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

75–614 2013

INVISIBLE WOUNDS: EXAMINING THE DISABILITY 

COMPENSATION BENEFITS PROCESS FOR VICTIMS OF MILITARY SEXUAL TRAUMA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 

AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2012 

Serial No. 112–70 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada 

ROBERT L. TURNER, New York 

BOB FILNER, California, Ranking 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JERRY McNERNEY, California 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

HELEN W. TOLAR, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

ROBERT L. TURNER, New York 

JERRY McNERNEY, California, Ranking 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

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

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

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

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

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

is further refined. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

July 18, 2012 

Page 

Invisible Wounds: Examining The Disability Compensation Benefits Process 

For Victims of Military Sexual Trauma ............................................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman Jon Runyan ............................................................................................ 1 

Prepared Statement of Chairman Runyan ..................................................... 48 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, Ranking Democratic Member ........................................... 3 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney ............................................... 49 

Hon. Michael R. Turner, prepared statement only ............................................... 50 

Hon. Chellie Pingree, prepared statement only .................................................... 51 

WITNESSES 

Anu Bhagwati, Executive Director, Service Women’s Action Network ............... 4 

Prepared Statement of Ms. Bhagwati ............................................................. 52 

Executive Summary of Ms. Bhagwati ............................................................. 54 

Joy Ilem, Deputy National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans . 6 

Prepared Statement of Ms. Ilem ..................................................................... 55 

Lori Perkio, Assistant Director of Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation, The 

American Legion .................................................................................................. 8 

Prepared Statement of Ms. Perkio .................................................................. 60 

Executive Summary of Ms. Perkio .................................................................. 62 

Dr. Barbara Van Dahlen, Executive Director, Give an Hour .............................. 21 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Dahlen ................................................................. 62 

Executive Summary of Dr. Dahlen ................................................................. 66 

Margaret Middleton, Executive Director, Connecticut Veterans Legal Center .. 23 

Prepared Statement of Ms. Middleton ............................................................ 66 

Ruth Moore, Constituent Witness .......................................................................... 30 

Prepared Statement of Ms. Moore .................................................................. 68 

Accompanied by: 

Alfred ‘‘Butch’’ Moore, Jr., Husband to Ruth Moore 

Col. Alan Metzler, Deputy Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Office, U.S. Department of Defense .................................................................... 35 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Metzler ................................................................ 69 

Accompanied by: 

Dr. Nate Galbreath, Senior Researcher and Training Advisor, Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense 

Thomas Murphy, Director of Compensation and Pension Service, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ..................................................................................... 37 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Murphy ............................................................... 75 

Accompanied by: 

Ms. Edna MacDonald, Director, Nashville Regional Office, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Response From: DoD - To: Hon. Robert L. Turner, Subcommittee on Disability 

Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs ................. 77 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Letter From: Anu Bhagwati, MPP, Executive Director, Service Women’s Action Network - To: The Hon. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C. ............................................................... 77 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

Page

iv 

Additional Materials From: Anu Bhagwati, MPP, Executive Director, Service 

Women’s Action Network .................................................................................... 79 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

(1) 

INVISIBLE WOUNDS: EXAMINING THE DISABILITY COMPENSATION BENEFITS PROCESS FOR VICTIMS OF MILITARY SEXUAL 

TRAUMA 

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE

AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Runyan [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Runyan, Turner, McNerney, and 

Michaud. 

Also Present: Representatives Pingree, Speier. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JON RUNYAN 

Mr. RUNYAN. Good afternoon, and welcome to our hearing, Invisible Wounds: Examining the Disability Benefits Compensation 

Process for Victims of Military Sexual Trauma. 

First I ask unanimous consent to welcome a number of honorable 

colleagues who have asked to be allowed here to participate as 

guest members of the Subcommittee today. Hearing no objection, so 

ordered. 

As a Nation, we call on our armed servicemembers to sacrifice 

bravely on our behalf. They courageously put their lives at risk and 

face deadly enemies on the battlefield. 

When we think of these enemies, we think of those who oppose 

our freedom and our American way of life. We certainly do not 

think of soldiers needing to defend themselves from their fellow 

servicemembers. However, many of our servicemembers are required to do just that. 

Women are the fastest growing population among veterans, making up eight percent of the armed forces. However, the Department 

of Defense estimates that one in four women who join the armed 

services will be raped or assaulted, but that only about ten percent 

of such instances are ever reported. 

Even more alarming is that of those few who did report the incidence of military sexual trauma, over 75 percent stated that they 

would not have made the same decision about reporting the incident again due to the consequences it had on their military career. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

2 

Despite the fact that many of these incidents go unreported, VA 

currently estimates that over half a million veterans have experienced military sexual trauma. This includes 17 percent of veterans 

from recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Although this is not the Committee’s jurisdiction, there must be 

zero tolerance for this behavior in our military and the VA must 

recognize immediately the trauma inflicted on these men and 

women. 

Accordingly, the focus of today’s hearing is how to assist these 

veterans in obtaining VA benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder 

or PTSD. This is often a difficult task given the sensitive nature 

of these claims and the lack of evidence documenting such incidents at the time that they occurred. 

Although VA has made great progress in adjudicating military 

sexual trauma claims by providing relaxed evidentiary standards 

and retraining employees on this issue, SWAN, one of the organizations testifying today, estimates that less than one-third of military 

sexual trauma PTSD claims are approved by the VA even though 

53 percent of PTSD claims are granted overall. 

Although military sexual trauma is not a new issue, it is a serious matter which more light needs to be shed on. In recent years, 

as more and more of our brave servicemembers find the inner 

strength to overcome military cultural challenges and come forward 

to seek justice, help and healing, the more the Members of this 

Committee, DoD, and VA can understand the best means of assisting victims of military sexual trauma by obtaining the VA benefits 

that they need. 

One such veteran will be testifying before us today and I would 

like to personally thank Ms. Ruth Moore for coming to Washington 

and sharing her story with us today. 

Victims of military sexual trauma like Ms. Moore can carry scars 

in their hearts for the rest of their lives as a result of what they 

have endured. Such veterans are indeed deserving of VA benefits 

to help them enjoy the American way of life that their service has 

helped to secure. 

As the Department of Defense continues to address the issues 

arising from cultural resistence to reporting such abuse, the VA 

must continue to work to ensure that the proper benefits so needed 

by these victims are easily obtainable. 

So I will reiterate that the focus of the hearing today is precisely 

that. What benefits does the VA provide for victims of military sexual trauma, how are these claims adjudicated, and how can this 

process be improved? 

We welcome several witnesses to testify before us today ranging 

from representatives from veteran service organizations to experts 

on the effects and treatments of military sexual trauma to officials 

from the VA and the Department of Defense. 

I appreciate all of you taking the time to speak with us today 

about this issue of such importance to so many members of our 

American community. 

Because we have many distinguished guests with us today, I 

would like to reiterate my request that our witnesses abide by the 

decorum and rules of this hearing by summarizing your statements 

in five minutes or less during the oral testimony. Doing so will enVACREP180 with DISTILLER

3 

sure that the Committee has the opportunity to hear from everyone. 

I would also like to remind all present that without any objection, your written testimony will be made part of the hearing 

record. Hearing none, so ordered. 

I now call on the distinguished Ranking Member from California, 

Mr. McNerney, for his opening statement. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JON RUNYAN APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, 

RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Good afternoon. I would like to thank everyone for attending today’s hearing which examines the VA’s disability compensation 

process as it pertains to military sexual trauma or MST. 

I am happy to join DAMA Subcommittee Chairman Runyan and 

my colleagues today in holding this hearing. I am also pleased that 

two leading voices of the Congress on this issue, Representative 

Shellie Pingree of Maine and Representative Jackie Speier of California, are accompanying the Subcommittee on the panel today. 

I also welcome and thank Ms. Pingree’s constituent, Ruth Moore, 

accompanied by her husband, for testifying about her MST experience with the VA. 

Servicemembers who experience military sexual trauma, who are 

brave enough to speak out about their experiences often do so at 

great risk to their reputation and their careers. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to evaluate ways in which the 

Veterans Benefits Administration and the Department of Defense 

can better address the needs of veterans affected by MST, to identify ways to prevent these horrible assaults and to treat and properly compensate the victims. 

MST refers to sexual harassment, sexual assault that occur in 

military settings. MST often occurs in a setting where the victim 

lives and works which means that the victims must continue to live 

and work closely with their perpetrators. 

Many MST victims state that when they do report an incident, 

their story is dismissed or they are encouraged to keep silent because of the need to preserve organizational cohesion. 

This is unfair to the victims. We must put protections in place 

to ensure a safe haven exists for women and men who experience 

military sexual trauma. Unfortunately, the consequences of MST 

are a pervasive problem within the veteran community. 

According to the Institute of Medicine, prevalence rates of MST 

range from 20 to 43 percent. Many veterans who are victims of 

MST express frustration with the VA’s disability claims process, especially in trying to prove that the assault ever happened. 

For many women and men, their disability claims for post-traumatic stress related to MST are denied. However, I am pleased 

that in July of 2010 in a response to action taken by this Committee, the VA relaxed its stressor evidentiary standards for posttraumatic stress which also includes MST. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

4 

While representing a step in the right direction, there are still 

hurdles that men and women face in receiving the benefits they deserve. 

As SWAN will point out in its testimony, there are still disparities in compensation and confusion within the VBA on when service-connected compensation for MST is warranted. 

Training at the VA has improved slightly, but VBA claims decisions are still inconsistent and more must be done. 

As we build a VA for the 21st century, the VA and the DoD need 

to ensure that proper prevention, counseling, treatment, and benefits are available for MST victims. 

Veterans should also have access to VA personnel who are qualified to advise on often sensitive MST related issues. These veterans 

need to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. 

I look forward to hearing from the esteemed panel of witnesses. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

And at this time, I want to invite the first panel up to the witness table who are going to represent various veteran service organizations, and I welcome you to all come forward. 

Our first guest is, and bear with me—— 

Ms. BHAGWATI. Anu Bhagwati, sir. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Anu Bhagwati, thank you, who is the Executive Director of the Service Women’s Action Network known as SWAN. 

Then we will welcome Ms. Joy Ilem, Deputy Legislative Director 

for Disabled American Veterans, and finally we will welcome Ms. 

Lori Perkio, the Assistant Director for Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation for The American Legion. 

We appreciate all of our witnesses for taking the time to testify 

before us today. 

And, Ms. Bhagwati, you are now recognized for five minutes for 

your oral testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF ANU BHAGWATI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SERVICE WOMEN’S ACTION NETWORK; JOY ILEM, DEPUTY 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN 

VETERANS; LORI PERKIO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION, THE AMERICAN LEGION 

STATEMENT OF ANU BHAGWATI 

Ms. BHAGWATI. Thank you. 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you 

for holding this hearing on a critical issue facing our veterans’ community and for the opportunity to present the views of the Service 

Women’s Action Network or SWAN on the challenges confronting 

veterans who file PTSD claims related to military sexual assault or 

sexual harassment. 

According to VA, PTSD is the most common mental health condition associated with military sexual trauma or MST. For women 

veterans, MST is a greater predictor of PTSD than combat. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

5 

Studies also indicate that sexual harassment causes the same 

rates of PTSD in women as combat does in men and 40 to 53 percent of homeless women veterans have been sexually assaulted 

while in the military. Simply put, MST has devastated the veterans’ community. 

I would also like to point out that many men suffer from the effects of military sexual violence. According to the Department of 

Defense, 12 percent of all unrestricted sexual assault reports are 

made by men. Additionally, according to VA, almost 46 percent of 

the veterans who screened positive for MST in 2010 were men. 

Veterans who suffer from the debilitating effects of MST face 

unique challenges in obtaining disability compensation from the 

VA. 

In 2011, SWAN and the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, 

filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the VA for data 

on MST claims. The data obtained through litigation showed that 

between fiscal year 2008 and 2010, only 32.3 percent of MST-based 

PTSD claims were approved by VA compared to an approval rate 

of 54.2 percent for all other PTSD claims during this time. 

Also, veterans who had their MST PTSD claims approved by VA 

or among those veterans who had those claims approved, women 

were more likely to receive a 10 to 30 percent disability rating 

whereas men were more likely to receive a 70 to 100 percent disability rating. 

To reiterate, veterans who file a PTSD claim based on MST only 

have a one in three chance of getting their claim approved. Also, 

data suggests a strong gender bias in PTSD disability ratings in 

favor of men. 

The MST claims process is broken at best. VA’s PTSD policy discriminates in practice against veterans who are sexually assaulted 

or harassed while in uniform by holding them to an evidentiary 

standard which is not only higher than that of other groups of veterans suffering from PTSD but also completely unrealistic for the 

majority of survivors to meet. 

The language in the regulation that establishes the required evidence for what VA calls an in-service personal assault differs radically from the language used to describe the evidence required for 

all other PTSD claims. 

In fact, CFR 3.304, paragraph (f), the regulation, allows for lay 

testimony as acceptable evidence in all other PTSD cases except in 

cases of an in-service personal assault. 

VA policy fails veterans for a variety of reasons. First, sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military are notoriously underreported. According to DoD, almost 87 percent of assaults go unreported meaning that official documentation of an assault rarely exists. 

Secondly, prior to the new evidence retention laws passed in the 

2011 NDAA, the services routinely destroyed all evidence and investigation records in sexual assault cases after two to five years 

leaving gaping holes in MST claims filed prior to 2012. 

Lastly, the allowance of so-called secondary evidence described in 

the regulation does not take into consideration the reality that 

many victims do not report the incidents to anyone including famVACREP180 with DISTILLER

6 

ily members and for a variety of legitimate reasons including 

shame, stigma, embarrassment, or fear of retaliation. 

Although sexual assault increases the chance of adverse emotional responses and behaviors, it does not mean that all MST 

claimants will experience those symptoms. In fact, SWAN has spoken to survivors who demonstrate changes in behavior not included 

in the regulation such as improved job performance as a means of 

coping with the trauma. 

After a series of conversations, SWAN had with the Under Secretary of Benefits last year about VA’s discriminatory practices, the 

under secretary issued a memo in June 2011 providing further 

guidance to claims officers and instituting training requirements 

for processing MST claims. 

However, both the letter and the training simply reinforced the 

existing regulation which places a double standard on MST claimants. 

To fix MST claims policy, VBA must immediately revise the regulation to provide language that establishes the same evidentiary 

requirements for MST-based PTSD claims that it does for other 

claims. 

Furthermore, there should be no requirement that veterans filing 

MST claims go through an independent compensation and pension 

or C&P exam to verify that they have PTSD or any other conditions associated with MST. Veterans should not be forced to dig up 

their trauma for complete strangers who often lack the sensitivity 

or professional qualifications to speak to survivors of sexual trauma 

and who often unfairly reverse the PTSD diagnosis made by qualified VHA or other mental health providers. 

Additionally, claims reviewers should not have the authority to 

second guess evaluations by agency medical professionals or to discount VA treatment records in favor of these one-time C&P exam 

results. 

Thank you very much for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANU BHAGWATI APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Ms. Bhagwati. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Ilem. 

STATEMENT OF JOY ILEM 

Ms. ILEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. We appreciate DAV being invited to testify on the disability claims process for post-traumatic stress disorder based on 

military sexual trauma or MST. 

In preparing for this hearing, members of our National Service 

Officer Corps contacted a number of local VBA officials to determine what sources are being used by rating specialists in developing MST claims. 

A December 2011 VBA national training letter was identified as 

an important guide. It provides detailed and comprehensive guidance regarding these claims including pertinent regulations, definitions, court cases, specific markers to examine, timing for ordering 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

7 

PTSD examinations, and proper development actions to be taken 

all before a decision is made. 

Most notably we found a number of clear examples and statements to raters emphasizing that a special obligation exists on 

VA’s part to assist claimants in gathering from sources other than 

military service records evidence corroborating a stressor and to 

help fully develop their claims, particularly in MST cases. 

The current regulation recognizes the difficulties inherent in establishing service-connection for conditions related to MST and provides a basis for a relaxed evidentiary standard. 

The most salient point made in the training letter is to emphasize that current regulations and court cases do not require actual 

documentation of a claimed stressor and that the opinion of a 

qualified mental health clinician can be considered credible supporting evidence that the claimed stressor occurred. 

Nevertheless, the letter notes that the final decision on serviceconnection remains with VBA raters. 

To DAV, the question at hand for this Subcommittee is whether 

VBA rating specialists are applying the unique provisions in the 

regulation and following the specific guidelines. 

In cases where veterans indicate that no official report of an assault exists, VA adjudicators must consider the stressor statement 

provided by the veteran to determine if other reports may document the event. 

Additionally, rating specialists should examine military personnel records for any sign of deterioration in work performance, 

requests for transfer to another duty station, disciplinary action, or 

unexplained social or behavioral changes in the claimant. 

Likewise, there are a number of medical complaints that may indicate a sexual assault took place such as a request for a pregnancy test or sexually transmitted diseases, repetitive trips to sick 

call with chronic, unresolved medical complaints can also be used 

collectively to help substantiate a stressor. 

It appears that these cases require special attention and efforts 

by raters, but it remains unclear whether these efforts are consistently and exhaustively being made in each case. 

Based on feedback from DAV national service officers, it appears 

that many of these claims are denied even when there appears to 

be sufficient documentation to support the claim under the liberal 

guidelines and lowered evidentiary standards. 

We also continue to hear reports from veterans who have had to 

pursue their cases for years and ultimately seek congressional 

intervention before their claims were approved. 

Additionally, a recent press report citing a Yale University legal 

services director documented a significantly lower percentage between VA’s approval rates of claims for service-connection for MST 

related PTSD claims compared to service-connection of other PTSD 

claims as noted by Ms. Bhagwati. 

However, we have not seen this type of data provided or substantiated by VBA. 

In preparing for this hearing, we did, however, learn that VBA 

has an electronic capability to segregate and account for MST and 

personal assault cases from other types of PTSD claims. We believe 

open reporting of the status should be helpful to the Subcommittee 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

8 

in its oversight role and could help to determine if there is truly 

an inequity in establishing service-connection in these cases. 

Although VA has developed regulations and procedures that provide for a liberal approach to evidentiary development and adjudication of these claims, we urge VBA to conduct its own internal 

oversight and review of these cases to ensure that across the system its claims staff are properly trained and compliant with the 

procedures and policies set forth in the 2011 training letter. 

In closing, we appreciate the Subcommittee’s attention to this 

important issue and in the past decade, we note that progress has 

been made, but much more needs to be done to ensure that these 

disabled veterans are properly compensated for conditions related 

to MST on an equitable basis in comparison to veterans disabled 

by other causes. 

Many of these veterans endured long, unnecessary waits for their 

claims to be approved and many report they have been re-traumatized by the process and bureaucracy that seems to surround these 

cases and ask only for a fair measure of justice given the indignities they have endured. 

That concludes my remarks and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOY ILEM APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Ms. Ilem. 

Ms. Perkio, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LORI PERKIO 

Ms. PERKIO. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide The American Legion’s 

views on the invisible wounds, examining the disability and compensation benefits process for victims of military sexual trauma. 

Today’s media provides a snapshot of the number of sexual assaults that are currently reported in the military. DoD estimates 

only 14 percent of all military sexual assaults are reported each 

year. It is estimated that a victim of military sexual trauma will 

wait an average of 12 years to report an incident. 

VA health care screens all veterans for military sexual trauma 

and provides free treatment and health care for those related conditions. It is often through this screening and treatment that veterans learn about filing a claim for VA disability benefits secondary 

to military sexual trauma. 

Filing a claim for PTSD due to military sexual trauma often 

causes extreme stress on behalf of the claimant as they have to repeat the events of the assault in support of their claim. It is highly 

recommended the veteran obtain an advocate familiar in the VA 

claims process to help them understand the requirements. 

VA reported 704 MST claims were granted from October 2011 

through February 2012. Seven hundred and twenty-six MST claims 

were denied in that same timeframe. I would like to provide you 

with some of the reasons that VA regional offices have denied 

claims for military sexual trauma. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

9 

The Veterans Benefits Administration requires three elements to 

grant a claim for disability benefits. The first is a current diagnosis 

of a disability from a medical professional. 

The second is credible evidence that the claimed stressor occurred while the veteran served on active duty and proper recordkeeping by the military unit may be critical to this requirement. 

The third element is a nexus statement from a medical professional that the claimed condition is at least as likely if not due to 

the event which occurred while the veteran served. The requirements of the nexus statement are not clearly defined to the veteran. 

In order for a medical statement to be accepted as credible, the 

medical professional must also have reviewed service treatment 

records, all private and VHA behavioral health treatment records, 

and reviewed all pertinent information submitted in support of the 

claim. The nexus statement must list all the records reviewed. 

Rating veteran service representatives will not consider a medical statement as credible evidence if it is based solely on the 

verbal account of the veteran. VA may consider other evidence if 

there is no documentation within the military record such as a police report or medical examination specific to sexual assault. 

If documentation of behavioral changes are not mentioned within 

the service treatment records and were provided by a behavioral 

health department instead, these records need to be requested separately and by the veteran. 

The VA will obtain these records only if given the dates of treatment and the exact address of that treating facility. Most veterans 

do not realize this is not automatically included in their service 

treatment records. 

VA states it will consider documentation of pregnancy tests or 

tests for sexually transmitted diseases around the time of the incident or treatment for physical injuries around the time of the incident that were not claimed as due to trauma. 

While this information may be listed in the service treatment 

records, it may not state why the servicemember sought that type 

of treatment, especially if it is a result of sexual trauma they are 

not yet ready to discuss. 

If the service medical records have any type of notation that 

treatment was requested due to other than sexual assault, it may 

be considered as conflicting evidence and often used as a reason to 

deny the claim. 

Sudden requests for change in military occupation skill or requests for assignment changes without justification and changes in 

performance evaluation may be considered as credible evidence, especially if the documentation is within the military personnel file. 

Not all RVSRs request a personnel file when requesting medical 

records. Without the personnel file to corroborate the alternate evidence listed in 38 CFR 3.304, this evidence is often based solely on 

the word of the veteran, which at this time VA does not consider 

as credible evidence. 

The VA has the ability to use their own authority to reduce the 

number of denied claims for PTSD due to MST. In 2010, VA implemented the reduced criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder due 

to combat. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

10 

Obtaining personnel records must be a mandatory requirement 

with all PTSD claims in the VA’s duty to assist. In addition, provide clear explanation and clarification of credible evidence to support the claim as outlined in 38 CFR 3.304. 

I would like to thank you on behalf of The American Legion for 

providing testimony today. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF LORI PERKIO APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. I would like to thank you for your testimony. 

And with that, I will begin the questioning of the first panel 

starting in order of our Members’ arrival. 

My first question is going to be to Ms. Ilem. You mentioned in 

your written testimony about collaborative efforts between the DoD 

and the VA in dealing with MST claims. 

Do you believe that collaboration is adequate and how do you 

think this process can be improved? 

Ms. ILEM. I think we have seen more collaboration with Secretary Hickey coming in, in terms of we looked at our last testimony that was before this Committee and specifically we had requested that VBA collaborate with SAPRO, the DoD’s SAPRO office 

to make sure that the SAPRO information was included in their 

M21 manual. 

And we were pleased that following that hearing, it did take 

about a year, but eventually it did make its way into the M21 manual as an opportunity for raters to look at, you know, one other location for either one of the DoD forms, 2910 or 11. So I think we 

have seen an increase in the cooperation. 

However, we still have questions outstanding in our mind in 

terms of if VA requests that information, even with the permission 

of the veteran, due to the highly sensitive nature and DoD’s wanting to protect the privacy of the veteran, if those will—will those 

records be forwarded because we had not seen that in SAPRO’s 

documentation that VA is an exception of one of the people that 

can receive that documentation. 

So I look forward to the panels following this, to hearing from 

them if that has been clarified and that they, in fact, are collaborating together to make sure that evidence is available for veterans 

who want it to be made available to VA in support of their claims. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

I think this Committee recognizes that many veterans are having 

difficulty receiving benefits related to MST. And despite the relaxed evidentiary standard, many veterans still have difficulty providing the evidence required for the award of service-connection. 

In each of your opinions, can you touch upon, why that is happening? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. I would not refer to them as relaxed evidentiary 

standards. I would refer to them as actually harder evidentiary 

standards. 

There is a two-tier system right now, one for PTSD generally and 

then one for MST PTSD, and for veterans who suffer from MST, 

87 percent of these assaults were never reported for very good reasons including fear of retaliation within the military and a variety 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

11 

of other factors related to rape, assault, and the trauma that results. 

We have to think more strategically about what counts as a fair 

evidentiary standard. It is clear in all other cases of PTSD that the 

veteran’s lay testimony is sufficient as long as that veteran has a 

diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from a qualified medical provider as well as proof of time and service. 

There is language in that regulation for every other veteran suffering from PTSD with the exception of rape, assault, and harassment. It is completely unfair. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Ilem. 

Ms. ILEM. I think probably we would like to see the data. For 

years, we have asked for data specific to MST related cases versus 

non-personal assaults. The first information that we had really 

seen was the FOIA information. And certainly we believe VA does 

have the capability to extract that information and perhaps has it, 

just briefly looking at their testimony, VA appears to have evaluated some of the raters’ decisions. 

And I think we would definitely want to look at if these was 

there compliance with the rules and regulations and the policies 

that have been set forth so far. That is where I think probably the 

biggest, problem may lie because, there are oftentimes, a significant number of other opportunities to support those claims, but it 

appears perhaps they are not being consistent throughout the country because we continue to hear these complaints repeatedly from 

people that are saying I have, submitted a number of, everything 

that they have asked me and my claim was still denied. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Ms. Perkio? 

Ms. PERKIO. Thank you. 

I have been a service officer for 16 years and I have been working VA claims. And that included military sexually trauma claims. 

And my experience as a service officer is that the evidence was not 

given the weight that it should have. 

I worked with one man. He had been raped and the next morning as he was walking around feeling very dejected and trying to 

figure out what he was going to do with the rest of his life, he 

chose to commit suicide by throwing himself under a truck. 

Not only did he have to live with the results of the medical injuries from that, the treatment that he received did not get used in 

support of his claim because he did not report that he had actually 

been sexually assaulted. The medical records and nobody in the VA 

would take into account the reasons why he may have tried to commit suicide when it was plain that there was definitely a change 

in his attitude, his personality, and his will to live. 

Those are the types of things that we would like to see the VA 

take more into account in supporting claims for military sexual 

trauma. 

In their own adjudication manual, it states behavioral changes 

will be considered. These are things that while the regulation is already there, the adjudication manual is there, more information 

needs to be provided to the raters on how to look at that information and apply it. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

12 

And with that, I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Bhagwati, I believe that you mentioned that one of the problems that claimants have is that records have been purged after a 

certain number of years. 

Do you know if that is a policy or what regulates when records 

are purged and how can we change that so that there is more evidence that would be maintained? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. There are some records that are still purged and 

some that are no longer purged thanks to the last National Defense 

Authorization Act. Perhaps Congresswoman Pingree can add to 

that. 

Unrestricted sexual assault reports are kept for 50 years and restricted reports for five years. What is still destroyed, however, is 

EO or sexual harassment investigations. 

So if you were sexually harassed and reported it, and this happened to me, I can tell you my firsthand experience, those EO reports are destroyed within two to five years. And it is done branch 

to branch. I served in the Marines, so the Department of the Navy 

is not tracking those or not keeping those copies forever. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So there is no policy with regard to keeping 

those? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. Not for sexual harassment investigations. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, you concluded in your testimony that 

when you look at the VA’s policies on paper, it is no surprise that 

veterans who suffer from MST related PTSD have only a one in 

three chance of having their claims approved. 

Could you please elaborate on that conclusion and how the VA 

regulations could be change to improve the outcomes of that? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. It is an absolutely murderous process. We heard 

the example of one veteran who killed himself because of this process. But, you know, I went through it myself. It took four years. 

Frankly, VBA is inept at the regional office level. You can give 

them all the evidence you have. I had plenty of eyewitness statements, everything they asked for, all the sort of secondary evidence 

that is in the regulation, but it was flat out ignored. 

What happens when those claims get rejected is a lot of veterans 

fall into a downward spiral of worsening trauma, suicidal ideation, 

maybe attempted suicide, maybe completed suicide. 

We are really looking at a life and death situation here with this 

claims process. And we do not need—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So it is not—— 

Ms. BHAGWATI. It is not rocket science. We do not need to rewrite, you know. It is not an issue of allowing more evidence. It is 

requiring less evidence. It is a very simple fix. We should have one 

universal standard for PTSD claims. 

Right now lay testimony is not enough for sexual trauma survivors, but it should be in addition to the other requirements for 

all PTSD claims, a doctor’s diagnosis or a mental health provider’s 

diagnosis. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. In your opinion, does it more have to do with 

the regulations or with the culture? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. It is both. Unless there is a formal change in policy written in the regulation, you are counting on the individual reVACREP180 with DISTILLER

13 

gional officer, the claims person or claims provider to make a judgment about whether or not a VHA diagnosis or a mental health 

provider’s diagnosis of PTSD is accurate or enough based on their 

years of experience doing rape crisis counseling work or sexual 

trauma counseling work. 

Essentially what happens is VBA gets to deny the expertise of 

its VHA experts or mental health professional experts. It is a completely backward system. 

And, unfortunately, you are right. There is bias within each individual claims officer who rejects these claims. And we cannot risk 

that bias. A fix to this regulation is very simple. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Well, that is a good segue into Ms. Pingree’s bill, H.R. 930. Do you think the provisions in this bill would 

help the veterans affected by MST in facing the hurdles that they 

have, Ms. Bhagwati? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. Yes, absolutely. I think H.R. 930 is a comprehensive solution that includes, not just post-traumatic stress but all 

the other mental health conditions associated with sexual trauma. 

Not everyone has PTSD from sexual assault, rape, or harassment. Other common conditions are other anxiety disorders, depression, and those are also life threatening. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Ms. Ilem, what in your opinion should be done 

to help the veterans that were denied claims prior to the recent improvements? 

Ms. ILEM. I think certainly having VBA, you know, do a review 

of cases is extremely important since it sounds like they have invested in doing some training with their people. If they are really 

committed to making sure that people are consistently following 

these rules, they have to do the oversight internally. 

I mean, it does take some work to develop these claims properly. 

And unless they go back and look, have those procedures been followed, and in those cases, I mean, they should, you know, think 

about reevaluating those claims. This has been a difficult process 

for so many people. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you think the VA should proactively do a 

system-wide review of the cases that have been denied? 

Ms. ILEM. Well, I think they should definitely look back from 

their previous training letter that was done, I believe in 2005 prior 

to the update of the 2011 one, and would be a first good measure 

of looking at how well these standards have been applied in the 

regulation throughout those cases. 

They did indicate, I believe in their statement, that following a 

review, I think that they did, that they decided to, you know, make 

changes in their letter and make it very clear and concise about 

how they wanted their raters to approach these cases. But we are 

not seeing the evidence in terms of were there cases denied that 

should have been approved based on the evidence. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. 

Ranking Member, for having this very important hearing today and 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

14 

also for the Committee for allowing my colleague from Maine, Ms. 

Pingree, to serve here as well. 

And you do have the entire Maine delegation from the House 

here today, so it shows you the importance of this issue to have all 

of us here. 

But I also want to thank Ruth Moore and her family for coming 

today as well and taking the time to talk about your personal story 

which is extremely important. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I will not be able to stay for the 

whole hearing as I have to meet with several employees from New 

Balance in Maine. They are currently negotiating the transpacific 

partnership agreement and depending on how that is negotiated 

would mean whether or not they will have to close the facilities or 

not. So I will not be able to stay for the whole hearing. 

But I do have a quick question for our panelists. When you talk 

about, you know, some of the soldiers and veterans not reporting 

when they have been sexually assaulted, have you heard anything 

from the experience with the MST survivors as how soldiers actually should start documenting their issues when they are in the 

military? Have they given you any advice of what they should do 

for that documentation for any of the panelists? 

Ms. PERKIO. I know that DoD has implemented a new program 

where victims of military sexual trauma can go in and receive 

counseling and they get to choose whether their records will be 

held or destroyed. 

So if that servicemember says I just want treatment for this, I 

want you to help me through this program, but I do not want anything to follow me after this, and those records will stay destroyed. 

And so DoD actually is working on a new program. I could not 

tell you the particulars or who that person is, but I could get you 

the point of contact after the hearing. 

Mr. MICHAUD. That is what DoD is doing. But for those who 

have been sexually assaulted that you have talked to, have they 

given any additional suggestions on what DoD should do because 

clearly if they go in there, they are in the service, at that point in 

time, they might want to have everything destroyed, but when they 

start receiving help or what have you, they might decide to change 

their mind? So I am just looking for things that DoD can do differently that you might have heard from those who have been assaulted. 

Ms. PERKIO. I have not been given any input from 

servicemembers, but I can tell you that working those claims, if all 

of the documentation was submitted and there was not a timeline 

to destroy behavioral health records and that they were, you know, 

integrated in with the service treatment records as well as their 

personnel records and file clerks were able to make sure that those 

records were complete, it would make a big difference on whatever 

action that servicemember chose to take at any point in their career either medically discharged or after they have been out filing 

a claim. 

Ms. ILEM. I would just add that, you know, that was one of the 

problems with regard to SAPRO that we had that we spoke about 

at the last hearing here in 2010, our concern over the destruction, 

not only the destruction of records, but the recordkeeping process. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

15 

And as Ms. Bhagwati indicated, you know, that is still being 

sorted out. For the unrestricted, those records will be maintained 

for 50 years, but for the restricted ones, that is still in the works 

and they may be only maintained for up to five years. 

And as well as any of these other additional records, it has been 

up to each military service, as we understood, determining when 

those would be destroyed or how long they would be kept. And we 

are concerned about where are they being kept and can VA get 

them if the veteran requests or indicates that they did have counseling or, you know, outside help. 

So I think that is still a major issue on the DoD side and, again, 

look forward to the, you know, testimony by SAPRO if that has 

been worked out. We understand that, you know, Secretary Hickey 

and General Hertog have been talking about that, but to what extent, I do not know. We have not seen any formal agreements yet 

between the agencies. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. 

Ms. BHAGWATI. Survivors will universally talk about the bias in 

the system within DoD and the bias specifically within the chain 

of command. One of the reasons we have such a high under-reporting rate is because of that bias, because of that fear of retaliation. 

It is not just fear of retaliation, but actual retaliation which very 

often happens. 

Here again, we are just talking about approximately the 13 percent that actually report and whose evidence can then, if it is not 

destroyed, actually be used for a VA claim. But VA’s responsibility 

now has to be to the entire percentage of survivors including the 

87 percent who do not report for very good reasons, for fear of their 

lives many times. 

So in order to do that, there has got to be a change to the military judicial system so that there is no bias in that chain of command. And that is a longer conversation. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Great. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

And the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Walz, is now recognized. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member, and 

thank you for once again holding important hearings on substantive matters and trying to make things right. I am very appreciative of that to both of you. 

And to our witnesses, thank you for helping educate us, helping 

bring it forward. 

As you do, I have such deep emotions on this as a retired military person. The anger and the disgust and the frustration all boil 

up on how do we end up in this point. It is just hard for me to fathom units that allow this to happen. And I recognize that it does. 

On the VA side, I think Ms. Bhagwati brought up a very good 

point here. That 100 percent of folks here have to be dealing with 

it. But we have to go back to the DoD side. We have got to figure 

out the prevention measures, too. 

And I know Ms. Pingree and Ms. Speier have worked heavily on 

this, that we have to continue to push that side of it. 

As we are dealing with this tragedy after the fact. I think many 

of you brought up really good points of how this situation arose. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

16 

If you all three had the magic wand or were sitting over there 

at VA’s position on this, what exactly would this look like? How we 

would deal with this? What exactly would happen from when the 

claim comes in and how we go forward? What would be your suggestion if you can help me as we are going to hear from them? 

And I certainly know that we are trying to train specific raters 

to deal with this so they know what is there. I am just trying to 

get a feel from all of you. Are they going about this the right way? 

Are we approaching it? Are we piecemealing together? What would 

you tell me? 

I know it is subjective here, but I think this is too important for 

us not to figure out something big to go about it. So if you would 

like to take a stab at that of what a claim should look like and how 

we should adjudicate these things that would be in the best interest of our servicemembers after the fact. 

So, please, go ahead. 

Ms. BHAGWATI. I am beating a dead horse here. I think this is, 

the third time I have said it. 

Mr. WALZ. Yes. 

Ms. BHAGWATI. It is a very easy fix. If the evidence establishes 

a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress during service and the veteran’s mental health provider connects that claimed stressor to the 

patient’s service, then in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran’s service, the veteran’s lay testimony should sufficiently establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. 

Mr. WALZ. Ms. Bhagwati, are you convinced that that will bring 

those 87 percent forward? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. Absolutely. You trust your mental health providers and you accept the lay testimony and the military record of 

the veteran period. 

Mr. WALZ. What is the push-back of why we do not do that in 

your opinion? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. It is rape mythology, sir. It is the sort of 

unspoken feeling that women make up that they were raped, assaulted, or harassed. And I say women specifically because I think 

there is a gender bias. 

Mr. WALZ. That does go back to the bigger cultural issue both 

military and social—— 

Ms. BHAGWATI. Absolutely. It is a complete ignorance about the 

nature of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. 

Mr. WALZ. Don’t you believe, and I have always believed this, the 

military has the potential to break those and set the precedence for 

a larger society, too? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. Absolutely. The military can lead the way if it 

wants to. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. 

Ms. Ilem, I do not know if you have anything to add to that. 

Ms. ILEM. I think Ms. Bhagwati has brought up a couple of 

issues that there is really a differentiation between somebody who 

may have some alternative evidence that can be considered and the 

current regulations that exist today to rate these cases because 

there is that aspect of it and making sure there is consistency 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

17 

throughout the system across the board and then that there is 

oversight for them to really be reviewing it, and, yes, having claims 

raters that are familiar with these cases and really know how to 

dig in. 

It seems to me they really have to make a special effort to kind 

of piece together other things and really work with the veteran and 

the RO military sexual coordinator may have to be involved to try 

and assist the veteran along with the veteran service organizations 

to get the evidence that is needed under the current regulation. 

But the cases where somebody really keeps this a secret, does 

not tell anyone, there are not any indicators in the record to substantiate that. 

We have seen legislation in the Senate recently that DAV testified on where, you know, if you are being treated for a condition, 

you have been diagnosed, and you then, you know, have, even 

though that stressor is not reported that can support, you know, 

support your claim, I mean, I think that is the only change that 

could be, you know, available to people who have—there is absolutely no other evidence available to them. 

Mr. WALZ. And I think all of you brought up a great point on 

this, too. I cannot imagine what a claim denial feels like because 

it is basically a denial that the incident happened. 

And, you know, I do not know if there is data that support the 

number of claims versus the number of denied claims. There definitely has to be a large number that were denied that the assault 

absolutely did happen. This is all a difficult process, from the psychological effects and treatment, to trying to get somebody well 

again, and that has to be taken into consideration. This process of 

claim adjudication on this is they are always important, that this 

is especially important. 

My time has expired, and I will yield back. But I thank you all. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would like to thank the panelists. 

I have one question for Ms. Perkio. You mentioned advocates to 

help negotiate or navigate people through this bureaucratic maze 

and through the legal system. 

Could you give us a little more on that, what you have in mind, 

how that might work? Where would you get these people? 

Ms. PERKIO. The American Legion has 2,000 accredited American 

Legion service officers who are trained in assisting veterans in all 

types of claims. And we provide training twice a year for our service officers. There is no fee to work with an American Legion accredited service officer. 

I myself have been accredited and we are given training both 

from the VA and through The American Legion on how to, and 

through VHA, on how to handle claims. So just understanding the 

process and working with claims, working with senior veteran service officers. 

For instance, the process that I went through, you learn something new on every claim and every MST claim is going to have 

another element. And working with behavioral health has a big imVACREP180 with DISTILLER

18 

pact on how that claim is going to turn out so that that behavioral 

health provider understands what they need to do to support that 

veteran’s claim as well. 

And that is where in my testimony, if the VBA would be more 

transparent in what they were really looking for in their information, for instance, on the letter from the medical professional that 

says that this is a nexus statement, that it is due to military sexual 

trauma, to know that the VBA wants to review all those documents 

in order to be an informed professional to write that letter and that 

they will not accept a statement just on the veteran’s hearsay. 

And our service officers are well trained in that. All of our service organizations, actually the DAV, VFW, we all have service officers who will assist those veterans free of charge in filing claims. 

And so there is help available without going to an attorney. 

Mr. TURNER. And how does the process start? Does the VA make 

the connection between a claimant and an advocacy group such as 

yours? 

Ms. PERKIO. Typically a nurse case manager will be involved and 

they have a list of the service organizations that may be available 

right in the regional office next to them. And they will allow that 

servicemember to choose which service organization they may feel 

that they would like to work with. 

And so that referral process has worked very well in the past and 

that service officer will come in. And sometimes they will interview 

each department service officer with each organization to determine how well they fit with that. 

The credibility and the empathy and the understanding that goes 

with a claim regarding MST is going to go a long way in the trust 

that that person will put with you. They have to repeat that story 

not only to their medical care provider, but they repeat that story 

to that service officer and then the service officer will tell that veteran this is what we are going to do for you and this is what we 

are going to need. And that kind of helps that situation along. 

It is the servicemember who does not have an advocate that is 

really going to struggle and to meet a lot of road blocks. And being 

able to work with behavioral health makes a big difference. 

Mr. TURNER. Is the VA obligated to provide an advocate or—— 

Ms. PERKIO. No, the VA does not provide an advocate. But in 

their letters, they will advise the veteran that there are advocates 

available and will give a list or a Web site that they can go and 

look to find an advocate for them. 

Mr. TURNER. So all they do is dispense the advice on maybe how 

to best navigate this by contacting American Legion or—— 

Ms. PERKIO. Correct. 

Ms. ILEM. And it also depends on if you are talking about within 

VHA or VBA, but VHA does have military sexual trauma coordinators in each of its medical facilities. And oftentimes veterans do 

work directly with them to talk about how they can pursue their 

case, you know, for claims. 

And they may be referred to someone in a regional office. They 

also have that equivalent of a military sexual coordinator. So those 

people should also be able to provide that additional information if 

they want to have a veteran service organization assist them. 

Mr. TURNER. All right. My time is up. Thank you. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

19 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. TURNER. Yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. The chair now recognizes the other half of the 

Maine delegation, Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here with your Committee and also to sit on my fellow delegation Member’s Committee for a few minutes. 

But thank you very much, Chairman Runyan and to Ranking 

Member McNerney, both for holding this hearing and for everyone 

on this Committee’s very thoughtful questions and being willing to 

take on what I think is an extremely important issue. 

I want to make just a couple of comments and then I have some 

questions as well. 

I think generally the VA is doing a good job providing counseling 

and treatment to victims of MST, but when it comes to awarding 

benefits, as we have heard so much already today, MST survivors 

face tremendous roadblocks and bureaucratic red tape. 

Since most attacks, as we have heard, go unreported, it is very 

hard for victims to provide the documentation during the claims 

and therein lies some of the source of our problem here. 

The current policy states that they will be very liberal in deciding MST cases and should accept secondary markers as the proof 

that the assault occurred, things like counseling reports for PTSD 

from MST, letters from family members citing behavioral changes, 

drug and alcohol abuse, but it has been our experience in my office 

that this policy is not being followed. 

The VBA remains vastly inconsistent when deciding on MST 

cases and what one regional office accepts, as we heard earlier, accepts as a secondary marker, another might deny and still not be 

violating VBA policy. 

I think we have to be sure that VBA gives MST survivors the 

benefit of the doubt, especially when so many of these survivors 

have lost faith in the system they swore to uphold. 

That is why I introduced the bill that you were asking about earlier and I appreciate the Chairman signing on to that bill. Basically 

it would provide service-connection for MST survivors if they provide a diagnose of PTSD and a medical link stating that the PTSD 

is caused by the assault similar to the policy now in place for combat related PTSD claims. 

I want to be clear about this. The bad guy in these stories are 

the perpetrators. They are the villains and the ones who should be 

held accountable. But by creating this policy that denies justice to 

the victim and forces them to spend years or even decades fighting 

for the benefits that they deserve, we are deepening the wounds for 

those veterans and making it much harder for them to get on with 

their lives. 

Ms. Bhagwati, thank you very much for your wonderful work and 

being here today. 

And thank you to everyone on the panel. 

A couple of questions. You have already talked a little bit about 

this very issue of the VBA and how it is working. 

Do you think it is enough to ease the PTSD evidentiary burden 

for MST claimants or do you think we also need to ease the burden 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

20 

for other common conditions associated with MST like depressive 

disorders and other anxiety disorders? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. As I said in my testimony, according to the Veterans Affairs Department, PTSD is the most common mental 

health condition associated with MST, but depressive disorder and 

other anxiety disorders can be just as life threatening. And we certainly know that from the rest of the veterans’ community. 

Many combat veterans are also suffering from depression rather 

than post-traumatic stress. So, no, it is not enough just to focus on 

PTSD. We have veterans committing suicide every day from major 

depressive disorder and other very, very serious conditions and 

very common conditions. 

Ms. PINGREE. Either of the rest of you would like to answer that 

or talk about that? 

Ms. ILEM. I would agree. I mean, those are certainly other factors, mental health conditions that we see associated with MST related incidents. 

Ms. PERKIO. In addition, all of the characteristics, anxiety, depression, those are all part of the PTSD criteria and so they should 

all be looked at because you never know when that claim may 

eventually be granted as a PTSD claim. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you. 

Ms. Bhagwati, you also had mentioned that rape mythology 

when you talked about this earlier and the VA’s fear of fraud. It 

is my impression that fraud is likely to be low in a situation like 

this. As you have reported and others have, very few people come 

forward to talk about a rape, a sexual assault, a sexual harassment 

because of the implications of doing that. 

But can you talk a little bit that since that is one of the reasons 

that we understand we do not have a better process here? Is there 

data to back it up or how can we sort of get rid of the mythology 

here? 

Ms. BHAGWATI. The VA interestingly had the same concerns 

when it was debating whether or not to change the regulations related to combat and then the language ended up being about fear 

of hostile military or terrorist activity. 

But the VA had that discussion after the regulatory change and 

decided that there would not be any false allegations or false 

claims as a result of this regulatory change. And I think the same 

thing can apply to this MST change. 

We have looked through VA claims data. What often happens as 

a result of these mistakes, the first kind of rejection phase, is that 

the veteran, if they can tolerate it will appeal. Ultimately after a 

very, very lengthy appeals process or the very end of the phase, VA 

will reverse the decision and end up sort of siding with the veteran, 

but that can take years if not decades. 

Why not just get it right the first time and give the veteran the 

benefit of the doubt and just simplify the system? 

According to the FBI and numerous other agencies and studies, 

only two to eight percent, again, two at the low end, eight percent 

at the high end, of rape allegations are so-called false allegations. 

That is a very low percentage. 

I would like to think that VA, is rooting for the 92 to 98 percent 

of rape and assault survivors that are telling the truth and, who 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

21 

have investigations that can prove that they are telling the truth. 

That is all that that means. False reporting represents a very low 

percentage and is pretty much on par with other false allegations 

of crimes. 

Ms. PINGREE. I have 30 seconds. Either of the other two of you 

like to say anything that was not covered about this? 

Ms. ILEM. I would just note DAV also, you know, has spoken to 

or consulted with clinicians that have had a long history of treating, especially in VA, for treating military sexual trauma issues. 

And we had the same sort of, you know, discussion that, you 

know, there may be a handful of cases in their career of 30 years 

where they really feel that, you know, they cannot really come forward, to feel that, you know, that that was a truthful statement. 

But in the majority, the overwhelming majority of cases, they do. 

I mean, it takes a lot of commitment to come forward, to seek 

treatment, to have a diagnosis, and generally you have these longterm treatment records available, you know, that are consistent 

with an assault occurring. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you. I am out of time, but thank you very 

much. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentle lady. 

And on behalf of the Subcommittee, I want to thank each of you 

for your testimony and your service to our Nation’s veterans. And 

with that, you are all now excused. 

And I want to invite the second panel to the table. Among our 

guests on the second panel today is Dr. Barbara Van—— 

Ms. VAN DAHLEN. Dahlen. 

Mr. RUNYAN. —Dahlen, the president and founder of the Give an 

Hour organization which encourages doctors to volunteer their time 

to help victims of military sexual trauma. And we also welcome Ms. 

Margaret Middleton, the Executive Director of Connecticut’s Veterans Legal Center, which works to seek justice and proper benefits on behalf of victims of military sexual trauma. 

Ms. Van Dahlen, you are now recognized for your oral testimony 

for five minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF BARBARA VAN DAHLEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GIVE AN HOUR; MARGARET MIDDLETON, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, CONNECTICUT VETERANS LEGAL CENTER 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA VAN DAHLEN 

Ms. VAN DAHLEN. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony regarding the issue of providing and improving access to 

care for veterans who have been sexually assaulted while serving 

in our military. It is an honor to appear before this Committee and 

I am proud to offer my assistance to those who serve our country. 

Over the past several months, we have seen an increase in the 

attention given to a very serious issue affecting our military community, military sexual assault. 

Understandably this type of attack and betrayal often leads to 

the development of severe mental health difficulties for the men 

and women who are victimized. 

And as we have heard, many of the female veterans treated by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs and other programs receive a 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

22 

diagnosis of military sexual trauma and this type of trauma is now 

the leading cause of post-traumatic stress disorder among female 

veterans, but it results in many other mental health issues as well, 

now surpassing combat trauma. 

In addition, the experience of military sexual assault increases 

the likelihood of other serious and devastating conditions and consequences such as substance abuse, homelessness, and suicide. 

While this issue is getting significant attention today, sexual assault has been affecting and often destroying the lives of those who 

serve for decades. 

As I began to prepare testimony for this hearing, I had occasion 

to speak with a colleague who devoted over 20 years of service to 

the military. He continues to serve as a civilian with the Department of Defense. 

I happened to mention to him that I was invited to testify before 

this Committee on this important topic. After stating that he was 

about to share something with me that he had never shared with 

anyone, not even his wife, he told me the following story. 

He enlisted in the military at the age of 17. It was the late 

1970s. Within the first year of his service, he was sexually assaulted by two men with whom he served as part of an initiation 

process. 

He was humiliated and devastated. He told no one. He said there 

was no one to tell. Reporting would have made my life much worse. 

The stigma would have further damaged me and my career. I felt 

overwhelming guilt and shame. 

This veteran suffered the consequences of the attack psychologically and physically for years. At one point, he contemplated 

suicide and went so far as to put all his affairs in order and make 

arrangements for the care of his two-year-old daughter and young 

wife. 

His marriage fell apart and he and his wife separated. Fortunately, this veteran found help, repaired his marriage, and healed 

psychologically, though he continues to have significant physical 

problems that stem from the attack that shattered his life 30 years 

ago. 

He shared his story with me now because he wants the Members 

of this Committee to understand that servicemembers who are sexually assaulted are unlikely to report the assault to their command, to their peers, to anyone. And you cannot often tell from 

looking at them that they have been affected, not for years. 

We in the mental health profession know that it is critical for 

victims of sexual trauma to seek and receive assistance, support, 

and treatment as soon as possible. We also know that it is likely 

that many who suffer sexual attacks within the military will not 

seek care while they continue to serve. 

We must, therefore, ensure that all of those who seek services 

through the VA for sexual assault once they leave the service are 

treated as quickly and as supportively as possible by allowing 

trained mental health clinicians to determine the veracity of a veteran’s claim of sexual assault. 

The signs and symptoms are well-known and VA mental health 

providers have already been given the appropriate responsibility 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

23 

for making this type of determination regarding reports of combat 

stress injuries. 

Moreover, given the humiliation survivors of sexual assault contend with, it is highly unlikely that many women or men will fabricate stories of military sexual trauma in order to receive VA benefits. 

In addition, the lives that are saved by adjusting the process by 

which victims of sexual assault can qualify for and receive services 

through the VA will far outweigh the very few cases that beat the 

system. 

In addition to changing the process for victims of sexual assault 

to apply for and receive services through the VA, we should continue to expand the network of providers available to meet the 

growing needs of the military community at large. 

The VA has made tremendous strides in recognizing that partnerships with community-based organizations are critical if we are 

to provide the mental health services that the men, women, and 

families who serve our country need when they come home to our 

communities. 

The VA recently signed an MOA with my organization, Give an 

Hour, which provides free mental health services to military personnel, veterans, and their loved ones. This MOA will facilitate appropriate referrals to our providers from the VA’s veterans crisis 

line. 

It is easy to imagine how community-based efforts such as those 

provided by Give an Hour and other organizations can assist the 

VA in their efforts to provide swift and effective care to those who 

have given so much to our country. 

Thank you so much. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA VAN DAHLEN APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Dr. Van Dahlen. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Middleton. 

You are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET MIDDLETON 

Ms. MIDDLETON. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member 

McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very 

much for asking me to testify about the VA disability compensation 

process for victims of military sexual trauma. 

My name is Margaret Middleton. I am the Executive Director 

and Co-Founder of the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center. Our 

mission is to help veterans recovering from homelessness and mental illness overcome barriers to housing, health care, and income. 

I am also a visiting clinical lecturer at Yale Law School and I coteach at the Veterans Legal Services Clinic there. 

In both of those capacities, I work with veterans seeking VA compensation for PTSD caused by sexual assault in the military. 

There are several experts at this hearing from the last panel who 

testified about the military culture, the extent of sexual assault in 

the military, and the scope of the VA’s failure to assist those victims. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

24 

Rather than repeat that testimony, I would like to share some 

personal experiences I have had helping veterans confront the evidentiary standard of 38 CFR 3.304(f)(5) which is the current standard. 

In my teaching capacity, I co-supervised a team of students who 

helped a female marine establish service-connection for PTSD 

stemming from a rape at Camp Lejeune in the early 1970s. At that 

time, she was 18 years old and extremely proud to be serving in 

the marines. 

She was out drinking at an NCO club where she was not supposed to be and the acquaintance who was walking her home 

pushed her through a window and raped her in an empty barracks 

room. 

This veteran felt tremendous shame and personal responsibility 

for having been out at night, for having been drinking, for having 

trusted the wrong person. She feared her romantic partner would 

leave her if she talked about the rape. 

And her assailant who bragged about his conquest caused the 

warrant officer she considered sort of a father figure to tell her that 

she was the reason why women should not be allowed in the military. 

This veteran was plagued for PTSD for decades following this assault and was diagnosed and is currently treated by a VA doctor 

for PTSD. 

Assisting this veteran get connected for service-connection was 

incredibly complicated. Her parents had died. Her marriage had 

failed. There were no surviving letters of hers, no journals, no court 

records. She had lost contact with anyone she had served with 30 

years earlier. She had been too ashamed and afraid to seek medical 

help at the time. Mental health treatment then was even less common and more stigmatized than it is now. 

She was not demoted. She did not seek a transfer. She just continued to do her job and was honorably discharged from the marines. 

Under the current standard, it took hours of work by two incredibly talented Yale students and an unusually cooperative VA physician to build her case based on what meager contemporaneous evidence they could sort of scrape together. 

Almost no veteran has access to this kind of support and representation and they should not have to. 

Another option might have been an independent forensic psychiatric evaluation that would have cost several thousand dollars 

that my client did not have and VA does not pay for. 

This veteran’s lack of documentary evidence is the rule and not 

the exception in these types of cases. 

I recently interviewed a female veteran who was raped by two 

sergeants in her barracks 30 years ago. They ordered everybody 

else out and they kept her behind. 

Decades later, similar to what the doctor just said, I was the first 

person that she had ever told. She did not tell anyone at the time 

because it would have meant the end of her career. And if you 

think her career was not important to her, she served in Iraq. She 

achieved the rank of master sergeant and she was retired honorably after 28 years serving in the military. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

25 

This incredibly strong soldier held back tears when she told me 

the story and it was only one of the several episodes of MST that 

she described to me. 

This veteran’s claim faces an almost impossible evidentiary burden because of this particular provision. She did not tell anyone 

what happened, so there are no medical records, no letters home, 

no actions taken against her assailants. 

In order to succeed in the army, this veteran felt forced to stay 

silent and now she will be punished for her silence because the VA 

will refuse to credit her story based on her testimony alone. 

As her advocate, it will take me and my team hours of phone 

calls to family members and old friends, combing through service 

personnel records, and begging doctors to provide a free forensic 

psychiatric evaluation to support her claim. 

This is surely not what the VA anticipated when it adopted Section (f)(5), but it is the reality of how this provision is working in 

practice. We know that this is grossly unfair. We know how to fix 

it. 

The VA can and should remedy this situation by amending the 

section to provide victims of military sexual trauma the same benefit of the doubt that other veterans are already afforded who seek 

compensation for PTSD. 

There is no excuse for permitting the current regulation to stand 

and I hope this Subcommittee exercises its responsibility to America’s veterans by correcting this injustice. Holding this hearing is 

a really important step towards change. 

And I thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGARET MIDDLETON APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you very much. 

And, again, both of you, thank you for coming today and sharing 

your testimony with us. 

Doctor, I have a question. It is actually two questions for you. 

In your written testimony, you stated that despite the cultural 

differences between military and civilian life, the symptoms of sexual trauma are consistent and easily identifiable by mental health 

professionals. 

Accordingly, you suggest VA should expand the network of qualified mental health specialists to assist the veterans who are victims of MST which in turn will assist VA claims processors review 

of the evidence in such claims. And now the two questions: how do 

organizations like yours become involved in this process? 

Ms. VAN DAHLEN. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. RUNYAN. And do you believe that having such access to an 

expanded network of mental health providers will encourage more 

victims of MST to come forward and report what has happened to 

them? 

Ms. VAN DAHLEN. Absolutely, to the second question. I think we 

have already seen through, and our network now has provided 

57,000 hours of free mental health care to servicemembers, veterans, and their families. It is an option outside the VA, outside 

DoD, that many desperately need and want for a variety of reaVACREP180 with DISTILLER

26 

sons. So expanding the opportunity for victims of military sexual 

trauma to seek a provider in their community who would then be 

able to provide that confirmation of the military sexual attack 

would, I think, bring many more victims to be able to receive services and benefits. It is an issue in discussion right now, and has 

been for quite some time, regarding Post-Traumatic Stress in general. That currently only VA clinicians are allowed to provide that 

assessment. But there are many who believe that opening that door 

and allowing community-based mental health providers to provide 

expertise in areas that they are fully capable of making that diagnosis and assessment would assist in providing care, would assist 

in moving the process along more quickly in terms of benefits, services, etcetera. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I remember, and I know many of the other Members who are here do also, when Secretary Shinseki sat in that 

exact same seat a couple of months ago saying our capacity to deal 

with the mental health issues we have in the VA, we are behind 

the ball on it. And it was a challenge that day to say, well, what 

is the number? How serious is the issue? And this is another unfortunately prime example of it. We do have the get a grasp on it. And 

if organizations like yours are an avenue to do something like that, 

I would hope that the VA would be open to something like that. 

Because it is a problem that we do not really know the magnitude 

of and what the sheer numbers of it are going to end up being. 

Ms. VAN DAHLEN. I think that is absolutely right. And I would 

say that there has been tremendous progress. And I am very optimistic. Because up until a few months ago we were really working 

separately. Even though we had been there for several years now, 

since I began this organization seven years offering services. And 

they were happening. But it was only until very, very recently that 

we have now formed the first little step in an official relationship. 

And we are very optimistic. Because the numbers are very clear 

that this is, many refer to it as, you know, a tidal wave, a tsunami. 

There will be more and more of those who come home who are in 

need of assessment, treatment, support. Not just for themselves, 

but their families. So I agree completely. And I believe we are moving in the right direction. But as this issue gets more attention 

then more, which is a good thing, of those who have been assaulted 

will step forward. Which will create more backlogs within the VA. 

So again, I totally agree we need to move in that direction and 

hopefully we will. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. Ms. Middleton, can you elaborate a little on some of the frustrations you have experienced dealing with 

the VA as an advocate on behalf of the victims? 

Ms. MIDDLETON. Sure. Absolutely. I think the, our experience at 

the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center is that the way the regulations look on paper and the way they get used is very different. 

And that is why I really hope that the leadership here will use 

their bully pulpit to push the VA to change this regulation. Because it is not enough to say just bring in some extra documentation, what is the big deal? There is no reason why these veterans 

should be required to produce documents that other veterans do 

not have to. There is no, I cannot understand any reasonable explaVACREP180 with DISTILLER

27 

nation for that. And so it actually seems like kind of an easy fix 

from my point of view. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. And with that I will recognize the 

Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both 

of the panelists here for their volunteer efforts in this issue. And 

not only you panelists but the organizations that you represent. It 

is a lot of work and it is not easy work. So thank you very much. 

Dr. Van Dahlen, what is your view of how well the military sexual trauma coordinators are doing? Is this an effective program? 

Ms. VAN DAHLEN. Well I think that what we have seen over 

time, and again this is the good news, there is more and more that 

is happening that is working well. But the problem is so large and 

the VA system is so vast that it is as, it is the case with many 

issues. Not only military sexual trauma but other situations, combat trauma that result in Post-Traumatic Stress. It depends very 

much on the leadership in that particular region. It depends on 

that particular person. So we hear very mixed reviews. That in 

some areas it is working very well and in others not so much. And 

I think again it is about coordination of services. It is about leadership. It is about coordinating with organizations like ours so that 

we have more conversations that are happening. So I think the answer is good news that in fact they now exist, but we are not there 

yet. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well what in your opinion would be the biggest 

barriers to determining appropriate VA services to MST victims? 

Ms. VAN DAHLEN. Well I think the biggest barrier right now is 

what we have been talking about today. That there is not any reason to require—and here is another issue that we sort of talked 

about but I want to make very, very clear. For a large number, especially this is a way that military victims are in some ways perhaps different than civilians, the men and women who serve, they 

are so dedicated to their service. They want to stay in the service. 

They want to maintain their focus on mission. We may not be able 

to find evidence of behavior change, even if we have the best detectives on the planet going back and looking at, well, what else was 

happening to them at that period? Can we find it in their employment records? Can we ask other members of their community did 

you see a change to verify, to validate? You will not be able to find 

that. And so requiring them to provide some kind of evidence is 

contrary to the reality of who these men and women are. And that 

is a huge barrier. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Ms. Middleton, one of the things that interested 

me about your testimony was that you are advocating regulatory 

change as opposed to legislative change. Why does that make more 

sense to you? 

Ms. MIDDLETON. I would love to see victims of MST get the compensation they deserve. And whether that requires an act of Congress or it requires the VA to change their own rule is not really 

of importance to me. I mean, however, however these folks receive 

justice is going to be great. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. But I mean, in your opinion it could be done 

purely regulatory? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

28 

Ms. MIDDLETON. I mean, my understanding is that the VA promulgated this regulation in the first place. So they could change it. 

But I do not see why given the opportunity Congress would not fix 

this problem. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well it was clear from your description of the 

case in Camp Lejeune that the soldier had few options if she wanted to remain in the military. She faced big obstacles, monumental 

obstacles really. Would you, how would you compare that experience to what somebody in the service would experience today? Is 

there any improvement? 

Ms. MIDDLETON. I mean, the two veterans who I spoke about, 

one of them, I mean both of those instances I described were quite 

old. One of these veterans was discharged not that long ago, because she had such a long career in the military. And she described 

a later episode of MST that was very similar to the extent that she 

was completely unable to talk about it without jeopardizing her career. And I think that Dr. Van Dahlen summed it up very well. 

There is no incentive for these people to talk about this in the context of their work environment. And there is no reason that we 

should expect to see some kind of reflection of this in their personnel file. Which really makes, it really reflects the fact that this 

regulation reflects a misunderstanding about the way military sexual trauma actually works. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. So we have quite a bit of work to do yet 

then. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. The chair now recognizes 

Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you both for your testimony. And I concur with my colleagues here, I really very much appreciate the work that you are 

doing and the assistance that you and your organizations give to 

so many people who need our assistance who frankly should not 

have to be in the position where they require such complex assistance. And I hope we can fix that. 

I will ask this question of both of you. We see many denials 

where the VA states that the veteran could not be service-connected because they were sexually assaulted prior to their military 

service. VA examiners tell them their condition is related to the 

earlier assault, not the one that occurred in the military. I think 

that for these veterans a service assault would at least aggravate 

a preexisting condition but it seems like an inappropriate way to 

look at it. Do you see these types of denials in your work? And do 

you have comments about them? 

Ms. VAN DAHLEN. Yes. And unfortunately one of the things that 

happens with victims of sexual assault is they, if that sexual assault is untreated they are more likely to be victims again. And so 

to say that because a man or woman was sexually assaulted before 

they entered the military, somehow then the psychological damage 

that we are seeing is not related to the additional assault, makes 

no sense psychologically. It makes no sense. It is like it is almost 

the, in fact it is, the opposite logic that we use for combat stress. 

Combat stress, we understand, we know this, the more deployments, the more exposure to trauma, the more significant the psychological damage. We have kind of gotten that right, finally. But 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

29 

here we are saying the opposite. It makes no sense psychologically 

in any way. And in fact we know that victims are more likely if 

gone, if they are untreated, to become victims in the future. 

Ms. MIDDLETON. I would say I have almost never spoken to a 

veteran who reported to me an incident of military sexual trauma 

who did not also experience some kind of trauma prior to entering 

the military. It is very, very common in my experience. And it is 

just one more reason why we should not hold the veterans to this 

unnecessary evidentiary standard. Because we do not need to 

muddy the water for the VA RO folks who already apply the rule 

pretty haphazardly. 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. Any other specific patterns of denials 

that you see, besides some of what we have discussed today? Obviously you are looking at a lot of different situations. 

Ms. VAN DAHLEN. Well, I would like to just go back to the question that was asked about how prior generations, how much different is it today? I would say not that different, not in terms of 

the reports that we hear. And one thing again that has changed, 

which is good news, there are many, many in the Department of 

Defense who are outraged and coming forward. Men and women 

both who tell me that they have witnessed in their own units, these 

are leaders who will say that they see now signs. And sometimes 

that they feel like they are, that the system has not caught up 

quite with the change that is happening in the culture. So men and 

women are still faced with, and it is, combat stress, the impact of 

combat stress is slightly different. I think that curve we are kind 

of getting a little bit closer to more acceptance and support. But 

this one is even further behind the curve. But at least there are 

men and women in the Department of Defense, many, many clinicians in the VA, who would say, you know, we know, we know 

what we are seeing, we know what we are looking at, we can diagnose this. That is the good news. But in terms of the obstacles for 

reporting, and the way that women and men are often treated 

when they do report, very similar stories for this generation as 

well. 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. That is very discouraging when you 

think about how we feel our culture has moved forward. Yet that 

somebody who experienced this 30 years ago might have the, someone else might have a similar experience today. Did you have a 

comment, Ms. Middleton? 

Ms. MIDDLETON. Only that we see veterans applying for compensation who are denied in all kinds of areas. It just happens to 

be that for claimants who are applying for PTSD connected to military sexual trauma there is an extra burden that as advocates we 

are really disheartened by. Because it creates a tremendous 

amount of unnecessary work and time away from other veterans 

we could be helping. 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. Great. Thank you very much. Thank 

you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. RUNYAN. On behalf of the Subcommittee I would like to 

thank you both for your testimony and all that you do to support 

our veterans. And with that you are dismissed. 

Ms. VAN DAHLEN. Thank you. 

Ms. MIDDLETON. Thank you. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

30 

Mr. RUNYAN. I would now like to welcome our third panel to the 

table, Ms. Ruth Moore, who is an extremely brave woman here 

today to tell her story about the military sexual trauma she experienced and her fight to obtain VA benefits. Ms. Moore is accompanied by her husband, Mr. Alfred ‘‘Butch’’ Moore, Jr. Ms. Moore 

has been working with Representative Pingree and I now turn to 

my honorable colleague for any remarks she might wish to make. 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. Well, thank you very much Mr. Chair. 

Let me just give another brief introduction and thank Ruth Moore 

and her family, her husband and her daughter, for joining us 

today. She is a MST survivor who fought the VBA system, as we 

are about to hear, for many years before she was finally serviceconnected. They made the long trip down from Maine. And I want 

to correct the record here, I share, I share Ruth Moore with Congressman Michaud. She actually lives in his district. But we were 

able to speak with her soon after we introduced the piece of legislation and have been happy to be in contact with her really appreciated her telling her story. 

For 25 years Ruth has had to battle with the Navy, the VA, and 

frankly her own memories. I do not think many of us can truly appreciate all of what she and her family have been through. And I 

totally appreciate how brave she is to come with us today and tell 

her story. It is not an easy thing to do. But I think Ruth would 

say she knows if she keeps silent, and if all of the survivors of MST 

are silent, the problem will never go away. I appreciate your courage in coming here today. And I want to add one last thing. 

Our local newspaper wrote a story about Ruth last week. And 

when the reporter asked her her biggest fear about testifying she 

said that they will hear my words but will not understand the 

depth of it. Well I want you to know you are in good hands. This 

is a Committee that cares deeply about this issue. I appreciate your 

holding the hearing today, and I appreciate you inviting Congressman Michaud’s and my constituent to join us today. Thank you 

very much, Ruth. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentle lady. And with that we will recognize Ms. Moore for her testimony. You are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MS. RUTH MOORE, CONSTITUENT WITNESS; 

ACCOMPANIED BY ALFRED ‘‘BUTCH’’ MOORE, JR., HUSBAND 

TO RUTH MOORE 

STATEMENT OF RUTH MOORE 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 

My name is Ruth Moore and it is an honor to be among you today. 

As you know, I am a military sexual trauma survivor who lives 

with PTSD and depression. I am here today to share my 23-year 

struggle to get help from the Veterans Health Administration and 

disability compensation from the Veterans Benefits Administration. 

In 1987 I was a bright, vivacious 18-year-old serving in the 

United States Navy. After my training school my first assignment 

was to an overseas duty station in Europe. Two and a half months 

after I arrived, I was raped by my supervisor outside of the local 

club, not once but twice. I sought help from the chaplain but did 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

31 

not receive any. I tried to move beyond this nightmare but had contracted an STD. 

At this point my life spiraled downward and I attempted suicide. 

Shortly thereafter I was MedEvac’d to Bethesda Naval Hospital 

and ultimately discharged from the Navy. No prosecution was ever 

made against my perpetrator. In hindsight it was easier for the 

military to get rid of me than to admit to the rape. 

My problems began at the point of separation as the psychiatrist 

diagnosed me with a borderline personality disorder. I did not have 

a borderline personality disorder. This was the standard diagnosis 

that was given to all MST survivors at that time to separate them 

from active duty and to protect the military from any and all liability. This travesty continued and I was counseled by outprocessing 

to waive all claims to the VA as I would get health care through 

my former spouse, who was on active duty. 

From 1987 to 1993, I struggled with interpersonal relationships, 

could not trust male supervisors, and could not maintain employment. I filed my first VA claim in Jacksonville, which was denied 

despite having several markers for PTSD and gynecological issues. 

My life continued to spiral downward and I was not able to maintain my marriage. In 1997 I fled from my house and lived out of 

my van for two weeks before I was able to start rebuilding my life 

with my present spouse. Things were very difficult and I developed 

additional markers of PTSD, including night terrors, panic attacks, 

severe migraines, and insomnia. 

In 2003 I filed for disability and was denied again. However, I 

enlisted the aid of the Disabled American Veterans. With their help 

I was awarded 30 percent compensation for depression. I was denied PTSD and was told that I did not submit enough evidence to 

prove that I was raped, despite having submitted a letter from my 

former spouse who remembered the rape and the chlamydia. Given 

this eyewitness testimony, the VA still denied this as credible 

proof. There was no record of my medical treatment for STD from 

that duty station as my medical records had been expunged. Additionally, I was coded by Togas VA as having a traumatic brain injury or brain syndrome. 

In 2009, I entered into my first comprehensive treatment at the 

VA hospital in White River Junction, Vermont. I met an MST coordinator who truly listened to me. She began a systemic review of 

my records and determined that they had been expunged, by noting 

the glaring inconsistencies between my lab work notes and service 

record. My psychiatrist and counselor determined that I did not 

have borderline personality disorder, nor traumatic brain syndrome. My MST coordinator and I refiled for an increase in disability and my clinicians wrote supportive records for the VBA to 

make an accurate determination. They readjudicated my claim to 

70 percent but denied my status as individually unemployable, citing that I did not complete the necessary paperwork. 

At this point I was very frustrated and suicidal with the stresses 

of the VBA system and claims process. In my final effort, I called 

the Honorable Bernie Sanders and his staff agreed to investigate 

why the VA was taking so long and denying my claim. I took Mr. 

Sanders copies of all the paperwork I had filed, including the VBA 

time and date stamped missing information. Within two weeks my 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

32 

claim was finally adjudicated to 70 percent with IU and it was 

total and permanent. My rating should have been 100 percent by 

the VBA criteria, but I was so grateful for a favorable determination that I have not pursued it. 

Ladies and gentlemen, this process took me 23 years to resolve. 

And I am one of the fortunate ones. It should not be this way. If 

I had been treated promptly and received benefits in a timely manner back at the time of my discharge, my life would have been 

much different. I would not have had to endure homelessness and 

increased symptomology to the point where I was suicidal. I would 

not have miscarried nine children. And I firmly believe that I 

would have been able to develop better coping and social skills. Instead my quality of life has been degraded to the point where I am 

considering the possibility of getting a service animal to relieve the 

stress that my husband endures as my unpaid caretaker. I am asking you, no I am pleading with you, to please favorably consider the 

legislation that would prevent this from happening to others. 

Congresswoman Pingree’s legislation is one way to change the 

burden of proof that is required to enable MST survivors to receive 

proper adjudication for MST and PTSD. Please do what is right. 

Support this legislation. It is urgently needed. And thank you for 

your time and audience today. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUTH MOORE APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Moore. And we truly do 

appreciate you being here. Once you volunteered to serve our Nation through the armed services, but you being here today and continuing to share your story, you are continuing to serve by shining 

a light on this. Sharing your experience to us is only going to help 

us make sure that this does not happen to anyone else. And I know 

you have endured some horrific challenges, as you just discussed 

in your time in the military and in your personal life after that. 

And, I am kind of choked up. I just really again would thank you 

for being here today. I know working with Ms. Pingree on this 

piece of legislation is one of many steps we discovered here today, 

that we will look into. 

If there is anything I or my colleagues can do, and this goes out 

to any veteran, do not ever hesitate to call us. Because that is truly 

what we are here for, is to serve you because of your service to this 

great Nation. I again thank you for being here. I know it is not 

easy to sit here and talk about something like this. And I am going 

to refrain from any questions that I might have. And thank you 

again for our testimony. And I yield to the Ranking Member, if he 

would have anything to say. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Moore, Mr. 

Moore, thank you for serving our country. Thank you for taking 

that service enough to be here in front of us today. It is important 

to hear your testimony and your testimonial. And it will have an 

effect. We will do what is necessary. We cannot promise immediate 

change. But certainly, you know, having that in front of us and reminding us of how difficult life can be as a result of this sort of 

experience will remotivate us to work as hard as we can on this 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

33 

issue. So I am not going to ask any questions. But I want to thank 

you for coming, and bringing your husband and your daughter. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Ms. Pingree? 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. Well thank you very much. And Ruth, 

I will thank you again, and to your family for being here with you 

today. It really does mean a lot and I really appreciate the chair 

and the Ranking Member for their sentiment. And I appreciate the 

Ranking Member for saying what I think is important to say. That 

you are serving your country twice today, coming forward and 

speaking here and providing us with another firsthand story about 

how difficult this situation is. 

I will not torture you much. But I will let you just have the opportunity if you would like to speak a little more about the many 

markers. We have talked a lot today about the burden of proof and 

how we just put it back and back and back. And the number of 

times that you have gone through the process in attempting to resolve your own situation, which took an enormous amount of 

strength and determination and resolve to continue to go back and 

try to find the assistance that you needed. Can you talk a little bit 

to the extent that you would like to about the markers that you 

provided and how they were rejected? 

Ms. MOORE. I would be happy to. The markers that I have. As 

it was addressed here, there are many markers for PTSD. Some of 

them are recognized, some of them are not recognized, and it all 

depends upon the clinician who is making the diagnosis. I am 

happy to say that over time the process has improved in the VA 

and we now have more capable and competent providers who are 

able to recognize these markers and make appropriate diagnoses. 

I am also happy to say that the general perception of the military 

is improving with respect to MST survivors. At the time that I was 

in it was an embarrassment to the command to have an MST case. 

The commanding officer did not want this to be a record on their, 

or a mark on their record for poor administration or poor leadership. 

I think what it really boils down to is we need to have capable, 

competent providers who are trained to understand these things. I 

think the burden of proof that I submitted was credible proof. Having an eyewitness testimony being shot down and told that that 

was not credible proof to the VA was certainly very disturbing. It 

was documented and received in 2004, and it was mysteriously lost 

from my records. And then in 2009, Mr. Sanders brought it forward 

again because I had a copy of it. I was one of the few people that 

made copies of everything and kept them. Many people do not. 

Many people are told just move on with this. If you want to have 

a career you need to just forget this and move on. I was not so intelligent back then and I did not forget it, and I did not move on 

with a career. It was very hard for me. So I think that the markers 

that we have now are much better. And I think the legislation that 

you are proposing would make it much better for many veterans. 

Because, you know, we need to be believed and heard. 

I would also encourage the panel to consider the fact that VA 

systems are different from region to region. I live in Maine now. 

I lived in Maine at the time. And I was denied in Maine. I was deVACREP180 with DISTILLER

34 

nied in Florida. It was not until I reached the White River Junction 

VA Center that I actually found what an MST coordinator was. 

And I actually found out that what happened to me happened to 

other people. She was so sympathetic and she was so helpful. And 

the first thing she did was look at my record and she says, ‘‘Well 

this is missing, and this is missing, and this is missing.’’ These are 

classic things that happen with MST cases. Their files are expunged. And to clarify for the panel, I will say that in a medical 

record the left side of the record is your lab notes, the right side 

of the record is your treatment record. And my record had been expunged so badly that things were missing out of one side but not 

the other. So it was like a great big puzzle without the pieces. And 

you could see part of the picture but not all of the picture. And 

then by the VBA standards that basically meant that nobody wanted to take the time to look, so I was denied. 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. Well thank you for providing that information. And I do want to add that while we are looking at the 

problems with the system today and the things that need to be 

changed, and many of the challenges that people faced, I do want 

to acknowledge that when you did encounter a competent and 

thoughtful and well trained MST coordinator who was able to be 

in the position to help solve your problem it was very useful. And, 

you know, we have many hardworking people at the VA who are 

struggling under a system that is in the process of change and 

often with a huge workload. So I do want to acknowledge there are 

times when you meet those people who really do offer you assistance in your life. And certainly Senator Sanders as well. 

Just in closing, again, thanking you very much for your testimony here today. And I know you have talked a lot about the challenges that you have gone through. But I want to acknowledge 

your daughter Samantha who is in the room today. Who as I understand is getting a Girl Scout Medal of Honor this year, only the 

21st person in America to receive one for many of her heroic acts. 

So you two are clearly wonderful parents and have done many 

great things in your life, and we are proud to have you in Maine. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. With that, on behalf of the Committee I would like 

to thank you for your testimony, and thank you for your service to 

this country, and your continued service to our country. And with 

that, you are now dismissed. And I will invite the fourth panel to 

the witness table. 

Today we welcome Colonel Alan Metzler, Deputy Director of the 

U.S. Department of Defense’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office; and we also welcome Mr. Tom Murphy, Director of 

Compensation and Pension Service for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Murphy is accompanied by Ms. Edna MacDonald, Director of the Nashville Regional Office at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. And Colonel Metzler, you are now 

recognized for five minutes for your testimony. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

35 

STATEMENTS OF COL. ALAN METZLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE OFFICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. NATE 

GALBREATH, SENIOR RESEARCHER AND TRAINING ADVISOR, SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND MR. THOMAS 

MURPHY, DIRECTOR OF COMPENSATION AND PENSION 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY MS. EDNA MACDONALD, DIRECTOR, NASHVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF COL. ALAN METZLER 

Colonel METZLER. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member 

McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to appear today. I am the Deputy Director of the Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and my colleague is Dr. Nate Galbreath, the Senior Executive Advisor for Research and Training. 

Let me begin by restating Secretary Panetta’s bottom line on this 

serious issue. Sexual assault has no place in the Department of Defense. Secretary Panetta has put great emphasis on dealing with 

the crimes of sexual assault. It is an affront to the basic American 

values we defend and it is a stain on the good honor of our armed 

forces. Since our policy was instituted in 2005 we have remained 

committed to our vision, a culture free from sexual assault. 

Our uniformed leadership is committed to driving this change. In 

May, the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued an unprecedented strategic direction signed by eight four-star leaders, including the Chairman 

and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Chiefs of Staff of 

each of the military services, and the National Guard. This direction calls on the entire force to focus on four areas. Enhancing 

awareness; encouraging open communication and timely reporting; 

holding offenders accountable; and providing responsive victim 

services. Our goal is to create a culture that will not tolerate sexual 

assault. 

While we are absolutely committed to combating and eliminating 

sexual assault from the armed forces, we remain acutely aware of 

the brutal facts that point to the challenges we face. Although the 

department received 3,100 sexual assault reports in 2011, offenses 

ranging from wrongful sexual contact to rape, our anonymous survey data suggests that in 2010 as many as 19,000 servicemembers 

were victims of some form of sexual assault. It remains unacceptable to us that we would have even one of these crimes occurring 

in our armed forces. 

We have undertaken many enhancements to support victims, encourage reporting, increase the availability of documents for veterans. And I would like to talk briefly about some of those efforts. 

In February, 2011 we launched the DoD Safe Helpline, a worldwide 

24/7 crisis support service for members who are sexual assault victims. To date, more than 47,000 unique users have visited that 

Web site, and more than 4,000 individuals have received live services. We are professionalizing our key positions that support victims by designing a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

36 

and victim advocate certification program that will consist of 

credentialing that aligns with the National Advocate Credentialing 

Program. 

In December the Secretary of Defense mandated increased retention for sexual assault documentation. For unrestricted reports, 

documents will be kept for 50 years, and this was specifically designed to allow transitioning servicemembers and our veterans who 

may desire to make a claim at a later date. 

Also in December the Secretary created a new protection for victims. They now have the option to request a permanent or temporary transfer from their command or base, or to a different location within their command or base. Victims make the request to 

their commander, and they must receive an answer in 72 hours. If 

denied for some reason the victim may appeal to the first general 

officer in the chain of command. 

I would also like to mention, Mr. Chairman, several new initiatives that will enhance prevention and accountability. In December 

the President signed an Executive Order that added a new privilege that protects communications between a victim and victim advocate, enhancing victim trust in the department’s response system. Our sexual assault incident database has now gained initial 

operational capability. This tool will standardize reporting for oversight and accountability and it will help us manage victim care. 

For victims making an unrestricted report, the reporting form will 

be maintained in this database and it will be maintained for 50 

years, a capability we designed into the system specifically for 

transitioning servicemembers. 

To advance accountability, Secretary Panetta directed the initial 

decision on cases of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and attempts, they will be elevated to a commander who is at least a colonel or a Navy captain who holds special court martial convening 

authority. And this mandate became effective on June 28th and it 

ensures an experienced commander will make these important decisions. 

In April, Secretary Panetta also directed several other new policies. Establishing special victim unit capabilities; requiring sexual 

assault policies be explained to all servicemembers within 14 days 

of their entrance on active duty; allowing Reserve and Guard members who have been sexually assaulted to remain in their active 

duty status to obtain treatment and support; and the requirement 

for annual organizational climate assessments. 

Finally at the Secretary’s discretion in May, we conducted a review of existing precommand and senior enlisted training in the 

Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Air Force, and we have reviewed 

the Army’s new program as well. We completed our report last 

month. We have made recommendations to the Secretary and there 

are other additional oversight assessments ongoing, to include a review of our sexual assault response coordinator training and joint 

base assessments. 

We also want the Committee to be aware of the work we have 

done to collaborate directly with the Department of Veterans Affairs. During the last two years our office has visited 20 VA facilities to provide education on our program. These sessions have been 

well attended by administrators, providers, and even patients. We 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

37 

have also provided educational briefings to the VA’s military sexual 

trauma coordinators, training hundreds on the specific elements of 

our program. Just last month we augmented our DoD Safe 

Helpline for transitioning servicemembers. This tool recognizes the 

special needs of victims of sexual assault and helps smooth the 

transition to the Department of Veterans Affairs. And while the 

hearing was going on, we did research and look into our Web site 

and I can confirm to you that we have links to the veterans service 

organizations that can help our members transition and we are 

open to adding many more. 

Finally in its June, 2011 Veterans Benefits Manual, the Department of Veterans Affairs has added our Department of Defense reporting forms to help document a sexual assault. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, despite these many 

efforts we have much more to do. Secretary Panetta and our uniformed leaders are committed to creating a climate of mutual trust, 

respect, and dignity. We are committed to creating a climate in 

which victims feel confident that they will be believed, that their 

reports will be taken seriously, and that there will be no fear of retaliation. We are committed to creating a climate in which bystanders act to intervene. We are committed to providing the full range 

of services to all victims of sexual assault. We are committed to 

continue our work with the Department of Veterans Affairs to further improve victims’ transition from active duty to veteran status. 

And most important, we are committed to ensuring that the discretion over how to report and decisions regarding treatment and support services rest entirely with the victim. 

Through this approach we aim to create a culture that is intolerant of sexual assault, one that cares for our victims, one that inspires trust and confidence, one that encourages reporting, and one 

that enables our military justice system to hold offenders accountable. 

We appreciate the Subcommittee’s attention to this important 

issue and we look forward to your questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN METZLER APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Colonel Metzler. I next recognize Mr. 

Murphy for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS MURPHY 

Mr. MURPHY. Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am accompanied today by Ms. Edna MacDonald, Director of the Nashville 

Regional Office and former Deputy Director for Policy and Procedures in Compensation Service. Thank you for inviting me today to 

speak about the VA disability benefit for PTSD based on MST and 

sexual harassment. 

Over the last several decades women have entered the military 

in increasing numbers and now comprise a significant percentage 

of the veteran population. Associated with this growth, VA has 

seen an increase in the filings of PTSD claim based on MST. However, VA recognizes that both men and women can be victims. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

38 

Because of the personal and sensitive nature of MST stressors, 

victims find it difficult to report or document these events. Due to 

this fact, it is often difficult to establish the occurrence of the 

stressor. In order to address this, VA developed regulations and 

procedures that allow more liberal evidentiary development and 

adjudication procedures for this type of claim. Under VA regulations service-connection for PTSD requires three things. First, medical diagnosis of the condition; second, a medical opinion connecting 

current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and third, credible 

supporting evidence that the claimed in-service sterssor occurred. 

As with all PTSD claims, VA initially reviews the veteran’s military service record for evidence of MST. Such evidence may include 

a DD form 2910, the victim reporting performance statement, and 

the DD form 2911, sexual assault forensics examination report. 

VA’s personal assault regulation also provides that evidence from 

sources other than a veteran’s service records may corroborate the 

veteran’s account of the stressor. This includes, but is not limited 

to, law enforcement authorities, rape crisis centers, pregnancy 

tests, tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and statements from 

family members, roommates, clergies, etcetera. Evidence of behavior change called markers is also used. Examples are request for 

a transfer, deterioration or hyper work performance, substance 

abuse, and so on. 

When this type of evidence is obtained VA schedules the veteran 

for a C&P examination and requests an opinion as to whether the 

claimed in-service MST stressor occurred. This opinion serves to establish the occurrence of the stressor. 

VA has recently taken numerous other steps to assist veterans 

with timely, equitable, and consistent resolution of these claims. In 

August 2011, VBA reviewed a statistically valid sample of approximately 400 MST related PTSD claims. The goal was to assess the 

current process and procedures and formulate methods for improvement. This led to development of an enhanced training curriculum with emphasis on standardized evidentiary development 

practices. VBA issued Training Letter 11–05, Adjudicating PostTraumatic Stress Disorder Claims Based on Military Sexual Trauma, in December of 2011. This was followed by a nationwide Microsoft Live Meeting broadcast focused on describing the range of potential markers that could indicate occurrence of an MST stressor. 

We recently created dedicated, specialized MST claims processing 

teams within each VA regional office for exclusive handling of MST 

related PTSD claims. VHA has developed and implemented specific 

training for clinicians conducting PTSD/C&P examinations for MST 

related claims in November of 2011. VBA and VHA further collaborated to provide a training broadcast targeted to VHA clinicians 

and VBA raters on this very important topic which aired initially 

in April, 2012, and has been rebroadcast numerous times. 

The results of these efforts are substantial. The grant rate for 

PTSD based on MST when we started this effort in October of 2012 

was 41.7 percent. Following the completion of the process changes 

and training outlined just a moment ago, we are seeing a steady 

grant rate of 53.9 percent for the period of January through June, 

2012. Due to the significant change in the outcome for these veterans, we are sending each veteran that was denied prior to receivVACREP180 with DISTILLER

39 

ing a VA examination a letter notifying them of the opportunity to 

have their claim reexamined. VA will make every effort to ensure 

that the claimants receive the benefits they deserve and secure the 

maximum rating and effective date to which they are entitled. 

In summary, VA recognizes the sensitive nature of MST related 

PTSD and the difficulty of obtaining evidence of an in-service 

sterssor. Currently PTSD regulations provide multiple means to establish an occurrence and VA initiated initial training efforts and 

specialized handling procedures to ensure thorough, accurate, and 

timely processing of these claims. 

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to address any 

questions from the Members of the Subcommittee. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS MURPHY APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I have a group of questions and I am not sure if I am going to put them out there in the 

right order. But two years ago when VA amended 38 CFR 3.04(f) 

making certain claims for noncombat PTSD easier to verify, during 

the notice and comment period, several commenters asked that the 

amended regulation apply to MST. In response, VA stated that 

they did not feel this was necessary because the relaxed evidentiary standard already provided to the regulation specific for 

MST was adequate. We have had testimony earlier and having 

been briefed by the VA on this, I can imagine your stance. You feel 

that it is easier. But I think the users that are doing it do not have 

the same feeling, or the same experience. Is there any way you can 

clear this up? Because it is, in the statement and the comments, 

it specifically said it was outside the scope of the rule when VA 

made the comment back to the commenter about the issue. Do you 

have any idea how we can clarify this? And maybe we have to 

change the regulation to actually make it work for those who we 

are trying to help? 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask Ms. MacDonald 

to address this concern. She has significantly more depth and expertise in this area. 

Ms. MACDONALD. Thank you, Tom. Chairman, when we looked 

at the regulation based on Fear, there is this misunderstanding 

that we have heard so far in testimony today that, specifically a 

veteran’s lay statement is accepted for all other forms of PTSD except MST. It is a slight misunderstanding. In other forms of PTSD 

we do require what we call objective documentation. Not just the 

fact that a veteran served in the military. But for combat veterans, 

before we can accept their lay statement, we have to have a military documentation that they were actually in a combat zone. For 

Fear, for that regulation, it also requires documentation that they 

were in an environment where there was hostile military or terrorist activity before you ever get to the lay statement. Why we believe that the MST regulation is a lower evidentiary threshold is 

that, because we know so many do not get reported, there is no requirement for any military objective documentation of occurrence of 

the stressor. That is why the regulation was written, to allow us 

to look for markers and other sources that are what we would call 

in the regular world, circumstantial evidence. That is not concrete 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

40 

proof. And what we have heard today is what you were just talking 

about. Is it adequately being applied, that liberal threshold? And 

that is what Mr. Murphy was alluding to in his testimony that we 

do believe we have made significant strides to make sure that we 

dedicated resources and we trained VA employees properly in the 

way we want this and the way we expect it to be applied. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Is amending the regulation necessary? I think Congressman Walz and Ms. Pingree both agree that, the chances of a 

false claim are very minimal in cases like this. Do we need to 

change the regulation to make sure this works for MST victims? 

Mr. MURPHY. No, sir. I do not believe we need to do that. And 

I think when you look at the performance numbers of the grant 

rate of PTSD today versus the grant rate for all other types of 

PTSD that are not MST related, you see that the numbers track 

very closely. Now, I am not sitting here saying by any means that 

we have got this thing completely nailed down and its is perfect. 

There is no process on earth that is that way. So this is a process 

that we are going to continue to look at, and we are going to focus 

on, and continue to ensure that MST tracks at the same rate. In 

addition, we have heard many testimony on different ideas, different processes, different thoughts. And we will continue to gather 

those and look for ways to make the process even better and more 

consistent than it is today, so that no veteran is wrongly denied. 

But I do not believe we need to go back and do a regulation change 

in order to put that down and make it solid. I think the performance over the last six months is proving that we have consistency 

in process. 

Mr. RUNYAN. And if you could, I am sure you do not have it on 

hand, but throughout, I know there has been reference to when the 

policy was changed and when VA revisited the regulations, which 

was in 2010. Because we have sat up here all day, we have heard 

that sexual assaults are underreported. And actually the execution 

of adjudicating the MST claim, we are not seeing the whole picture 

all the time. And I think this is the big frustration we have with 

the VA a lot of time. You are telling us what sounds good when 

you are sitting at that table, but we are not seeing the whole picture. Because I think most people, and the people who have been 

here and testified today, would agree that there is room for more 

improvement. And I think we all agree on that. The issue at hand 

is what are the improvements that we take in this Congress to do 

that? I think we all agree, and I think the Ranking Member agrees, 

we are not going to fix it today. But we have to get the ones that 

we can tackle the most with. And I would appreciate the statistics 

that say it was this way, and when we did the change in ‘10 we 

got better results. Maybe it is time to address that again because 

I think we all agree and we need different results. And I would appreciate it if you could submit that to the Committee. 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. We will do that. We will take it back before the release in 2010 and we will point out the significant 

changes that happened in that data as the results of different actions that were taken from then to now. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I appreciate that. And with that I recognize the 

Ranking Member Mr. McNerney. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

41 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colonel Metzler, 

thank you for serving our country and wearing that uniform, and 

taking on this difficult issue. One of the things we are hearing 

today over and over is the reluctance of servicemembers to come 

forward because of the cohesion of the unit that they are in. And 

that is important. I mean, you want a military unit that can go 

into a difficult situation and trust each other, and that is a characteristic that is hard to nuture. So what happens to a unit when 

this sort of an issue comes up? Does it disrupt the unit? I mean, 

does the leader get disposed? Is there training that takes place in 

the unit? I mean, this is, if there is a unit where people are preying 

on each other, then you are not going to have unit cohesion anyway. So it does not hurt to go in and actually do some stuff to that 

unit. What happens when this kind of a charge comes forward and 

is verified? 

Colonel METZLER. Good order and discipline, unit cohesion, a climate of trust and a climate of respect all come from the command 

and the leadership. And the effectiveness of a unit derives from the 

effectiveness of that commander and those senior leaders who set 

the appropriate climate, who set those standards, and communicate 

those standards, and enforce those standards. And when those 

standards are failed to be followed, the unit, cohesion breaks down, 

the mission is placed in jeopardy, and lives are placed in jeopardy, 

both in a combat environment and in a peacetime environment. 

And what we need to do is ensure that we teach every single member of our armed forces that if there is violence being committed 

against them, sexual violence being committed against them, that 

we will take those reports seriously, that we will investigate them 

fully, and that we will hold the offenders appropriately accountable. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So I take it there is an anonymous, a Web site 

a member can go to anonymously and make a report? 

Colonel METZLER. There is a couple of tools available. There is 

the DoD Safe Helpline. It has been in operation since February of 

2011. It is 24/7, worldwide capable. You can call, click, or text into 

that capability. And there are crisis—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is the unit leader advised when there is a report 

from someone within their unit? 

Colonel METZLER. The installation commander is advised of all 

unrestricted and restricted reports and the unit commander is notified for unrestricted reports. And then the commander is required 

by policy to report that to a military criminal investigative organization for investigation. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Are servicemembers routinely screened 

for MST? 

Colonel METZLER. Sir, military sexual trauma and the screening 

and the diagnosis for that is outside the scope of our office’s oversight. What we do know are the specifics in terms diagnosing military sexual trauma (MST). And so what we have done is built a 

structure to ensure that we have the records, to make sure that 

they are available, that our counselors know how to retrieve them. 

We have this 24/7 worldwide hotline that can access crisis intervention counselors who can advise them of all the processes associated with MST. And as I mentioned in my opening statement, we 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

42 

have been doing a lot of partnership with the VA to train their 

military sexual trauma coordinators, and to train our coordinators 

that work with wounded warriors. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well it sounds good. I would like to have confidence that it was being effective. Mr. Murphy, what do you feel 

about HR 930? Do you think that is going to make things better? 

Do you think that is going to make it so that people that are suffering and going through the experiences that Ms. Moore experienced, is it going to make it easier for them? Or do you think it 

is going to make it harder? Or do you think it is going to make a 

difference at all within the VA? 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. McNerney, that is a bill that we have not completed formal views on from the VA perspective, so I am not prepared to comment on that today. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So now, and my limited understanding is that 

H.R. 930 will result in reduced evidentiary standards. Is that what 

your understanding is of H.R. 930? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. That is my understanding of the bill. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is there a need to reduce evidentiary standards? 

Mr. MURPHY. As I told Mr. Runyan a few moments ago, I think 

that we adequately cover it with the existing regulations that we 

have today. But that is not a comment on the nature of the bill. 

And the reason I say it is not a comment on the nature of the bill 

that we hit the main topic in it. As with most bills, they come 

through, there are many fine points and details in there that need 

to be considered by a general counsel in VA before we can pull an 

official position on it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. If that bill were to be signed into law, how difficult would it be to enforce its requirements? 

Mr. MURPHY. Assuming the bill was signed into law, then it 

would just take us the time that it would take to put, to modify 

existing regulations to be in compliance with the requirements of 

the law, to put some training in place for the existing dedicated 

teams that we have inside of VA and in VHA, and start adjudicating claims under the new law. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right. I yield back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. The chair now recognizes Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the 

panel for testifying. I do appreciate the tremendous change in attitude and awareness that has gone on, both at the DoD and VA. I, 

you know, say in view of the testimony, and what many of us here 

in our offices, we still have a long way to go in changing the culture of the military and in dealing with victims of MST. But I do 

appreciate both of your testimony today and the work that is being 

done to move us in the right direction. 

I want to just talk for a minute about the exam threshold. So the 

exam threshold in the MST claims process, we have been told by 

the VBA, and this is for Mr. Murphy, that a veteran’s statement 

alone is not sufficient to trigger a compensation and pension exam. 

However, in the background information you provided my office, 

and presumably sent out to regional offices, it clearly states that 

the veteran’s lay statement is sufficient to prove the assault occurred. So my question is, how does this work? Is the veteran’s tesVACREP180 with DISTILLER

43 

timony enough to prove the assault happened? And how can it not 

be enough to get an exam? 

Mr. MURPHY. Again, I am going to ask Ms. MacDonald to answer 

that. 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. Fine. Fine. 

Mr. MURPHY. Again, she is the expert on this area. 

Ms. MACDONALD. Thank you, Congresswoman Pingree. It, by 

itself, in the absence of any other supporting marker would not be 

enough to request an exam. 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. Okay. So thank you for clarifying that. 

And I think that reinforces why we hear in our helpful conversations with the VBA, or the VA, that you know, we are moving forward on setting a different standard. But on almost a weekly basis, 

I hear from a veteran who was sexually assaulted while serving in 

the military. And when they go to the VA with that claim, they are 

denied because they could not produce a court filing, or a report, 

or some other kind of proof that the attack occurred. So even 

though we are often told that the proof is not required, that is not 

what seems to be happening in your offices. And I do appreciate 

the increased training, the difficult in changing even the culture of 

the system. But I guess I have two views and I want to ask your 

comments on it. I mean, A, I think we have further to go before 

the implementation of what we are hoping will happen, happens. 

And while I am not here to promote a piece of legislation, but that 

is why I submitted the bill that, in a sense, does have reduced evidentiary standards. It would provide a service-connection for MST 

survivors if they provide a diagnosis of PTSD and a medical link 

stating that the PTSD is caused by the assault. I believe that is 

similar to what happens with combat related PTSD claims. And I 

am of the belief that until we get there, possibly with legislation, 

possibly with a change in regulation, we are not going to be there. 

So if you want to talk a little more about that, I just think we see 

it differently. And I guess my concerns are the testimony we have 

heard today, the difficulty that people are having getting the assistance that they need. 

Mr. MURPHY. I do have a couple of comments. First of all, as you 

stated, we are a long way from having this down pat and making 

sure every veteran is taken care of and getting what they are due. 

Second, that we have made the improvements in the process today 

that you are seeing because of the consistency of training, the focusing of only a select few individuals that received a much higher 

level of training than what the general population gets. And specifically focused and targeted around identifying the very subtle 

markers. This is something that is not public knowledge. It is not 

generally reported. But some minor, barely noticeable behavior on 

the part of the veteran is all it takes to say, ‘‘Yes, there is something here, plus the veteran’s statement, let us move forward with 

this claim.’’ In fact, I just learned one earlier listening to a previous 

statement talking about the absence of evidence in a file is also a 

marker. And I am not saying that, that we are not doing that. I 

am saying that that was beyond my level of expertise in this area, 

which is why Ms. MacDonald is sitting next to me today. So again, 

we have a long way to go. We have made significant progress. But 

we are not done yet. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

44 

Ms. PINGREE OF MAINE. Well again, thank you for the work that 

you are doing. I think we are all here today because we hear with 

deep concern the number of people who serve this country and then 

find themselves victim of military sexual trauma. And we started 

out with some very stark figures in the beginning here about the 

difficulty of people being able to get assistance, the difficulty of 

crimes being prosecuted, the difficulty even for a veteran to come 

forward. And I think we have to remember over and over that 

these are very special circumstances. That people who served their 

country want to continue to serve. We have enormous work to do 

to change the culture. But I think on the other side we have a lot 

of work to do to make sure we help those people who need our help. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentle lady. The chair now recognizes 

Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to sit in 

on this hearing and to participate in it. I want to thank all the 

panelists for participating in the hearing today, and for your service. I was, the first bit of good news I heard this morning was from 

General Hickey at a Committee down at Oversight and Government Reform Committee where we were looking at the delays in 

VA, the handling of VA cases. And she actually on her own volition 

went back and looked at the MST cases versus the other PTSD 

cases and saw that there was a discrimination in the cases as it 

related to MST/PTSD and that, and you reflected that, I think Mr. 

Murphy, in your comments. And that now you are sending letters 

out to those that were declined or denied their claims and asking 

them to reapply. 

Which really makes the case over and over again about what the 

military has done consistently, which is sweep this issue under the 

rug. We have done a horrible job. It has gone on now for a quarter 

of a century. We keep messing around the edges. We create SAPR, 

we do hearings, we create reports, and then nothing changes. And 

now we have an absolute scandal at Lackland Air Force Base, 

where we have 12 trainers implicated, and 31 victims. Only one 

victim, however, has come forward on her own to file a complaint. 

Which makes the case over and over again, people, both men and 

women, are not filing complaints because they know what happens. 

They find a way to slap them with a disability of personality disorder and then discharge them involuntarily from the military. 

So to Congresswoman Pingree’s point, if we know that 19,000 

occur a year, only 3,000 actually report, of those 3,000 only 200 actually get convictions. There is no motivation for anyone who wants 

to make a career in the military to report. 

So if we know it is 19,000 a year, I think the figures are thrown 

out as something like 500,000 victims of MST in this country right 

now. And to think that we are still going to require, knowing that 

we have done such a lousy job in dealing with these cases and 

somehow finding the victim at fault, why would we not take the 

position that we have taken with Agent Orange? Which is basically 

if you come down with one of these cancers, or one of these conditions, the presumption is that you got it in the military, you got 

it when you were serving in Vietnam, and there is a presumption 

made. Why do we not just create a presumption? If someone comes 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

45 

forward and says they are a victim of military sexual assault or 

trauma, that we believe them because we have done such a lousy 

job in terms of handling these cases? Colonel, can you respond to 

that? 

Colonel METZLER. I have some comments on some of the issues 

that you raised. I think one of the most important that I would like 

to address is that the department does take this seriously. 

Ms. SPEIER. Well you know—— 

Colonel METZLER. We are absolutely committed to solving this 

problem. 

Ms. SPEIER. I am so tired of hearing persons in your position and 

higher say there is zero tolerance for MST and yet there is another 

scandal underway right now, and a court martial taking place at 

Lackland Air Force Base. We are not doing a good enough job. 

Until we take it out of the chain of command, these problems will 

continue to exist because we are not dealing with the conflict of interest that is inherent in that situation. And why would we have 

unit commanders who have no legal training, have not gone to law 

school, have no judicial experience, making decisions as to someone’s relevance in terms of having an investigation or prosecution 

move forward? 

Colonel METZLER. Ma’am, it is the position of the department 

that commanders will lead this change. Commanders set the tone 

in their units. Commanders set standards of discipline. Commanders set the climate of their units. What commanders pay attention to is what gets done and what gets fixed. That is why we 

are assessing commanders—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Excuse me, Colonel, but I am about to run out of 

time, so let me just ask a number of questions and see if you can 

answer them. How many permanent or temporary transfers have 

been granted since this new ruling went into effect? How many 

have been declined? How many special victims units have been created? And have you considered at all the relevance of having an 

MST/PTSD therapy program that is different from the PTSD program that exists for the general military veterans population? And 

maybe that is a question to you, Mr. Murphy. 

Colonel METZLER. Under the transfer authority that the Secretary ordered, there are transfers that are happening. I do not 

have the specific data. We have met with all of the services in the 

last week, talked to them about it. Ma’am, we are happy to get that 

information and we will provide it to you. 

Ms. SPEIER. And actually to the Committee as well. I think that 

would be—— 

Colonel METZLER. Absolutely. And that will also be part of our 

annual report, and it will be part of our official record. So we will 

make that available to the Committee. With regard to special victims units, that is a process that is underway. The Secretary has 

asked us to create that in April. We have had meetings with folks 

to work on the concept. The Army is already working—— 

Ms. SPEIER. So there is not one? 

Colonel METZLER. The special victims unit capability is being created. It was guidance from the Secretary to create that capability. 

The Army has a very good program that we are modeling that we 

have met with. I think it is Mr. Strand who has worked on that. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

46 

Ms. SPEIER. Russell Strand? 

Colonel METZLER. You are familiar with his work. And we are 

working with the U.S. Army Military Police School because of the 

special training that they are already providing to some attorneys 

and to investigators. And it is a concept and a capability that we 

intend to—— 

Ms. SPEIER. So the Army has it, but they had it even before the 

guidance by the Secretary. So when do you anticipate the other 

services will have these SVUs? 

Colonel METZLER. Ma’am, I do not have a specific date. But we 

will make sure we get that to you. 

Ms. SPEIER. And then to you, Mr. Murphy. The question of having a separate kind of therapy program for MST PTSD survivors? 

Mr. MURPHY. The separate kind of therapy program falls under 

the Veterans Health Administration. I do not have any of the VHA 

folks with me here today. However, I can talk a little bit about that 

they have dedicated counseling and professionals that we work 

closely with DoD to ensure that we are getting the handoff of what 

little evidence does exist. So I cannot answer that for you in detail 

today. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one more question? 

Mr. RUNYAN. You may. 

Ms. SPEIER. I think the issue that was raised earlier is a relevant 

one, and you raised it, Mr. Chairman. And I was wondering if it 

would be helpful to the Committee, and to Members who are concerned about this issue, if the VA would on a quarterly basis provide information to you as Chair of the Committee about how many 

of these cases are being handled. How many are actually being, 

claims that are being filed, and how many are actually being granted, and what the percentage of the disability is being granted as 

a result. To just track to see if the change is permanent and to 

what extent it is comprehensive. 

Mr. RUNYAN. That is very possibly something we can put in Ms. 

Pingree’s piece of legislation. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. All right. Well with that—— 

Colonel METZLER. Mr. Chairman, with your permission there was 

one other issue that was raised that I did not get a chance to respond to. And it is an important fact that we would like to point 

out. Since 2006 to 2010, we do have very good data that tells us 

that the incidents of sexual assault, of all ranges of sexual assault 

are down. And that the reporting trends are up, the reporting 

trends have doubled. Now it has been said many times that the 

trend right now is about 14 percent of victims report. We are not 

satisfied with that. The data is moving in the right direction. But 

we are focused on solving this problem. And Congresswoman, we 

will work this problem, I can assure you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Well I thank you all for your testimony. And ladies, 

gentle ladies, thank you for coming and being guests here today. 

I am not going to make a big closing statement. But I would say 

this, specifically dealing with this Committee, and I have said it directly to Secretary Shinseki sitting right there at that exact same 

table. One of the biggest metrics we miss in the VA is customer 

service. We measure everything else, but was the job we are there 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

47 

to do, which is service the veteran, done right? And were they satisfied with the result? Because if the VA were a private entity, a 

company, you would not be in business very long because you 

would not have very many happy customers. That is the metric we 

miss every single day. It is three or four or five down the list sometimes. And that is really something that I continue to press and, 

I hope every other Member of this Committee, and every other 

Member of this Congress, would agree with that. Because that is 

truly, what these men and women do for us by putting their lives 

on the line to sacrifice for our freedoms, the least we can do is give 

them what, give them by the laws we have created what they are 

due. Just to that. And most of us would agree we owe them more 

than that. It is how do we get there? 

But with that, on behalf of this Committee I thank all of our distinguished witnesses for their testimony today. I appreciate your 

service to our Nation’s veterans. And you are all now excused. And 

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five legislative 

days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous 

material. Hearing no objections, so ordered. I thank the Members 

for their attendance today and urge that all of you be vigilant participants in the Committee’s efforts to ensure that victims of military sexual trauma have access to the benefits they need to live 

happy and health lives. And this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

(48) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Runyan, Chairman 

Remarks: 

Good afternoon. Welcome to our hearing, ‘‘Invisible Wounds: Examining the Disability Benefits Compensation Process for Victims of Military Sexual Trauma.’’ 

First, I ask unanimous consent to welcome a number of our honorable colleagues 

who have asked to be allowed to participate as guest Members of the Subcommittee 

today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

As a Nation, we call on our armed servicemembers to sacrifice bravely on our behalf. They courageously put their lives at risk and face deadly enemies on the battlefield. 

When we think of these enemies, we think of those who oppose our freedom or 

are American way of life. We certainly do not think of soldiers needing to defend 

themselves from their fellow servicemembers. However, many of our 

servicemembers are required to do just that. 

Women are the fastest growing population among veterans, making up 8% of the 

armed forces. However, the Department of Defense estimates that one in four 

women who join the armed services will be raped or assaulted, but that only about 

10% of such incidents are ever reported. 

Even more alarming is that of those few who did report incidents of military sexual trauma, over 75% stated that they would not make the same decision about reporting the incident again, due to the consequences it had on their military career. 

Despite the fact that many of these incidents go unreported, VA currently estimates that over half a million veterans have experienced military sexual trauma. 

This includes 17% of veterans from the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Although this is not the Committee’s jurisdiction, there must be zero-tolerance for 

this behavior in the military, and VA must recognize immediately the trauma inflicted on these men and women. 

Accordingly, the focus of today’s hearing is how to assist these veterans with obtaining VA benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. This is often a difficult task given the sensitive nature of these claims and the lack of evidence of documenting such incidents at the time that they occurred. 

Although VA has made great progress in adjudicating military sexual trauma 

claims by providing relaxed evidentiary standards and re-training employees on this 

issue, SWAN, one of the organizations testifying today, estimates that less than onethird of military sexual trauma PTSD claims are approved by VA, even though 53% 

of PTSD claims are granted overall. 

Although military sexual trauma is not a new issue, it is a serious matter on 

which more light has been shed in recent years. 

As more and more of our brave servicemembers find the inner strength to overcome military cultural challenges, and come forward to seek justice, help and healing, the more the Members of this Committee, DoD, and VA can understand the 

best means of assisting victims of military sexual trauma with obtaining the VA 

benefits that they need. 

One such veteran will be testifying before us today, and I would like to personally 

thank Ms. Ruth Moore for coming to Washington and sharing her story with us 

today. 

Victims of military sexual trauma like Ms. Moore carry scars in their hearts for 

the rest of their lives as a result of what they have endured. Such veterans are indeed deserving of VA benefits to help them enjoy the American way of life that their 

service has helped to secure. 

As the Department of Defense continues to address issues arising from the cultural resistance to reporting such abuse, the VA must continue to work on ensuring 

that the proper benefits, so needed by these victims, are easily obtainable. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

49 

So, I will reiterate - the focus of our hearing today is precisely that—what benefits 

does VA provide for victims of military sexual trauma, how are these claims adjudicated, and how can this process be improved? 

We welcome several witnesses to testify before us today, ranging from representatives of veterans service organizations, to experts on the effects and treatments of 

military sexual trauma, to officials from VA and the Department of Defense. 

I appreciate all of you taking the time to speak with us today about this issue 

of such importance to so many members of our American community. 

Because we have many distinguished guests today, I would like to reiterate my 

request that our witnesses abide by the decorum and rules of this hearing by summarizing your statements to five minutes or less during oral testimony. Doing so 

will ensure that the Committee has the opportunity to hear from everyone. 

I also remind all present that without any objection, your written testimony will 

be made part of the hearing record. 

I now call on the distinguished Ranking Member for his opening statement. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney, 

Ranking Democratic Member 

Good afternoon. I would like to thank everyone for attending today’s hearing focused on examining the VA disability compensation process as it pertains to military sexual trauma or MST. 

I am happy to join DAMA Subcommittee Chairman Runyan and my colleagues 

in holding this hearing. 

I am also pleased that two of the leading voices in Congress on this issue, Representative Chellie Pingree of Maine, and Representative Jackie Speier of California 

are accompanying the Subcommittee Members on the dais today. I also welcome and 

thank Ms. Pingree’s constituent, Ruth Moore, accompanied by her husband, for testifying about her MST experience with VA. 

Servicemembers who experience military sexual trauma and are brave enough to 

speak out about their experiences often do so at great risk to their careers and reputation. 

The purpose of this hearing today is to evaluate ways in which the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) can better address 

the needs of veterans affected by MST and identify ways to prevent these horrible 

assaults, treat and properly compensate the victims. 

MST refers to sexual harassment and sexual assault that occurs in military settings. MST often occurs in a setting where the victim lives and works, which means 

that the victims must continue to live and work closely with their perpetrators. 

Many MST victims state that when they do report an incident, their story is dismissed or they are encouraged to keep silent because of the need to preserve organizational cohesion. 

This is unfair to the victims. We must put protections in place to ensure a safe 

haven exists for the women and men who experience military sexual trauma. 

Unfortunately, the consequences of MST are a pervasive problem within the Veteran community. According to the Institute of Medicine, prevalence rates of MST 

range from 20–43%. Many veterans who are victims of MST express frustration with 

the VA’s disability claims process, especially in trying to prove to that the assault 

ever happened. 

For many women and men, when their disability claims for post-traumatic stress 

related to MST are denied. 

However, I am pleased that in July 2010, in response to action taken by this Committee, the VA relaxed its stressor evidentiary standards for post-traumatic stress, 

which also includes MST. 

While this represented a step in the right direction, there are still hurdles that 

women and men face in receiving the benefits they deserve. 

As SWAN points out in its testimony, there are still disparities in compensation 

and confusion within VBA on when service-connection compensation for MST is 

warranted. 

Training at VA has improved slightly, but VBA claims decisions are still inconsistent and more must be done. 

As we build a VA for the 21st century, VA and DoD need to ensure that the proper prevention, counseling, treatment and benefits are available for MST victims. 

Veterans should be able to have access to VA personnel who are qualified to advise on the often-sensitive MST related issues. These veterans need to be treated 

with the dignity and respect that they deserve. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

50 

I look forward to hearing from the esteemed panels of witnesses. 

Thank you, I now yield back. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner 

Thank you, Chairman Runyan, for holding this important hearing. I would also 

like to recognize your advocacy on this issue within the House Armed Services Committee. Special thanks, as well, to all the panelists for their advocacy of victim’s 

rights and determination to address the military culture and climate. I have worked 

with Anu and SWAN for several years now and their contribution to this issue has 

been instrumental in achieving many legal and policy changes. 

Before I start my remarks, I would like to point out that the great majority of 

the Servicemembers are patriotic citizens that serve their country honorably and 

selflessly. And while today’s hearing may focus on the criminal behavior of a relative few, their behavior should not be used to broadly tarnish the reputation of the 

many Servicemembers who have honorably sacrificed for their country. 

I became involved in this issue in 2008 following the tragic murder of Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach. Maria reported being sexually assaulted and was later 

murdered by a fellow Marine while she was stationed at Camp LeJeune, North 

Carolina. During the course of the investigation a Marine Corps representative told 

me that ‘‘we lost two good Marines today.’’ When, in fact, we had only lost one good 

Marine, Maria Lauterbach, and another Marine who was a rapist and murder that 

tarnished the reputation of the Corps. Later, during the course of Congressional 

hearings on the subject, a Lieutenant General stated that Maria ‘‘never alleged any 

violence or threat of violence in either sexual encounter.’’ 

These and several other incidents demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem and how to deal with it. In addressing the issue of military 

sexual assault it is necessary to address some fundamental areas, namely: Command, Culture and Accountability. I think the hearing today strikes at the heart 

of the cultural element. Culture within the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

In working on sexual assault issues on the House Armed Services Committee and 

the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, which I co-chair with Niki Tsongas, 

we have sculpted legislation that aims to facilitate a culture that encourages victims 

to come forward and punishes the criminal actors that degrade our military. The 

personal nature of sexual assault makes it difficult for victims to come forward and 

discuss the details of their experience. This is compounded by policies that require 

victims to repeatedly relive the experience and re-victimize the victims. These additional stresses decrease the likelihood of victims coming forward and permit the retention of criminals. As Anu pointed out in her testimony, the DoD Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) report indicated that 86.5% of sexual assaults go unreported. The end result is that some of these criminal later draw DoD 

and VA benefits, while their victims are left to fight to substantiate their PTSD 

claims. 

Addressing the issue before the Committee today is a step towards creating a 

more victim-centric system that improves our military by rewarding victims for coming forward and punishing the bad actors. In addressing this issue, Niki Tsongas 

and I included a provision in the Defense STRONG Act last year requiring the DoD 

to retain records prepared in connection with sexual assaults involving members of 

the Armed Forces or dependents of members. That provision was later included in 

the FY12 NDAA. This provision requires the Department of Defense to permanently 

retain records of sexual assault in the military, and ensures that a servicemember 

who is a victim of sexual assault has access to these records. Servicemembers find 

it difficult to obtain documentation proving their sexual assault once they have left 

the services because DoD destroys many of these documents after only a few years. 

It is our hope that improving this process will contribute to removing the negative 

stigma that surrounds the process and, thereby, improves military culture and climate. 

Question: 

Col. Metzler and Mr. Murphy. What is the status of implementation of this new 

policy (HR1540 Sec 586)? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

f 

51 

Prepared Statement of Congresswoman Chellie Pingree 

Thank you Chairman Runyan and Ranking Member McNerney for allowing me 

to participate in today’s hearing. I also want to thank you for holding this hearing— 

the topics covered today are extremely important, as the welfare of our veterans’ 

mental health and the disability and mental health system that cares for them 

should be one of Congress’s highest priorities. 

Military sexual trauma continues to be a pervasive problem in our Armed Forces. 

DoD data shows that roughly 19,000 reported assaults occur each year, and that approximately 85% of these assaults go unreported. It happens to both men and 

women at increasingly high rates. 

These attacks on our service men and women are occurring in the active duty 

ranks and even at the military academies—it is a disgrace that needs to stop now. 

I commend Defense Secretary Panetta for the changes he is making to DoD policy 

to prevent MST and prosecute these attackers, but more needs to be done. 

Data shows that survivors of MST are very likely to suffer from Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder and other mental health conditions, leading many of these veterans 

to file claims with the VBA. I commend the Veterans Health Administration, which 

has an ‘‘open door’’ policy, where MST survivors can get free treatment and counseling based on self reported MST. 

While the VHA’s MST policy does what it can for MST victims, there is another 

side of the VA that in far too many cases fails MST survivors by producing roadblocks and bureaucratic red tape. Countless MST survivors are so affected by the 

personal assault they experienced that they file PTSD claims with VBA, only to be 

denied service connection because they cannot prove the assault occurred. 

Since most attacks go unreported, leaving no military documentation for victims 

to produce during the claims process with VBA. VBA’s current policy states that 

they will be very liberal in deciding MST cases, and should accept ‘‘secondary markers’’ as proof the assault occurred—things like counseling reports for PTSD from 

MST, letters from family members citing behavioral changes, drug and alcohol 

abuse, etc . . . 

On the surface it appears VBA’s policy gives veterans the benefit of the doubt and 

that VA understands current DOD shortcomings around MST, and common sense 

prevails when adjudicating these sensitive cases. I would like to commend VBA 

under Secretary Allison Hickey for her commitment to MST survivors and the increased emphasis she has put on these types of claims while serving as VBA undersecretary. 

Unfortunately, however, I am of the opinion that the VA is just too big an agency 

for anything short of a regulation change to fix this problem. No amount of training 

can ensure raters take the larger picture into account when reviewing these cases. 

VBA remains vastly inconsistent when deciding MST cases, and what one Regional 

Office accepts as a secondary marker, another might deny and still not be violating 

VBA policy. For instance, I have seen veterans denied service connection for lack 

of sufficient proof, even after they provided medical reports from in patient counseling for MST-related mental health conditions—at VA Medical Centers. 

We have to be sure that VBA gives MST survivors the benefit of the doubt, especially when so many of these survivors have lost faith in the system they swore to 

uphold. That is why I introduced a bill that would provide service connection for 

MST survivors if they provide a diagnosis of PTSD and a medical nexus stating the 

PTSD is caused by the assault. 

This language in this bill is very similar to the July 2010 change VBA implemented for veterans suffering from PTSD related to fear of hostile enemy action or 

terrorist activity. These veterans need only show a diagnosis of PTSD, a medical 

link and the claimed stressor must be consistent with the types of events consistent 

with military service. Unfortunately, the data continues to show that sexual assault 

in the military is so pervasive that it is consistent with the types of events consistent with military service. I want to thank Chairman Runyan for his support of 

the bill, as I know it would go along way to addressing the issues we continue to 

hear about from veterans and their families. 

Let’s be clear. The bad guys in these stories are the perpetrators. They are the 

villains and the ones who should be held accountable. But by creating a policy that 

denies justice to the victims and forces them to spend years or even decades fighting 

for the benefits they deserve, we are deepening the wounds for these veterans and 

making it all that much harder for them to get on with their lives. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

52 

1Maureen Murdoch, et al., ‘‘Gender Differences in Service Connection for PTSD,’’ Medical 

Care 41, no. 8 (2003), 950–961. 2Maureen Murdoch, et al., ‘‘The Association between In-Service Sexual Harassment and 

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder among Compensation-Seeking Veterans,’’ Military Medicine 171, 

no. 2 (2006), 166–173. 3 Erik Eckholm, ‘‘Surge Seen in Number of Homeless Veterans,’’ The New York Times, November 8, 2007; b. Donna L. Washington, et al., ‘‘Risk Factors for Homelessness among Women Veterans,’’ Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 21 (2010): 81–91. 4Department of Defense, SAPRO. 2012. ‘‘Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report on Sexual Assault 

in the Military’’. 5Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Mental Health Services. 2011. ‘‘Summary of Military Sexual Trauma-related Outpatient Care Report, FY 2010.’’ Washington, D.C.: Department 

of Veterans Affairs, Office of Mental Health Services. 6 In conjunction with the ACLU, SWAN filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request 

to obtain data concerning approval/rejection rates of MST-based PTSD disability claims. Based 

on data analyzed for fiscal years 2008–2010, 32.3% of MST- based PTSD claims were approved 

vs. 54.2% of all other PTSD claims over the same period. ! 7 Veterans for Common Sense. 2012. ‘‘Iraq and Afghanistan Impact Report’’. Washington D.C.: 

Available at http://veteransforcommonsense.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/VCS—IAIR— 

JAN—2012.pdf. 8 In conjunction with the ACLU, SWAN filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request 

to obtain data concerning gender differences in compensation awarded for MST-related PTSD 

f 

Prepared Statement of Anu Bhagwati 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for holding this hearing on a critical issue facing our veterans’ community, and thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Service Women’s 

Action Network (SWAN) on the challenges confronting veterans who file claims for 

PTSD suffered as a result of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military. 

SWAN has been advocating for changes to the VA claims process for several 

years. We actively supported the VA’s change to the claims process for combat related PTSD-claims and have provided testimony many times to both House and Senate committees on issues and challenges facing women veterans at both the VHA 

and VBA, and the unique challenges faced by veterans filing Military Sexual Trauma (MST) claims. 

According to VA, PTSD is the most common mental health condition associated 

with MST. For women veterans, MST is a greater predictor of PTSD than combat. 1

Studies also indicate that sexual harassment causes the same rates of PTSD in 

women as combat does in men. 2 And 40 to 53% of homeless women veterans have 

been sexually assaulted in the military. 3 Simply put, MST has devastated the veterans’ community. 

The MST claims process is broken at best. VA’s PTSD policy discriminates against 

veterans who were sexually assaulted or harassed while in uniform by holding them 

to a standard which is not only higher than that of other groups of veterans suffering from PTSD, but also completely unrealistic for the majority of survivors to 

meet. As we discovered by analyzing VA claims data (see below), the process fails 

the majority of survivors. The process also serves to betray and re-traumatize these 

veterans, often directly contributing to worsening symptoms and increasing rates of 

suicide. 

First, it should be noted that the MST PTSD claims process adversely affects all 

veterans, not just women. Many men suffer from the effects of sexual violence experienced while serving in the military. According to the Department of Defense, 12% 

of all unrestricted sexual assault reports are made by men. 4 Additionally, according 

to VA, 45.7% of the veterans who screened positive for MST in 2010 were men, and 

39% of veterans receiving treatment for MST were men. 5

Veterans who suffer from the debilitating effects of Military Sexual Trauma face 

unique challenges in obtaining disability compensation from the VA. In 2011, SWAN 

and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Freedom of Information Request with the VA for data on MST claims. The data obtained through litigation 

showed that during FY 2008, 2009 and 2010, only 32.3% of MST-based PTSD claims 

were approved by VBA compared to an approval rate of 54.2% of all other PTSD 

claims during that time. 6 As a point of comparison, data obtained by Veterans for 

Common Sense indicates that 53% of Iraq and Afghanistan deployment related 

PTSD claims through October 2011 were approved. 7

Looking more deeply at the MST data, SWAN discovered that among veterans 

who had their MST–PTSD claims approved by VA, women were more likely to receive a 10% to 30% disability rating, whereas men were more likely to receive a 70% 

to 100% disability rating. 8

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

53 

claims. The data showed men are more likely than women to receive 70% to 100% ratings for 

MST-related PTSD claims, and women were more likely to receive 10% to 30% ratings (p<.001). 9 38 C.F.R. § 3.304: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans’ Relief. (2012).: Available at: http:// 

ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text- idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title38/38tab—02.tpl 10Department of Defense. SAPRO, 2012. 11Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D. 2000. ‘‘The Mental Health Impact of Rape’’. National Violence 

Against Women Prevention Research Center, Medical University of South Carolina. Available 

at: http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/mentalimpact.shtml. 

We drew several important conclusions from these findings. First, under current 

VA policy, veterans who file a PSTD claim based on their Military Sexual Trauma 

have only a 1 in 3 chance of getting their claim approved. Also, among women veterans with MST-related PTSD, data suggests a strong gender bias in disability ratings in favor of men. 

When we look at VA’s PTSD claims policies on paper, we shouldn’t be surprised 

that so few MST PTSD claims get approved: the evidentiary standard for claims 

based on rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment is higher, and completely unrealistic. 

The language in the regulation that establishes the required evidence for what 

the VA calls a ‘‘in-service personal assault’’ (38 CFR 3.304, Chapter 1, Part 3, Subpart A) differs radically from the language used to describe the evidence required 

for combat, deployment, prisoners of war, and all other PTSD claims. In fact, Paragraph (f) allows for lay testimony as acceptable evidence in all other PTSD cases 

except in cases of an in-service personal assault. 

Instead the regulation lists a litany of other hypothetical evidence which can be 

submitted by a veteran ranging from police reports, statements by family members, 

pregnancy and tests for sexually transmitted diseases. The regulation also allows 

for negative changes in behavior to be taken into consideration. It is worth noting 

that the regulation does require VA claims officers to accept such evidence, it only 

allows for the veteran to submit it. 9

If 2 out of 3 MST claimants still cannot meet this PTSD evidentiary burden, the 

policy can hardly be called generous. VA policy fails veterans for a variety of reasons. First, sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military are notoriously 

under-reported. According to the Pentagon’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), 86.5% of sexual assaults go unreported, 10 meaning that official documentation of an assault rarely exists. Secondly, prior to the new evidence 

retention laws passed in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, the services 

routinely destroyed all evidence and investigation records in sexual assault cases 

after 2 to 5 years, leaving gaping holes in MST claims filed prior to 2012. Lastly, 

the evidentiary standard described in the regulation does not take into consideration the reality that many victims do not report the incident(s) to anyone, including 

family members, for a variety of legitimate reasons, including shame, stigma, embarrassment, or disorientation associated with sexual trauma. Although sexual assault increases the chance of adverse emotional responses and behaviors, 11 it does 

not mean that all MST claimants will experience these symptoms. In fact, SWAN 

has spoken to many assault survivors who demonstrate changes in behavior that 

are not included in the regulation, such as improved job performance as a means 

of coping with the trauma. 

In the MST community, the failures of the VA claims process are notorious. 

SWAN has spoken with veterans who suffer PTSD related to both MST and combat—what veterans cynically call the ‘‘double whammy’’. These veterans chose to 

abandon their MST claims and submit a claim only for combat related PTSD, as 

they felt their combat claim was more likely to be approved, and that the uphill battle to file an MST claim wasn’t worth the agony. 

SWAN has presented our data to VA Secretary General Eric Shinseki and to General Allison Hickey, the Under Secretary for Benefits at VBA, to demand change to 

VA policy on MST claims. After a series of conversations SWAN had with VBA 

about its discriminatory practices, the Under Secretary issued a memo in June 2011 

providing further guidance to claims officers and instituting training requirements 

for processing MST claims. However, examination of both the letter and the training 

revealed it simply reinforced the existing regulation which our data shows is not 

working. Rather than resolve the problem by easing the double standard placed on 

MST claimants, the VBA has done nothing but reinforce failure. 

To fix MST claims policy, VBA must immediately revise the regulation (38 CFR 

3.304, Chapter 1, Part 3, Subpart A) to provide language that establishes the same 

evidentiary requirements for MST-based PTSD claims that it does for other claims. 

Specifically, if the evidence establishes a diagnosis of PTSD during service and the 

veterans’ mental health provider connects that claimed stressor to the patient’s 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

54 

12 Committee on Veterans’ Compensation for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, PTSD Compensation and Military Service (Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2007). 

service, then in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and 

provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, 

or hardships of the veteran’s service, the veteran’s lay testimony alone should sufficiently establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. 

Furthermore, there should be absolutely no requirement that veterans filing MST 

claims go through an independent Compensation and Pension exam to verify that 

they have PTSD. We know from talking to countless veterans that these exams 

often unfairly reverse the diagnosis that was made by qualified VA MST counselors 

or other mental health providers. C & P exams are terrifying for veterans who have 

been assaulted or harassed as it forces them to talk about traumatic and devastating experiences with complete strangers. These experiences often taken years 

or even decades for veterans to come to grips with, or to talk comfortably about, 

and veterans should not be forced to repeat them to complete strangers who often 

lack the sensitivity or professional qualifications to speak to survivors of sexual 

trauma. The trust that is built between a MST counselor or mental health provider 

and his/her patient is one that cannot be replaced by strangers. VBA must trust the 

expertise of VHA or other sexual trauma experts who have worked intimately with 

their patients. 

Additionally, to sensitize claim reviewers to the needs of assault and harassment 

victims, the VA should implement the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine 

Committee on Veterans’ Compensation to collect gender-specific data on MST claim 

decisions, develop additional MST-related reference materials for raters, and incorporate training and testing on MST claims into its rater certification program. 12

The agency should also establish a presumption of soundness for the diagnoses of 

its own treating physicians and counselors; claim reviewers should not have the authority to second-guess evaluations by agency medical professionals or to discount 

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

results. 

Finally, SWAN proposes revising the current VA work credit system, which paradoxically prolongs the adjudication process by privileging speed over accuracy in initial claim determinations. By measuring employee productivity strictly by number 

of cases processed, the VA offers reviewers an incentive to take any shortcut necessary to clear their desks of pending claims. The resulting combination of too much 

work and too little time ultimately gives rise to premature—and inaccurate—determinations, setting in motion years of appeals. In order to encourage accurate determinations at the Regional Office level and remove the incentive to recycle claims, 

the agency should award work credit only after the final stage of review. 

Thank you very much for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Executive Summary 

The Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) has worked on the issue of Military 

Sexual Trauma (MST)- related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) claims for 

a number of years now with the VA, VBA and Congress. SWAN has advocated for 

a relaxation in the evidentiary standards for MST-based PTSD claims to allow lay 

testimony of the veteran to be used to reflect the standards of evidence used in 

other PTSD claims. In 2011, SWAN and the ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act 

requests with the VA to ascertain the scope of MST-based PTSD claims, and to specifically examine approval rates and disability ratings of those claims. 

Examination of the documents produced by the VA clearly shows that the current 

system in use by the VBA that employs a higher standard of evidence for sexual 

assault claims results in only 1 in 3 (32.3%) MST- based PSTD claims being approved. This is much lower than the 1 in 2 (54.2%) acceptance rate of all other 

PTSD claims. Additionally, an examination of disability ratings revealed a strong 

bias, as women were more likely to receive a 10 to 30 percent rating and men were 

more likely to receive a 70 to 100 percent disability rating. 

This data reinforces what SWAN and many other veterans’ advocates already 

know: the possibility of getting an MST-based PTSD claim approved by the VBA 

under the current regulations continues to be an arduous and overwhelmingly difficult process for the veteran, and is a process that more often than not results in 

a ruling unfavorable to the veteran. 

To improve MST claims policy, VBA must immediately revise the regulation (38 

CFR 3.304, Chapter 1, Part 3, Subpart A) to provide language that establishes the 

same evidentiary requirements for MST-based PTSD claims that it does for other 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

55 

claims. Specifically, if the evidence establishes a diagnosis of PTSD during service 

and the veterans’ mental health provider connects that claimed stressor to the patient’s service, then in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, 

and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran’s service, the veteran’s lay testimony alone should 

sufficiently establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. 

Furthermore, there should be absolutely no requirement that veterans filing MST 

claims go through an independent Compensation and Pension (C &P) exam to verify 

that they have PTSD. We know from talking to countless veterans that these exams 

serve no purpose and in fact often unfairly reverse the diagnosis that was made by 

qualified VA MST counselors or other mental health providers. C & P exams are 

terrifying for veterans who have been assaulted or harassed as it forces them to talk 

about traumatic and devastating experiences with complete strangers. These experiences often take years or even decades for veterans to come to grips with, or to talk 

comfortably about, and veterans should not be forced to repeat them to complete 

strangers who often lack the sensitivity or professional qualifications to speak to 

survivors of sexual trauma. The trust that is built between a MST counselor or mental health provider and his/her patient is one that cannot be replaced by strangers. 

VBA must trust the expertise of VHA mental health experts who have worked intimately with their patients. 

Additionally, to sensitize claim reviewers to the needs of assault and harassment 

victims, the VA should implement the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine 

Committee on Veterans’ Compensation to collect gender-specific data on MST claim 

decisions, develop additional MST-related reference materials for raters, and incorporate training and testing on MST claims into its rater certification program. The 

agency should also establish a presumption of soundness for the diagnoses of its 

own treating physicians and counselors; claim reviewers should not have the authority to second-guess evaluations by agency medical professionals or to discount VA 

treatment records in favor of one-time C&P exam results. 

Finally, SWAN proposes revising the current VA work credit system, which paradoxically prolongs the adjudication process by privileging speed over accuracy in initial claim determinations. By measuring employee productivity strictly by number 

of cases processed, the VA offers reviewers an incentive to take any shortcut necessary to clear their desks of pending claims. The resulting combination of too much 

work and too little time ultimately gives rise to premature—and inaccurate—determinations, setting in motion years of appeals. In order to encourage accurate determinations at the Regional Office level and remove the incentive to recycle claims, 

the agency should award work credit only after the final stage of review. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Joy J. Ilem 

Messrs. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) to testify at this 

oversight hearing focused on the process and procedure involved in veterans’ obtaining disability compensation benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) associated with military sexual trauma (MST), specifically on the types of evidence that 

may be submitted to substantiate a claim related to MST, and an exploration of 

ideas that may improve the evaluations of these claims. 

For a number of years, DAV has advocated greater collaboration between offices 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) 

to address conditions related to MST and to identify better ways to treat and properly compensate veterans for those conditions. We also continue to express a fervent 

hope that DoD is effectively addressing methods to prevent the incidence of sexual 

assaults and harassment within all branches of the military services. 

This topic is obviously extremely sensitive to many service members, veterans and 

the respective Departments that are responsible for the safety and well-being of 

service members and veterans. When a service member is wounded by enemy rifle 

fire or mortar shrapnel in engagement with an enemy, as a society we recognize the 

sacrifice and loss of our wounded military personnel, but when a military service 

member is wounded by personal or sexual violence, often perpetrated by a fellow 

service member, military authorities and society in general respond in a very different way. 

The continued prevalence of sexual assault in the military is alarming and has 

been the object of numerous military reports, Congressional hearings, documentaries and media coverage. Unfortunately, recent media reports do not lend confidence that DoD is succeeding in its goal of reducing and eliminating this scourge; 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

56 

1Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, Annual Report on Sexual 

Assault in the Military, Fiscal Year 2011; April 2012. http://www.sapr.mil/media/pdf/reports/ 

Department—of—Defense—Fiscal—Year—2011—Annual—Report—on—Sexual—Assault—in— 

the—Military.pdf. 2 US Dept of Veterans Affairs, VA Research Currents. November-December 2008. http:// 

www.research.va.gov/resources/pubs/docs/va—research—currents—nov-dec—08.pdf. 3 Ibid. 

however, it appears from recent developments that the Secretary of Defense has determined to address MST in a new and enlightened manner compared to the past. 

He announced the establishment of independent special victims units to investigate 

incidents of MST in the military ranks. He also indicated DoD will address some 

of its historic problems in archiving records associated with the incidence of MST. 

In 2005, the DoD established the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office 

(SAPRO). This organization is responsible for all DoD sexual assault policy and provides oversight to ensure that each of the military service’s programs complies with 

DoD policy. SAPRO serves as the single point of accountability and oversight for 

sexual assault policy, provides guidance to the DoD components, and facilitates the 

resolution of issues common to all military services and joint commands. The objectives of DoD’s SAPRO policy are to specifically enhance and improve prevention 

through training and education programs, ensure treatment and support of victims, 

and enhance system accountability. 

According to SAPRO, in 2011 reports of sexual assault were filed by 3,192 service 

members across all military service branches, a 1% increase over 2010 and a 1.1% 

decrease from 2009. 1 However, DoD recognizes that these types of crimes are remarkably under-reported. For last year, DoD projected a more accurate number, 

likely closer to 19,000 assaults, based on its bi-annual Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members (WGRA). 

VA data bears out the significant reports of MST. According to VA, during fiscal 

year 2009, 21.9 percent of women and 1.1 percent of men screened by the Veterans 

Health Administration (VHA) reported that they had experienced an in service 

stressful MST event. Another VA study found that of 125,000 enrolled veterans 

screened, about 15 percent of women veterans from Operations Iraqi and Enduring 

Freedom reported experiencing sexual assaults or harassment during military service. 2 VA research also indicates that men and women who report sexual assault or 

harassment during military service were more likely to be diagnosed with a mental 

health condition. Women with MST had a 59 percent higher risk for mental health 

problems; the risk among men was slightly lower, at 40 percent. 3 The most common 

conditions linked to MST were depression, PTSD, anxiety, adjustment disorder, and 

substance-use disorder. 

The complaints we hear from veterans regarding MST are primarily focused on 

the VBA disability claims process. Many survivors indicate that they are frustrated 

with the process particularly in cases when the sexual assault was not officially reported. They express a feeling of being ‘‘re-traumatized’’ in their efforts to get help 

from VBA even when they have provided significant evidence; statements from witnesses, friends or family; a detailed account of the incident; along with a diagnosis 

and extensive treatment records from a VA or non-VA mental health provider—only 

to have the claim for service-connection denied. 

Unfortunately, many service members who experience these types of traumas do 

not disclose them to anyone until many years after the fact but frequently experience lingering physical, emotional or psychological symptoms following these incidents. When a service member experiences sexual assault during military service 

there are a number of complicating factors that often prevent or discourage survivors from coming forward and reporting the incident to their superiors. Fear of 

retribution within the military unit structure; the perpetrator is their superior or 

a friend of the superior to whom they must report; and negative impact on military 

career are just a few reported barriers to coming forward and reporting such incidents. Traditional military culture and the military’s closed system for reporting, investigating and prosecuting these types of crimes also constitute barriers against reporting such incidents. Despite DoD’s ‘‘zero-tolerance’’ policy, reports continue to 

document these incidents. Not only is there stigma, shame, guilt, and feelings of isolation associated with sexual assault in general, to add insult to injury, in some 

cases, these incidents are not being properly addressed as mandated by policy 

through the chain of command. Perpetrators often are not punished. 

On their discharge from military service many survivors of MST end up seeking 

health care and mental health counseling services for MST from the VA health care 

system. Under a current Veterans Health Administration (VHA) policy, all patients 

are screened for MST and receive medically necessary treatment and counseling 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

57 

4 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, Committee 

on Veterans’ Compensation for PTSD, Board on Military and Veterans Health, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences; PTSD Compensation and Military Service. Washington 

DC, 2007. 5 Bradley G. Mayes & Susan McCutcheon, RN, EdD; Joint Statement before the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, ‘‘Healing 

the Wounds: Evaluating Military Sexual Trauma Issues,’’ May 20, 2010. http://democrats.veterans.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=72876&Newsid=577&Name=%20Bradley%20G.%20Mayes. 

without charge for MST-related conditions at VA health care facilities and in VA 

Vet Centers. Service connection or disability compensation is not required for eligibility to gain access to this treatment. 

Establishing a veteran’s service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service 

stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a link between current symptoms and the claimed in-service stressor. 

According to current VBA policy, if a PTSD claim is based on in-service personal 

assault, evidence from sources other than a veteran’s service records may corroborate a veteran’s account of the stressor incident. Examples of such evidence include, 

but are not limited to: records from law enforcement authorities, rape crisis or mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for 

sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, 

fellow service members, or clergy. Additionally, evidence of behavioral changes following the claimed assault is one type of relevant evidence that may be found in 

these sources. Examples of behavioral changes that may constitute credible evidence 

of the stressor include, but are not limited to: a request for a transfer to another 

military duty assignment; deterioration in work performance; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; or unexplained economic or social behavioral changes (title 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5).) 

Also noteworthy, VBA’s policy prohibits the denial of claims for service connection 

for PTSD based on in-service personal assault without a rater’s first advising the 

veteran claimant that information from sources other than the veterans’ service 

records or evidence of behavior changes may constitute credible evidence of the 

stressor and allowing the veteran an opportunity to furnish this type of evidence 

or advise VA of potential sources of such evidence. Finally, the regulation provides 

that VA may submit any evidence it receives to an appropriate medical or mental 

health professional for an opinion as to whether it indicates that a personal assault 

occurred. 

Unfortunately, even with the liberalization of the regulations, if an assault is not 

officially reported during military service, establishing service connection later for 

conditions related to MST can be very challenging. According to an Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Research Council report on PTSD compensation in 2007, significant barriers prevent women from being able to independently substantiate their 

experiences of MST, especially in combat arenas. 4 The IOM report concluded that 

little research exists on the subject of PTSD compensation and women veterans and 

noted that available information suggests that women veterans are less likely to receive service connection for PTSD and that this gap is related to their being unable 

to substantiate non-combat traumatic stressors such as MST. The committee stated 

that VA guidance for rating these cases at that time addressed MST specifically, but 

that little attention was being paid to the unique challenges of documenting an inservice stressor or approaches for solving this problem. DAV is pleased to report 

that the Veterans Benefits Administration has made numerous improvements in adjudication policies on MST since that report was filed. 

In May 2010, VBA officials testified that all rating specialists in VA regional offices were provided with detailed information on proper claims processing methods 

in a 2005 training letter, in an effort to ensure that veterans who filed claims associated with MST received fair and thorough consideration of those claims. 5 Following the joint hearing on May 20, 2010, VBA responded to DAV’s request to include SAPRO information in its M–21–1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section 

D for these types of claims. In December 2011, VBA amended its guidance to VA 

rating specialists, expanding requirements for raters examining personal trauma 

cases based on MST, including using SAPRO as a source for possible documentation. 

We appreciate these specific changes made by VBA, including the information 

about SAPRO, but DAV remains concerned about how many claims may have been 

denied prior to that information being included in the manual or on faulty application of the existing regulations. 

In preparing for this hearing we contacted VBA officials, through our National 

Service Officer (NSO) Corps, to see what references are currently being used by ratVACREP180 with DISTILLER

58 

ing specialists/adjudicators in developing PTSD claims based on MST. A document 

associated with a December 2011 ‘‘Fast Letter’’ provides very detailed and comprehensive guidance regarding these claims to include: pertinent regulations; statutory definition of MST; related court decisions; specific ‘‘markers’’ to examine in veterans’ records; timing for ordering a PTSD examination; and proper development actions to be taken prior to a decision being rendered in the case. 

Most notably in the document we found a number of clear examples and statements to raters emphasizing the fact that a special obligation exists on VA’s part 

to assist claimants in gathering, from sources other than in-service records, evidence 

corroborating an in-service stressor and to help fully develop their claims particularly in MST cases given the unique problems of documenting personal-assault 

claims. The instructions are concise—that evidentiary development must proceed 

under the special requirements of title 38, C.F.R., § 3.304(f)(5) and that a veteran’s 

complete military record should be obtained if necessary, and reasonable efforts expended to obtain any other evidence a veteran may identify as a potential source 

to support the claim. The document goes on to explain the purpose of the liberalizing categories in the regulation is to recognize the difficulties inherent in establishing service-connection for PTSD claims based on MST and other personal assaults and to provide the basis for a relaxed evidentiary standard and a liberal approach to evaluation of these claims. 

The most salient feature made in the Fast Letter’s attachment is to emphasize 

that current regulations and court cases do not require actual documentation of the 

claimed stressor, and that the opinion of a qualified mental health clinician is considered credible supporting evidence of the claimed MST stressor. Nevertheless, the 

letter notes that the final decision on service connection remains with VBA raters. 

To DAV, the question at hand for this Subcommittee is whether VBA adjudicators 

and rating specialists who are responsible for developing and rating MST claims are 

using all the amended provisions in M21–1 and following those prescribed VBA-wide 

guidelines in the Code of Federal Regulations to assist veterans in uncovering potential evidence that may be available to support their claims, even if unreported. 

In cases where veterans indicated that no official report of assaults were filed, VA 

adjudicators should be asking veterans detailed questions or considering stressor 

statements provided by veterans to determine if other reports could have documented these events (such as calls or visits to rape crisis centers or mental health 

counseling centers; requests for pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted 

diseases; statements in personal diaries or letters to clergy or family members immediately following personal assaults). 

In our view, if a veteran indicates an assault took place on a specific date(s), he 

or she should be asked about subsequent treatment for any health or mental health 

problems following the sexual assault, i.e., complaints of stomach pain; nausea; vomiting; headaches; anxiety; panic attacks; depression; or suicidal ideation, etc. Rating 

specialists should be examining military personnel records for requests for transfer 

filed by individuals following assault to another duty assignment; a deterioration in 

work performance noted; or documentation of a sudden onset of substance abuse or 

other unexplained social or behavioral changes. The M21–1 guidance lists additional 

options to assist VBA claims developers but it unclear whether these efforts are consistently and exhaustively being made. DAV asks this Subcommittee to require VBA 

to examine compliance with this guidance system-wide and submit a report of its 

findings to aid the Subcommittee in its oversight role. 

We bring one more issue to the Subcommittee’s attention on this topic. Under 

DoD’s confidentiality policy, military victims of sexual assault have two reporting 

options, ‘‘restricted’’ reporting and ‘‘unrestricted’’ reporting. Restricted reporting allows a sexual assault victim to confidentially disclose the details of the assault to 

specified individuals and receive medical treatment and counseling, without triggering any official criminal or civil investigative process. Despite the progress on the 

VA’s part to include SAPRO information in its M21–1 manual, to maintain confidentiality in the case of restricted reporting, DoD policy prevents release of MST-related records with limited exceptions. However, VA is not specifically identified as 

an ‘‘exception’’ for release of records in DoD’s policy and it is unclear if VA could 

gain access to these records even with permission of the veteran. One of DAV’s primary concerns is that VA be able to access restricted DoD records (with the veterans’ permission) documenting reports of MST for an indeterminate period. To establish service connection for PTSD there must be credible evidence to support a 

veteran’s assertion that the stressful event actually occurred. Restricted records are 

highly credible resources but it is questionable if they are readily available, even 

with the consent of the veteran. With the veteran’s authorization, we believe DoD 

should provide VA adjudicators access to all MST records, whether restricted or unrestricted, to aid VBA in adjudicating these cases. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

59 

We also have questions with respect to where and how physical assessment 

records that are completed following assaults and subsequent mental health treatment records related to the restricted MST reports are kept and for how long. We 

are concerned that these records are being maintained separately from victimized 

service members’ medical treatment and personnel records and whether each service 

maintains MST records in a consistent manner. According to DoD policy physical 

evidence associated with a restricted report of an MST event is destroyed after one 

year if the service member or veteran does not wish to pursue civil or criminal sanctions against the perpetrator. Legislation is pending in the Senate that would extend this period of records retention for restricted MST records to five years. DAV 

supports an extension of this period to 50 years, matching the current DoD policy 

on retention of unrestricted records of sexual assaults. 

DAV NSOs continue to assist MST victims with their claims for disability compensation. In this work, however, our NSOs are frustrated at the routine occurrence 

that MST claims are denied by VA for lack of evidentiary documentation. This suggests that, in some cases, VBA rating specialists are not following current policy as 

detailed in this statement. For these reasons and more, it seems to DAV that the 

agencies that are responsible for monitoring and reporting on MST, and providing 

benefits and services to survivors of MST, as well as preventing the problem at its 

source, should work in concert to lower the burden of this claims process and ensure 

service members and veterans are fully assisted by the government and their advocates in securing the benefits they deserve and have earned. In recent days we are 

advised that more collaboration is now occurring between leaders of VBA and 

SAPRO, but we await the results of these efforts, especially in relation to records 

keeping, archiving and accessing MST documentation. 

Additionally, we urge VBA to identify and map claims related to personal trauma 

with a focus on MST to determine the number of claims submitted annually, their 

award rates, denial rates, and the conditions most frequently associated with these 

claims. We believe this type of reporting would be helpful to the Subcommittee in 

its oversight role. Therefore, DAV renews our request that VBA develop this important data-set and make it public. Finally, VBA is responsible for ensuring that its 

claims staffs are properly trained and compliant with the procedures and policies 

outlined in this testimony to assist veterans in producing fully developed claims; 

therefore, VBA should conduct its own oversight to review these claims to ensure 

the directives that have been issued are in fact being followed. 

Mr. Chairman, again DAV thanks you for the opportunity to share our views at 

this important hearing focused on MST related disability claims. We strongly believe that survivors of sexual assault during military service deserve recognition, assistance in developing their claims and compensation for any residual conditions 

found related to the assault. DAV believes these cases need and deserve special attention. Because of the circumstances of these injuries, victimized individuals who 

have come forward are courageous, and their courage needs to be recognized by the 

government. 

In the past decade, progress has been made on this issue; however, more needs 

to be done to ensure that these disabled veterans are properly compensated for conditions related to MST on an equitable basis in comparison to veterans disabled by 

other causes. We continue to hope hearings of this nature can not only help heal 

these deep wounds that are often invisible but have profoundly changed the lives 

of those affected, but also stimulate both Departments to improve their efforts to 

address them and the underlying causative factors. 

Establishing service connection for a condition related to MST is important on a 

number of levels. Specifically, veterans with service connection gain improved access 

to VA health care. Disability compensation can also make a significant difference 

in a disabled veteran’s financial stability and overall health and well-being. Finally, 

and most importantly for many MST survivors, being rated service connected for 

mental and physical disabilities attributed to MST represents validation, connotes 

gratitude for their service to their country and recognizes the tribulations they endured while serving. 

We appreciate the attention to these issues and hope the Subcommittee will consider the issues of concern and recommendations DAV has made today. I would be 

pleased to address your questions, or those of other Subcommittee members. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

f 

60 

Prepared Statement of Lori Perkio 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of The American 

Legion regarding the obstacles faced by veterans applying for compensation benefits 

related to military sexual trauma. Disability compensation is, in its most basic 

sense, based on the residual effects of injury or disease incurred in service. There 

are many potential residual effects resulting from sexual trauma incurred in the 

military, ranging from disorders of the genitourinary system to sexually transmitted 

diseases to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). As with any service connected 

disability, in order to establish service connection, a veteran must prove three points 

of fact in conjunction with the disorder. A veteran must prove there is a current 

condition. A veteran must establish evidence showing the occurrence of the event 

or disease during their period of service. Finally a medical opinion from a doctor 

is required, providing a nexus between the event in service and the present condition. 

For victims of Military Sexual Trauma (MST) the most difficult point to prove is 

usually the occurrence of the event in service. There are a variety of reasons for this 

difficulty. Some of these reasons are institutional or even societal. Some of these 

reasons revolve around the circumstances and culture often associated with the triggering incidences. 

The VA is clearly aware of the difficulties the victims of MST face in conjunction 

with the claims process. In 2004 a document produced by the Veterans Health Initiative (VHI) on MST recognized some of the challenges and offered advice to VA 

health care providers regarding patients of theirs who might be seeking service connection and compensation for residual effects of MST incurred in service. 

The guide recognizes some of the ‘‘downsides’’ veterans might face filing a claim. 

Veterans will be forced to undergo detailed descriptions of the horrifying events 

which have resulted in their present PTSD symptoms. Many veterans attach symbolic value to receiving service connection and could be further traumatized by repeated rejections and denials. Citing a 1995 Armed Forces Sexual Harassment Survey which stated ‘‘59 percent of women filing rape charges while they were in service said they were not taken seriously.’’ The guide worries that ‘‘For sexually traumatized veterans whose attempts for redress in the military were disbelieved, minimized or even punished, denial of service-connection [sic] may represent a re-enactment of earlier ‘betrayals’’’ 

Further complicating the process is that in many cases there may be no records 

which could verify a veteran’s claim of assault or sexual trauma in service. As mentioned above, some long standing patterns which are now changing slowly in the 

military created a negative environment for victims to file charges of rape or assault 

in the service. When such a culture existed, many chose not to even file due to the 

arduous task ahead where the victim was as much on trial as the attacker, if not 

more so. 

Even new military programs developed to help victims deal with sexual trauma 

in the military are often based on anonymity, to assuage concerns of victims who 

feel their reporting of the incident may adversely impact their career. While this 

may actually be increasing the number of victims who receive needed help, and is 

important, it can be disastrous in a long term sense for veterans who file claims 

for disability related to these assaults, as there are no records to link specifically 

to them in service. 

The lack of available data is noted in 38 CFR § 3.304(f)(5) which clearly recognizes the frequent absence of concrete information in the military record to indicate 

the occurrence of such traumatic events and notes in the adjudication of 

posttraumatic stress disorder claims that alternate sources of information can be 

used to indicate the presence of such an event. Recognizing the importance of types 

of evidence such as behavior changes, deterioration in work performance, substance 

abuse, episodes of depression, unexplained economic or social behavior changes and 

the like, the regulations show the difficulty inherent in proving the existence of the 

event in question. Paradoxically, often these events must be theorized as existing 

in the holes left by gaps in what records are actually present. 

Despite the regulatory requirement to pay special attention to these types of information, American Legion service officers frequently report that this is not how these 

claims are actually adjudicated in the field. Oftentimes, the special attention required is only evident once the claim reaches the Board of Veterans Appeals after 

many years of an arduous appeals process. Some veterans do not even see the proper deference towards these types of evidence until their claim appears before the 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

61 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Simply put, despite regulations which require 

VA to pay ‘‘special attention’’ to alternate sources of information, all too often veterans are told the additional information is not compelling enough to make a difference. All too often it seems, there is no special attention granted to this information. 

In a statement released on July 11th of this year, VA delineated an express lane 

process for veterans’ claims including ‘‘Special Operations’’ treatment for PTSD 

claims associated with MST. Presumably, under this ‘‘Special Operations’’ treatment 

these MST PTSD claims will finally receive the proper deference due alternative 

forms of evidence, although it is entirely too early to see what impact, if any, the 

special treatment will have on MST PTSD claims. 

Interestingly, the VA has recently tackled the difficult issue of adjudicating claims 

for PTSD in cases where there was a known lack of records to corroborate a veteran’s claim. In 2010, in recognition of the frequent absence of concrete records to 

documented occurrences in combat zones, VA changed their regulations relating to 

the adjudication of PTSD claims related to combat type stressors that occurred in 

combat zones. The decision to change these procedures came about after careful consideration, and involved a procedure which mandated a VA doctor’s opinion diagnosing PTSD related to a stressor consistent with the rigors and experiences of a 

combat zone. 

Subsequent to this regulatory change, VA has seen accuracy results in PTSD 

claims greatly improve. This change has improved the process for adjudicating combat PTSD claims, and the veterans who served with those invisible wounds have 

been able to receive some measure of justice. 

At the time of the regulatory change, the issue of MST claims for PTSD was 

raised in conjunction with the proposed changes for combat related PTSD. VA’s response at the time, noted in the July 13, 2010 Federal Register, was to cite the existence of the special rules for adjudicating these types of claims noted in 38 CFR 

§ 3.304(f)(5) and seemed to indicate the mere presence of this special rule obviated 

the need for any further liberalization of regulations related to PTSD adjudication 

in MST cases. 

The American Legion believes VA’s response in that instance needs to be revisited. There are clear parallels to the struggles of veterans fighting to be recognized 

with service connection for PTSD in combat situations and in situations of sexual 

trauma. In both cases, the trauma contributes to lasting effects which can reach into 

every aspect of the veteran’s life. In both cases, the reliving of the event as a necessary part of the process of service connection can be devastating and contribute 

to further trauma. In both cases, there is a long established understanding of the 

lack of available records to help validate the claim. 

The recent change to the PTSD claims model for combat veterans has shown there 

is a remedy to the failing of the claims process where there is an absence of records. 

The American Legion believes this is the directions we must look to in order to solve 

the problems faced by victims of MST in the claims process as they seek service connection for PTSD related to their trauma. Whether this is accomplished through internal regulatory change by VA along the lines of the initiative displayed in improving the process for combat veterans, or by change of law, the important message 

is that the system needs to change to help these veterans. 

If a victim of sexual trauma in the military is currently experiencing symptoms 

of PTSD related to that trauma, a doctor is fully qualified to make that assessment 

according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) 

whether the currently utilized DSM–IV or the upcoming DSM–V the important factor is ensuring a diagnosis conforms to careful medical understanding. With a doctor’s detailed evaluation, and relating the PTSD to an event in service, the evidentiary requirement for MST victims could be treated in the same manner in 

which we treat combat veterans. If the described incident is consistent with the nature of sexual trauma and conforms to the diagnosis, the existence of the in service 

stressor should be conceded by VA. 

The veterans in question have already been terribly victimized. Unlike combat 

veterans, they are unlikely to be hailed as heroes, although the courage to come forward and seek treatment is no less admirable. As a nation we must be reaching 

out to these veterans and telling them it is not only okay to come forward, but we 

have to reestablish trust with them. 

It is easy to miss this critical consideration when addressing the issue of MST. 

These are veterans who came forward to serve their country, and their trust has 

been shattered. In many cases their trust in the system is nil. It is not enough to 

be a cold, dispassionate system to adjudicate their benefits. We owe them an attempt to restore faith and trust in the system. We owe them an attempt to show 

their country does not think less of them. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

62 

The system needs fixing, but it is not a complicated fix. The lessons of combat 

PTSD have shown us VA can make these changes on their own initiative, and The 

American Legion urges them to act now to do so for victims of MST. 

The American Legion thanks this subcommittee for the opportunity to come before 

you today to express our views on this critical issue, and furthermore thanks to this 

subcommittee for ensuring that the victims of Military Sexual Trauma are not forgotten or allowed to fall by the wayside. 

Executive Summary 

The American Legion recognizes the obstacles faced by victims of Military Sexual 

Trauma (MST) when filing for service connection in the disability benefits system. 

The lack of data in the military records system is a great obstacle to veterans trying 

to prove service connection. In this way, victims of MST filing for PTSD face very 

similar obstacles to combat veterans filing for PTSD, in both cases the lack of 

records is one of the biggest obstacles to obtaining service connection. 

In 2010 VA voluntarily fixed their regulations to make it easier for veterans who 

had served in combat zones to obtain service connection for PTSD related to combat 

and combat conditions, by relaxing evidentiary requirements for veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD related to combat. 

The American Legion believes VA must use its authority to change their regulations in a similar fashion for MST victims seeking service connection for PTSD. Despite the existence of regulations for MST victims that require VA to pay special 

attention to alternate sources of information which could confirm the occurrence of 

an event in service, VA adjudicators are inconsistent in applying that special consideration. Therefore, a more substantial regulatory change, on the level of what was 

done in 2010 for combat victims, is in order to provide justice for MST victims seeking service connection for PTSD. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Barbara Van Dahlen 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony regarding the issue of improving the access to care through the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans 

who have been sexually assaulted while serving in our military. It is an honor to 

appear before this Committee, and I am proud to offer my assistance to those who 

serve our country. 

Background on Military Sexual Trauma 

Over the past several months we have seen an increase in the attention given to 

a very serious issue affecting our military community: military sexual assault. One 

reason for the increase in interest has been the release of a documentary film called 

The Invisible War. The film—which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival and 

opened in theaters in June—presents the stories of several women and men who 

were sexually assaulted while serving in the military. The service members who 

stepped forward to share these stories chose to serve our country by joining the 

armed forces—and were devastated by the assault they experienced and the lack of 

support they received from the institution they had devoted themselves to. 

The film has received critical acclaim and has stimulated conversations in both 

the civilian and military communities regarding a brutal reality that affects far too 

many men and women who serve. In 2011 alone, 3,192 men and women reported 

that they were sexually assaulted while serving. By telling the painful stories of several victims of sexual assault, the film provides an important framework to understand the impact of this type of attack on those who serve and their families. It sets 

the stage for discussions and actions that must be taken if we are to protect those 

who defend our country from attacks that can occur from within. And it confirms 

that we must ensure services are available for those who have already been harmed. 

Understandably, this type of attack and betrayal often leads to the development 

of severe mental health difficulties for the men and women who are victimized. Indeed, today many of the female veterans treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and other programs receive a diagnosis of Military Sexual Trauma (MST), and 

this type of trauma is now the leading cause of post-traumatic stress disorder 

among female veterans, surpassing combat trauma. In addition, the experience of 

military sexual assault increases the likelihood of other serious and devastating conditions and consequences such as substance abuse, homelessness, and suicide. 

This hearing focuses on a set of very important questions related to assisting the 

victims of military sexual trauma who seek care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Specifically, this committee seeks to explore the process and procedures involved in obtaining VA disability compensation benefits for post-traumatic 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

63 

stress disorder based on military sexual trauma. And it aims to determine how to 

improve the evaluation process for veterans who have been sexually assaulted so 

that those in need are quickly identified and treated. 

While this issue is getting significant attention today, sexual assault has been affecting—and often destroying—the lives of those who serve for decades. As I began 

to prepare testimony for this hearing, I had occasion to speak with a colleague who 

devoted over 20 years of service to the military. He continues to serve as a civilian 

in a high level position with the Department of Defense. I happened to mention to 

him that I was invited to testify before this committee on this important topic. After 

stating that he was about to share something with me that he had never shared 

with anyone, not even his wife, he told me the following story. 

He enlisted in the military at the age of 17. It was the late 1970s. Within the 

first year of his service, he was sexually assaulted by two men with whom he 

served, as part of an initiation process. He was humiliated and devastated. He told 

no one. He said, ‘‘There was no one to tell—reporting would have made my life 

much worse. The stigma would have further damaged me and my career. I felt overwhelming guilt and shame.’’ This veteran suffered the consequences of the attack, 

psychologically and physically, for years. At one point he contemplated suicide and 

went so far as to put all his affairs in order and make arrangements for the care 

of his two-year-old daughter and young wife. His marriage eventually fell apart and 

he and his wife separated. Fortunately, this veteran found help, repaired his marriage, and has healed psychologically—though he continues to have significant physical problems that stem from the attack that shattered his life 30 years ago. 

He shared his story now because he wants the members of this committee to understand that service members who are sexually assaulted are unlikely to report the 

assault to their command, to their peers, to anybody. Data from the Department of 

Defense substantiate his claim. Reports indicate that an estimated 86% of service 

members do not report an assault when it occurs. There are many reasons for this, 

one being that for 25% of military sexual assault survivors, the person they would 

report the assault to is the perpetrator. 

We in the mental health profession know that it is absolutely critical for victims 

of sexual trauma to seek and receive assistance, support, and treatment as soon as 

possible. We also know, however, that many who suffer sexual attacks within the 

military will not seek care while they continue to serve. We must, therefore, ensure 

that all of those who seek services through the Department of Veterans Affairs for 

sexual assault once they leave the service are treated as quickly and as supportively 

as possible. 

Trained mental health clinicians are quite capable of determining the veracity of 

a veteran’s claim of sexual assault. The signs and symptoms are well known, and 

VA mental health providers have already been given the appropriate responsibility 

for making this type of determination regarding reports of combat stress injuries. 

It would be appropriate and consistent, therefore, to allow trained mental health 

professionals to determine—as they currently do within the VA for combat-related 

trauma—that the claimed stressor of military sexual trauma is adequate to support 

a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and that the veterans symptoms are 

related to the claimed stressor for the purposes of seeking and receiving appropriate 

care and services through the VA. 

Moreover, given the humiliation survivors of sexual assault contend with, it is 

highly unlikely that many women or men will fabricate stories of military sexual 

trauma in order to receive VA benefits. In addition the lives that are saved by adjusting the process by which victims of sexual assault can qualify for and receive 

services through the VA will far out weigh the very few cases that ‘‘beat the system.’’ 

In addition to changing the process for victims of sexual assault to apply for and 

receive services through the VA, we should continue to expand the network of providers available to meet the growing needs of the military community at large. The 

VA has made tremendous strides in recognizing that partnerships with communitybased organizations are critical if we are to provide the mental health services that 

the men, women, and families who serve our country need when they come home 

to our communities. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently 

signed an MOA with my organization, Give an Hour, which provides free mental 

health services to military personnel, veterans, and their loved ones. This MOA will 

facilitate appropriate referrals to GAH providers from the VA’s Veterans Crisis 

Line. It is easy to imagine how community-based efforts such as those provided by 

Give an Hour and other organizations can assist the VA in their efforts to provide 

swift and effective care to those who have given so much to our country. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

64 

Scope and History of the Problem 

The issue of military sexual trauma has indeed received increased attention over 

the past few years. Looking at the number of reports filed with DoD in recent years 

confirms the magnitude of the problem. In 2010 there were 3,158 total reports of 

sexual assault in the military. The Department of Defense estimates that this number represents only 13.5% of total assaults in 2010. If this estimate is accurate then 

the total number of military sexual assaults would have been upwards of 20,000. 

Of the 3,158 reports that were made in FY2010, only 529 ever went to trial. 

Of the 3,192 military sexual assaults reported in 2011, service members were the 

victims in 2,723 of those assaults. Eighty-four percent of the incidents reported occurred in FY11, 14% were related to incidents occurring from FY08 to FY10, and 

2% concerned incidents occurring in FY07 and prior. Of the 3,192 reports filed in 

2011, only 791 individuals received some form of disciplinary action, and of that 

group 489 individuals had courts martial charges initiated against them. 

On February 15, 2011, fifteen female and two male military veterans filed a class 

action lawsuit against former Defense Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert 

Gates. The case was ultimately dismissed but an appeal is being considered. The 

film The Invisible War profiles several of the victims involved in this class action 

suit. 

But this is not the first time that the issue of military sexual assault has received 

this type of public attention. Americans became aware of the issue during the 

Tailhook scandal in 1991. Tailhook refers to a series of incidents in which more than 

100 U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted or otherwise engaged in ‘‘improper and indecent’’ conduct with at least 87 

women at the Las Vegas Hilton. 

In July 1992, a series of hearings on women veterans’ issues conducted by the 

Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs brought the problem of military sexual assault to policy makers’ attention. Congress responded to these hearings by passing 

a public law that, among other things, authorized health care and counseling for 

women veterans who were experiencing mental health consequences resulting from 

sexual assault or sexual harassment during their military service. Signed into law 

in November 1992, this public law was later expanded to include male veterans. Following the passage of these laws, a series of Department of Veterans Affairs directives mandated universal screening of all veterans for a history of military sexual 

trauma and mandated that each facility identify a Military Sexual Trauma Coordinator to oversee the screening and treatment referral process. 

Although careers ended and policies changed following the Tailhook scandal, far 

too many men and women serving in our armed forces continue to be sexually assaulted at home and abroad. Most of these (often young) men and women were unable to protect themselves from an attack from one of their ‘‘battle buddies.’’ But 

why would they think that they would ever need to protect themselves from this 

type of assault? They joined the military to serve their country. They were taught 

that those with whom they serve share their dedication and commitment, are there 

to protect them, are closer than family. It is no surprise that military sexual assault 

often leads to a shattering of trust and a sense of despair. Many have likened military sexual assault to incest in the sense that many victims of military sexual assault are devastated by the betrayal and brutality they experience at the hands of 

one of their own. 

Fortunately, additional measures are now under way within the military to protect those who serve and to prosecute those who prey on them. Secretary of Defense 

Panetta has proposed new steps the military will take to address the problem of sexual assaults. One recommended policy change is the requirement that a higher authority within the military review the most serious cases, a step to ensure that 

cases remain within the chain of command and leaders are held responsible. Secretary Panetta also announced the creation of a special victims unit within each of 

the services and an explanation of sexual assault policies to all service members 

within 14 days of their entry into the military. In addition, the secretary has proposed intensified investigations, heightened training, and more resources. These are 

all excellent recommendations that may begin to stem the tide of victimization. We 

must also increase access to care for those who have already been affected. 

Impact of Military Sexual Assault/Trauma 

Military sexual assault has been associated with an increased risk of depression, 

post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance abuse. Women who have been sexually assaulted in the military are more than four times more likely to have posttraumatic stress disorder than peers who have not been sexually assaulted. They 

are also more likely to suffer from multiple mental health concerns. In FY2011 

19.4% of the OEF/OIF/OND female veterans reported a history of military sexual 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

65 

assault. In addition, one in five women veterans who present to the VA for health 

care screen positive for Military Sexual Trauma. Not surprisingly, women who enter 

the military at younger ages and those of enlisted rank appear to be at an increased 

risk for MST. 

Women and men in the military must face unique challenges associated with the 

experience of sexual assault. They must decide if they are willing to report the incident—and face whatever personal or professional reprisals that follow. But there 

are symptoms that all victims of sexual assault share, whether the attack occurs 

within the military or civilian community. Indeed, in addition to the physical and 

psychological pain of the attack itself, women and men who are sexually assaulted 

often experience years of emotional distress, damaged relationships, and overall dysfunction. 

Post-traumatic stress disorder refers to a collection of symptoms that occur for a 

prolonged period of time following a severe trauma. As we know, many victims of 

sexual assault develop post-traumatic stress. These symptoms can be grouped into 

three main categories: 

— Re-Experiencing: This is a repeated reliving of the event that interferes with 

daily functioning. This cluster of symptoms includes flashbacks, frightening 

thoughts, recurrent memories or dreams, and physical reactions to situations 

that remind a person of the event. 

— Avoidance: These symptoms stem from the desire of a person to change his or 

her routine to escape similar situations to the trauma. Victims might avoid 

places, events, or objects that remind them of the experience. Emotions related 

to avoidance are numbness, guilt, and depression. Some individuals have a decreased ability to feel certain emotions like happiness. They might also be unable to remember major parts of the trauma and feel that their future offers 

fewer possibilities than other people have. 

— Hyper-arousal: Hyper-arousal symptoms are primarily physiological. They include difficulty concentrating or falling asleep; being easily startled; feeling 

tense and ‘‘on edge’’; and being prone to angry outbursts. 

It is easy to see how the presence of one or more of these symptoms can dramatically interfere with one’s ability to pursue a career, engage in meaningful relationships, or live one’s life. 

In addition, victims of sexual assault often turn to alcohol or other substances in 

an attempt to relieve their emotional suffering. Victims of sexual assault report 

higher levels of psychological distress and higher levels of alcohol consumption than 

non-victims. And when compared to non-victims, sexual assault survivors are 3.4 

times more likely to use marijuana, 6 times more likely to use cocaine, and 10 times 

more likely to use other major drugs. Many of the women veterans who are now 

living among the homeless population in the United States have what is referred 

to as a ‘‘dual diagnosis’’—a consequence of the sexual trauma they endured. They 

have a mental health condition such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, 

or severe anxiety and they have a substance abuse problem, making it even more 

difficult for them to receive or benefit from treatment for the assault that injured 

them. 

Furthermore, it is common for victims of sexual assault to engage in behaviors 

that result in physical and/or psychological harm to themselves. Deliberate ‘‘selfharm’’ or ‘‘self-injury’’ refers to incidents when a person inflicts physical harm on 

him or herself, usually in secret. Some victims of sexual assault may use self-harm 

to cope with the difficult or painful feelings associated with their experience of sexual trauma. Self-harm can cause permanent damage to the body, as well as additional psychological problems that hinder the healing process, such as guilt, depression, low self-esteem or self-hatred, along with a tendency toward isolation. Some 

common methods of self-harm include cutting, burning, pulling out hair, scratching, 

and eating disorders. 

For sexual assault victims specifically, self-injury may 

— provide a way to express difficult or hidden feelings 

— provide a way of communicating to others that support is needed 

— provide a distraction from emotional pain 

— provide self-punishment for what they believe they deserve 

— provide a feeling of control—it is not uncommon to feel that self-harm is the 

only way to have a sense of control over life, feelings, and body, especially if 

other things in life seem out of control 

Finally, one of the most concerning consequences of sexual assault is associated 

with the depression that so many experience following an attack. Depression that 

goes untreated can continue for years following the attack. And untreated depresVACREP180 with DISTILLER

66 

sion results in an increased risk of suicide. Indeed, of the group of men and women 

who have experienced sexual assault many experience suicidal thoughts, and many 

attempt or complete suicide. 

Access to Care 

We know that early intervention following the experience of trauma promotes 

healing and decreases the likelihood that the trauma will result in chronic and disabling mental health conditions. And we know that it is extremely difficult for victims to overcome the common feelings of fear, guilt, and shame they feel following 

an assault. As a result, many are reluctant to come forward to report an assault 

or seek treatment. And we know that if veterans are further victimized by the reporting and investigative process itself, they are likely to suffer additional psychological damage that worsens their condition. We must, therefore, assure that those 

who seek care for military sexual assault are treated with respect and given the attention and treatment they need and deserve. 

We have the systems and programs in place—through the Department of Veterans Affairs, through state and local governmental agencies, and through community-based programs like Give an Hour—to provide the education, support, and 

treatment that service members who have been sexually assaulted and their families need and deserve. We have treatment strategies that can relieve suffering and 

heal relationships. We have trained clinicians working within the VA and in surrounding communities who have the requisite skills to accurately assess those who 

present with symptoms related to sexual trauma. We must allow our trained clinicians to make these determinations so that the veterans who have suffered these 

acts of betrayal and violation are able to reclaim and rebuild their lives. 

Executive Summary 

Over the past several months we have seen an increase in the attention given to 

a very serious issue affecting our military community: military sexual assault. The 

brutal reality is that in 2011 alone, 3,192 men and women reported that they were 

sexually assaulted while serving. Meanwhile, reports indicate that an estimated 

86% of service members do not report an assault when it occurs. There are many 

reasons for this, one being that for 25% of military sexual assault survivors, the person they would report the assault to is the perpetrator. 

Understandably, this type of attack and betrayal often leads to the development 

of severe mental health difficulties for the men and women who are victimized. Indeed, today many of the female veterans treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and other programs receive a diagnosis of Military Sexual Trauma (MST), and 

this type of trauma is now the leading cause of post-traumatic stress disorder 

among female veterans, surpassing combat trauma. In addition, the experience of 

military sexual assault increases the likelihood of other serious and devastating conditions and consequences such as substance abuse, homelessness, and suicide. 

We in the mental health profession know that it is absolutely critical for victims 

of sexual trauma to seek and receive assistance, support, and treatment as soon as 

possible. We also know, however, that it is likely that many who suffer sexual attacks within the military will not seek care while they continue to serve. We must, 

therefore, ensure that all of those who seek services through the Department of Veterans Affairs for sexual assault once they leave the service are treated as quickly 

and as supportively as possible by allowing trained mental health clinicians to determine the veracity of a veteran’s claim of sexual assault. The signs and symptoms 

are well known, and VA mental health providers have already been given the appropriate responsibility for making this type of determination regarding reports of combat stress injuries. 

In addition to changing the process for victims of sexual assault to apply for and 

receive services through the VA, we should continue to expand the network of providers available to meet the growing needs of the military community at large. The 

VA has made tremendous strides in recognizing that partnerships with communitybased organizations are critical if we are to provide the mental health services that 

the men, women, and families who serve our country need when they come home 

to our communities. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Margaret M. Middleton 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today and 

offer my testimony on the highly important issue of military sexual trauma and the 

VA’s disability compensation benefits process. My name is Margaret Middleton. I 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

67 

am the Executive Director and co-founder of the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center. 

Our mission is to help veterans recovering from homelessness and mental illness 

overcome barriers to housing, healthcare, and income. I am also a visiting clinical 

lecturer co-teaching the Veterans Legal Services Clinic at Yale Law School. In both 

of these capacities I work with veterans seeking VA compensation for PTSD caused 

by sexual assault in the military. 

There are several experts at this hearing who have eloquently testified as to the 

appalling extent of sexual assault in the military and the scope of the VA’s failure 

to assist those victims. Rather than repeat those statistics I’d like to share some 

personal experiences I have had in representing veterans to illuminate how the evidentiary standard set forth in Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 

3.304 prevents worthy claimants from receiving compensation they deserve. 

As written, 38 CFR 3.304(f) requires that a veteran seeking disability compensation for PTSD caused by MST must provide VA with ‘‘credible supporting evidence 

that the claimed in-service stressor occurred.’’ Part Five of this section includes a 

long list of potential evidence including police records and medical reports that could 

be used to corroborate the personal assault. On paper, this requirement seems reasonable. Don’t we all like to believe we would seek justice or medical treatment if 

we were attacked? Working with victims of MST taught me how misinformed that 

view is. What I have learned from these men and women is that the response to 

assault in the military is very particular to the military culture and military justice 

system and should not be thought of as analogous to sexual assault in civilian society. Current Department of Defense practices disincentivize victims from coming 

forward and seeking justice. Reporting an offender could jeopardize a 

servicemember’s career, destroy his working relationships, or subject her to further 

harassment or even official punishment. The current regulation demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sexual assault in the military and it 

is past time to correct it. 

I would like to share with you two examples of veterans I have assisted in applying for VA compensation for PTSD caused by rape in the military and the difficulty 

of using 38 CFR 3.304(f)(5) in these real world cases. In my teaching capacity, I cosupervised a team of students who helped a female veteran establish service connection for PTSD stemming from a rape at Camp Lejeune in the early 1970’s. This veteran had been out drinking at an NCO club. She was 18. The acquaintance walking 

her home pushed her through a window and raped her in a barren room. This veteran felt tremendous shame and personal responsibility for having been out at 

night, for having been drinking, and for having trusted the wrong person. She 

feared that her romantic partner would leave her if she told him she had been 

raped. What’s worse, her assailant bragged about his conquest and her warrant officer told her that ‘‘she was the reason why women should not be allowed in the military.’’ She was plagued by PTSD for decades following this assault and was diagnosed and is treated for it by a VA doctor. 

Section 3.304 places a heavy burden on a traumatized veteran like this client. The 

culture and atmosphere of the military discouraged her from reporting this rape, 

but winning a PTSD claim like hers requires the kind of documentation that can 

only come from speaking about the event. As time passes producing this type of documentation becomes increasingly difficult. For veterans like our client, whose rape 

occurred in the 1970s, this is a monumental obstacle to overcome. 

As her advocates, assisting this veteran was incredibly involved. Her parents had 

died, her marriage failed, there were no surviving letters of hers from that time, 

and no journals or court records. She had lost contact with anyone she had served 

with thirty years earlier. She had been too ashamed and afraid to seek medical 

help. Mental health treatment was even less common and more stigmatized then 

than it is now. She didn’t seek a transfer and she wasn’t demoted - she just did 

her job and suffered silently. What documentary evidence is she supposed to provide 

to corroborate her experience? In a civil case, a judge or jury would be able to weigh 

the credibility of her testimony and the testimony of a doctor treating her; why does 

the VA demand more? 

Under the current standard, it took hours of work by two incredibly talented Yale 

law students and an unusually cooperative VA psychiatrist to build her case based 

on the meager contemporaneous evidence of weight loss and missed duty assignments available in her service records. Most veterans do not have the benefit of a 

team of law students tirelessly scrutinizing their records, or a VA psychiatrist willing to draft and redraft letters with law students to include the type of language 

the VA requires. Another option might have been an independent forensic psychiatric evaluation that would have cost several thousand dollars my client did not 

have and for which the VA would not pay. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

68 

The lack of documentary evidence is the rule, not the exception. I recently met 

with a female veteran being treated at the VA for PTSD caused by MST. While in 

boot camp, two sergeants had sent everyone out and kept her behind; they raped 

her in the barracks. Decades later I was the first person she ever told. She didn’t 

tell anyone at the time because it would have meant the end of a career. This veteran, who served in Iraq, achieved the rank of Master Sergeant and retired after 

28 years in the military fought back tears as she related this experience. This was 

only one of the episodes of MST she described. 

This veteran’s claim also faces an almost impossible evidentiary burden because 

of 38 CFR 3.304(f)(5). She did not tell anyone what had happened so there are no 

medical records, no letters home, and no action taken against her assailants. In 

order to succeed in the Army this veteran felt forced to stay silent and now she will 

be punished for her silence because the VA will refuse to credit her story based on 

her testimony alone. As her advocate, it will take me and my team hours of phone 

calls to family members and old friends, combing through service personnel records, 

and begging doctors to provide free psychiatric evaluations to prove her claim. This 

is surely not what the VA anticipated when it adopted 38 CFR 3.304(f)(5), but it 

is the reality of how it is working in practice. 

We create the conditions that compel traumatized people like these two women 

to remain silent, and then we punish them for that silence by refusing to accept 

their story when they come forward to tell it. We know that this is grossly unfair, 

and we know how to fix it. The VA can and should remedy this situation by amending 38 CFR 3.304(f)(5) to provide victims of military sexual trauma the same benefit 

of the doubt that combat veterans are afforded under 38 CFR 3.304(f)(2). There is 

no excuse for permitting the current regulation to stand. I hope this subcommittee 

exercises its responsibility to America’s veterans to correct this injustice. Holding 

this hearing is an important step towards change and I thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Ruth Moore 

Good Afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen of the House. My name is Ruth Moore and 

it is an honor to be among you today. As you know, I am a Military Sexual Trauma 

survivor who lives with PTSD and Depression. I am here today to share my 23-year 

struggle to get help from the Veterans Health Administration and disability compensation from the Veterans Benefits Administration. 

In 1987, I was a bright, vivacious 18-year-old, serving in the United States Navy. 

After my training school, my first assignment was to an overseas duty station in 

Europe. 21⁄2 months after I arrived, I was raped by my supervisor outside of the 

local club. Not once, but twice. I sought help from the Chaplain, but did not receive 

any. I tried to move beyond this nightmare, but had contracted a STD. At this point, 

my life spiraled downward and I attempted suicide. Shortly thereafter, I was 

medivac’d to Bethesda Naval Hospital, and ultimately discharged from the Navy. No 

prosecution was ever made against the perpetrator. In hindsight, it was easier for 

the military to get rid of me, than admit to a rape. 

My problems began at the point of separation, as the psychiatrist diagnosed me 

with a Borderline Personality Disorder. I did not have a personality disorder; this 

was the standard diagnosis that was given to all victims of MST at that time, to 

separate them from active duty and protect the military from any and all liability. 

This travesty continued when I was counseled by ‘‘Outprocessing’’ to waive all 

claims to the VA, as I ‘‘would get healthcare’’ through my former spouse who was 

on active duty. 

From 1987 to 1993, I struggled with interpersonal relationships, could not trust 

male supervisors, and could not maintain employment. I filed my first VA claim in 

Jacksonville which was denied, despite having several markers for PTSD and gynecological problems. My life continued to spiral downward, and I was not able to 

maintain my marriage. In 1997, I fled from my house and lived out of my van for 

two weeks before I was able to start rebuilding my life with my present spouse. 

Things were very difficult, and I developed additional markers of PTSD including 

night terrors, panic attacks, severe migraine headaches, and insomnia. 

In 2003, I refiled for disability and was denied again; however, I enlisted the aid 

of the Disabled American Veterans. With their help, I was awarded 30% compensation for depression. I was denied PTSD and was told that I did not submit enough 

evidence to prove that I was raped, despite having submitted a letter from my 

former spouse who remembered the rape and when I was treated for Chlamydia. 

Given this eyewitness testimony, the VA still denied this as credible proof. There 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

69 

was no record of my medical treatment for STD from that duty station as my medical records had been partially expunged. Additionally, I was coded by the Togus VA 

as having a Traumatic Brain Injury or Brain Syndrome. 

In 2009, I entered into my first comprehensive treatment at the VA hospital in 

White River Junction, Vermont. I met a MST Coordinator who truly listened to me. 

She began a systemic review of all my records, and determined that they had been 

expunged by noting the glaring inconsistencies between my lab work, treatment 

notes, and service record. My psychiatrist and counselor determined that I did not 

have Borderline Personality Disorder, and the later diagnosis of Traumatic Brain 

Syndrome was inaccurate. My MST coordinator and I refiled for an increase in disability, and my clinicians wrote supportive records for the VBA to make an accurate 

determination. They readjudicated my claim to 70% but denied my status as individually unemployable, citing that I did not complete the necessary paperwork. 

At this point, I was very frustrated and suicidal with the stresses of the VBA system and claims process. In my final effort, I called the Honorable Bernie Sanders 

and his staff agreed to investigate why the VA was taking so long and denying part 

of my claim. I took Mr. Sanders copies of all the paperwork I had filed, including 

the VBA time and date stamped ‘‘missing information’’ to prove that they had originally received it. Within two weeks, my claim was finally adjudicated to 70% with 

IU and it was a total and permanent decision. My rating should have been 100% 

by the VBA criteria, but I was so grateful for a favorable determination that I have 

not pursued it further. 

Ladies and Gentleman, this process took me 23 years to resolve, and I am one 

of the fortunate ones. It should not be this way. If I had been treated promptly and 

received benefits in a timely manner, back at the time of my discharge, my life 

would have been much different. I do not believe that I would have been totally and 

permanently disabled in my 40’s. I would not have had to endure homelessness and 

increased symptomology to the point where I was suicidal, I would not have miscarried 9 children, and I firmly believe that I would have been able to develop better 

coping and social skills. Instead, my quality of life has been degraded to the point 

where I am considering the possibility of getting a service animal to relieve the 

stress that my husband endures, as my unpaid caretaker. 

I am asking you, no – pleading with you, to please consider favorably the legislation that would prevent this from happening to others. Congresswoman Pingree’s 

legislation is one way to change the burden of proof that is required to enable MST 

survivors to receive proper adjudication for MST and PTSD. 

Please, do what is right. Support this legislation, as it is urgently needed. Thank 

you for your time and audience today. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Colonel Alan R. Metzler 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to provide you with an update on the 

progress the Department of Defense has made in caring for victims of sexual assault. I am here as the Deputy Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO). 

When we last briefed you in 2010, we told you of our efforts to standardize professionalize and institutionalize our Sexual Assault Prevention and Response – or 

SAPR - program. Since that time, we have pushed forward to expand and improve 

our support of victims of sexual assault and hold offenders appropriately accountable. Secretary Panetta has put great emphasis on dealing with the problem of sexual assault in the military. He has emphasized that sexual assault is an affront to 

the basic American values we defend, and it is a stain on the good honor of the 

great majority of our troops and families. 

Before beginning my testimony today, we think is important to start with a baseline of understanding on several important issues: 

• Congress has authorized the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide 

counseling and appropriate care and services to overcome the psychological 

trauma that results from a physical assault of a sexual nature, battery of a sexual nature, or sexual harassment which occurred while a veteran served on active duty or active duty for training. 

• In the Department of Defense (DoD), the office that I represent is tasked with 

policy and oversight relating to the prevention and response of sexual assault 

only. Sexual harassment is addressed by the Equal Opportunity Program. Reported incidents of sexual harassment are not included in our statistics. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

70 

1Smith, et al., (2008). Prior Assault and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder After Combat Deployment, Epidemiology, 19, 505–512. 2Kimerling, et al., (2007) American Journal of Public Health, vol. 97, issue 12. 

3 Consequences of Sexual Violence, retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/ 

sexualviolence/consequences.html. 4Department of Justice. (2002). Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992–2000. Washington, DC: Rennison, Callie Marie. 

• Finally, we would like to remind everyone that our DoD-wide sexual assault 

policy has been in place since 2005. All reports of sexual assault are of concern 

to us and we have focused on incidents post-2005, so that we can modify our 

current policy. 

Since our Sexual Assault Prevention and Response policy was instituted in 2005, 

we have remained committed to our vision: A culture free from sexual assault. One 

sexual assault is too many. Given the recent changes to the program, we are optimistic that we have set the right initiatives in motion to achieve that vision. The 

horror of sexual assault demands an immediate response to those persons and behaviors that violate our shared military values of trust, honor and integrity. However, the solution requires more than just an immediate response to the crime. The 

solution comes from working this problem at every level of military – and civilian 

– society. From policies that improve the capabilities of institutions, down to the 

prevention skills and knowledge that empower our individual Service members, 

these initiatives must be supported and then be allowed to work. I can tell you that 

the Department will not ignore, tolerate or condone sexual assault. This is our problem. We own it. We must fix it. 

Overcoming Barriers to Reporting and Care-Seeking 

In 2010, we told you that a chief challenge facing DoD and VA is the fact that 

sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes in both civilian and military 

society. As you know, sexual assault has severe effects on civilian and military victims – but there are other factors that complicate a victim’s experience in the military and act as barriers to reporting: 

• First, sexual assault often occurs where a victim works and lives. Until recently, a victim was unable to escape painful reminders that keep him or her 

from moving on from the incident. Victims are also concerned that making a 

report will cause them to lose their privacy, subject them to unwanted scrutiny, 

and potentially mark them as weak. They worry that their career advancement 

will be disrupted. • Second, when the perpetrator resides in the same unit as the victim, sexual assault sets up a potentially destructive dynamic that can rip units apart. The 

bond of trust is broken, and when the perpetrator is in a position of authority, 

victims feel isolated, exploited, and powerless. • Third, research has found that a history of any kind of assault doubles the risk 

of posttraumatic stress symptoms when the victim is exposed to combat. 1 We 

also know that military sexual assault victims are also at greater risk for depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse. 2 These psychological problems – these ‘‘invisible wounds’’ – have insidious effects that disrupt lives, families, and military units. Long-term physical effects can include disabilities that 

impact a person’s ability to work, gastrointestinal health, and pain disorders. 3

Research shows that making a report is the primary means whereby victims access medical care and other support. 4 In 2005, the Department launched a policy 

to encourage victims to report the crime. The Department offers two reporting options: Restricted and Unrestricted Reporting. The addition of Restricted Reporting 

as an option was critical first step in our program. Restricted Reporting allows victims to confidentially access medical care and advocacy services to heal their 

wounds and maintain their privacy by not having to report their victimization to 

their commander or law enforcement. Restricted Reporting is having the desired effect. By the end of FY11, the Department had received 5,245 Restricted Reports 

since the option was made available in 2005. We believe that number represents 

5,245 victims who would have not otherwise come forward to access care had it not 

been for the Restricted Reporting option. In addition, 15 percent of those victims 

who made a Restricted Report converted to an Unrestricted Report, allowing us the 

potential to hold those offenders appropriately accountable. 

New Enhancements and Expansion of the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Program 

In recent months we have expanded or implemented several new initiatives that 

will further support our victims and encourage prevention. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

71 

5 Executive Order 13593, effective on January 12, 2012. 

Military Rule of Evidence 514 

Recently the Uniform Code of Military Justice was amended to further institutionalize victim privacy. In December 2011, the President signed an Executive Order 

that added Military Rule of Evidence (MRE) 514 into military law. 5 MRE 514 is 

a privilege that took effect on January 12 of this year to protect the communications 

between a victim and a victim advocate when a case is handled by a military court. 

This rule allows victims to trust that what is shared with these helping professionals will remain protected. The privilege fills an important gap that once allowed 

DoD victim advocates and sexual assault response coordinators to be compelled to 

testify about their communications with victims. We believe MRE 514 is an invaluable contribution to the climate of confidence we are building. 

DoD Safe Helpline 

The Department is also reaching out to victims with a new initiative that was 

launched last year. In April 2011, the Department launched DoD Safe Helpline as 

a crisis support service for adult Service members of the DoD community who are 

victims of sexual assault. Available 24/7 worldwide, users can ‘‘click, call or text’’ 

for anonymous and confidential support. The Safe Helpline is owned by the Department and operated by the non-profit Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network 

(RAINN), the nation’s largest anti-sexual violence organization, through a contractual agreement with DoD SAPRO. Safe Helpline has a robust database with a widerange of military and civilian services available for referral. The database also contains SARC contact information for each Military Service, the National Guard, and 

the Coast Guard as well as referral information for legal resources, chaplain support, healthcare services, the Departments of Labor and VA, including VA’s Veterans Crisis Line, Military OneSource, and 1,100 civilian rape crisis affiliates. In 

its first year of operation, from April 2011 to April 2012, the Safe Helpline had more 

than 36,000 unique visitors to its website. Additionally, the DoD Safe Helpline assisted more than 2,700 individuals through its online and telephone hotline sessions 

and texting referral services. Please note that website visitors and the people helped 

are not filing reports of sexual assault. Rather, they are confidentially accessing information and finding out about services available to them. 

While we designed this service as a crisis hotline, we are finding that many of 

our service users are talking to us not only about events that just occurred, but also 

about incidents that occurred several months or even years ago. Given this opportunity for additional assistance, Safe Helpline has expanded its services through the 

launch of a mobile site and an app that can be downloaded for the iPhone, iPad, 

and devices with Android operating systems. The mobile site offers all the 

functionality of the standard website, but packages the content into a format that 

is easily displayed on a smart phone. The Safe Helpline app gives members of the 

DoD community affected by sexual assault access to resources and tools to help 

manage the short-and long-term effects of sexual assault. The app helps users create a plan that is right for them, from exercises that aid in reducing stress to tools 

to help them transition to civilian life. They can even customize plans and exercises 

so they can refer back to them at any time. The app is available in the Apple App 

Store or the Android Market. 

DoD Safe Helpline Services for Transitioning Service Members 

In order to help our transitioning Service members, we are working to provide a 

continuum of care with VA for our Service members who have experienced sexual 

assault. We launched the Safe Helpline Transitioning Service Members (TSM) enhancements on 1 June 2012. 

TSMs seeking assistance following a sexual assault may be either unaware of or 

overwhelmed by the options and resources available to them upon leaving the military. TSMs seeking benefits related to an assault often are dealing with much more 

than paperwork. They may face concerns over confidentiality, privacy, and stigma. 

Safe Helpline offers an anonymous, confidential service that provides a safe space 

to discuss what options are best suited to their needs. 

SAPRO collaborated with VA and Department of Labor to streamline pertinent 

information for military sexual assault victims via the SHL. Through leveraging 

Safe Helpline’s existing infrastructure, the Department is able to present clear and 

easily accessible information on counseling, benefits determinations, transitions, and 

employment, which may enable them to reach out for long-term support upon leaving the military. By bridging the gap from DoD to VA for sexual assault victims, 

we provide a continuum of care from active duty to veteran. TSM resources are easVACREP180 with DISTILLER

72 

ily accessible through the Safe Helpline via telephone, text, safehelpline.org, and 

through the Safe Helpline app. 

DoD-wide Victim Assistance Standards 

As we improve our assistance to victims of sexual assault, we are sharing these 

important lessons with other programs within the Department. Last year, DoD 

SAPRO worked with the Military Services and other DoD offices to improve the effectiveness and standardization of response to victims of all crimes. The DoD Working Group on Victim Assistance, led by DoD SAPRO, and comprised of victim assistance-related offices at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) level and Military Service representatives, was established in January 2011, to explore opportunities for achieving efficiencies, improvements, and standardization in victim assistance. The DoD Working Group determined that standards for victim assistance were 

needed across the Department. The DoD Working Group drafted standards that establish a foundational level of assistance for victims of crime and harassment across 

the military community, regardless of DoD program or physical location. These 

standards are intended to be consistent with those established by national victim 

assistance organizations and also incorporate the unique needs of the military community. In addition, the DoD Working Group drafted a charter for a senior-level 

Victim Assistance Leadership Council to promote efficiencies, coordinate victim assistance-related policies, and assess the implementation of victim assistance standards across the Department’s victim assistance-related programs. We are now working to codify these victim assistance standards into Department policy. 

It is also important that victims get the best medical care possible. Sexual assault 

victims receiving assistance from DoD have always had an option to receive a general medical examination or a Sexual Assault Forensic Examination, or ‘‘SAFE,’’ 

that recovers evidence of sexual assault for later use in legal proceedings. However, 

recent improvements in laboratory capabilities and examination procedures required 

we update the Department’s SAFE kit. For this reason, the Department called together civilian and military experts to improve the Sexual Assault Forensic Examination kit, the kit’s instructions, and the DD Form 2911 – the SAFE Report. These 

updates were deployed to the field last year and better align the Department’s procedures with national standards recommended by the Department of Justice. 

SARC and Victims Advocates Certification Program 

Encouraging victim reporting is just one way that the Department is building a 

climate of confidence – a climate where victims know they will be supported and 

treated fairly with dignity and respect. When we created our policy in 2005, we established the framework for a coordinated, multidisciplinary response system modeled after the best practices in the civilian community. At the heart of our sexual 

response system are the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) and Victim 

Advocates. Service members worldwide have access to a 24 /7 response. Because the 

SARC and Victim Advocate play such an important role in the SAPR program, we 

have recently moved to professionalize these positions by designing a certification 

process. Once finalized, the proposed certification program will consist of 

credentialing that meets national standards, a competencies framework, and training oversight that will help us standardize the assistance provided to sexual assault 

victims. This certification process will also professionalize roles within the SAPR 

program and ensure all victims receive assistance from a certified SARC or SAPR 

Victim Advocate. 

Expanded Document Retention 

SARCs and Victim Advocates work with victims to help them decide whether to 

make a Restricted or Unrestricted Report. To ensure that victims make an educated 

decision in which they are fully informed of their choices, we developed the Victim 

Reporting Preference Statement (the DD Form 2910) to explain their reporting options. The completed DD Form 2910 is an important record by which the Department documents the victim’s report of sexual assault and which of the reporting options he or she selected. In each case, the SARC or Victim Advocate emphasizes that 

the victim should keep a copy of the DD 2910 in their personal files. This recommendation, to keep the completed DD 2910, is also noted on the bottom of the 

form. 

However, we know that not every individual can keep track of this important document over the course of a military career. We want to ensure victims of sexual assault have access to this and other documents that may be helpful to them. For example, such documents may be needed to establish a Service-connected disability 

should they suffer lasting effects from the crime. Consequently, the Department 

issued a Directive Type Memorandum in December 2011 that mandates increased 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

73 

retention time for this and other sexual assault records. For records that pertain 

to Unrestricted Reports, including investigative documentation, the SAFE report, 

and the victim’s Reporting Preference Statement, documents will be kept for 50 

years. 

For Restricted Reports, we also expanded retention times. We expanded retention 

time for the SAFE kit and associated documentation from one year to five years. 

As I noted before, a victim making a Restricted Report of sexual assault may convert to an Unrestricted Report at any time. However, at the one-year point following 

a Restricted Report, the SARC will contact the victim and inform him or her that 

the SAFE kit and documentation will be available for an additional four years 

should he or she wish to convert the report. SARCs will also keep a hard copy of 

the DD Form 2910 – the Reporting Preference Statement – in Restricted Reports 

for five years. 

Expedited Transfer Option 

Victims of sexual assault are also informed by the SARC that they now have the 

option to request a permanent or temporary transfer from their assigned command 

or base, or to a different location within their assigned command or base. Victims 

making an Unrestricted Report may make such a request to their commanding officer and must receive an answer within 72 hours. If the victim’s commanding officer 

denies the request for transfer, the victim may appeal this decision to the first general or flag officer in their chain of command, who again has 72 hours to provide 

a response. Procedures for this new expedited transfer option were issued to the 

Services in a Directive Type Memorandum in December 2011. The Services were 

also directed in this memorandum to make every reasonable effort to minimize disruption to the normal career progression of a Service member who reports that he 

or she is a victim of sexual assault, and to protect victims from reprisal or threat 

of reprisal for filing a report. 

Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database 

The Department believes that comprehensive data collection and analysis is vital 

to policy analysis and program implementation. The Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID) received its operating authority in March 2012. The Air 

Force and National Guard Bureau received training earlier this year and are now 

actively entering cases into the system. The Marine Corps began using the system 

on July 1. The Navy SARCs are currently being trained on DSAID and will begin 

using the system August 1, 2012. We are currently working to interface with the 

Army’s existing data systems and expect DSAID to be fully implemented by the end 

of August – which is on the schedule that we have been reporting to Congress since 

January 2010. DSAID has two primary functions: standardization of reporting of 

sexual assault and managing victim care. Once we have full implementation, we expect that our ability to analyze sexual assault data will be greatly enhanced. In addition, the Victim Reporting Preference Statement (the DD Form 2910) for Unrestricted Reports will be uploaded to DSAID, so they can be maintained for 50 years. 

Pre-command Training for Officers and Senior Enlisted Leaders 

Changing our culture to achieve our goals involves prevention as well as accountability. One of the methods we are employing is oversight assessments. In January, 

the Secretary of Defense directed that we conduct a review of pre-command and senior enlisted leader Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) training to identify strengths and areas for improvement. DoD SAPRO visited pre-command and 

senior enlisted leader training conducted by the Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force 

and reviewed Army’s newly developed Sexual Harassment / Assault Response and 

Prevention (SHARP) Program training support package for senior enlisted leaders 

that will be deployed in Summer 2012. DoD SAPRO training experts, subject matter 

experts, and Service representatives evaluated both the method of delivery of SAPR 

training, as well as the content of the training, to identify strengths and areas for 

improvement. SAPRO identified a number of practices the Military Services should 

continue in their SAPR training for commanders. SAPRO has developed a number 

of recommendations that are designed to build on the successful practices the Military Services have already put into place, will drive improvements in SAPR training 

for commanders, and will support the strategic goals of the Department’s SAPR program. These recommendations are currently before the Secretary of Defense for his 

consideration. 

Sexual Assault Offense Withhold Policy 

To advance accountability, one of the most recent changes in Department policy 

was directed by the Secretary of Defense in April of this year. Effective on June 28, 

2012, the initial disposition of cases of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and atVACREP180 with DISTILLER

74 

tempts to commit these crimes will be withheld from any officer who is below the 

O–6 level and who does not hold special court-martial convening authority. This 

means, commanders at the company or squadron level no longer have authority to 

decide the initial disposition of cases of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or associated attempts. In the past, victims have stated that they do not want to report 

because they believed the offender was more popular or more important to their 

commander than they were. The presumption was that unit commanders may be 

less likely to believe the victim and more likely to believe the offender. Now, disposition decisions for these very serious reports of sexual assault will be decided by 

someone above the level of the unit commander, a commander with greater experience, and senior officers more neutral in perception and in fact will make a reasoned 

decision. 

In April, Secretary Panetta also directed a number of other new policies that we 

are now working to implement or standardize across the Services: 

• Establishing ‘‘Special Victims Unit’’ capabilities within each of the Services, to 

ensure that specially trained investigators, prosecutors, sexual assault nurse examiners, SARCS, and victim-witness assistance personnel are available to assist 

with sexual assault cases; 

• Requiring sexual assault policies be explained to all Service members within 14 

days of their entrance on active duty; 

• Allowing reserve and National Guard members who have been sexually assaulted while on active duty to remain in their active-duty status to obtain the 

treatment and support afforded to active-duty members; 

• Requiring annual organizational climate assessments; and 

• Mandating wider public dissemination of DoD resources, including information 

about the DoD Safe Helpline. 

Challenges in Caring for Military Victims of Sexual Assault 

We need your assistance in removing at least one barrier to victim care; that is 

state mandatory reporting laws. 

Prior to the implementation of Restricted Reporting, victims could not access medical care or advocacy services without the involvement of law enforcement and command. Restricted Reporting is critical to reducing the barriers that prevent victims 

from accessing care in the military. Despite all of its benefits, Service members in 

a number of states, including California, do not have the option of Restricted Reporting if they wish to access medical care for a sexual assault. Victims cannot access private medical care and treatment either on or off base. Section 11160 of California’s Penal Code requires healthcare practitioners to make a report to law enforcement when a victim presents to them with an injury suspected to be from a 

criminal act. That report must include the victim’s name, whereabouts and a description of the person’s injury. There is no discretion allowed by the law on the part 

of a healthcare provider. Once the healthcare provider notifies civilian law enforcement, we cannot guarantee they will not notify military law enforcement. Once military law enforcement is aware of a sexual assault, it must investigate and command 

must be notified. 

If our active duty members could make Restricted Reports in federally funded facilities, such as a VA Medical Center – no matter where it is located—we believe 

this would allow us a wider variety of options to offer victims for care. We do not 

know how many more reports we would have received had the Restricted Reporting 

option been more available in California. Despite our efforts, no action has been 

taken to remove this important barrier to reporting. This is a legislative challenge 

we need help in resolving. 

Conclusion 

The Department of Defense has made significant progress since 2005 in assisting 

victims of sexual assault. However, much work remains. Our policy has changed 

substantially in the last two years since we last appeared before this committee and 

we are pleased that we have the personal attention of the Secretary of Defense, who 

has played an invaluable role in helping us push the Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response program forward. 

Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to testify today. I would be 

happy to answer your questions. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

f 

75 

Prepared Statement of Thomas J. Murphy 

Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and Members of 

the Subcommittee. I am accompanied today by Ms. Edna MacDonald, Director of the 

Nashville Regional Office and former Deputy Director for Policy and Procedures in 

Compensation Service. 

Thank you for inviting me to speak today on the timely and important topic of 

VA disability benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based on military 

sexual trauma (MST) and sexual harassment.. The Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) is committed to serving our Nation’s Veterans by accurately adjudicating MST 

claims in a thoughtful and caring manner, while fully recognizing the unique evidentiary considerations involved in such an event. Under Secretary for Benefits Allison Hickey has spearheaded the efforts of the Veterans Benefits Administration 

(VBA) to ensure that these claims are adjudicated compassionately and fairly, with 

sensitivity to the unique circumstances presented by each individual claim. 

Increase in MST Related PTSD Claims 

Over the last several decades, women have entered the military in increasing 

numbers and now comprise a significant percentage of the Veteran population. Associated with this growth, VA has seen an increase in the filings of PTSD claims 

based on MST. However, VA recognizes that both men and women can be victims. 

According to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), of the population of Veterans screened at its health care facilities, about one in five women and one in one 

hundred men state that they have experienced such an in-service event. 

VA is aware that, because of the personal and sensitive nature of the MST 

stressors in these cases, it is often difficult for the victim to report or document the 

event when it occurs. Reasons for this may include fear of reprisal, feelings of shame 

or guilt, or the perception of an unresponsive military chain of command. As a result, if the MST event subsequently leads to post-service PTSD symptoms and a 

claim is filed, the available evidence is often insufficient to establish occurrence of 

the stressor. To remedy this, VA developed regulations and procedures that appropriately allow more liberal evidentiary development and adjudication procedures for 

these claims. 

PTSD Regulations 

Under VA regulations at 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), service connection for PTSD requires: 

• Medical evidence diagnosing the condition; 

• A link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an inservice stressor; and 

• Credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 

VA recognizes that certain in-service stressful events may be difficult to document. As a result, there are five categories of PTSD with particularized rules for 

establishing occurrence of the in-service stressor. These include stressors related to: 

• In-service diagnosis of PTSD; 

• Combat; 

• Fear of hostile military or terrorist activity; 

• Former prisoner-of-war status; and 

• In-service personal assault. 

MST Claims Processing 

As with other PTSD claims, VA will initially review the Veteran’s military service 

records for evidence of MST. Such evidence may include: 

• DD Form 2910, Victim Reporting Preference Statement; and 

• DD Form 2911, Sexual Assault Forensic Examination Report. 

VA’s regulation pertaining to in-service personal assault also provides that evidence from sources other than a Veteran’s service records may corroborate the Veteran’s account of the stressor incident, such as: 

• Law enforcement authorities; 

• Rape crisis centers; 

• Mental health counseling centers; 

• Hospitals; 

• Physicians; 

• Pregnancy tests; 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

76 

• Tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and 

• Statements from: 

I Family members; 

I Roommates; 

I Fellow Servicemembers; 

I Clergy members; and 

I Sexual assault response coordinators and victim advocates. 

Evidence of behavior changes is another type of relevant evidence that may establish occurrence of an assault, such as: 

• Requests for transfer to another military duty assignment; 

• Deterioration in work performance; 

• Substance abuse; 

• Episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; 

and 

• Unexplained economic or social behavior changes. 

Veterans are provided notification regarding the types of evidence that may establish occurrence of an in-service personal assault and are requested to submit or 

identify any such evidence. When this type of evidence is obtained, VA will schedule 

the Veteran for an examination with a mental health professional and request an 

opinion as to whether the claimed in-service MST stressor occurred. This opinion 

can serve to establish occurrence of the stressor, one element necessary for establishing service connection for PTSD. 

VA Efforts to Assist MST Claimants 

VA has recently taken numerous other steps to assist Veterans with a timely, equitable, and consistent resolution of these claims. 

VBA has placed a primary emphasis on informing VA regional office personnel of 

the issues related to MST and providing training in proper claims development and 

adjudication. During August 2011, VBA reviewed a statistically valid sample of approximately 400 MST related PTSD claims. The goal was to assess current processing procedures and formulate methods for improvement. This led to development 

of an enhanced training curriculum with emphasis on standardizing evidentiary development practices. The VBA ‘‘Challenge Training Program,’’ which all newly hired 

claims processors are required to attend, now includes a module on MST within the 

course on PTSD claims processing. MST topics are also included in the standard 

‘‘PTSD and Other Psychological Conditions’’ training course that all claims adjudicators are required to complete. Additionally, the VA electronic Learning Management 

System includes learning topics on MST. 

To further reinforce the importance of proper MST claims processing, VBA developed and issued Training Letter 11–05, Adjudicating Posttraumatic Stress Disorder 

Claims Based on Military Sexual Trauma, in December 2011. This was followed by 

a nationwide Microsoft Live Meeting broadcast on MST claims adjudication. The 

broadcast focused on describing the range of potential markers that could indicate 

occurrence of an MST stressor and the importance of a thorough and open-minded 

approach to seeking such markers in the evidentiary record. 

In addition to these general training efforts, VBA provided its designated Women 

Veterans Coordinators with updated specialized training. These employees are located in every VA regional office and are available to assist both female and male 

Veterans with their claims resulting from MST. They also serve as a liaison with 

the Women Veterans Program Managers at the local VHA health care facility to coordinate any required health care. As a further means to promote adjudication of 

these claims consistent with VA’s regulation, VBA has recently created dedicated 

specialized MST claims processing teams within each VA regional office for exclusive handling of MST-related PTSD claims. Additionally, because the medical examination process is often an integral part of determining the outcome of these claims, 

VBA has worked closely with the VHA Office of Disability and Medical Assessment 

to ensure that specific training was developed for clinicians conducting PTSD compensation examinations for MST-related claims. This training was provided at a 

conference attended by VHA clinicians during November 2011. VBA and VHA further collaborated to provide a training broadcast targeted to VHA clinicians and 

VBA raters on this very important topic which aired initially in April 2012 and has 

been rebroadcast numerous times. VA is committed to applying the PTSD regulations related to MST in a manner most favorable to our Nation’s Veterans and providing those who suffer from PTSD as a result of an in-service personal assault with 

disability compensation. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

77 

Conclusion 

In summary, VA has recognized the sensitive nature of MST-related PTSD claims 

and the difficulty inherent in obtaining evidence of an in-service MST event. Current PTSD regulations provide multiple means to establish an occurrence, and VA 

has initiated additional training efforts and specialized handling procedures to ensure thorough, accurate, and timely processing of these claims. 

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to address any questions from 

Members of the Subcommittee. 

f 

Question For The Record 

Response From: DoD - To: Hon. Robert L. Turner 

Question: What is the status of implementation of this new policy (HR1540 Sec 

586)? 

Answer: The Department of Defense issued Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 

11–062 to direct the retention of DD Forms 2910 (Victim Reporting Preference 

Form) and 2911 (Report of Sexual Assault Forensic Exam) for five (5) years in Restricted cases and fifty (50) years in Unrestricted cases. These provisions will be incorporated into Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Program Procedures (Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6495.02) when it is 

reissued. The document retention provisions relating to archived investigative 

records will be incorporated into the new Inspector General ‘‘Investigation of Sexual 

Assault in the Department of Defense’’ (Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 

5505.mm) when issued. 

f 

Materials Submitted For The Record 

Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) 

July 12, 2011 

The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20420 

Dear Secretary Shinseki: 

My name is Anu Bhagwati. I am a former Marine Corps Captain and now serve 

as Executive Director of Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), a national advocacy organization founded by women veterans. It is our goal to transform military 

culture so that all uniformed personnel have equal opportunity and the freedom to 

serve in uniform without threat of harassment, discrimination, intimidation, or assault, and to transform the VA so that all veterans, including women, receive the 

health care and benefits they deserve. Our National Peer Support Helpline receives 

hundreds of calls each year from veterans and servicemembers. The vast majority 

of our clients were sexually assaulted or harassed in service, and many report having negative encounters with the VA. Their experiences directly inform our policy 

work. 

I am writing to request a meeting with you and your staff to discuss the need 

for specific VA reforms with respect to both health care and benefits for Military 

Sexual Trauma (MST) survivors. We have testified before Congress on the issue of 

MST reform five times in the last three years. I have no doubt that if you fully understood the obstacles survivors of sexual trauma face both in VHA and VBA, you 

would implement immediate common sense reforms to help our veterans get the 

services and benefits they so desperately need. 

I am writing to you today not only as the Executive Director of SWAN, but also 

as a veteran who is intimately familiar with VA’s services for MST patients, and 

for women veterans generally. Since leaving the Marine Corps in 2004, my experiences with VA have been enormously painful and dangerously re-traumatizing due 

to the poor quality of care I have received on numerous occasions and the inordinate 

amount of effort it has required to survive and navigate the VHA and VBA bureaucracy. 

VBA denied my initial claim for depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 

(PTSD) based on sexual harassment despite overwhelming in-service evidence, 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

78 

statements from witnesses, my own detailed testimony, and several diagnoses from 

both non-VA and VA mental health providers, including a MST counselor whom I 

have been seeing for four years. VBA’s rejection was devastating. It is only through 

the support of close family and friends that I continued to fight through my own 

betrayal, disappointment, and trauma to get what I earned for my service. 

Just last month (four years, six lawyers, two Representatives and one Senator 

later), VBA finally approved my claim. 

Had I not finally enlisted the intervention of government officials, I have no doubt 

my claim would have languished in VBA’s bureaucratic labyrinth for several more 

years. Despite years of trauma reinforced by VBA’s ineptitude, I consider myself incredibly lucky. My clients, peers and colleagues continue to suffer because VBA has 

failed them. Many have been lost to substance abuse or the streets after rejection 

by VBA, while others have attempted or completed suicide. MST survivors often suffer alone, re-living the shame, hatred and betrayal of a psychological or physical attack by their own peers. When VBA rejects a veteran’s MST claim, the department 

re- triggers the veteran’s emotional anguish and psychological turmoil. This heartwrenching rejection is often a reminder of every betrayal that was first experienced 

when the veteran was raped, assaulted or harassed in uniform. It causes the veteran to re-live the worst moments of his or her life. VBA’s denial of a veteran’s trauma is an experience from which many veterans simply do not recover. 

As you may know, SWAN sued the VA and the Department of Defense last fall 

for FOIA documentation related to domestic violence, military rape, sexual assault, 

and sexual harassment. We have received and analyzed the data your department 

provided, and the results are astonishing. VBA approves only 32% of MST-related 

PTSD claims. This acceptance rate is far less than the acceptance rate of PTSD 

claims overall. In fact, 53% of total PTSD claims are granted. The evidence suggests 

enormous bias against veterans whose PTSD originated from MST. There is no 

doubt that VBA’s system for handling MST-related claims needs immediate repair. 

It is time now for the VA to treat all veterans with respect, and to provide the 

same level of care and benefits to our wounded warriors, regardless of the source 

of their wounds. In 2010, the VA finally adjusted its compensation policy for combat 

veterans suffering from PTSD, but denied justice to tens of thousands of MST survivors by not doing the same for them. As the policy stands now, VA has set up 

a cruel double standard that is directly contributing to the re- traumatization and 

further betrayal of our veterans who suffer from the effects of military rape, sexual 

assault, and sexual harassment. 

The VA’s failure to recognize the sacrifices of all wounded warriors is no longer 

knowledge exclusive to survivors. SWAN helped Representative Chellie Pingree (D– 

ME) introduce H.R. 930, a common sense bill that would bring parity to the VBA 

claims process and justice for survivors of military rape, sexual assault, and sexual 

harassment who suffer from PTSD and other mental health conditions by providing 

the same standard of evidence as combat PTSD survivors. In addition to creating 

a single standard for applicants, it would also acknowledge that the wounds of MST 

survivors are as legitimate as those of combat survivors. It is a bill overwhelmingly 

supported not only by SWAN but by the veterans’ community at large, including 

Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Iraq and Afghanistan 

Veterans of America. Additionally, Wounded Warrior Project and Disabled American 

Veterans have written to the VA to express their support for the proposed evidentiary standard reform for MST survivors. 

SWAN has read the VA’s recent letter dated June 27, 2011 written by Undersecretary Allison Hickey regarding the processing of MST claims, and finds that it is 

an insufficient and unsuitable remedy to a systemic institutional problem. The guidance issued in that memo is not based on fact, but rather, on the misplaced hope 

that regional claims officers will put aside their biases and instead simply trust the 

evidence presented to them. I and tens of thousands of others over the years have 

put our faith in the system, and the system betrayed us, once again. MST survivors 

have put their lives in the hands of far too many individual claims officers for far 

too long. I urge you therefore to make this evidentiary change a permanent policy 

for the VA as you have done in the past, without forcing Congress to intervene. 

I will be attending the VA’s National Training Summit on Women Veterans this 

weekend in Washington DC, and would be delighted to meet with you before or after 

your scheduled address to the community. We look forward to hearing from you. 

With great respect for your service to our nation, 

Anu Bhagwati, MPP 

Executive Director, Service Women’s Action Network 

Former Captain, United States Marine Corps 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

79 

cc: Brigadier General Allison Hickey, Undersecretary, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs 

Major General Irene Trowell-Harris, Director, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs Center for Women Veterans 

Dr. Patricia Hayes, Chief Consultant, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs Women Veterans Health Strategic Healthcare Group 

Susan McCutcheon, RN, EdD, Director, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs Family 

Services, Women’s Mental Health and Military Sexual Trauma 

Members, Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Members, House Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs Representative Chellie Pingree (D–ME) 

f 

In 2011, the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), in conjunction with the 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed a Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) 

to obtain data from the Veterans Administration (VA) on gender differences in 

claims and compensation award for MST- related PTSD claims over the past 10 

years. The VA provided the requested data for the fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010. 

Upon analysis SWAN discovered that during that time only 32.3% of all PTSD 

claims related to sexual trauma were accepted. Conversely, 54.2% ofPTSD claims 

overall are accepted. This overall percentage correlates with secondary data obtained by Veterans for Common Sense which shows that 53% of all PTSD claims 

filed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are accepted. 

Additionally, a series of difference of proportions test revealed that across 2008– 

2010 and in each individual year, women are more likely than men to be granted 

compensation for lv!ST-based PTSD claims. When looking at how much compensation men and women receive, women awarded compensation are more likely than 

men to receive 10–30% ratings, while men who are awarded compensation are more 

likely to receive 70–100% ratings. 

Gender differences by year SA/SH Claims by Fiscal Year 

Year Percent granted—Men Percent granted— 

Women PIN 

2008 22% 34% <.001/2587.

2009 25% 37% <.001/3108.

2010 27% 36% <.001/3825.

Count of Unique Veterans with Initial PTSD Grant By Fiscal Year 

Year Granted(%) 

2008 52.9%.

2009 53.3%.

2010 56.4%.

Rates of Evaluation Percentage ofSA/SH PTSD Claims by Gender 

10% 30% 50% 70% 100% 

Men 5% 25% 28% 26% 14%.

Women 6.5% 34% 31% 19% 8%.

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

80 

Sexual Assault/Harassment PTSD Claims, FY08–10 

Sexual Trauma/Harassment FYO8 FY09 FY10 

Grant Denial Total Grant Denial Total Grant Denial Total 

A. GranUDenial Summary Male 186 651 837 242 740 982 350 943 1293 

Female 601 1149 1750 787 1339 2126 919 1613 2532 Unknown 8 16 24 5 26 31 12 32 44 

B. Grant Detail %Eva! Male Female Unknown Total Male Female Unknown Total Male Female Unknown Total 

0 1 6 7 1 9 10 9 9 10 13 53 66 5 48 53 21 50 71 20 0 1 1 2 1 1 30 49 221 4 274 69 263 2 334 80 306 4 390 40 0 1 1 2 2 SO 51 177 2 230 63 242 1 306 107 298 5 410 60 0 0 0 70 40 102 2 144 72 157 1 230 94 175 1 270 80 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 100 32 42 1 75 30 67 1 98 48 78 2 128 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER