[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WADING THROUGH WAREHOUSES OF PAPER: THE CHALLENGES OF TRANSITIONING
VETERANS RECORDS TO PAPERLESS TECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE
AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-82
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-772 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BILL FLORES, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
ROBERT L. TURNER, New York
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JERRY McNERNEY, California,
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York Ranking
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ROBERT L. TURNER, New York MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
December 4, 2012
Page
Wading Through Warehouses of Paper: The Challenges of
Transitioning Veterans Records To Paperless Technology......... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Jon Runyan.............................................. 1
Prepared Statement of Chairman Runyan........................ 30
Hon. Jerry McNerney, Ranking Democratic Member................... 3
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney.................... 31
WITNESSES
Richard Dumancas, Deputy Director for Claims..................... 4
Prepared Statement of Mr. Dumancas........................... 32
Executive Summary of Mr. Dumancas............................ 35
Michael R. Viterna, Esq., President, National Association of
Veterans Advocates............................................. 6
Prepared Statement of Mr. Viterna, Esq....................... 35
Executive Summary of Mr. Viterna, Esq........................ 40
Jeffrey C. Hall, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans..................................... 8
Prepared Statement of Mr. Hall............................... 41
James G. Neighbors, Director of DoD/VA Collaboration Office, U.S.
Department of Defense.......................................... 18
Prepared Statement of Mr. Neighbors.......................... 46
Scott Levins, Director of the National Personnel Records Center,
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.............. 20
Prepared Statement of Mr. Levins............................. 51
Alan Bozeman, Director, Veterans Benefits Management System
Program Office, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 22
Prepared Statement of Mr. Bozeman............................ 55
MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Letter From: Hon. Michael H. Michaud, Subcommitte on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans' Affairs
- To: The Hon. Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense, and The
Hon. Eric Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.............. 59
WADING THROUGH WAREHOUSES OF PAPER: THE CHALLENGES OF TRANSITIONING
VETERANS RECORDS TO PAPERLESS TECHNOLOGY
----------
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jon Runyan
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Runyan, Stutzman, McNerney, and
Michaud.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JON RUNYAN
Mr. Runyan. Good afternoon and welcome everyone. This
oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs will now come to order.
I called this oversight hearing today to discuss an
important yet often overlooked aspect of the veterans benefit
process, access to various service department records. Such
records are often necessary and vital for our veterans to prove
their claim. As Chairman of the DAMA Subcommittee, I am
troubled by the information regarding the handling of the
records that has come to my attention. In today's environment,
as we shift from paper records to a digital environment,
important questions arise regarding what the best practices are
for making this transition.
For example, agencies, such as the VA and the National
Archives and Records Administration, or NARA, must engage in a
daunting cost-benefit analysis to determine what records should
be digitized and how this process should take place. Similarly,
the Department of Defense must determine the best ways to
maintain digital records in various environments from DoD
hospitals to combat zones. Further, all three agencies must
continue to work together to ensure that veterans' records are
initiated, maintained and transferred as efficiently as
possible.
Today that is the aspect we would like to focus on: the
efficiency of the records management process. As many of you
may already be aware, the records management process begins
with the DoD. Veterans depend on the DoD to properly note
certain inservice events, whether in the veteran's individual
service medical and personnel records, or in the unit
histories. Issues pertaining to the thoroughness of the DoD's
recordkeeping have recently received media attention in light
of evidence that some units were not properly documenting in-
service events, such as combat-related incidents. This has been
a source of significant frustration for many veterans who file
claims with the VA and are dependent on such documentation to
substantiate their claims.
For those records that are properly maintained by DoD,
custody of certain records is turned over to the Archives,
although different branches of the service have different
policies and procedures. The National Archives and Records
Administration maintains millions of military personnel health
and medical records for discharged and deceased veterans of all
services. Although the Archives recently began receiving access
to digital records from the Army, they do not have full digital
access to other service branches. In addition, the agency still
maintains a full warehouse of paper records from older
generations of veterans. All agencies that handle such vast
amounts of paper know that there are challenges associated with
maintaining both digital and paper records.
The Archives has recently faced some challenges with
respect to maintenance and security of veterans' records. I
would like to invite NARA to continue an open dialogue with
this Committee so that the most effective procedures for
maintaining veterans' records can be implemented.
Turning to the role of the VA, the agency has a statutory
duty to assist a claimant in detaining certain records.
Accordingly, it is important that we work together to ensure
that the VA is able to communicate both effectively and
efficiently with both the Archives and the DoD to comply with
this duty.
In addition, the VA is also in the process of making
important decisions about how veterans' records and claims
folders are being handled in the digital environment, as they
continue their transition over to the veterans' benefits
management system, or VBMS.
While we all have high hopes for VBMS, we must not overlook
one of its essential functions, which is the process of
scanning and converting veterans' records.
Before I conclude, I would like again to emphasize that our
goal here today is to ensure the entire chain of command from
the DoD to the Archives to the VA handle veterans' records with
the utmost care and respect. Often, a single record or notation
can be the difference in whether a veteran's disability claim
is granted or denied. This is why we must work together to
ensure that no records are lost, overlooked or otherwise unable
to be associated with an individual disability claim.
I welcome today's witnesses to continue the ongoing
discussion and offer their own specific recommendations on how
to improve upon the veterans' records management process,
particularly now as we look to transition into a digital
environment.
With that, I would like to now recognize the Ranking
Member, Mr. McNerney from California, for his opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Jon Runyan appears in
the Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY,
RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
today's hearing about veterans' records and how the VA is
managing its transition to a paperless system with new
technologies.
We have all read in recent articles regarding lost,
inaccurate and mishandled veterans' records at the hands of the
DoD and the VA as well as the struggles in recapturing this
data once its lost or improperly recorded. This is troubling
and unacceptable. Congress hears complaints of lost, missing,
destroyed or unassociated files all too often.
Information regarding a veteran's claim should be better
protected by those in charge with its care. Accountability
needs to occur at the management level, with individual
employees who handle the day-to-day influx of information.
Veterans and their families should not be burdened with the
responsibility of recreating lost files or providing multiple
copies of records that once were in the DoD or VA's possession.
I also remain troubled about the more than 1.3 million claims
and appeals that are hanging in the VA's flawed processing
system.
In an organization with a current management culture that
often overemphasizes production over quality, it is imperative
that we make comprehensive performance improvements to the
system, while ensuring accurate and accountable claims outcomes
for our veterans. I know the VA is taking great pains in this
direction. However, today, like many veterans and stakeholders,
I cannot say that I have complete confidence that the VA is in
complete control of this process. I have met with too many
veterans who have had to wait for years for initial decisions
on their benefits. I have heard too many unfortunate stories of
veterans who suffer as a result of VA temporarily closing poor
performing regional offices for retraining like the Oakland
regional office that serves the veterans in my district.
While the average days pending for most claims is 225 days,
in the Oakland regional office, it is an incredible 425 days. I
know the VA regional offices, such as Waco and Los Angeles, are
experiencing similar delays. In fact, these delays are systemic
because 67 percent of all claims and appeals are in backlog
status, with nearly 25 percent being done erroneously.
Why the disparity? Why the protracted delays? Since 2007,
the VBA has added over 11,000 processing personnel, and
Congress has funded these requests; yet the backlog still
climbs. The VA OIG concluded that in order to change these
outcomes, the VA needs to emphasize policy guidance,
compliance, oversight and workload management training and
supervisory review in order to improve claims processing
operations.
The year may be about to change, but the issues are the
same. The backlog is just a symptom of the problem. The current
system is broken and in need of a major overhaul. We need to
focus on getting the claims right the first time as if do-overs
were not an option. We need to get this right so that no claims
are languishing and the veterans and their families and
survivors get the benefits that they have earned and deserve
without delay.
I am somewhat enthused actually by some of the VA's latest
technology undertakings, including e-benefits and its
stakeholder portals.
However, I remain concerned that, again, some of the VA's
efforts move forward without direction, like a rudderless
rowboat.
VA needs a comprehensive plan with a clear vision and a
mission, as many of its stakeholders indicated in their
testimonies. To date, we still have not received the VBA
transformation plan that the VA Under Secretary Hickey promised
at our hearing in June of this year. Today's witnesses will
provide us with greater insights on these systemic problems,
including how veterans and their dependents are harmed when the
VA and DoD mishandle their documents and how improvements can
be made.
I hope to hear testimony that responds and reflects the
VA's solemn duty to deliver its benefits mission using world
class 21st century inputs that focus on veterans instead of the
processes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentleman.
With that, I would like to welcome our first panel to the
witness table please.
Mr. Runyan. First, we will be hearing from Mr. Richard
Dumancas, the Deputy Director for claims with the American
Legion. Next, we will hear from Mr. Michael Viterna, President
of the National Association of Veterans Advocates. And our
final witness on this panel will be Mr. Jeff Hall, the
Assistant National Legislative Director with Disabled American
Veterans.
Gentlemen, your complete and written statements will be
entered into the hearing record.
And Mr. Dumancas, you are now recognized 5 minutes for your
oral testimony.
STATEMENTS OF RICHARD DUMANCAS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR CLAIMS, THE
AMERICAN LEGION; MICHAEL VITERNA, ESQ., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS ADVOCATES; AND JEFFREY HALL, ASSISTANT
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
STATEMENT OF RICHARD DUMANCAS
Mr. Dumancas. Thank you, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member
McNerney and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am
honored to come before you today on behalf of the 2.4 million
veterans of the American Legion to discuss the magnitude of the
data component in the VA and their efforts to transform the
claims processing system from the 20th century to the 21st
century and hopefully well into the future.
We all know America is well aware of the struggling VA
claim system as a mixture of media outlets report that VA's
backlog has jumped 179 percent since 2009.
With the growing backlog, the VA has been running a
marathon to come up with a solution to their set goal for 2015.
Veterans Benefits Management System and Stakeholders Enterprise
Portal Programs do offer a glimmer of hope.
With transitioning into current century, one of the major
challenges to transition veterans records into a paperless
environment is scanning. The American Legion recently learned
that the benefits delivered at discharge BDD program currently
does not have a current contract for scanning. After hearing
this, my first thought was, what is happening to those files
that are not being scanned? Are they being worked like their
grandparents' paper file in the 1940s? Or are they collecting
dust on a shelf silently building into a monster problem?
If there is no contract for scanning and files are not
being processed, veterans must be made aware that their claim
is not being processed because of the lack of a contract for
scanning. When asking the VA about scanning contracts, there
seems to be uncertainty on the details of guaranteed contracts.
If there is a long-term scanning contract available for VBMS,
then why isn't there one more BDD? Or have the same contract or
contractors doing the scanning for BDD? The American Legion
would like to see a clear road map laying out VA's plans to
transform the paper product into the digital world. We are
hopeful VA will be able to shed some light on that today.
Another step in the 21st century is the promise of virtual
lifetime electronic record, or VLER, between VA and DoD. The
ability to maintain simple electronic records for
servicemembers and veterans from cradle to grave should be a
given. The American Legion urges VA and DoD to make VLER a
process that is practiced within all Federal agencies that
document and maintain a military record. As an example of
maintaining a military record, we have relied on the National
Guard and Reserve to fill for the dwindling active forces.
Over 650,000 Reserve members have deployed since September
11, 2001. We deploy them under or attached to units that are
not their home units. Their records seem to be hardest to find
or combine. We review rating decisions that lack the evidence
of Federal medical documentation. If the Guard or Reserve
member submits for compensation through VBA for the exact same
condition that put them out through the medical and physical
evaluation board, there should be no way the VBA can deny their
claim because of lack of military records. We understand that
Reserve members' medical records can be split over multiple
locations, but one would want to believe that eventually they
would meet up into one file. This process should be measured in
days, not months or years. Any joint electronic records must
help consolidate Guard and Reserve data as well.
The American Legion urges all agencies to work together to
ensure that no servicemembers or veteran's information is lost
or mishandled and that all information can be easily accessed
by all service providers.
With a need for transition, policy rules and regulations
must be clear and solid. The American Legion strongly
encourages the VA central office to provide even more precise
direction and guidance to the lowest level of VA employees, and
to ensure problem areas, such as the following, become a
priority in training: Current stats published by the VA reflect
a huge difference in claims process. Why is it that Togus,
Maine; St. Paul, Minnesota; Fargo, North Dakota; Cheyenne,
Wyoming regional offices are hovering around 22 to 30 percent
of their inventory pending over 125 days, but on the same
report, Baltimore, Roanoke and Chicago and Oakland regional
offices are stating 74 to 87 percent of their inventory is
pending over 125 days. Why are these ROs' production so
different?
Training must be the same across the board. Training and
production of ROs, such as Togus, should be the same that is
provided in the ROs, such as Roanoke. The central office should
formulate a plan for the lower inventory ROs to mentor or
provide best practices to the higher inventory ROs. Central
office needs to enforce the best practices and highly encourage
all ROs to follow their leaders.
This is for the veteran. All veterans deserve the best
service for their service.
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney and distinguished
Members of the Committee, this conclude my statement and I am
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Richard Dumancas appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you.
And with that, I will recognize Mr. Viterna for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL VITERNA, ESQ.
Mr. Viterna. Thank you, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member
McNerney and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about
veterans records. My name is Mike Viterna, and I am here as the
president of the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates,
whose members assist claimants in the appeal of VA denials of
claims. I am also here as an attorney in private practice, who
has dedicated my legal work to VA law. And I am here as a
veteran who served 33 years of Air Force service.
NOVA applauds VA's efforts to transition from a paper-
driven system of records to a digital format, and we are
appreciative of this Committee's oversight of that transition.
There are many reasons why this transition has to occur and
occur without delay. One example is that most veterans have
multiple claims and it is not unlikely that those claims will
be at different stages of development in adjudication. One may
be before the regional office, another on appeal to the board
of veterans appeals, still another at the court. And it is
quite obvious that with a single paper claims folder, that all
these claims are not going to obtain the attention they deserve
simultaneously.
We understand the VA is meeting with representatives of the
Social Security Administration regarding their electronic
record format, and we appreciate this, and we hope that they
take the best practices from that system and apply it as this
goes forward.
I want to talk about service records for a second. We were
deeply troubled to learn from recent news reports that records
from many who have served in Iran and Afghanistan were either
lost, destroyed or never created in the first place. A claim
for veterans' disability benefits is dependent upon accurate
and complete service department records. And when those are
missing for whatever reason, the burden unfairly shifts to the
veteran to produce other evidence. That evidence typically
takes the form of lay testimony, and that is either from the
veteran, the family or buddy statements. But in the end, and
despite clear legal authority, VA has been hesitant to accept
those statements as sufficient proof of an in-service event.
These claims depend on accurate records. And as you know
under the law, a disability claim to succeed must have medical
evidence for current disability, there must be evidence of an
in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury,
and then there must be medical nexus or linking evidence that
provides this link of the claim condition to the service event.
In our written testimony, we provided several examples of
how veterans can be adversely impacted if the reports are
missing. In one case of note was a person who served in the
1950s. He claimed that he had various medical conditions for
which he was treated while in service. He files a claim in
1990, was denied for lack of corroborating evidence. As it
turns out, his records were destroyed in the fire in 1973 at
the National Personnel Records Center, but the end result of
all this is that, 20 years later, this case has been to the
veterans court three times, and that is where it is today, and
there is really no hope this matter is going to be resolved to
his benefit any time soon.
NOVA would like to make the following recommendations for
your consideration: The service departments must be required to
maintain complete and accurate records of the personnel and
unit activities, and they must provide those records to VA in a
digital format for their ease of use. So we ask Congress to
mandate that DoD and VA work together to facilitate this
seamless transition of records. It is just critical for our
veterans.
But in addition, we can't undo all that has happened, and
we are suggesting that the evidentiary burden be lessened for
veterans who fall into this category where the records have
been lost, destroyed, remain classified today, or never created
in the first place or are otherwise lost through no fault of
their own.
NOVA would propose that language be added to 38 U.S.C.
1154(a) that would mimic the provisions provided in 1154(b)
that is reserved for combat veterans and essentially provides
that lay or other evidence shall be accepted by VA to establish
incident or aggravation in service if consistent with the
circumstances, conditions or hardships of such service, even if
no official records exist. And this evidence may be rebutted
only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
In conclusion, the importance of the complete and accurate
service records cannot be overstated. As you know, Congress has
created a unique benefit system like no other in recognition of
those who answer the call to serve and defend their country. To
deny a veteran his or her disability benefits because the
records are not available due to no fault of his or here own
just isn't right, and it deserves this Committee's continued
attention. Thank you. If you have any continuing questions.
[The prepared statement of Michael Viterna appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Viterna.
Mr. Hall, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HALL
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member
McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee.
On behalf of DAV and its 1.2 million members, I am pleased
to be here today to offer our perspective on how the management
of the massive volume of paper records has resulted in
extraordinary delays and the denial of veterans' claims as well
as contributed to the enormous backlog of claims for benefits.
Mr. Chairman, the integrity of the entire benefits system
is, benefits claim system is only as strong as the integrity of
the evidentiary records supporting these claims. Before our
veteran can be found entitled to a benefit from VA, VA must
have sufficient evidence, such as proof of military service, an
accurate medical history, proper documentation. And custody of
service personnel and medical records is absolutely essential
to the accurate and timely adjudication of any veteran's claim
for benefits.
Most of the records needed to satisfy benefits claims are
held primarily by Department of Defense, Department of Veterans
Affairs, the National Personnel Records Center or by State
National Guard units.
Additionally, there may be private medical records that are
crucial to proving claims. Whenever there are problems or
delays in locating any of these essential records, veterans and
their families suffer. I know firsthand from my own personal
military experience and as a DAV NSO for nearly two decades
about the hardships that occur when records are lost, misplaced
or simply can't be found.
In 1991, while serving in the Army during the First Gulf
War, I was wounded in Kuwait. I was medically evacuated by the
Marine Corps, operated on by the Navy and airlifted home by the
Air Force. When I finally arrived at Fort Hood, I learned there
was no record of my arrival, no record of being wounded and no
surgical or post-op care records available.
Later, I was told my medical records were likely destroyed
rather than transporting them home.
To this day, treatment reports are missing from my
permanent records. Whether these missing records will one day
lead to a delay or denial of any VA benefit for me or my family
remains to be seen. But there are thousands of veterans that
have been hurt by lost or misplaced records throughout history,
a problem that has never been resolved and a problem that
remains unacceptable.
Let me cite two examples from my testimony that I feel are
important today. In May 2011, a Marine Corps Reservist, also an
OEF combat veteran, filed his original claim for nine
disabilities to include traumatic brain injury and post-
traumatic stress disorder. It took 10 months simply for the VA
to request the service medical records. And in August 2012,
more than a year after the claim was received by VA, the
service medical records still had not been obtained, and
another attempt by VA would have to be made. However through
the veteran's own initiative, he recently contacted his Reserve
unit directly to request his records.
Sadly, the proper exchange and retrieval of these medical
records didn't take place earlier because the veteran's claim
has now been pending for nearly 19 months without a decision,
completely unacceptable.
In another case, an Air Force veteran who served during the
Vietnam war in 1967 filed his original claim for disability
compensation nearly 40 years later in 2008. The claim was
denied, even though VA never even reviewed the service medical
records. Although the VA regional office did receive his
personnel records from the National Personnel Records Center,
his service medical records were lost somewhere between the
NPRC and the VA regional office. Those service military records
would have indicated that the veteran had been on sick call
approximately 16 times, and he had even been hospitalized one
time, as verified by his service personnel records. Eventually,
we filed an appeal with the board of veterans appeals, and in
2012, nearly 4 years after the date of claim, the case has
recently been remanded to the VA regional office for yet
another attempt to obtain the records.
Mr. Chairman, vital service records can be lost at any
stage. They may be lost during active duty, during transit to
or from the National Personnel Records Center or while being
stored at a VA regional office or the Records Management Center
for the National Personnel Records Center. With tens of
millions of military records housed at the National Personnel
Records Center and VA offices, the maintenance and security of
these essential paper files remains of the highest importance.
DoD, VA and the NPRC must focus in three areas. First,
there must be immediate improvement in the management of paper
records or archives. Secondly, paper records must be converted
into digital records. And thirdly, there must be development of
a new digital record storage and processing system.
While the problems of VBA's backlog continue to be
staggering, there are signs that slow progress is being made.
However, Congress must continue to oversee VBA's transformation
process and must ensure that the Veterans Benefit Management
System is completed and fully implemented.
In addition, DoD and VA must also work closely to create a
lifelong electronic records system for all servicemembers,
beginning at the moment of enlistment and including all of
their military medical and personnel records and should be
integrated with health records from VA as well as other public
and private health care providers.
Finally, as long as there remain paper files that must be
stored, transferred and preserved, VA, DoD and the National
Personnel Records Center or NARA must have adequate controls in
place, including regular independent audits to guaranty
preservation and integrity of these vital service personnel and
medical records.
Additionally, as each of those agencies converts paper
records to digital files, there must be rigorous oversight and
control to ensure that vital original paper records are not
lost or damaged during this conversion process.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Jeffrey Hall appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
And with that, we will start the round of questioning.
Mr. Hall, to go back to your testimony, the example you
used right after your personal one, you said the individual
went directly back to his unit to get his records?
Mr. Hall. He was not directed back to it. He had
communicated through our national service officer at the
regional office; throughout the process, we were keeping in him
informed of what was going on. And of course, there was that
delay approximately of 10 months where we finally found out a
request had not even been made for the record. So essentially,
what had turned out after some back and forth conversations
with, say, the development team of the RO was that they had
indicated if the veteran had obtained these records himself at
the beginning, there wouldn't have been a delay. So it was just
corroborating the fact that although they didn't indicate to
him that he should get those records, it was through advice
through our--which we generally give to any claimant is to--
don't leave service without a copy of your records, or if in
the process of a claim, if you have a way of obtaining, like in
this case, can you contact your unit and get those records?
Mr. Runyan. And going to the end of your testimony, you
talked about the systemic issues related to records management
that could be alleviated with more digital technology, and
obviously, what we just talked about was an example of that.
Can you try to explain that? Because one thing I'd like to
bring up is that, when we do these things digitally, we know
where it happened in time and place and who was at the controls
of it. Can you kind of elaborate on that?
Mr. Hall. On which particular aspect?
Mr. Runyan. On just the systemic issues related to the
records management which we could alleviate with digital
technology, as I just gave that example, because where it is at
and it is not that hard if you call over and say, where is this
in the process?
Mr. Hall. Obviously, electronic records, digital scanning
and things, the way that things are moving within VA, we
believe it is inherently a good thing because there are a lot
of great aspects to it, chiefly timeliness and safeguarding of
the information once it has been converted digitally.
Now with VBMS and how everything ties together which is
part and parcel to this, but it must be noted that when all of
this system, anybody at any stage, whether it is the veteran
through the e-benefits system or his service officer, as an
example, will be able to tell exactly where everything is
because everything has been either filed electronically, so
there was no paper to begin with, which we encourage our
claimants to do from the start, or it is paper that has been
received from the claimant that has been scanned or digitally
input into the system. But yes, one of the things I want to say
is that VBMS and where it is in the stage--and I am sure we
will learn more today as far as an update of where it is in the
process--it has to also--not only should--we have to make sure
that as we have said in the past that the VBMS needs to be
completed and needs to be implemented, and of course, we will
see how that goes during the coming year with everything
getting online, but it must also include the Appeals Management
Center, the Board of Veterans' Appeals and the Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims, as well as the other business lines within
VA. But as far as the claims process that you and I are talking
about, it has to be sure that it includes those other--AMC, VBA
and the court as well.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you.
Mr. Viterna, you mentioned the talks that VA and the Social
Security Administration are having. From your knowledge of it,
do you see there is anything to learn? What is the benefit of
the talks, and what can we do to maybe learn from the Social
Security process?
Mr. Viterna. I don't practice Social Security law, but I
have got friends that do Social Security law, I have friends
that show me how simple, with their tablet, they log on to the
Social Security site; they get a text on the cell phone. They
have 10 minutes or so to enter a code, and they are filing
documents and getting status of reports. And it is realtime and
accurate and complete information. And I guess the essence of
the issue is to either reinvent the wheel or to look at systems
that work. I know it is not quite that simple, but they have a
system that works, and to the VA's credit, I understand they
are studying some of that, and I hope that it continues, and we
get the best from it and build from there.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you.
Mr. Dumancas, how do you think the record management
process for our Guard and Reservists can improved, you used the
example of how their records could be in multiple places.
Obviously, if it is in a digital format, it can be very much
linked together. Can you expand on that a little bit?
Mr. Dumancas. Yes, sir. We believe that if you start an
electronic record from the very beginning and everything flows
into it and don't make it so it is a personnel file and a
health record separate, make them one, when a--when we call the
Guard and Reserve members up, it is all digitized. If they are
injured in Bagram and they come to Landstuhl and they come back
to Fort Carson, that it will would flow without any paper work.
The health technician at Fort Carson should be able to see from
Landstuhl to Bagram to say if they are from Sacramento,
California, all the way from Sacramento, California, to Bagram
and back, we believe it should be electronic. It would create
such a short time span of waiting on our medical record,
because like right now, when a Guard member or Reserve gets
injured and there is a piece that is missing and they apply for
it, but the VA cannot see that because DoD has it somewhere, it
is more than likely that their claim is going to be denied. Or
even if they come back and they have this injury, well, medical
doctors cannot see that record. For instance, I see Fort Myer
is my health primary care, and I was treated in Minnesota under
the VA. But when I come out here, I moved out here, my doctor
in Fort Myer could not see my record in the VA. So as a
veteran, I am thinking, oh, well, you should be able to see it
because the VLER and all this other stuff. Well, I find out
that my doctor cannot see any of my records. If I had known
that, I would have requested a paper copy of my file from the
VA and brought it to Fort Myer. So, by electronically, it would
shorten the time span and response times and the searches for
the medical records or for the personnel files.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you.
With that, I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney,
for his questions.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dumancas, why do you think there is so much variation
in the backlog from RO to RO?
Mr. Dumancas. I believe it is, it could be mainly training
and direction, like, for instance, the lack of, the relaxation
of PTSD, a lot of the raters--not a lot of but some of the
raters--I don't have a good number of them, but are confused on
the direction. They are confused on the policy and the
procedures, and I believe if you had one source training, where
it is just the VA has like a training center, I don't know if
its centrally located or divided up into the regional areas,
but they are all training the exact same procedure.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think the size of the ROs is strongly
correlated to the backlog?
Mr. Dumancas. I honestly don't believe it is, because when
I brought up Togus to a couple of my co-workers, they said,
well, it is because Togus is small. Well, if Togus is small,
but they have X amount of files, I know the VA doesn't have an
over lump sum of FTEs, full-time employees, at Togus. They
probably have it is calculated out to a certain amount of
employees. So if Oakland has the same amount of employees
versus the files percentage just like Togus, there shouldn't be
a difference. And that is why I believe that policy and
procedures coming down from central office to the ROs directing
them would strongly assist in the process and training. I don't
know if that makes sense.
Mr. McNerney. It does. Of course, training and consistency
is critical.
Mr. Dumancas. Correct. And I believe also--I know the VA,
we go out to ROs, and we talk to different ROs, and I know
training, it is hard now because we have the older generation--
I don't mean to slam anybody for their age, but they are
retiring. The well seasoned raters and trainers are leaving.
They are retiring. And now we have to rely on the younger
force, and they are not as seasoned as the people who are
retiring. So that might be a consideration, also.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Viterna, you mentioned that the DoD
departments must have accurate records of personnel and
deployments. What is the state of that situation right now? How
accurate, how good are the DoD's records?
Mr. Viterna. My experience for years has been that the
records have always been a problem from World War II on. It is
just in the latest news reports, it gives specific examples, I
guess, of files being lost in Iraq/Afghanistan. I know, in my
military career, the file that I left with when I retired is
this big, and I imagine a fraction of that actually made it
into my official records.
We would travel without orders; that was just a way of
life. But in the big picture for justice to be done for the
veterans, there has to be records kept, at least of the unit's
activities and what the people are doing there. And if they are
classified, then they have to be, there has to be a means to
translate that and the proper format for those who need to be
make decisions, but it is just unconscionable to not have those
records because the veteran is left to his own resources. He
can't obtain the records himself because they don't exist, for
instance. So is he left with lay testimony or medical opinions
that are premised on whether this had happened in service. We
find that those have been pretty ineffective over the years in
our experience.
Mr. McNerney. Yes. I guess we don't have too much
jurisdiction on how the DoD takes records, but we can encourage
them to do that.
Mr. Hall, in the NOVA testimony, you suggest introducing
legislation to lessen the burden of proof for establishing
inservice incurrence for veterans whose claims are impacted by
missing military records. Do you have a comment about that?
Mr. Hall. In the written testimony?
Mr. McNerney. Right.
Mr. Hall. I am sorry could you repeat?
Mr. McNerney. Do you have any suggestions on Mr. Viterna's
comment on lessening the burden of proof?
Mr. Hall. I think it would, I liked what my colleague here
said earlier about lessening the burden of proof. Whether or
not you can change 1154(a) and have a single one such as the
burden of proof under 1154(b) for combat veterans, I don't know
that you can necessarily do it in that particular manner. But I
do believe, when there is an absence of records, and it has
been verified that there are no records, when VA in a case that
I can give you and I think one of them is in my written
testimony, an example where the veteran is notified, we can't
find your records and we are not going to search for them
further, any further search would be futile; that is a case to
me where, by no fault of the veteran, your claim is going to be
denied because there are no records for us to look at, there
should be some provision in the law that has to be able to
overcome that type of an activity.
Mr. McNerney. Before I yield, of course, the statement
about Reserves and Guard members being at the mercy of the DoD
because that is not their home unit, that is something that
needs to be looked at. That sounds like a pretty difficult
problem.
Mr. Hall. It has always been difficult dealing with,
especially National Guard units, as a service officer helping a
veteran who files a claim; there is a broken communication.
I don't know whether it is on the National Guard end of it,
not understanding fully what it is--I would like to think that
it is not simply that--or the impact. The same can be said of
somebody on active duty that has, doesn't really get cared for,
transporting records home or erasing hard drive on records
coming back, not understanding the full impact of what waits 5
years down the road or 3 years down the road, so that
communication between the National Guard and the VA for
example, that must be overcome.
Same as Reserve units, but mostly for, we see it most of
the time in the National Guard, and predominantly, that is what
we are dealing with, is our veterans that are called up to
active duty in the National Guard and serving overseas.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you for your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Michaud.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Ranking Member, for having this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, if there is no objections I would like to
enter into the record a one-page letter that I sent to the VA
and the Department of Defense over 2 weeks ago. The letter asks
for information from both agencies regarding recent reports of
missing field or unit records and I have not yet received a
response.
Mr. Runyan. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in the Appendix]
Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In response to Mr. Dumancas' comment about Togus, I think
it gets back to the issue I mentioned over and over again when
you look at Togus dealing with claims, they are considered an
employer of choice, and that is why I think we have a high
accuracy rate as well as getting the work done on time. And a
part of that, I believe, gets back to turnover rates, and that
is one thing I have asked over and over again of other
agencies, regions, about their turnover rate and still I have
got, as far as I know, to receive that information, so it gets
back to the mentality and the workforce being able to take a
pride in their work. So I am very pleased that Togus is on top
of the list.
My question to the panelists, starting with Mr. Dumancas
first, is, have any of you experienced in working with the
military in trying to track down records from the Department of
Defense, and if so, can you discuss the responsiveness from the
military?
Mr. Dumancas. Before I came out to the American Legion here
in Washington, D.C., I used to be to a county veterans service
officer in Minnesota. And it was tough with, especially like
Mr. Hall was saying with the National Guard. When we submitted
a claim, the regional office would send our request to the
National Guard. The National Guard didn't have the records. We
could never find them. We don't know if they were stuck with a
different unit because they would split up into onesies and
twosies going with--from Duluth, Minnesota, they deployed with
Monticello or wherever. And one of the other things that we
experienced, I had the opportunity, one of the guard units came
to me with 20 service treatment records that they finally got
put together, they assembled. The problem was that the Guard
unit hadn't--lacked the funds to mail them in to the requesting
RO. Luckily, my county said, yes, go ahead and ship them down
to the RO for those training, for those members that submitted
for their claims. It is always difficult, and I don't know why
it is, but when a Guard member goes out as a onesie or a
twosie, not as a unit, they always come back, and we have the
hardest time trying to locate their records. I don't know if it
is because active services aren't paying attention to the
National Guard, you know, or they don't care because they are
National Guard, or they are just, because they are more focused
on the active duty. I am not really sure. But it is something
that really needs to be looked into.
One of the things that I would like to bring up is a good
friend of mine back in Minnesota was injured in Iraq. He was an
Army Reservist. His HUMVEE rolled over, so he sustained TBI and
neck injury. While at Fort Carson, the active duty doctor told
him, well, you are a Reservist, you should just go back to
Minnesota. Your unit will take care of you. That is ridiculous.
The guy was on a Title 10 tour at the time. He was active duty.
But when sister services start treating each other like that,
that has got to come to a screeching halt. They need to work
together. And also the DoD needs to work with the VA and NPRC
also.
I hope that answers your question. I am sorry.
Mr. Michaud. Any other panelists have any--
Mr. Viterna. My personal experience with the National Guard
is, as my colleague was saying, was with these individual
deployments, and that without careful intake at the receiving
units, these people get attached to a unit, so whatever
designation they carried with them, for instance, my case of
127th Wing from Michigan, gets blurred. Now they are attached
to some other organization, and typically, there is no way to
figure out this person's original unit, nobody takes the steps,
obviously, to track this person down. I know, when I was
stationed at Selfridge, in Michigan, we would get a group of
records in the mail, and they are lost souls. And at first,
they go to the Army clinic. Then they go to the Navy clinic,
work their way to the Coast Guard and then to the Air National
Guard and the Reserves, and we would just pick out people we
might be able to recognize. But the process in identifying
these individuals in their home units has never worked well,
and those records are simply missing, never to be found.
Mr. Hall. I would say that over the years, I don't recall
any particular dealings with military directly, me personally,
other than my own particular case, which I told you how that
turned out. But we have transition service officers, I think
roughly 30 of them, at different military installations. And so
they are dealing with it today firsthand, and of course, you
are educating an individual about what their entitlements are,
but you are also educating them about when they leave military
service, make sure you have a copy of your records for
yourself, for your own records, so hopefully that does minimize
a little bit of that. However, if there is some sort of an
instance that happens while the person is still active duty,
our transition service officer can certainly look into it at
that particular point because they have the connection, they
are on post.
When you are calling from a regional office and you say you
are with the Disabled American Veterans, it doesn't matter to a
lot of people who you are. And if I could just go back to one
other thing and say to Ranking Member McNerney's question about
variations in different ROs, I just wanted to sum it up and say
training, testing, accountability, leadership and culture. That
is why you have the differences. Thank you.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentleman.
I actually have one more question. I will give the other
Members an opportunity, too.
Mr. Hall, you talked about this with your personal
experience, but as we document this stuff and go back all the
way into the combat scenario, how prevalent is the issue of not
actually even having a record of an incident to start with, let
alone the issue we have been talking about trying to find out
after it occurred?
Mr. Hall. Well, I believe certainly today that documenting
it today because of the availability of things like computers
in the field and more abundance of medical personnel with those
types of ability to be able to put something into the computer
at that particular point versus 20 years ago, when I was in,
what was documented, well, we were blown up and we were
medivaced. I had a toe tag on. We would go to a different unit,
and then the toe tag comes off, and they create their own
record, and it comes off, and you go to a different branch. So,
in my case, I don't know that it is uncommon to be treated by
all different branches of the military in that particular way,
but at some point, it just broke down, and I think that that
problem was still, it probably has to still exist today with
the amount of people that serve in those, say, Iraq and
Afghanistan as an example.
What they are doing to overcome it, I mean, stories are
stories; they are all out there in the media where 500
gigabytes of information can be wiped out with the press of a
button, and that is all those records that go with it, whether
it is going and seeing the doc for the flu or a battlefield
injury. That is not just medical issues either; that is line of
duty things that happen, was it an IED explosion or some type
of hostile activity that has to be documented that goes into
that. So I would say it is just as prevalent; it may be even
more so. But it is has always existed.
Mr. Runyan. Any of the other two gentlemen have any
experience with it? No. Because when, we talk about it all and
a lot of people say, well, it is not that prevalent, but when
it happens to one veteran, it is a personal issue, and it is a
100 percent issue at that point, because you are affecting that
veteran's life 100 percent. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. That is right. Listen, we deal with people who
are on active duty and you hear a commanding officer saying
what an acceptable loss is, you can transfer that today to
somebody from the National Personnel Records Center or NARA,
somebody like that, that says, hey, we service millions of
records, and that is true. And I am not doubting one bit of the
bang up job that they do with the amount of volumes of paper
that they deal with, but for some individual, any individual in
one of those agencies to say, well, we service millions of
records and so, if we lose a few, that is a pretty good
percentage. How would you like to be the one? That is, to me,
any veteran that is denied a benefit because their records are
lost due to no fault of their own is just unacceptable.
Mr. Runyan. Mr. McNerney, anything further?
Mr. McNerney. Sure. I would like to explore a little bit
the, what the VA's regulations are concerning missing or
incomplete records. Do you all have recommendations on whether
those regulations are sufficient or adequate or could be
improved?
Mr. Viterna. Yes. Current law is that the VA has a duty to
assist and the duty is enhanced upon their being unable to
locate records. But there is a point when that becomes
definitive, and in some instances, they issue a memorandum that
essentially says, we have searched, and we have exhausted all
efforts, and in fact, the record does not exist. But at that
point, the only thing left is to shift the burden back to the
veteran. He is still without a remedy, unless there is some
lessening of the evidentiary burden. The VA can only go so far
if the records don't exist.
Eventually, their duty is to abrogate it, and they have
exhausted it, and you know, they have an enhanced duty to look
for alternative means to reconstruct records or the like. At
some point, there has to be a line in the sand that says, we
have to give up here and make a decision, and they do, and the
veteran is left with the result.
Mr. McNerney. Is there a recommendation on how to improve
that situation?
Mr. Viterna. Well, just as I had mentioned in terms of
lessening the evidentiary burden to mimic the combat language
in the 1154(b) that requires the agency to have clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary to rebut it, and it is a
presumption, effectively, so if there are no official records
to rebut a position that I had this injury in service; there
isn't any documentation of it--obviously, he still has a
current disability, but the medical nexus opinion is impeded by
the fact that they don't really know that that event happened
in service, so, yeah, you have got an arthritis in your knee,
but did you really wrench it in service or wrench it at some
other time? And say the evidentiary burden has to be somewhat
lessened to make that instance in service accepted as true.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Runyan. Mr. Michaud.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one question for Mr. Dumancas.
On July 18th, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the issue
of military sexual-trauma, which we explored how veterans who
suffered from MST-related PTSD have only one in three chances
of having their claims approved. You talked about the
challenges of these veterans in your testimony today.
Can you elaborate further on your testimony on how and why
VA regulations should be relaxed to improve these outcomes?
Mr. Dumancas. Yes, sir. What we have experienced is, at the
RO level, writers are still confused on the regulations, the
policy that is set in place. And we don't know if it is a lack
of training or just solid guidance. They are just confused on
the actual policy, so they are basically just denying it and
letting the Board of Veterans Appeals handle it. So it comes
out here to D.C.; we get remanded, and because it is
frustrating, it is very frustrating, so I hope that answers a
little bit for you.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentleman.
And, gentlemen, on behalf of the Subcommittee, I thank you
for your testimony. I look forward to continuing to work with
you on these important matters. And you are now excused, and we
will welcome the second panel up.
First, we will hear from Mr. Jim Neighbors, Director of the
DoD-VA Collaboration Office with the Department of Defense. And
then we will hear from Mr. Scott Levins, Director of the
National Personnel Records Center, with the National Archives
and Records Administration. And, finally, we will hear from Mr.
Alan Bozeman, the Director of the Veterans Benefits Management
System, with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
We appreciate all of your attendance today. Your complete
and written statement will be entered into the hearing record.
And, Mr. Neighbors, you are now recognized for 5 minutes
for your oral testimony.
STATEMENTS OF JAMES G. NEIGHBORS, DIRECTOR, DOD-VA
COLLABORATION OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; SCOTT LEVINS,
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PERSONNEL RECORDS CENTER, U.S. NATIONAL
ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; ALAN BOZEMAN, DIRECTOR,
VETERANS BENEFITS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROGRAM OFFICE, VETERANS
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF JAMES G. NEIGHBORS
Mr. Neighbors. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today, joined by my colleagues from the Department of
Veterans Affairs and the National Personnel Records Center, to
discuss current and future efforts to ensure military health,
personnel, and other records are captured, maintained, and
shared with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
My colleagues and I at this table understand that at the
end of every record is a servicemember, veteran, or family who
has sacrificed tremendously. DoD leadership is keenly aware of
the importance of military records as they pertain to the VA
disability claims process.
I can appreciate the frustrations of this hearing's first
panel, which is why it is a top priority of DoD to improve the
system by which our servicemembers and veterans receive well-
deserved and earned benefits.
Medical records of all servicemembers--Active Duty,
Reserve, and National Guard--have been stored electronically
worldwide by DoD since 2006. These records are centrally stored
and consistently available as the servicemember moves to a new
military unit and installation, including deployments,
throughout their career.
Like medical records, Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve
servicemembers' official personal records and other
administrative data are stored electronically throughout their
career and available at unit locations. Since 2004, unit
deployment data has also been electronically collected from the
military services and stored in the Contingency Tracking
System.
Concerning the monitoring of occupational hazards,
environmental assessments are conducted at deployed locations
when established and then performed annually to measure the
air, water, and soil for hazardous agents. Exposures of concern
are promptly investigated, and, when appropriate, registries
are created.
It is DoD policy to transfer servicemember records to VA
when they leave Active Duty upon retirement or discharge.
Military service personnel outprocessing centers currently
transfer personnel, medical, and dental records to VA for over
300,000 servicemembers annually. A majority of this data is
also available via electronic interface. For personnel and
administrative data, this transfer occurs within 7 days of the
servicemember's retirement or discharge.
To ensure continuity of care, medical data is available
realtime through a DoD and VA bidirectional health information
exchange. Medical professionals and DoD and VA clinicians and
benefit specialists have access to a very large amount of
health data on more than 4.6 million military and veteran
patients.
With all of this in mind, we recognize there is much more
to do to improve the complex electronic interface of data
between DoD and VA. And we are continually collaborating
through working groups, data-sharing summits, and executive
forums, working the areas where we need to modify policies,
processes, and technologies.
Going forward, our joint vision is to develop a single
seamless system experience of lifetime services. To realize
this vision, DoD and VA are currently planning the deployment
and acquisition of two major efforts: the joint Integrated
Electronic Health Record, or the iEHR; and the Virtual Lifetime
Electronic Record, known as VLER.
The iEHR will unify the two departments' electronic health
records systems into a common system that will ensure DoD and
VA's health facilities have servicemembers' and veterans'
health information available throughout their lifetime.
Information about injuries and illnesses incurred during
military service will remain available for health and benefits
purposes throughout a person's lifetime, supporting patient
safety, continuity of care, and facilitating expedient access
to and delivery of benefits.
VLER is a joint, multifaceted business and technology
initiative which will allow servicemembers' and veterans'
electronic administrative and personnel information to be
synchronized and shared seamlessly between DoD, VA, and other
appropriate Federal and private-sector health care providers.
It includes a portfolio of health benefits, personnel, and
administrative sharing capabilities. When fully implemented, it
will establish a relationship with servicemembers and veterans
that begins the day they enter military service and maintains
that relationship throughout their lifetime, proactively
providing them with benefits and services.
DoD is committed to a future that eliminates paper-based
recordkeeping and the warehouses that support them. Movement
toward the electronic exchange of information in realtime gives
DoD and VA the added benefit of improving interagency processes
based on information requirements and unencumbered by legacy
forms, manuals, and other paper.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your generous support of
all services members, veterans, and their families. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of James Neighbors appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Neighbors.
And, with that, I will now recognize Mr. Levins for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT LEVINS
Mr. Levins. Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member
McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
calling this hearing and for your attention to issues
surrounding the management of records which document the
service of our Nation's veterans.
I am proud to represent the staff of the National Personnel
Records Center, many of whom are veterans themselves, and
pleased to appear before you today to discuss the important
work the Center does to serve those who have served.
The NPRC is an office of the National Archives and Records
Administration. Located in multiple facilities in the St. Louis
area, the Center stores and services over 4 million cubic feet
of military and civilian personnel, medical, and related
records dating back to the Spanish-American War.
In the mid-1950s, the Department of Defense constructed the
Military Personnel Records Center in Overland, Missouri. In
1960, the Center's functions were consolidated and transferred
to the General Services Administration to be managed by NARA's
predecessor agency as a single program, leveraging economies of
scale to improve efficiency and offering a central point of
access for military service records.
When the Center was constructed, it was not equipped with a
fire-suppression system. In 1973, a massive fire at the Center
destroyed 16 million to 18 million records documenting the
service of Army and Air Force veterans who separated between
1912 and 1964. Though the fire occurred almost 40 years ago,
the Center continues to service approximately 150,000 requests
per year which pertain to records lost in that fire. When
responding to fire-related requests, technicians attempt to
reconstruct the basic service record by using auxiliary
records, such as pay vouchers, and/or by obtaining documents
from other official sources.
In the spring of 2011, NPRC's military records facility
began a relocation into a new building designed to meet updated
facility standards for storing permanent records. The
relocation of records into the new facility was completed last
month.
Today, NPRC holds approximately 60 million official
military personnel folders. Its holdings also include service
treatment records; clinical records from military medical
treatment facilities; auxiliary records, such as pay vouchers
and service name indexes; and organizational records, such as
morning reports and unit rosters.
NPRC receives between 4,000 and 5,000 requests each day
from veterans, their next of kin, various Federal agencies,
Members of Congress, the media, and other stakeholders and
responds to 70 percent of these requests in 10 business days or
less. Nearly half of these requests come from veterans seeking
a copy of their separation statements, the DD Form 214, because
they need it to pursue a benefit. The Center responds to 90
percent of these types of requests in 10 business days or less.
In addition, the Center receives between 5,000 and 7,000
requests each week from the VA and other Federal agencies
requiring the temporary loan of original records. These
requests are normally serviced within 2 to 3 business days.
In the case of the VA, nearly every day it provides an
electronic file which is uploaded into NPRC's system. The file
is comprised of new requests for the temporary loan of original
records. At the end of the cycle, when files are returned to
NPRC, they are placed back into their original locations, and
barcode technology is used to verify accuracy.
In instances where NPRC is unable to respond promptly to a
request, the biggest obstacle is normally our inability to
retrieve the responsive record. For example, delays may be
experienced if a file is currently charged out to another
office, undergoing extensive preservation treatment, or
determined to have been destroyed in the 1973 fire.
In instances where a responsive record is not located on a
first search attempt, the results are analyzed to determine the
next course of action. In most instances, a verification search
is conducted by a more experienced staff member. Sometimes this
involves trying to secure a file that is charged out to another
agency or actively moving through the order-fulfillment
process. Other times, it involves analyzing data elements on
the request to determine if an error has been made by the
requester--for example, an inaccurate service number, a
misspelling of the member's name, inaccurate dates of services,
et cetera.
In instances where a responsive record cannot be located,
NPRC technicians will attempt to reconstruct the basic service
record by using alternate sources of information. Once a
technician has verified from official sources the dates and
character of service, they prepare a certificate which can be
used in lieu of the DD-214 to secure benefits.
Sometimes the requested records are not located at NPRC.
Beginning in the early 1990s, the Military Service Department
stopped retiring medical records, now called service treatment
records, to NPRC and instead retired them directly to the VA.
As a result, NPRC does not have direct access to modern service
treatment records.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, with the exception of
the Coast Guard, the military service departments also stopped
retiring official military personnel files to NPRC, instead
retaining them in-house in electronic formats. With the
excepting of the Department of the Army, the NPRC refers
requests for these records to the appropriate military
department for servicing.
In 2007, the Department of the Army entered into an
agreement with NARA to allow NPRC to access its electronic
records for the purpose of responding to requests from veterans
and other stakeholders. As a result of that decision, NPRC
referrals to the Department of the Army were reduced by
approximately 2,500 per month. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine
Corps continue to service their own personnel records and
respond to requests from veterans and other stakeholders.
NARA is eager to work with the Subcommittee and other
stakeholders to explore opportunities to better serve our
Nation's veterans. We invite the Subcommittee Members to visit
NPRC. We welcome suggestions to improve efficiency. And we
again extend our sincere thanks to the Subcommittee for
expressing such great interest in the services that NPRC
provides.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Scott Levins appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Levins.
Mr. Bozeman, you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ALAN BOZEMAN
Mr. Bozeman. Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking
Member McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am here
today to discuss the importance of safeguarding the records of
servicemembers and veterans, particularly as the VBA
transitions to a paperless claims process.
Secure electronic records are vital to our transformation,
providing more timely and accurate decisions to veterans, their
families, and survivors. VBA is aggressively executing its
transformation--a series of tightly integrated people, process,
and technology initiatives designed to eliminate the claim
backlog and achieve our goal of processing all claims within
125 days and 98 percent quality in 2015.
Key to VBA's transformation is ending the reliance on the
outmoded paper-intensive processes that currently thwart timely
and accurate claims processing. VA's Records Management Center,
or RMC, is responsible for approximately 7.5 million inactive
claims files and service treatment records. It houses
approximately 7.6 million records and has capacity to hold
approximately 8.7 million records.
Both the RMC and the regional offices rely heavily on the
timely return of records. On average, the RMC receives 300,000
inactive claims files from ROs and 350,000 STRs from DoD each
year. Currently, the longest phase in the claims process is
gathering and awaiting evidence, which takes an average of 229
days. VBA is working with our stakeholders to receive more
timely records, which is absolutely critical to our
transformation.
To improve the efficiency of the claims process, VA is
executing a new business model that relies less on the
acquisition and movement of paper documents. The Veterans
Benefits Management System, or VBMS, is a business
transformation initiative supported by technology to improve
service delivery. The VA recognizes technology is not the sole
solution to improving performance and eliminating the claims
backlog; however, it is a critical requirement to our
transformation. By the end of December 2012, VBMS will be
deployed to 18 regional offices. Approximately 20,000 users at
all 56 ROs will be utilizing VBMS by the end of calendar year
2013.
The centerpiece of VBMS is a paperless system, which will
be complemented by other people, process, and technology
initiatives. The VBMS electronic folder, or eFolder, is the
electronic equivalent of the VBA paper claims folder. It serves
as a digital repository of all documents related to a claim,
and it provides for document uploading and viewing by multiple
simultaneous users. The eFolder eliminates wait times for
physical paper folder transport, reduces incidents of lost or
misplaced paper folders, and provides on-demand access to key
documentation.
The VBMS architecture incorporates multiple layers of
security controls to provide comprehensive protection. Security
controls are in place to prevent unauthorized access and to
protect electronic documents from loss from any source of
disaster or malfunction. VBMS is a modern system engineered to
the latest standards in information-protection technologies,
and it will ensure the privacy of sensitive veteran records
even as access to the system is provided to thousands of VBA,
Veterans Health Administration, and veterans service
organizations' authorized users.
VA understands the importance of securing records.
Paperless claims processing through VBMS, while maintaining the
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data, is
critical to our transformation goal of eliminating the claims
backlog in 2015, ensuring timely and quality delivery of
benefits and services to our veterans, their families, and
survivors.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to address
any questions from Members of the Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Alan Bozeman appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much.
And I will begin a round of questions. I want to start with
Mr. Neighbors.
What is the rationale for handling servicemembers' records
differently, the personnel records differently from the health
and dental? Common sense would say if you kept it all one, it
wouldn't be fragmented.
Mr. Neighbors. I understand, sir. I do know that the
rationale that I understand is that different organizations
within the military services are developing the records. Beyond
that point, I believe also how they have grown up through time,
as far as where the records were developed as far as paper-
based now moving into an electronic base, is another piece that
has possibly kept them apart.
How we are obviously going into the future, obviously we
will be aligning and moving those things together. I do
understand your rationale and your understanding of why that
makes common sense. It does. Pulling things together and
ensuring that does make great sense.
I do know that when we outprocess these servicemembers,
when the outprocessing center person--they look and ensure that
all of those records are put into one binder. So, in other
words, medical, dental, and personnel records, the popular DD-
214, as it is known, all go into one binder as it is shipped
off then, and the various copies going to the various
locations.
As we are moving forward in the electronic age, we are
going to be moving into a similar kind of arrangement with the
two that we just talked, the iEHR and the VLER.
Does that answer your question, sir?
Mr. Runyan. Yes. I think ``we are getting there'' is the
key to it.
Mr. Neighbors. Yes, sir, I understand.
Mr. Runyan. And, also, what challenges has the DoD
encountered in implementing the integrated electronic health
record?
Mr. Neighbors. I can tell you, sir, that I have viewed what
we call the initial operating capability timeline, and that
timeline is being met right now. I know that the initial design
review has just been met, in fact, just earlier, the 27th
through the 29th of November.
It is a large undertaking, there is no doubt. I mean, it is
billions of dollars to put this into place. I would say, from
my perspective and from the DoD's perspective, it is an
endeavor like we have probably not done on the business side
before, other than what we have done within the DoD itself. We
have actually brought DoD together, I think.
And while we are working very closely with the VA and
partners and getting there, it is--I don't want to say,
necessarily, challenging, but it is pulling cultures together,
obviously, between our two organizations.
I would also say that moving forward and using commercial
capability and bringing in the different sources of material,
as far as what actual software and things that we use, while
not a challenge, it is very complex, I guess I would say.
So to answer your question, I think, the most succinctly
would be the complexity of where we are trying to go with all
of this and moving it forward.
Mr. Runyan. But no significant technology roadblocks or
anything?
Mr. Neighbors. To my understanding, sir, the technology and
the actual framework that we are moving from is, again, toward
the initial operating capability, is moving forward.
Mr. Runyan. Okay.
And if I could touch on one other thing. There has been a
great deal of media attention surrounding DoD--and I talked
about this with Mr. Hall in the last panel--particularly
getting records of in-service events in combat.
What is the DoD doing to address this issue to make sure
that we have that information from the point of the incident?
Mr. Neighbors. I understand, sir. When a person is actually
in a combat zone, there are very specific systems--each one of
the services has a system that does collect and understand
where units and individuals in those units--and that is Active
Duty, Guard, and Reserve--when they are actually in theater at
different base camps and locations.
That data is then rolled together and brought into a very
specific system called the Contingency Tracking System. Again,
it has been around--if I go back, I think around 2004 we
actually put that into place, and it has been moving forward.
On the Reserve component side, we also have what is called
the Reserve Component Common Personnel Data System, which
tracks their movement and everything also, and then reports all
of this data into the Defense Manpower Data Center, where all
of it is coalesced into one place. That data is then made
available to VA and other organizations, too.
Mr. Runyan. Okay.
Mr. Levins, you testified about how the Army participates
in an information exchange with NPRA. Can you elaborate, what
is your experience of why the other branches aren't part of
that same process?
Mr. Levins. When the National Personnel Records Center was
established in the 1950s through the year 1999, it was funded
through appropriations from Congress. Beginning in the year
2000, that changed, and we are now funded through
reimbursements from the services for the work that we do them.
So there is continuous pressure on us to try to keep our costs
down, and the services all try very much to keep their bill
down.
As the services went to electronic records, all of them,
including the Army, decided that they would retain the
electronic records and service those requests themselves. And
after a couple years of doing that, a backlog of requests had
been generated at the Department of the Army, and they reversed
this decision and permitted us, at least on a pilot, to begin
servicing those requests on their behalf using their electronic
records. That began in 2007, and that continues today.
Mr. Runyan. Are you aware of any backlogs with the other
services?
Mr. Levins. I can't speak for any backlogs at the other
services.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank you guys. This is a tough business.
There are a lot of records, a lot of new data coming in, and
everyone wants the same thing. So there is no question about
that. But you can hear our frustration in how long this is
taking, and we just want to work together to get to the best
result.
Mr. Bozeman, in earlier testimony, the American Legion
pointed out the lack of plans in regards to scanning documents
into the VBMS. Did you have a comment on that?
Mr. Bozeman. Thank you, Ranking Member McNerney. Yes, I
would love to take the opportunity to talk about that.
As you know, over the summer, we ordered two contracts for
scanning vendors, two commercial contracts, to scan documents
and convert paper documents into VBMS.
I am happy to say that, as of today, both vendors are up
and running. We have 13 stations on VBMS right now actively
receiving images from both vendors. They have scanned at this
point over 250,000 documents of various sizes with a vast
amount of images into those stations. It is working well. They
have good quality, good timeliness.
You also mentioned the BDD claims as well. Both stations
that process BDD claims, Winston-Salem and Salt Lake, Salt Lake
is fully in VBMS already; Winston-Salem comes on next week,
December the 10th. So we will be able to address not only BDD
claims but the larger claims volume.
Mr. McNerney. So you feel that there is a real
comprehensive plan in place for completing the scanning
process?
Mr. Bozeman. Yes, sir, I feel very confident in our
scanning operation at this point. Yes, sir.
Mr. McNerney. So how come the VA doesn't want to go ahead
and purchase the scanning equipment? Is there a cost advantage
to having contractors doing it? Is it any more accurate?
Mr. Bozeman. Sir, I am not sure about any cost benefits,
per se. But I can speak to the fact that through the help of
NARA, actually, we have local scanning capabilities at each
regional office for small-volume scanning. It is not
necessarily our passion or our desire to be a full-time
scanning operation; we are much more interested in processing
claims and lowering the backlog.
We also have a scanning operation at the Records Management
Center that can assist with not only STRs, BDD claims as well,
and other operations we see that are critical to knocking down
the backlog for BVA.
Mr. McNerney. So you feel it is a more efficient use of
VA's resources to use contractors than to have the VA focus on
continuing the--
Mr. Bozeman. At this point in time, I do, sir. Ultimately,
where we want to get is electronic records.
Mr. McNerney. Right.
Mr. Bozeman. So we want to get out of the business of
converting paper. And as we move toward receiving electrons,
not only from DoD but our various stakeholders, that is the
ultimate place we want to be as an organization. It is more
efficient, it is more timely, it is more accurate. And that is
what we need to beat the backlog for VBA by 2015.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think the accurate and timely flow of
information from the DoD to the VA is going to be improved
significantly then?
Mr. Bozeman. So I think I am encouraged by some of the
collaboration efforts we have done over the past 6 months
especially. As Mr. Neighbors pointed out, we have a series of
meetings; we have had multiple data-sharing and collaboration
meetings. I am encouraged by some of the early results. It is
complex, as Mr. Neighbors stated. I don't think we are there
yet, but I think we are on a good path to get to there
ultimately.
We have a platform that can receive those records within
VBMS, a content management service that allows uploads not only
from veterans, veterans service organizations, through
eBenefits or the stakeholder portal, but ultimately we can
receive information from DoD as well. We are on that path. And
I think it is going to be a long, hard road, but I think we can
get there, sir.
Mr. McNerney. What happens when the DoD doesn't cooperate
or doesn't have proper inputs? I don't know how you deal with
that exactly.
Mr. Bozeman. Well, with VBMS, sir--thank you for your
question--with VBMS, we have the capability to process both
electronic and paper. Again, we prefer electronic records, but
we cannot totally eliminate the need for paper. We are always
going to receive paper.
So if we don't receive electronic records, we will still
process claims that we receive in paper and convert them to
electrons. Ultimately, again, we want to receive electronic
records. So I don't think it is a matter, necessarily, of
cooperation, but if the capability does not exist, then we will
process, as we do now, within VBMS, but we will have to convert
the paper to electrons.
Mr. McNerney. You are going to always have a need for some
amount of scanning.
Mr. Bozeman. Yes, sir. I believe so.
Mr. McNerney. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Mr. Michaud?
Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Neighbors, how will the loss of unit-level records be
addressed during a servicemember's outprocessing?
Mr. Neighbors. I am going to have to take that one as a
question for the record. I don't want to give you imperfect
information. I do know that the individual manager that would
look at the person's record would identify any gaps. Now, I
think to your question, though, how do we fill those gaps is
something I would like to get back to you, if I could.
Mr. Michaud. Okay.
Mr. Neighbors. But I do know that they are looking for
completeness of a record, again, with medical-dental unit and
other items. So if you would, sir, I would like to take that
back, and I will get an answer for you.
[The attachment appears in the Appendix - Attachment A]
Mr. Michaud. Okay, yes.
And you mentioned in your testimony that when a
servicemember is outprocessed for transition or retirement,
their combat records and outpatient records are reviewed for
completion. When was that instituted?
And what steps are taken in a record that is found to be
incomplete? Do you let the servicemember or the VA know that it
is incomplete?
Mr. Neighbors. Multiple questions I heard, sir. The first
one is as to how and when this document takes place. I know
there is a DoD instruction that covers exactly what the person
is supposed to do. Again, when that actually took place, I have
the document here, I could take a look and actually get that
date for you.
[The attachment appears in the Appendix - Attachment B &C]
Mr. Michaud. Okay.
Mr. Neighbors. I do know that it is consistent across all
the services. And there are actually paperwork items that we
have to sign and have slapped on top of the documents
themselves so the VA knows that it is certified complete.
Now, that completion, that certification, I should say, is
of known records, that, to the best of our knowledge,
everything that we have known is part of this record. I will
say that where the servicemember has an obligation, let's say,
Guard and Reserve specifically, if a servicemember--not
``specifically,'' any servicemember--but where it hits, I
think, is the Guard and Reserve a lot of times. They will go
out and they will go to the private side, and they will get
some sort of service they need. It is the obligation of that
servicemember that when they are reactivated, that they have to
bring those medical records back to that unit so that they can
be collated and put in.
I will tell you that is an area, though, of challenge for
us, is getting servicemembers to come back in when they are
reactivated and bring all that documentation in and have it
reentered into the central repository. We are working that.
I will be honest, as Mr. Bozeman said, we have an ongoing
forum that we meet very regularly on. That was one of the items
that VA brought forward that they needed us to do. And we are
working it as a policy issue with the services right now to
ensure that all that data is collected and that they are going
out and actually making sure that the servicemembers are doing
that.
Does that answer your question, sir?
Mr. Michaud. Yes. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentleman.
I actually have a couple more questions real quick, the
first one being for Mr. Levins.
We know that there was a recent incident involving
misplaced records at your facility, and there is an ongoing
investigation in this incident. Can you elaborate on, from a
managerial perspective, how you have tried to mitigate that,
before we have actually come through with the outcome of the
investigation itself?
Mr. Levins. Yes. As you are aware from the briefings that I
provided to your staff over the summer, there was an incident
in July where a temporary employee unlawfully removed
approximately 250 documents from our holdings.
Upon hearing this, I was appalled. And I can tell you that
the Archivist of the United States, as a Navy veteran himself,
to say he was angry is an understatement.
And as you noted, this is still under investigation, and my
understanding is that the person charged is going to face
criminal charges for this. So I can't go into a whole lot of
detail about it.
But some of the things that we have done is, number one, we
have implemented exit screening at our facility in St. Louis.
We had already had that in place in our Washington, D.C. areas,
and with the large volume of permanent records in St. Louis, it
was time to implement that out there. So now all employees of
NARA and all visitors to the Center, when they exit the
building, they have to allow the guards to look through their
bags and so forth to make sure they can't walk out of the
building with any documents.
We were able to recover the documents promptly, and we were
able to--because we have a tracking system that tracks all the
reference requests to which we respond, we were able to bounce
those documents off of our production system to determine if
any requests had been made for those records and determine any
impacts. And, fortunately, we were able to determine that no
veterans were adversely impacted by the temporary absence of
those documents from those records.
We also developed a more robust auditing procedure in that
division of the Center so that, you know, if something like
this occurs, we will find it, you know, before documents are
actually missing.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you for that.
I also have quick questions for Mr. Bozeman.
When do you anticipate we will start seeing measurable
results with the VBMS system?
Mr. Bozeman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your question.
Release 3.5 of VBMS was deployed on November the 5th. After
that, we deployed to 10 additional stations full up on what we
consider the national deployment-level software. We anticipate
we will start to see good results because that software gives
us the capacity to truly process claims in VBMS. So I would say
early in 2013 we will start to see results from those claims as
those stations come on board.
We will have 18 stations full-blown into VBMS by the end of
the calendar year. So I would look for that early in 2013 to
start seeing measurable results of people on the full-blown
system of software.
Mr. Runyan. Okay. Thank you.
And to follow up on the question Mr. McNerney was asking
about your scanning contracts, can you provide the amount of
the inventory, the duration of the contracts and the monetary
value of the contracts.
Mr. Bozeman. I will take it. I believe those are 1-year
contracts with option years. I am not certain of the exact
specifics of the contract, so I can take the remainder of that
for the record to verify.
[The attachment appears in the Appendix - Attachment A]
Mr. Bozeman. The value of the contracts between the two
vendors I believe is $22 million and $23 million, respectively,
between the two.
And the--I am sorry, I forgot the third part of your
question, sir.
Mr. Runyan. You got duration. Inventory?
Mr. Bozeman. Yes. The inventory, sir, the base--we
anticipate 60 million images per month between the two vendors.
Again, it is competitive, so the vendor that shows greater
quality and timeliness, we can direct more work to that vendor
to build efficiencies in the system. That is why we are excited
about the prospects of the way this system is set up between
the two vendors.
Again, at the height of the contract, we expect 60 million
images per month.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you all very much. On behalf of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for your testimony. We welcome
working closely with you in addressing these important issues
that have such an impact on our American veterans.
And you are all now excused. Thank everyone for being with
us today to discuss this important topic.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and include any
extraneous material.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the Members for their attendance today.
And this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Runyan, Chairman
Good afternoon and welcome everyone. This oversight hearing of the
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs will now
come to order.
I called today's oversight hearing to discuss an important yet
often overlooked aspect of the veterans' benefits process - access to
various service department records. Such records are often necessary,
and vital, for a veteran to prove their claim. As Chairman of DAMA, I
am troubled by information regarding the handling of records that has
come to my attention.
In today's environment, as we shift from paper records to a digital
environment, important questions arise regarding what the best
practices are for making this transition.
For example, agencies such as the VA and the National Archives and
Records Administration, or NARA, must engage in a daunting cost-benefit
analysis to determine what records should be digitized, and how this
process should take place.
Similarly, the Department of Defense must determine the best way to
maintain digital records in various environments, from DoD hospitals to
combat zones.
Further, all three agencies must continue to work together to
ensure that veterans' records are initiated, maintained, and
transferred as efficiently as possible.
Today, that is the aspect that we'd like to focus on - the
efficiency of the records management process.
As many of you may already be aware, the records management process
begins with DoD. Veterans depend on DoD to properly note certain in-
service events, whether in the veteran's individual service medical and
personnel records, or in unit histories.
Issues pertaining to the thoroughness of DoD's recordkeeping have
recently received media attention in light of evidence that some units
were not properly documenting in-service events, such as combat related
incidents. This has been a source of significant frustration for many
veterans who file claims with VA and are dependent on such
documentation to substantiate their claims.
For those records that are properly maintained by DoD, custody of
certain records is then turned over to the Archives, although different
branches of service have different policies and procedures. The
National Archives and Records Administration maintains millions of
military personnel, health, and medical records for discharged and
deceased veterans of all services.
Although the Archives recently began receiving access to digital
records from the Army, they do not have full digital access to the
other branches of service. In addition, the agency still maintains a
full warehouse of paper records from older generations of veterans. As
all agencies that handle such vast amounts of paper know, there are
challenges associated with maintaining both digital and paper records.
The Archives has recently faced some challenges with respect to the
maintenance and security of veterans' records. I would like to invite
NARA to continue an open dialogue with this Committee so the most
effective procedures for managing veterans' records can be implemented.
Turning to the role of the VA, the agency has a statutory duty to
assist a claimant in obtaining certain records. Accordingly, it is
important that we work together to ensure that VA is able to
communicate both effectively and efficiently with both the Archives and
DoD to comply with this duty.
In addition, VA is also in the process of making important
decisions about how veterans' records and claims folders are handled in
a digital environment, as they continue their transition over to the
electronic Veterans Benefits Management System, or VBMS.
While we all have high hopes for VBMS, we must not overlook one of
its essential functions, which is the process for scanning and
converting veterans' records.
Before I conclude, I would again like to emphasize that our goal
today is to ensure that the entire chain of command, from DoD, to the
Archives, to VA, handle veterans' records with the utmost care and
respect.
Often, a single record or notation can be the difference in whether
a veterans' disability claim is granted or denied. This is why we must
work together to ensure that no records are lost, overlooked or
otherwise unable to be associated with an individual disability claim.
I welcome today's witnesses to continue this ongoing discussion and
offer their own specific recommendations on how to improve upon the
veterans records management process, particularly now as we work to
transition into a digital environment.
I would now call on the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney,
Ranking Democratic Member
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing about
Veterans' records, and how the VA is managing its transition to a
paperless system and new technologies.
We've all read the recent news articles regarding lost, inaccurate
and mishandled Veterans' records at the hands of the DoD and VA, as
well as their struggles in recapturing this data once it is lost or
improperly recorded. I am deeply troubled about these incidents. This
is unacceptable.
Congress hears complaints of lost, missing, destroyed or
unassociated files all too often. Information affecting a Veteran's
claim should be better protected by those charged with its care.
Accountability needs to occur at the management level and with
individual employees who handle the day-to-day influx of information.
Veterans and their families should not be burdened with the
responsibility of re-creating lost files or providing multiple copies
of records that once were in the DoD and VA's possession.
I also remain troubled about the more than 1.3 million claims and
appeals that are languishing in VA's flawed processing system--in an
organization with a current management culture that often over-
emphasizes production over quality. It is imperative that we make
comprehensive performance improvements to the system while ensuring
accurate and accountable claims outcomes for our Veterans.
I know that VA is taking great pains in this direction. However,
today, like many Veterans and stakeholders, I cannot say that I have
confidence that the VA is in complete control over these processes.
I have met with too many Veterans who have had to wait years for an
initial decision on their benefits. I have heard too many unfortunate
stories of Veterans who suffer as a result of VA temporarily closing
poor performing Regional Offices for retraining, like the Oakland RO
that serves Veterans in my district. While the average days pending for
most claims is 255 days; in the Oakland RO, it is a mind-blowing 425.8
days.
I know VA ROs such as Waco and Los Angeles are experiencing similar
delays. In fact these delays are systemic because 67% of all claims and
appeals are in backlog status and nearly 25% will be done erroneously.
Why the disparity? Why the protracted delays?
Since 2007, the VBA has added over 11,000 claims processing
personnel and Congress has funded these requests. Yet the backlog still
climbs. The VA OIG concluded that in order to change these outcomes, VA
needs to enhance policy guidance, compliance oversight, workload
management, training and supervisory review in order to improve claims
processing operations.
These conclusions do not change. The year may be about to change
but the issues are the same-- the backlog is just a symptom of the
problem. The current system is broken and in need of a major overhaul.
We need to focus on getting the claim right the first time--as if a
do-over is not an option. We need to get this right so that no claims
are languishing and Veterans, their families and survivors get the
benefits that they have earned and deserve without delay.
I am somewhat enthused by some of VA's latest technology
undertakings, including e-Benefits and its Stakeholder portals.
However, I remain concerned that again some of VA's efforts move
forward without direction, like a rudderless rowboat.
VA needs a comprehensive plan with a clear vision and mission as
many of the stakeholders indicate in their testimonies. To date, we
still have not received the VBA Transformation Plan that VA Under
Secretary Hickey promised at our hearing in June of this year.
Today's witnesses will provide us with greater insight on these
systemic problems--including how Veterans and their dependents are
harmed when VA and DoD mishandle their documents and how improvements
can be made. I hope to hear testimony and responses that reflect VA's
solemn duty to deliver its benefits mission using world-class 21st
century inputs that focus on Veterans ahead of processes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back my time.
Prepared Statement of Richard Dumancas
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Filner and distinguished Members of
the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to come before you today to discuss
the importance of the data component in the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) efforts to transform the claims processing system for the
21st century and beyond. The much beleaguered claims system has been
under harsh criticism for quite some time as VA has struggled under a
massive backlog of claims and tried to work towards a system that could
deliver earned benefits to veterans in the timely manner they deserve.
If VA is to climb out from under this mountain of claims utilizing the
new features of the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS)
paperless processing environment, the way in which they manage
veterans' data is going to be one of the most important factors in
determining success.
Working with the veterans' data will present several challenges.
First and foremost is the entryway to this paperless processing
environment, how will VA deal with transferring information on paper
into a digital world? Second, VA will have to deal with the management
of the electronic records even though the real world data is divided
amongst a confusing number of sources, particularly for Guard and
Reserve component veterans. Finally, even though VA has an extensive
history of dealing with lost data and many regulations to account for
the fact that military record keeping is not always what it should be,
these regulations are not always uniformly enforced at the Regional
Office (RO) level and VA will need to address this lack of consistency
as they move forward and deal with the new challenges presented in the
electronic operating environment.
Scanning and Submission of Evidence - the Entry Point into VBMS
Perhaps the most critical component to the success of the new
electronic tolls provided by VBMS in serving the needs of disabled
veterans filing for earned benefits is the quality of the data
available, and that demands attention to detail at the first step -
scanning the veterans' data. Unfortunately, there is at best vague
information about how VA plans to move forward with the scanning
component, and at worst a morass of chaos and uncertainty. The American
Legion would like to see a clearer road map laying out VA's plans for
transforming data to electronic data presented in a transparent manner.
Scanning is already required as a part of intake at ROs utilizing
the VBMS system. Furthermore, the Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD)
sites in Salt Lake City, UT and Winston-Salem, NC also require scanning
as this key transition program also operates in an entirely electronic
environment. However, developments at the BDD sites raise troubling
questions about VA's plans to go paperless nationwide in the coming
year.
At this time, there is no contract in place at either BDD site for
scanning, so new claims are not being entered into the pool of claims.
While one employee referred to this as ``a temporary benefit'' as it
allowed everyone to catch up on the backlog of claims at the BDD sites,
any long term view of the situations must recognize the growing backlog
of claims building up waiting to be scanned. Like a dike bursting open
to let the floodwaters through, these claims will overwhelm the
resources as soon as a contract is in place.
At a hearing before the full House Committee on Veterans Affairs on
June 19th, Mr. William Bosanko, Executive for Agency Services, National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) indicated there was no long
term contract in place for scanning at VA Regional Offices. The
contracts that had been in place were for a much smaller scale than
expansion to all ROs. The most recent contract had been for only five
locations. There have been no subsequent indications of future long
term plans for the scanning provided.
What is most troubling about the scanning portion of the data chain
within VA is not the myriad questions about the quality of optical
character recognition (OCR) and how searchable the documents will be,
although those questions are certainly important. What is deeply
troubling is that the scanning is so obviously a key component and
there has been little to no public indication from VA about the road
forward. As concerned stakeholders, The American Legion can only wonder
as to the size and nature of future log jams building up which could
devastate the process for veterans in the future.
The American Legion urges VA to present a clear road map for the
way forward on the scanning component so all concerned stakeholders can
understand that this critical data component is no longer a weak link
in the data chain. There are other more pressing data concerns to worry
about, but it is hard to give them focus when there are so many
outstanding questions about the basic steps at the front door to the
entire process.
Data Location - Finding Government Records
Obviously, the ability to communicate the critical data between
governmental entities such as the Department of Defense and VA is
essential to a smooth claims process. To catalogue the litany of
complaints about delays in the development of a Virtual Lifetime
Electronic Record (VLER) between VA and DOD would be so lengthy as to
obfuscate almost any other discussion. Suffice to say stakeholders such
as The American Legion have a long history addressing the unacceptable
lack of clear communications.
In the 21st century, the ability of the DOD and VA to maintain a
simple, common record for service members from their date of induction
all the way through their military and civilian careers until
internment in a veterans' cemetery should be a given, not a question.
Rather than add to the existing mountain of concerns about the lack of
a consistent electronic nature, The American Legion will simply state
there must be a renewed commitment to getting VLER back on schedule and
implemented with all due haste.
However, there is another concern regarding the difficulties in
communicating service member data that is often overlooked when
discussing the communication problems between VA and DOD and that is
the widely distributed nature of information and records for members of
the National Guard and Reserve components.
As the last decade of warfare has clearly shown, the National Guard
and Reserve components are an integral and highly utilized component of
our nation's military structure. However, record keeping for these
components still lags deeply in the past century. At times, over 40
percent of the deployed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have been Guard
or Reserve component members. Over 650,000 National Guard and Reserve
members have deployed since September 11, 2001 with many of those
service members deploying multiple times over the last decade.
Yet for a variety of reasons, consolidating the vital data for
these service members is a far more challenging task, and that fact has
presented difficulties for a number of veterans when it comes time to
file a claim.
Anecdotally, one National Guardsman The American Legion came into
contact with told this tale of the difficulties he had run into. In
2005, the veteran in question underwent a Medical Evaluation Board/
Physical Evaluation Board (MEB/PEB) process and was ultimately
discharged from the military due to a spinal injury sustained in
service. The veteran filed their own claim with VA within a couple of
months after discharge, and didn't seek representation for the claim at
the time stating ``I had just gotten discharged for the injury, how
hard can this be?'' After approximately ten months, the veteran finally
received an initial denial of benefits from VA as they could not find a
variety of records associated with the claim. This was all still within
a year of being medically discharged from the Army.
The veteran sought help from The American Legion at this point, and
filed an appeal with a Decision Review Officer (DRO) at the Regional
Office. During the course of this appeal, which took over an additional
year, it became clear that the veteran's records were split over
multiple locations. There were still records located in the country the
veteran deployed to. There were records in Landstuhl, Germany where the
veteran had stopped over while being medically evacuated. There were
records with the National Guard bureau in the veteran's home state.
There were records with the active duty division that had commanded the
Task Force the National Guard unit had operated under. There were
records in the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis,
and there were records in the hospital at the military base the service
member was sent to while on medical hold.
It was not until the complicated process of DRO review that these
records were all consolidated and considered that the veteran was
finally granted service connection - for a spinal injury that had
provoked their discharge from the Army. Obviously this is a somewhat
extreme example, but it illustrates the major challenge Guard and
Reserve component veterans face in seeking disability service
connection from VA. Their records exist piecemeal and spread over a
multitude of locations. When confronted with seeking out service
records with a single request to NPRC or with a legwork intensive
process of tracking down multiple units, commands, and records sources,
what is an overworked employee with limited time to devote to a single
claim in the face of a massive backlog more likely to lean towards?
American Legion representatives who have conducted site visits at
ROs through the Regional Office Action Review (ROAR) process have seen
flow charts prepared for VA employees to assist determining where to
find Guard and Records. This is a positive step forward, and VA needs
to build upon this step.
The American Legion believes better training on records location
with those of their employees who develop claims could help with the
problem of scattered records, but ultimately, there needs to be a
better consolidation process for this information. Furthermore, this
consolidation should be considered as part of the VLER project as VA
and DOD work together to create a unified record for service members.
This is too important to be tacked on as a later consideration; it must
be a ground level, fundamental building block of the new VLER.
The heavy utilization of Guard and Reserve members is not going
away. In fact, with deep cuts looming for active duty personnel levels
in the coming decade it is clear the Guard and Reserve will be a
critical component of the nation's defense structure for the
foreseeable future. They must stop being an afterthought in the
logistical side when it comes to safeguarding their vital records and
communicating that information to the necessary other agencies of
government.
Implementing the Rules and Regulations on the Books
The idea that the military sometimes struggles with record keeping
is not a new one. There are already multiple rules and regulations on
the books to deal with situations where records are either incomplete
or not present. Whether it has been challenges in the past such as the
St. Louis fire of 1973, the confusion inherent in combat zones, or even
records that could help validate a veteran's claim that have been
destroyed by regulation, there are rules on the books or in the works
that address the known fact that sometimes the key information is not
present in the record.
Despite instructions to give special attention to alternate means
of establishing information such as ``buddy statements,'' photographs
and newspaper clippings, veterans are still often stonewalled by the a
finding that the events are ``not reflected in the service record.'' 38
USC Sec. 1154 recognizes the lack of consistent record keeping in
combat and states `` . . . the Secretary shall accept as sufficient
proof of service-connection of any disease or injury alleged to have
been incurred in or aggravated by such service satisfactory lay or
other evidence of service incurrence or aggravation of such injury or
disease, if consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships
of such service, notwithstanding the fact that there is no official
record of such incurrence or aggravation in such service, and, to that
end, shall resolve every reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran.''
Recently, with regard to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), VA
has relaxed internal regulations to concede the occurrence of stressor
incidents when a diagnosis of PTSD exists and the stressors described
are similarly consistent with the circumstances and conditions of
combat. This was done not solely for those who could prove combat
through awards such as a Purple Heart or Combat Infantryman Badge
(CIB). This was extended theater wide for war zones, as recognition of
the modern battlefield's asymmetrical nature, where clear lines of
battle no longer existed.
During the period of consideration of the new regulations
surrounding PTSD, arguments were made to further extend the concession
of stressors to cases of Military Sexual Trauma (MST) when there was an
existing diagnosis because MST survivors had similar challenges in
establishing the occurrence of stressors. Perhaps cruelly, records of
sexual trauma in the military are often expunged by regulation after a
period of three years, making it impossible down the road for a veteran
to obtain any record of the event. The American Legion continues to
urge Congress to press for the relaxation of stressor requirements for
MST survivors to match those afforded to combat veterans and to rectify
this inequity.
However, even though VA's own rules afford great benefit of the
doubt to veterans with lost records, at the RO level the application of
these regulations is inconsistent at best. In fact, some RO employees
have stated the regulations are ``confusing'' and ``something for the
Board [of Veterans Appeals] to handle, not us . . . ''
This can be corrected with better training at the RO level and
clear direction from VA Central Office (VACO) that these rules are
important. The American Legion has long contended that training on all
levels at the RO must be made more robust and better tailored to
correct known deficiencies. The handling of claims with missing data is
certainly an area where VA's training could use improvement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, The American Legion is deeply concerned about the
lack of a clear plan forward regarding the scanning process, one of the
most critical components of the shift to a paperless, electronic
environment. The Legion urges VA to work with the stakeholders in the
Veterans Service Organizations and Congress to develop a plan and make
it transparent so all concerned can help ensure this portion of the
process does not needlessly cripple later actions in the VBMS
environment.
As progress moves forward on VLER, The American Legion urges VA and
DOD to ensure the Guard and Reserve records are an integral part of
this consolidation from the beginning, and in the meantime urges VA to
work diligently to ensure their employees at all levels understand the
challenges inherent in tracking down records for the Guard and Reserve
component.
Finally, The American Legion recognizes VA's own regulations to
deal with lost records as indicative of the intent of this government
to truly work to help veterans; even when through no fault of their own
records are lost, as they can often be in a large bureaucracy like the
military. However, the implementation of these regulations still leaves
much to be desired in terms of consistency, yet with attention to
training and enforcing consistency, VA could go a long way towards
helping the unfortunate veterans whose records have been lost or
destroyed.
Executive Summary
The American Legion is concerned with three key parts of VA's
handling of electronic data in the new paperless environment.
1. No clear plan for scanning.
a. VA has no clear, public plan for dealing with the scanning
component of the VBMS, which is the gateway to much of their later data
concerns
b. The BDD sites currently have no scanning contract, and new
claims are building up behind this like a tidal wave behind a logjam.
This needs to be corrected.
2. Lack of coordination of data and communication with DOD,
especially regarding Guard and Reserve component service members.
a. Guard and Reserve records often wind up in multiple locations
and can be confusing to track down.
b. Guard and Reserve records must be a top priority for
coordination with VLER and any data communication with VA and DOD
c. VA employees need better training on tracking down records
for these service members
3. Uneven application of existing regulations regarding absent or
incomplete military records.
a. VA has several regulations on the books to deal with
incomplete or absent records, but they are inconsistently implemented
b. VA's regulations on PTSD stressors for combat should also be
extended to MST victims
c. VA needs to enhance their training and consistency in
implementation on these regulations.
Prepared Statement of Michael R. Viterna
Statement of the Problems
As a threshold matter, we would like to place the issue of
veterans' benefits in the perspective it deserves. Benefits for
veterans are unlike any other Federal benefit program and reflect
Congressional intent to award ``entitlements to a special class of
citizens, those who risked harm to serve and defend their country. This
entire scheme is imbued with special beneficence from a grateful
sovereign.'' \1\ Veterans have earned certain benefits from their
military service and a paper driven system of records and a lack of
service department records are impediments, if not preclusive, to the
receipt of those benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bailey v. West, 160 F.3d 1360, 1370 Fed. Cir. 1998); see also
Jaquay v. Principi, 304 F.3d 1276, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc);
Hensley v. West, 212 F.3d 1255, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Transitioning to a Paperless Technology for Veteran Records
NOVA applauds VA's efforts to transition from a paper driven system
of records to a paperless environment. While we recognize the magnitude
of such an effort, we nevertheless want to be on the record encouraging
VA to effectuate this transition in an expeditious manner. We are
concerned, however, that any system implemented allows real time and
complete access to a veteran's VA records, and will include the ability
to file documents electronically in the same manner as that given
claimant advocates by the Social Security Administration. Such access
is not only necessary for advocates to effectively represent claimants
before VA, but ultimately will greatly improve the time requirements
and efficiency of processing claims.
First, fewer VA personnel will be required to not only handle the
incoming and outgoing correspondence, but the inquiries by veterans
and/or their representatives will also be significantly reduced.
Second, most veterans have multiple claims being processed at the
same time. Often, these claims are at different stages of development,
adjudication or appeal and each is dependent upon a single paper VA
case file. For instance, a veteran may have a claim on appeal before
the Board in Washington, D.C., have another being processed in the
appeal section at the local VA Regional Office, and yet another claim
in the initial stages of development. If the paper file is physically
with the Board in Washington, the Regional Office typically cannot
process other claims until the record is returned to that office. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A claim for an increased disability rating may be an exception
as new medical evidence regarding the current level of disability may
be obtained and considered without benefit of the complete paper file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, an electronic record system can include sufficient
redundancies to virtually preclude lost or misplaced files as is
currently a problem.
NOVA is willing to work with this Committee and with VA in the
implementation of a paperless record system that will ensure real time
and complete access to the advocates who represent claimants before VA.
II. Lack of Military Service Records
NOVA has been asked to address the impact of lost military service
records upon the filing of a veteran's disability claim with VA.
A claim for VA disability compensation is dependent upon complete
and accurate service department records because, to be successful, a
claimed disability must arise from an in-service event. Under the law,
establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence
of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay
evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or
injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-
service disease or injury and the present disability. \3\ It is the
second prong for establishing entitlement that we will be discussing,
the in-service incurrence or aggravation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v.
Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604
(Fed.Cir.1996) (table); see also Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 379, 384
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The value of accurate and complete service records cannot be
overstated in terms of its role in the fair adjudication of a veteran's
claim for disability benefits. ``[I]n the context of veterans' benefits
where the system of awarding compensation is so uniquely pro-claimant,
the importance of systemic fairness and the appearance of fairness
carries great weight.'' Hodge, 155 F.3d at 1363. In the absence of
these records, the burden unfairly shifts to the veteran to obtain
alternative evidence, universally recognized to be of lesser probative
value, or the result is a denial of benefits rightly earned.
The government's loss of service records poses difficult, if not
insurmountable, obstacles for a claimant in proving the in-service
incurrence element of his or her disability claim. These records
include evidence of medical treatment, involvement in a mishap, travel,
potential environmental exposure, and performance reports, among
others.
Service medical records (SMRs) may document the occurrence of a
disease or injury as well as treatment for any resulting medical
condition. These SMRs will become incontrovertible evidence in
establishing the in-service incurrence element of a veteran's claim and
can also demonstrate the chronicity of the claimed condition. Travel
records most commonly are used to demonstrate where a veteran served.
This evidence is often lacking for temporary duty assignments but can
be critical in establishing presence in an area of conflict (Vietnam)
to specific sites where dangerous environmental exposure was later
established (Camp Lejeune). In addition, performance and disciplinary
records can serve to demonstrate behavioral changes that may be
indicative of the onset of a psychiatric disability.
The following statutes deal with the evidence used in VA claims
processing:
38 U.S.C. Sec. 1154. Consideration to be accorded time, place,
and circumstances of service. (emphasis added).
(a) The Secretary shall include in the regulations pertaining to
service-connection of disabilities (1) additional provisions in effect
requiring that in each case where a veteran is seeking service-
connection for any disability due consideration shall be given to the
places, types, and circumstances of such veteran's service as shown by
such veteran's service record, the official history of each
organization in which such veteran served, such veteran's medical
records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence . . . .
(b) In the case of any veteran who engaged in combat with the
enemy in active service with a military, naval, or air organization of
the United States during a period of war, campaign, or expedition, the
Secretary shall accept as sufficient proof of service-connection of any
disease or injury alleged to have been incurred in or aggravated by
such service satisfactory lay or other evidence of service incurrence
or aggravation of such injury or disease, if consistent with the
circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service,
notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of such
incurrence or aggravation in such service, and, to that end, shall
resolve every reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran. Service-
connection of such injury or disease may be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. The reasons for granting or
denying service-connection in each case shall be recorded in full.
38 U.S.C. Sec. 5107(b). Claimant responsibility; benefit of the
doubt. (emphasis added).
(b) Benefit of the doubt. The Secretary shall consider all
information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the
Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the
Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and
negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of
a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the
claimant.
In terms of quality of proof and in spite of the statutory and
regulatory provisions in place, none of these alternatives come close
to service department records in terms of credibility and probative
value. SMRs documenting treatment for an injury, disease or condition,
for example, are indisputable proof of in-service incurrence. On the
other hand, use of lay evidence for proving an in-service incurrence is
problematic in several regards and is often simply not feasible. For
example, providing buddy statements in support of a claim can be
difficult or impossible to obtain given the years of separation between
the event in service and date of claim. In addition, locating a fellow
service member years after service separation can be very difficult and
recollections can fade.
No matter how obtained, a buddy statement would thereafter be
subject to a credibility determination by VA. In practice, VA
adjudicators are frequently skeptical of lay statements prepared by the
Veteran or a buddy well after the alleged in-service incurrence despite
the applicable VA regulations and the body of case law that speaks to a
claimant's ability to provide statements regarding symptoms capable of
lay observation. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 398, 406 (1995); and Layno v.
Brown, 6 Vet.App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (lay evidence is competent to
establish features or symptoms of injury or illness). See 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 5103A(d)(2) (Secretary is to take into consideration all lay or
medical evidence of record, including statements of claimant).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory, lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service
connection by relating the occurrence of lay-observable events or the
presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay
observation. 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1153(a); 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.303(a). In
practice, however, lay evidence is frequently not sufficient to
establish an in-service incurrence. Early on, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims concluded that it is clear ``[t]he regulations
regarding service connection do not require that a veteran must
establish service connection through medical records alone.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Triplette v. Principi, 4 Vet.App. 45, 49 (1993), citing
Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 24, 25 (1991). Over the succeeding
years, the Courts have further refined the import and applicability of
lay statements. See e.g., Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006)
(addressing lay evidence as potentially competent to support presence
of disability even where not corroborated by contemporaneous medical
evidence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Veteran's Claims Assistance Act of 2000 Pub. L. No. 106-475,
Sec. 3(a), 114 Stat. 2096, 2097-98 (2000) (VCAA) was intended to
``reaffirm and clarify the duty of the [Secretary] to assist a claimant
for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary, and for other
purposes.'' H.R. REP. 106-781 at 4 (2000). It is well-established that
VA has a duty to ``make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in
obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim.'' 38
U.S.C. Sec. 5103A(a)(1). This duty is abrogated if ``no reasonable
possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the
claim.'' See 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5103A(a)(2) Whenever VA attempts to obtain
records in federal custody, ``efforts to obtain those records shall
continue until the records are obtained unless it is reasonably certain
that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those
records would be futile.'' Id.
Implications for Veterans
If its efforts in obtaining records are unsuccessful, VA then has a
duty to inform the claimant of the records that could not be obtained,
explain the efforts expended to obtain those records, and describe any
further action to be taken by VA in respect to that claim. It is at
this point that the burden is shifted to the veteran to use his own
resources and employ alternative means to support his claim, as
described supra. Unfortunately, in the absence of corroborating service
records, veterans are either denied the benefits sought or the
adjudication of the claim(s) is significantly delayed, as expressed in
the examples that follow.
1. Roy Johnson
Mr. Johnson performed military duty from November 1967 to November
1969 and was assigned to the 57th Maintenance Company in Thailand. His
duties involved the repair of small arms, but some artillery as well.
On some occasions, he traveled via military aircraft from Bangkok to
Saigon to pick up weapons for repair.
Years after service, Mr. Johnson developed one of the disabling
conditions known to be related to Agent Orange, which was used in
Vietnam. In April 2003, VA denied his claim for entitlement to service
connection, because there were no service records to document this
veteran's travel into Vietnam. The National Archives and Records
Administration responded to VA that ``[u]nfortunately, the 57th
Maintenance is one of those units for which we do not have any
records.'' In addition, the National Personnel Records Center responded
that the Veteran's service in Vietnam was ``not a matter of record.''
Under VA regulations, the mere presence in Vietnam entitles a
veteran to service connection if certain disabling conditions manifest
themselves at any time after service. 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.307(a)(6). Mr.
Johnson could not, however, establish his presence in Vietnam through
service records.
In support of his claim, the veteran submitted a buddy statement
from an individual who served with him in Thailand and Vietnam. Despite
this corroborating evidence, VA continued to deny the claim and Mr.
Johnson continued to appeal. His claim was subsequently presented to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims where a joint motion for
remand occurred in March 2006 due to the presence of errors in how VA
had previously adjudicated his claim. Upon remand, the veteran obtained
pay records for his overseas service that showed he had paid no federal
income taxes for several months, purportedly due to his ``flying over
Thailand.'' The matter again returned to the Court and VA's denial was
ultimately reversed in an August 10, 2010 single judge decision
(Johnson v. Shinseki, slip op 09-1192). The Court found that there was
no negative evidence refuting the Veteran's assertions that he traveled
on temporary duty to Vietnam, but that there was evidence in support of
his claim. Of special note was the receipt of combat pay for a few
months of his overseas duty. The Court went on to note that under
Executive Order 11216, Vietnam, not Thailand or any other country for
that matter, was designated as a combat zone during the time period
relevant to this appeal. Accordingly, the Court took the rare step of
reversing VA's denial of benefits finding that ``the only permissible
view of the evidence is contrary to the Board's (Board of Veterans'
Appeals) decision.''
While Mr. Johnson ultimately was granted the benefits he sought,
his journey lasted more than nine years from the time his claim was
filed until VA actually implemented the Court's decision. No official
records were located documenting the veteran's service in Vietnam. The
veteran took his own steps and obtained a buddy statement in support of
his claim, but this was not sufficient. Finally, he was able to locate
pay records that documented his presence in a combat zone, thereby
verifying his presence in Vietnam, such that benefits were awarded,
albeit by judicial order.
2. Charles Johnson
Mr. Johnson served from 1953 until 1957. Records of his service
were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records
Center (NPRC). In November 1992, he sought entitlement to service
connection for a number of medical conditions that he asserted had
their onset during service. Due to a lack of evidence, VA denied the
veteran's claims but he appealed, which resulted in a remand from the
Board in April 1995 to permit additional development of evidence. The
matter returned to the Board, where it was remanded again in 1998 with
orders to the VA Regional Office (VARO) to attempt to obtain ``daily
sick reports'' or similar documents. NPRC responded that it had no
medical records on file. In December of 1998, the Board remanded the
matter for the third time, instructing the VARO to contact the United
States Armed Services Center for Research of Unit Records (USASCRUR)
and the Office of the Surgeon General. USASCRUR responded that it did
not maintain morning reports from 1954 and the Surgeon General
responded negatively as well.
Over the years, Mr. Johnson has submitted lay statements from
friends and family that attest to the onset of his disabilities, but
all have been discounted by VA. It is now 20 years later and the
matter, for the third time, is before the Veterans Court.
3. Albert Drake
Mr. Drake served for 28 years in the U.S. Navy, retiring in
February 1980. While in service, the veteran served for seven years as
a nuclear reactor operator, participated in atomic/nuclear testing
exercises, and served aboard several nuclear submarines.
In 1988, the veteran developed skin cancer, with multiple
additional malignancies manifesting in the years that followed. He was
diagnosed with thrombocytopenia in 2005. Skin cancer is recognized by
VA to be a radiogenic disease, while his thrombocytopenia is not. A
radiogenic disease is defined by VA regulations to be a disease that
``may be induced by ionizing radiation.'' See 38 C.F.R. Sec.
3.311(b)(2)(i)-(xxiv). He subsequently made claims for entitlement to
service connection, but was denied in April 2003. In support of his
claim, Mr. Drake submitted two medical opinions from dermatologists
linking his skin cancer to the radiation exposure in service, one of
which also linked his thrombocytopenia to ionizing radiation exposure.
One doctor noted that the veteran had a history of multiple skin
cancers on both sun exposed and non sun exposed areas. The veteran was
raised in the Pacific Northwest, had no other radiation exposure
outside service, and had no family history of skin cancer. In
consideration of all the evidence, the veteran's private doctor went on
to opine that ``[t]his distribution is typical for radiation
exposure.''
In assessing the veteran's case, VA's Chief Public Health and
Environmental Hazards Officer looked to the Navy's documentation of his
exposure to ionizing radiation from 1957 until 1962. Based upon the
recorded dosage, the VA doctor opined that ``it was unlikely'' that the
veteran's claimed conditions can be attributed to occupational exposure
to ionizing radiation in service.
In this instance, the veteran has alleged that his exposure to
ionizing radiation was greater than documented by the Navy. He has
stated that he served on nuclear submarines as late as 1976, while Navy
records show his ionizing radiation exposure ended in 1962. As a
consequence of this discrepancy, VA concluded that his radiation dose
estimate was lower than the thresholds established that produce
service-connected disabilities. Effectively, because official records
did not document all of this veteran's occupational radiation exposure,
VA has denied his claims. This matter has been on appeal for nearly ten
years and is currently before the Veterans Court.
These examples do not reflect isolated cases. We have learned from
the Vietnam Veterans of America, for instance, that in 3,956 issues
remanded for veterans they represented between 2003 and 2001, military
service records were missing in 954 issues. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 325 due to missing service medical and unit records, 3,984 to
obtain missing U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center
(JSRRC) records, and 245 for missing personnel records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOVA willingly offers to assist this Committee and VA in efforts
undertaken to draft legislation to lessen the evidentiary burden for
those veterans whose claims are adversely impacted by lost, missing or
nonexistent military service records. This language could model that of
Section 1154(b), as applies to veterans engaged in combat. Also, VA's
fulfillment of its duty to assist by obtaining relevant records under
38 U.S.C. 5103A should be subject to reasonable timeliness standard.
What Should Be Done:
1. VA should, in an expeditious manner, continue the transition
from a paper record environment to that of a paperless system that
assures full access to a veteran's VA file by his or her appointed
representative. We would encourage VA to model the advocate's access
after that used by the Social Security Administration.
2. Require the Department of Defense to take immediate steps to
keep adequate field records and reconstruct, to the extent possible,
lost or nonexistent field records.
3. Introduce legislation to lessen the standard of proof for
establishing in-service incurrence by modifying 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1154
for veterans whose claims are impacted by lost, missing or nonexistent
military service records. Additionally, language should be put in place
to require VA to expeditiously fulfill its duty to assist as outlined
in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5103A(a)(1).
Conclusion
NOVA offers to work with the Committee and VA to develop language
to lessen the evidentiary burden for those veterans whose records were
lost or destroyed through no fault of their own, where that evidence
was necessary to establish the ``in-service incurrence or aggravation
of a disease or injury'' required for an award of service connection.
Executive Summary
The National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. (NOVA) is a
not-for-profit 501(c)(6) educational membership organization
incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1993. NOVA represents
approximately 500 attorneys and agents assisting tens of thousands of
our nation's military Veterans, their widows, and their families to
obtain benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). NOVA
members represent Veterans before all levels of VA's disability claims
process. In 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
recognized NOVA's work on behalf of Veterans with the Hart T. Mankin
Distinguished Service Award. NOVA currently operates a full-time office
in Washington, D.C.
NOVA willingly offers to work with Congress and VA in efforts
undertaken to: (1) ensure an expeditious transition of veteran paper
files to a paperless technology that assures full access to a veteran's
VA file by his or her appointed representative (Social Security
Administration model); (2) establish and maintain accurate and complete
service department records by requiring the Department of Defense to
take immediate steps to keep adequate field records and reconstruct, to
the extent possible, lost or nonexistent field records; and (3) draft
language to lessen the evidentiary burden for those veterans whose
records were lost or destroyed through no fault of their own, where
that evidence was necessary to establish the ``in-service incurrence or
aggravation of a disease or injury'' required for an award of service
connection by modifying 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1154 and requiring VA to
expeditiously fulfill its duty to assist by obtaining relevant records
as outlined in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5103A(a)(1).
Veterans have earned certain benefits from their military service
and a paper driven system of records and a lack of service department
records impede, if not preclude, the receipt of those benefits. NOVA is
willing to work with this Committee and with VA in the implementation
of a paperless record system that will ensure real time and complete
access to a veteran's VA records and will include the ability to file
documents electronically. Such access is necessary for advocates to
effectively represent claimants before VA, and ultimately will greatly
improve the time requirements and efficiency of processing claims.
The impact of lost military service records upon the filing of a
veteran's disability claim with VA is significant. A claim for VA
disability compensation is dependent upon complete and accurate service
department records because, to be successful, a claimed disability must
arise from an in-service event. The value of accurate and complete
service records cannot be overstated in terms of its role in the fair
adjudication of a veteran's claim for disability benefits. In the
absence of these records, the burden unfairly shifts to the veteran to
use his own resources to obtain alternative evidence, universally
recognized to be of lesser probative value. In the absence of
corroborating service records, veterans are either denied the benefits
sought or the adjudication of the claim(s) is significantly delayed.
The National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA) wants to
thank the Subcommittee Chairman, the Ranking Member, and members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify about the disability claims
process at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). NOVA is honored to
share our views for this hearing, ``Wading through Warehouses of Paper:
The Challenge of Transitioning Veterans Records to Paperless
Technology.''
NOVA is a not-for-profit 501(c)(6) educational membership
organization incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1993. NOVA
represents more than 500 attorneys and agents assisting tens of
thousands of our nation's military Veterans, their widows, and their
families to obtain benefits from VA. NOVA members represent Veterans
before all levels of VA's disability claims process. This includes the
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(BVA or Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
Court or CAVC), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(Federal Circuit). In 2000, the CAVC recognized NOVA's work on behalf
of Veterans when the CAVC awarded the Hart T. Mankin Distinguished
Service Award.
NOVA operates a full-time office in Washington, D.C. Accompanying
me today is our Executive Director, David Hobson, who will assist this
Subcommittee and staff with any follow-up questions regarding VA's
record keeping processes and the processing of disability claims when
necessary service records are either lost or destroyed.
One of NOVA's regular functions is monitoring and commenting on VA
rule making. In this regard, NOVA routinely submits comments on changes
to Title 38 Regulations. This is an area of close scrutiny. NOVA also
files challenges at the Federal Circuit in response to VA rule making
when we believe veterans' interests are adversely affected. NOVA has
addressed this Committee previously and appreciates the opportunity to
do so again. The positions stated in this testimony are approved by
NOVA's Board of Directors and represent the shared experience of NOVA's
members in representing our veterans and their families in their
pursuit of VA benefits.
NOVA's goals today are to work with Congress and VA in taking steps
to ensure a successful and complete transition of veteran paper files
to a paperless technology and to ensure accurate and complete service
department records are made and maintained with open access to all
qualified representatives of veterans. Additionally, we will suggest a
means to lessen the evidentiary burden for those veterans whose
disability claims depend upon service department records that are
deemed lost or destroyed.
NOVA will present an overview of experiences and lessons learned
from representing veterans and will provide several examples of what
some veterans have had to endure when their service records have been
lost or destroyed or perhaps did not exist in the first place. We will
describe the hardships and delays that resulted. We will show how
veterans are required to go to extensive efforts to prove their claim
when, under the law, the Agency is required to give a veteran the
benefit of the doubt. We also will describe some common scenarios of
what a veteran must do to obtain evidence to substitute for service
records.
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey C. Hall
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting DAV to testify at today's hearing examining
how veterans' military records are collected, maintained, transferred
and preserved by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), as well as the status and future plans of all
three agencies transitioning from paper records to digital records. I
am pleased to offer some perspectives on how problems managing this
massive volume of paper records have resulted in delays and denials for
many veterans, and contributed to the enormous backlog of claims for
veterans benefits.
Since 1920, DAV has offered free representation to veterans, their
dependents and survivors seeking benefits and services from VA and
other government agencies. In this capacity, DAV National Service
Officers (NSOs) focus on educating injured and ill veterans about their
benefits and the claims process, assisting them with filing claims for
benefits and then by advocating on their behalf to ensure they receive
all the benefits and services they have earned through their service.
DAV has the nation's largest service program, with 100 offices located
throughout the United States and in Puerto Rico and a corps of
approximately 240 NSOs and 30 Transition Service Officers (TSOs). DAV
provides free representation to veterans and their families with claims
for benefits from the VA, the DOD, and other government agencies,
representing more veterans than all other accredited veterans service
organizations (VSOs) combined. Last year, DAV NSOs and TSOs assisted
nearly a quarter million veterans and their families with their claims,
obtaining over $4 billion in new and retroactive benefits. By helping
veterans file more complete and accurate applications for benefits, DAV
and other VSOs assist VA by reducing their workload and ensuring more
accurate claims decisions.
Mr. Chairman, in order for veterans to begin receiving the benefits
and services to which they are entitled, whether for disability
compensation, vocational rehabilitation, employment, health care or
other services, VA must first have sufficient evidence of their
military service and usually their medical history as well. The
integrity of the entire benefits claims system is only as strong as the
integrity of the evidentiary records supporting these claims. Thus,
proper custody of military personnel and medical records is essential
to the accurate and timely adjudication of veterans claims for
benefits.
Most of the records needed to satisfy benefits claims are held in
the constructive custody of the federal government, primarily by DOD,
VA or NARA. Some crucial records may be held by State governments for
those who have served in National Guard units. In addition, veterans
often have private medical records that may be crucial to proving their
claims. Whenever there are problems or delays in locating any of these
essential records, veterans, their families and their survivors suffer.
Having worked for almost two decades for DAV, most of that time in the
field helping thousands of veterans with their claims, I have seen how
lost or misplaced records lead to unjust decisions and unacceptable
delays. I also know from my own military service that medical records
can be lost even from the earliest moments after injuries occur,
particularly when those injuries occur on the battlefield.
While serving in the United States Army in 1991, I was wounded
outside of Kuwait City during the first Gulf War. I was medically
evacuated by the United States Marine Corps, operated on by the United
States Navy and hospitalized and air lifted home by the United States
Air Force. After I arrived at Ft. Sam Houston, I learned there was no
record of my arrival, and when I went to Division Headquarters the
following day I was also told there was no record of my having been
wounded or of my return. I went to the base hospital with no medical
records and had to provide the details of my medical situation, which
were then verified by examination. I did not know at the time that my
records were missing, lost or otherwise, or that I would never be able
to locate the records in the future. I never knew what medical
procedures were performed because there is no record. Later I was
informed the records would probably never be recovered because they
were likely destroyed instead of being transported home. Whether this
loss of medical records will one day lead to delay or denial of a VA
benefit for me or my family remains to be seen, but there are literally
thousands of veterans who have already been hurt by lost or misplaced
records. Here are just a few recent examples from DAV's service files.
In May 2011, a United States Marine Corps Reservist and Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF) combat veteran filed his original claim for
disability compensation with the VA regional office (VARO), claiming
nine (9) disabilities, including traumatic brain injury and post-
traumatic stress disorder. Nearly six months later, VBA acknowledged
his claim by sending him a letter in November 2011, which indicated his
claim would be assigned to a special team and expedited. However, no
further action was taken on the claim until DAV contacted the VARO on
March 29, 2012 to inquire about the claim's status. At that point, our
NSO also apprised the VARO that there was nothing in the claims file or
VA system indicating that the veteran's service medical records (SMRs)
had been requested.
On April 3, 2012, our NSO was notified by the VARO that the
veteran's claim was originally brokered to VA's training academy in
Baltimore for initial development and then returned to the VARO.
However, apparently no development had taken place until after our
March 2012 contact, which is when the VARO requested all of the
necessary medical examinations as well as the veteran's SMRs from VA's
Records Management Center in St. Louis. All examinations were completed
and associated with the veteran's file on May 11, 2012; however, as of
August 2012, the case had not yet been sent to the VARO rating board
for action. Upon inquiry, our NSO was informed by the VARO that while
the examinations were completed, the VARO still had not received the
veteran's SMRs from his Marine Corps Reserve unit and a follow up
letter had been sent to the unit the previous day. The VARO did
indicate that the claim might have moved faster if the veteran had his
own copies of his SMRs. Latest information indicates the veteran
recently made contact with his Reserve unit and was told his records
would be sent to the VARO. As of this date, there is still no
indication that the SMRs have been received or what, if any, further
action has been taken since he spoke with his Reserve unit. What is
clear however, is that this OEF combat veteran filed his original claim
for disability benefits more than a year and half ago, and even today a
decision still has not been made because his SMRs have never been
obtained and reviewed.
There are many veterans who have been deployed to places such as
Iraq or Afghanistan and the absence of service medical records is
absolutely detrimental to a veteran's history and possible entitlements
later. This is compounded when the case involves veterans, especially
combat veterans of World War II, Korea or Vietnam, when technology or
battlefield documentation pales in comparison to that of today.
Unfortunately, the absence of records has often led to erroneous,
inaccurate rating decisions from VA or extraordinarily lengthy delays
in processing time. In the case of a combat veteran, such as the USMC
Reservist previously mentioned, the law is clear under title 38, United
States Code, section 1154(b):
``In the case of any veteran who engaged in combat with the
enemy in active service . . . during a period of war, campaign, or
expedition, the Secretary shall accept as sufficient proof of service-
connection of any disease or injury alleged to have been incurred in or
aggravated by such service satisfactory lay or other evidence of
service incurrence or aggravation of such injury or disease, if
consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such
service, notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of
such incurrence or aggravation in such service, and, to that end, shall
resolve every reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran.
In some cases, it is the VARO that loses or misplaces veterans
records. I was supervising a DAV field office several years ago where a
veteran who was permanently and totally disabled and homeless was
assisted by one of our NSOs in filing his claim for non-service
connected pension, which is an income-limited benefit. The original
claim was filed directly with the VARO in July 2004 with DAV as the POA
holder; however, nearly nine months later, in April 2005, there was no
status of the claim in VA's system, nor any record that the VARO had
ever received the claim. Since our NSO physically submitted the claim
in person, we had a date-stamped copy of our cover letter verifying the
claim had been received by VA. However, when our NSO presented the copy
to the VARO, it indicated that our VA date-stamped copy was not
sufficient evidence that the veteran had filed the claim in July 2004
because the original document was not in the veteran's file. Ultimately
the claim was granted but restitution of the nine-month gap back to the
date of the original claim had to be resolved through the appellate
process. Following a multitude of conversations with various VARO
officials, including a Decision Review Officer, Service Center Manager,
and Director and months of inactivity, the veteran's earlier effective
date was granted by the Board of Veterans' Appeals four years from the
time that the claim had been filed.
In another case, DAV represented an Air Force veteran who served
during the Vietnam War in 1967 but did not file his claim for
disability benefits until four decades later, in 2008. Initially the
jurisdictional VARO requested the veteran's service medical and
personnel records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and
a medical examination was completed. The VARO compiled the veteran's
service personnel records (SPRs), VA examinations and a multitude of
private medical evidence. The case was reviewed but his claim was
denied. In reviewing the denial decision, DAV's NSO quickly realized
that the veteran's SMRs had not been considered because they were not
in his claims file. According to information in the file, the VARO had
sent a second request to the NPRC for the records but was informed by
NPRC that the veteran's SMRs had previously been sent at the time of
the original request. The VARO, however, had no record of receiving
them or putting them in the veteran's file. Whether these crucial
medical records were sent by NPRC together with the veteran's SPRs or
separately is not clear; however, the VARO did receive the personnel
records from the NPRC, so it seems more likely than not that NPRC also
sent the SMRs. Nonetheless, the VARO made a formal finding that the
SMRs were unavailable and notified the veteran that any further efforts
to secure those records would be futile. Eventually, the case made it
to the Board of Veterans' Appeals, where a decision was reached in
October 2012 to remand the case back to the VARO to make further
attempt to locate the veteran's SMRs, get a more recent VA examination,
and ultimately reach a new decision. But without SMRs the VARO is
likely to once again deny this claim. All of these examples involve
systemic problems still occurring today, which could be significantly
reduced, perhaps even eliminated, once there are paperless claims
processing and record management systems in place at VA, DOD and NARA.
Mr. Chairman, vital military records can be lost in many ways. In
my case, treatment records were lost before they even reached an Army
records center. Medical and personnel records can be lost or misplaced
inside military record centers, including at National Guard records
centers in each of the fifty states, or at the NPRC in St. Louis, or
during transit from the NPRC to a VARO, or at the VARO itself. Today
there are tens of millions of military personnel files at the NPRC; a
number that would be significantly higher were it not for the
catastrophic fire in 1973 that destroyed about one-third of the 52
million military personnel files housed there at that time. There are
also currently more than four million veterans' claims files containing
DOD personnel and military records stored at VA's 57 regional offices
and the NPRC. The maintenance and security of these paper files remains
a significant challenge.
For example, this past August, the VA Office of Inspector General
reported on claims folder storage at the Winston-Salem VARO and
concluded that the volume and manner in which the folders were stored
``impeded VARO productivity,'' ``increased [the] risk of loss or
misfiling,'' and ``exposed [them] to potential water and fire damage.''
In fact, an engineering load-bearing study determined that the massive
mountain of files piled ceiling high in the VARO ``exceeded the
capacity of the floor by approximately 39 pounds per square foot,''
risking a structural failure.
There are important goals that VA, DOD and NARA must simultaneously
pursue in order to eliminate or minimize problems associated with lost
or misplaced military records: improve management of paper records and
archives, convert paper records into digital records, and develop new
digital records storage and processing systems. This Subcommittee has
spent considerable time over the past four years overseeing VA's
efforts to transform its claims processing system into a modern,
intelligent, paperless IT system, and there are some signs that
progress is beginning to be made.
The problems plaguing the VBA claims process have been well
documented: the number of claims filed each year is growing; the
complexity of claims filed is increasing; the backlog of claims pending
is staggering; and the quality of the claims decisions remains far too
low. Over the past dozen years, the number of veterans filing claims
for disability compensation has more than doubled, rising from nearly
600,000 in 2000 to 1.4 million in 2012; and in 2013 VBA expects to
receive another 1.4 million claims. VBA's workload has more than
doubled, but its workforce has grown by just over 50 percent, rising
from 13,500 full-time employee equivalents (FTEEs) in 2007 to 20,750
FTEE today. Even with the hiring of thousands of new employees, the
number of pending claims for benefits, often referred to as the
backlog, continues to grow.
As of November 26, 2012, there were 899,540 claims for disability
compensation and pensions awaiting decisions by VBA. Compared to the
past two years, that is an increase of about 20% or 150,000 pending
claims. Over the past year, VBA's expanded capabilities and efforts
have slowed the backlog growth, and the level of the backlog rose only
three percent over the past year. However, the number of claims pending
longer than 125 days, VBA's official target for completing claims, has
more than doubled over the past two years, rising from 255,678 on
November 29, 2010, to over 600,000 today. At present, more than two-
thirds of all claims pending have been at VBA for more than the target
of 125 days and the average time it takes VBA to process claims is now
more than 250 days. But more important than the number of claims
processed is the number of claims processed correctly. The VBA quality
assurance program, known as the Systematic Technical Accuracy Review
(STAR), which is publicly available on VA's ``ASPIRE'' Dashboard, shows
that over the most recent 12-month period ending in August 2012, VBA's
rating accuracy has been 86.1 percent, a slight improvement over the
prior year, although during the most recent three-month period that
error rate rose slightly.
While attention remains focused on the size of the VBA claims
backlog, it is important to recognize that eliminating the backlog does
not necessarily reform the claims processing system, nor does it
guarantee that veterans will be better served. The backlog is a
symptom, not the root cause of VBA's claims processing problems. In
order to achieve real and lasting success, the VBA must remain focused
on creating a claims processing system that is carefully designed to
decide each claim right the first time.
Recognizing that its infrastructure was outdated and ineffective,
and that a rising workload could no longer be managed, VBA leadership
in 2010 determined that it would be necessary to completely and
comprehensively rebuild and modernize its claims infrastructure and
processes. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs established an ambitious
goal of zero claims pending more than 125 days, and all claims
completed to a 98 percent degree of accuracy standard, and VBA outlined
a three-year strategy to achieve that goal. Notwithstanding the fact
that the VBA has attempted to modernize its claims processing system
without success numerous times over the past half century, there are
hopeful signs of progress.
VBA's latest transformation efforts began with a comprehensive
review of the existing claims process, which included extensive
outreach to VSOs. VBA launched dozens of experimental pilot programs
and initiatives to test changes that might streamline operations or
increase the quality and accuracy of decisions. In the second year, VBA
analyzed and synthesized the results of this study and experimentation
and finalized a strategy to re-engineer the entire claims process,
focusing on three critical areas: people, process, and technology. Over
the past year, VBA further developed, refined, and has now begun to
deploy a new organizational model and a new IT system, known as the
Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). By the end of 2012, VBA
expects to have rolled out the new organizational model for processing
claims to all but a few VA regional offices (VAROs).The VBMSwill be
operational in 18 VAROs by the end of this year, with full national
deployment scheduled to be completed by the end of 2013.
Central to the VBA transformation strategy is the development of
new technology, including the VBMS, the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal
(SEP), an expanded e-Benefits system with VONAPPS Direct Connect (VDC),
and the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) initiative. Amongst
these, the most important is VBMS, which is the paperless, rules-based
claims-processing work tool that VBA will use to create electronic
claims files, manage workflow, and increase production, timeliness and
quality for more than a million claims filed annually, 4 million claims
files already located in VAROs, and tens of millions more in archives.
Whether or not the VBMS will ``revolutionize'' VBA claims processing
may not be known for years to come; however, the transition from paper-
based processing to an intelligent, digital processing system is
inevitable and VBA must complete it successfully.
From the beginning of the VBMS development, VBA has reached out to
DAV and other VSOs to incorporate our perspectives, experience and
expertise, including accommodating the important role that VSOs play in
the claims process. Although there have been some obstacles to
overcome, such as providing full access to rating decisions to VSOs who
hold power-of-attorney (POA) for claimants, VBA continues to work in
partnership with VSOs to ensure that claimants can be fully represented
in the new digital environment.
The current iteration of VBMS, version 4.0, is a paperless claims
process, from the creation of an electronic claims file, through the
development and rating process. VBMS 4.0 also allows direct electronic
submission of claims from e-Benefits' VONAPPS Direct Connect, thereby
saving time and money required to scan paper documents. VBMS does not
yet include the awards process, which continues to be done through its
stand-alone application, but it is expected to be integrated into VBMS
as part of a future update.
Although VBA, DAV and other VSOs are all encouraging veterans to
file claims electronically whenever practical, there are and will
continue to be paper claims filed for years to come. VBA, however, has
implemented a new organizational model for processing claims that calls
for all paper claims applications to be converted into digital data and
then processed within the VBMS environment. When a new or reopened
paper claim is received at a VARO, the veteran's claim will be
established electronically in VBMS and then the paper file, along with
any other existing paper files that may already exist or be associated
with that veteran, will be sent to a scanning center where it will be
converted into digital data and made a part of the new electronic
claims file. This new ``e-Folder'' is then put into the VBMS work queue
and processed in the same manner as claims filed electronically.
The decision by VBA to convert new paper-based claims as well as
re-opened claims to digital data is an important milestone on the road
to a paperless system. DAV is supportive of VBA's stated intention to
process all future claims through this fully digital system, and we are
actively collaborating with VBA to encourage as many claimants as
possible to file their claims electronically, either through e-
Benefits, or with the assistance of our services officers who will be
able to file claims electronically through the SEP. However, there will
still be claims filed on paper for the foreseeable future, and there
still remain millions of veterans' claim files that may one day be
reopened should they submit new claims or seek increases for current
service-connected disabilities. It is imperative, therefore, that VBA
maintain its commitment to converting legacy paper claims files
whenever a new rating-related action must be made. This may require
significant up-front investment by VBA in terms of resources, but in
the long run it will pay dividends for VBA, and more importantly,
veterans themselves. With VBMS being rolled out to the remaining VAROs
throughout 2013, there will be an increasing volume of scanning
required to convert legacy paper claims files, and thus an increased
need for funding to support this vital conversion process. Although VBA
has indicated that the anticipated FY 2013 budget contains sufficient
funding for the digital conversion of claims files this year, it will
be imperative that the FY 2014 budget contain sufficient funding to
support the increased volume of scanning that will occur when all 57
VAROs are processing all of their claims through VBMS.
Additionally, over the next couple of years, Congress and VBA must
also ensure that VBMS development and deployment receive all of the
resources needed to be successful. New software improvements and
updates are planned to be released about every two months in order to
expand functionality and capacity, improve usability, and correct
problems or bugs in the system. Congress must ensure that VBA's IT and
GOE budgets contain sufficient funding for VBMS development, and
funding intended to be used for VBMS must not be diverted to any other
program or purpose.
Further, in order to complete the conversion to a paperless system,
VBA must be provided with sufficient resources to incorporate other
elements of the disability compensation claims process into VBMS,
beginning with the Appeals Management Center, the Board of Veterans'
Appeals, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Subsequently,
VBMS should incorporate its other business lines (Pension and
Fiduciary, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment, Education,
Insurance and Loan Guaranty) in order to create a single unified,
paperless benefits processing system.
In order to strengthen the management and preservation of veterans'
military records, there are also some additional steps that should be
taken. The federal electronic medical record initiative, including
VLER, must be completed as soon as possible, to allow DOD and other
public and private health care providers to transmit veterans' medical
information seamlessly to VA. DOD and VA must also continue working
with states to ensure the integrity of National Guard military records,
as well as to improve the transmission of those records to VA in
optimized digital formats adaptable to VBMS.
DOD and VA must also work together to create a lifelong electronic
record system for all service members beginning at the moment of
enlistment, and including all of their military medical and personnel
records, including health records from VA and other public and private
providers. The development of the Defense Personnel Records Information
Retrieval System (DPRIS) now allows VA to get digital images of
personnel records, and also allows veterans themselves to access them
through VA's e-Benefits system. DPRIS, however, only maintains records
for veterans who were discharged in 1996 or later, depending on their
branch of service. DOD must continue to examine whether and how they
might convert older personnel files to the DPRIS or its successor
systems, just as VBA continues to make similar decisions about the
conversion of legacy paper claims files. In this regard, DOD, VA, NARA
and other holders of vital military records must develop comprehensive
plans about when and how to convert legacy paper files into digital
records. Among other considerations, such plans must weigh the costs
involved, the danger of files being lost or damaged during conversion,
and the cost-benefit of converting legacy files, many of which may
never be accessed again.
Finally, as long as there remain paper files that must be stored,
transferred and preserved, VA, DOD and NARA must have adequate controls
in place, including regular independent audits, to assure the
preservation and integrity of vital military personnel and medical
records. In addition, as each of these agencies converts paper records
to digital files, there must be sufficient oversight and control to
ensure that original paper records are not lost or damaged during the
conversion process.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to
address your questions, or those of other Subcommittee members.
Prepared Statement of James G. Neighbors
Introduction
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss Department of Defense (DoD) efforts to ensure military
health, personnel, and other records are properly and efficiently
maintained and shared with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in a
timely and effective manner. In this testimony, I will cover how DoD
captures and transfers to the VA, Medical and Personnel records for
Active and Reserve Component Service members while in deployed or in
garrison status. DoD leadership is keenly aware of the importance of
military records as they pertain to the VA disability claims process.
Improving the system for which our Service members and Veterans receive
their well-deserved and earned benefits is a top priority of both
departments.
Overview of Policy and Procedures Governing the Life Cycle of Medical
Records
Medical and dental records of all Service members, Active Duty,
Reserve, and National Guard, are created when a person enters military
service at the Military Services' Reception/Training Centers using the
Applicant's Record Packets. An Applicant Record Packet contains an
entrance physical examination, vaccination records, adult preventive
and chronic care flow-sheet, and associated chronological medical and
dental care documentation. The information is then transferred to the
Medical Treatment Facilities (MTF) and Dental Treatment Facilities
(DTF) at the Service member's first Permanent Duty Station. If the
Service member is affiliated with a Reserve or National Guard unit, the
records are transferred to the applicable Reserve or Guard units.
Maintenance of DoD Service Member Medical and Dental Records
Medical and dental records are maintained at the MTF and DTF at the
Active Duty Service member's base location, and consistently
transferred with the Service member as he or she moves to a new
military installation throughout his or her career. All Reserve and
National Guard members' applicable medical and dental records are
maintained at their assigned unit location and will remain there until
the member transfers to a different unit.
When Service members are deployed in combat supporting contingency
operations overseas, medical and dental records are additionally
maintained at the forward operating base aid station or clinic. When
the Service member's deployment has completed, all records transfer
back to the home station MTF and DTF, or to the servicing Reserve/Guard
units for members of the Reserve and National Guard.
As Service members out-process for transition or retirement, the
MTF and DTF where the Service member is stationed conducts a review
that includes known combat records and outpatient records, for
completeness.
Capturing Care Delivered in Garrison and Theater
Implemented worldwide in 2006, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal
Technology Application (AHLTA) is the current DoD electronic Health
Record system. This electronic health record captures and stores
structured data in the AHLTA Central Data Repository (CDR), giving
health care providers worldwide, secure, around-the-clock access to
electronic health information to support DoD's highly mobile Service
members and beneficiaries. Records in the AHLTA CDR are retrievable at
nearly 900 fixed and deployed medical and dental treatment facilities.
The Theater Medical Information Program-Joint (TMIP-J) is an integrated
suite of software solutions that includes AHLTA-Theater (AHLTA-T) and
supports military readiness and health care quality with a modular,
scalable version of AHLTA to operate in low to no communications
environments such as in theater and aboard ship. AHLTA-T captures
outpatient encounter records in theater and transfers them to the CDR.
The information in the AHLTA CDR is available to VA immediately through
a data feed known as the Bi-directional Health Information Exchange
(BHIE).
Active Component Personnel Records
Active Component Service members' official personnel records are
managed separately from medical and dental records. Personnel data VA
requires to adjudicate benefits claims, with some exceptions, is
contained on the paper DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty), which the Service member receives upon separation
from the Service. The Military Departments routinely provide this same
personnel data to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC). DoD also
provides this information electronically to a VA repository known as
the VA DoD Identity Repository, commonly referred to as VADIR.
Prior to the mid-1990s, a Service member's Official Military
Personnel File (OMPF) was mailed to the National Personnel Records
Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, Missouri when he or she left military
service. These OMPF records are still maintained by the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and are currently available
for VA through the NPRC. VA routinely accesses these records, and DoD
maintains financial responsibility for servicing and storing them.
Since the mid-1990s, the Services have scanned paper records of the
OMPF and store them as images in Service-specific digital record
management systems. Since 2002, DoD has provided VA with access to
Service-specific personnel records using the Defense Personnel Records
Information Retrieval System (DPRIS). Starting in 2007, DPRIS has been
available to VA claims adjudicators in a secure, web-based application.
Reserve Components Personnel Records
DoD maintains, for the most part, separate personnel data systems
for our Reserve Components, but with the same goals - to leverage
electronic data capabilities and afford access to VA. The Reserve
Components Common Personnel Data System (RCCPDS) forms the basis for
official strength accounting, an authoritative source of identity
information for identification card issuance, and personnel information
for the identification of eligibility for federal benefits and
entitlements. Each Reserve Component (RC) reports personnel data for a
specific purpose in a licensed DoD reporting requirement. DMDC
specifies procedures to collect, manage, and maintain this personnel
data and in addition maintains a bi-directional interface with the VA
for the management of this data.
The personnel systems of the Military Services remain the systems
of record, and the Services have responsibility to maintain the
complete military record for each Service member. RCCPDS is an
information source, through electronic reporting, to satisfy VA's
information needs. The RC Active Service Transaction File, for example,
provides a key source for the electronic information contained on the
DD Form 214 for RC Service members, such as periods of active duty, and
the characterization of service.
Other Personnel Administrative data
DoD captures other personnel administrative data which VA requires
to adjudicate benefits for Active, Reserve and Guard Service members in
the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). DEERS is a
series of databases that provide timely and accurate information on
benefits and entitlements prescribed in DoD policy and published
instructions. DEERS serves as the definitive centralized source of
identity, enrollment into TRICARE, and eligibility verification for
members of the Uniformed Services, other designated personnel, and
their eligible family members. In addition, DEERS provides statistical
and demographic information to support the DoD Components and serves as
the National Enrollment Database for the Military Health System (MHS)
benefits eligibility and TRICARE enrollments for medical care services.
DMDC has shared DEERS data electronically with VA since November 2000.
It is currently transmitted to VA's VADIR system mentioned earlier.
Deployed unit location accountability
With respect to the Department's ability to identify and account
for locations and records of units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, we
have applied lessons learned from previous conflicts and have greatly
enhanced our capability in this area to include the following:
The Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) provides unit
information/deck logs to VA for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
via DPRIS. JSRRC has responded to Veterans' claims and initiatives
since 1980 and conducts PTSD claims research. The DoD Persian Gulf
Registry, for which the Army is the Executive Agent, is a database that
contains the names of 758,000 personnel and more than 900,000 daily
locations of units to which these personnel were assigned while in the
Persian Gulf.
Unit Location and Environmental Hazards
DoD recognizes the importance of linking environmental hazard data
and unit locations and works closely with the VA to provide exposure
data to adjudicate disability claims as required. Since the 1991 Gulf
War DoD has implemented programs and policies to better address the
health protection of deployed Services members for both acute and
latent/chronic health conditions that may result from environmental
health hazard exposures. Occupational and environmental health
assessments are conducted at deployed camps soon after they are
established to document baseline monitoring of the air, water, and soil
for hazardous agents. In addition, annual occupational and
environmental monitoring summaries are completed at major deployment
locations to identify any changes in occupational and environmental
health exposure risks and associated health implications. Exposures of
concern are promptly investigated and if there is a likelihood of
latent/chronic health effects, special medical surveillance programs
are established, such as in response to the chromium exposures at the
Qarmat Ali Industrial Water Treatment Plant in Iraq. When appropriate,
exposure registries are created for a specific event, as we did in
response to the Operation Tomodachi Fukushima Nuclear Power Station
accident in Spring 2011.
DoD continues to improve systems and processes that document
exposures during deployments and we are working on an Individual
Longitudinal Exposure Record (ILER) concept, a joint DoD/VA initiative
to create a complete record of Service members' exposures over the
course of their careers. ILER will create exposure registries based on
location, date, time, and exposure agent, which will support
contemporary benefits claims as well as retrospective studies. This
concept will assist Service members and veterans in showing that their
disabilities were caused by their service. Exposure alone does not
always lead to illness or injury; VA relies on scientific evidence to
determine when there is a link between exposure to environmental
hazards and specific illnesses or injuries that would make Service
members or veterans eligible for VA disability benefits.
Transfer of Records to VA
It is DoD policy to transfer medical and dental records to VA when
a Service member leaves Active Duty due to retirement or discharge. We
currently transfer personnel and medical records data to VA for over
300,000 Service members annually both in paper and the majority via
electronic interface.
MTFs and DTFs provide the Service member's complete dental records
to the appropriate Military Service Personnel Out-Processing Centers
within 30 business days of member's retirement or discharge. TRICARE
(i.e. military) and civilian doctors' consultation results
documentation are included in the Service member's medical record
jacket. The Military Service Personnel Out-Processing Centers (or a
designated equivalent entity by the Service) then transfers the medical
and dental records and a paper copy of the DD Form 214 to VA.
DoD provides the data contained on the DD Form 214 electronically
to VA within 7 days of the Service member's retirement or discharge to
use in the benefits adjudication process. The DD Form 214 is an
official source of information needed to demonstrate eligibility for
Veterans benefits administered by VA, state and local governments. The
``remarks'' section contains a number of additional entries, such as
confirmation that a first term of enlistment had been completed,
whether the Veteran is subject to recall or annual screening, and dates
of contingency operation participation. DoD policy requires two paper
copies of the DD Form 214 to be physically delivered to the separating
Service member upon transition from the Service. If the Service member
is not available at separation, these copies are mailed to him or her.
The separating member may also elect to have a copy mailed to the state
office of Veterans Affairs where he or she will reside.
Sharing Health Data to Ensure Continuity of Care
Current exchanges of health care information support continuity of
care for wounded and injured Service members by enabling:
Transmission of electronic historical information at the
time of separation;
Access to electronic health information for both VA and
MHS patients by both DoD and VA;
Sharing of computable outpatient pharmacy and medication
allergy data on shared patients; and the
Availability of radiology images and scanned medical
records at VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers to support continuity
of care for our most severely wounded and injured Service members.
The DoD/VA Bidirectional Health Information Exchange (BHIE)
initiative is an inpatient and outpatient health data sharing
capability. DoD affords VA clinicians and benefits claims specialists
with access to health data on more than 4.6 million patients. DoD and
VA clinicians currently access each other's health data in real time,
for information pertaining to: allergy, outpatient pharmacy, inpatient
and outpatient laboratory and radiology reports, demographic data,
diagnoses, procedures, vital signs, problem lists, family history,
social history, other history, questionnaires, outpatient encounters,
periodic health assessments, and theater clinical data, including
inpatient notes, outpatient encounters, and ancillary clinical data
(such as pharmacy data, allergies, laboratory results, and radiology
reports). BHIE also provides bi-directional access to inpatient notes
(including discharge summaries, inpatient consultations, operative
reports, history and physical reports, transfer summary notes, initial
evaluation notes, procedure notes, evaluation and management notes,
pre-operative evaluation notes, and post-operative evaluation and
management notes) from DoD's inpatient documentation system.
Moving Toward a Joint Integrated Electronic Health Record
DoD and VA recognize access to the other Departments' health
records is a necessary capability to provide a ``single system
experience of lifetime services''. As we move forward in this effort,
we are also continuing to improve the current systems and processes
serving our transitioning Service members and Veterans. We are working
collaboratively with VA to develop and implement an interim electronic
data sharing solution that will feature shared access to electronic
medical records. In January 2011, the VA-DoD Benefits Executive
Committee approved a recommendation from the Medical Records Working
Group to leverage ongoing work in the Military Health System in
conjunction with the Veterans Health Administration to develop and
deploy a scanning solution known as the Health Artifacts and Image
Management Solution (HAIMS), a secure web-based technology solution.
DoD has incorporated Veterans Benefits Administration's (VBA) known
Information Technology requirements into the current version of HAIMS,
which is in testing and on track for accelerated deployment by
September 2013. All loose paper medical documentation will be scanned
into HAIMS allowing VBA claims adjudicators direct access to scanned
medical data in the HAIMS repository or access to the information via
an interface between VBA's internal systems. Although DoD Service
Treatment Records remain a hybrid of paper and electronic records,
approximately 60 percent of the DoD health information is available
electronically and only 40 percent paper bound, HAIMs will greatly
increase the percentage of electronically available health information.
Currently VBA personnel can access DoD health data electronically
through an electronic data exchange.
DoD and VA are currently planning the development and acquisition
of a joint integrated Electronic Health Record (iEHR) to replace legacy
DoD and VA EHRs. The iEHR will unify the two Departments' EHR systems
into a common system that will ensure DoD and VA health facilities have
Service members' and Veterans' health information available throughout
their lifetime. By implementing a single, common health record for DoD
and VA medical facilities, the iEHR will ensure information about
injuries and illnesses incurred during military service remain
available for health and benefits purposes throughout a person's
lifetime, supporting patient safety and continuity of care and
facilitating access to and delivery of benefits. Seamless information
sharing is expected to support the expedient processing of disability
claims in the future.
The joint iEHR will be deployed in increments based on prioritized
functional community needs, technical feasibility, and financial
viability. The initial iEHR capabilities, laboratory and immunizations,
will be delivered to two sites (San Antonio, Texas and Hampton Roads,
Virginia) by the end of 2014. The capabilities of the iEHR will be
increased incrementally through the end of 2017.
Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER)
Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) is a joint initiative
which will ultimately allow Service members' and Veterans' electronic
administrative and personnel information to be shared seamlessly among
DoD, VA, and other appropriate federal and private sector healthcare
providers. VLER is a broad, multifaceted, business and technology
initiative that leverages existing DoD and VA investments by
synchronizing information sharing across multiple agencies. It includes
a portfolio of health, benefits, personnel and administrative sharing
capabilities. When fully implemented, it will establish a relationship
with Service members and Veterans that begins the day they enter
Military service, and maintains that relationship throughout their
lifetime, proactively providing them with benefits and services. The
VLER Health Initiative supports the portability and accessibility of
Service members' and Veterans' electronic health information between
VA, DoD, and other federal and non-federal exchange partners for the
purpose of health care delivery. To date, the VLER Health initiative
has focused on the exchange of medical information for health care
services among DoD, VA, and private sector providers at joint pilot
site locations. Through these VLER Health pilots, DoD, VA, and private
partners successfully leveraged the Nationwide Health Information
Network to exchange an initial set of clinical information needed for
health care delivery through four initial pilots in the San Diego,
California; Tidewater, Virginia; Spokane, Washington; and Puget Sound,
Washington regions.
VLER Health is exploring additional innovative technology, such as
the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology Direct Project, a Health Information Portability and
Accountability Act-compliant electronic health information exchange
over the Internet through secure email. Direct Project provides an
affordable approach to health information-sharing among DoD, VA, and
private sector providers, which is intended to increase adoption of
EHRs throughout the health industry. Specifically, it will provide a
mechanism for including private provider medical reports into the DoD
and VA EHRs or the joint DoD/VA integrated EHR (iEHR).
The VLER Benefits initiative supports the portability and
accessibility of Service members' and veterans' electronic health and
administrative information among DoD, VA, and other appropriate federal
exchange partners for the purpose of benefits determination and
delivery. This will ultimately result in standardized delivery of
health information to VA benefits adjudicators, decreasing processing
time and more efficiently supporting our Nation's wounded warriors and
other transitioning Service members.
A key feature of VLER Benefits is the development of a DoD Self-
Service (DS) Logon. To date, DS Logon has provided more than 2 million
Service members and veterans with a log-on ID which allows them access
to the eBenefits portal to view their personal data. The eBenefits
portal provides Service members and veterans with more than 40 self-
service features, such as the ability to apply and track application
for Loan Guaranty Certificate of Eligibility and Veterans Retraining
Assistance Program.
To further understand the issue surrounding our journey to a
paperless future, we are conducting monthly DoD/VA Data Sharing Summits
to bring Senior Executive-level DoD and VA stakeholders together to one
forum to discuss the health and administrative information sharing
processes and obtain resolution to known issues. This forum establishes
DoD/VA information sharing priorities and tracks progress against
identified activities. There are also regular meetings with interagency
partners and internal DoD agencies, such as Social Security
Administration and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs, to collaborate on information exchange efforts and
resolve identified obstacles.
Conclusion
The Department of Defense is committed to a future that eliminates
reliance on paper-based record keeping and the warehouses that support
it. DoD is also committed to developing the capability to provide VA
with requisite information to facilitate a single system experience of
lifetime services. As we move toward electronic exchange of information
in real time, it is giving DoD and VA the added benefit of improving
inter-agency processes based on information requirements, unencumbered
by legacy forms or manual, paper-based exchange of information.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your generous support of all
Service members, Veterans and their families. I look forward to your
questions.
Attachment A - Answers to questions within the hearing
If there is a loss of unit level records, there is a standard
process in place. The medical care provided to Service Members is
documented in the Army Forces Health Longitudinal Technology
Application (AHLTA). If the medical record is lost, the documentation
within AHLTA can be printed to re-create the Service Member's medical
record.
Attachemnt B & C - Answers to questions within the hearing
The review process began with the implementation of DODI 6040.45,
``Service Treatment Record (STR) and Non-Service Treatment Record
(NSTR) Life Cycle Management,'' on October 28, 2010.
Prior to release of medical documentation, the medical record is
reviewed to ensure that all requested information is placed in the
chart. If documentation is missing, the chart is compared to Armed
Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) or the
appropriate health information system to ensure that all requested
documentation has been printed. A certification letter is provided to
the VA that outlines all attempts have been made to ensure that the
Service Treatment Record is as complete as possible.
Prepared Statement of Scott Levins
Good afternoon Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and
members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for calling this hearing and for
your attention to issues surrounding the management of records which
document the service of our nation's veterans. I am proud to represent
the staff of the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC or Center),
many of whom are veterans themselves, and pleased to appear before you
today to discuss the work that the National Personnel Records Center
does to serve those who have served. We appreciate your interest in
this important work.
The NPRC is an office of the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Located in multiple facilities in the St. Louis,
Missouri area, the Center stores and services over 4 million cubic feet
of military and civilian personnel, medical and related records dating
back to the Spanish-American War. In 2000, Congress provided NARA with
a revolving fund that allows NARA's Federal Records Centers Program,
including the NPRC, to function on a cost-reimbursable basis.
Accordingly, NPRC no longer receives annual appropriations for its
Records Center Program, and instead charges each agency the full cost
of servicing their records.
History of NPRC's Military Records Program
In the mid 1950s, the Department of Defense (DoD) constructed the
Military Personnel Records Center in Overland, Missouri. In the years
that followed, military personnel, medical, and organizational records
of each military service department were relocated to this facility. In
1960, the Center's functions were consolidated and transferred to the
General Services Administration, to be managed by NARA's predecessor
agency, the National Archives and Records Service (NARS), as a single
program, leveraging economies of scale to improve efficiency and
offering a central point of access for military service records.
When the Military Personnel Records Center was constructed in the
1950s, it was not equipped with a fire suppression system. In 1973, a
massive fire at the Center destroyed 16-18 million records documenting
the military service of Army and Air Force veterans who separated
between 1912 and1964. Though the fire occurred almost forty years ago,
the Center continues to service approximately 150,000 requests per year
which pertain to records lost in the fire. When responding to fire-
related requests, technicians attempt to reconstruct the basic service
record by using auxiliary records such as pay vouchers and/or by
obtaining documents from other official sources. Though the Center is
normally able to reconstruct basic service data, it is often impossible
to reconstruct complete records.
In the Spring of 2011, NPRC's military records facility began a
relocation into a new building designed to meet updated facility
standards for storing permanent Federal records. The facility is
located in North St. Louis County, approximately 15 miles from the
Overland location. The relocation of records into the new facility was
completed last month.
Ownership of Records
In the late 1990s, NARA determined that Official Military Personnel
File (OMPF) records were of enduring, archival value warranting
permanent retention in the National Archives of the United States. As
part of the appraisal process in preparing a formal records disposition
schedule for OMPFs, NARA worked with the DoD and the military services
to determine the appropriate ``offer date'': that is the date on which
a permanent series of records becomes eligible to be offered by an
agency for legal transfer to NARA. NARA, DoD, and the military service
departments agreed to fund a study to examine a sample of requests for
military personnel records and correlate the purpose of each request
with the veteran's year of separation. The survey found that on
average, sixty-two years after a service member completes his/her
obligated service, the purpose for which his/her records is referenced
changes from a primary use (such as pursuit of an entitlement) to a
secondary use (such as scholarly research or genealogy). Based upon
that study, in 2004 the OMPF series was formally scheduled for
permanent retention, with the legal transfer of ownership to NARA to
occur 62 years after the completion of a member's obligated service.
When records have been transferred to the legal custody of the
National Archives, they become available with fewer restrictions to
public researchers. They also become subject to a public fee schedule.
However, NPRC waives fees related to service records in instances where
the requester indicates that the records are needed to pursue any type
of benefit derived from the veterans' military service. Statistical
data indicates that NPRC waives fees in approximately 60% of the
instances where archival records are requested, indicating higher than
expected primary use for benefit-related inquiries.
Funding NPRC Services
From the time NARA assumed responsibility for managing the Military
Personnel Records Center in 1960 through Fiscal Year 1999, the Center
was funded through annual appropriations for NARA's operating expenses.
In Fiscal Year 1999, Congress established an inter-agency revolving
fund to finance NARA records center storage and related services. The
Records Center Revolving Fund (codified in the note accompanying 44
U.S.C. Sec. 2901) allows NARA to operate our network of Federal
Records Centers, including NPRC, in a business-like manner. NARA pays
for the operating costs of our Federal Records Centers from the
revolving fund and then recovers those costs by charging federal
agencies for the full cost of the records storage and related services
that they consume. Our customer Federal agencies pay the Records Center
Revolving Fund from their appropriations. The revolving fund structure
allows the government to benefit from the economies of scale that come
from centralized records storage facilities.
Accordingly, since Fiscal Year 2000, the military services must
reimburse NARA for most of the costs of operating the military
personnel records facility. NARA charges the military services for
storage and related services for records less than 62 years old, which
are in NARA's physical custody but are legally owned by the services.
NARA does not charge the services for the storage and servicing of
military records older than 62 years, which are owned by NARA. NPRC
staff continue to provide reference service on the holdings after
transfer, but NARA, rather than the military service, is charged to
recover the costs of providing the reference services. NARA reimburses
the NPRC from annual appropriations for that purpose, and is charged
the same rates that are charged to the military departments for these
services.
Currently, NARA furnishes its customer agencies a detailed invoice
on a monthly basis listing work volumes and charges for each service
provided. The bulk of the cost of operating NPRC is related to
responding to personnel-related correspondence requests. NPRC services
more than one million such requests annually.
Process Improvements
To improve efficiency and service delivery, in the early 2000s NPRC
embarked on a multi-year business process re-engineering project (BPR)
that featured the deployment of modern technology to automate processes
and expand citizen access, and required its workforce to participate in
re-training.
Innovations included web portals for public and Federal agency
requesters, extensive request and record tracking, automated work
assignments, automated request servicing, a unique, career advancement
program that requires passage of competency exercises as a pre-
requisite to promotion, and an innovative, competitive incentive
program.
Today, approximately 40% of our public requests are received
electronically and over 8,000 Federal employees at agencies such as the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), and the Social Security Administration (SSA) electronically
interface with NPRC from their desktops to obtain the information they
need to, for example, adjudicate medical claims for disabled veterans,
conduct background checks for security clearances, and process claims
for social security benefits.
In the years that followed the BPR, NPRC has achieved a significant
reduction in the backlog and has greatly improved its response times.
The average turnaround of a completed request was reduced from 76 days
in 2002 to 10 days (achieved during Fiscal Year 2012). Overall customer
satisfaction with the handling of requests improved from 78% of
respondents indicating either ``mostly'' or ``completely'' satisfied
during the summer of 2002 to 90% in the summer of 2012.
Servicing Reference Requests
Today NPRC holds approximately 60 million official military
personnel files. Its holdings also include service treatment records,
clinical records from military medical treatment facilities, auxiliary
records such as pay vouchers and service name indexes, and
organizational records such as morning reports and unit rosters. NPRC
stores these records in both textual and micrographic formats.
NPRC's military records facility receives between 4,000 and 5,000
correspondence requests each day from veterans, their next of kin,
various Federal agencies, members of Congress, the media, and other
stakeholders. It responds to 70% of these requests in ten business days
or less. Nearly half of these requests come from veterans seeking a
copy of their separation statement (the DD-214) because they need it to
pursue a benefit. The Center responds to 90% of these types of requests
in ten business days or less.
In servicing correspondence requests, NARA technicians must verify
the authorization of the requester; identify the responsive record;
extract, print or copy the responsive documents or information; redact
third party personal privacy information often prevalent in these
records; certify reproductions as authentic by applying a raised seal;
generate a response letter (using pattern paragraphs to simplify the
process); and prepare the documents for mailing.
NPRC also responds to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests
for records within its holdings for all the military services. During
FY 2012, NPRC responded to a total of over 10,000 FOIA requests and
responded to 90% of them in twenty business days or less.
Searching for Records
As described above, NPRC receives 20,000 - 25,000 correspondence
requests each week. In these instances, an automated assignment
application assigns the request to a NPRC technician based on pre-
defined rules regarding the complexity of the request, the grade and
skill level of the technician, the availability of the technician, and
the amount of requests already assigned to the technician. In concert
with assigning a request to a technician, the system also attempts to
identify the file from NPRC holdings that might contain the responsive
record. In some instances the system is able to use pre-defined logic
to identify the responsive file and order it to be retrieved from
storage and delivered to a correspondence technician. In other
instances, a correspondence technician must perform some analysis to
identify the file and order it to be retrieved from storage.
In addition to the correspondence work discussed above, the Center
receives between 5,000 and 7,000 requests each week from the VA and
other Federal agencies requiring the temporary loan of original
records. These requests are normally serviced within 2-3 business days.
In the case of the VA, nearly every day it provides an electronic file
which is uploaded into NPRC's system. The electronic file is comprised
of new requests for the temporary loan of original records. After the
responsive files have been identified and ordered, NPRC staff attempt
to locate and retrieve the files from storage. When files are retrieved
from storage, bar code technology is used to track the files. At the
end of the cycle, when files are returned to NPRC, they are placed back
into their original locations and bar code technology is used to verify
accuracy.
When files are returned to NPRC after having been loaned to the VA,
often times documents have been removed from the military service
record and incorporated into a VA claim folder which remains with the
VA.
VA staff have the required licenses and credentials to access data
in our production system and data warehouse. Likewise, NPRC staff are
authorized and credentialed to access the VA's Beneficiary Information
and Records Locator Subsystem (BIRLS) to assist in performing research
that is often required to identify responsive records or reconstruct
records.
In instances where NPRC is unable to respond promptly to a request,
the biggest obstacle is normally our inability to retrieve the
responsive file. For example, delays may be experienced if a file is
currently charged out to another office, undergoing extensive
preservation treatment (e.g., because of the 1973 fire) or determined
to have been destroyed in the 1973 fire.
In instances where a responsive record is not located on a first
search attempt, the results are analyzed to determine the next course
of action. In most instances, a second search (also called
``Verification Search'') is conducted by a more experienced staff
member. Sometimes this second search involves trying to secure a file
that is charged out to another agency, or actively moving through the
order fulfillment process. Other times it involves analyzing data
elements on the request to determine if an error has been made by the
requester (eg. inaccurate service number, variation of the veterans'
name, inaccurate dates of service, etc.).
In instances where a responsive record cannot be located, NPRC
technicians will attempt to reconstruct the basic service record by
using alternate sources of information. Technicians will search through
auxiliary records, such as pay vouchers, to find evidence of service
dates and character. They may also search through organizational
records, such as unit rosters and morning reports. These are especially
helpful when trying to locate evidence of a particular event, such as a
combat-related injury. Technicians also query external agencies for
information which can be used to verify service data. For example,
technicians often obtain military service documentation from VA Claim
Folders. Once a technician has verified from official sources the dates
and character of service, they prepare a certificate (NA Form 13038)
which can be used in lieu of a DD Form 214 to secure benefits.
The NPRC No Longer Stores all Military Personnel-Related Records
Sometimes we are unable to provide the requested records because
they are not located at the NPRC. Despite the original idea in 1960 for
the NPRC to serve as the sole central repository for information needed
to verify veterans' rights and benefits, beginning in the early 1990s,
the military service departments stopped retiring medical records, now
called service treatment records, to NPRC and instead retired them
directly to the VA. As a result, the NPRC does not have direct access
to modern service treatment records. This change was implemented by the
Army in 1992; the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps in 1994; and the
Coast Guard in 1998.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the military service departments
also stopped retiring official military personnel files to NPRC,
instead retaining them in-house in electronic formats. This change was
implemented by the Navy in 1995; the Marine Corps in 1999; the Army in
2002; and the Air Force in 2004. The Coast Guard continues to retire
hardcopy personnel records to NPRC.
The electronic personnel records systems employed by the military
services vary, but DoD maintains a web-based application called the
Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS), which
acts as a conduit to retrieve imaged documents from each of the
Services' electronic systems. DPRIS is maintained by the Personnel and
Readiness Information Management (P&R IM) Office of the Undersecretary
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) ((OUSD (P&R)).
The military services use their electronic personnel records
systems to respond to routine correspondence requests from veterans and
other stakeholders. With the exception of the Department of the Army,
the NPRC refers correspondence requests for these records to the
appropriate military department for servicing.
In 2007, the Department of the Army entered into an agreement with
NARA to allow NPRC to access DPRIS to retrieve electronic personnel
records for the purpose of responding to routine correspondence
requests from veterans and other stakeholders. As a result of that
decision, NPRC referrals to the Department of the Army were reduced by
approximately 2,500 requests per month.
The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps continue to service their own
personnel records and respond to routine correspondence requests from
veterans and other stakeholders.
Conclusion
NARA is eager to work with the Subcommittee and other stakeholders
to explore opportunities to better serve our nation's veterans. We
invite the Subcommittee members to visit NPRC. We welcome suggestions
to improve service and efficiency and we again extend our sincere
thanks to the Subcommittee for expressing such great interest in the
services NPRC provides. I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Prepared Statement of Alan Bozeman
Good afternoon, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and
Members of the Subcommittee. My testimony will focus on the importance
of safeguarding the records of Servicemembers and Veterans,
particularly as the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) transitions
to a paperless claims process. Secure electronic records are vital to
our transformation and providing more timely and accurate decisions to
Veterans, their families, and survivors.
Transition to Paperless Claims Processing
VBA is aggressively executing its transformation, a series of
tightly integrated people, process, and technology initiatives designed
to eliminate the claims backlog and achieve our goal of processing all
claims within 125 days with 98 percent quality in 2015. Key to VBA's
transformation is ending the reliance on the outmoded paper-intensive
processes that currently thwart timely and accurate claims processing.
Currently, VA's Records Management Center (RMC) in St. Louis serves
as a centralized storage facility for inactive claims files and Service
Treatment Records (STRs). The RMC responds to inquiries from
stakeholders and provides information from Official Military Personnel
Files (OMPFs) to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional offices
(ROs). To effectively manage this nationwide workload, the RMC employs
414 fulltime federal workers and operates twenty-four hours per day,
five days per week.
The RMC is responsible for the receipt, storage, maintenance, and
distribution of approximately 7.5 million inactive claims files and
STRs. To facilitate these objectives, the RMC utilizes a moveable file
storage system, which provides approximately 107 miles of linear
shelving space. The RMC estimates that it houses approximately 7.6
million records and has capacity to hold approximately 8.7 million
records.
The RMC has a comprehensive strategy to ensure the safety of its
personnel and records holdings. The main file storage facility is
located on a secured campus administered by the General Services
Administration. The Federal Protective Service ensures the overall
security of the facility, and all entrances into VA-occupied spaces are
controlled by either electronic or cipher locks. The electronic locks
are operated by specifically coded access badges uniquely assigned to
each employee. The Records Management Officer (RMO) can review
historical entry logs for the facility, and highly sensitive locations
as well as the facility perimeter are monitored with security cameras.
The RMO conducts regular inspections of all occupied spaces and works
with the Information Security Officer to ensure safety and security
standards are strictly enforced.
Depending on the nature of the duties to be performed, each newly-
hired employee at both the RMC and VA ROs completes Standard Form 85:
Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions via the Electronic
Questionnaire for Investigation Processing (eQUIP) system. The
questionnaire and supporting information are forwarded to the Detroit
Human Resources Center, which works with the Office of Personnel
Management to conduct National Agency Checks. These checks ultimately
determine suitability for employment.
The RMC also ensures security of records during shipping and
utilizes United Parcel Service (UPS) standard and express options for
its shipping needs. In fiscal year 2012, the monthly average of
associated shipping costs was approximately $28,000. To further ensure
the proper shipment and security of records, all shipments to ROs are
double-checked with locally established manifests and sealed with
tamper-evident tape.
When ROs request either claims files or STRs in support of claims
adjudication, the request is printed, a physical search of the file
storage area is conducted, and the record is forwarded, via the
mailroom, to the RO of jurisdiction. On average, record requests are
fulfilled within three days from receipt.
Both the RMC and the ROs rely heavily on the timely return of
records. On average, the RMC receives 300,000 inactive claims files
from ROs and 350,000 STRs from the Department of Defense (DoD) each
year. Currently, the longest phase in the claims process is gathering
and awaiting evidence, which takes an average of 229 days. VBA is
working with stakeholders to receive more timely records, which is
absolutely critical to our transformation.
As part of our transformation, VBA is deploying technology
solutions that improve access, drive automation, reduce variance, and
enable faster and more efficient operations. VBA's digital, paperless
environment enables greater exchange of information and increased
transparency to Veterans, the workforce, and our stakeholders. Seventy-
three percent of our Veterans prefer to interact with VA online. We are
therefore taking a new approach, which includes online claims and
document submission. Our strategy includes participation of
stakeholders such as Veterans Service Officers, State Departments of
Veterans Affairs, County Veterans Service Officers, and DoD to provide
digitally ready electronic files through online claims submission. This
is accomplished through electronic data sharing and utilizing a
stakeholder portal.
Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS)
To improve the efficiency of the claims process, VA is executing a
new business model that relies less on the acquisition and movement of
paper documents. The Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) is a
business transformation initiative supported by technology to improve
service delivery. VA recognizes technology is not the sole solution to
improving performance and eliminating the claims backlog; however, it
is a critical requirement to our transformation. Without VBMS, we
cannot succeed in meeting our goal of processing all claims within 125
days with 98 percent accuracy in 2015.
Through November 2012, VBMS was successfully deployed to 13 ROs. By
the end of December 2012, VBMS will be deployed at an additional five
ROs, bringing the total to 18. VBA is currently on track with the
deployment schedule. Approximately 20,000 users at all 56 ROs will be
utilizing VBMS to process claims for compensation benefits by the end
of calendar year 2013.
The centerpiece of VBMS is a paperless system, which will be
complemented by other people, process, and technology initiatives. VBMS
will dramatically reduce the amount of paper in the current disability
claims process, and will employ rules-based claims development and
decision recommendations utilizing rating calculators where possible.
Additionally, by using a service-oriented architecture and commercial
off-the-shelf products, VA will be positioned to take advantage of
future advances in technology developed in the marketplace to respond
to the changing needs of Veterans over time.
The VBMS electronic folder (eFolder) is the electronic equivalent
of the VBA paper claims folder. The eFolder serves as a digital
repository of all documents related to a claim. Searchable Portable
Document Files (PDFs) can be uploaded and viewed by multiple authorized
users simultaneously, with the ability to add annotations to help end-
users locate documents and facilitate processing. The eFolder
eliminates wait times for physical paper folder transport, reduces
incidents of lost or misplaced paper folders, and provides on-demand
access to key documentation.
VBMS Document Security
VBMS has been engineered to ensure the security and availability of
Veterans records from the time they are produced electronically and
throughout their electronic life, fulfilling VA's obligations to
protect the personal and health information of our Nation's Veterans.
VBMS utilizes the latest technology and processes to ensure the
confidentiality of electronic documents throughout the document
delivery lifecycle. VBMS has been engineered to meet VA Handbook 6500
and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) HIGH system categorization
and accreditation, ensuring Veterans information is well protected
throughout its electronic lifecycle.
The VBMS architecture and system implementation are based on a
common approach of ``Defense in Depth,'' where multiple layers of
security controls are in place to provide comprehensive protection.
Security controls are employed at the network, storage, system, and
user layers. Network layer protections include Virtual Private Network
(VPN) technologies, bulk encryption devices, multiple layers of
firewalls and encryption, ensuring that electronic transmissions are
properly secured against unauthorized access. In storage, documents are
encrypted when saved to VBMS and when backed-up, to protect the data
from unauthorized physical access. At the system level, access controls
and auditing of activity are enforced at multiple levels within the
application to ensure that only authenticated and authorized users are
granted access in compliance with VA policies. At the user-level, Role-
Based Access Control (RBAC) governs all access to documents ensuring
only authorized users are allowed to view an individual's information.
Protection of electronic documents from loss from any source of
disaster or malfunction is just as critical as protection from
unauthorized access. VBMS is hosted in the Culpepper, Virginia
Terremark facility, with a redundant site in Miami, Florida. VBMS data
is replicated every 15 minutes from Culpepper to Miami over a
dedicated, encrypted network connection between the two sites.
Additionally, a daily snapshot of all system data is generated and
stored on warm-servers for one week, while a weekly backup is generated
and stored to a tape backup unit and transported to a secure off-site
facility. Weekly backups are maintained for two months, and end-of-
month backups are retained for 100 years. All backups remain encrypted
and protected throughout the storage and relocation processes.
VBMS is a modern system, engineered to the latest standards in
information protection technologies. RBAC allows the system to control
individual access to individual records, ensuring the privacy of
sensitive Veteran records even as access to the system is provided to
thousands of VBA, Veterans Health Administration, and Veterans Service
Organizations authorized users.
Veterans Claims Intake Program (VCIP)
Transitioning the intake of Veterans' paper claims and supporting
claims-related source material to digital images and data is a critical
success factor to feeding VBMS. The Veterans Claims Intake Program
(VCIP) enables proactive delivery of Veterans benefits by optimizing
the intake of relevant claims data to be utilized within a digital
operating environment.
In support of the continued development and deployment of VBMS, VA
executed contracts on July 24, 2012, with two contractors to provide
document conversion services, which will account for 98 percent of VA's
current document conversion requirements. The contracts focus on
populating the electronic claims folder (eFolder) in VBMS with images
and data extracted from paper and other source materials.
While much focus is placed on scanning, a scanned document is not
necessarily optimal for claims processing. VA is leveraging technology
to ensure that the specific information needed to process claims can be
identified, extracted, and quickly utilized by claims processors. The
document-conversion contractors are converting both printed and
handwritten content from source materials (including paper,
photographs, and medical images) to standardized, indexed, image-only
PDF and searchable PDF (PDF image plus text) electronic documents.
Additionally, Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and Intelligent
Character Recognition (ICR) technologies are leveraged for data
extraction. These technologies recognize characters, form numbers, and
patterns in the image and automate the assignment of the correct
indexing values. In addition, they allow the extraction of data from
the paper image and its use in automated processing.
Safeguarding Veterans' records is a priority and is addressed not
only as a contractual requirement, but also through continuous
communication and training. Document-conversion security requirements
for contractors apply to, but are not limited to, personnel security,
cyber security, as well as physical facility security. Contractors,
contractor personnel, subcontractors, and subcontractor personnel are
subject to the same Federal laws, regulations, standards, and VA
directives and handbooks as VA personnel regarding information and
information system security.
The two document conversion services contractors employ strict
controls to ensure data security. Their scanning and document
conversion sites are secured in compliance with Federal Information
Processing Standards Publication 140-2, ``Security Requirements For
Cryptographic Modules,'' and VA Handbook 6500, ``Information Security
Program.'' The document conversion services contractors have engineered
and employed adequate local area network (LAN)/Internet, data,
information, and system security in accordance with VA standard
operating procedures, laws, and regulations. The contractors' firewalls
and web servers have been engineered to meet or exceed VA requirements
for security. All VA data is protected behind this approved firewall.
Additionally, the contractors employ strict controls for the physical
access to the paper records, images, and data from those images,
storing them on encrypted drives in hardened facilities specifically
engineered for this purpose.
In addition to the security of Veterans' records, VA also manages
the quality of the images and the accuracy of the indexing values
assigned during the document conversion process. Index values are
assigned by a combination of the review of the materials and OCR and
ICR technologies. Subsequent to the document conversion process, both
image quality and index accuracy are validated by a multi-tiered
quality assurance system:
1. The contractors perform 100 percent quality control reviews
of the images and index values;
2. The contractors perform industry-standard statistical quality
assurance samples and audits;
3. VA quality assurance staff conduct supplemental quality
validation sampling;
4. VA is awarding a contract to have an independent contractor
perform quality verification and validation; and
5. During disability claims processing, any corrections to
indexing values made by RO employees are captured and fed back into the
quality assurance process for additional analysis.
The contract personnel performing these tasks also undergo a
vetting process. Most contract personnel are performing low risk duties
and undergo a National Agency Check with Written Inquiries (NACI),
which includes a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) name check, a
FBI fingerprint check, a check of any other existing government
background investigation, criminal history records, and written
inquiries to previous employers and references listed on the
application for employment. Some contract personnel are required to
complete public trust tasks that warrant a moderate background
investigation (MBI). An MBI is also conducted by OPM and covers the
elements of the NACI and also includes a credit report, an interview
with the subject, and a verification of the educational degree.
Conclusion
VA understands the importance of securing records. Paperless claims
processing through VBMS while maintaining the confidentiality,
integrity, and availability of the data, is critical to our
transformation goal of eliminating the claims backlog in 2015 and
ensuring timely and quality delivery of benefits and services to our
Veterans, their families, and survivors.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to address any
questions from Members of the Subcommittee.
Attachemnt A - Answers to questions within the hearing
SCANNING CONTRACTS
HVAC Deliverable: Can you provide additional details about the new
scanning contracts, such as the amount of inventory being processed,
the duration of the contracts, and their monetary value?
Response: In support of the continued development and deployment of
the VBMS, VA executed contracts on July 24, 2012 with two vendors,
System Made Simple (SMS) and CACI International, to provide document
conversion services. The contracts focus on populating an electronic
folder (eFolder) in VBMS with images and data extracted from paper and
other source materials, which is the first step in the paperless claims
processing system.
The vendors are converting various documents (both printed and
handwritten content from various source materials) into standardized,
indexed, Image-Only Portable Document Format (PDF) and Searchable PDF
(PDF Image plus Text) electronic documents. Additionally, Optical
Character Recognition and Intelligent Character Recognition (OCR/ICR)
technologies will be leveraged for data extraction. VBA will identify
certain documents with probative value to claims processing to perform
data extraction using OCR/ICR. Extracted data will be used to populate
the Corporate Database or VBMS, eliminating the requirement for VSRs to
re-key this data.
VA will order a guaranteed minimum volume of 1.2 billion images if
all the optional periods are exercised. This includes 342 million
images in the based period, 480 million images in the first option
period, and 360 million images in the second option period. The maximum
volume will be nearly 2.3 billion images consisting of 704 million
images in the base period, 837 million images in the first option
period, and 743 million images in the second option period.
System Made Simple (SMS)
VA has obligated $22,651,200 to fully fund the minimum guaranteed
amount of services in the base period, which began July 25, 2012. The
maximum potential costs include:
Task Order: $143,384,669
15-Month Base Period: $56,542,588
12-Month Option Period 1: $44,970,176
12-Month Option Period 2: $41,871,905
CACI, International
VA has obligated $22,583,743 to fully fund the minimum guaranteed
amount of services in the base period, which began July 25, 2012. The
maximum potential costs include:
Task Order: $180,813,186
15-Month Base Period: $71,038,083
12-Month Option Period 1: $57,824,453
12-Month Option Period 2: $51,950,650
Materials Submitted For The Record
Letter From: Hon. Michael H. Michaud, Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Committee on Veterans' Affairs - To:
The Hon. Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense, and The Hon. Eric
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Dear Secretary Panetta and Secretary Shinseki,
I am writing to express my concern with recent reports that the
military has been destroying or failing to keep records from the field
in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am very worried that the lack of records
will have serious consequences for corrent and future veterans of these
wars.
According to investigative reporting done by Pro Publica, the
Pentagon was aware of this serious crisis in unit level recordkeeping
as eary as 2005, but multiple units are unable to produce any records
through 2008. These records include after-action write-ups,
intelligence reports and on-the-ground accounts, including information
on fighting, casualties, prisoners, battle damage, pictures and maps.
The lack of these records for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan
will have far reaching implications for both our understanding of these
wars and the ability of veterans to get the care and benefits they have
earned through their service.
Since October 1, 2001, 1,515,707 veterans of the Iraq and
Afghanistan Wars have become eligible for VA health care, and that
number will grow as the remaining Afghanistan force is drawn down. It
is critical that Congress, the Department of Defense and the Department
of Veterans Affairs work together to improve the record keeping process
and protect the rights of our veterans going forward. In order to
ensure that all necessary remedies are put in place, I request
information on the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans
Affairs' joint efforts to address the impact the loss of these records
will have on individual veterans filing benefit claims and the impact
on the efforts of researchers examining war time health risks and
patterns.
In addition, I request that the Department of Defense provide
information on the steps taken to ensure that military units are
submitting field reports and any evidence that demonstrates improvement
in the collection of these records. I request that the Department of
Veterans Affairs provide information on how often these types of
records are used by veterans to establish a disability claim, including
claims where a witness affidavit is submitted in place of an official
military record.
Our service members and veterans depend on your agencies and
Congress to protect them in battle and to care for them at home. We
cannot allow these lost records to lead to the same gaps in knowledge
and care that our Vietnam veterans face with Agent Orange and our First
Gulf War veterans face with medically unexplained illnesses. I
appreciate your attention to this important matter and look forward to
working with you both as we continue to care for those who have served
our country.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Michaud
Member of Congress