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

78–772 2013

WADING THROUGH WAREHOUSES OF PAPER: THE 

CHALLENGES OF TRANSITIONING VETERANS 

RECORDS TO PAPERLESS TECHNOLOGY 

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 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2012 

Serial No. 112–82 

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 

December 4, 2012 

Page 

Wading Through Warehouses of Paper: The Challenges of Transitioning Veterans Records To Paperless Technology ............................................................. 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Prepared Statement of Chairman Runyan ..................................................... 30 

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

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney ............................................... 31 

WITNESSES 

Richard Dumancas, Deputy Director for Claims ................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Dumancas ........................................................... 32 

Executive Summary of Mr. Dumancas ........................................................... 35 

Michael R. Viterna, Esq., President, National Association of Veterans Advocates ...................................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Viterna, Esq. ....................................................... 35 

Executive Summary of Mr. Viterna, Esq. ....................................................... 40 

Jeffrey C. Hall, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American 

Veterans ................................................................................................................ 8 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Hall ...................................................................... 41 

James G. Neighbors, Director of DoD/VA Collaboration Office, U.S. Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Neighbors ............................................................ 46 

Scott Levins, Director of the National Personnel Records Center, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration ..................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Levins .................................................................. 51 

Alan Bozeman, Director, Veterans Benefits Management System Program 

Office, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ....................................................................................................................... 22

Prepared Statement of Mr. Bozeman ............................................................. 55 

MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Letter From: Hon. Michael H. Michaud, Subcommitte on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs - To: The Hon. 

Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense, and The Hon. Eric Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs .................................................................................... 59 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

(1) 

WADING THROUGH WAREHOUSES OF PAPER: 

THE CHALLENGES OF TRANSITIONING VETERANS RECORDS TO PAPERLESS TECHNOLOGY 

Tuesday, December 4, 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 notice, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 

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

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Runyan, Stutzman, McNerney, and 

Michaud. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JON RUNYAN 

Mr. RUNYAN. Good afternoon and welcome everyone. This oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and 

Memorial Affairs will now come to order. 

I called this oversight hearing today to discuss an important yet 

often overlooked aspect of the veterans benefit process, access to 

various service department records. Such records are often necessary and vital for our veterans to prove their claim. As Chairman 

of the DAMA Subcommittee, I am troubled by the information regarding the handling of the records that has come to my attention. 

In today’s environment, as we shift from paper records to a digital 

environment, important questions arise regarding what the best 

practices are for making this transition. 

For example, agencies, such as the VA and the National Archives 

and Records Administration, or NARA, must engage in a daunting 

cost-benefit analysis to determine what records should be digitized 

and how this process should take place. Similarly, the Department 

of Defense must determine the best ways to maintain digital 

records in various environments from DoD hospitals to combat 

zones. Further, all three agencies must continue to work together 

to ensure that veterans’ records are initiated, maintained and 

transferred as efficiently as possible. 

Today that is the aspect we would like to focus on: the efficiency 

of the records management process. As many of you may already 

be aware, the records management process begins with the DoD. 

Veterans depend on the DoD to properly note certain inservice 

events, whether in the veteran’s individual service medical and 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

2 

personnel records, or in the unit histories. Issues pertaining to the 

thoroughness of the DoD’s recordkeeping have recently received 

media attention in light of evidence that some units were not properly documenting in-service events, such as combat-related incidents. This has been a source of significant frustration for many 

veterans who file claims with the VA and are dependent on such 

documentation to substantiate their claims. 

For those records that are properly maintained by DoD, custody 

of certain records is turned over to the Archives, although different 

branches of the service have different policies and procedures. The 

National Archives and Records Administration maintains millions 

of military personnel health and medical records for discharged and 

deceased veterans of all services. Although the Archives recently 

began receiving access to digital records from the Army, they do 

not have full digital access to other service branches. In addition, 

the agency still maintains a full warehouse of paper records from 

older generations of veterans. All agencies that handle such vast 

amounts of paper know that there are challenges associated with 

maintaining both digital and paper records. 

The Archives has recently faced some challenges with respect to 

maintenance and security of veterans’ records. I would like to invite NARA to continue an open dialogue with this Committee so 

that the most effective procedures for maintaining veterans’ records 

can be implemented. 

Turning to the role of the VA, the agency has a statutory duty 

to assist a claimant in detaining certain records. Accordingly, it is 

important that we work together to ensure that the VA is able to 

communicate both effectively and efficiently with both the Archives 

and the DoD to comply with this duty. 

In addition, the VA is also in the process of making important 

decisions about how veterans’ records and claims folders are being 

handled in the digital environment, as they continue their transition over to the veterans’ benefits management system, or VBMS. 

While we all have high hopes for VBMS, we must not overlook 

one of its essential functions, which is the process of scanning and 

converting veterans’ records. 

Before I conclude, I would like again to emphasize that our goal 

here today is to ensure the entire chain of command from the DoD 

to the Archives to the VA handle veterans’ records with the utmost 

care and respect. Often, a single record or notation can be the difference in whether a veteran’s disability claim is granted or denied. 

This is why we must work together to ensure that no records are 

lost, overlooked or otherwise unable to be associated with an individual disability claim. 

I welcome today’s witnesses to continue the ongoing discussion 

and offer their own specific recommendations on how to improve 

upon the veterans’ records management process, particularly now 

as we look to transition into a digital environment. 

With that, I would like to now recognize the Ranking Member, 

Mr. McNerney from California, for his opening statement. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JON RUNYAN APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX]

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, 

RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing about veterans’ records and how the VA is managing 

its transition to a paperless system with new technologies. 

We have all read in recent articles regarding lost, inaccurate and 

mishandled veterans’ records at the hands of the DoD and the VA 

as well as the struggles in recapturing this data once its lost or improperly recorded. This is troubling and unacceptable. Congress 

hears complaints of lost, missing, destroyed or unassociated files all 

too often. 

Information regarding a veteran’s claim should be better protected by those in charge with its care. Accountability needs to 

occur at the management level, with individual employees who 

handle the day-to-day influx of information. 

Veterans and their families should not be burdened with the responsibility of recreating lost files or providing multiple copies of 

records that once were in the DoD or VA’s possession. I also remain 

troubled about the more than 1.3 million claims and appeals that 

are hanging in the VA’s flawed processing system. 

In an organization with a current management culture that often 

overemphasizes production over quality, it is imperative that we 

make comprehensive performance improvements to the system, 

while ensuring accurate and accountable claims outcomes for our 

veterans. I know the VA is taking great pains in this direction. 

However, today, like many veterans and stakeholders, I cannot say 

that I have complete confidence that the VA is in complete control 

of this process. I have met with too many veterans who have had 

to wait for years for initial decisions on their benefits. I have heard 

too many unfortunate stories of veterans who suffer as a result of 

VA temporarily closing poor performing regional offices for retraining like the Oakland regional office that serves the veterans in my 

district. 

While the average days pending for most claims is 225 days, in 

the Oakland regional office, it is an incredible 425 days. I know the 

VA regional offices, such as Waco and Los Angeles, are experiencing similar delays. In fact, these delays are systemic because 67 

percent of all claims and appeals are in backlog status, with nearly 

25 percent being done erroneously. 

Why the disparity? Why the protracted delays? Since 2007, the 

VBA has added over 11,000 processing personnel, and Congress 

has funded these requests; yet the backlog still climbs. The VA OIG 

concluded that in order to change these outcomes, the VA needs to 

emphasize policy guidance, compliance, oversight and workload 

management training and supervisory review in order to improve 

claims processing operations. 

The year may be about to change, but the issues are the same. 

The backlog is just a symptom of the problem. The current system 

is broken and in need of a major overhaul. We need to focus on getting the claims right the first time as if do-overs were not an option. We need to get this right so that no claims are languishing 

and the veterans and their families and survivors get the benefits 

that they have earned and deserve without delay. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

4 

I am somewhat enthused actually by some of the VA’s latest 

technology undertakings, including e-benefits and its stakeholder 

portals. 

However, I remain concerned that, again, some of the VA’s efforts move forward without direction, like a rudderless rowboat. 

VA needs a comprehensive plan with a clear vision and a mission, as many of its stakeholders indicated in their testimonies. To 

date, we still have not received the VBA transformation plan that 

the VA Under Secretary Hickey promised at our hearing in June 

of this year. Today’s witnesses will provide us with greater insights 

on these systemic problems, including how veterans and their dependents are harmed when the VA and DoD mishandle their documents and how improvements can be made. 

I hope to hear testimony that responds and reflects the VA’s solemn duty to deliver its benefits mission using world class 21st century inputs that focus on veterans instead of the processes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, I would like to welcome our first panel to the witness 

table please. 

Mr. RUNYAN. First, we will be hearing from Mr. Richard 

Dumancas, the Deputy Director for claims with the American Legion. Next, we will hear from Mr. Michael Viterna, President of the 

National Association of Veterans Advocates. And our final witness 

on this panel will be Mr. Jeff Hall, the Assistant National Legislative Director with Disabled American Veterans. 

Gentlemen, your complete and written statements will be entered into the hearing record. 

And Mr. Dumancas, you are now recognized 5 minutes for your 

oral testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF RICHARD DUMANCAS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

FOR CLAIMS, THE AMERICAN LEGION; MICHAEL VITERNA, 

ESQ., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS 

ADVOCATES; AND JEFFREY HALL, ASSISTANT NATIONAL 

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD DUMANCAS 

Mr. DUMANCAS. Thank you, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member 

McNerney and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am honored to come before you today on behalf of the 2.4 million veterans 

of the American Legion to discuss the magnitude of the data component in the VA and their efforts to transform the claims processing system from the 20th century to the 21st century and hopefully well into the future. 

We all know America is well aware of the struggling VA claim 

system as a mixture of media outlets report that VA’s backlog has 

jumped 179 percent since 2009. 

With the growing backlog, the VA has been running a marathon 

to come up with a solution to their set goal for 2015. Veterans Benefits Management System and Stakeholders Enterprise Portal Programs do offer a glimmer of hope. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

5 

With transitioning into current century, one of the major challenges to transition veterans records into a paperless environment 

is scanning. The American Legion recently learned that the benefits delivered at discharge BDD program currently does not have 

a current contract for scanning. After hearing this, my first 

thought was, what is happening to those files that are not being 

scanned? Are they being worked like their grandparents’ paper file 

in the 1940s? Or are they collecting dust on a shelf silently building into a monster problem? 

If there is no contract for scanning and files are not being processed, veterans must be made aware that their claim is not being 

processed because of the lack of a contract for scanning. When asking the VA about scanning contracts, there seems to be uncertainty 

on the details of guaranteed contracts. If there is a long-term scanning contract available for VBMS, then why isn’t there one more 

BDD? Or have the same contract or contractors doing the scanning 

for BDD? The American Legion would like to see a clear road map 

laying out VA’s plans to transform the paper product into the digital world. We are hopeful VA will be able to shed some light on 

that today. 

Another step in the 21st century is the promise of virtual lifetime 

electronic record, or VLER, between VA and DoD. The ability to 

maintain simple electronic records for servicemembers and veterans from cradle to grave should be a given. The American Legion 

urges VA and DoD to make VLER a process that is practiced within all Federal agencies that document and maintain a military 

record. As an example of maintaining a military record, we have 

relied on the National Guard and Reserve to fill for the dwindling 

active forces. 

Over 650,000 Reserve members have deployed since September 

11, 2001. We deploy them under or attached to units that are not 

their home units. Their records seem to be hardest to find or combine. We review rating decisions that lack the evidence of Federal 

medical documentation. If the Guard or Reserve member submits 

for compensation through VBA for the exact same condition that 

put them out through the medical and physical evaluation board, 

there should be no way the VBA can deny their claim because of 

lack of military records. We understand that Reserve members’ 

medical records can be split over multiple locations, but one would 

want to believe that eventually they would meet up into one file. 

This process should be measured in days, not months or years. Any 

joint electronic records must help consolidate Guard and Reserve 

data as well. 

The American Legion urges all agencies to work together to ensure that no servicemembers or veteran’s information is lost or 

mishandled and that all information can be easily accessed by all 

service providers. 

With a need for transition, policy rules and regulations must be 

clear and solid. The American Legion strongly encourages the VA 

central office to provide even more precise direction and guidance 

to the lowest level of VA employees, and to ensure problem areas, 

such as the following, become a priority in training: Current stats 

published by the VA reflect a huge difference in claims process. 

Why is it that Togus, Maine; St. Paul, Minnesota; Fargo, North DaVACREP180 with DISTILLER

6 

kota; Cheyenne, Wyoming regional offices are hovering around 22 

to 30 percent of their inventory pending over 125 days, but on the 

same report, Baltimore, Roanoke and Chicago and Oakland regional offices are stating 74 to 87 percent of their inventory is 

pending over 125 days. Why are these ROs’ production so different? 

Training must be the same across the board. Training and production of ROs, such as Togus, should be the same that is provided 

in the ROs, such as Roanoke. The central office should formulate 

a plan for the lower inventory ROs to mentor or provide best practices to the higher inventory ROs. Central office needs to enforce 

the best practices and highly encourage all ROs to follow their 

leaders. 

This is for the veteran. All veterans deserve the best service for 

their service. 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney and distinguished Members of the Committee, this conclude my statement 

and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD DUMANCAS APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

And with that, I will recognize Mr. Viterna for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VITERNA, ESQ. 

Mr. VITERNA. Thank you, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member 

McNerney and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about veterans 

records. My name is Mike Viterna, and I am here as the president 

of the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, whose members assist claimants in the appeal of VA denials of claims. I am 

also here as an attorney in private practice, who has dedicated my 

legal work to VA law. And I am here as a veteran who served 33 

years of Air Force service. 

NOVA applauds VA’s efforts to transition from a paper-driven 

system of records to a digital format, and we are appreciative of 

this Committee’s oversight of that transition. There are many reasons why this transition has to occur and occur without delay. One 

example is that most veterans have multiple claims and it is not 

unlikely that those claims will be at different stages of development in adjudication. One may be before the regional office, another on appeal to the board of veterans appeals, still another at 

the court. And it is quite obvious that with a single paper claims 

folder, that all these claims are not going to obtain the attention 

they deserve simultaneously. 

We understand the VA is meeting with representatives of the Social Security Administration regarding their electronic record format, and we appreciate this, and we hope that they take the best 

practices from that system and apply it as this goes forward. 

I want to talk about service records for a second. We were deeply 

troubled to learn from recent news reports that records from many 

who have served in Iran and Afghanistan were either lost, destroyed or never created in the first place. A claim for veterans’ disability benefits is dependent upon accurate and complete service 

department records. And when those are missing for whatever reaVACREP180 with DISTILLER

7 

son, the burden unfairly shifts to the veteran to produce other evidence. That evidence typically takes the form of lay testimony, and 

that is either from the veteran, the family or buddy statements. 

But in the end, and despite clear legal authority, VA has been hesitant to accept those statements as sufficient proof of an in-service 

event. 

These claims depend on accurate records. And as you know 

under the law, a disability claim to succeed must have medical evidence for current disability, there must be evidence of an in-service 

occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and then there 

must be medical nexus or linking evidence that provides this link 

of the claim condition to the service event. 

In our written testimony, we provided several examples of how 

veterans can be adversely impacted if the reports are missing. In 

one case of note was a person who served in the 1950s. He claimed 

that he had various medical conditions for which he was treated 

while in service. He files a claim in 1990, was denied for lack of 

corroborating evidence. As it turns out, his records were destroyed 

in the fire in 1973 at the National Personnel Records Center, but 

the end result of all this is that, 20 years later, this case has been 

to the veterans court three times, and that is where it is today, and 

there is really no hope this matter is going to be resolved to his 

benefit any time soon. 

NOVA would like to make the following recommendations for 

your consideration: The service departments must be required to 

maintain complete and accurate records of the personnel and unit 

activities, and they must provide those records to VA in a digital 

format for their ease of use. So we ask Congress to mandate that 

DoD and VA work together to facilitate this seamless transition of 

records. It is just critical for our veterans. 

But in addition, we can’t undo all that has happened, and we are 

suggesting that the evidentiary burden be lessened for veterans 

who fall into this category where the records have been lost, destroyed, remain classified today, or never created in the first place 

or are otherwise lost through no fault of their own. 

NOVA would propose that language be added to 38 U.S.C. 

1154(a) that would mimic the provisions provided in 1154(b) that 

is reserved for combat veterans and essentially provides that lay or 

other evidence shall be accepted by VA to establish incident or aggravation in service if consistent with the circumstances, conditions 

or hardships of such service, even if no official records exist. And 

this evidence may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 

In conclusion, the importance of the complete and accurate service records cannot be overstated. As you know, Congress has created a unique benefit system like no other in recognition of those 

who answer the call to serve and defend their country. To deny a 

veteran his or her disability benefits because the records are not 

available due to no fault of his or here own just isn’t right, and it 

deserves this Committee’s continued attention. Thank you. If you 

have any continuing questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VITERNA APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

8 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Viterna. 

Mr. Hall, you are now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HALL 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member 

McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

On behalf of DAV and its 1.2 million members, I am pleased to 

be here today to offer our perspective on how the management of 

the massive volume of paper records has resulted in extraordinary 

delays and the denial of veterans’ claims as well as contributed to 

the enormous backlog of claims for benefits. 

Mr. Chairman, the integrity of the entire benefits system is, benefits claim system is only as strong as the integrity of the evidentiary records supporting these claims. Before our veteran can be 

found entitled to a benefit from VA, VA must have sufficient evidence, such as proof of military service, an accurate medical history, proper documentation. And custody of service personnel and 

medical records is absolutely essential to the accurate and timely 

adjudication of any veteran’s claim for benefits. 

Most of the records needed to satisfy benefits claims are held primarily by Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, 

the National Personnel Records Center or by State National Guard 

units. 

Additionally, there may be private medical records that are crucial to proving claims. Whenever there are problems or delays in 

locating any of these essential records, veterans and their families 

suffer. I know firsthand from my own personal military experience 

and as a DAV NSO for nearly two decades about the hardships 

that occur when records are lost, misplaced or simply can’t be 

found. 

In 1991, while serving in the Army during the First Gulf War, 

I was wounded in Kuwait. I was medically evacuated by the Marine Corps, operated on by the Navy and airlifted home by the Air 

Force. When I finally arrived at Fort Hood, I learned there was no 

record of my arrival, no record of being wounded and no surgical 

or post-op care records available. 

Later, I was told my medical records were likely destroyed rather 

than transporting them home. 

To this day, treatment reports are missing from my permanent 

records. Whether these missing records will one day lead to a delay 

or denial of any VA benefit for me or my family remains to be seen. 

But there are thousands of veterans that have been hurt by lost 

or misplaced records throughout history, a problem that has never 

been resolved and a problem that remains unacceptable. 

Let me cite two examples from my testimony that I feel are important today. In May 2011, a Marine Corps Reservist, also an 

OEF combat veteran, filed his original claim for nine disabilities to 

include traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. 

It took 10 months simply for the VA to request the service medical 

records. And in August 2012, more than a year after the claim was 

received by VA, the service medical records still had not been obtained, and another attempt by VA would have to be made. However through the veteran’s own initiative, he recently contacted his 

Reserve unit directly to request his records. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

9 

Sadly, the proper exchange and retrieval of these medical records 

didn’t take place earlier because the veteran’s claim has now been 

pending for nearly 19 months without a decision, completely unacceptable. 

In another case, an Air Force veteran who served during the 

Vietnam war in 1967 filed his original claim for disability compensation nearly 40 years later in 2008. The claim was denied, 

even though VA never even reviewed the service medical records. 

Although the VA regional office did receive his personnel records 

from the National Personnel Records Center, his service medical 

records were lost somewhere between the NPRC and the VA regional office. Those service military records would have indicated 

that the veteran had been on sick call approximately 16 times, and 

he had even been hospitalized one time, as verified by his service 

personnel records. Eventually, we filed an appeal with the board of 

veterans appeals, and in 2012, nearly 4 years after the date of 

claim, the case has recently been remanded to the VA regional office for yet another attempt to obtain the records. 

Mr. Chairman, vital service records can be lost at any stage. 

They may be lost during active duty, during transit to or from the 

National Personnel Records Center or while being stored at a VA 

regional office or the Records Management Center for the National 

Personnel Records Center. With tens of millions of military records 

housed at the National Personnel Records Center and VA offices, 

the maintenance and security of these essential paper files remains 

of the highest importance. 

DoD, VA and the NPRC must focus in three areas. First, there 

must be immediate improvement in the management of paper 

records or archives. Secondly, paper records must be converted into 

digital records. And thirdly, there must be development of a new 

digital record storage and processing system. 

While the problems of VBA’s backlog continue to be staggering, 

there are signs that slow progress is being made. However, Congress must continue to oversee VBA’s transformation process and 

must ensure that the Veterans Benefit Management System is 

completed and fully implemented. 

In addition, DoD and VA must also work closely to create a lifelong electronic records system for all servicemembers, beginning at 

the moment of enlistment and including all of their military medical and personnel records and should be integrated with health 

records from VA as well as other public and private health care 

providers. 

Finally, as long as there remain paper files that must be stored, 

transferred and preserved, VA, DoD and the National Personnel 

Records Center or NARA must have adequate controls in place, including regular independent audits to guaranty preservation and 

integrity of these vital service personnel and medical records. 

Additionally, as each of those agencies converts paper records to 

digital files, there must be rigorous oversight and control to ensure 

that vital original paper records are not lost or damaged during 

this conversion process. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy to 

answer any questions. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

10 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HALL APPEARS IN THE AP- PENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

And with that, we will start the round of questioning. 

Mr. Hall, to go back to your testimony, the example you used 

right after your personal one, you said the individual went directly 

back to his unit to get his records? 

Mr. HALL. He was not directed back to it. He had communicated 

through our national service officer at the regional office; throughout the process, we were keeping in him informed of what was 

going on. And of course, there was that delay approximately of 10 

months where we finally found out a request had not even been 

made for the record. So essentially, what had turned out after some 

back and forth conversations with, say, the development team of 

the RO was that they had indicated if the veteran had obtained 

these records himself at the beginning, there wouldn’t have been 

a delay. So it was just corroborating the fact that although they 

didn’t indicate to him that he should get those records, it was 

through advice through our—which we generally give to any claimant is to—don’t leave service without a copy of your records, or if 

in the process of a claim, if you have a way of obtaining, like in 

this case, can you contact your unit and get those records? 

Mr. RUNYAN. And going to the end of your testimony, you talked 

about the systemic issues related to records management that 

could be alleviated with more digital technology, and obviously, 

what we just talked about was an example of that. 

Can you try to explain that? Because one thing I’d like to bring 

up is that, when we do these things digitally, we know where it 

happened in time and place and who was at the controls of it. Can 

you kind of elaborate on that? 

Mr. HALL. On which particular aspect? 

Mr. RUNYAN. On just the systemic issues related to the records 

management which we could alleviate with digital technology, as I 

just gave that example, because where it is at and it is not that 

hard if you call over and say, where is this in the process? 

Mr. HALL. Obviously, electronic records, digital scanning and 

things, the way that things are moving within VA, we believe it is 

inherently a good thing because there are a lot of great aspects to 

it, chiefly timeliness and safeguarding of the information once it 

has been converted digitally. 

Now with VBMS and how everything ties together which is part 

and parcel to this, but it must be noted that when all of this system, anybody at any stage, whether it is the veteran through the 

e-benefits system or his service officer, as an example, will be able 

to tell exactly where everything is because everything has been either filed electronically, so there was no paper to begin with, which 

we encourage our claimants to do from the start, or it is paper that 

has been received from the claimant that has been scanned or 

digitally input into the system. But yes, one of the things I want 

to say is that VBMS and where it is in the stage—and I am sure 

we will learn more today as far as an update of where it is in the 

process—it has to also—not only should—we have to make sure 

that as we have said in the past that the VBMS needs to be completed and needs to be implemented, and of course, we will see how 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

11 

that goes during the coming year with everything getting online, 

but it must also include the Appeals Management Center, the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals and the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims, as well as the other business lines within VA. But as far 

as the claims process that you and I are talking about, it has to 

be sure that it includes those other—AMC, VBA and the court as 

well. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Viterna, you mentioned the talks that VA and the Social Security Administration are having. From your knowledge of it, do 

you see there is anything to learn? What is the benefit of the talks, 

and what can we do to maybe learn from the Social Security process? 

Mr. VITERNA. I don’t practice Social Security law, but I have got 

friends that do Social Security law, I have friends that show me 

how simple, with their tablet, they log on to the Social Security 

site; they get a text on the cell phone. They have 10 minutes or 

so to enter a code, and they are filing documents and getting status 

of reports. And it is realtime and accurate and complete information. And I guess the essence of the issue is to either reinvent the 

wheel or to look at systems that work. I know it is not quite that 

simple, but they have a system that works, and to the VA’s credit, 

I understand they are studying some of that, and I hope that it 

continues, and we get the best from it and build from there. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Dumancas, how do you think the record management process 

for our Guard and Reservists can improved, you used the example 

of how their records could be in multiple places. Obviously, if it is 

in a digital format, it can be very much linked together. Can you 

expand on that a little bit? 

Mr. DUMANCAS. Yes, sir. We believe that if you start an electronic record from the very beginning and everything flows into it 

and don’t make it so it is a personnel file and a health record separate, make them one, when a—when we call the Guard and Reserve members up, it is all digitized. If they are injured in Bagram 

and they come to Landstuhl and they come back to Fort Carson, 

that it will would flow without any paper work. The health technician at Fort Carson should be able to see from Landstuhl to 

Bagram to say if they are from Sacramento, California, all the way 

from Sacramento, California, to Bagram and back, we believe it 

should be electronic. It would create such a short time span of 

waiting on our medical record, because like right now, when a 

Guard member or Reserve gets injured and there is a piece that 

is missing and they apply for it, but the VA cannot see that because DoD has it somewhere, it is more than likely that their claim 

is going to be denied. Or even if they come back and they have this 

injury, well, medical doctors cannot see that record. For instance, 

I see Fort Myer is my health primary care, and I was treated in 

Minnesota under the VA. But when I come out here, I moved out 

here, my doctor in Fort Myer could not see my record in the VA. 

So as a veteran, I am thinking, oh, well, you should be able to see 

it because the VLER and all this other stuff. Well, I find out that 

my doctor cannot see any of my records. If I had known that, I 

would have requested a paper copy of my file from the VA and 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

12 

brought it to Fort Myer. So, by electronically, it would shorten the 

time span and response times and the searches for the medical 

records or for the personnel files. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

With that, I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney, for 

his questions. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dumancas, why do you think there is so much variation in 

the backlog from RO to RO? 

Mr. DUMANCAS. I believe it is, it could be mainly training and direction, like, for instance, the lack of, the relaxation of PTSD, a lot 

of the raters—not a lot of but some of the raters—I don’t have a 

good number of them, but are confused on the direction. They are 

confused on the policy and the procedures, and I believe if you had 

one source training, where it is just the VA has like a training center, I don’t know if its centrally located or divided up into the regional areas, but they are all training the exact same procedure. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you think the size of the ROs is strongly correlated to the backlog? 

Mr. DUMANCAS. I honestly don’t believe it is, because when I 

brought up Togus to a couple of my co-workers, they said, well, it 

is because Togus is small. Well, if Togus is small, but they have 

X amount of files, I know the VA doesn’t have an over lump sum 

of FTEs, full-time employees, at Togus. They probably have it is 

calculated out to a certain amount of employees. So if Oakland has 

the same amount of employees versus the files percentage just like 

Togus, there shouldn’t be a difference. And that is why I believe 

that policy and procedures coming down from central office to the 

ROs directing them would strongly assist in the process and training. I don’t know if that makes sense. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. It does. Of course, training and consistency is 

critical. 

Mr. DUMANCAS. Correct. And I believe also—I know the VA, we 

go out to ROs, and we talk to different ROs, and I know training, 

it is hard now because we have the older generation—I don’t mean 

to slam anybody for their age, but they are retiring. The well seasoned raters and trainers are leaving. They are retiring. And now 

we have to rely on the younger force, and they are not as seasoned 

as the people who are retiring. So that might be a consideration, 

also. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Viterna, you mentioned that the DoD departments must have accurate records of personnel and deployments. What is the state of that situation right now? How accurate, 

how good are the DoD’s records? 

Mr. VITERNA. My experience for years has been that the records 

have always been a problem from World War II on. It is just in the 

latest news reports, it gives specific examples, I guess, of files being 

lost in Iraq/Afghanistan. I know, in my military career, the file that 

I left with when I retired is this big, and I imagine a fraction of 

that actually made it into my official records. 

We would travel without orders; that was just a way of life. But 

in the big picture for justice to be done for the veterans, there has 

to be records kept, at least of the unit’s activities and what the people are doing there. And if they are classified, then they have to 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

13 

be, there has to be a means to translate that and the proper format 

for those who need to be make decisions, but it is just unconscionable to not have those records because the veteran is left to his own 

resources. He can’t obtain the records himself because they don’t 

exist, for instance. So is he left with lay testimony or medical opinions that are premised on whether this had happened in service. 

We find that those have been pretty ineffective over the years in 

our experience. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. I guess we don’t have too much jurisdiction 

on how the DoD takes records, but we can encourage them to do 

that. 

Mr. Hall, in the NOVA testimony, you suggest introducing legislation to lessen the burden of proof for establishing inservice incurrence for veterans whose claims are impacted by missing military 

records. Do you have a comment about that? 

Mr. HALL. In the written testimony? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. 

Mr. HALL. I am sorry could you repeat? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you have any suggestions on Mr. Viterna’s 

comment on lessening the burden of proof? 

Mr. HALL. I think it would, I liked what my colleague here said 

earlier about lessening the burden of proof. Whether or not you can 

change 1154(a) and have a single one such as the burden of proof 

under 1154(b) for combat veterans, I don’t know that you can necessarily do it in that particular manner. But I do believe, when 

there is an absence of records, and it has been verified that there 

are no records, when VA in a case that I can give you and I think 

one of them is in my written testimony, an example where the veteran is notified, we can’t find your records and we are not going 

to search for them further, any further search would be futile; that 

is a case to me where, by no fault of the veteran, your claim is 

going to be denied because there are no records for us to look at, 

there should be some provision in the law that has to be able to 

overcome that type of an activity. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Before I yield, of course, the statement about 

Reserves and Guard members being at the mercy of the DoD because that is not their home unit, that is something that needs to 

be looked at. That sounds like a pretty difficult problem. 

Mr. HALL. It has always been difficult dealing with, especially 

National Guard units, as a service officer helping a veteran who 

files a claim; there is a broken communication. 

I don’t know whether it is on the National Guard end of it, not 

understanding fully what it is—I would like to think that it is not 

simply that—or the impact. The same can be said of somebody on 

active duty that has, doesn’t really get cared for, transporting 

records home or erasing hard drive on records coming back, not understanding the full impact of what waits 5 years down the road 

or 3 years down the road, so that communication between the National Guard and the VA for example, that must be overcome. 

Same as Reserve units, but mostly for, we see it most of the time 

in the National Guard, and predominantly, that is what we are 

dealing with, is our veterans that are called up to active duty in 

the National Guard and serving overseas. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you for your testimony. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

14 

I yield back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Michaud. 

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

Ranking Member, for having this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, if there is no objections I would like to enter into 

the record a one-page letter that I sent to the VA and the Department of Defense over 2 weeks ago. The letter asks for information 

from both agencies regarding recent reports of missing field or unit 

records and I have not yet received a response. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[THE INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In response to Mr. Dumancas’ comment about Togus, I think it 

gets back to the issue I mentioned over and over again when you 

look at Togus dealing with claims, they are considered an employer 

of choice, and that is why I think we have a high accuracy rate as 

well as getting the work done on time. And a part of that, I believe, 

gets back to turnover rates, and that is one thing I have asked over 

and over again of other agencies, regions, about their turnover rate 

and still I have got, as far as I know, to receive that information, 

so it gets back to the mentality and the workforce being able to 

take a pride in their work. So I am very pleased that Togus is on 

top of the list. 

My question to the panelists, starting with Mr. Dumancas first, 

is, have any of you experienced in working with the military in trying to track down records from the Department of Defense, and if 

so, can you discuss the responsiveness from the military? 

Mr. DUMANCAS. Before I came out to the American Legion here 

in Washington, D.C., I used to be to a county veterans service officer in Minnesota. And it was tough with, especially like Mr. Hall 

was saying with the National Guard. When we submitted a claim, 

the regional office would send our request to the National Guard. 

The National Guard didn’t have the records. We could never find 

them. We don’t know if they were stuck with a different unit because they would split up into onesies and twosies going with— 

from Duluth, Minnesota, they deployed with Monticello or wherever. And one of the other things that we experienced, I had the 

opportunity, one of the guard units came to me with 20 service 

treatment records that they finally got put together, they assembled. The problem was that the Guard unit hadn’t—lacked the 

funds to mail them in to the requesting RO. Luckily, my county 

said, yes, go ahead and ship them down to the RO for those training, for those members that submitted for their claims. It is always 

difficult, and I don’t know why it is, but when a Guard member 

goes out as a onesie or a twosie, not as a unit, they always come 

back, and we have the hardest time trying to locate their records. 

I don’t know if it is because active services aren’t paying attention 

to the National Guard, you know, or they don’t care because they 

are National Guard, or they are just, because they are more focused on the active duty. I am not really sure. But it is something 

that really needs to be looked into. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

15 

One of the things that I would like to bring up is a good friend 

of mine back in Minnesota was injured in Iraq. He was an Army 

Reservist. His HUMVEE rolled over, so he sustained TBI and neck 

injury. While at Fort Carson, the active duty doctor told him, well, 

you are a Reservist, you should just go back to Minnesota. Your 

unit will take care of you. That is ridiculous. The guy was on a 

Title 10 tour at the time. He was active duty. But when sister services start treating each other like that, that has got to come to a 

screeching halt. They need to work together. And also the DoD 

needs to work with the VA and NPRC also. 

I hope that answers your question. I am sorry. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Any other panelists have any— 

Mr. VITERNA. My personal experience with the National Guard 

is, as my colleague was saying, was with these individual deployments, and that without careful intake at the receiving units, these 

people get attached to a unit, so whatever designation they carried 

with them, for instance, my case of 127th Wing from Michigan, 

gets blurred. Now they are attached to some other organization, 

and typically, there is no way to figure out this person’s original 

unit, nobody takes the steps, obviously, to track this person down. 

I know, when I was stationed at Selfridge, in Michigan, we would 

get a group of records in the mail, and they are lost souls. And at 

first, they go to the Army clinic. Then they go to the Navy clinic, 

work their way to the Coast Guard and then to the Air National 

Guard and the Reserves, and we would just pick out people we 

might be able to recognize. But the process in identifying these individuals in their home units has never worked well, and those 

records are simply missing, never to be found. 

Mr. HALL. I would say that over the years, I don’t recall any particular dealings with military directly, me personally, other than 

my own particular case, which I told you how that turned out. But 

we have transition service officers, I think roughly 30 of them, at 

different military installations. And so they are dealing with it 

today firsthand, and of course, you are educating an individual 

about what their entitlements are, but you are also educating them 

about when they leave military service, make sure you have a copy 

of your records for yourself, for your own records, so hopefully that 

does minimize a little bit of that. However, if there is some sort of 

an instance that happens while the person is still active duty, our 

transition service officer can certainly look into it at that particular 

point because they have the connection, they are on post. 

When you are calling from a regional office and you say you are 

with the Disabled American Veterans, it doesn’t matter to a lot of 

people who you are. And if I could just go back to one other thing 

and say to Ranking Member McNerney’s question about variations 

in different ROs, I just wanted to sum it up and say training, testing, accountability, leadership and culture. That is why you have 

the differences. Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I actually have one more question. I will give the other Members 

an opportunity, too. 

Mr. Hall, you talked about this with your personal experience, 

but as we document this stuff and go back all the way into the 

combat scenario, how prevalent is the issue of not actually even 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

16 

having a record of an incident to start with, let alone the issue we 

have been talking about trying to find out after it occurred? 

Mr. HALL. Well, I believe certainly today that documenting it 

today because of the availability of things like computers in the 

field and more abundance of medical personnel with those types of 

ability to be able to put something into the computer at that particular point versus 20 years ago, when I was in, what was documented, well, we were blown up and we were medivaced. I had a 

toe tag on. We would go to a different unit, and then the toe tag 

comes off, and they create their own record, and it comes off, and 

you go to a different branch. So, in my case, I don’t know that it 

is uncommon to be treated by all different branches of the military 

in that particular way, but at some point, it just broke down, and 

I think that that problem was still, it probably has to still exist 

today with the amount of people that serve in those, say, Iraq and 

Afghanistan as an example. 

What they are doing to overcome it, I mean, stories are stories; 

they are all out there in the media where 500 gigabytes of information can be wiped out with the press of a button, and that is all 

those records that go with it, whether it is going and seeing the doc 

for the flu or a battlefield injury. That is not just medical issues 

either; that is line of duty things that happen, was it an IED explosion or some type of hostile activity that has to be documented that 

goes into that. So I would say it is just as prevalent; it may be even 

more so. But it is has always existed. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Any of the other two gentlemen have any experience with it? No. Because when, we talk about it all and a lot of 

people say, well, it is not that prevalent, but when it happens to 

one veteran, it is a personal issue, and it is a 100 percent issue at 

that point, because you are affecting that veteran’s life 100 percent. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. That is right. Listen, we deal with people who are on 

active duty and you hear a commanding officer saying what an acceptable loss is, you can transfer that today to somebody from the 

National Personnel Records Center or NARA, somebody like that, 

that says, hey, we service millions of records, and that is true. And 

I am not doubting one bit of the bang up job that they do with the 

amount of volumes of paper that they deal with, but for some individual, any individual in one of those agencies to say, well, we service millions of records and so, if we lose a few, that is a pretty good 

percentage. How would you like to be the one? That is, to me, any 

veteran that is denied a benefit because their records are lost due 

to no fault of their own is just unacceptable. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. McNerney, anything further? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure. I would like to explore a little bit the, 

what the VA’s regulations are concerning missing or incomplete 

records. Do you all have recommendations on whether those regulations are sufficient or adequate or could be improved? 

Mr. VITERNA. Yes. Current law is that the VA has a duty to assist and the duty is enhanced upon their being unable to locate 

records. But there is a point when that becomes definitive, and in 

some instances, they issue a memorandum that essentially says, 

we have searched, and we have exhausted all efforts, and in fact, 

the record does not exist. But at that point, the only thing left is 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

17 

to shift the burden back to the veteran. He is still without a remedy, unless there is some lessening of the evidentiary burden. The 

VA can only go so far if the records don’t exist. 

Eventually, their duty is to abrogate it, and they have exhausted 

it, and you know, they have an enhanced duty to look for alternative means to reconstruct records or the like. At some point, 

there has to be a line in the sand that says, we have to give up 

here and make a decision, and they do, and the veteran is left with 

the result. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is there a recommendation on how to improve 

that situation? 

Mr. VITERNA. Well, just as I had mentioned in terms of lessening 

the evidentiary burden to mimic the combat language in the 

1154(b) that requires the agency to have clear and convincing evidence to the contrary to rebut it, and it is a presumption, effectively, so if there are no official records to rebut a position that I 

had this injury in service; there isn’t any documentation of it—obviously, he still has a current disability, but the medical nexus 

opinion is impeded by the fact that they don’t really know that that 

event happened in service, so, yeah, you have got an arthritis in 

your knee, but did you really wrench it in service or wrench it at 

some other time? And say the evidentiary burden has to be somewhat lessened to make that instance in service accepted as true. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have one question for Mr. Dumancas. 

On July 18th, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the issue of 

military sexual-trauma, which we explored how veterans who suffered from MST-related PTSD have only one in three chances of 

having their claims approved. You talked about the challenges of 

these veterans in your testimony today. 

Can you elaborate further on your testimony on how and why VA 

regulations should be relaxed to improve these outcomes? 

Mr. DUMANCAS. Yes, sir. What we have experienced is, at the RO 

level, writers are still confused on the regulations, the policy that 

is set in place. And we don’t know if it is a lack of training or just 

solid guidance. They are just confused on the actual policy, so they 

are basically just denying it and letting the Board of Veterans Appeals handle it. So it comes out here to D.C.; we get remanded, and 

because it is frustrating, it is very frustrating, so I hope that answers a little bit for you. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

And, gentlemen, on behalf of the Subcommittee, I thank you for 

your testimony. I look forward to continuing to work with you on 

these important matters. And you are now excused, and we will 

welcome the second panel up. 

First, we will hear from Mr. Jim Neighbors, Director of the DoDVA Collaboration Office with the Department of Defense. And then 

we will hear from Mr. Scott Levins, Director of the National Personnel Records Center, with the National Archives and Records Administration. And, finally, we will hear from Mr. Alan Bozeman, 

the Director of the Veterans Benefits Management System, with 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

18 

We appreciate all of your attendance today. Your complete and 

written statement will be entered into the hearing record. 

And, Mr. Neighbors, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for 

your oral testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF JAMES G. NEIGHBORS, DIRECTOR, DOD-VA 

COLLABORATION OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; 

SCOTT LEVINS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PERSONNEL 

RECORDS CENTER, U.S. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION; ALAN BOZEMAN, DIRECTOR, VETERANS 

BENEFITS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROGRAM OFFICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF JAMES G. NEIGHBORS 

Mr. NEIGHBORS. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today, joined by my colleagues from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs and the National Personnel Records Center, to discuss current and future efforts to ensure military health, personnel, and 

other records are captured, maintained, and shared with the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

My colleagues and I at this table understand that at the end of 

every record is a servicemember, veteran, or family who has sacrificed tremendously. DoD leadership is keenly aware of the importance of military records as they pertain to the VA disability claims 

process. 

I can appreciate the frustrations of this hearing’s first panel, 

which is why it is a top priority of DoD to improve the system by 

which our servicemembers and veterans receive well-deserved and 

earned benefits. 

Medical records of all servicemembers—Active Duty, Reserve, 

and National Guard—have been stored electronically worldwide by 

DoD since 2006. These records are centrally stored and consistently 

available as the servicemember moves to a new military unit and 

installation, including deployments, throughout their career. 

Like medical records, Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve 

servicemembers’ official personal records and other administrative 

data are stored electronically throughout their career and available 

at unit locations. Since 2004, unit deployment data has also been 

electronically collected from the military services and stored in the 

Contingency Tracking System. 

Concerning the monitoring of occupational hazards, environmental assessments are conducted at deployed locations when established and then performed annually to measure the air, water, 

and soil for hazardous agents. Exposures of concern are promptly 

investigated, and, when appropriate, registries are created. 

It is DoD policy to transfer servicemember records to VA when 

they leave Active Duty upon retirement or discharge. Military service personnel outprocessing centers currently transfer personnel, 

medical, and dental records to VA for over 300,000 servicemembers 

annually. A majority of this data is also available via electronic 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

19 

interface. For personnel and administrative data, this transfer occurs within 7 days of the servicemember’s retirement or discharge. 

To ensure continuity of care, medical data is available realtime 

through a DoD and VA bidirectional health information exchange. 

Medical professionals and DoD and VA clinicians and benefit specialists have access to a very large amount of health data on more 

than 4.6 million military and veteran patients. 

With all of this in mind, we recognize there is much more to do 

to improve the complex electronic interface of data between DoD 

and VA. And we are continually collaborating through working 

groups, data-sharing summits, and executive forums, working the 

areas where we need to modify policies, processes, and technologies. 

Going forward, our joint vision is to develop a single seamless 

system experience of lifetime services. To realize this vision, DoD 

and VA are currently planning the deployment and acquisition of 

two major efforts: the joint Integrated Electronic Health Record, or 

the iEHR; and the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record, known as 

VLER. 

The iEHR will unify the two departments’ electronic health 

records systems into a common system that will ensure DoD and 

VA’s health facilities have servicemembers’ and veterans’ health information available throughout their lifetime. Information about injuries and illnesses incurred during military service will remain 

available for health and benefits purposes throughout a person’s 

lifetime, supporting patient safety, continuity of care, and facilitating expedient access to and delivery of benefits. 

VLER is a joint, multifaceted business and technology initiative 

which will allow servicemembers’ and veterans’ electronic administrative and personnel information to be synchronized and shared 

seamlessly between DoD, VA, and other appropriate Federal and 

private-sector health care providers. It includes a portfolio of health 

benefits, personnel, and administrative sharing capabilities. When 

fully implemented, it will establish a relationship with 

servicemembers and veterans that begins the day they enter military service and maintains that relationship throughout their lifetime, proactively providing them with benefits and services. 

DoD is committed to a future that eliminates paper-based recordkeeping and the warehouses that support them. Movement toward 

the electronic exchange of information in realtime gives DoD and 

VA the added benefit of improving interagency processes based on 

information requirements and unencumbered by legacy forms, 

manuals, and other paper. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your generous support of all 

services members, veterans, and their families. I look forward to 

your questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES NEIGHBORS APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Neighbors. 

And, with that, I will now recognize Mr. Levins for his testimony. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

20 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT LEVINS 

Mr. LEVINS. Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

calling this hearing and for your attention to issues surrounding 

the management of records which document the service of our Nation’s veterans. 

I am proud to represent the staff of the National Personnel 

Records Center, many of whom are veterans themselves, and 

pleased to appear before you today to discuss the important work 

the Center does to serve those who have served. 

The NPRC is an office of the National Archives and Records Administration. Located in multiple facilities in the St. Louis area, 

the Center stores and services over 4 million cubic feet of military 

and civilian personnel, medical, and related records dating back to 

the Spanish-American War. 

In the mid-1950s, the Department of Defense constructed the 

Military Personnel Records Center in Overland, Missouri. In 1960, 

the Center’s functions were consolidated and transferred to the 

General Services Administration to be managed by NARA’s predecessor agency as a single program, leveraging economies of scale to 

improve efficiency and offering a central point of access for military 

service records. 

When the Center was constructed, it was not equipped with a 

fire-suppression system. In 1973, a massive fire at the Center destroyed 16 million to 18 million records documenting the service of 

Army and Air Force veterans who separated between 1912 and 

1964. Though the fire occurred almost 40 years ago, the Center 

continues to service approximately 150,000 requests per year which 

pertain to records lost in that fire. When responding to fire-related 

requests, technicians attempt to reconstruct the basic service 

record by using auxiliary records, such as pay vouchers, and/or by 

obtaining documents from other official sources. 

In the spring of 2011, NPRC’s military records facility began a 

relocation into a new building designed to meet updated facility 

standards for storing permanent records. The relocation of records 

into the new facility was completed last month. 

Today, NPRC holds approximately 60 million official military 

personnel folders. Its holdings also include service treatment 

records; clinical records from military medical treatment facilities; 

auxiliary records, such as pay vouchers and service name indexes; 

and organizational records, such as morning reports and unit rosters. 

NPRC receives between 4,000 and 5,000 requests each day from 

veterans, their next of kin, various Federal agencies, Members of 

Congress, the media, and other stakeholders and responds to 70 

percent of these requests in 10 business days or less. Nearly half 

of these requests come from veterans seeking a copy of their separation statements, the DD Form 214, because they need it to pursue a benefit. The Center responds to 90 percent of these types of 

requests in 10 business days or less. 

In addition, the Center receives between 5,000 and 7,000 requests each week from the VA and other Federal agencies requiring the temporary loan of original records. These requests are normally serviced within 2 to 3 business days. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

21 

In the case of the VA, nearly every day it provides an electronic 

file which is uploaded into NPRC’s system. The file is comprised of 

new requests for the temporary loan of original records. At the end 

of the cycle, when files are returned to NPRC, they are placed back 

into their original locations, and barcode technology is used to 

verify accuracy. 

In instances where NPRC is unable to respond promptly to a request, the biggest obstacle is normally our inability to retrieve the 

responsive record. For example, delays may be experienced if a file 

is currently charged out to another office, undergoing extensive 

preservation treatment, or determined to have been destroyed in 

the 1973 fire. 

In instances where a responsive record is not located on a first 

search attempt, the results are analyzed to determine the next 

course of action. In most instances, a verification search is conducted by a more experienced staff member. Sometimes this involves trying to secure a file that is charged out to another agency 

or actively moving through the order-fulfillment process. Other 

times, it involves analyzing data elements on the request to determine if an error has been made by the requester—for example, an 

inaccurate service number, a misspelling of the member’s name, inaccurate dates of services, et cetera. 

In instances where a responsive record cannot be located, NPRC 

technicians will attempt to reconstruct the basic service record by 

using alternate sources of information. Once a technician has 

verified from official sources the dates and character of service, 

they prepare a certificate which can be used in lieu of the DD-214 

to secure benefits. 

Sometimes the requested records are not located at NPRC. Beginning in the early 1990s, the Military Service Department 

stopped retiring medical records, now called service treatment 

records, to NPRC and instead retired them directly to the VA. As 

a result, NPRC does not have direct access to modern service treatment records. 

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, with the exception of the 

Coast Guard, the military service departments also stopped retiring official military personnel files to NPRC, instead retaining 

them in-house in electronic formats. With the excepting of the Department of the Army, the NPRC refers requests for these records 

to the appropriate military department for servicing. 

In 2007, the Department of the Army entered into an agreement 

with NARA to allow NPRC to access its electronic records for the 

purpose of responding to requests from veterans and other stakeholders. As a result of that decision, NPRC referrals to the Department of the Army were reduced by approximately 2,500 per month. 

The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps continue to service their 

own personnel records and respond to requests from veterans and 

other stakeholders. 

NARA is eager to work with the Subcommittee and other stakeholders to explore opportunities to better serve our Nation’s veterans. We invite the Subcommittee Members to visit NPRC. We 

welcome suggestions to improve efficiency. And we again extend 

our sincere thanks to the Subcommittee for expressing such great 

interest in the services that NPRC provides. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

22 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT LEVINS APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Mr. Levins. 

Mr. Bozeman, you are now recognized for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN BOZEMAN 

Mr. BOZEMAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking 

Member McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am here 

today to discuss the importance of safeguarding the records of 

servicemembers and veterans, particularly as the VBA transitions 

to a paperless claims process. 

Secure electronic records are vital to our transformation, providing more timely and accurate decisions to veterans, their families, and survivors. VBA is aggressively executing its transformation—a series of tightly integrated people, process, and technology initiatives designed to eliminate the claim backlog and 

achieve our goal of processing all claims within 125 days and 98 

percent quality in 2015. 

Key to VBA’s transformation is ending the reliance on the outmoded paper-intensive processes that currently thwart timely and 

accurate claims processing. VA’s Records Management Center, or 

RMC, is responsible for approximately 7.5 million inactive claims 

files and service treatment records. It houses approximately 7.6 

million records and has capacity to hold approximately 8.7 million 

records. 

Both the RMC and the regional offices rely heavily on the timely 

return of records. On average, the RMC receives 300,000 inactive 

claims files from ROs and 350,000 STRs from DoD each year. Currently, the longest phase in the claims process is gathering and 

awaiting evidence, which takes an average of 229 days. VBA is 

working with our stakeholders to receive more timely records, 

which is absolutely critical to our transformation. 

To improve the efficiency of the claims process, VA is executing 

a new business model that relies less on the acquisition and movement of paper documents. The Veterans Benefits Management System, or VBMS, is a business transformation initiative supported by 

technology to improve service delivery. The VA recognizes technology is not the sole solution to improving performance and eliminating the claims backlog; however, it is a critical requirement to 

our transformation. By the end of December 2012, VBMS will be 

deployed to 18 regional offices. Approximately 20,000 users at all 

56 ROs will be utilizing VBMS by the end of calendar year 2013. 

The centerpiece of VBMS is a paperless system, which will be 

complemented by other people, process, and technology initiatives. 

The VBMS electronic folder, or eFolder, is the electronic equivalent 

of the VBA paper claims folder. It serves as a digital repository of 

all documents related to a claim, and it provides for document 

uploading and viewing by multiple simultaneous users. The 

eFolder eliminates wait times for physical paper folder transport, 

reduces incidents of lost or misplaced paper folders, and provides 

on-demand access to key documentation. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

23 

The VBMS architecture incorporates multiple layers of security 

controls to provide comprehensive protection. Security controls are 

in place to prevent unauthorized access and to protect electronic 

documents from loss from any source of disaster or malfunction. 

VBMS is a modern system engineered to the latest standards in information-protection technologies, and it will ensure the privacy of 

sensitive veteran records even as access to the system is provided 

to thousands of VBA, Veterans Health Administration, and veterans service organizations’ authorized users. 

VA understands the importance of securing records. Paperless 

claims processing through VBMS, while maintaining the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data, is critical to our 

transformation goal of eliminating the claims backlog in 2015, ensuring timely and quality delivery of benefits and services to our 

veterans, their families, and survivors. 

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

questions from Members of the Subcommittee. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN BOZEMAN APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you very much. 

And I will begin a round of questions. I want to start with Mr. 

Neighbors. 

What is the rationale for handling servicemembers’ records differently, the personnel records differently from the health and dental? Common sense would say if you kept it all one, it wouldn’t be 

fragmented. 

Mr. NEIGHBORS. I understand, sir. I do know that the rationale 

that I understand is that different organizations within the military services are developing the records. Beyond that point, I believe also how they have grown up through time, as far as where 

the records were developed as far as paper-based now moving into 

an electronic base, is another piece that has possibly kept them 

apart. 

How we are obviously going into the future, obviously we will be 

aligning and moving those things together. I do understand your 

rationale and your understanding of why that makes common 

sense. It does. Pulling things together and ensuring that does make 

great sense. 

I do know that when we outprocess these servicemembers, when 

the outprocessing center person—they look and ensure that all of 

those records are put into one binder. So, in other words, medical, 

dental, and personnel records, the popular DD-214, as it is known, 

all go into one binder as it is shipped off then, and the various copies going to the various locations. 

As we are moving forward in the electronic age, we are going to 

be moving into a similar kind of arrangement with the two that we 

just talked, the iEHR and the VLER. 

Does that answer your question, sir? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Yes. I think ‘‘we are getting there’’ is the key to it. 

Mr. NEIGHBORS. Yes, sir, I understand. 

Mr. RUNYAN. And, also, what challenges has the DoD encountered in implementing the integrated electronic health record? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

24 

Mr. NEIGHBORS. I can tell you, sir, that I have viewed what we 

call the initial operating capability timeline, and that timeline is 

being met right now. I know that the initial design review has just 

been met, in fact, just earlier, the 27th through the 29th of November. 

It is a large undertaking, there is no doubt. I mean, it is billions 

of dollars to put this into place. I would say, from my perspective 

and from the DoD’s perspective, it is an endeavor like we have 

probably not done on the business side before, other than what we 

have done within the DoD itself. We have actually brought DoD together, I think. 

And while we are working very closely with the VA and partners 

and getting there, it is—I don’t want to say, necessarily, challenging, but it is pulling cultures together, obviously, between our 

two organizations. 

I would also say that moving forward and using commercial capability and bringing in the different sources of material, as far as 

what actual software and things that we use, while not a challenge, 

it is very complex, I guess I would say. 

So to answer your question, I think, the most succinctly would 

be the complexity of where we are trying to go with all of this and 

moving it forward. 

Mr. RUNYAN. But no significant technology roadblocks or anything? 

Mr. NEIGHBORS. To my understanding, sir, the technology and 

the actual framework that we are moving from is, again, toward 

the initial operating capability, is moving forward. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Okay. 

And if I could touch on one other thing. There has been a great 

deal of media attention surrounding DoD—and I talked about this 

with Mr. Hall in the last panel—particularly getting records of inservice events in combat. 

What is the DoD doing to address this issue to make sure that 

we have that information from the point of the incident? 

Mr. NEIGHBORS. I understand, sir. When a person is actually in 

a combat zone, there are very specific systems—each one of the 

services has a system that does collect and understand where units 

and individuals in those units—and that is Active Duty, Guard, 

and Reserve—when they are actually in theater at different base 

camps and locations. 

That data is then rolled together and brought into a very specific 

system called the Contingency Tracking System. Again, it has been 

around—if I go back, I think around 2004 we actually put that into 

place, and it has been moving forward. 

On the Reserve component side, we also have what is called the 

Reserve Component Common Personnel Data System, which tracks 

their movement and everything also, and then reports all of this 

data into the Defense Manpower Data Center, where all of it is 

coalesced into one place. That data is then made available to VA 

and other organizations, too. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Okay. 

Mr. Levins, you testified about how the Army participates in an 

information exchange with NPRA. Can you elaborate, what is your 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

25 

experience of why the other branches aren’t part of that same process? 

Mr. LEVINS. When the National Personnel Records Center was 

established in the 1950s through the year 1999, it was funded 

through appropriations from Congress. Beginning in the year 2000, 

that changed, and we are now funded through reimbursements 

from the services for the work that we do them. So there is continuous pressure on us to try to keep our costs down, and the services 

all try very much to keep their bill down. 

As the services went to electronic records, all of them, including 

the Army, decided that they would retain the electronic records and 

service those requests themselves. And after a couple years of 

doing that, a backlog of requests had been generated at the Department of the Army, and they reversed this decision and permitted 

us, at least on a pilot, to begin servicing those requests on their 

behalf using their electronic records. That began in 2007, and that 

continues today. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Are you aware of any backlogs with the other services? 

Mr. LEVINS. I can’t speak for any backlogs at the other services. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you. 

With that, I yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank you guys. This is a tough business. There 

are a lot of records, a lot of new data coming in, and everyone 

wants the same thing. So there is no question about that. But you 

can hear our frustration in how long this is taking, and we just 

want to work together to get to the best result. 

Mr. Bozeman, in earlier testimony, the American Legion pointed 

out the lack of plans in regards to scanning documents into the 

VBMS. Did you have a comment on that? 

Mr. BOZEMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member McNerney. Yes, I 

would love to take the opportunity to talk about that. 

As you know, over the summer, we ordered two contracts for 

scanning vendors, two commercial contracts, to scan documents 

and convert paper documents into VBMS. 

I am happy to say that, as of today, both vendors are up and running. We have 13 stations on VBMS right now actively receiving 

images from both vendors. They have scanned at this point over 

250,000 documents of various sizes with a vast amount of images 

into those stations. It is working well. They have good quality, good 

timeliness. 

You also mentioned the BDD claims as well. Both stations that 

process BDD claims, Winston-Salem and Salt Lake, Salt Lake is 

fully in VBMS already; Winston-Salem comes on next week, December the 10th. So we will be able to address not only BDD 

claims but the larger claims volume. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you feel that there is a real comprehensive 

plan in place for completing the scanning process? 

Mr. BOZEMAN. Yes, sir, I feel very confident in our scanning operation at this point. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So how come the VA doesn’t want to go ahead 

and purchase the scanning equipment? Is there a cost advantage 

to having contractors doing it? Is it any more accurate? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

26 

Mr. BOZEMAN. Sir, I am not sure about any cost benefits, per se. 

But I can speak to the fact that through the help of NARA, actually, we have local scanning capabilities at each regional office for 

small-volume scanning. It is not necessarily our passion or our desire to be a full-time scanning operation; we are much more interested in processing claims and lowering the backlog. 

We also have a scanning operation at the Records Management 

Center that can assist with not only STRs, BDD claims as well, 

and other operations we see that are critical to knocking down the 

backlog for BVA. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you feel it is a more efficient use of VA’s resources to use contractors than to have the VA focus on continuing 

the— 

Mr. BOZEMAN. At this point in time, I do, sir. Ultimately, where 

we want to get is electronic records. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. 

Mr. BOZEMAN. So we want to get out of the business of converting paper. And as we move toward receiving electrons, not only 

from DoD but our various stakeholders, that is the ultimate place 

we want to be as an organization. It is more efficient, it is more 

timely, it is more accurate. And that is what we need to beat the 

backlog for VBA by 2015. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you think the accurate and timely flow of information from the DoD to the VA is going to be improved significantly then? 

Mr. BOZEMAN. So I think I am encouraged by some of the collaboration efforts we have done over the past 6 months especially. As 

Mr. Neighbors pointed out, we have a series of meetings; we have 

had multiple data-sharing and collaboration meetings. I am encouraged by some of the early results. It is complex, as Mr. Neighbors 

stated. I don’t think we are there yet, but I think we are on a good 

path to get to there ultimately. 

We have a platform that can receive those records within VBMS, 

a content management service that allows uploads not only from 

veterans, veterans service organizations, through eBenefits or the 

stakeholder portal, but ultimately we can receive information from 

DoD as well. We are on that path. And I think it is going to be 

a long, hard road, but I think we can get there, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. What happens when the DoD doesn’t cooperate 

or doesn’t have proper inputs? I don’t know how you deal with that 

exactly. 

Mr. BOZEMAN. Well, with VBMS, sir—thank you for your question—with VBMS, we have the capability to process both electronic 

and paper. Again, we prefer electronic records, but we cannot totally eliminate the need for paper. We are always going to receive 

paper. 

So if we don’t receive electronic records, we will still process 

claims that we receive in paper and convert them to electrons. Ultimately, again, we want to receive electronic records. So I don’t 

think it is a matter, necessarily, of cooperation, but if the capability 

does not exist, then we will process, as we do now, within VBMS, 

but we will have to convert the paper to electrons. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You are going to always have a need for some 

amount of scanning. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

27 

Mr. BOZEMAN. Yes, sir. I believe so. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Michaud? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Neighbors, how will the loss of unit-level records be addressed during a servicemember’s outprocessing? 

Mr. NEIGHBORS. I am going to have to take that one as a question for the record. I don’t want to give you imperfect information. 

I do know that the individual manager that would look at the person’s record would identify any gaps. Now, I think to your question, 

though, how do we fill those gaps is something I would like to get 

back to you, if I could. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. 

Mr. NEIGHBORS. But I do know that they are looking for completeness of a record, again, with medical-dental unit and other 

items. So if you would, sir, I would like to take that back, and I 

will get an answer for you. 

[THE ATTACHMENT APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX - ATTACHMENT A]

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay, yes. 

And you mentioned in your testimony that when a 

servicemember is outprocessed for transition or retirement, their 

combat records and outpatient records are reviewed for completion. 

When was that instituted? 

And what steps are taken in a record that is found to be incomplete? Do you let the servicemember or the VA know that it is incomplete? 

Mr. NEIGHBORS. Multiple questions I heard, sir. The first one is 

as to how and when this document takes place. I know there is a 

DoD instruction that covers exactly what the person is supposed to 

do. Again, when that actually took place, I have the document here, 

I could take a look and actually get that date for you. 

[THE ATTACHMENT APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX - ATTACHMENT B 

&C]

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. 

Mr. NEIGHBORS. I do know that it is consistent across all the 

services. And there are actually paperwork items that we have to 

sign and have slapped on top of the documents themselves so the 

VA knows that it is certified complete. 

Now, that completion, that certification, I should say, is of known 

records, that, to the best of our knowledge, everything that we have 

known is part of this record. I will say that where the 

servicemember has an obligation, let’s say, Guard and Reserve specifically, if a servicemember—not ‘‘specifically,’’ any 

servicemember—but where it hits, I think, is the Guard and Reserve a lot of times. They will go out and they will go to the private 

side, and they will get some sort of service they need. It is the obligation of that servicemember that when they are reactivated, that 

they have to bring those medical records back to that unit so that 

they can be collated and put in. 

I will tell you that is an area, though, of challenge for us, is getting servicemembers to come back in when they are reactivated 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

28 

and bring all that documentation in and have it reentered into the 

central repository. We are working that. 

I will be honest, as Mr. Bozeman said, we have an ongoing forum 

that we meet very regularly on. That was one of the items that VA 

brought forward that they needed us to do. And we are working it 

as a policy issue with the services right now to ensure that all that 

data is collected and that they are going out and actually making 

sure that the servicemembers are doing that. 

Does that answer your question, sir? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I actually have a couple more questions real quick, the first one 

being for Mr. Levins. 

We know that there was a recent incident involving misplaced 

records at your facility, and there is an ongoing investigation in 

this incident. Can you elaborate on, from a managerial perspective, 

how you have tried to mitigate that, before we have actually come 

through with the outcome of the investigation itself? 

Mr. LEVINS. Yes. As you are aware from the briefings that I provided to your staff over the summer, there was an incident in July 

where a temporary employee unlawfully removed approximately 

250 documents from our holdings. 

Upon hearing this, I was appalled. And I can tell you that the 

Archivist of the United States, as a Navy veteran himself, to say 

he was angry is an understatement. 

And as you noted, this is still under investigation, and my understanding is that the person charged is going to face criminal 

charges for this. So I can’t go into a whole lot of detail about it. 

But some of the things that we have done is, number one, we 

have implemented exit screening at our facility in St. Louis. We 

had already had that in place in our Washington, D.C. areas, and 

with the large volume of permanent records in St. Louis, it was 

time to implement that out there. So now all employees of NARA 

and all visitors to the Center, when they exit the building, they 

have to allow the guards to look through their bags and so forth 

to make sure they can’t walk out of the building with any documents. 

We were able to recover the documents promptly, and we were 

able to—because we have a tracking system that tracks all the reference requests to which we respond, we were able to bounce those 

documents off of our production system to determine if any requests had been made for those records and determine any impacts. And, fortunately, we were able to determine that no veterans 

were adversely impacted by the temporary absence of those documents from those records. 

We also developed a more robust auditing procedure in that division of the Center so that, you know, if something like this occurs, 

we will find it, you know, before documents are actually missing. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you for that. 

I also have quick questions for Mr. Bozeman. 

When do you anticipate we will start seeing measurable results 

with the VBMS system? 

Mr. BOZEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your question. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

29 

Release 3.5 of VBMS was deployed on November the 5th. After 

that, we deployed to 10 additional stations full up on what we consider the national deployment-level software. We anticipate we will 

start to see good results because that software gives us the capacity 

to truly process claims in VBMS. So I would say early in 2013 we 

will start to see results from those claims as those stations come 

on board. 

We will have 18 stations full-blown into VBMS by the end of the 

calendar year. So I would look for that early in 2013 to start seeing 

measurable results of people on the full-blown system of software. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Okay. Thank you. 

And to follow up on the question Mr. McNerney was asking 

about your scanning contracts, can you provide the amount of the 

inventory, the duration of the contracts and the monetary value of 

the contracts. 

Mr. BOZEMAN. I will take it. I believe those are 1-year contracts 

with option years. I am not certain of the exact specifics of the contract, so I can take the remainder of that for the record to verify. 

[THE ATTACHMENT APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX - ATTACHMENT A]

Mr. BOZEMAN. The value of the contracts between the two vendors I believe is $22 million and $23 million, respectively, between 

the two. 

And the—I am sorry, I forgot the third part of your question, sir. 

Mr. RUNYAN. You got duration. Inventory? 

Mr. BOZEMAN. Yes. The inventory, sir, the base—we anticipate 

60 million images per month between the two vendors. 

Again, it is competitive, so the vendor that shows greater quality 

and timeliness, we can direct more work to that vendor to build efficiencies in the system. That is why we are excited about the prospects of the way this system is set up between the two vendors. 

Again, at the height of the contract, we expect 60 million images 

per month. 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you all very much. On behalf of the Subcommittee, I thank you for your testimony. We welcome working 

closely with you in addressing these important issues that have 

such an impact on our American veterans. 

And you are all now excused. Thank everyone for being with us 

today to discuss this important topic. 

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative 

days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. RUNYAN. I thank the Members for their attendance today. 

And this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

(30) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Runyan, Chairman 

Good afternoon and welcome everyone. This oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs will now come to order. 

I called today’s oversight hearing to discuss an important yet often overlooked aspect of the veterans’ benefits process – access to various service department records. 

Such records are often necessary, and vital, for a veteran to prove their claim. As 

Chairman of DAMA, I am troubled by information regarding the handling of records 

that has come to my attention. 

In today’s environment, as we shift from paper records to a digital environment, 

important questions arise regarding what the best practices are for making this 

transition. 

For example, agencies such as the VA and the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA, must engage in a daunting cost-benefit analysis to determine what records should be digitized, and how this process should take place. 

Similarly, the Department of Defense must determine the best way to maintain 

digital records in various environments, from DoD hospitals to combat zones. 

Further, all three agencies must continue to work together to ensure that veterans’ records are initiated, maintained, and transferred as efficiently as possible. 

Today, that is the aspect that we’d like to focus on – the efficiency of the records 

management process. 

As many of you may already be aware, the records management process begins 

with DoD. Veterans depend on DoD to properly note certain in-service events, 

whether in the veteran’s individual service medical and personnel records, or in unit 

histories. 

Issues pertaining to the thoroughness of DoD’s recordkeeping have recently received media attention in light of evidence that some units were not properly documenting in-service events, such as combat related incidents. This has been a source 

of significant frustration for many veterans who file claims with VA and are dependent on such documentation to substantiate their claims. 

For those records that are properly maintained by DoD, custody of certain records 

is then turned over to the Archives, although different branches of service have different policies and procedures. The National Archives and Records Administration 

maintains millions of military personnel, health, and medical records for discharged 

and deceased veterans of all services. 

Although the Archives recently began receiving access to digital records from the 

Army, they do not have full digital access to the other branches of service. In addition, the agency still maintains a full warehouse of paper records from older generations of veterans. As all agencies that handle such vast amounts of paper know, 

there are challenges associated with maintaining both digital and paper records. 

The Archives has recently faced some challenges with respect to the maintenance 

and security of veterans’ records. I would like to invite NARA to continue an open 

dialogue with this Committee so the most effective procedures for managing veterans’ records can be implemented. 

Turning to the role of the VA, the agency has a statutory duty to assist a claimant 

in obtaining certain records. Accordingly, it is important that we work together to 

ensure that VA is able to communicate both effectively and efficiently with both the 

Archives and DoD to comply with this duty. 

In addition, VA is also in the process of making important decisions about how 

veterans’ records and claims folders are handled in a digital environment, as they 

continue their transition over to the electronic Veterans Benefits Management System, or VBMS. 

While we all have high hopes for VBMS, we must not overlook one of its essential 

functions, which is the process for scanning and converting veterans’ records. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

31 

Before I conclude, I would again like to emphasize that our goal today is to ensure 

that the entire chain of command, from DoD, to the Archives, to VA, handle veterans’ records with the utmost care and respect. 

Often, a single record or notation can be the difference in whether a veterans’ disability claim is granted or denied. This is why we must work together to ensure that 

no records are lost, overlooked or otherwise unable to be associated with an individual disability claim. 

I welcome today’s witnesses to continue this ongoing discussion and offer their 

own specific recommendations on how to improve upon the veterans records management process, particularly now as we work to transition into a digital environment. 

I would now call on the Ranking Member for his opening statement. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney, 

Ranking Democratic Member 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing about Veterans’ records, 

and how the VA is managing its transition to a paperless system and new technologies. 

We’ve all read the recent news articles regarding lost, inaccurate and mishandled 

Veterans’ records at the hands of the DoD and VA, as well as their struggles in recapturing this data once it is lost or improperly recorded. I am deeply troubled 

about these incidents. This is unacceptable. 

Congress hears complaints of lost, missing, destroyed or unassociated files all too 

often. Information affecting a Veteran’s claim should be better protected by those 

charged with its care. Accountability needs to occur at the management level and 

with individual employees who handle the day-to-day influx of information. 

Veterans and their families should not be burdened with the responsibility of recreating lost files or providing multiple copies of records that once were in the DoD 

and VA’s possession. 

I also remain troubled about the more than 1.3 million claims and appeals that 

are languishing in VA’s flawed processing system—in an organization with a current management culture that often over-emphasizes production over quality. It is 

imperative that we make comprehensive performance improvements to the system 

while ensuring accurate and accountable claims outcomes for our Veterans. 

I know that VA is taking great pains in this direction. However, today, like many 

Veterans and stakeholders, I cannot say that I have confidence that the VA is in 

complete control over these processes. 

I have met with too many Veterans who have had to wait years for an initial decision on their benefits. I have heard too many unfortunate stories of Veterans who 

suffer as a result of VA temporarily closing poor performing Regional Offices for retraining, like the Oakland RO that serves Veterans in my district. While the average days pending for most claims is 255 days; in the Oakland RO, it is a mind-blowing 425.8 days. 

I know VA ROs such as Waco and Los Angeles are experiencing similar delays. 

In fact these delays are systemic because 67% of all claims and appeals are in backlog status and nearly 25% will be done erroneously. 

Why the disparity? Why the protracted delays? 

Since 2007, the VBA has added over 11,000 claims processing personnel and Congress has funded these requests. Yet the backlog still climbs. The VA OIG concluded 

that in order to change these outcomes, VA needs to enhance policy guidance, compliance oversight, workload management, training and supervisory review in order 

to improve claims processing operations. 

These conclusions do not change. The year may be about to change but the issues 

are the same— the backlog is just a symptom of the problem. The current system 

is broken and in need of a major overhaul. 

We need to focus on getting the claim right the first time—as if a do-over is 

not an option. We need to get this right so that no claims are languishing and 

Veterans, their families and survivors get the benefits that they have earned and 

deserve without delay. 

I am somewhat enthused by some of VA’s latest technology undertakings, including e-Benefits and its Stakeholder portals. However, I remain concerned that again 

some of VA’s efforts move forward without direction, like a rudderless rowboat. 

VA needs a comprehensive plan with a clear vision and mission as many of the 

stakeholders indicate in their testimonies. To date, we still have not received the 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

32 

VBA Transformation Plan that VA Under Secretary Hickey promised at our hearing 

in June of this year. 

Today’s witnesses will provide us with greater insight on these systemic problems—including how Veterans and their dependents are harmed when VA and DoD 

mishandle their documents and how improvements can be made. I hope to hear testimony and responses that reflect VA’s solemn duty to deliver its benefits mission 

using world-class 21st century inputs that focus on Veterans ahead of processes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Richard Dumancas 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner and distinguished Members of the 

Committee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to come before you today to discuss the importance 

of the data component in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) efforts to transform the claims processing system for the 21st century and beyond. The much beleaguered claims system has been under harsh criticism for quite some time as VA has 

struggled under a massive backlog of claims and tried to work towards a system 

that could deliver earned benefits to veterans in the timely manner they deserve. 

If VA is to climb out from under this mountain of claims utilizing the new features 

of the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) paperless processing environment, the way in which they manage veterans’ data is going to be one of the most 

important factors in determining success. 

Working with the veterans’ data will present several challenges. First and foremost is the entryway to this paperless processing environment, how will VA deal 

with transferring information on paper into a digital world? Second, VA will have 

to deal with the management of the electronic records even though the real world 

data is divided amongst a confusing number of sources, particularly for Guard and 

Reserve component veterans. Finally, even though VA has an extensive history of 

dealing with lost data and many regulations to account for the fact that military 

record keeping is not always what it should be, these regulations are not always 

uniformly enforced at the Regional Office (RO) level and VA will need to address 

this lack of consistency as they move forward and deal with the new challenges presented in the electronic operating environment. 

Scanning and Submission of Evidence – the Entry Point into VBMS 

Perhaps the most critical component to the success of the new electronic tolls provided by VBMS in serving the needs of disabled veterans filing for earned benefits 

is the quality of the data available, and that demands attention to detail at the first 

step – scanning the veterans’ data. Unfortunately, there is at best vague information about how VA plans to move forward with the scanning component, and at 

worst a morass of chaos and uncertainty. The American Legion would like to see 

a clearer road map laying out VA’s plans for transforming data to electronic data 

presented in a transparent manner. 

Scanning is already required as a part of intake at ROs utilizing the VBMS system. Furthermore, the Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD) sites in Salt Lake City, 

UT and Winston-Salem, NC also require scanning as this key transition program 

also operates in an entirely electronic environment. However, developments at the 

BDD sites raise troubling questions about VA’s plans to go paperless nationwide in 

the coming year. 

At this time, there is no contract in place at either BDD site for scanning, so new 

claims are not being entered into the pool of claims. While one employee referred 

to this as ‘‘a temporary benefit’’ as it allowed everyone to catch up on the backlog 

of claims at the BDD sites, any long term view of the situations must recognize the 

growing backlog of claims building up waiting to be scanned. Like a dike bursting 

open to let the floodwaters through, these claims will overwhelm the resources as 

soon as a contract is in place. 

At a hearing before the full House Committee on Veterans Affairs on June 19th, 

Mr. William Bosanko, Executive for Agency Services, National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) indicated there was no long term contract in place for scanning at VA Regional Offices. The contracts that had been in place were for a much 

smaller scale than expansion to all ROs. The most recent contract had been for only 

five locations. There have been no subsequent indications of future long term plans 

for the scanning provided. 

What is most troubling about the scanning portion of the data chain within VA 

is not the myriad questions about the quality of optical character recognition (OCR) 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

33 

and how searchable the documents will be, although those questions are certainly 

important. What is deeply troubling is that the scanning is so obviously a key component and there has been little to no public indication from VA about the road forward. As concerned stakeholders, The American Legion can only wonder as to the 

size and nature of future log jams building up which could devastate the process 

for veterans in the future. 

The American Legion urges VA to present a clear road map for the way forward 

on the scanning component so all concerned stakeholders can understand that this 

critical data component is no longer a weak link in the data chain. There are other 

more pressing data concerns to worry about, but it is hard to give them focus when 

there are so many outstanding questions about the basic steps at the front door to 

the entire process. 

Data Location – Finding Government Records 

Obviously, the ability to communicate the critical data between governmental entities such as the Department of Defense and VA is essential to a smooth claims 

process. To catalogue the litany of complaints about delays in the development of 

a Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) between VA and DOD would be so 

lengthy as to obfuscate almost any other discussion. Suffice to say stakeholders such 

as The American Legion have a long history addressing the unacceptable lack of 

clear communications. 

In the 21st century, the ability of the DOD and VA to maintain a simple, common 

record for service members from their date of induction all the way through their 

military and civilian careers until internment in a veterans’ cemetery should be a 

given, not a question. Rather than add to the existing mountain of concerns about 

the lack of a consistent electronic nature, The American Legion will simply state 

there must be a renewed commitment to getting VLER back on schedule and implemented with all due haste. 

However, there is another concern regarding the difficulties in communicating 

service member data that is often overlooked when discussing the communication 

problems between VA and DOD and that is the widely distributed nature of information and records for members of the National Guard and Reserve components. 

As the last decade of warfare has clearly shown, the National Guard and Reserve 

components are an integral and highly utilized component of our nation’s military 

structure. However, record keeping for these components still lags deeply in the past 

century. At times, over 40 percent of the deployed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan 

have been Guard or Reserve component members. Over 650,000 National Guard and 

Reserve members have deployed since September 11, 2001 with many of those service members deploying multiple times over the last decade. 

Yet for a variety of reasons, consolidating the vital data for these service members 

is a far more challenging task, and that fact has presented difficulties for a number 

of veterans when it comes time to file a claim. 

Anecdotally, one National Guardsman The American Legion came into contact 

with told this tale of the difficulties he had run into. In 2005, the veteran in question underwent a Medical Evaluation Board/Physical Evaluation Board (MEB/PEB) 

process and was ultimately discharged from the military due to a spinal injury sustained in service. The veteran filed their own claim with VA within a couple of 

months after discharge, and didn’t seek representation for the claim at the time 

stating ‘‘I had just gotten discharged for the injury, how hard can this be?’’ After 

approximately ten months, the veteran finally received an initial denial of benefits 

from VA as they could not find a variety of records associated with the claim. This 

was all still within a year of being medically discharged from the Army. 

The veteran sought help from The American Legion at this point, and filed an appeal with a Decision Review Officer (DRO) at the Regional Office. During the course 

of this appeal, which took over an additional year, it became clear that the veteran’s 

records were split over multiple locations. There were still records located in the 

country the veteran deployed to. There were records in Landstuhl, Germany where 

the veteran had stopped over while being medically evacuated. There were records 

with the National Guard bureau in the veteran’s home state. There were records 

with the active duty division that had commanded the Task Force the National 

Guard unit had operated under. There were records in the National Personnel 

Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, and there were records in the hospital at the 

military base the service member was sent to while on medical hold. 

It was not until the complicated process of DRO review that these records were 

all consolidated and considered that the veteran was finally granted service connection – for a spinal injury that had provoked their discharge from the Army. Obviously this is a somewhat extreme example, but it illustrates the major challenge 

Guard and Reserve component veterans face in seeking disability service connection 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

34 

from VA. Their records exist piecemeal and spread over a multitude of locations. 

When confronted with seeking out service records with a single request to NPRC 

or with a legwork intensive process of tracking down multiple units, commands, and 

records sources, what is an overworked employee with limited time to devote to a 

single claim in the face of a massive backlog more likely to lean towards? 

American Legion representatives who have conducted site visits at ROs through 

the Regional Office Action Review (ROAR) process have seen flow charts prepared 

for VA employees to assist determining where to find Guard and Records. This is 

a positive step forward, and VA needs to build upon this step. 

The American Legion believes better training on records location with those of 

their employees who develop claims could help with the problem of scattered 

records, but ultimately, there needs to be a better consolidation process for this information. Furthermore, this consolidation should be considered as part of the 

VLER project as VA and DOD work together to create a unified record for service 

members. This is too important to be tacked on as a later consideration; it must 

be a ground level, fundamental building block of the new VLER. 

The heavy utilization of Guard and Reserve members is not going away. In fact, 

with deep cuts looming for active duty personnel levels in the coming decade it is 

clear the Guard and Reserve will be a critical component of the nation’s defense 

structure for the foreseeable future. They must stop being an afterthought in the 

logistical side when it comes to safeguarding their vital records and communicating 

that information to the necessary other agencies of government. 

Implementing the Rules and Regulations on the Books 

The idea that the military sometimes struggles with record keeping is not a new 

one. There are already multiple rules and regulations on the books to deal with situations where records are either incomplete or not present. Whether it has been challenges in the past such as the St. Louis fire of 1973, the confusion inherent in combat zones, or even records that could help validate a veteran’s claim that have been 

destroyed by regulation, there are rules on the books or in the works that address 

the known fact that sometimes the key information is not present in the record. 

Despite instructions to give special attention to alternate means of establishing 

information such as ‘‘buddy statements,’’ photographs and newspaper clippings, veterans are still often stonewalled by the a finding that the events are ‘‘not reflected 

in the service record.’’ 38 USC § 1154 recognizes the lack of consistent record keeping in combat and states ‘‘ . . . the Secretary shall accept as sufficient proof of service-connection of any disease or injury alleged to have been incurred in or aggravated by such service satisfactory lay or other evidence of service incurrence or aggravation of such injury or disease, if consistent with the circumstances, conditions, 

or hardships of such service, notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record 

of such incurrence or aggravation in such service, and, to that end, shall resolve 

every reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran.’’ 

Recently, with regard to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), VA has relaxed 

internal regulations to concede the occurrence of stressor incidents when a diagnosis 

of PTSD exists and the stressors described are similarly consistent with the circumstances and conditions of combat. This was done not solely for those who could 

prove combat through awards such as a Purple Heart or Combat Infantryman 

Badge (CIB). This was extended theater wide for war zones, as recognition of the 

modern battlefield’s asymmetrical nature, where clear lines of battle no longer existed. 

During the period of consideration of the new regulations surrounding PTSD, arguments were made to further extend the concession of stressors to cases of Military 

Sexual Trauma (MST) when there was an existing diagnosis because MST survivors 

had similar challenges in establishing the occurrence of stressors. Perhaps cruelly, 

records of sexual trauma in the military are often expunged by regulation after a 

period of three years, making it impossible down the road for a veteran to obtain 

any record of the event. The American Legion continues to urge Congress to press 

for the relaxation of stressor requirements for MST survivors to match those afforded to combat veterans and to rectify this inequity. 

However, even though VA’s own rules afford great benefit of the doubt to veterans 

with lost records, at the RO level the application of these regulations is inconsistent 

at best. In fact, some RO employees have stated the regulations are ‘‘confusing’’ and 

‘‘something for the Board [of Veterans Appeals] to handle, not us . . . ’’ 

This can be corrected with better training at the RO level and clear direction from 

VA Central Office (VACO) that these rules are important. The American Legion has 

long contended that training on all levels at the RO must be made more robust and 

better tailored to correct known deficiencies. The handling of claims with missing 

data is certainly an area where VA’s training could use improvement. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

35 

1 Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360, 1370 Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Jaquay v. Principi, 304 F.3d 

1276, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc); Hensley v. West, 212 F.3d 1255, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, The American Legion is deeply concerned about the lack of a clear 

plan forward regarding the scanning process, one of the most critical components 

of the shift to a paperless, electronic environment. The Legion urges VA to work 

with the stakeholders in the Veterans Service Organizations and Congress to develop a plan and make it transparent so all concerned can help ensure this portion 

of the process does not needlessly cripple later actions in the VBMS environment. 

As progress moves forward on VLER, The American Legion urges VA and DOD 

to ensure the Guard and Reserve records are an integral part of this consolidation 

from the beginning, and in the meantime urges VA to work diligently to ensure 

their employees at all levels understand the challenges inherent in tracking down 

records for the Guard and Reserve component. 

Finally, The American Legion recognizes VA’s own regulations to deal with lost 

records as indicative of the intent of this government to truly work to help veterans; 

even when through no fault of their own records are lost, as they can often be in 

a large bureaucracy like the military. However, the implementation of these regulations still leaves much to be desired in terms of consistency, yet with attention to 

training and enforcing consistency, VA could go a long way towards helping the unfortunate veterans whose records have been lost or destroyed. 

Executive Summary 

The American Legion is concerned with three key parts of VA’s handling of electronic data in the new paperless environment. 

1. No clear plan for scanning. 

a. VA has no clear, public plan for dealing with the scanning component of the 

VBMS, which is the gateway to much of their later data concerns 

b. The BDD sites currently have no scanning contract, and new claims are 

building up behind this like a tidal wave behind a logjam. This needs to be corrected. 

2. Lack of coordination of data and communication with DOD, especially regarding Guard and Reserve component service members. 

a. Guard and Reserve records often wind up in multiple locations and can be 

confusing to track down. 

b. Guard and Reserve records must be a top priority for coordination with 

VLER and any data communication with VA and DOD 

c. VA employees need better training on tracking down records for these service 

members 

3. Uneven application of existing regulations regarding absent or incomplete military records. 

a. VA has several regulations on the books to deal with incomplete or absent 

records, but they are inconsistently implemented 

b. VA’s regulations on PTSD stressors for combat should also be extended to 

MST victims 

c. VA needs to enhance their training and consistency in implementation on 

these regulations. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Michael R. Viterna 

Statement of the Problems 

As a threshold matter, we would like to place the issue of veterans’ benefits in 

the perspective it deserves. Benefits for veterans are unlike any other Federal benefit program and reflect Congressional intent to award ‘‘entitlements to a special 

class of citizens, those who risked harm to serve and defend their country. This entire scheme is imbued with special beneficence from a grateful sovereign.’’ 1 Veterans have earned certain benefits from their military service and a paper driven 

system of records and a lack of service department records are impediments, if not 

preclusive, to the receipt of those benefits. 

I. Transitioning to a Paperless Technology for Veteran Records 

NOVA applauds VA’s efforts to transition from a paper driven system of records 

to a paperless environment. While we recognize the magnitude of such an effort, we 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

36 

2 A claim for an increased disability rating may be an exception as new medical evidence regarding the current level of disability may be obtained and considered without benefit of the 

complete paper file. 3See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 

(1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed.Cir.1996) (table); see also Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 

379, 384 (1995). 

nevertheless want to be on the record encouraging VA to effectuate this transition 

in an expeditious manner. We are concerned, however, that any system implemented allows real time and complete access to a veteran’s VA records, and will include the ability to file documents electronically in the same manner as that given 

claimant advocates by the Social Security Administration. Such access is not only 

necessary for advocates to effectively represent claimants before VA, but ultimately 

will greatly improve the time requirements and efficiency of processing claims. 

First, fewer VA personnel will be required to not only handle the incoming and 

outgoing correspondence, but the inquiries by veterans and/or their representatives 

will also be significantly reduced. 

Second, most veterans have multiple claims being processed at the same time. 

Often, these claims are at different stages of development, adjudication or appeal 

and each is dependent upon a single paper VA case file. For instance, a veteran may 

have a claim on appeal before the Board in Washington, D.C., have another being 

processed in the appeal section at the local VA Regional Office, and yet another 

claim in the initial stages of development. If the paper file is physically with the 

Board in Washington, the Regional Office typically cannot process other claims until 

the record is returned to that office. 2

In addition, an electronic record system can include sufficient redundancies to virtually preclude lost or misplaced files as is currently a problem. 

NOVA is willing to work with this Committee and with VA in the implementation 

of a paperless record system that will ensure real time and complete access to the 

advocates who represent claimants before VA. 

II. Lack of Military Service Records 

NOVA has been asked to address the impact of lost military service records upon 

the filing of a veteran’s disability claim with VA. 

A claim for VA disability compensation is dependent upon complete and accurate 

service department records because, to be successful, a claimed disability must arise 

from an in-service event. Under the law, establishing service connection generally 

requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or 

injury and the present disability. 3 It is the second prong for establishing entitlement that we will be discussing, the in-service incurrence or aggravation. 

The value of accurate and complete service records cannot be overstated in terms 

of its role in the fair adjudication of a veteran’s claim for disability benefits. ‘‘[I]n 

the context of veterans’ benefits where the system of awarding compensation is so 

uniquely pro-claimant, the importance of systemic fairness and the appearance of 

fairness carries great weight.’’ Hodge, 155 F.3d at 1363. In the absence of these 

records, the burden unfairly shifts to the veteran to obtain alternative evidence, universally recognized to be of lesser probative value, or the result is a denial of benefits rightly earned. 

The government’s loss of service records poses difficult, if not insurmountable, obstacles for a claimant in proving the in-service incurrence element of his or her disability claim. These records include evidence of medical treatment, involvement in 

a mishap, travel, potential environmental exposure, and performance reports, 

among others. 

Service medical records (SMRs) may document the occurrence of a disease or injury as well as treatment for any resulting medical condition. These SMRs will become incontrovertible evidence in establishing the in-service incurrence element of 

a veteran’s claim and can also demonstrate the chronicity of the claimed condition. 

Travel records most commonly are used to demonstrate where a veteran served. 

This evidence is often lacking for temporary duty assignments but can be critical 

in establishing presence in an area of conflict (Vietnam) to specific sites where dangerous environmental exposure was later established (Camp Lejeune). In addition, 

performance and disciplinary records can serve to demonstrate behavioral changes 

that may be indicative of the onset of a psychiatric disability. 

The following statutes deal with the evidence used in VA claims processing: 

38 U.S.C. § 1154. Consideration to be accorded time, place, and circumstances 

of service. (emphasis added). 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

37 

4See Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 398, 406 (1995); and Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 465, 469– 

70 (1994) (lay evidence is competent to establish features or symptoms of injury or illness). See 

38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2) (Secretary is to take into consideration all lay or medical evidence of 

record, including statements of claimant). 5Triplette v. Principi, 4 Vet.App. 45, 49 (1993), citing Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 24, 

25 (1991). Over the succeeding years, the Courts have further refined the import and applicability of lay statements. See e.g., Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006) (addressing lay evidence as potentially 

competent to support presence of disability even where not corroborated by contemporaneous 

medical evidence). 

(a) The Secretary shall include in the regulations pertaining to service-connection of disabilities (1) additional provisions in effect requiring that in each case 

where a veteran is seeking service-connection for any disability due consideration shall be given to the places, types, and circumstances of such veteran’s service as shown by such veteran’s service record, the official 

history of each organization in which such veteran served, such veteran’s medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence . . . 

. 

(b) In the case of any veteran who engaged in combat with the enemy in active 

service with a military, naval, or air organization of the United States during 

a period of war, campaign, or expedition, the Secretary shall accept as sufficient proof of service-connection of any disease or injury alleged to 

have been incurred in or aggravated by such service satisfactory lay or 

other evidence of service incurrence or aggravation of such injury or 

disease, if consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships 

of such service, notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record 

of such incurrence or aggravation in such service, and, to that end, 

shall resolve every reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran. Serviceconnection of such injury or disease may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The reasons for granting or denying service-connection in each case shall be recorded in full. 

38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Claimant responsibility; benefit of the doubt. (emphasis 

added). 

(b) Benefit of the doubt. The Secretary shall consider all information and lay 

and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to 

benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to 

the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the 

doubt to the claimant. 

In terms of quality of proof and in spite of the statutory and regulatory provisions 

in place, none of these alternatives come close to service department records in 

terms of credibility and probative value. SMRs documenting treatment for an injury, 

disease or condition, for example, are indisputable proof of in-service incurrence. On 

the other hand, use of lay evidence for proving an in-service incurrence is problematic in several regards and is often simply not feasible. For example, providing 

buddy statements in support of a claim can be difficult or impossible to obtain given 

the years of separation between the event in service and date of claim. In addition, 

locating a fellow service member years after service separation can be very difficult 

and recollections can fade. 

No matter how obtained, a buddy statement would thereafter be subject to a 

credibility determination by VA. In practice, VA adjudicators are frequently skeptical of lay statements prepared by the Veteran or a buddy well after the alleged 

in-service incurrence despite the applicable VA regulations and the body of case law 

that speaks to a claimant’s ability to provide statements regarding symptoms capable of lay observation. 4

In theory, lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by 

relating the occurrence of lay-observable events or the presence of disability or 

symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1153(a); 38 C.F.R. § 

3.303(a). In practice, however, lay evidence is frequently not sufficient to establish 

an in-service incurrence. Early on, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

concluded that it is clear ‘‘[t]he regulations regarding service connection do not require that a veteran must establish service connection through medical records 

alone.’’ 5

The Veteran’s Claims Assistance Act of 2000 Pub. L. No. 106–475, § 3(a), 114 

Stat. 2096, 2097–98 (2000) (VCAA) was intended to ‘‘reaffirm and clarify the duty 

of the [Secretary] to assist a claimant for benefits under laws administered by the 

Secretary, and for other purposes.’’ H.R. REP. 106–781 at 4 (2000). It is well-established that VA has a duty to ‘‘make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtainVACREP180 with DISTILLER

38 

ing evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant’s claim.’’ 38 U.S.C. § 

5103A(a)(1). This duty is abrogated if ‘‘no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim.’’ See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(2) Whenever VA attempts to obtain records in federal custody, ‘‘efforts to obtain those 

records shall continue until the records are obtained unless it is reasonably certain 

that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would 

be futile.’’ Id. 

Implications for Veterans 

If its efforts in obtaining records are unsuccessful, VA then has a duty to inform 

the claimant of the records that could not be obtained, explain the efforts expended 

to obtain those records, and describe any further action to be taken by VA in respect 

to that claim. It is at this point that the burden is shifted to the veteran to use 

his own resources and employ alternative means to support his claim, as described 

supra. Unfortunately, in the absence of corroborating service records, veterans are 

either denied the benefits sought or the adjudication of the claim(s) is significantly 

delayed, as expressed in the examples that follow. 

1. Roy Johnson 

Mr. Johnson performed military duty from November 1967 to November 1969 and 

was assigned to the 57th Maintenance Company in Thailand. His duties involved 

the repair of small arms, but some artillery as well. On some occasions, he traveled 

via military aircraft from Bangkok to Saigon to pick up weapons for repair. 

Years after service, Mr. Johnson developed one of the disabling conditions known 

to be related to Agent Orange, which was used in Vietnam. In April 2003, VA denied his claim for entitlement to service connection, because there were no service 

records to document this veteran’s travel into Vietnam. The National Archives and 

Records Administration responded to VA that ‘‘[u]nfortunately, the 57th Maintenance is one of those units for which we do not have any records.’’ In addition, the 

National Personnel Records Center responded that the Veteran’s service in Vietnam 

was ‘‘not a matter of record.’’ 

Under VA regulations, the mere presence in Vietnam entitles a veteran to service 

connection if certain disabling conditions manifest themselves at any time after 

service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). Mr. Johnson could not, however, establish his presence in Vietnam through service records. 

In support of his claim, the veteran submitted a buddy statement from an individual who served with him in Thailand and Vietnam. Despite this corroborating 

evidence, VA continued to deny the claim and Mr. Johnson continued to appeal. His 

claim was subsequently presented to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

where a joint motion for remand occurred in March 2006 due to the presence of errors in how VA had previously adjudicated his claim. Upon remand, the veteran obtained pay records for his overseas service that showed he had paid no federal income taxes for several months, purportedly due to his ‘‘flying over Thailand.’’ The 

matter again returned to the Court and VA’s denial was ultimately reversed in an 

August 10, 2010 single judge decision (Johnson v. Shinseki, slip op 09–1192). The 

Court found that there was no negative evidence refuting the Veteran’s assertions 

that he traveled on temporary duty to Vietnam, but that there was evidence in support of his claim. Of special note was the receipt of combat pay for a few months 

of his overseas duty. The Court went on to note that under Executive Order 11216, 

Vietnam, not Thailand or any other country for that matter, was designated as a 

combat zone during the time period relevant to this appeal. Accordingly, the Court 

took the rare step of reversing VA’s denial of benefits finding that ‘‘the only permissible view of the evidence is contrary to the Board’s (Board of Veterans’ Appeals) 

decision.’’ 

While Mr. Johnson ultimately was granted the benefits he sought, his journey 

lasted more than nine years from the time his claim was filed until VA actually implemented the Court’s decision. No official records were located documenting the 

veteran’s service in Vietnam. The veteran took his own steps and obtained a buddy 

statement in support of his claim, but this was not sufficient. Finally, he was able 

to locate pay records that documented his presence in a combat zone, thereby 

verifying his presence in Vietnam, such that benefits were awarded, albeit by judicial order. 

2. Charles Johnson 

Mr. Johnson served from 1953 until 1957. Records of his service were destroyed 

in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). In November 

1992, he sought entitlement to service connection for a number of medical conditions 

that he asserted had their onset during service. Due to a lack of evidence, VA deVACREP180 with DISTILLER

39 

6 325 due to missing service medical and unit records, 3,984 to obtain missing U.S. Army and 

Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) records, and 245 for missing personnel records. 

nied the veteran’s claims but he appealed, which resulted in a remand from the 

Board in April 1995 to permit additional development of evidence. The matter returned to the Board, where it was remanded again in 1998 with orders to the VA 

Regional Office (VARO) to attempt to obtain ‘‘daily sick reports’’ or similar documents. NPRC responded that it had no medical records on file. In December of 1998, 

the Board remanded the matter for the third time, instructing the VARO to contact 

the United States Armed Services Center for Research of Unit Records 

(USASCRUR) and the Office of the Surgeon General. USASCRUR responded that 

it did not maintain morning reports from 1954 and the Surgeon General responded 

negatively as well. 

Over the years, Mr. Johnson has submitted lay statements from friends and family that attest to the onset of his disabilities, but all have been discounted by VA. 

It is now 20 years later and the matter, for the third time, is before the Veterans 

Court. 

3. Albert Drake 

Mr. Drake served for 28 years in the U.S. Navy, retiring in February 1980. While 

in service, the veteran served for seven years as a nuclear reactor operator, participated in atomic/nuclear testing exercises, and served aboard several nuclear submarines. 

In 1988, the veteran developed skin cancer, with multiple additional malignancies 

manifesting in the years that followed. He was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia in 

2005. Skin cancer is recognized by VA to be a radiogenic disease, while his 

thrombocytopenia is not. A radiogenic disease is defined by VA regulations to be a 

disease that ‘‘may be induced by ionizing radiation.’’ See 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b)(2)(i)- 

(xxiv). He subsequently made claims for entitlement to service connection, but was 

denied in April 2003. In support of his claim, Mr. Drake submitted two medical 

opinions from dermatologists linking his skin cancer to the radiation exposure in 

service, one of which also linked his thrombocytopenia to ionizing radiation exposure. One doctor noted that the veteran had a history of multiple skin cancers on 

both sun exposed and non sun exposed areas. The veteran was raised in the Pacific 

Northwest, had no other radiation exposure outside service, and had no family history of skin cancer. In consideration of all the evidence, the veteran’s private doctor 

went on to opine that ‘‘[t]his distribution is typical for radiation exposure.’’ 

In assessing the veteran’s case, VA’s Chief Public Health and Environmental Hazards Officer looked to the Navy’s documentation of his exposure to ionizing radiation 

from 1957 until 1962. Based upon the recorded dosage, the VA doctor opined that 

‘‘it was unlikely’’ that the veteran’s claimed conditions can be attributed to occupational exposure to ionizing radiation in service. 

In this instance, the veteran has alleged that his exposure to ionizing radiation 

was greater than documented by the Navy. He has stated that he served on nuclear 

submarines as late as 1976, while Navy records show his ionizing radiation exposure ended in 1962. As a consequence of this discrepancy, VA concluded that his 

radiation dose estimate was lower than the thresholds established that produce 

service-connected disabilities. Effectively, because official records did not document 

all of this veteran’s occupational radiation exposure, VA has denied his claims. This 

matter has been on appeal for nearly ten years and is currently before the Veterans 

Court. 

These examples do not reflect isolated cases. We have learned from the Vietnam 

Veterans of America, for instance, that in 3,956 issues remanded for veterans they 

represented between 2003 and 2001, military service records were missing in 954 

issues. 6

NOVA willingly offers to assist this Committee and VA in efforts undertaken to 

draft legislation to lessen the evidentiary burden for those veterans whose claims 

are adversely impacted by lost, missing or nonexistent military service records. This 

language could model that of Section 1154(b), as applies to veterans engaged in combat. Also, VA’s fulfillment of its duty to assist by obtaining relevant records under 

38 U.S.C. 5103A should be subject to reasonable timeliness standard. 

What Should Be Done: 

1. VA SHOULD, IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER, CONTINUE THE TRANSITION FROM A

PAPER RECORD ENVIRONMENT TO THAT OF A PAPERLESS SYSTEM THAT ASSURES FULL

ACCESS TO A VETERAN’S VA FILE BY HIS OR HER APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE. WE

WOULD ENCOURAGE VA TO MODEL THE ADVOCATE’S ACCESS AFTER THAT USED BY THE

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

40 

2. Require the Department of Defense to take immediate steps to keep 

adequate field records and reconstruct, to the extent possible, lost or nonexistent field records. 

3. Introduce legislation to lessen the standard of proof for establishing inservice incurrence by modifying 38 U.S.C. § 1154 for veterans whose claims 

are impacted by lost, missing or nonexistent military service records. Additionally, language should be put in place to require VA to expeditiously fulfill its duty to assist as outlined in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1). 

Conclusion 

NOVA offers to work with the Committee and VA to develop language to lessen 

the evidentiary burden for those veterans whose records were lost or destroyed 

through no fault of their own, where that evidence was necessary to establish the 

‘‘in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury’’ required for an award 

of service connection. 

Executive Summary 

The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. (NOVA) is a not-for-profit 

501(c)(6) educational membership organization incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1993. NOVA represents approximately 500 attorneys and agents assisting 

tens of thousands of our nation’s military Veterans, their widows, and their families 

to obtain benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). NOVA members 

represent Veterans before all levels of VA’s disability claims process. In 2000, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims recognized NOVA’s work on behalf of 

Veterans with the Hart T. Mankin Distinguished Service Award. NOVA currently 

operates a full-time office in Washington, D.C. 

NOVA willingly offers to work with Congress and VA in efforts undertaken to: (1) 

ensure an expeditious transition of veteran paper files to a paperless technology 

that assures full access to a veteran’s VA file by his or her appointed representative 

(Social Security Administration model); (2) establish and maintain accurate and 

complete service department records by requiring the Department of Defense to take 

immediate steps to keep adequate field records and reconstruct, to the extent possible, lost or nonexistent field records; and (3) draft language to lessen the evidentiary burden for those veterans whose records were lost or destroyed through no 

fault of their own, where that evidence was necessary to establish the ‘‘in-service 

incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury’’ required for an award of service 

connection by modifying 38 U.S.C. § 1154 and requiring VA to expeditiously fulfill 

its duty to assist by obtaining relevant records as outlined in 38 U.S.C. § 

5103A(a)(1). 

Veterans have earned certain benefits from their military service and a paper 

driven system of records and a lack of service department records impede, if not preclude, the receipt of those benefits. NOVA is willing to work with this Committee 

and with VA in the implementation of a paperless record system that will ensure 

real time and complete access to a veteran’s VA records and will include the ability 

to file documents electronically. Such access is necessary for advocates to effectively 

represent claimants before VA, and ultimately will greatly improve the time requirements and efficiency of processing claims. 

The impact of lost military service records upon the filing of a veteran’s disability 

claim with VA is significant. A claim for VA disability compensation is dependent 

upon complete and accurate service department records because, to be successful, 

a claimed disability must arise from an in-service event. The value of accurate and 

complete service records cannot be overstated in terms of its role in the fair adjudication of a veteran’s claim for disability benefits. In the absence of these records, 

the burden unfairly shifts to the veteran to use his own resources to obtain alternative evidence, universally recognized to be of lesser probative value. In the absence of corroborating service records, veterans are either denied the benefits sought 

or the adjudication of the claim(s) is significantly delayed. 

The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates (NOVA) wants to thank the 

Subcommittee Chairman, the Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee 

for the opportunity to testify about the disability claims process at the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA). NOVA is honored to share our views for this hearing, 

‘‘Wading through Warehouses of Paper: The Challenge of Transitioning Veterans 

Records to Paperless Technology.’’ 

NOVA is a not-for-profit 501(c)(6) educational membership organization incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1993. NOVA represents more than 500 attorneys and agents assisting tens of thousands of our nation’s military Veterans, their 

widows, and their families to obtain benefits from VA. NOVA members represent 

Veterans before all levels of VA’s disability claims process. This includes the VetVACREP180 with DISTILLER

41 

erans Benefits Administration (VBA), the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or 

Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court or CAVC), 

and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). In 2000, the 

CAVC recognized NOVA’s work on behalf of Veterans when the CAVC awarded the 

Hart T. Mankin Distinguished Service Award. 

NOVA operates a full-time office in Washington, D.C. Accompanying me today is 

our Executive Director, David Hobson, who will assist this Subcommittee and staff 

with any follow-up questions regarding VA’s record keeping processes and the processing of disability claims when necessary service records are either lost or destroyed. 

One of NOVA’s regular functions is monitoring and commenting on VA rule making. In this regard, NOVA routinely submits comments on changes to Title 38 Regulations. This is an area of close scrutiny. NOVA also files challenges at the Federal 

Circuit in response to VA rule making when we believe veterans’ interests are adversely affected. NOVA has addressed this Committee previously and appreciates 

the opportunity to do so again. The positions stated in this testimony are approved 

by NOVA’s Board of Directors and represent the shared experience of NOVA’s members in representing our veterans and their families in their pursuit of VA benefits. 

NOVA’s goals today are to work with Congress and VA in taking steps to ensure 

a successful and complete transition of veteran paper files to a paperless technology 

and to ensure accurate and complete service department records are made and 

maintained with open access to all qualified representatives of veterans. Additionally, we will suggest a means to lessen the evidentiary burden for those veterans 

whose disability claims depend upon service department records that are deemed 

lost or destroyed. 

NOVA will present an overview of experiences and lessons learned from representing veterans and will provide several examples of what some veterans have 

had to endure when their service records have been lost or destroyed or perhaps did 

not exist in the first place. We will describe the hardships and delays that resulted. 

We will show how veterans are required to go to extensive efforts to prove their 

claim when, under the law, the Agency is required to give a veteran the benefit of 

the doubt. We also will describe some common scenarios of what a veteran must 

do to obtain evidence to substitute for service records. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Jeffrey C. Hall 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting DAV to testify at today’s hearing examining how veterans’ 

military records are collected, maintained, transferred and preserved by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA), as well as the status and future 

plans of all three agencies transitioning from paper records to digital records. I am 

pleased to offer some perspectives on how problems managing this massive volume 

of paper records have resulted in delays and denials for many veterans, and contributed to the enormous backlog of claims for veterans benefits. 

Since 1920, DAV has offered free representation to veterans, their dependents and 

survivors seeking benefits and services from VA and other government agencies. In 

this capacity, DAV National Service Officers (NSOs) focus on educating injured and 

ill veterans about their benefits and the claims process, assisting them with filing 

claims for benefits and then by advocating on their behalf to ensure they receive 

all the benefits and services they have earned through their service. DAV has the 

nation’s largest service program, with 100 offices located throughout the United 

States and in Puerto Rico and a corps of approximately 240 NSOs and 30 Transition 

Service Officers (TSOs). DAV provides free representation to veterans and their 

families with claims for benefits from the VA, the DOD, and other government agencies, representing more veterans than all other accredited veterans service organizations (VSOs) combined. Last year, DAV NSOs and TSOs assisted nearly a quarter 

million veterans and their families with their claims, obtaining over $4 billion in 

new and retroactive benefits. By helping veterans file more complete and accurate 

applications for benefits, DAV and other VSOs assist VA by reducing their workload 

and ensuring more accurate claims decisions. 

Mr. Chairman, in order for veterans to begin receiving the benefits and services 

to which they are entitled, whether for disability compensation, vocational rehabilitation, employment, health care or other services, VA must first have sufficient evidence of their military service and usually their medical history as well. The integVACREP180 with DISTILLER

42 

rity of the entire benefits claims system is only as strong as the integrity of the evidentiary records supporting these claims. Thus, proper custody of military personnel 

and medical records is essential to the accurate and timely adjudication of veterans 

claims for benefits. 

Most of the records needed to satisfy benefits claims are held in the constructive 

custody of the federal government, primarily by DOD, VA or NARA. Some crucial 

records may be held by State governments for those who have served in National 

Guard units. In addition, veterans often have private medical records that may be 

crucial to proving their claims. Whenever there are problems or delays in locating 

any of these essential records, veterans, their families and their survivors suffer. 

Having worked for almost two decades for DAV, most of that time in the field helping thousands of veterans with their claims, I have seen how lost or misplaced 

records lead to unjust decisions and unacceptable delays. I also know from my own 

military service that medical records can be lost even from the earliest moments 

after injuries occur, particularly when those injuries occur on the battlefield. 

While serving in the United States Army in 1991, I was wounded outside of Kuwait City during the first Gulf War. I was medically evacuated by the United States 

Marine Corps, operated on by the United States Navy and hospitalized and air lifted home by the United States Air Force. After I arrived at Ft. Sam Houston, I 

learned there was no record of my arrival, and when I went to Division Headquarters the following day I was also told there was no record of my having been 

wounded or of my return. I went to the base hospital with no medical records and 

had to provide the details of my medical situation, which were then verified by examination. I did not know at the time that my records were missing, lost or otherwise, or that I would never be able to locate the records in the future. I never knew 

what medical procedures were performed because there is no record. Later I was 

informed the records would probably never be recovered because they were likely 

destroyed instead of being transported home. Whether this loss of medical records 

will one day lead to delay or denial of a VA benefit for me or my family remains 

to be seen, but there are literally thousands of veterans who have already been hurt 

by lost or misplaced records. Here are just a few recent examples from DAV’s service files. 

In May 2011, a United States Marine Corps Reservist and Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF) combat veteran filed his original claim for disability compensation 

with the VA regional office (VARO), claiming nine (9) disabilities, including traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. Nearly six months later, VBA 

acknowledged his claim by sending him a letter in November 2011, which indicated 

his claim would be assigned to a special team and expedited. However, no further 

action was taken on the claim until DAV contacted the VARO on March 29, 2012 

to inquire about the claim’s status. At that point, our NSO also apprised the VARO 

that there was nothing in the claims file or VA system indicating that the veteran’s 

service medical records (SMRs) had been requested. 

On April 3, 2012, our NSO was notified by the VARO that the veteran’s claim 

was originally brokered to VA’s training academy in Baltimore for initial development and then returned to the VARO. However, apparently no development had 

taken place until after our March 2012 contact, which is when the VARO requested 

all of the necessary medical examinations as well as the veteran’s SMRs from VA’s 

Records Management Center in St. Louis. All examinations were completed and associated with the veteran’s file on May 11, 2012; however, as of August 2012, the 

case had not yet been sent to the VARO rating board for action. Upon inquiry, our 

NSO was informed by the VARO that while the examinations were completed, the 

VARO still had not received the veteran’s SMRs from his Marine Corps Reserve 

unit and a follow up letter had been sent to the unit the previous day. The VARO 

did indicate that the claim might have moved faster if the veteran had his own copies of his SMRs. Latest information indicates the veteran recently made contact 

with his Reserve unit and was told his records would be sent to the VARO. As of 

this date, there is still no indication that the SMRs have been received or what, if 

any, further action has been taken since he spoke with his Reserve unit. What is 

clear however, is that this OEF combat veteran filed his original claim for disability 

benefits more than a year and half ago, and even today a decision still has not been 

made because his SMRs have never been obtained and reviewed. 

There are many veterans who have been deployed to places such as Iraq or Afghanistan and the absence of service medical records is absolutely detrimental to 

a veteran’s history and possible entitlements later. This is compounded when the 

case involves veterans, especially combat veterans of World War II, Korea or Vietnam, when technology or battlefield documentation pales in comparison to that of 

today. Unfortunately, the absence of records has often led to erroneous, inaccurate 

rating decisions from VA or extraordinarily lengthy delays in processing time. In the 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

43 

case of a combat veteran, such as the USMC Reservist previously mentioned, the 

law is clear under title 38, United States Code, section 1154(b): 

‘‘In the case of any veteran who engaged in combat with the enemy in active 

service . . . during a period of war, campaign, or expedition, the Secretary shall 

accept as sufficient proof of service-connection of any disease or injury alleged 

to have been incurred in or aggravated by such service satisfactory lay or other 

evidence of service incurrence or aggravation of such injury or disease, if consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service, notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation in such service, and, to that end, shall resolve every reasonable doubt 

in favor of the veteran. 

In some cases, it is the VARO that loses or misplaces veterans records. I was supervising a DAV field office several years ago where a veteran who was permanently and totally disabled and homeless was assisted by one of our NSOs in filing 

his claim for non-service connected pension, which is an income-limited benefit. The 

original claim was filed directly with the VARO in July 2004 with DAV as the POA 

holder; however, nearly nine months later, in April 2005, there was no status of the 

claim in VA’s system, nor any record that the VARO had ever received the claim. 

Since our NSO physically submitted the claim in person, we had a date-stamped 

copy of our cover letter verifying the claim had been received by VA. However, when 

our NSO presented the copy to the VARO, it indicated that our VA date-stamped 

copy was not sufficient evidence that the veteran had filed the claim in July 2004 

because the original document was not in the veteran’s file. Ultimately the claim 

was granted but restitution of the nine-month gap back to the date of the original 

claim had to be resolved through the appellate process. Following a multitude of 

conversations with various VARO officials, including a Decision Review Officer, 

Service Center Manager, and Director and months of inactivity, the veteran’s earlier 

effective date was granted by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals four years from the 

time that the claim had been filed. 

In another case, DAV represented an Air Force veteran who served during the 

Vietnam War in 1967 but did not file his claim for disability benefits until four decades later, in 2008. Initially the jurisdictional VARO requested the veteran’s service 

medical and personnel records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) 

and a medical examination was completed. The VARO compiled the veteran’s service personnel records (SPRs), VA examinations and a multitude of private medical 

evidence. The case was reviewed but his claim was denied. In reviewing the denial 

decision, DAV’s NSO quickly realized that the veteran’s SMRs had not been considered because they were not in his claims file. According to information in the file, 

the VARO had sent a second request to the NPRC for the records but was informed 

by NPRC that the veteran’s SMRs had previously been sent at the time of the original request. The VARO, however, had no record of receiving them or putting them 

in the veteran’s file. Whether these crucial medical records were sent by NPRC together with the veteran’s SPRs or separately is not clear; however, the VARO did 

receive the personnel records from the NPRC, so it seems more likely than not that 

NPRC also sent the SMRs. Nonetheless, the VARO made a formal finding that the 

SMRs were unavailable and notified the veteran that any further efforts to secure 

those records would be futile. Eventually, the case made it to the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals, where a decision was reached in October 2012 to remand the case back 

to the VARO to make further attempt to locate the veteran’s SMRs, get a more recent VA examination, and ultimately reach a new decision. But without SMRs the 

VARO is likely to once again deny this claim. All of these examples involve systemic 

problems still occurring today, which could be significantly reduced, perhaps even 

eliminated, once there are paperless claims processing and record management systems in place at VA, DOD and NARA. 

Mr. Chairman, vital military records can be lost in many ways. In my case, treatment records were lost before they even reached an Army records center. Medical 

and personnel records can be lost or misplaced inside military record centers, including at National Guard records centers in each of the fifty states, or at the NPRC 

in St. Louis, or during transit from the NPRC to a VARO, or at the VARO itself. 

Today there are tens of millions of military personnel files at the NPRC; a number 

that would be significantly higher were it not for the catastrophic fire in 1973 that 

destroyed about one-third of the 52 million military personnel files housed there at 

that time. There are also currently more than four million veterans’ claims files containing DOD personnel and military records stored at VA’s 57 regional offices and 

the NPRC. The maintenance and security of these paper files remains a significant 

challenge. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

44 

For example, this past August, the VA Office of Inspector General reported on 

claims folder storage at the Winston-Salem VARO and concluded that the volume 

and manner in which the folders were stored ‘‘impeded VARO productivity,’’ ‘‘increased [the] risk of loss or misfiling,’’ and ‘‘exposed [them] to potential water and 

fire damage.’’ In fact, an engineering load-bearing study determined that the massive mountain of files piled ceiling high in the VARO ‘‘exceeded the capacity of the 

floor by approximately 39 pounds per square foot,’’ risking a structural failure. 

There are important goals that VA, DOD and NARA must simultaneously pursue 

in order to eliminate or minimize problems associated with lost or misplaced military records: improve management of paper records and archives, convert paper 

records into digital records, and develop new digital records storage and processing 

systems. This Subcommittee has spent considerable time over the past four years 

overseeing VA’s efforts to transform its claims processing system into a modern, intelligent, paperless IT system, and there are some signs that progress is beginning 

to be made. 

The problems plaguing the VBA claims process have been well documented: the 

number of claims filed each year is growing; the complexity of claims filed is increasing; the backlog of claims pending is staggering; and the quality of the claims 

decisions remains far too low. Over the past dozen years, the number of veterans 

filing claims for disability compensation has more than doubled, rising from nearly 

600,000 in 2000 to 1.4 million in 2012; and in 2013 VBA expects to receive another 

1.4 million claims. VBA’s workload has more than doubled, but its workforce has 

grown by just over 50 percent, rising from 13,500 full-time employee equivalents 

(FTEEs) in 2007 to 20,750 FTEE today. Even with the hiring of thousands of new 

employees, the number of pending claims for benefits, often referred to as the backlog, continues to grow. 

As of November 26, 2012, there were 899,540 claims for disability compensation 

and pensions awaiting decisions by VBA. Compared to the past two years, that is 

an increase of about 20% or 150,000 pending claims. Over the past year, VBA’s expanded capabilities and efforts have slowed the backlog growth, and the level of the 

backlog rose only three percent over the past year. However, the number of claims 

pending longer than 125 days, VBA’s official target for completing claims, has more 

than doubled over the past two years, rising from 255,678 on November 29, 2010, 

to over 600,000 today. At present, more than two-thirds of all claims pending have 

been at VBA for more than the target of 125 days and the average time it takes 

VBA to process claims is now more than 250 days. But more important than the 

number of claims processed is the number of claims processed correctly. The VBA 

quality assurance program, known as the Systematic Technical Accuracy Review 

(STAR), which is publicly available on VA’s ‘‘ASPIRE’’ Dashboard, shows that over 

the most recent 12-month period ending in August 2012, VBA’s rating accuracy has 

been 86.1 percent, a slight improvement over the prior year, although during the 

most recent three-month period that error rate rose slightly. 

While attention remains focused on the size of the VBA claims backlog, it is important to recognize that eliminating the backlog does not necessarily reform the 

claims processing system, nor does it guarantee that veterans will be better served. 

The backlog is a symptom, not the root cause of VBA’s claims processing problems. 

In order to achieve real and lasting success, the VBA must remain focused on creating a claims processing system that is carefully designed to decide each claim 

right the first time. 

Recognizing that its infrastructure was outdated and ineffective, and that a rising 

workload could no longer be managed, VBA leadership in 2010 determined that it 

would be necessary to completely and comprehensively rebuild and modernize its 

claims infrastructure and processes. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs established 

an ambitious goal of zero claims pending more than 125 days, and all claims completed to a 98 percent degree of accuracy standard, and VBA outlined a three-year 

strategy to achieve that goal. Notwithstanding the fact that the VBA has attempted 

to modernize its claims processing system without success numerous times over the 

past half century, there are hopeful signs of progress. 

VBA’s latest transformation efforts began with a comprehensive review of the existing claims process, which included extensive outreach to VSOs. VBA launched 

dozens of experimental pilot programs and initiatives to test changes that might 

streamline operations or increase the quality and accuracy of decisions. In the second year, VBA analyzed and synthesized the results of this study and experimentation and finalized a strategy to re-engineer the entire claims process, focusing on 

three critical areas: people, process, and technology. Over the past year, VBA further developed, refined, and has now begun to deploy a new organizational model 

and a new IT system, known as the Veterans Benefits Management System 

(VBMS). By the end of 2012, VBA expects to have rolled out the new organizational 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

45 

model for processing claims to all but a few VA regional offices (VAROs).The 

VBMSwill be operational in 18 VAROs by the end of this year, with full national 

deployment scheduled to be completed by the end of 2013. 

Central to the VBA transformation strategy is the development of new technology, 

including the VBMS, the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal (SEP), an expanded e-Benefits system with VONAPPS Direct Connect (VDC), and the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) initiative. Amongst these, the most important is VBMS, which 

is the paperless, rules-based claims-processing work tool that VBA will use to create 

electronic claims files, manage workflow, and increase production, timeliness and 

quality for more than a million claims filed annually, 4 million claims files already 

located in VAROs, and tens of millions more in archives. Whether or not the VBMS 

will ‘‘revolutionize’’ VBA claims processing may not be known for years to come; 

however, the transition from paper-based processing to an intelligent, digital processing system is inevitable and VBA must complete it successfully. 

From the beginning of the VBMS development, VBA has reached out to DAV and 

other VSOs to incorporate our perspectives, experience and expertise, including accommodating the important role that VSOs play in the claims process. Although 

there have been some obstacles to overcome, such as providing full access to rating 

decisions to VSOs who hold power-of-attorney (POA) for claimants, VBA continues 

to work in partnership with VSOs to ensure that claimants can be fully represented 

in the new digital environment. 

The current iteration of VBMS, version 4.0, is a paperless claims process, from 

the creation of an electronic claims file, through the development and rating process. 

VBMS 4.0 also allows direct electronic submission of claims from e-Benefits’ 

VONAPPS Direct Connect, thereby saving time and money required to scan paper 

documents. VBMS does not yet include the awards process, which continues to be 

done through its stand-alone application, but it is expected to be integrated into 

VBMS as part of a future update. 

Although VBA, DAV and other VSOs are all encouraging veterans to file claims 

electronically whenever practical, there are and will continue to be paper claims 

filed for years to come. VBA, however, has implemented a new organizational model 

for processing claims that calls for all paper claims applications to be converted into 

digital data and then processed within the VBMS environment. When a new or reopened paper claim is received at a VARO, the veteran’s claim will be established 

electronically in VBMS and then the paper file, along with any other existing paper 

files that may already exist or be associated with that veteran, will be sent to a 

scanning center where it will be converted into digital data and made a part of the 

new electronic claims file. This new ‘‘e-Folder’’ is then put into the VBMS work 

queue and processed in the same manner as claims filed electronically. 

The decision by VBA to convert new paper-based claims as well as re-opened 

claims to digital data is an important milestone on the road to a paperless system. 

DAV is supportive of VBA’s stated intention to process all future claims through 

this fully digital system, and we are actively collaborating with VBA to encourage 

as many claimants as possible to file their claims electronically, either through eBenefits, or with the assistance of our services officers who will be able to file claims 

electronically through the SEP. However, there will still be claims filed on paper 

for the foreseeable future, and there still remain millions of veterans’ claim files 

that may one day be reopened should they submit new claims or seek increases for 

current service-connected disabilities. It is imperative, therefore, that VBA maintain 

its commitment to converting legacy paper claims files whenever a new rating-related action must be made. This may require significant up-front investment by 

VBA in terms of resources, but in the long run it will pay dividends for VBA, and 

more importantly, veterans themselves. With VBMS being rolled out to the remaining VAROs throughout 2013, there will be an increasing volume of scanning required to convert legacy paper claims files, and thus an increased need for funding 

to support this vital conversion process. Although VBA has indicated that the anticipated FY 2013 budget contains sufficient funding for the digital conversion of claims 

files this year, it will be imperative that the FY 2014 budget contain sufficient funding to support the increased volume of scanning that will occur when all 57 VAROs 

are processing all of their claims through VBMS. 

Additionally, over the next couple of years, Congress and VBA must also ensure 

that VBMS development and deployment receive all of the resources needed to be 

successful. New software improvements and updates are planned to be released 

about every two months in order to expand functionality and capacity, improve 

usability, and correct problems or bugs in the system. Congress must ensure that 

VBA’s IT and GOE budgets contain sufficient funding for VBMS development, and 

funding intended to be used for VBMS must not be diverted to any other program 

or purpose. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

46 

Further, in order to complete the conversion to a paperless system, VBA must be 

provided with sufficient resources to incorporate other elements of the disability 

compensation claims process into VBMS, beginning with the Appeals Management 

Center, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims. Subsequently, VBMS should incorporate its other business lines (Pension 

and Fiduciary, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment, Education, Insurance 

and Loan Guaranty) in order to create a single unified, paperless benefits processing 

system. 

In order to strengthen the management and preservation of veterans’ military 

records, there are also some additional steps that should be taken. The federal electronic medical record initiative, including VLER, must be completed as soon as possible, to allow DOD and other public and private health care providers to transmit 

veterans’ medical information seamlessly to VA. DOD and VA must also continue 

working with states to ensure the integrity of National Guard military records, as 

well as to improve the transmission of those records to VA in optimized digital formats adaptable to VBMS. 

DOD and VA must also work together to create a lifelong electronic record system 

for all service members beginning at the moment of enlistment, and including all 

of their military medical and personnel records, including health records from VA 

and other public and private providers. The development of the Defense Personnel 

Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) now allows VA to get digital images 

of personnel records, and also allows veterans themselves to access them through 

VA’s e-Benefits system. DPRIS, however, only maintains records for veterans who 

were discharged in 1996 or later, depending on their branch of service. DOD must 

continue to examine whether and how they might convert older personnel files to 

the DPRIS or its successor systems, just as VBA continues to make similar decisions 

about the conversion of legacy paper claims files. In this regard, DOD, VA, NARA 

and other holders of vital military records must develop comprehensive plans about 

when and how to convert legacy paper files into digital records. Among other considerations, such plans must weigh the costs involved, the danger of files being lost 

or damaged during conversion, and the cost-benefit of converting legacy files, many 

of which may never be accessed again. 

Finally, as long as there remain paper files that must be stored, transferred and 

preserved, VA, DOD and NARA must have adequate controls in place, including regular independent audits, to assure the preservation and integrity of vital military 

personnel and medical records. In addition, as each of these agencies converts paper 

records to digital files, there must be sufficient oversight and control to ensure that 

original paper records are not lost or damaged during the conversion process. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to address 

your questions, or those of other Subcommittee members. 

f 

Prepared Statement of James G. Neighbors 

Introduction 

Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Department of Defense (DoD) efforts to ensure military health, personnel, and other 

records are properly and efficiently maintained and shared with the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) in a timely and effective manner. In this testimony, I will 

cover how DoD captures and transfers to the VA, Medical and Personnel records for 

Active and Reserve Component Service members while in deployed or in garrison 

status. DoD leadership is keenly aware of the importance of military records as they 

pertain to the VA disability claims process. Improving the system for which our 

Service members and Veterans receive their well-deserved and earned benefits is a 

top priority of both departments. 

Overview of Policy and Procedures Governing the Life Cycle of Medical 

Records 

Medical and dental records of all Service members, Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard, are created when a person enters military service at the Military 

Services’ Reception/Training Centers using the Applicant’s Record Packets. An Applicant Record Packet contains an entrance physical examination, vaccination 

records, adult preventive and chronic care flow-sheet, and associated chronological 

medical and dental care documentation. The information is then transferred to the 

Medical Treatment Facilities (MTF) and Dental Treatment Facilities (DTF) at the 

Service member’s first Permanent Duty Station. If the Service member is affiliated 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

47 

with a Reserve or National Guard unit, the records are transferred to the applicable 

Reserve or Guard units. 

Maintenance of DoD Service Member Medical and Dental Records 

Medical and dental records are maintained at the MTF and DTF at the Active 

Duty Service member’s base location, and consistently transferred with the Service 

member as he or she moves to a new military installation throughout his or her 

career. All Reserve and National Guard members’ applicable medical and dental 

records are maintained at their assigned unit location and will remain there until 

the member transfers to a different unit. 

When Service members are deployed in combat supporting contingency operations 

overseas, medical and dental records are additionally maintained at the forward operating base aid station or clinic. When the Service member’s deployment has completed, all records transfer back to the home station MTF and DTF, or to the servicing Reserve/Guard units for members of the Reserve and National Guard. 

As Service members out-process for transition or retirement, the MTF and DTF 

where the Service member is stationed conducts a review that includes known combat records and outpatient records, for completeness. 

Capturing Care Delivered in Garrison and Theater 

Implemented worldwide in 2006, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) is the current DoD electronic Health Record system. 

This electronic health record captures and stores structured data in the AHLTA 

Central Data Repository (CDR), giving health care providers worldwide, secure, 

around-the-clock access to electronic health information to support DoD’s highly mobile Service members and beneficiaries. Records in the AHLTA CDR are retrievable 

at nearly 900 fixed and deployed medical and dental treatment facilities. The Theater Medical Information Program-Joint (TMIP–J) is an integrated suite of software 

solutions that includes AHLTA–Theater (AHLTA–T) and supports military readiness and health care quality with a modular, scalable version of AHLTA to operate 

in low to no communications environments such as in theater and aboard ship. 

AHLTA–T captures outpatient encounter records in theater and transfers them to 

the CDR. The information in the AHLTA CDR is available to VA immediately 

through a data feed known as the Bi-directional Health Information Exchange 

(BHIE). 

Active Component Personnel Records 

Active Component Service members’ official personnel records are managed separately from medical and dental records. Personnel data VA requires to adjudicate 

benefits claims, with some exceptions, is contained on the paper DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which the Service member receives upon separation from the Service. The Military Departments routinely provide this same personnel data to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC). DoD 

also provides this information electronically to a VA repository known as the VA 

DoD Identity Repository, commonly referred to as VADIR. 

Prior to the mid-1990s, a Service member’s Official Military Personnel File 

(OMPF) was mailed to the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, 

Missouri when he or she left military service. These OMPF records are still maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and are currently available for VA through the NPRC. VA routinely accesses these records, and 

DoD maintains financial responsibility for servicing and storing them. 

Since the mid-1990s, the Services have scanned paper records of the OMPF and 

store them as images in Service-specific digital record management systems. Since 

2002, DoD has provided VA with access to Service-specific personnel records using 

the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS). Starting in 

2007, DPRIS has been available to VA claims adjudicators in a secure, web-based 

application. 

Reserve Components Personnel Records 

DoD maintains, for the most part, separate personnel data systems for our Reserve Components, but with the same goals – to leverage electronic data capabilities 

and afford access to VA. The Reserve Components Common Personnel Data System 

(RCCPDS) forms the basis for official strength accounting, an authoritative source 

of identity information for identification card issuance, and personnel information 

for the identification of eligibility for federal benefits and entitlements. Each Reserve Component (RC) reports personnel data for a specific purpose in a licensed 

DoD reporting requirement. DMDC specifies procedures to collect, manage, and 

maintain this personnel data and in addition maintains a bi-directional interface 

with the VA for the management of this data. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

48 

The personnel systems of the Military Services remain the systems of record, and 

the Services have responsibility to maintain the complete military record for each 

Service member. RCCPDS is an information source, through electronic reporting, to 

satisfy VA’s information needs. The RC Active Service Transaction File, for example, 

provides a key source for the electronic information contained on the DD Form 214 

for RC Service members, such as periods of active duty, and the characterization 

of service. 

Other Personnel Administrative data 

DoD captures other personnel administrative data which VA requires to adjudicate benefits for Active, Reserve and Guard Service members in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). DEERS is a series of databases that 

provide timely and accurate information on benefits and entitlements prescribed in 

DoD policy and published instructions. DEERS serves as the definitive centralized 

source of identity, enrollment into TRICARE, and eligibility verification for members of the Uniformed Services, other designated personnel, and their eligible family 

members. In addition, DEERS provides statistical and demographic information to 

support the DoD Components and serves as the National Enrollment Database for 

the Military Health System (MHS) benefits eligibility and TRICARE enrollments for 

medical care services. DMDC has shared DEERS data electronically with VA since 

November 2000. It is currently transmitted to VA’s VADIR system mentioned earlier. 

Deployed unit location accountability 

With respect to the Department’s ability to identify and account for locations and 

records of units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, we have applied lessons learned 

from previous conflicts and have greatly enhanced our capability in this area to include the following: 

The Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) provides unit information/ 

deck logs to VA for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) via DPRIS. JSRRC has 

responded to Veterans’ claims and initiatives since 1980 and conducts PTSD claims 

research. The DoD Persian Gulf Registry, for which the Army is the Executive 

Agent, is a database that contains the names of 758,000 personnel and more than 

900,000 daily locations of units to which these personnel were assigned while in the 

Persian Gulf. 

Unit Location and Environmental Hazards 

DoD recognizes the importance of linking environmental hazard data and unit locations and works closely with the VA to provide exposure data to adjudicate disability claims as required. Since the 1991 Gulf War DoD has implemented programs 

and policies to better address the health protection of deployed Services members 

for both acute and latent/chronic health conditions that may result from environmental health hazard exposures. Occupational and environmental health assessments are conducted at deployed camps soon after they are established to document 

baseline monitoring of the air, water, and soil for hazardous agents. In addition, annual occupational and environmental monitoring summaries are completed at major 

deployment locations to identify any changes in occupational and environmental 

health exposure risks and associated health implications. Exposures of concern are 

promptly investigated and if there is a likelihood of latent/chronic health effects, 

special medical surveillance programs are established, such as in response to the 

chromium exposures at the Qarmat Ali Industrial Water Treatment Plant in Iraq. 

When appropriate, exposure registries are created for a specific event, as we did in 

response to the Operation Tomodachi Fukushima Nuclear Power Station accident in 

Spring 2011. 

DoD continues to improve systems and processes that document exposures during 

deployments and we are working on an Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record 

(ILER) concept, a joint DoD/VA initiative to create a complete record of Service 

members’ exposures over the course of their careers. ILER will create exposure registries based on location, date, time, and exposure agent, which will support contemporary benefits claims as well as retrospective studies. This concept will assist Service members and veterans in showing that their disabilities were caused by their 

service. Exposure alone does not always lead to illness or injury; VA relies on scientific evidence to determine when there is a link between exposure to environmental hazards and specific illnesses or injuries that would make Service members 

or veterans eligible for VA disability benefits. 

Transfer of Records to VA 

It is DoD policy to transfer medical and dental records to VA when a Service 

member leaves Active Duty due to retirement or discharge. We currently transfer 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

49 

personnel and medical records data to VA for over 300,000 Service members annually both in paper and the majority via electronic interface. 

MTFs and DTFs provide the Service member’s complete dental records to the appropriate Military Service Personnel Out-Processing Centers within 30 business 

days of member’s retirement or discharge. TRICARE (i.e. military) and civilian doctors’ consultation results documentation are included in the Service member’s medical record jacket. The Military Service Personnel Out-Processing Centers (or a designated equivalent entity by the Service) then transfers the medical and dental 

records and a paper copy of the DD Form 214 to VA. 

DoD provides the data contained on the DD Form 214 electronically to VA within 

7 days of the Service member’s retirement or discharge to use in the benefits adjudication process. The DD Form 214 is an official source of information needed to 

demonstrate eligibility for Veterans benefits administered by VA, state and local 

governments. The ‘‘remarks’’ section contains a number of additional entries, such 

as confirmation that a first term of enlistment had been completed, whether the 

Veteran is subject to recall or annual screening, and dates of contingency operation 

participation. DoD policy requires two paper copies of the DD Form 214 to be physically delivered to the separating Service member upon transition from the Service. 

If the Service member is not available at separation, these copies are mailed to him 

or her. The separating member may also elect to have a copy mailed to the state 

office of Veterans Affairs where he or she will reside. 

Sharing Health Data to Ensure Continuity of Care 

Current exchanges of health care information support continuity of care for 

wounded and injured Service members by enabling: 

• Transmission of electronic historical information at the time of separation; 

• Access to electronic health information for both VA and MHS patients by both 

DoD and VA; 

• Sharing of computable outpatient pharmacy and medication allergy data on 

shared patients; and the 

• Availability of radiology images and scanned medical records at VA Polytrauma 

Rehabilitation Centers to support continuity of care for our most severely 

wounded and injured Service members. 

The DoD/VA Bidirectional Health Information Exchange (BHIE) initiative is an 

inpatient and outpatient health data sharing capability. DoD affords VA clinicians 

and benefits claims specialists with access to health data on more than 4.6 million 

patients. DoD and VA clinicians currently access each other’s health data in real 

time, for information pertaining to: allergy, outpatient pharmacy, inpatient and outpatient laboratory and radiology reports, demographic data, diagnoses, procedures, 

vital signs, problem lists, family history, social history, other history, questionnaires, outpatient encounters, periodic health assessments, and theater clinical 

data, including inpatient notes, outpatient encounters, and ancillary clinical data 

(such as pharmacy data, allergies, laboratory results, and radiology reports). BHIE 

also provides bi-directional access to inpatient notes (including discharge summaries, inpatient consultations, operative reports, history and physical reports, 

transfer summary notes, initial evaluation notes, procedure notes, evaluation and 

management notes, pre-operative evaluation notes, and post-operative evaluation 

and management notes) from DoD’s inpatient documentation system. 

Moving Toward a Joint Integrated Electronic Health Record 

DoD and VA recognize access to the other Departments’ health records is a necessary capability to provide a ‘‘single system experience of lifetime services’’. As we 

move forward in this effort, we are also continuing to improve the current systems 

and processes serving our transitioning Service members and Veterans. We are 

working collaboratively with VA to develop and implement an interim electronic 

data sharing solution that will feature shared access to electronic medical records. 

In January 2011, the VA–DoD Benefits Executive Committee approved a recommendation from the Medical Records Working Group to leverage ongoing work 

in the Military Health System in conjunction with the Veterans Health Administration to develop and deploy a scanning solution known as the Health Artifacts and 

Image Management Solution (HAIMS), a secure web-based technology solution. DoD 

has incorporated Veterans Benefits Administration’s (VBA) known Information 

Technology requirements into the current version of HAIMS, which is in testing and 

on track for accelerated deployment by September 2013. All loose paper medical documentation will be scanned into HAIMS allowing VBA claims adjudicators direct access to scanned medical data in the HAIMS repository or access to the information 

via an interface between VBA’s internal systems. Although DoD Service Treatment 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

50 

Records remain a hybrid of paper and electronic records, approximately 60 percent 

of the DoD health information is available electronically and only 40 percent paper 

bound, HAIMs will greatly increase the percentage of electronically available health 

information. Currently VBA personnel can access DoD health data electronically 

through an electronic data exchange. 

DoD and VA are currently planning the development and acquisition of a joint 

integrated Electronic Health Record (iEHR) to replace legacy DoD and VA EHRs. 

The iEHR will unify the two Departments’ EHR systems into a common system that 

will ensure DoD and VA health facilities have Service members’ and Veterans’ 

health information available throughout their lifetime. By implementing a single, 

common health record for DoD and VA medical facilities, the iEHR will ensure information about injuries and illnesses incurred during military service remain available for health and benefits purposes throughout a person’s lifetime, supporting patient safety and continuity of care and facilitating access to and delivery of benefits. 

Seamless information sharing is expected to support the expedient processing of disability claims in the future. 

The joint iEHR will be deployed in increments based on prioritized functional 

community needs, technical feasibility, and financial viability. The initial iEHR capabilities, laboratory and immunizations, will be delivered to two sites (San Antonio, 

Texas and Hampton Roads, Virginia) by the end of 2014. The capabilities of the 

iEHR will be increased incrementally through the end of 2017. 

Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) 

Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) is a joint initiative which will ultimately allow Service members’ and Veterans’ electronic administrative and personnel information to be shared seamlessly among DoD, VA, and other appropriate 

federal and private sector healthcare providers. VLER is a broad, multifaceted, business and technology initiative that leverages existing DoD and VA investments by 

synchronizing information sharing across multiple agencies. It includes a portfolio 

of health, benefits, personnel and administrative sharing capabilities. When fully 

implemented, it will establish a relationship with Service members and Veterans 

that begins the day they enter Military service, and maintains that relationship 

throughout their lifetime, proactively providing them with benefits and services. The 

VLER Health Initiative supports the portability and accessibility of Service members’ and Veterans’ electronic health information between VA, DoD, and other federal and non-federal exchange partners for the purpose of health care delivery. To 

date, the VLER Health initiative has focused on the exchange of medical information for health care services among DoD, VA, and private sector providers at joint 

pilot site locations. Through these VLER Health pilots, DoD, VA, and private partners successfully leveraged the Nationwide Health Information Network to exchange an initial set of clinical information needed for health care delivery through 

four initial pilots in the San Diego, California; Tidewater, Virginia; Spokane, Washington; and Puget Sound, Washington regions. 

VLER Health is exploring additional innovative technology, such as the Office of 

the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology Direct Project, a 

Health Information Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic health 

information exchange over the Internet through secure email. Direct Project provides an affordable approach to health information-sharing among DoD, VA, and 

private sector providers, which is intended to increase adoption of EHRs throughout 

the health industry. Specifically, it will provide a mechanism for including private 

provider medical reports into the DoD and VA EHRs or the joint DoD/VA integrated 

EHR (iEHR). 

The VLER Benefits initiative supports the portability and accessibility of Service 

members’ and veterans’ electronic health and administrative information among 

DoD, VA, and other appropriate federal exchange partners for the purpose of benefits determination and delivery. This will ultimately result in standardized delivery 

of health information to VA benefits adjudicators, decreasing processing time and 

more efficiently supporting our Nation’s wounded warriors and other transitioning 

Service members. 

A key feature of VLER Benefits is the development of a DoD Self-Service (DS) 

Logon. To date, DS Logon has provided more than 2 million Service members and 

veterans with a log-on ID which allows them access to the eBenefits portal to view 

their personal data. The eBenefits portal provides Service members and veterans 

with more than 40 self-service features, such as the ability to apply and track application for Loan Guaranty Certificate of Eligibility and Veterans Retraining Assistance Program. 

To further understand the issue surrounding our journey to a paperless future, 

we are conducting monthly DoD/VA Data Sharing Summits to bring Senior ExecuVACREP180 with DISTILLER

51 

tive-level DoD and VA stakeholders together to one forum to discuss the health and 

administrative information sharing processes and obtain resolution to known issues. 

This forum establishes DoD/VA information sharing priorities and tracks progress 

against identified activities. There are also regular meetings with interagency partners and internal DoD agencies, such as Social Security Administration and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, to collaborate on information exchange efforts and resolve identified obstacles. 

Conclusion 

The Department of Defense is committed to a future that eliminates reliance on 

paper-based record keeping and the warehouses that support it. DoD is also committed to developing the capability to provide VA with requisite information to facilitate a single system experience of lifetime services. As we move toward electronic 

exchange of information in real time, it is giving DoD and VA the added benefit of 

improving inter-agency processes based on information requirements, unencumbered 

by legacy forms or manual, paper-based exchange of information. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your generous support of all Service members, 

Veterans and their families. I look forward to your questions. 

Attachment A - Answers to questions within the hearing 

If there is a loss of unit level records, there is a standard process in place. The 

medical care provided to Service Members is documented in the Army Forces Health 

Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA). If the medical record is lost, the documentation within AHLTA can be printed to re-create the Service Member’s medical 

record. 

Attachemnt B & C - Answers to questions within the hearing 

The review process began with the implementation of DODI 6040.45, ‘‘Service 

Treatment Record (STR) and Non-Service Treatment Record (NSTR) Life Cycle 

Management,’’ on October 28, 2010. 

Prior to release of medical documentation, the medical record is reviewed to ensure that all requested information is placed in the chart. If documentation is missing, the chart is compared to Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) or the appropriate health information system to ensure that all requested documentation has been printed. A certification letter is provided to the VA 

that outlines all attempts have been made to ensure that the Service Treatment 

Record is as complete as possible. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Scott Levins 

Good afternoon Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for calling this hearing and for your attention to 

issues surrounding the management of records which document the service of our 

nation’s veterans. I am proud to represent the staff of the National Personnel 

Records Center (NPRC or Center), many of whom are veterans themselves, and 

pleased to appear before you today to discuss the work that the National Personnel 

Records Center does to serve those who have served. We appreciate your interest 

in this important work. 

The NPRC is an office of the National Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). Located in multiple facilities in the St. Louis, Missouri area, the Center 

stores and services over 4 million cubic feet of military and civilian personnel, medical and related records dating back to the Spanish-American War. In 2000, Congress provided NARA with a revolving fund that allows NARA’s Federal Records 

Centers Program, including the NPRC, to function on a cost-reimbursable basis. Accordingly, NPRC no longer receives annual appropriations for its Records Center 

Program, and instead charges each agency the full cost of servicing their records. 

History of NPRC’s Military Records Program 

In the mid 1950s, the Department of Defense (DoD) constructed the Military Personnel Records Center in Overland, Missouri. In the years that followed, military 

personnel, medical, and organizational records of each military service department 

were relocated to this facility. In 1960, the Center’s functions were consolidated and 

transferred to the General Services Administration, to be managed by NARA’s predecessor agency, the National Archives and Records Service (NARS), as a single program, leveraging economies of scale to improve efficiency and offering a central 

point of access for military service records. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

52 

When the Military Personnel Records Center was constructed in the 1950s, it was 

not equipped with a fire suppression system. In 1973, a massive fire at the Center 

destroyed 16–18 million records documenting the military service of Army and Air 

Force veterans who separated between 1912 and1964. Though the fire occurred almost forty years ago, the Center continues to service approximately 150,000 requests per year which pertain to records lost in the fire. When responding to firerelated requests, technicians attempt to reconstruct the basic service record by using 

auxiliary records such as pay vouchers and/or by obtaining documents from other 

official sources. Though the Center is normally able to reconstruct basic service 

data, it is often impossible to reconstruct complete records. 

In the Spring of 2011, NPRC’s military records facility began a relocation into a 

new building designed to meet updated facility standards for storing permanent 

Federal records. The facility is located in North St. Louis County, approximately 15 

miles from the Overland location. The relocation of records into the new facility was 

completed last month. 

Ownership of Records 

In the late 1990s, NARA determined that Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) 

records were of enduring, archival value warranting permanent retention in the National Archives of the United States. As part of the appraisal process in preparing 

a formal records disposition schedule for OMPFs, NARA worked with the DoD and 

the military services to determine the appropriate ‘‘offer date’’: that is the date on 

which a permanent series of records becomes eligible to be offered by an agency for 

legal transfer to NARA. NARA, DoD, and the military service departments agreed 

to fund a study to examine a sample of requests for military personnel records and 

correlate the purpose of each request with the veteran’s year of separation. The survey found that on average, sixty-two years after a service member completes his/ 

her obligated service, the purpose for which his/her records is referenced changes 

from a primary use (such as pursuit of an entitlement) to a secondary use (such as 

scholarly research or genealogy). Based upon that study, in 2004 the OMPF series 

was formally scheduled for permanent retention, with the legal transfer of ownership to NARA to occur 62 years after the completion of a member’s obligated service. 

When records have been transferred to the legal custody of the National Archives, 

they become available with fewer restrictions to public researchers. They also become subject to a public fee schedule. However, NPRC waives fees related to service 

records in instances where the requester indicates that the records are needed to 

pursue any type of benefit derived from the veterans’ military service. Statistical 

data indicates that NPRC waives fees in approximately 60% of the instances where 

archival records are requested, indicating higher than expected primary use for benefit-related inquiries. 

Funding NPRC Services 

From the time NARA assumed responsibility for managing the Military Personnel 

Records Center in 1960 through Fiscal Year 1999, the Center was funded through 

annual appropriations for NARA’s operating expenses. In Fiscal Year 1999, Congress established an inter-agency revolving fund to finance NARA records center 

storage and related services. The Records Center Revolving Fund (codified in the 

note accompanying 44 U.S.C. § 2901) allows NARA to operate our network of Federal Records Centers, including NPRC, in a business-like manner. NARA pays for 

the operating costs of our Federal Records Centers from the revolving fund and then 

recovers those costs by charging federal agencies for the full cost of the records storage and related services that they consume. Our customer Federal agencies pay the 

Records Center Revolving Fund from their appropriations. The revolving fund structure allows the government to benefit from the economies of scale that come from 

centralized records storage facilities. 

Accordingly, since Fiscal Year 2000, the military services must reimburse NARA 

for most of the costs of operating the military personnel records facility. NARA 

charges the military services for storage and related services for records less than 

62 years old, which are in NARA’s physical custody but are legally owned by the 

services. NARA does not charge the services for the storage and servicing of military 

records older than 62 years, which are owned by NARA. NPRC staff continue to provide reference service on the holdings after transfer, but NARA, rather than the 

military service, is charged to recover the costs of providing the reference services. 

NARA reimburses the NPRC from annual appropriations for that purpose, and is 

charged the same rates that are charged to the military departments for these services. 

Currently, NARA furnishes its customer agencies a detailed invoice on a monthly 

basis listing work volumes and charges for each service provided. The bulk of the 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

53 

cost of operating NPRC is related to responding to personnel-related correspondence 

requests. NPRC services more than one million such requests annually. 

Process Improvements 

To improve efficiency and service delivery, in the early 2000s NPRC embarked on 

a multi-year business process re-engineering project (BPR) that featured the deployment of modern technology to automate processes and expand citizen access, and 

required its workforce to participate in re-training. 

Innovations included web portals for public and Federal agency requesters, extensive request and record tracking, automated work assignments, automated request 

servicing, a unique, career advancement program that requires passage of competency exercises as a pre-requisite to promotion, and an innovative, competitive incentive program. 

Today, approximately 40% of our public requests are received electronically and 

over 8,000 Federal employees at agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Social Security Administration (SSA) electronically interface with NPRC from their desktops to obtain 

the information they need to, for example, adjudicate medical claims for disabled 

veterans, conduct background checks for security clearances, and process claims for 

social security benefits. 

In the years that followed the BPR, NPRC has achieved a significant reduction 

in the backlog and has greatly improved its response times. The average turnaround 

of a completed request was reduced from 76 days in 2002 to 10 days (achieved during Fiscal Year 2012). Overall customer satisfaction with the handling of requests 

improved from 78% of respondents indicating either ‘‘mostly’’ or ‘‘completely’’ satisfied during the summer of 2002 to 90% in the summer of 2012. 

Servicing Reference Requests 

Today NPRC holds approximately 60 million official military personnel files. Its 

holdings also include service treatment records, clinical records from military medical treatment facilities, auxiliary records such as pay vouchers and service name 

indexes, and organizational records such as morning reports and unit rosters. NPRC 

stores these records in both textual and micrographic formats. 

NPRC’s military records facility receives between 4,000 and 5,000 correspondence 

requests each day from veterans, their next of kin, various Federal agencies, members of Congress, the media, and other stakeholders. It responds to 70% of these 

requests in ten business days or less. Nearly half of these requests come from veterans seeking a copy of their separation statement (the DD–214) because they need 

it to pursue a benefit. The Center responds to 90% of these types of requests in ten 

business days or less. 

In servicing correspondence requests, NARA technicians must verify the authorization of the requester; identify the responsive record; extract, print or copy the responsive documents or information; redact third party personal privacy information 

often prevalent in these records; certify reproductions as authentic by applying a 

raised seal; generate a response letter (using pattern paragraphs to simplify the 

process); and prepare the documents for mailing. 

NPRC also responds to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for records 

within its holdings for all the military services. During FY 2012, NPRC responded 

to a total of over 10,000 FOIA requests and responded to 90% of them in twenty 

business days or less. 

Searching for Records 

As described above, NPRC receives 20,000 – 25,000 correspondence requests each 

week. In these instances, an automated assignment application assigns the request 

to a NPRC technician based on pre-defined rules regarding the complexity of the 

request, the grade and skill level of the technician, the availability of the technician, 

and the amount of requests already assigned to the technician. In concert with assigning a request to a technician, the system also attempts to identify the file from 

NPRC holdings that might contain the responsive record. In some instances the system is able to use pre-defined logic to identify the responsive file and order it to 

be retrieved from storage and delivered to a correspondence technician. In other instances, a correspondence technician must perform some analysis to identify the file 

and order it to be retrieved from storage. 

In addition to the correspondence work discussed above, the Center receives between 5,000 and 7,000 requests each week from the VA and other Federal agencies 

requiring the temporary loan of original records. These requests are normally serviced within 2–3 business days. In the case of the VA, nearly every day it provides 

an electronic file which is uploaded into NPRC’s system. The electronic file is comprised of new requests for the temporary loan of original records. After the responVACREP180 with DISTILLER

54 

sive files have been identified and ordered, NPRC staff attempt to locate and retrieve the files from storage. When files are retrieved from storage, bar code technology is used to track the files. At the end of the cycle, when files are returned 

to NPRC, they are placed back into their original locations and bar code technology 

is used to verify accuracy. 

When files are returned to NPRC after having been loaned to the VA, often times 

documents have been removed from the military service record and incorporated 

into a VA claim folder which remains with the VA. 

VA staff have the required licenses and credentials to access data in our production system and data warehouse. Likewise, NPRC staff are authorized and 

credentialed to access the VA’s Beneficiary Information and Records Locator Subsystem (BIRLS) to assist in performing research that is often required to identify 

responsive records or reconstruct records. 

In instances where NPRC is unable to respond promptly to a request, the biggest 

obstacle is normally our inability to retrieve the responsive file. For example, delays 

may be experienced if a file is currently charged out to another office, undergoing 

extensive preservation treatment (e.g., because of the 1973 fire) or determined to 

have been destroyed in the 1973 fire. 

In instances where a responsive record is not located on a first search attempt, 

the results are analyzed to determine the next course of action. In most instances, 

a second search (also called ‘‘Verification Search’’) is conducted by a more experienced staff member. Sometimes this second search involves trying to secure a file 

that is charged out to another agency, or actively moving through the order fulfillment process. Other times it involves analyzing data elements on the request to determine if an error has been made by the requester (eg. inaccurate service number, 

variation of the veterans’ name, inaccurate dates of service, etc.). 

In instances where a responsive record cannot be located, NPRC technicians will 

attempt to reconstruct the basic service record by using alternate sources of information. Technicians will search through auxiliary records, such as pay vouchers, to 

find evidence of service dates and character. They may also search through organizational records, such as unit rosters and morning reports. These are especially 

helpful when trying to locate evidence of a particular event, such as a combat-related injury. Technicians also query external agencies for information which can be 

used to verify service data. For example, technicians often obtain military service 

documentation from VA Claim Folders. Once a technician has verified from official 

sources the dates and character of service, they prepare a certificate (NA Form 

13038) which can be used in lieu of a DD Form 214 to secure benefits. 

The NPRC No Longer Stores all Military Personnel–Related Records 

Sometimes we are unable to provide the requested records because they are not 

located at the NPRC. Despite the original idea in 1960 for the NPRC to serve as 

the sole central repository for information needed to verify veterans’ rights and benefits, beginning in the early 1990s, the military service departments stopped retiring 

medical records, now called service treatment records, to NPRC and instead retired 

them directly to the VA. As a result, the NPRC does not have direct access to modern service treatment records. This change was implemented by the Army in 1992; 

the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps in 1994; and the Coast Guard in 1998. 

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the military service departments also stopped 

retiring official military personnel files to NPRC, instead retaining them in-house 

in electronic formats. This change was implemented by the Navy in 1995; the Marine Corps in 1999; the Army in 2002; and the Air Force in 2004. The Coast Guard 

continues to retire hardcopy personnel records to NPRC. 

The electronic personnel records systems employed by the military services vary, 

but DoD maintains a web-based application called the Defense Personnel Records 

Information Retrieval System (DPRIS), which acts as a conduit to retrieve imaged 

documents from each of the Services’ electronic systems. DPRIS is maintained by 

the Personnel and Readiness Information Management (P&R IM) Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) ((OUSD (P&R)). 

The military services use their electronic personnel records systems to respond to 

routine correspondence requests from veterans and other stakeholders. With the exception of the Department of the Army, the NPRC refers correspondence requests 

for these records to the appropriate military department for servicing. 

In 2007, the Department of the Army entered into an agreement with NARA to 

allow NPRC to access DPRIS to retrieve electronic personnel records for the purpose 

of responding to routine correspondence requests from veterans and other stakeholders. As a result of that decision, NPRC referrals to the Department of the Army 

were reduced by approximately 2,500 requests per month. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

55 

The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps continue to service their own personnel 

records and respond to routine correspondence requests from veterans and other 

stakeholders. 

Conclusion 

NARA is eager to work with the Subcommittee and other stakeholders to explore 

opportunities to better serve our nation’s veterans. We invite the Subcommittee 

members to visit NPRC. We welcome suggestions to improve service and efficiency 

and we again extend our sincere thanks to the Subcommittee for expressing such 

great interest in the services NPRC provides. I am happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Alan Bozeman 

Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and Members of 

the Subcommittee. My testimony will focus on the importance of safeguarding the 

records of Servicemembers and Veterans, particularly as the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) transitions to a paperless claims process. Secure electronic 

records are vital to our transformation and providing more timely and accurate decisions to Veterans, their families, and survivors. 

Transition to Paperless Claims Processing 

VBA is aggressively executing its transformation, a series of tightly integrated 

people, process, and technology initiatives designed to eliminate the claims backlog 

and achieve our goal of processing all claims within 125 days with 98 percent quality in 2015. Key to VBA’s transformation is ending the reliance on the outmoded 

paper-intensive processes that currently thwart timely and accurate claims processing. 

Currently, VA’s Records Management Center (RMC) in St. Louis serves as a centralized storage facility for inactive claims files and Service Treatment Records 

(STRs). The RMC responds to inquiries from stakeholders and provides information 

from Official Military Personnel Files (OMPFs) to Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) regional offices (ROs). To effectively manage this nationwide workload, the 

RMC employs 414 fulltime federal workers and operates twenty-four hours per day, 

five days per week. 

The RMC is responsible for the receipt, storage, maintenance, and distribution of 

approximately 7.5 million inactive claims files and STRs. To facilitate these objectives, the RMC utilizes a moveable file storage system, which provides approximately 107 miles of linear shelving space. The RMC estimates that it houses approximately 7.6 million records and has capacity to hold approximately 8.7 million 

records. 

The RMC has a comprehensive strategy to ensure the safety of its personnel and 

records holdings. The main file storage facility is located on a secured campus administered by the General Services Administration. The Federal Protective Service 

ensures the overall security of the facility, and all entrances into VA-occupied spaces 

are controlled by either electronic or cipher locks. The electronic locks are operated 

by specifically coded access badges uniquely assigned to each employee. The Records 

Management Officer (RMO) can review historical entry logs for the facility, and 

highly sensitive locations as well as the facility perimeter are monitored with security cameras. The RMO conducts regular inspections of all occupied spaces and 

works with the Information Security Officer to ensure safety and security standards 

are strictly enforced. 

Depending on the nature of the duties to be performed, each newly-hired employee at both the RMC and VA ROs completes Standard Form 85: Questionnaire 

for Non-Sensitive Positions via the Electronic Questionnaire for Investigation Processing (eQUIP) system. The questionnaire and supporting information are forwarded to the Detroit Human Resources Center, which works with the Office of Personnel Management to conduct National Agency Checks. These checks ultimately 

determine suitability for employment. 

The RMC also ensures security of records during shipping and utilizes United 

Parcel Service (UPS) standard and express options for its shipping needs. In fiscal 

year 2012, the monthly average of associated shipping costs was approximately 

$28,000. To further ensure the proper shipment and security of records, all shipments to ROs are double-checked with locally established manifests and sealed with 

tamper-evident tape. 

When ROs request either claims files or STRs in support of claims adjudication, 

the request is printed, a physical search of the file storage area is conducted, and 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

56 

the record is forwarded, via the mailroom, to the RO of jurisdiction. On average, 

record requests are fulfilled within three days from receipt. 

Both the RMC and the ROs rely heavily on the timely return of records. On average, the RMC receives 300,000 inactive claims files from ROs and 350,000 STRs 

from the Department of Defense (DoD) each year. Currently, the longest phase in 

the claims process is gathering and awaiting evidence, which takes an average of 

229 days. VBA is working with stakeholders to receive more timely records, which 

is absolutely critical to our transformation. 

As part of our transformation, VBA is deploying technology solutions that improve 

access, drive automation, reduce variance, and enable faster and more efficient operations. VBA’s digital, paperless environment enables greater exchange of information and increased transparency to Veterans, the workforce, and our stakeholders. 

Seventy-three percent of our Veterans prefer to interact with VA online. We are 

therefore taking a new approach, which includes online claims and document submission. Our strategy includes participation of stakeholders such as Veterans Service Officers, State Departments of Veterans Affairs, County Veterans Service Officers, and DoD to provide digitally ready electronic files through online claims submission. This is accomplished through electronic data sharing and utilizing a stakeholder portal. 

Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) 

To improve the efficiency of the claims process, VA is executing a new business 

model that relies less on the acquisition and movement of paper documents. The 

Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) is a business transformation initiative supported by technology to improve service delivery. VA recognizes technology 

is not the sole solution to improving performance and eliminating the claims backlog; however, it is a critical requirement to our transformation. Without VBMS, we 

cannot succeed in meeting our goal of processing all claims within 125 days with 

98 percent accuracy in 2015. 

Through November 2012, VBMS was successfully deployed to 13 ROs. By the end 

of December 2012, VBMS will be deployed at an additional five ROs, bringing the 

total to 18. VBA is currently on track with the deployment schedule. Approximately 

20,000 users at all 56 ROs will be utilizing VBMS to process claims for compensation benefits by the end of calendar year 2013. 

The centerpiece of VBMS is a paperless system, which will be complemented by 

other people, process, and technology initiatives. VBMS will dramatically reduce the 

amount of paper in the current disability claims process, and will employ rulesbased claims development and decision recommendations utilizing rating calculators 

where possible. Additionally, by using a service-oriented architecture and commercial off-the-shelf products, VA will be positioned to take advantage of future advances in technology developed in the marketplace to respond to the changing needs 

of Veterans over time. 

The VBMS electronic folder (eFolder) is the electronic equivalent of the VBA 

paper claims folder. The eFolder serves as a digital repository of all documents related to a claim. Searchable Portable Document Files (PDFs) can be uploaded and 

viewed by multiple authorized users simultaneously, with the ability to add annotations to help end-users locate documents and facilitate processing. The eFolder 

eliminates wait times for physical paper folder transport, reduces incidents of lost 

or misplaced paper folders, and provides on-demand access to key documentation. 

VBMS Document Security 

VBMS has been engineered to ensure the security and availability of Veterans 

records from the time they are produced electronically and throughout their electronic life, fulfilling VA’s obligations to protect the personal and health information 

of our Nation’s Veterans. VBMS utilizes the latest technology and processes to ensure the confidentiality of electronic documents throughout the document delivery 

lifecycle. VBMS has been engineered to meet VA Handbook 6500 and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Information Security Management 

Act (FISMA) HIGH system categorization and accreditation, ensuring Veterans information is well protected throughout its electronic lifecycle. 

The VBMS architecture and system implementation are based on a common approach of ‘‘Defense in Depth,’’ where multiple layers of security controls are in place 

to provide comprehensive protection. Security controls are employed at the network, 

storage, system, and user layers. Network layer protections include Virtual Private 

Network (VPN) technologies, bulk encryption devices, multiple layers of firewalls 

and encryption, ensuring that electronic transmissions are properly secured against 

unauthorized access. In storage, documents are encrypted when saved to VBMS and 

when backed-up, to protect the data from unauthorized physical access. At the sysVACREP180 with DISTILLER

57 

tem level, access controls and auditing of activity are enforced at multiple levels 

within the application to ensure that only authenticated and authorized users are 

granted access in compliance with VA policies. At the user-level, Role-Based Access 

Control (RBAC) governs all access to documents ensuring only authorized users are 

allowed to view an individual’s information. 

Protection of electronic documents from loss from any source of disaster or malfunction is just as critical as protection from unauthorized access. VBMS is hosted 

in the Culpepper, Virginia Terremark facility, with a redundant site in Miami, Florida. VBMS data is replicated every 15 minutes from Culpepper to Miami over a 

dedicated, encrypted network connection between the two sites. Additionally, a daily 

snapshot of all system data is generated and stored on warm-servers for one week, 

while a weekly backup is generated and stored to a tape backup unit and transported to a secure off-site facility. Weekly backups are maintained for two months, 

and end-of-month backups are retained for 100 years. All backups remain encrypted 

and protected throughout the storage and relocation processes. 

VBMS is a modern system, engineered to the latest standards in information protection technologies. RBAC allows the system to control individual access to individual records, ensuring the privacy of sensitive Veteran records even as access to 

the system is provided to thousands of VBA, Veterans Health Administration, and 

Veterans Service Organizations authorized users. 

Veterans Claims Intake Program (VCIP) 

Transitioning the intake of Veterans’ paper claims and supporting claims-related 

source material to digital images and data is a critical success factor to feeding 

VBMS. The Veterans Claims Intake Program (VCIP) enables proactive delivery of 

Veterans benefits by optimizing the intake of relevant claims data to be utilized 

within a digital operating environment. 

In support of the continued development and deployment of VBMS, VA executed 

contracts on July 24, 2012, with two contractors to provide document conversion 

services, which will account for 98 percent of VA’s current document conversion requirements. The contracts focus on populating the electronic claims folder (eFolder) 

in VBMS with images and data extracted from paper and other source materials. 

While much focus is placed on scanning, a scanned document is not necessarily 

optimal for claims processing. VA is leveraging technology to ensure that the specific 

information needed to process claims can be identified, extracted, and quickly utilized by claims processors. The document-conversion contractors are converting both 

printed and handwritten content from source materials (including paper, photographs, and medical images) to standardized, indexed, image-only PDF and searchable PDF (PDF image plus text) electronic documents. Additionally, Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and Intelligent Character Recognition (ICR) technologies 

are leveraged for data extraction. These technologies recognize characters, form 

numbers, and patterns in the image and automate the assignment of the correct indexing values. In addition, they allow the extraction of data from the paper image 

and its use in automated processing. 

Safeguarding Veterans’ records is a priority and is addressed not only as a contractual requirement, but also through continuous communication and training. 

Document-conversion security requirements for contractors apply to, but are not 

limited to, personnel security, cyber security, as well as physical facility security. 

Contractors, contractor personnel, subcontractors, and subcontractor personnel are 

subject to the same Federal laws, regulations, standards, and VA directives and 

handbooks as VA personnel regarding information and information system security. 

The two document conversion services contractors employ strict controls to ensure 

data security. Their scanning and document conversion sites are secured in compliance with Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 140–2, ‘‘Security 

Requirements For Cryptographic Modules,’’ and VA Handbook 6500, ‘‘Information 

Security Program.’’ The document conversion services contractors have engineered 

and employed adequate local area network (LAN)/Internet, data, information, and 

system security in accordance with VA standard operating procedures, laws, and 

regulations. The contractors’ firewalls and web servers have been engineered to 

meet or exceed VA requirements for security. All VA data is protected behind this 

approved firewall. Additionally, the contractors employ strict controls for the physical access to the paper records, images, and data from those images, storing them 

on encrypted drives in hardened facilities specifically engineered for this purpose. 

In addition to the security of Veterans’ records, VA also manages the quality of 

the images and the accuracy of the indexing values assigned during the document 

conversion process. Index values are assigned by a combination of the review of the 

materials and OCR and ICR technologies. Subsequent to the document conversion 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

58 

process, both image quality and index accuracy are validated by a multi-tiered quality assurance system: 

1. The contractors perform 100 percent quality control reviews of the images 

and index values; 

2. The contractors perform industry-standard statistical quality assurance samples and audits; 

3. VA quality assurance staff conduct supplemental quality validation sampling; 

4. VA is awarding a contract to have an independent contractor perform quality 

verification and validation; and 

5. During disability claims processing, any corrections to indexing values made 

by RO employees are captured and fed back into the quality assurance process 

for additional analysis. 

The contract personnel performing these tasks also undergo a vetting process. 

Most contract personnel are performing low risk duties and undergo a National 

Agency Check with Written Inquiries (NACI), which includes a Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) name check, a FBI fingerprint check, a check of any other existing government background investigation, criminal history records, and written inquiries to previous employers and references listed on the application for employment. Some contract personnel are required to complete public trust tasks that warrant a moderate background investigation (MBI). An MBI is also conducted by OPM 

and covers the elements of the NACI and also includes a credit report, an interview 

with the subject, and a verification of the educational degree. 

Conclusion 

VA understands the importance of securing records. Paperless claims processing 

through VBMS while maintaining the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of 

the data, is critical to our transformation goal of eliminating the claims backlog in 

2015 and ensuring timely and quality delivery of benefits and services to our Veterans, their families, and survivors. 

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to address any questions from 

Members of the Subcommittee. 

Attachemnt A - Answers to questions within the hearing 

SCANNING CONTRACTS 

HVAC Deliverable: Can you provide additional details about the new scanning 

contracts, such as the amount of inventory being processed, the duration of the contracts, and their monetary value? 

Response: In support of the continued development and deployment of the 

VBMS, VA executed contracts on July 24, 2012 with two vendors, System Made 

Simple (SMS) and CACI International, to provide document conversion services. The 

contracts focus on populating an electronic folder (eFolder) in VBMS with images 

and data extracted from paper and other source materials, which is the first step 

in the paperless claims processing system. 

The vendors are converting various documents (both printed and handwritten content from various source materials) into standardized, indexed, Image-Only Portable 

Document Format (PDF) and Searchable PDF (PDF Image plus Text) electronic documents. Additionally, Optical Character Recognition and Intelligent Character Recognition (OCR/ICR) technologies will be leveraged for data extraction. VBA will 

identify certain documents with probative value to claims processing to perform 

data extraction using OCR/ICR. Extracted data will be used to populate the Corporate Database or VBMS, eliminating the requirement for VSRs to re-key this 

data. 

VA will order a guaranteed minimum volume of 1.2 billion images if all the optional periods are exercised. This includes 342 million images in the based period, 

480 million images in the first option period, and 360 million images in the second 

option period. The maximum volume will be nearly 2.3 billion images consisting of 

704 million images in the base period, 837 million images in the first option period, 

and 743 million images in the second option period. 

System Made Simple (SMS) 

VA has obligated $22,651,200 to fully fund the minimum guaranteed amount of 

services in the base period, which began July 25, 2012. The maximum potential 

costs include: 

• Task Order: $143,384,669 

• 15-Month Base Period: $56,542,588 

• 12-Month Option Period 1: $44,970,176 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

59 

• 12-Month Option Period 2: $41,871,905 

CACI, International 

VA has obligated $22,583,743 to fully fund the minimum guaranteed amount of 

services in the base period, which began July 25, 2012. The maximum potential 

costs include: 

• Task Order: $180,813,186 

• 15-Month Base Period: $71,038,083 

• 12-Month Option Period 1: $57,824,453 

• 12-Month Option Period 2: $51,950,650 

f 

Materials Submitted For The Record 

LETTER FROM: HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS - TO: THE HON. 

LEON E. PANETTA, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, AND THE HON. ERIC SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Dear Secretary Panetta and Secretary Shinseki, 

I am writing to express my concern with recent reports that the military has been 

destroying or failing to keep records from the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am 

very worried that the lack of records will have serious consequences for corrent and 

future veterans of these wars. 

According to investigative reporting done by Pro Publica, the Pentagon was aware 

of this serious crisis in unit level recordkeeping as eary as 2005, but multiple units 

are unable to produce any records through 2008. These records include after-action 

write-ups, intelligence reports and on-the-ground accounts, including information on 

fighting, casualties, prisoners, battle damage, pictures and maps. The lack of these 

records for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will have far reaching implications 

for both our understanding of these wars and the ability of veterans to get the care 

and benefits they have earned through their service. 

Since October 1, 2001, 1,515,707 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars have 

become eligible for VA health care, and that number will grow as the remaining Afghanistan force is drawn down. It is critical that Congress, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs work together to improve the record 

keeping process and protect the rights of our veterans going forward. In order to 

ensure that all necessary remedies are put in place, I request information on the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs’ joint efforts to address the impact the loss of these records will have on individual veterans filing 

benefit claims and the impact on the efforts of researchers examining war time 

health risks and patterns. 

In addition, I request that the Department of Defense provide information on the 

steps taken to ensure that military units are submitting field reports and any evidence that demonstrates improvement in the collection of these records. I request 

that the Department of Veterans Affairs provide information on how often these 

types of records are used by veterans to establish a disability claim, including claims 

where a witness affidavit is submitted in place of an official military record. 

Our service members and veterans depend on your agencies and Congress to protect them in battle and to care for them at home. We cannot allow these lost records 

to lead to the same gaps in knowledge and care that our Vietnam veterans face with 

Agent Orange and our First Gulf War veterans face with medically unexplained illnesses. I appreciate your attention to this important matter and look forward to 

working with you both as we continue to care for those who have served our country. 

Sincerely, 

Michael H. Michaud 

Member of Congress 

Æ 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER