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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34-385 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–35

VA CLAIMS ADJUDICATION

AND APPEALS PROCESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 7, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JON TESTER, Montana 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Ranking Member 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

WILLIAM E. BREW, Staff Director 

LUPE WISSEL, Republican Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 7, 2007

SENATORS 

Page 

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., Chairman, U.S. Senator from Hawaii ........................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

Craig, Hon. Larry E., Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from Idaho ..................... 72

Charts: 

Fiscal Year 1997 to Fiscal Year 2008 Compensation and Pension 

Staffing ................................................................................................... 74

Options for Fundamental Reform ............................................................ 76

Rockefeller, Hon. John D., IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia ........................ 77

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana ...................................................... 78

Webb, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Virginia ........................................................ 79

Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from Illinois .................................................. 89

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91

WITNESSES 

Cooper, Hon. Daniel L., Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs; accompanied by Michael Walcoff, Associate Deputy Under 

Secretary for Field Operations; and Jack McCoy, Associate Deputy Under 

Secretary for Policy and Program Management ................................................ 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Response to written questions submitted by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Akaka ............................................................................... 11

Hon. Barack Obama .................................................................................. 50

Hon. Larry E. Craig .................................................................................. 51

Terry, Hon. James P., Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals; accompanied 

by Ron Garvin, Vice Chairman; and Steve Keller, Senior Deputy Vice 

Chairman .............................................................................................................. 54

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58

Response to written questions submitted by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Akaka ............................................................................... 61

Hon. Barack Obama .................................................................................. 63

Hon. Larry E. Craig .................................................................................. 69

Bertoni, Daniel, Acting Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security, 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 98

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 100

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Barack Obama .............. 113

Rowan, John, National President, Vietnam Veterans of America ....................... 113

Surratt, Rick, Deputy National Legislative Director, Disabled American

Veterans ................................................................................................................ 115

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 116

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Barack Obama .............. 127

(1)

VA CLAIMS ADJUDICATION

AND APPEALS PROCESS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in room 

SR–418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka, Rockefeller, Obama, Tester, Webb, and 

Craig. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Chairman AKAKA. This hearing of the Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs will come to order. Aloha and welcome to all of you. I am 

pleased that all of you can join us for today’s hearing on the VA 

adjudication process. 

Today’s hearing will address a matter that has been an ongoing 

concern to this Committee and our Nation’s veterans for many, 

many years: the timeliness and accuracy of the adjudication of veterans’ disability claims. 

In the last Congress, Chairman Craig held two hearings on the 

topic. While the Veterans Benefits Administration and the Board 

of Veterans’ Appeals have made strides in recent years to make the 

claims adjudication operation more efficient and productive, we 

must admit that much work still needs to be done. 

This year, GAO has once again designated VA’s disability program as a high-risk area and in need of broad reform. Recent news 

stories, including most prominently a recent story in Newsweek

magazine, have highlighted some of these shortcomings and contributed to the public perception that VA is failing to meet its obligations to our Nation’s veterans. 

The costs of caring for our veterans must be understood by Congress and the Administration as nothing short of an ongoing cost 

of war. Although the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget request 

is a step in the right direction, it does not provide enough resources 

for adjudication personnel. As the veterans population continues to 

age and disabled veterans return home from Iraq and Afghanistan, 

VBA’s workload will continue to increase in the coming years. 

The time it takes to process a disability claim continues to be a 

matter of concern. While progress has been made in recent years, 

VBA remains nearly 2 months short of reaching its strategic goal 

of 125 days to process a claim. The majority Members of the ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\RD41451\DOCS\34385.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
2

mittee recommended an additional $40 million for VBA field offices 

and an additional $3.7 million for VBA above the President’s budget request to hire new staff. We also endorsed increased funding for 

VA’s training initiatives. 

I am interested in hearing from Admiral Cooper about VBA’s 

new policy of prioritizing claims from veterans of the Global War 

on Terror. I, again, thank you for being here today. I look forward 

to this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Aloha and welcome to all. I am pleased that you can join us for today’s oversight 

hearing on the VA adjudication process. I look forward to having a constructive conversation with Admiral Cooper, Chairman Terry and our other witnesses. 

Today’s hearing will address a matter that has been an ongoing concern to this 

Committee and our Nation’s veterans for many years—the timeliness and accuracy 

of the adjudication of veterans’ disability claims. In the last Congress, Chairman 

Craig held two hearings on the topic. 

While the Veterans Benefits Administration and the Board of Veterans’ Appeal 

have made strides in recent years to make the claims adjudication operation more 

efficient and productive, much work still needs to be done. This year GAO has once 

again designated VA’s disability program as a ‘‘high risk area’’ in need of broad reform. 

Recent news stories, including, most prominently, a recent cover story in Newsweek magazine, have highlighted some of these shortcomings and contributed to the 

public perception that VA is failing to meet its obligations to our Nation’s veterans. 

I am confident that the VA is fully committed to its mission, but there are areas 

where improvements must be made in order to better serve our veterans and restore 

the Nation’s faith in the institutions charged with caring for them. 

The cost of caring for our veterans must be understood by Congress and the Administration as nothing short of an ongoing cost of war. Although the President’s 

Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request is a step in the right direction, it does not provide 

enough resources for adjudication personnel. We must ensure that sufficient funding 

is available to provide veterans with timely and accurate responses to their claims. 

As the veterans’ population continues to age and disabled veterans return home 

from Iraq and Afghanistan, VBA’s workload will continue to increase in the coming 

years. Nevertheless, VA predicts that the number of new receipts will essentially 

flatline in Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. I am concerned that this projection may underestimate VBA’s workload. The most recent numbers indicate that through the 

first quarter of Fiscal Year 2007, VA has received 8 percent more claims than expected. Without prompt action, we will fail to keep our promise to provide timely 

and accurate decisions to veterans. 

The time necessary to process a disability claim continues to be a matter of concern. While progress has been made in recent years, VBA remains nearly 2 months 

short of reaching its strategic goal of 125 days to process a claim. VA must find innovative ways to absorb the burdens of new legislation and court decisions, as well 

as the increasing complexity of claims filed. 

The Democratic and Independent Members of the Committee recommended an additional $40 million for VBA field offices and an additional $3.7 million for BVA 

above the President’s budget request to hire new staff. We also endorsed increased 

funding for VA’s training initiatives. It takes approximately two years before a new 

hire fully contributes to the bottom line. Thus, proper funding and infrastructure 

for training must be in place before VBA finds itself dealing with an unexpected increase in its workload volume. We hope that these increases for staffing and training will be included in the Budget Resolution. 

I am interested in hearing from Admiral Cooper and Mr. Terry on their plans to 

tackle both immediate and future challenges. I am particularly interested in hearing 

from Admiral Cooper about VBA’s new policy of prioritizing claims from veterans 

of the Global War on Terror. How will this plan be implemented, and what impact 

it will have on claims process management at the regional office level? I am encouraged to hear that VA is committed to serving our veterans who have just returned 

from the battlefield, but we must also ensure that this policy does not adversely affect veterans of prior wars. 

I again thank you for being here today. I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony.

3

Chairman AKAKA. This is going to be a busy morning. Members 

are in other Committees at this moment, and they will be coming 

in as they come from other Committees. There will be votes as 

well. However, we will continue with the hearing. At this time I 

would like to call on Admiral Cooper for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL L. COOPER, UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;

ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL WALCOFF, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR FIELD OPERATIONS; AND JACK 

McCOY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR

POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is my pleasure to 

be here today to discuss the Disability Compensation Program. I 

am pleased to be accompanied by Mr. Michael Walcoff, who is 

VBA’s Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, and 

Mr. Jack McCoy, the Associate Deputy for Policy and Program 

Management. And I will allow Judge Terry to introduce his particular people. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration is responsible for administering a wide range of benefits and services for veterans, their 

families, and their survivors. The heart of our mission is the Disability Compensation Program. 

In 2006, we produced over 774,000 disability determinations. We 

also performed more than 2 million decision actions of all types to 

address new claims and to maintain those already on the rolls. Additionally, we handled over 6.6 million phone calls, conducted over 

a million interviews, briefed more than 390,000 service personnel, 

and conducted 65,000 hours of outreach to military members, 

former prisoners of war, homeless, minorities, women, and other 

targeted groups. 

Today I will try to discuss the challenges we face in providing 

timely, accurate, and consistent determinations for veterans’ claims 

for disability compensation. I will also discuss some of the actions 

we are taking. 

The number of veterans filing initial disability compensation 

claims and claims for additional benefits has increased every year 

since 2000. Disability claims from veterans of all eras increased 

from 578,700 in 2000 to 806,300 in 2006. Comparing those 2 years, 

2000 and 2006, this represents an increase of 228,000 claims a 

year, or 38 percent. 

Among the most important factors leading to the sustained high 

levels of claims activity are: Operations OIF and OEF, the present 

War on Terror; our increased and extensive outreach that we do; 

and the additional beneficiaries on the rolls who come in for additional claims and adjustments to their claims. 

The absolute increase in claims is not the only change affecting 

the claims processing environment. As stated in the recent GAO report, the great number of disabilities that the average veteran now 

identifies, the increasing complexity of the disabilities that we see, 

and the changes in law and processes are additional challenges to 

the claims processing workload. The trend toward increasingly 

4

complex and difficult-to-rate claims is expected to continue for the 

foreseeable future. 

A significant portion of our workload comes from appeals of regional office decisions, remands from the board and from the court. 

A large portion of the work that we do, however, is in account 

maintenance activities for such things as dependency adjustments, 

death pension awards, income adjustments. As the overall claims 

increase, so do appellate and non-rating-related workloads. 

To ensure accurate benefit decisions given the increases in both 

volume and complexity of the workload, we have established an aggressive and comprehensive program of quality assurance and oversight to assess compliance with VBA claims processing policy and 

procedures and to assure consistent application. Our quality over 

these last 5 years has improved approximately 8 to 9 percent. 

It is critical that our employees receive the essential guidance, 

materials, and tools to meet the ever-changing and increasingly 

complex workload. The frequent changes in the benefits programs 

require that we have good, stable training. To that end, VBA has 

deployed new training tools and centralized training programs. We 

have standardized computer-based tools that we use for which each 

of our people has access. And, in addition, we have a mandatory 

cycle of training for all Veterans Service Center employees that has 

been developed consisting of 80 hours a year for their training. 

To balance the inventory of disability claims across regional offices, we execute a ‘‘brokering’’ strategy in which rating claims are 

sent from those stations with high inventories to other stations 

with available capacity to process additional rating work. 

Brokering allows the organization to address simultaneously the 

local and the national inventory by maximizing the use of those 

available resources. 

The consolidation of specialized processing operations to provide 

better and more consistent decisions is one of the acts that we have 

taken. Some of our consolidation efforts include establishment of 

the Pension Maintenance Centers at three sites; the Tiger Team 

that we have in Cleveland for veterans who are over 70 years old 

with claims pending of over a year; the Appeals Management center here in Washington, which takes the remands from the court. 

We have the Benefits Delivery at Discharge Program which has got 

into full functioning this year, and we have centralized all radiation claims in one specific regional office. 

We are aggressively pursuing measures to decrease the pending 

inventory of disability claims and to shorten the time the veterans 

must wait, but our pending inventory right now is about 400,000 

claims, and the average processing time—that is, time to complete—is about 175 days. 

We are increasing staffing levels to reduce the pending inventory 

and to provide the level of service expected by the American people 

and our veterans. We began aggressively hiring additional staff in 

Fiscal Year 2006. We have increased the onboard strength between 

January of 2006 and January of 2007 by 580 employees. With a 

workforce that is sufficiently large, correctly balanced, and properly 

trained, VBA can successfully meet the needs of our veterans. 

We will continue to accelerate hiring and fund additional training necessary for this new staff this fiscal year. 

5

Since the onset of the combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, VBA has worked hard to expedite and case-manage services 

for those seriously injured Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom 

veterans and their families. This individualized service begins at 

the military medical facilities where the injured servicemembers 

return for treatment and continues as these servicemembers are 

medically separated and enter the VA medical care and benefits 

systems. We assign special benefits counselors, social workers, and 

case managers to work with these veterans and their families 

throughout the transition and to help ensure expedited delivery of 

benefits. 

Last month, the Secretary directed that we start a new initiative 

to provide priority processing of all OIF/OEF veterans’ disability 

claims. This will allow all of these brave men and women returning 

from the OIF/OEF theaters who were not seriously injured but 

who, nevertheless, have a disability incurred or aggravated during 

their military service to enter the VA system and begin receiving 

disability benefits as soon as possible after separation. 

Last month, we began processing all disability compensation and 

pension claims received from OIF/OEF veterans on a priority basis. 

Through these initiatives, VBA will address the challenges facing 

our organization and continue to improve claims processing. We 

will continue to assess our policies, processes, and approaches to 

take advantage of any improvement opportunities we can identify 

and to ensure that we are achieving the desired performance outcomes. It is vital that we improve production, but we must ensure 

that we maintain and continue to improve quality and consistency. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I greatly appreciate 

the chance to be here before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL L. COOPER, UNDER SECRETARY

FOR BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my pleasure to be here today 

to discuss the Disability Compensation Program. I am pleased to be accompanied 

by Mr. Michael Walcoff, VBA’s Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, and Mr. Jack McCoy, VBA’s Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy 

and Program Management. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is responsible for administering a 

wide range of benefits and services for veterans, their families, and their survivors. 

We manage a life insurance program that consistently ranks among the best in the 

Nation. We promote home ownership through the loan guaranty program and help 

veterans and their dependents seek greater education and economic opportunities 

through the highly successful Montgomery GI Bill program and other educational 

programs. For qualifying veterans with disabilities, our Vocational Rehabilitation 

and Employment Program provides both rehabilitation and training and assists 

them in reentering the civilian workforce. We are proud of our achievements in all 

these vital areas. 

The heart of our mission is the Disability Compensation Program. In Fiscal Year 

2006, we produced over 774,000 disability determinations. We also performed more 

than two million decision actions of all types to address new claims and to maintain 

those already on the rolls. Additionally, we handled over 6.6 million phone calls; 

conducted over a million interviews; briefed more than 390,000 service persons; and 

conducted nearly 65,000 hours of outreach to military members, former prisoners of 

war, homeless, minorities, women, and other targeted groups. 

Today, I will discuss the challenges we face in providing timely, accurate, and consistent determinations on veterans’ claims for disability compensation. These challenges include the growth of the disability claims workload, the increasingly complex nature of that workload, the rise in appellate processing, and the absolute need 

to produce accurate benefit decisions. I will also discuss some of the actions we are 

6

taking to improve claims processing. We view these efforts as opportunities to 

achieve greater processing efficiencies and, thus, to enhance service to veterans. 

GROWTH OF DISABILITY CLAIMS WORKLOAD

The number of veterans filing initial disability compensation claims and claims 

for increased benefits has increased every year since Fiscal Year 2000. Disability 

claims from returning Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans as well as from veterans 

of earlier periods of war increased from 578,773 in Fiscal Year 2000 to 806,382 in 

Fiscal Year 2006. For Fiscal Year 2006 alone, this represents an increase of nearly 

228,000 claims or 38 percent over the 2000 base year. It is expected that this high 

level of claims activity will continue over the next 5 years. 

The primary factors leading to the sustained high levels of claims activity are: Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF); more beneficiaries on the rolls, with resulting additional claims for increased benefits; improved and expanded outreach to active-duty servicemembers, Guard and Reserve 

personnel, survivors, and veterans of earlier conflicts; and implementation of Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) and Concurrent Disability and Retired 

Pay (CDRP) programs by the Department of Defense (DOD). 

Ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq are expected to continue to increase 

the VA compensation workload. Earlier studies by VA indicate that the most significant indicator of new claims activity is the size of the active force. Over 1.45 million 

active-duty servicemembers, members of the National Guard, and reservists have 

thus far been deployed in the Global War on Terrorism. Over 685,000 have returned 

and been discharged. 

Whether deployed to foreign-duty stations or maintaining security in the United 

States, the authorized size of the active force as well as the mobilization of thousands of citizen soldiers means that the size of the force on active duty has significantly increased. The claims rate for veterans of the Gulf War Era, which began 

in 1991 and includes veterans who are currently serving in Operations Enduring 

Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, is significant. Veterans and survivors of the Gulf War 

Era currently comprise the second largest population of veterans receiving benefits 

after Vietnam Era veterans. 

The number of veterans receiving compensation has increased by almost 400,000 

since 2000—from just over 2.3 million veterans to nearly 2.7 million in 2006. This 

increased number of compensation recipients, many of whom suffer from chronic 

progressive disabilities such as diabetes, mental illness, and cardiovascular disabilities, will continue to stimulate more claims for increased benefits in the coming 

years as these veterans age and their conditions worsen. Reopened disability compensation claims currently comprise 54 percent of VBA’s disability claims receipts. 

Additionally, an increase in claimants and beneficiaries on the rolls has a direct 

relationship to the workload in the public contact area of telephone interviews, personal interviews, and correspondence, including electronic correspondence. Veterans 

Service Center employees in the regional offices last year conducted over six million 

telephone interviews and one million personal interviews. 

VA is committed to increased outreach efforts to active-duty personnel. These outreach efforts result in significantly higher claims rates. Original claim receipts increased from 111,672 in Fiscal Year 2000 to 217,343 in Fiscal Year 2006—a 95 percent increase. We believe this increase is directly related to our aggressive outreach 

programs; we believe this increasing trend will continue. 

Separating military personnel can receive enhanced services through our Benefits 

Delivery at Discharge (BDD) Program. On either a permanent or itinerant basis, 

VBA staff members are stationed at 140 military discharge points around the Nation, as well as in Korea and Germany. Additionally, VBA employees conduct transition assistance briefings in Germany, Italy, Korea, England, Japan, Okinawa, and 

Spain, and occasionally aboard ship as servicemembers return to the United States. 

Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC), a benefit available from DOD for 

certain military retirees with specific qualifying combat-related disabilities defined 

by statute, became effective July 1, 2003, and was later expanded effective January 

1, 2004. Today, more than 54,000 military retirees receive this benefit. This benefit 

and Concurrent Retired and Disability Pay (CRDP), another DOD program that permits partial to total restoration of retired pay previously waived to receive VA compensation, further contribute to increased claims activity for VBA. 

It is now potentially advantageous for the majority of our military retirees, even 

those with relatively minor disabilities, to file claims with VA and to receive VA disability compensation, since their waived retired pay may be restored and not be subject to waiver in the future. Approximately 194,000 retirees receive CRDP. The 

number of military retirees receiving VA compensation has increased since the adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\34385.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
7

vent of these programs to over 840,000. There is also now significant incentive for 

retirees receiving compensation to file claims for increased VA benefits, as the increased amounts may also no longer be subject to offset. The total number of retirees as of the end of Fiscal Year 2006 was approximately two million, meaning that 

over 40 percent of all U.S. military retirees now receive VA benefits. 

COMPLEXITY OF CLAIMS PROCESSING WORKLOAD

The increase in claims receipts is not the only change affecting the claims processing environment. The greater number of disabilities veterans now claim, the increasing complexity of the disabilities being claimed, and the changes in law and 

processes pose additional challenges to the claims processing workload. The trend 

toward increasingly complex and difficult-to-rate claims is expected to continue for 

the foreseeable future. 

A claim becomes more complex as the number of directly claimed conditions 

(issues) increases because of the larger number of variables that must be considered 

and addressed. Multiple regulations, multiple sources of evidence, and multiple potential effective dates and presumptive periods must be considered. The effect of 

these factors increases proportionately and sometimes exponentially as the number 

of claimed conditions increases. Additionally, as the number of claimed conditions 

increases, the potential for additional unclaimed but secondary, aggravated, and inferred issues increases as well, further complicating the preparation of adequate and 

comprehensive Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) notice and rating 

decisions. Since veterans are able to appeal decisions on specific disabilities to the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), the increasing number of claimed conditions significantly increases the potential for appeal. 

VA’s experience since 2000 demonstrates that the trend of increasing numbers of 

conditions claimed is system-wide, not just at special intake locations such as BDD 

sites. The number of cases with eight or more disabilities claimed increased from 

21,814 in Fiscal Year 2000 to 51,260 in Fiscal Year 2006, representing a 135 percent 

increase over the 2000 base year and a 15 percent increase over Fiscal Year 2005. 

Combat and deployment of U.S. Forces to underdeveloped regions of the world 

have resulted in new and complex disability claims based on environmental and infectious risks, traumatic brain injuries, complex combat injuries involving multiple 

body systems, concerns about vaccinations, and other variabilities. 

In addition, the aging of the veteran population that is service connected for diabetes adds to the complexity of claimed disabilities. Approximately 253,000 veterans 

are service connected for diabetes, with more than 220,000 of these awards based 

upon the presumption of herbicide exposure in Vietnam. As veterans with diabetes 

reach and move past the 10-year point since the initial diagnosis, additional secondary conditions tend to become manifest. VA has already begun seeing increasingly complex medical cases involving neuropathies, vision problems, cardiovascular 

problems, and other issues directly related to diabetes. If secondary conditions are 

not specifically claimed by a veteran, the rating specialist must be alert to identify 

them. This increasing complexity of the disabilities adds to the increased difficulty 

of our workload and the resources needed to adequately process it. 

The number of veterans submitting claims for post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD) has grown dramatically and contributed to increased complexity in claims 

processing. From Fiscal Year 2000 through Fiscal Year 2006, the number of veterans receiving compensation for PTSD has increased from more than 130,000 to 

nearly 270,000. These cases present unique processing requirements to obtain the 

evidence needed to substantiate the event causing the stress disorder. 

The Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) has significantly increased both the 

length of time and the specific requirements of claims development. VA’s notification 

and development duties increased as a result of VCAA, adding more steps to the 

claims process and lengthening the time it takes to develop and decide a claim. 

Since enactment, we are required to review the claims at additional points in the 

decision process. Mistakes due to failure to address all issues or an incomplete understanding of the claim when initially developed have resulted in significant rework and remands from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 

VCAA requires VA to provide written notice to claimants of the evidence required 

to substantiate a claim and of which party (VA or the claimant) is responsible for 

acquiring that evidence. Under VCAA, VA’s ‘‘duty to assist’’ the claimant in perfecting and successfully prosecuting his or her claim extends to obtaining government records, assisting with getting private records, and obtaining all necessary 

8

medical examinations and medical opinions. As a claim progresses, additional notifications to the veteran may be required. 

APPELLATE AND NON-RATING WORKLOAD

A significant portion of VBA’s workload comes from appeals of regional office decisions, remands by the Board and the CAVC, and account maintenance activities for 

beneficiaries already receiving benefits. As overall claim receipts increase, so do appellate and non-rating related workloads. 

As VBA renders more disability decisions, a natural outcome of that process is 

more appeals filed by veterans and survivors who disagree with some part of the 

decision made in their case. Veterans can appeal decisions denying service connection for any conditions claimed. They may also appeal the effective date of an award 

and the evaluation assigned to a disability. 

Appeals of regional office decisions and remands by the Board and the CAVC following appeal are some of the most challenging types of cases to process because 

of their complexity and the growing body of evidence necessary to process these 

claims. In recent years, the appeal rate on disability determinations has climbed 

from an historical rate prior to 2000 of approximately 7 percent of all disability decisions to the current rate of 11 percent. There are more than 130,000 appeals now 

pending in the regional offices and the Appeals Management Center. This number 

includes cases requiring processing prior to transfer of the appeal to the Board and 

cases remanded by the Board and the CAVC following an appeal. There are over 

30,000 additional appeals pending at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

In 2006, VA completed over two million award actions of all types. Of that number, more than 774,000 were award actions in connection with disability rating decisions, and the remaining were associated with account maintenance (dependency 

adjustments, death pension awards, income adjustments, etc.). The number of veterans on our rolls has increased by nearly 400,000 in recent years, and the total 

number of veterans and survivors on our rolls is now over 3.6 million. The combination of the higher number of beneficiaries presently on our rolls and the sustained 

and projected high levels of new claims activity will result in continued growth in 

account maintenance activities. 

CLAIMS PROCESSING IMPROVEMENT (CPI) MODEL

A product of the VA Claims Processing Task Force, established by former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi, was the implementation of the 

Claims Processing Improvement (CPI) model. The CPI implementation established 

consistent organizational structure and work processes across all regional offices. 

Work processes were reengineered and specialized teams established to reduce the 

number of tasks performed by individual decisionmakers, establish consistency in 

work flow and process, and incorporate a triage approach to incoming claims. 

We continually review the CPI model based upon feedback from regional offices, 

the needs of the organization, and the timeliness and quality improvements we 

seek. The changing workload and workforce have necessitated a review of the model 

to ensure the most effective method of organizing work and resources to maximize 

performance. The CPI Model Task Force was assembled in January 2006 to reevaluate the CPI model to assess its overall effectiveness and improve consistency and 

efficiency in claims processing. The CPI Task Force solicited recommendations and 

rationale for changes to the CPI model from all regional office leadership. Interviews 

with field station management, reviews of recent site-visit reports and CPI deviation 

requests, and analyses of other pertinent documents were conducted. The final recommendations of the Task Force are currently being studied in pilot programs at 

select regional offices. 

CLAIMS PROCESSING ACCURACY

To ensure accurate benefit decisions, given the increases in volume and complexity of the workload, we have established an aggressive and comprehensive program of quality assurance and oversight to assess compliance with VBA claims processing policy and procedures and assure consistent application. 

The Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) program includes review of 

work in three areas: rating accuracy, authorization accuracy, and fiduciary program 

accuracy. Overall station accuracy averages for these three areas are included in the 

regional office director’s performance standard and the station’s performance measures. STAR results are readily available to facilitate analysis and to allow for the 

delivery of targeted training at the regional office level. C&P Service conducts satellite broadcast training sessions based on an analysis of national STAR error 

trends. 

9

In addition to the STAR program, C&P Service identifies unusual patterns of 

variance in claims adjudication by diagnostic code, and then reviews selected disabilities to assess the level of decision consistency among and between regional offices. These studies are used to identify where additional guidance and training are 

needed to improve consistency and accuracy, as well as to drive procedural or regulatory changes. Over the last 4 years, our quality has risen significantly from 81 

percent to 89 percent. 

Site surveys of regional offices address compliance with procedures, both from a 

management perspective in the operation of the service center and from a program 

administration perspective, with particular emphasis on current consistency issues. 

Training is provided, when appropriate, to address gaps identified as part of the site 

survey. 

TRAINING

It is critical that our employees receive the essential guidance, materials, and 

tools to meet the ever-changing and increasingly complex demands of their decisionmaking responsibilities. To that end VBA has deployed new training tools and centralized training programs that support accurate and consistent decisionmaking. 

New hires receive comprehensive training and a consistent foundation in claims 

processing principles through a national centralized training program called ‘‘Challenge.’’ After the initial centralized training, employees follow a national standardized training curriculum (full lesson plans, handouts, student guides, instructor 

guides, and slides for classroom instruction) available to all regional offices. Standardized computer-based tools have been developed for training decisionmakers (69 

modules completed and an additional 8 in development). Training letters and satellite broadcasts on the proper approach to rating complex issues are provided to 

the field stations. In addition, a mandatory cycle of training for all Veterans Service 

Center employees has been developed consisting of an 80-hour annual curriculum. 

DISTRIBUTION OF RATING WORKLOAD

To balance the inventory of disability claims across regional offices, VBA implemented a ‘‘brokering’’ strategy in which rating cases are sent from stations with 

high inventories to other stations with the capacity to process additional rating 

work. Brokering allows the organization to address simultaneously the local and national inventory by maximizing use of available resources. 

Brokering plans are developed on a monthly basis. Stations are selected for 

brokering based on the percentage gap between their current inventory of pending 

claims and their established end-of-year inventory target. Stations with the greatest 

percentage gap are asked to send ready-to-rate cases to other stations for rating decisions. The stations participating in brokering changes over time as stations are 

able to bring the pending inventory in line with established targets. 

CONSOLIDATION OF SPECIALIZED OPERATIONS

The consolidation of specialized processing operations for certain types of claims 

has been implemented to provide better and more consistent decisions. Three Pension Maintenance Centers were established to consolidate the complex and labor-intensive work involved in ensuring the continued eligibility and appropriateness of 

benefit amounts for pension recipients. We are exploring the centralization of all 

pension adjudications in these Centers. 

In November 2001, a Tiger Team was established at the Cleveland Regional Office 

to adjudicate the claims of veterans age 70 and older. VBA has also established an 

Appeals Management Center to consolidate expertise in processing remands from 

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. In a similar manner, a centralized Casualty Assistance Unit was established to process all in-service death claims. VBA has also centralized the processing of all pending radiation claims to the Jackson RO. The BDD 

program provides servicemembers with briefings on VA benefits, assistance with 

completing forms, and a disability examination before leaving service. The goal of 

this program is to deliver benefits within 60 days following discharge. VBA has consolidated the rating aspects of our BDD initiatives, which will bring greater consistency of decisions on claims filed by newly separated veterans. We also established 

two Development Centers in Phoenix and Roanoke to assist regional offices in obtaining the required evidence and preparing cases for decision. 

We are looking for ways to achieve additional organizational efficiencies through 

consolidation of other aspects of our claims processing, including death benefits, fiduciary activities, and telephone service. 

10

INVENTORY REDUCTION

VBA is aggressively pursuing measures to decrease the pending inventory of disability claims and shorten the time veterans must wait for decisions on their claims. 

Our pending inventory of rating related claims is currently about 400,000 claims, 

and average processing time is 175 days. However, all 400,000 claims in our inventory should not be considered as ‘‘backlog’’; this number includes all claims, whether 

pending only a few days or a number of months. Under the very best of circumstances, it takes about 4 months to fully develop a claim (obtain military and 

private medical records, schedule necessary medical examinations and receive results, evaluate evidence, etc.). Based on our projected receipts of 800,000 claims and 

our timeliness performance target of 145 days, our expected level of pending inventory with no backlog would be approximately 318,000 claims. 

We are increasing staffing levels to reduce the pending inventory and provide the 

level of service expected by the American people. We began aggressively hiring additional staff in Fiscal Year 2006, increasing our on-board strength by over 580 employees between January 2006 and January 2007. With a workforce that is sufficiently large and correctly balanced, VBA can successfully meet the needs of our veterans. 

Our plan is to continue to accelerate hiring and fund additional training programs 

for new staff this fiscal year. However, because it requires an average of 2 or 3 years 

for our decisionmakers to become fully productive, increased staffing levels do not 

produce immediate production improvements. Performance improvements from increased staffing are more evident in the second and third years. We have therefore 

also increased overtime funding this year and recruited retired claims processors to 

return to work as reemployed annuitants in order to increase decision output. 

PRIORITY PROCESSING FOR OIF/OEF VETERANS

Since the onset of the combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, VA has provided expedited and case-managed services for all seriously injured Operations Iraqi 

and Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) veterans and their families. This individualized 

service begins at the military medical facilities where the injured servicemembers 

return for treatment, and continues as these servicemembers are medically separated and enter the VA medical care and benefits systems. VA assigns special benefits counselors, social workers, and case-managers to work with these 

servicemembers and their families throughout the transition to VA care and benefits 

systems, and to ensure expedited delivery of all benefits. 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs recently announced a new initiative to provide 

priority processing of all OIF/OEF veterans’ disability claims. This will allow all the 

brave men and women returning from the OIF/OEF theaters who were not seriously 

injured in combat, but who nevertheless have a disability incurred or aggravated 

during their military service, to enter the VA system and begin receiving disability 

benefits as soon as possible after separation. 

Last month, we began processing disability compensation and pension claims received from OIF/OEF veterans on a priority basis. This initiative covers all active 

duty, National Guard, and Reserve veterans who were deployed in the OIF/OEF 

theaters or in support of these combat operations, as identified by the Department 

of Defense (DOD). 

