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

65–146 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–913 

REVIEW OF THE VA AND DOD INTEGRATED 

DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOVEMBER 18, 2010 

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 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Ranking 

Member 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM E. BREW, Staff Director 

LUPE WISSEL, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 18, 2010 

SENATORS 

Page 

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

Burr, Hon. Richard, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from North Carolina ....... 2 

Johanns, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Nebraska ............................................... 3 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from Georgia ............................................... 4 

Brown, Hon. Sherrod, U.S. Senator from Ohio ..................................................... 47 

Brown, Hon. Scott, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts ......................................... 53 

WITNESSES 

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

Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Campbell, John R., Deputy Under Secretary, Office of Wounded Warrior 

Care and Transition Policy, U.S. Department of Defense ................................ 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Response to requests arising during the hearing by Hon. Richard 

Burr.......................................................................................................... 46, 56, 58 

Medve, John, Executive Director of VA/DOD Collaboration Service, Office 

of Policy and Planning, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ......................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Response to post-hearing questions submitted by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Akaka .................................................................................. 33 

Hon. Richard Burr ........................................................................................ 36 

Hon. Mark Begich ......................................................................................... 43 

Response to request arising during the hearing by Hon. Sherrod Brown ... 48 

(1) 

REVIEW OF THE VA AND DOD INTEGRATED 

DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka, Brown of Ohio, Burr, Isakson, 

Johanns, and Brown of Massachusetts. 

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

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Chairman AKAKA. This hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs will come to order. 

Aloha to all of you and welcome to today’s hearing on the joint 

VA and DOD Disability Evaluation System. 

VA and DOD used to operate two separate disability evaluation 

systems. With many individuals being evaluated for the same condition by both agencies, the redundancy in medical examinations 

and the separate rating processes produced varying results and left 

many servicemembers confused. Since 2007, VA and DOD have 

been testing a streamlined program to integrate the two processes. 

At the heart of this effort is the Joint Disability Medical Examination that would replace DOD’s Medical Evaluation Board Physical 

Evaluation Board process and VA’s Disability Compensation Claim 

process. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine how well the new 

system is working. Our review of the program is particularly important now because VA and DOD are planning to expand the program worldwide. While streamlining the two systems is important, 

the implementation of this joint program has not been without 

problems. At a few pilot sites, VA staffing shortages due to a lack 

of personnel to conduct disability medical examinations caused significant delay in the processing of servicemembers. There were also 

personnel shortages at DOD among those responsible for guiding 

servicemembers through the new process. Issues of servicemember 

satisfaction and quality-of-life are also of concern. 

Other issues have been identified through committee staff oversight and by the GAO in its draft report on the new processes. 

These include problems with integrating VA staff at military installations, difficulty in having various IT systems work together, 

and ensuring that an adequate number of DOD physicians serve on 

2 

medical evaluation boards. The Committee needs to hear from VA 

and DOD on how these challenges are being addressed. 

I also want to know how the new joint program will affect veterans who are waiting to have their claims adjudicated by VA. VA 

is already facing a backlog of claims and medical examinations. I 

am concerned that veterans already in the VA system could be adversely affected by the resources being diverted to support the new 

program. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward to their testimony. 

Senator Burr, your opening statement please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding this hearing and I welcome all that are here today. I want to 

take just a moment to go off script, if I can. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I have devoted a great deal of time to 

ensuring that VA honors the veterans who served at Camp Lejeune 

during the three decades when the base water was highly contaminated with carcinogens. While that has not been easy, there have 

been some signs of slow progress at the Veterans Administration. 

In September, VA informed the Congress that out of approximately 

200 claims of exposure its office received from Lejeune veterans 

since March of this year, only 20 have been granted. When my staff 

asked the VA for the justification behind the 180 denials, VA said 

they did not have the information that was needed. 

Then last week, I learned that the VA plans to centralize the 

Lejeune claims review process in one regional process in Louisville, 

KY. While this is possibly welcome news, VA did not proactively inform me or any member of this significant change in the process, 

and my staff only learned about it from a constituent. 

Mr. Chairman, some of us on this Committee have expressed 

concerns and even frustrations with the lack of communication and 

transparency that this Committee receives out of the Veterans Administration. This latest episode is another example of the broader 

problem we face with a bureaucratic culture at VA that does not 

welcome oversight and resists information sharing. If this Committee is to fulfill its mission to serve our Nation’s veterans, we 

need the VA to do a better job of holding up their end of the 

bargain. 

That is my commentary this morning, but this is not something 

that will end with this hearing. 

Now, let us turn to the issue at hand. For any servicemember 

whose medical conditions keep them from continuing their service 

in the military, there must be an effective, hassle-free process to 

get them the benefits and services that they need and help them 

to smoothly transition to civilian life. 

But several years ago, it became clear that the disability system 

at the Department of Defense and at the VA was not living up to 

that standard. In 2007, the news reports as well as several panels 

of experts detailed how injured servicemembers had to go through 

a long bureaucratic process at DOD, followed by a similar process 

at the VA, to find out what disability benefits they would receive. 

3 

Wounded servicemembers and their families were becoming frustrated, confused, and disappointed with both systems. 

Since then, DOD and VA have joined efforts to improve this process by piloting an Integrated Disability Evaluation System. This allowed injured servicemembers to find out what benefits they will 

get from both agencies before being discharged from the military. 

A single set of medical examinations are used by both agencies and 

VA assigns the disability ratings that govern what benefits are provided by both VA and DOD. 

Our witnesses today will testify that this joint process has shown 

potential to reduce delays and confusion in getting benefits from 

both agencies. In fact, DOD and VA believe the pilot was a success 

and plan to roll out the program to sites worldwide, including several bases in North Carolina. 

But as we will discuss today, this pilot did have a number of significant challenges. Pilot sites ran into logistics problems, staffing 

shortages, surges in caseload, and other issues that led to long 

delays for servicemembers. On top of that, servicemembers have 

expressed concerns about the quality of their life while going 

through this process. Some have pointed out that they were not 

given meaningful work to do and spent too much time being idle. 

Others are frustrated that they cannot accept civilian jobs, enroll 

in school, or otherwise plan for civilian lives because they just do 

not know how long the process will take. As one Marine from Camp 

Lejeune put it, DOD and VA should, ‘‘set a time and date so we 

can plan our lives.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I realize that DOD and VA are taking steps to 

address many of these challenges and I look forward to hearing 

about those efforts today, particularly now as these agencies plan 

to expand this process to more sites. We need to be sure that these 

sites would be ready with the staff, with the facilities, and the 

other tools they need to provide wounded servicemembers with the 

high level of service that they have earned, and more importantly, 

they deserve. More importantly, we must make sure that whatever 

system is in place meets the needs of wounded servicemembers and 

their families and actually helps improve their lives. 

With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will have a 

candid discussion today about how to best move forward with improving the Disability Evaluation System for our Nation’s injured 

veterans. I thank the Chair once again. I yield. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. 

Senator Burr, we have worked so well together. He has been a 

leader in the Camp Lejeune issue. I just want him to know that 

I will continue to work with him in all oversight issues. 

Now, we will hear the opening statement of Senator Johanns. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator JOHANNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member, thank you for your efforts to put this hearing together. To our witnesses, I really appreciate you being with us 

today. 

I am sure all of us would agree it is important to make the process by which our servicemembers access the benefits they deserve 

4 

as straightforward as we can. I am always going to be willing to 

support efforts to streamline that process and I commend all those 

with the VA who have spent countless hours attempting to solve 

this backlog issue which we never get too far away from on this 

Committee. 

I participated in the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing 

in July 2009 when we heard an assessment of the pilot program 

and I look forward to hearing the testimony today about progress, 

improvements, and what next steps might be. 

I am encouraged that the pilot program has the potential to effectively assess servicemembers’ fitness and provide disability ratings. I am concerned that some of the problems associated with the 

pilot maybe have not yet been resolved, and I am anxious to hear 

about that. It is my hope that DOD and VA are working hard to 

implement some of the lessons learned from the pilot program so 

we can provide our veterans with benefits quickly and efficiently. 

To our witnesses, again, thank you for being here. I look forward 

to the testimony. I know we are all working hard to deal with these 

issues and my hope is we continue to see progress. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Johanns. 

Now we have the opening statement of Senator Isakson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 

hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses and having a good discussion on how we can improve the disability evaluation system for 

our Nation’s injured servicemembers. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson. 

I want to welcome the witnesses on today’s panel. In the interest 

of opening a dialog amongst our witnesses, we have only one panel. 

First, we have Daniel Bertoni, Director of Education, Workforce, 

and Income Security Issues at the Government Accountability Office; next, we have John R. Campbell, Deputy Under Secretary, Office of Wounded Warrior Care and Transition Policy at the Department of Defense; and we have John Medve, Executive Director of 

VA/DOD Collaboration Service, Office of Policy and Planning of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

I thank all of you for being here this morning. Your full testimony will appear in the record. 

Mr. Bertoni, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, and then we 

will move to Mr. Campbell and Mr. Medve. Mr. Bertoni? 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BERTONI, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. BERTONI. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, good 

morning. I am pleased to comment on the Departments of Defense 

and Veterans Affairs’ efforts to integrate and streamline their Disability Evaluation Systems. 

More than 40,000 servicemembers have been wounded or injured 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many who cannot continue their miliVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:21 Mar 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\ACTIVE\111810.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
5 

tary service must navigate complex Disability Evaluation Systems 

in both DOD and VA. GAO and others have identified problems 

with these systems, including delayed decisions, duplication of 

processes, and confusion among servicemembers. 

In 2007, DOD and VA designed and piloted an Integrated Disability Evaluation System, or IDES, with a goal of improving and 

expediting the delivery of benefits to servicemembers. My statement today will briefly summarize key findings of our pending report, which examined the agency’s evaluation of the pilot results, 

implementation challenges to date, and DOD and VA’s effort to 

mitigate those challenges. 

In summary, in their August 2010 evaluation report, the agencies noted that the pilot has improved servicemember satisfaction 

relative to the legacy system and met their target goals for delivering VA benefits to active duty and reserve members within 295 

and 305 days, respectively. Despite meeting the overall timeliness 

goals, we found that not all service branches achieved the same results. Only the Army, which represents about 60 percent of all 

IDES cases, was successful, while average processing times for the 

Navy, Air Force, and Marines were substantially higher. 

We also found that as caseloads have increased, processing times 

have also steadily increased, with most recent data showing average processing times for active duty and reserve members at 317 

and 310 days, respectively. Despite this trend, the current processing time is likely an improvement over the 540 days the agencies estimate that it takes to obtain VA benefits under the legacy 

system. 

DOD and VA have encountered several implementation challenges with the pilot that contributed to delays in processing 

claims. For example, nearly all the sites we visited experienced 

staffing shortages to some degree, often due to workloads exceeding 

original projections. Shortages and delays were most severe at 

large pilot sites. Caseload surges related to deployments at one location due to the VA medical staff shortages took 140 days to complete the single disability exam, well in excess of the pilot’s 45-day 

goal. 

We identified other issues and delays associated with the single 

exam, such as problems with the completeness and clarity of exam 

summaries and disagreements between DOD and VA medical staff 

on some diagnoses. Pilot sites also experienced logistical challenges, such as incorporating VA staff into military facilities and 

housing servicemembers awaiting decisions on their case. 

As DOD and VA prepare for rapid expansion worldwide, they are 

taking steps to address several key challenges. This includes increasing exam and case management personnel via additional hiring, staff reallocations, and increased contracting; requiring local 

facilities to develop contingency plans for addressing caseload 

surges; and making policy and procedural changes to improve the 

quality of exam summaries. While these initiatives are promising, 

DOD and VA still lack strategies for ensuring enough military physicians are in place to handle projected workloads and a systemwide mechanism to monitor and address local-level challenges, 

such as sudden staffing changes or problems with medical 

diagnoses. 

6 

In conclusion, by integrating two duplicative Disability Evaluation Systems, the IDES shows promise for expediting the delivery 

of benefits to returning wounded warriors. However, the pilot has 

revealed challenges that require careful management attention and 

oversight. It is unclear whether these challenges will be sufficiently 

addressed prior to worldwide implementation. Accordingly, our 

final report will include recommendations to further improve DOD 

and VA’s planning for expansion of the new system going forward 

and we look forward to continuing to work with the agencies on 

this important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you and other Members of the Committee 

may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bertoni follows:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL BERTONI, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, 

AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE


1118psGAO1.eps
8 


1118psGAO2.eps
9 


1118psGAO3.eps
10 


1118psGAO4.eps
11 


1118psGAO5.eps
12 


1118psGAO6.eps
13 


1118psGAO7.eps
14 


1118psGAO8.eps
15 


1118psGAO9.eps
16 


1118psGAO10.eps
17 


1118psGAO11.eps
18 


1118psGAO12.eps
19 


1118psGAO13.eps
20 


1118psGAO14.eps
21 


1118psGAO15.eps
22 


1118psGAO16.eps
23 


1118psGAO17.eps
24 


1118psGAO18.eps
25 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Bertoni. 

