[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INVESTIGATING VA'S MANAGEMENT OF VETERANS' PAPER RECORDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-72
__________
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 PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-183 WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
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 CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- Minority Member
Chairman MARK TAKANO, California
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan DINA TITUS, Nevada
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas RAUL RUIZ, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana KATHLEEN RICE, New York
RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LEE ZELDIN, New York JERRY McNERNEY, California
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American
Samoa
MIKE BOST, Illinois
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Don Phillips, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado DINA TITUS, Nevada, Ranking Member
LEE ZELDIN, New York JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania RAUL RUIZ, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois
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
----------
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Page
Investigating VA's Management of Veterans' Paper Records......... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Honorable Ralph Abraham, Chairman................................ 1
Honorable Dina Titus, Ranking Member............................. 2
WITNESSES
Ms. Beth McCoy, Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 3
Prepared Statement........................................... 22
Accompanied by:
Mr. Brad Houston, Director, Office of Business Process, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Brent Arronte, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits
and Evaluations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs............................................ 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 24
Accompanied by:
Ms. Dana Sullivan, Director, San Diego Benefits Inspection
Division, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
INVESTIGATING VA'S MANAGEMENT OF VETERANS' PAPER RECORDS
----------
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
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 10:00 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Abraham
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Abraham, Zeldin, Costello, Bost,
Titus, and Brownley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RALPH ABRAHAM, CHAIRMAN
Mr. Abraham. Good morning and welcome. Thanks for being
here. This oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs will now come to order.
I thank the witnesses for being here. I think I have met
you all this morning. This hearing will focus on the troubling
allegation of the destruction of veterans claims documents. I
note that this Subcommittee has previously addressed this issue
on March the 3rd, 2009, in response to report of systemic
mishandling of paper documents through VBA. This Subcommittee
held a joint hearing with the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee. And at that time the VA had assured Congress that
they had implemented policies that would protect important
claim documents.
Then Deputy Under Secretary for benefits Michael Walcof
testified that the VA would implement a plan that and I quote,
``Ensures measures are in place to prevent future incidence of
employees inappropriately discarding veterans' paperwork.'' end
quote.
Yet only a few years later the IG has documented more cases
of VA employees inappropriately destroying veterans' paperwork.
It may be tempting to discuss the problems uncovered by the
April 14, 2016 IG reports as understandable human error. After
all, the IG reviewed more than 400,000 documents and found
fewer than a 100 that were mishandled. I know that no one is
perfect, but as a physician I also know that there are times
when there is absolutely no room for error.
In my line of work, people die if I make a mistake, and the
same applies here. These mistakes may ultimately cost veterans
their lives. Each lost document represents a veteran who may
have been injured while serving our country, and therefore may
be entitled to medical care and other benefits.
Veterans have the right to expect that the VA will
carefully consider all the evidence, including paper documents
before granting or denying a claim. A lost document may result
in a denied claim, which may have serious financial and
emotional costs to that veteran.
The seriousness of this issue is highlighted by two cases
involving homeless veterans. The VA has made the processing of
claims of homeless veterans a priority because they are among
the most vulnerable people in our society. And as a result of
VA's outreach, two homeless individuals filed paper claims for
benefits with the Los Angeles regional office. I would imagine
that these two individuals were probably very optimistic that
the VA would approve their claims and help them get back on
their feet.
How disappointed and upset would these veterans be if they
learned that the IG had found that their unprocessed claims
were about to be shredded. The truth is that these claims would
not have an adjudicated if the IG had not discovered them in
the shred bin.
Moreover, we don't know the extent of the problem. The IG
only had the resources to conduct spot checks at ten ROs. I
look forward to hearing the VA's plans to ensure that each RO
has implemented procedures to ensure important claim
information is not being destroyed.
With that, I call on our distinguished Ranking Member, Ms.
Titus, for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF DINA TITUS, RANKING MEMBER
Ms. Titus. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for holding this hearing today. I would like to point
out that our fellow Members of the Committee from southern
California requested this hearing, Ms. Brownley and Dr. Ruiz.
And I appreciate you taking the time to address the issue that
is critical to all our constituents, and that they noted in
southern California.
I share the Chairman's concerns regarding the improper
handling of paperwork at ROs and its impact on veterans'
benefits. And I am hopeful that we will hear how the VA has
addressed the problem by utilizing their new electronic system
to standardize the processes for handling, protecting and
destroying documents as necessary.
I would also note that this Committee held a similar
hearing in 2008. And I hope that the VA makes the changes that
we need so we won't be having another hearing like this 8 years
down the road.
I want to thank Chairwoman--Congressman, excuse me. You
should be a chairwoman on the other Committee, but
Congresswoman Brownley and Ruiz for their efforts to address
this issue and that included visiting the Los Angeles VA
regional hospital, which was a ground zero for this problem.
Their visits led to an immediate policy change at the Los
Angeles VA regional office, and contributed significantly to
the overall conversation within the VA about how to best handle
electronic documents.
So today, we have a number of questions that must be
answered by the VA. For example, the IG did spot checks at ten
different ROs and found that almost half of the documents from
the shred bins they reviewed were incorrectly marked to be
destroyed.
In Reno, which serves my constituents, in Las Vegas six of
16 documents were incorrectly placed in shred bins. So I am
curious to learn about the follow-up plan from the VA, and the
IG to check in on the offices that did poorly in the first
review, including Reno to see how they have improved. I am also
interested to hear how moving from the antiquated paper based
processing system into VBMS will affect VA's ability to
safeguard documents.
What protocols need to be updated? Is there sufficient use
of automation? Are supervisors able to track employees handling
of veterans' personal information? How much of an upgrade and
document control does a new electronic system offer over the
old paper based system? These are all questions and I hope to
hear answers for because we owe it to our veterans to ensure
that when they entrust their personal information to the VA, it
is handled appropriately and discreetly.
So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the answers to
these questions and continuing to work with you and Ms.
Brownley and others on our Subcommittee to address this issue,
and I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
I ask that all Members waive their opening remarks as part
of this Committee's customs.
And I would like to welcome today's witnesses, Beth McCoy,
Deputy Under Secretary for field operations. She is accompanied
by Brad Houston, Director of Office of Business Process.
Brent Arronte, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for
Audits and Evaluations, Office of Inspector General. He is
accompanied by Ms. Dana Sullivan, Director, San Diego Benefits
Inspections Division, Office of Inspector General.
I want to remind the witnesses that your complete written
statements will be entered into the hearing record.
Ms. McCoy, you are now recognized to present your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF BETH MCCOY
Ms. McCoy. Good morning Chairman Abraham and Ranking Member
Titus, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the Veterans Benefits Administration
records management program. Specifically handling and
disposition of veterans' claims-related documents.
As you mentioned, I am accompanied today by Mr. Brad
Houston, our director of VBA's business process integration
office. VBA is committed to ensuring that veterans' records are
protected and maintained with accuracy and care.
Today, I will address findings from two reports by VA's
Office of Inspector General, released in April 2016, one about
disposition of documents at the Los Angeles regional office,
and one based on reviews at ten other ROs.
Although the number of document handling errors IG
identified in these reports was extremely small, VBA knows that
every veteran's record is vitally important and sincerely
regrets any human errors. We greatly appreciate the support of
Congress that has enabled us to transform our antiquated paper
based claims processing system to a fully electronic processing
environment using digital records in the veterans benefits
management system or VBMS.
To address the inefficiencies and risks associated with
working with paper folders. VA has converted millions of paper
files to e-folders. Nearly 6 million claims files were scanned
into veterans e-folders in VBMS between 2012 and 2015.
In fiscal year 2015, VBA also deployed the centralized mail
initiative to all of our regional offices. Centralized mail
reroutes all inbound compensation related mail directly from
the U.S. Postal Service to intake centers that we have at
vendor sites where documents are quickly scanned and digitized.
Conversion of paper records to digital records
significantly strengthens the systemic protection of veterans
claims documents, which is a top priority for VBA. We have also
enhanced our online claims filing capabilities for veterans and
their representatives through e-benefits, and the stakeholder
enterprise portal helping to keep paper documents from being
created in the first place, which is very important.
VBA claims processors used to touch 5,000 tons of paper
every year. Today, 99.8 percent of disability compensation
claims are processed electronically. While VBA's transformation
to an electronic claims processing system has significantly
minimized the flow of paper documents to our regional offices,
a small volume of paper documents do continue to be received in
the ROs.
VBA's current records management guidance provides several
layers and levels of review and oversight in the process of
appropriately handling and disposing of paper documents.
Employees and supervisors play a critical role in the records
management process, along with designated records management
officers or RMOs.
During one of its benefit inspection program visits at the
L.A. regional office at the beginning of 2015, OIG received an
allegation that claims processors were shredding mail related
to Veterans compensation claims. IG reviewed about 13,800
documents and found nine documents or .065 percent that
required supervisor or RMO annotations or some action.
I want to emphasize these documents were reviewed midstream
in the whole process and would still have been subject to
review by a supervisor, and/or the RMO prior to final
disposition. The L.A. RO director immediately took action. He
halted shredding, retrained all employees on paper document
handling procedures, and reviewed the records related to those
nine documents to take all necessary final actions.
IG then conducted unannounced visits at ten ROs in July of
2016 where they reviewed 438,000 documents. In the end, the
review identified 11 documents or .0025 percent of the 438,000
that actually affected, or had the potential to affect
benefits. Although again the number of document handling errors
during that ten RO review was extremely small, we continue to
emphasize that every veteran's record is vitally important and
must be safeguarded. We are right now updating our records
management policies to strengthen compliance and better align
procedures with the current electronic environment.
Finally, we cannot underscore the importance of protecting
veterans' records too strongly with our employees, 53 percent
of whom are veterans themselves. We sincerely regret when
errors are made. And we continue to expand use of digital
technology to eliminate potential for human error in the
process.
I appreciate the opportunity to address this important
topic today. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would
be happy to take any questions from you or other Members of
Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Beth McCoy appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Ms. McCoy.
Mr. Arronte, you are recognized for 5 minutes from the
Office of Inspector General.
STATEMENT OF BRENT ARRONTE
Mr. Arronte. Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Office of Inspector General's recent work on the
review of records disposition and alleged shredding of claims-
related documents. As indicated, I am accompanied by Ms. Dana
Sullivan, the director of our benefits inspection division in
San Diego.
VBA must be committed to ensure veterans' records are
properly protected, maintained and disposed of. A complete and
accurate record is critical for veterans to receive timely and
accurate benefits. Inappropriate shredding or mishandling of
claims related documents can lead to incorrect disability
decisions and can affect the integrity of VBA's reported
workload.
As stated in late 2008, the OIG reported staff at four VA
regional office inappropriately discarded 132 claims related
documents. Subsequent to that review, the Under Secretary for
Benefits, as you indicated, instructed regional office
leadership to conduct an internal review of all regional
offices and their documents scheduled for shred. That review
revealed an additional 474 claims related documents
inappropriately scheduled to be shredded.
As a result, VBA leadership redesigned their policies and
procedures regarding the disposition of veterans claims. The
OIG Benefits Inspection Division teams conducted inspections at
nine regional offices in 2009 over a 9-month period. We
conducted this review to ensure regional offices were complying
with VBA's new policy.
Early on in our inspections, we found very high rates of
noncompliance. However, by the end of December 2009, most
offices were complying with the new policies, and we did not
identify any improper destruction of documents.
In June 2014, the acting director for the Baltimore
regional office identified a situation where approximately
8,000 documents and 80 veterans' claims folders were improperly
stored. Upon the request from that acting director, we
confirmed that most of those documents consisted of processed
and unprocessed claims related material.
Our findings led the Under Secretary for Benefits at that
time to require each regional office director review 100
percent of all work spaces to ensure these conditions did not
exist at other offices.
In January 2015, we received an anonymous allegation that
staff at the Los Angeles regional office were inappropriately
shredding veterans' claims related mail. We substantiated that
staff, at that office, were not following VBA's policies.
Failure to follow key controls, such as not having a Records
Management Officer in place and staff not following the
policies, led to those conditions.
As such, we expanded our scope and conducted a review at 10
additional regional offices. We found 69 documents
inappropriately scheduled for shredding. Fifty-five of these
documents consisted of congressional inquiries at the Atlanta
Regional Office. Three of those fifty-five congressional
inquiries contained evidence to support a veteran's claim.
Regional offices continue to deal with paper on a regular
basis. In our national review, we identified some offices using
between 18 and 31 large bins to store documents scheduled for
shredding. Based on our analysis, most of those documents were
properly scheduled and stored for shredding. However, while the
number of claims related document we found in those bins were
fewer than compared to our 2009 review, we cannot minimize the
impact improperly shredded evidence could have on a single
veteran.
We are aware VBA is moving towards a paperless work
environment, and believe that as claims related documents are
scanned into VBMS, the risk of inappropriate shredding should
decrease. However, we believe that risk is going to move to
ensuring that there are controls to maintain and properly store
veterans documents that contain PII, and ensure that documents
sent to scanning facilities are actually scanned into the
electronic record.
Our recent work across the Nation has demonstrated VBA must
remain vigilant when enforcing its policies related to the
disposition of governmental records. Over the past 7 years, we
identified several instances where veterans' official records
were at risk for inappropriate destruction or mishandling.
While VBA is moving towards a paperless work environment,
there remain paper by-products that must be successfully
managed. VBA might not consider the number of documents we
found as a systemic issue; however, we consider this to be a
systemic issue in the sense that policies were not followed
across the Nation, at the offices that we looked at. We would
like to thank the VBA employees who brought these issues to our
attention so we can all better serve veterans.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and we look
forward to answering any questions you or the Members may have.
[The prepared statement of Brent Arronte appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Arronte, for your testimony. I
will begin the questioning.
Ms. McCoy, this question goes to you, please describe the
procedures used by the VA's central office VACO, to monitor
compliance with your current policies on record management?
Ms. McCoy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have multiple
different avenues for monitoring compliance. Those would
include various headquarters entities such as compensation
service, pension and fiduciary service. These are our
headquarters policies and procedures arms. They do site visits
out at our regional office, they check in and have the
opportunity to look on the ground at records management
processes and policies and compliance.
Another avenue is our district directors, we have five
districts within VBA. They go out and have very similar
oversight mechanisms in place. So for example, when I was the
central area director, several years ago, I would go out and we
would do spot checks of individual employees' desks to make
sure that records were appropriately annotated and stored. We
would look in trash bins, we looked in the common areas. So
there are multiple opportunities for on-the-ground oversight.
Mr. Abraham. Does the central office ensure that each RO
has at least one records management officer who is devoting 100
percent of their time to ensuring that these veterans records
are not improperly destroyed?
Ms. McCoy. So there is a requirement to have a records
management officer at each facility.
Mr. Abraham. Is that happening?
Ms. McCoy. It is happening, sir, to the sense that there
are some of our offices that are so small, the Dakotas for
example, that there is an RMO that handles both of those
offices. So some of the volume of paper that we are working at,
does come into play.
Mr. Abraham. But is that protocol for that to be like that?
I mean, does policy dictate that there is a record management
person at every regional office?
Ms. McCoy. It requires that records management officer
functions are fulfilled at every office, yes, sir. So in some
cases those are not less than full-time duties. And if there is
not a full-time officer, there is a requirement to check with
the district and have approval for less than a full-time.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. How did the VA miss that Los Angeles did
not have an RMO for 2 years.
Ms. McCoy. Sir, if I could clarify that. That is not
correct. We had a long time standing records management officer
who was promoted. There was about a 6-month time period when
this person was working in a different job, in a different part
of the office. Before he left that position, he trained others,
including his supervisor, to cover those records management
duties, and they were doing that. He was also still helping, to
do those records management reviews, even in his new position.
So during the transition, there was a vacancy, and they
were filling that, but the duties were being fulfilled.
Mr. Abraham. Well I guess my question is, who dropped the
ball there? We have had records that were inappropriately
handled. So who takes the hit for that, is that the RMO?
Somebody's got to own this problem. Hey, it was a mistake, and
it was not a minor mistake. I mean, this is major stuff, here.
So, you know, we have to have accountability.
Ms. McCoy. Absolutely, accountability is important. And we
have put several layers of process in place to make sure that
we handle veterans' records appropriately and safeguard them.
Mr. Abraham. All right. So you know, back in 2009, the VA's
answer was similar to your answer now, more training more
training. And now in 2016, the VA's solution is, again, is to
provide more training, better training. Now how can we as a
Committee be assured that this training, more training, extra
training, whatever you want to call it, would actually result
in better management of these veterans records?
Ms. McCoy. Chairman, it is a very important topic. And
training is a piece of it, but the bigger solution is something
that Congress has helped us implement, and that is a paperless
system, so that we don't have paper that we are handling and
passing along. It is scanned and digitized as early in the
process as possible. We don't want to receive paper in our
regional offices. We are diverting it at the post office, to
the scanning vendor, and we have several mechanisms for online
submission so that we don't get--
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Let me ask one more question before my
time runs out. How many employees, including RO management have
been held accountable, and in what way, for noncompliance of
the VBA policy related to document destruction during this past
year, and during the last 2 years? How many have been held
actually accountable?
Ms. McCoy. Chairman, I don't have that information with me.
I can take that for the record.
Mr. Abraham. Please.
Ms. McCoy. But within L.A. in particular, I can tell you
there was one employee, a bargaining unit employee, that was
held accountable for the incidents that we are--
Mr. Abraham. What happened to him? What happened to that
employee?
Ms. McCoy. I will take that for the record. I believe it
was a suspension.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. So they are still working somewhere?
Ms. McCoy. Yes.
Mr. Abraham. All right. Thank you. My time is up. Ms.
Titus.
Mr. Titus. Thank you. Ms. McCoy, as I highlighted in my
opening statement, I was concerned, but not surprised to find
out that Reno once again makes the list of the worst in the
country again now for this investigation.
I wonder if you can tell me what is going on at the Reno
office, if you are going to check back to see if they have
improved? Is the new guidance going to help you do that? Are
there any periodic checks with the places that had problems?
Ms. McCoy. Thank you, Congresswoman Titus.
We do have our new Regional Office Director Sheila A.
Jackson, who is there on the ground, insuring that records
management is a top priority. As far as, we have our
Continental district, our Pacific district, we have five
district offices, Pacific district is also making check-ins to
do oversight reviews for records management.
Ms. Titus. I have met with her, and I like her, and I think
she is improving the morale at that office and doing a good
job. So I am glad she is going to make this a priority as well.
Can you tell us a little bit more about the updated
guidance when it is going to come out, how it is going to
impact the backlog claims? Can you just give us some more
information about it?
Ms. McCoy. I would be happy to. So we have had a
longstanding records management process that was really beefed
up after 2008. So we put this multilayer review in so that we
would minimize any risk of mishandling of documents. We updated
that guidance in 2011, and we recognized in our new paperless
environment that it was certainly time to update it again. So
it is in draft process right now going through the concurrence.
We had hoped to have it done by the end of May, but we are
needing just a little bit more time because it is an important
complex issue.
So I would anticipate seeing that going through concurrence
in the next few weeks or months.
Ms. Titus. And you are keeping in mind how it is going to
impact the backlog, because it is not just about keeping
records secure, it is about moving the process along.
Ms. McCoy. Absolutely. And making sure that we have a good
records handling process, cuts down on delays and makes sure
that we are doing the most timely and accurate job we can for
our veterans.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Mr. Arronte, can you tell us how you
pick the offices that you studied?
Mr. Arronte. Yes, ma'am. After what we found in Los
Angeles, we made a fairly quick decision to conduct this
national review. Typically, when we conduct a review, we like
to statistically sample or select the offices that we want to
review. But based on how fast we wanted to get this turned
around, we judgmentally selected these offices. And how we did
that was to minimize travel costs. We tried to select offices
that were closely co-located to a current inspector general
field office, so we could eliminate travel costs.
Oh, I believe six of the ten offices were co-located or
closely co-located with an IG office, so we selected those
offices.
Ms. Titus. It wasn't because you knew Reno was so bad you
put it on the list?
Mr. Arronte. Well, so--that is a good point. For one of the
offices where we do not have an IG, we selected Philadelphia
because we had seen some issues with Philadelphia before. We
did the same thing with San Juan.
Ms. Titus. Okay. Thank you. Can you give us an update on
the status of the action that has been taken on some of your
recommendations?
Mr. Arronte. Okay. Right now the recommendations are still
not closed. VBA is still working those. Ms. McCoy and I are in
contact, and we are aware that they are going through a
concurrence process right now. We discussed an extension to get
this done. The concurrence process is fairly lengthy.
In about 2 months we have a process, a follow-up process,
where we will reach out to VBA and start asking, "When are you
going to provide our answers to the recommendations?" So, in
about 2 months we will start official follow-up.
Ms. Titus. And will you keep this Committee informed of how
those recommendations are being implemented so we can kind of
keep some oversight on--to be sure those problem are addressed?
Mr. Arronte. Absolutely, ma'am.
Mr. Titus. Okay. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you Ms. Titus. Mr. Bost.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCoy, I am--I don't
even know--you said a while ago when speaking to the Chairman
and answering his question, that training will now occur. Is
that correct, are you working on training now so that this will
not happen again?
Ms. McCoy. Training is ongoing all the time. We are
updating the training and the policies.
Mr. Bost. Okay. The concern I have is is in our documents
and what we have got, that prior--that the assistant director
assumed the previous RMO has provided SDA staff with training,
but no one assured--there was no assurance that it had
occurred, and that is why we are back in this spot. Is that
correct?
Ms. McCoy. I don't--
Mr. Bost. Apparently, it is, because otherwise we would
have stopped it from occurring again, correct?
Ms. McCoy. I think the minimum human error that was
involved here, which cannot be minimized, but I don't want to
make more of it than what it is, also. There was a vacancy, an
interim vacancy, and we were working to fill that. We
reorganizing our support service divisions at the time. It is
not accurate that we were not filling behind that position. We
were filling behind it in a hybrid manner.
So there would be additional duties on top of the RMO
duties. Because there was so little paper going through the
regional offices compared to what we had in 2008, when we had
100 percent paper based process. Now 99.8 of our processing in
our compensation claims is done with digits and not with paper.
Mr. Bost. Okay. What type of backup do you have there in
all electronic records?
Ms. McCoy. I would ask my colleague Mr. Houston to speak to
that. I am not the IT person. He is a little closer to that
than I am.
Mr. Houston. Sir, 2 years ago we began central intake
process for VBA. Before that, every single claim and every
single piece of evidence came in, in paper. And in the last 2
years, we have transitioned that to--in three venues. One, 13
percent of the documents we receive now, we receive online
through e-benefits directly into e-file. Thirty-six percent of
the documents we received we received by fax. We receive them
digitally, they go immediately to a digital mail queue. Again,
if they are electronic, and can't be lost.
And then in the last 2 years with our central mail program,
an additional 13 percent of the documents we received are
received directly at our intake sites where they are opened and
imaged the same day.
So now, in the last 2 years, we have gone from 100 percent
paper at regional offices, 56 different intake methods, to 61
percent of our inbound communications are received digitally or
are digitized the day we open the envelope. So at this point,
only 39 percent of the evidence we receive from veterans is
even paper to begin with, which greatly reduces our opportunity
for any sort of misrouted or lost document.
Mr. Bost. Okay. I guess my next question, Mr. Arronte, how
do you respond to the VA's testimony that the error rate is
actually less that 1 percent and not indicative of the whole
VBA system?
Mr. Arronte. Sir, I think it is the way we are doing math.
We did look at 400,000 documents, but we went through those
documents to specifically identify claims-related documents. So
if you want to do the division, then the .06 percent that Ms.
McCoy is talking about is one way to look at it.
But, we narrowed our universe down to only those claims
related documents that we found and that was 155. And then we
looked at all 155 of those.
Mr. Bost. All right. I am trying to find out if--Okay I
won't say it is called cooking the books, but it is kind of
whichever way you are selling it. Okay. Because you are saying
that you look at it one way, and that is the way you come up
with your numbers and the VA looks at it another way, and that
is the way they come up with their numbers, which makes it very
difficult for this Committee as we move forward to try to deal
with this issue, along with many other issues that we are
having with the VA similar to this, and to try and get it under
control in a system that really works.
And each one, unfortunately, I keep seeing the VA come
forward and say one either--and not just in this instance, it
is not your fault or the not as bad as everybody says. Well, it
is as bad as everybody says if you are the person--it is your
records that this occurs with.
And I have been on the Committee now for--since being here,
a year and a half, and I have watched this over and over again,
and it becomes very frustrating when I have to go back to my
constituents and try to answer for the VA, when either you have
got too big in so many areas, and you are just out of control
and we have got to get this under control. And for you to come
back here a second time with the same problem is really a
problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Bost. Ms. Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you and Ranking Member Titus for holding this hearing today. I
think it is very important that we follow through with
oversight when issues are raised. So I appreciate it very much.
I wanted to ask Mr. Arronte, I think Ms. McCoy is saying
that staff was trained to do the RMO duties. And I think you
are stating that they weren't trained. So I just wanted to get
a clarification there?
Mr. Arronte. Yes, ma'am. I am going to defer this to Ms.
Sullivan, she was actually on site when her team conducted the
reviews. But I can tell you that when we interviewed the SSD
staff who were supposed to be taking over this responsibility,
they unequivocally told us that they had not been trained.
Dana?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, ma'am. We interview folks at their
regional offices, when we go out and do our inspections and our
hotline reviews. We were told by the former RMO that he had not
provided training, formal training. We spoke to the support
services division staff who were doing the duties of the RMO,
and they told us they had not received the training as well.
And, we followed that up with discussions and interviews with
the assistant director who confirmed with us that she had not
followed up on whether or not that training had taken place.
Ms. Brownley. Ms. McCoy, can you respond?
Ms. McCoy. Thank you, Congresswoman. In talking to the L.A.
regional office director, several times about this, I would add
and clarify that he said, that the IG folks never talked to the
SSD, the support services supervisor who was actually
performing the duties. There were other people helping, but no
one talked to him.
Also, the former records management officer had conducted
the training and was still involved in helping, when necessary,
to review records. So these duties were being performed by
folks who were capable and trained to do it. So there is a
disconnect somewhere.
Ms. Brownley. There is a disconnect somewhere.
So Ms. McCoy, in your testimony, I think you were making
the point that you believe at this point that mistakes that
occur are relatively small. And I concur that in any sort of
management organization, you know, there is going to be some
human error involved and I get that. That is not to say that we
accepted it, and we have to do something about it, but I accept
that notion.
I think, you know, I wanted to follow-up on the Chairman's
line of questioning, and Ms. Titus' line of questioning, in
terms of just trying to really understand the accountability
measures that are going to be in play.
So previously the IG makes visits, site visits, finds
mistakes. They are going to follow-up on that, you will follow-
up on that. But what are the measures actually embedded now
into your system that you will find mistakes, not the IG, that
you will find mistakes, rectify those mistakes?
And what is your reporting mechanisms so that you know
internally where the mistakes are happening? It shouldn't be in
my opinion for this Committee to ask you to make a report and
you come and tell us, we should be able to, I think, at any
time be able to look at the records and see what you have
identified what mistakes are there, and we can all sort of
concur. So that is what I am looking for, is what are those
accountability measures?
Now you also said that the paperless system is part of that
accountability. And, I mean, a paperless system, I think, is
the right way to go, and I think it may eliminate some of the
errors made just in terms of pushing paper. But a paperless
system, I think, is better for efficiency purposes, but not
necessarily accountability systems.
So if you could just inform us on what are those embedded
accountability measures?
Ms. McCoy. I would be happy to. Thank you. So I would like
to briefly touch on the accountability for the paper and then I
would ask Mr. Houston if there is time to talk about the
accountability in the electronic system.
So as far as the records management policies and
procedures, I mentioned we are updating them right now. Our
office of management which oversees records management is
taking into account the IT findings, best practices from across
our regional offices, and then incorporating the records
management piece of a digital environment. So those things are
ongoing.
We do keep records violation logs in our regional offices,
the RMOs keep logs of anything they find, so that is an
important piece of this. They give feedback to the supervisors
and the employees if they find that they are missing signatures
or annotations. So these are ongoing. And I did mention our
oversight visits. So as far as the electronic piece of this--
Ms. Brownley. Mr. Chairman, I know, my time.
Mr. Abraham. Go ahead.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
Ms. McCoy. Thank you. Mr. Houston I think can elaborate on
that.
Mr. Houston. So in the electronic system, the first thing
is that as soon as we image it, it is permanent. Even if we
identify later that it is not of evidentiary value for our
record, we have still got that image. And so if someone were to
delete it, no matter when or where we find a problem, we can go
back, restore that image and see who deleted it.
The second thing is in the logs Ms. McCoy mentioned, that
is a log of a paper system. It is a digital log, but it takes a
human being to key it in. In a digital system if someone
identifies a document as not belonging in a claims folder and
it goes in the digital system to the RMO, and they say no, we
need to retain that--it will track how many times somebody sent
something back saying you shouldn't have marked this for
disposal. And it is not human driven, the system tracks it.
So we have got no human influence, on a data tracking
system, that will tell us statistically do we have some
employees at some locations that are doing it more than others?
What type of documents are they marking for deletion? And if
turns out we did it wrong, we can get it back. And the biggest
piece there is that it is tracked by the system while they are
doing their job. It is not them doing their job and then
recording it.
I would be happy to elaborate on that if you would like.
Ms. Brownley. But is there a system in place that
management in some sense checks in on that rather than the
system, you know, figuring that out, but we have got to make
sure that we do something about it as well once--
Ms. McCoy. Yes, ma'am. So we are checking in on the paper
based system and updating the policy and procedures, we will
incorporate this new electronic environment that we are in just
in the past few years.
And again, that is the direction for the future. We very
much appreciate Congress' support to get us where we are and
going forward we don't want paper coming in. The more digits
and the more images we have that cannot be lost in our digital
fingerprint in the system of who touched it, and moved it, and
did what with it. We won't be having these conversations.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I read this report.
Mr. Arronte, I commend you and all those at the IG's office
that worked on it. It is deeply frustrating, it is deeply
troubling. When I consider, and I am from Pennsylvania, just
looking by example to Philadelphia VA RO, last tread log
documentation December 2012.
We look at claims related document without the required two
signatures in shred bin. And I look at the Philadelphia data
there, which is not as bad as the Atlanta data, but that
doesn't make it any much better.
I get concerned when--and this isn't directed at you, but I
get concerned when we see information like this. And the
response from the VA is, well, we are going to--and with all
due respect to you, Ms. McCoy, we are looking at revising our
rules and regulations, our procedures, our requirements. When
in fact, there is nothing that prevents those working on these
files from just doing their job properly in the first instance.
And if you are not going to properly do your job, then it
really doesn't matter what rules, regulations or requirements
are further added.
Is there anything else that you could share with me Mr.
Arronte about the findings at the Philadelphia office that
either aren't included in here, or that make it unique, or
particular in any respect? And then Ms. McCoy I will offer you
an opportunity to respond as well.
Mr. Arronte. Yes, sir. I am going to defer to Ms. Sullivan.
In my testimony, and my oral statement, we discussed a large
number of bins filled with paper documents. Philadelphia was
one of the offices that, I think, had 31 bins of documents.
Most of the documents were properly scheduled to be shredded,
but when you have that kind of volume in a paperless
environment, it kind of increases the risk, in our opinion.
Dana?
Ms. Sullivan. Certainly, sir. At Philadelphia, we did find
31 bins when we were there doing our surprise inspection. We
were told that the week before that they--and we saw
documentation, that they had looked at 28 bins.
The majority of documents, as Mr. Arronte said, had no
value. They were paper envelopes, those types of items that are
okay to be shredded, which is why we separated out the claims
related documents, because that is where the risk to veterans
lies.
Mr. Costello. Right.
Ms. Sullivan [continued]. Is in the claims related
documents. And we talked to the RMT, they have an RMT there, a
Records Management Technician, who it is a similar position to
the records management officer. And, she told us that during
her review each week, she would look at a random selection of
bins. Such that she could not guarantee they were looking at
all claims related documents prior to destruction as was
required under the policy for the VBA.
Mr. Costello. When I look at what types of claims related
documents in Philadelphia, as provided in the IG's report, it
seems to me--I am not a claim processor--it seems to be pretty
self-evident that they would be related to a claim, and
everybody makes mistakes. But am I off there? Aren't most of
those documents self-evident? I mean, it is not really a close
call, is it?
Ms. Sullivan. Well, we have talked to staff not only at
Philadelphia, but at other regional offices who said they were
confused by the policy. Some said they hadn't had any training
in quite some time, and they were not sure what documents
needed a one signature, two signatures, or no signature, and
they were just confused frankly.
Mr. Costello. Do you accept that as credible?
Ms. Sullivan. Based on the fact that we found some
documents, we talked to some folks in Philadelphia. We asked
some supervisors and managers, "Should these documents have
been shredded?" And, they said, "No, they should not have been
shredded. They should not have been in the final gray bin. They
should have been caught."
Mr. Costello. Ms. McCoy, what do you think the next steps
are based on the findings in this IG report? Which is just a
flash point in time, and that is the point. People make
mistakes. If these finding in Philadelphia were over a year,
you know, if that was the aggregate in a year or maybe even a
month, I can look at that and say, well there is a lot going
on, there is a lot of paperwork, but it just seems to me rather
high given that flash point in time.
And again, I am speaking specifically about Philadelphia,
and Atlanta is certainly a lot worse. But can you share with me
your concerns and what you think needs to be done moving
forward, and specifically beyond just new rules or regulations
which candidly someone can ignore at their desk. And if there
is not the oversight afterward, then a new rule or regulation
isn't going to really accomplish much.
Ms. McCoy. Absolutely. Every record is important. And I
don't want to look at any veteran and have to say or explain
that we mishandled something.
Mr. Houston's comments earlier about the electronic
environment and all the safeguards, that is the answer, that is
the way to go. As we get there during the transition, we do
have humans involved in the process, and we are doing
everything we can to help them understand what they need to do.
And that is why we have our multiple layer review process.
A bulk of the documents that are moving around in the
regional offices for disposal are internally generated. So it
is a copy of a letter that we printed out and realized there
was a typo or a draft of a rating decision that we then decided
we need to add something else.
So I don't want to minimize any of this, every document is
important. But we are not talking about us throwing away
claims, you know, critical claims documents. The bulk of the
paper we are working with, is stuff that we make internally and
realize we don't need it. Or there are duplicate documents that
are already in the system that have come in again from a
veteran or a veteran service officer and we don't need them,
but we have to annotate them to assure along the whole process
that we know they are duplicate.
And some of these violations--yes, it is accurate that we
didn't follow policy if we didn't put the right initials and
annotations, but that doesn't mean the paper gets thrown away.
Mr. Costello. I agree. And I think it is one thing when--
and then I will yield back, I know I am over--
It is one thing when you needed two signatures and you only
got one, I think it is entirely different when you need a
signature and you don't need any. I think that that is a darker
shade of problem.
But I am over my time. I appreciate the response from all
three of you. Thanks.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Costello. Mr. Zeldin.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCoy, by any
chance do you know of a case involving a Mr. John Mitchell?
Ms. McCoy. I am familiar with Mr. Mitchell, yes.
Mr. Zeldin. Okay. Why is he not receiving aid and
attendance?
Ms. McCoy. I would say that we--I would be happy to have
myself and our compensation service folks sit down and have a
deeper conversation.
I think the overall answer is that the evidence that we
reviewed in that case doesn't substantiate entitlement to that
benefit. And I know that there has been a lot of back and forth
on that case. I personally have asked our headquarters experts
to look at, make sure that we did it right, and we have done
that a couple of times. So we are not finding entitlement based
on the evidence we have.
Mr. Zeldin. We admit that John Mitchell is a veteran and
that he served in special operations for over 20 years. There
is no doubt about that biographical part of his service,
correct?
Ms. McCoy. Sir, I am not that intricately familiar with his
particular case. I know that we have had multiple reviews and a
lot of conversation. I--
Mr. Zeldin. Okay. But you are not even willing to admit
that he is served in the military?
Ms. McCoy. I understand he did--
Mr. Zeldin. You came here and you admit that you know his
case.
Ms. McCoy. Yes.
Mr. Zeldin. And you are not intimately involved in his case
enough to even vouch that he served in the military?
Ms. McCoy. On the spot, in this moment, I don't know those
intricacies. I believe he did, but I don't--I did not write the
case.
Mr. Zeldin. Okay. So just imagine this, you serve for over
20 years in the military, you are in special operations, you
deploy into combat. You suffer a traumatic brain injury after a
1,250 foot parachute fall. You are involved in a military
vehicle accident. You are at the point now legally blind, and
you disparately need aid and attendance, and you completely
qualify for it.
After suffering multiple military injuries connected to
your service, serving your country, willing to lay down your
life for it, and you reach out for help. And despite meeting
all of the legal obligations and all of the legal requirements
to qualify for aid and attendance, after serving your country
for over 20 years, you can be watching a video where a House
Veterans' Affairs Committee is speaking with the representative
from the Department of Veterans Affairs on this topic of the
handling of paperwork and taking care of our veterans and never
wanting to tell a veteran that there has been any type of
mishandling of your paperwork.
And I am asking you about his case. You acknowledge that
you know of his case, and even though this has been brought up
at past Veterans' Affairs Committee hearings, I can't even get
you to admit that he served our country.
Now just imagine if you are at home, and after serving your
country for literally decades, and deploying into combat, you
can't even get the Department of Veterans Affairs to
acknowledge that you served, let alone the fact that you have
to live your entire life with traumatic brain injury from a
parachute fall and a military vehicle accident.
That is how you personalize, this isn't just about paper. I
am offended on behalf of my constituent. I thank him for his
service. I am willing to not only acknowledge that he served
our country, but that his traumatic brain injury that he
suffered as a result of it, which qualifies him for this
benefit, at the very least, at the very least at this point, in
June of 2016 after everything he's gone through trying to get
this approval, maybe the Department of Veterans' Affairs can at
least acknowledge that he served. That right there was one of
the most, if not the most offensive answers I have heard in any
Committee hearing that I have been in.
And if you put yourself in the position of John Mitchell, I
implore you please at the end of this Committee hearing to
relook at his paperwork because everything is there, to get
this man the help that he needs, and at the very least at this
point after what we just witnessed with the answer to that
question, I think the Secretary owes John Mitchell an apology,
and a thank you for his service. At the very least your
Department can acknowledge he served.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Zeldin.
I am going to ask a couple of follow-up questions so we are
going to start a second round here.
Mr. Arronte, this will go to you. Your testimony explained
inappropriately shredding of documents and how it impacts our
veterans. And we understand that in our claim process. Yet,
your office didn't follow-up on the 2008 findings until
recently. So why hasn't your office made this more of a
priority?
Mr. Arronte. Sir, unless I didn't speak clearly, we did
follow-up after the 2008 incidents where we found all the
inappropriate shredding. Our Benefits Inspection Division,
which was newly created in 2009, looked at nine regional
offices over a 9 month period. And initially, I think there was
an 88 percent noncompliance rate. We were still finding 88
percent of the documents we looked at should not have been
shredded.
And then towards the end of that year in December, I
believe, it went to below 10 percent. And, so then, at that
time, we have to conduct risk assessments for the protocols we
look at based on the staffing. So, we shifted some of our work
from that to look at issues like traumatic brain injury, and
temporary 100 percent claims. But we did look at the policy for
about 9 months to make sure staff at these offices were
complying.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. And I am going to ask you this too, Mr.
Arronte. How do you respond to the VA's testimony of Ms. McCoy
that, that the error rate is actually less than 1 percent and
is not indicative of VBA's systemic issues?
Mr. Arronte. Again, sir, as Ms. Sullivan indicated, when we
look through these bins and we are looking for mail, we go
through a lot of paper documents, some of them are Post-it
notes, some are envelopes. So, if you want to count that as the
total universe of documents that we looked at, then that is one
way to do the math.
What we were looking for is claims related documents, and
we found 155. So to us, that is 100 percent. We found 155 at
that snapshot in time, so 100 percent of what we looked at that
should have not been there was the 155. So we had to filter
through the okay stuff to find the universe that we wanted to
find.
Mr. Abraham. And I think that is my concern is that we are
having voodoo math here on some of these issues. So we will
continue. Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. I thank you. I would just go back Ms. McCoy you
said we don't want to receive any paper, we don't want paper.
We want everybody to do electronic filing. Well if some of
those veterans are like me, that is a problem because they are
low tech.
But what are you doing to get the VSOs to get our veterans
to apply online, as opposed to sending paper? Are we helping
them to do this so that they can then in turn make the system
work better?
Ms. McCoy. Yes, we are. We are making sure they have
access. We are increasing the capabilities in those systems to
upload documents electronically. We have fax capabilities to
send them in and they are digitized immediately upon receipt of
the fax.
And I know there are concerns that there are, as you say,
low tech veterans or folks in rural areas who might not have
access to a computer or scanner or something like that. Another
solution is don't send it to the regional office, send it
straight to the scanning vendor. That way we don't have to put
it in the box, and take the time and expense to send it to the
scanning vendor.
There is a P.O. Box, it is P.O. 4444 in Janesville,
Wisconsin. And someone can send it straight to the scanning
vendor for us, it doesn't get to a regional office, there are
not hand offs' with humans touching the paper. It goes right
into digits and is scanned immediately.
Ms. Titus. So are you in communication with VSOs? Have they
offered any input into how to make this process better or
anything they need to help their veterans, their members apply
in this way?
Ms. McCoy. Yes. We have been working with them and I would
ask Mr. Houston to elaborate on that, please.
Mr. Houston. Ma'am, we have been working with the VSOs on
both, when they send this information, how do we make it so
that our systems make it digital, where we use smart technology
to extract file numbers, names, contentions, so even though the
veteran wrote it and sent it to us in paper, right as we scan
it, we make it just as they had applied online. And we are
making changes to the VA forms to accommodate that.
We have also added so that when you send a fax you get a
fax confirmation page back right away to say this is the number
of pages we have got, we confirm that we have got it, and we
are expanding that so you will get more than just a
confirmation page. You will get a confirmation page when we
receive it, and you will also get an update once the claim has
been put under control in the VA systems. And all of those
changes were due to direct feedback from veteran service
officers.
We have also been working to enable veteran service
officers who have their own imaging systems to upload directly
to VA systems from theirs, rather than print, mail and we
rescan it. And we are doing that for a couple of reasons. One
is because I wanted to spend less money on scanning. We scanned
2 billion images in the last 4 years. Any time I can get it
digitally to begin with I save the taxpayer a lot of money.
So we are working with the VSOs to get it directly from
them digitally. And I know that the VSOs have been really
aggressive about pushing both scanners and fax machines into
their remote offices to increase our ability to get it
electronically.
So we are working with VSOs to get it more electronically,
with more data. And then we have also worked with them to make
sure that when we get paper, we can make it electronic rapidly
and accurately. Because we really want to make sure no matter
what generation of veteran you are, we take care of you.
In addition on that, with older records we have specific
technology's, hardware and software in place to handle older
records. I think we are probably the leading edge on microfiche
reading, because we still get microfiche records. We have got
specialized equipment for that. And we have got specialized
equipment for the old onion skin records. We have got some
really terrific equipment. We have been resourced by this
Committee and others to make sure we get that done right. And a
lot of that is aimed at making sure we can handle older records
as fast or faster than new records.
Ms. Titus. Well, that is good to hear. Do you have a
scanning center in the West?
Mr. Houston. We do not, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Maybe we need to look at that.
Mr. Houston. What we have done is, we use a competitive
contract, and we award it to two competitors at the same time.
And we essential make them compete for veterans' business every
day, whichever one of them is doing better gets more work,
whichever one of them is doing poorly gets less work.
On that note, though, we don't tell them how to do their
business. We bring a good industry-government partnership in
where industry brings its best game, best value for the
taxpayer, and we make sure they do it. We really haven't
dictated where they put them, we just dictate the results they
give us.
Ms. Titus. And you are confident that the records are kept
safe there and there is not a problem at that level that maybe
the IG hasn't looked at?
Mr. Houston. Absolutely. In addition to the quality of the
records, records security is huge. At our scan sites, you can't
take paper in, you can't take a cell phone in, you can't take a
camera in. Anything electronic you take in is examined. When
you walk out, you hold your jacket out in front of you so they
can see you are not taking anything with you. And then we use a
five-tier accuracy review on what we scan.
Our vendors use individual quality reviews on their people.
They do inline audits of their process. We have an independent
company go in and audit that process. We also use the accuracy
controls in the software and the hardware. And then our last
accuracy review is the VA employee when they are looking at the
claim and looking at, did I get it, was it scanned right, was
it clear, was it readable, is there a page missing? And so we
use both physical controls on the paper in the sites and all
kinds of electronic controls on the quality we get from them.
I would welcome anybody, any Congressmen or your staffers
or VSOs, we routinely show them through our sites because we
are really proud of the value those folks are giving the
veterans.
Ms. Titus. That would be interesting. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abraham. Ms. Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCoy, you have
basically testified that almost now 100 percent of the claims
are processed electronically, almost there. And so do you have
any idea what percentage of appeals are processed
electronically and what the timeframe is for that?
Ms. McCoy. A majority of the appeals are in electronics
both for VBA and also the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
Ms. Brownley. Is that like 51 percent or--
Ms. McCoy. I think more like 60 to 70 percent, but I would
have to check on that.
Ms. Brownley. And the timeline?
Ms. McCoy. And the timeline--so, I believe this year Mr.
Houston, in getting the best value we can, and maximizing the
amount of scanning we can do. We are looking for additional
opportunities to have regional offices send any remaining
appeals folders and paperwork to the scanning vendor so it is
electronic as well.
Ms. Brownley. But a timeline, by what date?
Mr. Houston. We are looking to have it done by the end of
the calendar year, ma'am.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
So again, Ms. McCoy, you have concurred with
recommendations from the IG. You said you were in the process
of releasing additional guidance on that. And again timeline,
when is that going to happen and how will it be executed in all
the VA offices?
Ms. McCoy. Our office of management is working on that
right now. I believe they have an early draft, it will go
through concurrence. If I had to tentatively put a timeline--I
would think in the next maybe 6 to 8 weeks, we would have that
policy updated and concurrence completed. Then we would do all
of the necessary training at the regional offices on that, and
then start whatever oversight changes are generated by that new
policy.
Ms. Brownley. And last question, which is with regard to
congressional inquiries, I know that there was, I think the
IG--maybe it wasn't the IG, but I know that in Atlanta it was
identified that congressional inquiries were not properly
uploaded, and so can you clarify, are you putting forward again
new guidance, new policy, vis-`-vis congressional inquiries?
Ms. McCoy. Yes, that will be part of the updated policies
and procedures. Right now there is some gray area as to whether
just general congressional inquiries are supposed to go into
the claims folder itself. We have in the regional offices
separate tracking mechanisms for requests on status of claim
and things of that nature. And the policy is that if there is
any attachment of evidence, that goes into the claims folder.
There is still a little squishiness there. And we are
asking our experts to shore that up to make sure it is very
clear to employees, everything from congressional inquiry
perspective that needs to go in the folder versus on a
spreadsheet or something of that nature.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Brownley. Okay ladies and
gentlemen, on behalf of the Subcommittee, I thank you for your
testimony. And this testimony has raised some serious questions
about how the VA is handling the paper documents.
And I appreciate that the VA has made some progress since
the 2009 hearing on this issue, but the IG reports prove that
the veterans' paperwork is still ending up in the shred bin
when it should not. I look forward to working through these
issues with the department and my colleagues on the Committee.
Again, thanks to everyone for being here. And as initially
noted, the complete written statement of today's witnesses will
be entered into the hearing record.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
materials.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I thank the Members and the witnesses for their attendance
and the participation today. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Beth McCoy
Introduction
Good Morning Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA) records management program - specifically
the handling and disposition of Veterans' claim-related documents. I am
accompanied today by Mr. Brad Houston, Director of VBA's Office of
Business Process Integration. VBA is committed to ensuring all
Veterans' records are protected and maintained with accuracy and care.
My testimony today will address the findings of two reports by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG),
released in April 2016, regarding disposition of claim-related
documents; one related to an inspection at the Los Angeles Regional
Office (RO) and one based on reviews at 10 additional ROs (Atlanta,
Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, New Orleans, Oakland, Philadelphia, Reno,
San Juan, and St. Petersburg). Although the numbers of document-
handling errors identified by the OIG in these reports were extremely
small, VBA knows that every Veteran's record is vitally important and
sincerely regrets these human errors. My testimony will begin by
discussing the extensive transformation VA has been diligently
undertaking to eliminate the potential for these types of errors.
Transformation from Paper to Digital Records
VA greatly appreciates the support of the Congress that has allowed
us to transform our antiquated paper-based claims processing system to
a fully electronic processing environment using digital records. The
Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) was developed as a web-
based, paperless claims processing solution, complemented by improved
business processes, to address the inefficiencies of paper folders and
the problems of misplaced files and improper handling and disposal of
paper documents.
VA's shift to electronic claims processing has meant converting
millions of paper files to eFolders. Between fiscal year (FY) 2012 and
FY 2015, the Veterans Claims Intake Program (VCIP) scanned nearly six
million claims files into Veterans' eFolders in VBMS. In FY 2015, VBA
deployed its innovative Centralized Mail Initiative to all ROs.
Centralized Mail reroutes all inbound compensation applications and
claim-related mail directly from the U.S. Postal Service to Claims and
Evidence Intake Centers at document conversion services vendor sites -
an innovation that ensures these documents are quickly digitized and
protected from improper handling and inappropriate disposal. Conversion
of paper records to digital records significantly strengthens the
systemic protection of Veterans' claim documents. Assuring these
protections remains a top priority for VBA.
Additionally, we have enhanced our online claims filing
capabilities for Veterans and their representatives through eBenefits
and the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal, helping to keep paper documents
from being created in the first place. VBA claims processors used to
touch approximately 5,000 tons of paper each year. Today approximately
99.8 percent of disability compensation claims are processed
electronically.
RO Records Management Process for Document Disposal
While VBA's transformation to electronic claims processing has
significantly minimized the flow of paper documents to ROs, a small
volume of paper documents continue to be received. VBA's current
records management guidance provides several levels of review and
oversight in the process of appropriately handling and disposing of
paper documents. Employees and supervisors play a critical role in the
records management process, along with designated Records Management
Officers (RMO).
Employees are the first line of defense in ensuring proper handling
of paper records. All employees are issued a red shred bin for
collection of general paper materials and employee-generated documents
and system print-outs appropriate for disposal. Additionally, all
employees are issued a separate red envelope for claim-related
documents that require additional reviews and oversight by supervisors
and records management officers before determined appropriate for
disposal. Claim-related ``red-envelope'' documents that have received
the appropriate oversight reviews are ultimately placed by RMOs in
locked grey disposal containers for delivery to shredding service
contractors. These contractors are required to have systems in place
that are compliant with VA standards for protection of personally
identifiable information (PII) and requirements for disposal, or
shredding, of unnecessary paper.
OIG Inspection at the Los Angeles RO
During a regularly scheduled benefits inspection at the Los Angeles
RO in January/February 2015, the OIG received an allegation that
necessary claims processing documents were being inappropriately
designated for disposal.
OIG reported that approximately 13,800 documents were reviewed to
determine if all appropriate actions had been taken and the documents
were in fact appropriate for disposal. As a result of this review, nine
documents (approximately 0.065 percent) were identified as needing
additional action because proper shred-disposal procedures had not been
followed with required annotations documenting the oversight review by
a supervisor and/or the RMO. However, it is important to note that
these documents would still have been subject to final review by a
supervisor and RMO prior to being placed in the grey disposal
containers for final disposal. OIG also found that the RO had not
consistently assigned appropriately-trained staff to perform the RMO
duties and, as a result, did not maintain required logs of the
oversight reviews.
OIG notified RO leadership of the nine documents identified as
needing additional action on February 11, 2015, and the Los Angeles RO
Director took immediate action to address the concerns. The RO reviewed
the claims records associated with the nine documents and took all
necessary corrective actions. Shredding was halted while the RO took
extra steps to reissue guidance to all employees to reinforce correct
document-handling procedures. Every employee in the RO was retrained on
the proper procedures for identifying and annotating records for
shredding. The RMO position was vacant at the time, but RMO duties
continued to be performed by appropriate personnel until the position
was filled.
OIG Inspection of 10 ROs
After issuing an interim report on the findings in Los Angeles, OIG
conducted unannounced visits at 10 ROs to determine whether improper
identification of claims records for disposal was systemic throughout
VBA. In the course of these inspections, OIG reviewed approximately
438,000 documents. Of these, 155 were potentially claim-related, and
OIG concluded 69 were inappropriately submitted by employees for
destruction. Of the 69 documents, 55 were congressional inquiries
handled by the Atlanta RO, 52 of which had no impact on benefits. The
Atlanta RO had interpreted VBA's policy as requiring congressional
correspondence to be maintained but not requiring placement in the
Veterans' electronic claims folder. The report findings demonstrated
the need for clarification of VBA's national policy regarding the
maintenance of congressional correspondence, which VBA is actively
working on now.
Overall, the OIG review identified 17 claim-related documents that
were not compliant with VBA's document destruction policy and
procedures. Only 11 of those 17 documents - or approximately 0.0025
percent of the 438,000 documents reviewed - affected or had the
potential to affect benefits.
Although the number of document-handling errors identified during
the OIG's 10-RO review was extremely small, VA continues to emphasize
to our employees that every Veteran's record is vitally important, and
every effort must be taken to protect all Veterans' records. OIG
identified lack of clarity in VBA's records management policy as
contributing to the errors identified and made seven recommendations.
VA concurred with the recommendations, and we are revising VBA's
records management policy to strengthen compliance and better align
procedures with the current electronic environment.
Conclusion
We, in VBA, cannot underscore the importance of protecting
Veterans' records too strongly with our employees, approximately 53
percent of whom are Veterans themselves. We sincerely regret when
errors are made, and we will continue to work diligently to leverage
and expand our use of digital technologies to eliminate the potential
for human error in the process.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee today. Thank
you for your continued support and commitment on behalf of Veterans,
their families, and Survivors.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to take
any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.
Prepared Statement of Brent Arronte
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) recent
reports on the review of records disposition for veterans' claims-
related documents, Review of Alleged Shredding of Claims-Related
Evidence At The VA Regional Office Los Angeles, California, and Review
of Claims-Related Documents Pending Destruction at VA Regional Offices.
\1\ Our statement today focuses on the results of work conducted
related to a hotline allegation that management and staff at the Los
Angeles, California, VA Regional Office (VARO) were not following
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) policy on management of
veterans' and other governmental paper records. We will also discuss
the effectiveness of VA's controls for compliance with records
disposition guidance for veterans' claims-related documents observed
during our unannounced inspections at 10 VAROs across the nation. I am
accompanied by Ms. Dana Sullivan, Director, OIG's San Diego Benefits
Inspections Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Both reports were published on April 14, 2016, and are
available at http://www.va.gov/oig.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
In April 2009, the OIG established an independent benefits
inspection program to provide recurring oversight of VAROs, focusing on
disability compensation claims processing and performance of Veterans
Service Center (VSC) operations. Since the inception of the program,
the OIG has consistently reported on the need for enhanced policy
guidance, oversight, training, and supervisory review to improve the
accuracy and timeliness of disability claims processing and VARO
operations. We also perform specialized reviews of VBA programs and
initiatives. A complete and accurate record is critical to ensure
claims are identified and worked, and that staff make timely and
accurate decisions. Inappropriate shredding of documents can lead to
lost claims, veterans experiencing delays in obtaining compensation
decisions, decisions based upon incomplete information, and incorrect
decisions. When claim information is inappropriately disposed, it could
also affect the integrity of VBA's reported workload.
Inappropriate shredding of veterans' claim information was
identified in 2008 at four VAROs during our audit of claims-related
mail processing. \2\ The issue came to our attention at the Detroit,
Michigan VARO in September 2008, when we were told that claims-related
documents might have been inappropriately discarded in shred bins. We
reviewed the entire contents of 18 shred bins at the Detroit VARO and
identified 80 documents that were inappropriately discarded. After
finding the claims-related documents at the Detroit VARO, we expanded
our review to include the Waco, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; and St.
Petersburg, Florida VAROs. Overall, the OIG identified 132 claims-
related documents that VARO staff inappropriately discarded, of which
45 could have affected claim benefits. The remaining 87 documents
consisted of death certificates, as well as correspondence from
veterans and award documents that would not have affected claims, but
should have been retained in the claims files. Shred bins had been
located in different work areas throughout these VAROs allowing staff
to deposit documents no longer considered necessary. In order to
protect veterans, since the documents contained personally identifiable
information, the staff could not deposit the documents in open trash
collection bins. VBA had no controls in place for review of documents
placed in shred bins, and no requirement for any final review prior to
destruction. Therefore, an employee could easily dispose of documents,
either purposefully or unintentionally. The extent of the inappropriate
claims-related shredding could not be determined as the bins reviewed
contained 14 or fewer days of material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Audit of VA Regional Office Claim-Related Mail Processing,
September 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 14, 2008, the OIG briefed James Peake, the then
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Patrick Dunne, the then Under Secretary
for Benefits (USB); and other senior VA and VBA officials concerning
the documents found in the shred bins. The USB directed every VARO to
suspend all document shredding. In addition, the USB instructed every
VARO Director to review and inventory all contents in shred bins,
report all claims-related mail or original supporting documents found
in shred bins, and verify that the contents did not include documents
needed for processing claims. VBA's search of shred bins found an
additional 474 claims related documents in 41 VBA locations nationwide,
including 40 of the 57 VAROs and VBA's Records Management Center in St.
Louis, Missouri.
VBA Policy on Management of Veterans' and Other Governmental Paper
Records
In November 2008, VBA issued additional policies for the
maintenance, review, and appropriate destruction of veterans' and other
governmental paper records in response to our findings and VBA's own
administrative review results. \3\ This policy also established two new
positions-the Records Management Officer (RMO) and the Division Records
Management Officer (DRMO)-to protect against the inappropriate
shredding of documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ VBA Letter 20-08-63, VBA Policy on Management of Veterans' and
other Governmental Paper Records, November 14, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RMO is responsible for overseeing all programs established for
the management of veterans' records and is the subject matter expert
and records liaison for administrative records. Additionally, the RMO
is the VARO's final control to prevent shredding of claims-related
documents. RMOs work closely with other records management staff and
other agencies to protect personally identifiable information of
veterans and employees from unauthorized use, disposal, and
destruction. They provide records management guidance to staff, and
conduct frequent sampling and spot checks to ensure compliance with
station shredding policies. Additionally, the RMO is required to
conduct annual training for all VARO staff relating to the maintenance,
review, and appropriate destruction of veterans' paper records.
DRMO reviews are generally performed by supervisors as a collateral
duty, and VBA policy provides for one DRMO for every 15-20 employees in
the division. The VARO director determines the appropriate number of
DRMOs at a VARO or other VBA facility to fully carry out these
responsibilities.
In January 2011, VBA revised its policy to include an optional
full-time position, the Records Management Technician (RMT). Each VARO
could replace their DRMO position with an RMT. VBA made this change to
reduce the supervisory records review and approval process to claims-
related material only and provide more time for VARO supervisors to
devote toward claims processing activities. Further, VBA issued each
employee a red envelope and a red box. Employees were directed to use
the red envelopes for claims-related documents only. Claims-related
documents generally include duplicate evidence and are required to be
signed by the employee and the supervisor prior to destruction. The red
boxes are used for other documents, such as training materials, draft
rating decisions, and internally generated papers. Some of these
documents require the employee's signature before destruction, and
others do not require any signatures. Employees are responsible for
ensuring all items in their designated shredding containers meet the
guidelines of the policy.
VBA requires staff to file, in a claims folder, essential documents
with evidentiary, legal, or administrative value. VBA policy also
requires staff upload all file mail to an electronic claims folder to
ensure that an accurate historical record is maintained for each
veteran's claims folder.
REVIEW OF ALLEGED SHREDDING OF CLAIMS-RELATED EVIDENCE AT THE VA
REGIONAL OFFICE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
In January 2015, the OIG received an anonymous allegation that
staff at the Los Angeles VARO were inappropriately shredding mail
related to veterans' disability compensation claims. The allegation
also stated that supervisors were instructing staff to shred these
documents. We conducted an unannounced inspection at the VARO in
February 2015 to evaluate the merits of the allegation.
We issued an interim report on August 17, 2015, Interim Report-
Review of Alleged Shredding of Claims-Related Evidence at the VA
Regional Office, Los Angeles, California, in which we substantiated
that VARO staff were not following VBA's policy on the management of
veterans' and other governmental paper records. We reviewed
approximately 13,800 documents to be shredded. These documents were
contained in the VARO's locked final shredding disposal containers, as
well as in individual employee red shred boxes on the appeals team, the
intake processing center, the mailroom, the file room, the public
contact team, and the VSC Manager's office.
We found nine claims-related documents incorrectly placed in
employees' individual red boxes. Records management staff stated they
did not follow a set schedule for picking up documents to be shredded.
Therefore, we could not determine when employees' red boxes were last
emptied or how long these documents had been in their boxes. This
action bypassed VBA's control that requires supervisory review of
claims-related documents before shredding. Eight of the documents had
the potential to affect veterans' benefits and consisted of homeless
veterans' disability claims, medical evidence, VARO letters returned as
undeliverable, an address change, and a veteran's request for
information related to his appeal. The final claims-related document
was a letter from a veteran that did not affect benefits, but should
have been included in the file for historical purposes. None of the
nine documents had all required signatures or initials.
We also found there was no RMO at the VARO from August 2014 until
our inspection in February 2015. The RMO had been promoted to another
position in August 2014, and the Assistant Director determined that it
was not necessary to fill the position. VBA policy requires that an RMO
continue to oversee all programs established to manage veterans'
records. We found that Support Services Division (SSD) staff who took
over the duties of the RMO lacked training regarding maintaining,
reviewing, protecting, and appropriately destroying veterans' and other
governmental paper records. The Assistant Director assumed that the
former RMO had provided SSD staff with training but did not ensure this
had occurred. SSD staff stated they would only complete a ``cursory
review'' that consisted of observing the documents as they emptied red
boxes into final shred bins. As a result, we concluded it was likely
that this cursory review would not have identified the claims-related
documents we found, and they would have likely been inappropriately
destroyed. Upon our request, VARO management could not provide
documentation of permission to reassign the RMO duties to other staff
and deviate from the requirement of having an RMO.
The Los Angeles VARO failed to provide any documentation of
shredding violation logs for the past 2 years. SSD staff only kept
certificates of each shredding event carried out by the shredding
contractor, as they said they were unaware of VBA's requirement to log
any material that was determined inappropriate for destruction or
identify staff who did not follow VBA policy. In the absence of the
shredding logs, we could not determine the effectiveness of the RMO/SSD
reviews over the past 2 years to prevent claims-related documents from
being improperly destroyed, compared to what we found during our
review. This was a missed opportunity for the VARO to identify its
training needs on the management of veterans' paper records.
Due to noncompliance with VBA policy, poor controls, inadequate
oversight, and lack of training, the Los Angeles VARO put veterans'
claims-related documents at risk for inappropriate destruction. Because
the VARO did not consistently follow VBA's controls, it was likely that
staff would have inappropriately destroyed the nine claims-related
documents we found. Similar to the 2008 audit, we could not quantify or
identify claims related documents that the VARO may have shredded prior
to our inspection.
We recommended the VARO Director implement a plan to ensure staff
comply with VBA's policy for handling, processing and protection of
claims-related documents. We also recommended the Director assess the
effectiveness of training provided to staff on VBA policy and provide
documentation to the OIG that corrective action had been taken on the
eight cases we identified. On April 14, 2016, we issued our final
report, Review of Alleged Shredding of Claims-Related Evidence at the
VA Regional Office Los Angeles, California that contained the Los
Angeles VARO Director's concurrence with our recommendations. He stated
refresher training had been provided to all employees, and that a
revised local Standard Operating Procedure on shredding had been
instituted. In addition, he stated management would receive reports
from the RMO detailing errors made in the handling of the documents and
would follow up with retraining and accountability for conduct.
Finally, the VARO Director stated staff had completed action on the
eight cases referenced in the report. The VARO Director's comments and
action were responsive to the recommendations, and we will follow up as
required.
REVIEW OF CLAIMS-RELATED DOCUMENTS PENDING DESTRUCTION AT VA REGIONAL
OFFICES
After determining there were claims-related documents pending
inappropriate destruction at the Los Angeles VARO and assessing that
the controls of the records' disposition process were not effective, we
conducted unannounced inspections at 10 VAROs on July 20, 2015. We
reviewed all claims related documents pending destruction contained in
the VAROs' final shred bins. We issued the results of these unannounced
inspections in April 2016, Review of Claims-Related Documents Pending
Destruction at VA Regional Offices, (April 14, 2016). We reported that
VBA's controls for records disposition were not fully effective in
preventing VARO staff from destroying claims related documents. We
reviewed approximately 438,000 documents awaiting destruction. The
number of documents found represented the contents within shred bins
between disposal cycles. The 10 VAROs, per their local policies, had
planned pick-ups ranging from twice weekly to once a month. However,
the shred bins contained documents that were not claims-related, such
as scratch paper, envelopes, internally generated papers, draft or
duplicate decisions and letters, and training materials. Once other
materials were separated out, we identified 155 claims related
documents in final shred bins at 9 of 10 VAROs, and one VARO had no
claims-related documents in their final shred bins. Of the 155 claims-
related documents, 25 documents found at 6 VAROs were compliant with
VBA policy and appropriate to shred.
The remaining 130 of 155 claims-related documents found in the
shred bins did not follow VBA policy and have the signatures needed to
be placed in the shred bins. These documents bypassed VBA's internal
control requiring supervisory review of all claims-related documents
prior to shredding. Sixty one of these documents were appropriate to
shred because they were available in veterans' electronic or paper
records. However, 69 were not appropriate to shred because VARO staff
had not added them to veterans' claims folders. Of those 69 documents:
Two documents affected benefits. One document discovered
at the Reno, Nevada VARO consisted of evidence supporting reimbursement
of burial costs which was incorrectly denied. The other document found
at the Atlanta, Georgia VARO included congressional correspondence with
evidence related to removal of a former spouse which resulted in a
delay in adjusting the veteran's compensation benefits and a larger
overpayment.
Nine documents had the potential to affect veterans'
benefits, including medical evidence, a veteran's inquiry regarding his
appeal, evidence related to a provisional rating, original personnel
records, an administrative decision, and bank account information. Two
of these documents also included congressional correspondence.
Fifty-eight claims-related documents did not affect
benefits but were still required to be included in the veterans' claims
folders. Fifty-two of these documents consisted of congressional
inquiries at the Atlanta VARO-VARO staff uploaded these documents into
the veterans' electronic records after being notified by the OIG. VARO
management disagreed that shredding these documents had any effect on
veterans' because they had retained local copies. While we acknowledge
that VARO management maintained local copies, this evidence was not
part of the claims files at the time of our review. As such, no one can
be assured that other VAROs, which may process future claims from these
veterans, would have access to these documents.
The Acting USB stated that our findings were not indicative of a
systemic issue considering the large number of documents that were
reviewed. However, we disagree and reiterate that the potential effect
on veterans cannot be minimized. Generally, the errors we found
occurred because management did not ensure staff complied with VBA's
policy for safeguarding veterans' documents. Management and staff
stated VBA's policy was confusing and outdated, and did not clearly
delineate signature requirements for all claims-related documents.
Management did not ensure that RMOs provided annual training to all
VARO staff on the proper procedures for managing veterans and other
governmental paper records as required. Staff at numerous VAROs stated
they could not recall when RMOs provided training. Management and staff
noted training would be a helpful reminder of the proper annotation
requirements.
VBA's policy was established to ensure that documents are properly
identified for shredding. Records management staff are required to
review claims-related documents submitted for shredding, and conduct
spot-checks of non-claims-related material. However, we found that they
did not consistently review documents at some of the VAROs we
inspected. For example, at one regional office, the RMO did not review
any documents submitted for shredding in 2015, and management directed
the RMT to review a sample of only three of the total bins each week.
Furthermore, records management staff at three VAROs stated that they
were assigned additional duties that inhibited their review
responsibilities. Based on the insufficient records management
processes we observed at these VAROs, staff did not appropriately
review all claims related documents designated for shredding.
If records management staff identify material inappropriately
scheduled for destruction, they are required to report these violations
to VARO directors and maintain logs for 2 years. At the 10 VAROs we
reviewed, records management staff did not consistently maintain
violation logs. Two VAROs did not have current violation logs because
records management staff reported having no violations in the past 2
years. Five additional VAROs' logs had no recorded violations within
the current year. At one VARO, records management staff did not have
recent log entries because they would not record a document missing
signatures as a violation, unless it was a chronic problem originating
from one employee. Based on our findings of claims-related documents
inappropriately placed in the shred bins, it is highly unlikely the
VAROs had no violations within the last year.
We concluded claims related documents were at risk of being
inappropriately destroyed. As noted in both the 2008 audit and the
February 2015 inspection, we could not quantify or identify claims-
related documents that the VAROs may have shredded prior to our review.
We recommended the Acting USB ensure VARO compliance with policy,
update and clarify policy and procedures, and provide training where
needed. The Acting USB concurred with our recommendations, and agreed
the records management policy needs to be revised to align with the
current electronic document storage and centralized mail handling. VBA
will also revise associated roles and responsibilities, with deliberate
consideration given to compliance enforcement and oversight, and will
ensure procedures are in place to track all shredding violations
identified. The Acting USB also stated Phase 2 of the Records
Management Accountability and Training initiative to ensure records
management compliance and proper control, storage, and maintenance of
mail and other benefit and claim-related documents will be scheduled.
Finally, VBA is in the process of clarifying procedures for the
maintenance and disposition of congressional correspondence. The Acting
USB's planned corrective actions are responsive to the recommendations,
and we will follow up as required.
CONCLUSION
OIG's 2008 audit and the 2015 inspections demonstrate that VBA's
controls have been ineffective in safeguarding veterans' claims-related
documents from potential inappropriate destruction. Our recent
inspection work at 11 VAROs demonstrated that due to noncompliance with
VBA policy, poor controls, inadequate oversight, a lack of training,
and confusing policies, veterans' claims-related documents were at risk
for inappropriate destruction.
The potential effect on veterans should not be minimized.
Considering that there are 56 VAROs, and if weekly shredding is
conducted, it is highly likely that claims-related documents at other
VAROs are being improperly scheduled for destruction. We consider any
loss of claims-related documents to be unacceptable. These actions can
potentially result in loss of claims and evidence, incorrect decisions,
and delays in claims processing. Further, this situation increases the
distrust that veterans, their beneficiaries and families, and other
stakeholders have in VA's ability to adequately protect documents and
provide timely benefits.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We would be happy to
answer any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have.
[all]