Department of Veterans Affairs 

Office of Inspector General 

Review of VA Regional Office 

Compensation and Pension Benefit 

Claim Receipt Dates 

Report No. 09-00189-81 February 27, 2009
 VA Office of Inspector General 

Washington, DC 20420 
 

 

 

To Report Suspected Wrongdoing in VA Programs and Operations 

Telephone: 1-800-488-8244 between 8:30AM and 4PM Eastern Time,

 Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays

 E-Mail: vaoighotline@va.gov 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Contents 

Page 

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................i
 

Improved Monitoring of Claim Receipt Date Accuracy and Documentation Will 

Introduction ..........................................................................................................1 

Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 1
 

Background....................................................................................................................... 1
 

Scope and Methodology ................................................................................................... 3
 

Results and Conclusions ....................................................................................4
 

Provide Greater Assurance of Reliable Claim-Processing Times.................................... 4
 

Appendixes 

A. Sampling Methodology............................................................................................. 12
 

B. Under Secretary for Benefits’ Comments................................................................. 15
 

C. OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments................................................................ 17
 

D. Report Distribution.................................................................................................... 18
 

VA Office of Inspector General 
 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Executive Summary 

Results in Brief 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review to evaluate the accuracy of 

VA Regional Office (VARO) compensation and pension (C&P) benefit claim receipt 

dates. We initiated the review after an investigation by Veterans Benefits 

Administration’s (VBA) Administrative Investigation Board (AIB) concluded that 

VARO New York had intentionally reported inaccurate claim receipt dates for 

220 (56 percent) of 390 claims reviewed. The objectives of our review were to determine 

if: (1) other VAROs reported inaccurate claim receipt dates; (2) inaccurate claim receipt 

dates caused veterans or their beneficiaries to receive incorrect benefit payments; and 

(3) inaccurate claim receipt dates caused VBA to report incorrect claim-processing times 

to stakeholders, such as veterans or members of Congress. 

We selected VAROs Albuquerque, Boston, San Diego, and Winston-Salem to assess 

whether the conditions VBA identified at VARO New York were occurring at other 

VAROs. Of the 94,920 claims the four VAROs completed during fiscal year (FY) 2008, 

we projected that 88,639 (93.4 percent) claim receipt dates were accurate and 4,520 (4.7 

percent) were inaccurate. We also projected that the 4 VAROs did not document the 

remaining 1,761 (1.9 percent) receipt dates in claim folders. Without this documentation, 

we could not assess the accuracy of the 1,761 dates. Therefore, the following inaccuracy 

rates could be understated. While all four VAROs reported inaccurate claim receipt 

dates, none of the VAROs’ inaccuracy rates were near the 56 percent rate VBA reported 

for VARO New York. Inaccuracy rates were 5 percent for VARO Albuquerque, 

4 percent for VARO Winston-Salem, and 3 percent for VARO San Diego. VARO 

Boston had an inaccuracy rate of 10 percent, which was significantly higher than the 

other three VAROs’ rates. 

Except for one intentional inaccuracy, VARO staff stated that the inaccurate dates were 

unintentional errors and our claim folder reviews found no evidence that the inaccurate 

dates were intentional. The inaccurate dates did not cause any veterans to receive 

incorrect or delayed benefit payments because the VAROs used the correct claim receipt 

dates documented in claim folders when establishing the effective dates of benefit awards 

instead of relying on the dates recorded in VBA’s computer system. In addition, because 

the inaccurate dates were both before and after the correct dates, the inaccuracies did not 

significantly affect most of the four VAROs’ reported FY 2008 average claim-processing 

times. The only exception was VARO Boston’s average processing time for the sampled 

rating claims, which when projected resulted in an understatement of 4 days (176 days 

using recorded dates and 180 days using actual dates). 

Background 

VBA policy requires VARO staff to document claim receipt dates in claim folders and in 

an automated computer system named SHARE. When VAROs use inaccurate claim 

VA Office of Inspector General i 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

receipt dates as the effective dates of awards, potentially beneficiaries may begin 

receiving benefit payments on the incorrect date or payments may be increased or 

decreased on the incorrect date. In addition, because VBA uses claim receipt and 

completion dates to measure timeliness, inaccurate receipt dates may cause reported 

claim-processing times to be incorrect. 

In July 2008, VBA’s C&P Service conducted a regularly scheduled review of operations 

at VARO New York. During VBA’s review, C&P Service found that the VARO 

reported inaccurate claim receipt dates for 16 (80 percent) of 20 claims reviewed. In 

August 2008, VBA convened an AIB investigation at VARO New York to determine the 

facts and circumstances surrounding the inaccurate dates. The investigation concluded 

that VARO management instructed staff to establish erroneous claim receipt dates, staff 

intentionally established erroneous receipt dates for 220 (56 percent) of 390 claims 

reviewed, and staff established erroneous dates for a number of years. VBA held several 

VARO New York managers accountable for the practice of intentionally establishing 

erroneous claim receipt dates. 

To determine the inaccuracy rate of claim receipt dates at other VAROs, on 

December 2, 2008, VBA instructed each VARO to review claim receipt dates for a 

random sample of 385 completed claims. (VAROs Baltimore, Roanoke, St. Louis and 

Seattle were exempt from this review because VBA’s C&P Service conducted the same 

review for these VAROs in November 2008.) On February 13, 2009, VBA provided us 

the unvalidated results of these reviews. The reported inaccuracy rate for all 57 VAROs 

combined was 7 percent and ranged from 1 percent at four VAROs (Huntington, New 

Orleans, Muskogee, and Phoenix) to 20 percent at VARO New York. For the four 

VAROs we reviewed, two VAROs (Boston and San Diego) reported the same inaccuracy 

rates that we found and the other two reported slightly higher rates (VARO Albuquerque 

reported 9 percent and we found 5 percent and VARO Winston-Salem reported 6 percent 

while we found 4 percent). 

Improved Monitoring of Claim Receipt Date Accuracy and Documentation Will 

Provide Greater Assurance of Reliable Claim-Processing Times 

VAROs Albuquerque, Boston, San Diego, and Winston-Salem generally reported 

accurate claim receipt dates when compared to VARO New York. Inaccuracy rates were 

5 percent for VARO Albuquerque, 4 percent for VARO Winston-Salem, and 3 percent 

for VARO San Diego. VARO Boston had an inaccuracy rate of 10 percent, which was 

significantly higher than the other three VAROs’ rates. Although the four VAROs’ 

inaccuracy rates were significantly lower than VARO New York’s, establishing goals for 

receipt date accuracy and strengthening controls will improve accuracy and 

documentation and provide greater assurance of reliable claim-processing times. In 

addition, because VARO Boston had a higher inaccuracy rate, the reliability of its receipt 

date data needs additional management attention. Figure 1, shown on the next page, 

highlights the number and percent of accurate, inaccurate, and undocumented claim 

receipt dates for each of the four VAROs. 

VA Office of Inspector General ii 
 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Figure 1. Claim Receipt Date Accuracy and Documentation for Four VAROs 

FY 2008 Completed Claims – Projected Results
 

Albuquerque Boston 

8,663 

(93%) 

492

(5% )

150

(2% )

11,849 

(88%) 

1,306 

(10%) 

328 

(2%) 

San Diego Winston-Salem 

1,129 1,593 (3%) (4%) 

888 395 (3%) (1%) 30,597 37,530 (94%) 95%

Inaccurate Inadequate 

 Dates 

 Accurate

Dates Documentation 

VARO Staff Stated That Inaccurate Dates Were Unintentional Errors. Our review 

indicated that the majority of the inaccurate claim receipt dates were unintentional errors. 

For 109 (99.1 percent) of the 110 inaccurate claim receipt dates, the timing of the dates 

indicated that VARO staff unintentionally entered the inaccurate dates in SHARE. In 

addition, VARO staff stated that the inaccuracies were unintentional errors and our claim 

folder reviews found no evidence that the inaccuracies were intentional. 

For the one inaccurate claim receipt date identified, a Senior Veterans Service 

Representative (SVSR) on the VARO Boston Triage Team intentionally entered the 

inaccurate date in SHARE. The SVSR told us that he entered inaccurate receipt dates in 

SHARE because he had a “general impression” of responsibility to help the Veterans 

Service Center (VSC) achieve the “goal to make numbers meet.” When we informed the 

VARO Director of the improper practice, he agreed to take appropriate action. 

Inaccurate Dates Did Not Affect Veterans Benefits or Significantly Affect Reported 

Claim-Processing Times. For the claim information we reviewed, the inaccurate dates 

did not cause any veterans or their beneficiaries to receive incorrect or delayed benefit 

payments because the VAROs used the correct claim receipt dates documented in claim 

folders instead of the inaccurate SHARE dates when establishing the effective dates of 

benefit awards. In addition, because the inaccurate receipt dates were both before and 

VA Office of Inspector General iii 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

after the correct dates, the inaccuracies did not significantly affect most of the four 

VAROs’ reported FY 2008 average claim-processing times. 

Documentation of Claim Receipt Dates Needs Improvement. We projected that for 

1,761 (1.9 percent) of the 94,920 claims the 4 VAROs completed during FY 2008, claim 

folders did not include sufficient documentation to determine if SHARE claim receipt 

dates were accurate. VARO managers could not explain why staff had not documented 

SHARE receipt dates in the sampled claim folders. Because we could not confirm the 

accuracy of the receipt dates for these claims, we could not determine if veterans or their 

beneficiaries received correct benefit payments or if there was any effect on reported 

claim-processing times. 

Better Monitoring Will Provide Greater Assurance of VBA Performance Reporting 

Reliability. VBA needs to better monitor claim receipt dates and documentation to help 

ensure the accuracy of reported claim-processing times, which VBA managers and 

stakeholders use to measure and monitor VARO performance. According to VBA 

managers, VBA’s Quality Assurance Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) 

staff began evaluating the accuracy of receipt dates during their regular monthly VARO 

reviews in November 2008. However, VBA may also improve claim-processing time 

reporting reliability by implementing the following two actions. 

•	 Establishing claim receipt date accuracy goals will improve VARO performance, 

transparency, and accountability. 

•	 Requiring VAROs to perform Systematic Analysis of Operations’ (SAOs) of claim 

receipt date accuracy and documentation will help ensure VARO and VBA managers 

have accurate and reliable claim-processing time data for their decision making 

purposes. VAROs routinely use SAOs as a self-audit technique to improve various 

aspects of operations. 

Conclusion 

While all four VAROs reported inaccurate claim receipt dates, none of the VAROs’ 

inaccuracy rates were near the 56 percent rate VBA reported for VARO New York. 

VARO Boston’s inaccuracy rate was significantly higher than the other three VAROs’ 

rates but also considerably lower than VARO New York’s rate. 

Except for one intentional inaccuracy, VARO staff stated that the inaccurate dates were 

unintentional errors and our claim folder reviews found no evidence that the inaccurate 

dates were intentional. For the claims we reviewed, the inaccurate dates did not cause 

any veterans or their beneficiaries to receive incorrect or delayed benefit payments 

because the VAROs used the correct claim receipt dates documented in claim folders 

when establishing the effective dates of benefit awards instead of relying on the 

inaccurate SHARE dates. In addition, because the inaccurate dates were both before and 

after the correct dates, the inaccuracies did not significantly affect most of the 4 VAROs’ 

reported FY 2008 average claim-processing times. 

VA Office of Inspector General iv 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Although the four VAROs’ inaccuracy rates were significantly lower than VARO New 

York’s, establishing goals for receipt date accuracy and strengthening controls will 

improve accuracy and documentation and provide greater assurance of reliable claimprocessing times. In addition, because VARO Boston had a higher inaccuracy rate, the 

reliability of its receipt date data needs additional management attention. 

Recommendations 

1. We recommended the Under Secretary for Benefits establish goals for VARO claim 

receipt date accuracy and use the goals to measure and monitor SHARE claim receipt 

date reliability. 

2. We recommended the Under Secretary for Benefits require VAROs to perform SAOs 

to validate the accuracy of SHARE claim receipt dates and the adequacy of claim 

receipt date documentation in claim folders. 

3. We recommended the Under Secretary for Benefits require the VARO Boston 

Director to identify any other claims where the SVSR intentionally entered inaccurate 

receipt dates in SHARE, ensure benefit payments related to these claims are correct, 

and take appropriate administrative action against the SVSR. 

Comments 

The Under Secretary agreed with our findings and recommendations and provided 

acceptable implementation plans. (See Appendix B) We will follow up on the 

implementation of the planned improvement actions. 

 (original signed by:)

BELINDA J. FINN 

Assistant Inspector General 

for Auditing 

VA Office of Inspector General v 
 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Introduction 

Purpose 

The OIG conducted a review to evaluate the accuracy of VARO C&P benefit claim 

receipt dates. We initiated the review after an investigation by VBA’s AIB concluded 

that VARO New York had intentionally reported inaccurate claim receipt dates for 

220 (56 percent) of 390 claims reviewed. The objectives of our review were to determine 

if: (1) other VAROs reported inaccurate claim receipt dates; (2) inaccurate claim receipt 

dates caused veterans or their beneficiaries to receive incorrect benefit payments; and 

(3) inaccurate claim receipt dates caused VBA to report incorrect claim-processing times 

to stakeholders, such as veterans or members of Congress. 

Background 

VARO New York Inaccurate Claim Receipt Dates. In July 2008, VBA’s C&P Service 

conducted a regularly scheduled review of operations at VARO New York. During 

VBA’s review, C&P Service found that the VARO reported inaccurate claim receipt 

dates for 16 (80 percent) of 20 claims reviewed. In August 2008, VBA convened an AIB 

investigation at VARO New York to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding 

the inaccurate receipt dates. During the investigation, AIB staff obtained sworn 

testimony from 34 employees, and C&P Service staff reviewed receipt dates for 

390 claims. The investigation concluded that VARO management instructed staff to 

establish erroneous claim receipt dates, staff intentionally established erroneous receipt 

dates for 220 (56 percent) of 390 claims reviewed, and staff established erroneous dates 

for a number of years. VBA held several VARO New York managers accountable for 

the practice of intentionally establishing erroneous claim receipt dates. 

VARO Review of Claim Receipt Dates. To determine the inaccuracy rate of claim 

receipt dates at other VAROs, on December 2, 2008, VBA instructed each VARO to 

review claim receipt dates for a random sample of 385 completed claims. (VAROs 

Baltimore, Roanoke, St. Louis and Seattle were exempt from this review because VBA’s 

C&P Service conducted the same review for these VAROs in November 2008.) On 

February 13, 2009, VBA provided us the unvalidated results of these reviews. The 

reported inaccuracy rate for all 57 VAROs combined was 7 percent and ranged from 

1 percent at four VAROs (Huntington, New Orleans, Muskogee, and Phoenix) to 

20 percent at VARO New York. For the four VAROs we reviewed, two VAROs (Boston 

and San Diego) reported the same inaccuracy rates that we found and the other two 

reported slightly higher rates (VARO Albuquerque reported 9 percent while we found 

5 percent and VARO Winston-Salem reported 6 percent while we found 4 percent). 

Inaccurate Claim Receipt Dates May Cause Incorrect Benefit Payments. Generally, 

VAROs use claim receipt dates as the effective dates for awarding benefits. Therefore, 

when VAROs use inaccurate receipt dates as the effective dates of awards, beneficiaries 

VA Office of Inspector General 1 
 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

may potentially begin receiving benefit payments on the incorrect date or benefit 

payments may be increased or decreased on the incorrect date. In addition, if VAROs 

use inaccurate receipt dates as effective dates when calculating retroactive benefit 

payment amounts, veterans or their beneficiaries could receive an incorrect retroactive 

payment. 

Inaccurate Claim Receipt Dates Cause Incorrect Claim-Processing Times. VARO 

staff record claim receipt dates in an automated computer system named SHARE. The 

receipt dates recorded in SHARE are included in other VBA automated systems such as 

the Corporate Database. VARO and VBA management use the Corporate Database to 

monitor and manage claim processing, develop data on performance measurements such 

as claim processing times, and report results to stakeholders. Since VBA uses SHARE 

claim receipt and completion dates to measure timeliness, inaccurate receipt dates cause 

claim-processing times to be incorrect. 

VBA Policy on Documenting Claim Receipt Dates in Claim Folders. VBA policy 

requires VARO staff to document in claim folders the date veterans, their beneficiaries, 

or their representatives, such as Veteran Service Organizations, submit benefit claims. 

Claimants may use several methods to submit claims to VAROs. If a claimant submits a 

claim by mail, the claim receipt date must be documented by mailroom staff who use a 

date stamp to show the receipt date. If a claimant submits a claim using VBA’s Web site, 

staff are required to include a copy of the electronic claim in the claims folder, which 

shows the claim receipt date. A telephone call or personal contact between staff and 

veterans, their beneficiaries, or their representatives may also result in a claim. In this 

case, staff are required to document the claim receipt date on a report of contact in the 

claims folder. 

VBA Policy on Recording Claim Receipt Dates in SHARE. VBA policy requires 

VARO mailroom or other staff to provide all benefit claims whether received through the 

mail, VBA’s Web site, reports of contacts, or any other method, to the VSC Triage Team. 

VSRs assigned to the Triage Team are required to record all receipt dates in SHARE. 

VARO Quality Reviews of SHARE Data. As part of their workload management 

responsibilities, VBA policy requires VARO management to ensure the accuracy of 

SHARE data. Managers are required to perform quality reviews to make sure staff 

follow prescribed procedures when recording data in SHARE. During these reviews, 

managers must assess the quality of SHARE data such as suspense dates, and dates the 

VARO requests and receive claim evidence. 

SAO Reviews. VSC managers are responsible for ensuring SAOs are performed as part 

of an ongoing analysis of VSC operations. SAOs must be performed at least annually 

and cover all aspects of claims processing, including quality, timeliness, and related 

factors. SAOs include verifying that records and reports accurately reflect actual 

operations and results and evaluating compliance with manuals, regulations, and 

directives. When SAO reports identify problems or significant opportunities for 

improvements, the reports should include recommended improvement actions. 

VA Office of Inspector General 2 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Scope and Methodology 

We reviewed claim receipt dates for a statistical sample of 1,515 C&P benefit claims that 

VAROs Albuquerque, Boston, San Diego, and Winston-Salem completed during FY 

2008. We selected these 4 VAROs by analyzing all 57 VAROs’ reported changes in 

claim-processing times from FY 2007 to 2008 and monetary awards received for 

achieving FY 2008 VBA incremental incentive claim-processing timeliness goals. All 

four VAROs received monetary awards. These 4 VAROs completed 

94,920 (5.6 percent) of the 1.7 million C&P claims completed by all 57 VAROs during 

FY 2008. Our results were only projected to these 4 VAROs and cannot be projected to 

all 57 VAROs. (See Appendix A for a detailed description of the sampling 

methodology.) 

To determine if VAROs accurately reported claim receipt dates in SHARE, for each of 

the sampled claims, we compared claim receipt dates shown on available documentation 

in the associated claim folders with the SHARE claim receipt dates. To determine if 

inaccurate receipt dates caused veterans or their beneficiaries to receive incorrect benefit 

payments, we compared receipt dates reported in SHARE with effective award dates 

documented in claim folders. To determine if inaccurate receipt dates caused incorrect 

claim-processing times, we calculated and compared FY 2008 average claim-processing 

times using receipt dates in SHARE and receipt dates in claim folders. We also 

interviewed appropriate VBA and VARO management and staff and reviewed applicable 

policies, procedures, and guidelines. 

To accomplish the review objectives, we used computer-generated SHARE data. To test 

the reliability of this data, we compared relevant SHARE data with documents in 

beneficiary claim folders. The data was sufficiently reliable for the review objectives. 

The review focused on controls related to the review objectives. The review was not 

intended to form an opinion on the adequacy of VBA’s controls overall, and the report 

does not render such an opinion. We conducted the review in accordance with the 

President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency Quality Standards for Inspections. 

VA Office of Inspector General 3 
 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Results and Conclusions 

Improved Monitoring of Claim Receipt Date Accuracy and 

Documentation Will Provide Greater Assurance of Reliable 

Claim-Processing Times 

Of 94,920 claims VAROs Albuquerque, Boston, San Diego, and Winston-Salem 

completed during FY 2008, we projected that 88,639 (93.4 percent) claim receipt dates 

were accurate and 4,520 (4.7 percent) were inaccurate. We also projected that the four 

VAROs did not document the remaining 1,761 (1.9 percent) receipt dates in claim 

folders. Without this documentation, we could not assess the accuracy of the 1,761 dates. 

Therefore, the following inaccuracy rates could be understated. 

While all four VAROs reported inaccurate claim receipt dates, none of the VAROs’ 

inaccuracy rates were near the 56 percent rate VBA reported for VARO New York. 

Inaccuracy rates were 5 percent for VARO Albuquerque, 4 percent for VARO WinstonSalem, and 3 percent for VARO San Diego. VARO Boston had an inaccuracy rate of 

10 percent, which was significantly higher than the other three VAROs’ rates. 

Except for one intentional inaccuracy, VARO staff stated that the inaccurate dates were 

unintentional errors and our claim folder reviews found no evidence that the inaccurate 

dates were intentional. The inaccurate dates did not cause any veterans or their 

beneficiaries to receive incorrect or delayed benefit payments because the VAROs used 

the correct claim receipt dates documented in claim folders when establishing the 

effective dates of benefit awards instead of relying on the inaccurate SHARE dates. In 

addition, because the inaccurate dates were both before and after the correct dates, the 

inaccuracies did not significantly affect most of the four VAROs’ reported FY 2008 

average claim-processing times. 

Although the four VAROs’ inaccuracy rates were significantly lower than VARO New 

York’s, establishing goals for receipt date accuracy and strengthening controls will 

improve accuracy and documentation and provide greater assurance of reliable claimprocessing times. In addition, because VARO Boston had a higher inaccuracy rate, the 

reliability of its receipt date data needs additional management attention. 

Controls Need Improvement to Ensure VAROs Report Accurate Claim 

Receipt Dates 

VBA did not have adequate controls to ensure VAROs report accurate claim receipt dates 

in SHARE. VAROs Albuquerque, Boston, San Diego, and Winston-Salem reported 

94,920 receipt dates in SHARE for claims completed during FY 2008. We projected that 

of the 94,920 dates, 88,639 (93.4 percent) were accurate, 4,520 (4.7 percent) were 

inaccurate, and 1,761 (1.9 percent) were not documented in claim folders. 

VA Office of Inspector General 4 
 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Inaccuracy rates were 5 percent for VARO Albuquerque, 4 percent for VARO WinstonSalem, and 3 percent for VARO San Diego. VARO Boston had an inaccuracy rate of 

10 percent, which was significantly higher than the other three VAROs’ rates. Figure 1 

shows the number and percent of accurate, inaccurate, and undocumented claim receipt 

dates for each of the four VAROs. 

Figure 1. Claim Receipt Date Accuracy and Documentation for Four VAROs 

FY 2008 Completed Claims – Projected Results
 

Albuquerque Boston 

8,663 

(93%) 

492

(5% )

150

(2% )

11,849 

(88%) 

1,306 

(10%) 

328 

(2%) 

San Diego Winston-Salem 

1,129 1,593 (3%) (4%) 

888 395 (3%) (1%) 30,597 37,530 (94%) 95%

Inaccurate Inadequate 

 Dates 

 Accurate

Dates Documentation 

VARO Staff Stated That Inaccurate Dates Were Unintentional Errors. Our review 

indicated that the majority of the inaccurate claim receipt dates were unintentional errors. 

For 109 (99.1 percent) of the 110 inaccurate claim receipt dates, the timing of the dates 

indicated that VARO staff unintentionally entered the inaccurate dates in SHARE. In 

addition, VARO staff stated that the inaccuracies were unintentional errors and our claim 

folder reviews found no evidence that the inaccuracies were intentional. 

VBA uses claim receipt and completion dates to calculate claim-processing times. 

Inaccurate receipt dates that are after actual receipt dates will result in lower claimprocessing times and indicate better performance. Inaccurate receipt dates that are before

actual receipt dates will result in higher claim-processing times and indicate poorer 

performance. Therefore, if VAROs were to intentionally manipulate claim-processing 

VA Office of Inspector General 5 
 

 

 

 

 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

times to indicate better performance, they would have consistently recorded SHARE 

receipt dates that were a significant number of days after actual receipt dates. 

Of these 109 receipt dates, 27 (24.8 percent) were 30 days or less before the actual date, 

8 (7.3 percent) were more than 30 days before the actual dates, 53 (48.6 percent) were 

30 days or less after the actual dates, and 21 (19.3 percent) were more than 30 days after 

the actual date. Figure 2 shows the timing of inaccurate rating and non-rating claim 

receipt dates for each of the four VAROs. 

Figure 2. Timing of Inaccurate Claim Receipt Dates for VAROs 

FY 2008 – Sample Results 

Claim Receipt Dates 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

8 

2 

5 

3 

1 1 

6 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

6 

4 

17 

6 

6 

2 

10 

2 

2 

13 

1 4 

1 

1 

0 

Rating Nonrating Rating Nonrating Rating Nonrating Rating Nonrating 

Albuquerque Boston San Diego Winston-Salem 

SHARE Date More than 30 days After Actual Date 

SHARE Date 30 Days or Less After Actual Date 

SHARE Date More than 30 Days Before Actual Date 

SHARE Date 30 Days or Less Before Actual Date 

VARO 

All four VAROs had more inaccurate receipt dates for rating claims than for non-rating 

claims. Of the four VAROs, Boston had the most inaccurate rating and non-rating receipt 

dates, San Diego had the lowest number of inaccurate rating claim dates, and San Diego 

and Winston-Salem had the lowest number of non-rating claim dates. VARO Boston 

also had the most inaccurate rating claim dates that were after actual dates (17 dates were 

30 days or less after actual dates and 13 were 30 days or more after actual dates). 

VA Office of Inspector General 6 
 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Unintentional Inaccurate Claim Receipt Date. Based on our claims reviews and 

interviews of VARO staff, we concluded that Veterans Service Representative (VSR) 

data input error was generally the cause of inaccurate SHARE claim receipt dates. The 

following two examples highlight the type of input errors identified: 

Example 1. Inaccurate by 30 Days or Less. VARO Winston-Salem 

received a veteran’s Statement in Support of Claim to increase a disability 

rating for a lower back condition. The claim receipt date documented in the 

claims folder was September 28, 2007, which was the receipt date the 

VARO stamped on the Statement in Support of Claims. However, the 

September 8, 2007, receipt date reported in SHARE was 20 days before the 

date documented in the claims folder. Our review of the claims folder and 

interviews of VARO staff found no evidence that the VARO intentionally 

reported the inaccurate date in SHARE. Therefore, we concluded that the 

inaccurate date was the result of the VSR erroneously entering an 8 instead 

of a 28 when entering the date in SHARE. The incorrect claim receipt date 

did not affect the veteran’s benefits because the VARO denied the claim. 

Example 2. Inaccurate by More Than 30 Days. VARO San Diego 

received a veteran’s Application for Compensation and/or Pension claiming 

service-connection disability benefits for six disabilities while the veteran 

was still on active duty. The claim receipt date documented in the claims 

folder was March 20, 2008, the day after the veteran was discharged from 

active duty, which was in accordance with VBA policy. However, the 

SHARE date was June 7, 2008, 79 days after the actual receipt date. Our 

review of the claim folders could not determine why the VSR recorded 

June 7, 2008, in SHARE. In addition, VARO staff could not explain the 

reason for the inaccurate date and stated that it was most likely the result of 

a VSR accidentally entering the wrong date in SHARE. The incorrect 

receipt date did not affect the veteran’s benefits because the VARO used 

the correct March 20, 2008, date to determine the effective date of the 

award. 

Intentional Inaccurate Claim Receipt Date. As discussed in Example 3, for 1 of the 

110 sampled inaccurate claim receipt dates, a SVSR on the VARO Boston Triage Team 

intentionally entered the inaccurate date in SHARE. 

Example 3. VARO Boston received a letter from a veteran claiming 

service-connection disability benefits for sleep deprivation. The VARO 

Triage Team properly stamped September 24, 2007, as the receipt date on 

the back of the veteran’s letter. On the last page of the letter, there was an 

annotation, with no initials, to establish the receipt date as 

January 22, 2008. The date in SHARE was the incorrect date of 

January 22, 2008, which was 124 days after the actual receipt date of 

VA Office of Inspector General 7 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

September 24, 2007. The incorrect claim receipt date did not affect the 

veteran’s benefits because the VARO denied the claim. 

The SVSR told us that he entered inaccurate claim receipt dates in SHARE because he 

had a “general impression” of responsibility to help the VSC achieve the “goal to make 

numbers meet.” He stated that for claims over 1 year old, he entered receipt dates in 

SHARE that were within 30 days of the input date instead of the actual receipt date. For 

claims that were between 7 and 30 days old, he entered dates in SHARE that were within 

7 days of the input date. However, he was unaware of any other supervisor that 

instructed staff to do this and VARO management did not direct him to instruct staff to 

enter inaccurate claim receipt dates in SHARE. When we informed the VARO Director 

of the improper practice, he stated that he would take appropriate action. 

Inaccurate Dates Did Not Affect Veterans Benefits or Significantly Affect Reported 

Claim-Processing Times. The inaccurate dates did not cause any veterans or their 

beneficiaries to receive incorrect or delayed benefit payments because, when establishing 

the effective dates of benefit awards, the VAROs used the correct claim receipt dates 

documented in claim folders instead of the inaccurate SHARE dates. The VAROs used 

the correct dates because they followed VBA policies that require effective dates of 

awards to be based on claim receipt dates documented in claim folders and not the dates 

recorded in SHARE. 

The inaccurate dates also did not significantly affect most of the four VAROs’ reported 

FY 2008 average claim-processing times because, as previously shown in Figure 2, the 

inaccurate claim receipt dates were both before and after the correct dates. The only 

exception was VARO Boston’s average processing time for the sampled rating claims, 

which when projected resulted in an understatement of 4 days (176 days using recorded 

dates and 180 days using actual dates). 

Documentation of Claim Receipt Dates Needs Improvement. We projected that for 

1,761 (1.9 percent) of the 94,920 claims, the claim folders did not include sufficient 

documentation to determine if SHARE claim receipt dates were accurate. Of these 

1,761 claims, VARO Albuquerque had 150, VARO Boston had 328, VARO San Diego 

had 888, and VARO Winston-Salem had 395. VARO managers could not explain why 

staff had not documented SHARE receipt dates in the sampled claim folders. Because 

we could not confirm the accuracy of the SHARE receipt dates for these claims, we could 

not determine if veterans or their beneficiaries received correct benefit payments or if 

there was any effect on reported claim-processing times. 

VBA policy requires VARO staff to document in claim folders the date veterans, their 

beneficiaries, or their representatives, such as a Veteran Service Organizations, submit 

benefit claims. For these 1,761 claims, claim folders did not include a date stamp 

showing the date the VARO received the claim, a copy of an electronic claim showing 

the claim date, or a report of contact showing the date the VARO accepted the claim over 

VA Office of Inspector General 8 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

the telephone or in person. Example 4 discusses a sampled claim where the claims folder 

documentation was inadequate. 

Example 4. A VARO Boston claims folder included a veteran’s Statement 

in Support of Claim requesting service-connection disability benefits for 

bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The statement included the veteran’s 

signature but not a signature date. The VARO did not stamp a receipt date 

on the front or back of the claim. SHARE showed a claim date of 

August 1, 2007. Because the VARO did not stamp a receipt date on the 

claim, we could not determine if the SHARE claim receipt date was 

accurate. The Acting VSC manager agreed that the claim folder 

documentation did not support the inaccurate SHARE date. 

Better Monitoring Will Provide Greater Assurance of VBA Performance Reporting 

Reliability. VBA needs to better monitor claim receipt dates and documentation to help 

ensure the accuracy of reported claim-processing times, which VBA managers and 

stakeholders use to measure and monitor VARO performance. According to VBA 

managers, STAR began evaluating the accuracy of receipt dates during their regular 

monthly VARO reviews in November 2008. However, VBA may also improve claimprocessing time reporting reliability by implementing the following actions. 

•	 Establishing claim receipt date accuracy goals will improve VARO performance, 

transparency, and accountability. VBA has used goals to help improve VARO 

performance in other areas such as accuracy rates for pension authorizations and 

burial claims processed. 

•	 Requiring VAROs to perform SAOs of claim receipt date accuracy and 

documentation will help ensure VARO and VBA managers have accurate and reliable 

claim-processing time data for their decision-making purposes. 

VBA policy requires VAROs to perform quality reviews to ensure staff follows 

prescribed procedures when recording data in SHARE. During these reviews, managers 

must assess the quality of SHARE data such as claim disposition codes, suspense dates, 

and the proper recording of dates and other information related to requested and received 

claim evidence. During FY 2008, all four VAROs reviewed the accuracy of SHARE 

claim receipt dates and the adequacy of claim folders documentation as part of their 

quality reviews. However, the results of our review show that controls need 

strengthening. 

VBA policy requires VAROs to use SAOs as a self-audit technique to improve 

operations. SAOs include verifying that records and reports accurately reflect actual 

operations and results and evaluating compliance with manuals, regulations, and 

directives. To strengthen controls and improve quality reviews, VBA should require 

VAROs to perform an SAO of claim receipt date accuracy and documentation. 

VA Office of Inspector General 9 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Conclusion 

While all four VAROs reported inaccurate claim receipt dates, none of the VARO’s 

inaccuracy rates were near the 56 percent rate VBA reported for VARO New York. 

VARO Boston’s inaccuracy rate was significantly higher than the other three VAROs’ 

rates but also considerably lower than VARO New York’s rate. 

Except for one intentional inaccuracy, VARO staff stated that the inaccurate dates were 

unintentional errors and our claim folder reviews found no evidence that the inaccurate 

dates were intentional. The inaccurate dates did not cause any veterans or their 

beneficiaries to receive incorrect or delayed benefit payments because the VAROs used 

the correct claim receipt dates documented in claim folders when establishing the 

effective dates of benefit awards instead of relying on the inaccurate SHARE dates. In 

addition, because the inaccurate dates were both before and after the correct dates, the 

inaccuracies did not significantly affect most of the four VAROs’ reported FY 2008 

average claim-processing times. 

Although the four VAROs’ inaccuracy rates were significantly lower than VARO New 

York’s, establishing goals for receipt date accuracy and strengthening controls will 

improve accuracy and documentation and provide greater assurance of reliable claimprocessing times. In addition, because VARO Boston had a higher inaccuracy rate, the 

reliability of its receipt date data needs additional management attention. 

Recommendations 

1. We recommended the Under Secretary for Benefits establish goals for VARO claim 

receipt date accuracy and use the goals to measure and monitor SHARE claim receipt 

date reliability. 

2. We recommended the Under Secretary for Benefits require VAROs to perform SAOs 

to validate the accuracy of SHARE claim receipt dates and the adequacy of claim 

receipt date documentation in claim folders. 

3. We recommended the Under Secretary for Benefits require the VARO Boston 

Director to identify any other claims where the SVSR intentionally entered inaccurate 

receipt dates in SHARE, ensure benefit payments related to these claims are correct, 

and take appropriate administrative action against the SVSR. 

Under Secretary for Benefits Comments 

The Under Secretary agreed with our findings and recommendations. Claim date 

accuracy reviews will be a permanent addition to the STAR program to ensure continued 

monitoring. VBA will collect and study accuracy data from these reviews through the 

first two quarters of FY 2009 and establish a sound goal by June 1, 2009. By 

April 1, 2009, C&P Service will revise M21-4, Chapter 5, to add the requirement for 

validating the accuracy of claims dates to the existing “Quality of Control Actions” SAO. 

VA Office of Inspector General 10 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

VARO Boston will examine claims established by the SVSR who intentionally entered 

the incorrect date of receipt identified by OIG and correct inaccurate dates to ensure 

benefit payments are accurate. In addition, the VARO Director will conduct a 

comprehensive investigation to assess the extent of this SVSR’s actions and take 

appropriate administrative action. The target for completing these actions is 

May 1, 2009. (See Appendix B for the full text of the Under Secretary’s comments.) 

OIG Comments 

The planned actions are acceptable and we will follow up on their implementation. 

VA Office of Inspector General 11 
 

 

 

 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Appendix A 

Sampling Methodology 

Universe 

The universe used to evaluate the accuracy of C&P benefit claim receipt dates came from 

VBA’s SHARE automated computer system. The universe consisted of 94,920 receipt 

dates for claims VAROs Albuquerque, Boston, San Diego and Winston-Salem completed 

during FY 2008. We selected these 4 VAROs by analyzing all 57 VAROs reported 

changes in claim-processing times from FY 2007 to 2008 and claim processing 

performance monetary awards received during FY 2008. 

Sample Design 

We used three strata to select stratified random samples of claims from each of the four 

VAROs. The three strata were weekday rating claims, weekend rating claims, and nonrating claims. Rating claims include initial and reopened C&P claims. Non-rating claims 

include administrative type of claims such as a dependency change, notice of death, and 

for pension benefit recipients an income change. Table 1 below shows a summary of the 

universe and sampling strata for each of the four VAROs. 

Table 1. Universe and Sample Claim Receipt Dates 

FY 2008 Completed Claims 

VARO/Strata 

Universe Sample 

Claims Percent Claims Weights 

Albuquerque 

Rating Weekday 

Rating Weekend 

Non-rating 

Totals 

5,170 

60 

4,075

9,305 

 55.6% 

0.6% 

 43.8% 

100.0% 

200 

60 

100 

360 

25.9 

1.0 

40.8 

Boston 

Rating Weekday 

Rating Weekend 

Non-rating 

Totals 

5,560 

63 

7,860

13,483 

 41.2% 

0.5% 

 58.3% 

100.0% 

200 

55 

100 

355 

27.8 

1.1 

78.6 

San Diego 

Rating Weekday 

Rating Weekend 

Non-rating 

Totals 

19,269 

1,713 

11,632

32,614 

 59.1% 

5.3% 

 35.7% 

100.0% 

200 

100 

100 

400 

 96.3 

 17.1 

116.3 

VA Office of Inspector General 12 
 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Appendix A 

Table 1. Universe and Sample Claim Receipt Dates – (continued) 

FY 2008 Completed Claims 

VARO/Strata 

Universe Sample 

Claims Percent Claims Weights 

Winston-Salem 

Rating Weekday 

Rating Weekend 

Non-rating 

Totals 

17,398 

169 

21,951

39,518 

 44.0% 

0.4% 

 55.5% 

100.0% 

200 

100 

100 

400 

 87.0 

1.7 

219.5 

Totals – All Four VAROs 94,920 1,515 

Sampling Results 

We evaluated the accuracy of 1,515 random SHARE claim receipt dates. In total, 

1,374 (90.7 percent) dates were accurate, 110 (7.3 percent) were inaccurate. For the 

remaining 31 (2.0 percent) dates, the VAROs did not document the dates in claim folders 

and as a result, we could not determine if the dates were accurate. Based on the 

weighting factors of our three strata statistical sample, we projected the result totals 

shown in Table 2. 

Table 2. Projection of Sample Results – Totals for All Four VAROs 

Description Projection Percent Sample 

Accurate Claim Receipt Date 88,639 93.4% 1,374 

Inaccurate Claim Receipt Date 4,520 4.7% 110 

Inadequate Documentation 1,761 1.9% 31

 Totals 94,920 100.0% 1,515 

We computed these projections from a sample of claim receipt dates. Sample projections 

are an estimate of the total claims for each of the four VAROs. We used a Jackknife 

replication method to compute the sampling errors for our estimates, which accounts for 

the differential weights, stratification, and self-representing strata in the sample design. 

The margins of error in this report are presented as ± the number of claims at a 90 percent 

confidence interval for each projection as shown below. This means that 90 percent of 

the possible samples we could have selected of the same size and design would have 

resulted in an estimate within these bounds. Table 3 shows the sample results and the 

projections on receipt date accuracy and documentation for each of the four VAROs. 

VA Office of Inspector General 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Appendix A 

Table 3. Projection of Sample Results – Totals for Each of the Four VAROs 

Description Projection Percent ± (90%) Sample 

VARO Albuquerque 

Accurate Claim Receipt Date 

Inaccurate Claim Receipt Date 

Inadequate Documentation 

Totals 

8,663 

492 

150

9,305 

93.1% 

5.3% 

1.6% 

100.0% 

239 

210 

123 

329 

25 

6

360 

VARO Boston 

Accurate Claim Receipt Date 

Inaccurate Claim Receipt Date 

Inadequate Documentation 

Totals 

11,849 

1,306 

328

13,483 

87.9% 

9.7% 

2.4% 

100.0% 

474 

433 

214 

296 

47 

12

355 

VARO San Diego 

Accurate Claim Receipt Date 

Inaccurate Claim Receipt Date 

Inadequate Documentation 

Totals 

30,597 

1,129 

888

32,614 

93.8% 

3.5% 

2.7% 

100.0% 

726 

542 

502 

376 

15 

9

400 

VARO Winston-Salem 

Accurate Claim Receipt Date 

Inaccurate Claim Receipt Date 

Inadequate Documentation1

 Totals 

37,530 

1,593 

395

39,518 

95.0% 

4.0% 

1.0% 

100.0% 

908 

817 

415 

373 

23 

4

400 

1 The projection of VARO Winston-Salem claim receipt dates with inadequate documentation ranged from 

4 (sample results) to 810 (395 + 415) claim receipt dates. 

VA Office of Inspector General 14 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Dates 

Appendix B 

Under Secretary for Benefits’ Comments
 

Department of 

Veterans Affairs Memorandum 

Date: January 27, 2009 

From: Under Secretary for Benefits (20) 

Subj: Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim 

Receipt Dates (Project No. 2009-00189-R3-0018) 

To: Assistant Inspector General for Audit (52) 

1.	 This is in response to your request for VBA’s review of OIG Draft Report: 

Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim 

Receipt Dates. Attached are VBA’s comments. 

2.	 Questions may be referred to Dee Fielding, Program Analyst, at 461-9057. 

(original signed by:) 

P. W. Dunne 

Attachment 

VA Office of Inspector General 15 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Dates 

Appendix B 

Under Secretary for Benefits’ Comments 

to Office of Inspector General’s Report 

The following Under Secretary for Benefits’ comments are submitted in response to 

the recommendation(s) in the Office of Inspector General’s Report: 

Recommendation 1: We recommend the Under Secretary for Benefits establish goals 

for VARO claim date accuracy and use the goals to measure and monitor SHARE 

claim date reliability. 

VBA Response: Concur. In November 2008, VBA’s Compensation and Pension 

(C&P) Service began reviewing date of claim accuracy on all Systematic Technical 

Accuracy Reviews (STAR). The date-of-claim accuracy reviews will be a permanent 

addition to the STAR program to ensure continued monitoring. VBA will collect and 

study accuracy data from these reviews through the first two quarters of FY 2009 to 

establish a sound goal. 

Target Completion Date: June 1, 2009 

Recommendation 2: We recommend the Under Secretary for Benefits require 

VARO’s to perform SAOs to validate the accuracy of SHARE claim dates and the 

adequacy of claim date documentation in claims folders. 

VBA Response: Concur. VBA’s C&P Service is revising M21-4, Chapter 5, to add 

the requirement for validating the accuracy of claims dates to the existing “Quality of 

Control Actions” Systematic Analysis of Operations (SAO). Completion of annually 

required SAOs will be confirmed by routine C&P site visits. 

Target Completion Date: April 1, 2009 

Recommendation 3: We recommend the Under Secretary for Benefits require the 

VARO Boston Director to identify any other claims where the SVSR intentionally 

entered inaccurate receipt dates in SHARE, ensure benefit payments related to these 

claims are correct, and take appropriate administrative action against the SVSR. 

VBA Response: Concur. The Boston RO will examine claims established by the 

Senior Veterans Service Representative (SVSR) who intentionally entered the 

incorrect date of receipt identified by OIG. Inaccurate dates will be corrected to 

ensure benefit payments are accurate. The Boston RO has provided training on 

proper establishment of claims and receipt dates to all employees. The SVSR retired 

the end of January 2009. 

Target Completion Date: May 1, 2009 

VA Office of Inspector General 16 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Appendix C 

OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

OIG Contact Kent Wrathall 

(404) 929-5921 

Acknowledgments Elizabeth Butler 

Madeline Cantu 

John Carnahan 

Marcia Drawdy 

Lee Giesbrecht 

Scott Harris 

Henry Hoffman 

Raymond A. Jurkiewicz 

Jennifer Leonard 

Whittie Lockett 

James McCarthy 

Deanna Moczygemba 

George Patton 

Cheri Preston 

Dennis Sullivan 

Al Tate 

VA Office of Inspector General 17 
Review of VA Regional Office Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Receipt Dates 

Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

VA Distribution 

Office of the Secretary 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

Veterans Health Administration 

National Cemetery Administration 

Assistant Secretaries 

Office of General Counsel 

Directors, VA Regional Offices 

Non-VA Distribution 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans 

Affairs, and Related Agencies 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans 

Affairs, and Related Agencies 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

National Veterans Service Organizations 

Government Accountability Office 

Office of Management and Budget 

This report is available in the near future on the OIG’s Web site at 

http://www.va.gov/oig/publications/reports-list.asp. This report will remain on the OIG 

Web site for at least 2 FYs after it is issued. 

VA Office of Inspector General 18