U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

94–845 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–182 

HEARING ON PENDING BENEFITS LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 13, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Chairman 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut, Ranking 

Member 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

TOM BOWMAN, Staff Director 

JOHN KRUSE, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 13, 2015 

SENATORS 

Page 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Georgia ............................ 1 

Brown, Hon. Sherrod, U.S. Senator from Ohio ..................................................... 59 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from Louisiana .................................................. 61 

Murray, Hon. Patty, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Washington ........................ 78 

VISITING SENATORS 

Ayotte, Hon. Kelly, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire ...................................... 1 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire ................................ 3 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from New York ....................................... 65 

WITNESSES 

Kurta, Anthony, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Military Personnel 

Policy, U.S. Department of Defense ................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Response to posthearing questions submitted by Hon. Johnny Isakson ..... 11 

Gerton, Teresa W., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Veterans Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor .................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

McLenachen, David R., Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Disability Assistance, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; accompanied by Renee Szybala, 

Assistant General Counsel .................................................................................. 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Additional views ............................................................................................... 33 

Maldon, Alphonso, Jr., Chairman, Military Compensation and Retirement 

Modernization Commission; accompanied by Michael R. Higgins, Commissioner, Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission . 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Phillips, Jeffrey E., Executive Director, Reserve Officers Association ................ 67 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Morosky, Aleks, Deputy Legislative Director, National Legislative Service, 

Veterans of Foreign Wars .................................................................................... 72 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

APPENDIX 

Daines, Hon. Steve, U.S. Senator from Montana; prepared statement .............. 83 

Gibson, Hon. Chris, U.S. Representative from New York; prepared statement 84 

Air Force Association; prepared statement ........................................................... 85 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and the AFGE 

National VA Council; prepared statement ......................................................... 86 

Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association; prepared statement .............. 90 

Concerned Veterans for America; prepared statement ......................................... 102 

Varela, Paul R., Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American 

Veterans (DAV); prepared statement ................................................................. 103 

Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS); 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 112 

Snee, Thomas J., M.Ed., NCCM (SW), USN, (Ret), Fleet Reserve Association 

(FRA); prepared statement .................................................................................. 137 

Page

IV 

Tomek, Jamie, Chair, Government Relations Committee, Gold Star Wives 

of America, Inc. (GSW); prepared statement ..................................................... 140 

Stacy, David, Government Affairs Director, Human Rights Campaign; prepared statement ................................................................................................... 141 

Military Officers Association of America (MOAA); prepared statement ............. 142 

Polisuk, Bryan, General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection 

Board (MSPB); letter ........................................................................................... 147 

Wells, John B., USN (Ret), Executive Director, Military-Veterans Advocacy 

(MVA); prepared statement ................................................................................. 154 

Levins, Scott, Director, National Personnel Records Center, National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA); prepared statement .............................. 167 

Duffy, Peter J., Colonel, USARMY (Ret), Legislative Director, National Guard 

Association of the United States (NGAUS); prepared statement .................... 168 

National Military and Veterans Alliance (NMVA); letter .................................... 172 

Carpenter, Kenneth M., Founding Member, National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. (NOVA); prepared statement ......................................... 174 

National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP); prepared statement ....... 182 

Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA); prepared statement ................................ 194 

Bonosaro, Carol A., President, Senior Executives Association (SEA); letter ...... 198 

The American Legion; prepared statement ........................................................... 199 

(1) 

HEARING ON PENDING BENEFITS 

LEGISLATION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room 418, 

Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Johnny Isakson, Chairman of 

the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Isakson, Cassidy, Murray, and Brown. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Chairman ISAKSON. I call this meeting of the Senate Veterans’ 

Affairs Committee to order. Let me make an editorial comment, if 

I can. 

I am going to waive opening statements for both myself and Senator Blumenthal. Senator Blumenthal is in a SASC meeting. They 

are doing a markup on NDAA, which I know Senator Ayotte is at, 

as well. We have six Members of the Veterans’ Committee who 

serve on the Armed Services Committee. I have to leave at 3:45 to 

meet with Secretary McDonald on an urgent matter which I cannot 

delay, and we have so many Members in so many meetings, I may 

not have anybody to fill in for me as Chair, so I am going to go 

as quickly as I can through the bills—Ms. Ayotte, Ms. Gillibrand, 

and Ms. Shaheen’s bills—then immediately to panel one and panel 

two, try to ward off editorial speeches by Members so we can get 

all the testimony in by 3:45, and then if we have to adjourn without somebody to preside, at least we will have filled the record on 

what we intended to do. 

With that said, it is a pleasure for me to introduce Senator 

Ayotte from New Hampshire and recognize her for comments on 

her bill. Senator Ayotte. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, thank you, Chairman. I appreciate your 

important leadership on this Committee and the invitation to testify today. I know that my colleagues, Senator Shaheen and Senator Gillibrand, will be joining us shortly. We all serve on the 

Armed Services Committee together. 

Americans were horrified last year as the scandal at the VA unfolded and we heard reports of veterans unable to get timely care, 

while VA employees manipulated appointment wait lists to hide 

2 

the fact that the VA could not ensure that veterans would get the 

care that they needed and deserved. The manipulation of wait lists 

contributed to the deaths of veterans who needed more urgent care. 

It is unacceptable that Americans who defended our Nation and 

who sacrificed so much have died or become more ill because they 

were not able to rely on the VA for critical care. That veterans face 

delays or outright denial of care is particularly disturbing given 

that it was a result of VA employees deliberately cooking the books. 

To make matters worse, in the aftermath of the wait list scandal, 

the VA failed to sufficiently hold those who manipulated the wait 

lists responsible. That is an additional bureaucratic failure in its 

own right, and, I know, something that this Committee has been 

working diligently on. 

That is why I introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator 

McCaskill to improve accountability at the VA by requiring the 

Secretary to claw back bonuses that were paid to VA employees 

who were involved in the manipulation of the electronic wait lists. 

Because the VA used wait time metrics as a factor in determining 

employees bonuses, some VA employees were incentivized to use 

secret wait lists to artificially inflate compliance data in order to 

maximize their bonus payments to themselves. 

According to one report, employees at the Phoenix VA hospital, ground zero for this scandal, received approximately $10 million in 

bonuses since 2011, while simultaneously using secret wait lists to 

hide delays for our veterans who needed care. In addition, the VA 

paid out $278 million in bonuses in 2013, millions of which went 

to employees in facilities being investigated for wait list 

manipulations. 

It is outrageous that VA employees who deliberately manipulated 

wait lists receive bonus pay at taxpayers’ expense. They must be 

held fully accountable for their misconduct, starting with repaying 

the funds they wrongly received, which this bipartisan legislation 

that you will be considering today would require. 

This legislation directs the VA Secretary to require employees 

who received bonuses in 2011 or later to repay those bonuses if 

they were involved in the deliberate manipulation of electronic wait 

lists. The employees’ superiors are also required to pay back bonuses if they knew or reasonably should have known of their subordinates’ purposeful omission of the names of veterans from the actual wait lists. The bill requires the VA Secretary to identify these 

VA employees through reports issued by the Department’s Inspector General. 

I am encouraged that the House of Representatives has passed 

similar legislation. It is important that we work together to bring 

more accountability to the VA and individuals who are responsible 

for wrongdoing. 

I appreciate this Committee’s attention and dedication to solving 

the problems at the VA and thank the Chairman for holding this 

hearing and inviting me to participate. I urge you all—I appreciate 

very much the Chairman’s leadership and working with Senator 

McCaskill—to pass this legislation to make sure that individuals 

who perpetrated the wait list fraud are held fully accountable and 

that they pay back the bonuses that they should have never 

received. 

3 

So, I thank the Chairman for allowing me to be before this important Committee today. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from New 

Hampshire for bringing an important issue of accountability to the 

Committee. As those who have attended our other committee meetings since the first of January know, we are all about accountability, and there is a lot that needs to be held accountable at the 

VA. 

Your bill will be considered in a markup which we will schedule 

for the month of June, if I am not mistaken. Is that correct? 

Mr. BOWMAN. That is correct. 

Chairman ISAKSON. In fact, all the bills that are addressed today 

will be brought up at a markup in June. We appreciate your attention to it and appreciate your being here today and what you are 

doing on Armed Services. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Since there are no other Members present 

and I am in charge, I am not going to raise any questions, because 

I want to give everybody a chance to have their say. 

Senator Shaheen, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also 

appreciate the opportunity to be here. Like Senator Ayotte, I am 

downstairs in the Defense markup, but really appreciate this 

chance to testify in support of the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses 

Equal Treatment Act. 

As I think you know, Mr. Chairman, this bill is named for Charlie Morgan, who was a former soldier and Chief Warrant Officer in 

both the New Hampshire and Kentucky National Guards. She was 

a military veteran with a career that spanned more than 30 years. 

I first met Charlie in 2011. She had just gotten back from a deployment in Kuwait and, sadly, had just been diagnosed for the 

second time with breast cancer. She was very concerned about the 

well-being of her wife, Karen, and their young daughter. And, 

Charlie, as the result of her diagnosis, became an outspoken critic 

of the Defense of Marriage Act, which at that time prohibited her 

spouse and their daughter from receiving the benefits she had 

earned during her service. 

Sadly, Charlie did not live to see the Supreme Court overturn 

the Defense of Marriage Act. And, despite the Court’s ruling, there 

are still provisions in the U.S. Code that deny equal treatment to 

LGBT families. One of those provisions is Title 38 regarding veterans’ benefits. 

Today, if you are a gay veteran living in a State like New Hampshire that recognizes same sex marriage, your family is entitled to 

all the benefits you have earned through your military service. 

However, a veteran with the exact same status, the same service 

record, same injuries, same family obligations, but living in a State 

that does not recognize same sex marriage, will receive less. 

There are even reports that the VA has required gay veterans to 

pay back benefits because their State will not recognize their marriage. In one case that we were notified about, a young woman, 50 

4 

percent disabled, a combat veteran, was initially approved for benefits for her wife and child. Later, however, she was told by the VA 

that because her home State did not recognize same sex marriages, 

she was not only going to lose a portion of her benefits, but the VA 

was also going to withhold her future payments until the excess 

funds had been recovered. Perhaps for her the most frustrating 

part of that story is knowing that if she had moved across the border to another State, she would never have had a problem. 

I hope that this Committee and in the Senate we can work together to correct this injustice. These young men and women have 

volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces. They have volunteered 

to put themselves in harm’s way, to leave their families and their 

homes to travel around the world to protect our way of life, and yet 

they are being deprived of the very rights that they have risked 

their lives to protect. 

I think it is just unfair, Mr. Chairman, and we have an opportunity now to end this kind of discrimination against our veterans, 

to make our Nation a fairer place, and I hope the Committee will 

approve this legislation and that we can move it to a vote as soon 

as possible. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

For your information as well as those in attendance today, we received a request, as is normal, from the Senate Armed Services 

Committee (SASC) for an amendment that does the exact same 

thing to be considered—to waive our jurisdictional right and let 

them consider it in SASC. Because this is a posthumous or retirement veterans’ issue, it really should be handled by the Veterans’ 

Affairs Committee, which last year voted, as you know, on this very 

same proposal. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. 

Chairman ISAKSON. So, out of no discourtesy to you, but out of 

respect for the Committee jurisdiction, I told the Armed Services 

Committee that we would maintain our jurisdiction and your bill 

will come up at the same time Senator Ayotte’s bill comes up in 

June. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that explanation. We were just trying to cover as many bases as 

possible. 

Chairman ISAKSON. The Senator from New Hampshire is always 

trying to cover every base possible—in fact, both of them are. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. We try. 

Chairman ISAKSON. The State is lucky to have two great women 

leading them. We appreciate you being here very much. 

If you wish to be excused, you may. Thank you very much for 

your time. And, do you know if Senator Gillibrand is coming or 

not? 

Senator SHAHEEN. She was just getting ready to offer a number 

of amendments, so I would suspect she will be here, but it may be 

a few minutes. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I will let her break in on our panel. 

5 

Thank you all very much for being here. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Let us go ahead and set up for panel one and 

take advantage of the time. [Pause.] 

I would like to welcome the panelists for our first panel. We will 

open the testimony. I hope you will limit your remarks to approximately 5 minutes. We will have a clock running and it will be indicated on the clock in front of you. I will introduce the panel all together at once and then we will go, starting with Mr. Kurta, 

though Mr. Kurta, you are sitting out of order from what I have 

written down. We will start with you, Mr. Kurta, but I am going 

to introduce you in another order. 

David R. McLenachen, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Disability Assistance, Department of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by 

Renee—all right, Renee—— 

Ms. SZYBALA. Szybala. 

Chairman ISAKSON. An Isakson guy ought to be able to pronounce that, but I am sorry—— 

Ms. SZYBALA. I ignore the dead letters. 

Chairman ISAKSON. When it is ‘‘i’’s and ‘‘z’’s, people go crazy. 

Ms. SZYBALA. And ‘‘s’’ and ‘‘z’’s. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Anthony Kurta, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of Defense, Military Personnel Policy, Department of Defense. 

And, Teresa W. Gerton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Veterans Employment and Training Service, Department of Labor. 

We appreciate you being here today and we will start with Mr. 

Kurta. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY KURTA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. KURTA. Good afternoon, Chairman Isakson. I am pleased to 

appear before you today to discuss proposed benefits legislation. In 

order to be expeditious, I will focus my comments only on those 

proposals that will affect the Department of Defense. 

The G.I. Bill Fairness Act of 2015 would consider active duty performed under the authority of Title X, U.S. Code Section 12301(h), 

as qualifying active duty for the purposes of Post-9/11 G.I. Bill education benefits. DOD supports this provision. 

Section 101 of the 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act 

would deny servicemembers the ability to complete the Transition 

Assistance Program online. Another provision requires the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of Labor, 

Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, to establish a process to 

allow a representative of a Veterans Service Organizations to be 

present at any portion of the TAP program relating to the submission of claims to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Finally, this 

section contains a requirement to provide a report on the participation of VSOs in TAP. 

DOD does not support the provisions in this section for a number 

of reasons, but primarily because we do not feel they would improve current processes and will create an undue burden. More 

6 

specific details which explain the Department’s position are provided in my written statement. 

You also asked for comments on the Military Compensation and 

Retirement Modernization Commission Report. First, I would like 

to take the opportunity to commend the Departments of Labor, 

Education, and Veterans Affairs for their expert collaboration and 

I especially thank the Commission for its superb cooperation. DOD 

agrees with the Commission’s objectives of safeguarding education 

benefits for servicemembers by reducing redundancy and ensuring 

the fiscal sustainability of education programs. 

We support sunsetting both the Montgomery G.I. Bill and the 

Reserve Education Assistance Program with a view to maintaining 

the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill as the primary education benefit. The Commission and DOD also agree that in order to keep faith with our 

servicemembers, we must grandfather those who already have the 

benefits that will be phased out. 

However, without data enabling DOD to understand the potential effects on retention, and the Joint Chiefs are particularly concerned on this point, we do not support the recommendation to sunset the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill Housing Stipend for dependents or the 

recommendation to increase the eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits. 

DOD also does not support the recommendation that would prohibit ex-servicemembers from receiving unemployment while simultaneously receiving G.I. Bill benefits, as we believe this would have 

unintended consequences. 

Finally, DOD supports the Commission’s objectives of better preparing servicemembers for transition to civilian life, but we do not 

believe that additional legislation is required. We have significantly 

redesigned the Transition Assistance Program over the last 2 years 

and implemented the Vow to Hire Heroes Act legislation enacted 

in 2011. These modifications significantly address the Commission’s objectives. 

Detailed comments on both recommendations are provided in my 

written statement. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I thank you for the 

opportunity to appear here with you today and look forward to any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kurta follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY KURTA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE, MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Good afternoon, Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and esteemed 

Members of the Committee. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss 

pending benefits legislation. 

Per the agenda for today’s hearing, the Committee requested the Department of 

Defense’s view on a series of bills and proposals. Since both funding and administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill fall under the purview of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, I will focus my comments only on those proposals that will affect the Department of Defense and generally defer to the Departments of Labor and Veterans 

Affairs to provide responses on those with no significant DOD impacts. This statement will follow the order on the printed agenda. 

S. 602, GI BILL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015

The Committee asked for comments on S. 602, ‘‘GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015,’’ a 

bill that would consider active duty performed under the authority of title10, United 

States Code, section 12301(h), as qualifying active duty for the purposes of Post-9/ 

7 

11 GI Bill Education Benefits. Reserve component members wounded in combat are 

often given orders to active duty under this provision to receive authorized medical 

care; to be medically evaluated for disability; or to complete a required health care 

study. However, as currently written, section 3301(1)(B), of title 38, United States 

Code, does not include active duty performed under 12301(h) as qualifying active 

duty for purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance. 

Currently, when a member of the Reserve Component on active duty sustains an 

injury due to military operations, the Servicemember is not discharged, but remains 

in the Selected Reserve on active duty under 12301(h), title 10, United States Code. 

None of the time spent in recovery under this status is qualifying time for purposes 

of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In this case, the Servicemember would return to Selected 

Reserve status with less qualifying time than those who served an entire period of 

active duty without an intervening injury. As a result, the Servicemember would not 

receive an educational benefit equivalent to the other members of his or her cohort. 

In effect, the Servicemember is being penalized for having being wounded or injured 

in theater. This legislation would correct this inequity by simply extending eligibility for the Post-9/11 GI Bill to service under 12301(h). 

DOD recognizes the inequity of not including this active duty time for purposes 

of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and has included a provision similar to this bill in our 

FY 2016 legislative proposal package as section 514. However, the DOD proposal 

would include only active duty performed after enactment. In contrast, S. 602 would 

be retroactive; categorizing all duty performed under 12301(h) since September 11, 

2001, as qualifying active duty for purposes of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. We estimate 

that approximately 5,000 Reserve Component members performed active duty under 

12301(h) each year since September 11, 2001. Accordingly, we believe that S. 602 

would generate an additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Given that 

both the funding and administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill fall under the purview 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs, we would defer to that agency to determine 

the costs and effects of the bill on their Department. 

DRAFT BILL, 21ST CENTURY VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT

Section 101, ‘‘Improvements To Transition Assistance Program,’’ of this bill states 

that an individual subject to the requirement under subsection (c), which requires 

participation in the program ( defined as employment assistance, job training assistance and other transitional services), may not satisfy such requirement by participating in the program carried out under this section solely through an Internet Web 

site. The Department of Defense does not support that portion of the language. The 

Administration should have flexibility in determining what methods and tools, to include Internet Web sites, should be used to deliver transition services to eligible 

transitioning Servicemembers and their spouses. This language would take away 

the flexibility to make such decisions. The Department of Defense and our interagency partners have agreed to allow Servicemembers who are subject to a shortnotice separation or are geographically remote and isolated, to use the Department 

of Veterans Affairs Benefits module (part of full Transition Assistance Program 

(TAP) virtual curriculum) and the Department of Labor Employment Workshop 

through Joint Knowledge Online, which connects to other Department of Defense 

systems for mandatory attendance tracking. Implementation of this restrictive language would end that initiative and the millions of dollars invested in our on-line 

curriculum would be lost. The Department of Defense must have the flexibility to 

meet the needs of our Servicemembers; we strongly advocate that the Congress not 

deprive the Secretary of Defense of this flexibility. 

Section 101 also requires the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of Labor, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs to establish a process 

to allow a representative of a Veteran Service Organization (VSO) to be present at 

the benefits portion of the program under Section 1144, title 10, United States Code 

(the program under Section 1144 pertains to employment assistance, job training assistance and other transitional services) relating to the submission of claims to the 

Secretary of Veteran Affairs. The Department of Defense does not support this provision. The Department of Defense recognizes and appreciates the tremendous support VSOs provide to Servicemembers who file claims with the VA. However, we believe that process best occurs outside the standard TAP classroom in a one-on-one 

private conversation between the Servicemember and the VSO representative. The 

redesigned TAP focus is to make Servicemembers career ready by meeting Career 

Readiness Standards. The preparation occurs in the classroom with the delivery of 

Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) curriculum. The Department of Veterans Affairs provides two robust classes: VA Benefits I, which focus on VA Benefits, and 

VA Benefits II, which introduces Servicemembers to, and walks them through, the 

8 

process of filing a claim for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits. It would be 

more appropriate at the conclusion of VA Benefits II briefing for the Department 

of Veterans Affairs instructor delivering the briefing to introduce the VSO representative who can assist Servicemembers with their claims. The VSO representative can connect with Servicemembers at the end of the class. At that time the VSO 

representative can set up one-on-one appointments to assist those Servicemembers 

planning to file a claim. 

Finally, the Department of Defense opposes that provision in section 101 that requires the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress that assesses the 

compliance of facilities of the Department of Defense per the Secretary’s Memorandum title ‘‘Installation Access and Support Services for Nonprofit Non-Federal 

Entities’’ dated December 23, 2014. This would require a tracking and reporting system to capture how many Veterans and Military Service organizations and other 

Nonprofit Non-Federal Entities are on each installation and the number of installations in compliance with the Secretary’s Memorandums. This will pose a significant 

burden/hardship upon the installation staff and cause a diversion of already limited 

and stretched transition resources from the primary mission of the redesigned TAP. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION REPORT

The committee requested input from the Department of Defense on the legislative 

proposals in two of the recommendations in the recently released Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission Report: Recommendation 11: 

Safeguard education benefits for Servicemembers by reducing redundancy and ensuring the fiscal sustainability of education programs, and Recommendation 12: Better prepare Servicemembers for transition to civilian life by expanding education 

and granting states more flexibility to administer the Jobs for Veterans State 

Grants Program. I would like to state up front that the Department of Defense 

worked closely with the Commission in evaluating its recommendations, and included experts from the Departments of Labor and Veterans Affairs, as well as the 

Office of Management and Budget, in our working groups designed to formulate 

DOD’s response to the President. 

Recommendation 11: Safeguard education benefits for Servicemembers by reducing 

redundancy and ensuring the fiscal sustainability of education programs 

The Department agrees with the Commission’s objectives of safeguarding education benefits for Servicemembers by reducing redundancy and ensuring the fiscal 

sustainability of education programs. We support sun-setting both the Montgomery 

GI Bill (chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, also known as MGIB-AD) and 

the Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP), with a view to maintaining the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill as the primary education benefit. The Commission and the Department also agree that in order to keep faith with our Servicemembers, we must 

grandfather those who already have the benefits that will be phased out. Further, 

the Department and the Commission agree on how best to achieve the objective of 

collecting, tracking, and reporting on Servicemember, Veteran, or dependent education related data. The Commission recommends requiring that Tuition Assistance 

be used for ‘‘professional development’’ courses only. DOD has already issued policy 

guidance to the Services to this effect where all signatories of the Department of 

Defense Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding must provide an approved education plan for each Tuition Assistance recipient. This plan provides the 

roadmap for their educational goal development to include supporting courses. 

The Department would like to ensure that once the MGIB-AD sunsets, Servicemembers will be able to combine Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits with Tuition Assistance 

(commonly referred to as ‘‘top up’’) using the same ‘‘top up’’ usage method as currently available under the MGIB-AD. 

The Department submitted a legislative proposal to Congress on May 1 that 

would sunset the MGIB-AD and REAP, grandfather Servicemembers currently receiving those benefits, and provide a ‘‘top up’’ benefit. 

Without data enabling the Department of Defense to understand the potential effects on retention, the Department of Defense—and the Joint Chiefs are particularly 

concerned on this point—cannot support the recommendation to sunset the Post-9/ 

11 GI Bill housing stipend for dependents, or the recommendation to increase the 

eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. To this end, the 

Department of Defense has sponsored a study with RAND National Defense Research Institute to review education benefits for Servicemembers, including the benefits of the Post-9/11 GI Bill and their impacts on retention (with a focus on impacts 

of transferability). We anticipate the study to be completed in the summer of 2016, 

allowing the Department of Defense to evaluate the potential effects of altering the 

features of the benefit on retention. 

9 

Lastly, the Department of Defense does not support the recommendation that 

would prohibit ex-Servicemembers from receiving unemployment compensation (as 

authorized under chapter 85, subchapter II, of title 5, United States Code) while simultaneously receiving the living stipend as part of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Statelevel unemployment compensation programs already provide guidance regarding 

students’ status within the workforce and eligibility to receive benefits (as detailed 

in Congressional Research Service Report, (Unemployment Compensation (UC): Eligibility for Students Under State and Federal Laws, dated September 7, 2012). 

Eliminating concurrent receipt of educational benefits and Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Service Members (UCX) may be viewed as penalizing Servicemembers who are pursuing courses at trade/vocational schools to acquire skills/certifications that would make them more employable. This Commission recommendation could also have a disproportionate impact on Reserve Component Servicemembers because both separated and currently serving Reserve Component members may be affected. 

Recommendation 12: Better prepare Servicemembers for transition to civilian life by 

expanding education and granting states more flexibility to administer the Jobs 

for Veterans State Grants Program. 

The Department of Defense supports the Commission’s objective of better preparing Servicemembers for transition to civilian life, but does not believe additional 

legislation is required. The Department of Defense has significantly re-designed the 

Transition Assistance Program over the last 2 years and implemented the VOW to 

Hire Heroes Act legislation enacted in 2011; these modifications significantly address the Commission’s objectives. 

The Department of Defense, together with the Departments of Labor and Veterans Affairs, has developed Transition Assistance Program curriculum to support 

Servicemembers’ educational goals. The Accessing Higher Education (AHE) track focuses transitioning Servicemembers on selecting an institution of higher education 

and achieving academic success. The Career Technical Training (CTT) track focuses 

on credentials earned during military service and higher education in select technical training schools and fields. The Department of Defense concurs with mandatory participation in the AHE or CTT track, for Servicemembers who identify an interest in attending college or a career technical school after separation, with authorized exemptions. Contrary to the re-designed Transition Assistance Program, the 

Commission proposal does not enable transition planning according to the individual 

goals and needs of each transitioning Servicemember. The proposed legislation is a 

‘‘one size fits all’’ approach and does not take into consideration the numerous other 

education benefits active duty Servicemembers have, or are eligible for, prior to separating, such as tuition assistance and the GI Bills. These other benefits require an 

education plan and individual counseling with an education professional. Furthermore, the proposed legislation does not appear to consider how it might affect those 

Servicemembers who enter on active duty with a college diploma, credential and/ 

or license. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs is developing a module specifically focused 

on the benefits, eligibility, and transferability of the Post-9/11 GI Bill as part of 

military career deliberations. The goals of the Commission’s recommendation will be 

met as a result of Servicemembers attending the new Department of Veterans Affairs training for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits prior to developing an education program 

plan or using their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Expected implementation date for the 

new Post-9/11 GI Bill training is October 1, 2015. 

The Commission’s legislative proposal to review and evaluate the core Transition 

Goals, Plans, Success (GPS) curriculum is aligned with the current Department of 

Defense and TAP Inter-agency Evaluation Strategy. New legislation is not required 

because an interagency annual review is a pillar of the Office of Management and 

Budget approved TAP Evaluation Strategy. This strategy requires analysis of 

metrics and benchmark performance criteria to enable the Department of Defense 

to provide programs and support to meet the needs of transitioning Servicemembers. 

It necessitates an annual review of all curriculum components in concert with participant feedback to ensure curriculum and training resources support the achievement of career readiness standards and career success post military service. 

The Transition Assistance Program Inter-agency Curriculum Working Group, 

comprised of members from each of the TAP Inter-agency partners, the Military 

Services, and relevant subject matter experts, conducts an annual review of the 

Transition GPS curriculum. The Working Group develops changes based on content 

relevancy, participant assessments, Servicemember feedback, roles and responsibilities of partners, facilitator recommendations, and best practices and lessons learned 

10 

as a result of staff assistance visits to installations. Proposed curriculum revisions 

are vetted and approved by the TAP Inter-agency Executive Council. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

The Committee requested input on several of the Legislative Proposals included 

in the Department of Defense National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 submission. 

Sec. 514. Inclusion of duty performed by a reserve component member under a call 

or order to active duty for medical purposes as qualifying active duty time for 

purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits. 

Similar to S. 602, ‘‘GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015,’’ this section includes active duty 

performed under the authority of title10, United States Code, section 12301(h), as 

qualifying active duty for the purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits. As 

pointed out in my discussion of that bill, the Department’s proposal differs in that 

it is not retroactive to September 11, 2001. The Department of Defense urges adoption of this proposal. 

Sec. 522. Retention of entitlement to educational assistance during certain additional 

periods of active duty 

This section would amend chapter 1606, (Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve 

(MGIB-SR) of title 10, United States Code. Specifically this proposal would add 10 

United States Code 12304a and 12304b to the existing list of authorities in 10 

United States Code16131 under which a servicemember may regain lost payments. 

Further, both 10 United States Code 12304a and 12304b would be added to 10 

United States Code 16133 under which a Servicemember may regain lost entitlement time for MGIB-SR benefits. The Department of Defense urges adoption of this 

proposal. 

Sec. 542. Update to involuntary mobilization duty authorities exempt from 5-year 

limit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. 

This section would amend section 4312 of title 38, United States Code, to update 

the involuntary mobilization authorities exempted from the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) 5-year limit. Adding references 

to sections 12304a and 12304b of title 10 will complete the list of current involuntary mobilization authorities exempted from that limit in section 4312 of title 38. 

USERRA, codified in 38 U.S.C. 4301–4335, protects individuals performing, or 

who have performed or will perform, uniformed service from employment discrimination on the basis of their uniformed service. It provides for prompt reemployment 

when they return to civilian life. The Department of Defense urges adoption of this 

proposal. 

Sec. 545. Required provision of pre-separation counseling. 

This section would amend section 1142 and 1144 of Title 10, United States Code 

to authorize Pre-separation, Employment Assistance and all other transition services prescribed in Department of Defense policy by the Secretary of Defense for ALL 

Active Component Servicemembers of the Armed Forces and for ALL National 

Guard and Reserve Servicemembers called or ordered to active duty or full-time 

operational support after completion of their first 180 continuous days or more 

under Title 10, United States Code, (other than for full-time training duty, annual 

training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as service school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned), whose discharge or release from active duty is anticipated as of a specific 

date. The Department of Defense urges adoption of this proposal. 

Sec. 1041. Transfer of functions of the Veterans’ Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction to the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Defense. 

This section would repeal the statutory requirement for a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) advisory board for the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program. 

The Department of Defense believes that this advisory board has achieved its objectives, and that its functions can now be more effectively conducted through an interagency effort rather than through a FACA advisory board. The Department of Defense urges adoption of this proposal. 

The final item on the agenda is a discussion of provisions derived from a series 

of pending bills. I will comment only on those that affect the Department of Defense. 

11 

S. 151. FILIPINO VETERANS PROMISE ACT. 

This bill would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process to determine whether individuals claiming certain service in the Philippines during World 

War II are eligible for certain benefits despite not being on the so-called ‘‘Missouri 

List.’’ The Department does not support any further legislation concerning determining service eligibility for the WWII Filipino Guerilla Veterans. The Army has 

a program in place that is verifiable. This program, due to its thorough processes, 

is the foundation for the Army’s position, past and current, for making final service 

determinations for eligibility. The Army maintains complete confidence that the 

records and files completed in 1948 provide the best and most accurate determinations that could have been made from that time until today. 

S. 743. HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT OF 2015

This bill amends title 38, United States Code, to recognize the service in the reserve components of the Armed Forces of certain persons by honoring them with 

status as Veterans under law, and for other purposes. The Department recognizes 

and values the service of these Servicemembers who qualify for a Reserve retirement, but may not be Veterans, but opposes identifying these Servicemembers with 

any type of honorary Veteran status. Although S. 743 defines this honorary status 

to be without eligibility for Veteran’s benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense believes this honorary status would create confusion about eligibility for the Department of Veterans Affairs benefits among the current and former Servicemembers and could increase the potential for error in determining benefits entitlements. 

Mr. Chairman this concludes my statement. As has been stated numerous times 

in hearings before this Committee, post service education benefits have been a cornerstone of our military recruiting and retention efforts since 1985, and a major contributor to the continued success of the All-Volunteer Force. Money for education 

has been and remains at the forefront of reasons cited by young Americans for joining the military. From its inception we fully expected the Post-9/11 GI Bill to continue to have this impact and we are seeing that happen in the form of sustained 

recruiting success. I thank you and the members of this Committee for your outstanding and continuing support of the men and women of the Department of Defense. We look forward to working closely with you to strengthen the All-Volunteer 

force through a balanced program of recruiting, retention, and vital education benefits, and to recognize the service of our Veterans. 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON TO

HON. ANTHONY KURTA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, MILITARY

PERSONNEL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Question 1. Chairman Maldon noted at the hearing on Pending Benefits Legislation that the Department of Defense (DOD) had asked the Military Compensation 

and Retirement Modernization Commission for more flexibility in managing the 

force profile and that the Commission thought extending the service requirement for 

transfer of education benefits would help mid-career retention. Would DOD clarify 

its desire for flexibility in shaping the force and its position on using transfer of education benefits for retention? 

Response. The Department of Defense, in general, supports increased flexibility 

in managing our force profiles. However, the Department did not ask the Military 

Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) to modify the 

service requirement for transfer of education benefits nor do we believe the proposed 

modification enhances our flexibility in force management. The Department’s position was accurately articulated in Mr. Kurta’s oral statement (as well as his written 

statement and detailed comments), ‘‘that without data enabling the Department of 

Defense to understand the potential effects on retention, the Department of Defense—and the Joint Chiefs are particularly concerned on this point—cannot support the recommendation to sunset the Post-9/11 GI Bill housing stipend for dependents, or the recommendation to increase the eligibility requirements for transferring 

Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.’’ 

Question 2. If funding of transferred education benefits moves from the Department of Veterans Affairs budget to the Defense budget, how would that impact 

DOD’s use of transferability as a retention tool? 

Response. The Department sees no benefit to moving funding for transferability 

to the DOD. The DOD is currently studying the effect on retention of the transferability benefit and is therefore not able to evaluate the impact of a change in budgVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\051315.TXT PAULIN
12 

etary responsibility. Although enacted as a recruiting and retention tool, transferability provides Servicemembers who earned the veteran benefit of the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill during this time of armed conflict, and choose to remain in service, an alternative means to use that earned benefit. 

Question 3. You noted in your written testimony that DOD has proposed legislation to sunset certain education benefits and to specify benefit levels under a ‘‘Top 

Up’’ benefit for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. If enacted, how would this ‘‘Top Up’’ change 

the benefits servicemembers receive from combining Tuition Assistance and the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill under current rules? 

Response. Currently there is no ‘‘Top-Up’’ provision in law for the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill. This legislative proposal would add such a provision and align the benefits 

usage rate for active duty members using the Post-9/11 GI Bill to supplement tuition assistance (TA) with the current ‘‘Top-Up’’ usage rate for the Montgomery GI 

Bill (MGIB). 

Question 4. You noted in your testimony that DOD sponsored a RAND study on 

education benefits for military personnel. Please provide copies of any documentation outlining the scope of that work and the objectives. 

Response. As Requested—documentation outlining the scope of RAND’s work and 

the objectives is attached. A final report is not scheduled until September 2016. 

[Privileged and Confidential, for use by U.S. Government only and cannot be printed 

in the public record.] 

Chairman ISAKSON. For Senator Brown’s benefit, Senator 

Blumenthal cannot be here today. Most of our Members are in 

SASC, so I went ahead and accelerated the testimony of the noncommittee members who had submitted bills. We are now going to 

panel one and two. 

I am going to make a comment before I go to Ms. Gerton, just 

to make sure I understood what you said. You are talking about 

terminating those benefits for education in a prospective nature, 

meaning future volunteers of the military, not past volunteers who 

already are eligible, is that correct? 

Mr. KURTA. What we are saying, sir, is those that currently have 

either the Reserve Education Assistance Program or the Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits and are taking those, that they be allowed 

to use those benefits if they have earned them vice having to 

switch to the G.I. Bill. 

Chairman ISAKSON. They are grandfathered in. 

Mr. KURTA. Grandfathered in. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. 

Mr. KURTA. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Ms. Gerton, thank you for being here. We 

welcome your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF TERESA W. GERTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Ms. GERTON. Good afternoon, Chairman Isakson and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity 

to participate in today’s hearing. 

I would also like to thank the Commission members who were 

assigned to develop the Military Compensation and Retirement 

Modernization Report for all their hard work. The Commission’s 

questions provoked our thought and action, and we have already 

taken many steps that are in line with their recommendations. It 

is our hope that the Committee will consider the progress we have 

made and the changes we have implemented. We are always open 

13 

to working with Committee Members to provide additional technical assistance. 

