[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FILIPINO VETERANS EQUITY COMPENSATION
FUND: INQUIRY INTO THE ADEQUACY OF
PROCESS IN VERIFYING ELIGIBILITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-93
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHNING OFFICE
96-136 WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- Minority Member
Chairman CORRINE BROWN, Florida
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MARK TAKANO, California
BILL FLORES, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan RAUL RUIZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
PAUL COOK, California TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
DAVID JOLLY, Florida
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Nancy Dolan, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado DINA TITUS, Nevada, Ranking Member
GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
MARK AMODEI, Nevada RAUL RUIZ, California
PAUL COOK, California GLORIA NEGRETE McLEOD, California
DAVID JOLLY, Florida
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
----------
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Page
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund: Inquiry Into the
Adequacy of Process in Verifying Eligibility................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Jon Runyan, Chairman............................................. 1
Dina Titus, Ranking Member....................................... 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Brad Flohr, Senior Advisor for Compensation, VBA, .S.
Department of Veterans' Affairs................................ 3
Prepared Statement........................................... 14
Brigadier General David K. ``Mac" MacEwen, The 59the Adjutant
General of the U.S. Army, Department of the Army............... 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 15
Mr. Kevin Pratt, Assistant Director for Military Records,
National Personnel Records Center National Archives and Records
Administration................................................. 6
Prepared Statement........................................... 17
FOR THE RECORD
Mr. Eric Lachica, Executive Director, American Coalition for
Filipino Veterans, Inc......................................... 19
FILIPINO VETERANS EQUITY COMPENSATION FUND: INQUIRY INTO THE ADEQUACY
OF PROCESS IN VERIFYING ELIGIBILITY
----------
Thursday, November 20, 2014
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 11:05 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jon Runyan
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Runyan, Lamborn, and Titus.
Also Present: Representative Heck.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JON RUNYAN
Mr. Runyan. Good morning, and welcome everyone. This
oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs will now come to order. Today's hearing
will focus on the process of verifying eligibility for the
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund benefits. We will
seek information on the claims approval process, the status of
this program, and the system designed for the program's
eligibility and determination processes.
During World War II, hundreds of thousands of Filipino
soldiers and guerrilla fighters served alongside American
forces in the fight against the Japanese conquest. In
recognition of their service to the United States during the
war, Congress established the Filipino Veterans Equity
Compensation Fund in 2009. This fund provided for one-time
payments of $15,000 for eligible Filipino veterans living in
the United States, and $9,000 to those eligible veterans living
in the Philippines. Under the VA's processes for determining
eligibility, almost 19,000 claims have been approved, but
nearly 24,000 claims have been denied. In the process, some
Filipino veterans voiced concern over the eligibility process,
including concerns that some have been improperly denied and a
benefit that they should have been eligible to receive.
To look into the matter in 2012, the White House created
the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund Interagency
Working Group, where the process and the documentation
gathering was reviewed. Although the working group report
provided more transparency to the process than ever, some
Filipino veterans still have concerns about whether the
documentation used to determine the eligibility are adequately
inclusive.
In the statements submitted for the record at this hearing,
the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans represents that
the process is flawed, partly because the government only
relies on the Army's records from a 1948 study.
It is suggested that the VA should expand what it
previously accepted as verification of service to include U.S.
Government documents other than those in the records from the
Army's 1948 study. So in today's hearing, we will hear from the
VA, the Army, and the NARA, which will seek information on the
process that was employed to determine the eligibility for
compensation from Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.
Determination deemed acceptable and the justification of or for
the limitations that were used.
At this time I ask unanimous consent for participation of a
member guest from the Third District of Nevada, Dr. Joe Heck to
sit in on the hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
With that, I will begin with the introductions of the
witnesses. First, we have Mr. Brad Flohr, who is a Senior
Advisor for Compensation Service at the Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Seated next to Mr. Flohr is Brigadier General David
MacEwen, the 59th Adjutant General of the U.S. Army.
Our third witness will be Mr. Kevin Pratt, the Assistant
Director for Military Records for the National Personal Records
Center, National Archives and Records Administration.
I thank all of you for being with us today. I look forward
to hearing your testimony, and I will now yield to the ranking
member, Ms. Titus, for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DINA TITUS
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
agreeing to have a hearing on this important topic. I also want
to say how much we appreciate our witnesses being with us today
and taking time to provide needed information. And thanks to
our Filipino veterans who have come to show support for this
issue.
It is important that we get together to discuss the
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund because the
Philippines have a long and distinguished history of
associating and being part with the United States, including
fighting alongside of us in military campaigns and wars. We are
very grateful for their action on behalf of our Nation. I am
proud to have a very active group of Filipino veterans who live
in District One in Las Vegas, and I thank them for their
service and for their guidance on this issue.
The fund, as many of you know, was established to
compensate and thank these veterans who served so bravely
alongside the American Army in the South Pacific in World War
II. As part of the stimulus that was passed in the 111th
Congress which I proudly voted for, we finally took actions to
provide additional benefits for these Filipino veterans.
Nevertheless, I continue to hear concerns from my Filipino
veteran constituents in Las Vegas, who believe that while the
program was well intended, there are still problems with it,
and there may be veterans who are being denied the benefits
that they earned. So it is critical that Congress, as well as
the administration, work to ensure that in some cases we look
to additional evidence for facts when necessary.
Earlier this year, the appropriators directed the VA to
consider all forms of evidence of service, not just those
originally considered. And I agree with this statement and look
forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to
ensure that Filipino veterans are being treated fairly.
Now, I understand we are in a challenging situation needing
to verify veteran services that are more than 70 years old.
However, we can't simply apply the principle of one-size-fits-
all approach to the claims. Most of our World War II Filipino
veterans are already in their 90s, so we are limited in the
amount of time we have to get this right. Any impediments to
veterans who might show clear and irrefutable evidence that
they should be granted benefits, should be considered. But we
need to act fast. Nonetheless, we must be careful to ensure
that we are being good stewards of resources.
Lastly, I hope that we can put to rest any notion that the
Department of Defense is withholding information that could
positively impact these veterans' claims. After some 70 years,
all of the information that is available should be made public.
I hear too often from our veterans from the Philippines and
their advocates that the DOD is not being transparent, and is
failing to provide necessary information. Part of this,
perhaps, is a lack of communication and so this hearing is
important to maybe put that aside and get that communication
out there.
The men and women that we are discussing today fought on
behalf of our Nation and they should receive the same benefit
of the doubt that U.S. servicemembers receive when they are
asking for benefits that they earned.
So I look forward to hearing how this process is working,
what information is available, how to solve some of the
communication problems and clear up some of the transparency
issues. So I thank you again, and I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentlelady, and again, welcome the
witnesses. And we will hear from each of you for your oral
testimony and we will start with Mr. Flohr. You are recognized
for 5 minutes for your oral testimony.
STATEMENTS OF BRAD FLOHR, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR COMPENSATION
SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS; BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID K. ``MAC'' MACEWEN,
59TH ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE U.S. ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY;
AND KEVIN PRATT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MILITARY RECORDS,
NATIONAL PERSONNEL RECORDS CENTER, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND
RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF BRAD FLOHR
Mr. Flohr. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and
subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony today and an update on the VA's administration of the
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. In 1941, as you
said, more than 260,000 Filipino soldiers responded to
President Roosevelt's call to arms and fought under the
American flag during World War II. Many served as both soldiers
in the U.S. Armed Forces as well as guerrillas afterwards
during the occupation of Japan. Later, many of these brave
individuals became proud United States citizens.
In 1946, Congress passed the Rescission Act, determining
that Filipino World War II service does not qualify for the
full range of benefits available to the United States veterans.
Congress and this administration recognizes the extraordinary
contribution made by Filipino veterans. The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, enacted on February 17 of 2009,
included a provision creating the Filipino Veterans Equity
Compensation Fund. Eligible veterans who are U.S. citizens
receive a one-time payment of $15,000. Eligible veterans who
are not U.S. citizens receive a one-time payment of $9,000.
Philippine veterans were required under the law to file a claim
by February 16th of 2010.
To qualify for the FVEC payment, an individual must have
served before July 1, 1946, in the Philippine Commonwealth
Army, including recognized guerrillas, or in the New Philippine
Scouts. In determining whether claimants are eligible for any
VA benefit, including the FVEC, VA is bound by U.S. military
service department determinations as to whether the claimant
has qualifying service in accordance with our regulations at
Title 38 CFR 3.203. Less than 2 months after the law was
passed, VA established an adjudication process, a payment
system, an accounting system, and a payment delivery system, to
successfully issue the first FVEC payment on April 8, 2009.
VA conducted numerous successful outreach programs to
inform veterans and their families about this benefit. This
outreach continued until February 16, 2010, which was the last
day of the filing period for this benefit.
VA's Manila regional in office established a dedicated team
of employees who solely processed these claims. The Manila
regional office also sent letters to all veterans found
eligible for the FVEC benefit, advising them of their potential
eligibility for VA disability compensation benefits. The Manila
regional office received 42,755 claims for FVEC between
February 2009 and February 2010. As of October 31 of 2014, the
regional office has granted 18,929 of these claims, totaling
$225,668,204.
Currently there are 23,826 claims that have not been
granted due to ineligibility. All original claims have received
a decision, but there are 15 reopened claims and 10 appeals
pending at the Manila regional office. Approximately 32 appeals
of these decisions are pending with the Board of Veterans
Appeals, and another nine appeals are before the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
If all individuals with reopened claims or pending appeals
are found to be eligible for this payment, the Manila regional
office would pay additional funds of approximately $1 million
out of the appropriation. This assumes that all pending claims
and appeals, if granted, would be paid at the maximum $15,000.
In addition, $17.1 million has been returned to the Treasury
for returned checks, which resulted when a veteran dies without
a surviving spouse claimant.
A total of $56.4 million remains in the FVEC appropriation.
The primary reason for denial of claims is the inability of
these individuals to establish qualifying service required by
Section 1002(d) of the Recovery Act. The denied claimants
include individuals from all walks of life who exercised their
right to make an application to VA, including children,
grandchildren, and other family members of alleged veterans,
widows of long-deceased alleged veterans, and thousands of
duplicate claims.
Unless VA has a genuine document issued by the U.S.
military service department containing needed information to
establish eligibility, VA regulations applicable to all
claimants require that VA request verification of military
service from the appropriate military service department. For
claims based on Philippine service in World War II, the U.S.
Army is a relevant military service department, and request for
such verification are sent to the NPRC, which since 1998, has
acted as the custodian of the U.S. Army's collection of Army
and guerrilla records.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to address any questions you or the other members of the
committee may have.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Flohr.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Flohr appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. And with that, we will now hear from Brigadier
General MacEwen. General, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID K. MACEWEN
General MacEwen. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus,
distinguished members of this committee, I thank once again for
the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of America's
Army, to discuss the Filipino Army veterans' verification
process.
I sit before you today as has been the case with Army
Adjutant Generals over many years with great confidence knowing
that the Army's process of verifying Filipino Army service is
sound and adequate. For the 3 years post-World War II, the
Filipino Government worked in conjunction with the U.S. Army to
establish guerrilla and Philippine Army unit rosters and to
capture relevant service data. This is the same data the Army
uses today in its role of verifying Filipino service as we
support the Veterans Administration in its role of providing
benefits.
Verifying Filipino service today is based on the very same
process established in 1948 in conjunction with the Philippine
Government. When I use the term ``verify,'' I don't use it
arbitrarily. Verify is the most appropriate term because the
service determinations have already been made. The people on
the ground after the war, both American and Filipino, conducted
years of research interviewing commanders and leaders at
various organizational levels and gathered and stored massive
amounts of authoritative documents. They turned over every
stone possible and imaginable to us, to leave us with the
system and documents we use today with the understanding and
the foresight to know that we would not be able to make a more
fair, adequate, or auditable service determination today
without them.
By the end of the war, of the nearly 1.3 million claims
reviewed, the Army, through its collaborative effort with the
Filipino government recognized and approved approximately
260,000. I ask you to keep three points in mind: First,
accepted historical documentation makes it clear Filipino
service within recognized units did not approach a figure
anywhere near 1.3 million claims submitted.
Second, these determinations were made by people on the
ground at that time only after extensive research was
completed. And unfortunately, a majority of the time they were
presented with the very unpleasant task of having to deny a
claim, the same as we must do today.
Third, claims were denied then as they are today for very
legitimate and justifiable reasons. Changing the service
verification process by accepting non-verifiable service
documentation for Filipino army and guerrilla veterans may
result in a significant number of faulty service verifications.
Over the years, the Department of the Army has been requested
to establish different processes for Filipino veterans to prove
their service. However, we continue to be confident that our
process is adequate and it was sound. We will continue to work
closely with the National Personnel Records Center and the
Veterans Administration, to provide the best possible service
to our Filipino veterans.
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the
subcommittee, we wish to thank you for your continued support
which has been vital to sustaining our all-volunteer Army
through unprecedented periods of continuous combat operations
which continue to be vital to ensure the future of our Army. I
look forward to answering your questions today.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, General.
[The prepared statement of General MacEwen appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. With that, I recognize Mr. Pratt for 5 minutes
for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN PRATT
Mr. Pratt. Thank you. Good morning Chairman Runyan, Ranking
Member Titus, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
calling this hearing and for your continuing efforts to
recognize the extraordinary contributions of Philippine
veterans, including those who served in guerrilla units, for
the service they provided in support of the United States
during World War II. I am delivering testimony on behalf of the
National Personnel Records Center that is similar to a
statement entered by the NPRC Director Scott Levins in a
hearing before the House Armed Services Committee earlier this
year.
As one of many veterans that work at NPRC, I am pleased to
appear before you today to discuss the work the 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 located in two 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. Included in the NPRC holdings are claim folders
pertaining to Philippine nationals that were adjudicated by the
U.S. Army after World War II and unit rosters created by the
U.S. Army in conjunction with its postwar recognition program.
In 1998 NARA entered into an agreement with the Department
of the Army to accept the physical transfer of these records
though they remain in the legal custody of the Department of
Army. Also, as part of the agreement, beginning in fiscal year
1999, NPRC assumed the responsibility for referencing these
records, consistent with the procedures previously established
by the Army.
In doing so, NPRC reviews its holdings to authenticate
service determinations previously made by the Department of
Army. NPRC does this by examining claim folders, finding aids
in a variety of rosters compiled by the Army during its postwar
recognition program. Most often this is done in response to
requests from the Department of Veterans Affairs, regarding
compensation claims. Recognizing the urgency of these requests,
NPRC strives to respond to these requests in 10 business days
or less. The technical instructions applied by NPRC technicians
in referencing these records and responding to such requests,
has been furnished to the American Coalition for Philippine
Veterans and has been posted online for public viewing. The
instructions are consistent with the long-standing policies and
practices of the Department of Army, and were applied by the
Army staff prior to the transfer of the reference function to
NPRC. On multiple occasions since the establishment of the
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund, officials from the
Department of Army have visited NPRC, reviewed its technical
instructions, examined its work process, and confirmed that
NPRC was providing reference services consistent with the long-
established policies and practices of the Department of Army.
NARA has also preserved records of historical value
documenting events that transpired in the Philippines during
and after World War II. Included are records describing actions
taken by the U.S. Army to recognize the service of Philippine
nationals who supported the United States Army forces in Far
East, including those who served in guerrilla units. These
records are available for public review at the National
Archives building in College Park, Maryland.
NARA is pleased to work with the subcommittee, the Army,
and the VA, and other stakeholders to ensure Filipino veterans,
including those who served in recognized guerrilla units, are
recognized for their extraordinary service in support of the
United States during World War II. We have briefed interested
congressional staff and other stakeholders on NARA's role in
this process, and we actively participated in an interagency
working group established by the White House to analyze the
process, and we have shared with Filipino veteran advocacy
groups to help provide greater understanding of the reference
process we employ to authenticate service determinations made
by the Department of Army.
Working with the Department of the Army we modified our
response letters to provide more specific details regarding our
reference results in instances where we were unable to
positively authenticate prior service determinations. And at
the suggestion of the White House Interagency Working Group we
digitized and posted online a report entitled: U.S. Army
Recognition Program of the Philippine Guerrillas. We again
extend our thanks to the subcommittee for expressing such great
interest in the role that NPRC provides in this important
process. I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Pratt.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kevin Pratt appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. With that, we will begin a round of questions.
And my first question is going to be for General MacEwen, and
thank you for coming today and your distinguished service.
I understand that there are still many questions in the
Filipino veteran community regarding eligibility, though I do
believe that the interagency working group did affect positive
changes, particularly as it relates to transparency of the
process. But I believe there is still a concern. You noted that
at the end of the war, there were 1.3 million individuals who
made claims, but only 260,000 were approved. Clearly, the type,
length and nature of service that qualified for consideration
even at the time was confusing. Could you tell us a bit more
about the service that qualifies for the FVEC claims?
General MacEwen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The basic
criteria that was used by the Army in conjunction with the
Filipino government from that postwar period is what is called
the five points. So it was understood that there were many
people that served, but whether it was qualifying service is
what was the determination. And those five points, that type of
unit that--what is called maintenance, whether it was under
Government--under U.S. Government control; whether it was
organized in a manner consistent with the Filipino army, or the
U.S. Army; whether it had adequate controls and measures in
place; continuity of service as well as being full-time.
So while there are people who clearly, patriotic citizens
who performed wonderfully, that did not rise to the level and
make the threshold of qualifying service.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. Mr. Flohr, thank you for coming
today and for your testimony. Your testimony noted that the VA
is legally bound to adjudicate eligibility for the FVEC fund
according to the military service department determination. The
American Coalition for Filipino Veterans notes that the VA has
the authority under Title 38 U.S. Code, to determine
eligibility using evidence submitted by claimants.
Could you respond because I think it is an important point
of contention that the VA would request that the Army verify
the authenticity of relevant documents that are submitted by a
claimant?
Mr. Flohr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The basic process for
determining eligibility for any veteran's claim when we receive
a claim, whether it be a U.S. veteran, or a Philippine veteran,
is eligible, qualifying service; someone who served honorably,
was discharged under other than dishonorable conditions, and
had valid service. If a U.S. veteran files a claim, does not
have a DD-214 they submit with their claim and we are not able
to find that on line we will go to the service department and
ask for verification of service. Same is true in Philippine
cases with an important difference being that the Philippines
is a long way away, and the records of service during the
period of time of World War II, either in the Philippine army
or as a guerrilla, as General MacEwen stated, was basically
adjudicated after the war, and those records are with the Army
and then were transferred to NPRC. So when we need to verify
service, that is where we are required by our own regulations
to go.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. Mr. Pratt, again, thank you for
providing your testimony today. As you likely know, about 54
percent of the claims for compensation were denied by the VA.
Many were denied because they did not qualify for the fund
under the law as it was written and the VA testimony noted that
thousands of others were duplicate claims. However, in some
cases, the VA denied the benefit based on the NPRC's inability
to find the name in a roster, perhaps due to spelling
differences and incorrect or assumed American names. Later
though, the veteran found the records confirming the service to
the United States by doing their own research or using an
advocate to conduct research at the NPRC. What measures has the
NPRC taken to mitigate the possible errors of things like this
happening?
Mr. Pratt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we have done in
the training that we use with our technicians is that we
recognize that there are a lot of name variations that occurred
as the information was transcribed in the record when the
guerrilla or the Philippine army member filled out the claim
folder. And so we actually have the same technician that
responds to the correspondence also do the searching for the
records, and we have cross-references in the file system to
ensure that that information has been accurately captured and
looked up. The other thing that we have done since the
interagency working group is, we have a second look. Any
negative response that is done, a second technician takes a
look at that to ensure that they have accurately done the
cross-referencing in terms of the alphabet and they have done
the work before we provide a negative response to the VA.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Pratt. With that, I will yield
to the ranking member, Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Mr. Flohr, I would ask you about the
appeals process. If a Filipino veteran applies for some of the
benefits and is denied because maybe they can't find the
records or some of the problems described by the chairman, what
is the appeal process? How can they appeal? Do you give enough
information to the veteran so they know how to appeal? Do you
think the time period for both application and appeal is long
enough? And are you getting a lot of appeals which might
indicate there is some problem?
Mr. Flohr. Thank you for your question, Ranking Member
Titus. The appeal process is set up through our regulations and
in statute and is similar for claims from any veteran, or
surviving spouse, or any other eligible person who is denied a
benefit. It starts with simply a letter stating, I don't agree
with your decision. At that point, we recognize that as what we
call a Notice of Disagreement. And we are by law then required
to send a statement of the case, which provides a history of
the claim from the time we received it, the actions we took in
determining the claim and making the decision, and then we send
what is--we ask them to complete a Form 1-9 included with a
statement of the case. The 1-9 is a certification to the Board
of Veterans' Appeals. They have to complete that, return it to
us within a certain time like a year, I believe. And then it
gets sent to the Board of Veterans Appeals and it goes on their
docket.
And that is the basic process for all claims. But we do
send them notice when we deny a claim. We provide them with a
form. If they want to complete a form and fill it out and send
it back to us, or as I said, they could just send us a letter
saying they disagree. So they do get information about the
appeal process, yes.
Ms. Titus. And when the Board of Appeals considers their
case, do they just look at the issue of whether or not they
were on that original list that dates back to 1948, or can
additional evidence be presented about the individual's
service?
Mr. Flohr. That is a good question. The Board of Veterans'
Appeals, unlike, say, the Court Appeals for veterans claims
which simply reviews the evidence before VA when they made a
determination. The Board of Veterans' Appeals has a de novo
review authority. They can return a file or an appeal to a
regional office asking for additional information. In some
cases maybe a medical opinion or an examination, or to go out
to a physician, a private physician, and get evidence, or they
can do that themselves and sometimes they do. And there was a
law recently, a regulation change which allowed the Board to
consider in the first instance new evidence submitted directly
to the Board as part of an appeal.
So they can. They are allowed to submit new evidence, get
new evidence, and review it, yes.
Ms. Titus. And how long does this usually take, because we
are talking about people who are in their 90s.
Mr. Flohr. The Board decisions, I don't have the numbers
right immediately as to how long it takes on average. It is
fairly lengthy, particularly if someone requests to appear
before the Board in a hearing. That takes time to schedule. And
I know while our Manila regional office is expediting and has
been expediting these claims since day one, the Board is
statutorily required to review appeals based on the date they
are received at the Board. Now, whether they are expediting any
of these appeals, I do not know at this time. However, I could
find that out.
Ms. Titus. That would be something we ought to look into
and work on that. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Flohr. Okay.
Ms. Titus. And General, let me ask you, are there any
documents classified or otherwise that the Army holds that
might help some of the remaining veterans with their appeals,
and deal with the whole transparency issue, and the general
lack of trust?
General MacEwen. Ma'am, thank you for that question. I
think that everything related to the Filipino veterans claims
process has been declassified. Whether there are other
classified information, I wouldn't know. But all of the stuff
that was in the Adjutant General's responsibility in 1948 that
is continued in under our authority, has been declassified.
Ms. Titus. And the person who is trying to get information
about their own individual case can access that online, or
through the Archives?
Mr. Pratt. Ma'am, there are really two groups of records.
The first group of records that is actually--that I mentioned
in my testimony that is available to the public, really is
about the process that the Army went through in adjudicating to
ensure that these people are on a roster or not on a roster.
The claim folders that we maintain for the Army are not open to
the public. However, since the White House working group, if
there is an individual that wants to see their claim folder,
what happens is they write us and then we, in turn, talk to the
Army because they are considered organizational records for the
Army and they are still in the Army's legal custody, then we
would, if the Army gives approval, send those to the veteran.
And that has happened on several occasions since that time and
we want to be very transparent in the process and let the
veterans understand the documents that we are looking through
to make those decisions.
Ms. Titus. So that process is not a problem. If I ask for
my record, I could get it?
Mr. Pratt. Yes, ma'am. In fact, I talked to a group this
morning and offered that to them. They just need to write us a
letter and we will be happy to work with the Army to get that
information to them.
General MacEwen. And ma'am, we are committed to allowing
those on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Ms. Titus. With that, I will
recognize Dr. Heck.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding the hearing and
thank you panel members for coming back and providing
additional information. A couple of things, facts that I just
want to make sure are clear. Mr. Flohr, you stated that there
is $56.4 million remaining in the FVEC account, the
appropriated funds. That is correct? That is the number that is
there? But there has been some discussion amongst committees
and staff members that there really is no money in the account.
So there is $56.4 million there?
Mr. Flohr. That is what I was provided, yes.
Mr. Heck. Okay, and you also stated that there was 23,826
FVEC claims that had not been granted, and then you said, but
some may be due to dependents, or surviving spouses, or those
that--other than the veteran. Do you know exactly how many of
those claims that were denied were specifically filed by the
veteran themselves, not a dupe, or a surviving spouse or a
dependent?
Mr. Flohr. Congressman, I don't know exactly the number.
Manila did not actually start tracking these until the second
year, or after 2010.
Mr. Heck. Okay.
Mr. Flohr. So a lot of them were denied. There was 9,800
that have been denied because they had no valid military
service, failure to prosecute was 1,296, previous forfeitures,
148.
Mr. Heck. But we don't know how many of those were actually
filed by the veteran versus a family member, or----
Mr. Flohr. I do not know, but I will attempt to talk with
our folks in Manila to see if they can provide me at least a
good estimate.
Mr. Heck. Okay. You know, I would ask then just
hypothetically, do you think it would be unreasonable to
believe that in 1948, in postwar Philippines, after a country
has been ravaged by combat for 4 years, that there could
possibly be somebody who had qualified service who didn't make
it on the list? Unreasonable to think that that couldn't
happen?
Mr. Flohr. Not to me, no.
Mr. Heck. Okay. So I would guess, you know, with the
remaining funds that are appropriated and if everybody--if we
were to reopen the period, and everyone that re-applied would
get the maximum benefit of $15,000, that would allow about
3,760 more claims to be paid. I would ask each of you, do you
think it would be unreasonable to approach this, to reopen the
period for another year, to allow it only within the amount of
appropriated funds, but to accept an AGO-23 as proof of service
to be able to pay a claim? Because many of those Filipino vets
that are being denied have an AGO-23, the Philippine form that
has been certified, that was developed--I mean, this one is
stamped 1948. I don't think we are going to find many 90 to
100-year old Filipino veterans trying to come in with forged
documents. Do you believe that reopening the period within the
confines of appropriated funds for 1 year and taking the AGO-23
as proof of service would be unreasonable? Mr. Flohr?
Mr. Flohr. I wouldn't say it would be unreasonable. I think
we would go through some of the same things we did in 2009,
2010, when we would get a lot of claims from children.
Mr. Heck. Understanding that, but if a veteran, if a
Filipino veteran was alive today and reopened his claim, and
had the AGO-23 that was contemporaneously certified back in
1948, I mean--I understand that we can't go into the surviving
spouse issue or child filing on behalf--but for those veterans
that are still alive.
Mr. Flohr. For VA, for my purposes, I would be glad to work
with the Department of the Army and NPRC to determine if that
would be acceptable, yes.
Mr. Heck. General MacEwen, your opinion on that?
General MacEwen. Sir, my opinion is I am not so sure that
that is fair overall in that determinations that were made in
1948 and determinations that have been made for others, and the
book was, you know, frankly closed. I mean, in 1949, 9 August
1949, the President, the President of the United States wrote a
letter to the president of the Philippines and said, the
program is definitely closed. We have concluded the
verification process.
And while there may be some that had service, whether it
rose to the level of qualifying service would be the part that
would concern me. I don't doubt that there are plenty of people
that served honorably, patriotically, but whether it was
qualifying service.
Mr. Heck. But wouldn't that be reflected on their AGO-23?
General MacEwen. Sir, there may be other information that
was available to that investigation committee at the time that
would make that not valid.
Mr. Heck. Well, I appreciate that. Look, in my District, we
have the group called The Mighty Five. Unfortunately, three of
them, Augusto Oppus, Romeo Barreras and Silverio Cuaresma have
all died. Mr. Cuaresma was 100 years old. I have two left,
Edilberto Briones and Anastacio Sumajit. I am hoping that we
get some resolution on their behalf soon. Thank you, Mr. Chair,
I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Dr. Heck. I have one more question
kind of addressed--if each of you at the panel could touch on
it, and after hearing your testimony and going through the
statements that were submitted, based on your preparation for
the hearing today and your expertise in all of your areas, do
you have any recommendations either in your collaboration,
communication, regulation, or even perhaps legislation that you
believe would improve the outcomes in the process, in the
administration of the program? Mr. Flohr, start with you.
Mr. Flohr. Mr. Chairman, I am not, off the top of my head,
I am not sure that I know of what could be done differently
than what we do now. As has been stated, the Department of the
Army, and the NPRC as custodian of the records, they were
complete as of 1948 and whether or not--I think it would take
legislation, perhaps, to change the validity of service. We are
bound by our regulations and our statutes for determining
eligibility, and for Philippine claimants, it is through the
Department of the Army.
Mr. Runyan. General.
General MacEwen. Sir, I have thought about this quite a bit
because this is the second time that I have been here to
discuss this, and as I have prepped for it, I think that
second-guessing those decisions made by those who conducted the
investigations, had firsthand knowledge and ability, and made
this careful approval, went through a very deliberative
process, would probably be counterproductive. So I don't see
anything along that line. I think the collaboration among the
agencies has improved, especially since the White House working
group that you discussed in your opening statement. But I don't
see anything additional that would be helpful, overall, from my
view.
Mr. Runyan. Mr. Pratt, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Pratt. Just one thing, Mr. Chairman. We have been
working collaboratively with the VA and the Army within the
current process to provide greater transparency to the veterans
and to improve the speed at which we approve the process. So
under the existing process, I think we will continue to work
with the Army and with the VA to provide better information to
the veterans so they can understand why these decisions were
made and that will help provide a little bit of better
understanding of the program, and, certainly, if the program
changes because of legislation, we are certainly prepared to
make an adjustment so that we can continue to serve the
veterans.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. Any more?
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Mr. Runyan. Sure. Yield to the ranking member.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all want this system
to be fair. There is no question about that. You said it,
General. This committee has been devoted to providing benefits
to our veterans who have earned them, and deserve them. And
that is the least that we can do. And we want that to include
our Filipino veterans as well. So if we can just focus on
getting the information out there so that there is transparency
and there is a better understanding and deal with the trust
issue, if we make time sensitivity something that we are aware
of since these people are in their 90s, and we want to do right
by them before they pass on, and if the appeal process works
fairly, I think those are all keys to making this work under
existing provisions and existing statutes so that we can be
fair to the people that my colleague mentioned who live in
Nevada and beyond. And I appreciate you all working with us to
make that happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Runyan. Dr. Heck, anything further?
Mr. Heck. No.
Mr. Runyan. Again, I want to thank the witnesses.
Appreciate your attendance today. Your complete and written
statements will be entered into the hearing record. We
appreciate your time and attention that went into preparing
your remarks for today. I ask unanimous consent that all
members have five legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include any extraneous material. Hearing no
objection, so ordered. And this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Prepared Statement of Brad Flohr
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and Subcommittee Members,
thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the Department of
Veterans Affairs' (VA) administration of the Filipino Veterans Equity
Compensation (FVEC) fund.
Overview
To remedy what some saw as an injustice caused by the limited VA
benefits available to Filipino World War II Veterans, Congress
established the FVEC Fund through the enactment of The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The FVEC
provision authorized a one-time payment of $15,000 for qualified U.S.
citizens and $9,000 for qualified non-U.S. citizens who filed within
the one-year filing deadline. To qualify for the FVEC payment, an
individual must have served before July 1, 1946, in the Philippine
Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, or in the New
Philippine Scouts. In determining whether claimants are eligible for
any VA benefit, including FVEC, VA must have verification from the U.S.
military service department as to whether the claimant has qualifying
service in accordance with 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.203.
Less than two months after the law was passed, VA established an
adjudication process, payment system, accounting system, and payment
delivery system to successfully issue the first FVEC payment on April
8, 2009. VA conducted numerous successful outreach programs to inform
Veterans and their families about this benefit. This outreach continued
until February 16, 2010, the end of the filing period. VA's Manila RO
established a dedicated team of employees who solely processed FVEC
claims. The Manila RO also sent letters to all Veterans found eligible
for the FVEC benefit advising them of their potential eligibility for
VA disability compensation benefits. Numerous Filipino World War II
Veterans have subsequently been found eligible for recurring monthly
disability compensation payments.
Update on Disposition of Claims Received
The Manila RO received 42,755 claims for FVEC between February 2009
and February 2010. As of October 31, 2014, of the 42,755 claims
received, the Manila RO granted 18,929 FVEC payments, totaling
$225,668,204. Currently there are 23,826 FVEC claims that have not been
granted due to ineligibility. All original claims for FVEC have
received a decision, but there are currently 15 reopened claims for
FVEC and 10 appeals pending with VBA. Approximately 32 appeals of FVEC
decisions are pending with the Board of Veterans' Appeals, and another
9 appeals are before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims. If all individuals with reopened claims or pending appeals are
found to be eligible for the FVEC payment, the Manila Regional Office
would pay additional funds of approximately $1.0 million out of the
FVEC fund. This assumes that all reopened and appealed claims, if
granted, would be granted the maximum $15,000. In addition, $17.1
million has been returned to the Treasury for returned checks, which
result when a Veteran dies without a surviving spouse claimant. A total
of $56.4 million remains in the FVEC appropriation.
The primary reason for denial of claims was the inability of these
individuals to establish qualifying service required by section 1002(d)
of the Recovery Act. The denied claimants included a variety of
individuals, who exercised their right to make an application to VA.
They included children, grandchildren, and other family members of
alleged Veterans, widows of long-deceased alleged Veterans, and
thousands of duplicate claims.
In October 2012, the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders, in collaboration with the Office of Management and
Budget and the Domestic Policy Council, created the Filipino Veterans
Equity Compensation Fund Interagency Working Group (IWG) comprised of
representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department
of Defense, and the National Archives and Record Administration to
address the concerns of Filipino Veterans who believe that their claims
were improperly denied, or that they did not receive a satisfactory
explanation as to why their claims were denied.
The IWG's goal was to increase transparency and accelerate
processing of claims within the existing framework. Some highlights of
the IWG's efforts include:
VA created a special team dedicated to FVEC appeals
and obtained copies of certain Philippine Army documents from
the Adjutant General of the Philippines.
The Army developed more detailed response letters for
requests for service determination that explain why an
application was denied.
NARA decreased the response time for service
determination requests to 10 days or less.
Process for Verifying/Determining Service
In determining whether a claimant is eligible for a VA benefit,
including FVEC, VA is legally bound under its regulations by military
service department determinations as to service [38 C.F.R. Sec.
3.203(a), (c)]. Currently, unless VA has a genuine document issued by a
U.S. military service department containing needed information to
establish eligibility, VA regulations, applicable to all claimants,
require that VA request verification of military service from the
appropriate military service department. For claims based on Philippine
Service in World War II, the U.S. Army is the relevant military service
department. VA requests verification from the National Personnel
Records Center (NPRC) which, since 1998, has acted as the custodian of
the U.S. Army's collection of Philippine Army and guerrilla records.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
address any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
Prepared Statement of David K. MacEwen
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, Distinguished Members of
this Committee, I thank you once again for the opportunity to appear
before you on behalf of America's Army to discuss the Filipino Army
Veterans verification process. I sat before the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee a few
months ago, in June, providing similar testimony. As previously
mentioned in prior testimony, this issue is very personal for me
because my father served in the Philippines during World War II.
Therefore ensuring accuracy and adequacy in the verification process of
our Filipino Army Veterans is important to me. I sit before you today,
as has been the case with Army Adjutants General over many years, with
great confidence knowing that the Army's process of verifying Filipino
Army service is sound and adequate.
For the three years post WWII, 1945-1948, the Filipino government
worked in conjunction with the U.S. Army to establish Guerilla and
Philippine Army unit rosters and to capture relevant service data. This
data is currently located in the National Personnel Records Center,
National Archives Records Administration. If you visit the National
Personnel Records Center, you will find thousands, almost 10,000 cubic
feet, of claim folders which are Philippine Army and Guerilla claim
files. You will find cabinets of Finding Aids, which is approximately
1.3 million cards; 30 cubic feet of various Philippine Army rosters and
records, and 15 cubic feet of Guerilla rosters. I could go on, as the
list continues, but I believe you can imagine the enormity of the
amount of information in these files.
In 1998, the Army transferred the Filipino Veteran service
verification process to the National Personnel Records Center. With
this transfer, we obtained efficiencies and improved timeliness of
verification. Although the National Personnel Records Center actually
executes the hands-on work to verify service, they do so in accordance
with procedural guidance established and maintained by the Army.
Since the signing of the 2009 American Investment Recovery Act, the
Army has supported the Department of Veterans Affairs role in
compensating WWII Filipino Veterans by verifying Filipino service in
the Philippines based on the very same process for service verification
established in 1948 in conjunction with the Philippine Government.
When I use the term ``verify,'' I don't use it arbitrarily.
``Verify'' is the most appropriate term because the service
determinations have already been made. Although it is a fairly simple
process to review the records to see what determination was made, the
process that got us to that point was very complex. The people on the
ground after the war, both American and Filipino, conducted years of
research, interviewing Commanders and leaders at various organizational
levels, and gathered and stored massive amounts of authoritative
documents. They turned over every stone possible and imaginable to
leave us with the system and documents we use today, with the
understanding, and somehow the foresight, to know that we would not be
able to make fair, adequate, and auditable service determinations today
without them.
By the end of the war, of the nearly 1.3 million claims (requests
for recognition of Filipino service) reviewed, the Army, through its
collaborative effort with the Philippine Government, recognized and
approved only 260,000. I ask that you keep three points in mind. First,
accepted historical documentation makes it clear that Filipino service
within recognized units did not approach a figure anywhere near the 1.3
million claims submitted. Second, these determinations were made by the
people on the ground at that time, only after extensive research was
completed, and unfortunately, a majority of the time they were
presented with the very unpleasant task of denying a claim, the same as
we must do today. Third, claims were denied then, as they are today,
for very legitimate and justifiable reasons. Changing the service
verification process by accepting non-verifiable service documentation
for Philippine Army and Guerilla Veterans may result in a significant
number of faulty service verifications.
The Army set specific criteria and a threshold for what we would
consider as service. While many Filipinos feel that they served, they
did not meet or reach the threshold for service. Using the specified
criteria, the determinations were made. Today, it's just a matter of us
reviewing the record and retrieving the determination. Second guessing
what is already in the record is neither reasonable nor feasible, as we
cannot conduct better research than what was conducted in the years
immediately following the war, by the individuals actually on the
ground at the time. Today, the process is fairly simple:
1) The Department of Veterans' Affairs submits Veterans' Affairs
(VA) Form 3101 or VA Form 9 to the National Personnel Records Center,
who retrieves and authenticates the service determination from the
archived files. If sufficient documentation is not found in the file,
the National Personnel Records Center works with the Department of
Veterans Affairs, who in turn works with the Philippine government, to
obtain additional information. Once the National Personnel Records
Center has matched evidence with unit rosters and is able to
authenticate service, they complete National Personnel Records Center
Test Form 02-03 and forward it to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
These rosters and reference lists serve only as a quick reference to
what is actually in more than 1,600 boxes of well-documented case files
and supporting material stored in the National Archives building in
College Park, Maryland. If unable to match evidence with unit rosters,
the National Personnel Records Center annotates the VA Form 3101
accordingly and returns it to the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
Although the National Personnel Records Center executes this function,
they follow the Army's procedures and program guidelines, and do not
deviate from U.S. Army policy.
2) The National Personnel Records Center informs the Department of
Veterans' Affairs of the final determination.
3) The Department of Veterans' Affairs delivers or denies the
benefit.
The National Personnel Records Center follows the same rigorous
process established by the Army to ensure that no claimant is unfairly
excluded from earned benefits by denying creditable service, and that
all who have served are properly recognized for their contributions to
U.S. Army efforts in WWII and to the Nation.
The Army has long-standing and close working relationships with
both the National Personnel Records Center and the Department of
Veterans' Affairs, and together we are committed to sustaining an
efficient claims processing program for the Filipino Veterans.
The issue of service verification has remained constant over the
years. The Army has spent significant time and resources to continually
review our service verification policy. Though we have complete
confidence in the final service determinations already made, as with
any other Army program, a review or study is periodically conducted to
ensure that we are in compliance with the spirit and letter of
applicable laws and regulations.
As published on the White House website, in October 2012, the White
House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, in
collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget and the Domestic
Policy Council, created the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund
Interagency Working Group comprised of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the National Archives and
Record Administration. The working group was tasked with analyzing the
process faced by Filipino veterans in demonstrating eligibility for
compensation in order to ensure that all applications received thorough
and fair review.
The working group increased transparency and concluded that, after
a thorough accounting of the process to verify valid military service
for Filipino World War II veterans, the process is sound. All
organizations involved in the verification process were brought
together to improve the process from start to finish. In addition to
clarifying the claims process, the working group digitized and made
available online for the first time a report titled, U.S. Army
Recognition Program of Philippine Guerrillas. This crucial report
explains how the recognition process was developed at the close of
World War II, and, most importantly, the Army's careful reasoning
behind the current policies on service verification. I will highlight
some of the Army's more significant results of that Interagency Working
Group:
The Army reviewed and revalidated the retrieval and authentication
procedures used by the National Personnel Records Center, and made the
procedures electronically available.
The Army recognized the need to return to more detailed responses
to requests for service determinations. As a result, we fielded several
more specific response letters which state: the individual's service
authentication, whether or not the individual's claims folder and/or
corresponding unit rosters were located, and what the next appropriate
steps are for individuals with questions regarding service
authentication.
The Army placed a priority on requests for service determinations
received from the Department of Veterans Affairs for Filipino veterans,
and also asked the National Personnel Records Center to ensure the
requests receive prompt servicing.
Over the years, the Department of the Army has been requested to
establish a different process for Filipino Veterans to prove their
service. The facts are that we have a process; it is adequate and it is
sound. We will continue to work closely with the National Personnel
Records Center and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to provide the
best possible service to our Filipino Veterans. The Army is well-
positioned and committed to meeting the claims processing needs for
Filipino Veterans.
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the
subcommittee, we wish to thank all of you for your continued support,
which has been vital in sustaining our All-Volunteer Army through an
unprecedented period of continuous combat operations, and which will
continue to be vital to ensure the future of our Army. I look forward
to answering your questions today.
Prepared Statement of Kevin Pratt
Good morning Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member Titus, and members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for calling this hearing and for your
continuing efforts to recognize the extraordinary contributions of
Filipino veterans, including those who served in guerrilla units, for
the service they provided in support of the United States during World
War II. I am delivering testimony on behalf of the National Personnel
Records Center (NPRC or Center) that is similar to a statement
delivered by the NPRC Director, Scott Levins, in a hearing before the
House Armed Services Committee earlier this year. As one of many
veterans that work at the NPRC, I am pleased to appear before you today
to discuss the work that the 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 two 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.
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 (GSA), to be managed by the National
Archives, which at that time was a part of GSA. The Archives managed
the Center as a single program, leveraging economies of scale to
improve efficiency and offering a central point of access for military
service records.
In spring 2011, the NPRC began moving its military records 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 in 2012.
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 approximately 4,000
correspondence requests each day from veterans, their next of kin,
various Federal agencies, members of Congress, the media, and other
stakeholders. 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 over 90% of these types of
requests in ten business days or less.
In addition to the correspondence work discussed above, the Center
normally receives between 5,000 and 10,000 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.
Philippine Army Records
Included in the NPRC's holdings are claim folders pertaining to
Filipino nationals that were adjudicated by the U.S. Army after World
War II, and unit rosters created by the U.S. Army in conjunction with
its post-war recognition program. In 1998 NARA entered into an
agreement with the Department of the Army to accept the physical
transfer of these records though they remain in the legal custody of
the Department of the Army. Also as part of the agreement, beginning in
FY 1999, NPRC assumed the responsibility for referencing these records
consistent with procedures previously established by the Army. In doing
so, NPRC reviews its holdings to authenticate service determinations
previously made by the Department of the Army. NPRC does this by
examining claim folders, finding aids, and a variety of rosters
compiled by the Army during its post-war recognition program. Most
often, this is done in response to requests from the Department of
Veterans Affairs regarding compensation claims. Recognizing the urgency
of these requests, NPRC strives to respond to these requests in ten
business days or less.
The technical instructions applied by NPRC technicians in
referencing these records and responding to such requests have been
furnished to the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans and has been
posted online for public viewing at http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/
military-personnel/memo-1865125.html. The instructions are consistent
with the longstanding policies and practices of the Department of the
Army and were applied by Army staff prior to the transfer of the
reference function to NPRC. On multiple occasions since the
establishment of the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund,
officials from the Department of the Army have visited NPRC, reviewed
its technical instructions, examined its work process, and confirmed
that NPRC was providing reference services consistent with the long
established policies and practices of the Department of the Army.
NARA has also preserved records of historical value documenting
events that transpired in the Philippines during and after World War
II. Included are records describing actions taken by the U.S. Army to
recognize the service of Filipino nationals who supported the United
States Army Forces in the Far East, including those who served in
guerrilla units. These records are available for public review at the
National Archives building in College Park, Maryland.
Conclusion
NARA is pleased to work with the Subcommittee, the Army, the VA,
and other stakeholders to ensure Filipino veterans, including those who
served in recognized guerrilla units, are recognized for their
extraordinary service in support of the United States during World War
II. We have briefed interested congressional staff and other
stakeholders on NARA's role in this process, we actively participated
in an Interagency Working Group established by the White House to
analyze the process, and we have shared information with Filipino
veterans advocacy groups to help provide greater understanding of the
reference process we employ to authenticate service determinations made
by the Department of the Army. Working with the Department of the Army,
we modified our response letters to provide more specific details
regarding our reference results in instances where we are unable to
positively authenticate a prior service determination, and, at the
suggestion of the White House Interagency Working Group, we digitized
and posted online a report titled, ``U.S. Army Recognition Program of
Philippine Guerrillas.'' This report, which can be found at http://
research.archives.gov/description/6921767, explains how the recognition
process was developed at the close of World War II.
We again extend our thanks to the Subcommittee for expressing such
great interest in the role that NPRC provides in this important
process. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
FOR THE RECORD
American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc.
867 North Madison St., Arlington, VA 22205
Phone: 202 246-1998 Email: [email protected] Web:
usfilvets.tripod.com
VA Secretary's Duty to Comply With FVEC Law, Congressional
Directives and Court Decisions By:
Eric Lachica, ACFV Executive Director
On behalf of our officers and members of the American Coalition for
Filipino Veterans, a national nonprofit advocacy organization, may I
extend our deepest appreciation to your subcommittee for holding this
timely hearing on the adequacy of the process in verifying eligibility
of claimants for the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC)
benefit.
It is our coalition's view that the VA Secretary and his department
FAILED to adequately comply with the FVEC law and congressional
directives in addressing the 4,554 appeals of elderly Filipino veteran
claimants before the VA and the US Court of Appeals on the denials of
recognition of their US service in World War II.
The 2009 FVEC law is very clear: ``The Secretary may make a payment
from the compensation fund to an eligible person who . . . submits to
the Secretary a claim for benefits . . . [for those who] served before
July 1, 1946, in the organized military forces of the Government of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, while such forces were in the service
of the Armed Forces of the United States.'' http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/PLAW-111publ5/html/PLAW-111publ5.htm
There are FIVE major shortcomings of the FVEC eligibility
determination process as administered by the VA Secretary.
First: Former VA Sec. Shinseki erred and should have followed the
congressional directive of the FVEC law and the FY 2014 Appropriations
Act (H.R. 2216) that ``directed the VA to consider ALL forms of
evidence of service and not just those originally considered.'' (My
emphasis)
Moreover, the House Appropriations Committee stated, it ``looks
forward to VA execution of this directive.'' (House Appropriations
Committee Report; H.R. 4416 passed April 30, 2014)
Second: The former VA Secretary relied solely on the National
Personnel Record Center (NPRC) of the National Archives to verify and
determine US Army military service.
The recent August 26, 2014 decision and findings by a three-judge
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals on Veteran Claims further clarified
this issue. The court ruled against VA Secretary's denial of the appeal
of Mrs. Juliet T. Tagupa, a Filipino veteran's widow, for solely
relying on the NPRC to determine US Army service of her husband. The
court remanded to the VA to directly ``seek verification service from
the Department of the Army.'' They found the NPRC was a ``reference
service'' and not a ``service department'' of the US Army to issue
determinations. (pages 8 ` 12 http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/
appellate-courts/cavc/11-3575/11-3575-2014-08-26.html
Third: The former VA Secretary failed in his ``duty to assist a
claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim'' of
Mrs. Tagupa in particular (and to the thousands of FVEC claimants).
``This duty includes making reasonable efforts to obtain all records
held by a governmental entity that are relevant . .. if the claimant
provides the Secretary information sufficient to locate such records,''
the above Appeals Court panel cited the relevant Code of Federal
Regulations. Moreover, the VA Secretary and the VA Manila Regional
Office did not ``attempt to seek alternative means of verifying
service.'' (page 8-9).
The Court also listed several possible sources for the VA. Certain
Philippine Commonwealth Army records and their World War II guerrilla
service rosters, honorable discharge documents or certifications should
have been accepted as sufficient proof.
Fourth: Former VA Secretary Shinseki failed to exercise
administrative discretion under his FVEC authority to accept genuine WW
II honorable service documentation of the Philippine Commonwealth Army
and the USAFFE guerrilla service, as presented by the veteran
claimants. The above Appeals Court cited the ``plain language'' of the
VA regulation that ``uses the term `may' and thus give the VA
discretion to determine whether the evidence submitted to establish
service is itself sufficient without additional service verification.''
(page 6)
Fifth: The former VA Secretary and the VA Board of Appeals failed
to comply with the VA Adjudication Procedures in their manual. They did
not consider the possibility of ``Unrecognized guerrilla service and
'that this is service ' under a recognized commissioned officer, who
was a former member of the U.S. Armed Forces or the Commonwealth
Army','' as pointed out by the Appeals Court panel in their decision.
(p. 12, my emphasis)
Solution: In light of above failed actions, we respectfully urge
the House VA Committee to remind the new VA Secretary Robert McDonald
to comply with the FVEC law, congressional directives and Court of
Appeals decisions. FVEC compensation benefits should be granted to
deserving claimants based on alternative documents provided by other
U.S. official government sources including the Philippine Government's
Adjutant General's Office who have PH Commonwealth Army records,
authenticated WWII guerrilla rosters and individual letters of
recognition.
In an earlier precedent in 2011, the VA Board of Appeals approved
the award of FVEC benefits to Gaudencio Pablo, a Filipino WWII
guerrilla, who was previously denied official recognition by the NPRC
in St. Louis MO. He provided copies of US Army documents he found in
the National Archives College Park Maryland. (No. 10-17 727 BVA
decision January 31, 2011).
If needed to expedite the eligibility review, the VA Secretary
should directly request the US Army and the NPRC to provide copies of
documents, if any, in the veteran claimant's folder or from rosters of
WWII service from the NPRC in St. Louis MO or from the National
Archives.
Unfortunately, US Army considers these documents as ``classified.''
The Army has instructed the NPRC not to release the relevant documents
without their permission, despite expiration of the 50-year secrecy
limitation.
In response to our earlier complaint, the U.S. Army on 2 May 2012
released to congressional staff the two-page ``Information Paper AHRC-
PDR Subject: Records for World War II Filipino Veterans'' prepared by
LTC Curriera who was the Chief, Army Personnel Records Division, Human
Resources Command in Fort Knox KY. (see attachment)
She wrote: ``The Philippine Army records in question are classified
by NPRC as Philippine military `organizational records' used to
establish identity of Missing Persons Act (MPAP) status regarding
Philippine Army personnel and recognized Guerrillas. These records are
NOT Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF), and at NO time has the
U.S. Army produced individual personnel records of OMPF's for
Philippine Army Veterans and/or eligible Guerillas.'' (my emphasis)
In her Army memorandum, Curreira confirmed that ``the NPRC does not
have the authority to release organizational or claim records without
the appropriate permission.''
As background on why the US Army has been uncooperative in this
regard, the secret 1949 ``U.S. Army Recognition Program of Philippine
Guerrillas'' report declassified in 1988, but only released in July
2013 by the White House Interagency Working Group, would be helpful.
The nameless US Army authors of the report frankly describe the
convoluted and unjust treatment faced by Filipino WWII veterans in
pursuing their claims.
Sadly, four American military officers were accused by the US Army
of engaging in erroneous recognition of guerrillas. As a result of
their dispute, the US Army quietly revoked en masse 37,190 guerrillas
who were earlier recognized in 1946 and who were paid by the US Army
for their service and given honorable discharge documents. (pages 159,
160, 197 and 213 in http://research.archives.gov/description/6921767 )
Thus six decades later, many deserving patriotic Filipino veterans
were blacklisted by the US Army after their names were secretly
``deleted by roster reconstruction'' from the USAFFE guerrilla rolls in
1948. (page 160) Their mistake: they belonged to guerrilla units led by
these four US Army officers. This may be a major factor why there are
still 4,554 remaining appeals from FVEC claimants today.
The Philippine Commonwealth Government and the Filipino People of
16 million (Census estimate, all were US nationals) were faced with the
overwhelming task of rebuilding after a devastating war that killed
60,000 Commonwealth soldiers and guerrillas as well as one million
Filipino civilians who died due to war-related causes, according to the
US State Department.
In conclusion, the new VA Secretary should respectfully be
compelled to promptly award FVEC compensation to these elderly Filipino
veterans with honorable service when they meet the conditions
established by the FVEC law, Congressional directives and Court of
Appeals decisions:
1) Philippine Commonwealth Army service documentation; or,
2) Guerrilla service documents when they were recognized by U.S.
Army officers as certified by the Philippine Government's Army Adjutant
General Office; and
3) No derogatory information such as disloyalty or fraud to the
United States.
On behalf of thousands of our members and supporters throughout the
United States and in the Philippines, we again thank your committee for
holding this crucial hearing to find solutions for our heroes.
Eric Lachica
Eric Lachica ACFV Executive Director for
Patrick Ganio Sr., ACFV President
Franco Arcebal, Vice-president Membership
Maursese Oteyza Owens, Vice-President Administration
Affiliated Leaders: Art Caleda - Honolulu; Franco Arcebal & Susan
Dilkes - Los Angeles; Malou Mariano - Long Beach; Manuel Cannu & Bert
Andrade - San Diego; Regino Nacua, Rudy Asercion & Rodel Rodis - San
Francisco; Laymon Jones - Oakland; Eddie Arabe & Sarah Gonzalez - San
Jose; Monina Nuega - Sacramento; Ernesto Anolin - Delano; Conrado Rigor
& Thelma Sevilla - Seattle; Lourdes Ceballos & Cesar Elpidio - NV; Jose
RED, Jaime Peralta & Linda Mayo - Jersey City; Rafael DE Peralta &
Sonny Sampayan - NY; Senen Fontanilla VFW & Purita - PA; Jesse Baltazar
& Romy San Antonio - VA; Celestino Almeda & Angelyn Tugadorzan - MD;
Dick Aquino - FL; and others.
Over the past two decades, our coalition has lobbied Congress with
our champions, Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka and their
colleagues in the House: Representatives Benjamin Gilman, Bob Filner,
Darrell Issa and Joe Heck. We were assisted by sympathetic White House
staff under the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations.
Our goal is to win full official recognition and equitable benefits
for our WWII veterans. With our allies: the VFW, American Legion,
D.A.V. and community partners like the National Federation for Filipino
American Association, we won veterans' burial benefits in 2000, full
war-related disability compensation in 2001, VA healthcare in 2003, and
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation law in 2009. Our organization
does not receive federal funds or have federal contracts.
[all]