We have designated our two Development Centers in Roanoke and Phoenix and 

three of our Resource Centers as a special ‘‘Tiger Team’’ for processing OIF/OEF 

claims. The two Development Centers will obtain the evidence needed to properly 

develop the OIF/OEF claims. The three Resource Centers, located in Muskogee, San 

Diego, and Huntington, will rate OIF/OEF claims for regional offices with the heaviest workloads. Medical examinations needed to support OIF/OEF veterans’ claims 

are also being expedited. 

We are expanding our outreach programs for National Guard and Reserve components and its participation in OIF/OEF community events and other information 

dissemination activities. An OIF/OEF Team is being established at VBA Headquarters to address all OIF/OEF operational and outreach issues at the national 

level and to support and assist newly designated OIF/OEF Managers at each regional office. The VBA OIF/OEF Team will also direct and coordinate national 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with each of the Reserve Components to formalize relationships with them, mirroring the agreement between VA and the National Guard Bureau signed in 2005. Having an MOU with each Reserve Component 

will ensure that VA is provided service medical records and notified of ‘‘when and 

where’’ Reserve members are available to be briefed during the demobilization process and at later times. 

11

In order to ensure that VA benefits information is provided to all separating 

Guard and Reserve servicemembers, we will work with DOD to discuss the possibility of expanding VA’s role in DOD’s military pre-separation process. Specifically, 

we will assess the feasibility of providing a new ‘‘Claims Workshop’’ in conjunction 

with VA benefits briefings. At such workshops, groups of servicemembers would be 

instructed on how to complete the general portions of the VA application forms. Following the general instruction segment, personal interviews would be conducted 

with those applying for individual VA benefits. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I greatly appreciate being here today 

and look forward to answering your questions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA TO

HON. DANIEL L. COOPER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. It seems clear that the Department of Defense is keeping injured 

servicemembers on active duty longer than they have in the past. What, if any, impact does this have on VA’s effort to provide timely and accurate adjudication of disability claims? 

Response. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation may 

not be paid to servicemembers while on active duty, therefore the length of time on 

active duty does not directly affect timeliness of claims processing. Since the onset 

of combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have provided case-managed services to all seriously injured servicemembers returning from combat zones, and we 

have made the processing of their claims our highest priority. We have assigned 

benefits counselors to the 10 major military treatment facilities (MTF), including 

Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The counselors work with the injured 

servicemembers, the military, the Veterans Health Administration, and family 

members to explain benefits, assist in completing claims, and gather supporting 

medical records and other evidence for the servicemembers’ claims for disability 

compensation so that VA disability benefits can be awarded immediately following 

separation from service. 

The involvement of benefits counselors early in the transition also allows VA to 

provide some benefits, such as the Traumatic Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance 

(TSGLI), automobile and adaptive equipment, and specially adapted housing benefits, to eligible servicemembers while still on active duty. 

As servicemembers are transferred from MTFs to other Department of Defense 

(DOD) facilities or VA care, the benefits counselors notify the appropriate regional 

office of the transfer. All regional offices have established points of contact with the 

MTFs and VA medical centers in their jurisdiction to ensure prompt notification of 

arrival, transfer, and discharge of seriously injured servicemembers. All regional offices have also designated Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom 

(OEF/OIF) case managers, who maintain regular contact with injured 

servicemembers and veterans to ensure their needs are being met. 

Each claim from a seriously injured OEF/OIF veteran is case-managed to ensure 

expeditious processing. The regional office directors call these seriously injured veterans to welcome them home and advise them that the OEF/OIF case manager will 

assist them through the claims process.

Question 2. Please provide to me any written guidance that has been given to the 

field regarding the priority processing of claims from veterans of the Global War on 

Terror. 

Response. All VA regional offices have been provided written guidance regarding 

the requirements to expedite processing of all OEF/OIF claims. Copies of two Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) letters providing instructions to the regional 

offices, dated March 8, 2005 and January 30, 2007, are attached. 

[Copies of the Veterans Benefits Administration letters providing instructions to 

the regional offices follow:]

12


34385.022
13


34385.023
14


34385.024
15


34385.025
16


34385.026
17


34385.027
18


34385.028
19


34385.029
20


34385.030
21


34385.031
22


34385.032
23


34385.033
24


34385.034
25


34385.035
26


34385.036
27


34385.037
28


34385.038
29


34385.039
30


34385.040
31


34385.041
32


34385.042
33


34385.043
34


34385.044
35


34385.045
36


34385.046
37


34385.047
38


34385.048
39


34385.049
40


34385.050
41


34385.051
42


34385.052
43


34385.053
44


34385.054
45


34385.055
46


34385.056
47


34385.057
48


34385.058
49

In addition to the written guidance, the OEF/OIF priority claims processing initiative has been extensively discussed with regional office directors and managers on 

several nationwide conference calls. Our four area directors have also conducted 

conferences with the regional offices in their jurisdictions covering the procedures 

and expectations for expedited OEF/OIF claims processing. In mid-March, VBA 

hosted a conference attended by the regional office OEF/OIF coordinators. This conference provided additional guidance regarding services for seriously injured 

servicemembers and veterans, as well as refresher training on case management 

principles.

Question 3. At what point in the process of DOD’s consideration of whether an 

injured servicemember is going to remain on active duty or be processed for separation from the military does VA help servicemembers fill out and submit claims for 

VA compensation? How are these claims tracked once they are submitted? 

Response. Our benefits counselors who are working with the seriously injured 

OEF/OIF servicemembers at the MTFs indicate that the start of the Military Evaluation Board (MEB) process is usually also the best time to begin the VA disability 

compensation claim process. It is at this point that the medical evidence is usually 

compiled and available. Completion of the MEB/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) 

process and separation from service is usually about 6 months from this point. For 

the very seriously injured OEF/OIF servicemember, the VA claims process can often 

begin earlier in connection with claims for benefits payable while on active duty, 

such as the automobile and adaptive equipment grant. 

Servicemembers who are in ‘‘medical hold’’ are also provided opportunities to participate in our Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP) briefings, where benefits counselors are available to assist in 

preparing and submitting claims for benefits. For those who are not seriously injured, it is appropriate to begin the VA disability claims process at the time of referral to the PEB (following the MEB ‘‘fitness for duty’’ decision). 

Controls are established in our Benefits Delivery Network processing system to 

track and monitor claims from seriously injured OEF/OIF veterans. Each claim from 

a seriously injured OEF/OIF veterans also case-managed to ensure expeditious processing. 

We are very excited about a new application that will provide VA with the ability 

to track servicemembers from the battlefield through Landstuhl, Germany, the 

MTFs, and on to the VA medical facility. The new application, known as the Veterans Tracking Application (VTA), is a modified version of DOD’s Joint Patient 

Tracking Application—a Web-based patient tracking and management tool that collects, manages, and reports on patients arriving at MTFs from forward deployed locations. 

The VTA Web-based system allows approved VA users to access this real-time information about the servicemembers we serve and track injured active duty 

servicemembers while they transition to veteran status. VTA will have all medically 

evaluated OEF/OIF servicemembers in the database as necessary to provide VA care 

and benefit claims support. This application was developed for VA to coordinate care 

from an MTF to a VA medical center to ensure that VA will know where the 

servicemember is currently located, where the patient came from, and who has seen 

the patient. The application is also designed to identify where servicemembers filed 

claims and which VBA counselor assisted the servicemember in the claims process. 

The application has an historic record feature to ensure we preserve all status 

changes. Full implementation was completed at the end of April.

Question 4. What is the status of VBA’s efforts to move toward electronic claims 

files? 

Response. This question concerning ‘‘electronic claims files’’ appears to relate to 

our efforts to expand our use of electronic data and records in place of paper records. 

We are working to integrate ‘‘paperless’’ processing into our data and information 

systems and processing procedures. We are using imaging technology to support 

paperless processing in all of our education and insurance benefits programs. We 

are also incorporating imaging technology and electronic records in our pension program processing. 

We are now conducting a pilot program to incorporate imaging technology in our 

disability compensation processing as well. Our pilot program involves claims from 

recently separated veterans filed through our Benefits Delivery at Discharge Program. We are receiving the veterans’ service medical records electronically and are 

maintaining electronic claims folders for all claims filed under this pilot program. 

We believe that our pilot program will successfully demonstrate the feasibility of 

this technology in the disability compensation program for newly separated 

servicemembers. However, because of the magnitude of the paper records we store, 

50

the extent to which we can ‘‘paperlessly’’ process claims from veterans of all periods 

of service has yet to be determined. VA stores and maintains over four million active 

claims files and 20 million inactive files. In addition to the tremendous volume of 

records, much of the evidence VA receives includes handwritten and often fragile 

documents, particularly for veterans of earlier periods of service, which present 

unique challenges.

Question 5. Should VA’s estimate of 800,000 claims receipts be exceeded in Fiscal 

Year 2007, what measures does VA plan to take to avoid any negative effect on the 

claims inventory? 

Response. Increasing staffing levels is essential to handling the current high volume of incoming claims and minimizing any negative effect further increases might 

have on the claims inventory. We began aggressively hiring additional staff in fiscal 

2006, increasing our on-board strength by over 580 employees between January 

2006 and January 2007. We are continuing to accelerate hiring, adding 400 additional employees by the end of June. Our budget submission for 2008 requests an 

increase of 450 full time employees. We have also increased overtime funding this 

year and recruited retired claims processors to return to work as reemployed annuitants in order to increase decision output. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BARACK OBAMA TO

HON. DANIEL L. COOPER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. DOD Coordination. I appreciated your comments about expanding the 

VA’s role in DOD’s military pre-separation process, although I think we need to be 

more systematic than simply offering a new VA ‘‘Claims Workshop’’ to 

servicemembers. I’ve shared the deep concern and outrage of many of my colleagues 

here today about the situation at Walter Reed and how DOD manages its own disability review process, which itself struggles under the weight of long delays and 

chronic understaffing.

Question 1(a). Could you provide further comment on concrete and more systematic steps that might be taken to coordinate or integrate VA and DOD disability review processes to ease the transition of wounded and recovering servicemembers? 

Response. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs chaired the President’s Interagency 

Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes, which reviewed VA and 

DOD disability benefits processes. The just-released Task Force Report recommends 

development of a joint DOD/VA process for disability benefits determinations by establishing a cooperative Medical and Physical Evaluation Board process within the 

military service branches and the VA care system.

Question 1(b). Until more systematic coordination occurs between DOD and VA, 

what other steps have been taken by VA to follow GAO’s previous recommendation 

that regional offices use an alternative resource for obtaining military records, prior 

to going through the inadequate Joint Service Records Research Center (JSRRC), 

which averages 1 year to turn around requests? 

Response. VA established an intranet link to VBA-sanctioned Web sites to assist 

field personnel in using research resources to expedite the processing of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claims. RO personnel access these sites before sending 

an inquiry to JSRRC. 

VA has organized a special help team to review the cases from JSRRC in an attempt to reduce some of the current backlog. The special help team is tasked with 

reviewing requests currently pending at JSRRC to determine if any of the cases can 

be resolved with the research resources available at the regional offices. 

VA is developing a training curriculum to train regional office personnel in the 

basics of military records research, which will reduce the number of cases referred 

to JSRRC.

Question 2. Staffing levels. I think it’s fair to say I share the skepticism of some 

of my colleagues about the agency’s assumptions regarding the anticipated number 

of claims in Fiscal Year 2008, which you’ve stated is expected to be 800,000. 

Question 2(a). Could you discuss in detail the assumptions VA used in reaching 

this number, especially in light of the 39 percent increase we’ve seen in claims since 

2000 and the growing number of returned servicemembers from OEF/OIF? On that 

count alone, there are more than 631,000 discharged servicemembers who are eligible for some form of care or benefits within the VA system. 

Response. Our budget estimation model forecasts disability compensation benefits 

for veterans of all periods of service using a complex combination of historical data, 

current experience, workload and performance projections, and assumptions. The 

51

model forecasts obligations and outlays for 10 years. This method has been determined to be a reliable method for projecting compensation costs and future liability. 

Our workload estimates for disability claims receipts are based on a number of 

factors to include historical workload trend data, veteran census data, staffing and 

other known factors impacting receipts. The process has yielded adjusted workload 

projections within approximately 1 percent of actual receipts when viewed over the 

last five fiscal years. The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are an important 

workload variable that must continue to be considered. We believe our process is 

adequately adjusted for workload changes resulting from the wars and will allow 

VA to receive the resources to properly care for this Nation’s returning 

servicemembers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. LARRY E. CRAIG TO

HON. DANIEL L. COOPER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. In recent years, thousands of claims were filed that all sought the 

same relief—dual ratings for bilateral ringing in the ears. It is my understanding 

that, while the courts tried to resolve the underlying legal issue, these cases were 

essentially proceeding separately up and down the system, creating workload spikes 

at all levels of the process.

Question 1(a). What impact did this have at the VA regional offices and at BVA? 

Response. VA has had a longstanding policy that a veteran is entitled to only a 

single evaluation for tinnitus (ringing in the ears), whether that condition manifests 

itself in one ear, both ears, or the head. Because claims for multiple evaluations for 

tinnitus began appearing at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), VA, 

in May 2003, amended the diagnostic code for tinnitus in the rating schedule by 

adding a note, which expressly prohibits multiple evaluations for this condition. Anticipating VA’s clarification of the rating schedule, numerous claimants began filing 

claims for multiple ratings for tinnitus in the hope that the claims would be adjudicated under what was believed to be a more liberal application of the law allowing 

for multiple evaluations. On April 5, 2005, the CAVC, in Smith v. Nicholson, held 

that VA’s rating schedule prior to the May 2003 addition of the note allowed for 

multiple ratings for tinnitus. In total, fewer than 5,000 tinnitus claims had been 

filed or were pending at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board or BVA) when the 

Court rendered its decision in Smith. On April 22, 2005, the Secretary directed the 

BVA Chairman to impose a stay on all bilateral tinnitus claims pending at the BVA 

that could be affected by Smith, and at the same time, VBA stayed further processing of such claims. 

The CAVC issued its judgment in Smith on April 27, 2005, and the Secretary immediately appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

The Federal Circuit ruled in favor of VA’s position and reversed the CAVC decision in a June 19, 2006, decision. Following that decision, VA proceeded to adjudicate and deny these claims. The Supreme Court denied the appellant’s petition for 

consideration of the Federal Circuit’s decision. 

We believe that the prompt decision to stay claims affected by the CAVC’s decision in Smith served to avoid burdens on the adjudication system and delays in adjudication of other claims, and to ensure consistent adjudication following the resolution of the legal issues by the Federal Circuit Court. Additionally, it prevented an 

unnecessary flood of appeals to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and CAVC. As soon 

as all legal challenges were exhausted, claims affected by the stay were adjudicated 

expeditiously.

Question 1(b). If similar claims were either consolidated or stayed early in the 

process, what do you believe would be the result? 

Response. As noted above, we believe that VA’s stay of tinnitus claims was essential to managing VA’s case load and ensuring efficient and consistent action pending 

the resolution of the important issue on appeal in Smith. More recently, however, 

in Ribaudo v. Nicholson, the CAVC held that VA does not have the power to stay 

the adjudication of cases affected by a CAVC decision that VA has appealed to the 

Federal Circuit unless VA first obtains the court’s permission. Although the full 

scope and impact of this decision are not clear, it may have a significant effect on 

VA’s ability to manage its case load efficiently in response to court decisions having 

broad impact on the VA adjudication system. We continue to believe that the Secretary has the inherent authority to stay an adjudication pending the resolution of 

an important legal question in order to ensure the integrity of the administration 

of a particular VA benefit and that the integrity of the system can be preserved only 

52

if VA is able to move quickly rather than await a CAVC decision on a stay request, 

which would likely require time-consuming briefing by the parties and a written decision on the request by the court.

Question 2. I was very pleased to learn that, in addition to providing expedited 

decisions to severely injured veterans of OEF/OIF, VA is now providing priority 

claims processing for all OEF/OIF veterans.

Question 2(a). Does VA have performance goals in place for those veterans’ claims 

for the VA regional offices and BVA? If so, what are they? 

Response. In February 2007 VA began processing all disability compensation and 

pension claims received from OEF/OIF veterans on a priority basis. This initiative 

covers all active duty, National Guard, or Reserve veterans who were deployed in 

the OEF/OIF theaters or in support of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), as identified by DOD. However, in many of these cases, all the evidence necessary to make 

a decision regarding a claimant’s entitlement to benefits has not been received by 

VA. While we have expedited the gathering of evidence, the scheduling of medical 

examinations, and the preparation of the claims decision, this expedited process will 

in most cases still take a number of months to complete. Our goal is to reduce the 

process to 100 days for OEF/OIF veterans, compared with the current average of 

178 days for all veterans’ claims.

Question 2(b). Would you please provide the Committee with an update on how 

many of these claims VA has received since these policies were instituted; how 

many of those claims have been decided and the average time it took to render those 

decisions; how many are still pending and how long on average they have been 

pending; how many of these claims have been granted and how many have been 

denied; what percentage have been awarded service connection with disability ratings in excess of 10 percent; what are the nature of the claimed disabilities and the 

disabilities for which service connection was granted; and what is the accuracy rate 

for decisions on these claims? If this information is not available due to data limitations, please provide the Committee with a time frame within which that information will be available and can be provided to the Committee. 

Response. VA receives a data file from DOD identifying veterans who were deployed in support of GWOT. We match this data file with data from VA’s information systems to track health care and benefits usage by GWOT veterans. 

The most recent update from DOD includes veterans discharged through November 2006. This data file was compared to VA records through February 2007. This 

match identified 181,966 GWOT veterans who have filed a claim for disability benefits either prior to or following their GWOT deployment (approximately 26 percent 

of 689,317 total GWOT veterans). 

Many GWOT veterans had earlier periods of service, and they filed for and received VA disability benefits before their most recent deployment. VBA’s computer 

systems do not contain any data that would allow us to attribute veterans’ disabilities to a specific period of service or deployment. 

Of the 181,966 GWOT veterans who have filed a claim either prior to or following 

their GWOT deployment, 136,189 were awarded service-connected disability compensation, 17,241 were denied, and 28,536 have claims pending. Among those 

awarded service-connected disability compensation, 83,676 (61 percent) received a 

combined degree of disability rating greater than 10 percent. 

The charts that follow provide a breakdown of those awarded service-connected 

disability by combined degree of disability and the most frequently claimed serviceconnected disabilities.

53

GWOT Veterans Awarded Service Connection by Combined Degree of Disability 

Combined Degree

(in percent) Reserve Guard Active Duty Total 

0 ..................................................................................................... 10,551 11,380 21,931

10 ................................................................................................... 12,763 17,819 30,582

20 ................................................................................................... 6,738 13,343 20,081

30 ................................................................................................... 5,060 13,202 18,262

40 ................................................................................................... 4,195 11,290 15,485

50 ................................................................................................... 2,155 6,430 8,585

60 ................................................................................................... 2,241 6,548 8,789

70 ................................................................................................... 1,348 3,952 5,300

80 ................................................................................................... 965 2,528 3,493

90 ................................................................................................... 404 1,039 1,443

100 ................................................................................................. 719 1,519 2,238

Total ...................................................................................... 47,139 89,050 136,189

Ten Most Frequent Service-Connected Disabilities for GWOT Veterans 

[Both Active Duty and Reserve/Guard] 

Diagnostic Code Diagnosis Description Count 

6260 .......................... Tinnitus ............................................................................................................................... 39,120

5237 .......................... Lumbosacral or cervical strain ........................................................................................... 33,904

6100 .......................... Defective hearing ................................................................................................................ 28,589

5299 .......................... Generalized, Elbow and Forearm, Wrist, Multiple Fingers, Hip and Thigh, Knee and Leg, 

Ankle, Foot, Spine, Skull, Ribs, Coccyx.

22,813

9411 .......................... Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder .......................................................................................... 17,644

5271 .......................... Limited motion of the ankle ............................................................................................... 16,907

5260 .......................... Limitation of flexion of leg ................................................................................................. 16,556

5242 .......................... Degenerative arthritis of the spine .................................................................................... 12,834

5201 .......................... Limitation of motion of arm ............................................................................................... 12,127

7101 .......................... Hypertensive vascular disease (essential arterial hypertension) ....................................... 12,084

We are unable to provide an accuracy rate specific to claims received from veterans deployed in support of GWOT. VBA’s quality review program includes a random sampling across all claims filed for compensation and pension, including those 

submitted by veterans of this cohort. However, we do not isolate accuracy for any 

particular sub-group of the veteran population. We also do not yet have a means 

of separately track and measure timeliness of processing for GWOT claims. A reporting system is being developed to track these claims.

Question 3. In 2005, the GAO reported that there are ‘‘large performance variations’’ among the regional offices. For the lowest performing offices, would you 

please provide a comparison of their performance outcomes to the national performance outcomes over the past 5 years? 

Response. We are providing the data requested for the 10 regional offices currently experiencing the longest claims processing times. VBA has taken measures 

to assist with the processing of veterans claims at each of the listed facilities. For 

example: 

• The New Orleans Regional Office (RO) was severely impacted by Hurricane 

Katrina. We have temporarily transferred (‘‘brokered’’) work from this facility to 

other ROs with the capacity to process additional work to minimize the impact on 

veterans within that jurisdiction. 

• The Pittsburgh RO was recently assigned jurisdiction of the overseas foreign 

workload. The processing of foreign claims takes considerably longer, as it involves 

working with foreign embassies to obtain medical examinations and other evidence. 

During the same period, the RO lost a significant number of its most experienced 

personnel through retirements. 

• The Chicago RO received an increase in incoming claims as a result of the special Six State Outreach Initiative. We have authorized the Chicago RO to hire additional claims processors and have brokered work to other regional offices to better 

serve veterans in this area. 

• To better serve the veterans residing in the Washington, DC area, the Roanoke 

RO recently assumed jurisdiction for the majority of claims previously assigned to 

the Washington RO. 

54

• To improve benefits delivery to veterans served by the Los Angeles RO, jurisdiction of claims from veterans residing in Orange County, CA, was reassigned to San 

Diego.

Average Days to Complete 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 February 2007

Nation ......................................... 223.4 181.5 165.5 166.8 177.1 177.4

Washington ................................. 377.2 266.3 159.4 195.6 251.2 306.3

Pittsburgh ................................... 147.2 112.1 167.6 186.5 219.7 260.3

New York ..................................... 273.6 230.0 207.4 188.8 229.6 258.4

New Orleans ............................... 166.9 150.3 156.5 153.8 269.4 249.3

Anchorage ................................... 287.9 232.3 187.4 190.7 241.8 247.3

Des Moines ................................. 223.0 217.7 191.4 209.5 221.4 245.5

Reno ............................................ 329.6 261.8 197.6 187.6 203.9 239.9

Chicago ....................................... 190.6 133.4 185.6 203.7 226.5 237.9

Newark ........................................ 309.5 276.3 200.9 179.2 232.7 230.8

Los Angeles ................................ 239.6 217.4 206.3 211.6 237.4 226.5

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Admiral Cooper, for your testimony. 

And now I call on the Honorable James P. Terry, Chairman of 

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. TERRY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF 

VETERANS’ APPEALS; ACCOMPANIED BY RON GARVIN, VICE 

CHAIRMAN; AND STEVE KELLER, SENIOR DEPUTY VICE 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. TERRY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate 

the opportunity to be here today to discuss with you and the other 

Members of the Committee the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ role in 

the VA benefits claims system. 

Mr. Chairman, I am joined today by Mr. Ron Garvin, the Vice 

Chairman of the BVA, to my immediate left, and Steve Keller, the 

Senior Deputy Vice Chairman, two integral parts of our leadership 

team, and I am delighted they could be here this morning. 

Mr. Chairman, I will address Board productivity, the accuracy of 

our decisions, current issues affecting the Board, and a review of 

those actions we are currently taking to improve the claims adjudication and appeals process in my remarks this morning. 

Mr. Chairman, the Board’s mission is essentially unchanged 

since its establishment in 1933, and that is, of course, to conduct 

hearings and consider and dispose of appeals properly before the 

Board in a timely manner. The Board renders final decisions on behalf of the Secretary in all appeals of adverse decisions issued 

under a law that affects the provision of VA benefits. These appeals 

most commonly arise from decisions of VA regional offices, but they 

can also include those arising from decisions by VA medical centers. Although the Board is an appellate body, it has fact-finding 

authority and provides a fresh look at the law and evidence in each 

case it considers. In addition to ruling on the merits of the claim, 

the Board may direct further development of the evidence and readjudication of the claims at issue by the agency of original jurisdiction, be it the regional office or the VAMC, if it is necessary to 

fairly consider the appeal by our Board. 

The Board has jurisdiction, as the Committee is well aware, over 

a wide variety of issues and matters, but the vast majority of appeals involve claims for disability compensation benefits, and these, 

55

of course, encompass approximately 95 percent of our total caseload. 

As I testified before the Committee in July of last year, two of 

the Board’s most important initiatives are: first, to contain and reduce the backlog of appeals by increasing decision productivity 

while maintaining high quality; and, second, to improve timeliness 

and service to veterans by eliminating avoidable remands. 

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to report that we have had much success in working toward both these goals, as demonstrated by comparing last year’s performance with that of prior years. 

In Fiscal Year 1994, for example, the Board issued 22,000 decisions with 442 full-time equivalent employees, or FTEs. Our pending caseload stood at 47,000 and was on its way to 60,000. By Fiscal Year 1998 we had significantly improved our productivity by 

issuing 38,000 decisions and holding 4,800 hearings with 483 

FTEs—a much enlarged staff. 

Most recently, in Fiscal Year 2006, the Board issued 39,076 decisions, but with far fewer FTEs than we had in either one of those 

years. We also conducted 9,158 hearings, the highest number ever 

by the Board, and almost twice as many hearings as in 1998. 

The Board’s most significant challenge is to eliminate the growing backlog with available resources. We will continue to use our 

resources as efficiently and as effectively as possible to meet this 

challenge. However, despite our best efforts, we continue to receive 

more appeals than we are deciding. Cases pending at the start of 

Fiscal Year 2006 stood at 37,000 and by the end of the year rose 

to 40,000, this despite the fact that the Board issued 4,901 more 

decisions in Fiscal Year 2006 than in the preceding year. 

To enable the Board to eliminate the growing backlog, the two 

most important goals for the Board are to continue to reduce avoidable remands and increase productivity. 

In regard to remands, we know that veterans want timely and 

correct decisions with respect to their claims for benefits. For the 

Board to do that, the record must contain all necessary evidence to 

decide the claim and show that all necessary procedural protections 

have been provided. If the record does not meet these requirements 

and the benefits sought cannot be granted, a remand for further 

development by the agency of original jurisdiction is necessary. 

Remands significantly lengthen the amount of time it takes for 

a veteran to receive a final decision. A remand adds about a year 

to the appellate process. Remands not only delay individual cases, 

but divert resources from deciding new appeals. About 75 percent 

of cases remanded are returned to the Board, which increases our 

workload and further degrades timeliness; that is, we have to see 

the case twice. We decide it first on the remand, and we have to 

look at it again and decide it once again when it comes back. 

In addition, by law we must decide the oldest cases first. Processing newer appeals is, therefore, delayed when remanded appeals 

are returned to the Board for readjudication. Hence, eliminating 

avoidable remands is a goal that will provide better service to veterans and their families and ultimately will contribute to diminishing the growing backlog. 

Since Fiscal Year 2005, we began working in concert with Admiral Cooper and the Veterans Benefit Administration to avoid reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\34385.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
56

mands to the extent possible. We—and I include Admiral Cooper’s 

team because they have done a magnificent job—have made great 

progress in reducing avoidable remands. To illustrate briefly, in 

Fiscal Year 2003 the Board issued 31,000 decisions with a remand 

rate of 42 percent. In Fiscal Year 2004, while the number of decisions issued increased to 38,000, the remand rate soared to 56 percent. In Fiscal Year 2006, we issued 34,175 decisions, but the remand rate was reduced from 56 percent to 38 percent, and that is 

a very, very significant decline. 

Now, we are happy to report that in Fiscal Year 2006 we issued 

39,000 decisions with a remand rate of only 32 percent, showing 

the fruits of our labor. We expect to see the remand rate hold at 

about that level or improve even further during Fiscal Year 2007 

as the Board begins to reach cases on our docket that were first 

decided by VBA following the initiation of its efforts to reduce 

avoidable remands. 

By ‘‘avoidable’’ remands, we are referring to a class of cases in 

which a remand could have been avoided if the case was properly 

processed and reviewed in accordance with existing laws and regulations. It is important to note that under the current adjudication 

system, a certain percentage of remands are expected for various 

reasons certainly beyond VA’s control, that is, both beyond the control of the VBA and the Board. For example, some cases must be 

remanded to address intervening changes in the law, as we have 

seen with regard to the VCAA. Or it could be that new medical evidence is brought forward or changes in a medical condition or other 

due process considerations. On the other hand, some remands can 

be avoided by careful development of the record and application of 

the appropriate law, as well as close analysis of the record and consideration of a harmless error analysis. These latter two points are 

certainly within the Board’s area of responsibility, and we are 

working very hard to carefully find within the four corners of every 

case that sufficient evidence to decide the case and not have to ask 

the VBA to look at it again. And certainly consideration of harmless error analysis is a very important part of our work, as it is 

with the CAVC. 

We will continue to work closely not only with VBA, but with the 

Office of General Counsel and the Veterans Health Administration 

to identify and track the root causes of remands in order to provide 

training that will eliminate avoidable remands. Our training efforts 

have been considerable to date. Critical training sessions on remand avoidance have been held for all veterans law judges and 

staff counsel. We have also held joint training sessions with VBA, 

including a national video broadcast on avoidable remands and evidence development. We have conducted numerous sessions on a variety of medical and legal subjects within our jurisdiction, all designed to reduce remands and improve quality. 

Additionally—and this is a very important point—each of our 

Travel Boards meets on a regular basis on the last day of the Travel Board with regional office personnel to answer questions and discuss areas of concern. Finally, we recently completed work with 

VHA and VBA on the Compensation and Pension Examination 

Project, which, by improving the quality of VA compensation medical examinations, will reduce a major cause of remands. This is esVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\34385.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
57

pecially important in the mental health area. Until we gain the 

ability to examine in a constructive and contextual way—that is, 

where there is continuity in the questioning—in order to ensure 

that each veteran is examined with a contextual set of questions 

to perform a baseline, we will not be able to evaluate effectively the 

range of disabilities in each of our veterans. And that is what the 

CPEP project has done, and we think it is very, very important. 

Another important challenge for the Board is to work closely 

with the 57 regional offices and the Veterans Service Organizations 

to ensure that our Travel Boards are dispatched as soon as a sufficient docket is created so that the hearing can take place as quickly as possible. 

In 2006, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the 106 scheduled Travel 

Boards, 8 unscheduled trips to Montgomery, Oakland, Columbia, 

Atlanta, Seattle, Detroit, Phoenix, and New York were added after 

the schedule was set, for a total of 114 Travel Boards for the year. 

In each one of these Travel Boards, Mr. Chairman, we asked our 

judges to hold 43, approximately hour-long, hour-plus, hearings 

during the course of that week. And if it is a 2-week session, we 

get 86 from each judge. We try to send at least two judges on each 

one of these trips. In the case of St. Petersburg, we will be sending 

four this year each month. So it is a significant number of hearings, and soon as a docket is ready, we try to get the hearing teams 

out there. And of the 106 scheduled Travel Boards last year, 5 were 

split trips, which visited two ROs—Lincoln/Des Moines, Fargo/

Sioux Falls, Fort Harrison/Boise, Denver/Cheyenne, and Togus/

White River Junction. And as I mentioned, on the last day of each 

of our Travel Boards we offer training and assistance by our staff 

to the RO adjudication staff. 

Of course, this is as much a benefit to our Board as it is to Admiral Cooper’s staff, and by that I mean every case that is sufficiently 

developed that we do not have to return means it is one-half the 

workload for us, as well as for the VBA staff. 

Although much has been done, we still have much to do in increasing productivity at the Board. Within existing resources and 

by way of incentives and sound management, we will continue to 

improve. And these are the things we are doing on the Board, and 

I would like to outline them. 

In addition to eliminating avoidable remands, we are trying to 

strengthen our interagency partnerships, working with General 

Counsel and Admiral Cooper’s staff and VHA, to improve decision 

quality and joint training efforts. 

We are writing shorter and more concise decisions. When I came 

into the Board, one of the concerns we identified was a need to emphasize the analysis of the facts in the context of existing law rather than including long factual recitations in each decision. And we 

have eliminated that, and we are writing more concise, more carefully coherent and clear decisions. And I think that really is aiding 

us in getting more productivity out of each of our staff attorneys 

and judges. 

We are also utilizing employee incentives, a strong mentoring 

program, and as I mentioned, working joint training with other organizations. 

58

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Terry, will you please wrap up your statement? 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, sir. Absolutely. 

This year, certainly in 2007, we are hopeful of increasing the 

funding for our organization. In the 2008 budget, the President has 

suggested and certainly we expect the Congress will support an increase of 31 FTEs among our attorney ranks, and this will certainly make a significant difference in our ability to better serve 

veterans. 

Certainly, we would be delighted to take any questions you 

might have, sir. Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Terry follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. TERRY, CHAIRMAN,

BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss with 

you, the Members of the Committee, and your staff, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ 

(Board’s) role in the VA benefits claims system. I will address Board productivity, 

the accuracy of our decisions, current issues affecting the Board, and a review of 

those actions we are taking to improve the claims adjudication and appeals process. 

The Board’s mission, as set forth in Chapter 71 of Title 38, United States Code, 

is essentially unchanged since its establishment in 1933—‘‘to conduct hearings and 

consider and dispose of appeals properly before the Board in a timely manner.’’ The 

Board renders final decisions on behalf of the Secretary on all appeals of adverse 

decisions issued under a law that affects the provision of VA benefits. These appeals 

most commonly arise from decisions of VA regional offices, but also include those 

arising from decisions by VA medical centers. Although the Board is an appellate 

body, it has fact-finding authority and provides a fresh look at the law and evidence 

in each case it considers. In addition to ruling on the merits of a claim, the Board 

may direct further development of the evidence and readjudication of the claims at 

issue by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) if it is necessary to fairly consider 

the appeal. 

The Board has jurisdiction over a wide variety of issues and matters, but the vast 

majority of appeals involve claims for disability compensation benefits, such as 

claims for service connection, an increased rating, or survivor’s benefits, which were 

denied at the VA regional office level. The Board’s objective is to produce well-reasoned, accurate, timely, and fair appellate decisions in all the cases that come before 

us. 

As I testified before this Committee on July 13, 2006, two of the Board’s most important initiatives are (1) to contain and reduce the backlog of appeals by increasing 

decision productivity, while maintaining high quality, and (2) to improve timeliness 

and service to veterans by eliminating avoidable remands in order to issue more 

final decisions. 

I am happy to report that we have had much success in working toward both 

these goals, as demonstrated by comparing our past performance with that of recent 

years. 

In Fiscal Year 1994, the Board issued 22,045 decisions with 442 full-time equivalent employees (FTE). Our pending caseload stood at 47,148, and was on its way 

to 60,000. By Fiscal Year 1998, we had significantly improved our productivity by 

issuing 38,886 decisions and holding 4,875 hearings, with 483 authorized FTE. 

Most recently, in Fiscal Year 2006, the Board issued 39,076 decisions. We also 

conducted 9,158 hearings, the highest number ever by the Board, and almost twice 

as many hearings as in 1998. 

The Board’s most significant challenge for the future is to eliminate the growing 

backlog. We will continue to use our resources as efficiently and effectively as possible to meet this challenge. However, despite our best efforts, we continue to receive more appeals than we are deciding. Cases pending at the start of Fiscal Year 

2006 stood at 37,539, and by the end of the year rose to 40,265. This is despite the 

fact that the Board issued 4,901 more decisions in Fiscal Year 2006 than in the previous year. 

To enable the Board to eliminate the growing backlog, the two most important 

goals for the Board are to continue efforts to reduce avoidable remands and increase 

productivity. In regard to remands, we know that veterans want timely and correct 

decisions with respect to their claims for benefits. For the Board to do that, the 

59

record must contain all evidence necessary to decide the claim and show that all 

necessary procedural protections have been provided. If the record does not meet 

these requirements, and the benefits sought cannot be granted, a remand for further 

development by the AOJ is necessary. 

Remands significantly lengthen the amount of time it takes for a veteran to receive a final decision. A remand adds about a year to the appellate process. Remands not only delay individual cases, but divert resources from deciding new appeals. About 75 percent of cases remanded are returned to the Board, which increases our workload and further degrades timeliness. In addition, because by law 

we generally must decide the oldest cases first, processing of newer appeals is delayed when remanded appeals are returned to the Board for readjudication. Hence, 

eliminating avoidable remands is a goal that will provide better service to veterans 

and their families and, ultimately, will contribute to diminishing the growing backlog. 

Since Fiscal Year 2005, when we began working concertedly with the Veterans 

Benefit Administration (VBA) to avoid remands to the extent possible, we have 

made great progress in reducing avoidable remands. To illustrate briefly, in Fiscal 

Year 2003, the Board issued 31,397 decisions, with a remand rate of 42.6 percent. 

In Fiscal Year 2004, while the number of decisions issued increased to 38,371, the 

remand rate soared to 56.8 percent. In Fiscal Year 2005, we issued 34,175 decisions 

of which 38.6 percent were remanded in whole or part. We are happy to report that 

in Fiscal Year 2006, we issued 39,076 decisions, with a remand rate of only 32 percent. We expect to see the remand rate to hold its own or improve even further during Fiscal Year 2007, as the Board begins to reach cases on our docket that were 

first decided by VBA following the initiation of its efforts to reduce avoidable remands. 

By ‘‘avoidable’’ remands, we are referring to a class of cases in which a remand 

could have been avoided if the case was properly processed and reviewed in accordance with existing laws and regulations. It is important to note that under the current adjudication system a certain percentage of remands are expected for various 

reasons beyond VA’s control. For example, some cases must be remanded to address 

intervening changes in the law, new medical evidence, changes in medical condition, 

or other due process considerations. On the other hand, some remands can be avoided by careful development of the record and application of the appropriate law, as 

well as close analysis of the record and consideration of a harmless error analysis. 

We continue to work closely not only with VBA, but with the Office of General 

Counsel (OGC) and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to identify and track 

the root causes of remands in order to provide training that will eliminate avoidable 

remands. Our training efforts have been considerable. Several training sessions on 

remand avoidance have been held for all Veterans Law Judges (VLJs) and staff 

counsel. We have also held joint training sessions with VBA, including a national 

video broadcast, on avoidable remands and evidence development. We have conducted numerous sessions on a variety of medical and legal subjects within our jurisdiction—all designed to reduce remands and improve quality. Additionally, each 

of our Travel Boards has met with regional office (RO) personnel to answer questions and/or discuss shared areas of concern. Finally, we are working with VHA and 

VBA on the Compensation and Pension Examination Project (CPEP), which, by improving the quality of VA compensation medical examinations, will reduce a major 

cause of remands. 

Another important challenge for the Board is to work closely with the 57 ROs and 

the Veterans Service Organizations to ensure that Travel Boards are dispatched as 

soon as a sufficient number of cases that are nearing their place on the Board’s 

docket are ready for hearing. In 2006, in addition to 106 scheduled Travel Boards, 

8 unscheduled trips to Montgomery, Oakland, Columbia, Atlanta, Seattle, Detroit, 

Phoenix, and New York were added after the ROs provided notice that the docket 

was ready, for a total of 114 Travel Boards for the year. Of the 106 scheduled Travel 

Boards, 5 were split trips which visited two ROs (Lincoln/Des Moines, Fargo/Sioux 

Falls, Ft. Harrison/Boise, Denver/Cheyenne, and Togus/White River Junction). On 

the last day of each of our Travel Boards, we offer training and assistance by our 

staff attorneys to the RO adjudication staff. This is as much of a benefit to the 

Board as to the RO staff, if it precludes one case from being returned to the RO 

from the Board via remand for further development. 

Although much has been done, we still have much to do in increasing productivity 

at the Board. Within existing resources, and by way of incentives and sound management, we will continue to improve by:

(1) Eliminating avoidable remands; 

(2) Strengthening our intra-agency partnerships: Our joint training efforts with 

VBA, OGC, and VHA are improving decision quality and reducing remands; 

60

(3) Writing shorter and more concise decisions: We continue to train and encourage our VLJs and counsel to write clear, concise, coherent, and correct decisions; 

(4) Utilizing employee incentive, mentoring and training programs: A number of 

new programs have been introduced to increase employee motivation and satisfaction, as well as to increase productivity and decision quality; 

(5) Making judicious use of overtime: We will use overtime within existing resources to enhance productivity; 

(6) Increasing our use of paralegals: We will increase the use of our paralegals 

for non-decisional support activities, freeing up our legal staff to decide appeals; 

(7) Providing improved online legal research tools and analytical frameworks to 

aid timely and correct decision production; 

(8) Succession Planning: The Board will continue its rigorous associate counsel recruitment program to hire the best and brightest attorneys available; 

(9) Improve Quality: The Board will use its quality review process to identify 

areas of concern that require follow-up training; 

(10) VLJs will draft some decisions, in addition to reviewing and revising drafts 

prepared by staff counsel; and 

(11) Aggressive recruiting and training program to ensure full productivity by 

maintaining our authorized staffing levels.

We believe these measures will reduce the backlog and shorten the time it takes 

for a veteran to receive a fair, well-reasoned Board decision. In addition to the 

Board’s increases in productivity, we have also improved decision quality. In Fiscal 

Year 2005, the Board’s decision quality was 89 percent, based on 34,175 total decisions issued. We are proud to report that in Fiscal Year 2006, not only did the 

Board increase its total decision output by 4,901 cases, but the Board’s decision 

quality increased to 93 percent. By decision quality, we mean that there were no 

substantive or procedural errors that would have resulted in the case being reversed 

or remanded to the Board by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims. Into the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2007, we find that this enhanced decision quality has been maintained. 

Although there was an increase in quality and quantity, the Board saw its pending caseload grow significantly in 2006. As I briefly noted earlier, in addition to 

issuing 39,076 decisions in Fiscal Year 2006, we conducted 9,158 hearings, an increase of 582 hearings over the total held in Fiscal Year 2005 and the most ever 

held by the Board. However, the number of cases pending before the Board at the 

end of Fiscal Year 2006 was 40,265, which was close to a 3,000 case increase over 

the 37,539 cases that were pending at the end of Fiscal Year 2005. This increase 

in pending cases occurred despite the increase in the number of decisions issued of 

nearly 5,000 over the previous year—an increase notwithstanding the reduction in 

our authorized FTEs from 440 in Fiscal Year 2005 to 434 in Fiscal Year 2006. As 

of today’s date, we have more than 28,000 cases with a pending request for a Board 

hearing, the highest number ever. Of these cases more than 8,000 are actually 

ready for a hearing. Our 114 plus Travel Boards in Fiscal Year 2007 should sharply 

reduce the number of pending hearings. 

Although we continue to operate at the 2006 level, our attorneys and judges are 

significantly ahead of last year’s pace in terms of productivity. I attribute this increased productivity to superb leadership in each of our Decision Teams, an unparalleled in-house training and mentoring program, and to the quality of our line attorneys in drafting complex, quality decisions in an accurate and timely manner. 

As you know, we have high expectations for our counsel and Veterans Law 

Judges. We ask each of our counsel to write more than three complete draft decisions a week, and each of our line Judges to review, modify as necessary, and sign 

approximately 19 decisions a week. Over the course of the year, the Board’s fair 

share standards call for our attorneys to complete a total of 156 timely decisions 

of high quality, and for each of our line Judges to complete and sign 752 decisions. 

In addition, each Judge is expected to complete at least 3 week-long Travel Board 

trips per year, in which they hear cases at one of the 57 ROs. A senior counsel accompanies the Judges during these Travel Board trips to assist in the conducting 

of the hearings and to provide training and other requested assistance to the RO 

staff. 

In conclusion, we will continue working to develop new and creative solutions to 

the challenges we face in order to fulfill our statutory mission to hold hearings and 

provide timely, high quality decisions to our Nation’s veterans and their families. 

I am pleased to answer any questions you or your colleagues may have. 

61

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA

TO HON. JAMES P. TERRY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS

Question 1. Please update the Committee on the status of the Board’s efforts to 

move toward electronic records in BVA adjudication? 

Response. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) reviews an appellate 

record that it receives from the agency of original jurisdiction, usually a regional 

office of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). Aside from an occasional 

audio or video tape or microfiche film submitted in the record, almost all records 

reviewed by the Board are paper documents contained in an appellant’s claims file 

or other special purpose folder, such as an education or vocation rehabilitation benefits folder. These files are often voluminous. They may contain records spanning decades and typically include records generated before, during and after the veteran’s 

period of military service. To convert these often massive paper files into electronic 

form is an enormous undertaking and one that is well beyond the resources and expertise of the Board. 

In addition, as you note in the following question, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims (CAVC or Court) requires the submission of a paper record on appeal. As a result, any electronic copies of documents that are part of the appellate 

record would have to be printed in order to be received by the CAVC. 

While we have no program to generate or convert paper documents to electronic 

records, we are actively using technological advancements to improve our ability to 

accomplish our statutory mission to hold hearings and consider and dispose of appeals in a timely manner. These efforts include the provision of videoconference 

hearings, which use a system of digital recording and transmission of the hearing 

‘‘transcript.’’ We also employ extensive electronic legal research tools that have become essential in assisting the adjudication of decisions on appeal. In addition, a 

number of years ago the Board created a paperless system for retaining and filing 

attorney fee agreements that are required to be filed with the Board.

Question 2. Rule Nine of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ Rules of Practice and Procedure requires that paper copies of all documents and evidence relevant to an appeal be transmitted to the Court. Do you believe that repeal of this 

rule and the allowance of electronic records would expedite the referral of appeals 

to the CAVC? 

Response. As noted above, the Board does not have the ability to convert the massive amount of paper documents it receives into electronic form. If, at some point 

in time, electronic records were generated by the originating agency and supplemented by the Board, such a change in the Court’s rules may well have an ameliorative effect on the timeliness of processing of appeals at the CAVC. The submission 

of an electronic record would obviate the need for photocopying and collating a massive number of documents. However, absent a change in the Court’s rules, the Secretary would still have the burden of designating the record on appeal. I understand 

that the Court is considering alternatives to the current process for designating the 

record on appeal that would expedite the processing of cases at the Court. Under 

this revised process, however, paper records would still be employed.

Question 3. How much training does a Veterans Law Judge undergo per year? 

What specific training is provided? 

Response. The Board devotes a substantial amount of time and resources to providing training to our veterans law judges (VLJs) and staff counsel. Besides the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-wide periodic training on Cyber Security, the Privacy Act, the No FEAR Act, Sexual Harassment, and Federal Employee Ethics Requirements, a wide variety of training is provided to enable the Board to produce 

high quality decisions in a timely manner. The Board has a full-time Training Coordinator who, in close coordination with the Board’s Chief Counsel for Policy, is responsible for scheduling and organizing Board-wide training events, which usually 

average about twice a month. Training on various topics related to computer-assisted legal research also is periodically scheduled by the Board’s librarian. Additionally, the Board sends individually selected employees to management and leadership training courses provided at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

Management Development Centers and the Federal Executive Institute. 

With respect to the Board-wide training provided to VLJs and attorneys, the types 

of training can be broken down into the following five categories: critical skills training; current issues and competency training; specialized skills training; leadership/

management development training; and mandatory training. Some of the types of 

training provided within each of these categories include: 

62

CRITICAL SKILLS TRAINING

• Writing—Training is periodically provided to upgrade writing skills. At the beginning of 2006, the Board initiated a writing skills program entitled the ‘‘4–Cs,’’ 

short for clear, concise, coherent, and correct decision writing. The purpose of the 

training was to address a number of matters, including the increasing length of 

Board decisions due, in part, to long recitations of fact and boilerplate summaries 

of the law, and reasons or bases deficiencies in Board decisions. • Legal Research—Initial training is offered to new employees and product upgrade/enhancement training is offered on an ongoing basis to the entire attorney 

and VLJ staff concerning the use of computer-assisted legal research tools. 

CURRENT ISSUES AND COMPETENCY TRAINING

• Educational Seminars—Learning seminars of a medical and legal nature are offered monthly (approximately 10 per year). Lectures from Board staff range from 

1 hour to 1 hour and a half in length. Participation is voluntary. Examples of some 

recent topics covered are: Adjudicating Gulf War Claims; Rating Residuals of Gunshot Wounds; Adjudicating Medical Reimbursement Claims; Rating Eye Disorders; 

Understanding Military Records and Awards; Adjudicating Section 1151 Claims; Adjudicating Section 1318 Claims; and Introduction to Medical Terminology. • Grand Rounds—Periodic ‘‘Grand Rounds’’ training sessions are provided for all 

VLJs and staff counsel. Attendance is required. The purpose of these training sessions is to keep the legal staff current with continuing changes in the law, to address areas of weakness in Board decision quality, and to address current ‘‘hot’’ 

issues. 

SPECIALIZED SKILLS TRAINING

• Income Verification Match—This training is required for selected attorneys and 

VLJs who handle cases that include protected tax information. 

LEADERSHIP/MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT TRAINING

• Office of Personnel Management Training • Federal Executive Institute • Leadership VA • VA Learning University sponsored leadership training 

MANDATORY TRAINING

• Privacy Policy 

• Cyber Security Awareness 

• Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act (No FEAR) 

• Prevention of Sexual Harassment 

• Ethics

Besides Board-wide training, the Board’s four decision teams also periodically 

schedule internal team training events on a variety of issues.

Question 4. How much training does a decision team attorney undergo per year? 

What specific training is provided? 

Response. As discussed in the previous answer, predominantly the same type of 

training is provided to both the Board’s VLJs and staff counsel. However, there are 

some specific types of additional training that are provided solely to the newly hired 

attorney staff. 

On a Board-wide basis, the following training is provided to new staff counsel on 

both legal and medical matters:

• Introduction to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA 101)—This training introduces new employees to the structure, operations and policies of the Board. Twohour course. 

• Basic Veterans’ Law (BVA 201)—This course is an introduction to the law of 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the relevant rulings of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Twelve-hour course. 

• Computer Skills Training (CST) Course—This training provides the attorney 

with computer information and tips to enable more efficient drafting of decisions 

using the Board’s computer system. One hour course. 

• Global Training—This training provides an overview of the Board’s management and administration process. Attorneys have the opportunity to learn firsthand 

about the journey of a case file once it is received at the Board. Three-hour course. 

• Mentoring—This is a 3-month training period where the attorney is tutored on 

all aspects of decision preparation by an assigned senior Board counsel. 

63

• Adjudication Academy—This is a 2-day collaborative offsite effort by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), VBA and the Office of General Counsel to provide an opportunity for new BVA attorneys to learn about the role these administrations and staff offices have in the adjudication process. This course is conducted approximately once a year in Baltimore.

Besides Board-wide training, the Board’s four decision teams also schedule internal team training events for new attorney staff and summer interns on an ‘‘as needed’’ basis. During 2006, the teams provided training on a wide variety of topics, including the VCAA and Basic Service Connection Concepts; Increased Ratings; Quality Review at the Board; the Handling of Multi Issue/Complex Cases; Efficient Handling of Cases; Career Development; Hearing Loss; Personal Experiences of BVA 

Veterans; Research Tools; a presentation by Disabled American Veterans national 

VSO representatives; Conducting Board Hearings; Medical Opinion Requests; the 

Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure; BVA Handbooks; and VA Benefits Overview.

Question 5. As of February 2007, flexi-place was available for up to 48 highachieving attorneys. What are your plans to expand this program? 

Response. The Board plans to expand its Flexiplace program to a maximum of 88 

attorneys, beginning on or about July 1, 2007. The Flexiplace program was originally only available to full- time attorneys, but has been open to part-time employees since September 2006, a feature that will continue when the program is expanded. Employee eligibility depends upon a variety of factors, but all employees selected to participate in the expanded Flexiplace program will be required to demonstrate high levels of achievement as a prerequisite, and must maintain such performance in order to remain in the program. 

In terms of performance, the Board’s Flexiplace program has resulted in increased 

individual production for participants, which in turn has contributed significantly 

to the Board’s overall production of decisions. The Board’s performance standards 

require that all Board attorneys produce a minimum of 156 credits per year (credits 

are roughly equivalent to decisions). We have found that those Flexiplace participants who started the program on or after December 30, 2005, were able to successfully produce at least 170 credits per year, while maintaining acceptable or better 

quality. We plan to continue these requirements for all participants selected when 

the expansion of the program is effectuated. 

Only those employees who have proven to be dependable, independent, and highly 

motivated are selected for participation in the program. In addition to contributing 

significantly to our statutory mission by increasing productivity in order to stem the 

growth of the backlog and improve timeliness, our Flexiplace program has proven 

to be a very attractive and important recruitment and retention tool. Some of our 

best and brightest attorneys have stayed with us or chosen employment with the 

Board because of this and other efforts to make the Board an employer of choice. 

In regard to information and data security, Flexiplace participants are issued VA 

laptops that are specially encrypted and regularly serviced by VA IT personnel to 

secure all sensitive information. The technology allows for secure communication between Flexiplace participants at home and personnel or data located at the office. 

Flexiplace participants transport veterans’ case files and draft decisions by specially 

designed, locking carrying cases issued by VA. Flexiplace participants must also 

have a home office where their work is performed and data can be secured. The 

Board conducts periodic home visits of the participants to verify that they are in 

compliance with all Flexiplace requirements. 

The expansion of the Flexiplace program is an enthusiastically anticipated development at the Board and is expected to generate a significant increase in the 

Board’s overall ability to accomplish its mission. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BARACK OBAMA

TO HON. JAMES P. TERRY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS

Question 1. Mr. Terry, thank you for covering steps that are already underway 

in the VA to reduce the backlog of claims and shorten turnaround times. Beyond 

staffing and funding levels, which many of us think are currently inadequate under 

the proposed VA budget for FY 2008, what do you think are the two most important 

measures you’ve outlined in reducing the backlog? In reducing the turnaround time? 

Response. Eliminating avoidable remands and using a variety of methods to increase decision productivity are our two most important efforts to stem the growth 

of the backlog and, at the same time, improve the timeliness of the appeals process. 

Remands significantly contribute to the backlog and degrade timeliness. The reworking of an appeal at the regional office, on the average, adds about a year to 

64

the processing of an appeal. The time and resources consumed by developing and 

readjudicating the appeal, both at the Board and at the regional offices, is diverted 

from processing original claims and appeals. As about 75 percent of BVA remands 

are eventually returned to the Board for readjudication, they become a significant 

addition to the appellate workload. Moreover, as remands, by law, require expeditious handling and generally have older docket numbers, they displace ‘‘newer’’ appeals on the Board’s docket and add to the already long wait for justice that our 

veterans and their families now experience. 

While some remands are necessary and advisable, our joint efforts with VBA to 

eliminate those remands that we justifiably can avoid will, over time, make a significant impact in curtailing the backlog and the delays within the entire adjudication system. We have begun to make important progress in this area, bringing the 

remand rate down from 56.8 percent in Fiscal 2004, to 38.6 percent in Fiscal 2005, 

and to 32.0 percent in Fiscal 2006. 

Increasing decision productivity while maintaining high quality is the other mainstay of our efforts to stem the backlog and improve timeliness. We have met with 

success by the implementation of a number of measures, each of which has contributed incrementally to achieve this goal. These measures include fair but challenging 

performance standards for our VLJ and staff counsel, performance incentives, training and mentoring, efforts for improved and clearer and concise decision writing, 

and encouraging our judges to draft decisions whenever possible. With these measures, the Board was able to issue 39,076 decisions and hold 9,158 hearings in Fiscal 

2006 with our available resources. We believe that these efforts will continue to 

make inroads in stemming the growth or reducing the backlog.

Question 2. You mentioned ‘‘considerable’’ training efforts to tackle the issue of 

avoidable remands, including sessions for Veterans Law Judges and joint training 

sessions with VBA. Expanding these efforts seems like one of the keys to reducing 

the number of these cases. Could you—or Admiral Cooper, or both—comment more 

specifically on the scope of these training efforts to date at the regional offices: how 

many sessions and in how many regional offices, how long do they last, who attends, 

and who is required to attend? 

Response. With respect to the Board’s participation in regional office training, the 

Board conducts training for regional office adjudication staff both during travel 

board visits and by way of videoconference. Over the past few years, we have conducted numerous such sessions of varying length on a variety of medical and legal 

subjects designed to reduce remands and improve quality. 

During travel board trips, the attorney staff who are sent to assist the VLJs, as 

well as some of the VLJs, meet with regional office staff to answer questions, discuss shared areas of concern, and provide training when requested. Such interactions are mutually beneficial to both organizations in reducing remands and ensuring cases are fully and properly developed and processed. 

Based on the reports received from 28 travel boards (out of 30) conducted so far 

during Fiscal 2007, Board attorneys have provided informal training to the regional 

office staff during all trips. Informal training consists of case reviews, determinations of adequacy of development, discussions on recent CAVC cases, discussion on 

trends noticed in hearing cases, and tips to reduce avoidable remands. Informal 

training is usually provided on a one-on-one basis with rating veterans service representatives (RVSRs), decision review officers (DROs), and adjudication managers. 

Formal training, on the other hand, was provided during 17 of the 28 trips, or 61 

percent of the time. While training topics vary, the most common topics addressed 

by Board staff so far this year address matters related to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) service connection claims, VCAA notification, and the discussion of recent CAVC decisions. A complete list of the training topics addressed and at which 

particular regional offices is enclosed (Enclosure 1). 

[Enclosure 1 follows:]

65

Enclosure 1

RO FY 2007 Training Topics Informal Assistance 

Boston ................... Proper dev. of PTSD claims; recent CAVC decisions; complete dev. to reduce remands; adequacy of medical evid.Yes 

Albuquerque .......... Rating knee disabilities, verification of combat service ......................................... Yes 

Muskogee ............... None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

St. Petersburg ....... Adequacy of VCAA notice; avoidable remands ........................................................ Yes 

Waco ...................... None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

Winston-Salem ...... Avoidable remands ................................................................................................... Yes 

Columbia ............... None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

Houston ................. Development and adjudication of PTSD claims; new and material evidence; CUE Yes 

San Antonio ........... None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

Nashville ................ None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

Montgomery ........... VCAA compliance; when is an exam required; rating of spine disabilities; rating 

of cardiovascular disabilities.

Yes 

Atlanta ................... Recent CAVC decisions; remand trends ................................................................... Yes 

Detroit .................... Inferred issues; due process in contested claims ................................................... Yes 

Indianapolis ........... Rating disabilities of the eyes; rating knee disabilities; recent CAVC cases including Haas.

Newark ................... Development of PTSD stressors; heart disease secondary to PTSD; VCAA notice 

esp. Kent, other recent CAVC cases.

Yes 

Portland ................. Dev. of PTSD claims; recent CAVC decisions; VCAA notice; avoidable remands; 

through claim development; adequacy of medical evidence; severance of 

service connection; rating reductions.

Yes 

Philadelphia .......... VCAA notification esp. Kent ..................................................................................... Yes 

New York ............... None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

Phoenix .................. Role of the Board; recent CAVC cases esp. Haas and Ribaudo; proper weighing 

of evidence; DeLuca analysis.

Yes 

St. Petersburg ....... None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

Little Rock ............. Adequacy of VA exam reports .................................................................................. Yes 

New Orleans .......... None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

Atlanta ................... None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

Jackson .................. Adjudicating PTSD claims; recent CAVC decisions esp. Haas, Ribaudo, and Kent; 

avoidable remands.

Waco ...................... None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

St. Petersburg ....... Adjudication of PTSD claims; Gulf War claims; VCAA; secondary service

connection.

Yes 

Cleveland ............... None .......................................................................................................................... Yes 

Winston-Salem ...... Adjudication based on pre-discharge exam; reserve duty vs. active duty; recent 

CAVC decisions esp. Deshotel.

Yes 

For purposes of comparison, based on the reports received from 109 travel boards 

(out of 114) that were conducted during Fiscal 2006 (counsel did not accompany the 

VLJs on some of the trips), Board attorneys provided informal training during all 

109 trips. With respect to formal training, this occurred during 62 of the 109 trips, 

or 57 percent of the time. The most common training topics addressed were PTSD 

service connection claims, VCAA notification, discussion of recent CAVC decisions 

(Kent, Dingess, Haas), when a VA examination is needed, application of the presumptions of aggravation and soundness, and the assignment of effective dates. A 

complete list of the training topics addressed and at which particular regional offices 

is enclosed (Enclosure 2). 

[Enclosure 2 follows:]

Enclosure 2

RO FY 2007 Training Topics Informal Assistance 

Montgomery .................... Active duty for training vs. inactive duty; verifying PTSD stressors; 

rating hypertension; SC hepatitis claims.

Yes 

St. Paul .......................... Earlier effective date; informal claims .................................................. Yes 

Atlanta ............................ Remand reasons ..................................................................................... Yes 

Albuquerque ................... Evaluating back disabilities; reducing avoidable remands .................. Yes 

Phoenix ........................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Pittsburgh ....................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Muskogee ........................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

66

Enclosure 2—Continued

RO FY 2007 Training Topics Informal Assistance 

Oakland .......................... VA exam reports; recent CAVC decisions; PTSD claims; reasons for 

remand.

Yes 

New York ........................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Waco ............................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Seattle ............................ Proper framing of issues on appeal; multiple theories of entitlement; 

development of claims.

Yes 

Huntington ...................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Nashville ......................... Personal assault PTSD ........................................................................... Yes 

Detroit ............................. None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

St. Petersburg ................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Winston-Salem ............... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Columbia ........................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Montgomery .................... ‘‘Remand proofing’’; VCAA; CAVC case law on service incurrence; policy about PTSD and CAD disorders; DeLuca.Yes 

Boston ............................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Philadelphia ................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Jackson ........................... Reducing remands .................................................................................. Yes 

Little Rock ...................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Atlanta ............................ Reduction of remands; recent case law (to include VCAA) .................. Yes 

St. Petersburg ................ CAVC 1151 decisions; Haas decision .................................................... Yes 

Houston .......................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Newark ............................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

St. Louis ......................... revised regulations; VCAA; remands; 1151; effective dates; medical 

examinations of RO employees.

Yes 

St. Paul .......................... Due process in 4.29 reductions; SC multiple sclerosis; sufficient 

PTSD stressors; DeLuca opinions; adequacy of opinions in hearing 

loss; evidence in TDIU claims; VA speculative opinions; avoiding 

Colvin violations; weighing of risk factors in hepatitis C cases.

Yes 

Los Angeles .................... Questions about specific fact scenarios and Board’s organization and 

structure.

Yes 

San Antonio .................... Development of SOC’s and VCAA ........................................................... Yes 

Portland .......................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

St. Petersburg ................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Waco ............................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Oakland .......................... Avoidance of remands; Board and CAVC trends; VCAA; when to obtain examinations; PTSD stressor development; PTSD personal assault claims; 1151 claims.

Yes 

Indianapolis .................... Avoidance of remands; presumption of soundness and aggravation ... Yes 

Columbia ........................ proper framing of issues on appeal; multiple theories of entitlement; 

and the development of claims.

Yes 

San Diego ....................... Reduction of remands; Dingess/Hartman impact; when to obtain an 

examination or opinion; VCAA notice.

Yes 

Seattle ............................ Dingess/Hartman; PTSD (stressor development and IR); CUE; secondary service connection; reduction of remands.Yes 

Salt Lake City ................. Function of BVA; Dingess; when nexus opinions are needed; aggravation claims; DeLuca; the role of CAVC.

Reno ............................... Reduction of remands; BVA functioning ................................................ Yes 

Wichita ........................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

St. Petersburg ................ Mayfield and Haas ................................................................................. Yes 

Albuquerque ................... Reasons for remands; Mayfield, Haas; when to request exams and 

opinions.

Yes 

Boston ............................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Providence ...................... Rating psychiatric and TDIU claims ...................................................... Yes 

Little Rock ...................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Cleveland ........................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Waco ............................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Winston-Salem ............... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Anchorage ....................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Denver ............................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Las Vegas ....................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Chicago .......................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

San Juan ........................ Complications of diabetes; PTSD; rating spinal disorders; DeLuca; 

National Guard members; avoidance of remands.

Yes 

Jackson ........................... Avoidance of remands; lifting of Smith stay; VCAA; Kent; Dingess ..... Yes 

67

Enclosure 2—Continued

RO FY 2007 Training Topics Informal Assistance 

St. Petersburg ................ Avoidance of remands; focus on when to request exams and opinions Yes 

Waco ............................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Louisville ........................ VCAA compliance; rating knees ............................................................. Yes

Ft. Harrison .................... reasonable doubt/equipoise; rating mental and joint disorders; rating 

hearing loss; difference between inferred and intertwined claims; 

VCAA; verifying PTSD stressors; Haas; effective dates; adequacy of 

exams; development of evidence.

Yes 

Houston .......................... Avoidance of remand; impact of CAVC cases (Kent) ............................ Yes 

San Antonio .................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Muskogee ........................ Dingess/Hartman; ways to reduce Manlicon remands; when to request VA exams or request opinions.Yes 

Newark ............................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Boston ............................ VCAA.; need to consider GAF scores ...................................................... Yes 

Buffalo ............................ Kent compliance; use of diagnostic codes, particularly the knee ........ Yes 

Hartford .......................... Cue; rating knees ................................................................................... Yes 

Atlanta ............................ Common reasons for remand; BVA’s attempts to avoid remands ........ Yes 

Roanoke .......................... Impact of Mayfield, Kent, Dingess/Hartman; when examiner must review the file for an exam; when veteran can waive development.Yes 

Detroit ............................. None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

New York City ................. Dingess/Hartman; weighing evidence; presumption of soundness and 

aggravation; judicial review.

Yes 

Oakland .......................... Tips on ‘‘remand proofing’’ decisions; Dingess/Hartman; duty to obtain Federal records; waiver of duty to assist; Smith.Yes 

Montgomery .................... PTSD development; when exams are needed ......................................... Yes 

St. Petersburg ................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Waco ............................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Manila ............................ effective dates; CUE ............................................................................... Yes 

White River Jun. ............. None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Columbia ........................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Los Angeles .................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Nashville ......................... Lifting of Smith stay; Kent and Dingess responses; when to obtain 

exams and opinions.

Yes 

New York City ................. Mayfield and Kent .................................................................................. Yes 

St. Petersburg ................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

New Orleans ................... Dingess compliance ................................................................................ Yes 

Huntington ...................... Avoidance of remands; claim development; proper framing of issues; 

multiple theories of entitlement; adequacy of medical evidence.

Yes 

Lincoln ............................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Atlanta ............................ Avoidance of remands; VCAA compliance (Kent, Dingess, Pelegrini; 

exams and opinions.

Yes 

Houston .......................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

San Antonio .................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Philadelphia ................... VA claims/appeals processing issues .................................................... Yes 

Seattle ............................ Recent CAVC decisions incl. Haas and McLendon; obtaining SSA 

records; FTR for exam; obtaining relevant medical evidence.

Yes 

Wilmington ..................... Reducing avoidable remands; reasonable doubt doctrine; PTSD 

stressor development; evaluation of PTSD.

Yes 

New York ........................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Newark ............................ PTSD stressor development; when a VA exam is needed ..................... Yes 

Denver ............................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

San Diego ....................... Recent CAVC decisions incl. Kent Haas, Dingess and Rudd ................ Yes 

Wichita ........................... When to obtain a VA medical opinion; VCAA compliance ..................... Yes 

St. Petersburg ................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Oakland .......................... Recent CAVC decisions ........................................................................... Yes 

Phoenix ........................... Overview of BVA; current BVA stats; reducing avoidable remands; 

PTSD stressor development; obtaining adequate medical opinions.

Yes 

Waco ............................... None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Milwaukee ....................... Credibility and competence of lay evidence; waiver of VCAA ............... Yes 

St. Petersburg ................ Adjudicating PTSD claims; aggravation; presumption of soundness; 

Haas; Colvin; when to request a VAX.

Yes 

Cleveland ........................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

Phoenix ........................... VCAA compliance; PTSD stressor development; DeLuca; Haas; reducing avoidable remands.Yes 

68

Enclosure 2—Continued

RO FY 2007 Training Topics Informal Assistance 

Detroit ............................. Gulf War claims; adjudicating Iraq PTSD claims; effective dates; aggravation.Yes 

Atlanta ............................ Recent CAVC decisions incl. Deshotel, McLendon, Kent, Dingess ........ Yes 

Cleveland ........................ Recent CAVC decisions incl. Kent, Haas, Rudd; impact of new definition of psychosis; reducing avoidable remands.Yes 

Little Rock ...................... SC PTSD claims incl. combat and non-combat stressors; need for a 

VA exam; recent CAVC decisions incl. Haas, McLendon.

Yes 

Portland .......................... Definition of chronicity; asbestos claims; inactive duty/active duty 

claims; EED claims.

Yes 

Fargo/Sioux Falls ............ VCAA compliance; PTSD stressor verification; personal assault PTSD 

claims; recent CAVC decisions.

Yes 

Montgomery .................... active duty training/inactive duty; verifying PTSD stressors; rating hypertension; SC hepatitis.Yes 

St. Louis ......................... Remand reasons; reducing avoidable remands; VCAA compliance; 

when to get a VA exam.

Yes 

Columbia ........................ PTSD esp. Pentecost; presumption of soundness; aggravation of disabilities.Yes 

New York ........................ None ........................................................................................................ Yes 

St. Paul .......................... Effective dates; informal claims ............................................................ Yes 

Besides training conducted during travel board trips, the Board also provides 

training to the regional offices by way of videoconference. This training is conducted 

by the Board’s four decision teams to regional offices located in that team’s geographically assigned region of the country. This type of training was conducted fairly frequently in the past, but less so in recent years. However, the Board has recently started to see an upswing in the number of requests being received from regional office staff to conduct this type of training. During Fiscal 2006 and the first 

part of Fiscal 2007, the following training has been conducted and/or scheduled:

July 2006 .......... Decision Tree for Rating Knee Disabilities 

(New Orleans, Little Rock, Jackson, Atlanta, Montgomery, St. 

Petersburg, Nashville and San Juan) 

July 2006 .......... Local Reasons for Remand Trends 

(Louisville) 

August 2006 ..... New and Material Evidence, Kent VCAA Notice, and CUE 

(Hartford) 

September 2006 Evaluating Back Disabilities 

(New Orleans, Little Rock, Jackson, Atlanta, Montgomery, St. 

Pete and San Juan) 

(Nashville—training materials only) 

September 2006 Medical Examinations and Opinions; Rating Knee Disabilities 

(Louisville) 

October 2006 .... Adjudicating Nehmer Claims 

(New Orleans, Jackson, St. Pete, Montgomery, Atlanta, and San 

Juan) 

(Jackson and Nashville—training materials only) 

October 2006 .... Earlier Effective Dates 

(Houston) 

November 2006 VCAA Duty to Notify; Duty to Assist—Obtaining Medical and 

Service Records; Due Process Issues; Requesting VA Examinations 

(San Diego) 

December 2006 Questions & Answers 

(Boise) 

December 2006 Evaluating Evidence 

(Louisville) 

69

January 2007 ... VA Medical Examinations and Opinions 

(St. Pete, New Orleans, San Juan, Montgomery, and Atlanta) 

(Nashville—training materials only) 

January 2007 ... Special Monthly Compensation; Competency and Credibility of 

Lay Statements; VCAA Duty to Notify; Local Reasons for Remand Trends; VA Medical Examinations 

(Salt Lake City) 

February 2007 .. VA Medical Examinations and Opinions 

(Little Rock) 

February 2007 .. Earlier Effective Dates; VA Medical Examinations and Opinions; 

Secondary Service Connection Claims, Including for Alcohol 

Abuse; Service Connection for ‘‘Tension Type’’ Headaches; Benefit of the Doubt/Reasonable Doubt Standard 

(Phoenix) 

March 2007 ...... VA Medical Examinations and Opinions 

(Jackson—awaiting delivery of new equipment) 

March 2007 ...... Rating Skin Disorders; Periodontal Disease; Claims for Service 

Connection Based on Aggravation; Adjudicating New and Material Evidence Claims; Weighing Non-medical Evidence When 

Rating Mental and Musculoskeletal Disorders; VA Medical Examinations and Opinions; Duty to Assist/Additional Records 

Requests 

(Ft. Harrison) 

April/May 2007 Weighing and Evaluating Evidence 

(New Orleans, Little Rock, Jackson, Atlanta, Montgomery, St. 

Pete, Nashville and San Juan) 

Finally, besides the training that is provided during travel board trips and by way 

of videoconference, the Board regularly responds to informal requests received from 

regional office staff for our views and suggestions on a wide variety of case-related 

legal and medical issues. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. LARRY E. CRAIG

TO HON. JAMES P. TERRY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS

Question 1. In recent years, thousands of claims were filed that all sought the 

same relief — dual ratings for bilateral ringing in the ears. It is my understanding 

that, while the courts tried to resolve the underlying legal issue, these cases were 

essentially proceeding separately up and down the system, creating workload spikes 

at all levels of the process. 

Question 1(a). What impact did this have at the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) regional offices and at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals? 

Response. These claims for an increased rating, in excess of 10 percent, for ringing in the ears (tinnitus) were processed by the regional offices in the same manner 

as any other claims. Under VA’s interpretation of the law, our regulations do not 

provide for a schedular evaluation for ringing in the ears in excess of 10 percent, 

whether the ringing is perceived to be unilateral, in either ear or in both ears. As 

a consequence, the claims were denied at the regional office level, and then many 

were appealed to the Board. 

When these claims were appealed, they were considered by the Board in docket 

order, with the exception of those appeals that were advanced on the docket because 

of serious illness, severe financial hardship, or other good cause, such as advanced 

age. They were adjudicated in accordance with VA regulations, which provide for 

a single 10 percent rating for tinnitus, and accordingly the appeals seeking increased ratings were denied. 

Some of these decisions were then appealed to the CAVC. The Court invalidated 

the Secretary’s interpretation of VA regulations and concluded that a rating in excess of 10 percent was assignable for tinnitus perceived as ‘‘bilateral.’’ Smith v. 

Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 63 (2005), rev’d, 451 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006). At that 

point, a Department-wide stay was imposed on all cases affected by the Court’s decision while the Secretary appealed the Smith decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). 

The Department’s authority to impose such a stay was challenged by a petition 

for a writ of mandamus filed at the CAVC. While the CAVC subsequently concluded 

70

that the Secretary does not have unilateral authority to stay cases at the Board 

pending an appeal to the Federal Circuit of a decision issued by the CAVC, the 

CAVC denied the petitioner’s request for a writ. Ramsey v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 

16 (2006). 

On appeal of Smith, the Federal Circuit reversed the CAVC’s decision. In pertinent part, the Federal Circuit upheld the Secretary’s interpretation of VA regulations providing for a single 10 percent rating for tinnitus. The Departmental stay 

was then lifted and all affected cases were promptly adjudicated. The Board decided 

over 4,000 of the appeals that had been subject to the Smith stay in a period of 

less than 2 months.

Question 1(b). If similar claims were either consolidated or stayed early in the 

process, what do you believe would be the result? 

Response. The consolidation and/or staying of cases involving a common unresolved legal issue at the CAVC, and staying of cases at the Board and regional offices, would help ensure that similarly situated veterans, such as those with bilateral tinnitus rating claims, are treated in a consistent manner. Doing so also prevents the Board’s or the Court’s docket from being flooded with cases that may require additional follow-up review depending on the ultimate decision made on the 

common legal issue. 

One of the challenges posed in consolidating or staying cases, however, is first 

properly identifying them as falling within the parameters of the consolidation/stay. 

At the Board, for example, cases were not placed in the Department’s Smith stay 

until their individual places on the Board’s docket were reached and the cases were 

reviewed by VLJs and attorney staff. Interestingly, while the Court found in Ramsey

that the Board did not have the authority to stay cases, the Court itself imposed 

a stay on processing of bilateral tinnitus cases on the Court’s docket once the Federal Circuit overturned the CAVC’s decision in Smith and an appeal petition was 

filed by the appellant with the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Recently, in Ribaudo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 552 (2007) (en banc), the CAVC 

rejected the Secretary’s argument that he possesses the inherent management 

power to stay cases pending before the Board that are potentially affected by a precedential decision of the Court, and more specifically, Haas v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. 

App. 257 (2006). Instead, the Court stated that if the Secretary or Board wishes to 

stay the effect of Haas, the Secretary must file with the Court, or the Federal Circuit, a motion to stay the precedential effect of the Court’s decision. The Court set 

forth detailed procedures for the Secretary to follow should he desire to have a 

Court decision stayed. The Secretary subsequently complied with the Court’s request and in January 2007 filed an opposed motion with the CAVC requesting, in 

particular, that the Court stay the precedential effect of Haas pending judicial resolution in Haas. On April 13, 2007, the Court granted the Secretary’s motion to stay 

in part. Ribaudo v. Nicholson, No. 06–2762 (U.S. Vet. App. Apr. 13, 2007) (en banc). 

Specifically, the Court ordered that the adjudication of cases before the Board and 

VA regional offices that are potentially affected by Haas is stayed until mandate 

issues in the pending appeal of Haas to the Federal Circuit. The Court did indicate, 

however, that the Secretary may consider motions for advancement on the Board’s 

docket in cases to which Haas will apply.

Question 2. I was very pleased to learn that, in addition to providing expedited 

decisions to severely injured veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), VA is now providing priority claims processing for 

all OIF/OEF veterans. 

Question 2(a). Does VA have performance goals in place for those veterans’ claims 

for the VA regional offices and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals? 

Response. The Board has performance standards in place for all its VLJs and staff 

counsel. These standards apply to the work they perform on all appeals considered, 

without regard to the particular period of service of the veteran. These standards 

stress the quality, timeliness and productivity of decisions.

Question 2(b). Would you please provide the Committee with an update on how 

many of these claims VA has received since these policies were instituted; how 

many of those claims have been decided and the average time it took to render those 

decisions; how many are still pending and how long on average they have been 

pending; how many of these claims have been granted and how many have been 

denied; what percentage have been awarded service connection with disability ratings in excess of 10 percent; what are the nature of the claimed disabilities and the 

disabilities for which service connection was granted; and what is the accuracy rate 

for decisions on these claims? If this information is not available due to data limitations, please provide the Committee with a time frame within which that information will be available and can be provided to the Committee. 

71

Response. VA receives a data file from DOD identifying veterans who were deployed in support of GWOT. We match this data file with data from VA’s information systems to track health care and benefits usage by GWOT veterans. 

The most recent update from DOD includes veterans discharged through November 2006. This data file was compared to VA records through February 2007. This 

match identified 181,966 GWOT veterans who have filed a claim for disability benefits either prior to or following their GWOT deployment (approximately 26 percent 

of 689,317 total GWOT veterans). 

Many GWOT veterans had earlier periods of service, and they filed for and received VA disability benefits before their most recent deployment. VBA’s computer 

systems do not contain any data that would allow us to attribute veterans’ disabilities to a specific period of service or deployment. 

Of the 181,966 GWOT veterans who have filed a claim either prior to or following 

their GWOT deployment, 136,189 were awarded service-connected disability compensation, 17,241 were denied, and 28,536 have claims pending. Among those 

awarded service-connected disability compensation, 83,676 (61 percent) received a 

combined degree of disability rating greater than 10 percent. 

The charts that follow provide a breakdown of those awarded service-connected 

disability by combined degree of disability and the most frequently claimed serviceconnected disabilities.

GWOT Veterans Awarded Service Connection by Combined Degree of Disability 

Combined Degree

(in percent) Reserve Guard Active Duty Total 

0 ..................................................................................................... 10,551 11,380 21,931

10 ................................................................................................... 12,763 17,819 30,582

20 ................................................................................................... 6,738 13,343 20,081

30 ................................................................................................... 5,060 13,202 18,262

40 ................................................................................................... 4,195 11,290 15,485

50 ................................................................................................... 2,155 6,430 8,585

60 ................................................................................................... 2,241 6,548 8,789

70 ................................................................................................... 1,348 3,952 5,300

80 ................................................................................................... 965 2,528 3,493

90 ................................................................................................... 404 1,039 1,443

100 ................................................................................................. 719 1,519 2,238

Total ...................................................................................... 47,139 89,050 136,189

Ten Most Frequent Service-Connected Disabilities for GWOT Veterans 

[Both Active Duty and Reserve/Guard] 

Diagnostic Code Diagnosis Description Count 

6260 .......................... Tinnitus ............................................................................................................................... 39,120

5237 .......................... Lumbosacral or cervical strain ........................................................................................... 33,904

6100 .......................... Defective hearing ................................................................................................................ 28,589

5299 .......................... Generalized, Elbow and Forearm, Wrist, Multiple Fingers, Hip and Thigh, Knee and Leg, 

Ankle, Foot, Spine, Skull, Ribs, Coccyx.

22,813

9411 .......................... Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder .......................................................................................... 17,644

5271 .......................... Limited motion of the ankle ............................................................................................... 16,907

5260 .......................... Limitation of flexion of leg ................................................................................................. 16,556

5242 .......................... Degenerative arthritis of the spine .................................................................................... 12,834

5201 .......................... Limitation of motion of arm ............................................................................................... 12,127

7101 .......................... Hypertensive vascular disease (essential arterial hypertension) ....................................... 12,084

We are unable to provide an accuracy rate specific to claims received from veterans deployed in support of GWOT. VBA’s quality review program includes a random sampling across all claims filed for compensation and pension, including those 

submitted by veterans of this cohort. However, we do not isolate accuracy for any 

particular sub-group of the veteran population. We also do not yet have a means 

of separately track and measure timeliness of processing for GWOT claims. A reporting system is being developed to track these claims.

Question 3. In 2005, the GAO reported that there are ‘‘large performance variations’’ among the regional offices. For the lowest performing offices, would you 

72

please provide a comparison of their performance outcomes to the national performance outcomes over the past 5 years? 

Response. We are providing the data requested for the 10 regional offices currently experiencing the longest claims processing times. VBA has taken measures 

to assist with the processing of veterans claims at each of the listed facilities. For 

example:

• The New Orleans Regional Office (RO) was severely impacted by Hurricane 

Katrina. We have temporarily transferred (‘‘brokered’’) work from this facility to 

other ROs with the capacity to process additional work to minimize the impact on 

veterans within that jurisdiction. 

• The Pittsburgh RO was recently assigned jurisdiction of the overseas foreign 

workload. The processing of foreign claims takes considerably longer, as it involves 

working with foreign embassies to obtain medical examinations and other evidence. 

During the same period, the RO lost a significant number of its most experienced 

personnel through retirements. 

• The Chicago RO received an increase in incoming claims as a result of the special Six State Outreach Initiative. We have authorized the Chicago RO to hire additional claims processors and have brokered work to other regional offices to better 

serve veterans in this area. 

• To better serve the veterans residing in the Washington, DC area, the Roanoke 

RO recently assumed jurisdiction for the majority of claims previously assigned to 

the Washington RO. 

• To improve benefits delivery to veterans served by the Los Angeles RO, jurisdiction of claims from veterans residing in Orange County, CA, was reassigned to San 

Diego.

Average Days to Complete 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 February 2007

Nation ......................................... 223.4 181.5 165.5 166.8 177.1 177.4

Washington ................................. 377.2 266.3 159.4 195.6 251.2 306.3

Pittsburgh ................................... 147.2 112.1 167.6 186.5 219.7 260.3

New York ..................................... 273.6 230.0 207.4 188.8 229.6 258.4

New Orleans ............................... 166.9 150.3 156.5 153.8 269.4 249.3

Anchorage ................................... 287.9 232.3 187.4 190.7 241.8 247.3

Des Moines ................................. 223.0 217.7 191.4 209.5 221.4 245.5

Reno ............................................ 329.6 261.8 197.6 187.6 203.9 239.9

Chicago ....................................... 190.6 133.4 185.6 203.7 226.5 237.9

Newark ........................................ 309.5 276.3 200.9 179.2 232.7 230.8

Los Angeles ................................ 239.6 217.4 206.3 211.6 237.4 226.5

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. 

I would like to now ask the Ranking Member, Senator Craig, for 

his statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, RANKING MEMBER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me apologize 

for being late, but especially to thank you for continuing to pursue 

the issue of claims processing on a timely basis and the appeals 

process. I know of nothing more important for the men and women 

who have served their country in the Armed Forces than to get a 

swift and properly designated decision as it relates to their disability resulting from their service. This is particularly important, 

I think, during a time of war when we have thousands of troops 

in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom separating from service each year, Mr. Chairman. 

Every disability claim is extremely important; however, as I have 

previously stated, I believe that during a time of war, our focus 

must be on the needs of those returning veterans who for the first 

time are applying for their disability benefits. That is why I asked 

73

the VA at several hearings over the last Congress whether disability claims for those veterans were being processed by VA on a 

priority basis. 

At that time, VA was already providing expedited decisions for 

OIF and OEF veterans who became severely disabled during service. But as we all know, some disabilities such as symptoms of 

traumatic brain injury and mental health problems may not manifest until months after leaving service. So as you all will hear today 

and are hearing, VA is now giving priority to disability claims from 

all OIF and OEF veterans regardless of when their claim is filed. 

I think this is a significant improvement, and I commend Secretary 

Nicholson for instituting the policy. 

That said, I think it is clear to everyone here that the system 

overall is struggling and that some veterans are waiting far too 

long for decisions. In recent years, VA has taken a number of 

measures to try to improve this situation by consolidating certain 

types of work, creating special teams, streamlining work processes, 

and instituting new training policies. We have heard about some 

of that in just the last few minutes. There also has been a significant focus on hiring additional staff. In fact, as you can see, I 

think, by the chart behind me, the size of the claims processing 

staff has been trending upward over the past 10 years. With the 

additional employees that Mr. Terry just mentioned, staffing will 

have increased from 1997 to 2008, if we can bring that budget on, 

by about 61 percent. Also during that period, funding for the Compensation and Pension Service will have increased 118 percent. 

[Fiscal Year 1997 to Fiscal Year 2008 Compensation and Pension 

Staffing chart follows:]

74


34385.018
75

Despite those dramatic increases in staffing and funding and 

VA’s other efforts to improve performance, the number of pending 

cases has been rising and timeliness has been deteriorating. Although I hope that further increases in staff will help turn things 

around, I do not believe that simply adding employees is a longterm solution to our problem. 

For many years experts have stressed that significant improvement may not be possible without fundamental changes, and that 

is to the design and the operation of the system itself. In fact, in 

1996, the Veterans’ Claims Adjudication Commission concluded 

that ‘‘the problems with the existing system are so many and varied that it cannot be fine-tuned into a system that will consistently 

produce timely and high-quality adjudicative products.’’

After years of struggling to improve the performance of the existing system, it may be time to acknowledge that those experts are 

correct, that we need to make fundamental changes to the system 

before we will ever see true, lasting improvement. 

In that regard, as you can see by another chart behind me, Mr. 

Chairman, a number of specific reforms have been suggested over 

the years, such as closing evidentiary records during the appeals 

process, offering lump-sum payments to veterans with minimal disability conditions, updating the disability rating schedule, or removing redundant procedural requirements. 

[Options for Fundamental Reform chart follows:]

76


34385.020
77

It has also been suggested that VA could improve productivity 

and consistency by consolidating claims processing into fewer than 

57 offices. Over the years, some offices have chronically underperformed, while others have routinely met or exceeded expectations. 

If veterans would receive better service by shifting claims processing to a higher performing office, that seems to be an option 

well worth considering. But whether it is that recommendation or 

others, I hope the Committee will take a very serious look, Mr. 

Chairman, at what options we have not tried. It seems that some 

believe the solution to every problem in VA is just more staff. I 

think we ought to look at the way we do it, the techniques, the 

style, the inconsistency. 

Our colleague from Illinois, who is on this Committee, talked 

about decisionmaking in that office that was inconsistent as it relates to claims payments in other offices across the country. It is 

that kind of inconsistency that I think is frustrating us all. It is 

not to suggest that people are not working hard in most instances. 

But if the system is not throughputting in the way that we would 

expect it to be for the sake of the veteran, then I think we need 

to take a more serious look at it than just throwing money at the 

problem. We need to look at the fundamental system and how it 

works, or, as others have recommended over a period of several 

decades, fundamental changes are necessary. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Craig. I know 

you have been very passionate about this, and while you were 

Chairman you had, as you pointed out, several hearings on this 

subject. 

May I now call on Senator Rockefeller for any statement he may 

have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Craig. 

This hearing and those many hearings which are going to follow 

not only on this Hill but all across the country are going to be critical, because if you go back to the Vietnam War, you will remember 

it was really not until Admiral Zumwalt’s son got and died from 

cancer that all of us came to really understand what Agent Orange 

was and fund compensation for those suffering from it. 

If you go back to the Gulf War I, there are those who disagree—

but I am not one of them. I think pyridostigmine bromide was a 

major factor in the illness that tens and tens of thousands of people 

across this country, many of whom live in my State and whom I 

visited and spent a lot of time with and who are completely disabled, that was a factor. Still to this day such veterans are shunted 

aside by the DOD and, I would have to say, by you simply because 

we are all working for the same purpose. 

And now we come to today. I just want to read a portion of a letter from a West Virginian returning from Iraq, and he said, ‘‘When 

I contacted the VA office by phone, I was advised they are running 

behind and I would not be receiving my first disability payment for 

6 to 8 months. My question is: How am I supposed to survive until 

78

I start my disability pay? I have rent. I have a truck payment, utilities, food, child support to pay. Will I be evicted from my apartment and have to live in my truck until it is repossessed.’’

Now, that person spent 6 to 8 months in Iraq, and in closing, I 

just think there are so many issues—PTSD, traumatic brain injury, 

mental health problems—which have been talked about for years. 

I can remember that the conference committee of the veterans conference, in 1997, I believe, passed a long-term care policy for outpatient services. I do not think it has been particularly implemented. My dissatisfaction is not just with this chart, which is 

stunning, but with the degree of response and the particular kind 

of isolation that comes when you have 220,000, 250,000 employees 

and then you have them working in rooms without windows, many 

of whom never get out to see the people that they are serving because they cannot, jobs do not allow for that. It is sort of emblematic of Government not serving, not understanding, not knowing 

the people of America. And that is distressing, and I am glad, Mr. 

Chairman, that you and the Vice Chairman are having these hearings. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Rockefeller. I 

understand that you have other responsibilities this morning, and 

for that reason, I would permit you to ask any questions that you 

may have at this time before I call on other Members. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I could not possibly ask a question before 

Jon Tester and Jim Webb made statements. 

Chairman AKAKA. All right. We will ask——

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I am physically incapable of doing that. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman AKAKA. I will ask Senator Tester. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Rockefeller, I am not sure that my presence or Senator 

Webb’s presence would stop you from asking questions, but we will 

take that as compliment. Thank you very much. 

I am not going to take a lot of time right now because I do want 

to ask some questions later down the line. But I can just tell you 

this, folks, something to think about while you are sitting there: (1) 

I appreciate the job you do; and (2), when I go out in the field in 

the State of Montana and visit with veterans—and I have visited 

with a lot of them over the last couple of years—there is an issue 

about access. It is a real issue. 

Now, in Montana, I will tell you that I have been through a lot 

of the veterans homes, and I have been through the facility there 

at Fort Harrison, and I can tell you that unlike what we see at 

Walter Reed, this is a top-flight facility and the doctors and nurses 

there do a tremendous amount of good work. But also in that case, 

we are burning them out. There is not enough of them. There 

needs to be more of them to provide the kinds of services that our 

veterans need in the State of Montana. And my guess is that may 

be symptomatic throughout the United States. 

I have a concern with the budget that the President put forth. 

I do not think it is adequate. I do not think it is visionary at all 

79

as we look at what the potential impacts of the veterans coming 

back from Afghanistan and Iraq are and the kinds of impacts that 

they are going to have on the system. 

But as for right now, I can just tell you this, Mr. Chairman, 

Members of this Committee, everywhere I go in Montana, every 

veterans group I visit within Montana talks about access and talks 

about delays and talks about the inability to get in and get their 

treatment, to the point—and I am looking at some of the documents here that talk about a 111-day average. That is not what I 

am hearing in the field. I am hearing ‘‘years.’’ And that is not acceptable. In some cases, 111 days is not acceptable, but it is a heck 

of a lot better than years. But ultimately, in the end, what I hope 

to have accomplished from this hearing is that we really do get the 

kinds of benefits for veterans that they deserve across the board for 

all of them, the ones inside the system and the ones that are trying 

to get into it. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Senator Jim Webb? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB,

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would say very 

briefly at the outset that having participated in the Armed Services 

Committee hearing yesterday, as did you, with respect to what I 

think a number of us are beginning to realize is kind of a systemic 

breakdown in the transition of people from active duty into the veterans community, I am really grateful that you and Chairman 

Levin are going to continue to look at that through joint hearings. 

I think that is probably the key issue on the table here. It affects 

how people are being processed out of active duty, not only on the 

medical side, but on a wide variety of areas. It affects priority of 

leadership, where we are putting our money, where we are putting 

our energy. And it also, I am sure, manifests itself in the workload 

that you are receiving over here in the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

I have some questions that I want to ask at the appropriate time, 

particularly with respect to whether there are some specific ways 

to address the nature of this backlog, other than simply the volume 

of it. I will refrain from asking those questions at this time, and 

I appreciate being a part of the hearing. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Webb. 

We will now go into the questioning period, and as I tried to do, 

I am going to ask Senator Rockefeller to begin with his questions. 

Senator Rockefeller? 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just 

pose a couple—no ‘‘just’’ in front of that. I will pose a couple. 

I do not know whom to address this to, and I do not have time 

to have everybody answer it. So you will have to make that judgment. 

What is the VA doing to ensure that it can address the influx of 

claims that are resulting from the war without increasing the already unacceptable waiting times? That’s question number one. 

80

You estimate that the number of claims will essentially flatline 

in the future. I do not understand how that can be possible, not 

only in terms of the so-called escalation, or whatever, in Baghdad. 

Do you or do you not have a plan for the surge in claims and cases 

that will obviously follow from that? 

Mr. COOPER. Senator, let me first address what we are doing for 

the veterans coming back right now to expedite their claims. The 

Secretary has directed and we are, in fact, moving to make the people coming back from the Global War on Terror the priority. As a 

result, any claim we get that is from such a person, we will make 

it the priority; we will identify it as such at the regional office. 

About a month or two ago, we started working with OSD on getting a definitive list of names of people who are considered GWOT 

veterans. As we get names, we compare them with all the claims 

that have come in and specifically pull out those claims that have 

to do with GWOT veterans who have filed claims and we prioritize 

those. 

In each regional office we have designated several people to specifically address that group. We have also set up what we call a 

Tiger Team at five resource centers, which will work claims for 

those regional offices that are overburdened. 

So that is what we are doing that is different than we have done 

before——

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Could I ask within that question, is there 

a possibility—or does it already exist—of simply having DOD 

which would keep obviously the battlefield injury records, simply 

transfer them by computer directly to you so that they are immediately available to you? 

Mr. COOPER. Senator, I do not think they have that capability. 

We get the names, but the medical information we need comes to 

us, as it has for all these years, in paper files. Trying to get those 

is indeed a problem that we have. We are trying to set up a program whereby we get that information early for those people who 

are filing for disabilities so they will have their medical record as 

they get out of the service. And that is——

Senator ROCKEFELLER. That is Gulf War I all over again. 

Mr. COOPER. What I am saying is that information is not available to us directly from OSD. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Has there been any discussion you know 

of—there are a lot of computers in the battlefield. That was not the 

case 10 years ago, 15 years ago. Has there been any discussion of 

that? I cannot think of anything that strikes me as more sensible 

than being able to transfer information. Now, in this case of 

pyridostigmine bromide, a lot of soldiers would take it for a couple 

of days. They would start getting sick. They would stop taking it. 

So the recordkeeping was bad. But when you have injuries and 

clear medical histories and that has to be written down by hand 

as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of computers that are on 

the battlefield and in the hospitals in Germany and elsewhere, it 

would strike me as something which is either eminent or imminent. 

Mr. COOPER. In this case it is not. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Why? 

Mr. COOPER. I cannot answer that question. 

81

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Has anybody discuss that? 

Mr. COOPER. Oh, yes. There is ongoing discussion because of the 

medical records that we have in VHA that are electronic. I do not 

want to throw any stones, but the fact is that the medical records 

that we get to adjudicate a claim are paper. We get files. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Your records are, in fact, the best in the 

health care system in this country. That is what I understand. 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. So what is it possible for you to do to create enough ill will and pressure to try to get the DOD to do something which is reasonably similar? 

Mr. COOPER. I would say to you that there is a Joint Executive 

Committee which meets every 3 to 6 months, and there are two ancillary Committees: one is Health, which does address that part of 

it. (Of course, on the Benefits side, we have a Subcommittee on 

Benefits.) It is discussed, and I do know that there are plans that 

OSD is working on to get into the modern era with records. But 

they certainly are not there now. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Rockefeller. 

And now we turn to Senator Craig for his questions. 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, Senator Rockefeller has touched 

on something that I think has been frustrating to us and to VA for 

a long while, and I do not know what it takes to turn a battleship 

around, other than to hit it with a torpedo, maybe. But, Senator 

Rockefeller, we had DOD records accessible to the VA medical facility in Richmond so that for these traumatically injured—we could 

look at their records. Then we had a decision made by an attorney 

who said, ‘‘Well, you should not be doing that. There may be some 

liability here,’’ and it was stopped. And we intervened, and it got 

started again. 

Also we have a new naval facility up in Illinois where the Navy 

and VA and the hospital are working side by side now so the new 

incoming Navy men and women will have a joint record, and it will 

be Navy/VA. 

Here we have a modern military and still have no ability to 

transfer records. It is just mind-boggling to me, and Dan has talked 

about it. It still comes in a paper file. We are proud at VA that we 

are the most sophisticated medical recordkeeping health care delivery system in the country, but we have to re-create medical records 

from paper to digital coming from the most modern military system 

in the world. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. At the same time as we have VA hospitals and DOD hospitals increasing in their collaboration. 

Senator CRAIG. Yes. So, I mean, it is a very slow start, but it is 

a very inconsistent start, and, therefore, it is phenomenally frustrating to those of us who have tried to nudge this along. To talk 

seamless transition and not have immediate record transition, electronic record transition, is, in fact, not seamless. 

As I said, we are nudging it along. It is starting. But as I say, 

I do not know how you awaken DOD to the modern reality of electronics. 

82

I hope I am expressing my frustration to the Committee that we 

have been working at this for some time and getting nowhere. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Again, with the forbearance of Senators 

Tester and Webb, I would simply add this. When one comes into 

an office where there are piles of records, paper records all over the 

place, all motivation, all psychological motivation for I have got to 

get this one first, that one second, and I have got to get it done, 

I have got to drive and motivation disappears. I think that is in 

the nature of human beings. People go down the list, go down the 

pile, but the urgency and obviously the timeliness of it completely 

disappears. 

Senator CRAIG. Yes. Well, I have taken most of my time. Let me 

ask one question because there is progress. VA, as I mentioned in 

my opening statement, is moving all of our OIF/OEF folks to a priority position, but there is still the whole issue of long-term adjudication and timeliness. And I have talked about whether you can 

just keep pushing things through the same system expecting a 

timelier response by adding people. And I guess both to you, Admiral Cooper, and to you, Mr. Terry, would it make sense to examine 

and look at the potential to reduce the number of offices that are 

processing disability claims, particularly if that means removing 

that function from offices that routinely underperform, and expanding, modernizing those offices that do perform and demonstrate expertise, and move ourselves to a higher level of performance as it 

relates to these kinds of claims? I understand the sophisticated 

character of what we are doing here and the allocation of resources 

that ultimately transpires and the importance of that resource not 

only to the recipient but the impact of it on budgets and Government and all of that. So it is a fine thread. I understand that. 

But I do not know of anybody in the private sector that would 

tolerate a claims adjudication in the untimeliness that happens at 

the Federal level with VA. How do we fix this beyond just pushing 

more staff at it? Or is that the answer? 

Mr. COOPER. Well, that is certainly predicated on the paper 

claims we get. That has to be part of the answer, and we have 

asked for an increase in people. But we have been looking at consolidations. One thing we need to do is to get some of these more 

difficult types of claims consolidated. Radiation is a primary example and we have moved those claims in the last 6 months to Jackson, Mississippi. That way we do not have people who are doing 

relatively standard types of claims, although somewhat complicated, suddenly diverted to doing a a type of claim that they only 

did once last year and they have only one this year and so must 

go back to the books and relearn how to adjudicate it. So we did 

that with radiation. We have done that with other types of things, 

like CLL. 

What I have tried to say is that there are some difficult types 

of claims that can be moved to a given regional office and, therefore, any of those claims that come in anywhere are consolidated 

there. 

A second item is——

Senator CRAIG. So you are suggesting that within these 57 offices, you are developing—your idea is to develop levels of expertise 

83

on certain types of claims, and they go to a certain office where 

that expertise rests. 

Mr. COOPER. That is one aspect. The other aspect is that there 

are several regional offices that are not as productive as they 

should be. And so, as you know, one of our processes is brokering; 

namely, if one office has too many claims and I have the capacity 

in another office to adjudicate those claims, I will transfer those 

claims to that office and, therefore, try to use our entire operation 

to do these claims. But I agree with you that we should be able to 

get into a better consolidation program whereby we have fairly 

large regional offices in specific parts of the country and then other 

small offices that are more intake sites. I set up a model for that 

with benefits delivery at discharge where, at 140 facilities around 

the country, Army, Navy, DOD facilities, we have a group of two, 

three, four people who take in claims from young men and women 

leaving the service, getting all the information they can. We have 

requested they take in all those claims for disability 60 days ahead 

of their getting out of the service. That way we can take advantage 

of getting the medical exams that are necessary. We can take advantage of getting their medical records right there and, having 

put all that together, then we have two sites that we send them 

to for adjudication. One is Winston-Salem and another one is Salt 

Lake City. 

I see that as a model to work toward where we have intake sites 

at various places and then larger regional offices to do the adjudication. 

Another problem I have to look at, however, is what is the optimal size for a regional office before the workload becomes so burdensome that it is not run effectively. I am trying to look at that. 

As I say, I am trying to use BDD as a model. 

So there are two types of consolidation: one is having larger offices that are good offices and have a good group of people process 

claims sent from intake sites; the other type is taking the harderto-rate types of claims and have them moved into one office so we 

have people that become experts at working those cases. 

Senator CRAIG. I have taken all the time, and more. Yes or no: 

Are the movement of claims between these offices electronic? 

Mr. COOPER. No, sir. You are sending the files. They absolutely 

are not electronic and that is one of the problems we look at very 

carefully because of security. We work with the company that has 

that contract, and we have to make sure that the files leave properly, are properly tracked, and properly arrive. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Craig. 

Admiral, you mentioned that the Secretary has asked you to set 

up a system to prioritize claims submitted by those who participated in the Global War on Terror. 

My concern regarding this priority is the effect of prioritization 

on the claims of all other veterans. And my question to you: Are 

measures being taken to ensure that all other veterans with claims 

in the system are not adversely affected by the prioritization of 

Global War on Terror claims? 

Mr. COOPER. The answer is yes, sir. On the other hand, there are 

only so many priorities and, as a result, I imagine that other pendVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\34385.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
84

ing claims are going to take a little longer. However, we have increased overtime. 

We also have authority to get retired annuitants to come back 

and adjudicate claims for the Tiger Team in Cleveland that I mentioned. That Tiger Team was set up shortly after I came on board 

by Mr. Principi to take care of veterans who are 70 years old and 

older and who have had a claim that has been pending for a year 

or more. 

When we started that process 5 years ago I think we had about 

15,000 claims in the queue. We now have about 2,000. And we did 

bring on recently about 24 man-years of retired annuitants to help 

us in that respect. 

Chairman AKAKA. Admiral Cooper, let me ask something that is 

somewhat outside of the scope of today’s hearing. I would like to 

get some preliminary information on the record regarding the Benefits Delivery at Discharge program. 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman AKAKA. Can you share with the Committee where 

BDD is currently active and to what extent it is catering to military transition facilities, such as Walter Reed, where a large number of seriously injured servicemembers are being cared for? Also, 

can you describe what costs would be associated with expanding 

BDD services to reach, again, all seriously wounded 

servicemembers and get them into the VA compensation system 

upon separation from the armed services, including the Guard and 

Reserves? 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, there are two separate 

questions there. One question is how are we dealing with the seriously wounded who come into Walter Reed or Bethesda and eventually get to about eight military facilities around the country. 

That is completely separate from Benefits Delivery at Discharge 

because we have prioritized these veterans since 3 years ago when 

Secretary Principi set up what he has called the ‘‘Seamless Transition Program.’’

We have people at Walter Reed, at Bethesda, and at the MTFs 

who contact the young men or women, the service personnel, and 

their families and try to explain, when they are ready to receive 

that information, everything that we can tell them about benefits. 

Then we try to make sure that, as they leave Walter Reed or as 

they leave other MTFs, we have gotten all the medical information 

necessary to adjudicate the claim. Our goal is to have the claims 

as soon as we receive notice that they are out of the service, the 

DD214 in hand, which we have to do by law. We then adjudicate 

the claim, and our goal is to have them receiving pay as soon as 

possible, about 40 days after they are out of the service. That is 

the way we have consistently been working with these seriously 

wounded the last 3 years. 

Now, once in a while there are some that fall through the cracks. 

That is terrible. As soon as I find out about that, we jump on it 

and take care of them. But, in general, that is the way the system 

operates. 

The BDD system, on the other hand, is strictly for those people 

who are leaving the service or retiring and we tell them they can 

come to us 180 days before they get out, but at least if they come 

85

in 60 days before we should be able to adjudicate their claims 

under Benefits Delivery at Discharge. So, shortly after they are discharged, they will start receiving whatever disability benefits that 

they are allowed by the system. 

There are also those who, as they get out, do not want to file for 

benefits so soon or, for some reason, cannot come to us at the military facility where we have people. They may come the week before 

they leave or a couple of days before they leave. We then take their 

claim and send it to the regional office of jurisdiction where they 

are going to finally be located. They have to tell us where they are 

going to move. Then we get the records to the regional office that 

has that jurisdiction. So, we are talking about two separate programs here. 

Last year, we were able to adjudicate our BDD claims in about 

64 days. That is, if we can get the medical record early. That is 

a primary component, getting the medical record the man or 

woman has as they leave the service. 

Chairman AKAKA. I also asked, so it becomes three parts of that 

question, and that was the cost of expanding BDD services and the 

costs associated with that. 

Mr. COOPER. I will take that question for the record. I cannot tell 

you the cost. However, let me say that last year we could have 

taken in many more claims. The problem is contacting people, as 

they are getting close to getting out. We try to make ourselves 

available. We make presentations. We reach out to them. Right 

now I do not feel it would be effective for us to have more than 

those two sites for adjudication and, as I say, 140 sites at various 

military facilities to have an intake for all of those claims. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Well, we have a second round. 

Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure I heard 

what I heard here a bit ago, and it deals with the forms you receive 

from DOD are all paper copies. 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Those files. 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Has there been any effort to make those electronic? 

Mr. COOPER. This has been discussed, and I think you will find 

that on the VHA side or the medical side they have been talking 

and I think OSD is moving forward on a program. But this is still 

under discussion. 

Senator TESTER. Because if it revolves around the security issue, 

that is not reasonable. 

Mr. COOPER. I did not mean to say that. I thought I was talking 

on another subject. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. COOPER. Once we have these records, we want to broker 

them to another place that has the capability to process them. We 

have to send these records and they are paper records. 

Senator TESTER. OK. You know, you have got a lot of smart people working for you, and I know there are a lot of smart people in 

every area of Government—DOD, all down the line. We are well 

into the 21st century here, and, quite frankly, being a farmer, I 

86

would probably be the last one to tell you this. But if it was not 

for electronic communication, it would be very difficult to do my 

job. This is a tremendous impediment for you, and I know you cannot do it alone, but it would seem to me that it would help everybody in the system if there was some sort of standardization in 

electronic availability of these records. If you want to address that, 

that would be great. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you very much, sir. I would like to address a 

different aspect of it. While DOD, as the Admiral has said, is moving, like we are, to an electronic system—and we hope to have 

them there before too long. I know when I was in the Marine 

Corps, that was a big push by the Marine Corps to get our records 

more effectively reproduced in electronic fashion. 

Let me just tell you one concern we have and one of the things 

we are working with the court system on. Rule 9, for example, of 

the Court of Appeals of Veterans Claims requires at this time that 

they have a total paper record before they will consider an appeal. 

And the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit requires the same 

thing in very much a similar rule to Rule 9 of the Court of Appeals 

of Veterans Claims. 

So those are challenges we are working with those courts to 

change as well, and we are working very hard to do that. We expect that within the next year or two, we will have that fixed. And 

that is something that Admiral Cooper and myself and our staffs 

have been working with the court to change, because as long as we 

have to have this paper record in total form before they will process that appeal, and if it goes to those courts—and, of course, each 

one of our veterans has an absolute right to do that—we are going 

to have to maintain those paper records. And that is one of the 

things that has really been holding us up. 

But as I say, Senator, we are working very hard to change that, 

and we are pushing the court to do that. 

Senator TESTER. Well, you know, I just think that you are going 

to be pulling a plow for a long time until you get this situation 

squared away. You know, in 1985, this was probably a good way 

of doing it, but we are well beyond that. 

I just want to touch on the interface between—for providing services. You know, as an elected policymaker, I really depend upon the 

bureaucracy to really do a good job. I can appropriate all the 

money, and I can have all the good ideas, and if it is not implemented and the money is not spent right, it does not do one bit of 

good. And I have got to tell you, over the last 2 months you deal 

with a myriad of projects, and I could go down the list, but it would 

take all the time. You know what I am talking about. 

This is another one of those projects, and it is a project for me 

that really hits home, because we have got a lot of veterans in the 

State of Montana, and from a pure principle standpoint of what is 

right for this country to be doing, it makes no sense to me that 

DOD and VA are not just working hand in glove to make sure of 

the transition and make sure the people get the services they need. 

And when we talk about the priority for the veterans now coming 

back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I really applaud that. But I think 

you also need to know that there are a lot of veterans out there 

from the first Gulf War, from Vietnam, and before—they need help, 

87

too. And I would hope that they are not forgotten about, and I 

know they will not be. 

But the bottom line is this: I really think that I cannot fix this 

for you, and if it is a turf war, it needs to be put aside. But there 

is a problem here. There really is a problem here. I hear about it 

way too much for it just to be some disgruntled veteran that is not 

happy. I hear about it everywhere I go. And my question is: Do you 

have people within your staffs that have solutions on how to fix 

this? Because, quite frankly, if you do not, we are really in trouble. 

Mr. TERRY. Senator, I think we do. I think everybody in our staff, 

whether it be Admiral Cooper’s staff or my organization or in the 

Secretary’s office, is adamant that we will find solutions. For example, there is a meeting tomorrow with DOD on many of these same 

issues. One of the Committees is meeting, and that is an ongoing 

process. People are not hesitating to come up with good ideas and 

try to make it work. Sometimes we have existing regulations that 

make it more difficult. 

For example, in the appeals resolution time that I deal with 

every day, we have 330 days of built-in mandatory waiting times 

in that process. So before—we have to give 60 days after receipt 

of the NOD to offer the DRO process, have to make that available, 

have to give them that much time before we can move on because 

we do not know what they are going to give us during that period 

of time. And there are seven or eight periods like that that we are 

dealing with. If we can cut it down to 30 days—and there is no reason we could not, with the kind of representation. Those are the 

kinds of things we are recommending. 

Senator TESTER. Can that be done administratively or does that 

have to be done at this level? 

Mr. TERRY. Some of it has to be done at your level. Some of it 

we can do by regulation. I had a chance to talk to your staff director a couple of weeks ago, and he had some great ideas, too. And 

we are working with your staff, hopefully, to make some of those 

kinds of changes. 

Senator TESTER. I would love to have—and the sooner, the better—the recommendations you have to help expedite this process, 

because then we can really start moving forward, I think, on getting some things done that really help the people on the ground. 

Mr. TERRY. Absolutely, and we agree. While these were well intentioned, were designed to provide rights at one point, now they 

are really slowing down the process on behalf of the veteran, and 

we need to fix it. I agree with you. 

Senator TESTER. I am just guessing, but my guess, part of that 

has to do with the paper form. And if it was done electronically, 

you could cut a lot of those days out. 

Mr. COOPER. Senator, could I ask you a question or make a statement? I want to make a statement. 

Senator TESTER. You can ask me a question, too. 

Mr. COOPER. I am retired military, and the thing that strikes me 

is: Why don’t we take an individual that comes into military service and, from then on, everything that is done, that information, 

also comes to the VA, because that individual is going to be a veteran. It is one individual. Why do we have to suddenly, OK, now 

you are no longer military, now you are a veteran, and now we do 

88

this. It seems to me that type of thing is the type of thing that 

could help. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, and I agree. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. 

Senator Webb, and you will be followed by a statement and questions from Senator Obama. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Cooper and Chairman Terry and others, I would like to 

emphasize something that I said in my opening remarks, that this 

is the very beginning of an ongoing process, at least in this Congress, for us to try to address this kind of abyss on both sides, from 

moving people out of DOD and hitting the wall here with the VA 

and the DVA, and there will be many other hearings. 

I want to say I regret, as soon as I finish my statement, I am 

going to have to leave. King Abdullah of Jordan is making a presentation to a joint session. I would like to hear what he has to say. 

But what I would like to do here is to follow up a little bit actually 

on what my partner, Senator Tester, was talking about because I 

have a lot of the same concerns, and also to suggest sort of an analytical matrix here, where at least from my perspective we might 

move forward. 

I, like many people here, have a long institutional memory with 

respect to the area of veterans law, and I think as we are moving 

forward, we need to tap into that institutional memory to give us 

a better understanding of where things are right now, what is different and what is the same. 

We have always had the difficulty, particularly in a period of 

wartime, of the VA being able to absorb veterans and treat them 

fairly and those sorts of things. And I do not think there is any 

group of more well motivated people that I have ever worked with 

than people who work in veterans law and the hospitals and all 

these areas. I hope we can really do some honest analysis here 

about where the breaking points are. We tend to focus on sort of 

the issue of the moment or some legislative piece or those sorts of 

things. But I think I would like to start by going back and looking 

at things like examining fairly the impetus for this dramatic increase in claims. Some of that is societal when you look at what 

has happened in the breakdown of the medical system, writ large, 

and people just wanting to get into some medical system that will 

take care of them. 

I am wondering, having spent a number of years in veterans law, 

and also at a point in my life doing a lot of pro bono work with 

veterans, whether actually the standards themselves have remained the same—the law is pretty much the same—whether the 

standards really have remained the same, and whether the evaluators being trained now understand what the standards are so 

that they can move these claims with a note of certainty about 

them, not wanting to be second-guessed. You know, sometimes people are going to be turned down. That is just the way it is. But 

when they are, they have to understand—everybody has to understand—this is done fairly and these are the standards, they are the 

historical standards. 

At the same time, are the claims more complex now? I am hearing that people are coming up with seven and eight items on a 

89

claim, so one claim takes longer just by the nature of the way they 

are being presented. I am curious also about the impact of attorney 

representation, particularly at the claims level. Is it going to slow 

it down? Has it slowed it down? 

And if you look on the other side of that, I know when I was 

doing a lot of work in veterans law, the veterans service officers 

were highly trained from the service organizations, and particularly the DAV, if I may say. They had a tremendous program, and 

I know they still do. But is that still the same, writ large, among 

the Veterans Service Organizations? And is the body of people separate from attorneys? 

I have strong feelings about the notion of requiring a veteran to 

pay. I do not have strong feelings about allowing a veteran to have 

a lawyer, but I think requiring a veteran to pay, particularly on a 

contingency basis, when some of these claims are so minute, I just 

have a problem with that personally, having helped people and 

been through the system as a lawyer helping people at different 

times in my life. 

Those are the kinds of things, I think, we are going to look at 

from my staff, and Mike McGarvey, who is working with us, and 

who has got a long history of working with the VA. Those are going 

to be the starting points for us in terms of trying to deal with this 

fairly and trying to find out where the breaking points are and how 

we can help move toward a solution. 

And I would make one other comment with respect to what Senator Tester said about moving from paper to software. We are 

going to be taking a hard look at what the Marine Corps is doing. 

You know, Chairman Terry, you mentioned the Marine Corps. And, 

of course, when you and I were beginning in the Marine Corps, the 

Marine Corps was kind of the joke among the services about not 

being able to do paperwork and that sort of thing. Who is going to 

fill out the unit diary? Who wants to be an 01, you know? But they 

have done a marvelous job. From what we are hearing, they have 

got a great software program. 

I take your point about the certification process, moving into 

what you were calling Rule 9. There are ways that we might be 

able to move around that, but we are going to be looking at the 

Marine Corps system, and perhaps there is something there. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Webb. 

Senator Obama? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, gentlemen, and I apologize that I did not hear you present 

your testimony, but I have had a chance to review some of the 

issues. And I just want to pick up on a couple of themes that I suspect were already discussed, but bear with me if I am being repetitive. 

The first point, just on DOD coordination, can you reiterate for 

me, (A) What is being done to integrate VA and DOD disability review processes more effectively? and (B) What other steps have 

been taken by the VA to follow GAO’s previous recommendations 

90

that regional offices use an alternative resource for obtaining military records prior to going through the inadequate Joint Services 

Records Research Center? As I think you are aware, that takes 

about a year. If you can just tell me how we are doing on that front 

and what steps we are doing to improve it. 

Again, this may have already been covered during the testimony. 

If it was, I apologize. 

Mr. COOPER. No, sir, it has not been. 

First, as for the disability process, of course, we have our own. 

And, as you have seen in the paper, when a person goes before the 

PEB, the Physical Evaluation Board in DOD, nobody from VA is 

present. There is no integration in that respect. And they make 

whatever decision they make. 

Then the veteran comes to us and comes through our completely 

separate system. What I can tell you is that, as of 2 days ago, I 

got a call from people in OSD saying that we need to get together 

and talk about this. 

The issue of not necessarily merging, but certainly working together between the military and the VA is something that is in the 

embryonic stage and will certainly be pushed. But up until now, 

not too much has been done. 

The second question that you asked—do you want me to go on 

to the second question? 

Senator OBAMA. Yes, please go ahead. 

Mr. COOPER. The second question had to do with what we are 

doing about medical exams. You spoke of getting medical exams. 

There is the record center in St. Louis where we have to go for 

records of older veterans, that is, veterans who never filed a claim 

but, after 20 years—and this is true with many Vietnam veterans 

who are now having effects of Agent Orange—file a claim. One of 

the things they must do is to show that whatever disability they 

are requesting compensation for has a genesis to service. If it is 

Agent Orange related, we must establish that they were, in fact, 

in Vietnam, and that sort of thing. We have to have some kind of 

proof of that. So many times we have to get their record because 

they have retired and the record has gone to St. Louis to the archives there. 

We are now working on a process where we can try to determine 

this ourselves to the best of our ability as far as what—in PTSD, 

for instance—the stressor is, what happened to them that might 

have caused stress and, therefore, caused PTSD. 

What we are trying to do now through this program that we call 

Benefits Delivery at Discharge is to encourage everybody who is 

leaving the service to come see us immediately. We have 140 locations at military sites around the country where they can come in 

and bring their record, and, therefore, we have their record. If they 

bring it timely (and they can do it up to 180 days before they get 

out), then we can adjudicate that claim and have them start getting paid shortly after they leave the service. It is a benefit to them 

and to us. It is a benefit to them because they get the disability 

payment sooner. It is a benefit to us because we now have the medical record. 

91

For older claims, we still have to go to St. Louis many times to 

retrieve records. For younger veterans, we are trying to get the 

records as soon as possible. 

Senator OBAMA. I am running short on time, so let me shift to 

the issue of staffing levels. I think it is fair to say that a number 

of us on this Committee have been skeptical about some of the 

agency’s assumptions regarding the anticipated number of claims 

in Fiscal Year 2008. You have stated that number at about 

800,000. 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

Senator OBAMA. Could you discuss in a little more detail the assumptions the VA has used in reaching this number? Because we 

are seeing a 39 percent increase in claims since 2000, a growing 

number of returned servicemembers from Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and Operation Enduring Freedom. On that count alone, there are 

some 631,000 discharged servicemembers who are eligible for some 

form of care or benefits within the VA system. Just give me some 

sense of why it is that you think there is not going to be substantial growth in this area. And as you know, we have got a record 

on this Committee of having to deal with emergency supplementals 

mid-year because of poor planning and anticipation of the needs of 

our veterans. 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

Senator OBAMA. So give me some reason why I should feel a little 

more assurance that these numbers are solid. 

Mr. COOPER. We have a model that we use. The primary component of the model is the size of the active duty Reserve and National Guard. Over the last 3 years, our estimates of the number 

we expect to get, not counting changes that occur from the time we 

put it in the budget until execution of the budget, our model has 

been within about 1 percent. The 600,000 or so that you mention 

are those who are now veterans coming out. The number of those 

who have come to us, including the seriously wounded and others 

who have have attained veteran status, is about 27 percent. 

The main point I want to make is that part of the model is predicated on the number on active duty, assuming a certain percentage 

of everybody on active duty will eventually file a claim. It has been 

correct within about 1 percent for the last 3 years. I can get some 

more information on the model and answer that for the record. 

Senator OBAMA. I would like to get more information on that. 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

Senator OBAMA. If you could work with my staff to make sure 

that we have that information so that we can follow up on that. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. I would ask unanimous 

consent to place my written statement into the record. 

Chairman AKAKA. Without objection, it will be placed in the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Obama follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Senator Craig, for holding this hearing. 

Over the last few weeks, the Nation’s attention has refocused on the moral question of how we are caring for our returning heroes and their families, from the moment they return from combat, to their recovery as outpatients, and to their transition and well-being as honorable veterans. Gut-wrenching revelations of unnecesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\34385.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
92

sary red tape and unacceptable delays compel us to fix and more vigilantly monitor 

those agencies and systems that are charged with the sacred duty of healing our 

warriors and guiding them through the process of getting the benefits they deserve. 

If the problems at Walter Reed represent the tip of the iceberg—and sadly, I’m 

afraid that this is the case—then we are required to re-examine all aspects of our 

care system for servicemembers and veterans. And in this effort, I am deeply grateful to Chairman Akaka for his leadership on these issues. 

Today we hear from the Veterans’ Administration (VA) and the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals (BVA) on their efforts in reducing the VA’s claims backlog, and the other 

steps underway to better manage and shorten the turnaround time for compensation claims and service delivery. I want to join my other colleagues up front in stating that the President’s budget request for the VA is inadequate, as is the number 

of new Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions proposed to meet the growing demand 

of increasingly complex benefits claims. 

I was proud to join Chairman Akaka and other Members of the Committee in calling for an increase of nearly $2.9 billion in additional VA funding above the President’s request. A portion of this funding will enable expanded hiring of claims workers so the VBA can better handle its workload and reduce the backlog. While we 

want to find ways to reduce error rates and streamline processes where possible, 

we cannot lose sight of the fact that these cases are increasingly complex and highly 

variable. Ultimately, the claims review and adjudication process is a human one, 

and we need to make sure we have a sufficient number of highly trained experts 

to shepherd our heroes through this process. 

Chronic understaffing and underfunding are only part of the problem. I continue 

to share the concerns of my colleagues that a lack of coordination and information 

sharing between the DOD and the VA exacerbate the delay in claims decisions, especially in the evidence gathering phase of the process. I have sponsored legislation, 

the Lane Evans Act, which would in part address this problem by requiring the Department of Defense to provide each discharged servicemember with a complete 

electronic file of his or her military records, including medical information. I hope 

the Committee will consider this legislation this year. 

Finally, I share the assessment of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

and our Veterans Service Organizations that we need to take one step back and look 

at broader issues that confound the current claims adjudication process, and how 

we might ensure the VA has the resources it needs to get the job done as we welcome a new generation of veterans home. I look forward to working with Chairman 

Akaka, the VA and our other partners in addressing this great national challenge.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Obama. 

I would like to continue with a second round of questions, and 

to Admiral Cooper, this is something that goes outside of the scope 

of this hearing, but I wanted to ask you for some information that 

you can send me. 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman AKAKA. I wanted to tell you about this concern that 

I have given the types of injuries that are occurring as a result of 

the Global War on Terror. 

According to the rating schedule, headaches caused by brain 

trauma are limited to a 10 percent rating. However, migraines can 

have a rating of up to 50 percent. I think that we need to be sensitive to the types of injuries that are occurring to our newly separated servicemembers and make certain that the rating schedule 

appropriately reflects the effects of their disabilities. 

Admiral, can you then please send me the rationale for these differences and the rating schedule and any direction that has been 

given to the field regarding rating these conditions? 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. I will have to take that for the record, and 

I certainly will. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Terry, it appears that there is still a gap between the 

Board’s decisions and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determinations. Of the 2,135 merit decisions made by the CAVC in 

93

Fiscal Year 2006, only 440 cases were affirmed, while 518 were reversed, vacated, or remanded, and 847 were simply remanded for 

further action. 

I would like some comment from you on these figures, and do 

these numbers concern you? 

Mr. TERRY. We have a system, sir, which allows information to 

flow to the deciding body, whether it be our Board or the court, in 

terms of new information concerning certain types of disabilities in 

a way that is very, very different than any other appellate process. 

And while certainly when you talk about 518 reversed or remanded, many opportunities exist for the court to affirm on any 

number of the issues before it, but there may be one or two that 

they send back for additional information because they are not satisfied in terms of a remand. So these 518 cases may not all be in 

any way totally reversed or require total redress. Many of the 

issues are affirmed. 

So I think it is important that we understand that this is a very 

unusual process where information—the record is never closed 

until it gets to the court—and so consequently, you have to appreciate that these are cases where we are trying to reach out and provide the benefit to the veteran. From our perspective, anything the 

court can do to properly give the veteran the benefit, we are certainly supportive of. That does not mean we were wrong with the 

information we had. Very often we did precisely the right thing. If 

the court sees something that they have, since our decision, ruled 

in a way that would change the law, then certainly they ought to 

give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran. 

One of the things that is interesting, the court oftentimes is taking a case that we have decided, and it is 2 years down the road 

that they are getting to it, or 21⁄2 years down the road. And, consequently, if there are changes, if there is a difference in the manner in which this type of disability is addressed, either through a 

change in regulation, certainly they want to give the veteran the 

benefit of that. We certainly do not object to that. We applaud it. 

I do not think that in any way denigrates from our use of the existing law at the time we are deciding the case. 

So like I say, like the court, we are trying very hard to give the 

benefit of the doubt to the veteran. It is a nonadversarial process 

at our level. We consider it to be a very, very important aspect of 

their work if they have changed the way they are looking at any 

specific disability, to give that benefit to the veteran. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Terry. 

Admiral Cooper, in the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget request, $31.6 million is specifically for VETSNET improvements. 

What improvements do you think will be made with this funding? 

Mr. COOPER. Let me explain, Mr. Chairman. VETSNET is something that will get us into at least the 20th-plus century. 

VETSNET is a program that was seen as unsuccessful 5 or 6 years 

ago, and we have put a lot of effort into making it a success because VETSNET will give us records that we can then keep electronically. We have five elements of VETSNET. Three of those five 

elements are in full effect, 100 percent, and the two others, which 

have to do with actual processing of payment to the veteran, we 

94

are doing very, very carefully because, of course, we do not want 

a mistake in the veteran’s pay. 

We have a specific person that is in charge of this who answers 

directly to me. We are also working very closely, and have for the 

last 21⁄2 years, with the CIO. Two years ago we had a group of contractors come in from Carnegie Mellon, SAI from Carnegie Mellon, 

and I asked them to analyze what we were doing, what we needed 

to do, and whether we should continue this program. Their reply 

was, ‘‘Yes, you should. There are some things you should do that 

you have not been doing.’’

And we took those steps. I then said, ‘‘Could you help us in managing this?’’ They said, ‘‘No, we do not do that.’’ So then I went 

back to the CIO, and we brought on board Mitre, and Mitre has 

now been onboard for a year. 

I think we have made tremendous progress, and, in fact, my impression is that VA will use the model we have used, the model for 

organizing and running this program, in other programs that they 

are going to be running centrally. So VETSNET is very important. 

This money is to continue us on the track to be completely using 

VETSNET at the end of 2008 or early in 2009. To show you the 

progress that we have made, as of the end of February, for all initial claims that came in this fiscal year, 38 percent of those claims 

were done completely in VETSNET. So we are making great 

strides, and I think strides that many people thought we would 

never make. But, quite frankly, I am quite proud of what we are 

doing so far in VETSNET and, although it will not get us into the 

21st century, it will make a major step getting us into a position 

to jump into the 21st century. 

Chairman AKAKA. Well, thank you for that. We will certainly follow up on that. 

Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Cooper, if I heard you right to Senator Obama’s questions, you said that you are projecting about 27 percent will request benefits? 

Mr. COOPER. That is approximately right. I just took the figures 

that we have right now from the GWOT report where we can identify those who have come in with claims. OSD identifies all veterans who participated in the Global War on Terror, and then we 

determine how many have filed claims for benefits. Right now it is 

about 27 percent. 

Senator TESTER. OK, because my information shows that in 

2006, 69,000 out of 198,000 that went out of the military requested 

benefits. That is about 35 percent. 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, and I am giving you a figure of all those who 

were in GWOT and all those who have left military service. I am 

basing it on what DOD told me, and the number I have are the 

number of people who actually filed claims. 

Senator TESTER. All right. Well——

Mr. COOPER. I would be glad to get together with your staff and 

make sure we know what——

Senator TESTER. That would be good, but the bottom line is that 

if you underestimate the projections—and I am not saying you did, 

but if they are underestimated, for whatever reasons, you are never 

95

going to be able to be successful, at least unless you have some 

abilities that I am not—well, I do not know about that. OK. 

I think, Mr. Terry, you talked about 2,000 folks are in the queue, 

and that has been some time ago. That was in the first round of 

questions. If a person applies for a benefit and gets rejected because of some reason—they did not put the right address down, or 

I do not know why you reject them, but there is a rejection because 

the form is not filled out right. Are those classified as being in the 

queue? 

Mr. TERRY. You are talking about an appeal to our Board? 

Senator TESTER. I am not actually talking about an appeal. I am 

just talking about getting through the door. I am just saying they 

have got a problem. They fill out the necessary paperwork, and for 

some reason that paperwork is rejected. Is that classified as being 

in the queue? 

Mr. COOPER. Could I answer the question? 

Senator TESTER. You sure may. 

Mr. COOPER. Because it comes in to me. 

Senator TESTER. Sure. No problem. 

Mr. COOPER. Claims always come in through my outfit. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. COOPER. Eventually, they may get to him. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. COOPER. The major change in incoming claims—you saw up 

there the numbers that Senator Craig had on the chart. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. COOPER. The major reason for a large increase 5 years ago 

in the number of people that we needed, and mostly got, is something called VCAA. It is the Act which determined exactly how we 

should treat claims. Prior to that time, I was not around, but it appears to me that we were not doing well by veterans. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. COOPER. So as a result, this Act was passed. It is a very good 

Act. It says very specifically that when a veteran comes in and 

wants to file a claim, VBA must send a letter to the veteran that 

is very specific, detailing all the things that VBA is going to do and 

all the things that the veterans must do. Also, due to a recent court 

ruling VBA must state the elements that we will use to decide the 

claim and how we will determine the date of claim. 

So the law itself is quite specific on what we should do. 

Senator TESTER. OK, and I understand that. Are those folks part 

of the 2,000 then, or are they not? I assume that 2,000 in the 

queue means 2,000 that still need additional paperwork to be accepted into the program to get the necessary treatment they need. 

Mr. COOPER. The number in the queue right now is 400,000. 

That is the number in the queue. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Mr. COOPER. And they are in various stages of the process. 

Senator TESTER. So we have got 400,000 folks out there that are 

requesting benefits. We do not know for sure if they are bogus or 

not, to be honest. But there are 400,000 folks out there that think 

they deserve benefits that are not being dealt with. 

Mr. COOPER. That is correct. And last year, we received 805,000. 

96

Senator TESTER. So about half of them are being accepted and 

half of them are being——

Mr. COOPER. No, not necessarily. No. As a matter of fact, it really 

depends on what the veteran is claiming because there are various 

rates. If a veteran requests a hearing, you may get one rate——

Senator TESTER. I hear you. I guess the real question is: Is 

400,000 a figure you are comfortable with? 

Mr. COOPER. No, sir, not at all. 

Senator TESTER. What figure would you be comfortable with? 

Mr. COOPER. If I want to get to 125 processing days, I think I 

would be comfortable with a working level of about 280,000 to 

285,000. I think that is about the number that would give me a 

working level for processing claims in about 125 to 130 days. 

Senator TESTER. Do you have recommendations on how to get to 

that point? 

Mr. COOPER. We are doing many things that hopefully will get 

us to that point. 

Senator TESTER. One last question—if I might, Mr. Chairman— 

because my red light just came on. But the question I had deals 

with the stressor event that you were talking about with an earlier 

question, and I think you talked about Agent Orange in regards to 

Vietnam. The veteran has to go back—and the files are kept in St. 

Louis, or are they kept here in D.C.? 

Mr. COOPER. Most of them will be kept in St. Louis. 

Senator TESTER. They have to go back and find out what event 

that was where they were exposed to Agent Orange that may have 

caused the PTSD? 

Mr. COOPER. I was answering a couple of different questions. In 

the case of Agent Orange, if you served during a specific time period in Vietnam, there are several presumptive conditions that can 

be considered to have resulted from exposure—diabetes being the 

primary one. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. COOPER. If you have diabetes today and you were in Vietnam 

during that period——

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. COOPER.—it is presumed you were exposed to Agent Orange 

and, therefore, presumed that you have diabetes as a result of it. 

Senator TESTER. If you have PTSD, though, you have to make a 

proof that you were exposed? 

Mr. COOPER. In the case of PTSD, we must be able to find in 

your record something that was a stressor, something that would 

cause you to have flashbacks or something that today would manifest itself as PTSD. 

Senator TESTER. Is Agent Orange one of those? 

Mr. COOPER. I do not think so. 

Senator TESTER. The real question here is: Vietnam ended in 

1973, as I recall. We are dealing with something that happened to 

a lot of these folks 40 years ago. 

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. How can they be expected to know when that 

happened in order to get that? Do you understand what I am saying? I mean, if they were, for instance, in a battle at some point 

in time, my guess is that most of these folks have been trying to 

97

erase this from their memory for 40 years. How can they be expected to know? And do they have any help in accessing those 

records? 

Mr. COOPER. Yes. We try to find out what it was. Besides going 

to St. Louis for the records, we also go to an organization at Fort 

Belvoir that has unit records. So if we have the DD214, which says 

they are now honorably discharged, we can find out various places 

where they were or units to which they were attached. 

Senator TESTER. Is there—and excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I guess 

I could go on all day, so I will just cut this off at this point. But 

do you feel you have adequate resources to be able to help these 

folks determine when that stressor event happened? 

Mr. COOPER. I feel that, with the resources that we have requested in 2008, I will be well on the way to having adequate resources. But it is a long, lengthy process. It is a very involved process. And that is what——

Senator TESTER. I could not agree more. I agree. And that is why 

it is important that we not only get the most bang for the buck but 

are responsive to the needs. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. 

I want to thank this panel for your responses. As you know, all 

of us are working diligently to do the best we can to help the veterans of our country, and these hearings are conducted in an effort 

to do that. Your responses will certainly help us in doing this, and 

I hope we can find answers, whether it is more funds, personnel, 

or restructuring, to deliver the kinds of services that our veterans 

deserve. 

So thank you so much for what you are doing, and we wish you 

well. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. I would like to call up the next panel, and as 

you approach the desk, I would like to mention your names and 

your positions: Daniel Bertoni, Acting Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security issues, Government Accountability Office (GAO); John Rowan, National President, Vietnam Veterans of 

America; and Rick Surratt, Deputy National Legislative Director, 

Disabled American Veterans. 

We welcome all of you to the Committee. Before the start of this 

panel, I would like to remind the Vietnam Veterans of America 

that although I will allow you to testify before the Committee 

today, all testimony must be received by the testimony deadline. I 

know from my experience with your organization that there must 

be some extenuating circumstances as to why your testimony was 

not received by the Committee by the deadline, but let me just say 

please make every effort in the future to get it here on time. 

And with that, I would like to ask you make your statements, 

and I will call you in the order that I introduced you. Daniel 

Bertoni will be first. 

98

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BERTONI, ACTING DIRECTOR,

EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. BERTONI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. I am pleased to be here to discuss the Department of 

Veterans Affairs’ disability program challenges and opportunities. Last year, VA provided nearly $35 billion in disability benefits to 

3.5 million veterans and survivors, and for years the disability 

claims process has been the subject of attention by VA, the Congress, and others due to untimely decisions, large backlogs, and 

other weaknesses. 

In 2003, we designated VA and other Federal disability programs 

high risk because these programs were based on outmoded concepts 

and continued to experience management and operational problems. Since that time, we have issued numerous reports with recommendations for change. 

My testimony today is based on our prior work and focuses on 

three areas: service delivery challenges facing VA; actions taken to 

improve claims processing; and going forward, areas where fundamental reform may be needed to significantly improve performance. 

In summary, VA continues to experience service delivery challenges. While VA has made progress in the past reducing its claims 

inventory, it is now losing ground. Since 2003, pending claims have 

increased almost 50 percent to nearly 400,000. Those pending 

longer than 6 months have also increased more than 75 percent to 

about 83,000. The time required to resolve appeals has also been 

problematic. The current average processing time of 657 days is 

still far from VA’s stated goal of 1 year. 

VA also faces challenges ensuring that its decisions are accurate 

and consistent. Although the accuracy of decisions is currently 88 

percent, this figure is well short of VA’s goal of 98 percent. Ensuring that all veterans receive comparable entitlement decisions and 

disability ratings regardless of location has also been problematic. 

We have recommended that VA evaluate all levels of its decisionmaking process to provide a foundation for addressing decisional 

inconsistencies. 

VA has taken several steps to improve claims processing. The 

2008 budget requests over 450 additional claims processing staff, 

a 6 percent increase over last year. Other key initiatives include increasing overtime, using retired staff as trainers, and piloting a 

paperless Benefits Delivery at Discharge process where 

servicemember records and other evidence are captured electronically prior to separation. VA has also enhanced internal training 

and information sharing to reduce the number of cases sent back 

by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals due to errors or incomplete evidence. And to improve decisional inconsistency, VA has taken action to develop baseline data to better monitor and assess 

decisional variances. 

Despite these efforts, several factors may impede their efforts. 

Since Fiscal Year 2000 claims have increased steadily from 579,000 

to over 800,000 last year, placing a substantial strain on operations. Recent court decisions requiring VA to assist veterans in developing claims have expanded workloads. Additional laws and regulations, such as those creating new presumptions of service-conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\34385.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
99

nected disabilities, have added to the volume of claims. And caseload complexity has also increased as more veterans claim multiple 

disabilities, and VA has had difficulty obtaining all relevant documents. Thus, continuing to explore new ways to work smarter and 

more efficiently, will be essential to VA’s productivity. 

In going forward, there also may be opportunities for fundamental reform that could dramatically improve performance. In 

designating VA’s disability program high risk, we noted that VA’s 

processes do not reflect the current state of science, medicine, technology, and the national economy, which has moved away from 

manual labor to more service- and knowledge-based employment. 

We also recommended that VA developed a strategy for periodically updating its disability ratings criteria to better reflect 

changes in the economy and job market. We have also reported 

that VA’s field structure may impede efficient operations. Despite 

limited efforts to consolidate some processes and workloads, VA has 

not changed its basic structure for processing claims at its 57 regional offices, which have experienced large variations in performance and productivity. 

While re-examining claims processing challenges can be 

daunting, key efforts are underway. In 2003, the Congress established the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission to study many 

of the issues discussed today, including underlying program principles, standards for determining disability compensation, and 

issues related to how and where cases are processed. The Commission is scheduled to report to the Congress by October 2007, and 

like you, we also look forward to the report findings. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Committee 

may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bertoni follows:]

100


34385.001
101


34385.002
102


34385.003
103


34385.004
104


34385.005
105


34385.006
106


34385.007
107


34385.008
108


34385.009
109


34385.010
110


34385.011
111


34385.012
112


34385.013
113

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BARACK OBAMA TO DANIEL

BERTONI, ACTING DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Question 1. You outlined a number of ongoing challenges that might confound current VA plans to reduce its backlog and to shorten the turnaround on the adjudication process. 

Beyond staffing and funding levels, what in your view is the most significant of 

the challenges you outlined and why? 

Response. The most significant of the challenges we outlined is for VA to keep 

up with a workload that is growing in volume and complexity. As we noted in our 

testimony, the number of rating-related claims VA received increased by about 39 

percent from about 579,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 to 806,000 in Fiscal Year 2006. 

While VA expects the volume of claims to remain at around 800,000 a year in the 

short term, further increases in claims filing are possible. This could be the result 

of more veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan seeking benefits, and older 

veterans filing new and reopened claims. Further, as recent history has shown, the 

expansion of benefit entitlements, such as the addition of new presumptive service 

connected disabilities, can significantly increase the number of claims VA receives. 

Meanwhile, according to VA, the complexity of claims is increasing. For example, 

the number of original disability compensation claims containing eight or more disabilities increased from about 22,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 to over 51,000 in Fiscal 

Year 2006. Because each disability needs to be evaluated separately, these claims 

can take longer to complete.

Question 2. In your testimony, you alluded to more fundamental reform possibilities within the VA, including a reexamination of its current regional office claims 

processing structure. 

Could you provide further insight or comment into this idea and associated tradeoffs, especially from the perspective of a Veteran who is trying to navigate the 

claims system? 

Response. VBA currently processes claims at 57 regional offices, which experience 

large performance variances and questions about decision consistency. This means 

that some veterans receive better service than others based on where they live. Advantages of processing claims at fewer offices could be faster and more consistent 

decisions. 

VA has already done some consolidations and changes in regional office jurisdictions to give veterans faster decisions on their claims. For example:

• Processing claims by survivors of servicemembers who died on active duty at 

its Philadelphia regional office. 

• Processing claims from veterans in southern New Jersey at the Philadelphia regional office instead of the Newark regional office. 

• Making decisions on Benefits Delivery at Discharge claims at the Salt Lake 

City, Utah, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina regional offices.

In our opinion, to better serve veterans throughout the country VA needs to undertake a comprehensive review of its field structure for processing disability compensation and pension claims. Even if VA consolidated compensation and pension 

claims processing into fewer offices veterans could still take advantage of public contact and outreach services, which would include accepting claims, at offices not processing claims. Veterans could also file claims by mail and online.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. 

Bertoni. 

Now we will hear from Mr. John Rowan. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROWAN, NATIONAL PRESIDENT,

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Mr. ROWAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and, again, I apologize that our testimony did not get to the Committee. Unfortunately, one of our computers decided to blow up. 

Chairman AKAKA. Well, we are glad to have you here. 

Mr. ROWAN. Thank you. I am glad to be here. 

As one of the people that, unfortunately, started to bump up the 

VA’s claims processes in the recent years as a service-connected 

disabled veteran who originally applied for disability for diabetes 

114

that significantly increased with various secondary conditions, and 

have gone through that process, I understand the process both as 

a person who has gone through it as a veteran, and also as a service rep who actually filed claims on behalf of individuals in the system from 2002 to 2006. After I had retired from my employment 

for many years, I took on that as a task. 

It was very clear to me, coming out of another Government sector, that the biggest problem they had, quite honestly, was this 

whole paper problem. Listening to the questions and discussions 

that have gone on this morning, we can sit here and talk about the 

interface between the DOD and the VA, and it really does not matter. DOD can get as electronic as it can be. It still ends up in the 

VA, which creates paper. When the VA hospital system, which is 

very good, creates wonderful systems on the patient they are dealing with and gives a wonderful trail of the individual’s history, 

they have to print it out and put it in the paper file. They do not 

look at it electronically and then deal with it electronically. 

I came out of a public sector company, the Comptroller of the 

City of New York, where I reviewed 15,000-page contracts electronically through my computer system we had, and not only could 

I review it, but ten other people could review the same contract at 

the same time. 

When I went through my training with the VA as a service rep, 

I remember going to a wonderful training on something called the 

‘‘Virtual VA’’ and how this was all going to work. And that was a 

wonderful idea, because, gee, it reminded me of the program that 

I had left in 2002 when I retired. Unfortunately, they were nowhere near doing that. 

When I got a new computer for one of my other service reps, they 

told us—by the way, I asked them what kind of system do they 

need—‘‘we are working on Windows 98.’’ And this was in 2004. 

Something was radically wrong there. 

So it is very clear that is the big issue. We have got to get past 

that electronic hurdle somehow to deal with all of these problems 

that we are talking about. Then you can talk about interfacing between the VHA, VBA, DOD, and BVA, and all the rest of it. And 

that is the real problem. 

There are other issues, however, that we can deal with. One of 

which is from the VSOs’ point of view, as, again, somebody who 

handled claims. When we have those claims that are presumptive 

disabilities, like the Agent Orange issues, if I have a doctor certifying that I am a diabetic and I have a DD214 that shows very 

clearly I stepped foot in Vietnam, that case should take about 2 

minutes to rate. The problem is it goes into the same system that 

everything else goes into and drags on forever. We need to be able 

to fast-track what we call ‘‘ready-to-rate claims’’ that everybody 

agrees everything is done and we are ready to go, and the VA rater 

should be able to pick it up, look at it, deal with it, and move it 

out. Unfortunately, again, we are talking about getting that piece 

of paper moved from one end of the office to the other. 

One of the things they talked about taking part in is the idea of 

assisting the newer veterans and getting them on a fast track. We 

have a little bit of a concern with that. We wonder if there isn’t 

going to be a little bit of a ‘‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’’ kind of deal 

115

here. While the idea of helping the newer veterans and getting 

them speeded up is a good idea—and I really listened to the case 

that Senator Rockefeller, I think it was, or Senator Craig maybe—

who talked about the veteran who was coming home and was worried about his claim not getting adjudicated in time to pay his rent. 

It is a real issue, and I take concern about that. But I want to 

know where they are going to get all these raters from to deal with 

these claims. 

There is an issue about this idea of putting all the raters in one 

spot. One of the problems, at least, again, from my point of view, 

working in the regional office, we want to be able to interface with 

the people that we are dealing with so we can get rid of some of 

the problems that crop up from time to time on a face-to-face basis. 

Anyway, we are here to assist you in the Senate and anybody 

else who would like to talk about that, and I am sure my other colleagues in the other organizations will say the same. And I appreciate this Senate Committee taking the time to look at this very 

serious issue. 

Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Rowan. I think you 

know that the two Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, in the House 

and in the Senate, have come together and have reinstated their 

meetings with the VSOs. And we are glad to do that and to see the 

kinds of responses we are getting from the VSOs on that. But as 

you know, what is happening now on the question of veterans, 

whether it is benefits or health care, we have problems and we 

must get together to help resolve those problems. 

Mr. Surratt? 

STATEMENT OF RICK SURRATT, DEPUTY NATIONAL 

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS 

Mr. SURRATT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Today’s hearing addresses a major and longstanding challenge for VA: improving the 

timeliness and accuracy of the process for deciding disability benefits claims and appeals. The situation can be explained simply: The 

volume of work exceeds VA’s output capacity, and that leads to 

backlogs. The input of new work exceeds the output, and the work 

backs up, with consequent delays. VA has reacted by pressing for 

increased production, compromising quality, and in turn that created more work at the regional office and appellate levels. 

So, if the basic problem is an imbalance between workload and 

capacity, why has capacity not increased to match the workload? 

The DAV submits that in the politics of the budget process, VA is 

not permitted to request the level of resources it really needs and 

that Congress too readily accepts VA’s projections that it will improve timeliness and quality with the resources it requests. 

In its budget submission for Fiscal Year 2006, the VA projected 

that it could reduce its backlog of rating cases from 321,000 it had 

on hand in 2005 to 282,000 by the end of Fiscal Year 2006, with 

an average processing time of 145 days. However, the backlog of 

rating cases had grown to 378,000 by the end of 2006, and the average processing time was 177 days. 

In its Fiscal Year 2008 budget submission, VA projects it will reduce the 378,000 rating cases in its 2006 year-end inventory to 

116

369,000 cases in 2007 and 329,000 cases in 2008. Instead of going 

in the direction of reducing the backlog to 369,000 cases, the VA 

has again lost ground. Nearing the midpoint of the fiscal year, the 

backlog has grown to 401,000 cases. Yet the budget submission 

states, ‘‘The 2008 budget provides resources to timely and accurately process a claims workload that continues to increase in 

quantity and complexity.’’ And at the same time the budget submission acknowledges that the workload continues to increase in 

quantity and complexity, it bases VA’s resource needs and its projections for reducing the backlog in 2007 and 2008 on a decrease 

in claims receipts for those years. 

While resources alone will not solve VA’s problems, VA’s problems cannot be solved without the necessary resources. VA’s wellintentioned initiatives cannot succeed if they continue to be defeated by insufficient resources. Adequate resources are the essential foundation for rebuilding an effective claims processing system. 

We have to stop deceiving ourselves and admit that these problems 

are only going to continue and probably get worse if we do not remedy the root cause. As we in the DAV have consistently said, quality is the key to timeliness. Timeliness follows from quality because 

omissions in record development, failure to afford due process, and 

erroneous decisions require duplicative work, which adds to the 

load on an already overburdened system. 

Quality is achieved with adequate resources to perform necessary 

comprehensive and ongoing training, to devote sufficient time to 

each case, and to impose and enforce quality standards through effective quality assurance methods and accountability mechanisms. 

VA has simply not had the resources necessary to achieve the level 

of quality required to avoid unacceptable error rates, increased 

numbers of appeals, and the consequent overload that causes backlogs and delays in claims dispositions. 

To achieve optimum quality and claims decisions, VA needs to 

have a system and personnel to perform quality reviews on a sample of decisions from every VA adjudicator. Its current quality assurance program does not provide information on the proficiency of 

adjudicators at the individual level. 

To correct the problems throughout, we believe Congress must 

invest additional resources primarily at the front end of the process 

to reduce the additional work required downstream and to break 

the vicious cycle in which the push for quantity at the expense of 

quality results in more errors and more rework, ever more adding 

to the backlog. 

That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Surratt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICK SURRATT, DEPUTY NATIONAL

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to appear before you on behalf of the Disabled American Veterans 

(DAV) to address the necessity and means to improve timeliness and accuracy in 

the disability claims adjudication and appellate processes of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

Achieving timeliness with accuracy has long been a major challenge for VA, and 

an ongoing concern of veterans and this Committee. While increased resources will 

not alone cure what ills the system, all of the best efforts to overcome the defiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\34385.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
117

ciencies are doomed to fail without an admission that inadequate resources are at 

the root of the problem and without decisive action to correct that cause for difficulties in timeliness and quality. 

Past reductions in staffing levels degraded VA’s ability to process and decide disability claims in a correct and timely manner. After falling behind, it never fully 

recovered. With continued growth in the volume and complexity of claims for disability benefits, VA has not requested the resources necessary to overcome the existing backlog and stay abreast of that growth, with a consequent adverse effect upon 

both quality and timeliness of claims adjudication. In each of its budget submissions 

for recent years, VA has projected improvements but has fallen short of attaining 

and maintaining reductions in the backlog and improvements in quality. The Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2008 VA budget submission affords no reason for optimism. VA’s actions 

have not lived up to its promises. 

According to its mission statement for its Compensation and Pension Service 

(C&P), the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) ‘‘seeks to provide all possible 

benefits under the law to eligible claimants in a timely, accurate, and compassionate 

manner, and to the extent possible, apprise potential claimants of possible entitlement to benefits.’’ VA maintains that its 2008 budget provides the resources necessary to timely and accurately process a claims workload that continues to increase 

in quantity and complexity. According to VA, the requested increase in staffing, new 

information technology initiatives, quality assurance programs and controls, and 

employee training will allow it to reduce its pending workload, despite factors that 

add complexity to the process. However, contrary to its observation that the workload ‘‘continues’’ to increase, contrary to the several-year trend of consistently increasing claims volumes, and contrary to its discussion elsewhere of factors that 

would likely continue this trend, VA projects, without explanation, that it anticipates ‘‘a slight decrease’’ in receipts in 2007 and 2008. Apparently, this prediction 

was necessary for VA to project that it could reduce the backlog with the resources 

it requests in the budget. VA provides this overview at page 6A–2 of Volume II of 

its budget submission:

The 2008 budget provides resources to timely and accurately process a claims 

workload that continues to increase in quantity and complexity. Disability compensation and other claims requiring a rating decision are projected to be 

800,000 in 2008. If we receive 2007 funding near the levels passed by the House 

and the Senate, it is projected that our pending workload will decrease throughout 2007, ending the year with 369,980 claims pending in our inventory. In 

order to achieve our timeliness and accuracy performance goals and to reduce 

the backlog, hiring of additional FTE [full-time employee(s) or equivalent(s)] is 

necessary. 

The disability claims workload from returning war veterans as well as from 

veterans of earlier periods has continuously increased since 2000. VBA annual 

claims receipts grew 39 percent from 2000 to 2006—from 578,773 to 806,382, 

an increase of 227,609. In 2007 and 2008, we anticipate a slight decrease in receipts to 800,000. The complexity of the workload will continue to grow, however, because veterans are claiming greater numbers of disabilities and the nature of disabilities such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), complex combat injuries, diabetes and related conditions, and environmental diseases are becoming increasingly more complex. For example, the number of cases with eight 

or more disabilities claimed increased 135 percent from 21,814 in 2000 to 51,260 

in 2006.

(Emphasis added.) 

The rise in claims receipts over the past 7 fiscal years and anticipated receipts 

for 2007 and 2008 are represented in VA’s graph at page 6B–7:

118

Given that discussion elsewhere in this same area of the budget submission contradicts VA’s statement that claims receipts will decrease in 2007 and 2008, the continuing trends of an increase in claims receipts year after year, the absence of any 

change in circumstances that could be expected to reduce the number of claims filed, 

and the absence of stated rationale for VA’s expectation of fewer claims in the current fiscal year and next year, this appears to be an expedient projection. 

The budget submission summarizes the consistent historical trend of increasing 

numbers of claims received each year for the past several years:

The number of veterans filing initial disability compensation claims and 

claims for increased benefits has increased every year since 2000. Disability 

claims from returning war veterans as well as from veterans of earlier periods 

increased from 578,773 in 2000 to 806,382 in 2006, an increase of 227,609 

claims, or 39 percent. In addition to the increased claim rate, there are two 

other factors that drive future claims activity. First, over this same period of 

time the number of veterans receiving benefits has significantly increased, both 

in terms of whole numbers and as a percent of the veteran population. These 

veterans, like their predecessors, demonstrate similar disability profiles. Orthopedic, mental health, cardiovascular, endocrine, and hearing problems predominate. Most of these conditions can be characterized as chronic progressive disabilities resulting in repeat claims. Second, the average level of disability for 

veterans on the rolls has increased steadily in the last 5 years reflecting the 

aging population. Similar to the chronic condition issue, the aging process is 

likely to result in additional claims for increased benefits.

(p. 6B–6) During Fiscal Year 2006 alone, ‘‘VA added almost 250,000 new beneficiaries to the compensation and pension rolls.’’ (p. 6B–1) From 2002 to the end of 

last year, VA lost ground in reducing the backlog, with a substantial increase in the 

number of rating claims pending: ‘‘In 2003, VBA was successful in reducing the inventory of pending disability claims to 253,000. . . . The pending inventory of disability claims rose to 378,296 by the end of Fiscal Year 2006.’’ (pp. 6B–3, 6B–4) 

The added work from the increase in the sheer volume of claims has been compounded by other factors: ‘‘Since 2000, VBA has experienced a steady increase in 

workload: in claims receipts, claims complexity, and workload generated by improved direct contact with increasing numbers of servicemembers and veterans.’’

(p. 6B–3) 

In discussing the ‘‘2007 Workload Challenges,’’ VA directly contracts its prediction 

for fewer claims in 2007 and 2008: ‘‘Ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 

the Global War on Terrorism in general, are expected to continue to increase the 

compensation workload. (p. 6B–8) (emphasis added). VA explains:

More than 1.3 million active duty servicemembers, members of the National 

Guard, and reservists have thus far been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Whether deployed to foreign duty stations or maintaining security in the United 

States, the authorized size of the active force, as well as the mobilization of 

thousands of citizen soldiers, means that the size of the force on active duty has 

significantly increased. Studies by VA indicate that the most significant predictor of new claims activity is the size of the active force. Department of Defense data show there were more than 213,000 military separations in 2005. 

These figures do not include the demobilization of Guard and Reserve members 

and units that remain part of the military. Historical trends suggest that approximately 35 percent (over 74,000) of these separating servicemembers will 


34385.021
119

file a VA disability claim sometime in their life. The claims rate for Gulf War 

Era veterans is significant. In 2006, nearly 700,000 veterans and 15,000 survivors of this era received benefits, comprising the second largest population of 

veterans receiving benefits after Vietnam era veterans.

(p. 6B–8) Of course, we now have additional troops being deployed to Iraq. 

In addition to more claims proportionate to the increase in the size of the active 

force, VA observes that greater numbers of veterans on the compensation rolls 

means greater numbers of reopened claims:

The number of veterans receiving compensation has increased by more than 

400,000 since 2000, from just over 2.3 million veterans to over 2.7 million at 

the end of 2006. The compensation recipients, many of whom suffer from chronic progressive disabilities such as diabetes, mental illness, and cardiovascular 

disabilities, will continue to reopen more claims for increased benefits in the 

coming years as they age and their conditions worsen. During 2006, reopened 

disability compensation claims comprised almost 55 percent of disability claims 

receipts.

(p. 6B–8) (emphasis added). 

In the 3 years from the end of 2003 to the end of 2006, attendees at benefits briefings for separating servicemembers increased by more than 87 percent, from 

210,025 to 393, 345. VA expects to further expand its outreach efforts to 

servicemembers and veterans, which it naturally expects to result in an increase in 

the volume of claims:

VA has increased outreach to active duty personnel and we must continue to 

expand our efforts. These outreach efforts result in significantly higher claims

rates. In 2004, the greatest increase in rating receipts was in original claims—

an increase of 17 percent (from 167,105 in 2003 to 194,706 in 2004). Original 

claims increased by an additional 8 percent (to 210,504) in 2005 and by an additional 3 percent (to 217,343) in 2006, which is a 30 percent increase over the 

last 4 years. We believe these increases are directly related to our aggressive 

outreach programs and that the increases will continue.

...

We anticipate the same high level of commitment in future years. Therefore, 

we expect the outreach hours and claims rate for separating servicemembers to 

continue to increase.

...

Outreach efforts have been expanded to reach veterans, particularly older veterans, who may not be aware of the benefits to which they are entitled.

(pp. 6B–9, 6B–10) (emphasis added) 

VA suggests that legislation authorizing Combat Related Special Compensation 

(CRSC) and concurrent receipt of retired and disability pay (CRDP) creates a potential for added workload:

Today, more than 54,000 military retirees receive [CRSC]. The military is 

adding between 1,500 and 2,000 retirees to the CRSC rolls monthly. This benefit and Concurrent Retired and Disability Pay (CRDP), another DOD program 

that permits partial to total restoration of retired pay previously waived to receive VA compensation, further contribute to increased claims activity. These 

claims are exceptionally complex, involving significant coordination with service 

retired pay centers to determine if retroactive benefits are payable. . . .

. . . Nearly 194,000 retirees receive CRDP. The number of military retirees 

receiving VA compensation has increased to more than 819,000 since the advent 

of these programs. There is now significant incentive for retirees receiving compensation to file claims for increased benefits, as the increased amounts may 

no longer be subject to offset. Additionally, the total number of retirees as of 

July 2006 was 1,812,108, meaning that only 45 percent of military retirees now 

receive benefits. There are over 990,000 who could potentially still file claims 

due to CRSC and CRDP.

In 2007, VA anticipates significant workload to result from the ongoing CRSC 

and CRDP programs.

(p. 6B–10) (emphasis added) 

The budget submission notes that two court decisions may substantially increase 

VA’s workload. In Haas v. Nicholson, the court held that Vietnam veterans who 

served in the waters offshore are entitled to the presumption of exposure to herbicides. VA has appealed the Haas decision, but estimates a total of 187,208 claims 

will be received; 25,000 in 2007 and the remaining 162,208 in 2008 if the decision 

is not overturned. In addition, a recent ruling by the Federal District Court for the 

120

Northern District of California in Nehmer v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

has extended the reach of the Agent Orange Settlement Agreement to Chronic 

Lymphocytic Leukemia based upon the extension of the lapsed Agent Orange Act. 

VA states it has identified almost 1,500 cases that must be reviewed and readjudicated. Under the court’s order, VA must mail an outreach notice to approximately 

26,000 additional claimants. VA is required to review and readjudicate cases for 

those claimants who respond to the mailing. VA notes that, due to the unique rules 

in the Nehmer settlement and the stringent time requirements imposed, these cases 

require significantly more development and management oversight than normal 

claims. They also require priority processing. (p. 6B–11) 

The budget submission also explains how the workload continues to increase due 

to increases in the number of disabilities claimed, increasing complexity of the 

claims, and added judicially imposed procedural steps, primarily to fulfill VA’s dutyto-assist obligation. Some of these observations from the budget submission are as 

follows:

• ‘‘The number of disabilities claimed by veterans has increased significantly. The 

number of directly claimed conditions increases the number of variables that must 

be considered and addressed, making the claim more complex. Multiple regulations, 

multiple sources of evidence, multiple potential effective dates and presumptive periods, preparation of adequate and comprehensive Veterans Claims Assistance Act 

notice, as well as adequate and comprehensive rating decisions increase proportionately, and sometimes exponentially, as the number of claimed conditions increases.’’

• ‘‘Combat and deployment of U.S. forces to underdeveloped regions of the world 

have resulted in new and complex disability claims based on environmental and infectious risks, traumatic brain injuries, complex combat injuries involving multiple 

body systems, concerns about vaccinations, and other conditions.’’

• ‘‘VA has started to see increasingly complex medical cases resulting in 

neuropathies, vision problems, cardiovascular problems, and other issues directly related to diabetes. As previously discussed, much like original claims with more than 

eight claimed disabilities, diabetes claims routinely present multiple variables with 

which the rating specialist must deal. If secondary conditions are not claimed, the 

rating specialist must be alert to identify them. This increasing complexity of disabilities adds to the increased complexity of our workload and the resources needed 

to process it.’’

• ‘‘The number of veterans submitting claims for post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD) has also grown dramatically and contributed to increased complexity in 

claims processing. From 1999 through 2006, the number of veterans receiving compensation benefits for PTSD has increased from 120,000 to nearly 270,000. These 

cases present unique processing complexities because of the evidentiary requirements to substantiate the event causing the stress disorder.’’

• ‘‘The Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) of 2000 has significantly increased both the length and complexity of claims development.’’

(pp. 6B–11, 6B–13) All of this signals a continuing trend of more work. 

VA points out that this increasing complexity in the workload alone—i.e., with a 

projected decline in the number of claims receipts for 2007 and 2008—require the 

additional employees it requests: ‘‘More FTE are needed to complete claims in an 

accurate and timely manner due to the greater number of disabilities veterans now 

claim, the increasing complexity of the disabilities being claimed, and changes in 

law and process.’’ (p. 6B–1) This is the basis for the increase in employees VA requests for 2008: 

In summary, the number of conditions claimed, the nature of severe traumatic 

multiple body system combat injuries, highly complex medical conditions, and enhanced legal requirements substantially increase the complexity of the claims process and claims decisions. The resources required to enable us to keep up with the 

increasingly complex workload are, therefore, significantly greater.

(p. 6B–14) 

VA also admitted that staffing levels in the current year are insufficient to gain 

ground on the backlog: ‘‘The current staffing levels do not enable VA to reduce the 

pending claims inventory and provide timely service to veterans.’’ (p. 6B–4) VA 

hopes to reduce the backlog some during this fiscal year through ‘‘near-term workload reduction initiatives’’ funded with carryover funds from 2006: ‘‘Special nearterm workload reduction initiatives are being undertaken in 2007 to increase decision output and stem the upward climb of the pending inventory. These initiatives 

are being funded through the use of carryover funds from 2006. . . . ’’ (p. 6B–4) VA 

will bank on these same initiatives to reduce the backlog in 2008: ‘‘Special nearterm workload reduction initiatives undertaken in 2007 that include employment of 

rehired annuitants and expanded use of overtime will continue into 2008, enabling 

121

us to increase decision output. With these initiatives, we project that more than 

840,000 veterans will receive decisions on their disability claims in 2008. . . . ’’ (p. 

6B–1). Again, all of this is premised on a decrease in the number of claims received 

during 2007 and 2008. 

VA notes that increased claims receipts result in increased appellate workloads 

downstream: ‘‘As claims receipts and the number of beneficiaries on our rolls increase, the appeals and other workloads also increase. This significantly increases 

our resource requirements.’’ VA received 18,000 more claims in 2006 than in 2005, 

with an increase of only 5 direct program FTE for 2007. With its near-term workload reduction initiatives, VA projects it will increase the number of rating decisions 

made from 774,378 in 2006 to 808,316 in 2007. (pp. 6B–4, 6B–7) In turn, that will 

increase its appellate workload:

As VBA renders more disability decisions, a natural outcome of that process 

is more appellate work from veterans and survivors who disagree with various 

parts of the decision made in their case. Veterans can appeal decisions to deny 

service connection for any conditions claimed and disposed of by a denial. They 

may also appeal the effective date of an award and the evaluation assigned to 

a disability. In recent years, the appeal rate on disability determinations has 

climbed from an historical rate of approximately 7 percent of all disability decisions being appealed to a current rate that ranges from 11 to 14 percent. Thus, 

the 808,316 projected disability decisions in 2007 are expected to generate between 88,000 and 113,000 appeals. The projected 840,320 completed disability 

decisions in 2008 will likely generate between 92,000 and 117,000 appeals. At 

the end of 2006 there were more than 133,000 appeals pending in field stations 

and the Appeals Management Center (AMC). In addition, there were slightly 

less than 31,000 appeals pending at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

This increase in appellate workload seriously impacts our ability to devote resources to initial and reopened claims processing. Appeals are one of the most 

challenging types of cases to process because of their complexity and the growing body of evidence that must be reviewed in order to process these claims. 

In 2001, we received 39,000 notices of disagreement, the initial step in the appeals process. From 2003 to 2006, notices of disagreement exceeded 100,000 

each year. The number of appeals received is proportionate to the number of 

decisions made. As workload and the number of decisions made increase, so too 

will the number of appeals. Likewise, the number of actions taken in response 

to our appellate workload has increased. In 2001, we processed more than 

47,600 statements of the case and supplemental statements of the case. In 2006, 

this number increased to more than 134,000 statements of the case and supplemental statements of the case.

(pp. 6B–14, 6B–15) 

The budget submission projects rating decision output per FTE at 102.8 decisions 

in 2007 and 101 decisions per FTE in 2008. (p. 6B–4) The budget submission for 

Fiscal Year 2007 had projected 108 decisions per FTE. (Vol. 2, p. 5B–5) With the 

projected decrease in claims receipts and its estimated increase in the number of 

rating decisions in both 2007 and 2008, VA projects that it will reduce the backlog:

In 2007, we anticipate a slight decrease in disability claims receipts over the 

806,382 claims received in 2006, to 800,000 claims. The one-time workload increase in 2006 that resulted from the six-state outreach initiative (approximately 8,000 claims) is not projected to continue into 2007 and 2008. With an 

FTE level of 7,863 and our near-term workload reduction initiatives, we estimate 808,316 completed claims and an end-of-year pending [rating] inventory 

of 369,980. 

In 2008, we anticipate disability claims receipts will remain level with 2007. 

Based on a direct FTE level of 8,320 and our near-term initiatives, we estimate 

completed claims will increase to 840,320 and the pending inventory will decrease to 329,660 by the end of 2008.

(p. 6B–7) If the 8,000 claims from the six-state outreach initiative are subtracted 

from the 2006 total of 806,000, there was still an increase of 10,000 claims receipts 

in 2006 over the 788,000 in 2005. Again, VA does not explain its prediction of a decrease in the number of claims receipts in 2007 and 2008, which contradicts its projection in its budget submission for Fiscal Year 2007 that, for 2007, ‘‘we anticipate 

receipts will increase 2 percent over the 2006 projected receipts.’’ (Vol. 2, p. 5A–2) 

VA projects that it will reduce the average days to process rating-related compensation and pension actions from 177 days in 2006 to 160 days in 2007 and 145 

days in 2008, with a target of 125 days. VA projects that its national accuracy rate 

for core rating work will improve from 88 percent in 2006 to 89 percent in 2007 and 

90 percent in 2008, with a strategic target of 98 percent. (p. 6B–24, 6B–25) 

122

As with this year’s budget submission, VA has maintained in its budget submissions for previous years that it will improve claims processing and reduce the backlog with the resources it requests. For example, in its budget submission for Fiscal 

Year 2006, VA projected its rating decision output for Fiscal Year 2006 would be 

109 cases per direct labor FTE and 825,000 total. VA projected that it would reduce 

the pending inventory of rating claims from 321,458 to 290,000 by the end of 2005, 

and that it could further reduce the pending inventory to 282,876 by the end of 

2006. (Vol. 1, pp. 2A–10, 2A–11.) VA estimated the average time to complete ratingrelated actions would be 145 days in 2006, with a strategic target of 125 days. It 

predicted a national accuracy rate for core rating work of 90 percent, with a strategic target of 98 percent. (p. 2A–14) However, as noted, its rating decision output 

per FTE was 98.5, its total rating production was 774,378 decisions, and it ended 

Fiscal Year 2006 with an inventory of 378,296 claims with an average processing 

time of 177 days and a national accuracy rate of 88 percent. Actually, the gap between VA’s predicted output for 2006 and its performance is wider than indicated 

by these numbers because it projected reducing the backlog to 282,876 claims despite the expectation that it would receive 818,076 claims ( p. 2A–10) rather than 

the 806,382 that it actually received. With the resources VA has requested, it has 

been unable to reduce the backlog. Instead it continues to grow. 

A repetition of VA’s summary of the trend of annual increases in the volume of 

claims along with its acknowledgment that it has been unable to make progress in 

reducing the backlog since 2003 provides a more accurate picture upon which to 

base expectations for 2007 and 2008, in our view:

Since 2000, VBA has experienced a steady increase in workload: in claims receipts, claims and complexity, and workload generated by improved direct contact with increasing numbers of servicemenbers and veterans. If resources are 

insufficient to handle this increased workload, our pending claims inventory 

rises and presents difficult management challenges. For example, disability 

claims from returning war veterans, as well as from veterans of earlier periods, 

increased by 39 percent from 2000 to 2006. In 2003, VBA was successful in reducing the inventory of pending disability claims to 253,000. Since 2004, increased claims and court decisions requiring new procedures and readjudication 

of claims have precluded VBA from sustaining previous gains.

(p. 6B–3) As of February 17, 2007, the number of rating cases pending was 

401,701 of which 111,575 had been pending over 180 days. We are now approaching 

half way through Fiscal Year 2007 and not moving toward VA’s projection of reducing the backlog to 369,980 rating claims. 

Discussing external factors that affect the workload, VA observed: ‘‘Negative impact could be realized if workload receipts are significantly higher than anticipated. 

. . . ’’ (p. 6B–30) It appears that VA’s projection on claims receipts was wrong or 

its plan for reducing the backlog is not working. 

As we have consistently said, quality is the key to timeliness. Timeliness follows 

from quality because omissions in record development, failure to afford due process, 

and erroneous decisions require duplicative work, which adds to the load on an already overburdened system. Quality is achieved with adequate resources to perform 

necessary comprehensive and ongoing training, to devote sufficient time to each 

case, and to impose and enforce quality standards through effective quality assurance methods and accountability mechanisms. VA has simply not had the resources 

necessary to achieve the level of quality required to avoid unacceptable error rates, 

increased numbers of appeals, and the consequent overload that causes backlogs 

and delays in claims dispositions. 

In connection with its review of variances in average annual compensation payments among the states, VA’s Inspector General surveyed rating veterans service 

representatives (RVSRs) and decision review officers (DROs) to obtain their input 

on issues that affect the rating of disability compensation claims. RVSRs and DROs 

expressed generally positive opinions of the quality of their training, but their responses indicated training has not received high priority. Department of Veterans 

Affairs Office of Inspector General, Rep. No. 05–00765–137, Review of State 

Variances in VA Disability Compensation Payments 58 (May 19, 2005). In a recent 

survey of VA raters conducted by the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) for the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission, 32 percent of those responding said that getting needed training was among the top three greatest challenges they face. However, VA appears to be doing the best that it can to provide better training to improve quality with the resources it has been given. VA outlines its enhanced training programs in its Fiscal Year 2008 budget submission at page 6B–17. Unquestionably, training is essential, but effective training programs require resources:

123

While additional claims processors are critical to deal with this workload, the 

quality of claims decisions and the services provided is also critical. VBA’s robust training program is the key to improving the quality and consistency of 

our decisions and will enable us to be flexible and responsive to changing workload volumes. VBA is engaged in an ongoing effort to improve its training systems for new employees and to raise the skill levels of its existing staff. Improved quality and consistency require resources dedicated to providing employees with more and better training, up-to-date tools, and IT systems to support 

their decisions.

(p. 6B–6) The most essential resource is experienced and knowledgeable personnel 

devoted to training: ‘‘Our need to continually enhance our national quality assurance and training programs necessitates additional staffing that will improve consistency, quality, certification, and timeliness.’’ (p. 6B–17) If experienced adjudicators must spend part of their time training other employees, there must be more 

employees overall to avoid falling further behind in battling the backlog. 

Regarding sufficient time to properly develop and decide a claim, RVSRs and 

DROs surveyed by the Inspector General’s Office thought VA management’s emphasis on quantity rather than quality had an adverse effect upon their ability to properly dispose of claims:

RVSRs and DROs believe their objectives are different from those of their 

managers. We asked them to rank the importance of 16 potential objectives. 

Their responses indicated that when rating claims their most important objectives are complying with applicable criteria, granting the highest ratings allowed, and ensuring they have sufficient information before making decisions. 

We also asked them to rank the importance to their managers of 15 comparable 

objectives. Their responses indicated that they believe the most important objectives for their managers are maximizing the number of ratings done each day, 

reducing the backlog of pending work, and improving the timeliness of ratings. 

Survey responses showed that RVSRs and DROs are concerned about their 

production standards, and many respondents indicated that the need to meet 

production standards adversely affects the quality of their work.

• Forty-seven percent said it is generally difficult or very difficult to meet their 

daily production standards; 22.5 percent said it is generally easy or very easy. 

• Forty-nine percent strongly disagreed or disagreed somewhat with the statement that they have no difficulty meeting their production standards without 

sacrificing quality; 30.5 percent strongly agreed or agreed somewhat with that 

statement. 

• Fifty-seven percent strongly agreed or agreed somewhat with the statement 

that they have difficulty meeting their production standards if they make sure 

they have sufficient evidence for rating each case and thoroughly review the evidence; 24.1 percent strongly disagreed or disagreed somewhat with that statement.

VA OIG Report at 60?61. Among the raters responding to the CNA survey, 85 percent said that having time to process a claim was one of the top three greatest challenges. 

The survey of RVSRs and DROs by VA’s OIG cited insufficient staffing as the 

cause for too little time: ‘‘Most RVSRs and DROs do not believe [VA Regional Offices] have sufficient rating staff. Sixty-five percent indicated that the rating activities in their offices have somewhat smaller or much smaller staffs than needed to 

provide timely and high quality service.’’ VA OIG Report at 61. The OIG report 

quoted the following narrative remark from the survey: ‘‘Although management 

wants to meet quality goals, they are much more concerned with quantity. An RVSR 

is much more likely to be disciplined for failure to meet production standards than 

for failing to meet quality standards.’’ VA OIG Report at 61

Sufficient staffing permits sufficient time to properly develop and decide claims 

and sufficient time to devote to training without allowing the backlog to grow. Discussing survey responses from RVSRs and DROs, the OIG report at page 61 noted: 

‘‘The most frequently discussed issue, mentioned by 193 respondents, was management’s perceived emphasis on production at the expense of quality. The second most 

frequently discussed issue, mentioned by 44 respondents, was the need for more and 

better training.’’

VA’s quality assurance tool for compensation and pension claims is the Systematic 

Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) program. Under the STAR program, VA reviews 

a sampling of decisions from the regional offices and bases its national accuracy 

measures on the percentage with errors that affect entitlement, benefit amount, and 

effective date. If STAR were being used effectively, we question why VA did not detect the substantial variations in average annual compensation payments from state 

124

to state brought to light by the news media and thereafter investigated by the VA 

Office of Inspector General in 2005. 

Inconsistency signals outright arbitrariness in decisionmaking, uneven or overall 

insufficient understanding of the governing criteria or rules for decisions, or rules 

which are vague or overly broad so as to allow them to be applied according to the 

prevailing mindset of a particular group of decisionmakers. Obviously inconsistencies must be detected before the cause or causes can be determined and remedied. 

To address concerns about substantial variations in average annual compensation 

payments among the states, VA’s OIG reviewed compensation awards from the six 

states with the highest average annual payments (‘‘high cluster’’) and the six states 

with the lowest average annual payments (‘‘low cluster’’) finding that veteran demographics and inconsistent rating decisions may account in part for the variations. 

OIG also found that claims processing practices, the quality of disability examinations, staffing levels, production pressures, and adjudicator experience and training 

may influence payment levels. On average, veterans in the high cluster states had 

more service-connected disabilities and higher disability ratings than veterans in 

the low cluster. In general, training was a higher priority, adjudicators were more 

experienced and had less difficulty applying the disability rating schedule, disability 

examinations were judged better, and error rates were lower in the high cluster 

states. Adjudicators in the high cluster states took longer to adjudicate claims, although the pressing backlogs were smaller there and they shipped fewer cases to 

other offices for adjudication. High cluster states had higher percentages of (1) represented veterans, who were shown to be higher compensated than unrepresented 

veterans; (2) Vietnam veterans, who were shown to be higher compensated than veterans of other periods; and (3) veterans of the enlisted ranks, who were shown to 

be higher compensated than veterans of the officer ranks. In the high cluster, a 

higher percentage of veterans exercised their right to appeal than in the low cluster. 

These findings suggest that the trend of lower payments in some states may be due 

in part to lower proficiency in adjudication. Adequate resources are essential to proficient claims adjudication. 

The variations between veterans represented by service organizations and unrepresented veterans were particularly marked. The national averages showed that veterans represented by accredited service organizations had substantially higher levels of compensation than veterans without representation. The national average annual payment for veterans with representation was $10,631, compared with a national average of $4,406 for unrepresented veterans. All the states in the high cluster had higher percentages of represented veterans. Nationwide, 63.8 percent of the 

veterans receiving compensation were represented. In the high cluster states, 69.5 

percent of the veterans were represented. In the low cluster states, 54.7 percent of 

the veterans were represented. In the high cluster states, veterans with representation had an average annual payment of $13,488. Represented veterans in the low 

cluster states had an average annual payment of $9,891, above the national average 

of $8,378 for all veterans. Though well below the national average for represented 

veterans and below the national average for all veterans, unrepresented veterans 

in the high cluster states had an average annual payment of $5,637, compared with 

only $3,862 for unrepresented veterans in the low cluster states. Thus, represented 

veterans in the high cluster states received an average annual payment that was 

$7,644 higher than the average annual payment of unrepresented veterans in low 

cluster states. The most telling fact here is that the average annual payment of 

$9,891 for veterans in the six states with the lowest average annual compensation 

payments who had service organization representation was higher than the national 

average of $8,378 for all veterans. This would suggest that veterans service organization representatives are serving in a role of quality assurance, in addition to assistance in thorough record development. 

As a result of these revelations about variances, VA has undertaken an effort to 

identify unusual patterns of variances and assess the degree of consistency among 

its regional offices to enable it strengthen guidance and target training to problem 

areas: ‘‘C&P Service has begun a process of identifying unusual patterns of variance 

by diagnostic code, and then reviewing selected disabilities to assess the level of decision consistency among regional offices. The outcome of these studies and STAR 

accuracy reviews will be used to identify the need for additional guidance and training to improve consistency and accuracy, as well as to drive procedural or regulatory 

changes.’’ In addition, VA will conduct site surveys for compliance with directives. 

(p. 6B–17) 

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) now identifies, by the specific reason, the 

number of cases it remands each year to correct deficiencies in the record or for due 

process. In Fiscal Year 2006, BVA remanded claims for a medical opinion in conjunction with an examination in more claims than for any other reason. This data 

125

should aid VA in identifying and remedying deficiencies that add to the cycle of rework, and we hope this information is being utilized for that purpose, along with 

STAR results and other efforts for improvement. 

While VA’s increased efforts are a move in the right direction, we believe they still 

leave a gap in quality assurance for purposes of individual accountability for quality 

decisionmaking. To complement its STAR program for measuring quality at the national level, VA announced in the year 2000 a new initiative for quality review at 

the individual level. Acknowledging that management needed a tool to consistently 

monitor individual performance, VA created the ‘‘Systematic Individual Performance 

Assessment’’ (SIPA) program. Under this program, VA would review an annual sample of 100 decisions for each adjudicator to identify individual deficiencies, ensure 

maintenance of skills, promote accuracy and consistency of claims adjudication, and 

restore credibility to the system. The reviewers would perform related administrative functions, such as providing feedback on reviews, maintaining reports, and 

playing a role in employee development and ongoing training. Unfortunately, VA 

abandoned this initiative during 2002, and proficiency is now apparently subjectively assessed by supervisors based on their day-to-day perceptions of employee 

performance. Without any actual systematic review of samples of an individual adjudicator’s decisions, deficiencies are more likely to go undetected and unremedied. 

We understand that the culprit behind abandonment of SIPA was inadequate resources. Without any quality assurance review on the individual level, VA is unlikely to impose effective accountability down to the individual adjudicator level, 

where it must go if optimum quality is to be attained. We believe today’s VA workforce is conscientious and desires to make the best claims decisions possible, but it 

needs the time, training, and tools to do so, and the tools include a source of direct 

feedback from individualized quality reviews. Congress must provide VA management with the necessary resources, and VA management must create a culture of 

quality and make a genuine commitment to the mission of providing ‘‘all possible 

benefits under the law to eligible claimants in a timely, accurate, and compassionate 

manner.’’

As noted, a natural consequence of increased numbers of claims is that the volume of pending appeals and time for resolution of appeals has also increased in recent years. The natural increase in the volume of appellate workload is compounded 

by the effects of not sufficiently increasing staffing at regional offices to meet increased claims volumes and complexity, which adds to the overload and prolongs the 

processing times for appeals at the regional office level. As indicated, at the end of 

2006, there were more than 133,000 appeals pending in VBA field stations and 

VBA’s Appeals Management Center (AMC). This was up from the nearly 130,000 

pending at the end of 2005. Another consequence is increased numbers of remands, 

which primarily impacts on workload, timeliness, and resource needs at the AMC. 

However, with a joint effort by VBA and BVA to reduce the number of remands, 

the number of cases on remand declined from 31,645 at the end of 2004 to 21,229 

at the end of 2006, according to VA’s budget submission for Fiscal Year 2008. (Vol. 

II, p. 7C–4) Most remands are processed by the AMC, which had 15,875 cases on 

hand on February 22, 2007. Our employees who deal with the AMC and our employees at BVA generally give AMC high marks for quality. 

VBA field offices resolved 74,440, or 72 percent, of the 103,212 appeals resolved 

in 2006 without necessity for action by BVA. VBA resolved another 3,749, or 10 percent of the total, on remand. Although we do not have current VA data on the percentage of appeals favorably resolved by DROs, we suspect it is substantial. The 

DRO program has been a success story since it was instituted as a part of VBA’s 

Business Process Reengineering program several years ago. 

In 2006, BVA decided 25,023 cases on the merits according to the budget submission and remanded 12,487 according to the Report of the Chairman of BVA for Fiscal Year 2006. (p. 20) The Report of the Chairman summarized the Board’s production for Fiscal Year 2006 as follows:

The Board issued 39,076 decisions in Fiscal Year 2006, an increase of 4,901 

over Fiscal Year 2005, when we issued 34,175 decisions. [Board members] conducted 9,158 hearings, which is an increase of 582 hearings held over Fiscal 

year 2005. The majority of the line [Board members] exceeded their productivity 

goals and traveled to at least three [regional offices] to conduct 1 week of Travel 

Board hearings at each site. However, the number of cases pending before the 

Board at the end of Fiscal Year 2006 was 40,265, which is almost a 3,000 case 

increase over the 37,539 appeals that were pending at the end of Fiscal Year 

2005. This increase occurred despite the fact that the Board issued almost 5,000 

more decisions in Fiscal Year 2006 than the previous year. If we continue to 

receive the same high number of appeals and hearing requests each year, the 

126

ability to conduct hearings and decide appeals on a timely basis with the current business plan strength of 56 [Board members] will present a challenge.

(p. 3) 

The budget submission for Fiscal Year 2008 describes BVA’s quality assurance 

program as one that looks at all aspects of decision quality but focuses on substantive qualities for reporting purposes:

BVA has a formal quality review program to review the quality of decisional 

products and to identify areas in which professional training is needed. In this 

quality review process, an ongoing, statistically valid sample of BVA decisions 

is reviewed and components deemed essential to a quality appellate decision are 

assessed on a pass/fail basis according to established standards. The five areas 

examined and scored are: (a) identification of issues; (b) findings of fact; (c) conclusions of law; (d) reasons and bases/rationale for preliminary orders such as 

remands; and (e) due process. A quantified baseline for decision quality was established for the first time at the outset of 1999. This provided the Board a 

foundation for establishing quantified decision quality goals and pursuing continuous improvement in the quality of decisions through repeated measurements. In accordance with a GAO recommendation, we consider only substantive deficiencies in our quality assessment. However, while the primary 

focus is on identifying, quantifying, and correcting substantive errors, we still 

address minor deficiencies and seek to improve all aspects of our decisions. 

Areas of deficiency highlighted through this process are used to determine BVA 

training needs.

(p. 7C–5) BVA reported a ‘‘Deficiency-free Decision Rate’’ of 89.0 percent for 2005 

and 93.0 percent for 2006. Its target for 2007 and 2008 is 92.0 percent. (p. 7C–5) 

VA uses two measures for timeliness in appeals processing. ‘‘Appeals Resolution 

Time’’ is the average time from the initiation of the appeal by receipt of a notice 

of disagreement and the final decision, either by VBA or BVA. ‘‘BVA Cycle Time’’ 

is the time from receipt of the appeal by BVA until dispatch of a BVA decision, excluding the time the case was with the appellant’s service organization representative. Where the first measure is the average total time for an appellant to receive 

a decision, the second reflects more directly on BVA’s timeliness. 

Timeliness in appeals processing declined in 2005 and 2006. Appeals resolution 

time increased from 529 days in 2004 to 622 days in 2005 and 657 days in 2006. 

VA projects that it will further grow to 685 days in 2007 and 700 days in 2008. BVA 

cycle time increased from 98 days in 2004 to 104 days in 2005 and 148 days in 2006. 

VA projects that it will improve to 105 days in 2007 and 104 days in 2008. (p. 7C–

2) 

Given that VBA resolved nearly three-quarters of appeals decided in 2006 without 

the added time the case would have otherwise been before BVA, the appeals resolution time was much shorter than for those cases that were decided by BVA. According to the timeline in the Report of the Chairman, in a case decided by BVA, the 

time between the receipt of the notice of disagreement and issuance of a BVA decision was 971 days. (p. 16). The Chairman’s report indicates the average elapsed 

time between receipt of a notice of disagreement and issuance of a statement of the 

case was 188 days; between issuance of a statement of the case and receipt of the 

appellant’s perfection of the appeal was 42 days; between perfection of the appeal 

and field office certification of the appeal to BVA was 489 days; and between receipt 

of the certified appeal and issuance of a BVA decision was 252 days, for the total 

of 971. 

The budget submission requests that the staffing level for C&P Service be increased from the 7,858 FTE authorized in 2006 to 8,320 in 2008. (p. 6A–10) Considering that VA is falling further behind in 2007 despite special efforts to reduce the 

backlog and given the probability that claims receipts will increase, this staffing 

level is likely to be inadequate, just as the current staffing level is inadequate, a 

fact VA admits. The budget submission requests that the BVA staffing level be increased from the 2006 level of 452 FTE to 468, an increase of 16. (p. 7C–10) As 

noted, with its current staffing and that requested for 2008, BVA expects its quality 

to suffer a slight decline from 2006 levels. 

To correct the problems throughout, we believe Congress must invest additional 

resources primarily at the front end of the process to reduce the additional work 

required downstream and to break the vicious cycle in which the push for quantity 

and the expense of quality results in more errors and more rework adding ever more 

to the backlog. 

We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on this most important matter, and we hope this information will be helpful to the Committee as it seeks to 

improve services to disabled veterans. 

127

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BARACK OBAMA

TO RICK SURRATT, DEPUTY NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN

VETERANS

Question 1. In an ideal world, and I know that’s a big leap, what would be the 

aspiration of the VBA and Board of Veterans’ Appeals, whether in terms of claims 

worker to Veteran ratios, in terms of turnaround time, or some other measure to 

indicate that we are doing right by our Veterans. In short, and I know I’m putting 

you on the spot, what would an ideal VBA look like?

Response. The problem is well known and longstanding. The volume of claims received exceeds the volume of claims decided. With more work coming in than is 

going out, the inventory of claims pending accumulates into a backlog that cannot 

be timely processed. The reason for this is a claims volume that exceeds VA’s production capacity. This imbalance is a product of increasing numbers of claims compounded by increasing complexity in the nature of many of the claims without a corresponding increase in personnel to meet workload demands. Rather than address 

this problem with increased resources, VA has been forced to push its decisionmakers to produce more, which, in turn, requires that less time be devoted to developing and deciding claims. Inevitably, quality suffers, and the necessity to correct 

mistakes adds even more to the workload. 

VA cannot control the volume and complexity of claims for disability benefits. Unless we remove our Armed Forces from the Global War on Terrorism and the perilous circumstances inherent in any military environment or reduce or eliminate 

benefits for disabled veterans, Congress cannot impact the volume or complexity of 

claims. Neither of those are realistic or acceptable solutions. The problem has persisted and will continue to persist, perhaps even worsen, if claims receipts are not 

forecasted accurately and resource needs are not stated honestly. 

The solution begins with an increase in personnel. Along with that must come better training and the development of better quality control measures. Even for VA, 

determining resource needs is not an exact science, but the problem has been that 

VA’s resource requests have been tailored to the Administration’s budget targets 

rather than being a true approximation of the personnel needed to handle the work 

expected. 

The challenge for Congress and stakeholders, such as the organizations preparing 

The Independent Budget, in making an independent assessment of VA’s needs is 

that they must look behind the Administration’s assessment and its sometimes expedient assumptions to the hard data and historical trends to determine if the Administration’s projection is out of line with what can reasonably be expected, given 

the workload trends, the VA’s past production numbers, and VA’s success or failure 

to reduce the backlog with the resources it had in recent years. In its estimates of 

future claims receipts, VA can easily adjust the numbers to suit the limits imposed 

upon it by the Office of Management and Budget, but it cannot as easily manipulate 

the numbers with its historical reporting of workloads and its performance relative 

to those workloads. Those circumstances place us in a better position to question 

the legitimacy of VA’s request than to make our own more exact determination of 

VA’s needs. Nonetheless, by looking at the historical workload trend, current factors 

that may influence that trend, and past performance, we can roughly project the 

number of employees necessary to produce the number of decisions required to dispose of the incoming workload and begin to make some gains in reducing the backlog. That method assumes no appreciable increase in worker productivity or administrative efficiency, such as VA often assumes in its calculations, because experience 

does not justify it. The shortcoming is that we must rely on VA data, use VA’s methodology, and use recent experience to adjust VA’s assumptions. While the resulting 

approximation may prove to have missed the mark somewhat, it almost invariably 

demonstrates that VA’s budget request is too low, and the higher projections of The 

Independent Budget are vindicated year after year by VA’s repeated failure to meet 

its stated timeliness and backlog reduction goals. 

Unless VA’s budget requests start to provide a more honest assessment of the resources needed, Congress must rely on its own judgment, aided by stakeholder input 

such as that from The Independent Budget. Staffing levels can be determined in 

terms of ratios between projected claims volume and individual employee production 

expectations. Those expectations can be arrived at by looking at past performance. 

An important consideration is to be mindful that, because VA is already far behind, 

it will need more personnel to catch up than to stay even once the backlog has been 

reduced to the optimum pending inventory of claims. 

The optimum pending inventory of claims would be the minimum required to ensure a steady workflow and avoidance of employees being idled by a lack of work. 

This volume would determine the optimum time that a pending claim would be in 

128

the queue awaiting action. Beyond that, the optimum processing time from receipt 

of a claim to a decision and payment of benefits would be determined by optimum 

times for responses to requests for records from the Department of Defense, VA, and 

private entities along with the task times for each action in claims development and 

decisions. Beyond a point of optimum efficiency, these turnaround and task times 

would be irreducible. 

To set accurate standards for optimum claims inventories and processing times, 

VA must refine its methods for quantifying its workload. A claim for service connection involving three separate disabilities might take no more time than a claim for 

service connection of a single disability as far as obtaining military medical records 

or other record development is concerned, but the three-issue claim can logically be 

expected to require more time for a decision than a single-issue claim. Rating the 

severity of a disability involving subjective symptoms and necessary judgments can 

be expected to require more time than one in which the disability is measured more 

mechanically by objective signs. Rather than treating all claims as equal, these 

kinds of variables must be taken into account if VA is to accurately measure its 

workload for purposes of planning and requesting resources. 

With staffing matched to workload, there would be adequate time to completely 

develop and carefully decide a claim thereby avoiding the counterproductive effect 

of errors and rework. Naturally, the better trained the employee the higher the likelihood that an accurate decision can be made in a shorter time. An influx of new 

employees would require substantial resources for proper training. VA simply cannot afford to attack this problem by diverting experienced adjudicators away from 

deciding claims to train new employees. Here, it would seem that VA needs to 

standardize training, and centralize it to the maximum extent practical. For necessary hands-on training at regional offices, VA should have a staff dedicated exclusively to training. VA has used rehired annuitants for training with some success. 

Of course, newer employees could continue to seek advice and assistance from experienced adjudicators working alongside them. 

As we have testified, another essential element is individualized quality reviews 

to enable VA to assess and improve individual performance. The current STAR program measures quality on a national and regional office level. 

With adequate staffing, improved training, and better quality control, VA can 

achieve quality. From quality, timeliness follows. 

Until VA takes a comprehensive approach to studying and employing methods to 

address all these interdependent elements of efficiency, we do not believe it is possible to determine precisely in terms of days what is achievable in claims processing 

timeliness goals, beyond those irreducible minimums inherent in the process and its 

governing rules. 

Until VA gets its backlog, and thus its quality, under control, BVA will continue 

to need staffing sufficient to meet an increasing appellate workload. With the problems fixed at the front end of the process, the percentage of decisions appealed 

should decline. In addition, the number of cases remanded for additional development should decline. However, a mass adjudication system as large as VA’s cannot 

be expected to achieve perfection. We will continue to need a strong appellate board 

within the administrative process, but the primary focus should be on correcting deficiencies at the first level of adjudication. In addition to correcting errors and deciding finer points of law, BVA can serve as an important part of VA’s quality assurance program.

Question 2. The productivity of the compensation and pension staff within the 

VBA is of great concern to all of us. Yet, how do we ensure that we’re setting the 

right targets and goals for them, without creating the wrong incentives? How do we 

better give them the support they need to apply the highest level of expertise and 

judgment on a particular claim, while doing so efficiently? 

Response. In production efficiency, there is always a balance between thoroughness and time. Neither can be completely ignored in favor of the other. Yet, as stated, VA must have adequate resources to achieve quality first because it can never 

achieve real timeliness if unacceptable error rates require rework, adding to the 

backlog and appellate workload and resulting in protracted claims and appeals processing times for those having an immediate and often urgent need for the assistance 

they seek. Instead of a situation in which timeliness follows from quality, it has 

been the other way around in VA where the level of quality has depended on how 

much cases are backlogged and how much pressure is put on to quickly decide cases 

for production quantity. In the past, Congress has been somewhat hypocritical in 

accepting the Administrations’ inadequate resource requests and criticizing VA for 

losing ground against the backlog. Criticizing VA for poor timeliness without providing adequate resources creates a strong incentive for managers to push for production at the expense of quality. Again, Congress should provide the resources necVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:07 Jun 04, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\34385.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
129

essary for a focus on quality through an adequate workforce, adequate training, and 

an adequate quality assurance and feedback program. Although achieving all of this 

will require an immediate investment of money, it cannot be achieved immediately 

and will require a longer investment of time.

To get a candid view from within VA, we posed these questions to a former management employee who is in a position to understand more specifically VA’s real 

needs for the Compensation and Pension Service. The following are the answers to 

questions

1 and 2: 

Response to Question 1. 1VBA would need to increase its staffing level in Compensation and Pension by nearly 23–25 percent from the fiscal year 06 staffing level 

of 7858 FTE. VBA would need at least 9665 FTE (+23 percent), an increase of 1807 

FTE. This 9665 FTE includes 9115 to develop and decide claims and appeals along 

with another 550 FTE to prepare and deliver training and conduct regular (monthly) performance reviews of the work. Given timeliness expectations (claims decided 

within 120–180 average days), quality expectations (90 percent or more of decisions 

are error free), consistency expectations (applying national policy directives evenly 

for those decision criteria that require judgment for issues of service connection and 

evaluation of disabilities), additional staff is needed to meet these goals before we 

even consider any productivity goals. Moreover, retirement and attrition rates 

should average 6–8 percent over the next 2–3 years as employees retire. This means 

that VBA should lose another 471 to 629 FTE per year which it will need to backfill/

recruit in the coming 2–3 years in addition to the 1807 FTE to get to and maintain 

the overall 9665 FTE level in Compensation and Pension. 

Finally, given the rising number of disabilities claimed per veteran, coupled with 

the complexity of the current laws and regulations, including the legal requirements 

governing the number of requests and follow-up requests needed to fulfill VBA’s 

‘‘duty to assist’’ in obtaining medical and other evidence, a significant increase in 

staffing is needed in those positions that develop evidence (VSR) and decide claims 

(RVSR). Consequently, just about all of the increased staffing outside staff for the 

training and performance reviews (1251 FTE) would go to strengthening these positions. Moreover, VBA recent budget formulation models do not include the 550 FTE 

to build necessary infrastructure for training and quality. If VBA’s staffing level in 

Compensation and Pension were increased by 25 percent rather than 23 percent 

from fiscal year 06 levels, it would need yet another 157 FTE or 9823 total FTE. 

If a mistake in staffing is made, I would recommend the 25 percent increase rather 

than 23 percent given the mission and the current situation. Attrition rates would 

quickly bring VBA into equilibrium to prevent overstaffing for any length of time.

Response to Question 2: Wrong incentives have been set in the past and continue 

to be set. We all recognize that productivity is important, but not at the expense 

of consistency, quality, and timeliness. Stressing productivity goals is a big mistake 

and will continue the problems we have seen with inconsistency of decisionmaking, 

poor quality, and poor development of claims. Gathering and evaluating evidence 

continues to be the major problems affecting the timeliness and quality of VBA decisionmaking. Consequently, greater emphasis should be placed on these aspects of 

the process and less on productivity. VBA does not have any real data on the 

amount of work that can be produced with quality levels that are reliable and trustworthy. Stressing quality, consistency and timeliness first and foremost would allow 

VBA to better set more realistic organizational and individual productivity goals 

and standards. Finally, VBA needs more staffing even if the number of claims decided each year remain constant. 

The increasing complexity of the work coupled with judicial oversight ensure that 

more work effort (FTE) is needed to develop and decide claims than was expended 

traditionally. The data continues to show that more disabilities per claim are filed 

than in the past, more claims per lifetime per veteran are being filed, and more effort is being expended by VBA to gather evidence and explain decisions that it did 

in the past. All of these factors require a completely different approach to productivity and efficiency than has been taken in the past. The traditional measure of 

productivity, end products taken, no longer accurately reflects VBA work effort and 

must be abandoned as it takes too big a toll on service levels, i.e., quality and consistency.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, all of you, for your 

statements. 

Mr. Rowan and Mr. Surratt, you know that the VA has a strategic goal of 125 days for a veteran to have his or her claim rated. 

130

My question to you, with all your experience, is: What is an acceptable amount of time for a veteran to have his or her claim rated? 

Mr. SURRATT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will not give you an exact 

number of days, but I will tell you—I think I can tell you how we 

should figure that. A veteran files a claim, and there is a certain 

amount of turnaround time, the mailing back and forth between 

the VA and the veteran, an average time for that. There are task 

times, how long it takes to look at a record to see how much it 

needs to be developed, and those things can be determined. Task 

times, how long it takes to make a decision on a typical claim. 

There are statutory times that the VA has to give the veteran a 

certain amount of time to respond. So there is an irreducible 

amount of time. Where the real problem is, is the amount of time 

that these cases spend in the queue waiting to get to the next action. 

You heard someone mention this morning about reducing the 

amount of time that veterans get to 30 days to do something. If you 

look at the time line on appeals, for example, veterans, once they 

file a Notice of Disagreement, VA sends them a statement of the 

case, and they have 60 days to respond to that statement of the 

case. I think the average time that veterans respond is about 42 

days. 

But then after the appeal is certified at the regional office and 

theoretically ready for a decision by the BVA—I don’t remember 

how many days it is, but it is something like 600 days between the 

date it is certified and the date that it goes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. That is where your delays are. A hundred and 

twenty-five days to me does not sound unreasonable. The amount 

of time it should take to decide a case is the optimum amount of 

time that it needs to stay in the queue and adding on these task 

times that are irreducible. 

You heard Admiral Cooper say that you need to have a certain 

amount of backlog. I mean, you need a steady workflow. You do not 

want to ever be in the situation where you are totally caught up 

because you have people idle. But there is also an optimum amount 

of backlog that you need to keep that workflow steady, and those 

things can be determined. That is not exactly rocket science, but 

where you can identify the delay is where these cases sit idle between these steps, and the reason they sit idle is because VA does 

not have—they are backed up, and they wait there forever for the 

next step to be taken. 

So that is where you need to focus on when you reduce the 

amount of time. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Rowan? 

Mr. ROWAN. I would concur with Mr. Surratt’s statement on a lot 

of that, particularly with the issue of the time it takes when a case 

is deemed denied and then it has to go to the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals. There is a real problem of getting it out of the regional 

office, even down into the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to even start 

their process, which takes a significant amount of time. 

Clearly, I also agree that a lot of the time is lost in moving 

things around, and one of the other things that concerns me is this 

idea of putting everything in one basket for, as already occurs now. 

I happen to do a lot of my work, when I was doing it, out of the 

131

Manhattan VA Regional Office, which, unfortunately, was one of 

those regional offices where the staff disappeared. I mean, the 

place is like a ghost town because of retirements, and they never 

got backfilled and replaced. And, therefore, they said, well, gee, we 

do not have enough staff, so we have got to outsource all your 

claims. So they started sending them all over the place, and they 

end up in different parts of the country. 

The problem with that is, it takes time to move all of these cases 

out of New York, literally take that file and mail it out to somebody 

else, and when they have adjudicated, mail it back. We never get 

to talk to that adjudicator sitting out in Togus or wherever they 

are. And that is a problem because there is no interface between 

the rater making the decision and building up the case and the 

VSO who is working on it. And that is a problem. So, I mean, I 

am really concerned about that. 

The 120 days is more than reasonable if they ever got anywhere 

near that. The reality is that is not even close. Even the duty to 

assist letter that we see that goes out initially does not get to the 

veteran half the time in 30 days, and then they are supposed to 

have ‘‘X’’ amount of days when they start the clock. So there is a 

real backlog problem. 

Again, I cannot state enough, they have got to get back to the 

problem that they are not electronic, that these files sit on paper. 

I will tell you, I would not want to be a rater at the VA. I would 

not want to be somebody who has to work in that system. If you 

go to any of these VA regional offices and you look at these people 

and look at their desks, and then you look at the two desks that 

are empty next to them—because those raters retired—which are 

filled up with all of the case files that they are actually working 

on, then you can see immediately visually why there is a problem. 

And it is just too obvious. 

Mr. SURRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have some of those exact times, 

if you would permit me to give them to you, on the time that an 

appeal sits. Again, once a veteran files a Notice of Disagreement, 

VA responds by sending the veteran a statement of the case, and 

the statement of the case outlines the facts and the law that were 

considered in how they arrived at the decision. And for the appeal 

to go forward, the veteran has to perfect that appeal by filing a 

substantive appeal or a Form 9. Now, they have 60 days administratively to do that. I mean, actually, they have a year, but VA deactivates the appeal if they do not respond in 60 days. On average, 

veterans respond in 41 days. 

Once that Form 9 is in the file, the appeal is theoretically perfected and it is ready for a BVA decision. But the average time nationally in 2006 between the time the appeal was perfected and the 

time it was received at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals was 489 

days. 

So if you want to find where the time is, it is in things like that. 

I do not know why appeals sit in the regional offices for, you know, 

489 days between the time they are theoretically ready for a decision, but those are the areas that need to be looked at. 

Chairman AKAKA. All right. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Rowan and Mr. Surratt, you heard Admiral Cooper’s response to my question about prioritization of Global War on Terror 

132

claims. In your opinion, are enough measures being taken to ensure that other veterans with claims in the system are not adversely affected by that prioritization system of Global War on Terror claims? 

Mr. ROWAN. I am not sure that that is happening. I think, in 

fact, something has got to happen somewhere. I mean, if you 

squeeze the balloon on one end, it has got to pop out somewhere 

else. 

I understand they are trying to do it, and maybe if they do, in 

fact, put all the cases in one or two regional offices and create the 

Tiger Teams they are talking about, maybe they can speed up the 

process and, therefore, not totally or completely adversely affect everybody else’s claims. We had seen this earlier on when they had 

these over 70-years-of-age cases. And, again, it was quite obvious, 

they wanted to get the claim done before the veteran died, unfortunately. But even dealing with Vietnam veterans, they are in that 

situation on many cases, and there are ways you can try to 

prioritize a case within the VA. If I have got somebody who is literally dying from cancer, I can go there to get the VA regional office to speed that claim up. You know, and you have got all of these 

kinds of priorities. 

But I will get back to the more basic one, which is when the veterans file a claim and they are in that situation that one of the 

Senators had talked about earlier, and you are sitting there waiting to get your claim adjudicated to pay your rent because you cannot work anymore because of your physical disabilities which you 

believe is a service-connected illness, you are hung out to dry. That 

case just gets pushed further and further back because you are giving priority over here—and I am not saying we should not help 

these veterans—in making sure that system works. And maybe 

they ought to be the test case for creating an electronic system, and 

maybe we should say, fine, we are going to take all the OIF cases 

and make them electronic and get that—I mean, you can buy a 

computer system off the shelf. DOD has a million computer systems. I cannot believe we cannot create one in 30 days to make the 

system work. High-speed scanners are easily available. All of these 

things are existing and right now we can walk outside and I can 

give you 20 vendors who will sell all that stuff to the VA tomorrow. 

Somebody has got to make that decision to throw the switch to 

turn it into an electronic system, and I would feel better if, in fact, 

they were going to give the OIF priority cases that kind of system. 

And if the DOD has all this electronic records, which I believe they 

already have on all these veterans coming out of the military today, 

because they are smarter and they are dealing with all this computer stuff and not with what we did in my day and age, then I 

think that should be a good test case. Maybe that should be the 

cases that get set aside, and maybe that is how they try to 

prioritize it and at the same time affect radically how the whole 

adjudication process occurs. And maybe they will learn some lessons in the process. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Surratt? 

Mr. SURRATT. Well, Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Rowan had said, anytime you send someone to the front of the line, you send someone 

else more to the back of the line, and that delays their case. I think 

133

priorities of this type may be necessary, but they are a reactive, 

short-time solution. If the system was working efficiently, you 

would not need priorities. Everyone would get their claims decided 

timely. 

Let me say something about the BDD thing along those lines. To 

qualify for that, you have to have a certain number of days left in 

the military, and you have to have a known discharge date. So that 

applies to veterans who are being discharged regularly who may 

have disabilities. But all these seriously disabled veterans in these 

medical hold companies do not have entitlement to that because 

they do not have a known discharge date. And sometimes their 

records are not there yet and so forth. So the more severely injured 

veterans do not get the benefit of the BDD, which is intended to 

speed up their claims. 

So I think if the military and VA could get together and somehow work that out to where these veterans that we hear about over 

in Walter Reed and in Madigan in Seattle and places like that, or 

in the medical hold companies, I think they should find a way to 

get them under the BDD process or a similar process, too, because 

if anyone is deserving of expedited service, they are. 

But getting back to the priorities, you give one veteran a priority, 

someone else suffers, and that is not an ideal situation. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Rowan? 

Mr. ROWAN. Senator, can I just add something? The other process is that a lot of the people in the DOD in the military hospital 

system do not want to get out of that system because they do not 

want to go to the VA system because they hear the horror stories 

of the people who are getting out. So a lot of times it is the soldier, 

the military person who is saying, ‘‘I want to stay here because I 

am getting good service here. If I go out to the VA, God knows 

what is going to happen to me. And they know they are not going 

to get their claim adjudicated right away upon their getting out. 

Meanwhile, they are sitting there getting their military pay while 

they are sitting in the hospital. I have seen that, case after case 

on that, where I finally get the person discharged and then I have 

got to start the VA process instead of having the whole thing done. 

I mean, they could adjudicate between—no matter what date the 

person is getting out, if they have somebody who has had an amputation, they know what it is. I mean, let’s be honest here. So we 

can take care of a lot of that. 

Chairman AKAKA. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Bertoni, VA obtains records from the U.S. Army and Joint 

Services Records Research Center for some post-traumatic stress 

disorder claims. As GAO has indicated, lag time affects VA’s processing timeliness and decisional accuracy. Can you say something 

on this issue? How do we know that information that VA receives 

from these groups is accurate? 

Mr. BERTONI. That is a two-part question. In terms of the PTSD 

you are referencing to, PTSD claims, I think, in general, getting 

records from these sources is difficult because medical records and 

service records are oftentimes spread out across various areas and 

oftentimes are not where they are supposed to be or they are lost. 

In our report, we were concerned, we focused on the PTSD claims, 

which do take in excess of a year. 

134

Generally, if a PTSD claim person comes in and can prove that 

they were in combat, were a prisoner of war, their allegation of the 

stressor event or their statement of the stressor event, the description, is sufficient pretty much to qualify them for a benefit. But if 

they cannot prove that this person was in combat or was a prisoner 

of war, then it is incumbent upon the regional office to go to the 

VBA units located in the National Records Center to have to find 

that information. And if you are lucky enough to have been in the 

Marine Corps, there is an electronic database that can be searched 

fairly—it is accessible. It can be searched quickly. And turnaround 

time for those cases can be as little as 1 day. If you are in any of 

the other services, it essentially requires a manual slog through 

paper files, and it can take in excess of up to 1 year. 

So that was an issue. We did find one database that—it was an 

unclassified database—one of the regional offices in, I believe, the 

Chicago area had put together and was using to do their own 

search prior to making the request to the Records Center, and it 

was effective. They were able to get the information they needed 

in 2 to 3 weeks. And they had lent that same database to other regional offices for their searches also. So we had recommended that 

perhaps VA should think about a comparable system that could be 

used nationally prior to having to make that request to the Records 

Center. 

In terms of accuracy, our concern was that there was no quality 

assurance check of the work of the researchers that were going out 

to gather the information to bring to the RO to make the determination. The information was getting to the RO for the most part. 

For less than four cases there was error. But we did not know 

whether that was all the evidence that should have been gathered, 

the complete history. And there was nobody going in on VA’s side 

to go behind, from a quality assurance standpoint, to do some sampling to make sure that these researchers were not missing key 

documents that could either substantiate or refute the claim. And 

we, in fact, cite an example in our report where that was the case 

for a Vietnam veteran. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Rowan? 

Mr. ROWAN. Yes, sir. Just a couple of things on that. 

One of the things that needs to be understood, PTSD claims can 

have presumptions, just like the Agent Orange stuff. If you have 

a particular award or decoration, if you have a particular combat 

device such as a CIB or a Combat Medical Badge or a Combat Action Ribbon in the Marine Corps and Navy—unfortunately, us guys 

in the Air Force, we do not have anything like that. Those are 

automatics. Again, the stressor is presumed. If you have got a Purple Heart or you were a POW and they have got it on your record, 

we do not have to go into the big song and dance. It is presumed 

you went through stress. 

The problem is with the 70, 80 percent of everybody else, what 

do I do with the Marine air wing guy who got sent out on missions 

once a month because he was a Marine and they decided he had 

a gun and he ought to go out and use it once in a while in Da 

Nang, for example? Or the truck driver who had to go through 

places where he was getting shot at and bombed and everything 

else on a regular basis? 

135

The military changed that, if you noticed, with this new Combat 

Action Badge to try to expand identifying those people who have 

been submitted to combat stressors. And I would be curious to see 

if the Combat Action Badge gets added to the list. I do not know 

if it has yet. I do not think it has. But it would be interesting to 

see if it does. 

One of the things that does concern me, however, with the new 

folks in particular with regard to PTSD, we are seeing and hearing 

of cases where the Department of Defense and the Army and the 

Marines and wherever are identifying people with personality disorder and not PTSD. And they say, ‘‘Well, you have got personality 

disorder. You are not PTSD, and we do not owe you anything, so 

go away.’’ And I am concerned about that because that is the old 

shell game that we have seen going on in earlier days. And so I 

hope that the Senator might be able to take a look at that sometime. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Bertoni, to follow up on your testimony, 

you noted VA’s regional office claims processing structure may not 

promote efficient operations. You noted that. In your view, what 

opportunities is VA missing to improve productivity, accuracy, and 

consistency by maintaining 57 regional offices? 

Mr. BERTONI. I think it is our view that VA or GAO really will 

not know what they are missing until a proper analysis is done to 

get at those issues, and that is why we have recommended that VA 

take a strategic look at its organizational structure to see if it has 

the people, processes, and technology in place to essentially be the 

most effective operating unit that it can be. 

What do we know? I think, as cited today, where VA has taken 

on the Tiger Teams, the special initiative to go after problematic 

workloads in the short term, I think they have claimed that there 

are some positives in terms of productivity, accuracy, the establishment of expertise among staff that constantly work a particular 

claim, as well as consistency in decisions in terms of entitlement, 

the dollar amounts allocated, and the ratings percentages. 

So if you look at it that way, when you do consolidate, when you 

do restructure and re-engineer processes, these are some small tactical areas where there have been, I think, some positives. 

We also know that where they have not made some really real 

structural changes in their 57 regional offices, we have the opposite. We have productivity issues. We have inconsistency of decisions and accuracy rate problems. We have variability across the 

agency. 

So we see that as potentially problematic, and our recommendation is that, again, VA needs to really take a more strategic step 

back, not just a tactical step back and just sort of fight fires, but 

step back and look if they have the people, processes, and technology in place and how they might reconfigure their organizational structure to be more effective. 

We do not have the answer. We just think somebody needs to 

look. 

Chairman AKAKA. Well, thank you very much for that. 

Mr. SURRATT. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that? 

136

Chairman AKAKA. There are other questions that I will submit 

for the record to you, and I want to thank you for your responses. 

This will be helpful to me. 

But let me conclude this hearing by giving you an opportunity 

to briefly make any other comments before we adjourn here and 

ask any of you three whether you want to make any final comments. 

Mr. SURRATT. I do, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk about the 

question you just asked the representative from GAO. Regarding 

consolidation, this is the DAV’s view: If you are talking about an 

education claim which does not involve judgment, it is just looking 

at the person’s qualifying service and so forth, or if you are looking 

at the aspect of pension involving calculations of income, or if you 

are looking at loan guarantee, those kinds of things can be centralized because there is not much of a need for the veteran to interact 

with the decisionmaker. 

But one of the good things that VA did as a part of its business 

process re-engineering effort was to establish decision review officers, and this was intended where the veteran could come in and 

actually talk to a person who would make the decision. And that 

interaction, face-to-face interaction, between the veteran and the 

decisionmaker proved to be very good. So if you take the mainstream disability cases and consolidate them, you lose that ability 

to have the veteran come in and personally appear before someone 

that makes a decision in his area. 

In addition to that, if you look at offices like New York and St. 

Pete and some of those, bigger is not better. So I would caution the 

Committee that while consolidation is good in some places and 

even as short-term measures, Tiger Teams are good—the Tiger 

Teams, again, are an indication that the system is failing to operate in a routine way. That is a reactive measure. So while that is 

good, it is necessary, it is not a long-term solution. 

I would like to say something about Senator Craig’s recommendations that we look at the Veterans’ Claims Adjudication 

Commission recommendations. When that committee reported in 

1996 or 1997, virtually all the major recommendations were rejected by the VA Secretary at that time. There was a hearing in 

the House, at least, and none of the major recommendations like 

lump sums and putting time limits on claims and other things, 

none of those things were accepted. They were, in effect, rejected 

because they all had the same method of solving VA’s problems. 

They would reduce veterans’ rights to solve VA’s problems. And let 

me tell you that DAV is opposed to putting time limits on claims, 

doing anything that seeks to accommodate any inefficiency or lack 

of capacity in the VA by taking rights away from veterans. And almost all those recommendations did that, and that is why they 

never got off the ground. And I would hope that we do not spend 

too much time pulling that report out of the cobwebs and revisiting 

those bad ideas and attempting to reinvent that broken wheel. 

Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rowan? 

Mr. ROWAN. Senator, just a couple of things that I did not get 

a chance to cover in the early part. One of the big problems we are 

137

concerned about is the phone lines for the people calling in and trying to get information. There is a lot of misinformation that has 

gone on in there, and that has been reported out by a lot of folks. 

Again, one of the other problems is the system that they have for 

tracking the claims, where that piece of paper is, is often not kept 

up-to-date by the various people who handle that piece of paper, 

therefore making it difficult for the veterans to find out where they 

are. 

And we really believe that we need to see—I keep hearing about 

this nonadversarial relationship, but it sure does not feel that way, 

at least from my side of it. And I think that the whole system could 

do with a lot more interaction between the raters and the VSO 

service reps of the various organizations. As the claim goes on, if 

somebody has got a question, they ought to be able to really come 

to us, and they do not always do that. 

There was also something that I saw in Admiral Cooper’s statement, I believe it was, about how the raters should be able to identify additional stuff and add it on to it. I have never seen that. I 

have never seen somebody get something that they did not ask for. 

And where we get into some of this in particular, and I know in 

my case as a diabetic, with all of the secondary conditions, nobody 

says, ‘‘Oh, by the way, we noticed that you have high blood pressure so we will throw you another 10 percent on that one.’’ No way. 

I have never seen a rater do that—ever. Maybe some of my colleagues have a different aspect to that or a different experience of 

that, but the idea that a rater will give somebody extra, something 

that they find because they found it in the system and they know 

they are entitled to it, I would be shocked to hear of that happening. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Bertoni? 

Mr. BERTONI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to 

echo one thing relative to productivity. It is our position that VA 

needs to continually strive to increase productivity and to really leverage IT resources to get there. We have a situation in the Social 

Security Administration where I spent 15 years looking at that disability program where they are entirely paperless. They are electronic case files. They are paperless. They can shift massive workloads to areas across the country to expedite processing. They can 

pull up multiple screens and just sift through a few documents that 

would be 10 inches—10 feet deep in some records—and be able to 

develop claims. So I think managing the resources that VA has, 

leveraging their resources through IT investment is somewhere 

they need to really look. 

Second, I think the issue of inconsistency needs to be addressed. 

We have recommended that they look at their decisionmaking processes at all levels and try to determine what level of variability is 

acceptable, and where it is not deemed acceptable, to really focus 

in on making those fixes. And they have made some efforts. They 

have started. I think, in 2005, they selected three impairments that 

were subject to inconsistency: knee pain, PTSD, and hearing loss. 

And in that example, they took ten subject matter experts and reviewed 1,750 claims to try to get at some of the root causes of inconsistency. I think they need to do that across their impairments 

138

to get a good handle on where their vulnerabilities are, and they 

will need to target their efforts in that area. 

Chairman AKAKA. Well, I thank you very much, all of you, for 

your responses. It will be helpful to us. 

This hearing of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