U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

34–308 2007

PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF EDUCATION, LOAN 

GUARANTY, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION 

AND EMPLOYMENT, AND VETS PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Serial No. 110–6 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

STEPHANIE HERSETH, South Dakota, Chairwoman 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

March 7, 2007 

Page 

Performance Review of Education, Loan Guaranty, Vocational Rehabilitation 

and Employment, and VETS Programs ............................................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth, ........................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth .............................. 32 

Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, ............................................ 2 

Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman ............................................. 33 

Hon. John J. Hall ..................................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Jerry McNerney .............................................................................................. 4 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Labor, Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary 

for Veterans’ Employment and Training Service .............................................. 4 

Prepared statement of Mr. Ciccolella ............................................................. 33 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration ........................................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson .................................................................. 39 

Bill Borom, Deputy Director, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment, Veterans Benefits Administration ............................................................................ 9 

Prepared statement of Mr. Borom .................................................................. 41 

Keith Pedigo, Director, Loan Guaranty Service, Veterans Benefits Administration ................................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo .................................................................. 44 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

July 23, 2007, letter and attachments, from Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, responding to several requests for information from Committee Members 

during the hearing ............................................................................................... 47 

U.S. Department of Labor’s description of their Transition Training Academy 

entitled, ‘‘Wounded & Insured Transition, The Training Academy Model’’ .... 75 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING

bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(1) 

PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF EDUCATION, LOAN 

GUARANTY, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION 

AND EMPLOYMENT, AND VETS PROGRAMS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Herseth, Hall, Donnelly, McNerney, 

Boozman, Moran. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH 

Ms. HERSETH. Good afternoon. The Veterans’ Affairs Economic 

Opportunity Subcommittee hearing on the Performance, Staffing, 

and Services provided by the Education, Loan Guaranty, and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Programs of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs and Veterans’ Employment and Training Service of the Department of Labor will come to order. 

I would like to thank Ranking Member Boozman for his leadership as past Chairman of this Subcommittee. I look forward to 

again working with you in this Congress in the same bipartisan 

and cooperative spirit with which you led us in the 109th Congress. 

I also want to welcome the new Members to the Subcommittee, 

one of whom is here, and that is Mr. John Hall of New York who 

has joined us. We also have representatives Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Jerry McNerney of California, and Jerry Moran, although not 

a new Member to the Congress, is a new Member to the Subcommittee and he is from Kansas. 

I look forward to working with all of these distinguished gentlemen and the returning Members of the Subcommittee on our efforts to ensure that our Nation’s veterans receive the best available 

services as they seek to access the benefits that they have earned. 

Earlier this year, the Subcommittee Membership discussed the 

hearing topics to be covered in the 110th Congress. I am proud to 

say that we have a very ambitious list that includes expanding 

education benefits for the National Guard and Reserve, examining 

the funding levels for State Approving Agencies, reviewing the VA’s 

procurement goals with respect to veteran-owned and service-disabled small business, and other important issues. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
2 

First and foremost, Ranking Member Boozman, I look forward to 

working with you and our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to update the Montgomery GI Bill for National Guard and 

Reserve servicemembers. These brave servicemen and women continue to support our military missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

elsewhere around the world. Unfortunately, despite their extensive 

deployments and even with Chapter 1607 programs, their education benefits do not reflect their increased service to our Nation. 

Again, I look forward to working with all Members of the Subcommittee to effectively address this issue and to advance legislation that better ensures Guard and Reserve servicemembers essential to our total force military policy, that they are more equitably 

treated. 

Like many of my colleagues, I have spent the last few days meeting with constituents who are members of various Veteran Service 

Organizations. Those meetings have generated many questions and 

concerns, some of which I hope to address here today. 

I am particularly interested in hearing about the VA’s efforts to 

address the education claims workload and potential problems associated with the centralization of education claims service operations, especially if understaffed. 

I would like to thank our panelists for being here to participate 

in a frank dialogue with Members of the Subcommittee, and I encourage you to work with us as closely as you have been so that 

we all may properly serve our Armed Forces, our veterans, and 

their families as they transition back to civilian life following their 

honorable service to our country. 

Much progress has been made in education benefits, vocational 

rehabilitation services, and VA home loan programs. However, we 

must insist on thorough analyses, accurate numbers, and I think 

everyone would agree that we must remain vigilant to protect 

against any declining benefits or customer service. 

Thank you all again for being here. I look forward to hearing 

your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Herseth appears on p. 32.] 

Ms. HERSETH. And I now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. 

Boozman, for any opening remarks that he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Again, good afternoon. Thanks to each of our witnesses for taking 

the time to be here today. Budget season is certainly always a busy 

time, but these sometimes hectic schedules serve a good purpose in 

allowing us to better understand and get a thorough understanding 

of the budget for the next fiscal year. 

Before I begin my remarks, last year at the end of the year, I 

thought I was joking in the sense that I alluded to the fact that 

Ms. Herseth might be taking over. And sure enough, she is. 

And, you know, certainly I very much have enjoyed working with 

you in the past, and, you know, I certainly pledge, as you were so 

gracious to me, that we talk a lot about bipartisanship around 

here, but truly we will do anything we can to be supportive and 

really look forward to a good year. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
3 

The President has sent us a budget. It is a good template. It is 

certainly not perfect, but it is a good start. Both sides of the aisle 

have presented their views and estimates to the Budget Committee. Now it is up to them to pass a budget resolution that 

works. 

I believe that we were in agreement with the Majority when it 

came to suggesting a thousand additional FTE for VBA. We also 

suggested additional funding for IT programs and the need to conduct significant business process reform because just piling more 

FTE every year will not necessarily solve the structural issues preventing rapid processing of claims of all types. 

The challenges before VA and VETS is to make programs work. 

It is clear that people expect not just programs but ones that actually deliver the goods to the beneficiaries. We need to get the processing time down for both VR&E and education. 

The last session, we mandated a report on streamlining education processing, and I hope the Department will send us a legislative proposal to change the way they do business if that is required. 

The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service still lacks sufficient data in many areas, and I look forward to Mr. Ciccolella’s testimony on how they propose to do better in that area. 

One thing I am disappointed in is the flat budget recommendation for the National Veterans Training Institute in Denver. As you 

know, Public Law 109–461 imposed new training requirements for 

DVOPs and LVERs. And when the staff visited NVTI last year, 

they were told that they probably need an additional one million 

to meet the additional throughput. So I would appreciate if you 

might address that shortfall here today. 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boozman appears on p. 33.] 

Ms. HERSETH. Well, thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Hall from New York for any 

opening remarks he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. HALL 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chair, I suppose I should say. 

In short, I do not want to make many remarks because the hearing, I think, is for us to hear from you. So I will just say that I 

am double-booked with the Water Resources Subcommittee meeting. So if I dash out in a little while, it is not a sign of disrespect. 

I did choose to come here first. And I am concerned especially in 

my district with the fact that in the most affluent district in the 

State of New York and in the Westchester County, which is the 

most affluent county in the State of New York and one of the five 

most affluent in the United States, we still have 20 percent of the 

homeless population who are veterans. 

And so anything we can do to improve the job training and transition for them to give them a better shot at staying on their feet 

and to prevent them and their families from teetering over that 

cliff into bankruptcy and/or homelessness is something that I will 

work very hard to do. 

Thank you. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
4 

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. McNerney, welcome to the Subcommittee. We are pleased to 

have you with us working on important issues that we have had 

a chance to discuss more informally, but welcome to the first hearing of this Subcommittee. 

I recognize you for any opening remarks you may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate 

your remarks and, Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for your 

remarks. 

One thing that I am very interested in after reading your testimony is how we can improve the opportunities for veterans. And 

as I look back over what happened in my father’s generation, the 

veterans were given a tremendous opportunity that allowed them 

to buy houses, to get education, and really help develop our country. 

And nowadays, if we look at what is being offered to veterans, 

it is falling far short of that goal. That really did give our country 

a boost economically. It helped us develop a strong middle class 

and it gave our veterans back some of what they sacrificed for this 

country. 

And so I think it is incumbent upon us to look at what we are 

offering and find a way to increase that so that it does measure up 

in some way to what our prior generations offered. 

And I yield back. 

Ms. HERSETH. Well, thank you very much. 

Thanks to all of you. Our distinguished panel of witnesses is 

well-qualified to highlight the programs of interest today. 

Joining us are Mr. Charles Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary for 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service of the U.S. Department of Labor; Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of Education Service; 

Mr. Bill Borom—am I pronouncing that correctly? 

Mr. BOROM. Correct. 

Ms. HERSETH [continuing]. Deputy Director of Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment; and Mr. Keith Pedigo, Director of Loan 

Guaranty Service of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs respectively. 

So, Mr. Ciccolella, let us begin with your testimony if you might. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; KEITH M. WILSON, 

DIRECTOR, EDUCATION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; 

BILL BOROM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EMPLOYMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND 

KEITH PEDIGO, DIRECTOR, LOAN GUARANTY SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. CICCOLELLA 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
5 

Ranking Member Boozman, Congressman McNerney, Congressman Hall, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee to testify on the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service. 

VETS was created in 1980. We have 240 full-time Federal staff 

deployed around the country. The majority of our staff are not in 

Washington. They are in the field in the States. 

We deliver our programs and services to veterans three ways, directly to veterans, through the State workforce agencies, and 

through competitive grants. To assist us, we have six regional administrators and we have a Federal Director of State Veterans’ Employment and Training in each one of the States. 

VETS has three missions. First, we provide employment assistance to veterans in America’s publicly-funded workforce system. 

Secondly, we provide employment assistance to transitioning military members while they are still in the military before they get 

out. And, finally, we protect servicemembers’ employment and reemployment rights, which, of course, is so much more important 

today with the activation of nearly 600,000 Guard and Reserve 

since 2001. 

My testimony describes our programs in pretty good detail, so 

what I will do is just talk about some of the highlights of our programs. 

Our first mission is to provide employment assistance to veterans 

through America’s publicly-funded workforce system. The law, as 

you know, requires that veterans receive priority in that system. In 

addition, there are over 2,100 veteran employment representatives, 

DVOPs and LVERs who provide specialized employment services to 

veterans. Those veteran employment representatives are provided 

through the Jobs For Veterans Grant. 

The DVOPs and LVERs, veteran employment representatives are 

critical to the process. The majority of them, 99 plus percent, are 

veterans. 

We have several initiatives including the Key to Career Success 

Initiative and our Hire Vets First Campaign that we use to link 

transitioning servicemembers to the career one-stop centers in the 

public workforce system. As a result of these services, 611,000 veterans were employed last year through the workforce system. 

I would also like to say that we work closely with the VA on 

their Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program. We have 

a very effective partnership with VA and that is codified in a formal agreement. 

Both agencies focus on a team effort to place more Chapter 31 

veterans into employment. We also forward position veteran employment specialists at the VETS centers and other VA locations. 

Seventy-one of them are forward positioned. 

Our second mission is to provide employment assistance for separating military members. We work in collaboration with the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 

we provide a transition assistance employment workshop for members of the military who are separating. 

We focus the TAP Program on helping servicemembers to build 

a plan for making the jump from the military into civilian life. 

That means we teach the TAP participants how to translate their 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
6 

skills, education, and experience onto resumes and actually have a 

draft resume when they leave the TAP Program. We teach them 

interviewing skills and also how to use the one-stop career system. 

We are working very hard with the Department of Defense to increase participation in the TAP Program. In 2001, we put 100,000 

servicemembers through TAP. Last year, we put 150,000 through 

TAP. As you know, there are about 220,000 who leave the military 

each year. 

We also offer TAP to the National Guard and Reserve when they 

return from their deployments, and we have budgeted additional 

money in the President’s 2008 budget to handle increased participation in TAP. 

We provide personal face-to-face transition employment assistance to our wounded and injured servicemembers through our 

REALifelines Program, our Recovery Employment Assistance Lifelines Program. 

The program provides on-site job counseling, referral, training, 

and assistance while they are still in the military and then after 

they leave the military. 

We have three Federal staff members out-stationed at the Department of Defense’s Military Seriously Injured Center. We have 

six forward positioned staff at the key military major medical facilities. We have helped 2,800 participants with employment assistance through our REALifelines Program. 

Our third mission is to protect servicemembers’ civilian job rights 

under the ‘‘Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act.’’ The USERRA law prevents discrimination against veterans or any member of the service, and it provides reemployment 

rights to servicemembers. It is especially important today with the 

activation of so many National Guard and Reservists. 

Our Department administers the law. We educate employers and 

we conduct investigations of complaints. We also work very closely 

with the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice and 

the Office of Special Counsel in order to enforce that law when employers do not understand it or are not compliant. Today employers 

understand that law much better because we have put out very 

easy to understand rules, and regulations, which make the law extremely understandable. 

As an example, during the first Gulf War, we mobilized 265,000 

Guard and Reservists for that war. The 2 years following, we had 

2,500 formal investigations of USERRA complaints. After 9/11, the 

complaint rate went up about 1,500 complaints a year. That is 

about where we are now. I think that is going to sort of level off. 

During the first Gulf War, we had one complaint for every 54 returning Guard and Reservists. Today that is one in 96. That is still 

not good enough, but it goes to show the improvement that we have 

made. 

We also have a responsibility for enforcing veterans’ preference. 

We conduct the investigations. Of course, OPM has the responsibility for veterans’ preference in Federal hiring. 

There are two other programs that I would like to mention. The 

first one is that VETS operates a very, very important program 

under a competitive grant called the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
7 

Congressman Hall spoke briefly about the homeless veterans situation in New York. Approximately 10,000 homeless veterans will 

be placed in employment in 2006 and 2007. We plan to put 11,000 

homeless veterans into jobs, and not poor-paying jobs, but into good 

jobs in 2008. 

We also sponsor a highly successful Hire Vets First Campaign 

that promotes the skills of veterans and the public workforce system because that is what employers need to know, the challenge 

is to hook up the employer with the veteran. 

We promote, sponsor, and brand veteran job fairs. Last year, we 

promoted and sponsored 17 veteran job fairs, and we held a national veterans employment summit right before the end of the 

year. This year, we are going to cosponsor over 120 veteran job 

fairs. 

The job fairs are very important. A lot of people do not think 

they work. They do work. About 15 percent of the veterans who attend job fairs actually get jobs. But more importantly, when you 

have a veteran-only job fair, what it does is it brings the veterans, 

the employers, the press, and workforce system together and it 

raises the awareness among that community or in that community, 

particularly in the business community, about the value that veterans bring to the workforce. 

Forty-eight governors to date have signed Hire Vets First Proclamations and the Hire Vets First Web site gets 35,000 unique visitors every month. 

And we look forward to continuing to work with this Committee 

to make these programs more successful. I would be happy to respond to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ciccolella appears on p. 33.] 

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Ciccolella. 

Mr. Wilson, we will take your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member 

Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss VA’s education programs. 

My testimony will highlight workload, staffing, and services provided under the Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty, the Montgomery 

GI Bill Selected Reserve, the Reserve Educational Assistance Program known as REAP, and the Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance Program. I will also discuss outreach efforts related to the education benefits as well as automation tools that 

support our programs. 

Chapter 30 and Chapter 1606 MGIB programs provide veterans, 

servicemembers, and members of the Guard and Selected Reserve 

with educational assistance generally in the form of monthly benefits to assist them in reaching their educational and vocational 

goals. 

The Reserve Educational Assistance Program provides an enhanced benefit for Reservists and those in the National Guard who 

are activated for more than 90 days due to an emergency or contingency operation as defined by the President or Congress. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
8 

Together these programs assist in the readjustment to civilian 

life, support the Armed Services recruitment and retention efforts, 

and enhance the Nation’s competitiveness through the development 

of more highly-educated and productive workforce. 

The Chapter 35 DEA Program is the only VA educational assistance program specifically designed for spouses, surviving spouses, 

and eligible children of certain veterans. This program offers up to 

45 months of educational benefits. 

The educational workload has been steadily increasing. From 

2000 until 2006, the number of education claims rose by 46 percent. Total claims for 2007 are expected to be 1.4 million, which 

represents a 2 percent increase over 2006. 

During the first quarter of 2007, original claims for educational 

benefits increased by about 13,000 or almost 20 percent over the 

same period in fiscal year 2006. We believe this could be an indicator of continuously increasing usage rates in our programs. 

We have developed a threefold strategy to manage the pending 

inventory and improve claims processing timeliness involving maximization of current resources, increased staffing, and information 

technology enhancements. 

We initiated a Contact Management Support Center in September 2006. This has allowed the Education Service to allocate 60 

additional employees, trained employees, to process and decide education claims. 

We have also increased staffing to handle the additional work 

claims from 2000 until 2006 direct FTE increase by 22 percent 

from 591 to 726. In fiscal 2006, additional hiring resulted in a net 

increase of 39 additional FTE. 

In the long term, we are pursuing IT enhancements and capabilities that will allow us to further automate claims processing as 

well as inquiry resolution. 

We are enhancing our current self-service Internet application 

known as WAVE. This application used by individuals to verify attendance and change addresses is being updated to allow claimants 

to view their electronic claims folders and confirm VA receipt of 

submitted documents. 

It is also being expanded to automate changes in direct deposit 

information. 

The Electronic Certification Processing System known as ECAP 

automatically processes enrollment certification submitted by 

schools. In fiscal 2006, 9 percent of our incoming supplemental 

claims, more than 105,000 claims, were processed through this 

electronic method thereby eliminating the need for human intervention. We are currently pursuing strategies to update ECAP and 

increase the percentage of claims processed automatically. 

This year, we are beginning to make progress toward achievement in our performance goals. Our targets for the end of fiscal 

2006 are to process original claims in 35 days and process supplemental claims in 15 days. Timeliness has improved for supplemental claims processing. 

Average days to complete has dropped from 20 days in 2006 to 

16 days in the first quarter of 2007. Average days pending for those 

claims that have not been decided yet has dropped from 23 days 

to 15 days. Average days to complete original claims has increased 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
9 

from 40 to 46 days from 2006 until the first quarter of 2007. This 

was the result of being able to process more older work since we 

were able to focus more resources on claims processing due to the 

Call Center Initiative. 

However, the reduction in average days pending for original 

claims from 39 days in 2006 to 32 days in 2007 reflects improvement in timeliness that will be reflected in improved average times 

to complete in our future workload. 

Expanded outreach to separating servicemembers has led to increased benefit usage. We distribute a series of informational brochures targeting servicemembers at 12 months following activation 

on active duty as well as 24 months after entering active duty and 

then a third time 6 months prior to separation. 

These brochures and targeted mailings are specifically tailored 

toward servicemembers who are eligible for the Chapter 30 MGIB 

Program. Mailings are sent to approximately 90,000 active-duty 

members on a quarterly basis. In 2006, VA has conducted more 

than 8,500 transitional assistance briefings for nearly 395,000 

attendees. 

For REAP, our newest benefit, we have distributed more than 

300,000 copies of our REAP brochure to activated Guard and Reserve units. Soon we will be doing direct mailings to REAP participants just as we now do for our Chapter 30 program participants. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you or any other Member of the 

Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears on p. 39.] 

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. Borom. 

STATEMENT OF BILL BOROM 

Mr. BOROM. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss 

the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program (VR&E). 

My testimony will provide an overview of the VR&E services and 

performance. 

The VR&E provides veterans with service-connected disabilities 

the necessary services to assist them in preparing for, finding, and 

maintaining suitable employment or achieving maximum independence in their daily living. 

The VR&E is an employment program that offers a wide variety 

of formal education, on-the-job training, apprenticeships, and internships to meet veterans’ individual career goals. 

The VR&E has implemented several programs and initiatives to 

ensure that servicemembers and veterans are informed about the 

program and are provided the services necessary to transition from 

the military to civilian life. 

In 2004, former VA Secretary, Anthony J. Principi, established a 

task force to study the VR&E Program. As a result of their recommendations, VR&E implemented the five-track employment 

process. The five-track process standardizes program practices and 

places the emphasis on employment up front and early on. 

In 2005, VR&E stationed 72 employment coordinators at regional 

offices across the country. Additionally, we established job reVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:40 Sep 27, 2007 Jkt 034308 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\34308.XXX 34308

bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
10 

sources labs at each regional office and an online employment Web 

site called vetssuccess.gov. These resources provide vital vocational 

and employment support leading to successful employment outcomes. 

The Disabled Transition Assistance Program is a vital component 

of transition assistance for servicemembers with disabilities. DTAP 

assists potentially eligible servicemembers in making an informed 

decision about VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation Program. In fiscal 

year 2006, VA conducted over 1,400 DTAP briefings with over 

28,000 participants. 

VR&E has expanded its outreach to Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and Operation Enduring Freedom servicemembers through an 

early intervention program known as Coming Home To Work. This 

program provides valuable civilian work experience in government 

facilities to servicemembers facing medical separation from the 

military. Currently the program has 121 participants receiving 

these early intervention services. 

Priority outreach and case management services are provided to 

OIF/OEF servicemembers and veterans who apply for the program. 

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment case coordinators ensure that servicemembers and veterans receive priority attention 

through the application, entitlement, and five-track employment 

process. 

VR&E and the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service continue to work together and have adopted a 

team approach to job development and placement activities to improve vocational outcomes for program participants. 

Currently 38 VA regional offices have 71 DVOPs or Local Veterans Employment Representatives collocated at their stations. 

Having these resources on-site is a best practice that enhances the 

efficiency of teamwork between the two agencies. 

VR&E has significantly improved services to veterans and 

servicemembers applying for and participating in VR&E programs. 

The rehabilitation rate, which is the number of veterans with disabilities that achieve their VR&E goals, as compared to the number that discontinue or leave the program before their completion, 

has improved. 

In fiscal year 2006, nearly 70 percent of program participants 

achieved rehabilitation status. Currently in fiscal year 2007, that 

rate has risen to over 74 percent. 

We have also seen improvement in the number of days it takes 

the veterans to enter the program. One way of measuring is by the 

days the veteran spends in applicant status. In fiscal year 2006, 

veterans spent an average of 58 days in applicant status. Currently 

in fiscal year 2007, the average is down to 53 days. 

Last fiscal year, approximately 9,000 veterans achieved their rehabilitation employment goals through the program. The majority 

of these individuals entered professional, technical, and managerial 

careers. 

VR&E workload is expected to increase as a result of individuals 

returning from OIF/OEF. To meet this need, we plan to hire additional staff in fiscal year 2007, increasing our on-board strength by 

over 100 employees. Additional FTE will reduce case management 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
11 

workloads by approximately 10 percent and will improve the timeliness of services provided to program participants. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you or any of the Members of the 

Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Borom appears on p. 41.] 

Ms. HERSETH. We thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Pedigo, and I hope I am pronouncing that correctly? 

Mr. PEDIGO. Yes, that is correct. 

Ms. HERSETH. Okay. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH PEDIGO 

Mr. PEDIGO. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss the VA Home Loan Program. In my testimony, I will 

highlight VA’s commitment to meeting the housing needs of our 

Nation’s veterans. 

The Loan Guaranty Program serves a clientele that is diverse in 

many ways. The only common denominator of this clientele is service in the Armed Forces of our Nation. We make it possible for veterans to compete in the marketplace for credit with persons who 

were not obliged to forego the pursuit of gainful occupations by reason of military service. 

The Loan Guaranty Program provides a guarantee to private 

lenders making loans to veterans. This guarantee enables veterans 

to purchase a home without the need to make a downpayment. 

Other important program benefits include making direct loans to 

Native-American veterans living on trust lands and providing specially-adapted housing grants to severely disabled veterans. 

Since the inception of the Loan Guaranty Program in 1944, VA 

has guaranteed more than 18 million loans totaling in excess of 

$914 billion. We believe that most of these veterans would not have 

been able to purchase a home at the time they did without the assistance of the no downpayment feature of this program. 

In the last 5 years, VA has assisted more than 1.4 million veterans in obtaining home loan financing totaling almost $197 billion. 

While there is no maximum VA loan amount set by law, most 

lenders presently limit these loans to $417,000. This limit is set by 

the secondary mortgage market which purchases most VA loans 

once they are made. 

