U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

96–136 2015

FILIPINO VETERANS EQUITY COMPENSATION 

FUND: INQUIRY INTO THE ADEQUACY OF 

PROCESS IN VERIFYING ELIGIBILITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY 

ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2014 

Serial No. 113–93 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

PAUL COOK, California 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

DAVID JOLLY, Florida 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JON TOWERS, Staff Director 

NANCY DOLAN, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL 

AFFAIRS 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

PAUL COOK, California 

DAVID JOLLY, Florida 

DINA TITUS, Nevada, Ranking Member 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, November 20, 2014 

Page 

Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund: Inquiry Into the Adequacy 

of Process in Verifying Eligibility ....................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Dina Titus, Ranking Member ................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Brad Flohr, Senior Advisor for Compensation, VBA, .S. Department of 

Veterans’ Affairs ................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 14 

Brigadier General David K. ‘‘Mac′′ MacEwen, The 59the Adjutant General 

of the U.S. Army, Department of the Army ....................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 15 

Mr. Kevin Pratt, Assistant Director for Military Records, National Personnel 

Records Center National Archives and Records Administration ..................... 6 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 17 

FOR THE RECORD 

Mr. Eric Lachica, Executive Director, American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc. ............................................................................................................. 19 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(1) 

FILIPINO VETERANS EQUITY COMPENSATION 

FUND: INQUIRY INTO THE ADEQUACY OF 

PROCESS IN VERIFYING ELIGIBILITY 

Thursday, November 20, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL

AFFAIRS, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in 

Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jon Runyan [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Runyan, Lamborn, and Titus. 

Also Present: Representative Heck. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JON RUNYAN 

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

Memorial Affairs will now come to order. Today’s hearing will focus 

on the process of verifying eligibility for the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund benefits. We will seek information on the 

claims approval process, the status of this program, and the system 

designed for the program’s eligibility and determination processes. 

During World War II, hundreds of thousands of Filipino soldiers 

and guerrilla fighters served alongside American forces in the fight 

against the Japanese conquest. In recognition of their service to the 

United States during the war, Congress established the Filipino 

Veterans Equity Compensation Fund in 2009. This fund provided 

for one-time payments of $15,000 for eligible Filipino veterans living in the United States, and $9,000 to those eligible veterans living in the Philippines. Under the VA’s processes for determining 

eligibility, almost 19,000 claims have been approved, but nearly 

24,000 claims have been denied. In the process, some Filipino veterans voiced concern over the eligibility process, including concerns 

that some have been improperly denied and a benefit that they 

should have been eligible to receive. 

To look into the matter in 2012, the White House created the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund Interagency Working 

Group, where the process and the documentation gathering was reviewed. Although the working group report provided more transparency to the process than ever, some Filipino veterans still have 

concerns about whether the documentation used to determine the 

eligibility are adequately inclusive. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
2 

In the statements submitted for the record at this hearing, the 

American Coalition for Filipino Veterans represents that the process is flawed, partly because the government only relies on the 

Army’s records from a 1948 study. 

It is suggested that the VA should expand what it previously accepted as verification of service to include U.S. Government documents other than those in the records from the Army’s 1948 study. 

So in today’s hearing, we will hear from the VA, the Army, and the 

NARA, which will seek information on the process that was employed to determine the eligibility for compensation from Filipino 

Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. Determination deemed acceptable and the justification of or for the limitations that were 

used. 

At this time I ask unanimous consent for participation of a member guest from the Third District of Nevada, Dr. Joe Heck to sit 

in on the hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

With that, I will begin with the introductions of the witnesses. 

First, we have Mr. Brad Flohr, who is a Senior Advisor for Compensation Service at the Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Seated next to Mr. Flohr is Brigadier General David MacEwen, 

the 59th Adjutant General of the U.S. Army. 

Our third witness will be Mr. Kevin Pratt, the Assistant Director 

for Military Records for the National Personal Records Center, National Archives and Records Administration. 

I thank all of you for being with us today. I look forward to hearing your testimony, and I will now yield to the ranking member, 

Ms. Titus, for her opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DINA TITUS 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for agreeing to have a hearing on this important topic. I also want to say 

how much we appreciate our witnesses being with us today and 

taking time to provide needed information. And thanks to our Filipino veterans who have come to show support for this issue. 

It is important that we get together to discuss the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund because the Philippines have a 

long and distinguished history of associating and being part with 

the United States, including fighting alongside of us in military 

campaigns and wars. We are very grateful for their action on behalf of our Nation. I am proud to have a very active group of Filipino veterans who live in District One in Las Vegas, and I thank 

them for their service and for their guidance on this issue. 

The fund, as many of you know, was established to compensate 

and thank these veterans who served so bravely alongside the 

American Army in the South Pacific in World War II. As part of 

the stimulus that was passed in the 111th Congress which I proudly voted for, we finally took actions to provide additional benefits 

for these Filipino veterans. 

Nevertheless, I continue to hear concerns from my Filipino veteran constituents in Las Vegas, who believe that while the program 

was well intended, there are still problems with it, and there may 

be veterans who are being denied the benefits that they earned. So 

it is critical that Congress, as well as the administration, work to 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
3 

ensure that in some cases we look to additional evidence for facts 

when necessary. 

Earlier this year, the appropriators directed the VA to consider 

all forms of evidence of service, not just those originally considered. 

And I agree with this statement and look forward to working with 

my colleagues on the committee to ensure that Filipino veterans 

are being treated fairly. 

Now, I understand we are in a challenging situation needing to 

verify veteran services that are more than 70 years old. However, 

we can’t simply apply the principle of one-size-fits-all approach to 

the claims. Most of our World War II Filipino veterans are already 

in their 90s, so we are limited in the amount of time we have to 

get this right. Any impediments to veterans who might show clear 

and irrefutable evidence that they should be granted benefits, 

should be considered. But we need to act fast. Nonetheless, we 

must be careful to ensure that we are being good stewards of resources. 

Lastly, I hope that we can put to rest any notion that the Department of Defense is withholding information that could positively impact these veterans’ claims. After some 70 years, all of the 

information that is available should be made public. I hear too 

often from our veterans from the Philippines and their advocates 

that the DOD is not being transparent, and is failing to provide 

necessary information. Part of this, perhaps, is a lack of communication and so this hearing is important to maybe put that aside 

and get that communication out there. 

The men and women that we are discussing today fought on behalf of our Nation and they should receive the same benefit of the 

doubt that U.S. servicemembers receive when they are asking for 

benefits that they earned. 

So I look forward to hearing how this process is working, what 

information is available, how to solve some of the communication 

problems and clear up some of the transparency issues. So I thank 

you again, and I yield back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentlelady, and again, welcome the witnesses. And we will hear from each of you for your oral testimony 

and we will start with Mr. Flohr. You are recognized for 5 minutes 

for your oral testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF BRAD FLOHR, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR COMPENSATION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID K. ‘‘MAC’’ MACEWEN, 59TH ADJUTANT 

GENERAL OF THE U.S. ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; 

AND KEVIN PRATT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MILITARY 

RECORDS, NATIONAL PERSONNEL RECORDS CENTER, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 

STATEMENT OF BRAD FLOHR 

Mr. FLOHR. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today and an update on the VA’s administration of the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. In 1941, as you said, 

more than 260,000 Filipino soldiers responded to President RooVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:19 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\96136.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
4 

sevelt’s call to arms and fought under the American flag during 

World War II. Many served as both soldiers in the U.S. Armed 

Forces as well as guerrillas afterwards during the occupation of 

Japan. Later, many of these brave individuals became proud 

United States citizens. 

In 1946, Congress passed the Rescission Act, determining that 

Filipino World War II service does not qualify for the full range of 

benefits available to the United States veterans. Congress and this 

administration recognizes the extraordinary contribution made by 

Filipino veterans. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009, enacted on February 17 of 2009, included a provision creating 

the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. Eligible veterans 

who are U.S. citizens receive a one-time payment of $15,000. Eligible veterans who are not U.S. citizens receive a one-time payment 

of $9,000. Philippine veterans were required under the law to file 

a claim by February 16th of 2010. 

To qualify for the FVEC payment, an individual must have 

served before July 1, 1946, in the Philippine Commonwealth Army, 

including recognized guerrillas, or in the New Philippine Scouts. In 

determining whether claimants are eligible for any VA benefit, including the FVEC, VA is bound by U.S. military service department determinations as to whether the claimant has qualifying 

service in accordance with our regulations at Title 38 CFR 3.203. 

Less than 2 months after the law was passed, VA established an 

adjudication process, a payment system, an accounting system, and 

a payment delivery system, to successfully issue the first FVEC 

payment on April 8, 2009. 

VA conducted numerous successful outreach programs to inform 

veterans and their families about this benefit. This outreach continued until February 16, 2010, which was the last day of the filing 

period for this benefit. 

VA’s Manila regional in office established a dedicated team of 

employees who solely processed these claims. The Manila regional 

office also sent letters to all veterans found eligible for the FVEC 

benefit, advising them of their potential eligibility for VA disability 

compensation benefits. The Manila regional office received 42,755 

claims for FVEC between February 2009 and February 2010. As of 

October 31 of 2014, the regional office has granted 18,929 of these 

claims, totaling $225,668,204. 

Currently there are 23,826 claims that have not been granted 

due to ineligibility. All original claims have received a decision, but 

there are 15 reopened claims and 10 appeals pending at the Manila 

regional office. Approximately 32 appeals of these decisions are 

pending with the Board of Veterans Appeals, and another nine appeals are before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims. 

If all individuals with reopened claims or pending appeals are 

found to be eligible for this payment, the Manila regional office 

would pay additional funds of approximately $1 million out of the 

appropriation. This assumes that all pending claims and appeals, 

if granted, would be paid at the maximum $15,000. In addition, 

$17.1 million has been returned to the Treasury for returned 

checks, which resulted when a veteran dies without a surviving 

spouse claimant. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
5 

A total of $56.4 million remains in the FVEC appropriation. The 

primary reason for denial of claims is the inability of these individuals to establish qualifying service required by Section 1002(d) of 

the Recovery Act. The denied claimants include individuals from all 

walks of life who exercised their right to make an application to 

VA, including children, grandchildren, and other family members of 

alleged veterans, widows of long-deceased alleged veterans, and 

thousands of duplicate claims. 

Unless VA has a genuine document issued by the U.S. military 

service department containing needed information to establish eligibility, VA regulations applicable to all claimants require that VA 

request verification of military service from the appropriate military service department. For claims based on Philippine service in 

World War II, the U.S. Army is a relevant military service department, and request for such verification are sent to the NPRC, 

which since 1998, has acted as the custodian of the U.S. Army’s 

collection of Army and guerrilla records. 

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

to address any questions you or the other members of the committee may have. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Flohr. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flohr appears in the Appendix] 

Mr. RUNYAN. And with that, we will now hear from Brigadier 

General MacEwen. General, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID K. MACEWEN 

General MACEWEN. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, 

distinguished members of this committee, I thank once again for 

the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of America’s Army, 

to discuss the Filipino Army veterans’ verification process. 

I sit before you today as has been the case with Army Adjutant 

Generals over many years with great confidence knowing that the 

Army’s process of verifying Filipino Army service is sound and adequate. For the 3 years post-World War II, the Filipino Government 

worked in conjunction with the U.S. Army to establish guerrilla 

and Philippine Army unit rosters and to capture relevant service 

data. This is the same data the Army uses today in its role of 

verifying Filipino service as we support the Veterans Administration in its role of providing benefits. 

Verifying Filipino service today is based on the very same process established in 1948 in conjunction with the Philippine Government. When I use the term ‘‘verify,’’ I don’t use it arbitrarily. Verify 

is the most appropriate term because the service determinations 

have already been made. The people on the ground after the war, 

both American and Filipino, conducted years of research interviewing commanders and leaders at various organizational levels 

and gathered and stored massive amounts of authoritative documents. They turned over every stone possible and imaginable to us, 

to leave us with the system and documents we use today with the 

understanding and the foresight to know that we would not be able 

to make a more fair, adequate, or auditable service determination 

today without them. 

By the end of the war, of the nearly 1.3 million claims reviewed, 

the Army, through its collaborative effort with the Filipino governVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:19 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\96136.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
6 

ment recognized and approved approximately 260,000. I ask you to 

keep three points in mind: First, accepted historical documentation 

makes it clear Filipino service within recognized units did not approach a figure anywhere near 1.3 million claims submitted. 

Second, these determinations were made by people on the ground 

at that time only after extensive research was completed. And unfortunately, a majority of the time they were presented with the 

very unpleasant task of having to deny a claim, the same as we 

must do today. 

Third, claims were denied then as they are today for very legitimate and justifiable reasons. Changing the service verification 

process by accepting non-verifiable service documentation for Filipino army and guerrilla veterans may result in a significant number of faulty service verifications. Over the years, the Department 

of the Army has been requested to establish different processes for 

Filipino veterans to prove their service. However, we continue to be 

confident that our process is adequate and it was sound. We will 

continue to work closely with the National Personnel Records Center and the Veterans Administration, to provide the best possible 

service to our Filipino veterans. 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the 

subcommittee, we wish to thank you for your continued support 

which has been vital to sustaining our all-volunteer Army through 

unprecedented periods of continuous combat operations which continue to be vital to ensure the future of our Army. I look forward 

to answering your questions today. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, General. 

[The prepared statement of General MacEwen appears in the Appendix] 

Mr. RUNYAN. With that, I recognize Mr. Pratt for 5 minutes for 

his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN PRATT 

Mr. PRATT. Thank you. Good morning Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for calling this hearing and for your continuing efforts to recognize 

the extraordinary contributions of Philippine veterans, including 

those who served in guerrilla units, for the service they provided 

in support of the United States during World War II. I am delivering testimony on behalf of the National Personnel Records Center 

that is similar to a statement entered by the NPRC Director Scott 

Levins in a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee 

earlier this year. 

As one of many veterans that work at NPRC, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the work the Center does to serve 

those who have served. We appreciate your interest in this important work. The NPRC is an office of the National Archives and 

Records Administration located in two facilities in the St. Louis, 

Missouri area, the Center stores and services over 4 million cubic 

feet of military and civilian personnel, medical, and related records 

dating back to the Spanish American War. Included in the NPRC 

holdings are claim folders pertaining to Philippine nationals that 

were adjudicated by the U.S. Army after World War II and unit 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
7 

rosters created by the U.S. Army in conjunction with its postwar 

recognition program. 

In 1998 NARA entered into an agreement with the Department 

of the Army to accept the physical transfer of these records though 

they remain in the legal custody of the Department of Army. Also, 

as part of the agreement, beginning in fiscal year 1999, NPRC assumed the responsibility for referencing these records, consistent 

with the procedures previously established by the Army. 

In doing so, NPRC reviews its holdings to authenticate service 

determinations previously made by the Department of Army. 

