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

51–869 2010

ADDRESSING THE BACKLOG: CAN THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

MANAGE ONE MILLION CLAIMS? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND 

MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 18, 2009 

Serial No. 111–30 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois 

THOMAS S.P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN H. ADLER, New Jersey 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

GLENN C. NYE, Virginia 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

JOHN J. HALL, New York, Chairman 

DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

June 18, 2009 

Page 

Addressing the Backlog: Can the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Manage One Million Claims? ...................................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman John J. Hall ............................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement of Chairman Hall ........................................................... 49 

Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member ............................................. 3 

Prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn .............................................. 50 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Lieutenant General James Terry Scott, USA (Ret.), Chairman, Advisory 

Committee on Disability Compensation ...................................................... 19 

Prepared statement of General Scott ...................................................... 65 

Michael Walcoff, Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Benefits 

Administration .............................................................................................. 30 

Prepared statement of Mr. Walcoff .......................................................... 69 

U.S. Department of Defense/U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency 

Program Office, Rear Admiral Gregory Timberlake, SHCE, USN, Acting 

Director ................................................................................................................. 32 

Prepared statement of Admiral Timberlake .................................................. 73 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Michael 

Ratajczak, Decision Review Officer, Veterans Affairs Cleveland Regional 

Office, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ....................................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement of Mr. Ratajczak ............................................................. 66 

American Legion, Ian de Planque, Assistant Director, Veterans Affairs and 

Rehabilitation Commission ................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement of Mr. de Planque ........................................................... 50 

Bohan, David, Gladstone, OR ................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement of Mr. Bohan ................................................................... 55 

Disabled American Veterans, Kerry Baker, Assistant National Legislative 

Director ................................................................................................................. 10 

Prepared statement of Mr. Baker ................................................................... 59 

Service Women’s Action Network, Rachel Natelson, Esq., Legal Advisor .......... 11 

Prepared statement of Ms. Natelson .............................................................. 63 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Robert Jackson, Assistant 

Director, National Legislative Service ................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement of Mr. Jackson ................................................................ 56 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record: 

Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Ian de 

Planque, Assistant Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, American Legion, letter dated July 20, 2009, and response 

letter dated August 17, 2009 ........................................................................ 78 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
Page

iv 

Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record—Continued 

Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Kerry Baker, 

Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans, 

letter dated July 20, 2009, and DAV responses ......................................... 82 

Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Lieutenant 

General James Terry Scott, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, letter dated 

July 20, 2009, and response letter dated August 14, 2009 ........................ 83 

Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Marilyn 

Park, Legislative Representative, American Federation of Government 

Employees, letter dated July 20, 2009, and AFGE responses ................... 85 

Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Michael 

Walcoff, Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, letter dated July 

20, 2009, and VA responses ......................................................................... 87 

Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to Rear Admiral 

Gregory Timberlake, SHCE, USN, Director, DoD/VA Interagency Program Office, U.S. Department of Defense, letter dated July 20, 2009, 

and Admiral Timberlake’s responses .......................................................... 92 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
(1) 

ADDRESSING THE BACKLOG: CAN THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

MANAGE ONE MILLION CLAIMS? 

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE

AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 6:38 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John J. Hall [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hall, Halvorson and Lamborn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HALL 

Mr. HALL. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. The Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Subcommittee hearing on ‘‘Addressing the Backlog: Can the U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Manage One Million Claims’’ 

will now come to order. 

I would ask for everyone to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. 

Flags are located at both ends of the room. 

[Pledge of Allegiance.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. First of all, I would like to apologize for 

the lateness of the hearing. I know you have been waiting here for 

over 4 hours, but there were unusual measures being taken on the 

floor. 

Tonight, some Members felt that we should vote three times on 

measures that were already passed, including their own amendments, and revote and then reconsider the revote of those measures, and it is for that reason that this hearing is starting now instead of at 2:00 p.m., as scheduled 

Having said that, I will tell you that the Members of this Subcommittee convene today to conduct an oversight hearing on the 

record number of claims facing the VA, now approaching one million. This is a problem that has plagued VA and the veterans it is 

supposed to serve for years. 

Veterans applying for the very benefits that they have earned 

through sacrifice to our country have been stuck languishing in a 

growing backlog. Some of these veterans have been waiting 

months, years, and in some mind-boggling cases, even decades. Is 

this how America fulfills its promise to our veterans? 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
2 

When men and women sign up to put on the uniform and defend 

our country, they sign a contract. We need to make sure that 

America is living up to our part of that contract. We must have a 

VA that is an advocate for veterans, not an obstacle; a VA that 

smoothes the way, not one that puts up roadblocks. 

To add perspective before we begin, I want to offer some facts to 

reflect upon as we take up this discussion. There are approximately 

231⁄2 million veterans living in America. Every year, the VA treats 

roughly 5 million of these brave men and women. Yet, as large as 

these numbers may seem, every year, 500,000 additional veterans 

file a claim with the VA so that they can begin receiving treatment 

and benefits. 

Tragically, they are frequently delayed or even denied. They are 

delayed because of the broken system, denied because paperwork 

is lost and adherence to legal hurdles and requirements are placed 

above veterans’ needs. Sometimes claims are delayed so long that 

veterans die or give up fighting the bureaucracy before the claim 

is processed. And now, as we will explore today, there are nearly 

one million veterans waiting in limbo as a result. 

Make no mistake, this is not a new issue. I, and other Members 

of this Committee, have been focusing on this intensely because it 

is so vital to regain the trust of our veterans and provide them the 

treatment and disability benefits that they were promised. 

During the 110th Congress, I convened 14 hearings on disability 

claims and appeals processing issues. As a result, we were able to 

successfully pass the Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act last October, now Public Law 110–389. 

This legislation essentially mandated that the VA modernize its 

disability claims processing system. This hearing will now mark 

the fourth time we will be addressing this subject during the 111th 

Congress. And while we yet again discuss the changes needed, veterans still suffer. They are waiting to have their claims and appeals processed. They are waiting for compensation. They are waiting for medical assistance and rehabilitation. They are waiting to 

take care of their families. They are waiting for a Nation to show 

its gratitude. These veterans do not deserve to have their requests 

for assistance languish in the VA’s bureaucracy. 

There must be a way to stem this tide. Veterans cannot wait any 

longer. The VA requires a cultural management change that can 

only manifest itself if it embraces the very reason it was enacted, 

which is to serve veterans. 

As Chairman of this Subcommittee, I believe we have given VA 

the tools and the authority it needs to take the necessary steps. 

Secretary Shinseki has invoked these principles in stepping into 

the leadership of VA where VA would become an advocate, not an 

adversary of the veteran. 

I am optimistic that today’s witnesses can direct us toward this 

end. Their stories, like so many others, illustrate the need for 

change. 

I certainly hope that we can learn from their experience. I know 

that the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and 

Disabled American Veterans (DAV) have worked diligently, along 

with other veterans service organizations (VSOs), to address the 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
3 

disjointed practices that exist within VA that have lead to this situation. 

I am eager to hear from the American Federation of Government 

Employees (AFGE) and the newly formed Advisory Committee on 

Disability Compensation, and I place a great deal of hope in your 

work and progress. 

I also look forward to hearing from VA. I know that your claims 

processing system has improved in some respects. I also know that 

the one million figure reflects all of your inventory, not just compensation and pension. These facts notwithstanding, Congress, veterans and other stakeholders want to know what is the strategy 

that VA has for handling a workload approaching one million 

claims in a 21st century manner. 

And finally, I thank the VA and U.S. Department of Defense 

(DoD) for being here today to update the Committee on its progress 

in implementing Public Law 110–389, and the formation of the 

Interagency Program Office, along with President Obama’s Joint 

VA, DoD, Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) Initiative, and 

other information technology (IT) improvements to eliminate the 

problems inherent in a paper record. And this is something that 

Ranking Member Lamborn has been in favor of as well. 

This is not an impossible task. A consensus exists. The wheels 

have already been set in motion. It is my hope that VA will transform itself into a modern veteran-focused system that can, in fact, 

process one million claims accurately and timely; one where veterans and their families no longer have to put their lives on hold 

while waiting for the much needed benefits they deserve. 

I now yield to Ranking Member Lamborn for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hall appears on p. 49.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing to discuss VA’s disabilities claims processing 

system and its ongoing efforts to improve timeliness and accuracy. 

The struggle to overcome the backlog of disability claims has 

weighed upon the Department for several years now. Despite multiple hearings on this issue, as well as significant increases in VA’s 

budget, workforce and information technology resources, signs of 

progress are subtle at best. 

We have addressed this situation from multiple angles. Funding 

for VA programs has increased steadily since 1995. There has been 

a 75-percent increase in the number of full-time claims workers in 

the last 5 years. We have made a strong push toward modernizing 

the VA claim system so that it is electronic rather than paper 

based, as was mentioned earlier. 

And we have emphasized and reemphasized the need for training 

and accountability, yet VA seems to be overwhelmed, and it is well 

past time for frank assessment of what is going on. VA needs to 

be candid and forthcoming about what it sees as the problem. Otherwise, we cannot help fix it. 

I understand that along with the aforementioned increase in 

funding, VA is receiving a record number of claims, along with an 

increased number of complex issues on each claim. While these facVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:20 Jan 22, 2010 Jkt 051869 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\51869.XXX GPO1 PsN: 51869

ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
4 

tors obviously pose a challenge, I do not see them as insurmountable. I believe that VA has the resources and the authority necessary to adjudicate claims quickly and accurately, and I expect it 

to do so. 

If this is a misperception, I must know why. Every one claim represents an American veteran. Their patience and mine is growing 

very thin on this issue. If we do not fix the problem now and merely pass it on to a future generation, we will all be very much 

ashamed and deservedly so. 

I am certain everyone here shares my frustration, so let us put 

the cards on the table and figure out what we can do. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their service to our country and 

for their testimony today and I look forward to our discussion. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn appears on 

p. 50.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ranking Member Lamborn. 

I would like to remind all of our panelists that your complete 

written records have already been made a part of our hearing 

record. Please feel free to limit your remarks so that we may have 

sufficient time to follow up after all the time you have been waiting. We do not need to go longer than necessary because your 

statements are already submitted. 

And on our first panel, we would like to welcome Mr. Ian de 

Planque. Is that the correct pronunciation, sir? Assistant Director 

for the Rehabilitation Commission of the American Legion; Mr. 

David Bohan, Veteran from Gladstone, Oregon; Mr. Robert Jackson, Assistant Director, National Legislative Service for Veterans of 

Foreign Wars of the United States; Mr. Kerry Baker, the Assistant 

National Legislative Director for the Disabled American Veterans; 

and Ms. Rachel Natelson—is that correct—Natelson—Ms. Rachel 

Natelson, Legal Advisor for Service Women’s Action Network 

(SWAN). 

Welcome and, Mr. de Planque, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF IAN DE PLANQUE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, 

AMERICAN LEGION; DAVID BOHAN, GLADSTONE, OR (GULF 

WAR VETERAN); ROBERT JACKSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN 

WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; KERRY BAKER, ASSISTANT 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN 

VETERANS; AND RACHEL NATELSON, ESQ., LEGAL ADVISOR, 

SERVICE WOMEN’S ACTION NETWORK 

STATEMENT OF IAN DE PLANQUE 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Lamborn, and the Subcommittee. On behalf of the American Legion, I would like to thank you for providing us with the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the looming backlog and what 

can be done to handle the volume as it stands, as well as to reduce 

or to improve the situation for veterans to come. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
5 

It is often said, and I think this may be particularly relevant 

today, that the definition of insanity is to repeat the same action 

over and over again expecting a different result. We are at a point 

in the claims process in the VA, where simply increasing the volume of effort with the wrong tools in the existing systems can’t be 

a solution that will improve the current state of affairs. We need 

to look at the system with fresh eyes and determine how a new 

outlook can help VA with the daunting task of managing a backlog 

such as this. 

This is not to say that an addition of workforce is not beneficial. 

Indeed, they have increased the workforce and that is a potential 

benefit. However, merely having more people making the same 

mistakes over and over again does not eliminate the problem of remands, appeals and cases that continue to bounce back and forth 

and get lost in the system. 

As we mentioned in the past, the way VA currently counts their 

workload does not encourage accuracy; it encourages volume. If a 

job is worth doing, it is worth doing right. Do the job right the first 

time. To count work credit is the same whether it is performed 

properly or whether details are overlooked, encourages corners to 

be cut when the pressure is on an employee. 

In the past, it has been proposed that VA count work credit when 

a claim reaches a final decision in a manner that the encouragement will be to perform every aspect of the claim correctly, since 

appeals over missed technical details, which make up a large percentage of the claims returned from both the court and the Board 

of Appeals, will only hamper the process and create mere lengthy 

delays in the claims process. 

To examine the figures, as I stated, from both the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(CAVC), it is pertinent to note that the vast number of the claims 

remanded through the system are for simple error, procedure, oversight, things that could be avoided with accountability and attention to detail, lack of proper examination, lack of fulfillment of the 

duty to assist veterans, even simple errors in letters sent to veterans all can be corrected if the credit were counted for doing the 

job right, not simply for shuffling the paper on to the next desk. 

All too often, the claims on appeal are further delayed as they 

bounce back and forth between the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and 

the Appeals Management Center (AMC) because the terms of the 

remands are not followed. Simply doing it right the first time can 

alleviate this and get the claims completed and out of the system. 

The development of claims presents another opportunity for improvement. Many claims are overdeveloped when the simple facts— 

the grant of service-connection are already present. Needless exams 

and searches for extra records continue to drag out the process. 

Furthermore, regarding development, the amendment of the understanding of section 1154, which has been discussed in other legislation, can streamline and reduce a great deal of the burden of 

additional development on the VA, a haste in the process of decision in the claims of veterans who are claiming incidents in combat 

zones. 

These are not unique to the current situation. Diabetes claims 

due to exposure to Agent Orange are often needlessly developed 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
6 

when the presumptions of exposure in connection have already 

been established and the veterans have already submitted private 

medical records indicating the severity of their condition is sufficient to rate their claims. They are sent for redundant VA exam, 

rather than closing out a claim early when they have already been 

given all the tools they need to grant the claim. 

One further area that, has received attention of late and has 

been a sign of improvement, though we must continue to push for 

improvement of late, but we must continue to push for improvement, is the ability to accurately and rapidly obtain the requisite 

records needed to adjudicate a claim. Confusion over locations of 

veterans’ military records, lack of ability to communicate between 

different agencies and to provide rapid access to the necessary information, is something that is improving and can continue to be 

improved and must be a focus of attempting to overhaul the system. 

Also present today is a veteran who can speak to this very problem. In the course of compiling a three-part story for The American 

Legion Magazine, we were made aware of Mr. David Bohan, who 

is seated next to me, a veteran of the first Gulf War, who has firsthand experience of just how frustrating the process can be. He is 

here today to tell his story in the hopes that the insight from the 

perspective of a veteran on the inside can help us come to a better 

understanding of where the fail points are and where we should 

work to improve the efficiency of the process. I hope you listen to 

his compelling story. 

I thank you on behalf of the American Legion. And as always, 

we stand ready to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. de Planque appears on p. 50.] 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Bohan, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BOHAN 

Mr. BOHAN. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of American veterans, including the veterans of the first Gulf War with whom I 

served. The topic which you are addressing today, the VA’s ability 

to handle the claims backlog, is very important to all of us who 

serve. 

I am David Bohan. I joined the U.S. Army right out of high 

school in 1987 and served with the 2nd Battalion of the 16th Infantry Division in the Gulf War. As some of you may know from the 

current series in The American Legion Magazine, our outfit was 

first across the breach in the ground war. My platoon refueled M1 tanks on the frontlines. We hauled tank trucks full of fuel across 

the desert to the tanks, despite cluster mines and Scud missile attacks. You don’t forget the feelings you get when the Iraqi Army 

sends a Scud into your camp. I received the bronze star for my 

noteworthy actions. 

I served 6 years and left Fort Riley, Kansas, the moment my discharge was completed in December 1992. Like thousands of other 

Gulf War One veterans, I was not offered any transition assistance 

programs when I was discharged. No one suggested that I get copies of records of any medical treatment I received in the military. 

There was no mention of VA benefits of any kind, whether you are 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
7 

talking about hospital care or counseling for Post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD). All I wanted to do was get home to Oregon as 

quickly as possible. This has continued to cause problems for me 

and my ability to get VA benefits. 

I spent most of the next 15 years trying to erase my memories 

of the war with alcohol. These were terrible years. Nothing worked. 

I had jobs at a variety of freight companies. I was married and divorced. Most of all, I drank. This was very hard for my family, but 

my mother and father stood by me. I didn’t realize it at the time, 

but I had severe Post-traumatic stress disorder. 

After an automobile accident involving a police officer last year, 

luckily no one was injured, I realized I had to stop drinking. I 

checked myself into a Roseburg, Oregon VA Medical Center inpatient alcohol treatment program. I’ve been clean and sober ever 

since and I am managing an apartment complex for my father. I 

am lucky. Many veterans do not have the fantastic family support 

that I have. I don’t know where I would be today without them. 

A counselor at the VA in Roseburg suggested I pursue a claim 

for my PTSD, for injuries to my left foot during the time I was stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas, and recommended I contact the American Legion for help. 

The VA system is confusing, overwhelming and is not at all 

friendly to veterans. So many of the people at VA are not—oh, I 

am sorry—so many of the people at VA are not veterans and don’t 

understand what we are going through. You end up feeling like 

some of them care more about their rules and regulations and paperwork than they care about the veterans. 

We veterans don’t have any idea where this piece of paper or 

that record is after all of the time. Regarding military records, we 

veterans don’t have any idea where our records are kept, and apparently, the military doesn’t know either. I was up late last night 

digging through boxes, looking for records to prove I was in the 

Army, that I was in the Gulf War, and that I had been in combat 

and that I had all of the necessary stressors to qualify for VA assistance. The memories from going through all of those materials 

from my Army days was very painful. 

With the help of American Legion Service Officer, Gregg 

Demarais, I received a PTS rating from the VA. But the issues 

with my foot have not yet been addressed. My medical records from 

Fort Riley are missing. I spent hours on the telephone, I have sent 

faxes. I have even sent e-mails. But after months of trying, no one 

can find my records. 

The hospital at Fort Riley says they do not have the records of 

the surgeries on my foot. I have contacted the National Personnel 

Records Center in St. Louis many, many times, but I still do not 

have the records of multiple surgeries on my foot. 

Until I can obtain those records and present them to VA, I cannot pursue the rest of my case. This is very frustrating and very 

time consuming. 

I understand why so many people just give up. We need to better 

assist veterans in need. There needs to be improvement in the communication between VA and other agencies in tracking down 

records. Whether it is through technology or something else, they 

need to be able to do it faster and more accurately so that they can 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
8 

avoid situations that cause needless delays by sending requests 

back and forth, over and over again, with no answers to provide to 

veterans. 

The system can work, however. Now that I am finally in the VA 

health care system, some good things have happened. Doctors operated on my arm and repaired nerve damage and restored feelings 

to my fingers. I am enrolling in college right now and I am going 

to pursue a business degree. I also try and help my fellow veterans 

get enrolled in the VA system and, where they need it, get into a 

drug and alcohol treatment program. I am happy to use my experiences to help, but I see many veterans go through the same frustrations that I have gone through. 

I am proud of my service and I am grateful for the assistance 

that I have received. But there has to be a way to make this easier 

for all of us. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bohan appears on p. 55.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. Mr. Bohan, and thank you for your service 

to this country. 

Mr. Jackson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT JACKSON 

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lamborn, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide 

testimony before this Subcommittee on the VA claims processing 

system. The 1.6 million men and women of the Veterans of Foreign 

War appreciate the voice you give them at these important hearings. 

Within 2 years of the conclusion of World War II, more than 16 

million servicemen and women were released from active duty. Millions filed claims with the VA for compensation. Why wasn’t the 

VA overwhelmed? 

Perhaps it is time to recognize that better production and timeliness levels achieved by the VA in the 1950s and 1960s may very 

well have been accomplished because there was less attention paid 

to procedural rights and that the VA may have exhibited a rather 

cavalier attitude when it came to interpreting the law and its own 

regulations. 

Whether you agree with either view of history, it is clear, the VA 

was able to make claim decisions quickly. Reexaminations were frequent and allowed VA to increase or reduce evaluations as disabilities worsened or improved. 

Today, claims development takes longer. Quite simply, Congress 

recognized that past procedures and practices by the VA were not 

always veteran-friendly, did not adequately tell veterans what was 

needed and would often lead to decision based on less than all of 

the available evidence. 

Decisions are longer because Congress decided that veterans 

should be told what evidence was considered and why benefits were 

denied or granted. Appeals take longer to resolve because of increased evidentiary and notice requirements, the introduction of 

additional review level and decision review officers in the need to 

satisfy all judicial mandates. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
9 

The fact is, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these 

changes. Those decisions were all needed to fix recognized problems 

and abuses. 

Having said that, how do you devise a system that allows VA to 

make decisions rapidly without increasing mistakes, is not costly 

either to the veteran or the American people and continues to provide veterans with the protections that have been built into the law 

over the past 60 years? 

Jerry Manar, who is the VFW’s Deputy Director of National Veterans Service, with assistance from the VFW staff and VA alumni, 

has developed a process that incorporates the best practices of a 

post-World War II claim system to make expedited provisional decisions based on existing records. 

This proposal, which calls for the creation of a test program entitled ‘‘The Provisional Claims Processing Program,’’ would grant 

benefits on limited information quickly, but with quality. 

Limited to servicemembers leaving the Armed Forces or recently 

discharged veterans, evaluations would be based on existing evidence, understanding that benefits for some conditions may be denied when further development would enable VA to grant serviceconnection under existing law. 

Conversely, it is also understood that benefits, based on existing 

evidence, may not be service connected when all evidence is eventually developed and considered. Consequently, a grant of benefits for 

any disability is not a grant of service-connection entitling the veteran to protections afforded by existing law and regulation. 

Under this program, full development, a VA examination and a 

new decision would be required 4 years after the initial provisional 

rating. Provisional decisions made under this program would have 

no precedent value and service-connection for all disabilities, including any new condition the veteran chooses to place into contention, would be made during the review at the 4-year point. 

This program would restore the rapid delivery of benefits based 

on current rating standards, while still maintaining veterans’ 

rights under a system of protections carefully crafted by Congress 

over the past 60 years. It should dramatically increase decisions on 

original claims while allowing the bulk of VA’s field staff to concentrate on resolving the existing backlog. 

More importantly, this program would provide a win for new veterans. In exchange for agreeing to wait for a final decision, they 

would receive a provisional decision and benefits in a matter of 

weeks instead of more than 6 months. If properly structured, the 

VA could fulfill the promise it made with the Benefits Delivery at 

Discharge (BDD) program that a decision could be made prior to 

discharge. 

Further, veterans have the right to choose which program they 

participate in after they know what the provisional decision 

awards. If they disagree with the provisional decision, they need 

not accept it. And, since they know that the current program may 

take 6 months or more to produce a decision, their conscious choice 

to accept the wait should reduce the number of complaints and consequent pressure on Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, I will be more than happy to provide you and the 

Members of the Committee with this updated copy of the proposal. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
10 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to respond to any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson appears on p. 56.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Baker, welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KERRY BAKER 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Lamborn. I am glad to be here today on behalf of the DAV. 

As you know, the claims process is extremely complex and 

lengthy. The VA estimates that it will decide over 940,000 claims 

in 2009. I suspect that number will be closer to one million. This 

is encouraging since it is close to 200,000 more claims than it decided just 2 years ago, signifying that VA is certainly utilizing the 

additional staffing provided by Congress over that same period. 

What is discouraging is that VA may actually receive just as 

many new claims as it decides this year, which is also close to 

200,000 more than just a couple of years ago. 

Short of growing VA’s workforce indefinitely, there are no simple 

solutions to this problem. The DAV, nonetheless, believes it has 

some solutions. 

To support that belief we have presented this Committee with 

DAV’s 21st Century claims process proposal, which is intended to 

simplify the process while preserving resources and reducing expenditures. 

Our proposal begins with the initial stages of the claims process 

and continues through the entire appellate process. Our recommendations are aimed at making efficient, a rather inefficient 

process, without sacrificing a single earned benefit. 

They include, one, amending 38 U.S. Code, section 5103A(b) to 

indicate that VA will assist a claimant in developing private medical records when such assistance is requested by the claimant on 

a form prescribed by the Secretary; two, amending sections 5103 

and 5103A to allow the VA to sua sponte, or on its own, waive all 

Veterans’ Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) requirements when it determines that the evidence of record is sufficient to award all benefits sought; amending section 51—I am sorry—number three, 

amending section 5104(a) as well as section 3.2600 in title 38 of the 

regulations so the VA could issue appeal election letters at the 

same time as the initial rating decision; four, amend section 7105 

to decrease the period in which a VA claimant may submit a timely 

notice of disagreement to the VA following the issuance of a VA 

rating decision from 1 year to 6 months but with the provisions 

added that you could extend for an additional 6 months without 

showing good cause and that you could equitably toll it if you are 

incapacitated mentally or physically at the end of that period. 

Those two issues are not part of the law at the current moment. 

Number five, amend section 7104 in a manner that would specifically incorporate an automatic waiver of regional office (RO) jurisdiction for any evidence received by the VA, to include the Board, 

after an appeal has been certified to the Board, following submission of a VA Form 9, unless the appellant or his or her representative expressly chooses not to waive such jurisdiction. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
11 

These and other suggested changes could result in reduced preappellate stage processing times between 30 to 90 days and as high 

as a 3-year reduction for certain post-remand appellate cases. 

Our written testimony contains many more details regarding 

these suggestions, to include how they could be incorporated into 

a new claims process further supported by a new electronic record 

and image scanning center. 

Nonetheless, out of the three phases of our proposal, the legislative changes that I just mentioned must be completed now. They 

will result in immediate progress over the growing claims workload 

and will further pave the way for future improvements. 

In closing, the VA will never be able to maximize its recent increases in staffing without making its processes more efficient. If 

such changes are made, the VA will see vast improvements in its 

entire claims process that are essential to achieving the broader 

goals of prompt and accurate decisions on claims. 

Likewise, only then will the VA be able to incorporate training, 

quality assurance and accountability programs demanded by the 

veterans’ community. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor to appear before you today 

and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker appears on p. 59.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Baker. 

And Ms. Natelson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RACHEL NATELSON, ESQ. 

Ms. NATELSON. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of 

the Service Women’s Action Network concerning the rising backlog 

of VA benefits claims. 

Although the benefits application process is labor intensive and 

emotionally taxing for all claimants, women veteran face particular 

challenges in obtaining disability compensation from the VA. 

To begin, studies indicate an institutional bias in favor of claimants with combat experience, an advantage which disproportionately favors men. Not only do claim processors fail to understand 

the degree to which women are effectively, if not nominally, serving 

in combat positions, but they also fail to appreciate the extent to 

which servicemembers in non-combat occupations and support roles 

are exposed to traumatic events. 

Among the most pervasive stressors experienced by military 

women are incidents of sexual assault and harassment. The prevalence of sexual assault in the military is hardly news, and has been 

the subject of a number of recent Congressional hearings and Pentagon reports. By some accounts, nearly a third of female veterans 

report episodes of sexual assault during military service, while 71 

to 90 percent report experiences of sexual harassment. 

These experiences are closely associated with PTSD in a variety 

of studies. In fact, military sexual assault is a stronger predictor 

of PTSD among women veterans than combat history. Likewise, 

studies indicate that sexual harassment causes the same rates of 

PTSD in women as combat does in men. 

In spite of this correlation, the VA grants benefits to a significantly smaller percentage of female than male PTSD claimants. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
12 

This disparity stems largely from the difficulties of substantiating 

experiences of military sexual assault, especially in a combat 

arena. 

Under military regulations, for example, sexual harassment investigations are only retained on file for 2 years from the close of 

each case. While criminal investigations of sexual assault are better documented, 80 percent of assault victims fail to report the offense and over 20 percent of those who do file reports opt for a restricted mode that precludes official investigation. 

Although training and reference materials for raters provide a 

great deal of guidance on how combat medals and commendations 

may be used to support PTSD claims, they make little mention of 

how to address the challenges of documenting military sexual assault as an in-service stressor. As a result, reviewers tend to rely 

on a limited group of behavioral changes in determining the validity of military sexual trauma (MST) claims, often denying them if 

they fail to conform to a rigid set of expectations. Many raters, for 

example, deny MST claims from veterans with distinguished service records based on the assumption that assault victims invariably 

decline in their job performance. 

Perhaps most frustrating is the tendency of claim processors to 

ignore or second guess the evaluations of treating physicians within the VA health system, particularly with respect to mental illness. Despite the fact that the majority of my own clients have submitted MST diagnoses from VA counselors, most have received decisions indicating that they have failed to establish the condition, 

much less connect it to their service history. 

By refusing to recognize the soundness of VA medical provider 

reports, reviewers both protract the application timeline and compromise the healing process for claimants. 

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on Veterans’ Compensation, a panel of experts convened by the VA to examine PTSD 

compensation issues, has proposed a number of sound recommendations based on its research. The Committee has suggested 

that the agency collect gender-specific data on MST claim decisions, 

develop additional MST-related reference material for raters, and 

incorporate training and testing on MST claims into its rater certification program. The VA should implement these proposals in 

order to sensitize claim reviewers to the needs of assault and harassment victims. 

In light of plans to create a comprehensive electronic records system for military personnel, the Department of Defense and the VA 

have an unusual opportunity to address the problem of documenting in-service incidents of sexual assault and harassment. 

In order to ensure that records of harassment and assault complaints may be accessed in support of VA claims, the military 

should incorporate, upon request, such investigative files into the 

proposed Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record. While such a 

step would not address the issue of under-reporting, it would at 

least improve the accessibility of existing records. 

The VA should also establish a presumption of soundness for the 

diagnoses of its own treating physicians and counselors. Claim reviewers should not have the authority to second-guess evaluations 

by agency medical professionals or to discount VA treatment 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
13 

records in favor of one-time Compensation and Pension (C&P) 

exam results. 

According to the IOM Committee, C&P examiners have reported 

particular pressure to limit the time they devote to PTSD and MST 

evaluations, sometimes to as little as 20 minutes. 

SWAN also supports H.R. 952, which would create a statutory 

presumption of service-connection for Operation Enduring Freedom 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans with PTSD and 

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). However, since statistics suggest 

that servicewomen are more likely to be sexually assaulted outside 

of combat zones than during deployment, we would propose extending such a presumption to all veterans who suffer from a traumatic 

event while in service. 

According to the Pentagon’s 2008 Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office report, fewer than 10 percent of the assault incidents reported last year occurred in combat zones. 

Thanks very much for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Natelson appears on p. 63.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. Natelson. 

I will recognize myself for a round of questions. 

Mr. de Planque, there have been some concerns and 

misperceptions about the role of service-connection in being able to 

access VA health care. If a veteran is not service connected, then 

how likely is it that he or she will get turned down for VA health 

care treatment? Should veterans with claims pending adjudication 

be eligible for VA health care? And should mental health counseling be offered to all veterans enduring the stress with the VA 

disability claims processing system? 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. In the sense of that, Mr. Chairman, it is actually, it is a slightly complicated issue and there have been a number of things that have changed, although they are attempting to 

bring them back forward. 

In 2003, when the category 8 veterans were shut out of VA from 

treatment, it made it very difficult for them to receive treatment 

for medical conditions, and that is being phased back in. 

However, veterans who are serving now in the present conflict 

are entitled to 5 years of VA health care after they demobilize, 

after they are discharged from the military, and it will run out 

after that point and it will—they will not be able to get health care 

for the conditions that are not service connected. They will not be 

able to get health care for the condition that are not service connected. 

With regards to mental health care, in many of the VA outreach 

clinics, they are not in a position to be turning people away from 

trying to get the care they need, but they are not always capable 

of getting the full level of care that particularly severe cases of 

mental disorders which can arise. 

It is possible to get some degree of health care within certain circumstances when you fall into certain categories as a veteran, but 

in terms of an all-inclusive group of veterans being able to receive 

health care if they are not service connected for a condition, then 

that is not the case. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
14 

Mr. HALL. I would ask you one more question, if I may, which 

is that some of the solutions highlighted in your testimony were already considered and enacted by Congress in Public Law 110–389. 

Do you think these provisions are sufficient or are there other legislative changes the Legion would like to see Congress enact? 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. In some senses with the changes which have 

been enacted, they have all been enacted very recently and we are 

seeing promising signing, for example, with what VA is beginning 

to do with improving electronic communication and making forays 

into the IT solutions. They are showing promising signs, but it is 

still very, very early to determine how overall effective those will 

be. 

As I have stated before, it would be beneficial to work with the 

changes that are creating improvements, but we don’t want to just 

change the set of tools that continue to operate within the same 

system. If you are continuing to make the same problems but doing 

it electronically, that doesn’t make it any better than if you are 

making the same mistakes and doing them on paper. 

In terms of legislative solutions which could be brought forward, 

already up for consideration are as we mentioned in our testimony, 

the changes to the section 1154, which covers veterans, currently 

covers veterans who have engaged in combat in proving the occurrence of incidents that are consistent with combat and the expansion of it to combat zones, as we recognize the nonlinear battlefield 

to modern warfare and that the documentation of all such incidents 

for all soldiers, not just soldiers who have infantry cross rifles and 

can get a combat infantry badge, not just soldiers who are wounded 

and receive a purple heart, which makes things obvious, but all the 

soldiers who are deployed to combat zones and experience these incidents, which are sometimes difficult to document. 

So continuing to work toward that legislation and pass solutions 

on that front would be a great help in reducing a lot of the workload on VA because it would reduce a lot of their burden for overdeveloping. They would be able to grant the one point of a case and 

move on, and they wouldn’t spend a lot of time needlessly developing. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Bohan, once again, thank you for your testimony and your 

service, and it sounds like nobody from VA mentioned to you that 

you could file a claim, even though you were in treatment for over 

15 years before you did file. Would your experience with this process have been easier if you had filed a claim right away? 

Mr. BOHAN. Mr. Chairman, not knowing with the technology 

back then, at that point, I am assuming there would be road blocks 

also, as well, but that is hard to say because I did not file back at 

that time. 

Mr. HALL. Fair enough. Thank you. 

Mr. Jackson, I am interested in the provisional claims processing 

proposal that you mentioned in your testimony. Would you elaborate on how it would work practically by walking us quickly 

through the first steps of finality for a veteran who might file a 

claim under this system? 

Mr. JACKSON. My pleasure, Mr. Chairman. What this does is it 

essentially is not a, it is not a permanent fix. What it does is bides 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
15 

times. What you are doing, you are allowing existing information 

to be used for a provisional rating. The veteran, then, if he or she 

decides that that rating is not what they think is sufficient, then 

they can continue the process that they normally would. 

The goal of the provisional proposal that Jerry has created is to 

get claims, new claims through the system quickly, allowing the 

VA workforce to work on the backlog. It is something that is not 

going to be a permanent fix, but is something that could certainly 

alleviate some of the workload. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson. 

I will now yield to Ranking Member Lamborn for a round of 

questions. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And you all have been very helpful and have had interesting 

things to offer today. But following up on the question that was 

just asked by the Chairman on the provisional suggestion, what recourse would a veteran have under this program if their condition 

worsens and they wanted an increased rating between the time 

they were initially rated and the final rating 4 years later? 

Mr. JACKSON. The way the proposal is written currently, that 

once the veteran received the provisional rating, they are going to 

have wait for the 4-year point, so they will get the provisional rating. They either accept it. If they accept it, then they do a full development and an evaluation at the 4-year point, and if it is determined that there is more needed, then obviously that will come out 

at that time. 

Conversely, if it turns out that the evidence shows that perhaps 

the provisional rating was a little bit high, then that is going to 

bear out as well. 

But once the veteran decides, the way the proposal is written, 

once the veteran decides to take the provisional rating, they will 

have to wait until the 4-year point to have it changed. And it does 

not stop the veteran. Let us say the injury that they have received, 

the initial injury becomes worse. It does not stop that veteran from 

being able to show that the injury has worsened or the disease has 

worsened in that 4-year period of time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Now, conversely, could they see their compensation reduced and go in the other direction at the end of the 4 years? 

Mr. JACKSON. Well, that would always—yeah, that would always 

be a possibility. It would be a possibility that the initial rating 

might have been too high and then it would have to be lowered, 

obviously, with the full developmental workup, the evaluation. 

So it is conceivable that the veteran could see the benefit lessen. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you. 

And for Mr. de Planque, I hope I said that correctly, you discussed at length the problems with brokering claims and how the 

quality of these claims is lacking. What would you propose the VA 

do to improve the quality? 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. Thank you, Ranking Member Lamborn. And 

it’s de Planque or de Planque. Both get used. 

Some of the problems that we have seen in brokering, and these 

are all anecdotal with the American Legion and with National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP). We travel and do reviews 

of regional offices and you can see a claim that gets brokered out 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
16 

that has, say, four issues and they take one small issue that is in 

it, rate that and defer the other three issues and send it back to 

the original office. Well, they get a work credit for where it is—has 

been brokered, but it has been sent back and the work isn’t actually getting done. 

In some cases it is, and the idea of pushing a workload to places 

that can accept it better is not in theory a bad thing, but it needs 

to be executed well. And one of the things that I spoke to in my 

oral remarks is the working toward a system where you are counting credit, where you are working credit for cases that have been 

done properly, cases that have been done completely, cases where 

it was done right the first time because that saves the VA from 

having to continue to process cases that are bouncing back and 

forth in the system. 

And so that is what I would say. Go to that principle of regardless of where you are sending the claim, get it done right the first 

time and it won’t bounce around in the system. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And Mr. de Planque, how specifically would the 

VA reward the decision-making that is done right the first time, 

which is, I think, what we are all after? 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. That is correct. It was proposed in the past. I 

know there was a proposal at one point from NVLSP, but there 

have been other things that are similar, to change the way that 

they count work credit. And in the short term, obviously, there 

would be a certain amount of upheaval with this, and it would be 

difficult to measure as you change to any sort of new system. 

But where work credit would not be granted until the case was 

finally decided and, therefore, if you are just passing along a case 

that is going to get remanded, that is going to have missing details 

and get appealed, you are not setting yourself up for success because you are setting up a case that is going to take a long time 

to give you work credit. 

Whereas, if you do the details right and make it impossible to 

be remanded because there aren’t details such as that, then you get 

the work credit faster because it is counted when the claim is finally decided. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all for being here 

and, like the Chairman said, thank you for your patience as well. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 

If I may, I would just like to ask Mr. Baker a question. 

In listening to your testimony, I am reminded that over a year 

ago at a hearing we held on artificial intelligence and Dr. Randy 

Miller, Chair of Biomedical Bio-Informatics at Vanderbilt University, made similar observations about reducing the days to process 

claims by using clinical informatics, which is what your imaging 

scanning center would seem to do. 

Have you also considered the idea that the scanned image should 

also be converted into a standardized electronically processable format? What is the feasibility of implementing the proposed centralized information system that you mentioned in your testimony? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you are talking about, are we 

suggesting if you use something like an image scanning center, 

would you do more than just copy the document, would you have 

a workable format that could provide some form of a database and 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
17 

searchable tool, that would absolutely be preferable. It would allow 

people to search the claims file much, much easier than sitting 

there having to read, you know, a thousand pages on the computer. 

The feasibility of that, I am afraid I just, I don’t have the expertise. I don’t know where VA is in their IT development, you know, 

if they could do something like that. 

As I understand it, there are a lot of companies out there and 

processes out there that can capture that sort of data. I just don’t 

know where VA is with that technology. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. Your plan also calls for a reduction in 

time from 1 year to 180 days of the time that a veteran can make 

an appeal, but then allows them the opportunity to ask for an extension. Other insurance programs have restrictions that do not 

allow an appeal after the due date. 

Are there circumstances under which you could foresee a case 

being closed and appeal disallowed, and should there be a limitation on the number of times that a veteran can appeal the same 

condition without new evidence? 

Mr. BAKER. I can see where one could get closed and disallowed 

if they allowed the 6 months to run out and they did not request 

an extension and they couldn’t show any cause as to why their appeal should be equitably tolled. That would be no different than the 

appeal running in excess of the 1-year point right now. Only, right 

now they cannot request an extension and they cannot be equitably 

tolled. The courts have stopped short of addressing that issue with 

the appellate period. 

So you know, we realized that the 6-month issue may not be met 

with a lot of favoritism up front, but when you are providing a couple of extra benefits that a lot of people are going without right 

now, which is the extensive and equitable tolling, we think that is 

more than fair, it is still 6 months we are talking about. The average time it takes VA to get a notice of disagreement is 41 days. 

Ninety-two percent of all appeals were received in the first 6 

months. 

So you know, we think in the long run the system will be much 

better with that. But you had a second part of that question. 

Mr. HALL. Should there be a limitation on the number of times 

a veteran can appeal the same condition without new evidence? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, VA has a process now. A lot of people get it 

confused. If you reapply for the same thing you have been denied 

for and you don’t have any new evidence, what you normally get 

is, what you will get is a decision saying you haven’t presented new 

evidence, your claim is not reopened. 

However, that issue in and of itself can be appealed all the way 

up to the courts. So it is in effect a claim in the system. The claim 

is an appeal to reopen the claim. During the appellate process, that 

could be decided in favor of the veteran, and it goes all the way 

back down in the beginning just to be reopened and the actual 

issue decided. So I mean, there is some convolution there. 

How do you go about, you know, rectifying that? I wouldn’t suggest that you simply not allow the veteran to reopen anything 

without new evidence. I mean, there’s a fine line where you start 

taking away rights at some point. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
18 

But if they had no evidence whatsoever, well, that is kind of 

what they do now. You just can appeal that decision just like you 

could appeal anything else. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Natelson, thank you first of all for your support of H.R. 952. 

The information that you have presented on women veterans corroborates what we have heard before at our hearings. 

When the Department of Defense appeared at one of these hearings, they described their PTSD approach as relying on the opinion 

of the medical examiner, which is what it seems you are suggesting. So if VA, like DoD, instituted a disability evaluation system that relied more on medical opinions and psychometric testing 

results, do you think that this change would be reliable enough for 

the establishment of compensation? 

Ms. NATELSON. Well, I think that there is value in allowing, you 

know, a VA professional who has a treating relationship with the 

claimant to have their word, you know, taken at face value. Presumably since these are VA medical professionals, there has been 

some sort of vetting and some sort of determination that their credentials are appropriate. 

So it doesn’t make very much sense to me that if somebody has 

been in a treating relationship with a medical professional or a 

counselor employed by the VA on the Veterans Health Administration side of the equation, that you know, that somebody on the benefits side of the equation should somehow decide that, you know, 

that person’s word isn’t good enough. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Last, would you please elaborate on your recommendation to incorporate upon request investigative files of harassment and sexual 

assault into the Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record? How 

would this help women veterans? 

Ms. NATELSON. Well, an enormous problem for women with military sexual trauma in, you know, establishing their in-service 

stressor, is that it is so hard to obtain those documents. 

As I say, there are actual military policies, especially with harassment as opposed to an actual criminal case of assault that prevent records from being even kept on file for more than a couple 

of years. So if somehow the documents that do exist could be memorialized and kept within the system, you know, for as long as 

possible so that if the claimant elected to, they could use that in 

support of their claim, I think that, you know, that would be very 

helpful toward establishing that, you know, there was an in-service 

stressor. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. Natelson. 

Thank you to all of our panelists for your service to our country, 

for your service to our veterans and for coming here and your patience and your testimony today. 

And you are now excused to enjoy the rest of your evening. And 

I will give you a minute to move and then ask our second panel 

to join us. 

Our second panel witnesses include Lieutenant James Terry 

Scott, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Michael 

Ratajczak—is that the correct pronunciation? 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
19 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. That’s fine. 

Mr. HALL. Decision Review Officer of the Cleveland Regional VA, 

testifying on behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees. 

Welcome to both of you. Your complete written statements are a 

part of the hearing records, so feel free to abridge or improvise. 

Lieutenant General Scott, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES TERRY SCOTT, 

USA (RET.), CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DISABILITY COMPENSATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS; MICHAEL RATAJCZAK, DECISION REVIEW OFFICER, VETERANS AFFAIRS CLEVELAND REGIONAL OFFICE, 

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN 

FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL 

JAMES TERRY SCOTT, USA (RET.) 

General SCOTT. Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn, it is 

my pleasure to be with you today representing the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation. This Committee is chartered by 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 

§ 546 and in compliance with Public Law 110–389 to advise the 

Secretary with respect to the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. 

Our charter is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the needs of veterans with disabilities, provide information 

relating to the character of disabilities arising from service in the 

Armed Forces, provide an on-going assessment of the effectiveness 

of the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities, and provide ongoing advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of 

veterans relating to disability compensation in the future. 

The Committee has met eight times and is drafting an interim 

report to the Secretary that addresses our efforts to date. Our focus 

is in three areas of disability compensation: The requirements and 

methodology for reviewing and updating the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), the rating schedule; 

the adequacy and sequencing of transition compensation and procedures for servicemembers as they transition to veteran status with 

special emphasis on the seriously ill or wounded servicemembers; 

and the disability compensation for non-economic loss, often referred to as quality of life. 

Your letter asked me to present my views on the issues surrounding the VA’s disability claims processing system. The Committee’s charter and efforts to date have addressed the processing 

system only in the sense that an updated and clarified Rating 

Schedule will enable examining, rating and reviewing officials to 

make a more accurate and timely assessment of a veteran’s disability and its effect on his or her average earnings loss. An updated and clarified Rating Schedule should improve first-time accuracy and reduce the number of appeals and the backlog that appeals create. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
20 

I might also add, Mr. Chairman, that I was Chairman of the Veteran Disability Benefits Commission which met from 2004 to 2007 

and provided a 600-page report with 112 recommendations to the 

President and the Congress and so I feel like I can discuss some 

of these other things that this particular Committee I am chairing 

now is not responsible for, if you want to expand into that area of 

the backlog. 

There has been a lot of recent studies, the Veterans Disability 

Benefits Commission that I chaired, the Institute of Medicine, the 

General Accounting Office and others have consistently recommended a systematic review and update for the VASRD. The 

Congress has repeatedly demanded the same. I believe that the 

case for such a system is made. 

My Committee has informally recommended to the Secretary 

that the Deputy Secretary be tasked with oversight of the VASRD 

systematic review and update process to ensure that the Veterans 

Benefits Administration (VBA), the VHA and the General Counsel 

are fully integrated into the process. 

We are also offering a proposed level of permanent staffing in 

both VBA and VHA to ensure that all 15 body systems are reviewed and updated, as necessary, in a timely way. We are proposing a priority among the body systems that takes into account 

the following: Body systems that are at greatest risk of inappropriate evaluations; body systems that are considered problem 

prone, and the relative number of veterans and the amount of veterans’ payments associated with each of the systems. 

Regarding disability compensation for non-economic loss, also referred to as quality of life, we are reviewing the Special Monthly 

Compensation Program and also analyzing options for forms of 

compensation beyond a monetary stipend. 

Regarding disability compensation related to the transition from 

servicemember to veteran status, we are reviewing the many recent changes and improvements to the transition programs to determine if and where gaps in coverage and assistance may remain 

for veterans and families. We are also reviewing the Vocational Rehabilitation and Education program as it relates to transition for 

disabled veterans. 

In summary, our Committee’s work is progressing on a broad 

front. The parameters of our charter offer us the opportunity to 

look at all aspects of disability compensation and we are doing so. 

The Committee has excellent access to the Secretary and his staff. 

The VA staff is responsive and helpful to the Committee’s requests 

for information. It is our intent to offer interim reports to the Secretary semi-annually. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I welcome any comments or questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Scott appears on p. 65.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, General. 

Mr. Ratajczak, is it, Ratajczak? 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. Ratajczak. 

Mr. HALL. Ratajczak. Sounds like a drum lick from my old days 

in the music business. 

You are now recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
21 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL RATAJCZAK 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. Thank you. Thank for providing the AFGE the 

opportunity to speak today. 

The simple answer that we have to the question of whether the 

VA can handle a million claims or any other number of claims is 

that, yes, we can. We can because we have to. We can’t fail the people who have never failed us. 

We believe that, ultimately, the best way to improve the claims 

process is to do each claim right the first time. And consequently, 

AFGE would like to emphasize opportunities to increase quality in 

claims processing presented by Public Law 110–389 as a means of 

reducing the claims inventory. 

First, AFGE encourages VBA to seriously consider modifying the 

claims processing initiative that began about 8 years ago and that 

may be partially responsible for the diminished quality of adjudicated claims and the growing inventory. Mr. Walcoff’s written 

statement indicates that VBA started this process by contracting 

with Booz Allen Hamilton for a study, and I think that is a good 

first step. 

We would like to suggest, however, that Public Law 110–389 requires an independent analysis of the effectiveness of VBA’s policies for brokering cases between regional offices. 

AFGE has been advised of preliminary findings by Booz Allen 

Hamilton that indicate that the more the claims file is moved from 

one place to another or one person to another within a regional office, the less efficient the claims process becomes. And we would 

suggest that that conclusion begs consideration by VBA management that there are obvious implications concerning transferring 

files between regional offices. 

One of the greatest flaws in the VBA claims process has been the 

failure to set employee workload requirements based on valid empirical data. VBA must, by now, recognize that it needs such data 

to accurately project its workforce needs. We hope that VBA will 

take the opportunity provided by Public Law 110–389 seriously and 

with no preconceptions, identify how much an employee can reasonably be expected to do within an acceptable level of accuracy, 

and then project a number of employees it needs to process its inventory based upon that data. 

If VBA does not know what its employees can actually accomplish, it can never accurately project its resource needs and will be 

continually plagued by questions of whether it can handle its inventory. Public Law 110–389 also provides VBA with a valuable 

opportunity to ensure that managers and employees who perform 

quality review within VBA have minimal confidence by requiring 

them to pass certification tests. 

We are troubled that in our recent discussions with VBA, VBA 

has maintained that employees who perform quality review need 

not be subject to certification since they are not considered directly 

responsible for processing claims. That argument is based on the 

incorrect assumption that Congress does not consider quality assurance part of the claims process. 

AGFE and many others have consistently criticized VBA for emphasizing quantity over claims—I am sorry—over quality in claims 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
22 

processing and Public Law 110–389 was enacted, in part, as a result of those criticisms. 

Our workforce is becoming increasingly frustrated because managers and other employees who evaluate our work often lack sufficient expertise to do so. Therefore, we urge this Subcommittee to 

clarify that quality review and quality reviewers are covered by a 

certification requirement. 

We also urge greater transparency in the process for designing 

and administrating management certification tests. AFGE is concerned that the design process for certification testing of first line 

supervisors has already begun, and AFGE has yet to be solicited 

to participate in that process. 

In addition to showing transparency, we believe it will be useful 

for VBA to consider the attributes of successful managers from the 

standpoint of those they supervise when designing management 

certification tests. 

Finally, AFGE suggests that VBA begin the process of converting 

to a paperless environment by scanning documents, first those associated with all new initial claims. We also suggest that the contents of any claims file that is transferred from one regional office 

to another to be transferred to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals be 

converted to an electronic format first. 

Converting those files to a paperless format will eliminate the 

need for costly physical transfer of claims files and reduce the possibility of losing important documents. It will ensure that documents received after transfer of the claims file are associated with 

the file in the most efficient manner. And making claims electronic 

before they are transferred will also ensure that coexisting claims 

can be worked accurately and simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration is faced with a challenging 

claims inventory. However, Public Law 110–389 gives VBA tremendous opportunities to improve service to claimants and become 

more accurate and efficient and reduce pending inventory to a 

more acceptable level. 

Most importantly, this legislation provides new tools to ensure 

that VBA never again faces the challenges confronting it today. 

VBA must consider how to leverage the requirements of Public Law 

110–389 to best serve claimants, and to do so, VBA must consult 

with and be open to suggestions from all interested parties, including its workforce. Our claimants deserve that and they have every 

right to expect it. 

I would be happy to address any questions the panel may have, 

and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ratajczak appears on p. 66.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Ratajczak. 

And, General, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Ratajczak, I am relieved to hear the positive assertion in 

your testimony that VA can meet the challenges that approaching 

a million cases will present. 

What do you think, on average, would be a reasonable number 

of claims for a rater to be able to decide on a given day? 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. Our experience is that three cases a day. I think 

that the most workable workload performance standard in the VBA 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
23 

right now is the standard that applies to Decision Review Officers. 

Decision Review Officers are required to create—I am sorry—to obtain three production points a day. 

But what sets that standard aside from the standards that are 

applicable to rating specialists is that Decision Review Officers get 

credit for properly developing a case, and rating specialists do not 

do that. I think that would be a start, a starting point. However, 

ultimately we would like to see a study done that says or that 

shows what fully trained rating specialists can actually do in a day 

and use that as a standard and as a starting point for determining 

what an adequate workforce is. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Ratajczak, should claims also be assigned to, to 

an individual employee and not just to a team to improve accountability and training opportunities? 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. I don’t believe that it should be assigned to an 

individual employee. I think a team approach is better. I don’t 

think we have that with the current claims processing initiative 

model. That is more of an assembly line approach where the claims 

file can be transferred amongst employees to do essentially the 

same work, and it requires each employee who touches the file to 

become familiar with it ab initio. 

The better process, I think, and the better solution would be to 

have teams of claims processors where you have a specific person 

assigned to develop the evidence in the case, a rating specialist sitting in very close proximity to them that can help them direct development of the case so that if, indeed, there is enough evidence 

to evaluate the claim to establish service-connection, that could be 

done without overdeveloping the case. 

Mr. HALL. General Scott, in your testimony you note that you 

have already made a recommendation to the Secretary that permanent staffing be assigned to revise the rating schedule. Is this a 

recommendation that will require additional positions to be created, or can this be managed within the current workforce? 

General SCOTT. It will require the reallocation of resources or, 

you know, I wouldn’t presume to tell to the Secretary whether he 

had to hire more people or just make adjustments internally, and 

I believe he is very serious about trying to get this, a systematic 

review and updating of the schedule underway. And in order to do 

this, there is no question that it is going to require a significant 

number of permanently assigned people in the VBA and in the 

VHA, and we probably got more prescriptive than the Secretary 

will like. 

But just to give you some idea of numbers, it is our Committee’s 

view that in order to do this properly, you need about nine fulltime equivalent (FTE) people in the VBA side of it and probably 

about five or six full-time equivalents in the VHA side of it. But 

I would like to reiterate, the problem, or part of the problem is that 

at the moment, there is one person working on the update of the 

rating schedule, a Dr. McBrian, well known to everybody. 

And so, what we believe is that, first of all, this whole project has 

got to be elevated because in the judgment of my Committee, only 

the Secretary or the Deputy can pull together the VHA, the VBA 

and the General Counsel to make this thing move. And if we are 

serious about updating these 15 body systems in a timely way, I 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
24 

believe that is going to be the requirement. So, you know, I am 

sure that the Secretary will refine this estimate of people, but I 

would say somewhere around 15 or 16 full-time people. Some of 

them are going to have to be medical professionals and some of 

them will have to be administrative people, to do this because, as 

you know, sir, it is a very complex issue to update one of these 

body systems. 

Mr. HALL. It seems like more than one person’s work, to the layman anyway. 

I would ask you if there are any institutional or cultural resistances within the VA that you have seen that would require change 

and how can we address those issues? 

General SCOTT. I look at it as more of a resistance to pulling people together into a group to do this job under the supervision of a 

high enough official who has authority over all the aspects, the 

VBA, the VHA and the General Counsel. So I would say it is more 

of a cultural barrier than anything else. 

And, for instance, when the VA prepared the TBI evaluation— 

the Traumatic Brain Injury—they did a tremendously good job in 

the eyes of many. It took 18 months, and they were able to put together an ad hoc team to do this over an 18-month period. 

But what we would like to see is get away from that hocracy, get 

to an element whose job it is, is to do this. One body system after 

another, and as I said, we even offered our thoughts on what the 

priority might be. As a matter of fact, I could tell you we thought 

that probably at the beginning would be probably mental disorders 

because that seems to be an area of where the rating schedule 

needs probably the most work; musculoskeletal, because that is 

where most of the money goes and that is where the largest number of disabilities are; neurological and on down the line. So we had 

a rationale for offering that. 

But in order to revise the rating schedule in a 5-year period, a 

3 to 5-year period is going to require dedicated assets and high 

level leadership, and that serves the point that we are trying to 

make. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. I will now recognize Ranking Member 

Lamborn for his questions. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In your discussion of the training study that was required in 

109–461, you said that you were in favor of centralized training. 

How would this be different from the courses already offered at the 

VBA Training Academy in Baltimore? 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. The difference would be that it would be ongoing 

training beyond the initial training. Challenge training in Baltimore at the Academy, at this point in time, is basically for new 

hires or for folks who are transitioning from one position in VBA 

to another. What we would like to see happen is that we have a 

dedicated corps of instructors that serve under the direction of 

Compensation and Pension Service who are responsible for training 

the people at VA regional offices in accordance with the policy and 

the directives of Compensation and Pension Service. That would 

ensure that there is a uniformity amongst VA regional offices with 

regard to how new material is presented and how rating specialists 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
25 

and development veterans service representatives (VSRs) are 

trained to implement new policies or to address changes in the law. 

What we have now is a system where every regional office looks 

at the Compensation and Pension Service directives, their raw material, a fast letter or training letter, makes an interpretation of 

what that means and presents the information in that fast letter 

or training letter to their personnel. And I think, in large part, that 

is why we have such a wide disparity in the way different regional 

offices approach claims. And that is reflected in the inter-rater reliability studies that have recently been undertaken by VBA. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Also, in your written testimony, I was concerned where you describe reports of significant numbers of new 

VSRs and rating veterans service representatives (RVSRs) being 

fired during their probationary periods for poor performance, even 

though they had not completed mandatory training. Can you elaborate on this assertion and can you provide this Committee more information on this allegation? 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. I can’t provide specific number because it is really anecdotal evidence that AFGE gets from the field. I can provide 

a specific example that I was informed of. And that is, we had a 

rating specialist hired in the VBA who happened to be retired from 

a county prosecutor’s office. In the capacity as a county prosecutor, 

this person was primarily responsible for prosecuting death penalty 

cases and pursuing appeals in death penalty cases. Those of you 

who are attorneys, are familiar with the law, understand that 

those are the most complex issues that you can face. 

This particular person came in after he retired from the county 

prosecutor’s office and wanted to be a rating specialist. He was a 

veteran and he wanted to help veterans and he thought that was 

the best way he could do it, as a second career. He went to Challenge Training in Baltimore. He came back to his home station. He 

was thrown into the mix, rating cases. There was no follow up, necessarily, with regard to a standard curriculum for his training. He 

took a great deal of time rating cases. He wrote very good decisions, and ultimately he was shown the door prior to his 1-year 

probationary period coming up. 

And on his way out, his immediate supervisor told him that 

there was simply no way that he had the intellectual ability to 

grasp the requirements of writing a rating decision. And that 

seemed rather appalling to me. 

The fact of the matter is, people come into the VBA, they have 

very good intentions, and almost all of them are trainable to the 

point where they can do a good, quality job. The problem is, they 

are not trained correctly. The training that is provided is too often 

derailed for other purposes, and ultimately we end up with folks 

who either cannot produce adequately or cannot produce accurately. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So you are personally acquainted with the one 

case? 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. I have personal knowledge of that case but, 

again, I have reports of many other cases. I cannot provide a number. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
26 

Mrs. Halvorson. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Thank you, also, panelists for being patient with us today and 

staying. 

We have had several hearings on the backlog, and I am going to 

try to keep this as simple as possible. 

One of the biggest problems and things that people call my office 

for are veterans issues. Against those is the backlog and why their 

claims are denied forces them into appealing, which causes your 

backlog to be even bigger. 

Now, when you say a team is going to work on something, who 

answers the questions, then, if somebody calls in? I mean, who answers them? I mean, if you don’t have just one person working on 

a claim from start to finish because I looked at this form, and there 

are more steps on this form than I thought that anybody could perform. 

This is about taking care of our veterans, helping them with 

their problems and fixing them. And I am very frustrated that we 

have to deal with claims that are denied because of God knows 

what kind of issues, and then they are appealed, when you could 

just take care of them the first time around. 

So I have great respect for the process, but every time I ask 

questions, I don’t know how to narrow it down, keep it simple and 

take care of our veterans. I mean, it is a simple thing and if we 

need better people or better trainers, we need to get it simpler and 

if you don’t have systems that talk to each other, maybe we need 

to work on that. But can we simplify this and who it is that we 

are just not taking care of our veterans the way we should and 

forcing them to appeal something that has been denied possibly 

wrongly? 

And I don’t know who wants to go first. 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. I think your, I think our Members feel very similar the way you do. There is nothing in our adjudication manual 

that is listing under the heading, ‘‘Do the right thing.’’ And the 

problem is that too often we are told that you approach a claim by 

reference to a checklist when, in all honesty, if we just simply exercise reasonable doubt the way it should be exercised, read claims 

sympathetically and pick up a phone and give a veteran a call and 

say, hey, this is what you said, I don’t quite understand it, and 

maybe if what you mean is this, I can grant you a benefit, can I 

help you. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. And why aren’t we doing that? 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. Because we are not giving credit for doing it. 

And that is a dysfunction with regard to the Workload Management Program that VBA currently suffers. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. Because I have a lot of caseworkers in my office, and I don’t let them share cases. I want them starting it and 

finishing it because when there is a question, one person can answer the question because if you have a team of five people working on something, you are going to get five different answers depending on who answers the call. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
27 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. I agree, and it is somewhat, it would be somewhat of a complicated process for one person to handle a VA claim 

from start to finish. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. And I understand that. 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. But one of the things that we tried to bring forward in our testimony is that one of the problems that complicates 

things for veterans is the fact that cases are brokered all over the 

country. So if it is bad enough that you don’t have three people in 

a regional office who area familiar with a claim, think about a veteran’s frustration when he has to chase his claims files all over the 

United States. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. Oh, I hear it everyday. 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. He sends in a letter and he sends it, for example, to the Cleveland Regional Office, but it doesn’t get to where 

the claims file is in Waco for 2 months, and by that time Waco has 

done what they needed to do with that file and sent it back. So it 

is very frustrating. 

I think the best solution is to have a very discreet number of individuals who are assigned for a given claim and keep the claim 

with them from start to finish as best you possibly can. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. And the only other question I have is, now I 

know that we are working towards electronic medical records, but 

the problem being that some systems don’t talk to each other. 

Now, I traveled to Kuwait, Afghanistan, Landstuhl, to see how 

we can better serve our veterans and provide a better system of 

transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. And in Landstuhl, Germany, they were showing 

me how they have their electronic medical records and there has 

got to be a way—I have an IPod and I am not technologically 

savvy, but there has got to be a way that everybody could have 

their medical records with them somehow that we should not be 

losing things. We should not be misplacing them. They should not 

be shredded. There has got to be a simple way. 

So I don’t want to put you on the spot now, but if you have any 

ideas, I think that it is something that we have to work on. I think 

this would cause or help a lot of the problems that we are seeing. 

And I don’t know. You don’t have to agree with me, but that is 

what I see in my office. 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. I do agree with you and I think as we go forward 

and the Department of Defense records are more easily accessible 

to us, we will have less of a problem with that. 

The problem that we really have is with veterans from, say, the 

gentleman who spoke earlier, from 1991, 1993, where we could not 

access the DoD records electronically. So then it becomes a matter 

of trying to trace down hard copies of medical records through the 

National Personnel Records Center, individual States, National 

Guard units, things of that nature, and that really is a slow process, and I understand it is frustrating. I think perhaps Mr. Walcoff 

would be better at addressing how to approach that. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mrs. Halvorson. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
28 

Am I to understand, then, Mr. Ratajczak that you now are able 

to access DoD records electronically? 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. We are not able to access all the active-duty 

records electronically, but many of the records, for example, if a 

veteran is discharged from service and then goes to Wright-Patterson Air Force base, we can access many of those records. 

And, generally, my experience has been that it is not that difficult to get records, recent medical records from military hospitals 

in support of a claim. It is the older records that really present the 

problems. 

Mr. HALL. Well, that makes sense and both of you talked in your, 

General Scott and Mr. Ratajczak, you talked and wrote in your 

written testimony about the IT strategic plan and the feasibility for 

VBA to manage in a paperless environment. 

We have heard testimony here from Judge Kasold from CAVC in 

which he mentioned that by the time the files get to him, the cases 

get to him, they all are in electronic form. And both, Mrs. 

Halvorson and I, witnessed in Afghanistan or Iraq or Kuwait that 

doctors treating our servicemen in active duty are entering information about injuries and treatment in the field into an electronic 

record and that in Landstuhl, Germany, they are dealing with an 

electronic record, and somewhere in between there is this black 

hole of paper that they fall into where they have to be printed out 

and then reentered again. 

And many of us are longing for the day, and have been asking 

for, you know, the last couple of years, like, what do we have to 

do to bring these two ends together so that they talk—electronically you have that handoff of information. 

I would just ask you both, in closing, to guess how much of improvement it would be or, conversely, how much of the current 

problem, in terms of timely ratings, is because of the lack of an 

electronic compatibility between DoD and VA? 

Mr. RATAJCZAK. I think we could significantly reduce claims processing if we were able to share that information. And that will improve things slowly over time going forward. 

But, again, the real problem we have is the historical records 

that we have, the ten volume claims file that somehow or another 

needs to be scanned in so that they can be processed electronically, 

so that when a veteran appeals one issue to the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals, the issues that he has pending in the regional office—say 

a veteran appeals a claim for service-connection for a PTSD, that 

issue is with the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, but in the meanwhile 

he wants increases for his orthopedic conditions. 

We need to be able to process those differing claims in different 

jurisdictions simultaneously. And the way to do that, I think, is as 

we have suggested, to take claims before they are transferred between regional offices or from a regional office of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and focus on those as far as putting them in electronic format. 

So we are transferring the oldest paper files that are active, so 

to speak, into an electronic format so that we can devote proper attention to them. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. General, would you like to add something? 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
29 

General SCOTT. Yes, sir. I am speaking now from my days as the 

Chair of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission that ended 

in 2007. And one member of your staff was on the staff of that 

Commission. That was Ms. Garrick in the back, and she can probably provide you with more detail than you would ever want about 

it. 

But, clearly, one of the most serious deficiencies systemwide was 

the incompatibility between DoD and VA medical records, the electronic incompatibility. And the other thing was the lack of a roadmap that we could see that took the VA to a completely electronic 

record. And I am reminded of my days in the Army when a decision was made, I believe, in about 1980, that we are going to electronic personnel records, and there was a lot of yelling and screaming it would never work and what about all those people that had 

paper records and on and on. 

And so, they just said, look, there is a date certain beyond which 

or forward of which everything is going to be electronic, and we 

will see what we can do about working the older files into the system, but you have to get started somewhere. 

And I really think that part of the problem is that there is a lack 

of a roadmap that says on this date we are going to begin all VA 

files totally electronic, and then we will see what—we will do what 

we can about scanning in the older ones and all that. 

But if you don’t start somewhere, you are never going to get 

started, and that seems to me to be a way to look at it, both on 

the medical side, compatibility side and on the record side. 

Mr. HALL. Spoken like a commanding officer and thank you very 

much. 

Thank you, both, for your service to our country and to our veterans. Thank you for your testimony and you are now excused. 

Thank you, also, for your patience. 

And we will ask our third panel to join us at the table, Michael 

Walcoff, the Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits of the Veterans 

Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; 

Bradley Mayes, Director of Compensation and Pension Service for 

the VBA; Scott Cragg, Executive Director and Program Manager, 

Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record Program, Office of Policy and 

Planning for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; and Paul 

Tibbits, M.D., Deputy Chief Information Officer and Office of Enterprise Development, Office of Information and Technology, U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs; Rear Admiral Gregory Timberlake, 

Acting Director of the DoD/VA Interagency Program Office (IPO). 

I think we have the real stuff here, and I thank you, gentlemen 

for your patience, and thank you for your service to our country 

and to our veterans. Your complete statements are, as usual, entered into the record. 

And, Mr. Walcoff, Deputy Under Secretary Walcoff, you are now 

recognized for 5 minutes. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
30 

STATEMENTS MICHAEL WALCOFF, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY BRADLEY MAYES, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION 

AND PENSION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; SCOTT 

CRAGG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND PROGRAM MANAGER, 

VIRTUAL LIFETIME ELECTRONIC RECORD PROGRAM, OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; PAUL TIBBITS, M.D., DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT, 

OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND REAR ADMIRAL GREGORY TIMBERLAKE, SHCE, USN, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE/U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS INTERAGENCY PROGRAM OFFICE 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WALCOFF 

Mr. WALCOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss the Veterans Benefits Administration’s disability claims 

processing system and our efforts to improve processing and timeliness. 

I am accompanied by Mr. Brad Mayes, Director of our Compensation and Pension Service; Mr. Scott Cragg, Executive Director and 

Program Manager for the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record; and 

Dr. Paul Tibbits, who is the Deputy Chief Information Officer of 

the Office of Enterprise Development. 

As described in my written testimony, a number of figures have 

been used to define the backlog of compensation and pension disability claims at VBA. Let me say up front, we do not have a backlog of one million claims. In recent publications, it appears as 

though the backlog is being defined as inclusive of all benefits actions, including rating and non-rating actions, plus pending appeals at both VBA and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, as well as 

miscellaneous actions, such as correspondence. 

I want to emphasize that processing all of these actions is important work that needs to be done in a timely manner, but not all 

of these actions should be categorized as claims. To categorize this 

work as all benefit claims as was described in several recent publications is an inaccurate representation of our pending claims inventory. 

VBA bundles work into two categories, rating and non-rating 

workload. The rating workload is composed of original and reopened claims for disability compensation and/or pension. VBA 

uses this workload as the measurement for the pending claims inventory because these are claims from veterans waiting for an entitlement decision for service-connected disability compensation or 

non-service connected pension benefits. 

The non-rating workload includes actions that do not require a 

rating decision, such as eligibility determinations or income adjustments. This portion of VBA’s workload varies during the year, due 

to the cyclical nature of the income and eligibility verification process associated with the pension workload. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
31 

VBA’s pending claims inventory includes all rating-related claims 

received, whether the claim has been pending for a few hours or 

for a much longer period of time. The pending claims inventory is 

dynamic, since completed rating-related claims are removed from 

the inventory while new rating related claims are added on a continual basis. This year we are averaging over 80,000 new claims 

added to the inventory each month. 

VBA’s strategic goal for completing disability claims is 125 days. 

At the end of fiscal year 2008, there were 139,333 rating claims 

pending for more than 125, or 36.7 percent of the pending inventory. During fiscal year 2009, VBA has made progress in reducing 

the number and percent of inventory pending greater than 125 

days. At the end of May, we were at 134,626, or 33.5 percent, of 

the inventory that was pending greater than 125 days. 

Our production, or number of claims completed, has increased by 

9.3 percent as compared to the same period last year. However, fiscal year to date ending May of 2009, the number of rating related 

claims received has increased 13.5 percent as compared to the 

same period last year. Our pending rating claims inventory has increased this year by approximately 22,000, to a total of 402,000 as 

of May 31st. 

Although the pending claims inventory has increased, we believe 

this is mainly due to many outreach efforts VBA has conducted, 

which were targeted to specific groups of veterans, such as mailing 

letters to veterans receiving treatment at VA medical centers for 

type-2 diabetes who served during the Vietnam War and conducting outreach to separating servicemembers at discharge locations around the world. 

Despite increases in our pending inventory, timeliness has improved. Fiscal year to date ending May of 2009, the average days 

to complete a rating related claim has decreased to 161.8 days as 

compared to 178.9 days during the same period last year. 

VBA has taken steps to decrease the pending inventory further. 

We have hired nearly 4,200 new employees since January of 2007 

and believe that these employees will continue to make progress in 

delivering more quality decisions in a timely manner. 

In addition, VBA is conducting a pilot in Little Rock, Arkansas, 

as a result of a recent study focused on improving the claims process cycle time, and that was referred to by Mr. Ratajczak. 

Not only is VBA investigating ways to make changes to the 

claims process, but we are also investing in the migration of C&P 

claims processing to a paperless environment. This includes deploying imaging and enhanced electronic workflow capabilities, enterprise content and correspondence management services, and integrating those services with our modernized payment system. 

VBA anticipates that the release of the initial hardware and software in support of this large scale expansion will occur during fiscal year 2010. VBA is also working with Booz Allen Hamilton regarding business transformation services. Booz Allen Hamilton is 

assisting us in business process re-engineering, organizational 

change management, workforce planning and organizational learning strategies to ensure that VBA is well positioned to take best 

advantage of the technology solutions being proposed. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
32 

VBA has established a business transformation lab in Providence, Rhode Island, to serve as the focal point for convergence of 

business process re-engineering and technology, assuring that the 

service delivery is optimized and best practices are developed and 

deployed throughout VBA. 

VBA is also working to create a streamlined electronic communication method with stakeholders such as the Department of Defense. VA and DoD are working collaboratively to define the scope 

and strategy for the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record or VLER. 

Both departments have agreed that the objective for VLER is to establish a coherent lifetime electronic record that will capture service men or veteran information from accession into the military 

service. This will include all information necessary to provide medical care services, benefits, and compensation to the veteran, eligible family members or eligible beneficiaries. 

VLER will enable VBA to have a consolidated view of veterans 

data and leverage the exchange of accurate data from the authoritative source in order to streamline claims processing. 

Finally, in my written statement, I provided a significant amount 

of detail regarding the status of the implementation of Public Law 

110–389. Overall, VBA is generally on track to complete each section of the law as requested by the due date. 

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

to answer any questions you or the Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walcoff appears on p. 69.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Secretary Walcoff. 

Mr. Timberlake, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL 

GREGORY TIMBERLAKE, SHCE, USN 

Admiral TIMBERLAKE. Thank you, sir. Chairman Hall, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the role of the Interagency Program Office in the 

ongoing data sharing activities of the Department of Defense and 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

In recent months, the IPO has been focused on two central areas: 

first, facilitating the efforts of the two Departments to achieve full 

interoperability of their electronic health records for the provision 

of clinical care by September of this year; and second, working with 

the Departments to develop an effective governance and management model for the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record project 

which has been previously mentioned. These two areas will be the 

focus of my testimony today. 

Let me begin by providing you with a very brief overview of the 

DoD/VA Interagency Program Office, otherwise known as the IPO. 

Since its inception in 2008, the main objective of the IPO has been 

to provide management oversight of joint DoD/VA informationsharing efforts. Specifically, we work with the Departments to ensure that their electronic health record systems will be fully interoperable by September of this year, as I mentioned previously. DoD 

and VA began laying the foundation for full interoperability in 

2001, when the first patient health information was shared electronically using the Federal Health Information Exchange, which 

goes by the acronym FHIE. Since that time, both Departments 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
33 

have continued to enhance and expand the types of information 

that are shared, as well as the manner by which the information 

is shared. By building upon the prior accomplishments of the Departments to develop interoperable bi-directional electronic health 

records, the IPO and the Departments have been successful in formulating a plan to achieve the full interoperability previously mentioned for the provision of clinical care by the September 2009 target date. 

As part of this plan, VA and DoD’s ability to utilize well known 

interoperability capabilities like the FHIE and the Bidirectional 

Health Information Exchange have been greatly expanded. At the 

same time, new capabilities like the Clinical Data Repository/ 

Health Data Repository, or so called CHDR, have been added, allowing even more medical data to be transferred between the two 

Departments. Together, these resources are enabling unprecedented amounts of medical data to be transferred between DoD and 

VA. Today, I am pleased to report that we remain on target. 

The future promises even greater possibilities for data sharing, 

as we work to fulfill the President’s vision to develop this joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record, or VLER. The VLER will serve as 

a single source of health care, health care benefits and personal information on the servicemember or veteran from the time of accession through their entire military career in the veteran continuum 

as has previously been mentioned. 

The effort to create VLER is a monumental undertaking, representing one of the largest single joint projects that any two Federal Departments have collaborated on in recent years. As with any 

undertaking of this magnitude, proper planning and governance is 

absolutely critical to success. The IPO has been taking a lead role 

as a facilitator in our interagency efforts to develop a strategy for 

VLER implementation. Following the policy guidance provided by 

the President, the IPO established a VLER working group at the 

operational level to provide a focused requirements and management effort to accelerate the adoption of a joint DoD/VA timeline 

for the VLER. There is already consensus among senior officials 

from both Departments on many of the categories of health and 

benefits data that must be accessible through the VLER. 

In addition to new discussions on the scope of VLER, the IPO 

also plays an active role in efforts to reach interdepartmental consensus on broad, technical requirements issues. In this area, 

progress is being made on the Departments’ efforts to agree to use 

a nationally recognized set of uniform and open standards for information exchange. This approach, in the future, will enable DoD 

and VA to create an architectural framework that is capable of 

interconnecting with systems from both the private sector and 

other governmental agencies. 

Finally, as I mentioned in my written testimony, the IPO is 

working closely with the Departments to determine how to modify 

existing leadership and management structures in order to provide 

an effective governance model for VLER. 

Together, these efforts will help provide a solid strategic foundation for the implementation of the new VLER. 

And operational, the VLER will provide our servicemembers, veterans and service providers and their beneficiaries with extraorVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:20 Jan 22, 2010 Jkt 051869 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\51869.XXX GPO1 PsN: 51869

ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
34 

dinary access to health records and benefits data, thereby improving the quality of both health care and benefits services in my opinion. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee, and to 

provide you with an update on the important work that is being 

done in advancing electronic data sharing between the two Departments. 

I look forward to keeping you apprised of our progress as we 

move forward and I would be pleased to attempt to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Rear Admiral Gregory Timberlake 

appears on p. 73.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Admiral. 

And I assume, Mr. Walcoff, that your colleagues are here to answer specific questions? 

Mr. WALCOFF. That is correct. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. So, no more statements, per se. 

I guess, I would start with a question to you, sir. According to 

a DoD Health Treatment Record Analysis Report, DoD loses on average 31⁄2 million pieces of paper a year. This year, so far, the DoD 

failed to transfer 1.6 million pieces of paper to VA. According to the 

report, 20 percent of DoD paper records are lost. When records 

were finally shipped to VA, it resulted in 9,200 readjudications in 

a year. Furthermore, this represents about 13 percent or 40,000 

veterans being wrongly denied. 

This is a huge burden placed on VA and ultimately the veteran 

as well. So what can be done to address this problem and what 

does it say about VA’s reliance on DoD records? 

Mr. MAYES. I will take that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Mayes. 

Mr. MAYES. First of all, we do rely on Department of Defense 

records to adjudicate claims for service connected disability compensation because we need, as I have said before in previous testimony, we need that current disability or disease, some evidence of 

an injury or onset of disease while on active duty and then the 

nexus between the two. So that forms the basis for compensation. 

So we do need those records. They are important to us. 

I would say that the efforts underway that have been described 

here to migrate to an electronic record that moves seamlessly from 

DoD to VA, it would be a wonderful solution and that is what we 

are working hard toward. I think that is the mandate from the 

President and, clearly, it is a high priority for—the highest priority 

for both Secretaries. 

Mr. HALL. We share that priority with you. 

Depending on how you define a backlog, how many veterans 

would you say, either Mr. Walcoff or Mr. Mayes, how many veterans who were waiting for a claim to be decided have committed 

suicide? 

Mr. WALCOFF. I don’t have an answer for that. When you say 

‘‘waiting for a claim to be decided,’’ you are saying that from the 

time that they filed the claim and then some time before a decision 

was made, they committed suicide, I don’t have an answer for that. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
35 

Mr. HALL. Okay. I don’t know if that is something that you—that 

the Department keeps track or if you—I mean, I think I heard you 

mention the 125 day mark as something that you consider a target. 

Mr. WALCOFF. It is our strategic target, yes. 

Mr. HALL. Right. So it might be useful to keep track of how 

many veterans who were in the system and were past 125 days. 

I mean, we have all read and heard about the record number of 

suicides, both in our active duty military and also in our veterans 

corps, so of course it would seem that, at least in some cases, speed 

is of the essence in terms of processing claims that might reflect, 

especially in this difficult economic environment that we are in 

today, on a veteran’s self-esteem and his or her ability to put a roof 

over their head, food on the table, take care of their families, have 

a life that is not one of despair or poor self-image. 

I am not a doctor or a psychiatrist, but I am suggesting that this 

is something that VA should be able to—a question VA should be 

able to answer in order to find the right solutions to these problems. 

Mr. WALCOFF. What I would say is, is that, you know I think 

that we believe that we have a responsibility to all veterans to provide a quality decision as quickly as possible. 

As you know, there are certain procedures that we have to go 

through, based on the law, including VCAA, which we have talked 

about in previous hearings, and certainly we need to find the balance between following the law as it is written, but also understanding that veterans are dependent on the decisions that we 

make, and we need to try to do everything we can to do it in as 

an expeditious a manner as is possible and we are fully aware of 

that, and certainly I think that we owe that responsibility to all 

veterans. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I understand and I appreciate all of those 

factors that you have to balance. 

Admiral Timberlake, for several years, VA and DoD have been 

strategizing the seamless transition with a key component being a 

shared electronic record. And the best it seems that we have come 

up with so far is to create patches between VistA and AHLTA with 

some modest success, but not necessarily a real solution. 

What is the vision at this point for making the Virtual Lifetime 

Electronic Record actually happen? Will it require both Departments to use the same IT architecture or will two systems be able 

to function jointly and have a translator between them? 

Admiral TIMBERLAKE. Thank you for the question, sir. And I may 

ask Scott Cragg to weigh on this as well because he is the VA architect. And while I have to know some of this, I am a Reservist 

and a general surgeon from rural Mississippi, so I may ask him for 

the technical details. 

However, as we move forward in what we believe will be what 

we describe as a service oriented approach, then although it may 

not be identical, but if we build services which can then be reused, 

then we can go in and pull from each other’s database what we 

need. 

So I don’t know that I am going to be able to say that it is going 

to be the exact same program, if you will, but we will have much 

better ability to see and move in between. As you have mentioned, 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
36 

right now we have been, I think, very successfully. I don’t know 

that we have done enough of a good job of showing how much we 

can share, but we have been very successful in building those sharing bridges between the two systems. What we want to do is something that will be transparent to the user, whether it is a servicemember of the physician in the VA or the physician in DoD. 

Now, let me see if Scott would like to expand on my rural general surgeon’s description of this. 

Mr. CRAGG. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, absolutely there is room within the VLER architecture for multiple systems. But what is important right now is that we establish the capability between the two agencies, not only to share the data that 

we share today because there is a great deal of data shared both 

on the health as well as the benefits side. In fact, we do have the 

bidirectional health exchange that does move information in the 

health care arena between VA and DoD in both, again in both directions. 

But we also share an extensive amount of administrative data 

about our veterans on the benefits side. The key to VLER is not 

only to be able to promote sharing of data, but it is also to present 

that data in a single format that is recognized as being a single 

record. In fact, the architecture should be able to allow that, while 

also pulling data from multiple sources, multiple databases and 

multiple systems. 

There is another part of the VLER that is also very important. 

It is to extend the ability for veterans and servicemembers to see 

that data beyond just the clinicians and those who provide those 

benefits. So, yes, the architecture for VLER as we are envisioning 

it today will more importantly provide for standards and interfaces 

that allow for information to be shared and then seen in a uniform 

way, but to also provide the opportunity where there may be multiple services, multiple solutions and multiple systems that are 

part of the overarching VLER concept. 

It is not only possible but it is also a positive way to move forward and a very good idea because as technology improves, as 

methodologies improve, we need to be able to leverage those methodologies and take VLER even further. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Lamborn, would you like to ask some questions, please? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. When can we expect to see draft regulations on section 212 of Public Law 110–389, which authorizes the 

substitution of a spouse when a claimant dies? 

Mr. MAYES. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 

We are crafting those regulations right now. We have a draft, but 

there are some policy issues that we are trying to work through. 

We are working with our Office of General Counsel. I think that 

we would have something that we would have for concurrence 

within the next 2 to 3 weeks, but then it has to, of course, go 

through our concurrence process and then it would be published in 

the Federal Register. Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you. And we are watching that 

closely. I had that in a bill, H.R. 3047, Representative Hall had 

that in a bill, and then it finally became law, and so we are watching it with great interest. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
37 

Can you give us a timeline on when you expect the first steps 

to be taken to move forward with your new electronic processing 

system? 

Dr. TIBBITS. If you are referring, Congressman, to our paperless 

initiative, we are still committed to dates that we have previously, 

I am sure, made you aware of with our capability fielded in the 

year 2012. Of course, a lot has to happen between now and then. 

No program of that magnitude is free of issues and risks and we 

are working through many of those issues and risks now. As things 

stand today, that is still our plan. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Ratajczak, and I hope I pronounced that correctly, stated 

earlier that there are reports of new VSRs and of VSR being fired 

during their probationary periods for poor performance even 

though they had not completed mandatory training. And apparently he was aware of one of those personally. Can you confirm 

these reports? 

Mr. WALCOFF. Without knowing the specific examples, I would 

still probably say that, yes, that is happening. The fact is that the 

probationary period was specifically established for management to 

be able to evaluate a person’s performance during that first year, 

if necessary, take those types of actions with the employee without 

having some of the protections that more senior employees have. 

You mentioned taking that action against somebody who is still 

in training. Well, even when you are in a training program, there 

is a progression that you can be expected to make during that 

training program. And there can be situations where, after a person has been in the program for a while, they are not progressing 

at the rate they should, and at some point a decision can be made 

that, you are not going to progress for a lot of different reasons. 

So I do see that there could be possibilities where somebody 

would be let go during that period. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. 

And this is more of a general question for whoever would care 

to address it. Why is there such a large increase in the number of 

issues submitted on each claim? 

Mr. WALCOFF. Well, what we have seen is, the increase coming 

in on a lot of our original claims and they are coming in, primarily 

at our Benefits Delivery at Discharge locations. And I think that 

a lot of that is some of the counseling that goes on at those locations, the information that is available to the servicemembers when 

they are getting ready to get out. 

And I think that, at that point, there is from the serviceman’s 

point of view if there is a possibility that something, an injury or, 

something happened to me in service that possibly could affect me 

later on, I do think that there is some encouragement to apply, to 

get it in the records that, you know, you are saying that this is 

something that occurred in service and, there could be a situation 

where you might have that in the record if it flares up later. 

You know, we have noticed a very, very significant increase. We 

are averaging on our BDD cases about 11 issues per claim. That 

is pretty significant. 

Brad, you want to add anything on that? 

[Mr. Mayes shakes head negatively.] 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
38 

Mr. WALCOFF. Okay. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Well, thank you for those answers, and I 

want to thank you all for your patience and for your testimony here 

today. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 

Mrs. Halvorson. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It was said, Mr. Walcoff, in your testimony that 4,200 new employees have been hired since 2007. What percentage is that of the 

overall VA employment? 

Mr. WALCOFF. We started with a base at that point of approximately 12,000, a little bit more than that. So 4,200 new employees, 

and then in addition to that we replaced anybody who left, which 

was about another 1,800. So what you are seeing that really since 

2007 we have actually hired about 6,000 new employees, and that 

is not including the stimulus employees that we are going to be hiring, which is another 1,500 to 1,700. 

So you can see that we have really had a lot of hiring activity 

in the organization which obviously causes a lot of, training that 

has to be done. There were a lot of space issues that we have had 

to work through, but we have been able to do that and we are 

starting to see real results from the new employees. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. So the results are from 179 days down to 161 

days but has there ever been a time when you actually were at 

your goal of 125 days? 

Mr. WALCOFF. No, there hasn’t been, and what I would say to 

you is that it takes 2 years to train a rating specialist or a VSR. 

So we are just seeing the first people that we began hiring in 2007 

come to the point where we can expect them to be fully productive. 

We have been hiring those 4,200 continuously over those 2 years. 

So every day that goes by, there is that many more that are becoming fully productive, which will increase our productivity. 

Our production has actually increased by over 9 percent. And 

what I would also tell you, is that the 161.8 is a cumulative number for the fiscal year. The last 2 months, we have been in the 157 

range. So there really has been significant improvement. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. And then, how did you get to the 125? What 

made that the magic number? 

Mr. WALCOFF. Well, we looked at what the requirements were by 

law for us to—in our duty to assist veterans in our development 

process. We looked at the various parts of the development that 

has to be done, including the exam that has to be ordered. We have 

to get private medical records. We have a responsibility to go out 

to get records that are within the custody of a government agency 

and go out as many times as necessary to get those records. 

There are a lot of different things that we are required to do and 

we are required also to give veterans a certain amount of time to 

respond to us. If they don’t respond after 30 days, we go out with 

another letter, give him another 30 days to respond. So when you 

add all those things up, we had to try to put together what would 

be a reasonable goal in terms of us having to reach a little bit and 

stretch a little bit, but also realistic within the requirements of the 

laws that we have to work under and that is how we came up with 

125 days. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
39 

Mrs. HALVORSON. And one last question, Mr. Walcoff. You know, 

there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction with the AMC. Will 

you consider disbanding it as somebody else has suggested and replacing it, or placing the accountability back upon the regional office or the original jurisdiction? 

Mr. WALCOFF. I don’t believe that that is the right way to go. I 

think that with all the work that we have just been talking about 

that is out at the regional offices, to put those remands out there, 

I don’t think would be the right way to go. 

I can tell you that we have made significant changes at the 

AMC. We have added a lot of staff. We have made a change in the 

leadership of the office. And we are actually starting to see some 

improvements. And if you want, I can send you, you know, in the 

days ahead, I can send you some information about some of the improvements that have been made in terms of performance. 

We do believe that we are starting to head in the right direction. 

It is going to take a little while. I understand the dissatisfaction 

that people have, but I do believe we are heading in the right direction. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. Great. Yes. I think we would enjoy that. 

Mr. Timberlake, Admiral, what is the personnel makeup of the 

IPO and how many of the VAs and DoDs, military, that sort of 

thing, and what is the background of all these individuals, to bring 

them all together? 

Admiral TIMBERLAKE. Currently, the IPO will be lead by a Senior 

Executive Service (SES) from DoD, and a deputy would be an SES 

from the VA. Both of those positions are still in recruitment and 

so currently I have been brought on active duty to try to manage 

this thing while I get started. 

We will then have a total of 14 government civilians, 7 of whom 

will be provided from the VA, 7 who will be provided from the DoD. 

Their specialties range from such things as financial analysts, 

budget analysts, health analysts, benefits analysts and program 

managers to help us evaluate the programs that are being conducted jointly between the two Departments. 

We also have funding allocated to use from the Wounded and Injured Senior Oversight Committee to allow us during this interim 

time to hire contractors as we go about hiring the government civilians. You know, nominally when the people who first set up the office said, well, we think that is about 16 FTEs, some people get a 

little tied up on that number. It is more a matter of whether we 

have the wherewithal to hire additional contractor help we need as 

we start and set up the office. 

Mrs. HALVORSON. Great. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mrs. Halvorson. 

Just a couple more questions here. I am looking at the VA form 

21–526, parts A, B, C and D, and picturing a veteran going through 

this and applying. It is fairly detailed and it is evident from reading this form that veterans probably do, and understandably, omit 

necessary information when sending it in. That probably happens 

on a fairly regular basis. 

When the RO sends a statement of case back to the veteran to 

then complete the form, we require the RO to accompany it with 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
40 

a simplified checklist called the ‘‘Duty to Assist’’ form. What is the 

status of the implementation of this form and do you feel as if it 

is too complicated for veterans and what more can be done to assist 

them in seeking their benefits? 

Mr. MAYES. I will take that question, Mr. Chairman. I believe 

you are referring to the checklist that was a requirement as part 

of Public Law 110–389? 

Mr. HALL. Right. 

Mr. MAYES. Okay. We implemented that section back in December of 2008. We put out guides to our regional offices. That particular pilot, I believe, involves four stations. 

And so, at those four stations, when we receive an Application 

for Benefits that meets the criteria as established in the law, when 

we send out our notice letter, which is required, again, by statute, 

what we do is we put what evidence and information is required 

of the veteran in a checklist, which is an attachment to the notice 

letter that goes out. So we have implemented that and we have 

also secured contract support from the Center for Naval Analysis 

to help independently evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot as stipulated in the legislation. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. And just reading page 6 here. It says that 

VA currently pays disability pensions to veterans who served during Mexican border period. Do you know approximately how many 

of those are currently receiving benefits? 

Mr. MAYES. I don’t think very many, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. Maybe in updating this, you might want to look at 

that. 

Mr. MAYES. Yes, sir. Understood. You know, I would point out 

that with the 21–526 application, a veteran can now submit electronically, through the Veterans Online Application (VONAPP), 

and we are working with a contractor right now to enhance that 

application to make it easier for a claimant to walk through that 

application. So we are trying to meet those needs and improve that 

application process. 

Mr. HALL. In the strategic plan that you are developing for 

paperless delivery of benefits, I assume that there is an online 

version of this form for a veteran to fill out? 

Mr. MAYES. Right now, today, you can go online and fill that application out, but we are undertaking with a contractor an effort 

to make it more of an interactive, guided process through the application so that it is easier, it is more of a question-response scenario 

that then takes you into more detailed questions based on some of 

those responses. 

So, in essence, you are beginning to see some rules technology 

even in the application process. 

Mr. HALL. That is great. That is really good to hear. 

I understand the Lean Six Sigma is a business management 

strategy that was developed at Motorola to find deficits and ways 

to improve operations. The private sector has the ability to readily 

make those changes. 

What is the Booz Allen Hamilton rationale that VBA can be that 

responsive to change making, and did they supply an implementation plan for the recommendations? 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
41 

Mr. WALCOFF. The Booz Allen Hamilton report focuses on the 

process that we have been using, and Mr. Ratajczak referred to 

that, the CPI model, and really finds a lot of areas that, where because of the fact that files are being moved around the building because of the way the teams are set up, that there are a lot of inefficiencies in the process. And what they are recommending is a situation very similar to what Mr. Ratajczak talked about where the 

file would go to individuals who worked together on, I will call it 

a team. It is not that each individual does not have responsibilities. 

I know that you had some concerns about that, and we do to. 

And it is clear that the individual would have certain responsibilities. But the fact that they are all working in the same location 

would, first of all, make it so that the file is not going all over the 

building as part of the assembly line. But also, that you would 

have a situation where you would be able to have the different 

components of the process working together in terms of exchanging 

information and that kind of a thing, which will, expedite the process and, provide a better quality product. 

Now, in terms of implementation, it looks fine on paper, but I 

think the question that you asked, is the one we are asking, which 

is, okay, will this actually work in our environment versus an industrial environment, which it is more widely known for. 

And that is why we are looking at doing a pilot in Little Rock. 

We are going through some of the contractual issues right now, but 

it looks like we are going to be able to at least, hopefully, start that 

pilot in July. And that will give a lot more information about the 

actual application of some of these principles. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I understand that not every activity in 

your inventory is claims related. Some of it is related to adding dependents or answering letters and these all register as items of 

work in the workload. How are those other functions captured for 

employee work credits and how are they weighted? Does a different 

team handle the non-rating part of your workload, or is everyone 

expected to devote a certain amount of time to all of these tasks? 

Mr. WALCOFF. It really depends on what type of action it is. 

Some of the non-rating work can be done in the triage team that 

comes in. Somebody is looking at it to try to determine where it 

goes. Some of the simpler actions are actually done right there on 

the triage team. Others are forwarded to post-determination. It depends on what the actual action is. 

And I think that, I want to just clarify that really there are three 

levels of actions. You have the rating actions which are compensation and pension applications that we always talk about in terms 

of what we consider inventory. That is the 400,000. We have the 

non-rating, which are the dependency changes and the income adjustments and those types of things, and there are about 200,000 

of those. 

There is another 100,000 of things that I call miscellaneous actions that were lumped into this million and those are things like 

a letter that a veteran would write in just asking a question, a general question about his benefits. 

The publications that I referred to were counting that letter as 

a claim, and I don’t think under any definition that letter should 

be considered a claim. Certainly, the non-rating work, although we 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
42 

don’t consider it as part of the inventory that we talk about, is very 

important work that has to be done. And I want to emphasize that 

just because we don’t talk about it as part of our rating inventory, 

doesn’t mean that we don’t realize that it is work. When a veteran 

wants to add a dependent, that is very important to the veteran 

himself, and we shouldn’t be ignoring that. 

All we are saying is, that we have prioritized getting the veteran 

on the rolls with his compensation claim, and then after we have 

done that, then we would talk about, as a second priority, adding 

a dependent to an existing record. 

Mr. HALL. So just for the record, what would you peg as a number for what you consider to be a backlog at VBA? 

Mr. WALCOFF. I would say that our backlog is, right now—about 

150,000, 140,000. That is our backlog, and that is based on the rating inventory of cases that are over 125 days. 

Now, if you want to add the non-rating, frankly I believe we 

should be doing non-rating cases in about 90 days. So if you said, 

well, I think that your non-rating should be considered as part of 

your inventory as well as your rating, then the backlog would be— 

and non-rating would be anything over 90 days, and I don’t have 

an exact number for that right now. But non-rating actions should 

take less time than rating actions. 

Mr. HALL. For the sake of discussion, regarding a veteran whose 

claim is up to a 125 days old, since it arrived into your system. In 

testimony presented in 2008, Professor Linda Bilmes from Harvard 

University noted that after a protracted process, 90 percent of veterans’ disability claims are ultimately granted, at least in part. 

Given that so many claims are eventually awarded, couldn’t VA 

reduce its backlog and shorten the process for the veteran by assuming that the veteran’s lay statement is accurate and consistent 

with time, place and circumstance, and as long as there is a diagnosis, grant the benefit? 

Mr. WALCOFF. I will give you my personal reaction to this, and 

I don’t know—you know, this question hasn’t been officially asked 

of the agency in terms of what their position is. 

Mr. HALL. Right. 

Mr. WALCOFF. When Professor Bilmes says that 90 percent of 

claims are granted, what she is saying is, is that a veteran receives 

something. But as I mentioned to Congressman Lamborn, the average claim we get in through BDD involves 11 issues. All that the 

90 percent means is that at least one of those issues we are paying 

the veteran for. That is how she gets to 90 percent. 

If you evaluated by individual issues, the grant rate is 28 percent. So if you are paying on every issue, you are going to be overpaying on 72 percent of all issues. And I think, when looked at that 

way, it really calls into question whether that is a good policy or 

not. 

Mr. HALL. If I could ask you one more question, Mr. Walcoff. In 

March 2009, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the VA released a report on an audit of the VBA’s STAR Program or quality 

assurance program. Besides finding that the National Error Rate 

was understated by 10 percent because STAR personnel did not 

identify errors that affect veteran’s entitlement to benefits. It also 

found that the VBA excluded up to 126,000 brokered claims. Those 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
43 

claims assigned from one regional office to one regional office, but 

sent to another for development or rating from the STAR review. 

The OIG projected that 31 percent of these brokered files contained errors affecting veterans’ benefits which resulted in an actual 69 percent overall accuracy rate for VBA which is far short, 

as you know, of your goal of 90 percent accuracy. 

Clearly, these errors add to the backlog in some way, shape or 

form, either as reopened claims or appeals. So could you explain 

the STAR review process in general and elaborate on your response 

to the VA OIG’s report. For instance, has it begun to sample brokered claims? Have you begun to sample brokered claims, something that VBA itself identified as a need in 2007? Have there been 

additional staff hired to deal with this or specific training requirements? 

Mr. WALCOFF. My answer to that is, basically, I agree that—we 

all agree that brokered work should be sampled. I don’t necessarily 

agree with the methodology that the OIG used to come up with the 

31 percent, but I agree with their basic premise that we need to 

include brokered work in our sampling and we have begun to do 

that in response to the OIG audit. I believe that we have begun 

calling cases in that are brokered. 

And I think with the number of brokered cases that we have, it 

is important to get an accurate representation of what that quality 

rate is. So we are doing it, sir. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. And just curious, you say, if I remember 

correctly, you are adding 80,000 new claims each month to the inventory? 

Mr. WALCOFF. Eighty-thousand rating claims, yes. 

Mr. HALL. Eighty-thousand rating claims. How many decisions 

on rating is VBA making each month? 

Mr. WALCOFF. This year we are averaging, I believe it is about 

78,000. 

Mr. HALL. So you are pretty close to break even right now? 

Mr. WALCOFF. Close, but the fact is that we want to bring the 

inventory down, so coming close or even being even is not what we 

want. We want the inventory to come down. We need to be able to 

exceed the receipts. 

Mr. HALL. How many of your new employees who are becoming 

independent now, having been trained, how many per month are 

coming online, working independently? 

Mr. WALCOFF. It is hard to say because they weren’t hired on an 

even basis. In other words, we didn’t hire, let us say, 200 every 

month. There were some months that we hired as many as 500. 

There were other months that we hired a lot less than that. A lot 

of it was trying to be able to schedule all of the training because 

we felt it was really important that every new employee go to Centralized Training within a certain number of weeks of when they 

start. 

So, trying to get the space available, we added space to our training academy. It took a little while for that to be ready. So off the 

top of my head, I can’t get you that answer, but I can certainly research it and get back to you after the hearing, if that is okay. 

[The VA subsequently provided the following information:] 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
44 

VBA conducts intensive training for all employees new to a job classification, with an emphasis on the VSR and RVSR positions (through programs 

such as Challenge, TPSS, etc.). Due to the complex nature of the duties associated with these job classifications, the training process is labor and time 

intensive, taking 24 months on average to achieve journeyman level and become fully productive. As of the end of July 2009, 46.4 percent of VSRs and 

RVSRs, or 3,430 employees, were journey level. Approximately 120 employees nationwide will progress from trainee status to journeyman status each 

month over the next 12 months. 

Mr. HALL. That would be great, Secretary Walcoff. And I think, 

obviously, getting ahead of the—getting the number of monthly 

claims decided ahead of the number of new claims coming in is 

something that we will all be happy to see that point past. And the 

further we get past it, the more we can reduce the inventory. 

And I would like to ask Admiral Timberlake if you can give me 

a mission statement for the IPO along with the goals and objectives 

that you intend to meet, how the Departments will manage the 

challenges that you enumerated in your testimony, and the timeframe for meeting those goals? Do you think you will meet the September 2009 goal for a fully interoperable electronic health records 

system? 

[The DoD subsequently provided the information in the answer 

to Question #2 of the Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for 

the Record, which appear on p. 93.] 

Admiral TIMBERLAKE. Yes, sir. We believe that the goal, which 

is to get the fully interoperable electronic health record required for 

the provision of clinical care as defined by our clinicians, the socalled ISIB, we believe we will meet that. Now, we are watching 

that closely. There is still some risk in a couple of the issues, but 

so far we seem to be on track. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. That is good to hear. And I think we have 

a pretty good idea about new claims, about veterans, how we are 

handling or how you will be handling the claims of veterans who 

are returning from OEF/OIF or who are filing new claims as they 

are discharged from active duty. That should be much easier since 

both departments are operating in a computerized paperless—capable of operating in a paperless environment. So hopefully the two 

will be joined. The golden spike in the middle of the Transcontinental Railroad will be driven and we will celebrate the day 

when that handoff is happening for our current generation of veterans. 

Regarding our Vietnam vets or World War II vets or Korean War 

veterans, is there a separate process and can you describe it to us, 

the approach in terms of—well, first of all, how feasible it is, are 

you triaging those cases or those times periods, those demographic 

groups and how can they be incorporated into this electronic system? 

Mr. WALCOFF. The—and, Paul, I would ask you to jump in here. 

Right now, the plan is to go from a point forward, which would 

mean that any new claims that come in, when we get to the point 

when we are electronic, would be the first ones that would be 

scanned in, and we still do get original claims from Vietnam veterans, by the way. 

At this point, and I would ask Dr. Tibbits to comment on this, 

I don’t know of any plans to go back, for instance, to the Records 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
45 

Management Center, where we have 20 million files, some of those 

going back quite a ways, and scanning all those records in. But let 

me ask Dr. Tibbits to comment on that. 

Dr. TIBBITS. Well, Mr. Chairman, the foundation to that, actually, is to be able, from an electronic perspective, is to be able, electronically, to identify the veteran. 

We have now, actually, a program that was initiated under Scott 

Cragg’s tenure when he was in a prior position at the VA called 

a Common Population Initiative. To that end, we have actually, 

now, largely finished taking all of the veterans who became veterans before the Defense Department stood up the DEER System, 

which is their system to uniquely identify servicemembers. 

We have identified those veterans. We have sent those veterans’ 

names back to the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has put the unique identifier on those veterans, called the 

Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) Identifier, and sent those veterans with the DEERS identifier back to us 

electronically, so they are all now uniquely identified in one of our 

identification systems—it is called VA/DoD Identity Repository 

(VADIR)—as a foundation upon which we can build further capability over time, which if we progress backward and want to image 

their records, or whatever the process might be, that we would 

march backwards in time through all that legacy paper. The foundation of uniquely identifying those veterans electronically has already been laid. 

Mr. HALL. And I assume that a veteran who has a new problem 

or a change in their claim or an application for increased percentage rating or a case that requires it to come to new attention could 

then be scanned and shared with another office or another specialist or selectively digitized? 

Dr. TIBBITS. If I understand your question, this scanning notion 

would relate to the paperless initiative, and if we again, we extend 

backward in time, what I would say is, many of these visions that 

we want to achieve, these goals, depend on the concatenation of one 

or two or three systems working together. 

So, yes, to your question. As paperless comes along, the ability 

to uniquely identify that veteran, put the correct identification on 

that scanned paper, the unique identification piece is there. As 

paperless comes along, it will connect to that and take advantage 

of that unique identification capability that we already have in 

place. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. And so just so I understand, there would be 

sort of two worlds, the paper world and the paperless world, notwithstanding those that may be scanned, you know, from the paper 

legacy records, as you put it. And at what point, what date forward 

is the electronic record going to be the rule rather than the exception? And what from that date backward would be remaining in the 

paper domain? 

Dr. TIBBITS. Well, as I said earlier, for the paperless initiative 

itself, we are committed to 2012, our date to deploy that in the VA. 

Now, Secretary Walcoff, maybe Brad Mayes might want to talk 

about how we would selectively identify which veterans and which 

pieces of legacy paper would be included in that. That is a different 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
46 

question and a different judgment process that would be based on 

the needs of the veteran and other considerations. 

Mr. WALCOFF. Well, and let me say, first of all, that we are doing 

some work electronically. All of our BDD work at all of the BDD 

sites is electronic, and we are at the point now where we have been 

doing it for a long enough period of time that we are getting reopened claims from some of the people that we did their original 

electronically and we are doing those reopened claims electronically. 

So as that group of people gets larger and more time goes by, we 

are going to get more reopened claims that we will continue to do 

in an electronic environment. 

We do have some technical limitations in terms of how much 

work we can put in the current system. The virtual VA system was 

developed a long time ago, and there are some issues with the capability of it in terms of volume. That is not the permanent solution to where we are going to be in 2012. But it does limit us to 

a certain extent on how much we can do right now. 

In terms of the question about how we would progress once we 

get to 2012, I would tell you that is the kind of thing that we are 

working on right now. That is the kind of thing we are working 

with Booz Allen Hamilton on as one of our consultants, to try to 

figure out that now that we are going to have this technology, what 

is the best way to use it. 

And as we get those answers, I will be glad to share them with 

you. 

Dr. TIBBITS. I guess I should add, Mr. Chairman, as we move forward in trying to better meet the needs of servicemembers and veterans in progressively greater electronic ways, the transaction volume, obviously, goes up and up and up and up. That serves to surface issues in the information technology infrastructure that need 

to get addressed; for example, where that infrastructure was put 

in place some years ago, not necessarily anticipating that increase 

in volume over time. And those are recurring challenges of the sort 

that Secretary Walcoff is alluding to. 

An anticipated issue will surface because the capacity here or the 

capacity there or the capacity somewhere else on infrastructure is 

not really what it needs to be to handle that additional volume. So 

there is an additional challenge to rectify this. 

That requires some engineering. It requires some money. It requires some procurement actions, et cetera, et cetera. And it also 

requires that we become smart enough to get ahead of the curve 

so that our ability to anticipate transaction volume growth in the 

future is better than our ability to anticipate it has been in the 

past. And that requires strengthening of knowledge, skills and 

abilities with respect to capacity planning itself. 

So there are a bunch of challenges in there that we have to deal 

with to support that growth in transaction volume. It is a big stress 

test for us. 

Mr. HALL. Yeah, I am sure, I mean, at the rate technology is 

moving and the obsolescence of the latest personal digital assistant 

that you could buy, you know, 6 months from now, it is worthless 

and everybody wants a new one. But at the same time, a year ago 

last December, I was told by the commander of the hospital in 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
47 

Landstuhl that we were a month away from his being able to hand 

off electronically the record of that veteran I am sitting, talking to, 

to VA. 

And so I guess those patches between AHLTA and VistA have 

been more elusive than we would like. 

Dr. TIBBITS. No, sir. The patches have actually been, I would say, 

if I can use my own words here, in my humble opinion, very effective. We are, in fact, exchanging more health care information between VA and DoD than any other two health care facilities in the 

United States. We are extremely successful at it. 

That is not to say it is perfect. That it is not to say that there 

is not room for improvement. The fact that we are exchanging that 

health care information, before moving into a VLER construct, is 

also itself not accidental. In order to meet the immediate needs of 

servicemembers and veterans, information exchange between the 

two Departments is extremely important and much more important 

than collaboration on software development. 

And because of that, because of the need to process claims, because of the need to deliver health care and because of the importance of information exchange to do that, we elected to pursue information interoperability first and, hence, there is this very robust 

exchange of information between the two Departments now, and I 

think is why Admiral Timberlake, rightly expressed that he has a 

great deal of confidence that we will meet the September 2009 date 

because, by and large, we are already there now. 

So there are only a few marginal things that have to be added 

between now and the end of the fiscal year. By and large, primary 

care and most specialty care could be delivered by a clinician today, 

based on the health information that is exchanged between the two 

Departments. 

Mr. HALL. Boy, that is really, really good news. 

Dr. TIBBITS. Yes, sir. It is very good news. 

Mr. HALL. I am glad I asked that many questions that we got 

that answer. I mean, because 2012 sounds like an awful long way 

off. And what I am hearing is that 2012 is when it is going to be 

robust and complete and really completely up and running, but 

even today, a lot of the pieces are in place. 

Admiral TIMBERLAKE. We are talking about apples and oranges. 

2012 is related to the paperless initiative, which is dealing with all 

of the incoming—— 

Mr. HALL. Benefits. 

Admiral TIMBERLAKE [continuing]. Paper that goes to VBA from 

veterans to initiate a claim. That is different than the information 

I am talking about here, which is the health information that is 

being exchanged between the two Departments. Two different—— 

Mr. HALL. Well, that is—I understand. And we probably would 

all agree that the health information is the most important thing, 

and the veterans, especially those suffering serious injuries, would 

agree with that, but the disability claim is built on, among other 

things, the health record. 

So thank you for that information and thank you for the—I appreciate that this is an evolving piece of work. I would be looking 

for—we on the Committee look forward to seeing the Booz Allen 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
48 

Hamilton report as soon as you can share it with us. And if we 

have any further questions, we will submit them in writing to you. 

Thank you, again, for your patience and for all the work that you 

are doing for this Nation’s veterans. 

Secretary Walcoff, Director Mayes, Mr. Cragg, Dr. Tibbits, Admiral Timberlake, thank you, again. And you are now excused. This 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 9:15 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, 

Subcommtitee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Would you please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance? 

The members of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee 

convene today to conduct an oversight hearing entitled, ‘‘Addressing the backlog: 

Can VA Manage One Million Claims’’? 

Here are some basic facts that I would like take a moment to reflect upon today 

as we begin this hearing on the VA backlog. 

There are 23.5 million veterans living in America. One thousand World War II 

veterans die every day. VA hospitals treated five million veterans last year, but over 

500,000 non-service connected veterans were denied that care. There are three million service-connected disabled veterans. 

And now, there are almost one million veterans waiting. 

They are waiting to have their claims and appeals processed. They are waiting 

for compensation. They are waiting for medical assistance and rehabilitation. They 

are waiting to take care of their families. They are waiting for a Nation to be grateful. 

I, for one, believe that they should not have to wait. During the 110th Congress, 

I convened fourteen hearings on disability claims and appeals processing issues and 

this is our fourth hearing this year on the subject. 

Additionally, my colleagues in Congress did not believe our Nations’ veterans 

should have to wait when they enacted Public Law 110–389 in October 2008—essentially mandating that VA modernize its disability claims processing system. Congress supports and continues to monitor VA’s efforts to expedite claims, improve 

quality, update its rating schedule, and use the most advanced technology available. 

We have authorized the hiring of additional benefits personnel and have passed 

more generous budgets for VA than ever before. And still, the backlog grows and 

veterans wait. 

There must be a way to stem this tide. VA requires a cultural and management 

sea change that can come about if it embraces the provisions of the law and looks 

to its stakeholders to inform its policies and procedures. As Chairman of this Subcommittee, I believe we have given VA the tools and the authority it needs to take 

the necessary steps to bring about the transformation Secretary Shinseki has 

evoked since stepping into the leadership of VA. I look forward to hearing about its 

plans to implement the claims processing improvements we outlined in the 110th 

Congress in P.L. 110–389, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 that 

should help in this regard. 

I am optimistic that today’s witnesses can further direct us toward a way forward. 

I regret the Hamster-wheel effect that two of the witnesses on the first panel have 

faced in their own efforts to secure the benefits and the assistance that they seek 

from their government. I offer my apologies for all of the waiting. 

I know the American Legion, VFW, and DAV have worked diligently along with 

the other VSOs to address the disjointed practices that exist within VA that led to 

this growing backlog. I am eager to hear from the AFGE and the newly formed Disability Compensation Advisory Committee and I put much hope in your work and 

its progress. I also look forward to hearing from VA. I know that your claims processing production has improved—I applaud you for managing the resources Congress has given you to make this improvement. I also know that the 1 million claims 

figure reflects all of your inventory—not just compensation and pension and not just 

backlogged claims. These facts notwithstanding, Congress, veterans and other stakeholders want to know what is VA’s strategy for handling a workload of 1 million 

claims in a 21st century manner. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
50 

Finally, I thank VA and DoD for being here today to update the Committee on 

its progress in implementing Public Law 110–389 and the formation of the Interagency Program Office mandated by the NDAA along with President Obama’s VA/ 

DoD Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record initiative. 

If we can accomplish the tasks already set in motion, it is my hope that VA will 

transform into a 21st Century, customer-focused system that can in fact process 1 

million claims accurately and timely. One where veterans and their families no 

longer have to put their lives on hold while waiting for the much needed assistance 

they deserve. 

I now yield to Ranking Member Lamborn for his opening statement. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member, 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, 

Thank you for holding this hearing to discuss VA’s disability claims processing 

system and its ongoing efforts to improve timeliness and accuracy. 

The struggle to overcome the backlog of disability claims has weighed upon the 

Department for several years now. 

Despite multiple hearings on this issue, as well as significant increases in VA’s 

budget, workforce, and information technology resources, signs of progress are subtle at best. 

We’ve addressed this situation from multiple angles: 

• Funding for VA programs have increased steadily since 1995. 

• There’s been a seventy-five percent increase in the number of full time claims 

workers in the last 5 years. 

• We’ve made a strong push toward modernizing the VA claims system so that 

it is electronic rather than paper-based. 

• And we’ve emphasized and reemphasized the need for training and accountability. 

Yet, VA seems to be overwhelmed, and it is well past time for frank assessment 

of what is going on. 

VA needs to be very candid and forthcoming about what it sees as the problem, 

otherwise we cannot help fix it. 

I understand that along with aforementioned increase in funding, VA is receiving 

a record numbers of claims, along with an increased number of complex issues on 

each claim. 

While these factors obviously pose a challenge, I do not see them as insurmountable. 

I believe that VA has the resources and authority necessary to adjudicate claims 

quickly and accurately, and I expect it to do so. 

If this is a misperception, I must know why. 

Every one of these claims represents an American veteran; their patience and 

mine is growing very thin on this issue. 

If we do not fix this problem now, and merely pass it on to a future generation, 

we will all be very much ashamed, and deservedly so. 

I’m certain everyone here shares my frustration, so lets put the cards on the table 

and figure out what we can do. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their service and their testimony, and I look 

forward to our discussion today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Ian de Planque, Assistant Director, 

Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, American Legion 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present The American Legion’s views on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) backlog and VA’s claims processing system. 

Claims Backlog and Staffing 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, more than 2.95 million veterans received VA Veterans 

Benefit Administration (VBA) disability compensation benefits. Providing quality deVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:20 Jan 22, 2010 Jkt 051869 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\51869.XXX GPO1 PsN: 51869

ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
51 

cisions in a timely manner has been, and will continue to be, one of VA’s most difficult challenges. A majority of the claims processed by the VBA’s 57 Regional Offices (ROs) involve multiple issues that are legally and medically complex as well 

as time consuming to adjudicate. 

As of June 6, 2009, there were 722,901 claims pending in VBA, 409,362 of which 

are rating cases. There has been a steady increase in VA’s pending claim backlog 

since the end of FY 2004 when there were 321,458 rating cases pending. At the end 

of FY 2008, there were more than 390,000 rating cases pending in the VBA system, 

with an increase of 14,000 from FY 2006. Of these, more than 85,000 (22.1 percent) 

were pending for more than 180 days. Including non-rating claims pending, the total 

compensation and pension claims backlog were more than 624,000, with over 20 percent of these claims pending more than 180 days. There were also more than 

183,000 appeals pending at VAROs, with more than 167,000 requiring some type 

of further adjudicative action. Since the beginning of this year, the number of appeals has grown by almost 10,000. 

The American Legion National Staff has interviewed regional office employees 

during quality review visits with the consistent complaints among Regional Office 

employees being: Inadequate staffing levels, inadequate continuing education, and 

pressure to make quick decisions, have resulted in an overall decrease in quality 

of work. It is an extreme disservice to veterans, not to mention unrealistic, to expect 

VA to continue to process an ever increasing workload, while maintaining quality 

and timeliness, with the current staff levels. The current wartime situation provides 

an excellent opportunity for VA to actively seek out returning veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF), especially those 

with service-connected disabilities, for employment opportunities within VBA. Despite the recent hiring initiatives implemented to provide additional staffing, viewed 

by many as a ‘‘surge’’ tactic, ROs will need to continue the hiring of additional personnel given to meet current and projected future workload demands. 

The American Legion is also concerned with the retention of newly hired and 

trained claims adjudicators. Repeatedly, The American Legion has asked the question—what is the attrition rate of newly hired claims adjudicators? Mr. Chairman, 

the silence is deafening. This is an area The American Legion believes should be 

exploded. Hiring new personnel is great, but if their tenure with VBA is short-lived 

(3 years or less), then retention of experienced claims adjudicators may very well 

continue for years to come. 

Through this process, VBA must be required to provide better justification for the 

resources it says are needed to carry out its mission and, in particular, how VBA 

intends to improve the level of adjudicator training, job competency, and quality assurance. Each of these topics will be discussed in greater detail below. 

Production vs. Quality 

Since 1996, The American Legion, in conjunction with the National Veterans 

Legal Services Program (NVLSP), has conducted quality review site visits at more 

than 40 regional offices for the purpose of assessing overall operation. This Quality 

Review Team visits a regional office for a week and conducts informal interviews 

with both VA and veterans’ service organizations’ (VSO’s) staff. The Quality Review 

Team then reviews a random sample of approximately 30–40 recently adjudicated 

American Legion-represented claims. The Team finds errors in approximately 20– 

30 percent of cases reviewed. 

The most common errors include the following: 

• Inadequate claim development leading to premature adjudication of claim; 

• Failure to consider reasonably inferred claims based on evidence of record; 

• Rating based on inadequate VA examination; and/or 

• Under-evaluation of disability (especially mental conditions). 

These errors are a direct reflection of VA’s emphasis of quantity over quality of 

work. This seems to validate The American Legion’s concerns that emphasis on production continues to be a driving force in most VA regional offices, often taking priority over such things as training and quality assurance. Clearly, this problem frequently results in premature adjudications, improper denials of benefits and inconsistent decisions. These issues all contribute to claims remaining in the system far 

longer than is necessary. 

Training 

Proper mandatory training is a key factor in the quality of VA regional office rating decisions. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) combined remand and reversal 

rate (over 55 percent) of regional office decisions for FY 2008 is a direct reflection 

of the lack of importance placed on training by the VAROs. Our Quality Review 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
52 

Team site visits have revealed that, at many regional offices, there have been too 

few experienced supervisors that could provide trainee adjudicators proper mentoring and quality assurance. In addition, at many stations, ongoing training for the 

new hires, as well as the more experienced staff, would be postponed or suspended, 

so as to focus maximum effort on production. 

Many ROs are receiving an influx of additional personnel. At a large number of 

ROs, as much as a third or more of the staff has less than 3 years of experience. 

This is due to regular job turnover, but also the recent measures to ensure adequate 

staffing that have created so many new positions. 

There is no time better than the present to ensure that the training is first rate. 

With so much staff in the earliest portion of their VA tenure, the opportunity to instill, with proper training, the skills to create and sustain a first class workforce 

for the foreseeable future of VA is at hand. As new employees learn to administer 

the system and adjudicate benefits, let them learn to do it right. Attention to training at this stage will reap only positive benefits down the road as the new, core nucleus of VA employees is formed. We are building VA not just for today, but for the 

future, and attention to the building blocks in the foundation now will prevent catastrophic failures and instabilities down the line. 

Consistency in training remains problematic. Each of VBA’s 57 ROs appears to 

have a different approach to training and each also differs in the importance placed 

on training. According to a May 2005 report from the VA Office of the Inspector 

General (VAOIG), based on a survey of rating veterans’ service representatives 

(RVSRs) and decision review offices (DROs), the respondents expressed positive 

opinions regarding the quality of their training, but the overall response indicated 

that training did not receive high priority. Although this VAOIG’s survey is now 

more than 4 years old, our Quality Review Team still hears similar comments when 

talking to service center staff during our site visits. 

Some stations have regular formalized or structured training programs, while others have training programs that are best described as more informal and sporadic. 

Some stations have well established and structured training for new employees, but 

ongoing training for experienced staff is very limited. 

The VAOIG also recommended that a scientific study be conducted to further examine the variances in disability payments. VA subsequently contracted the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to conduct the study. IDA released its report in 

2007, noting that although VBA provides centralized training modules for training 

purposes, many ROs supplement this training with material developed locally. IDA 

also found that many rating specialists interviewed stated that they received ‘‘onthe-job’’ training from senior raters and identified these individuals as the biggest 

influence on their rating styles. IDA suggested that a ‘‘stronger mechanism’’ would 

reduce the potential for persistent differences among regional offices in ratings and 

ensure that raters VA-wide are receiving the same training. IDA further recommended that raters be given standardized test cases, reflecting the most likely 

areas of variation, as part of an ongoing training process. 

We are also aware of the centralized training program that has been implemented; however, a national training standard/requirement, in addition to the centralized training conducted by Compensation and Pension (C&P) Service, for RO 

personnel is also needed. Consistent and standardized training at each regional office must take place for all personnel—experienced and new hires alike. The American Legion believes it is crucial that such a program be implemented and closely 

monitored for compliance by the Under Secretary for Benefits. Management in stations, not in compliance with such training requirements, must be held accountable; 

otherwise, any national or centralized training effort will not be successful. 

Additionally, The American Legion believes it is essential to proper training that 

information (reasons for remand or reversal) from BVA decisions, DRO decisions 

and errors noted in the National Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) and 

other internal quality reviews be tracked and examined for patterns. This information should then be used in mandatory formal training to ensure that common errors and other discrepancies occurring in regional office rating decisions are not repeated. This information should also be used for remedial training purposes when 

patterns of errors are identified for specific individuals. Although such data is currently being collected and disseminated to the ROs, it appears that consistent utilization of this data in regular formalized and specific training is lacking. 

The American Legion must stress that unless ROs (both managers and individual 

adjudicators alike) learn from their mistakes and take corrective action, VA will continue to have a high rate of improperly adjudicated claims, which result in a consistently high appeals rate and subsequent high BVA remand/reversal rate. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
53 

Performance Standards 

Performance standards of adjudicators and rating specialists are centered on productivity as measured by work credits, known as ‘‘End Products.’’ Both veterans’ 

service representatives (VSR) and RVSRs have minimum national productivity requirements that must be met each day. Some stations also set their own standards, 

based on their claims backlog and other station specific requirements that are over 

and above the national requirement. Despite the fact that VBA’s policy of ‘‘production first’’ has resulted in many more veterans getting faster action on their claims, 

the downside has been that tens of thousands of cases are prematurely and arbitrarily denied. Approximately 65 percent of VA raters and DROs surveyed by the 

VAOIG, in conjunction with its May 2005 report, admitted that the raters did not 

have enough time to provide timely and quality decisions. In fact, 57 percent indicated that they had difficulty meeting production standards if they took time to adequately develop claims and thoroughly review the evidence before making a decision. Unfortunately, even though 4 years have passed since the release of this report, its findings are still consistent with what our Quality Review Team has reported from recent interviews with regional office service center staff. 

Unfortunately, the End Product work measurement system essentially pits the interests of the claimant against the needs of VA managers. The conflict is created 

because the ROs have a vested interest in adjudicating as many claims as possible 

in the shortest amount of time. Awards and bonuses are often centered on production rather than outcomes. This creates a built-in incentive to take shortcuts so that 

the End Product can be taken. The system, in effect, rewards ROs for the gross 

amount of work they report, not whether the work is done accurately or correctly, 

often resulting in many claims being prematurely adjudicated. These problems are 

caused by inadequate development, failure to routinely identify all relevant issues 

and claims and/or ratings based on inadequate examinations. Even the VAOIG acknowledged that because the VA often does not take the time to obtain all relevant 

evidence and information, there is a good chance that these claims are not properly 

adjudicated. 

This is underlined by the findings of The American Legion’s Quality Review visits, 

which can be revelatory in their candid commentary with VA staff and personnel. 

Time and time again, VA employees express frustration with their ability to balance 

their time to properly review a case file against the meeting of production standards. One veteran VA rater indicated a thick file, not atypical of the claims process, 

several inches thick and containing hundreds of pages of medical records. ‘‘This 

file . . .’’ the rater stated, ‘‘I have 2 hours to review this file [indicating the standard 

requirement of 31⁄2 claims processed per day]. How do I give that veteran justice?’’ 

This is not an uncommon refrain. 

This ultimately creates a desire to claim quick End Product credit. The result has 

been a traditionally high remand rate by BVA and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). The American Legion believes that VBA management is reluctant to establish a rigorous quality assurance program to avoid exposing the 

longstanding history of the manipulation of workload data and policies that contribute to poor quality decisionmaking and the high volume of appeals. VBA’s quality-related problems and the fact that little or no action is being taken to prevent 

or discourage the taking of premature End Products have been longstanding issues 

for The American Legion. The current work measurement systems, and corresponding performance standards, are used to promote bureaucratic interests of regional office management and VBA rather than protecting and advancing the rights 

of veterans. The End Product work measurement system, as managed by the VA, 

does not encourage regional office managers to ensure that adjudicators do the 

‘‘right thing’’ for veterans the first time. For example, denying a claim three or four 

times in the course of a year before granting the benefit sought allows for a total 

of FIVE End Product work credits to be counted for this one case, rather than 

promptly granting the benefit and taking only one work credit. 

In the view of The American Legion, the need for a substantial change in VBA’s 

work measurement system is long overdue. A more accurate work measurement system would help to ensure better service to veterans. Ultimately, this would require 

the establishment of a work measurement system that does not allow work credit 

to be taken until the decision in the claim becomes final, meaning that no further 

action is permitted by statute whether because the claimant has failed to initiate 

a timely appeal or because the BVA rendered a final decision. 

Immediate (Non-Legislative) Remedies to Reduce Claims Backlog 

Greater emphasis should be placed on conducting triage to identify and expedite 

claims that are substantially complete (very little or no development needs to be 

completed in order to rate the claim) at the time they are submitted. Then C&P 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
54 

exams should be ordered as soon as possible in cases where the only development 

that is needed in order to rate the claim is an exam. Although there are mandatory 

notification requirements under the VCAA, VA can streamline its waiver process in 

those cases where the claim is substantially complete and/or veterans do not have 

any additional evidence to submit. This would allow VA to proceed with the adjudication process in a timely manner without having to wait for the expiration of the 

time period for a veteran to submit additional evidence or otherwise respond to the 

VCAA letter. 

The aforementioned process should also be applied in claims with multiple issues 

in order to provide claimants with access to VA health care and compensation, while 

VA continues to work those issues that are more complex or require significant development. Issues that are substantially complete and essentially ‘‘ready to rate’’ at 

time of submission should be so identified and expedited in order to avoid delay that 

would result if adjudication was put off until all issues were ready to rate. Issues 

that are more complex or require significant development should be deferred for rating upon completion of required development. 

VA often receives claims that contain evidence sufficient to establish service-connection and also sufficient medical evidence to properly rate the current severity of 

the condition under the applicable diagnostic code. In most, if not all of these cases, 

VA, as matter of routine, schedules an exam even though it has sufficient evidence 

to not only establish service-connection, but also sufficient evidence to properly rate 

the condition under the applicable rating criteria. 

Perfect examples of this are claims of entitlement to service-connection for type 

II diabetes based on the Vietnam Agent Orange (herbicide) presumption. If a veteran diagnosed with type II diabetes meets the Vietnam service requirements, exposure to herbicides is conceded and entitlement to service-connection is automatically 

established, if the condition developed to a degree of 10 percent or more disabling 

during the applicable presumptive period and rebuttal of service-connection, in accordance with 38 CFR § 3.307, was not accomplished. In type II diabetes cases, the 

treatment notes (either private or VA) more often than not contain sufficient medical information to properly rate the current severity of the condition under the VA 

Schedule for Rating Disabilities, negating the necessity of a VA examination. However, if a VA examination is necessary to address secondary conditions, such issues 

can be deferred and addressed at a later date thereby allowing for the immediate 

rating of the type II diabetes, and commencement of compensation benefits, without 

delay. Unfortunately, the routine scheduling of (unnecessary) examinations in cases 

such as this where there is sufficient evidence of record to establish service-connection and to properly rate the condition can result in 1 to 3 month delays in adjudicating the claim. The American Legion, therefore, recommends establishing specially 

trained triage teams to identify such claims. 

VA could also explore another option that involves cases where there is sufficient 

evidence to establish service-connection, but an exam is needed to accurately rate 

the current severity of the condition. In these cases, VA could grant service-connection, establish a baseline evaluation based on the medical evidence of record, and 

then go back later and conduct an exam to establish current severity of the condition. Such a process would quickly establish service-connection and, as a result, VA 

health care eligibility, and generally provides the claimant with payments in a 

timelier manner. 

Brokered Claims 

In an effort to help balance its claims backlog across regional offices, VBA established a ‘‘brokering’’ program where it transfers claims from the regional office of 

jurisdiction to another regional office to be adjudicated. The idea behind brokering 

cases is to provide assistance to regional offices with large backlogs by having another regional office rate a specified number of its claims each month. Regional office employees and VSOs located at regional offices that broker work to other offices 

have consistently voiced concern about the quality of the brokered work, to our 

Quality Review Team during site visits. There seems to be a common consensus 

among VA and VSO employees, interviewed by our Quality Review Team that regional offices working brokered claims do not have a vested interest in the brokered 

claim as it is not under their permanent jurisdiction, nor will they have to deal with 

subsequent appeals. The frequency of errors found in brokered cases reviewed during The American Legion Quality Review Team site visits supports this concern. 

Unfortunately, although VBA does not have a mechanism in place to monitor the 

quality of brokered work; VBA management continues to tout this program as an 

effective case management tool. Although this program may be a necessary shortterm solution for regional offices unable to effectively manage current workloads, it 

does not address the staffing and other resource deficiencies that resulted in the 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
55 

need for work to be brokered in the first place. VBA management should not continue to rely on brokering as a permanent solution to addressing its claims backlog, 

but should focus on ensuring that its regional offices have adequate staffing, training, and other resources in order to properly manage their own workloads and eliminate the need for brokering altogether. 

Conclusions 

The best way to help veteran claimants is to fix the entire VA claims adjudication 

system. This is not a time to repeat errors of the past and continue to throw augmented numbers of the same resources at the problem. Such an approach will only 

reinforce the errors and flaws which led us to this precarious position. What is 

called for is a fresh look at the system, an examination of the root causes that put 

the veterans of this country in such a dire state. 

Piecemeal solutions do not work and should be avoided. It is essential that the 

VA work measurement system be changed so that VA regional offices are rewarded 

for good work and suffer a penalty when consistent bad decisions are made. Managers, rating specialists and BVA law judges and attorneys should be rewarded for 

prompt careful work and they should also be penalized when they make bad decisions. If we want to preclude an ever growing mountain of claims continuing to back 

up in the system, we need to ensure that we are providing a system that rewards 

getting it right the first time. American veterans seeking VA disability benefits deserve better treatment than what they are currently getting from VA. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing The American Legion to present 

comments on this important matter. As always, The American Legion welcomes the 

opportunity to work closely with you and your colleagues to reach solutions to the 

problems discussed here today, solutions that are in the best interest of America’s 

veterans and their families. 

f 

Prepared Statement of David Bohan, Gladstone, OR (Gulf War Veteran) 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of America’s veterans, including the veterans of the first Gulf 

War with whom I served. The topic which you are addressing today—the VA’s ability to handle the claims backlog—is very important to all of us who serve. 

I am David Bohan. I joined the U.S. Army right out of high school in 1987 and 

served with the 2nd Battalion of the 16th Infantry Division in the Gulf War. As 

some of you may know from the current series in The American Legion Magazine, 

our outfit was first across the breach in the ground war. My platoon refueled the 

M-1 tanks on the frontlines. We hauled tank trucks full of fuel across the desert 

to the tanks, despite cluster mines and Scud missile attacks. You don’t forget the 

feeling you get when the Iraqi Army sends a Scud into your camp. I received the 

bronze star for my noteworthy actions. 

I served 6 years and left Fort Riley, Kansas the moment my discharge was completed in December 1992. Like thousands of other Gulf War One veterans, I was 

not offered any transition assistance programs when I was discharged. No one suggested that I get copies of records of any medical treatment I received in the military. There was no mention of VA benefits of any kind, whether you are talking 

about hospital care or counseling for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. All I wanted 

to do was get home to Oregon as quickly as possible. This has continued to cause 

problems for me and my ability to get VA benefits. 

I spent most of the next 15 years trying to erase my memories of the war with 

alcohol. Those were terrible years. Nothing worked. I had jobs at a variety of freight 

companies. I was married and divorced. Most of all, I drank. This was all very hard 

for my family, but my mother and father stood by me. I didn’t realize it at the time, 

but I had severe Post-traumatic stress disorder. 

After an automobile accident involving a police officer last year, where luckily no 

one was injured, I realized I had to stop drinking. I checked myself into the 

Roseburg, Oregon VA Medical Center’s inpatient alcohol treatment program. I’ve 

been clean and sober ever since and I’m managing an apartment complex for my 

father. I’m lucky. Many veterans do not have the fantastic family support that I 

have. I don’t know where I would be today without them. 

A counselor at the VA in Roseburg suggested I pursue a claim for my PTSD and 

for injuries to my left foot during the time I was stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas 

and recommended I contact the American Legion for help. 

The VA system is confusing, overwhelming and is not at all friendly to veterans. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
56 

So many of the people at VA are not veterans and don’t understand what we are 

going through. You end up feeling like some of them care more about their rules 

and regulations and paperwork than they care about the veterans. 

We veterans don’t have any idea where this piece of paper or that record is after 

all of this time. Regarding military records we veterans don’t have any idea were 

our records are kept and apparently the military doesn’t know either. I was up late 

at night, digging through boxes, looking for records to prove I was in the Army, that 

I was in the Gulf War, and that I had been in combat and that I had all of the 

necessary stressors to qualify for VA assistance. The memories that going through 

all of those materials from my Army days was very painful. 

With the help of American Legion Service Officer Gregg Demarais, I received a 

PTSD rating from the VA. But the issues with my foot have not yet been addressed. 

My medical records from Fort Riley are missing. I’ve spent hours on the telephone, 

I’ve sent faxes and I’ve sent e-mails. But after months of trying, no one can find 

my records. The hospital at Fort Riley says they do not have the records of the surgeries on my foot. I have contacted the National Personnel Records Center in St. 

Louis many, many times. But I still do not have the records of the multiple surgeries on my foot. Until I can obtain those records and present them to VA, I cannot 

pursue the rest of my case. 

This is very frustrating and very time consuming. I understand why so many people just give up. We need to better assist veterans in need. There needs to be improvement in the communications between VA and other agencies in tracking down 

records. Whether it’s through technology or something else, they need to be able to 

do it faster and more accurately so that they can avoid situations that cause needless delays by sending requests back and forth, over and over again, with no answers to provide to veterans. 

The system CAN work however. Now that I am finally in the VA health care system, some good things have happened. Doctors operated on my arm and repaired 

nerve damage and restored feeling to my fingers. I’m enrolling in college right now 

and I’m going to pursue a business degree. I also try and help my fellow veterans 

get enrolled in the VA system, and, when they need it; get into a drug and alcohol 

treatment program. I am happy to use my experiences to help, but I see many veterans go through the same frustrations that I have gone through. 

I’m proud of my service and I’m grateful for the assistance I have received. But 

there has to be a way to make this easier for all of us. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to any questions you may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Robert Jackson, Assistant Director, National 

Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER LAMBORN AND MEMBERS OF THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony before this Committee on the 

VA claims processing system. The 1.8 million men and women of the Veterans of 

Foreign Wars of the U.S. appreciate the voice you give them at these important 

hearings. 

Mr. Chairman, I have worked for the VFW approximately 18 months. When I 

began working in my current position, a VFW colleague welcomed me, handed me 

a copy of the VA’s rating schedule, and explained that I would need to become acquainted with the material in order to understand how the VBA goes about conducting its business. I am sure you are all familiar with this thick manual and no 

doubt understand the instant panic that set in as I began thumbing through the 

pages. 

‘‘How on Earth can anyone make sense out of this?’’ 

I imagine that a newly hired VA rating specialist probably feels pretty much the 

same way on their first day, understanding that he or she will have to spend a good 

2 years of training and referring to this manual (and other VA regulations), and at 

least another year getting comfortable with the VA claims system to get to the point 

to where the rating specialist becomes somewhat proficient in assessing veterans 

claims. I note this because I believe it is important to understand that simply increasing the number of VA rating specialists (as the VA has done over the past couple years) will not significantly reduce the claims backlog in a fashion considered 

timely by this Committee, the VSO representatives at this table, and most importantly the very veterans this system was developed to serve. I use this example as 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
57 

a starting point in order to advance our discussion to what I believe is a self-evident 

truth: 

There is no quick fix to VBA . . . only the opportunity for steady and deliberate improvement. 

There is No Magic Bullet 

Perhaps it is time we recognize that the world has changed. There has been a 

silent paradigm shift over the past 30 years. If for no other reason than judicial review, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) and the budgetary environment 

that exists today, it may be time to acknowledge that the VA cannot be staffed at 

such levels as will allow it to produce quality decisions in the same period those 

earlier generations of VA workers achieved. 

The converse of this may be to acknowledge that the better production and timeliness levels achieved in the 1950s and ‘60s may very well have been accomplished 

because there was less attention paid to procedural rights and that the VA may 

have exhibited a rather cavalier attitude when it came to interpreting the law and 

its own regulations. 

Whether you agree with either view of history, the initial point remains; the world 

in which the VA operates has changed and it may no longer be realistic to expect 

accurate benefit decisions in a short period of time. There are still things that can 

be done to improve production, reduce backlogs (although perhaps not at the rate 

we all would like to see) and ensure claims are completed with quality. 

Getting it right the first time 

We believe the greatest benefits can be found by fixing the front end of the claims 

operation. Most court decisions today focus on procedural problems stemming from 

notice to claimants and development, or failures to properly develop evidence. The 

VCAA was created because VA would sometimes take shortcuts in the claims development period, failing to give claimants adequate notice of what they needed to 

produce to prove their claims. However, as we have seen since its passage, it is 

quite possible to become bogged down in the notice requirements while attempting 

to dot every ‘‘i’’ and cross every ‘‘t’’. 

We support the VCAA because we believe it helps level the playing field for veterans. The VA has the knowledge of what is required in order to grant or increase 

benefits to veterans. They are required to pass that knowledge on so that claimants 

know, too, and can focus their energies in obtaining the necessary evidence to perfect their claim. 

This is not rocket science. If a veteran claims service connection for the residuals 

of a knee injury, the VA can tell her that she needs to show that she has a disability 

of the knee now, that she injured the knee in service or something that happened 

in service caused a knee problem and to provide VA with medical evidence that 

shows the current problem to be related to the event in service. These are the same 

three things that have always been required to prove service connection. 

The requirements for obtaining an increase in benefits are equally finite: a claimant must show that their service-connected disability has worsened sufficiently to 

obtain a higher evaluation. In order to obtain an increase for that knee problem, 

the veteran must show the existence of arthritis in the joint which limits motion 

or causes pain, or demonstrates instability in the joint. 

Again, this is not rocket science. Software could be developed that allows a VSR 

in a Pre-Determination team to simply answer a question on a computer screen concerning whether the claim is for service-connection or an increase and what the 

claimed condition is. Now, as you suspect, the computer can generate paragraph 

after paragraph explaining what is required and if the veteran is claiming 12 conditions then the letter can become quite long. Yet, if the object is to ensure that claimants have the information necessary to perfect their claims then it can be done with 

properly programmed computers. Further, these software programs can be made 

available to claimants in a simple, easily accessed, public Web site. Any curious veteran could enter the Web site, answer a series of simple questions and receive detailed information on what is needed to obtain the benefit. 

Technology, technology, technology 

We have testified before this Committee in the past, and continue to believe, that 

if VA takes advantage of the rapid advances in technology they will be able to create 

efficiencies that currently do not exist. For instance, the VA currently has thousands 

of all electronic claims files. These cases are largely Benefits Delivery at Discharge 

(BDD) cases and the electronic claims files offer VA a unique opportunity to create 

a separate office to handle all electronic claims, allowing the VA to experiment and 

create an environment unencumbered by paper files. Imagine the possibility of havVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:20 Jan 22, 2010 Jkt 051869 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\51869.XXX GPO1 PsN: 51869

ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
58 

ing two or three Rating VSRs located in separate sections of a building reviewing 

one claims file and making decisions on different elements of the claim simultaneously. The efficiencies that such a system creates could be significant. 

We understand that VA is establishing a claims processing laboratory in Providence, RI to explore and develop these efficiencies. We welcome this effort and look 

forward to viewing the results of this work in the years to come. 

What about the millions of existing paper claim files? VA rightfully believes that 

copying these files would be cost prohibitive. We agree. However, VA receives thousands of requests each year for copies of claims files. Currently each file is 

photocopied and sent to the claimant. What if each office was equipped with a scanner so that instead of photocopying the file, it is scanned. The claimant would still 

receive a paper copy of the file and at the same time, the VA would have yet another electronic record. 

Back to the Future 

Within 2 years of the conclusion of World War II, more than 16 million service 

men and women were released from active duty. Millions filed claims with VA for 

compensation. Why wasn’t the VA overwhelmed? There are numerous answers to 

the question, including: 

• Veterans claimed fewer disabilities than at present. 

• There were no due process requirements in the law and VA procedures required 

little more than acknowledgement of a claim and notice of the final decision. 

• VA was not obligated to help veterans obtain private records. 

• VA could and did make decisions after receipt of service medical records but before all records were received. When additional records were received, VA reviewed those records in context with other evidence of record and made a new 

decision. 

• VA frequently evaluated disabilities based on service discharge examinations. 

All of these facts allowed the VA to make claim decisions quickly. Reexaminations 

were frequent and allowed VA to increase or reduce evaluations as disabilities worsened or improved. 

Today, claims development takes longer. Quite simply, Congress recognized that 

past procedures and practices by VA were not always veteran friendly, did not adequately tell veterans what was needed and often led to decisions based on less than 

all the available evidence. Decisions are longer because Congress decided that veterans should be told what evidence was considered and why benefits were denied 

or granted. Appeals take longer to resolve because of increased evidentiary and notice requirements, the introduction of an additional review level with Decision Review Officers and the need to satisfy all judicial mandates. 

The fact is that there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these changes. 

Those decisions were all needed to fix recognized problems and abuses. 

Having said that, the question still remains; how do you devise a system that allows VA to make decisions rapidly without increasing mistakes, is not costly either 

to the veteran or the American people, and continues to provide veterans with the 

protections that have been built into the law over the past 60 years? 

Jerry Manar, with four other retired VA alumni, has developed a process that incorporates the best practices of a post WWII claims system to make expedited provisional decisions based on existing records. This proposal, which calls for the creation 

of a test program entitled the Provisional Claims Processing Program, would grant 

benefits on limited information quickly but with quality. 

Limited to servicemembers leaving the Armed Forces or recently discharged veterans, evaluations would be based on existing evidence, understanding that benefits 

for some conditions may be denied when further development would enable VA to 

grant service connection under existing law. Conversely, it is understood that benefits, based on existing evidence, may not be service connected when all evidence is 

eventually developed and considered. Consequently, a grant of benefits for any disability is not a grant of service connection entitling the veteran to protections afforded by existing law and regulation. 

Under this program, full development, a VA examination and a new decision 

would be required 4 years after the initial provisional rating. Provisional decisions 

made under this program would have no precedent value and service connection for 

all disabilities, including any new condition the veteran chooses to place into contention, would be made during the review at the 4-year point. 

This program would restore the rapid delivery of benefits based on current rating 

standards, while still maintaining veterans’ rights under a system of protections 

carefully crafted by Congress over the past 60 years. It should dramatically increase 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
59 

decisions on original claims while allowing the bulk of VFW’s field staff to concentrate on resolving the existing backlog. 

More importantly, this program would provide a win for new veterans. In exchange for agreeing to wait for a final decision, they receive a provisional decision 

and benefits in a matter of weeks instead of more than 6 months. If properly structured the VA could fulfill the promise it made with the BDD program that a decision could be made prior to discharge. 

Further, veterans have the right to choose which program they participate in 

AFTER they know what the provisional decision awards. If they disagree with the 

provisional decision, they need not accept it. And, since they know that the current 

program may take 6 months or more to produce a decision, their conscious choice 

to accept the wait should reduce the number of complaints and consequent pressure 

on Congress. 

We will be more than happy to provide you with copies of this proposal. 

Mr. Chairman, these suggestions and ideas, in and of themselves, will not solve 

the backlog, timeliness and quality issues plaguing the VA today. However, if adoption of these and similar proposals each result in steady and deliberate improvement, we believe the cumulative effect will be sufficient to achieve reductions in 

workload and improvements in quality and service to veterans, their families and 

survivors. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you 

may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Kerry Baker, Assistant National Legislative 

Director, Disabled American Veterans 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), to address problems and suggest solutions to the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability claims process. 

The claims process is complex and poorly understood by veterans, service representatives, and even VA employees. The DAV has presented this Committee with 

our comprehensive suggestions for a 21st Century Claims Process. Our suggestions 

are intended to simplify the process by drastically reducing delays caused by superfluous procedures while simultaneously preserving governmental resources and reducing governmental expenditures. 

The DAV’s 21st Century Claims Process represents an ambitious but achievable 

goal. As such, the proposal concedes that the VA achieves certain milestones with 

assistance from Congress. Essentially, the DAV’s plan consists of three major components—a legislative package, an information technology (IT) package, and a 

claims process reorganization. 

While all three of the components obviously complement each other, any of the 

three components will individually enhance the efficiency of the claims process. The 

benefit to this approach is that all three portions are not required to be implemented simultaneously, as would be the case in an ‘‘all-or-nothing’’ approach. 

We also focused on this challenge with the realization of current economical restraints. Therefore, with the exception of the initial startup for the IT package, our 

plan does not require large government spending, not even increased VA staffing. 

Over time, the cost savings of this proposal would be significant. 

Of important note is that all of the legislative/administrative recommendations 

can and should be implemented immediately. These changes are not only vital to 

the success of this proposed process, but will also bring cost-savings efficiency to the 

current claims process—efficiency equaling more than 100,000 reduced work hours 

annually, reduced initial average claims processing time by at least 30–90 days, and 

a faster and more efficient appeals process. 

We have shared this proposal with Committee Staff, current and former VA officials, and other veterans’ service organizations. Their recommendations were incorporated where feasible. 

In DAV’s plan, the initial claims process (pre-appellate stage) essentially consists 

of adjudication stage one, adjudication stage two, and a rating team. Adjudication 

teams one and two will perform functions similar to the current triage and predetermination teams, but in a revised and more efficient format. The major difference—the backbone of the entire 21st Century System—is the Imaging Scanning 

Center (ISC)/drop box-mail point. All paper claims and paper in support of claims 

will be routed to the ISC for immediate imaging and inclusion into the electronic 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
60 

record, which should then be housed centrally and accessible by all points in VBA. 

The ISC and electronic records center (electronic warehouse) will be linked directly 

to each other with a dedicated and secure high-speed/high-bandwidth connection. 

This would prevent the VA from being forced to enhance its entire electronic infrastructure (a much more monumental task), as would be required if the VA had 

to electronically transport multiple claims files from point A to point B. Another 

benefit to the proposed system would be that any evidence received by the ISC 

would be viewable in the official record the following day. It currently takes many 

days, or even weeks, for VA to incorporate new evidence into a claims folder. Lost 

or incorrectly destroyed records would be a problem of the past. 

Upon receipt of the claim in ‘‘team one,’’ the claim would be analyzed on a datacentric form designed to display intent with respect to the type of benefit(s) claimed. 

This will facilitate immediate establishment of ‘‘end product codes’’ (or viable replacement system). In addition to utilizing data-centric forms for rapid claims identification and establishment, such data-centric forms and resulting codes will also 

be utilized to determine the kind of ‘‘notice’’ VA is required to send the claimant, 

and (as near as possible) the type of assistance VA is required to offer the claimant 

in developing the case. 

For example: In accordance with the foregoing, consider a veteran requesting an 

increased rating for a single service-connected disability who does not have supporting private treatment records (PTRs), and therefore only needs a current VA examination. The most practical claims form in this scenario would clearly annotate 

that said veteran is requesting an increased rating for XYZ disability and he/she 

has not received treatment outside of VA. Under the current process, said veteran 

is required to undergo the entire development process, despite that fact that said 

veteran only requires a current VA examination. Therefore, legislative amendments 

to VA’s ‘‘duty to notify/assist’’ are necessary so as not to require VA to undertake 

futile development in such a case. 

If the same scenario occurred wherein said veteran had PTRs with a private doctor, such info must be clearly indicated on the claims form. The modified notification 

letter would then inform said veteran that VA requests he/she obtain the PTRs and 

submit them to VA (mailed to ISC) within 30 days. The same notification would also 

clearly and in understandable language inform said veteran that if, and only if, he/ 

she cannot or will not obtain PTRs, then VA will assist if veteran submits VAF 21– 

4142 (enclosed with notification only in cases where PTRs are indicated on claims 

form). Such notification should be clear that if the veteran does not require VA’s 

assistance in obtaining records, then do not return, or issue VAF 21–4142. 

In addition to the foregoing change regarding development of private records, another legislative change to 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A should be incorporated that 

would allow the VA to sua sponte waive all notice and assistance under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) of 2001 when the VA determines that evidence 

of record is sufficient to award all benefits sought. Such a change would be instrumental in expediting numerous types of claims wherein the VA must currently follow all VCAA requirements despite having evidence sufficient to award benefits. 

(E.g., certain claims under 38 CFR §§ 3.22, 3.309, 3.312, 3.350, 4.16, 4.28, 4.29, 4.30, 

etc.). 

The recommendation to allow the VA to waive, on its own, all notice and assistance for claims wherein the VA can award a full grant of benefits sought should 

be utilized in conjunction with section 221 of the Veterans Benefits Improvement 

Act of 2008. This section allows, among other things, veterans’ representatives to 

use a checklist to annotate when no additional development is needed on a claim 

for disability compensation. There are many potential problems with this unregulated approach. 

However, if utilized in conjunction with this recommendation, such a checklist 

could be crafted in accordance with specific regulations as mentioned above. A 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) could then be drafted between the VA and 

all service organizations housing representatives within each regional office. The 

MOU should highly suggest that each representative screen cases that qualify under 

certain prescribed guidelines, and then deliver such cases directly to one to two designated VA rating specialists for no less than a 2-week turn around for rating such 

a case. 

This approach would not require VA employees to spend valuable time screening 

cases that could qualify under this expedited plan. It would also engage representatives in a more structured and less interest-conflicting manner. If executed properly 

and maximized to its fullest potential, such a procedure could produce close to 

100,000 rating decisions per year within 2 weeks processing time. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
61 

Regarding other claims, the items team one can complete under this plan will require 1–3 days, but should never require more than 1 week. Under the current disability timeline, these same functions take 44 days on average. 

Following completion of team one functions, the electronic claim immediately goes 

to team two. With the exam requested and the notification sent to the claimant (or 

waived), team two will require little or no action on the case. Team two serves primarily as a more advanced stage of development for those cases with more complexity, such as those requiring stressor or other service information verification, development of private records, or complexities returned from the rating team. Team 

two will not be forced to deal with many of the activities that complicate functions 

of its current equivalent, the pre-determination team. Therefore, team two will be 

able to provide much higher quality work in a more efficient manner to the final 

rating team, qualities the current pre-determination team cannot provide simultaneously. 

The actions of teams one and two must take place in a fluid, but accurate manner. 

If executed properly, many cases received by VA will be ready to rate within 30 days 

because the notice response (to the current VCAA process) will be complete as will 

any required compensation and pension (C&P) examinations. The rapid initiation 

and synchronized completion of these two milestones are the keys to success in this 

revised process. 

Many cases will inevitably require extended processing times due to development 

that cannot be streamlined because of inter-agency roadblocks, (i.e., combat-stressor 

development from the Department of Defense’s Center for Research of Unit 

Records). However, many other cases, such as ones similar to the examples above, 

could be ready to rate much, much faster than 60 days because of considerably 

fewer developmental requirements. 

The 21st century process achieves, on average, at 30 days what the current paperlocked, procedure-heavy system achieves at approximately 150–160 days. 

Once ready to rate within 30 days, the final rating team will have 30 days in 

which to issue a decision, a process that currently takes 13 days on average. With 

more time to review cases by the rating teams, contained within a much shorter 

overall processing time, decisionmakers can focus far more on quality than the current system allows, but without sacrificing production standards. This process will 

be greatly enhanced by even a modest rules-based rating system—one that will 

quickly and accurately process cases wherein there is nearly no room for debate, 

such as hearing loss and tinnitus ratings or paragraph 29/30 ratings, among others. 

When VA issues a rating decision, an appeal election letter will be included. This 

will prevent VA from having to mail more than 100,000 letters annually to claimants appealing their decision and will reduce the appellate processing time by 60 

days. The letter will explain that any notices of disagreement submitted without 

electing a post-decision review (DRO) process will automatically be reviewed under 

the traditional appeal process. (The same thing currently happens if a claimant does 

not respond to the appeal election letter). This change can be accomplished administratively. 

A claimant wishing to appeal a decision will have 180 days in which to do so. This 

will require a legislative change. We realize that some may impulsively draw several inferences onto this idea. Those inferences will likely be misplaced—our ambitious goal is to take every opportunity in which to bring efficiency to VA’s entire 

claims process so that it can better serve our Nation’s disabled veterans. We must 

be open to change for such a goal to succeed. 

To put this issue into perspective, the average time it took the VA to receive a 

notice of disagreement (NOD) in 2008 was 41 days. In fact, 92,000 out of just over 

100,000 NODs were received within the first 6 months of 2008. 

This is also an opportunity to bolster certain statutory rights for which the law 

is currently silent. When amending the appellate period from 1 year to 180 days, 

Congress must include an appellate period extension clause and equitable tolling 

clause to the appropriate section of law concerning NODs. 

Specifically, we recommend changing the law so that an appellant may, upon request, extend his/her appellate period by 6 months beyond the initial 6 months. We 

also suggest an amendment to provide for equitable tolling of the appellate period 

in cases of mental or physical disability so significant to have prevented a VA claimant from responding within the specified time. 

If the appeal is not resolved, the VA will issue a statement of the case with an 

amended VAF–9. The amendment will explain that evidence submitted after the appeal has been substantiated to the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) will be forward directly to the Board and not considered by the regional office unless the appellant or his/her representative elects to have additional evidence considered by the 

Regional Office (RO). This opt-out clause merely reverses the standard process withVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:20 Jan 22, 2010 Jkt 051869 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\51869.XXX GPO1 PsN: 51869

ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
62 

out removing any choice/right/etc. from an appellant. This change will result in 

drastically reduced appellant lengths, much less appellant confusion, and nearly (or 

more than) 100,000 reduced VA work hours by eliminating the requirement to issue 

most supplemental statements of the case. Whether this change requires a legislative amendment is currently debatable; it can nonetheless be executed through legislation in order to avoid potential litigation. 

The Appeals Management Center (AMC) is essentially a failure and should be disbanded. The AMC received nearly 20,000 remands from the Board in fiscal year 

(FY) 2008. By the end of FY 2008, the AMC had slightly over 21,000 remands on 

station. By the end of January 2009, they had approximately 22,600 remands on 

station. The AMC completed nearly 11,700 appeals, out of which 9,811 were returned to the Board, 89 were withdrawn, and only 1,789 were granted. In fact, 2,500 

appeals were returned to the AMC at least a second time because of further errors 

in carrying out the Board’s instructions, over a 25-percent error rate. This means 

the AMC’s error rate was higher than its grant rate. Such a poor record of performance would never be allowed to exist at an RO. Returning these cases to their respective jurisdictions will help ensure accountability, and most likely reduce the 

number of cases that proceed to the Board. 

The VA will require an additional ‘‘administrative team’’ that is not technically 

part of the claims or appeals process teams. This groups’ function will be to handle 

daily tasks required by VA but that are not necessarily part of the ‘‘claims process.’’ 

These tasks include subordinate or administrative functions such as complying with 

records’ requests under the Freedom of Information Act, serving as attorney fee coordinators, responding to informal claims, and many others that are administrative 

only. Currently, post- or pre-adjudication teams handle many functions for which 

they do not receive work credit and/or are otherwise not a required part of the 

claims process. Placing these functions under the responsibility of an administrative 

team dedicated solely for such tasks will free up resources that can be utilized specifically for claims processing, resulting in increased efficiency. 

ADMINISTRATIVE/LEGISLATIVE CHANGES 

1. Amend 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b) to indicate that VA will assist a claimant in obtaining private medical records when such assistance is requested by the 

claimant on a form prescribed by the Secretary. This will pave the way for 

some of the changes discussed above. (process time saved—30 to 90 days on 

average; work hours saved—unknown but very significant) 

2. Amend 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A to allow the VA to sua sponte waive all VCAA 

requirements when it determines that evidence of record is sufficient to award 

all benefits sought. (process time and work hours saved are unknown but 

very significant) 

3. Title 38 U.S.C.A. § 5104(a) states, inter alia, that when VA notifies a claimant 

of a decision, ‘‘[t]he notice shall include an explanation of the procedure for obtaining review of the decision.’’ 38 U.S.C.A. § 5104(a). An appeal election choice 

is part of that notice; therefore, the VA could modify 38 CFR § 3.2600 in order 

to facilitate the changes suggested above. (process time saved—60 days per 

appeal; work hours—approx 50,000) 

4. Congress should decrease the period in which a VA claimant may submit a 

timely notice of disagreement to the VA following the issuance of a VA rating 

decision from 1 year to 6 months by amending 38 U.S.C. § 7105. 

5. Amend 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 in a manner that would specifically incorporate an 

automatic waiver of RO jurisdiction for any evidence received by the VA, to include the Board, after an appeal has been certified to the Board following submission of a VA Form 9, unless the appellant or his/her representative expressly chooses not to waive such jurisdiction. See para 9. (process time 

saved—60 to 180 days for affected appeals at local offices; at least 2 

years for appeals otherwise subject to remand; work hours—in excess of 

50,000 at local offices, unknown but significant at the Board) 

6. Average total savings, 30 to 90 days pre-appellate stage. Average total savings 

for pre and post appellate cases (cumulative); 90 days minimum in most cases 

and as much as 90 to 330 days pre-remand. Potentially 3 years post remand 

for affected cases. 

All of the above changes can and should be implemented as soon as possible. 

They will adapt to the current process and produce immediate results. 

7. Disband the Appeals Management Center and return remanded appeals to 

original rating team. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
63 

1See, VA Clinician’s Guide, 14.10 (2002). 2 Joshua Kors, ‘‘How the VA Abandons Our Vets,’’ The Nation, Sept. 15, 2008, p. 15. 

8. VA will be required to amend its claims form (VAF 21–526) as well as create 

and specify the form that must be used (post 21–526) for all re-opened and new 

formal claims. 

CONCLUSION 

We are confident these recommendations, if enacted, will help streamline the protracted claims process and drastically reduce undue delays. Some of the recommendations contained herein may appear novel and/or controversial at first; they 

may even draw criticism. However, such a response would be misdirected. These 

recommendations are carefully aimed at making efficient an inefficient process without sacrificing a single earned benefit. 

Mr. Chairman, we have provided your staff as well as the staffs of Chairman Filner, Ranking Member Buyer, Chairman Akaka, and Ranking Member Burr with a 

copy of the DAV’s proposal. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Rachel Natelson, Esq., Legal Advisor, 

Service Women’s Action Network 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Service Women’s Action 

Network (SWAN) concerning the rising backlog of VA benefits claims. 

SWAN is a nonprofit service organization founded to improve the welfare of current U.S. servicewomen and to assist all women veterans. SWAN offers personal 

support and guidance from fellow women veterans, provides legal and counseling 

services from military law experts and caseworkers, recommends sound policy reform to government officials, and educates the public about servicewomen’s issues 

through various media outlets. Conceived as a support network by and for women 

veterans, SWAN serves all military women, regardless of era, experience, or time 

in service. 

Background 

Under current law, the VA claims application process is a uniquely time-consuming one, hobbled by requirements that exist at neither the Social Security Administration nor private insurance companies. As this Subcommittee knows, the 

agency requires all applicants to prove by documentary evidence not only that they 

are disabled but also that their disabilities stem directly from military service. As 

labor-intensive for reviewers as for claimants themselves, this system has yielded 

an application process that routinely lasts for years, culminating in the existing 

backlog of over a million claims. 

While the claims process imposes a toll on all veterans seeking benefits, its burden falls with particular weight on those with Post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD), who must identify the specific stressor that triggered their condition, even 

if they have already been diagnosed and referred to treatment. Deeming the symptoms of PTSD ‘‘relatively easy to fabricate,’’ the VA Clinician’s Guide directs examiners to base the validity of claims on elaborate documentation from claimants’ family and friends concerning changes from pre- to post-service status.1

To date, the agency has defended this system as a precaution against fraud. According to one VA spokeswoman, eliminating the proof requirement ‘‘would be a 

travesty for veterans—an assault to the pride of honest soldiers when other vets 

scammed the system.’’ 2

Such cynicism, however, hardly seems justified by actual numbers; not only are 

50 percent of rejected claims reversed at the first level of appeal, but 90 percent 

of claims that reach the final stage of review are ultimately approved. Similarly, 

studies indicate that existing evidence fails to support the assumption that veterans 

would misreport or exaggerate PTSD symptoms in order to receive compensation. 

In recent years, a number of veterans groups have sought relief from the VA in 

Federal court, arguing that the agency’s failure to issue claim decisions within a 

reasonable timeframe violates the Administrative Procedure Act as well as Constitutional due process rights. When confronted with this charge, the VA has countered 

that given the dictates of current law—most notably the proof requirement—the adVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:20 Jan 22, 2010 Jkt 051869 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\51869.XXX GPO1 PsN: 51869

ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
64 

3Murdoch Murdoch, et al., ‘‘Gender Differences in Service Connection for PTSD,’’ Medical 

Care 41, no. 8 (2003), 950–961. 4Murdoch Murdoch, et al., ‘‘The Association between In-Service Sexual Harassment and Posttraumatic stress disorder among Compensation-Seeking Veterans,’’ Military Medicine 171, no. 

2 (2006), 166–173. 5 Committee on Veterans’ Compensation for Post-traumatic stress disorder, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, PTSD Compensation and Military Service (Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2007), p. 192. 6 Army Regulation 600–20, EO/Sexual Harassment Complaint Processing System, p. 97. 7 U.S. Department of Defense, FY08 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, p. 6. 8 Committee on Veterans’ Compensation for Post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD Compensation and Military Service, p. 179. 

judication and appeals process cannot help but take as long as it does. It is urgent, 

therefore, that the existing legislative framework for VA benefits be reassessed. 

Special Challenges for Women Claimants 

Although the benefits application process is labor-intensive and emotionally taxing for all claimants, women veterans face particular challenges in obtaining disability compensation from the VA. To begin, studies indicate an institutional bias 

in favor of claimants with combat experience, an advantage which disproportionately favors men. Not only do claim processors fail to understand the degree to 

which women are effectively, if not nominally, serving in combat positions, but they 

also fail to appreciate the extent to which servicemembers in non-combat occupations and support roles are exposed to traumatic events. 

Among the most pervasive stressors experienced by military women are incidents 

of sexual assault and harassment. The prevalence of sexual assault in the military 

is hardly news, and has been the subject of a number of recent Congressional hearings and Pentagon reports. By some accounts, nearly a third of female veterans report episodes of sexual assault during military service, while 71 to 90 percent report 

experiences of sexual harassment. These experiences are closely associated with 

PTSD in a variety of studies; in fact, military sexual assault is a stronger predictor 

of PTSD among women veterans than combat history.3 Likewise, studies indicate 

that sexual harassment causes the same rates of PTSD in women as combat does 

in men.4

In spite of this correlation, the VA grants benefits to a significantly smaller percentage of female than male PTSD claimants.5 This disparity stems largely from the 

difficulties of substantiating experiences of military sexual assault, especially in a 

combat arena. Under military regulations, for example, sexual harassment investigations are only retained on file for 2 years from the close of each case.6 While 

criminal investigations of sexual assault are better documented, 80 percent of assault victims fail to report the offense and over 20 percent of those who do file reports opt for a ‘‘restricted’’ mode that precludes official investigation.7

Although training and reference materials for raters provide a great deal of guidance on how combat medals and commendations may be used to support PTSD 

claims, they make little mention of how to address the challenges of documenting 

military sexual assault as an in-service stressor. As a result, reviewers tend to rely 

on a limited group of behavior changes in determining the validity of MST claims, 

often denying them if they fail to conform to a rigid set of expectations. Many raters, 

for example, deny MST claims from veterans with distinguished service records 

based on the assumption that assault victims invariably decline in their job performance. 

Perhaps most frustrating is the tendency of claim processors to ignore or secondguess the evaluations of treating physicians within the VA health system, particularly with respect to mental illness. Despite the fact that the majority of my own 

clients have submitted MST diagnoses from VA counselors, most have received decisions indicating that they have failed to establish the condition, much less connect 

it to their service history. By refusing to recognize the soundness of VA medical provider reports, reviewers both protract the application timeline and compromise the 

healing process for claimants. 

To quote one veteran who recently contacted SWAN about an MST claim she filed 

4 years ago and for which she has yet to receive a hearing date, ‘‘I was raped twice 

while on active duty . . . I understand that this is a waiting game, but every day 

I think about giving up . . . I feel as though through this process I am being raped 

for a third time.’’ Moreover, just as claim denial can undermine the efficacy of treatment, studies have indicated that approval tends to result in increased use of mental-health services.8


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
65 

9 Ibid., 194. 10 Ibid., p. 178. 11 U.S. Department of Defense, FY08 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, p. 41. 

Recommendations 

The Institute of Medicine Committee on Veterans’ Compensation, a panel of experts convened by the VA to examine PTSD compensation issues, has proposed a 

number of sound recommendations based on its research. The Committee has suggested that the agency: 1) collect gender-specific data on MST claim decisions, 2) 

develop additional MST-related reference materials for raters, and 3) incorporate 

training and testing on MST claims into its rater certification program.9 The VA 

should implement these proposals in order to sensitize claim reviewers to the needs 

of assault and harassment victims. 

In light of plans to create a comprehensive electronic records system for military 

personnel, the Department of Defense and the VA have an unusual opportunity to 

address the problem of documenting in-service incidents of sexual assault and harassment. In order to ensure that records of harassment and assault complaints may 

be accessed in support of VA claims, the military should incorporate, upon request, 

such investigative files into the proposed Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record. 

While such a step would not address the issue of under-reporting, it would at least 

improve the accessibility of existing records. 

The VA should also establish a presumption of soundness for the diagnoses of its 

own treating physicians and counselors. Claim reviewers should not have the authority to second-guess evaluations by agency medical professionals or to discount 

VA treatment records in favor of one-time Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam 

results. According to the IOM Committee, C&P examiners have reported feeling particular pressure to limit the time they devote to PTSD and MST evaluations, sometimes to as little as 20 minutes.10

SWAN also supports H.R. 952, which would create a statutory presumption of 

service-connection for OEF and OIF veterans with PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). However, since statistics suggest that servicewomen are more likely to 

be sexually assaulted outside of combat zones than during deployment, we would 

propose extending such a presumption to all veterans who suffer from a traumatic 

event while in service. According to the Pentagon’s 2008 Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Office (SAPRO) report, fewer than 10 percent of the assault incidents 

reported last year occurred in combat zones.11

Finally, SWAN proposes revising the current VA work credit system, which paradoxically prolongs the adjudication process by privileging speed over accuracy in initial claim determinations. By measuring employee productivity strictly by number 

of cases processed, the VA offers reviewers an incentive to take any shortcut necessary to clear their desks of pending claims. The resulting combination of too much 

work and too little time ultimately gives rise to premature—and inaccurate—determinations, setting in motion years of appeals. In order to encourage accurate determinations at the Regional Office level and remove the incentive to recycle claims, 

the agency should award work credit only after the final stage of review. 

Thank you very much for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions that the Subcommittee might have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General James Terry Scott, USA (Ret.), 

Chairman, Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn, Members of the Subcommittee: It is 

my pleasure to appear before you today representing the Advisory Committee on 

Disability Compensation. The Committee is chartered by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. and 546 in compliance with P.L. 110–389 

to advise the Secretary with respect to the maintenance and periodic readjustment 

of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Our charter is to ‘‘(A)ssemble and review 

relevant information relating to the needs of veterans with disabilities; provide information relating to the character of disabilities arising from service in the Armed 

Forces; provide and on-going assessment of the effectiveness of the VA’s Schedule 

for Rating Disabilities; and provide on-going advice on the most appropriate means 

of responding to the needs of veterans relating to disability compensation in the future.’’ 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
66 

The Committee has met eight times and is drafting an interim report to the Secretary that addresses our efforts to date. Our focus is in three areas of disability 

compensation: Requirements and methodology for reviewing and updating the 

VASRD; adequacy and sequencing of transition compensation and procedures for 

servicemembers transitioning to veteran status with special emphasis on seriously 

ill or wounded servicemembers; and disability compensation for non-economic loss 

(often referred to as quality of life). 

You asked me to present my views on the issues surrounding the VA’s disability 

claims processing system. The Committee’s charter and efforts to date have addressed the processing system only in the sense that an updated and clarified Rating Schedule will enable examining, rating and reviewing officials to make a more 

accurate and timely assessment of a veteran’s disability and its effect on his or her 

average earnings loss. An updated and clarified Rating Schedule should improve 

first time accuracy and reduce the number of appeals and the backlog that appeals 

create. 

Recent studies by the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission, the Institute of 

Medicine, the General Accounting Office and others have consistently recommended 

a systematic review and update process for the VASRD. The Congress has repeatedly demanded the same. I believe that the case for such a system is made. My 

Committee has informally recommended to the Secretary that the Deputy Secretary 

be tasked with oversight of the VASRD systematic review and update process to insure that the VBA, VHA and General Counsel are fully integrated into the process. 

We are also offering a proposed level of permanent staffing in both VBA and VHA 

to insure that all fifteen body systems are reviewed and updated, as necessary, in 

a timely way. We are proposing a priority among the body systems that takes into 

account the following: body systems that are at greatest risk of inappropriate evaluations; body systems are considered problem prone, and relative number of veterans and veterans’ payments associated with each body system. 

Regarding disability compensation for non-economic loss, also referred to as quality of life, we are reviewing the Special Monthly Compensation program and analyzing options for forms of compensation beyond a monetary stipend. 

Regarding disability compensation related to transition from servicemember to 

veteran status, we are reviewing the many recent changes and improvements to the 

transition programs to determine if and where gaps in coverage and assistance may 

remain for veterans and families. We are also reviewing the Vocational Rehabilitation and Education program as it relates to transition for disabled veterans. 

In summary, our Committee’s work is progressing on a broad front. The parameters of our charter offer us the opportunity to look at all aspects of disability compensation and we are doing so. The Committee has excellent access to the Secretary 

and his staff. The VA staff is responsive and helpful to the Committee’s requests 

for information. It is our intent to offer interim reports to the Secretary semi-annually. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I welcome any comments or questions. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Michael Ratajczak, Decision Review Officer, 

Veterans Affairs Cleveland Regional Office, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, on behalf of the 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO 

Dear Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), the exclusive representative of 

employees in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). 

I currently serve as a Decision Review Officer (DRO) at VBA’s Cleveland Regional 

Office, and have been employed with VBA for almost 8 years. My other experiences 

at VBA include duties with the Appeals Management Center, work on a joint remand quality review project with the Board of Veterans Appeals, service in a Rating 

Resource Center, and participation in Rating Specialist (RVSR) and DRO Certification Testing Design Committees and question writing activities. Prior to my employment with VBA, I practiced law. 

Can the VA handle 1 million claims? We can and we must because we cannot fail 

those who have never failed us. AFGE and the VBA employees we represent—many 

of whom are veterans themselves—are committed to working tirelessly with the VA 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
67 

and Congress to reduce the backlog to ensure that veterans’ claims are processed 

with accuracy and timeliness. 

We are very encouraged by Secretary Shinseki’s commitment to restoring a working environment where employees on the frontlines are viewed as part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. We are equally appreciative of Chairman 

Hall’s consistent interest in receiving AFGE’s views on this issue. 

The valuable tools provided by P.L. 110–389 to modernize the VA disability claims 

process were also the product of an inclusive dialog between stakeholders. These 

tools—including improvements in employee certification and training, studies to 

overhaul the current work credit and work management systems, and enhanced information technology (IT)—will significantly reduce an inventory of one million 

claims or any other size. The urgency of putting these tools into practice grows 

greater with each new claim in the queue. These tools are crucial for achieving the 

most important objective of all: do each claim right the first time. 

Skills Certification and Training 

The requirement in the new law to require some managers to take skills certification tests will yield multiple benefits for VBA’s efforts to address the million 

claims backlog. Our members regularly report that they are supervised by managers 

who have little or no experience performing the complex functions involved in processing disability claims, rendering their roles as mentors and trainers ineffective. 

Managers without sufficient expertise are also unable to carry out quality assurance 

duties, leading to greater errors, which in turn lead to more appeals, remands and 

other delays. 

The requirement in the law that VBA consult with all stakeholders, including employee representatives, in order to improve the certification process will ensure the 

development of effective exams that test for appropriate skills. 

AFGE understands that the design process for certification testing of first line supervisors, Assistant Service Center Managers, and Service Center Managers is imminent or has already begun. Unfortunately, employee representatives have not 

been given the opportunity for input into this effort. VBA must include employee 

representatives in the design process to ensure that management certification is sufficiently rigorous, and therefore, adequately prepares managers and employees who 

perform quality review of the work of VSRs, RVSRs and DROs. Workplace morale 

also suffers when frontline employees work under intense pressure to adjudicate 

complex claims while supervised by managers who have not done and do not understand their jobs. 

The increased complexity of disability claims and additional duties also demand 

strong training programs for both new and current employees. AFGE members routinely report deficiencies in the training provided at ROs. These deficiencies range 

from failure to adequately advise employees of the impact of changes in the law to 

failure to ensure that the training program that certification is designed to test is 

complete. The provision in P.L. 110–389 for an independent evaluation of VBA’s employee training programs is a crucial component of any strategy to expedite and improve the claims process. 

AFGE urges consideration of the following as part of this training study: 

• The impact of inconsistencies between ROs in the number of hours that management sets aside for employee training; 

• The feasibility of a centralized training program using a cadre of formally training instructors to provide RO training; 

• Increasing manager accountability for noncompliance with training requirements, and the use of manager incentives to improve the quality of training programs. 

Work Credit and Work Management Systems 

Production requirements driven by fiat and ignorance rather than evidence and 

analysis will only continue to create incentives for employees and managers to make 

quantity a higher priority than quality. 

VBA has yet to produce evidence that it has undertaken a reliable time and motion study that would enable it to develop an effective system for assigning work 

credit for different tasks in the claims process. Through the leadership of the Subcommittee and the passage of P.L. 110–389, this greatly needed study is closer to 

becoming a reality. 

An accurate work measurement system will lay the foundation for an effective 

work management system. Employee workload requirements must be ascertained by 

reference to valid empirical data. VBA must, with no preconceptions, identify how 

much an employee can reasonably be expected to do with an acceptable level of accuracy, and use that data to project the number of employees it needs to process 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
68 

its inventory. VBA has not adjusted individual employee production standards to reflect the increasing complexity and difficulty of the claims process. Instead, employees are subjected to arbitrary and unreasonable production standards that lead to 

inefficient and incomplete claims development. This failure has deprived claimants 

of full, fair, and timely consideration of their claims, and is largely responsible for 

VBA’s increasing inventory of claims. 

We also endorse the requirement in this law to study ways to simplify the processes for gathering evidence and adjudication of claims. The insights of frontline employees who regularly confront inefficiencies in these processes will be invaluable to 

this effort. 

As part of the study’s focus on measures to improve the accountability of claims 

process, AFGE recommends consideration of two issues: First, whether modifying 

the CPI (Claims Processing Initiative) would enable VBA to better address the backlog and quality problems; and, second, whether the increased use of the practice of 

brokering cases between ROs has also contributed to delays and quality deficiencies. 

Finally, the requirement that VBA identify ‘‘lessons learned’’ and best practices 

through analyses of each Regional Office will yield enormous benefits with minimal 

costs. Over the years, fewer and fewer ROs have set aside the time for claims processing employees to regularly exchange information with their colleagues about how 

to perform their jobs more effectively. This simple idea is a valuable learning and 

efficiency tool that is widely used in many other public and private sector workplaces and has been sorely lacking in many VBA workplaces. 

Enhancement of Information Technology 

AFGE commends the Subcommittee for its efforts to move VBA beyond a series 

of unmet promises to fix its outdated IT systems through provisions in P.L. 110– 

389 for development of a comprehensive plan for technology to support consistent, 

accurate and objective claims processing. 

A paperless environment is a crucial first step toward this goal. The most immediate benefit of electronic files is the reduction of claims processing time. Adjudicators who can access electronic files will no longer need to delay processing of the 

claim until arrival of a physical file, and it will be possible to process co-existing 

claims simultaneously. 

AFGE recommends a two-step process for converting to a paperless environment. 

First, starting with new claims, scan all documents associated with initial claims 

received so that they are available to adjudicators in an electronic format. This will 

ensure that claims files going forward will be essentially electronic, and thus, enable 

VBA to begin the transition to a wholly paperless claims environment. 

Second, the contents of any existing claims file that is transferred from or between ROs (for example, as work brokered from one RO to another, or as an appeal 

to the Board of Veterans Appeals) should be scanned. Transfers of paper files result 

in significant cost and increase the risk of losing important documents. The scanning of transferred cases would also ensure that documents that are received after 

the transfer are properly associated with the file in the fastest and most efficient 

manner. In addition, by providing all adjudicators access to the same information, 

it would ensure that co-existing claims (for example, appealed issues and new 

claims) are worked accurately and simultaneously. 

Is VBA making effective use of its expanded workforce and training investment? 

Over the last several years, Congress has responded to the lack of staff to address 

the growing backlog by providing funding to expand VBA’s claims processing workforce. AFGE urges the Subcommittee to investigate reports that significant numbers 

of new VSRs and RVSRs are fired during their probationary periods for poor performance even though they have not completed mandatory training. It is especially 

troubling that many of those losing their jobs are veterans who were recently hired 

under preference rules. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on the urgency of implementing 

P.L. 110–389 to reduce the backlog. 

f 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
69 

Prepared Statement of Michael Walcoff, 

Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

the Veterans Benefits Administration’s (VBA) disability claims processing system 

and our efforts to improve processing and timeliness. I am pleased to be accompanied by Mr. Bradley G. Mayes, VBA’s Director of the Compensation and Pension 

Service, and Mr. Scott Cragg, Executive Director and Program Manager for the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record. 

My testimony will also focus on defining the backlog, improvement initiatives, our 

information technology modernization strategy, business transformation efforts, the 

Joint VA/DoD Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record, and the implementation of Public 

Law 110–389. 

Defining Backlog 

A number of figures have been used to define the backlog of compensation and 

pension (C&P) disability claims at VBA. Before accepting any backlog figure, an explanation of the pending claims inventory at any given time should be considered. 

I will describe this pending claims inventory, and then relate it to the VBA’s definition of backlog. 

The VBA’s pending inventory includes all claims received, whether pending for 

just a few hours or as long as 6 months. Completed claims are continuously removed 

from the inventory while newly received claims are added. VBA maintains this 

pending inventory of claims, which are bundled into two categories: rating workload 

and non-rating workload. 

The rating workload is composed of original and reopened claims for disability 

compensation and/or pension. This workload is how VBA traditionally measures its 

claims inventory. These claims are considered to be the core of our claims processing 

activity because they represent Veterans awaiting an entitlement decision for service connected disability compensation or non-service connected pension benefits. At 

the end of May 2009, VBA’s rating-related inventory was 402,047 claims. Of these, 

267,093, or 66.4 percent, were reopened claims, which include claims for increased 

benefits, newly claimed disabilities for Veterans who have previously filed claims, 

or additional evidence submitted to reopen a previously denied claim. 

Non-rating workload includes dependency adjustments on active compensation 

awards, income adjustments on pension awards, and eligibility determinations for 

ancillary benefits like auto, clothing, and special housing allowances. At the end of 

May 2009, non-rating inventory was 220,891 claims. This portion of VBA’s workload 

varies during the year due to the cyclical nature of the income and eligibility 

verification processes associated with pension workload. During the second and 

third quarter of the fiscal year, it’s not unusual to see fluctuations in inventory up 

to 50,000 claims. 

One major challenge in improving service delivery of compensation and pension 

benefits is the steady and sizeable increase in workload. During FY08, VBA received 

888,000 rating claims and 755,000 non-rating claims for a total of more than 1.6 

million, or 4,501 per day. 

Through May 2009, rating-related claims received are up 131⁄2 percent during 

FY09 compared to the same period in FY08. Despite a 9.3-percent increase in claims 

completed, the rating-related inventory has increased from 379,842 at the end of 

FY08 to 402,047 at the end of May 2009. 

Although the inventory of rating claims has increased by approximately 22,000 

this year, we have made progress in improving the timeliness of our decisions. During FY09, VBA has improved average days to complete on rating claims from 178.9 

days at the end of FY08 to 161.8 days at the end of May 2009. We have made similar progress in improving non-rating timeliness from 109.4 days at the end of FY08 

to 88 days at the end of May 2009. The combined FY09 timeliness for all rating 

and non-rating claims completed through May 2009 is 120.9 days. 

VBA’s entire inventory of pending disability claims is frequently—and incorrectly—referred to as the ‘‘claims backlog.’’ While we currently have approximately 

400,000 claims in our inventory, the majority of these claims are not ‘‘backlogged.’’ 

The inventory is dynamic rather than static. It includes all claims received, whether 

pending for just a few hours or as long as 6 months. Completed claims are continuously removed from the inventory while new claims are added. This year we are 

averaging over 80,000 new claims added to the inventory each month. 

VBA’s strategic goal for completing disability claims is 125 days. At the end of 

FY08, there were 139,333 rating claims pending more than 125 days, or 36.7 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:20 Jan 22, 2010 Jkt 051869 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\51869.XXX GPO1 PsN: 51869

ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
70 

cent of the pending inventory. During FY09, VBA has made progress in reducing 

the number and percent of inventory pending greater than 125 days. At the end of 

May 2009, rating 134,626 claims, or 331⁄2 percent of the inventory, were pending 

greater than 125 days. 

Improvement Initiatives 

VBA has aggressively hired across the Nation since the second quarter of FY07 

and has hired nearly 4,200 new employees since January 2007. Because it takes at 

least 2 years for a new employee to become fully trained in all aspects of claims 

processing, we’re only now beginning to see the full impact of those employees hired 

at the outset of this initiative. During FY09 to date (through May 2009), VBA has 

completed 9.3 percent more than the same period during FY08 and 19.8 percent 

more than the same period in FY07. We believe our newly hired workforce will continue to make progress in delivering more decisions to Veterans. 

In order to leverage the knowledge and experience of recently retired claims processors, VBA has hired back more than 90 recent retirees as rehired annuitants. 

These rehired annuitants assist in completing rating decisions and training and 

mentoring new employees. 

In September 2008, VBA partnered with Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) to conduct 

a review of the rating-related claim development process to provide recommendations to improve the process with an emphasis on cycle time reduction. During their 

study, BAH interviewed VBA leadership, conducted site visits to regional offices and 

met with frontline employees. At the conclusion of their review, BAH recommended 

VBA apply Lean Six Sigma production practices to claims processing in order to facilitate claims movement, or flow, thereby reducing processing time. We are in the 

process of establishing a pilot to examine BAH’s recommendations. 

We are pleased with recent progress to address the backlog, but not satisfied with 

current performance and strive for new methods for improvement. 

Information Technology Modernization 

Not only is VBA working on process improvements to the claims processing system, we are also working on other changes as well. With regard to our information 

technology modernization strategy, VBA is investing in the migration of VBA compensation and pension claims processing to a paperless environment. We have successfully used imaging technology and computable data to support claims processing 

in our Insurance, Education, and Loan Guaranty programs for many years. Initial 

pilot efforts in our Compensation and Pension business line demonstrated the feasibility of using this type of technology for these benefit programs as well. 

At the core of our strategy is the implementation of a business model for Compensation and Pension processing that is less reliant on the acquisition and storage 

of paper documents. Our comprehensive plan, the Paperless Delivery of Veterans 

Benefits Initiative, is envisioned to employ a variety of enhanced technologies to 

support end-to-end claims processing. 

In addition to imaging and computable data, we will incorporate enhanced electronic workflow capabilities, enterprise content and correspondence management 

services, and integration with our modernized payment system. We are also exploring the utility of business-rules-engine software both for workflow management and 

to potentially support improved decisionmaking by claims processing personnel. 

VA contracted with Electronic Data Systems (EDS) to serve as the lead systems 

integrator (LSI) for this effort. Fiscal year 2010 is our target year for release of the 

initial hardware and software in support of the large-scale expansion of the 

Paperless Initiative. The LSI effort is focused on the design of the technology solution, which will support enhanced paperless claims processing capabilities across 

VA. By committing to a paperless system, we will improve the efficiency and speed 

of claims processing. 

Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) 

VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) also continue to work collaboratively 

to define the scope and strategy for the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER). 

Both Departments have agreed that the objective for VLER is to establish a coherent, lifetime electronic record that will capture Servicemember/Veteran information 

from accession into military service to interment, and include all information necessary to provide medical care, services, benefits, and compensation to the Veteran, 

eligible family members, or eligible beneficiaries. 

VLER will enable VBA to have a consolidated view of Veterans’ data and leverage 

the exchange of accurate data from the authoritative source, in order to streamline 

claims processing. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
71 

Business Transformation Efforts 

While the use of advanced technologies is critical to our service-delivery strategy, 

we must also address our business processes. To that end, VBA developed strategic 

partnerships with two recognized experts in the field of organizational transformation. MITRE Corp., a manager of federally Funded Research and Development 

Centers, has been supporting VBA on the VETSNET project since 2006. MITRE is 

now actively providing strategic program management support, as well as support 

for the overall Paperless Initiative, addressing multiple areas of focus. 

Additionally, Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) was recently engaged by VBA to provide 

business transformation services. BAH is assisting VBA in business process re-engineering, organizational change management, workforce planning and organizational 

learning strategies to ensure that VBA is well-positioned to take best advantage of 

the technology solutions being developed. 

As another element of our comprehensive transformation strategy, VBA designated the VA Regional Office in Providence, Rhode Island, to serve as our Business Transformation Lab. The Business Transformation Lab will serve as the focal 

point for convergence of process re-engineering and technology, assuring that service 

delivery is optimized and best practices are developed and deployed throughout 

VBA. 

We recognize that, while technology is not the panacea for our claims-processing 

concerns, it is the hallmark of a forward-looking organization. Our paperless strategy combines a business-focused transformation and re-engineering effort with enhanced technologies, to provide an overarching vision for improving service delivery 

to our Nation’s Veterans. 

Public Law 110–389 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss VA’s efforts in the implementation of Public Law 110–389. I will discuss VA’s progress for each pertinent section of this law. 

Section 101 amends Title 38, United States Code, section 5103(a) to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prescribe regulations on the content of the notice 

to be provided to claimants when they file claims with VA. Currently, VA is drafting 

regulations according to the specified requirements listed in section 5103(a) and 

with the intent to make notification letters to our clients more understandable and 

useful. Because of the legal complexities involved with the notification process and 

the potential impact on VA’s ability to reduce the pending inventory of claims in 

the future, VA continues to carefully draft this regulation. 

Section 104 requires VA to submit a report to Congress describing the progress 

of the Secretary in addressing the causes of variances in compensation payments 

for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. A contract has been awarded to the 

Institute for Defense Analysis to conduct this assessment. A workgroup has been 

established and is working closely with the contractor to ensure a proper analysis 

and report is completed by October 2009. 

Section 105 extends the temporary authority for the performance of medical disability examinations by contract physicians. This amends section 704(c) of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 by extending temporary authority for performance of contract examinations to December 31, 2010. Because of this time extension, VA continues to expand this program to other areas of the country. 

Section 106 adds osteoporosis to disabilities presumed to be service connected in 

former prisoners of war (FPOWs) with Post-traumatic stress disorder. A final rule 

to implement this provision has been drafted and is currently undergoing Executive 

Branch review. The final rule incorporates a determination by the Secretary that 

a presumption of service connection for osteoporosis in FPOWs will be established 

irrespective of the presence of PTSD. 

Section 212 added a new section 5121A entitled ‘‘Substitution in case of death of 

claimant,’’ to title 38. The new statute provides that if a claimant dies while his or 

her claim or appeal for any benefit is pending, a person who is eligible to receive 

accrued benefits can request to be substituted as the claimant to continue the claim. 

We are carefully analyzing various policy and procedural issues relating to substitution. We will draft a proposed regulation as soon as our analysis is completed. 

Section 213 directs the Secretary to submit a report to Congress on VA’s findings 

and recommendations with respect to a report prepared by Economic Systems, Inc. 

(EconSys). EconSys conducted studies of compensation based on earnings loss, quality of life loss, and long-term transition payments to Veterans undergoing rehabilitation for service-connected disabilities. VBA has completed its analysis and submitted 

findings and recommendations for the Secretary’s review and approval. 

Section 214 requires the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Disability 

Compensation. This eleven-member Committee has met each month since its first 

meeting in November 2008. The Committee is directed to submit biennial reports 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
72 

to the Secretary, with the first report due no later than October 31, 2010. At its 

most recent meeting, the Committee heard testimony from, and dialogued with, the 

Compensation and Pension Service concerning VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities 

and examination process. The Secretary’s chief of staff also discussed the Secretary’s 

priorities with the Committee. 

Section 221 requires VA to carry out two pilot programs. First, VA will carry out 

a 1-year pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing expeditious treatment of fully developed compensation and pension claims no later than 

90 days after the date the claim is submitted. A second pilot will assess the feasibility and advisability of providing a claimant and his/her representative (if any) of 

a checklist containing information or evidence required for the claimant to submit 

to substantiate the claim. 

Regarding the first pilot, we are on-track to issue a report to Congress by December 9, 2009, as stipulated in the section. An all-station letter implementing the pilot 

was issued on December 11, 2008, which identified the ten regional offices participating in the pilot. The letter directed that the claimant or representative (if any) 

must submit, along with the claim, an indication that the claimant does not intend 

to submit any additional information or evidence in support of the claim, and does 

not require additional assistance with it. The claim must be accompanied by a fully 

developed claim (FDC) certification signed and dated by the claimant and the representative (if any). Additional development will not be needed, other than scheduling a VA examination or obtaining records in the constructive custody of the Federal Government. For the purposes of this pilot program, the status of a fully developed claim may change if, during processing, we determine that the claim requires 

assistance beyond that required in the FDC criteria. A contract has been awarded 

to the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) to review and report on results of the pilot. 

The second pilot under this section will assess the feasibility and advisability of 

providing a claimant and his/her representative (if any) with a checklist containing 

information or evidence required for the claimant to submit to substantiate the 

claim. We are also on-track to report on the pilot to Congress by December 9, 2009. 

An all-station letter implementing the pilot was issued on December 11, 2008, which 

identified the four regional offices participating in the pilot. This pilot will assess 

whether providing such a checklist will result in more frequent and timelier submission of evidence. This checklist, which provides claimants with a ‘‘snapshot’’ of the 

evidence/information needed to substantiate a claim, will be used for original claims, 

claims to reopen, and claims for increased ratings. The duration of the pilot will be 

a year for original claims and 3 years for claims for an increase or reopened claims. 

The Center for Naval Analyses has also been awarded the contract for preparing 

an analysis and report upon the completion of this project. 

Section 222 directs the VA Secretary to establish an ‘‘Office of Survivors Assistance’’ to serve as a resource regarding survivors and dependents of deceased Veterans and servicemembers and serve as the Secretary’s primary advisor concerning 

such issues. The Office was created on December 22, 2008, and set up under the 

Office of the Secretary. Four employees were immediately detailed to the Office to 

start working on the mission as defined by Congress. A Director and one permanent 

employee have been selected and the remaining personnel will be chosen soon. 

Section 223 directs that the Comptroller General submit to Congress, within 10 

months after enactment of the law, a report on VA’s Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation (DIC) benefits that addresses the current system for paying DIC to 

survivors including the current rates; an assessment of the adequacy of DIC payments in replacing the deceased Veteran’s income; and recommendations to improve 

or enhance the effects of the DIC payments in replacing the deceased Veteran’s income. The Comptroller General has not yet delivered his report. We look forward 

to reviewing the findings and recommendations. 

Section 224 directs the Secretary of VA to enter into a contract with an independent third-party entity to conduct an assessment of VBA’s quality assurance program and issue a report no later than October 2011. We have awarded a contract 

to the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) to undertake the assessment. 

Section 225 requires VA to develop skills certification examination criteria for 

VBA employees and managers responsible for processing compensation and pension 

claims. VBA’s decision review officers (DROs) and coaches (Supervisory VSRs) have 

been designated to participate in testing; however, assistant service center managers and service center managers may also participate in the future. A contract 

has been awarded to the Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO). A 

design team has been created for the supervisory test; however, assignment of the 

design team for the DRO test is pending. 

Section 226 tasks VA with conducting a study on the effectiveness of the current 

employee work credit system and management system within VBA, which is used 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
73 

to measure and manage the work production of employees who handle compensation 

and pension claims. The study is also to evaluate more effective means of improving 

performance. A contract was awarded to the Center for Naval Analyses in March 

2009. CNA’s analysis will address the performance accountability and work measurement systems, as well as work process improvements. VA is on-track to provide 

its report to Congress by October 2009. 

Section 227 requires VA to conduct a review of the information technology (IT) 

in VBA concerning compensation and pension benefits, and to develop a comprehensive plan for the use of IT technology in processing claims for the purpose of reducing subjectivity, avoidable remands, and regional office variances in disability ratings for specific disabilities. A full report regarding our technology approach will be 

provided no later than April 1, 2010. 

Section 228 directs the VA Secretary to provide an assessment of various mechanisms to improve communication between VBA and VHA in providing medical advice to rating specialists. The assessment is also to include an evaluation of the need 

for more staff in VHA to support providing advice to rating specialists. A joint VBA/ 

VHA review was timely provided to Congress in April 2009, in accordance with the 

statute. The report concluded that based on current processes and resources, VBA 

field stations have sufficient access to medical advice. 

Sections 331 through 334 addressed services provided to Veterans under the VA 

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program. Section 331 waived 

the 24 month limitation on programs of independent living services when necessary 

to ensure a substantial increase in severely ill or injured GWOT Veterans’ level of 

independence in daily living. Section 332 of the bill increased the cap for new plans 

of independent living services from 2,500 to 2,600 cases. VA correspondingly revised 

policy and provided implementation guidance to field stations. Studies of the VR&E 

program include a report on measures to assist and encourage Veterans in completing vocational rehabilitation (Section 333) and a longitudinal Study of VR&E 

Programs of three cohorts of Veterans who begin receiving VR&E services during 

fiscal years 2010, 2012, and 2014 (Section 334). VA is working with the Office of 

Acquisitions and Logistics to contract for both studies. Proposals from interested 

vendors are due to VA this month. 

Conclusion 

VBA has taken various steps to resolve the existing inventory, and has many pilot 

programs and studies ongoing to determine the way forward. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to any 

questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Gregory Timberlake, SHCE, USN, 

Acting Director, U.S. Department of Defense/ 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency Program Office 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Hall and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss the role of the DoD/VA Interagency Program Office (IPO) in 

the ongoing data-sharing activities of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Collaboration between the two Departments on 

information technology issues has grown exponentially in recent years, enabling the 

Departments to explore ways in which they may benefit jointly from data-sharing 

innovations in the private sector, as well as helping to foster bold new governmentdriven information-sharing capabilities, like the development of a ‘‘Virtual Lifetime 

Electronic Record’’ (VLER) for servicemembers and veterans. Working on behalf of 

the DoD/VA Joint Executive Council, the IPO plays a key role in facilitating these 

efforts, and in providing oversight of various data-sharing initiatives between the 

Departments. In recent months, the IPO has been focused on two central areas: (1) 

facilitating the efforts of the two Departments to achieve full interoperability of 

their electronic health records by September of this year, as defined by the VA and 

DoD clinicians that rely on this data to treat patients, and (2) working with the Departments to develop an effective governance and management model for the VLER 

project. These two areas will be the focus of my testimony today. 

IPO BACKGROUND 

In April 2008, DoD and VA formed the ‘‘DoD/VA Interagency Program Office’’ 

(IPO) in response to section 1635 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fisVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:20 Jan 22, 2010 Jkt 051869 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\51869.XXX GPO1 PsN: 51869

ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
74 

cal year 2008, which required the creation of an entity to serve as a single point 

of accountability for the rapid development and implementation of electronic health 

record (EHR) systems or capabilities between the Departments. Section 1635 further 

mandated that full interoperability of personal health care information between the 

DoD and VA be achieved by September 2009. Since its inception, the IPO has 

worked diligently to achieve this mandate, providing the Departments with reliable, 

effective management oversight of potential risks involving the identification, coordination, and review of information sharing requirements, and informing stakeholders 

about the impact these processes may have on DoD/VA information sharing 

progress. 

The responsibility for developing requirements and executing technical information technology solutions remains with the respective DoD and VA organizations, 

using the Departments’ established statutory and regulatory processes for acquisition, funding, management control, information assurance, and other execution actions. The differences between the Departments in these areas can pose challenges 

to effective collaboration on joint DoD/VA information sharing projects. In order to 

overcome such challenges, the IPO has worked closely with the existing leadership 

of the Joint Executive Council to provide focused assistance and oversight to ensure 

the Departments achieve their goals. Our work includes facilitating discussions between DoD and VA functional business communities on areas such as supporting 

the definition of DoD/VA data-sharing requirements, promoting effective synchronization of DoD/VA schedules for the technical execution of joint data-sharing initiatives, assisting in the coordination of funding considerations, and assisting in obtaining the input and concurrence of stakeholders. 

THE VIRTUAL LIFETIME ELECTRONIC RECORD: 

THE VISION AND THE BROAD CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGES 

On April 9, 2009, the President, along with Secretary Gates and Secretary 

Shinseki, announced that DoD and VA have taken the first step in creating a joint 

Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER). Early in his remarks, President Obama 

pointed out the largest challenge that the two Departments face in their continuing 

efforts to modernize their electronic health and benefits records systems, declaring 

that ‘‘there is no comprehensive system in place that allows for a streamlined transition of health care records between DoD and the VA.’’ Creating such a capability 

would mark a departure from data-sharing efforts in the past, which have centered 

on developing an ever-proliferating array of information-sharing programs that 

allow one Department to access patient data that has been captured in the electronic health record system of the other Department. While this strategy has allowed DoD and VA to share unprecedented amounts of patient health care data, the 

adoption of new technologies can provide even more efficiencies in the collection, retrieval, and use of patient health care data across the Departments. Recognizing 

this, the President directed the two Departments to ‘‘work together to define and 

build a seamless system of integration with a simple goal: When a member of the 

Armed Forces separates from the military, he or she will no longer have to walk 

paperwork from a DoD duty station to a local VA health center; their electronic 

records will transition along with them and remain with them forever.’’ 

In a press release that was issued shortly after the President’s speech, the White 

House highlighted the importance of creating a comprehensive virtual lifetime electronic records capability between DoD and VA, and noted some of the advantages 

that would likely result from the establishment of a VLER: ‘‘Access to electronic 

records is essential to modern health care delivery and the paperless administration 

of benefits. It provides a framework to ensure that all health care providers have 

all the information they need to deliver high-quality health care while reducing 

medical errors. The creation of this joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record by the 

two organizations would take the next leap to delivering seamless, high-quality care, 

and serve as a model for the Nation.’’ 

As the White House pointed out, the potential benefits of a VLER are indeed monumental, but so is the effort that is required in order to plan, create, and implement 

a VLER. The effort to create a VLER represents one of the largest single joint 

projects that any two Federal Departments have made in recent years, and there 

are a number of challenges that must be overcome to achieve the President’s vision. 

To begin with, new IT conceptual frameworks must be invented to provide a health 

and benefits data-sharing architecture to which both Departments can build electronic records systems. Right now, discussions between the Departments are focused 

on leveraging a common services architecture framework to support modernized 

tools and technologies on both sides. In addition to the over-arching conceptual 

issues on the technical side, the Departments must reach consensus on an effective 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
75 

governance model for the VLER project. Each Department has unique processes for 

funding, management, and oversight processes for information technology projects. 

These processes must be brought into alignment in key areas in order for successful 

planning and development to occur on the VLER initiative. 

IPO EFFORTS TO ADDRESS FOUNDATIONAL TECHNICAL, 

GOVERNANCE, AND PLANNING ISSUES 

The IPO is an active participant in, and contributor to, interagency efforts to develop a strategy for VLER implementation. Following the policy guidance provided 

by the President and the Secretaries, the IPO established a VLER working group 

to provide a focused requirements and management effort to accelerate the adoption 

of a joint DoD/VA timeline for the VLER. This timeline, when complete, will provide 

a roadmap of major milestones to ensure an aggressive VLER implementation 

schedule with evolving benefits and successes. One of the first milestones on this 

timeline is to reach agreement on a precise definition of the scope of the VLER. 

There is already consensus among senior officials from both Departments on some 

of the categories of health and benefits data that must be accessible through the 

VLER. Discussions on other issues concerning the scope of the VLER are ongoing. 

In addition to discussions on the scope of VLER, the IPO also plays an active role 

in efforts to reach inter-Departmental consensus on broad technical requirements 

issues. Progress is being made on the Departments’ efforts to agree to use a nationally recognized set of uniform and open standards for information exchange, such 

as those being implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Health Information Network and the Justice Department’s National Information Exchange Model. This approach could enable DoD and VA to create an architectural framework that is capable of interconnecting systems from both the private 

sector and the government. Ultimately, such an information-sharing architecture 

could serve as a model for national electronic records. 

Another major focus of the IPO is to establish an effective governance model for 

the VLER. Under current governance processes, the IPO receives guidance from the 

Secretaries of DoD and VA, as well as from the Joint Executive Council (JEC) 

[which is co-chaired by the Departments’ Deputy Secretaries]. The IPO works collaboratively with the DoD/VA Health Executive Council (HEC) for health-related 

data sharing, and the DoD/VA Benefits Executive Council (BEC) for personnel and 

benefits data sharing. The JEC provides leadership oversight of the HEC, BEC, 

IPO, and other councils and work groups, as determined by the JEC co-chairs. 

When the IPO identifies issues that cannot be resolved at the HEC and BEC levels, 

we elevate those issues to the JEC for final resolution. These oversight and governing procedures ensure that information-sharing efforts move in the right direction and at a pace that meets or exceeds the expectations of our stakeholders. 

The existing governance structure has been adequate to enable the Departments 

to improve interoperability of their electronic health care records and to achieve unprecedented success in sharing electronic data. As DoD and VA plan the foundations 

of a robust and complex VLER, the Departments need to give additional consideration to determining how they will govern and implement the VLER. The IPO is 

working with the Departments to analyze the current processes through which 

issues are filtered up and managed through the HEC, BEC and JEC governing bodies. The goal is to ensure that critical decisions can be addressed quickly and effectively, at the lowest level of authority possible. Processes for issue-resolution in 

other areas of collaboration between the Departments may also need to be clarified 

or modified in order to ensure that VLER is implemented in the most expeditious 

manner possible. 

HEALTH DATA SHARING AND INTEROPERABILITY 

Efforts related to the planning and implementation of the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record are not intended to replace our Congressionally-mandated objective of 

achieving full interoperability of existing electronic health records systems by September of this year. The VLER effort and the EHR interoperability effort do not conflict with one another. In fact, the Departments’ efforts to meet Congress’ interoperability goals have resulted in a body of work and ‘lessons learned’ that will be heavily leveraged during efforts to achieve the VLER vision. 

The Departments began laying the foundation for interoperability in 2001, when 

the first patient health information was transferred electronically from DoD to VA 

using the Federal Health Information Exchange (FHIE). Since that time, both Departments have continued to enhance the exchange to support bidirectional data 

sharing, and to expand the types of information that is shared, as well as the manner in which information is shared. By leveraging the prior accomplishments of the 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
76 

Departments, the IPO and the Departments have been successful in formulating a 

plan to achieve full interoperability that will meet the needs our treating clinicians 

by the September 2009 target date. As part of this plan, VA and DoD will continue 

to improve upon the successes of existing data exchange initiatives, like the FHIE 

and the Bidirectional Health Information Exchange (BHIE), and expand the type of 

data shared through the already interoperable Clinical Data Repository/Health Data 

Repository (CHDR interface). To add further capability, new pilot programs such as 

the BHIE Imaging Pilot were developed. This pilot is now deployed and operational 

at major military and VA medical centers across the country. 

The following examples provide greater detail of some of the successes of the Departments’ ongoing data-sharing initiatives (figures are current as of April 29, 

2009): 

• The Federal Health Information Exchange (FHIE) data repository allows VA to 

access electronic health information from DoD on over 4.8 million separated 

servicemembers. The FHIE allows VA providers to access and view 71 million 

laboratory results, 11.7 million radiology reports, 73.8 million pharmacy 

records, 78.8 million standard ambulatory records, 3.1 million consultation reports, and 21⁄2 million deployment health assessments for shared patients. 

• The Bidirectional Health Information Exchange (BHIE) enables bidirectional 

real-time sharing of readable electronic health information between DoD and 

VA for shared patients. Since July 2007, BHIE data from all DoD and VA medical facilities are available to VA and DoD providers. As of February 2009, 

health data is available through BHIE for more than 3.3 million shared patients, including over 117,980 Theater patients. 

• BHIE also allows VA and DoD to share inpatient information, and provides VA 

with the ability to access to inpatient discharge summaries from DoD’s inpatient documentation system. This capability is operational at some of DoD’s 

largest inpatient facilities, representing approximately 55 percent of total DoD 

inpatient beds. DoD will increase the number of sites with electronic inpatient 

documentation system in FY 2009. 

• In addition to sharing viewable text data, DoD and VA are sharing digital radiology images at key locations. 

• Since 2006, DoD and VA have been sharing computable outpatient pharmacy 

and allergy data through the interface between the Clinical Data Repository 

(CDR) of AHLTA and VA’s Health Data Repository (HDR) of HealtheVet VistA. 

This initiative, known as the Clinical Health Data Repository (CHDR), integrates outpatient pharmacy and medication allergy data for shared patients, 

and supports automatic check for drug-drug and drug-allergy interactions by 

using data from both Departments. In December 2007, all DoD facilities received the capability to initiate the exchange of this data on shared patients. 

While much progress has been made toward our current interoperability goals, 

some challenges still remain. The key challenges include the following: 

• Developing, adopting, and maturing standards at the national level to ensure 

efficient operational use. 

• Updating capabilities, systems, infrastructure, and technology consistent with 

emerging standards. 

• Identifying and prioritizing information requirements for sequential upgrade to 

new technologies and common services, as defined by the business process owners and the functional community. 

In addition to this list of challenges, the Departments must continually work together to overcome difficulties created by different acquisition and funding cycles, 

different contracting processes, and differences in information assurance certification processes. The Departments and the IPO continue to engage in collaborative 

efforts to ensure that any impediment that may arise from these differences is resolved in an efficient manner. In spite of these challenges, the IPO and the two Departments are on track to achieve full interoperability for the provision of clinical 

care by September 30, 2009, as defined by the Interagency Clinical Informatics 

Board (ICIB). 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
77 

CONCLUSION 

The IPO and the Departments are engaged in many efforts to ensure that full 

interoperability for the provision of clinical care is achieved by September of this 

year. We recognize that interoperability does not have a discrete end point, as technologies and standards continue to evolve. Our efforts in the future will continue 

to build upon our past successes, allowing the Departments’ to maintain their standard of providing the highest quality care for our servicemembers, veterans and their 

beneficiaries. 

That future is beginning to come into focus as we make progress on joint efforts 

to plan the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record. Creating and implementing the 

VLER will require an unprecedented amount of effort, coordination, and interagency 

cooperation. The IPO is committed to this work, and looks forward to continuing to 

facilitate the efforts of the Departments on the VLER. When operational, the VLER 

will provide our servicemembers, veterans, and service providers with the health 

and benefits data they need, when and where they need it, thereby ultimately improving the quality of both health care and benefits services. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee, and to provide you with 

an update on the important work that we are doing to advance electronic data-sharing between the DoD and VA. I look forward to keeping you apprised of our progress 

toward our shared goal of improving the quality of services for our servicemembers, 

veterans and their families. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
78 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Committee on Veterans Affairs 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 20, 2009 

Ian de Planque 

Assistant Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission 

The American Legion 

1608 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Dear Mr. DePlanque: 

Thank you for testifying at the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing on, ‘‘Addressing 

the Backlog: Can VA Manage One Million Claims?’’ held on June 18, 2009. I would 

greatly appreciate if you would provide answers to the enclosed follow-up hearing 

questions by Monday, August 17, 2009. 

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

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

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

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

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your responses to Ms. Megan 

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

3608. 

Sincerely, 

John J. Hall 

Chairman 

American Legion 

Washington, DC. 

August 17, 2009 

Honorable John J. Hall, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Disability and Memorial Affairs 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

337 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Hall: 

Thank you for allowing The American Legion to participate in the Subcommittee 

hearing on June 18, 2009, entitled ‘‘Addressing the Backlog: Can VA Manage One 

Million Claims.’’ I respectfully submit the following response to your Post-Hearing 

Question: 

Question 1: Should veterans with claims pending adjudication temporarily be eligible for VA Health Care? 

Question 1(a): Should mental health counseling be offered to all veterans enduring the stress of the VA disability claims processing system? 

Response: The issue of providing health care to veterans with pending claims is 

of importance especially in the case of veterans who have been ‘‘locked out’’ of the 

VA health care system as a result of restrictions regarding the enrollment of Priority Group 8 veterans. As a result, service connection for conditions is one of the 

only means many veterans have to acquire health care for their conditions. The 

need is great in many such cases. An establishment of temporary eligibility for veterans would also be important to maintain focus on the large veterans’ population 

regardless of era of service. Much attention is focused on Global War on Terror 

(GWOT) veterans now, as the current war naturally creates a point of focus. However, a much larger veterans’ population exists from previous conflicts. 

Presently, veterans returning from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 

Iraq Freedom (OEF/OIF) are entitled to 5 years of free VA Health Care from their 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
79 

date of discharge. For various reasons, veterans do not always file for benefits during this period. These veterans could be locked out of health care while waiting for 

the lengthy claims process to end. Adding to the problem, recordkeeping for claims 

filed after a significantly long period of time from the date of discharge, often make 

these claims prone to delay in decisions. 

The American Legion does not have a specific position regarding the eligibility of 

veterans with pending claims for temporary health care coverage. The expansion of 

the eligible pool of veterans for health care would be a significant benefit to those 

with real economic challenges. 

Mental health access is currently offered free of charge to veterans at ‘‘Vet Centers’’ throughout the country. These centers are specifically designed to deal with 

mental disorders and stresses arising from issues such as combat and military sexual trauma (MST). However, as more veterans are diagnosed with Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury, the additional assets to treat them will 

become critical. It is important to note that these centers, while hugely effective, are 

often strained to the limits of their resources. Additional assets would make more 

robust the capabilities to address this need. However, The American Legion would 

strongly caution that extreme care must be exercised to ensure that the primary 

purpose of these outreach locations, to care for veterans who have experienced life 

changing traumas in service, is not overshadowed by an attempt to care for the 

needs of veterans who experience the, also very real, stresses of a complex and frustrating disability benefits system. 

Question 2: In your testimony, and in the article on the Backlog that appeared 

in the American Legion Magazine, the organization observes that piecemeal solutions do not work and that the approach should be to fix the entire system, but the 

testimony primarily focuses on the same solutions-additional staff and more training. So what does the American Legion recommend as a fix for the entire system? 

Question 2(a): Do you think the provisions enacted by Congress in P. L. 110– 

389 were sufficient or is there other legislative changes the American Legion would 

like to see? 

Question 2(b): Congress is familiar with the standard VBA requirement of 31⁄2

weighted actions per day. Do you know how this number would be affected if the 

VA Raters took the necessary time to properly develop claims and review the evidence? What would you suggest the VA do to better assess its production capabilities? 

Response: The referenced solutions of additional personnel and improved training are indeed helpful in reducing the numbers of claims. It is also correct that 

these measures alone are not sufficiently effective to fix the system and effect necessary changes. A more comprehensive answer is certainly needed. More personnel 

incorrectly processing claims will not remove claims from the system. Additional 

personnel take time to be properly trained. The sooner they can be put in place, 

trained, and retained, the more effective they will be to carry the VA through the 

tasks of the future. Additional targeted training for existing personnel with the goal 

of remedying specific errors and trouble spots is critical. Personal responsibility for 

quality not quantity, and ramifications for poor performance (again quality not 

quantity) should be the standard. Training should be relevant and targeted for maximum effect. 

Outside of training and additional responsible personnel, there are additional 

components to reform that The American Legion has testified to be in favor of. First 

and foremost, the system that counts work credit the same whether the work is performed correctly or improperly must be corrected. In such a system, there is no incentive apart from individual initiative, to produce quality work. To the contrary, 

the incentive is to move cases along regardless of quality of work. This leads to 

cases being remanded and reworked adding to the workload, but not reducing the 

number of claims. 

The American Legion has proposed a system in which work credit would be granted only when a claim has been finally adjudicated. In such a system, the incentive 

then becomes to ensure that every process has been executed to the best of VA’s 

ability and that common procedural errors are avoided. Only then could VA receive 

credit. In the long run, this would reduce the backlog, as the need and eligibility 

for appeal and remand would be drastically reduced. If VA adopts this system, the 

focus would then become ‘‘do the job right the first time,’’ when such as attitude 

prevails; there is no need for a second time. 

Regardless, VA must develop, or be directed by legislation to develop, a system 

which does not provide credit for improperly executed work. Judge Kasold of the 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
80 

Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (CAVC) has testified many times that the 

CAVC has an over 70 percent rate of overturning VA decisions. The most prevalent 

reason is not following the VA’s own rules and regulations. Procedural errors repeated are the worst kind of errors, as they are correctable and avoidable in a culture that makes it its mission to do so. Whatever system is in place must create 

some penalty for improper work. Whether this penalty is some sort of negative credit or indeed a lack of acceptable credit is immaterial. What is important is that VA 

must not be allowed to continue to take credit for claims they are simply moving 

from inbox to outbox and denying veterans their rights in the system. 

VA can also improve operations with attention to a reduction of unnecessary development. Legislation to reduce the development burden for proving the occurrence 

of events in combat zones is pending. This expansion of the special combat provisions already in existence would provide a needed streamlining of development for 

cases involving veterans with service in combat zones. The original provisions were 

created to reflect the unique problems of recordkeeping in a combat environment. 

Congress must act to ensure that the original intent of this combat provision is updated to reflect the modern battlefield and combat. 

The addition of employees is indeed a boon to VA productivity. But, more important would be measures that use more effectively the staff VA already has. VA recently had its work environment examined by Booz Allen Hamilton in an effort to 

increase effectiveness of productivity. VA subsequently initiated a claims processing 

pilot, which is currently ongoing, at the North Little Rock Regional Office to test 

Booze Allen’s recommendations. If the pilot program proves effective, it must be replicated and supported. Furthermore, VA must ensure it is retaining the staff it 

takes the time to train. There is no substitute for experience in a system as complicated as the veterans’ claims process. VA must ensure they are competitive to 

gain and maintain quality employees in whatever region they are located. This is 

easier for some Regional Offices; however those in some highly developed urban 

areas are simply not competitive with private sector employers. Some means must 

be developed to compensate quality employees commensurate with abilities to attract them from the private sector competition. 

Training too must see an overhaul. Accurate accounting must be made of the 

points of failure in the VA system. Immediate action must be taken to correct those 

points of failure. A common complaint among VA employees as uncovered in The 

American Legion’s Quality Review visits to Regional Offices is redundant training 

that the employees do not find relevant to day to day problems and issues. Training 

must be accurate, current and targeted. Furthermore, VA would be only addressing 

part of the issue if they looked solely to training on technical aspects of the claims 

system. The ability to address how employees go about their workload planning 

should also be addressed. 

To that end, VA should further examine their means of triage in determining 

what is needed in a claim and how it should be processed. The ability to direct 

claims within a Regional Office to where they may be most effectively adjudicated 

would be critical to increased efficiency. 

This triage could also indentify claims more effectively which could be granted 

outright with minimal development. As The American Legion has noted repeatedly 

in testimony, VA will frequently order additional exams and development when the 

existing necessary material is already ‘‘in hand,’’ to grant and rate the claim. This 

additional work creates unnecessary delays and clogs the system with claims that 

could be expedited. For example, a veteran of the Vietnam War ‘‘Boots on the 

Ground’’ service meets the VA’s policy for presumptive requirements for service connection for diabetes mellitus type II. If such a veteran submits, along with proof of 

‘‘on the ground service,’’ current treatment records by their private physician for diabetes, there is sufficient information to grant service connection and rate the veteran’s condition. However, often in cases such as this, VA will schedule an apparently unnecessary VA exam to determine the existence and extent of the diabetes, 

and add months to the process. However, if it is determined that an exam is needed 

to address diabetic complications, a claim for secondary service connection can easily 

be deferred, pending the exam, but VA can still rate the diabetes based on the sufficient private medical records and start paying the veteran. The ability to filter unnecessary development would contribute greatly to a reduction in the overall volume 

of claims in the system, and restore goodwill and trust in the veterans’ community 

with regards to their benefit system. 

The enactment by Congress of the ‘‘Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008’’ 

(PL 110–389) has the potential to improve the system for veterans; it is still early 

in the process. Many of the programs involved exist only in pilot stages. Improvements in temporary ratings provide some relief to veterans as they struggle through 

the lengthy and complicated process. For those veterans who succumb to conditions 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
81 

before a final decision is made, their families are able to continue the claim under 

the new regulations which allows the substitution of a claimant in the event of a 

veteran’s death. 

The fully developed claims pilot program does have the benefit of addressing matters such as the diabetes as in the mentioned case. While this program shows promise, it is still too early to tell the effectiveness of this measure. If this program is 

truly effective, full support of the program will indeed contribute to a reduction of 

the backlog by correcting similar errors. If additional problems develop during implementation, then these issues must be addressed until it is determined that the 

claims process is completely fixed. 

With regard to the issue of ‘‘properly develop[ing] claims and review[ing] the evidence’’ we have no hard numbers on how doing this would affect the current VA 

standard of 31⁄2 weighted actions per day. However, a standard that only measures 

volume with no regard for quality work is not in our opinion a valid standard and 

therefore has no merit as a basis for measuring work output. Good business practices would question the validity of pointing out the number of mistakes made every 

day as a production goal. If there is to be no regard for accuracy of work, why concern yourself with quality at all? If numbers are all that counts, then an employee 

rubber-stamping the top sheet of paper could easily process dozens of cases every 

day. While being obviously facetious, this example is by no means our opinion of 

what VA is doing, the point is taken. 

VA must adopt a system of recordkeeping that accounts solely for work properly 

done. As stated, whether this system only counts end credit work for claims properly 

and finally adjudicated, or counts all work claimed, but imposes penalties and subtractions when work is found to be faulty, it still must be an honest accounting. This 

will require a period of adjustment. We are not unsympathetic to the necessity of 

looking at the numbers returned in a different light. It is quite possible that numbers would fall. However, a fair comparison of numbers would take into account the 

accuracy involved. 

Judge Kasold states that over 70 percent of claims sent to the Court of Appeals 

for Veterans’ Claims are returned for having been improperly handled by VA and 

are therefore remanded for further development and adjudication. Therefore, of the 

31⁄2 weighted actions per day, only 1 of those actions is an accurate and properly 

adjudicated action. If VA’s production dropped from 31⁄2 weighted actions per day 

down to 2 weighted actions, but those 2 actions were properly done, it would actually be an increase in productivity. This new number would represent work that was 

done properly and that could be removed from the system. In the short term, it 

would appear as a loss in volume output, but as a long term solution, the overall 

backlog would decrease because VA would be doing their job properly and alleviating the need for lengthy appeals. 

Question 3: You reported in its review of recently adjudicated American Legion 

represented claims, the Quality Review Team found errors in 20–30 percent of the 

cases reviewed. If you could design the perfect system what could VA do to change 

its ‘‘emphasis of quantity over quality of work’’ that you talk about in your testimony? 

Response: The sample of work described previously was from one Regional Office, although those numbers are not atypical and are even worse in some places. 

As we have stressed throughout our testimony, VA places their emphasis on ‘‘quantity over quality.’’ The pervasive attitude is not to do a claim correctly, but to move 

it off of the employee’s desk on to the next step. The way to change this attitude 

is eliminate credit for invalid work. Simply put, VA cannot continue to claim credit 

for work that it repeatedly does improperly. The manner of correction is relatively 

simple, though it would require a paradigm shift in understanding of how to count 

claims. VA must be denied the ability to point to ‘‘work credit’’ for improperly adjudicated claims. In a ‘‘perfect’’ system, VA would receive credit when a claim had 

been finally adjudicated. Only, when it has been shown that VA did their job right. 

If this represents too great a shift in the counting of credit, VA could continue to 

count work credit as they currently do; however they must also take penalties and 

reductions in their numbers when faulty work is identified. 

The time has come to end VA’s ability to hide behind inaccurate numbers that 

don’t reflect reality. Sloppy adjudication, repeated procedural errors and easily corrected fundamental problems in execution all clog the claim system. This needlessly 

frustrates the veterans of America, undermines their trust in the government they 

served. By creating a work credit system that holds VA accountable for its errors, 

we would begin to shift the attitude within VA that place a greater priority on moving numbers, to an overarching outlook of properly and accurately serving the vetVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:20 Jan 22, 2010 Jkt 051869 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\51869.XXX GPO1 PsN: 51869

ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
82 

erans who come to them for their deserved benefits. The backlog faced is indeed 

monumental, and while seemingly insurmountable we must all work to slowly chip 

away at the monolithic obstacle. However, just because work is difficult does not 

mean it should be avoided. It is always better to do the hard ‘‘right’’ thing than the 

easy ‘‘wrong’’ thing. 

As always, The American Legion thanks you for the opportunity to provide response to these questions and to provide testimony on this matter. If there are any 

further questions to be answered, or if any further clarification is needed, we would 

be happy to answer those questions or provide that clarification. 

Thank you for your continued commitment to America’s veterans and their families. 

Sincerely, 

Ian DePlanque 

Assistant Director, National Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation 

f 

Committee on Veterans Affairs 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 20, 2009 

Kerry Baker 

Assistant National Legislative Director 

Disabled American Veterans 

807 Maine Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20024 

Dear Mr. Baker: 

Thank you for testifying at the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing on, ‘‘Addressing 

the Backlog: Can VA Manage One Million Claims?’’ held on June 18, 2009. I would 

greatly appreciate if you would provide answers to the enclosed follow-up hearing 

questions by Monday, August 17, 2009. 

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

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

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

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

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your responses to Ms. Megan 

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

3608. 

Sincerely, 

John J. Hall 

Chairman 

Questions from the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Hearing on ‘‘Addressing the Backlog: Can VA Manage One Million Claims?’’ 

June 18, 2009 

Question 1: What is the feasibility of implementing the proposed centralized information system that DAV mentioned in its testimony? 

Response: It is very feasible. The technology to transition from the cumbersome 

paper process system to a digital system of records is available. A digital claims system is already in use by the Social Security Administration. 

Such a system should be secure, simultaneously accessible from every VA Regional Office, appropriately organize data, provide automated tools for more rapid 

review with a rating official making the appropriate disability rating determination, 

and searchable. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
83 

Question 2: In its testimony, the DAV mentioned that the opt-out clause, which 

provides that evidence submitted after the appeal will be forwarded to the BVA unless the appellant elects to have it considered by the RO, would result in reduced 

appellant lengths and nearly 100,000 reduced VA work hours by eliminating the requirement to issue most supplemental statements of the case. 

Question 2(a): How did you calculate the estimated 100,000 hour reduction? 

Response: The 100,000 work hour reduction, based on the elimination of Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), was a conservative estimate of the number 

of SSOCs produced by VBA. Secondly, a standard of 1-hour of work per single issue 

SSOC was also used in this calculation. Although the VBA states it issued over 

48,000 SSOCs in FY 2008, the numbers of SSOCs is significantly larger as the VBA 

cannot track the actual number of SSOCs beyond five in Veterans Appeals Control 

And Location System (VACOLS) I have seen as many as 12 in some case files, well 

beyond their current limit of five. This is the same experience of many VSO’s. Additionally, the 1 hour of work for a one issue SSOC is conservative as SSOCs more 

often have many more issues than the one. So, the estimate of saving 100,000 work 

hours can be found either by counting all SSOCs processed by VBA (an impossibility 

with VACOLS) and/or calculating the increased number of hours necessary to 

produce SSOCs with multiple issues as opposed to one. 

Additionally, the work hours to create SSOCs rise exponentially depending on the 

complexity of the claim in question. So, 1 hour of work per single issue SSOC equally 100,000 work hours saved is a conservative number indeed. 

Question 2(b): What would be the consequences, as far as time and cost, of a 

claim defaulting to the BVA when newly submitted evidence would have permitted 

an RO to make conclusive determination? 

Response: Regional Offices do have the ability to make a decision on a case when 

new evidence is submitted and this should continue as claim circumstances dictate. 

It has been our experience however that once the RO renders an adverse decision, 

they rarely reverse that decision. 

We are bringing in consultants to review and validate the current claims process 

as well as provide further detail on proposed revisions to include time and cost. 

Question 3: You recommend disbanding the AMC and returning remands to their 

respective jurisdictions. If your proposal is implemented, how would the current rating teams’ performance be affected by the increased burden and would your system 

require additional teams? 

Response: It is true that there would be an initial surge in cases from the AMC 

to each of the 57 Regional Offices. However, savings in other areas would provide 

the room necessary to absorb this temporary increase. With changes to the work 

credit program also in place, performance would improve through this enhanced accountability, possibly resulting in greater ratings accuracy and reduced appeals. 

Given the continued poor performance of the AMC, what is the better choice? By 

the end of January 2009, they had approximately 22,600 remands on station. The 

AMC completed nearly 11,700 appeals, out of which 9,811 were returned to the 

Board, 89 were withdrawn and only 1,789 were granted. Of that 2,500 appeals were 

returned to the AMC a second time because of further errors in carrying out the 

Board’s specific instructions. A 25 percent error rate makes a better argument for 

closure of the AMC. 

f 

Committee on Veterans Affairs 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 20, 2009 

Lieutenant General James Terry Scott 

Chairman 

Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation 

810 Vermont Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Mr. Scott: 

Thank you for testifying at the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing on, ‘‘Addressing 

the Backlog: Can VA Manage One Million Claims?’’ held on June 18, 2009. I would 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
84 

greatly appreciate if you would provide answers to the enclosed follow-up hearing 

questions by Monday, August 17, 2009. 

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

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

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

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

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your responses to Ms. Megan 

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

3608. 

Sincerely, 

John J. Hall 

Chairman 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation 

August 14, 2009 

Honorable John J. Hall 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Disability and Memorial Affairs 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Dear Chairman Hall: 

I am responding to your letter of July 20, 2009, requesting that I provide answers 

to follow-up questions from the hearings held on June 18, 2009. 

First Question: At the hearing, you stated that VA needed to make changes by 

starting from a date forward and just make it work. Have you had that discussion 

with the VA Secretary and will that philosophy permeate any recommendations for 

implementation the Advisory Committee will make? 

Response to First Question: The context of the question was the expression of 

concern about VA’s apparent reluctance to commence electronic only files for veterans. I have discussed the concept of electronic only files with the Undersecretary 

for Benefits and the Director of C&P, both of whom agree that commencing electronic only files from a date certain forward is a good idea. Their concept is that 

older files would be converted from paper to electronic only when and if the veteran 

concerned filed a claim. At that time, the file would be converted to electronic for 

processing the claim. That philosophy will be included in Committee recommendations. 

Second Question: Is there a process in place for a VA response to the Advisory 

Committee recommendations or to give feedback to the Advisory Committee in 

terms of what is or is not feasible for VA to implement? Is there a process in place 

by which VA leadership can submit questions to the Advisory Committee to get an 

opinion on its options? 

Response to Second Question: There is a process in place for a VA response 

to the Advisory Committee recommendations and to give feedback to the Advisory 

Committee in terms of what is or is not feasible for VA to implement. The Advisory 

Committee submits periodic reports to the Secretary. The Secretary responds to the 

reports in writing. Also, there is continuing dialog between the Committee and the 

Undersecretary for Benefits and the Director of C&P. This informal feedback includes discussion of feasibility of Committee recommendations. VA leadership may 

submit questions or issues for Committee opinion or recommendation via the same 

formal and informal channels. 

Third Question: What are the fundamental changes the Advisory Committee 

foresees for the Rating Schedule? 

Response to Third Question: A fundamental change the Advisory Committee 

foresees for the Rating Schedule is the establishment of a process and a schedule 

for timely review and update of the Schedule. In the first report to the Secretary, 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
85 

the Advisory Committee recommended a methodology and a priority for reviewing 

and updating the Schedule. The Advisory Committee has recommended that the 

Deputy Secretary be given the responsibility for insuring VBA and VHA coordination in the process since it depends on the continuing cooperative effort of both entities. Another fundamental change that the Advisory Committee will recommend is 

that the Rating Schedule be updated to reflect modern medical terminology, classification, diagnostic tools, and functional scales. The Advisory Committee expects to 

recommend further fundamental improvements in related processes such as training 

programs, information technology support systems, and medical exam protocols. 

Results of studies conducted by the Center for Naval Analysis for the VDBC and 

by Econ Systems indicate that the current compensation system for disabled veterans fairly reflects the average loss of earnings capacity (with some noted exceptions which will be addressed in future recommendations). Since the present system 

offers horizontal and vertical equity in most cases, there is no reason to throw out 

the entire existing system and attempt to replace it with a totally new one. 

Sincerely, 

James Terry Scott 

f 

Chairman 

Committee on Veterans Affairs 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 20, 2009 

Marilyn Park 

Legislative Representative 

American Federation of Government Employees 

80 F Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Ms. Park: 

Thank you for testifying at the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing on, ‘‘Addressing 

the Backlog: Can VA Manage One Million Claims?’’ held on June 18, 2009. I would 

greatly appreciate if you would provide answers to the enclosed follow-up hearing 

questions by Monday, August 17, 2009. 

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

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

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

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

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your responses to Ms. Megan 

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

3608. 

Sincerely, 

John J. Hall 

Chairman 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
86 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL 

AFFAIRS 

JUNE 18, 2009, HEARING 

ADDRESSING THE BACKLOG: CAN VA MANAGE 1 MILLION CLAIMS? 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO 

POST-HEARING SUBMISSION 

Question 1: The implementation of an independent evaluation of VBA training 

should have already begun. Has the AFGE been involved in this process? Have you 

made the suggestions that are contained in your testimony to VBA managers and, 

if so, what was the response? 

Response: On July 27, 2009, AFGE was briefed by the Government Accountability Office regarding their survey of VBA employees for a report on the efficacy 

of VBA training. During that briefing AFGE was also solicited for input concerning 

the scope of the survey and for insights concerning VBA’s current training structure. 

While GAO seemed receptive to AFGE’s insights and concerns, the content of their 

survey was already determined and the briefing seemed for the most part to be in 

the interest of full disclosure. Nonetheless, AFGE is grateful that GAO is preparing 

an objective report concerning VBA’s training process, and is fairly confident from 

our briefing that GAO has a good working understanding of that process. 

AFGE as an organization and our individual members have made numerous suggestions to VBA management over the years in hopes of improving the quality of 

training provided to claims processors. However, we have found that our most effective means for making such suggestions is through Congressional forums such as 

those we have recently been privileged to attend. Our experience is that when our 

suggestions are presented in hearings before this Subcommittee, VBA management 

is, at least superficially, receptive to them. 

Moreover, our recent experience suggests that there is a growing consensus 

among members of VBA’s Compensation and Pension Service accepting the wisdom 

of our suggestion that all training be conducted by staff assigned to Compensation 

and Pension Service who are not influenced by the productivity concerns of Regional 

Office Directors (whose productivity requirements are set by the Office of Field Operations). However, since VBA’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) is ultimately responsible for determining how and where employee and training resources are allocated throughout VBA, we have limited optimism regarding whether any of our suggestions will ever come to fruition. Our impression is that OFO remains rather myopic in their continuing refusal to properly allocate resources toward continuing 

training and employee development, and instead focuses on ways of making short 

term gains in reducing claims inventory, e.g. abrogating scheduled training so that 

employees can devote their time toward achieving short term productivity requirements. 

In conclusion, unless and until VBA as a whole reaches a consensus that the best 

way to serve veterans is to give them the correct decision the first time and that 

in order to do so employees must be properly trained and continuously educated, 

any optimism we have regarding VBA’s serious consideration of our suggestions will 

be guarded at best. 

Question 2: In its statement, the AFGE noted concerns over employee morale, 

which can effect production and performance. What can VA do specifically to improve morale for individual employees at each regional office? 

Response: Morale varies widely among Regional Offices (RO) and the root causes 

of deficiencies in morale at individual Regional Offices may be as varied as the personnel who staff them. However, in general, VBA can improve the morale of its employees by simply treating them with respect. 

Treating employees with respect implies listening to their suggestions about how 

to improve service to veterans and acting on meritorious suggestions. VBA management must at some point accept that the real subject matter experts of the claims 

process are the people who do the work on a daily basis and solicit their input regarding how to make the process more efficient. 

Improving employee morale at VBA requires setting productivity standards based 

upon objective empirical evidence about what people can reasonably be expected to 

accomplish with an acceptable degree of accuracy, as opposed to arbitrarily setting 

productivity standards based on the size of a pending inventory and the number of 

available employees. Adequately staffing ROs and effectively training staff will improve employee morale. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
87 

Morale also can be improved by recognizing when employees are diligently working to maintain a level of quality that provides the service veterans deserve instead 

of issuing reprimands for failing to meet productivity objectives that are 

unachievable with any acceptable level of accuracy. Recognizing and rewarding employees for the quality of their work and not merely because of the number of cases 

they complete, correctly or incorrectly, will invest them with justified pride in the 

work they do. Investing every VBA employee with a stake in the proper outcome 

of a claim decision as opposed to merely crediting them for completing a step toward 

an eventual decision, be it right or wrong, will improve their morale. 

Acting in real partnership with AFGE representatives to alleviate tensions in the 

workplace and anxieties induced by necessary changes will help VBA employees better adjust to the flux of the claims process. Abiding by promises made to employees 

when they are hired concerning their salary, career ladder progression, and the 

training they will receive to successfully serve veterans and navigate their chosen 

career path will infuse them with good will toward their managers. 

Ultimately VBA management must accept that AFGE members, most of whom 

have no aspirations beyond performing well in their current positions and doing 

their duty to serve veterans, have a dignity and work ethic that is unsurpassed in 

the Federal workforce. Our members are dedicated to helping veterans. That dedication deserves respect, aid, and recognition from those who ‘‘manage’’ our workflow. 

Veterans recognize our dedication every day by writing letters of thanks directed 

toward the efforts of individual claims processors, and those letters do much to boost 

our morale. However, the gratitude that veterans regularly express for our efforts 

should be supplemented by effective aid from VBA management directed toward 

helping us better serve our constituency. 

In closing, morale of AFGE members at VBA is dependant on how well we address the needs of veterans. VBA management must accept that our interest is in 

getting things right the first time, since that is how we believe we best serve veterans. VBA management must provide us with the time, training, and recognition 

necessary to do so. 

f 

Committee on Veterans Affairs 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 20, 2009 

Michael Walcoff 

Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Mr. Walcoff: 

Thank you for testifying at the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing on, ‘‘Addressing 

the Backlog: Can VA Manage One Million Claims?’’ held on June 18, 2009. I would 

greatly appreciate if you would provide answers to the enclosed follow-up hearing 

questions by Monday, August 17, 2009. 

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

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

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

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

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your responses to Ms. Megan 

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

3608. 

Sincerely, 

John J. Hall 

Chairman 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
88 

Questions for the Record 

Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Disabilities and Memorial Affairs 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

June 18, 2009 

Addressing the Backlog: Can VA Manage One Million Claims? 

Question 1: At the hearing, VA was asked how many Vietnam Veterans are 

there in the inventory, how many are PTSD related, and how many Veterans committed suicide while awaiting an adjudicative decision. Were you able to ascertain 

these figures? 

Response: As of June 30, 2009, there were 163,440 original or reopened claims 

for compensation or pension from Vietnam-era Veterans in the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) inventory. Of those, 32,485 included a claim for Post-traumatic 

stress disorder (PTSD). With regard to identifying how many Veterans committed 

suicide while awaiting an adjudicative decision, VA does not have sufficient data to 

develop a reliable figure at this time. We are continuing to research this issue and 

intend to provide you the results of our analysis within the next 60 days. 

Question 2(a): Is there a VBA strategic plan? Is the Paperless Delivery of Veterans Benefits Initiative incorporated into an overall VBA strategic plan? 

Response: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is in the process of developing a strategic plan, and it will incorporate the paperless delivery of Veterans 

benefits initiative. The strategic plan will aligned objectives and action plans to improve VBA infrastructure and information technology to enable employees to provide 

timely and accurate service. Objectives will include migrating from a paper-intensive claims process to an integrated claims process supported with electronic data 

and services, as well as improving ease of use, consistency, and reliability of VBA 

business applications through integration and standardization of common services. 

Question 2(b): Is this paperless initiative being aligned with efforts to revise the 

Rating Schedule and the work being done on the electronic exam templates? 

Response: One of the strategic goals of the paperless initiative is to transform 

key aspects of the claims adjudication business process by expediting the implementation of regulatory and policy changes. As revisions in the rating schedule continue 

to occur, VBA will make it easier for end users to access electronic, online policy 

and procedural changes. End users are encouraged to use electronic reference materials and other electronic resources (such as electronic exam templates), and VBA 

is currently engaged in a pilot program to determine best practices for reliance on 

such material during the claims adjudication process. 

Question 2(c): Is the lead systems integrator that is being developed by EDS and 

the MITRE Corporation VETSNET project being included in the Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record initiative? Will the architecture system being designed by 

EDS be compatible with the nationally recognized set of uniform and open standards for information exchange as is used by HHS? 

Response: We interpret this question to be in regard to the paperless initiative, 

not VETSNET. The joint virtual lifetime electronic record (VLER) program is an Office of Policy and Planning led initiative within VA with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office of Health Information (OHI)—in partnership with the Department of Defense (DoD). The current paperless initiative requirements do not yet 

reflect how the program will integrate with VLER but this will be addressed by VA’s 

Office of Enterprise Development as technical solutions are developed. VLER intends to use open architecture and standards-based methodologies. 

The lead systems integrated contractor (LSIC) for the paperless initiative is 

charged with designing an enterprise solution using VA-approved enterprise architecture standards. The LSIC (EDS) was issued a stop work order on July 27, 2009, 

and alternate courses of action for this area of the initiative are being evaluated by 

senior leadership. The architecture system being designed for paperless will be compatible with the nationally recognized set of uniform and open standards for information exchange. 

Question 2(d): How will the Lean Six Sigma Pilot fit into the new office of strategic planning VBA recently created? 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
89 

Response: Booz Allen Hamilton conducted a review of VBA’s compensation rating 

claims development process and provided recommendations in a June 2009 report. 

The overall process recommendation was to apply Lean Six Sigma production practices to claims processing. In July 2009, VBA launched a pilot at the Little Rock 

Regional Office (RO) applying Lean Six Sigma principles to streamline claims processing. If the pilot is successful, Lean Six Sigma principles will be applied nationwide and incorporated in VBA’s strategic plan. 

Question 3: How are non-rating functions captured for employee work credits 

and how are they weighted? Does a different team handle the non-rating workload 

or is everyone expected to devote a certain amount of time to these tasks? 

Response: Currently, VBA’s ROs are organized according to the claims processing improvement (CPI) model. This model separates work into six teams: triage, 

pre determination, rating, post determination, appeals and public contact. Nearly all 

non-rating work is completed by the post-determination team. Work is tracked in 

the automated standardized performance elements nationwide (ASPEN) system. 

VBA has a national performance standard with weighted actions for all Veterans 

service representatives. More complex actions carry greater weight and each employee is expected to complete a minimum amount of weighted actions (on average) 

per day, based on their pay grade. 

Question 4: At the hearing, the Subcommittee requested a copy of the Booz Allen 

Hamilton study. Can you please provide the Subcommittee with a copy? 

Response: See attached report. [The report will be retained in the Committee 

files.] 

Question 5: If VBA is adding 80,000 new claims each month to its inventory, how 

many decisions are you making each month? What percentage of those are awards 

and what percentage are denials? 

Response: VBA is completing an average of nearly 80,000 claims per month during fiscal year (FY) 2009, a 10.3-percent increase from FY 2008. VBA is receiving 

an average of more than 82,000 claims per month in FY 2009. Through June 2009, 

VBA has received 744,000 claims, a 141⁄2-percent increase over receipts through 

June 2008. This means that VBA is receiving approximately 2,000 more claims per 

month than are completed. 

During FY 2008, VBA completed 899,863 claims, which required rating decisions 

on more than 2 million individually claimed issues. Forty-five percent of issues 

claimed (935,976) were granted from 0–100 percent. During FY 2007, VBA completed 824,444 rating-related claims. Completion of these claims included rating decisions on nearly more than 11⁄2 million issues, of which 48.4 percent (757,470) resulted in a grant of benefits from 0–100 percent. 

Question 6: What steps are you taking to ensure that you will meet its 125-day 

target goal by the end of the next fiscal year? What remedial actions will you take 

for those regional offices who do not meet this target? 

Response: VBA’s current strategic target for average days to complete (ADC) is 

125 days. VBA determined this target by adding the individual phases (or cycles) 

each claim travels through before completion, including the time spent awaiting evidence from the claimant or a third party. In addition, VBA considered the increasing complexity of claims received and changes in applicable laws and regulations, 

including the implementation of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act, enacted in FY 

2000. 

Through June 2009, the ADC this fiscal year is 161.3 days, which is the lowest 

since October 2004. VBA has seen a steady decline in ADC since a high of 182.6 

days in March 2008. This steady improvement is attributed to the nearly 3,500 new 

claims processing employees hired since January 2007. Since it takes at least 2 

years for a new employee to become fully trained in all aspects of claims processing, 

VBA is only now beginning to see the impact of employees hired in 2007 as they 

become fully trained and experienced employees. Due to the significant number of 

employees hired since 2007, VBA expects to see continued improvements as these 

employees continue to gain experience. 

VBA has also increased the use of overtime for claims processing and allowed experienced retired employees to return to work as claims processors. VBA has consolidated aspects of the workload (original pension claims, survivor benefit claims 

and general inquiry phone calls) to increase expertise in the specific areas, and 

refocus efforts at regional offices on the remaining benefits. VBA has also employed 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
90 

a ‘‘brokering’’ strategy, which balances out the workload by sending cases from those 

stations with high inventories to stations with additional processing capacity. 

Each fiscal year, VBA establishes ADC targets specific to each office. Targets are 

set to maintain high performance at ROs already meeting the strategic target and 

to incrementally improve timeliness at the other ROs. At the end of the year, RO 

performance is evaluated against the established station target. At the end of June 

2009, 12 stations, or 21 percent were meeting the strategic target, and 30 stations 

were meeting its end of year station-specific target. 

Question 7: Failure to consider inferred claims is an issue often raised—including by Compensation and Pension examiners. What has been done to allow examiners to be able to document a condition found during an exam that was not included on the initial request? 

Response: A general medical examination containing a full report of complaints 

and functional impairments is the preferred type of examination in cases concerning 

original compensation claims received within 1 year of discharge. The general medical exam is a comprehensive base line or screening examination for all body systems, as well as a basic evaluation of all disabilities listed on the examination request form. The exam should identify all disabilities whether documented on the 

exam request or not. It is often the initial post-discharge examination of a Veteran 

requested by the compensation and pension service for disability compensation purposes. For claims filed after the first year following discharge, a specialty examination is scheduled to evaluate the specific issue claimed. Therefore, unclaimed issues 

are not routinely assessed during specialty exams unless they are direct complications to the claimed condition. As a screening examination, it is not meant to elicit 

the detailed information about specific conditions that is necessary for rating purposes. Therefore, all claimed conditions, and any found or suspected conditions that 

were not claimed, should be addressed by referring to and following all appropriate 

worksheets. 

The examiner may request any additional studies or examinations needed for 

proper diagnosis and evaluation. All important negatives should be reported. If an 

unclaimed condition is found on an exam, the issue can be rated or at a minimum 

a claim for disability is solicited from the Veteran, depending on the examiner’s 

findings. 

Question 8: As discussed at the hearing, can you provide the Committee with additional information on the claims processing laboratory being established at the 

Providence, RI Regional Office? 

Response: The business transformation laboratory will allow VBA to test new 

business processes and claims processing hypotheses to enable seamless paperless 

processing of Veterans claims. Currently available technology will be used in some 

circumstances to simulate the planned technology environment. The goal of this activity is to provide a ‘‘lab’’ environment where business processes can be developed 

and optimized prior to national implementation. The effort will allow us to implement work processes, some using current technology, to understand impacts on employees, service delivery partners, and performance metrics. The effort will be implemented with close oversight in order to document best practices and lessons learned. 

A current effort is underway to evaluate the impact on employees of using only electronic reference materials to process claims. Over the coming months, a variety of 

work processes will be evaluated, to include enhanced claims triage methodologies 

and end-to-end workflows. 

Question 9: Does VBA currently have the capacity to begin scanning new claims 

entering the system? Can scanning be key word classified? 

Response: At the present, the Office of Information and Technology (OIT) has 

asked that we not add any new imaging activities to the current virtual VA 

paperless claims processing environment. OIT has implemented a stabilization plan 

for virtual VA to reduce the performance issues with the application. In parallel, 

OIT and VBA determining the best near-term course of action with respect to not 

only the imaging of documents, but ensuring these images can be used to support 

the claims process. 

Documents are scanned as images into virtual VA in either a portable document 

format or a tagged image file format. Although currently not employed, the technology exist which can provide automatic classification through a form-based or 

character-based recognition engine. VBA has contracted for manual indexing or 

‘‘classification’’ based on document type. These requirements will be re-examined as 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
91 

new capabilities are strategically introduced through the paperless delivery of Veterans benefits initiative. 

Question 10: What is your employee rate of attrition? 

Response: The FY 2008 VA employee attrition rate was approximately 9 percent. 

Attrition rates vary by geographical area, position type, and years of experience. 

Historically, VBA attrition rates in the claims processor job classifications have 

averaged 10 percent. 

Question 11: What is the status of the VA’s efforts to develop a skills certification exam for managers? Who is involved in design of the test and who will be 

required to take the exam and who will not be required to take the exam, and why? 

Response: In January 2009, VBA let a contract to HumRRO to develop, test, and 

deploy a certification exam for managers. HumRRO has provided support and development for multiple other VBA certification exams. VBA also established a manager 

skills certification design team comprised of employees from ROs, VBA human resource centers, and central office. The first certification item writing session was 

held July 28–29. The remaining two item writing sessions are scheduled for August 

2009. 

The initial pilot test for the certification exam is on schedule for November 5, 

2009. Only first line supervisors who have at least 1 year of experience as a manager will be required to take the exam. Individuals with less than 1 year of experience in supervision are not required to take the exam since they do not have the 

necessary human resource/labor relations training, which is approximately 20 percent of the exam. After successful deployment of the first line supervisor certification exam, other managerial certification will be examined. 

Question 12: What mechanisms are currently in place to ensure that RO managers comply with new employee and current employee training requirements in 

terms of number of hours set aside for training? What steps are taken to ensure 

sufficient qualifications of trainers? 

Response: Newly hired VBA employees attend centralized training at the VBA 

Academy for 21⁄2 weeks of classroom instruction and practical exercise. Centralized 

training is preceded by a clearly defined curriculum implemented under supervision 

at the students’ home station and followed by continued training and practical exercise upon return to the home station. 

Instructors selected to train new employees at centralized training are required 

to have completed VBA’s instructor development course (IDC). The purpose of the 

IDC is to provide VBA trainers with the knowledge and skills to conduct training 

effectively. The course is 41⁄2 days long and covers topics such as training methods, 

understanding your adult learner, training media, and managing learner interactions. Additionally, VBA conducts a basic instructor course (BIC) aimed at training experienced employees tasked with providing continuing training to journey 

level employees locally. 

The designated training manager (TM) at each RO plays a key role in the development and maintenance of the RO’s training plans. Responsibilities of the TM include training program administration, oversight, evaluation, quality assurance, and 

technical support. The TM also provides the current training status for all employees to management and is the point of contact for all local, area, and/or nationwide 

training initiatives. 

To track training, VA uses the learning management system (LMS). LMS offers 

many benefits to VA, including Web-based learning content and the automatic recording of learning progress from that content. RO directors are responsible for establishing training plans at the beginning of each fiscal year and for ensuring that 

current employees complete the designated number of core technical training requirement (CTTR) hours. For most employees, an annual 80-hour training requirement exists. Three-fourths of these training hours are dedicated to required technical training. CTTR hours are entered into LMS. RO director performance standards include employee development and training as a critical element of successful 

performance. 

Mandatory training for employees is automatically uploaded into individual learning plans and a completion date is provided. To assist employees, LMS generates 

automatic email message reminders of mandatory training as well as any past due 

training. In addition, LMS sends an email message to supervisors when training is 

past due. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
92 

Question 13: What is the status of the VBA time and motion study that was discussed at a previous hearing and referenced in the AFGE testimony? 

Response: Public Law 110–389, the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, 

was passed on October 10, 2008. The law mandated a study of VBA’s work credit 

and work management systems under section 226. VBA contracted with the Center 

for Naval Analyses to perform this study, which will be delivered to VBA on September 30. VBA will analyze the study and results to determine appropriate action 

needed, including assessing the need for another time-and-motion study. The final 

report will be provided to Congress no later than October 31, 2009. 

f 

Committee on Veterans Affairs 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Washington, DC. 

July 20, 2009 

Rear Admiral Gregory Timberlake, SHCE, USN 

Director 

DoD/VA Interagency Program Office 

U.S. Department of Defense 

1400 Defense Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20301 

Dear Mr. Timberlake: 

Thank you for testifying at the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing on, ‘‘Addressing 

the Backlog: Can VA Manage One Million Claims?’’ held on June 18, 2009. I would 

greatly appreciate if you would provide answers to the enclosed follow-up hearing 

questions by Monday, August 17, 2009. 

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

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

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

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

Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your responses to Ms. Megan 

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

3608. 

Sincerely, 

John J. Hall 

Chairman 

Questions from the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Hearing on ‘‘Addressing the Backlog: Can VA Manage One Million Claims?’’ 

June 18, 2009 

Question 1: For several years, VA and DoD at their Joint Executive Council have 

been strategizing Seamless Transition with a key component being a shared electronic record. The best it seems that they have been able to come up with thus far 

is to create patches between VistA and AHLTA. What is the vision for making a 

Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record actually happen? 

a. Will it require both Departments to use the same information technology architecture system or will two separate systems be able to completely function 

jointly? 

b. Can you provide more of an explanation of definition of data sharing requirements and effective synchronization of schedules? 

Answer: The Vision: 

‘‘Both Departments will work together to define and build a system that 

will ultimately contain administrative and medical information from the 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
93 

day an individual enters military service throughout their military career, 

and after they leave the military.’’ 

—President Barrack Obama, April 9, 2009 

In June 2009, the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs approved 

a strategic concept for VLER, and asked the two Departments to define high level 

requirements, develop a synchronized budget proposal, identify short-term projects, 

and revise the IPO’s Charter. The Departments and the IPO are currently working 

through those four areas and will seek further guidance from the Deputy Secretaries and the VA/DoD Joint Executive Council. 

a. The Architecture: 

The focus is sharing data using the Nationwide Health Information Network 

(NHIN). Progress is being made with the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, 

and Health and Human Services to agree to use a nationally recognized set of uniform and open standards for information exchange, such as those being implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Nationwide Health Information Network. This approach will enable DoD and VA to create an architectural framework that is capable of sharing electronic health data with both the private sector and other governmental agencies. 

b. Data Sharing Requirements and Synchronization of Schedules: 

The first increment of this effort is described as the use of the NHIN to begin 

sharing electronic health information in a limited number of sites. The Departments 

are in the initial stages of developing the specific data-sharing requirements and 

synchronizing their schedules for VLER. The first increment of VLER will be characterized by creating production pilots with incremental extension of available content using the NHIN approved documents and standards. To support this effort, 

VLER will be developed through multiple overlapping sub-phases (or segments) in 

order to establish the baseline capabilities that are required to realize the long-term 

VLER mission. Each segment will have overlapping initiatives and will be defined 

with completion dates approximately every 6 months. By decomposing in this manner, each initiative will be able to capitalize on the evolving capabilities and lessons 

learned from other initiatives. Although this approach should enable the Departments to develop the final VLER state in manageable segments with ongoing successes, close oversight and coordination of all the initiatives must occur to ensure 

these objectives are met. 

Question 2: Can you give me a clear mission statement for the IPO along with 

the goals and objectives that you intend to meet and how the Departments will 

manage the challenges you enumerated and the timeframe for meeting those goals? 

Answer: To date, the IPO’s primary role in interagency data sharing is performing oversight and management of DoD/VA plans and activities associated with 

attaining interoperability of electronic data. It is important to understand the Departments are still responsible to develop their own requirements and implement 

the IT solutions throughout the Military Health System and the Veterans Health 

Administration. The IPO does not build IT products; we help coordinate and oversee 

the IT products needed to improve the provision of clinical care are accomplished 

according to the schedule and specifications agreed to by the Departments and accepted by our senior leaders. 

To do this, IPO staff work with both Departments on joint activities like ensuring 

schedules and funding considerations are coordinated, assisting in obtaining input 

and concurrence of stakeholders, communicating data sharing gaps in capabilities 

for future planning, reporting progress, and raising items not being resolved within 

the Departments to the Deputy Secretaries and the Joint Executive Council. 

Our mission was expanded twice, first to include oversight and management of 

personnel and benefits data sharing activities, and most recently to work with the 

Departments to develop an effective governance and management model for the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER). 

The main challenges to accomplishing these goals are as follows: 

• Developing, adopting, and maturing standards to ensure efficient operational 

use. 

• Updating capabilities, systems, infrastructure, and technology consistent with 

emerging standards. 

• Identifying and prioritizing information requirements for sequential upgrades to 

new technologies and common services, as defined by the business process owners and the functional community. 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING
94 

Work has already begun on the development and adoption of national standards 

and collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Departments is a critical component of success, and this work will continue. 

DoD and VA are currently funding short-term solutions and improvements to 

their respective electronic health record systems. Electronic health record interoperability at the present time is accomplished by ensuring the access to data using 

mechanisms such as the Bidirectional Health Information Exchange (BHIE). 

The data are shared bidirectionally, in real time, for patients who receive care 

from both VA and DoD facilities and are viewable at all DoD and VA medical facilities. BHIE permits DoD providers to view BHIE data from all VA medical facilities 

and VA to view BHIE data from all DoD facilities. The Departments will continue 

to use and upgrade their current EHRs to provide and document clinical care while 

the way forward for sharing through the NHIN is being implemented. The evolution 

to the VLER will be incremental. 

Question 3: In reality DoD in and of itself is not a single system. Each branch 

of the service has its own electronic record and data management systems. This is 

also true for the VBA, which has just contracted for an integrator to align all of 

its systems. Will each branch be required to standardize its systems so that sharing 

with VA can take place at a greater and more effective rate? 

Answer: DoD uses AHLTA and VA uses VistA for documentation of health care 

delivery. The Services do not have their own electronic health record systems although they do have some Service specific systems. Using the VLER/National 

Health Information Network (NHIN) model, data in existing systems may need to 

be translated into the standard approved by the NHIN for sharing those specific 

data elements using the NHIN approved document types. 

Question 4: How has the Interagency Program Office involved the Veterans Benefit Administration in its mission development and how will the IPO be involved in 

informing the VA/DoD single exam process? 

Answer: The IPO has not been involved in this process. The concept of a single 

cooperative examination process has been in existence since 1994 when the Army 

agreed to participate in a test with VA to determine if one separation physical examination could satisfy the needs of both VA and the Army. VA and DoD signed 

national single examination memoranda of agreements in 1998 and 2004. The 

agreements encouraged local memoranda of understandings (MOU) and since that 

time, almost 100 MOUs have been signed between VA and military services that 

cover 133 installations through the Benefits Delivery at Discharge program. 

Question 5: At the hearing, the Subcommittee asked about the millions of pieces 

of lost and unassociated medical documents that DoD eventually sends to VA, but 

because this is not done in a timely fashion, 13 percent or 40,000 veterans were 

wrongly denied benefits. Will the IPO be evaluating plans to address these 

unassociated files and how they might be scanned and added to electronic records? 

Answer: Under the auspice of the Joint Executive Council and the Benefits Executive Council, the Medical Records Working Group (MRWG) has been working this 

issue. The working group consists of representatives from VA and DoD (including 

representatives from each military Service). Most recently a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was drafted and is out to the Services for final coordination and a 

Service Treatment Record (STR) Scanning Solution Focus Group (SSFG) has been 

formed to address this issue. The MOA addresses handling and processes associated 

with making electronic and paper Medical and Dental Service Treatment Records 

(STRs) available to the VA. The STR SSFG will determine the best methods to scan 

paper records and index in a way to create a single comprehensive STR that can 

be made accessible to the VA. 

The IPO does not currently conduct management oversight of these working 

groups or their plans. section 1635 of the NDAA FY 2008 requires the IPO to provide oversight of the implementation of electronic health record systems or capabilities that allow for full interoperability of personal health care information between 

DoD and VA. Document scanning is not an electronic health record system, but a 

method of information input, and therefore does not fall under the purview of the 

IPO. 

Æ 


ANORRIS on DSK5R6SHH1 with HEARING