    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 115-10]

                   OVERVIEW OF MILITARY REVIEW BOARD AGENCIES

                                   __________

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                 MARCH 2, 2017

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    24-682                         WASHINGTON : 2018
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado, Chairman

    WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      JACKIE SPEIER, California
    BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio, Vice Chair   ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
    DON BACON, Nebraska                  RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana         JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
                     Dan Sennott, Professional Staff Member
                    Craig Greene, Professional Staff Member
                             Danielle Steitz, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Coffman, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Colorado, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Military Personnel.............................     1
    Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative from Massachusetts,
      Subcommittee on Military Personnel.............................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Blackmon, Francine C., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
      (Review Boards)................................................     3
    Teskey, Mark S., Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency........     6
    Woods, Robert L., Assistant General Counsel for the Assistant
      Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.........     5

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Blackmon, Francine C.........................................    28
        Coffman, Hon. Mike...........................................    27
        Teskey, Mark S...............................................    51
        Woods, Robert L..............................................    37

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        Mr. Coffman..................................................    61
        Ms. Tsongas..................................................    61

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Ms. Tsongas..................................................    65

                   OVERVIEW OF MILITARY REVIEW BOARD AGENCIES

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                            Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
                               Washington, DC, Thursday, March 2, 2017.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:22 a.m., in
    room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Coffman
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
         COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

        Mr. Coffman. The subcommittee hearing is called to order. I
    want to welcome everyone to the first hearing of the Military
    Personnel Subcommittee in the 115th Congress. I wish to
    congratulate the new and returning members of the subcommittee,
    and particularly congratulate our new ranking member,
    Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who is not here right now, of
    California.
        I look forward to working with each of you on the important
    issues facing this subcommittee. The purpose of today's hearing
    is to receive an overview of the military review board
    agencies.
        The Board for Correction of Military Records and Discharge
    Review Board provide extraordinarily important services for our
    service members and veterans. These boards are charged with the
    difficult mission of correcting errors in, and considering
    mitigating facts and removing injustices from, our military
    records.
        They receive thousands of applications every year that
    request everything from name changes on personnel documents to
    discharge upgrades. Over the past several years, many have
    raised concerns regarding application processing, backlogs, and
    the approval rates for discharge upgrades.
        Many have also raised concerns about the treatment of
    applicants with PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] or TBI
    [traumatic brain injury] who are seeking discharge upgrades
    based on mitigating medical facts in order to obtain essential
    behavioral health treatment.
        Congress has passed substantial legislation designed to
    help remedy some of these issues, and the services have
    continued to work to ensure that each applicant receives
    timely, full, and fair consideration for their case. I look
    forward to hearing whether these combined efforts have been
    effective and if any additional legislation may be beneficial.
        I am also interested to hear from the witnesses about
    additional challenges they face in the timely processing of
    applications and what resources are needed to overcome these
    challenges.
        Finally, I look forward to hearing about ways to improve
    applicants' access to the boards by leveraging new technologies
    like video teleconferencing.
        Before I introduce our panel, let me offer the ranking
    member, Ms. Speier--Ms. Tsongas, an opportunity to make her
    opening remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Coffman can be found in the
    Appendix on page 27.]

         STATEMENT OF HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
           MASSACHUSETTS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

        Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Speier would be
    here, but an Intelligence Committee briefing had not concluded
    that she had to stay to see through. And so I am happy to be
    here in her behalf and read her opening statement.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing
    today, and thank you to our witnesses for your testimony to the
    subcommittee. I don't envy you as you probably have some of the
    most difficult jobs in the Pentagon, but also some of the most
    important.
        As the civil servants charged with ensuring that the
    service of our military members is fairly characterized and
    accurately reflected in their records, there are long-term
    consequences of your boards' decisions.
        Not only financial consequences, although healthcare and
    education benefits do often hang in the balance, but more
    significantly, those decisions have the potential to make our
    veterans mentally whole and restore dignity and pride to them
    and their families.
        This is particularly true when we consider that only
    recently have we started to understand the possible behavioral
    consequences of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain
    injury, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and military sexual
    trauma.
        We must make sure that the boards make every possible
    effort to take these factors into account when considering a
    request to upgrade discharge status. We need to ensure that
    mitigating conditions are taken into account.
        All too many service members feel that there is a stigma
    associated with the PTSD diagnosis and may be hesitant to seek
    appropriate care and documentation.
        All too many military sexual trauma, or MST survivors, an
    estimated 80 percent, do not report their assault and suffer
    alone. Worst, many sexual assault survivors who received either
    an honorable or general discharge are also branded with a
    diagnosis of, quote, ``personality'' unquote, or, quote,
    ``adjustment'' unquote, disorders on their DD-214 [Certificate
    of Release or Discharge from Active Duty], when in fact all
    that has happened is that they were sexually assaulted.
        These diagnoses, which have a limited basis in science,
    make it hard for survivors to find employment in the civilian
    world. One survivor told me quote, ``I feel like I have a
    scarlet letter on my chest.'' And while I am speaking here for
    Ms. Speier, I have certainly heard the same thing.
        Equitability is another factor that you all must consider.
    Thanks to your staffs for providing recent statistics on the
    rate of discharge upgrades, but I am struck by some of the
    disparities I see, not just across services, but also across
    the different types of claims.
        To choose one metric, the evidence required to support MST
    claims seems to vary widely across services with some requiring
    formal documentation that a survivor who chose not to report,
    and remember that is 80 percent of all survivors, may not be
    able to provide.
        There may be valid, underlying reasons for these
    differences, but I am sure we all agree that supporting
    survivors is our top priority. I look forward to learning more
    about the reasoning behind these differences today.
        Your jobs are also difficult because your organizations
    are, frankly, overwhelmed. Your caseload is enormous and the
    backlogs are stunning. That caseload will only expand.
        The President talks about spending billions to increase our
    military end strength, but that comes with the responsibility
    to make sure that each and every one of these new service
    members are taken care of on the back end of their military
    careers. Part of that task falls to you.
        So I hope we have a chance to talk today about what we can
    do to address that now. Specifically, I would appreciate your
    views on achieving efficiencies through the consolidation of
    boards across the services. Thank you again, and I look forward
    to hearing your testimony.
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas. We are joined today by
    an outstanding panel. We will give each witness the opportunity
    to present his or her testimony and each member an opportunity
    to question the witnesses.
        We would respectfully remind the witnesses to summarize to
    the greatest extent possible the high points of your written
    testimony in 5 minutes or less. Your written comments and
    statements will be made part of the hearing record. Let me
    welcome our panel.
        Ms. Francine Blackmon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
    Army for Review Boards. Mr. Robert Woods, Assistant General
    Counsel for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower
    and Reserve Affairs. Mr. Mark Teskey, Director of the Air Force
    Review Boards Agency.
        With that, Ms. Blackmon, you may make your opening
    statement please.

     STATEMENT OF FRANCINE C. BLACKMON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
                      OF THE ARMY (REVIEW BOARDS)

        Ms. Blackmon. Thank you, sir. Chairman Coffman, ranking
    member, distinguished members of this committee, I thank you
    for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Army
    Review Boards Agency.
        The Army Review Boards Agency provides the highest
    administrative level of review for personnel actions taken at
    lower levels of the Army. The agency administers 13 boards to
    include 3 statutory boards, the Board for Correction of
    Military Records, the Discharge Review Board, and the Grade
    Determination Review Board. The remaining boards are policy
    boards.
        The Army Review Boards Agency staff consist of 112 civilian
    employees and 16 soldiers. In addition, 120 employees serve as
    volunteer board members for the Army Board for Correction of
    Military Records.
        These volunteers are senior civilian employees drawn from
    across the Army secretariat and Army staff. The Army Review
    Boards Agency administratively reviews and corrects service
    members' records involving impropriety, inequity, changes in
    policy and law, and even human error.
        The Army Review Board Agency acts in the interest of
    justice, applying equity and compassion when considering the
    merits of an individual case. The agency processes
    approximately 22,000 cases annually.
        My vision is for the agency to be adaptable, cohesive, and
    a collaborative team of highly qualified, responsive, and
    compassionate professionals. I expect them to be dedicated to
    customer service, transparency, justice and equity, and to
    carefully weigh the interests of soldiers, veterans, the Army,
    and the public. We strive to implement efficient and effective
    processes with the best technology available.
        We recognize that upgrading discharges is one of the most
    important functions of this agency. The Army has successfully
    implemented the Secretary of Defense's 2014 guidance to the
    Board for Correction of Military Records for a request to
    upgrade a veteran's discharge characterization where PTSD may
    have been a contributing factor.
        In those cases for veterans who claim PTSD, to include
    those who serve before PTSD was a recognized diagnosis, boards
    give liberal consideration to evidence of PTSD symptoms in the
    service record or in a diagnosis provided by civilian
    providers. Moreover, special consideration is given to a
    Department of Veteran Affairs diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related
    conditions.
        To implement 2015 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act]
    requirements to enhance participation of behavioral health
    professionals on these boards, we have added neurologists, a
    psychiatrist, and three clinical psychologists to our medical
    advisor's office. Agency medical professionals provide in-
    person or written input for board consideration for each of
    these types of cases.
        Another type of invisible wound in which we liberally
    consider cases are those in which the applicant contends that
    they were victims of sexual assault while in the military. We
    recognize that many of these assaults were never reported to
    military law enforcement, meaning there is no corroborating
    police report for the board to consider.
        Because of this, in the last year, we have trained all
    agency personnel on the markers of sexual trauma so that
    victims receive the most favorable possible outcome from their
    case. This training was provided by a renowned forensic
    psychologist, and is in addition to the statutory requirement
    for advisory opinions for the Board for Correction of Military
    Records and mental health professionals serving on the
    Discharge Review Board.
        We continually look for ways to better serve the soldiers,
    veterans, and family members who apply to one of our boards. To
    this end, 2 years ago we made an agency policy change to hold
    cases open 90 days in order to secure corrections to deficient
    applications.
        Other changes included direct communications with
    applicants to clarify issues or request additional
    documentation to help their cases, as well as conducting
    periodic board member and agency staff training on current
    service policies and procedures.
        The men and women who serve our Nation, along with their
    families, are our most important asset. The Army Review Board
    Agency is one of the ways we take care of our most important
    asset. I thank all of you for your continued support of our
    volunteer Army and the Army Review Boards Agency. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Blackmon can be found in the
    Appendix on page 28.]
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Ms. Blackmon, for your testimony.
        Mr. Woods, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. WOODS, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE
       ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE
                                AFFAIRS

        Mr. Woods. Good morning, Chairman Coffman, ranking member,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am Robert
    Woods, the Assistant General Counsel for Manpower and Reserve
    Affairs. As such, I am the senior legal advisor to the
    Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve
    Affairs. And on behalf of the men and women of our various
    naval review boards, I thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you today to have this overview of our review boards.
        Let me start by assuring you that the leadership of the
    Department of the Navy is committed to assisting our present
    and former sailors and marines with fair and open processes in
    regard to the subjects presented to our boards, including those
    seeking corrections to their military service records, such as
    adjustments to their discharge characterization.
        Over the past few years, we have paid particular attention
    to petitions involving invisible wounds. We have conducted
    outreach sessions with veteran service organizations, provide
    professional training for our staffs, prioritized the
    processing of these cases, obtain medical review and input, and
    apply liberal consideration principles to ease the burdens of
    proof for the veterans.
        However, I do note that every petition is unique, and those
    involving the effects of service-connected sexual assault,
    post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries, or
    various mental health issues are among the most difficult and
    complex cases that we see at our review boards.
        We are keenly focused on the need for timely resolution of
    our petitions to our boards. As such, we are engaged in efforts
    to help streamline and modernize our processes. However, we
    also recognize that much of the time needed to properly
    adjudicate these petitions is related to the increased
    complexity and volume of the materials presented.
        Now discharge upgrade petitions, including those seeking a
    change in the narrative reason for discharge and/or change in
    reenlistment codes, are adjudicated by our two primary boards,
    the Naval Discharge Review Board and our Board for Correction
    of Naval Records. These boards are established pursuant to
    specific statutory authority in title 10.
        And in addition to these boards, we also have seven non-
    statutory boards including the Physical Evaluation Board, the
    Combat-Related Special Compensation Board, the Naval Complaints
    Review Board, the Naval Clemency and Parole Board, the Navy
    Department's Board of Decorations and Medals, the Disability
    Review Board, and the Personnel Security Appeals Board.
        So with this brief introduction, I, again, appreciate the
    opportunity to present to you, and I am happy to address any
    questions you may have about our review boards. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Woods can be found in the
    Appendix on page 37.]
        Mr. Coffman. Mr. Teskey, you are now recognized for 5
    minutes.

    STATEMENT OF MARK S. TESKEY, DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS
                                 AGENCY

        Mr. Teskey. Good morning, Chairman Coffman, ranking member,
    distinguished members of the committee. On behalf of the men
    and women of the Air Force Review Boards Agency, thank you for
    the opportunity to appear today. With your permission, I am
    going to summarize my remarks and submit the complete statement
    for the record.
        As director of the Review Boards Agency, I am responsible
    for the administration, oversight, and leadership of 10
    appellate-level administrative review boards, 8 on behalf of
    the Secretary of the Air Force, and 2 on behalf of the
    Secretary of Defense.
        We receive approximately 15,000 cases annually from
    actively serving airmen, which include regular Air Force, Air
    Guard, Air Force Reserve, and civilian employees, veterans, and
    their families. Our non-statutory Air Force boards adjudicate a
    wide variety of decisions on behalf of the Secretary of the Air
    Force.
        The Air Force Review Boards Agency strives to quickly and
    fairly adjudicate its cases, and we do so. And we are falling
    further behind. Over the past 10 years, our business has
    materially changed. Four factors have significantly impacted
    the Air Force Review Boards Agency in both positive and
    negative ways.
        Our organizational transformation and modernization has
    solidified our processes, established metrics, and allowed us
    to leverage technology. Our increasing caseloads are increasing
    and more complex. We have resource constraints and we have
    legislative and regulatory changes that we are continually
    implementing.
        In 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force directed the Air
    Force Review Boards Agency to begin an extensive transformation
    effort. Our transformation efforts were long overdue and
    created significant challenges because we did them while we
    continued to process cases.
        We did not compromise on quality or fairness, and we
    implemented these process improvements temporarily sacrificing
    processing time in the near term with the aim of expanding our
    capacity and shortening processing time in the long term.
        We quickly realized the additional capacity generated by
    our process improvements was outpaced by an ever-increasing
    number of applications, and those applications were
    increasingly complex.
        We requested an Air Force manpower assessment in 2013, and
    that helped us determine that the agency was resourced
    appropriately. The assessment revealed significant human
    resource shortfalls and in the budget for fiscal year 2018 we
    secured an additional 18 military enlisted billets to increase
    staffing levels.
        We continue to work on monitoring, improving our processes,
    and coordinating with the Air Force leadership to balance our
    requirements with other critical resource demands like
    readiness, training, sustainment, and modernization.
        And recent legislative and regulatory changes have also
    levied the additional responsibilities on the boards. A perfect
    example is the emphasis on action on post-traumatic stress,
    traumatic brain injury, and sexual assault and similar
    injuries.
        The recent legislation required the Discharge Review Boards
    and the Boards for Correction of Military Records to review and
    consider upgrading discharge characterization of veterans who
    experience these conditions and were subsequently discharged
    with other-than-honorable discharges.
        Each of the four factors mentioned earlier place increased
    demands on our agency and its ability to provide prompt relief.
    We are doing all we can internally to secure the resources we
    need internally within the Air Force and to more effectively
    perform our statutory and regulatory duties.
        We are acutely aware that at the end of every one of our
    nearly 15,000 cases each year, there is an airman, a veteran,
    or a family member who is awaiting a decision. We are dedicated
    to these people and strive daily to provide fairness, equity,
    due process, and justice to all of our applicants.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to
    appear before this committee and look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Teskey can be found in the
    Appendix on page 51.]
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you. According to the Military Discharge
    Review Boards, the data from fiscal year 2016, the Army
    upgraded 36 percent of cases with PTSD or TBI. However, the
    Navy and the Air Force only upgraded 18 percent and 15 percent
    of cases with PTSD or TBI respectively.
        Ms. Blackmon, could you please provide an explanation as to
    what the Army is doing differently to ensure that men and women
    who served and were diagnosed with PTSD or TBI receive an
    upgraded discharge?
        Ms. Blackmon. Sir, I will tell you when we actually
    received Secretary of Defense Hagel's guidance in November
    2014, one of the first things that we looked to do was to make
    sure that we have prioritized the cases. So in other words,
    they were not a part of the first-in, first-out.
        We were very careful to make sure that our mental health
    providers that actually set the case was very liberal in terms
    of looking at whether there was actually a nexus between the
    misconduct and the PTSD.
        And so in situations where we were looking at things like
    alcohol abuse or drug abuse and the mental health providers had
    essentially come back and said we do see a nexus, we were more
    liberal, if you will, in terms of upgrading those specific
    discharges.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay. Thank you.
        Following up on my previous question, Mr. Woods and Mr.
    Teskey, could you please explain why the percentage of cases
    you upgraded for those who claim PTSD or TBI are drastically
    lower than the United States Army's?
        Mr. Teskey.
        Mr. Teskey. Thank you. We go back and we took a look at the
    numbers and scrubbed those numbers, and we don't have as many
    discharges that are characterized in an unfavorable light,
    number one. For instance last year, Air Force-wide, we had 155
    UOTHCs [under other than honorable conditions] and we had
    43,000 discharges, roughly. So we don't have the numbers to
    deal with that the Army has as well.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay. Mr. Woods.
        Mr. Woods. Yes, sir. I haven't seen any of the cases that
    the Army has given their upgrades to, nor have I seen the cases
    for the Air Force. I can only speak to what the Navy has done.
        And in implementing the same exact principles, which are
    those of liberal consideration in trying to connect the dots
    between the condition of PTSD and the misconduct, these cases
    are dealt with on an individualized basis.
        And typically those that are not upgraded are ones in which
    we have been unable to make that connection between the PTSD
    and the misconduct, or the misconduct was of a nature that it
    was either fairly severe or it was otherwise intentional or
    things of that nature.
        And so all I can say is that we review each of these cases
    individually. We spend a fair amount of time on each of them
    and labor on them intently. And so I don't really know that I
    can explain the differences, quite frankly.
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you. Following my previous question, it
    is my understanding that Discharge Review Boards, DRBs, are
    only located in the Washington, DC area, which means that many
    veterans would find it cost prohibitive to fly themselves,
    their attorneys, or their supporting witnesses to testify in
    person at a DRB.
        Can you please detail how each service is implementing or
    at least testing the use of video teleconferencing, VTC,
    technology? I believe this is an important technology that will
    allow more veterans to provide personal testimony to the
    discharge boards without physically being present.
        Ms. Blackmon, why don't we start with you?
        Ms. Blackmon. Sir, in November of last year we actually
    reinstated our regional traveling panel. The first one was held
    in Atlanta, Georgia. We had potential--I think there were 26
    people that had signed up to actually participate. We actually
    received 19. We are looking to host our next panel in March
    over in Dallas, and we are looking to conduct these on a
    quarterly basis.
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you. Mr. Woods.
        Mr. Woods. Yes, sir. Our Discharge Review Board attempted
    to use video teleconferencing at one point, but we have run
    into a number of security-related struggles through our
    communications systems with the Navy.
        And so as an alternative, we have turned to telephonic
    interviews for personal appearances. And we have actually had
    quite a bit of success with them. We find that the petitioners
    appear to be somewhat more relaxed in their own environment,
    able to----
        Mr. Coffman. So I just want to make sure that when you
    speak to telephonic, that is not VTC?
        Mr. Woods. That is correct.
        Mr. Coffman. Oh, it is VTC?
        Mr. Woods. It is not.
        Mr. Coffman. It is not VTC. Okay, please.
        Mr. Woods. Exactly. It is through just a normal telephone
    line.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Mr. Woods. And we have a conversation with them and let
    them present any materials that they care to present and any
    arguments that they care to present. And we have had some very
    good success with that, both from the standpoint of having an
    increased rate of petitioners showing up to the actual personal
    appearance.
        Whereas, when we were having them in person, and we still
    do have some in person if folks are in the area or if they want
    to travel here, they are certainly able to have an in-person
    one at the Washington Navy Yard.
        We do not have a traveling panel that goes around the
    country. And we have found that the new telephone usage has
    really improved the capability of folks to come and do their
    presentation, and they seem to be satisfied with that.
        Mr. Coffman. All right. Mr. Teskey.
        Mr. Teskey. Our Discharge Review Board does do a traveling
    VTC.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Mr. Teskey. We do it at Robins Air Force Base in San
    Antonio, Texas, and then on the west coast. We typically have
    one member of our Discharge Review Board travel and set it up,
    and we hold it on a base.
        Part of that is to verify who is coming, so that we know
    who they are. And the other challenge that we have is getting
    past our own firewalls. We are evaluating other technology
    approaches to try to use something like Skype or FaceTime, but
    that is in the evaluation stage.
        Mr. Coffman. So what would you--it would seem like Skype
    would be fairly simple and would have the same principles of
    VTC. Well, I guess it wouldn't. You would--yes. No, I think it
    would.
        Mr. Teskey. It would. We have it in our military networks.
    Obviously, with security concerns----
        Mr. Coffman. Right, okay. I see,
        Mr. Teskey [continuing]. We have a problem getting past our
    firewall.
        Mr. Coffman. That is----
        Mr. Teskey. That is our challenge.
        Mr. Coffman. I get you. All right, that is--I understand
    that. Okay.
        Ms. Tsongas.
        Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. I would like to follow up on the
    issue of video, VTC technologies, and the use of that so that
    those who are seeking to have their characterization changed
    have that opportunity to make the personal story.
        And I would sort of like to extend it to the BCMRs [Boards
    for Correction of Military Records] where that is not the case,
    where the right to make that statement personally doesn't
    exist. And so the issue of the VTC is sort of a follow-on
    issue.
        And I know that the Human Rights Watch has really been
    carefully considering the ways in which these decisions are
    being made, and I think a former staff member on one of the
    boards made the point to the Human Rights Watch the importance
    of a personal appearance at the DRB as being, quote, ``huge''
    and possibly, quote, ``the difference between getting an
    upgrade or not.''
        So in that context, last September there is here a Military
    Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, and we hosted our second
    briefing on male military sexual assault. And at that briefing
    we heard from Heath Phillips, a former sailor who was
    repeatedly raped and retaliated against by fellow sailors and
    his chain of command as well.
        Phillips eventually left his ship saying, quote, ``I
    couldn't take it no more,'' unquote. Phillips said, quote, ``I
    was not going to go out to sea with these men and deal with
    this every single day,'' unquote.
        So he agreed to an under-other-than-honorable discharge
    rather than facing a court-martial for going AWOL [absent
    without leave]. And he said, quote, ``After being subjected to
    countless sexual assaults, beatings, threats, humiliation, in
    constant fear, a total basket case, I would have signed a deal
    with the devil himself to escape the torture I kept getting
    while onboard the ship,'' unquote.
        And while the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] has found
    that he has PTSD that is 100 percent service-connected, he is
    still fighting after 20 years to get his discharge
    characterization upgraded. So he has told my staff, quote,
    ``That my strong belief is if I am allowed a personal hearing
    and look them in the eyes and they could hear about my life and
    what I went through, the decision would not be denied.''
        So again, in the context of the BCMRs, I would just like to
    hear your thoughts on the feasibility of rethinking, of
    affording petitioners who requested an opportunity to appear.
    And as you are considering the use of video technology, whether
    or not that might be permitted in, you know, that more narrow
    version might be permitted in the BCMR context.
        And then we will start here with you.
        Ms. Blackmon. So ma'am, as I had indicated, we do within
    our Discharge Review Boards have the VTC capability. And so a
    situation as you had described, that would be certainly one
    that we would have had the traveling panels with the VTC
    equipment.
        Ms. Tsongas. So even though it is in the BCMR context, as
    opposed to the----
        Ms. Blackmon. Or BCMR, so with the personal appearance,
    typically we only do about two or three per year. With the
    Army, we are looking at a magnitude about 14,000 cases that we
    adjudicate, you know, with a record review. And so those
    individuals that do feel that their stories are compelling,
    there is an opportunity to do a personal appearance.
        Ms. Tsongas. And how to make that decision since it is not
    a right, it is a discretionary decision on your part?
        Ms. Blackmon. We essentially look at the records itself to
    see is there insufficient evidence within the material that the
    applicant has provided.
        And if we think there is information that is not there,
    that is lacking, then there is an opportunity to bring them in
    to get additional information. That would be one of the
    opportunities that we would look at to actually, you know,
    bring them in to say that we just don't have sufficient
    evidence with the records review.
        Ms. Tsongas. So this gentleman obviously served in the
    Navy, and the Navy has a different approach. I would welcome
    your thoughts.
        Mr. Woods. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. That is a tragic case,
    and I am sorry to hear the suffering that he is going through.
    The problem with having the personal appearances at the Board
    for Correction of Naval Records is really one of resources and
    the magnitude of the number of cases that we deal with there.
        We actually haven't given consideration to perhaps having
    some type of a set-aside for discharge review cases because
    that is a smaller portion of our overall work requirement
    there. So that is something that we certainly could look at.
        But typically what happens when a person petitions and
    requests a personal hearing, they are asked what the purpose of
    that personal hearing is. What do they want to accomplish with
    that personal hearing?
        And in the few cases that I have seen where those have been
    requested, they really don't articulate the type of rationale
    that you just described. I think that rationale that he just
    gave would probably be compelling if it was articulated to the
    board. But as far as I know, I have not seen that type of an
    argument made to garner a personal hearing.
        As I said, the magnitude of the caseload that we have at
    the board and the resources that we have, if we added personal
    hearings, a considerable number of them anyway, it would really
    stall things out considerably. And we are already pretty much
    at maximum capacity. So I think that would be problematic, but
    we would certainly be interested in considering it. Thank you.
        Ms. Tsongas. Well, we will certainly go back and revisit
    this with this gentleman who, as I said, has come to speak
    before the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus and follow
    on. But I can't imagine that he is alone in his story. And I do
    think even though it might be costly, we are talking about
    something that has a real impact on people's lives.
        I have one more question if I could? Between 2000 and 2009,
    government reports reveal that thousands of service members
    were discharged improperly for a, quote, ``personality
    disorder'' unquote, many of whom were rape victims.
        Though their discharges were usually honorable, the
    narrative reason for discharge on their discharge paper, DD-
    214, unfairly labels them as having a, quote, ``personality
    disorder'' unquote. This is deeply stigmatizing and may prevent
    them from getting jobs or benefits.
        Brian Lewis, a survivor of male sexual assault who also has
    briefed the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus as well
    as testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
    has said that as a result of his personality disorder
    diagnosis, he carries his, quote, ``discharge as an official
    and permanent symbol of shame on top of the trauma of the
    physical attack, the retaliation, and its aftermath,'' unquote.
        For veterans whose doctors confirm that they do not have a
    personality disorder, what prevents your offices from changing
    the narrative reason for discharge to the neutral, quote,
    ``secretarial authority,'' unquote, as was done after the
    repeal of ``don't ask/don't tell'' for those who were
    discharged for their sexual orientation?
        And I will start to the right here since I kind of short-
    circuited you in the previous round.
        Mr. Teskey. So could you repeat the last part of the
    question, ma'am?
        Ms. Tsongas. So, you know, for veterans whose doctors have
    confirmed that they do not have a personality disorder, what
    prevents your offices from changing the narrative reason for
    discharge to the more neutral, quote, ``secretarial authority''
    unquote, which was done after the repeal of ``don't ask/don't
    tell'' for those who had been discharged for their sexual
    orientation?
        Mr. Teskey. Nothing prevents us, and we have, our Board for
    Correction of Military Records had considered exactly the type
    of cases that you are talking about, and we have changed the
    narrative or the reason for discharge on the 214s.
        So we do that on ``don't ask/don't tell'' on a regular
    basis. We have done it on sexual assault, sexual trauma cases
    as well. So we do address that.
        Ms. Tsongas. Do you have some sense of what the metrics
    are? Is it routine, automatic, or is it a complicated process?
        Mr. Teskey. So it is not a complicated process. Is it
    routine? We have a presumption or we regularly consider the
    facts of the case, and then we make an assessment. And we go
    back and forth with the applicant as well.
        When we do our, they submit the case, we evaluate it, and
    then we provide our analysis back to the applicant to see if
    they have anything additional they want to add, because we try
    very hard to be transparent and fair.
        Then they get a chance to respond, and then we, there can
    be this back and forth a couple of times so that they have the
    opportunity to submit additional information to prove their
    case.
        But what I found in reading the opinions of our board
    members is they are very generous, and they attempt to go out
    of their way to find a solution that is the right solution for
    the applicant.
        I have only been in the job since about December, so I am
    the new person on the table. But what I have seen is our
    members are very honorable and they are very considerate, and
    they really, really try to do the right thing.
        Ms. Tsongas. That is good to hear. Mr. Woods.
        Mr. Woods. Yes, ma'am, I think based on the factual pattern
    that you presented, I would find it to be highly unlikely that
    we wouldn't change not characterization necessarily, but the
    reason for discharge to secretarial determination.
        If the person presents medical evidence that refutes the
    original diagnostic, or even it might not have been a
    diagnostic, it may have just been simply an administrative
    determination of a personality disorder without a medical
    determination. That is entirely possible, especially back in
    the Vietnam era and later before, you know--or more recent
    times when we have become a little bit more aware of these
    kinds of situations.
        So we certainly have the capability of doing it and
    especially if there is refuting medical evidence. And in all of
    these cases, we do have them reviewed by a medical practitioner
    to try to determine whether or not there is evidence that would
    suggest that, in fact, there may have been a personality
    disorder situation. But that is not a change that we would be
    particularly reluctant to make, quite frankly.
        Ms. Tsongas. Do you have any sense of the numbers of the
    Air Force that has that?
        Mr. Woods. I am sorry, I don't. But I am happy to get
    those.
        Ms. Tsongas. Actually I would ask the question--I would
    like to ask that, if you could get back to me?
        Mr. Woods. I will take that for the record. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Tsongas. Yes, okay.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 61.]
        Ms. Blackmon. So ma'am, I would say very much like the Air
    Force and the Navy, the Army as well, as long as we have the
    appropriate documentation, we routinely change the narrative to
    reflect secretarial authority.
        Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, all. Appreciate your testimony.
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas.
        The statistics for approved discharges, discharge upgrades,
    appear low. What is the most common reason these applications
    are disapproved? What can the review boards do to help improve
    the quality of these applications? And lastly, can you explain
    how you apply quote/unquote, ``liberal consideration''?
        Ms. Blackmon, we will start with you.
        Ms. Blackmon. So sir, in terms of the reasons that we
    routinely deny would be for cases where we see there is not a
    nexus. For instance, we had a situation with an individual that
    had documented PTSD, and so as we looked at the specific case,
    there were instances with drunken and disorderly conduct, which
    the mental health providers could determine that there was a
    nexus between that misconduct and PTSD.
        However, in the same vein, there were challenges where this
    same individual had stolen checks from a roommate of about
    $500, taken them to the American Express, cashed them, and
    basically was larceny and forgery. So that particular instance,
    the mental health providers looked at it and said there was not
    a nexus between the misconduct and the PTSD. And so often we
    have cases that kind of mirror that.
        On the converse side of the house, we had a situation where
    there was an individual that came in, that essentially said,
    you know, ``the Army separated me with a disability separation.
    I was a rape victim.'' She says, ``I think it should have been
    a disability to retirement.''
        Unfortunately, the perpetrator had individuals that could
    corroborate his story. But as we looked at the case, we kind of
    looked at the behavior of the applicant and we could see that
    there was a downward spiral in behavior after this particular
    incident had happened. We saw the applicant had become indrawn,
    inwards, sullen.
        And so with that, we said there has to be a nexus. And so
    with that, we basically took her from a 20 percent disability
    separation to a 60 percent disability retirement and paid her
    back pay to 2002.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Woods.
        Mr. Woods. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Coffman. Oh, I am sorry. Ms. Blackmon, can you explain
    how you--do you feel like you have adequately explained liberal
    consideration?
        Ms. Blackmon. Consideration? Exactly, because I think
    without that ability to say that it is black and white, we were
    looking at things that said there may not necessarily be the
    documentation there, but if you looked at----
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Ms. Blackmon [continuing]. The markers, per se, there were
    other things that existed----
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Ms. Blackmon [continuing]. Where we considered it liberally
    as opposed to just----
        Mr. Coffman. Okay. Very good.
        Ms. Blackmon [continuing]. A black and white case.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay. Mr. Woods.
        Mr. Woods. Yes, sir, first to the examples. We have
    provided a couple of examples in the written testimony, and I
    can summarize two of them that reflect both sides of the coin.
        The first was a Marine corporal who deployed in 2004 for
    Operation Iraqi Freedom, was suffering from PTSD as a result of
    that service, engaged in a single incident of marijuana use,
    positive at some point. And ended up with a disciplinary action
    and an unfavorable discharge.
        That was a case that we took into the board, reviewed the
    facts. And the fact that it was a one-time event, that it
    appeared relatively close after his return from the AOR [area
    of responsibility], and the fact that he did have a recognized
    diagnosis of PTSD, we thought that it made sense that that was
    likely to have a causal connection, and as a result we upgraded
    that particular discharge.
        On the other side of the coin, we had a Marine sergeant who
    had deployed twice, once in 2005 and the other in 2008, I
    believe, both for 6 months in support of Operation Iraqi
    Freedom. And after his return he was engaged in some
    misconduct, illegal drug use in particular, and was actually
    scheduled for separation.
        But in light of his performance and his combat tours and
    things of that nature, they held his discharge in abeyance and
    said we are going to, you know, hold this out there on the
    event that you are able to remain out of trouble for the next
    year.
        Unfortunately, 2 months later, he got in more trouble and
    was caught purloining copper gutters from a government building
    that were valued at about $15,000 and selling them downtown to
    a local salvage yard.
        And as a result of that, he was disciplined and set up for
    a discharge board before a board of officers where he was
    represented by counsel. That board of officers saw the evidence
    of the theft and as a result voted unanimously that he should
    have an under-other-than-honorable-conditions discharge.
        We couldn't find the connection there between the PTSD and
    the theft, and that was a case in which we did not grant
    relief. And so I don't want to say those are typical
    necessarily.
        But in a large sense they are in that, you know, when we
    are talking about singular incidents of misconduct relatively
    connected to the combat service and/or the PTSD issue and then
    a discharge, those are cases in which we would be more likely
    to grant relief.
        Whereas, if you are engaged in some type of conduct that is
    of the nature I just described or something along those lines,
    some type of intentional crime or harm that they did to
    someone, those are the cases in which we are going to be less
    likely. I think you asked a couple of other questions within
    there as well----
        Mr. Coffman. Sure.
        Mr. Woods [continuing]. And--address those as for you.
        Mr. Coffman. Yes. Just one follow-up on the----
        Mr. Woods. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Coffman [continuing]. On the case that you----
        Mr. Woods. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Coffman [continuing]. Just described. What was it? Do
    you recall if that was non-judicial punishment or did it
    receive summary special general court-martial?
        Mr. Woods. It appears that they took action via non-
    judicial punishment, sir.
        Mr. Coffman. They did? Okay, very good.
        Mr. Woods. Back in preparation for the discharge board.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay. Okay, so what can the review boards do
    to help improve the quality of these applications?
        Mr. Woods. Right.
        Mr. Coffman. Yes.
        Mr. Woods. Well, that has been part of our outreach program
    of late, and we have been reaching out to veteran service
    organizations. In fact, our Naval Discharge Review Board
    created a pamphlet, which I believe we have provided to your
    staffs, that describes the process, gives them insight as to
    how to proceed in presenting their case and their petition to
    the board. And so they have been distributing those pamphlets.
    We also have information on our websites.
        And in addition, when a petitioner files their appeal, if
    it appears to our folks that there is either insufficient
    evidence to support their package, or we have some questions
    about it, there is a fair amount of back and forth between the
    staff and the petitioner.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Mr. Woods. And so those are some of the ways that we
    attempt to help folks proceed in front of our boards.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Mr. Teskey.
        Mr. Teskey. So to start out with, I will piggyback on what
    Mr. Woods was saying as far as how we are improving our process
    and how we are improving the applicants' ability to file claims
    or to file corrections, we do just as Mr. Woods said.
        When we do get an application, we have a lot of back and
    forth between the applicant and our claims examiners so that we
    can distill down what they need and what they can get. We also
    at times go to the record centers, go to the various sources of
    information on their behalf as well and request records.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Mr. Teskey. As part of our process, we also request
    advisories from the people who own the policies throughout the
    Air Force so that we can be further educated in our board. And
    we serve those advisories on the applicant as well so they are
    aware of what is going on.
        We have a reading room so that they can research our past
    cases. We are looking at--we have digitized our process----
        Mr. Coffman. Well, you----
        Mr. Teskey. Yes.
        Mr. Coffman. Mr. Teskey, when you say reading room, of
    course you are referring to that----
        Mr. Teskey. It is a virtual reading room, yes.
        Mr. Coffman [continuing]. It is available online? Okay.
    Very well.
        Mr. Teskey. Yes.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Mr. Teskey. And we also, as part of our modernization, we
    are looking at trying to facilitate electronic submissions and
    electronic applications. But, you know, we still have security
    issues----
        Mr. Coffman. Sure.
        Mr. Teskey [continuing]. And we are working through that.
    But we are trying to make this more accessible.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Mr. Teskey. Okay. So do you--and then I will go on to the
    other----
        Mr. Coffman. Liberal consideration. Yes.
        Mr. Teskey. Pardon me, sir?
        Mr. Coffman. Liberal consideration.
        Mr. Teskey. Okay. So liberal consideration, I can give you
    an example of where we use liberal consideration. First off
    though, whenever we deal with liberal consideration in our
    Discharge Review Board and our BCMR, we serve, we review the
    Secretary's memo, the Secretary of Defense's memo on liberal
    consideration.
        We also, the Secretary of the Air Force penned a memo on
    what liberal consideration means and we give that to the
    members as well. So we reiterate that and we hammer that home.
    We also deal with that through training of our members.
        So then I will give you an example of liberal
    consideration. We had a member who was an air controller over
    in Afghanistan, had a number of tours over there. Got PTSD, was
    diagnosed over there. But he sought some self-medication, and
    he got himself into trouble, and he just shared some of the
    medication Xanax with some of his colleagues.
        He also was married and he committed adultery. As part of
    his discharge, he was originally proposed for a court-martial.
    He took an Article 15.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Mr. Teskey. And then he got an under-other-than-honorable-
    conditions discharge. He applied to the Discharge Review Board.
    We gave liberal consideration to the PTSD and the nexus between
    that and the drugs and the adultery, and the things that
    happened over in the theater, and we upgraded his discharge to
    a general under-other-than-honorable-conditions.
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you very much.
        And I would like to now defer to the ranking member, Ms.
    Speier.
        Ms. Speier. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And again, I apologize
    for the delay in my arriving, but as I think you have been
    told, I was in an important Intelligence Committee meeting.
        So one of the things that I am concerned about is the fact
    that there are such disparate grants provided by the various
    services. And for instance, the Army granted upgrades for four
    out of eight requests at 50 percent, the Air Force at 20
    percent and the Navy at 11 percent.
        And I would like to see it standardized because I think for
    our military service members, they should all be treated the
    same. And I don't know that they are being treated the same,
    and I don't know that outside of conversations you may have
    with each other from time to time, whether they truly are being
    treated the same.
        So let me ask you, Mr. Woods. You have the lowest
    percentage, and in particular as I look at MST, the others were
    at 50 percent and 20 percent, and you were at 11 percent. I
    have talked to all of you privately and have asked for
    additional information, which I think will certainly inform our
    work as we move forward on this issue, but I would like for
    you, in particular, Mr. Woods, to comment.
        Mr. Woods. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I think that our dealings
    with these cases is such that I am not sure how to suggest
    consistency across the three services, and I am not sure there
    isn't consistency is the first point, because we have not
    really studied whether there is or there isn't.
        Obviously, the numbers would not reflect consistency, but
    given the nature of each individual case and the fact that they
    are determined individually based on the merits of those
    particular cases, in any given year or period, those numbers
    can certainly fluctuate. And I can't tell you that we aren't
    doing very similar things in the Navy boards as they are in the
    other services boards.
        I can at least--those----
        Ms. Speier. Well, for instance, Mr. Teskey, when he met
    with me, made a compelling case that in the Army they bend over
    backwards, give the benefit of the doubt, go the extra mile.
    And I didn't hear that when you met with me.
        Mr. Woods. Right.
        Ms. Speier. So not that you can extract anything from
    conversations, and that is why we would like to look at the
    cases themselves----
        Mr. Woods. Certainly.
        Ms. Speier [continuing]. Redacted, of course. But it would
    seem to me that there would be great benefit for standard
    policies to be put in place that would, you know, guide your
    decision making so that someone in the Navy who is making a
    request for an upgrade is treated the same way as someone in
    the Army.
        Mr. Woods. Makes total sense to me as well, and I am
    hopeful that----
        Ms. Speier. So let us look at----
        Mr. Woods [continuing]. That we are doing the same types of
    standards, but I can't tell you for sure whether we are or we
    aren't.
        Ms. Speier. Well, let's just look at military sexual
    trauma.
        Mr. Woods. Sure.
        Ms. Speier. Fifty percent grants in the Army and 11 percent
    grants in the Navy.
        Let me ask Mr. Teskey. How do you evaluate these cases that
    you would have 50 percent of them being changed?
        Mr. Teskey. Well, I am the Air Force, ma'am.
        Ms. Speier. Oh, I am----
        Mr. Teskey. So----
        Ms. Speier [continuing]. I am sorry.
        Mr. Teskey. It is all right, but I don't want to presume to
    speak for the Army. And that would be Ms. Blackmon.
        Ms. Speier. No, and I misspoke and I apologize, Ms.
    Blackmon. I got your services--so let's go to you, Ms.
    Blackmon.
        Ms. Blackmon. Yes. As I had indicated earlier, when we
    initially got the PTSD guidance in November 2014 that Secretary
    Hagel had sent out, I said we also need to apply the same very
    liberal consideration for military sexual trauma. And so we
    started to do certain things like training.
        For instance, last November, we brought in a renowned
    psychologist by the name of David Lisak that trained the entire
    workforce on sexual assault and what did that mean. Not
    necessarily just because there wasn't a police report or a CID
    [Army Criminal Investigation Command] report, that there were
    other markers that the board and the workforce should be
    considering as they actually wrote the case.
        And so as they started to look at it, it wasn't just very a
    black and white situation where it is we have this
    documentation, or because there was a lack of documentation we
    are going to deny it. It was more how can we say that there are
    other things that are happening that could suppose sexual
    assault as opposed to, no, it did not happen.
        We also brought in a panel of sexual assault survivors that
    kind of talked to the workforce as well to say as a result of
    that act, these were the things that manifested themselves
    within me as an individual and as a person.
        So that as our analysts, when we are writing the record of
    proceedings, they had the ability to kind of understand the
    impact of what that meant and what was happening to the victim,
    if you will.
        Ms. Speier. All right. With that background, Mr. Woods and
    Mr. Teskey, have you, for instance, brought in sexual assault
    survivors to have them explain to your board members the
    experience and the ramifications?
        Mr. Woods. To my knowledge, we have not brought in sexual
    assault survivors to do that. However, in response, back in the
    December timeframe, this past December, in some of our outreach
    efforts and then discussions with representatives from Human
    Rights Watch and in taking into consideration a report that
    they issued, we got concerned that perhaps we weren't paying
    the type of attention to some of these cases as we need to.
        And as a result, we partnered with our Department of the
    Navy Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and were
    able to have four of their subject matter experts, a medical
    doctor, a clinical psychologist, a trauma nurse, and a
    criminologist, take and look at the cases that we had done with
    regard to the sexual assault trauma over the past, give or
    take, 2-year period, 2015 and 2016.
        And they reviewed approximately 86 cases in great detail,
    with a view toward trying to determine whether or not we could
    establish some type of policy that would help us be cognizant
    of the concerns and issues that presented in these types of
    case, or as if we were missing something.
        And honestly they struggled in their review trying to
    connect the dots in the cases that we denied. They felt that
    the cases that we granted made a lot of sense.
        And what they recommended and what we are about to enter
    into is an agreement with them to use their expertise to gain
    advisory opinions. And we are even considering having one of
    their experts sit on any panel at the Board for Correction of
    Naval Records that would involve a claim of sexual assault.
        Ms. Speier. Okay. We are going to be running out of time,
    so Mr. Teskey?
        Mr. Teskey. So this past January we provided training to
    our Board for Correction of Military Records, which all the
    panel members are volunteers. We had a panel come in for about
    2 hours of----
        Ms. Speier. Of sexual assault survivors?
        Mr. Teskey. Not of survivors, but of mental health
    professionals and people who specialize in sexual assault to
    educate them on, as Ms. Blackmon was saying, on some of the
    characteristics and markers and to provide that training. That
    is one.
        We also have our psychiatrists who are members of the board
    on those kind of cases for the Discharge Review Board. They
    provide advisories to the Board for Correction of Military
    Records on any situation where there is an allegation of sexual
    assault, sexual trauma.
        So we do go out of our way to make sure that our members
    are educated, and as a result of our training this past year as
    well, we believe that more frequent engagement internally with
    our members on discussing these cases and bringing these issues
    up is required. And we are looking at probably doing kind of a
    6-month check-in with everybody for about a half a day on some
    of these issues that we need to drive home.
        Ms. Speier. So here is an area that I am very concerned
    about. If you had the Members of Congress, who, when they left
    office under whatever circumstances, had a similar ranking of
    honorable, general, or less-than-honorable, a lot of Members
    would leave with less-than-honorable discharges because of
    their behavior here.
        Now, they leave and they go out and they continue with
    their lives and presumably get jobs and do well. I worry about
    the service members who have been labeled with a general
    discharge or less-than-honorable and the likelihood of them
    ever getting employment.
        Now, I can tell you that there have been circumstances that
    I have seen where persons in civil society who have committed
    felonies can come back to the courts subsequently and make the
    case that they have been upstanding citizens for a period of
    time and have those felonies reduced to misdemeanors. And then
    be much more likely to find employment.
        I really want us to think about whether or not we should
    create a mechanism within these boards that will allow
    individuals to come back subsequently, after a period of years,
    make the case for their good behavior and potentially have
    those discharge identifications upgraded. And that is more a
    comment than anything else, but hopefully we can talk further
    about that and maybe do something in the NDAA about that.
        I would like to just spend a couple of minutes on VSOs
    [veteran service organizations]. To what extent have you
    incorporated feedback or recommendations from VSOs?
        Ms. Blackmon.
        Ms. Blackmon. So ma'am, we have----
        Mr. Coffman. Oh, could you please--let us go forward with
    more questions, but please limit your responses a little
    quicker please if you could. Thank you.
        Ms. Blackmon. Okay, sir. So, ma'am, we have had almost 100
    engagements with veteran service organizations where it is an
    opportunity to provide them feedback on what we do, and an
    opportunity for us to actually hear the things that we may not
    be doing that are so well. So we do have that interaction with
    them frequently.
        Ms. Speier. Okay. Mr. Woods.
        Mr. Woods. Likewise, we are engaged with the veteran
    service organizations quite a bit. As I have said before, we
    have created pamphlets for their use to distribute to those who
    are engaged in their organizations and we have tried to educate
    them on our processes. And we are happy and continue to do so.
    I can't say that we have done 100, but we have done quite a few
    outreaches as well.
        Ms. Speier. Have they made recommendations that you have
    embraced?
        Mr. Woods. Other than some of the things that we have been
    doing, which is to better inform the petitioners of materials
    that they might consider providing if they can to enhance their
    case.
        Also, too, one of the things that we have done in the Board
    for Correction of Naval Records is in any case where we have
    denied relief, we provide a short explanation of why that
    relief was denied and what the record was lacking such that if
    they feel that they can gather that information, they can come
    back and re-petition for reconsideration of that decision. And
    so with new and material evidence, if they present that, then
    we do that.
        So we have tried to explain to them instead of just getting
    a sheet of paper that essentially says denied, we have tried to
    educate them a little bit in that process at the end if we
    haven't been able to do that on the front end.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you. Mr. Teskey.
        Mr. Teskey. So we have not had that kind of outreach and
    engagement with the VSOs. However, one of the things as I came
    in in December, we have been looking at how we are going to
    pursue an outreach and education and communication plan. So
    that is one of the things we have been considering.
        Ms. Speier. All right. So to the extent that they provide
    you with recommendations, would you also provide them to the
    committee so we will have the benefit of knowing what they are
    looking for? Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Ranking Member Speier.
        If we could, just one remaining question and to all three
    of you. Do the boards have a feedback mechanism to inform the
    services of common personnel record errors you are seeing?
        Ms. Blackmon.
        Ms. Blackmon. I would have to take that for the record.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 61.]
        Mr. Coffman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Woods.
        Mr. Woods. Same.
        [The information referred to was not available at the time
    of printing.]
        Mr. Coffman. Mr. Teskey.
        Mr. Teskey. I have talked with our personnel folks in A1
    [Air Staff office of Manpower and Personnel] as well about
    setting that up, because we feel like there needs to be a
    feedback loop so that they can correct things before we have to
    fix them.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay.
        Mr. Teskey. So we are setting that up.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay. Very good. Okay. I wish to thank the
    witnesses for their testimony this morning. This has been very
    informative. There being no further business, the subcommittee
    stands adjourned. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 March 2, 2017

                  WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                                  THE HEARING

                                 March 2, 2017

    =======================================================================

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN

        Ms. Blackmon. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) does have
    feedback mechanisms to inform the Army of common personnel record
    errors. Since ARBA is assigned to the Assistant Secretary of the Army
    for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA (M&RA)), we have direct access to
    the personnel policy makers for the Army on a weekly, if not daily,
    basis. Additionally, ARBA's mission has a direct relationship with the
    Army G-1, the Human Resources Command (HRC), the Office of The Surgeon
    General, the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of The Judge
    Advocate General. Accordingly, ARBA has frequent dialogue, meetings,
    and policy discussions with each of these offices, since many of our
    cases originate with them and/or ARBA works closely with the
    organizations for advisory opinions. Therefore, it is common practice
    to share with each of these organizations reoccurring personnel record
    errors that can be corrected through policy, procedures, and command
    guidance.   [See page 21.]
                                     ______

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS
        Mr. Woods. The Department of the Navy (DON) Boards change and will
    continue to change the narrative reason for discharge to ``Secretarial
    authority'' in petitions where there's sufficient evidence that the
    person doesn't actually have a personality disorder. We have and will
    continue to apply the SECDEF Hagel memorandum standard of ``liberal
    consideration'' to invisible wound cases (MST/PTSD). This memorandum
    was dated 3 Sept 2014, Subject: ``Supplemental guidance to Boards
    concerning veteran's claims to PTSD disorder.'' In FY16, the Naval
    Discharge Review Board (NDRB) adjudicated five petitions in which the
    Petitioner reported having been the victim of MST and had been issued a
    DD214 annotated with a narrative reason of ``personality disorder.''
    The NDRB changed this narrative to ``Secretarial authority'' in the two
    petitions that presented evidence that the Petitioner did not have a
    personality disorder. All five of these petitioners were reviewed by
    trained medical personnel (Psychiatrist or Clinical Psychologist) and
    the medical evidence in the three petitions that were denied contained
    evidence that supported the original narrative reason. Following the
    hearing before the Subcommittee, the Director of the Board for
    Correction of Naval Records, on her own initiative, ordered a review of
    previously adjudicated petitions that requested a change of the
    narrative reason of ``personality disorder.'' This review identified
    eleven cases in which the Petitioner reported having been the victim of
    MST. The Director reviewed these cases and determined that the panels
    that had decided those cases did not appear to have properly applied
    the standard of ``liberal consideration.'' Therefore, she directed that
    these cases be re-adjudicated by new panels with proper instruction on
    the standard of ``liberal consideration.'' As a result, all eleven
    petitions were granted a change of the narrative reason for discharge
    to ``Secretarial authority.'' In addition, the Board's professional
    staff received refresher training on the standards for assessing these
    types of petitions. Finally, it should be noted that the DON is working
    with DOD Separation Standardization Working Group reviewing DOD Non-
    Disability Mental Condition Separations. This group is, among other
    things, reviewing whether to retire many of the specific non-disability
    mental health separation program designator codes that drive the
    narrative reasons in block 28 of the DD Form 214, such as personality
    disorder.   [See page 13.]

    =======================================================================

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                                 March 2, 2017

    =======================================================================

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS

        Ms. Tsongas. Statutory deadlines requiring the BCMRs to complete 90
    percent of their cases within 10 months create enormous pressure to
    move cases quickly. Moreover, as the forces downsize, the expected
    caseloads for the boards may increase. Yet over the past decade
    staffing for the boards has stayed the same or decreased.
        a. What is the scope of the resource challenge that you face and
    how might Congress help? b. Without increased staffing, how can you
    ensure that cases are adequately reviewed, records are collected, and
    that veterans' claims are given full and fair consideration?
        Ms. Blackmon. a. Through the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA)
    business processing reengineering efforts, we have collected data which
    helped the United States Army Manpower Analysis Agency to validate a
    requirement for 25 additional employees, which will return the agency
    to the 2002 baseline. ARBA is working with the Army Staff to authorize
    and hire additional staff.
        b. As cases have become more complex, processing times are
    lengthening. However, the agency focus remains on giving each
    applicant's claim full and fair consideration while providing
    determinations in a timely manner, within current case processing
    capacity. We expect that our business process reengineering and
    leveraging new technologies will allow for more efficient and timely
    processing of cases.
        Ms. Tsongas. We know that PTSD is more prevalent among sexual
    assault survivors than among combat veterans: an estimated one in three
    sexual assault survivors experience PTSD, as opposed to a 10 to 18
    percent prevalence rate of PTSD for combat veterans. Because the vast
    majority of sexual assault survivors do not report that they were
    victimized, however, they may not have been formally diagnosed with
    PTSD while in service. Accordingly, how do you intend to ensure that
    the protections for former service members diagnosed with PTSD in the
    NDAA for FY 2017 are also extended to victims of sexual assault?
        Ms. Blackmon. The Army Review Boards Agency provides special
    processing for cases in which the applicant contends they were a victim
    of sexual assault. ARBA recognizes that many of these assaults were
    never reported to military law enforcement, meaning there is no
    corroborating police report for the board to consider. Similar to ARBA
    processing of PTSD claims, the applicant is asked to provide any
    additional documentation they have related to their claim while their
    case is placed on administrative hold. Each case is reviewed by the
    psychiatrist or psychologist on the ARBA staff and they either
    participate as a board member or provide an advisory opinion for board
    consideration. In compliance with applicable law, any written advisory
    opinion they render is provided to the applicant for review and
    response prior to consideration. In the fall of 2016, all agency
    personnel were trained on markers of sexual trauma by a renowned
    forensic psychologist and were briefed by a panel of sexual assault
    survivors on the impact to them as sexual assault victims. This
    training is in addition to the statutory requirement for advisory
    opinions or serving board members as described above.
        Ms. Tsongas. Federal regulations require the BCMRs and DRBs to make
    all their decisions publicly available. Moreover, decisions are
    required to be indexed ``in a usable and concise form so as to enable
    the public to identify those cases similar in issue together with the
    circumstances under and/or reasons for which the board and/or Secretary
    have granted or denied relief.'' In this way, applicants and their
    lawyers should be able to search for cases to determine applicable
    standards and present their arguments accordingly. However, in reality,
    the reading rooms are very basic, consisting of a list of case numbers.
    Except for the Coast Guard, which has a bare-bones indexing system,
    none of the services indexes its cases at all.
        a. What constraints prevent the boards from indexing and
    summarizing case decisions? b. Why do each of the services use
    different computer systems for maintaining its records? Why wouldn't it
    be more efficient and cost effective to consolidate data systems?
        Ms. Blackmon. a. The Army Review Boards Agency posts redacted
    versions of the records of proceeding or the case report and directives
    that provide a summary for applications considered by the Army Board
    for Correction of Military Records and the Army Discharge Review Board
    respectively. The documents are posted quarterly and organized by year
    and case number. The advance search feature of the reading room support
    a basic word search of the documents. Efforts to go back and modify
    over 111,000 documents would require significant, intensive manpower
    efforts; however, going forward we will overhaul search functionality,
    and enhance user experience through intuitive interface and
    instructional content.
        b. ARBA currently uses a case tracking system specifically
    developed for Army Review Boards Agency requirements. As a part of the
    agency's business process reengineering, requirements are being
    identified for a replacement system that meets the unique future needs
    of the Army Review Boards Agency. This review will certainly provide
    the opportunity for the Army to consider the ``consolidated data
    systems'' approach.
        Ms. Tsongas. Statutory deadlines requiring the BCMRs to complete 90
    percent of their cases within 10 months create enormous pressure to
    move cases quickly. Moreover, as the forces downsize, the expected
    caseloads for the boards may increase. Yet over the past decade
    staffing for the boards has stayed the same or decreased.
        a. What is the scope of the resource challenge that you face and
    how might Congress help? b. Without increased staffing, how can you
    ensure that cases are adequately reviewed, records are collected, and
    that veterans' claims are given full and fair consideration?
        Mr. Woods. While we have complied with the mandate contained in 10
    U.S.C. Sec. 1559 to maintain or exceed our staffing levels on hand in
    2002, we realize that without continued efforts to increase the number
    and quality of staff and to improve our technology support protocols,
    we will not be able to meet the statutory deadline goals for processing
    petitions. In that regard, we have programmed for additional staff in
    the coming Fiscal Years and are in the process of upgrading our
    technological capabilities. Our workload has increased significantly in
    the intervening years since 2002 in terms of the number of cases
    received, complexity of cases, as well as an exponential increase in
    FOIAs, phone calls, emails, constituent Congressional inquiries, and
    the like. With continued growth in cases, it will continue to be
    difficult to meet the 90 percent goal in the near term. We are hopeful
    that we will eventually be able to routinely meet this goal as we
    increase our staffing levels and finalize our technological
    improvements. We remain committed to providing our Sailors, Marines and
    veterans with full and fair consideration of their petitions in as
    timely a manner as possible.
        Ms. Tsongas. We know that PTSD is more prevalent among sexual
    assault survivors than among combat veterans: an estimated one in three
    sexual assault survivors experience PTSD, as opposed to a 10 to 18
    percent prevalence rate of PTSD for combat veterans. Because the vast
    majority of sexual assault survivors do not report that they were
    victimized, however, they may not have been formally diagnosed with
    PTSD while in service. Accordingly, how do you intend to ensure that
    the protections for former service members diagnosed with PTSD in the
    NDAA for FY 2017 are also extended to victims of sexual assault?
        Mr. Woods. The Department of the Navy is currently working with the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense in development of supplemental
    guidance related specifically to sexual assault and sexual harassment
    cases. We anticipate guidance by this summer. In the meantime, we
    generally apply the SECDEF Hagel memorandum standard of ``liberal
    consideration'' to these invisible wound cases. This memorandum was
    dated 3 Sept 2014, Subject: ``Supplemental guidance to Boards
    concerning veteran's claims to PTSD disorder.'' We also seek advisory
    opinions whenever there is evidence in the record, or a reference by
    the veteran, to sexual assault or harassment. We have an ongoing
    commitment to our veterans who have suffered invisible wounds.
        Ms. Tsongas. Federal regulations require the BCMRs and DRBs to make
    all their decisions publicly available. Moreover, decisions are
    required to be indexed ``in a usable and concise form so as to enable
    the public to identify those cases similar in issue together with the
    circumstances under and/or reasons for which the board and/or Secretary
    have granted or denied relief.'' In this way, applicants and their
    lawyers should be able to search for cases to determine applicable
    standards and present their arguments accordingly. However, in reality,
    the reading rooms are very basic, consisting of a list of case numbers.
    Except for the Coast Guard, which has a bare-bones indexing system,
    none of the services indexes its cases at all.
        a. What constraints prevent the boards from indexing and
    summarizing case decisions? b. Why do each of the services use
    different computer systems for maintaining its records? Why wouldn't it
    be more efficient and cost effective to consolidate data systems?
        Mr. Woods. The Board for Correction of Naval Records is currently
    developing a website that will allow indexing of summarized cases and
    enhanced search capabilities.
        Ms. Tsongas. Statutory deadlines requiring the BCMRs to complete 90
    percent of their cases within 10 months create enormous pressure to
    move cases quickly. Moreover, as the forces downsize, the expected
    caseloads for the boards may increase. Yet over the past decade
    staffing for the boards has stayed the same or decreased.
        a. What is the scope of the resource challenge that you face and
    how might Congress help? b. Without increased staffing, how can you
    ensure that cases are adequately reviewed, records are collected, and
    that veterans' claims are given full and fair consideration?
        Mr. Teskey. a. What is the scope of the resource challenge that you
    face and how might Congress help? The scope of the resource challenge
    the Air Force Review Boards Agency (AFRBA) faces is substantial.
    According to a 2013 manpower assessment, updated in 2015, the AFRBA is
    manned at 49 percent against validated requirements. While the agency
    is currently authorized 107 positions, the assessment indicated that
    218 positions are required to keep pace with the current workload,
    resulting in a shortfall of 111 positions. This shortfall is
    predominantly attributable to the dramatic increase in caseloads across
    the agency over the last several years. In 2008, the agency received
    over 9,100 cases; however, in subsequent years, cases received
    increased over 70 percent to more than 15,600 cases annually. These
    shortfalls dramatically impact the ability of all of our boards to
    ensure that all petitions receive full and fair consideration while
    also complying with statutory and regulatory timelines for
    adjudication. This is most acute in the Air Force Board for Correction
    of Military Records (AFBCMR) where Title 10, U.S.C., Section 1557
    requires the AFBCMR to adjudicate 90 percent of cases received during a
    fiscal year (FY) within ten months of receipt, with no individual case
    exceeding 18 months. The 90 percent requirement became effective for
    cases received during FY11. The AFBCMR adjudicated 96 percent of the
    nearly 2,400 cases received in FY11 within 10 months. For cases
    received during FY12, the last time we were able to comply with this
    mandate, the AFBCMR adjudicated 92 percent of over 2,900 cases received
    in FY12, an increase of more than 500 cases for adjudication than in
    the previous FYs. With 2,900 cases received for adjudication becoming
    the new normal, and with no requisite increase in staffing, the average
    age of a case at closure grew to ten months for cases received during
    FY13. As a result, the Board was only able to adjudicate 52.5 percent
    of almost 2,900 cases received during FY13 within ten months. The
    average age of a case at closure continued to climb, resulting in the
    Board adjudicating only 27.5 percent of the approximately 2,900 cases
    received in FY14 within ten months. The Secretary of the Air Force
    issued reports to Congress required by 10 USC 1557 for cases received
    in FY13 and FY14 and will issue a similar report this summer describing
    our inability to comply with the 90 percent mandate for cases received
    during FY15. We expect the reported compliance rate will continue to
    drop into the foreseeable future. Because individual board shortfalls,
    such as in the AFBCMR, can affect operations across the entire Agency,
    it's also important to consider manpower requirements in the AFRBA's
    other major boards. For example, neither the AF Discharge Review Board
    (AFDRB) nor other SAF Personnel Council (SAFPC) boards have the same
    statutory completion and reporting requirements as the AFBCMR.
    Nonetheless, the increasing case intake has the impact of creation of
    case load backlog and its nexus to critical staffing shortages is
    similar across the agency. Due to the existing manpower and increasing
    workload challenges, over the past several years, the AFRBA underwent
    an extensive transformation effort performing business process re-
    engineering across doctrine, organization, training, material,
    leadership, personnel, facilities, and policy domains. These efforts
    resulted in numerous efficiency and effectiveness improvements
    including streamlining and digitizing all adjudication processes,
    Agency-wide organizational structure changes, and development of
    shared-service model directorates to share limited specialized and
    common resources such as doctors, lawyers, and case intake personnel.
    These improvements have provided some offsets to our manpower and
    caseload issues but have not resolved them. Anecdotally, these changes
    lead us to believe we remain substantially under-resourced but we could
    operate at a manpower level slightly less than the 2015 Manpower
    Assessment requirement, but still above what is currently resourced. As
    such, Congress can help address the resource challenges by directing a
    new manpower study to accurately measure service review agency manpower
    requirements and by regularly updating the personnel baseline found in
    10 USC 1559(b).
        b. Without increased staffing, how can you ensure that cases are
    adequately reviewed, records are collected, and that veterans' claims
    are given full and fair consideration? Without increased staffing, we
    accomplished extensive business process re-engineering to help mitigate
    our resulting case adjudication issues and help ensure cases are
    adequately reviewed, records collected and veteran's and current
    service member claims are given full and fair consideration. However,
    due to increased caseloads (caused by growing applications and an
    increase in the complexity of the cases submitted often including
    multiple requests and issues with more supporting documentation),
    without a corresponding increase in manpower, we can only fully ensure
    full and fair consideration to our veterans and service members with a
    corresponding increase in case processing times, often in non-
    compliance with congressional direction.
        Ms. Tsongas. We know that PTSD is more prevalent among sexual
    assault survivors than among combat veterans: an estimated one in three
    sexual assault survivors experience PTSD, as opposed to a 10 to 18
    percent prevalence rate of PTSD for combat veterans. Because the vast
    majority of sexual assault survivors do not report that they were
    victimized, however, they may not have been formally diagnosed with
    PTSD while in service. Accordingly, how do you intend to ensure that
    the protections for former service members diagnosed with PTSD in the
    NDAA for FY 2017 are also extended to victims of sexual assault?
        Mr. Teskey. The AFRBA makes a concerted effort to ensure the
    liberal consideration provisions in the FY 2017 NDAA are afforded to
    both combat veterans and victims of sexual assault. The Agency is aware
    that many sexual assault survivors may not report an incident for fear
    of reprisal, embarrassment, or an attempt to blame the victim. There
    are still others who may exhibit an overt mental impediment to duty and
    proceed to complete their term of service, only to develop delayed
    post-service symptoms of PTSD. Consequently, the Agency considers the
    probative value of post-service examinations and disclosures made to
    Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical officials, or other
    civilian medical sources, in assuring a fair and equitable opportunity
    for redress is offered. Close scrutiny of administrative records and
    performance reports is made in search of signs of unexplained
    diminution of performance or commission of minor disciplinary
    infractions in a previously exceptional performer. As a preventive
    measure in future cases, the Air Force Surgeon General has also
    established policy that will ensure all female service members are
    screened on the subject of possible military sexual trauma (MST) before
    clearance for separation for any reason to assure the possible
    existence of MST has been taken into consideration prior to a final
    personnel decision or action; whether a voluntary early separation,
    completion of required active service, or an involuntary separation.
    The Secretary of the Air Force recently issued written guidance on
    invisible wounds and sexual assault to the AFBCMR, which adjudicates
    the vast majority of these petitions. This guidance ensures we make a
    concerted effort to obtain copies of military personnel and service
    treatment records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), as
    well as any post-service treatment records from the DVA. The
    Secretary's guidance directs the Board to apply liberal consideration
    of PTSD in discharge upgrades for both sexual assault victims and
    combat veterans in accordance with the Secretary of Defense guidance
    issued in 2014. The Board follows Title 10, U.S.C., Section 1552(g) and
    requires a written opinion from a staff psychiatrist in cases relating
    to a mental health diagnosis rendered during military service. We also
    obtain mental health opinions even when the diagnosis is made years
    after discharge when the case qualifies for liberal consideration of
    PTSD. The AFDRB strictly follows the requirements prescribed in Title
    10, U.S.C., Section 1553 and includes a board member who is one of our
    staff psychiatrists when reviewing cases related to a mental health
    disorder diagnosed during military service or PTSD or TBI diagnosed on
    active duty as a consequence of a contingency deployment. We also
    ensure liberal consideration of PTSD is applied to both sexual assault
    victims and combat veterans in accordance with the recently enacted
    provisions of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act.
    In all cases where MST, PTSD, TBI or a Mental Health (MH) condition is
    either diagnosed or contended, a one of our staff psychiatrists
    thoroughly reviews the applicants medical records and is a voting panel
    member. Under the guidelines of the 2014 NDAA and updated by the 2016
    NDAA, the AFDRB gives express liberal consideration and full
    acknowledgment to all diagnoses and contentions during deliberation. If
    a nexus between the conditions/situations and the misconduct can be
    garnered, it is fully adjudicated within these NDAA guidelines and
    constraints. The AFDRB recognizes that an applicant may not have
    reported being a victim of MST during service. The AFDRB will ensure
    that any undocumented contention regarding MST will the same scrutiny
    and consideration of a documented MST. The AFDRB has also implemented
    reporting procedures for applicants that have not previously reported
    being a victim of MST. The PDBR reassesses the accuracy and fairness of
    the disability ratings assigned to Veterans who were separated from the
    Armed Forces due to unfitness between 11 September 2001 and 31 December
    2009, with a combined disability rating of 20% or less and were not
    found to be eligible for retirement. The PDBR has two additional
    permanent civilian psychiatrists assigned as adjudicators who review
    all cases with PTSD as the unfitting condition. (The PBDR psychiatrists
    are in addition to those supporting the AFBCMR and AFDRB.) To date, the
    PDBR has adjudicated over 10,500 applications, 457 of the cases
    adjudicated were veterans separated with PTSD, of which 21 were the
    victims of sexual assault. In 78% of those PTSD cases adjudicated, the
    Board recommended increase in assigned disability ratings that resulted
    in change of the disability discharges to disability retirement,
    retroactive to the original date of separation. In June 2012, the
    Secretary of Defense committed the PDBR to a comprehensive review for
    Veterans whose PTSD and other mental health diagnoses may have been
    changed to their possible disadvantage or eliminated during the
    military Disability Evaluation System process. In March 2013
    notification letters were mailed to 8,900 former service members
    resulting 1,185 applications. The PDBR determined inappropriate change
    in diagnoses were made in 12% of those cases reviewed and recommended
    corrective actions to the military departments.
        Ms. Tsongas. Federal regulations require the BCMRs and DRBs to make
    all their decisions publicly available. Moreover, decisions are
    required to be indexed ``in a usable and concise form so as to enable
    the public to identify those cases similar in issue together with the
    circumstances under and/or reasons for which the board and/or Secretary
    have granted or denied relief.'' In this way, applicants and their
    lawyers should be able to search for cases to determine applicable
    standards and present their arguments accordingly. However, in reality,
    the reading rooms are very basic, consisting of a list of case numbers.
    Except for the Coast Guard, which has a bare-bones indexing system,
    none of the services indexes its cases at all.
        a. What constraints prevent the boards from indexing and
    summarizing case decisions? b. Why do each of the services use
    different computer systems for maintaining its records? Why wouldn't it
    be more efficient and cost effective to consolidate data systems?
        Mr. Teskey. a. What constraints prevent the boards from indexing
    and summarizing case decisions? Under our most-recently archived AFRBA
    Case Management system (CMTS), a rudimentary ad-hoc index of case types
    and applicant issues was accomplished internal to the AF Review Board
    Agency as necessary. This index did not feed any data management or
    reporting capabilities. Further, an index capability on the reading
    room did not exist; the indexing was cost/labor prohibitive; and it was
    determined that it provided no added value at the time. The capability
    was set aside as the agency selected a new case management system
    (CMTARS). The system does allow for a level of tracking commensurate
    with congressional reporting requirements for specific issues which
    could potentially be leveraged into a meaningful index. This would
    require significant increases in manpower specifically for this purpose
    and also require funding for technological upgrades to reading room
    capabilities. As the Reading Room site is maintained by the Army, we
    would work with the Army to explore a more automated means for doing
    this. A typical Google-like search function exists for the existing
    Army-hosted reading room.
        b. Why do each of the services use different computer systems for
    maintaining its records? Why wouldn't it be more efficient and cost
    effective to consolidate data systems? All service BCMR/DRB reading
    rooms are hosted on the same website, which is maintained by the Army.
    We can work with DOD to design additional features to make it easier
    for applicants and their attorneys to search precedent cases. Data
    management systems are each procured under DOD rule sets to ensure the
    range of their needs are addressed. If a common data system were to be
    procured it would need to be directed and funded by DOD.
        Ms. Tsongas. Why are only two years of Physical Disability Board of
    Review decisions currently published in the Boards of Review Reading
    Room, and what kind of resources would be required to publish and index
    decisions going further back?
        Mr. Teskey. The PDBR was enacted as part of NDAA 2008 and began
    adjudicating cases in June 2009. PDBR decisions dating back to 2009
    were previously published to the Boards of Review Reading Rooms.
    However, personally identifiable information was found on documents
    published to the reading room and all decisional documents from each
    board were removed from the reading rooms and returned to the
    originator for review to verify PII was removed prior to re-posting.
    The PDBR is currently in the process of reviewing previously posted
    decisions and posting as the reviews are completed. The PDBR currently
    has approximately 2,700 cases pending review. The PDBR has requested
    reserve augmentation to assist with an increased workload and plans to
    task the additional personnel with completion of the reading room
    review immediately upon arrival. Of note, this issue is not exclusive
    to the PBDR. The AFDRB has experienced similar PII issues and has
    approximately 2500+ cases to review/redact from years preceding 2013.

                                      [all]