Effective with enactment of Public Law 108–454 in December of 

2004, the maximum VA guarantee was indexed to the conventional 

conforming loan limit which is adjusted each January by the Office 

of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. In practical terms, this 

means that the maximum VA no downpayment loan amount will 

always be the same as the conventional conforming loan limit. This 

amount has been set at $417,000 for calendar year 2007. 

Like other homeowners, some veterans experience financial hardships that affect their ability to make mortgage payments. When 

this occurs, we help veterans retain their homes through supplemental servicing efforts. VA offers financial counseling and may intervene directly with a lender on the veteran’s behalf to set up a 

repayment plan. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
12 

When VA is successful in establishing a repayment plan that results in the delinquency being brought current, we call this a successful intervention. 

In fiscal year 2006, VA accomplished more than 8,700 successful 

interventions which translated into a savings to the government of 

$175 million in avoided claim payments. 

Madam Chairwoman, we are very honored to be able to administer the Specially-Adapted Housing Program. Veterans who have 

certain service-connected disabilities may be entitled to a SpeciallyAdapted Housing Grant or a Special Home Adaptation Grant depending on the nature of their disability. 

Both grants can be used to make adaptations to a home being 

constructed or to modify an existing home in order to meet their 

specific needs. 

The Specially-Adapted Housing Grant is limited to $50,000 and 

is generally used to create a wheelchair-accessible home. The Special Home Adaptation Grant is limited to $10,000 and is generally 

used to assist veterans who are blind or who have lost or lost the 

use of both hands or extremities below the elbow. 

The goal of these grant programs is to provide a barrier-free living environment which affords the veteran a level of independent 

living that he or she may not otherwise enjoy. In fiscal year 2006, 

we served 528 veterans through these grant programs, expending 

$24.6 million. 

Until enactment of Public Law 109–233 in June of 2006, grant 

recipients could only receive their grant benefit from VA one time. 

Now eligible veterans or active-duty servicemembers may receive 

up to a total of three such grants. 

In December of 2006, VA mailed letters to more than 16,000 living veterans who have received grants since 1948 notifying them 

of the statutory change which might entitle them to another Specially-Adapted Housing Grant. Primarily as a result of this outreach effort, we have already received over 2,000 formal inquiries 

requesting subsequent grant usage. 

Historically VA has completed between 400 and 600 grants a 

year. Because of the labor-intensive nature of the grant process, a 

substantial increase in workload will ensue. However, we are reallocating resources and streamlining program requirements to ensure that these veterans receive the high-quality personalized service that they deserve. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here, and look forward to answering 

any questions that you or the other Members of the Committee 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pedigo appears on p. 44.] 

Ms. HERSETH. Well, thank you very much to all of you. 

Mr. Wilson, if I may start with you. During a Subcommittee 

hearing last year, February 14th of 2006, this Subcommittee had 

a hearing which Mr. Ron Aument, the VA Deputy Under Secretary 

for Benefits, stated that the average number of days to complete 

original claims for 2005 was 33 days. I believe he also predicted 

this number to go down by the end of 2006 to an average of 27 

days. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
13 

But today in your testimony, you mentioned that you are setting a target of 35 days to process original claims for fiscal year 

2007. 

My question is, why is the time that it is taking to process the 

original claims expected to go up this year? 

Mr. WILSON. We saw a higher usage rate in 2006 than we had 

anticipated. So we did see more claims coming in than we anticipated and in order to counter that, we hired additional staff. We 

hired about 80 FTE in 2006, claims processors. 

It took a while for those individuals to get up to speed. So in 

some respects, they were more of a burden than a help in terms 

of getting the workload under control. So our pending inventory did 

get higher than we anticipated, which meant the processing time 

exceeded what we expected to see in 2006. 

In order to bring that down to where we wanted to be, one of the 

things that we did in addition to the hiring initiative was create 

the call center, National Call Center. We have been able to process 

in excess of 100,000 additional claims because of the resources that 

we were able to free up during that call center. 

And we have seen timeliness improvements. In fact, I just yesterday received the numbers for February and our processing time for 

original claims in February was actually 35 days, which was a significant improvement. 

Although it does not get us back in line with our original projections of 27 days, it is a significant improvement over what we saw 

in 2006. And I believe it positions us to continue to see that continued improvement in the processing time limits. 

Ms. HERSETH. Well, I hope you are right. And I would like you 

to, if you would, provide for the Subcommittee a quarterly analysis——

Mr. WILSON. Sure. 

Ms. HERSETH [continuing]. Of the time that it is taking. My hope 

is that the Budget Committee will review favorably our request for 

up to an additional thousand FTEs for VBA which hopefully would 

give you some discretion to add more. 

[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Wilson.] 

Education Service: A quarterly analysis of the time it takes to process an education claim. 

For the first quarter of FY07, overall Education claims processing timeliness is as follows: 

First Quarter FY07 

(average days to complete) Original Supplemental 

Chapter 30 (MGIB–AD) 41.1 15.0 

Chapter 1606 (MGIB–SR) 42.9 18.1 

Chapter 1607 (REAP) 55.4 17.5 

Chapter 35 (DEA) 57.8 21.4 

All Benefits 46.2 16.4 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
14 

Ms. HERSETH. You know, back when I first joined the Committee 

working with Mr. Boozman and former Chairman of the full Committee, now Ranking Member, Mr. Buyer, I had some concerns 

with the Administration’s proposal for fiscal year 2006, which actually proposed cutting FTEs for the Education Service. 

We were able to negotiate no cuts. I was hoping we could add, 

but at least the Administration anticipated the increased usage 

proposed for fiscal year 2007, an increase saying now of, I think, 

14 FTE for fiscal year 2008. I want to monitor this very closely. 

And before I ask you a question about the new customer service, 

the contract, because I have a constituent who had a particular experience that was not good, let me just have you clarify. 

On page six of your written testimony, in the second full paragraph, it says, ‘‘Average days to complete original claims increased 

from 40 days in fiscal year 2006 to 46 for the first quarter of 2007. 

However, the reduction in average days pending for original claims 

from 39 days in fiscal year 2006 to 32 days.’’

What is the difference in average days to complete original 

claims and average days pending for original claims? 

Mr. WILSON. Sure. When we look at our workload in terms of 

how effectively we are meeting our timeliness goals, we look at it 

from two perspectives. We look at it from the historical perspective 

in terms of how we have been doing and what future indicators 

lend us to believe we will be able to do in the future. 

And the two mechanisms we use to measure that are average 

days to complete, which means for those decisions that we have 

completed and the individual has been paid, that is how long it 

took us to process that work. 

Ms. HERSETH. Okay. 

Mr. WILSON. Those things are already completed. 

Average days pending is the measurement of the claims that we 

have pending that have not yet had decisions rendered on them. 

Ms. HERSETH. All right. 

Mr. WILSON. So it gives us an indicator of what our future timeliness is going to be. Ultimately what we try to do is drive down average days pending as much as possible because that is our leading 

indicator of how we are going to be doing in the future. 

Ms. HERSETH. Okay. And the average days pending, when does 

the clock start ticking? 

Mr. WILSON. When it is received in the processing office, the day 

it is received in the processing office. 

Ms. HERSETH. And the day that it is received in the processing 

office is the same day it gets entered into the system? There is no 

lag time, right, from when——

Mr. WILSON. Correct. 

Ms. HERSETH. Okay. All right. I will come back for a few questions during the second round, but I would ask Mr. Boozman if he 

has some questions. I am pretty sure he does. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

I want to ask all of you. One of our concerns last year, one of 

our ongoing concerns, and this is truly a concern of the Committee’s, a concern of Congress, is the unemployment rate among our 

veterans. Especially there is a subset in there that was pretty high 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
15 

and we were kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out what 

was causing that. 

Can you tell us kind of how that is going and get into some of 

the things that you are doing to try and address that? You mentioned the job fairs and some of the other things along with the 

standard things that we have been doing for years. 

But I guess my concern is, you know, we are in a situation now 

where the country economically is doing well. The economy is 

strong. Unemployment is low. 

And I think it is great, Mr. Wilson, you mentioned the 20-percent 

increase in whatever. So it sounds like people are using, you know, 

the opportunity to pursue education, which in the future is going 

to help us with those things. 

But if you all could just comment real quick on that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. The unemployment rate for young veterans 20 

to 24 years old has traditionally been higher than the unemployment rate for nonveterans in the same cohort. For the past 20 

years, the unemployment rate for veterans in general is about 1 

percentage point below the national average. Right now it is about 

3.8 percent. The national average is about 4.7. 

It is not a new phenomenon. The unemployment rate for nonveterans who are 20 to 24 is also up there, but it is not quite as 

high. 

The difference we think is this. Young people come in the military about 18 or 19 years old, so they are going to get out when 

they are 22, 23, 24. When they get out, they are generally going 

to go into their first full-time civilian job. 

Now, when they are in the military, they are not writing resumes 

and interviewing for jobs. And they do not understand there is a 

career workforce system and they are not going to college. They 

may take some college and online courses while they are in the 

military, but generally do not have college degrees. 

The kids coming in the military today are very smart. They all 

have high school educations and they all score well on the Armed 

Forces Qualification Test. We have very high-quality individual 

servicemembers in the military. 

So when they come out of the military, they are slightly behind 

their contemporaries in terms of applying for jobs. This is why 

transition assistance is so important when they make the jump 

from the military to civilian life. 

When you look at the barriers for young veterans coming into the 

workforce, the first barrier is that they have trouble translating 

their skills, experience, and education onto their resumes. And this 

is not just true of young veterans who are 20 to 24 years old. This 

is true of colonels, generals, and sergeant majors. 

And the reason is, and when you look at one of their resumes, 

it says that they were the ‘‘CINC’’ of JTF, alpha, or something like 

that. Nobody can understand that. Employers just simply do not 

understand that. 

When you are in the military, you do not interview for jobs. You 

are usually assigned your jobs, so veterans when they first come 

out do not do well on their interviews. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
16 

This is why in the Transition Assistance Program we have to 

focus it on translating the skills that they have onto resumes so 

employers can understand it, and they have to do practice interview sessions so that they practice looking people in the eye, having the proper posture, and they can respond to questions. 

Now, this is what we are doing with the Transition Assistance 

Program. 

There has not been a lot of research done on these young veterans. The VA, the Department of Labor, and Defense are working 

together on this. 

VA has got a study now. They are going to look at 2,000 servicemembers, 1,000 who are active duty, 1,000 who are Guard and Reserve, and they are going to ask them some questions about when 

did you get your job, how long did it take, did you use your military 

skills, so that we will have a better insight into them. 

I commissioned a study last year with the University of Chicago. 

And we took a look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ national longitudinal study of youth, and that is 9,000 youth who were age 12 

to 16 in 1997. So they are 22 to 24 years old now. 

What we found was that the first week they get out of the military, their unemployment rates are very high, about 32 percent. 

Every month after that, the rates go down. They go down dramatically. So at the third month, they were at about 24 percent. At the 

sixth month, they were 11 percent. At the ninth month, they were 

consistent with veterans in general. 

Now, you have to be careful what sort of conclusions you draw 

from that. We have a phase two of that study. We need to go back 

to those veterans. They do a 90 minute interview with them every 

year so we can find out a lot of stuff from them. 

But it suggests to us that veterans take their time, young veterans take their time when they get out of the military, and they 

may not take the first job. It suggests, and the Defense Department can corroborate this, that they use their unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers while they are looking for a job. 

And that is fine. That is what it is there for. It provides a cushion. 

But it also tells us that some of them may go to school and go 

to training or something like that. But it also tells us that some 

may take a break because of post-traumatic stress because of the 

combat that they have been in. And it may suggest that some of 

them do not have the confidence and do not think that they are 

highly skilled and can enter the workforce. 

So those are the individuals that we have to get into the career 

one-stop centers to connect directly with our veteran employment 

representatives because our veteran employment representatives 

can look those folks in the eye, most of them are veterans themselves, and they can tell whether they are touched by post-traumatic stress and they can refer them to the VA or they can help 

them with their resumes and help them get into the workforce that 

way. 

If you have only a high school education and you are in the combat arms, maybe you do not think you have a lot of skills, but our 

veterans today have great skills. They come in. They are highly 

qualified. While they are in, they train, they learn. And when they 

come out, they are exactly what employers are looking for. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
17 

And we talk to employers all the time, and employers are looking 

for not only the hard skills like the medics and the technical skills, 

but they are more often looking for people who come to work on 

time, who are drug free, who have initiative, they are success oriented, they have got loyalty, and they have got integrity. And so 

employers want to hire veterans. The issue is connecting them with 

veterans. 

We need more research so we have a better window into the 20- 

to 24-year-old veterans, but what we really need to do is we need 

to get more troops to go through the transition employment workshop and we need to help those troops translate their skills on to 

resumes. We need to practice interviewing skills and we need to 

make them aware that there is a workforce system out there and 

there are VA services out there and those services are for them. 

And we need to connect them to those services. 

Now, the unemployment rate for young veterans in 2004 was 

13.6 percent. In 2005, it was nearly 16 percent. Then in 2006, it 

has gone down. It is about 10.4 percent. So we think we are addressing it in the right way, but we have got to get more troops 

to the transition employment workshop. We have to make sure the 

transition employment workshop has deliverables so they come out 

with a resume and they come out having done an interview so 

when they go for a job, it is not the first time they have written 

a resume and it is not the first time they have interviewed. 

And this is not, you know, rocket science. This is real easy to figure out. So that is what we are trying to do. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Go ahead if you would like. 

Mr. BOROM. Adding from the VR&E side on that, we have had 

some similar experiences. I was a field counselor for many years. 

And as I have worked with many field counselors, the experience 

that Labor has seen with what we refer to as soft skills, interview 

skills, ability to write a resume, it does hamper employment initially. 

We do work with the veterans that come into the voc rehab program, the servicemembers who work with the Labor Department, 

on trying to improve their soft skills and improve resumes, interview skills, do mock interviews, whatever we need to help them get 

through that interview process. 

Though we work with a smaller set of veterans, you know, the 

disabled group as compared to the Labor Department, oftentimes 

due to the disabilities that the veteran servicemember has, they 

may not be able to go back to the kind of work they did before. And 

so we often are looking at assisting the individual with getting into 

more suitable work. 

We want to capitalize where we can on their skills that they 

have had, but oftentimes that may have been of a physical nature 

and they perhaps cannot do that kind of work anymore and additional training may be needed. Hence, they are not moving into the 

labor force at that point. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
18 

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. McNerney, do you have questions for the 

panel? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Borom, listening to your testimony concerning the Coming 

Home to Work Program, you mentioned that in fiscal year 2007 

through January 31st, and I realize that is a fairly short timeframe, but the 121 servicemembers participating seemed extraordinarily low compared to the number of veterans out there that 

might need this service. 

Is there any explanation why that is such a small number? 

Mr. BOROM. At this point, it is a small program. It is only located 

at we will say seven areas, but really eight sites. It is a new program, so we are trying to form the partnerships in the community 

with other government agencies who work with the individuals 

who are in the military treatment facilities. We see that number 

is increasing. But at this point, that is as many that—I want to say 

as many as has been in the program. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. In your opinion, that is a successful program, it 

turns out good results? 

Mr. BOROM. I think it is a successful program. We want to see 

more individuals get hooked into the work programs that it is designed for. As the field counselors are working in that direction, 

they are making new contacts. I was recently in Augusta, Georgia, 

at Fort Gordon, matter of fact, where they just opened up a new 

facility. And while there, what we were doing was making those 

community contacts and working with the military in trying to get, 

you know, transportation needs met so we can get individuals to 

the work sites. 

Sometimes what does occur with trying to work through some of 

the issues with DoD and the individuals, they may have a lot of 

medical appointments and as we try to work through some of that, 

it is sort of a dynamic process. 

I think it is a successful program. I think it is very useful for the 

servicemembers who are on medical hold, particularly as they are 

looking at going perhaps back into civilian employment. 

And not all do. Some actually turn back to military service, active duty, you know, who are in the program. But it does give them 

real-life work experiences in that capacity. So, yes, I do think it is 

successful. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Wilson, on the electronic certification processing, you claim 70 percent of the cases were handled electronically before human intervention. 

One of the things I am interested in is, have you gotten any feedback from the veterans as to how they like the interaction with the 

electronic system and how accurate are those claims that are being 

handled electronically? 

Mr. WILSON. We have had nothing but positive feedback concerning the interaction the veterans have had with our IT systems. 

It has in many situations replaced what was previously a paper 

process for them. So it saves a lot of time for them and it is certainly a lot easier for them. 

On average right now, for instance, when an individual is required to go in and do their monthly certification that they actually 

attended school, it takes less than a minute to actually do that 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
19 

now. Instead of manually filling out a form, putting it in an envelope, sticking a stamp on it, mailing it off to us, they go on line, 

on to their account, click it, and that information is transmitted directly to us. So we have had nothing but positive feedback. 

Concerning the accuracy, one of the reasons that we have what 

I would consider a smaller percentage of claims processed electronically than we would like is that the mechanisms we use to set it 

up ensured that it had to be 100 percent accuracy. We would not 

accept anything where a computer would potentially generate an 

incorrect payment. And we are comfortable that that has not happened. So those payments are 100 percent accurate. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you. 

We have also been joined, as you see, by another new Member 

of our Subcommittee, Mr. Donnelly of Indiana. You are recognized. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Borom, we have seen an increase in vets coming back with 

mental disabilities who are struggling and need counseling. And I 

was wondering in your particular area what is being done to meet 

that need? 

Mr. BOROM. As a servicemember or veteran who has applied to 

the program, and let us say they are in the program just to make 

it easier, as we identify people who have mental health issues, be 

it stress disorders or depression, whatever that may be, we would 

use community resources as available, we would use VA hospital 

referrals as available to that person. 

And counselors, voc rehab counselors themselves, can do, you 

know, counseling. Typically they do it on a more as-needed basis, 

brief counseling as needed. If additional services are needed, as 

someone is identified as needing more long-term treatment for 

stress disorders, then we typically would work with the VA hospitals to coordinate those services. 

You know, part of our goal is to make sure, because it is important, it is an element that affects their employment or potential 

employment or even the potential sometimes to even get through 

a rehab program, and so usually up front, we want to identify that 

and take proactive measures on it. 

Mr. DONNELLY. So they are looking for that when someone is 

coming in, if someone is discussing that? 

Mr. BOROM. Yes. 

Mr. DONNELLY. And then, Mr. Pedigo, in terms of housing, you 

know, we have seen a lot of articles about subprime loans recently 

and the difficulties that are being encountered in that area. 

And I was wondering if you are providing credit counseling to 

veterans to make sure that they do not wind up about 4 months 

into this purchase of a home looking up and saying, ‘‘what have I 

gotten into.’’

Mr. PEDIGO. Congressman, we do not provide individual credit 

counseling to veterans. We do not have the capacity to do that. 

However, we do tell veterans that they should go online and take 

a credit counseling course that was developed by the Ginny Mae 

Corporation, which is a government corporation and part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
20 

However, once a veteran gets a loan, we are very mindful of the 

fact that for various reasons, some of them are not able to continue 

to make their payments at times. Consequently, we have a staff at 

our nine regional loan centers that are very personally involved in 

providing counseling to veterans in an effort to try to set up a repayment plan so that they can avoid foreclosure. 

In my testimony, I mentioned the successful interventions, which 

is a situation where our intervention is successful in helping the 

veteran bring his or her loan current. Over the last 5 years, VA accomplished a little over 50,000 successful interventions, saving the 

government approximately $985 million. 

So while we cannot provide the counseling in depth up front, we 

are very active once the veteran gets the loan in helping that veteran avoid foreclosure. 

Mr. DONNELLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. HERSETH. Well, thank you for your questions, Mr. Donnelly. 

Mr. Boozman, did you have further questions for the panel? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I did actually. 

Ms. HERSETH. Go ahead. You only got the one in. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, I would just like to visit a little bit about 

the TAP Program because it does go into and I thought the discussion that you all had concerning the rate of unemployment in that 

age group that we are concerned, I thought that was very, very 

good, and I appreciate your efforts. 

The TAP Program, and, again, working with Ms. Herseth the 

last couple of years we visited several of those facilities. And just 

in being around troops, and traveling, all over the world, I was in 

Landstuhl a couple of weeks ago, you know, visiting there. It is a 

well-received program. It is very, very good. I know you all have 

worked hard on it. 

Do we have the record-keeping abilities so that we can sit down 

and see what DoD installation is doing, and what it is not doing? 

And then we can take that information and then we can decide, 

you know, what we do with that to see an improvement in the installations that are not getting it done. 

Would that be a difficult thing to do? Is that something that you 

could access for us? Does that make sense? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. 

[The Committee received a follow-up letter from the U.S. Department of Labor, dated July 23, 2007, from Mr. Ciccolella, which appears in the Appendix. The response to this query is included in 

the response to question 5A.] 

Mr. BOOZMAN. And the other side, too, is, I mean, we have—and 

we were just visiting—we have got commanders that because of 

their force structure are making decisions. Do people go to TAP 

class or do we function, you know, so I understand that is a problem. 

But go ahead. Like I say, is there a way to access that information? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. We track the participation per transition employment workshops, so we can provide the number of participants 

by workshop. 

What we do not do is track the servicemember as they leave the 

military. We capture whether they are employed or not through the 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
21 

wage record information record system, but we do not take Social 

Security numbers during transition. 

I understand the question. I applaud the question. The services 

do, I think, a very good job of trying to get as many of their servicemembers through the transition employment workshop, but it does 

not always work that way. Sometimes operational requirements of 

the commanders preclude a servicemember from attending the TAP 

Program or they attend on the first day and then they are taken 

off and put on a detail on the second day, that kind of thing. 

It is very important in my view, and I made this clear to the Defense Department, it is very important that we do everything that 

we can once a servicemember makes the determination that they 

are going to leave the military, not before that because then you 

are competing with DoD for that person, once they have made that 

decision, and they make that decision when they do their pre-separation counseling, there is a check that they make indicating that 

they want to go to a transition employment workshop, then it is 

incumbent on commanders at all levels to send their servicemembers to TAP. 

If we are going to ask these servicemembers to deploy and fight 

during two or three deployments, then we ought to be able to give 

them a week or three or four days so that they can transition properly out of the service. 

I think the services are trying to increase participation. It is not 

moving as fast as it probably should. We are getting 65 percent of 

the servicemembers through TAP, but we need to get about 85 percent. Some people do not necessarily want to go to TAP. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Right. Exactly. I would appreciate it, though, if 

you could provide us a graph of the areas where so many people 

are rotating out and then, of that group, who received the TAP Program versus, you know, kind of in areas. If you could do that, that 

would be helpful. 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. We can provide to you the number of servicemembers, Congressman Boozman, who attend the TAP Program. 

[The graphs were previously supplied by the Department of 

Labor, and have been included at the end of the July 23, 2007, U.S. 

Department of Labor follow-up letter, from Mr. Ciccollela.] 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Can you tell us if it was in Norfolk versus someplace else? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. What we may not be able 

to tell you is that if a unit comes back and it has got 800 people 

in it, we cannot tell you how many of those individuals, you know, 

are leaving the military. What we can tell you is, you know, how 

many servicemembers are going to the transition workshops. 

[The Committee received a follow-up letter from the U.S. Department of Labor, dated July 23, 2007, from Mr. Ciccolella, which appears in the Appendix. The response to this query is included in 

the response to question 5B.] 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I would just be interested in declaring if they 

are——

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Yes. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Can I ask one more thing? Would you mind? 

Ms. HERSETH. Sure. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
22 

Mr. BOOZMAN. The only other thing I would like to comment on 

and then ask you—I am really concerned about this—you know, 

Walter Reed is in the newspaper and all right now, as far as the 

facility and stuff. I would really like to see if we could have those 

folks who are over there and you, go over and visit. They do their 

rehab and then they are back watching television and stuff. 

Is there an opportunity to go ahead and get the occupational 

therapist in there very quickly to find out what they want to do, 

and then when they are not in rehab, almost have a situation 

where, you know, we are getting them to a community college or 

college or whatever. See what I am saying, and start that process 

right then when they have really got a lot of time on their hands 

and things, but almost start some pilot program where it is pretty 

inclusive because the numbers are not that great? I mean, they are 

great, but they are not that great. 

But try and get those folks where at the end of their rehab, we 

are not getting them a job, but we are getting them a career that 

being the end goal. And that is something that, you know, like I 

say, I would be very interested in. 

And I know we will have her comment in a second, but it does 

seem like that, not that we are not doing a bad job. I do not mean 

that. It is just I think in these situations, we kind of need to start 

thinking outside of the box a little bit. It has always been done that 

way. 

And, again, you know, if you will give me some comments and 

feedback, I would be very, you know, very delighted to see if we 

could help you with that. 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Exactly right. When servicemembers come back 

and their wounds are taken care of and they are stabilized, then 

they go through the process of either being returned to the force 

or they go through the process of the evaluation boards to leave the 

military. 

Regrettably that process takes a long time. The services to their 

credit do not want to release servicemembers unless they are as 

well as possible. But sometimes it takes 18 months or 24 months, 

and you hit the nail on the head. What do they do during that 12 

to 18 months. 

Here is what we have done at Balboa out in California. We have 

got the CISCO people out there with the Department of Veterans 

Affairs and Department of Labor people, and they are offering 

training, information technology training, so they will be able to do 

some certification type training, information training. So that is a 

good model right there. 

I was in a meeting today and we are looking at what we might 

be able to do out at Walter Reed. I agree with you on the point that 

once you start a program like that, then the other medical centers 

will want to do the same thing. 

I think I would like to leave it on this note. We will get back to 

you with what we come up with out at Walter Reed. But we have 

got a lot of ideas and we have got a lot of good ideas about what 

could be done, because you are exactly right. Troops go to formation in the morning. They go to a medical appointment and then 

the rest of the day, they may not have a lot to do and they are 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
23 

going to be there for a lengthy period of time. And it is a very difficult situation. And you are right. It is in the news. 

[The following was subsequently received from the Department 

of Labor:] 

The Department of Labor has provided a description of their ‘‘Transition 

Training Academy,’’ as it outlines the problems servicemembers face during 

the rehabilitation process, and more importantly, it describes what VETS 

are doing to tackle these problems. The Transition Training Academy description appears in the Appendix. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

Let me just pick up from there, Mr. Ciccolella, and ask you about 

Operation War Fighter. I know that the Department of Labor is a 

partner in executing this program that offers opportunities for active duty who are wounded or injured to be placed in temporary assignments within different Federal agencies. 

The question may be specifically to the situation we are facing 

at Walter Reed. How many of the 140 servicemembers that have 

participated in this program have actually been Walter Reed outpatients? Do you know? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. I can find that out. I think the majority have—

I think the number is 150. All of them, yeah. 

Ms. HERSETH. All of them? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. The number should be 157. That should be the 

updated number. Maybe we did not put that in the testimony. And 

50 of those have already been hired by Federal agencies. 

[The Committee received a follow-up letter from the U.S. Department of Labor, dated July 23, 2007, from Mr. Ciccolella, which appears on p. 47. The response to this query is included in the response to question 2 on p. 48.] 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. The program, I think, Madam Chair, was designed as part of the therapy when they are recovering from their 

wounds and they intern in a sense with the Federal agencies. But 

it has turned out much, much better than that. 

And we have got a person who works at the seriously injured 

center or severely injured center, who briefs the folks out at Walter 

Reed about the opportunities, interviews them, and tries to match 

their skills with the requirements from the Federal agencies. 

And it is a pretty good response from the Federal agencies. And 

I think there may be a couple of congressional offices that have 

also come in on this. 

I will tell you it is a very good way to get good leadership, you 

know, people with some leadership skills into the Federal workforce at a time when a lot of people in the Federal workforce will 

be leaving just because they will be aging out of the Federal workforce. 

Ms. HERSETH. I agree with you. I think that it also, as some of 

these young men and women experience some anxiety, at least that 

is what has been told to me about this process of trying to medically retire or medically discharge, so they do not want that process 

to proceed so quickly at times, and I think that this program has 

a lot of potential. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
24 

Do you know what the average time has been to assign these individuals? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. I would have to find that out for you, but we 

would be happy to do that. 

Ms. HERSETH. If you would just provide us with some additional 

information on how this program is working from your perspective. 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Sure. Absolutely. 

[The Committee received a follow-up letter from the U.S. Department of Labor, dated July 23, 2007, from Mr. Ciccolella, which appears on p. 47. The response to this query is included in the response to question 4 on p. 48.] 

Ms. HERSETH. I would appreciate it. 

I will have more questions, Mr. Ciccolella, in a minute. But I 

want to go back, if I might, to Mr. Wilson. 

Tell me about the contract customer service for the 800 number. 

I see that it was initiated September of 2006, and I am wondering 

how much training and what kind of training the individuals that 

are fulfilling this contract received and what types of questions 

they can and cannot answer when someone calls in, because, as I 

previously mentioned, I have got a two-page, single-spaced letter 

from a constituent about a really bad experience. And this unfortunately for him was the first contact he had with the Education 

Service, and if you could provide me a little more detail on how 

that is working. 

Mr. WILSON. Absolutely. I would be glad to. I share some of the 

same sort of concerns, I believe, that you have. I would like to 

start, if I could, with just a touch of a background concerning why 

we created the call center in the first place. 

As you have already mentioned, our timeliness was not where we 

wanted it to be last year. The number of pending claims was not 

where we wanted it to be. The impact of standing up the new 1607 

Program was significant for us. There is no question about it. 

We wanted to address the pending inventory as aggressively as 

we could with the understanding that we had when we were developing this initiative the fall enrollment creeping closer and closer 

to us, and it was our desire to stand the call center up as much 

before the fall enrollment as possible to allow what I would refer 

to as a ramp-up time so that people could learn by OJT in addition 

to the training, et cetera. 

The time line did not match in reality what we were hoping to 

achieve and the training was condensed. The individuals on the 

phones at the call center received about a week’s worth of training 

initially. 

The mission of the call center was never to take all calls going 

into the processing offices. The mission of the call center was to 

take what we refer to as tier one calls, which are your very simple, 

you can look at a screen or two screens and answer the question, 

for instance, what is the status of my claim, did the school submit 

my enrollment certification, those type of things that are very easy 

to teach people how to answer those type of questions. 

The call center again was designed to allow us to free up resources to reduce the pending inventory. I believe it was successful, 

but I also believe that we did pay a pretty steep price, quite honestly, concerning the customer service aspect of things. The call 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
25 

center attendants were provided with refresher training on a regular basis. We did quality monitoring as well as the contractor 

doing quality monitoring. 

We are still not satisfied with what we ended up seeing from a 

quality perspective. It was much more difficult for us to manage 

that than we had anticipated, again taking into account this is our 

first time dealing with this type of arrangement and we have 

learned a lot of lessons from the call center experience. 

I can tell you that because of the overall experience and the lessons that we have learned, we have made the decision not to continue the call center. The call center will be terminated. The last 

day of operation for them will be March 16th, which I believe is 

a Friday. From that point, the calls will be going back to the regional processing offices. 

Having said that, there are a lot of things that we believe we 

learned that were good as well. The concept of a call center served 

us well in terms of the resources that it made available and the 

impact it had on the pending time limits. It did not have a good 

result in this instance with what we also were hoping to do in 

terms of improving the service we are providing on the phones. 

Ms. HERSETH. I appreciate that, Mr. Wilson. I am glad to hear 

it is ending March 16th. I understand why you did it. 

But given what happened and not staying on the time line that 

you would have liked the condensed training, it does raise the issue 

of making sure that you have adequate resources, that you do not 

have to compromise on the customer service end to meet the issue 

of the workload side. 

And so I appreciate your testimony and the fact that not only 

you, but in sharing that with us, we can learn some lessons from 

the experience as well and how call centers may or may not be the 

most effective options given what we are faced with. 

Let us see. You mention on page three of your testimony that we 

went, from 2000 through 2006, we increased FTEs from 591 to 726. 

Do you have any idea how many of the 591 of those that are still 

with the Education Service, how many of those individuals may be 

retiring within the next 1 to 2 years, how many are eligible for retirement? 

Mr. WILSON. I do not. I would have to research that and find out. 

Ms. HERSETH. There is a lingering concern with regard to the 

new folks that you are bringing on and how much time they have 

to work with these very seasoned and experienced folks. It would 

maybe be helpful for us to see that if you could get us that information. 

Mr. WILSON. Absolutely. Sure. 

[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Wilson:] 

Education Service: Provide approximate number of education service FTEs eligible for retirement. 

We estimate the number of retirees eligible in the overall Education business line to be approximately 200. Historical data shows that about 8 percent of those eligible to retire do so, therefore, we would expect approximately 16 FTE to retire over the course of the current FY. Based on our 

estimated number of FTE for FY08, and if previous trends continue, we 

would expect 17–18 employees to retire in FY08. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
26 

Ms. HERSETH. I may be testing Mr. Boozman’s patience here 

with how long I am taking. 

I agree with you, and I know that Mr. McNerney and I think Mr. 

Donnelly, too, may have probed this. In terms of your IT backbone 

that you want to continue to build on to best serve all veterans but 

this younger generation that is particularly savvy in using IT, what 

is your timetable? 

You say in the future that you plan to add additional benefit information like payment information, remaining entitlement, the 

eliminating date. Do you have a timetable for when you would like 

to integrate that and do you have the resources identified in which 

to accomplish it as well? 

Mr. WILSON. We do. We have got a short-term strategy for IT as 

well as a long term. In the short term, what I would refer to as 

the quick hit type things in terms of enhancing our existing IT applications, we are hoping to have those rolled out before the fall enrollment, because those are relatively straightforward things that 

we believe we can leverage relatively quickly. 

Long term, what we are hoping to do, and I will have to find out 

the exact time frame, is refresh our entire base of applications and 

create more of an integrated tool that we refer to as TEES, which 

is simply The Education Expert System, and that will really fundamentally leapfrog us into a new level of technology. 

Ms. HERSETH. I think that will be very helpful because, as you 

know, a number of the higher learning institutions that these 

young men and women are then utilizing their benefits for have become very sophisticated in allowing access electronically to their information. And so we would not want the Education Service in the 

minds of these young men and women to be so far behind, so I am 

glad we are focused there. 

[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Wilson:] 

Education Service: What is the timetable for full TEES IT integration? 

We anticipate full TEES integration to be completed by October 2011. 

Ms. HERSETH. I do want to submit one question for the record 

if you could follow up, because I have a few questions for the other 

panelists. And it relates to something that has recently come to my 

attention. I would prefer additional information on how it works. 

It is regarding the so-called rating system that is used to evaluate 

employees’ ability to process claims. Is that——

Mr. WILSON. Rating system? 

Ms. HERSETH. A rating system. Is there some rating system that 

exists? And what I will do is—we just heard about this from a constituent yesterday—we will provide you some information. Maybe 

we just need some clarity from his end and your end as to how that 

works. 

Mr. WILSON. Sure. I would be glad to provide whatever. I am 

drawing a blank right now. 

Ms. HERSETH. Okay. 

Mr. WILSON. But obviously we will provide whatever we have. 

[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Wilson.] 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
27 

Education Service: Information regarding a rating system, which 

addresses an employee’s ability to process claims. 

The Education Service utilizes a National Performance Standard to rate 

an employee’s ability to process claims. Each Regional Processing Office retains the discretion to adjust those performance standards higher than 

what the national average suggests. Elements measured in the performance 

standard include per month claim production, quality, and customer service. 

Ms. HERSETH. Thanks. 

Mr. Ciccolella, I am currently working on legislation that would 

eliminate some of the job training service restrictions currently 

placed on veterans’ spouses. 

As you know, a spouse can only receive job training assistance 

from veteran employment specialists if a servicemember died of a 

service-connected disability, is a POW, is MIA, or is totally disabled. 

And we heard from some veteran employment specialists at our 

one-stop career centers that they would like to be able to offer services to more spouses that are currently restricted from doing so. 

Would you support legislation that would open the door for more 

spouses to receive job training services? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. You mean from the veteran employment representatives? 

Ms. HERSETH. From them, yes. 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Well, we do it for those who are seriously 

wounded and injured. We provide assistance to the caregivers, the 

families, the parents, and, you know, the spouses. So we do that. 

Ms. HERSETH. But that is for——

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Those are seriously wounded, severely wounded 

and injured. So that is part of our REALifelines Program. 

Ms. HERSETH. So what is the disability rating requirement, a 

hundred percent? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. No. For example, if a servicemember is recovering from their wounds or injury, they call the Military Seriously 

Injured Center or the Army or the Marine Corps. We have somebody there. And if it is an employment inquiry, we will take a look 

at that. 

A lot of times, the servicemember may still be in the service or 

may be out of the service, but may not be ready to go to work. So 

the caregiver is going to be the spouse. So we do that. We help that 

spouse or the parent into employment. 

Now, on a larger scale, let us take the example of helping 

spouses nationwide or targeting it to spouses of deployed units or 

something like that, I think the Department would have to take a 

look at that and look at the workload. And we would probably have 

to get some feedback from the States. 

Is it doable, yes. Would I support it? I would like to get a more 

coordinated position on it. 

[The Committee received a follow-up letter from the U.S. Department of Labor, dated July 23, 2007, from Mr. Ciccolella, which appears on p. 47. The response to this query is included in the response to question 1.] 

Ms. HERSETH. I would appreciate it if you would gather more information with regard to workload and getting feedback from the 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
28 

States who are partners in your efforts. That would certainly be 

helpful to us at the point where we may choose to have a legislative hearing on that and other legislation during the 110th Congress. 

Mr. Pedigo, I know you have a plane to catch, so I do not have 

any specific questions for you. I just wanted to let you know before 

you have to leave that I believe, and I need to talk to Mr. Boozman 

to have my memory refreshed about some conversations we had on 

this in the last Congress as well, we think that the specially-adapted housing grants have not kept pace with the increased cost of the 

construction of adaptive homes. And so we are reintroducing legislation to increase the amount of those grants. 

And I am also going to be introducing legislation to correct an 

oversight with regard to what you referred to in your testimony 

about allowing veterans and servicemembers to receive up to a 

total of three grants. In the aggregate, they could meet their maximum amount, but there was an oversight unfortunately and it was 

written in a way that excludes the active-duty component. I wanted 

to let you know we plan to introduce legislation to correct that 

oversight. 

Mr. PEDIGO. Thank you. And we appreciate that. That is a very 

special program, and we want to make sure that those veterans get 

everything that they should have coming to them. 

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you and thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. PEDIGO. Thank you. 

Ms. HERSETH. Now, if I might, Mr. Ciccolella, just two questions 

regarding some followup from the Subcommittee hearing that we 

had May 12, 2005. 

Members of the Subcommittee expressed concern regarding the 

Department of Labor’s lack of a report on VETS’ activities as required by Chapter 41. And I know that since that time, we did receive an annual report and expect to receive another one shortly. 

Could you give us the status on when we might be seeing that 

report? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. The 2005 report is late. It is done and it should 

be out very shortly. And the 2005 report is late by about a year, 

and the 2006 report is late almost by a month. We are working on 

that now. And I do not have a time line on that. We also have a 

Congressional report on USERRA due, the ‘‘Uniform Services Employment Reemployment Rights Act,’’ and that report is in the offing right now. 

Ms. HERSETH. I appreciate it. I know that there was sort of a lag 

time and hopefully we will get on track and go forward from there 

as we get ready for the 2007 one, if you can get those two off your 

plate. 

[The response is included in the July 23, 2007, DOL letter, from 

Mr. Ciccollela in response to question number 3, which appears on 

p. 48.] 

Ms. HERSETH. And then also at that same hearing, Veteran Service Organization representatives raised concerns about having 

DVOPs and LVERs perform duties inconsistent with VETS missions. I think it was actually that they were performing some nonveteran related work at the one-stop career centers. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
29 

Do you have any information in terms of the status of addressing 

that concern, if that is a concern that is lingering, that we might 

hear the same concern expressed if our Veteran Service Organization representatives were testifying today? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Madam Chair, the law says that the DVOP and 

LVER serve only veterans. It does happen where they serve nonveterans. Hopefully that is inadvertent and, of course, any services 

to nonveterans cannot be charged against the ‘‘Job for Veterans Act 

State Grants.’’ So it can be done in that context. 

It can also be done where you have a half-time DVOP or LVER. 

If they are providing a half-time service to veterans, four hours 

each day, and then the other four hours they have another workforce function. But, again, the four hours of nonveteran service cannot be charged to the grant. 

There are some situations where in a highly-devolved system like 

the workforce system where you have everyone operating slightly 

differently and the boards and the one-stop career centers each operate a little bit differently, there are situations where the veteran 

employment representatives are put in positions where they serve 

nonveterans. When we find out about that, we try to correct that 

situation. 

Ms. HERSETH. I would appreciate it if you would continue to 

monitor that. And understand that sometimes as the information 

is exchanged, especially if they are part time, that there may be 

some confusion that is caused there. 

One last question. I appreciate the attachment number three 

that you included where it showed the number of cases closed on 

USERRA. 

Do you have an average time that it takes to close a case? 

Mr. CICCOLELLA. Offhand, I do not. I think it is 54 days for the 

average case. Now, most cases are resolved almost immediately. 

They are within a few days or a week. But the average time, I 

think, is over 50 days. And we report that in our annual report, 

but we can report what it is currently for the record. 

Ms. HERSETH. Thank you. 

Just a final couple of questions, Mr. Borom, on your area of jurisdiction here. I will save that one for last. You testified that you 

have started providing one-on-one DTAP briefings at the 

polytrauma centers. I am curious as to how that is going. 

I visited the Minneapolis polytrauma center, and I am wondering 

how many of these one-on-one briefings you provide and the timing 

of them, if they happened within this 90-day timeframe that I 

think the polytrauma centers utilize to try to make substantial 

progress with the seriously brain-injured servicemen and women in 

particular. 

Do you have that information? 

Mr. BOROM. I do not have that at this time, but that is something we can go back and look forward to getting to you. 

Ms. HERSETH. If you could, and then maybe break it down by 

how many have occurred at each of the four polytrauma centers— and do they occur just a week prior to them being released from 

the polytrauma center or does it occur after they have been medically retired or discharged? 

[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Borom:] 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
30 

Question: Number of one-on-one DTAP briefings being provided 

at each of the four polytrauma centers and when do they occur 

(while the servicemembers are still on active duty, within 90 days, 

or when they are discharged)? 

Response: The field stations reported a combined total of 97 individual 

DTAP presentations at the polytrauma centers so far in FY07. In FY06, a 

total of 239 individual DTAP briefings were conducted at the polytrauma 

centers. Due to the nature and severity of their disabilities, not every individual at a polytrauma center is ready for the DTAP briefing. 

And then on page six of your testimony, you state in fiscal year 

2006, 9,225 veterans achieved their rehabilitation employment 

goals through that time. 

Do you know what percentage that constitutes? 

Mr. BOROM. That is another piece of information I can get to you. 

[The following was subsequently received from Mr. Borom:] 

Question: What percentage of the 9,200 veterans that VR&E 

claimed has reached their employment goals does this constitute? 

Response: The 9,200 veterans rehabilitated in FY 2006 after reaching 

their employment goals is 10.3% of VR&E’s total workload. VR&E’s total 

workload is comprised of 6,352 veterans in applicant status, 13,737 veterans in evaluation and planning status, 3,268 veterans participating in extended evaluation programs to determine their feasibility to achieve employment at this time, 3,340 veterans participating in Independent Living 

plans, 46,667 veterans participating in Rehabilitation Plans, 6,980 veterans 

participating in Employment Services, and 8,782 veterans interrupted from 

their program due to various issues. 

Ms. HERSETH. Okay. Thanks. 

One last question. Yesterday, we had the legislative presentation 

at a joint hearing of the VFW. A concern was raised that the 

VR&E needs to look into the future when it comes to training and 

educating disabled veterans. This along the line of where Mr. 

Boozman has probed previously. 

The VFW would like to see veterans find meaningful careers instead of a quick job, just putting them into a job as opposed to the 

longer-term career strategy that I know you and the folks who 

work with you try to develop for our service-connected disabled veterans. 

Do you have any response to testimony like that from the VFW 

or others who have expressed that concern? 

Mr. BOROM. I would probably say this. The process of a servicemember or veteran as they enter the program, there is a dual relationship between themselves and the counselor that they are working with. 

The approach is that we are trying to work with veterans, looking at their interests, their aptitudes, abilities, and where they are 

wanting to go in life, and the direction of what would be suitable 

and sustainable employment, you know, for the future. 

Some veterans come out and their needs are more immediate employment just given their situation in life, and perhaps short-term 

training is what they need at that point. Others may come out and 

at that time in their life, they can go for a little bit longer program, 

and that is appropriate for them at the same time. 

So due to the individualized nature of each personal program, it 

is really looked at individually. VR&E does not go in with the concept that everyone who walks in the door that we are going to try 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
31 

to get you into immediate short-term employment. It is an individual program. It is going to be what is most appropriate for that 

veteran at that point in time. 

Ms. HERSETH. I appreciate it, and I do appreciate your patience 

in answering all of the questions that we have had for you today. 

I do want to thank not only our witnesses but the Members of 

the Majority and Minority staff of the Committee in assisting us 

in preparing for today’s hearing and the followup that we will be 

pursuing with you. We appreciate your input. 

Mr. Boozman, thank you again. 

With that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(32) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth 

Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Good afternoon. The Veterans’ Affairs Economic Opportunity Subcommittee hearing on the performance, staffing, and services provided by the Education, Loan 

Guaranty, and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) programs of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, and Veterans’ Employment and Training Service 

(VETS) of the Department of Labor will come to order. 

I would like to thank Ranking Member John Boozman for his leadership as past 

Chairman of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee. I look forward to again working with you. In addition, I would like to welcome the new Members of the Subcommittee, Representatives Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Jerry McNerney of California, 

and John Hall of New York. I look forward to building upon our strong bipartisan 

relationship so that we may provide our Nation’s veterans the best available services they need and deserve. 

Earlier this year, Ranking Member Boozman, other Members of this Subcommittee, and I discussed the hearing topics to be covered during the 110th Congress. I am proud to say that we have an ambitious list that includes expanding 

education benefits for National Guard and Reservists, examining the funding levels 

for State Approving Agencies, reviewing the VA’s procurement goals with respect to 

veteran and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and other important 

issues. 

First and foremost, Ranking Member Boozman, I look forward to working with 

you and our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to update the Montgomery 

G.I. Bill for National Guard and Reserve servicemembers. These brave soldiers continue to support military missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the 

world. Unfortunately, although they are being called to duty and mobilized for an 

average of 18 months, their educational benefits do not reflect their increased service to our Nation. When the Montgomery G.I. Bill was signed into law in 1984, 

servicemembers of the Guard and Reserve were rarely mobilized, and that simply 

is not the reality today. Again, I look forward to working with you to address this 

issue, passing legislation that will better reflect the reality of today’s military and 

ensure that the enormous contribution and sacrifice of Guard and Reserve servicemembers are more equitably recognized. 

Like many of my colleagues, I have spent the last few days meeting with veterans 

from across my state. Those meetings have generated many questions and concerns 

that I hope to address here today. I am particularly interested in hearing about the 

VA’s efforts to address the education claims workload and problems associated with 

the centralization of education claims service operations. 

I would like to thank our panelists for being here with us today to participate in 

a frank dialogue with Members of this Subcommittee. I encourage you to continue 

to work with us, so that we may ensure our servicemembers, veterans, and their 

families are properly cared for and receive the best available services to help them 

transition back to civilian life after their honorable service to our country. 

Much progress has been made in education benefits, vocational rehabilitation 

services, and VA home loans programs. However, I think everyone would agree that 

we must remain vigilant to maintain against any decline in benefits or customer 

service. 

Thank you all again for being here. I look forward to hearing from you. 

I now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman for any opening remarks that 

he may have. 

f 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
33 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman 

Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Good afternoon and thanks to each of our witnesses for taking time to be here 

today. Budget season is always a busy time around here but the sometimes hectic 

schedule serves a good purpose, and that is a more thorough understanding of the 

President’s budget for the next fiscal year. 

Before I begin my remarks, at our final Subcommittee hearing of the 109th Congress, I mentioned the possibility that Ms. Herseth and I would be changing roles 

on the Subcommittee. And darned if that didn’t happen. So Stephanie, congratulations on assuming the chair and as I stated in November, I will give you the same 

bipartisan support you so graciously gave to me. I am confident we will have another productive session with you at the helm. 

As a general rule, the President sent us a good VA budget. Not perfect, but good 

and both sides of the aisle have presented our views and estimates to the Budget 

Committee. Now it is up to them to pass a Budget Resolution that works. 

I believe that we were in agreement with the Majority when it came to suggesting 

1,000 additional FTE for VBA. We also suggested additional funding for IT programs and the need to conduct significant business process reform because just piling more FTE every year will not solve the structural issues preventing rapid processing of claims of all types. 

The challenge is before VA and VETS to make programs work. It is clear that 

the people expect not just programs, but ones that actually deliver the goods to the 

beneficiaries. We need to get the processing times down for both VR&E and education. Last session, we mandated a report on streamlining education processing 

and I hope the Department will send us a legislative proposal to change the way 

they do business if that is required. 

The Veterans Employment and Training Service still lacks sufficient data in 

many areas and I look forward to Mr. Ciccolella’s testimony on how they propose 

to do better in that area. One thing I am very disappointed in is the flat budget 

recommendation for the National Veterans Training Institute in Denver. As you 

know, P.L. 109–461 imposed new training requirements for DVOPs and LVERs and 

when the staff visited NVTI last year, they were told that NVTI would probably 

need an additional $1 million to meet the additional throughput, so you might want 

to address that shortfall here today. 

Madam Chairwoman, congratulations once again and I yield back. 

f 

Statement of Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Veterans’ Employment and Training, U.S. Department of Labor 

Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to appear before you today to give you an overview of the programs 

administered by the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS). 

VETS has 240 full time Federal staff, the majority of which are deployed in the 

states. We deliver our programs and services to the states, including the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico, through 6 Regional Administrators and 52 State Directors. 

Our principal programs and services focus on three areas: 

• Employment assistance for veterans in America’s publicly funded Workforce Investment System (One Stop Career Services) 

• Employment assistance for separating military members 

• Protecting servicemembers’ employment rights 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
34 

THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT SYSTEM 

Employment assistance for veterans through the workforce investment system is 

accomplished through four programs: One Stop Career Services, Homeless Veterans 

Reintegration Program Grants, Veterans Workforce Investment Program Grants, 

and the HireVetsFirst Campaign. 

One Stop Career Services are provided through the Jobs for Veterans Act State 

Grants. These are formula based grants awarded on an annual basis to the 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These grants provide funding to 

support Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER) and Disabled Veteran 

Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists located in over 3,200 One Stop Career Centers throughout the country. 

These veteran employment specialists help veterans find good jobs, they conduct 

employer outreach, and they facilitate transition assistance workshops in the continental United States. The specialists also help veterans navigate the public workforce investment system and connect veterans to an array of workforce preparation—including training—services available at the One Stop Career Centers. In accordance with the Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 (JVA), Public Law 107–288, we ensure that veterans accessing services in the One Stop Career Centers receive priority of service. 

The difference between duties of the veteran employment specialists is that 

DVOPs provide outreach services and intensive employment services to meet the 

employment needs of eligible veterans, with priority to disabled veterans and special 

emphasis placed on those veterans most in need. LVERs conduct outreach to local 

employers to develop employment opportunities for veterans, and facilitate employment, training and placement services to veterans. In particular, many LVERs are 

the facilitators for the Transition Assistance Program employment workshops. 

The JVA, as amended, gave the states flexibility to employ full- or half-time 

DVOP and LVER staff as the state determines necessary to carry out their veteran 

services plans. The JVA also changed the funding formula. The funding now made 

available is based upon the total number of veterans residing in the state that are 

seeking employment as a ratio of the total number of veterans seeking employment 

in all states, taking into consideration civilian labor force data. 

In support of these DVOP/LVER positions, VETS will continue to provide an operational framework to facilitate the optimum delivery of services to assist states in 

their mission of leading veterans toward appropriate employment. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert 34308A.001
35 

The FY 2008 request for State Grants is $161,894,000. This level of funding is 

expected to support 2,100 DVOP and LVER positions. We anticipate that this program will serve nearly 700,000 participants. 

The Jobs for Veterans State Grant program received the second highest rating 

(moderately effective) based on the Administration’s Program Assessment Rating 

Tool (PART) review in FY 2005. Two of the PART recommendations call for performance management improvements, which have been implemented for PY 2006 and 

will continue to be refined in future years. The third PART recommendation calls 

for an independent evaluation, which is in progress and will be completed by the 

end of FY 2007. Since the program was restructured in FY 2003 by the Jobs for 

Veterans Act, this program has exceeded our national goals. 

During Program Year (PY) 2004, which ended on June 30, 2005, the Entered Employment Rate was 60% for veterans (exceeded goal by 2%) and 56% for disabled 

veterans (exceeded goal by 2%). At the end of PY 2005, outcomes for veterans and 

disabled veterans showed an increase of 1% for all veterans and maintained the 

same rate for disabled veterans. 

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E). Since much of the 

interface with the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Vocational Rehabilitation 

and Employment (VR&E) service is through the workforce investment system, at 

this point I would like to briefly discuss that relationship. VR&E and VETS continue to work in partnership, along with State Workforce Agencies (SWAs), on behalf of VR&E job ready veterans who are referred to and registered with the State 

Workforce Agencies for intensive employment services. 

Our partnership to increase the employment opportunities and placement in suitable employment of service-disabled Chapter 31 veterans is defined in a formal 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and the results continue to improve. That positive working relationship has also carried over into other initiatives and strengthened cooperation and coordination with VETS’ state partners. 

Of particular note is the establishment of three working groups under the MOA. 

The goal of each work group is to improve the quality of employment services and 

suitable job placements for veterans with disabilities enrolled in the VR&E program. 

Each work group has an established list of roles and responsibilities directing their 

efforts. The work groups are: 

• Performance Measures for Assessment of Partnership Program Results 

• National Veterans’ Training Institute (NVTI): Curriculum Design 

• Joint Data Collection, Analysis, and Reports 

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP) is a competitive grant 

program. Grants are awarded to states or other public entities and non-profits, including faith-based organizations, to operate employment programs that reach out 

to homeless veterans and help them become gainfully employed. 

The purpose of the HVRP is to provide services to assist in reintegrating homeless 

veterans into meaningful employment within the labor force and to stimulate the 

development of effective service delivery systems that will address the complex problems facing veterans. HVRP is the only nationwide program focused on assisting 

homeless veterans to reintegrate into the workforce. 

VETS is requesting a total of $23,620,000 for this activity in FY 2008, an increase 

of $1,840,000 over FY 2007, enabling 15,095 homeless veterans to participate. 

The HVRP program is a highly successful grant program. It has recently received 

the second highest rating on the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) in FY 

2006. One recommendation from the PART review is to strengthen accountability 

by applying common measures. In response, VETS has begun applying common 

measures to this program, beginning with PY 2006. Another PART recommendation 

calls for conduct of a rigorous evaluation, to begin in 2007. In response, the Department has allocated FY 2007 funds for that purpose and VETS currently is developing a statement of work for a competitive award to a contractor during FY 2007. 

During FY 2006, HVRP had an entered employment rate of 72.8%, which exceeded 

the goal by over 4%. 

Veterans Workforce Investment Program (VWIP) grants support efforts to ensure veterans’ lifelong learning and skills development in programs designed to 

serve the most-at-risk veterans, especially those with service-connected disabilities, 

those with significant barriers to employment, and recently separated veterans. The 

goal is to provide an effective mix of interventions, including training, retraining, 

and support services, that lead to long term, higher wage and career potential jobs. 

Services provided by grantees also include employment assistance and case management by DVOP and LVER staff. An important emphasis in this activity is on 

recently separated veterans in support of the Secretary’s goal of a Competitive 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
36 

Workforce. Through the VWIP grants, VETS will continue to promote initiatives in 

high demand occupational areas, such as health care. VETS requests $7,351,000 in FY 2008 to serve 4,390 veterans. In FY 2006, VWIP 

had a 75% entered employment rate. 

HireVetsFirst Campaign (www.hirevetsfirst.gov) began in support of the President’s National Hire Veterans Committee established by the JVA. It has been a successful campaign, and the Web site has been averaging 35,000 unique visitors each 

month. So far, 46 Governors have signed proclamations indicating their support for 

hiring veterans by designating Hire Veterans First months. Last year, we hosted 

the first National Veterans Employment Summit and 17 veteran job fairs in partnership with media, veteran and military organizations. This year, over 120 veteran 

job fairs will be co-sponsored or co-branded by the Hire Vets First Campaign. 

TRANSITION SERVICES 

Transition services include the Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops, REALifelines program, and Operation War Fighter. 

Transition Assistance Program (TAP) Employment Workshops are provided 

to transitioning servicemembers at most military installations in the United States 

as well as in eight overseas locations. The TAP employment workshop is a Department of Labor-facilitated employment session which is conducted in partnership 

with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the VA. The two and one-half day employment workshops help servicemembers prepare a plan for obtaining meaningful 

civilian employment when they leave the military. The workshop focuses on skills 

assessment, resume writing, job counseling and assistance, interviewing and networking skills, labor market information, and familiarization with America’s workforce investment system. 

Studies have shown that servicemembers who participate in TAP employment 

workshops find their first civilian jobs 3 weeks earlier than veterans who do not 

participate in TAP. VETS estimates that about 65% of servicemembers leaving active duty do attend a TAP workshop. We are working with DoD to increase participation. VETS continually updates the TAP workshop curriculum to reflect current 

hiring practices, and to include online content. Agency partners, such as the Employment and Training Administration, also provide feedback on TAP workshop content. For example, we are working to ensure that every TAP participant leaves the 

session with a draft resume, a practice interview session, and having visited their 

state job board. 

VETS also works with National Guard and Reserve component commanders in 

the states to provide TAP employment workshops for Reserve and National Guard 

members when they return from their deployments. In addition, electronic resources 

and tools to assist transitioning servicemembers are being developed in collaboration with DoD. 

Attachments 1 and 2 to this statement summarize the TAP participation levels 

and workshops for the past several years. 

REALifelines. Jointly established in 2004 by the Veterans’ Employment & Training Service and the Department’s Office of Disability Employment Policy, 

REALifelines provides severely wounded and injured servicemembers and their families with personal, one-on-one employment assistance while they are recovering at 

military medical treatment facilities. REALifelines staff operate at the Military Severely Injured Center (MSIC) and are forward positioned at Walter Reed Army Medical Center; National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda); Brooke Army Medical Center; Fort Carson, Colorado; Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort Lewis Washington; 

Naval Medical Center at Balboa; and Tripler Army Hospital, Hawaii. We are exploring additional forward positioning of REALifelines representatives located with the 

Army and the Marine Corps. Thus far, the REALifelines program has provided employment related assistance to over 2,700 severely injured servicemembers. Over 

150 servicemembers have been employed through the program. We also posted useful information regarding the REALifelines program on the Department’s Web site 

on ‘‘Employment Laws Assistance for Workers and Small Businesses’’ (elaws), which 

can be found at www.dol.gov/elaws/realifelines.htm. 

Operation War Fighter (OWF) is a DoD program that allows active duty 

wounded and injured individuals to be placed in temporary assignments with Federal agencies in concert with an agency’s needs and the individual’s interests. DOL 

is proud to assist with the execution of this program. 

Many of the severely wounded and injured have little or no civilian labor experience. OWF provides opportunities to these servicemembers who may be in medicalhold pending a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). Before a servicemember can enter 

into such an employment arrangement, the treating physician must approve it. The 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
37 

work schedule has to revolve around the patients’ medical and rehabilitation needs. 

Over 140 servicemembers have been able to participate in OWF, with 50 currently 

assigned and 20 awaiting assignments. 

EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS 

Employment rights programs include the Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act, Veterans’ Preference, and the Disabled Veterans Hiring 

Initiative. 

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

(USERRA) protects the civilian job rights and benefits of veterans and members 

of the armed forces, including National Guard and Reserve members. USERRA also 

prohibits employer discrimination due to military obligations and provides reemployment rights to returning servicemembers. VETS administers this law, conducts 

outreach and education, and investigates complaints by servicemembers. 

Since September 11, 2001, nearly 600,000 National Guard and Reserve members 

have been activated for military duty. During this same period, DOL/VETS has provided USERRA assistance to over 410,000 employers and servicemembers. Since 

most complaints result from a misunderstanding of the USERRA obligations and 

rights, we have made the law easier to understand through clear regulations and 

an interactive USERRA Advisor that includes an online complaint filing capability. 

The Advisor is available any time at www.dol.gov/elaws/userra.htm. We conduct 

continuous USERRA outreach and education. We aggressively investigate when employers do not comply with the law and we make every effort to bring them into 

compliance. We are constantly improving our USERRA investigative program. 

After 9/11, USERRA complaints rose from approximately 900 per year, to over 

1,500 per year. Complaints have leveled off at around 1,500 per year. However, the 

rate of complaints, as compared with the last significant mobilization (First Gulf 

War) has been dramatically reduced. VETS works closely with DoD’s Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Reserve Affairs and the National Committee for Employer 

Support of the Guard and Reserve to ensure that servicemembers are briefed on 

their USERRA rights before and after they are mobilized. Attachment 3 summarizes 

our USERRA caseload. 

Veterans’ Preference is authorized by the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944. The 

Veterans’ Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA) of 1998 extended certain rights and 

remedies to recently separated veterans. VETS was given the responsibility to investigate complaints filed by veterans who believe their Veterans’ Preference rights 

have been violated. 

VETS is responsible for investigating and attempting to resolve Veterans’ Preference complaints against Federal agencies filed under the VEOA. The VEOA provides that a veteran or other preference eligible person who believes that his or her 

rights under any law or regulation related to veterans’ preference have been violated, may file a written complaint with VETS. We carry out our responsibility 

under the VEOA through the use of trained investigators in each of our state offices. 

In addition to our investigative responsibility, VETS conducts an extensive compliance assistance program. This outreach is focused on educating potential veterans’ preference eligibles and Federal agencies with regard to Veterans’ Preference 

rights and responsibilities. VETS developed an interactive Veterans’ Preference Advisor that allows Veterans’ Preference claimants to officially submit using an electronic version of Forms 1010 (E–1010). 

The Disabled Veterans Hiring Initiative was started in 2002 and is designed 

to educate Federal agency Human Resource and hiring authorities on the benefits 

of hiring veterans and how they can be easily brought into Federal jobs for which 

they qualify using special noncompetitive hiring authorities. 

Two specific authorities have been available for many years—the Veterans Recruitment Authority (VRA) and the special authority for veterans rated 30% disabled or more by their military service branch or the VA. 

The VRA allows a Federal agency to appoint noncompetitively an eligible veteran 

to a position to which the veteran is qualified up to and including GS–11. Disabled 

veterans have preference over non-disabled veterans. 

The 30% or more appointment authority is similar, but is available at any grade 

level including GS–15. 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

The VETS’ Federal staff provides program management and delivery of the previously discussed programs and services. 

The field staff of approximately 75 serve as grant officer technical representatives 

for both the formula Jobs for Veterans State Grants and the competitive HVRP and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
38 

VWIP grants. Over 100 of the field staff are trained investigators who conducted 

investigations for USERRA and Veterans’ Preference cases. In addition, field staff 

conduct extensive compliance assistance outreach services to employers and servicemembers. 

For Fiscal Year 2008, a total of $33,282,000 is requested for this activity, an increase of about $3.1 million over funding for this activity in FY 2007. This includes 

244 FTEs, an increase of 4 FTE above the FY 2007 level. 

The National Veterans’ Employment and Training Services Institute 

(NVTI) was established to ensure a high level of proficiency and training for staff 

who provide veterans employment services. 

NVTI provides training to Federal and state government employment service providers in competency based training courses. The primary objective is to increase 

the service providers’ productivity through increased knowledge. The NVTI effort 

ensures universality of training services for veterans and all direct client service 

providers. 

The total request for FY 2008 is for $1,949,000. The request addresses our requirement to train nearly 2,000 veteran service providers. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today before the Subcommittee. 

This concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

ATTACHMENT 1 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert 34308A.002
39 

ATTACHMENT 2 

ATTACHMENT 3 

USERRA CASES CLOSED 

f 

Statement of Keith M. Wilson, Director, Education Service, Veterans 

Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Good afternoon Chairwoman Herseth, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members 

of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) education benefit programs. My testimony will highlight workload, staffing, and services provided under the Montgomery 

GI Bill (MGIB)—Active Duty (chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code), the Montgomery GI Bill—Selected Reserve (chapter 1606 of title 10, United States Code), the 

Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) (chapter 1607 of title 10, United 

States Code), the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program 

(VEAP) (chapter 32 of title 38, United States Code), and the Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance Program (DEA) (chapter 35 of title 38, United States 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert 34308A.003 Insert 34308A.004
40 

Code). I will also discuss outreach efforts related to the education benefits and automation tools that support these programs. 

The Chapter 30 and Chapter 1606 MGIB programs provide veterans, servicemembers, and members of the National Guard and Selected Reserve with educational assistance, generally in the form of monthly benefits, to assist them in reaching their 

educational or vocational goals. The Reserve Educational Assistance Program provides an enhanced benefit for reservists and those in the National Guard who are 

activated for more than 90 days due to an emergency or contingency as defined by 

the President or Congress. Chapter 32 VEAP was the first GI Bill program that required a contribution by the servicemember. VEAP provides matching contributions 

for educational programs of participating veterans who first entered on active duty 

after December 31, 1976, and before July 1, 1985. Together, these programs assist 

in the readjustment to civilian life, support the armed services’ recruitment and retention efforts, and enhance the Nation’s competitiveness through the development 

of a more highly educated and productive workforce. 

The Chapter 35 DEA is the only VA educational assistance program designed for 

spouses, surviving spouses and eligible children of certain veterans. The program offers up to 45 months of education benefits. These benefits may be used for degree 

and certificate programs, apprenticeship, and on-the-job training. Remedial, deficiency, and refresher courses may be approved under certain circumstances. 

Through the end of fiscal year 2006, VA has provided education benefits to more 

than three million individuals and paid over $27 billion in benefits through the programs that are the subject of this testimony. 

Workload Trends 

The education workload has been steadily increasing. From 2000 through 2006, 

the number of education claims rose by 430,549, a cumulative increase of 46 percent. Total claims for 2007 are projected to be 1.4 million, an increase of over 2 percent from 2006. During the first quarter FY 2007, original claims increased by more 

than 13,000, or almost 20 percent, over the same period in FY 2006. We believe this 

could be an indicator of continuingly increasing usage rates. 

Workload Strategy 

We have implemented a three-fold strategy to manage the pending inventory and 

improve claims timeliness involving maximization of current resources, increased 

staffing, and information technology enhancements. 

We initiated a Contract Management Support Center (CMSC) in September 2006. 

CMSC is staffed with contract customer service representatives who handle education calls that are received through the toll-free number, 1–888–GIBILL1. This 

has allowed the Education Service to allocate 60 additional FTE to processing and 

deciding education claims. 

We are also increasing staffing levels to handle the additional claims work. From 

2000 through 2006, direct FTE increased by 22 percent, from 591 to 726. In FY 

2006, additional hiring resulted in a net increase of 39 direct FTE. Production has 

increased substantially and will continue to increase as new staff become more experienced. We expect the 758 direct FTE for FY 2007 to handle the anticipated workload increase and continue to improve performance indicators. We expect to process 

1,432,447 education claims in 2008, a 2.4-percent increase over 2007. We believe 

that the 772 direct FTE requested in the FY 2008 budget can process the workload 

and also reverse some of the timeliness deterioration experienced from 2004 through 

2006. 

In the longer term, we are pursuing IT enhancements and capabilities that will 

allow us to further automate claims processing and inquiry resolution. We have developed Internet applications to provide functional support to claims processing and 

customer service activities. These tools have helped to improve performance and reduce the waiting time for many claimants. We are enhancing one of our current selfservice Internet applications, Web Automated Verification of Enrollment (WAVE). 

The application, used by individuals to verify attendance and change addresses, is 

being updated to allow claimants to view their electronic claims folders and confirm 

VA’s receipt of a submitted document. It is also being expanded to automate 

changes in direct deposit information. In the future, we plan to add additional benefit information, such as payment information, remaining entitlement, and delimiting date. Displaying more information for each individual should reduce the number of inquiries that we receive each year. 

VA also uses the RightNowWeb (RNW) inquiry response system to answer general 

questions submitted electronically without requiring a person to intervene. RNW is 

able to respond to basic questions automatically in 95 percent of the inquiries. In 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
41 

cases where RNW is unable to automatically respond, a person is available to provide assistance in a timely manner. 

VA–ONCE, an application that allows school certifying officials to transmit enrollment data electronically to VA, has been in use since FY 2003 and has been well 

received. Using data from VA–ONCE, the Electronic Certification Processing 

(ECAP) system automatically processes enrollment certifications. In FY 2006, 9 percent of our incoming claims, more than 105,000, were processed using these electronic methods. Seventy-three percent of cases had some processing completed before being worked by a VBA employee. Of the incoming chapter 30 claims, 16 percent were processed automatically. We are currently pursuing strategies to update 

ECAP and increase the percentage of automatically processed claims. 

The attainment of Education Service’s strategic goals is dependent upon the successful migration from the Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) to the new VBA corporate environment. The Education Expert System (TEES) will replace current BDN 

claim and payment processing support. Additionally, when fully deployed, TEES will 

receive application and enrollment information and process that information electronically, reducing the need for human intervention. 

Performance 

This year we are making progress toward achievement of our performance goals. 

To date in FY 2007, we have reduced the average age of pending original claims 

by 30 percent and the average age of supplemental claims by 39 percent from our 

peak enrollment period in October 2006. Our targets for the end of FY2007 are to 

process original claims in 35 days and to process supplemental claims in 15 days. 

Timeliness has improved for supplemental claims processing. Average days to 

complete dropped from 20 days in FY 2006 to 16 days for the first quarter of FY 

2007. Average days pending dropped from 23 days in FY 2006 to 15 days for the 

first quarter of FY 2007. 

Average days to complete original claims increased from 40 days in FY 2006 to 

46 days for the first quarter of FY 2007. However, the reduction in average days 

pending for original claims from 39 days in FY 2006 to 32 days for the first quarter 

of FY 2007 reflects improvements in timeliness that will be reflected in lower average days to complete in the future. 

Outreach 

Expanded outreach to separating servicemembers has led to increased benefit 

usage. We distribute a series of informational brochures targeting servicemembers 

after 12 and 24 months of active duty and again 6 months prior to separation from 

service. The brochures are specifically tailored toward servicemembers who are eligible for the Chapter 30 MGIB, and designed to enhance their awareness and understanding of the education benefit. Mailings are sent to approximately 90,000 active 

duty members on a quarterly basis. In 2006, VA also conducted more than 8,500 

transition assistance briefings for nearly 393,000 attendees. 

For REAP, our newest benefit, we have distributed more than 300,000 copies of 

our new REAP brochure to activated Guard and Reserve units nationwide. 

More than 46,000 REAP informational DVD discs are being produced, along with 

almost 65,000 informational discs on both the Chapter 30 and Chapter 1606 MGIB 

programs. The goal is to have the informational discs distributed to all military installations by the end of March 2007. Additionally, we will soon begin direct mailing 

of REAP informational material to activated Guard and Reserve members as we 

now do for Chapter 30-eligible servicemembers. 

