VETERANS’

REEMPLOYMENT 

RIGHTS

Department of Labor 

Has Higher 

Performance Than the 

Office of Special 

Counsel on More

Demonstration Project

Measures

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2014

GAO-15-77

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-77, a report to

congressional committees

November 2014

VETERANS’ REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS

Department of Labor Has Higher Performance Than

the Office of Special Counsel on More Demonstration 

Project Measures

Why GAO Did This Study

USERRA protects the employment and 

reemployment rights of workers who 

leave civilian jobs to perform military or 

other uniformed service. VBA directed 

DOL and OSC to establish a second 

demonstration project for investigating

and resolving USERRA claims filed 

against federal agencies. Congress 

established the demonstration project 

to facilitate a review of relative agency 

performance and mandated GAO to 

report on relative performance across 

a number of areas specified in the 

VBA. 

This report assesses agencies’ relative 

performance using VBA performance 

metrics - case outcomes, customer 

satisfaction, timeliness, cost, and 

capacity. 

To determine agencies’ relative 

performance, GAO analyzed agency 

data on the aforementioned metrics. 

GAO reviewed VBA requirements and

relevant guidance, and interviewed 

agency officials. In addition, GAO also 

conducted tests on each agencies’ 

cost and accounting data to ensure 

agreed upon cost components were 

reflected in the totals. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that any agency 

chosen to investigate USERRA claims 

continue efforts to collect claimants’ 

survey satisfaction information, and to 

consider efforts to increase the survey 

response rate. DOL agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations. OSC neither agreed 

nor disagreed with GAO’s

recommendations, and disagreed with 

GAO’s findings regarding agencies’ 

relative performance. 

What GAO Found

Demonstration Project Performance Between August 2011 and August 2014, 

the Department of Labor (DOL) demonstrated relatively higher performance than 

the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) on three of five performance metrics in the 

Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2010 (VBA).The relative performance was influenced—

to a varying extent—by a number of factors, such as the investigative approach. 

Case Outcomes (as of July 31, 2014): OSC provided relief to about 26 percent 

and DOL provided relief to about 20 percent of its claimants. DOL resolved 308 

(or 97 percent of the 319) Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act (USERRA) cases, and OSC resolved 366 (or 84 percent of the 434) 

cases it received. OSC received a greater number of cases due to a requirement 

to investigate 27 cases involving a prohibited personnel practice (PPP) and to the 

random assignment of cases from servicemembers with odd social security 

numbers. GAO did not evaluate the appropriateness of agencies’ case 

outcomes. Although the agencies had 10 months to prepare, OSC officials stated 

they had limited capacity to investigate and resolve claims during the first six 

months of the demonstration project. In fiscal years 2013 and 2014, both 

agencies closed about as many cases as received.

Customer Satisfaction: On a survey sent to claimants and administered by 

OPM, DOL respondents reported higher average satisfaction on every question 

than OSC respondents, with pronounced differences in scores on timeliness,

access to staff, and overall experience. For example, 66 percent of DOL’s 

respondents (n=100) were satisfied with overall customer service, whereas 34 

percent of OSC’s respondents (n=151) were satisfied. In light of the low survey 

response rates, GAO conducted additional statistical analyses to control for 

potential bias and ensure conclusions could be drawn from survey results.

Differences in satisfaction between agencies persisted after controlling for 

variables such as case outcome and timeliness. 

Timeliness: DOL’s average investigation time of closed cases was about 41 

days and OSC’s was about 151 days. GAO examined factors potentially 

influencing timeliness, such as OSC’s responsibility to investigate cases involving 

a PPP, and whether relief was obtained for claimants. GAO found these factors 

were not primary contributors to OSC’s relatively longer average times. Agencies 

have different policies for extending case investigation timeframes. Officials from 

OSC said they allow for open-ended case extensions, whereas DOL does not. 

Cost: DOL spent about $1,112 per case, whereas OSC spent about $3,810. The 

relative difference in agencies’ costs was affected by factors such as the number 

of hours dedicated to case investigations and pay levels, among others. 

Capacity: The agencies demonstrated different capabilities to investigate and 

resolve cases in areas such as staffing, training, and information technology. For 

example, DOL had 31 staff investigating USERRA demonstration project, and 

other nonfederal USERRA or veterans’ preference cases. These DOL 

investigators had an average annual demonstration project caseload of five. OSC

had 7 staff investigating demonstration project cases, with an average annual 

caseload of 28. GAO could not determine relative performance on agency 

capacity due to the lack of a specific and comparable metric.

View GAO-15-77. For more information, 

contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-2717 or 

jonesy@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Letter 1 

Background 4

DOL Has Relatively Higher Performance Than OSC for More

Demonstration Project Performance Measures 8

Customer Satisfaction Can Provide Meaningful Feedback for 

Service Improvements 33

Conclusions 35

Recommendations for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41

Appendix II USERRA Demonstration Project Customer Satisfaction Survey 

Administration and Instrument 47

Appendix III Nonresponse and Multivariate Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data 52

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Labor 66

Appendix V Comments from the Office of Special Counsel 68

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 96

Related GAO Products 97

Tables

Table 1: The Office of Special Counsel Resolved a Greater 

Proportion of Cases in Favor of the Claimant 12

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Table 2: On Average, DOL Received Higher Scores on Claimant 

Interaction with Staff and Overall Satisfaction with 

Customer Service and Investigation 17

Table 3: DOL Has More Investigative Staff with Generally Lower 

Pay Levels While OSC Had Less Investigative Staff with 

Higher Caseloads 26

Table 4: Survey Response Rates at DOL and OSC 52

Table 5: Case Processing Time for Responders and NonResponders, by Agency and Overall 53

Table 6: Discrimination Allegations for Responders and NonResponders, by Agency and Overall 54

Table 7: Favorable Outcomes for Responders and NonResponders, by Agency and Overall 56

Table 8: Agency Reported Outcome by Respondent Perception of 

the Outcome 57

Table 9: Responses to 15 Satisfaction Items on the USERRA 

Survey Questionnaire, by Agency 58

Table 10: Odds and Odds Ratios Indicating Differences in 

Satisfaction at DOL and OSC before and after Adjusting 

for Whether the Outcome Was Favorable, Case 

Processing Time, and Whether Discrimination Was 

Alleged 60

Table 11: Odds and Odds Ratios Indicating Differences in 

Satisfaction at DOL and OSC Before and After Adjusting 

for Whether the Outcome Was Favorable, Case 

Processing Time, and Whether Discrimination Was 

Alleged 64

Figures

Figure 1: USERRA Claims Processing under the Demonstration 

Project 6

Figure 2: Department of Labor Closed About As Many Cases As It 

Opened 10

Figure 3: Office of Special Counsel Received More Cases Than It 

Closed During the Early Years but the Gap Narrowed 

During the Later Years 11

Figure 4: Department of Labor Respondents Were More Likely to 

Express Satisfaction 15

Figure 5: Department of Labor Respondents Were More Likely to 

Express Satisfaction 16

Figure 6: Department of Labor Resolved Cases Faster 19
Page iii GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Figure 7: Office of Special Counsel Had a Greater Proportion of 

Cases Open More Than 90 Days 20

Figure 8: OSC Uses ADR Process to Mediate USERRA Cases to 

Offer Claimants Additional Resolution Options 31

Figure 9: OPM 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey Instrument 49
Page iv GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Abbreviations

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

DOD Department of Defense

DOL Department of Labor

DOL-VETS Department of Labor Veterans’ Employment and

Training Service

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

NVTI National Veterans Training Institute

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OSC Office of Special Counsel

OSC 2000 Office of Special Counsel case tracking system

PMF Presidential Management Fellow

PPP prohibited personnel practices

SSN Social Security number

UIMS USERRA Information Management System

USERRA Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act of 1994

VBA Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2010

VBIA Veterans Benefit Improvement Act of 2004

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 25, 2014

The Honorable Bernie Sanders

Chairman 

The Honorable Richard Burr

Ranking Member

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Jeff Miller

Chairman 

The Honorable Michael Michaud

Ranking Member 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Over the next 4 to 5 years, more than a million servicemembers are 

expected to leave the military and transition into civilian life, according to 

the Department of Defense.1 In making this transition, some 

servicemembers will face significant challenges reentering the workforce 

and maintaining employment. Many factors—such as workplace 

absences due to overseas deployments, translating military skills to 

civilian job requirements, and employers’ lack of awareness regarding 

reemployment rights—can contribute to the difficulties servicemembers 

face when seeking a return to the civilian workforce.

To protect the employment and reemployment rights of federal and 

nonfederal employees when they leave their civilian employment to 

perform military or other uniformed service, Congress enacted the 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 

(USERRA).2 USERRA applies to a wide range of employers, including 

 

1

Over each of the next 4 years, the Department of Defense estimates that approximately 

170,000 to 185,000 active duty servicemembers will separate from the military and about 

60,000 National Guard and Reserve members will be demobilized and deactivated from 

active duty. GAO, Transitioning Veterans: Improved Oversight Needed to Enhance 

Implementation of Transition Assistance Program, GAO-14-144 (Washington, D.C.: March 

5, 2014). 

2

In addition to those serving in the armed forces and the Army and Air National Guards 

(when engaged in active duty for training, inactive duty training, or full-time National Guard 
 

Page 2 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

federal, state, and local governments as well as to private-sector firms. 

Among other rights, servicemembers who meet the statutory 

requirements are entitled to reinstatement to the positions they would 

have held if they had never left their employment (or reinstatement to 

positions of similar seniority, status, and pay).

As part of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004 and the 

Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2010 (VBA), Congress established two 

demonstration projects between the Department of Labor (DOL) and the 

Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The first demonstration project was 

implemented from February 8, 2005, through December 31, 2007. The 

second demonstration project was implemented from August 9, 2011, 

through August 9, 2014.

Claims filed under USERRA from servicemembers have remained 

relatively steady over time despite ongoing efforts to improve outreach to 

employers and improve agencies’ training and guidance. Between fiscal 

years 2008 and 2012, servicemembers filed more than 1,400 employment 

and reemployment claims each year (in 2013, the number of claims fell to 

fewer than 1,300). In addition, in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, more than 

200 USERRA claims were filed against federal executive agencies.

VBA mandated us to report on the relative performance of DOL and OSC 

across a number of areas specified in the act. This assessment of the 

2011-2014, 36-month demonstration project (1) covers agencies’ relative 

performance under performance metrics including case outcomes, 

customer satisfaction, timeliness, cost, and capacity as mandated by 

VBA; and (2) identifies actions agencies can take to improve satisfaction 

on customer service.3 To assess agencies’ relative performance, we 

reviewed the requirements of the demonstration project set forth in VBA 

and compared final agency performance data on case outcome, 

timeliness, customer satisfaction, and cost. We also analyzed agency 

data to provide comparative descriptions of capacity. In conducting our 

work, we obtained data on case tracking, customer satisfaction, cost, and 

 

duty), USERRA covers the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and other 

persons designated by the President in time of war or national emergency. Pub. L. No. 103-353, 108 Stat. 3149 (Oct. 13, 1994), codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335. 

USERRA is the most recent in a series of laws protecting veterans’ employment and 

reemployment rights going back to the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. Pub. L.

No. 783, 54 Stat. 885, 890 (Sept. 16, 1940).

3

Pub. L. No. 111-275, § 105, 124 Stat. 2864, 2868-70 (Oct. 13, 2010).
 

Page 3 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

capacity from DOL, OSC, and the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) from the beginning of the USERRA demonstration project in 

August 2011 to July 2014.

To assess case outcomes and timeliness, we reviewed and analyzed 

data from DOL’s case tracking system (the USERRA Information 

Management System) and OSC’s case tracking system for demonstration 

project cases opened between August 9, 2011 and July 31, 2014. To 

assess customer satisfaction, we reviewed and analyzed data and 

narrative responses from the USERRA customer satisfaction survey, 

which was administered by OPM on behalf of both agencies. To assess 

demonstration project costs, we reviewed and analyzed cost and 

accounting data from DOL and OSC, including supporting documentation 

such as the number of hours dedicated to demonstration project cases. 

We assessed the reliability of data on case outcomes, customer 

satisfaction, timeliness, and cost, and determined the data we used to 

evaluate the relative performance of agencies was sufficiently reliable for 

the purpose of this report.

We reviewed and analyzed information on agencies’ capacity based on 

factors identified in the VBA mandate such as staffing levels, grade level, 

training, education, and caseload. We also reviewed DOL’s and OSC’s 

unique characteristics that enable them to investigate and resolve claims. 

We interviewed key officials involved with the USERRA demonstration 

project at DOL and OSC. We also reviewed pertinent reports, guidance, 

plans, relevant federal laws, directives, and other documents.

To identify actions agencies can take to improve customer service, we 

analyzed agency customer satisfaction data and compared results to 

customer service principles and guidance outlined in executive orders 

and the Office of Management and Budget guidance. We also interviewed 

agency officials about their views on related procedures and practices 

that worked well or needed improvement.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to November 2014 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
 

Page 4 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Under USERRA, an employee or applicant for employment who believes 

that his or her USERRA rights have been violated may file a claim with 

the DOL’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (DOL-VETS), 

which investigates and attempts to resolve the claim. If DOL-VETS 

cannot resolve the claim and the servicemember is a federal government 

employee or applicant to a federal agency, DOL is to inform the claimant 

of the right to have his or her claim referred to OSC for further review and 

possible OSC representation before the Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB).4 DOL is also to inform the claimant that he or she may file a 

claim directly with MSPB.

The Veterans Benefit Improvement Act of 2004 (VBIA) established a 

demonstration project for the period February 8, 2005, through December 

31, 2007, during which OSC was authorized to receive and investigate 

certain USERRA cases while DOL remained in an investigative role for 

others.5 In 2007, as mandated by VBIA, we evaluated the demonstration 

project and made recommendations to DOL to help establish internal

controls for case review, claimant notification, and data management.6

Specifically, we found that the data DOL used to track case investigation 

time and the data DOL and OSC used to track case outcomes were not 

reliable to monitor, track, and report on the agencies’ performance. 

Further, we found the data for reporting outcomes were not reliable at 

either DOL or OSC. This adversely affected Congress’s ability to assess 

how well federal USERRA claims were being investigated as well as to 

assess whether changes would be needed in the future.7 To improve the 

USERRA process, we recommended that the Secretary of Labor develop 

an internal review mechanism for all unresolved cases before they are 

closed and claimants are notified. We also recommended establishing

internal controls to ensure the accuracy of data entered into DOL’s case 

 

4

OSC is an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency with the primary mission 

of protecting the employment rights of federal employees and applicants for federal 

employment. 

5

Pub. L. No. 108-454, §204, 118 Stat. 3598, 3606-08 (Dec. 10, 2004). Under VBIA, the 

demonstration project was originally scheduled to end on September 30, 2007, but 

through a series of extensions ran through December 31, 2007.

6

See GAO, Military Personnel: Improved Quality Controls Needed over Servicemembers’ 

Employment Rights Claims at DOL, GAO-07-907 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2007). 

7

GAO-07-907. 

Background
 

Page 5 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

tracking database. DOL agreed with and implemented our 

recommendations.

Congress passed the VBA which directed DOL and OSC to establish a 

second demonstration project (36-month duration) for receiving, 

investigating, and resolving USERRA claims filed against federal 

executive agencies. Procedures in the second demonstration project 

were similar to those in the first demonstration project. DOL and OSC 

each received claims and were authorized to investigate and seek 

corrective action for those claims.

Specifically, DOL is authorized to investigate and seek corrective action 

for those claims filed against federal executive agencies if the 

servicemember’s Social Security number (SSN) ends in an even number. 

OSC is authorized to investigate and seek corrective action for USERRA 

claims against federal executive agencies if the servicemember’s SSN 

ends in an odd number. If a claim does not contain an SSN, DOL will 

assign a claim number based on the date of the month the claim is 

received. For example, claims filed on an odd-numbered date will be 

assigned an odd case number and forwarded to OSC. Claims filed on an 

even-numbered date will be assigned an even case number and be 

investigated by DOL. Also, under the demonstration project, OSC is 

authorized to handle any “mixed claims” in which a claimant files a 

USERRA claim against a federal executive agency and also brings a 

related prohibited personnel practice claim. There are 13 prohibited 

personnel practices (PPP) including discrimination, retaliation, or 

unauthorized preference or improper advantage.8

VBA mandated us to evaluate how DOL and OSC designed the 

demonstration project and assess their relative performance during and at 

the conclusion of the demonstration project. Figure 1 depicts USERRA 

claims processing under the demonstration project.

 

8

5 U.S.C. § 2302. 
 

Page 6 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Figure 1: USERRA Claims Processing under the Demonstration Project

a If, during initial processing or investigation phase, DOL personnel identify a possible PPP case, DOL 

and OSC will jointly determine at what point, if at all, the case should be transferred to OSC for 

investigation.
 

Page 7 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Our previous reports on USERRA included recommendations to improve 

data quality and develop comparable data and processes to facilitate 

evaluating agency performance. In June 2011, we reported on the 

methods and procedures that DOL and OSC had agreed to establish for 

the demonstration project. We recommended that both agencies take a 

number of steps to ensure a comparable process and collect sufficiently 

reliable data.9 In response to our recommendations, DOL and OSC 

entered into an interagency agreement with OPM to establish and 

regularly administer a customer satisfaction survey.10 The customer 

satisfaction survey provides comparable information and includes a 

survey plan and protocols for contacting respondents in line with the 

recommendation from our demonstration project design assessment. 

Furthermore, by the start of the demonstration project in August 2011, 

both agencies established a cost accounting system to collect and track 

actual time spent investigating demonstration project cases.

In September 2012, we reported an interim assessment of the 

demonstration project.11 At that time, we reported that both DOL and OSC 

had established methods and procedures that would allow them to report 

comparable and reliable performance data for the demonstration project, 

as required by VBA. We also identified additional actions that agencies 

could take to improve the quality of the customer satisfaction and cost 

data. Specifically, we recommended that DOL and OSC take additional 

steps to increase their customer satisfaction survey response rates and 

address any potential survey response bias. We also recommended that 

both agencies establish and document procedures for compiling and 

reporting the cost data during the demonstration project.

In response to our 2012 recommendations to increase survey response 

rates and to address potential response bias, the agencies agreed to 

conduct additional outreach to claimants by providing an initial survey 

notification, and contracted with OPM to conduct a nonresponse analysis.

 

9

GAO, Veterans’ Reemployment Rights: Steps Needed to Ensure Reliability of DOL and 

Special Counsel Demonstration Project’s Performance Information, GAO-11-312R

(Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2011). 

10OPM is acting as survey administrator. 

11GAO, Veterans’ Reemployment Rights: Department of Labor and Office of Special 

Counsel Need to Take Additional Steps to Ensure Demonstration Project Data Integrity, 

GAO-12-860R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2012).
 

Page 8 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

OPM provided a nonresponse analysis to agencies in April 2013. In 

response to our recommendation that agencies establish and document 

procedures for compiling and reporting cost data, DOL provided written 

instructions to its staff on methods for reporting its time and related costs, 

developed written procedures for tracking and reporting costs, and 

implemented a quarterly audit of cost information.

OSC did not implement our recommendation to document procedures for 

compiling and reporting cost data. Specifically, according to OSC’s 

USERRA Unit Chief, the agency established, but did not document, 

procedures for compiling the cost data associated with the demonstration 

project. OSC officials explained that in lieu of documenting their 

procedures, they held a training session with staff to discuss the method 

they use to track and report the time and costs associated with 

demonstration project cases. However, standards for internal control in 

the federal government require that internal controls and all transactions 

and other significant events be clearly documented, and the 

documentation should be readily available for examination. The 

documentation should appear in management directives, administrative 

policies, or operating manuals, and may be in paper or electronic form.

During the demonstration project, DOL resolved more of the cases it 

received. Between August 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, DOL received 319 

demonstration cases and OSC received 434 cases. Of the cases 

received, OSC closed 366 cases, or 84 percent. DOL closed 308 cases, 

or 97 percent. OSC had 68 demonstration project cases remaining open, 

and DOL had 11 cases remaining open at the end of July 2014.

We identified two factors that may explain why OSC received more 

demonstration project cases than DOL. One factor is the presence of 

more odd versus even social security numbers of claimants, and the 

DOL Has Relatively 

Higher Performance 

Than OSC for More

Demonstration 

Project Performance 

Measures

OSC Resolved a Greater 

Proportion of Cases in 

Favor of the Claimant and 

DOL Resolved More of the 

Cases it Received 
 

Page 9 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

second is OSC’s responsibility to investigate and resolved all cases that 

involve a PPP.12 Most cases were randomly assigned to each agency by 

using the last digit of the claimant’s SSN. OSC received more cases 

based on this assignment. In addition, OSC was required to handle all 

cases that involved a PPP, which contributed to 27 more cases being 

assigned to OSC. These 27 cases amounted to about 7 percent of OSC’s 

total claims and 23 percent of the 115 additional cases that OSC received 

(see table 1).

From fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2014, DOL closed about as many 

cases as it opened, as shown in figure 2. DOL received more than 100 

cases during fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and closed about the same 

number each year. Because the demonstration project began near the 

end of fiscal year 2011, both agencies received a smaller number of 

cases during that period. Furthermore, the demonstration project ended 

about 2 months prior to the end of fiscal year 2014.

 

12There are 13 prohibited personnel practices including discrimination, retaliation, or 

unauthorized preference or improper advantage. 5 U.S.C. § 2302.
 

Page 10 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Figure 2: Department of Labor Closed About As Many Cases As It Opened

OSC received more cases than it closed in the first two fiscal years of the 

demonstration project, which included less than 2 months of fiscal year 

2011 and all of fiscal year 2012. Agency officials explained the agency 

had limited capacity to investigate and resolve claims during the first 6 

months of the demonstration project. During this time, the agency 

reported it was hiring new staff, negotiating a reimbursement agreement 

with DOL, and expanding the capabilities of its USERRA Unit to handle 

demonstration project cases. As such, according to OSC officials, the 

agency had a limited capacity to investigate and resolve claims during 

this time. However, agencies had about 10 months to prepare and 

assemble the resources required to implement the project. VBA 

established the requirement for the demonstration project on October 13, 

2010 (the date VBA was enacted), and the demonstration project began 

on August 11, 2011. As shown in figure 3, between the beginning of fiscal 

year 2013 and the end of July 2014, OSC closed the same number of 

cases as it received.
 

Page 11 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Figure 3: Office of Special Counsel Received More Cases Than It Closed During the 

Early Years but the Gap Narrowed During the Later Years

Officials from OSC and DOL hold similar views on their investigative role 

under USERRA and told us they view their roles as that of impartial 

investigators. Specifically, officials from both agencies told us that their 

role is to determine if a claim has merit, and if so, to resolve the claim 

appropriately. Importantly, we did not independently assess the quality of 

agencies’ case investigations to determine if DOL and OSC arrived at the 

appropriate case outcomes. As such, we were not able to determine the 

relative performance of agencies for this measure.

Between August 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, OSC obtained relief for 

claimants in about 26 percent, or 94, of its demonstration project cases. 

DOL obtained relief for claimants in about 20 percent, or 62, of its cases 

(see table 1). OSC officials told us that their ability to close a greater 

proportion of cases resulting in relief for claimants is partially attributable 

to their expertise on federal sector employment matters, the quality of 

their work, and the composition of their investigative team, which is 

largely staffed by attorneys. DOL officials told us their goal is to obtain the 

OSC Resolved a Greater 

Proportion of Cases in Favor of 

the Claimant
 

Page 12 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

correct case outcome, even if it is not in favor of the claimant. DOL 

officials also expressed concern that associating higher performance with 

case outcomes that provide relief for claimants may create an incentive to 

pursue relief for cases that do not warrant corrective action.

Table 1: The Office of Special Counsel Resolved a Greater Proportion of Cases in Favor of the Claimanta

Number of Cases 

Received

Number of Cases 

Closed

Number of Cases 

Resolved In Favor of 

Claimant

Percent of Cases 

Resolved In Favor of 

Claimant

Department of Labor 319 308 62 20.1%

Office of Special Counsel 434 366 94 25.7%

Source: GAO analysis of DOL’s USERRA Information Management System and OSC’s case tracking system data. | GAO-15-77

a

The case information presented in table 1 may vary somewhat from information reported in 

conjunction with our nonresponse analysis reported in appendix III, because the data presented in the 

table were updated from agencies following our nonresponse analysis. Furthermore, our 

nonresponse analysis is based on data provided by OPM, rather than case tracking data collected 

directly from agencies, as shown in this table

We worked with agencies prior to the demonstration project to develop a 

method to ensure that case outcomes could be described in a consistent 

manner, and a comparison could be made at the conclusion of the 

demonstration project. Accordingly, in August 2011, agencies developed 

a cross-walk of case resolution codes to facilitate a comparison of case 

outcomes. In our interim report issued in September 2012, we reported 

case outcomes based on this cross-walk. This final review also relies on 

the cross-walk for the purpose of comparing agency case outcomes. 

DOL and OSC both tracked the disposition of closed cases to determine if 

cases had been resolved in favor of the claimant, and in some cases, to 

track the type of corrective action agreed to, or to provide the reason a 

case was not resolved in favor of the claimant. Specifically, OSC uses the 

case resolution codes “dispute resolved,” “corrective action,” and 

“complainant declines corrective action offered” to identify cases resolved 

in favor of the claimant, whereas DOL uses the resolution codes “claim 

granted,” “claim settled,” and “merit – not resolved.” A number of case 

resolution codes, including OSC’s “corrective action declined by claimant” 

code, were not included in the cross-walk of case resolution codes. 

Because these codes were not included in the cross-walk, we had to rely 

on agencies’ determination of whether certain cases were resolved in 

favor of the claimant. Specifically, OSC’s totals include 3 cases in which 

corrective action was declined by the claimant, or about 3 percent of the 

94 cases the agency resolved in favor of the claimant. DOL’s totals 
 

Page 13 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

include 7 cases that had merit, but which were not resolved, or about 11 

percent of the 62 cases the agency resolved in favor of the claimant. 

According to OSC officials, the code “corrective action declined by 

claimant” indicates that the agency offered resolution but the claimant 

declined it. According to DOL officials, the code “merit, not resolved” 

indicates that the claim was meritorious, but the agency did not offer 

resolution, or the claimant declined the resolution that was offered.

Agency officials from OSC told us that the relief provided to claimants 

included, but was not limited to, initial job offers, reinstatement, 

promotions, restored benefits, accommodations for service-connected 

disabilities, back pay, USERRA training for federal officials, and systemic 

changes to agency policies and procedures to better comply with 

USERRA. For example, OSC officials explained that they investigated a 

claim by a National Guardsman who worked for the Defense Commissary 

Agency and claimed he was improperly denied reemployment upon 

returning from a tour of duty. OSC investigated the claim, determined the 

claim was valid, and intervened with the agency to identify appropriate 

corrective action. According to OSC, the agency agreed to reinstate the 

individual to his former position, restore his benefits and seniority, and 

provide him with back pay.

Agencies also identified cases that were not resolved in favor of the 

claimant, and provided a reason, or disposition, to explain why. For 

example, some cases were not resolved favorably because the claimant 

withdrew the claim, investigators determined the claim had no merit, there 

was insufficient evidence to support the claim, or the claimant failed to 

supply evidence for further action, among other reasons.

DOL received higher scores from respondents than OSC on every 

question asked on the customer satisfaction survey administered by 

OPM. However, the response rates of the surveys were low, which can 

potentially affect the conclusions that can be drawn from the survey. 

Specifically, 32 percent of claimants responded to DOL’s survey, while 42 

percent responded to OSC’s survey. In light of the low survey response 

rates, we conducted additional statistical analyses to control for potential 

bias and ensure conclusions could be drawn from survey results. Our 

analyses revealed that differences in satisfaction scores for each question 

remained statistically significant and pronounced even after controlling for 

variables that could affect the claimants’ views of the customer service 

provided. These variables include case investigation time, whether the 

claimant indicated that the case was resolved in his or her favor, and 

Respondents Reported 

Greater Customer Satisfaction 

with DOL
 

Page 14 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

whether discrimination was alleged by the claimant. For a more detailed 

explanation of these analyses and their findings, see appendix III. 

The differences in scores between the two agencies were especially 

pronounced on questions relating to timeliness, access to staff, and 

overall experience. Narrative responses to the survey provided additional 

detail on aspects of agencies’ USERRA investigations that respondents 

said were working well, and areas that may require improvement. Select 

narrative responses are provided throughout this section to highlight 

certain aspects of agencies’ customer service. More details on the 

survey’s administration and survey instrument can be found in appendix 

II.

Our analysis found that a higher percentage of DOL respondents agreed 

with survey statements and expressed satisfaction with DOL’s service 

than did OSC respondents. Figures 4 and 5 display the percentage of 

DOL and OSC respondents who expressed satisfaction with various 

elements of customer service and the case investigation by responding to 

survey statements. 

USERRA Customer 

Satisfaction Survey: Select 

Narrative Responses

“[A DOL investigator] provided 

timely updates in regards to the 

steps she was taking to 

determine the disposition of the 

case.” 

“[I] would like to be kept 

informed [by OSC] of what is 

going on.”

Source: OPM survey.
 

Page 15 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Figure 4: Department of Labor Respondents Were More Likely to Express Satisfaction 
 

Page 16 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Figure 5: Department of Labor Respondents Were More Likely to Express 

Satisfaction

A portion of both DOL respondents and OSC respondents expressed 

some dissatisfaction with the thoroughness of the investigation, as figure 

5 shows. One respondent wanted DOL “to be more proactive and actually 

contact the individuals that are committing the wrongdoings and getting 

away with affecting the veterans that want to work.” One OSC respondent 

wanted OSC to “investigate cases better and conduct interviews before 

they make their final decisions and not follow by only what the employer 

says.” 

As depicted by the average scores on the customer satisfaction survey, 

the largest reported difference in satisfaction with customer service 

between DOL and OSC is agency timeliness and the smallest reported 

difference in satisfaction with customer service between DOL and OSC is 

staff courteousness. Survey responses also showed that claimants felt 

that DOL better kept claimants informed and provided better access to 

staff, as well as better satisfying claimants in regards to the overall 

investigation of the claim. Claimants’ responses were coded on a scale of 

1 to 5, with 1 representing a “strongly disagree” or “very dissatisfied” 

USERRA Customer 

Satisfaction Survey: Select 

Narrative Responses

“[The DOL investigator] went 

above and beyond the call of 

duty to help me.”

 “OSC has very dedicated 

measures and personnel in 

place offering sound advice and 

service along every step of the 

process.”

Source: OPM survey. 
 

Page 17 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

response, 3 representing a neutral score, and 5 representing a “strongly 

agree” or “very satisfied” response. Therefore, the higher the average 

score, the more positive respondents felt about agency performance. 

Table 2 depicts the average scores on the customer satisfaction survey 

for select survey questions and a table with all the average scores can be 

found in appendix III.

Table 2: On Average, DOL Received Higher Scores on Claimant Interaction with Staff and Overall Satisfaction with Customer 

Service and Investigation

Question DOL Mean OSC Mean

Difference 

(DOL-OSC)

The staff is courteous. 4.21 3.64 0.57

I have adequate access to staff for advice and assistance. 3.79 2.63 1.17

The staff responded to my questions in a timely manner. 4.10 2.61 1.49

The staff kept me informed of significant case developments. 3.82 2.52 1.30

Satisfaction with customer service. 3.70 2.50 1.20

Satisfaction with investigation of complaint. 3.35 2.13 1.21

Survey Sample Size n=101 n=151

* Key: 1 represents a score of “strongly disagree” or “very dissatisfied” and 5 represents a score of “strong agree” or “very satisfied”. 

Source: GAO Analysis of OPM Customer Satisfaction Survey Data. | GAO-15-77

In light of low survey response rates, we identified variables available for 

both respondents and nonrespondents that might affect satisfaction and 

conducted additional nonresponse and multivariate analyses to control for 

these variables. We found the differences in satisfaction scores for each 

question remained statistically significant and pronounced even after we 

took account of, and controlled statistically for, variables that could affect 

the claimants’ views of the customer service provided. These variables 

include the differences across agencies in case investigation time, 

whether the claimant indicated that the case was resolved in his or her 

favor, and whether discrimination was alleged by the claimant. For 

example, our analysis of the survey responses revealed that more 

individuals whose cases were not resolved in their favor responded to 

OSC’s surveys than to DOL’s. We also found that case outcome 

significantly affected respondents’ mean satisfaction score. To account 

and control for these factors, we conducted multivariate regression 

analyses of survey responses, and calculated adjusted average scores 

that correct for sources of response and nonresponse bias. Specifically, 

this analysis showed that the likelihood (or odds) that DOL respondents 

agreed with statements or expressed satisfaction with DOL was two to 

more than six times higher than the likelihood (or odds) that OSC 

USERRA Customer 

Satisfaction Survey: Select 

Narrative Responses

“Upon making the complaint [to 

DOL] an investigator was quickly 

appointed.” 

“[I] was never able to reach [the] 

OSC case worker directly. I had 

to leave voice mail and email 

messages and wait for a call 

back which would be 3-5 days.”

Source: OPM survey. 
 

Page 18 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

respondents agreed with or expressed satisfaction with OSC. For 

example, the likelihood of DOL claimants agreeing that the agency 

responded to questions in a timely matter was 6.6 times higher than the 

likelihood of OSC claimants agreeing that the agency responded to 

questions in a timely manner. For adjusted customer satisfaction scores, 

and a more detailed explanation of these analyses and their findings, see 

appendix III.

DOL’s average case investigation time was more than three times faster 

than (or about 27 percent of the time used by) OSC’s case investigation 

time. As shown in figure 6, between August 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, 

DOL’s average investigation time for closed cases was about 41 days, 

whereas OSC’s average investigation time was about 151 days. Case 

investigation time varied over time. Both agencies experienced an 

increase in the average time to investigate cases between fiscal years 

2011 and 2013. In fiscal year 2013, DOL’s average investigation time was 

about 48 days, and OSC’s average investigation time was about 168 

days. Between fiscal year 2013 and the end of July 2014, OSC’s average 

investigation time remained about the same at 167 days, and DOL’s 

average investigation time fell to about 43 days.

DOL Investigated and 

Resolved Cases Faster 

Than OSC
 

Page 19 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Figure 6: Department of Labor Resolved Cases Faster

As of July 31, 2014, OSC had a substantially greater proportion of 

demonstration project cases with investigation times greater than 90 

days, when compared with DOL. As shown in figure 7, about 56 percent 

of OSC’s cases were open more than 90 days, with about 32 percent of 

cases between 30 and 90 days. At DOL, about 9 percent of cases were 

open more than 90 days, with 45 percent of cases between 30 and 90 

days. Under USERRA, DOL is required to investigate and attempt to 

resolve USERRA claims within 90 days of receipt, unless the claimant 

agrees to an extension. Under the demonstration project, the same 90-

day time limit also applies to OSC. Both agencies explained that they 

requested extensions from the claimant for cases requiring more than 90 

days to investigate.
 

Page 20 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Figure 7: Office of Special Counsel Had a Greater Proportion of Cases Open More Than 90 Days

OSC received extensions for investigations that, at times, lasted longer 

than 1 year. OSC officials explained that they sometimes received openended extensions from claimants to provide additional time as necessary 

to complete their investigation. DOL officials told us their policy does not 

allow for open-ended extensions; rather, each extension provides 

claimants with a date certain by which the investigator must either 

complete the investigation or request an additional extension. As of July 

31, 2014, OSC had a total of 48 cases that had been open for more than 

1 year, which represents about 11 percent of the 434 total cases they 

received. At this time, DOL had no cases that had been open for more 

than 1 year.

Of the 48 OSC cases taking more than 1 year to close, 16 were still open 

at the end of July 2014. Of the 32 cases closed, 6 were resolved in favor 

of the claimant, or about 19 percent of these cases. As such, the 
 

Page 21 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

resolution rates for cases open for more than 1 year, that were resolved 

in favor of the claimant, are slightly lower than the favorable resolution 

rates for all of the agency’s demonstration project cases (which was 

about 26 percent for all closed cases). OSC officials noted that cases 

open longer than 1 year are often the most complex cases, and therefore 

take longer to investigate even if they are ultimately not resolved in favor 

of the claimant.

Factors Potentially Influencing Timeliness. OSC officials provided a 

few potential explanations for their agency’s relatively longer average 

case investigation time. For example, OSC officials said that claimants 

may withdraw their cases and pursue relief on their own at any time. But 

many prefer that the agency complete its work and attempt to resolve 

their claim, even if it takes a significant amount of time. Unlike DOL, OSC 

does not terminate its investigation if the claimant receives representation 

by private counsel that is also involved in the case. A DOL official told us 

the agency may terminate these cases if private counsel investigations 

interfere with their case investigation. OSC and DOL did not collect

information that would allow analysis of timeliness for cases where 

outside counsel was involved. Therefore, we are unable to determine if 

this was a primary contributor to the agency’s average investigation time.

DOL officials attributed their relatively faster case investigation time to 

factors such as,

• their institutional structure, which includes staff in field locations that 

are available to immediately investigate cases across the country;

• the USERRA-specific training provided to staff;

• standard operating procedures and related guidance on timely 

completion of case investigations; and

• the composition of their staff, which includes many veterans who are 

dedicated to the agency’s mission to assist servicemembers.

Furthermore, DOL officials said supervisors reinforce the importance of 

timeliness and closely monitor cases to ensure timely resolution. DOL 

officials acknowledged that some cases take longer than 90 days to 

resolve, but these should be exceptions.

As required by VBA, OSC receives all USERRA cases that involve a 

prohibited personnel practice (PPP). DOL does not handle cases that 

involve a PPP. OSC officials explained that these cases are often more 

complex and may take more time to investigate and resolve than other 

cases because they often involve multiple allegations and can require 
 

Page 22 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

much more extensive fact-finding and legal analysis before a 

determination or resolution can be reached. To determine if these cases 

contributed to OSC’s relatively longer case investigation times, we 

calculated the average case investigation times for cases that included a 

PPP allegation and compared it to the average case investigation time. 

We found that during the demonstration project, OSC closed 24 cases 

involving a PPP allegation, or about 7 percent of all closed cases. The 

average investigation time for these cases was 201 days, which is about 

50 days longer than the average case investigation time for OSC’s 

demonstration project cases. As such, on average, PPP cases take about 

34 percent more time to investigate than the average case. Although 

these cases do take more time to investigate, due to the relatively small 

number of PPP cases, and because 50 days falls within the normal 

variation of case investigation time at OSC, we have concluded that PPP 

allegations were not a primary contributor to the relatively longer case 

investigation times between OSC and DOL.

We also considered the potential relationship between case outcome and 

timeliness. We found that DOL investigations for cases resolved in favor 

of the claimant took longer to investigate, on average, than cases with an 

unfavorable outcome; whereas, at OSC, the average case investigation 

times were about the same. At DOL, the average investigation time for 

cases that were resolved in favor of the claimant was about 64 days, and 

for cases not resolved in favor of the claimant was about 35 days (with an 

average of 41 days for all cases). At OSC, the average investigation time 

for cases resolved in favor of the claimant was about 150 days, and for 

cases not resolved in favor of the claimant was about 151 days. While 

favorable case outcomes are associated with longer case investigation 

times at DOL, they do not appear to be a contributing factor to case 

investigation timeliness at OSC.

On average, it cost DOL about three times less (or about 29 percent of 

the cost) to investigate demonstration project cases than OSC. The 

relative difference in agencies’ costs was affected by factors such as the 

number of hours dedicated to case investigations and pay levels, among 

others. For example, we found that OSC used more than twice the 

number of staff hours, on average, per case, than DOL. We did not 

evaluate OSC’s demonstration project costs prior to August 12, 2012, 

because these cost data were incomplete and we were not able to assess 

their reliability.

DOL’s Case Investigation 

Costs Were Lower Than 

OSC’s
 

Page 23 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

As we recommended in our preliminary assessment of the demonstration 

project’s design, DOL and OSC established cost accounting systems by 

the start of the demonstration project on August 9, 2011, to collect and 

track actual time spent investigating USERRA demonstration project 

cases.13 While the cost accounting systems developed at each agency 

differ somewhat in the way they track time spent, both systems track 

actual salary, benefits, and indirect cost components by applying an 

hourly rate that includes those components for each specific employee 

who works on, and tracks time spent on, demonstration project cases. We 

conducted tests on each agencies’ cost and accounting data to ensure 

these cost components were accurately reflected in their total costs. To 

determine the total cost, agencies multiplied the hourly rate for all 

personnel who participated in the demonstration project, by the total time 

spent working on USERRA demonstration project investigations. 

Agencies also tracked indirect miscellaneous costs, such as shipping, 

and included these costs to their totals.

OSC was not able to provide us with complete cost information for the 

demonstration project in time for us to analyze the complete set of data 

and assess its reliability. On August 12, 2012, OSC changed the 

methodology it used to track and report costs during the demonstration 

project to be more consistent with the approach used by DOL. As such, 

we are not evaluating demonstration project costs at OSC prior to that 

date, and are only able to report on the cost information that we received, 

and assessed for reliability.

Between the beginning of the demonstration project on August 9, 2011, 

and July 31, 2014, DOL investigated 319 claims at a total cost of 

$354,712. During the period for which we have comparable and reliable 

data, from August 12, 2012, to August 1, 2014, OSC’s demonstration 

project costs totaled $1,055,377. Importantly, these totals include costs 

for both closed and ongoing cases during the periods described. Because 

79 demonstration project cases were still open at the end of July, and due 

to the incomplete information received from OSC, the final cost of the 

demonstration project was not known at the time of this product’s 

issuance.

 

13GAO-11-312R. 
 

Page 24 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Of the 319 claims investigated by DOL, the agency closed 308. As such, 

there were 11 demonstration project cases still open. The total cost of 

$354,712 covers all 308 closed cases, and work completed on the 11 

open cases during this period. On average, the agency spent $1,112 on 

each case investigated during the demonstration project. The agency 

reported that demonstration project staff dedicated 6,579 hours to 

investigate demonstration project cases, or about 21 hours for each case 

received during this period. DOL officials explained that their total cost 

does not include some costs from support staff, case intake processing, 

and for managers who assisted, as needed, with some demonstration 

project activities. DOL officials explained that they did not track these 

costs because it was not practically feasible, and the agency would have 

incurred these costs regardless of their participation in the USERRA 

demonstration project.

To compare agencies, we also linked OSC’s cost information to the 

number of cases that were opened and closed during the period for which 

comparable and reliable cost information was available. Between August 

12, 2012, and August 1, 2014, OSC opened 277 cases and closed 275 

cases. As such, OSC spent about $3,810 for each case that it opened 

during this period, or about $3,838 for each case that the agency closed 

during this period. Furthermore, the agency reported that demonstration 

project staff dedicated 14,864 hours to investigate demonstration project 

cases, or about 54 hours for each case received during this period. On 

average, this is more than double the number of hours spent per case, at 

DOL. The total cost of $1,055,377 covers the investigation costs of all 

cases worked during this period, and is not necessarily limited by the 

cases that were opened and closed during this time.

VBA refers to five criteria for consideration when evaluating DOL’s and 

OSC’s capacity to investigate federal USERRA claims: staffing levels, 

caseload, training, education, and grade level. In addition, agencies

provided their view of other distinguishing characteristics that enhance 

their ability to effectively and efficiently investigate and resolve USERRA 

claims. We could not determine relative performance on agency capacity 

due to the lack of a specific and comparable metric.

Each Agency 

Demonstrated Differential 

Capabilities to Investigate 

and Resolve Cases
 

Page 25 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

During the demonstration project, DOL had more staff available to 

investigate cases with lower average USERRA caseloads than OSC.

OSC’s investigative staff generally had higher pay levels (or higher pay 

grades) than DOL. Both agencies’ staff had varying levels of education 

and experience.

During the demonstration project, DOL had 31 staff investigating 

demonstration project cases, and other nonfederal USERRA or veterans’ 

preference cases.14 OSC had 7 staff investigating demonstration project 

cases.15 According to DOL officials, their investigators have varying levels 

of education and provided no specific information. Rather, DOL officials 

suggested that the level of investigators’ experience, can serve as a 

proxy for education, as will be discussed later. Of OSC’s seven 

investigators, five are attorneys with Juris Doctor degrees (J.D.), one has 

a Master’s degree, and one has a Bachelor’s degree. OSC has had 

additional staff throughout the demonstration project, as well as a parttime Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) specialist—also with a J.D. 

and a Master’s degree in Conflict Analysis and Resolution—from OSC’s 

ADR unit. OSC also employed six legal interns who were J.D. candidates 

and two different Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) with J.D.s 

during the demonstration project. The PMFs were full-time employees 

and were responsible for investigating cases, whereas some of the 

interns worked part-time and some worked full-time and provided case 

intake and research support and were not assigned cases to investigate. 

On average, these individuals served for periods of 3 to 6 months each.

 

14DOL is responsible for investigating claims alleging a federal agency failed to apply 

veterans’ preference in hiring or during a reduction-in-force. 

15Six DOL investigators who worked on demonstration project cases are no longer active 

investigators. In addition, DOL has 81 other investigators—for a total of 106—qualified to 

investigate USERRA claims and DOL officials told us these investigators were available to 

conduct demonstration case investigations, as needed. According to OSC, one of the 

investigators who worked on demonstration project cases is no longer an active OSC 

investigator.

DOL Has More USERRA 

Dedicated Staff, While OSC 

Has More Cases Assigned Per 

Investigator and Higher 

Graded Staff
 

Page 26 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Table 3: DOL Has More Investigative Staff with Generally Lower Pay Levels While 

OSC Had Less Investigative Staff with Higher Caseloads

Number of Staff who 

Investigated Demonstration 

Project Cases

General 

Schedule (GS) 

Pay Range

Average 

Annual 

Caseload a 

DOL Investigators

b 

31 GS12-13 5 

OSC Investigators 7 c GS 11-14 28

Source: GAO analysis of DOL and OSC information | GAO-15-77

a The General Schedule classification system is a mechanism for organizing work, notably for the 

purposes of determining pay, based on a position’s duties, responsibilities, and qualification 

requirements, among other things.

b

These figures represent the average number of cases an investigator would have been assigned 

over a 12-month period. We calculated weighted averages because the number of staff at both 

agencies was not always constant and the demonstration project was not ongoing for the entirety of 

fiscal years 2011 and 2014

c

This number includes a supervisor who also investigated cases. It does not include the part-time 

ADR specialist who supports the USERRA Unit

DOL’s investigators were assigned an average of about five 

demonstration cases per investigator per year during the demonstration 

project. Demonstration project investigators had other responsibilities

such as other nonfederal USERRA or veterans’ preference cases, and 

the average demonstration project caseload varied by year. The average 

demonstration project caseload at DOL ranged from an average of about 

seven cases per investigator in 2012 to an average of about four cases in 

fiscal year 2014. The agency’s investigators did not work solely on 

demonstration cases during the demonstration project. They were 

assigned other non-demonstration cases as well, as will be discussed 

later.

Our analysis of the caseload showed, over the course of the 

demonstration project, OSC averaged about 28 cases opened per

employee each year.16 OSC officials told us each non-supervisory 

 

16OSC did not assign and track their demonstration case assignments in a way that 

enabled them to report the exact number of cases assigned per investigator per fiscal 

year. So, we calculated the number of cases opened per OSC USERRA Unit investigator 

or attorney as a proxy. These figures were calculated by using case tracking data to 

identify the number of cases assigned to OSC over time, alongside corresponding 

employment data, to determine the number of investigators employed during specific time 

periods. According to OSC officials, OSC’s USERRA Unit Chief and one other employee 

did not regularly receive cases to investigate, but were assigned cases on an ad hoc 

basis. We included these two employees in our calculations because they did receive 

cases to investigate.
 

Page 27 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

USERRA Unit investigator or attorney generally has between 10 and 20 

open cases on his or her docket at any given time, and that the number 

per fiscal year fluctuates based on the complexity and timing of each 

case. When the demonstration project began, OSC had four attorneys 

staffed to its USERRA Unit to investigate and resolve cases, including the 

Unit Chief. Beginning in the spring of 2012, OSC began hiring other 

investigators and temporary staff to help with the caseload. OSC’s 

average caseload ranged from an average of 39 cases per attorney per 

year during part of fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to 20 cases per attorney 

per year during part of fiscal year 2012.17 Similar to the DOL investigators, 

OSC investigators had additional responsibilities during the 

demonstration project.

DOL investigators receive formal USERRA-specific training as well as 

training on conducting investigations, according to DOL officials. The 

investigators must complete an online training and a 2-week class at the 

National Veterans Training Institute (NVTI) before investigating cases, 

and have additional training and professional development opportunities. 

The online training class has four components and NVTI focuses on 

USERRA basic training and investigation training. Specifically, 

investigators are trained on USERRA and its regulations, claim 

processing, determining eligibility for USERRA, USERRA remedies, 

contacting employers and claimants, negotiation skills and techniques, 

investigations and evidence, resolution conferences, negotiations, 

interviewing methods and techniques, types of respondents, credibility of 

witnesses/witness statements, and confidentiality and ethics. In addition, 

DOL investigators receive on-the-job mentoring and shadowing prior to 

independently investigating cases. According to DOL officials, additional 

training opportunities are contingent on the training budget. Some 

investigators took DOL investigative training while also participating in 

external training classes through organizations such as the Army 

Inspector General School.

OSC does not have a formal USERRA training program for its staff 

because, according to OSC officials, a majority of the current USERRA 

staff has experience from the previous demonstration project. However, 

 

17These caseload averages represent the average caseload if the staffing levels had 

remained constant for the entire fiscal year. However, because OSC had temporary staff 

and other staff who came and left the USERRA Unit, we were unable to calculate the 

exact average caseload per fiscal year.

DOL and OSC Staff Received 

Case Investigation and 

Resolution Training
 

Page 28 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

many USERRA Unit staff received formal training on ADR techniques for 

USERRA investigations. Specifically, OSC’s ADR Unit conducted training 

on mediation, conflict resolution, beginning negotiation, and advanced 

negotiation that was attended by USERRA Unit staff. To help employees 

understand the documentation needed to perform case investigations, 

OSC provides its new USERRA employees with several training 

materials, including a PowerPoint slide presentation, a sample 

correspondence, copies of relevant laws and regulations, and a series of 

written training modules that include fact sheets, flow charts, common 

scenarios, and questions and answers on USERRA law. According to 

OSC officials, these training materials are given to new employees to use 

for background information and to reference when performing casework, 

and are periodically updated to reflect recent court decisions and 

legislative changes. The USERRA Unit Chief and other experienced 

members also provided on-the-job training and mentoring to interns, 

PMFs, and a law clerk during the demonstration project. The USERRA 

Unit also has a number of training modules that cover different common 

scenarios that the USERRA Unit staff can access. These modules are 

periodically updated as new cases come up and during an annual review 

of USERRA-related cases.

DOL has been investigating USERRA claims since the USERRA law was 

passed in 1994, and its investigators have experience investigating these 

claims. Among all of DOL’s current investigators, 41 percent have less 

than 5 years of experience, 41 percent have 5 to 10 years of experience, 

and 19 percent have more than 10 years of experience at the agency.18

The investigators who worked on demonstration project cases had an 

average of 8.9 years of experience.

In addition to the relatively large demonstration project staff at DOL, 

investigators also investigate numerous claims annually. The 31 

investigators who worked on demonstration cases were assigned an 

average of about 15 USERRA cases (demonstration and nondemonstration) per investigator per year during the time they were 

employed by DOL. Overall, all current DOL investigators have been 

assigned an average of about 11 USERRA cases per year since 1996 

 

18As mentioned previously, DOL has 106 investigators that can investigate USERRA 

claims.

DOL Has More Investigators 

with More Experience and 

Information Technology 

Infrastructure Benefitting 

USERRA Investigations
 

Page 29 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

when the agency began tracking these claims.19 According to DOL, its 

larger pool of investigators is a benefit because USERRA work will not be 

affected due to individual staff availability or turnover. There will be other 

DOL investigators who can step in to perform the USERRA work as 

needed.

DOL said the agency is investing in its USERRA Information 

Management System electronic case tracking database through upgrades 

that will enhance its capabilities and transform the case tracking database 

into a case management system. According to DOL officials, the 

upgrades to the database will better protect the personally identifiable 

information in the case files, allow for better oversight of case 

investigations, and increase the efficiency of case processing. DOL plans 

on making this investment regardless of the results of the demonstration 

project because federal USERRA cases only represented about 20 

percent of all USERRA cases over the past 2 years.

DOL has an online system called the elaws advisor that assists potential 

USERRA claimants. The elaws advisor has a logic and decision tree 

function that asks claimants questions and provides information on 

USERRA to enable potential claimants to decide if they think their claim is 

valid and provides claimants information on how to file a claim. According 

to DOL officials, this online system has reduced the number of phone 

calls received, improved communication, and enabled claimants to more 

easily submit claims.

OSC Alternative Dispute Resolution. According to OSC officials, in 

September 2012, OSC updated its mediation process after conversations 

with stakeholders, agency counsel, and servicemember organizations, 

including the Employer Support of Guard and Reserve and now uses a 

mediation-based ADR program to help claimants and agencies resolve 

USERRA claims. According to OSC officials, the program follows the 

requirements of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 for 

conducting federal agency mediations.20 OSC designed and implemented 

a USERRA-focused ADR program to provide additional resolution 

process options (such as mediation) for servicemembers who filed 

 

19DOL has investigated USERRA cases since the law’s 1994 inception, as well as 

investigating prior cases under the predecessor Veterans’ Reemployment Rights Act.

20Pub. L. No. 104-320 , 110 Stat. 3870 (Oct. 19, 1996).

OSC Uses Alternative Dispute 

Resolution to Facilitate 

Resolution and Has Additional 

Responsibility to Represent 

Claimants
 

Page 30 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

USERRA claims and the agencies against whom the claim is filed. The 

ADR process is voluntary, but if parties agree to use it, OSC mediators 

bring them together in a confidential, nonadversarial environment to find a 

mutually satisfactory resolution to the dispute.

As such, the ADR process relies heavily on mediation, a process through 

which a neutral third party works with the disputing parties to open lines of 

communication, explore interests, and, through this process, find a 

mutually satisfactory resolution to the dispute. OSC officials told us the 

ADR process gives servicemembers the opportunity to resolve their 

claims with more carefully tailored results that may better meet their 

needs than strict legal remedies. OSC officials explained that it uses a 

small number of core mediators who have a combined 50 years of 

experience, education, and training in dispute resolution who are 

generally not USERRA Unit employees. Figure 8 shows OSC’s ADR and 

case investigation process.
 

Page 31 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Figure 8: OSC Uses ADR Process to Mediate USERRA Cases to Offer Claimants 

Additional Resolution Options

According to agency officials, since September 2012, OSC has used the 

ADR process for 19 demonstration cases, settling 17 of the 19 cases, or 

89 percent. Some of the settlements have resulted in systemic changes in 

agencies’ policies and procedures that will impact other servicemembers, 

such as a change to a form for a federal agency so that “extended 

absence” forms now include a category for extended absence to perform 

military service, which OSC believes will better ensure that 

servicemembers receive their full USERRA entitlements following service.

OSC’s Legal Experience. Furthermore, OSC officials attribute their 

ability to handle USERRA claims to their expertise on the federal 
 

Page 32 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

workforce and federal personnel law; training and experience in 

investigating, resolving, and litigating federal employment claims, 

including USERRA and PPPs; well-established relationships with federal 

agencies; and an expanded ADR program. OSC also has the 

responsibility of deciding whether or not to represent a claimant before 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). OSC officials told us that 

OSC has had this responsibility since 1994 and has successfully resolved 

dozens of these cases without litigation in USERRA cases before MSPB.

