide monthly reports to VA Central Office, the Veterans 

Integrated Service Network 7 Office, and the Atlanta VAMC Director on 

findings and test results to guarantee VA's duty to achieve a drug-free 

workforce. Appendix C provides the full text of the Atlanta V AMC 

Director's comments. 

The Atlanta V AMC Director's comments and corrective action plans are 

responsive to the intent of the recommendations. We will monitor 

implementation of planned actions and will close recommendations when we 

receive sufficient evidence demonstrating progress in addressing the issues 

identified. 

-~ Cf'MM~ ~ q'111'l IAJ 

f4rw1~ 
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 26496.033

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

Appendix A Background 

Suitability OPM requires applicants to covered positions to undergo a background 

Determinations investigation to detennine their suitability for Federal employment.16 

Depending on the responsibilities of the position, the level of investigation 

varies. All individuals selected for employment receive a pre-screening 

Special Agreement Check, which is a limited investigation including law 

enforcement checks. Once appointed, the facility begins a background 

investigation appropriate to the risk level of the position. The table identifies 

the position risk categories and the investigation types associated with each 

category. 

Adjudicative 

Process 

Table. Investigation Type and Position Risk Categories 

Investigation Type Risk Occupations Category 

Special Agreement N/A All Check 

National Agency Check Low Most Employees with Written Inquiries 

Moderate Risk Human Resources, 

Background Moderate Infonnation Technology, 

Investigation Police, Program Man~ers 

Background Management, Adjudicators, 

Investigation High Security Officers, Fiscal and 

Finance 

Source: VA Handbook0710, Appendix A, Paragraph JJ(c) and VHA Handbook 0710.01 

Local VA facilities adjudicate Special Agreement Check and NACI 

investigations. VA's Security and Investigations Center in North Little 

Rock, AR, adjudicates moderate- and high-risk level investigations. 

After the facility receives the results of the background investigation from 

OPM, the adjudicative process begins. Designated human resources 

personnel review NACI investigation results to validate suitability for 

employment. If the result of the investigation yields derogatory information, 

adjudicators consider the sensitivity level of the position, length oftime since 

the offense, as well as the effect on the agency decision. Suitability 

decisions are recorded in VA's PAID system and OPM's PIPS. 

16 Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations § 73l.l 04 
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 26496.034

Previous 

Inspector General 

Report 

VA OIG 15-03401-76 

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

In March 2015, the OIG issued the Audit of the Drug-Free Workplace 

Program (Report No. 14-02383-175), which identified weaknesses in VA's 

controls of pre-employment applicant testing and random employee 

drug-testing requirements. We recommended the Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Human Resources Management implement processes to adequately 

monitor local compliance with VA's Drug-Free Workplace Program 

requirements. 

12 
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 26496.035

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

Appendix B Scope and Methodology 

Scope We conducted this review from May 2015 through September 2016. Our 

work focused on human resources activities at Atlanta V AMC for the period 

ofJanuary 2014 through December 2015. 

Methodology We obtained testimonial and documentary evidence from OPM, VA Central 

Office Personnel Security and Suitability Specialists, VHA HR Consultants, 

and the Atlanta V AMC leadership and HR staff. We reviewed personnel and 

security files, investigation certifications, employee data, and applicable 

policies and procedures. 

Data 

Reliability 

Government 

Standards 

We compared available employee data in the PAID system with OPM's 

Security and Investigations Index report. We also analyzed Certificates of 

Investigation from electronic Official Personnel Folders to compare the 

investigation close dates with signatures from Atlanta V AMC human 

resources staff. 

We relied on personnel information from OPM's PIPS, which we received 

via the Security and Investigations Index report. To test for reliability, we 

compared data elements, such as investigation completion dates, level of 

investigation, and position classification, with certificate of investigation 

documents extracted from the electronic Official Personnel Folder. We 

concluded that the data were reliable and appropriate for this review. 

We also compared information extracted from PIPS with the information 

from VA's PAID system. Based on the information in the certificate of 

investigation documents previously corroborated by PIPS, we determined 

that PAID was unreliable to accurately account for the adjudicative status of 

Atlanta V AMC personnel. Our report used PAID data without independent 

verification to access administrative information, such as duty station, date of 

birth, name, and title. 

We documented data limitations with respect to any errors and omissions in 

the data significant to our findings. Except for the limitations discussed in 

this appendix and the body of the report, we concluded that the data used 

were sufficiently reliable to reach the assessments of each allegation, 

conclusion, and recommendation made in this report. 

We conducted this review in accordance with the Council of the Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency's Quality Standards for Inspection and 

Evaluation. 

13 
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 26496.036

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

Appendix C Management Comments 

Department of Veterans Affairs Memorandum 

Date: 

From: 

Subj: 

To: 

October 12,2016 

Director, Atlanta VA Medical Center (508/00) 

DRAFT REPORT- Office of Audits and Evaluations Review of Alleged Human 

Resources Delay at the Atlanta VA Medical Center 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations 

1. I have reviewed the Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General Office of Audits and 

Evaluations draft report the Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VA 

Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia. 