I would also like to take a moment to thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

as co-author of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 

2014, for your longstanding dedication to America’s workers. This 

landmark legislation will be instrumental in improving our Nation’s workforce system, including services for veterans provided at 

the nearly 2,500 American Jobs Centers across the country. 

In its report, the Commission seeks to expand servicemembers’ 

knowledge of educational benefits, improve Transition GPS, and 

improve the Jobs for Veterans State Grants Program, or JVSG. We 

support those aims, as well. DOL believes it has already met the 

intent of two of the sub-recommendations. 

DOD, VA, and DOL review the core curriculum for Transition 

GPS annually to ensure the current curriculum most accurately addresses the needs of transitioning servicemembers. Our first evaluation in 2014 included analysis of results from the Web-based 

Transition GPS participant survey instrument developed by DOD 

and input from various stakeholders. Based on this evaluation, the 

Department revised the TAP Employment Workshop curriculum to 

include Equal Employment Opportunity and Americans with Disability Act content, the Veterans Employment Center content, and 

enhanced information on the Workforce Investment Act training, 

Dislocated Worker training, and Registered Apprenticeship 

Programs. 

The fiscal year 2015 curriculum review began in April 2015. Any 

changes that may result from this review should be available to 

transitioning servicemembers this November, and we would be 

happy to brief the Committee on any changes that we make. 

We believe we have also met the intent of the sub-recommendation to permit State Departments of Labor or their equivalent 

agencies to work directly with State Veterans Affairs Directors or 

Offices to coordinate implementation of the JVSG Program. 

The Department’s standards of performance for each of our Directors for Veterans Employment and Training, or our State 

DVETs, specifies in their duties and responsibilities section that 

each DVET must coordinate with State Departments of Labor and 

other agencies, including State Departments of Veterans Affairs. 

Moreover, current law does not prohibit interagency coordination 

with respect to JVSG, including coordination with the VA. In fact, 

the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act supports greater 

interagency cooperation. 

Regarding the sub-recommendation that DOL should track 

American Jobs Center staff attendance at jobs fairs, the Department is focused on developing and tracking outcome-related 

metrics in accordance with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. These metrics will be based on participant outcomes instead of staff activity, and we believe this is the right approach in 

measuring the effectiveness of our programs. 

The Department supports the intent of the recommendation that 

DOD, VA, and DOL should submit a one-time joint report on the 

challenges employers face when seeking to hire veterans. However, 

we have already gathered much of this information from employers 

14 

and are working with our agency partners to address many of 

those challenges. 

In addition, given the volume of information and the workload 

required to obtain additional data, we recommend that we work 

with our agency partners to develop the information you believe 

would be helpful in assessing issues related to barriers to employers who wish to hire veterans. We can then meet with you to share 

the requested material. 

We at the Department of Labor remain committed to our Nation’s veterans and we look forward to working with the Committee 

to ensure the continued success of our efforts. We also praise the 

hard work of the Commission in developing their recommendations. 

We welcome each of you to come and see the services we provide 

for veterans at an American Jobs Center in your State or the improvements we have made to the TAP class for transitioning servicemembers on military installations around the country. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you again for 

the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to take any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gerton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERESA W. GERTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

POLICY, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon, Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate 

in today’s hearing. I would like to thank the Commission, which was assigned to 

develop the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization (MCRMC) Report, for all its hard work. As President Obama indicated, the report’s recommendations ‘‘represent an important step forward in protecting the long-term viability of 

the All-Volunteer Force,’’ and ‘‘improving quality-of-life for servicemembers and 

their families.’’ As Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) at the Department of Labor (DOL or Department), I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Department’s views on pending 

legislation and proposals impacting veterans. 

The Department’s charter, for over 100 years, has been to ‘‘foster, promote and 

develop the welfare of working people, to improve their working conditions, and to 

enhance their opportunities for profitable employment.’’ The Department’s collective 

resources and expertise are integrated with state workforce agencies and local communities to meet the employment and training needs of all Americans, including 

veterans, transitioning servicemembers, members of the National Guard and Reserve, their families, and survivors. 

As the Federal Government’s leader on veterans’ employment, VETS ensures that 

the full resources of the Department are readily available for veterans and servicemembers seeking to transition into the civilian labor force. VETS’ mission is focused 

on four key areas: (1) preparing veterans for meaningful careers; (2) providing them 

with employment resources and expertise; (3) protecting their employment rights; 

and, (4) promoting the employment of veterans and related training opportunities 

to employers across the country. 

While this hearing addresses several legislative proposals, the Department limits 

its remarks to those legislative proposals that have a direct impact on the programs 

administered by the Department, specifically, the ‘‘21st Century Veterans’ Benefits 

Delivery Act,’’ and the legislative proposals based on MCRMC Recommendations 11 

and 12. 

S. 1203, ‘‘21ST CENTURY VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT’’ 

The draft Senate bill, ‘‘21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act,’’ seeks to 

amend title 38 of the U.S. Code, to improve the processing by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) of claims for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

15 

Section 101 

Section 101 would amend section 1144 of title 10 of the U.S. Code, adding subsection (f) to require modifications to the VA’s eBenefits Web site, which would ensure that servicemembers, veterans, and their spouses have access to the Transition 

Assistance Program (TAP) online curriculum, as administered by the Secretary of 

Labor, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The Department believes that it has already met the intent of this proposal. DOL has worked with the Department of Defense (DOD) and 

VA to host the TAP curriculum online. Currently, servicemembers and their spouses 

are able to access the entire Transition GPS curriculum online via DOD’s Joint 

Knowledge Online, the VA’s eBenefits Web site, or DOL VETS’ Web site. Section 

101 also states: ‘‘An individual subject to a requirement under subsection (c) may 

not satisfy such requirement by participating in the program carried out under this 

section solely through an Internet Web site.’’ DOL appreciates the intent of this 

statement and notes that the vast majority of servicemembers who attend our employment workshop do so in person. We defer to DOD on the impact of this requirement, and to the VA on the inclusion of our Veterans Service Organization (VSO) 

partners. 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS FROM THE MCRMC REPORT

The Administration has indicated its general support for Recommendations 11 

and 12, in the Presidential Memorandum issued on April 30, 2015. As DOL recently 

shared with the staff of this Committee, the Department has initiated many of the 

Commission’s recommendations prior to publication of the Commission’s report. Accordingly, any legislative proposal to implement these recommendations should be 

modified to reflect these recent VETS program improvements, as well as to ensure 

continued access to unemployment benefits for servicemembers who need income 

support, while availing themselves of educational and training programs. 

Recommendation 11 

Recommendation 11, ‘‘Safeguard education benefits for Servicemembers by reducing redundancy and ensuring the fiscal sustainability of education programs,’’ is primarily directed toward DOD and VA, who administer a myriad of benefit programs 

for servicemembers. The Department generally supports Recommendation 11. The 

sub-recommendation of interest to DOL would prevent individuals receiving housing 

stipend benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill from simultaneously receiving unemployment insurance (UI). This sub-recommendation would amend title 5 of the U.S. 

Code, at section 8525, on Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers 

(UCX), as well as any other regulation and policy pertaining to section 8525. The 

MCRMC’s companion legislative proposal to implement this sub-recommendation is 

contained in Section 1109, Unemployment Insurance. 

To achieve the goal of safeguarding education benefits of servicemembers, it is 

necessary that servicemembers have adequate income support to take advantage of 

these programs. The Department would like to ensure equitable treatment for servicemembers compared to their civilian counterparts, who also are seeking UI benefits for approved training. The receipt of other benefits, such as the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill retraining incentives or housing benefits, currently do not prevent veterans 

from taking advantage of the same provision given to regular (civilian) unemployment insurance (UI) recipients when training is approvable/approved under state 

law. 

Providing income support for servicemembers eligible for UCX helps to ensure 

that their retraining leads to employment in a more sustainable labor market after 

specialized military service. Unemployment insurance is designed to provide benefits for workers to enable their successful transition to new employment; it is affirmatively intended to provide for costs of living beyond housing. Additionally, State UI 

laws contain requirements regarding an individual’s availability for work, which entails being ready, willing, and able to work. This includes the requirement that a 

claimant receiving UCX register with the public employment service. Thus, receipt 

of UCX benefits connects veterans to reemployment services through the public 

workforce system, which in conjunction with receiving GI Bill benefits, helps to 

more effectively support the individual’s successful reentry to civilian employment. 

Therefore, preventing GI Bill beneficiaries from receiving unemployment compensation may be a detriment to their successful reemployment. While the Department 

does not favor Section 1109 as currently drafted, we would be willing to continue 

discussions with Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs on this issue. 

16 

Recommendation 12 

Recommendation 12, ‘‘Better prepare Servicemembers for transition to civilian life 

by expanding and granting states more flexibility to administer the Jobs for Veterans State Grants Program,’’ seeks to expand servicemembers’ knowledge of educational benefits, improve Transition GPS, and improve the Jobs for Veterans State 

Grant (JVSG) program. The Department generally supports Recommendation 12; for 

purposes of this hearing, the Department will focus specifically on the following subrecommendations: 

(1) The Congress should require DOD, VA, and DOL to review and report on the 

core curriculum for Transition GPS to reevaluate if the current curriculum most accurately addresses the needs of transitioning Servicemembers. This report should 

include review of the current curriculum; the roles and responsibilities of each Department and whether they are adequately aligned; and the distribution of time between the three departments in the core curriculum and whether it is adequate to 

provide all information regarding important benefits that can assist transitioning 

Servicemembers. This review should indicate whether any of the information in the 

three optional tracks should be addressed instead in mandatory tracks. It should 

also include a standard implementation plan of long-term outcome measures for a 

comprehensive system of metrics. This review should identify any areas of concern 

regarding the program and recommendations for addressing those concerns. 

DOL notes that processes already in place address the intent of this proposal, and 

would be pleased to share our curriculum review results with this Committee. The 

MCRMC’s companion legislative proposal to implement this sub-recommendation is 

contained in Section 1204, Transition GPS Program Core Curriculum Review and 

Report. 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, as a member of the TAP Senior Steering Curriculum 

Working Group with DOD and VA, the Department began an annual curriculum 

evaluation. This evaluation included analysis of results from the web-based Transition GPS participant survey instrument developed by DOD, and input from various 

stakeholders. Based on this evaluation, the Department revised the TAP Employment Workshop curriculum to include Equal Employment Opportunity and Americans with Disability Act content, the Veterans Employment Center content, and enhanced information on Workforce Investment Act training, dislocated worker training, and Registered Apprenticeship programs. 

The FY 2015 curriculum review began in April 2015, in conjunction with the TAP 

Senior Steering Curriculum Working Group’s planned review of the entire Transition GPS curriculum. Any changes that may result from this review should be available to transitioning servicemembers in November 2015. Additionally, the Department will address this sub-recommendation before the TAP Senior Steering Group 

for consideration in the FY 2015 curriculum review. 

(2) The Congress should amend the relevant statutes to permit state departments 

of labor or their equivalent agencies to work directly with state Veterans Affairs directors or offices to coordinate implementation of the JVSG program. 

DOL believes that it has already met the intent of this proposal, which is contained in Section 1202, Coordination with State Departments of Labor and VA. The 

process this proposal seeks to implement is already in place; the Department’s 

standards of performance for each of the Directors for Veterans’ Employment and 

Training (DVET) specifies in the ‘‘duties and responsibilities’’ section that each 

DVET must coordinate with state Departments of Labor and Veterans Affairs. 

Moreover, current law does not prohibit inter-agency coordination with respect to 

JVSG, including coordination with the VA (title 38, U.S. Code 4102A(b)(3)). In fact, 

the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, passed in 2014, supports greater 

inter-agency cooperation. The public workforce system is designed to be a decentralized network of strong partnerships at the Federal, state, local, and regional levels. 

(3) DOL should require One-Stop Career Centers to track the number of job fairs 

their employees participate in and the number of veterans they connect with at each 

job fair. This information should be included in each state’s annual report to the 

DOL, and provided to the Congress. 

The Department does not find American Job Center (AJC) staff attendance at 

Transition GPS Employment Workshops, job fair participation rates, or the number 

of transitioning servicemembers and veterans with whom JVSG staff interact to be 

measures reflective of meaningful outcomes data. Tracking these activities may, in 

fact, result in the unintended consequence of incentivizing the quantity of interactions between AJC staff and veterans, rather than the quality and effectiveness 

of the services AJC staff provide to veterans. Also, this proposal, contained in Section 1201, Job Fair Participation Rates, seeks to amend the Workforce Investment 

Act of 1998, which has been superseded by the Workforce Innovation and OpporVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\051315.TXT PAULIN
17 

tunity Act (WIOA), making it difficult to interpret how it would be executed. Nevertheless, this proposal is not in keeping with Section 116 of WIOA (which replaced 

section 136 of WIA), which establishes common performance accountability measures that apply across the Department’s core employment and training programs to 

assess the effectiveness of States and local areas in achieving positive outcomes for 

individuals served by related programs. While JVSG is not a core program under 

WIOA, 38 U.S.C. 4102A requires JVSG performance measures to ‘‘be consistent 

with’’ those under WIOA. The Departments of Labor and Education on April 16 

jointly issued a WIOA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comments on 

such topics as performance accountability to ensure that Federal employment and 

training program investments report on common performance indicators such as 

how many individuals, including veterans, entered employment and their median 

wages. The Departments welcome comments from this Committee on our proposal. 

(4) The Congress should require a one-time joint report from DOD, VA, and DOL 

to the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services and Veterans’ Affairs regarding the challenges employers face when seeking to hire veterans. The report 

should identify the barriers employers face gaining information identifying veterans 

seeking jobs. It should also include recommendations addressing barriers for employers and improving information sharing between Federal agencies that serve veterans and separating Servicemembers, so they may more easily connect employers 

and veterans. The report should also review the Transition GPS career preparation 

core curriculum and recommend any improvements that can be made to better prepare Servicemembers trying to obtain private-sector employment. 

The Department supports the intent of this recommendation and looks forward 

to continuing our work with our Federal partners on this important issue. However, 

we already have gathered much information from employers on their challenges in 

hiring veterans. This is provided in recent reports, such as the 2014 RAND report 

titled, ‘‘Lessons from the 100,000 Job Mission.’’ We already are working with agency 

partners to address many of those challenges. In addition, and given the volume of 

information and the workload required to obtain additional data, we recommend 

that we work with our agency partners to develop the information you believe would 

be helpful in assessing issues related to barriers to employers hiring veterans. We 

then can meet with you to share the requested material. 

OTHER LEGISLATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

The Committee also is considering legislation to encourage companies that contract with the VA to hire veterans. DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs (OFCCP) enforces a provision of the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment 

Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), 38 U.S.C. 4212, which prohibits covered Federal 

contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment against protected 

veterans. This provision also requires these contractors to take affirmative action 

to employ, and advance in employment, protected veterans. Since the legislation addresses contracting preferences of the VA, DOL defers to that agency with respect 

to this bill, and defers to other agencies affected by the remaining pieces of legislation. 

CONCLUSION

We at the Department of Labor remain committed to our Nation’s veterans and 

we look forward to working with the Committee to ensure the continued success of 

our efforts. The Department lauds the hard work the Commission placed into their 

recommendations. It is our hope that the Committee will consider the modifications 

we have provided and is open to working with the Committee members to provide 

technical assistance. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of 

the Committee, this concludes my statement. Thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you for your testimony and your kind 

comments about WIOA. I am glad we finally were able to get that 

done. 

Mr. McLenachen, accompanied by Renee Szybala. Mr. 

McLenachen. 

18 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. McLENACHEN, ACTING DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY 

RENEE SZYBALA, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Chairman Isakson and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present VA’s views on several bills that are pending before the Committee. 

As you just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied by Ms. 

Szybala. She is our Assistant General Counsel. She will address 

any questions that you may have regarding S. 627 on revocation of 

bonuses. 

I want to first thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify 

concerning the Cost-Of-Living Adjustment bill, which will ensure 

the value of veterans’ and survivors’ benefits will keep pace with 

consumer prices next year. We support this bill. 

We are also pleased to support S. 270, which would revise the 

definition of a spouse for purposes of VA benefits. However, we 

would like to work with the Committee to address a few technical 

concerns about the language used in the bill. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the bill that addresses preferences for small businesses owned by veterans, our 

DIC Program for survivors, and other matters. VA fully supports 

Section 101, which would provide greater flexibility and protection 

for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, their employees, and surviving spouses. 

As to Section 102, VA supports the intent behind this provision, 

which would provide a period of transition for survivors of business 

owners who die in the line of duty, but we have a few concerns and 

would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to address them. 

Although we are committed to improving our processing of claims 

based on military sexual trauma, we believe that the reporting provisions in Section 202 and 203 are unnecessary because VA has 

provided the information requested and can provide any additional 

information that the Committee may need without legislation. 

We also believe that the provisions of Section 204, which would 

prescribe a pilot program to assess the feasibility of expediting DIC 

claims, is unnecessary, as VA has already achieved significant improvement in processing these claims, to include reducing the backlog by 87 percent and average processing time to 70 days. 

Turning to Section 301, VA appreciates continued Congressional 

support for meeting the needs of veterans whose remains are unclaimed. While we are concerned that the study mandated by this 

section may be unnecessary or premature in light of VA’s recent efforts to ensure that these veterans receive a proper burial, we 

would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee on 

the requirements for any mandated study. 

Finally, we cannot support Section 401, which would expand the 

definition of veteran to include individuals with 20 years or more 

of non-regular military service. In VA’s view, this would be an unreasonable and confusing departure from active service as the foundation for veteran status. 

We thank Senators Heller and Casey for their efforts related to 

the draft 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act. VA strongly 

19 

supports Section 103 of this draft bill, which would allow for greater use of video conference hearings by the Board of Veterans Appeals. In addition, VA supports Section 211, which would address 

the increased demand for examinations and allow for flexibility in 

utilizing non-VA examiners, while ensuring that veterans receive 

quality compensation and pension examinations. We also have no 

objection to spinning a joint report with DOD on health records 

interoperability. 

Despite the support, we have a few concerns with other sections 

of the draft bill. We believe that Section 101 is unnecessary because VA already provides access to the TAP curriculum through 

e-benefits and allows VSO representatives to attend. 

While VA appreciates the intent of Section 301, which is to facilitate records retrieval, we already have extensive ongoing initiatives 

with other Federal agencies to improve response times to VA’s requests for records. 

Regarding Sections 205, 207, 209, and 210, we believe that the 

required reports would be duplicative of information that VA already provides in its budget, through regular updates to Congress, 

and in Monday morning workload reports. We will work with the 

Committee to add any information to these reports that the Committee believes is necessary, but we can accomplish this without 

legislation. 

Although we support appeals reform, we do not support Section 

102 of the draft bill, as we believe it would not result in a faster 

resolution of appeals for veterans who are waiting far too long for 

a final decision on their claims. While some efficiency may result 

if more appellants filed their notices of disagreement within 180 

days, the multi-step open record appeal process that precludes efficient resolution of appeals for all veterans would not change. We 

would like to work with the Committee to consider the entire appeals process and institute reforms that will result in overall increased efficiency for all veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Department does not have views 

on several bills that are the subject of today’s hearing. We will continue to coordinate views on these matters and, upon completion, 

submit them to the Committee sufficiently in time before the markup that you mentioned this morning. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We are happy to 

entertain any questions you or other Members of the Committee 

may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McLenachen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID R. MCLENACHEN, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SEC- RETARY FOR DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to 

be here today to provide the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on 

pending legislation affecting VA’s programs, including the following: S. 270, S. 602, 

S. 627, the ‘‘21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act,’’ the ‘‘Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2015,’’ and a draft bill concerning VA 

small business contracting, Veterans benefits, and burial matters. We will separately provide views on the following bills: S. 681; sections 202, 203 and 206 of the 

‘‘21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act;’’ the bill associated with legislative 

proposals from the Report of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission; the bill associated with legislative proposals from the Department 

of Defense (DOD); and sections 201 and 206 of the consolidated bill related to bills 

20 

from the 113th Congress. Accompanying me this afternoon is Rene ́e Szybala, Assistant General Counsel. 

S. 270

S. 270, the ‘‘Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2015,’’ 

would amend sections 101 and 103 of title 38, United States Code, to revise the definition of spouse for purposes of Veterans’ benefits. Specifically, the bill would remove from the definition of ‘‘surviving spouse’’ under section 101(3) the phrase ‘‘of 

the opposite sex,’’ and amend the definition of ‘‘spouse’’ under section 101(31) to include an individual if the marriage of the individual is ‘‘valid under the laws of any 

State.’’ The bill would define ‘‘State’’ in the same way that term is defined in section 

101(20) of title 38, United States Code, for purposes of title 38, but include also ‘‘the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.’’ Additionally, S. 270 would amend 

section 103(c) of title 38, United States Code, removing the limitation that a marriage shall be proven as valid ‘‘according to the law of the place where the parties 

resided at the time of the marriage or the law of the place where the parties resided 

when the right to benefits accrued.’’ The bill would amend section 103(c) to follow 

the revised definition of ‘‘spouse’’ in section 101(31). 

VA generally supports the passage of this bill but has some concerns with the 

bill’s language. Current section 101(3) and section 101(31) of title 38, United States 

Code, limit the definitions of ‘‘surviving spouse’’ and ‘‘spouse,’’ respectively, for purposes of title 38 to only a person of the opposite sex of the Veteran. The language 

in these provisions is substantively identical to the language in section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, which the Supreme Court, in United States v. 

Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), declared to be unconstitutional because it discriminates against legally-married, same-sex couples. On September 4, 2013, the President directed VA to cease enforcement of section 101(3) and section 101(31) of title 

38, United States Code, to the extent that those provisions preclude the recognition 

of legally-valid marriages of same-sex couples. Pursuant to the President’s direction, 

VA is no longer enforcing the title 38 provisions to the extent that they require a 

‘‘spouse’’ or a ‘‘surviving spouse’’ to be a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, VA 

supports this bill as a means to amend the law to be consistent with the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Windsor and the President’s directive. In particular, VA supports 

the removal of the requirement that a ‘‘spouse’’ or a ‘‘surviving spouse’’ be a person 

of the opposite sex from subsections (3) and (31) of section 101. 

Further, current section 103(c) of title 38, United States Code, requires VA to 

apply the law of the place in which the couple resided at the time of the marriage 

or where they resided when the rights to benefits accrued, resulting in unwarranted 

disparate treatment in the delivery of Federal benefits. For example, VA may be 

precluded from recognizing a Veteran’s same-sex marriage even though DOD, which 

is not subject to the limitation of section 103(c), may have recognized the marriage 

as valid based on a place-of-celebration standard while the Veteran was in service. 

The ‘‘valid under the laws of any State’’ standard in S. 270 would promote greater 

consistency in the administration of Federal benefits based on same-sex marriages. 

However, VA has some concerns with the new standard. Under the provisions of 

this bill as currently drafted, the marriage has to be ‘‘considered valid under the 

laws of any State.’’ The phrase ‘‘considered valid under the laws of any State’’ may 

have unintended consequences. For example, this bill language may require VA to 

recognize a purported common law marriage in a State that does not recognize common law marriages, as long as any State would recognize the relationship as a valid 

common law marriage. Presumably, Congress does not intend to eliminate any and 

all differences between States regarding the types of relationships that would constitute a valid marriage for purposes of administering Federal benefits, but, rather, 

intends to obtain greater consistency regarding recognition of same-sex marriages. 

Furthermore, this bill language may require VA to determine whether a foreign 

marriage is valid based on a multitude of laws and would require an in-depth legal 

analysis that is not appropriate in the adjudication of claims. 

Costs related to this bill are not available at this time. 

S. 602

S. 602, the ‘‘GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015,’’ would amend the term ‘‘active duty’’ 

under chapter 33 of title 38, to include certain time spent receiving medical care 

from DOD as qualifying active duty service performed by members of the Reserve 

and National Guard. Under this bill, individuals ordered to active duty under section 12301(h) of title 10, United States Code, to receive authorized medical care; to 

be medically evaluated for disability or other purposes; or to complete a required 

21 

DOD health care study, would receive credit for this service under the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill. 

S. 602 would apply as if it were enacted immediately after the enactment of the 

Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, Public Law 110–252. 

VA defers to DOD regarding the change to qualifying active duty service under 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill, with the observation that a similar proposal was submitted 

by the Administration for inclusion with the 2016 NDAA, with an exception that 

this bill would be retroactive. Currently, individuals with qualifying active duty 

service of at least 30 continuous days who are honorably discharged due to a service-connected disability become eligible for 100 percent of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit. Because service under 10 U.S.C. § 12301(h) does not meet the current definition 

of active duty, Guard and Reserve members with such service who are discharged 

under these circumstances do not automatically qualify for 100 percent of the benefit. If enacted, this change would allow for an increase in benefits from the 40– 

90 percent benefit tier up to the 100 percent level, and the change would be retroactive to as early as August 1, 2009. 

The proposed change to the eligibility criteria under the Post-9/11 GI Bill would 

require VA to make changes to the type of data that are exchanged between DOD 

and VA through the VA/DOD Identity Repository (VADIR) and displayed in the Veteran Information System (VIS). In addition, new rules would need to be programmed into the Post-9/11 GI Bill Long Term Solution (LTS) in order to calculate 

eligibility based on service under section 12301(h) and to allow for benefit payments 

retroactive to 2009. VA estimates that it would need one year from enactment of 

S. 602 to complete these changes. 

VA estimates that administrative cost requirements associated with the enactment of S. 602 would be insignificant. The Department is still evaluating benefit 

and resource costs related to this legislation. 

S. 627

S. 627 would require VA to identify VA employees who, during fiscal years 2011 

through 2014, contributed to the purposeful omission of the name of one or more 

Veterans from a VA medical facility’s electronic wait list or supervisors of these employees who knew or reasonably should have known about the employee’s actions 

and received a ‘‘bonus’’ in part as a result of the purposeful omission. The bill would 

further require VA to identify these responsible individuals within 180 days after 

VA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) submits a report to Congress about inappropriate scheduling practices at VA medical facilities, if such report is based on investigations carried out by the OIG in calendar year 2014. VA would also be required, after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing, to order that these 

individuals repay bonuses that they received as a result of a purposeful omission. 

An individual who has been ordered to repay a bonus may appeal that order to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). 

VA has numerous constitutional concerns about the bill, including concerns arising under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the 

Ex Post Facto Clause. VA also has policy and procedural concerns about the bill. 

VA looks forward to working with the Committee in order to address these concerns. 

S. 627 is a bill for which there is no precedent. No Federal agencies have the authority to require employees to repay past monetary performance awards or bonuses 

that were given in accordance with law and without conditions or contractual obligations. This legislation threatens a number of core constitutional rights related to 

property and due process that the Framers of the Constitution sought to protect,— 

and the bill would likely give rise to litigation. VA believes that employees should 

not be penalized by legislation that attaches new penalties on the basis of past behavior and transactions and should have protection from deprivation of life, liberty, 

or property without due process of law. Further, performance awards are intended 

to be a key tool in motivating employees to provide outstanding service to Veterans, 

and the value of that tool should not be undermined by measures that would limit 

employee confidence in the performance award system. By singling out VA employees for punitive measures, the legislation would likely serve to demoralize a workforce dedicated to serving Veterans and hurt VA’s efforts to recruit and retain high 

performing employees. VA is concerned that S. 627, if passed, would give rise to numerous lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the provisions and VA’s actions 

pursuant to it. 

For these reasons, and as further explained in the below discussion, VA strongly 

opposes this legislation. 

Implementing the bill, as written, would also be impractical for the government. 

First, the bill does not define the term ‘‘bonus’’ as a ‘‘performance award.’’ In accordVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\051315.TXT PAULIN
22 

ance with law, VA does not give ‘‘bonuses,’’ but rather awards an employee based 

on his or her performance. Second, the type of hearing that needs to be provided 

to an employee before a repayment order must be issued is not specifically addressed in the bill. While the bill states that hearings ‘‘shall be conducted in accordance with regulations relating to hearings promulgated by the Secretary under 

chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code,’’ chapter 75 references various types of 

hearings. Consequently, the type of hearing that would need to be provided is not 

addressed in the bill. Third, the bill raises a number of tax questions. For example, 

should the Department of Treasury treat a repayment of a performance award as 

adjustments to prior year compensation, even though the award may have been paid 

a number of years ago? This tax question, while not addressed in the bill, would 

have to be addressed. 

As noted above, the bill would raise a number of constitutional issues. First, the 

bill may run afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause by requiring employees 

to return property that was given to them unconditionally by the government. The 

Takings Clause prevents the government from ‘‘depriving private persons of vested 

property rights except for a ‘‘public use’’ and upon payment of ‘‘just compensation.’’ 

Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266 (1994). In the case of an employee who has already been paid a bonus by the government, that bonus is the 

property of the employee. The taking would occur if the government collects the 

bonus or even a portion thereof without just compensation. See, e.g., Nat’l Educ. Bd. 

v. Ret. Bd. of R.I., 172 F.3d 22, 30 (1st Cir. 1999) (the Takings Clause protects 

‘‘[p]ension payments actually made to retirees’’). 

The bill may have a ‘‘retroactive effect’’ by increasing an employee’s liability for 

conduct that preceded the enactment of the bill. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280 (a 

bill has a ‘‘retroactive effect’’ if it ‘‘increases a party’s liability for past conduct’’). 

‘‘ ‘The retroactive aspects of legislation, as well as the prospective aspects, must 

meet the test of due process, and the justifications for the latter may not suffice for 

the former.’ ’’ Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 730 (1984) 

(quoting Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 16–17 (1976)). Under the 

bill, an employee must repay a bonus based on conduct that preceded the enactment 

of the bill. Because the employee was not aware that he or she would have to repay 

the bonus at the time of the conduct, the bill may have a ‘‘retroactive effect’’ and 

may implicate the employees’ due process rights to fair notice. See BMW of N. Am., 

Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 570 (1996) (‘‘Elementary notions of fairness enshrined in 

our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of 

the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose.’’). 

Finally, the legislation may raise constitutional Ex Post Facto Clause concerns. 

The Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits laws that ‘‘impose[ ] a punishment for an act 

which was not punishable at the time it was committed; or impose[ ] additional punishment to that then prescribed.’’ Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 325– 

26 (1867). In Hiss v. Hampton, 338 F. Supp. 1141, 1147–48 (D.D.C. 1972), a three 

judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that a law 

denying payment of pensions to former employees who falsely testified with respect 

to Government service was an ex post facto law as it pertained to the conduct of 

those employees which preceded the passage of the law. Id. at 1148. According to 

the court in Hiss, ‘‘[t]he proper function of [law] is to guide and control present and 

future conduct, not to penalize former employees for acts done long ago.’’ Id. at 

1148–49; see also Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072, 2085 (2013) (noting that 

‘‘the [Ex Post Facto] Clause ensures that individuals have fair warning of applicable 

laws and guards against vindictive legislative action’’). As currently drafted, the bill 

could potentially raise some of the same issues as the provision at issue in Hiss. 

Based on the implementation concerns discussed above, VA is unable to determine 

the costs for this bill. It is important to note, however, that apart from costs to investigate and identify the employees, as required by the bill, VA would also have 

to expend significant resources to conduct a hearing prior to issuing a repayment 

order, defend its repayment order before the MSPB, and assist the Department of 

Justice in defending the order before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

S. 1203

Section 101 

Section 101 would amend section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, by adding 

a subsection (f) to require modifications to the eBenefits Internet Web site to ensure 

that members of the Armed Forces and spouses have access to the online curriculum 

for the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), as administered by the Secretary of 

23 

Labor, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This would require modifications to the eBenefits Web 

site to host the online version of the TAP curriculum. 

Section 101 would also note Congress’ intent that the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs collaborate to establish a process by which Veterans service organizations may be present for TAP to provide assistance relating to submitting claims 

for VA compensation and pension benefits. The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a report to Congress, no later than one year after enactment, on 

Veterans service organizations’ participation. 

VA does not support the provision to make TAP curriculum available through 

eBenefits because it is unnecessary. This provision would be duplicative as all TAP 

curriculums are already available through the Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) system, which is linked to eBenefits. VA modified the eBenefits portal in fiscal year 

2014 to provide an online version of VA’s section of the TAP curriculum through 

the JKO link and facilitate online participation for transitioning Servicemembers 

and their families. This functionality lends support to geographically dispersed Servicemembers as well as members of the National Guard and Reserve components 

who are required to participate in VA’s section of TAP. Additionally, the online 

version is beneficial to Veterans and their families if they would like to access the 

curriculum after separation. 

VA defers to DOD and the Department of Homeland Security for comment on proposed new 10 U.S.C. § 1144(f)(2) regarding the feasibility of ensuring that Servicemembers who are mandated to fulfill the TAP requirement can satisfy the requirement through means other than solely through an internet Web site. 

VA does not oppose having a process for Veterans service organizations (VSOs) 

to provide assistance relating to submittal of claims for VA compensation and pension benefits. VA currently provides an overview of the services offered by VSOs and 

introduces VSOs to Servicemembers during our benefits briefings. VA also partners 

with VSOs at military installations where they are co-located or available to offer 

claims support. 

VA defers to DOD on subsection (b)(2) of section 101 of the bill regarding the requirement to provide a report on participation of VSOs in TAP. 

VA estimates that no administrative or benefit costs to VA would be associated 

with enactment of this section. 

Section 102 

Section 102 would amend 38 U.S.C. § 5104, which provides requirements for VA’s 

decisions and notices of decision. It would require VA, upon issuing a decision for 

a claimed benefit, to also explain the procedure for obtaining review of the decision 

and explain the benefits of filing a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) within 180 days. 

VA does not support this section. While VA appreciates the effort to encourage 

individuals to file their NOD in a timelier manner, VA would prefer a more definitive legislative solution. 

As noted in VA’s Strategic Plan to Transform the Appeal Process, which was provided to the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on February 26, 2014, the current process provides appellants with multiple reviews in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and one or more reviews at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(Board), depending upon the submission of new evidence or whether the Board determines that it is necessary to remand the matter to VBA. The multi-step, openrecord appeal process set out in current law precludes the efficient delivery of benefits to all Veterans. The longer an appeal takes, the more likely it is that a claimed 

disability will change, resulting in the need for additional medical and other evidence and further processing delays. As a result, the length of the process is driven 

by how many cycles and readjudications are triggered. VA’s FY 2016 budget request 

includes legislative proposals to improve the appeal process, and VA has collaborated with Veterans service organizations to develop an optional fully developed appeals pilot program. VA continues to work with Congress and other stakeholders to 

explore long-term solutions that would provide Veterans the timely appeals process 

they deserve. 

VA estimates that GOE costs associated with this section would be insignificant. 

Section 103 

Section 103 would allow for greater use of video conference hearings by the Board, 

while still providing Veterans with the opportunity to request an in-person hearing 

if they so elect. This provision would apply to cases received by the Board pursuant 

to Notices of Disagreement submitted on or after the date of the enactment of the 

Act. VA fully supports section 103 as drafted, as this provision would potentially deVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\051315.TXT PAULIN
24 

crease hearing wait times for Veterans, enhance efficiency within VA, and better 

focus Board resources toward issuing more final decisions. 

The Board has historically been able to schedule video conference hearings more 

quickly than in-person hearings, saving valuable time in the appeals process for 

Veterans who elect this type of hearing. In FY 2014, on average, video conference 

hearings were held 124 days sooner than in-person hearings before a Veterans Law 

Judge (VLJ) at a Regional Office Travel Board hearing. Section 103 would allow 

both the Board and Veterans to capitalize on these time savings by giving the Board 

greater flexibility to schedule video conference hearings than is possible under the 

current statutory scheme. 

Historical data also shows that there is no statistical difference in the ultimate 

disposition of appeals based on the type of hearing selected. Veterans who had video 

conference hearings had an allowance rate for their appeals that was virtually the 

same as Veterans who had in-person hearings; however, Veterans who had video 

conference hearings were able to have their hearings scheduled much more quickly. 

Section 103 would continue to allow Veterans who want an in-person hearing the 

opportunity to specifically request and receive one. 

Enactment of section 103 could also lead to an increase in the number of final 

decisions for Veterans as a result of increased productivity at the Board. Time lost 

due to travel and time lost in the field due to appellants failing to show up for their 

hearing would be greatly reduced, allowing VLJs to better focus their time and resources on issuing final Board decisions for Veterans. 

Major technological upgrades to the Board’s video conference hearing equipment 

over the past several years leave the Board well-positioned for the enactment of section 103. This includes the purchase of high-definition video equipment, a state-ofthe art digital audio recording system, implementation of a virtual hearing docket, 

and significantly increased video conference hearing capacity. Section 103 would 

allow the Board to better leverage these important technological enhancements. 