Education Service will continue to enhance current outreach efforts to better serve 

the informational needs of servicemembers, veterans, reservists, and dependents potentially eligible for or currently using VA education benefits. We will develop and 

disseminate informational materials and promotional items to both active duty 

members and veterans. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or any of the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

Statement of Bill Borom, Deputy Director, Vocational Rehabilitation and 

Employment Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs 

Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for inviting me here today to discuss the Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E) Program administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

My testimony will provide an overview of VR&E program services and performance. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
42 

Program Overview 

The VR&E program provides veterans with service-connected disabilities the necessary services to assist them in preparing for, finding, and maintaining suitable 

employment, or achieving maximum independence in their daily living. The VR&E 

program is an employment-driven program that utilizes education and apprenticeship training in support of a participant’s vocational goal. Veterans with disabilities 

participate in a wide variety of formal education, on-the-job training, apprenticeships, and internships to meet their individual career goals. 

Special Programs and Initiatives 

VA’s VR&E Service has implemented several programs and initiatives to ensure 

that servicemembers and veterans are informed about the VR&E program and are 

provided the services necessary to transition from military service to civilian life. 

Five Track Employment Process 

In 2004, former VA Secretary Anthony J. Principi established a Task Force to 

study the VR&E Program. As a result of the Task Force recommendations and to 

advance employment opportunities for veterans with service-connected disabilities, 

VR&E Service implemented the Five Track Employment Process. The Five Track 

Process standardizes program orientation practices; integrates veterans, counselors 

and employment professionals through a comprehensive triage (evaluation) phase; 

and places the emphasis on employment up front and early on in the rehabilitation 

process. The Five Track Process empowers veterans with informed choice through 

one of five employment options: 

• Re-employment with their previous employer. • Rapid Access to Employment through job-readiness preparation and incidental training opportunities. • Self-employment for the most seriously disabled veterans. • Employment Through Long-Term Services that include formal training 

and education programs leading to a suitable employment goal. • Independent Living Services that maximize independence in daily living for 

veterans who are currently unable to work. 

In 2005, the VR&E Service stationed 72 Employment Coordinators (ECs) at regional offices across the country. The primary function of the EC is to provide veterans with disabilities any necessary job-readiness skills in addition to job referral/ 

placement services. The ECs also support the Five Track Process. 

Additionally, the VR&E Service established Job Resource Labs within each regional office and VetSuccess.gov, an online employment resource. These resources 

provide vital vocational and employment support to program participants, enabling 

them to make positive training and employment decisions leading to successful employment outcomes. The VR&E Service has developed working partnerships and 

signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with Federal, State, and private-sector 

employers who have agreed to train and hire veterans participating in the VR&E 

Program. The VR&E Service has also expanded its relationship with faith-based and 

community-based organizations for careers in a host of not-for-profit employment 

areas. 

Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP) 

DTAP is an integral component of transition assistance for servicemembers who 

may be released because of disability or who believe they have a disability qualifying them for vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits and services. The 

goal of DTAP is to encourage and assist potentially eligible servicemembers in making an informed decision about VA’s vocational rehabilitation program. It is also intended to facilitate the expeditious delivery of vocational rehabilitation services to 

eligible persons by assisting them in filing an application for vocational rehabilitation benefits. To ensure that the widest possible military audience receives DTAP 

briefings, responsibility for providing DTAP presentations is the shared responsibility of members of the Public Contact Team of the Veterans Service Center and 

members of the Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment Division at each VA regional office. Recent improvements to the DTAP program include: 

• Standardized PowerPoint presentations and a standardized video that provide 

information on the VR&E Program and introduces the Five Track Process. The 

DTAP presentation is available online at www.vetsucess.gov. • QuickSeries booklet on VR&E benefits and services distributed during DTAP 

briefings. 

• 80,000 DTAP CDs distributed to Military Transition Centers in FY 2006. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
43 

• DTAP oversight visits for quality assurance and best practices. 

• One-on-one DTAP briefings provided to servicemembers receiving treatment at 

the Polytrauma SCI Centers. 

• An updated MOU signed on September 19, 2006 between VA, DOL, DoD and 

DHS. 

In FY 2006, VA conducted 1,462 DTAP briefings with 28,941 participants. This 

fiscal year through the end of January 2007, 493 DTAP briefings have been conducted with 9,407 participants. 

Coming Home to Work (CHTW) Program 

The VR&E Service has expanded its outreach to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) servicemembers and veterans through early 

intervention and seamless transition initiatives, to include the Coming Home to 

Work (CHTW) program. CHTW provides valuable civilian job skills, exposure to employment opportunities, and work experience to servicemembers facing medical separation from the military and uncertain futures. Participants work with a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor to obtain work experience in a Government facility 

that supports their career goals. In FY 2007 through the end of January: 

• 16 servicemembers are participating in active work experience programs with 

Federal agencies while awaiting discharge or return to duty orders. 

• 121 servicemembers are receiving early intervention services in preparation for 

work experience programs, including vocational counseling, testing, and administrative support necessary for successful placement in a work experience program. 

• 24 servicemembers have returned to active duty following early intervention 

services. 

• 108 veterans participating in the CHTW program at a military treatment facility were referred to their local Regional Office for continuation of VR&E services. 

• Seven veterans have been hired directly by their work experience employers 

upon discharge from active duty. 

Priority OIF/OEF Processing 

Priority outreach and case management services are provided to OIF/OEF servicemembers and veterans who apply to the VR&E program. Regional offices recently 

designated specific individual(s) to serve as the Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment Case Coordinators (VRECC). These case coordinators ensure that servicemembers and veterans receive priority attention through the application, entitlement, 

and Five Track Employment Process. The case coordinators also participate in 

VR&E early intervention and outreach activities, including the Coming Home to 

Work Program. 

Partnership with the Department of Labor Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service (DOL–VETS) 

The VR&E Service and the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Veterans’ Employment 

and Training Service (VETS) continue to work together to provide employment services through our MOU signed in October of 2005. VETS and VR&E have adopted 

a team approach to job development and placement activities to improve vocational 

outcomes for program participants. All veterans entering a program of vocational rehabilitation are informed of the employment assistance available through the VETS 

Program and are encouraged to register with the State Workforce Agency. 

Combining the services of DOL’s Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) 

Specialists and Local Veteran’s Employment Representatives (LVER), who are part 

of the public workforce investment system and its network of over 3,200 One-Stop 

Career Centers throughout the country, with VA’s VR&E staff maximizes the employment services available to veterans and increases the opportunities for successful placements. Both agencies are committed to working together to improve successful employment outcomes to our Nation’s veterans. Currently 38 VA Regional 

Offices have a co-located DVOP Specialist or LVER. There are 71 DVOP Specialists 

or LVERs at these 38 stations. Having the DVOP Specialist or LVER on-site is a 

best practice that enhances the efficiency of teamwork between the two agencies. 

VR&E Performance 

The VR&E Service has significantly improved services to servicemembers and veterans accessing and participating in VR&E programs. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
44 

The rehabilitation rate has improved. The rehabilitation rate is the number of veterans with disabilities that achieve their VR&E goals and are declared rehabilitated 

compared to the number that discontinue or leave the program before achieving 

these goals. In FY 2006, nearly 73% of program participants achieved rehabilitation. 

In FY 2007 to date, the rate has risen to over 74%. 

We have also seen improvement in the number of days it takes veterans to begin 

a program of services leading toward suitable employment. This is measured by the 

days a veteran spends in applicant status. In FY 2006, veterans spent an average 

of 54 days in applicant status. Currently in FY 2007 the average is 53 days. 

In FY 2006, 9,225 veterans achieved their rehabilitation employment goals 

through the program. The top five occupational categories were: 

• Professional, Technical, and Managerial careers (6,732). 

• Clerical careers (660). 

• Services careers (439). 

• Machine trades (349). 

• Building trades (226). 

VR&E workload is expected to increase due to our expanded outreach efforts to 

separating servicemembers and veterans and increasing disability claims workload; 

OIF/OEF, resulting in more seriously injured veterans; and the focus on employment and VR&E’s Five Track Process. To ensure we provide the level of service expected by the American people, we plan to hire additional staff in FY 2007, increasing our on-board strength by over 100 employees. Additional FTE will reduce the 

number of cases assigned to counseling staff, resulting in a reduction of the case 

management workload by approximately 10%. This will also increase the timeliness 

of services provided to program participants. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or any of the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

Statement of Keith Pedigo, Director, Loan Guaranty Service, Veterans 

Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the VA Loan Guaranty Program. In my 

testimony, I will highlight VA’s commitment to meeting the housing needs of our 

Nation’s veterans. 

VA Home Loan Program 

The Loan Guaranty Program serves a clientele that is diverse in many ways. The 

only common denominator of this clientele is service in the Armed Forces of the Nation. Since the inception of this program, the objective has been to assist eligible 

veterans to become homeowners. We make it possible for veterans to compete in the 

marketplace for credit with persons who were not obliged to forego the pursuit of 

gainful occupations by reason of military service. 

The Loan Guaranty Program provides a guaranty to private lenders making loans 

to veterans to purchase homes. This guaranty enables veterans to purchase a home 

without the need to make a downpayment. Other important program benefits include making direct loans to Native American veterans living on trust lands, and 

providing Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) grants to severely disabled veterans. 

Additionally, services and assistance are provided in coordination with the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program for disabled veterans who 

are eligible for both Independent Living Services and SAH benefits. 

Background 

Since the home loan program was enacted as part of the original Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (the GI Bill), VA has guaranteed more than 18 million home 

loans totaling nearly $914 billion for veterans to purchase or construct a home, or 

refinance another home loan on more favorable terms. We believe that most of these 

veterans would not have been able to purchase a home at the time they did without 

the assistance of the no-downpayment feature of the VA home loan program. 

In the last 5 years, VA has assisted more than 1.4 million veterans in obtaining 

home loan financing totaling almost $197 billion. About half of these loans, just over 

730,000, were to assist veterans to obtain a lower interest rate on an existing VA 

guaranteed home loan through VA’s Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loan Program. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
45 

Delivery of the Loan Guaranty 

VA guaranteed loans are made by private lenders, such as banks, savings and 

loans, or mortgage companies to eligible veterans for the purchase of a home which 

must be for their own personal occupancy. To get a loan, a veteran must apply to 

a lender. After the lender makes the loan, VA issues a guaranty that protects the 

lender against loss up to the amount of the guaranty. The guaranty serves as a substitute for the downpayment that a mortgage borrower would typically be required 

to come up with in order to finance the purchase of a home. 

A veteran’s basic loan guaranty entitlement is $36,000, or 25 percent for loans 

over $144,000 up to a maximum guaranty amount of $104,250. For no-downpayment 

loans, lenders will generally lend up to four times a veteran’s available entitlement, 

provided the veteran qualifies based on income and credit and the property appraises for the asking price. 

While there is no maximum VA loan amount set by law, most lenders presently 

limit these loans to $417,000. This limit is set by the secondary mortgage market, 

which purchases most VA loans once they are made. Effective with enactment of 

P.L. 108–454 in December 2004, the maximum VA guaranty was indexed to the conventional conforming loan limitations as adjusted each January by the Federal 

Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). In practical terms, this means 

that the maximum VA no-downpayment loan amount will always be the same as 

the Freddie Mac conventional conforming loan limit. This amount has been set at 

$417,000 for calendar year 2007. For loans up to this amount, it is usually possible 

for qualified veterans to obtain no-downpayment financing. 

Currently, eligible veterans and service personnel may obtain loans to: 

• buy or build a home 

• buy a residential unit in a condominium project 

• repair, alter or improve a home 

• refinance an existing home loan 

• buy a new or used manufactured home and/or lot 

• buy and improve a manufactured home lot on which to place a unit owned and 

occupied by the veteran 

• improve a home through installation of a solar heating and/or cooling system 

or other energy-efficient improvements 

• refinance a loan currently guaranteed, insured or made by VA for the purpose 

of lowering the interest rate 

• refinance a manufactured home in order to purchase the lot on which the home 

is or will be placed 

• purchase stock or membership in a cooperative housing development corporation 

Loan Servicing 

Like other homeowners, some veterans experience financial hardships that affect 

their ability to make mortgage payments. When this occurs, we help veterans retain 

their homes through supplemental loan servicing efforts. VA offers financial counseling and may intervene directly with the lender on behalf of the veteran to negotiate a repayment plan. In limited circumstances, we buy the loan from the holder 

and allow the veteran to make payments directly to VA at a reduced interest rate. 

In the event of foreclosure, VA usually acquires the property from the mortgage loan 

holder and the property is then transferred to a private contractor to be sold on VA’s 

behalf. 

A ‘‘successful intervention’’ occurs when VA’s intervention with the lender results 

in the veteran’s loan payments being brought current. Successful interventions not 

only help veterans keep their homes, but they also save substantial amounts of 

money by avoiding the payment of a guaranty claim. In 2006, VA accomplished 

more than 8,700 successful interventions, which translated into a savings to the 

Government of $175 million in claims avoided. In those cases where intervention is 

not possible, loans may end up in foreclosure. While this might be unavoidable in 

certain circumstances, the foreclosure rate on VA guaranteed home loans is substantially less than that of similar Government lending programs. The Mortgage Bankers Association’s most recent National Delinquency Survey indicates that, through 

the third quarter of 2006, VA’s delinquency rates fell from 6.93% to 6.58%. In contrast, FHA and sub-prime delinquency rates rose from 12.23% to 12.80%, and 

10.76% to 12.56% respectively. 

To further automate our program requirements and delegate some of their administrative activities to the mortgage banking industry, we currently have a contract 

for services to develop the VA Loan Electronic Reporting Interface, or VALERI. 

When operational, VALERI will enable VA to delegate much of its supplemental 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
46 

loan servicing efforts to the mortgage servicing industry by using a leading edge 

automated system. This will reduce reporting and record-keeping burdens on the 

servicing industry, as well as costs to the Government, while ensuring that our Nation’s veterans are afforded the most technically advanced supplemental benefits 

available. 

Specially Adapted Housing Grants 

Veterans who have certain service-connected disabilities may be entitled to a Special Home Adaptation (SHA) or a Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) grant for the 

purpose of constructing an adapted home or modifying an existing home to meet 

their specific needs. The SHA grant is limited to $10,000 and is generally used to 

assist veterans with mobility throughout their homes. The SAH grant is limited to 

$50,000 and is generally used to create a wheelchair-accessible home. The goal of 

these grant programs is to provide a barrier-free living environment, which affords 

the veteran a level of independent living that he or she may not have otherwise enjoyed. In FY 2006, we served a total of 528 veterans through these grant programs, 

expending $24.6 million. 

VA offers priority processing of SHA and SAH claims. If eligibility has been established, the veteran is contacted within 30 days to discuss the benefit. If not yet 

ready to use the SAH benefit, we contact the veteran again within a year to determine if he or she is ready to begin the home adaptation process. 

Until the enactment of Public Law 109–233 in June 2006, grant recipients could 

only receive their grant benefit from VA one time, regardless of the grant amount 

used. Now, eligible veterans or active duty servicemembers may receive up to a total 

of three such grants, with the aggregate amount limited to the maximum amounts 

allowable by law. The new law also established a new grant program called Temporary Residence Adaptation (TRA). Unlike the other grant programs, this grant assists veterans in adapting a family member’s home to meet the veteran’s special 

needs. Veterans eligible for a TRA grant are now permitted to use up to $2,000 of 

the maximum grant amount for an SHA grant or up to $14,000 for an SAH grant. 

In December 2006, we mailed individual letters to more than 16,000 veterans who 

may be eligible for additional grants. 

These grant programs provide a critical service to a special group of veterans. We 

provide personalized service to grant recipients throughout the process of constructing or modifying their homes. The labor-intensive nature of this program, coupled with the law changes, has created a growing workload. In the past 2 months, 

we have received formal inquiries for subsequent grant usage from nearly 2,000 veterans. Since we have historically completed between 400 and 600 grants per year, 

early indicators suggest a substantial increase in workload. However, we are reallocating resources and streamlining our program requirements to ensure these veterans continue to receive the high quality, personalized service that they deserve. 

Madame Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I greatly appreciate being 

here today and look forward to answering any questions you and the Subcommittee 

Members may have. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
47 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS IN THE HEARING TRANSCRIPT 

July 23, 2007, Letter and Attachments, from Hon. Charles S. Ciccolella, 

Responding to Several Requests for Information from Committee Members 

During the Hearing 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

July 23, 2007 

The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

U.S. House of Representatives 

331 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee’s Economic Opportunity Subcommittee on March 7, 2007 to testify on the 

programs and initiatives of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment 

and Training Service (VETS). Subsequent to the oversight hearing, the Committee 

forwarded some questions for the record to the Department of Labor, which have 

been provided to the Committee under separate cover. 

In addition to those questions for the record, the questions listed below arose during the hearing. Responses to these questions are enclosed. 

1. You asked what would be necessary for VETS-funded programs to serve military spouses. 

2. You requested details on Operation Warfighter. 

3. You asked us to advise you on the status of required VETS’ reports to Congress. 

4. You requested details on Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) cases. 

5. Mr. Boozman requested the following data: 

a. Details on number of Transition Assistance Program employment workshop participants, by site. 

b. Department of Defense data on active duty military separations, by site. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee and for your continued support of employment services for America’s veterans. 

Sincerely, 

Charles S. Ciccolella 

Assistant Secretary for Veteran’s Employment and Training 

Enclosures 

1. Would you support legislation that would open the door for more 

spouses to receive job training services [from the veteran employment representatives]? [. . .] I would appreciate it if you would gather more information with regard to workload and getting feedback from the states who are 

partners in your efforts. (Herseth Sandlin) 

Response: Title 38 establishes the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service 

(VETS) and its service structure. The statute and related laws allow for VETS-funded staff to provide services not only to veterans but also to ‘‘eligible persons.’’ However, the definition of ‘‘eligible person’’ is narrow, encompassing only the spouse of 

one who: died of a service-connected disability; is missing in action, is captured or 

is detained in the line of duty; or has a total and permanent service-connected disability or died with such a disability. Spouses of separating military personnel may 

participate in the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) under 10 U.S.C. 1144. 

Spouses of individuals not separating are not eligible for TAP services. 

Statutory changes would be necessary in order to expand VETS-funded services 

to spouses of military members. Furthermore, to avoid diluting the services provided 

to veterans, additional resources would be required commensurate with the expanded eligible population. VETS would be happy to work with the Committee and 

the Department of Defense (DoD) to determine the resource and policy implications 

of a program expansion for military spouses. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
48 

2. How many of the 140 servicemembers that have participated in [Operation War Fighter] have actually been Walter Reed outpatients? [. . .] Do 

you know what the average time has been to assign these individuals? [. . .] 

If you would just provide us with some additional information on how this 

program is working from your perspective. (Herseth Sandlin) 

Response: Operation War Fighter is a DoD Program through which over 25 Federal agencies have offered wounded or injured servicemembers short-term placement 

opportunities since November 2005. All participants have been Walter Reed outpatients. Once an individual has chosen an assignment in which he/she is interested, the assignment begins in approximately two weeks. The average assignment 

is for six months. There are no restrictions, and some servicemembers request new 

assignments for various reasons. An assignment cannot last beyond a person’s active duty status. 

3. Could you give us the status on when we might be seeing [DOL’s report on VETS’ activities as required by Chapter 41]? (Herseth Sandlin) 

Response: 

• 2005 Annual Report to Congress—Transmitted March 27, 2007 

• 2006 Annual Report to Congress—Anticipate transmittal by September 30, 2007 

• 2006 Annual USERRA Report to Congress—Anticipate transmittal by August 

30, 2007 

4. Do you have an average time that it takes to close a [USERRA] case? 

Response: Please see attached documents entitled, ‘‘USERRA Fact Sheet’’ and 

‘‘Description of Issues Listed in USERRA Fact Sheet.’’

USERRA Fact Sheet 

Fiscal Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Total Cases Opened 895 1,195 1,315 1,465 1,241 1,246 

Total Cases Closed 843 1,135 1,257 1,440 1,246 1,386 

Average Processing Time (Days) 45 44 45 53 59 54 

Issues Alleged (Definitions attached. Note that a case may have more than one issue, therefore sum of the issues columns will not add up to the total cases closed.) 

Reasonable Accommodations/Retraining for 

Disabled 10 20 9 23 22 23 

Other Non-Seniority Benefits 33 54 68 55 54 124 

Military Obligations Discrimination 372 523 493 509 426 459 

Discrimination as Retaliation for any Action 59 88 86 82 65 79 

Initial Hiring Discrimination 39 48 84 52 51 47 

Special Protected Period Discharge 7 4 22 41 35 34 

Health Benefits 17 33 39 31 42 26 

Layoff 36 65 76 61 57 43 

Pay Rate 44 62 70 122 113 85 

Other 112 125 147 161 170 159 

Pension 54 80 75 63 67 61 

Reinstatement 214 298 356 440 310 331 

Seniority 48 90 74 103 90 73 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
49 

USERRA Fact Sheet—Continued 

Fiscal Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Promotion 49 57 72 119 101 100 

Vacation 44 50 52 59 46 84 

Reasonable Accommodations/Retraining for 

Non-Qualified/Non-Disabled 4 3 5 6 8 4 

Status 60 84 101 139 103 90 

Note: Data includes VETS’ USERRA cases only. Data does not include USERRA Demonstration Project 

cases for FY 2005 and FY 2006 opened and closed by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) USERRA Unit. 

Description of Issues Listed in USERRA Fact Sheet: 

Reasonable Accommodations/Retraining for Disabled Servicemembers: Failure to 

make reasonable efforts by the employer to qualify returning disabled servicemembers, or to offer another position in the employ of the employer providing the closest 

approximation possible to the pre-service position which the disabled servicemember 

is qualified to perform. Violates Sec. 4313(a)(3). 

Other Non-Seniority Benefits: Failure to provide non-seniority fringe benefits to 

which the servicemember may be entitled while on military duty to the extent other 

employees on nonmilitary leaves of absence receive these benefits. Violates Sec. 

4316(b)(1)(B). 

Military Obligations Discrimination: Discriminating against a protected servicemember because of military obligations. Violates Sec. 4311. 

Discrimination as Retaliation for any Action: Discrimination or retaliation against 

any person who has taken any action to enforce the protections of USERRA. Violates Sec. 4311. 

Initial Hiring Discrimination: Discrimination against a protected servicemember 

by failing to hire him or her because of military obligations past, present, or future. 

Violates Sec. 4311. 

Special Protected Period Discharge: Discharging a protected servicemember during 

the period of special protection from discharge without cause following reinstatement. USERRA provides that a reemployed individual may not be discharged, except for cause: (a) For 1 year if service is more than 180 days; or (b) For 180 days 

if service is more than 30 days but less than 181 days. Violates Sec. 4316(c)(1)&(2). 

Health Benefits: Failure to provide health benefits to servicemembers in a manner 

consistent with USERRA. Violates Sec. 4317(a)(1)(A). 

Layoff: Layoff of a protected servicemember from employment, because of military 

obligations past, present, or future. Violates Sec. 4313(a). 

Pay Rate: Failure to meet the statutory requirement that the servicemember be 

restored to a position (or a like position) that provides the same rate of pay as would 

have been paid had the servicemember not been absent for military service. Violates 

Sec. 4313. 

Other: Any other violation of USERRA not covered by specified issue codes. 

Pension: Failure to provide credit for military service for vesting and/or benefit 

accrual in employee benefit pension plans. Violates Sec. 4318. 

Reinstatement: Failure to reinstate at all an eligible person to his or her job. Violates Sec. 4311, 4312. 

Seniority: Failure to restore the servicemember to the position with the seniority, 

including perquisites of seniority, the servicemember would have had if he or she 

had not been absent for military service. Such rank or standing may be defined by 

a collective bargaining agreement or by employer practices, and the escalator principle applies. Violates Sec. 4313(a). 

Promotion: Failure to promote the servicemember to a position that the servicemember would have been promoted to if he/she had not been absent for military 

service or training duty. Violates Sec. 4313(a). 

Vacation: Failure to treat the rate at which a servicemember earns vacation as 

a perquisite of seniority or failure to extend benefits to a servicemember in situations where vacation benefits are not considered short-term compensation for services rendered. Additionally, requiring the use of vacation for time needed to perform 

training duty. Violates Sec. 4316. 

Reasonable Accommodation/Retraining for Nonqualified/Nondisabled Servicemembers: Failure to make reasonable efforts by the employer to qualify returning nonVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:40 Sep 27, 2007 Jkt 034308 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\34308.XXX 34308

bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
50 

disabled servicemembers, or offer another position in the employ of the employer 

which the person is qualified to perform. Violates Sec. 4313(a)(4). 

Status: Failure to reinstate in such a manner that certain attributes of the former 

(or escalator, if appropriate) position are met, such as working conditions, opportunities for advancement, job location, shift assignment, rank or responsibility. Violates 

Sec. 4313(a). 

5.[a.] Do we have the record-keeping abilities so that we can sit down and 

see what DoD installation is doing [TAP workshops] and what it is not 

doing? [. . .] Is that something that you could access for us? 

[b.] I would appreciate it if you could provide us with a graph of the 

areas where so many people are rotating out, and then, of that group, they 

received the TAP program [. . .] kind of in areas? [. . .] Can you tell us if it 

was in Norfolk versus someplace else? (Boozman) 

Response: 

a. Please see attached chart entitled, ‘‘TAP Participation by Site.’’

b. Please see attached chart entitled, ‘‘Active Duty Separations by Site.’’

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 5a 

TAP Participants by Site—FY 2006 

State/ 

Country Base Name 

Active 

Duty Spouses NG/RC Total 

AK Eielson AFB 189 2 0 191 

AK Elmendorf AFB 398 14 0 412 

AK Fort Richardson 139 0 0 139 

AK Fort Wainwright 194 6 0 200 

AK Ketchikan Coast Guard 23 0 0 23 

AL Fort Rucker (ACAP) 433 20 39 492 

AL Maxwell AFB 431 24 0 455 

AL Red Stone Arsenal 210 22 0 232 

AR Little Rock AFB 389 14 1 404 

AZ Davis Monthan AFB 674 11 2 687 

AZ Fort Huachuca 609 9 0 618 

AZ Luke AFB 383 4 0 387 

AZ Marine Corps Air Station 740 13 0 753 

CA 29 Palms 2,441 22 0 2,463 

CA Alameda Coast Guard 93 1 0 94 

CA Beale AFB 378 18 2 398 

CA Camp Pendleton 10,503 39 13 10,555 

CA China Lake 111 0 0 111 

CA Edwards AFB 259 6 0 265 

CA Fort Irwin 1,080 8 0 1,088 

CA Los Alamitos Reserve Base 16 1 430 447 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
51 

TAP Participants by Site—FY 2006—Continued 

State/ 

Country Base Name 

Active 

Duty Spouses NG/RC Total 

CA Los Angeles AFB 252 7 0 259 

CA Marine Corps Logistics Base 23 0 0 23 

CA MCAS Miramar 2,053 14 0 2,067 

CA MCRD 285 4 0 289 

CA Monterey 77 5 0 82 

CA NAS Lemoore 1,045 16 0 1,061 

CA Naval Air Station North Island 2,271 30 0 2,301 

CA NAVSTA 4,746 22 2 4,770 

CA Petaluma Coast Guard 94 0 21 115 

CA Point Mugu/Port Hueneme 818 7 2 827 

CA Pt Loma Naval Submarine Base 1,442 25 0 1,467 

CA San Diego Coast Guard 35 1 0 36 

CA San Pedro Coast Guard 20 0 0 20 

CA Travis AFB 949 10 2 961 

CA Vandenberg AFB 422 13 0 435 

CO Aurora CO (Buckley ANG Base) 307 4 0 311 

CO Fort Carson 2,724 6 0 2,730 

CO Peterson AFB 473 18 0 491 

CO Schriver AFB 127 2 0 129 

CO USAFA 330 5 0 335 

CT Groton Naval Submarine Base 986 29 0 1,015 

DC Bolling AFB 754 10 0 764 

DC Naval Family Service Center 821 35 0 856 

DC Walter Reed Medical Center 363 5 83 451 

DE Dover AFB 377 23 0 400 

FL Eglin AFB 669 0 0 669 

FL Hulbert Field 564 7 0 571 

FL Jacksonville NAS 1,284 22 0 1,306 

FL Key West Naval Air Station 25 1 0 26 

FL MacDill AFB 444 21 0 465 

FL Mayport Naval Station 1,259 9 0 1,268 

FL Miami U.S. Southern Command 86 2 0 88 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
52 

TAP Participants by Site—FY 2006—Continued 

State/ 

Country Base Name 

Active 

Duty Spouses NG/RC Total 

FL Patrick AFB 291 21 0 312 

FL Pensacola NAS 942 3 0 945 

FL Tyndall AFB 298 1 0 299 

GA Albany MCLB 105 3 0 108 

GA Fort Benning 2,014 14 0 2,028 

GA Fort Gordon 844 8 0 852 

GA Fort McPherson 633 19 0 652 

GA Fort Stewart 2,446 31 1 2,478 

GA Hunter AFB 409 2 0 411 

GA Kings Bay Naval Base 542 3 0 545 

GA Moody AFB 301 7 0 308 

GA Robins AFB 497 5 0 502 

HI Coast Guard Base, Hawaii 50 1 0 51 

HI Hickam AFB 380 19 3 402 

HI Kaneohe Marine Corps Base 1,445 5 0 1,450 

HI Pearl Harbor 1,404 63 0 1,467 

HI Schofield Barracks 610 12 0 622 

ID Mountain Home AFB 394 4 0 398 

IL Great Lakes NTC 622 52 1 675 

IL Scott AFB 745 21 0 766 

KS Fort Leavenworth 271 12 11 294 

KS Fort Riley (Job Assistance Center) 1,821 16 34 1,871 

KS Fort Riley Kansas (McConnell AFB) 190 9 11 210 

KY Fort Knox Kentucky 972 21 110 1,103 

LA Barksdale AFB 469 5 0 474 

LA Fort Polk 815 9 0 824 

LA Naval Support Activity 232 3 0 235 

MA ACAP/TAP Fort Devens 62 10 38 110 

MA Hanscom AFB 352 20 26 398 

MD Aberdeen Proving Ground 258 14 23 295 

MD Andrews AFB 534 2 0 536 

MD Annapolis U.S. Naval Academy 302 12 0 314 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
53 

TAP Participants by Site—FY 2006—Continued 

State/ 

Country Base Name 

Active 

Duty Spouses NG/RC Total 

MD Bethesda Naval Medical Center 480 3 0 483 

MD Fort Detrick 255 5 0 260 

MD Fort Mead ACAP Center 580 4 5 589 

MD Fort Meade—Navy 691 10 0 701 

MD Patuxent River Navy FSC 343 12 0 355 

ME Brunswick Naval Air Station 613 89 8 710 

MI Selfridge ANG 55 0 1 56 

MI STARC Hdqts. (Lansing) 34 11 0 45 

MN Camp Ripley—NG/Res 0 0 12 12 

MN Fort Snelling—NG/Res 14 0 33 47 

MO Fort Leonard Wood Army Base 650 47 14 711 

MO Richards GeBaur AFB 51 0 0 51 

MO Whiteman AFB 285 4 0 289 

MS Columbus AFB 110 5 0 115 

MS Gulfport 426 4 0 430 

MS Keesler AFB 253 3 0 256 

MS Meridian NAS 66 6 0 72 

MS Pascagoula Naval Station 68 2 0 70 

MT Malstrom AFB 332 27 0 359 

NC Cherry Point Marine Corp Base 1,679 12 0 1,691 

NC Fort Bragg XVIII Airborne Corps 3,179 19 0 3,198 

NC Pope AFB 452 17 0 469 

NC Seymore Johnson AFB 353 9 0 362 

NC USMC Camp Lejeune Base 7,410 76 0 7,486 

NC USMC New River Air Station 969 14 0 983 

ND Grand Forks AFB 334 19 0 353 

ND Minot AFB 321 8 0 329 

NE Offutt AFB 613 0 2 615 

NH Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 161 4 0 165 

NJ Cape May Coast Guard 17 1 0 18 

NJ Fort Mommouth Comm/Electronics 200 5 0 205 

NJ McGuire AFB 632 9 1 642 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
54 

TAP Participants by Site—FY 2006—Continued 

State/ 

Country Base Name 

Active 

Duty Spouses NG/RC Total 

NJ Naval Air Engineering/Lakehurst 94 0 0 94 

NJ Naval Weapons Station Earle 67 0 0 67 

NM Cannon AFB 264 8 0 272 

NM Holloman AFB 480 6 0 486 

NM Kirtland AFB 412 15 0 427 

NV NAS Fallon 189 3 0 192 

NV Nellis AFB 591 10 0 601 

NY Fort Drum HQ—10th Mountain Div 1,346 12 41 1,399 

NY Fort Hamilton 172 5 15 192 

NY Saratoga Naval Admin 159 19 19 197 

NY West Point Army Academy 123 2 1 126 

OH Wright Patterson AFB 689 8 13 710 

OK Altus AFB 168 2 0 170 

OK Fort Sill Army Base 1,165 10 0 1,175 

OK Tinker AFB 641 29 5 675 

OK Vance AFB 93 9 0 102 

OR Salem-Anderson Readiness Cntr 4 0 0 4 

PA Carlisle Army War College 155 11 35 201 

PA Willow Grove USNAS 274 15 11 300 

PR Fort Buchanan Guaynabo 61 8 12 81 

RI Newport Naval Base 366 22 0 388 

SC Charleston AFB 445 9 0 454 

SC Charleston Naval Weapons 343 9 0 352 

SC Fort Jackson Army Educ. Center 350 13 15 378 

SC Marine Corp Air Station 644 1 0 645 

SC Shaw AFB 349 2 0 351 

SC USMC Parris Island Depot 256 1 0 257 

SD Ellsworth AFB 308 4 9 321 

TN Fort Campbell (Kentucky) 1,804 25 23 1,852 

TN Millington Naval Support Activity 329 13 4 346 

TX Brooks AFB 33 0 0 33 

TX Corpus Christi FSC 435 1 0 436 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
55 

TAP Participants by Site—FY 2006—Continued 

State/ 

Country Base Name 

Active 

Duty Spouses NG/RC Total 

TX Dyess AFB 355 10 0 365 

TX Fort Bliss 1,672 68 0 1,740 

TX Fort Hood 2,600 18 0 2,618 

TX Fort Sam Houston 845 20 0 865 

TX Fort Worth 347 14 0 361 

TX Goodfellow AFB 171 7 0 178 

TX Ingleside Texas FSC 399 12 0 411 

TX Lackland AFB 907 14 0 921 

TX Laughlin AFB 95 3 0 98 

TX Randolph Air Force Base 411 14 0 425 

TX Sheppard AFB 309 25 0 334 

UT Hill AFB 830 9 18 857 

VA Dahlgren Navy Base 154 6 0 160 

VA Fort Belvoir, ACAP Center 563 9 0 572 

VA Fort Eustis 880 9 0 889 

VA Fort Lee 434 8 0 442 

VA Fort Meyer 712 10 0 722 

VA Henderson Hall, HQCN, HQMC 600 9 0 609 

VA Langley AFB 685 7 0 692 

VA Norfolk Naval Air Station 9,890 442 0 10,332 

VA Portsmouth Naval Hospital 320 0 0 320 

VA Quantico Marine Base 1,022 6 0 1,028 

WA Bangor NAS 1,038 42 1 1,081 

WA Everett Naval Station 688 29 7 724 

WA Fairchild AFB 313 3 3 319 

WA Fort Lewis 2,562 65 104 2,731 

WA McChord AFB 451 19 12 482 

WA Puget Sound Navy Shipyard 993 32 2 1,027 

WA Seattle Coast Guard 74 11 0 85 

WA Whidbey Island NAS 1,187 56 0 1,243 

WI Fort McCoy 137 50 18 205 

WY FE Warren AFB 305 16 10 331 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
56 

TAP Participants by Site—FY 2006—Continued 

State/ 

Country Base Name 

Active 

Duty Spouses NG/RC Total 

Total, Continental US 133,452 2,754 1,309 137,515 

TAP Participants Overseas—FY 2006 

State/ 

Country Base Name 

Active 

Duty Spouses NG/RC Total 

Benelux Brussels 11 2 0 13 

Benelux Schinnen 14 1 0 15 

Benelux Shape 49 9 0 58 

Germany Ansbach 192 5 0 197 

Germany Bamberg 199 5 4 208 

Germany Baumholder 168 12 0 180 

Germany Darmstabt 134 2 0 136 

Germany Geilenkirchen 57 3 0 60 

Germany Giessen 72 4 0 76 

Germany Hanau 208 6 0 214 

Germany Heidelberg 266 14 11 291 

Germany Hohenfels 89 3 0 92 

Germany Kaiserslautern 337 10 1 348 

Germany Kitzingen 271 6 0 277 

Germany Mannheim 273 7 0 280 

Germany Ramstein 540 15 2 557 

Germany Schweinfurt 297 2 0 299 

Germany Spangdahlem 247 23 0 270 

Germany Stuttgart 106 9 3 118 

Germany Vilseck 262 6 0 268 

Germany Wiesbaden 259 4 0 263 

Germany Wuerzburg 34 0 0 34 

Guam Anderson AFB 79 4 0 83 

Guam COMNAVMAR 317 10 7 334 

Italy Aviano 268 27 0 295 

Italy LaMaddalena 30 4 0 34 

Italy Naples 224 15 0 239 

Italy Vicenza 183 5 0 188 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
57 

TAP Participants Overseas—FY 2006—Continued 

State/ 

Country Base Name 

Active 

Duty Spouses NG/RC Total 

Japan Atsugi 268 5 0 273 

Japan Camp Fuji 19 0 0 19 

Japan Iwakuni 282 4 0 286 

Japan Misawa 242 7 0 249 

Japan Sasebo 271 11 0 282 

Japan Yokosuka 732 12 1 745 

Japan Yokota 203 10 0 213 

Korea Camp Henry 233 6 0 239 

Korea Camp Humphreys 442 2 1 445 

Korea Camp Mobile 716 2 0 718 

Korea Camp Stanley 16 0 0 16 

Korea Kunsan 154 1 0 155 

Korea Osan 269 0 0 269 

Korea Yongsan 481 3 0 484 

Okinawa Camp Foster 606 5 0 611 

Okinawa Camp Hansen 264 1 0 265 

Okinawa Camp Schwab 165 0 0 165 

Okinawa Kadena 331 8 0 339 

Okinawa Kinser 197 1 0 198 

United 

Kingdom Alconbury 120 4 0 124 

United 

Kingdom Croughton 11 1 0 12 

United 

Kingdom Lakenheath 148 2 0 150 

United 

Kingdom London 54 6 0 60 

United 

Kingdom Menwith Hill 44 0 0 44 

United 

Kingdom Mildenhall 199 7 0 206 

United 

Kingdom St Mawgan 26 1 0 27 

Total, Overseas 11,679 312 30 12,021 

Total Continental US & Overseas 145,131 3,066 1,339 149,536 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
58 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 5b—SEPARATIONS BY SITE 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

ALABAMA 

ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

DOTHAN AG 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

FORT RUCKER 89 794 883 87 80 167 176 874 1,050 

MAXWELL AFB (INCL. GUNTER) 135 388 523 79 48 127 214 436 650 

NAVMARCORESCEN MOBILE 1 4 5 0 0 0 1 4 5 

REDSTONE ARSENAL 52 53 105 36 4 40 88 57 145 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 42 87 129 7 6 13 49 93 142 

USCG DAUPHINE ISLAND 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

Total 320 1,330 1,650 209 138 347 529 1,468 1,997 

ALASKA 

ALASKA COAST GUARD 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 6 

EIELSON AFB 41 171 212 6 24 30 47 195 242 

ELMENDORF AFB 118 352 470 32 50 82 150 402 552 

FORT JONATHAN WAINWRIGHT 34 277 311 8 18 26 42 295 337 

FORT RICHARDSON 27 276 303 7 4 11 34 280 314 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 3 10 13 3 1 4 6 11 17 

Total 225 1,087 1,312 57 99 156 282 1,186 1,468 

ARIZONA 

DAVIS–MONTHAN AFB 210 440 650 48 61 109 258 501 759 

FORT HUACHUCA 186 627 813 47 34 81 233 661 894 

LUKE AFB 165 436 601 19 46 65 184 482 666 

PHOENIX AGS 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 

TUCSON IAP AGS 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 0 4 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 22 161 183 4 12 16 26 173 199 

YUMA MCAS 48 538 586 11 16 27 59 554 613 

YUMA PROVING GROUND 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 

Total 633 2,202 2,835 133 170 303 766 2,372 3,138 

ARKANSAS 

ENDIST LITTLE ROCK AR 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 

LITTLE ROCK AFB 152 329 481 10 42 52 162 371 533 

MTA CAMP ROBINSON 1 4 5 0 1 1 1 5 6 

PINE BLUFF ARSENAL 0 7 7 0 2 2 0 9 9 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 8 17 25 1 1 2 9 18 27 

Total 163 357 520 11 46 57 174 403 577 

CALIFORNIA 

ALAMEDA NAS 4 2 6 1 4 5 5 6 11 

BARSTOW MCLB 6 26 32 5 5 10 11 31 42 

BEALE AFB 93 285 378 24 40 64 117 325 442 

CAMP PARKS 0 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 4 

CAMP PENDLETON MCAS 486 6,361 6,847 87 158 245 573 6,519 7,092 

CAMP ROBERTS 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

CHINA LAKE NAVWEAPCEN 34 89 123 12 5 17 46 94 140 

CONCORD NAVWEAPSTA 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 

CORONADO NAV AMPHIB BASE 275 1,271 1,546 52 58 110 327 1,329 1,656 

EDWARDS AFB 102 249 351 25 39 64 127 288 415 

EL CENTRO NAF 8 39 47 1 1 2 9 40 49 

EL TORO MCAS 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
59 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

FLEET ASW TRNG CTR PACIFIC 51 97 148 19 12 31 70 109 179 

FLT CMBT TRNG CTR PACIFIC 4 0 4 2 2 4 6 2 8 

FORT IRWIN 102 955 1,057 11 63 74 113 1,018 1,131 

FORT MACARTHUR 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 

FORT ORD/DOD CENTER 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 

FRESNO AIR TERM AGS 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 3 

GEORGE AFB (INCL. NORTON) 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

HAMILTON FIELD 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

LEMOORE NAS 119 466 585 16 30 46 135 496 631 

LOS ALAMITOS AFRC 3 2 5 0 0 0 3 2 5 

LOS ANGELES AFB 37 58 95 49 132 181 86 190 276 

MARCH AFB 5 4 9 1 0 1 6 4 10 

MCAS MIRAMAR 137 1,414 1,551 27 58 85 164 1,472 1,636 

MCCLELLAN AFB 2 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 3 

MOFFETT FIELD NAS/ANG 5 4 9 2 2 4 7 6 13 

NAVAL MEDICAL CTR SAN DIEGO 75 350 425 46 51 97 121 401 522 

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCH 11 20 31 20 23 43 31 43 74 

NAVAL STATION, LONG BEACH 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

NORTH ISLAND NAS 289 851 1,140 34 33 67 323 884 1,207 

NORTH ISLAND NV AVIATION DEP 1 3 4 1 2 3 2 5 7 

ONIZUKA AFB 4 2 6 3 3 6 7 5 12 

PORT HUENEME NCBC 64 205 269 8 9 17 72 214 286 

PRESIDIO OF MONTEREY 28 220 248 11 7 18 39 227 266 

PT MUGU NAS 50 128 178 7 10 17 57 138 195 

SAN DIEGO MC RECRUIT DEPOT 54 1,470 1,524 7 18 25 61 1,488 1,549 

SAN DIEGO NAVSTA 724 3,565 4,289 64 123 187 788 3,688 4,476 

SAN DIEGO NAVSUBBASE 68 205 273 23 12 35 91 217 308 

SAN DIEGO NSC 12 56 68 7 2 9 19 58 77 

SAN PEDRO COAST GUARD 0 13 13 0 1 1 0 14 14 

SEAL BEACH NAVWEAPSTA 9 20 29 2 1 3 11 21 32 

SHARPE ARMY DEPOT 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

TRAVIS AFB 194 507 701 29 110 139 223 617 840 

TREASURE ISLAND NAVSTA 0 5 5 0 1 1 0 6 6 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 208 1,616 1,824 34 70 104 242 1,686 1,928 

USCG TRACEN PETALUMA 0 11 11 1 3 4 1 14 15 

USMC MOUNTAIN WARFARE TRNG C 4 16 20 0 1 1 4 17 21 

VANDENBERG AFB 89 191 280 9 49 58 98 240 338 

29 PALMS MC AIR/GRD CMBT CTR 81 1,146 1,227 17 29 46 98 1,175 1,273 

Total 3,442 21,936 25,378 662 1,169 1,831 4,104 23,105 27,209 

COLORADO 

BUCKLEY AGB 59 124 183 1 16 17 60 140 200 

FORT CARSON 268 2,806 3,074 40 127 167 308 2,933 3,241 

LOWRY AFB 18 22 40 4 7 11 22 29 51 

PETERSON AFB 181 177 358 107 78 185 288 255 543 

SCHRIEVER AFB 74 122 196 16 32 48 90 154 244 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 45 176 221 8 12 20 53 188 241 

USAF ACADEMY 46 270 316 72 60 132 118 330 448 

Total 691 3,697 4,388 248 332 580 939 4,029 4,968 

CONNECTICUT 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
60 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

COAST GUARD ACADEMY 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 22 22 

FORT NATHAN HALE 1 5 6 0 1 1 1 6 7 

NEW LONDON NAVSUBBASE 181 635 816 21 52 73 202 687 889 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 27 222 249 1 4 5 28 226 254 

Total 209 884 1,093 22 57 79 231 941 1,172 

DELAWARE 

DOVER AFB 135 342 477 12 30 42 147 372 519 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 4 7 11 1 1 2 5 8 13 

Total 139 349 488 13 31 44 152 380 532 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

ARMY ATTACHE DEPT OF STATE 3 4 7 24 3 27 27 7 34 

BOLLING AFB 90 129 219 37 34 71 127 163 290 

FORT LESLIE J MCNAIR 6 6 12 18 3 21 24 9 33 

MARINE BARRACKS, WASH D.C. 48 114 162 73 19 92 121 133 254 

NAVAL SECURITY STATION 39 64 103 92 77 169 131 141 272 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 23 32 55 20 22 42 43 54 97 

WALTER REED ARMY MED CTR 151 275 426 58 62 120 209 337 546 

WASHINGTON NAVDIST HQ 131 1,532 1,663 129 99 228 260 1,631 1,891 

Total 491 2,156 2,647 451 319 770 942 2,475 3,417 

FLORIDA 

CAMP BLANDING 10 1 11 0 2 2 10 3 13 

CECIL FIELD NAS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

CORRY STATION NTTC 39 76 115 2 1 3 41 77 118 

EGLIN AFB 309 500 809 84 90 174 393 590 983 

HOMESTEAD AFB 9 5 14 0 1 1 9 6 15 

HQ STRICOM, ORLANDO 4 0 4 2 0 2 6 0 6 

HURLBURT FIELD 290 471 761 62 56 118 352 527 879 

JACKSONVILLE AFS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

JACKSONVILLE NAS 331 810 1,141 64 55 119 395 865 1,260 

JACKSONVILLE NAV AVIATION DE 3 1 4 1 0 1 4 1 5 

KEY WEST COAST GUARD 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 3 4 

KEY WEST NAS 36 82 118 11 10 21 47 92 139 

MACDILL AFB 216 290 506 112 50 162 328 340 668 

MAYPORT NAVSTA 346 1,138 1,484 38 34 72 384 1,172 1,556 

MIAMI COAST GUARD 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 4 4 

NAV COASTAL SYSTEMS CTR 21 33 54 2 0 2 23 33 56 

NAV ED & TRN PGM MGMT SPT AC 26 1 27 0 2 2 26 3 29 

NAVAL HOSPITAL PENSACOLA 25 60 85 18 21 39 43 81 124 

NAVAL TRAINING CTR ORLANDO 19 20 39 8 4 12 27 24 51 

PATRICK AFB 98 79 177 30 28 58 128 107 235 

PENSACOLA NAS 188 472 660 65 110 175 253 582 835 

SOUTHERN COMMAND 10 20 30 17 8 25 27 28 55 

TYNDALL AFB 140 261 401 28 37 65 168 298 466 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 131 389 520 38 22 60 169 411 580 

WHITING FIELD NAS 17 30 47 11 44 55 28 74 102 

Total 2,271 4,743 7,014 593 578 1,171 2,864 5,321 8,185 

GEORGIA 

ALBANY MCLB 26 68 94 4 9 13 30 77 107 

ATLANTA NAS 21 66 87 1 7 8 22 73 95 

DOBBINS ARB 5 4 9 1 1 2 6 5 11 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
61 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

FORT BENNING 329 3,761 4,090 34 111 145 363 3,872 4,235 

FORT GILLEM 33 16 49 19 4 23 52 20 72 

FORT GORDON 300 976 1,276 47 59 106 347 1,035 1,382 

FORT MCPHERSON 95 97 192 93 26 119 188 123 311 

FORT STEWART 447 3,359 3,806 60 198 258 507 3,557 4,064 

KINGS BAY NAVSUBBASE 160 314 474 19 20 39 179 334 513 

MOODY AFB 98 250 348 12 54 66 110 304 414 

NAVY RECRUITING AREA THREE 2 0 2 0 3 3 2 3 5 

NV SUPPLY CORPS SCHOOL 1 8 9 4 7 11 5 15 20 

ROBINS AFB 229 338 567 48 53 101 277 391 668 

SAVANNAH AFS 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 3 3 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 50 119 169 9 10 19 59 129 188 

Total 1,796 9,378 11,174 351 563 914 2,147 9,941 12,088 

HAWAII 

BARBERS POINT NAS 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 3 

CAMP H. M. SMITH 29 40 69 47 8 55 76 48 124 

FORT SHAFTER 23 82 105 16 12 28 39 94 133 

HICKAM AFB 89 210 299 63 52 115 152 262 414 

KUMA DEF COMM CTR 1 21 22 0 0 0 1 21 22 

MCBH KANEOHE BAY 70 708 778 7 21 28 77 729 806 

NAVAL BASE, PEARL HARBOR 86 502 588 34 32 66 120 534 654 

NAVCAMS E. PACIFIC 20 43 63 2 1 3 22 44 66 

PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD 122 448 570 24 31 55 146 479 625 

SAND ISLAND COAST GUARD 0 9 9 0 3 3 0 12 12 

SCHOFIELD BARRACKS 162 1,606 1,768 23 68 91 185 1,674 1,859 

TRIPLER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER 23 73 96 30 37 67 53 110 163 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 42 165 207 5 11 16 47 176 223 

Total 668 3,908 4,576 251 277 528 919 4,185 5,104 

IDAHO 

GOWEN FIELD 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

MOUNTAIN HOME AFB 111 375 486 13 27 40 124 402 526 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 8 52 60 2 5 7 10 57 67 

Total 119 429 548 15 32 47 134 461 595 

ILLINOIS 

FORT SHERIDAN 15 30 45 0 1 1 15 31 46 

GREAT LAKES NTC 219 4,642 4,861 22 44 66 241 4,686 4,927 

JOLIET AAP/AFRC 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 

NAVAL HOSPITAL, GREAT LAKES 34 95 129 12 18 30 46 113 159 

OHARE IAP ARS 3 0 3 4 0 4 7 0 7 

ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 6 

SCOTT AFB 277 197 474 127 79 206 404 276 680 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 26 182 208 8 11 19 34 193 227 

Total 575 5,151 5,726 176 153 329 751 5,304 6,055 

INDIANA 

CRANE NAVWEAPSUPPCEN 4 3 7 1 0 1 5 3 8 

DFAS INDIANAPOLIS CENTER 26 18 44 2 0 2 28 18 46 

FORT BENJAMIN HARRISON 7 1 8 2 4 6 9 5 14 

GRISSOM AFB 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 

HULMAN REG ARPT–AGS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
62 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 27 91 118 4 7 11 31 98 129 

Total 65 117 182 9 11 20 74 128 202 

IOWA 

FORT DES MOINES 3 4 7 0 0 0 3 4 7 

FORT DODGE 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 10 41 51 0 3 3 10 44 54 

Total 14 45 59 0 3 3 14 48 62 

KANSAS 

FORT LEAVENWORTH 67 95 162 94 15 109 161 110 271 

FORT RILEY 225 1,734 1,959 15 98 113 240 1,832 2,072 

MCCONNELL AFB 72 218 290 5 30 35 77 248 325 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 657 1,480 2,137 411 80 491 1,068 1,560 2,628 

9TH MARINE CORPS DISTRICT 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Total 1,022 3,527 4,549 525 223 748 1,547 3,750 5,297 

KENTUCKY 

FORT CAMPBELL 318 2,025 2,343 67 62 129 385 2,087 2,472 

FORT KNOX 314 1,786 2,100 72 46 118 386 1,832 2,218 

LEXINGTON BLUE GRASS DEPOT 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 

LOUISVILLE ARMY RES KY 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 40 138 178 3 3 6 43 141 184 

Total 673 3,950 4,623 142 113 255 815 4,063 4,878 

LOUISIANA 

BARKSDALE AFB 138 472 610 36 49 85 174 521 695 

FORT POLK 173 1,000 1,173 17 49 66 190 1,049 1,239 

HAMMOND AGS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

NEW ORLEANS MIL OC. TERMINAL 1 3 4 0 0 0 1 3 4 

NEW ORLEANS NAS JRB 31 90 121 13 8 21 44 98 142 

NEW ORLEANS NSA 18 32 50 7 7 14 25 39 64 

SLIDELL RADAR SITE 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 10 74 84 7 7 14 17 81 98 

Total 372 1,671 2,043 81 120 201 453 1,791 2,244 

MAINE 

BRUNSWICK NAS 65 163 228 9 17 26 74 180 254 

S. PORTLAND AGS 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 7 7 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 32 141 173 2 11 13 34 152 186 

Total 97 311 408 11 28 39 108 339 447 

MARYLAND 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 99 427 526 26 6 32 125 433 558 

ADELPHI LAB CENTER 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

ANDREWS AFB 196 267 463 82 91 173 278 358 636 

ANNAPOLIS NS (INCL. USNA) 28 299 327 27 45 72 55 344 399 

BALTIMORE ENDIST/CIV PERSONN 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

CURTIS BAY COAST GUARD 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 7 7 

FORT DETRICK 21 107 128 12 9 21 33 116 149 

FORT GEORGE G. MEADE 312 735 1,047 98 64 162 410 799 1,209 

FORT RITCHIE 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 

INDIAN HEAD NAV ORD STA 21 96 117 6 5 11 27 101 128 

NESEC ST. INGOES 1 3 4 0 0 0 1 3 4 

NNMC BETHESDA 84 252 336 68 54 122 152 306 458 

PATUXENT RIVER NAS 146 158 304 73 19 92 219 177 396 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 45 122 167 21 23 44 66 145 211 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
63 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

WHITE OAK NSWC DAHLGREN 12 10 22 7 3 10 19 13 32 

Total 966 2,483 3,449 422 320 742 1,388 2,803 4,191 

MASSACHUSETTS 

CAMP EDWARDS—NG 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 

FORT DEVENS 1 7 8 3 1 4 4 8 12 

HANSCOM AFB 27 51 78 27 91 118 54 142 196 

NAV WPNS INDUS RSV PLANT 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

NAVMAR RESCEN WORCHESTER MA 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

NAVPRO STRAT SYS, PITTSFIELD 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

OTIS AGB 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

SOUTH WEYMOUTH NAS 12 14 26 1 2 3 13 16 29 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 9 90 99 9 12 21 18 102 120 

USA NATICK RSCH & DEV CTR 5 9 14 2 3 5 7 12 19 

WESTOVER ARB AFB 3 4 7 0 0 0 3 4 7 

Total 59 176 235 43 110 153 102 286 388 

MICHIGAN 

DETROIT ARSENAL 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

NAVAL AIR FACILITY, DETROIT 4 4 8 1 1 2 5 5 10 

SELFRIDGE ANG BASE 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 4 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 35 169 204 6 9 15 41 178 219 

W.K. KELLOGG REG ARPT AGS 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 

Total 40 177 217 10 10 20 50 187 237 

MINNESOTA 

FORT SNELLING 3 6 9 1 1 2 4 7 11 

MINN/ST PAUL IAP ARS 11 6 17 1 0 1 12 6 18 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 8 58 66 2 4 6 10 62 72 

Total 22 70 92 4 5 9 26 75 101 

MISSISSIPPI 

ALLEN C THOMPSON FIELD–AGS 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 1 3 

CAMP SHELBY 18 37 55 2 3 5 20 40 60 

COLUMBUS AFB 18 61 79 8 64 72 26 125 151 

GULFPORT NCBC 70 171 241 1 1 2 71 172 243 

KEESLER AFB 134 398 532 28 48 76 162 446 608 

MERIDIAN NAS 18 97 115 9 22 31 27 119 146 

PASCAGOULA NAVSTA 45 115 160 9 3 12 54 118 172 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 18 109 127 2 3 5 20 112 132 

VICKSBURG ENDIST 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

Total 323 988 1,311 60 145 205 383 1,133 1,516 

MISSOURI 

DFAS KANSAS CITY CENTER 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 3 4 

FORT LEONARD WOOD 230 1,196 1,426 25 57 82 255 1,253 1,508 

MCSA KANSAS CITY MO 11 26 37 2 2 4 13 28 41 

NAVRESCEN ST LOUIS MO 23 25 48 1 1 2 24 26 50 

ST LOUIS ARMY RESERVE 2 4 6 1 0 1 3 4 7 

ST LOUIS COAST GUARD 2 8 10 0 0 0 2 8 10 

ST LOUIS ENDIST 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 26 101 127 4 7 11 30 108 138 

WHITEMAN AFB 97 246 343 11 25 36 108 271 379 

Total 392 1,608 2,000 45 93 138 437 1,701 2,138 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
64 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

MONTANA 

MALMSTROM AFB 89 339 428 3 50 53 92 389 481 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 8 26 34 3 2 5 11 28 39 

Total 97 365 462 6 52 58 103 417 520 

NEBRASKA 

ENDIST OMAHA NE 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 

OFFUTT AFB 238 435 673 92 60 152 330 495 825 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 7 32 39 1 4 5 8 36 44 

USCG ELIZABETH CITY NC 2 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 

Total 249 469 718 93 64 157 342 533 875 

NEVADA 

FALLON NAS 44 95 139 11 9 20 55 104 159 

HAWTHORNE ARMY AMMO PLANT 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

NELLIS AFB 288 657 945 42 87 129 330 744 1,074 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 9 45 54 1 3 4 10 48 58 

Total 341 797 1,138 55 99 154 396 896 1,292 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

PEASE AFB/AGB 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 

PEASE AGB 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

PORTSMOUTH NAV SHIPYD 14 59 73 7 2 9 21 61 82 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 4 26 30 2 2 4 6 28 34 

Total 19 85 104 10 5 15 29 90 119 

NEW JERSEY 

EARLE NAVWEAPSTA 13 32 45 1 0 1 14 32 46 

FORT DIX 30 71 101 8 11 19 38 82 120 

FORT HAMILTON 1 17 18 2 2 4 3 19 22 

FORT MONMOUTH 57 47 104 23 5 28 80 52 132 

LAKEHURST NAV AIR ENGR CTR 13 39 52 2 2 4 15 41 56 

MCGUIRE AFB 163 351 514 23 55 78 186 406 592 

PICATINNY ARSENAL 0 4 4 1 0 1 1 4 5 

TETERBORO MAP 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 14 100 114 2 8 10 16 108 124 

Total 291 661 952 63 83 146 354 744 1,098 

NEW MEXICO 

CANNON AFB 117 284 401 8 21 29 125 305 430 

DEF NUCLEAR AGCY 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 

HOLLOMAN AFB 113 337 450 6 33 39 119 370 489 

KIRTLAND AFB 132 219 351 79 70 149 211 289 500 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 5 38 43 2 3 5 7 41 48 

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE 8 38 46 3 0 3 11 38 49 

Total 375 916 1,291 98 128 226 473 1,044 1,517 

NEW YORK 

ENDIST BUFFALO NY 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

FORT DRUM 154 1,563 1,717 26 73 99 180 1,636 1,816 

GRIFFISS NOAD ANG 3 0 3 2 5 7 5 5 10 

HANCOCK FIELD AGS 2 4 6 0 0 0 2 4 6 

LOCKPORT AFS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

NAVAL STATION STATEN ISLAND 0 33 33 0 2 2 0 35 35 

PFC ROBERT J. MANVILLE USARC 0 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 4 

PLATTSBURGH AFB 2 14 16 1 0 1 3 14 17 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
65 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

SCHENECTADY ARPT–AGS 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 3 4 

SCOTIA NAVAL ADM BALLSTON 6 39 45 1 5 6 7 44 51 

STEWART NEWBURGH USARC 1 52 53 3 0 3 4 52 56 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 54 263 317 10 18 28 64 281 345 

USCG NIAGARA NY 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

WATERVLIET ARSENAL 1 4 5 0 1 1 1 5 6 

WEST POINT MILRES 28 70 98 46 27 73 74 97 171 

1ST MARINE CORPS DISTRICT 7 21 28 1 4 5 8 25 33 

Total 259 2,068 2,327 94 136 230 353 2,204 2,557 

NORTH CAROLINA 

CAMP LEJEUNE MCB 473 6,615 7,088 103 162 265 576 6,777 7,353 

CHERRY POINT MCAS 92 733 825 33 20 53 125 753 878 

CHERRY POINT NAVAL AVIATION 10 30 40 0 4 4 10 34 44 

FORT BRAGG 810 4,778 5,588 134 215 349 944 4,993 5,937 

NEW RIVER MCAS 80 837 917 19 16 35 99 853 952 

POPE AFB 159 375 534 8 63 71 167 438 605 

SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB 156 322 478 15 39 54 171 361 532 

TARHEEL ARMY MISSILE PLANT 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 66 478 544 14 23 37 80 501 581 

Total 1,846 14,169 16,015 326 542 868 2,172 14,711 16,883 

NORTH DAKOTA 

FARGO/HECTOR FIELD 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 

GRAND FORKS AFB 95 203 298 4 23 27 99 226 325 

MINOT AFB 138 414 552 10 44 54 148 458 606 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 4 11 15 1 0 1 5 11 16 

Total 238 628 866 16 67 83 254 695 949 

OHIO 

BROOKLYN USARC 1 6 7 0 0 0 1 6 7 

COLUMBUS DEF DEPOT 10 13 23 3 0 3 13 13 26 

DFAS COLUMBUS CENTER 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 

LIMA ARMY TANK CTR 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

NAVMAR RESCEN YOUNGSTOWN OH 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

NAVY FINANCE CENTER 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 5 

NAVY RECRUITING AREA 4, COLUMB 3 5 8 0 1 1 3 6 9 

PORT CLINTON IND PARK 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 5 5 

RICKENBACKER IAP 2 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 

SP FLD–BECKLEY MAP AGS 2 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 53 163 216 15 6 21 68 169 237 

WRIGHT–PATTERSON AFB 189 176 365 141 152 293 330 328 658 

Total 262 372 634 162 163 325 424 535 959 

OKLAHOMA 

ALTUS AFB 46 127 173 6 24 30 52 151 203 

ENDIST TULSA OK 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 

FORT SILL 188 1,837 2,025 30 73 103 218 1,910 2,128 

MCALESTER ARMY AMMO PLANT 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

TINKER AFB 226 546 772 43 86 129 269 632 901 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 11 65 76 3 2 5 14 67 81 

VANCE AFB 15 29 44 11 31 42 26 60 86 

Total 487 2,604 3,091 93 217 310 580 2,821 3,401 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
66 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

OREGON 

PORTLAND IAP AGS 16 10 26 0 1 1 16 11 27 

UMATILLA DEPOT 1 3 4 0 0 0 1 3 4 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 17 99 116 3 6 9 20 105 125 

Total 34 112 146 3 7 10 37 119 156 

PENNSYLVANIA 

CARLISLE BARRACKS 16 13 29 34 7 41 50 20 70 

CHARLES KELLY SPT FACILITY 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

DEFENSE DIST DEPOT SUSQUEHAN 29 18 47 5 4 9 34 22 56 

DEFENSE SUPPLY CTR PHILA 16 15 31 8 0 8 24 15 39 

GR. PITTS IAP–AGS 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 3 

NAV SHIPS PARTS CTRL CTR ICP 9 3 12 5 1 6 14 4 18 

NAVAL BASE, PHILADELPHIA 8 1 9 1 0 1 9 1 10 

PITTSBURGH MEPS/ENDIST 22 29 51 3 3 6 25 32 57 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 34 248 282 8 33 41 42 281 323 

WILLOW GROVE NAS 18 52 70 3 8 11 21 60 81 

WYOMING VALLEY ANG CTR 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 152 385 537 68 56 124 220 441 661 

RHODE ISLAND 

NEWPORT NAVEDTRACEN 48 123 171 45 40 85 93 163 256 

PROVIDENCE PRT 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 3 19 22 0 0 0 3 19 22 

Total 51 142 193 45 41 86 96 183 279 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

BEAUFORT MCAS 61 548 609 26 21 47 87 569 656 

CHARLESTON AFB 130 285 415 10 30 40 140 315 455 

CHARLESTON NAVSTA 15 67 82 1 1 2 16 68 84 

FORT JACKSON 197 1,529 1,726 38 43 81 235 1,572 1,807 

NAVAL HOSPITAL, CHARLESTON 14 30 44 12 6 18 26 36 62 

NV WEAPONS STATION CHARLEST 50 184 234 11 40 51 61 224 285 

PARRIS ISLAND MCRD 19 1,700 1,719 6 10 16 25 1,710 1,735 

SHAW AFB 173 371 544 29 62 91 202 433 635 

THE CITADEL 0 23 23 0 2 2 0 25 25 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 19 82 101 8 4 12 27 86 113 

Total 678 4,819 5,497 141 219 360 819 5,038 5,857 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

ELLSWORTH AFB 81 268 349 6 21 27 87 289 376 

SIOUX FALLS CTR 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 1 12 13 0 1 1 1 13 14 

Total 85 280 365 6 22 28 91 302 393 

TENNESSEE 

ARNOLD AFB 4 2 6 3 1 4 7 3 10 

MEMPHIS IAP AGS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

MEMPHIS NAS 52 27 79 9 6 15 61 33 94 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 102 108 210 30 23 53 132 131 263 

Total 159 137 296 42 30 72 201 167 368 

TEXAS 

BROOKS AFB 37 27 64 27 29 56 64 56 120 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
67 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

CARSWELL AFB 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

CORPUS CHRISTI COAST GUARD 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 7 7 

CORPUS CHRISTI NAS 71 155 226 20 80 100 91 235 326 

DYESS AFB 139 410 549 15 30 45 154 440 594 

ENDIST FORT WORTH TX 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

ENDIST GALVESTON TX 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 

FORT BLISS 284 1,470 1,754 45 96 141 329 1,566 1,895 

FORT HOOD 895 4,736 5,631 110 253 363 1,005 4,989 5,994 

FORT SAM HOUSTON 221 649 870 120 64 184 341 713 1,054 

FORT WORTH USARC 2 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 3 

GALVESTON COAST GUARD 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 

GOODFELLOW AFB 53 197 250 3 10 13 56 207 263 

KELLY AFB 1 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 3 

KINGSVILLE NAS 68 116 184 9 13 22 77 129 206 

LACKLAND AFB 400 3,459 3,859 119 166 285 519 3,625 4,144 

LAUGHLIN AFB 22 49 71 5 24 29 27 73 100 

LYNDON B. JOHNSON SPACE CTR 0 1 1 5 1 6 5 2 7 

NAS JRB FT WORTH TX 35 86 121 7 4 11 42 90 132 

NAVY RECRUITING AREA 7, DALLA 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 

RANDOLPH AFB 192 64 256 128 85 213 320 149 469 

RED RIVER DEPOT 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 3 4 

SHEPPARD AFB 120 416 536 20 49 69 140 465 605 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 135 491 626 22 30 52 157 521 678 

Total 2,677 12,342 15,019 661 937 1,598 3,338 13,279 16,617 

UTAH 

DUGWAY PROVING GROUND 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 

HILL AFB 188 421 609 18 50 68 206 471 677 

TOOELE ARMY DEPOT 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 10 55 65 2 4 6 12 59 71 

Total 199 483 682 20 54 74 219 537 756 

VERMONT 

BURLINGTON IAP–AGS 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 3 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 1 13 14 2 0 2 3 13 16 

Total 1 15 16 3 0 3 4 15 19 

VIRGINIA 

CAMERON STATION 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

DAM NECK TRNG CTR ATLANTIC 93 196 289 23 10 33 116 206 322 

FORT A.P. HILL 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

FORT BELVOIR 115 188 303 120 34 154 235 222 457 

FORT EUSTIS 170 552 722 40 34 74 210 586 796 

FORT LEE 119 438 557 47 20 67 166 458 624 

FORT MONROE 39 27 66 48 1 49 87 28 115 

FORT MYER 172 354 526 207 33 240 379 387 766 

FORT STORY 20 120 140 2 3 5 22 123 145 

HQTRS MARCORPS 58 971 1,029 93 18 111 151 989 1,140 

LANGLEY AFB 398 491 889 138 108 246 536 599 1,135 

LITTLE CREEK NAV AMPHIB BASE 309 677 986 70 32 102 379 709 1,088 

MCCDC QUANTICO VA 121 916 1,037 115 72 187 236 988 1,224 

NAVAL MEDICAL CTR 

PORTSMOUTH 80 239 319 44 64 108 124 303 427 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
68 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

CONUS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

NAVSURFWEAPCEN DAHLGREN 25 46 71 12 6 18 37 52 89 

NORFOLK ENDIST 0 5 5 0 2 2 0 7 7 

NORFOLK NAV SHIPYD 4 1 5 3 0 3 7 1 8 

NORFOLK NAVAL BASE 1,713 7,473 9,186 279 256 535 1,992 7,729 9,721 

NORFOLK NSC 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

NSGA NORTHWEST 10 32 42 1 2 3 11 34 45 

OCEANA NAS 141 423 564 12 14 26 153 437 590 

PENTAGON—AIR FORCE 96 21 117 205 28 233 301 49 350 

PENTAGON—ARMY 25 31 56 133 11 144 158 42 200 

PENTAGON—NAVY 17 16 33 74 25 99 91 41 132 

RICHMOND DEF DEPOT 8 3 11 9 1 10 17 4 21 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 210 386 596 115 62 177 325 448 773 

USCG ALEXANDRIA VA 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 

USCG HAMPTON ROADS VA 0 8 8 2 2 4 2 10 12 

USCG YORKTOWN VA 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 

YORKTOWN NAVWEAPSTA 46 106 152 10 6 16 56 112 168 

Total 3,991 13,729 17,720 1,802 844 2,646 5,793 14,573 20,366 

WASHINGTON 

BANGOR NAVSUBBASE 162 261 423 11 29 40 173 290 463 

ENDIST SEATTLE WA 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 

ENDIST WALLA WALLA WA 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 

FAIRCHILD AFB 111 230 341 15 31 46 126 261 387 

FORT LAWTON 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

FORT LEWIS 423 3,263 3,686 81 193 274 504 3,456 3,960 

MCCHORD AFB 120 258 378 9 30 39 129 288 417 

NAVAL HOSPITAL BREMERTON 29 97 126 12 28 40 41 125 166 

NAVAL STATION EVERETT 113 516 629 10 18 28 123 534 657 

NS BREMERTON 327 2,075 2,402 42 44 86 369 2,119 2,488 

SPOKANE IAP AGS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 86 570 656 6 17 23 92 587 679 

