adequate science. however, we have to think rationally and make rational decisions. i think people now understand that hitting your head over and over is not necessarily a good thing for you so i would agree with everyone else but at the very least contact sports with repetitive hits to the head should be limited to as late as possible. >> we especially want to thank our special guest. we want to thank all of you. >> i apologize for interrupting but i wonder whether the record could it be kept open. it's such a phenomenally good panel. i have some additional questions. >> the record will be kept open for five days. the meeting is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] next day here in looking how veterans are transitioning to civilian life.

in a washington journal segment on the destruction of chemical weapons and later a discussion about brain injuries and the elderly. a lot of people don't know how difficult it is. i don't know one person may be in this room that can juggle the things me and my husband have to juggle every single day with having three children on medical disabilities going back and forth to work sometimes maybe having too taken under the table job just to bring in extra money. there isn't a lazy bone in my body.

there are many people that live in the inner city under the poverty level that are not easy. we want to be a part of the conversation. we want to have full-time jobs and go to school and go to college and things like that and i actually believe that certain people just put the stamp of sleazy on us and to put a smoke screen that could not can not be able to see what is really going on. to point the finger at us and look down on us to try to humiliate us or twist our words. you know, i feel like we are the most strategizing people that there is. every day we wake up and cut coupons like everybody else and get up and go to work and strive for the american dream because that's what everybody strives for, the american dream. that's what we need to get back to. if you strive harder and work hard and you do your due diligence you will be able to get ahead, no matter what race, gender, creed or where you come from the inner city or out of

the city. ..

>> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend, booktv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> next, look a at the backlogs and waiting lists for medical treatment for veterans affected those transitioning out of military. the assistant ig for audits and evaluations at the va address the backlog before a house subcommittee. linda halliday says the number is dropping which acknowledge his she has concerns with the workload management. this hearing runs just over two hours 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon and welcome. the oversight hearing of the subcommittee on disability will now come to order. today's hearing will focus upon va's role in the transition from servicemembers to veterans with a particular focus on the integrated disability evaluation system commonly known as ides. as well as the benefit delivery at discharge and quick start programs. we will seek information on the research and production as well as timeless and quality of va components in the process. further i would like to hear today about the quality of communication both within transitioning servicemembers as well as between the department of defense and the department of

veterans affairs in this process. first to address transit. while i understand timelines are improving we want to start off by making it clear that why this continuing improvements matters, i have virtually -- i'm quickly contacted by servicemembers were frustrated with the process. they did not know how long it's going to take, then, when they will get answers and they don't know when they can make plans for their future. i understand that the dod reports quite high satisfaction for servicemembers undergoing ides but it does not reflect the stores had recently been shared with me. i've also gotten the sense that the ides process may not be a top priority for the va because the va has chosen to place what seems to be fairly exclusive focus on eliminating backlog of claims. to the detriment of these transitioning servicemembers. so let's begin, the

understanding that if this belief exists at va, it is not okay. these transitioning servicemembers have served in recent years during a decade plus of wars in iraq and afghanistan and with many, multiple deployments and many with service-cservice-c onnected injuries that prevent the continued military service. here i have correspondence from the past couple of months received from both, from soldiers who are waiting to start the post military life. one soldier frustrated with his inability to pay for the future, plan for the future. wrote and i quote, it has been for years since i have shared a christmas with my family. it would mean the world if i could finally spend christmas with them issue. i've gone through the processes and am currently awaiting ratings. another reads quote, i have been awaiting my rating for a long

time now. i've also been trying to contact my va rep and the only way i can talk to the it is if i go down to their office. i call and call and leave messages and e-mails but never get anything back and less i am in of their office. this entire waiting game has been putting the on, putting ever big strain on my family and i've been trying to convince my family that it is going to come any day now. well, it hasn't and now my life, now my wife wants to get a divorce. i don't know what i would do without my two daughters and my wife. if there's anything you can do to help me, out, or get me some information, that would be great, end quote. another infantry men wrote, quote, i am losing my mind trying to find out why it is taking my ratings a lot to come back from the va. i honestly wouldn't reach out if it was a very important. but i've been under so much

stress lately that my blood pressure shot through the roof. my whole process has been putting me through hell. more so than my trip to afghanistan in 2009. if there is anything you could do to assist me in figuring out what it takes, what has taken the va so long to rate me and possibly expedite the process, i would forever be grateful, end quote. please, we must do better. today's hearing is entitled find expectations evaluating the performance answer is no transition process. and if nothing else i want that to be to take away, defined expectations. these men and women have served honorably during a very difficult time in the military. at the very least they deserve open line of communication, and deserve reasonable defined expectations as their timelines,

their futures, their transition to the civilian world. more must be done to define expectations. in addition to the ides updates at the forefront of today's hearing will also seek information on the process including the use of brokering as well as timelines and accuracy that benefits delivery at discharge a quick start programs. we'll hear about the va's anticipated new pre-discharge program which may consolidate the existing bdd and quick start program. i look for during from today's witnesses, and with that i will begin introductions. seated at the witness table we have all members from the first panel, from the department of defense we have ms. nancy weaver, deputy assistant secretary of defense, warrior care policy, who was accompanied by mr. david bowen, director of health information technology,

defense health agency. and from the department of veterans affairs we have ms. diana rubens, deputy undersecretary for field operations we get veterans benefits of administration who is accompanied by mr. thomas murphy, director of compensation service, upon conclusion of the first panel we will seek to subsequent panels which include panel two, ms. linda halliday, the assistant inspector general for audits and evaluations for the office of inspector general can use department of veterans affairs, accompanied by ms. nora stokes, director of the benefits special division and mr. ramon figueroa, project manager with the bay pines benefits inspection division. panel three will consist of mr. eric jenkins who is here and represents the american federation of government employees, afl-cio and the afg national va council. ms. debra gipson is here today and is an individual service

member and shall be introduced by our congressmen -- congressman o'rourke. mr. gerardo avila, national meb/peb representative, the american legion. and mr. paul varela, assistant national legislative director with the disabled american veterans, and mr. brendan gehrke, senior legislative associate, veterans of foreign wars of the united states. one final point, i must devise pursuant to title 18, nine states code section 1001, known as the false statement act, this is a crime to knowingly gave false statements in federal jurisdiction, including a congressional hearing. with that acknowledgment i thank you all for being with us today. i now yield to the ranking member for her opening statement.

thank you, mr. chairman. thank you going to sing today. thank all of you for coming to provide us with some needed information. as you're the chairman described today we're going to look into the performance of programs that va and dod utilize for determining fit for duty status, or ill or injured servicemembers. as well as programs that are designed to expedite the adjudication of claims submitted by separating servicemembers. particularly we're going to focus on integrated disability evaluation system, ides, the benefits delivery at discharge program, bdd, and the quick start program. all of these programs are not up and running for a number of years. ides was initiated in 2007 as a follow-up to the poor conditions and fried medicare that were exposed at walter reed army hospital. bdd was launched back in 1995 as a pilot program and then became fully operational in 1998.

the intent of bdd was to assist disabled service members in making a seamless and successful transition to civilian life by allowing them to get their claim completed as early as possible while they have all their medical information readily available. quick start was launched in 2008, and it is similar in nature to bdd, and it was established to provide unexpected to stability benefits process to servicemembers who are going to be discharged within 59 days. despite having long been established and having enough time to get over growing pains and any other problems in the early stages, all of these programs continue to face challenges under performing far below expectations. the one similarity that they seem to have is that they suffer from a continued poor performance in the adjudication of the claims in each of the three programs.

of particular interest to me is the number of claims under bdd and quick start that has dropped off. there are many fewer claims now than there used to be, and i'm concerned that the reason for that is that servicemembers are choosing to bypass these programs that are designed to provide an expedited system over concerns that participation actually delays the process of receiving benefits. in fact, quick start has been known to be called quick start and slow finish as a result of that. we've had, highlighted for us by the va's oig about eliminating benefits backlog, has kind of shifted priorities in some of the expense of other benefits and claims such as ides, quick start, which have been moved to the back burner. and that's unfortunate. you heard the chairman read some

e-mails not we've been receiving. they all generally have the same ask. i'm in the army, i'm waiting for decision, my family and i need to get on with our lives. our staff has witnessed firsthand the poor culture that is often present at these ides stations and wounded warrior battalions. i want to thank ms. gipson was an army veteran who recently went through the process and came to be with us today to talk about some of the negative culture that is in these programs and how we might address them. it's just a concerned that these programs that are supposed to be so helpful really end up being harmful because they hold our servicemembers lives in bureaucratic limbo. an army reservist that enters ides today won't complete the program into august 17, 2015, 181 days of this 443 day period will be spent waiting for a be a raider to pick up the claim and

provide him or her with the rating, just to get a rating it takes that long. so as our servicemembers wait for a rating decision they are forced to delay critical aspects of their transition. they and their spouses hesitate to relocate, to buy a home, two and a school program, to find a new job because they just don't know what's going to happen to them. we know that servicemembers face obstacles when they are transitioning out of the armed services. that's already difficult enough. the va should be an asset not an entrance to that process. so i think we need to take a hard look at the resources that we're dedicating to these programs and figure out how we can meet their goals today and not tomorrow. so we need to take a fresh look at these programs. we recently, with the staff, recently looked at this and found that 95% of servicemembers who enter the ides program are

found not to be fit to serve because of an illness or injury. so they know they're going to be discharged. 95%. if we know that many are not going to go back into the service but are going to be discharged, should we be taking a different approach offering them some flexibility, some options while they are making that transition? so i hope that those are the kinds of things that we will look at today in this hearing and see if we can't we prioritize and shift some of our emphasis on being flexible in making this work as opposed to just having families sit around waiting for the rating. thank you and i yield back. >> thank the gently. with that of a record as the chairman of the full committee, mr. miller, for his statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate he indulges. i want to make a few remarks on the servicemembers transition

problem, process, particularly with regards to ides. earlier timeline ides induction to receive the benefit is targeted not to exceed 295 days but recent dod and va reports place the average timeline at over 350 days. that's an average but that average means that there many servicemembers that take much longer to complete. and endeavor to address ides efficiencies i recently introduced an amendment to the fy '15 national defense authorization act that would do the following. first it would require the use of a standardized form set which would be approved by both the secretaries of dod and va as was the dole shalala commission is recommendations. second it would collocate certainty dod and va personnel to allow for greater interdepartmental collaboration and to reduce delays and transfers of information. third it would compel the usage

of a bridging software solution between dod's my ides and va's the benefits of dashboard to allow servicemembers greater transparency as to where they are in the process at the current time. finally, the amendment would establish a working group comprised of various personal in dod and va as was private industry leaders to we evaluate the program itself. the working group within make recommendations on how to better serve those are going through this process as well as how to better utilize the resources that are allocated. i want to take a moment to emphasize that the goals o of my ides amendment are twofold. first, increased sensitivity to the service member and increased accountability for the respective departments. i think everybody in this room is already a where the issues of transparency and accountability are of utmost importance, particularly as we continue to investigate the ongoing delays of access care at va health care

facilities across this great nation. since the transition process whether to ides, bdd, quick start or the traditional claims process is a service member first exposure to the va system. we want to ensure that it is a positive experience for all who use it and those who is designed to serve. those very people that served our country. mr. chairman, antonyms of the committee thank you for indulgence and i yield back my time. >> thank the gentleman. now i want to recognize mr. o'rourke, i believe he has an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to actually introduce someone will be on one of the later panels, debra gipson. i'm sad to say, mr. chairman, as a former constituent of mine, she just moved out of el paso in march of this year and we will miss her. but prior to that she was

stationed at fort bliss, a former captain in the u.s. army. and during her time as a commissioned officer she served as the executive officer for the warrior transition you know, bravo company at fort bliss, texas. she was medically separated from service to the integrated disability evaluation system, or ides, and she's here today again in a later panels to deliver a statement about her experience with ides and offer recommendations to improve the system. so i just wanted to be here to welcome her and introduce her to the rest of this committee. without i yield back. >> take either i don't like any other members have statement, so i this time i welcome our first panel. your complete and written statement will be entered into the hearing record, and ms. weaver, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. chairman runyan, ranking member titus, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the

integrated disability evaluation system, also known as ides. since 2007 the departments of defense and veterans affairs have collaborated to create an integrated and transparent disability evaluation system for servicemembers who have illnesses or injuries that may impede their ability to perform their military duties. today, ides accounts for about 97% of all dod disability evaluation cases. in ides, servicemembers receive a set of disability examinatio examinations, conducted according to be a protocol, and disability ratings prepared by va. departments, military departments determine fitness for duty and only compensate servicemembers for conditions that compromise their ability to perform their military duty.

va compensates for all conditions -- incurred or aggravated military service. the advantages of ides compared to legacy systems include the elimination of duplicate medical exam, consistency between dod and va disability ratings, and reduced wait times for va disability benefits since rating determinations are completed prior to your servicemembers separation. these advantages have contributed to improved service member satisfaction within the ides process. we are continuing to implement process enhancements such as improved policy, increased staffing levels, and new training requirements for caseworkers. these and other improvements have enabled us to achieve and remain below our ides core

processing goal of 105 days for the past several months. information technology can also help us gain more efficiency within the ides process. that's why we're working to develop a system that will support end to end the management, tracking, reporting, and abide directionally electronic case file transfer. we will continue to work with va to insure system interface requirements are identified early. the department of defense is working diligently to support an integrated disability system that ensures servicemembers receive timely and transparent compensation for injuries or illnesses incurred by the line of duty today, tomorrow, and in the future. thank you and we look forward to your questions. >> thank you. now next we will hear from

ms. rubens. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> that afternoon chairman runyan, ranking member titus, members of the subcommittee. my testimony today will focus on the status of the integrated disability evaluation system, or ides, benefits delivered at discharge bdd, and the quick start program. with respect to ides joint efforts of the past six years have resulted in changes and improvements in our disability a violation system. together the departments of credit and integrated process for servicemembers are being medically retired or separated. this joint process was designed to eliminate duplicative time-consuming elements of the separating disability determination process within va and dod. the goals of her integration were to provide a seamless transition of benefits and health care for separating servicemembers through 10 checks. as a result, we have worked to achieve these goals are currently there are proximate 29,000 servicemembers with four combined course to the average

processing time in april 2014 was 183 days. the low score time since apri april 2013. our target for those combined steps of 100 days of the 295 day combined be a dod target and endeavor to continue to improve we have created a plan to improve ides timeless that involved a phased approach. the first phase was to meet benefit notification time limits standards by march 2014, which we have done. this portion of the processes focus on ensuring servicemembers who will are transitioning into the civilian world as veterans receive timely benefits to which they are entitled. the second phase of the plan is to meet the time limits standards for the proposed rating by october 2014. we are on track to meet that goal and we will do so. our continued partnership with the dod is critical to va and dod is committed to support our nation's wounded and ill and injured service matters through the ides process. the bdd and quick start programs are important elements to

provide transitional assistance of separating a retired servicemembers and engage those servicemen with a disco the claims process prior to discharge. the goal is to ensure each service members separated from active duty wishes to file a claim with va for service connected disability benefits will receive assistance to do so. participation in bdd program is available to servicemembers who are within 60 had wanted a days of being released from active duty under able to report for a the exam prior to discharge. quick start made to discharge claims processing doubled to 100% of transitioning servicemembers including those who are within 59 days of separation. like many of our regular non-pre-discharge claims, vba is made tremendous progress in the past 15 months but we recognize we have work left to do. as of april 2014 the average ebay spending for quick start claims is 98.3 days, and improvement of 137 days since

may 2012. as of april 2014 the average day spending for bdd claims one and 36 days come in a prive credit 5 days since april 2013. claims accuracy is a key element and we continue to improve in that arena as well. currently it is not measured specifically for bdd our quick start and process. instead the accuracy is measured for each regional office as a whole including the bdd and quick start claims we are processing. as of april 2014 our three regional offices processing bdd a quick start claims and the rating activities have three months issue base quality between 96-98%. vb is working to re-sign -- reassigned the claims process process through the execution of our bdd and quick start programs. the new pre-discharge program will consolidate and replace the existing bdd and quick start programs. we will be leveraging functionality now available in

our veterans benefits management system and in our the benefit system that continues to both application process and efficiency throughout the claims process. we are committed to support our nation's servicemembers are thrh improvements in our pre-discharge program. we believe continued enhancements are critical to program success, nothing less our servicemembers and future veterans deserve. that concludes my statement and i began to any questions you might have. >> thank you, ms. rubens to i will begin a round of questioning alternating between members as they are a viable times. my first question is for both the va and the dod, ms. weaver, you indicated throughout the process that dod and va caseworkers keep service members informed of progress in their cases. while this streamline communication makes this an isolated cases, we know from speaking to large groups and several examples in my opening

statement that servicemembers at numerous installations, this communication is not occurring as a matter of routine. how is this communication going to prove? i would like both perspectives from both dod, ms. weavercome and ms. rubens at the va. >> thank you, sir. we have recently increased our manpower, and we find that we've also improved the training. we have minimum training standards, and require training for each of the pueblos providing them more information. as far as keeping the individual aware at the beginning of the process, each member who is enrolled or referred to ides is given a caseworker or a pueblo. that individual interacts with the servicemembers throughout all phases. at the beginning of the process,

the member is told approximately how long the process would take and is updated as they move from phase to phase and keeps them aware of what they need to do, and they are encouraged to keep their family members updated, or bring them in so that they are aware of what's going on through the process also. >> ms. rubens? >> our military service coordinators are located at the intake sites along with the dod pueblos in an effort to ensure not only refer to conditions dod is referring to the meb/peb process but any claims condition that the vendor wants to claim. or military service grenades either to help walk into that application process and understand the process. there are also their frankly to serve if you will as a touch point or a reach back to a

rating activities site so that if the veteran has questions, we are capable of also getting back to that rating activity site to share information with the service member and/or their family. >> i want to go back to ms. weaver on, you said the interactions have been typically as they move from face-to-face. are there huge gaps in time in different phases? are th they pretty standard as y would fall in a timeline? say there's three phase in the process. does one take three quarters of the year and the next one take a month, typically? >> each phase of the go through has a goal in the process of -- >> are the servicemembers made aware of the timeline in the face, or just the overall process? >> they are told of the overall as well as each phase. and as they go through each phase they can help them where

the next phase should be. however, we don't have a case tracking system that will tell them where in the phase they are. if their claim is being adjudicated and how long it's going to take before that's done, or when the informal tb is going to be completed in lieu to the next one. next phase. >> i have one last question and going to go over a little bit. it's actually for mr. murphy. accuracy is an overarching matter of importance to it like to ask you questions about bb is quality control component, star. vba star program has several classifications such as benefit an entire that decision,

documentation/notification and administrative. however, the national rating agency is based solely on benefit and the top of the air. my understanding is that star does not count errors for instance, with potential to affect veterans benefits such as when a claims folder lacked required evidence, including a medical examination or opinion need to make an accurate decision. can you comment on any of that? >> i would say that that is not an accurate statement. the absence of an examination when one was made would be called a benefit entitlement air force. so we do have the classifications of errors that you just describe which is a benefit and comment error but part of that is that if there's something that should've been gained, evidence that should've been included in the file or reviewed that would've affected the outcome, that would require a benefit and comment error to be called.

>> now recognize ms. titus for her questions. >> thanks mr. chairman. i would just ask ms. rubens if you have an explanation for why the number of people going into his programs has dropped off and only a third of the transitioning servicemembers elect to use these programs. and also if you think that if the va made the same kind of investment that the department of defense made in personnel and some of the changes described by ms. weaver if that would help with the backlog? >> certainly. i would tell you that i've heard particularly some of the concerns about the quick start not getting as many referrals as we anticipated. i would tell you that we know we had some challenges with timeliness. we made some dramatic changes to the resources that we provided to both the dva and quick start

processing -- bdd -- in july 20 help endeavor to ensure that we close on those performances in the particularly amount of time in this, numbers that we were seeing thin. i reflected in my statement the improvements we've made, and we continue to look for those to be not only sustained but grown up on as we work to merge bdd and quick start from the standpoint of the expectation that that servicemember transitioning, whether they have one to 59 days and perhaps not able to get two of the exam prior to discharge, or whether 60-180 day mark and can, in fact, complete the exam process to ensure timely processing of those claims that the transition to serve billion -- civilian life. >> that deadline jeff gove for meeting the goals keep getting pushed back. hasn't won now been pushed back to october for meeting some of those timelines that were supposed to be met in august of?

>> the timelines that you're referring to of late are for the ides program versus the bdd and qwikster. we do look at though somewhat differently because of the nature of that servicemember in the ides program being boarded out for disease or injury. from that standpoint, in august, for the proposed ratings we will close the inventory capacity that we need to. by october we will hit our deadline for providing the proposed rating. and we are already, for the final notification to that servicemember, we are now meeting the 30 days for that time period. >> okay. average of 48 days i think. all right, i'd like to ask you about the fact that 95% of the people are going to be discharged who go into this program. is there not some way to address that? we've heard a lot about

segmented lanes and express lanes for of the kind of benefits. is that not someone to look at samore flexibility there, if we know 95% are not going to go back into active duty? can we figure out some way to prioritize those cases and move them out faster? >> you know, i think that particularly around the ides program it has been a joint process with the dod. we want to ensure that we are meeting the spirit and intent, which is to move that along as quickly as possible. i will turn to ms. weaver to correct me to 100%, but i also think that there's the obligation of ensuring we gotten them to the point where they're ready to be discharged, and want to ensure that we work with dod and the requirements they've established for ensuring that servicemember is ready for transition. i don't know if you would add to that. >> we are working with va to look at other opportunities and

concepts to expedite the process. we do have an expedited process for catastrophically injured or ill personnel. to date, after briefing each member who is qualified we have had no one who has opted to take the process, but we're looking to see if we can broaden that concept to those that are not catastrophically but assiduously and see if we can expedite it. these are in concert stages and we are working with va on that. >> okay, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the ranking member. the chair recognizes the star -- mr. cook. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a couple of comments and probably the same one i had when i was chair of the veterans

committee in the house in california. i look at it from the perspective of the veterans and the people that you're dealing with. you know, just going through this paper right now, we're looking at bdd, ides, pueblo, msc, meb/peb, abc. i know that one. that's assistant division commander. and i knew any be. that's mission -- pueblo was the spy ship captured by the north korea. i thought that was battle damage assessment. i could go on and on and on. and if i was a person be discharged, you know, i think i know more about klingon and that

vocabulary and these acronyms which just keep on multiplying over and over. use of them all the time. the average person, i think i know most of them. i try to forget most of them, you know, after 26 years in the marine corps and then i got an education and children all kinds of things. the point in making is that trying to communicate with people user by using this foreign language, at least from my perspective is very, very difficult. and a lot of people don't get it, particularly the seniors. they have serious problems. ms. titus talked about that 95%. i see 95%, i think that's something we can make, streamline the process. we can do that. airlines notify people when the plane is going to be late, or what have you. the technology now.

i tell you, i'm probably the worst want to talk about technology because i'm horrible at it. thank god i'm married, either wife who is very bright. i have grandkids to fix my computer. but a lot of people are just brain dead when it comes to technology. but you have to have respect for some of these things that can streamline that and make the system more efficient. now, it just upsets me that it takes so long, and i look at it and this is a statement more than a question, that when world war ii started, you know, where people had to enlist, go through the physicals, get trained, be on the front line, almost, you know, so that we wouldn't lose the war. they did it. and getting people in there, same thing with korea and other times where you get people in and you can expedite the process.

and now we have a system on the backend where people, i spent 26 years, a lot of people spent a lot of years. it's a very, very cumbersome process, and i think part of it is it's very complex, at least -- and i don't think i'm the dumbest person. in this group maybe i am. but trying to understand all the stuff when you're going through it, i think we've got to at least make it more user-friendly so that you can have that feedback easily. and right now the process starting with the language is very, very cumbersome. everybody that works -- they have the comfort set of acronyms and vocabulary. the average person is too nice to say what does that mean, or what's the impact? i'm dumb so i have to ask what the acronym is. and give me an explanation. but the average veterans that

comes in there, a lot of them are used to taking orders and what have you. they are relying on the gunnery sergeant, that staff sergeant, that master sergeant who, they are vital, and we're talking about a bureaucratic nightmare. so i understand what you're trying to do and i applaud it. i just wanted to throw my 2 cents into a, let's get down to where at least somebody like me can understand end of the veterans. i think you have much more cooperation if they can understand what's going on. thank you. i yield back. >> with that the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. bork. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. cook, he made me feel more accountable with my ignorance. so if you can admit it, but i feel a lot more comfortable in admitting my own. but, mr. chair, earlier i had the privilege of introducing

ms. gipson who will be testifying in a later panel. i first met her in el paso when she was at the wtu. to organize a tour of the facility for me, and then getting to tour the facility and meeting some of the servicemembers who were there, we first learned that we had soldiers at the wto could literally been languishing there for months and years because of delays within this ides system, specifically the dras in seattle. ms. rubens, when the last of the chance to speak about this in february of this year, i talked about the va rating goal being 15 days, and for the fort bliss soldier at the wtu it was actually 143 days. the benefits of golfing 30 days at that time. it was 87 days in reality.

that was my focus and it is still my focus today because what i think i've heard you all say is that we are now meeting our benefits call as of april of this year. but when i look at the latest data, which is 18th of may of this year, it shows that for the army, we're at 48 days instead of the goal of 30. and the fort bliss soldier is at 49 days. when i look at what you're committing to doing but august -- october and the rating getting to 15 days, we are coming up 130 days army wide, and we are at 131, for the soldier of the wtu at fort bliss. so explain to me the inconsistencies on a bed of fiscal you say you've already achieved and the numbers i'm seeing here for me. and then how you can possibly achieve that goal for october given the wide variance between

where you're supposed to be and where you are today. >> yes, sir. and i would tell you i think we are talking about the work we are completing and the current months versus the numbers you're reflecting our for the entire year, the average of everything we have completed. what we know about the work we are completing today, as we look behind in the system, the work coming down the path is much younger. so as we are now achieving for the benefits of notification phase, we are now in a timely position. the capacity that we have will continue to maintain that timely output for those claims that are coming to us in that component of the face but as we continue to work for the proposed ratings, similar issue, the capacity with which we are tackling the volume of work, august we will now married up the workflow into those folks, and going out the door will put us into a timeliness of 15 days

for the proposed written decision, timeframe as well. allowing us for the october number to catch up, if you will, on the average for the entire year. >> let me see if i can understand this because this is a difficult concept for me to get, and its support to the way that you explained to us a backlog numbers when it comes to disability claims for veterans. and how we should be measuring the backlog. so someone enters the system today, we'll use fort bliss azimuth sample at the wtu. at the benefits stage they will wait no longer than 30 days, is that correct? >> at the end of the process, the final notification, when we get that final package back from dod, the time it will take us into finally promulgate that benefits of notification on average for the army is at 30 days. i wanted to go look and see if fort bliss is outside of that but i believe we are now looking

at a time a situation across the benefits phase. >> i got limited time, but the reason than that i'm sure 48 days army wide versus 30 days which is what you're saying, you still have those older cases in the system, and as soon as they without you will be at that 30 days of? >> and for your looking at information and that's why need to go perhaps it was one established to look at the are you looking at the average processing time across the entire course of the year? we weren't the only ones out made a complete, got higher and never look at the work coming in it is now timely. >> okay. this is something -- by time has elapsed. this is something i'm going to ask my staff in this hearing to memorialize in a letter to you and get a written response back from you so i fully understand. they can go back to wtu at fort bliss and explained in my own words come which i'm not able to do given your answer. i think you think what i want you said what do what here but i

want to make sure we are clear of with the expectation is and what we do with the. appreciate that in advance for getting back to his. >> happy to do that endorse it with anybody. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate knowing this hearing as well. i think mr. cook is right on with his acronyms. he's been saying it now for months, years really, and let's sit down and work on this because it's so very important to the veterans. i'm 51 and to tally the truth, i have to read these things twice to understand what they are. i mean, just for the good of the patterns, we owe them that so that they can look at it and not have to have the computer training, what have you, and i had to go, it's nice for them to spend time with her grandchildren.

my kids fix my computer, too. let's get serious about this. i have a couple of questions here. ms. weaver you noted by the summer of 2014 the military departments will be able to work from a much improved set of policy documents that will provide better guidance. went exactly will the policy documents be issued? >> they are in the final processing, and they'll start being published hopefully next month through the end of august. >> okay. will you be able to quantify their impacts on both quality and consistency? how will that occur? >> we are implementing a quality assurance program, and that's one of the new policies that we have that will help the department measure accuracy and consistency, particularly in a policy is applied across the

services. so they performed two evaluations, they perform one, we analyze the results and then we can see if policy has been applied, or if policy needs to be revised. >> thank you. ms. weaver, you noted 83% of service members are satisfied with the ides experience. could you tell us more about that? elaborate, please. >> each quarter we do a customer satisfaction survey. the survey is done at a sampling of nine of the major locations where ides is, where the members are enrolled. and the consensus that the remaining 131 mps. the survey is done after the medical evaluation board.

and again after the physical evaluation board. it's a volunteer survey. july through december we did have 8000 individuals who participate in the survey, and from the 30 questions, for related to customer satisfaction. 83% indicated they were satisfied with the process. >> okay, 8000 of how many participated in the process? so what percentage would that be? you said a thousand participate. how many are in the process? 8000 participated -- >> i don't have that number but i can certainly get it for you. >> please. or would you like to approxima approximate? >> i don't have any, any number of how many. >> can you please give it to me and maybe the chairman and the rest of the panel might want that information as well. >> absolutely. >> thank you.

ms. weaver, you highlighted the electronic a file transfer system, the pilot and 2012. but, you know, that until va develops the end of the technology it will not yield benefits and it's not going to be timely, in other words. these elaborate on this, and what has dod developed and what does va need to do? >> we've used the electric transfer, and it was -- >> see what i mean? >> it was a successfully piloted that we made the transfer in december of 2013. but what we working on is a joint system, case management system called joint disability evaluation system, that will

allow us to track cases, monitor exactly where there had so that we can go from face-to-face and know exactly where the case is and do a transfer to and from internal within the service from the ned our medical evaluation board to the physical evaluation board, and from dod to va. we are in the concept phase identifying the requirements and we think this is going to gain major deficiencies for a modern and efficient system. >> all right. thank you very much. i yield back. >> with that i recognize the other member from florida. >> no questions, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. i'm going to ask one follow-up. i actually had a couple but mr. bilirakis got to them all. so thank you. this is the kind of question in

the mold of colonel cook over here. we hear everything that's going right. i want to hear from ms. weaver and ms. rubens, what isn't going right? what do we really need to fix that would make a huge difference in the process? what can we really tackle? what are we going to get out of this hearing that, as colonel cook over here identified his flaws in front of everyone. that's what we want to know from you. so what is the one thing that could change the trajectory of this whole process? >> i think what dod is hearing from the hearing is that we need to go back and look at our survey. we have a significant number of people who are participating in the survey, and we are getting results that say as of december,

83% were satisfied with the process but as of the end of march, 4000 more surveys, 84% were satisfied with the process. and we are trying to make changes from the information that we get to the survey. we may need to look and see whether or not how we can reach out and touch the individuals who are expressing concerns with the time of the counseling that they are getting. >> ms. rubens? >> i would echo some of those sentiments and, obviously, it sounds as if our ability to communicate with the servicemember, soon-to-be veteran, could be improved. vba has worked in the last year to pick up another component of that transitioning servicemember who as he or she begins to think about what next by placing our vocational rehabilitation and

employment counselors at many ides sites as well in an effort to continue to build that system around that transitioning servicemember. and i would say that obviously we want to continue to work together in the electronic interface to ensure that as dod across the services builds that integration case management system it marries up into our new veterans benefits management system and in a paper survivor. to ease the process by which we share information, not only internally but with that transitioning servicemen were as well as it has selected a veterans service officer as we roll out our new stakeholder enterprise portal functionality in july of this year so that he'll have the ability to also support that servicemember and that communication standpoint. >> i think you touched on it a little bit there. it goes back, ms. rubens, to mr. bilirakis question. what does the va need to do on your end of the electronic case

transfer, file transfer, to make it optimal? >> i would tell you that as far as making it optimal there are some things we need to do from the nsc, the military services coordinator at the intake side and the ability to work within that environment as well as from the electronic standpoint, the functionality of incorporating it into that interface with vbms to assure that is occurring there it is on our roadmap to accomplish that and has dod continues to build their new case management system, we want to make sure that we are there to incorporate that as well. >> and what part of what fiscal year is that happening? >> i will have to take that and for the record. i'm not sure where it is on the roadmap. there are a number of things that we are trying to import, if

you will, or built into the functionality for vbms. >> and one last question for ms. weaver. you said you had an 83% satisfaction rating. what was the 17% on the other side? what was the kind of overall disappointment in the system? >> it ranged. a lot of the comments were that they did not get the information they needed. ..

and that think gamay have suppressed is that and hopefully clarify this issue. on the benefits backlog portion you said that in march you eliminated the backlog and by april you were hitting your target of 30 days. is that correct? >> yes, sir. we closed the capacity gap between what we had to work and what we had the capacity to do. in march and april the work we then began to see flow through was meeting that target. >> and the number i referred to earlier, i showed that army army-fried we are at 48 days, now 30. that might explain the difference. my question to you is, if we take this same measure three months from today it will show

30 or under. >> yes, sir. >> we have built this in our projection and capacity and modeling to ensure that as we move forward we maintain an achievement of the target. >> i want ask the same set of questions as it pertains to the rating part of this which is -- the goal is 15 days. today the last three month average shows army wind 132 days are you saying that by august you will relieve the backlog and by october you will meet that 15 day gold? >> yes, sir. >> and when we look at the rolling three month average we will see 15. >> fifteen for the proposed. thirty for the final notification. >> wonderful. and would you mind if, again, we were able to get that commitment from you in writing. >> not at all, sir. >> i appreciate that. that's all, mr. chair. >> i think the gentleman. if no other members have any further questions, i ask that

any of the questions that you all were taking for the record, please submit them in writing. thank you very much. thank you all again. it is particularly helpful to have those at the table. you are now excused from the witness table and we will receive our second panel. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> welcome, members of the pitches affairs office of inspector general. we appreciate your attendance. your completed and written statement will be entered in the hearing record. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the average in the to discuss the allies you review of the pre discharge program. our testimony offers an independent assessment of the quick start program. one component of the pre discharge program. with me today is mr. can't rest of, director in our atlanta audit office and two managers from the benefit inspection division. the director and ramon who collectively have over 40 years

of work experience. notably they have experience working in key positions such as veterans' service representatives, writing specialist, decision review officer, certification test writer, star quality review or as well as the veterans service center manager. the quick start program was designed to provide a seamless transition from department of defense to the health care benefits system. service members submit claims up to 180 days prior to discharge on this program. further, the program makes it possible for veterans to receive disability benefits soon after leaving military service. to assess the program performance we reviewed claims completed in 2000 and 11 and again in 2013. and we found improvement in claims processing time limits. during that time there reduce the average days to complete

quick start claims from 291-249 days. however, while time let's improve additional improvement is needed. the secretary fyi 2015 target of processing disability claims at 125 days. the latest and processing. >> start claims resulted from an adequate program control and the redirection of resources to process other claims processing prior ready. adequate resources and the proper allocation of resources out paramount's to realize the benefits of the transformational initiative. delays also occur due to a lack of training to ensure staff properly identified a quick start claims, which is the first step to initiate timely processing action. our results support that the quick start plans were at risk

of processing errors such as erroneous disability evaluation or improper grants or denial of benefits. we projected staff accurately process 62% of a quick start claims in 2011 while the accuracy rate for 2013 and improved. these rates are still well below the secretaries 98 percent accuracy gold. delays and errors impact veterans receipt of disability benefit payments in two ways. first, the processing delays of 2011 resulted in a number of veterans waiting an additional hundred 96 days to receive about 88 million in benefit payments. by 2013 this same type of processing delays were reduced but still cost of veterans to wait about 99 days to receive approximately 20 million in benefit payments. unfortunately processing delays

also impacts other entitlement decisions such as veterans' preferences, the late care ads viejo medical centers and participation in vocational rehabilitation efforts. secondly, the claims processing errors have a direct financial impact on the amount of benefits a veteran receives a monthly recurring and entitlement payments. we projected claims processing errors resulting in batch is being underpaid about two and a half million dollars. projected over payments for valued at approximately four under 63,000 for the same time. additionally claims processing errors that do not affect current monthly benefit have the potential to affect future benefits if left uncorrected. while making incremental progress in areas specifically targeted through this initiative

much more work needs to be done. we will continue to look for ways to promote improvement and benefit delivery operations during our future national audits and our vero inspections. that concludes my statement, and we are happy to answer any questions you or the committee have. >> thank you, ms. holliday. we will begin a round of questions. first question, as you know, while reporting timeliness as equal if not greater concern, the accuracy of the outcome for each veteran. looking at hundreds of thousands of claims. the veteran is looking at one and only one the accuracy highlighted in your testimony, as serious area of concern. i would like to also ask you the question about the quality components are. you noted that the star program has several classification errors such as benefit entitlement to, decision of

documentation / notification and administrative. mr. murphy responded to an inquiry as to the failure to count error for incidents with potential to affect veterans benefits such as when a claims folder lack required evidence including medical examination or opinion needed to make an accurate decision. can you comment? >> yes, i would appreciate that. the lig uses a broader definition of what constitutes an error. we report errors that affect veterans benefits as well as those that have the potential to affect veterans benefits in the future if left uncorrected. we think this is important. it is a veteran-centered approach. we do not feel that the program counts all of its errors. they're is a disagreement between what 0ig considers an error and how vb a calculates

its accuracy rate. i have a couple of examples here . we think it might help you understand. bba does not consider an incorrect disability evaluation to be a benefit entitlement air ls the eric impacts the veteran overall combined disability evaluation. however, zero ig would identify this case as an error because it has the potential to affect the future benefits if left uncorrected. that also has a corresponding affect. could affect other programs as the ratings change. also, cases where the d.a. staff simply do not request or significantly delay requesting the mandatory routine feature examination to determine whether the temporary hundred percent disability determinations should

continue, we clearly call an air. we see a significant financial impact associated with not managing those plans appropriately. >> thank you. >> next question, is viejo working to make the improvements identified in the audit process? >> this past year there have been significant challenges to us to address the oversight needed that were expected and charged with to looked in the benefits inspections and to before national audits. i finally raise this issue to the undersecretary. she has agreed to try to ensure that we do not have these obstacles or have this resistance and that we work toward a facilitated process so that zero ig can help of get it

right. this is important, to spend so much time dealing with the nuance of a technically how you say something versus trying to fix the big picture. it is not the way to go. at think you need to look at what we're saying, why we're saying it, how it affects veterans and then go make the changes they you need. >> last question, in your view given the challenges faced addressing longstanding backlog of claims, do you feel they have control over its remaining workload? >> at this time we see that the pending backlog and compensation claims is dropping. however, i have significant concerns that they do not have a good handle on some of the workload and their other areas.

for example, in the area of dependency issues from as of may 15th 2004, their own reports, the operation report serves almost 253,000 disability claims that will impact benefits. on average the claims are pending over 315 days. for eligibility determinations that same report shows approximately 110,000 adjudication decisions relating to benefits that have been pending on average 361 days. and in predetermine it notices we see approximately just over 81,000 predetermine notify -- notices affecting benefits that have been pending for 177 days. there are definite problems in managing the workload.

the priorities we hear time and time again, to bring down the pending backlog and compensation at the expense of not addressing some of the other issues. the quick start program is a perfect example within our audit where resources were redirected away from that program, and you can see in the audit their is a tables that the workload, the time and time allies spike in 2012. and i no there working hard now and have put resources back into the program. you have to keep resources dedicated to significant transformational initiatives if you want to achieve success. >> thank you for that answer. i had that precise discussion this morning. thank you. with that i will recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was going to ask that

question, if you think that these programs are being hurt by the focus on just reducing the backlog. the veterans who are in these programs do not count as part of those figures that are used to show the backlog even though they are waiting these long times. >> that is my understanding. >> another thing that does not seem to count how, and you mentioned that that teefor -- viejo does not count the processing time that occurs prior to leaving the service when they're talking about the amount of time it takes to process one of these claims. could you expand on why that would be an important aspect? >> in the simplest of terms of if i am a veteran and i file a claim, i start counting from that day. now, i understand that the viejo is concerned that they have of fraud processing can of point where the active service member

has now become entitled to the benefit. but when you are looking at a process you must look at the process throughout the entire processing cycle so that you can understand where you have dedicated your resources and to what extent you are getting the appropriate outcome. if you could go with a veteran veteran-centered approach you would count that time. you would not start the payments for entitlement and sell land they were released from active duty and came into viejo care. >> it would help you to understand the process and procedure and make needed adjustments. >> absolutely. i think that in the many discussions i have had with ms. ms. rubin, i know that resources are needed and you have to make

good decisions on where those resources are. so i think it is important to measure all of your resources and track those. it is obviously an area where the undersecretary have not concurred with us. we are going to stand pat with of we said. >> thank you. and going back to the first point about these programs failing because they're doing less well than expected because so much emphasis is put on the backlog, it is a matter of robbing peter to pay paul. >> i have said that the number of times. >> well, great minds think alike. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes mr. cook . >> thank you very much. and i won't say too much more about acronyms. maybe. the -- your report, very

sensitive. i used to be an ig. and i looked at your recommendations. by the way, i see, that is how to lose friends and not to influence people. but it is one that you have to have in your organization. and your job is not to make france. you already know that. it bothered me a little bit. maybe if you could help me out, in two cases it had the the ba liches -- which is the veterans benefits administration. >> yes. >> they disagree with your opinion.

and then you had the other one where it was actually the under secretary. is that the same individual? >> considered the same. >> you know, these are -- i was looking at it. particularly one where the undersecretary non concurred, basically went along with it anyway. did this go all the way up to the secretary? is this something -- is that a command decision that undersecretary -- because we are getting into some basic stuff. i am trying to figure out who is going to make these command decisions, is pretty important to -- and maybe it is just my sensitivity to ig reports. but 26 years in the marine corps, what have you, everyone gets along and nervous about ig reports. at least i used to pay me

because i used to write them. but i don't mean to put you on the spot. you know what i am saying. >> it is the responsibility of the undersecretary for benefits to provide the official signed comments to an ig report. i believe that the secretary does get copies. he gets copies at the point of when we issued a draft report for review and to us attain those comments and then gets copies of the final report. if the report is significant we certainly brief -- i would think we follow traditional audit processes that have an exit briefing where we have a discussion to the -- officials for that are charged with the governments of the specific program. i have had many briefings with that team. >> well, this is an important point. in the military you have two things.

somebody in the command could sign the signature by direction. that means that, you know, by signing by direction of the commander princess. the other was releasing authority. releasing authority means you can go out with a message that the commander general second marine division. you don't give that authority away. that is why i brought up that point that whoever signs that, basically the secretary the way i understand it is concurring with all the decisions that are made. his or her watch. correct me if i am wrong. >> if it is signed by one of her staff, yes. that is the official comment. >> okay. all right.

in terms of your role, and i think it is important to go back. how would you even be more proactive? do you have recommendations? >> i'm asking you to do more work. based on the risks and the programs if you were to ask me about being more proactive i think there needs to be more discussion at the senior level has work is completed to really how you are going to fix the problem. and as i alluded to before, worrying about the little, technical nuances and getting everything just letter perfect really does not get you there. you really have to address the overall problem and how veterans are affected with the processing and what is happening and whatever objective of the audit you're dealing with.

>> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. mr. rourke. >> thank you, chairman. >> the benefits delivery discharge plans and a quick start claims, i think year to date are under 25,000. so we are measuring those in the thousands or maybe tens of thousands and then all other claims moving were measured in the hundreds of thousands or millions. so when you are responding to the question earlier about robbing peter to pay paul and you also mentioned that we need to make better decisions about how resources are allocated, do you have recommendations for the committee's oversight in terms of how we should be spending that money in a smarter fashion? >> i would like to see a

that you ask vba to do a good staffing analysis for its initiatives and for its current work in house. there are too many areas that are being underdressed at this point or what i would consider under managed. i think at some point if you were to put the right resources on some of these things such as temporary hundred percent disability evaluation is not being managed effectively and the associated financial impact that we report in our reports, that would start to reduce and you would have a better operation, not only from the fact that veterans would be served record with whatever decisions and reviews that were needed to make sure that their claims are accurate and then we would be saying that you have a stronger -- you are making a stronger position as far as the financial stewardship that you are charged with vba to ensure

the entitlement decision. >> thank you for that. the chairman brought up a good question why the score for accuracy is better than yours. you said one difference is the methodology potential adverse benefits down the road. perhaps they do not. is there any other difference in how you assess accuracy? >> yes, i believe there are. i would like to ask stokes' to talk to the technical aspect of that. >> as mentioned, there are definitely some differences as far as the potential to affect benefits, and we do call often times errors that relate to that. that is particularly when things are missing. and as mr. moseley indicated in his response to my believe the specific

question had to do with whether or not a va examination would constitute an error. but we find during our benefits sections are the va examination maybe not necessarily missing. some are missing, some are inadequate, but there are used to evaluate case anyway. according to policy those examinations should be returned. if an examiner know something during a physical examination and another disability questionnaire is required and it is not completed then we consider that an error as well because you cannot come to the point where you can make a decision on a disability evaluation if you do not have medical evidence to go where the other. so those are some stark differences in the methods that we would determine. >> and i hate to ask you to speak for their vba. i certainly want to follow-up with ms. rubin and her team, but what is there

response to that distinction and the assertion that those exams should be returned or should be counted differently than they are right now? >> we have agreed to disagree. >> got you. >> that is why it is documented in this audit. >> and my last question, i don't know if you heard the exchange with where we are against backlog and goal. did you have any concerns or questions or do you agree with the assessment provided about where reran and where we are likely to be by october? >> i cannot comment to that, sir. i do not have any ongoing work addressing that. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. i want to follow up little bit of a we have discussed.

i understand that disagreement on timeliness seems somewhat jurisdictional. a couple of other matters, but on accuracy your report that the accuracy rate is about 69%. and one of the areas of nonconcurrence that suddenly seems pretty benign which is insufficient oversight and turning, can you elaborate a little bit on that and i will put my cards on the table. in many ways you are providing a little bit of oversight into reasons for the accuracy. one of the reasons you identified was insufficient internal training and oversight. we are engaged in the same issue right now with the department obviously on health care delivery. can you elaborate to the extent you are permitted to on the disagreement on the interpretation about the department's ability to provide oversight and training in the specific area? >> i would like to ask.

i do believe, as you looked at the training issue, it spoke specifically to how you identify a quick start claimed. and i would like him to -- >> the department actually agreed with the trainee recommendation on the identification of the. >> are clients. where they disagree was on the clarification of policy concerning nexus between service members, the disability during service and a claim disability. and actually our accuracy experts here are missteps and mr. figueroa. so i will turn over to miss stokes. >> one of the areas we agreed oversight was lacking had to do with the local quality review.

at the local level we did find that the accuracy reviews that most regional offices would conduct on a monthly basis for individual performance were lacking. while they did have some we did find to be inadequate. when we discuss this with the staff they told us that they were busy, they had other responsibilities and that they did not have the time to conduct a comprehensive review. at the national level we found that there was a lack of oversight and that the method used to select samples was lacking and it did not sufficiently identified enough cases that you could actually get a feel for what the accuracy was. or they combing gold the results of a quick start cases with results of the regional office. as an example, the winston-salem office had i believe for the year of f-111 two lynyrd 55 refused but only six of those claims that were reviewed or

related to. >> start. so we found that that -- the method that they were using was not sufficient to observe any sort of training efficiency. and the other part of that is not only the local and national level but a valid sample that did not track and trim those errors. >> one of the reasons given, i guess the concern, specifically the use of the word training because of what that means for the ability of an employee to perform. the oversight in one way is little less concerned.

straining breeds a more systemic problems. as caseloads go up and the number of cases go up to my failure and training just continues to build. [laughter] create a larger problem. i appreciate your answering the question. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. if you have any further questions. thank you all again. you are now excused from the witness panel. last the third panel to concord. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good afternoon, everyone. all of your complete and written statements will be entered into the air and record. i know i did this earlier, but i want to recognize mr. o'rourke if you would like to make your introduction again. says. >> thank you, mr. chair. the person that i want to introduce deserves a second introduction. ms. gibson is a retired captain from the u.s. army, executive officer at the

warrior transition unit in el paso at fort bliss, a former constituent of mine. she was instrumental in assuring that i understood some of the issues by arranging a tour. and i think she will speak very eloquently to some of her personal challenges that can be extrapolated against the challenges that many transitioning service members face. and so we are glad and grateful for presence here today. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank the gentleman. with that we will start with mr. jenkins. you are now recognized for five minutes for your testimony. >> chairman, ranking member, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on the critical issues surrounding the crack start programs. appreciate the opportunity to share views on behalf of our members processing plants daily.

abcafifteen year combat veteran who served in both operation enduring freedom and iraqi freedom. i am proud to serve veterans every day and am also a disabled veteran. i worked claims and would like to begin my testimony by stating my dedication as well as the mp dedication to all these programs. programs are critical for providing a recently discharged veterans benefits as soon as possible and it is essential that these programs are functioning at their highest capacity. a history of brokering claims to other regional offices in an effort to reduce the backlog. in doing so it has created a lack of sufficient cases that are ready for decision. we have broken out approximately 25 cases of the last three years and now make plans process is failing to receive adequate amounts of work.

supervisors have been left scrambling to find work for the courts are employees. tasks traditionally done by via sores. to to a lack of work management recently instructed employees to begin a practice called pre right. rating a case that is not in fact ready for decision because we are waiting for exams. rate these claims with medical evidence already received. this raises serious questions for both the veteran and employee processing the crime. employees could potentially receive quality errors of medical evidence arrives and does not coincide with the employee pre rating decision which also -- this methods used and its effect on their rating. in urging congress to hold

senior management accountable for their brokering methods and potential effects it has on veterans and their dependents. employees report the same dedication. however, outlining several issues that consistently appear. express with the lack of communication and training issues. scattered at military bases all around the world. it is often difficult. when they claim was sent to the regional office it was supposed to be ready for decision. our reports say oftentimes this is not the case. slowing down the process for the employee most importantly decreases wait times. more detailed training would significantly reduce this

issue. processors also express issues with the national guard. the issue being not having complete military records. as they come to their regional office not ready at times an incentive to receive medical records they cannot locate their records or the unit. all of these issues translates to major concerns . claims processes are also told not to refer cases even though a decision cannot be made dietrich lack of necessary evidence. the constant pressure from the va office of operations and the production quotas established are very and unfair. afg also regarding resources for process. claim levels have skyrocketed while regional offices have seen minimal growth. urging vba to hire additional claims processors

. and urging management to conduct a motion study to determine how long each path takes to complete while working decline. with the recent transfer this study is more applicable and necessary than ever. once again i would like to thank for providing the opportunity to share our views and would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. jenkins. with that, gibson, you are now recognized for five minutes for your testimony. >> thank you, chairman. i would also like to thank congressman of rock for inviting me to speak today. in 2011 while training for afghanistan he received a severe back injury. i was confined to a wheelchair or earning the nickname the wheelchair

soldier. days later i was prescribed a cocktail of drugs which allowed me to walk but not without excruciating pain. placed in the warrior transition program efforts to rehabilitate my injuries were unsuccessful requiring surgical intervention. before my back surgery could be performed i require a surgical procedure to treat you ran fibrous tumors. i did not receive a follow-up on ecological appointment. i was determined to be medically unfit to serve to read a received a 20 percent disability rating, medically separated and received a separation plan. within days of signing paperwork, agreeing to the rating it was determined that i urgently needed a hysterectomy. i want to be clear. and i received a follow-up to the original guidelines procedure my hysterectomy would have been performed at least a year earlier and my disability rating would have been 70%. instead of being medically retired i was medically

separated from the united states army on january the 11th 2014. and in my opinion a strong democracy requires two professions, the legislature and a service member. each the weapon of the other healthy service members of the weapons of the legislature or the legislature is the weapon of wounded and injured, and they'll service members. these serve as a weapon. on behalf of disabled and medically separate veterans we respectfully request that you harness our arsenal's full potential to fix the system and maintain the strength of our democracy. i would like to present to you short and long term recommendations. i participated as an end user and forgive me for policy recommendations which overlap those of previous presenters. the first, establish a consolidated disability evaluation system. the system is tiresome,

timely, burdensome, and inefficient. we must consolidate departments disability system with a shared goal to promulgate policy and prescribed uniform guidelines, procedures, and stand is to eliminate redundancy. second, create a disability rating. a military raids fitting conditions while the viejo rates all servers connected injuries resulting in two different rating systems for service members. they need to reach a consensus on the definition of qualifying conditions and events and the rate at which those conditions and events are to become compensated. understandably a bias in favor of the more generous va system will result in a corresponding retirement information sharing. planned several loud shared use technology will enhance and improve agencies

accessibility to health care records. the plan is both necessary and ambitious. however, the current lack of available technology i believe is only part of a much larger problem. government agencies among them the department of defense and veterans affairs must demonstrate memorandum of agreement allowing agencies to openly share information. this will likely create a change in agency culture from one of independence to interdependence on sharing information and resources. my end term recommendations are as follows. first and i recommend a fiscal set aside. veterans and service member transition process frequently complain about the receipt of timely payments on his our claims being adjudicated. sedate the receipt of benefit payments can take from 90 days to a year or more to process. while uncertain of the legal or the tax implications i recommend that once a service member and his federal service active duty,

guard, or reserve a percentage of the service member's salary be escrow until the retirement process is completed. the fund set aside could then be automatically reimburse to the veteran as a lump-sum payment he used to bridge the gap between the date of retirement for separation and receipt of any long or short term benefits. in emergency rating reconsideration. service members will require emergency surgery within 60 to 90 days have been raided, and automatic disability rating reconsideration. thirdly, complete a comprehensive staffing needs assessment with -- which i believe has been covered by other members on the panel. fourth, reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. this system is is replete with opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. the underlying premise is to provide compensation and benefits for long-term injuries analysis.

incentivize ceiling or recovery. it is not a politically correct -- a politically popular notion. however, if the looming costs are to be reduced dental coverage is to be achieved this must also be a corresponding goal. a comprehensive assessment then must be performed on where opportunities exist to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse. finally, organizational change. we have got to change the organizational culture which punishes service members either directly or indirectly for whom injuries or illnesses. in the current climate service members deemed unfit to fight or conduct acts of physical business are cast aside and label often unfairly as lazy or cowardly and do not advocate battlefield group of thugs. however, leaders must encourage compassion, dignity, respect.

likewise service providers whether military or civilian must receive similar training. toxic leaders are military and civilian must be either retrained or move out of positions are positions of authority to mitigate damages to wounded and were recovering service members. in conclusion the recommended succession to improve will require a cost-benefit analysis to determine these abilities. such analysis is beyond the scope of this presenter. what is certain is that these costs and benefits must be using both qualitative and quantitative analysis. it is my belief that undertaking such analysis however painstaking would improve to the benefit of retiring service members. thank you. >> thank you. with that i recognize mr. of the love for his testimony. >> good afternoon, chairman, ranking member, members of the committee.

on behalf of the national commander and that's a half million members of want to thank you for bringing attention to america's chances in service members. it is important that you pay close attention to the words of the veteran service organization. veteran service organizations such as the american legion experience the same process in our political stakeholders to can help the government meet the obligation to the veteran. that va has recognized that dividing line of service and programs like the fully developed claim initiative capitalize on the partnership to improve the claims process and help veterans get the disability benefits that they have earned through their sacrifice and in my current position as medical and physical board representative i have the privilege of assisting service members who might not be able to continue their military career to to a medical condition. these individuals represent some of the most at risk

service members did to their current medical needs. while the current system is an improvement over the previous system of doing medical evaluations we can always make it better. international staff at the benefit discharges' location and salt lake city as well as washington state and the washington d.c. capital region. what we found is that members can benefit from better information. this is, perhaps, better illustrated by members of the reserve and national guard might be going through the process by themselves. we do not have access to the same information and resources as their active-duty counterparts. the veterans transition are making decisions that will impact the entire civilian life. being asked to do so with little understanding of what that impact will be.

we can bring in sight to what benefits they are entitled are not entitled to. we can also help them understand the importance of their medical exams. helping service members manage expectations and understand these are timeline critical of of them understand job training and resources are available, short distance -- short discharge retirement options are best suited to them, the kind of guidance is hit or miss without good counseling the american legion has or 500 service members. thousands of veterans still go unrepresented. it is often difficult for service -- service organizations to communicate directly when you consider an issue, may 20th, making airs on these plans only around 69%. advocacy at every stage of the process. the american legion of to continue working with the department of defense and

the department of veterans affairs to ensure that all veterans have advocacy throughout their transition process. the system exists for those who wear the uniform of the united states of american. we can best do that when we bridge the gap between our veterans and service members and the services provided by the department of defense and the veterans affairs. thank you for the inclusion of the shape -- stakeholders . >> thank you. and we will now recognize his testimony. >> thank you, chairman. good afternoon ranking member, members of the subcommittee. we appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing to examine more closely the program and other aspects affecting active-duty service members participating in the programs commonly referred to as the pre separation process. remarks will address three issues we find particularly

important. first, time frames and benchmarks established. the program was constructed with the expectation of service members reaching finality with an 295 days. highlighting several critical points. proposed rating decisions are required to be issued within 15 days of receiving notification that a service member has been deemed unfit for duty. the service offices in the field report delays in the proposed process. in some areas anywhere from three to six months. once separated from service and now considered a veteran the disability compensation payments are expected to begin within 30 days of discharged. the service officers have reported delays in the processing of finalize claims in providence, rhode island and previously out of seattle to washington. improvements have been netting over the past few months to mostly to consolidation and reorganization of resources. delays are also reported in rhode island not only affecting the final rating board determination but also

the proposed rating board determination. we find most reports of delays are personal and unrelated, specifically the lack thereof. the situation has outpaced resources. thorough examination is needed to determine whether proper case to staff ratio model exists of critical importance when an active-duty service number crosses the threshold and becomes a veteran to be a delay could have serious consequences as compensation benefits make a man fact, be there sole source of income. second, access and support. the transition service officers have earned a renowned reputation for services in the active duty in veteran community despite their record to a reputable actress the launch of the program whether deliberate or not it has adversely affect the level of service. prior they were heavily engaged in the process.

many signs yet the incense -- insistence of military personnel to provide information and to answer any questions posed by the participants. unfortunately this continues to diminish and is met with resistance. in some cases there have even been attempts to remove the president and function entirely. what is presently occurring is counter intuitive. insistence promoted weather through the process itself for it during the physical evaluation proceeding, but most certainly while engaging during the claim an appeals process. they represent roughly 60% of claman's and 70 percent of the palace before the va. collaborative efforts would serve as a benefit to our supporting service members. third, vocational rehabilitation and employment services. service members proceeding with ratings of 40% or greater have direct access to rehab counselor station

at military installations. bear in mind this mission parameter is staffed with folk rehab counselors that are drawn away from daily regional office operations. testified on many occasions regarding the benefit for the program. they can provide opportunities for immediate transition to an plumb upon separation, career counseling and support of services and plans if employment is not aligned prior to separation. the benefits may not be realized by preset personnel as the focus to be on the use of post 9/11 gi benefits. however, our independent budget partners have recommended that congress removed to use benefits to ensure available. with a wide range of benefits is imperative that service members have a complete understanding of the benefit. it could prove critical at some point in the future circumstances in their lives change. in conclusion, resource needs must be comprehensively identified

the job procured, annualised three program goals and primer's must be aligned to meet or exceed the service member and veteran center commission. involvement is vital and should receive greater support by all programs partners. eligible participants must continue to be identified, a veil of new services program understand in giving wounded, al, and injured service members the best advantage by leveraging all available tools and resources needed to successfully to position out of the military. again, we thank you for the average into the to present his testimony today. >> thank you. with that, i will recognize. >> mr. chairman, members of a subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the veterans of foreign wars i think you for your opportunity to testify at today's hearing. this past memorial day many americans displayed feelings

of pride. surveys show 91 percent of americans say they're proud of military service members. unfortunately the pride america has for its service members still is not fully matched by the government agencies charged with supporting their transition back to civilian life. the 2007 walter reed scandal was a wake-up call for americans that the government was not properly caring for our wounded warriors. the public was outraged that marines and soldiers were living in disparaging conditions forced to deal with woefully inadequate care delivery. equally concerning was that veterans are being shortchanged on the disability and retirement benefits that they have earned. as a result congress and the president conducted oversight over the military and veterans' health care and disability benefits system. congress concluded that the care coordination and reintegrations services provided by the agencies were fragmented leaving the public service members and their families to question the government's commitment to those who carry the

burden in battle. in 2008 congress forced the department of defense to create policies to ensure that access the evaluation systems was to determine their benefits were streamlined and fair. as a result there was a collaboration to create the integrated system would simplify the disability evaluation process by eliminating duplicative disability examinations, ratings, and placing va counselors in military transition facilities. the va is also responded by extending the benefits evidence to allow service members to make plans before their discharge day. and now the vfw believes he's promising programs are a step in the right direction, recognize that these programs are far from perfect. service members still suffer from the defense department destructive policies which govern wounded warrior care, inadequate va and dod staffing dedicated to the benefit evaluation process, o integrated electronic

alterra system and poor communication. their results is that service members are waiting to long as the process of claims is done. sir reduce claims processing times we recommend that they collaborate to reduce red tape and that's a va expedite the adjudication. to ensure they enforce the policy to ensure service members are not shortchanged on benefits and policies are equitable we recommend that congress give the undersecretary of personnel and readiness the sole authority to develop policies to improve the care and services provided. they have an integrated disability evaluation process, inaccurate. it is impossible to have an integrated disability evaluation process without an integrated electronic healthcare record system. therefore it is imperative that congress use their

complete authority to ensure the erin of defense cooperation to create a fully integrated lot -- electronic healthcare system also communication between the redfins and va senior officials must increase in the apartments must conduct better average to service members, family caregivers, and the sos. in conclusion, we ate knowledge that both the department of defense and veterans affairs are delivering quality care to service members and veterans when accessible. we give them credit for addressing the disability evaluation system and set an ambitious time in his calls for delivering benefits so long as polls are achievable timeliness is drastically improved when the estimated 540 days that it took to complete our claim with the legacy system. and it will continue to shorten the amount of time it takes to process disability claims. however, va and dod do not have the policies procedures or resources to address the influx of service members who will be transition to civilian life as forces draw down.

it is imperative that congress not only boost its aggressive oversight of the agencies to ensure that they properly plan for the future but they also must provide the fiscal resources to improve the access to care and benefits that our service members have burned. mr. chairman, this concludes my testimony and dallas-fort answering questions that the committee may have. >> thank you. with that we will begin a round of questioning. my first question is going to be for mr. avila. you know in your testimony that a recent audit by that va zero ig on the quick start program, responding that lack of time in this was due to an increase in agent orange claims. unfortunately this seems to be a pattern. they do not adequately protect their future workload and divert attention from problems focusing on the unrelated issues. can you please elaborate on this statement and held it negatively impacts the subsidy focus of the

improvement of three discharge claims? >> mr. chairman, i myself went through the pre discharge claim. retired two years ago and used the claim when i had over -- i think i did 180 days. and that was the program that would currently be by the way. its plan would be processed and receive benefits as you exit the military. the issue is that these claims go to regional offices. the filing claims in winston-salem or utah and start receiving claims. ..

they had the majority of cases, so this is, i don't know do they switch them on to another office or maybe we have to look at another system to get these

members the ratings are little bit quicker so we can cross them out. >> thank you. my next question is for mr. jenkins. you note in the testimony that a employee experience difficulty communicating with the nsc. what can indication to you have and do you believe that greater vso involvement in the claims with would help ebv ate some of the concerns? >> to answer the question, chairman, we could have the vso involved to assist a have to have direct involvement and interact on a regular basis and sometimes they can even speak for the veteran when it comes to a claim which they can speed the process along. as far as communications between the vsr some do not have previous development training.

they have a lack of understanding of the process. it all has to do with staffing, training those are the bottom line through it all. they have to be trained properly and they have to understand the process between how it was between the regional office and the locations as well. >> thank you. with that i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would say first that is gibson in my colleague was certainly right yours is a powerful and eloquent voice for change. thank you for being here. i would just ask you at any point during the process, were you asked by anybody or did you take a survey about how it was working and what could have been done better if you were satisfied? did you feel like anybody was asking for your feedback? >> yes ma'am. the issue with the survey is i

have some familiarity with the surveys. and when you survey people it makes a big difference in what the response will be. so, for example if you survey a service member who has recently entered the process and they are within the first 30 day window, the comment about the system is not them to be negative at all because they've only participated in the process for 30 days. if, however, you survey the same member for example within six months of them exiting the service when they had an opportunity to sort of reflect back upon when or what happened to them, i think that the numbers may look very different. and it is at answer the question more specifically yesterday were surveyed at the time that i took the survey, i was about six

months into the process and that didn't seem very daunting to me. had i been surveyed again a month number 15, my answers would have very likely change to. >> so the results are skewed based on when people take the survey? i suspect that is true. it's pretty easy to manipulate the numbers like that. i would also ask the vso if you have ever heard that term quickstart slow finish have you ever discouraged any soldiers from going through these programs as we have kind of heard anecdotally? and finally, what specifically can we do to enhance your role to help soldiers before they are discharged like you helped them

after they become veterans so that might facilitate this process. >> i have heard of the term fast start. ideal mainly with service members. i know the other vso have representatives but i'm currently advised rainout is what is getting the results a little bit quicker so if they wait until they are retired and gather all their information and then once you are retired or you can do it before and been on the first day of retirement you submit there was a focus several years ago to the different resources out there for veterans

that are transitioning once they get the results they have so many days to use the council and they can use the officers on installation the issue is they are doing the transitional claim. so i think maybe i did have a meeting with the dod who was a director trying to see what the american legion could do. we have service officers. can we assess and what can we do to get the word out so they can make the best decisions as we go through the process. >> thank you congresswoman. yes we have heard of the term before quickstart and slow finish. we have deserved served some in quickstart depending on the

individual circumstances. and what can we do? the vso used to have broad access starting with the implementation that became more and more marginalized. it's a collaborative process. we are all in it together. we understand the active-duty component active duty component and we understand the veterans component and we have transition service offices. i would like to call on the translation service office because we can translate a lot of what is happening in the terms that they can understand. >> i think the numbers speak for itself. 249 days on average i think the members receive their benefits eight months after they are discharged. so that is definitely not a delivery on discharge. we do in regards to quickstart recommend servicemember veterans that they not commit a

quickstart claim. hd pentagon where they are going home too. if they are going home in the same regional office that operates faster than the others, then we will see wait until you get home and we will send a fully developed claimant. they are going to say they waco or houston and we would say let's do a quickstart now and quick start now and start the process because it will be heard in this. one thing we recommended in the testimony is to treat the claims like he was a fully developed claimant. the only thing different in the fully developed claim i should say that ddd claim theoretically they get to the rating officer fully developed and you should be able to rate that however they are pushed to the side and they are we are we dumb as they look the other cases. if you treat them at the same

process in the claim you would see a fall in the processing times you are essentially taking resources from elsewhere. but they are in the need of the benefits the most. they are transitioning the wounded. they may be looking for a job so they are going for the transition processes and we really need that income to help them through that process. i think it is appropriate to prioritize those claims. >> thank you for the time. >> the gentleman from texas. >> i would like to begin by noting for the record that he's still here and was here to listen to the testimony from the veterans and those who are working in the system to serve the veterans and also note that

her team is here to listen to appreciate their attention and respect to the members who are here giving their testimony. ms. gibson, you came up with a number of really good recommendations for us and the dod to follow. one of them was to change a culture that can seem as though it is punishing service members. and i've heard this directly from service members at the wtu at fort bliss in el paso. it seems that the punishment is punitive, overly punitive if not downright humiliating and i hope those are the exceptions and not the norm. it's part of the pressure to get athletes time down to which back in february was 185 additional days over the goal down to what we can control to be attended to

do in your own experiences what you have seen or witnessed in that culture and how we might go about changing its? and i will have one additional question so if you can answer that in about a span of one minute or two that would be great. >> it's been my experience that soldiers are often treated with -- it isn't open hostility but at a minimum sort of a dismissive attitude. i think you have to start with the premise that soldiers deserve the wounded warrior programs and they deserve to have their illnesses and injuries treated. i can get give you start there is a great spring forward to build policies and procedures that will advocate on behalf of the soldier. what i think happens is there is a sort there's a sort of consensus that these programs are there simply for soldiers to take advantage of and to get as

many benefits as they possibly can before the exit the system and there is resentment that builds up and i think if there can be policies that can't debate that mentality i think you can do a long way in changing the culture. >> i also had a chance to speak with some of the commanders at the wtu and from their perspective, they have this obligation and responsibility to maintain discipline and readiness. and there is this understandable tension between people who are on the verge of transitioning out and the commanders who may have been in the case of el paso approaching 200 days longer than they should have. so it gives us an added impetus to try to reform the system and as you say reform the culture within. i wanted to follow up and ask a question i asked the oig where

we might better commit resources and staffing. we heard from mr. jenkins but one particular byproduct of broking that we have some regional offices looking for work or creating new were different kind of work that may not be as effective or as efficient provide ideas about the process. what are your views on how we could improve the staffing levels and resources? what are we missing and where are we missing them? >> thank you for the question. ms. scheme 11 was right on that there needed to be some sort of a staffing reassessment. we here in all of these gal reports that when there is mismanagement, but never to come of too, that it is always coupled with a lack of staff. so i would like to personally know what the formula is for deciding the staffing levels.