2. I concur with the draft report and recommendations. Attached are responses to each 

recommendation. 

(original signed by:) 

Annette P. Walker 

Attachment 
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 26496.037

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

Attachment 

Comments to OIG's Report 

The following comments are submitted in response to the recommendations in the OIG report: 

OIG Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1. We recommended the Medical Center Director assess the human resources program at the 

Atlanta VA Medical Center to develop an action plan to ensure all medical center staff have appropriate background 

investigations and determinations are accurately recorded. 

Facility response: Concur 

Target Completion Date: March 24, 2017 

Effective August 23, 2016, Human Resources Management Service (HRMS) was organizationally realigned under 

the direct supervision of the Medical Center Director. In addition, the new Human Resource Management Officer 

(HRMO) arrived on station September 26, 2016. Recruitment for a new Assistant HRMO has been posted as well as 

a Supervisory Employee Relations/Labor Relations Specialist who will have oversight of the Atlanta VA Personnel 

Security and Suitability (PSS) program. 

A Rapid Process Improvement Workgroup is being chartered to review the background investigation and adjudication 

process. The purpose of this workgroup will be to streamline the background investigation and adjudication process 

from selection to on-boarding to ensure that all new employees receive the appropriate background investigations 

within the established timeframe. 

A database will be established to facilitate real time monitoring with benchmarking against identified best practices 

across the VA for continuous improvement with ongoing compliance reporting to leadership. The draft local policy on 

the personnel security and suitability program will be expedited through the Medical Center Memorandum approval 

process with designation for required training and documentation of understanding by all Human Resources 

personnel upon approval. 

Recommendation 2. We recommended the Medical Center Director ensure all suitability adjudicators receive the 

mandatory training and background investigation required for the position. 

Facility Response: Concur 

Target Completion Date: March 24, 2017 

Human Resources Management Service previously completed the background investigation and mandatory training 

of one assigned staff member that has since separated from the Atlanta VA. In the interim, the VISN7 Deputy Human 

Resources Officer is currently assisting in the adjudication process until staff training is available this fall. The medical 

center will train a minimum of three Human Resources staff in the adjudication process as training becomes 

available. 

Recommendation 3. We recommended the Medical Center Director provide training to all human resources staff on 

the requirements of the personnel suitability program to include generally accepted resources and tools to 

standardize the processing of background investigations. 

Facility Response: Concur 

Target Completion Date: November 25, 2016 

The Medical Center Director has tasked the Human Resources Officer to provide training to the Atlanta Human 

Resources staff and Medical Review Officers within the next 30 days. In addition, access to OPM's Personnel 

Investigations Processing System will be requested for all appropriate Human Resources staff. 

VA OIG 15-03401-76 15 
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 26496.038

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

Recommendation 4. We recommended the Medical Center Director ensure the Atlanta VA Medical center human 

resource staff, to include the Drug-Free Workplace Coordinators and Medical Review Officers, are properly trained on 

the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Program and the responsibilities of their positions. 

Facility Response: Concur 

Target Completion Date: November 1, 2016 

The Manta VA Medical Center has appointed a Drug-Free Workplace coordinator and alternate coordinator to 

oversee the program. The coordinators have participated in the Drug-Free Workplace (DFWP) awareness training 

provided by VA Central Office (VACO) and are involved in all communication related to DFWP. They have been 

trained on the duties and responsibilities for Testing Designated Positions (TOP), Random Testing, Reasonable 

Suspicion, Injury, illness, unsafe or unhealthful practice, voluntary testing, and testing as a part of or as a follow~up to 

counseling or rehabilitation. 

Human Resources staff will be trained to ensure the maintenance of a .safe and drug free workplace for all federal. 

workers. Appropriate staff were provided a list of Testing Designated Positions (TOP) and have been educated to 

ensure that all applicants selected for a TOP are tested and issued a copy of the Acknowledgement Notice. 

Recommendation 5. We recommend the Medical Center Director review the Drug-Free Workplace Program on a 

regular basis to ensure compliance with regulations and that employees hired during screening gaps are subject to 

corrective testing. 

Facility Response: Concur 

Target Completion Date: Completed 

The Drug-Free Workplace (DFWP) Coordinator(s) will certify 100% Testing Designated Positions (TOP) are in 

compliance with the Drug Free Workplace Program objectives. Additionally, the DFWP Coordinators will ensure 

internal employees transferring to a TOP are tested prior to transfer and wlll certify the completion of all required 

monthly random drug testing. The Coordinator(s) will provide monthly reports to VA Central Office (VACO), the VISN 

7 Network Office and the Atlanta VA Medical Center Director on findings and test results to guarantee VA's duty to 

achieve a drug free workforce. 

\ 

Additional Information. In addition, an update on the status of the unadjudicated t;>ackground investigations backlog 

was requested. The Atlanta VA Medical Center did conduct initial on boarding requirements such as fingerprinting and 

preliminary Special Agreement Check requirements before any employee started on duty at this Medical Center. The 

facility is in the process of gaining access to OPM's Personnel Investigations Processing System and will implement 

, an action plan to audit all facility employee background levels to validate complete background investigation 

\compliance. Once the full review has been conducted, any employees found to have an insufficient background 

·nvestigation wll! be provided assistance to complete all requirements in an expedient manner. · 

For accessibility, the format of the original documents in this appendix has been 

modified to fit in this document. 

VA OIG 15-03401-76 16 
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 26496.039

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

Appendix 0 OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Contact 

Acknowledgments 

VA OIG 15-03401-76 

For more information about this report, please 

contact the Office of Inspector General at 

(202) 461-4720. 

Steven Wise, Director 

Dustin Clark 

Michael Derick 

Shawn Steele 

17 
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 26496.040

Review of Alleged Human Resources Delays at the Atlanta VAMC 

Appendix E Report Distribution 

VA Distribution 

Office of the Secretary 

Veterans Health Administration 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

National Cemetery Administration 

Assistant Secretaries 

Office of General Counsel 

Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction 

Board of Veterans Appeals 

Director, VISN 7: VA Southeast Network 

Director, Atlanta VA Health Care System 

Non-VA Distribution 

House Committee on Veterans' Affairs 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, 

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs 

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, 

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

National Veterans Service Organizations 

Government Accountability Office 

Office of Management and Budget 

U.S. Senate: Johnny Isakson, David Perdue 

U.S. House of Representatives: Rick Allen; Sandford D. Bishop, Jr.; 

Buddy Carter; Doug Collins; Tom Graves; Jody Hice; 

Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr.; John Lewis; Barry Loudermilk; 

Tom Price; Austin Scott; David Scott; Lynn A. Westmoreland; 

Robert Woodall 

This report is available on our website at www.va.gov/oig. 

VA OIG 15-03401-76 18 
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 26496.041

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO 

Eugene Hudson, Jr. 

National Secretary-Treasurer 

Honorable Jason Chaffctz. Chaim1an 

House Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reforn1 

2157 Rayburn House Oflice Building 

Washington. DC 20515 

Honorable Ron DeSantis. Chairman 

House Subcommittee on National Security 

308 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: 

J. David Cox, Sr. 

National President 

Augusta Y. Thomas 

NVP for Women & Fair Practices 

11366913 

March I. 2017 

Honorable Elijah Cummings. Ranking Member 

House Committee on Oversight and 

Government RciOrm 

21471 Rayburn llouse Office Building 

Washington. DC 20515 

Honorable Stephen Lynch, Ranking Member 

House Subcommittee on National Security 

2369 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington. DC 20515 

On behalf of over 670,000 federal employees. including 230.000 employees of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA) represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, 

AFL-CIO (AFGE), thank you for the opportunity to share our views for the March I, 2017 

hearing "VA: Path the Reforn1". We request that this letter be made part of the hearing record. 

AFGE is very concerned about the impact of the lcdcral hiring treeze on both the V A's ability to 

carry out its mission and much needed employment opportunities for veterans. 

Veterans comprise 33 %of the VA workforce: over 120.000 veterans work tor the VA and most 

of them have service-connected disabilities. Contrary to the Administration's claims. the VA 

hiring freeze does not "'drain the swamp .. but it docs directly hurt veterans in every community 

across the country. The vast majority of VA jobs arc outside of V./ashington DC. 

Every position in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is still subject to the hiring lfeeze. 

Over half the VBA worktorce are veterans. The VBA workforce carries out essential functions 

related to the processing of claims for vocational rehabilitation services and education bene lit. 

both of which enable veterans to transition to civilian employment. VBA processing of disability 

claims arc directly linked to the ability of the majority of veterans to access VA health care 

benetits. Thus, short-staffing VBA prevents veterans from getting access to the health care they 

have earned. 

80 F Street, N W, Wash1ngton DC. 20001 • 202 737 8700 ·Fax 202 639 6490. www afge org 
61 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 26496.042

Before the freeze, VBA was making enormous progress in reducing the disability claims 

backlog. The backlog of pending disability claims needing initial review dropped from 56,000 in 

May 2016 to 18,000 by the end of January 2017. The timeframe for completing claims also 

significantly improved: In 2015, VA completed 45 percent of claims within 125 days. As of 

January 2017, VBA finished 66 percent of claims within the 125-day standard. 

Although most VHA positions were exempted from the freeze by agency action, the freeze 

places yet another cloud of uncertainty over the future of the VA health care system, and the 

VA' s ability to recruit and retain medical professionals and support personnel to fill the more 

than 45,000 vacancies. 

The VA remains the most valuable and sought after place to work and receive job support 

services for our nation's veterans, as they struggle to overcome discrimination, serviceconnected physical and mental disabilities, homelessness, addiction and other employment 

barriers. The hiring freeze deals a terrible blow to veterans trying to give back to other veterans 

through a VA career, and undermines the Department's most honorable mission. 

Thank you for considering the views of the American Federation of Government Employees. 

Sincerely yours, 

/·g~~LJ. David Cox, Sr. 

AFGE National President