U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–374 WASHINGTON : 2019

APPEALS REFORM: WILL VA’S IMPLEMENTATION 

EFFECTIVELY SERVE VETERANS? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2018 

Serial No. 115–46 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee, Chairman 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American 

Samoa 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

NEAL DUNN, Florida 

JODEY ARRINGTON, Texas 

JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

JACK BERGMAN, Michigan 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto 

Rico 

TIM WALZ, Minnesota, Ranking Member 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

KATHLEEN RICE, New York 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

KILILI SABLAN, Northern Mariana Islands 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

JON TOWERS, Staff Director 

RAY KELLEY, Democratic Staff Director 

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. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, January 30, 2018 

Page 

Appeals Reform: Will VA’s Implementation Effectively Serve Veterans? ........... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Honorable David P. Roe, Chairman ....................................................................... 1 

Honorable Timothy J. Walz, Ranking Member ..................................................... 3 

Honorable Elizabeth Esty, Member, House of Representatives .......................... 4 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Thomas G. Bowman, Deputy Secretary, U. S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs ............................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 46 

Accompanied by: 

The Honorable Cheryl L. Mason, Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals, 

U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. David R. McLenachen, Director, Appeals Management Office, Veterans Benefits Administration, U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. David J. Barrans, Chief Counsel, Benefits Law Group, Office of 

General Counsel, U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 49 

Accompanied by: 

Ms. Elizabeth H. Curda, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income 

Security Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Mr. Jim Marszalek, National Service Director, Disabled American Veterans ... 32 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 69 

Ms. Diane Boyd Rauber, Esq., Executive Director, National Organization 

of Veterans’ Advocates ......................................................................................... 34 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 74 

Mr. Steven Henry, Associate Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of 

America ................................................................................................................. 36 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 77 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD 

The American Legion .............................................................................................. 79 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) ........................................ 81 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO (AFGE) ................. 82 

Whistleblowers of America (WOA) ......................................................................... 84 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

(1) 

APPEALS REFORM: WILL VA’S IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTIVELY SERVE VETERANS? 

Tuesday, January 30, 2018 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. David P. Roe [Chairman 

of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Roe, Bilirakis, Coffman, Wenstrup, 

Radewagen, Bost, Arrington, Bergman, Banks, Walz, Takano, 

Brownley, Kuster, O’Rourke, Rice, Esty, and Peters. 

Also Present: Representative Titus. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF DAVID P. ROE, CHAIRMAN 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The Committee will come to 

order. Thank you all for being here today. 

To begin with, I ask unanimous consent that a former Member 

of the Committee, Ms. Titus, be allowed to sit at the dais and ask 

questions. She has had a great interest in this issue for years. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

This hearing will focus on VA’s implementation of the Veterans 

Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 or, thankfully, we will have the acronym AMA, which substantially reforms 

VA’s appeals process. 

This topic is important to each one of us on this panel. In fact, 

every Member of this Committee is an original cosponsor of the legislation. We all agree that the success of this reform is critical, because the current appeals process is failing veterans miserably. 

Right now, VA has a backlog of more than 470,000 appeals and 

many veterans will end up waiting at least 6 years just for the decision on their appeal. And I can assure you that every one of us 

in our districts are hearing this and every veteran town hall that 

I hear there is much focus on this issue. Veterans and their families deserve better. They deserve to have VA decide their appeals 

accurately and within a reasonable amount of time. 

During the previous Administration, then Secretary McDonald 

brought VSOs and other veterans’ advocates together to develop a 

legislative proposal to address the appeals backlog. Secretary 

Shulkin continued to work with VSOs to improve the original proposal. This Committee took the current proposal and worked on a 

bipartisan basis to get it through the House and sent it to the 

President’s desk, but passing the bill was only the first step. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

2 

We intend to continue to work closely with VA and the stakeholders to ensure that veterans who file an appeal receive an accurate decision in a more timely manner, and we know this will not 

be easy. 

The AMA makes significant changes to the current process and 

VA faces challenges implementing the law by the anticipated effective date. But I am hopeful that the Department is up to this challenge and, because it was VA itself that requested the law’s February 19, 2019 effective date, to help ensure the VA’s implementation of reform uses sound planning processes and practices, and the 

law requires a high level of transparency from VA. 

The first of these reports the comprehensive plan was intended 

to outline how VA expects to transition to the new system, while 

at the same time addressing the backlog of pending appeals. On 

November 23rd, 2017, VA submitted its comprehensive plan outlining its progress and timeline for implementing the new law. Unfortunately, VA’s initial report lacked many details. 

GAO has reviewed VA’s plan and I look forward to hearing the 

Comptroller General’s assessment. In particular, I am looking forward to GAO’s input on how VA can better implement the reform 

so that we can finally have an appeals process that works for our 

Nation’s veterans. 

I am also interested in learning whether there are additional efficiencies that VA can leverage to more effectively and timely process 

the backlog of legacy appeals, a huge deal in most districts. 

VA’s current plan to reduce the existing backlog is to use the authority we gave it to test the new appeals system. VA’s plan is 

called the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program, or RAMP. Under 

RAMP, many veterans who have appeals pending are being given 

the option to withdraw their existing appeal and to transfer to the 

new system. I have several concerns about RAMP, including why 

the board, which has more than 170,000 pending appeals, is not included in the program. Another concern is the lack of veteran participation in RAMP. VA has indicated that the data gathered from 

RAMP will help inform decisions on implementation of the reforms. 

However, according to VA, only 3 percent of eligible veterans have 

chosen to participate in the program. Unless more veterans participate in RAMP, it is hard to see how VA will collect enough data 

to develop an effective plan to successfully implement appeals reform. 

Realistically, VA is running out of time to address these issues 

if the Department hopes to implement the new system by February 

of 2019. In light of the low participation in RAMP, I am hopeful 

that VA will share with us some additional ideas for a data-driven 

approach to prepare for full implementation of the new appeals system. 

I hope that we will be able to have a production discussion on 

ways to assist veterans with legacy appeals and to ensure that the 

transition to the new system will be seamless. 

The Comptroller General, I know that your team has been very 

involved in considering some of the challenges for implementation; 

I am looking forward to your expertise on this issue. Everyone here 

wants the same thing: to develop an appeals process that will give 

veterans accurate and timely decisions on their claims. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

3 

Before we begin the hearing, I want to say that in our last Full 

Committee hearing I mistakenly credited the wrong veterans service organization for helping with the construction of the new Aurora hospital dedicated to treating veterans with spinal cord injuries. And I recently visited that facility and, of the many things 

that are not going right at that facility, this is one of the shining 

stars, I think. It was an incredible visit and I think it is going to 

be one of the—probably, if not one of the best, the best spinal cord 

injury treatment facilities in the world, I absolutely believe that. 

And I wanted to correct the record and personally thank the Paralyzed Veterans of America for their work in Denver and for all they 

do for our veterans. I want to apologize for misspeaking, and look 

forward to continuing the invaluable partnerships and friendships 

we have with our VSO partners. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will now yield to Ranking Member Walz for any 

opening statements that he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY J. WALZ, RANKING 

MEMBER 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

of our witnesses here today for the work that you are doing. 

The Veterans Appeals Improvement Modernization Act that 

passed this Congress is designed to be the most significant reform 

affecting VA disability compensation appeals in a generation. It 

also highlights something that all of us that are here are very 

proud of, is the bipartisan, the bicameral, and this one crossed administrations to get this right for veterans. This is a shining example of when we decide to work together, we decide to put all of our 

resources towards the care of veterans, how things can work. 

I do want to recognize the work of our Subcommittee chair, Mr. 

Bost, and Ranking Member Ms. Esty, who sponsored the original 

bill together, put a tremendous amount of time to get us to this 

point. Both of you are a credit and I, as a veteran, am grateful to 

see your commitment. 

If we get this right, the current, out-of-date system we know is 

not serving veterans we transformed into one that veterans can 

trust fairly and timely, perhaps most of all, respectful of their service. 

Today’s hearing gives us an opportunity for the Committee to 

take a look at how VA is preparing for that February 2019 launch 

when the new system officially rolls out, just 12 months from basically tomorrow. I am hoping today that we are going to hear about 

the plan is on track; performance measures that are in place; one 

that is near and dear to everyone who has been here for any 

amount of time, how the IT is being handled and how it is going 

to interplay with getting this right; authorized staff have been 

hired and trained; regulations are drafted and being vetted with 

VSO stakeholders. 

I want to thank GAO for the work it has done at our request to 

assess how the planning is going. Their report makes it clear that 

key elements are either incomplete or missing. This raises concerns, but I would also like to think that—and we have spoken 

with this and, Deputy Secretary Bowman, we talked and I really 

think the attitude on this is right—a positive step forward and opLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

4 

portunities exist. That is our job. We are 12 months out, we are 

providing oversight, you are working with us. GAO is a partner to 

give us the points. All of those things are how it should work. 

Stakeholder groups are here, the VSOs and NOVA, your input 

has been integral in getting us to this point. Your willingness to 

form the work group 3 years ago and commit to passage of the Appeals Improvement Modernization Act was unprecedented. Those 

who are veterans of this process know this is not an easy thing to 

do and that commitment to getting it right, and I think the Chairman’s commitment as making sure the decisions we make here, 

those most impacted by them, are at the table when we make 

them, that is an honorable place to be. 

The Chairman has held numerous hearings, provided a variety 

of stakeholder opportunities, making sure that during the entire 

process it was transparent, it was inclusive. We were working for 

a common goal and that is something I am grateful for. 

If I could, Mr. Chairman, just for 30 seconds, I would like to 

yield my final bit of time to one of our chief authors, Ms. Esty, the 

gentlewoman from Connecticut, for 30 seconds. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ELIZABETH ESTY 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Ranking Member Walz, for yielding me 

the time to speak a little bit about the Appeals Improvement and 

Modernization Act. 

I was proud to work on this important legislation with my colleague and friend Mr. Bost, and we are all here in the hope that 

this bill and this process is actually going to allow veterans to receive a decision on their appears in a fraction of the time that it 

is currently taking. Whether the news is good or bad, veterans deserve to have certainty about their benefits and they deserve to be 

served by a process they can trust, timeliness, and accuracy. 

And I want to thank the many veterans and advocates who have 

worked with us in crafting this legislation, and you will be key in 

ensuring that this is implemented properly. From what I have read 

from the testimony submitted today, there is a great deal of work 

left to be done. We are going to have many questions regarding resources, timelines, and goals for successful implementation in this 

process, but it is my hope that with all of us working together, that 

is the Committee, that is the VSOs, and that is all of you at the 

table. We can do right by our veterans, get this process moving, get 

it timely, and get it accurate. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank 

the gentlelady. 

Joining us on our first panel is the Honorable Thomas Bowman, 

the Deputy Secretary for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 

he is accompanied by Cheryl Mason, the Chairman of the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals. And welcome to the people’s House, Mr. Bowman, from the Senate side. 

Also the Chairman of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, David 

McLena—I will get that right in a second—McLenachen, the Director of Appeals Management Office at the Veterans Benefits Administration; and by David Barrans, Chief Counsel, Benefits Law 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

5 

Group, of the Office of General Counsel. The Honorable Gene 

Dodaro, the Comptroller General of the United States Government 

Accountability Office; he’s accompanied by Elizabeth Curda, the Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Team for 

GAO. 

Thank you all for being here this morning. 

Deputy Secretary, Mr. Bowman, you are to begin. You are now 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS G. BOWMAN 

Mr. BOWMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Roe, Ranking 

Member Walz, and Members of the Committee. 

Just as you indicated, I won’t go over the names of the individuals who are accompanying me, you have already done that. Thank 

you for inviting us to discuss implementation of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017. 

VA, the Congress, VSOs, and veterans said many times before, 

appeals modernization was long overdue. When legislation was 

passed after an unprecedented collaboration between Congressional 

Committees, veterans service organizations, and the Department. 

We have never seen, at least in my experience, where there has 

been that degree of intense collaboration over a long period of time 

that ultimately resulted in this legislation. 

The new system is easier to understand. Veterans will be able to 

tailor reviews to their needs, and it will provide both faster decisions and greater transparency. 

As we look forward, VA, we believe, is on track for full implementation by February 2019, as the legislation requires. There is 

still a lot of work to be done, as was mentioned, and our implementation strategy is synchronizing efforts across the Department. 

VA is developing and updating IT systems with our digital service partners. We are hiring and training our people, gathering data 

for trend analysis and metric reporting. We have drafted and we 

are reviewing proposed regulations, which I know is of interest to 

the Committee. We hope to publish those regulations, if we can, 

and if they have been appropriately processed as soon as possible, 

but hopefully by the third quarter of the fiscal year. 

VA is tracking progress with timelines and goals, milestones and 

deadlines, that will improve based upon GAO’s recommendations. 

Once implemented, veterans can expect on average processing time 

of 125 days for higher-level reviews and supplemental claims, and 

12 months for appeals to the board when they choose direct review 

of the issue without a hearing or submitting additional evidence. 

The RAMP program: in November we launched our pilot Rapid 

Appeals Modernization Program, or RAMP. Today, RAMP is giving 

veterans whose appeals involve compensation issues the choice to 

opt-in to the new supplemental claim and higher-level review 

lanes. 

With RAMP data, veteran, congressional, and VSO feedback, we 

can refine the processes and correct the problems before full implementation. Over this next year, that is our obligation to work collaboratively not only with GAO, but with the Committee, veterans 

service organizations, and veterans themselves. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

6 

We are intent on shaping a veteran-centric system that is responsive to their needs and preferences. For instance, RAMP 

helped us test and refine decision notices so that they are complete 

and easy to understand. And RAMP will help better estimate workload, design precision metrics to evaluate new processes and forecast resourcing requirements. 

Mr. Chairman, we have always seen appeals modernization in 

two components: needed legislation to look forward and more timely resolution of legacy appeals. So, while implementing the new 

process, we are still squarely focused on accelerating legacy appeal 

resolution. It is an effort we began to initiate well before modernization was passed. 

Last January, we realigned VBA’s administrative appeals program under our Appeals Management Office. The idea being one 

place, one official, for management oversight and accountability. 

That senior official in that position is here today and that is Mr. 

McLenachen. 

With that change, VBA increased appeals production by approximately 24 percent and decreased inventory by 10 percent. And 

VBA resolved over 124,000 appeals during the fiscal year 2017, a 

10-percent increase. 

For its own part, the board is accelerating legacy appeals resolution also. 

They are growing the attorney workforce, re-engineering processes, designing and testing new case review techniques, and 

issuing timelier decisions after hearings. In fact, today the board 

will begin piloting a new interactive decision template that will 

help attorneys in preparing their decisions. 

Thanks to those changes, the board is on target to deliver over 

81,000 decisions this fiscal year, 28,000 more than last fiscal year. 

After implementation, the board will continue maximizing efficiencies and improving technology and processes, and eligible veterans with legacy appeals before the board can choose to opt in to 

the new system. So, both RAMP now and the opt-in choice later 

will let veterans choose the more efficient new system, and that 

will further decrease legacy inventory and provide quicker resolution for all veterans. 

In the area of transparency; transparency is fundamental to rebuilding veterans’ trust. And it is not only trust of veterans that 

we are trying to develop and maintain, but also the trust of Congress, VSOs, stakeholders, and the American public. So we will 

publish metrics for both the new processes and the legacy processes. 

In closing, I would like to make two points. First, Mr. Chairman, 

we want to get this exactly right, as you indicated in your opening. 

It is a period in time that we believe is seminal. We believe we 

have turned a corner after the hard work of 2 years that produced 

this legislation. We will improve during this transition period. 

There will be needs, there will be adjustments, and there will be 

changes as we go forward based upon what we learn during the 

RAMP process. So we welcome recommendations by you, the Committee, and your staffs, any that can be offered. 

We encourage you to visit VBA and the Board. We hope that you 

would see for yourself what they are doing; words don’t do it jusLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

7 

tice. And we ask that you and your field offices tell veteran constituents about the RAMP option. VBA staff in their field offices 

are going to be there, available to you when you need them, to help 

spread the word and educate your constituents. 

Secondly, Secretary Shulkin has been very clear about it, appeals 

modernization is truly transformational because of the greater 

choice it gives veterans in the appeals process, something that has 

not existed until the legislation. It is change VA needs and veterans deserve. We also need truly transformational change in regard to benefits more broadly. The Committee will be very involved 

with this effort as the Secretary looks to the future. 

VA benefits should be about helping veterans achieve a lifetime 

of independence and success; that is economic opportunity, physical 

and mental well being, and financial security for the severely disabled. And veterans should know exactly what to expect when they 

leave the military and transition to the veterans status in a very 

reliable and trustworthy way. 

Lincoln’s pledge in his second inaugural, ‘‘Care for him whom 

shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and for his orphan,’’ 

are words that often are mentioned as a starting point. We are, as 

far as the VA is concerned, the word ‘‘care.’’ This is part of a continuing evolution of the word ‘‘care’’ from that point in time and a 

significant part of the care for veterans is what has been accomplished by this legislation. 

We appreciate the leadership that has been demonstrated by this 

Committee. But before closing, sir, I would like to request formally, 

as we sit here today, even before we have discussed where we are 

with respect to progress not only on RAMP towards February of 

2019, I would like to request that the Committee invite us back before your August break, so we can give you an update and we can 

share with you what changes have occurred. 

We do expect and we will follow through on the obligation on 

quarterly updates, but based upon conversations that I had with 

both the Chairman and the Ranking Member last night, we are 

going to offer our approach that on a monthly basis we have our 

staff interact with your staff to make sure that questions are answered as questions arise and not have to await a later point in 

time. 

We are working against the clock; time is of the essence. VA, the 

Secretary is committed that by February 2019 the implementation 

of the new program is going to be on track and is going to occur. 

Veterans deserve it and we are going to give it to veterans. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. BOWMAN APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bowman, thank you for your testimony, it is 

much appreciated. 

Mr. Dodaro, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GENE L. DODARO 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you, Ranking Member Walz, Members of the Committee. I 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

8 

am very pleased to be here today to discuss GAO’s analysis of VA’s 

appeals reform plan. 

I am very pleased that VA is trying new approaches to this longstanding problem. It has been on our high-risk list since 2003. I 

also want to commend this Committee and the Congress for passing legislation and including in that legislation a set of requirements to guide VA’s planning efforts. 

Now, our analysis of the plan against the legislation requirements showed that VA met 17 of the 22 required elements in the 

plan, partially met four, and did not meet one. Now, some of the 

areas where we found gaps were in the total resources needed to 

implement the new reform plan, as well as the legacy plan; detailed metrics to track progress and to identify issues that needed 

attention; and also a lack of milestones for reducing the legacy appeals in terms of trying to bring down the backlog and the workload. 

We also assessed the plan against sound planning practices the 

GAO has used over the years to evaluate plans across the Federal 

Government. We found that the VA was using certain sound planning practices, but we found also that there were a number of other 

areas that could benefit from better planning practices. 

For example, in the performance management area, VA had not 

included timeliness goals for all the options that are going to be 

used under the new appeals program. Also, there were no measures set in a number of other areas such as the accuracy of the reviews in terms of what was needed to be achieved, the satisfaction 

of the veterans with the new process, or the cost involved. There 

was also not clear articulation of how VA was going to compare the 

new process to the legacy process, and also it was not clear how 

they were going to align resources between the new system and the 

old legacy system while both were in operation over time. 

In terms of project management, there are a number of areas 

that were still missing detailed plans. Most notable, there is not 

yet a complete schedule for implementing the information technology reforms that need to be made to support the appeals decision-making process. 

Also, in terms of managing the risk, one area that we think can 

be improved is that the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program, the 

RAMP program, only tests appeals that go to VBA and not to the 

board. And so that is going to leave a big gap in terms of trying 

to figure out how many veterans might directly appeal to the board 

and not go through the RAMP process. So we have got some suggestions for things that could be done to test that, so that they will 

have full information going into detailed implementation later this 

year. 

So we have a series of recommendations that we will be making 

that will address all these gaps between the law and the plan, gaps 

between the plan and sound planning practices. We believe and 

strongly encourage VA to expeditiously and effectively implement 

our recommendations. We think this will position them to have a 

greater chance for success in providing more timely and efficient 

service to the veterans. And we think if those recommendations are 

not implemented effectively that it increases the risk that this appeals process will not work as intended. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

9 

So I want to assure this Committee, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Walz, and all Members of the Committee, GAO remains 

firmly committed to continuing to assess VA’s efforts in this regard 

and continue to offer constructive suggestions, so that we can 

achieve the outcomes, Mr. Chairman and all share, and that is better service for the veterans. 

So I appreciate the opportunity be here today and look forward 

to responding to questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENE L. DODARO APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

I will now yield myself 5 minutes for questions and I guess I will 

start with Mr. Bowman. You just heard what Mr. Dodaro said; do 

you agree with the GAO’s assessments and are you prepared to 

meet those four or five deficiencies, partial deficiencies and full deficiencies that he mentioned, in a timely fashion? 

Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Chairman, yes, we agree. And I can assure the 

Committee that we are going to be working closely with GAO at 

every step along the way where they come up with what they think 

to be additions to what has already been offered as recommendations. We will follow through unequivocally. 

The CHAIRMAN. And the second question, which is incredibly important, is the technology piece. If you can’t gather and analyze the 

data, we are going to just be whistling in the wind. And when we 

start this, it ramps up full essentially a year from now, this is a 

massive change in how things are done at VA. And with so few 

people—I know we talked about this last night—how do we encourage—and I will give you an opportunity to do that for all of our 

Members—how do we encourage more veterans to switch from a 

system they know to one right now that is new and is untried, how 

do we convince them to do that that will help speed up their claims 

process? Is it to talk to us and let our people at work in our offices 

talk to the VSOs? The veterans service officers who work out there 

in the field every day with veterans, are they informed about this? 

Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think all of those are necessary 

components. I think the heaviest obligation is on the part of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs; that we need to be able to identify 

marketing strategies and approaches, make available the resources 

that are going to be necessary for that marketing approach; working collaboratively with VSOs, Members of Congress, the Hill, veteran and civic organizations out in the community, not justthe veterans service organizations. 

I think that the approach that we are beginning to see emerge, 

even though the cohort of veterans that have experienced the benefit under RAMP is very small, I think that with each success story 

it can breed and demonstrate a message out into the community 

that more veterans, if you are willing to give what is being offered 

and explained to you as a new and different approach to resolving 

your appeal, each one of those can become an echo chambers on its 

own to further encourage other veterans. And I think that as to 

marketing, a different marketing approach is needed utilizing not 

only what we have in the community, but also whatever suggesLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

10 

tions might be able to come from Members of Congress and veterans service organizations. 

The obligation is for us to message to veterans that this new approach is worth their consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with that. 

And, Mr. Dodaro, just a couple of questions for you. When I was 

reading your testimony last night, what do you mean by fully addressing risk, what did that mean? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, the risk, basically, is try to reduce the number of unknowns that you have going into your full implementation 

status. And right now, with the approach that is being taken to 

test, to use the flexibility Congress has given on the RAMP program, they are only testing veterans as it relates to exercising the 

two options to go to VBA and not directly to the board. 

So you really don’t have any idea if you don’t do more testing, 

and we think there could be some surveying done of veterans and 

whether they would pick one option or the other. If you don’t know 

that, you don’t know how many resources to allocate to VBA—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Got it. 

Mr. DODARO. —or how many resources to allocate to the board 

going into this. 

And also risk is not having a detailed plan to implement your information technology goals, there is not an integrated plan. There 

are a lot of things that have to be done that are interrelated. You 

have to have the IT systems up and running in a period of time, 

you have to have people brought on board and trained up to date. 

So there are a lot of pieces that need to come together for this to 

successfully be implemented. 

I am also concerned that in the RAMP exercise, even for the VA 

option, they are not allowing veterans to appeal the RAMP decision 

until the new process is going to be implemented in February 2019, 

and I just don’t know and I think VA needs to try to find out 

whether or not that is deterring anybody from picking the RAMP 

option even at this early stage because their appeal gets set aside, 

if they want to appeal. Now, if they are successful, that is a benefit 

and everybody wins in that case, but if not, then I don’t know how 

that is playing into veterans’ thinking. 

So there is a lot of risk about how veterans are going to pick 

among the five options that will be available and how VA will be 

positioned itself to fully implement this with as low a risk as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. My time is expired. 

Mr. Walz, you are recognized. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all. 

Deputy Secretary Bowman, I do want to say thank you. I am 

very appreciative of the attitude you have taken of seeing us as 

partners in this collaborative, your very generous and I think wise 

decision to continue to loop us in on an ongoing basis, and to view 

our partners at GAO as partners in excellence of delivering that. 

It is the right way to go, it is very refreshing, and I think it puts 

us all on the same page. 

And, Chair Mason, welcome to you. I know that amongst this, 

you haven’t got to speak yet, but we know that this is all falling 

on you and I am grateful for that. I know that you have been out 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

11 

there, you have helped town halls with your folks before. So I have 

got just a couple questions maybe coming towards you. 

In the early stages here, it has taken about 28 days to process 

the 47 claims under RAMP. Again, maybe going to that IT piece, 

it may have been answered, but I would like to hear it from you. 

If you think that would be ready, say, for example, if the RAMP 

opt-ins shot up to 20,000, if we get them in, and I know right now 

we have got 3.5 percent buy-in from the folks. And I think you did 

this right, you went to the oldest cases first and asked those folks, 

but I know as a veteran myself, there is no way in hell I’m getting 

out of line at this point, if you will, if that is the way I think maybe 

they are viewing it, and now you are going to go to newer claims, 

which I think there is more of a chance you may see a ramp-up 

in that. How are you measuring those? How are you going to handle for those? 

And I would assume you want to see an influx come, because you 

are going to have to stress-test this system now, it is the best time 

to do it. 

Ms. MASON. Thank you, sir. And I will let you know that the 

board is very supportive and collaboratively working with the VBA 

on the RAMP program, but I am going to hand it over to Mr. 

McLenachen, because VBA is handling the RAMP—— 

Mr. WALZ. Is your microphone on? 

Ms. MASON. I’m sorry, is it on? Is it—I’m sorry, is that better? 

Mr. WALZ. Yes, that’s good. 

Ms. MASON. Okay, thank you. The board is supporting the RAMP 

initiative in the Department, and we are collaboratively working 

with VBA and our VSO partners and GAO. VBA has the lead on 

the RAMP program, so to answer those specific questions, I am 

going to let Mr. McLenachen take the lead on those, and I will answer anything that comes back to me. 

Mr. WALZ. Great. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Good morning. I hope that at some point, real 

soon, we have that problem where we have too many people opting 

in, I really do. So we are prepared for that. 

What our plan is, is that, yes, the initial intake has been lower 

than we hoped, but as you pointed out, what we started with were 

absolutely the oldest appeals that we have. Right now I can tell 

you the average time from initiating an appeal to opt-in, for those 

that we have received, is an average of 1506 days. So, we are truly 

starting with the oldest, and those are likely the ones, as we have 

learned, that may be less likely to opt in. So, as you have said, we 

are starting this month with about 10,000 new appeals, as well as 

continuing with the oldest, so a total of about 35,000 invitations 

going out this month. 

Now, to prepare for that, and hopefully we do get an increased 

workload, we will be rolling out from our Appeals Resource Center 

here that is processing all of them that we have received so far to 

regional offices. Just next week, we are starting to train the regional offices that are going to be receiving these RAMP claims 

first and then we will roll to other offices as the workload increases. 

So we have a plan for doing that, and we are kicking it off this 

month. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

12 

Mr. WALZ. Fabulous. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Mason, I would go back to you. In September, we 

received—and this is prior to you—we received a letter from, at 

that point in time it was about 20 percent of your—it was 100 attorneys, and I believe at that time you had about 550 and now you 

are up closer to 990 or somewhere about right—expressing concern 

about what they described as lack of adequate training, poor working conditions, unrealistic expectations. I will say, our team has 

been out and toured the resources center, I know you have held the 

town hall; by all accounts, a good, positive feedback. And I think 

it is worth noting that your background and your family services, 

you have a deep commitment to this, a father in World War II, a 

brother in Vietnam, and your husband is in line, I believe, possibly 

on this. 

So could you just give us a little bit of how you are addressing 

that in just a short amount of time and if you are feeling some of 

the—maybe the stress of that is starting to be relieved, so that that 

workforce is prepared, trained, and ready to go. 

Ms. MASON. Absolutely, sir. Since being sworn in as Chairman 

in early December of 2017, I immediately began a series of meetings with my staff, starting with my judges and my attorneys, rolling out to the administrative team, as well as my leadership team. 

And the other thing that I am doing on a regular basis is, I believe communication is extremely important, and so weekly I send 

out emails as to what is going on within the board, as well as what 

is going on in the rest of VA, so that the staff knows what is happening. 

The other piece that I am doing is I am walking around. I am 

being extremely visible, I am being available to my staff; I think 

that is extremely important. That was not something that the 

board had seen regularly with leadership before. If they don’t see 

me and they don’t feel they can talk to me, then I am not going 

to hear their concerns. 

As to the specifics of the letter as with respect to training, we 

have a very robust training program at the board. We are currently 

bringing on new attorneys starting this next month where we have 

a very—it is a 3-month program where we train our new attorneys. 

Our judges are very involved once the attorneys are handed off 

from the additional training. But in addition to that, we also continue to run regular training at the board to ensure that our attorneys and judges are up to speed on the latest law. We have a quality review team who looks at our quality standards, basically using 

a statistical standard from across the Government. Our current 

quality rating is 93.6 percent. 

As you did indicate, my staff has grown quite a bit this year. The 

staff started out the year around 667 attorneys or staff and we are 

up to 940, about. We are going to 1,050 in fiscal year 2018, to include we are adding some judges to replace those who retired. 

So as far as the space issue, we have a very robust telework program, as well as allowing remote work, and I expect to expand and 

continue that as much as I can. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, ma’am, and it is being noticed. So, 

thank you for that. 

Ms. MASON. Thank you. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

13 

Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Walz, if I could offer just two comments based 

upon earlier questions that you had, especially with General 

Dodaro. 

The concern about not being able to have metrics and an understanding of the impact that a veteran may feel about not being able 

to exercise an option to go to the Board. I think that is something 

that during this approach over the next year, that is something 

that we are going to have to take a stronger look at, because I 

think it is important. Even though a veteran, at the end of the day, 

if he has exercised his choice in two lanes under RAMP andthey 

say I want to appeal to the Board, they can appeal. But, the problem is obviously there isn’t going to be any action on it until after 

full implementation. 

So I think that we are going to want to take another, stronger 

look as to how we may be able to somehow do some assessment 

and testing. 

The other has to do with the rollout of invitations to participate 

in RAMP out into the regional offices. I can tell you that the Secretary’s desire is to be aggressive and not pass it. That the preference is going to be we will ask and we will invite more. Because 

the more that we ask, the greater the cohort or pool of veterans 

that we are going to be able to assess as to how and when and why 

they may or may not make a decision to enter it. 

So I would like to assure the Committee that it is not going to 

be a passive approach, it is going to bean overly aggressive one as 

a way of gaining as much data in a short period of time that we 

have before full implementation. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I am 

going to begin to insist, because we have two panels today, to be 

respectful to our second panel and we are going to hold you to 5 

minutes. 

I will now yield to our Chairman of the DAMA Subcommittee 

and a lead sponsor of this bill, Mr. Bost. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Deputy Secretary Bowman, the comprehensive plan indicates 

that the VA would submit the proposed regulations to OMB on 

January 17th, 2018, you indicated the publication in the third 

quarter. Has VA submitted the proposed regulations to OMB yet 

at all? If you have not, why not? 

Mr. BOWMAN. The Department, is going to try and have an aggressive approach to get it out of the Department over to OMB. As 

I indicated, it is a target, it would be the Secretary’s target to look 

at the third quarter, and my effort or my responsibilities as the 

Deputy is going to make sure that the pressure is felt to see that 

achieved. 

Mr. BOST. And that was going to lead to the second part of my 

question, because I need to find this out, because when we put the 

language together we are real clear, we work with everybody to 

make sure. Will the Department be prepared to fully implement 

the Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act on February 

19th, 2019, including implementation of the regulations? 

Mr. BOWMAN. That is my goal, that is the Secretary’s goal, and 

it is our intention to make sure that in February there is full implementation and that there will be regulations in place. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

14 

Mr. BOST. I am just watching the clock click very, very rapidly 

and where we are at isn’t necessarily, I feel, where we need to be 

at this time, but we will work with you every way we can. 

So, I would also have a couple questions, Comptroller General. 

Does the VA comprehensive plan and processing legacy appeals 

and implementing the modernization appeals system fully satisfy 

requirements of the mandate? 

Mr. DODARO. No, Mr. Bost. As I mentioned, 17 of the 22 elements 

that were in the plan that were fully addressed, four partially and 

one not addressed at all, we have pointed out where those areas 

are and made recommendations that VA fully implement all those 

different requirements. 

Mr. BOST. Did the comprehensive plan include significant information for GAO to effectively evaluate the VA’s plan? 

Mr. DODARO. No. There are some details that are lacking, which 

I have talked about and Deputy Secretary Bowman has talked 

about, they are working on. Those details are really important details and I think there are some areas. One that we pointed out in 

our testimony is, you know, having defined the end state for where 

VA wants to be once they have everything implemented, and along 

the way what are the critical success factors in assessing RAMP 

and incorporating those lessons into their broader planning efforts. 

So there are a lot of details that need to be worked out yet and 

we have made a lot of recommendations we think can help those 

gaps, but they have to be expeditiously implemented in order to, 

you know, have timely, full implementation. 

Mr. BOST. Well, let me just, if I can, make a couple statements 

here, the concerns that I see. 

When we put the language together, we worked together in a bipartisan manner, worked on it. Even Congresses before us worked 

on seeing this issue, knew what we needed. Dates we set working 

with you to put those dates in place, working with VSOs to put 

those dates in place. My concern is, is that we are going to run into 

what the general public and especially our veterans keep seeing is, 

is that we put plans out in and set timelines throughout legislation 

and then the implementation through the agency does not occur for 

whatever reason. And I am extremely concerned, because we have 

made a commitment to our veterans to get this problem fixed. 

And meeting with each one of you, we all have the same goal and 

I am not going to drag somebody over the coals here, but we must 

get this done. There is nothing worse than the stress that these 

veterans feel of sitting and waiting and trying to go through a bog 

of paperwork and not understanding the process, and an over-burdensome process, that they served their time, they did what they 

were supposed to do. They are in a situation that they need an answer; either agree or don’t agree, but they need an answer. It puts 

themselves and their families in stress. And I hope that we move 

forward and that these dates are met. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. O’Rourke, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I want to thank 

Mr. Bost and Ms. Esty for their work on this. I also want to acknowledge Ms. Titus, who is here, who has worked on this in preLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

15 

vious Congresses and has really been a champion on this issue, and 

I am so glad to see that she is here today to join us and I am looking forward to her questions. 

Mr. Dodaro, I wonder if you might expand a little bit on some 

of your concerns and give us some guidance on how we can measure progress against them, because I heard you outline some missing aspects of the plan. I heard Secretary Bowman essentially 

agree with the assessment, and so it seems like conceptually there 

is agreement there, but I would love for you to help this Committee 

with its oversight responsibility in measuring progress against the 

Secretary’s commitment. 

For example, you mentioned timeliness goals that are missing, 

and you said perhaps the most important thing, which is we have 

not defined the end state. So, without that, we will never really 

know how we are doing. People could say we have hired a bunch 

of people, we are working really hard, we processed this many 

more claims, but if we don’t have a defined end state, you know, 

I don’t know what the goal is and so I don’t know how to measure 

against that. 

Could you expand on that a little bit and perhaps give us some 

defined goals and when we should be able to expect progress on 

this? 

And the last thing I will say before I allow you to answer, I loved 

hearing Secretary Bowman ask to be invited back this summer so 

that we could have this conversation. 

So, Mr. Dodaro, I will let you answer. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, thank you very much. 

Your articulation of the situation is exactly correct. Some of the 

timeliness goals, for example, there are goals for the two VBA 

lanes that people could choose, there is a timeliness goal for the 

lane to the board where people don’t submit additional evidence. 

But if they want to submit additional evidence and it is either with 

a hearing or without a hearing, which are the other two options, 

there are no timeliness goals there set at all. 

There are goals that the VA witnesses mentioned they are working on in terms of what is the accuracy, you know. Timeliness is 

important, but accuracy is as well. Veterans’ satisfaction with the 

process is important. There is no measures of when they are going 

to bring down the legacy appeal process. You could go into full implementation and still have legacy appeals there and, without those 

measures, you don’t know, you know, at what point do you want 

to be where you have no more legacy appeals and you are only 

using the new options going forward. 

You don’t really know what the resources are going to be yet in 

order to implement the new process, particularly as it relates to the 

board, because RAMP is not testing the direct appeals to the board. 

And I am pleased to see Deputy Secretary Bowman say they are 

going to try to do that, I think it is imperative. 

You know, under the law, the Secretary has to certify that they 

have all the resources that are available in order to implement the 

new process and handle the legacy process. And, under the law, 

they are also supposed to certify that they have all the training 

and everything done, and he has to articulate what the outcome 

measures are going to be for the new system as well during that 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

16 

period of time. And so, right now, I don’t think they are prepared, 

you know, to have all the information they are going to need in 

order to certify that they are ready to go forward. 

So, based on the plan so far, I am not confident that they will 

be ready by February 2019 unless they deal with these gaps and 

have a fully informed plan and a fully informed certification. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And, Secretary Bowman, thinking back to a few 

Secretaries ago, Secretary Shinseki said by this date certain no 

first-time service-connected claim will languish more than 125 

days. And so we knew the number of days, the date by which we 

were going to try to achieve that goal, and we were all marshaled 

around that with the resources, the oversight, the authorization, 

and the performance. 

Can you give us a similar goal for the claims that are languishing in appeals right now? 

Mr. BOWMAN. What I would like to do is to turn that over to 

Chairman Mason to speak to the issue of appeals that are relative 

to the Board and see where your follow-on questions would be. But 

the only comment I would add is that I do think—and, again, it is 

in support of where Comtroller General Dodaro is, that there are 

gaps in the plan. GAO has identified where those gaps exist, we 

acknowledge they exist, and part of the responsibility and the reason I said that we wish to be invited back is to provide how we 

are going to address those gaps in an expeditious and timely manner. But I will turn it over—— 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And I will just note that I am out of time, so unless we have that specific answer to that specific question, I will 

ask that you give that answer back to the Committee in writing in 

a reasonable period of time. 

Ms. MASON. I will follow up. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

General Bergman, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigation, you are recognized. 

Mr. BERGMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of 

you for being here today. 

A question related, but kind of unrelated. We have got some 

World War II veterans still out there and some Korean War veterans, but especially the World War II folks are getting up there 

in age. When you plan and try to implement any process, you know 

you don’t do a one-size-fits-all, because then that size fits no one. 

Is there currently exception for, let’s say, an age, a World War II 

veteran or a Korean War veteran to get expedited handling of their 

case based on age? 

Mr. BOWMAN. The basic answer is, yes, and I will turn it over 

to Chairman Mason to explain in detail. 

Ms. MASON. Yes, sir. Currently at the board we have the advance-on-docket provisions, where any veteran who is 75 or older, 

has severe health issues or financial issues, there is a provision for 

other situations as they motion for those, those cases are advanced 

on the docket and moved forward. 

So that is exactly how we are working those cases. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

17 

Mr. BERGMAN. When they are advanced, are they advanced— 

again, could you give me a rough order of, let’s say that veteran, 

as you described, over 75 and is in a dire situation, could they expect any kind of timeline today? 

In the last couple of weeks, I have been back in the district and 

talking with, you know, this group and that question was asked, 

so I wanted to be able to give them an answer. Expectation 

timeline? 

Ms. MASON. Well, what happens when they make the motion for 

the advance on the docket, we move those cases directly to the 

judges. That generally is a 2-week timeline, depending on the complexity of the case, but I would have to respond—— 

Mr. BERGMAN. No, close enough, that’s great. 

Thank you, because as one gentleman told me, I know I don’t 

have much time left, but I would really appreciate an answer. And 

he was not mad, just he was hopeful that he could get that. 

I know Deputy Secretary Bowman knows what a sand table is. 

When we plan, okay, that is what we do, we lay it out. In sand 

table terms, is it going to be possible for us, Members of this Committee, to see the sand table for what we are talking about here 

as the RAMP? At some point where we can actually get a chance, 

whether you put it up here in D.C. and we come over to view it 

and get a walk-through sooner rather than later? 

It can be a prototype of your model for implementation, but that 

would be, I believe, very helpful, because what I would expect to 

see on that sand table is, here is the part of the process, whether 

it is the IT process, whether it is the notification of the veteran 

process as to how it is going to work. 

And alongside that, I would like to see two things: the number 

of dollars and the number of people that are going to be applied 

to that particular piece of the sand table, so that now as we add 

up the people and the dollars necessary to implement this new 

process for expediting the appeals and getting it right, and the 

RAMP and the opt-in and the opt-out. So if we just do a process 

without those numbers attached to it, for us to support you in a 

fog of how much and how many is a challenge. 

So is that something that is possible? 

Mr. BOWMAN. Sir, it is possible. And what I would like to commit 

to is that, if you could give us about 60 days to up with the sand 

table, and then hopefully within 90 days then speak to Committee 

staff, indicating that we believe we have a product, and then 

whether it is in a roundtable or in a group session. 

Mr. BERGMAN. You know, the back of it, we have our roundtables 

here, Mr. Chairman. I think, based upon what you just said, in a 

roundtable, because we have had roundtables here, sooner rather 

than later. It doesn’t have to be a full-up round, but it has to be 

that working prototype that I believe would be beneficial for all of 

us to be able to view. 

Mr. BOWMAN. I think that we could provide you a reliable sand 

table presentation within 60 days easy. 

Mr. BERGMAN. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

18 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Marines speak in different languages. I’m 

not sure what a sand table—I know what a roundtable is, but 

maybe he can explain that later. 

Ms. Esty, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again I want to thank 

our colleague Representative Titus, who really carried the water on 

this project for a long time and I am glad she is able to be with 

us here today. 

And I want to follow up where the General left off and following 

up on the Comptroller General’s observation. We know you are 

working hard, but I think none of us have any comfort to say we 

will be there by April of next year, but we are not going to give 

you any interim timelines. 

Monthly reports is great, but as against what? This has to be 

broken down and nowhere more in the military do they understand 

that. You need to have the metrics, you need to have the people 

and the supplies and the money in place to do that. And it just is 

stupefying to think that you can know you are on track and we can 

do our job of oversight with just we will get there. So I think we 

do need to. 

So I want to drill down a little bit, Deputy Secretary, on what 

you think you can have to us in 60 and 90 days, because I think— 

and this is not to beat up on you at all, it is to say we have a joint 

responsibility to get there and it needs to be benchmarked, and we 

need to see what those indicators are, what those metrics are. And 

if it is going to take funding or personnel or there is a problem 

with something, we just aren’t doing our job, any of us, if we wait 

until April of next year and say, oops, we missed the mark on four 

or five of these. 

So can you tell me what you think you can have to us in 60 or 

90 days exactly, because I think, again, with all due respect to the 

General, not everybody understood exactly what was on the sand 

table. So if you can break that down, what you think you can provide us. Thank you. 

Mr. BOWMAN. I think that the approach, using the sand table 

analogy, is that we do have a starting point right now based upon 

what we proposed back in January. That obviously was looked at 

by GAO, found to be deficient in a number of areas, less complete 

in others. I think that the approach is to start with what has been 

the assessment and evaluation of the deficiencies of what we are 

attempting to move forward with. Take a look at those deficiencies, 

and create a depiction, whether it be fiscal, whether it be FTE, 

operational, or timelines, and be able to demonstrate where we are 

against a timeline of February 2019 in those areas. 

At the same time what we would be doing, in the monthly assessment discussions that we would have, is to demonstrate how 

improvement is being made on each of those identified deficiencies, 

and then improve. If further needs are identified, then they are 

added to the depiction. 

So I think we start against where we know to be the deficiencies 

as identified. As we progress and those that are additional ones 

[deficiencies], we add them in, but in each of them we show solutions. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

19 

Ms. ESTY. So, if I may, among the things we heard, timeliness, 

accuracy metrics—I mean, these are fairly fundamental—satisfaction level, cost, I mean, all of those are important. So, let’s name— 

these are not just deficiencies, these are core issues about accuracy 

and timeliness, which is what we are after, right? 

Mr. BOWMAN. Sure. 

Ms. ESTY. As well as satisfaction of the veterans, which is the 

point of having all of this. 

On the RAMP question, on doing this outreach, I think all of us 

are wondering a little bit, the uptake has been only 3 percent. Will 

you be doing an evaluation to try to figure out those who are choosing to opt in, even with these really old claims—and I agree with 

Mr. Walz, it is understandable they would be unlikely to get out 

of line—there must be some reason, is it that VSOs were encouraging them to? Is that because they have despaired of ever getting 

a decision? 

You know, I think that is going to be important for us to understand, because it does go to the backlog. And I think we all share 

some concern that we have this new process, is the backlog just 

going to fall off the table, and we have got these people who have 

been waiting and waiting and waiting. And so I do think it is going 

to be important and I am mindful of the timeline. 

So if you can get back to us on really, seriously thinking what— 

and what can we do as Members of Congress to assist in that process—— 

Mr. BOWMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. ESTY. —in our own districts and with the VSOs to encourage 

uptake, but you are going to need to be ready to accept it, as Mr. 

O’Rourke said. We want them to accept it, that is our mission, but 

you need to be ready when that happens. 

And I am going to yield back and I appreciate the Chairman’s 

allowing me that time. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

General Bergman has asked this old Army Major to yield him 30 

seconds to explain what a sand table is from a Marine, so I am 

going to do that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BERGMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Picture this table right 

here with a border around it and 46 inches deep in sand, that we 

as the Marine Corps use, and we configure that sand based on the 

terrain we are going to fight on, disposition of our forces, enemy 

forces, so we can assess battle plans, assess movement. And then 

when we are done with that, we just level out the sand and reconfigure it for the next battle. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am glad to know what that is. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Radewagen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I too want to welcome the Deputy Secretary and the rest of the 

panel. Thank you for your service and for appearing here today. 

Mr. McLenachen, to date, how many veterans have been contacted by VA about RAMP? How many have elected to participate 

in the program? And of those veterans who have decided to take 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

20 

part, are you seeing any trends in terms of which lanes are being 

selected? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, actually 15,500 invitations to date. We 

started out with 500 in November, we went to 5,000 in December, 

and in January 10,000. 

Keep in mind that the invitation says that you have 60 days to 

get back to us, but more importantly, it also recommends advice 

from a representative, such as a VSO or attorney that is representing the veteran, which is an important point. 

So far, 462 appeals have been withdrawn, that is 332 unique veterans. So, some of those veterans have multiple appeals. The grant 

rate is 61 percent, which is a very high grant rate. The average 

time to process them, the ones that we have processed so far, is 37 

days. So veterans that have been waiting, as I have said, an average of 1500 days have received answers, whether that is a good answer or a denial, in a very short period of time. We have awarded 

a million and a half dollars in retroactive benefits so far for this 

first cohort. 

So, yes, we need to get that rate up, but so far there is every indication that veterans that are opting in are both getting a timely 

decision and a good outcome. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. So what is the average timeline for a veteran 

electing to take part in RAMP from start to finish? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. So, good question. This has to do with the 

issue of goals. We have always said that in the new process in 

VBA, the two VBA lanes, that our goal is an average of 125 days, 

and that is our goal for RAMP as well and that has always been 

our position. So, because we don’t have the workload yet to start 

rolling to regional offices, you are seeing a decision time of about 

30 to 40 days, which is very fast. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. So is the population of veterans being invited 

to participate in RAMP a statistically valid sample, you think? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I would not say that. We are not sampling 

and taking a sample in that way. What we are doing is, and what 

we have done so far is, in each appeals stage, so there are four 

stages of appeals that we have in VA, we are taking the very oldest 

appeals in each of those stages and inviting them to opt in. 

What we are going to do in February is, in addition to those oldest within each of those stages, we are going to take all new appeals that have come in over the last month and invite them to opt 

in as well, just to, again, see what the take rate is for those newer 

appeals and try to draw some conclusions from that. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

Mr. Takano, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is to the VA and the GAO. In reviewing the testimony, I was disappointed to see that the GAO and VA disagree 

about whether or not the VA is meeting all of the requirements 

laid out in the law. 

Now, the VA is required to delineate the total resources needed 

for the VBA and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to implement and 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

21 

administer the new appeals system. Now, GAO contends that the 

VA has not addressed this requirement, but the VA disagrees. 

Mr. Bowman, first to you. Can you further explain why the VA 

believes it has met this requirement when the GAO argues otherwise? 

Mr. BOWMAN. Sir, is that with respect to the Board or to the 

VBA? 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, it is regarding there seems to be this disagreement between the two entities. 

Mr. BOWMAN. Sir, what I am going to ask is that Mr. 

McLenachen address the question as it relates to the specifics as 

to whether or not the VA has indicated that it is not going to be 

able to offer those resources. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I don’t believe that we have a disagreement. 

What the GAO has done is looked at our initial submission of a 

plan and is offering us suggestions for improving it and identifying 

specific improvements, which the Deputy Secretary has committed 

that we will work with them on. 

As far as the resources, currently our goal through the RAMP 

program is to reduce legacy appeals, and that is going to have a 

huge impact on how we work with GAO on what future requirements might be. So we are very early in the process on that. 

Mr. TAKANO. Excuse me. In the GAO report on page 10, where 

you lay out your assessment, it says, ‘‘VA’s appeals plan does not 

include a delineation of the total resources required by VBA and 

the board to implement the new system while addressing pending 

legacy appeals.’’ It is in your own report, you said there is no disagreement. Can you respond to that? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. That is correct. That is the one item, the one 

requirement that GAO has concluded that we did not address, and 

we did not address that because we are currently running the 

RAMP program. GAOis asking us to project in the future what resources might be required, to include future budget formulations, 

and what might be required from those formulations. 

So I don’t think we are there yet, but as the Deputy has committed to, we are going to be digging into that issue. We simply 

don’t have that future projection of resources at this point. 

Mr. TAKANO. When do you think you will have that projection? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Well, we will take a look at the report that 

GAO sends to us with its recommendations and get to work on it 

right away. 

Mr. TAKANO. All right. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Dodaro, can you add GAO’s perspective on the matter and 

have you seen any progress from the VA since your report came 

out? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, first, our perspective is they did not meet that 

requirement and we maintain our position in that area. We have 

not had any further conversations. I am looking forward to—based 

on the testimony today, to have further conversations. 

What I would say in this area, though, so far VA has not done, 

from our standpoint, enough scenario planning and assumptions. 

And while I am not completely familiar with the sand table experience, I think that is what they are talking about in sort of saying, 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

22 

okay, what is our goal and then what do we need to get to our goal. 

And so far those two things haven’t happened and that is why they 

don’t have total resources yet. 

And so, going forward, they are going to have to make some assumptions. At some point we are going to reduce all the legacy appeals, we are going to have these timeliness goals, these measures, 

and only then and only then can you figure out how many resources you are going to need in order to accomplish those goals. 

And so there is an interrelationship between all of the findings that 

we have had in that report. 

Mr. TAKANO. I believe you somewhat already answered my followup, which is what are the risks for the program if the VA fails 

to meet this requirement. Well, obviously, we are not going to be 

able to solve this backlog. 

Mr. DODARO. Yeah, there is great risk that they won’t accomplish 

the goals of their plan or the legislation without this type of planning activity. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

In my remaining time, Mr. Chairman, I just want to also heap 

praise on our colleague Dina Titus. We know how hard she worked 

in getting this together and it is just a testament to what can happen when Members work in a bipartisan way and to try to tackle 

a big problem. So, my congratulations to her, and I am glad to see 

her today. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I second 

your—associate myself with your comments. 

I now yield to Dr. Wenstrup. 

Mr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here. 

I want to kind of build upon something the General talked about 

and maybe we can call it sort of an appeals triage. Is there a process in place, besides just timeline, like how long the appeal has 

been out there, but maybe the health of the person that is involved, 

do you have a process of maybe moving people along because they 

are in more dire need? 

Ms. MASON. Yes, sir, we do. Again, that falls under the advanced-on-docket specific situation where a veteran is in frail or 

terminal health issues. And we actually had two of those cases this 

week where the board staff—and we had a lot of these this week, 

but we had two cases in particular where board staff teamed together to get a decision out the door within a day for a veteran who 

was in dire need. 

Mr. WENSTRUP. How do they get flagged? Do they get flagged immediately when they come or—— 

Ms. MASON. The age cases are automatically flagged by our current they-call system. The health situation and the financial situation are situations where we work with our VSO and our field people in VBA to let us know what the situation is with the veteran 

and we communicate in that way, so they have to let us know. 

Mr. WENSTRUP. Okay. Another quick question is, you know, as 

we sit in our offices, we get a lot of our constituents that come forward to us and seek our assistance in the process, where are we 

in the process, what is going on, or why was I denied, et cetera. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

23 

How comfortable are you with the ability to communicate back 

with us accurately as far as where someone might be in the process? 

Ms. MASON. We can communicate with you accurately where that 

person is if you give us a name or, you know, we can get that to 

you. We also have been working closely with digital service and do 

have something rolling out later this month where the veterans 

will be able to find that out electronically. 

Mr. WENSTRUP. Excellent. Thank you. 

I would like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Bost. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I want to add to, Ms. Titus, thank you for what you did before, 

because it did allow our Committee to be in a position where we 

were advancing forward. 

The only thing that I do want to add and the concerns I have, 

this goal of the sand table and 60 days, the concern is, many of us 

feel like that is where we should be right now. Okay? And I don’t 

make that criticism, I just want you to know how vitally important 

it is that we move forward. 

Of course, remember, this old jarhead was a Corporal, not an officer, so I was the guy standing behind the people who were standing at the sand table, which then trying to get the information. 

My question is, what are you doing to make sure that the people 

behind you are getting the information to you, so that we can continue to move forward and do these goals and meet them on time? 

Ms. MASON. Sir, we are working very closely with all of our staff, 

I can tell you, at the board, and working with VBA, I see his staff 

working very closely, and with our IT component. We are in constant communication. We have several things in work process right 

now that will be coming out to address some of the concerns GAO 

has in the next implementation plan. 

So the staff is fully engaged and they are not standing behind 

us, they are at the table. 

Mr. BOST. And let me tell you this, because the Chairman and 

the Ranking Member and others have made this as a commitment 

that this will be a focus to make sure we keep you on a timeline, 

we have got to. 

So, with that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. Brownley, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask, in terms—timeliness, for me, is obviously a very 

important metric, but based on the claims you have received so far 

or the appeals that you have received so far, I am also interested 

in the success rate. So we now know you are showing that the 

turnaround time so far is 27 or 28 days, I have no sense of what 

the outcomes are. Are they positive for the veteran, stayed in terms 

of the previous decision? 

Chairwoman Mason, maybe you might be the appropriate person—oh, no. Okay. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Actually, I would like to take a shot at answering your question. In the current appeal process, the grant 

rate usually hovers around 25 percent overall for all appeals. What 

we are seeing—and, again, we all have to keep in mind, this is a 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

24 

very small sample, but what we are seeing right now is a grant 

rate that is 61 percent compared to that 25 percent. Now, again, 

a very small sample. 

And I think the one piece of the question that was asked of me 

before is, as far as the choices that our veterans are making, we 

are seeing that about two thirds of these veterans are asking for 

a Higher-Level Review as their first shot as they are coming into 

the RAMP program. So about two thirds Higher-Level Review, 

about a third Supplemental Claims, grant rate of 61 percent, and 

a decision in about 30 to 40 days. 

And I might point out that some of our partners in the VSOs and 

other stakeholders have seen some results as they are representing 

these people, and I think you will see in some of their testimony 

and their statements that they also have some very positive outcomes to talk about. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. For me, as we proceed in this process, I certainly would like to hold onto that metric as well, just to 

know, particularly when we look at these legacy issues that have 

been out there outstanding for so long and to hear that 62 percent 

have been granted, you know, that is a concern for me that they 

have been waiting for a very long time and finally get a judgment 

on it. But that is an important piece and I think is an important 

element to judging veteran satisfaction at the end of the day as 

well. 

I wanted to also ask again as we proceed, why were the Phoenix 

and Denver regional offices selected as part of the expansion? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. So what we did is we tried to come up with 

a plan to figure out how much capacity we need as we are sending 

out these invitations. And so we staged it on a monthly basis, and 

we built up slowly to where we get to the point we are sending out 

a certain number every month, because really the issue is here we 

want to process them as they are coming in. We are not waiting 

until the end and creating create a backlog—— 

Ms. BROWNLEY. I just want to know Phoenix and Denver specifically were selected. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. So, specifically, they had the capacity 

there in those two stations that we thought at the time when we 

were first rolling out to the regional offices, it was about the size 

of appeals team and employees at those stations that would be appropriate for that initial rollout. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. So other cities—I am from California, I always 

think that California probably has a great deal of these appeals, 

because we are a large state, but by that statement, does that 

mean that there are other regional offices—— 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. —that you didn’t believe had the capacity? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. So keep in mind that each of these regional 

offices, including our Appeals Resource Center now, is working 

these nationally. So it is not when we roll out to a regional office, 

they are not just going to be working the appeals that are from 

that jurisdiction. It is anybody who opts in to RAMP and that 

workload is available, they will be doing it at that station. When 

the workload fills to more than what they can handle, we will roll 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

25 

to another station. But it is a national workload, it is just not from 

that jurisdiction. 

As far as your question about other ROs, yes, we are looking at 

about 10 to 15 that we would roll out to in this process. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And when would that happen? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. It depends on the workload. If we get a high 

number of opt-ins, which is our sincere hope, then it will be more 

rapid; if it is slower, then not as fast. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And what exactly are we doing to persuade veterans and the VSOs, who some are recommending that their veterans not opt in to this program, what are we doing to—and I have 

also heard, based on the testimony, that veterans are feeling like 

it is just a check-off list and maybe not really listening and taking 

seriously some of their recommendations. So what are we doing to 

overcome that objection? 

And I have zero time left, but maybe I could follow up with you 

later. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, I can provide you a detailed answer to 

that. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

Mr. Banks, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dodaro, I know you have touched upon this already, but do 

you believe that the VA really has a robust IT plan for implementing the appeals reforms? 

Mr. DODARO. No, no, I think they need a much more robust plan. 

The plan they have goes out about 6 months, it doesn’t go out any 

further than that, and it is not clear when they are going to have 

the deliverables necessary to improve their IT capacity to accommodate the appeals process. And so I think they need a much more 

robust plan and that is what we recommended; we recommended 

it back in March when we did our report and we are recommending 

it again. They have made some headway, but not as much as needs 

to be made. 

Mr. BANKS. Between you or Deputy Secretary Bowman, how long 

will that take? How fast can we develop that robust IT plan? 

Mr. BOWMAN. I think the approach that we are going to take is 

based upon how we have looked at our approach over this next 

year. We are going to probably have to expedite our approach in 

response to what the [Comptroller] General has indicated, but also 

as it relates to the plans that both VBA, as well as the Board, have 

developed. It is not as robust as it needs to be; it is going to become 

more robust. 

We do believe that we have brought people aboard between our 

IT capability and the resources that we believe we have available 

to help address that. But it is not where it needs to be, I am not 

going to tell you any differently, but we believe that we are going 

to aggressively try to put it there. 

One of the things that I have assured the Chairman and Ranking Member Walz is that we will provide a separate briefing as it 

relates to where we are specifically on our IT capability as we look 

at it today and then as we want to move forward, based upon an 

earlier discussion last evening. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

26 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. General Dodaro, can you elaborate on the importance of a balanced set of goals and measurements to put in 

place before testing and implementing the new appeals process? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. And it is very important, because there are obviously resource tradeoffs between timeliness and accuracy, there 

are tradeoffs between having a good IT system and not having an 

IT system, but you have to be clear on what your goals are going 

to be. There has to be a balance between making sure there are 

enough resources to VBA versus the board. And so you have to 

have measures in terms of how the board is going to handle things, 

as well as VBA. So, it is critical. And veteran satisfaction with the 

process, the communication approach. 

So you need all these things in a balanced scorecard to make 

sure that you are effectively processing timely, getting accurate decisions, people are satisfied with the system, but, importantly, you 

have the resources allocated properly to achieve those goals. And 

so, unless you have a balanced scorecard and you have all these 

goals, you don’t really know how much resources you are going to 

need in order to achieve those goals to have reasonable prospects 

of success. 

Mr. BANKS. So we agree about that. And based upon your testimony throughout the morning, though, can you elaborate on why 

the VA is failing to do exactly what you just described? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, I would defer to them to explain why not but, 

you know, we are trying to encourage them, strongly encourage 

them to implement these sound planning practices going forward 

and to do some scenario planning. You really have to make some 

assumptions and do scenario planning at this point in order to do 

it. They have been a little reluctant to do that. They are also reluctant to go out further in their IT plans beyond this six-month kind 

of rolling plan, they have to. I mean, there are no dates in the plan 

beyond February 2019 when they anticipate full implementation. 

So at this point you have to make some assumptions, you have 

to set what your end state is, where you would like to be with your 

balanced scorecard, and then you figure out what kind of resources 

you need and have detailed metrics that you can check along the 

way and make progress. 

And so these things are all very important. I mean, the approach 

so far has been, we are going to learn from RAMP and then we are 

going to make adjustments. 

Mr. BANKS. With the 30 seconds I have left, Secretary Bowman, 

what is it going to take to get there, what the Comptroller just described? 

Mr. BOWMAN. I believe we are going to have to adjust the approach that we took to get to where we have presented under the 

plan and to adjust to what has been identified as the deficiencies 

in how we have approached things today. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay, thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. Kuster, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too want to thank 

Representative Dina Titus for her great work on this issue. Thank 

you for your leadership. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

27 

I want to follow up on my colleague Mr. Banks’ questions and dig 

into the training and the IT. So this is to the VA witnesses. Regarding the new case flow program, is training for this program a 

priority, and are your IT systems able to handle the workload during the RAMP pilot program and the full implementation of the appeals modernization? Where are you at with training? 

I understand from the Comptroller General that we don’t have 

the timeline that we need and, I agree with you, we need more 

specificity so that we can keep track. But where are we with training in terms of this new IT program? 

Ms. MASON. I can start to the training issue specifically. We are 

currently working at the board with building training modules for 

the new implementation of the appeals modernization program, 

and we expect to roll out a training timeline of within the next 

month. 

Ms. KUSTER. Could you get back to us and keep our—— 

Ms. MASON. Sure. 

Ms. KUSTER. —committee informed? Because I think, to follow up 

on Mr. O’Rourke, we need to know where we are going so that we 

can keep track of whether we are getting there. 

Ms. MASON. I can follow up on that and Mr. McLenachen can answer the second part of your question, I believe. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Specifically, you asked about RAMP and 

training and related issues. As I mentioned previously—— 

Ms. KUSTER. Primarily focus on the IT. It is a whole new program, and I want to know how people are going to learn it and implement it. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. So, we have already developed and implemented VBMS, which is our program for VBA for processing 

claims. It doesn’t require, the law does not require a new program, 

it requires some minor tweaks. We actually do have a more refined 

schedule than was discussed in the implementation plan. In August of 2018, about 75 percent of that functionality will be delivered, with the remainder delivered in December of 2018. 

Ms. KUSTER. But aren’t you trying to reach your goal January 

2019? This seems a little slow. How are you going to reach your 

goal if you are not even delivering the product, the processes? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. August 2018, 75 percent of the functionality 

that we need for February 2019 will be delivered. So that is far in 

advance. 

Ms. KUSTER. But you just said December 2018—— 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. 

Ms. KUSTER. —what is that date? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. That is when the 25 remaining percent is 

scheduled to be delivered. 

Ms. KUSTER. 30 days before the final completion? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Okay. And I have a different question. I want to 

move on to the VA Central Office, I am concerned about their ability to retain accountability and oversight over regional offices. We 

have this in the VISNs, we have this in a number of areas that our 

Committee covers. And we understand, the staff has heard through 

the old system the likelihood of successfully receiving your disLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

28 

ability benefit varied greatly by geography, and I am wondering is 

there an explanation for that variance and how are you going to 

overcome that going forward? Is there any standardization, so that 

we don’t have to be concerned as Members of Congress that when 

we get the calls it is going to be based upon our geography as to 

whether or not our veterans are going to have timely appeals? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. And I believe you are asking about claims 

processing in general, correct? 

Ms. KUSTER. Both claims processing and the timeliness and the 

effectiveness of the appeals. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. So, a few years ago VBA implemented, kind 

of around the time with VBMS the program was developed, some 

functionality was added to that to develop our National Work 

Queue. The National Work Queue assures that there is that consistency nationally rather than geographically. And although I am 

not the expert to talk to you about that, I am sure that we could 

arrange for the individuals that run that to come by—— 

Ms. KUSTER. And is there standardization among the regional offices for how the claims are handled? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. Every regional office is required to follow 

the adjudication procedures manual that prescribes specifically how 

to process a claim in VBA. 

Ms. KUSTER. And do you have some kind of internal mechanism 

for ensuring that consistency? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. There are internal reviews and quality 

reviews that are done on a local basis at the regional offices, as 

well as a national quality review program that is run by our compensation service. 

Ms. KUSTER. Okay, thank you. 

I yield back just as my time is up. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. 

And I just pose this: if there is that standardization that is available, then why are 60 percent of them getting approved now? 

I now yield—with great pleasure, I yield 5 minutes to Ms. Titus. 

Thank you for patiently waiting and thank you for the work you 

have done on this bill on this Committee previously. Welcome back. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Roe and Ranking Member Walz, for letting me sit in with you. I miss being on 

this Committee. It truly was a collaborative effort. And I thank you 

for the kind words, but we all worked together on that: the VSOs, 

the VA, this Committee. And I appreciate you all taking this, especially Mr. Bost and Ms. Esty, you improved on our initial work and 

you followed it through, and now the implementation is so important. 

I just had a couple of questions. Now, my concern was always the 

backlog, the backlog with the initial claims and then the backlog 

with the appeals. I worry that you have now set up a system where 

veterans who have chosen this new route can’t appeal until it is all 

put in place in February of next year, aren’t we building in a mechanism that is going to create a backlog before we even get started? 

I think Mr. Dodaro mentioned that possibility. 

Have you thought about that or figured out a way to not let that 

happen? 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

29 

Ms. MASON. Ma’am, it is a pleasure to have you here today. We 

are looking very closely at that. The board is currently working 

very strongly and physically working down the backlog for our current appeals that we have. We do have a goal set this year of 

81,000 decisions, which is 28,000 more than we did last year. And 

with the additional staff, we are showing results; we have already 

done over 24,000 decisions to date in fiscal year 2018. 

But you are correct. I am hearing the GAO’s concern and, as the 

new Chairman, that is something that I do have to take consideration of. I don’t want to put us in a situation where we are creating 

a backlog from the very beginning; however, I do feel that I owe 

it to those veterans who are waiting currently to ensure that I am 

working those legacies. 

And so we are very much supporting the RAMP program and 

very much hoping that those veterans—and working together with 

our VSO partners and our private bar partners to encourage veterans to opt in to get those early resolutions at faster rates before 

they come to the board. But you are correct, I am looking at that 

and that is something we will continue to study. And as I get more 

information around it, you know, it is something that I definitely 

am going to take under consideration. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. I think you mentioned that two thirds of 

those who are in the early program are looking for some kind of 

review, would those be the ones who have to wait until next February? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. No, ma’am. What I was referring to was the 

Higher-Level Review at the lower level. So that is where we are 

getting those. 

Ms. TITUS. The higher level at the lower level? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, exactly. So the Higher-Level Review and 

the Supplemental Claim lanes are done in the VBA, the third line 

is the appeal to the Board. 

The way we set up this program, we designed it to get as many 

early resolutions as possible, actually to prevent that backlog that 

you are concerned about. Where that backlog might develop is at 

the Board. If we simply let everybody opt in to the Board, then, 

yes, you will have a huge backlog at the Board. The Board takes, 

rightfully so, more time to process an appeal than in VBA. 

So the intentional design was to get as many resolutions at the 

lowest level, again, in an average of 125 days, as possible. And that 

is why you are seeing this rate of about 61 percent—which, Mr. 

Chairman, by the way, does not relate to quality, but rather the 

time the veteran has been waiting, because more evidence has been 

added to the appeal. 

So that as the intentional design of the program was—— 

Ms. TITUS. I recall that—— 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. —to prevent—— 

Ms. TITUS. —I was there. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. —to prevent the Board from having that 

backlog when we start in February 2019. 

Ms. TITUS. I just don’t want us to create a backlog before we 

even really get started, because you never catch up, it just continues to build, and it seems to me that that is a problem and the 

Comptroller recognized that too. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

30 

My other question is, because the RAMP is a pilot program and 

you are only looking at a couple of the lanes and you are not going 

to open up the full program until the next year, all this data and 

all this planning and all these metrics are related to what is happening on those lanes, when the whole program opens up, do we 

start all over from scratch looking at what happens in the new additional lanes, or are we prepared to just move forward? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Actually, it is true that, veterans cannot optin directly to the Board lane, which is the third lane,and as you 

said, it is not being piloted. But it is not exactly true that we are 

not getting any information from that. 

When a veteran gets a decision in the RAMP Program, they can 

appeal to the Board. So, the Board will have that information 

about veterans who are interested in appealing after getting a 

Higher-Level Review or Supplemental-Claim lane decision. 

In addition to that, we are collecting data on which lane at the 

Board they want to go to. So, we are collecting information that is 

relevant to the Board lane; it is not an absence of information. The 

only thing we are not testing is veterans that might want to go directly from an initial VBA decision directly to the Board. That is 

correct, we are not testing that, but there is a reason. 

The Board process, as we said, we are looking at an average of 

one year in that fastest lane at the Board. We don’t have time to 

pilot the full extent of what the law allows in February of 2019, 

because it does take time to get through our lanes and then to get 

to the Board and get through the Board lanes, which will run slower, naturally. 

Ms. TITUS. Do you have any concerns about that? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. I think that there is, number one, 

once the realistic expectation for bringing—resolving all the legacy appeals, you know, there is no timeline for that, how many resources would be required. So I think they need to establish some 

goals for that kind of process, you know, that kind of outcome, so 

that they can take the new RAMP process. 

The other thing is they could potentially survey some veterans 

to see if you had the ability to go to VBA or the Board, which way 

would you go to get some additional information available on that 

side, because I am concerned that once they open up all the lanes 

and have—you know, they will have some information, but it is 

going to be limited—that they are not going to be able to be in a 

position to create, meet all the expectations that people have for 

the new process and they will not, from my understanding is they 

are not going to have all the legacy appeals resolved before they 

start the new—full implementation and new process, potentially. 

And what does that mean for the process? Because veterans can 

still, you know, appeal, so it is going to keep going. It has the potential for creating additional backlogs. 

Ms. TITUS. That is my concern, too. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Arrington, you are recognized. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a budget hearing and it is the most frustrating thing as a new Member, you 

want to be available and engaged, and so my apologies. This is incredibly important and I regret not hearing your conversation and 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

31 

with my colleagues, and so forgive me if I repeat some of the questions or make some comments that have already been made. 

The thing that stands out to me is this, is just looking at the 

numbers. With the overall number of 471,000 pending appeals, but 

when I look—and Ms. Mason, I am going to direct my question to 

you—the goal at the Board level is to resolve 81,000—rather— 

yeah, 81,000, I think, was the stated goal annually. 

But when you look at 2017, 90,000 appeals came through the 

system and 2018, the projection is 93,000. It reminds me of our deficit spending and our national debt, like, I don’t know when we will 

ever get to the $20 trillion national debt, because we can’t even get 

out of deficit-spending mode. 

How are you going to get out of deficit-appeal resolution mode at 

that rate? 

Ms. MASON. Thank you. You are correct, the board’s goal this 

year is 81,000 and we do project approximately 93,000 coming in 

and that is not an equivalent. 

What—the areas that we are looking on—looking at as our efficiencies, the new decisions that we are rolling out today, piloting, 

we hope will assist the attorneys and the judges in their case review and decision pace, but we are going to look at that very closely to see what that does. 

We are also working with our Digital Service team. They have 

rolled out quite a bit of technology already to date including Reader, the intake piece, Caseflow, and they are getting ready to roll 

out the queue program and test that, which will be able to handle 

work on our workload, how we are going to manage our workload 

across the appeals and the framework. 

So, you are right. We are not there yet, but the other part of that 

is RAMP. If there—if we do have some veterans opting into RAMP, 

that will take down the number of cases that are coming into the 

board, at the board, especially with the current 60 percent grant 

rate. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. So, with all the things you mentioned in play, 

you think you can catch up to that number of incoming and start 

working down that 471,000 in backlog? So, with all that in play, 

do you think you can do that or do you need more authority, more 

resources, more training, more assistance, more—— 

Ms. MASON. The 470,000 appeals are across the organization, so 

approximately 200,000 of those are currently at the VBA notice of 

disagreement level, so if those get resolved in VBA, they don’t come 

to the board. My goal, and my hope for veterans, is that we stop 

that flow at VBA. So, that is the first piece of that. 

As far as needing additional assistance at this time, my team has 

been working very hard this year and we are seeing amazing results and that as a result of the money that Congress gave us in 

fiscal year 2017. I really need to see what my team can do as we 

move into that, into the new system, but, you know, the legacy 

piece, we are going to be watching that very closely and trying to 

draw those down as quickly as possible, as well as get ready for 

the new appeals process. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. So, when will we start seeing the amazing results, because I am not sure I am seeing what you are seeing or 

maybe I am seeing a different scorecard. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

32 

Ms. MASON. The board, to date, has done 24,800 decisions, which 

is a record number for us to date in fiscal year 2017. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Congratulations. 

Ms. MASON. Thirteen thousand more than the same period last 

year. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Okay. What is the biggest factor in your success 

in solvency this problem? 

Ms. MASON. The biggest factor for the—currently to that success 

is the fact that we added additional people and we are working 

with our staff very closely to streamline the process. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Do you need anything else from us so that in a 

year from now, you can show us even more amazing results? 

Ms. MASON. I really need your help getting the word out on 

RAMP and selling that out to our—to your constituents and at the 

local level to opt-in, because it is a program worth opting in. 

Mr. ARRINGTON. Thank you for your remarks. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

And Mr. Bowman, Mr. Dodaro, thank you very much. I know you 

have got to leave. I would like to ask Mr. Bowman to stay around. 

And just before we introduce our second panel, you know, this 

issue is not tax reform and funding the military and health care 

reform and all those glitzy things you go out and stand out in front 

of a TV camera and explain. But to people in our district, it’s incredibly important and to a 90-year-old veteran waiting three or 

four or five years or a Vietnam veteran who has been exposed and 

is waiting on a resolution and financial circumstances come into 

play, it is a huge issue for them. 

So, thank you for the work that you are doing to speed up this 

process. I applaud you for that. Probably of anything that any of 

us on this dais do that both is rewarding and frustrating is appeals 

process the VA has. So, anything we can do, and hopefully this legislation that Ms. Titus first started and now Mr. Bost and Ms. Esty 

have carried through into law, will help this process and speed this 

process up. 

And I hope a year from now when we are having this conversation, that we have even better news. So, thank you, and this panel 

is dismissed. 

Now, I want to welcome our second panel, Jim Marszalek, the 

national service director for the Disabled American Veterans, welcome; Diane Boyd Rauber, the executive director of the National 

Organization of Veterans’ Advocates; and Steven Henry, the associate legislative director of Paralyzed Veterans of America. 

Mr. Marszalek, we will begin with you; you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIM MARSZALEK 

Mr. MARSZALEK. Thank you. Chairman Roe, Ranking Member 

Walz, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting DAV 

to testify on implementation of the Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act. As national service director for DAV, I was pleased 

to work with VA, the board, and other stakeholders to develop the 

new framework that led to this legislation. I want to thank this 

Committee for making comprehensive appeals reform a reality. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

33 

Currently, DAV represents over one million veterans or survivors 

seeking earned benefits, making us the largest veterans’ service organization providing claims assistance. In addition, DAV provided 

representation for 31 percent of all appeals decided by the board 

in fiscal year 2017. 

Mr. Chairman, although the law is not scheduled to become fully 

effective until February 2019, VA has already initiated a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program, commonly referred to as ‘‘RAMP,’’ to 

begin reducing the backlog of legacy appeals and to test elements 

of the new system. RAMP allows veterans with pending appeals to 

choose two new options; higher-level review or a supplemental 

claim. They cannot elect the board option because the board will 

not begin processing appeals under the new system until February 

2019. 

We worked closely with VBA to fine-tune RAMP, which began 

rolling out last November. Since the program was only offered to 

a small number of veterans closest to getting a decision from the 

board, we aren’t surprised that most choose to remain in the legacy 

process; however, based on preliminary data, RAMP is already 

showing great promise. The average time to complete a RAMP decision is 37 days. 

But more importantly, consider how all these decisions are affecting the lives of veterans. One of the first RAMP decisions involved 

a Gulf War era veteran, represented by DAV, who filed his claim 

more than a decade ago. After years of appeals and remands from 

the board, this veteran opted into RAMP on November 16th and 

just 48 days later, a grant to service-connection with 100 percent 

evaluation was awarded, which resulted in over $275,000 in retroactive benefits. RAMP provided a life-changing benefits to this veteran and his family. 

Moving forward, as word of RAMP successes begin to spread and 

as VA and VSOs begin educating veterans, we expect to see participation grow. In addition, we recommend that the program be modified so that any claimant with a pending appeal could opt into 

RAMP, not just those receiving a formal invitation from VA. 

Mr. Chairman, the law requires VA to use a new decision- notification letter starting in February of 2019 to help veterans better 

understand their decisions as they consider appeal options. We are 

pleased that VA agreed to use a new letter for all RAMP decisions; 

however, they currently have to use a manual workaround because 

their IT system has not been updated to reflect the new letter format. VA was fix this IT issue immediately. In addition, outside of 

RAMP, we recommend that VA begin using a new notification letter for all claims decisions as soon as the IT system has been updated. 

While VBA is mostly on track with its implementation plans, the 

board has a number of preparations still to be completed before it 

can begin processing appeals under the new system, including new 

regulations that must be promulgated. It is critical that they are 

published in the Federal Register as soon as possible to avoid any 

delays. 

The board must also resolve some open questions about how appeals will be processed on the five new dockets the board will operate in the new system. For example, how will be the board allocate 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

34 

resources among the various new dockets to ensure both, efficiency, 

as well as fairness for veterans who choose among their hearing 

and evidence options, including those legacy appeals who have been 

waiting for years. 

While the board has set a one-year-average goal for processing 

appeals on the no-hearing, no-evidence docket, no similar targets 

have been established for the remaining dockets; something the 

board should consider. 

Another issue that is not been adequately addressed is how the 

board will treat evidence submitted prior to a requested hearing. 

The law only references evidence submitted at and 90 days following a hearing, however, we contend that any evidence received 

after the NOD, but prior to a board hearing, should be accepted 

and made part of the appeal record. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, we believe that the VBA and the board 

are off to a good start implementing the new appeals system. DAV 

remains committed to working with this Committee, VA, the board, 

and all stakeholders to ensure veterans get more timely, accurate 

and fair decisions on their claims and appeals. 

That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM MARSZALEK APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Rauber, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE BOYD RAUBER, ESQ. 

Ms. RAUBER. Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the Committee. NOVA thanks you for the opportunity to 

testify on whether VA’s implementation of appeals reform will effectively serve veterans. 

Our Members, a number of whom are veterans themselves, advocate before VA, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

As an initial matter, NOVA appreciates VA’s ongoing engagement of stakeholders in implementation planning. We hope this engagement continues and VA fully considers and deploys stakeholder feedback on proposed regulations, procedures, and forms. 

Today, we will address four primary issues: VA’s comprehensive 

plan, concerns regarding RAMP, VA’s flawed process for mailing 

notice, and technology. Like GAO, NOVA is concerned that VA’s 

comprehensive plan does not yet contain sufficient detail. Throughout the plan submitted in November, VA stated it will focus resources first on the implementation of the new system. VA will 

then allocate ‘‘remaining resources’’ to appeals in the legacy system. 

Veterans with legacy appeals cannot become an afterthought. 

Much more detail is needed to ensure VA processes legacy appeals 

to their conclusion in a fair and efficient manner while fulfilling its 

obligations under the new program. For example, how will BVA address the backlog of pending hearing requests, currently nearly 

85,000, and provide timely hearings to those in the new system 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

35 

who wish to be heard? Veterans need more specific answers to 

questions like these. 

VA’s primary vehicle for handling legacy appeals is RAMP, a 

chance for early voluntary opt-in to the new system. We believe 

this is less a pilot, but rather, a full program for moving veterans 

into the new system and as noted, there is a gap because there are 

no lanes to go to the board. 

It is critically important that VA continue to provide advocates 

with data on RAMP so they can evaluate the program and provide 

the best advice to veterans and their families. At last week’s stakeholder meeting, VA stated it planned to set up outbound call centers to contact veterans about RAMP. NOVA opposes such action. 

VA is providing veterans with letters, follow-up letters, and 

emails about RAMP. It is one thing for VA to call a veteran to 

verify an address or schedule a medical examination; it is another 

to call to try to explain a new program that could result in a veteran giving up certain rights. However well intended, such calls 

are bound to lead to confusion and potentially contradict the advice 

a veteran’s representative has already provided. We view this idea 

as counterproductive, as well as a waste of resources that can be 

better applied to other aspects of implementation. 

Next, we appreciate the RAMP team’s work with NOVA to ensure attorneys and agents receive the required mailed notice of 

VA’s actions; however, VA’s overall efforts in this regard remain 

woefully inadequate. As GAO reported several months ago, VA’s 

outgoing mailing systems are seriously flawed. NOVA receives 

nearly daily complaints that important correspondence and decisions are going unmailed and unreceived. 

In spite of the recognized flaws, VA relies on the presumption of 

administrative regularity when a veteran misses a deadline due to 

its failure to notify. VA’s processes are irregular and it further prolongs the adjudication process due to the need for more appeals. 

VA states it is preparing to deploy a centralized outgoing mail 

system, but too many veterans have been harmed. VA must do better and provide relief for these veterans and we urge the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation to continue its leadership in this regard. 

Finally, a critical step to full implementation of the new system 

is updated technology. Congress should continue to ensure that VA 

receives the resources it needs; in turn, VA must use those resources to design systems that work efficiently. At last week’s 

stakeholder meeting, the U.S. Digital Services team demonstrated 

some of the work it is doing on Caseflow, which is the replacement 

for BVA’s outdated VACOLS program, as well as other new applications designed to help veterans track their appeals. 

These systems must also be made available to all advocates representing our Nation’s veterans, so they can provide them with the 

help they deserve. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today and I would 

be happy to answer any questions the Committee might have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANE BOYD RAUBER APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Rauber. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

36 

Mr. Henry, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN HENRY 

Mr. HENRY. Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America would like 

to thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on the implementation of VA’s appeal reform and if, in fact, it will effectively 

serve veterans. 

PVA employs a highly trained force of over 70 service officers 

who developed veterans’ claims for both, member and non-member 

clients. These frontline flows spend a minimum of two years in specialized training. We maintain a national appeals office staffed by 

attorneys and legal interns who represent clients at the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals, otherwise known as ‘‘the Board.’’ 

We also have attorney who practice before the board, the Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

While we are open to reform of the appeals process, we cannot 

support programs, initiatives, or pilot programs that are less advantageous for our members. We believe RAMP is good for VA and 

the backlog of appeals, but it is not good for our members. 

VA will tout their 61 percent grant rate of the first claims that 

were adjudicated; however, these claims were completed at the appeals management office, not in the field. PVA contacted many of 

its field offices and found that in many of VA’s regional offices, 

there is a lack of confidence of the effectiveness of the RAMP program by VA employees. 

Furthermore, it is a common perception of decision- review officers that the board has more authority on the interpretation of regulations while adjudicating certain claims. Claims such as these 

are always forwarded to the board. 

PVA believes that RAMP is able to be successful, the culture 

within the VA must change, otherwise, the RAMP program is nothing more than another layer adding more denials and longer wait 

times for veterans. 

We also found after surveying field employees that very few regional offices have received any training materials or tools for its 

employees. To date, PVA has yet to receive any training materials. 

The nature of RAMP places a considerable amount of responsibility 

on service organizations to provide the absolute best advice possible when choosing the proper lanes or to not opt-in. 

PVA members are the most catastrophically disabled veterans 

and their claims are nothing short of complex. How can we confidently communicate to our members, the benefits of RAMP when 

the regional office staff is yet to be trained on the program? 

When a veteran receives a notice advising them of the RAMP 

program, they will receive a document many pages long containing 

legal jargon with the intent of explaining the pros and cons of the 

program. Buried deep on Page 4 is a statement that notifies the 

veteran that by opting into the RAMP program, they must withdraw their appeals from the board which will result in the loss of 

their docket date. 

Consequently, if the veteran chooses to return back to the board 

after RAMP, they will lose their place in line. Furthermore, vetLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

37 

erans will not have the option to return to the board until February of 2019. 

If a veteran has opted into RAMP and during the adjudication 

period, the claim is remanded for a new exam or for the development, the veteran is no longer covered by Stegall. There is no 

longer protection over the remand to ensure the regional office 

complied with the remand order. Consequently, the claim could be 

denied, resulting in more waiting for the veteran. 

We believe VA is not implementing a pilot program. Pilot programs are small in size; however, to date, VA has contacted 15,000 

veterans. On February 1, another 25,000 will be acted and 30,000 

in March. This is not a sample size; this is an incredible amount 

of claims being forwarded to regional offices to limited staffs that 

have received little to no training on the program. The speed at 

which RAMP is being implemented is troubling. 

PVA appreciates VA’s need to reform. PVA, along with other 

major VSOs help push for appeals reform. Our greatest concern is 

that VA may be rushing its implementation, as seen by the rapidly 

increasing number of veterans contacted for the pilot, without time 

for VA to consider the metrics of the pilot. 

PVA stands ready to continue to assist with reforming the appeals process to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits they, 

too, rightly deserve. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN HENRY APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

And I will start out with just a couple of quick questions and it 

sort of goes to both ends here. We have two, obviously, two differences of opinion. One believes that it is working pretty well and 

the other brings up some very good questions. 

The question for everybody on the panel is, why do you think the 

VA has got only a 3 percent intake? I have my own thoughts about 

that for RAMP, and are your organizations encouraging people to 

get into it or discouraging people to use it? And I will just start 

from my left and go to the right. 

Mr. MARSZALEK. Yes, thank you. Great question. We are encouraging our service officers. You know, we put our information about 

RAMP, Hey, this is what the program is all about, here are the advantages of it. And, frankly, I don’t see there is a huge downside 

to participating either, right? I mean you are protected. Once you 

opt-in to the program, you are effect date is protected. 

Why is there such a slow uptake? One is they reached out to the 

oldest appeals that are pending and, you know, some of our service 

officers gave us feedback, Well, this veteran has a hearing next 

week, you know, they have already had their hearing, whatever it 

may be, so they don’t want to get out of line and they don’t know 

much about it either. There hasn’t been much advertising by VA 

about RAMP and what it is all about. 

At the last meeting we were at, I did encourage VA, Listen, let’s 

do some, you know, marketing and tell people about this program. 

We want to do it. We want to help VA. We want to encourage people to participate if it is right for them. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

38 

And we have told our service officers, you have to look at the 

case. Is this the case—the right case to go forward and pick higherlevel review or supplemental claim. But the cases that we have 

opted in, we have gotten some good feedback from the veterans, as 

well, and there is three in my written testimony alone that received a significant amount of benefits based upon their participation. They have waited almost a decade for their cases. 

So, there is some good, but we really, really have to watch as it 

grows. As we are notifying thirty, 35,000 people, you know, how 

many people are opting in and can we maintain that workload? 

And we have to do it together and I think the collaboration has 

been good thus far. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Rauber? 

Ms. RAUBER. We have provided training to all of our members, 

but we believe that is really an individual decision that each representative needs to make with the individual veteran. As we noted 

in our testimony, there are no lanes at the board, so an advocate 

is saying to the veteran, You are going to jump out here. You are 

going to lose your place in line. You are withdrawing your appeals 

with no opportunity to come back in. I can get you this far and, 

yes, you will be waiting in line when the process opens and VA 

says it is going to be ready in February of 2019. 

But if they are not ready, you have just instructed a veteran that 

he might be getting his appeal looked at, and you know we heard 

some testimony earlier today, I know VA is intending to be on 

time, but there is a little bit of suggestion here that it is not entirely clear that it is going to happen and I think that gives people 

some pause as to whether they should recommend this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah, I agree with you. I think that is exactly 

what it is. 

Mr. Henry? 

Mr. HENRY. PVA, we represent a very specific clientele. Our service officers work with very complex claims involving paraplegia, 

tetraplegia, MS, and even ALS. And we just don’t know if the 

RAMP program is advantageous for our members. 

Like Mr. Marszalek said, it may be good for some veterans, but 

right now, we don’t see it very benefitting our members for PVA, 

so we are just going to sit back and see what happens with everybody else before we jump in. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. And I think all of you, I think 

it is probably correct at being new. It is difficult to jump in something new when you know where you are in line. I couldn’t disagree with that at all. 

Mr. Henry, and you have probably already answered this, but 

why the PVA is concerned that VA hasn’t established benchmarks 

during whether RAMP is successful; you mention that in your testimony. 

Mr. HENRY. The only benchmarks that we are really made aware 

of were how many veterans they were looking to opt-in. One of our 

biggest concerns is VA touts this program as being a pilot program 

or a test program. 

Test programs are used to test. They are used to determine 

whether or not the resources are there for the final program to 

really be successful. And with VA not providing these benchmarks, 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

39 

they have absolutely nothing to measure the effectiveness of the 

program on. So, we just don’t feel that everything is there for 

RAMP to be successful. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you my time is expired. 

Mr. Walz? 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to all of you for a lot of years of working these 

and I do think we take our lead from your service officers. DAV has 

4,000 accredited folks out there that have worked on this. There is 

literally so much wealth of knowledge on how to make this happen, 

so this feedback today is really helpful. 

And I, too, am—the communication piece is it, and I think the 

Chairman is absolutely right. This is—it is, you know, ‘‘the devil 

I know is better than the devil I don’t know’’ type of thing. And 

I certainly know how I would view it in the line, but I think there 

is going to have to be—we are going to have to get to the point 

where we are encouraging people to get into a system that works, 

restoring that trust. 

Because the ultimate goal is to get fairly adjudicated claims in 

the most efficient manner possible, to deliver those benefits that 

are owed. And all of us have that same goal and so—trying to get 

there. 

What I am—this communication piece, I would—Ms. Boyd 

Rauber, what about all those attorneys and things that are out 

there and the folks that are doing this? These—little different than 

the VSO side of things but in the same goal. Are you getting good 

information? Do they feel well-versed? Do they feel part of this, this 

process moving forward to implementation? 

Ms. RAUBER. I would say that VA has done a better job of including us in the planning. And all the information that VA is giving 

us, we are disseminating to our members, but, again, I would say 

that we really feel that it has to be an individual decision based 

on the specifics of an individual case. And people who are farther 

along in the process are just much less likely to move in. 

Mr. WALZ. Are any of you—anybody have it anecdotally, where 

someone came up and said, Hey, I haven’t been contacted. I want— 

I really want to get in this thing. How do I do it? Have you heard 

of that happening? 

Mr. MARSZALEK. Yes, we have had veterans contact us and want 

to be—want to participate, but that is not currently offered at this 

time. That is why one of our suggestions is for VA to allow that. 

If we come across a veteran who has been waiting years and we 

think the program is going to be advantageous to them, we should 

be able to opt them in, yeah. 

Mr. WALZ. And I—well, I think that is the ultimate goal. I guess 

maybe in this, there is more of a selective of sending it out, but 

when we sent it out, we didn’t get as much feedback as we wanted. 

You would sure think that the ones who were voluntarily saying, 

Put me in this, we would figure out a way to make that happen. 

Mr. MARSZALEK. Absolutely. 

Mr. WALZ. So—— 

Ms. RAUBER. I think we would like to hear more information 

about how VA sees that working, but we are open to discussions. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

40 

Mr. HENRY. As far as I know, we have had very few veterans optin. And like Mr. Marszalek said, it is a case- by-case basis and, 

honestly, I am not sure if we told that veteran to opt-in, but I know 

it is very few at this point. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, I think you bring up a very good point and for 

all of us to understand, there are a multitude of veterans’ service 

organizations for a reason; for specific conflicts, for specific issues, 

for specific advocacy. And that has served us very well, as long as 

we have never lost track of we are not leaving anyone behind; we 

are not cutting anybody out at the expense of someone else. 

And I think in this process, you are bringing up a very, very important point about specific claims, specific group of veterans, and 

making sure that if it is working for one, that may not be for the 

other. And I don’t quite have my mind wrapped around how to 

make that happen. I don’t know exactly where that is, but it is 

something for us to focus on. 

I think we have heard a lot about it, the not testing with the 

board as being a piece of it, so it probably goes—we probably are 

there. But, I want to thank you all. I would say now of all of those 

years of work, all that expertise that is out there processing, we 

need all of that right now, these 12 months. 

And I think we all need to say—and it is something to think 

about—I am not letting anybody off that date, but we have to be 

ready on that date. And if there is any indication as we get closer 

and closer there is not a possibility, we need to be communicating. 

So, I thank you all and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Bost, Chairman Bost, you are recognized. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I just—I am really concerned as we see the spectrum of each 

VSO group that has their different concerns. I—you are from positive to really not, but that is not where I want to go with my questions; I have some specifics. 

Ms. Rauber, is NOVA concerned that the veterans, that when 

they receive the RAMP letters, are not fully understanding them 

or what the program involves? 

Ms. RAUBER. No, I think it is that, you know, our veterans—our 

members will be expecting to talk to that individual client. VA is 

sending the notice to the veteran and hopefully, and as I stated, 

not always consistently sending the notice to the representative, as 

intended. 

But I think in each specific case, they will have that one-on-one 

together to talk about the specifics of the case and the notice. So, 

I am not so sure that it is the veteran is not understanding with 

the help of his counsel, but I think it is, is this the right thing for 

me as an individual to move into this system or not. 

There are concerns that Mr. Henry raised about the remand 

issue and some of the—in the legacy system, there is more control 

that the board keeps over the remand and I think there are people 

who perceive that as maybe being a better route for them. 

Mr. BOST. Just as an individual basis? 

Ms. RAUBER. Exactly. 

Mr. BOST. Okay. Mr. Henry, would you like to expand on that? 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

41 

Mr. HENRY. From what I heard from field employees, if a veteran 

receives a letter without consulting their service organization first 

or afterwards, they are going to be confused. I was a little confused 

when I read the letter. 

So—and plus, there is so much. There is so much just like the 

whole thing about withdrawing your appeal; that is on Page 4. So 

I think that in itself and alone, should probably be—it is one of the 

most important aspects of this program, because once you withdraw all your appeals at the board, you can’t go back and you can’t 

go back until February of 2019. So, that is extremely important for 

a veteran to know and they won’t know that if it is on Page 4. 

Most veterans, when they receive these letters, they may briefly 

read through it, but the second they see that this program is 

quicker, that they are going to receive a notice faster, then they are 

more likely to jump in. But I think it is important for the veterans 

to know just what exactly they are jumping into. 

And that is why it is so important for the service organizations 

to be a part of this. And like Ms. Rauber said, it is important for 

the veterans’ representative to receive a copy of this letter, to know 

that they have been selected for this program, because then they 

can contact the veteran and say, Look, you have this letter, let me 

explain it to you. 

Otherwise, veterans aren’t going to know what they are reading 

and once they see ‘‘quick’’ they are just going to go and opt-in. 

Mr. BOST. So, to all three of you, maybe the concerns I have is 

how do you advise your VSO, your actual frontline case agent to 

advise them? Is it uniform between all of our VSOs? Mr. Henry, 

you have kind of got a larger concern in comparison to the other 

organizations and is there a uniform among our agents working for 

the veterans to either give a positive response towards this or a 

negative response or is it just to keep them informed? 

Mr. MARSZALEK. I think the biggest part is the knowledge piece 

and the training piece. Are they aware of it? Do they know the 

ramifications of it? 

You know, I have asked Dave McLenachen to come to a conference that we had with all of our supervisors and have him get 

up there and talk about RAMP and what it is all about. They don’t 

need to just hear it from me; they need to hear it from VA, as well. 

Our whole theme of our conference is nothing changes if nothing 

changes, right? 

Mr. BOST. Because if it is not working now —— 

Mr. MARSZALEK. The current process we have today is broken. 

We all know that. That is why we are here. 

So, you know, I did this for 10 years in the field before I came 

to Washington, D.C. and I have a hard time telling somebody not 

to opt-in, right, when they are going to get a quicker decision. And 

let’s say they are even close to getting a board decision and they 

get an unfavorable decision at the local RO. The new letter they 

get tells them, you know, it is more informative, right? That is one 

of my favorite pieces of this program is that new decision notification letter, providing more explanation about why you didn’t get 

the benefits you were seeking. 

So, now, let’s take a look at that. Let’s see what evidence we 

need. We can go back through that claims lane. I am going to be 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

42 

hard-pressed to tell somebody to go directly to the board unless it 

is a matter of law, and if it is, let’s go get in line right now. You 

are going to be one of the first to get your cases heard now. You 

know, that is an advantage. I think if you opted in now and got 

in line now, you are going to be one of the first to get heard. 

Mr. BOST. Well, thanks for your input, and we are going to continue to work on this. Your input is vitally important on this. 

With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Ms. Brownley, you are recognized. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Henry, I appreciate your testimony and to summarize, it 

sounds like it is really sort of rolling the dice and your members 

have very complicated cases, which is extremely understandable. 

I am just wondering. We heard the VA testify that at least based 

on the small population that have gone, that have opted in and 

have gone through the process, there is a 62 percent success rate. 

Can you speak to that and do you have any of your members in 

that population of success? 

Mr. HENRY. From what I have been told, no. I think it is important to note that all of the cases that VA has adjudicated so far 

for the RAMP has been at the appeals management office. Once 

these claims go out into the field—now, we surveyed our field employees and they told us that basically the feeling they received 

from VA is, they have very little confidence in this program. 

The people or the representatives from VA that are going to be 

adjudicating these claims are decision-review officers. These are 

men and women who have spent the majority of their time or they 

have the most time developing and deciding claims. 

There is a common perception within the VA with DROs that 

they have a very limited authority on how they can develop and basically write claims. I mean that is just not the case, but it is a 

common perception throughout VA. 

So, if you are moving these same men and women to the same 

positions that are going to decide the RAMP claims, you are really 

not changing anything. You are going to basically put them in the 

same position that they were before. And we have heard that from 

the field. A lot of the decision-review officers have said, This is 

nothing more than another DRO review. 

In that case, the claims that they feel they can’t rate, they are 

just going to push to the board anyway. Now, if this gentleman has 

jumped into RAMP, that means that they can’t appeal their claim 

to the board. They have to wait until 2019. 

And for us, I mean like Mr. Marszalek said, this may work for 

some veterans. It may work for some of ours, but right now, we 

haven’t seen the specific instance where it will work for one of our 

veterans. We can’t make a—PVA can’t use a blanket statement and 

say, Yes, this will work for PVA. We don’t know. 

We are going to look at it very carefully on a case-by-case basis 

until we specifically tell one of our veterans, Yes, opt-in. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And how do you—what is your feeling in terms 

of interacting with the VA, trying to improve upon the process as 

we are going through this sort of trial balloon? 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

43 

Mr. HENRY. I mean, there has been communication within VA 

and the VSOs, but it has been extremely quick. They are implementing this program very quickly and we don’t think it is a pilot 

program. We don’t think it is a test program. They are basically 

trying to implement—at least, that is how we feel—they are trying 

to implement appeals reform now. They are trying to do it quicker. 

And we think that they are just jumping ahead of themselves, 

and for us, it is just not advantageous for our members. And I 

think it is just—I can only speak on behalf of PVA. I can’t speak 

to Ms. Rauber’s organization or Mr. Marszalek’s organization, but 

in regards to PVA, it is just not something that we see it as being 

very advantageous for our members. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. I need to be in the Capitol at 12:15, 

so I am going to have to yield back. I did have other questions, but 

I want people to know that I am leaving because I am already late. 

So, thank you, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

Mr. Takano, you are recognized. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To any of you who may want to answer this, my first question 

is, how concerned are you about the fact that RAMP is not being 

tested at the board level? 

Ms. RAUBER. We think that is a concern because we believe that 

it is difficult to counsel a veteran to go into a system where there 

is not completion all the way through. And, yes, we understand 

VA’s position that the gates will be open first to those individuals, 

but without knowing it the whole way through, I think it is difficult and we are relying on the statement that they will be ready. 

I think, also, there is concern about how the hearing lanes are 

going to work. There are several different lanes that are going to 

be set up at the board, and as I mentioned in my testimony, there 

are 87,000—85,000 people waiting now already for hearings. 

How is that all really going to run? And I think we have concerns 

about that. 

Mr. TAKANO. All right. Anyone else want to add to that? 

Mr. MARSZALEK. The biggest piece for us at the board is how 

they are going to operate those new dockets. You know, they have 

a goal for the no-evidence, no-hearing lane of one year, but there 

is no goal established for the hearing lane or hearing any evidence 

or just evidence and we want to make sure. We are going to pay 

very, very close attention to that to make sure it is being operated 

very fairly across the board for even the legacy appeals, as well. 

Mr. TAKANO. Great. Mr. Henry, among your concerns in RAMP, 

if you were to highlight it, what one specific change would you like 

to see to make RAMP better? Maybe you can’t limit yourself to one, 

but—— 

Mr. HENRY. I think if anything, it would be to—if the veterans 

choose to opt-in to RAMP, they don’t lose their place. They don’t 

lose their docket date at the board. And they have the chance, if 

they receive a negative decision through RAMP, they have the opportunity to go back to where they were before and they don’t lose 

their docket date. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

44 

To all of you, have you been receiving calls from veterans who 

have not sent RAMP enrollment letters, but want to know about 

RAMP? 

Mr. MARSZALEK. Yes, we have received calls from veterans that 

are inquiring about can they participate, and we have told them 

no. That is something that was in our written testimony and our 

oral testimony that we believe VA should open that up. If we do 

come across a claimant who would be perfect for RAMP, that we 

be allowed to opt them in at that time. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

Ms. RAUBER. I am not aware of calls our members are getting in 

that regard, no. 

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Henry? 

Mr. HENRY. I am not aware of calls either. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. To all of you, how do you feel communication from the VA to VSOs is going in how do you feel your 

input is being received and what is the average response time from 

the VA? 

Mr. MARSZALEK. You know, in my 17 years of doing this, this is 

probably the best we have working together ever. You know, I 

called Dave McLenachen and two days later, we were sitting down 

and having a meeting about some of the concerns that I had and 

we wanted to talk about and get an update from him on what was 

going on. 

So, I think today is the best that it has ever been since I have 

been in this business in 17 years. So, that is great for us to see. 

We are very, very happy with the collaboration of us all working 

together. 

Mr. TAKANO. That is great to hear. 

Ms. RAUBER. I have to say that I obviously represent attorneys 

and agents and I will say that VA has made a concerted effort during this implementation period to continue to keep us informed. Of 

course, we would always like a little bit more time to take a look 

and really consider the things that they are providing to us, and 

we really do hope that they are going to listen to the feedback and 

take some of the suggestions that we have made on the regs and 

other forms. 

Mr. HENRY. The communication has been good, but just from our 

perspective, communication has been all about RAMP. There hasn’t 

been a lot of communication about appeals reform. So, right now, 

the emphasis is RAMP, RAMP, RAMP. 

So, I think that if they put out a little bit more communication 

in regards to the full reform, that way we are prepared for when 

it is fully implemented in 2019. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my questions. I don’t—I will yield 

back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

And, first of all, I want to thank the panel. This is a great addition to the—I wish more members could have been here to hear 

this, but I appreciate your view because you view it at the ground 

level, not at the thirty-thousand-foot level. 

Do you have any closing comments? 

Mr. WALZ. No, thank you, all. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

45 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to just finish by saying a couple of things. 

One, I think it was a very productive meeting and one of the focuses of this Committee this year is going to be on appeals reform. 

We have a couple of other things on choice we have to do and asset 

review, but one of the major focuses is going to be on getting this 

right. 

And I remember nine years ago, the Ranking Member was here 

with me—yes, the two of us who have been here the longest—there 

were a million claims. I remember that number just startled me. 

In 2009, a million disability claims out there. 

And so, to VA’s and to your hard work, that’s been reduced, but 

all those numbers are fine, but if there is somebody sitting, waiting 

on a mailbox or a phone call somewhere, that one person, it is 100 

percent of their claim that hasn’t been heard and they are waiting 

years and years and years. 

So, I think I heard several things from Secretary Bowman today, 

that he’s willing to come back or willing to give the Committee a 

monthly report on where they are in this program. Number two, 

I have learned a new—a sand table. I have learned a new term 

today. We are going to do that in 60 days and the VA will return, 

along with you all before the August recess to do another one of 

these sit-downs to see where we are. 

The other thing I like about this program is it is an opt-in program. Maybe the optics of getting a letter are hard for veterans to 

understand. 

The other thing I have learned today is that—and we knew 

this—that each case is different and what size may fit—it is not 

a size 10 shoe for everybody. It is a—someone has different, like 

the issues of Mr. Henry brought up are very complicated cases. 

Others may be fairly simple, although they have taken a lengthy 

amount of time to do this. 

Again, one of the things I like is you can choose to do this program or not. I think what VA is trying to do is to get enough data 

to say when they go live in February of 2019 that they are able 

to—that they have the resources to do that and they are testing it 

out now on a voluntary basis. 

So, I know this entire Committee, and I think I can speak for the 

Ranking Member, are committed to working on this with the Department of VA, the VSOs, GAO, and anyone else really to help the 

VA get to a new system that ultimately gets to our goal, which is 

a timely and accurate adjudication of these claims. 

So, again, I want to thank you all, the witnesses, for being here. 

I ask unanimous consent. We have several written statements 

provided for the record, be placed in the hearing record. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

The CHAIRMAN. And also, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their 

remarks and include any extraneous material. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

(46) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Thomas G. Bowman 

Good morning, Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting us here today to discuss VA’s plans for implementing 

the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (Modernization 

Act). Joining me today are Ms. Cheryl L. Mason, Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals; Mr. David J. Barrans, Chief Counsel, Benefits Law Group, Office of General 

Counsel; and Mr. David R. McLenachen, Director of the Appeals Management Office, Veterans Benefits Administration. 

The Modernization Act 

The Modernization Act, enacted on August 23, 2017, is the most significant statutory change affecting VA disability compensation appeals in decades and I wish to 

thank the Committee for its work on the much-needed comprehensive legislation 

that will reform an archaic process into one that makes sense for Veterans, their 

advocates, VA, stakeholders, and taxpayers. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to discuss the Department’s plans to implement the new claims and 

appeals process and strategies for managing the legacy appeals inventory. 

VA remains committed to timely and full implementation of the Modernization 

Act by ensuring information technology (IT) systems for the new claims and appeals 

process are developed or updated; employees are properly trained; and Veterans are 

fully informed of the changes and their options in seeking review of VA’s decisions 

on their claims. VA has a clearly defined strategy for managing the new process and 

legacy appeals workload and is committed to transparency in reporting its metrics 

and goals relating to both implementation plans and these separate workloads. 

VA’s Implementation Plan 

VA has developed a implementation plan that was collaboratively prepared by the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) 

and contains inputs from other components of VA involved in the implementation 

of the Modernization Act. VA initiated this 18-month plan immediately after the law 

was enacted, and fully expects to implement the new claims and appeals process by 

February 2019. VA will utilize the period between now and then to promulgate regulations, establish procedures, hire and train personnel, implement IT system 

changes, conduct outreach, and gather data for trends analyses and metrics reporting. Due to the magnitude and scope of the statutory changes, VA is employing a 

governance structure to oversee and document appeals modernization implementation using project management experts to institute key project management tools 

and deliverables. To track implementation progress, the plan includes timelines, interim goals and milestones, reporting requirements, and established deadlines to ensure timely execution. 

Workforce Planning and Human Capital Strategy 

In order to ensure smooth implementation, the Board has a workforce plan to recruit, hire, and train new employees. The Board started fiscal year (FY) 2017 with 

667 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) and ended the year with 944 FTE. This year, the 

Board will hire up to 1,050 FTE, with the majority of those being attorneys who 

are responsible for preparing decisions for Veterans Law Judges. These employees 

are the core of the Board’s Appellate Operations line of business. The Board remains 

able to attract high-caliber attorneys and administrative personnel because the mission to serve Veterans is one that is particularly desirable to those seeking a career 

in public service. The Board will also fill several support positions and will continually assess its resources and focus on its core mission. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

47 

Beginning in April 2018, training at the Board will commence for both new and 

existing staff on the legacy system as well as the new statutory framework and proposed regulations. To prepare, the Board will develop specific training materials 

from January through March 2018. These materials will be authored by an existing 

group of employees who serve as subject matter experts (SME) on appeals modernization. These trainings will be provided by the SMEs to all legal staff and impacted administrative branches. Once final regulations are published, any changes 

to the proposed rules will be incorporated into the training materials and additional 

training will be conducted. 

Information Technology Strategy 

VA has also undertaken enterprise-wide efforts to modernize the appeals process 

through improvements in technology. As part of this effort, VA has used information 

technology funds to develop and optimize paperless functionality in VA appeals 

processing. With FY 2016 and 2017 IT funding, VA began a multi-phase process of 

enhancing appeals functionality in the paperless claims environment. These enhancements are necessary to keep pace with the transformation of benefits processing that occurred at the beginning (i.e., claims) of the VA benefits system. Initial 

key appeals-specific functionalities in the paperless environment will focus on seamless integration of systems, and key accountability and workability features. This investment will best position the Department, from a technological standpoint, to address the VA appeals inventory. 

During recent years, Appeals IT modernization efforts have largely been directed 

and handled within the Board, led principally by the Digital Service at VA (DSVA) 

team. While these efforts initially focused on retiring the legacy case management 

system, DSVA is now incorporating new functionality within its roadmap to support 

the required legislative changes and will begin testing Caseflow Queue in March 

2018. In this capacity, DSVA implemented several technology functions in calendar 

years 2016 and 2017, including Caseflow Dispatch, Caseflow Certification, eFolder 

Express, Caseflow Reader, and Caseflow Intake. 

VBA has also been working to develop information technology system requirements for necessary appeals modernization enhancements within its Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). Following the enactment of the Modernization 

Act, VA has been working to ensure synchronization between DSVA and VBA design efforts in conjunction with necessary prioritization of VA IT resources. 

To address how VA will implement the new process while reducing the legacy appeals inventory, VA created an Appeals Processing Metric and Performance Tracking integrated project team to design a process for tracking timeliness of appeals 

within the legacy process, as well as the new process. VA plans to take a Veterancentric approach to measuring the success of the new appeals process and will measure average Veteran wait times in the new process as one indicator of success. VA 

has already held several requirements gathering sessions to ensure that methods 

for capturing the data to accurately measure, track, and report metrics required by 

the Modernization Act are developed. Further, to ensure full transparency in reporting to the Congress and the public, VA will periodically publish on its website the 

results for the comprehensive metrics relating to processing of claims and appeals 

under the new process, the legacy process, as well as the legacy appeals for which 

Veterans opt-in to the new system, as delineated in the statute. 

Legacy Appeals Strategy 

The Modernization Act also authorizes VA to test assumptions in the implementation of the new claims and appeals system. Accordingly, VA has decided to carry 

out a pilot program during the implementation period, the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP). The initiative, which was launched on November 1, 

2017, allows eligible participants with disability compensation appeals pending with 

VBA the voluntary option to have their decisions reviewed in the higher-level or 

supplemental claim review lanes outlined in the Modernization Act, giving Veterans 

early access to the benefits of the new system, while also allowing VA to better position itself for full implementation in February 2019. Since disability compensation 

appeals account for the vast majority of all pending appeals, the program allows 

most Veterans with pending appeals to participate. 

VBA has created training materials in order to train its employees on the RAMP 

process. VBA’s Appeals Management Office (AMO) is utilizing its Appeals Resource 

Center (ARC) in Washington, D.C., as the initial site to process the elections received from Veterans who participate in the program. AMO will expand RAMP processing to certain regional offices as the RAMP workload grows. Designated ARC employees received instructor-led training during the month of November 2017. The 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

48 

AMO is utilizing the feedback received to perfect the training materials prior to expanding the program to regional offices. VBA will incorporate the training materials 

developed for RAMP into the development of training materials for full implementation. 

The new law requires VA to modify its decision notices to Veterans to ensure they 

are clearer and provide adequate detail. This notice will help Veterans and their advocates make informed choices as to which review option makes the most sense. 

With RAMP, VA is testing a version of the new decision notice that meets the requirements outlined in the statute. VA worked collaboratively with Veterans Service 

Organizations (VSO) and other stakeholders in implementing RAMP and the new 

improved decision notices. RAMP provides VA with an opportunity to receive feedback from participants and their representatives on the notice’s ability to meet the 

needs of all Veterans and make any necessary adjustments prior to full implementation of the new system in February 2019. 

Furthermore, data collected during RAMP allows VA to test particular facets of 

the new process, make refinements based upon actual data that support or disprove 

assumptions, and make adjustments based upon identified problems prior to full implementation. VA will use several internal metrics to track RAMP’s progress. During this program, VA will gather data and conduct trends analyses on aspects of 

Veterans’ behavior, to include their decision to elect to participate in the new process, the distribution of elections among the new process lanes, claims processing 

timeliness, and individual employee productivity. The data collected during RAMP 

will allow for forecasting of the reduction of the legacy appeals inventory, as well 

as ensure adequate resources are directed towards RAMP claims. In addition, the 

data will inform VA as to appropriate work credit, workload capacity estimates, and 

processing timeliness metrics for the new process. Appeals that are not converted 

to the new process under RAMP will continue to be worked under the legacy process. VA will also use the data to assist in developing future resource requirements 

as part of the annual budget process. 

With RAMP, VA has already made great strides toward implementing the new 

process; for instance, DSVA was able to support VA and to define Caseflow Intake 

as a solution for managing Veterans’ elections to participate in RAMP using agile 

development technology. In addition, after gathering input from VSOs and other 

stakeholders, VA has developed, and is in the process of testing, a more detailed 

decision notice for compensation appeals, as well as the election opt-in notice. Furthermore, with the implementation of RAMP, VA has created enhancements to 

VBMS that allow higher-level review personnel to capture duty to assist error data. 

By February 2019, VA anticipates that requests for review of VA decisions will 

be processed under the new law and implemented regulations. However, a significant number of legacy appeals may remain in the system pending a final resolution. 

Beyond the work that VA is doing to develop sound monitoring and workload tracking practices for the new appeals process, VA continues to closely monitor the existing legacy appeals workloads. As part of an effort to streamline and improve performance in legacy appeals processing, in January 2017, VBA realigned its administrative appeals program under AMO. The realignment identified a single office responsible for overseeing VBA’s appeals policy and operations, and has resulted in 

increased accountability for appeals performance. The realignment positions VBA to 

focus oversight of program operational work, standardize policies and procedures to 

facilitate consistent benefit delivery, improve customer satisfaction, and increase the 

ability to make data-driven decisions. The improved focus and prioritization helped 

increase VBA appeals production by approximately 24 percent, decrease its appeals 

inventory by 10 percent, and increased its appeals resolutions by 10 percent, resolving over 124,000 appeals during FY 2017. 

During the 18-month implementation period, the Board is working to provide resolution for Veterans waiting for an appeal decision under the legacy system by focusing Board resources on its core mission: decisions and hearings. At the beginning 

of FY 2018, the Board changed its attorney performance standards and projects productivity of 79 decisions per FTE for legacy appeals. The Board is currently on pace 

to produce over 81,000 decisions during this fiscal year which would represent a historic level of production. The Board’s strategy to reduce the pending inventory of 

appeals is to: 1) continue to grow the organization’s attorney force, 2) re-engineer 

processes to include introducing a new decision template, 3) explore new case review 

techniques, 4) allow the Board to issue timelier decisions soon after a Veteran has 

a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge, and 5) use telework to accommodate the 

growth in personnel. 

Following the implementation, the Board will focus its resources on its core mission and will work to maximize efficiencies in appeals processing, to include technological and process improvements. The Board will assign the workload across its atLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

49 

1 VA Fiscal Year 2018 Congressional Budget Justification. 

2 VA, Comprehensive Plan for Processing of Legacy Appeals and Implementing the Modernized Appeals System (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2017). 

torney and Judge corps and manage the workload through Caseflow queue. 

Caseflow queue will electronically track the incoming cases and ensure accurate 

case assignment from both the legacy and the new framework lanes. This will assist 

the Board in meeting timeliness goals in the new system and ensure the continuing 

processing of legacy appeals. 

Additionally, appellants who receive a statement of the case (SOC) or supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) in the legacy system on or after the effective 

date of the new system will have the opportunity to elect to participate in the new 

system. Both the RAMP initiative, as well as the SOC opt-in, will directly impact 

legacy cases and provide early resolution for Veterans. 

VA’s Appeals Resources 

VA projects an average processing time of 125 days to complete higher-level reviews and supplemental claims under the new process, and 365 days to complete 

appeals to the Board in which there is no additional evidence and no request for 

a hearing. Average processing time for an appeal on the Board’s other dockets will 

be based on resource allocation, which VA will continually reevaluate and adjust. 

The RAMP pilot will provide better data and trend analysis for capacity modeling 

the resources needed for these other dockets prior to the implementation date. The 

Board will use the actual data obtained regarding appellant behavior in the new 

system to assist in developing future resource requirements as part of the annual 

budget process. VA intends to update the model when actual data can be used to 

replace projected data, when assumptions are shown to be no longer accurate, or 

based on any change in resources resulting from annual budget appropriations. 

Stakeholder Engagement 

VA also continues to work collaboratively with a wide spectrum of stakeholder 

groups, in accordance with Congressional intent, to refine the new VA claims and 

appeals process. The dedicated engagement of those organizations is providing VA 

with invaluable feedback, which is being incorporated into VA efforts to: 1) develop 

new forms, 2) establish internal standard operating procedures, 3) create training 

materials, and 4) develop communications and outreach products for Veterans. VA 

is grateful to all of the stakeholders for their continued contributions of time, energy, and expertise in this effort. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. We would be pleased to respond to questions you or other 

Members may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Gene L. Dodaro 

VA DISABILITY BENEFITS 

Opportunities Exist to Better Ensure Successful Appeals Reform 

Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our review of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs’ (VA) plan for implementing a new disability appeals process while processing pending appeals under the current, or legacy, process. VA provides cash benefits to veterans for disabling conditions incurred in or aggravated by military service, paying an estimated $67 billion to about 4.3 million veterans in fiscal year 

2016. 1 If veterans are dissatisfied with VA’s initial decision they can appeal-first 

to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and then, if not satisfied there, to 

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), a separate agency within VA. In recent 

years, the number of appeals of VA’s benefit decisions has been rising. For appeals 

resolved in fiscal year 2017, veterans waited an average of 3 years from the date 

they initiated their appeal to resolution by either VBA or the Board-and a cumulative average of 7 years for appeals resolved by the Board. 2 Due in part to the challenges VA faces managing large workloads and deciding disability claims and appeals in a timely manner, GAO in 2003 designated VA disability compensation and 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

50 

3GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO 17 317 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2017). 4GAO, VA Disability Benefits: Additional Planning Would Enhance Efforts to Improve the 

Timeliness of Appeals Decisions, GAO 17 234 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2017). 5While agreeing in principle, VA stated in its written comments that all five recommendations 

should be closed because its efforts to date already addressed the recommendations, or further 

progress was contingent upon passage of appeals reform legislation. We disagreed and maintained that VA needed to take further action on all recommendations. 6Pub. L. No. 115–55, § 2, 131 Stat. 1105, 1105. (2017) 

7The Act defines ‘‘appropriate committees of Congress’’ to be the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. 8We developed a checklist and decision rules to determine whether VA’s appeals plan addressed, partially addressed, or did not address each required element, or all of the sub-parts 

of each required element of the Act. Using these tools, an analyst reviewed VA’s plan against 

each required element and documented a judgment about whether that element was addressed 

in VA’s appeals plan. An attorney reviewed the analyst’s assessment and documented agreement 

or disagreement with the initial assessment. Where the attorney and analyst did not agree, a 

second attorney reviewed and made a final decision. We sent our preliminary assessment to officials at VA for comment and verification, which we considered in arriving at our assessment. 9See GAO 17 234. Specifically, that report identified best practices and other criteria through 

a review of relevant literature, such as federal internal control standards and prior GAO reports 

where we defined a number of desirable characteristics of an effective, results-oriented plan, or 

components of sound planning practices. For a list of the sources of sound practices and criteria 

used to evaluate VA’s approaches, see the Related GAO and Other Products section of GAO 17 

234 (page 61). 

other federal disability programs as one of the government’s highest management 

risks. 3

In a March 2017 report, we examined VA’s approaches to address challenges it 

identified as contributing to lengthy appeals processing times-including VA efforts 

to hire staff, propose reform legislation to Congress in April 2016, and upgrade its 

information technology systems-and the extent to which those approaches were consistent with sound planning practices. 4 We made five recommendations to improve 

VA’s ability to implement its proposed appeals process reform while addressing a 

growing appeals workload. VA agreed in principle with our five recommendations, 

which remain open as of January 2018. We recommended, in essence, that VA develop: (1) a detailed workforce plan, (2) a complete schedule of information technology (IT) updates, (3) better estimates of future workloads and timeliness, (4) a 

robust plan for monitoring appeals reform, and (5) a strategy for assessing whether 

the new process improves veterans’ experiences over the current process. 5 We also 

suggested that Congress require VA to pilot test appeals reform. 

Enacted on August 23, 2017, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (the Act) will make changes to VA’s appeals process. 6 Specifically, 

the Act replaces the current appeals process with a process that gives veterans various options to have their claim reviewed further by VBA or to bypass VBA and appeal directly to the Board. The Act also requires VA to submit a comprehensive plan 

for implementing the new appeals process and processing legacy appeals (appeals 

that remain pending in the current process prior to fully implementing appeals reform) to the appropriate committees of Congress and GAO. 7 The Act delineates the 

required elements of this plan, and required VA to submit its plan within 90 days 

of enactment. VA submitted its plan on November 22, 2017. The Act also includes 

a provision for GAO to assess VA’s appeals plan, including whether the plan comports with sound planning practices and/or contains gaps. 

My testimony today is based on work being conducted for a report that GAO expects to issue pursuant to the Act. This statement focuses on the extent to which 

VA’s appeals plan (1) addresses the required elements in the Act; and (2) reflects 

sound planning practices identified in prior GAO work. 

To assess the extent to which VA’s plan addresses the required elements in the 

Act, we identified the required elements for VA’s comprehensive plan under section 

3(a) and (b) of the Act; compared the required elements against VA’s appeals plan 

and supplemental materials VA provided at our request; and made a preliminary 

determination as to whether VA’s plan addressed, partially addressed, or did not address each element. We then shared the results of this review with VA officials, and 

considered their comments in arriving at our assessment. 8

To address the extent to which VA’s plan reflects sound planning practices, we 

compared the appeals plan and supplemental materials against relevant sound 

planning practices and other criteria identified in our prior work. 9 Our analyses focused on the information and elements VA presented in its appeals plan and supplemental materials provided by VA, rather than auditing the underlying information. 

We conducted the work for this statement in accordance with generally accepted 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

51 

10 According to VA officials, the veteran can elect either a traditional VBA review or a VBA 

review by a Decision Review Officer (DRO). Under the traditional review option, the veteran 

may present new evidence and receive a formal hearing. In general, the review can change 

VBA’s original decision based only on new evidence, or a clear and unmistakable error in the 

original decision. Alternatively, the veteran may elect a review by a DRO, who reviews the 

record without deference to VBA’s original decision, and can revise that decision based on a difference of opinion. If needed, the DRO may also pursue additional evidence or discuss the appeal 

informally with the veteran or the veteran’s representative. 11 Under the Act, the legal changes to VA’s appeals process will generally take effect on or 

after the later of (1) 540 days (approximately 18 months) after enactment and (2) 30 days after 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits to the appropriate committees of Congress (i) a certification that VA has the resources, personnel, office space, procedures, and IT required to carry 

out the new appeals system and to timely address appeals under the new appeals system as 

well as pending legacy appeals, and (ii) a summary of the expected performance outcomes used 

in making the certification with respect to legacy claims and a comparison of these expected 

outcomes with actual program performance with respect to the appeals under the legacy system 

(before the new system is implemented). Pub. L. No. 115–55, § 2, 131 Stat. 1105, 1105 (2017). 12 Veterans who are dissatisfied with VBA’s decision on their appeal may file another appeal 

to the Board using one of these three options, according to VA officials. 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 

the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

on our audit objectives. 

Background 

VA’s Disability Compensation Claims Process 

VA’s process for deciding veterans’ eligibility for disability compensation begins 

when a veteran submits a claim to VA. The veteran submits his or her claim to one 

of VBA’s 56 regional offices, where staff members assist the veteran by gathering 

additional evidence, such as military and medical records, that is needed to evaluate 

the claim. Based on this evidence, VBA decides whether the veteran is entitled to 

compensation and, if so, how much. 

A veteran dissatisfied with the initial claim decision can generally appeal within 

1 year from the date of the notification letter VBA sends to the veteran. Under the 

current appeals process (now referred to by VA as the legacy process), an appeal 

begins with the veteran filing a Notice of Disagreement. VBA then re-examines the 

case and generally issues a Statement of the Case that represents its decision. 10

A veteran dissatisfied with VBA’s decision can file an appeal with the Board. In 

filing that appeal, the veteran can indicate whether a Board hearing is desired. Before the Board reviews the appeal, VBA prepares the file and certifies it as ready 

for Board review. If the veteran requests a hearing to present new evidence or arguments, the Board will hold a hearing by videoconference or at a local VBA regional 

office. The Board’s members, also known as Veterans Law Judges, review the evidence and either issue a decision to grant or deny the veteran’s appeal or refer (or 

remand) the appeal back to VBA for further work. 

New Appeals Process 

The 2017 Act made changes to VA’s legacy appeals process that will generally 

take effect no earlier than February 2019, which is approximately 18 months from 

the date of enactment. 11 According to its appeals plan, VA intends to implement 

the Act by replacing the current appeals process with a process offering veterans 

who are dissatisfied with VBA’s decision on their claim one of five options: two of 

those options afford the veteran an opportunity for an additional review of VBA’s 

decision within VBA, and the other three options afford them the opportunity to bypass additional VBA review and appeal directly to the Board. 12

• Under the new appeals process, the two VBA options will be: 

1. Request higher-level review: The veteran asks VBA to review its initial decision based on the same evidence but with a higher-level official reviewing and 

issuing a new decision. 

2. File supplemental claim: The veteran provides additional evidence and files 

a supplemental claim with VBA for a new decision on the claim. 

• The three Board options will be: 

3. Request Board review of existing record: The veteran appeals to the Board 

and asks it to review only the existing record without a hearing. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

52 

13Pub. L. No. 115–55, § 3(a) and (b), 131 Stat. 1105, 1116. (2017) 14 VA submitted its plan to GAO on November 22, 2017. 

4. Request Board review of additional evidence, without a hearing. 

5. Request Board review of additional evidence, with a hearing. 

VA’s Appeals Plan 

The Act also requires VA to submit to the appropriate committees of Congress and 

GAO, within 90 days of the date of enactment, a comprehensive plan for (1) processing appeals under the legacy process until there are no more to process, (2) implementing the new appeals process, (3) processing of claims under the new appeals 

process in a timely manner, and (4) monitoring implementation of the new appeals 

process. In addition to these four broad elements, the Act lists 18 elements required 

to be included in the plan that relate to, among other things: 

• staffing, information technology (IT), and other resources required to implement 

the plan; 

• estimated timelines for hiring and training VA employees; and 

• a description of risks associated with each element of the plan. 13

The Act also includes a provision for GAO to assess the plan within 90 days after 

VA submits it. 14

The Act also requires VA to provide progress reports to the appropriate committees of Congress and GAO at least once every 90 days (starting after VA submits 

its plan), until the date the Act’s legal changes to the appeals process generally go 

into effect and then at least once every 180 days after this date for 7 years. 

Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) 

The Act also authorized VA to carry out a program to test any assumptions relied 

upon in developing its comprehensive plan and test the feasibility and advisability 

of any facet of the new appeals process. In its appeals plan, VA reported its decision 

to pilot test two of the five new options by allowing veterans with pending appeals 

in the legacy process (known as legacy appeals) to elect the VBA supplemental claim 

or the higher-level review options beginning in November 2017. This program, 

which VA refers to as RAMP, is intended to reduce legacy appeals by providing veterans with a chance for early resolution of their claims within VBA while the Board 

focuses on reducing its inventory of legacy appeals, according to VA. Participation 

in RAMP is voluntary, but veterans must withdraw their pending legacy appeal to 

participate, according to VA. Veterans dissatisfied with their RAMP decisions must 

wait until VA fully implements the new appeals process (in February 2019 at the 

earliest) before pursuing an appeal with the Board under the new process, according 

to VA officials. 

VA’s Plan Addresses Most of the Act’s Required Elements for the New and 

Legacy Disability Appeals Processes 

VA’s appeals plan addresses 17 of the Act’s 22 required elements, partially addresses 4 related to monitoring implementation and workforce planning, and does 

not address 1 element related to identifying total resources. For example, VA’s appeals plan addresses the required elements related to, among others, identifying 

legal authorities for hiring and removing employees, estimating timelines for hiring 

and training employees, and outlining the outreach VA expects to conduct. For the 

elements in the Act that VA’s appeals plan partially addresses or does not address, 

see table 1. For a detailed list of the 22 required elements in the Act, see appendix 

I. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

53 

1: The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Appeals Plan Partially Addresses or Does Not Address 5 of 

22 Required Elements of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 

Required element in the Act What VA provides Our assessment VA’s comments and our response 

Section 3(a)(4) 

A comprehensive plan for 

monitoring the implementation of the new appeals 

system, including metrics 

and goals- 

(A) to track the progress of 

implementation; 

(B) to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of 

the implementation; and 

(C) to identify potential 

issues relating to the implementation. 

A’s plan states that the 

agency convened an 

enterprise-wide governance 

workgroup to oversee 

implementation and develop 

metrics and track 

timeliness of appeals in the 

legacy system and the new 

process..

The plan also references 

VA’s intended use of certain 

metrics, such as average 

processing time for 

Veterans Benefits 

Administration (VBA) 

options..

Partially addressed: VA’s 

appeals plan does not 

contain sufficient details 

about metrics for tracking 

the progress of 

implementation 

(subparagraph (A)) or the 

metrics and goals for 

identifying potential issues 

related to implementation 

(subparagraph (C))..

VA officials stated that they 

disagree with our 

assessment and that their 

appeals plan addresses this 

required element. Their 

comments generally 

restated what is contained 

in VA’s plan, except they 

added that the agency is 

developing more detailed 

project plans and 

schedules..

We continue to believe VA’s 

plan partially addresses 

this required element..

Section 3(b)(2) 

Delineation of the personnel 

requirements of the Administration and the Board, including staffing levels during the- 

(A) period in which the Administration and the Board 

are concurrently processing- 

(i) appeals of decisions on 

legacy claims; and 

(ii) appeals of decisions on 

non-legacy claims under the 

new appeals system; and 

(B) the period during which 

the Administration and the 

Board are no longer processing any appeals of decisions on legacy claims. 

VA’s plan states the 

number of personnel 

required by VBA and the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(Board) for concurrently 

processing legacy and new 

appeals in fiscal year 2018 

(1,495 and 1,050 full-time 

equivalents, respectively)..

The plan also references 

using data from the Rapid 

Appeals Modernization 

Program (RAMP) and the 

new system-once fully 

implemented-to inform its 

personnel needs for when 

VA is no longer processing 

legacy appeals.a Further, 

VA’s statements suggest 

the agency will wait for 

RAMP results and budget 

outcomes to estimate future 

personnel requirements, 

rather than develop 

estimates based on a range 

of assumptions..

Partially addressed: VA’s 

appeals plan does not 

provide an estimate of 

personnel required for either 

VBA or the Board for the 

period when the agency 

would no longer be 

processing legacy appeals. 

(subparagraph (B).).

VA officials stated that they 

disagree with our 

assessment and that their 

appeals plan addresses this 

required element..

Their comments generally 

restated what is contained 

in VA’s plan..

We continue to believe VA’s 

plan partially addresses 

this required element..

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

54 

1: The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Appeals Plan Partially Addresses or Does Not Address 5 of 

22 Required Elements of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017—Continued 

Required element in the Act What VA provides Our assessment VA’s comments and our response 

Section 3(b)(12) 

Projections for the productivity of individual employees at the Administration 

and the Board in carrying 

out tasks relating to the 

processing of appeals of 

decisions on legacy claims 

and appeals under the new 

appeals system, taking into 

account the experience level 

of new employees and the 

enhanced notice requirements under section 

5104(b) of title 38, United 

States Code, as amended 

by section 2(e). 

For VBA, VA provided 

information on productivity 

projections for processing 

legacy appeals in fiscal 

year 2018 that are not in 

the plan. Also, VA’s plan 

states VA would use data 

from RAMP and the new 

process-once fully 

implemented-to develop 

productivity information for 

the new process..

For the Board, VA’s plan 

provides productivity 

projections for processing 

legacy appeals in fiscal 

year 2018 and projects that 

productivity will be higher 

under the new process..

Partially addressed: VA’s 

appeals plan does not 

contain projected 

productivity information for 

VBA processing of appeals 

under the new process..

VA officials stated that they 

disagree with our 

assessment and that their 

appeals plan addresses this 

required element. In their 

comments, VA officials 

provided additional 

information on productivity 

projections that are not in 

the plan. For VBA, VA 

provided projections for the 

legacy process for fiscal 

year 2018. For the Board, 

VA restated that 

productivity will be 79 

appeals per full-time 

equivalent for fiscal year 

2018 and projects that 

productivity will be higher 

than 79 in the new appeals 

process..

We continue to believe VA’s 

plan partially addresses 

this required element due 

to the absence of projected 

productivity information for 

VBA processing appeals 

under the new process, 

which VA anticipates will 

be implemented in fiscal 

year 2019..

Section 3(b)(17) 

Delineation of the key goals 

and milestones for reducing 

the number of pending appeals that are not processed under the new appeals system, including the 

expected number of appeals, remands, and hearing requests at the Administration and the Board 

each year, beginning with 

the one year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, until 

there are no longer any appeals pending before the 

Administration or the Board 

for a decision on a legacy 

claim. 

VA’s plan states that the 

rate at which the legacy 

appeals inventory can be 

resolved depends on 

numerous factors, such as 

future funding and the rate 

that veterans opt into 

RAMP. VA’s plan indicates 

that the agency would 

collect information from 

RAMP and as the Board 

begins deciding appeals in 

the new process to develop 

accurate goals and 

milestones for reducing the 

number of pending legacy 

appeals at VBA and the 

Board. For the Board, VA 

provided aggregated 

information on appeals and 

remands that were not in 

the plan..

Partially addressed: VA’s 

appeals plan does not 

contain milestones for 

reducing legacy appeals. 

The plan also does not 

describe the expected 

number of appeals, 

remands, and hearing 

requests at VBA, or the 

expected number of hearing 

requests at the Board each 

year. Further, the follow-up 

information VA provided for 

VBA and the Board does 

not extend beyond fiscal 

year 2019, yet VA indicates 

that the Board will be 

processing legacy appeals 

for several years..

VA officials stated that they 

disagree with our 

assessment and that this 

element is addressed in 

their plan. For the Board, 

VA also provided updated 

information that contained 

aggregated appeals and 

remands expected in fiscal 

years 2018 and 2019..

We continue to believe VA’s 

plan partially addresses 

this required element due 

to the absence of (1) 

milestones for reducing 

legacy appeals; (2) 

expected number of 

appeals, remands, and 

hearing requests at VBA, or 

the expected number of 

hearing requests at the 

Board each year; and (3) 

key goals and milestones 

beyond fiscal year 2019..

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

55 

15 VA’s plan states that the agency intends to begin full implementation in February 2019. 

1: The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Appeals Plan Partially Addresses or Does Not Address 5 of 

22 Required Elements of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017—Continued 

Required element in the Act What VA provides Our assessment VA’s comments and our response 

Section 3(b)(1) 

Delineation of the total resource requirements of the 

Veterans Benefits Administration and the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals, 

disaggregated by resources 

required to implement and 

administer the new appeals 

system and resources required to address the appeals of decisions on legacy 

claims. 

VA’s plan states that the 

agency will use existing 

resources devoted to its 

workforce, IT systems, and 

performance tracking, 

among other areas, to 

implement parts of the new 

appeals process. VA’s plan 

indicates it will collect and 

use data from RAMP-for 

example, on the (1) 

percentage of veterans who 

opt-in to this program, (2) 

veterans’ choices within the 

new VBA options, and (3) 

VA employees’ productivityto inform future funding 

requests through the 

annual appropriations 

process. In its plan, VA 

states that it will efficiently 

allocate resources to the 

new appeals process and 

allocate all remaining 

resources to address legacy 

appeals..

Not addressed: VA’s 

appeals plan does not 

include a delineation of the 

total resources required by 

VBA and the Board to 

implement the new system 

while addressing pending 

legacy appeals..

VA officials stated that they 

disagree with our 

assessment and that this 

element is addressed in 

their plan. Their comments 

generally restated what is 

contained in VA’s plan..

We continue to believe VA’s 

plan does not address this 

required element..

Source: GAO analysis of VA’s November 2017 appeals plan and supporting documents VA provided on or before January 18, 2018, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, and agency input by VA. / GAO 18 349T 

Note: We identified 22 required elements for VA’s comprehensive plan under section 

3(a) and (b) of the Act. Specifically, subsection (a) contains 4 elements, and subsection (b) requires the appeals plan to address 18 elements. Although this table 

shows the required elements that VA’s plan partially addresses or does not address, 

VA’s appeals plan addressed most (17 of 22) of the required elements in the Act. In 

determining that VA’s plan addresses these requirements, we assessed the plan and 

its elements as presented, rather than auditing the underlying information. 

aRAMP involves VA inviting certain veterans with pending appeals-starting with 

those appeals pending the longest-among other eligibility criteria to participate in the 

higher-level review or supplemental claims options with VBA, which are two of the 

five options that will be available under the new appeals process to all veterans. 

When we provided VA with our preliminary assessment, VA officials said they 

disagreed with our assessment and that their appeals plan addresses all 22 of the 

required elements. In general, they said that data are not available, and VA cannot 

yet forecast the information required by the Act until aspects of the new appeals 

process are tested or implemented. 

We continue to believe the information as presented in VA’s appeals plan and supplemental materials addresses 17 of the required elements, partially addresses 4, 

and does not address 1 element. Without complete information on all 22 of the required elements, Congress does not have the information it needs to fully conduct 

oversight of VA’s appeals plan and the agency’s efforts to implement and administer 

the new process while addressing legacy appeals. VA also is required to provide information on resources, among other areas, before it can certify that the agency is 

prepared to carry out timely processing of appeals under the new and legacy appeals 

process. 15 Further, as discussed below, addressing required elements through a 

more comprehensive plan and underlying analysis is consistent with sound planning 

practices and would better position VA to implement the new appeals process while 

attending to legacy appeals; for example, a plan that provides for carefully monitoring the new and legacy appeals processes against balanced goals and metrics, 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

56 

16See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO 03 143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). In addition, the Act requires 

VA’s plan to contain goals and related measures that can be used to manage and assess implementation of VA’s new appeals process, and key goals and milestones for reducing the number 

of pending appeals under the legacy process. 17 In supporting documentation, VA indicated that it will measure average veteran wait times 

in the new appeals system as one indicator of success. For example, an average processing time 

of 365 days will be the timeliness goal for the option in which the Board reviews the existing 

record without a hearing. VA indicated it would develop measures and determine appropriate 

resource allocation for the other options in the future. 

and clearly articulates resources, milestones and other information needed for effective program management. 

VA’s Appeals Plan Reflects Certain Sound Planning Practices, but Could 

Improve on Others 

VA’s appeals plan reflects certain sound planning practices, such as convening a 

working group on performance tracking; however, the plan could benefit from including important details related to three key planning areas: 

1.articulating a balanced set of goals and related measures to monitor and assess 

the performance of the new appeals process, in conjunction with the legacy process; 

2.developing a high-quality and reliable implementation schedule to manage key 

steps and activities of the project; and 

3.assessing key risks in a comprehensive manner, including respective mitigation 

strategies, and articulating clear criteria and an assessment plan for RAMP, and 

more fully testing or analyzing all appeal options. 

VA’s Appeals Plan Indicates Steps to Assess Process Changes, but Should 

Also Include Goals and Measures to Provide Full Picture of Success 

VA’s appeals plan reflects steps taken to track performance, but it could improve 

its planning practices related to monitoring and assessing performance on a range 

of key dimensions of success. Sound planning practices suggest that agencies develop overall goals tied to meaningful and balanced performance measures. These 

measures include a mix of outcome, output, and efficiency measures to ensure that 

an organization’s priorities-as well as government-wide priorities such as quality, 

timeliness, and cost of service-are addressed. 16

VA’s appeals plan reports that the agency convened a working group to design a 

process for tracking timeliness of both the legacy appeals and appeals within the 

new process. In supporting documentation that we requested, VA officials stated 

they are also determining the best way to measure veterans’ satisfaction with the 

new appeals process. VA’s appeals plan and supporting documentation also identify 

timeliness goals for the two VBA-only options and one of the three Board options. 

Nevertheless, its appeals plan does not articulate a set of goals and measures that 

cover all aspects of its new appeals process, such as accuracy of decisions and cost. 

The plan also does not provide details on the metrics the agency will develop, how 

it will assess if the new appeals process is an improvement over the legacy appeals 

process, and how it will monitor the allocation of resources between legacy and new 

appeals claims. More specifically: 

• VA’s reported timeliness measures are incomplete: VA’s appeals plan outlines timeliness goals for the two VBA options (average processing time of 125 

days) and for the Board option that does not include new evidence or a hearing 

(average processing time of 365 days). 17 However, VA’s plan does not establish 

timeliness goals for the other two Board options: Board review of additional evidence without a hearing and Board review of additional evidence with a hearing. In commenting on our assessment, while VA officials indicated they expect 

the new process to be more efficient than the legacy process (and, therefore, 

more timely), data to inform goal setting for all Board options will not be available until VA fully implements these options. However, establishing timeliness 

goals for all options would provide a more complete picture of VA’s vision for 

the new appeals process, and help VA to develop concrete, objective, and observable performance measures to show progress in achieving that vision, as well 

as inform resource estimates. • VA’s reported measures lack adequate balance: Other than including certain timeliness goals, VA’s appeals plan does not articulate additional aspects 

of performance important for managing appeals, such as accuracy of decisions, 

veteran satisfaction with the process, or cost. We previously reported that VA 

officials said that they wanted to also use veteran survey results, wait times, 

and inventories as sources of information to measure progress under the new 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

57 

18 18 GAO 17 234. 19Specifically, VA’s Voice of the Veteran Customer Satisfaction Survey tracks veterans’ and 

their beneficiaries’ overall satisfaction on a 1,000-point scale. 20 Baseline and trend data can also be used to inform and refine performance goals, according 

to our prior work. See GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers, GAO/GGD/AIMD 99 69 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999). 21Pub. L. No. 115–55, § 5, 131 Stat. 1105, 1123 (2017). 22We previously recommended that VA develop a strategy for assessing process reform-relative to the current process-that ensures transparency on the extent to which VA is improving 

veterans’ experiences with its disability appeals process. This includes measuring the average 

time to reach final resolution of veterans’ appeals and reflects the fact that veterans may file 

multiple appeals under the new appeals process before achieving resolution of their claims. GAO 

17 234. 23See GAO 17 234. 

appeals process. 18 Further, VA’s fiscal year 2018 annual performance plan includes an overall customer satisfaction score for veterans’ benefits. 19 However, 

these and other potential measures of success are not specified in VA’s appeals 

plan for monitoring the new appeals process as compared with legacy appeals. 

By not articulating a set of comprehensive and balanced goals and measures in 

its appeals plan, VA could be inadvertently creating skewed incentives by focusing on one area of program performance to the detriment of other areas (e.g., 

processing claims quickly but inaccurately). 

In commenting on our assessment, VA officials recognized the need to develop additional goals and measures and indicated, for example, that they are developing 

and testing whether the existing quality assurance goal-requiring 92 percent accuracy-is appropriate for the new process. According to VA officials, once they have 

developed these other goals and measures, VA will communicate this information 

as part of the required progress reports to the appropriate committees of Congress 

and GAO. 

• VA’s plan does not reflect how it will establish baseline data: VA’s approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation of 

the new appeals process falls short of sound practices for using baseline data 

to assess performance. Our prior work has demonstrated that by tracking and 

developing a performance baseline for all measures, including those that demonstrate the effectiveness of a program, agencies can better evaluate progress 

made and whether or not goals are being achieved. 20 However, VA’s appeals 

plan did not provide important details about what aspects of the new appeals 

process’ performance will be compared to what aspects of the legacy process’ 

performance. 

In particular, section 5 of the Act lists a number of metrics VA is required to report periodically, including some that could be used as baseline measures. 21 For example, VA is required to periodically publish on its website the average time that 

elapsed between the filing of an initial claim and the final resolution of the claim, 

for legacy appeals as well as appeals under the new system, which is consistent 

with our prior recommendation. 22 However, VA’s appeals plan does not explain how 

or when the agency would collect and use these or other data about the legacy and 

new processes’ performance-such as accuracy, veteran satisfaction, and cost-to assess their relative performance. 

As we had previously reported, VA’s business case for reform in some instances 

relied on unproven assumptions and limited analyses of its legacy process to identify 

root causes of performance problems. 23 Specifically, VA determined that the openended nature of its legacy appeals process, whereby a veteran can submit additional 

evidence numerous times at any point during the VA appeals process, can cause additional cycles of re-adjudication, a process VA refers to as ‘‘churning.’’ According to 

VA, this re-adjudication can occur multiple times and can add years to the time 

needed to reach a final decision on an appeal. Without fully articulating a plan for 

collecting and using baseline and trend data, VA cannot determine the extent to 

which the new appeals process, which also allows for multiple appeal opportunities, 

will achieve final resolution of veterans’ appeals sooner, on average, than the legacy 

process. 

In commenting on our assessment, VA indicated that it is working toward capturing the metrics listed in section 5 of the Act. VA officials also noted that reporting on the new appeals process will require IT system functionality that currently 

does not exist, but stated that efforts are underway to add this functionality. 

• VA’s plan does not explain how the agency will monitor processing of 

legacy versus new appeals: In addition, VA’s appeals plan does not fully articulate how the agency will monitor whether resources are being appropriately 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

58 

24 As noted earlier, we also determined that VA’s appeals plan does not contain sufficient details about metrics and goals related to identifying potential issues related to implementing the 

new appeals system, and therefore only partially addresses the required element at section 

3(a)(4) of the Act. 25GAO, Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide-Version 3, GAO/AIMD 10.1.15 

(Washington, D.C. May 1997). In this testimony, we refer to reengineering as appeals process 

‘‘redesign.’’ 26See GAO 17 234. 27Project Management Institute, Inc., A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge 

(PMBOK Guide); GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules, 

GAO 16 89G (Washington, D.C.: December 2015); and, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment 

Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO 09 3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009). 

devoted to both the new and legacy appeals process and how it will track both 

sets of workloads. 24 An appeals plan that does not specifically articulate how 

VA will manage the two processes in parallel exposes the agency to risk that 

veterans with appeals in the legacy process may experience significant delays 

or otherwise poor results relative to those in the new appeals process or vice 

versa. In commenting on our assessment, VA officials noted that VA was not 

required under section 3 of the Act to provide a description of its plans to capture metrics listed in section 5. Even if not required by the Act, developing an 

approach for carefully monitoring the management of new and legacy appeals 

would help VA track progress being made and achievement of goals. 

Until VA establishes complete and balanced goals and measures, identifies baseline data, and develops a plan for monitoring and assessing both the new and legacy 

processes, VA runs the risk of promoting skewed behaviors, or not fully understanding whether the new process is an improvement or whether veterans with appeals in the legacy process are experiencing poor results. 

VA’s Appeals Plan Needs a Reliable Implementation Schedule to Manage 

the Project 

VA’s appeals plan reflects certain aspects of sound planning practices related to 

managing the implementation of process change; however, other key components are 

not addressed. Sound planning practices for implementing process change suggest 

establishing a transition team. 25 Consistent with such practices, VA’s appeals plan 

states that the agency convened an agency-wide governance structure to coordinate 

implementation of its new appeals process; it is comprised of senior-level employees 

with authority to make necessary decisions to keep the project on track. VA’s appeals plan also includes a copy of a master schedule. In its plan, VA asserts that 

the master schedule reflects timelines, interim goals and milestones, reporting requirements, and established deadlines, and that it will be used to guide implementation. VA’s appeals plan also reports that VA is consulting with project management professionals, who are using the master schedule, among other tools, to monitor implementation. In addition, VA made progress addressing some of the issues 

we previously identified by developing steps and timetables for updating training in 

anticipation of implementing the new appeals process. 26

However, VA’s master schedule for implementing reform is missing elements of 

a high-quality and reliable implementation schedule for key activities. We have previously reported that having a well-planned schedule is a fundamental management 

tool. Generally recognized sound practices from the Project Management Institute 

(PMI) and GAO call for organizations to employ an integrated and reliable master 

schedule that defines when work activities will occur, who will complete the work, 

how long they will take, how they are related to one another, and the constraints 

affecting the start and completion of work elements, as well as whether resources 

will be available when they are needed. 27 Such a project management schedule not 

only provides a road map for systematic project execution, but also provides the 

means by which to gauge progress, identify and address potential problems, and 

promote accountability. 

The master schedule VA provided in its appeals plan should have included other 

sound practices for project management related to a reliable schedule. Specifically: 

• Key activities and their duration are not included: VA’s master schedule 

does not capture the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) activities, 

even though this pilot test is occurring at the same time VA is preparing for 

full implementation of appeals options at VBA and the Board. In addition, specific Board-related activities are missing from the schedule, such as efforts to 

develop metrics, and the schedule and other project plans we reviewed do not 

go beyond February 2019. For example, the schedule does not indicate the peLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

59 

28Sound practices suggest that the schedule should reflect the duration of each activity and 

have specific start and end dates. 29 In addition, if some necessary activities are missing from an agency’s implementation schedule, it is much more difficult for the agency to adhere to other best practices. Our prior work 

has identified 10 practices associated with developing and maintaining a reliable schedule. 

These practices are (1) capturing all activities, (2) sequencing all activities, (3) assigning resources to all activities, (4) establishing the duration of all activities, (5) integrating schedule 

activities horizontally and vertically, (6) establishing the critical path for activities, (7) identifying float between activities, (8) conducting a schedule risk analysis, and (9) updating the 

schedule using actual progress and logic, and (10) maintaining a baseline schedule. Float is the 

amount of time an activity can slip before affecting the critical path. The critical path is the 

longest path through the schedule. If an activity on the critical path slips, the entire project 

will be delayed. See GAO 16 89G. 30GAO 16 89G. 31Federal internal control standards state that program managers should define objectives 

clearly to enable the identification of risks that may impede the achievement of program objectives. This includes clearly defining what is to be achieved and the time frames for achievement. 

See GAO 14 704G. Additionally, IT investment best practices stress the need for oversight regarding a project’s progress toward predefined schedule expectations. See GAO 04 394G. 32GAO 17 234. 33 VA’s master schedule lists three IT requirements; however, VA’s appeals plan references 

several other requirements not included in the master schedule: eFolder; Caseflow Work Queue, 

Caseflow Hearings Scheduling, and Reporting Functionality. In supplementary materials, VA 

provided an IT ‘‘road map’’ that lists nine IT requirements; however, several of these requirements (e.g., Caseflow Dispatch) do not appear in either VA’s appeals plan or master schedule. 

In addition the ‘‘road map’’ reflects 6 months of planning and does not extend to or beyond the 

end dates reflected in VA’s master schedule. 34GAO 16 89G. 35GAO 17 234. 

riod of time when VA expects to no longer be processing legacy appeals. 28 When 

all key and necessary activities are not included, it raises questions about 

whether all activities are scheduled in the correct order, resources are properly 

allocated, or the estimated completion dates are reliable. 29 In addition, if the 

schedule does not fully and accurately reflect VA’s efforts, it will not serve as 

an appropriate basis for analysis and may result in unreliable completion dates 

and delays. • Sequencing and linkages among activities are not identified: For the 

high-level activities VA’s appeals plan identifies, VA’s master schedule does not 

indicate whether there were linkages or sequencing among them, which is not 

consistent with sound scheduling practices. Linkages and sequencing would 

show, for example, if any of these activities or sub-activities must finish prior 

to the start of other activities, or the amount of time an activity could be delayed before the delay affects VA’s estimated implementation date. 30 For example, VA cannot train new employees until after it hires them. 

The activities VA identifies also do not appear supported by lower-level project 

schedules. Specifically, when we requested documentation to support VA’s high-level 

summary of activities and milestones, VA officials did not provide intermediate or 

more detailed schedules that reflected these practices. In particular, VA’s appeals 

plan lacks a complete schedule for IT modifications that clearly defines what is to 

be achieved and the time frames for achievement. 31 We previously recommended 

that VA develop a schedule for IT updates that explicitly addresses when and how 

process reform will be integrated into new systems and when these systems will be 

ready to support the new appeals process at its onset. 32 For example, VA’s appeals 

plan references several required IT modifications that do not appear in its master 

schedule. 33 Schedules that are defined at too high a level may disguise risk that 

is inherent in lower-level activities. 34

• Interim goals are not reflected: VA officials stated that they have interim 

goals and milestones, though VA’s appeals plan and supporting documentation 

generally do not include this information. Sound planning and redesign practices suggest closely monitoring implementation and developing project goals 

that include a mix of intermediate goals to be met at various stages. VA’s appeals plan does not include this information. We previously made a recommendation that VA develop a more robust plan for closely monitoring implementation of process reform, including metrics and interim goals to help track 

progress, evaluate efficiency and effectiveness, and identify trouble spots-all of 

which are consistent with sound planning practices. 35

• Resources are not assigned to all identified activities: The high-level 

summary schedule that VA provided us also lacks details regarding the assignment of resources for all activities. Specifically, while the plan identifies 

workgroups responsible for coordinating elements in the plan, such as regulaLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

60 

36 A risk assessment is the identification and analysis of risks related to achieving the defined 

objectives. This assessment provides the basis for developing appropriate risk responses. GAO, 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO 14 704G (Washington, D.C.: 

September 2014). 37GAO 14 704G. See the following reports for examples of agencies that did not have 

measureable performance goals to assess and mitigate risks: GAO, Veterans Justice Outreach 

Program: VA Could Improve Management by Establishing Performance Measures and Fully Assessing Risks, GAO 16 393 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2016; and GAO, Telecommunications 

Relay Service: FCC Should Strengthen Its Management of Program to Assist Persons with 

Hearing or Speech Disabilities, GAO 15 409 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2015). 38GAO, Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide, GAO/AIMD 10.1.15 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 1997) and GAO, Data Act: Section 5 Pilot Design Issues Need to Be Addressed to 

Meet Goal of Reducing Recipient Reporting Burden, GAO 16 438 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 19, 

2016). 

tions, training, and outreach, the schedule does not assign resources to the 40 

listed activities. As discussed previously, VA’s appeals plan also does not provide information on the total resources required for this reform effort. Assigning 

resources to the listed activities, as well as providing other information, could 

provide a better indication of the estimated total resources required to implement the new appeals process and address legacy appeals. 

In commenting on our assessment, VA officials stated that the agency is developing lower-level project schedules for key activities-such as RAMP and IT requirements-and will provide these schedules as part of the required progress reports to 

the appropriate committees of Congress and GAO. VA officials also noted that future updates will include additional dependencies and risks, which VBA and the 

Board are still developing. Until VA has a robust integrated master schedule, supported by detailed project plans that adhere to sound practices, VA’s appeals plan 

does not provide reasonable assurance that decision makers have the essential program management information needed for this complex and important effort. 

VA’s Plan Addresses Some but Not All Key Risks Related to the New Appeals Process 

VA’s appeals plan includes an assessment of risks involved in implementing the 

new appeals system, but could more comprehensively reflect key risks posed by such 

a significant reform effort. 36 VA’s appeals plan and supplementary materials include a ‘‘risk register’’ that describes risks associated with many elements of its plan 

and the remaining level of risk after its planned response to these risks. VA’s appeals plan also states that senior leaders will receive regular updates of risks and 

mitigation strategies. However, because VA has not yet articulated a balanced set 

of performance goals and measures in its appeals plan, it is hindered in its ability 

to identify and assess risks. 

Federal internal control standards state, and our previous work at VA and other 

agencies demonstrates, that establishing clear performance goals and objectives is 

a necessary pre-condition to effectively assessing risk. 37 Having, for example, more 

complete timeliness goals, and goals and measures reflecting other areas of performance, would allow VA to better identify and target risks associated with managing 

two processes in parallel, including the potential that veterans with appeals in the 

legacy process may experience significant delays relative to those in the new appeals 

process. 

Importantly, VA is missing an opportunity to fully benefit from RAMP by not testing and assessing other aspects of the new appeals process. The Act authorizes VA 

to test the feasibility and advisability of any facet of the new appeals process, and 

VA is taking a positive step to mitigate some risks by testing the two review options 

available within VBA (review of a claim by a higher-level official based on the same 

evidence and review of a supplemental claim with additional evidence) through 

RAMP. In November 2017, VA began RAMP by inviting 500 veterans whose appeals 

have been pending the longest to participate. According to VA officials, each month 

VA plans to continue offering RAMP to additional eligible veterans with pending 

legacy appeals until January 2019-a month before VA anticipates fully implementing the new appeals system. However, as designed, RAMP does not include features that-consistent with a well-developed and documented pilot test programwould provide VA with an opportunity to evaluate fully the soundness of new processes and practices on a smaller scale. 38 Specifically: 

• VA’s plan does not clearly define success criteria for RAMP: VA’s appeals 

plan states that the agency will collect certain data from RAMP, such as the 

rate at which eligible veterans opt into the process, timeliness of claims processing, and individual employee productivity. VA also established an overall average processing time goal of 125 days for the two VBA options; however, the 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

61 

39 According to VA, as of January 22, 2018, RAMP invitations were sent to 15,500 veterans 

via three separate mailings-500 in November 2017, 5,000 in December 2017, and 10,000 in January 2018. As of January 22, 2018, VA reported that the opt-in rate was about 3 percent for 

the November and December mailing, and 1 percent for January. 40GAO 09 3SP. 41GAO 17 234. Sensitivity analysis-used in scenario planning to, for example, determine the 

resources needed for implementing a new process-is an analysis to determine how sensitive outcomes are to changes in assumptions, such as those used to determine resource needs. The assumptions that deserve the most attention should depend on the dominant benefit and cost elements and the areas of greatest uncertainty of the program or process being analyzed. See GAO 

09 3SP. 42 As noted previously, we determined that VA’s plan does not estimate personnel required 

by either VBA or the Board for the period when they are not processing legacy appeals. Sensitivity analyses could aid VA in forecasting such resources. 

plan and supporting documentation do not clearly articulate whether RAMP reviews are expected to meet this timeliness goal. The plan also did not identify 

other success criteria for RAMP or the types of results expected before fully implementing the new appeals process. For example, VA’s plan does not articulate 

the expected number and type of subsequent appeals to the Board that result 

from RAMP. 

In commenting on this assessment, VA noted that its intent in implementing 

RAMP was to collect data and test aspects of the new process, and that RAMP was 

not an initiative in and of itself. However, developing performance measures and 

data gathering procedures and defining success criteria for a pilot test before proceeding to full implementation are sound practices for process redesign and pilot 

testing. In addition, because RAMP was not included in VA’s risk assessment, we 

asked VA if it had identified any risks or mitigation strategies specific to RAMP. 

In its supplemental materials, VA stated that the greatest risk to RAMP is a low 

participation rate among eligible veterans with legacy claims. VA also indicated that 

it would need 10 percent of eligible veterans to opt into RAMP to yield meaningful 

results. However, this threshold is not articulated in VA’s appeals plan as an explicit success criterion or objective. According to data provided by VA, as of January 

22, 2018, 238 veterans opted in. 39 Of veterans with pending claims in RAMP, twothirds chose the higher-level review option. VA also reported that 47 RAMP decisions have been made so far. As of yet, no appeals of RAMP decisions have been 

filed. 

• VA’s plan does not articulate how it will assess RAMP before proceeding with full implementation: Although VA’s appeals plan describes a 

‘‘close-out’’ phase in which VA intends to assess the results of RAMP, it does 

not detail the conditions that would have to be met (or not met) to trigger 

changes. For example, VA’s plan does not explain when or how it might respond 

to low opt-in rates for RAMP-other than stating it will increase outreach to eligible veterans-or to unexpectedly high appeal rates to the Board resulting from 

RAMP decisions. Sound redesign and change management practices both suggest that pilot tests be rigorously monitored and evaluated, and that further 

roll-out occur only after an agency’s transition team takes any needed corrective 

action and determines that the new process is achieving previously identified 

success criteria. Without fully articulating its plan for deciding how and when 

to roll out changes more broadly, it is not clear whether VA would be prepared 

to fully implement a new appeals process that achieves its aim of better serving 

veterans. 

• RAMP does not test all aspects of the new appeals process: RAMP provides an opportunity to learn about experiences at VBA under the new system, 

such as the rate at which eligible veterans choose those options and the resources that will be required to process their appeals. However, RAMP was not 

designed to test how many veterans would choose to appeal directly to the 

Board and, therefore, it will not provide comparable information on the Board 

appeals options. Sound workforce planning practices suggest that agencies identify the total resources needed to manage the risk of implementing new processes and conduct scenario planning to determine those needs. 40

In addition, although we previously recommended VA conduct additional sensitivity analyses to inform projections of future appeals inventories, 41 VA’s appeals 

plan does not reflect VA’s use or intended use of sensitivity analyses when projecting staffing needs for new appeals options at the Board. 42 In commenting on our 

assessment, VA officials said they do not plan to conduct additional sensitivity analyses to project future workloads until they have more information from RAMP to 

inform their assumptions. As a result, VA will lack data on scenarios in which vetLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

62 

43GAO, Veterans Disability Benefits: Clearer Information for Veterans and Additional Performance Measures Could Improve Appeal Process, GAO–11–812 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 

2011). 

erans may overwhelmingly choose options available at the Board over those at VBA 

when the appeals plan is fully implemented. This presents a risk that VA’s early 

production projections and initial resource allocations may not be properly balanced 

between the Board and VBA. This, in turn, may result in an unexpectedly large 

number of appeals pending with the Board, and corresponding lengthy average wait 

and decision times for some, if not all, Board options. 

Having information on the number of veterans who are likely to appeal to the 

Board is particularly critical, given that similar efforts to create additional review 

options at VBA did not achieve their goals of reducing the percentage of appeals 

that continue on to the Board. In 2001, VA established the Decision Review Officer 

(DRO) process-in which senior staff have the authority to overturn an initial disability claim decision without any new evidence-to resolve more appeals at the regional level and avoid long waits at the Board. However, we reported in 2011 that, 

although the DRO process helped some veterans get additional benefits at the regional office level, it did not accomplish the program’s primary goal of reducing the 

percentage of appeals continuing on to the Board. 43

In responding to our assessment, VA officials reiterated their plans to increase 

outreach in the event of low opt-in rates for RAMP and indicated they recently 

began to send follow-up RAMP invitation letters. With respect to assessing all appeal options, VA officials stated that, while no legal bar prevents testing of the 

Board options, the Board is focused on reducing its inventory of pending appeals 

while RAMP provides early resolution of appeals within the new VBA-only options. 

Officials conceded that this approach means they cannot collect data on the rate at 

which veterans opt to appeal directly to the Board (e.g., bypassing additional VBA 

review) until the new process is fully implemented. However, they noted that they 

can collect some data on the rate at which veterans whose appeals go through 

RAMP file subsequent appeals to the Board, even though the Board will not begin 

processing those appeals until full implementation. 

By pursuing an approach that does not identify or mitigate significant risks associated with implementing a new process, VA is taking a chance that untested aspects will not perform as desired. The Act provides VA authority to pilot aspects 

of the process and flexibility on the timing of implementing the new process, which 

could allow some additional time for VA to carefully measure performance under 

RAMP and determine whether any corrective actions are necessary. If VA does not 

take full advantage of this authority, it risks moving forward without knowing 

whether the new appeals process improves experiences for veterans, and potentially 

implementing a process that is more expensive or results in longer wait times than 

originally anticipated. 

In conclusion, in implementing appeals reform after the enactment of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, VA is undertaking a 

complex endeavor that has the potential to affect the lives of hundreds of thousands 

of veterans with service-connected disabilities. Such an endeavor demands a commensurate level of planning to be successful. While the Act required VA to submit 

its plan within 90 days of enactment, VA had proposed and began to plan for appeals reform much earlier, and had our March 2017 recommendations to guide its 

planning efforts from a foundation of sound practices. 

VA’s November 2017 appeals plan is a positive step forward. Certain elements of 

the plan-such as establishing an agency-wide governance structure to oversee implementation and testing aspects of reform prior to full implementation-are notable 

gains since our March 2017 report. At the same time, the plan partially addresses 

or does not address five of the required elements called for by the Act, such as delineating the total resources required by VBA and the Board to implement and administer the new appeals process and address legacy appeals. The plan also is not fully 

responsive to our past recommendations and does not reflect a number of sound 

planning practices that are essential for gauging progress, establishing accountability, and linking resources to results. 

One such key practice is articulating a desired ‘‘end state’’-a vision for what successful implementation would look like for the new appeals process as well as the 

wind-down of the legacy process, such as accurate and timely processing of appeals 

while ensuring veteran satisfaction. Without establishing a complete and balanced 

set of goals and related performance measures to achieve this end state and monitoring and assessing progress along the way, VA risks falling short of its overarching objective-to improve timeliness of appeals decisions for veterans overall. By 

not fully articulating how it plans to monitor workloads and devote resources to 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

63 

both the new and legacy processes, VA runs the risk of disadvantaging veterans 

with legacy appeals relative to those in the new process, or vice versa. 

Just as important is establishing a robust integrated master schedule-rather than 

a high-level timeline-that is built upon and clearly reflects extensive detailed planning and includes all of the activities necessary to execute the program and interdependencies between these activities. Without such a road map, VA’s appeals plan 

does not provide reasonable assurance that decision makers have the essential information needed to manage this complex and important program. 

We are encouraged that VA has taken some steps toward assessing risks, including establishing a risk register and implementing RAMP to collect information on 

the two VBA appeals options; however, unless VA assesses risks against a balanced 

set of goals and measures, VA may not be fully aware of risks that may impede successful implementation of appeals reform. Further, although VA will undoubtedly 

learn from the RAMP experience, it may not learn all that it should from its efforts 

without (1) establishing clear criteria for what success looks like (or the circumstances that would cause VA to consider making course corrections) and (2) 

building in time to take stock of the lessons learned before moving to full implementation. 

VA’s plan places a lot of weight on RAMP to, among other efforts, mitigate risk 

and generate estimates of the resources needed for successful implementation after 

fiscal year 2018, even though RAMP does not fully test options for appealing to the 

Board that will be available to veterans after full implementation. Unless VA addresses key risks associated with fully implementing appeals reform-by either testing or conducting sensitivity analyses for all five appeals options, to better understand potential workloads at the Board-VA runs the risk of fully implementing the 

process without knowing if it is improving the process for veterans. 

In our forthcoming report, we anticipate making recommendations to address 

these issues. Specifically, we are preliminarily considering recommending that the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: 

• address all of the required elements in the Act in VA’s appeals plan to Congress-including delineating resources required for all VBA and Board appeals 

options-using sensitivity analyses and RAMP results, where appropriate and 

needed. 

• clearly articulate in VA’s appeals plan how VA will monitor and assess the new 

appeals process compared to the legacy process, including specifying a balanced 

set of goals and measures-such as timeliness goals for all VBA appeals options 

and Board dockets, and measures of accuracy, veteran satisfaction, and cost-and 

related baseline data. 

• augment the master schedule for VA’s appeals plan to reflect all activities-such 

as RAMP and modifications to IT systems-as well as assigned responsibilities, 

interdependencies, start and end dates for key activities for each workgroup, 

and resources, to establish accountability and reduce overall risk of implementation failures. 

• ensure that the appeals plan more fully addresses risk associated with appeals 

reform-for example, by assessing risks against a balanced set of goals and measures, articulating success criteria and an assessment plan for RAMP, and testing or conducting sensitivity analyses of all appeal options-prior to fully implementing the new appeals process. 

Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that 

you may have at this time. 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Elizabeth Curda at 

(202) 512–7215 or curdae@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

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

key contributors to this testimony include Michele Grgich (Assistant Director), 

James Whitcomb (Analyst in Charge), and Rachael Chamberlin. In addition, key 

support was provided by Susan Aschoff, Mark Bird, David Chrisinger, Daniel Concepcion, Clifton Douglas, Alex Galuten, Nisha Hazra, Melissa Jaynes, Benjamin 

Licht, Patricia McClure, Sheila McCoy, Lorin Obler, Gloria Proa, Almeta Spencer, 

James Sweetman, Walter Vance, and Greg Whitney. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

64 

Appendix I: Our Assessment of VA’s Appeals Plan Against Required 

Elements in the Act 

To assess the extent to which VA’s appeals plan addresses the required elements 

in the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (the Act), we 

first identified and developed a checklist reflecting each required element for VA’s 

appeals plan (including sub-parts) under section 3(a) and (b) of the Act. To compare 

the required elements and their sub-parts against VA’s appeals plan and supplemental materials provided, we developed decision rules for determining whether the 

VA’s appeals plan addressed, partially addressed, or did not address each required 

element. Specifically, we concluded that VA’s plan addressed (or partially addressed) 

a required element if the plan included information related to all (or some) subparts 

of the requirement. We focused on the plan as presented, rather than auditing the 

information VA relied on in developing the plan. For example, the Act’s section 

3(b)(10) required VA’s plan to include a description of the modifications to the IT 

systems that VBA and the Board require to carry out the new appeals system, including cost estimates and a timeline for making the IT modifications. We concluded 

that VA’s plan addressed all sub-parts of this element because it provided a description of required IT modifications, a reference to costs included in the Appeals Modernization IT budget, and a timeline. However, our determination that VA addressed this element should not be construed to necessarily mean that VA fully 

identified or described all IT requirements, or provided complete estimated costs 

and timelines associated with those requirements, or that the information in VA’s 

appeals plan comported with sound planning practices. This type of assessment was 

outside the scope of this objective. Table 2 summarizes our assessment of VA’s appeals plan against the 22 required elements in the Act. 

Table 2: Summary of GAO’s Assessment of VA’s Appeals Plan Against the Required Elements in the 

Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (Act) 

Required elements of plan (from sec. 3(a) and (b) of the Act) Summary of GAO’s assessment 

Section 3(a)(1) Addressed.

[A comprehensive plan for] the processing of appeals of decisions on legacy claims 

that the Secretary considers pending. 

Section 3(a)(2) Addressed.

[A comprehensive plan for] implementing the new appeals system. 

Section 3(a)(3) Addressed.

[A comprehensive plan for] timely processing, under the new appeals system, of- 

(A) supplemental claims under section 5108 of title 38, United States Code, as 

amended by section 2(i); 

(B) requests for higher-level review under section 5104B of such title, as added by 

section 2(g); and 

(C) appeals on any docket maintained under section 7107 of such title, as amended 

by section 2(t). 

Section 3(a)(4) Partially addressed.

[A comprehensive plan for] monitoring the implementation of the new appeals system, including metrics and goals- 

(A) to track the progress of implementation; 

(B) to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation; and 

(C) to identify potential issues relating to the implementation. 

Section 3(b)(1) Not addressed.

Delineation of the total resource requirements of the Veterans Benefits Administration and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, disaggregated by resources required to implement and administer the new appeals system and resources required to address 

the appeals of decisions on legacy claims. 

Section 3(b)(2) Partiallly addressed.

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

65 

Table 2: Summary of GAO’s Assessment of VA’s Appeals Plan Against the Required Elements in the 

Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (Act)—Continued 

Required elements of plan (from sec. 3(a) and (b) of the Act) Summary of GAO’s assessment 

Delineation of the personnel requirements of the Administration and the Board, including staffing levels during the- 

(A) period in which the Administration and the Board are concurrently processing- 

(i) appeals of decisions on legacy claims; and 

(ii) appeals of decisions on non-legacy claims under the new appeals system; and 

(B) the period during which the Administration and the Board are no longer processing any appeals of decisions on legacy claims. 

Section 3(b)(3) Addressed.

Identification of the legal authorities under which the Administration or the Board 

may- 

(A) hire additional employees to conduct the concurrent processing described in 

paragraph (2)(A); and 

(B) remove employees who are no longer required by the Administration or the Board 

once the Administration and the Board are no longer processing any appeals of decisions on legacy claims. 

Section 3(b)(4) Addressed.

An estimate of the amount of time the Administration and the Board will require to 

hire additional employees as described in paragraph (3)(A) once funding has been 

made available for such purpose, including a comparison of such estimate and the 

historical average time required by the Administration and the Board to hire additional employees. 

Section 3(b)(5) Addressed.

A description of the amount of training and experience that will be required of individuals conducting higher-level reviews under section 5104B of title 38, United 

States Code, as added by section 2(g). 

Section 3(b)(6) Addressed.

An estimate of the percentage of higher-level adjudicators who will be employees of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs who were Decision Review Officers on the day before the new appeals system takes effect or had experience, as of such date, comparable to that of one who was a Decision Review Officer. 

Section 3(b)(7) Addressed.

A description of the functions that will be performed after the date on which the 

new appeals system takes effect by Decision Review Officers who were Decision Review Officers on the day before the date the new appeals system takes effect. 

Section 3(b)(8) Addressed.

Identification of and a timeline for- 

(A) any training that may be required as a result of hiring new employees to carry 

out the new appeals system or to process appeals of decisions on legacy claims; 

and 

(B) any retraining of existing employees that may be required to carry out such system or to process such claims. 

Section 3(b)(9) Addressed.

Identification of the costs to the Department of Veterans Affairs of the training identified under paragraph (8) and any additional training staff and any additional 

training facilities that will be required to provide such training. 

Section 3(b)(10) Addressed.

A description of the modifications to the information technology systems of the Administration and the Board that the Administration and the Board require to carry 

out the new appeals system, including cost estimates and a timeline for making the 

modifications. 

Section 3(b)(11) Addressed.

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

66 

Table 2: Summary of GAO’s Assessment of VA’s Appeals Plan Against the Required Elements in the 

Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (Act)—Continued 

Required elements of plan (from sec. 3(a) and (b) of the Act) Summary of GAO’s assessment 

An estimate of the office space the Administration and the Board will require during 

each of the periods described in paragraph (2), including- 

(A) an estimate of the amount of time the Administration and the Board will require 

to acquire any additional office space to carry out processing of appeals of decisions 

on legacy claims and processing of appeals under the new appeals system; 

(B) a comparison of the estimate under subparagraph (A) and the historical average 

time required by the Administration and the Board to acquire new office space; and 

(C) a plan for using telework to accommodate staff exceeding available office space, 

including how the Administration and the Board will provide training and oversight 

with respect to such teleworking. 

Section 3(b)(12) Partially addressed.

Projections for the productivity of individual employees at the Administration and the 

Board in carrying out tasks relating to the processing of appeals of decisions on 

legacy claims and appeals under the new appeals system, taking into account the 

experience level of new employees and the enhanced notice requirements under section 5104(b) of title 38, United States Code, as amended by section 2(e). 

Section 3(b)(13) Addressed.

An outline of the outreach the Secretary expects to conduct to inform veterans, families of veterans, survivors of veterans, veterans service organizations, military service 

organizations, congressional caseworkers, advocates for veterans, and such other 

stakeholders as the Secretary considers appropriate about the new appeals system, 

including- 

(A) a description of the resources required to conduct such outreach; and 

(B) timelines for conducting such outreach. 

Section 3(b)(14) Addressed.

Timelines for updating any policy guidance, Internet websites, and official forms that 

may be necessary to carry out the new appeals system, including- 

(A) identification of which offices and entities will be involved in efforts relating to 

such updating; and 

(B) historical information about how long similar update efforts have taken. 

Section 3(b)(15) Addressed.

A timeline, including interim milestones, for promulgating such regulations as may 

be necessary to carry out the new appeals system and a comparison with historical 

averages for time required to promulgate regulations of similar complexity and 

scope. 

Section 3(b)(16) Addressed.

An outline of the circumstances under which claimants with pending appeals of decisions on legacy claims would be authorized to have their appeals reviewed under 

the new appeals system. 

Section 3(b)(17) Partially addressed.

A delineation of the key goals and milestones for reducing the number of pending 

appeals that are not processed under the new appeals system, including the expected number of appeals, remands, and hearing requests at the Administration and 

the Board each year, beginning with the one year period beginning on the date of 

the enactment of this Act, until there are no longer any appeals pending before the 

Administration or the Board for a decision on a legacy claim. 

Section 3(b)(18) Addressed.

A description of each risk factor associated with each element of the plan and a 

contingency plan to minimize each such risk. 

Source: GAO analysis of VA’s November 2017 appeals plan and any supporting documents VA provided on or before January 18, 2018, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, and agency input by VA. / GAO 18 349T 

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

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

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

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

67 

contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder 

may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

GAO’s Mission 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 

federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts 

on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO 

e mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov and select ‘‘Email Updates.’’ 

Order by Phone 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512–6000, toll free (866) 801–7077, or 

TDD (202) 512–2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs 

Contact: 

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424–5454 or (202) 512–7470 

Congressional Relations 

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512–4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington, 

DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512–4800, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149, Washington, DC 20548 

Strategic Planning and External Liaison 

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512–4707, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, Washington, 

DC 20548 

ATTACHMENT 

GAO HIGHLIGHTS 

Highlights of GAO–18–349T, a testimony before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study 

VA’s disability compensation program pays cash benefits to veterans with disabilities connected to their military service. In recent years, the number of appeals of 

VA’s benefit decisions has been rising. For decisions made on appeal in fiscal year 

2017, veterans waited an average of 3 years for resolution by either VBA or the 

Board, and 7 years for resolution by the Board. The Veterans Appeals Improvement 

and Modernization Act of 2017 makes changes to VA’s current (legacy) appeals procLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

68 

ess, giving veterans new options to have their claims further reviewed by VBA or 

appeal directly to the Board. The Act requires VA to submit to Congress and GAO 

a plan for implementing a new appeals process, and includes a provision for GAO 

to assess VA’s plan. 

This testimony focuses on the extent to which VA’s plan: (1) addresses the required elements in the Act, and (2) reflects sound planning practices identified in 

prior GAO work. GAO’s work entailed reviewing and assessing VA’s appeals plan 

and related documents against sound planning practices, and soliciting VA’s views 

on GAO’s assessments. 

What GAO Recommends 

In its forthcoming report, GAO is considering recommending that VA: fully address all legally required elements in its appeals plan, articulate how it will monitor 

and assess the new appeals process as compared to the legacy process, augment its 

master schedule for implementation, and more fully address risk. 

View GAO–18–349T. For more information, contact Elizabeth Curda at (202) 512– 

7215 or curdae@gao.gov. 

VA DISABILITY BENEFITS 

Opportunities Exist to Better Ensure Successful Appeals Reform 

What GAO Found 

The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) plan for implementing a new disability 

appeals process while attending to appeals in the current process addresses most, 

but not all, elements required by the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (Act). VA’s appeals plan addresses 17 of 22 required elements, partially addresses 4, and does not address 1. For example, not addressed 

is the required element to include the resources needed by the Veterans Benefits 

Administration (VBA) and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) to implement the 

new appeals process and address legacy appeals under the current process. VA 

needs this information to certify, as specified under the Act, that it has sufficient 

resources to implement appeals reform and make timely appeals decisions under the 

new and legacy processes. 

VA’s appeals plan reflects certain sound planning practices, but it could benefit 

from including important details in several key planning areas: 

Performance measurement: VA’s plan reflects steps taken to track performance, but could articulate a more complete and balanced set of goals and measures 

for monitoring and assessing performance on a range of dimensions of success. Specifically, the plan reports that VA is developing a process to track timeliness of the 

new and legacy processes. However, contrary to sound planning practices, the plan 

does not include timeliness goals for all five appeals options available to veterans, 

does not include goals or measures for additional aspects of performance (such as 

accuracy or cost), and does not explain how VA will monitor or assess the new process compared to the legacy process. Unless VA clearly articulates a complete and 

balanced set of goals and measures, it could inadvertently incentivize staff to focus 

on certain aspects of appeals performance over others or fail to improve overall service to veterans. 

Project management: VA’s plan includes a master schedule for implementing 

the new appeals plan; however, this schedule falls short of sound practices because 

it does not include key planned activities-such as its pilot test of two of the five appeals options. In addition, the schedule does not reflect other sound practices for 

guiding implementation and establishing accountability-such as articulating interim 

goals and needed resources for, and interdependencies among, activities. Unless VA 

augments its master schedule to include all key activities and reflect sound practices, VA may be unable to provide reasonable assurance that it has the essential 

program management information needed for this complex and important effort. 

Risk assessment: VA has taken steps to assess and mitigate some risks related 

to appeals reform by, for example, pilot testing two of the five appeals options 

through its Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP). However, as designed, 

RAMP does not include key features of a well-developed and documented pilot test. 

For example, VA has not articulated how it will assess RAMP before proceeding 

with full implementation. In addition, RAMP is not pilot testing three options and, 

as a result, VA will not have data on the extent to which veterans will appeal directly to the Board when given the option. Unless VA identifies and mitigates key 

risks associated with implementing a new process, VA is taking a chance that untested aspects will not perform as desired. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

f 

69 

Prepared Statement of Jim Marszalek 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify at this hearing of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee concerning the implementation of the 

Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115–55). 

As National Service Director, I want to thank this Committee for its dedication 

and efforts to modernize and improve the VA appeals process for all veterans and 

claimants. As one of the key stakeholders who helped develop the Veterans Appeals 

Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, DAV strongly supports and is fully 

committed to its timely and faithful implementation. 

Mr. Chairman, as you may know, DAV is a congressionally chartered national veterans’ service organization of more than one million wartime veterans, all of whom 

were injured or made ill while serving on behalf of this Nation. To fulfill our service 

mission to America’s injured and ill veterans and the families who care for them, 

DAV directly employs a corps of more than 260 National Service Officers (NSOs), 

all of whom are themselves wartime service-connected disabled veterans, at every 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (VARO) as well as other VA facilities throughout the Nation. Together with our Chapter, Department, Transition 

and County Veteran Service Officers, DAV has over 4,000 accredited representatives 

on the front lines providing free claims and appeals services to our Nation’s veterans, their families and survivors. 

In 2017, DAV NSOs interviewed over 300,000 veterans and their families and 

filed over 192,000 new claims for benefits for the injured and ill veterans we represented before the VA. We currently represent over one million veterans or survivors, making DAV the largest veterans service organization (VSO) providing 

claims assistance. In addition, DAV has a National Appeals Office that represents 

veterans, dependents and survivors in their appeals before the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals (Board). In fiscal year 2017, DAV provided representation for 31 percent of 

all appeals decided by the Board, a caseload of 16,400 appeals, more than any other 

VSO. This testimony reflects the collective experience and expertise of our thousands of dedicated and highly trained service officers who provide free claims and 

appeals assistance to hundreds of thousands of veterans and survivors each year. 

In 2014, DAV organized a workgroup consisting of subject matter experts from 

VA, the Board and other VSO stakeholders, to seek consensus on commonsense 

ways to help reform and improve the appeals process. This collaboration led to development of the Fully Developed Appeals pilot proposal, which was introduced and 

made progress as legislation in both the House and Senate. In 2016, VA convened 

a new workgroup with a much more ambitious goal: overhaul the entire appeals 

process. The resultant appeals modernization legislation was produced through a remarkable collaboration between the VA, Board and VSO stakeholders representing 

veterans, including DAV. 

Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115–55) 

On August 23, 2017, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act 

of 2017 was signed into law. The legislation comprehensively reforms the VA appeals system, fully protecting the due process rights of veterans while creating multiple options for them to receive their decisions in a more timely and judicious manner. The critical core of the new system provides veterans multiple options to address unfavorable claims decisions, introduce new evidence at both the Board and 

VBA, and protect their earliest effective dates without having to be locked into the 

current long and arduous formal appeals process. 

In general, veterans unsatisfied with their claims decision will have three main 

options. First, there will be an option for a local Higher Level of Review of the original claim decision based on the evidence of record at the time of the claim decision. 

Second, there will be an option for a Supplemental Claim when new and relevant 

evidence is presented or a predetermination hearing requested. Third, there will be 

an option to pursue an appeal, via Notice of Disagreement (NOD), to the Board, 

with or without new evidence or a hearing. Veterans must elect one of these three 

options within one year of the claims decision to protect their effective date. 

The central dynamic of the new system is that a veteran who receives an unfavorable decision from one of these three main options may then pursue another option. 

As long as the veteran continuously pursues a new option within one year of the 

last decision, they would be able to preserve their earliest effective date, if the facts 

so warrant. Each of these options, or ‘‘lanes,’’ as some call them, have different adLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

70 

vantages that allow veterans to elect what they and their representatives believe 

will provide the quickest and most accurate decision. 

For the higher-level review option, the veteran can choose to have the review done 

at the same local VARO that made the claim decision, or at another VARO, which 

would be facilitated by VBA’s electronic claims files and the National Work Queue’s 

ability to instantly distribute work to any VARO. The veteran does not have the option to introduce any new evidence, nor have a hearing with the higher-level reviewer, although a veteran or the appointed representative can choose to have informal conferences with the reviewer in order for them to point out errors of fact or 

law. The review and decision will be de novo and a simple ‘‘difference of opinion’’ 

by the higher-level reviewer will be enough to overturn the decision in question. If 

the veteran is not satisfied with the new decision, they can then elect one of the 

other two options. 

For this higher-level review, the ‘‘Duty to Assist’’ (DTA) will not apply because 

it is limited to the evidence of record used to make the original claims decision. If 

a DTA error is discovered that occurred prior to the original decision, unless the 

claim can be granted in full, the claim will be sent back to the VARO to correct 

any errors and readjudicate the claim. If the veteran is not satisfied with that new 

decision, they can still elect the other appeal options. 

For the supplemental claim option, veterans will be able to request a pre-determination hearing and present new evidence that would be considered in the first 

instance at the VARO. VA’s full DTA will apply, to include development of both public and private evidence. This will be a de novo review of all the evidence presented 

both before and after to the claim decision, until the new decision is issued. As with 

a higher level review, if the veteran is not satisfied with the new decision, they can 

then elect another option to continue pursuing the contested claims. 

For the third option, appeal to the Board, there will be three separate dockets: 

one that does not allow hearings and new evidence to be introduced; one that allows 

both new evidence and hearings, and one that allows new evidence with no hearing. 

For each of these dockets, the appeal would be routed directly to the Board with 

no processing steps at VBA. In conjunction with the continuing legacy appeals docket, the Board will now have to manage four different dockets. 

For the Board docket that allows hearings, veterans can choose either a video conference hearing or an in-person hearing at the Board’s Washington, DC offices; 

there will no longer be travel hearing options offered to veterans. New evidence will 

be allowed, but limited to specific timeframes: if a hearing is elected, new evidence 

could be presented at the hearing or for 90 days following the hearing; if no hearing 

is elected, new evidence could be presented with the filing of the NOD or for 90 days 

thereafter. 

If the veteran is not satisfied with the Board’s decision, they can elect to continue 

with a Supplemental Claim, and if filed within one year of the Board’s decision, it 

would continue to preserve their earliest effective date. The veteran also has 120 

days to file a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). 

If the Court’s decision does not satisfy the veteran, they can file another Supplemental Claim within one year with new evidence. They also retain the right to appeal the Court’s decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. 

If the Board discovers that a DTA error was made prior to the original claims decision, unless the claim can be granted in full, the Board would remand the case 

back to VBA for it to correct the errors and readjudicate the claim. Again, if the 

veteran was not satisfied with the new claim decision, they could choose from one 

of the three appeals options available to them, and as long as they do so within one 

year of the decision, they would continue to preserve their earliest effective date. 

The new statute does not impose a limit on the number of times a veteran could 

choose one of these three options, and as long as they properly elect a new one within a year of the prior decision, they continue to protect their earliest effective date. 

Improving Claims Decision Notification 

P.L. 115–55 mandates that the contents of notification letters must be clear, easy 

to understand and easy to navigate. The notice must convey not only VA’s rationale 

for reaching its determination, but also the options available to claimants after receipt of the decision. It requires that in addition to an explanation for how the veteran can have the decision reviewed or appealed, all decision notification letters 

must contain the following information to help them in determining whether, when, 

where and how to appeal an adverse decision: 

1. A list of the issues adjudicated; 

2. A summary of the evidence considered; 

3. A summary of applicable laws and regulations; 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

71 

4. Identification of findings favorable to the claimant; 

5. Identification of elements that were not satisfied leading to the denial; 

6. An explanation of how to obtain or access evidence used in making the decision; 

and 

7. If applicable, identification of the criteria that must be satisfied to grant service 

connection or the next higher level of compensation for the benefit sought. 

The new decision notification will provide a more thorough and complete explanation of the VA decisions and will require a denial to describe the type of evidence 

that is required. The decision notification letter should be used in all decisions being 

conducted during implementation of the new appeals system. 

Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) 

Starting in September 2017, the Appeals Management Office (AMO) and the 

Board began discussions with VSOs and other stakeholders about the Rapid Appeals 

Modernization Program (RAMP), which was authorized by the pilot program authority in P.L. 115–55. RAMP is intended to address the backlog of legacy appeals while 

also serving as a mechanism for testing elements of the new appeals system. 

At the beginning of October 2017, there were approximately 340,000 pending appeals at the VARO in various stages. There were roughly 88,000 appeals at the 

Board. RAMP will give the oldest pending legacy appeals the first opportunity to 

opt-in to the program, which allows claimants to choose two of the new options: 

Higher Level of Review and Supplemental Claims. Claimants are required to withdraw their legacy appeal to opt into RAMP, but will be able to retain their earliest 

effective dates. The Board option is not offered through RAMP, as this option will 

not become effective until full implementation of the law in February 2019. 

Prior to initiating RAMP, and in consultation with DAV and other VSOs, the 

AMO addressed concerns and suggestions for the implementation and options under 

the program. The draft RAMP opt-in letters were provided to VSOs and other stakeholders for review and comments. However, although the new decision notification 

letter requirements in P.L. 115–55 will be applied to all RAMP decisions, VA’s IT 

system is currently unable to seamlessly support the new notification requirements 

so VA is using a ‘‘work-around’’ for new decision and notification letters. 

In November 2017, VA launched the first phase of RAMP, offering the 500 oldest 

appeals the opportunity to opt into the program, providing claimants 60 days to respond. On December 1, 2017, an additional 5,000 legacy appellants were invited to 

opt-in to RAMP, and in January 2018, 10,000 more were invited. 

Although RAMP is still in its infancy, the earliest returns as of January 25, 2018, 

resulted in 309 appellants electing to opt-in, a 3 percent opt-in rate, with 225 choosing Higher Level of Review. Of those cases, the decisions were completed in an average of 27 days. 

Of those initial claimants opting in to RAMP, 58 are represented by DAV, the 

largest of any accredited representative; nine of those cases have already been decided in an average of 31 days. Those nine decisions resulted in two cases being 

completely denied and the other seven with favorable decisions. A total of 29 issues 

were granted and 25 issues denied. Those seven cases resulted in an amazing total 

of retroactive compensation payments of $520,693.09. Some of the exceptional results were: 

1. Gulf War Era veteran receives 100 percent evaluation in less than two 

months. This veteran submitted new and material evidence in June 2008 but his 

claim for mental health disorder was denied. After many years of appealing to the 

VARO and remands from the Board, the veteran opted into RAMP on November 16, 

2017. Based on the de novo review by the AMO, a grant of service connection with 

a 100 percent evaluation was completed in 48 days. The decision was established 

effective June 2008 and resulted in $276,489.68 in retroactive benefits. After 10 

years of appealing, RAMP was able to grant benefits in less than two months. 

2. Veteran receives Total Evaluation retroactive for seven years in 41 

days. In 2014, this Vietnam Era veteran was denied an increased evaluation in his 

wartime connected mental health disorder and entitlement to a total evaluation 

based on individual unemployability (TDIU). The veteran was offered to opt-in to 

RAMP on December 1, 2017, and returned the election on December 18, 2017. The 

AMO decision of January 11, 2018, granted TDIU effective September 2011. RAMP 

yielded a favorable grant of benefits totaling $124,777.44 in retroactive payments. 

After waiting five years for action from his claim, he received a grant of benefits 

in 41 days after being offered RAMP. 

3. MST veteran receives full grant in less than 30 days after waiting seven 

years. A Vietnam Era veteran filed a claim for a mental health disorder due to miliLeonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

72 

tary sexual trauma (MST) in June 2010. The claim was denied and the veteran continued to pursue evidence after being repeatedly denied. The veteran submitted a 

NOD in March 2014 and was offered to opt-in to RAMP on December 1, 2017, and 

returned the election on December 11, 2017. The AMO decision of December 28, 

2017, granted service connection for the mental health disorder and established a 

100 percent evaluation effective June 2010, yielding a total of $104,484.70 in retroactive benefits. After seven years, under RAMP, a grant was made in less than 30 

days. 

These early cases establish the tremendous impact of RAMP and its potential in 

reducing the legacy appeals backlog. RAMP is showcasing two of the three options 

of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act and its impact on 

timeliness. 

Currently, only the AMO is adjudicating those opt-in cases under RAMP. The 

next phase of RAMP will include expanding the program to two additional VA Regional Offices, Denver and Phoenix, to process RAMP cases. The AMO will provide 

all RAMP on-site training to both VAROs. The next release of opt-in letters will be 

February 1, 2018, to 25,000 legacy appeals claimants and 12,000 NODs received in 

December and January. 

DAV has provided this information and training to our NSO Corps for their 

knowledge in providing assistance on RAMP to our clients. RAMP provides claimants with extremely old legacy appeals to have an option for relative immediate adjudicative action that protects their effective dates. If the Higher Level of Review 

or the Supplemental Claims options do not result in their desired outcome, beginning in February 2018, they can also elect the Board option under RAMP, although 

these appeals will not begin to be addressed until February 2019, when the law is 

fully implemented. 

As mentioned, DAV’s represented veterans have benefited from RAMP and we believe it is a great testing environment for the new appeals system. We understand 

it is early in the program and improvements and adjustments will be made throughout the process. Below are specific comments and recommendations in reference to 

RAMP. 

RAMP Comments and Recommendations 

1.Early Opt-in Rates of RAMP. As RAMP was offered to the oldest appeals, 

many claimants may be under the impression that they are too close for a decision 

and choose not to opt-in. In addition, at this point there has been very little communication or education by VA or VSOs about the potential benefits of RAMP for veterans with pending appeals. We believe it is too early and there is not adequate 

data to draw conclusions about the program. 

2.Resolution of IT Issue to support new decision notification letters. The 

AMO committed to provide all RAMP participants with decision/notification letters 

as will be required upon full implementation of P.L. 115–55. However, VA IT systems have not been updated to allow for automatic generation of the new letter format, thereby forcing the AMO to use a manual work-around. We believe this can 

have a negative impact on the timeliness of these decisions and urge VA to fix this 

issue prior to the expansion of RAMP to VAROs in Denver and Phoenix. 

3.Allow all claimants with pending appeals to opt-in to RAMP in the future. The early results of RAMP indicate this program can significantly benefit 

many veterans who have waited years for favorable claims decisions. As VA and 

VSOs begin sharing these early success stories, many appellants who learn about 

RAMP, but who have not yet been invited by VA, may seek to opt-in to the program 

to bypass considerable delays in the current legacy appeals processing system. As 

the representatives of over 1 million veterans and families, we see tremendous potential benefit by allowing all veterans to have the choice to opt-in to RAMP as soon 

as possible. 

4.Opt-in Election Letter submission. Opt-in Elections completed by the claimant are required to be submitted only via fax to the Appeals Resource Center (ARC) 

with the ARC Coversheet. DAV has over 260 National Service Officers nationwide 

providing representation and utilizing the VA Direct Mail Upload for evidence and 

record submissions, which provides a more efficient way to transmit the information. DAV believes we should be able to submit RAMP Opt-in Elections through the 

same means, rather than solely by fax. 

Implementing the Modernized Appeals System. 

The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115–55) 

requires VA to complete a Comprehensive Plan for Processing Legacy Appeals and 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

73 

Implementing the Modernized Appeals System. The Plan was released in November 

2017 and was discussed at the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Disability 

and Memorial Affairs Roundtable on November 30, 2017. Overall, DAV believes that 

the proposal provides a reasonable path forward for VBA and the Board to implement the new system. Key comments and recommendations for specific issues are 

noted below: 

1.Section 3(a)(3)-Timely Processing Under New Appeals System. Supplemental claims and Higher Level of Review case completion is projected as an average of 125 days. To ensure that the new appeals system is successful, these average 

days to completion projections must be given the appropriate resources to ensure 

that quality and timely decisions are produced. 

2.Section 3(a)(3)-Timely Processing Under New Appeals System. For appeals in which there is no additional evidence and no request for hearing, the projected average processing time is 365 days. The plan notes that the average processing time for the two other dockets will be contingent upon what resources remain 

and how they are allocated among the dockets. DAV is concerned that resources 

may be shifted to ensure that the no-evidence/no-hearing docket meets its 365-day 

average goal, leaving the other two dockets and the legacy appeals docket to suffer 

unacceptable delays. To assure timeliness and provide fairness and equity to veterans on all dockets, we urge VA to provide adequate resources and consider establishing projected average time processing standards for all four dockets. 

3.Section 3(b)(10)-Modifications to Information Technology Systems. As 

noted above, the Board will now be maintaining four separate appeals dockets; three 

for the new appeals and one for legacy appeals. At the November 30th Roundtable, 

VA’s office of Digital Services indicated that 30 employees were assigned to rebuild 

the Board’s existing appeals tracking system (VACOLS) to include RAMP. The design and completion of this new appeals tracking system is an integral part of the 

implementation plan. The targeted goal is for the complete integration of this system in the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) by August 30, 2018. We 

urge VA to provide sufficient resources for the completion and launch of this new 

system prior to the targeted date. 

4. Section 3 (b)(15)-Timeline for Promulgating Regulations. We received 

and provided preliminary comments and requests for clarification of the Proposed 

Regulations. However, our main concern is the time frame for the Proposed Regulations. We understand that these are currently being reviewed by VA Counsel before 

being sent to the Office of Management and Budget. We urge the VA to have these 

numerous Proposed Regulations submitted to the Federal Register as soon as possible to avoid any delays in publishing these regulations prior to February 2019. 

5.Legacy Appeals and Pending Hearings. While the RAMP Program can address a portion of the legacy appeals, we are concerned with the overall processing 

time for legacy appeals, specifically the timeliness and volume of hearings that are 

pending. As of January 24, 2018, there are 84,658 total hearings pending with the 

Board; 65,550 video conference hearings, 17,241 travel board hearings, and 1,867 inperson hearings in Washington DC. Currently, the Board is only conducting in-person hearings in Washington DC one day a week. We do not feel this will adequately 

address the pending in-person legacy appeal hearing backlog. We urge the VA put 

forward a plan to address the overwhelming number of pending hearings for legacy 

appeals and to provide the necessary resources to reduce the over 84,000 pending 

hearing requests. 

6.Evidence Submission for Hearings. Under P.L. 115–55, when a veteran submits a NOD to the Board, they can opt to have a hearing and/or opt to submit new 

evidence. If a veteran elects to have a hearing and chooses to submit new evidence, 

it is required to be submitted at the hearing or within 90 days after the hearing. 

An issue that has not been adequately addressed is, ‘‘what will happen to evidence 

submitted prior to the requested hearing?’’ We contend that any evidence received 

after the NOD but prior to the Board hearing, should be accepted and made part 

of the appeal record. 

Mr. Chairman, to reiterate, DAV strongly supports the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program 

(RAMP). We are grateful for the opportunity to continue our partnership with the 

VA and our fellow VSOs and our stakeholder partners. We look forward to continued collaboration on these programs to ensure that P.L. 115–55 results in the modern appeals processing system this grateful nation owes to our deserving veterans 

and their families. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

74 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to appear at today’s 

hearing. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or members of the Committee may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Diane Boyd Rauber, Esq. 

Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and members of the Committee, the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates (NOVA) would like to thank you for the 

opportunity to testify on the topic of ‘‘Appeals Reform: Will VA’s Implementation Effectively Serve Veterans?’’ We appreciate the Committee’s leadership in exercising 

its oversight authority over VA’s implementation of appeals reform. 

NOVA is a not-for-profit 501(c)(6) educational membership organization incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1993. NOVA represents nearly 600 attorneys 

and agents assisting tens of thousands of our nation’s military veterans, their widows, and their families seeking to obtain their earned benefits from VA. NOVA 

works to develop and encourage high standards of service and representation for all 

persons seeking VA benefits. NOVA members represent veterans before all levels 

of VA’s disability claims process, and handle appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(Federal Circuit). In 2000, the CAVC recognized NOVA’s work on behalf of veterans 

with the Hart T. Mankin Distinguished Service Award. NOVA operates a full-time 

office in Washington, DC. 

Attorneys and agents handle a considerable volume and growing number of appeals at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA). In FY 2015, for example, attorneys 

and agents handled 14.9% of appeals before BVA. This number was fourth only behind Disabled American Veterans (28.1%), State Service Officers (16.5%), and American Legion (15%). U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015 at 27. In FY 2016, this number grew to 15.9%, 

third only to Disabled American Veterans (28.1%) and American Legion (19.6%). 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Board of Veterans’ Appeals Annual Report 

Fiscal Year 2016 at 26. Similar statistics are available for FY 2017, with attorneys 

and agents representing appellants in 17% of cases, again third behind Disabled 

American Veterans (31%) and American Legion (18%). 

NOVA members have been responsible for significant precedential decisions at the 

CAVC and Federal Circuit. In addition, as an organization, NOVA has advanced important cases and filed amicus briefs in others. See, e.g., Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 

U.S. 428 (2011)(amicus); NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 710 F.3d 1328 

(Fed. Cir. 2013)(addressing VA’s failure to honor its commitment to stop applying 

an invalid rule); Gray v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 16–1782 (Jan. 3, 

2018)(amicus in support of petition for rehearing before the Federal Circuit); Robinson v. McDonald, No. 15–0715 (July 14, 2016)(CAVC amicus). 

We detail below concerns that should be addressed to ensure implementation of 

the appeals reform legislation preserves the long-standing intent of Congress: that 

the VA benefits adjudication and appeals process be veteran friendly and nonadversarial. 

OVERVIEW 

NOVA appreciated the opportunity to participate in the discussion of appeals reform that led to the passage of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017. We also applaud VA’s ongoing inclusion of stakeholders in the discussion of its implementation plans, which has included opportunities to review 

draft regulations and documents related to its Rapid Appeals Modernization Program. NOVA remains committed to providing constructive feedback in response to 

these opportunities, and urges VA to consider and implement the recommendations 

of the stakeholder community. 

As we have previously noted, successful implementation will be key if appeals reform is truly to be the positive change veterans deserve and VA promises. Effective 

implementation hinges on VA’s ability to consistently meet its goals of adjudicating 

and issuing decisions in the 125-day window identified for supplemental claims and 

deciding appeals within the one-year period before BVA. As demonstrated with the 

prior backlog of original claims and scheduling of medical appointments, VA often 

struggles to meet its own internal goals to the detriment of veterans. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

75 

RAPID APPEALS MODERNIZATION PROGRAM (RAMP) 

Relying on section 4 of P.L. 115–55, VA implemented the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) in November 2017. According to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) designed for RAMP, the Veterans Benefits Administration 

(VBA) ‘‘will administer this pilot during the 18-month period after enactment allowed for full implementation of the new process and continue processing elections 

by Veterans as long as necessary thereafter to continue to accelerate resolution of 

legacy appeals.’’ SOP at 1. Based on VA’s proposed rollout of this program, as of 

January 1, 2018, VA sent approximately 15,500 letters to veterans with appeals eligible for acceptance into RAMP. Last week, Secretary Shulkin testified before the 

Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs that approximately three percent of invited 

veterans have elected to opt into RAMP, and 75 percent of those who received decisions were awarded a grant. 

As an initial matter, stakeholders need information and statistics on a regular 

basis. Such data is important to stakeholders to understand the current state of 

RAMP and provide the best advice to veterans and their families. Data is also a 

critical component of any true pilot program to measure its success, and VA must 

commit to regular updates so stakeholders can gauge progress and suggest improvements. We hope the recent meeting that took place on January 25th will be the first 

of many. Furthermore, VA should ensure its field staff is receiving regular communications and training on RAMP operations, as well as updates on its progress. 

From NOVA’s perspective, there are a few reasons why there is a low opt-in rate 

to RAMP. First, VA chose not to extend the program through to BVA. Therefore, 

a veteran who withdraws his or her pending appeals (with no opportunity to return 

to the legacy system), is denied after either a higher-level review or supplemental 

claim, and wishes to appeal to BVA must now wait until the system is fully implemented - at the earliest in February 2019 - to obtain BVA review. While VA has 

stated those veterans will be first in line for BVA review upon full implementation 

of the system, many representatives are reluctant to counsel an appellant to move 

into a program that does not extend to BVA and does not provide a full understanding of how the procedure will ultimately operate at BVA. Furthermore, VA’s 

recently submitted implementation plan indicates that the ‘‘average processing time 

goal for appeals under § 7107 does not apply to appeals submitted to the Board in 

response to a decision under VBA’s RAMP.’’ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Comprehensive Plan for Processing Legacy Appeals and Implementing the Modernized Appeals System 8 (November 2017). 

Second, VA is targeting the oldest appeals. While we understand this strategy is 

designed to be fair to those who have been waiting the longest, many veterans currently receiving invitations are close enough to a BVA decision that they do not 

wish to move into something new, particularly in light of Secretary Shulkin’s recent 

statement that BVA intends to decide 81,000 appeals in FY 2018. 

In addition, veterans with cases in remand status may be more likely to stay in 

the legacy system because BVA will retain jurisdiction over the appeal. The veteran 

will be entitled to expedited consideration upon return to BVA if he or she is not 

satisfied with the action taken on remand, as well as enforcement of the prior order. 

Finally, although NOVA appreciates VA efforts to ensure attorneys and agents receive copies of RAMP correspondence sent to veterans (required under its M21–1 

Adjudication Procedures Manual for all correspondence), VA’s mailing systems remain seriously flawed both for RAMP and overall adjudication procedures. NOVA 

receives nearly daily complaints from members that copies of correspondence are not 

being received. While VA has stated it plans to launch a centralized outgoing mailing system to rectify these issues, far too much correspondence has gone unmailed 

and unreceived. When VA fails to properly notify, important deadlines are missed 

and additional claims and appeals must be pursued to address VA’s failures, resulting in yet more delay in the process. 

It is clear that VA is not fulfilling its responsibilities in this regard. In July 2017, 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) completed a report addressing VA’s 

outgoing mail deficiencies. United States Government Accountability Office, Report 

to the Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, House of Representatives, Veterans Affairs: Actions Needed to More Effectively Manage Outgoing Mail, GAO–17– 

581 (July 2017). The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations subsequently 

held a hearing on this report. House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations, VA Mail Management: The Case of the $11,257 

Package (hearing held September 12, 2017). In addition to finding VA has an outdated mail management policy directive and handbook, GAO noted that ‘‘VA cannot 

ensure consistent mailing practices in its administrations and facilities because it 

has not provided mail managers with appropriate authority and responsibilities to 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

76 

oversee mail operations across the agency.’’ GAO Report at 7; see also GAO Report 

at 15. VA must improve its mailing practices, so veterans and their representatives 

receive proper notice of claims and appeals processing, and we urge the Subcommittee to continue its oversight of this issue. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VETERANS APPEALS IMPROVEMENT AND 

MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2017 

As part of the reporting requirements imposed under P.L. 115–55, in November 

2017, VA submitted its first report, Comprehensive Plan for Processing Legacy Appeals and Implementing the Modernized Appeals System (hereinafter Comprehensive Plan). VA does not provide sufficient details for how it will handle legacy appeals in relation to modernized appeals once the new system is implemented. Based 

on several statements made in the report, it appears VA intends to devote resources 

first to modernized appeals and allocate ‘‘leftovers’’ to legacy appeals. See, e.g., Comprehensive Plan at 4 (‘‘VA will allocate available resources to meet the timely processing goals in the new system, as outlined in section 3(a)(3), and remaining resources are then employed to process legacy appeals.’’); Comprehensive Plan at 9 

(‘‘VA intends to allocate resources in an efficient manner that will establish timely 

processing in the new process and will allocate all remaining appeals resources to 

address the inventory of legacy appeals.’’); Comprehensive Plan at 10 (‘‘VBA intends 

to allocate field resources in an efficient manner that will establish timely processing in the new process and will allocate all remaining resources to address the 

inventory of legacy appeals.’’). VA needs to provide more details about how it will 

continue to process legacy appeals in a fair and timely manner while fulfilling its 

obligations under the new legislation, to include how it will address the substantial 

backlog of BVA hearing requests. 

Furthermore, in its implementation plan, VA stated it needs enhancements to the 

Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) to meet the statute’s specifications. 

Comprehensive Plan at 15. Secretary Shulkin also testified to VA’s ‘‘enterprise-wide 

efforts to modernize the appeals process through improvements in technology.’’ 

Statement of the Honorable David J. Shulkin, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

for Presentation Before the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, The State of VA: 

Progress Report on Implementing 2017 VA Reform Legislation 3 (January 17, 2018). 

Congress must ensure VBA and BVA continue to receive sufficient resources to implement necessary technological upgrades to its systems, particularly VBMS and 

Caseflow. VBMS was not designed with appeals processing in mind, and it lacks 

many features that would make work for VBA employees, BVA employees, and representatives easier and more efficient. VA should ensure VBMS enhancements continue, Caseflow is fully operational, and all representatives have access to as many 

features as appropriate to help them represent veterans as effectively as possible. 

CONCLUSION 

NOVA is committed to continue working with this Committee, VA, and fellow 

stakeholders to ensure the appeals process for veterans is fair, timely, and preserves 

veterans’ due process rights. We again thank the Committee for allowing us to provide our views on implementation of appeals reform, and I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee members might have. 

For more information: 

NOVA staff would be happy to assist you with any further inquiries you may have 

regarding our views on this topic. For questions regarding this testimony or if you 

would like to request additional information, please feel free to contact: 

Diane Boyd Rauber, Esq. 

Executive Director 

National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. 

1775 Eye Street, NW 

Suite 1150 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 587-5708 

drauber@vetadvocates.org 

f 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

77 

Prepared Statement of Steven Henry 

Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and members of the Committee, Paralyzed 

Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the opportunity to offer our 

views on the implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) appeal reform and if in fact it will effectively serve veterans. 

PVA employs a highly-trained force of over 70 service officers across the nation 

who develop veterans’ claims for both member and non-member clients. These frontline employees spend a minimum of two years in specialized training. We maintain 

a national appeals office staffed by attorneys and legal interns who represent clients 

at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board). We also have attorneys who practice before the Board, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), and the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Of all the major Veteran Service 

Organizations (VSO), only PVA offers such continuity of representation throughout 

subsequent appellate review. 

Our most important attribute, though, is that our service officers and attorneys 

consistently advocate for catastrophically disabled veterans. Complex claims are the 

norm, not the exception. As we attempt to bring greater efficiency to the claims and 

appeals system, our perspective is geared toward ensuring that the due process 

rights of the most vulnerable among us-those most deserving of benefits-are not watered down for the sake of expediency. 

In July 1933 the Board of Veterans Appeals, often referred to as the Board, was 

established providing veterans with appeals rights. Members of the Board of Veterans Appeals were appointed by the Administrator with the approval of the President. The Board’s mission is to conduct hearings and to provide decisions on veteran’s appeals in a timely manner. The Board’s jurisdiction extends to all questions 

in matters involving a decision by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under a law 

that affects a provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans, their dependents 

or their survivors. 

The appeals process for VA benefits is a complex, non-linear process, which is set 

in law and is unique from other appeals processes across the federal and judicial 

systems. Notably, the current VA appeals process is a continuous open record that 

allows the claimant to submit new evidence or make a new argument at any point 

throughout the process. Furthermore, VA’s duty to assist requires VA to assist with 

the development of additional evidence submitted by the claimant to assist with the 

adjudication of their claim. Generally, VA must issue another decision specifically 

addressing the newly submitted evidence. 

When a claimant exhausts their appeal rights at the local Regional Office (RO) 

they may choose to appeal their claim to the Board. To do so they must file a Form 

9 which certifies their case to the Board and provides their claim with a docket date. 

All cases at the Board are heard in docket date order. 

In fiscal year 2015, the Board received and docketed 69,957 appeals and anticipated the docketing of 88,183 appeals in fiscal year 16. The Board’s cycle time which 

measures the average time from the date an appeal is certified to the Board until 

a decision is rendered was 160 days in FY15. This does not include the time spent 

with service organizations who represent the veterans and assist them with their 

appeal. 

In reaction to the increasing backlog of appeals claims, instead of addressing the 

lack of proper development and adjudication at the local Regional Offices, VA instead chose to modify the appeals process at the Board. VA did so through a collaboration with Congressional leadership by introducing the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization (VAIMA) Act of 2017. In the legislation, Congress introduced language that provided VA with the authority to establish a test program, 

or pilot, to assist with the implementation of the VAIMA. VA’s pilot, already in effect, is called the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP). 

PVA has several concerns with RAMP. First and foremost is the fact that it is 

not a pilot because of VA’s plan to extend RAMP to all veterans in varying stages 

of appeals. It is clear that RAMP is an effort by VA to facilitate implementation of 

the VAIMA in an effort to reduce the appeals backlog. In general, a ‘‘pilot program’’ 

is defined as a small scale preliminary study conducted in order to evaluate feasibility, time, cost, adverse events, and effect size (statistical variability) in an attempt to predict an appropriate sample size and improve upon the study design 

prior to performance of a full-scale program. To date, VA has distributed thousands 

of notices to veterans proposing the choice to ‘‘opt-in’’ to the RAMP program. 

RAMP is not a small scale project. Furthermore, VA did not share any benchmarks for which the project will be tested prior to its implementation. How will the 

pilot be determined a success? In actuality, there was very little communication 

with VSOs in regards to when and how the program was going to be implemented. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

78 

With this new program claimants will have the ability to opt in if they receive 

a less than favorable decision on their original claim. The RAMP program provides 

the veterans with three lanes: 

• Supplemental Claim Lane: Veterans will select this option if they have additional evidence that is ‘‘new and relevant’’ to support granting their claim. 

• Higher Level Review Lane: Veterans will select this option if they have no further evidence to submit but believe there was an error in the initial decision. 

• The last choice is to have your claim recertified to the Board. 

The RAMP process is completely separate from the Board. It is not clear how opting into RAMP will affect their docket date if they later elect to go to the Board. 

PVA has serious concerns with the claimants having to withdraw their appeals 

particularly with veterans who choose to participate in RAMP although their appeals have been remanded for further development by the Board. In 1988 the Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims often referred to as the Court, was established for 

exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans Appeals. Decisions rendered by the Court can establish precedent. One decision in particular was 

Stegall v. West. In Stegall the Court held that any remand instructions by the 

Board must be adhered to by the Regional Office and that the Board must ensure 

that its remand instructions are complied. This protection is important as it further 

compels VA to comply with its duty to assist. 

If a veteran withdraws their appeal(s) they will no longer have the protection 

under Stegall because the Board will no longer have jurisdiction over the claimants 

claim. This puts increased responsibility on the veteran or their representative to 

ensure VA has fully complied with its duty to assist. Unfortunately, most veterans 

do not have the knowledge, access to records, or wherewithal to scrutinize whether 

the Board’s remand instructions have been complied with. 

Ensuring that VA provide adequate exams by the proper specialist is a common 

error in claims that face continued denial in the current appeals process. PVA represents veterans who are the most catastrophically disabled and whose claims are 

often extremely complex. More often than not, veterans with complex claims that 

include any aspect of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC), must be seen by specialists, most likely a neurologist, not nurse practitioners or physicians practicing 

general medicine. Without a specialist conducting the exam it is quite possible the 

most important details will be overlooked which could result in a significant monetary loss for the veteran. 

As part of the pilot, VA is sending notices to veterans across the country giving 

them the option to opt-in to the new program that would provide them a quicker 

decision. PVA is concerned that many veterans will make the choice to opt-in based 

on the fact that the basis of the program is to provide quicker decisions. Unfortunately this program is not for everyone and could actually have a very detrimental 

effect on the veteran’s claim. There have been instances where a PVA Service Officer (SO) was contacted by a veteran who informed them that they had opted-in to 

the RAMP program. 

Another of PVA’s concerns is VA’s intention to implement the program as quickly 

as possible without determining resources needed for the program to be successful. 

An example would be the fact that if a veteran opts-in to the RAMP program, exhausts all of their lanes and still receives an unfavorable decision, the veteran is 

unable to appeal their claim to the Board until February, 2019. It is possible that 

veterans will be angry that they must wait until 2019 to certify their appeal to the 

Board even though this was explained in the initial letter to the veteran explaining 

the process. Unfortunately, the explanation was found half way down on page four. 

Even the most experienced advocate could easily miss this notification. VA must improve their means of notifying the veterans of these regulations that could have a 

serious detriment to their claims. Furthermore, legal action against VA could be 

possible for failing to adhere to current due process regulations. 

It’s no secret VA has a very difficult job. At the end of the day there are many 

stakeholders VA must answer to. Unfortunately with this responsibility VA will 

often make kneejerk decisions and will implement programs prior to having the resources in place to ensure the program’s success. The RAMP program is no different. VA is pushing RAMP out so quickly that even VA employees in Regional Offices across the country have very little confidence in the effectiveness of the program. Furthermore, there has been little to no communication between VA and 

VSO’s in regards to providing the necessary training and tools to our field employees to assist them with providing accurate information to their clients. Like all other 

VA programs and initiatives there must be constant communication between VA 

and VSO’s to ensure the veteran’s needs are met and their voices are heard. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

79 

PVA is also concerned with the stages of appeals that VA is targeting with RAMP. 

PVA has received notice that for the month of February 2018, 120 veterans represented by PVA will receive opt-in notices. Out of those, 76 were in the Notice of 

Disagreement (NOD) stage, 16 had submitted their Form 9’s, 20 had been certified 

advanced and 7 are in remand status. Veteran’s whose cases are in remand status 

should absolutely not be contacted nor should they be provided the option to optin because they are already in such an advanced stage in their appeal. 

PVA is certain that the RAMP program has not been implemented for the veteran’s benefit but for VA’s. When asked to opt-in to the RAMP program the veteran 

must agree to withdraw all appeals that would have been appealed to the Board. 

By doing so it would give the impression that appeals were being reduced, when 

in reality they are just on hold. 

As you know, PVA has an extensive national network of SO’s who work with our 

members and other veterans to prosecute their VA claims. Some of our SO’s report 

a culture in their Regional Offices where adjudicators are not comfortable favorably 

exercising their full authority in the current system. Changing a law is hard, but 

changing a culture is much harder. If VA does not work to change the culture of 

its decision makers, and if VA managers do not allow their decision makers to exercise their full authority, then it won’t matter whether you call it a Decision Review 

Officer, a Higher Level Review, an appeal or anything else. To get the benefits of 

appeals modernization, VA must change more than titles and regulations, it must 

also change the proverbial hearts and minds of its employees. 

We are concerned that, in its rush to implement RAMP, VA has not fully complied 

with Congress’s intent. The act envisioned a comprehensive plan followed by a pilot 

to test assumptions used in the plan, but the RAMP program began before the comprehensive plan was fully developed. We urge continued oversight to ensure the congressional intent is followed. 

Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to submit our views on the RAMP and Appeals Modernization Programs. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

f 

Statements For The Record 

THE AMERICAN LEGION 

Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and distinguished members of the House 

Committee on Veterans Affairs, on behalf of Denise H. Rohan, National Commander 

of The American Legion, the country’s largest patriotic wartime service organization 

for veterans, comprising 2 million members and serving every man and woman who 

has worn the uniform for this country; we thank you for the opportunity to testify 

on the topic of ‘‘Appeals Reform: Will VA’s Implementation Effectively Serve Veterans?’’ 

The American Legion is a primary Veteran Service Organization (VSO) stakeholder and fully supports the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization 

Act of 2017 (P.L. 115–55), which is commonly referred as ‘‘Appeals Modernization.’’ 

The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) appeals modernization has always had 

two components: (1) the legislation establishing ‘‘Appeals Modernization’’ and (2) the 

efforts to resolve the legacy appeals inventory. We fully support Appeals Modernization and the Department’s early efforts to resolve the legacy appeals inventory 

through the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP). 

The American Legion has the following comments regarding VA’s 11–20–2017 

Comprehensive Plan for Processing Legacy Appeals and Implementing the Modernized Appeals system (‘the plan’). 

I. ENHANCING EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE 

The American Legion looks forward to learning about the U.S. Digital Service’s 

plan to build an enhancement in VA’s Veterans Benefits Management System 

(VBMS) so that previously adjudicated ‘‘favorable findings of fact’’ are tracked in a 

manner enabling VA claims examiners in the future to avoid undertaking unnecessary claims development and making erroneous decisions. This will support a key 

provision in the legislation designed to protect the best interests of our veterans 

while also streamlining VA’s adjudication process. 

II. VA’s OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP WITH VSOs 

The American Legion supports the VA’s Veterans Benefits Administration’s (VBA) 

outreach efforts in promoting Appeals Modernization. One example of the benefits 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

80 

1https://www.veterans.senate.gov/hearings/the-state-of-the-va-01172018 

of this flourishing partnership, the October 2017 issue of The American Legion magazine, featuring Appeals Modernization as the cover story, reached over 2 million 

member-readers. The purpose of the extended article was to provide useful information to our members and explain the benefits VA and The American Legion recognize for our veterans by virtue of the options offered pursuant to the legislation. The 

American Legion has worked cooperatively with VA to get monthly lists of veterans 

for whom we hold power of attorney to the appropriate state department so that 

our Department Service Officers can explain the benefits of each option offered 

under the legislation for those who ‘‘opt in’’ to the new system. 

III. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RAMP AS A PROGRAM DESIGNED TO 

TEST THE NEW FRAMEWORK 

While we note some criticism has been directed to RAMP, The American Legion 

believes VBA’s efforts are completely appropriate given the complexities inherent in 

the transition from the legacy appeals system to the Appeals Modernization framework. 

Although the veterans whose appeals will be adjudicated under RAMP will not 

have had the benefit of an enhanced notice letter based on the decision which gave 

rise to the appeal, VA is addressing this by ensuring that any decision rendered 

after the veteran opts in to RAMP will include an enhanced notice letter fully in 

compliance with the statutory requirement. 

Moreover, criticism that RAMP does not offer an Expedited Lane to the Board of 

Veterans Appeals (BVA) can be countered by noting that veterans can make that 

election, though the law will not allow the expedited BVA review before February 

2019. So in both instances, VBA is adopting the only procedures lawfully available 

during this transitional period. 

A. CAUTION ABOUT DATA PRODUCED BY RAMP 

The American Legion offers comments regarding the fifth and sixth paragraphs 

in VA’s plan, as shared in VA Secretary Shulkin’s Senate statement on January 17, 

2018, which suggest that RAMP will generate data that allows VA to model what 

choices veterans will make in the new appeals framework and how much effort it 

will take to process reviews in the new framework. 1 RAMP does not give veterans 

all the options that will be available in the new framework. This is because a veteran will not be able to choose the Expedited Lane to BVA until full implementation 

of the statute in February 2019, although as noted a veteran could choose this option knowing it would not be operational for more than a year. In addition, the veterans whose appeals are processed under RAMP unavoidably have not had the benefit of the enhanced decision notice. Without the benefits of the enhanced decision 

notice and without all options being available, the choices made in RAMP will 

produce information about what veterans will do in the new framework that is of 

only limited value. Therefore, The American Legion urges caution in relying on the 

data compiled under RAMP as a predictor of future behavior after the legislation 

is fully implemented. 

B. HIGHER LEVEL REVIEWS UNDER THE LEGISLATION 

The American Legion looks forward to learning of VBA’s plans to ensure that the 

higher level reviews are done in an appropriate manner, looking carefully for any 

reasonable basis for granting the issue sought on appeal. We trust that the issue 

of work measurement credit will be carefully addressed in such a way that VA employees conducting the higher level reviews are totally indifferent to whether the decision is a grant or an affirmation of the prior denial based on work credit considerations. We also encourage VBA to have as many higher level reviews as possible 

done by a station other than the one which made the decision on appeal. This is 

to promote objectivity and eliminate the possibility the higher level reviewer might 

be influenced by a personal relationship with the VA employee who made the decision under appeal. One additional comment would be for VBA and the BVA to consider engaging in joint training to the extent feasible to foster a common understanding as to how appeals decisions should be addressed under the new appeals 

framework. For example, the American Legion staff notes that the BVA routinely 

gives probative value to lay evidence where appropriate and all due consideration 

to non-VA medical evidence, whereas this is sometimes not the case with VBA 

claims examiners. 

CONCLUSION 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

81 

Secretary Shulkin’s statement that the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 is the most significant statutory change in decades affecting 

the process is certainly true, and as a primary VSO stakeholder, The American Legion supports this new law and the efforts through RAMP to begin implementation. 

We fully intend to support our VA partners in this transformative effort. 

The American Legion thanks this committee for the opportunity to elucidate the 

position of the 2 million veteran members of this organization. For additional information regarding this testimony, please contact Jeff Steele, Assistant Director of 

The American Legion Legislative Division at jsteele@legion.org, or (202) 861–2700. 

f 

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES (VFW) 

JOHN TOWLES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE 

Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz and members of the committee, on behalf 

of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) 

and its Auxiliary, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present the VFW’s 

views on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) efforts in implementing appeals 

reform. 

When the negotiation process began for what would come to be Public Law 115– 

55, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, it was made 

clear that the input and support of Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) was important to the success of the new appeals framework. As we testified in May of 

2017, our goal with this bill was to build a process that placed the veteran first, 

was easy to navigate, and protected a veteran’s rights every step of the way. The 

VFW, along with several other organizations, have long advocated for appeals reform, and were honored to be a part of the process with the assurance that the level 

of engagement that existed during the bills development would be sustained after 

the bill became law. 

However, once the legislation was passed, we began having concerns almost immediately with how VA was planning to implement the new appeals process. Not 

only did we feel as though the roll-out was hasty, but reckless. As a result, in September of 2017, the VFW and the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) sent a joint 

letter to Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Thomas Bowman expressing our 

major concerns. 

Some of the concerns cited in the letter included the proposed speed of the roll 

out; the language used in the initial opt-in notification letter and phone script; and 

the overall lack of engagement that we, and nearly every other VSO involved in the 

crafting of this legislation, had been afforded up to that point. 

While VA has addressed some of the issues identified in the joint letter, the VFW 

has lingering concerns with regard to the speed and haste in which VA is implementing these changes and communicating with our organization regarding the 

progress that has or has not been made, and the data that supports that narrative. 

As an organization that represents a large portion of appellants with cases pending before the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA), our clients depend on us to provide 

the most accurate advice in order to increase the chances of a successful outcome. 

We have been representing veterans for more than a century and have a fairly good 

understanding of how the system works. Having researched the possible impact of 

the program on our clients, we have found that there are circumstances where opting-in may actually be detrimental to the veteran. 

Many of our clients have been waiting for years to have their cases heard at BVA. 

They have invested time and energy into appealing their claims, and many of them 

are appealing denials for extremely complex issues. For our organization to recommend that they opt-in to a program that is potentially faster, and may lead to 

their case being decided more quickly, but may also lead to them losing their place 

in line at BVA if they are denied in the first phase of the program, would be irresponsible. 

The most recent version of the eligibility notice refers veterans who are interested 

in opting-in to contact their ‘‘VSO, attorney, or claims agent’’ so that they can assist 

in determining the best option. However, it is unreasonable to expect that we will 

be able to assist them in this decision if we have almost zero knowledge of whether 

or not the Rapid Appeals and Modernization Program (RAMP) is more effective than 

the current appeals system. 

We have attempted to conduct thorough due diligence so that we can better inform our members and clients by engaging directly with VA prior to making any 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

82 

recommendations. We have asked that they provide us the tools and resources that 

we require to do the best job that we possibly can, but we are often met with either 

silence or hypotheticals. Given the current proven and documented success rates of 

VFW appeals that are classified as legacy and the myriad of unknowns, whether 

due to lack of participation by our clients or lack of interest in sharing data from 

VA, all evidence points to a better chance of success by not opting in at this time. 

To be blunt, we have not been shown any evidence from VA, or anyone else, that 

would suggest that RAMP will actually improve a veteran’s chance of a favorable 

outcome. As a result, the majority of our nationwide cadre of professionally-trained, 

accredited advocates and our BVA- based professional staff have declined to recommend participation to our clients who have received eligibility notices to participate in the program, and will continue to do so until we are provided with more 

thorough data from VA. 

During a Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hearing two weeks ago, Secretary Shulkin reported that 75 percent of RAMP decisions ‘‘are going in favor of 

the veteran.’’ While 75 percent may seem to indicate RAMP is a good option for veterans, VA’s testimony does not clarify how many appeals were adjudicated and what 

VA defines as favorable. To VA, issuing a zero percent service-connection may qualify as favorable. A veteran would disagree if the decision is for a debilitating condition that merits a higher rating. As a result, we have declined to recommend participation in the program to veterans we serve who have received eligibility notices, 

and will continue to do so until we are provided with more thorough data from VA. 

The VFW has yet to see empirical data that would otherwise change our position. 

Should better communications and more reassuring information be made known to 

us by VA, we would then be more able to wholeheartedly recommend RAMP as a 

viable option. 

VA has recently invited VSOs to participate in work group discussions regarding 

RAMP implementation. The VFW is participating in these discussions and hopes VA 

will include our input and recommendations moving forward. 

The VFW urges Congress and VA to properly resource VBA and the Board of Veterans Appeals to ensure they are able to timely adjudicate appeals from veterans 

who do not opt into the new appeals process, and the potential influx of supplemental claims and higher level review requests at VA Regional Offices. VA must 

be empowered to manage its workload, and stakeholders must be properly informed 

if the new framework to expected to succeed. 

f 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO 

THOMAS S. KAHN 

DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS 

Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the Committee: 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO (AFGE) and its National VA Council (NVAC) appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement for the 

record on the January 30, 2018 hearing titled, ‘‘Appeals Reform: Will VA’s Implementation Effectively Serve Veterans?’’ AFGE represents more than 700,000 employees in the federal and D.C. government, including 250,000 front line employees 

at the Department of Veterans Affairs providing comprehensive benefits, health 

care, and other critical services for veterans. 

Chief among our concerns with the implementation of the ‘‘Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017’’ has been its impact on the 800 front line 

attorneys represented by AFGE and NVAC who work at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, in particular the counterproductive performance standards that went into effect on October 16, 2017. As we stated in the attached letter sent to the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, AFGE and NVAC continue to question the reasonableness 

of the new standard. The 35% production increase in cases for each individual attorney and the replacement of a credit based system with a case based system have 

both had negative effects on attorneys meeting their quotas. 

At Chairman Mason’s October 4, 2017 confirmation hearing, in response to a 

question from Senator Hirono (D–HI) as to whether she was willing to work with 

AFGE representatives to address the impact and implementation of the new standards and their adverse impact on workload, she answered ‘‘absolutely.’’ However, it 

appears that Chairman Mason has not done so since getting sworn in. Based on this 

answer, AFGE would like to know what steps the Chairman has taken to date to 

address problems with the current standard and the backlog of veterans’ appeals. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

83 

Furthermore, in a response to a question from Senator Brown (D–OH), Chairman 

Mason indicated she was open to considering whether to assign cases to Board attorneys based on specialization to better utilize attorneys’ expertise. However, to the 

best of our knowledge, no such considerations have been made, and the Board has 

not raised this issue with AFGE representatives since that hearing. 

In conclusion, AFGE respectfully urges members of the Committee to ensure that 

Deputy Secretary Bowman, Chairman Mason, or a combination of the two address 

the issue of performance standards for Board attorneys during today’s hearing, and 

the steps they plan to take to set reasonable production standards for Board attorneys, and best allow them to fulfill the mission of serving our nation’s veterans. 

I request that this statement and my attached letter to the Senate Veterans Affairs’ Committee be submitted for the record. 

OCTOBER 3, 2017 

Chairman Johnny Isakson 

U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

412 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510–6050 

Ranking Member Jon Tester 

U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

825A Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510–6050 

Dear Chairman Isakson and Ranking Member Tester, 

I write to you today on the matter of Cheryl Mason’s nomination as Chairman 

of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO (AFGE) and its National VA Council represent more than 700,000 

employees in the federal and D.C. government including 250,000 front line employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs who provide vital care and services for 

our veterans. This includes serving as the exclusive representation of the approximately 700 attorneys who work for the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and will serve 

under the leadership of Ms. Mason, should she be confirmed. 

AFGE and its National VA Council do not take a position on Ms. Mason’s nomination to Chair the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. However, AFGE is deeply concerned 

about new performance standards for the Board’s attorneys that are scheduled to 

go into effect on October 16, 2017, and the negative impact these new standards will 

have on attorneys’ ability to perform their duties. AFGE is also deeply concerned 

that this change in performance standards was made without completion of the bargaining process, which is prohibited. AFGE would like to know Ms. Mason’s position 

on these new performance standards, and how she plans to work collaboratively 

with AFGE to address concerns about performance standards, new attorney training, inadequate systems including the Veterans Benefits Management System 

(VBMS), equipment, and office space that were raised by AFGE Local 17 President 

Douglas E. Massie on September 11, 2017 in a letter to Secretary David J. Shulkin. 

Under the previous standard, attorneys were expected to complete 125 cases in 

a calendar year. Based on the new standards scheduled to go into effect later this 

month, Board attorneys would be expected to complete 169 cases a year, which is 

a 33% increase from the previous standard. This increase in production is being proposed despite that in previous years, smaller increases in quotas were later withdrawn or reduced because they were found to be unreasonable and had an overall 

negative impact on the Board’s mission. In turn, there is a strong likelihood that 

there is a significant number of attorneys who meet the current standard but would 

fail to meet the new standard, and would either face termination or resign in lieu 

of termination. 

This depletion of the workforce would further impede the ability of the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals to process its caseload, exacerbate a backlog of cases that already 

exceeds 150,000, and delay veterans having their cases resolved. This is especially 

relevant when the Board considers how it will backfill these positions, as it takes 

at least a year for a board attorney to become proficient in processing cases, and 

several years to truly master the requisite skill set. These personnel losses would 

weaken the Board’s ability to fulfill its overarching mission of supporting veterans 

and accurately resolving their claims. 

Therefore, AFGE asks the committee to ensure that any future Board Chairman 

commit to work collaboratively with AFGE to address performance standards, and 

achieve a reasonable set of standards for Board of Veterans’ Appeals attorneys that 

best serves veterans’ needs for quality and efficiency. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

84 

I respectfully request that this letter, and the attached letter from Doug Massie, 

President of AFGE Local 17 be submitted for the record. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas S. Kahn 

Director, Legislative Affairs 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO 

f 

WHISTLEBLOWERS OF AMERICA (WOA) 

STATEMENT OF MS. JAMIE FOX 

Chairman Roe and Ranking Member Walz; 

Thank you for this opportunity today to speak out on behalf of veterans who are 

also VA employees. I am submitting this statement for the record in cooperation 

with Whistleblowers of America (WoA) because my situation is not unique. WoA has 

had several other veteran/VA employees make this same claim about having their 

private information weaponized. We are joining forces today in hope that this hearing will give voice to those of us who have had our privacy invaded after blowing 

the whistle on VA and to ask Congress, that as you consider legislative reform for 

the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), that you might also consider the need 

to further protect Claim or C-files and to allow veterans/employees to know who has 

accessed their personal information. 

Let me begin by saying that I come from a long line of family members who have 

served in the military as far back as the Revolutionary War and who are currently 

serving in the military. I also served honorably for five years in the U.S. Navy. 

When I volunteered to serve in the military and civil service I did not volunteer to 

be subjugated to the unethical and illegal abuse of public office power. Since coming 

forward in 2008, as a witness for a former co-worker who was being harassed - in 

order to help her stop the harassment - I have been continuously harassed, punished, and retaliated against by the same people who protected the perpetrator. 

When I came forward that day in 2008, I thought there were laws that protected 

me. I utterly had no idea that such a simple gesture, like caring for the dignity of 

another human-being, would have such severe and far reaching negative consequences. What is and has been happening to me is unethical and illegal. Not only 

is it a breach of privacy, but it is also a breach of trust. 

It is a disgrace when the very people who defend the rights of the American people do not have those same rights at the VA, particularly the right to have our private information protected from the people who we do not want to access our private 

information. 

Many veterans wrongly believe their private information, which includes Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Sensitive Personal Information (SPI) is protected by privacy laws, but at the VA this belief couldn’t be further from the truth. 

Veterans’ PII and SPI have more protection in the civilian sector because there are 

very real and serious consequences for privacy violations, but there appears to be 

very little recourse for veterans whose privacy is violated by government officials 

at the VA. 

According to Deven McGraw, Director of the Washington-based Health Privacy 

Project of the nonprofit center for Democracy and Technology, the VA remains one 

of the top Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy offenders. In April 2015, the Office of Special Counsel Director, Carolyn 

Lerner, testified in Congress that the prevalence of privacy violations at the VA has 

become an epidemic. 

VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report April 2016, in which the 

VBA had not integrated proper audit logs in their new veterans’ claims processing 

computer system, called Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). In fact, 

VBA failed to establish satisfactory system requirements in VBMS that would ensure that accurate audit logs were created. Without accurate audit logs, Information 

Security Officers cannot effectively identify, report, and react to data security issues 

in VBMS. OIG discovered VBA cannot detect if an employee improperly accessed a 

claim and that VBMS was not compliant with audit log procedures and regulations. 

Further OIG reported that the security vulnerability occurred because the Office of 

Business Process Integration did not create system requirements in VBMS to assure 

audit logs could accurately pinpoint security violations. It assumed that the audit 

log functionality was already built into VBMS as it was for the legacy claims processing systems. 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

85 

The VBA is required by several regulations (e.g., Federal Information Processing 

Standards Publication) to develop, sustain, and retain audit records to supervise, 

analyze, and report on inappropriate access of information systems. The VBA must 

also develop the capability to monitor the actions of individual users. VBA’s own VA 

Handbook states that information systems are required to create detailed audit logs 

that can help recreate a data security incident. 

As a veteran using the VA system, I recently discovered that I have absolutely 

no control over my private and protected information, and that VA managers have 

carte blanche to everything with impunity! Anyone who has access to VBMS with 

a few strokes of the keyboard can view over 30 years of information about me, from 

anywhere in the country, including from someone’s living room. 

No person, not even a government official, should have that much access to so 

much information about a person’s past and present life history, especially VA employees who are known to be unscrupulous. No manager or former manager or coworker should have access to so much information about their employees or co-workers, especially the people who were responsible for forcing my resignation and who 

I testified against for protecting the man who I witnessed harassing a co-worker. 

What I say to my doctor is no one else’s business unless they absolutely have to 

view the information and were authorized to view the information. It is my right 

to see who has accessed my private information and it is my right to restrict who 

sees my information. 

It is incomprehensible to think the VBA failed to build in safeguards in its highly 

touted computer program, which was allegedly designed to make processing veterans’ claims more efficient, but cannot restrict certain VBMS users from accessing 

specific claim files, except through an antiquated security system that was designed 

to control paper files. This antiquated security system allowed and continues to 

allow people, like my former managers and co-workers, access to my protected information. It also allows managers and employees to snoop on current VA veteran employees and co-workers. 

It’s easier to conceptualize the outdated security control system as a pyramid, 

scaled 1 to 9, where 9 has the most restriction. The higher the sensitivity level, the 

fewer people who can view the C-file. The higher the sensitivity level the fewer people there are to help a veteran with their C-file. C-files that are classified at sensitivity level 8 and above cannot receive help from the public contact line and Veterans Service Organizations, even with simple tasks, like changing an address. The 

only way someone would not be able to view a C-file is if they did not have access 

to a particular sensitivity level. For example, if you are authorized to view sensitivity level 7 C-files then you could view C-files classified at sensitivity level 7 and 

below. Obviously, anyone who does not have a sensitivity level 7 clearance would 

not be able to view C-files classified at sensitivity level 7 and above. Managers can 

also authorize other managers or employees, depending on the sensitivity level, to 

work on a C-file classified at a higher sensitivity level for a limited time. So, as you 

can see, it really does not matter what sensitivity level a veteran’s C-file is classified 

at, if VA managers can work around existing security features. 

VA leadership is misrepresenting the capabilities of the Restricted Access Claim 

Center (RACC) at the St. Paul, Minnesota Regional Office (and other RACC locations) regarding the restrictions related to managers and co-workers from accessing 

a current or former employee’s veteran C-file. I was told once my C-file obtained 

RACC protection that the Oakland VA Regional Office would no longer have access 

to my C-file. I disproved this claim when I scheduled an appointment to review my 

digital C-file at the Oakland VA Regional Office. I witness with my own eyes how 

Oakland managers can still access my private information. It appears the RACC 

only restricts people from making changes to a C-file. 

I was also told by several VBA employees that if a co-worker or a manager accesses a veteran employee’s C-file, an alarm gets set off - that some employees have 

referred to as a ‘‘ping’’ - at the VA’s Office of Information and Technology (OIT). 

However, I have spoken with several people from OIT and was informed there was 

no such ‘‘alarm’’ or notification when someone who does not have authorization accesses a C-file. 

I have been trying for several months to obtain a list of every person who has 

ever accessed, viewed, and/or queried any part of my C-file. It is every veteran’s 

right to know who has been viewing their private information. The VA promised me 

I would receive an unredacted audit. However, the list the VA sent me was incomplete. There were many missing names and dates. VBA claimed that those were all 

the people and dates that they could find. However, I have evidence proving otherwise. When I informed the VA, in October 2017, of the missing names and dates, 

I was told the VA would look further into it. I have not received anything to date 

from this October request. When I recently requested a status update on the audit 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

86 

of my C-file, I was told that VA FOIA requests were backlogged. I originally informed VA leadership in Washington DC of the privacy violation in early July 2017, 

as well as, requested an audit of my C-file at that time. 

The person who is currently scrubbing the audit list of my C-file is the Director 

of the RACC, Ms. Kim Graves who totally disregarded my letter asking for RACC 

protection and assigned my C-file to the Oakland VARO, against my permission. 

When I asked OIT why they could not directly mail me the audit, I was informed 

that OIT ‘‘had’’ to send audits to the director of the regional office that has jurisdiction over my C-file. This absolutely makes no sense at all. Having the VA patrol 

itself is like having a fox guard the hen house. As you already know, Kim Graves 

has demonstrated her lack of integrity, so it is difficult to have confidence in her 

abilities. She and Diana Reubens are also tight with some of the Oakland VA regional office managers who are using the VA system to retaliate. 

VA leadership has been informed that my former managers and co-workers at the 

Oakland VA Regional Office retaliated against me by trying to use my C-file against 

me. Yet nothing has been done about it, no one has been held accountable, no one 

has been prevented from accessing my C-file and hardly anyone returns my communication. I am having difficulty obtaining help from both VA employees, or the Veterans Service Organizations, not because they do not want to help me, but because, 

as they all put it, and quite frankly I have lost count on the number of people who 

have told me this, they are all afraid to help me for fear that they will be targeted 

like me; they are afraid of being ‘‘blacklisted’’ or ‘‘blackballed’’, they fear they will 

lose their job and/or VA benefits. 

What does it say about our country when veterans are afraid to speak out against 

unethical and illegal practices at the VA for fear of retaliation? I have a lot of support in the shadows, but no one has been willing to step out into the light and be 

my champion, because it is seen as a fruitless mission; instead of creating meaningful change, the mission would be more like falling on one’s sword. I am grateful to 

have found Whistleblowers of America because they understand whistleblower retaliation and are willing to give me a voice today. 

We ask that Congress act on behalf of veterans so that they can obtain an accurate audit of a his/her C-file and to protect veterans’ privacy. The solution to update 

VBA’s security control system for digital C-files is to have Congress legislate new 

laws that can make VBA do so. The VA cannot be trusted to fix this security problem, because VA directives, memorandums, and protocols can be changed by the VA 

at any time, as well as, their interpretation and adherence to their own made up 

rules. A well written law minimizes ambiguity and ensures adherence and accountability. 

I started a petition on Change.org, called ‘‘Protect Jamie’s Private Medical Info 

from Her Former VA employers and Make Them Accountable,’’ so I could get the 

attention of our legislatures. (I am represented by Representative Mike Thompson 

and Senator Kamala Harris who are aware of my situation.) I was told I would gain 

the ear of Congress if I could obtain at least 100,000 signatures. Although this petition has my name on it, protecting veterans’ privacy is not just for me, but for every 

veteran 

Every veteran has a right to know, in a timely manner, who has been viewing 

their private information and why. There must be an enforceable law to deter people 

from accessing a veteran’s C-file without first having authorization or permission by 

the veteran. Congress can pass a law that make each veteran a watchdog over their 

own C-file by releasing unredacted audits of their C-file immediately upon request 

and whenever requested. Audit logs could be readily accessed at any time via the 

eBenefits portal, which would show the veteran via live coverage, who is and has 

been viewing their protected information. Congress should pass a law that require 

the reporting of privacy violations to be made easy and efficient, as well as, hold 

VA managers and employees accountable for privacy violations. Congress should 

pass a law that make sure VBMS and any other VA computer system has functional 

and accurate audit logs that can accurately pinpoint security violations. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Whistleblowers of America is a 501C3, EIN 82–3989539. Its mission is to provide 

peer support to employees and veterans who have reported wrongdoing and experienced retaliation. 

Jamie Fox is a whistleblower from Oakland, CA who reported harassment of a 

co-worker and suffered retaliation while working in the Oakland Regional Office. 

She is currently employed at another VA facility. This statement is made on her 

own time and not representative of the VA. 

Æ 

Leonard.horne on VACREP0180 with DISTILLER