MILITARY DISABILITY 

SYSTEM

Preliminary Observations 

on Efforts to Improve 

Performance 

Statement of Daniel Bertoni, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Veterans' 

Affairs, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

GAO-12-718T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-718T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 

U.S. Senate 

May 23, 2012 

MILITARY DISABILITY SYSTEM 

Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Improve

Performance

Why GAO Prepared This 

Testimony 

Since 2007, the DOD and VA have 

operated the IDES—which combines 

what used to be separate DOD and VA 

disability evaluation processes and is 

intended to expedite benefits for 

injured servicemembers. Initially a pilot 

at 3 military treatment facilities, IDES is 

now DOD’s standard process for 

evaluating servicemembers’ fitness for 

duty and disability worldwide. In 

previous reports, GAO identified a 

number of challenges as IDES 

expanded, including staffing shortages 

and difficulty meeting timeliness goals.

In this statement, GAO discusses 

initial observations from its ongoing 

review of the IDES, addressing two 

key topics: (1) the extent to which 

DOD and VA are meeting IDES 

timeliness and servicemember 

satisfaction performance goals, and 

(2) steps the agencies are taking to 

improve the performance of the 

system. To answer these questions, 

GAO analyzed IDES timeliness and 

customer satisfaction survey data, 

visited six IDES sites, and 

interviewed DOD and VA officials.

This work is ongoing and GAO has 

no recommendations at this time. 

GAO plans to issue its final report 

later in 2012.

What GAO Found

Case processing times under the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) 

process have increased over time, and measures of servicemember satisfaction 

have shortcomings. Each year, average processing time for IDES cases has 

climbed, reaching 394 and 420 days for active and reserve component members 

in fiscal year 2011—well over established goals of 295 and 305 days, 

respectively. Also in fiscal year 2011, just 19 percent of active duty 

servicemembers and 18 percent of guard or reserve members completed the 

IDES process and received benefits within established goals, down from 32 and 

37 percent one year prior. Of the four phases comprising IDES, the medical 

evaluation board phase increasingly fell short of timeliness goals and, within that 

phase, the time required for the military’s determination of fitness was especially 

troubling. During site visits to IDES locations, we consistently heard concerns 

about timeframes and resources for this phase of the process. With respect to 

servicemember satisfaction with the IDES process, GAO found shortcomings in 

how these data are collected and reported, such as unduly limiting who is eligible 

to receive a survey and computing average satisfaction scores in a manner that 

may overstate satisfaction. Department of Defense (DOD) officials told us they 

are considering alternatives for gauging satisfaction with the process.

Timeliness for IDES Cases Resulting in VA Benefits (by year case completed) 

DOD and Veterans Affairs (VA) have taken steps to improve IDES performance, 

and have other improvement initiatives in process, but progress is uneven and it 

is too early to assess their overall impact. VA increased resources for conducting 

disability ratings and related workloads. The Army is hiring additional staff for its 

medical evaluation boards, but it is too early to see the impact of these additional 

resources. DOD and VA are pursuing system upgrades so that staff and 

managers at IDES facilities can better track the progress of servicemembers’ 

cases and respond to delays more quickly; however, multiple upgrades may be 

causing redundant work efforts. DOD officials also told us they have been 

working with the military services to correct case data that were inaccurately 

entered into VA’s IDES tracking system, but have not yet achieved a permanent 

solution. Finally, DOD is in the early stages of conducting an in-depth business 

process review of the entire IDES process and supporting IT systems, in order to 

better understand how each step contributes to overall processing times and 

identify opportunities to streamline the process and supporting systems. 

View GAO-12-718T. For more information, 

contact Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-7215 or 

bertonid@gao.gov. 
 

Page 1 GAO-12-718T 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our preliminary observations on 

the efforts of the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs 

(VA) to integrate their disability evaluation systems. DOD and VA began 

piloting the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) in 2007 in 

response to concerns that wounded, ill, or injured servicemembers had to 

undergo two separate and complex disability assessments, and in order 

to expedite the delivery of benefits to servicemembers. As of October 1, 

2011, IDES had replaced the military services’ existing—or “legacy”—

disability evaluation systems for almost all new disability cases. GAO has

monitored the evolution of IDES since its pilot phase and our past work 

highlighted a number of challenges. For instance, we reported in 

December 2010 that insufficient staff and logistical challenges contributed 

to delays in completing IDES cases, and recommended the agencies take 

steps to ensure adequate staffing levels and develop a systematic 

process for monitoring caseloads.1

My statement today focuses on initial observations from our ongoing 

review for this committee and examines (1) the extent to which IDES is 

meeting performance goals and (2) DOD and VA efforts to improve its 

performance. To examine these issues, we analyzed IDES timeliness 

data from the Veterans Tracking Application (VTA)2 and customer 

satisfaction data collected from DOD surveys;

3 interviewed DOD and VA 

officials responsible for overseeing IDES; visited six military treatment 

facilities to speak with local military and VA staff who administer the 

program as well as servicemembers in the IDES process;

4

 

1

GAO, Military and Veterans Disability System: Pilot Has Achieved Some Goals, but 

Further Planning and Monitoring Needed, 

and reviewed 

supporting policies and plans. In our ongoing work, we will further review 

performance data and improvement plans in greater detail. We plan to 

issue our final report later in 2012. We conducted this performance audit 

GAO-11-69 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2010). 

2

VTA is a VA computer system that is used to track, among other things, the dates at 

which servicemembers complete the different stages of IDES.

3

We analyzed VTA cases and surveys completed from fiscal year 2008 (program’s 

inception) through fiscal year 2011. 

4

We visited facilities at Andrews Air Force Base, Bremerton Naval Hospital, Fort Hood, 

Fort Lewis, Fort Meade, and Fort Sam Houston.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-718T 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The IDES process begins at a military treatment facility when a physician 

identifies one or more medical conditions that may interfere with a 

servicemember’s ability to perform his or her duties. The process involves 

four main phases: the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), the Physical 

Evaluation Board (PEB), transition out of military service (transition), and 

VA benefits.

MEB phase: In this phase, medical examinations are conducted and 

decisions are made by the MEB regarding a servicemember’s ability to 

continue to serve in the military. This phase involves four stages: (1) the 

servicemember is counseled by a DOD board liaison on what to expect 

during the IDES process; (2) the servicemember is counseled by a VA 

caseworker on what to expect during the IDES process and medical 

exams are scheduled; (3) medical exams are conducted according to VA 

standards for exams for disability compensation, by VA, DOD, or 

contractor physicians; and (4) exam results are used by the MEB to 

identify conditions that limit the servicemember’s ability to serve in the 

military.5

PEB phase: In this subsequent phase, decisions are made about the 

servicemember’s fitness for duty, disability rating and DOD and VA 

disability benefits, and the servicemember has opportunities to appeal 

those decisions. This includes: (1) the informal PEB stage, an 

administrative review of the case file by the cognizant military branch’s 

PEB without the presence of the servicemember; (2) VA rating stage, 

where a VA rating specialist

Also during this stage, a servicemember dissatisfied with the 

MEB assessment of unfitting conditions can seek a rebuttal, or an 

informal medical review by a physician not on the MEB, or both.

6

 

5

This evaluation is based on the results of the medical exams, the member’s medical 

records, and input from the servicemember’s commanding officer.

prepares two ratings—one for the conditions 

6

The VA IDES rating sites are at the Baltimore, Maryland; Providence, Rhode Island; and 

Seattle, Washington regional offices.

Background
 

Page 3 GAO-12-718T 

that DOD determine made a servicemember unfit for duty, which DOD 

uses to provide military disability benefits, and the other for all serviceconnected disabilities, which VA uses to determine VA benefits.7 In 

addition, the servicemember has several opportunities to appeal different 

aspects of their disability evaluations: a servicemember dissatisfied with 

the decision on whether he or she is fit for duty may request a hearing 

with a “formal” PEB; a member who disagrees with the formal PEB fitness 

decision can, under certain conditions, appeal to the reviewing authority 

of the PEB;8

Transition phase: If the servicemember is found unfit to serve, he or she 

enters the transition phase and begins the process of separating from the 

military. During this time, the servicemember may take accrued leave. 

Also, DOD board liaisons and VA case managers provide counseling on 

available benefits and services, such as job assistance.

and a servicemember can ask for VA to reconsider its 

ratings decisions based on additional evidence, though only for conditions 

found to render the servicemember unfit for duty.

VA benefits phase: A servicemember found unfit and separated from 

service becomes a veteran and enters the VA benefits phase. VA 

finalizes its disability rating after receiving evidence of the 

servicemember’s date of separation from military service. VA then starts 

to award monthly disability compensation to the veteran.

DOD and VA established timeliness goals for the IDES process to provide 

VA benefits to active duty servicemembers within 295 days of being 

referred into the process, and to reserve component members within 305 

days (see fig. 1). DOD and VA also established interim timeliness goals 

for each phase and stage of the IDES process. These time frames are an 

improvement over the legacy disability evaluation system, which was 

estimated to take 540 days to complete. In addition to timeliness, DOD 

surveys servicemembers on their satisfaction at several points in the 

process, with a goal of having 80 percent of servicemembers satisfied.

 

7

VA determines the degree to which veterans are disabled in 10 percent increments on a 

scale of 0 to 100 percent. If VA finds that a veteran has one or more service-connected 

disabilities with a combined rating of at least 10 percent, the agency will pay monthly 

compensation.

8

The reviewing authorities of PEBs in the respective services are the Air Force Personnel 

Council, the Army Physical Disability Agency, and the Navy Council of Review Boards.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-718T 

Figure 1: Steps of the IDES Process and Timeliness Goals

a

DOD applies the 30-day goal for the VA benefits phase to some but not all reservists, depending on 

their active duty status. 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-718T 

b

DOD guidance allows 40 more days for reserve component members than for active duty members 

in completing the first two steps of the process, in to provide sufficient time for employer notification, 

establish orders for active duty, and compile medical records. However, DOD and VA’s goal for total 

IDES processing time is only 10 days longer for reserve component members than for active duty 

members because the VA benefit phase time of 30 days is not included in the 305 days for reserve 

component members. 

Enrollment in IDES continued to grow as IDES completed its worldwide 

expansion. In fiscal year 2011, 18,651 cases were enrolled in IDES 

compared to 4,155 in fiscal year 2009 (see fig 2). IDES caseload varies 

by service, but the Army manages the bulk of cases, accounting for 64 

percent of new cases in fiscal year 2011. Additionally, active duty 

servicemembers represent the majority of IDES cases, accounting for 88 

percent of new cases in fiscal year 2011.

Figure 2: New IDES Cases Enrolled and IDES Cases Completed by Fiscal Year

Note: Cases completed include those where servicemembers exited the IDES process, such as those 

who received benefits or returned to duty. 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-718T 

Overall IDES timeliness has steadily worsened since the inception of the 

program. Since fiscal year 2008, the average number of days for 

servicemembers cases to be processed and to receive benefits increased 

from 283 to 394 for active duty cases (compared to the goal of 295 days) 

and from 297 to 420 for reserve cases (compared to the goal of 305 days). 

Relatedly, the proportion of cases meeting timeliness goals decreased from 

more than 63 percent of active duty cases completed during fiscal year 2008 

to about 19 percent in fiscal year 2011 (see table 1).9

Table 1: Timeliness for IDES Cases Resulting in Receipt of VA Benefits

Fiscal year (of case completion) 2008 2009 2010 2011

Average processing time in days

Active duty (goal = 295) 283 313 357 394

Reserve/National Guard (goal = 305) 297 316 370 420

Percent of cases meeting timeliness goals

Active duty 63.4 50.2 31.6 18.8

Reserve/National Guard 65.0 51.7 37.2 18.0

Source: GAO analysis of DOD and VA data

Note: For purposes of this testimony, GAO opted to not include reserve component time spent in the 

VA benefit phase in our calculations for overall time because the 30 days allotted for this phase is not 

included in the 305days overall goal for the reserve component. 

 

9

Analyzing timeliness by year of case completion necessarily results in lower processing 

times in fiscal year 2008 because the IDES process began in fiscal year 2008 and only 

those cases that were resolved quickly would be included in the first year average 

processing time. We also analyzed case timeliness by year of enrollment, which generally 

showed the same overall trends in longer processing times and fewer cases meeting 

goals. Analyzing timeliness by year of enrollment generally results in lower processing 

times in fiscal year 2011 because only those cases that were resolved quickly would be 

included in the last year average processing time. 

IDES Processing 

Times Increased over 

Time, While Measures 

of Servicemember 

Satisfaction Have 

Shortcomings

Overall IDES CaseProcessing Times Steadily 

Increased Since the Start 

of IDES
 

Page 7 GAO-12-718T 

When examining timeliness across the four phases that make up IDES, 

data show that timeliness regularly fell short of interim goals for three—

MEB, Transition, and VA Benefits (see fig. 3). For example, for cases that 

completed the MEB phase in fiscal year 2011, active and reserve 

component members’ cases took on average of 181 and 188 days 

respectively to be processed, compared to goals of 100 and 140 days. 

For the PEB phase, processing times increased over time, but were still 

within established goals.

Figure 3: Average Processing Time for Each IDES Phase (in Days)

Note: Data shown are for servicemember cases that completed a phase in a particular year. For 

purposes of this testimony, we opted to not include reserve component time spent in the VA benefit 

phase in our calculations phase because this goal applies to some but not all reservists, depending 

on their active duty status. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-718T 

MEB phase: Significant delays have been occurring in completing 

medical examinations (medical exam stage) and delivering an MEB 

decision (the MEB stage). For cases completing the MEB phase in 2011, 

31 percent of active and 29 percent of reserve cases met the 45-day goal 

for the medical exam stage and 20 percent of active case and 17 percent 

of reserve cases met the 35-day goal for the MEB stage. Officials at some 

sites we visited told us that MEB phase goals were difficult to meet and 

not realistic given current resources. At all the facilities we visited, officials 

told us DOD board liaisons and VA case managers had large case loads. 

Similarly, some military officials noted that they did not have sufficient 

numbers of doctors to write the narrative summaries needed to complete 

the MEB stage in a timely manner. Monthly data produced by DOD 

subsequent to the data we analyzed show signs of improved timeliness 

for these two stages: for example, 71 percent of active cases met the goal 

for the medical exam stage and 43 percent met the goal for the MEB 

stage in the month of March 2012. However, it is too early to tell the 

extent to which these results will continue to hold. 

PEB phase: PEB processing times goals were also not met in fiscal year 

2011 for the informal PEB and VA rating stages. For cases that complete 

the PEB phase in fiscal year 2011, only 38 percent of active duty cases 

received an informal PEB decision within the 15 days allotted, and only 

32 percent received a preliminary VA rating within the 15-day goal. Also 

during this phase, the majority of time (75 out of the 120 days) is set 

aside for servicemembers to appeal decisions—including a formal PEB 

hearing or a reconsideration of the VA ratings. However, only 20 percent 

of cases completed in fiscal year 2011 actually had any appeals; calling 

into question DOD and VA’s assumption on the number of expected 

appeals and potentially masking processing delays in other mandatory 

parts of the PEB phase.

Transition phase: The transition phase has consistently taken longer than 

its 45-day goal—almost twice as long on average. While processing times 

improved slightly for cases that completed this phase in fiscal year 2011 

(from 79 days in 2010 to 76 days in fiscal year 2011 for active duty 

cases), timeliness has remained consistently problematic since fiscal year 

2008. DOD officials suggested that it is difficult to meet the goal for this 

phase because servicemembers are taking accrued leave—to which they 

are entitled—before separating from the service. For example, an Army 

official said that Army policy allows servicemembers to take up to 90 days 

of accrued leave prior to separating, and that average leave time was 

about 80 days. Although servicemember leave is skewing the 

performance data, officials said that they cannot easily back this time out 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-718T 

from their tracking system, but are exploring options for doing so, which 

would be more reflective of a servicemember’s actual total time spent in 

the evaluation process.

VA benefits phase: Processing time improved somewhat for the benefits 

phase (48 days in fiscal year 2010 to 38 days in fiscal year 2011), but 

continued to exceed the 30-day goal for active duty servicemembers.10

Several factors may contribute to delays in this final phase. VA officials 

told us that cases cannot be closed without the proper discharge forms 

and that obtaining these forms from the military services can sometimes 

be a challenge. Additionally, if data are missing from the IDES tracking 

system (e.g., the servicemember already separated, but this was not 

recorded in the database), processing time will continue to accrue for 

cases that remain open in the system. Officials could not provide data on 

the extent to which these factors had an impact on processing times for 

pending cases, but said that once errors are detected and addressed, 

reported processing times are also corrected.

In addition to timeliness, DOD and VA evaluate IDES performance using 

the results of servicemember satisfaction surveys. However, 

shortcomings in how DOD measures and reports satisfaction limit the 

usefulness of these data for making IDES management decisions.

• Response rates: Survey administration rules may unnecessarily 

exclude the views of some servicemembers. In principle, all members 

have an opportunity to complete satisfaction surveys at the end of the 

MEB, PEB, and transition phases; however, servicemembers become 

ineligible to complete a survey for either the PEB or transition phases 

if they did not complete a survey in an earlier phase. Additionally, by 

only surveying servicemembers who completed a phase, DOD may 

be missing opportunities to obtain input from servicemembers who 

exit IDES in the middle of a phase.

 

10DOD and VA did not set a goal for reserve component servicemembers.

Shortcomings in the 

Design and Administration 

of Servicemember Survey
 

Page 10 GAO-12-718T 

• Alternate measure shows lower satisfaction: DOD’s satisfaction 

measure is based on an average of responses to questions across 

satisfaction surveys. A servicemember is defined as satisfied if the 

average of his or her responses is above 3 on a 5-point scale, with 3 

denoting neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Using an alternate measure 

that defines servicemembers as satisfied only when all of their 

responses are 4 or above,11

In our ongoing work, we will continue to assess survey results and their 

usefulness for measuring performance. In the meantime, DOD is 

reconsidering alternatives for measuring satisfaction, but has yet to come 

to a decision. Officials already concluded that the survey, in its current 

form, is not a useful management tool for determining what changes are 

needed in IDES and said that it is expensive to administer—costing 

approximately $4.3 million in total since the start of the IDES pilot. DOD 

suspended the survey in December 2011 because of financial 

constraints, but officials told us they plan to resume collecting satisfaction 

data in fiscal year 2013.

GAO found satisfaction rates several 

times lower than DOD’s calculation. Whereas DOD’s calculation 

results in an overall satisfaction rate of about 67 percent since the 

inception of IDES, GAO’s alternate calculation resulted in a

satisfaction rate of about 24 percent. In our ongoing work, we will 

continue to analyze variation in satisfaction across servicemember 

cases using both DOD’s and GAO’s measures of satisfaction.

 

11Using DOD’s satisfaction measure, GAO found less than expected variation in 

satisfaction over time and across key case characteristics, such as component, military 

branch, final rating and final disposition. To better understand factors that may drive 

servicemember satisfaction, GAO eliminated neutral responses to arrive at a measure that 

more strongly reflects satisfaction and might be more sensitive indicator of factors 

affecting satisfaction for performance management purposes. This is a more conservative 

measure of satisfaction, because it rules out the possibility that a servicemember is called 

“satisfied” even when he or she is dissatisfied on a large number of questions in the scale. 

Our measure is an important complement to DOD’s scale, which can mask pockets of 

servicemember dissatisfaction. Nevertheless, the inverse of our measure should not be 

read as a higher level of dissatisfaction.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-718T 

DOD and VA have undertaken a number of actions to address IDES 

challenges—many of which GAO identified in past work. Some actions—

such as increased oversight and staffing—represent important steps in 

the right direction, but progress is uneven in some areas.

• Increased monitoring and oversight: GAO identified the need for 

agency leadership to provide continuous oversight of IDES in 2008, 

and reported the need for system-wide monitoring mechanisms in 

2010. Since then, agency leadership has established mechanisms to 

improve communication, monitoring, and accountability. The 

secretaries of DOD and VA have met several times since February 

2011 to discuss progress in improving IDES timeliness and have 

tasked their agencies to find ways of streamlining the process so that 

the goals can be reduced. Further, senior Army and Navy officials 

regularly hold conferences to assess performance and address 

performance issues, including at specific facilities. For instance, the 

Army’s meetings are led by its vice-chief of staff and VA’s chief of 

staff, and include reviews of performance where regional and local 

facility commanders provide feedback on best practices and 

challenges. Further, VA holds its own biweekly conferences with local 

staff responsible for VA’s portion of the process. For example, officials 

said a recent conference addressed delays at one Army IDES site 

and discussed how they could be addressed. VA officials noted that 

examiner staff were reassigned to this site and examiners worked on 

weekends to address the exam problems at this site.

• Increased staffing for MEB and VA rating: In 2010, we identified 

challenges with having sufficient staff in a number of key positions, 

including DOD board liaisons and MEB physicians. DOD and VA are 

working to address staffing challenges in some of the IDES processes 

that are most delayed. The Army is in the midst of a major hiring 

initiative to more than double staffing for its MEBs over its October 

Recent Actions and 

Ongoing Initiatives 

May Improve IDES 

Performance, but It Is 

Too Early to Assess 

Their Overall Impact

DOD and VA Took Steps to 

Address Previously 

Identified IDES Challenges
 

Page 12 GAO-12-718T 

2011 level, which will include additional board liaison and MEB 

physician positions. The Army also plans to hire contact 

representatives to assist board liaisons with clerical functions, freeing 

more of the liaisons’ time for counseling servicemembers. 

Additionally, VA officials said that the agency has more than tripled 

the staffing of its IDES rating sites to handle the demand for 

preliminary ratings, rating reconsiderations, and final benefit 

decisions.

• Resolving diagnostic differences: In our December 2010 report, we 

identified differences between DOD physicians and VA examiners, 

especially regarding mental health conditions, as a potential source of 

delay in IDES. We also noted inconsistencies among services in 

providing guidance and a lack of a tracking mechanism for 

determining the extent of diagnostic differences. In response to our 

recommendation, DOD commissioned a study on the subject. The 

resulting report confirmed the lack of data on the extent and nature of 

such differences, and that the Army has established guidance more 

comprehensive than guidance DOD was developing on how to 

address diagnostic differences, and recommended that DOD or the 

other services develop similar guidance. A DOD official told us that 

consistent guidance across the services, similar to the Army’s, was 

included in DOD’s December 2011 IDES manual. Also, in response to 

our recommendation, VA plans to modify the VTA database used to 

track IDES to collect this information on cases, although the upgrade 

has been delayed several times.

DOD has other actions underway, including efforts to improve sufficiency 

of VA examinations, MEB written summaries and reserve component 

records. We plan to review the status of these efforts as part of our 

ongoing work, which we anticipate completing later in 2012.

DOD and VA are working to address shortcomings in information systems 

that support the IDES process, although some efforts are still in progress 

and efforts to date are limited.

• Improving local IDES reporting capability: DOD and VA are 

implementing solutions to improve the ability of local military treatment 

facilities to track their IDES cases, but multiple solutions may result in 

redundant work efforts. Officials told us that the VTA—which is the 

primary means of tracking the completion of IDES cases—has limited 

reporting capabilities and staff at local facilities are unable to use it for 

monitoring the cases for which they are responsible. DOD and VA 

DOD and VA Are Working 

on Shortcomings in 

Information Systems, 

but Efforts to Date Are 

Limited
 

Page 13 GAO-12-718T 

have been developing improvements to VTA that will allow board 

liaisons and VA case managers to track the status of their cases. VA 

plans to include these improvements in the next VTA upgrade, 

currently scheduled for June 2012. In the meantime, staff at many 

IDES sites have been using their own local systems to track cases 

and alleviate limitations in VTA. Further, the military services have 

been moving ahead with their own solutions. For instance, the Army 

has deployed its own information system for MEBs and PEBs Armywide. Meanwhile, DOD has also been piloting its own tracking system 

at 9 IDES sites.12

• Improving IDES data quality: DOD is taking steps to improve the 

quality of data in VTA. Our analysis of VTA data identified erroneous 

or missing dates in at least 4 percent of the cases reviewed. Officials 

told us that VTA lacks adequate controls to prevent erroneous data 

entry, and that incorrect dates may be entered, or dates may not be 

entered at all, which can result in inaccurate timeliness data. In 

September 2011, DOD began a focused effort with the services to 

correct erroneous and missing case data in VTA. Officials noted that 

the Air Force and Navy completed substantial efforts to correct the 

issues identified at that time, but Army efforts continue. While 

improved local tracking and reporting capabilities will help facilities 

identify and correct erroneous data, keeping VTA data accurate will 

be an ongoing challenge due to a lack of data entry controls.

As a result, staff at IDES sites we visited reported 

having to enter the same data into multiple systems.

DOD and VA are also pursuing options to allow the electronic transfer of 

case files between facilities. We are reviewing the status of this effort as 

part of our ongoing work.

Based on concerns from the agencies’ secretaries about IDES delays, 

DOD and VA have undertaken initiatives to achieve time savings for 

servicemembers. The agencies have begun a business process review to 

better understand how IDES is operating and identify best practices for 

possible piloting. This review incorporates several efforts, including,

 

12 A DOD official told us that based on recent negative feedback, DOD is considering 

cancelling this pilot project.

DOD and VA are Pursuing 

Broader Solutions to 

Improve IDES 

Performance
 

Page 14 GAO-12-718T 

• Process simulation model: Using data from site visits and VTA, DOD 

is developing a simulation model of the IDES process. According to a 

DOD official, this process model will allow the agencies to assess the 

impact of potential situations or changes on IDES processing times, 

such as surges in workloads or changes in staffing.

• Fusion diagram: DOD is developing this diagram to identify the 

various sources of IDES data—including VA claim forms and narrative 

summaries—and different information technology systems that play a 

role in supporting the IDES process. Officials said this diagram would 

allow them to better understand and identify overlaps and gaps in 

data systems.

Ultimately, according to DOD officials, this business process review could 

lead to short- and long-term recommendations to improve IDES 

performance, potentially including changes to the different steps in the 

IDES process, performance goals, and staffing levels; and possibly the 

procurement of a new information system to support process 

improvements. However, a DOD official noted that these efforts are in 

their early stages, and thus there is no timetable yet for completing the 

review or providing recommendations to senior DOD and VA leadership.

By merging two duplicative disability evaluation systems, IDES has 

shown promise for expediting the delivery of DOD and VA benefits to 

injured servicemembers and is considered by many to be an 

improvement over the legacy process it replaced. However, nearly 5 

years after its inception as a pilot, delays continue to affect the system 

and their causes are not yet fully understood. Recent initiatives to better 

understand factors that lead to delays and remedy them are promising, 

however it remains to be seen what their effect will be. Given the 

persistent nature of IDES performance challenges, continued attention 

from senior agency leadership will be critical to ensure that delays are 

understood and remedied.

Concluding 

Observations
 

Page 15 GAO-12-718T 

We have draft recommendations aimed at helping DOD and VA further 

address challenges we identified, which we plan to finalize in our 

forthcoming report after fully considering both DOD and VA’s comments.

Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Burr, this concludes my prepared 

statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or 

other Members of the Committee may have at this time.

For further information about this testimony, please contact Daniel Bertoni 

at (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. In addition to the individual named above, key 

contributors to this statement include Michele Grgich, Daniel Concepcion, 

Melissa Jaynes, and Greg Whitney. James Bennett, Joanna Chan, 

Douglas Sloane, Vanessa Taylor, Jeff Tessin, Roger Thomas, Walter 

Vance, Kathleen van Gelder, and Sonya Vartivarian provided key support.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(131179)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.