U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i

38–662 2008

[H.A.S.C. No. 110–90]

BENEFITS AND MEDICAL CARE FOR

FEDERAL AND U.S. CONTRACTOR

EMPLOYEES DEPLOYED TO IRAQ

AND AFGHANISTAN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

(II)

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

JEFF MILLER, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky

STEVE DETERESA, Professional Staff Member

THOMAS HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member

ROGER ZAKHEIM, Professional Staff Member

SASHA ROGERS, Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS

2007

Page

HEARING:

Tuesday, September 18, 2007, Benefits and Medical Care for Federal and

U.S. Contractor Employees Deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan ....................... 1

APPENDIX:

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 ................................................................................. 33

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

BENEFITS AND MEDICAL CARE FOR FEDERAL AND U.S.

CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES DEPLOYED TO IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Akin, Hon. W. Todd, a Representative from Missouri, Ranking Member, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ............................................................. 3

Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman, Oversight

and Investigations Subcommittee ....................................................................... 1

WITNESSES

Bradshaw, Hon. Patricia S., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Civilian

Personnel Policy), Department of Defense ......................................................... 5

Farrell, Brenda S., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S.

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 4

Hallmark, Shelby, Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor .................... 8

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Akin, Hon. Todd ................................................................................................ 39

Bradshaw, Hon. Patricia S. ............................................................................. 74

Farrell, Brenda S. ............................................................................................. 42

Hallmark, Shelby .............................................................................................. 83

Snyder, Hon. Vic ............................................................................................... 37

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

[There were no Documents submitted.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Mr. Akin ............................................................................................................ 99

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 95

(1)

BENEFITS AND MEDICAL CARE FOR FEDERAL AND U.S.

CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES DEPLOYED TO IRAQ AND

AFGHANISTAN

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Tuesday, September 18, 2007.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

Dr. SNYDER. The hearing will come to order.

Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee on Oversight

and Investigations’ hearing on benefits and medical care for Federal civilian and U.S. contract employees deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Recently, the subcommittee has begun to investigate a variety of

interagency issues raised by the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military means alone are clearly not enough to bring about

success in either country. Civilians from across the Federal Government are increasingly being called upon to help us achieve our

goals in these dangerous environments through the use of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) and other civilian-oriented programs.

An unfortunate but inevitable consequence of deploying civilians

to combat zones is that some of them may be injured or killed. The

purpose of today’s hearing is to consider issues related to the hazardous nature of this duty, and we have grouped those into three

basic questions.

First, given the critical need for U.S. Government Federal civilian employees deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, what kind of incentives and benefits are provided to encourage those with the

right skills and experience to do so?

Second, what practices and policies are in place within the military health-care system to provide medical care for deployed Federal civilian employees, both while overseas and upon returning

home?

Of course, most of the civilians overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan

are not Federal employees, but are instead working for U.S. Government contractors. Thus, a third purpose of today’s hearing is to

examine the practices employed and policies in place for providing

medical care and medical support to wounded contract employees.

2

So we have what are the incentives for our Federal civilian employees, how do we take care of them—our Federal civilian employees—and then the third, what about the contract employees of U.S.

Government contractors.

There have been approximately 6,000 Department of Defense

(DOD) civilians deployed to Iraq and 1,500 to Afghanistan since

2001. More than 1,400 Department of State employees have served

in Iraq since 2003. U.S. Government employees from DOD, State

and other Federal agencies, including Justice, Agriculture and

Labor, volunteer to serve in these positions.

To date, 118 DOD civilians have been wounded, and seven have

been killed. Three State Department employees have been killed in

Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall, the Department of Labor Office of

Workers’ compensation Programs, which handles claims for medical benefits by government civilians, reports 166 claims submitted

for injuries sustained by U.S. Federal civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With respect to contractors, estimates range as high as 180,000

in Iraq as of July 2007. The bulk of these, of course, are Iraqi citizens and Third Country nationals, but approximately 21,000 are

U.S. citizens. Accurate casualty numbers are not available, but as

many as 1,000 contractors, both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, have

reportedly been killed, and about 13,000 have been wounded.

We have assembled a panel of witnesses to help us examine and

sort out these issues this morning—we appreciate you all being

here—Ms. Brenda Farrell, Director of the Defense Capabilities and

Management Team from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO); Secretary Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Under Secretary

for Civilian Personnel Policy of the Department of Defense; and

Mr. Shelby Hallmark, Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs at the Department of Labor.

I had hoped to have a State Department person, a fourth panelist, sitting there this morning, and I am very disappointed that we

do not, and I, frankly, do not understand that because this is an

opportunity for some of you to make cases about any changes we

might need to make in personnel policies as a Congress in order

to get the job done, and, as you know, there has been dissatisfaction on the ability of the State Department to complete the staffing

of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams.

We had a report here, Ginger Cruz from the Special Inspector

General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) report that the State Department has identified 68 percent of their employees on PRTs as

of the coming December. So that means, after several years, as of

this December, we will have only identified two-thirds of the civilian State Department staff members for PRTs.

Well, maybe part of it is these issues that we are going to be discussing this morning, but the State Department did not provide us

with a witness this morning, and my own sarcastic comment is no

wonder we are having problems getting State Department employees to Iraq if we cannot get them to the Rayburn Building. [Laughter.]

But we appreciate——

Dr. GINGREY. It is a southern trick.

Dr. SNYDER. Sorry?

3

Dr. GINGREY. It is a southern trick.

Dr. SNYDER. Gingrey, you like that line, don’t you? Thank you.

Dr. GINGREY. That is pretty sharp. [Laughter.]

Dr. SNYDER. But, I mean, this committee is being supportive to

the State Department. We really value the work they do, and this

committee is in the spirit of trying to help them get their work

done, and if there is something that the Congress needs to do with

incentives, then we want to look at it.

I defer to Mr. Akin for any opening statement he wants to make.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the Appendix on page 37.]

STATEMENT OF HON. W. TODD AKIN, A REPRESENTATIVE

FROM MISSOURI, RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for being here

today.

In dealing with the benefits and the medical care for Federal civilian U.S. contract employees deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan,

that has a direct impact on how the U.S. Government can

incentivize U.S. citizens across the Federal agencies to deploy to

combat zones.

We have taken a look a little bit at PRTs, we will probably be

looking at them even more in the future, and, certainly, this topic

bears on that. I would not be surprised if the chairman maybe did

not choose this hearing partly along those lines.

While the challenge of getting personnel other than military deployed in the theater is multifaceted, the issue of pay and health

care for civilians operating in theater is a major factor affecting the

government’s ability to recruit qualified personnel, whether it be

filling civilian positions on Provincial Reconstruction Teams or

manning a transition team to build the capacity of Iraq’s or Afghanistan’s ministry, this subcommittee has firsthand knowledge of

how getting the right civilians into theater improves the ground operations.

Today’s hearing should give us a sense of the pay and healthcare benefits civilian Federal employees and contractors receive in

theater as well as when they return home. This information will

help the subcommittee assess whether the benefits package we

offer civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan includes the right set of incentives so that the best and most capable civilians sign up for

these critical posts.

Finally, I want to state for the record my deep respect and appreciation for all the civilians who risk their lives in carrying out the

critical missions in what is often a very dangerous environment.

When we discuss Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring

Freedom, the role and work of civilians is often overlooked in favor

of the warfighter. But if you listen to our military, they will tell

you that we need to turn our attention to the civilian side. I am

glad we are listening.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.

And, again, thank you for the witnesses for coming here today.

I look forward to your testimony.

4

[The prepared statement of Mr. Akin can be found in the Appendix on page 39.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Akin.

Your written statements will without objection be made a part of

the record. We will now want to hear from you. We will start with

Ms. Farrell and go down the line.

Ms. Farrell.

STATEMENT OF BRENDA S. FARRELL, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE

CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Ms. FARRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Akin, members of

the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our

2006 report on DOD’s policies for Federal civilians who deployed to

Afghanistan and Iraq.

To begin, let me emphasize that as DOD has expanded its involvement in overseas military operations, it has grown increasingly reliant on its Federal civilian workforce to provide support in

times of war or national emergency. Since fiscal year 2005, DOD

has been converting thousands of military positions to civilian positions, and additional conversions are planned for the future. Therefore, the need for attention to policies and benefits that affect the

health and welfare of these individuals becomes increasingly significant.

Now let me summarize my written statement in three parts.

First, in 2006, we reported that DOD had established policies to

assess the medical condition of civilians both before and after deployment, but it lacked a quality assurance mechanism to ensure

implementation of health requirements.

Our review of over 3,400 deployment records found that DOD

lacked documentation that some Federal civilians who deployed to

Afghanistan and Iraq had received, among other things, required

before and after deployment health assessments and immunizations. As a larger issue, DOD lacked centralized data to readily

identify its deployed civilians, track their movement in theater and

monitor their health status.

Today, I wish to note that DOD has taken action to track deployed Federal civilians. DOD issued policy effective in December

2006, which requires the components within three years to report

locations for all deployed DOD personnel, including civilians. Further, in February 2007, DOD issued a new instruction that, if properly implemented, would ensure that medical requirements are

being met.

Second, we found DOD had established medical treatment policies for its deployed Federal civilians. We reviewed a sample of

seven workers’ compensation claims, out of an identified universe

of 83, filed with the Department of Labor under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) by DOD Federal civilians who

had deployed to Iraq. We found that the care provided was consistent with DOD policies.

There were three cases where initial care was provided in theater and seven cases where DOD civilians, who requested care after

returning to the United States, had received initial medical examinations and/or treatment for their deployment-related injuries.

5

The Department of Labor could not identify claims from civilians

deployed to Afghanistan, so our review was limited to claims for civilians who had deployed to Iraq.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the myriad of pays and benefits for DOD

personnel is a very complex area. Our work has found that changes

are made to military personnel compensation in a piecemeal fashion with an imprecise understanding of how the changes will affect

the total cost of compensation or what the return on investment decision makers should expect.

Further, DOD Federal civilians and military personnel are governed by a distinctly different system. Thus, caution should be exercised in making any direct comparisons between civilian military

pay. Our work in 2006 found that both DOD civilians and military

personnel are eligible to receive special pays to compensate them

for deployment. However, the types and the amounts differ.

For example, unlike DOD Federal civilians, military personnel

receive combat zone tax exclusion while deployed to Afghanistan

and Iraq. In contrast, DOD Federal civilians are eligible for a variety of premium pays, such as overtime and night differential, that

are not available to military personnel.

Also, as with special pays, the types and amounts of benefits

vary between military personnel and Federal civilians for those

who sustain an injury while deployed.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, DOD has a number of policies in

place for medical care and compensation for those deployed, but effective implementation is paramount.

That concludes my opening statement. I will be happy to take

questions at your convenience.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell can be found in the Appendix on page 42.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Ms. Farrell.

Secretary Bradshaw.

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICIA S. BRADSHAW, DEPUTY

UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

POLICY), DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Secretary BRADSHAW. Good morning.

Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, thank you for this invitation today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Department of Defense’s view on medical-care coverage for our deployed

civilians and highlight the various benefits and incentives that we

have in place.

DOD civilian employees have had a long and proud history of

serving along with and supporting our military members, and

today, more than ever, we see our civilian workforce transforming

into one that is more global and expeditionary to meet the department’s 21st century mission requirements.

As you noted, since 2001, we have had approximately 1,500 Department of Defense civilian employees deployed to Afghanistan

and over 6,000 deployed to Iraq. Currently, we have approximately

300 civilians serving in Afghanistan and about 1,750 in Iraq.

These brave civilians are working side by side with our military

members to support our national security mission. And they fill a

variety of positions, from accounting and budget to logistics, equipVerDate 22-MAR-2001 12:05 Sep 04, 2008 Jkt 038662 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-90\261160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
6

ment maintenance and repair, information technology and, as you

noted, most recently, working with the State Department. We developed and led an initiative to use a capabilities-based approach

to meeting Provincial Reconstruction Team needs and helping to

fill those requirements.

Civilian employees with the Department of Defense volunteer for

assignments to serve on these PRTs, based upon their personal

skills and capabilities not inherent in their current positions. Typically, civilians are deployed based upon their position of record.

The department had well over 1,000 resumes from DOD civilians

who were willing and able to help in the rebuilding of Iraq. We

were able to fill 40 of those. That was our allocation from State.

Under the department’s current authority, however, the department can deploy DOD civilian employees to hostile or combat areas

based upon their position responsibilities. These positions are coded

as what we call emergency essential, or EE, positions. These positions are announced with an EE requirement and employees sign

statements agreeing to the terms of these position requirements before they are hired.

In circumstances where a position is identified afterwards, the

incumbent is provided with a notice and an opportunity to decline

that, and we then will find a reassignment opportunity for that individual.

Although the department has the authority to forward deploy

DOD civilians based upon these position responsibilities, the majority of our jobs are volunteer. These employees contribute their talent to the joint integrated national security mission.

So why would they do that? We have held a number of focus

groups with our employees and asked them that question, and they

give us a variety of reasons, from their desire to serve their country, witness the results on the ground, and engage in this very specific mission-focused work. They state that it is an honor and a

privilege to serve our country and to serve our warfighters in such

deployments. They also come back with a greater appreciation and

a broadened perspective of what the Department of Defense’s role

is in time of war.

Thanks to you, the Congress, we have also been able to offer additional financial incentives to our Federal civilians serving in Iraq

and Afghanistan. Currently, deployed civilians assigned to Iraq and

Afghanistan as part of their compensation package receive a 35

percent danger pay allowance, a 35 percent foreign post differential, and they have the opportunity for increased premium pay

limit of $212,000. This particular benefit must be renewed annually.

Additionally, thanks to you, the Congress, last year, Public Law

109–234 authorized all Federal agencies through fiscal year 2008

who have civilians deployed to be provided with the same allowances, benefits and gratuities comparable to those provided to

members of the Foreign Service. These included such benefits as

enhanced death gratuity level, home leave and rest and recuperation breaks.

Additionally, employees serving in Iraq and Afghanistan for specific periods of time are eligible for the Secretary of Defense’s Global War on Terror Medal. This medal recognizes their service and

7

is much like an expeditionary medal that we award to our military

members.

In addition, those who pay the ultimate sacrifice and are injured

or killed in theater may also be eligible for the department’s Defense of Freedom Medal, which is equivalent to the military Purple

Heart.

As the department civilian support expanded in the theater of

operations, policies have been implemented to provide DOD deployed civilians both pre- and post-deployment assessments, health

assessments and a prescription for professional medical treatment

both in theater and upon their return to the States.

As noted by my GAO colleague, we have updated our instruction

on deployment health. This instruction specifically requires that

each of the defense components execute a comprehensive deployment health program. The regulation requires essential pre- and

post-deployment health assessments which include a mental health

component.

Prior to deploying, DOD civilians are required to obtain a physical examination. Of course, the purpose of this exam is to determine a number of things: first of all, the existence of any nondeployable medical conditions, which are identified by the combatant commanders working with the medical community and identify

the required immunizations. These records become part of the

lifecycle maintenance of the employee, as long as they are deployed,

and serve as the base line for medical screening upon their return

from their deployment.

Regrettably, our employees are not immune to the dangers associated with these global assignments. To date, in Iraq, as noted, we

have 118 employee injuries and seven deaths. Currently, we understand, we have four claims for post-traumatic stress disorder

(PTSD) and two claims for traumatic brain injury that have been

accepted by the Department of Labor.

Any civilian employee injured in theater receives immediate

medical attention equivalent to our military members. Deployed civilians who were treated in theater continue to be eligible for treatment in a medical treatment facility, a military medical treatment

facility or a private-sector medical facility upon their return to the

U.S. for any of their compensable injuries or diseases. This care is

provided at no cost to the employee.

Additionally, deployed civilians who later identify compensable

illnesses or injuries are also eligible for treatment at our military

medical treatment facilities or a private sector medical facility at

no cost to them for coverage under the workers’ compensation plan.

Furthermore, DOD policy mandates that Federal civilian employees returning from deployment must be scheduled for a face-to-face

health assessment with a trained health-care provider within 30

days after returning. The assessment must include a discussion of

mental health and psychosocial issues commonly associated with

deployment. Additionally, after 90 to 100 days, they must have another follow-on assessment.

While you have already heard the GAO concluded we did a good

job on the seven cases that we reviewed, in terms of following our

policy, there is always one that falls through the crack, and I think

you are well aware of that one. And so we did have one case of a

8

Department of Army employee who was one of the early injuries

in Iraq, and the department acknowledges that there were a number of unfortunate mistakes that were made. The treatment was

not consistent with the department policy.

However, we learned a lot from that particular event. We learned

that these policies are sometimes well documented, but not well

known and not well understood. Since our knowledge of this particular case, I personally have been working with the Department

of Army and its components and my staff to resolve the issues and

concerns of this particular employee.

As a result of these early errors, we have been working on improving the policies for our deployed civilians and, more importantly, on the communication of these policies.

In summary, our civilian employees play an integral role in supporting our military members around the globe. We are proud of

our brave men and women who volunteer for these types of assignments, and we are committed to ensuring that they have the appropriate compensation, benefits and that their health care is first

and foremost in our mind.

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bradshaw can be found in the

Appendix on page 74.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Mr. Hallmark.

STATEMENT OF SHELBY HALLMARK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, EMPLOYMENT

STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR

Mr. HALLMARK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of

the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to come and talk

about the OWCP role—that is the Office of Workers’ Compensation

Programs—in delivering benefits to both of the groups at issue here

today, civilian Federal workers and civilian contractor employees

who are injured or killed while working in the Middle East.

OWCP directly administers the Federal Employees Compensation Act, or FECA, for feds, and we oversee the delivery of insurance benefits under the Defense Base Act for contractors.

FECA, which we affectionately call it, provides workers’ compensation for three million Federal employees and postal workers

around the world. It is a generous program.

All injuries and all occupational diseases are payable. Disabled

workers receive two-thirds of their date of injury salary or threefourths if they have a dependent, and it is tax free. There is essentially no cap on weekly benefits, as there are in almost all other

workers’ comp programs, and there is no limit to the duration of

time that an individual can receive benefits.

One hundred percent of medical costs related to the injury are

reimbursed. There is no co-pay. And vocational rehabilitation services are provided as well, and anything we pay is charged back to

the employment agency.

We work very hard to ensure that Federal workers’ cases are

handled promptly and properly, especially for war zone claims. Injured workers file their claims through their employing agency and

9

the latter, as Ms. Bradshaw has indicated, makes special efforts to

expedite the processing of overseas claims and providing medical

services, in come cases, in remote locations.

If the worker cannot return to work quickly, OWCP will assign

a vocational rehabilitation nurse to help in the medical recovery

and to return to work.

Since 2004, we have identified 194 FECA claims from Iraq. Most

were routine accidents or exposures, but about a quarter of those

derived from combat injuries. Ten were death claims, 11 were emotional conditions, and four for traumatic brain injury. To date,

more than $1.7 million has been paid in FECA benefits to this

group of workers and their families.

Of course, not all claims are meritorious. Some lack medical evidence or simply do not meet the criteria established in law. But

claimants have multiple chances to ask for a reconsideration of any

decision or for an oral hearing or they can file a formal appeal with

the employees’ compensation appeals court.

Your invitation, Mr. Chairman, addressed questions about one

particular FECA claim which was mentioned. We will provide a full

accounting of that case in a letter to the committee. In summary,

I can say that I believe it was handled properly, but because of the

sensitive circumstances involved in that case, I would prefer not to

describe it in detail in this open forum.

As I said, OWCP also administers the Defense Base Act (DBA).

The DBA is an extension of the Longshore and Harbor Workers

Compensation Act covering employees of overseas contractors working for Federal agencies. While OWCP actually determines and

pays FECA benefits, in DBA, we are an oversight entity and the

program is private insurance driven, like most state workers compensation systems.

OWCP authorize insurers. We offer technical assistance. We

track claims. We work to resolve disputes between the insurer and

the employee, and the Department of Labor offers administrative

appeals from either of those two parties, if there are disputes, and

makes formal decisions.

DBA benefits are generally similar to FECA, except that in DBA

we pay two-thirds of the pre-injury salary, subject to a maximum

weekly benefit amount of $1,114 as of this year. Again, it is a taxfree benefit.

As expected during times of war, the number of claims under the

DBA has risen from about 800 in 2003 to more than 5,700 last

year, and we expect 14,000 DBA claims to be filed in 2007, primarily from Iraq and Afghanistan, but DBA, of course, covers people all over the world.

As with FECA, however, the majority of those claims are for routine industrial accidents as opposed to combat injuries. Some are

combat related, but most are not.

The DBA covers both American civilian workers and foreign nationals who work overseas for U.S. contractors. In the Middle East,

the delivery of benefits has been challenging due especially to cultural differences and other barriers that we find with respect to

foreign nationals and having to do with problems of maintaining

continuity of service for injured American workers when they return home.

10

OWCP has no enforcement authority under DBA, but we have

worked hard to provide effective compliance assistance to contracting agencies, contractors and insurance companies. We believe

those efforts have been helpful and that the industry has, in fact,

improved its handling of these challenging claims. We monitor

DBA insurers’ activities closely at the case level in our district offices and through periodic meetings with the insurance industry

leaders.

And we understand the subcommittee is concerned particularly

about individuals who incur war-related head wounds and psychological impacts, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Both of our

two programs fully address these conditions. Under FECA, as I

said, any medical condition can be accepted—that is not true in all

workers’ comp systems, by the way—as long as medical evidence

establishes that the condition relates to the job.

We do not use a separate diagnosis code for combat injuries because the same kinds of conditions that can arise in a combat situation, such as traumatic injury of the brain, amputation, PTSD,

can also be sustained in non-combat situations, and we know how

to handle those cases. Medical conditions are categorized in relation to the individual’s medical diagnosis using the International

Classification of Diseases (ICD) system, regardless of the cause or

source of the injury.

The injured worker has the initial choice of physician. They can,

obviously, in many cases go to a DOD facility in Iraq, but then

when they are home, they can choose a private physician of their

choice, or they can use military facilities. We will refer individuals

to other specialists if their condition requires that and it is connected to the accepted injury.

As indicated, our FECA record showed that 11 cases from Iraq

had been filed involving emotional or stress conditions, four involving traumatic brain injuries, and all but two of those cases have

been approved.

All conditions likewise are compensable under DBA. The Defense

Base Act, however, ensuring efforts to determine whether conditions are, in fact, work related can require time consuming collection of evidence and expert medical evaluations. The DBA, like

most workers’ comp systems, is an adversarial system. The employer can provide evidence, the employee can provide evidence,

and then there can be disputes.

So we have met with the insurance industry leadership specifically to address the handling of PTSD cases arising from the war

zone, and we think we have noted improvements in their efforts in

that regard.

OWCP is sensitive to the hardships endured by Federal and contractor employees in the war zone. We continue to work closely

with our FECA partner agencies and with Defense Base Act stakeholders to provide the best possible claims services and outcomes.

I will be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hallmark can be found in the

Appendix on page 83.]

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you all for your testimony. Mr. Akin and I

will put ourselves on our five-minute clock, and then we will go to

members, priority given to those who were here at the time of the

11

beginning of the hearing and then the order in which people came

in after that.

At the conclusion either of our first or second round, depending

on how we are doing with time, Mr. Akin, I think I will give the

staff an opportunity to ask any questions they may have for five

minutes, because some of this is pretty technical stuff, and they

help sort it out.

Mr. Hallmark, I recently met with a State Department employee

from back home. I assume that under your Administration of the

statutes that you outlined, you are talking about all Federal civilian employees—is that correct—or all contractors?

Mr. HALLMARK. The numbers I quoted were all Federal employees.

Dr. SNYDER. My point is you are not here to say, ‘‘I am the person that oversees DOD civilian claims.’’

Mr. HALLMARK. No.

Dr. SNYDER. It does not matter to you.

Mr. HALLMARK. We cover all three million Federal workers.

Dr. SNYDER. Right. And he had not worked in Iraq, though he

worked overseas, but, as you know, there is a great communication

between employees all over the world now and their old friends.

He was under the impression from an experience a friend of his

had, who was wounded in Iraq by a mortar round, that the man

was having difficulty making his case for a workers’ comp claim because he was playing basketball or something after hours, and it

was not an on-duty experience. Is that an accurate reflection?

I am going to make the cases as dramatic as I can. There was

a beer festival in honor of his birthday at midnight, and he had

three days off in country and was hit by a mortar. Would he be covered under the statutes that you outlined in a war zone?

Mr. HALLMARK. Well, I cannot say that I am a claims examiner

who is fully equipped to make those kinds of adjudicatory judgments sitting at the table here. Clearly, the example that you have

given gets to some of the boundary lines that are established in our

regulations and case law.

One of the key elements in accepting a case has to do with performance of duty. When the injury occurred, was the individual in

performance of duty? There is a tremendous and complex amount

of case law defining how that works, not just in this kind of circumstance, but when a person is on temporary duty (TDY), and

they are engaged in some kind of activity that is or isn’t part of

the intended purpose for their travel.

I cannot say with regard to that particular case whether our examination of the claim would find that the injury was covered. On

the other hand, it may very well be covered, because there are certain circumstances, such as doctrine of the special zone of danger,

where coverage is not limited to just the eight hours that you are

in the office, but to a larger period of time, maybe 24/7, because

of the circumstances that you are in.

So, off the top of my head, it sounds like a coverable injury, but

it also sounds like one that we would probably need to develop and

ask questions about.

Dr. SNYDER. Well, that is a pretty basic question for what we are

talking about. When Secretary Bradshaw is trying to entice a thouVerDate 22-MAR-2001 12:05 Sep 04, 2008 Jkt 038662 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-90\261160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
12

sand people to step forward, I think most of them are going to assume, ‘‘If I am hit by a mortar or my car blows up when I am driving to the beer festival, because it is an act of war, that I will be

covered.’’

As a civilian employee, if you are saying they are not going to

be covered, that has big ramifications for them and their employee,

if there is even a possibility. I think that is something that this

committee needs to have clarified fairly rapidly.

I think most of them would just assume that any kind of a war

wound would clearly be covered. Otherwise, you know, are we saying like 15 hours a day they are on their own in terms of——

Mr. HALLMARK. I would assume——

Dr. SNYDER. I think we need to clarify——

Mr. HALLMARK [continuing]. That condition would be covered. I

just am not able to provide you a——

Dr. SNYDER. Why don’t you get——

Mr. HALLMARK [continuing]. Certain decision——

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. Back to us fairly quickly on that?

Mr. HALLMARK. Sure.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 95.]

Dr. SNYDER. I think that is a pretty basic——

Mr. HALLMARK. The circumstances are important, and each claim

that we adjudicate is based on the full state of evidence with respect to that case, and, unfortunately, we are obligated to be consistent with our case law. So there may be circumstances where we

are obliged to say, ‘‘Under our statute, that falls outside the realm.’’

The example you give probably does not. I would assume that

under the circumstances of a war situation, an event that involved

a hostile action like that would clearly be covered. But——

Dr. SNYDER. Do you have any comment, Secretary Bradshaw, on

that specific scenario?

Secretary BRADSHAW. I certainly hope it is covered since I am

getting ready to travel there——

Dr. SNYDER. Haven’t you——

Secretary BRADSHAW [continuing]. Thursday evening.

Dr. SNYDER. Otherwise, you are going to have to work 24 hours

a day so you can make your case to Mr. Hallmark. [Laughter.]

Secretary BRADSHAW. But I do appreciate his situation that there

are circumstances, but I would look forward to the clarification as

well.

Dr. SNYDER. But, clearly, until this very moment, you would

have assumed——

Secretary BRADSHAW. Yes, sir.

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. That any kind of war wound, all your

people would be covered, correct?

Secretary BRADSHAW. Yes, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. Yes.

Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Part of the reason for getting together here this morning was our

interest particularly in the PRTs and making sure that the coverage and benefits is appropriate. Would any of you want to comment on the question of PRTs, or do you have any personal experiVerDate 22-MAR-2001 12:05 Sep 04, 2008 Jkt 038662 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-90\261160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
13

ence with that for getting people, and what is the relation between

benefits and people volunteering to work on the PRTs?

Secretary BRADSHAW. Well, I certainly can speak to that from the

DOD experience. Our employees are detailed to the State Department for this purpose, but they are the same whether they are performing on the PRTs or whether they are performing Department

of Defense missions being assigned as an emergency essential person or having applied for a vacancy announcement. So the benefits

are the same.

Mr. AKIN. When I was over here at the Army Engineer school,

they had some civilians that taught classes or taught us about how

the maintenance procedure was done. These were civilians that

came in that were, sort of, professional teachers in a way for us.

Those would be covered. They would have certain benefits while

they are civilians who are attached to the military. Is that what

you are saying?

Secretary BRADSHAW. Yes. If they are deployed into the specific

area that the benefit describes, whether it is specifically Iraq and

Afghanistan, which the differentials that I described are——

Mr. AKIN. Would they have benefits in Washington, D.C., or anywhere in this country?

Secretary BRADSHAW. No, no.

Mr. AKIN. So the——

Secretary BRADSHAW. The ones that I described would not be

available to them here.

Mr. AKIN. Well, these are benefits for people who are deployed.

Secretary BRADSHAW. Correct.

Mr. AKIN. But they are civilians.

Secretary BRADSHAW. Correct.

Mr. AKIN. Now, are they attached to the Army, or are they attached to State?

Secretary BRADSHAW. The PRT members are attached to State

Department, and then they are——

Mr. AKIN. Are they paid by the Army?

Secretary BRADSHAW. They are paid by their home component.

We have people who volunteered from the Army, the Navy, the Air

Force, our defense agencies, and they continue to be paid at this

point by the Defense Department and their home component.

Mr. AKIN. How about if you are State and you volunteer? Are you

paid by State?

Secretary BRADSHAW. To my knowledge, the State Department

has, as their primary mission, the PRTs. So those State Department employees that are on the PRTs are paid by State Department.

Mr. AKIN. So pretty much you are a volunteer, but you are spun

out of whatever the organization that you normally work for.

Secretary BRADSHAW. Yes.

Mr. AKIN. It is a temporary kind of assignment.

Secretary BRADSHAW. Absolutely.

Mr. AKIN. But they are getting the coverage. The coverage for all

of them is uniform, and it should be good coverage.

Secretary BRADSHAW. Yes. Yes, sir. And that was why, as I noted

in my testimony, the benefits that you gave us last year ended up

being aligned with the State Department. Because it is not just

14

State Department and Defense Department, but, as I think Chairman Snyder acknowledged, we have Justice Department and Agriculture and others, in many instances, very interagency. So we are

trying to ensure that the civilian Federal employees are receiving

comparable benefits.

Mr. AKIN. Yes.

Ms. FARRELL. I know very little about the PRTs, but, as you

noted, the Special Inspector General for Iraq has noted the human

capital challenges from the beginning in terms of recruiting and retaining staff for those Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and DOD

graciously provided the resources to allow the State Department to

identify staff that were willing to go.

But what you are raising could be an emerging issue. We are in

the third phase, the staffing the PRTs, and what is starting to

emerge is that in addition to the DOD personnel that Ms. Bradshaw has noted, we are growing in numbers from the personnel

from the State Department, as well as from Agriculture, Commerce

and Treasury. So the interagency coordination is going to be challenging, I believe, in Iraq, as well as making sure that the equity

of benefits is understood.

As you know, some of DOD’s benefits have been administered differently among the services—the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, in

Continental United States (CONUS)—and it becomes more challenging for them when they are overseas. So what you are going

to have now in Iraq is a Treasury employee and a State Department employee and a Defense employee comparing notes about the

pay and benefits, and I think it is important to look at those and

see what is available.

We have seen other issues emerge, such as deployment cycles. Te

rotations are different among the services, and they are different

amongst the military personnel as well as the civilian personnel.

It is a good question you raise.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hallmark, if families of workers killed overseas are receiving

DBA benefits from the Department of Labor, can the families also

sue the contractor for damages in court?

Mr. HALLMARK. Well, first of all, the Department of Labor does

not pay benefits under DBA. The benefits come from the employer

and the employer’s insurer.

The question you are asking is with respect to the exclusivity of

workers’ compensation benefits, and DBA, like most workers’ comp

systems, is an exclusive benefit. And there is in effect a bar on litigation—tort suits—where eligibility under Longshore or DBA is

shown.

There happens to be a case in North Carolina right now where

that issue is being tried, and, obviously, those are legal matters

where there is a lot of nuance and opportunity for both sides of the

case to be argued. But, in general, workers’ comp systems are an

exclusive remedy, in effect, a no-fault insurance system, wherein

the worker gives up the right to file a tort case, and the employer

15

agrees to provide these relatively consistent and promptly paid

benefits under the workers’ comp scheme.

Mr. JONES. In the world we live in now—and, of course, that is

one reason you are here—the issue of the contractors—you made

reference to the one in North Carolina, which definitely is in my

district, by the way. Where is the line? Is there a relationship there

quasi, I guess, representing America and the employees? If they

are being paid——

I should ask Ms. Farrell. In this case, we are talking about those

who provide security, okay. How is the relationship with the government? Obviously, they have to be authorized by the Federal

Government to go there to provide services. Then are there employees who still have the right to some benefits from the government,

whether it be health benefits, or are they just solely under the umbrella of the company that has been authorized to go into the country?

Ms. FARRELL. These are contractors and subcontractors. My understanding, as Mr. Hallmark has noted, they are covered under

Defense Base Act, and contracts vary. It is whatever you write into

the contract.

Take medical treatment. Generally, it is provided for contractors

and subcontractors at that Level III care, which is at military

health hospitals within theater, not the basic care, you know, emergency, first aid or the second level of care at an aid station. It usually begins at Level III.

They could write in the contract to have more care, but routine

dental, routine medical is usually not covered. It depends upon the

contract in terms of the scope of benefits that the personnel might

receive.

We have done very little work looking at contractors in theater

and their benefits. We did look back in 2005 at the Defense Base

Act trying to look at the cost and the challenges that the agencies

had in determining the insurer. DOD, I believe, goes with a single

insurance. Some of the other agencies have multiple insurance

companies that cover it.

We had difficulty reviewing the program because of the data reliability issues just determining the number of contractors and the

different levels of subcontractors. So we were limited. I am not sure

if that helps or answers your question.

Mr. JONES. Well, it does help. It is quite a complex arrangement

that the government has, and, obviously, many of us are trying to

better understand the contractual agreements so that anything you

say is helpful. I appreciate that.

Do you have anything else, Mr. Hallmark?

Mr. HALLMARK. Only that the Defense Base Act has been particularly difficult, I think, to administer in the war zone in the

Middle East. It has been around for a long time.

It was passed in 1942, but the situations are particularly difficult

in the Middle East, and the Department of Labor has done its best

to try to coordinate with the players, with the contracting agencies,

with the contractors themselves, insurance companies, attorneys,

the whole group of people who all have to work together to make

those claims work properly.

16

So it is something that we have worked hard at, and I think we

are making some headway, but it is a challenge.

Mr. JONES. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. SNYDER. Dr. Gingrey.

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

And I thank our witnesses for being here.

I want to go back to the situation that the chairman was walking

about in regard to a defense civilian employee getting injured in

their off-duty time by a combat event, if you will. I think that was

a real good point he brought up, and I do also, as I am sure all

committee members, look forward to a response, and I would guess

that the answer would be clearly they should be covered.

On the other hand, if that particular scenario that the chairman

presented was out playing basketball, celebrating at a beer festival,

and in the course of playing basketball fell on the court and sustained a head injury, I do not think that individual would be eligible for a claim against the government for traumatic brain injury,

as an example, and I would think that you would agree with that.

So, you know, you just have to balance very carefully and make

sure we get it right, and I think from all three witnesses, I would

assume, we are getting it right.

I wanted to ask maybe Honorable Bradshaw, in regard to that

EE situation, the emergency situation, Department of Defense civilians, of course, you are talking about?

Secretary BRADSHAW. That is correct.

Dr. GINGREY. In certain job descriptions, that is part of their contract.

I want to make sure I understand. They could actually be deployed. There would be a need, and they could be deployed just as

anybody else who is actually serving in the military, either actively, reserve or even a guard component, but they could be assigned.

Now I think you said that they would have the opportunity to

decline if there was somebody else that would step forward and volunteer to fill that position. But suppose there was not and they still

declined. What are the recourses of the Department of Defense,

their employer, in regard to that?

And then as another follow-on in regard to getting—this is a different question but somewhat related—our Federal civilian employees to take these positions, whether it is PRTs through the State

Department or maybe the Department of Defense to assign someone to a PRT under the auspices of the State Department. We

know that we are not getting enough. I do not know what the percentage is—I think it was mentioned—maybe 60 percent. Are we

providing them enough incentive to fill these volunteer roles?

And finally, does this enhance their career opportunities if they

serve in these capacities, either voluntarily or if they are actually

made to serve?

Secretary BRADSHAW. The first question about the emergency essential designation because these employees know upfront, and basically sign a contract acknowledging that they understand if they

serve in an emergency essential position, that they are expected to

deploy, if they decline to go, very technically, we have the right to

17

remove them from that job and take whatever, you know, the worst

possible action could be, you know, separating someone.

I would tell you that would not be something we would do, but

the technical letter of the law allows us to do that, because they

have signed up to that and that is their job and that is the expectation.

In all reality, as you have already noted, if we have had a circumstance where, because of whatever the individual situation is,

that they are not able to go at that point, we work with them to

move them to another job and to get another volunteer.

But, at the end of the day, we can force them to go and deploy

because they have signed an agreement that says they know that

up front, just like any other contract.

Dr. GINGREY. And real quickly, the last part of my question—I

know I am running out of time—but in regard to the incentives in

place to get people to volunteer to take these positions, whether it

is on a PRT team or otherwise, does it enhance their career opportunity if they do this?

Secretary BRADSHAW. We see the enhanced opportunity for these

experiences, at least within the Department of Defense, because

forward deployment and being expeditionary has not always been

an inherent part of a civilian employee’s opportunity, and as part

of where we believe the department is going, particularly as we

look for our leadership for the future, we want people who have

had these kind of experiences, who have actually served with our

members and understand what it means to be forward deployed.

So I would tell you we are building those kind of experiences into

our career progression systems as extra credit, or at least making

one absolutely more competitive for advancement.

In terms of incentives, I can only speak to DOD. I cannot speak

to the State Department situation. But, as I noted, we had over a

thousand resumes of individuals who just really wanted to go and

serve because they believed in what we are doing there. So I believe that at least what we are offering today seems to be working.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Conaway.

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Appreciate everybody being here.

Ms. Bradshaw, you said there were 118 injuries. As a result of

The Washington Post article, have you gone back and looked at all

118? I mean, that does not seem to be a very daunting number of

cases to go back and look at and make sure you have dotted the

i’s and crossed the t’s with respect to that. But you guys looked at

all 118 to make sure everything is all right?

Secretary BRADSHAW. No, sir. I did not go back and look at all

118. We relied on working with the worker compensation office,

with Department of Labor, and——

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. Was the subject of The Post article in that

118, or was he someone who came back and later decided he was

injured?

Secretary BRADSHAW. No. He was clearly one of the 118. He was

one of the earliest in that number.

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. And as a result of that publicity, no one

else has stepped up to say that they have been mistreated at this

stage that you are aware of?

18

Secretary BRADSHAW. No, sir. No, sir.

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. Now, Mr. Hallmark, now you mentioned

that there are hard caps under DBA for disability. You said twothirds, up to $1,100 a month.

Mr. HALLMARK. Right. A week. $1,100 a week.

Mr. CONAWAY. A week, yes. How does that compare to the civilian similar circumstance? Usually, there is no cap on that. Is the

dollar differential about the same?

Mr. HALLMARK. As I said, FECA is one of the more generous

workers’ comp systems in the world. Almost every other system has

a cap based on the average weekly wage of people covered. The cap

in FECA is for GS–15, step 10, so only Senior Executive Service

(SES) individuals would receive less than either two-thirds or

three-fourths of their date of injury salary. Whereas in a program

like DBA, a person who is making more than the average weekly

wage would not get the full two-thirds.

Mr. CONAWAY. What would be the GS–15, step 10?

Mr. HALLMARK. It is in the $140,000 range, I believe.

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay.

Mr. HALLMARK. So most of our recipients receive 75 percent, so

it is substantially more. That would be in the range of $100,000

something per year. So you can do the math.

Mr. CONAWAY. Ms. Farrell, I did not see any recommendations

in your report. Did I just miss those, or did you guys make recommendations?

Ms. FARRELL. There were recommendations regarding the quality

assurance mechanism needed to be put in place to make sure that

civilians receive those before and after health requirements.

DOD, as I mentioned, has an instruction that was issued in February of this year that would make such a mechanism happen, but

that is the reason it is so important that they move forward and

implement that instruction.

Mr. CONAWAY. And, Ms. Bradshaw, I heard you say you have

done that.

Secretary BRADSHAW. Absolutely. And we took those recommendations to heart, sir, and we have implemented the instruction which calls for and basically audits the components accountable for ensuring both the pre- and the post-deployment assessments.

We have conducted one audit since the instruction was implemented, and we have those on the schedule now to go out and do

that and make sure that that happens, in addition to finally integrating our tracking systems so that we actually know what is happening.

So we took those to heart.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Hallmark, just one final thing, you made an

interesting turn of a phrase when you were talking about DBA insurance companies making improvements in their progress. Your

phrase was ‘‘We think we have noted progress.’’ First is, you have

actually noted progress. I am not sure I understood

Mr. HALLMARK. Well, I was not trying to be——

Mr. CONAWAY. You have noted progress or——

19

Mr. HALLMARK. I was not trying to be equivocal, but, again, the

cases are actually handled by the insurance companies. We only

have an oversight role. So, in the context of——

Mr. CONAWAY. You have noted progress?

Mr. HALLMARK. I am sorry?

Mr. CONAWAY. You have noted progress?

Mr. HALLMARK. We have been advised by the insurance companies. There are three major companies that do most of the work in

the Middle East in the DBA area. We have been advised by them

about procedures. For example, they have hired, in many cases,

local Arabic-speaking representatives to help foreign nationals file

claims. They have brought on specialists to deal with PTSD cases

more rapidly and effectively.

So we have been advised that those things have happened. I was

only saying that I cannot speak to the fact of what the outcomes

of those initiatives are, but they appear to us to be positive initiatives and progress.

Mr. CONAWAY. All right.

Mr. HALLMARK. If I could take one moment for a point of order

here?

Mr. CONAWAY. Sure.

Mr. HALLMARK. The question that Congressman Gingrey raised

about the scenario of an individual who was injured in a basketball

event similar to the other one, but it is not a mortar but simply

a fall, and he hits his head, I cannot speak to whether we would

approve that or not. We might very well approve that claim as

well.

Again, it gets to the whole set of issues that we would have to

look at in terms of the evidence of any given case. And I would

point also to the fact that, in some cases, the scenario that the

chairman raised might bring into question whether the person had

violated safety rules or other kinds of instructions that the employee was bound by. And so even if it were, in fact, a hostile action, there may be a complexity.

So we will give you an answer on the scenario, but, in fact, the

workers’ comp world is a complex world, and it is not one that is

particularly amenable to across-the-board judgments.

Dr. SNYDER. Mrs. Davis.

We will have time for both Mrs. Davis and Mr. Andrews to have

their five minutes.

Mrs. Davis for five minutes.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for being here.

I wanted to look at the issue of PTSD, and I think, Secretary

Bradshaw, you mentioned that only, I think, four cases out of 6,000

civilian employees presented themselves as cases of PTSD, and yet

some of the surveys would indicate that even among diplomatic

personnel stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 15 percent are

coming in with that diagnosis. Can you explain then? Is it partly

the differences of jobs, or what is it that you would see such low

numbers among the civilian employees?

Secretary BRADSHAW. My suspicion at this time is that perhaps

we have not had enough aware of this, and perhaps they have not

reported it. It also may be the jobs. It may be the location of the

20

jobs. I think it is something we will explore. We are learning so

much more about it, as you know, from our military side, and I

think as we become more informed and smarter about this, it

might help us understand the low numbers specifically in——

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Well, I was especially interested because you mentioned the face-to-face interviews, and that is one

task that certainly the military is using to try and bring people in

and bring people in after an extended period of time. And we still

do not, obviously, have this right on the military side, but I am just

wondering whether something about the communication with personnel or the openness of discussing these issues is something that

really has not reached them at all.

Secretary BRADSHAW. It may very well be, and I really do not

know. Again, we were surprised at the low number. But, again, as

we have learned from our military counterparts, as we have become smarter about that as a condition that we need to pay attention to and that it may not show up for some period of time, it may

well be that we see an increase as we really implement the instruction for the pre- and the post-deployment assessments in a very deliberate way. We have just begun that process, so it may be that

that number goes up. We will——

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Yes. Are you doing particular screening before people are deploying that would help them understand

the perils or the reaction to being in theater? Is that something

that did not happen and is happening now?

Secretary BRADSHAW. Yes. We were doing some of that before,

but I would tell you our experience with the PRTs really helped us

improve the training, both the sort of psychological and social

issues that one will encounter, because particularly being in a PRT,

these folks are actually embedded so they are actually deployed out

there with our battalions, unlike many of our civilians actually

serve in the green zone, so they are in an office environment. So,

as you suggest, that may very well be part of why there are fewer

claims. They are not out seeing the day-to-day conditions.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. And just the issue of career advancement as well, I mean, how does it affect one’s career to either be

a volunteer or to be told to go and to agree to that? How is it affecting career advancement and, in fact, is the PTSD diagnosis one

that people would perceive would hurt advancement?

Secretary BRADSHAW. I am sure there are all those perceptions

and concerns out there, as we have also learned from the military

and why many of our soldiers and sailors and airmen have not

come forward. So I think that is certainly a concern.

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. What are you doing then to get a handle on this so that you can look a year from now and say, ‘‘Yes,

in fact, this was a factor.’’ Or is there any way that we, you know,

if we come back a year from now, can say, ‘‘Okay, what’’——

Secretary BRADSHAW. In terms of the career advancement of individuals?

Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Career advancement. Also, identification of PTSD. And education. How can we evaluate that a year

from now?

Secretary BRADSHAW. And that is a very good question, and we

are maturing in our understanding of that. I would submit that we

21

have a couple of systems in place now. I think the pre- and the

post-deployment assessment with the mandatory mental health

component of that.

Again, we have just really implemented this in a way that we are

going back and doing, as the GAO chastised us for, really holding

people accountable. So we are going back and looking, ensuring

that that data are in the system and that somebody is looking at

that.

So my hope would be a year from now, we can look at that and

we can say, yes, so-and-so was followed up, and we know exactly

where there were indications where someone should have had attention, and they had it.

In terms of career advancement, I would submit to you the specific case with which you are familiar. That individual has actually

been promoted twice, and part of his condition has to do with

PTSD. So I think we have a case of one, at last, where we have

become very sensitive to this issue, and ensuring that we work

with the individual, that it does not become a career detractor. And

I think that is really the goal here, and working with them under

a lot of the flexibilities that the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) gives us under what they call their career patterns, alternative work schedules, flexible working arrangements, that there

are ways in which we can work with individuals with these conditions to accommodate them.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Andrews for five minutes.

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you.

I thank the panel for your testimony this morning.

If my office received a call this morning from a constituent that

said that their mom and wife was a DOD civilian employee wounded in Iraq and she is in a military hospital in Germany about to

come home and they said, ‘‘We want her to go to Walter Reed for

her follow-up care,’’ does she have the right to do that?

Secretary BRADSHAW. Yes, sir. She does.

Mr. ANDREWS. And if the physicians at Walter Reed, the therapists, say, ‘‘We think you should continue on an outpatient basis

here with us over time until your conditions are dealt with,’’ does

she have the right to do that?

Secretary BRADSHAW. Yes, sir. She does.

Mr. ANDREWS. Is there an ombudsman or advocate for her that

my office would call to work through all that?

The reason I ask this question is the legislation this committee

adopted, and the DOD has largely started to implement since the

Walter Reed problem, has set up a sort of case manager and ombudsman for wounded soldiers. Is there an equivalent person for a

wounded civilian person?

Secretary BRADSHAW. We are advocating that that apply to the

civilian workforce. And, once again, with the unfortunate experience of the case to which I keep referring, the Army in this case

would absolutely say, yes, they would assign a case manager.

Mr. ANDREWS. Is there statutory ambiguity as to whether the act

that we passed covers the civilian employee? Do we have to make

that explicit in the act that we passed?

Secretary BRADSHAW. That would be appreciated.

22

Mr. ANDREWS. It is probably something we should take a look at

doing.

The second question I have for you is in the compensation side,

Mr. Hallmark. Let’s assume that this civilian employee made

$80,000 a year, and she is wounded to the point where continuing

her prior duties is not doable. She is badly wounded. What is the

maximum she is entitled to as compensation for her injuries?

Mr. HALLMARK. Well, if she is unable to work at all—in your example, she had children—she would be entitled to 75 percent of her

date of injury salary, tax free, for as long as she is unable to work.

Mr. ANDREWS. And this would be handled under the same rules

of adjudication as any other Federal employee? In other words, the

burden of proof would be on her to show that the injury was job

related?

Mr. HALLMARK. There is always a burden on the claimant as a

matter of law, but in the examples that you give, if the individual

is involved in a combat situation and she just came forward——

Mr. ANDREWS. What would your—and not necessarily speaking

for your whole agency—opinion be of a statutory change that would

say that the burden of proof would shift in the case of a civilian

employee in a war zone, that the government would have to prove

that their injury was not job related, rather than the other way

around?

The premise of my question is that, boy, it seems to me when you

are in the green zone and the mortar shells are flying in, and every

moment you are in country, as you know personally, you are at

risk. What would you think about a change in the burden of proof

where if someone were in the war zone and sustained an injury,

the burden would be on the government to show the injury was not

job related, rather than on the plaintiff to show that it was?

Mr. HALLMARK. I obviously cannot speak to an Administration

position on something like that.

Mr. ANDREWS. Sure.

Mr. HALLMARK. I would only say that in my long experience with

workers’ compensation, every case is different, every case is subject

to complexities, and there is a down side associated with the notion

of the government being required to prove that benefits are not

payable.

Mr. ANDREWS. There is no question. My own sense is, though,

the down side is outweighed by the extraordinary sacrifices these

civilian employees are making, and I am not suggesting there are

not slips and falls in the green zone, but I am suggesting that perhaps the right way to differentiate between the slip and fall and

the traumatic brain injury because of a mortar shell is for the burden of proof to fall on the government rather than the claimant.

I mean, we put these folks in extraordinary conditions. I realize

that is an extraordinary position of law. The workers’ comp law I

know says the burden is almost never on the employer, but, of

course, very few employers are assigning people to a war zone

where they are subjected to the risks that these men and women

are subjected.

Let me just close by saying please convey to the people with

whom you work our thanks that they have taken on this very difficult job. We are very, very grateful. They are unsung heroes, but

23

they are heroes nevertheless, and please convey, Madam Secretary,

our appreciation to them.

Secretary BRADSHAW. Yes, sir.

Dr. SNYDER. We will stand in recess. We hope you can stay with

us. We will have a few questions after. We have a series of three

votes which should not take us a terribly long time. The staff will

be glad to help you find privacy, phones, restrooms, whatever you

need during your time here.

Thank you. We will be right back.

[Recess.]

Dr. SNYDER. The hearing will come back to order.

And I had a series of questions if you want to start the fiveminute clock. Then we will go to Dr. Gingrey and see if we have

other members come in. We will do that and then go to the staff

for any questions they might have.

Mr. Akin may or may not be able to get back.

Secretary Bradshaw, I wanted to say I appreciate your opening

statement, your knowledge of whether there were some previous

problems. What is your formal plan for oversight of this? How do

you monitor the situation with regard to this, you know, reasonably

well defined universe of civilians?

Secretary BRADSHAW. I think we have a couple of things in place,

Mr. Chairman. First of all, we have had a robust effort over this

last year to have each of the components go through and make sure

that their EE positions are designated. Let me back up there.

There are two things that I see that we have, as pointed out by

the GAO, to focus on, tracking the civilians in theater and following up with them when they return.

So, in terms of getting our arms around those that are serving

in theater, designating the EE positions, making sure that we can

pull data from a central file to identify those, we have that in

place, and we have done a complete scrub, and we are expecting

a report momentarily from the components on that.

In terms of tracking the civilians once they go into theater, we

have had, again, another robust effort over the last year to integrate the various systems that are in place by the components. And

the Joint Staff, who really has overall responsibility for tracking

military and civilian in and out of the war zone, are experimenting

right now with a defense accountability tracking system that basically will take our Common Access Card (CAC) card—and I will

find out Friday when I show up in theater how well this works—

swiping your CAC card and being able to track you while you are

in theater and track your movement. So that is one thing we are

looking at, and we are working very diligently to get that tracking

system in place.

In terms of the follow-on, getting civilians deployed, again, it has

been a matter of taking these independent systems that have been

in place with the components, now integrating them into a Department of Defense-wide system for health-care surveillance, and we

now have such a system in place that now feeds data from each

of the components that have deployed civilians, and it feeds into a

centralized system, and you can see and track whether the pre-employment health-care assessment was completed as well as the

24

post-deployment health-care assessment was completed and whether all of the items that were required were followed.

As the GAO noted, we had all these great policies in place, but

they were not necessarily widely known, and we did not have an

accountability system in place to follow. We have done two things

in that regard.

One, I manage a human capital accountability system that looks

at a number of human resources programs. This is one of the specific items that my staff will be looking at on regular audits of our

systems and compliance. The second one is the health affairs part

of our personnel and readiness domain has responsibility for ensuring that the pre- and post-deployment and all the follow-up assessments are completed, and, as noted, that instruction went out.

We have actually conducted one audit to ensure we are going to

the places where the deployments are being processed and actually

looking at the data, looking at the processes, ensuring that those

are done.

So we have done one, and we are scheduling the rest of those audits for this year.

Dr. SNYDER. Ms. Farrell, to your knowledge, has there been any

GAO look at why the State Department has had difficulty filling

the PRTs?

Ms. FARRELL. Not to my knowledge. If I could elaborate on that?

Dr. SNYDER. Sure.

Ms. FARRELL. As you know, we have done a wealth of work looking at medical tracking and the shortcomings that DOD has to

track their personnel in theater since the mid–1990’s, and you were

asking what do they need to do now, and this is an area that, although the instructions are definitely a step in the right direction,

it is a time for increased management attention to make sure that

that oversight takes place.

It was in 1997 that Congress mandated that DOD have a tracking system and that that tracking system have the elements that

we have been talking about today, the pre- and the post-health assessment. GAO came along a few years later and looked at that

and noted that the quality assurance mechanism was not effective

to ensure that that compliance was happening. We were looking at

servicemembers in the Army and Air Force that served in Bosnia.

Then a few years later, we came along and looked at

servicemembers who were serving in Enduring Freedom and Iraqi

Freedom, and we noted that there were the same compliance problems. There was missing data—the documentation issues that we

have been talking about today—that the records were not being

sent to the central database location at Walter Reed to help monitor the trends and the oversight of those who had been deployed.

We followed up with another report looking at reserve and guard

members, found the same issues that we had with the actives, followed up in 2005 looking at pre-existing conditions before members

were deployed, saw that DOD did not have tracking systems in theater to monitor those who were being deployed with pre-existing

conditions that were treatable in theater. But still you needed to

closely monitor them.

Then we issued the report last September looking at civilians deployed. The same issues that we have seen with the civilians, we

25

have seen and reported on with the reserve and guard and with the

active duty. DOD has taken steps. They move toward the right direction, but definitely close monitoring needs to be attended to in

this area, and it takes senior management oversight and attention.

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Akin for five minutes.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a question on that very area, because a couple of years ago

I had a sense that DOD was very weak in that area.

We had come up with the idea that maybe our office, as a congressional office, could come up with a letter that we sent home to

wives—not wives—at least try to get politically correct here—

spouses, okay, something to the effect that. ‘‘I just wrote you today

to let you know how proud we are of your wife or your husband

that is in theater and the great work that they are doing. We want

you to know that those of us in Congress appreciate that,’’ a very

personalized kind of thing with a little eagle on the top, you know,

and hand signed, and then send a bunch of those to people, particularly when they have had somebody deployed for some period

of time. We thought that would be at least a nice step toward

building family relations and letting the family know that we are

thinking about them.

I have asked my staff to work on it a number of different times

and gotten nowhere, and finally came to the conclusion that the

Army did not have, or the military did not have, a personnel database that they could basically go in on Congressional District 2 and

pull out who we had to crank those letters out. And it gave me the

sense, I wonder, if we really know where our people are. Is that

along the same lines as what you are talking about?

Ms. FARRELL. Yes, it is. DOD has had difficulties tracking

servicemembers in theater. Past reports where we have looked at

medical records going back to the beginning of Enduring Freedom,

we have had to omit data because——

Mr. AKIN. Well, I think medical records are even more complicated. I was just asking where the people are, you know.

I mean, I used to work for IBM, and I understand the massive

programming effort that would be to put that kind of system together. Is that the sort of thing that could be farmed out to a private company like IBM or something to build that personnel system, or is that something that we as a government or as a military

are equipped to do very well?

Anybody who wants to answer, it is fine. I am not trying to be

critical. I am just saying that is not easy. It is easy to talk about

or conceive it. It is not very easy to do it. I know that.

Ms. FARRELL. Well, it is not easy because there is something like

over 550,000 servicemembers that have been deployed. We do not

know the number exactly, but it is in that neighborhood.

Mr. AKIN. Which is the point.

Ms. FARRELL. Yes. And for civilians, it is even shorter.

DOD does have a system called Defense Integrated Military

Human Resources System (DIMHRS) that they have been working

on for some time that would provide some of the answers for tracking and other medical records issues, but that has not been implemented.

26

Perhaps Ms. Bradshaw could speak more to the other partnerships that they might have with outside agencies on it.

Secretary BRADSHAW. Well, DIMHRS is expected to be the ultimate tool, and we would certainly never undertake the actual programming of such a vast system within the department. So there

are contractors that are working on that with us, and it is envisioned that that will be the military system that will track and

house a lot of this data, as Ms. Farrell noted.

Mr. AKIN. Are you familiar with the status of where that project

is? It must be behind from what we are hearing, or maybe it is not

behind. But what do you know about it?

Secretary BRADSHAW. Well, I guess that it has been——

Mr. AKIN. One thing I will tell you ahead of time and brag on

our chairman. Our interest is solving problems. We are not trying

to find people to blame. That is our whole tone here. We want to

be helpful. Is there something we can be helpful in that area?

Secretary BRADSHAW. Well, I would be pleased with the opportunity to give you a written status on DIMHRS. It has been around

and underway for some time, and, actually, I retired in 1999 and

they were working on it then. So it was interesting to learn that

we are still working on it.

But my sense is in the last number of years, the components

have actually come together in a collaborative way and have actually defined the requirements and are actually leveraging the work

that has been done previously, and we have a very robust oversight

council under my boss, Dr. Chu, that is overseeing the development

of this.

But we will take for the record to get back to you with specifics

on it.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 99.]

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I did not mean to take too much time

here.

Is this really the Personnel Subcommittee’s turf more than our

own, because you used to be chairman of that? Are you familiar

with it?

Dr. SNYDER. Our turf is all of human activity and knowledge.

Mr. AKIN. Okay. Good. [Laughter.]

Dr. SNYDER. Having said that, we will work on conjunction with

our subcommittees so that we are all pulling on the same harness,

but there are clearly issues. I mean, in this subcommittee, we can

explore a lot of different things, but we want to do it in cooperation

with our other subcommittees.

Mr. AKIN. Is that something——

Dr. SNYDER. As you know, Mrs. Davis is one of our committee

members, and she is the chairperson of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. AKIN. Yes. Is that something that you have dealt with before,

that personnel records thing, when you were chairman of the personnel thing? Did you run into that problem?

Dr. SNYDER. The——

Mr. AKIN. Military records and where the different military people are, knowing where they are, where——

Dr. SNYDER. Yes, that certainly came up.

27

Mr. AKIN. Okay.

Dr. SNYDER. And then it became an issue, too, in the situation

we are talking about. When somebody got hurt, both their personal

effects and their records may not follow along with them as they

were moving rapidly through the health-care system.

Mr. AKIN. Could I ask that we could get a written report of the

status of that, with at least a reasonable historic background of

when Congress——

Ms. FARRELL. Sure.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 99.]

Mr. AKIN [continuing]. Where we are in those different steps?

Ms. FARRELL. We also have ongoing work looking at the status

of DIMHRS that we would be happy to brief the committee or

members at any time.

I want to say, in reference to Ms. Bradshaw talking about the

components coming together, the Marine Corps wanted to establish

its own system, and the Navy has been supportive of that, having

the Marine Corps branch away and have a different personnel system and then later go to the DIMHRS.

So it is an area they are in various stages depending upon which

component you want to talk about, but we could provide you information.

Mr. AKIN. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. SNYDER. Dr. Gingrey.

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. This has been a great

hearing. As I said before we had to leave to go vote, it always

seems like the best hearings are the ones that get interrupted the

most times.

But we appreciate, again, all of you being here.

Before we did take the break, I had asked a question—and I am

going to direct this mainly to Secretary Bradshaw and Mr. Hallmark—in regard to incentivizing Federal civilian employees to take

these assignments. And I think, Secretary Bradshaw, you indicated

that, yes, it was a good thing for them to do, whether it was mandatory under the EE program, certainly if it is voluntary, that it

probably puts them in a little bit better position when they come

back home.

I am going to suggest that maybe some formal promise for serving and serving well and completion of assignment could lead to an

increased pay grade or whatever. Now I am showing my ignorance

of the Federal civilian employment system by maybe suggesting

that.

I also wanted to pursue a little bit more this idea of the pre-deployment physical that the civilian employees undergo and particularly in regard to screening for mental health. Now, you know, I

am a physician. The chairman is a physician. We have a lot of interest in that, and concerns, because I would say in particular the

condition post-traumatic stress syndrome—or post-traumatic stress

disease maybe it is called today—is a very difficult thing to measure. And while the civilian employees are not nearly as likely to

come back having sustained traumatic brain injury, I would hope,

they certainly could be just as likely to come back from a deployVerDate 22-MAR-2001 12:05 Sep 04, 2008 Jkt 038662 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-90\261160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
28

ment in an area like the Middle East suffering from post-traumatic

stress disorder, and so you have to be very careful in evaluating.

While I am talking about wanting to incentivize people to go,

there are certain ones that you absolutely would not want to go,

and maybe Mr. Hallmark could discuss this a little more, too, because that is a pretty expensive lifetime of disability payments

when you get into something PTSD, which is awfully hard to say

whether a person really has it or whether they do not. You know,

the same thing to some extent applies to traumatic brain injury.

And wouldn’t it be great if there were a blood test that could be

done pre-deployment and post-deployment for a person particularly

who has been injured and is concerned about traumatic brain injury, if there were some mark or some blood marker that could

measure not only if it had occurred, but how severe and then help

our health-care personnel follow the progress of the treatment?

I do not know if I put that in the form of any question or not.

Maybe you could come up with an answer even though it was not

phrased in the form of a question.

Secretary BRADSHAW. Well, we certainly concur with your observation and, certainly, from a very practical standpoint as a doctor,

a physician, the difficulty of making those pre-deployment assessments, and then you say, ‘‘Okay.’’ So, if you are doing this, what

is the threshold at which you say, ‘‘You are not deployable,’’ if it

is a mental health condition?’’

I can only tell you I know of one situation where we actually had

a PRT member volunteer who got to the training that we provided,

and through the observation of some very alert leaders on the

ground and the psychologists and doctors assigned there, we actually made that type of assessment and did not allow that person

to deploy.

So is there a checklist by which you can just follow the checklist

and then, at the end of the day, hope you get to the right answer?

Probably not. But there are some general guidelines and principles.

Our leaders also have to be leaders. They need to be able to look

for those types of behaviors and things.

And I would submit that those are the types of people that we

put into these training centers where individuals are processed before they are deployed, so we have experienced leadership on the

ground that observe and watch the civilians—and, I presume, the

military members as they come through as well—for exactly those

types of things. So it is not just resigned to a checklist of ‘‘Did you

answer this question well?’’ but what is the general observation.

Dr. GINGREY. Madam Secretary, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I know I have run out of time, but if Mr. Hallmark can comment, would that be all right?

Mr. HALLMARK. Well, I would, I guess, simply say that typically

in the workers’ comp world, it is very difficult to do much in the

way of prescreening that is satisfactory and helpful. I mean, the

only example where it is pretty straightforward—and you were

talking about if we had a blood test—but hearing loss you can do

prescreening for to some extent and identify, you know, existing

loss, and then look at how that plays out in the later employment.

But, as you point out, PTSD and similar psychological conditions

are very ambiguous in the first place, and finding markers for peoVerDate 22-MAR-2001 12:05 Sep 04, 2008 Jkt 038662 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-90\261160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
29

ple who might be susceptible to them is probably even more difficult. I think this is just one of those areas where defense and

whoever is sending people over, as the Honorable Ms. Bradshaw

has indicated, just have to use common sense and identify people

who look like they may be problematic.

But, for the most part, in workers’ comp, you take the worker as

they come. People get over there, are going to get injured, and

some of them are going to have bad experiences, and then it is our

job to try to address the issue, and not only pay them benefits and

take care of them medically, but also work with individuals to get

them back to work. And that is something that the FECA program

truly emphasizes and that is very important for the health and

benefit of the worker and their family and for the taxpayer in

terms of the cost of the program.

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you. Thank you both.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey.

Tom, come have a seat up here with us.

We will give our two staff members here an opportunity to ask

questions.

Now you are self-timing yourself here, Steve. I do not know.

First will be Steve DeTeresa and then Tom Hawley.

Steve, go ahead and put yourself in——

Dr. DETERESA. Okay.

Dr. SNYDER. See, you did not start the clock. See. [Laughter.]

Dr. DETERESA. I have not started my question yet. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Actually, I have a two-part question, so I better start the clock

on myself, and I think both of these would go to Mr. Hallmark.

First is, GAO found in the report that they could not examine

claims from DOD civilians who were wounded in Afghanistan, and

that is because there was not any way to track them. So the question is, what has been done to remedy that?

And then the second one, a little more detailed, a little more involved, is with Defense Base Act insurance. Who, if anyone, is responsible for making sure that all of our contractors—U.S. citizens,

non-U.S. citizens—have this coverage as required by law, and then

who, if anyone, is responsible for making sure that they actually

get the benefits they are entitled to under DBA insurance.

Mr. HALLMARK. Well, I will take the easier one first. As GAO

pointed out, we have not had in place an ability to track Afghan

cases. The FECA system does not actually give us the ability to

identify the location of injury in an automated fashion. We do get

130,000-plus cases per year. So the manual approach is not an effective one.

However, for Iraq, we set up a special numbering system so that

we could track and report on those cases. I had actually thought

that it covered Afghanistan injuries as well, but, you know, that

was not clarified. So we have now gone back and created a separate numbering system for Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it starts in

the summer of 2007, but we will have it for going forward.

On the Defense Base Act questions, the Department of Labor’s

responsibility is to try to oversee that the program is being administered properly, so one of the things we have done is hold a numVerDate 22-MAR-2001 12:05 Sep 04, 2008 Jkt 038662 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-90\261160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
30

ber of seminars and compliance assistance programs to help the

people who are responsible for making it happen do their part.

The contracting agencies—DOD, State, Agency for International

Development (AID)—primarily are responsible for ensuring that

the contracts they let that have likely coverage under DBA contain

provisions that require the contractors to obtain Defense Base Act

insurance. And so one of the things we have done is work with

those agencies contracting folks, make sure that those kinds of

boilerplate provisions are in there.

Obviously, as time has gone on, that is become more and more

clear cut. There have been discussions about the cost of DBA premiums and trying to procure coverage in more efficient and effective ways, and DOD has been in the forefront of that.

The second part of that question goes to the question of once

there is, in fact, an injury and we have insurance in place, what

do we do to make sure that people receive the services they are

supposed to get? And the answer is the job of the insurer, in that

circumstance, is to identify cases that are applicable and covered

under the statute and then provide the services.

That has been, in the case of a war zone, a difficulty, and, as I

mentioned in my testimony, we have worked with the insurers and

the contractors themselves to try to work on that issue and to

make it happen better in the war zone.

As I believe I mentioned, some of the insurers have taken steps

such as acquiring resources in Arabic-speaking folks in the Middle

East who can go and actually be on site and help especially foreign

nationals file their claims and obtain the services that they should

receive. That has been an evolving practice, but I think there has

been, in fact, improvement in that regard.

But it is very difficult, and there are real challenges associated

with getting services, medical services, especially, for foreign nationals, for Iraqis in a country which has a very, very weak infrastructure, and where medical services are hard to come by for anybody, much less for injured workers in this circumstance.

Dr. DETERESA. Thank you.

Dr. SNYDER. Go ahead, Tom.

Mr. HAWLEY. Just one question. You all testified that the incentives across the government are the same statutorily. They could

be applied by all agencies. They are equal for all agencies for civilian pay. And. Ms. Farrell, in your report, you stated that the civilian employee deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan with the 35 percent

danger pay and the post differential and with premium pay essentially can more than double their salary. DOD has been successful

in getting people to go, but DOD is on a war footing.

The State Department is, of course, very interested in success in

Iraq, but Ginger Cruz testified in exchange with the chairman a

few weeks ago that State Department culture is not there. Is it so

much of an incentive question that we cannot get other agencies to

fill, or is it more of a cultural and leadership question, or what

needs to be done?

Is it something Congress needs to do, something the agencies

need to do? Do they need to change their mentality in the Agriculture Department, Justice Department that service in Iraq is imVerDate 22-MAR-2001 12:05 Sep 04, 2008 Jkt 038662 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-90\261160.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
31

portant, or do they need more money? What is your opinion on

what needs to be done?

Ms. Farrell and Secretary Bradshaw.

Ms. FARRELL. Well, again, a word of caution about approaching

this from a piecemeal fashion. You have to first determine the purpose. Is the purpose to provide compensation for those who are deployed and an additional benefit is worthy? Is the purpose for equity? That is the key. Whenever you look at a special pay or a

bonus or an incentive, what are we trying to accomplish? As far as

the incentive to be——

Mr. HAWLEY. Well, the purpose would be to get skilled staff to

accomplish the national mission. So what do we need to do to do

that?

Ms. FARRELL. And then you have align your human capital policies, including any recruiting or retention pay, to meet that particular mission and build it into that human capital system all the

way down.

Mr. HAWLEY. So why is DOD successful in doing that and the

other agencies are not?

Ms. FARRELL. Well, I would ask DOD to look carefully at those

thousand volunteers and make sure that the thousand were specialists that would meet the needs of what you are getting to, the

mission, or was the population somewhat smaller. I think part of

it has been reported that the State Department has had the culture

problem of wanting a more secure Iraq before they send their specialists to help build the departments, to oversee finance and maintenance and road building, et cetera.

Mr. HAWLEY. Ms. Bradshaw.

Secretary BRADSHAW. I think your question leads to some very

exciting initiatives that are actually underway right now, and that

is the definition about national security and whose mission is it.

And I would tell you we have a number of things going that are

trying to break this barrier with other agencies, that every Federal

employee’s job is national security, that this blending between and

this line between homeland domestic and national, it is really

starting to blur, and that we are really all about national security.

And so to your question about is this sometimes a cultural component of the agency, I would submit, probably so. You work for

the Department of Defense because you know that there is a specific kind of mission there. You work for the Department of Agriculture, you see yourself more domestic, and there is a Foreign

Service component of that.

But we do have, as I suggested, some initiatives underway right

now that are really focusing on this interagency blending and the

commitment and the need for every Federal employee to see themselves as involved in national security.

Mr. HAWLEY. And who should the committee follow up with to

learn more about these missions?

Secretary BRADSHAW. I would be happy to come chat with you

about them.

Dr. SNYDER. Who is the ‘‘we’’ when you say ‘‘we have initiatives’’?

Is the we the Department of Defense, or is the we an agency——

Secretary BRADSHAW. They are coming out of the National Security Council, so the——

32

Yes, exactly. There was an executive order on the definition of

a national security professional looking at education that needs to

be provided and defining what that community looks like, the

whole interagency NSPD–44 about interagency management. So

there is recognition at the highest levels in the government right

now that the interagency coordination needs some work, and we

are moving toward it, and it is a very exciting opportunity.

Mr. HAWLEY. Thank you.

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, gentlemen.

We appreciate you all being here today. We apologize for the

votes, but some of you have been through that before.

And the hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

(37)

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

(95)

1GAO, DOD Civilian Personnel: Medical Policies for Deployed DOD Federal Civilians and Associated Compensation for Those Deployed, GAO–07–1235T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 2007). 2GAO, Defense Health Care: Medical Surveillance Improved Since Gulf War, but Mixed Results in Bosnia, GAO/NSIAD–97–136 (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 1997). 3 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Pub. L. No. 105–85, § 765 (1997)

(codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1074f). DOD established force health protection and surveillance policies

aimed at assessing and reducing or preventing health risks for its deployed federal civilian personnel. 4 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. L. No. 109–364,

§ 738 (2006) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1074f).

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SNYDER

BENEFITS AND MEDICAL CARE FOR FEDERAL AND U.S. CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES

DEPLOYED TO IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN1

Dr. SNYDER. What are the congressional requirements for medical tracking of deployed military servicemembers and civilians?

Ms. FARRELL. Following GAO’s May 1997 report,2 Congress enacted legislation 3

that required the Secretary of Defense to establish a medical tracking system to assess the medical condition of servicemembers before and after deployments to locations outside of the United States. Specifically, the legislation required the following:

‘‘(a) SYSTEM REQUIRED—The Secretary of Defense shall establish a system to

assess the medical condition of members of the armed forces (including members of

the reserve components) who are deployed outside the United States or its territories or possessions as part of a contingency operation (including a humanitarian

operation, peacekeeping operation, or similar operation) or combat operation.

‘‘(b) ELEMENTS OF SYSTEM—The system described in subsection (a) shall include the use of pre-deployment medical examinations and post-deployment medical

examinations (including an assessment of mental health and the drawing of blood

samples) to accurately record the medical condition of members before their deployment and any changes in their medical condition during the course of their deployment. The post-deployment examination shall be conducted when the member is redeployed or otherwise leaves an area in which the system is in operation (or as soon

as possible thereafter).

‘‘(c) RECORDKEEPING—The results of all medical examinations conducted under

the system, records of all health care services (including immunizations) received by

members described in subsection (a) in anticipation of their deployment or during

the course of their deployment, and records of events occurring in the deployment

area that may affect the health of such members shall be retained and maintained

in a centralized location to improve future access to the records.

‘‘(d) QUALITY ASSURANCE—The Secretary of Defense shall establish a quality

assurance program to evaluate the success of the system in ensuring that members

described in subsection (a) receive pre-deployment medical examinations and postdeployment medical examinations and that the recordkeeping requirements with respect to the system are met.’’

This legislation was amended by a provision in the John Warner National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.4 The current legislation amends elements

of the system and the quality assurance program as well as adds criteria for referral

for further evaluations and minimum mental health standards for deployment. Specifically, the current legislation requires the following:

‘‘(a) SYSTEM REQUIRED—Not changed by the current legislation.

‘‘(b) ELEMENTS OF SYSTEM—

(1) The system described in subsection (a) shall include the use of pre-deployment medical examinations and post-deployment medical examinations (including

an assessment of mental health and the drawing of blood samples) to accurately

record the medical condition of members before their deployment and any changes

in their medical condition during the course of their deployment. The post-deployment examination shall be conducted when the member is redeployed or otherwise

96

leaves an area in which the system is in operation (or as soon as possible thereafter).

(2) The pre-deployment and post-deployment medical examination of a member

of the armed forces required under paragraph (1) shall include the following:

(A) An assessment of the current treatment of the member and any use of psychotropic medications by the member for a mental health condition or disorder.

(B) An assessment of traumatic brain injury.

‘‘(c) RECORDKEEPING—Not changed by the current legislation.

‘‘(d) QUALITY ASSURANCE—

(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish a quality assurance program to

evaluate the success of the system in ensuring that members described in subsection

(a) receive pre-deployment medical examinations and post-deployment medical examinations and that the recordkeeping requirements with respect to the system are

met.

(2) The quality assurance program established under paragraph (1) shall also include the following elements:

(A) The types of healthcare providers conducting post-deployment health assessments.

(B) The training received by such providers applicable to the conduct of such

assessments, including training on assessments and referrals relating to mental

health.

(C) The guidance available to such providers on how to apply the clinical practice guidelines developed under subsection (e)(1) in determining whether to make

a referral for further evaluation of a member of the armed forces relating to mental

health.

(D) The effectiveness of the tracking mechanisms required under this section in

ensuring that members who receive referrals for further evaluations relating to

mental health receive such evaluations and obtain such care and services as are

warranted.

(E) Programs established for monitoring the mental health of each member

who, after deployment to a combat operation or contingency operations, is known—

(i) to have a mental health condition or disorder; or

(ii) to be receiving treatment, including psychotropic medications, for a mental

health condition or disorder.

‘‘(e) CRITERIA FOR REFERRAL FOR FURTHER EVALUATIONS—The system

described in subsection (a) shall include—

(1) development of clinical practice guidelines to be utilized by healthcare providers in determining whether to refer a member of the armed forces for further evaluation relating to mental health (including traumatic brain injury);

(2) mechanisms to ensure that healthcare providers are trained in the application of such clinical practice guidelines; and

(3) mechanisms for oversight to ensure that healthcare providers apply such

guidelines consistently.

‘‘(f) MINIMUM MENTAL HEALTH STANDARDS FOR DEPLOYMENT—

(1) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in regulations minimum standards

for mental health for the eligibility of a member of the armed forces for deployment

to a combat operation or contingency operation.

(2) The standards required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:

(A) A specification of the mental health conditions, treatment for such conditions, and receipt of psychotropic medications for such conditions that preclude deployment of a member of the armed forces to a combat operation or contingency operation, or to a specified type of such operation.

(B) Guidelines for the deployability and treatment of members of the armed

forces diagnosed with a severe mental illness or post traumatic stress disorder.

(3) The Secretary shall take appropriate actions to ensure the utilization of the

standards prescribed under paragraph (1) in the making of determinations regarding the deployability of members of the armed forces to a combat operation or contingency operation.’’

Dr. SNYDER. What work has GAO conducted on this topic?

Ms. FARRELL. Since the 1990s, GAO has highlighted shortcomings with respect to

the Department of Defense’s (DOD) ability to assess the medical condition of

servicemembers both before and after their deployments. Following GAO’s May 1997

report, Congress enacted legislation (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1074f) that required the

Secretary of Defense to establish a medical tracking system for assessing the medical condition of servicemembers before and after deployments.

In September 2003, we reported that the Army and Air Force did not comply with

DOD’s force health protection and surveillance requirements for many

servicemembers deploying in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Central

97

5GAO, Defense Health Care: Quality Assurance Process Needed to Improve Force Health Protection and Surveillance, GAO–03–1041. (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2003). 6GAO, Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Address Long-term Reserve Force Availability and

Related Mobilization and Demobilization Issues, GAO–04–1031. (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15,

2004). 7GAO, Defense Health Care: Force Health Protection and Surveillance Policy Compliance Was

Mixed, but Appears Better for Recent Deployments, GAO–05–120 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12,

2004). 8GAO, Military Personnel: Top Management Attention Is Needed to Address Long-standing

Problems with Determining Medical and Physical Fitness of the Reserve Force, GAO–06–105.

(Washington. D.C.: Oct. 27, 2005).

Asia and Operation Joint Guardian in Kosovo.5 Specifically, our review disclosed

problems with the Army’s and Air Force’s implementation of DOD’s force health protection and surveillance requirements in the following areas: (1) deployment health

assessments, (2) immunizations and other pre-deployment requirements, and (3) the

completeness of medical records and centralized data collection. Our September

2003 report also raised concerns over a lack of DOD oversight of department-wide

efforts to comply with health surveillance requirements. Specifically, we reported

that an effective quality assurance program had not been established at the Office

of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs or at the Offices of the Surgeons’ General of the Army or Air Force to help ensure compliance with force health

protection and surveillance policies. We believed that the lack of such a system was

a major cause of the high rate of noncompliance and thus recommended that the

department establish an effective quality assurance program to ensure that the military services comply with the force health protection and surveillance requirements

for all servicemembers. The department concurred with our recommendation, and

in January 2004 began implementation of its deployment health quality assurance

program.

In September 2004, we reported similar issues related to DOD’s ability to effectively manage the health status of its reserve forces.6 Specifically we noted that

DOD’s centralized database had missing and incomplete pre-deployment health assessment questionnaires because not all of the required health information collected

from reserve component members had reached DOD’s central data collection point.

We recommended that the Secretary of Defense take steps to ensure that pre-deployment health assessment questionnaires are submitted to the centralized data

collection point as required. DOD concurred with our recommendation and noted

that revised guidance was currently in coordination to clarify the requirement for

submitting pre-deployment health assessments to the centralized database.

In November 2004, we reported that overall compliance with DOD’s force health

protection and surveillance policies for servicemembers who deployed in support of

Operation Iraqi Freedom varied by service, by installation, and by policy requirement.7 At that time, we did not evaluate the effectiveness of DOD’s deployment

health quality assurance program because of the relatively short time of its implementation.

In October 2005, we reported that evidence suggested that reserve component

members have deployed into theater with pre-existing medical conditions that could

not be adequately addressed in theater.8 We also reported that DOD had limited

visibility over the health status of reserve component members after they are called

to duty and is unable to determine the extent of care provided to those members

deployed with pre-existing medical conditions despite the existence of various

sources of medical information. We recommended that the Secretary of Defense determine what pre-existing medical conditions should not be allowed into specific theaters of operations and to take steps to ensure that each service component consistently utilizes these as criteria for determining the medical deployability of its reserve component members. We also recommended that the Secretary of Defense explore using existing tracking systems to track those who have treatable pre-existing

medical conditions in theater. DOD partially concurred with our recommendation

concerning the identification of pre-existing medical conditions that would preclude

deployment and noted that the services had made advances in identifying some preexisting conditions that would preclude deployment, but also stated that due to the

ever changing nature of theater of operations this list could never be fully comprehensive or fully enforceable. DOD also concurred with our recommendation pertaining to the use of existing tracking systems to track treatable pre-existing medical conditions. Specifically, DOD indicated that ongoing refinements to these systems based on lessons learned would improve the documentation of medical conditions throughout the military services including information concerning reserve

members with pre-existing conditions.

98

9GAO, DOD Civilian Personnel: Greater Oversight and Quality Assurance Needed to Ensure

Force Health Protection and Surveillance for Those Deployed, GAO–06–1085 (Washington, D.C.:

Sept. 29, 2006). 10DOD Instruction 6200.05, Force Health Protection (FHP) Quality Assurance Program, February 16, 2007. 11GAO, Defense Health Care: Comprehensive Oversight Framework Needed to Help Ensure Effective Implementation of a Deployment Health Quality Assurance Program, GAO–07–831 (Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2007).

As we noted in our statement, our September 2006 report 9 on DOD’s policies concerning its federal civilians who have deployed in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq found that DOD has established force health protection and surveillance policies aimed at assessing and reducing or preventing health risks for its deployed federal civilian personnel; however, at the time of our review, the department

lacked a quality assurance mechanism to ensure the components’ full implementation of its policies. To strengthen DOD’s force health protection and surveillance for

its deployed federal civilians, we recommended that DOD establish an oversight and

quality assurance mechanism to ensure that all components fully comply with its

requirements. In February 2007, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Health Protection and Readiness published a new instruction 10 on

force health protection quality assurance. This policy applies to military

servicemembers, as well as applicable DOD and contractor personnel. The new policy requires the military services to implement procedures to monitor key force

health protection elements such as pre- and post-deployment health assessments. In

addition, the policy requires each military service to report its force health protection and quality assurance findings to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health

Affairs) through the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Health Protection and Readiness.

We further noted in our statement that, in our June 2007 report 11 on DOD’s compliance with the legislative requirement to perform pre- and post-deployment medical examinations on servicemembers, DOD lacked a comprehensive oversight framework to help ensure effective implementation of its deployment health quality assurance program, which included specific reporting requirements and results-oriented

performance measures to evaluate the services’ adherence to deployment health requirements. Also, we noted in our statement that the department’s new instruction

and planned actions indicate that DOD is taking steps in the right direction. We

stated and still believe that if the department follows through with its efforts, it will

be responsive to several of our reports’ recommendations to improve DOD’s force

health protection and surveillance for the Total Force.

Dr. SNYDER. Members of the Subcommittee asked for clarification of an individual’s entitlement to Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) benefits under

various scenarios while on assignement to Iraq.

If an employee stationed in Iraq would be covered under FECA if he or she were

injured by mortar fire while playing basketball during off hours or whether an off

duty employee stationed in Iraq who was hit by mortar at a beer festival would be

covered under FECA. Congressman Gingrey questioned whether the individual playing basketball would be covered under similar circumstances but the injury resulted

from participation in the basketball game rather than from mortar fire.

Mr. HALLMARK. The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) states that:

Disability or death from a war-risk hazard or during or as a result of capture,

detention, or other restraint by a hostile force or individual, suffered by an

employee who is employed outside the continental United States . . . is

deemed to have resulted from personal injury sustained while in the performance of his duty, whether or not the employee was engaged in the course of

employment when the disability or disability resulting in death occurred or

when he was taken by the hostile force or individual. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(b).

A war-risk hazard is defined as a hazard arising from a war in which the United

States is engaged; during an armed conflict in which the United States is engaged.

The hazard may arise from the discharge of a missile; action of a hostile force or

person; the discharge or explosion of munitions; the collision of vessels in a convoy

or the operation of vessels or aircraft engaged in war activities. Employees who reside in the vicinity of their employment who are not living there solely due to the

exigencies of their employment (local hires) are only covered while in the course of

their employment.

Therefore, an injury or death of an employee deployed to Iraq resulting from mortar fire while playing basketball and/or at a beer festival would be covered under

the FECA unless the disability or death was the direct result of certain statutory

99

exemptions, i.e. caused by willful misconduct of the employee or proximately caused

by the intoxication of the injured employee.

The question of coverage in the case of an employee who sustains an injury such

as broken leg as a direct result of participating in the off-duty basketball game is

more complicated. As I noted in my testimony, each claim must be considered on

its merits given the individual circumstances. When the employee engages in personal activities not reasonably incidental to the duties of the temporary assignment

contemplated by the employer, injury occurring during such a deviation is not compensable. However, if the basketball game was an employer sponsored recreational

or social activity, such injury would be covered under FECA. With regard to such

recreational or social activities, the Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

(SCAB) has held that such activities are covered when: they occur on the employer’s

premises during a lunch or recreational period as a regular incident of the employment; or the employer, by expressly or impliedly requiring participation, or by making the activity part of the service of the employee, brings the activity within the

orbit of employment; or the employer derives substantial direct benefit from the activity beyond the intangible value of improvement in employee health and morale

common to all kinds of recreation and social life.

While Federal employees abroad are not covered around the clock under all situations, FECA (in a manner similar to other workers’ compensation systems) recognizes a number of potentially applicable doctrines that extend workers’ compensation coverage for Federal employees injured in circumstances not directly related to

their job duties.

• The zone of special danger doctrine provides coverage of injuries to employees

sustained in foreign countries if the obligations or conditions of employment

overseas expose them to hazards not common to all travelers.

• The proximity rule provides coverage for injuries suffered due to a hazardous

condition proximate to the employment premises.

• The positional risk doctrine provides coverage for employees where the only connection of the employment with the injury is that employment obligations

placed the employee in the particular place at the particular time when he or

she was injured by some neutral force, meaning by ‘‘neutral’’ neither personal

to the claimant nor distinctly associated with the employment.

• The rescuer doctrine provides coverage in an emergency to include any act designed to save life or property in which the employer has an interest.

• The bunkhouse rule provides coverage where an employee is injured during the

reasonable use of employer provided housing which the employee is required or

expected to occupy.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. AKIN

Mr. AKIN. We had come up with the idea that maybe our office, as a congressional

office, could come up with a letter that we sent home to wives—not wives—at least

try to get politically correct here—spouses, okay, something to the effect that. ‘‘I just

wrote you today to let you know how proud we are of your wife or your husband

that is in theater and the great work that they are doing. We want you to know

that those of us in Congress appreciate that,’’ a very personalized kind of thing with

a little eagle on the top, you know, and hand signed, and then send a bunch of those

to people, particularly when they have had somebody deployed for some period of

time. We thought that would be at least a nice step toward building family relations

and letting the family know that we are thinking about them.

I have asked my staff to work on it a number of different times and gotten nowhere, and finally came to the conclusion that the Army did not have, or the military did not have, a personnel database that they could basically go in on Congressional District 2 and pull out who we had to crank those letters out. And it gave

me the sense, I wonder, if we really know where our people are. Is that along the

same lines as what you are talking about?

I think medical records are even more complicated. I was just asking where the

people are, you know.

I mean, I used to work for IBM, and I understand the massive programming effort

that would be to put that kind of system together. Is that the sort of thing that

could be farmed out to a private company like IBM or something to build that personnel system, or is that something that we as a government or as a military are

equipped to do very well?

Are you familiar with the status of where that project is?

100

Ms. BRADSHAW. The Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System

(DIMHRS) will be a fully integrated, all-Service, all-Component, military personnel

and pay system that will support military personnel throughout their careers and

retirement—in peacetime and war.

When fully implemented, DIMHRS will provide better service to military personnel and their families, including a timely and accurate record of service and delivery

of compensation, benefits, and entitlements. DIMHRS will ensure the most efficient

use of human resources in the conduct of the military mission, including support

to the warfighter, and ensure visibility and accountability of military personnel to

authorized users, as well as provide timely and accurate human resources information to authorized users. The system will enhance the ability to put the right person

in the right place as quickly as possible (including acquisition and retention, as well

as assignment and deployment).

DIMHRS will ensure the accurate assignment and tracking of personnel. Services

and Components will know exactly what organization a Service member was associated with at any given point in time. For example, if a Reservist is called to active

duty, attached to a Continental United States Replacement Center, further attached

to a theater replacement activity, and attached to a unit within a theater of operations, DIMHRS will reflect the Service member’s status and organizational association throughout that period of service. DIMHRS will also reflect the Service member’s ‘‘home’’ organization (Reserve unit for Reservists) and all those ‘‘host’’ organizations to which the Service member is attached throughout the period of service.

DIMHRS has the capability of nested hosts, so temporary assignments and details

can be shown without losing visibility of primary home and host assignments. For

classified locations, DIMHRS will capture unit associations on at least a daily basis

and classified systems will track unit locations. DIMHRS will provide the ability to

link to the location (for purposes of determining exposures or other incidents)

through the unit. The full tracking capability requires the disconnected operations

capability for use in theater.

The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness developed and maintains the Military Personnel and Pay Standards that are the enterprise requirements for DIMHRS.

In December 2005, the Department of the Navy (DoN) transferred the DIMHRS

program acquisition to the Defense Business System Acquisition Executive under

the Department’s Business Transformation Agency.

The Defense Business Systems Management Committee chaired by the Deputy

Secretary of Defense, is closely tracking the DIMHRS progress through monthly updates. DIMHRS is currently undergoing System Integration Testing, and is programmed for deployment to the Army in October 2008, and deployment to the Air

Force in February 2009. The DoN is currently working with the Director for Program Analysis and Evaluation to determine a schedule for migration to DIMHRS.

When the DoN migration is complete, the Department will have a single military

personnel and pay system.

Additionally, the Department has created a temporary tracking system—called

the Contingency Tracking System (CTS) Deployment file. The CTS Deployment file

includes Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) data and is

updated monthly. It covers the entire OEF/OIF timeline from September 11, 2001

to the present. The file contains one record for every deployment location event submitted for each member. For the purposes of building this file, an OEF/OIF ‘‘deployment’’ is defined as a Service Member physically located within the OEF/OIF combat zone or area of operations, or specifically identified by his/her Service as ‘‘directly supporting’’ the OEF/OIF mission (i.e., United States Air Force Aircrew or

support personnel located outside the combat zone). A deployment must include a

specific begin date and end date, and will include the member’s location on specified

dates if provided by the Service. The contingency tracking system does not currently

include civilians or contractors.

Æ