We observe that section 103 would redesignate current subsection (f) of section 

7107 of title 38, United States Code, as subsection (g); however, the draft legislation 

does not revise the reference to current subsection (f) in subsection (a) of section 

7107 of title 38, United States Code. We suggest revising subsection (a)(1) to state: 

‘‘Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) and in subsection (g), each case received pursuant to application for review on appeal shall be considered and decided 

in regular order according to its place upon the docket.’’ 

In short, section 103 would result in shorter hearing wait times, focusing Board 

resources on issuing more decisions, and providing maximum flexibility for both Veterans and VA, while fully utilizing recent technological improvements. VA therefore 

strongly endorses this proposal. 

Section 201 

We defer to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

Section 204 

We defer to the VA Office of the Inspector General. 

Section 205 

Section 205 would require VA to submit an annual report to Congress on the capacity of VBA to process claims during the next one-year period. The reports would 

include the number of claims VBA expects to process; number of full-time equivalent 

(FTE) employees who are dedicated to processing such claims; an estimate of the 

number of claims a single FTE can process in a year; an assessment of whether VA 

requires additional or fewer FTE to process such claims during the next one-year, 

five-year, and 10-year periods; a description of actions VA will take to improve 

claims processing; and an assessment of actions identified in previous reports required by this section. VA would be required to make the report publicly available 

on the internet. 

VA believes this legislation is unnecessary as VA’s current budget reports address 

these issues adequately, and such budget reports are available publicly. 

No administrative costs would be associated with enactment of this section. 

Section 207 

Section 207 would require VA to submit to Congress a report on the Department’s 

progress in implementing the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). The 

report would include (1) an assessment of current VBMS functionality; (2) recommendations from VA’s claims processors, including Veterans Service Representatives, Rating Veterans Service Representatives, and Decision Review Officers, on 

legislative or administrative actions to improve the claims process; and (3) recommendations from VSOs that use VBMS on legislative or administrative actions to 

25 

improve VBMS. VA would be required to submit a report within 180 days after enactment of the bill and no less frequently than once every 180 days thereafter until 

three years after enactment. 

VA believes this legislation unnecessary as VA currently provides regular updates 

to Congress regarding implementation and functionality of VBMS; quarterly briefings to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, advising them of the 

status of VBA operations and updates to VBMS; and a quarterly report to the House 

and Senate Appropriations Committees summarizing recent and upcoming changes 

to VBMS. Additional reporting requirements are not needed at this time. 

VA estimates GOE costs associated with this section would be insignificant. 

Section 208 

Section 208 would require VA to submit, within 90 days of enactment of this Act, 

a report to Congress detailing plans to reduce the inventory of claims for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) and pension benefits. 

VA does not support section 208. It is unnecessary as VBA continues to make significant improvements in processing DIC and pension claims. 

VA’s Pension and Fiduciary (P&F) Service, which oversees administration of the 

DIC and pension programs, reviewed the policies and procedures applicable to the 

adjudication of these claims to identify obstacles to timely processing. P&F Service 

determined that certain claim processing steps are redundant and appropriate for 

elimination. On March 22, 2013, P&F Service issued Fast Letter 13–04 (FL 13–04), 

Simplified Processing of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Claims, 

which instructs VBA field staff on the procedures to follow when processing DIC 

claims. P&F Service is working on similar guidance for pension claims. 

On July 7, 2014, VA began automating payment of DIC to certain surviving 

spouses of Veterans rated totally disabled at death. As part of VA’s notice of death 

process, VA systems determine if the deceased Veteran met the requirements of section 1318 and if the surviving spouse met the relationship requirements. If the system determines that both requirements are met it will automatically process and 

award DIC under section 1318 within six days of notification of the Veteran’s death. 

Based on these changes and an aggressive workload management plan in VA’s 

Pension Management Centers, VA has reduced its pending DIC claim inventory by 

55 percent from its peak of 19,100 claims to 8,600 claims, and backlog by 87 percent 

from its peak of 8,800 to 1,000. Veterans pension inventory was reduced by 68 percent from its peak of 36,100 to 11,400, and backlog by 96 percent from its peak of 

14,500 to 600. Average processing time for DIC has improved by 100 days from its 

peak of 168 days to 68 days, while maintaining 99 percent accuracy. 

No benefits or GOE costs would be associated with enactment of this section. 

Section 209 

This section would require VA to include in its Monday Morning Workload Report 

(MMWR) the number of claims received by regional offices and pending decisions, 

disaggregated by the number of claims that have been pending for more than 125 

days; the number of claims that have been pending for 125 days or less; and the 

number of claims that do not require a decision concerning a disability rating. This 

section would also require VA to include in the MMWR, the sections entitled ‘‘Transformation’’ and ‘‘Aggregate,’’ the number of partial ratings assigned. Additionally, 

this section would require VA to include in the MMWR a report on the total number 

of fully developed claims (FDC) received by regional offices that are pending a decision and the subset of those claims that have been pending for more than 125 days, 

disaggregated by station. 

VA does not support this section. The information required by section 209(a) is 

already published in the MMWR for rating-related disability compensation and pension claims. The section appears to propose requiring all other non-rating pending 

compensation and pension workload be added to the MMWR; however information 

about these pending claims is also already published in the MMWR. The single distinguishing new feature would be the application of the backlog metric of 125 days 

to all non-rating-related claims by regional office. However, 125 days is not a useful 

metric for the majority of non-rating-related claims. The significant differences in 

the work effort required for various types of non-rating-related claims and the fact 

that much of this work is consolidated to the Pension Management Centers make 

comparison at the aggregate level across all regional offices a comparison without 

context or any real capability to inform how one regional office compares to another. 

Section 209(b) would elevate tallies of partial ratings of various claim types into 

a tool of comparison between regional offices. Data on partial ratings that award 

benefits for some, but not all, claimed conditions are not informative in this way 

as they reflect the unique circumstances of each claim. Additionally, irrespective of 

26 

partial rating decisions, over half of the Veterans with pending claims are already 

receiving compensation as a result of a previously filed claim. Adding this partialrating metric would not provide meaningful comparisons at the regional office level. 

Section 209(c) would require pending FDC claims, one VBA high-priority claims 

category, to be added to the MMWR. To the degree making comparisons between 

regional offices is desired, the existing reporting in the MMWR on claims older than 

125 days, VA’s largest pending group of high priority claims, provides a better metric for such comparisons than FDC claims. However, should it be determined that 

a pending FDC metric would be useful, legislation is not required to add this metric 

to the MMWR. 

VA estimates GOE costs associated with this section would be insignificant. 

Section 210 

This section would require VA to make available to the public on the internet the 

‘‘Appeals Pending’’ and ‘‘Appeals Workload by Station’’ reports. VA would be required to include in one of these reports the percentage of appeals granted by station and the percentage of claims previously adjudicated by VBA’s Appeals Management Center that were subsequently granted or remanded by the Board. 

VA does not support this section. VBA’s MMWR currently includes the total number of appeals pending and other metrics related to appeals. Before adding data elements to reports, VBA needs to ensure that the information is provided in a useful 

way that can be easily understood by the public. 

For example, VBA is changing its workload management strategy by developing 

the National Work Queue (NWQ), a paperless workload management initiative designed to improve VBA’s overall production capacity. In the initial phase of NWQ, 

VBA is matching its inventory with claims processing capacity at the regional officelevel, moving claims electronically from a centralized queue to an office identified 

as having capacity to complete the work. With this national workload approach, VA 

will continue to focus on the improvement of its traditional performance metrics, 

with an emphasis on improving quality and consistency of claims and appeals processing nationwide to ensure Veterans and their families receive timely benefits, regardless of where they reside. Appeals data by station will be less useful to the public as NWQ is implemented. 

Additionally, it is unclear how the bill would define ‘‘appeals granted by station.’’ 

Multiple decisions may be appealed in each claim, and it is unclear if VA would be 

required to report percentages associated with each decision or each appeal. Similarly, it is unclear at what point in the appeal process this metric would be reported. 

The current process provides appellants with multiple reviews in VBA and one or 

more reviews at the Board, depending upon the submission of new evidence or 

whether the Board determines that it is necessary to remand the matter to VBA. 

The longer an appeal takes, the more likely it is that a claimed disability will 

change, resulting in the need for additional evidence, further processing delays, and 

less clarity in whether an initial decision was correctly made. 

VA estimates GOE costs associated with this section would be insignificant. 

Section 211 

Section 211 would revise provisions of the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 

1996 relating to contract examinations to clarify that, notwithstanding any law regarding the licensure of physicians, a licensed physician may conduct disability examinations for VA in any state, the District of Columbia, or a commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, provided the examination is within the 

scope of the physician’s authorized duties under a contract with VA. 

VA supports the provision regarding licensure requirements as a means to ensure 

the quality of contract examinations. The demand for medical disability examinations has increased, largely due to an increase in the complexity of disability claims, 

an increase in the number of disabilities that Veterans claim, and changes in eligibility requirements for disability benefits. This authority would help provide flexibility in examinations through non-VA medical providers while maintaining licensure standards and accelerating benefits delivery. 

No benefit or discretionary costs would be associated with enactment of this section. 

Section 301 

Section 301 would require the appointment of at least one liaison between VA and 

DOD, and between VA and each of the reserve components. It would also require 

the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to appoint a liaison to 

VA. The intent of these appointments is to expedite the provision of information 

needed to process claims by VA, to ensure that such information would be provided 

27 

within 30 days of the request. VA would be required to submit a report to Congress 

annually regarding the timeliness of responses from DOD and NARA. 

While VA appreciates the intent to facilitate records retrieval, VA believes that 

this section of the bill is unnecessary because of the extensive ongoing efforts between VA and other Federal agencies to improve response times to VA requests for 

records that are required to adjudicate disability claims. For example, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between VA and DOD provides VA, at time of discharge, certified and complete service treatment records in an electronic, searchable 

format. As this MOU applies to the 300,000 annually separated Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve Component members, it will significantly contribute to 

VA’s efforts to achieve its 125-day goal for completion of disability compensation 

claims. 

Costs associated with enactment of this section would be insignificant. DOD and 

NARA would be required to appoint liaisons; VBA would not hire additional employees. Costs associated with the report required by section 301(d) would be insignificant. 

Section 302 

Section 302 would require DOD and VA to jointly submit to Congress a report 

that sets forth a timeline with milestones for achieving interoperability between the 

electronic health records systems of both Departments. 

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) runs the largest integrated health 

care system in the country; delivering the quality care Veterans deserve is not possible without innovative information technology and data sharing. VA’s Electronic 

Health Record (EHR)—Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA)—is the most widely used EHR in the United States, and VA is working rapidly to modernize it. VA is developing a new web application and services 

platform called the Enterprise Health Management Platform (eHMP). eHMP is the 

VistA application clinicians will use during their clinical interactions with Veterans. 

eHMP brings exciting new features to the clinician, including Google-like search capabilities and information buttons that help clinicians find needed information 

much faster than current systems. VA is already piloting eHMP, and expects to deploy it to 30 sites by the end of the calendar year, with full rollout—including regular updates—over the next three years. 

VA continues to work with DOD on health data interoperability, but it is important to note that the two Departments already share health care data on millions 

of Servicemembers and Veterans. In fact, the two Departments share more health 

data than any other health care entities in the Nation. In addition to sharing health 

care data, VA and DOD have also paved the way for standardizing health care data, 

so that regardless of what system a clinician uses, the data is available in the right 

place and in the right way; for example, Tylenol and acetaminophen appear in the 

same place in the record because the system understands, through our data standardization, that they are the same medication. Today, VA and DOD clinicians can 

use the Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) to see VA and DOD data on a single screen in 

a Servicemember or Veteran’s record. Eventually, eHMP will replace JLV and will 

allow clinicians to see VA, DOD, and third-party provider data in their regular clinical care tool. 

The Department does not object to providing a report. Costs of this report would 

be insignificant as the Department currently provides a similar report to Congress. 

DRAFT BILL COST-OF-LIVING-ADJUSTMENT ACT

The Draft bill on the ‘‘Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 

2015,’’ would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 2015, the rates of disability compensation for service-disabled Veterans and 

the rates of DIC for survivors of Veterans. This bill would increase these rates by 

the same percentage as the percentage by which Social Security benefits are increased effective December 1, 2015. The bill would also require VA to publish the 

resulting increased rates in the Federal Register. 

VA strongly supports this bill because it would express, in a tangible way, this 

Nation’s gratitude for the sacrifices made by our service-disabled Veterans and their 

surviving spouses and children and would ensure that the value of their benefits 

will keep pace with increases in consumer prices. 

The cost of the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is included in VA’s baseline 

budget because we assume a COLA will be enacted by Congress each year. Therefore, enactment of the draft bill which would extend the COLA adjustment through 

November 30, 2016, would not result in costs. 

28 

DRAFT TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO MODIFY THE TREATMENT UNDER

CONTRACTING GOALS AND PREFERENCES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

FOR SMALL BUSINESSES OWNED BY VETERANS, TO CARRY OUT A PILOT PROGRAM ON

THE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN APPLICATIONS FOR DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION AS FULLY DEVELOPED CLAIMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 101 

Section 101 would expand the flexibility provided to a service-disabled Veteranowned small business (SDVOSB) to continue to hold that socioeconomic status upon 

the death of the service-disabled Veteran owner. Current law provides a transition 

period for SDVOSBs for up to 10 years after the Veteran’s death, if the Veteran had 

a service-connected disability with a 100-percent rating or died as a result of a service-connected disability. This bill would create a similar transition period for three 

years, if the Veteran had a service-connected disability with a rating of less than 

100 percent and did not die as a result of a service-connected disability. 

VA supports this provision because, without the proposed transition period, the 

death of the Veteran owner could put at risk the jobs and livelihoods of the firm’s 

employees, as well as the surviving spouse. The transition period provides the 

spouse a reasonable period of time to determine what should be done with the business after the Veteran’s death. 

VA anticipates enactment of this provision would entail minor administrative 

costs. VA would incorporate this change into its existing application processes with 

no material addition to costs. 

Section 102 

Section 102 would amend 38 U.S.C. § 8127 by providing a transition rule for a 

member of the Armed Forces who owns at least 51 percent of a small business and 

is killed in the line of duty. Such a Veteran’s surviving spouse who acquires ownership interest in the small business would be treated as a service-disabled Veteran 

owner until the earliest of the following: 10 years after the Servicemember’s death; 

the date on which the surviving spouse remarries; or the date on which the spouse 

no longer owns at least 51 percent of the small business. Such a Veteran’s dependent child that acquires ownership interest in the small business would be treated 

as a Veteran owner for 10 years after the Servicemember’s death or the date on 

which the child no longer owns at least 51 percent of the small business, whichever 

occurs first. 

VA supports the spirit behind this provision but notes two substantive concerns 

with the draft language. First, Congress sought to ensure that Veteran small business owners genuinely own and control the small business receiving benefits under 

the Veterans First Contracting Program. This would be a challenge for members of 

the regular Armed Forces, especially those serving in active duty abroad. Moreover, 

members of the Armed Forces are also Federal employees, which places limits on 

their ability to receive Federal contracts under conflict of interest rules. In practice, 

this rule would mainly apply to members of the National Guard and Army Reserve 

who own small businesses in their civilian lives, become activated, and are killed 

in the line of duty, leaving survivors to assume operational control of the firm as 

a service-disabled Veteran-owned small business. Second, if a dependent child owner 

is still a minor, this may complicate the actual operation of this rule because of limitations on a minor’s capacity to enter into binding contracts or engage in commercial 

transactions as an owner. The firm may need to reside in a trust for the benefit 

of the dependent minor child with an adult trustee controlling the firm until the 

dependent reaches adulthood. VA would be pleased to provide technical assistance 

to seek resolution of these issues. 

VA anticipates enactment of this provision would entail minor administrative 

costs. VA would incorporate this change into its existing application processes with 

no material addition to costs. 

Section 202 

Section 202 would require VA to submit a report on the standard of proof for service-connected disability compensation for military sexual trauma (MST)-based mental health conditions to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs no 

later than 90 days after enactment. The report would include recommendations for 

an appropriate standard of proof and legislative actions, if necessary. 

VA believes this legislation is unnecessary as VA provided a report with this information to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in March 2015 and 

can share it with other interested Congressional offices. 

No benefit or GOE costs would be associated with enactment of this section. 

29 

Section 203 

Section 203 would require VA to submit a report with data on compensation 

claims for MST-based PTSD to Congress no later than December 1, 2016 and each 

year thereafter through 2020. The report would include the following information 

from the preceding fiscal year: 

1. The number of MST-related PTSD claims submitted; 

2. The number and percentage of claims submitted by gender; 

3. The number of approved claims, including number and percentage by gender; 

4. The number of denied claims, including number and percentage by gender; 

5. The number of claims assigned to each rating percentage, including number 

and percentage by gender; 

6. The three most common reasons given for denial of such claims under 38 U.S.C. 

§ 5104(b)(1); 

7. The number of denials that were based on the failure of the Veteran to report 

for a medical examination; 

8. The number of MST-based PTSD claims resubmitted after denial in a previous 

adjudication and items 2–7 from this list for this subset of claims; 

9. The number of claims that were pending at the end of the fiscal year and separately the number of such claims on appeal; and 

10. The average number of days to complete MST-based PTSD claims. 

VA believes this legislation is unnecessary as VA provided a report with most of 

this information to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in March 2015 

and can share it with other interested Congressional offices. If additional information or data for subsequent years are needed, VA can provide this to interested Congressional offices without legislation. 

No benefit or GOE costs would be associated with enactment of this section. 

Section 204 

Section 204 would direct VA to establish a one-year pilot program within 90 days 

of enactment to assess the feasibility and advisability of expediting the treatment 

of certain DIC claims, to include claims submitted: 

1. Within one year of the death of the Veteran upon whose service the claim is 

based; 

2. By dependents of Veterans who received benefits for one or more service-connected conditions as of the date of death; 

3. With evidence indicating the Veteran’s death was due to a service-connected 

or compensable disability; and 

4. By a spouse of a deceased Veteran who certifies that he or she has not remarried since the Veteran’s death. 

Section 204 would also require VA to submit a report to the House and Senate 

Committees on Veterans’ Affairs within 270 days of completing the pilot program. 

The report would include: 

1. The number of DIC claims adjudicated under the pilot disaggregated by claims 

received by a spouse, child, or parent of a deceased Veteran; 

2. The number of DIC claims adjudicated but for which benefits were not awarded 

under the pilot disaggregated by claims received by a spouse, child, or parent of a 

deceased Veteran; 

3. A comparison of accuracy and timeliness of claims adjudicated under the pilot 

and DIC claims not adjudicated under the pilot; 

4. VA’s finding with respect to the pilot; and 

5. Recommendations the VA may have for legislative or administrative action to 

improve processing of DIC claims. 

VA supports the intent of this legislation, but believes it is unnecessary. As discussed above, in fiscal year 2013, VBA’s P&F Service reviewed the policies and procedures applicable to the adjudication of DIC claims to identify obstacles to timely 

processing. P&F Service determined that VA could quickly grant many DIC claims 

with little or no additional development, and that certain claim processing steps are 

redundant and appropriate for elimination. On March 22, 2013, P&F Service issued 

Fast Letter 13–04 (FL 13–04), Simplified Processing of Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation (DIC) Claims, which instructs VBA field staff on the procedures to 

follow when processing claims. 

The new procedures require screening of claims at the intake point and limited 

or no development of additional evidence when information in VBA systems supports granting benefits. It also clarifies that VA grants DIC under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 

based upon total service-connected disability for a prescribed period before death in 

the same manner as if the death were service-connected. Accordingly, in these cases, 

30 

our field staff will grant service-connected burial benefits and presume the permanence of total disability for purposes of establishing the survivor’s entitlement to VA 

education and health care benefits. These new procedures allowed us to grant DIC 

benefits faster and without unnecessary development. 

Also, as discussed above, on July 7, 2014, VA automated some benefits to surviving spouses. VA can now automatically pay certain surviving spouses under section 1318. As part of VA’s notice of death process, VA systems determine if the deceased Veteran met the requirements of section 1318 and if the surviving spouse 

met the relationship requirements. If the system determines that both requirements 

are met, it will automatically process and award DIC under section 1318 within six 

days of notification of the Veteran’s death. 

Based on these changes and aggressive workload management plan in VA’s Pension Management Centers, VA has reduced its pending DIC claim inventory by 55 

percent from its peak of 19,100 claims to 8,600 claims. Average processing time for 

these claims has improved by 100 days from its peak of 168 days to 68 days while 

maintaining 99 percent accuracy. 

VA estimates no benefit or GOE costs would be associated with enactment of this 

section. 

Section 205 

Section 205 would require VA, DOD, and military historians recommended by 

DOD to review the process used to determine if individuals who applied for Filipino 

Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC) benefits served during World War II in accordance with the requirements to receive this benefit payment. Section 205 would 

also require VA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs no later than 90 days after enactment. The report would detail any 

findings, actions taken, or recommendations for legislative action with respect to the 

review. If a new process is established as a result of this review, the process shall 

include mechanisms to ensure individuals who receive payments did not engage in 

any disqualifying conduct during their service, including collaboration with the 

enemy or criminal conduct. 

VA does not support this section. In determining whether a claimant is eligible 

for a VA benefit, including FVEC, VA is legally bound by service department determinations as to what service a claimant performed. VA regulations provide two 

methods for establishing service. Under 38 CFR § 3.203(a), VA may accept evidence 

submitted by a claimant if the evidence is a document issued by a U.S. service department; contains the needed information as to length, time, and character of service; and, in VA’s opinion, is genuine and accurate. Otherwise, under 38 CFR 

§ 3.203(c), VA must seek verification of service from the appropriate service department. These regulations are applicable to all claimants. For claims based on Philippine Service in World War II, the U.S. Army is the relevant service department, 

but VA requests verification from the National Personnel Records Center which, 

since 1998, has acted as the custodian of the U.S. Army’s collection of Philippine 

Army and Guerrilla records. 

No benefit or GOE costs would be associated with enactment of this section. 

Section 301 

Section 301 would require VA to conduct a study and report to Congress on matters relating to the interment of unclaimed remains of Veterans in national cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration (NCA), including: 

(1) determining the scope of issues relating to unclaimed remains of Veterans, to 

include an estimate of the number of unclaimed remains; (2) assessing the effectiveness of VA’s procedures for working with persons or entities having custody of unclaimed remains to facilitate interment in national cemeteries; (3) assessing State 

and local laws that affect the Secretary’s ability to inter such remains; and (4) recommending legislative or administrative action the VA considers appropriate. 

Section 301 would provide flexibility for VA to review a subset of applicable entities in the estimating of the number of unclaimed remains of Veterans as well as 

assess a sampling of applicable State and local laws. 

In December 2014, NCA published a Fact Sheet to provide the public with information on VA burial benefits for unclaimed remains of Veterans. NCA prepared the 

Fact Sheet in collaboration with representatives from NCA, VBA, and VHA. As well 

as being posted on VA’s Web site, the Fact Sheet was widely distributed to targeted 

employees in VA, including Homeless Veteran Coordinators, Decedent Affairs personnel, VBA Regional Compensation Representatives, and NCA Cemetery Directors 

as well as shared in a GovDelivery message sent to over 28,000 funeral director and 

coroner’s office recipients who are entities that may come to NCA seeking assistance 

to ensure burial of a Veteran whose remains are unclaimed. 

31 

NCA strongly supports the goal of ensuring all Veterans, including those whose 

remains are unclaimed and do not have sufficient resources, who earned the right 

to burial and memorialization in a national, State, or tribal Veterans cemetery are 

accorded that honor. NCA appreciates the continued Congressional support to meet 

the needs of Veterans whose remains are unclaimed. While NCA is remains concerned that the study may be unnecessary or premature at this time, we would appreciate working with the Committee to make sure any study that the Department 

is mandated to produce is targeting data that can be used to better serve these Veterans. 

Over the past several years, Congressional and Departmental actions have increased the Department’s ability to ensure dignified burials for the unclaimed remains of eligible Veterans. The Dignified Burial and Other Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–260) authorizes VA to furnish benefits for 

the burial in a national cemetery for the unclaimed remains of a Veteran with no 

known next-of-kin and where sufficient financial resources are not available for this 

purpose. Those benefits include reimbursements for the cost of a casket or urn, for 

costs of transportation to the nearest national cemetery, and for certain funeral expenses. 

NCA is pleased to report that our final rule was published on April 13, 2015, beginning today, we are able to accept requests for reimbursement for caskets or urns 

purchased for the interment of deceased Veterans who died on or after January 10, 

2014, without next of kin, and where sufficient resources for burial are not available. As this new benefit is administered, NCA will have a new source for collecting 

data on the number of Veterans whose unclaimed remains are brought to NCA for 

interment. The data can be used to assist in targeting outreach efforts to partners 

and getting a fuller understanding of the issue. 

The Department continues to identify areas to recommend legislative or administrative action that would support dignified burial of unclaimed remains of Veterans. 

Two legislative proposals are included in VA’s FY 2016 Budget Submission. Currently, VA may furnish a reimbursement for the cost of a casket or urn and for the 

cost of transportation to the nearest national cemetery. These benefits are based on 

the Veteran being interred in a VA national cemetery. The legislative proposals are 

to expand these two benefits to include those Veterans who are interred in a state 

or tribal organization Veteran cemetery. 

In conjunction with discussions we had last year with congressional staff, NCA 

reviewed its internal procedures and began to follow-up every thirty days with the 

public officials on any unclaimed remain cases shown as pending until the cases are 

scheduled for burial and the Veterans’ remains are interred. While state and local 

laws designate who may act as an authorized representative to claim remains, NCA 

can work with any individual or entity that contacts us to determine a Veteran’s 

eligibility for burial and scheduling the burial in a VA national cemetery. 

The great work of the Missing in America Project (MIAP) and individual funeral 

directors is invaluable in complementing VA’s role of ensuring that all Veterans, including those whose unclaimed remains are brought to us, receive the proper resources to ensure receipt of a dignified burial. Over the past several years, NCA has 

developed a strong working relationship with funeral homes, coroner offices, and 

medical examiners, to actively provide responses to requests for eligibility reviews. 

In FY 2014, NCA processed 2,805 MIAP requests to determine eligibility for burial 

in a VA national cemetery, of which 1,642 were verified as eligible. 

In light of VA’s recent activities, detailed above, to implement legislation targeted 

at ensuring appropriate burial of the unclaimed remains of Veterans, NCA feels it 

is premature to undertake the proposed study. Furthermore, if legislation is passed 

requiring the study, we do not object to the proposed scope and content, we are concerned that the timeframe for reporting in the bill is unrealistic. 

To implement the mandatory requirements outlined in the bill, even with the 

flexibilities included in the bill language, the Department would be required to contract with one or more private entities to perform such a study. Survey instruments 

would need to be developed to assess the number of remains in the possession of 

funeral directors and other entities for individuals with no known next of kin, and 

an appropriate sample would have to be identified and a legal review of state and 

local laws conducted regarding unclaimed remains of Veterans. 

The bill provides a reporting timeframe of one year. The need to get formal clearances on survey instruments takes several months; therefore, a more realistic timeframe is two years. 

The bill does not identify a funding source for this mandate. NCA is still evaluating the cost associated with this legislation. 

32 

Section 401 

Section 401 would honor any person entitled under chapter 1223 of title 10, 

United States Code, to retired pay for nonregular service or who, but for age, would 

be entitled under this chapter to retired pay for nonregular service, as a Veteran. 

However, these individuals would not be entitled to any benefit by reason of this 

honor. 

VA does not support this section. It would conflict with the definition of ‘‘Veteran’’ 

in 38 U.S.C. § 101(2) and would cause confusion about the definition of a Veteran 

and associated benefits. In title 38, United States Code, Veteran status is conditioned on the performance of ‘‘active military, naval, or air service.’’ Under current 

law, a National Guard or Reserve member is considered to have had such service 

only if he or she served on active duty, was disabled or died during active duty for 

training from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, or was disabled or died during inactive duty training from an injury incurred or aggravated 

in line of duty or from an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident. Section 401 would eliminate these service requirements for National Guard or Reserve members who served in such a capacity for at least 20 

years. Retirement status alone would make them eligible for Veteran status. 

VA recognizes that the National Guard and Reserves have admirably served this 

country and in recent years have played an important role in our Nation’s overseas 

conflicts. Nevertheless, VA does not support this bill because it represents a departure from active service as the foundation for Veteran status. This section would extend Veteran status to those who never performed active military, naval, or air service, the very circumstance which qualifies an individual as a Veteran. Thus, this 

section would equate longevity of reserve service with the active service long ago 

established as the hallmark for Veteran status. 

VA estimates that there would be no additional benefit or administrative costs associated with this section of the bill if enacted. 

This concludes my testimony. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views 

on these bills and look forward to working with the Committee. 

33 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS SUBMITTED AFTER THE HEARING BY HON. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


715ps2VA1.eps
34 


715ps2VA2.eps
35 


715ps2VA3.eps
36 


715ps2VA4.eps
37 


715ps2VA5.eps
38 


715ps2VA6.eps
39 


715ps2VA7.eps
40 


715ps2VA8.eps
41 


715ps2VA9.eps
42 


715ps2VA10.eps
43 


715ps2VA11.eps
44 


715ps2VA12.eps
45 


715ps2VA13.eps
46 


715ps2VA14.eps
47 


715ps2VA15.eps
48 


715ps2VA16.eps
49 


715ps2VA17.eps
50 


715ps2VA18.eps
51 


715ps2VA19.eps
52 


715ps2VA20.eps
53 


715ps2VA21.eps
54 


715ps2VA22.eps
55 


715ps2VA23.eps
56 


715ps2VA24.eps
57 


715ps2VA25.eps
58 


715ps2VA26.eps
59 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Brown, would you have a question? 

HON. SHERROD BROWN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO 

Senator BROWN. I do not, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Mr. McLenachen, did you not say in your 

statement you were deferring any conversation on the AyotteMoran bill to Ms. Szybala? 


715ps2VA27.eps
60 

Ms. SZYBALA. Yes. 

Chairman ISAKSON. He gives you all the easy work, does he not, 

Ms. Szybala? 

Ms. SZYBALA. Yes. Absolutely. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Do you have any comment? 

Ms. SZYBALA. I do. I do. Basically, VA supports the goals of the 

bill, which are to give us more tools to achieve accountability and 

to hold those responsible for manipulating the wait lists and disserving veterans that way. Our problem with the bill is that we 

count four different ways in which it is constitutionally questionable, constitutionally debatable, and constitutionally attackable so 

that we are going to be tied up in litigation about this bill for a 

long time. 

The four ways, if you want me to go through them are—they are 

in David’s written testimony, but we have ex post facto law, we 

have a retroactive law, we have a lack of due process, and we 

have—what is number 4—oh, we have unconstitutional takings 

under the Fifth Amendment. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Can I interrupt you there? 

Ms. SZYBALA. Sure. Please. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Has the VA ever considered establishing a 

rule that would allow it the ability to take back a bonus for somebody that was found to have deprived veterans of benefits that 

were intended for the veteran? 

Ms. SZYBALA. No. I am sure we could not do that by rule. We 

would need legislation to do that. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Let me explain why I made that comment. 

Ms. SZYBALA. Yes. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Every time the VA is here about something 

that is embarrassing, which is embarrassing for the VA and it is 

embarrassing for us in Congress, it is always ‘‘somebody else did 

it,’’ or ‘‘something will not let me do it.’’ I have not seen anybody 

come forward with a proposal stating, we would like to change the 

law to say X, Y, or Z dealing with taking this compensation 

situation. 

And, I am not afraid of going to the courts. I think it is about 

time that we—the courts are there—our Constitution has three 

branches of government. You are in the executive branch, I am the 

legislative, and the courts are the arbitrators in the judicial 

branch. I think it is about time agencies of government that are 

having problems with employees being non-compliant with the 

rules of the Department or, in fact, doing their job, had regulations 

that had accountability in them and let us let the courts strike 

them down rather than just saying we cannot do it. I am going to 

see Secretary McDonald in about 30 minutes and I am going to tell 

him the same thing about another subject. 

I appreciate the employees at the VA and I appreciate your leadership and what you all do, but it is time that instead of playing 

defense against us or trying to react to the concerns of our constituents that you all were proactive on making recommendations in 

terms of how you change the VA to eradicate the culture of some 

of these problems that are taking place over and over and over 

again. 

61 

I do not mean to lecture to you. I am not blaming you, Ms. 

Szybala. But, I think it is time that you all—instead of telling me 

you want to have some comment on some legislation we put up, I 

would love to see you come forward with legislation that deals with 

some of the concerns we have had on construction, on bonuses, and 

on accountability for appointments. I apologize for lecturing, yet I 

wanted to get that in. 

Ms. SZYBALA. No, I appreciate that. If I may, there are ways in 

which we like this bill. We could use more tools in terms of making 

sure people are held accountable after the fact, when we find 

things like this out. The problem with this bill is that it goes too 

far back in the past. We would like it for now and the future, and 

we can work with you to try and get a bill that does it that way, 

that avoids the pitfalls we see here. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Well, forewarned is forearmed, so I think if 

you start working on getting the powers to be—and I am going to 

talk with Secretary McDonald in just a little bit—start allowing 

you to think that way and bring some of those forward to us, we 

would love to have your backside on going after those things and 

having enforcement that actually works. 

Ms. SZYBALA. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you for your testimony. 

Does anybody else have a comment? 

[No response.] 

Chairman ISAKSON. Mr. McLenachen, you made a comment 

about S. 270. You said you were for it, but there was a reservation 

about some application. What was that? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Sir, it is purely a technical matter as to how 

the language is written. I believe what Congress intends, or would 

intend, is something similar to bring us consistent with other Federal agencies, such as DOD, which has a place-of-celebration type 

rule. As written, the draft bill would have us recognize any marriage as long as that marriage is valid in any State. So, we were 

questioning whether the intent is really as it is written, which 

would basically change marriage rules for all States, so—— 

Chairman ISAKSON. If you would, if you would file that comment 

with us for the record—— 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON [continuing]. With Mr. Bowman, my Staff Director, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. We would be happy to help out with addressing that. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Any other comment? [No response.] 

If not, I want to thank panel one for their expeditious and forthright testimony and call panel two. 

I’ll also draft Senator Casey from Louisiana to be our new Chairman in about 8 minutes. [Laughter.] 

HON. BILL CASSIDY, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator CASSIDY. Well, it is Cassidy, so we had better get that 

right. [Laughter.] 

Chairman ISAKSON. Oh, what did I say? What did I say? 

Senator CASSIDY. You said Casey. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Oh, I am sorry. 

62 

Senator CASSIDY. My wife—— 

Chairman ISAKSON. I do not know why I would do that. Are you 

going to be here for a little bit? 

Senator CASSIDY. I will be here for, like, 20 minutes. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Well, you and I will be leaving at about the 

same time, so—thanks for coming. [Pause.] 

I would like to welcome the second panel. What I am going to 

do, for all of your benefit, Senator Gillibrand is on the way. If she 

gets here during your testimony, we are going to allow her to interrupt that testimony and make her presentation. 

I have to walk out of here at 3:45 to meet with Secretary McDonald. Senator Cassidy, as long as he can stay, I am going to designate him to be the presiding officer. If he cannot stay any longer, 

then before I get back, I am going to designate him the authority 

to suspend the hearing until I do get back. Is that fair enough to 

everybody? 

[Panel nodding in agreement.] 

Chairman ISAKSON. Our second panel is made up of Alphonso 

Maldon, Jr., Chairman, Military Compensation and Retirement 

Modernization Commission; accompanied by Michael Higgins, Commissioner, Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 

Commission. 

Jeffrey E. Phillips, Executive Director of the Reserve Officers 

Association. 

And, Aleks Morosky, Deputy Legislative Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

Gentlemen, welcome. Mr. Higgins, we will hear from you first. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Sir, I will defer to my Chairman, Chairman 

Maldon. 

Chairman ISAKSON. You are the date, that is right. I forgot. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I am the date. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Mr. Maldon. 

STATEMENT OF ALPHONSO MALDON, JR., CHAIRMAN, MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION 

COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL R. HIGGINS, COMMISSIONER 

Mr. MALDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Isakson and 

Members of the Committee, Commissioner Higgins and I are honored to be here today and we thank you for the opportunity to 

speak to you about the work of the Commission and the recommendations that we have made. 

The all-volunteer force is without peer. Their unwavering commitment to excellence in the service of our Nation has never been 

clearer than during the past 13 years of war. 

As Commissioners, we recognize our obligation to craft a valued 

compensation system that is both relevant to contemporary servicemembers and able to operate in a modern and efficient manner. 

Our Commissioners are unanimous in our belief that the recommendations we offered in our report strengthen the foundation 

of the all-volunteer force, ensure our national security, and truly 

honor those who served and the family members who support them 

now and into the future. 

63 

In particular, our recommendations safeguard education benefits 

to servicemembers, reduce redundancy, and ensure the fiscal sustainability of educational programs. DOD and the VA provide many 

programs that deliver educational benefits to servicemembers and 

veterans, including the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, the Montgomery G.I. 

Bill-Active Duty, the Montgomery G.I. Bill-Select Reserve, and the 

Reserve Education Assistance Program, as well as the tuition assistance. Streamlining these programs would improve the efficiency 

and fiscal sustainability of the overall education benefit program. 

Adjusting eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/11 G.I. 

Bill benefits better support critical mid-career retention and aligns 

with retention incentives in the Commission’s retirement 

recommendations. 

Eliminating the housing stipend for transferred benefit encourages younger veterans to use the education benefit themselves 

while improving fiscal sustainability. 

Our recommendation also better prepares servicemembers for 

transition to civilian life by expanding education and granting 

States more flexibility to administer the Jobs for Veterans State 

Grant Program. 

DOD should require mandatory participation in the Transition 

GPS education track for servicemembers planning to attend school 

after separation or those who have transferred their Post-9/11 G.I. 

Bill benefits. 

The Department of Labor should permit State Departments of 

Labor to work directly with State VA offices to coordinate administration of the Jobs for Veterans State Grant Programs. 

One-stop Career Center employees should attend transitioning 

GPS classes to develop personal connections with transitioning 

veterans. 

A review of the core curriculum for Transition GPS should be required to re-evaluate whether the current curriculum accurately 

addresses the needs of transitioning servicemembers. 

DOD, VA, and DOL should be required to produce a one-time 

joint report regarding the challenges employers face when seeking 

to hire veterans. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we again thank you for the opportunity to be here today. It has been our honor and privilege to 

serve American servicemembers, veterans, and their families as we 

have assessed the current compensation and retirement programs, 

deliberated the best path to modernization, and offered our recommendations. We are confident that our recommendations, if 

adopted, will indeed serve our servicemembers in a positive, profound, and lasting way. 

We are pleased to answer any questions you have, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maldon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALPHONSO MALDON, JR., CHAIRMAN, MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL

R. HIGGINS, COMMISSIONER

Representative of: 

Hon. Alphonso Maldon, Jr., Chairman 

Hon. Larry L. Pressler 

Hon. Stephen E. Buyer 

Hon. Dov S. Zakheim 

64 

Mr. Michael R. Higgins 

General Peter W. Chiarelli, United 

States Army (Ret.) 

Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., 

United States Navy (Ret.) 

Hon. J. Robert Kerrey 

Hon. Christopher P. Carney 

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, distinguished Members of the 

Committee: We are honored to be here and thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. 

Our All-Volunteer Force is without peer. This fact has been proven during the last 

42 years and decisively reinforced during the last 13 years of war. It is our obligation to ensure the Nation has the proper resources to support our veterans. Those 

resources include a valued compensation system that is relevant to contemporary 

Servicemembers and veterans, and that is operated in a modern and efficient manner. We are unanimous in our belief that our recommendations strengthen the foundation of the All-Volunteer Force and ensure our national security, now and into the 

future. 

Our work represents the most holistic and comprehensive review of military compensation and benefits since the inception of the All-Volunteer Force. Our Interim 

Report, published in June, 2014, documents the relevant laws, regulations, and policies; associated appropriated Federal funding; and historical and contextual backgrounds of more than 350 compensation programs. Consistent with our Congressional mandate, programs were reviewed to determine if modernization would ensure the long-term viability of the All-Volunteer Force, enable the quality of life for 

members of the Armed Forces and the other Uniformed Services, and achieve fiscal 

sustainability for compensation and retirement systems. 

Our report is informed by our life-long experiences, but more importantly by the 

insights of a broad range of Servicemembers, veterans, retirees, and their families. 

More than 150,000 current and retired Servicemembers responded to the Commission’s survey. The Commission visited 55 military installations, affording us the opportunity to discuss compensation issues with Servicemembers worldwide. We developed an ongoing working relationship with more than 30 Military and Veteran Service Organizations. We also received input from more than 20 Federal agencies; several Department of Defense working groups; and numerous research institutions, 

private firms, and not-for-profit organizations. 

Our recommendations align compensation and benefit programs to the preferences 

of the modern Force and societal shifts since the inception of the All-Volunteer 

Force. By maintaining or improving benefits, while concurrently reducing costs, our 

recommendations address the ongoing tension between maintaining Servicemember 

benefits and reducing personnel budgets to meet the demands of the new fiscally 

constrained environment. 

11. SAFEGUARD EDUCATION BENEFITS FOR SERVICEMEMBERS BY REDUCING

REDUNDANCY AND ENSURING THE FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY OF EDUCATION PROGRAMS

DOD and the VA provide many programs that deliver educational benefits to Servicemembers and veterans. Current education assistance programs include the Post9/11 GI Bill, the Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty, the Montgomery GI Bill Selected 

Reserve, the Reserve Education Assistance Program, and Tuition Assistance. There 

are duplicative and inefficient education benefits that should be streamlined to improve the sustainability of the overall education benefits program. 

Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty should be sunset on October 1, 2015. Reserve 

Education Assistance Program (REAP) should be sunset, restricting any further enrollment and allowing those currently pursuing an education program with REAP 

to complete their studies. Already enrolled Servicemembers who elect to switch to 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill should receive a full or partial refund of the $1,200 that was 

paid to buy in to the MGIB-AD. Eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/11 

GI Bill benefits should be increased to 10 years of service, plus an additional commitment of 2 years of service. The housing stipend for dependents should be sunset 

on July 1, 2017. Eligibility for unemployment compensation should be eliminated for 

anyone receiving housing stipend benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. When providing feedback in comments to the Commission, Servicemembers repeatedly emphasized the importance of education benefits as recruiting and retention tools. Ensuring the robustness of education programs is one of the best ways to guarantee 

the future of the All-Volunteer Force. This recommendation would also support GI 

Bill benefits, including transferability, while improving their fiscal sustainability. 

65 

12. BETTER PREPARE SERVICEMEMBERS FOR TRANSITION TO CIVILIAN LIFE BY EXPANDING EDUCATION AND GRANTING STATES MORE FLEXIBILITY TO ADMINISTER THE JOBS

FOR VETERANS STATE GRANTS PROGRAM

DOD, in partnership with the Department of Labor, the VA, and the Small Business Administration, maintains the Transition GPS program to help Servicemembers and their families prepare for a successful transition to civilian life. Transition GPS services are delivered through a series of workshops administered by 

each Service. The DOL administers One-Stop Career Centers which offer employment services for job seekers across the country, including veterans after they have 

transitioned to civilian life. These facilities are part of state workforce agencies or 

employment commissions and are partially funded through a number of grants 

under DOL’s Jobs for Veterans State Grants program. Despite these services, transitioning from military service to civilian life is more difficult than it needs to be. 

DOD should require mandatory participation in the Transition GPS education track 

for Servicemembers planning to attend school after separation or those who have 

transferred their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. The Department of Labor should permit 

state departments of labor to work directly with state VA offices to coordinate administration of the Jobs for Veterans State Grants program. Furthermore, One-Stop 

Career Center employees should attend Transition GPS classes to develop personal 

connections with transitioning veterans. A review of the core curriculum for Transition GPS should be required to reevaluate whether the current curriculum accurately addresses the needs of transitioning Servicemembers, and DOD, VA, and 

DOL should be required to produce a one-time joint report regarding the challenges 

employers face when seeking to hire veterans. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify regarding our recommendations. 

We also want to thank all who contributed to our final report. The Commission is 

grateful to have been given the opportunity to make recommendations to strengthen 

the best All-Volunteer Force in the world. Ensuring our Servicemembers, veterans, 

retirees, and their families’ get the support they need is a responsibility the Commission took very seriously. Thank you to all those who serve, those who have 

served, and the families that support them. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Maldon, for your 

testimony. 

I am going to ask Mr. Phillips, if he would, give Senator 

Gillibrand his seat. Senator Gillibrand. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. It would be my honor. 

Chairman ISAKSON. This is a non-conventional meeting of the 

Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I can tell you that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. PHILLIPS. We are flexible. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Roberts Rules of Order do not include all of 

this, but we have all got a SASC meeting today—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Yes. 

Chairman ISAKSON. We are meeting here and there are a lot of 

other important meetings. We want to make sure you are recognized to present your bill, understanding that when you complete 

your presentation, I am going to turn over the chairmanship of the 

Committee to Mr. Cassidy, who will finish the hearing, as long as 

he can stay. 

So, Senator Gillibrand from New York, you are on. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do thank 

you for letting me come now. We are in the middle of the Armed 

Services markup, so it was for good reason. 

Today’s hearing on S. 681, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015, is a very important piece of legislation that I 

have talked to veterans over the last 10 years about. This piece of 

66 

legislation would ensure that thousands of brave veterans who 

were exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War receive VA 

care for illnesses related to their Agent Orange exposure. 

Agent Orange was dangerous. It was toxic. It was poisonous. It 

filled the air and poisoned the water and severely damaged the 

health of the people who were exposed to it. The U.S. Government 

has recognized the harmful effects of Agent Orange since the 1960s 

and the VA actively provides care and coverage to many soldiers 

who were exposed to Agent Orange. 

The problem we face today is that under current VA rules, the 

only U.S. veterans who are counted as having been exposed to this 

deadly chemical are the people who were actually on the ground, 

on Vietnamese soil, and the people who served on boats on Vietnam rivers, referred to as Brown Water Veterans. But, the current 

VA rules exclude the thousands of Navy veterans who were stationed on ships just off the Vietnamese coastline. This does not 

make any sense and it is not fair to these men and women. 

Agent Orange did not discriminate between those who stood on 

boats on rivers and those who stood on boats offshore. So, why 

should the VA discriminate between the two? 

Because of this arbitrary and bureaucratic rule, thousands of our 

Navy veterans are suffering. It is time to right this wrong. Let us 

cut the red tape that is causing additional suffering. 

Bobby Condon is one of those veterans. He is from Brooklyn. He 

joined the Navy when he was a teenager and he went to Vietnam 

at the age of 18 because he wanted to serve our country. Like 

countless others, Bobby was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam. 

He served on the U.S.S. Intrepid, which is now a world class museum on the Hudson River in New York City, which my little boys 

love. 

Bobby moved propeller planes and bomber jets on the Intrepid’s 

flight deck. These planes had dropped Agent Orange and after 

their missions were done still contained its residue. It was Bobby’s 

job to handle these planes. Bobby was a serial nail biter, and he 

believes that Agent Orange toxins seeped into his body when he bit 

his nails. Bobby is in his late 60s now and suffers from leukemia, 

a disease linked to Agent Orange exposure. He has been dealing 

with it for almost 20 years. 

So, what do you think the Department of Veterans Affairs did 

when Bobby first went to them for coverage? They said, sorry, your 

boat was here, not here, so we cannot help you. Sorry, you did not 

have boots on the ground. All those Blue Water Navy veterans like 

Bobby were being let down. Bobby said it best. He said, ‘‘All I 

wanted is what I deserve.’’ 

We have an obligation to give back to the brave men and women 

who risked their lives for us, because each day that we delay passage of this bill, Vietnam veterans continue to become ill and go 

bankrupt from trying to pay medical bills because they are unable 

to receive coverage from the VA. 

Mr. Chairman, because of this urgent issue, I request that this 

Committee mark up this legislation and expeditiously report it favorably to the floor for consideration by the full Senate. 

I would also like to add to the record remarks by Senator Daines, 

who is the cosponsor of this bill. He is extremely grateful that this 

67 

hearing is being held, and he fundamentally believes that our veterans do not deserve subpar care. He believes it is unacceptable 

that a technicality in the law and a dysfunctional Federal bureaucracy has resulted in the prolonged suffering of thousands of our 

Nation’s heroes. He knows this legislation would make a difference. 

I submit his statement for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Steve Daines of Montana can 

be found in the Appendix.] 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for your indulgence. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Well, thank you, Senator Gillibrand. For 

your information, the Committee will have a markup on your bill 

and the others that are being presented today sometime in the 

month of June. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. You will be notified, as well as Senator 

Daines. We appreciate your interest in the Committee and the 

veterans. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Mr. Phillips, at this point in time, I am going 

to use executive privilege and turn over to Senator Cassidy the 

gavel to conduct the rest of the hearing until I get back, with explicit instructions to adjourn the hearing if I do not get back and 

everybody is through saying what they have got to say. Is that fair 

enough? 

Just 1 second, Mr. Phillips. 

Senator CASSIDY [presiding]. Mr. Phillips, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY E. PHILLIPS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Senator Cassidy, distinguished Members of the 

Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and hard working staff, 

thank you for inviting the Reserve Officers Association of the 

United States to testify on issues that affect the National Guard 

and Reserve of our Nation’s Armed Forces. 

From north to south, east to west, America’s young men and 

women have for more than two centuries affirmed the wisdom of 

our founders in their willingness to engage boldly, selflessly, and 

with great fidelity in the defense of our way of life. Among them 

are those in our Reserve components whose yearning for service 

finds outlet in a particularly demanding regimen. They must balance military service, always a consuming and uncompromising 

business, with the demands of a civilian work life and the care of 

their families. They ask only for the opportunity, the requisite tools 

and training, and good leadership. 

It is the privilege of us in the advocacy community, such as ROA 

and our fellow service organizations, to look past official messaging, 

seek beyond official policy and existing law, and identify opportunities to improve both our Nation’s resourcing and support of these 

young patriots and also their very employment in the furtherance 

of our national security. 

The Selected Reserves contribute more than 820,000 members of 

our Armed Forces. Since 9/11, more than 900,000 members of the 

Guard and Reserve have been activated for service in these wars. 

68 

These men and women serve us every day, in remote places as well 

as cities in turmoil right here at home. Each act of service incurs 

personal risk, voluntarily accepted. 

Do you know that many of these members of the Guard and Reserve will never be veterans in the eyes of the law? It is on behalf 

of these patriots, as well as a matter of sheer honor, that ROA supports S. 743, Honor America’s Guard and Reserve Retirees Act of 

2015. 

A friend of mine, Bonnie Carroll, founded Tragedy Assistance 

Program for Survivors after her husband, an Army officer, was 

killed in a military plane crash. TAPS is expert in the care of survivors. They focus on supporting those who have lost a loved one 

in military service, yet provide expertise to all who ask. Bonnie 

herself served 32 years in the military, in both the Air National 

Guard and the Air Force Reserve. Because of the requirement to 

have so many days on active duty, she is technically not a veteran. 

Bonnie is focused on others. She would never ask for anything for 

herself. ROA supports this legislation for her and the many others 

like her. 

Title 38 U.S.C. 101 defines a veteran as a person who served in 

the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged 

or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable. 

The word ‘‘active’’ is left very generally here. Ladies and gentlemen, is there any doubt that Reserve component members have 

met and do meet this definition? 

S. 743 helps recognize the fidelity of service demonstrated by 

members of our Reserve components. We urge passage. 

Another bill that supports equity is S. 681, the Blue Water Navy 

Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015. The Department of Veterans Affairs 

in 1991 extended presumption of Agent Orange exposure to Vietnam veterans, yet some veterans who were exposed to toxins such 

as Agent Orange while serving in trust and good faith have yet to 

be served in return. 

Blue Water veterans of the naval services were likely exposed to 

Agent Orange, and the Institute of Medicine recommended these 

veterans not be excluded from presumption of exposure. Air Force 

Reserve C–123 air crews were also exposed to Agent Orange. They 

deserve inclusion for service disability in connection with Agent Orange exposure, and ROA is working on that. 

Many warriors since World War I have been exposed to toxins 

and related risks, be it mustard gas, asbestos, Agent Orange, and 

so forth. We must be accountable for this exposure and the resultant effects. We urge the DOD, working with VA, to maintain registries of toxin exposure that would help in identifying maladies 

and establishing connections as well as treatments, and perhaps 

offer lessons helpful in the responsible use of toxins. 

Finally, S. 602, the G.I. Bill Fairness Act of 2015, will correct a 

disparity, likely one made unintentionally, between active and Reserve component members. A Reservist placed on orders for medical care no longer earns education benefits. An active component 

servicemember placed in a similar medical status does continue to 

earn education benefits. ROA supports the reform offered in S. 602. 

Senator, my time is up, and so we respectfully request our written testimony be submitted for the record. 

69 

ROA, chartered by Congress in 1950 to support our national defense and those who serve in the Reserve components, appreciates 

the opportunity to respond to the proposed legislation today and 

looks forward to helping the Committee in its vitally important 

work. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY E. PHILLIPS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE

OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

The Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA) is a professional association of commissioned, non-commissioned and warrant officers of our Nation’s 

seven uniformed services. ROA was founded in 1922 during the drawdown years following the end of World War I. It was formed as a permanent institution dedicated 

to national defense, with a goal to teach America about the dangers of unpreparedness. Under ROA’s 1950 congressional charter, our purpose is to promote the development and execution of policies that will provide adequate national defense. We 

do so by developing and offering expertise on the use and resourcing of America’s 

reserve components. 

The association’s members include Guard and Reserve Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, 

Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen who frequently serve on active duty to meet critical 

needs of the uniformed services. ROA’s membership also includes commissioned officers from the United States Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who often are first responders during national disasters 

and help prepare for homeland security. 

President: 

Brigadier General Michael Silva, U.S. Army Reserve (Ret.) 

202–646–7706 

Executive Director: 

Jeffrey Phillips 

202–646–7726 

Legislative Director: 

Lieutenant Colonel Susan Lukas, U. S. Air Force Reserve (Ret.) 

202–646–7713 

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL GRANTS OR CONTRACTS

The Reserve Officers and is a member-supported organization. ROA has not received grants, contracts, or subcontracts from the Federal Government in the past 

three years. All other activities and services of the associations are accomplished 

free of any direct Federal funding. 

On behalf of our members, the Reserve Officers Association thanks the Committee 

for the opportunity to submit testimony on legislation proposed by Congress, the Department of Defense and the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 

Commission. 

S. 602, G.I. BILL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015

ROA wholeheartedly supports this proposal to continue eligibility for the Post-9/ 

11 GI Bill when a member of the reserve component is receiving medical care under 

Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 12301(h). Placing reserve component 

servicemembers on these active duty orders is done for administrative purposes and 

Guard and Reserve members should not lose eligibility for education benefits. The 

change in status from one type of order to 10 United States Code 12301(h) is done 

to unencumber direct operation support billets. The change from one type of active 

duty order to another type of order should not be seen as change to a lesser duty 

status. The proposed legislation removes the disparity between the reserve component and active component, since active duty servicemembers continue to earn education benefits when they are in the same medical care status. Title 38 U.S.C. 3301, 

which is addressed in the bill, already includes detainee status, 10 U.S.C. 12301(g), 

and, therefore, does not need to be part of the G.I. Bill Fairness Act of 2015. 

70 

S. 681, BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS ACT OF 2015

ROA urges Congress to support Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange when ships manufactured fresh water by taking sea water, 

contaminated with Agent Orange off of the coast of Vietnam. This occurred when 

the rain washed Agent Orange through water tributaries to the South China Sea. 

On board ship, potable water (sea water distilled one time) is used for showers, 

shaving, cooking, coffee, laundry and dishwashing, which explains how sailors were 

directly exposed to the contaminated water. Agent Orange is a nonsoluble salt that 

migrates to the sides of the distillation equipment. It builds up over time increasing 

the potency of the chemical. The distillation equipment is cleaned on a 36 month 

regular overhaul schedule which means sailors on ship are exposed to Agent Orange 

for a protracted period of time. The Department of Defense does not have a toxic 

exposure policy to identify and study servicemembers who are exposed to toxic 

chemicals even though exposure to toxins has occurred in every modern war. A policy that tracks exposure could ultimately reduce health care costs through the collection of verifiable data rather than rely on designation of presumption status 

through the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION— 

EDUCATION BENEFITS

Sec 1101: The commission recommendation sunsets the Montgomery G.I. Bill for 

Reserve Educational Assistance Program (MGIB-REAP) in favor of the Post-9/11 

G.I. education bill. Making this change would end education benefits much sooner 

for Guard and Reserve under the Post-9/11 option. MGIB-REAP allows servicemembers to use the benefit 10 years from the day they leave the Selected Reserve 

or the day they leave the Individual Ready Reserve. For the Post-9/11 education 

benefit, they have 15 years from the last day of their active duty order. For example, a reservist is on active duty orders for 90 days until March 25, 2015. This 

means the reservist can use Post-9/11 education benefits until March 25, 2030. 

Under the same orders the reservist earns MGIB-REAP and retires from the Selected Reserve on April 1, 2025. The reservist’s MGIB-REAP benefit can be used 10 

years after retirement, until April 1, 2035. Guard and Reserve members work at two 

jobs, their civilian job and as reserve component servicemembers. Guard and Reserve members have clearly earned both benefits and should be able to use the education benefit that best serves their education goals or the Post-9/11 G.I. bill should 

be adjusted to use the same MGIB-REAP expiration of benefits criteria for Guard 

and Reserve. 

Sec 1103: This section applies to the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve when they agree to remain a member of the Selected Reserve for at least 4 

years after completion of the education or training for which the tuition charges are 

paid. The change allows the service Secretary to deny tuition assistance if the education or training does not contribute to the servicemember’s professional development. ROA agrees tuition assistance for professional development is reasonable but 

we are concerned with the subjective manner that ‘‘professional development’’ may 

be defined. For example, a noncommissioned officer is a personnel specialist and is 

pursuing a bachelor of science degree in management with George Mason University, which requires a class in calculus. A determination could be made that calculus 

is not considered professional development for a servicemember in the personnel career field. The class, if taken in isolation, would not qualify for tuition assistance. 

To overcome that possibility, ROA recommends changing the proposed legislation to 

include any courses required by a degree that is considered ‘‘professional development.’’ 

Sec 1108: ROA has received feedback from our members who state transferability 

of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill entitlement with a housing stipend is a motivating reason 

why they volunteer for deployments. This section terminates the monthly housing 

stipend beginning on July 1, 2017. ROA is concern 2017 does not give servicemembers enough time to absorb this cost through their budget, savings, or investment planning. If Congress goes forward with this change, then ROA recommends 

termination be extended to July 1, 2021 vice July 1, 2017 to ensure all family members now matriculated are covered under the current plan. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION (MCRMC)— 

TRANSITION ASSISTANCE

SEC 1204: This section recommends, ‘‘The Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a 

review of the Department of Defense Transition GPS Program Core 

71 

Curriculum * * * ’’ and the proposal includes several matters that should be 

reviewed. ROA is concerned that the proposed legislation does not include a review 

of the effectiveness of the program for Guard and Reserve servicemembers. Transition Goals, Plans, Success (GPS) is divided into several sessions covering finances, 

family adjustments, VA benefits, employment, education and small business 

startups that are very appropriate subjects for active component servicemembers 

who are leaving the service. However, when someone in the reserve components separates at the end of their orders, they remain in the military and return to their 

unit. ROA believes the proposed legislation should rewrite MCRMC legislative proposal SEC 1204(a)(2)(A) to change ‘‘* * * needs of members of the Armed Forces 

transitioning out of military service.’’ to ‘‘* * * needs of members of the Active and 

Reserve Components of the Armed Forces transitioning out of military service.’’ This 

change would more clearly identify that Guard and Reserve needs would be considered as a separate category of the review. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Section 514: This section recommends the same legislation as S. 602 discussed 

previously. 

Section 522: This proposed change adds two involuntary call-up categories (10 

U.S.C. 12304a and 12304b) to education benefits in Title 10, Chapter 1606 and this 

is supported by ROA. The change is for when a servicemember is responding to a 

major disaster or emergency (123041) or a preplanned mission in support of the 

combatant commanders (12304b). This would ensure Title 10 legislation, that created new provisions for involuntary call-up in 2011, is included for servicemembers 

to regain lost payments and lost entitlement time for the Montgomery G.I. Bill— 

Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) benefits. It is important that an involuntary call-up 

should not allow benefits to be lost through no fault of the servicemember. This proposal would ensure all involuntary service does not result in servicemembers absorbing negative impacts to their education benefits, such as, course cancellations, 

tuition repayments or loss of entitlement time. 

Section 542: ROA included the legislative fix to exempt two duty statuses added 

in 2011 to the 5-year reemployment limit in ROA’s 2015 Legislative Plan. The 

change is for duty status when a servicemember is responding to a major disaster 

or emergency (123041) or a preplanned mission in support of the combatant commanders (12304b). USERRA significantly strengthens and expands the employment 

and reemployment rights of all uniformed servicemembers. Reemployment rights extend to persons who have been absent from a position of employment because of 

‘‘service in the uniformed services,’’ which is through the performance of duty on a 

voluntary or involuntary basis. Until the addition of two involuntary duty statuses, 

all involuntary service was exempted from the five-year limit but the latest changes 

were not added to the proposed legislative provision. It is important that an involuntary call-up should not put an individual beyond the five-year limit and cause the 

individual to lose his or her right to reemployment. 

Section 545: The proposed change to exclude Guard and Reserve members from 

pre-separation counseling when on full-time training duty, annual training duty, 

and attending service school, has merit on the face of it, but ROA believes servicemembers should have the option to attend pre-separation counseling, if they so 

need. It is hard to anticipate everyone’s unique needs and a blanket exclusion from 

receiving the counseling may mean servicemembers do not receive needed information. 

DISCUSSION DRAFT LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

S. 743: The proposed bill to recognize a reserve component member as a veteran, 

but without benefits, is a legislative goal of The Military Coalition (TMC). The TMC, 

in a letter to bill sponsors, which ROA supported, stated, ‘‘The individuals covered 

by your legislation have already earned most of the benefits granted to veterans by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs, and yet they do not have the right to call themselves veterans because their service did not include sufficient duty under Title 10 

orders. Because of this they feel dishonored by their government. Your legislation 

simply authorizes them to be honored as ‘‘veterans of the Armed Forces’’ but prohibits the award of any new benefit. The ‘Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees 

Act of 2015’ is a practical way to honor the vital role members of the Reserve Components have had in defending our Nation throughout long careers of service and 

sacrifice. And it can be done at no-cost to the American tax-payer because of your 

legislation.’’ 

72 

CONCLUSION

ROA appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony and looks forward to working with Congress, whereby, we can offer our support and perspective of the reserve 

components. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. 

Mr. Morosky. 

STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY, DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF 

FOREIGN WARS 

Mr. MOROSKY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the 

men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on 

today’s pending legislation. 

I would like to open by saying that the VFW generally supports 

all bills and proposals under discussion today and thanks the Committee for its good work in bringing them forward. Due to time constraints, however, I will focus the majority of my statement on the 

areas in which we believe they may be further strengthened. 

The Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act: The 

VFW supports this legislation, which amends Title 38 to align the 

definition of marriage with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. Simply put, if a veteran is legally married 

in a State that recognizes same-sex marriage, we believe the VA 

should provide benefits to his or her spouse or surviving spouse the 

same way it does for every other legally married veteran. 

The G.I. Bill Fairness Act: The VFW supports this legislation, 

which would require VA to consider time spent by members of the 

Reserve component receiving medical care for service-connected injuries for the purposes of determining eligibility for the Post-9/11 

G.I. Bill. We believe the time it takes to recuperate from serviceconnected injuries is still time in service to the country and that 

Reservists and Guardsmen should be recognized for that sacrifice. 

Furthermore, we urge Congress to address another inequity that 

we have identified in Post-9/11 G.I. Bill eligibility determination. 

The VFW believes that any member of the Armed Forces who was 

wounded in action should be deemed 100 percent eligible, regardless of how long they served on active duty. 

S. 627: The VFW strongly supports the intent of this legislation, 

which would require the Secretary to retroactively rescind bonuses 

paid to VA employees who were later found to have manipulated 

wait time data by purposefully omitting any veteran’s name from 

the electronic wait list as identified by an investigation by the Inspector General. The VFW strongly believes that employee accountability is critical to correcting past problems at VA and restoring 

trust of the veterans that they serve. Employees must realize that 

deliberately delaying or withholding care from a veteran is unacceptable and will not be tolerated under any circumstances, much 

less rewarded. 

With that said, the VFW also recognizes that many front-line 

employees may have been coerced into these dishonest practices by 

their superiors. For far too long, whistleblower protections were not 

properly enforced at VA, and lower-level employees were often subjected to intimidation and threats of reprisal by their superiors if 

73 

they did not comply with business practices that may have been 

dishonest. For this reason, we ask that the IG report also be required to determine which, if any, employees were coerced into 

their actions by their superiors and allow the Secretary to make a 

decision on whether or not those employees should be spared punishment on that basis. 

The Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act: The VFW strongly 

supports this legislation, which would extend presumptive service 

connection in health care for Agent Orange-related illnesses to Blue 

Water Navy veterans. We have long maintained that it is arbitrary 

and unjust that veterans who serve aboard ships in the coastal waters of veteran are denied presumptive benefits associated with 

Agent Orange exposure. 

The 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act: The VFW supports this important legislation, but has two suggestions which we 

believe would strengthen it further. First, we would ask that the 

bill be amended to indicate that VA shall notify the veteran of their 

right to an in-person hearing and shall grant such a request. Second, while the VFW supports the Comptroller General audit provision, we are not certain that the Comptroller can hire sufficient 

subject matter experts to conduct the review in the allotted time. 

For this reason, we would suggest that the Committee consider 

narrowing the scope of the study or extending the amount of time 

that the Comptroller has to conduct the review. 

The VFW generally supports all MCRMC and DOD recommendations except Section 545, which would allow DOD to not offer TAP 

to certain Reserve component members who are not activated. Although we understand that there are certain operational limitations for Reserve units that make it difficult for them to offer the 

full TAP course, we believe a better alternative, in our opinion, 

would be offering a condensed TAP course to these servicemembers. 

Finally, the draft legislation, the VFW supports all sections of 

this bill except Section 205, for which we have no position. Also, 

we support Section 206, which would require VA to submit reports 

on its disability medical exams process and the extent to which it 

is able to prevent unnecessary medical examinations. We would 

suggest, however, that the reporting requirement also include how 

many specialty examinations were ordered in cases where the veteran had already submitted a disability benefits questionnaire completed by a non-Department physician. This will help us understand the extent to which the information submitted in those cases 

is accepted by VA as adequate for deciding claims. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this concludes my 

statement and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morosky follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal and Members of the Committee, 

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 

testify on today’s pending legislation. 

74 

S. 270, CHARLIE MORGAN MILITARY SPOUSES EQUAL TREATMENT ACT OF 2015

The VFW supports this legislation, which amends title 38, United States Code, 

to align the definition of marriage with the Supreme Court’s ruling of the Defense 

of Marriage Act. Simply put, if a veteran is legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is obligated to 

provide survivor benefits to his or her spouse or surviving spouse the same way it 

does for every other legally married veteran. The VFW believes that a veteran is 

a veteran and their benefits should be provided fairly across the board. 

S. 602, G.I. BILL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015

The VFW supports legislation requiring VA to consider time spent by members 

of the reserve components while receiving medical care for service-connected injuries 

for purposes of determining eligibility for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In 2002, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs accurately stated, ‘‘the current reserve 

component status system is complex, aligns poorly to current training and operational support requirements, fosters inconsistencies in compensation and complicates rather than supports effective budgeting.’’ There is no better illustration of 

this statement than the fact that recovering guardsmen and reservists are ineligible 

for the same GI Bill benefits as their active duty counterparts. We urge Congress 

to act swiftly to end this unequal treatment by passing S. 602. 

Furthermore, we urge Congress to draft legislation that addresses additional GI 

Bill benefits inequities between war veterans from the reserve component, non-wartime veterans, and dependents. Currently, a Marine reservist could potentially deploy to a combat zone, receive a Purple Heart and still only receive 60 percent of 

his or her Post-9/11 GI Bill. Similarly, a Guardsman, who deploys twice to a combat 

zone, may only receive 80 percent of his or her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit. Meanwhile, 

a dependent of an active duty veteran who may never have deployed to combat at 

all, could receive 100 percent of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit, regardless of the dependent’s affiliation with the military in their adult life. The eligibility requirement 

for reserve component members is inherently unjust, and we ask Congress to increase Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for reserve component members who serve in a 

combat zone, especially for those wounded in action. 

S. 627, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO REVOKE BONUSES PAID

TO EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN ELECTRONIC WAIT LIST MANIPULATIONS, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES. 

The VFW supports the intent of this legislation which would require the Secretary 

to retroactively rescind bonuses paid to VA employees who are later found to have 

manipulated wait time data by purposefully omitting any veteran’s name from the 

electronic wait list, as identified by an investigation by the Inspector General (IG). 

The VFW strongly believes that employee accountability is critical to correcting 

past problems at VA and restoring the trust of the veterans they serve. Employees 

must realize that deliberately delaying or withholding care from a veteran is unacceptable and will not be tolerated under any circumstances, much less rewarded. In 

addition, supervisors who were aware of data manipulation practices by the employees below them must also be held equally accountable, as provided for in this legislation. 

With that said, the VFW also recognizes that many front-line employees may have 

been coerced into these dishonest practices by their superiors. For far too long, whistleblower protections were not properly enforced at VA, and lower level employees 

were often subjected to intimidation and threats of reprisal by their superiors if they 

did not comply with business practices that may have been dishonest. The VFW believes that this culture is changing at VA. Still, we believe employees who may have 

acted out of fear of reprisal were not directly responsible for the data manipulation 

that took place at some facilities. For this reason, we ask that the IG report also 

be required to determine which if any employees were coerced into their actions by 

their superiors, and allow the Secretary to make a decision on whether or not those 

employees should be spared punishment on that basis. 

S. 681, BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS ACT OF 2015

The VFW strongly supports this legislation, which would require VA to include 

territorial seas as part of the Republic of Vietnam, extending presumptive service 

connection and health care for Agent Orange-related illnesses to Blue Water Navy 

veterans. We have long maintained that it is arbitrary and unjust that veterans who 

served aboard ships in the coastal waters of Vietnam are denied presumptive benefits associated with Agent Orange exposure. We believe that those veterans were poVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\051315.TXT PAULIN
75 

tentially exposed to significant levels of toxins, and should be granted the same presumption of service connection as their counterparts who served on the mainland 

of Vietnam. 

S. 1203, 21ST CENTURY VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT

This legislation would revise or add many provisions regarding the way in which 

the Department of Veterans Affairs administers veterans’ claims for benefits, and 

the VFW worked closely with Senators Heller and Casey during its drafting. While 

the VFW supports this bill, we need to ensure its language is perfectly clear. Therefore, we recommend the Committee amend two sections of the bill to ensure veterans are fully aware of their rights and that the proposed Comptroller General 

audit is effective: 

Section 103 allows the Board of Veterans Appeals to use video teleconferencing 

(VTC) as the default method for hearings. While conducting hearings though VTC 

will expedite the adjudication of claims and eliminate substantial travel costs to veterans and the Administration, we feel that veterans should be made aware of the 

option to attend hearings in person. Therefore, we recommend the Committee 

amend the bill to indicate that the VA ‘‘shall’’ notify the veteran of their right to 

an in-person hearing and ‘‘shall’’ grant such a request. 

Section 201 requires the U.S. Comptroller General to audit all Veterans Benefits 

Administration Regional Offices (VARO) to assess the consistency of rating decisions. A thorough study would require the collection of a representative sample of 

decisions by disability to review them for similarities and note different outcomes. 

The VFW does not oppose the provision, but we worry that the Comptroller cannot 

hire sufficient subject matter experts to conduct the review in the time allotted. The 

Committee should consider whether another option may be more feasible, such as 

narrowing the scope of the study or extending the amount of time the Comptroller 

has to conduct the review. 

DRAFT BILL, VETERANS’ COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2015

The VFW strongly supports this legislation which will increase VA compensation 

for veterans and survivors, and adjust other benefits, by providing a cost-of-living 

adjustment (COLA) beginning December 1, 2015. 

Disabled veterans, along with their surviving spouses and children, depend on 

their disability and dependency and indemnity compensation to bridge the gap of 

lost earnings and savings caused by the veteran’s disability. Each year, veterans 

wait anxiously to find out if they will receive a cost-of-living adjustment. There is 

no automatic trigger that increases these forms of compensation for veterans and 

their dependents. Annually, veterans wait for a separate Act of Congress to provide 

the same adjustment that is automatically granted to Social Security beneficiaries. 

The VFW is pleased that this legislation does not contain the ‘‘rounding down’’ 

of the COLA increase. This is nothing more than a money-saving device that comes 

at the expense of veterans and their survivors. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Recommendation 11 

The Commission recommended that the VA consolidate all education benefits into 

a single program, extend the time commitment required to obtain the transferability 

benefit and eliminate the Basic Housing Allowance for dependents. The VFW played 

an integral role in passing the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill and we have a vested interest in 

ensuring that the veterans who utilize this robust benefit receive quality educational and vocational training outcomes. Military and veterans’ education benefits 

provide a critical tool to ensure that those who have defended our Nation can compete for the best jobs when they leave service. We believe the country has a vested 

interest in ensuring that Federal education dollars for our military men and women 

are not abused. 

The Commission takes issue with a prioritization of veterans’ needs and the Defense Department’s incentive to allow servicemembers to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their dependents. The G.I. Bill’s primary use should be to help veterans reintegrate into civilian life by providing the education and skills necessary to gain 

meaningful employment, but providing transferability of one’s G.I. Bill benefit has 

been a critical tool in retaining mid-career servicemembers. The G.I. Bill must be 

a transition benefit first, and the transition aspect should never provide a greater 

benefit to dependents than it does to veterans. 

76 

The Commission recommended ‘‘duplicative education assistance programs should 

sunset to reduce administrative costs and to simplify the education benefits system.’’ 

To do so, Congress would have to choose between two options. First, extend full 

Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits to all servicemembers and veterans, including all reserve 

component members. The second option would be to create a scaled system in which 

certain categories of veterans will receive different percentages of the G.I. Bill depending on whether they served on active duty, reserve status or during a time of 

war, similar to how VA awards a certain percentage of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill to reserve component servicemembers today. If these programs are set to expire, Congress needs to ensure that war veterans, including guardsmen and reservists, 

should not receive less of a benefit than dependents or other veterans. 

Recommendation 12 

The VFW supports the Commission’s recommendations for Congress to reevaluate 

the current Transition Goals, Plans, Success (GPS) curriculum, encourage state collaboration in coordinating the Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) program, encourage employees to attend Transition GPS classes and require a joint report from 

Department of Defense (DOD), VA, and Department of Labor (DOL) on the challenges employers face when seeking to hire veterans. Over the past few years, this 

Committee’s work has produced a significant evolution in the way the military prepares transitioning servicemembers for civilian life. Positive changes include mandatory Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for all servicemembers, the creation of 

the Off-Base Transition Training (OBTT) pilot program, and a complete redesign of 

a TAP curriculum. The Commission’s recommendations will build on the good work 

the Committee and agencies have already accomplished. 

The VFW supports ensuring that transitioning servicemembers have access to the 

full suite of transitional training, should they so choose, because transitioning servicemembers have no reasonable way to anticipate the specific challenges they will 

face after leaving the military. However, the VFW understands the operational limitations in mandating such participation across the military. That is why the VFW 

supports supplementing the mandatory portion of TAP with access to all the track 

curricula through online resources. DOD recently took a major step by allowing 

transitioning servicemembers to audit the modules through the secure Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) portal. The VFW stands firm on the idea that online resources 

must be seen as a supplement to in-person TAP, not a replacement. 

The VFW believes that DOD must fully implement its information sharing agreement with DOL to ensure that state workforce development agencies would have 

consistent access to the names of veterans leaving the military and relocating to 

their areas. When armed with this information, employment counselors could reach 

out directly to recently transitioned veterans and speak to them face to face to ensure that they fully understand what is available to them locally. Unfortunately, the 

proposed information sharing agreement was delayed, and only started as a pilot 

in January of this year. DOL first informed the VFW that it was working to codify 

the agreement in 2012. It is now 2015. At this point, the VFW believes it is unacceptable that DOD and DOL have yet to implement this concept fully. 

Another solution is to continue to bolster the post-service availability of TAP. By 

facilitating large-scale, community-based TAP classes, OBTT serves veterans who 

would not have had access to the material, or who could only receive comparable 

information by meeting one on one with employment counselors at an American 

Jobs Center. Moreover, the program was very cost effective, costing only $52,052 to 

administer the entire pilot. Unfortunately, the OBTT pilot expired in January 2015, 

and DOL will not have information on employment outcomes for participants for another year. The VFW believes that OBTT should be a permanent program, but until 

we have final data on the OBTT pilot, Congress should pass an extension of the 

pilot. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS—REGARDING EDUCATION BENEFITS, 

TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND ADVISORY BOARD ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION

Section 114 

As previously mentioned, the VFW supports amending Title 38 so that reserve 

component members who spend time on active duty for the purpose of receiving 

medical care accrue time for the GI Bill eligibility. We agree with DOD and Senator 

Wyden that reserve component members, who answer the call to active duty and 

served under similar conditions as their active counterparts, deserve to have their 

service equally honored. 

77 

Section 522 

The VFW supports amending Chapter 1606 of title 10, so servicemembers who are 

unable to complete their studies due to mobilization do not lose valuable G.I. Bill 

benefits. Occasionally servicemembers receive mobilization orders in the middle of 

the semester and have no choice but to immediately drop their classes. Schools or 

the Federal Government should never penalize servicemembers for answering the 

call to service. Therefore, we recommend that the Committee adopt DOD’s proposal 

to amend title 10, United States Code, 12304a and 12304b to ensure a servicemember’s education benefits are not lost when called to active duty. 

Section 542 

We support amending section 4312 of title 38 to ensure that the time servicemembers spend on involuntary mobilization orders does not count toward the cumulative 5-year service limit under Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act (USERRA). In order to maintain your right for reemployment under 

USERRA, your cumulative periods of uniformed service, relating to the employer relationship for which you seek reemployment, must not exceed five years. This proposal will ensure that Congress’s original intent to exempt all involuntary service 

from the 5-year limit is consistent with DOD practices under sections 12304a and 

12304b of title 10. 

Section 545 

The VFW opposes any effort to limit any servicemember’s access to the Transition 

Assistance Program. Reserve component servicemembers often face unique challenges when bouncing back and forth from active to reserve duty. Many reserve 

component members do not realize the rights, resources, and benefits that Congress 

has created for them. Unfortunately, reserve component members already have limited, if any, access to the services provided by the Transition Assistance Program. 

Before Congress grants DOD the authority to further exempt reserve component 

members from receiving TAP, we believe that Congress and DOD should collaborate 

to find new ways to extend TAP to reserve component members. One possible solution would be to create a pilot program where the military services offer a 1-day 

condensed TAP class that reserve units could provide their members on a drill 

weekend. A special TAP class would ensure that reserve component members understand the resources available to them for when they mobilize and transition back 

to reserve status successfully, without interrupting the unit’s annual training 

schedule. 

DRAFT BILL, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO MODIFY THE TREATMENT

UNDER CONTRACTING GOALS AND PREFERENCES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES OWNED BY VETERANS, TO CARRY OUT A PILOT PRO- GRAM ON THE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN APPLICATIONS FOR DEPENDENCY AND INDEM- NITY COMPENSATION AS FULLY DEVELOPED CLAIMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

The VFW supports section 101, which would allow the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran business owner to continue operating the business as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) for a period of three years following 

the veteran’s death. Current law only allows a surviving spouse to do so if the veteran was 100 percent disabled or died from a service- connected disability. This is 

a necessary protection that allows for a transition period for the bereaved spouse 

to restructure the business as necessary. The VFW believes that this protection 

should be extended to all surviving spouses under the SDVOSB program. 

Section 102 would allow the surviving spouse or dependent child of a servicemember who owns a business and is killed in the line of duty to continue operating 

the business as though it were owned by a veteran with a service-connected disability. This status would last until the dependent relinquishes at least 51 percent 

ownership, the spouse remarries, or after a period of ten years. The VFW supports 

this section. 

Section 201 would clarify that VA has a duty to assist by obtaining a medical 

opinion for veterans making service-connected disability claims related to military 

sexual trauma (MST), when the medical evidence does not contain a diagnosis or 

opinion by a mental health professional. The VFW supports this section. In addition, 

we strongly believe that the evidentiary burden placed on the veteran in MST 

claims remains unrealistically high for many. For this reason, we continue to support S. 685, the Ruth Moore Act. 

Sections 202 and 203 would require VA to submit reports to Congress on disability claims related to MST. The VFW supports these sections. 

The VFW supports section 204, which would require VA to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of expediting certain claims for deVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\051315.TXT PAULIN
78 

pendency and indemnity compensation (DIC). We feel this is a common sense step 

toward more quickly adjudicating DIC claims where the veteran is already receiving 

disability compensation and the cause of death is clearly listed as having been due 

to one of his or her disabilities. In such cases, there is no reason to make the veteran’s survivors wait any longer than necessary for their benefits. 

Section 205 provides for a review of determination of certain service in the Philippines during World War II. The VFW holds no position on this section. 

Section 206 would require VA to submit reports on its disability medical exams 

process and the extent to which it is able to prevent unnecessary medical examinations. The VFW supports this section, as these reports will help improve the disability examinations process, reducing the overall time necessary to decide claims. 

We would suggest, however, that the reporting requirement also include how many 

specialty examinations were ordered in cases where the veteran had already submitted a disability benefits questionnaire completed by a non-Department physician. 

This will help us understand the extent to which the information submitted in those 

cases is accepted by VA as adequate for deciding claims. 

The VFW supports section 301, which would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on identifying, claiming and interring unclaimed remains 

of veterans. The private sector has worked very hard to ensure dignified burials for 

veterans whose remains have gone unclaimed. This bill will require VA to recommend legislation or administrative actions that could take place to make the 

process of claiming remains for burial more standardized and timely. 

Finally, the VFW supports section 401, which would give the men and women 

who serve our Nation in the reserve component the recognition they deserve. Many 

who serve in the Guard and Reserve are in positions that support the deployments 

of their active duty comrades to make sure the unit is fully prepared when called 

upon. Unfortunately, some of these men and women who serve at least 20 years and 

are entitled to retirement pay, TRICARE, and other benefits, are not considered veterans according to the letter of the law. This provision would grant Guard and Reserve retirees the proper recognition as veterans. 

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, this concludes my testimony 

and I am happy to answer any questions you or any other Members of the Committee may have. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you. 

Senator Murray, would you like to go? 

Senator MURRAY. Whichever way you like. 

Senator CASSIDY. If you are ready, please do. 

HON. PATTY MURRAY, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator MURRAY. I am ready. Mr. Chairman, thank you very 

much. I really appreciate the opportunity. Welcome to all of our 

panelists today. 

Mr. Morosky, in your testimony about S. 627, you mentioned 

that VFW believes the culture at VA is changing. As you know, 

changing culture is incredibly hard, especially at an organization 

as large as the VA. If change is starting to happen, we certainly 

want to protect that progress and encourage more. What is VFW 

seeing that shows the culture at VA is finally changing, and what 

do you believe is causing that change? 

Mr. MOROSKY. We believe that the changing of culture is a big 

priority for Secretary McDonald, that his ‘‘I.C.A.R.E.’’ philosophy 

and the idea that he is approachable as the Secretary is helping 

employees feel as though they can approach their superiors. Again, 

it is a very long process. It does not happen overnight. We recognize that the effort is being made to really make the Department 

more veteran-centric as opposed to centered around the bureaucracy that is in place. 

Senator MURRAY. And, you are beginning to see that. Well, we 

want to make sure we encourage that—— 

Mr. MOROSKY. Yes. 

79 

Senator MURRAY [continuing]. So, if you have any thoughts about 

encouraging that ongoing, let us know. 

Mr. MOROSKY. Yes. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. The Transition Assistance Program is really 

critical in helping our servicemembers leaving the military and entering the civilian world. Constantly reviewing and updating and 

expanding the TAP curriculum is really key to keeping it relevant 

and useful for our separating servicemembers, which I am sure you 

all agree with that. 

Mr. Phillips, I wanted to ask you, in your testimony, you talk 

about the importance of specifically reviewing whether the program 

is meeting the needs of Guard and Reserve, because, as you know, 

Reserve members face a lot of challenges. They are far from a VA 

or a military base. They return to communities very different than 

when they left, and they frequently have a lot of interruption between their education and their job. So, there are a lot of challenges there and I wanted to ask you, is the structure of the program working for Reservists so they can complete TAP before 

demobilizing? 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Senator, thank you for the question and thank you 

for most of the answers. [Laughter.] 

You went through some of the chief challenges. 

Senator MURRAY. Yes. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. We think the TAP has gotten better as it has aged 

and is evolving in the right direction. One of our chief concerns is 

that we ensure that the language portrays the differentiation of active and Reserve—— 

Senator MURRAY. So, it is actually named—— 

Mr. PHILLIPS. It is actually named to put it in front of people 

that there is a differentiation here. 

Senator MURRAY. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Do I have an organic complaint, as it were, against 

TAP? No. I think since I had seen it initiated years and years ago, 

it has come a long way. 

One of the aspects of receiving TAP as you leave service is you 

may well be in a facility better equipped to provide the requisite 

TAP than when you go home. 

Senator MURRAY. Mm-hmm. OK. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Does that answer your question? 

Senator MURRAY. Yes, it does. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Maldon, first of all, I want to commend you and the rest of 

the Commission for the very thoughtful and important report that 

you submitted. I think we all appreciate the overwhelming amount 

of work that everybody put into this, so thank you. 

Retaining good servicemembers is a major challenge for our military, as many of them, we know, leave after their first enlistment. 

To help with this, you recommend increasing the length of service 

requirement to transfer the G.I. Bill benefits to dependents. How 

many additional servicemembers do you expect would stay in the 

military, who would not have stayed otherwise, who would stay on 

as the result of that change? 

Mr. MALDON. Senator Murray, it is hard to say how many would 

stay on, quite candidly. We believe that by making that change, it 

certainly does not hurt retention. We believe that it gives the servVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 Z:\ACTIVE\051315.TXT PAULIN
80 

ices an added flexibility that they had asked us for—asked the 

Commission for, if we give them the—— 

Senator MURRAY. So, that is one of the things they requested? 

Mr. MALDON. That is one of the things that the services requested, is they wanted more flexibility so that they can manage 

the force profile. We believe that it would certainly help with that 

mid-career group of servicemembers that we wanted to retain, is by 

changing it from six-plus-four to ten-plus-two. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. Thank you. Thank you very much, and 

thank you all for your testimony today. 

Mr. MALDON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for accommodating 

me. I appreciate it. 

Senator CASSIDY. Mr. Morosky, you mentioned culture changes in 

the VA. Are there other issues besides a culture change? What 

comes to mind, I was reading about Matthew Ridgway who in a 

hundred days took a broken Army in Korea and formed it back into 

a fighting unit with high morale that was incredibly effective. Now, 

granted, the VA is—we do not have people walking around the VA 

corridors with hand grenades hanging around their neck. I get 

that. But, still, sometimes there are systemic problems that thwart 

even the best leadership. Do you see any of those? 

Mr. MOROSKY. Mr. Chairman, sometimes we refer to it as the frozen middle. We feel as though the people at VA’s central office are 

certainly making a concerted effort and the Secretary has made it 

a priority to change culture, and we feel that a lot of the front-line 

people who work at VA can see this and want the culture to 

change, but there is—the middle management seems to be the biggest challenge, in our opinion, in terms of having that filter from 

the Secretary’s level down to the point of service. 

Senator CASSIDY. So, it comes to mind, Ridgway, apparently, 

when asked what the counterattack plans were, was told there 

were none. He then replaced the officer who had not developed 

such plans. 

So, I guess there is a sense in which you have to have the ability 

to replace those middle management who are not doing their job. 

I think with even all the scandals, only three people have been let 

go. So, I take it you would probably favor those bills which would 

increase accountability for that middle management? 

Mr. MOROSKY. Absolutely, sir, and that includes the bill today 

that deals with the bonus recision. 

Senator CASSIDY. Got you. Thank you. 

Mr. Maldon, I really appreciate your work. Now, I am skimming 

over this, trying to understand—I forget if it was Mr. Phillips or 

Mr. Morosky’s comments upon Mr. Maldon. Are both of you OK 

with the Commission’s recommendation of transferability of G.I. 

benefits? You mentioned, I think, Mr. Maldon, that this has been 

an important tool in mid-career retention, correct? 

Mr. MALDON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The transferability is, in fact, important to retention. 

Senator CASSIDY. And I think it was you, Mr. Morosky—I was 

not quite sure you all were completely in line with their recommendation. Did I misunderstand your testimony? 

81 

Mr. MOROSKY. When it comes to G.I. Bill benefits, Mr. Chairman, 

we just want to make sure that if there are ways that cost is being 

looked at, that veterans are always the first priority. We are not 

opposed to dependents having benefits transferred, but we just 

want to make sure that the benefit remains there for the veteran 

as the first priority. 

Senator CASSIDY. OK. Mr. Maldon, is there anything in your 

kind of recommendations that would make that not the case? 

Mr. MALDON. That is a negative, Mr. Chairman. We believe that 

the transferability recommendations that we made do just that. 

They do not do anything to harm the veterans at all. It will not 

affect or have an impact on retention. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now, let me ask you gentlemen—and anyone 

can answer because I just do not know this—I was struck that all 

of you are advocating that when somebody goes on health leave, 

they would continue to have eligibility for their educational benefits. It makes total sense to me, but is there not a provision now 

where if somebody is injured, say, for example, they lose a leg, and 

formerly they did something which required their ability to ambulate, so now they would have some rehab that would kick in to help 

them adjust to life without a leg, but also to have a career that 

would not require them to ambulate. Is everybody with me so far? 

Now, that seems kind of part and parcel of post-service educational programs. Now, I think you, Mr. Maldon, spoke of the 

need to reduce duplication. So, is there any duplication there would 

be in the rehab of somebody from a medical event along with the 

G.I. Bill? I do not know this. I am asking for my own information. 

Can anybody address that, or did I not make my question clear 

enough? 

Mr. MOROSKY. VA also has another program, sir, called vocational rehabilitation, which allows for disabled servicemembers to 

learn vocational skills that can accommodate their disabilities. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now, vocational rehab, I usually think in terms 

of, OK, I used to do things with two hands, and now I am going 

to learn how to do them with one hand. It is a little bit different 

than, OK, I used to carry pipes but now I am going to go back and 

get a history degree. Do you follow what I am saying? 

Mr. MOROSKY. Yes, sir. 

Senator CASSIDY. So, is there an education—I do not know—is 

there an educational program for those in rehab beyond vocational 

rehab, or, rather, that would be duplicative of any other G.I. Bill? 

I am gathering not from the stares I am getting. 

Mr. MALDON. To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, there is not. 

Senator CASSIDY. That would be the only reason I could imagine 

that anyone would not take your suggestions in terms of extending 

the G.I. benefits after a health event. 

Mr. Phillips. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Senator, if I were to characterize vocational rehab, 

it is not just the body, but the spirit, and it is also a retuning of 

the soldier, sailor, airman, Marine’s mind to be able to take account of the new physical situation this person finds him or herself 

in and adjust to that, not just physically, but in the way of going 

about their life and moving on to the next stage. 

82 

What we perhaps could do better at is melding both education of 

the mind, G.I. Bill, and vocational rehabilitation, when it is appropriate, with the soldier or the servicemember who is going through 

that kind of transition. 

Senator CASSIDY. I totally get that. Yes. That just makes total 

sense to me. 

Well, folks, Senator Isakson is not back yet, so I am going to call 

a recess until he returns, because I know he has questions that he 

would like to ask. 

But, again, thank you for all your service and for all you do representing our veterans. Thank you. 

Oh, I am told by somebody behind the chair whom you cannot 

see—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CASSIDY [continuing]. That we can go ahead and adjourn. So, thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(83) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA


513apDaines.eps
84 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS GIBSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEW YORK


94845GIBson.eps
85 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION

Chairman Isakson and Ranking Member Blumenthal, The Air Force Association 

thanks you for your support of the Veterans of the Air Force, their families and survivors. 

We are grateful for your unwavering commitment to the men and women who 

have defended our Nation, and appreciate the priority Congress has given Veterans 

issues in the past decade. We acknowledge the increasingly difficult budget choices 

before you in these times. We also appreciate this opportunity to give the Air Force 

Association’s views on the following matters. 

RESERVE COMPONENT ON MEDICAL HOLD

Members of the National Guard or Reserve who are disabled on active duty orders 

and receiving medical care (this is called ‘‘medical hold’’ status), should not lose eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. 

Currently, when a Guard or Reserve servicemember is injured or wounded in a 

combat theatre, the member transitions on orders to a medical hold status. This 

stops accrual of active duty time that would count toward Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, 

and even if the member returns to service, none of the time spent in medical hold 

qualifies. 

AFA believes fixing this oversight in current statute would allow all servicemembers to continue to accrue the educational benefits earned in service while receiving medical care from the Department of Defense (DOD). 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION (MCRMC) 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The MCRMC recommends a number of steps toward reducing redundancy in GI 

Bill programs. AFA generally supports these recommendations, as long as those already pursuing an education plan are allowed to finish their courses, and servicemembers who are using Montgomery GI Bill and other education benefits are grandfathered with those benefits. 

AFA also supports the MCRMC recommendation to increase the eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to 10 years of service, and the 

sunset on housing stipend for dependents as long as those already under contract 

are grandfathered into those contracts. 

The MCRMC recommended DOD track the education levels of servicemembers 

leaving the service, as well as the education levels of servicemembers who transfer 

their Post-9/11GI Bill to their dependents. It also recommended the VA collect information related to: course completion rates, course dropout rates, course failure 

rates, certificates and degrees being pursued, and employment rates after graduation, including that information in an annual report to the Congress. AFA agrees 

to this tracking as well as the recommendation to better prepare servicemembers 

for transition to civilian life by expanding education and granting states more flexibility to administer state grants programs. 

DOD LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

AFA supports DOD’s proposals giving Service Secretaries greater flexibility to test 

and evaluate alternative career retention options under the Career Intermission 

Pilot Programs, to bolster reemployment rights of those in the Reserve Component 

and confidential reporting in sexual assault cases. 

Thank you again for your support of our force, and for the opportunity to offer 

this testimony from the Air Force Association. 

SCOTT VAN CLEEF, 

Chairman of the Board. 

86 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 

AFL-CIO AND THE AFGE NATIONAL VA COUNCIL


94845AFG1.eps
87 


94845AFG2.eps
88 


94845AFG3.eps
89 


94845AFG4.eps
90 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS ASSOCIATION


94845BWN1.eps
91 


94845BWN2.eps
92 


94845BWN3.eps
93 


94845BWN4.eps
94 


94845BWN5.eps
95 


94845BWN6.eps
96 


94845BWN7.eps
97 


94845BWN8.eps
98 


94845BWN9.eps
99 


94845BWN10.eps
100 


94845BWN11.eps
101 


94845BWN12.eps
102 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONCERNED VETERANS FOR AMERICA

S. 270: CHARLIE MORGAN MILITARY SPOUSES EQUAL TREATMENT ACT OF 2015

To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the definition of spouse for purposes 

of veterans benefits in recognition of new State definitions of spouse, and for 

other purposes. 

CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation. 

S. 602: GI BILL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015

To amend title 38, United States Code, to consider certain time spent by members 

of reserve components of the Armed Forces while receiving medical care from the 

Secretary of Defense as active duty for purposes of eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, and for other purposes. 

CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation. 

S. 627: A BILL TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO REVOKE BONUSES

PAID TO EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN ELECTRONIC WAIT LIST MANIPULATIONS, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES. 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revoke bonuses paid to employees involved in electronic wait list manipulations, and for other purposes. 

Last year it was revealed that wait list manipulations on the part of high-ranking 

VA employees had resulted in deaths as veterans waited for the care they needed. 

This was done in order to make it appear as if arbitrarily imposed wait time-reduction goals were being met, given that the annual bonuses paid to those officials depended in part on that reduction. It seems absurd, then, that these officials could 

still be eligible to a bonus despite their poor behavior, particularly as it has been 

revealed that the bonuses were paid out on the basis of an untruth. 

By requiring the VA Secretary to identify individuals who were involved in wait 

list manipulation and also received a bonus in part because of the omission, this 

bill ensures that such behavior is not rewarded. The bill would allow for proper investigation into all cases, and balances employee protections with proper accountability. Those individuals identified and found to be guilty after an investigation will 

be required to repay that bonus. 

CVA SUPPORTS this legislation. 

S. 681: THE BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS ACT OF 2015

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity of the Republic of Vietnam, 

and for other purposes. 

CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation. 

DRAFT LEGISLATION: THE 21ST CENTURY VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the processing by the Department 

of Veterans Affairs of claims for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

The VA claims backlog has long been an issue. Veterans are often forced to wait 

for months—and sometimes years—to have their claims adjudicated and receive 

benefits that they deserve. Over the past few years, VA has paid lip service to the 

issue, but little real progress has been made. VA continues to play a shell game, 

shifting numbers around, but doing little to ensure that veterans are cared for. 

This legislation would make needed and sensible improvements to the claims system, and could potentially speed up claims processing, thereby allowing veterans to 

receive a decision on their claims and get on with their lives. The reporting requirements that are embedded in this bill are especially important to re-build the trust 

in VA that has been eroded due to the recent scandals. These reporting requirements will help shed light on the issues in VBA, and the systemic changes that this 

bill would implement will make strides toward rectifying problems in order to help 

ensure that the backlog is eliminated, and remains so. 

CVA SUPPORTS this legislation. 

103 

DRAFT LEGISLATION: VETERANS COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING-ADJUSTMENT ACT

OF 2015

To provide for an increase, effective December 1, 2015, in the rates of compensation 

for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and 

indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for 

other purposes. 

CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION LEGISLATIVE

PROPOSALS—REGARDING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 11 AND 12 (SECTIONS 1101– 1204)

The recommendations offered by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) are, by and large, common-sense proposals which 

would streamline servicemember benefits while continuing to provide a robust benefits package, ensuring the continuing viability of an all-volunteer force. Recommendations 11 and 12 are no exception. The rationalization of education benefits 

makes them more user friendly, by eliminating programs that offer less benefit to 

servicemembers. They make better use of taxpayer dollars as well, by eliminating 

redundant BAH payments to dependents of servicemembers after 2017. Furthermore, by increasing the time in service needed to transfer the Post-9/11 GI Bill to 

dependents, servicemembers are encouraged to remain in the military, reducing 

turnover and keeping experienced NCOs and officers in service. 

In terms of transition, the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) provides important information to servicemembers as they separate from active duty. CVA does, 

however, have some reservations about making the educational portion of TAP mandatory. While we understand that the reason for this is to require commanders and 

line leaders to allow transitioning servicemembers to attend, ‘‘check-the-box’’ training often has the counter effect of causing servicemembers to resent the training, 

rather than gleaning the information they need. 

CVA SUPPORTS this legislation, with some reservations. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS—REGARDING EDUCATION BENEFITS, TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, AND ADVISORY BOARD ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION

(SECTIONS 514, 522, 542, 545, AND 1041)

CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation. 

DISCUSSION DRAFT INCLUDING PROVISIONS DERIVED FROM S. 151, S. 241, S. 296, S. 666, S. 695, S. 743, S. 865

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the treatment under contracting 

goals and preferences of the Department of Veterans Affairs for small businesses 

owned by veterans, to carry out a pilot program on the treatment of certain applications for dependency and indemnity compensation as fully developed claims, and for 

other purposes. 

CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL R. VARELA, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting the DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify at 

this legislative hearing, and to present our views on the bills under consideration. 

As you know, DAV is a non-profit veterans service organization comprised of 1.2 

million wartime service-disabled veterans. DAV is dedicated to a single purpose: empowering veterans to lead high-quality lives with respect and dignity. 

S. 151, THE FILIPINO VETERANS PROMISE ACT

This bill would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process to determine whether individuals claiming certain service in the Philippines during World 

War II are eligible for certain benefits despite not being on the so-called ‘‘Missouri 

List.’’ The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and such military historians as the Secretary of Defense would consider appropriate, would establish a process to determine whether a covered individual served 

as described in subsection (a) or (b) of section 107 of title 38, United States Code, 

for purposes of determining whether these individuals would be eligible for benefits 

described within relevant subsections. 

104 

DAV has received no resolution from our membership on this topic; thus, DAV 

takes no position on this bill. 

S. 241, THE MILITARY FAMILY RELIEF ACT OF 2015

This bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay temporary DIC 

to the surviving spouse of a veteran if, at the time of death, the veteran was in receipt of or entitled to receive compensation for a service-connected disability rated 

as total for at least one year preceding the veteran’s death. Payments made on this 

temporary basis would not be made in excess of six months. 

Delays in the adjudication of benefits, particularly those to survivors can have serious adverse consequences. Providing temporary payments could provide welcome 

relief to survivors while their claims are being processed. 

DAV supports this bill, because it is alignment with our mission to support the 

needs of survivors of veterans who died as a result of service-connected disabilities. 

S. 270, THE CHARLIE MORGAN MILITARY SPOUSES EQUAL TREATMENT ACT OF 2015

S. 270 would amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the definition of spouse 

for purposes of veterans’ benefits in recognition of new State definitions of spouse. 

Section 101 of title 38, United States Code would be amended to reflect that an 

individual would be considered a ‘spouse’ if a marriage of the individual is considered valid under the laws of any State, thus making same-sex spouses eligible for 

benefits under title 38. 

DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership on this topic; 

thus, DAV takes no position on this bill. 

S. 296, THE VETERANS SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2015

This bill would amend title 38, United States Code, section 8127, to enhance Department of Veterans Affairs business-related protections in instances of death of 

service-connected disabled veteran business owners. The bill would also extend 

these business-related protections to survivors of active duty servicemembers who 

are killed in the line of duty. 

These amendments would make changes to the eligibility period for the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA’s) service-disabled small business contracting goals 

and preferences program. The surviving spouse of a service-disabled veteran who acquires the ownership interest in a small business of the deceased veteran would retain the ability to operate as a veteran-owned small business for a period of ten 

years following the veteran’s death, if such veteran was either 100% disabled or died 

from a service-connected disability; or for three years after such death, if the veteran was less than 100% disabled and did not die from a service-connected 

disability. 

In instances when a servicemember is killed in the line of duty, VA small business contracting goals and preferences would also extend to the surviving spouse or 

dependent. The survivor would be recognized as a small business by VA beginning 

on the date of the servicemember’s death and end on the earlier of either the date 

on which the surviving spouse remarries or relinquishes, or the date on which the 

surviving dependent relinquishes, an ownership interest in the small business concern, and no longer owns at least 51 percent of such small business concern; or ten 

years after the servicemember’s death. 

DAV supports this bill in accordance with resolution No. 150, as adopted at our 

most recent national convention held in Las Vegas, Nevada, August 9–12, 2014. 

This resolution calls on Congress to support legislation to provide for a reasonable 

transition period for all service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses following 

the death of disabled veteran owners. 

S. 602, THE GI BILL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015

This bill would amend title 38, United Stated Code, to consider certain time spent 

by members of reserve components of the Armed Forces receiving medical care from 

the Secretary of Defense as active duty for purposes of eligibility for Post-9/11 educational assistance. 

The bill would amend subsection 3301(1)(B) of title 38, United States Code, by inserting the content of subparagraph 12301(h) of title 10, United States Code to the 

existing language in this subsection. Adding this language in the subsection would 

validate as active duty time for the purposes of Post-9/11 educational assistance any 

period(s) spent by servicemembers (including Guard and Air National Guard members in certain circumstances) receiving authorized medical care, undergoing medical evaluations for disability, or completing a required Department of Defense 

105 

health care study, which may include an associated medical evaluation of the 

member. 

The bill would provide for a retroactive application of this amendment as if the 

amendment were enacted immediately after the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, Public Law 110–252. 

DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership on this particular 

topic, but would not oppose passage of such legislation. 

S. 627, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revoke bonuses paid to employees involved in electronic wait list manipulations, and for other purposes 

S. 627 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revoke bonuses paid to 

employees who were involved in direct or indirect manipulation of patient care waiting lists during a specified period. 

DAV has received no resolution from our membership on this topic; thus, DAV 

takes no position on this bill. 

S. 666, THE QUICKER VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT

This bill would amend title 38, United States Code, section 5125, to improve the 

treatment of medical evidence provided by non-Department of Veterans Affairs medical professionals in support of veterans’ claims for disability compensation. 

The bill would eliminate the VA practice of ordering unnecessary compensation 

and pension examinations. Unnecessary examinations lead to delays in delivery of 

benefits, tie up VA resources and add to the frustration of veterans who in many 

cases have provided sufficient medical evidence to support the claim. Requesting a 

VA examination when acceptable medical evidence already has been supplied creates the impression that private evidence is less valuable than evidence produced 

internally by VA. 

DAV continues to press for changes that improve and streamline the claims processing system. This legislation would give due deference to private medical evidence 

that is competent, credible, probative, and otherwise adequate for rating purposes. 

DAV is pleased to provide our support for this bill, consistent with Resolution No. 

192, which calls on Congress to support meaningful reform in the Veterans Benefits 

Administration’s (VBA) disability claims process. On April 14, 2015, DAV testified 

before the House Subcommittee on Disability and Memorial Affairs in support of a 

similar bill, H.R. 1331. 

S. 681, THE BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS ACT OF 2015

This bill would amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the accepted presumptions to justify service connection from exposure to herbicides containing 

dioxin, including Agent Orange deployed by American forces during the Vietnam 

War. 

This legislation would extend existing health care and compensation benefits to 

certain veterans who served ‘‘in the territorial seas of such Republic.’’ S. 681 would 

extend eligibility for VA benefits retroactively to September 25, 1985. 

DAV supports this legislation as it is consistent with DAV Resolution No. 072, 

passed at our most recent National Convention, held August 9–12, 2014, in Las 

Vegas, Nevada. 

S. 695, THE DIGNIFIED INTERMENT OF OUR VETERANS ACT OF 2015

This bill would require the VA Secretary to study and report to Congress on matters relating to the interment of veterans’ unclaimed remains in national cemeteries 

under the control of the National Cemetery Administration. 

The study would assess the scope of the issues relating to veterans’ unclaimed remains, including the estimated number of such remains; the effectiveness of VA procedures for working with persons or entities having custody of unclaimed remains 

to facilitate the interment of such remains in national cemeteries; and the state and 

local laws that affect the Secretary’s ability to inter unclaimed remains in such 

cemeteries. 

The report would provide recommendations for appropriate legislative or administrative action to improve areas where deficiencies are identified. 

DAV has no resolution pertaining to this recommendation, but would not oppose 

passage of this bill. 

S. 743, THE HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT OF 2015

This bill would bestow the designation of ‘‘veteran’’ to any person who is entitled 

to retired pay for non-regular (reserve) service or who would be so entitled, but for 

age. 

106 

The bill stipulates that such person would not be entitled to any benefit by reason 

of such recognition. 

DAV has no resolution pertaining to this matter. 

S. 865, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO IMPROVE THE DISABILITY COMPENSATION EVALUATION PROCEDURE OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR

VETERANS WITH MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS RELATED TO MILITARY SEXUAL TRAUMA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

This bill would improve VA disability compensation evaluation procedures in the 

case of veterans with mental health conditions related to military sexual trauma 

(MST). 

For decades, VA treated claims for service connection for mental health problems 

resulting from MST in the same way it treated all claimed conditions—the burden 

was on the claimant to prove the condition was related to service. Without validation from medical, investigative or police records, claims were routinely denied. 

More than a decade ago, VA relaxed its policy of requiring medical or police reports 

to show that MST occurred. Nevertheless, thousands of claims for mental health 

conditions resulting from MST have been denied since 2002 because claimants were 

unable to produce evidence that assaults occurred. Between 2008 and 2012, grant 

rates for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) resulting from MST were 17 to 30 

percent below grant rates for PTSD resulting from other causes. 

Unfortunately, victims of MST often do not report such trauma to medical or police authorities. Lack of reporting results in a disproportionate burden placed on veterans to produce evidence of MST. Full disclosure of incidents occurring during service tend to be reported years after the fact, making service connection for PTSD and 

other mental health challenges exceedingly difficult. 

Establishing a causal relationship between certain injuries and later disability 

can be daunting due to lack of records or human factors that obscure or prevent 

documentation or even basic investigation of such incidents after they occur. Military sexual trauma is ever more recognized as a hazard of service for one percent 

of men serving and 20 percent of women, and later represents a heavy burden of 

psychological and mental health care for the VA. 

An absence of documentation of military sexual trauma in the personnel or military unit records of injured individuals prevents or obstructs adjudication of claims 

for disabilities of this deserving group suffering the after effects associated with 

military service, and may interrupt or prevent their care by VA once they become 

veterans. The VA has issued a regulation that provides for a liberalization of requirements for establishment of service connection due to personal assault, including MST, even when documentation of an ‘‘actual stressor’’ cannot be found, but 

when evidence in other records exists of a ‘‘marker’’ indicating that a stressor may 

have occurred. DAV fully supports this relaxed evidentiary practice, consistent with 

DAV Resolution No. 086. 

S. 865 would seek to further relax the evidentiary standard for ‘‘stressor’’ requirements. It would provide that any veteran who claims that a covered mental health 

condition was incurred in or aggravated by MST during active military, naval, or 

air service would require the Secretary to accept as sufficient proof of service connection, a diagnosis of such mental health condition by a mental health professional, 

together with satisfactory lay or other evidence of such trauma and an opinion by 

the mental health professional that such covered mental health condition is related 

to such MST. 

The circumstances of MST would need to be consistent with the conditions or 

hardships of such service, notwithstanding the fact that no official record exists of 

such incurrence or aggravation in such service. Every reasonable doubt would be resolved in favor of the veteran. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to 

the contrary, and provided that the claimed MST was consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran’s service, the veteran’s lay testimony alone would establish the occurrence of the claimed MST. 

Service connection of a covered mental health condition could be rebutted by clear 

and convincing evidence to the contrary. The Secretary would also be required to 

record, in full, the reasons for granting or denying service connection in each case. 

Under this bill, a covered mental health condition would be defined as PTSD, anxiety, depression, or other mental health diagnosis described in the current version 

of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the 

American Psychiatric Association, that the Secretary determines to be related to 

MST. 

MST would be defined as a psychological trauma, which in the judgment of a 

mental health professional, resulted from a physical assault of a sexual nature, batVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\051315.TXT PAULIN
107 

tery of a sexual nature, or sexual harassment which occurred during active military, 

naval, or air service. 

This bill would require the Secretary to provide a report on implementation of this 

measure and its impact on claims filed that deal with MST, beginning on December 1, 2016, through 2020. 

Enacting this legislation would ease some of the evidentiary requirements for 

those veterans filing claims for service-connection suffering the aftereffects of a 

MST. It would bolster the weight afforded to lay evidence. When the lay evidence 

is corroborated by a mental health professional and a diagnosis is made of one of 

the covered mental health conditions, the Secretary would be authorized to grant 

service-connection for the claim. 

Enactment of this legislation would result in two separate adjudication procedures 

for veterans filing claims related to MST versus veterans filing claims related to 

combat, or exposure to hostile military or terrorist activity. Those currently filing 

claims for PTSD unrelated to MST are required to have their diagnosis confirmed 

by VA psychiatrists or psychologists, or through psychiatrists or psychologists with 

whom VA has contracted. 

DAV Resolution No. 086, approved by our membership at our most recent national convention, supports the purposes of this bill. 

We believe VA should address a disparity in current regulation by making similar 

the adjudication of all stressor-related mental health disabilities. Accordingly, we 

recommend the following changes: 

To ensure parity among veterans claiming mental health-related disabilities as a 

result of MST, combat, and exposure to hostile military or terrorist activity, title 38, 

Code of Federal Regulations should be amended to read as follows: 

3.304 Direct service connection; wartime and peacetime. 

(3) If a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran’s fear of 

hostile military or terrorist activity and a certified mental health professional, including a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor 

is adequate to support a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

VA should accept and rate claims using private medical evidence for qualifying disabilities related to MST, combat, or exposure to hostile military or terrorist activity 

when received by a certified mental health professional, that is competent, credible, 

probative, and otherwise adequate for rating purposes. 

A similar bill, H.R. 1607, was introduced in the House. DAV was pleased to provide our testimony to the Subcommittee on Disability and Memorial Affairs on 

April 14, 2015, concerning this bill, which we supported. 

DRAFT BILL, THE 21ST CENTURY VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT

This bill would increase efficiencies within the Transition Assistance Program 

Global Positioning System (TAP GPS) program and other functions of VBA’s benefit 

claims process. 

Section 101 of the bill would mandate that TAP be made available through the 

e-Benefits Web site to provide servicemembers and families with the option to participate online. 

This enhancement to the TAP program does not appear to compromise the requirements set forth under title 10, United States Code, section 1144. DAV would 

recommend the online option be offered when a transitioning servicemember is unable to attend the formal class, but not be substituted for the requirement to attend 

in person. 

The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the 

participation in TAP of veterans’ service organizations (VSOs). The report would 

evaluate Department of Defense (DOD) compliance with directives contained within 

the ‘‘Installation Access and Support Services for Nonprofit Non-Federal Entities,’’ 

memorandum dated December 23, 2014, including the number of military bases that 

have complied with the directives, and the number of VSOs that have been present 

during portions of the TAP GPS presentations. 

DAV supports this provision consistent with national resolution NO. 053, as 

adopted at our most recent national convention held in Las Vegas, Nevada, August 9–12, 2014. This resolution urges Congress to monitor the review of Transition 

GPS program, its workshops, training methodology, and delivery of services; the collection and analysis of course critiques; and to ensure the inclusion of DAV and 

other veterans service organizations in workshops, in order to confirm the program 

is meeting its objective and to enable follow-up with participants to determine if 

they have found gainful employment. 

108 

Section 102 would require the Secretary to explain to claimants, upon receipt of 

decisions regarding their claims, the benefits of filing an appeal within 180 days. 

This provision would amend title 38, United States Code, section 5104, to require 

explanation of the procedures for obtaining appellate review. 

DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership on this topic, but 

would not oppose passage of this section. 

Section 107 would authorize the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) to schedule 

video conference hearings. This language would give the BVA the authority to 

schedule such hearings in the first instance, but would preserve the appellant’s 

right to an in-person hearing. We strongly support an appellant’s right to request 

the type of hearing best suited to their needs. 

DAV supports this provision of the bill. 

Section 201 would require the Comptroller General of the United States to complete an audit of the regional offices of the Veterans Benefits Administration. The 

audit would include examination of consistency of claims decisions; and identify 

ways to improve consistency and best practices, including management practices 

that distinguish higher performing regional offices from others. 

DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership covering this 

issue, but would not oppose passage of such legislation. 

Section 202 of the bill would require VA to establish a training program for veterans service center managers, and would include employees in successor positions 

within regional offices of the Veterans Benefits Administration. This training program would place emphasis on matters pertaining to managerial and other skills 

for those in leadership. 

DAV has received no approved resolution pertaining to this issue, but would not 

oppose passage of this section. 

Section 203 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, for each systemic 

analysis of operations that is completed by a Veterans Service Center Manager 

(VSCM) in a regional office (RO), also include an analysis of the communication between the regional office and veterans service organizations and case workers employed by Members of Congress. 

This section of the bill seeks to analyze the communication between those referenced above. Within VA ROs, the Secretary requires VSCMs to collect various 

forms of data and information to assess and report on overall performance and 

trends. This provision seeks to require that VA report on the effectiveness of communications amongst stakeholders. 

DAV has received no resolution from our membership pertaining to this issue, but 

would not oppose passage of this section. 

Section 204 would require the VA Inspector General (IG) to conduct a review of 

the practices of regional offices regarding the use of suspense dates during the disability claim assessment process. The intent of this legislation is unclear, but we 

presume that IG would be expected to report on whether VBA is following its own 

protocol for specific controls established for claims processing. 

DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership pertaining to this 

issue, but would not oppose its passage. 

Section 205 would require Secretary to submit to Congress a report on the capacity of the Veterans Benefits Administration to process claims for benefits during the 

next one-year period. 

This report would contain the number of claims Secretary expects VBA to process, 

the number of full-time equivalent employees who are dedicated to processing such 

claims, an estimate of the number of such claims a single full-time equivalent employee of the Administration can process in a year, and an assessment of whether 

the Administration requires additional or fewer full-time equivalent employees to 

process such claims during the next 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year periods. 

DAV recommends that any such report also include, in addition to the number 

of claims, the number of issues the Secretary expects to process, the number of 

issues granted or denied and the error rate per issue. 

DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership pertaining to this 

issue, but would not oppose passage of such legislation. 

Section 206 would require the Secretary to complete the revision to VBA’s resource allocation model within 180 days after enactment of this legislation. Congress 

would also require the Secretary to provide a report on the newly revised resource 

allocation model. 

Although we welcome and look forward to changes of VBA’s resource allocation 

model, mandating its completion within a specified period may lead VA to implement hasty and less comprehensive changes. 

DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership pertaining to this 

issue, would not oppose passage of this section, but would encourage the Committee 

109 

to consider the potential effect of mandating the completion of the resource allocation model within 180 days after enactment of governing legislation. 

Section 207 would require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress on the 

current functionality of the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). It 

would also solicit recommendations to improve VBMS from VBA employees and 

VSO’s that use the system. We would recommend that any report not only contain 

the functionality and progress of VBMS, but also review the anticipated enhancements to this platform and its interoperability with other systems within the VA. 

DAV has voiced concerns that there are functions within the VA, specifically those 

performed by the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board), that are essential to the processing of appeals that must become more seamless and interoperable with VBMS. 

We have recommended additional funding for VBMS to support the full range of 

benefits and claims process improvements. 

DAV has received no resolution pertaining to this issue, but would not oppose passage of this section. 

Section 208 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to produce a report 

to Congress no later than 90 days after the enactment of this legislation detailing 

a plan to reduce the inventory of claims pending for Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation and Pension benefits. 

Delays in the adjudication of benefits, particularly those for survivors, can mean 

serious adverse financial consequences. The death of a spouse means a significant 

loss in household income. Losing one’s spouse already creates an emotional hardship 

which should not be compounded by an unnecessary delay in the approval of survivor benefits. 

Although DAV has received no resolution from our membership on this particular 

topic, we would welcome the findings of this report and the Secretary’s plan to process these claims more expeditiously. 

Section 209 would require the Secretary to include in each Monday Morning 

Workload Report of VBA the number of claims for benefits that have been received 

by all regional offices and that are pending decisions, disaggregated by various categories. We recommend the language be amended to include information for the 

number of issues as well as the number of claims pending adjudication. 

DAV has received no resolution pertaining to this issue, but would not oppose passage of this section. 

Section 210 would require the Secretary, on an Internet Web site of the Department, to make available to the public internal reports entitled ‘‘Appeals Pending’’ 

and ‘‘Appeals Workload by Station.’’ We recommend the language be amended to include information for the number of issues as well as the number of appeals pending 

appellate review. 

DAV has no resolution pertaining to this issue, but would not oppose passage of 

this section. 

Section 211 would modify an existing pilot program that concerns the use of contract physicians to perform disability examinations. It would permit licensed and 

duly recognized physicians to perform examinations at any location in any state, the 

District of Columbia, or a Commonwealth, territory or possession of the United 

States so long as the examination is within the scope of the authorized duties stipulated under the contract. It would alleviate the jurisdictional obstacles in areas 

where physicians are not licensed within a particular jurisdiction. 

DAV supports this provision of the bill. We do not have a specific resolution on 

this issue, but in general it improves VA’s ability to provide contract examinations 

for disability compensation purposes. 

Section 301 would require the appointment of liaisons by the Secretary of Defense, Commissioner of Social Security and the Administrator, National Archives 

and Records Administration, to work in coordination with the VA for the purpose 

of improving records transfers and claims processing efficiencies. 

DAV has no resolution pertaining to this issue, but would not oppose passage of 

this section. 

Section 302 would require the Secretaries of the VA and DOD to submit a report 

to Congress that outlines their plans for interoperability of electronic health records 

of each Department. This report would require specific timelines and milestones to 

achieve the goal of interoperability. 

We believe it is important that the transfer of health records from DOD to VA 

be accomplished seamlessly so that the transition of military members to civilian 

life can be improved. The movement of information is critical in the case of wounded 

and injured military personnel transitioning to veteran status, as well as for Guard 

and reserve component members who are in rotational assignments and combat deployments. 

DAV supports this provision of the bill. 

110 

DRAFT BILL, VETERANS’ COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING-ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2015

If introduced, this draft bill would provide for an increase, with no ‘‘round down’’ 

requirement, effective December 1, 2015, in the rates of compensation for veterans 

with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for the survivors of certain disabled veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, DAV strongly supports this legislation, especially since it does not 

mandate that the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) be rounded down to the next 

lowest whole dollar amount. DAV recognized this same accomplishment by this 

Committee last year when the COLA for 2014 was enacted and excluded the rounddown provision. 

Many disabled veterans and their families rely heavily or solely on VA disability 

compensation, or DIC payments, as their only means of financial support, and they 

have struggled during these difficult times. While the economy has faltered, their 

personal economic circumstances have been negatively affected by rising costs of 

many essential items, including food, medicines and gasoline. 

As inflation becomes a greater factor, it is imperative that veterans and their dependents receive a full COLA. On the strength of DAV Resolution No. 071, DAV 

supports enactment of this legislation. 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT

MODERNIZATION COMMISSION

Recommendation 11 seeks to safeguard education benefits for Servicemembers by 

reducing redundancy and ensuring the fiscal sustainability of education programs. 

In an effort to accomplish these objectives, more stringent restrictions would be 

placed on availability of the active duty Tuition Assistance program to active duty 

servicemembers. 

The recommendation also proposes increases in active duty service commitments 

from six years with a four year re-up, to ten years with a two year re-up as a prerequisite to transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to eligible dependents. It would eliminate the housing stipend for dependents and prohibit the receipt of unemployment 

benefits when a housing stipend is received under Post-9/11. 

It would require reports on those using educational benefits, with reports to be 

supplied by schools. Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty (MGIB-AD) and Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) would be sunset as all current and future educational programs would fall under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

DAV takes no position on this recommendation. 

Recommendation 12 seeks to better prepare servicemembers for transition to civilian life by expanding education and granting states more flexibility to administer 

the Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) program. 

If enacted into law, it would require active duty servicemembers to attend the 

educational track, which is now optional within TAP GPS, if servicemembers plan 

to use their educational benefits, or if they have transferred their benefits to a 

qualified dependent. The TAP GPS program would also be reviewed by DOD, VA, 

DOL and SBA to determine if the current curriculum most accurately addresses the 

needs of transitioning servicemembers. 

The recommendation also calls for relevant statutes to be amended to permit state 

departments of labor, or their equivalent agencies, to work directly with state Veterans Affairs directors or offices to coordinate implementation of the JVSG program. 

DAV does not oppose this recommendation. Requiring active duty servicemembers 

to attend a class within TAP focused on the use of their educational benefits seems 

beneficial overall. Additionally, continuous review of the TAP GPS program to ensure its relevance and effectiveness seems like a necessary function to keep pace 

with change. 

Finally, enacting legislation that improves coordination between state departments of labor of veterans affairs to enhance facilitation of the JVSG program could 

streamline processes resulting in better employment opportunities for veterans. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Section 514 of the DOD legislative proposal parallels the language of S. 602, the 

GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015, discussed above. 

Section 522 of the DOD legislative proposal seeks to amend chapter 1606 of title 

10, United States Code. The amendment would add language to preclude the loss 

of entitlement to and payment for the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve (MGIBSR). This amendment would preserve MGIB-SR benefits for servicemembers in instances when they are called to active duty in support of a major disasters or emerVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\051315.TXT PAULIN
111 

gencies, or when they are ordered to active duty for pre-planned missions in support 

of combat commands. 

DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership on this topic; 

thus, DAV takes no position on this bill. 

Section 542 of the DOD legislative proposal would amend section 4312, title 38, 

United States Code, governing reemployment rights of persons who serve in the uniformed services. 

DOD proposes to add the language of sections 12304(a) and 12304(b) of title 10, 

United States Code, noting that this additional language would complete the list of 

current involuntary mobilization authorities that are exempt from the five-year 

limit imposed by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act 

(USERRA). We believe this amendment would further reemployment safeguards afforded to servicemembers who are involuntarily called to active duty with limited 

notice provided to an employer. 

DAV has received no resolution from our membership pertaining to this particular 

topic, but would not oppose passage of such legislation. 

Section 545 of the DOD legislative proposal would amend section 1142 of title 10, 

United States Code, relative to pre-separation counseling to servicemembers being 

released from service prior to the completion of 180 days of active duty. DOD proposes to clarify that pre-separation counseling services would not be provided to a 

member who is being discharged or released before the completion of that member’s 

first 180 ‘‘continuous’’ days of active duty. 

DAV has no resolution from our membership pertaining to this topic, but would 

not oppose passage of such legislation. 

Section 1041 of the DOD legislative proposal seeks eliminate the requirements set 

forth by the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program . DOD recommends the repeal 

of the statutory requirement for an advisory board of the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program. DOD contends the advisory board has achieved its objectives and 

that its functions can still be accomplished through interagency collaboration, rather 

than through the advisory board. 

DAV has no resolution pertaining to this issue and takes no position. However, 

DAV Resolution No. 187, speaks directly to the issue of atomic veterans’ radiation 

exposure. Our resolution calls on Congress to support legislation authorizing presumptive service connection for all radiogenic diseases. 

Military servicemembers have participated in test detonations of nuclear devices 

and served in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Japan, following the detonation of nuclear 

bombs, including clean-up operations at test sites. The government knew or should 

have known of the potential hazards to the health and well-being of these servicemembers. 

VA cites that approximately 50 claimants have obtained disability compensation 

or dependency and indemnity compensation pursuant to Public Law 98–542. 

Considerable resources have been expended by our government to provide dose reconstruction estimates which do not accurately reflect actual radiation dose exposure. DAV encourages Congress to enact legislation that provides presumptive service connection to atomic veterans for all recognized radiogenic diseases. Furthermore, all veterans involved in clean-up operations following the detonation of nuclear devices should be considered atomic veterans for all benefits and services provided by VA. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes DAV’s testimony. Thank you for inviting DAV to 

submit this statement for the record of today’s hearing. 

112 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ENLISTED ASSOCIATION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD OF THE

UNITED STATES (EANGUS) 


94845EAN1.eps
113 


94845EAN2.eps
114 


94845EAN3.eps
115 


94845EAN4.eps
116 


94845EAN5.eps
117 


94845EAN6.eps
118 


94845EAN7.eps
119 


94845EAN8.eps
120 


94845EAN9.eps
121 


94845EAN10.eps
122 


94845EAN11.eps
123 


94845EAN12.eps
124 


94845EAN13.eps
125 


94845EAN14.eps
126 


94845EAN15.eps
127 


94845EAN16.eps
128 


94845EAN17.eps
129 


94845EAN18.eps
130 


94845EAN19.eps
131 


94845EAN20.eps
132 


94845EAN21.eps
133 


94845EAN22.eps
134 


94845EAN23.eps
135 


94845EAN24.eps
136 


94845EAN25.eps
137 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. SNEE, M.ED, NCCM (SW), USN, (RET), 

NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION

THE FRA

The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is the oldest and largest organization serving 

enlisted men and women in the active, Reserve, and retired communities plus veterans of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. The Association is Congressionally Chartered, recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and entrusted to serve all veterans who seek its help. 

FRA was started in 1924 and its name is derived from the Navy’s program for 

personnel transferring to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve after 20 

or more years of active duty, but less than 30 years for retirement purposes. During 

the required period of service in the Fleet Reserve, assigned personnel earn retainer 

pay and are subject to recall by the Secretary of the Navy. 

The Association testifies regularly before the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs 

Committees, and the Association is actively involved in the Veterans Affairs Voluntary Services (VAVS) program. A member of the National Headquarters’ staff 

serves as FRA’s National Veterans Service Officer (NVSO) and as a representative 

on the VAVS National Advisory Committee (NAC). FRA’s NVSO also oversees the 

Association’s Veterans Service Officer Program and represents veterans throughout 

the claims process and before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals. For 2014, 144 FRA 

Shipmates and members of the Auxiliary provide 13,470 volunteer hours of support 

at 59 VA facilities throughout the country, enabling FRA to achieve VAVS ‘‘Associate Servicemember’’ status. 

FRA became a member of the Veterans Day National Committee in August 2007, 

joining 24 other nationally recognized Veterans Service Organizations (VSO) on this 

important committee that coordinates National Veterans’ Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery. The Association is a leading organization in The Military 

Coalition (TMC), a group of 33 nationally recognized military and veteran’s organizations collectively representing the concerns of over five million members. FRA senior staff members also serve in a number of TMC leadership positions. 

The Association’s motto is ‘‘Loyalty, Protection, and Service.’’ 

INTRODUCTION

Distinguished Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member Richard 

Blumenthal and other Members of the Committee; thank you for the opportunity 

to present the Association’s views on specific pending and draft legislation, and recommendations 11 and 12 of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC). Before addressing specific issues, it’s important to note 

that veteran’s benefits are earned through service and sacrifice in the defense of 

this great Nation and are not ‘‘entitlements’’ or ‘‘social welfare’’ programs. FRA will 

oppose any across-the-board budget driven cuts that lumps veteran’s programs with 

unrelated civilian programs and completely rejects any efforts that would ask veterans to do their ‘‘fair share’’ in deficit reduction. 

AGENT ORANGE BLUE WATER NAVY REFORM (S. 681)

The Association wishes to thank Senator Kristin Gillibrand (N.Y.) for introducing 

the ‘‘Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act’’ (S. 681). Representative Chris Gibson 

(NY) is sponsoring identical legislation in the House (H.R. 969) that was introduced 

with 131 original co-sponsors and currently has 218 co-sponsors. This legislation 

clarifies a presumption for filing disability claims at the VA for ailments associated 

with exposure to the Agent Orange herbicide during the Vietnam War. This legislation would reverse current policy so Blue Water veterans who only served on ships 

off the coast and have health problems commonly associated with herbicide exposure 

will be eligible for service-related VA medical and disability benefits. Many of these 

veterans are now senior citizens and the time to help them is now! 

From 1964–1975 more than 500,000 servicemembers were deployed off the coast 

of Vietnam, and many may have been exposed to Agent Orange, a herbicide used 

in Vietnam. Past VA policy (1991–2001) allowed servicemembers to file claims if 

they received the Vietnam Service Medal or Vietnam Campaign Medal. But VA implemented a ‘‘boots on the ground’’ limitation on obtaining an Agent Orange presumption connection. 

FRA is concerned about the December 2013 report from the National Academy of 

Sciences on the health effects from exposure to herbicides used during military operations in Vietnam. The study is mandated by the Agent Orange Act of 1991 (P.L. 

102–4) and the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001 (P.L. 107– 

138 

103). This provision in the public law sunsets September 30, 2015 and should be 

extended. 

The study provides limited or suggestive evidence that some Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange herbicide have a higher incidence of stroke after age 70. The 

study also notes that the possibility of adverse health effects in offspring of Vietnam 

veterans is a high priority with veterans, but notes that this is a very elusive outcome to establish or refute. 

The Association appreciates the establishment of a presumptive service-connection 

for Vietnam veterans who have B cell leukemia, Parkinson’s disease or ischemic 

heart disease. These diseases are related to exposure to Agent Orange. Former VA 

Secretary Eric Shinseki’s decision is a major step in the right direction, but FRA 

is advocating for a broader Agent Orange service-connection. 

However, a January 2013 VA statement referencing a careful review of another 

IOM report in 2011, entitled, ‘‘Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure,’’ indicates that there is insufficient evidence to establish a presumption of exposure to herbicides for Vietnam veterans who served off the Vietnam 

coast during the conflict. 

FRA believes that decision maintains the status quo regarding disability claims 

of these so-called ‘‘Blue Water’’ veterans and that the IOM report validated the 2002 

Royal Australian Navy study that confirmed the desalinization process used on Australian and U.S. Navy ships actually magnified the dioxin exposure. The Association 

continues to seek a legislative remedy to reverse current policy so Blue Water veterans and military retirees who have health problems commonly associated with 

herbicide exposure will be eligible for service-related VA medical and disability 

benefits. 

The Association notes the VA’s efforts to expand presumption to ships exposed to 

Agent Orange during the Vietnam era. In January 2012, the VA added 47 ships to 

its list of Navy and Coast Guard vessels that may have been exposed to the Agent 

Orange herbicide. The list expanded as VA staff determined that a ship anchored, 

operated close to shore or traveled on the inland waterways and was exposed to the 

toxic herbicide. While the expanded VA policy to include veterans who sailed on ‘‘inland waterway’’ ships is significant, FRA believes it does not go far enough. The Association has received hundreds of calls from ‘‘blue water sailors’’ and their surviving spouses, stating that due to service on ‘‘their ships’’ in Vietnam waters (Tonkin Gulf), they too suffer or have died from many of the illnesses associated to presumed exposure to herbicides as their ‘‘brown water’’ and ‘‘boots on the ground’’ 

counterparts. Many want to forget about the Vietnam War. But we should never forget those who served during the Vietnam War. 

GI BILL FAIRNESS (S. 602)

FRA wants to thank Senators Ron Wyden, (Ore.), and John Boozman, (Ark.), for 

introducing the ‘‘GI Bill Fairness Act’’ (S. 602) that would ensure wounded Guardsmen and Reservists receive the GI Bill benefits they’ve earned. 

Members of the Guard or Reserve who are wounded in combat are often given 

orders under 10 U.S.C. 12301(h) for their recovery, treatment and rehabilitation. 

Unfortunately, Federal law does not recognize such orders as eligible for Post-9/11 

GI Bill education assistance, meaning that unlike other members of the military, 

these Reserve Component members actually lose benefits for being injured in the 

line of duty. The GI Bill Fairness Act would end that unequal treatment and ensure 

these servicemembers are eligible for the same GI Bill benefits as active duty members of the military. FRA believes this is common sense legislation to fix a problem 

and ensure these servicemembers get the benefits they deserve. 

FRA has signed onto a Military Coalition (TMC) letter of support for the ‘‘Military 

Spouses Equal Treatment Act’’ (S. 270) and the Association has not taken a position 

on S. 627. 

MCRMC BACKGROUND

The FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310—P.L. 112–239) establishes the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission 

(MCRMC), but limits its recommendations from being a BRAC-like endorsement, as 

originally proposed, in its review of the current compensation and military retirement system. FRA believes it’s important that this distinguished Committee and its 

House counterpart maintain oversight over commission recommendations that fall 

under its jurisdiction. While FRA supports many of the Commission’s recommendations it was noted that no enlisted personnel were appointed to serve on the Commission. Nearly 75 percent of the current active force is enlisted and therefore 

should have representation on this Commission. 

139 

FRA wants to thank the members of the Commission and their staff for allowing 

FRA to have input while the report was being written. The Commission met with 

97 other advocacy groups as well. The MCRMC visited 55 military installations, received more than 150,000 survey responses from active duty and retirees, and held 

eight Town Hall meetings in their efforts to understand the complexity of the military compensation and retirement systems. 

MCRMC FINAL REPORT

The report makes 15 major recommendations intended to improve the cost-effectiveness of quality benefits for those who currently serve, have served and will serve 

in the future. This Distinguished Committee has asked for FRA’s position on recommendation 11 and 12. 

MCRMC Recommendation 11 proposes that Congress ‘‘Safeguard education benefits for Servicemembers by reducing redundancy and ensuring fiscal sustainability 

of education programs.’’ FRA supports consolidating multiple educational benefit 

programs into a single package with benefits eligibility and scope based on the 

length and type of duty performed. 

The Commission recommends a number of steps toward reducing redundancy in 

GI Bill programs. FRA supports many of the specific proposals and offers these comments for the Committees’ consideration. 

Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program 

(REAP) should stop any further enrollment and permit those currently using these 

programs to complete their studies. Those only using the Post-9/11 GI Bill should 

receive a full or partial refund of the $1,200 they paid to become eligible for MGIB 

benefits. 

MCRMC also recommends eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/11 GI 

Bill benefits should be increased to 10 years plus an additional commitment of two 

years. FRA opposes this change in that it devalues the program. Currently, servicemembers must serve 6 years and agree to serve 4 more to make dependents eligible 

for transfer of benefits. 

MCRMC further recommends that housing stipends for dependents be eliminated. 

FRA again opposes budget-driven cuts to benefit programs. The Association also 

supports restoring the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill benefits to at least 47 percent 

of active duty MGIB benefits. The Reserve MGIB program paid 47 percent of the 

Active Duty MGIB for the first 14 years of its existence (1985–1999). Thereafter, 

the National Guard and Reserve components reduced funding down to 21 percent 

of the Active Duty MGIB. The reason for the steep decline in these benefits is that 

the program competes directly for funding against annual discretionary reserve pay 

and benefit accounts. The Active Duty MGIB and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, are mandatory funding programs. 

Consistent with the MCRMC’s basic recommendation about educational benefit 

programs redundancy, FRA could support a Reserve MGIB program as an initial 

entry benefit for reservists that was part of an overarching military education program that would include benefits adequate enough to maintain and support the AllVolunteer Force. 

FRA supports MCRMC Recommendation 12 and suggests that mandatory GPS 

should also include spouses and that the program should be adjusted to include programs that benefit the entire family. Further local branches of military/veterans organizations should also be involved in the transition from military to civilian life. 

Affiliating with one or more of organizations can provide critical transition assistance such as contacts in the local community, and camaraderie with fellow veterans. 

DRAFT LEGISLATION

FRA wants to express its appreciation for having the opportunity to comment on 

draft legislation that includes provisions from other bills. The draft bill includes provisions from the ‘‘Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection Act’’ (S. 296), 

sponsored by Sen. Dean Heller (NV), that recognizes the surviving spouse of a service-connected disabled veteran, who acquires the ownership interest in a small business of the deceased veteran as such veteran. 

When a Veteran small business owner with a service-connected disability of less 

than 100 percent dies from causes unrelated to service, the spouse immediately 

loses those benefits. FRA supports this legislation, sponsored by Sen. Dean Heller 

(NV) that will help veteran owned family businesses remain eligible for small business benefits. 

The Association supports the ‘‘Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act’’ 

(S. 743), which recognizes servicemembers in the reserve components the status as 

a veteran. Under current law, a reserve component servicemember who has served 

140 

honorably for twenty or more years, earning the right to retire, is not considered 

a veteran. FRA believes that for those who serve honorably in the Guard or Reserve 

components for 20 or more years and who have met the requirements as a retiree 

should be granted the title as veteran. 

FRA supports the ‘‘Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act’’ (S. 666), sponsored by 

Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) that intends to improve the disability claims backlog by 

removing bureaucratic red tape that allows Veterans to see local doctors for their 

initial diagnosis and avoid long wait times at VA hospitals. 

The Association supports the ‘‘Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act’’ (S. 695), 

sponsored by Sen. Patrick Toomey (Penn.) that requires the VA to report to Congress on issues relating to the interring of veterans’ unclaimed remains in national 

cemeteries under the auspices of the National Cemetery Administration. The Missing in America Project conducted research that suggests there are remains of about 

47,000 veterans stored throughout the United States that have yet to be identified 

and/or claimed. 

FRA supports the ‘‘Ruth Moore Act’’ (S. 865), sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester (Mt.) 

that makes it easier for veterans to qualify for disability benefits by reducing their 

burden of proof for incidents of military sexual trauma. The legislation is named 

after Navy Veteran, Ruth Moore, who is a survivor of military sexual assault. This 

legislation will also require the VA to report military sexual trauma claim statistics 

annually to Congress. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, allow me again to express the sincere appreciation of the Association’s 

membership for all that you and the Members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees and your outstanding staff do for our Nation’s veterans. 

Our leadership and Legislative Team stand ready to work with the Committees 

and their staffs to improve benefits for all veterans who’ve served this great Nation. 

TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD OF JAMIE TOMEK, CHAIR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA, INC. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit Testimony for the Record for the Joint 

Senate and House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday, May 13, 

2015. 

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. (GSW) was founded in 1945 and is a Congressionally Chartered Veterans Service Organization which serves the surviving 

spouses of military servicemembers and veterans who died in service to this Great 

Nation. 

S. 270, THE CHARLIE MORGAN MILITARY SPOUSES EQUAL TREATMENT ACT OF 2015

This bill changes the Title 38 requirement that a spouse must be of the opposite 

sex and amends current law so that the determination of whether or not a marriage 

is valid is determined by the laws administered by the Secretary of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs rather than a variety of state, territory and local laws. GSW concurs with this proposed legislation. 

21ST CENTURY VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT

Sec 208. Report on Plans of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to Reduce Inventory of 

Claims for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation and Claims for Pension 

Congress is requesting that the Department of Veterans Affairs provide a plan 

to reduce the inventory of claims for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 

and Pensions. 

Timely processing of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) claims and 

timely receipt of DIC is critical to many surviving spouses. DIC is often the only 

income a surviving spouse receives and delay in processing and sending DIC causes 

a significant financial crisis. 

GSW concurs with the need for this plan. 

DISCUSSION DRAFT

Sec 102. Treatment of Businesses after Deaths of Servicemember-owners for Purposes 

of Department of Veterans Affairs Contracting Goals and Preferences 

S. 296—Sec 102 of the Discussion Draft became S. 296. S. 296, Sec 3 (i) reads: 

141 

‘‘(i) Treatment of businesses after death of servicemember-Owner.—(1) If 

a member of the Armed Forces owns at least 51 percent of a small business 

concern and such member is killed in line of duty * * * ’’ 

The wording ‘‘such member is killed in the line of duty’’ should be amended to 

read ‘‘and such member dies in the line of duty.’’ The word ‘‘killed’’ excludes all 

those who die on active duty. GSW has encountered this problem with killed vs. 

died in the past and the error is usually unintentional and due to not understanding 

the legal difference between the two words. Other than the issue stated above GSW 

concurs with this legislation. 

Sec 204. Pilot Program on Treatment of Certain Applications for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation as Fully Developed Claims 

‘‘(b)(4) in the case that the claimant is the spouse of the deceased veteran, 

certifies that he or she has not remarried since the date of the veteran’s 

death.’’ 

Surviving spouses who remarry at or after the age of 57 may receive Dependency 

and Indemnity Compensation. The above paragraph should be amended to add this 

information. Other than the issue stated above GSW concurs. 

MCRMC LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS 11 AND 12

Sec 1104 and 1105. Post-9/11 GI Bill Transferability 

Servicemembers may transfer their post-9/11 education benefits to a family member but will incur an increase in their service obligation. GSW concurs with this 

proposal. 

REPORTS

There are numerous provisions in these proposals requiring a variety of different 

reports. Reports such as those mentioned herein are expensive and after a period 

of time are no longer needed or used. Such reports should have a termination date 

stated initially and if the report is still needed after the termination date action 

may be taken to extend the termination date. 

SURVIVING SPOUSE ISSUES

There are numerous issues in the above reports pertaining to education benefits. 

Since education issues are being addressed the following issue concerning the Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship/Post-9/11 GI Bill could easily be addressed with those issues. 

Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarships/Post-9/11 GI Bill for Surviving 

Spouses 

We are very grateful for Congress’ recent approval of the Gunnery Sergeant John 

David Fry Scholarships or Post-9/11 GI Bill for the Post-9/11 surviving spouses of 

those who died on active duty. The Fry Scholarships became available to surviving 

spouses effective in January 2015 and are available to a surviving spouse for 15 

years after the death of his or her military spouse. If a surviving spouse’s military 

spouse died early in the post-9/11 era, the surviving spouse does not have enough 

time to complete a 4 year college degree. Please extend the time limit for using the 

Fry Scholarship benefits from 15 years after the death of the military spouse to 20 

years after the death of the military spouse. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID STACY, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, 

HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is David Stacy, and I 

am the Government Affairs Director for the Human Rights Campaign, America’s 

largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and 

transgender (LGBT) equality. On behalf of our 1.5 million members and supporters 

nationwide, I am honored to submit this statement into the record for this important hearing on pending benefits legislation that will impact our veterans. Today 

I will specifically speak in support of the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal 

Treatment Act of 2015. Our veterans and their families have sacrificed deeply in 

service to our country. The Charlie Morgan Act promotes fundamental fairness and 

ensures that all veterans, regardless of who they love or where they live, receive 

the benefits that they have earned and deserve. 

142 

Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor, which invalidated 

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Federal Government—including the Department of Veterans’ Affairs—began recognizing same-sex spouses for 

the purposes of Federal benefits and services. However, for LGBT veterans access 

to these benefits is far from universal. Current statutory language limits eligibility 

for veterans’ benefits to those living in states that recognize their marriage. This 

means that despite sweeping advances in equality and marriage recognition over 

the past decade, thousands of same-sex married couples living in states that do not 

recognize their marriage are denied access to these benefits including burial rights 

and home loan guaranty benefits. 

Veterans’ benefits provide critical medical and financial support for veterans and 

their families. For veterans struggling with injury or disability as a result of service, 

these benefits can be a lifeline. For many active duty servicemembers, these benefits 

are a promise that their loved ones will be taken care of if they don’t make it home. 

However, despite their service and sacrifice some veterans and servicemembers continue to be denied these most basic assurances. 

This denial is not only fundamentally unfair, it also promotes an arbitrarily discriminatory system that harms veterans and their families solely based on 

geography. 

Recognizing this, the Department of Defense has implemented a policy recognizing all same-sex marriages of enlisted servicemembers regardless of the state 

where the family lives. This policy promotes consistency and fairness and recognizes 

the mobility that we so often ask of our servicemembers. The failure of the Federal 

Government to provide uniform benefits to all veterans results in a frustrating and 

harmful scenario for many LGBT servicemembers. Due to these conflicting policies, 

upon retirement many veterans’ families will lose benefits over night. This not only 

frustrates common sense, but disrespects the service and sacrifice of our veterans 

as well as their families. 

The harm of these denials results in daily hardships for too many families. Despite the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor, eight year Army veteran Earl 

Rector was denied a VA home loan in Texas with his husband Alan. The couple had 

legally married in Washington State and returned to Dallas to purchase a home. 

Despite meeting every other qualification, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs denied the loan, leaving Earl with no recourse or assistance. Under the current discriminatory statute Earl and Alan were considered to be legal strangers by the Department simply because of their home state. Despite years of service, Earl was 

forced to secure a costly private mortgage to purchase the home. 

Earl and Alan are not alone. These daily denials are disrespectful, costly, and too 

often heartbreaking. Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan passed away believing 

that her wife and daughter would go unrecognized and receive none of the benefits 

that she had earned during her years of service. No servicemember should face this 

stark discrimination at a time when they need support the most. We have made a 

promise to all of our veterans who faithfully serve our country alongside their families. It is time to keep this promise. 

I appreciate the opportunity to offer this testimony today and urge Congress put 

an end to this harmful discrimination against our brave service men and women. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal: The Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) is pleased to present its views on veterans’ benefits legislation under consideration by the Committee today, May 13, 2015. 

MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the Federal Government. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION (MCRMC)

MCRMC Recommendation 11 proposes that Congress ‘‘Safeguard education benefits for Servicemembers by reducing redundancy and ensuring fiscal sustainability 

of education programs.’’ 

MOAA has long supported consolidating multiple educational benefit programs in 

a single platform under Title 38 with benefits eligibility and scope based on the 

length and type of duty performed. 

Specifically, the MCRMC recommends a number of steps toward reducing redundancy in GI Bill programs. MOAA endorses most of the specific proposals and offers 

these comments for the Committee’s consideration. 

Montgomery GI Bill and REAP. MCRMC recommendation: Montgomery GI Bill— 

Active Duty (Chap. 30, 38 U.S.C.) should be sunset on 1 October 2015. The Reserve 

Educational Assistance Program (REAP) (Chap. 1607, 10 U.S.C.) should be sunset 

143 

restricting any further enrollment and allowing those currently pursuing an education program with REAP to complete their studies. Servicemembers who switch 

to the Post-9/11 GI Bill should receive a full or partial refund of the $1,200 they 

paid to become eligible for MGIB benefits. The refund should be proportional to the 

amount of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit used. 

MOAA concurs. The Post-9/11 GI Bill should be the sole educational platform for 

supporting recruitment, retention and re-adjustment outcomes for the All-Volunteer 

Force. Servicemembers with MGIB-AD or REAP entitlement should be grandfathered with those benefits; under current policy they may elect to convert to the 

new GI Bill, if eligible. $1200 refunds are already authorized for MGIB-AD holders 

who make an irrevocable election to the new GI Bill and consume all 36 months 

of their entitlement. MOAA recommends making $1200 refund rules clearer and 

simpler. 

Transfer Eligibility of Educational Benefits. MCRMC recommends eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits should be increased to 10 YOS 

plus an additional commitment of 2 YOS. This change strengthens transferability 

as a true retention tool and aligns transferability eligibility to the Commission’s 

Recommendation on retirement. 

MOAA does not support the transferability recommendation. Congress provided 

statutory authority for the Dept. of Defense (DOD) to determine the optimal service 

obligation for eligible servicemembers to transfer new GI Bill benefits to dependents. MOAA recommends DOD review its policy/procedures and adjust transferability service commitments to support career force retention as necessary. 

Housing Stipend. MCRMC recommends the housing stipend for dependents 

should be sunset on July 1, 2017. 

MOAA has no position on sunsetting the housing stipend for future Post-9/11 GI 

Bill transfer contracts entered into on/after 1 July 2017. However, MOAA strongly 

objects to any cancellation of the housing stipend under transferability contracts in 

place before 1 July 2017. DOD should not break faith on existing transfer agreements including the housing stipend (BAH) after 1 July 2017. In cases where service 

extension agreements have already been signed and/or fulfilled for transferability, 

BAH for dependents must be honored, and servicemembers with such contracts 

should not have to meet a new threshold of service. 

Unemployment Compensation. MCRMC recommends eligibility for unemployment 

compensation should be eliminated for anyone receiving housing stipend benefits 

under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

MOAA objects to the proposal. Housing stipends start and stop in synch with academic and training calendars. Unemployment compensation is needed for veterans, 

including veterans with dependents, to meet financial obligations during breaks in 

full-time study or training. 

Tracking Education Levels. DOD should track the education levels of Servicemembers leaving the Service, as well as the education levels of Servicemembers who 

transfer their Post-9/11GI Bill to their dependents. MOAA supports. 

Report to Congress. The VA should collect information related to, but not limited 

to, graduation rates, course competition rates, course dropout rates, course failure 

rates, certificates and degrees being pursued, and employment rates after graduation, and include that information in an annual report to the Congress. 

MOAA supports. The Departments of Defense, Veterans’ Affairs and Education 

must build on their ongoing efforts to track outcomes from military tuition assistance (TA) and GI Bill programs. 

Non-Personally Identifiable Information. Educational institutions should be required to provide non-personally identifiable information on students who receive 

Post-9/11 GI Bill and TA benefits, when requested by DOD or VA. 

MOAA supports. Allow the collection of non-personally-identifiable veteran data 

by the Department of Education. 

MONTGOMERY GI BILL—SELECTED RESERVE (MGIB-SR) (CHAPTER 1606, 10 U.S.C.). THE

MCRMC DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION RE THE MGIB-SR. 

MOAA position. The MGIB-SR program paid nearly 50 cents to the dollar compared to the MGIB-AD for the first 14 years of its existence (1985–1999). Thereafter, the Services and their National Guard and Reserve components allowed the 

program to dwindle to a current ratio of 22 cents to the dollar compared to the 

MGIB-AD. The reason for the steep decline in these benefits over time is the program competes directly for funding against annual discretionary reserve pay and 

benefit accounts. The MGIB-AD and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, on the other hand, are 

mandatory funding programs under Title 38. As a Title 10 discretionary program 

DOD has declined to sustain the MGIB-SelRes as a recruitment tool. 

144 

Consistent with the MCRMC’s basic recommendation to eliminate educational 

benefit programs redundancy, MOAA has long maintained that the MGIB-SR 

should be re-codified as a sub-chapter in Chapter 33, 38 U.S.C. as an initial entry 

benefit for reservists. A single GI Bill platform with benefits scaled to the length 

and type of duty performed is needed to support All Volunteer Force manpower in 

the 21st century. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS—REGARDING EDUCATION BENEFITS, 

TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, AND ADVISORY BOARD ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION

(SECTIONS 514, 522, 542, 545, AND 1041)

DOD Legislative Proposal Section 514. Expansion of Service Qualifying for Post9/11 GI Bill Entitlement. DOD proposes to add Section 12301(h), 10 U.S.C. as qualifying active duty service for reservists who are receiving authorized medical care— 

medical hold status—for Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement purposes. 

Members of the National Guard or Reserve who are disabled on active duty orders 

and receiving medical care should not lose eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. 

The DOD’s Reserve Forces Policy Board recommended to the Secretary of Defense 

a change in law on the basis of equity. MOAA agrees. Currently, when a Guard or 

Reserve servicemember is injured or wounded in a combat theatre, the member is 

transitioned on orders to a medical hold status under 10 U.S.C. 12301(h). This stops 

accrual of active duty time that would count toward Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement. 

If the member is not discharged but returns to service, none of the time spent in 

medical hold counts as qualifying service. In effect, the reserve member is penalized 

for a line-of-duty wound, injury or illness. Coincidentally, if the same member were 

discharged from service because of the disability, the member would earn 100% of 

the benefit—assuming 30 days continuous active duty service. 

Reservists continue to honorably serve wherever and whenever they are needed. 

Closing this oversight in current statute would allow all servicemembers to continue 

to accrue the educational benefits earned in service while receiving medical care 

from the DOD under Section 12301(h) of Title 10. 

MOAA strongly supports S. 602, the GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015, which would 

implement DOD’s recommendation for reservists in medical hold status. 

Section 522. Recovery of MGIB-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) Benefits for Service on 

Active Duty under Recently Added Authorities. DOD proposes that Sections 12304a 

and 12304b of 10 U.S.C. would be added to existing authorities in Chapter 1606, 

10 U.S.C. so that reservists called to active duty under these sections may regain 

lost MGIB-SR after release from active duty. 

Section 12304a authorizes the involuntary activation of a National Guard or Reserve member by the Secretary of Defense when a state Governor requests Federal 

assistance in responding to a major disaster or emergency. Reservists may serve a 

continuous period of active duty of not more than 120 days under the authority. 

Under a catastrophic event like Hurricane Katrina reservists may need to be activated for a period of time that would compel them to repeat a course of study or 

training. 

Section 12304b authorizes Secretaries of the Military Departments to order as 

many as 60,000 members of the Selected Reserve to active duty to augment the active forces for missions in support of a combatant command for up to 365 days without the consent of the member. By law, such missions must be preplanned and 

budgeted in Service budget submissions and members must be notified 180 days 

prior to their activation. Reservists may be activated if an exception to policy is approved by the Secretary of Defense. When this happens, servicemembers may be 

forced to lose academic credit for withdrawal from a course. DOD anticipates that 

few reservists would be affected over the next few years but wants to protect their 

earned benefits. 

MOAA supports the DOD proposal. Reservists called to operational duty under 

Sections 12304a and 12304b should not lost entitlement to MGIB-SR benefits during 

their active duty service. 

The ‘‘operational reserve’’ policy was promulgated by former Secretary of Defense 

Bob Gates on January 17, 2007. It specifies that members and units of the National 

Guard and Reserve can expect to serve up to one year on active duty to perform 

operational missions for every six years of service in the Selected Reserve—‘‘one 

year mobilized to every five years demobilized ratio.’’ DOD’s recommendation 

springs from acknowledgement that additional call-up authorities provided by Congress should not be a cause for them to lose earned MGIB-SR benefits. 

That said, MOAA believes that the DOD recommendation on Sections 12304a and 

12304b is too narrowly drawn. MOAA recommends that Sections 12304a and 12304b 

be added to the Post-9/11 GI Bill under Section 3301, 38 U.S.C. By any reasonable 

145 

interpretation of Congress’ intent for Sections 12304a and 12304b, missions that 

would be performed under such orders are operational missions for the purpose of 

defending or protecting the homeland or augmenting active force missions that are 

pre-planned and budgeted. 

In MOAA’s view, reservists who serve aggregates of 90 days of active duty under 

Sections 12304a and 12304b should be entitled to Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Our 

recommendation is consistent with the MCRMC’s view on education benefits, discussed earlier, to eliminate GI Bill programs redundancy and rely on Chapter 33, 

38 U.S.C. as the GI Bill educational platform for the All Volunteer Force. 

Section 542. Update Involuntary Mobilization Authorities Exempted from the 

USERRA Five-year Limit. DOD proposes to add references to Sections 12304a and 

12304b of 10 U.S.C. to complete the list of current statutory authorities exempt from 

the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) fiveyear limitation under Chapter 43, 38 U.S.C. 

Congress enacted the USERRA to protect members of individuals who perform or 

have performed service on active duty from employment discrimination on the basis 

of their uniformed service in accordance with Sections 4301–4335, 38 U.S.C. As 

DOD notes, the USERRA is ‘‘intended to ensure that these uniformed servicemembers are not disadvantaged in their civilian careers because of their service; are 

promptly reemployed in their civilian jobs upon their return from duty; and are not 

disadvantaged against in employment because of their military status or uniformed 

service obligations.’’ 

Adding Sections 12304a and 12304b is consistent with Congress’ intent for protecting uniformed servicemembers when called to active duty. MOAA strongly supports amending the USERRA to include Sections 12304a and 12304b, 10 U.S.C. 

Section 545. Pre-Separation Counseling for Members of the National Guard and 

Reserves on Continuous Active Duty. DOD proposes to ‘‘expressly exclude’’ any period 

of active duty for training (ADT) from receiving transition assistance program (TAP) 

services. TAP is provided to members who are being discharged or released before 

the completion of that member’s first 180 days active duty. 

According to DOD, the ‘‘first 180 days’’ can be misinterpreted to mean the first 

180 cumulative days on active duty as in the case of National Guard and Reserve 

members. 

MOAA accepts the proposal to clarify the intent to exclude an initial period of active duty training (ADT) in the calculation of service to qualify for TAP services. 

We point out that the DOD and Services could use the proposed change to ‘‘game’’ 

the system by putting reservists on ADT and active duty orders in connection with 

an operational call-up. 

There are numerous examples of call-ups executed during OIF-OEF in the last 

decade that involved blended ADT and active duty orders. These appear to have 

been used to align the call-ups with available funding sources and to manage the 

numbers of National Guard and Reserves who were to be counted on ‘‘active duty’’ 

for operational purposes. 

MOAA is concerned that the proposed change could be used against reservists 

during extended call-ups to deny their access to TAP re-adjustment services. MOAA, 

therefore, opposes the proposal as written. MOAA recommends the Committee review this matter with the Armed Services Committee to ensure Guard and Reserve 

members who are on active duty to perform operational missions are not denied 

TAP upon the completion of 180 days of continuous active duty. 

Section 1041. Repeal the Authority for the Federal Advisory Committee Act Board 

on Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program. DOD proposes to repeal the FACA advisory board for the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program. DOD asserts the board 

has achieved its objectives and its functions can now be more effectively conducted 

through an interagency effort rather than through a FACA advisory board. 

DOD notes that the Veterans’ Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction (VBDR), a 

Federal Advisory Committee, provides technical assistance on DOD’s Radiation Dose 

Reconstruction Program and the Dept. of VA’s radiological disease claims processing 

procedures. DOD is requesting that that review and oversight functions of the 

VBDR be transferred to the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs. 

MOAA is not opposed to sunsetting the Federal Advisory Board on Radiation Dose 

Reconstruction. MOAA, however, would recommend the Committee consider the potential value in re-casting the VBDR charter with a broader mission of advising the 

Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs on toxic exposures. The experience of 

our Nation’s warriors over the past 25 years with exposures to burn pits, chemical 

weapons, hazardous military materials, spent uranium rounds, biologicals, and 

other toxic materials suggests that a Federal Advisory Board would be of value to 

the respective departments, servicemembers, veterans and their families. 

146 

S. 681, Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015 (Senators Gillibrand, DNY, Tester, D-MT and Moran, R-KS. S. 681 would authorize Agent Orange-related 

benefits to Navy veterans who served in the territorial waters of Vietnam during 

that conflict. Despite scientific studies confirming their likely onboard exposure to 

dioxin and other chemicals that make up Agent Orange, these veterans have been 

denied access to service-related disability and other benefits arising from illnesses 

presumed caused by the exposure. 

MOAA has long maintained that these veterans deserve equal treatment with 

other veterans who set ‘‘boots on the ground’’ during the Vietnam War. That limitation was arbitrary, unfair and not based on science. 

MOAA strongly supports S. 681 and urges the Committee favorably report the bill 

as soon as possible. 

S. 1203, The 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act (Senators Heller, R-NV 

and Casey, D-PA). S. 1203 builds upon Senator Heller and Casey’s legislation passed 

in the last session of Congress to advance practical, low-cost solutions to resolve the 

backlog of veterans’ claims in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The bill also 

sets out supporting initiatives that can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 

procedures and practices to sustain the claims system for the future. 

The 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act includes provisions beneficial to 

our Nation’s veterans that will enable easier access to information on their claims 

through the eBenefits portal and speed access to hearings when they appeal a claim. 

The legislation also brings needed reforms to VA regional offices’ practices that are 

designed to increase the accuracy and efficiency of their work on behalf of veterans 

and improve transparency. Additionally, S. 1203 requires government agencies to 

cooperate in the collection and transmission of information needed by the VA to decide veterans’ claims, and for other purposes. 

MOAA is very grateful that Senators Heller and Casey’s offices actively consulted 

with us and our partner veteran service organizations to improve the draft legislation and make it responsive to the needs of our veterans. 

MOAA strongly supports the 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act, 

S. 1203, and urges the Committee to favorably report the bill at the earliest 

opportunity. 

DISCUSSION DRAFT LEGISLATION INCLUDING PROVISIONS DERIVED FROM

VARIOUS SENATE BILLS. 

S. 241, the Military Family Relief Act of 2015 (Senators Tester, D-MT and Moran, 

R-KS), would provide for the payment of temporary Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation (DIC) to a surviving spouse of a veteran upon the death of the veteran, and for other purposes. MOAA strongly supports S. 241. 

S. 296, the Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection Act of 2015 (Senator Heller, R-NV and Manchin, D-WV) would assist surviving spouses and dependents of service-disabled veteran-owned businesses after the veteran dies from the 

disability or in the line of duty, and for other purposes. MOAA supports S. 296. 

S. 666, the Quicker Benefits Delivery Act of 2015 (Senator Franken, D-MN) would 

require (instead of permit) the consideration of non-Dept. of VA medical professionals evidence in support of claims for disability compensation submitted by veterans, and for other purposes. MOAA strongly supports S. 666. 

S. 695, the Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act of 2015 (Sen. Toomey, R-PA) 

would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on matters relating to the burial of unclaimed remains of veterans in national cemeteries, and for 

other purposes. MOAA supports S. 695. 

S. 743, Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2015 (Senator Boozman, RAR) would honor as a veteran members of the National Guard or Reserves who are 

entitled to or in receipt of retired pay for non-regular (reserve) service but who had 

not served on active duty. 

National Guard and Reserve members who complete a full career in reserve status and are receiving or entitled to a military pension, government health care and 

specific earned veterans’ benefits under Title 38 are not ‘‘veterans of the Armed 

Forces of the United States,’’ in the absence of a qualifying period of active duty. 

Due to military accounting and funding protocols, many reservists actually have 

performed operational missions during their careers but orders often were issued 

under other than a Title 10 active duty authority. S. 743 would honor these retired 

servicemembers as veterans but preclude award of any veterans’ benefits they are 

not already entitled to as a result of their service. MOAA strongly supports passage 

of S. 243. 

147 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRYAN POLISUK, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

UNITED STATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


94845MSP1.eps
148 


94845MSP2.eps
149 


94845MSP3.eps
150 


94845MSP4.eps
151 


94845MSP5.eps
152 


94845MSP6.eps
153 


94845MSP7.eps
154 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN B. WELLS, USN (RET), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MILITARY-VETERANS ADVOCACY


94845MVA1.eps
155 


94845MVA2.eps
156 


94845MVA3.eps
157 


94845MVA4.eps
158 


94845MVA5.eps
159 


94845MVA6.eps
160 


94845MVA7.eps
161 


94845MVA8.eps
162 


94845MVA9.eps
163 


94845MVA10.eps
164 


94845MVA11.eps
165 


94845MVA12.eps
166 


94845MVA13.eps
167 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT LEVINS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PERSONNEL RECORDS

CENTER, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION


94845NAR1.eps
168 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER J. DUFFY, COLONEL, USARMY (RETIRED), 

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

As Legislative Director of the National Guard Association of the United States, 

I thank you for the honor of submitting testimony with Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on pending benefits legislation. This testimony will respond to Chairman’s request to address S. 602;the G.I. Bill Fairness Act of 2015; the legislative 

proposals to implement Recommendations 11 and 12 of the Military Compensation 

and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC); and the legislative proposals 

from the Department of Defense (DOD) regarding Education Benefits, Transition 

Assistance Program and Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction (sections 

514,522542,545 and 1041).This statement will also comment on S. 865—the Ruth 

Moore Act of 2015.Thank you for this opportunity. 

NGAUS STRONGLY SUPPORTS S. 602

NGAUS strongly supports S. 602 which would amend the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational, Assistance Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–252) to recognize time National 

Guard and Reserve members serve on active duty receiving medical care as ‘‘active 

duty’’ for the purposes of eligibility for education assistance and to retroactively 

apply the amendment to the enactment date of Public Law 110–252 (hereinafter referred to as the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill). 

In order for members of the reserve components to qualify for educational benefit 

purposes under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill as currently written, they must serve on active duty served under section 608,12301 (a), 12301 (d),12301 (g),12302, or 12304 

or section 712 of title 14. See 38 U.S.C. Section 3301(1) (B). Active duty service for 

medical 10 U.S.C. Section 12301(h) is not included because that authority did not 

exist when Post-9/11 G.I. Bill was enacted. 

10 U.S.C. 12301(h) was enacted to authorize National Guard and Reserve members to remain on active duty for full pay and allowances for treatment and evaluation of their service-connected injuries and for other medical purposes. This addressed an ongoing problem during the wars of our members returning to their civilian lives unable to earn a living because of their debilitating but treatable injuries. 

When Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. 12301(h) during the ongoing OIF/OEF wars, it 

did not contemporaneously amend the existing Post-9/11 GI Bill in title 38 to qualify 

reserve component active duty served under 10 U.S.C. 12301(h) for educational benefits. This appears to have been an oversight during a very busy time. 

NGAUS strongly supports this bill because the length of time reserve-component 

members serve on qualifying active duty determines their level of eligibility for education assistance. All active duty days need to be counted. 

Active-duty members receive full credit for education assistance for their time 

spent receiving medical care for service-connected injuries. In fairness, National 

Guard and Reserve members deserve the same. 

Not allowing educational benefits to apply to active duty served by the reserve 

components on for medical treatment discriminates harshly against our Guard and 


94845NAR2.eps
169 

Reserve wounded warriors who have bravely served the Nation. This needs immediate correction that S. 602 would do with full retroactivity to the enactment of the 

Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. 

Please support this legislation and urge your colleagues to do the same. 

RECOMMENDATION 11 OF THE MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT

MODERNIZATION COMMISSION

NGAUS concurs with recommendation 11 and the legislative proposal to implement if with a few exceptions. 

When enacting the consolidation recommendation, Congress needs to grandfather 

all in place service agreements relative to the transfer of Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits 

to dependents to include grandfathering any BAH currently being received by dependents. 

The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefit must also be amended to cover all National Guard 

Title 32 active duty period of 90 consecutive days or longer responding to a national 

emergency pursuant to orders issued under the authority of Title 32 section 502 (f). 

This will compensate for benefits National Guard members would lose with the recommended elimination of REAP. 

With respect to Army’s Federal Tuition Assistance referenced in the MCRMCV report, the current program needs to restore the full benefit for the Army National 

Guard before being allowed to go forward as it is currently administered. 

On Jan. 1, 2014 the Army imposed restrictions on utilization of the FTA for all 

Army components which prohibits use of FTA until one year after completion of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) or Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC). This 

has been particularly harmful to the ARNG participation in FTA which has declined 

by 18 percent and reduced total course enrollment by 31 percent. Consequently, the 

ARNG distributed only $59.98 million of the $73.8 million appropriated in 2014 for 

that purpose. 

The Army’s Federal Tuition Assistance (FTA) program has provided valuable financial assistance to citizen soldiers of the Army National Guard (ARNG) to advance their professional development as a soldier with benefits of up to $250 per 

semester credit hour or $167 per quarter credit hour not to exceed $4,500 a year; 

and 100 percent of high school equivalency tuition and fees up to $4,000 annually. 

The optimal time for ARNG soldiers to enroll in full time education programs is 

immediately after completion of their initial entry training. Immediate utilization of 

the FTA following initial training has not only been a valuable recruiting tool for 

the citizen soldier but it has effectively placed soldiers on a fast career development 

track. ARNG soldiers are in a better position than their active duty counterpart to 

enroll as full-time students while serving in the military. 

Soldiers receiving FTA within two years of accession have a higher retention rate 

than those not using FTA; soldiers using FTA within three years of enlistment have 

higher commission rates and are more likely to be higher quality accessions based 

on AFQT scores. 

Congress must assure restoration of FTA for the ARNG by rescinding the one 

year wait restriction imposed by the Army and return authority to the Army National Guard to implement a Federal tuition assistance policy that addressees the 

unique needs of the Guard soldier. 

RECOMMENDATION 12 OF THE MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION—MAKING TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS MANDATORY BUT

WITH IMPROVEMENTS

NGAUS concurs with this recommendation in theory but the practice needs 

amending to provide transition assistance services to separating members of the 

military closer to their homes which in truth may be as far as a continent away 

from the active installation hosting the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) they 

attended. 

Mental health providers in Florida reported last year that they treat veterans returning home to Florida after separating from the military who were totally unaware of the community mental health services available in that state. 

Mental health is only one of the services that a veteran may seek once home. 

They would also profit from awareness of what, where and from whom local employment and veteran assistance services are available. Receiving briefings from local 

personnel who will be administering these programs in their communities would 

allow our veterans to associate a face with a service. This would only enhance accession of those services as transition may require. 

Each state likely has the existing force structure through it National Guard Joint 

Force Headquarters to provide a facility and personnel for administering portions 

170 

of TAP better delivered at the state level that could connect to local state and Federal agency staff who likely have been delivering similar transition briefs to demobilizing Guard members throughout the war years. 

This would provide a proven alternative or adjunct to existing TAP operations. 

One with the potential to save money for the government and likely anxiety on the 

part of the returning veteran with the better connectivity to in state resources that 

it would provide. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

NGAUS applauds and thanks DOD for this proactive effort in behalf of the reserve components that addresses problems that have emerged during the wars or 

are likely to emerge with future deployments. 

Section 514 

PLEASE REFER TO THE DISCUSSION ABOVE RELATIVE TO S. 602. 

NGAUS certainly supports the DOD proposal to amend 38 U.S.C. 3301(1) (B) to 

include reserve component active duty for medical care served under 10 U.S.C. 

12301(h) as active duty for Post-9/11 G.I. Bill education eligibility purposes but it 

needs to go further. 

The proposed DOD amendment needs to incorporate the language of S. 602 so 

that it would be retroactively applied to the enactment of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. 

This would correct an apparent error in the legislative process that would provide 

equality in education benefit eligibility for all active duty and reserve component 

wounded warriors for their active duty time receiving medical care. 

Section 522 

NGAUS supports this DOD proposal that similar to section 514 discussed above 

that equitably recognizes and protects reserve component active duty deployments 

under authorities that did not exist when chapter 1606 of title 10, U.S Code was 

enacted. 

Montgomery G.I. Bill educational benefits lost because of reserve component active duty deployments under 10 U.S.C. 12304a and 12304b cannot currently be regained under the protections afforded by 10 U.S.C. 16133 which apply only to deployments under other older authorities. 

Section 522 would correct this by amending 10 U.S.C. 16133 to allow the member 

to regain those benefits when a reserve component member could not complete studies because of an activation order under 10 U.S.C. 12304a or 12304b. 

Section 522 would update protections in a fair and sensible manner. However, just 

as with section 514, there needs to be retroactive application to allow members of 

the reserve component to regain benefits lost because of past deployments under 10 

U.S.C. 12304a or 12304b. 

Section 542 

NGAUS strongly supports amend this additional updating effort that would expand involuntary mobilization authorities exempt from the Uniform Services Employment Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). 

Extended mobilizations beyond five years were harshly handled during the wars 

by some of our Nation’s airlines in disallowing Air National Guard pilots to return 

to work who served more than five years protecting our Nation’s airspace under Operation Noble Eagle /Air Sovereignty Alert orders. Legislation was passed late in the 

wars to address this. 

Section 542 is a forward looking effort that would protect reserve components 

members from an adverse employer’s denial of reemployment based on a technical 

interpretation of existing USERRA law that does not apply to evolving deployment 

authorities. 

Section 545 

NGAUS supports section 545 recognizing that TAP is not needed for reserve component deployments less than 180 days or for longer periods of active duty for training. This would save the members’ time and he government time and money. Moreover, any transition assistance required by National Guard members is more effectively and economically available through their assistance programs delivered within their states and managed by their Joint Force HQ. 

Section 1041 

NGAUS has scant experience with the programs covered by this proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal makes good economic and sustainment sense and avoids unnecessary duplication of effort by transferring to DOD and the Veterans Administration 

171 

the duties still assigned to an aging Federal Advisory Committee that are actively 

and expertly being worked at DOD and VA. 

S. 865

These comments are somewhat gratuitous but in review of the disability compensation protections that would be afforded sexual assault victims under S. 865— 

Ruth Moore, it is an opportunity to remind Congress of an alternative but underfunded authority to embed mental health providers in armories and Reserve Centers. 

Embedded licensed mental health care professionals embedded in armories and 

Reserve centers provide an onsite confidential touch point for sexual assault victims 

to report a sexual assault incident outside of the victim’s chain of command. 

The embedded provider based the victim’s civilian community will be well versed 

in what local support and prosecution services are available and can guide and advise the victim through that ticket. 

Moreover, sexual assault is the trigger and a precursor to a host of behavioral 

issues that can be immediately and confidentially addressed by an embedded mental 

health professional. This would not only help to protect and document a future disability claim but might well be a first step in preventing a suicide arising from the 

assault. 

The bill also grasps the need for victims to be able to support a disability claim 

from community based treatment outside of the Veterans Administration which may 

be perceived as male dominated and unfriendly to victims. 

There is a profound and ongoing need for Congress to fund confidential community based counseling services for veterans and their families similar to the successful Connecticut model that is administered cost effectively and efficiently with 24/ 

7 access for veterans and families in crisis mode. 

172 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NATIONAL MILITARY AND VETERANS ALLIANCE


94845NMV1.eps
173 


94845NMV2.eps
174 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. CARPENTER, FOUNDING MEMBER, NATIONAL

ORGANIZATION OF VETERANS’ ADVOCATES, INC. 


94845NOV1.eps
175 


94845NOV2.eps
176 


94845NOV3.eps
177 


94845NOV4.eps
178 


94845NOV5.eps
179 


94845NOV6.eps
180 


94845NOV7.eps
181 


94845NOV8.eps
182 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM


94845NVL1.eps
183 


94845NVL2.eps
184 


94845NVL3.eps
185 


94845NVL4.eps
186 


94845NVL5.eps
187 


94845NVL6.eps
188 


94845NVL7.eps
189 


94845NVL8.eps
190 


94845NVL9.eps
191 


94845NVL10.eps
192 


94845NVL11.eps
193 


94845NVL12.eps
194 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on pending legislation before the Committee. We appreciate the Committee focusing on these critical issues that will affect veterans and 

their families. We will also limit our comments on the Department of Defense 

(DOD) proposals to those issues that are governed by title 38 U.S.C. 

S. 270, THE ‘‘CHARLIE MORGAN MILITARY SPOUSES EQUAL TREATMENT ACT OF 2015’’ 

PVA does not have an official position on this legislation. However, we believe 

that VA regulations should be consistent with current Federal law and how the 

larger Federal Government handles this issue. 

S. 602, THE ‘‘GI BILL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015’’ 

PVA supports S. 602, the ‘‘GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015.’’ This legislation would 

include time spent receiving medical care from the Department of Defense as active 

duty time for the purpose of eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill. We have no doubt that 

this time should be considered active duty for purposes of eligibility for the Post9/11 GI Bill. We also appreciate the fact that this legislation would be retroactive 

to the date of the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

S. 627

PVA supports S. 627 to revoke bonuses paid to employees involved in electronic 

wait list manipulations. Our only caution is to ensure that due process is afforded 

to any employees identified in the Inspector General (IG) report. These employees 

violated the public trust and deserve appropriate discipline which may include the 

loss bonuses; however, they must be afforded the protections that Federal service 

has provided. 

S. 681, THE ‘‘BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS ACT OF 2015’’ 

PVA supports S. 681, the ‘‘Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015,’’ 

which would amend title 38 and expand the presumption for service connection related to the exposure of herbicides containing dioxin, including Agent Orange. As 

more information becomes available about these types of exposures, it will be imperative for Congress to take appropriate steps to ensure that these men receive just 

consideration for health care and benefits eligibility. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION PROPOSALS

PVA generally supports the proposals identified by the Military Compensation 

and Retirement Commission as they apply to title 38 U.S.C. However, we have 

strong objections to Section 1108. The Post-9/11 educational benefit is earned by a 

servicemember after serving the prescribed length of service. In an effort to retain 

high quality mid-grade servicemembers, the program included the ability to transfer 

the benefits to family members. The only change this section offers is to reduce the 

earned benefit by denying the Basic Housing Allowance (BHA) to family members 

to whom GI Bill benefits have been transferred. PVA believes the only reason for 

this change is to save money. We are seriously disappointed that by this effort to 

force our military members and veterans to pay for the cost savings through the 

reduction of their ‘‘earned’’ benefits. This section is wholly unacceptable and should 

not be part of any Congressional action. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

As previously stated, PVA does not generally involve itself in matters governed 

by DOD. However, PVA generally supports the Department of Defense legislative 

proposals as they apply to title 38 U.S.C. The bulk of these proposals correct provisions of public law to more appropriately treat Reserve and National Guard members when they are called to active duty, either involuntarily or for medical 

purposes. 

PVA concurs with Section 545. While there are those Reserve and National Guard 

members who could possibly benefit from the TAP program, this was not the purpose of TAP and should not be applied to active duty for training status. 

Regarding Section 1041 that eliminates the Federal Advisory Board for Radiation 

Dose Reconstruction Program, DOD indicates the Board has achieved its objectives. 

Too often we find Federal Agencies will claim something is no longer needed simply 

to save money. If in fact the Board’s work has been accomplished, then PVA sees 

195 

no issue with the elimination of the Board. However, we would encourage the Committee scrutinize this issue carefully and not simply take DOD’s word for it. 

THE ‘‘21ST CENTURY VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT’’ 

PVA generally supports the provisions of the draft bill, the ‘‘21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act.’’ Under Title I, PVA supports Section 101 that will prevent DOD from allowing TAP to be conducted entirely on-line. While improvements 

to the eBenefits Internet Web site will be valuable, we see too many instances of 

organizations moving more and more content and actions to the impersonal internet. 

The lack of face-to-face interaction that we find with the internet can significantly 

reduce the efficacy of services provided during a TAP program by eliminating the 

ability of the TAP instructor to identify body language that may indicate a lack of 

understanding or comprehension on the part of a soon to be discharged servicemember. In addition, individuals may be less likely to engage or ask questions when 

all content or training are on-line. Ensuring some level of personal interaction will 

benefit the veteran and make the transition to civilian life easier. 

PVA welcomes the provisions of Section 102 which will better explain the advantages for filing an appeal and see it as valid. However, we believe this issue is already being addressed in the revision of the Simplified Notification Letters (SNL) 

and we are heavily involved in this ongoing project. PVA supports Section 103 that 

will provide the opportunity for a veteran to request and be granted an in-person 

hearing before the Board of Veterans Appeals. While PVA strongly supports the use 

of video hearings and encourages those veterans served by our service officers to 

seek a video hearing, veterans that may feel uncomfortable with the technology 

should be allowed to seek an in-person hearing. We are glad to see that this legislation would require the Board to comply with this request. 

Under Title II, PVA supports the intent of Section 201 that will assess the consistency of decisions at a Regional Office (RO). Too often we see wide disparities between different RO’s and how they treat a disability claim. The identification of Best 

Practices, if implemented by the Secretary and the Regional Offices, may better provide for veterans and remove the ‘‘luck of the draw’’ that is found today. But we 

caution that trying to have the Comptroller General audit what is an individual 

human assessment is unlikely to produce a valid outcome. While there may be the 

ability to determine some trends, only in the area of gross differences in opinions 

will there be any significant basis for evaluation. 

In addition, the training identified in Section 202 and the analysis of communication required by Section 203, may also improve the processes within VA as well as 

between its stakeholders in the veterans community and with Congress. Service 

center managers are the key to efficient claims processing. They are responsible for 

the training and development of the employees who are the heart and soul of claims 

processing. In the same way that Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employees 

were put under pressure to report timely service, Veterans Benefits Administration 

(VBA) managers have felt the need to demonstrate increased productivity. However, 

it seems late in the game to realize that key management personnel now need management training. PVA’s fear is that the response by VA to such legislation will be 

enrollment in management courses that will enable VA to check off the block for 

training requirements without actually improving performance. If VA was truly interested in such improvement, this management training would already be 

occurring. 

While tasking the IG to review the practices of RO’s regarding use of suspense 

dates, we believe Section 204 needs to better identify what this review is meant to 

achieve. It would be unfortunate if after almost a year of review, the IG provides 

information that is either of no value, or does not address the issues Congress 

sought by the legislation. Similarly, with Section 205, PVA believes the requirement 

to report on the capacity of the VBA to process benefits claims should be expanded 

to include the capacity of VA to process appeals and not just claims. PVA and other 

veterans’ service organizations (VSO) predict a coming wave of appeals in the near 

future and information on VA’s ability to process appeals may prove equally valuable. Regarding Section 206, PVA looks forward to seeing VA’s plan for revising the 

resource allocation model for VBA. 

PVA will be interested in the findings of the semiannual report on implementation of the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) under Section 207. PVA 

has been very supportive of VBMS as a tool that can speed the completion of simpler and more straight-forward claims. Automation and rules based processing has 

an important place in VBA claims processing. However, as PVA has always cautioned, VBMS is not an end-all and be-all for claims. While VBMS works for simple 

claims, those that are more complicated or have a significant number of issues canVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:13 Feb 25, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\051315.TXT PAULIN
196 

not be easily processed with a rules-based system. These are the claims that need 

the ‘‘human touch’’ of an experienced claims adjudicator who fully understand the 

impact of wide ranging disabilities and their impact on each other. It has always 

been a fear of PVA that as VBMS became the standard for claims processing, VA 

would look to reduce costs or transfer personnel to other areas of VA thereby reducing the numbers of adjudicators needed for the more complex claims. As part of Section 207, PVA would like to see a report on how VA is handling those more complex 

claims and how VA has been able to improve the accuracy and reduce processing 

time of these more complex claims. Additionally, the legislation seems to only seek 

input from VBA employees and VSOs. We recommend that input also be received 

from employees of the Board of Veterans Appeals to ensure that the downstream 

impact of VBMS is also assessed. 

Section 208 requires a report on the Secretary’s plans to reduce the inventory of 

claims for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) and claims for Pension. 

PVA is as interested as Congress to see this plan. Additionally, it is absolutely critical that the increased transparency in Monday Morning Workload reports required 

by Section 209 be enacted. It is impossible to improve processes without metrics to 

track success or failure. PVA is pleased to see the inclusion of partial ratings assigned and the information on Fully Developed Claims (FDC) as well as indentifying 

the Regional Office processing the FDC. 

Finally, including public access to reports on appeals decisions outlined in Section 

210 will also increase transparency. This is perhaps one of the most opaque aspects 

of the claims process. While great attention is paid to processing times of initial 

claims, appeals seem to sit hidden away from view. We encourage the reporting of 

detailed information from previously adjudicated claims by the Appeals Management Center to identify problematic trends. As stated earlier, PVA sees a coming 

wave of appeals that may dwarf the current claims backlog in time, if not in number. Greater information for veterans and their representatives may help in better 

understanding the appeals process and shine some sunlight on this interminable 

process. 

PVA supports the provisions of Section 211 that will modify the pilot program for 

use of contract physicians for disability examinations. Hopefully this provision may 

allow VA to ensure that an appropriate physician is available to conduct a proper 

examination. Too often PVA sees exams performed by physicians not familiar with 

the disability in question. 

DISCUSSION DRAFT FOR OTHER VETERANS LEGISLATION

PVA supports Title I, Sections 101 and 102, of the draft legislation that would 

modify the law governing the treatment of veterans’ small businesses after the 

death of the disabled veteran business owner. Businesses are not built in a day. 

Moreover, they are built as an enterprise, and often as a family enterprise. The veteran may not expect to die while still owning his or her business and PVA believes 

it is only fair that the surviving spouse be able to have adequate time to maintain 

and then sell the business. This is particularly true in the case of the disable veteran who dies as a result of their service-connected disability or who dies in the line 

of duty. 

Currently if the veteran business owner passes away from a non-service-connected 

illness or injury, and is rated less that 100 percent service-connected, the surviving 

spouse only has one year to transition the business out of SDVOSB status with VA. 

If the SDVOSB has contracts with any other Federal agency, the business immediately loses its SDVOSB status upon the passing of the veteran and all business 

must stop. This legislation will allow the business to retain the SDVOSB status for 

three years upon the passing of the veteran to allow for a transition of the business. 

This three year period would apply to SDVOSB contracts with the VA and all Federal agencies. 

PVA supports Sections 201–203 of the draft legislation that address Military Sexual Trauma. Our position is consistent with a previous stated position on H.R. 1607, 

the ‘‘Ruth Moore Act,’’ which addresses similar issues. According to reports, sexual 

assault in the military continues to be a serious problem, despite several actions by 

DOD to combat the issue, including required soldier and leader training. As the 

military works to reduce the threat and incident of military sexual trauma (MST), 

it is important that victims of MST, both women and men, have the ability to receive care from the VA and receive timely, fair consideration of their claims for benefits. This is particularly important given the number of MST occurrences that go 

unreported. While current policies allowing restricted reporting of sexual assaults 

should reduce the number of incidents which have ‘‘no official record,’’ it can still 

be anticipated that there are those who will not report the incident out of shame, 

197 

fear of reprisals or stigma, or actual threats from their attacker. To then place a 

high burden of proof on the veteran, who has experienced MST to prove service-connection, particularly in the absence of an official record, would add further trauma 

to an already tragic event. 

One particular recommendation that PVA would like to make about the proposed 

language is a clarification of what constitutes a ‘‘mental health professional.’’ We 

would hope that the intent of this legislation is not to limit ‘‘mental health professionals’’ to only VA health care professionals. 

PVA supports the provisions of Section 204. This section establishes a pilot program on treatment of certain applications for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) as fully developed claims. Additionally, we support Section 205 that requires a review of determination of certain service in Philippines during World War 

II. This has been an ongoing effort for multiple years. PVA supports the proper 

identification of service for the purposes of compensation and supports efforts to 

achieve that goal. 

PVA supports the provisions of Section 206. PVA has consistently testified on 

what we see as unnecessary medical examinations scheduled by VHA when sufficient non-VA medical information is present. But we would like to see more detail 

in the report as it applies to specialized care, in particular, care and treatment in 

Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Centers. Because of the extensive use of SCI centers and 

specialists by PVA members, we need to be sure that the report includes not only 

‘‘private physician’’ but ‘‘VA treating physician’’ information. There is a tremendous 

distinction between a C & P examiner doing the one time exam of a patient and 

the SCI physician who sees the patient on a regular basis. This distinction is critical 

to PVA and the proper care and evaluation of SCI patients as well as other disabled 

veterans who receive specialized care from VA. 

PVA supports the provisions included in Title III and IV of the draft legislation. 

However, in the case of Title IV, we would caution the Committee about anticipated 

confusion on the part of those members of the Reserves who gain recognition as 

‘‘veterans.’’ We expect that these former members of the Reserves will eventually 

wonder that if they are in fact ‘‘veterans,’’ why they do not get the benefits of being 

veterans. 

Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to submit for the record. We look 

forward to working with the Committee to see these proposals through to final passage. We would be happy to take any questions you have for the record. 

198 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL A. BONOSARO, PRESIDENT, SENIOR EXECUTIVES

ASSOCIATION


94845SEA1.eps
199 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LEGION

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal and distinguished Members of 

the Committee, on behalf of National Commander Michael D. Helm and the 2.3 million members of The American Legion, we thank you and your colleagues for the 

work you do in support of servicemembers, veterans and their families. 

S. 270: CHARLIE MORGAN MILITARY SPOUSES EQUAL TREATMENT ACT OF 2015

To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the definition of spouse for purposes of veterans benefits in recognition of new State definitions of spouse, and for 

other purposes 

The American Legion has no position on this legislation. 

S. 602: GI BILL FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015

To amend title 38, United States Code, to consider certain time spent by members 

of reserve components of the Armed Forces while receiving medical care from the 

Secretary of Defense as active duty for purposes of eligibility for Post-9/11 educational Assistance, and for other purposes. 

Members of the Guard or Reserve who are wounded in combat are often given 

orders under 10 U.S.C. 12301(h) for their recovery, treatment and rehabilitation. 

Unfortunately, Federal law does not recognize such orders as eligible for Post-9/11 


94845SEA2.eps
200 

1 Resolution No. 14: Review of Federal Mobilization Personnel Statuses and Benefits 

2 Resolution No. 250: Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans 

GI Bill education assistance, meaning that unlike other members of the military, 

these members of the Guard and Reserve actually lose benefits for being injured in 

the line of duty. 

The GI Bill Fairness Act would end that unequal treatment and ensure these servicemembers are eligible for the same GI Bill benefits as active duty members of 

the military. It is truly unjust to deny wounded and injured servicemembers the 

ability to accrue educational benefits for the time they spend receiving medical care. 

No veteran should lose their benefits simply because they were in the National 

Guard or Reserves.1

The American Legion supports S. 602. 

S. 627

A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revoke bonuses paid to employees involved in electronic wait list manipulations, and for other purposes 

The American Legion has no position 

S. 681: BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS ACT OF 2015

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity of the Republic of Vietnam, 

and for other purposes 

Veterans who served on open sea ships off the shore of Vietnam during the Vietnam War are called ‘‘Blue Water Veterans.’’ Currently, Blue Water Veterans must 

have actually stepped foot on the land of Vietnam or served on its inland waterways 

anytime between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975 to be presumed to have been exposed to herbicides when claiming service-connection for diseases related to Agent 

Orange exposure. 

Blue Water Veterans who did not set foot in Vietnam or serve aboard ships that 

operated on the inland waterways of Vietnam must show on a factual basis that 

they were exposed to herbicides during military service in order to receive disability 

compensation for diseases related to Agent Orange exposure. These claims are decided on a case-by-case basis. 

We are cognizant that VA previously asked the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review the medical and scientific evidence regarding 

Blue Water Veterans’ possible exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides. 

IOM’s report Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure was 

released in May 2011. The report concluded that ‘‘there was not enough information 

for the IOM to determine whether Blue Water Navy personnel were or were not exposed to Agent Orange.’’ 

However, Vietnam veterans who served on land and sea now have health problems commonly associated with herbicide exposure. Just as those who served on 

land were afforded the presumption because it would have placed an impossible burden on them to prove exposure, Congress should understand the injustice of placing 

the same burden on those who served offshore. Clearly, all the toxic wind-blown and 

waterborne Agent Orange-dioxin just didn’t somehow stop at the coast line.2

The American Legion strongly supports this legislation to expand the presumption 

of exposure to herbicides for veterans who served within the territorial seas of Vietnam, to ensure that proper benefits are awarded to those with conditions associated 

with exposure. 

The American Legion supports S. 681 

DRAFT LEGISLATION: 21ST CENTURY VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the processing by the Department of Veterans Affairs of claims for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

The American Legion was honored to work with Senators Heller and Casey in attempting to improve accountability within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); 

more importantly, through this accountability, it is The American Legion’s pure objective to ensure that our Nation’s veterans are receiving their entitled benefits due 

to their honorable service to this Nation. The American Legion especially applauds 

the efforts from the Backlog Working Group to reach out directly to the Veterans 

Service Organizations (VSOs) in an effort to understand the problems inherent the 

VA disability claims system. The American Legion alone accredits over 3,000 service 

officers nationally to assist veterans with their claims for benefits. This first hand, 

201 

3 Resolution No. 210: Service Officers Participation in the Transition Goals, Plans and Success 

Program 4 Resolution No. 28: Department of Veterans Affairs Appeals Process 

front line experience is critical to understand how the system actually operates ‘‘in 

the trenches.’’ The willingness and eagerness of Senators Heller and Casey to go directly to the veterans who wage these battles for benefits daily has informed the 

policies they have proposed and underlined the absolutely critical need to include 

all stakeholders in the process of reforming any VA system. 

The bill is extensive in scope, so analysis of critical sections is provided: 

Sec. 101—Improvement to Transition Assistance Program 

The American Legion supports making TAP classroom material available online 

and has long advocated for the inclusion of veterans service organizations (VSOs) 

to servicemembers as they transition from service. The American Legion believes 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of Defense (DOD) and 

Department of Labor (DOL) need to work together to establish a nationwide policy 

to permit American Legion accredited representatives (service officers) as well as 

other major veterans service organizations (VSOs), that choose to participate in the 

Transition Goals, Plans and Success Program.3

Sec. 103—Determination of Manner of Appearance for Hearings before Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

For veterans opting to appeal their claims to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(BVA), it can often be an arduous process. In January 2015, The American Legion 

testified before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee Disability 

Assistance and Memorial Affairs regarding the amount of time that veterans wait 

prior to having their claims adjudicated. During that testimony, we indicated that 

a veteran’s standard four year enlistment is shorter than the period of time that 

a veteran must wait before a claim is adjudicated; sadly, approximately half of those 

claims reviewed by BVA must be remanded for further development to comply with 

VA’s duty to assist veterans seeking disability benefits. 

Veterans have various avenues to have their claims adjudicated. They may choose 

to have the following: 

• An informal hearing presentation 

• A hearing at BVA in Washington, D.C 

• A travel BVA hearing 

• A video conference hearing 

The American Legion believes that veterans own their claims. As such, the manner they choose to prosecute their claims should remain theirs; however, if VA can 

provide the manner that would be the most expeditious while not reducing the veteran’s due process rights to ensure they receive the benefits in a timely manner, 

it would be ultimately beneficial to the veteran community. Section 103 of this bill 

will allow veterans to have their claims to be adjudicated in a timelier manner and 

allow the veteran to ‘‘opt-out’’ of VA’s suggested manner to have a hearing conducted. This is consistent with The American Legion’s policy of encouraging VA to 

address all claims in an expeditious and accurate manner, provided VA creates no 

program that diminishes a veteran’s due process rights.4

Sec. 201—Required Comptroller General Audit of Regional Offices of Veterans Benefits Administration 

It is an unfortunate reality that veterans’ claims are not adjudicated in a similar 

manner. A claim adjudicated in one office may be granted while denied in another; 

additionally, a claim in one office may be granted a higher disability rating than 

in a separate office. We recognize that adjudicating claims is inherently open to interpretation; however, during The American Legion’s Regional Office Action Review 

visits in recent years, we have noted that certain VA regional offices are more adept 

than others at adjudicating claims. 

Over the past year, VA has been moving toward establishing its National Work 

Queue (NWQ) program designed to have claims adjudicated not by region, as has 

been VA’s historical practice, but by available rater. To ensure that NWQ is successful, the veterans need assurance that a claim adjudicated by one regional office employee would have the same results in a different regional office. If not, VA runs 

the risk of NWQ ultimately becoming a chaotic world of VA appeals due to an uncertainty in the quality of adjudications. Through passage of Resolution 128 at our National Convention in Charlotte in August 2014, The American Legion called for 

transparency within VA. We assert through a third-party review of the manner that 

202 

5 Ibid 

6 Resolution No. 128: Increase the Transparency of the Veterans benefits Administration’s 

Claims Processing 

the claims are adjudicated; a fuller understanding of VA’s manner of adjudication 

at each of its regional offices can finally be accomplished. 

Sec. 203—Analysis of Communication between Regional Offices of Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Service Organizations and Congressional Caseworkers 

Section 203 is designed to increase the efficiency in the level of communication 

between VSOs and Congressional caseworkers. The American Legion has over 3,000 

accredited representatives, to include service officers in each of VA’s regional offices. 

Like the accuracy and nature in adjudicating claims, the level of communication between our accredited representatives and VA regional office employees differs by regional office. 

During the wake of last summer’s VA health care scandal, The American Legion 

established Veterans Crisis Command Centers to allow veterans to gain access to 

their benefits. During an event in St. Louis, an elderly veteran stated for 20 years 

he had been pursuing his benefits, and in 20 minutes with The American Legion 

and VA personnel, he was able to finally gain the access he sought. He stated, ‘‘This 

is a business built on communication, and VA has failed.’’ 

Similar to the necessity of communication between VA and veterans, VA needs 

to provide the necessary communication to VSOs; VSOs often provide the front line 

of advocacy for veterans. If we are unable to communicate, then a breakdown in the 

pursuit of benefits can occur. In our recent National Executive Committee meeting, 

The American Legion adopted Resolution 28 that calls for VA to pursue an efficient 

manner to adjudicate claims and appeals. While this section may not completely address the whole issue, improving communication between the advocate and VA will 

only strengthen the program. 

The American Legion supports efforts to improve the effectiveness in VA’s adjudication of claims and appeals, provided these efforts don’t impact or remove any 

due process rights afforded to veterans.5

Sec. 205—Annual Report on Capacity of Benefits Administration to Process Benefits 

Claims 

According to the May 2, 2015, VA’s Monday Morning Workload Report (MMWR), 

439,928 claims are awaiting adjudication; 161,519 have been awaiting adjudication 

for over 125 days. 299,983 claims are languishing in appeals status. Compare this 

data with the MMWR released on May 3, 2010, where 523,976 claims were awaiting 

adjudication; 189,048 claims were waiting a decision greater than 125 days with 

189,269 claims in appeal status awaiting a claim. Though VA has made significant 

strides in improving its adjudication rates, it is evident that while the focus has 

been on original decisions, the appeals inventory has exploded by 58.5 percent. 

In recent years, The American Legion has testified that VA is overwhelmed. Our 

Regional Office Action Review (ROAR) visitations have witnessed the level of stress 

within the VA regional offices. Not only are they understaffed, many employees simply do not have the level of experience necessary to adjudicate the claims. In speaking with VA management at the regional offices, they often referred to the level of 

inexperience and understaffing. Meanwhile, when asked by Congress regarding if 

they needed additional employees, VA senior leadership repeatedly stated that they 

have adequate levels of staffing. 

As we move closer to the December 2015 deadline to meet former VA Secretary 

Eric Shinseki’s goal of having claims adjudicated within 125 days and 98 percent 

accuracy, The American Legion fears that the focus upon achieving the arbitrary objective will come at a cost to veterans. Through Section 205, VA will be compelled 

to reveal the stress within the regional offices and can meet the needs of the veterans throughout the Nation. The American believes strongly in an increased level 

of transparency within the Veterans Benefits Administration;6 through passage of 

this bill, VA will be required to release its needs to Congress and increase its transparency. 

The American Legion supports the 21st Century Veterans Benefits Act. 

DRAFT LEGISLATION: VETERANS COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT

ACT OF 2015

To provide for an increase, effective December 1, 2015, in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and 

203 

7 Resolution No. 291: Oppose Lowering of Cost-of-Living-Adjustments 

indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other 

purposes. 

This draft bill would provide a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) effective December 1, 2015. Disability compensation and pension benefits awarded by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are designed to compensate veterans for medical conditions due to service or who earn below an income threshold. With annual increases to costs of living, it is only appropriate that veterans’ benefits increase commensurate with those increases.7

The American Legion supports this draft bill. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION LEGISLATIVE

PROPOSALS REGARDING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 11 AND 12

Sec. 1101: Montgomery GI Bill Sunset 

The American Legion supports this provision, but Congress should ensure that 

any inconsistency between MGIB-AD and the Post-9/11 GI Bill are identified and 

rectified prior to merging the two education programs. Servicemembers should not 

lose any portion of these educational programs due to the merger. Where the Post9/11 GI Bill does not provide the same services as other educational programs, it 

should be amended to do so. Also, full or partial refund of the $1,200 servicemembers paid to become eligible for MGIB should be made. 

Two examples of inconsistency between the MGIB-AD and Post-9/11 are as follows: 

(1) Currently Title 38 U.S. Code Chapter 33, subchapter II—Educational Assistance (§§ 3311–3319), section § 3315(c) states the following: 

‘‘The charge against an individual’s entitlement under this chapter for payment for a licensing or certification test shall be determined at the rate of 

one month (rounded to the nearest whole month) for each amount paid that 

equals’’ 

The change to chapter 33 should mirror previous Public Law 106–419: Veteran 

Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000, section 122 that outlined licensing and certification, and reads as follows: 

‘‘The number of months of entitlement charged in the case of any individual 

for such licensing or certification test is equal to the number (including any 

fraction) determined by dividing the total amount of educational assistance 

paid such individual for such test 8 by the full time monthly institutional 

rate of educational assistance which, except for paragraph (1), such individual would otherwise be paid under subsection (a)(1), (b)(1),(d), or (e)(1) 

of section 3015 of this title, as the case may be.’’ 

(2) There are schools that do not charge tuition for their student veterans. Some 

states offer a tuition waiver to their veterans as part of their State Military Benefits. Because a large part of the Post-9/11 GI Bill pays tuition and eligible fees, if 

you do not have tuition charges, then all you get out of your GI Bill is the housing 

allowance and book stipend. 

If your tuition-free school happens to be in a low cost-of-living area, you may actually make more or at least the same by using the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). If 

you had at least three years of service and go to school full-time taking 12 credits, 

you would earn $1,426 per month. 

Taking that same credit load under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, you would get the book 

stipend that breaks down to $125.01 per month and your housing allowance. With 

the housing allowance averaging $1,200 across the United States, there are many 

places choosing the MGIB would be more beneficial to the veteran. The American 

Legion wants to ensure student-veterans have access to all of the resources available to them. 

Sec. 1102: Reserve Education Assistance Program Continuing Eligibility and Sunset 

The American Legion supports this section, but Congress should ensure that any 

inconsistencies between Chapter 1607 (REAP) and Chapter 33 (Post-9/11) are identified and rectified prior to the merger of the two programs to prevent any confusion 

by all stakeholders impacted by this merger, especially, the users of the program. 

Sec. 1103: Tuition Assistance 

The American Legion does not support this section. Tuition Assistance (TA) currently may be used by servicemembers to take courses in any area of study. 

204 

MCRMC recommends restricting TA to professional development courses only, 

under the rationalization that other areas of study can now be pursued via the Post9/11 GI Bill. However, The American Legion sees the Post-9/11 GI Bill primarily as 

a transition tool. DOD should not be encouraging servicemembers to use this valuable transition benefit during service just to cut costs. 

Sec. 1104: Post-9/11 GI Bill Transferability 

The American Legion supports extending the time commitment required to obtain 

the transferability benefit. Again, we see the Post-9/11 GI Bill primarily as a transition tool, but are cognizant of its use as a retention tool. It is well known that the 

ten year mark is an important decision point in a military career, the halfway mark 

so to speak. Too many are now dropping out at this point and if transferability 

would be more advantageous as a retention tool at the ten year mark rather than 

the six year mark, we see the reason in that. 

Sec. 1105: Sense of Congress Regarding Transferability of Unused Education Benefits to Family Members 

We support this section. 

Sec. 1106: Report on Education Attainment 

We support this section. 

Sec. 1107: Report on Education Levels of Servicemembers at Separation 

There appears to be an error in this legislative proposal language. Section 1106 

already proposes obtaining information on the highest level of education obtained 

by individuals transferring an education benefit. On our reading, Section 1107 

should be proposing obtaining information at separation on the highest level of education attained by a servicemember prior to separation regardless of whether they 

transferred the education benefit. In other words, all servicemembers, not just those 

who transferred. MCRMC Report page 171 says in relevant part: 

• Require report on educational attainment of Servicemembers who transfer their 

education benefit: 38 U.S.C. § 3325 should be amended to require reporting of information of the highest level of education obtained by individuals transferring their 

Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. 

• Require report on education levels of Servicemembers at separation: 10 U.S.C. 

§ 1142 should be amended to require that information be obtained at time of separation, on the highest level of education attained by a Servicemember prior to separating from military service, and that the education levels of separating Servicemembers be reported annually to the Congress. 

The second report requirement says nothing about transferability. The American 

Legion would support a revised Section 1107 which corrected this. 

Sec. 1108: Termination of BAH Payments for Dependents Using Transferred Education Benefits 

The American Legion supports terminating BAH payments for child dependents, 

but has concerns about denying the benefit to spouses, especially those who are 

caregivers to severely disabled veterans. Serious consideration should be given to 

whether the different life circumstances of spouses warrants retention of the BAH 

benefit for them. 

Sec. 1109: Unemployment Insurance 

In general, The American Legion supports the idea of prohibiting individuals from 

receiving Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits simultaneously with unemployment benefits. 

However, The American Legion does not support having this section applied to all 

individuals with a board brush. This section should apply only to individuals who 

are eligible for full Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Many National Guard (NG) and Reservists however do not have the full benefit and get only a partial BAH allowance. 

You may have NG or reservists who were unemployed at activation, their jobs may 

have been eliminated, or may have been denied reemployment. The recommendation 

in its current form would penalize those individuals who through no fault of their 

own need access to UCX while using their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Furthermore, 

because only their activated deployment time ‘‘counts’’ toward accruing GI Bill benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, many NG and reservists do not merit the full 100% 

of GI Bill benefits and in addition to their more difficult employment situation also 

face a greater financial burden when pursuing their GI Bill education. The American Legion recommends an exception for NG and Reservists in this recommendation. 

205 

8 U.S. Department of Labor Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 19–13, April 

10, 2014. 

Sec. 1110: Reporting on Student Progress 

This recommendation is already being conducted pursuant to Pub. L. 112—249, 

the Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2012, 

and Executive Order 13677, Establishing Principles of Excellence for Education Institutions Serving Servicemembers, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members. 

The American Legion believes another reporting requirement to be conducted by the 

Departments of Defense and VA would only hamper ongoing collection of data, and 

harm current gains in the collection of the information stated above. 

Sec. 1201–1204: Recommendation 12 

The American Legion believes that these recommendations are good, common 

sense ideas, and would further the goal of ensuring that servicemembers are able 

to transition smoothly and successfully into civilian lives and careers, and that veterans are well cared for should they require employment assistance. We would, however, recommend that Congress consider adding the Department of Education (DOE) 

and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to those who review the TAP curriculum, given that they contribute important content to the curriculum, and they 

maintain expertise in those areas covered by that content. 

Furthermore, while The American Legion wholly agrees with the recommendation 

that Congress amend the relevant statutes to permit state departments of labor to 

work directly with state veterans affairs, we would add that those departments 

should work together to meet or exceed the federally mandated priority of service 

for eligible veterans. This would entail ensuring that current practices incentivize 

DVOPs and LVERs to increase the level of service they provide, rather than getting 

bogged down in processes or manipulating numbers. 

Concurrent with MCRMC recommendations, we find that the model employed by 

Texas—consolidating veterans’ employment services within a state veterans’ commission—is effective in addressing the needs of veterans. Texas currently enjoys the 

lowest unemployment rate for veterans of any state in the union. We feel that this 

is demonstrative of what is possible when there is a single point of entry for veterans’ benefits and services administered by a state agency, and we encourage Congress to examine that model and consider touting it as an example to other states 

that are looking to effectively serve their veteran population. 

Recently Wisconsin petitioned DOL-VETS for the permission to follow Texas in 

consolidation services and taking a holistic approach to providing services for veterans. DOL-VETS denied Wisconsin’s request two years after the request was submitted citing a May 2010 DOL OIG report that looked at the Texas Veterans Commission’s (TVC) performance in 2008 when veterans employment programs was just 

undergoing consolidation. However, these six months in 2008 were not indicative of 

TVC’s record overall. Performance of TVCs employment programs and services have 

been on an upward trajectory since 2008. 

A more recent study was completed by DOL’s Chief Evaluation Office dated January 30, 2015. The study ‘‘Veterans and Non-Veterans Job Seekers: Exploratory analysis of services and outcomes for customers of federally-funded employment services.’’ The data used in the study encompassed nine months from January 2011– 

March 2013, prior to the JVSG reconstruction.8

The report cites Texas’s veterans are entering employment at much higher rates 

than the national average (62%). However, non-veterans entered employment rates 

are similar to the national average. Texas veterans also retained employment at 

higher rates than the national average (81%). 

TVC holds them self to a higher standard in ensuring that veterans are triaged 

by trained professionals (not a receptionist, survey or online tool) for employment 

services. Further, before the JVSG reconstruction. TVC provided their own resources to ensure that all veterans were assigned a veteran caseworker. 

The American Legion believes that a holistic approach to providing services to veterans is worthy of replicating at the state level; States should have the ability to 

run the JVSG program through an agency the Governor believes will best support 

the veteran. Further, we believe that a veteran has earned the right to be seen by 

a veteran, regardless of whether it is an issue involving claims, education, health 

care or employment. If a veteran walks into an American Jobs Center and wants 

to speak to a DVOP, then he or she should be allowed to do that. 

206 

9 Resolution No. 67 ‘‘Military Sexual Trauma’’ 10 Resolution No. 67 ‘‘Military Sexual Trauma’’ 11 Ibid 

DISCUSSION DRAFT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the treatment under contracting 

goals and preferences of the Department of Veterans affairs for small businesses 

owned by veterans, to carry out a pilot program on the treatment of certain applications for dependency and indemnity compensation as fully developed claims for 

other purposes. 

Sec. 101: Modification of treatment under contracting goals and preferences of Department of Veterans Affairs for small businesses owned by veterans of small 

businesses after death of disabled veteran owners 

The American Legion supports Section 101. 

Sec. 102: Treatment of businesses after deaths of servicemember-owners for purposes 

of Department of Veterans Affairs contracting goals and preferences 

The American Legion supports Section 102. 

Sec. 201: Medical Examination and opinion for disability compensation claims based 

on military sexual trauma 

Section 201 calls for VA to provide a report regarding the number of examinations 

and opinions provided VA medical providers pertaining to military sexual trauma 

(MST). Quite simply, MST can cause long-lasting, devastating effects upon victims 

of sexual assault. Questions pertaining to the frequency of MST exist within Department of Defense; however, The American Legion asserts a frequency of one is one 

too many. 

The American Legion believes there is a need for an examination of ‘‘the underreporting of MST and to permanently maintain records of reported MST allegations, 

thereby expanding victims’ access to documented evidence which is necessary for future VA claims.’’ 9

The American Legion supports section 201. 

Sec. 202: Report on Standard of Proof for Service-Connection of Mental Health Conditions Related to Military Sexual Trauma 

For many veterans suffering with medical conditions associated with military sexual trauma (MST), the unfortunate reality is that no documentation exists regarding the incident. Fear and embarrassment are just some of the myriad reasons why 

servicemembers do not report the incident either to their chain of command or local 

law enforcement. 

Due to this fact, little if any documentation exists within the veteran’s service 

treatment records. Upon discharge the veteran is left with little proof of the incident. VA has relaxed regulations pertaining to MST; however, the implementation 

and usage of the relaxed regulations is varied based upon VA regional office. 

The American Legion supports a full understanding of how MST claims are adjudicated and urges ‘‘VA to conduct an analysis of MST claims volume, assess the consistency of how these claims are adjudicated, and determine the need, if any, for 

additional training and testing on processing of these claims.’’ 10

The American Legion supports section 202. 

Sec. 203: Reports on claims for disabilities incurred or aggravated by military sexual 

trauma 

The long-term effects of MST can be devastating. Beyond any physical conditions 

that may manifest due to MST, the psychological effects can continue through the 

veteran’s life. VA’s PILOTS database provides numerous studies indicating the relationship between Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and physical conditions. 

Stating MST may cause PTSD or other mental health conditions is an oversimplification of the issue. Studies have related PTSD to many physical medical conditions, to include cardio-vascular conditions. The American Legion supports identifying conditions associated with MST to ensure veterans receive the benefits they 

have earned.11

The American Legion supports section 203. 

Sec. 204: Pilot program on treatment of certain applications for dependency and indemnity compensation as fully developed claims 

The American Legion has invested significant time and funding to ensure that 

VA’s Fully Developed Claims (FDC) program is successful. As the Nation’s largest 

VSO, we recognized that to ensure veterans receive benefits in a more expeditious 

207 

12 Resolution No. 28: Department of Veterans Affairs Appeals Process 13 Resolution No. 128: Increase the Transparency of the Veterans benefits Administration’s 

Claims Processing 

manner; we would inherit some of the responsibilities previously held by VA to further assist the veteran. We had a team of subject matter experts travel the Nation, 

speak with VA regional office employees, veterans, and service officers to ensure 

that FDC was viable. We are proud to report that over 40 percent of our claims are 

submitted via FDC. 

We welcome the idea of having benefits reach veterans in a more expeditious and 

accurate manner. Additionally, as we assist VA with the implementation of FDC, 

we offer our services to assist in implementing FDC for DIC claimants. The American Legion calls for VA to create an efficient method to adjudicate claims; having 

FDC available for DIC claimants would move toward meeting that objective.12

The American Legion supports section 204. 

Sec. 205: Review of determination of certain service in Philippines during World War 

II 

The American Legion has no position on section 205. 

Sec. 206: Reports on Department Disability medical examinations and prevention of 

unnecessary medical examinations 

Many veterans will submit private medical evidence to support their claims for 

disability benefits. For veterans that require additional medical review or do not 

provide a statement from a medical professional linking a medical condition to military service, VA provides compensation and pension (C&P) examinations to determine the linkage or severity of medical conditions. 

The American Legion has conducted Regional Office Action Review (ROAR) visits 

for approximately 20 years. Through these visits The American Legion determined 

and reported to Congress that VA has had instances of scheduling unnecessary and 

duplicative examinations despite the necessary evidence existing to grant the benefit. This adds further complication to an already complicated process. 

The American Legion understands that there are occasions where a veteran would 

need a second examination after submitting a medical nexus statement. If a private 

medical provider did not use a VA disability medical questionnaire, then it stands 

to reason that the provider may not have conducted the necessary tests to accurately rate the veteran. 

Unfortunately, these instances did not get noticed solely during ROAR visits. 

They are noticed far too frequently by American Legion representatives at the Board 

of Veterans’ Appeals. There have been occasions where veterans have been seeking 

total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) benefits. Meanwhile, the 

veteran had previously been granted Social Security disability benefits for a condition incurred in service and service-connected by VA. Despite enduring medical examinations for Social Security purposes and having the benefit granted by the agency, VA would conduct their own examinations to determine the veteran’s employability. Some in the veteran community refer to this needless development of disability claims as ‘‘developing to deny.’’ 

Through the reporting required by this section, VA would be compelled to release 

data regarding acceptable clinical evidence and increase transparency regarding the 

manner claims are developed and ultimately adjudicated. Having Congressional and 

VA focus upon the manner that private medical evidence is treated, The American 

Legion believes that the treatment of the evidence received from private medical 

providers would receive higher consideration. Moreover, this could expedite the adjudication process and increase the overall transparency of the claims process.13

The American Legion supports section 206. 

Sec. 301: Department of Veterans Affairs study on matters relating to burial of unclaimed remains of veterans in national cemeteries 

This section aims to help dignify veterans who have passed away but whose remains are still unclaimed. Up until now, the sole means for dignified burial for 

these forgotten heroes has been private groups, such as the Missing in America 

Project (MIAP), a non-profit organization launched nationwide in 2007 that has 

been supported by The American Legion in their efforts to bring honor to all of 

America’s fallen. This provision would enable VA support of this mission, directing 

VA to: Conduct a study on matters relating to the interring of unclaimed remains 

of veterans in national cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration by estimating the number of unclaimed remains; assessing the effectiveness of procedures of the VA for working with persons or entities having custody 

208 

14 Resolution No. 24: Identify, Honor, and Inter Unclaimed Cremated Remains of Veterans 15 Resolution No. 10: Support Veteran Status for National Guard and Reserve Servicemembers 

of unclaimed remains to facilitate interment of unclaimed remains of veterans in national cemeteries; assessing state and local laws that affect the ability of VA to 

indentify, claim and inter these remains; recommend appropriate legislative action. 

All of America’s veterans deserve to be remembered for eternity with dignity and 

honor.14

The American Legion supports section 301. 

Sec. 401: Honoring as veterans certain persons who performed service in the reserve 

components of the Armed Forces 

This legislation would provide a purely honorific title of veteran for those individuals who completed appropriate service in the National Guard and Reserve components of the Armed Forces, but for whatever reason do not have active duty service 

sufficient to bestow a title of veteran subject to the conditions provided for under 

the normal titles of the United States Code which assign veteran status for the purposes of benefits. This bill would not provide any benefit beyond the title of ‘veteran’ 

and is stated to be intended purely as a point of honor.15

The American Legion supports section 401. 

CONCLUSION

As always, The American Legion thanks this Committee for the opportunity to explain the position of the 2.3 million veteran members of this organization. Questions 

concerning this testimony can be directed to The American Legion Legislative Division (202) 861–2700, or wgoldstein@legion.org. 

Æ