NPRC does this by examining claim folders, finding aids in a variety of rosters compiled by the Army during its postwar recognition 

program. Most often this is done in response to requests from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, regarding compensation claims. 

Recognizing the urgency of these requests, NPRC strives to respond to these requests in 10 business days or less. The technical 

instructions applied by NPRC technicians in referencing these 

records and responding to such requests, has been furnished to the 

American Coalition for Philippine Veterans and has been posted 

online for public viewing. The instructions are consistent with the 

long-standing policies and practices of the Department of Army, 

and were applied by the Army staff prior to the transfer of the reference function to NPRC. On multiple occasions since the establishment of the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund, officials 

from the Department of Army have visited NPRC, reviewed its 

technical instructions, examined its work process, and confirmed 

that NPRC was providing reference services consistent with the 

long-established policies and practices of the Department of Army. 

NARA has also preserved records of historical value documenting 

events that transpired in the Philippines during and after World 

War II. Included are records describing actions taken by the U.S. 

Army to recognize the service of Philippine nationals who supported the United States Army forces in Far East, including those 

who served in guerrilla units. These records are available for public 

review at the National Archives building in College Park, Maryland. 

NARA is pleased to work with the subcommittee, the Army, and 

the VA, and other stakeholders to ensure Filipino veterans, including those who served in recognized guerrilla units, are recognized 

for their extraordinary service in support of the United States during World War II. We have briefed interested congressional staff 

and other stakeholders on NARA’s role in this process, and we actively participated in an interagency working group established by 

the White House to analyze the process, and we have shared with 

Filipino veteran advocacy groups to help provide greater understanding of the reference process we employ to authenticate service 

determinations made by the Department of Army. 

Working with the Department of the Army we modified our response letters to provide more specific details regarding our reference results in instances where we were unable to positively authenticate prior service determinations. And at the suggestion of 

the White House Interagency Working Group we digitized and 

posted online a report entitled: U.S. Army Recognition Program of 

the Philippine Guerrillas. We again extend our thanks to the subVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:19 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\96136.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
8 

committee for expressing such great interest in the role that NPRC 

provides in this important process. I am happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Pratt. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kevin Pratt appears in the Appendix] 

Mr. RUNYAN. With that, we will begin a round of questions. And 

my first question is going to be for General MacEwen, and thank 

you for coming today and your distinguished service. 

I understand that there are still many questions in the Filipino 

veteran community regarding eligibility, though I do believe that 

the interagency working group did affect positive changes, particularly as it relates to transparency of the process. But I believe 

there is still a concern. You noted that at the end of the war, there 

were 1.3 million individuals who made claims, but only 260,000 

were approved. Clearly, the type, length and nature of service that 

qualified for consideration even at the time was confusing. Could 

you tell us a bit more about the service that qualifies for the FVEC 

claims? 

General MACEWEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The basic criteria 

that was used by the Army in conjunction with the Filipino government from that postwar period is what is called the five points. So 

it was understood that there were many people that served, but 

whether it was qualifying service is what was the determination. 

And those five points, that type of unit that—what is called maintenance, whether it was under Government—under U.S. Government control; whether it was organized in a manner consistent 

with the Filipino army, or the U.S. Army; whether it had adequate 

controls and measures in place; continuity of service as well as 

being full-time. 

So while there are people who clearly, patriotic citizens who performed wonderfully, that did not rise to the level and make the 

threshold of qualifying service. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. Mr. Flohr, thank you for coming today 

and for your testimony. Your testimony noted that the VA is legally 

bound to adjudicate eligibility for the FVEC fund according to the 

military service department determination. The American Coalition 

for Filipino Veterans notes that the VA has the authority under 

Title 38 U.S. Code, to determine eligibility using evidence submitted by claimants. 

Could you respond because I think it is an important point of 

contention that the VA would request that the Army verify the authenticity of relevant documents that are submitted by a claimant? 

Mr. FLOHR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The basic process for determining eligibility for any veteran’s claim when we receive a 

claim, whether it be a U.S. veteran, or a Philippine veteran, is eligible, qualifying service; someone who served honorably, was discharged under other than dishonorable conditions, and had valid 

service. If a U.S. veteran files a claim, does not have a DD-214 they 

submit with their claim and we are not able to find that on line 

we will go to the service department and ask for verification of 

service. Same is true in Philippine cases with an important difference being that the Philippines is a long way away, and the 

records of service during the period of time of World War II, either 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
9 

in the Philippine army or as a guerrilla, as General MacEwen stated, was basically adjudicated after the war, and those records are 

with the Army and then were transferred to NPRC. So when we 

need to verify service, that is where we are required by our own 

regulations to go. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. Mr. Pratt, again, thank you for providing your testimony today. As you likely know, about 54 percent 

of the claims for compensation were denied by the VA. Many were 

denied because they did not qualify for the fund under the law as 

it was written and the VA testimony noted that thousands of others were duplicate claims. However, in some cases, the VA denied 

the benefit based on the NPRC’s inability to find the name in a roster, perhaps due to spelling differences and incorrect or assumed 

American names. Later though, the veteran found the records confirming the service to the United States by doing their own research or using an advocate to conduct research at the NPRC. 

What measures has the NPRC taken to mitigate the possible errors 

of things like this happening? 

Mr. PRATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we have done in the 

training that we use with our technicians is that we recognize that 

there are a lot of name variations that occurred as the information 

was transcribed in the record when the guerrilla or the Philippine 

army member filled out the claim folder. And so we actually have 

the same technician that responds to the correspondence also do 

the searching for the records, and we have cross-references in the 

file system to ensure that that information has been accurately 

captured and looked up. The other thing that we have done since 

the interagency working group is, we have a second look. Any negative response that is done, a second technician takes a look at that 

to ensure that they have accurately done the cross-referencing in 

terms of the alphabet and they have done the work before we provide a negative response to the VA. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Pratt. With that, I will yield to the 

ranking member, Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. Mr. Flohr, I would ask you about the appeals process. If a Filipino veteran applies for some of the benefits 

and is denied because maybe they can’t find the records or some 

of the problems described by the chairman, what is the appeal 

process? How can they appeal? Do you give enough information to 

the veteran so they know how to appeal? Do you think the time period for both application and appeal is long enough? And are you 

getting a lot of appeals which might indicate there is some problem? 

Mr. FLOHR. Thank you for your question, Ranking Member Titus. 

The appeal process is set up through our regulations and in statute 

and is similar for claims from any veteran, or surviving spouse, or 

any other eligible person who is denied a benefit. It starts with 

simply a letter stating, I don’t agree with your decision. At that 

point, we recognize that as what we call a Notice of Disagreement. 

And we are by law then required to send a statement of the case, 

which provides a history of the claim from the time we received it, 

the actions we took in determining the claim and making the decision, and then we send what is—we ask them to complete a Form 

1–9 included with a statement of the case. The 1–9 is a certifiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:19 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\96136.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
10 

cation to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. They have to complete 

that, return it to us within a certain time like a year, I believe. 

And then it gets sent to the Board of Veterans Appeals and it goes 

on their docket. 

And that is the basic process for all claims. But we do send them 

notice when we deny a claim. We provide them with a form. If they 

want to complete a form and fill it out and send it back to us, or 

as I said, they could just send us a letter saying they disagree. So 

they do get information about the appeal process, yes. 

Ms. TITUS. And when the Board of Appeals considers their case, 

do they just look at the issue of whether or not they were on that 

original list that dates back to 1948, or can additional evidence be 

presented about the individual’s service? 

Mr. FLOHR. That is a good question. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals, unlike, say, the Court Appeals for veterans claims which 

simply reviews the evidence before VA when they made a determination. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals has a de novo review authority. They can return a file or an appeal to a regional office asking for additional information. In some cases maybe a medical opinion or an examination, or to go out to a physician, a private physician, and get evidence, or they can do that themselves and sometimes they do. And there was a law recently, a regulation change 

which allowed the Board to consider in the first instance new evidence submitted directly to the Board as part of an appeal. 

So they can. They are allowed to submit new evidence, get new 

evidence, and review it, yes. 

Ms. TITUS. And how long does this usually take, because we are 

talking about people who are in their 90s. 

Mr. FLOHR. The Board decisions, I don’t have the numbers right 

immediately as to how long it takes on average. It is fairly lengthy, 

particularly if someone requests to appear before the Board in a 

hearing. That takes time to schedule. And I know while our Manila 

regional office is expediting and has been expediting these claims 

since day one, the Board is statutorily required to review appeals 

based on the date they are received at the Board. Now, whether 

they are expediting any of these appeals, I do not know at this 

time. However, I could find that out. 

Ms. TITUS. That would be something we ought to look into and 

work on that. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. FLOHR. Okay. 

Ms. TITUS. And General, let me ask you, are there any documents classified or otherwise that the Army holds that might help 

some of the remaining veterans with their appeals, and deal with 

the whole transparency issue, and the general lack of trust? 

General MACEWEN. Ma’am, thank you for that question. I think 

that everything related to the Filipino veterans claims process has 

been declassified. Whether there are other classified information, I 

wouldn’t know. But all of the stuff that was in the Adjutant General’s responsibility in 1948 that is continued in under our authority, has been declassified. 

Ms. TITUS. And the person who is trying to get information about 

their own individual case can access that online, or through the Archives? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
11 

Mr. PRATT. Ma’am, there are really two groups of records. The 

first group of records that is actually—that I mentioned in my testimony that is available to the public, really is about the process 

that the Army went through in adjudicating to ensure that these 

people are on a roster or not on a roster. The claim folders that we 

maintain for the Army are not open to the public. However, since 

the White House working group, if there is an individual that 

wants to see their claim folder, what happens is they write us and 

then we, in turn, talk to the Army because they are considered organizational records for the Army and they are still in the Army’s 

legal custody, then we would, if the Army gives approval, send 

those to the veteran. And that has happened on several occasions 

since that time and we want to be very transparent in the process 

and let the veterans understand the documents that we are looking 

through to make those decisions. 

Ms. TITUS. So that process is not a problem. If I ask for my 

record, I could get it? 

Mr. PRATT. Yes, ma’am. In fact, I talked to a group this morning 

and offered that to them. They just need to write us a letter and 

we will be happy to work with the Army to get that information 

to them. 

General MACEWEN. And ma’am, we are committed to allowing 

those on a case-by-case basis. 

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

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Ms. Titus. With that, I will recognize 

Dr. Heck. 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding the hearing and 

thank you panel members for coming back and providing additional 

information. A couple of things, facts that I just want to make sure 

are clear. Mr. Flohr, you stated that there is $56.4 million remaining in the FVEC account, the appropriated funds. That is correct? 

That is the number that is there? But there has been some discussion amongst committees and staff members that there really is no 

money in the account. So there is $56.4 million there? 

Mr. FLOHR. That is what I was provided, yes. 

Mr. HECK. Okay, and you also stated that there was 23,826 

FVEC claims that had not been granted, and then you said, but 

some may be due to dependents, or surviving spouses, or those 

that—other than the veteran. Do you know exactly how many of 

those claims that were denied were specifically filed by the veteran 

themselves, not a dupe, or a surviving spouse or a dependent? 

Mr. FLOHR. Congressman, I don’t know exactly the number. Manila did not actually start tracking these until the second year, or 

after 2010. 

Mr. HECK. Okay. 

Mr. FLOHR. So a lot of them were denied. There was 9,800 that 

have been denied because they had no valid military service, failure to prosecute was 1,296, previous forfeitures, 148. 

Mr. HECK. But we don’t know how many of those were actually 

filed by the veteran versus a family member, or—— 

Mr. FLOHR. I do not know, but I will attempt to talk with our 

folks in Manila to see if they can provide me at least a good estimate. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
12 

Mr. HECK. Okay. You know, I would ask then just hypothetically, 

do you think it would be unreasonable to believe that in 1948, in 

postwar Philippines, after a country has been ravaged by combat 

for 4 years, that there could possibly be somebody who had qualified service who didn’t make it on the list? Unreasonable to think 

that that couldn’t happen? 

Mr. FLOHR. Not to me, no. 

Mr. HECK. Okay. So I would guess, you know, with the remaining funds that are appropriated and if everybody—if we were to reopen the period, and everyone that re-applied would get the maximum benefit of $15,000, that would allow about 3,760 more claims 

to be paid. I would ask each of you, do you think it would be unreasonable to approach this, to reopen the period for another year, to 

allow it only within the amount of appropriated funds, but to accept an AGO-23 as proof of service to be able to pay a claim? Because many of those Filipino vets that are being denied have an 

AGO–23, the Philippine form that has been certified, that was developed—I mean, this one is stamped 1948. I don’t think we are 

going to find many 90 to 100-year old Filipino veterans trying to 

come in with forged documents. Do you believe that reopening the 

period within the confines of appropriated funds for 1 year and taking the AGO-23 as proof of service would be unreasonable? Mr. 

Flohr? 

Mr. FLOHR. I wouldn’t say it would be unreasonable. I think we 

would go through some of the same things we did in 2009, 2010, 

when we would get a lot of claims from children. 

Mr. HECK. Understanding that, but if a veteran, if a Filipino veteran was alive today and reopened his claim, and had the AGO23 that was contemporaneously certified back in 1948, I mean—I 

understand that we can’t go into the surviving spouse issue or child 

filing on behalf—but for those veterans that are still alive. 

Mr. FLOHR. For VA, for my purposes, I would be glad to work 

with the Department of the Army and NPRC to determine if that 

would be acceptable, yes. 

Mr. HECK. General MacEwen, your opinion on that? 

General MACEWEN. Sir, my opinion is I am not so sure that that 

is fair overall in that determinations that were made in 1948 and 

determinations that have been made for others, and the book was, 

you know, frankly closed. I mean, in 1949, 9 August 1949, the 

President, the President of the United States wrote a letter to the 

president of the Philippines and said, the program is definitely 

closed. We have concluded the verification process. 

And while there may be some that had service, whether it rose 

to the level of qualifying service would be the part that would concern me. I don’t doubt that there are plenty of people that served 

honorably, patriotically, but whether it was qualifying service. 

Mr. HECK. But wouldn’t that be reflected on their AGO–23? 

General MACEWEN. Sir, there may be other information that was 

available to that investigation committee at the time that would 

make that not valid. 

Mr. HECK. Well, I appreciate that. Look, in my District, we have 

the group called The Mighty Five. Unfortunately, three of them, 

Augusto Oppus, Romeo Barreras and Silverio Cuaresma have all 

died. Mr. Cuaresma was 100 years old. I have two left, Edilberto 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
13 

Briones and Anastacio Sumajit. I am hoping that we get some resolution on their behalf soon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Dr. Heck. I have one more question 

kind of addressed—if each of you at the panel could touch on it, 

and after hearing your testimony and going through the statements 

that were submitted, based on your preparation for the hearing 

today and your expertise in all of your areas, do you have any recommendations either in your collaboration, communication, regulation, or even perhaps legislation that you believe would improve 

the outcomes in the process, in the administration of the program? 

Mr. Flohr, start with you. 

Mr. FLOHR. Mr. Chairman, I am not, off the top of my head, I 

am not sure that I know of what could be done differently than 

what we do now. As has been stated, the Department of the Army, 

and the NPRC as custodian of the records, they were complete as 

of 1948 and whether or not—I think it would take legislation, perhaps, to change the validity of service. We are bound by our regulations and our statutes for determining eligibility, and for Philippine 

claimants, it is through the Department of the Army. 

Mr. RUNYAN. General. 

General MACEWEN. Sir, I have thought about this quite a bit because this is the second time that I have been here to discuss this, 

and as I have prepped for it, I think that second-guessing those decisions made by those who conducted the investigations, had firsthand knowledge and ability, and made this careful approval, went 

through a very deliberative process, would probably be counterproductive. So I don’t see anything along that line. I think the collaboration among the agencies has improved, especially since the 

White House working group that you discussed in your opening 

statement. But I don’t see anything additional that would be helpful, overall, from my view. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Pratt, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. PRATT. Just one thing, Mr. Chairman. We have been working 

collaboratively with the VA and the Army within the current process to provide greater transparency to the veterans and to improve 

the speed at which we approve the process. So under the existing 

process, I think we will continue to work with the Army and with 

the VA to provide better information to the veterans so they can 

understand why these decisions were made and that will help provide a little bit of better understanding of the program, and, certainly, if the program changes because of legislation, we are certainly prepared to make an adjustment so that we can continue to 

serve the veterans. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. Any more? 

Ms. TITUS. Yes. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Sure. Yield to the ranking member. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all want this system 

to be fair. There is no question about that. You said it, General. 

This committee has been devoted to providing benefits to our veterans who have earned them, and deserve them. And that is the 

least that we can do. And we want that to include our Filipino veterans as well. So if we can just focus on getting the information 

out there so that there is transparency and there is a better understanding and deal with the trust issue, if we make time sensitivity 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
14 

something that we are aware of since these people are in their 90s, 

and we want to do right by them before they pass on, and if the 

appeal process works fairly, I think those are all keys to making 

this work under existing provisions and existing statutes so that 

we can be fair to the people that my colleague mentioned who live 

in Nevada and beyond. And I appreciate you all working with us 

to make that happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Dr. Heck, anything further? 

Mr. HECK. No. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Again, I want to thank the witnesses. Appreciate 

your attendance today. Your complete and written statements will 

be entered into the hearing record. We appreciate your time and 

attention that went into preparing your remarks for today. I ask 

unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to 

revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material. Hearing no objection, so ordered. And this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

f 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRAD FLOHR

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and Subcommittee Members, thank 

you for the opportunity to provide an update on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ 

(VA) administration of the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC) fund. 

Overview 

To remedy what some saw as an injustice caused by the limited VA benefits available to Filipino World War II Veterans, Congress established the FVEC Fund 

through the enactment of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Recovery Act). The FVEC provision authorized a one-time payment of $15,000 for 

qualified U.S. citizens and $9,000 for qualified non-U.S. citizens who filed within the 

one-year filing deadline. To qualify for the FVEC payment, an individual must have 

served before July 1, 1946, in the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, or in the New Philippine Scouts. In determining whether claimants 

are eligible for any VA benefit, including FVEC, VA must have verification from the 

U.S. military service department as to whether the claimant has qualifying service 

in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.203. 

Less than two months after the law was passed, VA established an adjudication 

process, payment system, accounting system, and payment delivery system to successfully issue the first FVEC payment on April 8, 2009. VA conducted numerous 

successful outreach programs to inform Veterans and their families about this benefit. This outreach continued until February 16, 2010, the end of the filing period. 

VA’s Manila RO established a dedicated team of employees who solely processed 

FVEC claims. The Manila RO also sent letters to all Veterans found eligible for the 

FVEC benefit advising them of their potential eligibility for VA disability compensation benefits. Numerous Filipino World War II Veterans have subsequently been 

found eligible for recurring monthly disability compensation payments. 

Update on Disposition of Claims Received 

The Manila RO received 42,755 claims for FVEC between February 2009 and February 2010. As of October 31, 2014, of the 42,755 claims received, the Manila RO 

granted 18,929 FVEC payments, totaling $225,668,204. Currently there are 23,826 

FVEC claims that have not been granted due to ineligibility. All original claims for 

FVEC have received a decision, but there are currently 15 reopened claims for 

FVEC and 10 appeals pending with VBA. Approximately 32 appeals of FVEC decisions are pending with the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and another 9 appeals are 

before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. If all individuals 

with reopened claims or pending appeals are found to be eligible for the FVEC payment, the Manila Regional Office would pay additional funds of approximately $1.0 

million out of the FVEC fund. This assumes that all reopened and appealed claims, 

if granted, would be granted the maximum $15,000. In addition, $17.1 million has 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
15 

been returned to the Treasury for returned checks, which result when a Veteran 

dies without a surviving spouse claimant. A total of $56.4 million remains in the 

FVEC appropriation. 

The primary reason for denial of claims was the inability of these individuals to 

establish qualifying service required by section 1002(d) of the Recovery Act. The denied claimants included a variety of individuals, who exercised their right to make 

an application to VA. They included children, grandchildren, and other family members of alleged Veterans, widows of long-deceased alleged Veterans, and thousands 

of duplicate claims. 

In October 2012, the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget and the Domestic Policy Council, created the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund Interagency Working Group (IWG) comprised of representatives of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the National Archives and Record 

Administration to address the concerns of Filipino Veterans who believe that their 

claims were improperly denied, or that they did not receive a satisfactory explanation as to why their claims were denied. 

The IWG’s goal was to increase transparency and accelerate processing of claims 

within the existing framework. Some highlights of the IWG’s efforts include: 

• VA created a special team dedicated to FVEC appeals and obtained copies of 

certain Philippine Army documents from the Adjutant General of the Philippines. 

• The Army developed more detailed response letters for requests for service 

determination that explain why an application was denied. 

• NARA decreased the response time for service determination requests to 10 

days or less. 

Process for Verifying/Determining Service 

In determining whether a claimant is eligible for a VA benefit, including FVEC, 

VA is legally bound under its regulations by military service department determinations as to service [38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a), (c)]. Currently, unless VA has a genuine 

document issued by a U.S. military service department containing needed information to establish eligibility, VA regulations, applicable to all claimants, require that 

VA request verification of military service from the appropriate military service department. For claims based on Philippine Service in World War II, the U.S. Army 

is the relevant military service department. VA requests verification from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) which, since 1998, has acted as the custodian of the U.S. Army’s collection of Philippine Army and guerrilla records. 

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to address any 

questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID K. MACEWEN

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, Distinguished Members of this Committee, I thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf 

of America’s Army to discuss the Filipino Army Veterans verification process. I sat 

before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Armed Services 

Committee a few months ago, in June, providing similar testimony. As previously 

mentioned in prior testimony, this issue is very personal for me because my father 

served in the Philippines during World War II. Therefore ensuring accuracy and 

adequacy in the verification process of our Filipino Army Veterans is important to 

me. I sit before you today, as has been the case with Army Adjutants General over 

many years, with great confidence knowing that the Army’s process of verifying Filipino Army service is sound and adequate. 

For the three years post WWII, 1945–1948, the Filipino government worked in 

conjunction with the U.S. Army to establish Guerilla and Philippine Army unit rosters and to capture relevant service data. This data is currently located in the National Personnel Records Center, National Archives Records Administration. If you 

visit the National Personnel Records Center, you will find thousands, almost 10,000 

cubic feet, of claim folders which are Philippine Army and Guerilla claim files. You 

will find cabinets of Finding Aids, which is approximately 1.3 million cards; 30 cubic 

feet of various Philippine Army rosters and records, and 15 cubic feet of Guerilla 

rosters. I could go on, as the list continues, but I believe you can imagine the enormity of the amount of information in these files. 

In 1998, the Army transferred the Filipino Veteran service verification process to 

the National Personnel Records Center. With this transfer, we obtained efficiencies 

and improved timeliness of verification. Although the National Personnel Records 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
16 

Center actually executes the hands-on work to verify service, they do so in accordance with procedural guidance established and maintained by the Army. 

Since the signing of the 2009 American Investment Recovery Act, the Army has 

supported the Department of Veterans Affairs role in compensating WWII Filipino 

Veterans by verifying Filipino service in the Philippines based on the very same 

process for service verification established in 1948 in conjunction with the Philippine Government. 

When I use the term ‘‘verify,’’ I don’t use it arbitrarily. ‘‘Verify’’ is the most appropriate term because the service determinations have already been made. Although 

it is a fairly simple process to review the records to see what determination was 

made, the process that got us to that point was very complex. The people on the 

ground after the war, both American and Filipino, conducted years of research, 

interviewing Commanders and leaders at various organizational levels, and gathered and stored massive amounts of authoritative documents. They turned over 

every stone possible and imaginable to leave us with the system and documents we 

use today, with the understanding, and somehow the foresight, to know that we 

would not be able to make fair, adequate, and auditable service determinations 

today without them. 

By the end of the war, of the nearly 1.3 million claims (requests for recognition 

of Filipino service) reviewed, the Army, through its collaborative effort with the 

Philippine Government, recognized and approved only 260,000. I ask that you keep 

three points in mind. First, accepted historical documentation makes it clear that 

Filipino service within recognized units did not approach a figure anywhere near the 

1.3 million claims submitted. Second, these determinations were made by the people 

on the ground at that time, only after extensive research was completed, and unfortunately, a majority of the time they were presented with the very unpleasant task 

of denying a claim, the same as we must do today. Third, claims were denied then, 

as they are today, for very legitimate and justifiable reasons. Changing the service 

verification process by accepting non-verifiable service documentation for Philippine 

Army and Guerilla Veterans may result in a significant number of faulty service 

verifications. 

The Army set specific criteria and a threshold for what we would consider as service. While many Filipinos feel that they served, they did not meet or reach the 

threshold for service. Using the specified criteria, the determinations were made. 

Today, it’s just a matter of us reviewing the record and retrieving the determination. Second guessing what is already in the record is neither reasonable nor feasible, as we cannot conduct better research than what was conducted in the years 

immediately following the war, by the individuals actually on the ground at the 

time. Today, the process is fairly simple: 

1) The Department of Veterans’ Affairs submits Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Form 3101 

or VA Form 9 to the National Personnel Records Center, who retrieves and authenticates the service determination from the archived files. If sufficient documentation 

is not found in the file, the National Personnel Records Center works with the Department of Veterans Affairs, who in turn works with the Philippine government, 

to obtain additional information. Once the National Personnel Records Center has 

matched evidence with unit rosters and is able to authenticate service, they complete National Personnel Records Center Test Form 02–03 and forward it to the Department of Veterans Affairs. These rosters and reference lists serve only as a quick 

reference to what is actually in more than 1,600 boxes of well-documented case files 

and supporting material stored in the National Archives building in College Park, 

Maryland. If unable to match evidence with unit rosters, the National Personnel 

Records Center annotates the VA Form 3101 accordingly and returns it to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Although the National Personnel Records Center executes this function, they follow the Army’s procedures and program guidelines, and 

do not deviate from U.S. Army policy. 

2) The National Personnel Records Center informs the Department of Veterans’ 

Affairs of the final determination. 

3) The Department of Veterans’ Affairs delivers or denies the benefit. 

The National Personnel Records Center follows the same rigorous process established by the Army to ensure that no claimant is unfairly excluded from earned benefits by denying creditable service, and that all who have served are properly recognized for their contributions to U.S. Army efforts in WWII and to the Nation. 

The Army has long-standing and close working relationships with both the National Personnel Records Center and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and together we are committed to sustaining an efficient claims processing program for 

the Filipino Veterans. 

The issue of service verification has remained constant over the years. The Army 

has spent significant time and resources to continually review our service 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
17 

verification policy. Though we have complete confidence in the final service determinations already made, as with any other Army program, a review or study is periodically conducted to ensure that we are in compliance with the spirit and letter 

of applicable laws and regulations. 

As published on the White House website, in October 2012, the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, in collaboration with the Office 

of Management and Budget and the Domestic Policy Council, created the Filipino 

Veterans Equity Compensation Fund Interagency Working Group comprised of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the National Archives and Record Administration. The working group was tasked with analyzing 

the process faced by Filipino veterans in demonstrating eligibility for compensation 

in order to ensure that all applications received thorough and fair review. 

The working group increased transparency and concluded that, after a thorough 

accounting of the process to verify valid military service for Filipino World War II 

veterans, the process is sound. All organizations involved in the verification process 

were brought together to improve the process from start to finish. In addition to 

clarifying the claims process, the working group digitized and made available online 

for the first time a report titled, U.S. Army Recognition Program of Philippine Guerrillas. This crucial report explains how the recognition process was developed at the 

close of World War II, and, most importantly, the Army’s careful reasoning behind 

the current policies on service verification. I will highlight some of the Army’s more 

significant results of that Interagency Working Group: 

The Army reviewed and revalidated the retrieval and authentication procedures 

used by the National Personnel Records Center, and made the procedures electronically available. 

The Army recognized the need to return to more detailed responses to requests 

for service determinations. As a result, we fielded several more specific response letters which state: the individual’s service authentication, whether or not the individual’s claims folder and/or corresponding unit rosters were located, and what the next 

appropriate steps are for individuals with questions regarding service authentication. 

The Army placed a priority on requests for service determinations received from 

the Department of Veterans Affairs for Filipino veterans, and also asked the National Personnel Records Center to ensure the requests receive prompt servicing. 

Over the years, the Department of the Army has been requested to establish a 

different process for Filipino Veterans to prove their service. The facts are that we 

have a process; it is adequate and it is sound. We will continue to work closely with 

the National Personnel Records Center and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to 

provide the best possible service to our Filipino Veterans. The Army is well-positioned and committed to meeting the claims processing needs for Filipino Veterans. 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the subcommittee, we 

wish to thank all of you for your continued support, which has been vital in sustaining our All-Volunteer Army through an unprecedented period of continuous combat operations, and which will continue to be vital to ensure the future of our Army. 

I look forward to answering your questions today. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN PRATT

Good morning Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for calling this hearing and for your continuing efforts to 

recognize the extraordinary contributions of Filipino veterans, including those who 

served in guerrilla units, for the service they provided in support of the United 

States during World War II. I am delivering testimony on behalf of the National 

Personnel Records Center (NPRC or Center) that is similar to a statement delivered 

by the NPRC Director, Scott Levins, in a hearing before the House Armed Services 

Committee earlier this year. As one of many veterans that work at the NPRC, I am 

pleased to appear before you today to discuss the work that the Center does to serve 

those who have served. We appreciate your interest in this important work. 

The NPRC is an office of the National Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). Located in two facilities in the St. Louis, Missouri area, the Center stores 

and services over 4 million cubic feet of military and civilian personnel, medical and 

related records dating back to the Spanish-American War. 

History of NPRC’s Military Records Program 

In the mid 1950s, the Department of Defense (DoD) constructed the Military Personnel Records Center in Overland, Missouri. In the years that followed, military 

personnel, medical, and organizational records of each military service department 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
18 

were relocated to this facility. In 1960, the Center’s functions were consolidated and 

transferred to the General Services Administration (GSA), to be managed by the 

National Archives, which at that time was a part of GSA. The Archives managed 

the Center as a single program, leveraging economies of scale to improve efficiency 

and offering a central point of access for military service records. 

In spring 2011, the NPRC began moving its military records into a new building 

designed to meet updated facility standards for storing permanent Federal records. 

The facility is located in North St. Louis County, approximately 15 miles from the 

Overland location. The relocation of records into the new facility was completed in 

2012. 

NPRC holds approximately 60 million official military personnel files. Its holdings 

also include service treatment records, clinical records from military medical treatment facilities, auxiliary records such as pay vouchers and service name indexes, 

and organizational records such as morning reports and unit rosters. NPRC stores 

these records in both textual and micrographic formats. 

NPRC’s military records facility receives approximately 4,000 correspondence requests each day from veterans, their next of kin, various Federal agencies, members 

of Congress, the media, and other stakeholders. Nearly half of these requests come 

from veterans seeking a copy of their separation statement (the DD–214) because 

they need it to pursue a benefit. The Center responds to over 90% of these types 

of requests in ten business days or less. 

In addition to the correspondence work discussed above, the Center normally receives between 5,000 and 10,000 requests each week from the VA and other Federal 

agencies requiring the temporary loan of original records. These requests are normally serviced within 2–3 business days. 

Philippine Army Records 

Included in the NPRC’s holdings are claim folders pertaining to Filipino nationals 

that were adjudicated by the U.S. Army after World War II, and unit rosters created 

by the U.S. Army in conjunction with its post-war recognition program. In 1998 

NARA entered into an agreement with the Department of the Army to accept the 

physical transfer of these records though they remain in the legal custody of the 

Department of the Army. Also as part of the agreement, beginning in FY 1999, 

NPRC assumed the responsibility for referencing these records consistent with procedures previously established by the Army. In doing so, NPRC reviews its holdings 

to authenticate service determinations previously made by the Department of the 

Army. NPRC does this by examining claim folders, finding aids, and a variety of 

rosters compiled by the Army during its post-war recognition program. Most often, 

this is done in response to requests from the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding compensation claims. Recognizing the urgency of these requests, NPRC strives 

to respond to these requests in ten business days or less. 

The technical instructions applied by NPRC technicians in referencing these 

records and responding to such requests have been furnished to the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans and has been posted online for public viewing at http:// 

www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/memo-1865125.html. The instructions 

are consistent with the longstanding policies and practices of the Department of the 

Army and were applied by Army staff prior to the transfer of the reference function 

to NPRC. On multiple occasions since the establishment of the Filipino Veterans 

Equity Compensation Fund, officials from the Department of the Army have visited 

NPRC, reviewed its technical instructions, examined its work process, and confirmed that NPRC was providing reference services consistent with the long established policies and practices of the Department of the Army. 

NARA has also preserved records of historical value documenting events that 

transpired in the Philippines during and after World War II. Included are records 

describing actions taken by the U.S. Army to recognize the service of Filipino nationals who supported the United States Army Forces in the Far East, including 

those who served in guerrilla units. These records are available for public review 

at the National Archives building in College Park, Maryland. 

Conclusion 

NARA is pleased to work with the Subcommittee, the Army, the VA, and other 

stakeholders to ensure Filipino veterans, including those who served in recognized 

guerrilla units, are recognized for their extraordinary service in support of the 

United States during World War II. We have briefed interested congressional staff 

and other stakeholders on NARA’s role in this process, we actively participated in 

an Interagency Working Group established by the White House to analyze the process, and we have shared information with Filipino veterans advocacy groups to help 

provide greater understanding of the reference process we employ to authenticate 

service determinations made by the Department of the Army. Working with the DeVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:19 Dec 02, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\96136.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
19 

partment of the Army, we modified our response letters to provide more specific details regarding our reference results in instances where we are unable to positively 

authenticate a prior service determination, and, at the suggestion of the White 

House Interagency Working Group, we digitized and posted online a report titled, 

‘‘U.S. Army Recognition Program of Philippine Guerrillas.’’ This report, which can 

be found at http://research.archives.gov/description/6921767, explains how the recognition process was developed at the close of World War II. 

We again extend our thanks to the Subcommittee for expressing such great interest in the role that NPRC provides in this important process. I am happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

f 

FOR THE RECORD 

American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc. 

867 North Madison St., Arlington, VA 22205 

Phone: 202 246–1998 Email: usfilipinoveterans@gmail.com Web: 

usfilvets.tripod.com 

VA Secretary’s Duty to Comply With FVEC Law, Congressional Directives and 

Court Decisions By: 

Eric Lachica, ACFV Executive Director 

On behalf of our officers and members of the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, a national nonprofit advocacy organization, may I extend our deepest appreciation to your subcommittee for holding this timely hearing on the adequacy of the 

process in verifying eligibility of claimants for the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC) benefit. 

It is our coalition’s view that the VA Secretary and his department FAILED to 

adequately comply with the FVEC law and congressional directives in addressing 

the 4,554 appeals of elderly Filipino veteran claimants before the VA and the US 

Court of Appeals on the denials of recognition of their US service in World War II. 

The 2009 FVEC law is very clear: ‘‘The Secretary may make a payment from the 

compensation fund to an eligible person who . . . submits to the Secretary a claim 

for benefits . . . [for those who] served before July 1, 1946, in the organized military 

forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, while such forces 

were in the service of the Armed Forces of the United States.’’ http://www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys/pkg/PLAW–111publ5/html/PLAW–111publ5.htm 

There are FIVE major shortcomings of the FVEC eligibility determination process 

as administered by the VA Secretary. 

First: Former VA Sec. Shinseki erred and should have followed the congressional 

directive of the FVEC law and the FY 2014 Appropriations Act (H.R. 2216) that ‘‘directed the VA to consider ALL forms of evidence of service and not just those originally considered.’’ (My emphasis) 

Moreover, the House Appropriations Committee stated, it ‘‘looks forward to VA 

execution of this directive.’’ (House Appropriations Committee Report; H.R. 4416 

passed April 30, 2014) 

Second: The former VA Secretary relied solely on the National Personnel Record 

Center (NPRC) of the National Archives to verify and determine US Army military 

service. 

The recent August 26, 2014 decision and findings by a three-judge panel of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals on Veteran Claims further clarified this issue. The court ruled 

against VA Secretary’s denial of the appeal of Mrs. Juliet T. Tagupa, a Filipino veteran’s widow, for solely relying on the NPRC to determine US Army service of her 

husband. The court remanded to the VA to directly ‘‘seek verification service from 

the Department of the Army.’’ They found the NPRC was a ‘‘reference service’’ and 

not a ‘‘service department’’ of the US Army to issue determinations. (pages 8 & 12 

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cavc/11–3575/11–3575–2014– 

08–26.html 

Third: The former VA Secretary failed in his ‘‘duty to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim’’ of Mrs. Tagupa in particular (and 

to the thousands of FVEC claimants). ‘‘This duty includes making reasonable efforts 

to obtain all records held by a governmental entity that are relevant . .. if the 

claimant provides the Secretary information sufficient to locate such records,’’ the 

above Appeals Court panel cited the relevant Code of Federal Regulations. Moreover, the VA Secretary and the VA Manila Regional Office did not ‘‘attempt to seek 

alternative means of verifying service.’’ (page 8–9). 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
20 

The Court also listed several possible sources for the VA. Certain Philippine Commonwealth Army records and their World War II guerrilla service rosters, honorable 

discharge documents or certifications should have been accepted as sufficient proof. 

Fourth: Former VA Secretary Shinseki failed to exercise administrative discretion 

under his FVEC authority to accept genuine WW II honorable service documentation of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the USAFFE guerrilla service, as 

presented by the veteran claimants. The above Appeals Court cited the ‘‘plain language’’ of the VA regulation that ‘‘uses the term ‘may’ and thus give the VA discretion to determine whether the evidence submitted to establish service is itself sufficient without additional service verification.’’ (page 6) 

Fifth: The former VA Secretary and the VA Board of Appeals failed to comply 

with the VA Adjudication Procedures in their manual. They did not consider the 

possibility of ‘‘Unrecognized guerrilla service and ’that this is service ’ under a recognized commissioned officer, who was a former member of the U.S. Armed Forces or 

the Commonwealth Army’,’’ as pointed out by the Appeals Court panel in their decision. (p. 12, my emphasis) 

Solution: In light of above failed actions, we respectfully urge the House VA Committee to remind the new VA Secretary Robert McDonald to comply with the FVEC 

law, congressional directives and Court of Appeals decisions. FVEC compensation 

benefits should be granted to deserving claimants based on alternative documents 

provided by other U.S. official government sources including the Philippine Government’s Adjutant General’s Office who have PH Commonwealth Army records, authenticated WWII guerrilla rosters and individual letters of recognition. 

In an earlier precedent in 2011, the VA Board of Appeals approved the award of 

FVEC benefits to Gaudencio Pablo, a Filipino WWII guerrilla, who was previously 

denied official recognition by the NPRC in St. Louis MO. He provided copies of US 

Army documents he found in the National Archives College Park Maryland. (No. 

10–17 727 BVA decision January 31, 2011). 

If needed to expedite the eligibility review, the VA Secretary should directly request the US Army and the NPRC to provide copies of documents, if any, in the 

veteran claimant’s folder or from rosters of WWII service from the NPRC in St. 

Louis MO or from the National Archives. 

Unfortunately, US Army considers these documents as ‘‘classified.’’ The Army has 

instructed the NPRC not to release the relevant documents without their permission, despite expiration of the 50-year secrecy limitation. 

In response to our earlier complaint, the U.S. Army on 2 May 2012 released to 

congressional staff the two-page ‘‘Information Paper AHRC–PDR Subject: Records 

for World War II Filipino Veterans’’ prepared by LTC Curriera who was the Chief, 

Army Personnel Records Division, Human Resources Command in Fort Knox KY. 

(see attachment) 

She wrote: ‘‘The Philippine Army records in question are classified by NPRC as 

Philippine military ‘organizational records’ used to establish identity of Missing Persons Act (MPAP) status regarding Philippine Army personnel and recognized Guerrillas. These records are NOT Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF), and at NO 

time has the U.S. Army produced individual personnel records of OMPF’s for Philippine Army Veterans and/or eligible Guerillas.’’ (my emphasis) 

In her Army memorandum, Curreira confirmed that ‘‘the NPRC does not have the 

authority to release organizational or claim records without the appropriate permission.’’ 

As background on why the US Army has been uncooperative in this regard, the 

secret 1949 ‘‘U.S. Army Recognition Program of Philippine Guerrillas’’ report declassified in 1988, but only released in July 2013 by the White House Interagency 

Working Group, would be helpful. The nameless US Army authors of the report 

frankly describe the convoluted and unjust treatment faced by Filipino WWII veterans in pursuing their claims. 

Sadly, four American military officers were accused by the US Army of engaging 

in erroneous recognition of guerrillas. As a result of their dispute, the US Army 

quietly revoked en masse 37,190 guerrillas who were earlier recognized in 1946 and 

who were paid by the US Army for their service and given honorable discharge documents. (pages 159, 160, 197 and 213 in http://research.archives.gov/description/ 

6921767 ) 

Thus six decades later, many deserving patriotic Filipino veterans were 

blacklisted by the US Army after their names were secretly ‘‘deleted by roster reconstruction’’ from the USAFFE guerrilla rolls in 1948. (page 160) Their mistake: they 

belonged to guerrilla units led by these four US Army officers. This may be a major 

factor why there are still 4,554 remaining appeals from FVEC claimants today. 

The Philippine Commonwealth Government and the Filipino People of 16 million 

(Census estimate, all were US nationals) were faced with the overwhelming task of 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
21 

rebuilding after a devastating war that killed 60,000 Commonwealth soldiers and 

guerrillas as well as one million Filipino civilians who died due to war-related 

causes, according to the US State Department. 

In conclusion, the new VA Secretary should respectfully be compelled to promptly 

award FVEC compensation to these elderly Filipino veterans with honorable service 

when they meet the conditions established by the FVEC law, Congressional directives and Court of Appeals decisions: 

1) Philippine Commonwealth Army service documentation; or, 

2) Guerrilla service documents when they were recognized by U.S. Army officers 

as certified by the Philippine Government’s Army Adjutant General Office; and 

3) No derogatory information such as disloyalty or fraud to the United States. 

On behalf of thousands of our members and supporters throughout the United 

States and in the Philippines, we again thank your committee for holding this crucial hearing to find solutions for our heroes. 

Eric Lachica 

Eric Lachica ACFV Executive Director for 

Patrick Ganio Sr., ACFV President 

Franco Arcebal, Vice-president Membership 

Maursese Oteyza Owens, Vice-President Administration 

Affiliated Leaders: Art Caleda - Honolulu; Franco Arcebal & Susan Dilkes - Los 

Angeles; Malou Mariano - Long Beach; Manuel Cannu & Bert Andrade - San Diego; 

Regino Nacua, Rudy Asercion & Rodel Rodis - San Francisco; Laymon Jones - Oakland; Eddie Arabe & Sarah Gonzalez - San Jose; Monina Nuega - Sacramento; 

Ernesto Anolin - Delano; Conrado Rigor & Thelma Sevilla - Seattle; Lourdes 

Ceballos & Cesar Elpidio - NV; Jose RED, Jaime Peralta & Linda Mayo - Jersey 

City; Rafael DE Peralta & Sonny Sampayan - NY; Senen Fontanilla VFW & Purita 

- PA; Jesse Baltazar & Romy San Antonio - VA; Celestino Almeda & Angelyn 

Tugado rzan - MD; Dick Aquino - FL; and others. 

Over the past two decades, our coalition has lobbied Congress with our champions, Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka and their colleagues in the House: 

Representatives Benjamin Gilman, Bob Filner, Darrell Issa and Joe Heck. We were 

assisted by sympathetic White House staff under the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations. 

Our goal is to win full official recognition and equitable benefits for our WWII veterans. With our allies: the VFW, American Legion, D.A.V. and community partners 

like the National Federation for Filipino American Association, we won veterans’ 

burial benefits in 2000, full war-related disability compensation in 2001, VA 

healthcare in 2003, and Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation law in 2009. Our 

organization does not receive federal funds or have federal contracts. 

Æ 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER