U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

45–275 2009

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

SHORT- AND LONG-TERM STRATEGIES FOR 

IMPLEMENTING NEW GI BILL REQUIREMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOVEMBER 18, 2008 

Serial No. 110–108 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONALD J. CAZAYOUX, JR., Louisiana 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

MALCOM A. SHORTER, Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South Dakota, Chairwoman 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

November 11, 2008 

Page 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Short- and Long-Term Strategies for 

Implementing New GI Bill Requirements ......................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin .............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin .................................. 22 

Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member ............................................. 2 

Prepared statement of Congressman Boozman ............................................. 22 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Keith M. Wilson, Director, Office of 

Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration ...................................... 3 

Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson .................................................................. 23 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record: 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Hon. James 

B. Peake, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, letter dated 

November 18, 2008, and VA responses ....................................................... 34 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(1) 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

SHORT- AND LONG-TERM STRATEGIES FOR 

IMPLEMENTING NEW GI BILL REQUIREMENTS 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:37 a.m., in 

Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Herseth 

Sandlin [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Herseth Sandlin, Boozman, and Scalise. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN HERSETH SANDLIN 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, oversight hearing on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) short- and long-term strategies for implementing the 

new GI Bill requirements will come to order. 

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five legislative 

days to revise and extend their remarks and that written statements be made part of the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I would like to welcome everyone back to Washington. Many of 

you before us today are well aware of this Subcommittee’s active 

participation in providing oversight on the implementation of Public Law 110–252, which provides new education benefits for our Nation’s veterans who served after September 11, 2001. In previous 

hearings conducted by this Subcommittee, we received testimony 

from the VA informing us of its intent to contract out the new information technology (IT) requirements under Public Law 110–252. 

Later, on October 23, 2008, Committee staff were informed of the 

VA’s new short-term plan to no longer use a private contractor for 

the immediate implementation of a new IT system but, rather, use 

VA resources to create a temporary solution to meet the August 

2009 requirements. We are also aware that the VA is developing 

a long-term plan for revamping its current IT system. 

I look forward to receiving the VA’s testimony that highlights its 

new short-term and long-term plans. Today’s testimony regarding 

such plans will not only serve this Congressional Subcommittee 

and our ongoing oversight responsibilities, but it is also my hope 

that it will serve the individuals overseeing the transition within 

the Executive Branch. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
2 

The passage of Public Law 110–252 is a significant milestone for 

our Nation’s veterans, but a lot of work must be completed before 

the benefits can be received. 

While the 110th Congress comes to a close, I would like to assure 

our Nation’s veterans that we will continue to monitor the progress 

of the VA’s short- and long-term plans in the 111th Congress to ensure that their earned benefits are delivered in a timely manner. 

I look forward to working with Chairman Bob Filner, Ranking 

Member Boozman and Members of this Subcommittee to continue 

to provide effective oversight on the implementation of the new 

Montgomery GI Bill’s requirements. 

[The prepared statement Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin appears 

on p. 22.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I now recognize Mr. Boozman for any 

opening remarks he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to 

everyone. When we met a few weeks ago to begin our oversight of 

how VA intends to implement the new GI Bill, there was considerable discussion about whether VA should develop the new information technology system in-house or hire a contractor for development, and possibly some clerical support. I stated then that I didn’t 

believe that should be our focus and I still don’t. 

Now that the VA has made their decision to use Space and Naval 

Warfare Systems (SPAWAR) Command for both the long- and 

short-term fix, we need to not second-guess this decision, but help 

VA as they implement the program. 

However, I have some concern about how VA is organized to 

manage both the short- and long-term solutions based on the briefings given to the staff and what we will see today. More specifically, the charters for the Executive Committee, the Steering Committee and the working groups possibly need some more definition. 

And I am still unclear about the responsibility of the senior managers. 

Second, while VA has put together a plan to implement the 

short-term solution, there seems to be very little definition at this 

point of the long-term effort by VA and SPAWAR. 

Third, what are the key functions of the Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) system and what are its limitations. 

Finally, the question remains regarding VA’s plan for its education work force. They have stated before that no one will lose 

their VA job and that they intend to hire additional temporary staff 

as part of the short-term solution. And I hope we can hear a few 

more details about that today. And I really do appreciate your all’s 

hard work and it seems like we are moving forward. So I congratulate you on that. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Boozman appears on 

p. 22.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

I would like to welcome our panelists testifying before the Subcommittee today. Joining us on our first and only panel today is 

Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of the Office of Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans AfVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:06 Feb 24, 2009 Jkt 045275 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A275.XXX A275

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
3 

fairs. He is accompanied by Mr. Stephen Warren, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Information Technology, Office of Information and Technology (OI&T); Mr. Jan Frye, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisitions and Materiel Management; and Captain 

Mark Krause, Commanding Officer of Space and Naval Warfare 

Systems Center, New Orleans. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. We look forward to hearing from you and posing some questions to get additional information that will be helpful to us. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH M. WILSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

EDUCATION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN W. WARREN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND 

JAN FRYE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ACQUISITIONS 

AND MATERIEL MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND CAPTAIN MARK KRAUSE, USNR, CHIEF 

STAFF OFFICER, SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS 

CENTER ATLANTIC, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Wilson, you are recognized. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Good 

morning, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Boozman and 

Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss VA’s strategy for implementation of the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill. My testimony will address the short- and longterm strategies in developing information technology components 

for implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill bill as requested by the 

Subcommittee. 

Our short-term strategy to implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill consists of a two-part IT solution: a fiscal payment system that uses 

VA’s existing Benefits Delivery Network to issue payments, and a 

front-end tool for use by Education Service claims examiners to 

augment the manual process for claims adjudication. 

The Chapter 33 front-end tool will be used to augment the manual process by providing additional automated support that is accessible by processors at each of our regional processing offices as 

well as central office. The front-end tool will be used primarily by 

claims examiners in preparing and processing award actions. 

The implementation of the short-term solution will require approximately 400 additional processors at our regional processing offices. This number may be subject to change depending on the level 

of automation that is achieved prior to August 1, 2009. This automation is critical to VA’s short-term success. 

The combined IT and staffing approach is a short-term solution 

we expect to retire no later than November of 2010, when the longterm automated system being developed by our partners at 

SPAWAR is deployed. 

Our long-term strategy to implement the post-9/11 GI Bill will 

rely on support from SPAWAR to develop an end-to-end solution 

that utilizes rules-based industry standard technologies. The Chapter 33 program contains eligibility rules for benefit determinations 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
4 

that work well with rules-based technology while requiring minimal human intervention. 

VA is working with SPAWAR on the long-term IT solution and 

expects the development of this program to take approximately 18 

to 24 months to complete. The priorities established for IT enhancements for the short-term front-end piece does have a relationship with the priority that SPAWAR will follow when developing 

the long-term solution, such that some of the long-term IT functionality could be used to augment our short-term solution. If SPAWAR 

can develop long-term functionality that can be used in the short 

term and can be deployed prior to August of 2009, they will do so. 

In both the short term and the long term, SPAWAR also is providing IT program management support and technical assistance in 

managing the necessary data flows. VA received $120 million in 

supplemental funding to implement this new benefit, $100 million 

in general operating expenses (GOE) and $20 million in IT appropriations account. To date, VA has transferred $13.25 million from 

its supplemental IT funds to SPAWAR for the purpose of project 

management for both the long-term and short-term solutions and 

for IT support for data integration to support the long-term solution. The remaining $6.75 million from the supplemental IT funding will be moved to data integration and testing associated with 

the data integration initiative. VA has requested a reprogramming of $35 million of the avail- able $100 million in GOE to the IT appropriations account. That 

will be used to pay for development and implementation of this 

long-term solution. The remaining $65 million in GOE funds is sufficient to cover the additional full-time equivalent (FTE) that will 

be required. 

To meet the program’s August 1, 2009, effective date, VA has assigned project oversight duties, established milestones and instituted frequent oversight review. VA Education Service established 

a Program Executive Office (PEO) that is responsible for monitoring and coordinating all Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation activities. 

In addition to the PEO, VA contracted with the MITRE Corp. to 

provide technical and program management advice to Education 

Service leadership in support of Chapter 33 implementation, integration and oversight. The first critical milestone was met on November 14, 2008, when the completion of business requirements for 

the short-term payment solution occurred. The next critical milestone for the short-term solution is in completion of the IT functional requirements on November 26th. 

With the completion of these functional specifications, detailed 

design of the solution will start, with an expected completion date 

of March 31st of 2009. 

Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you or any Members of the Subcommittee 

may have. 

I would like to follow my oral statements with a PowerPoint 

presentation subject to any questions you have at this point. I prepared a series of slides that in some ways is redundant to the written testimony that was submitted to the Committee, but I think it 

is clear in terms of conceptualizing a lot of what we are doing, and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
5 

visually I think it draws a very good picture of the progress that 

we have made. If I could go to the first slide. 

Slide number two is titled Program Governance and Organizational Context. This is a visual representation of the overall government strategy that we have put in place to ensure proper oversight, management of key milestones, risk management, et cetera. 

Turning, in terms of a little bit more specificity, turning to slide 

three, there is a sub-element of slide two, specifically laying out the 

relationship of three bodies that join Executive Board, the Chapter 

33 Steering Committee and the Chapter 33 Working Group. The 

next few slides provide detailed information concerning the roles 

and responsibilities of each of these groups. 

Turning to slide four, the Joint Executive Board is jointly chaired 

by the Under Secretary for Benefits, Admiral Dunne, as well as 

Bob Howard, the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology. There are several members, key senior executive members 

that are also members of this board and there are also a series of 

advisors that are brought in to provide expertise and advice on specific subjects that are brought before the Joint Executive Board. 

Turning to slide three. Slide three outlines the membership and 

the responsibilities of the Chapter 33 Steering Committee. The 

Chapter 33 Steering Committee has responsibility for oversight of 

planning and execution of the work and all the different project 

streams that we are required to implement for Chapter 33, and I 

will talk about the project streams in just a second. The Steering 

Committee is jointly chaired by myself and Paul Tibbits, who is 

Chief Information Officer for OI&T Enterprise Development. 

There are members throughout the organization on the Steering 

Committee as well. Most specifically, I would like to point out two 

committee members by name, the first being Ms. Alison Rosen, 

who is in charge of my Program Executive Office, the other being 

Ms. Susan Perez who is the Director of the OI&T Portfolio Management. 

Those two individuals—turning to the next slide, slide 6—are the 

co-leads on the working group. Co-leads basic responsibility is—Ms. 

Perez is the IT expert, Ms. Rosen is the individual responsible for 

non-IT issues. They meet, obviously, on an almost daily basis. 

Their overall responsibility is execution of the responsibilities by 

each of the project leads for the work streams that we are moving 

forward on. 

Slide seven talks very briefly about authority and change management. We did receive specific questions on that and I wanted to 

at least cover that from a high-level perspective at this point. Our 

focus on decision authority is focused on elements that would require any change in our timeline. In essence, the project leads have 

the authority to move forward unless there is something that 

changes their project timeline. That doesn’t mean they don’t keep 

everybody informed. There is a very rigorous information-gathering 

process that is conducted through our Program Executive Office. 

But they move forward and have the responsibility to move forward, assuming that there are no changes in any of their project 

schedules. 

The Program Executive Office does have the authority to change 

project timelines up to 5 percent. Myself, and by extension, the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
6 

Steering Committee, have the authority to change any project 

timeline of less than 25 percent. Obviously a change of that nature 

would not be made without involvement by the Joint Executive 

Board as well. But the final authority—the governance structure of 

the authority lies with myself. The Joint Executive Board’s involvement is required for any changes in our schedule of 25 percent or 

more. 

That is the process that we have established to ensure that we 

do not have any slippage in our schedule. That is critically important because there are significant dependencies between each of 

the project schedules, as I will talk about shortly. 

Slide eight is a representation of the Program Executive Office 

that we have established within VBA, within Education Service. As 

I have indicated, Ms. Alison Rosen is the head of my Program Executive Office and the individuals responsible for tracking this are 

laid out on this chart. The Program Executive Office is in essence 

our nerve center. That is where we monitor what is going on within 

the different projects. They are responsible for tracking progress, 

identifying risks that exist in the projects, making sure that we 

have identified dependencies, one project to another or more than 

two projects, and they are responsible for all of the collection of information that is required to report to higher authority. 

Slide nine provides both the program organization and a work 

breakdown structure. This is a slightly higher level than simply the 

Program Executive Office. This slide represents not just the Program Executive Office, but is the first slide that I have provided 

that indicates the projects; how we have in essence chunked out 

the work that we are required to do to ensure that we successfully 

implement Chapter 33. 

The names of the project leads are provided. We have eight separate projects, seven current. One we have closed out, which was the 

old secure solution. So we have seven projects that we are moving 

forward on now to implement Chapter 33. 

The best way of representing what those projects have on their 

plate and the timeframe that they have to work their projects is 

laid out in slide number 10. That is our integrated project schedule. 

That shows the seven, in essence, swim lanes that we have 

chunked out this work into. It represents dependencies, one work 

stream to another. 

Obviously there are very few things that go on within Chapter 

33 that stay within just that one project. Just about everything has 

dependencies with other project leads as well. So that is something 

that we are tracking very critically. 

The important thing to remember I believe concerning the project 

timeline—and this document comes directly from our project management plan which was provided to the Committee previously— 

is this is a living document. We know as we gain experience moving forward on this, that there will be changes to this. And it is 

specifically designed as a living document. But this will always be 

kept current. It will always represent where we are at and what 

we have learned on each of the different project efforts. 

Slide number 11 talks briefly about government activities. Some 

of this I covered already, but I think it deserves emphasis. Again, 

the Program Executive Office will receive each week program— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
7 

each month, rather, program management plans from each of the 

work streams. That is in some ways a safety net. That is not to 

represent that our PEO only meets with the project leads on a 

monthly basis. They are meeting essentially on a daily basis, but 

once a month we do conduct a full, thorough review to ensure that 

we have accounted for any dependencies or other risks that we 

might not have identified previously. 

The Chapter 33 Working Group, Joint Executive Board, and the 

Steering Committee hold weekly meetings. So we have a very rigorous process. 

What we don’t have and what we have done to speed up the 

process is not implement what would normally be seen as a milestone review process. Our milestone reviews are essentially every 

week. We have very detailed project plans. We review those plans 

weekly to ensure that we have met for that week exactly what each 

of the projects had on their plate for that week. If they aren’t able 

to meet them, we either adjust the schedule or—quite honestly, we 

have people in on the weekend getting caught up to make sure that 

we stay on target. 

Slide number 12 touches on a couple of items other than IT that 

I have not provided information on previously but there have been 

questions on. 

The first is status of our regulation package. Obviously we did 

need to complete regulations. We have draft regulations at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). They are being reviewed 

by OMB now. We expect those to be published for comment on or 

about December 1st. 

The Chapter 33 hiring plan, the regional processing offices have 

already been given authority to hire staff. They are completing the 

preliminary paperwork to do that now. We anticipate recruitment 

starting on or about December 1st. We anticipate having that staff 

on board by March 1st and training will begin no later than March 

1st for those additional hires. 

Slide number 13 is a representation of the claims process itself. 

And we wanted to put that in specifically to give a visual representation of what is different, what is going to be different under 

Chapter 33 as opposed to the process that a veteran goes through 

right now. The blue squares represent the things that will be different. The green squares represent the process as it exists now 

that will be essentially unchanged come August 1st. 

So, in essence, from the veterans’ perspective and from the perspective of the stakeholders that we rely on for information, the 

process is going to be essentially the same. The veteran will apply 

online for benefits, as they do now. They have the ability to apply 

with hard copy if they choose to do that. But we highly encourage 

them to apply online through our GI Bill Web site. We will determine eligibility with our existing staff and the additional staff that 

we hire to process these claims, just as we do now. The determinations for claims processing are manual determinations now, looking 

at the screens and ensuring the data represents that the person is 

eligible. The information that we require from the school concerning enrollment will continue to be reported to us the same 

manner in which it is reported now through our existing VA One 

system. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
8 

The additional information that we need from schools to administer the program, specifically tuition and fee amounts as well as 

participation in the Yellow Ribbon Program, is going to be reported 

to us by that existing mechanism. We are modifying VA once to accept fields that will allow the schools to report that information to 

us. So, again, from the school perspective, from the certifying official perspective, they will continue to use the same tool that they 

use now to report information to us. 

The eligibility information that we need from DoD will continue 

to come to us through the existing data feeds that DoD has been 

using for some time. Those data feeds are being enhanced to satisfy 

the additional eligibility requirement under Chapter 33. 

For example, transfer of entitlement benefits, we are well underway to receiving that information. In fact, this week we are receiving the first test file of data from DoD. The things that will be different concerning the claims process is—the first thing is veterans 

will not go in monthly at the end of the month and verify their enrollment, which is the process now. That is a step that they will 

not need to take. The check, the recurring housing allowance 

checks, will go out in an automated process, just as it does for our 

other benefit programs. 

The temporary system that we have set up simply does not allow 

the ability to apply—or to monthly certify. We don’t anticipate that 

being a problem because in some respects that is a duplication of 

the information that the school provides us. The school is required 

to provide information to us if a student drops or withdraws from 

enrollment. But the certification of monthly enrollment was a backup system that we did like, but we will not have that in the shortterm. 

And then the payment structure, obviously, will be different. Instead of the single monthly check going out as is done now, there 

will be the three different benefit payments that are called for 

under the bill. Our oversight mechanisms will remain in place. The 

auditing trail, the reports, the correspondence will remain in place. 

So those will remain unchanged. 

Slide 14 is information that I have covered largely in my written 

testimony. But again, what we are looking at doing is setting up 

an augmented, manual process on August 1st. It is going to involve 

both manual processing and some automated processing. The level 

of automated processing we do not know yet, because there is a tie 

between the long-term strategy we are implementing and what we 

will be able to bring online from that long-term strategy in the 

short term. In essence, we are going to be creating a throw-away 

system in the short term to administer the programs. 

In the long term, again, we are looking at a rules-based process. 

And from the prospect of administering the benefit, the thing that 

we are going to really like about the automated process in the longterm is twofold. Number one, it is going to be an automated process, so we will be able to better manage the seasonal nature of our 

work. We have an existing staff. We marshal those resources as 

much as possible in the fall and spring semesters, but obviously it 

takes us a while to work out of that backlog because we are a manual FTE employee-driven process. We will be more able to manage 

that in the long term. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
9 

Additionally, we will have a system that is more flexible for us. 

So when we have changes in legislation, when there are changes 

to the programs, we will be able to program those changes in much 

faster than we do now. We will be much more agile, we will be able 

to respond to new legislation very quickly. 

Slide 16 talks briefly about the Yellow Ribbon Program. We have 

had questions concerning that. We are pursuing that as we are 

with the other initiatives, very aggressively. Ultimately what we 

are hoping for is to have signed agreements back from the schools 

that are desiring to participate in the Yellow Ribbon Program by 

February 15th. The reason that we are doing this as quickly as 

possible before the spring is we would like veterans to have that 

information available come the spring when they start making decisions on where they want to go to school. So we will have that 

information by February. 

We will have that information concerning Yellow Ribbon participation on our Web site so students will be able to go in there and 

look, so when they are considering where to go, they will have that 

information at their disposal. And, of course, we will begin processing Yellow Ribbon payments at the same time we process the 

other payments for benefits. 

In terms of providing outreach for the Yellow Ribbon, we are 

working that from two perspectives; first of all, from the education 

professionals. We have received a lot of questions concerning the 

Yellow Ribbon from the education community. We have been working aggressively with potential organizations that represent those 

groups; for instance, the American Council on Education, the National Association of Veterans Program Administrators, to get information to those schools so they understand the specifics of what 

the Yellow Ribbon Program is. Our regulation drafts that are due 

to be published on December 1st will also talk about Yellow Ribbon 

processes and procedures. 

We are also working with students. Obviously we have information on our Web site concerning what the Yellow Ribbon is. All of 

the information in our publications that are sent out to veterans 

and servicemembers talk about the Yellow Ribbon Program. Specifically, we are in the process of receiving a data feed from DoD 

and we will be doing direct mailings to all active-duty servicemembers concerning the specifics of Chapter 33 overall, not just 

the Yellow Ribbon. 

In terms of the application and certification process, there are no 

real surprises there, as I have talked about already. VA wants our 

existing mechanism for schools to report information to us. We will 

be the mechanism by which Yellow Ribbon information for the student—specific information will be related to us. That is where we 

will find out if a school actually offers a Yellow Ribbon Program to 

the student in an amount that will be offset by the school for that 

specific student. 

That completes the slide presentation. Again, Madam Chair, we 

would be more than happy to answer any questions from yourself 

or any Members of the Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson, and the Slide Presentation, appear on p. 23.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
10 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Let me start out 

with a couple of questions before turning over to Mr. Boozman. You 

have the Joint Executive Board, the Steering Committee and the 

Working Group. I think I sense from your testimony, is it really the 

Working Group who is going to be doing the day-to-day work? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Daily decisions on what needs to be done 

will be made by the Working Group, unless there are changes to 

the project schedules? 

Mr. WILSON. That is correct. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Who is monitoring the key milestones 

then? 

Mr. WILSON. The monitoring of all of the milestones and the 

timelines occurs within the Program Executive Office. That is in 

essence our nerve center. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Is the Program Executive Office reporting to the Steering Committee and the Joint Executive Board? 

Mr. WILSON. Correct. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Would you provide me more detail on 

how the front-end tool is going to be used? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. The front-end tool let me try to make a comparison with what we currently have within our benefits delivery 

network that provides some level of—I hate to use the term ‘‘automation,’’ but it is automation calculation. 

When a student enrolls in school right now, our claims examiners determine eligibility essentially manually, and they put the 

information in concerning enrollment into the system, and BDN 

provides information based on its coding and tables concerning the 

amount of benefit that is payable. It tracks how much remaining 

entitlement an individual has of the 36 months. It tracks whether 

or not there are overpayments, and handles all of the accounting 

that would be required to manage those overpayments behind the 

scenes. 

Since we are not able to rely on BDN for those calculations and 

data collections, we need a separate tool to track that information. 

We don’t want claims examiners, for instance, every time a new 

claim comes in, to have to manually recalculate the amount of remaining entitlement that an individual would have. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Well, I am glad you addressed some of 

the issues related to the coordination with the U.S. Department of 

Defense (DoD) because that has been an ongoing concern of the 

Subcommittee and the full Committee in different areas. I was 

pleased when we had our hearings in September that the testimony we received from the Department of Defense indicated everybody is on board to make this happen, and that you are using the 

existing data feeds. 

