VA Office of Inspector General 

OFFICE OF AUDITS & EVALUATIONS 

Inspection of the 

VA Regional Office 

Boise, ID

February 17, 2011 

10-03858-92
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

COVERS Control of Veterans Records System 

NOD Notice of Disagreement 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

PTSD Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 

RVSR Rating Veterans Service Representative 

SAO Systematic Analysis of Operations 

STAR Systematic Technical Accuracy Review 

TBI Traumatic Brain Injury 

VACOLS Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System 

VARO Veterans Affairs Regional Office 

VBA Veterans Benefits Administration 

VSC Veterans Service Center 

To Report Suspected Wrongdoing in VA Programs and Operations: 

Telephone: 1-800-488-8244 

E-Mail: vaoighotline@va.gov

(Hotline Information: http://www.va.gov/oig/contacts/hotline.asp) 
Report Highlights: Inspection of the VA 

Regional Office, Boise, ID 

Why We Did This Review 

The Benefits Inspection Division conducts 

onsite inspections at VA Regional Offices 

(VAROs) to review disability compensation 

claims processing and Veterans Service 

Center operations. 

What We Found 

The Boise VARO staff corrected errors 

identified by the Veterans Benefits 

Administration’s (VBA) Systematic 

Technical Accuracy Review program. In 

general, VARO staff established correct 

dates of claim in the electronic record and 

followed VBA mail handling procedures. 

Additionally, the VARO staff generally 

processed post-traumatic stress disorder 

disability claims accurately. 

The VARO needs to improve the control 

and accuracy of processing disability claims 

for temporary 100 percent disability 

evaluations, traumatic brain injury, and 

herbicide exposure. Overall, VARO staff 

did not accurately process 30 (30 percent) of 

the 101 disability claims reviewed. Controls (original signed by:)

also need strengthening to ensure timely 

processing of Notices of Disagreement for 

appealed claims, as well as timely and 

complete Systematic Analyses of 

Operations. 

What We Recommended

We recommended the Boise VARO Director 

ensure staff review all temporary 

100 percent disability evaluations to 

determine if reevaluations are required and 

take appropriate actions. We recommended 

VARO management implement controls to 

ensure the staff establishes reminder 

notifications for temporary 100 percent 

disability reevaluations. 

We recommended that VARO management 

provide refresher training on the proper 

procedures for processing traumatic brain 

injury claims and implement an additional 

level of review for all TBI rating decisions 

prior to finalizing those decisions. We 

also recommended VARO management 

strengthen controls to ensure timely 

establishment of Notices of Disagreement in 

the Veterans Appeals Control and Locator 

System as well as implement a plan to 

ensure timely and complete preparation of 

Systematic Analysis of Operations. 

Agency Comments

The Director of the Boise VARO concurred 

with all recommendations. Management’s 

planned actions are responsive and we will 

follow up as required on all actions. 

BELINDA J. FINN 

Assistant Inspector General 

for Audits and Evaluations

i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

Results and Recommendations ........................................................................................................2

1. Disability Claims Processing ..................................................................................................2

2. Data Integrity ..........................................................................................................................6

3. Management Controls .............................................................................................................7

4. Workload Management ...........................................................................................................9

Appendix A VARO Profile and Scope of Inspection ............................................................11

Appendix B VARO Director’s Comments ............................................................................12

Appendix C Inspection Summary..........................................................................................15

Appendix D OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ........................................................16

Appendix E Report Distribution ...........................................................................................17

ii 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

INTRODUCTION 

The Benefits Inspection Program is part of the Office of Inspector General’s 

(OIG) efforts to ensure our Nation’s veterans receive timely and accurate 

benefits and services. The Benefits Inspection Division contributes to 

improved management of benefits processing activities and veterans’ 

services by conducting onsite inspections at VA Regional Offices (VAROs). 

These independent inspections provide recurring oversight focused on 

disability compensation claims processing and performance of Veterans 

Service Center (VSC) operations. The objectives of the inspections are to: 

Objective 

• Evaluate how well VAROs are accomplishing their mission of providing 

veterans with convenient access to high quality benefits and services. 

• Determine if management controls ensure compliance with VA 

regulations and policies; assist management in achieving program goals; 

and minimize the risk of fraud, waste, and other abuses.

• Identify and report systemic trends in VARO operations. 

In addition to this standard coverage, inspections may examine issues or 

allegations referred by VA employees, members of Congress, or other 

stakeholders. 

In October 2010, the OIG conducted an inspection of the Boise VARO. The 

inspection focused on four protocol areas examining nine operational 

activities. The four protocol areas are disability claims processing, data 

integrity, management controls, and workload management. We did not 

examine eligibility determinations because VBA has centralized all Western 

Area fiduciary activities at the Salt Lake City VARO. 

Scope of 

Inspection 

We reviewed 71 (54 percent) of 132 disability claims related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and herbicide 

exposure that the VARO completed from April through June 2010. In 

addition, we reviewed 30 (39 percent) of 77 rating decisions where VARO 

staff granted temporary 100 percent disability evaluations for at least 

18 months, generally the longest period a temporary 100 percent disability 

evaluation may be assigned under VA policy without review. 

Appendix A provides details on the VARO and the scope of our inspection. 

Appendix B provides the Boise VARO Director’s comments on a draft of 

this report. Appendix C provides criteria we used to evaluate each 

operational activity and a summary of our inspection results. 

VA Office of Inspector General 1
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Disability Claims Processing 

The OIG inspection team focused on disability claims processing related to 

temporary 100 percent disability evaluations, PTSD, TBI, and herbicide 

exposure. We evaluated claims processing accuracy and its impact on 

veterans’ benefits. 

Finding 1 VARO Staff Need to Improve Disability Claims 

Processing Accuracy 

The Boise VARO needs to improve the accuracy of disability claims 

processing. VARO staff incorrectly processed 30 (30 percent) of the total 

101 disability claims reviewed. We advised VARO management of the 

inaccuracies noted during our inspection and they initiated corrective 

measures to address them. The table below reflects the errors affecting, and 

those with the potential to affect, veterans’ benefits processed at the Boise 

VARO. 

Table Disability Claims Processing Results 

Type Reviewed 

Claims Incorrectly Processed 

Total Affecting 

Veterans’ 

Benefits 

Potential To 

Affect Veterans’ 

Benefits 

Temporary 

100 Percent Disability 

Evaluations 

 30 20 9 11 

PTSD 30 2 0 2 

TBI 11 4 3 1 

Herbicide ExposureRelated Disabilities 30 4 3 1 

Total 101 30 15 15 

VARO staff incorrectly processed 20 (67 percent) of 30 temporary 

100 percent disability evaluations reviewed. Veterans Benefits 

Administration (VBA) policy requires a temporary 100 percent disability 

evaluation for a service-connected disability needing surgery or specific 

treatment. At the end of a mandated period of convalescence or the cessation 

of treatment, VARO staff must request a follow-up medical examination to 

help determine whether to continue the veteran’s 100 percent disability 

benefits. 

Temporary 

100 Percent 

Disability 

Evaluations 

VA Office of Inspector General 2
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

Based on analysis of available medical evidence, 9 of the 20 processing 

inaccuracies identified affected veterans’ benefits—8 involved overpayments 

totaling $307,679 and 1 involved an underpayment totaling $2,240. 

Examples of the most significant overpayment and underpayment follow: 

• A Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR) correctly continued a 

temporary 100 percent disability evaluation for a veteran with bladder 

cancer and established a need for a future reexamination; however, 

VARO staff did not enter the suspense diary, or reminder notification, 

into the electronic record. At the time of our inspection, medical 

evidence showed that the cancer was no longer active. As a result, the 

veteran was overpaid $72,160 over a period of 2 years and 3 months. 

• An RVSR did not grant a veteran special monthly compensation based 

on an evaluation of multiple disabilities, as required. As a result, VA 

underpaid the veteran a total of $2,240 over a period of 7 months. 

The remaining 11 inaccuracies had the potential to affect veterans’ benefits. 

In 10 of these cases, VSC staff did not establish reminder notifications 

needed to alert VARO staff that a VA reexamination needed to be scheduled. 

The remaining error had a reminder notification; however, VSC staff did not 

schedule the reevaluation examination. 

We could not determine if these 11 temporary 100 percent disability 

evaluations would have continued because the veterans’ claims folders did 

not contain evidence of the medical examinations needed to reevaluate each 

case. The delays in scheduling the examinations ranged from 3 months to 

4 years and 8 months. An average of 1 year and 6 months elapsed from the 

time staff should have scheduled the medical examinations until the date of 

our inspection—the date staff ultimately took corrective actions to obtain the 

necessary medical evidence. 

For temporary 100 percent disability evaluations, including confirmed and 

continued evaluations where rating decisions do not change a veteran’s 

payment amount, VSC staff must input a suspense diary in VBA’s electronic 

system. A suspense diary is a processing command that establishes a date 

when VSC staff must schedule a reexamination. As the diary matures, the 

electronic system generates a reminder notification alerting VSC staff to 

schedule the reexamination. 

The most frequent processing errors noted in 16 (80 percent) of the 20 cases 

reviewed occurred when VARO staff did not properly establish suspense 

diaries for future VA examinations. At the time of our inspection, VARO 

management staff did not have a local policy or sufficient oversight measures 

in place to ensure staff entered suspense diaries into the electronic record to 

generate reminder notifications to schedule the reexaminations. 

VA Office of Inspector General 3
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

VARO staff incorrectly processed 2 (7 percent) of 30 PTSD claims. We did 

not consider the frequency of errors significant. However, we found that 

RVSRs incorrectly granted service connection for PTSD for these two claims 

without clear medical opinions from the examining physicians linking the 

PTSD diagnoses to the veterans’ stressful in service events. In one case, the 

RVSR properly requested a medical opinion; however, the examination did 

not contain the requested opinion and the RVSR did not return the 

examination for clarification. Rather, the RVSR used the results of two 

separate examinations to conclude that the physicians provided a clear 

opinion. In the second case, instead of returning the examination report for 

correction, the RVSR used the report along with the results of a Social and 

Industrial Survey to conclude the physicians provided a clear opinion. 

PTSD Claims 

In both cases, based on its review of the examining physicians’ medical 

reports, VARO management disagreed with our assessment that the RVSRs 

processed the claims without clear medical opinions. Management indicated 

RVSRs have the responsibility to interpret an examination report in light of a 

veteran’s entire recorded medical history. However, VBA policy states the 

examiner must still opine whether the current symptoms are linked to the 

identified stressor or stressors. In neither case did the medical examiners 

provide this opinion. 

Given the infrequency of these types of errors, the VARO generally followed 

VBA policy when processing PTSD claims. Therefore, we made no 

recommendations for improvement in this area. 

The Department of Defense and VBA commonly define a TBI as 

traumatically induced structural injury or physiological disruption of brain 

function caused by an external force. The major residual disabilities of TBI 

fall into three main categories: physical, cognitive, and behavioral. VBA 

policy requires staff to evaluate these residual disabilities. 

TBI Claims 

VARO staff incorrectly processed 4 (36 percent) of 11 TBI claims—3 of 

these claims processing inaccuracies impacted veterans’ benefits and resulted 

in overpayments of approximately $13,683. Following is a summary of the 

processing inaccuracies related to TBI disability claims. 

• In three cases, RVSRs did not correctly evaluate residual disabilities 

associated with TBI. In two of these cases, the improper evaluations 

occurred when RVSRs over-evaluated symptoms. In these cases, RVSRs 

based evaluations on the veterans’ personal histories rather than the 

results of the VA examination findings. VARO management did not 

agree with one of the inaccuracies we identified. 

VA Office of Inspector General 4
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

• In the remaining case, VARO staff did not request a new VA 

examination, as required, to determine if a veteran’s disability evaluation 

would increase under new evaluation criteria. 

Although VARO staff received training on how to evaluate TBI disability 

claims, interviews with VARO managers and staff indicate the training was 

inconsistent. While most RVSRs did establish compensation evaluations 

based on VA medical examination reports, two of the four claims processing 

errors occurred because RVSRs based disability evaluations on subjective 

symptoms reported by the veterans and not on medical examination testing 

as reported by the VA medical examiner. As a result, veterans may not 

always receive correct benefits payments. 

VARO staff incorrectly processed 4 (13 percent) of 30 herbicide exposurerelated claims reviewed. Among the processing inaccuracies identified, three 

of the four affected veterans’ benefits and resulted in approximately 

$37,180 in underpayments. The remaining inaccuracy had the potential to 

affect a veteran’s benefits. 

Herbicide 

Exposure-Related 

Claims 

In the three cases that affected benefits, processing inaccuracies occurred 

because the RVSR did not assign the earliest payment date possible, as 

required by VBA policy. A review of the VARO’s 2009 and 2010 training 

schedules indicate RVSRs received training on how to assign payment dates 

in July and October 2010. Because the three errors affecting benefits 

occurred prior to this training, we made no recommendation for 

improvement in this area 

1. We recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director review the 

remaining universe of 47 temporary 100 percent disability evaluations 

under the regional office’s jurisdiction to determine if reevaluations are 

required and take appropriate action. 

Recommendations 

2. We recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director implement 

controls to ensure staff establish suspense diaries for temporary 

100 percent disability reevaluations. 

3. We recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director ensure Rating 

Veterans Service Representatives receive training on how to properly 

evaluate disabilities related to traumatic brain injuries. 

4. We recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director establish an 

additional level of review for all traumatic brain injury decisions prior to 

finalizing the decision to ensure accurate benefit payments. 

VA Office of Inspector General 5
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

The VARO Director concurred with our recommendations for improving 

disability claims processing accuracy. The Director indicated VSC staff 

completed reviews of 47 additional temporary 100 percent disability 

evaluations and requested medical examinations when appropriate. Further, 

the Director implemented a new policy requiring that experienced staff 

process temporary 100 percent disability evaluations and ensuring staff 

properly record diaries in the electronic record. 

Management 

Comments 

In December 2010, staff received refresher training regarding the proper 

procedures for processing TBI claims. Further, in January 2011, the Director 

instituted a second level review for all TBI claims. This additional level of 

review will involve RVSRs as well as Decision Review Officers. 

OIG Response Management’s actions are responsive to the recommendations. 

2. Data Integrity 

We analyzed claims folders to determine if the VARO is following VBA 

policy to establish effective dates and dates of claim in electronic records, 

and timely record Notices of Disagreement (NODs) in the Veterans Appeals 

Control and Locator System (VACOLS). VARO management needs 

strengthened controls to ensure timely establishment of NODs in VACOLS. 

Generally, an effective date indicates when entitlement to a specific benefit 

arose. VARO staff followed VBA policy and correctly established an 

effective date for all 101 disability claims we reviewed. As such, we made 

no recommendation for improvement in this area. 

Effective Dates 

VBA generally uses a date of claim to indicate when a document arrives at a 

VA facility. VBA relies on accurate dates of claim to establish and track key 

performance measures, including the average number of days to complete a 

claim. VARO staff established incorrect dates of claim in the electronic 

record for 1 (3 percent) of the 30 claims we reviewed. Generally, VARO 

staff followed VBA policy when establishing dates of claim, so we made no 

recommendation for improvement in this area. 

Dates of Claim 

An NOD is a written communication from a claimant expressing 

dissatisfaction or disagreement with a benefits decision and a desire to 

contest the decision. An NOD is the first step in the appeals process. 

VACOLS is a computer application that allows VARO staff to control and 

track veterans’ appeals and manage the pending appeals workload. VBA 

policy states staff must create a VACOLS record within 7 days of receiving 

an NOD. Accurate and timely recording of an NOD is required to ensure an 

appeal moves through the appellate process expeditiously. 

Notices of 

Disagreement 

VA Office of Inspector General 6
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

Finding 2 Controls Over Recording Notices of Disagreement 

Need Strengthening 

VARO staff did not always record NODs in VACOLS within VBA’s 7-day 

standard. The VARO exceeded VBA’s 7-day standard for 29 (97 percent) of 

the 30 NODs we reviewed. It took staff an average of 23 days to enter these 

29 NODs in VACOLS. The most untimely action occurred when staff did 

not record an NOD for 50 days. This occurred because management and 

staff were unaware of VBA’s requirement to enter NODs within 

7 days. Instead, the VARO had a local policy in place that required staff to 

establish NODs in a 10-day period, which was in conflict with VBA’s 7-day 

standard. Untimely recording of NODs in VACOLS affects data integrity 

and misrepresents VARO performances. 

According to VBA performance reports as of September 30, 2010, VARO 

staff averaged 14 days to record NODs, exceeding VBA’s 7-day standard by 

7 days. Although staff can improve appeals control time, the VARO’s 

NODs have been pending completion on average for 98 days, 47 days better 

than VBA’s national average target of 145 days. 

Data integrity issues make it difficult for VARO and senior VBA leadership 

to accurately measure and monitor VARO performance. Further, VBA’s 

National Call Centers rely upon VACOLS information to provide accurate 

customer service to veterans. Unnecessary delays in controlling NODs affect 

national performance measures for NOD inventory and timely completion of 

appeals. 

5. We recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director amend the local 

policy to require staff to record Notices of Disagreements within the 

Veterans Benefits Administration’s 7-day policy, thereby ensuring timely 

recording of Notices of Disagreement in the Veterans Appeals Control 

and Locator System. 

Recommendation 

The VARO Director concurred with our recommendation and updated the 

FY 2011 Performance Standards for Claims Assistants to include the 

requirement to process NODs within 7 days. Further, the VARO Workload 

Management Plan now incorporates guidance to complete NODs within 

VBA’s 7-day standard. The Director also assigned an additional Claims 

Assistant to assist with NOD processing. 

Management 

Comments 

OIG Response Management’s actions are responsive to the recommendations. 

3. Management Controls 

VA Office of Inspector General 7
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

We assessed management controls to determine if VARO management 

adhered to VBA policy regarding correction of errors identified by VBA’s 

Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) staff. The STAR program 

is VBA’s multifaceted quality assurance program to ensure that veterans and 

other beneficiaries receive accurate and consistent compensation and pension 

benefits. VBA policy requires that VAROs take corrective action on errors 

that STAR staff identifies. VARO staff followed the policy by taking 

corrective actions to address all 14 errors VBA’s STAR program identified. 

As such, we made no recommendation for improvement in this area. 

Systematic 

Technical 

Accuracy 

Review 

Further, we assessed whether VARO management had controls in place to 

ensure complete and timely submission of Systematic Analyses of 

Operations (SAOs). Inspection findings indicate VARO managers need to 

strengthen controls for ensuring SAOs are complete and timely. An SAO is 

a formal analysis of a VSC organizational element or operational function. 

SAOs provide an organized means of reviewing VSC operations to identify 

existing or potential problems and propose corrective actions. VARO 

management must publish an annual SAO schedule that identifies specific 

dates for completing each analysis and designating staff to complete them. 

Systematic 

Analysis of 

Operations 

Finding 3 Strengthened Controls Needed to Ensure Systematic 

Analysis of Operations are Timely and Complete 

The Veterans Service Center Manager is responsible for ongoing analysis of 

VSC operations, including completing 11 annual SAOs. Our analysis 

revealed 6 (55 percent) of the 11 SAOs were not completed timely per the 

annual schedule, were incomplete (missing required elements), or were not 

done at all. This occurred because VARO management did not provide 

adequate oversight to ensure VSC staff completed SAOs in accordance with 

VBA policy. As a result, VARO management may not have adequately 

identified existing and potential problems for corrective actions to improve 

VSC operations. 

Specifically, 4 (36 percent) of the 11 SAOs were incomplete, 1 (9 percent) 

was untimely, and 1 (9 percent) was not completed at all. The VSC Manager 

indicated staff only completed those elements of SAOs where they knew 

problems existed rather than completing analyses of all elements as required 

by VBA policy. 

We identified several areas where, by not providing adequate oversight to 

ensure complete SAOs, VARO management did not identify VSC 

operational problems for corrective action. For example, had management 

thoroughly completed the Appeals SAO, it might have determined the 

VARO was not meeting its local goal to establish NODs in VACOLS within 

10 days, as outlined in the workload management plan. More importantly, 

VA Office of Inspector General 8
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

management might have identified its local standard was not in line with 

VBA’s national standard of 7 days. 

6. We recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director develop and 

implement a plan to ensure staff complete Systematic Analyses of 

Operations timely and address all required elements.

Recommendation 

The VARO Director concurred with our recommendation and updated the 

FY 2011 SAO schedule to reflect all SAOs mandated for completion. The 

SAOs are to include all required elements. 

Management 

Comments 

OIG Response Management’s action is responsive to the recommendation. 

4. Workload Management 

We assessed controls over mailroom operations to ensure VARO staff timely 

and accurately processed incoming mail. VBA uses various plans and 

applications to control workload. VBA policy indicates the most important 

part of workload management is oversight to ensure the staff efficiently uses 

the plans and systems available. It also states that effective mail 

management is crucial to the success and control of workflow within the 

VSC. 

VBA policy states staff will open, date stamp, and route all mail to the 

appropriate locations within 4–6 hours of receipt at the VARO. The Boise 

VARO assigns responsibility for mailroom activities, including processing of 

incoming mail, to the Support Services Division. Because VARO mailroom 

staff processed, date stamped, and delivered all VSC mail to the Triage Team 

mail pick-up point on a daily basis as required, we made no 

recommendations for improvement in this area. 

Mailroom 

Operations 

We assessed the VSC Triage Team’s mail processing procedures to ensure 

staff reviewed, controlled, and processed all claims-related mail in 

accordance with VBA policy. VBA policy requires VARO staff to establish 

a claim in the electronic record within 7 days from the date the VARO 

receives the mail. VBA relies on accurate information in the electronic 

record to establish and track a key performance measure that determines the 

average number of days to complete a claim. Additionally, VBA policy 

requires that staff use the Control of Veterans Records System (COVERS), 

VBA’s electronic tracking system, to track claims folders and search mail. 

VBA defines search mail as active claims-related mail waiting to be 

associated with a veteran’s claim folder. 

Triage MailProcessing 

Procedures 

Of the 30 claims established in the electronic records, 1 (3 percent) was 

established outside of VBA’s 7-day goal. Because of the infrequency of this 

occurrence, we made no recommendations for improvement in this area. 

VA Office of Inspector General 9
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

VA Office of Inspector General 10

Additionally, the Triage Team correctly used COVERS to electronically 

track veterans’ claims folders and control search mail. 

 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

Appendix A VARO Profile and Scope of Inspection 

The Boise VARO is responsible for delivering nonmedical VA benefits and 

services to veterans and their families in Idaho. The VARO fulfills these 

responsibilities by administering compensation and pension benefits, 

vocational rehabilitation and employment assistance, and outreach activities. 

Organization 

As of June 2010, the Boise VARO had a staffing level of 74 full-time 

employees. Of these, the VSC had 60 employees (81 percent) assigned. 

Resources 

As of September 2010, the VARO reported 1,762 pending compensation 

claims. The average time to complete these claims during FY 2010 was 

111.2 days—approximately 39 days better than VBA’s target of 150 days. 

As reported by STAR, accuracy of compensation rating-related issues was 

87.6 percent, which is below the 90 percent target set by VBA.

Workload 

We reviewed selected management controls, claims processing, and 

administrative activities to evaluate compliance with VBA policies regarding 

delivery of benefits and nonmedical services to veterans and other 

beneficiaries. We interviewed managers and employees and reviewed 

veterans’ claims folders. 

Scope 

Our review included 71 (54 percent) of 132 disability claims related to 

PTSD, TBI, and herbicide exposure that the VARO completed during April 

to June 2010. For temporary 100 percent disability evaluations, we selected 

30 (39 percent) of 77 existing claims from VBA’s Corporate Database. We 

provided the VARO with the 47 claims remaining from the universe of 77 to 

assist in implementing our first report recommendation. The 77 claims 

represented all instances in which VARO staff granted temporary 

100 percent disability evaluations for at least 18 months. 

We reviewed 14 errors identified by VBA’s STAR program during the 

period of April to June 2010. VBA measures the accuracy of compensation 

and pension claims processing through its STAR program. STAR’s 

assessments include a review of work associated with claims requiring rating 

decisions. The STAR staff reviews original claims, reopened claims, and 

claims for increased evaluation. Further, they review appellate issues that 

involve a myriad of veterans’ disabilities claims. 

Our process differs from STAR as we review specific types of disability 

claims such as PTSD, TBI, and herbicide exposure that require rating 

decisions. In addition, we review rating decisions and awards processing 

involving temporary 100 percent disability evaluations. We selected for 

review dates of claim and NODs pending at the VARO during the time of 

our inspection. We completed our review in accordance with the Council of 

the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency’s Quality Standards for 

Inspections. 

VA Office of Inspector General 11
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

Appendix B VARO Director’s Comments 

Department of 

Veterans Affairs Memorandum

Date: February 2, 2011 

From: Director, Boise VA Regional Office 

Subj: Inspection of the VARO Boise, ID 

To: Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations (52) 

1. Attached are the Boise VARO’s comments on the OIG Draft Report: 

Inspection of VARO Boise. 

2. Questions may be referred to Stephanie Pinque, Human Resource 

Specialist, at 208-429-2204. 

 (original signed by:) 

James O. Vance 

Director 

Attachment 

VA Office of Inspector General 12
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

Comments on Draft Report

OIG Office of Audits and Evaluations 

Benefits Inspection of the Boise Regional Office 

Recommendation 1: We recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director review the 

remaining universe of 47 temporary 100 percent disability evaluations under the regional 

office’s jurisdiction to determine if reevaluations are required and take appropriate action. 

RO Response: Concur 

Boise RO completed the review of the remaining 47 cases left by the OIG. Exams were ordered 

on those cases requiring them. Adjustments or continued evaluations were processed when 

appropriate. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration recommends closure of this recommendation. 

Recommendation 2: We recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director implement controls 

to ensure staff establishes suspense diaries for temporary 100 percent disability reevaluations. 

RO Response: Concur 

In October 2010, the Boise VARO implemented a new policy to ensure diary suspense dates 

were established. The OIG findings showed the majority of the future exams were not being 

carried forward when a new decision did not warrant a change (C&C ratings). 

The Boise VARO now requires all rating decisions to be processed through authorization. This 

ensures the claim is being reviewed for accuracy by more experienced personnel. By allowing 

the claim to fully process in VETSNET, the system will carry forward any future examination. 

VSRs no longer clear pending end products on continued decision when no change to the master 

record is required. VSRs were trained on the outcome of this measure and trained on our new 

policy immediately following the OIG Exit Briefing. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration recommends closure of this recommendation. 

Recommendation 3: Recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director ensure Rating 

Veterans Service Representatives receive training on how to properly evaluate disabilities 

related to traumatic brain injuries. 

RO Response: Concur 

The Boise VARO conducted training on traumatic brain injuries on December 9, 2010. 

Refresher TBI training for fiscal year 2011 will be scheduled when appropriate. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration recommends closure of this recommendation. 

VA Office of Inspector General 13
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

VA Office of Inspector General 14

Recommendation 4: Recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director establish an additional 

level of review for all traumatic brain injury decisions prior to finalizing the decision to ensure 

accurate benefit payments.

RO Response: Concur 

In January 2011, the Boise VARO instituted a second signature review of all traumatic brain 

injury decisions. The second signature review has been assigned to all DROs and the Rating 

Coach. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration recommends closure of this recommendation. 

Recommendation 5: We recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director amend the local 

policy to require staff to record Notices of Disagreements within the Veterans Benefits 

Administration’s 7-day policy, thereby ensuring timely recording of Notices of Disagreement in 

the Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System.

RO Response: Concur 

The Boise VARO updated the fiscal year 2011 Job Performance Standards for Claims Assistants 

assigned to inputting Notices of Disagreements. The updated standards require that Notices of 

Disagreements must be recorded in VACOLS within 7 days 90% of the time. Updates to the RO 

Workload Management Plan will also be done to reflect the 7-day standard. The RO has also 

assigned an additional Claims Assistant to input Notices of Disagreement when the primary 

Claims Assistant needs assistance. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration recommends closure of this recommendation. 

Recommendation 6: We recommend the Boise VA Regional Office Director develop and 

implement a plan to ensure staff complete Systematic Analyses of Operations timely and address 

all required elements.

RO Response: Concur 

The SAO Schedule for fiscal year 2011 has been updated to reflect all required SAOs per M21-

4, Chapter 5. All SAOs completed in fiscal year 2011 will include all required elements. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration recommends closure of this recommendation. 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

Appendix C Inspection Summary 

Nine Operational 

Activities 

Inspected 

Criteria 

Reasonable 

Assurance of 

Compliance 

Yes No 

Disability Claims Processing 

1. 100 Percent 

Disability 

Evaluations 

Determine whether VARO staff properly reviewed temporary 

100 percent disability evaluations. (38 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 3.103(b)) (38 CFR 3.105(e)) (38 CFR 3.327) (Manual (M) 21-

1 Manual Rewrite (MR) Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section J) 

(M21-1MR Part III, Subpart iv, Chapter 3, Section C.17.e) 

X 

2. Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder 

Determine whether VARO staff properly processed claims for 

PTSD. (38 CFR 3.304(f)) X 

3. Traumatic Brain 

Injury 

Determine whether VARO staff properly processed claims for 

service connection for all residual disabilities related to in-service 

TBI. (Fast Letters (FL) 08-34 and 08-36 (Training Letter 09-01) 

X 

4. Herbicide 

Exposure-Related 

Claims 

Determine whether VARO staff properly processed claims for 

service connection for disabilities related to herbicide exposure. 

(38 CFR 3.309) (FL 02-33) (M21-1MR Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 

2, Section C.10) 

X 

Data Integrity

5. Dates of Claim Determine if VARO staff properly recorded correct dates of 

claim in the electronic record. (M21-1MR, Part III, Subpart ii, 

Chapter 1, Section C) 

X 

6. Notices of 

Disagreement 

Determine if VARO staff properly entered NODs into VACOLS. 

(M21-1MR Part I, Chapter 5) X 

Management Controls

7. Systematic Analysis 

of Operations 

Determine if VARO staff properly performed formal analyses of 

their operations through completion of SAOs. (M21-4, Chapter 5) X 

8. Systematic 

Technical Accuracy 

Review 

Determine if VARO staff properly corrected STAR errors in 

accordance with VBA policy. (M21-4, Chapter 3, Subchapter II, 

3.03) 

X 

Workload Management

9. Mail Handling 

Procedures 

Determine if VARO staff properly followed VBA mail handling 

procedures. (M23-1) (M21-4, Chapter 4) (M21-1MR Part III, 

Subpart ii, Chapters 1 and 4) 

X 

VA Office of Inspector General 15
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

VA Office of Inspector General 16

Appendix D OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

OIG Contact Brent Arronte 

Acknowledgments Nora Stokes 

Brett Byrd 

Madeline Cantu 

Kelly Crawford 

Lee Giesbrecht 

Kerri Leggiero-Yglesias 

Lisa Van Haeren 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Boise, ID 

Appendix E Report Distribution 

VA Distribution 

Office of the Secretary 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

Assistant Secretaries 

Office of General Counsel 

VBA Western Area Director 

VARO Boise Director 

Non-VA Distribution 

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans

 Affairs, and Related Agencies 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans 

Affairs, and Related Agencies 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

National Veterans Service Organizations 

Government Accountability Office 

Office of Management and Budget 

U.S. Senate: Mike Crapo, James E. Risch 

U.S. House of Representatives: Raul R. Labrador, Mike Simpson 

This report will be available on the OIG’s Web site at 

http://www.va.gov/oig/publications/reports-list.asp. This report 

will remain on the OIG Web site for at least 2 fiscal years. 

VA Office of Inspector General 17