Inspection of the
 

VA Regional Office
 

Atlanta, Georgia
 

OFFICE OF AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS

May 27, 2011

 11-00512-179
	
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
	

COVERS Control of Veterans Records System 

FY Fiscal Year 

NOD Notices 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, Atlanta, Georgia 

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 Atlanta VARO staff correctly processed 

post-traumatic stress disorder claims. 

VARO performance was generally effective 

in establishing correct dates of claim in the 

electronic record and correcting errors 

identified by the Veterans Benefit 

Administration’s Systematic Technical 

Accuracy Review program staff. 

However, the VARO lacked effective 

controls and accuracy in processing 

temporary 100 percent disability evaluations 

and lacked accuracy in processing traumatic 

brain injury and herbicide exposure-related 

claims. Overall, VARO staff did not 

accurately process 45 (38 percent) of the 

120 disability claims we reviewed. Controls 

over processing Notices of Disagreement for 

appealed claims, completing Systematic 

Analyses of Operations, handling mail, and 

final competency determinations need 

strengthening. 

What We Recommended 

We recommended VARO management 

implement controls to ensure the staff 

establishes suspense diaries for the 

temporary 100 percent disability reevaluations and follow up on reminder 

notifications as appropriate. We also 

recommended VARO management provide 

refresher training and establish an additional 

level of review for traumatic brain injury 

rating decisions to ensure accurate benefit 

payments. 

Additionally, VARO management needs to 

strengthen controls to ensure timely 

recording of Notices of Disagreement in the 

Veterans Appeals Control and Locator 

System. VARO management should also 

monitor controls to ensure timely and 

complete preparation of Systematic 

Analyses of Operations and proper mail 

handling. 

Agency Comments 

The VARO Director concurred with all 

recommendations. Management’s planned 

actions are responsive and we will follow up 

as required on all actions. 

 (original signed by:)

 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 ..........................................................................................................................7
 

3. Management Controls .............................................................................................................9
 

4. Workload Management.........................................................................................................10
 

5. Eligibility Determinations.....................................................................................................15
 

Appendix A VARO Profile and Scope of Inspection ............................................................18 

Appendix B VARO Director’s Comments............................................................................20 

Appendix C Inspection Summary..........................................................................................24 

Appendix D OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments........................................................25 

Appendix E Report Distribution ...........................................................................................26 

ii 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Objective
 

Scope of
 

Inspection
 

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: 

	 Evaluate how well VAROs are accomplishing their mission of providing 

veterans with 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 February 2011, the OIG conducted an inspection of the Atlanta VARO. 

The inspection focused on 5 protocol areas examining 10 operational 

activities. The five protocol areas were disability claims processing, data 

integrity, management controls, workload management, and eligibility 

determinations. 

We reviewed 90 (7 percent) of 1,245 disability claims related to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and herbicide 

exposure that VARO staff completed from July through September 2010. In 

addition, we reviewed 30 (4 percent) of 731 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 Atlanta 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, Atlanta, Georgia 

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 Atlanta VARO needs to improve the control and accuracy of processing 

temporary 100 percent disability evaluations, TBI residual disability claims, 

and herbicide exposure-related disability claims. VARO staff incorrectly 

processed 45 (38 percent) of the total 120 disability claims reviewed. We 

advised VARO management regarding the inaccuracies noted during our 

inspection and they agreed with our assessments and 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 Atlanta 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 24 6 18 

PTSD 30 0 0 0 

TBI 30 16 10 6 

Herbicide Exposure-Related 

Disabilities 30 5 3 2 

Total 120 45 19 26 

Source: VAOIG 

Temporary 

100 Percent 

Disability 

Evaluations 

VARO staff incorrectly processed 24 (80 percent) of 30 temporary 

100 percent disability evaluations, we 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 

VA Office of Inspector General 2 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

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

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

disability evaluation. 

Based on analysis of available medical evidence, 6 of the 24 processing 

inaccuracies identified affected veterans’ benefits—5 involved overpayments 

totaling $287,067 and 1 involved an underpayment of $2,769. Examples of 

the most significant overpayment and underpayment follow: 

	 A Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR) granted service 

connection for prostate cancer and noted the veteran would need 

reexamination in December 2003; however, the staff did not schedule the 

examination. Our review of VA medical treatment records showed the 

veteran’s condition had improved and he was no longer entitled to 

receive temporary 100 percent disability benefits. As a result, VA 

overpaid the veteran a total of $154,436 over a period of 6 years and 

4 months. 

	 An RVSR did not compensate a veteran for erectile dysfunction as a 

residual disability of prostate cancer, as required. As a result, VA 

underpaid the veteran a total of $2,769 over a period of 2 years and 

5 months. 

The remaining 18 inaccuracies had the potential to affect veterans’ benefits. 

In 17 cases, we could not determine if the evaluations would have continued 

because the veterans’ claims folders did not contain the medical examination 

reports needed to reevaluate each case. In the remaining case, VSC staff 

incorrectly established a reexamination date several months beyond the 

mandatory reexamination date. 

Delays in scheduling the reexaminations ranged from approximately 

4 months to 8 years and 3 months. An average of 3 years and 8 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 veterans’ 

payment amounts, VSC staff must input suspense diaries 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 two most frequent types of processing inaccuracies resulted from human 

error. The most frequent processing inaccuracy noted in 13 (54 percent) of 

VA Office of Inspector General 3 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

PTSD Claims 

TBI Claims 

the 24 inaccuracies involved VSC staff not establishing suspense diaries to 

notify that VA reexaminations needed to be scheduled. The second most 

frequent processing inaccuracies noted in 9 (38 percent) of the 

24 inaccuracies involved VSC staff not following up on established reminder 

notifications or proposed actions to reduce benefits. 

These inaccuracies occurred because VARO management did not provide 

adequate oversight to ensure VSC staff entered suspense diaries or took 

action on reminder notifications. Because effective controls were not in 

place, temporary 100 percent disability evaluations could have continued 

uninterrupted over the course of the veterans’ lifetimes. As such, veterans 

did not always receive correct benefits payments. 

We provided the VARO with 701 claims remaining from the universe of 

731 reviewed. The Acting Under Secretary for Benefits has agreed to review 

all temporary 100 percent disability evaluations and ensure each evaluation 

has a future exam date entered in the electronic record. The Acting Under 

Secretary explained that VBA’s national review plan entails use of three 

medical diagnostic codes to comprise a sample for testing whether future 

examination dates are established in the electronic record. Those diagnostic 

codes relate to Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Malignant Neoplasms of the 

Genitourinary System, and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. 

Further, the Acting Under Secretary stated, “the remainder of the cases will 

be identified through a batch process, and VBA will establish the appropriate 

future diary controls electronically.” The Acting Under Secretary for 

Benefits has agreed with a corresponding recommendation in our national 

report, Veterans Benefits Administration: Audit of 100 Percent Disability 

Evaluations, (Report Number 09-03359-71, January 24, 2011). 

In accordance with VBA policy, VARO staff correctly processed all 

30 PTSD claims we reviewed. We make 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 that staff evaluate these residual disabilities. 

VARO staff incorrectly processed 16 (53 percent) of 30 TBI claims. Based 

on analysis of medical evidence, 10 of the 16 inaccuracies affected veterans’ 

benefits—7 involved overpayments totaling $68,921 and 3 involved 

underpayments totaling $22,638. The remaining six inaccuracies had the 

potential to affect veterans’ benefits. Examples of the most significant 

overpayment and underpayment follow: 

VA Office of Inspector General 4 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Herbicide 

Exposure-Related 

Claims 

	 An RVSR incorrectly used symptoms associated with a coexisting 

mental condition to assign a 40 percent evaluation for a TBI residual 

disability. As a result, VA overpaid the veteran $19,492 over a period of 

1 year and 10 months. 

	 An RVSR under evaluated the residuals of a veteran’s TBI and assigned 

a 10 percent evaluation; however, the VA examination report provided 

medical evidence supporting a 40 percent evaluation. As a result, VA 

underpaid the veteran a total of $9,752 over a period of 1 year and 

11 months. 

Examples of the six TBI inaccuracies that had the potential to affect 

veterans’ benefits follow: 

	 In four cases, RVSRs incorrectly evaluated TBI related disabilities 

because they used inadequate medical examination reports. Neither 

VARO staff nor we can ascertain all residual disabilities related to TBI 

claims without an adequate or complete medical examination. 

	 In one case, an RVSR did not assign a separate disability evaluation for 

migraine headaches even though the VA examiner provided this 

diagnosis. This inaccuracy did not affect the veteran’s current disability 

percentage; however, it may affect future evaluation percentages. 

	 In one case, an RVSR determined the TBI related disability improved 

and a future reexamination was required to assess the current level of the 

disability. However, VSC staff did not establish the future reexamination 

date in the electronic record. Because a reexamination date did not exist 

in the electronic record, the disability evaluation may have continued 

without further review for an indefinite period. 

A review of the VARO’s training schedule revealed RVSRs did not receive 

training on evaluation of TBI residual disabilities during Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2010. Interviews with VARO management confirmed staff last 

received TBI training in December 2008 despite VBA issuing new training 

materials and guidance in January 2009. In addition, VARO management 

and staff stated other VSC priorities took precedence over TBI training. As a 

result, veterans did not always receive correct benefit payments. 

VARO staff incorrectly processed 5 (17 percent) of 30 herbicide exposurerelated claims we reviewed. Three of the five processing inaccuracies 

affected veterans’ benefits—two involved underpayments totaling 

$79,428 and one involved an overpayment of $25,364. Examples of the 

most significant underpayment and overpayment follow: 

	 An RVSR incorrectly assigned a 0 percent evaluation for a veteran’s 

chronic lymphatic leukemia. According to VBA policy, a veteran 

diagnosed with this condition warrants a 100 percent disability 

VA Office of Inspector General 5 
Recommendations 

Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

evaluation. As a result, VA underpaid the veteran a total of $55,128 over 

a period of 2 years. 

	 An RVSR incorrectly continued an evaluation of 40 percent for diabetes. 

However, the VA medical examination results supported an evaluation of 

20 percent. As a result, VA overpaid the veteran a total of $25,364 over 

a period of 9 years and 8 months. 

In all five processing errors, RVSRs incorrectly applied the rating criteria for 

herbicide exposure-related disabilities. These errors occurred because the 

VARO’s rating quality review process lacked oversight to ensure staff 

conducted accurate quality reviews sufficient to identify local training needs 

related to rating accuracy. In October 2010, VSC staff compared the rating 

accuracy from their local reviews to that of VBA’s national reviews for fiscal 

year 2010. Management determined local quality reviews were cursory and 

did not accurately reflect the VARO’s rating accuracy. 

In an effort to improve quality, VARO management sought assistance from 

VBA’s Compensation and Pension Service, which deployed an assistance 

team to the VARO. VARO management also sent three employees to train 

with Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) program staff to learn 

how to conduct accurate quality reviews. 

Additionally, in November 2010, VSC management created a Quality and 

Training Team to provide unified training and oversight to address quality 

deficiencies. As this team had only been in place for a short period and the 

inaccuracies we identified occurred prior to its establishment, we were 

unable to assess the team’s effectiveness in reducing or eliminating quality 

deficiencies; therefore, we make no recommendation. 

1.	 We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director implement 

controls to ensure staff establish suspense diaries for temporary 

100 percent disability reevaluations. 

2.	 We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director implement 

controls to ensure staff take appropriate follow-up actions on reminder 

notifications for temporary 100 percent disability reevaluations. 

3.	 We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Director ensure Rating Veteran 

Service Representatives receive refresher training on how to evaluate 

disabilities related to traumatic brain injuries. 

4.	 We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director require 

traumatic brain injury claims undergo an additional level of review (two 

signatures) to ensure adequate medical examinations and accurate rating 

evaluations prior to finalizing benefit payments decisions. 

VA Office of Inspector General 6 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Management 

Comments 

OIG Response 

Dates of Claim 

Notices of 

Disagreement 

The VARO Director concurred with our recommendations for improving 

disability claims processing. The Director informed us staff received 

training on the proper procedures for inputting suspense diaries. Further, 

VSC management is updating the workload management plan to outline 

responsibilities for reviewing and processing follow-up actions on reminder 

notifications for temporary 100 percent disability reevaluations. RVSRs on 

the Triage Team are required to review the notifications to determine if 

evaluations require future medical examinations. The Director stated the 

VSC would monitor compliance with future medical examination procedures 

through its local quality assurance review process. 

VSC management provided refresher training on the proper procedures for 

processing claims related to traumatic brain injuries. Further, the Director 

informed us VSC management disseminated a memorandum mandating 

second signature reviews for all traumatic brain injury claims. A Quality and 

Training team will have responsibility for reviewing traumatic brain injury 

claims prior to completing award decisions. 

Management’s comments and planned actions are responsive to the 

recommendations. 

2. Data Integrity 

We analyzed claims folders to determine if VARO staff was following VBA 

policy to establish dates of claim in the electronic record. 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 days to complete a claim. VARO staff 

established an incorrect date 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 make no 

recommendation for improvement in this area. 

We reviewed claims folders to determine if VARO staff timely recorded 

Notices of Disagreement (NODs) in the Veterans Appeals Control and 

Locator System (VACOLS). 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, as well as manages 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. 

VA Office of Inspector General 7 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Finding 2
	

Recommendation 

Management 

Comments 

Controls Over Recording Notices of Disagreement 

Need Strengthening 

The Appeals Team did not have controls in place to ensure staff recorded 

NODs in VACOLS within VBA’s 7-day standard. This occurred because 

management did not provide adequate oversight to ensure VARO staff 

entered NODs in line with the standard. Untimely recording of NODs in 

VACOLS affects data integrity and misrepresents VARO performance. 

VARO staff exceeded VBA’s 7-day standard for 21 (70 percent) of the 

30 NODs we reviewed. It took staff an average of 29 days to record these 

21 NODs in VACOLS. According to the VARO workload management 

plan, responsibility for recording NODs belonged to the Appeals Team. 

Because of a shortage of staff in the Appeals Team, the responsibility shifted 

to the Triage Team. During May through November 2010, the Triage Team 

began controlling NODs in a separate VBA electronic record. Once 

recorded in that system, staff forwarded the NODs to the Appeals Team to 

enter into VACOLS. This practice created unnecessary delays in entering 

NODs into VACOLS within the 7-day standard. 

VSC management was not aware of these unnecessary delays in entering 

NODs until early November 2010. At that time, management added 

additional staff to the Appeals Team and reiterated its responsibility for 

entering NODs. Because both teams were using two systems to control 

NODs, a backlog in NOD inventory occurred. 

Although VARO management indicated the backlog had been resolved, we 

determined management needed additional controls to ensure staff record 

NODs in VACOLS within the 7-day standard. Management agreed with our 

assessment in this area. 

Data integrity issues due to untimely recording of NODs make it difficult for 

VARO and senior VBA leadership to accurately measure and monitor 

VARO performance. For example, unnecessary delays in controlling NODs 

affect national performance for NOD inventory and timely completion of 

appeals. Further, VBA’s National Call Centers rely upon accurate VACOLS 

information to provide quality customer service to claimants. 

5.	 We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director develop and 

implement a plan to provide adequate oversight to ensure staff timely 

record Notices of Disagreement in the Veterans Appeals Control and 

Locator System. 

The VARO Director concurred with our recommendation. The Director 

stated VSC management amended the mail flow process to daily direct 

appeals-related mail to the appeals team for processing. Further, VSC staff 

VA Office of Inspector General 8 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

OIG Response 

Systematic 

Technical 

Accuracy 

Review 

Systematic 

Analysis of 

Operations 

Finding 3 

will enter NODs into VACOLS within two business days upon receipt of the 

mail. The Director informed us a tracking spreadsheet was created for 

VARO management to monitor timeliness and trends in NOD processing. 

Management’s comments and planned actions are responsive to the 

recommendation. 

3. Management Controls 

We assessed management controls to determine if VARO management 

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

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 

VARO staff take corrective action on errors that the STAR staff identifies. 

In general, VARO staff followed VBA policy regarding the correction of 

STAR errors. 

VARO staff did not correct 1 (4 percent) of the 28 errors identified by 

VBA’s STAR program from July through September 2010. In this instance, 

VARO staff erroneously reported to the STAR that they had completed the 

corrective action identified by STAR program staff. We do not consider the 

error rate significant, so we make no recommendation for improvement in 

this area. 

We assessed whether VARO management had controls in place to ensure 

complete and timely submission of SAOs. 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 designating the staff required to 

complete the SAOs by specific dates. The Veterans Service Center Manager 

is responsible for ongoing analysis of VSC operations, including completing 

12 annual SAOs. 

Improved Oversight Needed To Ensure SAOs are 

Timely and Complete 

VARO staff did not always ensure SAOs were timely and complete. This 

occurred because VARO management did not provide adequate oversight to 

ensure VSC staff completed SAOs timely (according to the annual schedule) 

and addressed all required elements. As a result, VARO management may 

not have adequately identified existing and potential problems for corrective 

action to improve VSC operations. 

VA Office of Inspector General 9 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Recommendation 

Management 

Comments 

OIG Response 

Mailroom 

Operations 

Our analysis revealed 5 (42 percent) of the 12 SAOs were not compliant with 

VBA policy. Specifically, 3 of the 12 required SAOs were incomplete, 

1 was untimely and incomplete, and 1 was untimely. Senior VARO 

leadership informed us that previous VSC management completed cursory 

reviews with little analysis regarding SAOs completed in FY 2010. In 

October 2010, senior VARO leadership recognized this weakness and 

established a local VARO policy, which increased oversight of SAOs. As 

this policy change has only been in place for a short period and the 

inaccuracies occurred prior to October 2010, we were unable to assess the 

effectiveness of these changes. 

We identified several operational 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 Division Management SAO, they 

might have determined RVSRs had not received refresher training on 

procedures for processing TBI and herbicide exposure-related claims in 

FY 2010. 

6.	 We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director monitor the 

effectiveness of implementation of the new Systematic Analyses of 

Operations policy to ensure that analyses are completed and all required 

elements addressed. 

The VARO Director concurred with our recommendation. To ensure SAO 

completeness and support oversight of the SAO process, the VARO will 

utilize an SAO submission cover sheet that outlines all required elements. 

The director had noted that management granted extensions for those SAOs 

that did not meet the annual SAO completion schedule. Further, VSC 

managers will receive training on the proper procedures for completing 

SAOs, with emphasis on the importance of performing quality analyses. 

Management’s comments and actions are responsive to the recommendation. 

4. Workload Management 

We assessed controls over VARO mailroom operations to ensure staff timely 

and accurately processed incoming mail. VBA policy states staff will open, 

date-stamp, and route all mail to the appropriate locations within 4 to 6 hours 

of receipt at the VARO. The Atlanta VARO assigns responsibility for 

mailroom activities, including processing of incoming mail, to the Support 

Services Division. 

VA Office of Inspector General 10 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Finding 4
	

Triage Mail 

Processing 

Procedures 

Controls Over Mail Processing Need Strengthening 

VARO mailroom staff did not always date-stamp mail the same day it 

arrived at the mailroom as required. This occurred because VARO 

management lacked adequate oversight to ensure staff processed and datestamped mail daily. As a result, beneficiaries may not have received 

accurate benefit payments. 

On February 1, 2011, we observed mail received in the mailroom on 

January 31, 2011, but not processed or date-stamped until the next business 

day—a practice that can negatively affect veterans’ benefits payments. 

Generally, a benefit payment date is the first of the month following the date 

stamped on the incoming claim. For example, if mailroom staff properly 

date stamp claims-related mail received on January 31, the benefits would be 

payable on February 1. However, if mailroom staff improperly date-stamp 

this same mail on February 1, the payment date would be March 1, and VSC 

staff would unintentionally underpay the beneficiary by 1 month. 

Mailroom supervisors and staff informed us the VARO normally receives an 

increased amount of claims-related mail from Veterans Service 

Organizations on the last business day of each month. In addition, the 

mailroom staff indicated they observe increased amounts of mail on 

Mondays. In both situations, staff stated they usually did not process or 

date-stamp remaining mail until the following business day. Once we 

notified staff that mail received on January 31, 2011, had not been properly 

date-stamped, they took immediate corrective action. 

VARO management contended that what we observed was an anomaly and 

improper date-stamping did not happen often. VARO management also 

reported that mailroom staff is subject to monthly quality assurance reviews 

that included a review to ensure staff correctly date-stamped mail. 

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 indicates that oversight to ensure 

staff use available plans and systems is the most important part of workload 

management. It also states that effective mail management is crucial to the 

success and control of workflow within the VSC. 

VBA policy requires that staff use the Control of Veterans Records System 

(COVERS), an electronic tracking system, to track claims folders and search 

mail. Additionally, VBA policy states VSC staff will route and process mail 

requiring action according to established procedures. VBA defines search 

mail as active claims-related mail waiting to be associated with a veteran’s 

claims folder. Conversely, drop mail requires no processing action. 

VA Office of Inspector General 11 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Military File Mail	 VBA policy allows the use of a storage area, known as the Military File, for 

VSC staff to store mail temporarily. Typically, the mail stored in this area 

pertains to matters which VA has jurisdiction or the mail does not refer to a 

claim for benefits and/or does not have a return address. The VARO 

generally processed military file mail correctly. Staff incorrectly handled 

1 (4 percent) of 24 pieces of military file mail we reviewed. In this one 

instance, the veteran had an inactive claims file, which was located at a 

national storage facility; therefore, staff should have forwarded the mail to 

that facility, as required by VBA policy. Due to the infrequency of such 

inaccuracies, we make no recommendation for improvement in this area. 

Finding 5		 Control of Triage Mail Management Procedures Need 

Strengthening 

The Triage Team did not always process mail according to VBA and local 

policy. This occurred because the VSC management did not follow mailhandling policies for search mail as written in the VARO workload 

management plan or the Triage Team Mail Flow Procedures. Additionally, 

these local procedures did not contain oversight measures to ensure Triage 

staff accurately categorized drop mail. Consequently, RVSRs may not 

always have all available mail in the claims file when making disability 

determinations and claimants may not always receive prompt and accurate 

benefits. 

VSC staff did not correctly process or control 42 (40 percent) of 

104 individual pieces of mail reviewed. Specifically, we identified 

weaknesses associated with the management of search mail, drop mail, 

unprocessed mail, and unlabeled mail. Following are descriptions of 

discrepancies we noted in each of these categories. 

Search Mail	 For 17 (57 percent) of 30 pieces of search mail reviewed, VSC staff did not 

properly use COVERS to ensure timely processing. In 11 of these 17 cases, 

staff did not retrieve search mail and associate the mail with claims files as 

required, even though COVERS contained electronic notices of pending 

search mail requests. Following are examples of inaccuracies we found 

during our search mail review: 

	 VARO staff delayed a widow’s claim for pension benefits by 

approximately two weeks when Triage staff placed the mail on search 

rather than forwarding the claim to a Pension Management Center, as is 

required by VBA policy. Staff took no action on this claim until we 

identified it during our inspection. 

	 VARO staff placed a claim for benefits on search; however, the veteran’s 

claims file was located in the VARO file storage area. VBA policy states 

mail is ready for search status after staff have attempted to associate it 

VA Office of Inspector General 12 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Drop Mail 

Unprocessed 

Mail 

with a claims folder. In this case, Triage staff did not fulfill requirements 

to associate the mail with the claims file, which was located in a file bank 

at the VARO. This mail remained on search for approximately 75 days, 

during which time staff took no action on the claim. We alerted Triage 

staff of the processing inaccuracy during our inspection. 

VSC management acknowledged weaknesses associated with mail 

processing. The workload management plan required Triage Team 

supervisors to ensure staff complied with search mail policies. Supervisors 

were to accomplish this by using COVERS to review mail placed in a search 

status for greater than 30 days. Triage Team management stated they had not 

reviewed search mail because of other priorities. 

We found 7 (23 percent) of 30 pieces of mail that had been erroneously 

marked as drop mail. Generally, this means staff did not correctly categorize 

drop mail and take action as required. Following are examples of action mail 

found in drop mail bins: 

	 On December 8, 2010, the VARO received income information for a 

pension claim. VARO staff delayed this pension claim by approximately 

2 months because the mail was marked for drop and not forwarded to the 

Pension Management Center as required by VBA policy. 

	 On August 26, 2010, VSC staff received evidence from a veteran 

indicating he had remarried. Instead of placing the claim under control in 

the electronic record and adjusting the veteran’s benefits, VSC staff sent 

this mail to be associated with the claims file and took no further action. 

As a result, the VARO delayed the veteran’s claim approximately 

6 months. 

Local VSC mail handling procedures did not contain any measures for 

management oversight of drop mail to ensure staff properly categorized this 

type of mail. Management said they occasionally performed reviews of drop 

mail and found similar errors; however, they were unable to identify the staff 

that improperly processed the mail. Management could not identify the 

responsible employee because Triage staff did not properly annotate the mail 

with the employee’s mail symbol, initials, and the date reviewed, as required 

by VBA policy. 

The Triage Team had approximately 3,400 pieces of unprocessed mail dating 

back to October 2010. Staff correctly date-stamped the mail and identified it 

as either pending claims or service treatment records. However, we found 

13 (87 percent) of 15 pieces of this mail had either delayed the processing of 

pending claims or had the potential to affect claimants’ benefits. Following 

are examples of what we found: 

VA Office of Inspector General 13 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Unlabeled Mail 

Recommendations 

	 One piece of mail was a veteran’s statement describing stressful inservice events to support a pending claim for PTSD. Because this 

evidence was not associated with the file, the RVSR prematurely denied 

the claim. 

	 One packet of mail contained forms to support a pending dependency 

claim. The claim had been waiting for a decision since its receipt on 

November 23, 2010. Additionally, we verified in the electronic record 

that the National Call Center was unable to provide the veteran with 

confirmation these forms had been received or the status of the claim. 

According to VARO management, the accumulation of unprocessed mail 

occurred because initially VSC management only had five claims assistants 

assigned to process this mail. In November 2010, the backlog of 

unprocessed mail totaled approximately 6,100 pieces. Management decided 

to realign this work so all claims assistants assigned to the Triage Team 

could help process this mail. By the time of our inspection in February 2011, 

staff had reduced the unprocessed mail to approximately 3,400 pieces. 

Considering the improvement made in this area, we make no 

recommendations. 

We observed the Triage Team had an unlabeled mail bin containing claimsrelated mail for 25 claimants. Based on our sample, mishandling of 

4 (80 percent) of 5 pieces of this unlabeled mail had the potential to affect 

veterans’ benefits. Examples included processed benefits claims, 

correspondence, administrative decisions, and original service treatment 

records. 

Although staff had processed these documents, they had not associated them 

with claims folders as required by VBA policy. As a result, these documents 

may not be available for review by VARO staff for future claims, which 

could negatively affect veterans’ benefits. For example, if a veteran submits 

a claim for compensation and the service treatment records are in an 

unlabeled mail bin, an RVSR may make a decision on the claim without the 

benefit of these essential documents. 

7.	 We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director develop and 

implement controls to ensure Support Services Division staff meet 

Veterans Benefits Administration’s requirement that all veteran-related 

mail be processed, date-stamped, and routed or action taken on the same 

day received. 

8.	 We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director implement a 

plan to increase oversight to ensure Triage staff process mail according to 

VBA policy and local procedures. 

VA Office of Inspector General 14 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Management 

Comments 

OIG Response 

Competency 

Determinations 

Finding 6 

The VARO Director concurred with our recommendations to improve mailhandling procedures. The Director told us that to address mail surges on the 

last business day of the month, mailroom staff will change their tours of duty 

to ensure all mail is date-stamped the same day it is received. Further, the 

mailroom supervisor has implemented a monthly quality assurance checklist 

to monitor compliance of each individual responsible for processing mail. 

The Director informed us VSC management will convene weekly meeting 

with Triage supervisory staff to ensure search mail processing is compliant 

with the VSC workload management plan. VSC management amended the 

workload management plan to require Triage supervisory staff to review 

drop-mail on a weekly basis. In addition, management provided training to 

staff to reinforce and ensure compliance with VBA mail handling policies. 

Management’s comments and actions are responsive to the 

recommendations. 

5. Eligibility Determinations 

VA must consider beneficiary competency in every case involving a mental 

health condition that is totally disabling or when evidence raises questions as 

to a beneficiary’s mental capacity to manage his or her affairs. The 

Fiduciary Unit supports implementation of competency determinations by 

appointing a fiduciary, which is a third party who assists in managing funds 

for an incompetent beneficiary. We reviewed competency determinations 

completed by the VSC Decision Team to ensure staff completed them 

accurately and timely. Delays in making these determinations ultimately 

affect the Fiduciary Unit’s ability to be timely in appointing fiduciaries. 

Controls Over Competency Determinations Need 

Strengthening 

VARO staff unnecessarily delayed making final decisions in 9 (30 percent) 

of 30 competency determinations completed from July through September 

2010. The delays ranged from 18 to 673 days, with an average completion 

time of 113 days. If we do not consider the 673-day outlier, processing time 

would average 43 days. The delays occurred because the VSC workload 

management plan did not contain procedures emphasizing immediate 

completion of incompetency determinations. The risk of incompetent 

beneficiaries receiving benefit payments without fiduciaries assigned to 

manage those funds increases when the staff does not complete competency 

determinations immediately. 

VBA policy requires staff to obtain clear and convincing medical evidence 

that a beneficiary is incapable of managing his or her affairs prior to making 

a final competency decision. The policy allows the beneficiary a 65-day due 

VA Office of Inspector General 15 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

process period to submit the evidence showing an ability to manage funds 

and other personal affairs. At the end of the due process period, VARO staff 

must take immediate action to determine if the beneficiary is competent. 

In the absence of a definition of “immediate,” we allowed 14 calendar days 

after the 65-day due process period to determine if staff were timely in 

completing a competency decision. We considered this a reasonable period 

to control, prioritize, and finalize these types of cases. 

Using our interpretation of immediate, the most significant case of placing 

funds at risk occurred when VARO staff unnecessarily delayed making a 

final incompetency decision for a veteran for approximately 51 days. During 

this period, the veteran received $6,954 in disability payments. While the 

veteran was entitled to these payments, fiduciary stewardship was not in 

place to ensure effective funds management and the welfare of the veteran. 

VARO management was aware of VBA’s policy requiring immediate action 

to determine whether a beneficiary is incompetent; however, management 

stated they did not have a definition of “immediate.” VARO staff 

responsible for overseeing and processing final competency determinations 

stated they were unaware of VBA’s policy to immediately process 

competency determinations and did not prioritize these cases. 

In October 2010, in a Compensation and Pension Service Bulletin, VBA 

reinforced the importance of immediately completing competency 

determinations and mandated VAROs update workload management plans to 

identify responsibility for managing the determinations. Despite this 

guidance, the Atlanta VSC workload management plan lacked procedures to 

immediate completion of incompetency determinations and oversight of the 

process. As a result, incompetent beneficiaries received benefit payments for 

extended periods despite being incapable of managing these funds 

effectively. 

Until recently, VBA did not have a clear, measurable definition of 

“immediate” and this timeframe varied from office-to-office. In response to 

our summary report for FY 2010, Systemic Issues Reported During 

Inspections at VA Regional Offices, (Report Number 11-00510-167, 

May 18, 2011), the Acting Under Secretary for Benefits defined “immediate” 

as 21 days following the expiration of the due process period. VBA plans to 

implement this new policy nationwide in June 2011. Therefore, we made no 

recommendation to the Director of the VARO regarding this issue. The 

VARO processed 20 of 28 determinations in 21 days. 

In addition to processing delays, we identified two instances where VSC 

staff did not follow VBA policy when determining if beneficiaries were 

competent to handle VA funds. In both cases, staff did not prepare rating 

VA Office of Inspector General 16 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

decisions proposing the beneficiaries were incompetent and affording them 

the mandatory due process period. Because staff did not follow VBA policy, 

prematurely appointed fiduciaries received $38,938. Due to the infrequency 

of these processing inaccuracies, we make no recommendation for 

improvement in this area. 

VA Office of Inspector General 17 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Appendix A 

Organization 

Resources 

Workload 

Scope 

VARO Profile and Scope of Inspection 

The Atlanta VARO is responsible for delivering nonmedical VA benefits and 

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

responsibilities by administering compensation and pension benefits, home 

loan guaranty, education, vocational rehabilitation and employment 

assistance, and outreach activities. 

As of December 2010, the Atlanta VARO had a staffing level of 775 fulltime employees. Of these, the VSC had 330 employees (43 percent) 

assigned. 

As of January 2011, the VARO reported 29,111 pending compensation 

claims. The average time to complete these claims was 183.4 days— 

approximately 8 days more than the national target of 175 days. As reported 

by STAR, the accuracy of compensation rating-related issues was 

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

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. 

Our review included 90 (7 percent) of 1,245 disability claims related to 

PTSD, TBI, and herbicide exposure that the VARO completed from July 

through September 2010. For temporary 100 percent disability evaluations, 

we selected 30 (4 percent) of 731 existing claims from VBA’s Corporate 

Database. We provided the VARO with the 701 claims remaining from the 

universe of 731. The 731 claims represented all instances in which VARO 

staff had granted temporary 100 percent disability evaluations for at least 18 

months or longer as of November 14, 2010. 

We reviewed 30 available competency determinations and 28 errors 

identified by VBA’s STAR program during the period from July through 

September 2010. VBA measures the accuracy of compensation and pension 

claims processing through its STAR program. STARs assessments include a 

review of work associated with claims requiring rating decisions. 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. 

VA Office of Inspector General 18 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

For our review, we selected dates of claim, NODs, and Triage Team mail 

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. We planned and 

performed the review to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our review 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our review objectives. 

VA Office of Inspector General 19 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Appendix B VARO Director’s Comments 

Department of Memorandum Veterans Affairs 

Date: May 4, 2011 

From: Director, Southern Area 

Subj: Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

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

1.	 Attached are the Atlanta VARO’s comments on the OIG Draft Report: Inspection of the 

VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. 

2. Questions may be referred to Lakeisha Henderson-Bell at 615-695-4074. 

(Original signed) 

Keith J. Thompson
 

Southern Area Director
 

Attachment 

VA Office of Inspector General 20 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Directors Comments and Responses
 

OIG Draft Report
 

Atlanta VA Regional Office
 

Recommendation 1: We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director implement 

controls to ensure staff establish suspense diaries for temporary 100 percent disability 

reevaluations. 

Response: Concur. 

Atlanta RO management staff identified the root cause of lapsed suspense diaries for temporary 

100 percent reviews to be a training deficiency. Therefore, training on proper procedures for 

reviewing and determining when a future exam is warranted was completed on April 20, 2011. 

This training included the mechanics of inputting diaries into the corporate database when a 

determination has been made that a future examination is warranted. Compliance with future 

examination procedures has been emphasized as part of the local quality review process. A local 

Systematic Analysis of Operations (SAO) will be added to the annual schedule to monitor 

progress. The first SAO will be completed no later than June 15, 2011. 

Recommendation 2: We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director implement 

controls to ensure staff take appropriate follow-up actions on reminder notifications for 

temporary 100 percent disability reevaluations. 

Response: Concur. 

The Veterans Service Center’s (VSC) workload management plan is being updated to outline 

responsibilities for reviewing and processing follow-up actions on reminder notifications for 

temporary 100 percent disability reevaluations. Rating Veterans Service Representatives 

(RVSRs) on the Triage team are required to review notifications and determine if an exam is 

warranted. RVSRs submit their lists to their immediate supervisor weekly. As mentioned 

above, training has been conducted to ensure employees are aware of proper procedures. The 

workload management plan will be finalized by May 31, 2011. 

Recommendation 3: We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director ensure Rating 

Veterans Service Representatives receive refresher training on how to evaluate disabilities 

related to traumatic brain injuries. 

Response: Concur. 

Refresher training on procedures for processing claims related to traumatic brain injuries was 

delivered to all RVSRs and Decision Review Officers on March 9, 2011. Additionally, due to 

the complexity of traumatic brain injury cases, this training will be conducted not less than biannually. 

Recommendation 4: We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director require 

traumatic brain injury claims undergo an additional level of review (two signatures) to ensure 

VA Office of Inspector General 21 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

adequate medical examinations and accurate rating evaluations prior to finalizing benefit 

payments decisions. 

Response: Concur. 

A VSC memorandum mandating second signatures for traumatic brain injury claims was 

disseminated to VSC employees on April 25, 2011. Quality and Training team subject matter 

experts are responsible for reviewing these claims prior to award promulgation. The findings of 

their reviews will be utilized to identify future training topics. 

Recommendation 5: We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director develop and 

implement a plan to provide adequate oversight to ensure staff timely record Notices of 

Disagreement in the Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System. 

Response: Concur. 

The appeals team supervisor and personnel have been trained on proper procedures and 

timeliness standards for the control of Notices of Disagreement (NOD). Additionally, local 

procedures have been modified to strengthen compliance and oversight. 

The mail flow process has been amended to direct appeals mail to the appeals team daily. RO 

personnel enter NODs in Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System (VACOLS) within two 

business days upon receipt of the mail. Additionally, a tracking spreadsheet was created and 

implemented March 1, 2011, to identify NODs received, the date received by VARO, the date 

received by the appeals team, and the date recorded in VACOLS. This allows RO management 

to monitor timeliness and address root causes of issues identified. 

Recommendation 6: We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director monitor the 

effectiveness of implementation of the new Systematic Analyses of Operations policy to ensure 

that analyses are completed and all required elements addressed. 

Response: Concur in part. 

Atlanta RO management does not dispute that four FY10 SAOs did not contain all elements 

required by VBA’s manual. To improve these controls, an SAO submission cover sheet, which 

outlines all required elements, has been implemented. This allows RO management to ensure 

that all required topics are covered in the analysis. For the untimely SAOs in question, local 

deadline extensions were granted during the year and all FY10 SAOs were completed and 

submitted timely. The Atlanta RO Director has reinforced the importance of thorough reviews in 

the completion of SAOs. Additional training with VSC supervisors and managers specific to 

SAOs is scheduled for May 16, 2011. The training will encompass the manual references and 

emphasize the quality of the analyses to ensure maximum benefit to the division. 

Recommendation 7: We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director develop and 

implement controls to ensure Support Services Division staff meet Veterans Benefits 

VA Office of Inspector General 22 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Administration’s requirement that all veteran-related mail be processed, date-stamped, and 

routed or action taken on the same day received. 

Response: Concur. 

Mail processing is compliant with VBA policy as it relates to the receipt, date stamping, and 

timely routing of incoming mail. To address mail surges on the last business day of each month, 

co-located Veterans Service Officers (VSOs) submit mail documents to the Public Contact area 

to be date-stamped and routed to the Triage team. To ensure all mail is date-stamped same day, 

mailroom staff will change their tours of duty to remain on site until all mail is received. 

Additionally, the mailroom supervisor has implemented a monthly quality assurance checklist to 

ensure each individual employee is compliant in the processing, date stamping, routing, and 

action taken on mail. 

Recommendation 8: We recommend the Atlanta VA Regional Office Director implement a 

plan to increase oversight to ensure Triage staff process mail according to VBA policy and local 

procedures. 

Response: Concur. 

In order to strengthen local oversight of search mail and compliance with the workload 

management plan, VSC management convenes weekly meetings with the Triage supervisory 

staff. During these meetings, workload management compliance is discussed to ensure search 

mail is reviewed as outlined. The VSC daily report has been amended to provide the amount of 

search and drop mail, as well as the oldest piece daily. This allows daily monitoring and 

oversight by VSC management. 

Additionally, the VSC workload management plan is being updated. The supervisory personnel 

over Triage will be responsible for reviewing the oldest drop-mail weekly. All drop mail over 60 

days will be associated with the claims file during the week. The workload management plan 

will be finalized by May 31, 2011. Lastly, training was conducted on February 7, 2011, to 

reinforce and ensure compliance with VBA policy. All drop mail is annotated with the 

employee’s initials, date, and mail symbol. Additional training will be conducted with Triage 

personnel to outline the difference between pull and drop mail. Spot checks will be conducted 

by management to ensure mail is coded properly. 

VA Office of Inspector General 23 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Appendix C Inspection Summary
	

10 Operational 

Activities Inspected Criteria 

Reasonable 

Assurance of 

Compliance 

Yes No 

Claims Processing 

1. Temporary 

100 Percent 

Disability 

Evaluations 

Determine whether VARO staff properly reviewed temporary 100 percent 

disability evaluations. (38 CFR 3.103(b)) (38 CFR 3.105(e)) (38 CFR 3.327) 

(M21-1MR 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 claims for service connection for all residual disabilities 

related to in-service TBI were properly processed. (Fast Letters 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 herbicide exposure (Agent Orange). (38 CFR 3.309) (Fast 

Letter 02-33) (M21-1MR Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C.10) 

X 

Data Integrity 

5. Date of Claim Determine whether VARO staff properly recorded correct dates of claim in 

the electronic records. (M21-1MR, Part III, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Section C) X 

6. Notice of 

Disagreement 

Determine whether VARO staff properly entered NODs into VACOLS. 

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

Management Controls 

7. Systematic 

Technical Accuracy 

Review 

Determine whether VARO staff properly corrected STAR errors in 

accordance with VBA policy. (M21-4, Chapter 3, Subchapter II, 3.03) X 

8. Systematic Analysis 

of Operations 

Determine whether VARO staff properly performed formal analyses of 

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

Workload Management 

9. Mail Handling 

Procedures 

Determine whether 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 

Eligibility Determinations 

10. Competency 

Determinations 

Determine whether VAROs properly assessed beneficiaries’ mental 

capacity to handle VA benefit payments. (M21-1MR Part III, Subpart v, 

Chapter 9, Section A) (M21-1MR Part III. Subpart v, Chapter 9, Section B) 

(Fast Letter 09-08) 

X 

Abbreviations for this Table: CFR-Code of Federal Regulations, M-Manual, MR-Manual Re-write 

Source: VA OIG 

VA Office of Inspector General 24 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Appendix D OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
	

OIG Contact	 For more information about this report, please 

contact the Office of Inspector General at 

(202) 461-4720. 

Acknowledgments	 Brent Arronte, Director 

Brett Byrd 

Madeline Cantu 

Kelly Crawford 

Ramon Figueroa 

Lee Giesbrecht 

Kerri Leggiero-Yglesias 

Nora Stokes 

VA Office of Inspector General 25 
Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

Appendix E Report Distribution 

VA Distribution 

Office of the Secretary 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

Assistant Secretaries 

Office of General Counsel 

Veterans Benefits Administration Central Area Director 

VA Regional Office Atlanta 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: Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Isakson 

U.S. House of Representatives: John Barrow, Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Paul C. 

Broun, Phil Gingrey, Tom Graves, Henry (Hank) C. Johnson, Jr., Jack 

Kingston, John Lewis, Tom Price, Austin Scott, David Scott, Lynn 

Westmoreland, Robert Woodall 

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

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

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

VA Office of Inspector General 26