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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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.

Summary: 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. 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.