Mr. Campbell, will you please proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CAMPBELL, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (WOUNDED WARRIOR CARE AND 

TRANSITION POLICY), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Burr, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning with Mr. Bertoni from the Government Accountability Office and John Medve from the Department 


1118psGAO19.eps
26 

of Veterans Affairs. I am pleased to discuss the current status of 

the Integrated Disability Evaluation System and the plans DOD 

and VA have for its worldwide expansion. We appreciate the opportunity to explain where we have been and where we are going with 

regards to IDES, formerly the Disability Evaluation System Pilot. 

All DES programs are joint efforts between DOD and VA. 

Until recently, the non-VA Integrated DES, known as the legacy 

system, was relatively unchanged until public and Congressional 

concern arose regarding its perceived inadequacies. Some are legitimate, verifiable, and required response. DOD and VA chartered the 

Wounded, Ill, and Injured Senior Oversight Committee in November 2007, and the SOC immediately recommended that a new DES 

pilot be created. The SOC’s vision for the pilot was to create a servicemember-centric seamless and transparent DES. The goal is 

simplifying and improving the transparency of the disability evaluation process, reducing case processing times, and increasing consistency of ratings. This is accomplished, in part, by employing a 

single medical exam process and single source disability rating. 

On July 30, 2010, the SOC co-chairs, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, directed worldwide implementation of the process, beginning in October 2010 and 

to be completed at the end of September 2011. The decision to 

move forward with expansion of the pilot, subsequently named 

IDES, was based on the high satisfaction rate of servicemembers, 

demonstrated efficiency, and lessons learned from the pilot. 

In preparation for the IDES expansion, VA and DOD will conduct joint site planning conferences for each stage. The conferences 

will bring together the local VA and DOD site officials responsible 

for the implementation of the IDES in their own geographic areas. 

These joint conferences will engender frank discussions of the goals 

and milestones that must be met prior to each site’s initial operating capability. In addition, training will occur for Patient Administration Personnel, PEBLOs, Military Services Coordinators, and 

physicians. Detailed site assessment matrices and checklists will be 

completed and signed by DOD and VA officials. Strict certification 

procedures will be followed and approved by senior levels of leadership in VA and military departments before a site may implement 

the IDES. Last, sites will also provide 30-day post-implementation 

written assessment ‘‘hotwashes.’’ 

The DES pilot process has proven to be a success. It was faster, 

more transparent, more understandable, and provided more consistent, equitable outcomes than the legacy DES. As a result, both 

DOD and VA are fully committed to the successful worldwide expansion of IDES within the timelines discussed in my written 

statement. DOD will continue to work closely with VA, monitoring 

every facet of the expansion and making adjustments as necessary. 

Although IDES is a demonstrated process improvement over the 

legacy system, we can and will continue to improve. We are also 

in the process of thoroughly reviewing the recent Government Accountability Office draft report related to the Disability Evaluation 

System. Although we will be providing official comment at a later 

date, we are likely to concur with their initial findings. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for its continued 

interest and leadership in this very important program. We are 

27 

mindful of the concerns raised by the Committee in recent months 

and are taking them into account as we move forward with the 

expansion. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. On behalf of recovering and transitioning men and women in the military today and 

their families, I thank you and the Members of the Committee for 

your steadfast support. I am happy to answer any questions you 

may have at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CAMPBELL, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE

OF WOUNDED WARRIOR CARE AND TRANSITION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to 

discuss the current status of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) 

and Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) plans 

for worldwide expansion of IDES. We appreciate the chance to explain where we 

have been and where we are going with regards to the IDES, formerly the Disability 

Evaluation System (DES) Pilot. 

The IDES integrates DOD and VA DES processes. During the IDES process, the 

member receives a single set of physical disability examinations conducted according 

to VA examination protocols, and then disability ratings are prepared by VA. During 

the IDES, both Departments are conducting simultaneous case processing—this ensures the timely and quality delivery of disability benefits. Both Departments use 

the VA protocols for disability examination and the VA disability rating to make 

their respective determinations. DOD determines fitness for duty and provides compensation ratings for unfitting conditions incurred in the line of duty under title 10, 

United States Code (U.S.C.), while VA provides compensation ratings for all disabilities incurred or aggravated during military service for which a disability rating is 

awarded and thus establishes eligibility for other VA benefits and services, in accordance with title 38, U.S.C.. The systems are integrated, not merged. The IDES 

requires the Departments to complete their disability determinations before DOD 

separates a Servicemember so that both Departments can validly determine a Servicemember’s disability and provide disability benefits at the timeliest point allowed 

under both titles. Servicemembers who separate or retire (non-disability) may still 

apply to the VA for service-connected disabilities and be compensated by the VA, 

in accordance with current policies and processes. 

BACKGROUND

The genesis of the current Disability Evaluation System is the Career Compensation Act of 1949. Until recently, the legacy system (the non-VA integrated DES) was 

relatively unchanged until public concern arose regarding perceived inadequacies of 

the DES. As a result of public concern and congressional interest, DOD and the VA 

chartered the Wounded, Ill and Injured (WII) Senior Oversight Committee (SOC) in 

November 2007. The SOC immediately recommended that a new DES Pilot be created. The SOC vision for the DES Pilot was to create a ‘‘Servicemember Centric’’ 

seamless and transparent DES, administered jointly by the DOD and VA. The SOC 

intended the DES Pilot to: 

• Simplify the disability evaluation process: Make the process easier for Servicemembers, veterans, and families by eliminating the duplicate requirements placed 

on them so the process is less complex and non-adversarial. 

• Improve the Transparency of the disability evaluation process: Employ a recognized, impartial disability evaluation process. 

• Increase Consistency: Ensure Servicemembers and veterans with similar levels 

of disability receive similar benefits outcomes by standardizing processes and increasing oversight. 

• Ensure Appellate Procedures: Protect the due process rights of Servicemembers 

and veterans. 

• Reduce Case Processing Time: Reduce the wait Servicemembers and veterans 

experience between the point they are referred to the DES until they receive VA 

benefits. 

• Employ a single medical exam and single-source disability rating. 

• Ensure seamless transition to Veteran status. 

• Ensure a continuum of care—advocacy and expectation management. 

28 

DES PILOT PERFORMANCE

As we reported to Congress in August of this year, Active component members 

completed the IDES in an average of 291 days, 46 percent faster than a sample of 

legacy DES cases, and Reserve component members completed the IDES in an average of 281 days. A single VA examination and rating source for Servicemembers 

streamlined the process, reducing the gap between separation/retirement from Service to receiving VA benefits. There has also been increased transparency through 

better information flow to Servicemembers and their families. Moreover, DES Pilot 

surveys reflect a higher Servicemember satisfaction with the IDES compared to the 

legacy DES. The DES Pilot is a demonstrated process improvement over the legacy, 

but we can, and will, continue to improve. 

LESSONS LEARNED

Of the current 27 DES Pilot locations, most have successfully implemented the 

DES Pilot and are examples of efficiency. However, both DOD and VA have examined improvement opportunities identified during the Pilot and have taken appropriate action to address them. Site Certification procedures, conducted by DOD and 

VA senior leadership, were developed to ensure each future IDES location is prepared to implement the IDES. Site certification ensures appropriate exam coverage, 

a completed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between VA and DOD, sufficient resources (Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officers (PEBLOs), Military Services Coordinators (MSCs), provider staffing), adequate facilities (sufficient space and equipment for VA and DOD personnel), sufficient IT resources, required IDES training, 

and a comprehensive communications plan. VA is also planning for increased exam 

capacity before a site is declared open for IDES, and Military departments will work 

closely with local VA facilities on unanticipated surges in demand while VA will develop additional exam capacity for demand spikes. 

In order to improve awareness of Servicemember progress in the IDES, improvements are being made to the current tracking system, the Veteran Tracking Application (VTA), so that it collects performance data in a more timely and efficient 

manner. Shortages of PEBLOs are also being addressed DOD-wide through funding 

and improved force management. We are also refining operational and performance 

objectives to more clearly address potential problem areas at the operational and 

tactical levels. Findings from the DES Pilot are being utilized to inform the setting 

of improved performance objectives that are realistic and reflective of the actual 

IDES experience. DOD is also studying conditions that cause referral to the IDES, 

with the intent of tightening policy or aligning toward capability assessments, in 

order to reduce superfluous referrals in which Servicemembers were returned to 

duty more often than not. 

Additionally, VA is adding supplemental medical examination contract capability 

to be in place by December 31, 2010. Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER), 

interoperability between DOD’s and VA’s electronic health records (AHLTA and 

VISTA, respectively), and IDES IT initiatives will increase health record sharing 

and build DOD/VA interfaces, pertinent to more efficient handoffs between VA and 

DOD. 

CASE STUDY OF SUCCESS—FORT RILEY, KANSAS

While we have noted areas that are improving based on opportunities identified 

during the DES Pilot, we would also like to single out one location that we hold 

up as an example of DES Pilot success, Fort Riley, Kansas. This location is an example of the impact that dedicated and energized leadership has on the DES Pilot. 

At Fort Riley, key senior leaders were intimately involved from the early onset of 

the DES Pilot. Leaders took lessons learned from the conferences, hotwashes, and 

after-action-reports and liaised directly with VA counterparts to develop a joint common operating concept and conducted joint contingency site planning before initiation of the DES Pilot. Monthly Fort Riley/DOD/VA meetings enabled development 

of crucial working relationships, and review of DES Pilot procedures allowed for 

identification of issues and established a schedule for resolution of action items prior 

to implementation of the DES Pilot on February 1, 2010. Fort Riley developed a 

‘‘one-stop’’ Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) clinic. This clinic performs a thorough 

case evaluation before referral to the DES Pilot, thus preventing cases from starting 

the DES Pilot prematurely and reducing potential delays. The MSCs and Army OutReach Counselors are co-located with the Army PEBLOs, greatly improving process 

workflow and communications between the VA and DOD. As a result of these concerted efforts, the current average days to complete IDES processing at Fort Riley 

is 231 days, which is a savings of 309 days over the 540-day legacy DES benchmark 

29 

and a 60-day savings over the IDES average of 291 days. Fort Riley has emerged 

as the model for other sites to emulate. 

WORLDWIDE IDES EXPANSION

Based on the high satisfaction rate of Servicemembers, demonstrated efficiency, 

and lessons learned from the DES Pilot, the SOC Co-chairs (Deputy Secretary of 

Defense and Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs) on July 30, 2010, directed worldwide implementation of the process beginning in October 2010 and to be completed 

at the end of September 2011. Because it is no longer a pilot, the name was changed 

to IDES. The Under Secretary of Defense (USD) for Personnel and Readiness (P&R) 

signed a memorandum on August 16, 2010 asking Service Secretaries to take action 

to expand the IDES. 

The DES Pilot’s 27 locations cover about 47 percent of Servicemembers (12,735) 

who enter the DOD disability evaluation system annually. The impact of each stage 

of the IDES expansion and cumulative DES population is shown below: 

• Stage I—West Coast & Southeast (October–December 2010)—28 Sites—58% 

• Stage II—Mountain Region (January–March 2011)—24 Sites—74% 

• Stage III—Midwest & Northeast (April–June 2011)—33 Sites—90% 

• Stage IV—Outside Continental United States (OCONUS)/CONUS (July–September)—28 Sites—100% 

• Total IDES locations when expansion is complete: 140 

In preparation for the IDES expansion, VA and DOD will conduct Site Planning 

Conferences for each stage. These conferences will bring together the local VA and 

DOD site officials responsible for the implementation of the IDES in their own geographic areas. These joint conferences will engender frank discussions of the goals 

and milestones that must be met prior to each site’s Initial Operating Capability 

(IOC). In addition, training will occur for Patient Administration personnel, 

PEBLOs, MSCs and Physicians. Detailed Site Assessment Matrices and Checklists 

will be completed and signed by the DOD and VA officials and strict certification 

procedures will be followed and approved by senior levels of leadership in VA and 

the Military Departments before a site may implement the IDES. Sites will also provide 30 day Post-IOC written assessment ‘‘hotwashes.’’ 

With regards to Stage I, the Military Departments are reporting December 31 as 

the Stage I IOC date for the next 28 sites. Seventeen of the 28 Stage I expansion 

sites will rely on VA contracts for medical exam coverage; as a bridge to other inhouse services, VA contracts for medical exams have been awarded and are available for sites to meet the December 31 IOC. The Deputy Secretary of Defense tasked 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs, to develop a plan for overseas 

IDES exams with an estimated completion date of December 15, 2010. 

CLOSING

We appreciate the Committee’s continued interest and leadership in this very important program and we are mindful of the concerns raised by the Committee in 

recent months as we move forward with the expansion. Under the Legacy DES, the 

Departments administered duplicate disability examinations and ratings. The DES 

Pilot improved and streamlined the overall process that Servicemembers and their 

families navigate to reach Veteran status to receive the compensation and benefits 

they have earned. The DES Pilot process has proven to be a success; it was faster, 

more transparent, more understandable, and provided more consistent, equitable 

outcomes than the legacy DES. As a result, both DOD and VA are fully committed 

to the successful worldwide expansion of IDES within the timelines discussed in this 

statement. DOD will continue to closely work with VA, monitoring every facet of the 

expansion and making adjustments as necessary. We are also in the process of thoroughly reviewing the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, 

‘‘Military and Veterans Disability System: Pilot has achieved Some Goals, Further 

Planning and Monitoring Needed’’ and will be providing official comments at a later 

date. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. On behalf of the men and women 

in the military today and their families, I thank you and the Members of this Committee for your steadfast support. We will continue to provide regular updates on 

our progress. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell. 

Mr. Medve, will you please proceed with your statement. 

30 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MEDVE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF VA/ 

DOD COLLABORATION SERVICE, OFFICE OF POLICY AND 

PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. MEDVE. Good morning, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member 

Burr, and Members of the Committee. My name is John Medve and 

I am the Executive Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

and Department of Defense Collaboration Service within VA’s Office of Policy and Planning. I am pleased to join Mr. Daniel Bertoni 

with GAO and Mr. John Campbell, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Wounded Warrior Care and Transition Policy, and provide 

the Committee with an overview of VA and DOD plans for the way 

forward with the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. 

I welcome today’s opportunity to share with you a good news 

story with respect to the improvements VA and DOD have made 

to the DOD Disability Evaluation System. When we started the 

DES pilot in 2007 within the National Capital Region, the Departments recognized that by working together and through an improved process, we could provide more consistent evaluations, faster decisions, and more timely delivery of VA benefits. I believe that 

we have achieved those goals and I would like to highlight two 

points. 

First, through the improved DES process, now referred to as the 

Integrated Disability Evaluation System, we are providing a more 

seamless transition for participating servicemembers to veteran 

status. We have also virtually eliminated the pay gap felt by veterans under the legacy Disability Evaluation System resulting from 

delays in the delivery of VA compensation. These results led the 

Senior Oversight Committee in July of this year to approve expansion from the original 27 pilot sites to an enterprise-wide IDES implementation. 

Second, through the DES pilot and with the implementation of 

IDEA, VA and DOD have developed, instituted, and are sustaining 

a positive collaborative relationship at all levels, focused on both 

solving the challenges of the rise during this implementation, improving the overall process in a manner that will ensure our servicemembers are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve, 

and receive the benefits they have earned in a timely manner. 

Implementing a process enterprise-wide is never without its challenges, and IDES has proved to be no exception. The key point I 

would like to make is that, together, VA and DOD are taking a 

critical eye to each stage of the implementation, identifying issues, 

and working toward resolving them. The draft GAO report which 

Mr. Bertoni described in his opening statement and to which VA 

is currently responding highlighted several of these issues, including timeliness of examinations at Fort Carson. I am pleased to report that we have made tremendous progress at Fort Carson with 

respect to the time needed to complete examinations, which have 

gone from an average of 140 days, as outlined in the report to, in 

this latest report, 62 days, and is projected to be within the 45-day 

goal by the end of December. 

We are also taking into consideration GAO’s concerns about staffing levels and are evaluating a mechanism for reporting staffing 

levels from the various sites on a regular basis. We are applying 

the lessons learned from the pilot experiences we expand to ensure 

31 

that new sites have the resources and a plan for implementation 

in place before they go live with IDES. Of note, we now have a 

much better understanding of the number of MEBs each site expects monthly and annually, and this is translating into appropriate staffing levels. We believe that through our improved site assessment and certification process, we will reduce the likelihood of 

the staffing shortages found at some pilot sites. In addition, we are 

going back to the existing 27 sites and ensuring that they meet the 

same standards as the new sites as we move forward. 

I would like to thank the Committee for their concern and oversight of this important issue. You and the Committee staff have 

helped us to improve this process. At the end of the day, we should 

not lose sight of the fact that this is all about taking care of servicemembers and veterans. 

The chart on page four of GAO’s testimony is very demonstrative 

of what we have achieved by integrating the VA into the DOD disability process by eliminating the need for a separate and distinct 

evaluation process for the purpose of receiving VA benefits. Thank 

you again for your support of our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers, veterans, and their families. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement. I will be 

happy to respond to any questions that you, Ranking Member 

Burr, or other Members of the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Medve follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN MEDVE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF VA/DOD COLLABORATION SERVICE, OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Good morning, Chairman Akaka and Members of the Committee. My name is 

John Medve, and I am the Executive Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA)/Department of Defense (DOD) Collaboration Service for VA’s Office of Policy 

and Planning. I am pleased to join my colleague Deputy Under Secretary Campbell 

from the DOD and provide the Committee with an overview of VA’s and DOD’s 

plans for the way forward with the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). 

First, I want to acknowledge and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other Members of this Committee for the leadership role you have taken on the issues of seamless transition for our wounded, ill, and injured warriors and Veterans. 

The IDES is central to Secretary Shinseki’s efforts to transform the Department 

into a high performing 21st century organization focused on our Nation’s Veterans 

as its clients. IDES, along with our work on the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record 

(VLER), will improve the seamless transition of our Servicemembers from active 

duty to Veteran status. The end goal is for Veterans to be able to easily enter the 

VA health and benefits system and receive the care and services they have earned. 

Before going into our plans for the way forward, I think it would be helpful to 

start with how we got to where we are today. 

Through the leadership of Congress, in collaboration with VA and DOD, in early 

2007, the Departments realized that changes were needed to the existing process 

in DOD’s disability evaluation system (DES). The VA/DOD DES Pilot was launched 

in November 2007 and was intended to simplify and increase the transparency of 

the DES process for the Servicemember while reducing the processing time and improving the consistency of ratings for those who are ultimately being medically separated. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2008 further energized our 

efforts when it was signed into law and authorized the creation of a pilot program 

to make changes and improve DOD’s DES. Through these changes, the Departments 

hoped to provide a more effective transition of Servicemembers from DOD to VA 

care and a smoother transition to Veteran status. We believe that the resulting DES 

Pilot, currently operational at 27 sites nationwide, has largely achieved those goals. 

I acknowledge that there have been bumps in the road and many lessons learned, 

but I look forward to sharing with you how VA has worked with its DOD partners 

to create a more transparent, consistent and expeditious disability evaluation process for Servicemembers who are being medically retired or separated. While we recVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:21 Mar 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\111810.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
32 

ognize that challenges remain, overall this is a good news story for Servicemembers 

and Veterans. 

From the outset, we recognized that the DES Pilot Model was preceded by a maligned legacy process that was in some cases cumbersome and redundant. The Pilot 

Model originally was launched as a joint VA/DOD process at three operational sites 

in the National Capital Region and was recognized as a significant improvement 

over the legacy process. As a result of the desire by both Departments to expand 

the benefits of the Pilot to more Servicemembers, VA and DOD expanded the Pilot, 

starting in the fall of 2008 and ending in March 2010, from the original 3 to the 

current 27 Pilot sites covering 47 percent of the DES population. 

In contrast to the DES legacy process, the Pilot Model provides a single disability 

examination and a single-source disability rating that are used by both Departments in executing their respective responsibilities. This results in more consistent 

evaluations, faster decisions, and timely benefit delivery for those retired or separated, while empowering Servicemembers with essential information to better enable them to transition to civilian life. I would like to highlight the improvements 

we have made to compensation delivery. VA prepares a proposed rating decision for 

use by DOD in determining fitness for duty for Servicemembers enrolled in the 

DES. As a result, VA benefits are delivered within the shortest period allowed by 

law following discharge, and we have eliminated the ‘‘pay gap’’ that previously existed under the legacy process, i.e., the lag time between a servicemember separating from DOD due to disability and receiving his or her first VA disability 

payment. 

Concrete examples of how our integrated approach has eliminated much of the sequential and duplicative processes found in the legacy system include reduction of 

the overall processing time for the delivery of DOD disability benefits from 540 days 

to 291 days while shortening the period until delivery of VA disability benefits after 

separation from an average of 166 days to near 30 days. 

Based on these successes and after carefully addressing your IDES expansion concerns, the co-chairs of the Senior Oversight Committee agreed in July 2010 to expand the pilot and rename it IDES. Senior leadership of VA, the Armed Services, 

and the Joint Staff strongly supported this plan and the need for all Servicemembers to receive the benefits of this improved pilot model. We are now working 

together to launch IDES enterprise-wide. While we are very proud of the successes 

of this model, we are also aware of remaining challenges. We recognize that despite 

the overall reduction in combined processing time, VA can do better by improving 

exam timeliness. We also recognize that as we expanded outside of the National 

Capital Region, we had not yet developed robust business processes to certify each 

site’s preparedness before it became operational. This was a lesson learned at Ft. 

Carson, where the Departments have aggressively worked to remediate the issues 

of an unanticipated demand for disability exams. We also recognize that there have 

been successes, such as Ft. Riley, Kansas, where VA and Army leadership took 

steps to avoid such problems as those experienced at Ft. Carson. Through these efforts, and our analysis of lessons learned, we have developed Initial Operating Capability (IOC) readiness criteria that stress quality over expedience to ensure that 

future sites are operationally ready for IDES. For a site to be deemed ready it must: 

(1) be able to provide exam coverage through either the Veterans Health Administration, DOD, or contracted services; (2) have sufficient space and equipment for 

DOD and VA personnel; (3) meet VA information technology requirements; and (4) 

have local staff who have completed IDES training. If any of these criteria is not 

met, then IDES cannot operate at that proposed site. 

In developing the plan for expansion, we will launch new sites in four stages over 

the course of fiscal year 2011. This will be done in quarterly increments between 

October 2010 and October 2011. Stage I of this expansion includes 28 locations on 

the West Coast and in the Southeast United States. Of the 28 locations, 16 will initially use contracted exam providers, and the remainder will provide exams in conjunction with a VA medical facility. Let me assure you that as we transition from 

the DES Pilot to IDES, we are jointly addressing the challenges I have highlighted 

and have taken active, concrete steps to ensure that we have the best, most effective 

program possible. 

On September 27–30, 2010, VA and DOD hosted a joint Training/Planning conference that set the stage for the roll-out of the next 28 sites. The conference resulted in improved communications between VA and DOD at each site, individual 

site assessment analyses and evaluations, and development of joint local plans to 

meet IOC requirements. This conference will be followed by similar events over the 

next few months as we prepare for the remaining stages of IDES implementation. 

In fact, VA and DOD began a conference on November 16, 2010, which is wrapping 

up its work today. 

33 

As we move forward, we are mindful of the concerns and recommendations of the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its recent draft report currently entitled 

‘‘Military and Veterans Disability System: Pilot has Achieved Some Goals but Further Planning and Monitoring Needed.’’ VA is currently drafting responses to the 

GAO recommendations. 

VA and DOD have jointly worked on improving and expanding the DES pilot so 

that Servicemembers can benefit from a uniform and integrated program. Secretary 

Shinseki and Secretary Gates continue to provide leadership, commitment, and support to ensure a successful transition from the legacy DES process to the IDES without compromising quality for expediency. In fact, on a recent visit to Ft. Drum, Secretary Shinseki held a roundtable with Servicemembers and received feedback on 

IDES. We are incorporating his findings into IDES. 

While we are pleased with the joint efforts and progress made, there is much 

more to do. VA and DOD are committed to providing more support for our Nation’s 

wounded, ill, and injured warriors and Veterans through an improved IDES. As 

such, we believe that continued partnership with DOD is critical and no less than 

our Servicemembers and Veterans deserve. 

Thank you again for your support to our wounded, ill, and injured Servicemembers, Veterans, and their families. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. 

I will be happy to respond to any questions that you or other Members may have. 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA TO

JOHN MEDVE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF VA/DOD COLLABORATION SERVICE, OFFICE

OF POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. Please provide an organizational chart for the management of IDES 

within VA. 

Response. IDES VA Operational Model and a copy of the Deputy Secretary’s 

memo appointing Office of Policy and Planning as the lead office are attached. 

34 

ATTACHMENT

Question 2. What are the anticipated challenges foreseen at each site scheduled 

to roll out by December 31, 2010? 

Response. Of the 28 sites scheduled to achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) 

by December 31, 2010, all sites have achieved IOC. Prior to achieving IOC, some 

sites encountered minor challenges such as obtaining approval to access VA systems 

over DOD network, finalizing Memorandum of Agreements (MoA), facilities, 

resourcing, and transportation requirements. 

Question 3. For each site scheduled to roll out by December 31, 2010, please provide information on whether VA or a contractor will perform medical examinations 

at that particular location. If there is a contractor providing examination support 

at an individual location, please provide the name of the contractor and the number 

of examinations anticipated in 2011 for the locations. 

Response. The following chart reflects the sites scheduled to roll out during the 

first quarter of fiscal year 2011, examination provider, and anticipated annual caseload. Examinations performed by VHA Providers are performed internally. Those 

performed by QTC contractor providers are under an external contract. 


651461a.eps
35 

Military Treatment 

Facility/Installation Exam Provider Annual Caseload 

Beale Air Force Base (AFB) ...................................................................... QTC and VHA 80 

Charleston AFB ......................................................................................... QTC 27 

Edwards AFB ............................................................................................. QTC 51 

Eielson AFB ............................................................................................... VHA 22 

Fairchild AFB ............................................................................................ QTC 89 

Hickam AFB .............................................................................................. QTC 230 

Langley AFB .............................................................................................. VHA 300 

Los Angeles AFB ....................................................................................... VHA 12 

Maxwell AFB .............................................................................................. VHA 43 

McChord AFB ............................................................................................ QTC 63 

Moody AFB ................................................................................................ VHA 68 

Mountain Home AFB ................................................................................. VHA 137 

Patrick AFB ............................................................................................... VHA 98 

Pope AFB ................................................................................................... VHA 22 

Robins AFB ............................................................................................... QTC 160 

Seymour Johnson AFB ............................................................................... QTC 163 

Shaw AFB .................................................................................................. VHA 219 

Vandenberg AFB ....................................................................................... QTC 58 

Tripler AMC ............................................................................................... QTC 389 

29 Palms Marine Hospital ........................................................................ QTC and VHA 164 

Beaufort Naval Hospital (NH) ................................................................... QTC 171 

Charleston NH ........................................................................................... QTC 63 

Cherry Point NH ........................................................................................ QTC 131 

Jacksonville NH ......................................................................................... QTC 333 

Lemoore NH ............................................................................................... QTC 16 

Oak Harbor NH .......................................................................................... QTC 59 

Pearl Harbor NH ........................................................................................ QTC 166 

Quantico NH .............................................................................................. VHA 78 

Question 4. What are the training requirements for the launch of any new IDES 

site? What is the Agency’s plan to conduct ongoing training for staff involved with 

IDES? 

Response. All personnel are required to attend the IDES Planning Conference, 

and receive Veterans Tracking Application (VTA) and IDES overview training from 

a VA and DOD training team. The team travels to Army and Navy sites to conduct 

on-site training for VA and DOD stakeholders. The Air Force conducts a centralized 

training course annually with VA and DOD trainers participating. 

Prior to launching a new IDES site, local representatives from military treatment 

facilities, VHA, and VBA attend a joint planning conference where they are trained 

on the IDES process. Before sites begin the integrated process, VA provides onsite 

training to Military Service Coordinators (MSCs) with respect to the IDES process 

and tracking application, the VTA. Additionally, new MSCs participate in centralized MSC training that includes IDES-specific training. The training curriculum is 

available on the Compensation and Pension (C&P) Service Training Web site, and 

questions concerning MSC training are answered regularly through the C&P Training mailbox. 

In fiscal year 2012, VBA will begin visiting IDES sites as part of its routine site 

visit rotation to its 57 regional offices, where onsite feedback and training are 

provided. 

Question 5. Please describe the overall staffing requirements for the adjudication 

of IDES claims. When will Providence begin processing IDES claims? Will additional 

staff need to be hired in Providence to process these claims? 

Response. The projected annual caseload for IDES is 27,000 claims. The Providence Regional Office will process 14,000 claims and the Seattle Regional Office will 

process 13,000 claims once full expansion is accomplished. 

The Providence Regional Office began processing paperless claims for the National 

Capital Region Paperless IDES Pilot in October 2010. Providence has hired 50 FTE 

to support IDES claims processing. As this staff reaches journey-level performance, 

it is anticipated they can support full expansion processing requirements. Seattle 

has 38 FTE dedicated for this special mission. We will continue to compare and 

monitor projected caseload to actual caseload to determine whether additional staff 

will be required in the future. 

36 

Question 6. During the IDES hearing, December 15, 2010, was mentioned as the 

deadline for the overseas IDES roll out plan. Please provide the overseas IDES roll 

out plan. 

Response. VA defers to DOD. 

Question 7. For each site scheduled to roll out by December 31, 2010, please provide information for how each site is being funded—for both the current and next 

fiscal year. 

Response. VHA requested, obtained and distributed funding to sites implementing 

IDES during FY 2011. IDES supplemental funding allocations for FY 2011 were 

based on projected Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) workload data provided to VHA 

by DOD. The Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) has budgeted $18M 

for FY 2011 and $18M for FY 2012. 

This distribution of funding has not yet occurred and will be based on a comprehensive evaluation of IDES workload anticipated by the facilities. Specific determinants to be used in this process will include: review of FY 2011 completed IDES 

workload, forecasted MEB workload projections to be provided by the DOD and 

VISN/VAMCs Director’s assessments and requests for funding. Funding provided 

was distributed to cover Services and Facilities Costs. This supplemental funding 

effort was primarily designed to provide support for the conduct of IDES examinations requests without sacrificing performance of C&P examinations. VA facilities 

are also eligible for reimbursement by DOD when performing examinations for Servicemembers for referred conditions. 

VBA provides Military Service Coordinator (MSC) support for each IDES site. 

Generally, DOD provides the MSC(s) with office space and access to their equipment 

such as facsimile and copier machines. Costs associated with medical examinations 

are shared by VA and DOD, whereby DOD bears the costs associated with conditions that are potentially unfitting for further military service while VA bears the 

costs of other conditions claimed as part of the VA claim for compensation. 

Question 8. What specific efforts are underway to improve the interoperability of 

VistA and AHLTA to support the IDES process? 

Response. Advancements in the area of the Electronic Health Record, such as Single Sign On, laboratory and radiology portability and the joint registration capability continue to highlight the progress made toward transactional interoperability 

between AHLTA and VistA. These continued successes, will certainly be advantageous to the IDES process as it continues to evolve. 

Question 9. The draft GAO report on IDES indicated that case management software was in development. What projects toward this end are underway and what 

are their time lines for delivery? How will costs be allocated between VA and DOD? 

Response. VA defers to DOD. We believe the question refers to the following language from the draft GAO report: ‘‘DOD officials also said that they are developing 

two new IT solutions. According to officials, one system currently being tested would 

help military treatment facilities better manage their cases. Another IT solution, 

still at a preliminary stage of development, would integrate the Veterans Tracking 

Application with the services’ case tracking systems so as to reduce multiple data 

entry.’’ 

Question 10. Please provide the cost—for both the current and next fiscal year— 

of disability examination contracts to support IDES. Please provide the costs to VBA 

and VHA separately. 

Response. The VHA Disability Evaluation Management (DEM) Performance Work 

Statement was posted in the Federal Business Opportunities Web site 

(FedBizOpps.gov) on 22 November 2010. This contract remains in the acquisition 

source selection process and has yet to be awarded. Once awarded, this contract will 

be managed by VHA. 

Estimated costs for VBA are $13 million in fiscal year 2011 and $20 million in 

fiscal year 2012. If additional IDES sites are added to the VBAu, the cost will 

increase. 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BURR TO

JOHN MEDVE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF VA/DOD COLLABORATION SERVICE, OFFICE

OF POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. According to testimony provided by the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO), some officials have said that servicemembers going through the Disability Evaluation System Pilot (DES Pilot) or Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) are not given meaningful work by their units and, if they are idle while 

37 

going through the process, they might be more likely to engage in behavior that 

could lead to a discharge due to misconduct. 

A. As requested at the hearing, please identify how many of the approximately 

600 servicemembers who have been ‘‘removed’’ from the IDES process have been discharged from the military due to misconduct. 

B. Of the remaining servicemembers who have been removed from the IDES process, what were the reasons for their removal? 

C. As requested at the hearing, please explain what steps, if any, the Department 

of Defense takes to monitor whether individuals in the IDES process are given 

meaningful work by their units. 

D. As requested at the hearing, please explain whether IDES sites are asked to 

provide a plan for ensuring that servicemembers in the process will be given meaningful work. 

E. As requested at the hearing, please explain whether any survey questions address the extent to which idleness is seen as a problem during the IDES process 

and provide any relevant survey information or data. 

Response. VA defers to DOD. 

Question 2. The Department of Defense set a goal of having no more than 20 servicemembers for each Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer (PEBLO). But, as 

of October 2010, there were a number of DES Pilot sites, including Fort Bragg and 

Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, that had at least 85 servicemembers for each of 

those case managers. 

A. As requested at the hearing, please describe what factors have led to these 

heavy caseloads for some PEBLOs. 

B. What impact do these high caseloads have on the timeliness of the IDES process or on servicemembers’ satisfaction with the process? 

C. As requested at the hearing, please provide a timeline for when the sites in 

North Carolina will have enough staff to bring those sites in line with the staff-toservicemembers goal. 

D. Nation-wide, what is the timeline for bringing PEBLO caseloads in line with 

the goal? 

E. As requested at the hearing, please explain whether a ratio of 20 servicemembers per PEBLO is the proper staffing goal. 

F. In total, how many additional PEBLOs would be needed to roll the IDES process out worldwide with a 1 to 20 ratio? 

G. Do you foresee problems being able to hire or maintain sufficient PEBLOs at 

the additional sites you plan to convert to the IDES process? 

Response. VA defers to DOD. 

Question 3. In response to a customer satisfaction survey, one servicemember 

going through the DES Pilot noted that he ‘‘went thru 3 PEBLOs and they changed 

without me being notified.’’ 

A. What was the turnover rate among PEBLOs at the DES Pilot sites? 

B. What process should be followed when a PEBLO leaves an IDES site or is reassigned? Is there a ‘‘warm hand-off’’ to the incoming case manager? 

Response. VA defers to DOD. 

Question 4. As of November 7, 2010, over 15,600 servicemembers had entered the 

IDES and 11,295 were still enrolled in that process. 

Question 4A. Please provide a list of how long, on average, servicemembers have 

been pending in the process at each location that participated in the DES Pilot. 

Response. DOD and VA have established a joint goal that 50 percent of active 

component Servicemembers will complete the IDES process within 295 days in fiscal 

year 2011. The development of more aggressive processing goals is under senior 

leadership review. 

Attached is a copy of December 26, 2010 monthly IDES report by phases and components (AC/RC). 

38 

ATTACHMENT


651464a.eps
39 

Question 4B. In total, how many of the approximately 11,295 enrolled individuals 

have been pending in the IDES process for longer than 295 days, the goal for completing the process? 

Response. As of February 3, 2011, 3,895 Servicemembers were enrolled in IDES 

for longer than 295 days. 

Question 4C. How many individuals at Fort Bragg or Camp Lejeune have been 

pending in the IDES process for longer than 295 days? 

Response. As of February 3, 2011, 668 Servicemembers at Camp Lejeune and 46 

Servicemembers at Fort Bragg have been enrolled in IDES for longer than 295 days. 

Question 4D. In total, how many of the approximately 11,295 enrolled individuals 

have been pending in the IDES process for longer than 540 days? 


651464b.eps
40 

Response. As of February 3, 2011, 878 Servicemembers have been enrolled in 

IDES longer than 540 days. This number includes those pending longer than 295 

days in responses 4B and 4C above. 

Question 4E. What steps do your agencies currently take to flag and resolve longpending cases? 

Response. Cases are flagged and an Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) 

started reviewing performance metrics by site on February 9, 2011. Monthly 

progress reports are posted on the Veterans Tracking Application (VTA) homepage 

and are available to all users. The reports highlight older cases and cases pending 

at each stage for longer than standard times. 

Each case is unique and requires joint efforts from central office and local level. 

Central office establishes assignments and periodically conducts after action reviews 

with staff to identify systemic issues that may require resource, policy, or procedural 

changes. At the local level, Military Service Coordinators (MSC) work with their 

military counterparts to resolve processing delays. For example, case-specific delays 

are often due to scheduling conflicts for illness, surgery, or family emergencies. The 

Physical Evaluation Boards and rating sites conduct weekly reviews to identify the 

case status and develop joint solutions for delays. 

Question 4F. If this process is expanded globally, what additional steps would be 

taken to monitor long-pending cases? 

Response. VA defers to DOD. 

Question 5. During the DES Pilot, customer satisfaction surveys have been taken 

at various stages throughout the process. 

A. Do your agencies use those surveys to identify areas of the process or specific 

facilities that might need improvements? If so, please provide examples. 

B. Are the results of those surveys provided to each military installation using 

the IDES process? If so, how frequently is that information provided and in what 

format? 

C. Is any follow-up done on specific complaints listed on those surveys? 

Response. VA defers to DOD. 

Question 6. In expanding the IDES worldwide, VA case managers are expected 

to provide services using only video-conferencing or teleconferencing at some sites. 

Question 6A. If the IDES is expanded worldwide, which specific sites would have 

only remote services from VA case managers? 

Response. IDES expansion to overseas locations is in the planning phase. VA understands that DOD plans to transfer Servicemembers referred into the IDES to a 

location within the continental United States. As such, MSCs would be available to 

all Servicemembers enrolled in IDES. Should Servicemembers remain overseas, VA 

expects to use video conferencing for case management. 

Medical Evaluation Boards are currently being conducted by the military services 

at the following overseas sites. 

Military Treatment 

Facility/Installation State/Country 

Andersen AFB .............................. Guam 

Aviano AFB .................................. Italy 

Incirlik AFB ................................. Turkey 

Kadena AFB ................................. Japan 

Kusan AFB .................................. Korea 

Lajes AFB .................................... Portugal 

Misawa AFB ................................ Japan 

Osan AFB .................................... Korea 

RAF Lakenheath .......................... UK 

Ramstein AFB ............................. Germany 

Spangdahlem AFB ...................... Germany 

Yokota AFB .................................. Japan 

Camp Zama ................................ Japan 

Ft. Buchanan .............................. Puerto Rico 

Heidelberg MEDDAC .................... Germany 

Landstuhl AMC ........................... Germany 

Vincenza ...................................... Italy 

Guam NH ..................................... Guam 

Guantanamo NH ......................... Cuba 

41 

Military Treatment 

Facility/Installation State/Country 

Naples NH ................................... Italy 

Okinawa NH ................................ Japan 

Rota NH ...................................... Spain 

Sigonella NH ............................... Italy 

Yokosuka NH ............................... Japan 

Question 6B. What impact would it have on the level of service provided to servicemembers if case managers are not physically on site? 

Response. Working closely with PEBLOS, VA’s MSCs will be able to meet the 

needs of Servicemembers using video conferencing, electronic mail, telephone, and 

facsimile. 

Question 6C. Would co-locating PEBLOs and VA case managers at the IDES sites 

be preferable? 

Response. Efficiencies would be gained by co-locating PEBLOs and VA Case Managers. The biggest advantage would be the improvement in communication between 

PEBLOs, Case Managers, and Servicemembers. Co-locating would also improve the 

movement of documentation between the Departments. VA is committed to providing the highest quality of services, regardless of how services are delivered. 

Question 7. In the Senior Oversight Committee’s August 2010 report on the DES 

Pilot, officials from both agencies highlight that the DES Pilot ‘‘provides consistent, 

equitable outcomes.’’ 

Question 7A. What steps have your agencies taken to gauge whether the ratings 

provided through this process are consistent? 

Response. In the legacy DES, some stakeholders believed outcomes were inconsistent across military services as well as between military services and VA. Providing a single disability examination and a single preliminary rating evaluation ensures a consistent rating by both departments and a more transparent process to 

the Servicemember. VA uses the results of DOD’s satisfaction surveys of Servicemembers to gauge their perceptions of the fairness and consistency of the DOD disability evaluation system. 

Question 7B. Please provide a summary of any data or other information your 

agencies have collected regarding the issue of consistency. 

Response. IDES is inherently more consistent as it provides a single examination 

and a single preliminary rating, replacing duplicative examinations and ratings by 

each department. DOD provides periodic analyses of its satisfaction surveys. Pilot 

participant respondents reported that the IDES MEB and PEB processes were significantly fairer than did legacy DES participants. Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines in 

the IDES reported that IDES MEB and PEB processes were significantly fairer than 

their legacy DES counterparts reported. However, Airmen reported no difference in 

the fairness of MEB and PEB IDES and legacy DES processes. 

Question 8. Your agencies are currently planning to implement the IDES at 140 

locations worldwide. 

Question 8A. How many of those sites generally would have less than 24 individuals per year entering the disability evaluation system? 

Response. VA defers to DOD. 

Question 8B. Please describe the plans for providing medical examinations and 

VA case management at each of those sites? 

Response. The decision for how medical examinations are provided is determined 

locally by the site leadership. This decision is normally made 60 days prior to the 

Initial Operating Capability date. The examination provider is determined on an individual site basis based on local resources and site location. If local resources are 

available, VHA examiners provide medical examinations for IDES. Where a VHA 

facility or examiners are not available, contract examiners are utilized. 

IDES sites are staffed with MSCs based on anticipated annual caseload. Sites 

that do not warrant a full time case manager have MSCs assigned on a temporary 

basis. 

Question 9. For purposes of the DES Pilot, rating decisions were provided by a 

limited number of VA regional offices. 

Question 9A. How many rating decisions have each of those offices provided to 

date for purposes of the DES Pilot or IDES? 

42 

Response. Since the inception of the DES Pilot, rating decisions have been provided at the following VA regional offices: St. Petersburg, Baltimore, Seattle, and 

Providence. St. Petersburg provided rating decisions until March 2009, when Baltimore and Seattle assumed responsibility for providing rating decisions. Providence 

began assisting Baltimore in providing rating decisions in October 2010. 

As of February 3, 2011, the Baltimore Regional Office completed 4,428 preliminary IDES ratings and 2,027 final ratings, while the Seattle Regional Office completed 3,397 preliminary IDES ratings and 1,915 final ratings. The data cited for 

the Baltimore Regional Office includes ratings completed by the St. Petersburg Regional Office early in the Pilot phase and ratings completed by the Providence Regional Office since October 2010. 

Question 9B. How long, on average, does it take each office to provide a rating 

decision for purposes of the IDES or DES Pilot? 

Response. As of February 3, 2011, the Baltimore Regional Office’s average decision time was 35 days for preliminary IDES ratings and 38 days for final ratings, 

while the Seattle Regional Office’s average decision time was 15 days for preliminary IDES ratings and 29 days for final ratings. Due to the heavy IDES workload 

in Baltimore, the Providence RO is assisting Baltimore with preliminary ratings. It 

is expected that this assistance will improve timeliness. 

Question 9C. To the extent the rating decisions are not being provided within the 

target timeframe, what factors lead to delays? 

Response. The primary factors that lead to delays are obtaining complete medical 

records from National Guard/Reservists and timely receipt of separation documents 

(DD Form 214). 

Question 10. At the hearing, we discussed a screening process being used at Fort 

Riley to prevent cases from being referred to the IDES prematurely. 

A. At Fort Riley, how many individuals have gone through that screening process 

and how many of those individuals were referred to the IDES? 

B. How long, on average, does it take to complete this screening phase at Fort 

Riley? 

C. If a servicemember goes through this type of screening process and is ultimately referred to the IDES, is the time spent in the screening process counted in 

determining how long in total the IDES process takes? 

Response. VA defers to DOD. 

Question 11. GAO pointed out in its testimony that some sites experienced shortages of examiners needed to provide the comprehensive set of medical examinations 

used for the IDES process. 

Question 11A. Of the approximately 11,295 servicemembers currently enrolled in 

the IDES process, how many are awaiting medical examinations? 

Response. Data is not available on the precise number of Servicemembers waiting 

for examinations. However, data does show that, as of February 3, 2011, 2,314 Servicemembers are in the examination stage of IDES. This stage begins when the 

Military Service Coordinator (MSC) enters the request for examination into electronic systems. This stage ends when the examination is completed and the provider 

releases the examination results electronically to the MSC. An additional 48 Servicemembers were interviewed by MSCs and did not have examination requests entered into electronic systems. The data represents a snap shot in time. There will 

always be a slight lag time between the Servicemember interview, examination request, and VTA data entry. 

Question 11B. In total, how many medical examination requests are currently 

pending? 

Response. As of February 3, 2011, 2,314 cases were in the examination stage of 

IDES. 

Question 11C. How long on average is it currently taking for a servicemember to 

complete the necessary medical examinations? 

Response. To date, the examination stage of IDES is taking an average of 61 days 

to complete. This measures the time from when the MSC enters the examination 

request to the time when the examination results are released by the provider. No 

data is being recorded to specifically measure the time from examination request 

to the date the Servicemember is actually examined. 

Question 12. As requested at the hearing, before finalizing plans to implement the 

IDES at sites overseas, please provide the Committee with a comprehensive proposed plan for handling that expansion. 

Response. VA defers to DOD. 

43 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO JOHN

MEDVE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF VA/DOD COLLABORATION SERVICE, OFFICE OF

POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. Mr. Campbell or Mr. Medve, I understand one of the goals of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System was to expedite the VA benefits for the Servicemembers. Have you received feedback from the Servicemembers (the patient) on 

how this program is working? Do you have a good measure of what the patient perceives to be success? Can you explain why the Air Force members are less satisfied? 

Response. VBA defers to DOD. However, the language below can be incorporated 

into DOD’s response: VA has developed a customer satisfaction survey for Veterans 

who complete the IDES process. Plans to implement the survey are underway. 

Question 2. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Medve, can you talk briefly about VA staffing 

requirements to support the Integrated Disability Evaluation System? Do you believe the hiring and training of new staff will be able to keep up with the worldwide 

expansion plan? 

Response. At this time, VA believes we will be able keep up with the hiring and 

training requirements to support worldwide IDES expansion. VA has explored several options to address increased staffing requirements to support the IDES expansion. For example, in the event of a surge, VA will temporarily assign Veteran Service Representatives from the local Regional Office to serve as Military Service Coordinators (MSCs) for the impacted Military Treatment Facility (MTF). 

VBA currently has 93 Military Services Coordinators (MSC) that participate in a 

national curriculum for technical training related to claims development. They must 

complete developmental training specific to the IDES process to enhance their skill 

sets. 

During the last quarter of 2010, two developmental training sessions were conducted for approximately 90 participants. A third training session will be held in 

March for the remainder of new hires. We anticipate the need to hire an additional 

15–25 FTE, and all training will be completed prior to full expansion. 

Question 3. In your testimony, you mentioned how in Stage I of the expansion 16 

of the 28 locations will initially use contracted exam providers and the remainder 

will provide exams in conjunction with a VA medical facility. Can you briefly explain how these contracted providers are certified? 

Response. Certification is obtained after completing online training provided by 

VHA. The contractor must also provide an orientation and instructions to examiners 

based on the requirements provided in the C&P examination worksheets. The contractor must provide training to the examiners to: 

• Explain the differences between VA disability examination protocol versus the 

examination protocol for treatment purposes; 

• Ensure that examiners have appropriate attitudes toward Servicemembers and 

their unique circumstances; 

• Ensure that examiners understand the VA’s use of the term ‘‘at least as likely 

as not’’ in the formation of any requested medical opinions; 

• Explain the concept of presumptive diagnoses in view of unique circumstances 

of military service; 

• Ensure that examiners understand how to assess and document pain in accordance with VA regulations; 

• Follow state laws where medical or psychiatric emergencies arise; 

• Provide appropriate notification to follow-up on abnormal findings; 

• Obtain CPEP certification (available from VA) as appropriate; and 

• Maintain and assure privacy protection under Federal and state laws, including 

but not limited to the Privacy Act and HIPAA. 

Question 4. Mr. Campbell or Mr. Medve, in your opinion, do you feel the worldwide expansion plan is too aggressive or just right when taking technology and the 

appropriate level of staffing into consideration? 

Response. VA and DOD believe the IDES worldwide expansion is appropriate. 

Leaders at each site have the ability to request an adjustment to their Initial Operating Capability date if the site is not ready. Additionally, VA and DOD require 

local site leaders to jointly certify they are ready before launching IDES. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Medve. 

Mr. Bertoni, in your opinion, are the Departments adequately addressing all of the major problems that were identified during the 

pilot? I ask this because I am concerned that some issues may not 

be fully addressed before it is rolled out to the rest of the military. 

44 

Mr. BERTONI. As noted in our statement, I think they have made 

progress in several areas, especially in regard to getting out in 

front of the staffing issues. That is a big one. I cannot stress that 

enough. There are a lot of moving parts, a lot of specialized services and skills they need, and there is at least an acknowledgment 

that the staffing portion or component of this is critical to success; 

and we would agree with that. How are they going to get there? 

That is the question from us. You can reallocate, you can hire, you 

can bring in additional contractors, but we would really need to see 

sort of a service delivery plan or an operations plan going forward 

to discern how that is going to happen. 

I appreciate the comment that you all may be looking back at the 

original 27 sites to sort of look at those issues because I think there 

are still lingering issues out there in regard to staffing that are 

very important. 

Beyond that, certainly the issue of monitoring. I think having 

good MI data at the local level as to what is happening with these 

particular sites, if things start to go awry—staffing shifts, attrition, 

problems with diagnoses, problems with exam summaries—you can 

know this sooner rather than later, get out in front of that problem 

and come into play with remedial training, guidance, et cetera to 

sort of prevent some of these issues from getting worse. 

So there is an acknowledgement. There appears to be a plan. We 

have not seen that operational plan, but at least there is an acknowledgement that there are some issues to work on. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Campbell and Mr. Medve, are you both able to track individual sites to determine if there are problems with staffing and insufficient medical exams? Mr. Campbell? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. I would like to make the point that no 

site will go into IOC unless it passes a series of strict tests. We 

have checklists. We are looking at these sites weekly, those that 

are in preparation for the expansion. We are looking at them weekly to make sure that they pass these tests. And once the sites go 

live, we will be monitoring them, as well. So I believe that it is 

probably fair to say that no servicemember is going to be endangered. We are not racing to get the sites complete so we can adhere 

to some timeline. This is really a criterion-driven basis and we feel 

comfortable that we have sufficient safeguards built in that the 

sites will not go live until they are ready. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Medve? 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, thank you for the question. I would like to 

echo what Mr. Campbell said. I mean, we have instituted as a base 

the lessons learned from the pilot sites, a certification process that 

now has a much more robust understanding of the requirement 

that will inform staffing decisions. During the pilot site, I think we 

used about a year’s worth of data, and it turned out not to include 

things like how many deployment cycles sites had gone through, 

which had an impact on the number of cases and the type of cases 

that sites went in, which impacted the type of examinations that 

need to be done. So we now use a multi-year view of that. Obviously, our understanding as we have gone through has increased 

and we are developing robust staffing plans for the oncoming sites. 

45 

And again, just to reiterate what Mr. Campbell said, we made it 

clear to all sites that unless there is the capability and capacity to 

move forward, they are not to move forward with this. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Campbell, I am concerned that VA may bear a disproportionate burden in administering this program. Can you respond 

with your thoughts on that? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. I would be happy to. We have signed— 

the DOD and the VA have signed a Memorandum of Understanding, an agreement to share these costs equitably. The process is 

one where the costs will be allocated as they become live costs, 

then at the end of this period we will look at whether we owe the 

VA money or they owe us money. 

Chairman AKAKA. Senator Burr, your questions. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bertoni, VA and DOD have estimated that the IDES system 

is faster than the old legacy disability process. Now, their estimate 

is that the old legacy process was 540 days, but you noted, ‘‘the extent to which the IDES is an improvement over the legacy system 

cannot be known because of the limitations in the legacy data,’’ and 

that the 540-day estimate, ‘‘is based on a small, non-representative 

sample of cases.’’ 

First of all, can you explain for the record how many cases were 

used to come up with the 540-day estimate? 

Mr. BERTONI. I believe that originated with the original tabletop 

exercise way back in 2007, where I think there were 70 cases 

across all services where they went in and looked at the average 

processing time for those cases and came up with a number for 

DOD’s side of the shop, and that was about 300 days. Then they 

extrapolate to the VA side, with an average of—it can take up to 

200 days to process a VA claim—and tacked that onto the overall 

total. So they came up with the 540-day average. 

We had some concern with that. It is not as rigorous as we would 

like. We tried to reconstruct it on our own and we found very 

quickly that it was very—it was an apples to oranges comparison 

by trying to bring in the various services plus the Army. It really 

was not possible in terms of the quality and integrity of the data. 

We did do our own analysis of the Army data, which we felt was 

sufficient to do this type of analysis, with Army representing 60 

percent of IDES cases, it is pretty substantial if we could verify 

that. We did our analysis and were able to determine that it came 

out to about 369 days to complete the IDES portion of the process. 

Recognizing that it would be reasonable to assume that it could 

possibly take up to 200 days to complete the VA rating side. So, 

a fairly reasonable estimate though not entirely rigorous. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Campbell, according to GAO’s testimony, 

some officials have said that the servicemembers going through the 

IDES are not given meaningful work by their units and they are 

idle while they are going through the process. They might be more 

likely to engage in behavior that could lead to discharge due to 

misconduct. 

Of the 600 servicemembers that have been removed from the 

IDES process, how many have been discharged due to misconduct? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Senator, I do not know. 

46 

Senator BURR. Is that not something we track? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will have to take that question for the record, 

Senator. 

[The information requested during the hearing follows:] 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. RICHARD BURR TO

JOHN R. CAMPBELL, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF WOUNDED WARRIOR

CARE AND TRANSITION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Response. As of December 5, 2010, the current tracking indicates that 112 Service 

members (2.8% of those completing the IDES) were involuntarily separated for nondisability reasons (Administrative Discharge/Court Marshal). 

Senator BURR. I would appreciate it. Let me also ask you, do we 

monitor whether they are given meaningful work, meaningful 

assignments? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. My understanding is that the military departments, within their programs of Warrior Transition Units or the 

Wounded Warrior Brigades, have programs. I have been in this job 

for 3 months. I visited a number of these organizations. My view 

is that they appear to be giving these young men and women sufficient work and keep them active, very busy. I was at Camp 

Lejeune. I saw the facility there and the program which I thought 

was just fabulous. 

Senator BURR. Do we have a written integrated plan for these individuals? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will have to get back to you, Senator. I do not 

know. 

[The information requested during the hearing follows:] 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. RICHARD BURR TO

JOHN R. CAMPBELL, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF WOUNDED WARRIOR

CARE AND TRANSITION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Response. At this time, DOD does not have an integrated written plan for these 

individuals. However, the Department of Defense (DOD) intends to publish a new 

operations guide for IDES sites. In the guide, DOD will clarify that commanders at 

all levels are required to ensure IDES referred Servicemembers are gainfully employed during the duration of the IDES process. Alternatively, Commanders may indicate that a Recovery Care Plan has been instituted in lieu of full time employment 

for such Servicemembers. 

Senator BURR. Let me ask you, do we survey any of the individuals to find out if, in fact, idleness is a concern that they have? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I know we have surveys and we track those. We 

monitor those. 

Senator BURR. Let me ask you to provide as much information 

from those surveys as it relates—— 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURR [continuing]. To the views that they have. 

[The information requested during the hearing follows:] 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. RICHARD BURR TO

JOHN R. CAMPBELL, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF WOUNDED WARRIOR

CARE AND TRANSITION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Response. In an ongoing effort beginning in January 2008, the Defense Manpower 

Data Center (DMDC) administers voluntary surveys to IDES participants at the 

completion of the three major phases of the IDES process: the Medical Evaluation 

Board (MEB), the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), and the Transition Phase just 

prior to transition to veteran status. Timeliness of the IDES process is assessed in 

each of these surveys by asking Servicemembers the following question: ‘‘How would 

47 

you evaluate the timeliness of the IDES process since entering it?’’ Based on feedback from over 5,000 IDES survey participants across the MEB, PEB, and Transition surveys, the average satisfaction score was 3.1 on a Likert scale of 1 (‘‘Very 

Poor’’) to 5 (‘‘Very Good’’). While this does not specifically address ‘‘idleness’’, Servicemember comments on the survey still indicate a need for the IDES to be more 

efficient. We have embarked on numerous continuous improvement efforts to shorten the time a Servicemember spends in the total IDES queue. As we work on these 

efforts, our line and warrior transition commanders are encouraged to gainfully employ IDES Servicemember while they matriculate through the system. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Bertoni, would you like to comment on that 

at all? 

Mr. BERTONI. I would talk very quickly, first, about those who 

were removed. We get weekly tracking sheets and we look at that 

number very closely each week. If they are in the ‘‘removed’’ category, that can mean a lot of things. It could be family hardship, 

conscientious objection, a number of factors that go into that category, including misconduct. You cannot tease out that particular 

issue from the way they are capturing data now. We have asked 

about that and thought about sort of digging down deeper, but we 

could not get to it in terms of the scope of our review this goaround. 

As far as idleness, we did see and have heard at various locations folks who are in an extended period of evaluation. As designed, on average, folks are in this process almost 40 days more 

than the legacy system. So finding constructive things for these 

folks to do rather than to go back to their rooms and play video 

games is certainly something that should be on the radar screen 

going forward. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, we will have 

a second round, I take for granted—— 

Chairman AKAKA. Yes. 

Senator BURR [continuing]. So then I am going to give you the 

first question, this simple question, and let you think about it between now and then but not answer it now. And it is simply this, 

in this further expansion—the plan is to expand overseas—if we 

have got servicemembers that are in the process of evaluation to 

transition from active duty to non-active duty to be integrated into 

the VA system, why would we keep them assigned overseas and 

not transferred back to the United States? Obviously, with the VA 

system, any services provided would be remotely because we do not 

plan to stand up VA facilities outside the country. I will ask you 

to think about that and then expand on it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. 

Senator Brown of Ohio? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO 

Senator BROWN OF OHIO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your leadership in spearheading the integration of 

disability evaluations. It is vital to ending this ongoing problem 

that affects so many of our Nation’s veterans. Thank you to the 

panel. 

Veterans too often have to navigate a complex Disability Evaluation System not once but twice to get the benefits they earned. 

48 

They should not have to do that. If the Disability Evaluation System—if it is a question of money, if that is the problem, we need 

to know that and we need to understand that better. If it is a question of staff, we need to know that. Everyone in this room, certainly, regardless of party, wants this program to succeed. That is 

why we are here today. 

I would like to ask all three panel members a pretty simple question that affects my home State. Ohio is consistently, as you have 

heard me say and others say, at the bottom of the benefit ratings, 

and my question is, why is a bum knee in San Diego not the same 

as a bum knee in Cleveland? How are you addressing this issue to 

fix that discrepancy? Let us start with Mr. Campbell. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am sorry. I did not understand the question. 

Senator BROWN OF OHIO. Well, Ohio is consistently at the bottom 

in these benefit ratings. I guess it is more a VA than a DOD problem, so I’ll ask one of the other witnesses to start. We have asked 

this question and we have not seen this fixed. We are continuing 

to find this disparity happening too often. 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, thanks for the question. I cannot speak specifically right now to Ohio, but on principle, there should be no difference. I mean, a rating is a rating; and we are working diligently 

to ensure that there is a standardized process of how those are 

evaluated in place. 

Senator BROWN OF OHIO. Mr. Bertoni, any thoughts? 

Mr. BERTONI. We have done limited reviews here. I guess I 

agree. Like impairments should receive like ratings and VA has 

some things in place from a quality assurance standpoint to look 

at that. I know they are doing what are known as inter-rater reliability studies, where they take one case, a similar case, give it to 

multiple examiners, and see how they come out in terms of the rating. Then they try to sort of delve into that to determine causes 

the discrepancy, and then conduct wider training across particular 

issues, like back pain, knee pain, mental impairments—I think 

those are the three big ones. They should be doing that. I cannot 

speak to the whys in Ohio, but I know there are efforts underway 

at VA to try to get at the inconsistency across locations. 

Senator BROWN OF OHIO. GAO has seen this happening with VA 

for some time. I guess I am still not clear why this persists. Mr. 

Medve or Mr. Bertoni, why does it continue to exist? I mean, it 

does not seem difficult to make this standard throughout the VA. 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, I will have to take that for the record, go 

back and delve in to get you an answer, to understand why there 

is a difference between what constituents in Ohio are getting. 

Senator BROWN OF OHIO. All right. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information requested during the hearing follows:] 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. SHERROD BROWN TO

JOHN MEDVE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF VA/DOD COLLABORATION SERVICE, OFFICE

OF POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question. Ohio is consistently, as you’ve heard me say and others say, at the bottom of the benefit ratings. My question is, why is a bum knee in San Diego not the 

same as a bum knee in Cleveland? How are you addressing this issue to fix that 

discrepancy? 

Response. Disability benefits are provided to Veterans according to the regulatory 

scheme embodied in 38 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 4-Schedule for Rating Disabilities (rating schedule). This rating schedule provides an organized and coherent 

49 

system for evaluating disabilities and for providing equitable and consistent compensation for service-connected injuries and diseases to our Nation’s Veterans. The 

rating schedule is the basis for all rating decisions regardless of location. 

VA contracted with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to study the variance 

in average payments among states and determine if a significant correlation to one 

or more variables could be indentified that contributes to the variance. IDA found 

that relative variability across states has existed at or near the current level over 

the past 35 years. IDA identified the major factors that individually contribute to 

the observed variation in average compensation, including the distribution of Veterans with ratings of 100 percent, the types of disabilities, county of residence, median family income, percent of the population with physical or mental disability, 

population density, representation by power of attorney, and period of service. According to IDA, application rates appear to also be a key driver for the percent of 

veterans receiving compensation. Much of the variation across states (over 40 percent) is associated with differences in the recipient populations. IDA found that the 

percent of compensation recipients in a particular area who are military retirees is 

also a major contributing factor. 

It is important to understand that the average payments being compared cover 

all Veterans currently receiving disability compensation benefits, and the VA decisions that awarded these benefits have been made over a period of more than fifty 

years. The average payments for all recipients are therefore not necessarily reflective of the experience of veterans currently applying for disability compensation benefits. In order to assess differences in benefits currently being awarded to recently 

separated veterans, VA looks at average payments to veterans who are added to 

VA’s disability compensation rolls during the year. It is significant to note that 

when comparing average payments to Veterans newly awarded compensation, the 

average amount awarded to Ohio Veterans in 2010 was 92 percent of the national 

average ($573.81 per month for Ohio vs. $624.69 per month for the Nation) and 40th 

overall. 

To achieve greater consistency and accuracy in decisionmaking, it is critical that 

employees receive the essential guidance, materials, and tools to meet the everchanging and increasingly complex demands of their responsibilities. VBA has established a comprehensive national training program that includes pre-requisite, 

centralized, and home-station training phases. The integration of a national training 

program has resulted in standardized training modules for all phases of claims processing. Additionally, VBA created training modules for recurring training for journey-level claim processors. This national training program allows VBA to increase 

both accuracy and production as employees continue to increase their individual 

knowledge and proficiency. 

Chairman AKAKA. Senator Isakson? 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Campbell, I understand that of the first some 3,700 servicemembers evaluated in the DES pilot system, nearly 1,000 of them 

were returned to active duty and not determined to be disabled. 

That is 26 percent of all the evaluations. That just appears to me 

on the surface to say that we do not have a very good early evaluation system before they get to the determination system. Am I right 

or am I wrong? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think that percentage is higher than one we 

track, but beyond that the fact is the effort is to try to return 

young men and women who can serve and want to continue to 

serve back to active duty; that is really an objective, an important 

objective. But in terms of the issue of whether it takes away from 

the resources for exams for other veterans, other servicemembers, 

we are monitoring that right now and trying to figure out how to 

best ensure that only those that should be examined are examined. 

Senator ISAKSON. Was Fort Gordon in Augusta, GA, one of the 

test sites? Does anybody know? 

Mr. MEDVE. I am not sure—— 

Senator ISAKSON. That is the Charlie Norwood VA—— 

Mr. MEDVE. No, sir, I do not think it was. 

50 

Senator ISAKSON. It was not? I was there with Under Secretary 

Duckworth from the VA just a month or so ago and have followed 

up over the last 3 years on their seamless transition for Wounded 

Warriors and they have focused at Fort Gordon and at the Charlie 

Norwood VA on early identification for soft tissue, PTSD, TBI type 

of injuries, and I would guess, it is just a guess, that of those that 

go for evaluation and then subsequently are returned, many of 

them end up being people who suffer from that type of a problem 

that end up being corrected. They have done some wonderful work 

at the Norwood VA and Fort Gordon, with early identification of 

PTSD and TBI. So I would encourage as you expand—I think you 

all said you were going to expand the test sites. Is that right? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. I would encourage you, if they want to do it, 

to see if Fort Gordon and the Charlie Norwood VA in Augusta, GA, 

are not a part of that, because General Schoomaker started the 

seamless transition at that facility before he left to come to Walter 

Reed which has been very successful. There is a tremendous support center there. 

Just one other question for Mr.—is it Medve? 

Mr. MEDVE. Yes, Senator. 

Senator ISAKSON. Is that close enough? I am Isakson and that is 

hard to pronounce. 

Mr. MEDVE. Sir, I have lived with that through my entire life. 

Senator ISAKSON. So have I. I understand that VA Service Coordinators who give services in terms of benefit advice to those entering the VA system and the overseas veterans who are getting ready 

to enter the system do that by long-distance teleconference. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. MEDVE. That is my understanding, Senator. 

Senator ISAKSON. The thing that worries me about that is the effectiveness of a teleconference versus a personal contact one-on-one 

so the veteran can really ask further questions. Do you have any 

input on the success or if there has been a ‘‘falling through the 

cracks problem’’ because of the use of teleconference versus personal interviews? 

Mr. MEDVE. Sir, I personally do not know. I also know we do 

have essentially circuit riders overseas, as well, that also back that 

up. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I have seen the value of those coordinators one-on-one, again, at the Norwood VA in Augusta, GA, I think 

circuit riders are an excellent solution to what otherwise could be 

a problem of a more impersonal evaluation being by long-distance 

videoconference rather than one-on-one. 

Mr. MEDVE. And Senator, just to follow up, Fort Gordon is on the 

planning for Stage 2, which is January through March of next year 

when it is planned to go into the DES system. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson. 

Senator Johanns? 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me, if I might, ask maybe a couple nuts and bolts sorts of 

questions. How pervasive is the issue of a differing diagnosis beVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:21 Mar 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\ACTIVE\111810.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
51 

tween VA and DOD? How much are we running into that? I am 

not sure who is equipped to handle that, but jump in. 

Mr. BERTONI. I can handle it from the standpoint of our audit. 

We do not know how pervasive it is and we—and VA and DOD do 

not know because they are not specifically tracking this at a macro 

level. We heard it enough, I believe in four of ten sites. We did 

meet with high-level officials in terms of the folks who are planning and implementing the pilot. There was an acknowledgement 

that there might be a structural issue here in terms of the two entities coming to terms on diagnoses. So it is an emerging issue, 

something that we have identified and we think they need to get 

their hands around. We will likely ask them to do that. 

Senator JOHANNS. So what happens to the servicemember once 

that happens? You have got DOD out here saying X. You have got 

the Veterans Administration saying Y. Are they just caught in 

limbo? 

Mr. BERTONI. The case sits. They have to wait for that to be resolved. If the Medical Evaluation Board physician and the VA examiner disagree, there is an issue there that has to be resolved. 

That can take time. Down the road, if you get discrepancy between 

the Physical Evaluation Board and the VA rating staff, that has to 

be resolved which takes time. Right now, there is no specific DODwide guidance as to how that is to be resolved. 

Senator JOHANNS. That seems to be a significant problem to me. 

I do not know if this is 5 percent of the cases or 50 percent of the 

cases, and I guess nobody else knows that, either, but it seems to 

me if we do not solve that problem, then no matter what we do 

with systems, you are still going to have people out there waiting. 

And if there is no guidance, how does one even know which direction to go to solve the problem? 

Mr. BERTONI. I have been doing this a long time, and the issue 

of developing the medical record is a thorny issue across all Federal disability programs. This is just something that really could be 

important—or detrimental to the program, depending on how large 

it is. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK. Does either one of you want to weigh in 

on that? 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, I know it was part of the GAO report. As 

we are finalizing our response to it, we acknowledge the issue, and 

I think what we will put in place as part of our answer back to 

the GAO report will help address that. It really comes into play in 

many cases with issues of mental health and PTSD ratings as opposed to what may be on the service side a diagnosis of depression 

or anxiety or something like that, and that is where the largest— 

and those are complex cases. So Mr. Bertoni is right, and it is 

something that we acknowledge and we are going to work to fix. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Sir—— 

Senator JOHANNS. Go ahead. I am sorry. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to add that we, as well, concur with 

Mr. Bertoni’s recommendation and we are behind the study to assess the issue and see what can be done. 

52 

Senator JOHANNS. This leads me to another question. You have 

these recommendations. You are responding to them. Is there coordination in that response? 

Mr. MEDVE. Yes, sir. When we review the report—because, I 

mean, obviously, I consider Mr. Campbell to be my battle buddy in 

this endeavor, and we at least look at each other’s responses to 

make sure that we are both looking at the issues in the same way, 

and we are looking at the solutions in the same way. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK. Let me go to another area. Again, I think, 

Mr. Bertoni, you are probably the guy I call on, and this will be 

a little bit inartful because I am trying to figure this out. It seems 

to me we can spend a lot of time and effort on the right system, 

et cetera, but then it always seems that there are locations that do 

better than others. Do you know what I am saying? Did you see 

that, and walk me through your sense of why that happens. Is that 

management? Tell me what you think about that. 

Mr. BERTONI. I think you cannot downplay the importance of 

good management. I have seen across numerous programs folks 

who get it, understand what needs to happen, are good managers, 

put the pieces in play to make things happen. You can do a lot 

with that. There are folks who streamline or redesign processes 

that can lead to efficiencies. At some locations, it just comes down 

to volume. You have low-volume locations. You can work harder 

with a system that is not quite perfect and still get the work done. 

It is only when you start to pour more cases and servicemembers 

into the process that the bottlenecks start to reveal themselves. 

So I think one thing is to really look at folks who have figured 

it out in terms of redesigned processes, which I think this whole 

effort, the pilot, is designed to do just that. There is an evaluation 

loop to identify problematic areas and the entities that are administering it should be looking to best practices, redesigned processes 

to make it better beyond—you can invest people and IT systems 

into this to the n-th degree, but it comes down to how you designed 

it, in many ways, and managed it. 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, absolutely, leadership is key and teamwork 

is a key in high-performing versus low-performing sites. One of the 

things that we have done is that as each of the iterations of the 

expansions role out, we host a conference, and we bring the site 

teams, both DOD and VA, here. As a matter of fact, there is one 

completing today here at Bethesda. 

Part of that conference is we bring both representatives who are 

involved in the Fort Carson rollout and the Fort Riley rollout, because Carson represents a site that obviously had challenges, and 

they are working through them. Fort Riley was very proactive and 

did a superb job in organizing themselves. So we expose the oncoming teams to both of those sets of experiences. 

Additionally, we have brought some Lean Six Sigma expertise, 

especially at Carson. We are sharing those lessons with those oncoming sites. I hope very soon to be able to deploy process teams 

to both the oncoming sites and also to the ones that are in existence now to do a deep dive into their processes for improvement. 

But again, the number 1 lesson is if the team is not fully engaged, if the leadership is not engaged, then we are going to have 

challenges. I think it is even more of a challenge with some of the 

53 

smaller sites because the low volume—there may be a view that 

maybe we can just not have to focus so much there; but, in fact, 

that is where we end up having problems, so we are putting an effort there, as well. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Johanns. 

Senator Brown of Massachusetts? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT P. BROWN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It seems like several years now that the DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs are kind of playing a blame game when 

it comes to the DES pilot program. Meanwhile, military members 

are trying to move on with their lives, and frankly, from what I 

have heard, the hurdles seem very high for them. They are waiting, 

hoping that doctors’ appointments do not get canceled. Months and 

sometimes years go by. 

As a result of that, I am a little uneasy with the declaration 

made by the DOD that plans to conduct a global rollout of this program by the end of next fiscal year is something that they are focused on actually doing. It seems like a decision of this magnitude, 

in my view, requires a better understanding of the measurable 

verified factual basis upon which the DOD has made the decision 

to launch a worldwide program. Because unless I am wrong, there 

seems to be a lack of personnel, really, and resources to do that. 

So I guess with that being said, my question is, will this program 

require more medical exam doctors and nurses throughout the 

country and across the globe? Mr. Campbell? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Senator, I think it is better—the medical piece of 

it is probably better answered by Mr. Medve, but I think what we 

would like to say is that nothing will roll out unless we are convinced, both VA and DOD, that these sites are ready. We are certainly not going to put a site out there that will bring into question—— 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. Well, at this point, do you 

have the appropriate amount of medical examination folks to do 

that or not? 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, we have had some areas where we have 

had staff shortages. We are addressing those now. We have added 

contract examination capabilities to give us some additional bandwidth in that area. So, yes, I am confident that from VA’s standpoint, we are going to be ready as we roll out each one of these 

sites. And again, just to echo what Mr. Campbell said, it is criteriabased. If a site does not have its required capability, it is not going 

live. 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. Do you envision any—with 

all the private contracted medical examination folks, do you think 

they will readily agree to travel across the globe and to every military installation to serve in this capacity? Have you noticed any 

push-back at all? 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, I want to be clear. If you are talking about 

the overseas rollout aspect of it, if I am not mistaken, I believe 

54 

there is a plan that is due the 15th of December that will specifically address the overseas rollout of this, and so I will have to—— 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. OK. How many psychiatrists or psychologists does the DOD need right now to accomplish 

this mission? Any thoughts on that? Do you have a number, or do 

we have the amount? 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, I do not in terms of what DOD needs for 

that. 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. OK. Maybe I have to refocus 

my question. But let me just follow up on something that Mr. 

Bertoni said. You mentioned idleness among the servicemembers 

that occurs while they wait. I know there was a little back and 

forth on it, and it is concerning. I am glad it was brought up. To 

what extent are we allowing nonprofits, NGO’s, Fortune 500 companies, and corporate America into the installations to help these 

Wounded Warriors find a job while they are getting treated? Mr. 

Secretary? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Sure—— 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. Is there any cooperation? Is 

there any foresight, while they are sitting around, to get some folks 

in there to help them find employment once they get out? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, we have our TAP program, which introduces these transitioning servicemembers to—— 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. I know, but has there been 

anything outside the box a little bit to letting other folks in there, 

the actual job creators and hirers to get in there and help, as well? 

Is there any program or anything like that in place right now? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Senator, at the moment, no. 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. All right. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. 

Mr. Medve and Mr. Campbell, what will you do at the headquarters level if you get an indication from the field that a site is 

not ready to go? 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, thank you for the question. What we have 

done, actually, to date is when there have been issues raised, we 

have convened a conference call with all the players involved and 

made sure we understand what the specific issue is. If it is an 

issue that requires a solution from VA headquarters, then we will 

apply those resources to it. If it is one where we find out that there 

are just communications issues between the localities, then we 

have actually dispatched people to the local areas to work that out 

and to ensure that those problems get solved. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Campbell? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would just agree with that. There is really nothing more to add. Those issues come very quickly to our attention 

because everybody has got my e-mail address. So when there is a 

problem, I hear about it or Secretary Stanley does and we act on 

it immediately, working with the VA to try to come up with a solution. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Campbell, I am following up on Senator 

Isakson’s question. I know that DOD is working to tighten eligibility for IDES to reduce return-to-duty rates. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mm-hmm. 

55 

Chairman AKAKA. Will DOD be finished with fixing its policies 

before the next set of installations are operational? And Mr. 

Bertoni, do you know why there are questions as to what the actual return-to-duty rate is? I also believe that it is about 26 percent. But let me call on Mr. Campbell for his response. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you for the question, Senator. We do believe that we will have a better sense before the next group of installations go public, if you will, as to the retention percentage. We 

are working with the Departments right now to see what issues 

there are and how we can close that or reduce that percentage. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Bertoni? 

Mr. BERTONI. Sure. Let me just piggyback off that question. I do 

believe the referral system is critical to ensuring that only folks 

who should be in the IDES system are in the IDES system. Screening and profiling is done across other Federal programs. I think it 

is a way to more precisely assess who is a good candidate or should 

be in the process than to divert resources from being spent on 

them. The services have to go through this process for someone 

who might ultimately be returned to duty. 

In terms of the return-to-duty rate, we are not clear how they arrived at the 16 percent figure. They may be including folks who 

have dropped or did not complete their case. It has to be some larger population fit into the overall figure. 

We went to cases that were completed since inception of the program. It is intuitive to us to look at folks who came in, went 

through the gauntlet of various medical exams, and at the end of 

the day got a ‘‘fit’’ or ‘‘unfit’’ decision. When we calculate those 

numbers, the most recent weekly report came to about 26 percent. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Medve, as I mentioned during my opening 

statement, I am concerned that VA is already stressed as a result 

of ongoing conflicts, an aging veteran population, and the new 

Agent Orange presumptions. These pressures may adversely impact those veterans currently going through the VA claims process. 

What is the Department doing to mitigate this concern? 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, first of all, we need to make sure we all understand that regarding the IDES cases, the VA would see them 

anyway. It is a question of when we would see them. So it is not 

an added burden. It is one that we have already got that we know 

is coming to us. We are just shifting it a little to the left from when 

we do that. 

You know, we have some areas that have backlogs for C&P 

exams. We have brought on additional exam capabilities to help 

eliminate those backlogs, as well. So I think we are taking a broadfront approach to solving those problems and we will work over the 

next year to eliminate them. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Senator Burr? 

Senator BURR. Mr. Campbell, would you like to take a stab at 

the overseas question I asked? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. We are actually working with the VA 

and the military departments to decide about the best way to implement that kind of a strategy. I know myself—I was in Ramstein 

2 weeks ago and heard exactly the same question that you posed, 

the question about people in the Wounded Warrior Units; is there 

56 

a way that they could be moved back to the States to be—because 

finding a job in Germany is not very easy for them, clearly. It is 

on my list of things to do and I would like to get back to you 

with—— 

Senator BURR. I would appreciate it. And I hope you understand 

the concern that I am expressing. When you look at this from a 

common sense standpoint and we hear you are going to roll out 

globally—— 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURR [continuing]. And there is something as obvious as 

this—you cannot call it an integrated program if DOD is the only 

one there. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Right. 

[The information requested during the hearing follows:] 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. RICHARD BURR TO

JOHN R. CAMPBELL, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF WOUNDED WARRIOR

CARE AND TRANSITION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Response. Currently, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, together with the my office (Wounded Warrior Care and Transition Policy), other DOD 

offices, each of Military Service Departments and the VA are collaborating to determine the best avenue to cover our Wounded Ill and injured Servicemembers serving 

overseas. The initial discussion has centered on re-assigning referred Servicemembers back to the Continental United States (CONUS) for their medical exam 

and IDES processing. This may have a secondary positive effect for those who are 

medically separated and retired. Their final transition will be closer to home and 

easier for them to navigate. The details are being finalized now and DOD and VA 

we will share the final plans with the oversight committees before implementation. 

Senator BURR. VA, at best, would be a partner through teleconferencing or telecommunicating in some fashion, but—— 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will say that there are VA representatives in 

Germany. I know that. I met them. 

Senator BURR. I would love to know how extensive the VA presence is abroad given the challenges we have at home. 

Mr. MEDVE. Well, Senator, as I said before, we have circuit riders 

over there that go around to the different bases to give our portion 

of the TAP briefings and all that. In terms of medical—which I 

think is what you are really getting at—yes, we do not have that 

over there. As DOD finalizes its plan that will come out next 

month, we are working with them on that to ensure that there is 

a solid way forward so that the medical examinations, if they are 

done overseas, meet the template standards that we have for C&P 

exams. 

Senator BURR. Let me ask on behalf of the Committee that before any decision is finalized, that you mya at least share with the 

Committee what the intent of that overseas program would be. It 

might save a lot of heartache. 

Mr. MEDVE. Yes, sir, we will. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Campbell, in your testimony, which I think 

Mr. Medve also highlighted, you have referred to Fort Riley in your 

testimony as a model for other sites to follow because of its screening process, screening people that should not be in the integrated 

system. How many people have been enrolled in the IDES process 

at Fort Riley to date, do you know? 

[Pause.] 

Mr. BERTONI. Sir, I can take that. 

57 

Senator BURR. Oh, OK. 

Mr. BERTONI. Approximately 200. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Dan. 

Senator BURR. Of those, how many individuals have found resolution to their evaluation? 

Mr. BERTONI. Only three cases—I am sorry—194 cases at Riley 

right now, and as of a month ago, there was only one that had completed. 

Senator BURR. OK. I would sort of ask both DOD and VA, from 

a standpoint of highlighting the success of Riley, are we highlighting just the pre-screening or are we highlighting the success 

of the overall program at Riley? 

Mr. BERTONI. From our position, we are highlighting the fact 

that the leadership was engaged up front. They came up with a 

plan of how to approach implementing IDES. They have got a good 

track record in terms of how they are moving forward, so we use 

them as an example for other sites of how you get started at the 

beginning of your planning and pull everybody together to work toward implementation. 

Senator BURR. Am I naive to believe that part of our assessment 

should be how many people complete the process in the agreedupon timeline? 

Mr. MEDVE. No, sir, you are not. 

Senator BURR. At what point does that come into determining 

the success or failure of a particular site or a particular process? 

Mr. MEDVE. We should consistently be looking at that and figuring out what the issue is with output. 

Senator BURR. Let me stop and say that you have no bigger 

cheerleader than me for the success of this program. But I think 

it is absolutely incumbent on those of us here to ask the obvious 

questions to make sure that we have gone through the thought 

process, especially as we consider beginning to roll this program 

out to additional sites while we currently have it contained in a 

number of locations that is somewhat manageable to begin to address the challenges. 

I will not ask this in a question, I will make it in a statement. 

I would hope before we roll out to one more site that we have successfully addressed the challenges, the legitimate challenges that 

have been raised and at least have a plan as to how to resolve 

those versus a wish, a hope, and a dream that as we roll this out, 

these will either get better or we will find a solution. Roll it out 

nationally, have the same number of challenges, have models that 

we look at that have one entity or five entities out of several hundred that have crossed the goal line and our model is—or our matrix of success was, well, everybody bought into the program but 

nobody is going out the other end, we are going to have a screwed 

up mess on our hands. So my hope is that we will all get the same 

goal in sight and the same tools of measurement. 

Mr. Campbell, DOD set a goal of 20 servicemembers per case 

manager or PEBLO, I guess? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURR. What is PEBLO? Is that—— 

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer. 

58 

Senator BURR. I am just going to use case manager. It is easier. 

At Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune in my home State, they had 85 

servicemembers for each case manager. What factors led to that 

heavy caseload? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I know they exist. I do not know if I know the 

reasons—— 

Senator BURR. Can you give me a timeline as to when there will 

be enough staff to bring those numbers in line with the goal of 20? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. We are working on the problem. I know we are 

putting some dollars toward that problem, working with the Departments themselves. But I do not know if I can give you a specific date when that caseload issue, when we will get that back 

down to—— 

Senator BURR. Share with us in writing what the expectations 

are—— 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURR [continuing]. For resolution of that problem. And 

would you take the opportunity to share with us the methodology 

you used to come up with 20 per caseworker figure so that we can 

understand better—— 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Sure. 

Senator BURR [continuing]. Is that the right number? We are 

deeply into a disability problem in this country which we have 

thrown money at for, I think, a decade. I think the Chair would 

agree with me. And with the last expansion of personnel—I think 

1,900-plus individuals were brought in to process claims—the one 

net result we had was the productivity per claims processor went 

down. So I am somewhat skeptical to just adding bodies or throwing money at a problem, believing that that problem is going to get 

resolved or go away. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. 

[The information requested during the hearing follows:] 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. RICHARD BURR TO

JOHN R. CAMPBELL, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF WOUNDED WARRIOR

CARE AND TRANSITION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Response. The most recent data provided by the Service Secretaries indicates that 

Fort Bragg is hiring three new PEBLO’s (Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer’s) by 31 December 2010 and Camp Lejeune is hiring one GS–12 Supervisor, two 

additional PEBLOs and one Administrative Support staff by 31 January 2011. The 

Military Departments indicate that these hiring actions will bring them to the DOD 

required 1:20 PEBLO to case ratio standard. 

Regarding methodology, an exact ratio for optimal efficiency is difficult to identify, 

as the ratio varies depending on many factors. These factors can include, but are 

not limited to, the type of population the PEBLO is supporting (types of injuries/ 

illness); the availability of local healthcare resources and additional support staffing 

(for example, administrative help to copy records); the burden of other managerial 

requirements (multiple data entry, training); and the use of decision and management support tools (automation tools, duplicative data entry). Clinical caseload recommendations have varied from 1:15 to 1:50. Currently, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is looking at evidence-based methods 

to either verify or update the current policy requirement. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to 

be able to take my further questions and ask them in writing because there may be a level of detail there that I would rather our 

witnesses have the time to research and provide responses for us. 

59 

But I do want to turn to Mr. Bertoni just for 1 second, off of this 

subject and onto the legacy VA disability process. I think you are 

one of the experts at our system. You referred earlier to the difficulty at completing the medical records needed to make evaluations, in other words, incomplete applications that come in. A complete application is one that has all of the information, including 

the medical records that are needed to make a determination. 

If we worked with the VA and created a new program, a program 

that said to veterans and to whoever helps that veteran fill out 

that application, you send us a complete application and we will 

process your claim in X-number of days—30 days, 45 days, 90 days, 

whatever it is—but setting the goal for that servicemember, that 

VSO, that service officer to be: do not send it until you have got 

all the information for qualification of this program. Would that be 

a game changer? 

Mr. BERTONI. I do not know. Overall, I do know there is a small 

pilot program, I believe, at VA where it is—I cannot recall the acronym or the name—where they do just that. They get the servicemember to agree to submit everything timely within a specific window and they, in effect, will go sort of to the front of the line. If 

you fail to do that or you fail along the line, then you go back into 

the regular queue. We have talked about that as a potential best 

practice or a way to triage cases, but I do not know how that is 

playing out in terms of success. 

Senator BURR. We will follow-up on that. It is my hope that we 

will begin to think of something different, and I think you hit on 

the key. It starts with having an application, that when it comes 

through the door is as complete as it possibly can be so that you 

do not have to go through these timelines of reaching out and trying to access the information needed to make—— 

Mr. BERTONI. Absolutely. And looking sort of at the individual 

stops along the way on this process, that is where the Medical 

Evaluation Board physician, that is where the Physical Evaluation 

Board Liaison and others need to be in play to help develop that 

case, to build that case. As you said, ratios do not look great in 

terms of representatives to servicemembers. The ratios are pretty 

bad in some respects, and in each one of those, those quick stops 

along the way, I do not think any of the averages are being met 

right now in terms of the goals for the program. 

Senator BURR. Once again, let me thank the three of you for your 

expertise, your commitment to make these programs successful and 

to evaluate them. I thank the Chair for his willingness to hold this 

hearing and I look forward to the next opportunity to get an update. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Senator Burr, you made a unanimous consent 

request and that is still—— 

Senator BURR. That I may have the opportunity to ask questions 

in writing. 

Chairman AKAKA. Well, without objection. 

Senator BURR. I heard you say, ‘‘So approved.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. 

Mr. Campbell and Mr. Medve, during oversight visits of individual sites, Committee staff noted some concern—and this has to 

60 

do with funding—that funding was being taken from existing budgets. Will you please explain how the expanded program is being 

funded? 

Mr. MEDVE. Sir, for the VA, it is being funded through our normal process. I mean, as I understand it, it is part of VBA and VHA 

and VA’s budget. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Campbell? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. My understanding is the same, Senator. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Campbell and then Mr. 

Medve, the concern as expressed here by other Members, as well, 

has been a concern about implementation. Some believe that the 

current timeline for rolling out the program worldwide is a bit aggressive given the challenges that have already been identified. 

What would you say to these critics who question that? 

Mr. MEDVE. Senator, first, what I would say is, yes, we have a 

timeline and a way forward. But that is bounded by our criteriabased assessment. So even though we have a quarterly rollout goal, 

I think both Mr. Campbell and I have said before, we are making 

it clear to the sites that they do not go forward until everything 

in that site assessment certification meets the standard. 

Chairman AKAKA. Your comment, Mr. Campbell? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Basically the same thing, Senator—that it is criterion-based and it is not timeline sensitive in that regard. 

Chairman AKAKA. In closing, I again thank all of our witnesses 

for participating today. My hope is that we can move forward from 

today’s hearing with a better understanding of how the current 

process is working and what improvements need to be made as 

DOD and VA expand IDES. We are looking forward to that and 

thank you again for your responses. It has been helpful to us. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