Now, you said the first test case, test file, is going to be this 

week. 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Then you said that you are going to be 

using existing data feed from DoD for the VA to send direct mailings to all active-duty servicemembers about the new benefit and 

the Yellow Ribbon Program? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
11 

Mr. WILSON. I don’t think I was clear. The data feed—I probably 

misspoke. We are receiving a separate data dump from DoD, separate from the eligibility information we receive that provides us the 

current information concerning the individuals on active duty. And 

that specific information, so that we can mail them the information 

on Chapter 33. That is basically names and addresses. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Does that include Reserve and National 

Guard? 

Mr. WILSON. It does. Any individuals that are on active duty currently. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But not those who may have separated? 

Mr. WILSON. That will be a separate data dump that we will receive. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. From DoD? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, we are still going to rely on DoD. The data feed 

we are working with to address that issue will be any active-duty 

member who has had active duty since September 10, 2001, understanding that some of that information is stale, but it is still something that we want to provide to that current—that record of address, so that we have sent that to the individuals. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. It has been our ongoing concern about 

those who may have separated, even when we made some changes 

in the National Defense Authorization Act, before the new benefit 

was authorized. Trying to find these young men and women who 

may have separated, that are now eligible for Chapter 33 benefits 

as they were written in 2008; and then, of course, the new implementation for 2009. 

We will want to continue to work with you on that. The Ranking 

Member and I have had discussions of working with the adjutant 

generals, the National Guard, who may be in a position of working 

with their State agencies to help update information that you may 

be getting from DoD that may still be there. 

Can you tell me where, I don’t see that as a key milestone, in 

terms of the mails that would go out. Can you give me a rough 

timeline of when you hope the mailings would go out? 

Mr. WILSON. I can provide that. I don’t have that with me, but 

I can provide that to the Committee. 

The document on slide 10 is a macro-level milestone. Within each 

of these work streams we have much more detailed information in 

separate documentation. And I would be happy to provide that information to the Subcommittee. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. Thank you. 

[The information was provided in the response to question #2 

from the post-hearing questions and responses, which appear on p. 

34.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. One last question for now, before turning 

over to Mr. Boozman. Do we still anticipate approximately 526,000 

claims? 

Mr. WILSON. That is our estimate at this point. And I wanted to 

make sure that I emphasize in some respects Chapter 33 is going 

to an area that we have not gone before. We don’t have expertise 

with transfer of entitlement to the degree that it is offered right 

now. We don’t have experience with the 15-year limiting date. So 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
12 

there is going to be some fleshing out of those numbers. But that 

is the estimate that we have right now, yes. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I know you said the number may be subject to change, depending on the level of automation achieved. Do 

you feel confident that roughly 400 new full-time employees to deal 

with the short-term plan of making sure that the benefits are delivered on time is sufficient? 

Mr. WILSON. We are confident in that number, with an assumption that the level of automation is somewhat commensurate with 

what we currently have. If that is not the case, then we still have 

flexibility within the GOE dollars that were provided to us to hire 

additional staff. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. 

Mr. WILSON. Over that 400, if we need to. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. I may have some more questions, 

but I will turn it over to Mr. Boozman for questions. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Wilson, when Congress did the Medicare Part D, initially we had a drug card and 

then we went into the program later on. But both of those 1 day 

it started and there was really—it just kind of started and, as a 

result, without our friends helping us in pharmacy and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and people like that 

and volunteers in healthcare, it was very difficult anyway, but it 

would have been much more difficult. 

Is there a plan—are you going to phase it in a little bit? Are you 

going to do the things that you can do to individuals rather than 

it just starting 1 day? Do you understand what I am saying? In 

other words, a precertification, things like that. You are going to 

have this army of manual workers. Is there a plan, rather than 

just all the sudden there is nothing, and then you are going to have 

these 4- or 500,000 individuals? Or are we going to phase it over 

a period of time before it actually—— 

Mr. WILSON. Our anticipation is that we can do some type of 

work over the summer. We have not nailed down specifically what 

those dates would be. In essence what we would potentially be able 

to do, though, is issue certificates of eligibility. So we could do potentially some work over the summer, or as we receive claims, for 

example, assuming that the up front tool we have would allow us 

to populate some preliminary information, we can populate information into that payment system. The issue that is somewhat 

problematic is, obviously, the program is only for training on or 

after August 1st. So we can’t do much—well, we can’t generate any 

payments at all until August 1st and we really can’t populate much 

of our systems until the schools are comfortable that they will certify that Joe Veteran is going to be in school on August 1. And once 

they do provide that to us, then we will populate our records. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Right. I would really encourage you, again looking 

at those, and I think we can see other programs—but if we can 

kind of, do some up-front work rather than just being hit, I think 

that would be very helpful. 

Captain Krause, will the SPAWAR structure—will SPAWAR 

structure the long-term solution program in accordance with standard DoD program management guidelines? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
13 

Captain KRAUSE. Sir, my name is Captain Mark Krause. Ma’am, 

just to correct, I was a Commanding Officer of SPAWAR Systems 

Center, New Orleans, as of October 1st. Now I am the Chief Staff 

Officer for SPAWAR System Center, Atlantic. And my boss is Admiral—now Captain Urban, and his boss is Admiral Bachmann. So, 

yes sir, my boss, Captain Urban and Admiral Bachmann, absolutely want us to comply with the DoD Defense Acquisition Work 

force Improvement Act (DAWIA) process, and we plan to do that. 

And we will work with the VA to come up with some type of a 

meld, if you will, where we still meet the requirements of the DoD 

acquisition process; that everybody that I have hired to do this for 

my team at the SPAWAR is level-three-certified essentially to do 

this, but with one exception, who is a level two. But they are mostly just 14s and 15s that will in fact do that. So the answer is yes. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. When do we anticipate having the long-term program plan in place? 

Captain KRAUSE. Right now we are waiting—the money is now 

being transferred. Once we get the money, then we of course have 

to wait for the requirements. So we are still in the planning phase. 

We won’t know on our end until we can get our hands on the requirements, flesh them out, go right down the system engineering, 

if you will, do the requirements definition, the requirements analysis, and then do the system design. And once we have that, then 

I will be able to essentially come up with an integrated master 

plan, integrated master schedule, per the DoD acquisition process 

that I think will bear scrutiny or be something that we can present 

and be confident in. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. When do you think you all will have all of that, 

Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. The short-term solution business requirements are 

completed. The completion of the long-term business requirements 

is imminent. We have done 90 percent, 95 percent of the work on 

that. I believe last week we finished the cleanup of what we needed 

to do. We are in the process of putting that all into the appropriate 

format and we will have that to OI&T very, very soon. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Let me get you all to comment on something in 

the sense that I have seen this in multiple things with government. 

I am on the Aviation Subcommittee of Congress and they are in the 

process of trying to get their computer program for controllers and 

this and that. And this has been an ongoing thing for years and 

years and we see this so much. Whereas you go into these IT 

things, where is the bog-down? What are you all alert for? What 

do we need to be alert for? Where are you going to have your problems in the sense that these things, I think you said 18 to 24 

months, or whatever. What generally makes that 18 to 24 months 

with an amount of money as cost becoming a 4- or 5-year program. 

And still not—can you all comment on that, again, so that we can 

be observant and just kind of where you think the problems might 

occur? 

Mr. WILSON. I would like to ask Mr. Warren to respond to that 

question. 

Mr. WARREN. I think you are asking a good question in terms of 

why do IT projects go off track, and I think there are some key 

areas. At the beginning, there is uncertainty about who is running 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
14 

the program, what are you trying to accomplish? And who is the 

decisionmaker or ‘‘the’’ decisionmaker? So that is key at the beginning so you don’t get in a tug of war, ‘‘No, it is mine,’’ ‘‘No, it is 

mine,’’ and you get arguments and then people start countermanding each other. 

So you deal with governance. Who is the decisionmaker and how 

the decisions are made, first governance. The second piece is in 

that governance, ensuring that the program has the leadership— 

it is very, very dangerous when the IT organization runs the 

project and we start building an IT solution for an IT need versus 

a program solution. And I think you have seen with—what Keith 

has laid out, that is how we structured it. It is a program plan; IT 

is one piece of it. 

The second piece deals with requirements in terms of what is it 

we are going to build. And what you will find in many projects that 

go off track, the requirements keep changing, they keep shifting 

and drifting. ‘‘Oh, I forgot about this one.’’ ‘‘Well, I really didn’t 

mean that, I really wanted that.’’ So you have to be very careful 

to make sure you define what you need and you define it in blocks. 

You define it in such a way that, okay, we understand that component. 

So if I can take you back to the diagram that Keith had laid up, 

showing the sequence of what are the different steps that need to 

happen. By making sure you define the requirements for each of 

the components so folks can start working on those while you go 

to the next one. So define the requirements. And having a little bit 

of flexibility in your programming and your development that you 

have to wait until you have 110 percent of the requirements. So 

making sure that you have enough flexibility that you can actually 

start moving out when you have a good sense of what you need to 

do, so you can start thinking through where you want to go. So 

those are on the program side, if you will. 

On the IT side there are two critical areas. The first one is you 

get into almost this war about architecture. What technology will 

we use? What specific vendor will we use in terms of product? And 

very often, given that technology changes so quickly on an 18- 

month cycle, that every 18 months somebody comes in and says, ‘‘I 

really love this one today, so let us do this one.’’ And then 18 

months later as the program goes forward, ‘‘but this is the latest 

and greatest thing.’’ So therefore, we are going to do that one. 

So the key is to make sure your project cycle, your delivery cycle, 

is shorter than the technology refresh cycle. Otherwise you will get 

into this, ‘‘That is great, but this is the neat thing today, so now 

let us do that.’’ 

And on the fourth one, again, on the technology side is making 

sure you have a disciplined development program, that you have 

professionals who are building—I hate to use the term, but it is 

more appropriate—in a factory. We are not building art products 

here. We are building industrial items that need to run consistently and reliably going forward. 

So if you deal with those four major areas and you think about 

them as you design your project, you will meet your schedule and 

you will meet your cost parameters. If you lose any of those from 

the beginning, setting of the governance, to the end in terms of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
15 

making sure you have a professional design team, if you don’t have 

that, you will have problems. 

Again, one of the reasons we reached out to SPAWAR was we see 

that professional design team, based upon their past practices, that 

they can bring what we unfortunately are missing in the VA. So 

hopefully that answered your question, sir. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. Mr. Scalise, 

you are recognized. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Chairwoman Herseth Sandlin. In terms 

of the short-term and long-term goals, you do currently have a system, it is a COBOL system that runs your—is it just education 

benefits, is it all benefits for your current processes without Chapter 33? 

Mr. WARREN. I believe you are referring to the BDN solution system. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCALISE. So what SPAWAR will be working on in the short 

term is going to be building some kind of additional segment to 

your current system for Chapter 33 benefits and that would be— 

what would be available by August of 2009? 

Mr. WARREN. Actually, if I could, what we are using SPAWAR 

for is program management to assist as we do that short-term solution. But because we are spinning off of that existing BDN solution, 

we are using in-house VA IT resources. So we have taken the staff 

who built that system, who run that system, and said, ‘‘Your role 

is to basically give us a clone of what we have that has been modified to meet some of the financial needs for Chapter 33.’’ 

We are making sure that SPAWAR is focused on that long-term 

solution in terms of not dealing with the technologies that are 25 

to 30 years old. We are using them to apply their knowledge and 

skill set for what the marketplace is using today in terms of something called service-oriented architecture, in terms of XML gateways, in terms of using the things we need to be building for the 

future. 

So VA resources are being utilized to modify an existing system, 

a system that is actually very, very old, a legacy system that is 

hard to maintain today. So they are focused—— 

Mr. SCALISE. How old is that system? 

Mr. WARREN. Probably older than I. Thirty—I mean if you look 

at it, it has been there for a while, it is one of the first ones. The 

VA was actually very creative back in the day in terms of bringing 

some automation to the day. Unfortunately we weren’t able to 

move off of those systems. So we were great then. We sort of 

missed it going forward. 

Mr. SCALISE. So the in-house people, SPAWAR won’t be doing 

the actual modification of the short-term solution, they will be 

managing it. But they—as you gather the requirements, the process that you are almost finished with now, that will be turned over 

to SPAWAR. They will develop a plan to build a new system, a 

long-term solution, using newer technology to handle all benefits 

processing? 

Mr. WARREN. One of the things we need to be very careful of, IT 

always overpromises. I mean, we have that unfortunate reputation. 

So what we have said is our focus is Chapter 33. We need to deVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:06 Feb 24, 2009 Jkt 045275 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A275.XXX A275

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
16 

liver Chapter 33 before we talk about anything else. And the focus 

we have on this project is to deliver those benefits for this program. 

And if I do a good job, if our folks do a good job, then Keith has 

said we will look at how to expand this system and utilize further. 

If it does not deliver, then we need to rethink our approach. 

Mr. SCALISE. So for the long term there will be a new system 

that will be built for Chapter 33, but also—— 

Mr. WARREN. It will have the flexibilities into it such that—I am 

going to be optimistic—when we deliver the solution it has the 

flexibility into it to support Keith for the rest of the education program and then look at it as a model for how do we deal with the 

rest of the benefits delivered. 

Mr. SCALISE. To pull those in later. 

Mr. WARREN. Again, if we succeed, If we make sure we keep the 

flexibility in it. 

Mr. SCALISE. Because I know there is a longer term goal to have 

all VBA business lines paperless and under one system. I don’t 

know if that is part of this, if that is a separate goal. 

Mr. WARREN. We are using and we will be using and we are 

using what we have learned and what we do as part of Chapter 

33 to inform how do we do that reengineering, if you will, of 

paperless benefits delivery at the VA. This would not necessarily 

be the system. 

Mr. SCALISE. It would be flexible enough to incorporate that 

later, but that is not the primary goal of the long term. 

Mr. WARREN. The goal is to make sure Chapter 33 happens. It 

is very easy to say we will do this and we will do this and do that. 

We are trying to make sure we keep focus on what is the goal. 

Chapter 33 is the goal, making sure those checks go out and making sure we get a system in place that supports Keith and the critical program that he has. 

Mr. SCALISE. Okay. And then one of the previous concerns—I 

know VA, Veterans of Foreign Wars and maybe other groups had 

expressed about the initial plan to go to a private contractor was 

that all of the source code, the system itself, would be owned by 

the private company. In this new arrangement that you have with 

SPAWAR, will the VA own the source code and the system itself? 

Mr. WARREN. Source code is almost an anachronism when you 

deal with the technologies we are talking about. The rules engine, 

the data structures that SPAWAR builds for us will come over to 

the VA and we will continue going forward with it. So source code 

is actually not something that is really relevant to what we are 

doing going forward. But the intellectual property that the VA 

owns in terms of what the business is, what the business rules are, 

how we do payment, how we manage it, that actually comes over 

to the VA. SPAWAR is building and installing the first system at 

their location in New Orleans. We will then do the second system 

at a VA location so we can train our staff on using that technology, 

and then we will do a flip over to VA being the primary location. 

Mr. SCALISE. So you would ultimately be the owner? 

Mr. WARREN. We will ultimately be the owner, sir. 

Mr. SCALISE. All right. As then as far as educational benefits, I 

think you had answered this partially. Currently, is it somewhere 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
17 

around 500,000 benefits that you process with your current system? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. In terms of total program participation for all 

of the programs that we administer, it is about 520,000. What we 

are looking for specifically for just Chapter 33 is about a similar 

number for just Chapter 33, 520,000. 

Mr. SCALISE. New—— 

Mr. WILSON. No. Most of those individuals will be individuals 

who previously drew benefits under one of two programs that we 

administer now, and that is the Chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill 

Program for the active duty, or Chapter 1607, which is the Reserve 

Educational Systems program. The majority of those individuals 

will migrate to the new Chapter 33 benefit. Then we will have additional participation from new individuals. 

Mr. SCALISE. Okay. Thank you. That is all I have. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Scalise. Mr. Warren, I 

would like to follow up on a few things that you mentioned. You 

said one of the things, and it was a very helpful explanation in response to Mr. Boozman’s question, that can get these things off 

track. You mentioned when the requirements change. Do you, or 

Mr. Wilson, have concerns on how we might be able to avoid the 

impact of certain changes to the requirements as it relates to proposals,? Particularly those being discussed in the Senate, to make 

some technical changes to the new benefit and how that will affect 

keeping things on track and on schedule. 

Mr. WILSON. I can speak to it from the perspective of administering the benefit, and it would depend on the level of what an 

individual is referring to as technical changes. If the technical 

changes would be something, for example, along the lines of providing more specificity concerning how foreign schools are handled, 

that type of change would not be problematic. However, if it was 

a more significant change concerning eligibility criteria for the benefit itself, or potentially making the period of coverage for the benefit different than from August 1 forward, those types of changes 

would be problematic for successful implementation of the program. 

Mr. WARREN. And they would be problematic for the system we 

have had to put in place for the short-term delivery in terms of the 

1 August date. One of the design principles that we have laid out 

with SPAWAR is to make sure we break, if you will, the tyranny 

of the IT organization, so that as we build this system, rules 

changes are something that Keith’s program managers can do. 

Today it probably takes five IT folks, a database programmer, and 

a whole bunch of other folks to make changes in code, versus actually using some of the newer technologies that get the IT folks out 

of changing what those rules are in terms of when the start is, 

what the amount is, and making sure it is in the controls of the 

program folks. 

So the short-term package, again because of the age of the system that we are using, it will be difficult. But the thing that we 

are building for the long-term solution will have those flexibilities 

inherent in the design so that we are more flexible, more nimble, 

if you will, in accommodating changes in what the benefit is and 

the decisions that need to be made. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
18 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Am I correct in that the VA’s original 

plan, before the new Chapter 33 benefit was established, was to 

move to this long-term strategy with SPAWAR and contractors to 

implement the upgraded IT system? Is this what we were talking 

about in September with Mr. Pedigo, that this was the plan based 

on a timeline of 2013, having it completed? 

Mr. WILSON. The timeline for 2013 was for our preexisting TEES 

strategy, TEES being simply The Education Expert System. That 

is the rules-based mechanism that we had wanted to go to long before Chapter 33 came along. We had that out the gate in the 2009 

and 2008 budget. We were funded for that and we were moving forward, not with SPAWAR though. There was no relationship with 

SPAWAR on that initiative. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Okay. So the contract, the relationship 

with SPAWAR is to try to get this done on an 18-to-24-month timeframe because of their existing expertise in program design and 

management? 

Mr. WARREN. If I could separate the two in terms of the timing 

and SPAWAR. Before Chapter 33 came on the table, if you will, we 

had already reached out to SPAWAR to start strengthening the development team at the VA. We have some structural problems in 

terms of leadership skill set, in terms of knowledge, in terms of 

how we do development at the VA, so we had already reached out 

to SPAWAR to bring their world-class expertise into the VA and 

start mentoring our work force. So we already had a relationship 

with SPAWAR on that. 

The 18-to-24-month time period, in terms of where did that time 

come from, we needed to meet the 1 August date in terms of 

checks. But we also needed to make sure that—given that the only 

way we could do that was using a legacy system, a system that actually is very difficult to work with and difficult to maintain. Too 

often IT builds a temporary solution, which then becomes the longterm solution, which costs a tremendous amount of money and pain 

to maintain. 

So we put a, if you will, a perish date on the system. We said 

18 to 24 months, it is gone. It is the expiration date of it. We need 

to make sure when we hit that date we have something in place 

that allows us to go forward and doesn’t tie us down. So 18 to 24 

is, if you will, a management date. It is a reasonable date. But it 

is also to make sure we are not tied to something that is going to 

handicap us going forward. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. And perhaps also staying ahead of the refreshing of the technology problem that you described earlier as 

well. 

Mr. WARREN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. We clearly have two very important 

dates that you have set up, both in the short-term and long-term 

plans: our August 1 date to meet the needs and expectations of our 

veterans who are eligible for this benefit; and then obviously, for 

the reasons Mr. Warren just described, making sure we stick to the 

18-to-24-month timeframe and move to the long-term solution. 

Mr. Wilson, how confident are you that you have enough resources in your department currently, to work both the short and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
19 

the long-term plans effectively, especially given what we just heard 

about the importance of the long-term plan? 

Mr. WILSON. We have the resources. We have been working aggressively on the functional business requirements for both the 

short-term and long-term solution. Our folks have been putting in 

a lot of hours, but they have been doing a fantastic job. We have 

got the business requirements for the short-term nailed down. We 

are very, very close to having long-term business requirements 

down. We have a host of people that we can pull from. 

When it gets to the point of testing and validating that the functionality is what we need, we have a whole pool of people, both in 

my staff in Washington and our field staff at our processing offices, 

that can validate that it is working the way it should. So I am confident within VBA we have the resources we need, both to do the 

testing and to manage all of the different efforts that are underway. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. But the shelf life of the short-term solution could extend beyond 2010 if there are problems. It is just quite 

desirable to avoid that situation for the reasons you have already 

described. 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Frye, could you explain the role of 

the Acquisition and Materiel Management with regard to both the 

short and long-term solutions? 

Mr. FRYE. Right now, as already explained by Mr. Wilson, we are 

on the Steering Committee, we are part of those weekly meetings 

that are held. 

As Mr. Wilson also explained, MITRE Corporation has been engaged. MITRE Corp. is a federally funded research and development corporation, nonprofit. We engage them with task orders 

against a base contract, and we monitor their performance very 

closely, obviously, because these are cost-type contracts. But 

MITRE Corp. is a—we found them to be a very valuable member 

of the acquisition team. They bring a lot of expertise to the program. 

We have a governance process in place so that the use of MITRE 

Corp. or other federally Funded Research and Development Centers don’t get out of place. Because they are cost-type contracts, 

their use is approved all the way at the Chief Acquisition Officer 

level. So we are involved. Obviously, there aren’t major contracts 

in place, as explained, because we have got SPAWAR doing the primary work for the long-term solution. But insofar as contracts are 

used, we are involved. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. One final question, Mr. Wilson, because 

we have heard the concerns with the legacy system. While I know 

you are confident in terms of what your Department currently has, 

in regards to additional resources to make additional hires at the 

regional processing offices and some additional funds that have 

been allocated already, if that number needs to increase, what is 

the percentage of claims filed that experience some delay in processing the claim and the student having problems with starting 

classes in the fall? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
20 

Currently, separate from the new claims we are anticipating 

under Chapter 33, do you know what percentage of all claims filed 

have those types of problems with some delay? 

Mr. WILSON. I will need to go back and see what data we may 

have on that. What I can say is our averaging processing time on 

this for 2009 was 19 days for original claims, 10 days for supplemental claims. Those numbers are also our goals for this fiscal 

year, and we see no need at this point to change those goals. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Do you break those down by cause of the 

delay? Is it a DoD data feed? Is it a delay in the complexity of the 

claim with the manual processing? Is it the school certification? Do 

you break them down that way? 

Mr. WILSON. I will have to look into that and get back to you. 

I don’t have good information in my head on that. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. If you have broken them down, it might 

illuminate if there is a particular cause that results in the greatest 

percentage of delay among those who do have delayed claims. I 

think that is where the Subcommittee will want to focus in our 

work with you to make sure that even though you are in the shortterm using this existing process if there is a new field for the reporting system that the school is using for certification, if it is a 

DoD data feed issue, if it is the issue of how many FTEs do you 

have in each regional processing center, et cetera, I think that 

would be helpful to us if you could get us that information. 

Mr. WILSON. I would be glad to. 

[The information was provided in the response to question #1 

from the post hearing questions and responses, which appear on 

p. 34.] 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I just had one thing that I was curious about. On 

one of the slides I think it showed that you would start your hiring 

process in January. 

Mr. WILSON. December 1st. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. But your training program really didn’t 

kick up until May? 

Mr. WILSON. We were looking at March 1st to begin the training. 

What we are looking at, though, is that would be the last date potentially at which the training would start for folks. For instance, 

if a regional processing office brings a group of people on between 

December 1st and January 1st, we want to go ahead and bring 

those folks on board, get them into training, because part of the 

issue with training this number of people is going to be space, 

training rooms, not necessarily overall space. But we do want to 

chunk it out; as soon as we get people that will fill up a classroom 

we will bring them on board, put them in a classroom and start the 

training. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Scalise, do you have any further 

questions? 

Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate the testimony, the information you have provided. It is certainly helpful to continue to get 

a better understanding of the challenges you face with the shortterm solution, with the legacy system in which you are trying to 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
21 

adapt to meet the needs of August 1st deadline. It is also helpful 

for us to be partners with all of you as you meet the long-term solutions to ensure timely delivery of the benefits as well. We appreciate the hard work of all of you and the folks that you are working 

with in your respective departments. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Well, I would just like to echo that, Madam Chairman. And also I think the hearing today was very, very helpful and 

also very reassuring. It sounds like you guys have a very, very good 

plan and that we are on track. So I appreciate your hard work. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. We will obviously look forward to seeing 

you early in the 111th Congress. We commend our staff on the 

Subcommittee for the work that they have undertaken with all of 

you, the work that I know we will all be undertaking in the weeks 

ahead with the transition team to make sure that that is not an 

additional factor that could come in and get us off track, but, rather, keep us focused on both the short and long-term solutions. We 

look forward to receiving those updates on the progress that you 

continue to make. 

With that, the hearing now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(22) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

I would like to welcome everyone back from the district work period. Many of you 

before us today are well aware of this Subcommittee’s active participation in providing oversight on the implementation of Public Law 110–252, which provides new 

education benefits for our Nation’s veterans who served after September 11, 2001. 

In previous hearings, conducted by this Subcommittee, we received testimony 

from the VA informing us of its intent to contract out the new IT requirements 

under Public Law 110–252. Later, on October 23rd, Committee staff were informed 

of the VA’s new short-term plan to no longer use a private contractor for the immediate implementation of new IT systems, but rather use VA resources to create a 

temporary solution to meet the August 2009 requirements. We are also aware that 

the VA is developing a long-term plan for revamping its current IT system. I look 

forward to receiving the VA’s testimony that highlights its new short and long-term 

plans. 

The passage of Public Law 110–252 is a significant milestone for our Nation’s veterans, but a lot of work must be completed before the benefits can be received. 

While the 110th Congress comes to a close, I would like to assure our Nation’s veterans that we will continue to monitor the progress of the VA’s short- and long-term 

plans in the 111th Congress to ensure that their earned benefits are delivered in 

a timely manner. 

I look forward to working with Chairman Bob Filner, Ranking Member Boozman 

and Members of this Subcommittee to provide oversight on the implementation of 

the new Montgomery GI Bill’s requirements. I also remain committed to continue 

to work to improve education, housing and employment benefits for our veterans 

and their dependents. I now recognize Mr. Boozman for any opening remarks he 

may have. f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman, Ranking Republican Member, 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Good morning everyone. When we met a few weeks ago to begin our oversight of 

how VA intends to implement the new GI Bill, there was considerable discussion 

about whether VA should develop the new information technology system in-house 

or hire a contractor for development and possibly some clerical support. I stated 

then that I didn’t believe that should be our focus and I still don’t. Now that VA 

has made their decision to use SPAWAR for the both the long- and short-term fix 

that we need to not second guess this decision but help VA and SPAWAR implement 

the program. 

However, I have some concerns about how VA is organized to manage both the 

short- and long-term solutions, based on the briefings given to the staff and what 

we will see today. More specifically, the charters for the Executive Committee, the 

Steering Committee, and the working groups need more definition and I am still unclear about the responsibilities of the senior managers. 

Second, while VA has put together a plan to implement the short term solution 

there is very little definition at this point of the long-term effort by VA and 

SPAWAR. 

Third, what are the key functions that the BDN system and what are its limitations? 

Finally, the question remains regarding VA’s plans for its education work force. 

They have stated before that no one will lose their VA job and that they intend to 

hire additional temporary staff as part of the short term solution. I hope to hear 

more details about that today. 

I yield back. f 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
23 

Prepared Statement of Keith M. Wilson 

Director, Office of Education Service, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Herseth-Sandlin, Ranking Member Boozman, and 

Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) strategy for implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill (new Chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code). Accompanying me today is Mr. Stephen Warren, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Information Technology, and Mr. Jan Frye, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisitions & Materials Management. My testimony will address the short- and longterm strategies in developing information technology (IT) components for implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, as requested by the Subcommittee. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill will provide veterans, servicemembers, and members of the 

National Guard and Selected Reserve with educational assistance, generally in the 

form of tuition and fees, a monthly housing allowance, and a books and supplies stipend, to assist them in reaching their educational or vocational goals. This program 

will also assist in their readjustment to civilian life, support the Armed Services’ 

recruitment and retention efforts, and enhance the Nation’s competitiveness 

through the development of a more highly educated and productive work force. 

Short-Term Strategy 

Our short-term strategy to implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill consists of a two-part 

IT solution, a fiscal payment system that uses VA’s existing Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) to issue payments, and a ‘‘Front-End Tool’’ (FET) for use by Education 

Service claims examiners to augment the manual processing of the claims for benefits. 

We will use internal IT staff to build the needed payment-processing and delivery 

mechanisms within the fiscal-payment system of BDN for the purpose of making 

payments. This functionality will allow for entry of all payment types, to include recurring payments (housing allowance), complete accounting ability, audit-trail capability, and some availability of reports that will meet our finance and budgetary requirements. 

The Chapter 33 FET will be used to augment the manual process by providing 

additional automated support that is accessible by processors in each Regional Processing Office (RPO), and VA Central Office. This automated tool will provide functionality that cannot be included in the BDN fiscal-payment solution. Requirements 

for the FET are being analyzed to determine what current capabilities can be modified or enhanced. The range of functionality that can be provided will be defined 

by November 26. The FET will be the primary tool to be used by education claims 

examiners in preparing and processing education awards. 

While the BDN solution will generate the information sent to the Department of 

the Treasury for issuance of the payments, the FET is intended to support calculation of the payment, track the usage of entitlement, and store the claimant’s education award history, as well as providing basic statistical reports. 

The implementation of the short-term solution will require approximately 400 additional processors at the RPOs. It is important to remember that this combined IT 

and staffing approach is a short-term solution that we expect to retire no later than 

November 2010, when the automated system that will be used for the long term is 

developed and implemented by our partners at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR). 

Long-Term Strategy 

Our long-term strategy to implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill will rely on support 

from SPAWAR to develop an end-to-end solution that utilizes rules-based, industrystandard technologies for the delivery of education benefits. The Chapter 33 program contains eligibility rules for benefit determinations that will work well with 

rules-based technology, while requiring minimal human intervention. VA is working 

with SPAWAR on the long-term IT solution, and expects the development of this 

program to take approximately 18 to 24 months to complete. 