Three of the five attorneys in the USERRA Unit have between 3 and 7 

years of experience handling the USERRA cases referred from DOL and 

deciding whether or not to offer claimants representation in front of 

MSPB, according to OSC officials. In addition, five of the seven 

employees who worked on current demonstration project cases also 

worked on cases received during the prior demonstration project from 

2005 to 2008.

OSC IT Infrastructure. OSC officials also stated that they are investing in 

updates to their primary case tracking database, OSC 2000, and are 

developing a system whereby all case files will be retained digitally. This 

will reduce waste and make the assignment of cases more efficient. OSC 

officials noted that they updated OSC’s official website to include a 

complaint dashboard where prospective claimants can select the type of 

claim they would like to file with a brief description of the type of violation 

each claim is—USERRA or the other types of cases OSC investigates.

OSC officials told us they also added functionality on their website 

enabling prospective claimants to file claims online.

OSC Received Reimbursement from DOL for Demonstration Project 

Costs. In January 2012, DOL and OSC entered into an interagency 

agreement that provided OSC with reimbursement for demonstration 

project costs. This agreement was signed more than a year after 

Congress passed VBA and about 5 months after the start of the 

demonstration project. This agreement was based on a similar 

interagency agreement that was negotiated in 2005 during the first 

USERRA demonstration project. According to agency officials, the 

reimbursement rates were based on the rates agreed to in 2005 and 

adjusted upward for inflation. DOL reimbursed OSC between $3,184 and 

$3,379 per demonstration case it closed depending on the fiscal year the 

case was referred to OSC.
 

Page 33 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

DOL and OSC no longer receive feedback on customer satisfaction now 

that the demonstration project has ended. During the demonstration 

project, OPM administered the customer satisfaction survey, analyzed the 

survey data annually, and provided each agency the quantitative data 

results and qualitative comments respondents provided. Both agencies 

have reported gaining insights on improving service to claimants based 

on information provided through the survey. For example, both agencies 

used information collected from survey respondents and survey analysis 

provided by OPM to make incremental improvements in their USERRA 

demonstration project operations. Specifically, DOL officials told us that 

they used survey information to improve their communication with 

claimants. DOL officials said they now engage in more telephone and 

email interactions with claimants. OSC officials also took actions to 

improve their customer service based on survey results by providing 

earlier and more frequent contact with claimants (at least once a month), 

informing the claimant of the preliminary determination via phone before 

mailing the determination letter, and establishing a goal to respond to 

claimant emails and phone calls within 1 business day.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has emphasized the 

importance of setting customer service standards, regularly soliciting 

customer feedback, and using the feedback they receive to improve their 

services. To this end, OMB established a cross-agency priority goal 

aimed at adopting customer service best practices. According to this 

priority goal, government programs that directly serve the public can 

benefit from understanding customer expectations and service needs, 

and regularly evaluating and improving program effectiveness in meeting 

those needs. One way to accomplish this is by conducting customer 

satisfaction surveys and analyzing the results to identify opportunities to 

improve service.

The customer satisfaction survey for the USERRA demonstration project 

ceased on July 28, 2014—the survey was created to support the 

USERRA demonstration project. Neither DOL nor OSC has an ongoing 

Customer Satisfaction 

Can Provide 

Meaningful Feedback 

for Service 

Improvements

Customer Satisfaction 

Survey Ends
 

Page 34 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

agreement with OPM to continue administering the customer satisfaction 

survey for USERRA claimants. Also, neither agency has developed other 

plans to continue the customer satisfaction survey.

The amount spent on the survey represents slightly more than 5 percent 

of DOL’s total investigation costs, and about 2 percent of OSC’s 

investigation costs between August 2012 and August 2014. The cost to 

administer the customer satisfaction survey was $20,000. As previously 

discussed, DOL spent $354,712 on investigating demonstration cases 

and OSC spent more than $1,055,377 on investigating demonstration 

cases. Agencies used survey results to make adjustments but the survey 

ended in July 2014. Such a feedback mechanism will provide agencies an 

opportunity to enhance customer service.

Both agencies had a low response rate to the customer satisfaction 

survey. As of July 28, 2014, DOL had 101 claimants respond for a 

response rate of 32 percent and OSC had 151 claimants respond for a 

response rate of 42 percent.21 Of the 101 DOL respondents, 69 provided 

narrative comments on the final two questions. Of the 151 OSC 

respondents, 135 provided narrative comments on the final two 

questions.

A high response rate increases the likelihood that the survey results 

reflect the views and characteristics of the target population, whereas a 

low response rate can be an indicator of potential nonresponse bias, 

which would be detrimental to the accuracy of the results of a study in a 

variety of ways. OMB guidance recommends that executive branch 

agencies should try to achieve the highest practical rates of survey 

response. Moreover, OMB suggests that when survey response rates are 

less than 80 percent, agencies conduct a nonresponse analysis to identify 

potential limitations to the data.

As we recommended in 2012, agencies undertook additional efforts to 

increase the response rate, included providing claimants with an initial 

notification of the survey; however, agencies did not pursue other 

 

21Response rates were calculated based on survey information provided by OPM on July 

28, 2014. We received updated case information from each agency after this date. As 

such, there may be a difference when calculating the response rate using the case 

outcome data presented above, versus the information provided by OPM. 

Low Response Rates Limit 

Agency Efforts to Make 

Service Improvements
 

Page 35 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

methods to increase response, such as by contacting respondents over 

the phone or providing more than two additional follow-up notifications, 

because they did not want to aggravate claimants with repeated follow-up 

requests.22

We analyzed agencies relative performance on the five demonstration 

project metrics outlined in the VBA, including case outcomes, customer 

satisfaction, timeliness, cost, and capacity. Based on our analysis, DOL 

demonstrated relatively higher levels of performance than OSC on most 

of these performance metrics. Specifically, DOL demonstrated higher 

levels of customer satisfaction and resolved cases in about one-third of 

the time and for about one-third of the cost, on average; whereas OSC 

resolved a greater proportion of cases in favor of the claimant. The 

relative difference in agencies’ costs was affected by factors such as the 

number of hours dedicated to case investigations and pay levels, among 

others. However, there are other considerations affecting agency 

performance, such as differing resource levels, staffing levels and 

qualifications, and case review and investigative approach. Our report 

provides Congress with agencies’ relative performance information that 

may help inform the policy decision on the future responsibilities of the 

two agencies for the processing of USERRA claims against federal 

executive agencies.

In response to our past recommendations, DOL and OSC worked 

together to establish and administer a customer satisfaction survey that 

solicited feedback on service provided to claimants. The customer 

satisfaction survey concluded on July 28, 2014, and, although DOL and 

OSC undertook additional efforts to increase the response rate, the 

response rate remained low. Agencies do not have plans to administer a 

customer satisfaction survey in the future. Agencies officials at both 

agencies told us they benefited from the information collected during the 

survey, and used survey information to make improvements in their 

operations to better serve claimants. Without ongoing access to customer 

satisfaction information, both agencies will be unable to track satisfaction 

levels over time, and may miss opportunities to receive feedback from 

servicemembers and make additional improvements to federal USERRA 

operations in the future.

 

22 GAO-12-860R. 

Conclusions
 

Page 36 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

We recommend that any federal agency designated to investigate future 

USERRA claims against federal executive agencies take the following 

two actions:

• Continue administering a customer satisfaction survey, whether 

administered by OPM or the agency, so the agency investigating 

federal USERRA claims can receive consistent feedback and improve 

service to claimants.

• Undertake efforts to increase the response rate of the customer 

satisfaction survey if it continues to be administered, so more tenable 

conclusions can be drawn from its data. Such efforts may include 

follow-up phone calls to nonrespondents, additional email notifications 

requesting participation in the survey, or making the survey easier to 

complete and submit.

We provided a draft of this report to DOL and OSC for review and 

comment. DOL concurred with our two recommendations and said it is 

committed to continuous improvement of the USERRA program. DOL 

comments are reprinted in appendix IV. In response to our 

recommendations, DOL stated it has plans to continue a customer 

satisfaction survey for USERRA claimants in fiscal year 2015 and will 

take steps to maximize response rates. Recognizing the need for 

continuous improvement, DOL added that the agency invested in an 

electronic case management system for implementation in fiscal year 

2015. DOL also provided technical comments which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

In its written comments, OSC did not say whether it agreed with our two 

recommendations and expressed concerns about our characterization of 

performance data and conclusions. OSC’s comments, including examples 

of case outcomes, are reprinted in appendix V. OSC also provided 

technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate.

OSC expressed a concern that we ignored its efforts and successes in 

securing relief for veterans. OSC characterized the report as containing 

unreliable data, unsupportable conclusions, and a subjective assessment 

of relative performance. Our report presents a fair, balanced, and 

objective portrayal of relative performance between OSC and DOL. We 

worked with both agencies to develop an approach for collecting and 

reporting comparable performance data since the beginning of the 

demonstration project in 2011. Our report acknowledges the complexity of 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 37 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

assessing relative performance for the performance metrics outlined in 

VBA. As we report, performance can be affected by factors such as the 

investigative approaches used by agencies, case type, and other factors. 

Where appropriate, we have provided additional information or 

clarification to ensure that the performance information is viewed in the 

appropriate context. 

Our response to the specific points raised by OSC are as follows. 

OSC expressed several concerns with our analysis of case outcomes. 

OSC commented that we diminished and obscured performance 

information regarding case outcomes. OSC also claimed we abdicated 

responsibility by not providing a qualitative assessment of case outcomes 

based on summary case information. Our report provides clear 

information regarding the number of cases received and closed, as well 

as the percentage of cases resolved in favor of the claimant. It was not 

our intention to assess the merits of agencies’ case outcomes. At the 

beginning of the demonstration project, we made clear to OSC that it 

would be inappropriate for us to review case files and make an 

independent determination of the merits of agencies’ case outcomes. 

Moreover, as previously stated, we worked with agencies prior to the 

demonstration project to develop a method to ensure that case outcomes 

could be described in a consistent manner, and a comparison could be 

made at the conclusion of the demonstration project. While we did not 

attempt to assess the merits of agencies’ case outcomes, our report 

provides examples of specific relief claimants received and information on 

the types of outcomes OSC achieved.

OSC objected to our inclusion of 7 cases from DOL that were decided in 

favor of the claimant, but did not result in the claimant receiving relief. To 

address this concern, our report provided additional details to describe 

our treatment of such cases. We had to rely on agencies’ determination of 

whether certain cases were resolved in favor of the claimant because 

certain case outcomes were not included in the cross-walk. Specifically, 

as we report, OSC’s totals include 3 cases in which corrective action was 

declined by the claimant, or about 3 percent of the 94 cases the agency 

resolved in favor of the claimant. DOL’s totals include 7 cases that had 

merit, but which were not resolved, or about 11 percent of the 62 cases 

the agency resolved in favor of the claimant. According to OSC officials, 

the code “corrective action declined by claimant” indicates that the 

agency offered resolution but the claimant declined it. According to DOL 

officials, the code “merit, not resolved” indicates that the claim was 
 

Page 38 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

meritorious, but the agency did not offer resolution, or the claimant 

declined the resolution that was offered.

OSC expressed several concerns with our analysis of agency cost data. 

OSC stated that the cost information presented is unverifiable. We 

believe the cost information presented in our report is reliable. We took 

steps to assure the reasonableness of cost figures reported by agencies. 

We conducted tests on each agency’s cost and accounting data to ensure 

appropriate cost components were accurately reflected in their total costs. 

We independently reviewed supporting documentation and verified that 

the cost information was reasonable. For more details regarding our 

analyses and data reliability assessments, see our scope and 

methodology in appendix I. 

OSC stated that DOL’s total costs are incomplete because the total cost 

and hours reported constitute only about 105 hours per year, per DOL 

investigator, or about 5 percent of the 2,088 annual hour work schedule. 

OSC’s statement is based on the false assumption that the 31 DOL 

investigators who worked on USERRA demonstration project cases, 

worked on them full time. We have added language to make clear that 

DOL investigators had other responsibilities. Specifically, we added 

information explaining that DOL’s investigators also worked on other 

nonfederal USERRA or veterans’ preference cases. OSC also speculated 

that the average annual caseload of 15 USERRA demonstration and nondemonstration project cases comprised DOL investigators’ full workload. 

As we clarified, investigators also worked on veterans’ preference cases, 

which are not included in this average annual caseload figure. 

Furthermore, we did not collect information on the time spent on nondemonstration project cases or other duties. Thus, we cannot draw 

conclusions about the average time, or proportion of time, dedicated to 

non-demonstration project related work activities. 

OSC stated we reported that neither agency tracked the costs of 

individual cases, and so were unable to report the cost of closed cases. 

However, we reported the total cost and the average cost for investigating 

a case during the demonstration project. 

OSC stated that, in 2012, we requested that the agency change its 

methodology for tracking costs to be more consistent with DOL. In 2011, 

at the beginning of the demonstration project, we recommended that 

agencies establish comparable methods and procedures for tracking and 

reporting demonstration project costs. We did not suggest a specific 

method or approach for agencies to follow, but asked that agencies agree 
 

Page 39 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

to a comparable approach that would facilitate a relative comparison of 

costs at the conclusion of the demonstration project. Agencies 

implemented this recommendation, which enabled us to provide 

comparable cost information for both agencies in this report.

OSC expressed concern that we failed to put the customer satisfaction 

survey results in the proper context. OSC stated that we did not expand 

on the limitations and potential biases of the survey data until the end of 

our report. We recognize the low survey response rate throughout the 

report and identified the actions we took that enabled us to draw 

conclusions about the survey. Our analyses revealed that differences in 

DOL and OSC satisfaction scores for each question remained statistically 

significant and pronounced even after controlling for variables that could 

affect the claimants’ views of the customer service provided. However, we 

made minor adjustments in the Highlights page language to clarify that, 

due to the low response rate, we undertook additional statistical analyses 

to control for potential sources of bias.

OSC stated that we failed to include OPM concerns about biases in the 

survey data. OPM’s conclusions were based on a nonresponse analysis 

conducted in 2013, and not the final analyses provided in this report. 

OPM’s analyses did not control for variables that could affect claimants’ 

views of the services received from each agency.

OSC stated that our decision to report the raw (not adjusted) customer 

satisfaction survey scores in the body of the report is misleading. OSC 

said that we reported adjusted scores only in appendix III. We reported on 

both raw and adjusted scores in our report. Both the actual and adjusted 

scores demonstrate, with a high degree of confidence, that DOL’s 

respondents were more satisfied than OSC’s respondents.

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and to the 

Special Counsel, and other interested parties. This report will also be 

available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 40 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

If you have any questions on this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

2717 or jonesy@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Yvonne D. Jones

Director, Strategic Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

The Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2010 (VBA) required us to undertake a final 

assessment of the demonstration project and provide a report to 

Congress 90 days after the end of the demonstration project. This report 

(1) assesses agencies’ relative performance under VBA performance 

metrics including case outcomes, customer satisfaction, timeliness, cost, 

and capacity; and (2) identifies actions agencies can take to improve 

service.

To assess the agencies’ relative performance, we reviewed the 

demonstration project requirements set forth in VBA and compared final 

agency data on case outcomes, timeliness, customer satisfaction, and 

cost. We also reviewed information on agency capacity including staffing 

levels, grade level, training, education, and caseload. The demonstration 

project period began on August 9, 2011, and concluded on August 9, 

2014; however, to ensure we met the mandated reporting deadline, this 

report includes data collected through the end of July 2014. We also 

provided comparative and descriptive explanations of agency capacity.

Case Outcomes and Timeliness. To assess case outcomes and 

timeliness, we analyzed data from the Department of Labor’s (DOL) case 

tracking system (the USERRA Information Management System, or 

UIMS) and the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) case tracking system 

(OSC 2000) for demonstration cases opened between August 9, 2011, 

and July 31, 2014. We also reviewed relevant agency documents and 

interviewed DOL and OSC staff. We assessed case tracking data to 

identify the number of cases received, the number of cases resolved in 

favor of the claimant, and those not resolved in favor of the claimant. To 

identify the number of cases received, we removed duplicate and nonunique claims from both agencies, and totaled the number of claims 

received and resolved each fiscal year. As such, our case totals may vary 

from the number of cases reported by agencies in prior Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) 

progress reports issued to Congress. To determine the cases resolved in 

favor of the claimant, we reviewed the agencies’ cross-walk of case 

outcomes to identify corresponding case closure dispositions and case 

closure codes. We also interviewed agency officials. DOL uses the 

resolution codes claim granted, claim settled, and merit - not resolved, to 

identify cases resolved in favor of claimants. OSC uses the codes dispute 

resolved, corrective action, and complainant declines corrective action 

offered. To assess the timeliness of cases, we calculated the average 

case investigation time for each fiscal year and for all demonstration 

project cases closed between August 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014. We 

also calculated the average age of demonstration project cases that were 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

open as of July 31, 2014. In addition, we grouped cases into one of three 

categories based on the investigation processing times for both open and 

closed cases–cases open less than 30 days, cases open between 30 and 

90 days, and cases open more than 90 days. We also considered factors 

that may have contributed to timeliness of case resolution, such as 

whether the case was decided in favor of the claimant, and whether the 

case involved a prohibited personnel practice. 

To assess the reliability of agency case tracking data, we reviewed 

agency documentation on any significant operational or case 

management changes occurring since our last report, issued in 

September 2012. We tested the data for missing entries, errors, duplicate 

entries, and other logic testing. We also reviewed related agency 

documentation, including our previous reports, and interviewed DOL and 

OSC staff. We determined that internal controls for the demonstration 

project had not changed substantially since our past reviews. We 

generally found low rates of missing data or erroneous dates pertinent to 

our analysis. For cases in which we found missing information or dates or 

Social Security numbers out of sequence, we followed up with the agency

and, as appropriate, updated our analysis files with corrected information. 

For example, we found that OSC had received a number of 

demonstration project cases from claimants who did not provide a Social 

Security number, and which had an even-numbered opening date. 

According to the demonstration project procedures agreed to by both 

agencies, OSC was authorized to accept claims that did not have a 

corresponding Social Security number, if they were filed on an odd date, 

whereas, DOL would accept cases filed on even dates. We asked OSC 

about this discrepancy, and officials there explained that for some cases 

that did not have a corresponding Social Security number, the agency 

received claims on an odd numbered day, but did not enter the claim into 

their case tracking system until the next day. OSC provided us with the 

correct case opening date for these cases. DOL officials told us they

followed the agency’s existing USERRA operations manual during the 

demonstration project to ensure data reliability and validity, while OSC 

drafted a data reliability plan specifically for the demonstration project. 

Based on the collective results of our data reliability assessment, we 

consider the data elements we assessed in DOL and OSC case tracking 

databases to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of evaluating relative 

performance of DOL and OSC during the demonstration project. 

Customer Satisfaction. To assess customer satisfaction, we analyzed 

data, results, and narrative responses from the USERRA customer 

satisfaction survey. Surveys were sent by each agency to claimants upon 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

resolution of their cases. Survey data were collected independently by the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The survey data collection 

ended July 28, 2014, for our reporting purposes. Agencies entered into an 

agreement with OPM to administer the satisfaction survey and provide 

interim reports providing customer satisfaction performance information. 

Because the response rate to the survey was low, we performed 

additional analyses including multivariate and nonresponse analyses to 

understand what conclusions could be drawn from the data and which 

variables might affect the results. For a detailed description of the 

analyses completed and their findings, see appendix III. We also 

interviewed agency officials at OSC, DOL, and OPM to gather supporting 

documentation including the survey instrument and other relevant 

information to facilitate our analyses of the customer satisfaction survey 

data. Furthermore, we reviewed relevant documents, such as interim 

survey reports and the interagency agreement between DOL and OPM 

for the survey administration, and the statement of work between DOL, 

OSC, and OPM for survey responsibilities.

We assessed the reliability of the customer satisfaction survey data by 

testing the data for missing entries and errors, and employing other logic 

testing. We reviewed OPM documentation and interviewed OPM, DOL, 

and OSC staff. In addition, OPM described and provided supporting 

documentation of the procedures it has in place to ensure data reliability 

and validity, including running checks on the data for completeness. 

Based on the collective results of our data reliability assessment, we 

consider data provided by OPM on the customer satisfaction survey to be 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of evaluating relative performance of 

DOL and OSC during the demonstration project.

Agency Costs. To assess demonstration project costs, we reviewed and 

analyzed cost and accounting data from DOL and OSC, including 

supporting documentation such as the number of hours dedicated to 

demonstration project cases. While the cost accounting systems 

developed at each agency differ somewhat in the way they track time 

spent, both systems track actual salary, benefits, and indirect cost 

components by applying an hourly rate that includes those components 

for each specific employee who works on, and tracks time spent on, 

demonstration project cases. To determine the total cost, the agencies 

multiplied the hourly rate for all personnel who participated in the 

demonstration project by the total time spent working on USERRA 

demonstration project investigations. We also interviewed DOL and OSC 

staff responsible for collecting and reporting cost information. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

DOL provided cost and accounting data for the full demonstration project 

for the period August 9, 2011, to July 31, 2014. OSC provided complete 

and comparable cost data for the period August 12, 2012, to August 1, 

2014, or about 24 months out of the 36-month demonstration project. 

OSC officials explained that they did not provide complete and 

comparable cost data prior to August 12, 2012, because the agency 

changed its process and methods for tracking and reporting data to be 

more consistent with the process and methods used by DOL. Prior to 

August 12, 2012, OSC tracked the costs of each case and reported costs 

of closed cases. After August 12, 2012, OSC began collecting and 

reporting costs for all demonstration project cases worked, including 

cases that were still open, and stopped tracking costs on a case-by-case 

basis. On September 4, 2014, OSC provided us with additional cost 

information for demonstration project cases that were investigated 

between May 2012 and August 12, 2012. This data was received about 

three weeks after the deadline we established for submitting cost and 

performance information. OSC also provided cost and accounting 

information for cases that were closed between August 2011 and May 

2012. This data was incomplete because it excluded costs incurred for 

cases that remained open during this period. We did not include these

data in our assessment of demonstration project costs because these

data were incomplete, or not directly comparable to DOL costs. Thus, we 

determined we did not have sufficient time to verify the reliability of all of 

the data prior to our congressionally mandated reporting deadline. 

We assessed the reliability of DOL’s and OSC’s USERRA cost 

accounting systems by testing the data for missing entries and errors, 

employing other logic testing, reviewing DOL and OSC documentation,

and interviewing agency staff. Furthermore, we determined that agencies 

developed steps for ensuring the reliability of cost data, including 

developing USERRA operations manuals, providing instructions to staff 

entering the data, and describing the steps for reviewing the data after 

entered by staff. 

Because OSC did not implement our recommendation to document 

procedures for compiling and reporting cost information, we also 

conducted a limited trace-to-file process to determine whether the 

agency’s reported monthly costs accurately reflected the time and cost 

reported by employees. Specifically, we identified a random sample of 

five individual time and cost lines from the master cost and accounting 

spreadsheet and compared the totals to the agency’s time and cost 

records for those months. During this assessment, we identified an error 

in the hourly rate of an employee used to determine demonstration 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

project costs. OSC corrected this error and provided us with an updated 

time and cost spreadsheet. We then conducted a second trace-to-file

sample of five randomly chosen individual time and cost lines and 

determined the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

We also performed a data check on the DOL cost data. We used the 

annualized cost rates for a number of investigators to manually calculate 

their total demonstration project costs for, and compared our results to, 

DOL’s reported total costs for these investigators. Based on this check, 

we found the data to be sufficiently accurate. Based on the collective 

results of our data reliability assessment, we consider the DOL and OSC 

cost accounting data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

evaluating relative performance of DOL and OSC during the 

demonstration project. 

Agency Capacity. To describe agencies’ capacity, we analyzed agency 

data on staff levels, grade levels, training, education, and caseload. We 

also reviewed agency documentation, and interviewed agency officials 

about factors impacting agency performance and capacity. To determine 

the average caseload of DOL investigators who worked on demonstration 

cases by fiscal year, we divided the number of demonstration cases 

opened per fiscal year by the number of investigators who worked on 

demonstration cases during that year. To determine DOL’s overall 

average caseload per fiscal year for the entire length of the demonstration 

project, we took the average caseloads for each fiscal year and used 

them to create a weighted average—weighing each fiscal year by the 

number of months the demonstration project was ongoing—because 

demonstration cases were not investigated for the entirety of fiscal years 

2011 and 2014. We also calculated the average caseload of all active 

DOL investigators by 1) dividing the number of cases all active DOL 

investigators were assigned by the number of years they had been 

investigating cases to calculate the average caseload of all active 

investigators and then 2) dividing the sum of the individual investigators’ 

averages by the total number of active investigators to calculate the 

overall average caseload for all active DOL investigators.

To determine the average number of cases opened by OSC staff 

members investigating claims, we calculated the average number of 

cases opened per staff member for each period of time that had a stable 

amount of staff. Specifically, each time a new staff member was hired or a 

staff member left OSC, we created a new time period to better capture 

the number of cases opened per staff member. Finally, we used these 

nine averages to create a weighted average based on the number of 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

months in the time period to calculate the average number of cases 

opened per staff member investigating claims at OSC. In addition, we 

reviewed agency documentation and testimonial evidence, as well as 

analyzed agency data, to describe DOL’s and OSC’s staffing levels, 

training programs on USERRA investigations and general investigation 

techniques, and the agencies’ views on their unique qualifications to 

investigate claims.

To identify actions agencies can take to improve service, we analyzed 

agency customer satisfaction data and compared results to customer 

service principles and guidance outlined in executive orders, Office of 

Management and Budget guidance, and the governmentwide 

performance plan at www.performance.gov. We also interviewed agency 

officials about their views on related procedures and practices that 

worked well or needed improvement. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to November 2014

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: USERRA Demonstration Project 

Customer Satisfaction Survey Administration 

and Instrument

Page 47 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

The Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2010 includes customer satisfaction as one 

of five performance metrics to be used to assess the relative performance 

of the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of Special Counsel 

(OSC) during the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) demonstration project. In response to our 

previous recommendation, both agencies agreed on the method by which 

customer satisfaction data would be collected. Specifically, the agencies 

agreed to administer a customer satisfaction survey, and entered into an 

interagency agreement with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

to collect survey data and provide regular reports to agencies with 

comparative performance information. Furthermore, with cooperation 

from agencies, OPM developed a survey plan and developed protocols 

for contacting respondents.1

The customer satisfaction survey was provided to all claimants whose 

cases were closed between the start of the demonstration project on 

August 9, 2012, and July 28, 2014. OPM established an end date for 

collection of survey data of July 28, 2014, for reporting purposes. The 

customer satisfaction survey was initially sent via an email link on April 

19, 2012, 8 months after the start of the demonstration project, to all 

claimants whose cases had been closed since August 9, 2011. Since 

then, DOL and OSC have sent the survey on an ongoing basis after 

cases are closed. 

When the survey began in April 2012, DOL and OSC emailed the 

claimants a link to the customer satisfaction survey, followed by a 

reminder emailed one week after case resolution. Two weeks following 

the initial notification, DOL and OSC sent a hard-copy reminder to 

claimants with the survey link. However, our interim report on the 

demonstration project found the response rate to the customer 

satisfaction survey was low for both agencies and recommended that 

DOL and OSC take actions to increase the response rate.2 In response, 

beginning on May 20, 2013, both agencies provided claimants with an 

initial notification that a survey would be provided to them upon 

 

1

GAO, Veterans’ Reemployment Rights: Steps Needed to Ensure Reliability of DOL and 

Special Counsel Demonstration Project’s Performance Information, GAO-11-312R

(Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2011).

2

GAO, Veterans’ Reemployment Rights: Department of Labor and Office of Special 

Counsel Need to Take Additional Steps to Ensure Demonstration Project Data Integrity, 

GAO-12-860R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2012).

Appendix II: USERRA Demonstration Project 

Customer Satisfaction Survey Administration 

and Instrument 
Appendix II: USERRA Demonstration Project 

Customer Satisfaction Survey Administration 

and Instrument

Page 48 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

completion of their cases and requesting their participation in the survey. 

In addition, both agencies sent claimants two follow-up emails. 

The survey allows respondents to report their satisfaction regarding

several aspects of their experiences with DOL and OSC, as shown in 

figure 9. The survey included nine statements regarding claimants 

experience, and provided respondents the option to respond to

statements by selecting “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neither agree nor 

disagree,” “agree,” “strongly agree,” or “no basis to judge.” The survey 

also included four categories for the respondents to express their level of 

satisfaction with the service provided by selecting “very dissatisfied,” 

“dissatisfied,” “neither,” “satisfied,” “very satisfied,” and “no basis to 

judge”; and one question for respondents to express their level of 

satisfaction with the complaint form used to file USERRA claims. The 

survey included two open-ended questions allowing respondents to 

describe what went well and what needed to change about their agency 

experience. In addition, the survey asked claimants to self report the 

outcome of their case and their military affiliation. Figure 9 shows the 

survey instrument OPM used to collect customer satisfaction data.
Appendix II: USERRA Demonstration Project 

Customer Satisfaction Survey Administration 

and Instrument

Page 49 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Figure 9: OPM 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey Instrument
Appendix II: USERRA Demonstration Project 

Customer Satisfaction Survey Administration 

and Instrument

Page 50 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix II: USERRA Demonstration Project 

Customer Satisfaction Survey Administration 

and Instrument

Page 51 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Source: OPM. | GAO-15-77
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 52 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

In light of the low response rates to the customer satisfaction survey, we 

performed additional analyses including nonresponse and multivariate 

analyses to understand what conclusions could be drawn from the data 

and which variables might affect the results. We found pronounced 

differences in customer satisfaction between the two agencies as 

indicated by each of the 15 survey questions. In all but one of the 

questions, differences persist even after taking into account differences in 

the favorability of the outcomes of the claims, case processing times, and 

whether discrimination was alleged.

Nonresponse Analysis. Satisfaction with the Uniformed Services 

Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) claims 

process at the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of Special 

Counsel (OSC) is measured by responses from participants to 15 

questions on an exit survey which is completed voluntarily and 

electronically after participants completed the process. Table 4 shows 

that the overall response rate to the survey was low (37.2 percent) and 

that the response rate was higher at OSC (41.6 percent) than at DOL 

(32.2 percent).

Table 4: Survey Response Rates at DOL and OSC

Response Status

Agency Non-Responders Responders Total

DOL 213 101 314

67.8% 32.2% 100.0%

OSC 212 151 363

58.4% 41.6% 100.0%

Total 425 252 677

62.8% 37.2% 100.0%

L2

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data I GAO-15-77

(Independence) = 6.44 with 1 df, P = .011

The low overall response rate and the significant difference in response 

rates across the two agencies are potentially troublesome inasmuch as 

responders and non-responders may differ with respect to their 

satisfaction with the investigation of their claims or differ on other 

characteristics that affect satisfaction. To the extent that such differences 

exist, estimates of the level of satisfaction in the two agencies and the 

differences in satisfaction between them may be biased. We do not know 

whether responders and non-responders differ with respect to their 

satisfaction with the investigation of their claims, since only the 

Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 53 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

responders provided information about their satisfaction by responding to 

the survey. However, responders and non-responders can be compared 

on three characteristics that might affect satisfaction, using data that the 

agencies provided us with—namely, the time it took for their cases to be 

investigated, whether discrimination was alleged as part of their claim, 

and whether the claim was settled in favor of the claimant. These 

comparisons, both within each of the two agencies and overall, are shown 

in tables 5, 6, and 7. 

Table 5 shows that overall (or when both agencies are combined, in the 

bottom panel of the table) responders were significantly more likely to 

have lengthy processing times (more than 90 days) and less likely to

have short processing times (1 to 30 days). This overall difference was 

statistically significant. While differences between responders and nonresponders within each agency were not statistically significant, the 

tendency for there to be fewer responders than non-responders with short 

processing times is evident in each agency. 

Table 5: Case Processing Time for Responders and Non-Responders, by Agency and Overall

Agency

Case Processing Time (in days)

DOL Response Status 1-30 31-90 91+ Total

Non-Responders 110 82 19 211

52.1% 38.9% 9.0% 100.0%

Responders 40 53 8 101

39.6% 52.5% 7.9% 100.0%

150 135 27 312

48.1% 43.3% 8.7% 100.0%

L2(Independence) = 5.23 with 2 df, P = .073

Case Processing Time (in days)

OSC Response Status 1-30 31-90 91+ Total

Non-Responders 39 79 94 212

18.4% 37.3% 44.3% 100.0%

Responders 19 53 79 151

12.6% 35.1% 52.3% 100.0%

58 132 173 363

16.0% 36.4% 47.7% 100.0%

L2(Independence) = 3.20 with 2 df, P = .202
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 54 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Case Processing Time (in days)

Overall Response Status 1-30 31-90 91+ Total

Non-Responders 149 161 113 423

35.2% 38.1% 26.7% 100.0%

Responders 59 106 87 252

23.4% 42.1% 34.5% 100.0%

208 267 200 675

30.8% 39.6% 29.6% 100.0%

L2(Independence) = 11.26 with 2 df, P = .004

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data | GAO-15-77

Table 6 shows that discrimination allegations overall and within each 

agency did not, strictly speaking, differ significantly between responders 

and non-responders. But, differences approached significance in each 

agency (.05 < p < .10) and showed that fewer responders than nonresponders had alleged discrimination as part of their claim.

Table 6: Discrimination Allegations for Responders and Non-Responders, by Agency and Overall

Agency

Discrimination Alleged

DOL Response Status No Yes Total

Non-Responders 90 121 211

42.7% 57.3% 100.0%

Responders 54 47 101

53.5% 46.5% 100.0%

Total 144 168 312

46.2% 53.8% 100.0%

L2(Independence) = 3.21 with 1 df, P = .073

Discrimination Alleged

OSC Response Status No Yes Total

Non-Responders 29 183 212

13.7% 86.3% 100.0%

Responders 32 119 151

21.2% 78.8% 100.0%

Total 61 302 363
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 55 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

16.8% 83.2% 100.0%

L2(Independence) = 3.51 with 1 df, P = .061

Overall Discrimination Alleged

Response Status No Yes Total

Non-Responders 119 304 423

28.1% 71.9% 100.0%

Responders 86 166 252

34.1% 65.9% 100.0%

Total 205 470 675

30.4% 69.6% 100.0%

L2(Independence) = 2.66 with 1 df, P = .103

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data | GAO-15-77

Table 7 shows that overall, and for each survey question, agency 

responders were significantly more likely than non-responders to have 

their claims decided in their favor. Because of the very sizable differences 

here and somewhat smaller differences between responders and nonresponders in processing time and discrimination allegations in the 

analyses of the differences in satisfaction, we used multivariate models to 

adjust the agency differences for case processing time, whether 

discrimination was alleged, and whether the outcome was favorable. In 

those analyses however, we used a survey measure derived from the 

respondents, rather than the indicator provided by the agency, to indicate 

whether their claim was decided upon favorably. While the two different 

indicators are very strongly associated (see table 8) the association is not 

perfect. We believed it would be more informative to adjust for what 

respondents thought was the outcome of their claim at the time of the 

survey rather than what the agency told us was ultimately the outcome.
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 56 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Table 7: Favorable Outcomes for Responders and Non-Responders, by Agency and Overall

Agency Favorable Outcome

DOL Response Status No Yes Total

Non-Responders 184 27 211

87.2% 12.8% 100.0%

Responders 67 34 101

66.3% 33.7% 100.0%

Total 251 61 312

80.4% 19.6% 100.0%

L2(Independence) = 17.88 with 1 df, P < .001

Favorable Outcome

OSC Response Status No Yes Total

Non-Responders 172 40 212

81.1% 18.9% 100.0%

Responders 106 45 151

70.2% 29.8% 100.0%

Total 278 85 363

76.6% 23.4% 100.0%

L2(Independence) = 5.81 with 1 df, P = .016

Overall Favorable Outcome

Response Status No Yes Total

Non-Responders 356 67 423

84.2% 15.8% 100.0%

Responders 173 79 252

68.7% 31.3% 100.0%

Total 529 146 675

78.40% 21.60% 100.0%

L2(Independence) = 21.83 with 1 df, P < .001

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data | GAO-15-77
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 57 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Table 8. Agency Reported Outcome by Respondent Perception of the Outcome

Respondent Perception 

of the Outcome

Agency Reported Outcome

Not Favorable Favorable Total

Favorable 14 61 75

18.7% 81.3% 100.0%

Don’t Know 46 10 56

82.1% 17.9% 100.0%

Not Favorable 107 6 113

94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

Total 167 77 244

68.4% 31.6% 100.0%

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data | GAO-15-77

Multivariate Analysis. To discern whether there are differences in 

participants’ satisfaction between the two agencies and whether they 

persist after taking account of case processing times, whether 

discrimination was alleged, and whether the outcome of the claim was 

favorable, we undertook two different analyses. In the first set of analyses 

we treated responses as if they were interval-ratio measures, scored 

them from 1 (“strongly disagree” or “very “dissatisfied”) to 5 (“strongly 

agree” or “very “satisfied”), and averaged the scores across all 

respondents in each agency for each of the 15 items separately. We then 

calculated the differences between the two agencies in these average 

scores across each of the items, and tested the significance of those 

differences using t-tests (when we estimated raw or unadjusted 

differences) and F-statistics (when we estimated differences after 

adjusting, or effectively holding constant, the three aforementioned 

confounds).1

 

In the second set of analyses we treated responses as categorical, and 

because of the small sample size and our desire to look at agency 

differences before and after adjustment, we collapsed response 

categories to contrast unfavorable responses (reflecting disagreement or 

dissatisfaction) with favorable responses (reflecting agreement or 

 

1

The adjusted estimates of agency differences and the F-statistics associated with them 

are from ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression models that regressed the scores on 

each item for all respondents on agency, and on (one at a time) case processing time, 

discrimination allegation, and favorability of the outcome. 
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 58 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

satisfaction). We then calculated the odds on responding favorably in the 

two agencies and odds ratios reflecting the differences between them, 

and tested the significance of these differences using chi-square 

statistics. We then reestimated these odds ratios and re-tested the 

difference between agencies in the odds on responding favorably to each 

of the 15 items after taking account of the processing times, 

discrimination allegations and whether the outcome of the case was 

favorable or unfavorable to the claimant.2

 

Table 9 shows the wordings to the 15 survey items, and the percentages 

of respondents at the two agencies who responded to them in different 

ways. Using a five-point Lickert scale which ranged from “strongly 

disagree” to “strongly agree” for the first nine items and from “very 

dissatisfied” to “very satisfied” for the last six items in the table.

Table 9: Responses to 15 Satisfaction Items on the USERRA Survey Questionnaire, by Agency

Agency Strongly 

Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree Strongly 

Agree

N 

The staff are courteous. DOL 9.0% 4.0% 5.0% 21.0% 61.0% 100

OSC 12.8% 10.1% 12.8% 28.9% 35.6% 149

The staff are competent. DOL 9.2% 8.2% 14.3% 16.3% 52.0% 98

OSC 22.9% 21.5% 18.8% 11.8% 25.0% 144

The staff are professional. DOL 9.0% 3.0% 5.0% 26.0% 57.0% 100

OSC 17.6% 12.8% 18.9% 20.9% 29.7% 148

The staff provides consistently good service. DOL 10.9% 9.8% 15.2% 13.0% 51.1% 92

OSC 28.7% 25.9% 16.1% 8.4% 21.0% 143

The staff policies and procedures are customer 

friendly.

DOL 14.1% 13.0% 9.8% 18.5% 44.6% 92

OSC 23.4% 20.0% 21.4% 13.8% 21.4% 145

I have adequate access to staff for advice and 

assistance.

DOL 12.5% 9.4% 12.5% 17.7% 47.9% 96

OSC 32.0% 23.8% 13.6% 10.9% 19.7% 147

The staff keep me informed of significant case 

developments.

DOL 12.0% 8.0% 13.0% 20.0% 47.0% 100

OSC 37.8% 22.4% 9.1% 11.9% 18.9% 143

I know whom to contact if I have additional questions. DOL 15.0% 6.0% 8.0% 21.0% 50.0% 100

 

2

The adjusted odds ratios for these analyses where responses are treated as categorical 

are derived from logistic regression models in which the odds on responding favorably are 

regressed on agency (again a dummy variable as above) and on (one at a time) case 

processing time, discrimination allegation, and favorability of the outcome.
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 59 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

OSC 26.8% 19.5% 10.7% 21.5% 21.5% 149

The staff responded to my questions in a timely manner. DOL 11.0% 4.0% 9.0% 16.0% 60.0% 100

OSC 35.1% 20.3% 12.2% 13.5% 18.9% 148

Agency Very 

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very 

Satisfied

N 

Satisfaction with thoroughness of investigation. DOL 22.8% 10.9% 12.0% 12.0% 42.4% 92

OSC 54.7% 15.8% 5.8% 7.9% 15.8% 139

Satisfaction with clarity of written communication DOL 11.3% 6.2% 13.4% 19.6% 49.5% 97

OSC 29.0% 15.2% 16.6% 18.6% 20.7% 145

Satisfaction with clarity of verbal communication DOL 11.3% 4.1% 15.5% 19.6% 49.5% 97

OSC 31.7% 12.7% 15.5% 17.6% 22.5% 142

Satisfaction with customer service DOL 14.0% 7.0% 13.0% 27.0% 39.0% 100

OSC 43.7% 9.9% 12.6% 19.9% 13.9% 151

Satisfaction with investigation of complaint DOL 23.8% 9.9% 10.9% 18.8% 36.6% 101

OSC 55.6% 13.9% 5.3% 11.9% 13.2% 151

Satisfaction with results of investigation DOL 30.7% 11.9% 14.9% 18.8% 23.8% 101

OSC 56.7% 8.7% 9.3% 12.7% 12.7% 150

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data | GAO-15-77

The results of the first set of analyses are shown in table 10. The first 

column of numbers (N) shown in the table indicates the numbers of 

respondents to each item in the two agencies. The second column of 

numbers shows the average or mean response to each item. 
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 60 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Table 10: Odds and Odds Ratios Indicating Differences in Satisfaction at DOL and OSC before and after Adjusting for 

Whether the Outcome Was Favorable, Case Processing Time, and Whether Discrimination Was Alleged

Differences, Adjusted fora

Agency N Mean

Difference 

(Unadjusted) OF CPT DA

The staff are courteous. DOL 100 4.21 0.57 0.46 0.58 0.46

OSC 149 3.64

The staff are competent. DOL 98 3.94 0.99 0.84 0.95 0.90

OSC 144 2.94

The staff are professional. DOL 100 4.19 0.87 0.76 0.89 0.76

OSC 148 3.32

The staff provides consistently good 

service.

DOL 92 3.84 1.17 1.02 1.00 1.03

OSC 143 2.67

The staff policies and procedures are 

customer friendly.

DOL 92 3.66 0.77 0.61 0.81 0.68

OSC 145 2.90

I have adequate access to staff for 

advice and assistance.

DOL 96 3.79 1.17 1.01 1.04 1.09

OSC 147 2.63

The staff keep me informed of 

significant case developments.

DOL 100 3.82 1.30 1.16 1.22 1.25

OSC 143 2.52

I know whom to contact if I have 

additional questions.

DOL 100 3.85 0.94 0.82 0.81 0.88

OSC 149 2.91

The staff responded to my questions in 

a timely manner.

DOL 100 4.10 1.49 1.36 1.25 1.48

OSC 148 2.61

Satisfaction with thoroughness of 

investigation.

DOL 92 3.40 1.26 0.95 1.14 1.17

OSC 139 2.14

Satisfaction with clarity of written 

communication

DOL 97 3.90 1.03 0.83 0.97 0.95

OSC 145 2.87

Satisfaction with clarity of verbal 

communication

DOL 97 3.92 1.05 0.87 0.92 0.94

OSC 142 2.87

Satisfaction with customer service DOL 100 3.70 1.20 1.04 1.02 1.12

OSC 151 2.50

Satisfaction with investigation of 

complaint

DOL 101 3.35 1.21 1.00 1.06 1.16

OSC 151 2.13

Satisfaction with results of 

investigation

DOL 101 2.93 0.77 0.52 0.71 0.74

OSC 150 2.16

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data | GAO-15-77

a

OF = Whether the Outcome Was Favorable; CPT = Case Processing Time; DA = Whether 

Discrimination Was Alleged; Shading indicates differences that are statistically significant (P < .05).
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 61 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

The average responses at DOL on all items except the last (satisfaction 

with the results of the investigation) tended to be favorable, with mean 

scores above 3.0. This score indicates that respondents neither agreed 

nor disagreed, or were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. At OSC, this was 

true only for only a couple of the 15 items (the staff were courteous and 

the staff were professional). Moreover, average scores for every one of 

the 15 items were significantly higher at DOL than at OSC. The 

differences (shown in the third column of numbers in the table) ranged

from roughly half a point to more than a full point.3

 

The estimates from our multivariate regression models show that these 

differences remain sizable and significant even after we take into account 

(1) whether the outcomes of the different claims in the two agencies were 

decided favorably or unfavorably, (2) the case processing times, and (3) 

whether discrimination was alleged. So while the average responses on 

all items were decidedly higher (reflecting greater satisfaction) when 

cases were decided in the claimant’s favor than when claims were not 

settled in the claimant’s favor (these analyses are not shown, but are 

available on request), the differences in satisfaction between agencies 

were only slightly attenuated when the outcome of the claim was taken 

into account (or held constant).4 The same was true when the other two 

factors (case processing times and discrimination allegations) were 

statistically controlled.

The results of the second set of analyses are shown in table 11. In these 

analyses, the 15 satisfaction items are treated categorically. The table 

shows (in the first two columns of numbers) the numbers of respondents 

in each agency who responded unfavorably (by not agreeing or not 

expressing satisfaction) and favorably (by agreeing or expressing 

satisfaction) to each item.5 While it is common to make comparisons 

across groups (in our case the two agencies) by converting the numbers 

 

3

Shading in the table indicates differences which are statistically significant at the .05 

level. 

4

For example, the unadjusted difference between agencies in the mean score on the “staff 

are courteous” item was 0.57, while the adjusted differences (or differences after taking 

the outcome of the claim into account) was 0.46. Many of the differences were slightly 

smaller after adjusting for these different factors, but every one of them remained 

statistically significant. 

5

Respondents in the “Not Agree” and “Not Satisfied” categories include both those who 

disagreed or were dissatisfied and those who were in the “Neither” category. 
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 62 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

to percentages and looking at differences in those percentages, we chose 

instead to calculate odds and to look at their ratios. 

Odds are estimated by calculating, for each item in each agency, the 

number of favorable responses relative to the number of unfavorable 

responses. For example, with respect to the “staff are courteous” item, 

the odds on agreeing at DOL were 82/18 = 4.56, while the odds on 

responding favorably at OSC were 96/53 = 1.81. While less common 

than percentages or probabilities, these odds have an equally

straightforward interpretation. They imply that at DOL there were more 

than four respondents who agreed the staff were courteous for every one 

that felt otherwise, while at OSC there were slightly less than two 

respondents who agreed the staff were courteous for every one that felt 

otherwise. The ratio of these two odds (in the “odds ratio” column of the 

table), which for this item is 4.56/1.81 = 2.52, indicates that the odds on 

agreeing that staff are courteous were more than twice as high at DOL as 

at OSC.

As can be seen by looking down the “odds ratio” column, the odds on 

responding favorably are higher at DOL than at OSC for every one of the 

items, in all cases by at least a factor of two and in some cases by factors 

of 4 or 6. These sizable differences are in all cases statistically significant 

and mirror the findings from the first set of analyses. Additionally, and as 

we also saw in the first analyses, the large differences reflected by these 

ratios do not go away when we control for differences across agencies in 

whether claims were settled favorably, in processing times, and whether 

discrimination was alleged. Under the “Odds Ratio, Adjusted for” heading, 

the agency ratios are the same odds ratio we see in the column to the left 

of it. But here, it has been adjusted by taking account of the differences 

across agencies in whether claims were decided favorably, in case 

processing times, and in whether discrimination was alleged.6 So even 

(for example) when we control for or take account of the fact that 

respondents whose claims were decided favorably were more likely to 

agree that “staff are courteous,” and even after we allow for whatever 

differences there are in favorable and unfavorable claims across the two 

agencies, we find that respondents at DOL were twice as likely as those 

at OSC to give favorable responses to the item involving “staff are 

 

6

Because of the small size of the sample, we controlled for these three different factors 

one at a time, in different logistic regression models. 
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 63 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

courteous.” And, similarly, DOL respondents were more likely to give 

favorable responses than OSC respondents to every other item, by 

factors ranging from roughly 2 to more than 6. The only item on which 

respondents did not differ after adjustment was the final item in the table, 

pertaining to satisfaction with the results of the investigation. For that item 

the difference between agencies in respondents expressing satisfaction 

(odds ratio = 1.84) was not significant after controlling for whether the 

investigation yielded an outcome that was favorable or unfavorable to the 

claimant.

In sum, there are very big differences in satisfaction between the two 

agencies indicated by every one of the 15 items. All but one of the 

differences persists even after we take account of differences in the two 

agencies in the favorability of the outcomes of the claims, case 

processing times, and whether discrimination was alleged. The 

percentages of satisfied claimants in both agencies may be somewhat 

biased by the low response rates to the survey. But, our analyses suggest 

that the differences between agencies, and the lower overall satisfaction 

among claimants at OSC, do not appear to be accounted for by 

differences in the outcomes of the claims, or the case processing times, 

or allegations of discrimination.
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 64 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Table 11: Odds and Odds Ratios Indicating Differences in Satisfaction at DOL and OSC Before and After Adjusting for 

Whether the Outcome Was Favorable, Case Processing Time, and Whether Discrimination Was Alleged

Odds Ratio, Adjusted 

for

Not 

Agree

a

Agree Total Odds Odds Ratio OF CPT DA

The staff are courteous. DOL 18 82 100 4.56 2.52 2.19 2.60 2.29

OSC 53 96 149 1.81

The staff are competent. DOL 31 67 98 2.16 3.71 3.56 3.95 3.25

OSC 91 53 144 0.58

The staff are professional. DOL 17 83 100 4.88 4.75 4.61 4.89 4.05

OSC 73 75 148 1.03

The staff provides consistently 

good service.

DOL 33 59 92 1.79 4.30 4.00 3.48 3.67

OSC 101 42 143 0.42

The staff policies and procedures 

are customer friendly.

DOL 34 58 92 1.71 3.14 2.72 2.99 2.62

OSC 94 51 145 0.54

I have adequate access to staff for 

advice and assistance.

DOL 33 63 96 1.91 4.33 4.20 3.95 3.84

OSC 102 45 147 0.44

The staff keep me informed of 

significant case developments.

DOL 33 67 100 2.03 4.57 4.45 4.30 4.28

OSC 99 44 143 0.44

I know whom to contact if I have 

additional questions.

DOL 29 71 100 2.45 3.25 3.06 2.88 2.82

OSC 85 64 149 0.75

The staff responded to my 

questions in a timely manner.

DOL 24 76 100 3.17 6.60 6.77 5.24 6.53

OSC 100 48 148 0.48
Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate 

Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Data

Page 65 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Table 11: (continued)

Odds Ratio, Adjusted 

for-a

Not 

Satisfied Satisfied Total Odds Odds Ratio OF CPT DA

Satisfaction with thoroughness of 

investigation

DOL 42 50 92 1.19 3.82 3.78 3.90 3.54

OSC 106 33 139 0.31

Satisfaction with clarity of written 

communication

DOL 30 67 97 2.23 3.45 3.16 3.27 3.21

OSC 88 57 145 0.65

Satisfaction with clarity of verbal 

communication

DOL 30 67 97 2.23 3.33 3.18 2.97 3.02

OSC 85 57 142 0.67

Satisfaction with customer service DOL 34 66 100 1.94 3.81 3.83 3.40 3.41

OSC 100 51 151 0.51

Satisfaction with investigation of 

complaint

DOL 45 56 101 1.24 3.70 4.10 3.03 3.41

OSC 113 38 151 0.34

Satisfaction with results of 

investigation

DOL 58 43 101 0.74 2.19 1.84 2.07 1.90

OSC 112 38 150 0.34

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data | GAO-15-77

a

OF = Whether the Outcome Was Favorable; CPT = Case Processing Time; DA = Whether 

Discrimination Was Alleged; Shading indicates differences that are statistically significant (P < .05).
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 66 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 67 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 68 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 69 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 70 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 71 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 72 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 73 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 74 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 75 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 76 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 77 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 78 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 79 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 80 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 81 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 82 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 83 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 84 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 85 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 86 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 87 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 88 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 89 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 90 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 91 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 92 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 93 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 94 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Special Counsel

Page 95 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 96 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-2717 or at jonesy@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Signora May (Assistant Director); 

Peter Beck (Analyst in Charge), Dawn Bidne, Karin Fangman, Paul 

Kinney, Donna Miller, Cynthia Saunders, Douglas Sloane, and Lou V. B. 

Smith made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 97 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Transitioning Veterans: Improved Oversight Needed to Enhance 

Implementation of Transition Assistance Program. GAO-14-144. 

Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2014.

Veterans’ Reemployment Rights: Department of Labor and Office of 

Special Counsel Need to Take Additional Steps to Ensure Demonstration 

Project Data Integrity. GAO-12-860R. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2012.

Veterans’ Reemployment Rights: Steps Needed to Ensure Reliability of 

DOL and Special Counsel Demonstration Project’s Performance 

Information. GAO-11-312R. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2011.

Military Personnel: Considerations Related to Extending Demonstration 

Project on Servicemembers’ Employment Rights Claims. GAO-08-229T. 

Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2007.

Servicemember Reemployment: Agencies Are Generally Timely in 

Processing Redress Complaints, but Improvements Needed in 

Maintaining Data and Reporting. GAO-11-55. Washington, D.C.: October 

22, 2010. 

Military Personnel: Improvements Needed to Increase Effectiveness of 

DOD’s Programs to Promote Positive Working Relationships between 

Reservists and Their Employers. GAO-08-981R. Washington, D.C.: 

August 15, 2008. 

DOD Financial Management: Adjudication of Butterbaugh Claims for the 

Restoration of Annual Leave or Pay. GAO-08-948R. Washington, D.C.: 

July 28, 2008. 

Military Personnel: Federal Agencies Have Taken Actions to Address 

Servicemembers’ Employment Rights, but a Single Entity Needs to 

Maintain Visibility to Improve Focus on Overall Program Results. 

GAO-08-254T. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2007. 

Military Personnel: Considerations Related to Extending Demonstration 

Project on Servicemembers’ Employment Rights Claims. GAO-08-229T. 

Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2007. 

Military Personnel: Improved Quality Controls Needed over 

Servicemembers’ Employment Rights Claims at DOL. GAO-07-907. 

Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2007.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 98 GAO-15-77 Veterans’ Reemployment Rights

Office of Special Counsel Needs to Follow Structured Life Cycle 

Management Practices for Its Case Tracking System. GAO-07-318R. 

Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2007. 

Military Personnel: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of 

Reserve Employment Issues. GAO-07-259. Washington, D.C.: February 

8, 2007. 

Military Personnel: Federal Management of Servicemember Employment 

Rights Can Be Further Improved. GAO-06-60. Washington, D.C.: October 

19, 2005. 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel’s Role in Enforcing Law to Protect 

Reemployment Rights of Veterans and Reservists in Federal 

Employment. GAO-05-74R. Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2004.

(451091)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.