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

96–129 2015

METRICS, MEASUREMENTS AND MISMANAGEMENT 

IN THE BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

Serial No. 113–86 

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 OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona, Ranking 

Member 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

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 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014 

Page 

Metrics, Measurements and Mismanagement in the Board of Veterans’ Appeals ...................................................................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Hon. Mike Coffman, Chairman .............................................................................. 1 

Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, Ranking Member .............................................................. 2 

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

WITNESSES 

Ms. Kelli Kordich, Senior Counsel, Board of Veterans’ Appeals ......................... 4 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 43 

Mr. Zachary Hearn, Deputy Director for Claims, The American Legion ............ 5 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 55 

Mr. Joe Violante, National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans 7 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 58 

Ms. Laura Eskenazi, Executive in Charge and Vice Chairman, Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals, Department of Veterans’ Affairs ........................................ 23 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 66 

Accompanied by: 

Mr. James Ridgeway, Chief Counsel for Policy and Procedure, Board 

of Veterans’ Appeals, Department of Veterans’ Affairs 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(1) 

METRICS, MEASUREMENTS AND MISMANAGEMENT IN THE BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS 

Wednesday, September 10, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:01 p.m., in Room 

340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Coffman [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Coffman, Lamborn, Roe, Huelskamp, 

Walorski, Kirkpatrick, Takano, O’Rourke, and Walz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE COFFMAN, CHAIRMAN 

Mr. COFFMAN. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. I 

want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Metrics, 

Measurements and Mismanagement at the BVA.’’ Today we will 

hear from both the VA and a witness from within VA’s Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals who has seen firsthand the tactics and strategies 

used by management to hide veterans’ claims, rework time frames 

to cover up the length of time cases have been sitting within the 

BVA, and manipulate cases to achieve a goal of 55,170 claims adjudicated in a year. We will also hear from representatives from two 

veterans service organizations in regards to their experiences in 

representing veterans before the BVA. 

We have already seen evidence of data manipulation within the 

Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the Health Eligibility Center, and the lengths VA will 

go in order to cover it up. We must now add the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals to the list. An extensive House Veterans’ Affairs Committee investigation, brought on largely through the bravery and 

honor displayed by VA whistleblowers, has uncovered numerous 

processes the BVA uses to manipulate data. For example the BVA 

has number one counted the same cases multiple times to pad its 

numbers and make it look like they are achieving high goals for 

processing veterans’ claims. All the while older, more complex cases 

and the veterans involved in those cases are languishing in the 

name of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ goals. Number two, 

changed its reporting system on more than one occasion to hide 

how long upper management has been holding onto cases without 

adjudicating them. Number three, the BVA has inappropriately labeled, as in ‘‘abeyance,’’ so that the clock stops and the excessive 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
2 

delays cannot be charged against them. Number four, it has implemented a ‘‘rocket docket’’ system to pull easy cases out of the docket order and adjudicate those cases to pad its numbers, even 

though the process violates the law and harms those veterans who 

have more complex cases and have already been waiting a long period of time for a decision. Number five, the BVA has arbitrarily 

increased yearly case production for administrative law judges 

which resulted in these judges simply signing cases without reviewing them and not taking advantage of available tools that would 

shorten the time for adjudicating veterans’ claims. Number six, the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals has transferred cases from storage to 

the attorneys and administrative law judges even though they are 

already overloaded with cases, thereby hiding the amount of time 

a case has been sitting idle in case storage. And finally, number 

seven, cases are being processed and closed, then the original decision is vacated and that is counted as a completed case a second 

time. Then when it is returned to BVA for completion it is counted 

as a closed case for a third time. Out of the 55,170 cases shown 

as completed last year only approximately 15,000 were actually adjudicated. The remainder were remanded, which means that veterans still have not received a decision on their cases respectively. 

The whistleblowers testifying today will provide detailed insight 

into what has been going on within the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

For its part the Board needs to respond to these claims and where 

necessary be held accountable for its actions. With that, I now yield 

to Ranking Member Kirkpatrick for any opening remarks she may 

have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF ANN KIRKPATRICK, RANKING 

MEMBER 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing on this important topic. I also want to thank the witnesses 

for coming forward today to appear before this subcommittee. 

Over the last number of months I have become increasingly concerned that in the months and years ahead we may be facing a new 

crisis with veterans waiting too long for decisions on their appeals. 

This is of critical concern to all of us and having a hearing on the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals is long overdue. I am concerned about 

the number of complaints and letters from various sources who 

have made significant allegations that employees may be attempting to game the system; are providing poor leadership; or that the 

electronic processing system, VBMS, of which taxpayers have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, is not performing adequately 

at the appeal level. Indeed VBMS may not be ready for prime time. 

We must be assured that the data we get is accurate and represents the reality faced by our veterans. As we saw in Phoenix, 

this is essential not only for our oversight purposes but to ensure 

that senior VA leadership has an accurate picture in order to provide leadership plans for released appeals in the future and assure 

the appropriate resources and tools are applied to address the problems as they exist before we face another crisis. 

I routinely hear from veterans in my district in Arizona. They 

tell me they are waiting years to receive a decision on their appeals. This is unacceptable. Our veterans deserve better. This is 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
3 

what we are all focused on today, how to address the real delay 

faced by veterans. I think we can all agree that more needs to be 

done and that there is a real concern that we may be exchanging 

a backlog crisis for an appeals crisis. 

Nationally the average length of time to receive a decision on an 

appeal in fiscal year 2013 was 960 days, nearly three years. The 

number of appeals has continued to grow. BVA projects nearly a 

20 percent increase in the number of cases received at the Board 

this year alone. As VA continues to adjudicate claims more quickly 

we should only anticipate the number of appeals waiting for a decision to increase. 

Another factor leading to the additional delays is that almost 

half the cases sent to the Board are remanded back to the VA for 

additional evidence, or due to errors on behalf of the VA. A remand 

adds another year to the process. Four years to make a decision on 

an appeal is intolerable. 

Solutions are needed to ensure that we begin to reduce these 

delays and to ensure that the delay in appeals is not the next big 

crisis. I am hopeful that today’s hearing will provide us with the 

opportunity to begin to identify these solutions. One solution may 

be that more data is needed, not just better data. Congress, VA, 

veterans, and VSOs should all trust the quality of the data, be satisfied that the data we are getting provides us with the information 

we need. I wish to thank the American Legion for emphasizing this 

in its testimony. VA provides an extensive amount of weekly data 

on VBA claims by comparison. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals provides an annual report. 

I hope that we can begin the discussion today on how we can provide our veterans with a better understanding of where we should 

be with regards to reaching timely outcomes on appeals. Simply 

put, veterans should receive better timelines and information than 

they currently get, and Congress should be receiving more frequently updates on the performance of BVA. Providing more comprehensive and accurate data will better enable us to provide oversight and work with BVA to find solutions to problems before these 

problems reach crisis status. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANN KIRKPATRICK APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick. I ask 

that all members waive their opening remarks as per the committee’s customs. With that, I invite the first panel to the witness 

table. And on this panel we will hear from Ms. Kelli Kordich, Senior Counsel, Board of Veterans’ Appeals; and Mr. Zachary Hearn, 

Deputy Director for Claims, The American Legion; Joe Violante, 

National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans. I ask 

the witnesses to please stand and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Very well. Please be seated. Your complete written statements will be made part of the hearing record. Ms. 

Kordich, you are now recognized for five minutes. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
4 

STATEMENT OF MS. KELLI KORDICH 

Ms. KORDICH. I would like to thank you, Chairman Coffman and 

members of Congress, for allowing me to speak today. My name is 

Kelli Kordich and I am a senior counsel at the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals in Washington, D.C. I am also an Army veteran having 

served in the United States Army Transportation Corps for four 

years, attaining the rank of captain. I started working at the Board 

in December, 1999. I am here today because as a veteran I am appalled and saddened by unchecked mismanagement, corruption, 

and blatant disregard for our nation’s veterans that has become 

characteristic of Board management in the pursuit of processing 

appeals at breakneck speed for management’s own self-preservation rather than for the good of the veterans. I am also here as the 

voice for the many Board employees mired in a toxic management 

system that uses a culture of fear and intimidation to attain its 

goals. A few years ago I myself exposed a bullying and morally 

bankrupt manager and as a result have endured retaliation and intimidation by Board management. The Board’s management is 

ruthless in stifling criticism, going so far as to weaponize the department-wide I CARE principles to label critics as anti-veteran. 

All of the information I give you today has been backed up with 

evidence based on exhaustive research by myself and other dedicated employees at the Board who are desperate for the corruption 

and mismanagement to end but who justifiably were too afraid of 

retaliation by Board management to offer testimony today. 

Reports show that at least since 2012, and as recently as August 

2014, Board management held cases in their possession for well in 

excess of 100 days to over a year. Most of the appeals languishing 

the longest were either simply awaiting review for signature, or 

just waiting to be assigned to an attorney. There was no legitimate 

business reason to allow the cases to languish for months. Disturbingly many of these long neglected appeals were ultimately remands or grants. Rather than addressing the issue of delays, the 

front office manipulated the Board’s electronic record keeping system called VACOLS by electronically shifting around the oldest neglected cases to others in the chairman’s office, and by removing 

the front office from the report. The Board also used a program 

called rocket docket to meet its production numbers at the expense 

of veterans. Specifically the appeals those veterans with large cases 

or more than two issues were not included in the screening process. 

In addition, the Board’s management allowed approximately a hundred cases to be decided under this program out of docket order in 

violation of statute. And to this day Board management allows 

judges holding hearings to label a case as a rocket docket cases regardless of docket date to get the case quickly without a mechanism to prevent the judge from denying or granting a case out of 

docket order. 

At the beginning of fiscal year 2014 the Board announced a production goal of 55,170 cases. By March 2013, and even with attorneys working significant amounts of unpaid overtime to meet their 

own high production goals, people realized that the Board was not 

on track to reach this lofty production goal. In an effort to remedy 

this the production goals of the judges were dramatically and retroactively increased midyear. When most judges instantly found 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
5 

themselves below goal they were forced to review cases less thoroughly in order to catch up. At the same time the Board altered 

how cases were counted in reaching the production goal by no 

longer counting the use of independent medical opinions or Veterans Health Administration opinions towards the Board’s production goal. Although both devices dramatically decrease how long a 

veteran has to wait for a decision the Board has seen a 47 percent 

decrease in the average monthly number of IME and VHA opinions 

requested. What this means is veterans will have to wait a considerably longer time for a decision on their appeal as their cases are 

remanded rather than sent for an IME or VHA opinion. 

BVA is also scrambling to get cases out of case storage that have 

an older docket number by literally forcing them into the hands of 

judges in order to transfer responsibility in the event that a veteran dies while the case is at the Board or if case status inquiries 

are made concerning the excessive length of time cases have waited 

to be transferred to the Office of Veterans Law Judges. There are 

cases that have sat unprocessed in case storage for over 400 days. 

To meet the production goal of 55,170 the Board in some cases 

has counted the same underlying appeal three times when reporting its production, thereby manipulating the production numbers 

reported to VA and Congress. Board management counts a remand 

of any case towards the Board’s production goal, even though a remand is not a final decision and typically returns to the Board, 

often to be remanded again and thus counted multiple times in the 

Board’s production report. For the current fiscal year, data reveals 

that no more than approximately 20,000 individual cases have had 

a final decision made. 

I hope I can further illuminate for this committee the increasingly toxic and veteran unfriendly actions that Board management 

has adopted in pursuit of their own agenda. Thank you, and I am 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF KELLI KORDICH APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Kordich. Thank you for your service in the United States Army, and thank you for your service to 

the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for your courage to step 

forward today. Mr. Hearn, you have five minutes please. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ZACHARY HEARN 

Mr. HEARN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Coffman, 

Ranking Member Kirkpatrick, and members of the committee. On 

behalf of our new National Commander Mike Helm and the 2.4 

million members of the American Legion, thank you for allowing us 

to testify regarding the problems with the appeals process 74.5 percent, that is the percentage of claims holding the American Legion 

as power of attorney that have either been granted or remanded by 

BVA this fiscal year through September 1, 2014. Of the 8,366 

claims holding American Legion power of attorney that received 

dispositions during this time period, 2,330 decisions previously provided by a regional office were overturned and a grant of benefits 

were awarded. Another 3,904 claims were determined to have been 

inadequately developed and prematurely denied. Unfortunately, for 

those 3,904 claims remanded, and those claimants seeking benefits, 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
6 

their quest for VA benefits continues. These claims were remanded 

for numerous reasons to include, but not limited to, inadequate 

compensation and pension examinations; inadequate development 

of claims at the VA regional office; and failure to consider claims 

as manifesting secondary or being aggravating by previously service-connected conditions. These remands result in claims not receiving a decision and requiring development as required by the Veterans Law Judges at BVA. Sadly, claims are often remanded two, 

three, or even more times prior to having a claim finally be adjudicated. Quite simply, this is unacceptable. 

As has been widely discussed veterans are having to wait for extended periods of times for original decisions. Combine this fact 

with years of waiting for a claim to be adjudicated by the BVA and 

it is understandable why veterans become frustrated. 

When I first began my employment with the American Legion I 

worked at BVA and worked with these veterans to receive their 

benefits. Often they would ask why it takes years to have a claim 

adjudicated by the Board. You could sense the frustration and the 

angst in their voice. The only way I could explain the scenario was 

that there were 56 regional offices and the Appeals Management 

Center. I would ask them to envision approaching a major city on 

the interstate, and how the interstate might go from four to six 

lanes to accommodate the traffic. Then I asked them to imagine 

over 50 lanes merging into one, and it is rush hour. This allowed 

them to visualize the pressures that BVA endures. 

The American Legion employs approximately a dozen professional staff and additional support staff dedicated to represent 

claimants seeking their benefits. I have immense respect for the 

work they do. Daily they report to work knowing that for the veterans they represent it is often the last chance to rectify previous 

errors. A good friend once told me it is not enough to do well, you 

must do some good. Members of the committee, these men and 

women employed by the American Legion at BVA do good each 

day. 

Repeatedly the American Legion has testified regarding the need 

for VA to improve its accuracy in the adjudication of VA disability 

claims at the regional office. The impetus for these comments does 

not lie solely in the willful statistics indicated by BVA remands and 

grants, and they are not solely dependent upon the results of various Office of the Inspector General reports. They are reflective of 

the results of the American Legion’s regional office action review 

visits. 

The American Legion spends significant time and energy to review the manner in which VA adjudicates claims at regional offices. Routinely during these visits we discover the same errors 

that would result in grants or remands at BVA. These visits are 

not rooted in an effort to prove the flaws of VA. Instead they are 

rooted in the belief that we can identify common errors by VA adjudicators. 

Just yesterday I attended a round table hosted by Senators Bob 

Casey and Dean Heller. During the meeting representatives of the 

American Federation of Government Employees indicated that 

newly hired employees are being rushed into production without 

comprehensive training. Even VA’s own employees recognize the 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
7 

complexity of VA claims and are calling for increased training to 

ensure that they can meet the needs of our veterans. 

Today, we are here to discuss the BVA. However to only focus 

upon BVA only discusses the symptom. The American Legion 

wants to treat the disease. 

A review of VA’s September 8, 2014, Monday morning workload 

report reveals 280,297 claims have been appealed and are awaiting 

adjudication. The number of claims have increased by over 21,000 

during this fiscal year. You do not need to be a prophet to forecast 

that with questionable accuracy in the adjudication of claims will 

result in an increase of appeals. It is evident we must continue to 

press to ensure that VA improves its accuracy of disability claims 

for the errors made today have long-lasting, deleterious effects 

upon our nation’s veterans and their families. 

Again, on behalf of National Commander Mike Helm and our 2.4 

million members, we thank the committee for inviting us here to 

speak today. And I will be happy to answer any questions offered 

by the committee. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ZACHARY HEARN APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Hearn, thank you for your service to our country, and for your advocacy and the American Legion on behalf of 

our veterans. Mr. Violante, you have five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOE VIOLANTE 

Mr. VIOLANTE. Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of DAV I am 

pleased to testify on ways to improve the appeals process. Although 

VBA has made significant progress in addressing the pending backlog of claims the single most important action that VBA can take 

regarding the backlog of pending appeals is to complete its transformation and reform the claims process. Quite simply, if the error 

rate goes down and if confidence in the claims process increases, 

there is a possibility that the percentage of claimants who become 

appellants would decline. 

Today, there are two main options for appellants: the traditional 

appeals process intended to be decided at the Board and the local 

Decision Review Officer, or DRO, post-determination review process. The importance of the DRO review process cannot be overstated, since a DRO has a de novo authority, meaning they review 

the entire claims file with no deference giving to the rating board 

decision being contested. A DRO can overturn or uphold a previous 

decision, request a hearing to gather additional evidence, or perform any administrative function available to VBA. DAV strongly 

supports the DRO program but we believe that the number of 

DROs at some regional offices around the country is insufficient. 

More concerning is the assignment of normal claims processing 

work to DROs at some regional offices for some or all of their time. 

It is imperative that VBA ensure that DRO focus solely on appeals 

work. 

For those appeals that go the traditional route to the Board, one 

of the most critical factors affecting the length of time to properly 

decide an appeal is availability of sufficient resources, primarily 

staffing and space. While Congress has provided the Board with 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
8 

additional appropriations to increase its staffing over the past two 

years, there are concerns about how the Board will provide adequate work space for its entire newly hired staff. The Board is also 

exploring ways to increase efficiency, such as the initiative known 

as the rocket docket, which operated from November 2013 through 

May 2014. Under the rocket docket program cases that met certain 

criteria were screened outside the normal docket order to determine if the remand was warranted. If that determination was 

made the Board ordered the development earlier in the process, 

thereby allowing quicker outcomes for veterans while maintaining 

the original docket order for each appeal. Overall, the rocket docket 

appears to have been a benefit for veterans. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, for the past six months DAV, the American Legion, PVA, VFW, AMVETS, and VVA have been discussing 

ways to improve the appeals process. After multiple consultations 

among ourselves and with leaders of the Board and VBA we have 

built consensus around a proposal we are calling the Fully Developed Appeals, or FDA program. This program is built upon the 

same general principles as the Fully Developed Claims program. In 

the FDA program there would be no VBA processing or certification and no hearings either locally or at the Board. The elimination of these steps alone could save two to three years of processing time. The veteran would have the ability to submit additional evidence and an argument to support the appeal when they 

file their FDA. This program, which we believe must begin as a 

statutorily authorized pilot program, would be totally voluntary. A 

veteran would have to opt into it and would retain the right to 

withdraw their FDA appeal and return to traditional process at 

any time for any reason. 

There are details that will need to be worked out but that can 

only occur as legislative language is drafted and reviewed by all 

stakeholders. In developing this proposal we greatly benefitted 

from the work done by Congressman O’Rourke, a member of the 

subcommittee, and Congressman Cook, a member of the full committee, and their sponsorship of H.R. 4616 The Express Appeals 

Act. Although we did not build or base our proposal solely on that 

legislation, and there are differences that are important to us, the 

FDA proposal was informed by their work and strengthened by 

conversations with their staffs as well as with the staffs of both 

committees. 

Mr. Chairman, the information we are hearing today, it is hard 

to explain how these things happen. But we believe you identified 

the problem. Now we need to work to fix the solution. And like my 

colleague from the American Legion, we are looking for solutions 

to make sure that veterans’ cases are decided timely and accurately. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE VIOLANTE APPEARS IN THE AP- PENDIX] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Violante. Thank you so much for 

your service to our country, and your advocacy on behalf of veterans as a member of the Disabled American Veterans. 

I am going to begin some questions. Ms. Kordich, I am going to 

focus on you, on three questions I want to ask. The first one is, are 

you aware of any ways in which the Board is manipulating data 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
9 

in its reports as part of its quest to achieve the 55,170 production 

goal? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, sir. What is happening is that the Board is 

counting remands, which are not final decisions, more than once. 

And we also have cases that we call Bryant cases which are being 

counted more than once, sometimes three times. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. It makes sense to count a grant or a 

denial as a case in production numbers. But do you think a remand 

should count as well since the case has not actually been adjudicated? 

Ms. KORDICH. No sir, I do not. A remand, as I said earlier, comes 

back sometimes numerous times. Sometimes it may not come back 

in the same fiscal year, but sometimes it does so it is counted 

maybe twice during the same fiscal year. Also the remand rate 

right now, if you take the remands out of the cases that have been 

reported you have approximately 20,000 cases that had final decisions. Now if you count cases that are final decisions, plus some 

cases have remands that go with them so they are sort of a hybrid 

type of case. So even counting them you have approximately 33,000 

cases that have been dispatched, no where near the 55,000 which 

is our goal for this fiscal year. So no, I do not believe that a remand 

should be counted because it is not, and the basic premise is, or 

the bottom line is, is that it is not a final decision and you keep 

going back to the well for the same, it is the same number over 

and over again. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Are you aware of any other ways in which the 

Board is manipulating data in how it reports it progress towards 

the 55,170 production goal? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, sir. There are cases that we call Bryant cases. 

And VA entered into a settlement agreement through the federal 

court and we gave the appellants an option to vacate their cases 

and have another hearing. And approximately 400 appellants chose 

to vacate. So we counted those when we vacated them. Then they 

had a hearing and then they had another decision issued, and so 

we counted those. So what we have here, and you have, and I believe that this is also an exhibit that the committee has. So what 

you have is the case going out, first being counted. Then you had 

the lawsuit, which we then had to vacate the cases. Then you had 

the hearing. And then the third on the same decision goes out 

when you have the final decision. So you had three, that case, 

those cases were counted three times. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And my last question, there seems to be a difference in the panel. Mr. Violante stated I believe that the rocket 

docket was good for vets, if I understand this testimony correctly. 

But Ms. Kordich, you are saying that it is not. And I am wondering 

if you could elaborate on that difference? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, sir. The rocket docket premise is that under 

38 U.S.C. 7107(a), the subsection A, cases must be adjudicated in 

docket order, except for a few exceptions. And those exceptions one 

of them is what they use for the rocket docket, is that if a case 

needs to be developed, if it needs further evidence in order to adjudicate, then we can remand it back. Which is fine if in fact you 

screen all the cases. However, on December 13, 2013, a member of 

the Vice Chairman’s staff sent out an email indicating that we 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
10 

were going to start the rocket docket program, and the program essentially gave the parameters for how we would do the program. 

So the program would have overtime attorneys screening cases. 

There would be no box cases screened. There would be no cases 

with more than two issues screened. This leads us to having those 

veterans who are not accommodating enough to have small cases 

or less than two issues having their cases languish in case storage 

even though they have an old docket number. So the procedure of 

the screening was a problem. 

Also, those attorneys who were screening the cases only got 20 

minutes to screen each case. So they were allowed three cases an 

hour in order to screen on overtime. Also, the attorneys who 

screened the cases were not the ones who actually wrote the remand for the cases. So you have a duplication of work and overtime 

effort whereas it would have been a lot simpler just to have the 

same attorney that actually reviewed the case to write the case. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Kordich. Ranking Member Ann 

Kirkpatrick. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Ms. Kordich, I want to follow up on that line 

of questioning. How many hands then touch a single file in the appeals process? 

Ms. KORDICH. Do you mean the rocket docket process, ma’am? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. In the rocket docket, yes. 

Ms. KORDICH. Okay. Well, what you had was the initial screeners, which was an attorney working overtime. So they looked 

through of course the cases that were not box cases and were not 

more than two issues. They would go through it and then they 

would decide and they would write on the front of it, had a sheet 

on the front of what they thought could be done for the case. So 

then, that was then later distributed the following week so that the 

attorney working overtime to write the case got it. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. But to a different person? A different attorney? 

Ms. KORDICH. Right, a different person entirely. And sometimes 

that person who got it did not see eye to eye with the first one who 

actually screened the case. So sometimes it had to go back down 

because it was not going to be a grant, or it was not going to be 

a remand. It would have been a grant or a denial. So—— 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Just to be clear, so then it goes back to the 

original attorney? 

Ms. KORDICH. Well no, it goes back to case storage. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. To case storage? Okay. 

Ms. KORDICH. Right. Because the screening was, the screening 

was not proper so it would go back to be distributed later. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Do you think there is adequate training for 

the people who are doing this, this type of work? 

Ms. KORDICH. I think there was adequate training. I do not think 

there was an adequate enough time for them to go through each 

case. And I do not, and my main problem was that box cases or 

more than two issues cases were just left languishing and we were 

getting the easy cases out instead, or screening the easy cases instead. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
11 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. When the box cases are brought out of the 

box, do they get a new docket number? Or do they continue with 

the same docket number? 

Ms. KORDICH. No, no. What a box case is is so many volumes of 

one case, so much evidence in one case, the volumes are just placed 

in a box. It is sort of like a, like reams of paper in a box that you 

have for the Xerox machine. And that is the type of box it is. Sometimes you have two boxes, or more than two. But usually it is a 

box and it has volumes in it. A regular case, that we call a regular 

case, would be one or two volumes I would say probably, six inches 

high. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. And this committee are very concerned about 

the VA’s system and use of technology. Do you think that the technology is adequate? 

Ms. KORDICH. In your opening statement you were talking about 

the VBMS. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Yes. 

Ms. KORDICH. And as a GS–15 I have a lot of attorneys coming 

to me in my group. We have a work group. And they come to me 

with many complaints about the VBMS system being down, that it 

freezes up. And sometimes you have hundreds, 500 pieces of mail 

that you have to go through, or evidence that you have to go 

through when you get into the virtual system or the VBMS system. 

And it can take you twice as long to do a VBMS case as it does 

to do a regular paper case because our attorneys are trained to look 

at the paper cases and know exactly what it is that they just do 

not need to look at or that, you know, they can come back to later. 

But in the VBMS you just have to go through the system and to 

the computer and it takes you a lot longer, especially with all the 

glitches that there are. And I get a lot of complaints from attorneys 

that they would rather not even have those cases. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. And I want to thank you for your courage in 

coming forward. We appreciate that. And we believe that that is essentially in actually being better able to serve our veterans. I recently introduced the Whistleblower Protection Act to protect whistleblowers within the system so that this committee can do its job. 

Ms. KORDICH. Thank you. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. As I said in my opening statement, we know 

what the problem is. Mr. Violante, you addressed that. We are 

looking for solutions. And I want to applaud my colleague Beto 

O’Rourke and Mr. Cook for bringing forward the Express Appeals 

Act. I think that is a step in the right direction. It looks to me like 

the solutions are sort of around four things that we could do right 

away to avoid this crisis. That is get better data; look at resources, 

is resourcing adequate, is there enough staff, enough attorneys, 

enough judges; training, is it adequate; and then, you know, 

launching the pilot program. So Mr. Violante, I just wonder if you 

could comment on those four things? Better data, resources, training, the pilot program? 

Mr. VIOLANTE. I mean, they are obviously all excellent points. I 

would put probably data at the bottom of my list. Because, you 

know, we talk about numbers a lot. But we do not talk about the 

final results. And to me, that is more important to a veteran. You 

know, whether the Board produces 40,000 appeal decisions or 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
12 

60,000 appeal decisions, the question is are they correct, are they 

timely? So I would like to see that. Certainly training is a big factor. I would also like to address the question from the chairman regarding appeals, or regarding remands. I worked at the Board for 

five years in the eighties, B.C., before the court. It was a little easier back then. We did not have to worry about decisions from above. 

Whatever we said was the law. But a remand should be counted 

because someone is looking through the case and making a determination. You are still doing much of the same up front work. It 

is certainly a lot easier to write a remand decision than it is to 

write a regular decision. But again, unless you can figure out another way to count that attorney’s time I think remands have to 

be counted. Accountability, to make sure that these cases are being 

remanded accurately and could not have been allowed at that level. 

And that I noticed a number of remands coming back to the Board 

over and over again. And again, accountability on what the regional offices are doing to correct those decisions and correct their 

errors need to be factored into this also. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you so much. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick. Mr. 

Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your hard 

work and for having this hearing. Ms. Kordich, I would like to ask 

you about one of the practices you referred to that was of concern 

in trying to speed up things but creating problems in the process. 

And that is forcing cases too quickly into the hands of judges. 

Could you elaborate on that a little bit more, please? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, sir. When Secretary Shinseki resigned on 

May 30th, on June 2nd we got an email from case storage that said 

that they would start sending cases up with 2011, June 2011 and 

earlier docket numbers automatically. And this was a total change 

in the way we worked our procedure. What happened was that I 

believe that management found out that as soon as Secretary 

Shinseki was gone that there may be some questions as to the 

cases languishing in case storage that had docket numbers, so they 

started sending them up. What the problem was is that the judges, 

what the usual procedure was that they would ask us to order 

cases whenever they needed them so that they could manage their 

own case load. Well, now they are coming up whether they want 

them or not. Now that they have a system where if they have too 

many cases they can say no. But at the beginning they were coming up so quickly, they were giving them out to the attorneys and 

the attorneys had 13 or 14 cases assigned to them. Well, of course 

they are going to be old by the time they start working them because they have such a big caseload. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So is that something that is no longer an issue 

today? 

Ms. KORDICH. It is still an issue. I have—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. It is still an issue? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes it is, sir. I have, I have judges now that say 

I do not want you to order any more cases. Tell them to stop the 

automatic deliveries for this week and next week. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So they are not really ready? They are not really 

ripe for a decision? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
13 

Ms. KORDICH. They are ripe for a decision. But the judge now 

cannot manage their own caseload so they just keep coming at 

breakneck speed. And they have to keep giving them out, which 

bogs down the attorneys. And then it takes them a while to get the 

cases done. What they usually did was they came up gradually, of 

course in docket order, and but then when the Secretary resigned 

then they were afraid that there would be too many old cases in 

case storage that were languishing because they were cherrypicked like they were for the rocket docket. So you had the box 

cases, the more than three issue cases coming up because they 

were old. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. And on the rocket docket it sounds like it 

was well intended, a good idea, but there were unintended consequences. Is that how you would characterize it? 

Ms. KORDICH. Well, I would characterize it as we needed to get 

55,170 cases out and this was a good way to do it. And we are 

going to do it quickly because we do not want to be looking at the 

box cases and the cases that are more than three issues. So we will 

just cherry-pick. And then that is when there became disarray in 

the case storage because then you had old cases that were down 

there, cases that had been cherry-picked that were old, that were 

coming up but they were newer. Also, I would like to say that not 

a part of the rocket docket but however cases that were taken out 

of docket order, say 2013 cases that should not have been taken up, 

were training cases for attorneys. So when new attorneys start 

they get simpler cases of course to train. But those cases were coming up unchecked because a lot of them were not, were out of docket order. So many of those cases were coming up for trainees that 

should not have been coming up. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you for our testimony, and for all of 

you for being here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Violante, could you, 

you expressed in your opening remarks strong support for the rocket docket program. Could you elaborate a little more about why? 

Mr. VIOLANTE. Yes. I mean, in our mind it is a triage program. 

Now how it was implemented raises some questions. But I think 

the concept of finding those cases that you cannot decide because 

there is additional development that needs to be done, or something missing from the claims file, finding those early on and sending them back to have that work done definitely is a way to look 

at these cases and get them done quicker. And when those cases 

came back with the information these veterans I believe got a faster decision. 

Mr. TAKANO. I do not know if this is the same administrative 

procedure that got put in place. But I remember the health claims, 

the ratings that were, needed to applied in Los Angeles, some revisions in procedure allowed certain parts of a claim to be decided 

faster so they would not have to decide the whole claim all at once. 

I think that was a separate sort of claim, not a BVA claim. But the 

idea was triage, and we could, I mean, you can negatively maybe 

characterize it as cherry-picking. But on the other side of it it was 

looking to, you know, accelerate those claims that were simpler to 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
14 

adjudicate and get it done faster. I mean, that is what I hear you 

saying. 

Mr. VIOLANTE. Right. I mean, again, the concept I think is triage. 

How it was implemented may be something different. But, you 

know, to identify those cases early on and get that development 

done I think is a definite way to go. 

Mr. TAKANO. Ms. Kordich, would you, do you want to see rocket 

docket eliminated? Or do you think we need to, is there some accommodation? I mean, do you subscribe to the idea that there are 

some cases that we could move faster? Or does everything have to 

go in docket order, as you—— 

Ms. KORDICH. No. I think, no sir, I think the screening process 

needs to be better. I mean, maybe you can give them 20 minutes, 

the attorneys working overtime to look at a bigger case or but I do 

not think veterans should be ignored just because they have bigger 

cases. I also would like to point out that about a hundred cases 

were actually granted, which is in violation of 7107(f) because there 

are no exemptions to grant cases. They are only to be developed. 

So there a hundred cases that were actually granted out of docket 

order. 

Mr. TAKANO. Is there a way for us to do you think, you know, 

move the simpler cases, you know, much faster even if they go out 

of docket order? And concentrate staff time on those more complex 

cases? I mean—— 

Ms. KORDICH. I mean, I am sure sir you could come up with a, 

I think the main concern, the main motive of the management was 

just to get cases out. 

Mr. TAKANO. Just to get cases out? 

Ms. KORDICH. Right. I mean, I am sure that someone could sit 

down and think about, I do not think it is that difficult to figure 

out, you know, a screening process where we could, I know it is not 

a perfect system. You cannot do everything in precise docket order. 

But this was more of languishing cases and then once June 1st 

came around then there was a scramble to get these cases out just 

in case. 

Mr. TAKANO. In your testimony you highlighted the poor morale 

at the Board. And do you think, what do you think could be done 

to make the Board a better employer? 

Ms. KORDICH. The Board has had a problem with a culture of 

fear and intimidation for a long time. Attorneys are afraid to express their views. And it is always met by swift retaliation if they 

just make a benign comment. When the Vice Chairman initiated 

the 55,170 there was a poster contest. And then people, to promote 

the 55,170, and I believe that you have that, some of those posters 

as evidence. And Board attorneys were angry at management for 

such a cavalier attitude because they actually do the work. There 

is no production requirement in the front office for attorneys there. 

So what happens is it was met by anger and some gag posters. And 

when the gag posters came out the Vice Chairman sent an email 

apparently insinuating that the creator of the poster was anti-veteran. 

Mr. TAKANO. Oh dear. Do you think that the Board is under-resource? Do you think that the problem is understaffing, or is it just 

strictly kind of a management style? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
15 

Ms. KORDICH. I think it is management. I think we have more 

than enough staff. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Ms. Walorski? 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just wanted to 

echo my agreement with the chairman’s opening remarks and the 

ranking member’s, that I hope as well that we have not gone from 

major health crisis in the VA to a major appeals process as well. 

And I appreciate the testimony as well from our VSO organizations 

that are always supportive of veterans, and I appreciate you coming forward Ms. Kordich. I cannot imagine, with what this whole 

committee has been through with the VA for the last several 

months, and I am new. Some of these guys have been at this for 

years. But I guess my first question is for you, Ms. Kordich. Have 

you seen any change in even the attitude and behavior with the departure of the Secretary Shinseki and the new Secretary come on? 

Has there been kind of a, is there a sigh of relief that maybe there 

is help coming? Is there just the same old, same old as this continues to roll along? 

Ms. KORDICH. I think at first Board attorneys were optimistic. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Yes. 

Ms. KORDICH. However, there still seems to be no emphasis on 

protecting those who want to speak out. It is sort of business as 

usual. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. So whistleblowers do not feel like they have additional protection today that they may not have had a couple of 

months ago? 

Ms. KORDICH. Oh, no. No, not at all. Not at all. It is the same 

continuous. Like I mentioned earlier, Board management uses the 

I CARE standards or values as a weapon against employees. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Yes. 

Ms. KORDICH. And, although they do not follow them themselves. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. I am almost afraid to ask this question. But are 

there any performance bonuses attached to anything in the front 

office about any of these numbers and cases and rocket docket, and 

who gets this and who gets that? Are there performance bonuses 

attached to how many cases are filed, adjudicated, anything like 

that? Are there performance bonuses in the structure? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, there are. And in December there are performance bonuses. I mentioned in my testimony that in May of 

2012 there were cases held an appalling amount of time by Board 

management and then they started switching them around so that 

they would not get caught. Those individuals all received the bonuses. Some of the cases were held for a processing time of 606 

days. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Oh, my goodness. 

Ms. KORDICH. When it was only, when it was a grant so that the 

veteran could have gotten their benefits earlier. But there was a, 

and those employees received bonuses and they were all promoted. 

The Principal Deputy Vice Chairman to Vice Chairman, and the 

rest to judges. And I will add coincidentally none of them are veterans. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Interesting. From your perspective the VA Reform Law that we just passed, that the President signed, that in 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
16 

some cases a lot of it does not roll out until October. Do you see 

any hope, and I know you are in the appeal position. We just spent 

a lot of time dealing with the healthcare position. But the over, the 

duplication is there because of how these cases are processed. Do 

you see anything up until this point that we have done as a committee that has done anything to impact the world of appeals or 

anything else? Or do you see that we, that the only hope is urgent 

legislation out of here that will start combating the appeals process? 

Ms. KORDICH. I think the latter. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Urgent—— 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Do you think the general attitude in the VA, 

with as much attention at this conference, and the nation, the 

American people are at the table. You know, from New York to 

California, the American people want our veterans to have every 

single thing they deserve, as do we. Do you think that the pressure 

from the American people helped turn the attitudes inside of just 

the general VA as you know it? Not so much that, you know, Congress did X, but just the American people, their ears are on. They 

care and they are fighting for veterans. Do you see that as being, 

having helped in the healthcare arena, and something that we 

could carry over into the appeals arena? 

Ms. KORDICH. I think so. I think people were not, with us we are 

such a small—— 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Yes. 

Ms. KORDICH [continuing]. Area that, and that is why this has 

been able to go on because nobody really paid attention to what 

was going on. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Yes. Okay. 

Ms. KORDICH. Until this hearing. And then I think management 

was quite shocked. However, I do think that people are now, the 

American public are now focused on, well, what is going on with 

other departments? 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Yes. 

Ms. KORDICH. And I think it is good that this committee has 

looked into the VHA and the VBA as well. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your testimony, all of you. And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. . Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for raising 

the profile of this issue, you along with the ranking member, ensuring that this does not go unnoticed. And I want to thank our panelists for helping to shed some additional light on this and for all the 

work that you are doing, including just informing us that we can 

make better policy decisions and hold the VA accountable for its actions. 

You know, just anecdotally, you know, we had been so focused 

when it came to VBA issues on first time service-connection disability claims and the long wait times we were seeing out of Waco, 

which serves El Paso, up to 470 days last year for an average wait 

time out of El Paso, that I do not think we realized the crisis that 

was developing in the appeals process. And I was at a town hall 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
17 

earlier this year and a veteran stood up and he said, hey, great 

work on this first time disability claim issue. But I have had an 

appeal that has not been touched for two years. You mentioned 400 

days earlier. You know, two years. And what are you all going to 

do about it? We had Mr. Jason Ware, who is second in command 

at Waco there visiting El Paso. And I thought it was telling that 

he could give us no information on the appeals backlog, where we 

stood, the average wait time. You know, I will get back to you. We 

just had a meeting with him this Saturday at a town hall and he 

was able to give us more of an update. But even within the VA I 

do not think that there was acknowledgment that they had a problem. So really appreciate it. 

Several have mentioned, including Mr. Violante, the bill that we 

worked on with Mr. Cook, that you all worked on with us. And I 

want to thank you for that, the Express Appeals Act. Especially the 

veteran sacrifices his or her ability to add additional information 

to the appeal and in return there is an expedited process to adjudicate that appeal. A kind of a trade off like you have with the fully 

developed claim for first time claimants. And certainly, I know I 

speak for Mr. Cook, we stand ready to make improvements to this 

bill. And we also have no pride of ownership. If there is a better 

way to get this introduced and heard and on the floor of the House, 

we stand ready. I know I had a chance to talk to Mr. Augustine 

yesterday and he was very kind to call me again today to provide 

an update and suggested that it might make sense to get together 

with the leadership from all the VSOs to talk about either how we 

improve this or do something different. I would love to hear from 

Mr. Hearn and Mr. Violante any suggestions on what we would do 

differently or better than what already exists in the bill offered by 

myself and Mr. Cook. 

Mr. VIOLANTE. Well the one thing we would like to see is a pilot 

program because we want to be able to look at it after three years, 

two, three years, and see is it working properly? Is it working the 

way we had anticipated? Again, our, you know, design is that a 

veteran have the ultimate right. In other words, if you choose to 

go this route you are choosing to go this route because you do not 

have any additional evidence, you want to get a quick decision. But 

at some point in time if you realize that there is additional evidence out there we want that veteran to have the ability to pull 

out of that fully developed appeals process and go back to the normal, traditional process. So those are just a couple of the things 

that we are looking at. I am trying to remember—— 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Well let us continue to talk. Because our bill, as 

I understand it, is a pilot program and provides for this express appeals option as a pilot, to make sure that we test the concept. But 

if there is a better way to do it, again, I stand open. Mr. Hearn, 

I do not know if you have any suggestions on how we improve this? 

Mr. HEARN. The American Legion is obviously very interested in 

trying to find the most expeditious way of getting these appeals 

handled. The number of days that it goes in the process, and has 

been alluded to today with the remands it is obviously a major 

issue that is just continuing to expand. I spoke with Verna. She is 

doing a Veterans Crisis Command Center, and I know you are 

quite familiar with that. And so she, what she wanted to express, 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
18 

I was speaking to her this morning, she said that she would love 

to be able to sit down and talk with you all next week and try to 

hash out some things. And she has her own ideas as well. But she 

definitely wanted me to convey that to you this afternoon. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you. And again, appreciate what all of you 

are doing. As I yield back I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the fact that we are once again at War in Iraq. You know, it 

may not be formally declared but we have servicemembers flying 

missions over there, we have boots on the ground in that country. 

I believe we are going to formalize that War to include Syria from 

the President’s announcement tonight. And it is possible that the 

Congress will be asked to vote on an authorization for use of military force. I just hope that for my colleagues that weighs in the balance as we make decisions about sending servicemembers into combat roles again, given what we are hearing today and our inability 

to solve some very basic problems with how we treat veterans 

when they return from the battlefield. So again, appreciate your 

service and what you do out of uniform for veterans everyday. And 

I yield back to the chair. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. O’Rourke. Mr. Huelskamp. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing and giving us an opportunity to learn some more 

about this situation. Ms. Kordich, I hope I pronounced that correctly, if I might have a few questions of you. And I am trying to 

read through your testimony. A lot of information there, and you 

are trying to get to the bottom of that. Just up front, I want to 

know since it was known that you were going to appear here or became outspoken about your concerns about what you saw occurring 

in the workplace, can you identify any intimidation or retribution 

against you personally from management or other employees? 

Ms. KORDICH. Not yet from this hearing. I do expect it because 

Board management, they cannot manage very well but they can retaliate against employees very well. And I had filed an EEO complaint and I have been retaliated against for that. So—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. 

Ms. KORDICH [continuing]. It is a continuing thing, yes. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. Who set the production goal at 55,170? 

Ms. KORDICH. Who set that, sir? 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Yes. 

Ms. KORDICH. I think the Vice Chairman met with Secretary 

Shinseki and they came up with that number. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Yes, I will ask them how they figured out that 

very exact figure. Do you know how many outstanding appeals are 

awaiting, our veterans are waiting for action by the Board? 

Ms. KORDICH. I do not, sir. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. Okay. A couple of very specific things in 

there. You did note that there are a number of veterans that the 

decisions essentially, if I read correctly, were made and were simply awaiting signature of a judge or an acting judge. Could you describe that a little more? It sounds—— 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, sir. Back, that was in May of 2012. Management, and if you are, for example I am a GS–15. I can do acting 

work. So I can sign cases. And then I also write cases for judges 

as well, or acting judges as well. And when I was in the front office 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
19 

I wrote some cases for the Chief Counsel for Operations, Mr. 

Hachey. And what we can do is we can access what is called an 

old cases, we call it an old cases, it is in our system, it is called 

VACOLS. And it shows when a case has been held 30 days or 

more. And so I was wanting to know if my case was being signed 

by Mr. Hachey so I was looking in there. And once you look into 

the system you can also take the number from the system and look 

to see where the case has been. For example, like a tracker. So 

there was one particular case I was looking at and it was a case 

that I believe that you have, the committee has, the veteran’s name 

that begins with a C. And I was given the case by Mr. Hachey to 

write on April 6, 2012, or 2011, I am sorry. And I checked it into 

myself. I wrote and submitted the case for Mr. Hachey’s signature 

on April 15, 2011. On September 15, 2011, Mr. Hachey charged the 

case back to me while I was traveling on Board business. When I 

returned, I completed the corrections and resubmitted the case 

back to him on September 20, 2011. On June 8, 2012, 262 days 

later, he signed the case, which was a simple remand for a VA examination. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Yes, okay. Wow, I guess I will have follow-up 

questions with the others as well. You do also mention a couple of 

other issues. Page 10 of your testimony you talk about minutes of 

a meeting on June, or you talk about a June 4th meeting with Ms. 

Eskenazi. And do you, were you at that meeting? 

Ms. KORDICH. The June 4th? 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Of 2014? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. Do you know if there are minutes of that 

meeting, or, and—— 

Ms. KORDICH. I am not sure. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. 

Ms. KORDICH. I am not sure if minutes were taken of that meeting. Was that the June 4th meeting of the, concerning the—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. It concerned about Congress. 

Ms. KORDICH. That was a couple of meetings, actually, but that 

was the first time she brought it up. I was not in that meeting, sir. 

I was in a second after that. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. Okay. And then the last question in particular that you do note in your testimony that one employee notified the VA Inspector General of the problems but was never contacted by the IG. Can you describe that a little bit more, what you 

know about that situation? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes. He personally told me that he contacted the 

IG about the rocket docket program, not so much the program itself 

but what I have been discussing that the cases were taken out of 

docket order, the easy ones, and that ones that were not box cases, 

and he never received a response. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Do you know how he contacted them? I mean, 

left a message, sent an email, do you know? 

Ms. KORDICH. I am not sure. I think he actually personally went 

there. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Yes that is—— 

Ms. KORDICH. But I will have to get back to you on that. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
20 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. Well the information on that is pretty 

troubling, especially with some of the recent reports of the IG not 

being as independent as we presumed they are. They are supposed 

to be under the statute. So I appreciate your courage, your commitment to our veterans. And we are trying to improve this process 

so I really appreciate your testimony. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you for 

being here once again. I associate myself with once again Mr. 

O’Rourke and his wise counsel, that we certainly are going to see 

the added, I think most of us understand, we hope for the best, 

pray for the best, but plan for the worst. This idea that surges in 

cases cause some of these problems however I think is pretty ludicrous. And I would go, Joe, and first ask you. You have been 

through this a lot. You have seen both sides of it. You are at a 

unique perspective on this. Is this just deep cultural change? I 

mean, can we break some of this by attacking that? Or does it need 

to be fundamental change in way we are doing these? 

Mr. VIOLANTE. I think we need accountability. I mean, as you 

said I can go back, you know, to the late eighties, when Congress 

was debating whether or not to put a court in place. And I can remember the Chairman of the Board, then Chairman of the Board 

going across the street to meet with Secretary Dewinski and coming back with different orders each time. Put out more cases, put 

out more allowances, just put out more cases in general so people 

know what we are doing. I also observed at that time before I was 

leaving to go to DAV that they went around and collected cases for 

signatures by two Board members. And at that time, it was a 

Board. There were usually three members. In the medical side it 

was two attorneys and a doctor, and on the legal side three attorneys. So I mean, this has gone on. It is terrible. But if you do not 

have accountability and if you only focus on the numbers, that is 

what you are going to get, is this type of behavior. 

Mr. WALZ. So I, and I think, I note this because this is, the folks 

who have been involved with this, you have been talking to me 

about this for a decade that this was an issue. It came to, and I 

am very appreciative, Ms. Kordich, that you would come forward. 

My question to you is what is your, what is your formal process 

when you noticed that there was problems? What was your formal 

and informal process to improve the process for our veterans? And 

how were those received? Like if you saw some of this happening 

formally where are you supposed to go? 

Ms. KORDICH. Well I would talk to my supervisor, who is the 

Chief Judge. However, they tend not to want to do anything that 

is not sanctioned by the front office or the Chairman’s office. So 

their hands are tied because they are afraid. I mean, if you try to 

change something or if you try speak out no one wants to hear it. 

Mr. WALZ. Who is the person or who are the people instilling this 

fear? Who, I want, you know, because I said, and we are not going 

to do it right here. But as Joe is saying on this, there needs to be 

a name and a face and an accountability. And if that is what is 

holding this up, and we are, and I think some of these are great 

ideas which I am very supportive of. But I think we can put in, you 

know, fully developed appeal. But if we have got somebody sitting 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
21 

in that position that is going to be the gatekeeper and is going to 

hold things, it is still a problem. Who are they? And they just, they 

sit in these positions? 

Ms. KORDICH. Well we have the Vice Chair. But we do not have 

a Chairman right now. It has been vacant for almost three years 

now. 

Mr. WALZ. Right. 

Ms. KORDICH. But we do have a Vice Chairman, Ms. Eskenazi. 

And her, she was a prote ́gee ́ of the former Vice Chairman who was 

about, it was the same, business as usual. So of course she was the 

prote ́gee ́ so—— 

Mr. WALZ. Why do we not have a Chairman? 

Ms. KORDICH. I have no idea, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. That is a question for us to ask, by the way. So, and 

answer. And answer. So you do not have that. That is closed off 

to you. Is doing, is coming in this regard, and again I am incredibly 

grateful for it but I am just sorry you were ever put in this position. Because I know from a professional and a personal standpoint 

this is the last thing you want to have to do. You just wish there 

was a process to fix it. 

Ms. KORDICH. Sir, I do. 

Mr. WALZ. Is this your only informal route? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALZ. Is to come this direction? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, sir. Because like I said earlier I have filed an 

EEO complaint which no one wants to hear. I have been retaliated 

against. I have a little small office. And, with no window. And 

across—— 

Mr. WALZ. Is that how it is done? It is just done with pettiness 

and marginalizes you? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes. Exactly. And across the hall from me there 

has been two window offices vacant for two years but they would 

never move me into that. 

Mr. WALZ. Well I think this is the thing, and we have heard it 

before, I mean it is hard to fathom that this kind of stuff happens 

or the pettiness that goes on. But all of us in this room know the 

veteran pays for it. You are certainly paying for it, and for that I 

am deeply sorry. But the veterans are also paying for it and they 

had nothing to do with it. So I would encourage all of us, I thank 

the chairman and the ranking member, thank you for the hearing. 

The followup on this, again, it is one thing to talk about accountability. There is a name and a face and somebody is getting a paycheck that is doing this. Those are the people we need, those are 

the people I want to sit right here. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Walz. It is my understanding that 

there is a Director nominee whose confirmation is pending before 

the United States Senate. I think it has been a couple of years that 

that has been the case and it has yet to be acted upon. Dr. Roe? 

Dr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to follow up with Mr. 

Walz, what we hear when we go home from veterans, they do not 

know about boxes and all, they do not know what that is. I do not 

even know what that all is until you explained it to me a minute 

ago. All they know is I am losing my home, I cannot pay my bills, 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
22 

my kid is in college, I have no way to take care of my family, and 

we are talking about boxes and people will not sign anything. 

Let me give you a little accountability. We had doctors where I 

practiced who would not sign their charts. You know, your discharge summaries and your surgical notes. It was pretty simple. If 

you did not sign them, sign those charts, you could not schedule 

any more cases for surgery. Well if you cannot schedule any more 

cases for surgery you cannot make a living if you are a surgeon like 

I was. So guess what? You did your charts. There should be some 

accountability somewhere. When I heard 200-and-something days, 

and all it is waiting on is a signature? That is ridiculous. And I 

heard you say, and we heard this through numbing hours of testimony this year with the VA, is that it is not a money issue. When 

I first came on here, Mr. Walz came two years before I did, $100 

billion a year we were spending on the VA. Now it is going to be 

a $160 billion that we are spending. The number of veterans from 

2000 until now has gone from 26 million of us down to 21.8 million 

and going down. We did not increase the number of veterans treated by the VA but by 17 percent. And yet we have had this enormous increase in the budget. So I mean I have to almost laugh 

when I heard a quick decision by the VA, that is an oxymoron by 

the way, a quick decision. And veterans do not know about rocket 

dockets and other, they do not care about that, I do not care about 

that. I just want a veteran whose claim is waiting on it, and this 

August break we went on, clearly I heard it over and over again. 

Dr. Roe, when is my claim going to get, so I am checking into them 

now. Why has it not been adjudicated? Why have I not heard about 

it? And you know, we have got, I have got one full-time staff member at home that is working on it and I am about to have to add 

some more just to take care of this. And this backlog is still there. 

It has not been stopped. And I guess the question I have if you 

were the czar, what would you do to fix this? If you could, if you 

could, if you were the boss what would you do to fix this problem? 

And I realize that there are claims that do not come fully prepared. 

That I understand, and where more information comes available. 

But if you could start tomorrow in fixing this problem, what would 

the few things be so this committee will know which direction to 

go? 

Ms. KORDICH. I think I would appreciate the attorneys that do 

the work better and not force them to work unpaid overtime so 

that they can take vacation. They are the workhorses and they 

need to be appreciated. The front office does not seem to understand that. And—— 

Dr. ROE. Are you saying then it is leadership? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes sir. Definitely. 

Dr. ROE. Not the worker bees? 

Ms. KORDICH. Not the worker bees at all because they have a 

production goal, they do it. They are not going to let a case sit for 

606 days, or 200-and-some. Because they need the credit for that 

case and so do the judges. So they sign the cases. Up in management there is no production so it is a, they—— 

Dr. ROE. What would be the reason for a veteran to, I mean here 

is a veteran, I see them all the time, sitting at home and I have 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
23 

got to go back and tell them that your chart just sat on somebody’s 

desk for 200 days waiting for a signature. Did I hear that wrong? 

Ms. KORDICH. Yes, sir. Or, and sometimes 606 days in processing. 

Dr. ROE. So I have got to go home and look at, I just got back 

from Vietnam not long ago, look at one of my colleagues that 

served in Vietnam, and walked through the mud, and did that for 

our country, and they are waiting on somebody to take their—excuse me, I almost said something bad. Their pen and sign a chart? 

Has that happened? 

Ms. KORDICH. To review a case that is probably only a remand 

or a grant of benefits. And to review it and sign it, which does not 

take 200 days or 606 days. 

Dr. ROE. It is hard to make a politician speechless, but I am 

speechless with that. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. All right. Thank you, Dr. Roe. Our thanks to Ms. 

Kordich, Mr. Hearn, and Mr. Violante. You are now excused. 

Ms. KORDICH. Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. All right. I now invite the second panel to the witness table. Our second panel we will hear from Ms. Eskenazi, Executive in Charge, Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

I would ask for the witness to stand and raise your right hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Please be seated. Ms. Eskenazi, your complete 

written statement will be made part of the hearing record and you 

are now recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. LAURA ESKENAZI, EXECUTIVE IN CHARGE 

AND VICE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY 

MR. JAMES RIDGEWAY, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR POLICY AND 

PROCEDURE, BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

TESTIMONY OF MS. LAURA ESKENAZI 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Thank you, Chairman. I first would like to thank 

the prior panel, including Ms. Kordich, for the courage to come forward and share her concerns. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick, and subcommittee members. Thank you for inviting me to 

discuss the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ commitment to providing 

all veterans with the timely quality appeals decisions they deserve 

while ensuring integrity in the data we utilize to measure our 

workload. 

As Secretary McDonald has stated this is a critical time for VA 

and we have a great deal of hard work to do to resolve the challenges we face and to rebuild trust. I am here representing the 

hardworking, dedicated employees of the Board, many of whom are 

veterans or family members of veterans. We are all committed to 

overcoming challenges to better serve our nation’s veterans. 

The Board’s mission has remained unchanged since it was established in 1933. That is to conduct hearings and adjudicate appeals 

in a timely manner. The Board’s employees come to work each day 

with a strong commitment to this mission guided by one principle 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
24 

in VA’s strategic plan. VA is a customer service organization. This 

principle has been the motivating factor in every decision I have 

made in my 14 months as Vice Chairman and Executive in Charge. 

Simply put, veterans always come first. 

Having said that I welcome this opportunity to take a hard look 

at how we do our work and measure performance. We can always 

do better. I have great respect for the oversight role of this committee. As a steward of public trust I will continue to explore ways 

to better serve veterans through the highest standards of honesty 

and integrity. During my 14 months as Executive in Charge the 

Board underwent tremendous change. We hired and trained nearly 

200 new staff growing the Board to approximately 680 employees 

thanks to the generous funding provided by Congress. This has allowed us to serve the most veterans ever in a fiscal year since the 

advent of judicial review. I have taken numerous steps to improve 

organizational climate at the Board by greatly expanding opportunities for employee engagement, communication, and feedback. 

The multilayered veterans appeal process is unique across federal and judicial systems with a continuous open record. As a result appeals often involve many cycles of development and readjudication this unique process provides the veteran with many opportunities to have a voice in seeking the benefits that they deserve. 

The appeals process is heavily set in law, a body of law that has 

been built up over 80 years. This law requires that the Board consider and decide appeals in docket order with limited exceptions. 

Since 1994 docket order is determined by the date that the appeal 

is formalized at one of VA’s regional offices rather than the date 

the appeal is received at the Board. This creates a docket with a 

priority order that changes constantly, daily. The docket also contains workflow limitations for cases in which a hearing was held 

as the law requires that those cases can only be decided by the 

judge who held the hearing. Additionally, cases that are remanded 

retain their prior place in line if they return to the Board thereby 

increasing wait times for newer appeals. 

This year the Board piloted a limited program to save wait time 

for veterans using congressional authority to prescreen cases out of 

docket order to assess the adequacy of the record. A very small 

number of appeals were processed through this program which was 

paused in early June to assess the efficiencies to veterans and to 

consider feedback from stakeholders. To date, the Board has issued 

dispositions for waiting veterans in over 51,000 appeals, a dramatic 

increase over last thanks to the efficiencies put in place at the 

Board and the generous funding provided by Congress. The Board 

has also increased its quality rate to 94 percent using a weighted 

formula that was created in collaboration with the Government Accountability Office in 2002 and 2005. 

Although the Board primarily works with paper files the number 

of electronic appeals in VBMS continues to increase. As Secretary 

McDonald has stated technology is an enabler and we need to 

make the most of it. In this spirit the Board has embarked on an 

aggressive plan for appeals modernization in which we look at people, process, and improved technology to better carry out our mission. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
25 

In conclusion veterans are waiting too long for a final decision 

under current legal framework. We are thankful for the work by 

Congress and other stakeholders, including the veterans service organization, to explore long term solutions to provide veterans with 

a timely appeals process they deserve. 

I welcome continued input from all stakeholders on how to improve the work of the Board and to reinforce the time honored covenant between America and her veterans. I know that we face challenges but in times of challenge there are opportunities and I continue to reach for the opportunities. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURA ESKENAZI APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Eskenazi. According to documentation from your database dated May 10, 2012 

you and attorneys from your office were holding cases for review 

and signature for as long as 400 days. Can you explain this? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Yes, I am familiar with that report which is dated 

two and a half years ago. And when I saw that report it gleaned 

that there was a challenge in work processing in my office and I 

took immediate corrective measures to rebalance the workload in 

those offices so that the staff had the right amount of time to do 

the work that was assigned to them. And I am happy to report that 

the measures I put in place exist today and we have not been back 

to that same level of bottleneck. 

Mr. COFFMAN. From our review of the database record in almost 

every one of these egregious cases where there was a notation that 

a case was in abeyance the amount of time the case was in abeyance was no more than 38 days and in many cases was 21 days 

or less. How do you reconcile this with your explanation that the 

cases took so long to process because they were in abeyance? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I am not familiar with the abeyance report that 

you have. I will note that abeyance is a legitimate place that we 

have at the Board, a charge, a workload charge, when we have to 

for example contact the veteran about representation clarification, 

ask them about a hearing request. And so in those situations we 

cannot work the appeal. We will put it in abeyance until we receive 

the response from the veteran. So that is one example of abeyance. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Just if you could drill down again why 

these cases were held so long before you and your staff held them 

back for rewrites? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. So you are referring to, again, the 2012, May 

2012? Yes, that was some time ago. And cases first of all are not 

just submitted signed. There is a pretty intensive review process by 

the judge who is authorizing that decision. And what you cannot 

tell from VACOLS reports is what is under any days. So you have 

a charge that shows a number of days, but really you have to look 

at the situation, the facts of the individual case, to see was it something particular to that case? Or was it just a sign of some workload strain in that particular offices? Again, that May, 2012 time 

frame I took immediate corrective action, and we worked through 

that as soon as that came to our attention. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Yes. Documentation from your office shows that it 

took you 254 days to process one single case. The document shows 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
26 

that you received the case to sign in October, 2011 but did not sign 

the case until June, 2012. Can you explain that? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Yes, I am familiar with that specific case because 

again I remember this report from two and a half years ago very 

clearly. That case was unfortunately a case in that it was submitted and it had some errors in the draft decision. And there were 

some personnel matters kind of connected with that sort of inhibited my ability to swiftly move that case. That case since has had 

a number of different decisions. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Documentation from your office shows that Mr. 

Hachey, the Chief Counsel for Operations in your office, held a case 

for a total of 397 days before finally signing it, and it took a total 

of 606 days to process a case. Can you explain this? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Sure. Again, for those watching we are referring 

to a report from May 2012, over two and a half years ago. And Mr. 

Hachey was doing great work assisting me in reorganizing another 

area of the Board that had some challenges and during that timeframe did not have the time that he needed to carry out all of his 

duties. And that has since been adjusted. I am very thankful for 

the funding that Congress has provided over the years that has allowed us to equalize staffing levels where needed to better ensure 

workflow. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Ranking Member Kirkpatrick. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Eskenazi, I 

want to ask you what improvements you have seen since May of 

2012, since that report was issued, to now? And then where you see 

yourself going in the near future? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Certainly. Again, back to that same report for 

those watching, that report was reflective of a very small part of 

the Board, an office we call the Appellate Group, which functions 

like the Board’s Office of General Counsel. I was very concerned 

when I saw those numbers and I put in place much more stringent 

measures than we had, such as a weekly status report. And the 

staff to this day submit weekly reports that not only show the case 

and the days but a description of the status. So that is working 

very well for that small group of that office. 

There has been a number of measures put into place since I became Executive in Charge 14 months ago. One of the first things 

that I did is pick apart reports that we have and look for what are 

the oldest cases that we have. We are required by law to decide appeals in docket order and that docket changes daily. And we want 

to make sure that no cases go sitting unaccounted for a long period 

of time. So I devised a new report that shows every single case in 

the custody of the Board from the day it arrives to the day it 

leaves. And I look at that report regularly, addressing cases with 

the longest amount of days. And I have been successful in driving 

that number down. 

We also have put in a number of efficiencies in the way that we 

do our work product. As our VSO colleagues have testified, the appeals process is very, and as I stated, it is very heavily set in law. 

So there is very little change that we can do in how we provide our 

work product but yet there is always room for improvement. We 

looked at our business, drafting appellate decisions, and we trained 

our staff in ways to become more efficient in their writing so that 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
27 

they are focused, to the point. And we are also very mindful that 

we are writing not only to ensure compliance with the law but we 

are speaking to the veteran, the veteran who has been waiting too 

long to get their final decision. And so better writing is one effort 

that we have put into place. And we also, we set our goal, we 

talked about our goal throughout the year. And that kept people’s 

eye on the mark. And I am very proud that, to say that my staff 

to this day has issued 52,000 dispositions for waiting veterans, 

which is more than we had in our inventory last summer. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Do you need more attorneys and more judges? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. This is a process, we have a lot of appeals 

throughout the department. The Board is one part of the process. 

We are kind of the end part after the appeals process has been 

worked through the Veterans Benefits Administration. We could always use more resources, and we are very thankful for the resources that we have received in the past two years. But we realize 

that it is not simply just a people issue. We have to do better in 

not only our legislative process, and we request support from the 

committee on proposals that we have sent forward, and we continue to work with our VSO partners, but we also need to look at 

where we can get a lift out of technology. The department has 

made great strides with VBMS for the claims part. And now, as I 

state in my opening statement, is the time to work on appeals. And 

that is why the Board this year launched a concept known as appeals modernization to study exactly where we need to go with 

technology. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. What is being done right now in terms of the 

modernization of the appeals process? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Certainly. One of the things that we know we 

need are different features in the VBMS system that are specific 

to appeals. Yet we have a long, long wish list so we are working 

on prioritizing that and synthesizing exactly what we need. So that 

when we get the funding we are looking for that we are moving forward in a logical fashion. We also, we have heard a lot of discussion today about the Board’s tracking database, VACOLS. It is an 

Oracle database that was built in the 1990’s and we track things 

by using a Power Builder overlay. It is a very antiquated type of 

technology and we really need a workload tracking database that 

is integrated with VBMS so we do not have to rely on manual data 

entries. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you. I think my time is about to run 

out so I thank you again for appearing before the committee, and 

I yield back. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Thank you. 

Mrs. COFFMAN. Thank you. Mr. Huelskamp. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions. I will follow up on some questions 

of the prior panel. First of all, who did pick the production goal? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I worked on that goal in conjunction with the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Performance Management. 

That goal is based on the simple formula of 90 decisions per FTE. 

We started the year with 613 FTE. Multiplied by 90 that is 55,170 

and very reflective of our level of performance in seven fiscal years. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
28 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. You started this fiscal year with how many employees? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. 613 FTE. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. According to your testimony there was a 30 percent increase in FTE. Over what time period was that? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. We started a hiring surge back in May, 2013 and 

since that timeframe we have increased on average of about 180 to 

200 new staff. There has been some attrition in there. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Wow, that is a lot of new staff. And how many 

additional cases were worked roughly by this 30 percent increase 

in FTEs? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. And last year our output at the Board was 41,900 

appeals. This year we are on target to reach our goal of 55,170. It 

sounds like a bold number. I am very proud of our staff to have 

reached that goal. Yet it is very commensurate with our past performance. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. One thing we did hear though, that as far as 

the measurement, that was shed on the ability to, about those 

numbers that they are really measuring success when you triple 

measurement of, is that not the case? That you are measuring 

some of these cases, double or triple counting those, and that helps 

achieve that 55,170 goal? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. We have measured our outward facing performance the same way since 1991 when requirements were put in 

place by Congress, published in our annual report. And we measure outcomes from a jurisdictional standpoint commensurate with 

many appellate bodies across the country. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Were you triple counting in 1991 as described 

here? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. We count transfer jurisdiction. So appeals are in 

a process where they may come back to the Board, and they may 

be the exact same matter or they may be a different matter. And 

they evolve and we track cases that come in in a particular fiscal 

year and dispositions the same way since 1991. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. The question I would have, I am looking 

at a report from your Board dated September 4th. One particular 

Judge Trueba has 24 cases that have been awaiting assignment for 

more than 99 days, awaiting assignment. Can you describe what is 

occurring and explain that? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Certainly. We have a large number of cases in our 

possession. We put them in our case storage if they are paper. We 

have a lot more cases coming in electronically. And we track them 

in their docket order. They are assigned in docket order. And docket changes daily. As I indicate in my opening statement, there are 

certain categories of cases that we are very limited in our ability 

to move around the Board, such as case in which a hearing was 

held by a particular individual which is probably the case with 

Judge Trueba. Those cases may only be disposed of by Judge 

Trueba under the law and may not be reassigned to other individuals. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Well as I understood, though, this was awaiting 

assignment, but you believe it is just awaiting the judge, maybe 

just a signature? Is this the case here? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
29 

Ms. ESKENAZI. No, no, no. Those would be waiting for—well 

again, I am not familiar with exactly what you have in your hand. 

But cases come to the Board and then they await send-up to a 

judge depending on their place in the docket and depending upon 

if they have to go to a specific individual. Then an attorney is assigned the case to draft a tentative decision, and then it goes to the 

reviewing judge who would review it, ensure that the decision is in 

compliance with the law—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Well that is what I am trying to understand. 

This is a report to maybe look at later. But there are, there is 

Larkin, Graham, Crawford, Markey, Clementi, Strawman, Kane, 

they have one, two, or three waiting. And but you have this one 

particular judge with 24 cases that are 100 days or more. I am trying to understand. They are still waiting on assignment, as I understand that. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Yes and—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. So they are just, what does the judge have to 

do to assign the case? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Cases are sent from our storage unit in docket 

order for assignment, and again certain cases can only go to certain 

individuals under the law. I would be happy to take a look at the 

report that you have and provide some more explanation. I think 

that it is indicative of, that is a small universe of, we have a large 

number of cases—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Well for the one, two, three, 24 veterans, they 

do not care about your universe, ma’am. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I understand. I agree with you completely. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. But the docket numbers, if you are assigning 

that way then you are not taking them out of order? They are not 

coming as they, they get held up based on the judge? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. We get new cases in every day and sometimes—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. How many outstanding cases do you have then? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. We have—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. How many veterans? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. We have 40,000 cases at the Board, and about 

60,000 that are in our jurisdiction, and 20,000 of them are in transit towards us at the Board. And it is a constantly changing number. It does not undervalue the fact that we put out 52,000 cases 

so far this year and when I stood before my staff last summer we 

had 47,000 appeals on hand and we have already surpassed what 

we had at that time. The problem is there is a lot more in the pipeline coming our way. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. So, and Mr. Chairman, I apologize, so if I understand correctly what you are saying here is in one year you are 

moving through an entire year’s backlog coming? There is not an 

excess beyond a year in terms of the numbers waiting? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. And there is a lot more coming, we are aware of 

that. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Coming from where in the system? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Appeals start at the Veterans Benefits Administration. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Sure. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
30 

Ms. ESKENAZI. And many are resolved at that level. And ones 

that are not resolved at those earlier appeals steps do make their 

way to the Board. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Then one last clarification, Mr. Chairman. The 

time period we are talking about, the wait, that starts when it first 

gets to the, your Board? Or when it started at the prior? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. An appeal is, an appeal begins when a veteran 

disagrees with the decision—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. When does the count start? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. It depends on what you are looking at. The appeal 

starts when the veteran expresses their disagreement with the 

VBA claims decision. The appeal starts, it goes through many different steps. If they still disagree and they perfect their appeal by 

filing a substantive appeal, that preserves their place in line for 

coming to the Board. And that is the point that we use to manage 

our workload. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Huelskamp. Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Eskenazi, there 

have been concerns raised with the screening process known as 

rocket docket. What are your thoughts on the pilot program? And 

will VBA be looking to expand the use of this method? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. That is a great question. When I first became Executive in Charge 14 months ago and we knew that with the volume coming our way that doing things the same old way was not 

going to help our veterans. And we thought it was prudent to look 

at every law available to us and make sure that we were not 

underlooking, overlooking a provision. There is a provision that 

Congress enacted in 1994, 38 U.S.C. 7107(f) which permits the 

Board, an exception to docket order to look at cases out of docket 

order to screen them. And if the record is inadequate to actually 

remand it to VBA to get that needed evidence. And if the case 

comes back in theory the case will be ready for a judge to actually 

decide it, rather than having waited all this time to then get to a 

judge only to have to be remanded. This law had never been used 

in my 19 years at the Board and we decided to pilot to see if we 

could save any wait time for veterans. We looked at 47,000—I am 

sorry. 4,700 appeals through the period of November and May. And 

out of those 4,700 we remanded approximately 1,100 or 1,200 

under the rocket docket to get that development completed. And I 

am happy to report that 60 of those veterans approximately have 

had benefits granted in full at the appeals management center and 

those cases are out of the inventory now and the benefits are in 

the hands of those veterans. 

One of the constraints with the program is that we found that 

it was challenging to screen an appeal effectively and not be simply 

working the appeal. And so we did look for groups of cases that 

were, had smaller numbers of issues with the view that that is 

something that someone could quickly screen and look for an 

undebatable development. In other words, we are looking to see 

where we can grant benefits. We would like to grant them where 

we can for these veterans. But where something is needed we are 

trying to save wait time. Again, it was a pilot for a limited period 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
31 

of time. It affected less than three percent of the Board’s overall 

output this year. And I am very appreciative of the comments that 

have come forward in this hearing and talking with our stakeholders. We did pause the program at the end of May and whether 

we resume it remains to be seen. Right now we are just analyzing—— 

Mr. TAKANO. So they were a very small portion, three percent of 

the entire caseload, and you have paused the program. What are 

your thoughts on the allegations that this program was used to manipulate outcomes? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I disagree with that statement because this really 

was an effort to try and save veterans wait time. Our veterans are 

waiting too long to receive the benefits that they deserve and to receive appeals decisions. And there is a lot of remands in the department today. And we are trying to just be as efficient as possible in saving veterans wait time when evidence is needed. But 

again, it was a pilot, very limited in scope. And whether we continue it remains to be seen. 

Mr. TAKANO. Ms. Kordich detailed what she called shifting of old 

languishing cases around in the front office to reset the calculation 

of how many days an appeal may have been in one location. How 

do you respond to this description, and was it accurate? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I disagree with that description. Again referencing 

back to a time two and a half years ago under prior Acting Chairman Keller’s leadership there was some workload challenges in 

May 2012 and some appeals were not moving as fast as they 

should. And it is difficult to tell from that report on its own. Yet 

no veteran should have to wait and that is why we are working on 

ways to address processes in which we can help veterans receive 

the benefits that they deserve in a more timely fashion. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well there have been some, what about the organizational climate at the BVA? There have been some harsh criticisms expressed here by employees of the Board. Were you aware, 

I mean, can you respond to those criticisms? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Absolutely. I was very, you know, I have worked 

at the Board for quite some time. And there were some organizational climate challenges in past years. And that is why when I became Executive in Charge one of the first things I did is address 

the issue of organizational climate. And over the course of my 14 

months I have put a number of measures in place. Last fall the 

Board staff participated in a VA all-employee survey and we had 

a 92 percent participation rate in that survey. And that was increasing it from the prior year when there was only a 12 percent 

response rate. We were able to get meaningful data at how employees think we are doing our job. And I did not just get the data and 

put it in a, you know, tuck it away, I immediately met with my 

management team and I have continued to meet with them over 

the course of the year to look at how we were graded and see where 

we can make improvements. I also put together an all-employee 

survey focus group that has been meeting since April. They presented 13 ideas to management in August and management agreed 

with every single one of the employee drive suggestions. We look 

forward to implementing all of those and we have had a number 

of other focus groups with the judges, an organizational climate 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
32 

group, we have provided training, I have done countless things to 

address climate. And I think that we have made improvements but 

we still have work to do. 

Mr. TAKANO. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Dr. Roe. 

Dr. ROE. I thank the chairman. Do you have a picture of the veterans on those cases when they come? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. No, we do not. 

Dr. ROE. Maybe you should. And what you are dealing with there 

is a, and let me tell you what I hear at home. What I saw here 

was, and I am not going to call this person’s name out again, but 

documentation from your office shows that the Chief Counsel of 

Operations in your office held a case for 397 days before finally 

signing it. It took a total of 606 days to process the case. And I 

guess this is after it got to the Board. And you explained, as I understood it when you first started your testimony, that this, he was 

very busy and did not have time. That is the lamest excuse I have 

ever heard in my life. And what I hear veterans tell me is that, 

doc, I think they are just hoping I will die. They will not, I do not 

hear anything. And after 600 days I can kind of understand why 

a veteran would feel that way. That is absolutely not an excuse, I 

did not have time to sign a piece of paper to get this veteran, and 

I would like to have that person stand in front of that veteran’s 

family, as I have had to do for 30 years, and take responsibility for 

what I do. When I got out of the operation room I had to go look 

that family in the eye and talk to them. There is no picture. Nobody were held accountable. There are people waiting at home to 

pay their light bill for these cases. These are people we are talking 

about. And you should have to look at that. And somebody who 

waited two years ought to have to go in front of that veteran and 

their family and look them in the eye and say it was me that did 

that. I am the one that created that problem and did not, and I 

am not going to call this person’s name out. They are probably a 

really nice person. I probably would like them. But my point is is 

that this has been going on too long. And the veteran starts to 

count on when their piece of paper is, the day they lick the stamp 

and send it out the front door, not the day you get it. So it may 

have been in the pipeline three, four, five years to get adjudicated. 

And I cannot for the life of me understand why anything would 

take that long. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I agree that no veteran should have to wait 

lengthy periods of time to receive their appeals decision. 

Dr. ROE. But they are. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. And they, they need to receive not only timely appeals decisions but accurate appeals decisions as we have heard in 

the testimony earlier today. And the Board staff are very committed to doing that work. We have a process that is very densely 

set in law. And that is why we are really looking forward to continuing to work with the VSOs and the committees to look at ways 

that we can offer veterans choices and put the decision in the 

hands of the veteran as to do you want to go this route or do you 

want to go this route to a quicker decision? 

Dr. ROE. My time is running out. But you think, this particular 

person got $21,000 in bonuses. And they may have deserved them, 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
33 

I do not know. But it would be hard for me to look at a veteran 

if it took 600 days and say, oh, this person that worked on your 

case got a bonus but it took you 600 days when you did not have 

any money, nothing to pay your bills with. And I have got, the 

other thing Dr. Huelskamp was talking about this a minute ago. 

It is a case a person. In other words, there is a difference between 

cases if they are getting counted two or three times, or when you 

tell me 50,000, is that 50,000 people? Or is that 50,000 times somebody has touched this case and done something with it? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. That is 50,000 veterans. 

Dr. ROE. So it is, so when you said last year it is 50,000, 47,000 

or whatever the number was, it was a huge number, were adjudicated and cleared, those are people? Not just—— 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Those are people. There are many more issues on 

top of that. Each one of those people may come to the table with 

one, two, three, or more issues. 

Dr. ROE. I certainly understand that. But that is a closed case? 

That is not one where a veteran, like we hear these counts of two 

or three times where these numbers look better, but that is an actual veteran? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Again, we have tracked our output the same way 

since 1991. We track dispositions. It is a jurisdictional tracking 

process. And we track whether the matter is allowed, denied, or remanded. And we really are focused on serving as many veterans 

as we can in a fiscal year while maintaining high quality in that 

process. 

Dr. ROE. I, look I appreciate that. This is not easy, what you are 

doing. I certainly, I have been to Detroit and looked at the central 

records there for several years, and my goodness. I mean, it is 

mind-boggling how much paper you all have to go through. And I 

know it is a tremendous amount of work. But there is a person at 

the end of that sheet of paper. And there is, and I think about 

these guys and gals that crawled around in the mud, and been shot 

at, and eaten bad food, and missed Christmas with their families, 

and missed their children being born serving this country. And 

many of them had horrific injuries. And many of them did not 

make it back. You do not have to worry about them, the ones that 

did not make it back. But it is incumbent on us to serve the ones 

who did make it back. And I want a commitment here today that 

I do not want to be sitting here a year from now and hearing that 

some veteran had 600 days that they had to wait I guess just in 

the time it got to the Board to get this adjudicated. My time is expired. I am, thanks for the indulgence. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Dr. Roe. Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For Ms. Eskenazi, when 

I get a report on outstanding appeals in the Waco VBA Regional 

Office are those appeals within your jurisdiction? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. No, they are not. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. So when I, so they will say we have so many appeals pending, and one of them, they will tell me how many are 

in NOD status, or notice of disagreement, Form 9, and then a certain number in remand. Those, when we are talking about remanding that is a different number than the one that we are talking 

about? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
34 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Correct. That is under the auspices of the Under 

Secretary for Benefits. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Great. Okay. When we were discussing earlier 

with the prior panel the express appeals act, or perhaps some other 

bill that might address overall wait times and for veterans who 

have claims under appeal, anything that you want to add to that 

discussion from your perspective? What we should be talking about 

or thinking about? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Yes. This process is very unique compared to any 

system I have ever seen. It is a, on one hand you can argue that 

this process provides the veterans countless avenues of due process 

and the department is charged with assisting the veteran in substantiating his or her claim for benefits. There is an open record 

and we are required at the very last point in the appeals process 

to accept new evidence. And if that evidence indicates that a medical condition has changed to get an updated examination, which 

may require sending the case back to have an examination undertaken and to have the case then readjudicated at that first level 

before it comes back to the Board. That is the one right to review 

on appeal to the Secretary. This is a process that, as I stated, has 

been built up over 80 years. And it is in dire need of taking a hard 

look at the laws that we have in place and looking at what we can 

agree upon in the process by way of improvement to give veterans 

faster yet quality decisions. And the VA has been very 

participatory with, the House hosted a round table back in October, 

we participated in a round table in March before the Senate, and 

we have been meeting regularly with our VSO partners. 

There are many different ways to approach this. And what we 

all need to do is keep the focus on why we are here, which is the 

veteran. And we need to be continuing to keep that in the forefront 

so faster still is quality. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Another related question. You made a comment 

earlier, you reminded us that, you know, a lot of this is heavily set 

in law. That was your phrase. And so since you are in the business 

of laws what is your, you said there were several recommendations 

that you had sent to us. Could you highlight the critical one that 

would make the difference that would free you from some laws that 

prohibit you from innovating or doing things more quickly? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Certainly. One proposal that we have sent forward over a number of years and has had some discussion is a proposal to allow the Board to schedule video teleconference hearings. 

Right now we have to wait for veterans to elect a video hearing. 

And we are still sending some of our 65 judges around the country, 

sometimes to Manila, to conduct the face to face hearings with our 

veterans. And certainly that is a wonderful opportunity to have 

that face to face meeting with our veteran, to shake the hand, to 

meet the family, and we love that opportunity. At the same time 

it is resource intensive, it is time intensive to send our judges 

around the country because we have hearings represent about 25 

percent of our workload and we have a lot of other decision work 

to do. So the video teleconference legislation that we have put forward and it has had some discussion we really would be very 

happy to see that put into place. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Great. Thank you. I appreciate it. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
35 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you for being here, Ms. Eskenazi. I appreciate that. And I also appreciate at last some of these concrete 

things that we can do. And this is one we have heard for quite 

some time that I think makes sense in a modern world and some 

things that we can get done, try to get it fixed. You listened to the 

first panel and I get at the heart of this, that we know we have 

got veterans, we have got a legal process in there, we want fairness, we want to make sure that the claims are correct and all 

that. But I keep coming back to, because of course there is, we cannot separate, I understand they are totally different agencies, VHA, 

and things like that. But in the public’s mind, what Dr. Roe and 

others keep coming back to, it is about the veterans, it is not about 

numbers, it is not about all that. And understand our position on 

this. When we have whistleblower here, and you disagree with the 

position where it is at, and then you tell me data bout satisfaction 

or whatever, data is the one thing in this committee we are very, 

very skeptical of. Because they were meeting their goals in Phoenix 

too prior to everything happening. So my question is how beyond 

what you said of people coming and the satisfaction rating, how do 

you break this down? Or is this an outlier? Is this someone who 

is an outlier in the case? Or how do you respond to that? Because 

those are pretty damning comments that somebody is sitting there 

not caring and shutting down the folks, the attorneys that are trying to get this done. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Absolutely. And that is not something that just 

turns overnight. I think cultural change takes quite a bit of time 

and a lot of work. I think that we have put a lot of great things 

in place at the Board during my 14 months as Executive in Charge. 

But clearly we are not there yet. Our Secretary is very committed 

to hearing constructive criticism, as am I, from all stakeholders. 

Ultimately we need to get it right for the veteran and we need to 

hear. 

I mean, when I first heard about this hearing for example the 

first thing I did is send a note out to my entire staff providing 

them once again, the third time in three months, the no fear whistleblower protection rights that they have, and saying, look, we 

need to celebrate our successes and where we can do better we 

need to welcome our staff to feel safe to come forward and provide 

this constructive criticism. I actually met with Ms. Kordich in a 

very small group last week. The position of senior counsel has a 

very unique vantage point in our work at the Board and met with 

them around the table, went around one by one, and I said there 

is this hearing coming up, very concerned about the original title, 

‘‘Data Manipulation and Mismanagement.’’ And I said is there anything that you are aware of that we can work to do better? So Ms. 

Kordich did not bring to me all the things that she brought today, 

but I really look forward to setting a meeting with her and having 

more of a dialogue. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. And again, I welcome all types of feedback, the 

good, the bad, the ugly. 

Mr. WALZ. Is that the normal chain of command? I mean is this 

something, and she has got a chain of command, but if she is out 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
36 

of it do they, do you think she felt like she knew she could just 

come to you and get this done? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I hope so. But clearly if people do not think that 

I need to work harder on that. 

Mr. WALZ. Would that help if the Chair of the Board were confirmed and in this? Or is this something, is that irrelevant to what 

we are doing? You know, we said we had this opening, she talked 

about there is an opening with the Chair? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Yes, certainly that position has been vacant since 

February, 2012. I think that the right type of leadership can certainly—— 

Mr. WALZ. So two things there. Either that is a totally irrelevant 

position that should be eliminated, or somebody is really messing 

this up. And so my take on this is I do not know how to go home 

and explain something like that. Especially, I mean and candidly, 

is it just politics holding this up? I mean, and all of us are part 

of that. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I mean, I am not involved in that process. Obviously that is a political process. I can say that I have only been in 

this capacity in the past 14 months and during that time we have 

put a lot of good measures in place. And I am very proud of the 

work that our staff has done. We do have a lot of hardworking staff 

and I do not want to undervalue that statement. I mean, our staff 

have really pulled through this year. And many of them are veterans or family members of veterans. In fact just last month I supported a staff driven request to have what we call a veterans service forum, where the staff were meeting on a regular basis and putting, just educating others who may not have served on active duty 

about what it is like to serve on active duty. And I am very supportive of all these employee driven initiatives. 

Mr. WALZ. I agree. And I appreciate it. And I think that is the 

right way. I think you know this too, and it keeps coming back up. 

This is a zero sum proposition, though. If one veteran is waiting 

for four years that is what the story is going to be. So we have to, 

I mean, this has to be beyond six sigma. I mean, that has to be 

your goal. And I know that is a challenge. I guess our take is on 

this is there any way to, you know, triage and spot check that? 

Dang, if they are waiting for a signature personally walk over 

there and grab it and carry it to the judge and say finish this one 

now? I mean, legally are you tied that you cannot do that from 

docket order? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. We do triage wait times within the Board. We 

have a number of internal management tools that we use. We are 

very mindful of the fact that staff, you know, we do not want to 

pressure our staff. We want them to feel safe to do quality work 

and meet their production goals. 

Mr. WALZ. I agree. I agree. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. But we do monitor that to make sure that, I 

mean, right now we have a database that is basically based on people entering data into it. And sometimes we need to constantly 

check what is in the database and make sure that no veteran’s 

work has gone, you know, neglected. And that is why I put in the 

report in December of ranking every single case under the Board’s 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
37 

jurisdiction and looking at it to see if there is any gaps or pitfalls 

and how we can assist. 

Mr. WALZ. I appreciate it. And that technology, that is a whole 

other giant can of worms. Of why you are using an outdated piece 

of software when you have been given billions to not have that happen. That is another time. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Very quickly, Ms. Eskenazi, according to the interviews from the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee staff to 

Ms. Kordich, her testimony was to the effect that she took the 

issues to the union representatives and the union representatives 

had taken her complaints to your office. Is that correct? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I meet regularly with our partners in AFSCME 

17. Actually we were supposed to meet with them this Monday and 

that meeting did not take place. And whenever they raise concerns, 

I am not aware of, you know, some of these things we have talked 

about before. And we look forward to continuing to partner with 

them. Our union representatives represent the bargaining unit 

members of the Board. But we are happy to talk to them about any 

of our staff or any concerns that anyone has. I appreciate the feedback. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Well again, my understanding is that no action 

was taken on the complaints given. Can you elaborate on that? No 

action was taken by you on the complaints brought forward to you 

via union representatives? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Which complaints in particular? 

Mr. COFFMAN. That of Ms. Kordich, that she testified on today. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Yes, I just saw her testimony today coming to this 

committee and there are many things in there, some of them I had 

not seen before. But again, I look forward to meeting with her or 

any others in the union, anyone at the Board, to continue to discuss these issues. 

Mr. COFFMAN. It is my understanding also that by law you can 

certainly take a course, I mean, take a case out of the docket sequence, but you cannot adjudicate a case outside the docket sequence and yet you have been doing that to make the numbers look 

better. I wonder if you could comment on that? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. By law we are required to adjudicate appeals in 

the order in which they are placed on the docket, which is commensurate with the point in time at the VBA level. We have certain 

exceptions to put in front of the line case, veterans over the age 

of 75, veterans with severe illness or financial hardship, homeless 

veterans, and we do that regularly. We have a docket that changes 

everyday and we try to adhere to that, again using kind of manual 

processes and antiquated databases. Under the rocket docket program cases were taken out of docket order legitimately to prescreen 

to get the development that may be needed to get the case more 

ready to go to a judge. There were a small number of cases that 

were actually adjudicated during that process out of docket order. 

But for the most part they were allowances where somebody had 

screened the case—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. But what does for the most part mean? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. It means that there was about 400 that were decided out of docket order and the majority of those were actually 

allowances. So rather than putting the case back on the shelf—— 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
38 

Mr. COFFMAN. So to your knowledge there was no violations of 

law in that your employees took a case out of order and adjudicated 

that case in violation of current law? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I am sorry, could you repeat that again? 

Mr. COFFMAN. That to your knowledge then there is no evidence 

that you are not aware that cases were taken out of sequence in 

violation of current law and adjudicated? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Cases were taken out of sequence for purposes of 

prescreening—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. In violation of current law? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. There were some cases that were allowed out of 

docket order. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And so to your knowledge no cases in violation of 

current law were taken out of docket order and adjudicated? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I just said there were some that were allowed out 

of docket order, yes. 

Mr. COFFMAN. You are saying that that was within current law? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Again, there were some, a small number of cases 

that had been identified for the rocket docket screening. And rather 

than remand those cases, the—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. I am going to take it that that is in violation of 

current law. Very well. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Benefits were allowed for those veterans in a 

small number of cases. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Ranking Member Kirkpatrick. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. I just have one question. I am really just trying to grasp the magnitude of this problem. Given your existing 

staffing and your existing resources, if you did not get another appeal, this is hypothetical I know. But if another appeal did not 

come in and you just had your existing caseload, how long would 

it take you to adjudicate your current caseload? No new cases. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. That is a great question. The Board’s inventory 

today, and this is both physically at the Board and in transit from 

VBA, is approximately 60,000 appeals. Given that in this past fiscal year we had dispositions of 52,000 appeals we could probably 

clear that inventory in just over a year using that same type of 

methodology. Keep in mind that a large number of the dispositions 

that we do at the Board are not final decisions. They are situations 

in which a circumstance has changed and we have to send back the 

appeal. So ordering perhaps a new examination to try and see if 

something can be obtained to substantiate that veteran’s appeal. So 

built into this very unique appeals process that we have for veterans benefits law is a natural redevelopment cycle. And it is very 

unique among other legal systems that we have a system in which 

there is still an open record at the very end and still development 

work. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Factor in that in your wait time. I mean, I 

am just trying to think from the veteran’s perspective. So you said 

you have got so many cases right now, no new ones come in, I 

mean completely adjudicating the case so the veteran knows 

whether or not their claim has been processed. How long will that 

take? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Yes. And again, I want to restate my statement 

that no veteran should have to wait. I would like to turn to my 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
39 

Chief Counsel for Policy who just started at the Board a couple of 

years ago, came from the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims, and has studied this very unique process in depth for 

many, many years. And he is an expert on this topic of this unique 

process. Mr. Ridgeway. 

Mr. RIDGEWAY. Sure. If you assume that we got no additional 

new cases we would have to do a regression analysis of what would 

happen to our current inventory. And historically what we would 

see is that about half of those cases would be resolved and then 

some veterans would have at least some of their issues remanded, 

and we would get about a third of those back. And then you would 

assume that, you know, half of those would get resolved, there 

would be more remands and then a third of them would come back. 

And so the number would go down from 60,000 to 20,000 to 7,000, 

just doing the math in my head. But that would still even with the 

regression be probably close to a little under two years, I would 

think, if I do the math. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Huelskamp, and then other members who 

have questions, I will entertain those questions. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might follow on 

this question of the very long outstanding case with Mr. Hachey, 

and who was very busy for many, many days, who did receive a 

significant bonus I guess because of his business. But why did it 

take Mr. Hachey 250 days to return this case to the attorney? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Sir, I would have to look into the circumstances 

of that individual case. Mr. Hachey is one of the brightest employees at the Board. And every case at the Board does not necessarily 

move at the same rate of time and you have to look into the individual case to ascertain exactly the circumstances of that specific 

case. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. I cannot even fathom, 250 days? Just a wild 

guess of why—— 

Ms. ESKENAZI. We do have, we do have—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Let me understand, if I could. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Certainly. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. So you have got to go in order, as I understand 

that. I presume during that 250 days he took every case out of 

order on top of it? Is that right? Or did he, he was doing other 

cases, right? For 250 days, I assume he was doing other cases, 

right? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. He has many other duties besides adjudicating 

appeals. That is an ancillary duty for the position that he holds. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. If he worked on other cases was he taking them 

out of order, then? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Cases are distributed from our central case storage, and that is the point at which they are coming out of order. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. No, the question is was he taking them out of 

order? I presume he was not working on one case for 250 days. Is 

that correct? I mean, he got a significant bonus. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I am not aware of him taking cases out of order. 

There are certain circumstances—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. That is what I am trying to understand. I presume he did do one case and take 250 days. He took one case, put 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
40 

it on his desk somewhere, or in the file, and he worked others, and 

then decided I am going to go back and do Mr. Cisneros. That is 

what I understand. What happened here? And if you can get back 

to me as well. And Mr. Ridgeway, we handed you that listing of 

the one judge that was waiting. Do you have any comment on that? 

That is your report, not ours. So can you describe why there is 24 

cases waiting on this judge for over 100 days? 

Mr. RIDGEWAY. This is not a report that I generate or I use. This 

is a tool that is used by other parts of the Board, so it is not one 

that I am competent to speak of. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Certainly I am happy to speak to this report. This 

is a report that was, we have many internal management reports. 

This is a report that is looking at how long a case has been in a 

particular location for individuals to ensure work flow and it is a 

management tool used so that when there are spikes in the numbers you can go to the person with that case and say what is going 

on in this particular situation? Is there something that you need 

assistance with to get this work done? As I indicated, there are certain cases that by law can only be decided by certain individuals, 

when a hearing is held. And that is why as I start the fiscal year 

and I am setting the hearing schedule for this year I ordered that 

for people that had certain levels of cases that only they could decide that they not be doing hearings for some time, since those 

hearing cases can only be decided by that judge. So we also have 

to understand that there are certain situations—— 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. I do not want to—— 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Sure. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP [continuing]. Take up everybody’s time with a 

long explanation. I just want an answer to why that judge is sitting 

on 24 cases. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Are there any further questions? 

Dr. ROE. Just one brief one. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Dr. Roe. 

Dr. ROE. We have got to go vote. I do not think you ever answered the chairman’s question. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Okay. 

Dr. ROE. Ms. Kordich went to the union. The union did or did 

not come to you with a complaint, and you did or you did not address those complaints? Now is that, now that, I never did hear you 

answer his question. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. There are—— 

Dr. ROE. There were issues she had. She addressed those issues 

through the avenue that she knew, which was through her union 

representative. Did that person come to you, or persons? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. I have not specifically discussed Ms. Kordich with 

the union. Some of the issues Ms. Kordich raised I discussed with 

the union, but I have not been made aware that they came from 

Ms. Kordich. 

Dr. ROE. Okay. So okay—— 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Today she—— 

Mr. ROE [continuing]. You just, okay, I got it. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Rocket docket I discussed with the union on a 

number of occasions. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
41 

Dr. ROE. You did not know it came directly from her? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. That was not brought to me, no. 

Dr. ROE. And that is all I wanted to know. Okay, that makes 

sense. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Takano, please quickly. 

Mr. TAKANO. Quickly, Ms. Eskenazi, you said rocket docket you 

discussed a number of occasions with the union. Why? Why was it 

such a subject of discussion? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Well we have obligations under the contract in 

the department to raise matters with the union when it may be 

considered a change in working conditions and we interpret that 

very broadly. And every time we are about to start any type of a 

new program, even the poster contest that was referenced here earlier, we do a memo describing what we are about to do, provide 

that to the union, and offer them an opportunity to discuss. Sometimes they do step forward and we discuss the matter. Other times 

they receive the memo and they do not discuss. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well my question is they were not bringing up objections to the fact that cases might be adjudicated out of order? 

That was not any part of what they were complaining about? 

Ms. ESKENAZI. They had some concerns about the metrics used 

to select the cases for screening. And we used cases that had one 

or two issues and reasonable volumes in order to gain efficiencies 

in the screening process. 

Mr. TAKANO. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Anyone else? Our thanks to the panel. You are 

now excused. 

Today we have had a chance to hear about many problems and 

abuses occurring within the Board of Veterans’ Appeals related to 

the processing of veterans benefits claims. From the testimony provided and questions asked today I am alarmed at the excessive 

delays of our veterans claims and the length the BVA will go in 

order to hide that fact. As such this hearing was necessary to accomplish a number of goals. First, to identify the tactics being implemented by the BVA to hide excessive delays in processing veterans claims. Second, to require VA officials to explain their actions 

with regard to this manipulation of data. And third, to determine 

what steps are being taken or will be taken to correct these issues 

and improve the processing of veterans claims. I ask unanimous 

consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and 

extend their remarks and include extraneous material. Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses and audience members for 

joining us here today on this critical issue. 

Ms. ESKENAZI. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANN KIRKPATRICK, RANKING MEMBER

Thank You, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on this important topic. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for coming today to appear before the subcommittee. 

Over the last number of months we have become increasingly concerned that in 

the months and years ahead, we may be facing a new crisis with veterans waiting 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
42 

too long for decisions on their appealed claims for benefits. This is a critical concern 

to all of us, and having a hearing on the board of veterans’ appeals is long overdue. 

I am concerned about the number of complaints and letters from various sources 

who have made significant allegations that employees may be attempting to game 

the system, are providing poor leadership, or that the electronic processing system, 

VBMS, of which taxpayers have invested hundreds of millions, is not performing 

adequately at the appeal level. Indeed, VBMS may not be ready for prime time. 

We must be assured that the data we get is accurate and represents the reality 

faced by our veterans. As we saw in Phoenix, this is essential not only for our oversight purposes, but to ensure that senior VA leadership has an accurate picture in 

order to provide leadership, plan for increased appeals in the future, and ensure the 

appropriate resources and tools are applied to address the problems as they exist 

before we face another crisis. 

I routinely hear from veterans in my district and in Arizona. They tell me that 

they are waiting years to receive a decision on their appeals. This is unacceptable. 

Our veterans deserve better. 

This is what we are all focused on today—how to address the real delay faced by 

veterans. I think we can all agree that more needs to be done and that there is a 

real concern that we may be exchanging a backlog crisis for an appeals crisis. 

Nationally, the average length of time to receive a decision on an appeal in FY 

2013 was 960 days—nearly three years. Since then, the number of appeals has continued to grow. BVA projects a nearly 20% increase in the number of cases received 

at the board this year alone. As the VA continues to adjudicate claims more quickly, 

we should only anticipate the number of appeals waiting for a decision to increase. 

This means that without further action, our veterans will be forced to wait even 

longer for a decision on their appeals. 

Another factor leading to additional delays is that almost half of the cases sent 

to the board are remanded back to the VA for additional evidence or due to errors 

on the part of VA. A remand adds nearly a year to the time it takes for a veteran 

to receive a decision. To veterans who have already waited patiently through the 

VA backlog, a period nearing four years for a decision on an appeal is intolerable. 

Solutions are needed to ensure that we begin to reduce these delays and to ensure 

that the delay in appeals is not the next big crisis. I am hopeful that today’s hearing 

will provide us with the opportunity to begin to identify solutions. 

I am particularly interested in hearing from Congressman O’Rourke about a voluntary alternative appeals process he developed with DAV. This may be one solution to decrease the amount of time our veterans must wait for decisions on their 

appeals. 

Another solution may be that more data is needed, not just better data. Congress, 

VA, veterans, and VSOS should all trust the quality of the data we are getting, and 

be satisfied that the data we are getting provides us with the information we need. 

I wish to thank the American Legion for emphasizing this in its testimony. VA 

provides an extensive amount of weekly data on VBA claims. By comparison, the 

board of veterans’ appeals provides an annual report. I hope that we can begin the 

discussion today on how we can provide veterans with a better understanding of 

where we should be with regards to reaching timely outcomes on appeals. 

Simply put, veterans should receive better timelines and information than they 

currently get and congress should be receiving more frequent updates on the performance of BVA. Providing more comprehensive and accurate data will better enable us to provide oversight and work with BVA to find solutions to problems before 

these problems reach crisis status. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
43 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 96129.001
44 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 96129.002
45 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 96129.003
46 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 96129.004
47 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 96129.005
48 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 96129.006
49 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 96129.007
50 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 96129.008
51 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 96129.009
52 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 96129.010
53 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 96129.011
54 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 96129.012
55 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 96129.015
56 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 96129.016
57 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 96129.017
58 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 96129.018
59 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 96129.019
60 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 96129.020
61 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 96129.021
62 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 96129.022
63 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 96129.023
64 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 96129.024
65 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 96129.025
66 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 96129.026
67 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 96129.027
68 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 96129.028
69 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 96129.029
70 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 96129.030
71 

Æ 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 96129.031