WHIDBEY ISLAND NAS 153 514 667 18 22 40 171 536 707 

Total 1,527 7,784 9,311 205 413 618 1,732 8,197 9,929 

WEST VIRGINIA 

NAV SEC GROUP DET, SUGAR 

GROV 12 28 40 0 0 0 12 28 40 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 13 25 38 0 1 1 13 26 39 

Total 25 53 78 0 1 1 25 54 79 

WISCONSIN 

FORT MCCOY 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 6 6 

GEN BILLY MITCHELL FIELD 0 3 3 1 1 2 1 4 5 

TRUAX FIELD ANG STA 0 3 3 0 1 1 0 4 4 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 16 63 79 4 5 9 20 68 88 

Total 16 72 88 5 10 15 21 82 103 

WYOMING 

FRANCIS E WARREN AFB 91 289 380 6 32 38 97 321 418 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 2 14 16 1 0 1 3 14 17 

Total 93 303 396 7 32 39 100 335 435 

Conus Total 29,939 136,520 166,459 8,568 9,367 17,935 38,507 145,887 184,394 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
69 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006 

OVERSEAS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

AFGHANISTAN 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 1 5 6 1 0 1 2 5 7 

Total 1 5 6 1 0 1 2 5 7 

AMERICAN SAMOA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 2 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 4 

Total 2 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 4 

AUSTRALIA 

CANBERRA A.C.T. 1 2 3 1 0 1 2 2 4 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

Total 1 4 5 1 0 1 2 4 6 

AUSTRIA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

BAHRAIN 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 2 4 6 1 0 1 3 4 7 

Total 2 4 6 1 0 1 3 4 7 

BELGIUM 

BRUSSELS, NATO 2 3 5 8 0 8 10 3 13 

CHIEVRES AS BELGIUM 6 11 17 0 0 0 6 11 17 

KLEINE BORGEL 20 37 57 15 2 17 35 39 74 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 3 4 

Total 28 54 82 24 2 26 52 56 108 

BERMUDA 

NAS BERMUDA 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

Total 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

BOSNIA/HERZEGOVINA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

BURUNDI 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

CANADA 

ARGENTIA NEWFOUNDLAND 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 

CHINA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

Total 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

CUBA 

GUANTANAMO BAY NS 1 10 11 0 0 0 1 10 11 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 1 5 6 0 1 1 1 6 7 

Total 2 15 17 0 1 1 2 16 18 

DJIBOUTI 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 6 6 0 2 2 0 8 8 

Total 0 6 6 0 2 2 0 8 8 

EGYPT 

CAIRO MED UNIT 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 

EL GORAH, EGYPT 3 23 26 0 0 0 3 23 26 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 

Total 6 26 32 0 0 0 6 26 32 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
70 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

OVERSEAS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

EL SALVADOR 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

GEORGIA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

GERMANY 

ANSBACH, BARTON BARRACKS 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 22 22 

BABENBAUSEN KASERNE 3 92 95 0 0 0 3 92 95 

BAD AIBLING FIELD STATION 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 

BAD GODESBERG, AMER. EMBASSY 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

BAD KREUZNACH GERMANY 5 10 15 1 0 1 6 10 16 

BAD KREUZNACH, ROSE BARRACKS 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 25 25 

BAMBERG WARNER BARRACKS 29 280 309 1 12 13 30 292 322 

BAUMHOLDER, H.D. SMITH BRCKS 7 281 288 2 17 19 9 298 307 

BITBURG AB F 0 5 5 0 8 8 0 13 13 

BOBLINGEN PANZER KASERNE 6 16 22 1 2 3 7 18 25 

BUCHEL AB 1 9 10 0 0 0 1 9 10 

BUEDINGEN ARMSTRONG BARRACKS 1 83 84 0 3 3 1 86 87 

DARMSTADT GERMANY 15 188 203 6 8 14 21 196 217 

DEXHEIM MILITARY COMMUNITY 1 42 43 0 1 1 1 43 44 

FRANKFURT, GERMANY 3 4 7 0 3 3 3 7 10 

FRIEDBERG 7 174 181 1 1 2 8 175 183 

GARMISCH 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 

GEILENKIRCHEN 7 19 26 2 4 6 9 23 32 

GIEBELSTADT 7 133 140 3 13 16 10 146 156 

GIESSEN GERMANY 2 23 25 0 0 0 2 23 25 

GRAFENWOHR GERMANY 14 81 95 3 13 16 17 94 111 

HANAU GERMANY 21 279 300 7 15 22 28 294 322 

HEIDELBERG 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 

HEIDELBERG PATTON BARRACKS 24 111 135 9 11 20 33 122 155 

HEIDELBERG, CAMPBELL BARRACK 9 26 35 14 8 22 23 34 57 

HOHENFELS GERMANY 19 120 139 3 7 10 22 127 149 

ILLESHEIM GERMANY 6 66 72 2 5 7 8 71 79 

KAAPAUN AS 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 

KAEFERTAL GERMANY 9 141 150 3 13 16 12 154 166 

KAISERSLAUTERN 20 136 156 4 7 11 24 143 167 

KATTERBACH KASERNE 

(ANSBACH) 15 113 128 0 7 7 15 120 135 

KIRCHGOENS 6 40 46 0 1 1 6 41 47 

KITZINGEN, HARVEY BARRACKS 8 52 60 4 10 14 12 62 74 

KITZINGEN, LARSON BARRACKS 8 257 265 0 11 11 8 268 276 

LANDSTUHL MEDICAL CENTER 15 111 126 10 21 31 25 132 157 

MAIN–KASTEL 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

MAINZ/MCCULLY BARRACKS GM 4 32 36 0 1 1 4 33 37 

MANNHEIM 12 168 180 0 2 2 12 170 182 

MIESAU ARMY DEPOT 4 61 65 1 4 5 5 65 70 

MOHRINGEN, KELLEY BARRACKS 1 8 9 2 0 2 3 8 11 

MUNICH 1 4 5 3 3 6 4 7 11 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
71 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

OVERSEAS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

PIRMASENS 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 

RAMSTEIN, FRG 102 327 429 39 43 82 141 370 511 

RHEIN MAIN AB 2 8 10 0 0 0 2 8 10 

SANDHOFEN 5 18 23 0 1 1 5 19 24 

SCHWEINFURT CONN BARRACKS 8 109 117 2 2 4 10 111 121 

SCHWEINFURT LEDWARD BARRACKS 10 211 221 1 13 14 11 224 235 

SCHWETZINGEN 4 19 23 1 0 1 5 19 24 

SCHWETZINGEN, TOMPKIN BARRACK 1 7 8 1 0 1 2 7 9 

SECKENHEIM 2 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 4 

SEMBACH, FRG 9 27 36 1 7 8 10 34 44 

SHIPTON KASERNE, ANSBACH 6 49 55 0 0 0 6 49 55 

SPANGDAHLEM AB 41 199 240 2 17 19 43 216 259 

STUTTGART GERMANY 14 15 29 17 5 22 31 20 51 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 1 3 4 0 0 0 1 3 4 

VAIHINGEN—PATCH BARRACKS 9 43 52 1 0 1 10 43 53 

VISECK 27 406 433 2 11 13 29 417 446 

WIESBADEN GERMANY 13 143 156 5 27 32 18 170 188 

WORMS 12 58 70 3 2 5 15 60 75 

WUERZBERG 35 216 251 6 13 19 41 229 270 

Total 594 5,082 5,676 165 353 518 759 5,435 6,194 

GIBRALTAR 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

Total 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

GREECE 

SOUDA BAY, CRETE 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 

Total 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 

GREENLAND 

THULE AFB 2 2 4 1 1 2 3 3 6 

Total 2 2 4 1 1 2 3 3 6 

GUAM 

ANDERSON AFB GUAM 24 99 123 3 18 21 27 117 144 

NAVAL HOSPITAL GUAM 3 22 25 1 10 11 4 32 36 

NAVAL STATION GUAM 17 40 57 0 6 6 17 46 63 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 5 4 9 0 0 0 5 4 9 

Total 49 165 214 4 34 38 53 199 252 

GUATEMALA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

ICELAND 

KEFLAVIK ICELAND 9 28 37 1 3 4 10 31 41 

KEFLAVIL NAS, ICELAND 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 3 4 

Total 10 29 39 1 5 6 11 34 45 

IRAQ 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 4 248 252 5 8 13 9 256 265 

Total 4 248 252 5 8 13 9 256 265 

ISRAEL 

TEL AVIV 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

Total 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
72 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

OVERSEAS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

ITALY 

AVIANO AB 32 169 201 6 24 30 38 193 231 

CAMP DARBY LIVORNO 5 36 41 0 2 2 5 38 43 

GAETA NAVAL SUPPORT ACTVITY 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

LA MADDALENA SARDINIA 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 

NAPLES FMC 0 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 4 

NAPLES U.S. NAVCAMSMED 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

NAPLES, NAVAL SUPP ACT 6 6 12 6 0 6 12 6 18 

NAS SIGONELLA, SICILY 5 15 20 0 1 1 5 16 21 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

VICENZA ITALY 23 475 498 5 14 19 28 489 517 

Total 71 710 781 19 42 61 90 752 842 

JAPAN 

CAMP ZAMA TOKYO 3 65 68 2 11 13 5 76 81 

FLEET ACTIVITIES, SASEBO 11 24 35 0 3 3 11 27 38 

IWAKUNI MCAS 6 16 22 0 0 0 6 16 22 

KADENA AB 62 280 342 4 34 38 66 314 380 

KADENA FLEET ACTIVITY 2 3 5 1 0 1 3 3 6 

KAMI SEYA 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

MAKIMINATO, OKINAWA CP BUTLER 9 29 38 1 1 2 10 30 40 

MISAWA AB 35 145 180 3 21 24 38 166 204 

MUTUAL DEF ASST OFF, TOKYO 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

NAVAL AIR FACILITY, ATSUGI 9 10 19 0 0 0 9 10 19 

NAVAL HOSPITAL OKINAWA 2 6 8 0 1 1 2 7 9 

NSD YOKOSUKA, JAPAN 32 55 87 9 9 18 41 64 105 

OKINAWA TORII STATION 10 34 44 0 1 1 10 35 45 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 15 66 81 0 1 1 15 67 82 

YOKOTA AB 47 118 165 14 28 42 61 146 207 

Total 244 851 1,095 35 110 145 279 961 1,240 

KOREA (SOUTH) 

BUPYEONG CAMP MARKET 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 12 12 

CAMP CASEY TONGDUCHON 43 387 430 10 19 29 53 406 459 

CAMP RED CLOUD UIJONBU, KOR 47 244 291 3 14 17 50 258 308 

CHINHAE FLEET ACTIVITY 2 1 3 0 1 1 2 2 4 

KUNSAN AB 26 82 108 2 15 17 28 97 125 

OSAN AIR BASE 57 153 210 7 30 37 64 183 247 

OSAN, KOREA 8 37 45 0 0 0 8 37 45 

SEOUL, KOREA 12 59 71 1 9 10 13 68 81 

SUWON 1 6 7 0 0 0 1 6 7 

TAEGU, CAMP HENRY, 19 SPT CM 16 24 40 0 2 2 16 26 42 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 

WONGJU KANGWON–BO CAMP LONG 2 13 15 0 1 1 2 14 16 

YONGSAN, KOREA 107 320 427 26 45 71 133 365 498 

20TH ASG TAEGU, KOREA 16 63 79 4 6 10 20 69 89 

23D ASG CAMP HUMPHREYS 37 209 246 5 7 12 42 216 258 

34TH ASG PUSAN, KOREA 3 16 19 0 0 0 3 16 19 

Total 378 1,627 2,005 58 149 207 436 1,776 2,212 

KUWAIT 

KUWAIT CITY, COMBAT SUPPORT 1 6 7 3 1 4 4 7 11 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
73 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

OVERSEAS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 1 7 8 3 1 4 4 8 12 

MALAYSIA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Total 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

MEXICO 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

Total 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

NETHERLANDS 

SCHINNEN NETHERLANDS 9 51 60 4 2 6 13 53 66 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 9 52 61 4 2 6 13 54 67 

NORWAY 

STAVANGER 4 6 10 1 0 1 5 6 11 

Total 4 6 10 1 0 1 5 6 11 

PANAMA 

ALBROOK AFS 0 0 0 10 0 10 10 0 10 

Total 0 0 0 10 0 10 10 0 10 

PHILIPPINES 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

PORTUGAL 

LISBON AMERICAN EMBASSY 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 

TERCEIRA AZORES 7 26 33 1 7 8 8 33 41 

Total 7 26 33 2 7 9 9 33 42 

PUERTO RICO 

NAVAL STATION, ROOSEVELT ROA 4 2 6 0 0 0 4 2 6 

SAN JUAN, FORT BUCHANAN 5 11 16 9 3 12 14 14 28 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 2 10 12 0 3 3 2 13 15 

Total 11 23 34 9 6 15 20 29 49 

QATAR 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

ROMANIA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

RUSSIA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 

Total 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 

SAUDI ARABIA 

DHAHRAN, DET. 1, 9 AIRPS 1 10 11 0 0 0 1 10 11 

RIYADH SAUDI ARABIA 2 2 4 2 0 2 4 2 6 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 3 13 16 2 0 2 5 13 18 

SHIPS AFLOAT 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 385 2,404 2,789 45 95 140 430 2,499 2,929 

Total 385 2,404 2,789 45 95 140 430 2,499 2,929 

SOUTH AFRICA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
74 

Active Duty Retirements and Separations by State/Country and Base 

(Includes Homeported Ships and Coast Guard)—FY 2006—Continued 

OVERSEAS 

Enlisted Officer Total 

Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total Rets Seps Total 

SPAIN 

MADRID AMERICAN EMBASSY 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 4 

MORON AB 4 6 10 0 0 0 4 6 10 

NAVAL STATION, ROTA, SPAIN 5 26 31 0 2 2 5 28 33 

ROTA NS 3 5 8 0 0 0 3 5 8 

Total 12 38 50 1 4 5 13 42 55 

THAILAND 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

TURKEY 

ANKARA AS 1 2 3 1 0 1 2 2 4 

INCURLIK AB ADANA, TURKEY 14 50 64 3 16 19 17 66 83 

ISTANBUL AMT 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 16 55 71 4 16 20 20 71 91 

TURKMENISTAN 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

UNITED KINGDOM 

ALCONBURY, UK RAF MOLESWORTH 9 40 49 2 6 8 11 46 57 

CROUGTON RAF CROUGHTON 1 10 11 0 1 1 1 11 12 

FAIRFORD, RAF FAIRFORD 7 10 17 1 2 3 8 12 20 

JMF ST. MAWGAN, UK 2 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 4 

LAKENHEATH, UK RAF 37 149 186 3 41 44 40 190 230 

LONDON, ENGLAND 1 6 7 3 2 5 4 8 12 

MENWITH HILL RAF 4 13 17 1 2 3 5 15 20 

NEWBURY 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 

RAF MILDENHALL 38 149 187 6 24 30 44 173 217 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 

Total 99 380 479 16 79 95 115 459 574 

VENEZUELA 

CARACAS, AM. EMBASSY VENZUEL 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 

Total 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 

VIRGIN ISLANDS 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Total 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 

YUGOSLAVIA 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

Total 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 

UNKNOWN 

UNKNOWN/RESERVE BASE 85 1,602 1,687 264 336 600 349 1,938 2,287 

Total 85 1,602 1,687 264 336 600 349 1,938 2,287 

Overseas Total 2,029 13,454 15,483 683 1,254 1,937 2,712 14,708 17,420 

Total 31,968 149,974 181,942 9,251 10,621 19,872 41,219 160,595 201,814 

After the hearing, the U.S. Department of Labor subsequently provided 

charts showing the number of TAP classes offered, the average number of 

attendees, and the average class size. They provided these charts before 

the July 23rd letter. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
75 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert 34308A.005 Insert 34308A.006
76 

f 

Wounded & Injured Transition 

The Transition Training Academy Model 

Overview 

While serving in the armed forces of the United States, many wounded and injured servicemembers must confront new and difficult challenges during their rehabilitation in military treatment facilities (MTF) before they are able to transition 

back to civilian lives and families. Some of these servicemembers will encounter significant challenges as they enter or reenter the workforce. A key part of the rehabilitation process relates directly to their jobs and long term career aspirations. In 

other words, there is a need to assist these wounded and injured servicemembers 

in obtaining new skills or enhancing current skills so that they find suitable and 

rewarding employment upon leaving the medical facility and exiting active duty 

service in the armed forces. 

This career and skill transition can be a powerful win-win for rehabilitating 

servicemembers, their family, and prospective employers. By identifying desired and 

needed skills in the civilian workforce, and tailoring rehabilitation and training programs to meet those needs, employers gain access to a pool of skilled employees and 

the transitioning servicemembers are empowered to pursue their American dream. 

Department of Labor’s (DOL) Veterans Employment Training Service (VETS) is 

doing this by working with servicemembers to help them improve their skills and 

by reaching out to employers to find out the types of jobs they are looking to fill. 

Present Status 

Presently, a number of programs exist to support the transition to employment 

of wounded & injured servicemembers, including tuition assistance, distance learning opportunities, and work experience programs. At some locations, such as at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), servicemembers have access to a wide 

range of education and degree programs, and can access these services in specialized 

and accommodated settings provided by Department of Defense’s (DoD) Computer/ 

Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP). 

Since the launch of DOL’s Recovery & Employment Assistance Lifelines 

(REALifelines) program in 2004, VETS focused specific attention on wounded and 

injured transition as it relates to the following: 

1. Wounded & Injured Servicemember employment, reemployment, and transition. 

2. Servicemember access to pre-discharge career-focused learning opportunities. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGInsert 34308A.007
77 

3. Servicemember usage of skill-development opportunities. 

4. Barriers to employment or reemployment for wounded & injured servicemembers. 

5. Employment needs of primary caregivers. VETS launched an initial demonstration program called REALifelines at Walter Reed and the National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda, MD) in conjunction with DOL’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), and the Job Accommodation Network. The demonstration project ran from October 2004 to June 2005, and was succeeded by 

the implementation and rapid expansion of personalized services to wounded 

& injured servicemembers and their families under the unified REALifelines 

program. 

These initial efforts focused on three areas of service delivery: Pre-discharge services (training, assessment, internships, etc.); Transition Services (Referral, reemployment, accommodation, placement, etc.); and Follow-up. 

Several additional demonstration programs were launched throughout 2005 

and 2006, culminating in the National Summit on Wounded & Injured Veterans: 

Recovery, Rehabilitation, and Employment. Further information on the findings of 

the summit, as well as full Summit content videos can be found online at 

www.HireVetsFirst.gov/realifelines. 

Among the programs and initiatives developed under the REALifelines program 

were efforts that now exist in different forms. For instance, REALifelines initially 

launched a call-center operation through the Job Accommodation Network to address referral issues and act as a central point of operations. That effort was phased 

out as DoD started the Military Severely Injured Center (MSIC), and DOL staff 

were placed on site at the MSIC to continue the coordination function in concert 

with other efforts and agencies. Additionally, an early Federal work opportunity program launched as part of REALifelines was combined with DoD’s Operation War 

Fighter. A third program targeting the delivery of occupation-specific training is 

scheduled for formal launch in April 2007 after 2 years of development. This project, 

the Transition Training Academy, is described below: 

Project Summary 

The Transition Training Academy will provide introductory technology training 

for rehabilitating servicemembers as part of their rehabilitation plan prior to medical discharge from the armed services. Courses will be conducted in a modified 

classroom setting, with individual accommodations provided for class participants. 

These introductory courses include networking, computer and software support, and 

Small Office Home Office (SOHO) support. The purpose of the project is to provide 

individuals with an opportunity to determine if they have a further interest in pursuing a career in one of these fields, with particular emphasis on the Cisco Networking Academy programs. 

A demonstration project is being launched at the Naval Medical Center in San 

Diego, California as a joint effort of Cisco Foundation, Teachers Without Borders, 

the Naval Medical Center San Diego, the California Education and Development 

Department, the Job Accommodation Network, and DOL’s VETS and ODEP. 

Servicemembers, and their primary caregivers, who are being processed for medical discharge from the armed services due to wounds or injuries sustained on active 

duty, will be provided with the opportunity to take a series of 3 hour sessions in 

a variety of topics in the networking, computer and software support and SOHO 

support fields. On-site instruction, as well as access to online extended instruction, 

will be provided. The instruction will be geared to individual levels of experience 

with technology from beginners to more advanced users. 

The schedule of classes will be flexible to accommodate a patient’s medical and 

work schedules. The follow-up to classroom instruction will include Web-based exercises for continued learning and online support via e-mail and chat rooms. Additional support beyond the sessions will be provided to assist the disabled vet in obtaining the training needed to pursue a career in one of these fields. 

The long-range objective of the pilot project is to develop a replicable model which 

could be implemented in multiple facilities across the United States. 

Project Benefits 

• Increased patient morale 

• Enhance their ability to perform military duties 

• Reduced transition time after medical recovery by matching veterans to available jobs in IT more rapidly and effectively 

• Reduced costs for post recovery training and agency-related manpower involvement and costs 

• Build a pipeline of skilled, motivated employees 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
78 

• Increased ability to serve a growing MTF population with quality employment 

services at no projected increase in current MTF management and service staff 

Project Deliverables 

• Creation of a replicable, scalable program that can be implemented at low cost 

in multiple facilities across the nation. 

• Development of a modular content format, which will accommodate each veteran’s medical and work schedule. 

• Individual portfolio of materials reviewed, course content completed, suggested 

professional development plan and referral to appropriate sites, including the 

closest Networking Academy, for certification training completion. This will be 

available to them in a specially adapted version of the TWB tool set. 

• A detailed template for replication in other sites. 

Current Status 

• A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been developed and agreed to by 

VETS and the Naval Medical Center San Diego (Balboa) to establish a careertraining and outreach center onsite. 

• VETS has assigned 2 full time employees to development of the program, and 

contracted through the Job Accommodation Network to assure a full analysis 

and review of the demonstration. 

• Cisco Public Benefit Giving staff have identified potential partners to assist in 

the development of training platforms and the redevelopment of underutilized 

materials. 

• Due to the demands of rehabilitation, medical protocols and variations of each 

wounded serviceperson’s needs and abilities while in the facility, a ‘‘traditional’’

Networking Academy format was not feasible. Portions of the Cisco Academy 

curricula are being excerpted for use in ‘‘sampler’’ course modules that better 

fit the skill level and time constraints of servicemembers attached to the Medical Holding Companies and undergoing treatment and other rehabilitative 

services. 

Course Rationale/Description 

• Patients in the medical holding facility are subject to duty assignments in addition to medical appointments and procedures relating to their recovery and 

readiness for transition to civilian life and careers. Some patients may be permitted to attend classes as a component of their duty assignment, however, the 

vast majority of them require significant flexibility in the course delivery timeframes to accommodate their medical appointments. These factors require that 

the courses and course content be fully customized in order to meet the requirements of the participants. 

• Courses will be designed to be delivered in 3 hour sessions with Web-based follow-up exercises and online support via email and chat. The online exercises 

and assessments will be a required component of the course for the participant 

to receive a certificate of completion. Total required time for course completion 

including classroom time and online will average 6 to 7 hours. 

• Each of the courses will consist of three 1-hour segments that are inclusive of 

single or multiple topics and reflect increasing levels of knowledge (beginner, 

intermediate, and advanced). This design will allow participants to attend 1 or 

2 hours of a session and pick up the remaining hours at an alternate session 

thereby accommodating the majority of potential scheduling conflicts. Initial 

plans call for classes to be held on alternating Thursdays at 0900 to 1200, 

1300–1600, and Friday 0800–1100. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING