Military Personnel: Federal Management of Servicemember Employment Rights Can Be Further Improved
Published: 2005-10-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994 protects millions of people, largely National Guard and Reserve members, as they transition between their federal duties and their civilian employment. The act is intended to eliminate or minimize employment disadvantages to civilian careers that can result from service in the uniformed services. This report examines the extent to which the Departments of Defense (DOD), Labor (DOL), Justice (DOJ), and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) have achieved this purpose, specifically, the extent to which the agencies (1) have data that indicate the level of compliance with USERRA, (2) have efficiently and effectively conducted educational outreach, and (3) have efficiently and effectively addressed servicemember complaints.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Whether or not overall USERRA compliance has changed is difficult to firmly establish; however, the agencies that support or enforce USERRA have collected formal and informal complaint data and some employer support figures that provide limited insights into compliance. For example, DOL's formal complaint numbers show a possible relationship with the level of the use of the reserve components and the number of complaints. DOD data show that some employers exceed USERRA requirements, but these data have limitations. DOD has only 1 full year of informal complaint data, so it will be several years before DOD can identify any meaningful trends in informal complaints. Because informal complaint figures have not been captured on a consistent basis, agencies lack the data necessary to identify total complaint trends. Furthermore, data from a 2004 DOD survey showed that at least 72 percent of National Guard and Reserve members with USERRA problems never sought assistance for their problems. This raises questions as to whether complaint numbers alone can fully explain USERRA compliance or employer support. Some recently added employment questions on DOD's periodic surveys, if continued, offer the potential to provide insight into compliance and employer support issues. DOD, DOL, and OSC have educated hundreds of thousands of employers and servicemembers about USERRA, but the efficiency and effectiveness of this outreach is hindered by a lack of employer information. DOD's reserve component members who can be involuntarily called to active duty are required to enter their civilian employer information into a DOD database but the services have not enforced this requirement and as of August 2005, about 40 percent of the members had not entered the required information. Without information about the full expanse of servicemember employers, federal agencies have conducted general outreach efforts but have been limited in their ability to efficiently and effectively target educational outreach efforts to employers who actually have servicemember employees. Agency abilities to efficiently and effectively address servicemember complaints are hampered by incompatible data systems, a reliance on paper files, and a segmented process that lacks visibility. The systems that DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC use to track USERRA complaints are not compatible. As a result, data collection efforts are sometimes duplicated, and DOL relies on its paper files when transferring or reviewing complaints. This slows the transfer of complaints and limits the ability of DOL managers to conduct effective, timely oversight of complaint files. Furthermore, segmented responsibilities and lack of visibility have led agencies to focus on outputs rather than results. For example, agencies measure complaint processing times but not the elapsed time servicemembers actually wait to have their complaints fully addressed. GAO analysis of 52 complaints that had been closed and reopened two or more times found that recorded processing times averaged 103 days but the actual elapsed times that servicemembers waited to have their complaints fully addressed averaged 619 days.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act  (USERRA) of 1994 protects millions of individuals as they transition  between their federal duties and their civilian employment. Prior to  USERRA, reemployment rights were set forth in the Vietnam Era Veterans’  Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. Following the 1991 Gulf War,  military servicemembers and employers flooded the government with  questions and complaints concerning reemployment rights. In 1994,  following a review of the effectiveness of the 1974 act, Congress passed  USERRA to “encourage non-career service in the uniformed services by  eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and  employment which can result from such service.” The act covers not only  the more than 2 million members who have served in the reserve  components of the armed services since the act was passed, but also large  numbers of active duty servicemembers and veterans, including those who  served before the act’s passage. For example, citizens who left civilian jobs  and signed active duty enlistment contracts following the events of  September 11, 2001, retain reemployment rights under USERRA as long as  they meet a few basic requirements. Among the eligibility requirements are  (1) the absence of the receipt of a dishonorable or other disqualifying  discharge, (2) giving proper notice prior to departure and after return from  service, and (3) returning within 5 years of departure or immediately after  the expiration of their initial enlistment contracts, whichever is longer.
Every individual in the country who serves in, has served in, or intends to  serve in the uniformed services is potentially covered by USERRA. The act  applies to a wide range of employers, including federal, state, and local  governments as well as for-profit and not-for-profit private sector firms.  Enforcement and implementation of USERRA is complex, with several  federal agencies having specific and sometimes overlapping outreach,  investigative, or enforcement roles. Along with the Department of Labor  (DOL), the Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for informing  servicemembers and employers of their rights, benefits, and obligations  under USERRA. Much of DOD’s outreach is accomplished through its  Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) organization. The  ESGR performs most of its work through volunteers and specially-trained  impartial ombudsmen who act as informal mediators for USERRA issues  that arise between servicemembers and their employers. DOL, through the  efforts of its Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), is the  avenue through which servicemembers file formal USERRA-related  complaints against civilian employers. Representatives of VETS  investigate USERRA complaints and try to resolve disputes, but if they are  unable to resolve servicemember complaints, DOL informs the  servicemembers that they may request to have their complaints referred to  the Department of Justice (DOJ) or to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).  Unresolved complaints against private sector or state or local government  employers are referred by DOL to DOJ to investigate, mediate, and litigate.  Prior to February 8, 2005, unresolved complaints against federal executive  agency employers were referred from DOL to OSC. Under a new  demonstration project, OSC now receives some USERRA complaints  directly from certain servicemembers.
In light of the significant number of National Guard and Reserve members  serving in the Global War on Terrorism who will be demobilized, returned  to their civilian jobs, and possibly called back to duty, you requested that  we review the efforts of certain federal agencies to support and enforce  USERRA, specifically the activities of DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC. We agreed  to address your immediate needs by first reviewing issues surrounding  OSC’s enforcement of USERRA in the federal sector. On October 6, 2004,  we issued U.S. Office of Special Counsel’s Role in Enforcing Law to  Protect Reemployment Rights of Veterans and Reservists in Federal  Employment, GAO-05-74R. This report responds to your broader request to  review the actions of the four federal agencies involved in carrying out  USERRA responsibilities. Our objectives were to determine the extent to  which the agencies (1) have data that indicate the level of compliance with  USERRA, (2) have efficiently and effectively conducted educational  outreach, and (3) have efficiently and effectively addressed servicemember  complaints.
To address our first objective, we collected, reviewed, and analyzed data  from a wide variety of sources, including the four federal agencies that  support and enforce USERRA. We analyzed the annual numbers of  complaints filed with DOL and those referred from DOL to DOJ and OSC  from fiscal year 1997 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2005 to  determine whether there were trends in the total referrals, or the referrals  to either agency. We also reviewed the tabulations of responses from DOD’s  Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) May 2004 projectable survey of  reserve component members. We also conducted original analysis on the  survey responses that addressed employment issues. In addition, we  conducted a survey of the ESGR’s ombudsmen to obtain information about  their backgrounds and training as well as the numbers of complaints they  had handled and resolved. We also reviewed data related to the ESGR’s  outreach and employer recognition programs. To address our second  objective, we reviewed USERRA to determine agency roles and  responsibilities in educating servicemembers and employers concerning  USERRA, and we interviewed agency officials from DOD and DOL to  determine how they carry out their USERRA educational outreach  responsibilities. We also collected and analyzed data concerning DOD’s and  DOL’s outreach activities. We interviewed DOJ and OSC officials to  determine whether they were involved in any outreach activities. To  address our third objective, we reviewed USERRA and the Veterans  Benefits Improvement Act of 2004 to determine agency roles and  responsibilities in processing USERRA complaints. We interviewed  headquarters officials from the four agencies to determine how they pass  complaint information among various offices. Further, we interviewed the  ESGR ombudsmen and customer service center representatives, state  ombudsmen coordinators, DOL investigators, and officials at two of DOL’s  regional offices and two of its solicitor’s offices. We reviewed DOL hard  copy files in two regional offices and compared the data in those files to  electronic data from DOL’s USERRA Information Management System. We  also reviewed agency procedures for collecting and reporting information  about the time required to address USERRA complaints. We determined  that the agency data used in this report were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this review, though the complaint data systems had some  limitations that we discuss further in the report. We conducted our work  from October 2004 through August 2005 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed description of  our scope and methodology is provided in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: USERRA Coverage and Protections
paragraphs: USERRA has extremely broad coverage, provides a wide range of  protections, and applies over long time periods. The discrimination  provisions of the law cover every individual who serves in, plans to serve  in, or has served in the uniformed services of the United States. The law’s  reemployment and benefit provisions are applicable to some active duty  military personnel as well as to National Guard and Reserve members.  USERRA applies to public and private employers in the United States,  regardless of size, and includes federal, state, and local governments, as  well as for-profit and not-for profit private sector firms. It also applies in  overseas workplaces that are owned or controlled by U.S. employers.
Generally, servicemembers are entitled to the reemployment rights and  benefits provided by USERRA if they meet certain conditions.  These  include having held a civilian job prior to call-up, serving fewer than 5  years of cumulative military service with respect to that employer,  providing their employer with advance notice of their service requirement  when possible, leaving service under honorable conditions, and reporting  back to work or applying for reemployment in a timely manner. Provided  servicemembers meet their USERRA requirements, they are entitled to  prompt reinstatement to the positions they would have held if they had  never left their employment, or to positions of like seniority, status, and  pay;   health coverage for a designated period of time while absent from their  employers, and immediate reinstatement of health coverage upon  return;   training, as needed, to requalify for their jobs;   periods of protection against discharge based on the length of service;   non-seniority benefits that are available to other employees who are on  leaves of absence.
Figure 1 is a flowchart that shows servicemembers’ options for receiving  federal assistance with their USERRA complaints. While the flowchart  shows several different paths for resolving employment problems, the  chart does not show all of the options available to servicemembers. Some  servicemembers have used members of their military chain-of-command to  help them resolve problems with their employers. In addition, the ESGR is  available to provide information and informal mediation of USERRA- related employment problems.  The DOL offers assistance similar to the  ESGR in that it provides information to employers and employees, and  works to informally resolve USERRA-related employment problems.  The  DOL also receives formal complaints from servicemembers under  USERRA.  Another option that is available to servicemembers at any time is  to hire a private attorney and to file a complaint against their employer in  court (for private employers and state and local governments) or before the  Merit Systems Protection Board (for federal employers). However, a  working group from the American Bar Association found that many private  attorneys are reluctant to take USERRA complaints because cases are not  likely to result in large judgments or settlements.
section_title: Federal Agencies’ USERRA Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: The responsibility for enforcing and implementing USERRA is complex,  involving several federal agencies. Under USERRA, specific outreach,  investigative, and enforcement roles are assigned to DOD, DOL, DOJ, and  OSC.
subsections: section_title: Department of Defense
paragraphs: Most of the people entitled to USERRA rights and benefits earn their  entitlement while serving in the military services. The Secretary of Defense  shares responsibility with DOL for informing servicemembers and  employers of their rights, benefits, and obligations under the act. The ESGR  carries out this responsibility for DOD. The ESGR was established in 1972  to manage activities that maintain and enhance employers’ support for the  reserve components, and it has a goal to inform servicemembers and their  employers of their respective USERRA rights and responsibilities. The  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)  develops the policies, plans, and programs that manage the readiness of  both active and reserve forces, and within that office, the Assistant  Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs oversees the activities of the  ESGR.
The ESGR has a staff of about 55—18 civilians and 37 military personnel— at its national headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. However, much of the  ESGR’s work is done through its more than 4,000 volunteers who are  organized into state committees. These volunteers help to educate both  employers and servicemembers about USERRA, and a specially trained  subgroup of about 800 volunteers serve as impartial ombudsmen who work  to informally mediate USERRA issues that arise between servicemembers  and their employers. While many volunteer ombudsmen are attorneys,  human relations specialists, or have other backgrounds that assist them in  their mediation work, all of the ESGR’s ombudsmen are required to attend  a 3-day training course before they handle servicemember complaints.   (App. II contains additional information about the backgrounds of these  volunteer ombudsmen.) Most USERRA-related complaints come to the  ESGR through its toll-free telephone number (1-800-336-4590), which is  answered at the ESGR’s Customer Service Center in Millington, Tennessee.  The customer service representatives in Tennessee screen calls, fill  requests for information, and forward complaints that appear to have merit  to volunteer ombudsmen, who are generally located geographically near  the servicemembers. The complaints are often channeled through state  ombudsmen coordinators. The ESGR’s volunteer ombudsmen attempt to  resolve pay-related USERRA complaints within 7 days and other USERRA  complaints within 14 days. When ombudsmen cannot resolve  servicemember complaints, they are to notify the servicemembers of the  other options that are available to address complaints. The ombudsmen  may then pass the complaints to the ESGR headquarters through their state  ombudsman coordinators.
section_title: Department of Labor
paragraphs: The Secretary of Labor has responsibility for providing assistance to  servicemembers who claim USERRA rights and benefits. This  responsibility is carried out primarily through the efforts of VETS. VETS is  led by an assistant secretary who is supported by headquarters, regional,  and state staff as well as local investigators. When a servicemember leaves  active duty and a USERRA-related complaint develops against the  servicemember’s civilian employer, the servicemember can file a formal  complaint at www.vets1010.dol.gov, or can file a printed copy of the  complaint form, such as the one included in appendix III, with the  Secretary of Labor. The complaint is then assigned to one of VETS’s  approximately 125 investigators, generally an investigator who is located  close to the employer. These VETS investigators examine USERRA  complaints and try to help the servicemembers and employers resolve their  differences. The investigators also typically have a host of other  responsibilities that support veterans’ programs but that are not directly  related to USERRA. The law gives DOL subpoena power over records and  individuals to aid in its investigations, but officials note that subpoenas are  used infrequently because the threat alone is usually enough to gain  cooperation. The statute also states that the Secretary of Labor may use the  assistance of volunteers and may request assistance from other agencies  engaged in similar or related activities. When DOL is unable to resolve  servicemember complaints, DOL informs the servicemembers that they  may request to have their complaints referred. A complaint is referred to  DOJ if it involves state or local governments or private employers or to  OSC if it involves a federal executive agency. Before complaints are sent to  DOJ or OSC, they are reviewed by a VETS regional office, which reviews  the memorandums of referral to ensure that the investigations are thorough  and that the documentation is accurate and sufficient. The referrals are  also reviewed by a DOL regional solicitor’s office to assess the complaints’  legal basis. Both offices render opinions on the merits of the complaints.  Even if both offices find that the complaints have no merit, DOL is required  by the act to pass the complaints to DOJ or OSC if the servicemembers  request referrals.
Along with their investigation and mediation responsibilities, VETS  investigators also conduct briefings to educate employers and  servicemembers about USERRA requirements and responsibilities, and  they field service-related employment and reemployment questions that are  directed to their offices. These investigators are required to take three  courses that train them in the basics of the USERRA law, advanced  investigative techniques, and the differences between veterans’ preference  issues and USERRA discrimination issues.
Under USERRA, the Secretary of Labor reports USERRA information to  Congress on an annual basis, after consulting with the Attorney General  and Special Counsel. The Secretary’s report includes information about the  number of complaints reviewed by DOL during the fiscal year for which the  report is filed along with the number of complaints referred to DOJ or OSC.  The annual report should also address the nature and status of each  complaint and should state “whether there are any apparent patterns of  violation.” Finally, the report should include any recommendations for  administrative or legislative action that the Secretary of Labor, the Attorney  General, or Special Counsel consider necessary to effectively implement  USERRA. USERRA also granted DOL authority to issue regulations that  implement USERRA provisions for state and local government and private  employers. In its most recent report to Congress, the department did not  note any apparent patterns of violation.  DOL did note that it had published  draft regulations implementing USERRA for the first time on September 20,  2004, and DOL has completed the evaluation of comments that were  submitted in response to these draft regulations. DOL has submitted the  final regulations to OMB for formal review prior to publication in the  Federal Register, and publication is expected in the near future.
section_title: Department of Justice
paragraphs: The Attorney General is assigned enforcement responsibilities under  USERRA, but DOJ is not authorized to receive USERRA complaints  directly from servicemembers. It investigates, mediates, and litigates only  private sector or state or local government complaints that it receives from  DOL. The Civil Division in DOJ was responsible for handling USERRA  complaints until September 2004, when DOJ transferred responsibility to  its Civil Rights Division, which handles other types of employment  discrimination complaints not related to military service. The Civil Division  procedures called for the division to review the complaint and either  (1) decline representation and return the complaint to DOL’s regional  solicitor’s office because the complaint lacked merit or (2) forward the  complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for possible litigation. If the  complaint was forwarded, the U.S. Attorney’s Office would assign the  complaint to an assistant U.S. attorney who would review the information  in the DOL referral, and interview the servicemember and potential  witnesses.  The assistant U.S. attorney then would make a determination  on the merits of the complaint. If the assistant U.S. attorney found that the  complaint was meritorious and the U.S. attorney agreed, the U.S. attorney’s  Office would represent the servicemember. In these situations, the  assistant U.S. attorney would contact the employer and try to resolve the  matter without litigation. If that failed, the assistant U.S. attorney would file  a complaint against the employer in federal district court. If the assistant  U.S. attorney found that the complaint was not meritorious and the U.S.  attorney agreed, the complaint would be referred back to DOL and the  servicemember would have the option of seeking their own legal  representation and filing a complaint against the employer in federal  district court. A settlement could be negotiated at any stage of the process.  In July 2005, the Civil Rights Division was still following these procedures  pending sufficient experience with USERRA complaints to decide if new  procedures are necessary.
DOJ’s Civil Rights Division attorneys are trained in handling discrimination  complaints because they receive training on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act  of 1964. In addition, according to DOJ officials, 37 attorneys in the  Employment Litigation Section received training on USERRA in March  2005 and also received a collection of reference documents relevant to  USERRA.  These attorneys are available to handle both civil rights and  USERRA complaints.  There are also 18 professional and 8 clerical staff  who are trained on USERRA matters.
section_title: Office of Special Counsel
paragraphs: Under USERRA, OSC is responsible for enforcing USERRA rights at federal  executive agencies. Prior to February 8, 2005, OSC was not authorized to  receive USERRA complaints directly from servicemembers and had to wait  until DOL referred the complaints. However, under a demonstration  project, OSC may now receive USERRA complaints against federal  executive agencies directly from certain servicemembers. OSC recently  established a six-person USERRA unit to investigate, mediate, and, as  necessary, litigate USERRA complaints. Under the traditional procedures,  when a servicemember employed by a federal executive agency requests to  have his or her DOL complaint referred to OSC, DOL’s regional solicitor  sends a referral to OSC. While OSC takes the referral information into  account, OSC conducts its own review of the facts and the law and comes  to its own conclusions on the merits of the complaint. If the complaint is  received directly from the servicemember, OSC conducts the investigation  without DOL input.  In either case, if OSC is satisfied that the  servicemember is entitled to corrective action, OSC begins negotiations  with the servicemember’s federal employer.  If an agreement cannot be  reached, OSC may represent the servicemember before the Merit Systems  Protection Board. If the Merit Systems Protection Board rules against the  servicemember, OSC may appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals  for the Federal Circuit. In instances where OSC finds that complaints do  not have merit, it informs the servicemembers of its decision not to  represent them and informs servicemembers that they have the right to  take their claims to the Merit Systems Protection Board without OSC  representation.
OSC’s USERRA unit consists of three investigators, two attorneys, and a  unit chief, who is also an attorney. According to the unit chief, the members  of the USERRA unit spend most of their time on USERRA complaints but  they also handle some other prohibited personnel practice complaints. The  specific USERRA training for the unit consists primarily of on-the-job and  other informal training.
section_title: DOD’s Reserve Component Members’ Employers
paragraphs: To support the personnel information needs of DOD, DMDC, which reports  to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, surveys  the attitudes and opinions of the DOD community on a wide range of  personnel issues. In May 2004, DMDC surveyed a random sample of  55,794 Selected Reserve members who had at least 6 months of service  and who were below flag rank. Figures 2 and 3 show the projected results  from survey questions that asked employed survey respondents about their  employers. Figure 2 shows that about 10 percent of employed Selected  Reserve members are self-employed or work in family businesses.  According to the figure, about 29 percent of Selected Reserve members  below flag rank work for federal, state, or local governments. However, the  federal government percentage in this figure is understated because  DMDC’s survey did not ask full-time National Guard and Selected Reserve  members and military technicians—DOD civilian employees who must be  members of a National Guard or Reserve unit as a condition of their  employment—the survey question from which these data are drawn.
Figure 3 shows that an estimated 45 percent of employed Selected Reserve  members below flag rank are employed by large employers who have 1,000  or more total employees. The figure also shows that about 13 percent of  employed Selected Reserve members work for small employers who have 9  or fewer total employees.
section_title: GAO’s Prior Reports
paragraphs: We have issued prior reports concerning USERRA and, more generally,  about the need for results-oriented government. Our prior USERRA work  has examined issues pertaining to employer support and enforcement of  USERRA complaints at OSC. Our work on results-oriented government  examined how the federal government could shift toward a more results- oriented focus.
subsections: section_title: Employer Support and USERRA
paragraphs: Since 2002, we have issued two reports related to employer support and  USERRA.  In our most recent report, we provided information on OSC’s  role in enforcing USERRA.  The report found that  separate OSC and DOL determinations generally agreed on the merits of  servicemember complaints,  OSC took an average of about 145 days to process the 59 complaints it  received between 1999 and 2003, and   OSC had made changes that were designed to expedite the handling of  current USERRA complaints and any influx of new complaints.
In our earlier report, we addressed DOD’s management of relations  between reservists and their employers. Our report stated the following.
DOD had established a database to collect employer information from  reserve component members on a voluntary basis in 2001. However, by  May 14, 2002, only about 11,000 servicemembers had entered employer  information into the database.
DOD could not educate all employers concerning their USERRA rights  and responsibilities because it viewed the Privacy Act as a constraint  that prevented it from requiring reserve component members to provide  civilian employer contact information.
Ombudsmen were not always available to field servicemember phone  calls.
The ESGR did not have good data to determine the effectiveness of its  outreach and mediation efforts.
We made a number of recommendations to address these and other  findings in the report. In response to our recommendations, DOD  reevaluated its interpretation of the Privacy Act and issued a requirement  that all Ready Reserve members provide contact information for their  civilian employers to their military departments. DOD also began funneling  calls to its volunteer ombudsmen through a central customer service center  where information is logged into a database that is used to measure the  ESGR’s outreach and mediation efforts.
section_title: Results-Oriented Government
paragraphs: We have issued a number of reports that address the need for federal  agencies to manage for results.  In 2004, we issued a report that examined,  among other things, the challenges agencies face in using performance  information in management decisions and how the federal government can  continue to shift toward a more results-oriented focus.  The report noted  that serious weaknesses persist, such as how agencies are coordinating  with other entities to address common challenges and achieve common  objectives.  Moreover, mission fragmentation and overlap contribute to  difficulties in addressing crosscutting issues, especially when those issues  require a national focus.  Other barriers to interagency cooperation include  conflicting agency missions, jurisdiction issues, and incompatible  procedures, data, and processes.  These issues are particularly important in  the context of USERRA implementation and enforcement.  Since USERRA  provisions are administered by four distinct agencies, coordination is  imperative to successfully implement this law in the context of results- oriented government.
section_title: Agencies’ Available Data Provides Limited Insight in Overall USERRA Compliance and Employer Support
paragraphs: DOL, DOJ, OSC, and DOD have formal and informal USERRA complaint  data, and some employer support figures.  DOL’s formal complaint numbers  show a possible relationship with the level of reserve component usage and  the number of complaints. By design, DOJ and OSC formal complaint  numbers are small, and may not provide a fully accurate picture of  USERRA compliance or employer support. DOD data indicate that some  employers are exceeding USERRA requirements; however, these data have  limitations.  DOD has only 1 full year of informal complaint data, so it will  be several years before it has data that can identify any meaningful trends.   Furthermore, data from a DOD survey indicate that most servicemembers  do not seek assistance for their USERRA problems, which indicates that  complaint data alone cannot fully explain USERRA compliance or  employer support.
subsections: section_title: DOL’s Formal Complaint Numbers
paragraphs: Formal complaint numbers from DOL show a possible relationship with  reserve component usage and the passage of USERRA. Table 1 contains  DOL’s formal complaint numbers and shows that DOL’s formal complaint  numbers rose significantly in fiscal year 1991 and remained high in fiscal  year 1992. This increase followed DOD’s activation of almost 270,000  reserve component members for Operations Desert Shield and Desert  Storm. The table also shows an increase in complaints between fiscal years  2001 and 2004. This increase followed the activation of more than 300,000  reserve component members for Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring  Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. DOL’s formal complaint data also show that  complaints were generally lower in the years following USERRA’s passage  in 1994 than in the years prior to its passage. Table 1 shows that between  fiscal years 1989 and 1994, DOL’s annual formal complaint figures ranged  from 1,208 to 2,537 but between fiscal years 1995 and 2004 the formal  complaints were lower, ranging from 895 to 1,465. Finally, if complaints for  the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 are consistent with the first three  quarters, fiscal year 2005 complaint numbers could fall back to between the  fiscal year 2002 and 2003 levels. However, two recent changes could  affect the number of complaints filed with DOL. First, a demonstration  project now allows OSC to receive complaints directly from certain  servicemembers instead of having the complaints referred to OSC by DOL.   Second, DOL implemented an electronic (Form 1010) complaint form that  allows servicemembers to file complaints directly from the DOL Web site  rather than mailing or hand-delivering complaint forms to their local VETS  offices.
Relatively few formal complaints reach DOJ and OSC each year since the  formal process begins at DOL and complaints may be resolved there and  not forwarded to DOJ or OSC.  Thus, the number of formal complaint data  from these two agencies is small and cannot be used to fully explain the  relationship between complaints and USERRA compliance or employer  support. Between fiscal years 1995 and 2004, formal complaints at DOJ  ranged from 37 to 59 complaints each year. OSC’s annual formal complaint  numbers ranged from 1 to 21 over the same period.
section_title: DOD Data Show Some Employers Are Exceeding USERRA Requirements
paragraphs: Data from DMDC and the ESGR show that some employers are exceeding  USERRA requirements.  DMDC’s May 2004 survey found that many  employers of Selected Reserve members had provided these members with  extra benefits beyond those required by USERRA. Projections, which apply  to more than 120,000 Selected Reserve members who were employed and  had been activated in the 24 months prior to the survey, show that more  than 26 percent of these members have employers who pay them salaries  or differential pay for at least part of the time they are away from their  civilian jobs performing military duties. Projections also show that more  than 32 percent receive medical benefits that are not required by USERRA,  and more than 30 percent receive other benefits above and beyond those  required by USERRA. While these data indicate that some employers are  exceeding USERRA, the DMDC data were collected only in 2004 and  therefore cannot establish whether overall employer support is improving,  steady, or declining.
The ESGR data show increases in both employer awards and statements of  support, but these increasing figures cover a relatively small group of  employers. Servicemembers are increasingly nominating their employers  for the ESGR’s various employer support awards. “Patriot Award”  employers may be recognized for simply complying with USERRA.  However, higher level awards typically require support above and beyond  USERRA requirements. According to the ESGR officials, award  nominations have increased over the years, and in fiscal year 2004  servicemembers nominated their employers for more than 20,000 awards.  The ESGR’s “Above and Beyond” award is one of the higher level awards. It  is awarded annually by the ESGR’s state committees and recognizes  employers who have exceeded USERRA requirements. Many employers  have received this award over the years, and in fiscal year 2004 the ESGR’s  state committees recognized 1,058 employers with “Above and Beyond”  awards. In addition to increases in awards, the ESGR figures show  increases in the numbers of employers signing the ESGR “statements of  support.” In signing statements of support, employers acknowledge that  they will comply with USERRA. Between 2000 and 2002, 575 employers  signed statements of support. In 2003, 1,228 employers signed the  statements, and by July 26, 2005, the ESGR records showed that almost  6,000 employers had signed statements of support. The ESGR continues to  solicit statements of support, but is now focusing its outreach efforts on a  “5-star” program, which encourages employers to move beyond simple  USERRA compliance to increasingly higher levels of employer support.  (See app. IV for additional details.) Despite encouraging increases in the  ESGR’s employer support figures, the thousands of employers who have  received awards or signed statements of support do not represent all the  employers of the millions of servicemembers covered by USERRA.
section_title: Informal Complaint Data
paragraphs: The absence of informal complaint data prevents linking the informal  complaint numbers and the total number of complaints. It will be several  years before the ESGR can identify any meaningful trends in informal  complaint numbers because the ESGR has only 1 full year of informal  complaint data in its central database. Until October 2003, the ESGR had a  manual complaint tracking system that relied on monthly reports from its  state committees to its national headquarters. Our 2002 reportreviewed  the ESGR’s effectiveness and found that the ESGR did not have an accurate  count of the complaints handled by its ombudsmen. We found that  reporting by ombudsmen had been sporadic and some states had gone an  entire year without reporting any complaints at all. In 2003, the ESGR  began funneling calls to its ombudsmen through a central call center where  the complaint information is logged into a centralized database before  assigning the complaint to an ombudsman. As a result of the changed  procedures, the ESGR is now able to track the complaints handled by each  of its nearly 800 ombudsmen. After they have been assigned a complaint,  ombudsmen can access, review, update, and close assigned complaints, but  they cannot create new complaint files in the database. Although the  database now captures the informal complaints brought to the ESGR, at  the time of our review the ESGR had only collected 1 full year of complaint  data—fiscal year 2004. Because informal complaint figures have not been  captured annually, agencies cannot know whether informal complaints  have been increasing, decreasing, or remaining steady.
Available data suggest that the number of informal complaints handled by  the ESGR is large enough that if annual data were available, the volume of  informal complaints could overshadow that of DOL’s formal complaint  data. We conducted a survey to collect information about the workload,  backgrounds, and training of the ESGR’s ombudsmen because the ESGR  lacked complete and accurate ombudsmen data. We surveyed all of the 831  ombudsmen that the ESGR headquarters officials told us were available to  handle complaints as of April 6, 2005. Of the 831 ombudsmen, 618  responded to our survey but 52 said they were not available to handle  complaints as of April 6, 2005. (See app. V for a complete list of our survey  questions and results.) Our survey asked the ombudsmen how many  complaints they had handled and resolved since becoming ombudsmen.  Survey responses showed that the ombudsmen who were available to  handle complaints on April 6, 2005, had handled 37,684 complaints.  Although this figure does not cover a specific time period, it far exceeds the  22,204 formal complaints handled by DOL between 1989 and 2004. DMDC  survey data also suggest that informal complaint numbers could  overshadow formal complaint numbers. Projections from DMDC’s May  2004 survey show that between 54 and 78 percent of Selected Reserve  members with USERRA problems seek assistance from the ESGR but only  between 16 and 36 percent seek assistance from VETS. Cross tabulations of  survey responses further showed that servicemembers who had received  USERRA briefings were more likely to seek assistance from the ESGR than  those who had never been briefed. Conversely, the cross tabulations  showed that servicemembers who had received USERRA briefings were  less likely to turn to VETS for assistance than those who had never been  briefed. If this pattern continues, as more servicemembers are briefed  about their USERRA rights, servicemembers may file more informal  complaints and fewer formal complaints.
section_title: Agency Complaint Numbers Do Not Appear to Capture Most USERRA Problems
paragraphs: DMDC survey data indicate that formal and informal complaint numbers do  not capture most USERRA problems experienced by servicemembers  because most servicemembers do not seek assistance for their USERRA  problems. In the spring of 2004, DMDC surveyed a random sample of 55,794  Selected Reserve members and received responses from more than 19,000  of these members. Survey respondents were asked about their civilian  work experiences, reserve component programs and affiliations, and  activations, and were asked a series of questions related to USERRA if they  were not full-time National Guard or Reserve members, or military   were not on active duty when they completed the survey;  were employed during the week  prior to the time when they completed  the survey, or during the week prior to their activation; and   had been activated during the 24 months prior to the time when they  completed the survey.
The survey respondents who met these criteria were first asked if, despite  their USERRA protection, they had experienced any of a series of USERRA  problems. The survey projections show that between 4 and 8 percent of the  119,761 Selected Reserve members who met the criteria above did not  receive prompt reemployment upon their return from military service;  between 9 and 14 percent experienced a loss of seniority, seniority-related  pay, or seniority-related benefits; and between 5 and 9 percent did not  receive immediate reinstatement of employer-provided health insurance.  The survey yielded similar results for other USERRA problems listed in the  survey question. The survey respondents who experienced one or more  problems were then asked if they had sought assistance for their problems.  Survey results show that only between 18 and 28 percent of the 42,119  Selected Reserve members who had USERRA problems sought assistance  for the problems. Therefore, at least 72 percent of the Selected Reserve  members who had experienced USERRA problems never filed a complaint,  either formal or informal, to seek assistance in resolving their problems. In  a separate question, all of the Selected Reserve members who had  responded to the survey were asked if they had ever filed a formal USERRA  complaint with DOL/VETS. The survey results show that less than 2  percent of the more than 776,381 Selected Reserve members in the survey  population have ever filed a formal USERRA complaint with DOL/VETS.  The large percentage of servicemembers who fail to file either formal or  informal complaints indicate that complaint data alone may be insufficient  to fully explain USERRA compliance or employer support. Without  periodic surveys of employment issues, such as DMDC’s May 2004 survey,  DOD will continue to have difficulties determining trends in USERRA  compliance and employer support.
section_title: Agencies Have Conducted Educational Outreach, but Efficiency and Effectiveness of Outreach Has Been Hindered by Lack of Employer Information
paragraphs: Agencies have taken actions to educate hundreds of thousands of  servicemembers and employers about USERRA, but the efficiency and  effectiveness of agency outreach actions are hindered by a lack of  employer information. DOD, DOL, and OSC have conducted educational  outreach using a variety of means, such as individual and group briefings,  Web sites, and telephone information lines. However, agencies have been  restricted in their ability to efficiently and effectively target educational  outreach actions to employers who actually have servicemember  employees because only limited employer information is available.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Have Used a Variety of Means to Conduct Outreach
paragraphs: DOD, DOL, and OSC have used a variety of means to educate  servicemembers and employers about USERRA, such as individual and  group briefings, Web sites, and telephone information lines. According to  agency officials and employers, one of the primary reasons employers  violate USERRA is their lack of knowledge about the law’s requirements.  USERRA assigns DOD and DOL responsibilities for informing  servicemembers and their employers about their USERRA rights, benefits,  and obligations, but it gives the agencies flexibility to determine the  appropriate means for conducting this outreach. DOD and DOL have used  this flexibility to conduct educational outreach through a wide variety of  means. Group briefings are one of the primary means these agencies use to  educate employers and servicemembers about the law. However, they also  have USERRA information on their agency Web sites, and headquarters and  field representatives respond to individual requests for information  through toll-free phone lines. Between September 11, 2001, and June 30,  2005, VETS staff responded to more than 34,000 requests for USERRA  information and conducted briefings for more than 247,000 people. DOL  also made a USERRA poster available for employers to post in their  workplaces as a means of complying with the requirements set forth in the  Veterans Benefits Improvement Act, which was enacted in December 2004.  The poster is on the VETS Web site and is included as appendix VI of this  report. The poster does not include any information about OSC’s role in  providing assistance on USERRA problems, even though OSC told us that  they have requested that DOL include information about OSC’s role. DOD  also conducts a wide range of outreach actions. Some activities, such as the  ESGR statements of support and awards, were discussed earlier in this  report, and appendix IV contains information on many of DOD’s other  outreach programs. Although not required by USERRA, OSC also has taken  actions to educate federal employers about their responsibilities under the  law. OSC officials have conducted USERRA briefings for executive branch  employees and managers and other groups. For example, they have  conducted briefings at recent federal dispute resolution conferences and  for the District of Columbia Bar Association. OSC’s Web site also contains  information about USERRA, contact information for complaints or  questions, and information about OSC’s ongoing demonstration project.
section_title: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Employer Outreach Efforts Are Hindered by Lack of Employer Information
paragraphs: Agencies have been restricted in their ability to efficiently and effectively  target educational outreach actions to employers who actually have  servicemember employees, because only limited employer information is  available. To accomplish its employer outreach requirements, DOD  established a database and a policy requiring collection of these data.  However, information collection efforts are incomplete, which impedes  agencies’ ability to communicate with employers who have servicemember  employees.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has a Policy and Means for Collecting Essential Employer Information
paragraphs: In 2001, DOD established a database to voluntarily collect employer  information from reserve component members, but few servicemembers  submitted the data, and following a recommendation in our 2002 report,  DOD made the submission of employer information mandatory. On March  21, 2003, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness  signed a memorandum mandating the collection of employer information.  The memorandum directed the military departments to immediately  implement a civilian employment information program for National Guard  and Reserve members subject to involuntary recall to active duty. This  memorandum required that all members of the reserve components  provide employment-related information upon assignment to the Ready  Reserve and at other times determined by their respective military  departments. According to the Under Secretary’s memorandum, one of the  purposes for collecting the employer information is to “utilize (the  information) on a recurring basis to assist the Department in  accomplishing its employer outreach purposes under 38 U.S.C. 4333.” The  information required by the memorandum included employment status,  employer’s name, employer’s complete mailing address, member’s civilian  job title, and the servicemember’s length of experience in their civilian  occupation. The memorandum indicated members who refuse to provide  information or who provide false information may be subject to  administrative action or punishment for dereliction of duty under the  Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The memorandum assigned unit commanders the responsibility for  ensuring that their Selected Reserve members were familiar with the  memorandum’s requirements and provided adequate time to comply with  the requirements during training periods. The military departments were  assigned responsibility for ensuring the compliance of other Ready Reserve  members. According to DOD officials, reserve component members with a  computer and Internet access can enter their employer information into  DOD’s database from home or they can enter the information at their units  during normal training periods. The employer database is linked to the  defense enrollment eligibility reporting system. Therefore, if reserve  component members check on their dependents’ eligibility for health care  or enter their dependents into the system, they can also take the  opportunity to enter or update their employer information.
section_title: Collection of Employer Information Is Improving, but Incomplete Data Impede the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Agencies’ Outreach
paragraphs: The collection of employer information is improving but, more than 2 years  after the Under Secretary called for the immediate implementation of a  civilian employment information program, collection efforts are still  incomplete, which impedes the efficiency and effectiveness of agencies’  outreach efforts. As of August 2005, about 40 percent of DOD’s Ready  Reserve members had not entered their civilian employer information into  DOD’s database. The percentage of Selected Reserve members who have  complied with the requirement to enter their employment information into  the database has risen substantially over the past year—from 13 percent in  October 2004, to 58 percent in April 2005, to 73 percent in August 2005,  when we ended our review. Figure 4 shows the compliance rates for  Selected Reserve members in each of the seven reserve components, as  well as the compliance rates for Individual Ready Reserve and Inactive  National Guard members in the six components where they serve. (The Air  National Guard does not have any Inactive National Guard or Individual  Ready Reserve members.) Figure 4 illustrates that compliance rates vary by  reserve component, supporting the assertion of DOD officials that  compliance rates are tied to command attention and enforcement.  Compliance rates are substantially lower for Inactive National Guard and  Individual Ready Reserve members than they are for Selected Reserve  members, further reflecting the lack of enforcement of the policy.  Responsible DOD officials said that as far as they knew, the military  departments had not enforced this policy by subjecting any  servicemembers to punishment or administrative action for failing to  comply with the policy.
Since Individual Ready Reserve members do not participate in any regular  training and have been recalled to active duty less frequently than Selected  Reserve members, the employers of Individual Ready Reserve members  may be unaware that their employees have a military obligation and that  they, as employers of servicemembers, have USERRA obligations.
Therefore, outreach to these employers may be even more important than  outreach to employers of Selected Reserve members. Between September  11, 2001, and June 30, 2005, more than 9,500 Individual Ready Reserve  members had been recalled to active duty, with more than 4,500 coming  from the Army Reserve and more than 4,200 from the Marine Corps  Reserve. Despite these activations, figure 4 shows that only 10 percent of  the Individual Ready Reserve members in the Army Reserve and only 16  percent in the Marine Corps Reserve had entered their employer  information into DOD’s database.
In the absence of full compliance with the requirement for servicemembers  to provide civilian employer information, agencies’ abilities to conduct  outreach to educate employers about USERRA has been hindered.  Agencies have conducted many general outreach efforts but have been  restricted in their ability to efficiently and effectively target outreach to  employers who actually have servicemember employees. With limited  employer data available, DOD is unable to share this information with the  other federal agencies that perform employer outreach so that agencies can  coordinate their activities to reach all the employers of servicemembers  who are covered by USERRA. Without complete information about the full  expanse of servicemember employers, the federal agencies conducting  outreach efforts have no assurance that they have informed all  servicemember employers about USERRA rights, benefits, and obligations.  Therefore, agency outreach efforts are likely to be reaching some  employers who do not have any servicemember employees while  neglecting other employers who do have servicemember employees.
section_title: Agencies’ Ability to Efficiently and Effectively Address Complaints Hampered by Incompatible Data Systems, Reliance on Paper Files, and Lack of Visibility
paragraphs: A segmented process with incompatible data systems hampers agencies’  abilities to efficiently and effectively address servicemembers’ complaints  and report results as intended by USERRA. The speed with which  servicemembers’ USERRA complaints are addressed often hinges on  efficient and effective information sharing among the agencies involved in  the complaint resolution process; however, DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC use  incompatible data systems to track USERRA complaints. This impedes  information sharing and can lead to duplicative efforts that slow processing  times. In addition, the use of paper files to transfer complaints among  offices limits the agencies’ abilities to efficiently process complaints and  increases complaint processing times. Futhermore, agencies’ abilities to  monitor the extent to which complaints are efficiently and effectively  addressed are hampered by a lack of visibility and by the segmentation of  responsibilities for addressing complaints among several different  agencies.
subsections: section_title: Incompatible Data Systems Hamper Ability to Address Complaints
paragraphs: The ability of DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC to effectively and efficiently  address USERRA complaints has been hampered by the use of five  different and incompatible automated systems to capture data about  USERRA complaints. DOD, OSC, and DOJ each operate one system and  DOL operates two systems, one for its VETS offices and another for its  solicitors’ offices. Because the systems were created for different  purposes, they do not capture the same data. The ESGR and VETS systems  are complaint file systems that can contain extensive ombudsmen or  investigator notes and details about individual complaints. The other three  systems are used primarily for tracking purposes and do not capture  extensive details about individual cases. Even when data fields in the  different systems bear similar names, the information contained in the  fields may not match. For example, in DOJ’s Interactive Case Management  System, the date closed means that final action has taken place on the  complaint. In contrast, in the VETS system, the closed date can mean  several different things, such as the date the investigator resolved the  complaint, the date the servicemember requested to have his or her  complaint referred to DOJ or OSC, or the date the complaint was  withdrawn by the servicemember. During the course of our review, we  attempted to compare complaint data from the VETS system to data from  the DOL solicitor, DOJ, and OSC systems. Because the systems captured  data differently, we were not able to perfectly match the data during any of  these attempts. In some cases we were able to match dates from the  different systems, in other cases dates differed, and in still other cases we  could not even identify the matching complaint files. Because DOL could  not identify complaints that had been handled by the ESGR, we did not  attempt to match DOL and the ESGR files.
The inability of ombudsmen, investigators, and other officials to share  complaint information by electronically transferring information among  their systems or accessing each other’s systems may result in duplicate  efforts to collect identical information that is needed to investigate and  process USERRA complaints. For example, during informal mediation  efforts, DOD’s approximately 800 ombudsmen may gather pertinent  information and documentation that concerns servicemember eligibility for  USERRA coverage; civilian supervisors; employer policies and  organizational structures, including information about who makes  employment decisions; circumstances surrounding the alleged USERRA  violations; and witness statements. However, if ombudsmen efforts do not  resolve the complaints and the servicemembers elect to file formal DOL  complaints, the ESGR officials cannot transfer information from their  database directly to DOL’s database, and DOL investigators do not have  access to the ESGR’s database. As a result of this inability to share  information, VETS investigators sometimes start their investigations with  nothing more than the basic information included on the formal complaint  form, and they later contact servicemembers and employer representatives  to request the exact same information that was previously provided to the  ESGR ombudsmen. These duplicative efforts slow complaint processing  times, increase the times that servicemembers must wait to have their  complaints fully addressed, and may frustrate servicemembers or  employers. Likewise, DOL cannot transfer information from the VETS  database to DOJ, OSC, or even to DOL’s solicitors’ offices, and people in  these other offices do not have access to the VETS database. As a result,  officials in these other offices may contact the servicemember or employer  and again request information that had been previously provided to the  ESGR or VETS.
section_title: Reliance on Paper Files Limits Ability to Efficiently Address and Oversee Complaints
paragraphs: As complaints are referred from one office to another, agencies are unable  to efficiently process complaints because they are forced to create,  maintain, copy, and mail paper files due to the incompatible data systems.  For example, when a servicemember asks a VETS investigator to refer his  or her complaint to DOJ or OSC, the investigator cannot electronically  transfer the complaint information to the requisite offices. Instead, the  investigator prepares and mails a paper complaint file to a VETS regional  office where the file is reviewed, added to, and then mailed or hand carried  to a DOL solicitor’s office. The solicitor’s office then reviews the file, adds a  legal opinion concerning the merits of the complaint, and mails the file to  OSC or DOJ. Because VETS investigators cannot electronically transfer  information when they refer complaints, they face the administrative  burden of maintaining both paper and electronic complaint files that  contain much of the same information.
This reliance on paper files results in increased complaint processing times  and can limit managers’ abilities to provide effective and timely oversight.  When complaint numbers are large, managers can exercise more efficient  and effective oversight of electronic complaint files that are stored in  automated systems with query capabilities than of geographically  dispersed paper complaint files. Of the four federal agencies we reviewed,  only the agencies that deal with large numbers of complaint files—DOD  and DOL—had electronic complaint files that were stored in automated  systems with query capabilities that facilitate oversight. However, DOL still  considers its paper complaint files its official records, and the VETS  operations manual outlines management oversight and internal control  procedures that focus on reviews of the investigators’ paper files. Because  the paper files are located in VETS offices in all 50 states, the District of  Columbia, and Puerto Rico, paper file reviews take longer than electronic  file reviews, and managers can lose visibility of paper case files. For  example, during our visits to two regional VETS offices, we judgmentally  selected 64 complaints and asked to review the paper complaint files to  compare the data in those files to information in the VETS automated  system. Officials located 60 of the 64 paper files we requested, but 8  weeks after our visit to one office, officials were still unable to locate the  other 4 files and concluded that the files had been misplaced or lost. In  addition, our review of data from the VETS automated database identified a  number of issues that warranted management attention. However, the  VETS reviews of sample paper files had not addressed the full scope of  these problems in a timely manner. For example, we were able to quickly  identify more than 430 complaints that had been closed and then reopened,  and we were also able to identify that a large portion of these reopened  cases occurred in a single region, many with a single investigator. If VETS  oversight procedures had focused on electronic file review rather than  paper file review, corrective action could have been taken sooner on cases  that were improperly closed.
section_title: Segmented Responsibilities and Lack of Visibility Impedes Ability to Monitor and Report the Extent to Which Complaints Are Efficiently and Effectively Addressed
paragraphs: The ability of agencies to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the  complaint process is hampered by a lack of visibility and by the  segmentation of responsibility for addressing complaints among several  different agencies. From the time informal complaints are filed with the  ESGR through the final resolution of formal complaints at DOL, DOJ, or  OSC, no one has visibility over the entire process. The segmented  complaint resolution process means that the agency officials who handle  the complaint at various stages of the process generally have limited or no  visibility over the other parts of the process for which they are not  responsible. This prevents any one agency from monitoring the length of  time it takes for a servicemember’s complaint to be fully addressed, and  leads agencies to focus on output figures for their portion of the complaint  process rather than on overall federal responsiveness to complaints. As a  result, agencies have developed goals that are oriented toward outputs of  their agency’s portion of the process rather than toward results for an  individual servicemember’s complaint. For example, agency goals address  complaint processing times at different stages of the process, but  agencies do not measure a result of primary concern to servicemembers— the elapsed time between the bringing of a complaint to a federal agency  and the complaint’s final resolution. Due to the incompatibility of agency  systems and the lack of visibility across agencies, we were not able to track  the entire elapsed time that servicemembers wait to have their complaints  fully addressed. However, the VETS database attempts to capture  processing times from the time a servicemember files a formal complaint  until the time the complaint is finally resolved by VETS, DOL’s solicitor’s  office, DOJ, or OSC. To highlight the difference between agency focuses  on processing times and servicemember concerns with elapsed times, we  reviewed complaints that had been closed and later reopened by VETS  investigators. Between October 1, 1996, and June 30, 2005,  servicemembers filed 10,061 formal complaints with DOL. More than 430 of  these complaints were closed and later reopened, and 52 of the 430  complaints were closed and reopened two or more times. For example, one  investigator opened a complaint file on September 30, 2001, and then  closed and reopened the complaint six times before finally referring the  complaint to the VETS regional office on September 9, 2002. We analyzed  the processing times and elapsed times for the 52 complaints that had been  closed and reopened two or more times and found substantial differences  between the figures. DOL’s system assigned separate complaint numbers to  the 52 complaints each time the complaint was opened or reopened. As a  result, the system recorded the average processing time as 103 days.  However, from the servicemembers’ perspectives, it took much longer for  DOL, DOJ, and OSC to address their complaints. The servicemembers  who filed the 52 complaints actually waited an average of 619 days from the  time they first filed their initial formal complaints with DOL until the time  the complaints were fully addressed by DOL, DOJ, or OSC. Because  agency officials do not have visibility over the entire complaint resolution  process and no one has information about the time it takes federal agencies  to fully address servicemember complaints, the Secretary of Labor,  Attorney General, and Special Counsel cannot evaluate the full range of  administrative or legislative actions that may be necessary to effectively  implement USERRA, and the Secretary of Labor’s annual report to  Congress cannot be as accurate and complete as required.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Informal and formal complaint data from the agencies responsible for  enforcing and implementing USERRA do not support the analysis needed  to determine if employer compliance with USERRA and support for the  act’s purpose has improved since passage of the act in 1994.  The  responsible agencies collect data and some insight may be gained from  DOL’s formal complaint numbers.  However, the numbers from DOJ and  OSC are small and cannot be used to fully explain the relationship between  complaints and USERRA compliance or employer support, and DOD’s data  collection effort is so new that meaningful trends cannot yet be identified  using informal complaint data. Complaint data alone may not accurately  reflect the problems servicemembers are experiencing transitioning  between their federal service and civilian employment.  The vast majority  of surveyed National Guard and Reserve members who experienced  USERRA-related problems did not seek assistance for their problems. The  survey data do not lend themselves to the analysis needed to determine if  the problems were resolved to the servicemember’s satisfaction. DOD  periodically conducts these surveys to identify issues that need to be  addressed or monitored. However, questions on the surveys vary from year  to year and have not always included those pertaining to USERRA  compliance and employer support. Periodic, projectable surveys of the  servicemembers who are covered by USERRA could provide DOD, DOL,  DOJ, and OSC with a means to determine whether or not USERRA  compliance and employer support is improving and thus, USERRA’s  purpose—to minimize employment disadvantages that can result from  service in the uniformed service—is being achieved.
Employer violation of USERRA is often attributed to employers’ lack of  knowledge about the law’s requirements.  Having a means to identify the  civilian employers of servicemembers who are covered by USERRA is  essential to effectively and efficiently target the agencies’ educational  outreach efforts. DOD has made progress establishing a civilian employer  database.  However, DOD has not taken steps to enforce its requirement for  National Guard and Reserve members to enter and maintain their civilian  employer data. Until complete employer information is obtained, agency  outreach efforts are likely to be reaching some employers who do not have  any servicemember employees, while neglecting other employers who do  have servicemember employees.
Currently, DOD’s ESGR, DOL’s VETS and solicitors’ offices, DOJ, and OSC  all operate their own automated systems for tracking USERRA complaints.  Officials from each agency have access to their own system but they cannot  access complaint information in the automated systems of the other  agencies, and complaint data cannot be electronically transferred from one  system to another. As a result, officials from different agencies sometimes  spend time collecting information that has already been provided to  another agency. This slows the complaint resolution process. In addition,  because data systems are incompatible, formal referrals from VETS  investigators to DOJ or OSC must be accompanied by a paper file, which is  first routed through a VETS regional office and a DOL solicitor’s office. The  creation, maintenance, and transfer of these paper files add to complaint  processing times and the time servicemembers wait to have their  complaints addressed. As long as agency systems remain segmented and  incompatible and referral information is passed through the mail,  complaints will continue to be processed inefficiently.
VETS investigators are geographically dispersed across the country and  they maintain both paper and electronic USERRA complaint files.
Managers with the requisite level of authority can have virtually instant  access to every electronic complaint file from every investigator across the  country. However, DOL considers its paper complaint files its official  records. As a result, the VETS operating procedures and internal controls  are geared toward the review of the paper complaint files. These paper  reviews are time consuming. In addition, paper files can be misplaced or  lost when they are moved from office to office. Until VETS switches to  electronic files, investigators will continue the inefficient practice of  maintaining duplicate records and managers will be limited in their ability  to provide timely oversight and effective corrective actions for any  problems that arise.
The responsibility for enforcing and implementing USERRA is complex,  involving several federal agencies. A single complaint can start at DOD and  flow through three different DOL offices before finally being resolved at  DOJ or OSC. The segmented complaint resolution process means that the  agency officials who handle the complaint at various stages of the process  generally have limited or no visibility over the other parts of the process for  which they are not responsible. As a result, agency officials have not  addressed complaint processing issues that cut across federal agencies or  set outcome–oriented goals. Instead, agencies have focused their goals on  outputs from their particular portions of the complaint process rather than  focusing on overall federal responsiveness to USERRA complaints.  Meanwhile, the servicemember knows how much time is passing since the  initial complaint was filed. Under USERRA, specific outreach,  investigative, and enforcement roles are assigned to DOD, DOL, DOJ, and  OSC. However, no agency has visibility over the entire complaint process.   Therefore, it is difficult for the responsible agencies to achieve their  common goal–to minimize the employment disadvantages that can result  from service in the uniformed service, and the time servicemembers wait to  have their complaints fully addressed–which is of great importance to  servicemembers. Furthermore, the Secretary of Labor’s annual reports will  not provide Congress with a complete and accurate picture of USERRA  violation patterns or the legislative actions that may be necessary to  effectively implement the act.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To gauge the effectiveness of federal actions to support USERRA by  identifying trends in USERRA compliance and employer support, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness to include questions in DOD’s  periodic Status of Forces Surveys to determine    the extent to which servicemembers experience USERRA-related   if they experience these problems, from whom they seek assistance;  if they do not seek assistance, why not; and  the extent to which servicemember employers provide support beyond  that required by the law.
To more efficiently and effectively educate employers about USERRA  through coordinated outreach efforts, which target employers with  servicemember employees, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense  take the following two actions:  Direct the service secretaries to take steps to enforce the requirement  for servicemembers to report their civilian employment information and  develop a plan to maintain current civilian employment information.
Direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs to share  applicable employer information from DOD’s employer database with  DOL, OSC, and other federal agencies that educate employers about  USERRA, consistent with the Privacy Act.
To increase agency responsiveness to servicemember USERRA complaints,  we recommend that the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor, the  Attorney General, and the Special Counsel develop procedures or systems  to enable the electronic transfer of complaint information between offices.
To reduce the administrative burden on VETS investigators and improve  the ability of VETS managers to provide effective, timely oversight of  USERRA complaint processing, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor  direct the Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and Training to  develop a plan to reduce agency reliance on paper files and fully adopt the  agency’s automated complaint file system.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To encourage agencies to focus on results rather than outputs, to improve  federal responsiveness to servicemember complaints that are referred from  one agency to another, and to improve the completeness and accuracy of  the annual USERRA reports to Congress, Congress should consider  designating a single individual or office to maintain visibility over the entire  complaint resolution process from DOD through DOL, DOJ, and OSC. For  example, the office or individual would track and report the actual time it  takes for federal agencies to fully address servicemember USERRA  complaints.
section_title: Agencies Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD, DOL, and OSC  generally concurred with our findings and recommendations to their  respective agencies. DOJ reviewed a draft of this report and had no  comments on this report.  DOD deferred to DOL, DOJ, and OSC regarding  our recommendation for the agencies to develop procedures or systems to  enable the electronic transfer of complaint information between agencies.   DOL and OSC commented on our matter for congressional consideration  that Congress should consider designating a single office to maintain  visibility over the entire conflict resolution process.
In DOD’s written comments, the department concurred with our  recommendation for the Secretary of Defense to include questions on  servicemembers’ employment issues in DOD’s continuing Status of Forces  surveys that would address (1) the extent to which servicemembers  experience USERRA-related problems; (2) from whom the servicemembers  sought assistance if they experienced such problems; (3) if they did not  seek assistance, why not; and (4) the extent to which the servicemembers’  employers provide support beyond that required by law. DOD stated that  the department’s May 2004 Status of Forces survey asked a series of  questions about reemployment after activation that included the areas  addressed in our recommendations.  We disagree.  For this report, we used  results from the May 2004 survey that showed at least 72 percent of the  Selected Reserve members who had experienced USERRA-related  problems never filed a complaint, informal or formal, to seek assistance in  resolving the problem.  However, the survey did not cover all the areas  addressed in our recommendation. For example, the survey did not ask  those servicemembers who had experienced USERRA-related problems  and never filed a complaint, informal or formal, why they did not seek  assistance in resolving the problem.  We believe that this would be valuable  information, if gathered regularly, to gauge the effectiveness of federal  actions to support USERRA by identifying trends in compliance and  employer support. DOD also stated that, at the request of DOL, it has  agreed to include the series of questions about reemployment after  activation in future surveys. OSC generally concurred with this  recommendation, but had no specific comment. DOL did not comment on  this recommendation.
DOD also concurred with our recommendation for the Secretary of  Defense to (1) take steps to enforce compliance with servicemembers’  reporting of their civilian employer information and maintain employer  information, and (2) share employer information from the database with  other federal agencies that educate employers about USERRA.  DOD stated  that the first objective of this recommendation had already been  accomplished. We disagree.  In our report, we noted that compliance with  the requirement to enter Selected Reserve member employment  information into the database has risen substantially during this review— from 13 percent in October 2004, to 58 percent in April 2005, to 73 percent  in August 2005. We also noted that compliance varies by component, with  the Army Reserve and the Marine Corps Reserve each having the lowest  percentage of compliance—66 percent.  Further, we noted that compliance  rates are substantially lower for the Individual Ready Reserve and the  Inactive National Guard—about 24 percent. Individual Ready Reserve and  Inactive National Guard members are subject to be recalled to active duty.  About 9,500 Individual Ready Reserve members were called to duty  between September 11, 2001, and June 30, 2005.  Outreach to employers of  Individual Ready Reserve members may be even more important than  outreach to Selected Reserve members’ employers. Individual Ready  Reserve members do not participate in regular drilling and their employers  may be unaware of the employees’ military obligations and USERRA rights.  As the war on terrorism continues, DOD may rely more upon Individual  Ready Reserve members. DOD also noted that enforcement of compliance  is a high priority and is already monitored.  As noted in our report,  responsible officials told us that as far as they knew, the military  departments had not enforced the requirement for servicemembers to  comply with reporting their civilian employer information by subjecting  any member to punishment or administrative action for failing to comply.  We believe DOD has more to accomplish in this area. With regard to the  second objective of this recommendation, DOD stated that it is working  collectively with DOL and the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure  that their respective systems facilitate consistent reporting capabilities.  OSC generally concurred with both objectives of this recommendation, but  had no specific comments. DOL did not comment on this recommendation.
DOD deferred to DOL, DOJ, and OSC regarding our recommendation for  the Secretary of Defense, along with the Secretary of Labor, the Attorney  General, and the Special Counsel, to develop procedures or systems to  enable the electronic transfer of complaint information between agencies.   DOD stated that the department only tracks “informal inquires,” not  complaints that are filed with DOL, with possible referral to the DOJ or the  OSC. Therefore, establishment of a complaint database would fall within  the purview of those agencies.  DOD noted that it would support the  sharing of USERRA information received by DOD with responsible  agencies.  We note that DOD’s system can contain extensive ombudsmen  notes and details about informal complaints, not just inquires for  information that are tracked separately, and would be beneficial and time  saving to DOL if an informal complaint becomes a formal complaint filed  with DOL.  DOL concurred with this recommendation and noted that DOL  has initiated internal discussions on ways in which DOL offices can  ultimately use one electronic case management system.  DOL stated that  the department will work closely with DOD, DOJ, and OSC in advancing an  electronic shared system configured to fit the agencies’ responsibilities  under USERRA. OSC also concurred with this recommendation, noting that  OSC’s ability to enforce USERRA has not been adversely affected by the  transfer of information by other than electronic means.  Nevertheless, OSC  noted that the office was dedicated to improving USERRA services to  servicemembers and thus generally concurred with the recommendation,  although OSC indicated that the development of USERRA-specific  electronic files may require additional funding from Congress.
DOL concurred with our recommendation for the Secretary of Labor to  develop a plan to reduce agency reliance on paper files and fully adopt the  agency’s automated complaint file system.  DOL noted that the  establishment of such electronic files would enhance DOL’s ability to more  efficiently and effectively share documents and other case-specific data  with other agencies, thus advancing accomplishment of our  recommendation for DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC to develop procedures or  systems to enable the electronic transfer of complaint information between  agencies.
DOL and OSC commented on our matter for congressional consideration  that Congress should consider designating a single office to maintain  visibility over the entire complaint resolution process from DOD through  DOL, DOJ, and OSC. DOL noted that the mandated OSC demonstration  project is ongoing, and therefore, it would be premature to make any  suggestions or recommendations for congressional or legislative action  until the pilot has been completed. However, DOL stated that its office is  uniquely suited to provide an overview of the entire complaint resolution  process. OSC supported our matter and stated that OSC has unparalleled  experience and expertise in administering federal sector employment  complaints and prosecuting meritorious workplace violations before the  Merit Systems Protection Board. OSC believes that their office is the best  qualified to be the overseer. DOD did not comment on this matter. We  believe that the Congress is the best qualified to determine the identity of  the overseer and the timing of this matter for congressional consideration.
DOD, DOL, and OSC’s written comments are reprinted in their entirety in  appendixes VII, VIII, and IX, respectively. All the agencies also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from  the date of this letter. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary  of Defense; the Secretary of Labor; the Attorney General; the Special  Counsel; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the  Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of  Staff; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested  congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others  upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the  GAO Web site at www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix XI.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To assess whether the federal agencies that support or enforce USERRA  have data that indicates the level of compliance with USERRA, we gathered  and analyzed data from DOL, DOD, DOJ, and OSC.  Specifically, we  obtained historical data on the numbers of formal complaints handled by  DOL and then analyzed the data to determine whether the data showed any  trends and whether it was sufficient to demonstrate overall USERRA  compliance or employer support. We also analyzed the annual numbers of  formal complaints referred from DOL to DOJ and OSC between fiscal year  1997 and the third quarter of fiscal year 2005 to determine whether there  were trends in the total referrals, or the referrals to either agency.  We also  followed up on our 2002 report to determine whether the ESGR had  improved its collection of informal complaint data. We interviewed the  ESGR headquarters officials and ombudsmen who handled informal  complaints. We observed training for the ESGR’s new database and we  observed data entry procedures at the ESGR’s Customer Support Center.   In addition, we analyzed DMDC’s projectable Status of Forces Survey of  Reserve Component Members, which was conducted in the spring of 2004.  This survey included more than 20 questions about servicemember  employment and USERRA-related issues.  We also analyzed results from  the Reserve Officers Association’s annual surveys of Fortune 500  companies, which asked about policies that support servicemember  employees.  We discussed the agency data related to USERRA compliance  or employer support, along with the practices and methods used to collect  these data, with responsible officials from the   Department Of Labor, Washington, D.C.;  Department Of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training Service, Field  Offices in Memphis, TN, and Norfolk, VA; and regional offices in  Philadelphia, PA; and Atlanta, GA;  Department Of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, D.C.; and  Regional Offices in Philadelphia, PA, and Atlanta, GA;  Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;  Office of Special Counsel, Washington, D.C.;  Department Of Defense, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve,  Arlington, VA; and  Department Of Defense, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve,  Customer Service Center, Millington, TN.
We also discussed these issues with   The ESGR’s State Ombudsmen Coordinators from AR; IL; KY; MD; TN;  UT; and Washington, D.C.,  and with officials who were present at  The ESGR’s Basic Ombudsman Training Session held in Meridian, MS.
To gauge the impact of the ESGR’s ombudsmen program, we conducted a  survey of ombudsmen nationwide. We wished to survey all ombudsmen  who were available to handle servicemember complaints as of April 6, 2005  (the “target” population).  To do this, we obtained the list that the ESGR  was using to assign USERRA complaints to ombudsmen on that date (the  “study” population), which presumably included all of the individuals who  were available to handle complaints. We conducted seven pretests of our  ombudsmen questionnaire prior to administering the survey.  During the  pretests we asked the ombudsmen whether (1) the survey questions were  clear, (2) the terms used were precise, and (3) the questions were unbiased.  We made changes to the content and format of the final questionnaire  based on pretest results.
The ombudsmen surveys were conducted using self-administered  electronic questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web.  The survey  questionnaire consisted of 12 questions, and asked ombudsmen how many  USERRA complaints they had received and personally resolved. (App. V  contains a copy of the survey and the survey results.) On May 3, 2005, we  used a list supplied by the ESGR headquarters to send E-mail notifications  to 831 ombudsmen in 54 states and territories to inform them that a survey  would be forthcoming. Then, on May 9, 2005, we activated the survey,  sending each of the 831 members of the study population a unique  password and username by E-mail so they could enter and complete the  Web-based questionnaire. To encourage ombudsmen to respond, we sent  two additional E-mail messages over the following 3 weeks.  Those  ombudsmen who were unable to complete the survey online were given the  option to respond via fax, phone, or mail.  We closed the survey on June 9,  2005.
Although all members of the study population were surveyed, not every  member replied to our survey.  Specifically, 618 of the 831 members of the  study population replied.  In addition, 52 of the 618 respondents were out of  scope because they indicated they were not serving as volunteer  ombudsmen as of April 6, 2005.  Table 2 contains a summary of the survey  disposition for the surveyed cases.  The response rate for our survey was 74  percent.
We obtained responses from volunteer ombudsmen across the country.   Although the response rate of ombudsmen differed somewhat across  states, we have no reason to expect that the responses on the issues  studied in our survey would be associated with the ombudsmen’s states.  Therefore, our analysis of the survey data treats the respondents as a  simple random sample of the population of the ESGR volunteer  ombudsmen across the country.
Assuming that the respondents constitute a random sample from the study  population, the particular sample of ombudsmen we obtained was only one  of a large number of such samples that we might have obtained.  To  recognize the possibility that other samples might have yielded other  results, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular  sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval.  Unless otherwise  noted, the percentage estimates from the survey have a margin of error of  plus or minus 3 percent or less with a 95 percent level of confidence.  All  numerical estimates other than percentages have a margin of error of plus  or minus 14 percent or less of the value of those numerical estimates with a  95 percent level of confidence, unless otherwise noted.
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors,  commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in  how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information that  are available to respondents, or in how the data are entered into a database  or were analyzed, can introduce unwanted variability into the survey  results. We took steps in the development of the questionnaire, the data  collection, and the data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors.  For  example, social science survey specialists designed the questionnaire in  collaboration with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. Then, the draft  questionnaire was pretested to ensure that the questions were clearly  stated and easy to comprehend. When the data were analyzed, a second,  independent analyst checked all computer programs. Since this was a Web- based survey, most respondents entered their answers directly into the  electronic questionnaire. This eliminated the need to have the data keyed  into a database, thus removing an additional source of error. A GAO analyst  entered responses into our database from those ombudsmen who were  unable to complete the survey on-line and responded via fax, phone, or  mail. All these data were independently verified by a second analyst to  ensure their accuracy.
We also assessed the reliability of the data from the May 2004, Status of  Forces Survey of Reserve Component Members, by (1) interviewing agency  officials from    the Defense Manpower Data Center, Washington, D.C., and   the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, Washington,  who were knowledgeable about the data, (2) reviewing existing  information about the data and the system that produced them, and  (3) performing electronic testing of required data elements.  The response  rate for the survey was 39 percent. To the extent that respondents and  nonrespondents had different opinions on the questions asked, the  estimates from this survey have the potential to be biased. DOD has  previously conducted and reported on research to assess the impact of  response rate on overall estimates. DOD found that, among other  characteristics, junior enlisted personnel (E1 to E4), servicemembers who  do not have a college degree, and members in services other than the Air  Force, were more likely to be nonrespondents. We have no reason to  believe that potential nonresponse bias not otherwise accounted for by  DOD’s research is substantial for the variables we studied in this report. All  percentage estimates cited from the survey have sampling errors of plus or  minus 2.3 percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted.  The at least 72  percent of National Guard and Reserve members who never sought  assistance for their USERRA problems represents the lower bound of a 95  percent confidence interval around a point estimate (77 percent) that has a  plus or minus 5 percent margin of error.  Ranges cited from the survey  represent a 95 percent confidence interval around point estimates. We used  the weighting factors and the sampling error methodology provided by the  Defense Manpower Data Center to develop estimates and sampling error  estimates, and determined that the data from the May 2004 Status of Forces  Survey of Reserve Component Members were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report.
To asses the efficiency and effectiveness of federal educational outreach  efforts, we reviewed Section 4333 of Title 38 of the United States Code to  determine which agencies have outreach responsibilities under USERRA.  We interviewed agency officials to determine whether their agencies had  any significant educational outreach efforts. Although only two of the four  agencies we reviewed had outreach responsibilities under the law—DOD  and DOL—officials from three agencies said that they had significant  outreach activities—DOD, DOL, and OSC. We obtained information about  each agency’s activities, and analyzed the available outreach figures for  individual programs and total agency outreach. Because DOD has at least  nine different formal outreach programs, we devoted an entire appendix  (app. IV) to the details of DOD’s programs. We also followed up on issues  related to the collection of servicemember employer information, which  we raised in our 2002 employer support report. Specifically, we reviewed  DOD’s policy memoranda that were issued after our 2002 report and which  mandated that Ready Reserve members supply information about their  civilian employers. We also monitored and analyzed figures that showed  servicemember rates of compliance with the estimates from this survey on  these reporting requirements. These compliance figures covered each of  the reserve components and various reserve categories.
To asses how efficiently and effectively DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC  addressed servicemember complaints, we obtained and analyzed  information about complaint processing practices, including applicable  guidance, regulations, or operations manuals. We also obtained and  reviewed the memorandums of understanding between DOL and DOJ,  OSC, and the ESGR. To further analyze the entire process, we gathered and  analyzed information about how the agencies share information from  USERRA complaint files with one another. We exported data from the  VETS USERRA Information Management System and analyzed the data to  look for trends in processing times. We specifically focused our analysis on  cases that had been closed and later reopened, and on cases that had been  referred from DOL to DOJ or OSC. We performed multiple sorts of the  entire data set, and data subsets, to determine whether there were any  common characteristics in complaint files from the group of complaints  that remained open for long time periods, or in the complaint files from the  group of complaints that were quickly resolved. For example, we sorted  complaint data by: type of employer, regional office, type of  servicemember, and type of complaint. We used many of the other more  than 70 data fields to perform data sorts but much of our analysis did not  yield reportable results because substantial amounts of information were  missing for certain data fields. However, our analysis of date fields was not  hampered by missing data and we were able to calculate elapsed times and  processing times from the available data.
We assessed the reliability of formal complaint data provided by DOL, DOJ,  and OSC by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the  systems that produced them and (2) interviewing and obtaining written  responses from agency officials knowledgeable about the data.  We  compared data obtained from DOJ and OSC to that captured in the DOL  USERRA Information Management System. We also compared data drawn  from DOL’s USERRA Information Management System at different time  periods to determine the consistency of the data.  In addition, where  available, we compared information from 59 hard copy complaint files to  data recorded in the DOL system to assess how accurately information was  being entered into the database.  We also discussed informal complaint  data and its reliability with knowledgeable ESGR officials.  On the basis of  these assessments, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable  for the purposes of this report, though agency data systems had some  limitations that we discussed in the report.
We conducted our work from October 2004 through August 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Professional Backgrounds of the ESGR’s Volunteer Ombudsmen
paragraphs: Between May 9, 2005, and June 9, 2005, we surveyed the ESGR’s volunteer  ombudsmen who were available to handle servicemember complaints as of  April 6, 2005. We received a 74 percent response rate to our survey. Tables 2  shows that about 58 percent of the volunteer ombudsmen were employed  in full-time jobs, and about 30 percent were retired.
Table 3 shows the distribution of ombudsmen by their primary employers.  About 44 percent worked for the government or military, and about 56  percent worked for private employers, including the approximately 21  percent who were self-employed.
In addition to the general background employment questions, our survey  asked respondents to specify their occupations or backgrounds that they  felt were particularly relevant to their ombudsmen duties. The responses  were varied and showed that many of the volunteers hold or had previously  held paid positions that required: leadership, skillful negotiation, extensive  interactions with different types of people, or knowledge of laws and  regulations or military operations and procedures. In the information that  follows, we have grouped the responses and provided some examples of  the occupations the ombudsmen thought were particularly relevant. The  ombudsmen said that they had held  Legal positions ranging from paralegals to attorneys, assistant attorney  generals and a wide range of judges—administrative law, municipal,  district, superior court, and  state supreme court;   Dispute or resolution positions as mediators, negotiators, arbitrators,  facilitators, and grievance officers;  Counseling positions as veterans’ career/employment, vocational  rehabilitation, and recruitment/retention counselors;  Political positions ranging from local mayor and city council positions  to lobbyist and state legislature and senate positions;  Military positions in the active Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine  Corps; and  in the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard, the Air  National Guard, the Air Force Reserve, the Naval Reserve, the Marine  Corps Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve;  Federal government positions in the Departments of: Defense, Justice,  Homeland Security, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Education, Health and  Human Services, Interior, Corrections, Energy, Agriculture, Treasury,  and in the U.S. Postal Service;  State and local government positions in the Departments of Military  Affairs, Environmental Management, Public Safety, and Aviation; and in  the Adjutant General’s office;  Education positions ranging from teachers and college professors, who  taught mediation and communications, to principal, school  superintendent, and college president positions;  Law enforcement positions as police officers, supervisors, or chiefs;  state troopers, marshals, investigators, and as a liaison between the  military and a major city police department that employs more that 500  Guard and Reserve members;   Religious positions as chaplain and deacon;  Business and management positions as labor relations specialists,  negotiators, human resource managers, public affairs officers, owners,  general managers, directors, presidents, vice-presidents, and CEOs; and  Trade organization positions as union officers or shop  steward/negotiators.
section_title: Department of Labor Form 1010
paragraphs: OMB NO. 1293-0002 (EXP 03/31/2007) VETS/USERRA/VP Form 1010 (REV 2/99)
Section III:  Employer Information 10.  Employer or Prospective Employer’s Name:  _______________________________________________________________________ 11.  Address:  __________________________________________________________________________________________________________                                 Street                                              City                                      County                           State                                ZIP 12.  Principal Employer Contact (PEC):        (a) PEC Name/Title:  ___________________________________________      (b) PEC Phone:  __________________________________________ 13.  Employment Dates (If applicable):              From:  ____________________      To:  ____________________ 14.  Since beginning work with this employer, has your cumulative uniformed service exceeded 5 years? ? Yes ? No        If YES, explain in Comments box at end of this claim form. 15.  Name of Union(s) That Represent You:  ______________________________________________________ If Claim Concerns Veterans’ Preference in Federal Employment 16.  Preference Issue (Check One): ? Hiring ? Reduction-in-Force (RIF)
If Claim Concerns Employment Discrimination under USERRA 17.  Employment Discrimination Issue(s): ? Hiring ? Reemployment ? Promotion ? Termination ? Benefits of Employment If Claim Concerns Hiring, Promotion, RIF or Termination 18.  Title of Position Held or Applied For:  _____________________________________________________________ 19.  Pay Rate:  __________________________ 20.  Date of Application Employment/Promotion:  ________________________                 20a.  Vacancy Announcement No.:  ______________________________________________________________________                 20b.  Date Vacancy Opened:  __________________________  20c.  Date Vacancy Closed:  _________________________ If Claim Concerns Reemployment Following Service 21.  Was Prior Notice of Service Provided to Employer? ? Yes ? No (If “No,” Explain in Comments)
22.  (a)  Who Provided Notice of Service to Employer? ? Self ? Other (name):  _______________________________________ ? Written ? Oral ? Both        (c)  Date Notice of Service was given to Employer:  _______________________ 23.  Name/Title of Person to Whom Notice of Service was Provided:  _________________________________________ 24.  Date Applied for Reemployment:  ______________________ OR Date Returned to Work:  ______________________ 25.  Reemployment Application Made To:         Name:  _________________________________        Title:  _____________________________ ? Yes (date):  ______________________        (a)  If YES, what position?  ____________________________________   at what pay rate?  ________________________        (b)  If NO, Date denied:   ___________________   Reason given:  ______________________________________________        (c)  Who denied (name):  ____________________________________ PUNISHMENT FOR UNLAWFUL STATEMENTS The information provided in this complaint will be utilized by the U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) to initiate  an investigation of alleged violations of the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and/or the Veterans’ Preference (VP)  provisions of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). Potential claimants should keep in mind that it is unlawful to “knowingly and  willfully” make any “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representation” to a federal agency.  Violations can be punished under Section 2 of  the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 by a fine and/or imprisonment of not more than 5 years.  18 U.S.C. § 1001.
I certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.  I authorize the U.S. Department of Labor to contact my  employer or any other person for information concerning this claim.  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C., Section 552(b) of the Privacy Act, I consent to the release of the  above information and any records necessary for the investigation and prosecution of my claim.
SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________________________ DATE: _________________________________ Persons are not required to response to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  Public reporting burden for this  collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,  gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any  other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans’ Employment and  Training Service, Room-S1316, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT The primary use of this information is by staff of the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service in investigating cases under USERRA or laws/regulations  relating to veterans’ preference in Federal employment.  Disclosure of this information may be made to:  a Federal, state or local agency for appropriate  reasons; in connection with litigation; and to an individual or contractor performing a Federal function.  Furnishing the information on this form, including  your Social Security Number, is voluntary.  However, failure to provide this information may jeopardize the Department of Labor’s ability to provide  assistance on your claim.
Continue in Comments box &/or use additional sheet(s) to explain items if needed – Sign and date form (above)
subsections: section_title: Explain your claim in detail – List all remedies you seek
section_title: DOD’s Outreach Programs
paragraphs: The ESGR has responsibility for most DOD outreach programs but DOD  also has a public affairs campaign that encourages employer support of  servicemember employees. In past years, the ESGR’s focus was on  educating servicemembers concerning their employment rights. In fiscal  year 2005, the ESGR shifted its focus to educating employers. The new  focus better aligns with the ESGR’s mission—to gain and maintain support  for employee military service from all public and private employers of the  men and women of the National Guard and Reserve. To fulfill its mission,  the ESGR has developed and implemented a number of employer outreach  efforts. In addition to the ESGR’s “statement of support” and awards  programs, which were discussed in the body of this report, the ESGR has a  number of other outreach programs that are discussed below. Some of  these efforts are well underway, others are relatively new.
subsections: section_title: The ESGR Outreach Programs
paragraphs: Mass Market Outreach.  This ESGR effort has used public service  advertising and mass marketing to make employers and the general  public aware of the importance of employer support for Guard and  Reserve members who are called to military service, and the role that  the ESGR can play in encouraging supportive employer relations.
Strategic Partnerships. Through these partnerships with the national  headquarters and local chapters of the Chamber of Commerce, Society  for Human Resource Management, National Federation of Independent  Business, Small Business Administration, and Rotary Club, the ESGR  strives to educate employers about USERRA, the ESGR organization,  and the different ways employers can support their servicemember  employees. The ESGR uses a variety of media, trade show, and speaking  opportunities to reach this target audience. The ESGR’s goal was to  reach at least 430 local chapters of these groups in fiscal year 2005. As of  July 2005, the ESGR had met with 250 of its strategic partners.
Industry Segment Outreach.  This outreach effort is focused on  leaders in industries that employ significant numbers of reserve  component members. For about 5 years, DOD leaders have met  regularly with key officials from the airline industry to discuss concerns  that arise as the military and industry share the same personnel  resources. In fiscal year 2005, the ESGR planned to hold three similar  symposiums with (1) law enforcement, (2) fire and safety officials, and  (3) city and municipal leaders. However, none of the other symposiums  had taken place when we ended our review in August 2005.
Federal Government Outreach. USERRA states that the federal  government should be a model employer. The ESGR is encouraging the  17 cabinet-level departments and 81 independent federal government  agencies to sign the ESGR statements of support as a means to  demonstrate their commitment to their servicemember employees. The  ESGR established a goal to have10 federal government agencies sign  statements of support in fiscal year 2005. As of August 2005, a total of 20  federal agencies had signed statements of support.   5-Star Program. In the past, the ESGR’s outreach efforts were focused  on simply asking employers to sign statements of support for their  National Guard and Reserve members. The statement of support simply  stated that employers would fulfill their obligations by complying with  USERRA. Currently in its first year, the 5-Star Program seeks to get  employers more actively involved in the management of their National  Guard and Reserve employees. The five steps of the 5-Star Program are  to (1) sign a statement of support, (2) review employer human resource policies with respect to employer  support, (3) train supervisors and managers on USERRA, (4) provide “above and beyond” human resource policies, and  (5) advocate for National Guard and Reserve members.
Bosslifts. Bosslifts are usually 2- to 3-day outreach events where  employers, civic leaders, and legislators are taken to Guard or Reserve  units to observe Guard or Reserve members in action. These events  present employers with opportunities to directly observe the technical,  organizational, team building, and leadership skills of their employees.  They also provide employers with opportunities to observe military  training, some of which may be directly related to their employees’  civilian jobs. Each ESGR state committee is programmed for one  nationally sponsored bosslift each year. However, based on the size and  distribution of its reserve component population, California is  programmed for two bosslifts. Additional committee-sponsored  bosslifts are authorized and encouraged. Some state committees  sponsor and fund bosslifts using state funding.
Employer Briefings. Employer briefings provide a forum for local  employers, unit commanders, the ESGR members, and community  leaders to meet, network, and discuss issues that arise from employee  participation in the National Guard and Reserve. The meeting site can be  a local restaurant, hotel, service club, Chamber of Commerce, National  Guard Armory, Reserve Center, or military installation. This is a local- level 1-day activity funded at the state level.
section_title: Other DOD Outreach Efforts
paragraphs: Defense Advisory Board. In August 2003, the Secretary of Defense  created a defense advisory board composed of 15 to 25 industry public  and private sector leaders to act as consultants without compensation.  The board was established for up to 3 years and provides advice to the  Secretary of Defense about issues concerning Reserve component  members and their civilian employers. It also recommends policies and  priorities for employer support actions and programs. The board meets  at least twice a year at the call of the National Chairman, and as needed  to address emergent issues. In March 2005, this board met with both the  Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. Board members included a  state governor, a major city fire chief, and representatives from  employer associations, higher education, and the airline, information  technology, aircraft repair, transportation, public relations and public  affairs, defense and aerospace systems, investment banking, and food  industries.
America Supports You. This is a nationwide program launched by  DOD’s public affairs office to recognize citizens’ support for military  men and women and to communicate that support to members of the  Armed Forces at home and abroad. Participants can join the team at  www.americasupportsyou.mil, share their stories of support with the  nation and troops, and download program materials. In turn, military  members will access the Web site and learn about America’s support for  their service. In addition to personal stories of support, the Web site has  a section that recognizes employer support for servicemembers and  particularly for servicemember employees.
section_title: GAO’s Survey of the ESGR’s Volunteer Ombudsmen Including Results
paragraphs: This appendix presents a facsimile of the actual questions asked in our  survey of the ESGR ombudsmen along with aggregate responses.  The  results presented have been weighted to correspond to the universe of the  ESGR ombudsmen.  See appendix I, Scope and Methodology, for a detailed  discussion of this process.
1.  Were you serving as an Ombudsman and available to handle cases as of April 6, 2005?    (Select one answer.)
Yes  (Continue.)
No  (Click here to skip to question 12.) 2.  How long have you served as an Ombudsman with the ESGR?  (Select one answer.)
Less than 1 year   1 to less than 3 years   3 to less than 7 years   7 or more years   No response 3.  Have you received or not received each of the following types of training either prior to or since  becoming an Ombudsmen? (Select one answer in each row.) a. Basic Ombudsman training  b. Advanced Ombudsman training  d. Other training related to your   If you received any of the above types of training, what was the year of the most recent training you  received? (Enter year of training. Please enter all four digits of the year, e.g., “2004”.)    2005-10%       2004-22%       2003-23%       2002 or earlier-45%     N=698    2005-8%         2004-33%       2003-26%       2002 or earlier-33%     N=244    2005-11%       2004-41%       2003-18%       2002 or earlier-30%     N=137    2005-31%       2004-27%       2003-13%       2002 or earlier-29%     N=259  If you received any “other training related to your Ombudsman duties”, what was included in that  training and at what specific location(s) did that training take place?  5.  Since becoming an ESGR Ombudsman, what is the total number of cases that you have handled? (Enter number.  If none, enter zero.)
Mean = 51.4 cases          Total = 37,684 cases          N=735         Please indicate whether the number you entered in question 5 above was an…  (Select one answer.)
Exact number (from records or memory)  6.  Since becoming an ESGR Ombudsman, what is the total number of cases that you have personally  resolved, that is that you brought to closure yourself?  (Enter number.  If none, enter zero.)
Veterans’ Employment and Training Service or ESGR national headquarters or state coordinators.
Mean = 40.6 cases       Total=29,816 cases        N=735   Please indicate whether the number you entered in question 5 above was …  (Select one answer.)
Exact number (from records or memory)  7.  On average, how many hours do you spend in a typical week on your ESGR Ombudsman duties?
Minimum = 0 hours         Maximum = 45 hours    Mean = 3.7 hours             N=730  Apart from your work as an ESGR Ombudsman, we are interested in finding out a few things about your  current employment, or if you are retired, your former employment.    8.  Other than your work as an ESGR Ombudsman, are you currently employed full-time (35 hours or  more per week), employed part-time (34 hours or less per week), retired, or not currently employed?    (Select one answer.)
Retired     Not currently employed, but not retired    No response  9.  Other than your work as an ESGR Ombudsman, which one of the following best describes your  primary employer? (If you are not currently employed or retired, answer for your former primary  employer.)   (Select one answer.)
Military  (Answer question 9a below.)   Federal government (non-military)  (Answer question 9a below.)   State government  (Answer question 9a below.)   Local government  (Answer question 9a below.)   Corporation or large private sector firm      Small business       Non-profit or charitable organization       Self-employed       No response     9a.   If you answered military, federal government (non-military), state, or local government in               question 9 above, in what branch of the military or specific government agency are/were you  10.  Other than your work as an ESGR Ombudsman, which one of the following best describes your  current primary occupation?  (If you are not currently employed or retired, answer for your former  primary occupation.)  (Select one answer.)
Military - attorney/JAG    Military - non-attorney officer    Military - enlisted     Nonmilitary - attorney    Nonmilitary - not an attorney (Answer question 10a below.)   No response  10a.   If you answered “Nonmilitary - not an attorney” in question 10 above, and your primary or  former  occupation directly relates to your ESGR ombudsman responsibilities (e.g., mediator,  negotiator, etc.), please enter this occupation in the space below.  11.  If you have had more than one occupation that directly relates to your ombudsmen responsibilities,  please list the secondary occupation (that was not covered by questions 9 and 10) in the box below.  12. If you would like to make any suggestions on how to make the ESGR Ombudsman program more  successful, please use the space below.  (You may enter as much text as you like.  The space will  expand to accommodate your response.)
section_title: DOL’s USERRA Information Poster
section_title: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Comments from the Office of Special Counsel
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Brenda S. Farrell, Assistant  Director; Renee S. Brown; Jonathan Clark; Michael J. Ferren; Stuart M.  Kaufman; Susanna R. Kuebler; Mary Jo Lacasse; Ronald La Due Lake;  Susan J. Mason; Jennifer R. Popovic; and Irene A. Robertson made  significant contributions to the report.