The priorities established for IT enhancements for the short-term front-end piece 

have a relationship to the priorities SPAWAR will follow when developing the longterm solution, such that some of the long-term IT functionality could be used to implement our short-term solution. If SPAWAR can develop long-term functionality 

that can also be used in the short term and can be deployed within our timeframe 

prior to August 2009, they will do so. That would save the effort of having to dedicate additional resources to short-term IT investment that will be thrown away 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
24 

when the long-term solution deploys. In both the short term and long term, 

SPAWAR also is providing IT program management support and technical assistance in managing the necessary data flow. 

Expenditures 

VA received $120 million in supplemental funding to implement this new benefit, 

$100 million in the General Operating Expenses (GOE) account and $20 million in 

the IT appropriation account. To date, VA has transferred $13.25 million from its 

supplemental IT funds to SPAWAR for the purpose of project management for both 

the long- and short-term solutions and IT support for the data integration to support the long-term solution. 

The remaining $6.75 million from the supplemental funding will be used for modifications to existing VA systems, data integration, and testing associated with the 

data-integration initiative. VA has requested a reprogramming of $35 million of the 

available $100 million of GOE funds into the IT appropriation account to pay for 

the development and implementation of this long-term solution. The remaining $65 

million in GOE funds is sufficient to cover the additional 400 FTE. 

Project Review, Milestones, and Scope of Delegated Responsibilities 

To meet the program’s August 1, 2009, effective date, VA has assigned project 

oversight duties, established milestones, and instituted frequent oversight review. 

VA Education Service established a Program Executive Office (PEO) that is responsible for monitoring and coordinating all Post-9/11 GI Bill implementation activities. In addition to the PEO, VA contracted with the MITRE Corporation, a notfor-profit research and consultation firm, as well as SPAWAR, to develop the longterm IT solution. 

The first critical milestone was met on November 14, 2008, with the completion 

of the development of the business requirements for the short-term payment solution. The next critical milestone for the short-term solution is completion of the IT 

functional requirements on November 26th. With the completion of these functional 

specifications, detailed design of the solution will start, with an expected completion 

date for the design of all components of the financial delivery portion by March 31, 

2009. 

With the completion of the business requirements, staff will then establish these 

requirements so that they are applicable to the design and development of the longterm solution. 

VA/DoD Identity Repository 

The VA/DoD Identity Repository (VADIR) supports an effort that has been underway for the past 5 years to collapse the multiple data flows between VA and the 

Department of Defense (DoD) into the minimum number possible. This repository 

will be expanded to incorporate the additional data necessary to support the Chapter 33 program. 

In cooperation with the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), modifications 

to the VA/DoD Identity Repository (VADIR) for the incorporation of the unique 

Chapter 33 data elements are underway. The exchange of test files between VA and 

DoD is scheduled to begin this week. 

Regulations Development 

At the end of September, VA completed a draft of a proposed regulations package 

required for implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. This package is now under review by the Office of Management and Budget. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I, Mr. Warren, and Mr. Frye 

would be pleased to answer any questions you or any of the other Members of the 

Subcommittee may have. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
25 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert 45275A.001 Insert 45275A.002
26 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert 45275A.003 Insert 45275A.004
27 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert 45275A.005 Insert 45275A.006
28 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert 45275A.007 Insert 45275A.008
29 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert 45275A.009 Insert 45275A.010
30 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert 45275A.011 Insert 45275A.012
31 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert 45275A.013 Insert 45275A.014
32 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert 45275A.015 Insert 45275A.016
33 

f 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert 45275A.017 Insert 45275A.018
34 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

Washington, DC. 

November 18, 2008 

The Honorable James B. Peake, M.D. 

Secretary 

U.S. Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Secretary Peake: 

I am sending you deliverables and questions for the record in reference to a hearing from our House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity VA’s Short- and Long-Term Strategies for Implementing New G.I. Bill Requirements on November 18, 2008. Please answer the enclosed hearing questions by 

no later than Friday, January 2, 2009. 

In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is implementing some formatting 

changes for material for all Full Committee and Subcommittee hearings. Therefore, 

it would be appreciated if you could provide your answers consecutively on letter 

size paper, single-spaced. In addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the answer. 

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to Ms. Orfa 

Torres at by fax at (202) 225–2034. If you have any questions, please call (202) 226– 

4150. 

Sincerely, 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 

Chairwoman 

Questions for the Record 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity 

VA’s Short- and Long-Term Strategies for 

Implementing New G.I. Bill Requirements 

November 18, 2008 

Question 1: What is the percentage of claims filed that experience some delay 

in processing the claim and the student having problems with starting classes in 

the fall? Breakdown by cause of the delay and explain if it is because of 000 data 

feed; is the delay because of the complexity of the claim with the manual processing; 

is it the school certification? 

Response: Education Service does not currently have a mechanism to collect information about individual case delay reasons. We track information regarding average timeliness of all completed claims and average number of days for pending 

claims. For original claims completed in October 2008, the average number of days 

to complete was 22; of those claims 75 percent were completed in 30 days or less. 

For supplemental claims completed in October 2008, the average number of days 

to complete was 17, and 85 percent of those claims were completed in 30 days or 

less. As of November 2008, approximately 7,100 original education claims were 

pending for an average of 20 days. Approximately 11,700 supplemental education 

claims were pending for an average 19 days. 

Question 2: Provide the Subcommittee an estimate of the timeline of when the 

mailings for Active Duty, National Guard, Reserve, and separated servicemembers 

will go out. 

Response: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) plans to mail letters to all 

potentially entitled veterans who served an aggregate of 90 days on active duty 

after September 10, 2001. We estimate the mailing will be completed by January 

30, 2009. 

VA is also finalizing a plan to acquire information necessary for a large-scale 

mailing of Post-9/11 GI Bill information to all current members of the Armed 

Forces. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
35 

VA also has regularly scheduled mailings for servicemembers who are potentially 

eligible under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). As those servicemembers are potentially entitled to the Post-9/11 GI Bill, we also include information about that benefit. Servicemembers receive a mailing after completing 12 months on active duty, 

another after completing 24 months, and another within 6 months of discharge. A 

recent mailing was completed on September 24, 2008, followed by another one in 

mid-December. 

Question 3: Please explain the contract arrangement that VA has with MITRE 

and SPAWAR. 

Response: VA has engaged the services of MITRE Corp., a federally funded research and development center. The MITRE contract enables VA to access private 

sector enterprise systems and engineering and program management expertise from 

an organization that provides objective, independent, conflict-free advice, and functions as a trusted partner of VA. MITRE provides direct support to the Veterans 

Benefit Administration’s (VBA) Office of Business Process Integration (OBPI), the 

coordinating body and focal point for the development of the comprehensive strategic vision for business and data systems across all VBA. OBPI is responsible for 

ensuring VBA’s strategic business needs and requirements are properly documented, integrated, and communicated both internally and externally. OBPI serves 

as VBA’s principal interface to the VA Office of Information & Technology. 

MITRE provides expert enterprise engineering and integration support to VA 

through five general task areas: 

1. Strategic Management 

2. Program and Project Management 

3. Technical Management 

4. Independent Evaluation and Audit 

5. Procurement Support and Evaluation 

SPAWAR Systems Center Atlantic (SSC Atlantic) is a Navy Working Capital 

Fund financed, systems engineering command, that delivers capability in command, 

control, communications, computers, and enterprise information systems for the Department of Defense, and other Federal agencies. SSC Atlantic and VA entered into 

a relationship through an interagency agreement in November 2007, to provide 

technical consulting, analysis, planning, systems engineering, program execution, 

and support for information management/information technology initiatives to VA. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING