U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

82–894 2014

IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE: FULLY DEVELOPED 

CLAIMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND 

MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 

Serial No. 113–34 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

PAUL COOK, California 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HELEN W. TOLAR, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL 

AFFAIRS 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

PAUL COOK, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada, Ranking Minority 

Member 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

September 11, 2013 

Page 

Implementation Update: Fully Developed Claims ................................................ 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Hon. Jon Runyan, Chairman, Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs ....... 1 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Runyan .............................................................. 25 

Hon. Dina Titus, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Disability 

Assistance and Memorial Affairs ........................................................................ 2 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Titus .................................................................. 26 

WITNESSES 

Thomas Murphy, Director, Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs .................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Murphy ............................................................... 26 

Verna Jones, Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, The 

American Legion .................................................................................................. 13 

Prepared Statement of Ms. Jones ................................................................... 29 

Steven T. Wolf, Assistant National Service Director, Disabled American Veterans ...................................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Wolf ..................................................................... 32 

Diane M. Zumatto, National Legislative Director, AMVETS .............................. 16 

Prepared Statement of Ms. Zumatto ............................................................... 37 

W. Clyde Marsh, President, National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs ......................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Marsh .................................................................. 43 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD 

Paralyzed Veterans of America .............................................................................. 45 

Veterans of Foreign Wars ....................................................................................... 48 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

AMVETS Responses to Hearing Questions ........................................................... 50 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

(1) 

IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE: FULLY 

DEVELOPED CLAIMS 

Wednesday, September 11, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE

AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jon Runyan [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Runyan, Bilirakis, Cook, Titus, 

O’Rourke, Ruiz, and Negrete McLeod. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RUNYAN 

Mr. RUNYAN. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. This oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and 

Memorial Affairs will now come to order. 

Before I begin with today’s hearing topic, I would like to take a 

moment to acknowledge the events of today’s date 12 years ago, 

when a series of coordinated terror attacks was launched in New 

York City and here in Washington, D.C. With New Jersey’s Third 

District in close proximity to New York City, the impact of the September 11th attacks were felt immediately to many of those in my 

district and across our country. Those wounds are still healing, as 

many of our Nation’s servicemembers and veterans have served 

post-9/11 in support of the homeland defense in Iraq, Afghanistan, 

and other overseas operations. 

On the anniversary of September 11th, and every day, we must 

all appreciate and remember what American veterans have done to 

secure our freedoms. I know the Ranking Member, Ms. Titus, and 

other Members of the DAMA Subcommittee share my commitment 

to ensuring that every hearing we hold addresses the important 

issues concerning those who have bravely served our Nation. And 

that is why we are here today to focus on the fully developed 

claims process, or FDC, to look at this as an avenue to speed up 

the claims process for our veterans. And FDC is an optional program through the Veterans Benefits Administration that allows 

veterans to receive a faster decision on their claim by certifying 

that all relevant records are in their possession and have been obtained and submitted rather than just filing the claim and having 

VA perform this development. 

In addition, Congress passed a law last year that went into effect 

August 6, 2013, allowing claimants to receive up to 1 year of retroactive benefits as an incentive for filing an FDC. In order to increase awareness for these incentives, VA has partnered with varVACREP180 with DISTILLER

2 

ious Veterans Service Organizations, and many of whom are here 

today to testify about their outreach efforts and experience with 

the FDC program. 

However, this Committee will always remain vigilant in its oversight of this and all other new VA incentives. It is critical to ensure 

that the program is truly helping veterans receive more timely and 

accurate benefit decisions rather than just looking for ways to shift 

VA’s workload. 

With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses and thank you 

all for being here today. Our first panel will consist of Mr. Thomas 

Murphy, Director of Compensation Service with the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. Our second panel will consist of several VSOs, including Ms. Verna Jones, Director of Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission for the American Legion; Mr. Steven Wolf, Assistant National Service Director for the Disabled American Veterans; and Ms. Diane Zumatto, the National Legislative Director 

for AMVETS; and Mr. W. Clyde Marsh, the President of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs. We also 

have several statements for the record that have been submitted 

from various organizations, and I would like to thank all of those 

who submitted them for today’s hearing. 

With those instructions complete, I am eager to hear from all of 

our witnesses on the implementation of the FDC process. And I 

would now yield to our Ranking Member, Ms. Titus, for her opening statement. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RUNYAN APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS 

Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

those remarks about the anniversary of September 11th, something 

that we can’t say often enough. And thank you for holding this 

hearing. I think it is a very important topic. 

You mentioned the much discussed backlog. And I am happy to 

report and give credit where credit is due that the VA has reduced 

the claims inventory by nearly 150,000 veterans in pretty short 

order. Nearly all the claims that have been pending for over 2 

years have been processed, and the VA is working hard to eliminate all those claims pending over 1 year by the end of 2013. 

Also, the VA has rolled out its electronic processing system in all 

56 VA regional offices. That was done earlier this summer, and 

ahead of schedule, to attempt to get rid of all the piles of paper 

that we have used in the past. We know, though, that there is no 

quick fix, and there is still a lot that needs to be done to address 

the backlog. There are still 437,000-some claims that have been 

pending for over 125 days as of September 9th, so we have got 

work to do. There are over 5,000 that have been pending for that 

long in the State of Nevada alone, and this is just too many. One 

is too many, but this is certainly too many. 

The recent dip in the backlog has been the culmination of more 

than 4 years of effort and planning by the VA, and it is a direct 

result of a number of the initiatives that have been introduced 

within the VA’s transformation plan. And today, another program 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

3 

in this plan is the one that we will be discussing, as you talked 

about, the fully developed claims, FDC initiative, and the 1-year 

look back for benefits for those who file claims in this way that 

took effect on August the 6th. The fully developed claims initiative 

establishes a method for veterans, with the help of their advocates 

and many of you in this room in the service organizations, and the 

DoD, to gather records and provide all the necessary evidence that 

you need for processing a claim. And the average that we have 

heard is today the VA is able to adjudicate those claims in about 

123 days, which should help a lot to lower the backlog in that, because that is much more quickly than the old way of doing those 

things. 

So I want to commend the efforts of all our VSOs who have been 

helping with this, American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, 

National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs. Without your help and your close partnership with the VA, I don’t think 

this initiative would have been possible. 

Over the August recess, I held a meeting and a training session 

in District One in Las Vegas with the local VSOs and the director 

of the Reno office and a training officer to have a personal connection to try to show how to make this work better, how to get the 

word out, how to communicate with veterans what they need, and 

I think it was a very successful session. They said they appreciated 

the one-on-one connection as opposed to just a computer training. 

And so, I would encourage Members of this Committee and all 

Members of Congress to reach out to their local VSOs to have similar events and promote this effort. 

I also want to thank my friend from Texas, Mr. O’Rourke, who 

has introduced legislation to help educate veterans about this initiative to make it work better. So I hope we will be considering 

that in short order. 

I remain, with the Chairman, committed to working with the VA 

and the VSOs, to always improve the care and services that our 

veterans deserve and to get them to them in a timely manner. So 

I am optimistic about this new initiative and hope that it will contribute to that goal. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentlelady. And at this time, I would 

like to welcome our first panel and our first witness, Mr. Thomas 

Murphy, who is the director of compensation service with the Veterans Benefits Administration of the Department of VA. 

Your complete and written statement will be entered into the 

hearing record. And, Mr. Murphy, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes for your oral testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS MURPHY, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION SERVICE VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Fully Developed Claim program. Claims are considVACREP180 with DISTILLER

4 

ered to be fully developed when a veteran submits a VA form 21- 

526EZ in either paper or electronic format, as well as, one, all 

available supporting evidence such as private treatment records; 

two, notification to VA of any relevant Federal treatment records; 

and three, they certify they have nothing further to give to VA regarding the claim. FDCs are essential to achieving VA’s goal of 

completing claims within 125 days at 98 percent accuracy in 2015. 

This is the fastest way to receive a decision on a claim because all 

evidence needed from the veteran is submitted with the claim. 

As of August 30, VA completes FDCs in an average of 123 days. 

This is less than half the time it takes to go through the traditional 

process. When a veteran submits evidence with his or her claim, 

it significantly reduces the amount of time VA spends on it. While 

some development may still be necessary, such as obtaining Federal records or providing examinations, FDCs eliminate the need 

for VA to search for evidence. The time saved in this critical step 

translates directly to reducing processing time, benefiting both the 

veteran and the VA. 

VA is continuing to implement several people, process, and technology initiatives, including FDCs, to meet the department’s goal. 

As of August 31, these efforts have reduced the backlog to about 

460,000 claims, a nearly 25 percent reduction off of its peak in 

March of 2013. VA is required to assist the veteran with substantiating a claim for compensation or other benefits. This is known 

as duty-to-assist and a duty-to-notify. These duties are met through 

the veteran’s use of the VA form 21-526EZ and the submission of 

all supporting evidence. 

There are circumstances that affect VA’s ability to process an 

FDC in an expedited manner, causing VA to exclude these claims 

from the program. These reasons include a claim or appeal which 

is already pending on behalf of the veteran, the wrong form is 

used, the form isn’t signed when submitted, a veteran submits additional evidence after filing the fully developed claim, VA must obtain evidence from a non-Federal source, or a veteran misses or reschedules medical examinations. Through better outreach and 

training, we have reduced the exclusion rate from about 25 percent 

at the beginning of this fiscal year to less than 13 percent today. 

VA is aggressively pursuing expansion of the FDC program and 

has conducted a number of outreach initiatives to encourage participation. FDC webinars have been held for claimants interested 

in the program, and we have advertised it through press releases, 

social media, and at all VA facilities nationwide. VA has also distributed an FDC toolkit to every congressional office that contains 

information for inclusion on Web pages and in correspondence with 

constituents. 

VA continues to rely on our VSO partners in spreading the message about fully developed claims. We partnered with the American 

Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and the National Association 

of State Directors of Veterans Affairs in order to form the community of practice. VA’s community of practice partners are helping 

to identify best practices in the FDC program, so they can be 

shared nationwide. In addition, each VA regional office is conducting an FDC workshop for Veterans Service Organizations and 

other partners. It is designed to ensure all stakeholders understand 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

5 

the importance of this program. Some of your staffers have attended these workshops. 

Community practice partners are committed to increasing the 

numbers of FDCs they file on behalf of veterans that they represent. In each case, the organization indicates a commitment to 

supporting FDC submissions. In some cases, it is providing appropriate training, and in others, it is a higher percentage of submissions. Some State Departments of Veterans Affairs, like California 

and Texas, are even hiring additional staff. 

Through these efforts by VA and our VSO partners, we have already received over 148,000 fully developed claims so far this fiscal 

year. This represents almost 15 percent of receipts. So far this last 

quarter, almost 25 percent of claims submitted are through the 

FDC process. Public Law 112-154 provided the authority to grant 

1 year of retroactive compensation benefits for veterans who file an 

original claim that is fully developed and received between August 

6, 2013, and August 5, 2015. Interim guidance was issued on August 2. It instructed regional offices on the requirements for granting retroactive benefits while the regulations are being developed. 

The fully developed program is a key component of VA’s transformation plan, but VA continues to prioritize other specific categories of claims, including claims of seriously wounded, ill, and injured, Medal of Honor recipients, former prisoners of war, homeless 

veterans, terminally ill, and those experiencing extreme financial 

hardship. Our partners and advocates have fully embraced the 

FDC program and have made commitments accordingly. VA continues to reach out and educate all on the fastest way to receive 

a decision. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy 

to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS MURPHY APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. And I will begin with a 

few questions. The first thing that really enters my mind, the dual 

process. Are there two different job descriptions for a developer and 

a rater, or are they done by similar or the same people? 

Mr. MURPHY. There is an RVSR rater and there is a VSR developer, and they are distinct job descriptions. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Going the next step, noting that the average processing time for RFDCs is 123 days, and if this is the fastest way 

to process the claim, is it feasible for VA to process all claims, including non-FDCs, in 125 days before the 2015 deadline? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, it is. There is a multitude of moving parts 

here that all add up to all claims processed in 2015 in less than 

125 days. FDC is one arrow in the quiver, I guess would be the 

way to put it. So, yes, it is possible. 

Mr. RUNYAN. But here is my hangup on that, because when you 

say processing of an FDC is 123 days, that is already saying that 

the VSOs already did the development on that case. You are not 

combining the numbers here. When you look at it, if a veteran 

sends you a claim that is not fully developed, you could be up in 

your 300-day range mark, correct? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

6 

Mr. MURPHY. If they send one that is not fully developed? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, it can be in that 300-day range mark. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I talk about this all the time where we kind of play 

a shell game, I think, sometimes with the metrics. The actual rating of the claim isn’t sped up any faster, correct? 

Mr. MURPHY. In the fully developed claim the actual rating time 

on the claim, yes— 

Mr. RUNYAN. The only statistic I see it happens 2 days faster 

than a non-FDC at the rating mark. 

Mr. MURPHY. From the ready-for-decision phase to the time that 

it is promulgated stays the same, regardless if it is a fully developed claim or not. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Okay. You note in your written testimony that developing a claim takes an average of 128 days. That is what we 

were kind of talking about. If the existing current law remains as 

is, how is the VA planning to improve the development process? 

Are you trying to push everyone to FDCs? 

Mr. MURPHY. Okay. The development process is reduced in the 

fully developed claim because when you lay out, there runs, depending on the veteran, anywheres from 4 to as many as 10 parallel paths for development. If I am coming on a fully developed 

claim on a veteran that already has a service-connection, they are 

looking for a straight claim for increase, I already have that veteran’s service records, I already have their personnel records, I already have their VA medical records, and I simply need any private medical evidence that the veteran wishes to submit, and in 

some cases a VA examination, which I can do fairly quickly. And 

that saving of that time, not having to send notices back and forth, 

and meaning specifically VCAA notices or requests for information 

from private physicians, all of that translates into faster processing 

time, and it just reduces that 128-day average down. 

Mr. RUNYAN. On the development end of it. 

Mr. MURPHY. Exactly. 

Mr. RUNYAN. And then next thing I want to touch on is some of 

your partnerships, and just asking you to provide some details with 

those partnerships. Recently, the VA and the American Bar Association announced a partnership that would provide pro bono attorneys to assist on pending claims and basically develop FDCs on behalf of unrepresented veterans. Could you provide any details on 

how that partnership is moving forward? 

Mr. MURPHY. We are doing a pilot to see how well this process 

will work in two regional offices with a select number of cases in 

conjunction with the American Bar Association. And it is only the 

piloted with unrepresented veterans, meaning they do not have a 

POA, a VSO at this time. The veteran is being contacted through 

mail and being offered this option. They have to select into the 

process, in which case we will refer them to the American Bar Association office, who will put them in contact with an attorney that 

is willing to do some pro bono work on behalf of that veteran. Once 

we see the results of how that pilot works, we will determine is 

there a benefit and how we would move it out on the bigger scale. 

Mr. RUNYAN. And are there any of them in the pipeline? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

7 

Mr. MURPHY. We just started the process. We are just a few 

weeks into it at this point. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thus far going well? 

Mr. MURPHY. Thus far, no. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Okay. Likewise, the VA just partnered with the 

College of William and Mary Law School Veterans Law Clinic to 

identify best practices in the FDC program. Could you provide any 

details on that partnership? 

Mr. MURPHY. The College of William and Mary signed up as part 

of the community of practice in helping with the veterans at that 

school and others to, again, develop claims much like the American 

Bar Association has signed on to do with us. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Have they brought any of those best practices that 

you have noticed to the table that have helped the process? 

Mr. MURPHY. I don’t have any knowledge of that yet. I am not 

saying that it hasn’t happened. I am just saying that I haven’t been 

involved with that to that degree where I can give you an answer 

to that one. 

Mr. RUNYAN. If you find some, would you please forward them 

to me? 

Mr. MURPHY. I would be happy to. 

Mr. RUNYAN. With that, I will yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to look a little more closely at the numbers, because sometimes when you give us national numbers, that mask 

problems that may exist at regional offices. Do you have the 

metrics for Reno, which is the office that serves my district in Las 

Vegas, and the other regional offices? And do you see any patterns 

or have any notion of the buy-in from the different offices, what 

makes one more successful than another, what we might do to help 

those that aren’t being as successful? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. Let’s start with Reno. It has been approximately, rounding up, approximately 1,600 claims submitted 

through the fully developed claim process in Reno. Represents 23, 

24 percent of the claims received in the State. That puts Reno in 

one of the top 10 performing offices in terms of FDC submissions 

for this fiscal year so far. 

The other part of your question was, do we have that for all offices? Yes, we do. We track it in great detail. We share that information with the Veterans Service Organizations, with the State directors, with the county veterans service officers. And the reason 

we do that is, the third part of your question was, what is effective 

and how does it work and how do you get better numbers? And the 

answer is direct involvement through the national, the State, and 

the county veterans service officers in partnership with the regional office and the staff in that regional office. 

Seventy percent of our veterans that come through and submit 

claims are represented by a power of attorney. So having those 

power of attorneys buy into the process the way we are doing 

through the community of practice and other events is absolutely 

critical to the success of this program. And if you go back and look 

at the numbers, first quarter of the fiscal year, we brought approximately 5.1, 5.2 percent of the claims in through the fully developed 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

8 

claim process. As of this quarter, we are at 24-point-something, 

rounded up to 25 percent. And that is in small part the VA, but 

it is primarily in part because the Veterans Service Organizations 

have stepped up and said this is the best way to take care of veterans, let’s drive this program. 

Ms. TITUS. That is great. You also mentioned some of the things 

that will keep a claim from being assessed as fully developed, the 

wrong information or adding information. Do veterans know ahead 

of time what is really required of them? And if they make a mistake do they have an option to appeal or are they just thrown out 

of the system? Are they aware of that going into the process? 

Mr. MURPHY. Let me take it from a little bit bigger picture and 

dig down. Okay? 

Ms. TITUS. Okay. 

Mr. MURPHY. I need veterans coming in through the fully developed claim process. It makes me more efficient, it makes me put 

through more claims with the same number of people. So right off 

the bat, I need to get that number down to a single digit percentage and as low, close to zero, as I possibly can do that. So I need 

an inclusionary process here. 

We are constantly looking at our Web site, explaining to people 

if you come in through the electronic environment, I can steer you 

where I need you to go because I can steer the questions you see 

and the screens that you do. So I can reduce that rate of claims 

that are rejected. In the paper process, which veterans still have 

the option to do, the veteran can complete as much or as little as 

they choose to do on that form. And that is going to dictate whether or not I can put that claim into the fully developed claim process. 

So our best tool against that one is the veteran files the claim 

using their power of attorney, and I have well-educated Veterans 

Service Organizations at every level in the organization talking to 

veterans to make sure that they complete that paper process in the 

best environment. At the same time, we have given the Veterans 

Service Organizations tools to allow them to come in through the 

stakeholder entry portal and complete that fully developed claim 

electronically on behalf of the veteran. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, if they are rejected in the program is there an 

appeal? Can they try it again? Too bad? How does that work? 

Mr. MURPHY. I don’t believe we have an appeal process in place 

on a claim that is removed from the fully developed claim process. 

Now, just because a claim is removed from the fully developed 

claim process doesn’t mean that, oh, we are going to put you over 

here and you are on the 280-day track. Okay. I inject a claim into 

the process at the furthest step that I possibly can, given the development that is needed. So if you didn’t sign the form but you have 

given me all of the evidence that you need, I return the form to 

you, you sign it, it comes back, it has all the evidence, and it steps 

into the process at the right step and moves forward from there. 

So it is not— 

Ms. TITUS. You are not back at ground zero. 

Mr. MURPHY. Exactly. We take the claim when submitted and 

put it in the furthest step in process we can given the information 

contained in that claim. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

9 

Ms. TITUS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentlelady. And before I recognize Mr. 

Cook, I want to get one question in. 

Have you seen an increased number in the FDCs as a result of 

the 1-year early effective date on the provision that was effective 

August 6, 2013? Have you seen an increase in the filings? 

Mr. MURPHY. We are seeing an increase every week because of 

multiple efforts going on here. To come back and attribute it to specifically how much is attributable to that 1 year, I don’t have that 

number for you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Okay. With that, Mr. Cook. 

Mr. COOK. If I could yield to Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. O’Rourke is recognized. 

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

Mr. Cook for yielding. And I think we have a shared interest in the 

line of questioning I will start with, and hopefully Mr. Cook will 

follow up. 

But the average wait time to hear back on a service-connected 

disability claim in El Paso, which is served out of the Waco regional office, and actually for all communities in Texas served out 

of Waco, is now 463 days. In our district office in El Paso, Texas, 

we are handling hundreds of constituent issues. We are the largest 

binational community in the world. So you can imagine the number 

of visa and immigration issues. A lot of Social Security, Medicaid, 

Medicare. But all of those are trumped by the number of disability 

claim cases for which we become the primary advocate for the veteran in El Paso. 

I have had grown men call me in tears because they have been 

waiting for years to hear back on a service-connected disability 

claim. They are injured because of their service to this country. 

They can no longer work, meet their mortgage obligations. Their 

home is being taken by the bank. They can’t provide for their families. And they can’t get a straight answer, yes or no, from the government. 

I had a chance to go to Waco to see some of the issues firsthand. 

I saw one veteran’s case being wheeled around on a hand truck to 

be boxed, sent somewhere else to be scanned, sent somewhere else 

again to be stored in a warehouse. You have outlined some of the 

reasons why filing a fully developed claim and filing one online 

makes a lot of sense for you all. You said, I can do more work, process more claims without hiring more people. 

And in a time of sequester, where we are unlikely to see greater 

public resources to meet the demands of the veterans in our communities and we are expected to do more with less in government, 

why are you not supportive of the Faster Filing Act, which passed 

unanimously out of this Subcommittee and out of the Full Veterans’ Affairs Committee, which would help the veteran—and by 

extension help you—to make the best decision for their interests in 

getting a response back in a period of under 125 days, or maybe 

even under 100 days if they file it online, would save you money, 

would allow them a year’s worth of retroactive benefits, and makes 

a ton of common sense and follows some of the things that you are 

doing already? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

10 

And for those who don’t know, the Faster Filing Act requires the 

VA to alert a veteran to the fastest and slowest way to process that 

claim. The fastest is a fully developed claim filed online. The slowest is one that is not fully developed that is filed in a paper format. 

We are just asking the VA in this bill to provide that information 

to the veteran. He will make the best decision in his or her best 

interests. It will likely be the best decision for your interests in 

managing your operations and getting that wait time and total 

backlog inventory down. And yet when we asked for you to adopt 

these as administrative procedures, we got a letter back yesterday 

from Secretary Shinseki claiming that this would place a significant administrative burden on the agency, it would impose difficulties. In essence, it is just too much trouble for you all to do this. 

We are trying to get to the same place. We are trying to provide 

the information to the veteran so they can get an answer quickly. 

Why won’t you support us in this? 

Mr. MURPHY. I believe one of the comments the Secretary put in 

that letter was that we support the bill in concept, but there is 

some administrative burden in there which will detract from the 

processing of claims and divert resources from processing claims in 

order to do that. And I think that in concept with what you have 

in the bill we like what is there, but we would love the opportunity 

to sit down, have some conversations about where we see those administrative burdens and how we can get what we see as beneficial 

to VA and the veteran, and limit some of those administrative burdens that we are talking about here. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I may be able to understand that it might require 

a little bit of work up front. I think your even short and certainly 

medium and long-term gains would recoup that initial investment 

and cost many, many, many times over for you. And for the veteran 

to know up front that I am going to get an answer back in less 

than 123 days if I go this way, but I am likely to wait in Waco 463 

days, or whatever it is at that time, if I go the other way, they will 

make the best decision. It just makes so much obvious sense to me 

that, frankly, I can’t understand your answer. I think it is why this 

has been endorsed by the IAVA, it has been endorsed by the American Legion, it is strongly supported by other Veterans Service Organizations. 

I wish you had given us your feedback and concerns prior to this 

passing out of the Subcommittee, the Full Committee. It is going 

to go to the floor of the House. I hope that it passes. It is endorsed 

on a bipartisan basis. I wish you would work with us instead of 

working against us on this one. 

And, Mr. Chair, I will yield back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. The gentleman’s time from California is expired. If 

the gentleman from Texas would like his 5 minutes now, he is recognized. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I will yield to the gentleman from California. 

Mr. RUNYAN. The gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Obviously, I share Mr. O’Rourke’s concern. We had sent a letter, 

I cosigned that. And I got to be honest with you, to get it back the 

day before the night of the hearing, where you are trying to be prepared and ask the pertinent questions, I wasn’t too happy. And I 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

11 

know you are busy, we are all busy. But the rationale, I think we 

worked on this because we wanted the claimant to have more information. 

And a lot of the people are very, very confused about the process. 

I have gone through this. I am confused. And I am sorry, first of 

all, just the culture of answering. Everybody talks in acronyms. 

And maybe I understand most of them and everything like that. 

And we have got to stop using the acronyms. And I will get on my 

high horse and I will say the same thing over and over again, don’t 

use terms that lawyers use, and problematic, and just be very, very 

straight with the veterans. That is the environment that they have 

operated in. I think they want to know the straight scoop. 

And, you know, I am just a dumb marine, and I always go by 

the old principle, the KISS principle. Maybe it was invented for me 

specifically. Keep it simple, stupid. And just to get that information 

out there. And I think oftentimes, when it is user friendly and they 

understand some of the problems and the delays and everything 

that is going on there, wouldn’t be this perception that the VA is 

the enemy. 

Most of the things that I deal with in my district are veterans, 

and some of them are not happy. And I am sure you do a lot of 

great good. We are always trying to take care of those ones that 

something is wrong. And it is tough. And I think the purpose of 

the bill was right on target about trying to make sure that we 

made it simpler, that they would know exactly what is going on. 

And, you know, I read the second page here, and I was a little 

miffed at it. And it is like, basically, you know, we got an admin 

burden, we are too busy, sorry about that, try again next year. And 

that was just my take on it. 

And I have said repeatedly, you know, some of these I think you 

are making tremendous progress. I think the fact that more and 

more people are filing claims. It is very, very difficult. And I understand that. But I always go back to the bottom line. I don’t understand a lot of things that you do, and I apologize for that. But I 

always learned that I always try and take care of my troops. So 

if it is easier to understand what is going on and what they have 

to do without the acronyms, then I am going to support something 

like that. So if you could address that. 

Mr. MURPHY. I got to break the comments on the bill into two 

halves. One of them is about providing information to a veteran. 

We are already programming our Web site, based on your letter to 

the Secretary and other information from others, to include that information on the Web site and make it publicly available. The objection is not about providing information to veterans about the 

performance of the fully developed claim and what is the fastest 

way to put a claim through the process. It is about the administrative burden of providing notices and signatures on the part of the 

veteran. And it turns into what came out of the VCAA with the 

duty-to-notify process. And it can have an unintended second-level 

consequence of slowing the claim process down. That is the part of 

this bill that we want to avoid. 

Mr. COOK. VCAA. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

12 

Mr. MURPHY. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act, where we 

have to notify a veteran of what it takes to submit a claim and 

what it takes to adjudicate a claim. 

Mr. COOK. Okay. You know, I think Congressman O’Rourke’s 

comment about working together, I don’t know whether we could 

sit down and explain our concerns. I think we are all trying to do 

the same thing. And maybe if we could get there, where we go 

through this, then maybe we could have a consensus on how to accomplish that. I would be willing to do that. 

Mr. MURPHY. I agree, Congressman Cook. I think we are just trying to work out a few of the details to accomplish the very same 

thing. Information in the hands of a veteran makes the veteran do 

an informed decision, and it will get them more involved in my 

process, which makes me faster. It is not a bad thing. 

Mr. COOK. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, I recognize the gentlelady from California now Ms. 

Negrete McLeod. 

No questions? 

With that, I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

And I was reading the testimony of the PVA, and they have a 

concern, and I am going to ask the question for the gentleman, my 

concern as well. It says, ‘‘Another key concern relates to the potential erosion of due process should a veteran disagree with an FDC 

decision or desire to add evidence later that supports a higher rating. By agreeing to submit an FDC, claimants essentially waive 

their rights to contest the decision in exchange for a faster decision.’’ Do you have any comments on that, sir? 

Mr. MURPHY. The veteran is not waiving any rights. They are 

opting into a process which can help accelerate it faster. But the 

veteran at any time, if they believe they have other evidence which 

can result in a higher award, can submit that evidence, any time 

in the process can submit that evidence. In addition to that, if the 

decision is already made, they can file a new claim or go back in 

and open an old existing claim. 

So this is not meant to be an exclusionary ‘‘I am going to do this 

and I am only allowed to go this path forever.’’ This is at the veteran’s discretion to have the ability to include the evidence they 

want submitted and participate in this process. In return for that, 

they help us get to a faster decision, resulting in a faster decision 

on their claim. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Are you willing to meet with the PVA with regard 

to this concern? 

Mr. MURPHY. Absolutely. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Very good. 

All the other questions, most of the questions were asked, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you very much for holding this hearing. I yield 

back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, I will recognize the gentleman from California Mr. 

Ruiz. 

Mr. RUIZ. I have no questions. 

Mr. RUNYAN. No questions? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

13 

Any other Members have any further questions? No? 

Mr. Murphy, on behalf of the Subcommittee, I thank you for your 

testimony today, look forward to continuing to work with you on 

these important matters. And you are excused. 

At this time, I would like to welcome our second panel to the witness table. First we will hear from Ms. Verna Jones, Director of 

Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission for the American 

Legion. And second we will hear from Mr. Steven Wolf, the Assistant National Service Director for the Disabled American Veterans. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Diane Zumatto, the National Legislative Director for AMVETS. And finally we will hear from Mr. W. 

Clyde Marsh, President of National Association of State Directors 

of Veterans Affairs. Your complete and written statements will be 

entered into the hearing record. 

And, Ms. Jones, I will recognize you now for 5 minutes for your 

testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF VERNA JONES, DIRECTOR, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN 

LEGION; STEVEN WOLF, ASSISTANT NATIONAL SERVICE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; DIANE M. 

ZUMATTO, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS; 

AND W. CLYDE MARSH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF VERNA JONES 

Ms. JONES. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, 

Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the Committee. Thank 

you for inviting the American Legion to testify today about the 

Fully Developed Claims program. I am excited about this Fully Developed Claims program because we, the American Legion, have 

been deeply involved since the beginning, and we are finding that 

this program can be a great example of what happens when all the 

players—the veterans, the VSOs, Congress, and the VA—all work 

together to get things done. When everyone works together, it is 

the veteran who wins. 

There was a lot of initial resistance about the FDC program. People had the mindset that, isn’t this just making the VSOs do the 

work of the VA? Isn’t this putting too much of a burden on the veteran? That is not how it works. Our service officers are already 

trained to put together as much of the information up front for 

every claim for VA, for every veteran that they work on. They are 

doing the same work that we have always done, but now the VA 

is moving faster and the veteran has a hand in the processing of 

their claim. When the VA gets this claim, they can do a better job 

because they have everything they know the veteran wants to give 

to them, and they know the claim is in good order. 

We have been studying this intensively for almost a year now, 

and we have conducted some week-long visits. We did eight visits, 

and we did visit Reno as well. We went to eight regional offices to 

see how the process was working and see how it was working out 

in the field. We are finding that what works is when everyone buys 

into this process. But it has to be buy-in on both sides of the street. 

If the VA leadership in an office does not believe in the program, 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

14 

then you are not going to see as much success as the offices where 

VA leadership buys into the program. 

And by the same token, we have had to do a lot of work with 

our own service offices. We went out to those regional offices, we 

talked to our American Legion service officers, we looked at the 

FDC claims, and we found training opportunities to make sure that 

we were giving the VA a better quality product to work with. 

I have seen what we can accomplish when we do this right. Veterans are getting decisions in less than 125 days. We have seen out 

in different offices, where they get them in 90 days, 60 days, and 

a few even 30 days from the time they submit it to the time that 

the claim was adjudicated. 

We are working hard to commit our service offices to this program because it gets better results for veterans. And we are hoping 

that VA is making the same push to their leadership to get more 

consistent results from all the offices. In offices like Indianapolis, 

it took buy-in from all levels, from the RO director down to the employees and to the American Legion service officers and the other 

service organizations. They were ultimately so successful that they 

had to add additional lanes for the program. And even at that high 

volume, they continue to turn out better results for the veterans. 

Offices where you didn’t really see the buy-in, we were disappointed in Baltimore, which could use some help in dealing with 

the backlog. Baltimore was aggressively excluding veterans from 

the FDC program. That is what we found during our FDC visits. 

An example is, in Baltimore they had a veteran, they spent more 

time trying to exclude a Pentagon 9/11 veteran out of the FDC program than the time it would have taken to adjudicate that claim. 

We have to start with the basic question, is this going to help 

the veteran? With FDC, we believe the answer is yes. There are 

some things that they can do to make it better. For example, work 

with the National Guard and Reserve veterans in this program. 

The last decade has certainly shown the men and women of the 

National Guard and Reserves are just as involved in defending this 

Nation as the active duty troops. We should be working to make 

sure they don’t get left out. 

When we see how effective this can be and how great the turnaround results are for the veterans who qualify, it can take away 

the pressure and some of the resources needed to work on the 

claims of the veterans who don’t qualify for this program. We realize this has to be an important part of turning around the backlog. 

Thank you again for putting the focus on this program. It is important with oversight to see not only what doesn’t work, but the 

things that are working so we can highlight the way forward. I will 

be happy to answer any questions that you may have for me. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF VERNA JONES APPEARS IN THE AP- PENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank you, Ms. Jones. 

With that, I will recognize Mr. Wolf for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN WOLF 

Mr. WOLF. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting DAV to testify on 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

15 

VBA’s Fully Developed Claims program so that we can share some 

of our observations and recommendations. After working 10 years 

in the field, and recently accepting my position in Washington, 

D.C., earlier this month, I never thought I would be here testifying 

even before my boxes have been unpacked. However, I am honored 

to be here, and I hope my insight and experiences can benefit your 

work. 

During my tenure in Chicago VA regional office, I was fortunate 

to have been involved from the beginning with one of the first and 

most successful FDC programs. Working together with VA RO Director Duane Honeycutt and his staff, DAV and other VSOs have 

made Chicago a model for other stations on how to execute the 

FDC program. I believe that the most important ingredients necessary for the FDC program to be widely successful is having a 

strong commitment and open communication between VBA, VSOs, 

and veterans. Earlier this year, DAV, along with the American Legion, joined the VA to establish the FDC community of practice. 

Dedicating ourselves, submitting as many FDC claims as possible, 

I saw firsthand in Chicago how much difference it makes when you 

have complete buy-in from VBA and VSOs. 

One important component of the success was the creation of a 

dedicated FDC program coordinator whose primary and perhaps 

only mission is to be responsible for the FDC program. DAV believes that every regional office should designate at least one individual to serve as its FDC coordinator. 

In the beginning, one of the major obstacles of the FDC program 

was the exclusion process, which is the act of removing or disqualifying a claim from the FDC program. In many instances, claims 

are excluded from the FDC program for reasons that could have 

been easily avoided simply by contacting a claimant directly or one 

of the service officers, requesting any identified or missing to be 

submitted. In Chicago, in an unprecedented event and approach, 

Director Honeycutt reached out to DAV and offered to contact our 

NSOs by email, when a case is being prepared for exclusion from 

the FDC program. This simple act of communication allows our 

NSOs the opportunity to contact the claimant to easily resolve 

these issues, thereby avoiding the exclusion and allowing the claim 

to remain in the FDC program. DAV also believes that this approach should be made national policy. 

Additionally, we believe VBA needs to review and revise the policy on excluding FDC claims when additional evidence is submitted, even though that evidence needs no additional development. For example, in Chicago, I had a veteran who submitted an 

increased claim for a back condition. Later on, he submitted additional X-ray evidence. Under current VBA rules, the submission of 

this additional X-ray evidence should have prompted removal from 

the FDC program. However, the VBA employee contacted our NSO, 

indicated that because this evidence requires no additional development, there should be no reason to remove it from the FDC program. This is another common sense practice that should be adopted and made national policy. 

DAV believes that making veterans aware of the advantages of 

the FDC process is absolutely essential for the greater claimant 

participation. In addition to regularly promoting the FDC program 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

16 

through our Web site, magazine, meetings, and conferences, DAV 

also conducts formal orientation classes. In Chicago, DAV-led orientation classes are held weekly and offered to potential claimants 

or anyone interested in learning about the FDC process, including 

VBA employees and other VSOs. Locally, we have agreements with 

the VSOs so their claimants they represent can come to our DAV 

orientation classes to learn about the FDC program. Participants 

are provided detailed information about FDC programs, requirements, how to file an informal FDC, what to expect after filing the 

FDC claim, and what actions would exclude their claim from the 

FDC program. 

The feedback from the majority of our claimants is that they are 

excited to be involved from the get-go, especially knowing they can 

play a major role in speeding their decision process. Mr. Chairman, 

DAV believes the FDC program has been extremely successful in 

having a positive impact on reducing the backlog of disability 

claims. We look forward to the program’s continued success and 

working with VBA and Congress to make that happen. This concludes my statement. So I will be happy to answer any questions 

you or your Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN WOLF APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank you, Mr. Wolf. 

And with that, I will recognize Ms. Zumatto for her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE M. ZUMATTO 

Ms. ZUMATTO. Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking 

Member Titus, and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to allow AMVETS to voice both our praise and concerns regarding VA’s efforts to reduce the claims backlog via the Fully Developed Claims program. AMVETS fully supports the submission of 

complete claims packages, as we are aware that any other position 

hurts both our veterans and the VA employees working their 

claims. 

Notwithstanding the fact that VA completed a record-breaking 1 

million claims per year in fiscal years 2010 through 2012, the number of claims received continues to exceed the number processed. 

In response to this disturbing trend, VA began implementing a 

comprehensive transformation plan meant to increase productivity 

and accuracy of disability claims processing. While the FDC program is merely one element of this plan, it is hoped that, once fully 

implemented, that it will substantially contribute to the elimination of the claims backlog. 

Filing an FDC is undoubtedly the fastest way for veterans to receive a decision on their disability claims, as it takes the onus of 

locating documents off of the VA and puts it on the veteran. Under 

the FDC program, veterans are required to provide all supporting 

documents and records with their original claims. When veterans 

are able to meet this criteria, it significantly reduces the amount 

of time VA needs to accurately process their claims, as well as the 

veteran’s wait time. 

According to the VBA’s Monday Morning Workload Report, under 

the FDC program the number of pending claims has dropped from 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

17 

the high water mark of 919,461 on 16 July, 2012, to the current 

level of 760,820 pending claims on 24 August, 2013. Additionally, 

the number of claims in the backlog has declined from 633,469 on 

25 March of this year to 459,998 on August 31 of 2012. 

One major concern that AMVETS does have with the FDC program is the removal of the veteran’s dependents information from 

a veteran’s claim. Dependents have now been relegated to an 

award adjustment action. AMVETS sees this as an ineffective and 

less efficient way to work, since a claim with dependents must now 

be touched multiple times instead of only once before it is finalized 

and authorized. Since the FDC started in May 2010, the number 

of pending dependents issues has increased from a monthly average of 40,000 to 205,467, according to the 24 August MMWR. This 

seems to suggest that we are merely shifting the backlog of claims 

from veterans to their dependents. 

We at AMVETS have a major concern with the new backlog of 

dependent award actions. The 205,000 pending issues are merely 

the ones that VA has identified. How many veterans who are entitled to dependents allowance have not been identified? Currently, 

that number is unknown. Any way you look at it, the removal of 

dependents from veterans’ claims does not make sense. VA’s own 

annual reports since 2005 show that for the majority of rating decisions, veterans qualify for dependents allowance. This has steadily 

climbed from 51 percent in 2005 to 56 percent, as noted in the 2011 

annual report, which is the most current report available. Additionally, it is of critical importance that sufficient funds be allocated to 

manage the backlog and to provide multiple levels of oversight as 

part of the VA’s attempt to correct the situation. 

I would like to conclude my remarks by noting for the record that 

AMVETS fully supports both Secretary Shinseki and Under Secretary for Benefits Hickey. We need to ensure that the VA’s leadership has the necessary resources to fix the system. This concludes 

my remarks. I will be happy to take any questions. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANE M. ZUMATTO APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Ms. Zumatto. 

Mr. Marsh is now recognized for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF W. CLYDE MARSH 

Mr. MARSH. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Clyde Marsh. I am the president of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs and the director of the Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs. I am honored to present the views of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

and five U.S. territories on the implementation of the very important Fully Developed Claim program. 

As State governmental agencies, we are charged with the duty 

of assisting veterans in filing claims for disability, compensation, 

pension, and survivor benefits. We strongly support the concept, 

methodology, and strategy undertaken by VBA in the current FDC 

program as one of several means to reduce the current veterans 

claims backlog, while also reducing time for a rating decision. To 

help facilitate success of this program, each State will endeavor to 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

18 

provide specific mission guidance, goals, and checklists to increase 

both the quantity of submissions as well as the quality of claims. 

In addition to our association’s support, to date, 46 of our States 

and territories have submitted letters of commitment to VA in support of FDCs. 

The provision that provides for up to 1 year for retroactive effective date for awards of disability compensation is an incentive for 

veterans to file FDCs. This change serves to negate the need for 

veterans to submit informal claims for the sole purpose of establishing a date of claim. We strongly support the Fully Developed 

Claims goal of providing a response to claimants within 90 days. 

Transparency will be particularly important to ensure veterans’ 

confidence in this process. As advocates for veterans, we accept the 

responsibility for helping them to understand that they are certifying the truthfulness of the information that they are authorizing 

for release of information necessary to ensure a rating decision. We 

recommend an increased role for State Directors of Veterans Affairs in the overall effort to manage and administer claims processing, regardless of whether a State uses State employees, national chartered Veterans Service Organizations, and/or county veterans service officers. Collectively, we have the capacity and capability to assist DVA. We are engaged in the establishment of standards for training, testing, and accrediting service officers to include 

continuing education and performance standards. 

Several States have taken the lead by integrating the FDC process into their claims operation. An example that has yielded positive results is the Texas Veterans Commission State-funded initiative that included a 28-member team to specifically file fully developed claims. They have submitted nearly 8,900 claims to VBA for 

processing. Similar efforts of varying scope are ongoing in States 

nationwide, with resources, organizational structure, and operating 

procedures varying from State to State. 

We ask that attention be given to the following areas. One, disability benefits questionnaires need to be simplified and shortened, 

especially for less complex conditions. Doing so will enhance physician participation. Two, e-Benefits makes it possible for veterans to 

file claims. However, the current Web site needs to encourage veterans to seek representation. Also, VBA needs to ensure that all 

States can easily access the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal. Three, 

outreach and trainings are critical to the success of the FDC program, and program coordinators should be included at the VA regional offices. Four, we are working with the VBA to ensure that 

future Fast Letters include State Departments of Veterans Affairs. 

And five, to fully implement the Veterans Benefits Management 

System. It is valid, and it must succeed in order to improve the 

claims process. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, we 

appreciate your work on behalf of veterans. And be assured that 

State Directors of Veterans Affairs remain dedicated to doing our 

part. We are partners with the Federal VA in the delivery of services and care for our Nation’s patriots. As procedures and policies 

are developed within the FDC program, we look forward to participating in the process. We will continue to provide feedback as the 

program runs its course to achieve maximum impact in eliminating 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

19 

the claims backlog. Thank you for your inclusion of the National 

Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs in this hearing. 

And I stand ready to answer questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. CLYDE MARSH APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Marsh. 

And I will begin the first round of questions. My first question 

is for Ms. Zumatto. 

You touched on these a little bit, but I wanted to go a little deeper and maybe clarify. In your testimony, you categorize the FDC 

program as moderately successful. What additional steps do the VA 

and other stakeholders need to take in order to make this program 

fully successful? We can’t fix every one of them. What is the big 

one we can tackle? 

Ms. ZUMATTO. That is a very interesting question. I don’t know 

whether the Committee knows or not, I don’t actually process 

claims myself. So what I would like to do is take it back and speak 

with our national service officer and get his input. He was instrumental in writing the testimony for today’s hearing. And I would 

like to defer to his expertise to make sure that I am giving you the 

best answer. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Please do. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Then I want to touch on Mr. Wolf’s expertise and 

experiences at the Chicago RO. Could you briefly describe the policy conversations that took place and ultimately shaped the FDC 

program into its current form? And along that line, were there 

some early challenges with the program in Chicago? And how were 

these addressed and resolved? And would you say the program is 

operating as envisioned when it was created in 2009? 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First off, I think the biggest thing was communication between 

the VSOs and the VA. Meeting with the management team, our 

management team, other VSOs, coming up with a plan to include 

everyone, and the program being totally, I guess, bought into. This 

was the most important key in the beginning stages. 

After that, the changes started to occur. One of the biggest 

things or obstacles that we were running into was veterans just 

didn’t know about the program. Therefore, we started adapting the 

orientation programs. We started word of mouth with veterans. We 

started getting the word out. Once the veterans started coming in 

wanting to do the program, it made it easier for us to process some 

of these claims. 

Mr. WOLF. I would say that the program can improve. It is running smoothly. However, there are still a lot of veterans in every 

State that don’t know about the program, and even ones that do 

know about the program, they need to be educated on the program 

in order to stay in the program and not be thrown out into the traditional process where it may take longer to get their claims resolved. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Would you say it is running about the pace that I 

think most people envisioned it? 

Mr. WOLF. I don’t know what most people envisioned, Mr. Chairman. In Chicago, based on my experiences, we have increased the 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

20 

FDC claims there. And I am satisfied with the claims there, but 

I know that we can do better. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I mean, it sounds like a lot of the programs we 

have in the VA and in the Federal Government—nobody knows 

about them. 

Can you talk a little bit about submitting more evidence and how 

that process works? Because, as the last panel said, it sounded like 

it was pretty flawless, but it seems like you kind of had a little bit 

different of a view on how new evidence gets submitted and the 

process moves forward from there. Is it as seamless as the first witness said? 

Mr. WOLF. What happens, based on my experience, when a veteran comes into our office and we educate them on what is needed, 

we initially file an informal claim. This protects the veteran’s effective date, and it gives the veteran 1 year to obtain all the additional evidence needed. We give them a list specifically indicating 

what they need in order to stay in the FDC program. If a veteran 

submits something after the FDC claim is filed, at times, that 

claim could be removed. By VA standards, it should be removed. 

However, this is where we have been using email communications 

with the VA, and it has become successful. And we would like to 

see that continue and not remove these claims from the FDC program. 

Mr. RUNYAN. But it is not codified policy, correct? 

Mr. WOLF. No, sir. 

Mr. RUNYAN. But in your experience, in the RO you were in, it 

worked with the open communications? 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It works in Chicago. And we 

would like to see that nationwide, obviously, to protect our veterans. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you very much. 

With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

First, Ms. Jones, I would like to thank you and the American Legion for visiting Reno. I hope we treated you well while you were 

there. 

Ms. JONES. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TITUS. I wonder if you could share with us any perceptions 

about the visit. We heard some good numbers earlier from Mr. 

Murphy about some of the improvements there. I wonder if you 

could comment on what you found. 

Ms. JONES. Thank you. We had a great visit in Reno. They treated us very nicely. 

When we went to Reno, we actually had an opportunity to visit 

with the fully developed claims coordinator and attend a fully developed claims training meeting where the fully develop claims coordinator conducted training for the VSOs. And a lot of the fully 

develop claims from Reno had been brokered out. I think at the 

very beginning of the fully developed claims process with Reno and 

maybe the changeover in leadership, that they weren’t quite sure 

at the beginning where those claims needed to go, and so some of 

the fully developed claims were just piling up. Looking at the 

amount of time that it took for a veteran to submit the information, 

and then for Reno to act on it, had a big lag time at the beginning. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

21 

And then they brokered out most of those fully develop claims and 

started over, so to speak, with the ones that were being submitted 

to Reno. 

They did a much better job with the second set of fully developed 

claims that were coming through that office. We had an opportunity to talk to the American Legion service officers in Reno and 

train them as well. And when we went back to look at the Reno 

office through the VA and the American Legion, they are doing a 

much better job than before the visit. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. I am certainly glad 

to hear that. 

My other question is to Ms. Zumatto. You mentioned that there 

is a real need for the VA to make changes with regards to dependents and dependents’ claims and the information for dependents. 

Do you have any specific suggestions to how we can address some 

of the challenges that dependents face when they file claims? And 

if you want to answer that or anybody else can answer that as 

well. 

Ms. ZUMATTO. Well, I would say this, that the way things were 

done previously, where the dependents were included as part of the 

veteran’s claim, it seems like that would be a more efficient way 

to continue. Right now, under the FDC, apparently it is like two 

tracks. And so even though it is a veteran and his or her dependents, at the end of the process there are, you know, different codes 

that have to be referred to and, you know, any correspondence that 

goes back and forth between the VA and the dependents and/or the 

veteran are being done separately. And as the numbers show, now 

we are getting a backlog on the dependent issue. 

So, I mean, it is great that we are reducing the backlog with veterans. But if we are just robbing Paul to pay Peter, whatever, are 

we really making any progress? So beyond that, again, I can take 

this back and get more specific information. But for right now, that 

is really all that I could offer. 

Ms. TITUS. And I would appreciate that. If you could, thank you. 

Would anybody else like to comment on that? 

Mr. WOLF. I would like to comment. So for DAV’s standpoint, the 

best way to file a dependency claim—whether it be adding a spouse 

or a child—would be through the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal 

where your claim can be done in 1.2 days versus more than 120 

days, the paper route. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, maybe we could get some more information from 

the VA about why they changed this policy and what their reasoning was about why that would be a better way to do things and 

see if it has turned out to be the case or not. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Okay. We will take a look at that. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to also thank 

you for convening this panel. And I really appreciate the nature of 

your questions about how do we ensure that something that is perhaps working well becomes fully successful. And the feedback that 

we have received today is especially helpful to that end. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

22 

And I want to commend the VSOs who have been very responsive to our office. You know, when we were writing this Faster Filing Act legislation, all of your organizations responded to us, gave 

us feedback to improve it, let us know if you could support it or 

why you could not support it. I wish we had heard back from the 

VA before the Subcommittee voted on it, before the Full Committee 

voted on it, you know, sooner certainly than a day before we had 

today’s hearing. 

But having said that, I think it is important to acknowledge that 

Mr. Murphy from the VA has remained. He is listening to your testimony. And I think that while we have that chance to have the 

administration here, to have those of us who might be able to offer 

legislative remedies to some of the problems and to get it fully successful, we should make the most out of it. 

So before I ask some specific questions around that, I also wanted to, Mr. Marsh, through you, thank one of your member organizations, the Texas Veterans Commission. They cohosted with our 

office earlier this month a Beat the Backlog event. For the other 

members, it was highly successful. We had nearly 100 veterans 

come in. We were able to give them current status, file additional 

information. We were able to begin 22 new fully developed claims 

and start them online. So a modest beginning, but it is something 

that we want to build on. And certainly TVC was instrumental in 

helping us do that, the Texas Veterans Commission. 

So for each of you, if you could each take a minute or less in the 

KISS manner that Mr. Cook was talking about. What is one, 

maybe two things that you want me, us, to focus on to improve the 

FDC process, either administratively or legislatively? And begin 

with Ms. Jones and take it down the line. 

Ms. JONES. Thank you. 

Though we certainly do support the fully developed claims process, there are a couple of concerns. One, more training. I think that 

some of the things we saw when we were out conducting the fully 

developed claims visit that there was lack of consistency. Where 

you would see one office, how they handled submission of new evidence or if a veteran has—say they submit five contentions on their 

claim, a fully developed claim, and four of them are, by definition, 

a fully developed claim, it concerns me that they would push that 

whole claim, that whole veteran back out into the traditional process because one of those contentions does not meet fully developed 

claim criteria, by definition. So we would like to see work on that, 

to help us be able to have that veteran, get some money coming 

into the homes of those veterans by adjudicating those four contentions and deferring the one and still have that be a fully developed 

claim, by definition. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you. 

Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. Obviously DAV would like to see more accountability within the VA regional offices regarding the fully developed claims process. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Is that published data on a quarterly, monthly 

basis in terms of how those claims are being processed, the rejection rate, that kind of data and accountability? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

23 

Mr. WOLF. More so accountability with management and the 

staff within the VA regional offices. Just to hold accountability for 

the claims to be processed in a timely manner and to be taken seriously when VSOs and veterans are awaiting the decisions. 

We would also like to think that the utilization of common sense 

methods that I spoke about in my testimony be utilized nationwide 

and not just throw out FDC claims for missing signatures and 

such. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And, Mr. Wolf, I am going to go to Ms. Zumatto 

just to make sure I have enough time in what remains. 

Ms. Zumatto, you mentioned the dependents issue. Would that 

be your primary recommendation for us to look at? 

Ms. ZUMATTO. That would be probably the top thing. That, and 

I agree with what my colleagues have said, we need to have improved training for the VSOs and for the veterans themselves. And 

we need to have continuing education for the VA employees. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And, Mr. Marsh, if you were to focus us on one 

issue that you think could improve this FDC process. 

Mr. MARSH. I would say that we need to let the FDC process run 

its course to work and support the ongoing efforts of training in all 

States, at all regional offices, and funding and support by Congress 

is key and essential to making that happen. And key pieces of that 

are ensuring that the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal works because 

that is the conduit for States to get in and for veterans to submit 

those claims and FDC seamlessly and faster. And the veterans’ 

benefits, VBMS, these are all different pieces that make this process work to eliminate that backlog. And funding and letting these 

particular programs work, of course, we need to make it better and 

do more, which we are doing, I think that is the key to success. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you. Thank you all. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Negrete McLeod, do you have any questions? 

I have one more question for Mr. Marsh. 

You noted in your written testimony that many areas of the 

country are still underserved due to veterans’ lack of information 

and awareness to their benefits. Could you describe how your organization is addressing this issue and particularly how you are raising awareness for the FDC program? 

Mr. MARSH. What we are doing, as a State, is we are holding a 

supermarket of benefits. These are kind of like rallies throughout 

the State in different areas where we invite veterans in and other 

State organizations to support our veterans in many different benefits. We also are sending out newsletters and we are holding training sessions specifically focusing on FDCs now, but also to disseminate information about veterans’ benefits, period, throughout the 

State to help get the word out and get people involved. And also 

highlighting the importance of, by using this process, we can eliminate and reduce the time for rating decisions. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

Anyone else have anything else? 

Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Subcommittee, I thank 

you for your testimony today. We look forward to continuing to 

work with you on the implementation of the FDC program, and we 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

24 

understand that your partnership with the VA is crucial to the program’s success. And you are now excused, and I would like to 

thank everyone for being with us today. The FDC program has 

great potential to reduce processing times for our veterans’ disability claims. And I look forward to continuing to work with all 

of you to ensure that we implement the most efficient claims processing initiatives possible. 

I would like, once again, to thank all of our witnesses for being 

here today. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any 

extraneous material. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I thank the Members for their attendance today. And the hearing 

is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

(25) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Runyan, Chairman 

Good afternoon and welcome everyone. This oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs will now come to order. 

Before I begin with today’s hearing topic, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the events of today’s date twelve years ago when a series of coordinated 

terror attacks were launched in New York City and here in Washington, DC. 

With New Jersey’s Third district in close proximity to New York City, the impact 

of the September 11th attacks were felt immediately to many of those in my District, as they were across our country. These wounds are still healing, as many of 

our Nation’s servicemembers and veterans have served post 9/11 in support of 

homeland defense, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and other overseas operations. 

On the anniversary of September 11th and every day, we must all appreciate and 

remember what America’s veterans have done to secure our freedoms. 

I know Ranking Member Titus and the other Members of the DAMA Subcommittee share my commitment to ensuring that every hearing we hold addresses 

important issues concerning those who have bravely served our Nation. 

That is why we are here today to focus on the Fully Developed Claims process, 

or FDC to look at this as an avenue to speed up the claims process for our veterans. 

An FDC is an optional program through the Veterans Benefits Administration 

that allows veterans to receive a faster decision on their claim by certifying that all 

relevant records in their possession have been obtained and submitted, rather than 

just filing the claim and having VA perform this development. 

In addition, Congress passed a law last year that went into effect on August 6, 

2013, allowing claimants to receive up to one year of retroactive benefits as an incentive for filing a FDC. 

In order to increase awareness of these incentives the VA has partnered with various Veterans Service Organizations - many of whom are here to testify today - 

about their outreach efforts and experience with the FDC program. 

However, this Committee will always remain vigilant in its oversight of this and 

all other new VA initiatives. It is critical to ensure that the program is truly helping 

veterans receive timely and accurate benefits decisions, rather than just looking for 

ways to shift the VA’s workload. 

With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses. Thank you all for being here 

today. 

Our first panel consists of Mr. Thomas Murphy, Director of Compensation Service, 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Our second panel consists of several VSOs, including Ms. Verna Jones, Director, 

Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, for the American Legion; 

Mr. Steven Wolf, Assistant National Service Director for the Disabled American 

Veterans; 

Ms. Diane M. Zumatto, the National Legislative Director for AMVETS; 

And Mr. W. Clyde Marsh, the President of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs. 

We also have several statements for the record that have been submitted from 

various organizations, and I would like to thank all of those who submitted them 

for today’s hearing. 

With those introductions complete, I am eager to hear from all of our witnesses 

on the implementation of the FDC process. 

I now yield to our Ranking Member for her opening statement. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

f 

26 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on this very 

important topic. 

With regard to the VA backlog, the VA has reduced the claims inventory by nearly 150,000 veterans in very short order. Nearly all claims that have been pending 

over two years have been processed and the VA is working hard to eliminate all 

claims pending over one year by the end of 2013. Also, the VA has rolled out in 

its electronic processing system at all 56 VA regional offices earlier this summer, 

ahead of schedule, in an attempt to end the era of paper processing. 

However, there is no quick fix. There are still 437,372 claims pending over 125 

days (as of September 9), with more than 5,378 pending over 125 days in Nevada. 

This is too many. 

The recent dip in the backlog has been a culmination of more than four years of 

effort and planning by the VA and is the direct result of a number of initiatives 

within the VA’s Transformation Plan. Today we will focus on one such program, the 

Fully Developed Claims (FDC) initiative, and the one year look-back for benefits 

which recently took effect on August 6, 2013. 

I am proud to work on behalf of the more than 100,000 veterans in Southern Nevada, many of whom have waited months and even years to get a response regarding their benefits claims. The Fully Developed Claims initiative provides a method 

for veterans, with the help of their advocates and DoD, to provide all the necessary 

evidence to process a claim. Today, the VA adjudicates FDCs in about 123 days. I 

am hopeful that this initiative will help to lower the backlog significantly. 

I would like to commend the great efforts of our VSOs, the American Legion and 

the Disabled American Veterans, as well as the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, who have worked in close partnership with the VA and 

without which the FDC initiative simply could not have been possible. 

Over the August recess, I held a meeting with local VSO chapters to promote the 

FDC initiative and I was encouraged that VSOs across the U.S. will work with veterans to submit FDC’s. I encourage all Members on our Committee to reach out to 

their local VSO leadership to promote this effort. 

I would like to thank my friend from Texas, Mr. O’Rourke, for introducing legislation to help educate veterans about this initiative. I hope the full House will consider this legislation quickly. 

As Ranking Member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I remain committed to 

working with the VA and VSOs to improve the care and service for veterans across 

the country and to ensure these benefits are awarded in a timely manner. 

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

f 

Prepared Statement of Thomas Murphy 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Fully Developed Claims (FDC) 

program. I will first review the definition of an FDC and then describe the advantages of this program. Finally, I will summarize the VA’s efforts to both inform Veterans and engage others to partner with us in this FDC program. 

FDCs Defined 

Claims are considered to be ‘‘fully developed’’ when Veterans submit a VA Form 

21–526EZ (paper or electronic) and all available supporting evidence (such as private treatment records and evidence required in special circumstances, such as unit 

treatment and personnel records for Guard and Reserve members, notify VA of any 

federal treatment records at the time they first file a formal claim, and certify they 

have nothing further to give VA regarding the claim. 

FDCs are the Fastest Way for Veterans to Receive a Claims Decision 

The widespread submission of FDCs is essential to achieving VA’s goal of providing all Veterans with decisions on their claims within 125 days at 98 percent accuracy in 2015. FDCs are the fastest way for Veterans to receive a decision on their 

claim because all supporting evidence needed from the Veteran is submitted with 

the claim. As of August 31, 2013, VA completes FDCs in an average of 123 days. 

When Veterans submit such evidence with their claims, it significantly reduces the 

amount of time VA must spend gathering evidence from them or other sources. 

Often, this is evidence that VA must, by law, attempt to collect on the Veteran’s 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

27 

behalf, even if it is already in the Veteran’s possession, or is evidence the Veteran 

could more readily obtain, such as private treatment records. While some claim development may still be necessary, such as securing federal records or providing an 

examination, FDCs eliminate the need for VA to undertake an often lengthy search 

for evidence as mandated by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000. FDCs 

allow VA to go straight to gathering any required federal records and ordering any 

necessary medical examinations needed to decide the claim. This is advantageous 

for Veterans and VA. Eligible Veterans receive their benefits faster, and VA prevents claims from entering its backlog of work. FDCs are typically completed twice 

as fast as traditional compensation claims. 

VA is continuing to implement several initiatives, including FDCs, to meet the 

Department’s goal to eliminate the claims backlog in 2015. In April, VA launched 

an initiative to expedite disability compensation claims decisions for Veterans who 

have a waited a year or longer to receive a rating decision. In May, VA announced 

that it was mandating overtime for claims processors in its 56 regional benefits offices to increase production of compensation claims decisions through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2013. By June 19, VA had completed over 97 percent of all claims over 

2 years old, and turned its focus to those over one year old. As a result of these 

recent efforts coupled with many other people, process, and technology initiatives, 

as of August 31, the backlog of claims pending more than 125 days reached its lowest point since March 2011. The backlog has been reduced to approximately 460,000 

claims, representing a 25 percent reduction from its peak in March 2013. In midAugust, VA had already completed one million claims, setting a record by reaching 

this goal a month earlier than planned. 

Duty to Notify and Duty to Assist 

VA is required to assist a claimant in substantiating a claim for compensation or 

other benefits. This assistance comprises the first phase of the claim process, also 

known as the development phase, and it is by far the lengthiest segment of the process currently taking an average of 128 days. The requirements to notify and assist 

are primarily expressed in the following: 

Duty to Notify: 38 U.S.C. § 5103 requires VA to provide the claimant and the 

claimant’s representative, if any, notice of information needed to substantiate the 

claim, including medical or lay evidence not previously provided to VA. This requirement is met through the Veteran’s use of the VA Form 21–526EZ (paper or electronic) in the FDC submission. 

Duty to Assist: 38 U.S.C. § 5103A requires VA to make reasonable efforts to assist 

a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim. In particular, 

VA must assist the claimant by obtaining: 

• Service treatment records and other relevant records pertaining to the claimant’s active military, naval, or air service; • Relevant, claimant-identified medical treatment or examination records at a VA 

facility or at a facility where care is at the expense of VA; • Relevant, claimant-identified records held by any Federal department or agency 

by making requests for the records until such time that the records are secured, 

it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist, or that further efforts 

to obtain the records would be futile; and • Relevant, claimant-identified private records by making no less than two requests for the records, unless the records are received after the first request or 

it is evident that a second request would be futile. 

38 U.S.C. § 5103A also requires VA to provide a medical examination or obtain 

a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to decide the 

claim. 

Submitting FDCs Is Convenient 

VA encourages Veterans to submit FDCs through the joint VA–Department of Defense (DoD) self-service Web portal, eBenefits, which provides online information 

and access to a wide variety of military and Veteran benefits resources. Some of the 

features within eBenefits allow Veterans and Servicemembers to access official military personnel documents, electronically submit claims for compensation benefits, 

view the status of their disability compensation claims, transfer entitlement of Post9/11 GI Bill to eligible dependents (Servicemembers only), and register for and update direct deposit information for certain benefits. This Web portal is located at: 

https://www.ebenefits.va.gov/. 

Partnership with Veterans Service Organizations 

Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), including State and County Departments 

of Veterans Affairs, are essential partners in the FDC program. These organizations 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

28 

have long played an integral role in submitting Veterans claims - often with representatives working within VA regional offices. VA has consulted with them 

throughout the development and implementation of VA’s plan to end the backlog in 

2015 to ensure best practices and their unique insights were incorporated, and they 

have stepped forward in full support of the FDC Program and our shared goal of 

better serving Veterans, their families, and Survivors. VA’s goal in 2013 has been 

to increase FDC receipts to 20 percent of all claims received. With the support of 

our VSO partners, VA has already received over 130,000 FDCs this fiscal year, 

which represents almost 14 percent of all claims received. The 20-percent goal has 

been exceeded in this final quarter of fiscal year 2013, with 4th quarter FDC receipts increasing to almost 25 percent of all claims received. 

As of August 31, 2013, VA completes FDCs in an average of 123 days—less than 

half the time it takes to make a decision on a traditional claim. FDCs have been 

instrumental in helping to reduce the backlog, as VA saves a significant amount of 

time when evidence is provided at the start of the claims process. 

FDC Exclusions 

There are some circumstances that affect VA’s ability to process an FDC in an 

expedited manner, causing VA to exclude some claims from the FDC program. We 

are working hard to minimize these exclusions through better outreach and training. The main reasons for exclusion have been administrative, such as when a claim 

or appeal is already pending, the wrong form is used, or the form is unsigned. 

Claims must be excluded from the FDC program for non-administrative purposes 

as well. This typically occurs when a Veteran submits additional evidence after filing the FDC, when a Veteran explicitly declines FDC processing, or when VA must 

obtain evidence from non-federal sources. When VA must obtain evidence outside of 

its control, such as non-federal records, VA is unable to control the timeframe in 

which the records are received. Missed or rescheduled medical examinations also 

slow the process. VA has to exclude these types of claims from the FDC program 

because expedited processing cannot be provided. 

Outreach 

VA is aggressively pursuing expansion of the FDC program, and has conducted 

a number of outreach initiatives to encourage participation. FDC webinars have 

been held for claimants interested in the program and we have advertised the program through press releases, social media, and at VA facilities nationwide. VA has 

also distributed an FDC toolkit to every Congressional office to help VA increase 

FDC participation by adding information on this important program to Congressional webpages and in correspondence to constituents who are Veterans. 

VA also continues to rely on our VSO partners in spreading the message about 

FDCs. As previously noted, VSO feedback was instrumental in creating the FDC 

program, and VA is continuing this partnership through the FDC Community of 

Practice. VA has partnered with The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs 

(NASDVA) to further improve the FDC program. VA also just recently welcomed 

The College of William and Mary Law School’s Lewis B. Puller Jr. Veterans Law 

Clinic to the Community of Practice. 

VA’s Community of Practice partners are helping to identify best practices in the 

FDC program so they can be shared nationwide. VA recently held a workshop with 

these VSOs to provide updates on efforts to eliminate the claims backlog and to receive feedback from VSOs concerning the FDC program. In addition, each VA regional office is conducting local training and outreach workshops for VSOs and other 

partners, such as Congressional caseworkers and field staff, to ensure all stakeholders understand the importance of this program and how to help Veterans utilize 

it. Community of Practice partners are committed to increasing the number of FDCs 

they file on behalf of Veterans that they represent. VA expects additional VSOs and 

Veterans’ representatives will join the Community of Practice, helping to further improve the FDC process and increase the number of these claims. By leveraging each 

other’s experience, knowledge and opportunities, we are building a dynamic community of advocates committed to providing Veterans with their earned benefits in support of VA’s goal of eliminating the backlog. 

One-Year Retroactive Benefits 

Public Law 112–154, the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp 

Lejeune Families Act of 2012, provided authority to grant one year of retroactive 

compensation benefits for Veterans who file an original claim that is fully developed 

and received between August 6, 2013, and August 5, 2015. Interim guidance was 

issued to regional offices on August 2, 2013. This guidance instructed regional ofVACREP180 with DISTILLER

29 

fices on the requirements for granting retroactive benefits, and it allows these benefits to be granted while the regulations are being developed. 

To be eligible to receive these retroactive benefits, several requirements must be 

met. In addition to the criteria mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the claim 

must be complete. Veterans submitting informal or incomplete claims are not eligible for the retroactive benefits based on the informal or incomplete submission, 

though once the claim is completed it may be a basis for retroactive benefits if other 

criteria are met. Further, the claim must be received on a VA Form 21–526 EZ or 

online through eBenefits. 

The effective date assigned for benefits awarded under these procedures may be 

up to one year prior to submission of the complete FDC, depending on evidence of 

when the disability was first diagnosed. If evidence submitted with the FDC shows 

that the level of disability to be assigned existed for one year prior to submission 

of the claim, then the Veteran will receive a one-year retroactive effective date. If 

the evidence of record supports less than one year of disability, as the disability was 

not present for one year prior to the date on which the claim was filed, then the 

effective date for benefits will be the date on which the disability was first diagnosed. In addition, staged disability evaluations can be assigned if the evidence 

shows that the disability worsened during the one year prior to the date on which 

the claim was filed. 

Regional offices continue to update local VSOs and other stakeholders about FDC 

program and encourage their support and participation. Regional offices are also 

providing training to local VSOs and encouraging them to help Veterans file applications online through the eBenefits Web portal and to utilize Disability Benefits 

Questionnaires (DBQ) if private medical records are being submitted. Utilizing 

these three tools – the FDC program, eBenefits, and DBQs – is the best way for 

Veterans to expedite the claims process and receive a decision more quickly. 

Conclusion 

The FDC program is a key component of VA’s Transformation plan to eliminate 

the claims backlog. VA has seen FDC submissions steadily increase, and these 

claims are processed expeditiously. In addition, VA continues to prioritize other specific categories of claims, including: claims of seriously wounded, ill, and injured 

Servicemembers separating through the Integrated Disability Evaluation System; 

Medal of Honor recipients; former Prisoners of War; the homeless; terminally ill; 

and those experiencing extreme financial hardship. VA has expanded its collaborative partnerships through the FDC Community of Practice and will continue to 

work with VSOs and stakeholders to refine this program. Our partners and advocates have fully embraced the FDC program and have made commitments to submit 

FDCs in order to get Veterans faster decisions. We are joined together by our common belief that no Veteran or Survivor should wait extensive periods of time for the 

benefits they’ve earned. VA continues to reach out to stakeholders, Veterans, their 

families, and Survivors to educate them on the fastest way to receive a decision. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Verna Jones 

The Fully Developed Claims (FDC) program is an excellent example of what can 

happen when all of the stakeholders in veterans’ benefits work together and put delivering service to veterans first. The service officers who work for the Veterans’ 

Service Organizations (VSOs) present the material to the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) in an organized fashion, in turn have less time needed to develop the 

claim, and can cut the processing time to well below backlog numbers. Congress has 

responded with legislation that offers additional incentive of back pay to reflect the 

extra time veterans must spend gathering material to send to VA before they can 

submit their claim. When everything works together, it’s the veterans who win. On 

FDC claims some offices reported processing times of 30–60 days, and the average 

processing time nationwide dropped to well under VA’s goal of 125 days. 

Not every claim will be eligible to be processed under the FDC rules. The FDC 

program isn’t a silver bullet that will alleviate all of VA’s problems with the backlog. 

However, with willing participants and adequate screening to get the right cases to 

VA, the FDC program can help manage resources and take pressure off other areas 

so VA can focus and finally drive down the backlog of claims. 

The VA announced the implementation of the Fully Developed Claims FDC initiative in a meeting conducted at VA Central Office (VACO) in July 2012. Through the 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

30 

implementation of the FDC process, VA explained their intention to reduce the 

backlog of disability claims that has plagued VA and the veteran community. 

VA announced that it would create a ‘‘segmented lane’’ dedicated to adjudicate 

claims in a timely manner; the ‘‘Express Lane’’ was created to adjudicate a claim 

qualified as FDC and any claims with up to two conditions. For a service member, 

veteran, or dependent to submit a claim qualified for the FDC program, all non-federal records that may assist in adjudicating the claim are required to be submitted 

at the time of application. Non-federal records include, but are not limited to: 

fi Reserve and National Guard service treatment records 

fi Private treatment records 

fi Lay statements from friends, family members, co-workers, etc., supporting the veteran’s claim 

In November 2012, The American Legion agreed to partner with the White House, 

Joining Forces, and VA to review the implementation of the FDC process nationwide. Recognizing the FDC initiative was potentially a seismic shift in the manner 

veterans’ claims could be adjudicated and having over 2,600 accredited representatives nationwide, The American Legion enthusiastically agreed to join the initiative. 

The American Legion targeted VA Regional Offices (VAROs) nationwide to review 

the FDC implementation process. Data collected from reports produced by VA regarding FDC submissions by The American Legion allowed for a thorough review 

of VAROs with high and low FDC submissions. 

The American Legion selected the following VAROs for visitations: 

fi Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (December 2012) 

fi Denver, Colorado (January 2013) 

fi Indianapolis, Indiana (January 2013) 

fi Baltimore, Maryland (March 2013) 

fi Nashville, Tennessee (April 2013) 

fi Oakland, California (May 2013) 

fi Togus, Maine (May 2013) 

fi Reno, Nevada (June 2013) 

The findings from these visits naturally varied from office to office, although several trends were clear. In areas with strong ‘‘buy-in’’ from the VARO Directors and 

employees, such as in Indianapolis the results were explosive. The employees embraced the FDC program as they recognized it was a way to award claims expeditiously and avoid the lengthier traditional claims process. It was so well received 

that the FDC lane had to be split into sub-lanes to accommodate the volume of 

claims, and the program was still returning better results than the traditional legacy system of claims. 

Leadership in the Indianapolis office cited the close relationship with The American Legion and VSOs as instrumental to the success of the program in that office. 

Because the service officers could work the program effectively with veterans, it 

helped the VA on the front end and gave the program what it needed to succeed. 

One of the criticisms of FDC initially from some veterans’ advocates was the concern that FDC was putting too much of VA’s work on the veterans. For The American Legion, the information a veteran is required to submit is consistent with our 

baseline training for service officers about how to put together a proper claim. Service officers did not feel additional work was required, because the FDC program represented what they were already doing for veterans when they organized their 

claims for submission. By taking the work they were already doing, and submitting 

it through the FDC program, they opened up the possibility of faster turnaround 

for the veterans. It was like gaining an additional benefit for all the hard work they 

normally put in on behalf of the veteran. 

Not every office has seen the vast improvements seen in Indianapolis. Often, The 

American Legion found where there was not committed ‘‘buy-in’’ to FDC among 

management in a VARO, the employees would not buy in, and the program would 

struggle to succeed. Baltimore, MD represents an example of this sort of model. As 

even the national press has highlighted, the Baltimore VARO is not one of the higher performing Regional Offices within VA. Systemic problems within the office, including poor file management and high employee turnover contribute to morale 

issues and poor performance. In Baltimore, it often seemed employees spent more 

time trying to disqualify claims from FDC than to process them, and therefore the 

program struggled to succeed. 

To illustrate, The American Legion submitted one claim requesting FDC consideration for a veteran who served at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. On the day 

of the terrorist attack, the veteran assisted removing individuals from the building 

and was seeking service connected disability benefits for posttraumatic stress disVACREP180 with DISTILLER

31 

order (PTSD). Supplied medical records supported a PTSD diagnosis; however, Baltimore VARO opted to remove the veteran from the FDC process. The FDC coordinator indicated that the veteran did not provide information indicating he was serving at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The veteran received a citation for his 

service that day; moreover, billeting and personnel records would also indicate service at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. These are federal records and could be 

retrieved by VA; had Baltimore VARO followed VACO’s policy regarding the retrieval of federal records, the veteran could have remained in the FDC program and 

received his benefits in an expeditious manner. Even when federal records were obtained and the veteran was shown assigned to a unit at the Pentagon on September 

11, 2001, the VA continued to try to kick the case out claiming, ‘‘there’s no way to 

prove they were actually at work that day.’’ 

With an obstructionist attitude towards veterans’ claims like that, no program in 

the world is going to help right the ship. Clearly for success with any attempt to 

whittle down the backlog, buy-in to new methods and tactics is needed. 

There is buy-in from high levels within VA. In an interview conducted with The 

American Legion for the National Convention in Houston, TX in August of 2013, 

Under Secretary for Benefits Alison Hickey stated, ‘‘In 2012 VBA was able to process 60,000 claims under the FDC program. Thanks to The American Legion, in 2013 

we’ve already been able to up that figure to 120,000 claims.’’ VACO is committed 

to making this program work, and The American Legion believes there are great 

benefits towards making it work, and would only suggest a few small corrections 

to help the program maintain its footing. 

The American Legion recommends: 

fi Increased effort and outreach from VACO to ensure consistent buy-in and 

implementation from VARO to VARO. Without consistent buy-in, the results will be 

too fractured to have a national impact on claims. 

fi Include National Guard and Reserve records under the category of federal 

records VA must help locate. Certainly the last decade has highlighted the vital contribution of Guard and Reserve component service members; they cannot continue 

to be locked out of effective VA programs such as FDC simply because they serve 

as citizens as well as soldiers. 

fi VA must still work to improve accuracy on the claims, even as they increase speed of processing with the FDC program. Comments and errors regarding 

claims were far too common during VARO visits. Within VA’s Monday Morning 

Workload Report released on September 3, 2013, VA’s accuracy rate for the previous 

three months is 90.3 percent. This is inconsistent with our Regional Office Action 

Review (ROAR) visits nationwide, where errors are found routinely in over half of 

the cases reviewed. Cases reviewed by The American Legion staff are not chosen 

by The American Legion but by VA employees. Additionally, The American Legion 

successfully argues that VA has either erred or failed to properly develop claims in 

over 70 percent of claims appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA). 

American author Napoleon Hill said, ‘‘A goal is a dream with a deadline.’’ The VA 

Secretary has established a goal for VA disability claims to be adjudicated within 

125 days and with 98 percent accuracy by the end of 2015. VA views it as a goal; 

many veterans view it as a dream. Regardless, the deadline for the goal is rapidly 

approaching. FDC provides part of the avenue for the Secretary’s goal to be accomplished. 

Ultimately, we believe FDC is a viable program that can assist VA in reducing 

the backlog and allow veterans to receive their entitled benefits. As the program expands and the veteran community recognizes its benefits, it will be incumbent upon 

us to continue to monitor the program as it expands. Additionally, focus should continue to exist on FDC internally with The American Legion Department Service Officers through the Department Service Officer School and other outreach training 

methods. Through this practice, service officers can continue to provide the best possible service to the veteran community in their quest for veterans’ benefits. 

As this program continues to develop, The American Legion looks forward to 

working with the Committee, as well as VA, to strengthen this program and any 

other program that can help tame the backlog and get veterans the benefits they 

deserve in a timely manner. For additional information regarding this testimony, 

please contact Mr. Ian de Planque at The American Legion’s Legislative Division, 

(202) 861–2700 or ideplanque@legion.org. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

f 

32 

Prepared Statement of Steven T. Wolf 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus and Members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the DAV (Disabled American Veterans) and our 1.2 million members, 

all of whom are wartime wounded and injured veterans, thank you for asking DAV 

to share with the Subcommittee our views regarding the Fully Developed Claims 

(FDC) program within the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). As the nation’s 

leading veterans service organization (VSO) assisting veterans seeking disability 

compensation and other benefits, DAV has tremendous experience and expertise relating to the processing of claims and the various reasons claimants may appeal adverse actions and decisions. 

To fulfill our mandate of service to America’s wounded, injured, and ill veterans 

and the families who care for them, DAV employs a corps of 270 National Service 

Officers (NSOs) all of whom are wartime service-connected disabled veterans who 

successfully complete their rigorous DAV training in concert with VA’s Vocational 

Rehabilitation and Employment Service. DAV NSOs are located in all VA regional 

offices (VAROs) as well as in other VA facilities throughout the nation. As disabled 

veterans ourselves, and through our personal experiences from military life, the 

compensation claims process, and the VA and military health care systems, we have 

both expertise and a passion for helping other veterans through the labyrinth of the 

VA system. 

Mr. Chairman, I am a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, serving on active duty from 1993 to 1997, until I was discharged after sustaining permanent 

service-related injuries. My career as a DAV NSO began in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 

in 2002, and after serving as Assistant Supervisor of our San Diego National Service 

Office, I was promoted to Supervisor of our Chicago National Service Office in 2007, 

where I served until being promoted to my current position of Assistant National 

Service Director here in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2013. During my tenure 

at the Chicago VARO, I was fortunate to have been involved from the beginning 

with one of the first and most successful FDC programs. Working together with Regional Office Director Duane Honeycutt, VBA, DAV and other VSOs have made Chicago a model for other stations in how to execute the FDC program. I want to thank 

Director Honeycutt for his commitment to taking care of our nation’s veterans and 

their families as demonstrated by the major improvements he has made in the Chicago VARO. 

Over the past several years, much attention has been rightly focused on efforts 

to reform VBA’s claims processing system and reduce the unacceptable backlog of 

pending disability compensation claims, and today there are statistically significant 

signs of progress. DAV continues to advocate that the only way to truly address the 

current problems is by creating a new paperless system and culture focused on getting each claim done right the first time. VBA’s transformation strategy focused on 

three areas: people, process and technology, and has for the most part been implemented nationally. The transformation has been comprised of dozens of initiatives, 

including new Challenge Training, Quality Review Teams (QRTs), the Veterans 

Benefits Management System (VBMS), eBenefits, the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal 

(SEP), the Transformational Organizational Model, Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs), Simplified Notification Letters (SNLs) and the FDC program. 

Since the beginning of this year, the number of pending claims has fallen by about 

120,000; the number of claims in the ‘‘backlog’’ (those pending more than 125 days) 

has fallen almost 25 percent from over 600,000 to about 450,000; and the accuracy 

rate for rating claims has steadily risen from about 85 percent to more than 90 percent in the last three-month period measured. We commend VBA for the progress 

being demonstrated in reducing the backlog of claims; however, it is hard to determine how much of this progress is the result of the transformation strategy, and 

how much results from the increased productivity of new claims processors and 

mandatory overtime they are required to work. It is still too early to assess whether 

this transformation strategy will ultimately eliminate the backlog and reform the 

claims processing system; however, there is almost universal agreement that the 

FDC program has been a success and it must continue to be encouraged and expanded. 

The FDC began as a pilot program in 2009 at the VA Regional Office (VARO) in 

Chicago and several other locations with the intent to reduce the overwhelming volume of backlogged claims and provide veterans with a quicker route to getting a 

decision. Unlike many other initiatives with the same goal in mind, the FDC program is unique because the claimant is actively involved in the process, specifically 

with gathering the evidence needed to adequately reach a determination. However, 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

33 

this concept is not new. In fact, DAV and other VSOs have for decades been able 

to submit a complete ‘‘fully developed’’ or ‘‘ready-to-rate’’ claim to VBA and DAV 

NSOs have long urged claimants to obtain as much of the evidence as possible prior 

to submitting the claim. However, prior to the inception of the current FDC program, claims that were considered ‘‘fully developed’’ or ‘‘ready to rate’’ were handled 

on a case-by-case basis and there was no formal program with standard procedures 

or consistency throughout VBA. As a result, even though these ‘‘fully developed’’ 

claims required less work by VBA and therefore should have resulted in quicker decisions, they were too often treated as just another claim, often sitting for months 

or years awaiting decisions. As such, this vital opportunity for VBA to process 

claims with much, if not all, of the development already completed when the claim 

was received, never really gained any acceptance, support, or cooperation between 

VBA and VSOs. VBA set out to change that with their new FDC pilot programs. 

The first obstacle to overcome was the time-consuming requirement of providing 

the claimant with a notice of their rights and VA’s duty to assist them, based on 

the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA), commonly called ‘‘VCAA notice.’’ Upon 

receipt of a new claim, and upon receipt of any additional evidence submitted by 

the veteran, VBA would send out a VCAA letter, consuming months without any 

significant progress in adjudicating the claim. For the FDC program to have any 

chance of becoming a fully integrated practice, VBA first had to overcome the hurdles of providing the claimant a timely VCAA notice, and full understanding, cooperation and communication within the VARO and partnership with VSOs and 

stakeholders. Creating special ‘‘EZ Forms’’ and providing the VCAA notice along 

with the application to a claimant allowed the first hurdle to be overcome. 

Originally, the FDC program was limited to claims filed using a VA Form 21– 

526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation), and 21–527EZ, Fully Developed 

Claim (Pension). VBA later added the VA Form 21–534EZ, Fully Developed Claim 

(Death Benefits). These three VA forms, known as the ‘‘EZ Forms’’ are the only 

forms that can be used to file an FDC claim, as each form describes the evidence 

necessary to prove certain compensation and pension claims and fulfills the Duty 

to Notify requirements pursuant to title 38, United States Code, section 5103. 

Claimants must use one of the prescribed ‘‘EZ Forms’’ or the electronic version 

through VONAPP Direct Connect (VDC) in order to participate in the FDC process; 

otherwise their claims will be processed under the traditional claims process. 

Additionally, the FDC application will require the claimant to: 

1. Certify that the information or claim submitted is truthful; 

2. Acknowledge receipt of the VCAA, which is part of the application; 

3. Attest to the completeness of the claim and that there is no additional evidence; 

and 

4. Provide authorization to VA for release of information required to process the 

claim. 

Should a claim not contain these basic elements to qualify for FDC participation, 

the claim would be excluded from the FDC program and be processed under the traditional claims process. 

A second important obstacle to overcome was ensuring that veterans who took it 

upon themselves to assemble their complete claims files, including hard-to-gather 

private medical evidence, would not lose out on their effective dates if they waited 

to file a FDC. To do so, VBA had to develop an ‘‘informal’’ FDC procedure, similar 

to what can be done for a regular information claim, which allows a veteran to ‘‘perfect’’ their claim up to one year from the date of their information claim, and still 

have benefits based on the effective date of that informal claim. 

In the FDC program, upon initial contact, during which the VA Form 21–22 

(POA) is received, an incomplete application (informal FDC) is filed to maintain the 

effective date for any possible future claims. DAV’s NSOs are directed to always initiate an informal FDC if any potential development may be needed. A formal FDC 

is only filed once all information is obtained and reviewed by an NSO within 12 

months of the VARO receiving an informal FDC, which ensures preservation of the 

effective date. Claimants have one year from the date the informal FDC is submitted to VARO to submit a formal FDC, and by VBA’s direction, it is imperative 

that the claimant not specify any particular issues or conditions within the informal 

FDC memorandum. The purpose of the informal FDC is to allow a claimant to establish the intention of participating in the FDC process and establishing the earliest effective date possible while the claimant proceeds with obtaining necessary 

evidence to be submitted as a formal FDC claim. If the claimant specifies any issues 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

34 

or conditions within the informal FDC memorandum, VBA must consider it as a formal claim and will result in being adjudicated under the traditional process. 

Before a VA Form 21–526EZ, 21–527EZ, or 21–534EZ is submitted, all additional 

evidence and information that would have originally been acquired or requested 

through a traditional claims process is reviewed in depth by an NSO and then submitted as a complete application. This is important, as it may allow for additional 

claims such as secondary issues to be filed while maintaining the effective date as 

the date of receipt the informal FDC was received. Additional evidence and information includes, but is not limited to, the following: private treatment reports from 

non-VA facilities, personal statements, lay statements, additional VA Forms, medical opinions, and Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs). 

Moreover, before filing a claim through the formal FDC process, NSOs ensure the 

claimant has no claims pending, which will exclude a claimant from the FDC process. Likewise, if the claimant has an appeal pending, NSOs ensure the actual claims 

folder, or C–File, is not located at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), as this 

will also exclude a claimant from the FDC process. Based on my experience in Chicago, as well as having visited other DAV offices actively engaged in promoting the 

FDC program, there are some best practices for both VBA and VSOs that we believe 

can really make this program even more effective across the nation. 

First, to make this partnership work, every VARO must have a dedicated FDC 

Program Coordinator (PC) who’s primary, and perhaps only, responsibility is to 

make the FDC program a success. In the Chicago VARO, the FDC PC on staff is 

invaluable to the program and a vital conduit between VBA, the claimant and 

VSOs. The FDC PC is responsible for the integrity of the FDC program, for identifying and monitoring pending FDCs through the VETSNET Operations Reports 

(VOR); and for case managing any individual FDCs pending near 90 days or longer. 

The FDC PC is also responsible for locating and retrieving FDC claims folders, reviewing FDC development actions, and also delivering FDC claims folders for expedited processing. The FDC PC must be willing and able to carry out whatever is 

necessary to get these claims completed as quickly as possible, which is the key to 

motivating veterans to file FDC claims in the first place. While I know firsthand 

how important the FDC Program Coordinator is to the process at the Chicago 

VARO; I am not certain that other VAROs have taken this same approach. DAV 

believes it is essential to have at least one knowledgeable FDC PC at each VARO 

to assist with all inquiries and ensure the FDC program is operating as intended. 

Furthermore, the Service Center Manager must ensure that the FDC PC is provided 

all the time they require to manage the FDC program, without being pulled away 

from that primary work in order to help address deficiencies in other areas of the 

VARO, or to help reach short-term productivity goals. 

Another major obstacle in the FDC process has been the exclusion process, or the 

act of removing or disqualifying a claim from the FDC program, due to such reasons 

as not submitting sufficient private medical evidence, submitting additional claims, 

failing to report for a VA medical examination, or using the older (2010) version of 

the 21–526EZ form. Any one of these issues, or similar, would be reason for a claim 

being disqualified, because each of these acts or omissions results in additional development work by VBA, which defeats the intent of the FDC. However, too often 

VAROs were removing claims from the FDC program for reasons that could have 

been easily avoided by contacting the claimant directly or VSO service officer and 

requesting any identified but missing evidence, or for other simple matters such as 

a missing signature. 

Working with DAV and other VSOs, VBA has been able to reduce the amount of 

FDC exclusions, which was unacceptably high in the beginning. VBA has increased 

their efforts and communication with the claimant or VSO when a claim is identified as not qualified for the FDC program. In Chicago, the VARO contacts our DAV 

NSOs prior to a claim being removed from the program to allow us the opportunity 

to resolve the issue and avoid its removal. Take for example a claimant who has 

submitted a FDC for an increased evaluation for a back condition, but who later 

submits additional radiological evidence of the back condition. Previously, this action would have prompted removal from the FDC program; however, in Chicago, the 

VARO employee contacted our NSO, indicating that because the evidence required 

no additional development, there would be no reason to remove it from the program. 

This type of effort, communication, and partnership is vitally important not only to 

the FDC program, but to reforming the entire VBA disability claims process. 

The most important change necessary for maximizing the use and success of the 

FDC program is the full commitment and participation of VBA, VSOs and veterans. 

Earlier this year, DAV, along with The American Legion, joined with VA to establish the FDC Community of Practice, dedicating ourselves to maximizing the use 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

35 

and success of the FDC program. As Under Secretary Alison Hickey is fond of saying, VBA is ‘‘all-in’’ when it comes to the FDC program. 

I saw firsthand at Chicago how much difference it makes when you have this type 

of complete ‘‘buy-in’’ amongst the VARO staff and VSOs. A great deal of the credit 

for this must go to Director Honeycutt, whose positive approach and belief in the 

FDC program, and his enthusiastic desire to assist our nation’s wounded, ill and 

injured veterans profoundly reshaped the claims process in Chicago. In addition to 

drastically reducing the claims processing time overall, the number of appeals initiated at the Chicago VARO has also been significantly reduced over the past four 

years, and DAV has been proud to be a major partner in this effort. 

According to DAV analysis, in 2009, the Chicago VARO FDC pilot program yielded an average processing time of 78 days for 25 percent of the FDC claims submitted, while 50 percent were rated within 130 days. This was improved in 2010, 

when 25 percent of FDC claims were rated within 69 days and half were decided 

within 115 days. Moving forward with the FDC program nationally, the participation continues to increase, while the number of claims excluded from the FDC is 

decreasing. 

Data received from the VBA reflects that, during the first quarter of fiscal year 

(FY) 2013, of the total number of claims submitted by our Chicago DAV National 

Service Office, 21 percent were qualified FDC claims. At the end of the second quarter, the percentage of FDC claims increased to 25 percent and by the end of the 

third quarter of FY 2013, the percentage of qualified FDC claims submitted by DAV 

dramatically increased to 38 percent of all claims being filed through our NSOs. 

In our opinion, a major reason for the dramatic increase between the second and 

third quarters of FY 2013 is due to the decrease in the number of claims being excluded from the FDC program, which is attributed to the improved communication 

between VARO staff and DAV NSOs, allowing us the opportunity to contact the 

claimant and resolve the issue and keep the claim in the FDC program. To date, 

approximately 22 percent (10 percent nationally) of the total claims processed at the 

Chicago VARO are claims submitted through the FDC program with an average 

processing time of 105 days. DAV is very optimistic about the continued increase 

in FDC participation largely due to the program and its positive results becoming 

more known in the veterans’ community. 

DAV believes that the most important factor in making the FDC program work 

is educating and communicating directly with the claimant. Communication and cooperation are imperative to the FDC process, which is why DAV NSOs have direct 

interaction with claimants at all stages throughout the process. NSOs provide claimants with specific guidelines on the proper development of an FDC, and as a general 

rule, all claimants are requested to contact the assisting NSO office no later than 

60 days following the submission of an FDC. Additionally, once a decision has been 

reached by VBA, DAV NSOs proactively contact our claimants to explain the decision. The education and communication with our clientele have been largely responsible for the success in the FDC claims process and has also resulted in fewer appeals being initiated, or Notices of Disagreement (NODs), being filed. An additional 

study DAV completed in Chicago between 2009–2011 harvested results indicating 

325 NODs had been submitted in 2009 and dramatic reduction to 61 NODs being 

filed in 2011, which is an astonishing decline of approximately 82 percent. 

DAV has assisted VBA greatly in promoting the FDC process to the veterans’ 

community in hope of encouraging more participation, thereby avoiding claims entering the traditional process and lengthy backlog delays. In addition to promoting 

the FDC program through the DAV website, magazine, literature, meetings, conferences and other means, NSOs introduce DAV clients to the FDC process through 

formal orientation classes and/or by explaining the difference between an FDC and 

a traditional claim. Currently, DAV provides these orientation classes in approximately five locations, but we are hopeful to expand this to all of our offices. 

In Chicago, these DAV-led orientation classes are held weekly and are offered to 

potential claimants or anyone interested in learning more about the FDC process, 

including VARO employees and other VSOs. Orientation classes may vary in size, 

up to 20 to 25 participants and representation by DAV is not required. In fact, 

claimants represented by other VSOs participate in the orientation classes to gain 

valuable information and ask questions about the FDC process. As part of a local 

agreement between VSOs, DAV does not solicit participants for representation if 

they are currently represented by another VSO. 

During DAV-led orientation sessions, NSOs advise clients of their options in regards to an informal FDC and how future claims received under the FDC process 

will not affect the established effective date. Additionally, participants are provided 

detailed requirements of what is needed for a complete FDC, such as service treatment records, private medical records, personal statements, lay testimony, etc., 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

36 

which will allow for greater success. The importance of good communication and cooperation is stressed. Once a claimant understands the process and the type of information or evidence needed to be successful in a claim, such as obtaining a completed DBQ or records from their private physician(s), the more excited a claimant 

is to be engaged with their claim throughout the process. It cannot be overemphasized: the majority of claimants want to be involved with their claim and are more 

than willing to obtain the necessary information, rather than simply submitting a 

claim with no supporting information and waiting to receive a decision. 

Also, as part of the discussion during orientation, or even one-on-one interviews, 

DAV NSOs ensure that all clients understand the importance of attending any 

scheduled VA examinations and the importance of not submitting any additional 

claims or information requiring development after the FDC has been submitted, as 

any of these will exclude a claimant from the FDC process. DAV NSOs also ensure 

claimants are fully aware and informed of any VA literature and websites regarding 

the FDC. 

Finally, in order for the FDC program to continue being successful, full cooperation and communication between VA, the claimant and VSOs is imperative. During 

the early days of the FDC program, when claims would be excluded from the FDC, 

neither DAV NSOs nor the claims would be notified that their claim was no longer 

in the FDC program. In many cases, we would later discover that this exclusion had 

taken place, although it could have easily been avoided had VBA simply communicated with our NSOs. In Chicago, in an unprecedented approach, Director 

Honeycutt reached out to DAV and offered to contact our NSOs by email when a 

case was being prepared for exclusion from the FDC. This simple communication 

bridge allows the NSO the opportunity to contact the claimant and can often resolve 

simple problems, such as missing signatures, thereby allowing the claim to remain 

in the FDC. 

Mr. Chairman, DAV believes the FDC program has been very successful and has 

had a major impact on reducing the backlog of disability claims. We know the FDC 

program will continue to improve as VBA and VSOs continue seeking to improve 

our roles, and in that regard, DAV would offer the following recommendations. 

First, VAROs need to clearly designate one individual to serve as the FDC coordinator, and VARO Directors must ensure that this person is provided adequate time 

and resources to successfully work with VSOs to address problems with submitted 

FDCs as they arise. This person must not be diverted away from their FDC responsibilities to address gaps in regular claims processing, particularly if such a change 

were being done to make short-term boosts in productivity just to show momentary 

progress in reducing the backlog. 

Second, VBA should revise its national policies on excluding claims from the FDC 

process so that when a veteran files a FDC and later submits additional evidence 

that does not require any development, the claim should remain in the FDC program. This process has worked very successfully in Chicago and some other VAROs, 

and we believe it should be formalized as a national policy. 

Third, VBA should not remove claims from the FDC program if VBA determines 

that secondary claim can be inferred based on the evidence received. When a claimant fulfills all their obligations to file a FDC, actions taken by VBA in satisfying 

the law should not become a reason to remove that claim from the FDC program. 

It will not help the veteran and it will not help the FDC program. 

Fourth, VBA must continue to encourage and support the use of private medical 

evidence in order to eliminate the time and resources required to administer compensation medical exams. VBA has taken significant actions to encourage private 

evidence, such as the development and use of DBQs and the Acceptable Clinical Evidence (ACE) initiative, however there still remains resistance in some VAROs from 

some employees to give private medical evidence the same weight as VA medical 

evidence. 

Fifth, one concrete way to advance private medical evidence would be for VBA to 

release all DBQs for veterans’ private treating physicians to complete, particularly 

those designated for medical or nexus opinions and for assessing PTSD. 

Sixth, VBA and VHA must reach an agreement and quickly implement new procedures to ensure that all VHA-treating physicians are required to complete DBQs for 

veterans upon request. Today, many VHA treating physicians are being told that 

they either should not, or may not have to fill out DBQs for their patients. 

Finally, DAV urges Congress to pass legislation amending current law by requiring VA to give equal weight to private medical evidence that is competent, credible, 

probative, and otherwise adequate for rating purposes; the same weight as VHAprovided medical evidence. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any 

questions from you or members of the Subcommittee. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

f 

37 

Prepared Statement of Diane M. Zumatto 

Good afternoon Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, and committee 

thank you for this opportunity to allow AMVETS to voice both our praise and concerns regarding VA’s efforts to reduce the backlog of claims that have been pending 

for more than 125 days via the Fully Developed Claims (FDC) program. AMVETS 

supports and applauds VA’s stated goal of eliminating the backlog of compensation 

claims by the end of 2015. 

Looking back in time, we see evidence that the backlog of compensation claims 

has been growing steadily since 2009. Notwithstanding the fact that VA completed 

a record-breaking 1 million claims per year in fiscal years 2010 - 2012, the number 

of claims received continues to exceed the number processed. 

In response to what appears to be a systemic problem, VA has begun implementing a comprehensive Transformation plan—a series of people, process and technology initiatives—to increase productivity and accuracy of disability claims processing. The FDC program is one element of this transformation and it is hoped that, 

once fully implemented, that it will substantially contribute to the elimination of the 

backlog by the 2015 goal. 

What Is a Fully Developed Claim? 

The Fully Developed Claims (FDC) program is an optional new initiative that offers Servicemembers, Veterans, and survivors faster decisions from VA on compensation, pension, and survivor benefit claims. 

Veterans, Servicemembers, and survivors simply submit all relevant records in 

their possession, and those records which are easily obtainable, such as private medical records, at the time they make their claim and certify that they have no further 

evidence to submit. VA can then review and process the claim more quickly. 

Filing a FDC is typically the fastest way for veterans to receive a decision on their 

claims since they are required to provide all supporting evidence in their possession 

when they originally submit their claims. Often, this is evidence that VA legally 

must attempt to collect on the veteran’s behalf, which may already be in the veteran’s possession, or is evidence the veteran could easily obtain. When veterans submit all such evidence with their original claims, it significantly reduces the amount 

of time VA spends gathering evidence from them or other sources, which is often 

the longest part of the claims process. 

While VA will still makes efforts to obtain federal records on the veterans’ behalf, 

the submission of non-federal records, and any additional federal records the veteran may have, with the claim allows VA to issue a decision to the veteran more 

quickly. Typically, VA processes FDCs in half the time it takes for a traditionally 

filed claim, therefore FDCs help eliminate VA’s claims backlog because they increase production of claims decisions and decrease waiting times. Also, VA assigns 

FDCs a higher priority than other claims which also leads to veterans receiving decisions to their claims faster than traditional claims. 

The VA continues to prioritize other specific categories of claims, including those 

of seriously wounded, terminally ill, Medal of Honor recipients, former prisoners of 

war, the homeless and those experiencing extreme financial hardship. As part of its 

drive to eliminate the claims backlog in 2015, the VA also gives a priority to claims 

more than a year old. 

The concept of the FDC program has been moderately successful in its ability to 

assist VA in reducing the backlog of pending claims. According to the Veteran Benefits Administration’s (VBAs) Monday Morning Workload Report (MMWR), a weekly 

compilation of performance measures for the processing of Disability, Pension and 

Education benefits, under the FDC program, the number of claims have dropped 

from the high water mark of 919,461 on the 16 July 2012 to the current level of 

760,820 pending claims on the 24 August 2013. Additionally, the number of claims 

in the backlog has declined from 633,469 on 25 March 2013 (according to the 

MMWR) to 459,998 on 31 August 2013 (according to the MMWR). 

A very real need has always existed for the VA’s external partners to assist VA 

by providing them with complete claims packages on behalf of their clients. This allows VA to receive the claim and proceed to rating it with a minimum of additional 

development. Years ago these were called ready-to-rate (RTR) claims. 

A ready-to-rate claim included every piece of evidence needed for a VA rater to 

begin rating a claim. This included the application for benefits correctly completed; 

a certified copy of the veteran’s DD214(s), any and all service medical records; civilian treatment records if appropriate; and all necessary documents to verify the veteran’s dependents. The only thing the VA might have to do is to request a comVACREP180 with DISTILLER

38 

pensation examination to clarify the status of a condition. An example would be a 

veteran who is claiming an orthopedic condition in a major joint. 38 Code of Federal 

Regulations requires a range of motion study so the rating official can determine 

the appropriate percentage of disability to assign for the condition if service connection is granted. 

VA drifted away from the ready-to-rate claim and devised the FDC initiative; 

however, we feel this is inaccurate, since the title implies a complete claims package; however dependents have been stripped out of the claim. 

FDCs ‘‘achieved’’ production synergies by stripping the veteran’s dependents information from the claim form. This was most likely done to ‘‘save keystrokes.’’ Notification of a veteran’s dependents is now contained under the second bullet in the 

special circumstances section or ‘‘the small print’’, of the instructions on the first 

page of the VA Form 21–526EZ. The bullet instructs a veteran to attach a VA Form 

686c if they have dependents. 

The problem now is that the dependents are no longer part of the claim; instead, 

they have been relegated to an award adjustment action. Adding dependents to a 

veteran’s claim now falls under an entirely different end product code than the 

claim. We look at this as robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is also an ineffective and 

less efficient way to work, since a claim with dependent(s) must now be touched 

multiple times instead of only once before it is finalized and authorized. Additionally, telephone calls and written correspondence concerning the status of the veteran’s dependents must now be addressed separately, or ‘‘placed on the back burner’’ 

as has evidently happened. The need to now respond to two separate status requests, rather than just one is leading to an increasing workload. 

Since the FDC started in May 2010, the number of pending dependents issues has 

increased from a monthly average of 40,000 to 205,467 as of the 24 August 2013 

MMWR. The increase in the pending dependents ‘‘award adjustment actions’’ this 

new dependents backlog coincides exactly with the start of the FDC. I say this because the increase in the number of pending dependents issues started in August 

2010, 90 days after implementation (which is the same amount of time VA raters 

have to complete and promulgate FDC rating decisions) of the FDC program which 

started in May 2010. 

We at AMVETS have a major concern with the new backlog of dependents award 

actions. The 205,467 pending issues are the ones VA has identified. How many veterans who are entitled to dependents allowance have not been identified? This number is a complete unknown. If they do not find out about this benefit and file to 

add their dependents more than one year after the original decision, the benefits 

will be paid from the month the request was filed. Since the request is more than 

one year after the decision, it would not retroactive. 

The removal of dependents rom the application does not make sense for the veterans. VA’s own annual reports since 2005 show that for the majority of rating decisions veterans qualify for dependents allowance. This has steadily climbed from 51% 

in 2005 to 56% as noted in the 2011 annual report, the most current annual report 

available. 

AMVETS fully supports the submission of complete claims packages, as we are 

aware that any other position hurts our veterans and the VA employees working 

those claims. Additionally, it is of critical importance that sufficient funds be allocated to manage the backlog and multiple levels of oversight as part of the VA’s 

attempt to correct this situation. We cannot do the VA’s job for them, but AMVETS 

can and will, support any and all efforts that facilitate their efforts. 

I would like to conclude by noting for the record, that AMVETS fully supports 

both Secretary Shinseki and Under Secretary for Benefits Hickey. Both of these 

leaders have struggled to fulfill their obligations to their fellow veterans thanks to 

the antiquated civil service system current in place. While we appreciate that this 

system, and its attendant protections, was originally established to rightly protect 

against patronage, worker exploitation, and political manipulation. But instead of 

protecting the best employees and creating an environment in which excellence can 

thrive, civil service protections now serve to lock the worst employees into place, 

making it virtually impossible for managers to fire poor performers. Neither VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, nor any future VA secretary, can be fully expected to fix a system in which they are unable to fire bad employees and reward good employees 

based on merit (instead of tenure). We need to give the VA’s leadership the tools 

they need to fix the system. 

These conclude my remarks. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Attached Graphs: 

Pending Claims and the Claims Backlog: July 1999 to Present 

Dependency Issue Backlog: December 2009 – August 2013 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

39 

Percentage of Claims Qualifying for Dependents Allowance: 1999 – 2011 

Disclosure 

9 September 2013 

The Honorable Representative Jeff Miller, Chairman 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

335 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Miller: 

Neither AMVETS nor I have received any federal grants or contracts, during this 

year or in the last two years, from any agency or program relevant to the February 

15, 2012, House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing on the U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2013. 

Sincerely, 

Diane M. Zumatto, AMVETS 

National Legislative Director 

Biographical Sketch 

Diane M. Zumatto of Spotsylvania, VA joined AMVETS as their National Legislative Director in August 2011. Ms. Zumatto, a native New Yorker and the daughter 

of immigrant parents decided to follow in her family’s footsteps by joining the military. Ms. Zumatto is a former Women’s Army Corps (WAC) member who was stationed in Germany. Zumatto was married to a CW4 aviator in the Washington Army 

National Guard and is the mother of four adult children. Ms. Zumatto is extremely 

proud that two of her children have chosen to follow her footsteps into military service. 

Ms. Zumatto has more than 20 years of experience working with a variety of nonprofits in increasingly more challenging positions, including: the American Museum 

of Natural History; the National Federation of Independent Business; the TacomaPierce County Board of Realtors; the Washington State Association of Fire Chiefs; 

Saint Martin’s College; the James Monroe Museum; the Friends of the Wilderness 

Battlefield and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States. 

Diane’s non-profit experience is extremely well-rounded as she has variously served 

in both staff and volunteer positions including as a board member and consultant. 

After receiving her B.A. in Historic Preservation from the University of Mary 

Washington in 2005, Diane decided to diversify her experience by spending some 

time in the ‘for-profit’ community. Realizing that her creativity, energy and passion 

were not being effectively challenged, she left the world of corporate America and 

returned to non-profit organization. 

AMVETS National Headquarters 

4647 Forbes Boulevard 

Lanham, Maryland 20706–4380 

Business Phone: (301) 683–4016 

dzumatto@amvets.org 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

40 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER


82894.001
41 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER


82894.002
42 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER


82894.003
f 

43 

Prepared Statement of Admiral W Clyde Marsh, USN, Retired 

INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Clyde 

Marsh, President of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs 

(NASDVA) and Director of the Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs. I am honored to present the collective views of the State Directors of Veterans Affairs for all 

50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. Territories on the implementation 

of the very important Fully Developed Claims (FDC) program. Here with me today 

are Les Beavers – Kentucky, past NASDVA President, and State Director, Randy 

Reeves – Mississippi. 

Nationally, we are second only to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) 

in providing services to veterans and our roles continue to grow. Our duties include 

honoring and working with all veterans and their family members and the various 

Veterans’ Service Organizations (VSO) both within our states and nationally. We 

have a formal partnership with USDVA through a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) with Secretary Shinseki signed in February 2012. The MOU pledges the two 

organizations to maintain effective communications, an exchange of ideas and information, identification of emerging requirements, and continuous reevaluation of existing veterans’ programs to meet today’s needs. 

As governmental agencies, our Governors, State Boards and/or Commissions task 

their respective State Departments of Veterans Affairs (SDVA) with the responsibility of addressing the needs of our veterans and their families particularly in our 

role as advocates. We are charged with the duty of processing veterans’ claims for 

disability compensation, pension and survivor benefits. On a daily basis, State Directors and their staffs are confronted with unique situations, which often need to 

be addressed in an urgent manner. As you well understand, delivery of meaningful 

services and support is best coordinated at the local level. 

SUPPORT FOR FULLY DEVELOPED CLAIMS PROGRAM 

NASDVA strongly supports the concept, methodology and strategy undertaken by 

the Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) in the current FDC Program as one of 

several means to reduce the current veterans’ claim backlog while also reducing 

claims processing completion times. To help facilitate success of the FDC program, 

each state will endeavor to provide specific mission guidance, goals and checklists 

to increase both the quantity of submissions as well as the quality of claims. In addition to our association’s support, to date over three-fourths of the states and territories have submitted individual letters to the Undersecretary for Benefits in support of FDC. 

The FDC goal of providing a response to claimants within 90 days, which we 

strongly support, will go a long way toward reduction of the current claims backlog 

and give veterans a reasonable expectation on the time to process individual FDC 

claims. Transparency will be particularly important to ensure veterans’ confidence 

in this process. 

NASDVA is in complete agreement with the allowance within Public Law 112– 

154 that provides for up to a one-year retroactive effective date for awards of disability compensation. This change further creates confidence in the program since 

it negates the need for veterans to submit informal claims for the sole purpose of 

establishing ‘‘date of claim’’ affecting retroactive compensation payment(s). As advocates for veterans, we accept the responsibility of helping our veterans to understand that they are certifying to the truthfulness of the information and they are 

authorizing release of information necessary to enable a rating decision. Likewise, 

the submission on the VA EZ form(s) meets the requirement for ‘‘duty to notify’’ as 

required by Title 38 U.S.C. Sect. 503. It is understood that individual veterans, too, 

have a responsibility to submit all required evidence with their claim. 

We believe all veterans, regardless of where they reside, should have equal access 

to federal and state benefits and services and that federal and state governments 

must collaborate to achieve this goal nationally. The local relationships between 

SDVAs and VSO offices with VA Regional Offices (VARO) are critical. Many areas 

of the country are still underserved due to veterans’ lack of information and awareness of their benefits. This directly impacts our veterans’ ability to effectively access 

the VA claims process. 

The USDVA and SDVAs must continue to work together to reduce this inequity 

by reaching out to veterans with information and make every effort to assist them 

in filing FDCs. Steps should be taken to make disability processing less confusing, 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

44 

eliminate payment inequities and provide a foundation with appropriate incentives 

for injured veterans to return to a productive life. 

FULLY DEVELOPED CLAIM PROCESS IN THE FIELD 

NASDVA recommends an increased role for SDVAs in the overall effort to manage 

and administer claims processing, regardless of whether the state uses state employees, nationally chartered veterans service organizations (VSO) and/or county 

veterans service officers (CVSO). Collectively, we have the capacity and capability 

to assist the Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA). Additionally, a collaborative effort should take place on the establishment of standards for training, testing, and 

accrediting service officers to include continuing education and performance standards. We can support VA in their ‘‘duty to assist’’ without diminishing our role as 

the veterans’ advocate. 

USDVA needs to encourage veterans to use the assistance of SDVAs, VSOs and 

CVSOs in submitting all claims. Assistance from trained service officers will help 

ensure claims are submitted with all the supporting documentation necessary to 

support or substantiate the claim. This will help eliminate requests for clarification 

or missing information and reduce rejects/remands. The desired result will be expedited processing without distractions or delays due to process errors, incomplete 

files and missing information or medical documentation. 

Over the past two years, several states have taken the lead in developing strategies and processes that have integrated the FDC process into their claims operations. One example that has yielded significantly positive results is the Texas Veterans Commission’s (TVC) state funded initiative that included a 32 Veteran Service 

Officer ‘‘Strike Force’’ to help reduce the VA claims backlog and a 28 member team 

to file FDCs. Specifically: 

• In August 2012, TVC dedicated over half of its Strike Force effort to the FDC 

process by creating the Fully Developed Claims Teams. Of the total Strike 

Force, 28 (dedicated) TVC Fully Developed Claims Team members work to ensure that newly filed claims are filed as FDCs. 

• In May 2013, during its annual Spring Training Conference, TVC provided four 

(4) days of concentrated, in-depth training on FDCs to over 240 State and County Veterans Service Officers from around the state. 

• To date, the TVC has submitted 8,868 claims to the VBA for processing as 

FDCs. TVC’s efforts have yielded over 71% of FDCs in the Waco VARO and 

over 60% in the Houston VARO. 

Similar efforts, of varying scope, are ongoing in states nationwide. It must be understood, however, that resources, legislative authority, organizational structure and 

operating procedures do vary significantly from state to state. To the degree they 

are individually able, NASDVA’s member states are resolved to fully support the 

FDC process. 

ITEMS CRITICAL TO SUCCESS OF FDC INITIATIVE 

As with any new program and/or initiative there are areas within the FDC process, including policy, where continued discussion, close coordination thoughtful monitoring will be required. NASDVA and its individual states appreciate and are committed to continued open dialogue and cooperation with individual State Regional 

Offices, VBA, USDVA and Congress to improve the process of serving our Nation’s 

veterans. We ask that attention be given to the following areas: 

• A component of the FDC process is the Disability Benefits Questionnaire 

(DBQs). DBQs need to be simplified and shortened for simple conditions. 

➢ DBQs are too complicated and lengthy, especially for simple conditions. 

➢ If physicians (including VA physicians) are refusing to complete 

them, as we frequently hear, then their value to the FDC process is lost. 

• The FDC works because it provides incentive for veterans to take the time to 

ensure their claim is fully developed, prior to filing. In exchange veterans expect, in accordance with expectations set by VA, for the process to take less 

than 90 days. There is still work to be done on this. For example, although 

much progress has been made, in Texas the Houston VARO currently averages 

101.3 days processing FDCs while the Waco VARO averages 130–145 days. In 

most states, the FDC process is comparatively new but the comparisons are 

very similar. NASDVA and USDVA must continue to be vigilant to ensure the 

process can meet the expectations of our veterans as submissions of FDCs increase. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

45 

• Our veterans have a reasonable expectation that once a claim is submitted and 

accepted as a FDC that it will remain in that process. USDVA must be committed to making sure veterans know, as soon as possible, their claim has been 

fully accepted as a FDC and they will have a decision in 90 days. We do recognize that there are legitimate reasons for exclusion from the process such as: 

the veteran needs non-federal evidence development, evidence received after 

FDC established, claimant declined FDC or VBA administrative reason (e.g. 

wrong form received, not signed, etc.). However it is critical that VBA promptly 

notify the veteran and his representative early in the process and that VBA be 

flexible in that process. A good example of flexibility is, as in the case of missed 

appointment, finding out why and making every effort to work with the veteran. 

However, we appreciate that in the event the claim is not eligible for FDC, 

there will be no harm to the veteran’s claim as it will be processed as a normal 

claim. 

• E–Benefits makes it possible for veterans to file claims on their own. 

➢ The layout of the current E–Benefits website does not adequately 

convey the importance of representation in the claims process. VBA needs to encourage veterans to seek representation so that FDCs are filed properly. 

➢ VBA needs to ensure that the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal (SEP) 

within E–Benefits is working properly. 

• Outreach and training are critical to the success of the FDC Program. ROs have 

clearly been instructed to provide FDC training, as outlined in VBA Fast Letter 

12–25 (revised 8–13–2013), to VSOs. This should also apply to SDVAs and 

CVSOs. Any future instructional Fast Letters should, specifically include 

SDVAs and CVSOs. FDC Program Coordinators at the ROs should also be responsible for outreach and training. 

• The Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) which is now in place nationally in all VAROs will take us from mountains of paper to a digital data 

claims system as well as provide instant connectivity and easier access. The full 

implementation of VBMS is vital to improvement of the claims process in general and to the FDC program specifically. 

CONCLUSION 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the VA committees, we respect the 

important work that you are doing to improve support to veterans who answered 

the call to serve our great country. State Directors of Veterans Affairs remain dedicated to doing our part, but we urge you to remember the increasing financial challenge that states face, just as you address the fiscal challenges at the national level. 

I would like to emphasize again, that we are partners with federal VA in the delivery of services and care to our nation’s patriots. State Directors are veterans’ advocates that help veterans receive support and essential benefits they have earned 

through their honorable service. 

As procedures and policies are adopted within the FDC Program, NASDVA looks 

forward to participating as partners and requests to be involved in the rulemaking 

process with VBA and USDVA. Since FDC is an evolving program, we will continue 

to provide feedback for enhancement of the program, which will ultimately benefit 

affected veteran claimants. As you all are keenly aware, how well the FDC program 

is administered will mean nothing without continued funding for USDVA programs 

so that granted claims can be promptly paid. 

Thank you for including NASDVA in these very important hearings. 

f 

Statements For The Record 

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the Subcommittee, 

Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the opportunity 

to offer our views on the Fully Developed Claims’ process and the initiation of the 

one year look-back for benefits, which took effect on August 6, 2013. The claims 

backlog has been challenging the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for years and 

PVA appreciates you conducting this hearing to examine the issue. 

Over the next several years, an estimated 1.2 million active duty service members 

will separate from the military and be welcomed home only to fall in line behind 

veterans who have been awaiting a decision on their VA claims. Of these claims, 

66 percent have been ‘‘backlogged’’ for more than 125 days, according to March 2013 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

46 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) testimony before Congress. The claims 

backlog, those cases pending 125 days or longer, stands at 490,000, which is down 

from the 530,000 reported on June 15, 2013. VA says its total claims inventory of 

773,000 is the lowest since April 2011, and down from 808,000 on June 15. Those 

490,000 claims in the backlog, combined with an anticipated wave of new claims as 

operations in Afghanistan wind down and the military downsizes, raise concerns 

about the feasibility of meeting VA Secretary Eric Shinseki’s 2015 target goal of 

eliminating the backlog and adjudicating all VA claims in 125 days or less. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) continues to implement several initiatives to meet the Department’s goal of eliminating the claims backlog in 2015. 

In April 2013, the VA launched an initiative to expedite disability compensation 

claims decisions for veterans who have waited a year or longer. In the following 

month, the VBA announced that it was mandating overtime for claims processors 

in its 56 regional offices to increase production of compensation claims decisions 

through the end of fiscal year 2013. As a result of these initiatives, the VBA’s total 

claims inventory has declined to a level not seen since August 2011. The number 

of claims in the backlog has been reduced by 17 percent compared to the highest 

point in March 2013. 

One particular initiative, the Fully Developed Claims (FDC) program, has purportedly played the most significant role in reducing the backlog. Fully developed 

claims require veterans to provide all supporting evidence in their possession when 

they submit their claims. Often, this evidence is already in the veteran’s possession, 

or is evidence the veteran could easily obtain, such as private treatment records. 

By submitting this evidence with their claims, veterans significantly reduce the 

amount of time VBA spends gathering evidence from them or other sources, often 

the longest part of the claims process. The FDC process is being touted as the fastest way of processing compensation or pension claims, many being processed in an 

average of 117 days according to VA. 

In May, the VA announced a new partnership with Veterans Service Organizations and others known as the ‘‘community of practice.’’ The effort seeks to reduce 

the compensation claims backlog for veterans by increasing the number of FDCs 

filed by veterans and their advocates. Also, veterans who file an original ‘‘fully developed claim’’ for service-connected disability compensation may now be entitled to 

up to one year of retroactive disability benefits. The retroactive benefits, for FDCs 

submitted between August 6, 2013 and August 5, 2015, are the result of a comprehensive legislative package passed by Congress and signed into law by President 

Obama last year. 

It is PVA’s belief that the FDC process has proven effective in reducing the VBA’s 

claims backlog by increasing production of claims decisions and decreasing waiting 

times. Also, because VA assigns FDCs a higher priority than other claims, veterans 

receive decisions to their claim faster than traditional claims. That said, PVA notes 

a number of concerns with the FDC process. 

First, very few complex, multiple-issue claims in PVA’s inventory, that also involve claims for Special Monthly Compensation, could be submitted as FDCs. When 

compared with other major Veteran Service Organizations, PVA’s contribution to 

the FDC process has been substantially less. For example, the Veterans of Foreign 

Wars processed 16 times more FDCs than PVA; the American Legion processed 27 

times more; and Disabled American Veterans processed 35 times more FDC claims. 

This variance is due to a combination of factors. PVA clients tend to be severely or 

catastrophically disabled veterans or survivors with claims presenting complicated 

medical questions. Developing these claims with higher complexity is often made 

more difficult by the unavailability of, or limited access to, evidence from various 

sources at the time the claim was filed or the need for a medical opinion to reconcile 

ambiguous interpretations of evidence. Since PVA’s goal is to attain the maximum 

grant possible for clients with complex claims, as opposed to merely getting a decision, the FDC process does not offer the most efficient path to a timely, accurate 

decision in many cases. 

Another key concern relates to the potential erosion of due process should a veteran disagree with an FDC decision or desire to add evidence later that supports 

a higher rating. By agreeing to submit an FDC, claimants essentially waive their 

rights to contest the decision in exchange for a faster decision. There has been no 

data provided on the number of FDCs that were appealed, and it may take years 

before the Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims reconciles the foreseeable due process issues inherent in the FDC process. With much of the discussion focusing on 

the VBA disability claims backlog, very little attention has been placed on the appeals process. However, the downstream effects of the backlog fall to the jurisdiction 

of the Board of Veterans Appeals where nearly 43,000 appeals now await adjudication. Many veterans who endured the wait associated with backlogged claims face 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

47 

a new waiting game – which lasts 251 days on average – once denied FDCs become 

appeals. The current remand rate now sits at 46 percent, which means nearly half 

of appeals are returned to VBA due to errors or incompleteness that must be corrected before the Board can issue a substantive decision. This could be especially 

problematic for FDCs that are appealed due to the unresolved due process issues 

that will inevitably ensue. Remanded appeals will spend the initial average of 251 

days in the process plus the time it takes to fulfill a remand order. This can take 

months or even years in some cases. Reducing the backlog cannot be accomplished 

by simply replacing one for another. 

PVA has conducted detailed research into the claims backlog and its impact on 

the lives of veterans with disabilities as well as lessons learned from past reports, 

testimonies, and experiences related to the backlog. PVA makes the following recommendations which are drawn primarily from the findings of this research. 

First, those most responsible for assembling evidence pursuant to submission of 

a Fully Developed Claim, which is considered the preferred method of claims submission by VA, should be given controlled access to records in the Defense Personnel 

Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS). DPRIS is an electronic gateway that 

allows authorized users to access the Services’ Official Military Personnel File 

(OMPF) and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) repositories online in 

a secure and efficient manner. This authorized access would eliminate wait times 

associated with the lack of interagency responsiveness and empower claimants to 

develop their claims with the necessary evidence of record from the outset. 

Second, in order to ensure the accuracy of decisions in cases presenting complex 

medical questions, VBA should provide claimants with timely access to VA clinicians 

who can provide medical opinions based on applicable regulations and objective review of all available evidence. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 

2012–002, ‘‘Documentation of Medical Evidence for Disability Evaluation Purposes,’’ 

provides for the completion of a Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) in support 

of a disability claim upon request. But many treating clinicians still remain disinclined to complete a DBQ, leaving veterans with virtually no other avenue except 

the lengthy Compensation & Pension exam process for obtaining an expert interpretation of medical evidence. Rather than leave it to the prerogative of VA clinicians 

to assist, VA should direct them to cooperate with claimants to the greatest extent 

they are capable. 

Finally, VBA should be required to provide monthly reports on the number of 

Fully Developed Claims that are appealed by Notice of Disagreement and submitted 

to the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) by Form 9, ‘‘Appeal to Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals.’’ In anticipation of due process ambiguities linked to FDCs, VBA and BVA 

should establish a joint working group to explore and develop a process for the timely and efficient implementation of clear due process standards as these issues are 

reconciled by the Board. 

Mr. Chairman, PVA looks forward to the elimination of the claims backlog by 

2015 and support the efforts of VA with the Fully Developed Claim process. But we 

recognize that this will only be possible with strong oversight of this committee and 

a continued aggressive focus by VA. Otherwise years from now we will still be discussing the backlog while veterans will still be waiting for benefits that they have 

earned. 

Thank you again for the Committee’s dedication to our veterans. PVA would be 

pleased to take any questions for the record. 

Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives 

Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the following information is provided regarding federal grants and contracts. 

Fiscal Year 2013 

No federal grants or contracts received. 

Fiscal Year 2012 

No federal grants or contracts received. 

Fiscal Year 2011 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, administered by the Legal Services Corporation—National Veterans Legal Services Program—$262,787. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

f 

48 

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

On behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United 

States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

provide testimony for the record regarding fully developed claims. 

The Fully Developed Claim (FDC) program is simply the formalization of a local 

VA regional office practice which has existed for decades. Historically, many of VA’s 

Veteran Service Center Managers (formerly Adjudication Officers) agreed to quickly 

work fully developed claims submitted by veteran service organizations (VSOs). This 

program was regularized by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) in 2009 

and rolled out to all VA regional offices in 2010. 

Since 2010, VBA has refined the FDC program and increasingly encouraged veterans and VSOs to submit claims which do not require development of non-governmental evidence. The VA Under Secretary for Benefits, Allison Hickey, expressed 

a goal that 20 percent of all claims submitted to VBA should be fully developed. 

Data obtained from VBA shows that FDCs from all sources totaled 21 percent of 

all claims submitted in the month of July 2013. 

While we could claim ‘‘mission accomplished’’ by meeting the FDC goal, that does 

little to describe both the benefits and problems associated with the FDC program 

as it is currently implemented. In our testimony we will discuss those issues, as well 

as our impressions of Section 506 of PL 112–154 which allows VA to award retroactive benefits of up to one year in certain qualifying FDC cases. 

Fully Developed Claims Program – What it is 

The FDC program shifts the burden of much of the evidence necessary to adjudicate a claim from VA to veterans and other claimants. Essentially, in exchange 

for a promise to process a claim more quickly, VA requires claimants to locate, obtain and submit all non-government held records necessary to their claim at the 

time they submit an application to VA. 

Those who successfully complete this task, and who take no action that disrupts 

VA in processing their claims, are rewarded with a decision often within 90–120 

days of submission, rather than the more common eight to twelve months VA takes 

to work non-FDCs. 

This is a clear win for VA. In exchange for promising to work a claim to completion more quickly, VA is relieved of the need to develop a claim. This reduces the 

number of employees (FTE) necessary to perform this work which allows VA to assign them to perform other tasks. In addition, because the bulk of the development 

is done by the claimant and not VA, traditional measures of claims processing timeliness (average days pending, average days to complete) are reduced. This allows VA 

to assert that it is processing claims more quickly. 

Further, claimants may themselves believe that they have a win since they receive a decision from VA more quickly than do their peers who submitted claims 

through the non-FDC process. One would think that this is a win-win for both VA 

and veterans; but is it? 

The claims adjudication process follows certain basic steps: claims submission, review, development, decision, and notification. In the FDC program, claims submission, review, decision, and notification are the same as before. What has changed 

is that much of the development occurs before the claim is submitted to VA, not 

after. Development must still be done, except in the FDC program, it is done on the 

veteran’s clock, not VA’s. If the veteran is focused, knowledgeable and efficient, or 

has sought the assistance of a trained VSO representative, he or she can accomplish 

the development much more quickly than can VA. However, if he or she lacks full 

understanding of what is necessary to successfully complete his or her claim, he or 

she may take longer to complete the application package. Regardless, development 

time, whether performed by the veteran or by VA, should be included when considering whether veterans are indeed winners. 

We believe that for many veterans, the total time to gather evidence, submit a 

claim to VA and receive a decision is little different under the FDC program than 

under the non-FDC model. In addition to the time factor involved in veteran development, there are also some hidden costs inherent in the pre-filing development undertaken by veterans. For example, many private health care providers are reluctant to provide records directly to the claimant or charge significant fees which must 

be paid, while those same records may be provided to the VA upon official request 

without cost. As part of the FDC program the VA encourages that the veteran submit a completed Disability Benefit Questionnaire (DBQ); however, many VA treatVACREP180 with DISTILLER

49 

1Monday Morning Workload Report; August 31, 2013; http://www.vba.va.gov/reports/ 

mmwr/ 

ment providers are reluctant to assist the veteran in this regard. Worse still, we 

have many reports of VA health care providers refusing to complete DBQs despite 

VA directives to do so. Finally, private health care providers find DBQ instructions 

to be confusing. 

The FDC program is obviously a success for VA, because timeliness numbers appear improved over traditional claims processing. For most veterans, however, we 

suggest that this process, from beginning to end, is more a draw than a win. Further, we should not be pitting one veteran against another for VA resources. There 

are other problems inherent with the FDC program which limits its usefulness and 

effectiveness: 

• If a claim is already pending before VA, the submission of a claim under the 

FDC program is barred. 

• An FDC will not be accepted if an appeal on another issue is pending if the 

claims folder is not located at the home Regional Office (RO), such as if the 

pending appeal has been brokered out to another RO or if the appeal has already been sent to the Board of Veterans Appeals. 

• VBA Fast Letters make it clear that submission of any additional evidence, no 

matter how inconsequential to the claim, results in the subsequent exclusion of 

the claim from the program. 

• Submission of an appeal on a previously decided issue will kick a claim out of 

the FDC program. 

• Although VA is responsible for developing necessary records held by the federal 

government, such as active duty service medical records, VA will not accept an 

FDC where development of National Guard and Reserve medical records are required. Keep in mind that during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, approximately half of all those deployed were activated Guard and Reserve personnel. 

While service treatment records created for Guard and Reserve members during 

a period of deployment are technically federal records, the physical location of 

those records becomes the issue and is outside of the veteran’s control. 

There are unintended consequences of the FDC program. Principle among them 

is that many veterans believe that they should submit only one issue with a fully 

developed claim. The theory here is that each additional issue claimed substantially 

increases the likelihood that a VA employee will decide additional development is 

needed, thereby kicking the entire claim out of the FDC program. Further, veterans 

often limit the single FDC issue to what they view as an ‘‘easy claim’’ or a ‘‘sure 

thing’’ in the hope that a quick decision will lead to monetary benefits. This strategy 

may prove successful in the short term, but at a cost. Claims filed later have later 

effective dates. This means that some veterans lose months of benefits in exchange 

for a quicker decision by VA. 

The VFW supports the FDC program. Throughout this Fiscal Year the percentage 

of FDC claims submitted by the VFW has steadily increased. In July 2013, 21.8 percent of all claims submitted were accepted by VA as fully developed. 

Section 506 of Public Law 112–154 

Section 506 states, in pertinent part: 

(2)(A) Effective dates. The effective date of an award of disability compensation 

to a veteran who submits an application therefor that sets forth an original claim 

that is fully-developed (as determined by the Secretary) as of the date of submittal 

shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the 

date that is one year before the date of receipt of the application. 

(B) Definition. For purposes of this paragraph, an original claim is an initial claim 

filed by a veteran for disability compensation. 

In our view, this law, while well intentioned, will have minimal impact on claims 

processing by VBA. Further, few veterans will benefit from this liberalizing statute. 

There are several reasons for this conclusion: 

1. It only applies to original claims. According to VA, original claims make up 40 

percent of its workload. As of August 31, 2013, VA had 240,000 original claims 

pending. 1 Section 506 would not apply to the vast bulk of pending disability claims. 

2. Qualifying as an FDC will be difficult. The data shows that 23 percent of original claims have eight or more issues; most of the remaining claims have more than 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

50 

one issue. As discussed above, the more issues submitted with a claim the more difficult it will be to submit a fully developed claim. 

3. While encouraging veterans to file for compensation for conditions they believe 

are related to service is the right thing to do, the possibility of receiving an additional year of benefits will encourage veterans who have previously not submitted 

a claim to file one. As a consequence, this provision solicits more claims when VA 

is struggling to dig out of its current backlog problem. 

4. While veterans are encouraged to submit fully developed claims, because of the 

number of issues claimed and the increased difficulty in submitting an FDC with 

each additional issue, we anticipate that many claims will not qualify for the FDC 

program, resulting in increased customer dissatisfaction when they do not qualify. 

5. For the same reasons, a decision that a claim is not FDC eligible and, hence, 

not eligible for up to one year of retroactive benefits, will result in increased appeals. 

6. Further, even if a claim does qualify for FDC processing, there is no guarantee 

that VA will award retroactive benefits because the award is based on ‘‘facts found’’ 

and is not automatic. Again, failure to award retroactive benefits will result in increased customer dissatisfaction and increased appeals. 

The VFW fully supports the FDC program as amended by Section 506. We have 

invested hundreds of man-hours in training VFW service officers in preparing and 

submitting fully developed claims which meet the requirements of the program. We 

believe that this program can be a win-win for both veterans and VA. However, it 

is important to recognize the limitations of this program, and the implications it 

may have on some veteran’s claims. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to submit the VFW’s 

views for the record. 

Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives 

Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, VFW has not received 

any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2013, nor has it received any federal grants in 

the two previous Fiscal Years. 

f 

Questions For The Record 

AMVETS RESPONSES TO HEARING QUESTIONS 

Question 1 (line 1062): What additional steps do the VA and other stakeholders need to take in order to make the program fully successful. We 

can’t fix every one of them. What is the big one we can tackle? 

Question 2 (line1188): You mentioned that there is a real need for the VA 

to make changes with regards to dependents and dependent’s claims and 

the information for dependents. Do you have any specific suggestions to 

how we can address some of the challenges that dependents face when they 

file claims? 

Response to Questions 1 & 2: The most beneficial thing VA could do to ensure 

the success of the FDC program and eliminate the dependents allowance backlog, 

as well as the claims backlog, is to continue making progress on the development 

and implementation of the Data to Date (D2D) Program as part of VBMS, including 

DBQs and calculators. 

From a VSO perspective, D2D could have a huge impact for both VA and its VSO 

partners. D2D is an electronic interface that would permit the VSOs and other external stakeholders to submit complete, fully developed claims packages electronically. This program is meant to be an electronic portal, similar to that used by the 

IRS, which would allow electronic communication between the VA and all external 

partners. 

Unfortunately, the D2D program has not been fast tracked by the VA and has 

experienced repeated management turnover during the last 12 months, which has 

prevented timely and consistent progress. There was even a 4-month period where 

there was no one to talk to in the D2D ‘project office’, which forced us to get a contact name directly from VACO. 

AMVETS believes that this has occurred since the VA’s solution appears to be 

that their external stakeholders will submit claims electronically via e-Benefits or 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

51 

VA’s SEP and then have to turn around and reenter all of the data again into the 

VSOs’ claims management database systems. Unfortunately again, this is typical of 

VA to develop a position/solution that excludes their external ‘‘partners’’ from the 

planning process; however, when fielded it creates a lot of gratuitous work for the 

VSO ‘‘partners.’’ Too many times VA’s ‘‘policy’’ of openness and transparency most 

closely resembles a one-way street for the flow of information. 

Our service director attended a meeting 8 or so years ago when the Under Secretary for Benefits said words to the effect that there are a lot of VSO personnel 

in the ROs and you need to put them to work for you (the VA). VA seems to have 

wholeheartedly embraced this idea. 

In response to VA’s plans, let me say that the VSOs are not employed by the VA 

as VA’s clerk typists. Months ago VA boasted of a plan to reduce the number of 

clerk typists that would allow them to ‘‘harvest’’ the spaces and shift the resources 

to other more productive areas. As expected when we first heard this, the plan has 

been to get the VSOs to do the VA’s data entry for them. Anyone who disagrees 

with VA on this is labeled as not wanting to help veterans. Saying this is equivalent 

to Samuel Johnson’s quote that ‘‘patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.’’ Both 

are done with the intent of shaming the target being castigated to do what the 

attacker wants. In this case it is the VA’s work which they cannot keep up with. 

The bottom line is that VA needs to automate the entire process with human 

oversight for the checks and balances. Human hands-on processing that requires 

multiple looks and re-looks before the original claim is finally completed is as ineffective as demonstrated by the multiple backlogs and causes unnecessary angst for 

the veterans awaiting a decision concerning the benefits they were promised. 

Automation can and will transform the VA permitting it to be the caring, responsive and healing agency they now strive to be following Presidents Lincoln’s words 

during his second inauguration speech, ‘‘to care for him who shall have borne the 

battle and for his widow and his orphan...’’ 

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to clarify our previous testimony. 

Æ 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER