U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

45–276 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–583

IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED AND PLANNED BY

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR THE

CARE, MANAGEMENT, AND TRANSITION OF

WOUNDED AND ILL SERVICEMEMBERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 13, 2008

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

(

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia, 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

MICHAEL V. KOSTIW, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED AND PLANNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AND THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR THE CARE, MANAGEMENT, AND

TRANSITION OF WOUNDED AND ILL SERVICEMEMBERS

FEBRUARY 13, 2008

Page

Mansfield, Hon. Gordon H., Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Accompanied by Hon. Patrick W. Dunne, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), 

Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Policy and Planning .................... 7

Chu, Hon. David S.C., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness ........................................................................................................................ 15

Geren, Hon. Preston M., III, Secretary of the Army ............................................. 16

Schoomaker, LTG Eric B., USA, Surgeon General of the Army and Commander, U.S. Army Medical Command .............................................................. 22

(III) 

(1)

IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENTED AND 

PLANNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR THE CARE, MANAGEMENT, AND TRANSITION OF WOUNDED AND 

ILL SERVICEMEMBERS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in room SD–

106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Webb, Warner, Inhofe, Sessions, 

Chambliss, Dole, Thune, and Wicker. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Gabriella Eisen, counsel; Gerald 

J. Leeling, counsel; and Peter K. Levine, general counsel. 

Minority staff members present: Michael V. Kostiw, Republican 

staff director; William M. Caniano, professional staff member; 

David G. Collins, research assistant; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member; 

and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel. 

Staff assistants present: Fletcher L. Cork, Jessica L. Kingston, 

Ali Z. Pasha, and Brian F. Sebold. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Bethany Bassett and 

Jay Maroney, assistants to Senator Kennedy; James Tuite, assistant to Senator Byrd; Bonni Berge, assistant to Senator Akaka; 

Christopher Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Andrew R. 

Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Jon Davey, assistant to Senator Bayh; M. Bradford Foley, assistant to Senator 

Pryor; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Jennifer 

Cave and Sandra Luff, assistants to Senator Warner; Anthony J. 

Lazarski and Nathan Reese, assistants to Senator Inhofe; Lenwood 

Landrum and Todd Stiefler, assistants to Senator Sessions; Mark 

J. Winter, assistant to Senator Collins; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Adam G. Brake, assistant to Senator 

Graham; Lindsey Neas, assistant to Senator Dole; Jason Van Beek, 

assistant to Senator Thune; and Erskine W. Wells III, assistant to 

Senator Wicker. 

2

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. The committee 

meets this morning to review actions taken over the last year to 

improve living conditions, outpatient care, and processes to help 

our severely injured and ill servicemembers as they transition to 

care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) into civilian life and to discuss actions in progress or yet to commence. 

Our witnesses this morning were scheduled to be: Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England—and before I identify the other 

witnesses, let me say that I understand that Secretary Gates had 

a fall last night on the ice and broke his shoulder and therefore 

now he must be represented by Gordon England at another hearing 

that Secretary Gates was supposed to be at himself. Is that correct? 

Secretary GEREN. Yes, sir, that’s correct. 

Chairman LEVIN. It’s our hope that you would express to Secretary Gates our, first of all, hopes for a very speedy and prompt 

recovery. We obviously want him back in action. We understand totally, of course, why the Secretary cannot be with us this morning. 

Our other witnesses are: Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

Gordon Mansfield; Secretary of the Army Pete Geren; Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness David Chu; and the 

Surgeon General of the Army, Lieutenant General Eric 

Schoomaker. 

We understand Admiral Dunne is here with you, Secretary 

Mansfield, this morning. We welcome you, of course, as well, Admiral. 

Our Nation has a moral obligation to provide quality health care 

to the men and women who put on our Nation’s uniform and are 

injured and wounded fighting our Nation’s wars. On February 18, 

2007, the headlines of the Washington Post read ‘‘Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration at Army’s Top Medical Facility.’’ A series of articles by Dana Priest and Ann Hull served as a wakeup call regarding the care and treatment of our wounded warriors. The articles 

that appeared in the press a year ago described deplorable living 

conditions for servicemembers living in outpatient status at Walter 

Reed, a bungled bureaucratic process for assigning disability ratings that determined whether a servicemember would be medically 

retired with health and other benefits for the member and for his 

family. They described a clumsy handoff from the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to the VA as these injured soldiers try to move on 

with their lives. We also learned that these problems were not limited to the Army or to Walter Reed. 

A lot has been accomplished in the wake of these articles and 

much more needs to be done. This committee held a hearing on 

March 6, 2007, to address the shortfalls in the care of our wounded 

warriors. At that hearing we concluded that it would require the 

coordinated efforts of the VA Committee and the Armed Services 

Committee to address the issues in a comprehensive manner. 

This led to a rare joint hearing of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Veterans Affairs on April 12. The committees continued to work together to pass the Dignified Treatment 

of Wounded Warriors Act on July 25, 2007. This comprehensive bipartisan legislation that addressed the care and management of 

3

our wounded warriors was drafted, marked up, and passed by the 

Senate in record time. 

This act, enhanced by provisions in the House-passed Wounded 

Warrior Assistance Act of 2007, became the Wounded Warrior Act 

that was included in the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Wounded Warrior Act represents major reform and was supported by veterans service organizations. It advances the care, management, and transition of recovering servicemembers; enhances health care and benefits for 

families; and begins the process of fundamental reform to the disability evaluation systems of DOD and the VA. 

We require the DOD in this law to use VA standards for rating 

disabilities and to use the VA presumption of sound condition in 

determining whether a disability is service-connected. We increase 

the disability severance pay for certain servicemembers. We required the DOD and the VA to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on improvements to care and management of recovering servicemembers. We established centers of excellence for traumatic brain 

injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and traumatic 

eye injuries, and we authorized respite care for seriously injured 

servicemembers. 

The Wounded Warrior Act addresses nearly all the findings of 

the various commissions that have examined the issues regarding 

the care and treatment of our wounded warriors. The most significant exception is the recommendation of the Dole-Shalala Commission to restructure the VA disability compensation system. The essence of that recommendation is a restructuring of the VA disability compensation benefit. It falls, the recommendation, primarily in the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs 

Committees, both of whom are examining it. 

The VA has just recently awarded a contract to develop information regarding changes in the composition of disability payments, 

as recommended by the Dole-Shalala Commission, and some veterans service organizations have already expressed some questions 

about this change. 

Working together in an approach that is consistent with the 

Wounded Warrior Act, the Departments of Defense and Veterans 

Affairs established a high-level senior oversight committee, cochaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to oversee analysis of and changes to the 

DOD and VA systems, to improve the care and treatment of our 

injured and ill servicemembers. We hope to learn this morning 

what the Departments have accomplished thus far, what initiatives 

are in the works, and if any additional legislation is needed to accomplish their goals. 

The Army has established the Army medical action plan (AMAP) 

to develop a sustainable system for the medical treatment and rehabilitation of injured and ill soldiers, to prepare them for successful return to duty or transition to civilian status. I’m confident that 

Secretary Geren and General Schoomaker will have more to say 

about that. 

Finally, we are proud of the fact that our military doctors, 

nurses, and medics have courageously provided outstanding medical care to those who are wounded. This care begins on the battleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Nov 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\45276.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
4

field itself, where these providers are at great personal risk as they 

tend to the wounded. Many servicemembers who would have died 

in earlier conflicts are surviving injuries incurred in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the loving care and the advances in battlefield medical treatment that exist now, that didn’t exist before, but 

also, and we want to reiterate this, because of the skill and the 

bravery of our combat medical teams. 

Seriously injured troops are rapidly evacuated to world-class 

medical facilities, where they receive state-of-the-art care as inpatients. 

Today’s hearing is about the actions taken by the Departments 

of Defense and Veterans Affairs and by the Army to implement the 

Wounded Warrior Act and recommendations made by various commissions over the many months. 

I’d like to add that although Senator Lieberman is not here with 

us today, he has requested that his statement be entered into the 

record, and without objection, it will be. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN

Chairman Levin, thank you for convening this important hearing on the status 

of our wounded warriors. 

Almost a year ago, we learned from press reports that many of our recovering 

servicemembers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center were not receiving adequate 

medical services or were living in unacceptable conditions. Along with many of my 

colleagues, I promised to fix these problems and improve the quality of care given 

to those who have served honorably. I am heartened that this committee and many 

others in Congress stood up and fulfilled their moral responsibility by including 

Wounded Warrior legislation in last year’s National Defense Authorization bill. We 

have made significant improvements, but we still have more challenges to solve. 

In the coming weeks, I plan to introduce legislation to address two pressing problems. My first proposal will increase and improve incentives for the recruitment and 

retention of uniformed mental health providers. One in six Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom servicemembers has a diagnosable condition of 

post-traumatic stress disorder. However, if we do not have enough uniformed providers in place, we will not have the manpower to treat all servicemembers who 

need help. The need for uniformed providers cannot be overemphasized in light of 

their dual missions to not only deploy to combat zones, but staff garrison military 

treatment facilities across the globe. Uniformed mental health professionals are also 

critical because those returning from combat strongly prefer to receive care from a 

fellow servicemember. As we learn more about the mental health conditions that 

arise from repeated tours of duty, we must have the uniformed workforce in place 

to meet the demands of our returning servicemembers and the long-term challenges 

facing the Department to improve both the access to and the quality of mental 

health care. 

My second piece of legislation focuses on suicide prevention in the military. Our 

military’s most valuable resource is the people who serve our country in uniform. 

In the past year, there have been a number of disturbing reports in the news concerning the Army’s suicide rate, which was higher in 2007 than any other time this 

statistic has been tracked by the military, and significantly higher than in the civilian population. We must reverse the current trend. My legislation will create a new 

prevention program, modeled on the Air Force’s highly successful aircraft accident 

prevention program, at the Department of Defense to investigate all suicides. An 

independent body, assembled by a four-star general, would produce a confidential 

report, including recommendations to address any recognized deficiencies. We must 

have the protocols in place to make sure we are able to determine when a 

servicemember needs help or immediate attention, and I believe my proposal will 

go a long way in preserving our most valuable resource—our men and women in 

uniform. 

We can all agree that taking care of our wounded warriors must remain a national priority. Many obvious deficiencies have been corrected, and now I call upon 

my colleagues to tackle the remaining challenges before us. We have asked our 

servicemembers to accept near-impossible trials and tribulations on the battlefield. 

5

The least we can do is to provide them with the best possible care and the attention 

they deserve. 

Chairman LEVIN. There is a vote scheduled for 10:30 this morning. I hope that we can complete our opening statements and begin 

questions even before the vote. 

Senator Warner. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a most unique piece of legislation, and one 

of its hallmarks is the strong bipartisan effort that’s been put in 

on both sides of the aisle, and one of the stalwarts on our side, Senator Sessions, has been at the forefront of this. I’m going to invite 

him now to deliver the remarks for our side of the aisle. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Warner. I do care about 

this deeply, as I know you do, and thank you for your leadership 

and that of Senator Levin. 

I welcome our panel members. It’s a distinguished group and I 

think your appearance here today represents by your very positions 

the commitment the DOD has to fixing the problems that we’ve 

seen. Images of a mold-infested room at Walter Reed, which was 

home to a recovering servicemember will not and should not be forgotten. We’re all accountable for the conditions at Walter Reed and 

its impact on families. We’re all answerable to the American people 

for the full and complete resolution of those problems. 

There’s just no doubt that when we commit our men and women 

to harm’s way if they are injured, there is a deep bond we have 

with them, I think, that cannot be disputed, that we will do whatever we can to assure they have the finest medical care possible. 

The independent review group established by Secretary Gates in 

February 2007 described the situation that overwhelmed Walter 

Reed as a ‘‘perfect storm.’’ It involved the confluence of an increase 

in operational tempo as a result of the war, the decision of the commission on BRAC to close Walter Reed, inattention by leaders to 

processing delays, and antiquated disability evaluation processes, a 

breakdown in outpatient care and transition to the VA. In addition, 

the DOD lacked the tools to adequately identify TBI and its overlap 

with PTSD. 

We now realize that the problems were far broader than just the 

Walter Reed site, and I believe that progress in addressing shortfalls in care is underway. Congress provided $900 million in supplemental funding to DOD in fiscal year 2007 for the purpose of 

aiding wounded and ill servicemembers with TBI and PTSD. The 

Army has activated a new Warrior Transition Brigade focused solely on helping wounded and ill soldiers to heal. As of February 4, 

2008, 9,782 soldiers, both Active and Reserve, are assigned or attached to a warrior transition unit (WTU). 

The Army now has broken ground on a new and greatly expanded hospital at Fort Belvoir, VA, which will be completed ahead 

of the BRAC schedule and will improve services for our wounded 

and ill military personnel, especially for orthopedic and mental 

health concerns. I know Senator Warner is very proud of that hospital that will be at Fort Belvoir. 

6

It is evident by our panel today that the DOD and the VA are 

working together, rather than at odds. Yet, according to the DOD’s 

recent survey of wounded and ill servicemembers, one in four rate 

‘‘poorly’’ for their experience with the medical evaluation board 

process. One in five rates ‘‘poorly’’ for their ability to access care 

and appointments as soon as needed. 

Studies conducted in the last year reassure the American people 

that the men and women who volunteer for our military and are 

sent into harm’s way will receive the best medical care in the 

world. I quote from the report of the Gates panel, which said: 

‘‘Through advances in battlefield medicine and evacuation care the 

Department has achieved the lowest mortality rates of wounded in 

history.’’ 

I quote also from the report of the commission appointed by 

President Bush, co-chaired by Senator Robert Dole and Secretary 

Donna Shalala: ‘‘The medical care at Walter Reed Army Medical 

Center and other military treatment facilities (MTFs) is compassionate and complete. The specialized services and programs for 

amputations and burns in particular are world class.’’ 

So this hearing will examine the response of our government to 

the shortfalls for servicemembers who are outpatients during the 

long-term healing they require. The Wounded Warrior Act is itself 

a significant contribution toward that goal. I was privileged to be 

a part of that significant bipartisan effort, along with many members of this committee and the Veterans Committee. 

The new law will ensure cooperation between the DOD and VA, 

open new avenues of treatment for TBI and psychological health, 

and begin the process of reforming the disability evaluation system 

for our Nation’s veterans of war, in other words achieving nearly 

all the goals of the Dole-Shalala Commission. So we look to the 

Committee on Veterans Affairs for leadership on the important 

work which remains—modernization of the benefits and compensation for our Nation’s veterans, and in particular eliminating duplication between DOD and VA. 

Senator Burr, the ranking member of that committee, has announced his intention to pursue the needed reforms through legislation to create a modern, less confusing and more equitable system for today’s wounded warriors. We shall forget neither the images of Walter Reed nor the stories of so many wounded veterans 

and their families who, as a result of a lack of care and perceived 

lack of fairness, lost trust in the government that they served. Nor 

shall we ever forget the statement of General George Washington, 

who said: ‘‘The willingness with which our young people are likely 

to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were 

treated and appreciated by their country.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I look forward to this excellent 

panel today. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Let me start with Secretary Mansfield and then we’ll go to you, 

Secretary Chu. Are you going to be giving the statement for Secretary England? 

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir, I’ll give Secretary England’s prepared remarks. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

7

Secretary Mansfield? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. MANSFIELD, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. 

PATRICK W. DUNNE, REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED), 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR POLICY 

AND PLANNING 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Thank you, Chairman Levin and members 

of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today. I’m especially pleased to be accompanied by Admiral Dunne, 

Secretary Geren, Secretary Chu, and General Schoomaker. 

The VA and the DOD have a positive, good news report to give 

you today on our enhanced partnership to ensure today’s Active 

Duty servicemembers and veterans receive the benefits, care, and 

services a grateful Nation has promised them. They have surely 

earned that and I know, Mr. Chairman and members, that you and 

the committee members are here to make sure that it happens. 

I’m especially pleased to have had the opportunity to have 

worked with Gordon England, the Deputy Secretary of the DOD. 

Over the past year Gordon and I have had a unique opportunity 

to focus the attention of both Departments on the needs of those 

we serve, our servicemembers and veterans. We have concentrated 

attention on the need for a seamless transition from the DOD to 

the VA. 

I want to publicly thank him for his leadership, which has allowed us to accomplish so much. As he has said, the ties between 

the two organizations have been strengthened and lines of communication are now available across the two Departments. 

The Senior Oversight Council (SOC) has been operational since 

May 8, 2007, but it is important to note that serious high-level cooperative efforts in the areas of health care and benefits delivery 

predate the SOC. VA and DOD formed a Joint Executive Council 

(JEC) in February 2002. You later codified it in statute in November 2003. The JEC’s responsibility—and I quote from its standup 

document—is ‘‘The JEC will work to remove barriers and challenges, assert and support mutually beneficial opportunities, recommend to the two secretaries the strategic directives for joint coordination and sharing efforts between and within the two Departments, and oversee the implementation of those efforts.’’ 

I believe it is important to identify some of the positives produced under the auspices of the JEC from its start. Dental care for 

Reserve and National Guardsmen was taken care of—the North 

Chicago VA and U.S. Navy cooperative effort to form the first joint 

Federal health care facility non-sequitar; and the Traumatic 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance which has been effective 

thanks to Congress since December 1, 2005. As of January 31, we 

have paid 4,111 claims for a total of $254.4 million to seriously injured servicemembers. 

We now have more than 95 memoranda of understanding 

(MOUs) covering 153 military sites; VBA counselors inserted at 

MTFs; data-sharing efforts; and the joint incentive fund that Congress authorized to fund 66 projects for $160 million between the 

two organizations. 

8

So in short, the JEC provided a starting point for the SOC. I 

want to commend and thank Dr. David Chu for his past and continued efforts and cooperation as my DOD partner on the JEC. 

The SOC, established by direction of the two secretaries following, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, hearings here on the 

Hill, established eight lines of action, which generally defined the 

issues needing resolution. They include: the disability evaluation 

system; TBI and PTSD case management; data-sharing efforts; facilities; legislation and public affairs; personnel, pay, and financial 

support; and what we call a clean sheet review, or after we’ve 

looked at all these issues, if you were starting over how would you 

start and what would you build that would be different from what 

we have today. 

Our excellent joint DOD and VA staff, provided through a special 

office by Melinda Darby and Roger Dimsdale, identified these lines 

of action from the issues presented in numerous reports, investigations, or commissions which reported last year, as you mentioned, 

Mr. Chairman—Dole-Shalala, Gerry Scott’s commission, the 

Marsh-West commission, and Secretary Nicholson’s commission 

that the President directed that he take part in. All were reviewed 

completely to come up with a comprehensive plan of action. 

Currently the SOC is overseeing the efforts to apply the decisions 

made from these line of action recommendations. For example, the 

Federal recovery coordinators or case managers’ decision has resulted in VA Federal recovery coordinators standing up an office, 

hiring the first eight individuals, training them, placing them in 

MTFs, and having them start the process of fulfilling that requirement which you directed for us. 

In another area, we have started a pilot project to have the VA 

complete one single medical exam, which will allow first DOD 

under their responsibility to make the decision whether this individual is fit or unfit to continue to serve on Active Duty, and if the 

individual is not fit to serve on Active Duty to allow the VA to use 

that same information to process a claim for disability benefits 

when the individual is discharged. This pilot has gotten one case 

already through the process. The examinations are taking place in 

the Washington, DC, area and the cases are going to the VA office 

in St. Petersburg for decision. This pilot will run for approximately 

1 year starting last November, going to November this year, and 

will give us the starting point for more efforts on how to make sure 

that this transfer from Active Duty to veteran status becomes 

seamless and the information is transferred and used by both at 

the same time. 

We realize we have more work to do, data-sharing for example, 

where we move to the ability to transfer patient data between our 

two systems. We’re doing more than we ever had before. We’re 

sharing data. We’re moving toward making it operational, and I 

think I can report to you that more efforts are going forward in 

that area than ever before. It’s a hard area. There are a lot of 

issues to deal with, and we continue to work on that at a high 

level. 

We’re also working together on TBI and PTSD issues—care, research, and treatment, as we see a greater emphasis on these 

9

issues, and a new center of excellence is under construction and 

will be taking place at the new Bethesda location. 

Currently the SOC is prepared to come together whenever required to make decisions required by the dedicated VA and DOD 

staff which oversee the efforts on each of these lines of action. We 

continue to address any issues which may arise regarding cooperation between the two Departments. Gordon England, David Chu, 

and I continue to discuss these issues as needed. The remaining requirements stemming from the National Defense Authorization Act 

passed last session will keep us focused intently on continuing improvements. 

The issue of a new disability benefit system as proposed by the 

President through the Dole-Shalala report remains an open item. 

The VA has contracted for two studies which will allow us to move 

forward in this area. The studies are due for completion in approximately 6 months. They deal with transition payment and then compensation and quality of life issues in a to-be-proposed system. 

The issue of rehabilitation medicine continues to evolve as we 

treat and evaluate the patients returning from the battlefield, entering acute care treatment, and initial rehabilitation and MTFs 

before they transition to VA polytrauma centers and medical centers. 

Finally, we are working to ensure better involvement and care of 

the family members of these individuals. 

That concludes my statement and I await your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Secretary England and Secretary Mansfield follows:]

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. GORDON ENGLAND AND HON. GORDON

MANSFIELD

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and members of the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services, we deeply appreciate your steadfast support of our military and 

welcome the opportunity to appear here today to discuss improvements implemented and planned for the care, management, and transition of wounded, ill, and 

injured servicemembers. We are pleased to report that while much work remains 

to be completed, meaningful progress has been made. 

We’re delighted to have with us Secretary of the Army Geren, Under Secretary 

of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Chu, Surgeon General of the Army, Lieutenant General Schoomaker, and Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Policy and 

Planning Dunne. 

The administration has worked diligently—commissioning independent review 

groups, task forces, and a Presidential Commission to assess the situation and make 

recommendations. Central to our efforts, a close partnership between our respective 

Departments was established, punctuated by formation of the Senior Oversight 

Committee (SOC) to identify immediate corrective actions and to review and implement recommendations of the external reviews. The SOC continues work to streamline, deconflict, and expedite the two Departments’ efforts to improve support of 

wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers’ recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration. 

Specifically, we have endeavored to improve the Disability Evaluation System 

(DES), established a Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic 

Brain Injury, established the Federal Recovery Coordination Program, improved 

data sharing between the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), developed medical facility inspection standards, and improved 

delivery of pay and benefits. 

SENIOR OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

The driving principle guiding SOC efforts is the establishment of a world-class 

seamless continuum that is efficient and effective in meeting the needs of our 

wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers, veterans, and their families. The body is 

10

composed of senior DOD and VA representatives and co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Its members include: 

the Service Secretaries, the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

the Service Chiefs or Vice Chiefs, the Under Secretaries of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness and Comptroller, the Under Secretaries of Veterans Affairs for Benefits and Health, the Office of the Secretary of Defense General Counsel, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the Director of Administration and 

Management, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, the Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Policy and Planning, the 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Plans, and the Veterans Affairs Deputy 

Chief Information Officer. In short, the SOC brings together on a regular basis the 

most senior decisionmakers to ensure wholly informed, timely action. Supporting 

the SOC decision-making process is an Overarching Integrated Product Team 

(OIPT), co-chaired by the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Department of Veterans Affairs Under Secretary for 

Benefits and composed of senior officials from both DOD and VA. The OIPT reports 

to the SOC and coordinates, integrates, and synchronizes work and makes recommendations regarding resource decisions. 

MAJOR INITIATIVES AND IMPROVEMENTS

The two Departments are in the process of implementing more than 400 recommendations of 5 major studies, as well as implementing the Wounded Warrior 

and Veterans titles of the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA), Public Law No. 110–181. We continue to implement recommended changes 

through the use of policy and existing authorities. For example, in August 2007, the 

Secretaries of the Military Departments were directed to use all existing authorities 

to recruit and retain military and civilian personnel who care for our seriously injured warriors. Described below are the major initiatives now underway. 

DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM

The fundamental goal is to improve the continuum of care from the point-of-injury 

to community reintegration. To that end, in November of last year, a DES Pilot test 

was implemented for disability cases originating at the three major military treatment facilities in the National Capital Region (Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 

National Naval Medical Center Bethesda, and Malcolm Grow Medical Center). The 

pilot is a servicemember-centric initiative designed to eliminate the often confusing 

elements of the two current disability processes of our Departments. Key features 

include both a single medical examination and single source disability rating. A primary goal is to reduce by half the time required to transition a member to veteran 

status and receipt of VA benefits and compensation. 

The pilot addresses those recommendations that could be implemented without 

legislative change from the reports of the Task Force on Returning Global War on 

Terror Heroes, the Independent Review Group, the President’s Commission on Care 

for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors (Dole/Shalala Commission), the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission (Scott Commission), and the DOD Task Force 

on Mental Health. Its specific objectives are to improve timeliness, effectiveness, 

transparency, and resource utilization by integrating DOD and VA processes, eliminating duplication, and improving case management practices. 

To ensure a seamless transition of our wounded, ill, or injured from the care, benefits, and services of DOD to the VA system, the pilot is testing enhanced case management methods and identifying opportunities to improve the flow of information 

and identification of additional resources to the servicemember and family. The VA 

is poised to provide benefits and compensation to the veterans participating in the 

pilot as soon as they transition from the military. 

The pilot covers all non-clinical care and administrative activities, such as case 

management and counseling requirements associated with disability case processing, from the point of servicemember referral to a Military Department Medical 

Evaluation Board (MEB) through compensation and provision of benefits to veterans 

by the VA. Expansion of the pilot is being considered to address:

• Performance measures—The pilot evaluation plan includes extensive 

quantitative and qualitative performance measures to ensure our servicemembers obtain all benefits and entitlements due under both DOD and VA 

law. Although no servicemembers have completely transitioned from the 

pilot to veteran status, we expect a reasonable sample population to have 

processed through by mid-June. We’ll complete our initial analysis at that 

time and make a determination regarding expanding the pilot. 

11

• Site assessment—The following criteria will be thoroughly analyzed by 

both Departments: resources, IT architecture development and fielding, 

case management effectiveness, training requirements, DES workload (for 

DOD and VA) in expansion areas, and costs; 

• Case management—Most importantly, pilot expansion to a broader population will require training and certification of DES and VA administrative 

and case management personnel. It is anticipated that certification of the 

case managers and determination of the appropriate case manager staff 

size will be the overriding factors that limit or allow expansion of the pilot 

to other areas. 

• Phased expansion—Unlike the pilot’s Physical Evaluation Board phases, 

which are consolidated in the NCR, the medical assessment and MEB 

phases occur across the departments at numerous Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) and Veterans Health Administration sites. Phased expansion of the pilot should allow MTF site preparation and training on a manageable timeline.

The pilot is part of a larger effort including medical research into the signature 

injuries of the war and updating the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities. Proposed 

regulations to update the disability schedule for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 

burns were published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2008. 

PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH AND TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

Improvements have been made in addressing issues concerning psychological 

health (PH) and TBI. The focus of these efforts has been to create and ensure a comprehensive, effective, and individually-focused program dedicated to prevention, protection, identification, diagnosis, treatment, recovery, and rehabilitation for our 

servicemembers, veterans, and families who deal with these important health conditions. 

The DOD has a broad range of programs designed to sustain the health and wellbeing of every service and family member in the total military community. Because 

no two individuals are exactly alike, multiple avenues of care are open to create a 

broad safety net that meets the preferences of the individual. This continuum of 

care encompasses: prevention and community support services; early intervention to 

protect and restore before chronicity, and before the member does something rash; 

service-specific deployment-related preventive and clinical care before, during and 

after deployment; sustained, high-quality, readily available clinical care along with 

specialized rehabilitative care for severe injuries or chronic illness, and transition 

of care for veterans to and from the VA system of care; and a strong foundation of 

epidemiological, clinical and field research. 

Our Departments have partnered in the development of standard clinical practice 

guidelines for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Major Depressive Disorder, 

Acute Psychosis, and Substance Use Disorders. These guidelines help practitioners 

determine the best available and most appropriate care for PH conditions. In an effort to ensure that providers are trained in best practices, we are partnering in providing training in evidence-based treatment for PTSD. 

TBI can result in decreased reaction time, impaired decisionmaking and judgment, and decreased mental processing. Mild TBI or concussion can reduce mission 

effectiveness and increase risk to the injured servicemember and others in the unit. 

Objective cognitive performance information can give the commander critical information for informed risk decisions in mission planning and execution while providing medical providers with an objective assessment of the extent of the injury 

and a method of tracking recovery. To facilitate the evaluation and management of 

TBI cases, DOD has a program to collect baseline neurocognitive information on Active and Reserve personnel before their deployment to combat theaters. The Army 

already has incorporated neurocognitive assessments as a regular part of its Soldier 

Readiness Processing in select locations. Additionally, select Air Force units are assessed in Kuwait before going into Iraq. 

To ensure all servicemembers are screened appropriately for TBI, questions have 

been added to Post-Deployment Health Assessment and Post-Deployment Health 

Reassessment. That same information is shared with VA clinicians as part of an effort to facilitate the continuity of care for the veteran or servicemember. 

To ensure appropriate staffing levels for PH, a comprehensive staffing plan for PH 

services has been developed based on a risk-adjusted, population-based model. To 

augment staffing levels, DOD has partnered with the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) to provide uniformed Public Health Service officers in MTFs 

to increase available mental health providers for DOD. DOD and the VA also conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Nov 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45276.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
12

tinue to improve the Mental Health Self Assessment Program. Program expansions, 

documented in an updated report to Congress submitted in February 2007, included:

• Addition of telephone-based screening for those who do not have access 

to the Internet including a direct referral to Military OneSource for individuals identified at significant risk; 

• Availability of locally tailored, installation level referral sources via the 

online screening; 

• Introduction of the evidence-based Suicide Prevention Program for Department of Defense Education Activity schools to ensure education of children and parents of children who are affected by their sponsor’s deployment; and 

• Addition of a Spanish language version for all screening tools, expanded 

educational materials, and integration with the newly developed pilot program on web-based self-paced care for PTSD and depression.

In November 2007, the Department of Defense Center of Excellence (DCoE) for 

Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury was established as a national 

Center of Excellence for PH and TBI. It includes VA and HHS liaisons, as well as 

an external advisory panel organized under the Defense Health Board, to provide 

the best advisors across the country to the military health system. The center facilitates coordination and collaboration for PH and TBI related services among the 

military Services and VA, promoting and informing best practice development, research, education, and training. The DCoE is designed to lead clinical efforts toward 

developing excellence in practice standards, training, outreach, and direct care for 

our military community with PH and TBI concerns. It also serves as a nexus for 

research planning and monitoring the research in this important area of knowledge. 

Functionally, the DCoE is engaged in several focus areas, including:

• Mounting an anti-stigma campaign (the Army’s Mental Health Advisory 

Team 5 survey shows that stigma and fears of seeking help are being reduced, but there is more to do); 

• Establishing effective outreach and educational initiatives; 

• Promulgating a tele-health network for clinical care, monitoring, support 

and follow-up; 

• Coordinating an overarching program of research including all DOD assets, academia and industry, focusing on near-term advances in protection, 

prevention, diagnosis, and treatment; 

• Providing training programs aimed at providers, line leaders, families, 

and community leaders; and 

• Designing and planning for the National Intrepid Center of Excellence 

(anticipated completion in fall 2009), a building that will be located on the 

Bethesda campus adjacent to the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

The fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriation provided DOD $900 million in 

additional funds to make improvements to our PH and TBI systems of care and research. These funds are important to support, expand, improve, and transform our 

system and are being used to leverage change through optimal planning and execution. The funds have been allocated and distributed in three phases to the Services 

for execution based on an overall strategic plan created by representatives from 

DOD and the Services with VA input. Of the $600 million operation and maintenance funds, $566 million (94 percent) has been distributed, including $315 million 

for PH and $251 million for TBI. The remaining balance is reserved for expansion 

of promising demonstration programs and for additional costs that emerge as the 

plans are executed. 

CARE MANAGEMENT

To improve care management, the complexities between our two care management systems are being reduced through the Federal Recovery Coordination Program, which will identify and integrate care and services for the wounded, ill, and 

injured servicemember, veteran and their families through recovery, rehabilitation, 

and community reintegration. 

New comprehensive practices for better care, management, and transition are 

being implemented. These efforts include responses to requirements of the NDAA 

2008 regarding the improvements to care, management, and transition of recovering 

servicemembers. Progress is being made toward an integrated continuity of quality 

care and service delivery with inter-Service, interagency, intergovernmental, public 

and private collaboration for care, management and transition, and the associated 

training, tracking, and accountability for this care. Our efforts include important reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Nov 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45276.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
13

forms such as uniform training for medical and non-medical care/case managers and 

recovery coordinators, and a single tracking system and a comprehensive recovery 

plan for the seriously injured. 

The joint FRCP trains and deploys Federal Recovery Coordinators (FRCs) to support medical and non-medical care/case managers in the care, management, and 

transitioning of seriously wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers, veterans and 

their families. The FRCP will develop and implement web-based tools, including a 

Federal Individual Recovery Plan (FIRP) and a National Resource Directory for all 

care providers and the general public to identify and deliver the full range of medical and non-medical services. To date, the Departments have:

• Hired, trained, and placed eight FRCs at three of our busiest MTFs as 

recommended by the Dole/Shalala Commission. Additional FRCs will be 

hired as needed beginning in May; 

• Developed a prototype of the FIRP as recommended by the Dole/Shalala 

Commission; and 

• Produced educational/informational materials for FRCs, Multi-Disciplinary Teams, and servicemembers, veterans, families, and caregivers.

We are also in the process of:

• Developing a prototype of the National Resource Directory in partnership 

with Federal, State, and local governments and the private/voluntary sector, with public launch this summer; 

• Producing a Family Handbook in partnership with relevant DOD/VA offices; 

• Identifying workloads and waiver procedures for medical case/care managers, non-medical care managers, and FRCs; and 

• Developing demonstration projects with States such as California for the 

seamless reintegration of veterans into local communities. 

DATA SHARING BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS OF DEFENSE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

Steps have been taken to improve the sharing of medical information between our 

Departments to develop a seamless health information system. Our long-term goal 

is to ensure appropriate beneficiary and medical information is visible, accessible, 

and understandable through secure and interoperable information technology. The 

SOC has approved initiatives to ensure health and administrative data are made 

available and are viewable by both agencies. DOD and the VA are securely sharing 

more electronic health information than at any time in the past. In addition to the 

outpatient prescription data, outpatient and inpatient laboratory and radiology reports, and allergy information, access to provider/clinical notes, problem lists, and 

theater health data have recently been added. In December 2007, DOD began making inpatient discharge summary data from Landstuhl Regional Medical Center immediately available to VA facilities. The plan for information technology support of 

a recovery plan for use by FRCs was approved in November 2007. A single web portal to support the needs of wounded, ill, or injured servicemembers, commonly referred to as the eBenefits Web Portal, is planned based on the VA’s successful eVet 

website. 

MEDICAL FACILITIES INSPECTION STANDARDS

Progress has been made to ensure our wounded warriors are properly housed in 

appropriate facilities. Using the comprehensive Inspection Standards, all 475 military MTFs were inspected and found to be in compliance although deferred maintenance and upgrades were cited. The Services are continuing an aggressive inspection of MTFs on an annual basis to ensure continued compliance, identify maintenance requirements, and sustain a world-class environment for medical care. In the 

event a deficiency is identified, the commander of the facility will submit to the Secretary of the Military Department a detailed plan to correct the deficiency, and the 

commander will periodically reinspect the facility until the deficiency is corrected. 

All housing units for our wounded warriors have also been inspected and determined to meet applicable quality standards. The Services recognize that existing 

temporary medical hold housing is an interim solution and have submitted fiscal 

year 2008 military construction budgets to start building appropriate housing complexes adjacent to MTFs. They will also implement periodic and comprehensive follow-up programs using surveys, interviews, focus groups, and town-hall meetings to 

learn how to improve housing and related amenities and services. 

14

TRANSITION ISSUES/PAY AND BENEFITS

Servicemembers transitioning from military to civilian life can also benefit from 

a collaborative effort between DOD and the Department of Labor (DoL). The DoL 

Pre-Separation Guide, which informs servicemembers and their families of available 

transition assistance services and benefits, is now available at http://

www.TurboTAP.org. 

Another resource tool for transitioning servicemembers is the expanded Small 

Business Administration’s Patriot Express Loan program. The Patriot Express Loan 

offers a lower interest rate and an accelerated processing time. Loans are available 

for up to $500,000 and can be used by wounded warriors for most business purposes. DOD has also expanded Wounded Warrior Pay Entitlement information on 

the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) website and other organizations have linked to the website; in July 2007, the DFAS posted an easily understood decision matrix on eligibility for Combat-Related Injury Rehabilitation Pay 

(CIP) which allows wounded warriors to determine their eligibility for CIP on the 

website. Additionally, through use of streamlined debt management procedures, 

DFAS remitted, canceled, or waived debts for over 14,126 wounded warrior accounts 

totaling approximately $13.17 million as of January 29, 2008. 

DOD and the VA have shared information concerning Traumatic Injury Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) and implemented plans replicating best 

practices. The Army is now placing subject-matter experts at MTFs to provide direct 

support of the TSGLI application process and improve processing time and TSGLI 

payment rates. The VA Insurance provider’s payment time, upon receipt of a certified claim from the branch of Service, averages between 2 and 4 days. DOD has 

been successful using congressional authority from the NDAA allowing continuation 

of deployment related pays for those recovering in the hospital after injury or illness 

in the combat zone. This ensures no reduction in deployment pays while the 

servicemember is recovering. 

We are creating a compensation/benefits website and handbook that will help 

servicemembers and veterans make informed decisions about their futures. The VA 

has just commissioned two studies to implement the recommendations of the Dole/

Shalala Commission. The first study will evaluate the levels and duration of transition benefit payments to assist veterans and their families while they are in a vocational rehabilitation program. The second study will develop recommendations for 

creating a schedule for rating veterans’ disabilities based upon current concepts of 

medicine and disability, taking into account the loss of quality of life and loss of 

earnings resulting from service-connected disabilities. Results of the study will to 

be provided to the VA by August 2008. 

CONCLUSION

The SOC and its Overarching Integrated Product Team continue to work diligently to resolve the many outstanding issues while aggressively implementing the 

recommendations of Dole/Shalala, the NDAA, and the various aforementioned task 

forces and commissions. These efforts will expand in the future to include the recommendations of the DOD Inspector General’s report on DOD/VA Interagency Care 

Transition, which is due shortly. 

One of the most significant recommendations from the task forces and commissions is the shift in the fundamental responsibilities of the DOD and VA. The core 

recommendation of the Dole/Shalala Commission centers on the concept of taking 

the DOD out of the disability rating business so that DOD can focus on the fit or 

unfit determination, streamlining the transition from servicemember to veteran. 

While we are pleased with the quality of effort and progress made, we fully understand that there is much more to do. We also believe that the greatest improvement 

to the long-term care and support of America’s wounded warriors and veterans will 

come from enactment of the provisions recommended by Dole/Shalala. We have, 

thus, positioned ourselves to implement these provisions and continue our progress 

in providing world-class support to our warriors and veterans while allowing our 

two Departments to focus on our respective core missions. Our dedicated, selfless 

servicemembers, veterans, and their families deserve the very best, and we pledge 

to give our very best during their recovery, rehabilitation, and return to the society 

they defend. 

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and members of the committee, thank you 

again for your generous support of our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers, 

veterans and their families. We look forward to your questions.

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Secretary Mansfield. 

Secretary Chu? 

15

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID S.C. CHU, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS 

Dr. CHU. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to represent the DOD this morning. Again I convey Secretary England’s 

apologies that he could not be here. He very much looked forward 

to this session and asked that I present his planned opening remarks. He does have a statement for the record which I hope you 

will accept. 

Chairman LEVIN. We will. 

Dr. CHU. It is indeed a great privilege to join Gordon Mansfield, 

who has been our strong partner in the SOC that he described and 

in the JEC established earlier. The two Departments have worked 

very closely, as he has outlined, and strengthened thereby the ties 

between the two Cabinet agencies so that we can indeed provide 

veterans the support that they deserve. 

Gordon Mansfield has summarized the lines of action, the eight 

lines of action that are the mechanism through which the SOC exercises its responsibilities. These lines of action are jointly staffed, 

co-chaired by personnel from DOD and the VA, and have created 

a very strong partnership between the two agencies. They have 

succeeded in accomplishing a great deal in a short period of time. 

We have, as Gordon Mansfield reported, appointed the first Federal 

response coordinators. We have the disability evaluation pilot underway and 120 people are in various stages of evaluation in that 

pilot system. We have established the Center for Psychological 

Health and Traumatic Brain Injury. We are, I believe, on track to 

completing by the end of this year a set of software changes that 

will allow existing electronic data to be shared between the two 

agencies, which I know has long been a subject of great concern to 

all. 

We have proposed to Congress and we hope Congress will support an accelerated and enhanced set of changes at the new Walter 

Reed campus in Bethesda, where the Naval Hospital is currently 

located. 

We have benefited in these decisions from the studies that were 

done earlier and, of course, from the actions of Congress. In the 

earlier studies there are over 400 recommendations offered to the 

Department, over 300 on the subjects of PTSD and TBI alone. 

While a great deal has been done, we recognize that we are not 

finished. These lines of actions will be adding to their agendas, particularly with the additional instruction of Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. We meet as 

necessary to accomplish these goals. 

Secretary England asked that I underscore that he and Gordon 

Mansfield and their respective teams are completely dedicated to 

resolving all the issues between the two Departments and to putting the long-term care of the men and women in uniform where 

it should be. We view this as a partnership between the two Departments and a partnership with Congress, the caregivers within 

our Departments, and with other agencies of the Federal Government, as well as agencies at the State and local level. 

Secretary England did ask that I underscore one other issue 

which you raised, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary Mansfield touched 

on in his opening statement. That is, we do hope Congress, in fuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Nov 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45276.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
16

ture legislation, will address a central issue raised in the DoleShalala proposal, and that is a new and different disability compensation system for our veterans, one that would more sharply delineate the responsibilities of the respective Departments, focusing 

DOD on the key military question of fitness to serve and focusing 

the VA on the question of support for those who cannot. 

I am joined this morning by Secretary Geren and General 

Schoomaker, who will be ready to provide details on the progress 

the Army has made in its specific efforts to care for the Army’s 

wounded personnel. 

Thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Secretary Chu. 

Secretary Geren? 

STATEMENT OF HON. PRESTON M. GEREN III, SECRETARY OF 

THE ARMY 

Secretary GEREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Levin, 

Senator Warner, and members of the committee: Thank you for 

providing General Schoomaker and I the opportunity to come before your committee today and talk about the progress that has 

been made over the past year. I’d also like to thank every one of 

you for your unwavering support of soldiers, families, and our 

United States Army. Our Congress and particularly this committee 

are full partners in building the Army that we have today. 

I also want to thank you for your Wounded Warrior Act and the 

initiatives, which you included in last year’s authorization bill. You 

included initiatives that will help soldiers; initiatives that will help 

families; and you also provided the flexibility so that the Army 

could continue to meet the dynamic challenges in our modern 

health care world, and we appreciate that. We thank you for that 

partnership in your legislation and the partnership over this last 

year. 

Twelve months ago almost to the day, the Washington Post ran 

their story on the shameful conditions at Walter Reed. The report 

sparked outrage across our Nation, but nowhere more so than 

among the ranks of soldiers and veterans, nowhere equal to the 

outrage, the rage felt by soldiers. Soldiers take care of soldiers. Soldiers give their lives and limbs for each other. Strip away everything else and at its core that is what the Army is all about: Soldiers taking care of soldiers. 

When soldiers learned that some of their own had violated their 

duty to our wounded, they demanded action and stepped up and 

took action. Today, 12 months later, we are a better Army, with 

good news to report to this committee, because of the good work 

and hard work of soldiers, but with the acknowledgment that there 

remains much to do. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask you if I could introduce four of the 

soldiers who have been great leaders in this effort over the past 

year who have joined us today. 

Chairman LEVIN. We’d be honored to have you do that. 

Secretary GEREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Colonel Terry McKendrick, who is Brigade Commander at Walter 

Reed—Terry, would you please stand up—his Command Sergeant 

17

Major Jeff Hartless; Company Commander Major Steve Gominter; 

and his First Sergeant, Matthew Dewsberry. They’ve done an outstanding job and deserve a great deal of credit for their leadership. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Secretary Geren, for introducing to 

us these great soldiers. Again, we’re honored to be in their presence. 

Secretary GEREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Army, the DOD, and the VA, and Congress’ response has 

gone well beyond the problems identified in the Washington Post 

series of articles. We all realized that we had an opportunity not 

to just fix the problems highlighted in the articles, but transform 

our health care and disability system to better meet the needs of 

those who have borne the battle—our wounded, ill, and injured, 

and better support their families. 

It is an opportunity to do something big, complicated, and important that does not come along very often, and together we’ve made 

progress, and we thank you for that partnership. 

Today Lieutenant General Schoomaker and I will discuss the 

progress the Army has made and join this panel in discussing the 

progress the DOD has made working with Congress and particularly with this committee, and identify areas that we must continue to improve. 

A year ago, outpatient care in the Army was called medical hold 

for Active Duty and medical holdover for Reserve components. The 

names themselves, ‘‘hold’’ and ‘‘holdover,’’ and the fact that there 

were two systems give you a good sense of the problems that underlay the Army system. A year later, the Army has completely 

transformed outpatient care. The old system, with fragmented leadership, that was not staffed, resourced, nor organized to meet even 

the pre-September 11 needs of outpatient soldiers, was overwhelmed by the increase in patients that came with the casualties 

of war. Preexisting seams were stretched and snapped by the surge 

in wounded, ill, and injured. The Guard and Reserve were organized separately from the Active Force, with a widely held perception, if not the reality, of different standards of care. Mental health 

issues had not received the attention nor the resources they required, leaving the needs of many soldiers and family members 

unmet. 

Today, there are no more hold or holdover units. In their place, 

we have our wounded warriors in 35 WTUs located at major posts 

in CONUS and abroad, Active, Guard, and Reserve together, one 

Army. 

The care and support of our soldiers in our WTUs is driven by 

a mission statement, with leadership, officer and NCO, organized 

in support of that mission, with a triad of care, the squad leader, 

the nurse case manager, and the primary care manager, supporting 

every wounded, injured, and ill soldier. 

Our soldiers in the WTUs are being moved into the best barracks 

on the post and over the last 8 months nearly 2,500 personnel have 

been added to Medical Command to support our wounded warriors. 

Every WTU today has an ombudsman and now 33 and soon all of 

our WTUs will have a Soldier Family Assistance Center, bringing 

18

dispersed family services together into a one-stop shop for soldiers 

and families. 

In mental health care, the Army, working with our sister Services, OSD, and the VA, and with strong leadership and support 

from Congress, has made investments in personnel, infrastructure, 

and programs to care for soldiers who suffer from TBI, PTSD, and 

other mental and emotional illnesses, and help their families with 

the challenges of supporting their soldiers suffering from these invisible wounds of war, with much left to do in this area. 

In the Army, we’re teaching every one of our one million soldiers 

how to identify symptoms of PTSD and TBI and how and where to 

go to get help. Every soldier is required to take that class. So far, 

800,000 soldiers have received the training, and the program is 

available to families. It is good substantive training, but, perhaps 

more importantly, it is a major step forward in reducing the stigma 

associated with mental health care. 

We’re seeking to hire over 300 additional mental health professionals to meet the needs of soldiers and families, adults and children. We are short of this goal and face a challenging market for 

the people we need. The direct hire authority that you provided to 

us in your authorization bill is a big help, but we’re not where we 

need to be in this area. We’ve initiated a comprehensive approach 

to prevent the tragedy of suicide among our soldiers, recognizing 

we have far to go to stem this growing challenge among our ranks, 

much to learn and much to do. 

Cooperation between the DOD, OSD, and our sister Services and 

the VA is strong and you will hear today about much of the 

progress that’s been made. 

Senator Levin and Senator Sessions, thank you for acknowledging the extraordinary work of our Army’s health care professionals. They are selfless men and women who are the very best 

at what they do. 

In stark contrast to the shortcomings identified in the Post article are the almost miraculous recent advances in battlefield medicine, trauma care, and rehabilitation, much of which has been accomplished by the medical professionals and staff at Walter Reed 

and elsewhere in the Army system. Survival rates for soldiers 

wounded in combat are unprecedented, 94 percent, the highest in 

the history of warfare. Soldiers are surviving and recovering from 

wounds that would have been fatal in any other era and in any 

other health care system, thanks to the service men and women in 

military medicine, the Army, and our sister Services. 

Throughout the Army, we have leaders, officers, and NCOs, uniformed and civilian, committed to taking care of soldiers and families, demanding the best for our wounded, ill, and injured and their 

families. Because of that, our report today is one of progress, but 

it is not and probably never will be a report of mission accomplished. 

February 18, 2007, was a day our Army will not forget, a painful 

day, a shameful day for a proud institution, a band of brothers and 

sisters who look out for each other, who take care of each other, 

no matter the personal cost. The Washington Post helped us see 

something that we had overlooked and because of that Washington 

Post story we are a better Army today than we were a year ago, 

19

and we remain committed to continuing to improve our care and 

support of our wounded, our ill, and our injured soldiers and our 

families. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you all for the 

opportunity to appear today. I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Geren follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. PETE GEREN

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the Senate 

Armed Services Committee, I want to thank you for inviting LTG Eric Schoomaker 

and me to appear before you today. We are pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you how we are transforming the way we care for our wounded, ill, and 

injured warriors. 

I’d also like to thank all of you for your unwavering support of our soldiers and 

families. I know they appreciate your ongoing efforts to provide them with the ways 

and means to accomplish their mission and to improve their quality of life. Congress 

has been a valued partner in creating the remarkable Army we have today. Thank 

you for the initiatives you included in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 

2008 to improve health care for our wounded, ill, and injured soldiers. 

The problems identified by the Washington Post were centered in our medical 

hold and medical holdover populations, the outpatient care of our wounded, ill, and 

injured soldiers—they experienced poor facilities, leadership challenges, and an entrenched bureaucracy; however, the improvements we will discuss today go well beyond addressing the shortcomings identified in those articles. 

In stark contrast to the shortcomings identified in the Washington Post are the 

phenomenal advances in lifesaving battlefield medicine and overall trauma care, 

much of which has been accomplished through the efforts of the extraordinary medical professionals at Walter Reed. Survival rates for soldiers wounded in combat are 

unprecedented. In the Vietnam War, it took 21 days to evacuate a soldier from theater. In Iraq we routinely evacuate a soldier within 36 hours. Improvements such 

as the Joint Theater Trauma System, state-of-the-art evacuation system, improved 

body armor and battlefield equipment such as the one-handed tourniquet mean 

that, today, more than 90 percent of those wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan survive, making this the highest survival rate in the history of warfare. We have the 

best medical specialists, doctors, and nurses in the history of the Army, and many 

non-medical soldiers are skilled emergency medical technicians or combat lifesavers. 

The soldier outpatients at Walter Reed who were highlighted in the Washington 

Post were housed in inadequate facilities, experienced a failure of leadership, and 

were caught in an unresponsive bureaucracy. The Physical Disability Evaluation 

System (PDES) was cumbersome and did not allow this increasing number of patients to efficiently move through the system. This put a burden on Walter Reed 

that it was not prepared to handle. 

As an Army, we pledge never to leave a fallen comrade—that means on the battlefield, in the hospital, in the outpatient clinic, or over a lifetime of dependency. We 

broke that pledge, and we have paid a price for that. I am pleased to report, however, that the Army has made and continues to make significant improvements in 

the areas of infrastructure, leadership, and processes as part of our Army Medical 

Action Plan (AMAP). 

First, wounded, ill, and injured soldiers—Active, Guard, and Reserve—have been 

organized into 35 military units under the command and control of the medical 

treatment facility commander. The new Warrior Transition Units (WTUs) focus solely on the care of their soldiers. All 35 of our WTUs are now at full operational capability. 

Second, we’ve given the soldiers in the WTUs a mission that is codified in the 

Wounded Warrior Mission Statement:

‘‘I am a Warrior in Transition. My job is to heal as I transition back to 

duty or become a productive, responsible citizen in society.’’

This is not a status, but a mission.

‘‘I will succeed in this mission because I am a warrior.’’

Third, every soldier in the WTUs is supported by a triad of care, a primary care 

manager who is a physican, a nurse case manager, and a squad leader. 

We’ve assigned 1 squad leader for every 12 soldiers, 1 primary care manager for 

every 200 soldiers, and 1 nurse case manager for every 18 or 36 soldiers depending 

20

on the medical complexity of the unit. Each unit also has a dedicated ombudsman 

who reaches out to soldiers and families as an extra resource and problem-solver. 

Fourth, we’ve established Soldier and Family Assistance Centers (SFACs) at medical centers and treatment facilities across the Army to replace the old system that 

had family services scattered across multiple locations. These are ‘‘one-stop shops’’ 

where soldiers and families can get information and help with services from help 

with entitlements, to benefits, to finances. 

Fifth, we created a 24/7 hotline that provides Warriors in Transition and their 

families 24-hour access to information and assistance. The Army has responded to 

over 7,000 calls on the hotline. 

Sixth, we created a new leadership position for warrior care, the Assistant Surgeon General for Warrior Care and Transition, currently held by BG Mike Tucker. 

He is our designated ‘‘bureaucracy buster.’’ His role is to facilitate immediate and 

sustained assistance to our wounded, ill, and injured soldiers and their families. 

Under BG Tucker’s leadership, and with the active assistance of many other soldiers, leaders, and Army civilians, we have made substantial progress in cutting the 

red tape. Some of the many substantive changes we have made since February 2007 

include:

• Continuing Combat-Related Injury Pay while soldiers are assigned to the 

WTU or Community-Based Health Care Organization. 

• Created a special duty pay for our WTU noncommissioned leaders (squad 

leaders and platoon sergeants). 

• Preference for wounded soldiers for their location of care within constraints of facility capabilities. 

• Providing wounded soldiers top priority in housing. 

• Authorized Permanent Changes of Station for Warrior in Transition families. 

• Reduced paper work for Army PDES processing. 

• Expanded the 14-day window to 90 days for a soldiers to transition to the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after disability determination by the 

Army. 

• Provided free internet, phone, and cable TV to WTU barracks. 

• Colocated VA Advisors at Army hospitals and facilities. 

• Expanded VA access to Army soldier medical records.

We are developing Comprehensive Care Plans for each soldier in the WTU that 

set the conditions for the soldiers to achieve a successful return to duty or a successful transition to civilian life. We have worked with the National Rehabilitation Hospital on this effort to leverage best practices from the private sector. 

We’ve initiated a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) education program for every soldier in the Army. This program is designed to not only educate and assist soldiers in recognizing, preventing, and treating these conditions, but also to erase the stigma associated with these injuries. We 

also provide similar training to family members. Over 800,000 soldiers have received training since August 2007. We have also completed specialized PTSD/TBI 

training for social work personnel, nurse case managers, and psychiatric nurse practitioners. 

To assist with the identification of TBI, we have initiated a baseline cognitive 

testing program. So far, 40,000 soldiers were tested predeployment. By July 2008, 

every soldier will receive a baseline test before deployment. 

An experimental helmet sensor has been developed that will record impacts to the 

head. Over 1,145 of these helmet sensors are in use in theater today. 

Behavioral health care is a critical area of emphasis for Army leaders at every 

level. I would like to highlight a number of mental health initiatives. We are:

• Hiring over 300 new mental health hiring actions, even in the face of national shortages of health care providers. 

• Expanding the ‘‘Battlemind’’ training program that educates soldiers and 

families about deployment-related behavioral health concerns. 

• Providing access to confidential mental health counseling for soldiers and 

their family members.

I also want to highlight the U.S. Army Wounded Warrior (AW2) Program, which 

assists and advocates for severely wounded, ill, or injured soldiers and their families 

throughout their lifetimes, wherever they are located. AW2 currently serves more 

than 2,300 soldiers, 600 on active duty, and 1,700 veterans. AW2 Program caseworkers work with soldiers and their families to proactively address and mitigate 

issues they encounter in their recovery. AW2 provides unique services to the most 

severely disabled including:

21

• Helping wounded soldiers remain in the Army by educating them on 

their options and assisting them in the application process. 

• Assisting soldiers with future career plans and employment opportunities 

beyond their Army careers. 

• Supporting soldiers and families with a staff of subject matter experts 

proficient in non-medical benefits for wounded soldiers.

Finally, we have improved the ways we ‘‘listen’’ to the needs of our wounded soldiers and their families and monitor the quality of care and support we provide to 

our soldiers. We are using third party-surveys and input from more than 18 internal 

and external sources. 

Our surveys show that soldiers and their families continue to have questions 

about the PDES, but they have seen improvements in soldiers’ assessment of the 

care and leadership provided by the WTUs. 

We will continue to fine-tune feedback mechanisms that provide us with multiple 

perspectives from which to see ourselves. Examples of those things we measure are:

• Access to care • Appointment ‘‘no show’’ rate • ‘‘Leader to led’’ ratios • Satisfaction survey results • Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processing timeliness • Awards • Uniform Code of Military Justice actions • Status of cadre training • Living conditions

General Casey and I also recently directed the Surgeon General to establish a 

Tiger Team to examine the soldier deaths that have occurred in WTUs. The Tiger 

Team presented an interim report this week and will continue to work to address 

this issue. 

We are working to reform the current PDES. We have reduced the amount of paperwork soldiers are required to complete. The assignment of additional Staff Judge 

Advocates to provide legal advice to soldiers undergoing the PDES process has reduced formal Disability Evaluation board requests. We have also instituted standardized training and certification for the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officers 

that support our soldiers. 

We have provided soldiers and their families interactive access to their MEB and 

Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), eliminating the need for appointments to review 

the paperwork and reducing the uncertainty that can plague the process. MEB and 

PEB review can now be done via secure Internet on Army Knowledge Online. We 

have increased the MEB staff so that staff-to-case ratios have dropped from 1:80 to 

a more effective 1:30 ratio. Finally, we are working with DOD on a PDES pilot 

study currently ongoing at Walter Reed. 

The events of the last year have led to a strengthened partnership between the 

DOD and the VA. The senior leaders of both departments meet regularly as part 

of the Senior Oversight Committee (SOC). We are working together to provide a 

seamless transition for our soldiers from the DOD disability system either back to 

service in the Army or to a productive life as a veteran. 

The SOC has directed the following:

• Establish a single, comprehensive, standardized medical exam for all 

wounded soldiers; 

• Update the VA rating disabilities schedule to include TBI; and 

• Establish a TBI/PTSD Center of Excellence.

In close coordination with the VA, the Army has executed the following actions:

• Added 16 VA liaison officers at major medical treatment facilities, 

• Provided VA access to DOD medical records and databases as needed, 

• Instituted a Federal Recovery Coordinator at Walter Reed and Brooke 

Army Medical Centers (a SOC initiative), 

• Exchanged senior leaders with the VA, and 

• Entered into an agreement with the VA governing coordination between 

VA benefits advisors and personnel at Army installations. 

CONCLUSION

President Lincoln pledged our Nation to care for those who shall have borne the 

battle, their widows,—and now, widowers—and orphans. Working together, we must 

maintain that pledge not with words, but with deeds. 

Before I close I want to note that two brigades’ worth of wounded, ill, and injured 

soldiers are returning to the force every year. Greater than 65 percent of all woundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Nov 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45276.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
22

ed, injured, or ill soldiers return to duty. About 27,000 of our soldiers have returned 

to the force since 2001, and 88 percent of these soldiers are noncommissioned officers, the backbone of your Army. 

I want to thank the committee for supporting the improvements that we have 

been able to make under the AMAP and for the flexibility built into the recently 

passed NDAA. The provisions you carried forward from the Dignified Treatment of 

Wounded Warriors Act will help soldiers in critical areas such as TBI/PTSD treatment and research, expanded mental health care, and DOD/VA disability reform. 

Working together, we have made significant progress but several steps remain incomplete. The Army’s ability to process wounded warriors would be improved if it 

were allowed to focus on fitness for duty and let the VA focus on disability determination and compensation. This is a key and critical provision of the Dole/Shalala 

recommendations. 

Again, thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions.

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Secretary Geren. That was a very 

important statement and a very moving statement. Thank you for 

the preparation of it and for delivering it the way you did. 

General Schoomaker? 

STATEMENT OF LTG ERIC B. SCHOOMAKER, USA, SURGEON 

GENERAL OF THE ARMY AND COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY MEDICAL COMMAND 

General SCHOOMAKER. Chairman Levin, distinguished members 

of the committee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 

total transformation that the Army is undergoing in the way we 

care for soldiers and their families. We are committed to getting 

this right and providing a level of care and support to our warriors 

and their families that is equal to the quality of their service. 

Secretary Geren has eloquently expressed this transformation in 

his testimony. The Secretary, the Chief of Staff of the Army, and 

the rest of the Army leadership are all actively involved with every 

stage of the AMAP, which you, sir, alluded to in your opening comments, and to the transformation it embodies. In less than 1 year, 

the Army has funded, staffed, and written doctrine for a fundamental change in warrior care, a truly remarkable achievement. 

For example, as Secretary Geren mentioned, we now have more 

than 2,500 soldier leaders assigned as cadre to 35 WTUs that did 

not exist this time last February. This contrasts with fewer than 

400 cadre for the same group of patients last February. 

The most significant feature of these WTUs is this triad of care 

that has been alluded to, consisting of a primary care physician, a 

nurse case manager, and a squad leader working together to care 

for the needs of each individual. The regular meetings and the coordination between each leg of the triad serves to create a web of 

overlapping responsibility and accountability which embraces each 

warrior for the duration of the treatment and recovery. 

Our squad leaders, many of them combat arms soldiers and 

former patients—two of the officers that you were introduced to 

earlier have been patients at Walter Reed and have been combat 

injured—are trained and responsible for the well-being of a small 

group of warriors in transition, just as any Army unit. These soldiers that you met just a minute ago are four combat-tested leaders 

and they spend their days at Walter Reed looking out for the best 

interests of the wounded, ill, and injured soldiers. They really are 

the backbone of the AMAP. 

23

Sir, with your permission I’d like to introduce two of my battle 

buddies in putting together this plan. I’d ask Brigadier General 

Mike Tucker and Colonel Jimmie Keenan just to stand up. These 

are two of the principal architects of the AMAP. Mike is a career 

armor officer. We took him out of the armor school at Fort Knox. 

Jimmie Keenan is a career Nurse Corps officer, and they truly are 

the architects and executors of the AMAP. We couldn’t have done 

it without them. [Applause.] 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you for introducing them. Thank you for 

your service. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Another example of the difference between today and last year: One year ago, our wounded, ill, and injured soldiers believed that their complaints were falling on deaf 

ears within the Army. Now we’ve established a MEDCOM-wide 

ombudsman program with ombudsmen at 26 of our installations 

and we’re hiring more each week. Everyone at our medical treatment facilities knows who the ombudsman is and how to find him 

or her. Many are retired NCOs and officers with experience in 

medical care. They work outside of the local chain of command, but 

they have direct lines to the hospital commander, the installation 

commander, and the garrison commander to get problems fixed. 

We’ve also established a 1–800 wounded soldier and family hotline that’s outlined on this card that every soldier and family carries, in order to offer wounded, ill, and injured soldiers and their 

family members a way to share concerns on any aspect of their 

care or administrative support. We respond to these inquiries within 24 hours of the call. So far we’ve received in excess of 7,000 

calls. 

Another improvement in the care of soldiers over the last year 

is the development of multiple feedback mechanisms so that we can 

see ourselves from a variety of perspectives. I think this is a lesson 

that we learned last year. We monitor and evaluate our performance through 18 internal and external means, including the ombudsman and the hotline that I addressed earlier. But we also have 

a contracted industry leader in patient surveys that we look at very 

carefully. 

In addition, we host numerous visits from Members of Congress 

and your staffs. In January alone we opened our WTU doors to 

more than a dozen congressional visits. These visits give us a valued external perspective and allow us the opportunity to be as open 

and transparent in our operations as possible. Your feedback and 

the feedback of your staffs on these visits has been instrumental 

in our success. 

As you well know, despite these successes, there’s much progress 

still to be made. We still need more research on psychological 

health and TBI. Congress jumpstarted us last year with supplemental funding, for which we are very grateful, but research must 

be a continuing priority effort. 

We need to continue to look at the disability, the physical disability evaluation system (PDES) and ways to make it less antagonistic, more user-friendly, and more understandable to the soldiers 

and their families. I believe the pilot program that started in the 

National Capital Region is a good start, but, as each one of the 

24

members of the panel have mentioned, we’d like to see changes 

made in the PDES made legislatively as aggressively as possible. 

We need your continued support so that we can move forward together in 2008 much as we did in 2007. This year’s National Defense Authorization Act was very consistent with how the Army is 

approaching wounded warrior matters. I truly appreciate the flexibility you have provided us to develop policies and achieve solutions. Your bill not only helps warriors, it helps families, it helps 

the health care providers caring for them. Thank you for taking the 

time to listen to us and to work with us. 

The Army’s unwavering commitment—a key element of the warrior ethos is that we never leave a soldier behind on a battlefield 

or lost in a bureaucracy here at home. We are doing a better job 

of honoring that commitment today than we were on this day last 

year. In February 2009 I want to report back to you that we’ve 

achieved a similar level of progress as we did over the last year. 

I’m proud of Army medicine’s efforts over the past 232 years and 

especially over the last 12 months. I’m convinced that, in coordination with the DOD, VA, and Congress, we have turned the corner. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for your continued support of the warriors that we are so honored to serve. I 

truly look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Schoomaker follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY LTG ERIC B. SCHOOMAKER, USA 

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the total transformation the Army is undergoing in the way we care for soldiers and families. We are committed to getting this 

right and providing a level of care and support to our warriors and families that 

is equal to the quality of their service. 

Secretary Geren eloquently expresses this transformation in his testimony. The 

Secretary, the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the rest of the Army leadership are 

all actively involved with every stage of the Army Medical Action Plan (AMAP) and 

the transformation it embodies. Senior Army leadership has made it very clear that 

they are in lock step with the following statement by Secretary of Defense Gates, 

‘‘Apart from the war itself, this department and I have no higher priority.’’

What I would like to highlight for you today are some of the tangible impacts of 

the transformed system explained by Secretary Geren. In doing this, I would first 

point out that, in some aspects, the concerns reported at Walter Reed Army Medical 

Center (WRAMC) were an unintended consequence of the extraordinary success of 

modern battlefield medicine. Thanks to improvements such as the Joint Theater 

Trauma System, state-of-the-art evacuation system and improved body armor, over 

90 percent of those wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan survive, making this the highest survival rate in the history of warfare. As a result, there are many more wounded soldiers with complex injuries struggling to recover than in any previous war. 

In today’s highly motivated All-Volunteer Army, this translates to an unprecedented 

number of soldiers determined to rejoin their units or to transition back to their 

communities as proud and productive veterans. 

At WRAMC, where soldiers are able to participate in the center’s state-of-the-art 

rehabilitation programs, the result has been a population of outpatients six times 

greater than this premier medical center was designed to handle. To tap this extraordinary determination, the framers of the AMAP realized the need to provide 

injured soldiers a mission of their own: to heal fully enough to transition back to 

duty or become a productive, responsible citizen in society. As a result, WRAMC and 

Army medicine have been reorganized to better enable soldiers and their families 

to accomplish this goal. 

The changes have made a lasting imprint on wounded soldiers and their families 

throughout this Nation. According to Major Steven Gventer, a soldier wounded in 

Iraq by a rocket propelled grenade round who is currently commanding one of the 

companies that make up the Warrior Transition Brigade at Walter Reed, the 

changes brought about as part of the AMAP ‘‘. . . did a great service to soldiers. 

25

We have done everything possible for these soldiers and are continuing to get better 

every day.’’ 

There are now more than 2,400 individuals assigned as cadre to the 35 Warrior 

Transition Units compared to less than 400 as previously organized. These cadres 

are trained specifically for this mission and they truly know the wounded, ill, and 

injured soldiers and families for whom they provide care and support. They escort 

troops to meetings, act as their advocates, field their calls, and even pick up relatives at the airport. As Major Gventer puts it, ‘‘It’s a job that entails just about 

anything and everything that allows the Warrior in Transition to focus on his or 

her mission, which is to heal.’’

Most telling as to the progress we have made are observations like those of Army 

Captain Elvind Forseth, who suffered hand, arm, and eye damage when a roadside 

bomb hit his HMMWV in Mosul on January 4, 2005 and has been recovering since 

at Walter Reed. Captain Forseth states he has seen great changes, ‘‘It’s fantastic. 

This is the first time in a long time that I didn’t absolutely hate being in here.’’ 

Captain Forseth, 34, has submitted his paperwork for medical retirement and says 

the process is running smoothly. 

Staff Sergeant Michael Thornton is assigned to the Warrior Transition Battalion 

at Fort Sam Houston, TX. While serving with the 4th Infantry Division near Baghdad in September 2006, he sustained burns over 33 percent of his body when the 

vehicle he was traveling in hit a roadside bomb. He was transferred to what was 

then the Medical Hold Company to convalesce. In June 2007, the company to which 

he was assigned became a Warrior Transition Unit as the AMAP was implemented. 

Staff Sergeant Thornton states that, since then ‘‘Things flow more efficiently. It 

seems more organized. It’s good to have dedicated leadership who handle just our 

issues. In the past, some wounded soldiers were also serving as squad leaders at 

the Medical Hold Company. They had appointments too, so it’s better to have dedicated leadership. This is the best place I’ve seen in the Army. We have great docs 

and so many people who care about us. I’ve seen issues like a pay problem I had 

that was resolved with their help the same day. They go out of their way to take 

care of you and they’re good at it.’’

It has also been meaningful to see how the civilian health care community views 

the changes that we have made. One expert assessment was recently made by William H. Craig, a civilian health care executive with 17 years experience who currently serves as Vice-President of Clinical Support for Cook Children’s Medical Center in Fort Worth, TX. Mr. Craig spent a week with the Warrior Transition Brigade 

at WRAMC, viewing firsthand how the Army has improved the transition process 

for outpatient soldiers and to see if the Army’s way might have application in the 

civilian health care world. Mr. Craig’s observations include:

‘‘From a professional standpoint, I was most impressed with the Army’s 

organizational and leadership efforts through the Warrior Transition Brigade. The Army has taken a process-based approach to managing soldiers 

from the time they arrive at Walter Reed until they leave to return to duty 

or to civilian life. The Army developed a system through the Warrior Transition Brigade that incorporates both daily people-management needs and 

medical care needs of the soldier into an organizational structure that 

brings significant improvement to the transition process. It is impressive to 

see an organization like the Army, which I have always perceived to be very 

command and control oriented in leadership style, actually be adaptive in 

its leadership style and incorporate a flexible approach based on the needs 

of this wounded soldier population.’’

Mr. Craig continues that, ‘‘While my experience in the health care industry has 

shown we do a good job of case managing on the inpatient side, it seems to me our 

systems for outpatient case management are not as well developed as the Army’s. 

When assessing the needs of their wounded soldier population, the Army developed 

a concept I believe complements the medical resources of an organization like Walter Reed and effectively meets the soldier’s outpatient case management needs. This 

is referred to as the Triad of Care and incorporates three disciplines critical to managing the outpatient process once the soldier is discharged from inpatient status.’’

Mr. Craig concludes with, ‘‘My week at Walter Reed with the Warrior Transition 

Brigade proved a point I have experienced many times in my career: if you give an 

organization the right level of resources combined with the right people to lead and 

execute, it can accomplish many great things.’’

I can think of no more fitting way to conclude my remarks than with this endorsement from such a respected member of the civilian health care community. The 

AMAP is the right response at the right time and in the right place for Army medicine and the United States Army. We see the positive impact of these changes every 

26

day as we encounter soldiers and families on the wards and in our clinics. It can 

be very rewarding to see the progress and growth. 

It can also be very frustrating when, despite all of our efforts, we have bad outcomes. We continue to face challenges that require blunt honesty, continuous selfassessment, humility, and the ability to listen to those in need. It is the Army’s unwavering commitment to never leave a soldier behind on a battlefield nor lost in 

a bureaucracy. The changes initiated by the AMAP are transformational because 

they address the new requirements and costs of sustaining an All-Volunteer Force 

in an era of persistent conflict. 

I want to ensure Congress knows that the Army Medical Department’s (AMEDD) 

highest priority is caring for our wounded, ill, and injured warriors and their families. I am proud of the AMEDD’s efforts over the last 12 months and I am convinced 

that in coordination with the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, and Congress, we have ‘‘turned the corner’’ toward establishing an integrated, overlapping system of treatment, support, and leadership that is significantly enhancing the care of our warriors and families. Thank you for holding this 

hearing and thank you for your continued support of the AMEDD and the warriors 

that we are honored to serve. I look forward to your questions.

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, General. Thank you and all the 

witnesses for your testimony this morning. 

Let’s try an 8-minute first round. We will try to work through 

that roll call vote that’s coming up in 10 or 15 minutes, which some 

of us can just go and vote and come back, so we can try to keep 

it seamless. As you folks are working on seamlessness, we’ll try to 

do the same thing here this morning. 

Studies conducted by the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission concluded that the VA standard for assigning disability ratings for PTSD is inadequate. These studies showed a significant 

discrepancy between the disability ratings assigned by the DOD 

and the VA for servicemembers with PTSD. The commission found 

that of 1,400 servicemembers who were rated by both the DOD and 

the VA for PTSD, the DOD assigned disability ratings of 30 percent 

or higher to only 18 percent of that group of 1,400 servicemembers, 

while the VA assigned ratings of 30 percent or higher to 90 percent 

of that same group of individuals. 

Now, that is a stunning difference. That’s not a few percentage 

points. The same people, the same 1,400, not 1,400 people over 

here and 1,400 people over there. It’s 1,400 people who were the 

same. The DOD gave disability ratings of 30 percent or higher to 

18 percent of that group and the VA gave ratings of 30 percent or 

higher to 90 percent of those same individuals. 

Now, even before we passed the Wounded Warrior Act the law 

required the DOD to use VA standards for rating disabilities, but 

in practice the Services deviated from those standards, in many 

cases resulting in lower disability ratings than assigned by the VA 

for the same disability for the same person. 

The Wounded Warrior Act specifically requires the DOD to use 

the VA standard. It authorizes deviation only when the deviation 

will result in a higher disability rating for the servicemember. 

Now, you’ve described this pilot project where we’re going to have 

a single exam followed by hopefully a single rating, and we very 

much welcome that. I think you said there’s 120 people in that 

pilot project. 

But in the mean time, while that project is going to take a year, 

we have a legal requirement now for the DOD to implement the 

requirement in law that restricts deviation from the VA standard 

to those circumstances where it benefits the servicemember. I 

27

think, let me ask you, Secretary Chu, how are you going to implement this requirement? 

Dr. CHU. Of course, Mr. Chairman, as you have pointed out, it 

has been longstanding policy of the Department that we’re supposed to use the VA rating schedule. There are differences in outcomes. We’re aware of that. That’s why we are so excited about this 

pilot program, which the Secretary has asked that we proliferate 

across the Department as soon as it’s practical to absorb its lessons 

about the administrative issues that need to be addressed. 

The ultimate safeguard—these are basically clinical judgments 

reaching different conclusions. The ultimate safeguard is just to 

have one agency come to the conclusion, and that is the central feature of the pilot program, which is we’ll use VA’s disability ratings. 

Now, there will still be an issue here, and this is where the DoleShalala proposal I think is important, because our fitness decision 

will be on those conditions that speak to that issue. It will not necessarily be all the conditions the individual has. 

Chairman LEVIN. My question is, you have a pilot program over 

there. You say the ultimate answer is to have one rating and you’re 

right and that’s why we put it into law. But in the mean time, we 

can’t accept that kind of a deviation. 

Dr. CHU. I agree, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. For the same people. 

Dr. CHU. I agree, sir, and we are trying to reinforce that it is one 

schedule. I do think that the solution, as we all agree, is a single 

examination system, and we are moving that way. 

Chairman LEVIN. We’re going to need to know what are you 

doing in the mean time until that system is put in place to reduce 

that deviation. If this were a difference between 5 percent deviation or 10 percent deviation, that would be one thing. But this is 

90 percent versus 18 percent. That is totally unacceptable even as 

an interim differential. 

Dr. CHU. I would agree, sir. I do think I should emphasize for 

the record that an earlier study looked at a wider range of conditions; the average difference between the two agencies was 8 percentage points. 

Chairman LEVIN. All right. On PTSD. 

Dr. CHU. PTSD is a particular issue, although it’s also true that 

VA has recently revised PTSD ratings for many of the veterans involved in older conflicts, and that may be partly explaining the 

large differences that are reported. DOD does the rating at the 

time of discharge. VA may adjust that rating across the veteran’s 

longer life history. 

Chairman LEVIN. Secretary, these are the same 1,400 people. 

It doesn’t cover veterans from older conflicts. These are the same 

1,400 people. 

We’re going to give you 30 days on this one, to tell us what action’s going to be taken to reduce that differential, for the reasons 

I gave. 

Now, there’s another provision in the law that requires the establishment of a board to review the DOD disability ratings of 20 percent or less. I’m wondering, is that board—do you have plans now 

to appoint that? 

28

Dr. CHU. We intend to appoint that board, sir. It is not yet appointed. But we fully understand the requirement of the statute, 

which is to review all the older cases since the beginning of this 

conflict. 

Chairman LEVIN. Where there’s 20 percent or less. 

Dr. CHU. Where there’s 20 percent or less. 

Chairman LEVIN. That’s a critical issue in terms of benefits and 

family coverage for medical care. 

Please give us an estimate: 30 days, you think? 

Dr. CHU. I think 1 to 2 months to get it established, yes, sir; I 

think that’s fair. 

Chairman LEVIN. All right. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

29


213ful1.eps
30

Chairman LEVIN. Secretary Mansfield, has the VA updated the 

VA schedule for rating disabilities for PTSD? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. It’s currently under way, sir. It has to go 

through the Federal review process. 

Chairman LEVIN. What’s the timetable on that? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. The process itself requires 30 days for 

public comments and then a follow-up of 30 to 60 days to review 

the comments, prepare a final rule, and get Office of Management 


213ful2.eps
31

and Budget clearance to publish. Then we would act after that. So 

I would imagine 90 to 120 days. It has been a highlighted issue 

within the Department and within VBA, our benefits administration. 

Chairman LEVIN. There was a recent series of Denver Post articles that report that 79 soldiers who were determined to be medical 

no-gos have been knowingly deployed to Iraq. General Schoomaker, 

this question is for you. The most recent article describes a soldier 

being taken from a hospital where he was being treated for bipolar 

disorder and alcohol abuse so he could be deployed to Kuwait. 31 

days later he was returned to Fort Carson because health care professionals in Kuwait determined that he should not have been sent 

there in the first place because of his medical condition. 

These articles quoted email from Fort Carson’s Third Brigade 

Combat Team that says: ‘‘We have been having issues reaching 

deployable strength and thus have been taking along some borderline soldiers who would otherwise have been left behind for continued treatment.’’ 

Are these reports accurate? What’s the Army doing to address 

them? Maybe Secretary Geren and General Schoomaker. Let me 

start with you, Secretary, and then I’ll go to the General. 

Secretary GEREN. We are looking into those issues. Sir, before a 

soldier deploys they are evaluated and it’s a subjective process to 

determine whether or not they are fit for deployment, and judgment is exercised. We’ve had this issue come up in a number of deployment platforms around the country, in fact one this time last 

year that was raised down at Fort Stewart. 

I guess the essential point is that the judgment is exercised at 

the point of deployment, and sometimes that judgment turns out 

to be wrong. 

Chairman LEVIN. Is there a shortage of deployable strength that 

is now causing some of these decisions to be made that otherwise 

would not be made? 

Secretary GEREN. That should not be happening. I can’t tell you 

that it’s not, but it certainly should not be happening. But every 

soldier must be considered, whether or not he or she is fit for duty, 

and if not they should not be sent, and everyone understands that. 

I don’t believe we found any evidence that the pressure has caused 

people to be sent that shouldn’t have. Maybe cases where something was overlooked or where a mistake was made, but the commanders who evaluate these soldiers understand what the requirements are and should never send anybody that’s unfit. But we look 

into every one of these cases. 

Chairman LEVIN. Are you familiar with that email, that article? 

Secretary GEREN. Yes, sir, I am familiar with the article. 

Chairman LEVIN. Have you checked the person who wrote that 

email to say that that is not an acceptable reason for deploying 

somebody? Could you do that? 

Secretary GEREN. Yes, sir, I certainly could. 

[Additional information supplied for the record.] 

32


213ful10.eps
33


213ful11.eps
34

Chairman LEVIN. Do you want to add anything to that, General? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Sir, I have not seen the case myself. I am 

familiar with the story. My understanding at this point, because 

the soldiers who possess those profiles who were deployed, to include the soldier who is the centerpiece of the article, their profiles 

and the decision to deploy have been looked at carefully. In all the 

cases in which soldiers were deployed with profiles, they were 

placed in positions and in conditions which would be supported by 

their profile. The profile itself does not limit deployment. My understanding of the index soldier was that he was not hospitalized 

and that the opinion of outside consultants was that his condition 

should not limit his ability to be deployed. But I think it’s still 

being looked at. 

Chairman LEVIN. The email itself, however, says that ‘‘We have 

been having issues reaching deployable strength.’’ I mean, that’s a 

contemporaneous email and that should not be a factor. Would you 

both agree with that? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, sir. 

Secretary GEREN. Yes. 

Chairman LEVIN. So whoever thought that was a factor has to 

be corrected, and that message has to be made clear across the 

board. Would you agree with that? 

General SCHOOMAKER. I agree with that. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, those of us in the Senate who have had the opportunity to work on these issues have received a great deal of information, indeed support and learning, from the families of these 

various soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that have suffered 

these injuries. I’ve been particularly fortunate to have had access 

and brought to my attention the wives of a number of these individuals who have on their own initiative fought a very courageous 

battle. I’m pleased to say that in our audience this morning is 

Sarah Wade, whose husband in 2004, Sergeant Ted Wade, was severely injured. He’s still in the process of rehabilitation, and she’s 

accompanied by Meredith Beck, who is a very active member of an 


213ful12.eps
35

organization called Wounded Warrior Project, a nonprofit organization. 

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we’d invite those two to stand and 

be recognized here. They are examples of the families that stand 

by their man. [Applause.] 

Secretary Geren, you visited with me the other day. It’s interesting how forthright you are with sharing the information, good 

news and not so good news, with our colleagues. I feel that in discharging your responsibilities, certainly with this Member of Congress, you’ve been absolutely forthcoming and factual. 

You showed me a series of charts about the things that were concerning you. Among them was the very alarming rate of suicide. 

It’s particularly high in the Reserve and Guard components. I’d like 

to ask you to lead off what steps under your leadership the Department of the Army is taking, and then maybe we’ll go to the other 

witnesses, who have a broader responsibility for the other departments, to the extent that the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine 

Corps are suffering some from this problem. 

Secretary GEREN. I’d be glad to lead off, but I’d also like to ask 

General Schoomaker to add as well because this is an area where 

the leadership of the Army has focused a great deal of attention, 

and not just over the last few months. We’ve recognized over the 

last few years an alarming growth in the rate of suicides. We last 

year experienced the highest level of suicides we’ve had since we 

started tracking suicides in 1980. 

Senator WARNER. So that’s a period of 28 years. 

Secretary GEREN. Yes, sir. That’s when we began tracking it. We 

can’t tell how it compares to prior years. But we’ve seen a steady 

increase over the last 5 years, and it’s something that everybody 

in Army leadership understands they’re part of the solution to that 

effort. 

Every week we have a balcony briefing. We bring all the senior 

leadership in the Army together in the Pentagon Wednesday morning. One of the slides we look at is the suicide incidents over the 

preceding week. We want to make sure every leader in the Army 

recognizes that it’s a part of his or her responsibility to help address this. 

We have a very comprehensive effort under way right now—and 

General Schoomaker can provide you greater details, but we are 

looking at innovative ways to approach it through different types 

of training for soldiers, for leaders, working with the chaplains, 

working with families. 

I think one of the most important things we can do is overcome 

the stigma over getting help for mental health issues. We have soldiers that don’t come forward and ask to be helped. Until we break 

down that stigma, until we break down that barrier, we’re going 

to have soldiers that are in desperate need that don’t get the help 

they need. 

This PTSD training that we’re doing, it’s not just PTSD and TBI, 

but I think it’s going to break down the stigma across the whole 

range of mental health issues and help soldiers and family members to recognize, this soldier has a problem, come forward and do 

something with it. 

36

But we are looking at trying to understand the trends. We have 

seen some of these deaths associated with misuse of narcotics and 

other drugs that were lawfully prescribed and perhaps misused, a 

mix of alcohol and drugs. Most of them result from a failed relationship or some other type of traumatic event in their life, exacerbated by the stress that they’re under and the pressures that 

they’re under. Also, leaders in the Army, because the system is 

stressed, aren’t able to put their arm around the soldier and understand what’s going on with his life. 

But from the lowest ranks to the most senior ranks, this is a 

problem that we are working to address. I would like to ask Dr. 

Schoomaker—he’s done a great deal of work in this area and I 

think that he has much to share with the committee. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Thank you, sir. 

Thanks for the question. You’re right, there are two trends right 

now that we are watching very carefully that the Secretary has alluded to. The first is suicides within the Army at large. I think Secretary Geren has really outlined the multidisciplinary approach 

that we have. It starts with small unit leaders and fellow soldiers 

and their ability to recognize a soldier who may be in trouble, that 

may have problems with coping with a lost relationship, which includes in some cases a loss of a relationship with the Army itself 

because of misconduct and the like. 

It’s compounded by drug or alcohol use, and certainly the families play a very critical role. We are looking at this in a multidisciplinary way. We have looked carefully across the principle staff 

who are responsible, from the chaplains through the personnel 

community, through those that represent leadership at large, and 

then the medical community. We’re prepared to come in front of 

the Secretary with some recommendations about how we will be 

approaching suicide prevention in the near future. 

The other trend that we’re looking at very carefully is a trend in 

accidental deaths, especially within our WTUs. Now that we have 

concentrated approximately 9,500, almost two brigades worth, of 

soldiers who have illnesses or injuries, some combat-related, some 

other, within these WTUs under the care of cadre with a primary 

care provider and nurse case managers, we recognize now that a 

number of them have a constellation of drugs—drugs for anxiety, 

drugs for sleep, drugs for pain, which in combination, especially if 

used with alcohol, can be a lethal cocktail. 

We have, unfortunately, lost over the last few months several 

soldiers. We’ve brought together a team. The Secretary and the 

Chief of Staff of the Army charged me about 10 days ago with expeditiously bringing together a team of experts to look at the factors that lead to these accidental deaths. I contrast these with suicide. I don’t believe these are suicides. We’ve looked very carefully 

to separate those that are suicides from those that are truly accidental, and those that we are seeing are accidental deaths. We’ve 

looked at the major factors and are trying to eliminate those factors. 

Senator WARNER. Secretary Chu, to the broader aspects of it. 

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir. The Marine Corps is already beginning to 

emulate the Army’s practice of the chain teaching of mental health 

indicators, responsibilities at every level of command. The SecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Nov 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45276.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
37

retary of Defense, to deal with the stigma issue—a small but important step—has advocated and the administration, I believe, will 

soon decide to revise the instructions on security questionnaires so 

that we set aside a positive answer on have you sought mental 

health assistance if it has to do with PTSD or the various issues 

that relate to combat service. 

I do think there are two issues here. One is the trend, where we 

are all concerned with the Army’s increase. Also the level, the Department, even with this adverse trend, is approximately where civilian rates are. That doesn’t mean that’s where we want to be. 

Within the Department we do have a Service that’s at much lower 

level, absolute level of suicide, the Air Force. So one of the things 

we’re doing is asking all the departments to look at what’s successful about these Air Force programs that might be translatable to 

their circumstances. 

We are very excited with this Center for Psychological Health 

and Traumatic Brain Injury Congress has so generously funded. 

It’s stood up in a provisional way, being led by an Army psychiatrist, Colonel—soon General, I guess—Dr. Loree Sutton. I’ve asked 

her to focus not just on prevention after the fact, but what can we 

do before the fact; and how can we help the resiliency of our people 

to deal with the stresses that military life does bring to them. 

Should we, for example, be asking questions all the way back at 

the enlistment point that we don’t ask today or having screens that 

we don’t use today? 

We do, of course, use one broad screen already that is a predictor 

of can you stick with a military career. That’s the high school diploma. That’s why they’re so important in our recruiting standards. 

So we are trying to take a broad-based approach, ranging from 

the specific questions and examples to the strategic, how should we 

be recruiting people from American society so they can successfully 

serve in a very difficult environment? 

Senator WARNER. I actually say to this distinguished panel, we 

have to have the infrastructure to carry forward all of these various initiatives, literally the bricks and the mortar and the roofs 

and the ceilings and so forth. Where are we with regard to, first, 

maintaining Walter Reed’s physical plant such that it can continue 

to deliver that level of health care that these honorable, wonderful 

people are entitled? Second, the projections of a new facility at Fort 

Belvoir and the modifications to the infrastructure at the Bethesda 

center to take on the additional; are we on schedule? Is the budget 

adequate for these two construction projects? 

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir. 

Senator WARNER. Is there anything that Congress needs to do to 

facilitate? 

Dr. CHU. Our most important request will, of course, be to support the fiscal year 2009 request in this regard, which does ask for 

a substantial tranche of money to support a more ambitious plan 

for the new Walter Reed campus than we had before, and a faster 

plan. That includes Walter Reed thought about in the large, not 

just the Bethesda campus, but also, importantly, the DeWitt Army 

Hospital modernization and the refurbishment at Fort Belvoir. 

In terms of the personnel at Walter Reed—that, I think, is always a challenge when you close a base, how you keep everything 

38

up at the top level all the way up to the last day. We have sought 

and gotten from the Office of Personnel Management additional direct hire authority to make sure we can staff Walter Reed correctly, including the ability to pay special retention bonuses to the 

personnel there. 

But I would defer to Secretary Geren on additional specifics. 

Secretary GEREN. General Schoomaker just recently left the post 

as commander at Walter Reed, so I’d like to ask General 

Schoomaker to respond. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, sir. I think Congress and the leadership of the DOD and the Army sent me and my command when 

I commanded Walter Reed last year a very clear message that we 

were to restore Walter Reed to a world-class facility, despite the 

impending fusion of Walter Reed with the National Naval Medical 

Center in Bethesda and the formation of the new Walter Reed National Naval Medical Center that the Secretary alluded to. 

We’ve done just exactly that. We have given very clear orders 

and have had very robust support from the Department to fix all 

those things that need to be fixed and to maintain both the manpower as well as the clinical practices and the physical plant of the 

Walter Reed campus. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Warner. 

Senator Ben Nelson. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank our military men and women and those who are 

on the civilian side who do such an outstanding job to protect our 

country. Of course, nothing is more important in dealing with their 

needs than to make sure that the health system we provide for 

them is the best possible health care system. So we were all chagrined and saddened with the revelations of a year ago. 

In terms of what we’re working with toward public-private 

partnering, Secretary Mansfield and Secretary Chu, last year I met 

with a sergeant in Nebraska from the National Guard who suffered 

a TBI as a result of his service in Iraq in 2006. When I met with 

him, he indicated the many challenges he had in getting the care 

that he required. He was lost in the system on at least two occasions, and he was finally able to get care in Nebraska through a 

private facility, Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital. 

Receiving quality health care in rural States is obviously a challenge in many areas due to resources and geography alone. That’s 

why I believe it’s critical that we find partnership opportunities for 

our public institutions and private institutions to be able to make 

sure that we get that quality care and we integrate it. 

How do you provide for that integrative care for veterans as they 

transition back into their communities, so that we ensure their 

long-term care, not simply a short-term situation, but their longterm follow-up care across a wide geographic area? I’ve been told 

that local VA hospitals have authority to contract with civilian 

partners, but in many instances are just very reluctant to do so 

and we have to continue to press to get them to be able to forge 

a collaboration. 

But is this centralized or decentralized process from the standpoint of the VA? What are your thoughts about how we can make 

39

this system work? We talk about it being seamless. You’ll have to 

pardon me if I find the word ‘‘seamless’’ between the VA and the 

DOD an oxymoron. Perhaps ‘‘nearly seamless’’ might be something 

more, that would be more likely achievable. ‘‘Seamless’’ I think is 

beyond anyone’s expectations, given a bureaucracy that is full of 

what I consider ‘‘we-bes’’: ‘‘We be here when you come, we be here 

when you go.’’ We’re going to constantly find that very difficult to 

purge and converge those systems. 

But from the standpoint of the VA first and then the DOD second. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Thank you for that question, Senator. 

First let me apologize to that individual. The idea that somebody 

gets lost in the system is something that we do not want, and we’re 

doing everything we can to ensure that we take care of that. So I 

would apologize to that individual. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Sergeant Mac Richards. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. I’ll get with you and we’ll follow up on 

that. 

The idea of TBI care, serious TBI care, started with the fact that 

the VA since 1992 had four brain injury treatment centers that 

were doing treatment, care, research, and efforts, and those four 

centers in Palo Alto, Minneapolis, Richmond, and Tampa became 

our polytrauma centers. Each one of those brain treatment centers 

was also co-located with a spinal cord injury clinic, so we had a robust rehabilitation capacity in those hospitals. There’s a fifth one 

on the way hopefully in the next budget. 

What we’ve done since then for the effort to have more geographic representation is had each one of our VSNs, or 17 more VA 

medical centers, come on line as level two polytrauma treatment 

centers, so we can attempt to get the treatment more dispersed 

geographically around the country. 

The issue of the private treatment is one that we’ve dealt with 

in the past in sharing agreements in various locations to get specialty care that we needed that we didn’t have on staff or just 

couldn’t provide. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Excuse me. Can that be geography-related 

as well, not close by, so that they don’t have to drive 250 or 500 

miles round trip? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Sir, I was going to say, what we are learning and dealing with and attempting to do is deal with the individuals in an effort to bring all the conditions that would apply to 

bear to make the decision to go forward. I know that Dr. Kussman, 

the head of our Veterans Health Administration, has made the 

point that if the people that we’re treating don’t feel that they’re 

getting the care that they need then we need to work with them 

in an effort to get it right. 

I know that we’ve done that in many instances where folks are 

getting treatment that either VA is paying for or in some cases, 

TRICARE I think is also taking care of the individual. It’s an effort 

that has started, is moving forward, needs the continued emphasis 

of the leadership, has had continued emphasis, and we will do 

more. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Dr. Chu? 

40

Dr. CHU. Sir, if I could just address the two issues you raise. One 

is the seamless transition; the other is the question of how we provide quality care to those on a geographically dispersed basis. 

On the seamless transition front, we are very excited by the appointment of the first Federal integrated recovery coordinators. 

Their ultimate responsibility is to make sure there is a plan for 

that person that is really lifelong in character and that the steps 

are in place—the mechanisms in place, to be sure that plan is 

being followed. I think that’s a key ingredient in getting us at least 

to the nearly seamless condition that you set as an immediate goal. 

On the question of the geographically dispersed delivery of care, 

I do think this is where the central proposition of Dole-Shalala is 

so important. It recommends, and the President’s legislative proposal would propose to carry out, that if you’re medically retired 

from the DOD we would end DOD deciding whether you got 

TRICARE coverage based on the percentage of disability. If you’re 

medically retired you would get TRICARE coverage for you and 

your family. 

Now, I think that’s important not only for the families, but also 

for the issue that you described, because that does give you the 

right to go to any place you want, essentially, in the United States, 

and it would end a good deal of this problem, because it’s always 

been a problem for the VA. In many States there may be only two 

or three VA hospitals and it is going to be a distance for patients 

to come to that hospital for care, even though the quality reviews 

across the medical profession in the United States today give VA 

extraordinary high remarks for the quality of medical care that it 

delivers. It really is first class. 

Senator BEN NELSON. I don’t think very often the question is 

about the quality of care or even recognizing that with the TBI situation, all the research that’s going into that, that there’s a general 

perception that we’re improving the quality of care. It’s availability 

and the seamless nature of it. 

General Schoomaker, this has probably happened to others as 

well, but I know last week you were interviewed by NPR and you 

were given the example that somebody allegedly—that Army officials told workers at the VA to stop helping injured soldiers fill out 

forms and so forth. So much for the idea, as I said, of seamless care 

and seamless relationships. Probably not the first example of embarrassment and probably not the last. 

But it does point to how important it is from the top down and 

from the bottom up to get it right so that there isn’t stovepiping 

or resistance to this effort to make sure that those who have done 

it their own way for so long don’t frustrate this process by wanting 

to continue to do it their own way or they know best what way it 

ought to be done. 

I wish you might comment on that. I know you did last week. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, sir, and I remain personally chagrined that an effort to really reach out and ensure that the best 

practices that we were observing, frankly, at Fort Drum were proliferated throughout the system—ironically, we found a system that 

was working extremely well and yet it was interpreted wrongly. 

I will say, first of all, it’s very hard for me to say anything ill 

about the VA. I’m a product. I’m a physician, a product of the VA 

41

system. I was trained in two VA hospitals associated with major 

universities. This is a great system of care. This is a national treasure. They have set the standard on good, objective outcomes-based 

care within the country, and I think we’re better positioned than 

we ever have been with leaders like Deputy Secretary Mansfield 

and the new Secretary of Defense, my former boss General Peake, 

and General Kussman and others throughout that VA system. 

Our response to what we saw at Fort Drum, sir, was that Secretary Peake and Secretary Geren promptly sat down, we hammered out an agreement, a memorandum of understanding with 

the VA, and we’ve put that aside. We now have a formal memorandum that empowers VBA counselors at each one of our Army 

MTFs to fully counsel any soldier or family and make it very clear 

that they’re part of the solution and that we welcome that. 

Senator BEN NELSON. But it does point out that it’s an ongoing 

process that you can’t measure it simply in terms of time. It’s a 

marathon, not a sprint. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, sir. I think your comments earlier 

about the seamlessness and Secretary Chu’s comments—I think 

the fact is there are seams in the system. I think the earlier comment from the chairman about disability adjudication, which for 

the military is based upon fitness for duty and within the VA system is based upon the whole person concept, means that you can 

apply the earlier study to virtually any individual problem and 

you’ll find the same issue there. 

We adjudicate disability in the military based upon that one 

major unfitting condition and we turn to the VA and allow the VA 

to take all of those conditions that we all jointly recognize are 

present and adjudicate disability on the basis of the whole person. 

That’s a seam that has to be closed. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Inhofe, I think the vote has either 

started or is about to start. 

Senator INHOFE. How about I go ahead and start and run 

through my time? 

Chairman LEVIN. Would you turn that over to the next person 

here, and if there’s nobody here when you’re here just recess until 

I get back? 

Senator INHOFE. Okay, I will do that. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. First of all, General Schoomaker, I appreciate 

what you said and let me just drive it home, because as long as 

I can remember, even back when I was in the United States Army, 

there were complaints about the kind of treatment in the VA centers. Then when I was elected here, oh, about 22 years ago, we had 

just some real crises. Now, maybe this is unique in our State of 

Oklahoma, but the treatment was not good. 

I can’t tell you how that’s changed. I had a group in my office 

yesterday of the veterans and they just rave about it. I have gone 

42

to all the centers, including some of the retirement centers and others. I don’t know what’s accounted for it, but whatever you’re 

doing, keep doing it that way. It’s been great. 

Maybe because I’m the only veteran in the Oklahoma delegation, 

I seem to get more calls and complaints than any of the rest of 

them do. They’re in three areas that have been addressed somewhat in this meeting and by your committee. One is in the disparity between the disability evaluation systems that we’ve had. 

Senator Levin talked about that. You’ve responded to that. 

The other two are in transition areas that we’ve been talking 

about with Senator Nelson, that is transition into civilian life or 

into another service of our country. Many of these people who become disabled, they want to continue serving in this transition. 

Then the transition, of course, that we talked about from DOD to 

VA. 

Now, I understand, from whoever wants to respond to this, that 

this disparity between the evaluations has been corrected now or 

is in the process of being corrected in terms of disability evaluations between the various levels. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Sir, I think that’s a recommendation of 

the Dole-Shalala Commission that’s going to require legislative 

changes. We can smooth over the bureaucratic steps required between the military system of adjudication and the finding of fitness 

for duty and the VA system of adjudication of disability, but we 

currently are not empowered to make this a single system without 

further legislation. 

Senator INHOFE. Are you going to be helping us in drafting the 

legislation? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Oh, absolutely. 

Senator INHOFE. Making recommendations? 

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir, we’d be delighted to. General Schoomaker is 

absolutely correct. Until there is a change in the fundamental statute, you will always—even if we each rate each condition with the 

same percentage, which is the first issue, which we can deal with 

and we are dealing with, the Department only rules on fitness to 

serve based on those conditions that affect your military career. 

You may have other conditions. 

Senator INHOFE. In terms of the evaluations, if any of the five 

of you don’t believe it’s a problem just call our office and we can 

provide you with some cases. 

Now, in terms of the transition into civilian life or other government services, any further comments any of you want to make 

about that, because this has been another source of complaints? 

Dr. CHU. Sir, one of the things we’ve done, particularly with this 

conflict, is organize a series of job fairs, particularly at medical centers, where we especially emphasize the importance of Federal 

agencies stepping forward, including our own, the DOD. 

Senator INHOFE. When did they start? When did you start doing 

that? 

Dr. CHU. About 2 years ago we started these, and we’ve done 

about a dozen of these altogether. They are intended to both bring 

civil employers as well as government agencies together to the military community, not restricted to those who’ve been recently 

wounded necessarily, but that’s the focus. We have worked very 

43

hard in a proactive way through the Military Severely Injured Center to help the newly injured think about the possibilities for them, 

what would make sense from their perspective, and how do we link 

them up with these agencies so they can be successful. 

Senator INHOFE. Secretary Mansfield, you touched slightly on 

this, the transition between the DOD and VA. Could you just address this electronic transfer of data, and are we making progress 

there? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. We’re definitely making progress, sir. 

We’ve come further than the JEC had. We’re in the process now 

where we can actually exchange information. The issue, though, is 

that we’re working in an effort to make it interoperational. Right 

now you can read the information, but you can’t manipulate it. So 

we are exchanging information from imaging, from clinics, from 

pharmacy, and from testing. We’re further along the line, but we 

still have a long way to go. 

Of course, part of the issue is that you have an Army record, a 

Navy record, and an Air Force record that needs to be consolidated, 

then get access to that through a single data access point. We’re 

working on that. 

Senator INHOFE. Secretary Geren, this is more Army sensitive 

than anything else. The chairman talked about some of them who 

were deployed who perhaps should not be deployed. But on the 

other end of that, there are a lot of them who want to be deployed 

who are not. It seems like there is a greater problem in the Army. 

Our 45th out of Oklahoma, that’s over 2,600, they’re over there in 

Iraq right now. I went down to Camp Gruber when they were preparing for it and while they—the National Guard members—receive TRICARE, they don’t have the dental benefits. This seems to 

be where the problem is. I was surprised to see this, that the DOD 

has set a Service-wide goal of greater than 75 percent for fully 

ready to deploy servicemembers and greater than 90 percent for 

partially ready servicemembers. 

Currently, five of the seven Reserve components are below the 75 

percent. Now, I have from your report on page 194 those seven and 

the two that have the great problem are the Army National Guard 

and the Army Reserves. Everybody else, frankly, is over the 75 percent. But these are not. These are, in the case of the Army National Guard, 45 percent; and the Air Guard, 51 percent. 

Now, of those, that’s just dental only problems. That seems to be 

the greatest problem in terms of having these people not ready for 

a deployment for medical purposes. 

It would seem to me that—and I talked to some of them down 

there at Camp Gruber before they were going—you can’t put a 

bridge in or do the root canal; there’s not time during this transition period. Once they get over in the field of combat, they’re not 

going to be able to do those things. 

Now, wouldn’t one solution that perhaps you might want to consider or you are considering is to somehow have dental benefits? 

There was a time when the Guard and Reserve really didn’t have 

these overseas deployments and maybe it wasn’t necessary then. 

But it is now, and it seems to be, of the medical—again, I’ll repeat 

that—the 38 percent, is 45 percent is dental only. So that seems 

to be the biggest problem. 

44

What do you think, Pete? 

Secretary GEREN. The experience in Oklahoma is not unique. 

The dental issue is something that we are looking at very carefully. 

One of the initiatives that the Chief and I are working on is how 

to do a better job of fully operationalizing the Guard and Reserve, 

and medical preparedness for deployment is one of the issues and 

the dental is always at the top of the list. 

So I don’t have an answer for you today, but it’s something that 

we are looking at. 

Senator INHOFE. If your goal is to reach 75 percent, from the figures I have here pulling the dental problem would put you at 75 

percent. 

Dr. CHU. Senator, I do know that some units in Oklahoma have 

adopted a best practice we’d like to see more of them use, which 

is to use operations and maintenance funds during periods of 

premobilization drill to bring mobile dental vans to the unit. 

Prior to mobilization, and the standard that you’ve described is 

what we want all units to be at all the time, so that we don’t have 

to deal with these medical issues post-mobilization. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that, because I think—and Mr. 

Chairman, during your absence I made comments that you talked 

about how there are some who didn’t want to be deployed but were 

found deployable, but there’s probably more who want to be deployed who for some reason or other can’t. Or maybe that’s unique 

to Oklahoma, but I sure have heard from a lot of people. 

Dr. CHU. Again, I want to praise those units in Oklahoma that 

use this practice. It is a great solution. It is reasonable in terms 

of its cost. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Secretary GEREN. Real quickly, Senator, we have a group of 

guardsmen and reservists that advise the Chief and Army leadership on Guard and Reserve issues. They meet with us regularly, 

and that has been one of the issues that they’ve been examining 

and putting together recommendations in that area. We recognize 

that challenge. It is expensive, and there’s also just some logistical 

issues associated with it. But we recognize the importance of it and 

are working through it now. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Bill Nelson. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Gentlemen, thank you for trying to correct 

this problem and make it right. 

Secretary Chu, has Secretary Gates designated a lead agent to 

implement the TBI–PTSD mental health plan? 

Dr. CHU. Yes, we have our Center for Psychological Health and 

Traumatic Brain Injury. It is the agency that will be executing the 

generous addition to the budget Congress provided last year. 

Senator BILL NELSON. The question was has he designated a person to implement it? 

Dr. CHU. The commander is now Colonel, soon General, Dr. 

Loree Sutton, Army psychiatrist. 

Senator BILL NELSON. You all know the problem here and thank 

you for trying to correct this problem. We have excellent care, for 

example, for TBI once we can get them into the centers, and one 

45

of those centers is in my State, in Tampa. The problem has been 

getting them identified and getting them in those centers. As the 

other Senator Nelson pointed out in a case in his State of Nebraska, I could point out to you many cases in my State of Florida 

where the military person gets lost between being released from 

DOD and coming into the VA health care system. So thank you for 

working on that. 

Secretary Geren, I want to go over with you what I had talked 

to you on the telephone about. I think it needs to come to the attention of the committee: A World War II veteran who was wrongly 

accused and incarcerated, an African American, during a POW 

camp revolt in Italy and in the hysteria is swept up and incarcerated for a year. Just this year—so that’s some 60 years later—a review of the records, the DOD realizes that it made a mistake. They 

reversed his dishonorable discharge. They made it an honorable 

discharge, acknowledged that the U.S. Army was wrong, and 60 

years later returns to him the back pay that he would have earned 

during the 1 year of incarceration, $720. 

Now, that’s just plain wrong, that someone is denied that and is 

given 1944 dollars without compensation for at least the cost of living adjustments, which would only be $8,000 in today’s dollars. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Nelson, excuse me for interrupting. I’m 

going to run and vote and come back. If no one’s here when you 

need to go, just recess. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I’ll do that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you for raising this issue, however. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. It’s of importance to the committee. 

Senator BILL NELSON [presiding]. Of course, I appealed to you as 

Secretary of the Army and then you said you did not have the legal 

authority. I appealed to the Secretary of Defense and he said he 

did not have the legal authority. As a result of that, I filed a bill 

to correct it. 

But it seems to me that under equity and fairness an issue that 

we are addressing here about health care for wounded warriors, 

that under equity and fairness, a warrior has been wounded by 

taking away his most prized possession, which is his honor and his 

liberty, and 60 years later that the U.S. Army and the DOD is saying that they don’t have somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon 

the ability through equity and fairness to adjust $720 back pay. 

Can you share with me, Mr. Secretary, what you think we ought 

to do to right this wrong? 

Secretary GEREN. Yes, sir, I’m glad to. I reacted exactly the same 

way you did when I learned of this. I’d go so far as to say it’s a 

travesty of justice. $720 today is nothing compared to what that 

soldier went through and what he suffered, and certainly what 

$720 would buy you in 1944 and what it would buy you today, it’s 

no comparison at all. 

When I learned of this I asked our lawyers to figure out some 

way to fix this, some way to address this. They kept coming back 

and saying there’s no way to do it. We looked at a couple of different ways and, unfortunately, they kept coming to the same conclusion, and the OSD lawyers agreed with the Army lawyers, that 

46

under the current statutory framework we’re prohibited from deviating from that schedule. 

So I’m glad that you’ve introduced a bill and I hope there’s 

speedy consideration of it so that we can right this wrong and try 

to do what we can to compensate this soldier for what he suffered. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Senator, if I could raise an issue. If he was 

a dishonorable discharge he would not have been eligible for VA 

benefits back then. So why don’t we check it and see if there’s some 

way that we can look at that situation now that it’s been corrected 

and the VA may be able to assist him. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Okay, Secretary Mansfield, we’ll do that, 

and thank you for that suggestion. 

Samuel Snow naturally is getting up there in years. He lives in 

Leesburg, FL. I would pursue this with great vigor because this is 

somebody who has been wronged. But the reason I’m bringing it up 

to you is that again it’s another indicator of the cold, hard, impersonal rules and regulation on something that is obviously wrong. 

We’ve seen this in Samuel Snow’s case. We’ve seen it in how some 

of these veterans have been handled. We’ve seen it, for example, 

in that veteran from Winter Haven, FL, that was lost in the system, the military discharged him, had no indication that he had 

TBI because they didn’t ask, they didn’t probe. So he’s out there 

on his own, and he knows something’s wrong, and he goes and gets 

an appointment after waiting, over at one of the VA hospitals at 

Bay Pines. Then he finally gets there after waiting a couple of 

months and then they say: Well, we can’t handle this; you have to 

go to the Tampa Haley Hospital, and of course, that’s another waiting period. 

Somehow, this veteran knew to call me. Of course, the minute we 

found out what happened he had appointments in the Haley Hospital in the TBI center the next day. 

There’s something cold and hard and impersonal that we have to 

break through not only the subject of this hearing, on wounded 

warriors, but on the treatment of people like Samuel Snow 60 

years ago, that his country didn’t treat him right and 60 years 

later is giving him a check and saying, go away. It’s wrong. It 

ought to be corrected. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Sir, I would tell you that we’ve been working hard to correct that. I would agree with you that it’s wrong. 

We, as I stated in my opening statement, need to ensure that each 

one of these individuals that steps up, raises their right hand, puts 

themselves in a position to defend this country and puts themselves at risk, deserves timely access to every benefit that this Nation has promised them. We’re working together as hard as we can 

to make that happen. 

I would make the point, in regard to the person you mentioned, 

with that situation and others, we have changed the rules and regulations to make sure that people with these issues get taken in 

sooner and quicker and are seen. 

I would tell you also that everybody that comes to us is screened 

for TBI and PTSD, and we’re working with DOD on follow-up 

issues to do that. 

47

But I would agree with you, sir: You have two of the biggest bureaucracies in the world that need a little shaking to make sure 

that they know that they’re dealing with people. 

Dr. CHU. Sir, let me also emphasize, as you and Secretary Geren 

agreed, ultimately the issue with Mr. Snow is statutory. If Congress were willing to give the Secretary of Defense discretion in 

cases like this, as it has given him discretion in waiving repayments, which we have used extensively, we would be able to avoid 

the situation. 

But it is ultimately not a rule or regulation in the Snow case; it 

is the law, and we are stuck. 

Senator BILL NELSON. If it is the law, we will change it. 

Dr. CHU. My plea, sir, is for broad discretion as opposed to the 

rifle shot, because then you can deal with the unanticipated situation just as you have advocated, and we would like to be in that 

position. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Now, it’s hard for me to believe that the 

DOD in the enormity of its resources and rules and regulations, 

that there is not discretion somewhere to correct this wrong. As 

Secretary Mansfield has said already, there’s another avenue we 

might explore with regard to maybe he hasn’t been advised of veterans benefits that would be available to him since he had been 

wrongly, dishonorably discharged, and we will pursue that. I wonder why we had to come to a United States Senate hearing to get 

to that. 

But in the mean time, since I have to recess this hearing so that 

I can go vote, I wish you in the recess would confer with your assistants and see if there might be any other little angle that we 

haven’t figured out. 

Secretary GEREN. Sir, I can assure you we have pushed this 

within our legal system as hard as we can. I know you get two lawyers together, you get two opinions, but unfortunately we continue 

to run into the same statutory interpretation. If someone could 

help us see it differently, we’d be glad. I can assure you we all feel 

the same about that case and want to help, and appreciate your advocacy and your interest in addressing it statutorily. We believe 

that’s where we are, and we sent it back and sent it back and sent 

it back and kept getting the same answer. We want to see it fixed 

as well. 

Senator BILL NELSON. The committee will stand in recess subject 

to the call of the Chair. [Recessed.] 

Chairman LEVIN [presiding]. The committee will come back to 

order. Yes? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Could I have the privilege of speaking, 

please? 

Chairman LEVIN. Sure, Secretary Mansfield. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Sir, in reference to the last discussion 

about the individual wronged and the ability to deal with that and 

the need for legislation, I would refer you to Title 38 U.S. Code 

503: ‘‘Administrative error, equitable relief. If the Secretary determines that benefits administered by the Department have not been 

provided by reason of administrative error on the part of the Federal Government or any of its employees, the Secretary may provide such relief on account of such error as the Secretary deterVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Nov 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45276.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
48

mines equitable, including the payment of moneys to any person 

whom the Secretary determines is equitably entitled to such monies.’’ 

That’s what the DOD needs. That’s the VA section and I think 

that’s what DOD needs. It would allow us to go back and look at 

the situation by virtue of the fact that, with that dishonorable discharge, he was not eligible for a lot of VA benefits and we could 

not make an adjustment based on that. 

Chairman LEVIN. Does the mistake have to have been made 

under that law by the VA? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. No, sir. It says ‘‘on the part of the Federal 

Government or any of its employees.’’ ‘‘The Federal Government.’’ 

Chairman LEVIN. So if there was a mistake made, which there 

seems to have been, by the DOD, the VA can act now under existing law? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Yes, sir, for VA benefits. 

Chairman LEVIN. For VA benefits. That’s part of the deal, as I 

understand it. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. That would be one way to make him 

whole, to look at what he would have been eligible for: home loan 

or education or compensation. 

Chairman LEVIN. I’m sure Senator Nelson will pursue that. But 

what you’re doing is opening up the avenue that, even though you 

don’t think the DOD has that power—we’ll check that in a second—the VA has power if there’s a mistake made by any governmental agency that affected the benefits of the VA, that you may 

not be able to make that soldier whole, but you’ll be able at least 

to take care of the VA part of doing it under that law. 

I’m sure Senator Nelson, I assume he’s aware of that and will 

pursue that. But if not, thank you for bringing that to our attention. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. We’ll notify him. But DOD needs legislation. 

Chairman LEVIN. Let me follow that up now. Do you know, Secretary Chu, if DOD has that same power? 

Dr. CHU. I don’t believe so, sir, but obviously we’d want to 

doublecheck. 

Chairman LEVIN. We’ll raise it in the National Defense Authorization bill this year, then. There’s no reason why the DOD should 

not have the same power that VA has to correct mistakes. So my 

staff I know is following this and we will pursue that, unless, Secretary Geren, do you know whether the DOD has that power? 

Secretary GEREN. We looked as hard as we could to figure out 

a way to address this situation and Army—we looked at it, looked 

at everything that we had that was discretionary. We could not 

find a way for it to fit. We went to OSD’s lawyers to see if there 

would be a way to do it at the OSD level. They could not find a 

way. We kept coming to the same conclusion, that there was a statutory block that kept us from doing it, and we certainly would support an effort to provide the flexibility to redress it. 

Chairman LEVIN. Secretary Mansfield, thank you for bringing 

that to our attention. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Thank my excellent staff here, sir. 

49

Chairman LEVIN. We thank your excellent staff. We appreciate 

that. We all rely on our staff, more than we like to admit. 

There’s nobody here who hasn’t had a first round, so let me start 

a second round here. The Senior Oversight Committee has been 

working diligently on a number of these issues, as we’ve heard here 

this morning and were aware of even before this morning. But the 

question is whether or not the issues that we are discussing will 

remain a priority over time, talking about transitions and seamless 

transitions, since there will be a change of administrations in January. What steps are you taking to ensure that these issues will 

remain a priority during the transition period from this administration to the next? 

Secretary Chu, why don’t I ask you first and then Secretary 

Mansfield. 

Dr. CHU. We are planning to use—and Secretary Mansfield and 

I have already begun discussing that issue—the now statutorily 

chartered JEC, which is a similar partnership between DOD and 

VA, to make sure that there is no backsliding, no ground lost, no 

lessening of commitment to these initiatives. We are determined to 

see them through past the transition using that already existing 

mechanism. 

I think it’s already produced, as Secretary Mansfield indicated, 

important successes in other areas. I point to North Chicago as a 

prime example of that agenda succeeding, and I’m confident it can 

carry forward into the next administration. 

Chairman LEVIN. Secretary Mansfield? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Sir, one point I would make is that everything that we’ve discussed that we’re putting into action are becoming VA directives that will be on the books as we leave. The other 

point I would make is in the course of a transition there is normally a discussion with the incoming and the outgoing of the highlights of what the outgoing administration looks at and wants to 

put in—give their attention to the folks coming in, I’m sure would 

be a part of this effort. 

Chairman LEVIN. Is there a permanent structure, a joint structure that’s now in place, to evaluate these changes that we’ve 

talked about and to monitor systems and to make further recommendations for process improvement? Is there that structure 

and if so what is it? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Sir, I would say that, again, the statutorily mandated JEC with its benefits subgroup and its health care 

subgroup have been working for 5 years now, in an effort to put 

processes in place that we can measure what is required and be 

able to make a decision at the end of each year what we’ve done, 

what we need to do. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, who are the members of the JEC? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Currently it’s myself and Dr. Chu. Secretary Chao from Labor has asked us to include a member from the 

Veterans Employment and Training Service, which is responsible 

for veterans employment, and we’ve agreed to bring somebody from 

there on board. Then, in the benefits arena, you have the Under 

Secretary for Benefits from the VA and the equivalent OSD and 

DOD folks. In the health arena you have the Under Secretary for 

50

Veterans Health and the equivalent folks from the Services in 

DOD. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, you two are political appointees. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Those under secretaries—are they political appointees as well? 

Dr. CHU. They are political appointees. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Yes. 

Dr. CHU. But the council, the JEC, is, thanks to your efforts, a 

statutory body. So whoever succeeds, either acting for or confirmed 

by the Senate, will succeed to that responsibility. The career staff 

understands that this agenda has to go forward using this mechanism. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Under secretaries in the VA are political 

appointees. 

Chairman LEVIN. Would you make sure that the career staff not 

just tells your successors, assuming that you’re not reappointed, 

about this, but that somehow or other, can they be acting during 

a period that there is a gap? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Sir, the career staff, the leading senior career staff in each agency, are heavily involved in this and understand very well the need for them to be included. 

Chairman LEVIN. Are they authorized to meet during a transition period without you? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. As part of the JEC? 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. 

Dr. CHU. I see no reason why they could not. I don’t want to get 

in the general counsel’s way here on the Vacancies Act issue, but 

I see no reason that those performing the duties of these officials, 

which would be the last resort, could not in fact convene a meeting. 

Chairman LEVIN. Will you let us know whether that can happen? 

Dr. CHU. I will do that, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. If it can’t happen, let us know what would be 

required to make that happen legislatively? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. We will provide that information, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. That would be great. Thank you. 

Secretary Geren, last week you announced a program called the 

Wounded Warrior Education Initiative. Could you tell us what 

that’s about? 

Secretary GEREN. Yes, sir. We announced it at Leavenworth, KS. 

In September, the chancellor of the University of Kansas came to 

meet with me and with Dr. Gates to propose an initiative where 

Leavenworth would partner with Kansas University in developing 

a graduate degree program for wounded warriors, for specifically 

wounded warriors. It’s a program where the wounded warriors 

would either stay on Active Duty or, if they have left Active Duty, 

be supported in some type of an internship role, attend a 2 years 

master’s program at Kansas University, then return to the military 

and serve in either a teaching capacity or a support capacity at our 

colleges at Leavenworth. 

It is a very innovative program, and we were able to work with 

Kansas over a period of just several months and pull it together, 

and last week we announced that we have eight soldiers accepted 

51

into the program; we hope to build on it. I think it’s a model that 

could be used elsewhere. 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes, if it works I assume you will expand it. 

Secretary GEREN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, some have proposed giving veterans a 

plastic card that they could take to any health care provider to pay 

for their health care. Can you give us your view on that proposal, 

Secretary Mansfield? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. I don’t think it’s a good idea. 

Chairman LEVIN. Why is that? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. The VA is set up to be able to be the primary care provider for the individuals in the system and keep 

track of what their needs are and follow them throughout the system. Part of what you’re looking at is taking us away from that, 

where we wouldn’t know what’s going on with the care, what the 

quality is, what they need, what they don’t need. 

The other part of it is it would make us in effect a insurer, a 

Medicare-type payor for the system, and I don’t know what kind of 

a requirement we would have for the back office, that we’d have 

to replicate the Medicare system to get the bills; figure out what 

the bills are; whether they were reasonable or not; whether the 

treatment was reasonable; and then make a payment. 

Chairman LEVIN. Do veterans groups generally favor this kind of 

approach, do you know, or not? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. I don’t think they do favor it, sir. I think 

they would look at it as starting to unravel the VA. As was mentioned here earlier, we now have reached a point where we are regarded as providing pretty good care and taking pretty good care 

of these individuals that are in our system. 

Chairman LEVIN. One of you mentioned the electronic health 

record system which we’re trying to develop between the two entities. I’ve forgotten, was it Dr. Chu? Were you doing it? You made 

that reference? What’s the timetable for that? 

Dr. CHU. Sir, we anticipate by the end of this year having all existing electronic information interchangeable—viewable, as I understand the computer community phrase it—between the two institutions, so if you are a VA doctor you can see the DOD record 

and vice versa. We already have the pharmacy data at that stage. 

We have the laboratory data to that stage, the first discharge summaries to that stage, et cetera. 

It’s a very significant project. It’s been ongoing for a number of 

years. The recent Senior Oversight Committee effort has given 

extra energy to it and I think we’ll get to that goal by the end of 

this year. 

It doesn’t necessarily make the data, as the computer community 

would phrase it, computable. In other words, you can’t manipulate 

it inside the program. I can look at it. For that, eventually what 

we need to do is have a common electronic health record between 

the two Cabinet agencies, and we are committed to doing that. 

That is a multi-year project. That’s not going to be overnight. It allows us to replace our aging existing inpatient electronic records. 

We do have in DOD a worldwide, essentially web-based, although 

that’s not actually the vehicle used; it’s on servers that we control, 

the outpatient electronic record now, which is part of what we’re 

52

making available to the VA physicians for outpatient treatment. 

But we need to modernize our inpatient software, replace it basically. The VA eventually will have the same need. So we are committed jointly. The first exploratory effort has begun getting to that 

common, essentially identical, electronic health record for the future. But that is a multi-year project. 

Chairman LEVIN. If it’s an identical record, then each agency 

would be able to add to that record? 

Dr. CHU. Exactly. 

Chairman LEVIN. Manipulate the information. 

Dr. CHU. Manipulate the information, and DOD’s ambition is to 

mirror for that what we can now already for ourselves do for outpatients, which is wherever you are, at least in theory, I can call 

up what’s been done to you as an outpatient, on an outpatient 

basis. That’s important because our people move around the world 

so much. So we don’t want something that’s site specific in character. These data are now on servers that allow worldwide access. 

Chairman LEVIN. Did we require that by law? 

Dr. CHU. You required in statute that we make it interoperable. 

Chairman LEVIN. But not the second step? 

Dr. CHU. Not the second step. It’s a multi-year project. We will 

be coming to you in this and future budgets. 

Chairman LEVIN. But we haven’t already mandated it? 

Dr. CHU. I don’t believe so, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. You and I both used the word ‘‘manipulate’’ 

and I think we have to find a different verb. 

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir. They like to say ‘‘computable.’’ 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. I shouldn’t use that word because some 

people would understand that to be a pejorative word, that we are 

somehow or another manipulating data for some nefarious purpose. 

Dr. CHU. No nefarious purpose intended. 

Chairman LEVIN. No, no. I used the word, too. But I don’t know 

what the new verb is. ‘‘Computable,’’ is that it? 

Dr. CHU. ‘‘Computable’’ is my understanding. 

Chairman LEVIN. Make it computable. 

Okay. I think Senator Chambliss, yes, Senator Chambliss, you 

are next. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you, first of all for being here, and for your excellent testimony this morning. But thank you for what you do. 

Thank you for being concerned about our brave men and women 

who wear the uniform. 

Also please convey our thoughts and prayers to the Secretary. 

Gee, Pete—what did you do to him over there? Rough morning at 

the Pentagon. Actually, it was pretty slippery in my neighborhood, 

too. Tell him we’re thinking about him. 

Let me thank all of you for your efforts over the last year to improve health care and transition programs for our wounded warriors. I’ve personally seen how the WTUs and our health care professionals have made great strides in caring for and treating our 

wounded servicemembers. I have been to both Fort Gordon and 

Fort Benning, where I’ve seen firsthand what is happening with respect to our men and women who are coming back with injuries. 

53

We are doing a great job of helping them reintegrate into the 

military and the community, and I appreciate the hard work each 

of you has done to get us to this point. 

I note in Secretary England’s statement that he focuses on the 

recovery coordination program. This program is designed to identify and integrate care and services for wounded servicemembers, 

veterans, and their families. Establishing recovery coordinators to 

serve as the patient and family single point of contact during their 

recovery and transition period was discussed in the number one 

recommendation of the Dole-Shalala Commission, and I’m pleased 

to see that the Department is taking steps to implement this very 

important recommendation. 

Training for the recovery coordinators is obviously very important if they are going to perform their jobs effectively. Augusta, 

GA, has developed a very unique collaboration in the area of 

wounded warrior care. The City of Augusta is home to the Eisenhower Medical Center at Fort Gordon, formerly operated under the 

great leadership of General Schoomaker. We miss you there, but 

your successor General Bradshaw is certainly doing a great job. 

What I am going to talk about here and ask you about is something that began under your leadership, and we thank you for your 

continued attention to the care for our wounded warriors. 

It is also home to the Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center and 

the Medical College of Georgia, particularly the school of nursing. 

These three institutions are already collaborating in the treatment 

of wounded warriors and the Charlie Norwood VA Center hosts the 

only Active Duty rehab facility for military personnel in a VA medical center. The Medical College of Georgia School of Nursing has 

an existing program for training and certifying clinical nurse leaders. These clinical nurse leaders are basically the civilian equivalent of DOD’s wounded warrior recovery coordinators and perform 

many of the same tasks. 

As a means of extending the collaboration and treatment of 

wounded warriors in the Augusta area, the Medical College of 

Georgia School of Nursing has proposed a short certificate program 

which would take advantage of classes and faculty already available in their clinical nurse leader program to help train and certify 

DOD’s recovery coordinators. I understand from the statements of 

several of you that DOD is conducting some training, including 

web-based training, for your recovery coordinators. But I’m wondering if you would consider taking advantage of this proposal that 

the Medical College of Georgia is offering, to determine if it could 

be an effective means of helping to train your recovery coordinators 

and if it would provide a value-added addition to the Department’s 

establishment of a wounded warrior recovery program. 

I’ll direct that to whoever wants to respond first, but Dr. Chu, 

Mr. Secretary. 

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir. We always value new ideas. We’d be delighted 

to look at this one. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Sir, I would add that it’s interesting you 

mentioned Fort Gordon, because we have at the present time a program with VA and DOD that goes back I think to 2004, where the 

VA is actually doing rehab for Active Duty soldiers down there. So 

that cooperative effort is already in place down there, and we can 

54

look at going forward and, as Dr. Chu mentioned, doing something 

new and better. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Anyone else have a comment? [No response.] 

I know that the personnel at the Medical College of Georgia 

School of Nursing would be willing to modify their proposal in 

order to meet any specific training requirements, as well as the 

necessary timeframe that DOD might require for training their recovery coordinators, and whatever will be helpful to the Department and the college from a discussion standpoint. These folks are 

ready and willing to offer any services necessary. 

General Schoomaker, you know firsthand the great job that Dr. 

Romm and the folks over at the Medical College do, as well as the 

folks at the VA Medical Center. I’ve had the pleasure of visiting 

many of our patients there at the VA Center over the last several 

years. The work that we are doing, particularly with our severely 

injured soldiers, is truly amazing there. Thanks again, General 

Schoomaker, for your leadership and role at Eisenhower in establishing it as certainly the premier in my opinion recovery unit for 

our wounded warriors out there. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Thank you, sir. Frankly, I get the credit 

for the terrific work of a team at the Augusta VA Medical Center 

and at Eisenhower. We had a very farsighted group in both communities who recognized very early in the war the nature of the 

injuries that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines were suffering. The long experience that the Augusta VA Medical Center 

and many VAs throughout the system have in rehabilitative medicine, especially with blind and deaf and TBI and PTSD, which Secretary Mansfield has talked about already, I think was resident 

within those communities, and they reached out to us, just as we 

reached to them, and we continue to have a very collegial and cooperative relationship. 

It’s important to note that this was built on a relationship of cooperative agreements that go back in neurosurgery, that go back 

in cardiothoracic surgery between the two organizations, which set 

the framework for what you have there today. 

We really truly appreciate the support that you have given to 

this, that Senator Isakson has given, that Congressman Norwood, 

the late Charlie Norwood, gave to it, and now Congressman Broun 

gives to it. 

Senator Inhofe said something earlier that I think is very important and that is that his own—the revelation, the epiphany that he 

has experienced in going back into the VA system and seeing that 

this is such a high quality system. That insight, frankly, is one 

that all of our soldiers and their families need to recognize. Relationships such as we have at the Augusta VA Medical Center, but 

all our polytrauma units, if you’ve been to see them, tell us every 

day as well—it allows our soldiers and families, even if they come 

back into uniform, fully recovered and rehabilitated, it gives them 

an insight into what the VA medical system provides for them and 

much greater confidence through working knowledge of the VA. So 

these kinds of relationships are just absolutely fundamental. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Chambliss, thank you. 

55

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Army really has on its own initiative established this warrior transition brigade. As I understand it, this fine officer was introduced as the brigade commander, is that correct? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, sir. He’s the first brigade commander 

for the WTU. Colonel McKendrick is the commander of the only 

brigade within the WTUs. We have 34 other WTUs at the battalion 

and company level. 

Senator WARNER. They’re staffed accordingly to the need in that 

geographic jurisdiction? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Exactly, sir, on a standard Army document that provides staff in accordance with the number of patients 

and the severity of patients. 

Senator WARNER. Then, General, do you find it desirable if Congress were to recognize this in legislation at all? Or do you prefer 

to just leave it as it is right now? 

General SCHOOMAKER. I guess, sir, I need a little clarification as 

to how Congress wants to recognize it. 

Senator WARNER. Well, now, wait a minute. I’m not suggesting 

that Congress move in. This is an Army initiative. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, sir. 

Senator WARNER. It’s working. You may not need anything in 

there by Congress. But every now and then organizations need a 

little structural recognition in the law to stay alive after passage 

of time and other priorities begin to encroach on Army needs and 

so forth. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, sir. I believe in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 you gave us the right structure and the right imperative, without giving us such directive ratios of soldiers and patients, that we have the latitude to really 

make the judgments that we need to make, sir. 

Senator WARNER. Now, what about your staffing? Are you looking for volunteers to take this on? Is it career-enhancing? As you 

well know, that has to be somewhere in the residual recesses of 

every Army mind as he or she is moving up: Is this assignment 

going to help me move on to my next goal in the Army? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, sir. What we have done is, first of all 

we have codified the units in Army doctrine so that they have all 

of the necessary administrative tools to have an enduring presence 

within the Army. We have funded them. The Army has stepped forward very aggressively and put manpower against them. Despite 

a war and the challenges of deploying soldiers, they have placed 

2,500 soldiers against them and these are not traditional medics. 

What we see happening is that these positions represent for the 

cadre that fill those roles an opportunity for them to take a knee 

from constant deployment or recruiting duties or training duties 

and other things. We’ve also put special pays in for the NCO leadership. These are all signs that these are important jobs for the 

Army, and I think the visibility it’s given for the senior Army leadership and the emphasis that the Chief of Staff and the Secretary 

have given to this I think are all signs of the importance. 

Senator WARNER. What about Reserve and Guard members? 

They will be on equal par? 

56

General SCHOOMAKER. They are, sir. 

Senator WARNER. Do you have a quota for so many regular Army 

and so many who are Army reservists and so forth? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Absolutely, sir, to mirror the composition 

of the WTUs, so guardsmen and reservists are also present there, 

especially because of the special needs of the Guard and Reserve 

with respect to administrative and pay and travel issues and the 

like. 

Senator WARNER. Let’s go back to the family support, the parents, the spouses, and so forth. Do they have access to this organization to help get support? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Oh, yes, sir. Of course, the Army family 

is one of the cornerstones of the Army. We feel very strongly about 

the need to support our families. We have created Soldier and 

Family Assistance Centers at every one of our sites. 

Senator WARNER. But is this brigade also part of that infrastructure that the families can access? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Oh, absolutely, sir. 

Senator WARNER. The wife, parent, can walk right in and say, 

look, my soldier husband or son is just not able to get here today; 

I want to try to get this for him, and so forth? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, sir. The nurse case managers that 

are providing administrative oversight of the needs of that soldier 

I think also provide ingress for that. 

Have I depicted that correctly there? 

Secretary GEREN. Yes, sir. 

Senator WARNER. You’re satisfied that the budget and everything 

else is adequate to help the family members as they try to continue 

their roles of support for their spouses or sons as the case may be? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, sir. As we’ve identified challenges to 

these families to travel, for example, or to be there, be present and 

provide support for a wounded son or daughter or husband or wife, 

even non-marriage, non-medical attendance, we have reached out 

to them and have found the necessary funds to support their travel 

and presence. 

Senator WARNER. To our distinguished Secretary of Veterans Affairs, indeed I look back over your personal record of achievements. 

You’ve certainly served this Nation well. Thank you for continuing, 

Secretary Mansfield, in your role today. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Thank you. 

Senator WARNER. Have we covered here this morning—some of 

us in the course of votes missed some testimony—the disability rating for servicemembers, the pilot program? Have you testified 

about that this morning? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. We talked about it generally, sir. The pilot 

started. It’s up and running. We’ve had the first case run through 

the system. It’ll be running until November and we’ll be taking 

periodic looks at it. 

Senator WARNER. So that the record this morning has adequate 

testimony with regard to that very important program? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. I believe so, sir. 

Dr. CHU. Yes, sir, I agree. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much. 

57

How about the improvements in the DOD disability evaluation 

system? Have we covered that adequately this morning? 

Dr. CHU. Yes. That’s part and parcel of the same effort. 

Senator WARNER. All right. Mr. Chairman, I think you’ve conducted a very good hearing this morning. I have seen part of it. 

Secretary GEREN. Mr. Chairman, could I just make one point in 

response to Senator Warner? 

Chairman LEVIN. Please, Secretary Geren. 

Secretary GEREN. When the legislation was being developed for 

the Wounded Warrior Act there were those, many of them who 

were in the other body, that did advocate a fairly prescriptive approach to setting ratios and using statutes to set up these WTUs 

or systems to meet the needs of wounded warriors. We worked with 

this committee and you gave us the kind of flexibility that we felt 

was very important for us to be able to shape these units so that 

they were able to adjust to the dynamic situation that they’re 

asked to work in. We appreciate very much how this committee 

worked with us and provided us that kind of flexibility. 

We think that’s one of the success stories in this legislation that 

you passed—it gives these Army leaders the opportunity to be 

somewhat entrepreneurial. They did create this in a very short 

time out of whole cloth, a totally different approach, and they continue to adjust it. They continue to make improvements. 

General Schoomaker talked about this task force that he’s heading up to look at how we start accommodating the needs of some 

of these soldiers who are particularly vulnerable, that have all been 

brought together in these WTUs. He will continue to fine-tune this, 

as well as General Tucker and the others that are working in the 

area. So the flexibility that you gave us, I think, is very important 

as we shape this over the coming years, and we appreciate very 

much how you’ve given these great Army leaders the opportunity 

to be entrepreneurial, to do something that has not been done before. It’s a work in progress today, great progress, but a work in 

progress. 

Senator WARNER. The group of Army veterans—actually they’re 

Active Duty—is almost 10,000; is that correct? 

Secretary GEREN. Yes, sir. In the WTUs? 

Senator WARNER. Yes. 

Secretary GEREN. That’s Active, Guard, and Reserve, but they’re 

all currently on Active Duty. It’s about 9,600 right now. 

Senator WARNER. These, they go all the way from where they’re 

still getting treatment to this transition group, trying to integrate 

them back into the U.S. Army and find an MOS and a responsibility that they can fulfill the Army commensurate with such limitations as they might have as a consequence of their wounds; is 

that correct? 

Secretary GEREN. Yes, both to give them the opportunity and 

prepare them to return to duty or, if they’re going to transition to 

civilian life, to make sure that they are well-equipped to be productive citizens and anything we can do to prepare them for that. 

Senator WARNER. A number of these are accessing health care 

both within the regular Army and accessing it within the veterans 

organization; is that correct? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. That’s correct, sir. 

58

Senator WARNER. You’ve worked out a system where that can be 

done. 

These are really dramatic changes, Mr. Chairman, in the small 

period of a year’s time. You’re to be commended, each and every 

one of you. 

Dr. Chu, in the old Navy we used to get a red hash mark for 

every couple of years of service. How many years of service have 

you been coming before this committee? 

Dr. CHU. If I include my prior service, with my break in service 

here, it’s getting close to 20 years. 

Senator WARNER. 20 years. 

Chairman LEVIN. How many Purple Hearts have you been 

awarded—[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. For wounds inflicted by Congress. [Laughter.] 

Chairman LEVIN. I hadn’t finished the sentence, but he got it. 

Senator WARNER. That’s quite a record, Dr. Chu. 

Dr. CHU. Thank you, sir. 

Senator WARNER. That’s quite a record. 

Give your Secretary our best. Tell him you stood in very well for 

both the Deputy and Secretary Gates. All of us went home on that 

ice last night. It’s an experience. It could happen to anybody. 

Chairman LEVIN. Give our best to Secretary Gates. Tell Secretary England we didn’t miss him, you did fine. That will make 

his day, I’m sure. 

Secretary Geren, you made reference to flexibility. We did work 

with you very closely to give you flexibility and I think you and the 

others understand that that flexibility goes to how you accomplish 

the requirements, not whether the goal is achieved. I think it was 

the right thing to do and we’re more than happy to work with you, 

because we think you and the other witnesses and the Department 

are as determined as we are to get these changes made. So that’s 

what we’re relying on. That’s what our troops are relying on, and 

their families. 

We thank you for your testimony. We thank the soldiers for their 

service, for coming here this morning, and their families for the 

kind of support that they give, which is so essential to these programs working. 

With that, we will stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES

1. Senator BYRD. Secretary Chu, Public Law 110–28 requires the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to inspect and develop standards for medical treatment facilities 

(MTFs), and for medical hold and medical holdover personnel housing. Secretary 

England’s prepared testimony suggests that these standards were developed and the 

facilities were inspected. When can Congress expect to see a copy of the standards 

developed by the DOD? 

Dr. CHU. The Department already maintains standards for MTFs, and established 

standards for medical hold/holdover housing in September 2007. The inspections are 

complete, and the first Department consolidated summary inspection report, which 

includes a summary of the DOD standards for MTFs and medical hold/holdover 

housing, will soon be transmitted.

2. Senator BYRD. Secretary Chu, the same legislation required that not later than 

180 days after the date of the enactment, which was May 25, 2007, and annually 

thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall inspect each facility of the DOD as follows: 

59

Each military MTF; each military quarters housing medical hold personnel; and 

each military quarters housing medical holdover personnel. Secretary England’s prepared testimony states that each facility already has been inspected. Has each facility been inspected to the standards developed by the DOD? 

Dr. CHU. Yes. Each of the military Services has completed its inspections to the 

DOD standards.

3. Senator BYRD. Secretary Chu, were deficiencies noted during these inspections? 

Dr. CHU. Due to a substantial commitment of resources over the last year, urgent 

deficiencies have been corrected; and the inspections found that all MTFs providing 

care to wounded servicemembers and quarters housing medical hold and medical 

holdover personnel meet the DOD standards for maintenance and operation.

4. Senator BYRD. Secretary Chu, what were the principal types of deficiencies 

noted? 

Dr. CHU. The primary type of deficiencies noted and corrected concerned accessibility requirements.

5. Senator BYRD. Secretary Chu, when can we expect to begin seeing these reports 

as required by the law? 

Dr. CHU. The DOD’s first consolidated summary inspection will soon be transmitted.

6. Senator BYRD. Secretary Chu, given the deficiencies reported last year, has the 

cost of correcting deficiencies identified during the standards inspections been included in the fiscal year 2009 DOD budget request? 

Dr. CHU. With regard to housing for medical hold and holdover personnel, the correction of urgent deficiencies has been funded with the fiscal year 2007 and fiscal 

year 2008 operations and maintenance (O&M) appropriations. However, the military 

Services consider much of the current housing for medical hold and holdover personnel to be an interim solution. Accordingly, the President’s fiscal year 2008 military construction budget request included two new wounded servicemember barracks for the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton, CA, and Camp Lejeune, NC. The 

Department is grateful for congressional support and approval of these important 

projects. The President’s fiscal year 2008 global war on terror military construction 

budget request included seven Army Medical Action Plan (AMAP) projects, two of 

which had Warrior in Transition (WT) barracks: Fort Riley, KS, and Fort Drum, 

NY. The Department is assessing the need for additional AMAP military construction projects in future budget requests. 

Regarding MTFs, the correction of urgent deficiencies has been funded with fiscal 

year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 O&M appropriations. The inspections did not include 

a comprehensive assessment of the aging environments at these MTFs and how 

they compare to those of civilian world class facilities. The Department is assessing 

the need for additional medical military construction projects in future budget requests to provide world class healing environments in a new era of health facilities 

that improve clinical outcomes, patient and staff safety, and operational efficiencies. 

The President’s fiscal year 2008 global war on terror budget request did include 

funding to accelerate construction and enhance clinical capabilities in support of our 

wounded servicemembers at the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 

Bethesda, MD, and new Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, VA. It also included a 

Burn Rehabilitation Center project for our wounded servicemembers at the new San 

Antonio Military Medical Center, TX.

7. Senator BYRD. Secretary Chu, in the development of standards for the maintenance and operation of military medical facilities, Congress intended to ensure that 

military medical facilities meet generally acceptable standards for the maintenance 

and operation of such facilities or quarters, as the case may be; and, where appropriate, standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and that they 

be developed at the earliest date practicable to ensure that our service men and 

women receive the care they have earned. 

Please explain the nature of concrete progress made in meeting these requirements, and, again, when can Congress begin to see the routine flow of reports from 

the medical services of the DOD detailing deficiencies as well as steps that the DOD 

is taking to correct them? 

Dr. CHU. The DOD already maintains standards for MTFs, and DOD established 

standards for medical hold/holdover housing in September 2007. The inspections are 

complete, and the Department’s first consolidated summary inspection report, which 

60

includes a summary of DOD standards for MTFs and medical hold/holdover housing, 

will be submitted to Congress shortly. 

The Department made a substantial commitment of resources over the last year 

to correct urgent deficiencies (mostly to meet accessibility requirements). The inspections found that all MTFs providing care to wounded servicemembers, and quarters housing medical hold and medical holdover personnel meet DOD standards for 

maintenance and operation. If further inspections reveal any major deficiencies, the 

reports will be submitted in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), sections 1648 and 1662. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PROVIDERS

8. Senator LIEBERMAN. Secretary Geren, the shortage of behavioral health care 

providers in the United States is well-documented, in both the military and civilian 

sectors. However, the acute mental health needs of many servicemembers are exacerbating the shortages of uniformed behavioral health providers within the DOD. 

In turn, this shortage poses a significant barrier to adequately addressing problems 

with identification of mental health problems, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and access to appropriate Services. I am currently working with Senator Boxer to introduce legislation that ensures that each of the Services has the 

necessary financial incentives to recruit and retain uniformed behavioral health providers, which are especially critical given our current deployment and stateside behavioral health needs. Are there specific authorizations that the Department currently does not have, but that would assist, in recruiting and retaining uniformed 

behavioral health professionals? 

Secretary GEREN. The passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, specifically section 661 (Consolidation of Special Pay, Incentive Pay 

and Bonus authorities of the Uniformed Services), provides a degree of flexibility 

which will be helpful. Section 661 appears to provide sufficient authority to institute 

the recruitment and retention programs, and we will work with the DOD to implement them. We will need to evaluate these programs as they progress. If our analysis indicates that the new legislative authorities are not effective, we will work 

with Congress to develop additional solutions.

9. Senator LIEBERMAN. Secretary Geren, what steps has the Department taken to 

retain uniformed behavioral health providers in each Service and what analyses 

have been conducted to determine how many additional uniformed Service providers 

are needed? 

Secretary GEREN. The Army has received authorization for and implemented the 

Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) for Clinical Psychologists at a rate of 

$13,000/year for 2 years or $25,000/year for 3 years. Additionally, the Health Professions Loan Repayment Program is available for the retention of 20 Clinical Psychologists and 20 Social Workers at the current rate of $38,437 per year. Social 

Workers in the grade of captain are eligible for the Army CSRB at the rate of 

$25,000 for a 3-year Active Duty service obligation. Psychiatrists who execute a 

multi-year special pay contract (extending their Active Duty service obligation) are 

paid at the rates of $17,000/year for a 2-year contract, $25,000/year for a 3-year contract and $33,000/year for a 4-year contract. 

The Army performs regular force management analyses of operational forces as 

part of the Total Army Analysis. In Theater, the Army has taken the additional step 

of reviewing the quantity and distribution of mental health assets as part of the annual Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) assessments. The Army uses the Automated Staffing Assessment Model (ASAM) to determine appropriate staffing requirements in our military treatment facilities (MTFs). Our manpower experts significantly revised the ASAM 2 years ago to reflect the additional psychological 

stresses on soldiers and their families as a result of the war. This revision led to 

increased requirements for behavioral health providers. Additionally, in the spring 

of 2007 the Army Medical Command queried each MTF to identify shortfalls in behavioral healthcare staffing requirements. This afforded hospital commanders the 

opportunity to validate ASAM-recommended levels or identify additional needs.

10. Senator LIEBERMAN. Secretary Geren, given deployment needs, to what extent 

is the Army focused on recruiting and retaining uniformed behavioral health professionals rather than civilian providers? 

61

Secretary GEREN. We are equally focused on recruiting and retaining both uniformed and civilian providers. The military and civilian mix within the Army’s behavioral health community is the result of many deliberate processes. The military 

authorizations present in our deploying units are carefully developed, reviewed, and 

codified in our Tables of Organization and Equipment. The military authorizations 

in our fixed facilities are also derived by a deliberate process. To focus on military 

or civilian providers to the detriment of the other is unhealthy for our total team. 

We continue to pursue all actions to recruit and retain to 100 percent of our military 

authorizations while at the same time recruiting and retaining civilians.

MILITARY TREATMENT FACILITIES

11. Senator LIEBERMAN. Secretary Chu, my staff has been traveling to military 

installations across the country to assess medical and behavioral health needs and 

resources in the system. It is evident from their visits that there is a growing strain 

on our military health care system. In particular, the reduction in uniformed health 

care providers appears to be placing a distinct strain on the military health care 

system because of the dual deployment and stateside staffing requirements within 

MTFs of personnel. This appears to have created an overreliance in many specialties 

on contracted providers. 

What models has DOD and each of the Services used in determining uniformed, 

government service, and contractor staffing requirements for MTFs? Have these 

models been adjusted for peacetime and wartime requirements, and for the demographic changes in the forces? 

Dr. CHU. Service and local level medical administrators apply models that work 

best for their settings, mission requirements, and available military and local assets. 

A recent DOD-level initiative developed a specific model for staffing of mental 

health providers across the Services that is currently being validated by the Center 

for Naval Analyses. This population- and risk-based model accounted for multiple 

factors in making recommendations for the number and types of mental health providers at MTFs. The specific factors included:

• number of Active Duty (AD) members 

• number of family members and percentage that use military providers 

• number of other eligible beneficiaries 

• number of individuals at an MTF with a diagnosis of PTSD 

• average number of mental health (MH) visits per year of those with 

PTSD diagnoses 

• number of AD members to be deployed in the next year 

• number of accredited psychology training programs in MTFs in the area 

• number of accredited psychiatry training programs located in MTFs in 

the area 

• number of MH techs assigned to inpatient psychiatric units 

• number of MH nurses assigned to inpatient psychiatric units 

• number of social workers primarily assigned to inpatient psychiatric 

units 

• number of psychologists assigned to inpatient psychiatric units 

• number of psychiatrists primarily assigned to inpatient psychiatric units

12. Senator LIEBERMAN. Secretary Chu, what proportion, Department-wide and 

for each of the Services, of the health care work force is comprised of General Schedule employees, contractors, and uniformed providers? How do the proportions differ 

from previous years? 

Dr. CHU. We have sound data on government civil servants and uniformed personnel. Contractors are locally controlled and based on budget so, although we suspect an increase of contractor full-time equivalents (FTEs) we do not have reliable 

centralized numbers. The proportion of government civil servants has increased 

from 26 percent to 30 percent. At the same time, the combined numbers have gone 

from 156,609 to 156,409. 

62

13. Senator LIEBERMAN. Secretary Chu, how has core funding to staff MTFs been 

allocated, Department-wide and for each of the Services, to support uniformed providers, General Schedule employees, and contractors? 


213ful3.eps 213ful4.eps
63

14. Senator LIEBERMAN. Secretary Chu, to what extent has the medical system 

utilized recalled retirees? 

Dr. CHU. The Services medical systems are all utilizing voluntary retiree recall 

but none have used involuntary retiree recall. Voluntary retiree recall has been used 

predominantly for senior individuals who are in key positions, clinical or administrative, and facing mandatory retirement. The numbers are small with the Army 

using the most, 165 since 2004.

15. Senator LIEBERMAN. Secretary Chu, would it be beneficial to extend the period 

of time for which they could voluntarily serve after being recalled to alleviate health 

care workforce shortages? 

Dr. CHU. Individuals under voluntary retiree recall serve to support contingency 

operations in which the Secretary of the Service authorizes the recall. Retired soldiers are only mobilized for Active Duty to support a national emergency and the 

build-up of forces when personnel requirements cannot be met using Active personnel, National Guard, or Reserve Forces. The mobilization and recall of retired 

soldiers normally requires the approval of the Secretary of the military department. 

When the campaign ends, the recall will be ended. Most retiree recalls during this 

contingency have committed to serving for 2 years. At the end of that tour, some 

have extended. We have not had problems related to tour lengths being too short.

WARRIOR TRANSITION UNITS

16. Senator LIEBERMAN. General Schoomaker, I recently learned about your efforts to investigate a series of deaths that have occurred in warrior transition units 

(WTUs), which you believe may be related to drug and/or alcohol overdoses. Many 

of the young men and women assigned to WTUs are convalescing after serious physical and psychological injuries, and are not only using prescription drugs, but also 

abusing them in conjunction with other substances, such as illegal drugs and alcohol. The WTUs are already playing a critical role in efficiently addressing the needs 

of servicemembers with significant injuries. However, their work is especially complicated because, in many cases, they serve a high-risk population because of the 

nature and complexity of the injuries; therefore, I applaud your efforts to examine 

this issue further and then to put into place necessary safeguards to address any 

problems that may be uncovered. How will the investigation be conducted? 

General SCHOOMAKER. The Army established a cross-functional Tiger Team consisting of psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, safety experts, criminal investigation agents, WTU commanders, first sergeants, and sergeants major to examine the soldier deaths that have occurred in WTUs. First, the 

team reviewed every Serious Incident Report since June 2007 and catalogued all 

WT deaths and serious incidents. The team identified 12 deaths and 29 incidents 

that merited further review through root cause analysis and a four-step risk management process.

Step One—Risk Identification—analyzed and identified sources of risk. 

Step Two—Risk Assessment—assessed risk in terms of severity of impact, likelihood of occurring, and controllability. 

Step Three—Risk Response Development—developed strategies to reduce 

possible damage and developed contingency plans. 


213ful5.eps
64

Step Four—Risk Response Control—implemented risk strategies, monitored and adjusted the plan for new risks, and instituted changes.

Team members aggregated findings and recommendations from the risk management review and assembled a list of recommendations designed to protect soldiers 

and further reduce the likelihood of serious incident. I received an interim report 

on February 12, 2008, from the Tiger Team, with recommendations for 71 initiatives. The team is already implementing 18 of the initiatives and is continuing to 

address concerns related to deaths and serious incidents in our WTUs.

17. Senator LIEBERMAN. General Schoomaker, what safeguards do you anticipate 

may need to be put in place? 

General SCHOOMAKER. The Tiger Team recommended 71 initiatives in their interim report, including 18 that could be implemented on or about March 3, 2008. 

Some of these actions include the following:

• Create an alcohol-free zone around WTU billets and on-post lodging facilities to ensure that WTs do not consume alcohol within their barracks 

rooms. 

• Conduct a risk assessment for each WT to determine those at high risk. 

Each assessment is individualized and considers input received from the 

primary care manager (PCM), nurse case manager, squad leader, as well 

as other WTU staff and health care professionals. 

• Annotate a ‘‘no alcohol’’ order on a soldier’s physical profile when the 

PCM determines that consumption of alcohol poses unacceptable risk to a 

soldier due to a particular medical condition and/or medication regimen. 

The soldier’s WTU commander counsels the WT in writing that he or she 

is prohibited from consuming alcohol. 

• Link pharmacy support to each WTU for consultation and training on the 

dangers of abuse. 

• Conduct family and social support assessments during in-processing and 

during weekly nurse case manager contacts in order to determine and document in each WT’s medical record potential broken relationships. 

• Coordinate and identify a location to store privately-owned weapons. 

• Review each WT’s pay to determine if there are any indicators of financial stress or similar issues. 

• Ensure that each WT and their family received a reintegration briefing 

as part of the soldier and family orientation. 

• Educate all VIP escorts, family, and staff on the risks associated with 

providing alcohol to WTs who are on medications. 

• Train all platoon sergeants and squad leaders, as well as other WTU staff 

as directed by the WTU commander, in Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation 

(CPR) and provide pocket masks and gloves.

Additional initiatives are being developed and will be implemented in a phased 

manner by May 15, 2008, and August 15, 2008, to create the most secure environment possible to protect WTs and their families.

18. Senator LIEBERMAN. General Schoomaker, are substance abuse services working closely in conjunction with WTUs in all locations? 

General SCHOOMAKER. The Army is currently evaluating ways to improve the 

communication capabilities between Army OneSource and MTFs and WTUs in order 

to better serve WTs and their families. The AMAP addresses substance abuse services as a primary responsibility of the Soldier Family Assistance Centers operated 

by the Army’s Installation Management Command (IMCOM). IMCOM also operates 

the Army OneSource website where soldiers can seek and obtain assistance and referral for substance abuse.

19. Senator LIEBERMAN. General Schoomaker, can you describe how WTUs work 

in concert with the substance abuse programs? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Key to the success of managing care and support for WTs 

and their families is the Comprehensive Care Plan which is developed for each WT 

and managed by the members of the care triad. The Comprehensive Care Plan includes critical care functions of psychosocial assessment, addiction therapy, and behavioral health treatment for WTs. Additionally, WTU staff includes social workers 

who provide further support for soldiers and their families. Resources are also available through the local MTF and the Army Medical Command to address any substance abuse needs.

65

20. Senator LIEBERMAN. General Schoomaker, what other challenges can you identify in standing up the WTUs? 

General SCHOOMAKER. The most significant challenge in establishing WTUs is the 

recruitment, assignment, and development of a fully-trained and committed staff for 

all 35 WTUs. It has taken a great deal of effort over a short timeline to ensure that 

each and every member of the WTU staff understands the unique demands and 

challenges caring for wounded, ill, and injured soldiers requires, as well as possessing the courage, commitment, compassion, and dedication required to meet 

these challenges. The Army Medical Department remains committed to meeting 

these challenges by providing the resources, facilities, and training that WTU staff, 

WTs, and their family members require to recover, rehabilitate, and reintegrate either to continued military Service, or as veterans prepared to be productive and successful citizens. In addition to the ongoing challenge of sustaining and improving 

this program, there remains a requirement to fund and complete necessary construction of accessible housing, adequate administrative facilities, and Soldier Family Assistance Centers, all developed in close proximity to each other and to the 

MTF to create Warrior Transition Complexes. These complexes will provide WTs 

and their families ease of access to the care and support they require. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA

VETERANS AFFAIRS CLAIMS

21. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Mansfield, I recently introduced legislation which 

would establish a presumption in the Veterans Affairs (VA) claims adjudication 

process for combat experience. Among other things, this bill is designed to reduce 

delays in the disability adjudication process. I understand that VA currently has an 

ongoing process to address this issue. Please provide details on what the VA is already doing. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) currently enables ‘‘any veteran who engaged in combat with the enemy’’ to show service connection for an injury or disease 

using only lay evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

has held that ’’[t]he statute does not provide a relaxed standard of proof for determining whether a veteran engaged in combat.’’ Rather, according to the Court, a 

veteran must first establish that he or she engaged in combat with the enemy in 

order for a veteran to be able to show service connection for an injury using only 

lay evidence under 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b). The VA therefore does not have an ongoing 

process, other than case-by-case adjudications, to address proof of combat for purposes of section 1154(b). 

With regard to claims for service connection for PTSD, the veteran’s testimony 

alone establishes the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor if the evidence of 

record confirms the veteran engaged in combat or was a prisoner of war. VA considers the receipt of certain individual decorations as evidence of exposure to combat-related stressors. In addition, on January 23, 2008, the Compensation and Pension Service instructed field offices that, if a veteran was diagnosed with PTSD 

while on Active Duty, that diagnosis is sufficient to warrant an examination for the 

condition without additional preliminary development.

22. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Mansfield, in 1998, VA and DOD signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to implement a common physical examination. In 

2003, the President’s Task Force for Improving Health Care Delivery recommended 

that all servicemembers upon separation receive a physical accepted by both VA and 

DOD. Where are DOD and VA on this matter? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. The 1998 MOA between VA and the DOD was for a cooperative single separation exam at VA benefits delivery at discharge sites. If a 

servicemember decides to file a claim for VA disability and is also required to undergo a military separation physical, then only one exam is performed and VA’s protocols are used. 

In November 2004, VA and DOD signed another memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) to implement the single cooperative exam. To date, 130 military installations 

are covered by this agreement. A new pilot program that began on November 26, 

2007, in the National Capital Region further uses the single cooperative examination in the disability evaluation system (DES), for servicemembers undergoing the 

medical evaluation board/physical evaluation board (MEB/PEB) process. DOD will 

use this program to determine fitness for continued military Service, and VA will 

use the program to determine Service-connected disabilities and their severity for 

purposes of compensation. In the pilot, DOD accepts the tentative VA assigned evalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Nov 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45276.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
66

uations for purposes of determining entitlement to severance pay or disability retirement.

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE MEMBERS

23. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Chu, the recent report of the Commission on the 

National Guard and Reserves discussed how best to provide transition assistance to 

members of the Guard and Reserves during the demobilization process. The Commission’s report embraced the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration program pioneer by the 

Minnesota National Guard. The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 

authorized DOD to administer this program for all National Guard and Reserve 

members and their families. I understand the timeline for this program is in conflict 

with current policy for when returning Guard and Reserve have their first drill. 

What is being done to eliminate this conflict, implement this program, and to improve the transition process for members of the Guard and Reserve? 

Dr. CHU. The Department is committed to supporting National Guard and Reserve members and their families throughout the deployment cycle. The DOD already has pilot programs in 15 States that provide services and support to Reserve 

component members and their families, and plans to expand the program to all 54 

States and territories. The Department plans to establish the Office for Reintegration Programs within the near future, and has already begun establishing the Advisory Board, and identifying key staff for this office and the Center for Excellence. 

Regarding the policy restriction on performing inactive duty training immediately 

following demobilization, the Department is revising the policy to allow the Services 

to require demobilized members to participate in reintegration training and activities.

SCREENING FOR SERVICEMEMBERS

24. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Chu, VA is currently screening all returning veterans who seek treatment with VA to see if they may have experienced a traumatic 

brain injury (TBI). Shouldn’t such a screening be done for all returning 

servicemembers during the demobilization process? 

Dr. CHU. All servicemembers, including the Guard and Reserve component, complete assessments when returning from deployments. The Post-Deployment Health 

Assessment (PDHA) is required within 30 days of returning from deployment and 

the servicemembers complete the Post-Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA) 

90–180 days after returning from deployment. During these assessments, servicemembers answer questions where they can identify possible TBI experiences and 

discuss the experiences with a health care provider. 

The DOD and VA jointly developed the set of TBI screening questions. The DOD/

VA Joint Executive Committee mandated that the same set of questions be used by 

both agencies. DOD developed new PDHA and PDHRA forms with these TBI screening questions. The new forms were officially published on September 11, 2007. Since 

then, the Services have worked hard to modify their respective electronic data collection systems. They finished this work in late December. In addition, the Armed 

Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC), which is the repository for the electronic forms, has successfully tested data feeds from the Army, Air Force, and Navy 

systems. No problems were identified. 

Now that the technical solutions are operational, the Services will start using the 

new forms for health assessments. The exact starting dates will vary with each 

Service. To ensure a smooth and timely start, a policy memorandum establishes a 

60-day implementation phase during which AFHSC will accept both the old and new 

versions of the forms. 

Meanwhile, the Services have been encouraged to start using the new versions of 

the forms immediately rather than wait for the formal announcement of what they 

already know is necessary. The Army plans to start selected pilot tests of the new 

forms before April 1, 2008. The Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard will all start 

using the forms in March 2008.

25. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Chu, during a recent Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing, testimony was heard that servicemembers returning from Operation 

Iraqi Freedom (OIF)/Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) who answer questions on 

the PDHA related to PTSD or TBI in the affirmative run the risk of being denied 

post-deployment leave. 

How do we get servicemembers to answer these questionnaires honestly, without 

being concerned about the inability to go on leave? 

67

Dr. CHU. Any time we ask people questions about their health, there is always 

a chance that they may need an urgent evaluation. However, delays such as you 

describe are exceedingly uncommon. Most of the PDHAs are accomplished before the 

servicemembers leave the theater of operations. A health care provider determines 

whether any urgent evaluation is necessary. Urgent referrals are highly unusual, 

unless the individual expresses a serious intent to hurt themselves or someone else. 

The examples you mention, PTSD and TBI, would not fit in this category. Those 

diagnoses merit prompt follow-up, which can be accomplished after the servicemember returns home. The large units returning from the theater are normally 

busy with various demobilizing tasks for several days before the individual members 

disperse to their homes. This allows plenty of time for urgent referrals to be handled 

on-site, or for education and reassurance to be provided to those who can safely follow up later on. There will always be some people who choose to answer these questions inaccurately, despite all the evidence to the contrary and the reassurances 

given during the assessment itself. It is clear that most people do not fall into this 

category based on the number of positive responses we see on the PDHA forms, both 

those accomplished in theater and those completed at the demobilization sites.

WOUNDED SERVICEMEMBERS

26. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Mansfield and Secretary Chu, I remain concerned 

that VA and DOD do not have a common definition for which servicemembers are 

seriously injured, wounded, and ill. What is the operational definition that is being 

applied in deciding which servicemembers will be considered for assignment to a VA 

Federal Recovery Care Coordinator? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Within 3 days of admission to a MTF, a multidisciplinary 

team reviews the servicemember’s case using the following criteria to determine if 

assignment to the Federal recovery care program is in order:

• In acute care at MTF 

• Diagnosis of spinal cord injury, burn, amputation, visual impairment and/

or TBI/PTSD 

• At risk because of psychological complications (psychological and family 

assessment) 

• Patient self-referral based on ability to benefit 

• Command referral based on ability to benefit

These criteria are applied without regard to Active component/Reserve component 

status. No one will be denied entry into the Federal recovery care program. 

Dr. CHU. Eligibility criteria for wounded, ill, or injured enrollment into the Federal Recovery Coordinator Program for Active and Reserve personnel serving on Active Duty includes the following conditions: (1) being treated in an acute care setting 

within a MTF and expected to receive greater than or equal to 30 percent military 

Service disability rating; (2) diagnosed or referred with one or more of the following 

conditions: spinal cord injury, burns, amputation, visual impairment, TBI, and/or 

PTSD; (3) considered at risk for psychosocial complications (identified through psychosocial and family assessment); (4) self-referral based on perceived ability to benefit from a Federal Individual Recovery Plan (FIRP), or Command referral based on 

ability to benefit from a FIRP. The basis of the origin of a wound, illness, or injury 

is not a discriminator for enrollment in the FIRP.

POST-DEPLOYMENT HEALTH REASSESSMENT

27. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Mansfield and Secretary Chu, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report on the effectiveness of the PostDeployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA) for members of the Guard and Reserve. 

I am concerned that those who are in units of less than 60 personnel or who are 

individually deployed may not be getting appropriate attention. What steps are 

being taken to ensure that any identified medical needs of this population are being 

met through either DOD or VA? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. The VA has been an active partner in working with Reserve and National Guard Units on the PDHRA initiative since the pilot began in 

November 2005. All Reserve and National Guard servicemembers returning from 

deployment are required to participate in the PDHRA screening 90–180 days postdeployment. VA medical centers and veteran centers provide either on-site staff support or PDHRA event assistance for all Reserve and National Guard servicemembers referred from a PDHRA screening event. This includes those referred from 

remote/rural areas. VA and veteran center staff have participated in PDHRA events 

68

held in Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, along with rural 

areas across the continental United States. 

The VA has had a strong partnership alliance since late 2005 with the National 

Guard Bureau’s transition assistance advisors (TAAs) based at all National Guard 

Headquarters. VA has been involved in training and ongoing coordination activities 

for the TAAs, who are based in all 50 States as well as Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, 

Guam, and the District of Columbia. The TAAs work closely with local VA medical 

centers and vet centers to assure that referral linkages are in place between VA and 

National Guard Units to include those located in remote/rural areas. 

Readjustment Counseling Service has robust outreach initiatives in place covering 

remote/rural settings. Coverage of Reserve and National Guard units are critical 

components of their outreach efforts. 

Dr. CHU. The DOD carefully designed the PDHRA program to include a variety 

of options just for the reason you mentioned. The Department always recognized 

that it would be much more difficult to reach out to smaller units or individuals. 

This is precisely why we established a call center, so that it would be available for 

anybody, anywhere, anytime. The attention provided by the call center is the equal 

of what occurs during on-site visits in all respects. The only difference is that the 

servicemember speaks to a health care provider on the phone rather than across a 

desktop. The Department recognizes that some people are critical of this lack of a 

face-to-face interaction. However, there are many people who are more comfortable 

and honest, discussing sensitive topics like mental health concerns, over a phone 

with someone who is far away and who cannot be seen. This is simply another variation of telemedicine, which has been shown to be very effective in several health 

fields. The call center has been highly successful and a desired method, assessing 

more than 7,000 servicemembers in January 2008 alone. 

The call center also makes follow-up calls to see if the servicemembers who received referrals from either an on-site or telephonic assessment obtained an appointment. If not, the call center staff offers to help the servicemember. In addition, DOD 

has contracted with Vanderbilt University to perform a formal process evaluation 

of the various ways we accomplish PDHRAs, such as comparing the success of the 

call center compared to on-site team visits. 

The Department has decreased the threshold for the number of servicemembers 

required to qualify for an on-site team from 60 to 40. This was possible through 

thoughtful reengineering of the traveling team members’ skill sets and other process 

revisions that increased scheduling flexibility and allows us to send teams to smaller units than before. This combination approach allows us to reach most units with 

on-site teams, if that is what the commander would prefer, with the call center 

available as an effective alternative for the rest of the units.

TRANSITION ASSISTANCE

28. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Chu, I understand last August DOD released a 

memo to the Services expressing Secretary Gates’ commitment to increase participation by demobilizing Guard and Reserve personnel in the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and Disabled Transition Assistance Program (DTAP) to 85 percent. 

Where is DOD on implementing the Secretary’s guidance? 

Dr. CHU. The Department is working aggressively to ensure that the Active and 

Reserve components are prepared and equipped to meet the 85 percent target to 

which the Secretary has committed. The Department is reviewing current transition 

assistance materials and delivery techniques by the Services, the Department of 

Labor (DOL) and the VA to determine where technology and the latest learning 

methodologies can enhance the learning experience. Through technology, the support material for transition assistance can be more accessible globally to the 

servicemembers, their families, the Service providers, and the commands. 

As a result of the memo noted above (attachment 1), meetings were held with the 

Service Assistant Secretaries for Manpower and Reserve Affairs to survey what each 

of the Services was already doing to meet this goal and to address how they would 

ensure each of their Services did fully comply. 

As an outcome of that session, the Department established the TAP Executive 

Steering Committee (attachment 2), which consists of a senior DOD, DOL, and VA 

panel that includes the Department’s Deputy Under Secretary for Military Community and Family Policy, the Deputy Assistant Secretaries of each of the Services, as 

well as the Guard and Reserves, and senior officers who have had field operational 

experience. The Steering Committee’s charter is to determine what needs to be 

done, and then establish an overarching plan to support and implement the proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Nov 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45276.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
69

grams and procedures determined by the Executive Steering Committee needed to 

attain the 85 percent commitment. 

To ensure Reserve component involvement is a part of this effort, the Department 

released a memo (attachment 3) to the Services and to senior Guard and Reserve 

Commanders, to encourage their subordinate commanders to strongly support and 

aggressively market this effort through Guard and Reserve family support networks 

and service organizations to all Guard and Reserve members and their families. 

So that Guard and Reserve commanders are successful in this effort, DOD is prepared to send mobile training teams to premobilization and demobilization sites, or 

to State and local Guard and Reserve units that request assistance in training their 

personnel on how to access programs and information applicable to benefits and 

support functions. The mission and scope of the Guard- and Reserve-centric Mobile 

Training Teams is provided in attachment 4. 

The Army has linked the Turbo Transition Assistance Program (TurboTAP.org) 

Web site to their Army Career and Alumni Program (ACAP) On-Line Home page. 

ACAP counselors inform servicemembers during preseparation counseling about 

TurboTAP and encourage them to register with the Web site. Mobilized Reserve 

component servicemembers who are severely wounded or injured while on Active 

Duty are reassigned to the wounded WTU. 

In a February 26, 2008, memo to all wing commanders, the Air Force Reserve 

Command strongly encouraged eligible reservists and their families to use the TAP 

and DTAP. The memo provides primary points-of-contact for TAP and DTAP, which 

are the Airman and Family Readiness Directors or Liaisons. Family Readiness personnel are maximizing their marketing efforts of this extremely important program 

to all reservists and their families. 

70


213ful6.eps
71


213ful7.eps
72


213ful8.eps
73

29. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Mansfield, what is VA doing to improve the transition process for the Guard and Reserve? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Increasing the number of demobilizing Guard and Reserve 

personnel who attend TAP and DTAP is a high priority for VA. DOD recently proposed establishing a TAP Executive Steering Committee to ensure that TAP and 

DTAP participation is increased to 85 percent. VA will work closely with DOD in 

establishing the committee to formulate plans to reach this goal. 


213ful9.eps
74

With the activation and deployment of large numbers of Reserve/National Guard 

members to Afghanistan and Iraq, VA is working with DOD to expand outreach to 

returning Reserve/National Guard members and their families. When units of Reserves or National Guard members are returning home, VA provides briefings and 

assists with filing claims. 

An MOA was signed in 2005 between VA and the National Guard Bureau to institutionalize this partnership and to support better communication between the two. 

VA is encouraging State National Guard coalitions to improve local communication and coordination of benefits briefings to assure that National Guard and Reserve members are fully aware of benefits. In 33 States, MOUs have been signed 

between VA, the State National Guard offices, and the State VA to promote the relationship and cooperation to provide services and benefits to their members. 

VA has an MOA with the Army Reserve in the concurrence process that will formalize this relationship as we did with the National Guard. We are also working 

on MOUs with the other Reserve components to formalize those relationships. 

The National Guard Bureau employs 57 transition assistance advisors (TAAs) for 

the 50 States and four territories. Their primary function is to serve as the statewide point of contact and coordinator, providing advice to Guard members and their 

families on VA benefits and services and assisting in resolving problems with VA 

health care, benefits, and TRICARE. VA and the National Guard Bureau teamed 

up at the beginning of the program in February 2006 to provide training to the 

TAAs on VA services and benefits and help define their role as VA advocates. VA 

participates in annual refresher training for the TAAs, as well as the monthly TAA 

conference calls. 

Each regional office has an OEF/OIF manager who is responsible for overseeing 

the OEF/OIF workload and outreach initiatives. These responsibilities include working closely with the National Guard and Reserve units to obtain service treatment 

records. OEF/OIF managers work with military medical facilities to ensure timely 

notification of casualty arrivals and to develop procedures for scheduling ward visits. Managers also work closely with Reserve/Guard Units to coordinate and provide 

benefits briefings. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EVAN BAYH

HEALTH CARE FOR SERVICEMEMBERS

30. Senator BAYH. Secretaries England, Mansfield, Geren, Chu, and General 

Schoomaker, I’ve been told that one of the immediate hurdles in increasing the pool 

of private mental health and other medical professionals available for our soldiers 

outside of the DOD or VA systems is current law. As I understand, in order for psychiatrists, neurologists, or other medical professionals to provide TRICARE services, 

they must also accept the Medicare reimbursement. Is that the most significant hurdle we face as a Nation in providing more private health care providers to wounded 

soldiers or veterans? 

Secretary ENGLAND and Dr. CHU. Even though we have not seen persistent access 

problems, in those locations where certain health care specialties are limited, we 

would like a larger pool of providers. To help ensure continued access to quality private sector care, our managed care support contractors have added nearly 2,800 behavioral health providers to the network since May 2007. In addition, in December 

2007, we instituted a behavioral health care appointment assistance service to aid 

Active Duty personnel and their enrolled family members in obtaining timely mental health care. 

While TRICARE’s reimbursement of professional providers is based upon the 

methodology used by Medicare, a provider does not have to accept Medicare reimbursement in order to provide TRICARE services. A TRICARE provider has the option of becoming a network provider where negotiated discounts are expected, provide services by participating on a claim by claim basis and accepting the TRICARE 

payment as payment in full, or provide services as a non-participating provider and 

bill up to 115 percent of TRICARE maximum allowable amount. 

Legislative initiatives to link the DOD and Medicare payment rates for health 

care began in the early 1980s and the NDAA for Fiscal Year 1996 codified the linkage to Medicare payment amounts. Based upon prior concerns involving the adequacy of TRICARE physician payment rates, a GAO review was conducted in 1998 

that found that the professional provider methodology was sound and that DOD was 

saving about $770 million annually as a result of these maximum allowable charges. 

In 2001 GAO conducted another study to determine whether increases in professional payment rates would be beneficial. That report concluded that changing the 

75

reimbursement rate would be costly, inflationary, and largely unnecessary. Due to 

concerns about payment rates in those localities where access was a problem, the 

NDAA for Fiscal Year 2001 granted new flexibility to increase TRICARE reimbursement rates in areas where access to health care services is severely impaired. The 

Department has implemented that authority; for example, we recently granted a 

waiver for child psychiatry services in Key West, FL. The Department will continue 

to use this authority to raise reimbursement rates where access to care is a demonstrated issue. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. For eligible veterans, VA facilities are permitted to use 

qualified and licensed private health care providers to provide medical services 

through our fee basis program. VA has the ability to enter into contracts with qualified health care providers through several statutory authorities (38 U.S.C. 1703, 

7409, 8153). 

As a Federal health care payer, VA finds many community health care providers 

expect assignment of payment at Medicare rates. When VA authorizes medical care 

in the community, in advance of treatment, payment for professional services is generally at the 100 percent Medicare allowable reimbursement rate for most geographic areas. 

VA has authority to exceed the 100 percent Medicare allowable reimbursement for 

services purchased in Alaska. 

The reimbursement methodology and payment terms for fee-basis care are set out 

in VA’s regulations at 38 CFR 17.55 and 17.56. 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. Reimbursement rates are not the 

most significant hurdle we face in providing more private health care providers to 

wounded soldiers and veterans. Title 10 requires TRICARE reimbursement, often 

referred to as the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charge (CMAC), for civilian 

healthcare providers to match MEDICARE reimbursement rates. Generally, 

TRICARE and MEDICARE reimbursement rates are the same. This provision provides TRICARE with an industry accepted reimbursement system. Title 10 does authorize the Secretary of Defense to approve exceptions to this rule. Higher reimbursement amounts may be authorized if it is necessary to assure that covered 

beneficiaries retain adequate access to healthcare services. An example of this exception is the Alaska demonstration project. The Alaska demonstration project increases State-wide reimbursement rates by 35 percent across all Services. Additionally, the TRICARE Management Activity has approved other targeted rate increases 

in selected localities across the country.

31. Senator BAYH. Secretaries England, Mansfield, Geren, Chu, and General 

Schoomaker, how would you recommend to Congress that we amend this law? 

Secretary ENGLAND and Dr. CHU. When access to mental health services is related to professional reimbursement rates, the Department will continue to use the 

existing waiver authority. Rate increases targeted to those localities where access 

to care is severely impaired may improve access, but will not address other problems such as scarcity of mental health providers. The law already provides the flexibility needed to increase payment rates when access to care is an issue and states 

that payment for services by an individual health care professional shall be equal 

to the amount determined to be appropriate to the extent practicable in accordance 

with the same reimbursement rules for services under title XVIII of the Social Security Act. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. VA has yet to experience difficulty in locating providers 

willing to accept Medicare reimbursement for the treatment of veterans, except in 

the State of Alaska. However, in the State of Alaska, VA has regulatory authority 

to exceed the Medicare fee schedule. VA also has the authority in certain circumstances, to negotiate payment rates exceeding Medicare fee schedules with providers by contract or other legal agreement. VA does not see a need for any change 

in the legislation at this time. 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. We do not recommend amending this 

law. The law provides the Secretary of Defense the necessary flexibility to grant exceptions.

32. Senator BAYH. Secretaries England, Mansfield, Geren, Chu, and General 

Schoomaker, how would that enable you to provide better care? 

Secretary ENGLAND and Dr. CHU. There may not be a direct correlation between 

paying more and obtaining better care. When justified, paying more to obtain needed health care services and treatment may benefit the patient under specific circumstances. We believe TRICARE already has the necessary authority to pay more, 

when access problems are demonstrated. 

76

Better care is the focus of the Department’s larger effort on psychological health. 

We have charged the new Center for Psychological Health with identifying best 

practices. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. VA does not see a need for any change in the legislation 

at this time. 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. We do not feel the law needs to be 

amended.

33. Senator BAYH. Secretaries England, Mansfield, Geren, Chu, and General 

Schoomaker, can you please describe the extent to which non-government experts 

or institutions have been used in assessments of DOD and VA mental health care? 

If that outside input is limited, please provide the reasoning behind it. If it is not, 

please describe the instances when it has been used within the past 5 years. 

Secretary ENGLAND and Dr. CHU. The members of the DOD Mental Health Task 

Force that examined the state of mental health care around the globe in DOD were 

civilians, with five of seven being non-governmental subject matter experts. While 

they identified a number of areas for potential improvement, they concluded in their 

final report that, ‘‘In the history of warfare, no other nation or its leadership has 

invested such an intensive or sophisticated effort across all echelons to support the 

psychological health of its military servicemembers and families as the DOD has invested during the global war on terrorism.’’ 

Subject matter experts from non-governmental academic sectors continuously collaborate with DOD clinicians, whether it be through shared research or established 

training programs around the country, in which civilian staff rotate to military sites 

and military staff rotate to civilian sites. These programs are of such rigor as to consistently result in highly competitive scores of military residents in a variety of medical specialty programs. 

DOD programs, such as those in suicide prevention, are widely respected, and 

supported through multiple collaborations with leading world experts. Such experts 

are integrally involved in both formally evaluating and shaping our programs 

through collegial workshops and conferences. The most respected non-governmental 

mental health morbidity experts are involved in assessing the effectiveness of our 

population-based screening programs, and our online mental health screening programs are rooted in the finest non-governmental programs in existence. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. The Under Secretary for Health’s Committee on Care of Seriously Mentally Ill Veterans (SMI Committee) has, from its inception in the 1990s, 

been associated with a Consumer Liaison Council which meets in conjunction with 

the SMI Committee which is composed of VA mental health experts and field leaders. The Consumer Liaison Council has members from several of the mental health 

advocacy groups (e.g. National Alliance for the Mentally Ill), veterans service organizations (e.g. American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America) and professional organizations (e.g. American Psychological Association). The Consumer Council hears reports from VA on progress of programs and makes comments to the SMI Committee. 

VA entities such as the National Center for PTSD (NCPTSD) and the mental illness research education clinical centers all have advisory boards which are composed of VA and non-VA experts in mental health issues. For example, the Chair 

of the Board on the NCPTSD scientific and educational advisory boards is a nonVA expert. The advisory boards hear about progress on VA projects and make suggestions for further activities. 

In addition, during the past several years, VA has contracted with RAND Corporation to carry out a comprehensive assessment of VA mental health care that 

is ongoing. 

The outside organization with the greatest impact on assessing mental health 

services in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the Joint Commission. 

Every VA medical center and clinic must receive ongoing accreditation by the Joint 

Commission and meet its continually updated standards. 

In addition, VHA has asked the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation 

Facilities (CARF) to review increasing numbers of mental health rehabilitation programs. VHA programs required to achieve and maintain CARF accreditation include:

a. Mental health residential rehabilitation and treatment services, which include, but are not limited to:

(1) Domiciliary residential rehabilitation and treatment programs; 

(2) Psychosocial residential rehabilitation treatment programs; 

(3) Substance abuse residential rehabilitation treatment programs; and 

(4) PTSD residential rehabilitation treatment programs.

b. Employment and community services which include, but are not limited to:

77

(1) Comprehensive homeless veterans centers; 

(2) Intermediate health care for homeless veterans programs with four or 

more fulltime employees; and 

(3) Compensated work therapy, and compensated work therapy-transitional residence with four or more full-time employees combined, or incentive therapy programs with four or more full-time employees.

c. Starting in fiscal year 2008, VHA’s new psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery centers and day treatment centers that transition to psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery centers will also be required to achieve CARF accreditation. 

d. The recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports on assessment of PTSD and 

treatment of PTSD are examples of non-VA input. However, the task for IOM 

was not to evaluate VA mental health care, but to evaluate the published research literature on assessment and treatment in order to inform VA on best 

practices. In response to the recently released report on PTSD treatment, 

OMHS and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) have held a planning meeting to develop guidance on design and evaluation of clinical trials. 

That meeting included a number of non-VA academic experts in PTSD and research design.

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. The Army has used internal and external resources to review existing behavioral health service delivery and quality in 

both garrison and operational environments. Over the past 5 years, the Army has 

executed five MHAT assessments of operational behavioral health. This has resulted 

in significant adjustments to the deployed behavioral health footprint and has 

shaped deployment preparation training for uniformed behavioral health assets. 

MHAT recommendations also led to the establishment of the Battlemind Training 

System, a comprehensive training program for soldiers and family members. The 

latest MHAT report will be released shortly. 

The Army also conducted an external review of garrison based mental health activities. Over the course of a 19-week project (October 2006 through January 2007), 

BearingPoint conducted a review of the Army Medical Command’s (MEDCOM) Behavioral Health service line with the overall objective of assessing the effectiveness 

and efficiency of the system and developing recommendations to improve services. 

For this assessment, the research team visited 22 MTFs conducting behavioral 

health operations, both CONUS and OCONUS. BearingPoint implemented a comprehensive multi-method approach, seeking not only to address factual observations, 

such as workload and cost metrics, but also to understand how the various constituencies in each community perceive the quality and value of behavioral health services. Their research included an on-line survey for soldiers, in-depth interviews with 

behavioral health staff and providers, a combination of in-depth interviews and an 

on-line survey with military leaders, and focus group discussions with soldiers and 

family members. The team also reviewed each MTF’s organizational structure, operations, and cost and workload data. A final report was released on February 13, 

2007, and resulted in 38 key findings which were further refined to 9 actionable 

issues. MEDCOM has approved a pilot program to incorporate these findings. 

The DOD Mental Health Task Force consisted of military, Federal, and non-Federal behavioral health experts. The Task Force’s findings and recommendations 

have informed many of the Army’s current efforts to increase access to care and decrease stigma. Finally, soldiers in every component of the Army were directed to 

participate in mandatory training on mild TBI and PTSD. This chain-teaching program was intended to provide leaders and soldiers information and resources on 

concussions, Post Combat Stress, and Operational Stress. It was developed in consultation with 11 external subject matter experts. 

The Army Provider Level Satisfaction Survey (APLSS) was developed by 

Synovate, a third party industry leader in health care survey research who also developed the survey model used by Kaiser Permanente to measure patient satisfaction with the medical care they receive. Patient responses on the APLSS are aggregated at the individual provider level. Data are evaluated monthly and posted electronically by provider, clinic, MTF, regional medical command, and MEDCOM levels. These results are available via a password-protected Office of the Surgeon General survey website that can be accessed by MTF leadership and providers. The aggregated results are compared to a civilian benchmark which was developed by having a panel of civilian households complete the same survey.

34. Senator BAYH. Secretaries England, Mansfield, Geren, Chu, and General 

Schoomaker, last April, I introduced S. 1113. Included in that legislation was a plan 

to ensure that servicemembers who incur a covered TBI while on Active Duty be 

78

retained on Active Duty for 1 year after the medical assessment of their ability to 

perform their activities of daily living. Further, the bill would have provided for the 

limitation of physical evaluation boards for such members for 1 year. In my legislation, these options would have been waiverable by the servicemember or their legal 

representative. Please comment on these proposals. How would the DOD view 

them? How would the VA view them? 

Secretary ENGLAND and Dr. CHU. While we are learning valuable information 

about TBIs, and expect to learn even more with the research being funded, there 

is a wide range of TBI severity and there currently exists other administrative options to handle these cases in a similar fashion, such as being placed on the Temporary Duty Restriction List (TDRL), which allows for medical reassessment in a 

designated time. Medical assessment occurs frequently during the continuum of care 

in the servicemember’s treatment and convalescence. Once it is determined that it 

is likely the servicemember will not be able to return to full duty, in a year the 

servicemember is entered into the Disability Evaluation System. Fitness for continued retention is not a medical decision, but rather a Service-specific determination 

based on the Service’s mission requirements, which may be hindered by legislation 

of medical conditions. Until more information is gained on TBI as well as other conditions, to aid DOD in accession and retention decision-making, we are concerned 

that creating legislation now may not be beneficial or equitable to all servicemembers. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. Legislative plan S. 1113 might be appropriate for a servicemember with milder TBI and who has a good prognosis to return to military service, 

ready access to early rehabilitation interventions that will identify, target, and 

achieve community reentry goals. VA does not support blanket retention of all military servicemembers with TBI on Active Duty for a year after medical assessment. 

Active Duty members who will not likely return to duty (e.g., moderate to severe 

head injury) have the greatest potential to benefit from comprehensive rehabilitation services that are initiated as soon as possible, together with early community 

re-entry rehabilitation interventions. 

Retaining servicemembers on Active Duty for 1 year could be counterproductive 

for the patient by delaying initiation of veterans benefits or impeding their continuity of rehabilitative care management across multiple systems of care (e.g., referrals back and forth between DOD, VA, and civilian facilities). 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. Decisions related to retention on Active Duty are made on an individual basis by trained clinicians. A tool now available 

to assist clinicians with these decisions is the Clinical Management Guidance for 

Mild TBI in non-deployed environments. The Army developed this tool and coordinated with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to 

have it published. The tool provides guidance in the management of servicemembers 

with persistent symptoms that interfere with their performance of duty.

35. Senator BAYH. General Schoomaker, the reality is that our Nation and the 

military’s medical system face significant shortages of mental health professionals. 

In fact, as I understand, the Army is trying to hire 272 new mental health professionals this year. Unfortunately, the Army has estimated that it will have only 150 

by March. As a result, our system today is hard-pressed and strained, at best, to 

provide the essential care that so many of our soldiers who suffer from TBI and 

PTSD need. With that in mind, should we instead be focusing our efforts on taking 

the needed steps to increase access to quality, community-based and private care 

for our wounded soldiers? 

General SCHOOMAKER. To provide optimal care for our soldiers, we must make full 

use of the Military Health System (MHS), the VAs, and private sector care. Currently the MHS makes extensive use of private sector care through the TRICARE 

Network. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (HA) 

recently issued a new policy to ensure beneficiaries have appropriate access to mental health services by aligning mental health access standards with existing primary 

care access standards. This policy directs two new business practices. First, military 

mental health clinics must provide more self-referral capabilities, much like a primary care clinic. Mental health clinics traditionally operated as specialty referral 

clinics with limited self-referral capabilities. Second, the policy establishes a 7-day 

routine standard for newly onset, non-urgent behavioral health conditions or exacerbation of a previously diagnosed condition. MTFs closely track access standards for 

our wounded soldiers. If access to care standards cannot be met at a military facility, the soldier is referred to the private sector for care. In addition, it is essential 

to partner with civilian health care providers to ensure that they have the education 

and training to care for our soldiers and veterans.

79

36. Senator BAYH. Secretary Chu, because of advances in force protection measures and field medicine, wounded servicemembers are fortunately surviving at a 

much higher rate than in previous wars. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the 

blasts causing injuries, many are left with a TBI. While still on Active Duty, wounded servicemembers can be treated for almost any ailment at MTFs, VA, or private 

facilities at little or no expense to the patient or family. However, once a 

servicemember has retired, TRICARE is limited to its legally defined coverage and 

does not include the cognitive therapies necessary for TBI rehabilitation. While the 

VA can provide TBI care in many cases, it may not be appropriate for every individual, and these injured heroes have earned the access to all available options. Do 

you agree that injured servicemember/veterans’ care should based on their medical 

condition, not on their status as Active Duty or retired? If so, what are you doing 

to address this situation? 

Dr. CHU. Injured servicemembers/veterans’ care should be based on their medical 

condition. However, until recent changes in the law under the NDAA for Fiscal Year 

2008, the DOD was statutorily limited in the Services it could cost share for members who had separated from Active Duty or retired. 

Active Duty servicemembers are authorized cognitive rehabilitation services under 

the law. The benefits authorized in section 1631 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 

allows the Secretary, through regulations, to authorize any former member of the 

Armed Forces with a serious injury or illness to receive the same medical and dental care as a member of the Armed Forces on Active Duty for such care not readily 

available in the VA. 

Rehabilitation therapy covered under the TRICARE Basic Program is available to 

both servicemembers and retirees, and includes physician-prescribed therapy to improve, restore, or maintain function, or to minimize or prevent deterioration of patient function. Prior to the enactment of section 1631, rehabilitation therapy under 

the TRICARE Basic Program for members who retired, medically or otherwise, had 

to be medically necessary and appropriate care keeping with accepted norms for 

medical practice in the United States, rendered by an authorized provider, necessary to the establishment of a safe and effective maintenance program, and could 

not be custodial, or otherwise excluded from coverage. 

Covered rehabilitation services for TBI patients may include physical, speech, occupational, and behavioral services. Cognitive rehabilitation strategies may be integrated into these components of a rehabilitation program and may be covered under 

the TRICARE Basic Program when cognitive rehabilitation is not billed as a distinct 

and separate service except for Active Duty servicemembers and those that may be 

covered under section 1631. For all others under the TRICARE Basic Program, cognitive rehabilitation defined as ‘‘services that are prescribed specifically and uniquely to teach compensatory methods to accomplish tasks which rely upon cognitive 

processes’’ are considered unproven and are not covered when separately billed as 

distinct and defined services. 

For other than Active Duty servicemembers and those that may be covered under 

section 1631, in determining whether a medical treatment has moved from 

unproven to proven, TRICARE reviews reliable evidence, as defined in 32 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 199. Research study of cognitive rehabilitation in neurological conditions including TBI is limited by differences between patients, and by 

variation in the type, frequency, duration, and focus of cognitive rehabilitation interventions. The TRICARE determination that cognitive rehabilitation for TBI is 

unproven is supported by a 2002 Technical Assessment performed by Blue Cross/

Blue Shield (updated in 2006), and by a 2004 Technical Assessment by Hayes Incorporated also updated in 2006. Our own commissioned Technical Assessment in 2007 

further supported the TRICARE determination as the literature available is inconclusive on cognitive rehabilitation therapy’s role in the treatment of TBI. 

Medical evidence is dynamic and evolving, however, we know that some care that 

is considered unproven today will in the future achieve the required evidence 

threshold and become covered under the TRICARE Basic Program. Care that is likely to become proven is periodically reevaluated to ensure that TRICARE coverage 

is current and consistent with the latest evidence. 

Beneficiaries, including Active Duty servicemembers, may receive rehabilitation 

services in direct or purchased care facilities. Active Duty servicemembers may also 

receive TBI rehabilitation in specialized VA treatment centers. In most cases, patients will be referred to a rehabilitation facility that has agreed to participate in 

the TRICARE network. Both Active Duty and non-Active Duty beneficiaries may be 

referred for care in a non-network facility when there are no available network facilities able to meet the identified medical needs of the patient in the area where 

the patient lives or needs to receive care.

80

Service 

Supplemental 

Care

Program—Active 

Duty 

TRICARE Basic Program (retired members) Veterans

Affairs 

Occupational, speech, or physical therapy Yes Yes ................................................................... Yes 

Behavioral health services .......................... Yes Yes ................................................................... Yes 

Cognitive rehabilitation ............................... Yes Yes, if part of a comprehensive rehabilitation 

program and not billed as a separate 

service.

Yes 

Vocational rehabilitation ............................. Yes No ..................................................................... Yes 

Skilled nursing facilities-Prospective Payment System (SNF–PPS).Yes Yes, SNF–PPS methodology, no time limit ...... Yes 

Comprehensive post-acute brain injury rehabilitation programs.Yes No ..................................................................... Yes 

Community integration rehabilitation ......... Yes No ..................................................................... Yes 

Educational rehabilitation ........................... Yes No ..................................................................... Yes 

Transitional living programs ....................... Yes No ..................................................................... Yes 

Nursing home care ...................................... Yes No ..................................................................... Yes 

Home health care (skilled) .......................... Yes Yes, partial intermittent up to 28 hours/week Yes 

Non medical aides and attendants ............ Yes No ..................................................................... Yes 

Respite care ................................................ Yes No ..................................................................... Yes 

Advanced prosthetic care ............................ Yes Yes, if medically necessary ............................. Yes 

Driving assessment and training ............... Yes No ..................................................................... Yes 

37. Senator BAYH. Secretary Chu, can you assure me that the overlap of benefits 

authorized in the recent NDAA will include access to the Active Duty cognitive therapy coverage? 

Dr. CHU. Clarification on Cognitive Therapy vs. Cognitive Rehabilitation: 

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a form of psychotherapy emphasizing the 

important role of thinking in how we feel and what we do. It does not exist as a 

distinct therapeutic technique. The term ‘‘cognitive-behavioral’’ is a general term for 

a classification of related therapies, based on the idea that thoughts are the cause 

of feelings and behaviors, rather than external things, like people, situations, and 

events. Patients are helped to change the way they think in order to feel and act 

better even if the situation does not change. 

CBT is covered under the TRICARE program, for both active servicemembers and 

retirees, as psychotherapy. Psychotherapy must be medically or psychologically necessary. 

Cognitive Rehabilitation is defined as systematic goal-oriented treatment designed 

to improve cognitive functions and functional abilities (including memory, language, 

concentration, attention, perception, learning, planning, sequencing and/or judgment) which may be recommended for patients with acquired brain injury. 

Active Duty servicemembers are authorized cognitive rehabilitation services under 

the law. The benefits authorized in section 1631 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 allows the Secretary through regulations to authorize 

any former member of the Armed Forces with a serious injury or illness to receive 

the same medical and dental care as a member of the Armed Forces on Active Duty 

for such care not readily available in the VA. 

Rehabilitation therapy covered under the TRICARE Basic Program is available to 

both Active Duty servicemembers and retirees, and includes physician-prescribed 

therapy to improve, restore, or maintain function, or to minimize or prevent deterioration of patient function. Prior to the enactment of section 1631, rehabilitation 

therapy under the TRICARE Basic Program for members who retired, medically or 

otherwise, had to be medically necessary and appropriate care keeping with accepted norms for medical practice in the United States, rendered by an authorized provider, necessary to the establishment of a safe and effective maintenance program, 

and could not be custodial, or otherwise excluded from coverage. Covered rehabilitation services for TRICARE patients may include physical, speech, occupational, and 

behavioral services. Cognitive rehabilitation strategies may be integrated into these 

components of a rehabilitation program and may be covered under the TRICARE 

Basic Program when cognitive rehabilitation is not billed as a distinct and separate 

service. Under the TRICARE Basic Program, cognitive rehabilitation defined as 

‘‘services that are prescribed specifically and uniquely to teach compensatory methods to accomplish tasks which rely upon cognitive processes’’ are considered 

unproven and are not covered when separately billed as distinct and defined services, except under the authority of section 1631. This section has a sunset provision 

of December 31, 2012. 

81

In our experience, the VA health benefit is intentionally structured to provide robust care to disabled veterans with long-term rehabilitation and other care needs.

38. Senator BAYH. Secretary Chu, in her testimony before the Dole-Shalala Commission this past summer, Colonel Joyce Grissom, the medical director for 

TRICARE Management Activity, told Commission members that TRICARE was at 

work reexamining the evidence to determine ‘‘if some of the cognitive rehabilitation 

modalities can be brought in to the benefit for all [TRICARE] beneficiaries,’’ and 

that a technical report would be provided to TRICARE officials this past August. 

Was this report provided to TRICARE officials, and if so, what were the results of 

this reexamination? 

Dr. CHU. The Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) completed the Cognitive 

Rehabilitation for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury report and submitted 

it to the Department in July 2007. ECRI Institute is an independent, nonprofit 

health services research agency and a Collaborating Center for Health Technology 

Assessment of the World Health Organization. 

In its summary of findings, ECRI concluded that there was insufficient, evidencebased research available to conclude that Cognitive Rehabilitation Therapy (CRT) 

is beneficial in treating TBIs. The Department acknowledges that there is expert 

opinion recommending CRT in the treatment of TBI; however, expert opinion is the 

weakest support in the hierarchy of evidence used to determine coverage. The DOD 

will continue to look for future evidence-based research that objectively supports the 

efficacy of CRT in the treatment of TBI. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK PRYOR

PRIVATE DOCTORS

39. Senator PRYOR. Secretary Mansfield, how many cases referred to private doctors for specialized care on a fee basis have not been paid? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. VA does not track its fee claims processing by the types of 

specialized care. Only aggregate data is available. The most recent claims processing 

data available are for January 2008. 

During the month of January 2008, a total of 797,247 claims were received for 

processing, including claims carried over from the month of December 2007. Of this 

total, 544,816 claims were processed and 252,431 claims remained pending at the 

end of the month. The number of pending claims aged greater than 30 days at the 

end of the month was 118,166 claims, or 14.8 percent of the total claims received.

40. Senator PRYOR. Secretary Mansfield, what is the problem? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. During fiscal year 2007, VHA has placed considerable focus 

upon timely processing of fee claims. This includes standardized reporting to assess 

outliers as well as determining necessary technology needs to meet significant program growth. Identified problems in achieving improved performance include the 

following:

• Receipt of incomplete claims from vendors lacking sufficient supporting 

documentation necessary to adjudicate the claim; 

• Significant growth in the use of the fee program to meet access needs; 

and 

• Improvements in information technology necessary to enhance automation of claims processing, currently a significant portion of claims processing is manual in nature.

41. Senator PRYOR. Secretary Mansfield, what are the solutions? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. The solution will combine additional staffing along with 

technology enhancements. During fiscal year 2008, VHA received additional funding 

support for this staffing requirement and facilities have been able to increase staffing levels in claims processing units to meet our targets. The President’s budget includes resources that will help meet the growth in this program. An improved technology solution is being actively pursued, with a recent request to transfer dollars 

to the IT appropriation to meet this critical need. It is our intent to implement these 

changes in fiscal year 2009.

MENTAL HEALTH

42. Senator PRYOR. Secretary Geren and General Schoomaker, how are pre- and 

post-deployment mental health assessments being improved to adequately evaluate 

82

a soldier returning from combat overseas for the variable and unpredictable onset 

of PTSD? 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. The Army continues to use existing 

medical surveillance systems to screen for a range of behavioral health issues, including PTSD. There have been no recent formal changes to the current screening 

process or questionnaires. 

Soldiers are screened in accordance with DOD Instruction 6490.03 and the Deployment Cycle Support System. Soldiers are screened for both physical and mental/ 

behavioral health conditions prior to deployment, upon redeployment, and within 

90–180 days after redeploying. The screenings consist of a self reporting section and 

an interview with a health care provider. Completed screenings are reported 

through the Medical Protection System to the Armed Forces Health Surveillance 

Center (AFHSC). The AFHSC staff performs analyses on the data stored in the Defense Medical Surveillance System to identify trends. The analysis and findings will 

be used to improve future pre and post mental health assessment tools.

43. Senator PRYOR. Secretary Geren and General Schoomaker, what type of reintegration programs is the military pursuing that helps our wounded warriors and 

their families not only heal both physically and emotionally, but instill confidence 

in their ability to tackle the challenges of life after the military as an injured veteran? 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. The events of the last year have led 

to a strengthened partnership between the DOD and the VA. In close coordination 

with the VA, the Army has added 16 VA advisors at major MTFs to facilitate the 

process of applying for benefits and finalizing arrangements for follow-on care and 

services for a smooth transition to civilian status. 

The Army recently partnered with the University of Kansas to create the Wounded Warrior Education Initiative which will allow participants to complete a Master’s 

degree, then return to the Army either in Active Duty status or as a civilian. The 

Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, KS, will benefit from these wounded 

warriors’ education and personal experiences. In addition, the Army is currently piloting at Fort Bragg, NC, the Warrior Transition Employment Reintegration and 

Training Program which enables wounded warriors, working with the staff of the 

Soldier Family Assistance Centers, to receive education and training on how to create a resume, network, and develop job hunting skills. Through this program, WTs 

are assisted by counselors from the Army Wounded Warrior Program, Veterans Affairs advisors, and the staff of the Army Career and Alumni Program to develop a 

winning approach to obtaining employment when they leave the Army. 

Integral to the Army Medical Action Plan is the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP). 

The CCP is a holistic approach to facilitate healing of the body, mind, heart, and 

spirit by having WTs follow the principles of being responsible for their own future, 

gaining more control over their lives, promoting health and a sense of well-being, 

maintaining a positive self identity, shaping satisfying social relationships, and 

overcoming social and cultural barriers. The CCP ensures attention is given to all 

these areas. Family members, caregivers, and others who are significant in each 

WT’s life also play an integral role in the success WTs have in rehabilitating and 

becoming prepared to be productive when they are either able to return to duty or 

separate from service and become engaged and productive civilians. 

Additionally, the Army Wounded Warrior Program (AW2) was established to assist the most severely wounded soldiers and their families, throughout their lifetimes, regardless of location. AW2 is vital in helping the wounded warrior become 

self-sufficient, contributing members of our communities. AW2 provides unique services to the most severely wounded and their families by:

• Helping wounded soldiers remain in the Army by educating them on 

their options and assisting them in the application process; 

• Helping with future career plans and employment opportunities beyond 

their Army careers; 

• Supporting them with a staff of subject matter experts proficient in nonmedical benefits for wounded soldiers; 

• Helping a soldier obtain full VA and Army benefits; 

• Helping a soldier and their family get health care after retiring from the 

Army; and 

• Helping a soldier get financial counseling.

Soldier Family Management Specialists located throughout the country at major 

MTFs and VA Medical Centers provide on the ground support to soldiers and their 

families from the time they arrive. Soldier Family Management Specialists act as 

83

career and education guides, benefits advisors, military transition specialists, local 

resource experts, family assistants, and life coaches. 

Companies have the opportunity to support those who sacrificed for our country 

by hiring soldiers severely wounded in the global war on terror. An important element in rebuilding the lives of severely wounded soldiers is gained through meaningful employment with companies throughout the world. AW2 links severely 

wounded, injured, or ill soldiers and companies together by providing personalized 

employment counseling and services. AW2 is vital in helping them become self-sufficient, contributing members of our communities. AW2 coordinators work closely 

with the Army Career and Alumni Program to connect prospective employers with 

AW2 soldiers seeking work. 

Consistent with the objectives of the Army Medical Action Plan, the Army will 

continue to work with public and private entities to provide WTs the skills and assistance they require in their recovery to keep alive the ‘‘can do’’ attitude that characterizes these great men and women.

44. Senator PRYOR. Secretary Geren and General Schoomaker, many times soldiers do not want to admit to mental health problems. What assurances or instructions has the DOD provided to its military personnel who fear that identifying a 

mental health issue would adversely affect or jeopardize their careers? 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. It is critically important that soldiers 

are able to seek help without worrying about the effects on their career. Soldiers 

and civilians alike are traditionally concerned about jeopardizing their security 

clearances. The Army is working with the DOD to revise the medical question on 

the security clearance form and eliminate that concern. During a soldier’s service 

it is very likely that he or she can be called to deploy to a remote location away 

from family for sometimes extended lengths of time. The Army has recognized that 

building soldier and family resiliency is key to maintaining health and welfare. We 

developed ‘‘Battlemind’’ training products to increase this resiliency and have different training programs available for pre-, during, and post-deployment. These programs are designed for soldiers and their families, including children as young as 

pre-school aged, and they are distributed throughout the force. These programs are 

also available online anytime at www.behavioralhealth.army.mil. 

In a bold effort to both raise awareness and reduce the stigma associated with 

seeking mental health care, the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the 

Army initiated a leader chain teaching program to educate all soldiers and leaders 

about post-traumatic stress and signs and symptoms of concussive brain injury. This 

was intended to help us all recognize symptoms and encourage seeking treatment 

for these conditions. All soldiers were mandated to receive this training between 

July and October 2007, during which time we trained over 800,000 soldiers. We are 

now institutionalizing this training within our Army education and training systems 

to continue to share the information with our new soldiers and leaders and to continue to emphasize that these signs and symptoms are a normal reaction to a stressful situation and it is absolutely acceptable to seek assistance to cope with these 

issues. 

Our efforts to decrease stigma appear to be having an impact. Findings from the 

most recent MHAT report show small but significant decreases in stigma. Rates of 

stigma are significantly lower in 2007 as compared to 2006 as reflected by responses 

to four of six survey questions related to stigma. Although we cannot draw a direct 

connection, this may be related to the leader chain teaching program and other 

Battlemind educational products. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

45. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Chu, 2 years ago, a research group funded by 

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported very promising results with the use 

of progesterone, a hormone that appears to protect damaged brain tissue, in the 

treatment of civilian trauma patients with moderate to severe brain injury. The 

NIH moved forward with a planning grant and is expected to decide in March 

whether it will fund a major national clinical trial of this treatment in civilian trauma centers. If the NIH moves forward with this research, would DOD want to participate? 

Dr. CHU. The Department would consider offering some Military Health System 

sites and those of the Clinical Consortium being put in place under the Traumatic 

84

Brain Injury Broad Area Announcement by the Congressionally Directed Medical 

Research Program.

46. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Chu, given the slow NIH funding process, do 

you believe DOD should support promising treatments (either by partnering with 

NIH or by a parallel process) in order to accelerate their validation? 

Dr. CHU. The Department partners routinely with the NIH, as well as engaging 

in its own extramural research program that supports early detection, diagnosis, 

and treatment of TBI.

47. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Chu, would DOD consider providing additional 

funding to increase the number of civilian centers involved in testing a new treatment in order to find an answer more quickly? 

Dr. CHU. The Department is using funding from the Fiscal Year 2007–2008 Supplemental Appropriations for psychological health and TBI, and is already investing 

in a clinical consortium to support that objective.

48. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Chu, if this treatment is deemed to be promising enough by the NIH to warrant a major study to determine if it is effective, 

would DOD want to conduct its own study? 

Dr. CHU. That should not be necessary.

49. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Chu, what type of partnership between DOD 

and NIH is appropriate to advance this type of research? 

Dr. CHU. The NIH already participates in the Department’s research management 

process. If agreements that are more formal or transfer of funds for cooperative efforts are required, Interagency Agreements will be sufficient.

TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

50. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Geren and General Schoomaker, do you have 

the tools you need to make objective pre- and post-injury assessments of personnel 

with mild to moderate TBI? 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. The diagnosis of mild TBI, also 

known as concussion, relies on the clinical interview. Throughout medicine there are 

no current gold-standard objective tests for the diagnosis of concussion. This is a 

very active area of investigation. 

For pre-injury assessment, in order to facilitate the evaluation and management 

of concussion, the Army has implemented a program to collect baseline 

neurocognitive data on Active and Reserve Forces prior to their deployment to combat theaters. The Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM) has 

thus far been performed on 40,000 soldiers predeployment. The Army has recently 

been funded to expand our neurocognitive assessment program to include all deploying personnel. We are actively coordinating with the Air Force, Navy, and Marines 

to test all deploying military personnel. 

Post-injury, all assessments are used in conjunction with the clinical evaluation. 

The Military Acute Concussion Evaluation (MACE) is a tool to standardize the clinical evaluation of those soldiers suspected of having a concussion. The application 

of the ANAM in Theater will give front-line providers another critical piece of information for the evaluation and management of injured servicemembers. The ANAM 

does not diagnose TBI, but importantly is able to measure the unseen, subtle effects 

of injury. Other post-injury assessments tests for concussion, including serologic biomarkers and the Brain Acoustic Monitor, are undergoing critical and necessary evaluation as post-injury objective tests. 

Moderate TBI is easier to detect since individuals have a loss of consciousness 

greater than 30 minutes and difficulty laying down new memories for greater than 

a day.

51. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Geren and General Schoomaker, how much 

training is required for individuals to conduct these assessments? 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. Training is a very important aspect 

of making objective post-injury assessments of mild TBI. Depending on the individual’s background and experience with mild TBI, the amount of training required 

varies. We provide training and education to our providers prior to deployment, and 

while in Theater, to enhance their skills in this area. We are implementing a mandatory standardized web-based TBI training program for all healthcare professionals to include clinical support personnel. Training on administration of the 

85

ANAM is in progress for primary care providers and all deploying 

neuropsychologists. Additionally, we will soon be issuing guidance for implementing 

the revised 2008 PDHA and PDHRA forms that contain improved questions to more 

accurately screen for TBI.

52. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Geren and General Schoomaker, how do you 

currently determine when a soldier or marine with a concussion or mild TBI is 

healthy enough to return to combat, and what technology is available to you to assist in these determinations? 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. The Army’s policy is to ensure the 

safety of the soldier first. When a servicemember has a concussion, healthcare providers use the MACE to standardize the appropriate evaluation and decisionmaking 

for diagnosis. Theater providers use a Clinical Practice Guideline that incorporates 

the MACE to delineate the pathways of care for concussion. These guidelines—originally published in December 2006—have recently been updated by an in-theater 

TBI working group. After a concussion is diagnosed, soldiers receive appropriate 

step-wise care in accordance with the Theater guidelines. As an additional check to 

see if the servicemember has recovered completely, he or she is tested under conditions of physical activity. Furthermore, the ANAM can be utilized to provide an additional check to ensure that a servicemember does not have any undetected residual effects of concussion.

53. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Geren and General Schoomaker, is it currently 

feasible to screen for mild TBI rapidly and accurately at MASH/CASH units in the 

field? 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, the MACE is an effective and 

feasible method of acute TBI evaluation. To facilitate the evaluation and management of TBI, DOD is implementing a program to collect baseline neurocognitive 

data on Active and Reserve component prior to their deployment to combat theaters. 

Over 40,000 soldiers have been assessed to date. The Army has recently been funded to expand our neurocognitive assessment program to all deploying personnel and 

we are actively coordinating with the Air Force, Navy, and Marines to test all deploying military personnel. 

Initially, the Services will use the DOD-developed/DOD-owned ANAM tool to obtain baseline data. The ANAM is a computer-based instrument that measures reaction time, short-term memory, pattern matching, and mathematical processing. The 

ANAM takes approximately 15 minutes to complete and is being administered as 

part of the predeployment readiness processing. 

The application of this instrument in Theater will give front-line providers another critical piece of information for the evaluation and management of injured 

servicemembers. The ANAM does not diagnose TBI, but is able to measure the unseen, subtle effects of injury. DOD’s expansion of the testing process will be guided 

by the ANAM tool, while data is collected to validate accurate clinical decisionmaking. 

The Defense Health Board is establishing a scientific advisory subcommittee to 

perform an ongoing review of the DOD neurocognitive assessment program.

54. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Geren and General Schoomaker, have you evaluated novel assessment devices (e.g. DETECT) and would you be interested in validating and testing these new technologies? 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. Yes, the Theater Medical Information Program is conducting an analysis of neurocognitive assessment tool alternatives. Also, the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center is planning a head-tohead evaluation of similar tools.

55. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretaries Mansfield, Geren, Chu, and General 

Schoomaker, are you satisfied with the technology available to treat and diagnose 

TBI? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. I am satisfied that VA is leveraging the most advanced 

technologies and medical practices available to diagnose and treat veterans and 

servicemembers with TBI. Over the past 2 years, VA has provided more than $33 

million to facilities across its polytrauma system of care for state-of-the-science technology and equipment, to provide the greatest potential for rehabilitation and recovery to injured veterans and Active Duty servicemembers. Additionally, the VA 

polytrauma tele-health network (PTN) provides a reliable and easily accessible tool 

to further coordinate and manage care. 

In fiscal year 2007, the PTN was expanded to include all polytrauma rehabilitation centers (PRC), polytrauma network sites, and several DOD MTFs. This ensures 

86

that the highest level of expertise for TBI available at the PRCs is readily accessible 

at locations nearer the veteran’s home, through this state-of-the-art videoconferencing network. 

VA is leading this effort through its robust research and development programs, 

and will continue to integrate technology in its health care system as it emerges. 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. We always seek to improve our 

health care and expect current research in TBI enabled by investment inside and 

outside government will help us improve our ability to diagnose and care for TBI. 

For moderate, severe, and penetrating TBI there are many technological advances 

in treatment and the Army is adding several neurosurgical care tools to the inventory. For mild TBI (mTBI) or concussion, military medicine is actively seeking answers to the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. We, along with the VA and civilian medical systems, still have much to learn about the nature of the injury, objective tests, and optimal treatment of mTBI/concussion. Our medical professionals collaborate and partner with the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center and the 

DOD Medical Research Program for the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of 

blast injury, including mTBI/PTSD. There are several initiatives underway, to include an automated medication management tool, a web portal, and tele-medicine 

and tele-rehabilitation tools. Throughout this effort, we have received extraordinary 

support from the entire Army, the senior leadership of the DOD and the VA, as well 

as Congress. Together we are improving the way we protect our soldiers and the 

way we treat and rehabilitate injured warriors. 

The funds Congress provided will allow the Army Medical Department to research, develop, plan, and execute initiatives relevant to providing our patients and 

their families the highest quality and highest value of psychological healthcare and 

concussive injury treatment. We will continue to identify worthwhile investments to 

address the needs and gaps in care as we continue to focus on serving our soldiers 

and their families. 

Dr. CHU. The DOD continues to advance current technology in the prevention, detection, and management of TBIs through a robust research and development program. DOD has made gains since the start of the war in developing instruments 

and algorithms to assist in detection and management, but there is room for further 

improvement as we learn more about TBI sustained in an austere environment. We 

hope to continue the many collaborations we have with the academic and civilian 

community to determine where technology can further improve our assessment and 

management of TBI.

56. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretaries Mansfield, Geren, Chu, and General 

Schoomaker, what are your acquisition and research priorities in this area? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. As TBI has emerged as a leading injury among U.S. Forces 

serving in military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, VA’s Office of Research and 

Development has adapted its existing neuroscience, trauma, and rehabilitative portfolios to the setting of polytrauma. VA-sponsored TBI and neurotrauma research 

priorities include projects aimed at the pathogenesis of injury, epidemiology (incidence and prevalence), cognitive and behavioral consequences, and the best means 

of treatment. The spectrum of VA-funded projects aligns itself with the characteristics of mild, moderate, and severe TBI. A challenging research priority has been 

that of augmenting the post-deployment health questionnaire through improved 

tools that reliably diagnose TBI. In the case of mild TBI, physical symptoms such 

as headache or dizziness, emotional symptoms such as anxiety or irritability, cognitive deficits such as difficulty concentrating and even sleep disturbances, have 

provided clues that VA researchers are exploring in an attempt to refine screening 

instruments. Examples include:

• The Cognition and Stroke Risk Project: Gender and Cognitive Decline 

(Brockton, NA) 

• Functional Anatomy of Rapid Eye Movement Sleep, Brainstem Control 

(Dallas, TX) 

• Examining the Effectiveness of Cognitive Rehabilitation in Veterans with 

Early Dementia and TBI (Decatur, GA) 

• Demand Sensitive Rehabilitation for Executive Dysfunction (Durham, 

NC) 

• Attentional Disorders in Patients with Brain Injury (Sacramento, CA) 

• Diagnosing Combat-Related Mild TBI Using Magnetoencephalography 

(San Diego, CA) 

• Hypothalamic and Basal Forebrain Regulation of Sleep and Arousal (Sepulveda, CA)

87

Other VA-sponsored research seeks an improved understanding of neuroplasticity 

that may suggest improved pharmacologic as well as physical means of altering TBI 

outcomes. An emerging area of emphasis is that that of regenerative medicine which 

includes using somatic stem cell approaches to replace damaged neurons, and various approaches to stimulate axonal regrowth. Examples include:

• Regulation of Neuroglial Injury and Regeneration (Ann Arbor, MI) 

• Brain From Blood: Bone Marrow Derived Neurons Induced by Stroke 

(Augusta, GA) 

• Magnetic Resonance (MR) Tracking of Stem Cells for Replacement Therapy in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) (Baltimore, MD) 

• Multimechanistic Spinal Cord Repair: Role of Stem Cells and Scaffold 

(Brockton, MA) 

• Central Nervous System (CNS) Plasticity Induced by Motor Learning 

Technologies following Stroke (Cleveland, OH) 

• Plasticity of Micturition-Related Neurons Following Spinal Cord Injury 

(SCI) (Durham, NC) 

• Grafting Neural Stem Cells for SCI: Analysis of Allodynia (Milwaukee, 

WI) 

• Plasticity-Based Motor Recovery after SCI (Philadelphia, PA) 

• Axonal Regeneration in the Chronically Injured Spinal Cord (San Diego, 

CA)

Still other arms of the portfolio aim to improve outcomes by studying PTSD occurring so commonly among veterans affected by TBI. Visual and auditory changes 

have suggested additional research projects useful in understanding cranial nervemediated changes. Examples include:

• Center for Innovative Visual Rehabilitation (Boston, MA) 

• Artificial Silicon Retinal (ASR) Retinal Prosthesis Efficacy Evaluation 

(Decatur, GA) 

• Early Detection of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (Loma Linda, CA) 

• Preventing Jet Fuel and Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (Loma Linda, CA) 

• Auditory and Vestibular Dysfunction Research Enhancement Award Program (Mountain Home, TN) 

• Cognitive-Behavioral Treatments for PTSD Sleep Disturbance (Philadelphia, PA) 

• Development of Clinical Instrumentation for Tinnitus Measurement 

(Portland, OR) 

• Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) and Plasma Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines: Relationship to Combat Exposure, PTSD and Health Status (San Diego, CA) 

• Basic Mechanisms in Hearing Loss of Cochlear Origin (San Diego, CA) 

• A Biological Interface for Cochlear Implants in Auditory Rehabilitation 

(San Diego, CA) 

• Progressive Intervention Program for Tinnitus Management (Tampa, FL)

In addition to the above projects, VA will initiate in fiscal year 2008 a multi-site 

observational cohort study titled Neuropsychological and Mental Health Outcomes 

of OIF: A Longitudinal Cohort Study to examine war-related mental health dysfunction. The study will collect long-term follow-up data 3–5 years after military personnel return from their initial deployment to Iraq. The study will also determine 

the prevalence and course of PTSD among OIF veterans and assess the persistence 

of previously observed neuropsychological changes (in attention, verbal learning, visual memory, and reaction time) following war-zone participation. TBI will be examined as a possible risk factor for PTSD. 

Veterans suffering from moderate to severe TBI may benefit from a more applied 

series of rehabilitation research projects that examine veterans’ reintegration into 

home and family, school and work, and a broader community. Other VA research 

priorities include the use of biomedical engineering or assistive devices that improve 

treatment and rehabilitation. Examples include:

• Pathways to Vocational Rehabilitation: Enhancing Entry and Retention 

(Bedford, MA) 

• A SCI Vocational Support Program: Implementation and Outcomes 

(Cleveland, OH; Dallas, TX; and San Diego, CA) 

• Rehabilitation Outcomes Research Center for Veterans with CNS Damage (Gainesville, FL)

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. The Army core research program is 

currently focused on diagnostics using biomarkers in the blood to help identify the 

level of physical injury to the brain and on the development of neuroprotection 

88

drugs to limit the amount of subsequent damage to the brain tissue if they are administered early after the injury. 

The Fiscal Year 2007 Supplemental funded-PTSD/TBI Research Program supports 

basic and clinically oriented research that will: (1) result in substantial improvements over today’s approach to the treatment and clinical management of TBI, including diagnostics, (2) facilitate the development of novel preventive measures, and 

(3) enhance the quality of life of persons with TBI. Congress mandated that the Program be administered according to the highly-effective U.S. Army Medical Research 

and Materiel Command two-tier review process that includes both external scientific 

(peer) review, conducted by an external panel of expert scientists and programmatic 

review. Programmatic review is conducted by a Joint Program Integration Panel 

(JPIP), which consists of representatives from the Departments of Defense, Veterans 

Affairs, and Health and Human Services. The JPIP identified several gaps in TBI 

research including: (1) treatment and clinical management, (2) neuroprotection and 

repair strategies, (3) rehabilitation/reintegration strategies, (4) field epidemiology, 

and (5) physics of blast. Research proposals that address these gaps will have the 

highest priority in funding. 

Dr. CHU. There are priorities that are developed by consensus via the Tri-Service 

Joint Integration Program Panel hosted at the Army Medical Research and Materiel 

Command that will inform acquisition. There are priorities within the areas of prevention, detection, and management that may impact acquisition. Prevention priorities include primary prevention with a focused program on helmet protection that 

will span the spectrum from impact concussive injury to ballistic and blast injury 

using novel helmet design and composite materials such as cushioned pads for impact injury and nano-fibers for ballistic and blast mitigation. Detection and management priorities include evaluation of the optimal cognitive assessment instrument 

through a head-to-head analysis of the five leading products that will best inform 

acquisition. There continues to be treatment trials using a variety of modalities, 

techniques, and devices that will further inform acquisition decisions. Other priorities include the study of long-term sequela of TBI as evidenced by the congressionally-mandated 15-year study. There has also been identified a need to better understand the cumulative effects of repeat concussions.

57. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretaries Mansfield, Geren, Chu, and General 

Schoomaker, what new basic research funding are DOD and the VA budgeting or 

planning for in developing new, more effective treatments for TBI? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. In fiscal year 2007, VA’s Office of Research and Development supported over $43 million of research aimed at developing new, more effective treatments for the broad area of neurotrauma, including TBI, spinal cord trauma, neural regeneration, and associated sensory disorders. VA estimates funding a 

similar amount this fiscal year. However, because VA may still fund additional 

projects this fiscal year, total funding for fiscal year 2008 is not available until after 

the close of the fiscal year. 

To advance the treatment and rehabilitation of soldiers returning with these types 

of injuries, VA issued a request for research proposals that focus on TBI; cervical 

spinal cord injury; co-morbid conditions such as PTSD and trauma to extremities; 

screening and diagnostic tools related to mild TBI; and continuity of care between 

DOD and VA. 

Many exciting projects have emerged from this solicitation and other funding 

mechanisms to help veterans suffering from mild to severe TBI, including: (1) studying neural repair after brain injury to build a better understanding of cognitive rehabilitation, as well as find potential targets for practical treatments that enhance 

quality of life; (2) developing a project exploring community reintegration for 

servicemembers with TBI (to promote seamless transition between servicemembers 

currently being treated, or who will one day be treated, in both DOD and VA medical facilities); and (3) several studies assessing the relationship between TBI and 

PTSD and their impact on health outcomes. 

In addition, several VA scientists with expertise in neuroimaging and 

neuropsychology are turning their efforts to further understanding the brain 

changes that occur in TBI. This is important because following TBI there may be 

subtle, yet distinct, brain damage that results in memory, attention, thinking and 

personality changes that are difficult to diagnose and treat with current knowledge. 

A new study will start this year combining state-of-the-art imaging techniques (e.g., 

three-dimensional brain imaging and diffusion tensor imaging to examine white 

matter changes) with comprehensive neuropsychological assessments to fully characterize patients with TBI compared to other types of brain damage such as stroke. 

Knowledge from this study will help inform rehabilitation and diagnostic strategies. 

89

Further, VA has established a polytrauma and blast-related injury quality enhancement research initiative (PT/BRI QUERI) coordinating center to promote the 

successful rehabilitation, psychological adjustment, and community reintegration of 

veterans suffering from complex, multiple injuries. Two priorities have been identified: (1) TBI with polytrauma, and (2) traumatic amputation with polytrauma. The 

PT/BRI QUERI is working closely with VA polytrauma rehabilitation centers to 

identify needs and gaps in care, as well as best practices. VA also recently issued 

a special solicitation for research projects on the long-term care and management 

of veterans with polytrauma, blast-related injuries, and/or TBI. 

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. The DOD Blast Injury Research Pro- gram has identified DOD basic research programs ($9 million) for the Army and 

basic research unfunded requirements ($99.6 million) from the Army and Navy, and 

the Defense Veterans Brain Injury Center for fiscal year 2008–fiscal year 2015 that 

address the Treatment and Clinical Management gap areas identified by the Joint 

Program Integration Panel which was convened in response to the fiscal year 2007 

war supplemental funding. These unfunded requirements will be identified in a future Program Objective Memorandum request. 

Additionally, through the fiscal year 2007 war supplemental, PTSD/TBI Research 

Program is offering competitive funding for a Clinical Consortium, which will combine the efforts of the Nation’s leading investigators to bring to market novel treatments or interventions that will ultimately decrease the impact of military-relevant 

PTSD and TBI within the DOD and the VA. Further, the Clinical Consortium is 

required to integrate with the DOD Center of Excellence (DCoE) for PTSD and TBI, 

which supports the DCoE’s expediting the fielding of PTSD and TBI treatments and 

interventions. Several other award mechanisms offered by the PTSD/TBI Research 

Program will also support preclinical and clinical trials for more effective treatments 

for TBI. 

Dr. CHU. The DOD is completing the award process for $150 million authorized 

by Congress for TBI research. The allocations will include prevention, surveillance, 

and approaches to both basic science examining etiologies and mechanisms of TBI 

and diverse clinical treatments that include virtual reality, pharmacology, rehabilitation, and cognitive retraining. The listing of detailed grants funding will be available from the congressionally-directed Medical Research Program office following 

final approval.

58. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretaries Mansfield, Geren, Chu, and General 

Schoomaker, what new basic research funding are DOD and the VA budgeting or 

planning for in developing treatments for the chronic treatment of TBI that may aid 

in neuroregeneration, as opposed to acute treatments for the earliest stages of the 

injury process? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. VA has established a PT/BRI QUERI coordinating center 

to promote the successful rehabilitation, psychological adjustment, and community 

reintegration of veterans suffering from complex, multiple injuries. Two priorities 

have been identified: (1) TBI with polytrauma, and (2) traumatic amputation with 

polytrauma. The PT/BRI QUERI is working closely with VA polytrauma rehabilitation centers to identify needs and gaps in care, as well as best practices. 

VA also recently issued a special solicitation for research projects on the long-term 

care and management of veterans with polytrauma, blast-related injuries and/or 

TBI. 

In addition, VA plans to expand its research efforts in regenerative medicine, 

using state-of-the-art techniques including cell and gene therapies, bioengineering 

and biomaterials, and molecular therapeutic agents. Molecular therapeutic agents 

may include, but not limited to enhancing the body’s intrinsic repair mechanisms, 

as well as to replace damaged cells and tissues. In fiscal year 2007, VA’s Office of Research and Development supported over $43 

million of research aimed at developing new, more effective treatments for the broad 

area of neurotrauma, including TBI, spinal cord trauma, neural regeneration and 

associated sensory disorders. VA estimates funding a similar amount this fiscal 

year. However, because VA may still fund additional projects this fiscal year, total 

funding for fiscal year 2008 is not available until after the close of the fiscal year. 

Some exciting work in this area sponsored by VA includes:

• Delivery of Therapeutic Proteins to the CNS (Baltimore, MD) 

• Help-seeking Behavior and Participation in Visual Impairment Rehabilitation (Decatur, GA) 

• Home-Based Tele-Health Stroke Care: A Randomized Trial for Veterans 

(Decatur, GA) 

• Diagnosing Combat-related Mild TBI using Magnetoencephalography 

(San Diego, CA) 

90

• Cognitive-Behavioral Treatments for PTSD Sleep Disturbance (Philadelphia, PA) 

• Clinical Translational Strategies for Neurological Recovery (West Haven, 

CT)

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. Research for long-term chronic care 

is not a core military research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funded 

program and therefore DOD has no new basic research funding currently planned 

or programmed specifically for chronic TBI treatment that may aid in 

neuroregeneration. The core military RDT&E combat casualty care research mission 

for TBI is focused on neuro-protection and acute treatment for the early stages of 

injury to prevent or minimize the level of injury. Within the planned military core 

research areas for neuro-protection and extremity tissue regeneration, new technologies and biologic mechanisms may be discovered that may lend to the future 

work in neuroregeneration. 

The fiscal year 2007 supplemental funded-PTSD/TBI Research Program does have 

a component with a focus on neuro-protection and repair strategies. There are 17 

proposals focused on neuro-protection and repair strategies competing for the $63 

million TBI research funds for which funding recommendations will be made in 

early March. 

Dr. CHU. The Department plans to develop at least one regenerative center utilizing the latest technology in autologous stem cell research. In addition, the Defense Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury is 

interacting with Stem Cell Incorporated, a company that has developed hormonal 

stimulation techniques for endogenous neural stem cells in stroke using Food and 

Drug Administration approved drugs. The direct transfer of such technology to TBIs 

may require more preclinical data but it is possible that such an approach could 

then be fast-tracked into a randomized clinical trial. The Defense and Veterans 

Brain Injury Center network would be the ideal environment and context in which 

to develop such a trial.

59. Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretaries Mansfield, Geren, Chu, and General 

Schoomaker, what new basic research funding are DOD and the VA budgeting or 

planning for in pre-clinical research into TBI treatments in the acute or chronic 

stages of the disease? 

Secretary MANSFIELD. In fiscal year 2007, VA’s Office of Research and Development supported over $43 million of research aimed at developing new, more effective treatments for the broad area of neurotrauma, including TBI, spinal cord trauma, neural regeneration and associated sensory disorders. VA estimates funding a 

similar amount this fiscal year. However, because VA may still fund additional 

projects this fiscal year, total funding for fiscal year 2008 is not available until after 

the close of the fiscal year. 

Some exciting work in this area sponsored by VA includes:

• Neural Transplantation of Cultured Human-Derived Cells in Stroke (Augusta, GA) 

• Schwann Cell Influence on Pathway Reinnervation (Durham, NC) 

• Nogo-A Blockade and Functional Recovery after Stroke in the Aged 

(Hines, IL) 

• Templated Scaffolds for Spinal Cord Regeneration (San Diego, CA) 

• Investigation of Rehabilitation-Induced Plasticity in Brain Networks (San 

Francisco, CA)

Secretary GEREN and General SCHOOMAKER. The DOD Blast Injury Research Program has identified DOD pre-clinical programs ($23.8 million) and unfunded requirements ($9.5 million) for the Army in fiscal years 2008–2015. 

The DOD’s investment strategy for the fiscal year 2007 war supplemental appropriation (TBI $150 million) included multiple Intramural (DOD and VA) and Extramural award mechanisms focused primarily on pre-clinical TBI research. The funding mechanisms include the Concept award, which supports the exploration of a new 

idea or innovative concept that could give rise to a testable hypothesis; the Investigator-Initiated Research award which supports basic and clinically oriented research; the Advanced Technology-Therapeutic Development Award, which supports 

demonstration studies of pharmaceuticals (drugs, biologics, and vaccines) and medical devices in preclinical systems and/or the testing of therapeutics and devices in 

clinical studies; the New Investigator award, which supports bringing new researchers into the field of TBI; and the Multidisciplinary Research Consortium Award is 

intended to optimize research and accelerate the solution of a major overarching 

problem in TBI research within an integrated consortium of the most highly-qualified investigators. 

91

Dr. CHU. Both the Defense Center of Excellence for Psychological Health and 

Traumatic Brain Injury and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology have collaborated to develop a Biophysics Traumatic Brain Injury Laboratory which will focus 

on pre-clinical investigations to include development and testing. Further indications of pre-clinical priorities can be found in the Broad Agency Announcement of 

the congressionally-directed Medical Research Program project being managed by 

the Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC). The final round of 

MRMC programmatic review for funding is being completed this week. The funded 

research includes extensive funding for protocols involving pre-clinical research into 

treatments for both acute and chronic TBI. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROGER WICKER

MEDICAL RECORDS

60. Senator WICKER. Secretary England and Secretary Mansfield, I appreciate the 

progress the two Departments have made in sharing health information. I am frustrated that what you have described still seems to be a patchwork of link-ups between legacy systems. What progress has been made and what obstacles are there 

to developing a personal, portable electronic medical record for members and veterans? 

Secretary ENGLAND. Leveraging existing complex clinical systems and in-place infrastructure has allowed the DOD and the VA to make significant strides in information sharing over the past several years. At the same time, we have taken advantage of the support that Congress has provided through the direction to establish 

a Joint Incentive Fund and the authorization to initiate pilot projects under the National Defense Authorization Act. 

This strategy has allowed us to share clinically useful information more quickly. 

It has also provided us with a better understanding of how best to proceed in our 

broader, more mature DOD/VA enterprise-level information sharing efforts. 

Currently, we are developing a Joint DOD/VA Information Interoperability Plan 

as a roadmap to better integrate our approach to implementing information sharing. 

The basis for our sharing of information requires an agreement on what data elements need to be shared and, for each, the level of interoperability. The ability for 

a clinician to be able to view a particular piece of information is obviously valuable. 

However, for some purposes, significant additional value can be derived if the data 

elements can be shared in such a way to enable computer assisted decisionmaking 

or computation. 

While we believe that we have optimized information sharing from our existing 

legacy systems, we also believe more can be done to add greater long-term value 

to the clinicians and servicemembers, veterans, and their families. The interoperability plan will guide us in prioritizing our sharing efforts and determining how 

best to address the development and/or procurement of new software applications 

and information technology systems jointly. Approaching these broader initiatives 

jointly helps to ensure that we will be able to more easily share information between the clinicians in our two Departments. 

The DOD/VA inpatient electronic health record initiative builds on the lessons 

learned and successes from legacy system data sharing, and is a prime example of 

how we are moving towards greater and greater interoperability. The feasibility assessment was completed. We are now in the process of assessing alternative technical approaches. This assessment will result in the selection of a technical approach in the fall of this year. 

Further, DOD and VA are jointly working to develop network trusted partnership 

which will allow the Departments to securely share data seamlessly across our communication infrastructures. Additional communication gateways are planned to 

allow for the increased volume of data sharing and provide redundancy. This infrastructure enhancement will serve as the backbone for implementation of many of 

the initiatives highlighted in the Dole/Shalala report. 

A personal, portable electronic medical record will draw information from the clinical information repositories, potentially from both DOD and VA sources. Some of 

that data will be from legacy systems, bringing with it the challenges inherent in 

working with the older technology. The implementation of newer technologies will 

address many of those challenges. The trusted partnership will address current 

challenges and any need for linkages to systems across DOD and VA. 

In December 2007, DOD initiated a proof of concept project to provide beneficiaries who have common access card access to a subset of data drawn from the 

DOD electronic health record, AHLTA. That data set includes the ability for the 

92

beneficiary to view allergy information, demographic information (name, social security number, date of birth, gender, marital status, race, religion, contact information, eligibility and enrollment data, and other health insurance). It also allows the 

beneficiary to view their medication profile including medication information from 

MTFs, civilian pharmacies, TRICARE Mail Order Pharmacy (TMOP), VA, and over 

the counter medications. 

The next phase of the DOD personal health record (PHR) project will allow the 

beneficiary to view nonsensitive chemistry and hematology lab results, and encounter notes (nonmental health). It will also enable beneficiaries to self enter information into a personal health journal. Initially this will be health history and health 

trackers. During phase II, options will be explored to enable PHR access for those 

who do not have Common Access Cards. 

Further development will continue to expand the scope of the PHR and extend 

it to all beneficiaries. 

Secretary MANSFIELD. VA and DOD are working together to address challenges 

related to VA obtaining access to DOD data. Despite these challenges, VA and DOD 

are now sharing unprecedented amounts of electronic medical data. Over the past 

several years, VA and DOD have worked to develop incremental data exchange, 

which now support the one way and bi-directional exchange of most health data that 

are available in electronic format. VA and DOD continue to collaborate in developing innovative methods of sharing data between one another. Some examples of 

these efforts include:

1. Bi-directional exchange of data. In order to better support VA/DOD interoperability, particularly in the global war on terror efforts, both organizations 

are emphasizing bi-directional information exchange as a central requirement. 

Data from areas such as pharmacy, allergy, laboratory, and radiology are currently exchanged in a textual format for full data sharing. This information exchange means that a veteran’s record becomes immediately more comprehensive 

and more portable. 

Taking this exchange one step further, both VA and DOD are working toward 

establishing data exchange that are both fully bi-directional, as well as computable, which means the data can be leveraged by both systems’ electronic decision support tools. Examples of VA/DOD data sharing efforts include both bidirectional health information exchange (BHIE) and clinical health data repository (CHDR), details of which include:

a. BHIE. Deployed to all VA facilities in October 2004. 

b. CHDR. Shares computable health record data elements between DOD’s 

clinical data repository (CDR) and VA’s health data repository (HDR). Data 

are exchanged for patients identified and matched as active dual consumers 

(ADC) of both VA and DOD health care. VA and DOD conducted the first 

successful test of CHDR in a live patient environment in June 2006, and 

expanded to seven locations between DOD and VA. The key feature of 

CHDR is the exchange of standardized, computable (as opposed to textual) 

data. CHDR currently exchange pharmacy and allergy data elements. In 

April 2007, VA released remote data interoperability (RDI), which extended 

the existing local drug-drug and drug-allergy order checks, to include data 

from all VA and DOD facilities, at which a patient was treated. This ensures electronic decision support tools are based on all available electronic 

patient health information.

2. Global War on Terror. The ‘‘Big 7’’ projects are developed to facilitate a 

smooth transition between DOD and VA for global war on terror veterans and 

expedite transfer and improve management of polytrauma and TBI patients. 

The ‘‘Big 7’’ include:

a. OEF/OIF combat veteran identifier 

b. TBI database which supports tracking, care quality monitoring, trend 

analysis, and performance improvement 

c. Polytrauma marker

i. Addresses special needs of polytrauma patients 

ii. Provides alerts and reminders and supports consistent management, reporting and displaying of important patient characteristics

d. DOD/VA BHIE-CDR (theater) interface provides an interface to OEF/

OIF theater data in DOD’s theater medical data system (TMDS) using 

BHIE framework 

e. Joint patient tracking application (JPTA)/veterans tracking application 

(VTA)

93

i. Gives VA providers access to critical demographic and patient 

health information from the theater of operations in DOD’s JPTA system 

ii. Establishes a link in VA’s VistAWeb and the CPRS tools menu

f. Clinical transfer form acts as nursing patient transfer document providing patients situation, background, assessment, and recommendations 

g. DOD scanning interface attaches scanned DOD patient records to clinical document notes accessible across VA

In March 2008 we completed three data sharing initiatives (1) inpatient 

consults, (2) operative reports, and (3) establishing plans for the movement of 

medical images. 

3. National Health Information Network (NHIN): Led by Health and Human 

Services, the VA and DOD both participate in the establishment of the NHIN. 

The NHIN is intended to provide a secure, nationwide, interoperable health information infrastructure that will connect providers, consumers, and others involved in supporting health and health care. The NHIN will enable health information to follow the consumer, be available for clinical decisionmaking, and 

support appropriate use of healthcare information beyond direct patient care so 

as to improve health. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT has 

invited a Federal Consortium of 26 agencies, including VA, DOD, HIS, and SSA 

to participate in the NHIN fiscal year 2008 trial implementation and fiscal year 

2009 production deployment. The Health Information Technology Sharing 

(HITS) Program and Software Engineering and Integration (SE&I) architects 

are engaged in the fiscal year 2009 objective to demonstrate patient data exchange among selected agencies in a production environment based on the 

standards specifications from Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) and 

the Health Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP). Implementation 

of this project will support sharing of standards-based electronic patient health 

information with private and Federal health care providers. 

Future Plans. In light of the global war on terror efforts and other existing 

VA/DOD information exchange programs, the two organizations have a number 

of plans for future efforts. The table below provides timelines regarding detailed 

information sharing milestones, and the list following the table, provides insight 

into additional efforts.

Data Sharing Initiatives Target Completion (by the end of) 

Vital signs ......................................................................................................... June 2008 

Joint inpatient phase 2 analysis - technical feasibility ................................... July 2008 

Family history .................................................................................................... September 2008 

Questionnaires and forms ................................................................................. September 2008 

Other history ...................................................................................................... September 2008 

Social history ..................................................................................................... September 2008 

Bidirectional health information exchange - VA–DOD imaging ....................... September 2008 

1. Continue to support one-way and bi-directional exchange with existing domains of textual data through BHIE (laboratory, pharmacy, radiology, and allergy) and FHIE. 

2. Enhance BHIE to exchange medical images and scanned documents. 

3. Expand the use of CHDR for exchange of computable electronic health 

record data to other appropriate and agreed-upon domains. 

4. Automate marking of active dual consumers. 

5. Enhance RDI to include additional CHDR data elements in electronic decision support as they become available.

Challenges: The issues which the implementation of VA/DOD interoperability 

projects face centered around the difficulty both VA and DOD staff have encountered in maintaining a solid operating status in the production environment of the 

current system. While the HHS-led NHIN effort could be considered a long-term 

strategy for interoperability, it is not yet mature. In working on this and the other 

interoperability solutions, neither agency foresaw the level of resource allocation, 

necessary to preserve the production linkage, and pinpointing the exact sources of 

the issues has proven difficult. Additionally, these projects are largely based upon 

the future HealtheVet/common services environment. Because not all components of 

this infrastructure are as yet in place and mature, the development staff on the 

project sometimes must engineer alternate solutions, slowing progress on overall 

system development. Finally, the mediation of standards between agencies presents 

some management challenges.

94

LEGAL ASSISTANCE

61. Senator WICKER. Secretary Geren, during our examination of Walter Reed and 

our military healthcare process, I was troubled to learn of the many soldiers waiting 

for legal assistance during the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)/Medical Evaluation 

Board (MEB) process. In some cases, soldiers hired their own attorneys at personal 

expense because of the tremendous backlogs. As a former member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, I offered an amendment that was accepted into 

last year’s supplemental appropriation that would implement the recommendations 

of the Army Inspector General to provide trained military attorneys dedicated to 

representing soldiers who are pursuing claims before evaluation boards. What obstacles lay in the way of recruiting and retaining staff, case managers, advocates, and 

legal staff? 

Secretary GEREN. Recruiting and retaining case managers, advocates, and legal 

staff can be challenging, particularly in some of the rural areas where our WTUs 

are located. Despite these challenges, our WTUs were staffed at about a 90 percent 

staffing level on February 6, 2008. We have used a combination of civilian hires and 

military personnel from the Active and Reserve components in order to achieve this 

level of staffing. 

The Army has demonstrated its commitment to provide soldiers and families the 

legal advocacy and assistance they require by specifically addressing this important 

support in the Army Medical Action Plan. The Army mobilized 18 Reserve component lawyers and legal assistants to provide legal counsel and advocacy for soldiers 

going through the Army Physical Disability System process. We are also pursuing 

a plan to expand this program by providing a lawyer and a paralegal at every Warrior Transition Battalion. 

The Army is greatly appreciative of the assistance Congress provided in the Fiscal 

Year 2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act and the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. The expanded hiring authorities in these Acts will help DOD attract and hire needed healthcare professionals. We have hired 138 mental health 

professionals with the intent to hire a total of 274.

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m. the committee adjourned.]

Æ