Military Personnel: Federal Management of Servicemember 	 
Employment Rights Can Be Further Improved (19-OCT-05, GAO-06-60).
                                                                 
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act	 
(USERRA) of 1994 protects millions of people, largely National	 
Guard and Reserve members, as they transition between their	 
federal duties and their civilian employment. The act is intended
to eliminate or minimize employment disadvantages to civilian	 
careers that can result from service in the uniformed services.  
This report examines the extent to which the Departments of	 
Defense (DOD), Labor (DOL), Justice (DOJ), and the Office of	 
Special Counsel (OSC) have achieved this purpose, specifically,  
the extent to which the agencies (1) have data that indicate the 
level of compliance with USERRA, (2) have efficiently and	 
effectively conducted educational outreach, and (3) have	 
efficiently and effectively addressed servicemember complaints.  
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-60						        
    ACCNO:   A39817						        
  TITLE:     Military Personnel: Federal Management of Servicemember  
Employment Rights Can Be Further Improved			 
     DATE:   10/19/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Armed forces reserves				 
	     Data collection					 
	     Employee grievances				 
	     Employee rights					 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Military reserve personnel 			 
	     National Guard					 
	     Noncompliance					 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Reemployment					 
	     Veterans' Employment and Training			 
	     Service						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-60

     

     * Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education,
       Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate
          * October 2005
     * MILITARY PERSONNEL
          * Federal Management of Servicemember Employment Rights Can Be
            Further Improved
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
          * Background
               * USERRA Coverage and Protections
               * Federal Agencies' USERRA Roles and Responsibilities
                    * Department of Defense
                    * Department of Labor
                    * Department of Justice
                    * Office of Special Counsel
               * DOD's Reserve Component Members' Employers
               * GAO's Prior Reports
                    * Employer Support and USERRA
                    * Results-Oriented Government
          * Agencies' Available Data Provides Limited Insight in Overall
            USERRA Compliance and Employer Support
               * DOL's Formal Complaint Numbers
               * DOD Data Show Some Employers Are Exceeding USERRA
                 Requirements
               * Informal Complaint Data
               * Agency Complaint Numbers Do Not Appear to Capture Most
                 USERRA Problems
          * Agencies Have Conducted Educational Outreach, but Efficiency and
            Effectiveness of Outreach Has Been Hindered by Lack of Employer
            Information
               * Agencies Have Used a Variety of Means to Conduct Outreach
               * Efficiency and Effectiveness of Employer Outreach Efforts
                 Are Hindered by Lack of Employer Information
                    * DOD Has a Policy and Means for Collecting Essential
                      Employer Information
                    * Collection of Employer Information Is Improving, but
                      Incomplete Data Impede the Efficiency and Effectiveness
                      of Agencies' Outreach
          * Agencies' Ability to Efficiently and Effectively Address
            Complaints Hampered by Incompatible Data Systems, Reliance on
            Paper Files, and Lack of Visibility
               * Incompatible Data Systems Hamper Ability to Address
                 Complaints
               * Reliance on Paper Files Limits Ability to Efficiently
                 Address and Oversee Complaints
               * Segmented Responsibilities and Lack of Visibility Impedes
                 Ability to Monitor and Report the Extent to Which Complaints
                 Are Efficiently and Effectively Addressed
          * Conclusions
          * Recommendations for Executive Action
          * Matter for Congressional Consideration
          * Agencies Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Scope and Methodology
     * Professional Backgrounds of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen
     * Department of Labor Form 1010
     * DOD's Outreach Programs
          * The ESGR Outreach Programs
          * Other DOD Outreach Efforts
     * GAO's Survey of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen Including Results
     * DOL's USERRA Information Poster
     * Comments from the Department of Defense
     * Comments from the Department of Labor
     * Comments from the Office of Special Counsel
     * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate

October 2005

MILITARY PERSONNEL

 Federal Management of Servicemember Employment Rights Can Be Further Improved

                                       a

MILITARY PERSONNEL

Federal Management of Servicemember Employment Rights Can Be Further
Improved

  What GAO Found

Whether or not overall USERRA compliance has changed is difficult to
firmly establish; however, the agencies that support or enforce USERRA
have collected formal and informal complaint data and some employer
support figures that provide limited insights into compliance. For
example, DOL's formal complaint numbers show a possible relationship with
the level of the use of the reserve components and the number of
complaints. DOD data show that some employers exceed USERRA requirements,
but these data have limitations. DOD has only 1 full year of informal
complaint data, so it will be several years before DOD can identify any
meaningful trends in informal complaints. Because informal complaint
figures have not been captured on a consistent basis, agencies lack the
data necessary to identify total complaint trends. Furthermore, data from
a 2004 DOD survey showed that at least 72 percent of National Guard and
Reserve members with USERRA problems never sought assistance for their
problems. This raises questions as to whether complaint numbers alone can
fully explain USERRA compliance or employer support. Some recently added
employment questions on DOD's periodic surveys, if continued, offer the
potential to provide insight into compliance and employer support issues.

DOD, DOL, and OSC have educated hundreds of thousands of employers and
servicemembers about USERRA, but the efficiency and effectiveness of this
outreach is hindered by a lack of employer information. DOD's reserve
component members who can be involuntarily called to active duty are
required to enter their civilian employer information into a DOD database
but the services have not enforced this requirement and as of August 2005,
about 40 percent of the members had not entered the required information.
Without information about the full expanse of servicemember employers,
federal agencies have conducted general outreach efforts but have been
limited in their ability to efficiently and effectively target educational
outreach efforts to employers who actually have servicemember employees.

Agency abilities to efficiently and effectively address servicemember
complaints are hampered by incompatible data systems, a reliance on paper
files, and a segmented process that lacks visibility. The systems that
DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC use to track USERRA complaints are not compatible.
As a result, data collection efforts are sometimes duplicated, and DOL
relies on its paper files when transferring or reviewing complaints. This
slows the transfer of complaints and limits the ability of DOL managers to
conduct effective, timely oversight of complaint files. Furthermore,
segmented responsibilities and lack of visibility have led agencies to
focus on outputs rather than results. For example, agencies measure
complaint processing times but not the elapsed time servicemembers
actually wait to have their complaints fully addressed. GAO analysis of 52
complaints that had been closed and reopened two or more times found that
recorded processing times averaged 103 days but the actual elapsed times
that servicemembers waited to have their complaints fully addressed
averaged 619 days.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter 1

Results in Brief 4 Background 8 Agencies' Available Data Provides Limited
Insight in Overall

USERRA Compliance and Employer Support 20 Agencies Have Conducted
Educational Outreach, but Efficiency and

Effectiveness of Outreach Has Been Hindered by Lack of

Employer Information 27 Agencies' Ability to Efficiently and Effectively
Address Complaints

Hampered by Incompatible Data Systems, Reliance on Paper

Files, and Lack of Visibility 33 Conclusions 38 Recommendations for
Executive Action 40 Matter for Congressional Consideration 41 Agencies
Comments and Our Evaluation 42

                                   Appendixes

Appendix I: Appendix II:

                                      Appendix III: Appendix IV: Appendix V:

           Appendix VI: Appendix VII: Appendix VIII: Appendix IX: Appendix X:

Scope and Methodology 46 Professional Backgrounds of the ESGR's Volunteer
Ombudsmen 53 Department of Labor Form 1010 56 DOD's Outreach Programs 59
GAO's Survey of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen Including Results 62 DOL's
USERRA Information Poster 67 Comments from the Department of Defense 68
Comments from the Department of Labor 71 Comments from the Office of
Special Counsel 73 GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 81

Table 1: Formal Complaints Opened by the Department of Labor,

  Tables

Fiscal Years 1989 through 2004 22 Table 2: Data from GAO's Survey of the
ESGR Ombudsmen 48

Page i GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

Contents

       Table 3: Employment Status of the ESGR's Ombudsmen (as of
                April 6, 2005)                                             53 
          Table 4: The Primary Employers of the ESGR's Ombudsmen (as of    
                   April 6, 2005)                                          54 
Figures  Figure Process to Resolve a USERRA Complaint Using Federal        
                1: Assistance                                              10
            Figure Percentages of Selected Reserve Members Surveyed Who    
                2:                                                         
                   Work for Various Types of Employers                     17 
            Figure Percentages of Selected Reserve Members Who Work for    
                3:                                                         
                   Employers of Various Sizes                              18 
            Figure Percentages of Ready Reserve Members Who Had            
                4:                                                         
                            Supplied Civilian Employment Information as of 
                                   August 10, 2005                         31 

                                 Abbreviations

DMDC         Defense Manpower Data Center                                  
DOD          Department of Defense                                         
DOJ          Department of Justice                                         
DOL          Department of Labor                                           
ESGR         Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve                     
OSC          Office of Special Counsel                                     
USERRA       Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act     
VETS         Veterans' Employment and Training Service                     

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

October 19, 2005

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions United States Senate

Dear Senator Kennedy,

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of
19941 protects millions of individuals2 as they transition between their
federal duties and their civilian employment. Prior to USERRA,
reemployment rights were set forth in the Vietnam Era Veterans'
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.3 Following the 1991 Gulf War,
military servicemembers and employers flooded the government with
questions and complaints concerning reemployment rights. In 1994,
following a review of the effectiveness of the 1974 act, Congress passed
USERRA to "encourage non-career service in the uniformed services by
eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and
employment which can result from such service." The act covers not only
the more than 2 million members who have served in the reserve components4
of the armed services since the act was passed, but also large numbers of
active duty servicemembers and veterans, including those who served before
the act's passage. For example, citizens who left civilian jobs and signed
active duty enlistment contracts following the events of September 11,
2001, retain reemployment rights under USERRA as long as they meet a few
basic requirements. Among the eligibility requirements are

(1) the absence of the receipt of a dishonorable or other disqualifying

1 Pub. L. No. 103-353, as amended, codified at 38 U.S.C. S:S: 4301-4334.

2 In addition to military servicemembers and veterans, the act covers the
commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and other persons
designated by the President in time of war or national emergency. These
persons currently include about 8,000 intermittent disaster-response
appointees in the National Disaster Medical System. However, since the
primary focus of this report is veterans and active and reserve component
military members, we use the term servicemembers throughout this report to
include all those covered by the act.

3 Pub. L. No. 93-508 (Dec. 3, 1974).

4 The reserve components include the collective forces of the National
Guard including the Army Guard and the Air Guard, as well as the forces of
the Army Reserve, the Naval Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air
Force Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve.

discharge, (2) giving proper notice prior to departure and after return
from service, and (3) returning within 5 years of departure or immediately
after the expiration of their initial enlistment contracts, whichever is
longer.

Every individual in the country who serves in, has served in, or intends
to serve in the uniformed services is potentially covered by USERRA. The
act applies to a wide range of employers, including federal, state, and
local governments as well as for-profit and not-for-profit private sector
firms. Enforcement and implementation of USERRA is complex, with several
federal agencies having specific and sometimes overlapping outreach,
investigative, or enforcement roles. Along with the Department of Labor
(DOL), the Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for informing
servicemembers and employers of their rights, benefits, and obligations
under USERRA.5 Much of DOD's outreach is accomplished through its Employer
Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) organization. The ESGR performs
most of its work through volunteers and specially-trained impartial
ombudsmen who act as informal mediators for USERRA issues that arise
between servicemembers and their employers. DOL, through the efforts of
its Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), is the avenue
through which servicemembers file formal USERRA-related complaints6
against civilian employers. Representatives of VETS investigate USERRA
complaints and try to resolve disputes, but if they are unable to resolve
servicemember complaints, DOL informs the servicemembers that they may
request to have their complaints referred to the Department of Justice
(DOJ) or to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Unresolved complaints
against private sector or state or local government employers are referred
by DOL to DOJ to investigate, mediate, and litigate. Prior to February 8,
2005, unresolved complaints against federal executive agency employers
were referred from DOL to OSC. Under a new demonstration project,7 OSC now
receives some USERRA complaints directly from certain servicemembers.

5 The law also gives outreach responsibilities to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs but we did not review actions of the Department of
Veterans Affairs in supporting USERRA because their role is more limited
than that of the four federal agencies that you asked us to review.

6 Federal agencies use a variety of terms to describe servicemember
allegation of USERRA violations, including "complaints," "claims,"
"cases," "matters," and "referrals." For clarity and consistency
throughout this report, we use the term complaint to describe these
servicemember allegations. We refer to complaints to DOD as "informal
complaints" and complaints to DOL, DOJ, and OSC as "formal complaints."

7 Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-454, S: 204
(2004).

In light of the significant number of National Guard and Reserve members
serving in the Global War on Terrorism who will be demobilized, returned
to their civilian jobs, and possibly called back to duty, you requested
that we review the efforts of certain federal agencies to support and
enforce USERRA, specifically the activities of DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC. We
agreed to address your immediate needs by first reviewing issues
surrounding OSC's enforcement of USERRA in the federal sector. On October
6, 2004, we issued U.S. Office of Special Counsel's Role in Enforcing Law
to Protect Reemployment Rights of Veterans and Reservists in Federal
Employment, GAO-05-74R. This report responds to your broader request to
review the actions of the four federal agencies involved in carrying out
USERRA responsibilities. Our objectives were to determine the extent to
which the agencies (1) have data that indicate the level of compliance
with USERRA, (2) have efficiently and effectively conducted educational
outreach, and (3) have efficiently and effectively addressed servicemember
complaints.

To address our first objective, we collected, reviewed, and analyzed data
from a wide variety of sources, including the four federal agencies that
support and enforce USERRA. We analyzed the annual numbers of complaints
filed with DOL and those referred from DOL to DOJ and OSC from fiscal year
1997 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2005 to determine whether
there were trends in the total referrals, or the referrals to either
agency. We also reviewed the tabulations of responses from DOD's Defense
Manpower Data Center (DMDC) May 2004 projectable survey of reserve
component members. We also conducted original analysis on the survey
responses that addressed employment issues. In addition, we conducted a
survey of the ESGR's ombudsmen to obtain information about their
backgrounds and training as well as the numbers of complaints they had
handled and resolved. We also reviewed data related to the ESGR's outreach
and employer recognition programs. To address our second objective, we
reviewed USERRA to determine agency roles and responsibilities in
educating servicemembers and employers concerning USERRA, and we
interviewed agency officials from DOD and DOL to determine how they carry
out their USERRA educational outreach responsibilities. We also collected
and analyzed data concerning DOD's and DOL's outreach activities. We
interviewed DOJ and OSC officials to determine whether they were involved
in any outreach activities. To address our third objective, we reviewed
USERRA and the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004 to determine
agency roles and responsibilities in processing USERRA complaints. We
interviewed headquarters officials from the four agencies to determine how
they pass complaint information among various offices. Further, we
interviewed the ESGR ombudsmen and customer service center
representatives, state ombudsmen coordinators, DOL investigators, and
officials at two of DOL's regional offices and two of its solicitor's
offices. We reviewed DOL hard copy files in two regional offices and
compared the data in those files to electronic data from DOL's USERRA
Information Management System. We also reviewed agency procedures for
collecting and reporting information about the time required to address
USERRA complaints. We determined that the agency data used in this report
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this review, though the
complaint data systems had some limitations that we discuss further in the
report. We conducted our work from October 2004 through August 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A more
detailed description of our scope and methodology is provided in appendix
I.

Whether overall USERRA compliance or employer support has increased,

  Results in Brief

decreased, or remained steady is difficult to firmly establish; however,
the federal agencies with responsibilities under USERRA have collected
formal and informal complaint data and some employer support figures that
provide limited insights into USERRA compliance or employer support. DOL's
formal complaint numbers show a possible relationship with the level of
the use of National Guard and Reserve members and the number of
complaints. For example, DOL numbers show that formal complaints rose in
fiscal years 1991 and 1992 following the substantial increase in the use
of the reserve component for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
The formal complaint numbers rose again between fiscal years 2001 and 2004
following the larger use of the reserve component for Operations Noble
Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. However, DOL's formal
complaints were generally lower in the years following USERRA's
passage-ranging from 895 to 1,465 in fiscal years 1995 through 2004-than
in the years prior to its passage in 1994, when they ranged from 1,208 to
2,537 between fiscal years 1989 through 1994. Because relatively few
complaints reach DOJ and OSC by design, formal complaint data from those
agencies may not fully provide an accurate picture of USERRA compliance or
employer support. Between fiscal years 1995 and 2004, annual formal
complaints remained below 59 at DOJ and below 21 at OSC. DOD data indicate
that some employers are exceeding the requirements set forth in USERRA and
providing their servicemember employees with "extra" benefits, but these
data have limitations. DOD's employer support organization, ESGR, has only
1 full year of informal complaint data, so it will be several years before
the ESGR can identify any meaningful trends in informal complaint numbers.
Because informal complaint figures have not been captured on a consistent
basis, agencies cannot know whether total complaints have been increasing,
decreasing, or remaining steady. Furthermore, a 2004 DOD survey showed
that at least 72 percent of Selected Reserve members with USERRA problems
never sought assistance for those problems. This raises questions as to
whether complaint numbers alone can fully explain USERRA compliance and
employer support. These types of recently added employment questions on
DOD's periodic surveys, if continued, offer the potential to provide
insight into compliance and employer support issues.

DOD, DOL, and OSC have educated hundreds of thousands of servicemembers
and employers about USERRA, but the efficiency and effectiveness of agency
outreach efforts are hindered by a lack of employer information, an issue
that we previously reported and recommended that DOD address. The
agencies' educational outreach efforts have ranged from placing USERRA
information on agency Web sites and maintaining toll-free information
lines, to conducting individual and group briefings. Despite these many
general outreach efforts, agencies lack essential employer information
needed to efficiently and effectively target outreach to employers who
actually have servicemember employees. A March 21, 2003, memorandum from
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness required all
members of the reserve components who are subject to being involuntarily
called to active duty to provide DOD with their civilian employment
information to assist the department in accomplishing its employer
outreach. However, the services have not enforced this requirement and as
of August 2005, about 40 percent of DOD's reserve component members who
were subject to being called to active duty had not complied with the
requirement to enter their civilian employer information into DOD's
database. With limited employer data available to them, agencies have been
restricted in their ability to efficiently and effectively target outreach
to employers who actually have servicemember employees. Without complete
information about the full expanse of servicemember employers, the federal
agencies conducting outreach efforts have no assurance that they have
informed all servicemember employers about USERRA rights and obligations.

Agency abilities to efficiently and effectively address servicemember
complaints, as intended by USERRA, are hampered by incompatible data
systems, reliance on paper files, and a segmented process that lacks
visibility. The speed with which servicemember USERRA complaints are
addressed often hinges on efficient and effective information sharing
among the agencies involved in the complaint resolution process. However,
the automated systems that DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC use to capture data
about USERRA complaints are not compatible with each other. As a result,
information collection efforts are sometimes duplicated, which slows
complaint processing times. In addition, agencies are unable to
efficiently process complaints because they are forced to create,
maintain, copy, and mail paper files due to the incompatible data systems.
Although DOL maintains electronic complaint files, it relies on its paper
files when transferring complaints and it also focuses its complaint file
reviews on its paper files. This slows the transfer of complaints and
limits the ability of DOL managers to conduct prompt, effective oversight
of complaint files. In addition, the ability of agencies to monitor the
efficiency and effectiveness of the complaint process is hampered by a
lack of visibility and by the segmentation of responsibility for
addressing complaints among several different agencies. The segmented
complaint resolution process means that the agency officials who handle
the complaints at various stages of the process generally have limited or
no visibility over the other parts of the process for which they are not
responsible. This prevents any one agency from monitoring the length of
time it takes for a servicemember's complaint to be fully addressed, and
leads agencies to focus on output figures for their portion of the
complaint process rather than on overall federal responsiveness to
complaints. As a result, agencies have developed goals that are oriented
toward outputs of their agency's portion of the process rather than toward
results regarding an individual servicemember's complaint. For example,
agency goals address complaint processing times at different stages of the
process, rather than the actual elapsed time servicemembers wait to have
their complaints addressed. To highlight the difference between agency
focuses on processing times and servicemember concerns with elapsed times,
we reviewed complaints that had been closed and later reopened by VETS
investigators. Specifically, we analyzed 52 complaints that were closed
and reopened two or more times. Our analysis revealed substantial
differences between the recorded processing times and the actual elapsed
times for these complaints. The recorded processing times averaged 103
days. However, from the servicemembers' perspectives, it took much longer
because the servicemembers actually waited an average of 619 days from the
time they first filed their initial formal complaints with DOL until the
time the complaints were fully addressed by DOL, DOJ, or OSC.

We are making four recommendations in this report. First, to better
identify USERRA compliance and employer support trends, we recommend that
DOD include USERRA questions in its periodic surveys of servicemembers;
second, to help educate employers about USERRA, we recommend that DOD take
steps to enforce the requirement for servicemembers to report their
civilian employment information, maintain the database on this civilian
employment information, and share applicable employer information with
DOL, OSC, and other federal agencies that educate employers about USERRA;
third, to increase agency responsiveness to servicemember complaints, we
recommend that DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC explore methods of electronically
transferring information between agencies; fourth, to reduce the
administrative burden on VETS investigators and improve the ability of
VETS managers to provide effective, timely oversight of USERRA complaint
processing, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor develop a plan to
reduce agency reliance on paper files and fully adopt the agency's
automated complaint file system. Further, to encourage results rather than
outputs, Congress should consider designating a single office to maintain
visibility over the entire complaint resolution process.

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD, DOL, and OSC generally
concurred with our findings and recommendations to their respective
agencies. DOJ reviewed a draft of this report and had no comments. DOD
deferred to DOL, DOJ, and OSC regarding our recommendation for the
agencies to explore methods of electronically transferring information
between agencies. DOL and OSC commented on our matter for congressional
consideration that Congress should consider designating a single office to
maintain visibility over the entire complaint resolution process. DOL
noted that the mandated OSC demonstration project is ongoing, and
therefore, it would be premature to make any suggestions or
recommendations for congressional or legislative action until the pilot
has been completed. DOL did note that its office is uniquely situated to
provide an overview of the entire complaint resolution process. OSC
supported our matter and stated that OSC has unparalleled experience and
expertise in administering federal sector employment complaints and
prosecuting meritorious workplace violations before the Merit Systems
Protection Board. OSC believes that their office is in the best position
to be the overseer. We believe that the Congress is the best qualified to
determine the identity of the overseer and the timing of this matter for
congressional consideration.

  Background

    USERRA Coverage and Protections

USERRA has extremely broad coverage, provides a wide range of protections,
and applies over long time periods. The discrimination provisions of the
law cover every individual who serves in, plans to serve in, or has served
in the uniformed services of the United States. The law's reemployment and
benefit provisions are applicable to some active duty military personnel
as well as to National Guard and Reserve members. USERRA applies to public
and private employers in the United States, regardless of size, and
includes federal, state, and local governments, as well as for-profit and
not-for profit private sector firms. It also applies in overseas
workplaces that are owned or controlled by U.S. employers.

Generally, servicemembers are entitled to the reemployment rights and
benefits provided by USERRA if they meet certain conditions. These include
having held a civilian job8 prior to call-up, serving fewer than 5 years
of cumulative military service with respect to that employer,9 providing
their employer with advance notice of their service requirement when
possible, leaving service under honorable conditions, and reporting back
to work or applying for reemployment in a timely manner. Provided
servicemembers meet their USERRA requirements, they are entitled to

     o prompt reinstatement to the positions they would have held if they had
       never left their employment, or to positions of like seniority,
       status, and pay;
     o health coverage for a designated period of time while absent from
       their employers, and immediate reinstatement of health coverage upon
       return;
     o training, as needed, to requalify for their jobs;

8 Under USERRA, reemployment provisions do not apply to brief,
nonrecurrent positions that cannot be expected to continue indefinitely or
for a significant period of time.

9 It is difficult to exceed the 5-year limit because many types of
military duties do not count against this limit. For example, none of the
time reserve component members spend on active duty supporting Operations
Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom counts against the 5-year
limit.

Page 8 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

     o periods of protection against discharge based on the length of
       service; and
     o non-seniority benefits that are available to other employees who are
       on leaves of absence.

Figure 1 is a flowchart that shows servicemembers' options for receiving
federal assistance with their USERRA complaints. While the flowchart shows
several different paths for resolving employment problems, the chart does
not show all of the options available to servicemembers. Some
servicemembers have used members of their military chain-of-command to
help them resolve problems with their employers. In addition, the ESGR is
available to provide information and informal mediation of USERRA-related
employment problems. The DOL offers assistance similar to the ESGR in that
it provides information to employers and employees, and works to
informally resolve USERRA-related employment problems. The DOL also
receives formal complaints from servicemembers under USERRA. Another
option that is available to servicemembers at any time is to hire a
private attorney and to file a complaint against their employer in court
(for private employers and state and local governments) or before the
Merit Systems Protection Board (for federal employers). However, a working
group from the American Bar Association found that many private attorneys
are reluctant to take USERRA complaints because cases are not likely to
result in large judgments or settlements.

    Figure 1: Process to Resolve a USERRA Complaint Using Federal Assistance

If a servicemember cannot resolve an alleged USERRA violation directly with his
              or her employer, he or she can seek assistance from:

                                      DOJ

When a servicemember requests a referral, DOJ reviews the findings of the DOL's
VETS investigator and regional solicitor and then performs its own evaluation of
the merits of the complaint. If DOJ determines the complaint has merit, it
                represents the servicemember against his or her

private employer or state or local government employer in federal district
                                   court. OSC

When a servicemember requests a referral, OSC reviews the findings of the DOL's
 VETS investigator and regional solicitor, then performs its own evaluation of
the merits of the complaint, and obtains additional information as necessary. If
OSC determines the complaint has merit, it represents the servicemember against
his or her federal executive agency employer before the Merit Systems Protection
                                     Board.

                          Source: GAO, Art Explosion.

Federal Agencies' USERRA The responsibility for enforcing and implementing
USERRA is complex, involving several federal agencies. Under USERRA,
specific outreach,

    Roles and Responsibilities

investigative, and enforcement roles are assigned to DOD, DOL, DOJ, and
OSC.

Page 10 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

Department of Defense

Most of the people entitled to USERRA rights and benefits earn their
entitlement while serving in the military services. The Secretary of
Defense shares responsibility with DOL for informing servicemembers and
employers of their rights, benefits, and obligations under the act. The
ESGR carries out this responsibility for DOD. The ESGR was established in
1972 to manage activities that maintain and enhance employers' support for
the reserve components, and it has a goal to inform servicemembers and
their employers of their respective USERRA rights and responsibilities.
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)
develops the policies, plans, and programs that manage the readiness of
both active and reserve forces, and within that office, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs oversees the activities of the
ESGR.

The ESGR has a staff of about 55-18 civilians and 37 military personnel-
at its national headquarters in Arlington, Virginia.10 However, much of
the ESGR's work is done through its more than 4,000 volunteers who are
organized into state committees.11 These volunteers help to educate both
employers and servicemembers about USERRA, and a specially trained
subgroup of about 800 volunteers serve as impartial ombudsmen who work to
informally mediate USERRA issues that arise between servicemembers and
their employers. While many volunteer ombudsmen are attorneys, human
relations specialists, or have other backgrounds that assist them in their
mediation work, all of the ESGR's ombudsmen are required to attend a 3-day
training course before they handle servicemember complaints. (App. II
contains additional information about the backgrounds of these volunteer
ombudsmen.) Most USERRA-related complaints come to the ESGR through its
toll-free telephone number (1-800-336-4590), which is answered at the
ESGR's Customer Service Center in Millington, Tennessee. The customer
service representatives in Tennessee screen calls, fill requests for
information, and forward complaints that appear to have merit to volunteer
ombudsmen, who are generally located geographically near the
servicemembers. The complaints are often channeled through state

10 The ESGR had some unfilled civilian positions during our review so its
authorized staffing level was slightly higher.

11 While the ESGR refers to these organizations as "state" committees,
there are committees in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and Europe, as well as in the 50 states.

Page 11 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

                              Department of Labor

ombudsmen coordinators.12 The ESGR's volunteer ombudsmen attempt to
resolve pay-related USERRA complaints within 7 days and other USERRA
complaints within 14 days. When ombudsmen cannot resolve servicemember
complaints, they are to notify the servicemembers of the other options
that are available to address complaints. The ombudsmen may then pass the
complaints to the ESGR headquarters through their state ombudsman
coordinators.

The Secretary of Labor has responsibility for providing assistance to
servicemembers who claim USERRA rights and benefits.13 This responsibility
is carried out primarily through the efforts of VETS. VETS is led by an
assistant secretary who is supported by headquarters, regional, and state
staff as well as local investigators. When a servicemember leaves active
duty and a USERRA-related complaint develops against the servicemember's
civilian employer, the servicemember can file a formal complaint at
www.vets1010.dol.gov, or can file a printed copy of the complaint form,
such as the one included in appendix III, with the Secretary of Labor. The
complaint is then assigned to one of VETS's approximately 125
investigators, generally an investigator who is located close to the
employer. These VETS investigators examine USERRA complaints and try to
help the servicemembers and employers resolve their differences. The
investigators also typically have a host of other responsibilities that
support veterans' programs but that are not directly related to USERRA.
The law gives DOL subpoena power over records and individuals to aid in
its investigations, but officials note that subpoenas are used
infrequently because the threat alone is usually enough to gain
cooperation. The statute also states that the Secretary of Labor may use
the assistance of volunteers and may request assistance from other
agencies engaged in similar or related activities. When DOL is unable to
resolve servicemember complaints, DOL informs the servicemembers that they
may request to have their complaints referred. A complaint is referred to
DOJ if it involves state or local governments or private employers or to
OSC if it involves a federal executive agency. Before complaints are sent
to DOJ or OSC, they are reviewed by a VETS regional office, which reviews
the memorandums of referral to ensure that the investigations are thorough

12 Some states do not have state ombudsmen coordinators and in some states
the complaints are channeled through full-time program support specialists
rather than through volunteer state ombudsman coordinators.

13 DOL currently shares this responsibility with OSC under a mandated
demonstration project discussed under the section on OSC.

Page 12 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

and that the documentation is accurate and sufficient. The referrals are
also reviewed by a DOL regional solicitor's office to assess the
complaints' legal basis. Both offices render opinions on the merits of the
complaints. Even if both offices find that the complaints have no merit,
DOL is required by the act to pass the complaints to DOJ or OSC if the
servicemembers request referrals.

Along with their investigation and mediation responsibilities, VETS
investigators also conduct briefings to educate employers and
servicemembers about USERRA requirements and responsibilities, and they
field service-related employment and reemployment questions that are
directed to their offices. These investigators are required to take three
courses that train them in the basics of the USERRA law, advanced
investigative techniques, and the differences between veterans' preference
issues and USERRA discrimination issues.

Under USERRA, the Secretary of Labor reports USERRA information to
Congress on an annual basis,14 after consulting with the Attorney General
and Special Counsel. The Secretary's report includes information about the
number of complaints reviewed by DOL during the fiscal year for which the
report is filed along with the number of complaints referred to DOJ or
OSC. The annual report should also address the nature and status of each
complaint and should state "whether there are any apparent patterns of
violation." Finally, the report should include any recommendations for
administrative or legislative action that the Secretary of Labor, the
Attorney General, or Special Counsel consider necessary to effectively
implement USERRA. USERRA also granted DOL authority to issue regulations
that implement USERRA provisions for state and local government and
private employers.15 In its most recent report to Congress,16 the
department did not note any apparent patterns of violation. DOL did note
that it had published draft regulations implementing USERRA for the first
time on September 20, 2004, and DOL has completed the evaluation of
comments that were submitted in response to these draft regulations. DOL
has submitted the

14 The act specified that the report was to be transmitted by February 1,
1996, and annually thereafter through 2000. The act was amended in 2004 to
require a report by February 1, 2005, and annually thereafter.

15 The Office of Personnel Management, in consultation with DOL and DOD,
was given the authority to issue similar regulations for federal executive
agencies.

16 Fiscal year 2004.

Page 13 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

Department of Justice

final regulations to OMB for formal review prior to publication in the
Federal Register, and publication is expected in the near future.

The Attorney General is assigned enforcement responsibilities under
USERRA, but DOJ is not authorized to receive USERRA complaints directly
from servicemembers. It investigates, mediates, and litigates only private
sector or state or local government complaints that it receives from DOL.
The Civil Division in DOJ was responsible for handling USERRA complaints
until September 2004, when DOJ transferred responsibility to its Civil
Rights Division, which handles other types of employment discrimination
complaints not related to military service. The Civil Division procedures
called for the division to review the complaint and either

(1) decline representation and return the complaint to DOL's regional
solicitor's office because the complaint lacked merit or (2) forward the
complaint to the U.S. Attorney's Office for possible litigation. If the
complaint was forwarded, the U.S. Attorney's Office would assign the
complaint to an assistant U.S. attorney who would review the information
in the DOL referral,17 and interview the servicemember and potential
witnesses. The assistant U.S. attorney then would make a determination on
the merits of the complaint. If the assistant U.S. attorney found that the
complaint was meritorious and the U.S. attorney agreed, the U.S.
attorney's Office would represent the servicemember. In these situations,
the assistant U.S. attorney would contact the employer and try to resolve
the matter without litigation. If that failed, the assistant U.S. attorney
would file a complaint against the employer in federal district court. If
the assistant

U.S. attorney found that the complaint was not meritorious and the U.S.
attorney agreed, the complaint would be referred back to DOL and the
servicemember would have the option of seeking their own legal
representation and filing a complaint against the employer in federal
district court. A settlement could be negotiated at any stage of the
process. In July 2005, the Civil Rights Division was still following these
procedures pending sufficient experience with USERRA complaints to decide
if new procedures are necessary.

17 Each DOL referral includes (1) the VETS investigative file, (2) a
memorandum prepared by the VETS regional office that makes a
recommendation concerning the merits of the complaint, and (3) a letter or
memorandum from the regional solicitor that analyzes the merits of the
complaint based on the facts and the law. The letter also provides a
recommendation as to whether DOJ should represent the servicemember.

Page 14 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

                           Office of Special Counsel

DOJ's Civil Rights Division attorneys are trained in handling
discrimination complaints because they receive training on Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, according to DOJ officials, 37
attorneys in the Employment Litigation Section received training on USERRA
in March 2005 and also received a collection of reference documents
relevant to USERRA. These attorneys are available to handle both civil
rights and USERRA complaints. There are also 18 professional and 8
clerical staff who are trained on USERRA matters.

Under USERRA, OSC is responsible for enforcing USERRA rights at federal
executive agencies. Prior to February 8, 2005, OSC was not authorized to
receive USERRA complaints directly from servicemembers and had to wait
until DOL referred the complaints. However, under a demonstration
project,18 OSC may now receive USERRA complaints against federal executive
agencies directly from certain servicemembers.19 OSC recently established
a six-person USERRA unit to investigate, mediate, and, as necessary,
litigate USERRA complaints. Under the traditional procedures, when a
servicemember employed by a federal executive agency requests to have his
or her DOL complaint referred to OSC, DOL's regional solicitor sends a
referral to OSC. While OSC takes the referral information into account,
OSC conducts its own review of the facts and the law and comes to its own
conclusions on the merits of the complaint. If the complaint is received
directly from the servicemember, OSC conducts the investigation without
DOL input. In either case, if OSC is satisfied that the servicemember is
entitled to corrective action, OSC begins negotiations with the
servicemember's federal employer. If an agreement cannot be reached, OSC
may represent the servicemember before the Merit Systems Protection Board.
If the Merit Systems Protection Board rules against the servicemember, OSC
may appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. In instances where OSC finds that complaints do not have merit,
it informs the servicemembers of its decision not to represent them and
informs servicemembers that they have the right to

18 The demonstration project was authorized by the Veterans Benefits
Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-454, S: 204 (2004).

19 Under the demonstration project, complaints from servicemembers whose
Social Security numbers end in odd numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, and 9) are
referred to OSC and are no longer investigated by DOL. In addition, USERRA
complaints that allege that a federal agency has engaged in prohibited
personnel practices over which OSC has jurisdiction may be received
directly by OSC regardless of the servicemembers' Social Security number.

    DOD's Reserve Component Members' Employers

take their claims to the Merit Systems Protection Board without OSC
representation.

OSC's USERRA unit consists of three investigators, two attorneys, and a
unit chief, who is also an attorney. According to the unit chief, the
members of the USERRA unit spend most of their time on USERRA complaints
but they also handle some other prohibited personnel practice complaints.
The specific USERRA training for the unit consists primarily of on-the-job
and other informal training.

To support the personnel information needs of DOD, DMDC, which reports to
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, surveys the
attitudes and opinions of the DOD community on a wide range of personnel
issues. In May 2004,20 DMDC surveyed a random sample of 55,794 Selected
Reserve21 members who had at least 6 months of service and who were below
flag rank.22 Figures 2 and 3 show the projected results from survey
questions that asked employed survey respondents about their employers.
Figure 2 shows that about 10 percent of employed Selected Reserve members
are self-employed or work in family businesses. According to the figure,
about 29 percent of Selected Reserve members below flag rank work for
federal, state, or local governments. However, the federal government
percentage in this figure is understated because DMDC's survey did not ask
full-time National Guard and Selected Reserve members and military
technicians-DOD civilian employees who must be members of a National Guard
or Reserve unit as a condition of their employment-the survey question
from which these data are drawn.

20 The Web-based survey was actually conducted from April 12, 2004, and
June 3, 2004, but DMDC refers to this as its May 2004 Status of Forces
Survey of Reserve Component Members. See appendix I for information about
the DMDC survey methodology.

21 The Selected Reserve includes approximately 840,000 National Guard or
Reserve members who are paid for their participation in regularly
scheduled training. Selected Reserve members can be involuntarily called
to active duty under a number of different mobilization authorities.

22 Flag officers are officers who have achieved the rank of brigadier
general or rear admiral (lower half) or above.

Figure 2: Percentages of Selected Reserve Members Surveyed Who Work for
Various Types of Employers

Not-for-profit organizations

Family business or farm Self employed

State government

Federal government

Local government

Private companies or businesses

Source: GAO analysis of DMDC survey data.

Note: Percentages add to 101 percent due to rounding. The margins of error
for each category are within +/- 2 percent.

Figure 3 shows that an estimated 45 percent of employed Selected Reserve
members below flag rank are employed by large employers who have 1,000 or
more total employees. The figure also shows that about 13 percent of
employed Selected Reserve members work for small employers who have 9 or
fewer total employees.

    GAO's Prior Reports

Employer Support and USERRA

Figure 3: Percentages of Selected Reserve Members Who Work for Employers
of Various Sizes

10 to 24 total employees

1 to 9 total employees

25 to 99 total employees

100 to 999 total employees

1,000 or more total employees

Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.

Note: Employer size is based on total employees. The margins of error for
each category are within +/- 2 percent.

We have issued prior reports concerning USERRA and, more generally, about
the need for results-oriented government. Our prior USERRA work has
examined issues pertaining to employer support and enforcement of USERRA
complaints at OSC. Our work on results-oriented government examined how
the federal government could shift toward a more results-oriented focus.

Since 2002, we have issued two reports related to employer support and
USERRA. In our most recent report,23 we provided information on OSC's role
in enforcing USERRA. The report found that

o  separate OSC and DOL determinations generally agreed on the merits of
servicemember complaints,

23 GAO, U.S. Office of Special Counsel's Role in Enforcing Law to Protect
Reemployment Rights of Veterans and Reservists in Federal Employment,
GAO-05-74R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 6, 2004).

Page 18 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

     o OSC took an average of about 145 days to process the 59 complaints it
       received between 1999 and 2003, and
          * OSC had made changes that were designed to expedite the handling
            of current USERRA complaints and any influx of new complaints.
          * In our earlier report,24 we addressed DOD's management of
            relations between reservists and their employers. Our report
            stated the following.
     o DOD had established a database to collect employer information from
       reserve component members on a voluntary basis in 2001. However, by
       May 14, 2002, only about 11,000 servicemembers had entered employer
       information into the database.
     o DOD could not educate all employers concerning their USERRA rights and
       responsibilities because it viewed the Privacy Act as a constraint
       that prevented it from requiring reserve component members to provide
       civilian employer contact information.
     o Ombudsmen were not always available to field servicemember phone
       calls.
     o The ESGR did not have good data to determine the effectiveness of its
       outreach and mediation efforts.

We made a number of recommendations to address these and other findings in
the report. In response to our recommendations, DOD reevaluated its
interpretation of the Privacy Act and issued a requirement that all Ready
Reserve25 members provide contact information for their civilian employers
to their military departments. DOD also began funneling calls to its
volunteer ombudsmen through a central customer service center

24 GAO, Reserve Forces: DOD Actions Needed to Better Manage Relations
between Reservists and Their Employers, GAO-02-608 (Washington, D.C.: June
13, 2002).

25 The Ready Reserve includes about 1.1 million members from three groups:
the Selected Reserve, the Individual Ready Reserve, and the Inactive
National Guard. The Selected Reserve members are the only Ready Reserve
members who participate in regular training, but members of all three
groups can be involuntarily called to active duty under the mobilization
authority invoked by President Bush on September 14, 2001, as implemented
in Exec. Order No. 13,223, 66 Fed. Reg. 48,201, reprinted as amended in 10
U.S.C. S: 12302 note (2001).

Results-Oriented Government

where information is logged into a database that is used to measure the
ESGR's outreach and mediation efforts.

We have issued a number of reports that address the need for federal
agencies to manage for results. In 2004, we issued a report26 that
examined, among other things, the challenges agencies face in using
performance information in management decisions and how the federal
government can continue to shift toward a more results-oriented focus. The
report noted that serious weaknesses persist, such as how agencies are
coordinating with other entities to address common challenges and achieve
common objectives. Moreover, mission fragmentation and overlap contribute
to difficulties in addressing crosscutting issues, especially when those
issues require a national focus. Other barriers to interagency cooperation
include conflicting agency missions, jurisdiction issues, and incompatible
procedures, data, and processes. These issues are particularly important
in the context of USERRA implementation and enforcement. Since USERRA
provisions are administered by four distinct agencies, coordination is
imperative to successfully implement this law in the context of
results-oriented government.

  Agencies' Available Data Provides Limited Insight in Overall USERRA Compliance
  and Employer Support

DOL, DOJ, OSC, and DOD have formal and informal USERRA complaint data, and
some employer support figures. DOL's formal complaint numbers show a
possible relationship with the level of reserve component usage and the
number of complaints. By design, DOJ and OSC formal complaint numbers are
small, and may not provide a fully accurate picture of USERRA compliance
or employer support. DOD data indicate that some employers are exceeding
USERRA requirements; however, these data have limitations. DOD has only 1
full year of informal complaint data, so it will be several years before
it has data that can identify any meaningful trends. Furthermore, data
from a DOD survey indicate that most servicemembers do not seek assistance
for their USERRA problems, which indicates that complaint data alone
cannot fully explain USERRA compliance or employer support.

26 GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).

Page 20 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

    DOL's Formal Complaint Numbers

Formal complaint numbers from DOL show a possible relationship with
reserve component usage and the passage of USERRA. Table 1 contains DOL's
formal complaint numbers and shows that DOL's formal complaint numbers
rose significantly in fiscal year 1991 and remained high in fiscal year
1992. This increase followed DOD's activation27 of almost 270,000 reserve
component members for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The table
also shows an increase in complaints between fiscal years 2001 and 2004.
This increase followed the activation of more than 300,000 reserve
component members for Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi
Freedom. DOL's formal complaint data also show that complaints were
generally lower in the years following USERRA's passage in 1994 than in
the years prior to its passage. Table 1 shows that between fiscal years
1989 and 1994, DOL's annual formal complaint figures ranged from 1,208 to
2,537 but between fiscal years 1995 and 2004 the formal complaints were
lower, ranging from 895 to 1,465. Finally, if complaints for the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2005 are consistent with the first three quarters,
fiscal year 2005 complaint numbers could fall back to between the fiscal
year 2002 and 2003 levels. 28 However, two recent changes could affect the
number of complaints filed with DOL. First, a demonstration project now
allows OSC to receive complaints directly from certain servicemembers
instead of having the complaints referred to OSC by DOL. Second, DOL
implemented an electronic (Form 1010) complaint form that allows
servicemembers to file complaints directly from the DOL Web site rather
than mailing or hand-delivering complaint forms to their local VETS
offices.

27 Activation is the term DOD uses to describe the process by which
reserve component personnel are called to active duty. This call may be
voluntary or involuntary.

28 Between October 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005, DOL received 862 formal
servicemember employment complaints. OSC also received 69 complaints that
in previous years would have gone to DOL. If the complaint figures for the
fourth quarter are consistent with the figures for the first three
quarters, the final fiscal year 2005 complaint number would be 1,241 and
would fall between the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 complaint levels.

Table 1: Formal Complaints Opened by the Department of Labor, Fiscal Years
1989 through 2004

Fiscal year                                    Number of complaints opened 
1989                                                                 1,370 
1990                                                                 1,534 
1991                                                                 2,537 
1992                                                                 2,332 
1993                                                                 1,442 
1994                                                                 1,208 
1995                                                                 1,387 
1996                                                                 1,270 
1997                                                                 1,245 
1998                                                                 1,051 
1999                                                                 1,029 
2000                                                                   929 
2001                                                                   895 
2002                                                                 1,195 
2003                                                                 1,315 
2004                                                                 1,465 
Total                                                               22,204 
Average                                                              1,388 

Source: GAO analysis of DOL data.

Relatively few formal complaints reach DOJ and OSC each year since the
formal process begins at DOL and complaints may be resolved there and not
forwarded to DOJ or OSC. Thus, the number of formal complaint data from
these two agencies is small and cannot be used to fully explain the
relationship between complaints and USERRA compliance or employer
support.29 Between fiscal years 1995 and 2004, formal complaints at DOJ
ranged from 37 to 59 complaints each year. OSC's annual formal complaint
numbers ranged from 1 to 21 over the same period.30

29 However, as noted earlier, the demonstration project will affect the
number of complaints filed at OSC since the project allows OSC to receive
complaints directly from certain servicemembers.

30 Because USERRA was passed in October 1994, DOJ and OSC would not have
received USERRA cases from DOL from 1989 through 1994.

Page 22 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

    DOD Data Show Some Employers Are Exceeding USERRA Requirements

Data from DMDC and the ESGR show that some employers are exceeding USERRA
requirements. DMDC's May 2004 survey found that many employers of Selected
Reserve members had provided these members with extra benefits beyond
those required by USERRA. Projections, which apply to more than 120,000
Selected Reserve members who were employed and had been activated in the
24 months prior to the survey,31 show that more than 26 percent of these
members have employers who pay them salaries or differential pay32 for at
least part of the time they are away from their civilian jobs performing
military duties. Projections also show that more than 32 percent receive
medical benefits that are not required by USERRA, and more than 30 percent
receive other benefits above and beyond those required by USERRA. While
these data indicate that some employers are exceeding USERRA, the DMDC
data were collected only in 2004 and therefore cannot establish whether
overall employer support is improving, steady, or declining.

The ESGR data show increases in both employer awards and statements of
support, but these increasing figures cover a relatively small group of
employers. Servicemembers are increasingly nominating their employers for
the ESGR's various employer support awards. "Patriot Award" employers may
be recognized for simply complying with USERRA. However, higher level
awards typically require support above and beyond USERRA requirements.
According to the ESGR officials, award nominations have increased over the
years, and in fiscal year 2004 servicemembers nominated their employers
for more than 20,000 awards. The ESGR's "Above and Beyond" award is one of
the higher level awards. It is awarded annually by the ESGR's state
committees and recognizes employers who have exceeded USERRA requirements.
Many employers have received this award over the years, and in fiscal year
2004 the ESGR's state committees recognized 1,058 employers with "Above
and Beyond"

31 The projected population excluded reserve component members who were
military technicians, on full-time active duty, on state active duty, or
currently activated.

32 Differential pay is money that is paid to an employee to make up the
difference in lost wages when an employee's civilian salary is higher than
his or her military salary.

Page 23 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

                            Informal Complaint Data

awards. 33 In addition to increases in awards, the ESGR figures show
increases in the numbers of employers signing the ESGR "statements of
support." In signing statements of support, employers acknowledge that
they will comply with USERRA. Between 2000 and 2002, 575 employers signed
statements of support. In 2003, 1,228 employers signed the statements, and
by July 26, 2005, the ESGR records showed that almost 6,000 employers had
signed statements of support. The ESGR continues to solicit statements of
support, but is now focusing its outreach efforts on a "5-star" program,
which encourages employers to move beyond simple USERRA compliance to
increasingly higher levels of employer support. (See app. IV for
additional details.) Despite encouraging increases in the ESGR's employer
support figures, the thousands of employers who have received awards or
signed statements of support do not represent all the employers of the
millions of servicemembers covered by USERRA.

The absence of informal complaint data prevents linking the informal
complaint numbers and the total number of complaints. It will be several
years before the ESGR can identify any meaningful trends in informal
complaint numbers because the ESGR has only 1 full year of informal
complaint data in its central database. Until October 2003, the ESGR had a
manual complaint tracking system that relied on monthly reports from its
state committees to its national headquarters. Our 2002 report34 reviewed
the ESGR's effectiveness and found that the ESGR did not have an accurate
count of the complaints handled by its ombudsmen. We found that

33 Reserve Officers Association data also indicate that some of the
nation's largest employers are providing National Guard and Reserve
members with increased support. Since 1990, the Reserve Officers
Association has conducted annual surveys of Fortune 500 companies, which
identified many corporate policies that exceed USERRA requirements. For
example, the survey results published in 2003 showed that 132 companies
paid full salaries, pay differentials, or a combination of salaries and
differentials to their National Guard and Reserve employees who were
called to emergency active duty. While the published Reserve Officers
Association survey results show that many companies have increased their
benefits to National Guard and Reserve employees over the years, some
significant limitations prevent the data from being used to demonstrate
trends in overall USERRA compliance or employer support. First, the
policies of Fortune 500 companies do not necessarily reflect employers in
general. Second, the companies responding to the survey differed from year
to year. Third, survey response rates were generally low. For example, the
2003 response chart listed only 154 companies, the 2002 chart 132
companies, and the 2001 chart 119 companies. Finally, some survey
responses on health plans did not always clearly distinguish between
USERRA compliance and extra benefits.

34 GAO, Reserve Forces: DOD Actions Needed to Better Manage Relations
between Reservists and Their Employers, GAO-02-608 (Washington, D.C.: June
13, 2002).

reporting by ombudsmen had been sporadic and some states had gone an
entire year without reporting any complaints at all. In 2003, the ESGR
began funneling calls to its ombudsmen through a central call center where
the complaint information is logged into a centralized database before
assigning the complaint to an ombudsman. As a result of the changed
procedures, the ESGR is now able to track the complaints handled by each
of its nearly 800 ombudsmen. After they have been assigned a complaint,
ombudsmen can access, review, update, and close assigned complaints, but
they cannot create new complaint files in the database. Although the
database now captures the informal complaints brought to the ESGR, at the
time of our review the ESGR had only collected 1 full year of complaint
data-fiscal year 2004. Because informal complaint figures have not been
captured annually, agencies cannot know whether informal complaints have
been increasing, decreasing, or remaining steady.

Available data suggest that the number of informal complaints handled by
the ESGR is large enough that if annual data were available, the volume of
informal complaints could overshadow that of DOL's formal complaint data.
We conducted a survey to collect information about the workload,
backgrounds, and training of the ESGR's ombudsmen because the ESGR lacked
complete and accurate ombudsmen data. We surveyed all of the 831 ombudsmen
that the ESGR headquarters officials told us were available to handle
complaints as of April 6, 2005. Of the 831 ombudsmen, 618 responded to our
survey but 52 said they were not available to handle complaints as of
April 6, 2005. (See app. V for a complete list of our survey questions and
results.) Our survey asked the ombudsmen how many complaints they had
handled and resolved since becoming ombudsmen.35 Survey responses showed
that the ombudsmen who were available to handle complaints on April 6,
2005, had handled 37,684 complaints. Although this figure does not cover a
specific time period, it far exceeds the 22,204 formal complaints handled
by DOL between 1989 and 2004. DMDC survey data also suggest that informal
complaint numbers could overshadow formal complaint numbers. Projections
from DMDC's May 2004 survey show that between 54 and 78 percent of
Selected Reserve members with USERRA problems seek assistance from the
ESGR but only

35 Because the ESGR has assembled a fluid group of ombudsmen made up
primarily of volunteers, we recognized that many of the ombudsmen who were
handling complaints in previous years were no longer ombudsmen when we did
our survey. Therefore, we did not attempt to capture annual complaint data
and asked for total workload figures to obtain a rough estimate of
informal complaint numbers that we could compare to the formal complaint
data provided by DOL.

Page 25 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

    Agency Complaint Numbers Do Not Appear to Capture Most USERRA Problems

between 16 and 36 percent seek assistance from VETS. Cross tabulations of
survey responses further showed that servicemembers who had received
USERRA briefings were more likely to seek assistance from the ESGR than
those who had never been briefed. Conversely, the cross tabulations showed
that servicemembers who had received USERRA briefings were less likely to
turn to VETS for assistance than those who had never been briefed. If this
pattern continues, as more servicemembers are briefed about their USERRA
rights, servicemembers may file more informal complaints and fewer formal
complaints.

DMDC survey data indicate that formal and informal complaint numbers do
not capture most USERRA problems experienced by servicemembers because
most servicemembers do not seek assistance for their USERRA problems. In
the spring of 2004, DMDC surveyed a random sample of 55,794 Selected
Reserve members and received responses from more than 19,000 of these
members. Survey respondents were asked about their civilian work
experiences, reserve component programs and affiliations, and activations,
and were asked a series of questions related to USERRA if they

     o were not full-time National Guard or Reserve members, or military
       technicians;
     o were not on active duty when they completed the survey;
     o were employed during the week prior to the time when they completed
       the survey, or during the week prior to their activation; and
     o had been activated during the 24 months prior to the time when they
       completed the survey.

The survey respondents who met these criteria were first asked if, despite
their USERRA protection, they had experienced any of a series of USERRA
problems. The survey projections show that between 4 and 8 percent of the
119,761 Selected Reserve members who met the criteria above did not
receive prompt reemployment upon their return from military service;
between 9 and 14 percent experienced a loss of seniority,
seniority-related pay, or seniority-related benefits; and between 5 and 9
percent did not receive immediate reinstatement of employer-provided
health insurance. The survey yielded similar results for other USERRA
problems listed in the

  Agencies Have Conducted Educational Outreach, but Efficiency and Effectiveness
  of Outreach Has Been Hindered by Lack of Employer Information

survey question.36 The survey respondents who experienced one or more
problems were then asked if they had sought assistance for their problems.
Survey results show that only between 18 and 28 percent of the 42,119
Selected Reserve members who had USERRA problems sought assistance for the
problems. Therefore, at least 72 percent of the Selected Reserve members
who had experienced USERRA problems never filed a complaint, either formal
or informal, to seek assistance in resolving their problems. In a separate
question, all of the Selected Reserve members who had responded to the
survey were asked if they had ever filed a formal USERRA complaint with
DOL/VETS. The survey results show that less than 2 percent of the more
than 776,381 Selected Reserve members in the survey population have ever
filed a formal USERRA complaint with DOL/VETS. The large percentage of
servicemembers who fail to file either formal or informal complaints
indicate that complaint data alone may be insufficient to fully explain
USERRA compliance or employer support. Without periodic surveys of
employment issues, such as DMDC's May 2004 survey, DOD will continue to
have difficulties determining trends in USERRA compliance and employer
support.

Agencies have taken actions to educate hundreds of thousands of
servicemembers and employers about USERRA, but the efficiency and
effectiveness of agency outreach actions are hindered by a lack of
employer information. DOD, DOL, and OSC have conducted educational
outreach using a variety of means, such as individual and group briefings,
Web sites, and telephone information lines. However, agencies have been
restricted in their ability to efficiently and effectively target
educational outreach actions to employers who actually have servicemember
employees because only limited employer information is available.

Agencies Have Used a DOD, DOL, and OSC have used a variety of means to
educate servicemembers and employers about USERRA, such as individual and

    Variety of Means to Conduct

Outreach group briefings, Web sites, and telephone information lines.
According to agency officials and employers, one of the primary reasons
employers

36 These other problems included issues related to pensions, upgrade and
refresher training, and health insurance (continuance during military
service).

Page 27 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

violate USERRA is their lack of knowledge about the law's requirements.37
USERRA assigns DOD and DOL responsibilities for informing servicemembers
and their employers about their USERRA rights, benefits, and obligations,
but it gives the agencies flexibility to determine the appropriate means
for conducting this outreach.38 DOD and DOL have used this flexibility to
conduct educational outreach through a wide variety of means. Group
briefings are one of the primary means these agencies use to educate
employers and servicemembers about the law. However, they also have USERRA
information on their agency Web sites, and headquarters and field
representatives respond to individual requests for information through
toll-free phone lines.39 Between September 11, 2001, and June 30, 2005,
VETS staff responded to more than 34,000 requests for USERRA information40
and conducted briefings for more than 247,000 people. DOL also made a
USERRA poster available for employers to post in their workplaces as a
means of complying with the requirements set forth in the Veterans
Benefits Improvement Act, which was enacted in December 2004. The poster
is on the VETS Web site and is included as appendix VI of this report. The
poster does not include any information about OSC's role in providing
assistance on USERRA problems, even though OSC told us that they have
requested that DOL include information about OSC's role. DOD also conducts
a wide range of outreach actions. Some activities, such as the ESGR
statements of support and awards, were discussed earlier in this report,
and appendix IV contains information on many of DOD's other outreach
programs. Although not required by USERRA, OSC also has taken actions to
educate federal employers about their responsibilities under the law. OSC
officials have conducted USERRA briefings for executive branch

37 Data suggest that employer violations of USERRA could be tied not only
to employer knowledge of the law but also to servicemember understanding
of the law. The May 2004 DMDC survey showed that the incidence of USERRA
problems was lower among survey respondents who had received USERRA
briefings than among respondents who had not received briefings. However,
the cross tabulation of the results from the USERRA briefing question and
the USERRA problem question yielded small subgroups and consequently
cannot clearly establish a relationship between briefings and problems for
the entire Selected Reserve population.

38 38 U.S.C.S: 4333. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shares these
outreach responsibilities with the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of
Labor.

39 The ESGR's Web site is www.esgr.mil , and its toll-free telephone
number is 800-336-4590. The VETS Web site is www.dol.gov/vets and its
toll-free telephone number is 866-487-2365.

40 About 50 percent of the requests came from active military or National
Guard or Reserve members, about 29 percent from employers, and the
remainder from the media and other groups and individuals.

    Efficiency and Effectiveness of Employer Outreach Efforts Are Hindered by
    Lack of Employer Information

DOD Has a Policy and Means for Collecting Essential Employer Information

employees and managers and other groups. For example, they have conducted
briefings at recent federal dispute resolution conferences and for the
District of Columbia Bar Association. OSC's Web site also contains
information about USERRA, contact information for complaints or questions,
and information about OSC's ongoing demonstration project.41

Agencies have been restricted in their ability to efficiently and
effectively target educational outreach actions to employers who actually
have servicemember employees, because only limited employer information is
available. To accomplish its employer outreach requirements, DOD
established a database and a policy requiring collection of these data.
However, information collection efforts are incomplete, which impedes
agencies' ability to communicate with employers who have servicemember
employees.

In 2001, DOD established a database to voluntarily collect employer
information from reserve component members, but few servicemembers
submitted the data, and following a recommendation in our 2002 report,42
DOD made the submission of employer information mandatory. On March 21,
2003, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness signed a
memorandum mandating the collection of employer information. The
memorandum directed the military departments to immediately implement a
civilian employment information program for National Guard and Reserve
members subject to involuntary recall to active duty. This memorandum
required that all members of the reserve components provide
employment-related information upon assignment to the Ready Reserve43 and
at other times determined by their respective military

41 OSC's Web site is www.osc.gov, and the telephone number for its USERRA
unit is 202-254- 3620.

42 GAO, Reserve Forces: DOD Actions Needed to Better Manage Relations
between Reservists and Their Employers, GAO-02-608 (Washington, D.C.: June
13, 2002).

43 DOD has more than a million Ready Reserve members, who are divided into
three groups. The largest group is the Selected Reserve, which contains
more than 800,000 members who train regularly for pay. The second group,
the Individual Ready Reserve, contains more than 300,000 members. These
members were previously trained during periods of active duty service, but
do not participate in any regularly scheduled training and are not paid as
members of the Individual Ready Reserve. The last and smallest group is
the Inactive National Guard, which contains fewer than 2,000 members who
are temporarily unable to participate in training but who wish to remain
attached to their National Guard units.

Collection of Employer Information Is Improving, but Incomplete Data
Impede the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Agencies' Outreach

departments. According to the Under Secretary's memorandum, one of the
purposes for collecting the employer information is to "utilize (the
information) on a recurring basis to assist the Department in
accomplishing its employer outreach purposes under 38 U.S.C. 4333." The
information required by the memorandum included employment status,
employer's name, employer's complete mailing address, member's civilian
job title, and the servicemember's length of experience in their civilian
occupation. The memorandum indicated members who refuse to provide
information or who provide false information may be subject to
administrative action or punishment for dereliction of duty under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The memorandum assigned unit commanders the responsibility for ensuring
that their Selected Reserve members were familiar with the memorandum's
requirements and provided adequate time to comply with the requirements
during training periods. The military departments were assigned
responsibility for ensuring the compliance of other Ready Reserve members.
According to DOD officials, reserve component members with a computer and
Internet access can enter their employer information into DOD's database
from home or they can enter the information at their units during normal
training periods. The employer database is linked to the defense
enrollment eligibility reporting system. Therefore, if reserve component
members check on their dependents' eligibility for health care or enter
their dependents into the system, they can also take the opportunity to
enter or update their employer information.

The collection of employer information is improving but, more than 2 years
after the Under Secretary called for the immediate implementation of a
civilian employment information program, collection efforts are still
incomplete, which impedes the efficiency and effectiveness of agencies'
outreach efforts. As of August 2005, about 40 percent of DOD's Ready
Reserve members had not entered their civilian employer information into
DOD's database. The percentage of Selected Reserve members who have
complied with the requirement to enter their employment information into
the database has risen substantially over the past year-from 13 percent in
October 2004, to 58 percent in April 2005, to 73 percent in August 2005,
when we ended our review. Figure 4 shows the compliance rates for Selected
Reserve members in each of the seven reserve components, as well as the
compliance rates for Individual Ready Reserve and Inactive National Guard
members in the six components where they serve. (The Air National Guard
does not have any Inactive National Guard or Individual Ready Reserve
members.) Figure 4 illustrates that compliance rates vary by reserve
component, supporting the assertion of DOD officials that compliance rates
are tied to command attention and enforcement. Compliance rates are
substantially lower for Inactive National Guard and Individual Ready
Reserve members than they are for Selected Reserve members, further
reflecting the lack of enforcement of the policy. Responsible DOD
officials said that as far as they knew, the military departments had not
enforced this policy by subjecting any servicemembers to punishment or
administrative action for failing to comply with the policy.

Figure 4: Percentages of Ready Reserve Members Who Had Supplied Civilian
Employment Information as of August 10, 2005 Compliance

Air       Army      Naval   Air Force Coast    Marine Corps       Army     
National  National Reserve  Reserve   Guard    Reserve            Reserve  
Guard     Guard                       Reserve                     
Reserve component                                                 
    Selected Reserve                                                 

Individual Ready Reserve or Inactive National Guard

Source: GAO based on Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Reserve Affairs data.

Since Individual Ready Reserve members do not participate in any regular
training and have been recalled to active duty less frequently than
Selected Reserve members, the employers of Individual Ready Reserve
members may be unaware that their employees have a military obligation and
that they, as employers of servicemembers, have USERRA obligations.

Therefore, outreach to these employers may be even more important than
outreach to employers of Selected Reserve members. Between September 11,
2001, and June 30, 2005, more than 9,500 Individual Ready Reserve members
had been recalled to active duty, with more than 4,500 coming from the
Army Reserve and more than 4,200 from the Marine Corps Reserve.44 Despite
these activations, figure 4 shows that only 10 percent of the Individual
Ready Reserve members in the Army Reserve and only 16 percent in the
Marine Corps Reserve had entered their employer information into DOD's
database.

In the absence of full compliance with the requirement for servicemembers
to provide civilian employer information, agencies' abilities to conduct
outreach to educate employers about USERRA has been hindered. Agencies
have conducted many general outreach efforts but have been restricted in
their ability to efficiently and effectively target outreach to employers
who actually have servicemember employees. With limited employer data
available, DOD is unable to share this information with the other federal
agencies that perform employer outreach so that agencies can coordinate
their activities to reach all the employers of servicemembers who are
covered by USERRA. Without complete information about the full expanse of
servicemember employers, the federal agencies conducting outreach efforts
have no assurance that they have informed all servicemember employers
about USERRA rights, benefits, and obligations. Therefore, agency outreach
efforts are likely to be reaching some employers who do not have any
servicemember employees while neglecting other employers who do have
servicemember employees.

  44 During the same period, 21 Inactive National Guard members were called to
                                  active duty.

                   Page 32 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

  Agencies' Ability to Efficiently and Effectively Address Complaints Hampered
  by Incompatible Data Systems, Reliance on Paper Files, and Lack of Visibility

A segmented process with incompatible data systems hampers agencies'
abilities to efficiently and effectively address servicemembers'
complaints and report results as intended by USERRA. The speed with which
servicemembers' USERRA complaints are addressed often hinges on efficient
and effective information sharing among the agencies involved in the
complaint resolution process; however, DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC use
incompatible data systems to track USERRA complaints. This impedes
information sharing and can lead to duplicative efforts that slow
processing times. In addition, the use of paper files to transfer
complaints among offices limits the agencies' abilities to efficiently
process complaints and increases complaint processing times. Futhermore,
agencies' abilities to monitor the extent to which complaints are
efficiently and effectively addressed are hampered by a lack of visibility
and by the segmentation of responsibilities for addressing complaints
among several different agencies.

    Incompatible Data Systems Hamper Ability to Address Complaints

The ability of DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC to effectively and efficiently
address USERRA complaints has been hampered by the use of five different
and incompatible automated systems to capture data about USERRA
complaints. DOD, OSC, and DOJ45 each operate one system and DOL operates
two systems, one for its VETS offices and another for its solicitors'
offices. Because the systems were created for different purposes, they do
not capture the same data. The ESGR and VETS systems are complaint file
systems that can contain extensive ombudsmen or investigator notes and
details about individual complaints. The other three systems are used
primarily for tracking purposes and do not capture extensive details about
individual cases. Even when data fields in the different systems bear
similar names, the information contained in the fields may not match. For
example, in DOJ's Interactive Case Management System, the date closed
means that final action has taken place on the complaint. In contrast, in
the VETS system, the closed date can mean several different things, such
as the date the investigator resolved the complaint, the date the
servicemember requested to have his or her complaint referred to DOJ or
OSC, or the date the complaint was withdrawn by the servicemember. During
the course of our review, we attempted to compare complaint data from the
VETS system to data from

45 DOJ's Civil and Civil Rights Divisions have separate systems but the
divisions' USERRA responsibilities cover different time periods.

Page 33 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

the DOL solicitor, DOJ, and OSC systems. Because the systems captured data
differently, we were not able to perfectly match the data during any of
these attempts. In some cases we were able to match dates from the
different systems, in other cases dates differed, and in still other cases
we could not even identify the matching complaint files. Because DOL could
not identify complaints that had been handled by the ESGR, we did not
attempt to match DOL and the ESGR files.46

The inability of ombudsmen, investigators, and other officials to share
complaint information by electronically transferring information among
their systems or accessing each other's systems may result in duplicate
efforts to collect identical information that is needed to investigate and
process USERRA complaints. For example, during informal mediation efforts,
DOD's approximately 800 ombudsmen may gather pertinent information and
documentation that concerns servicemember eligibility for USERRA coverage;
civilian supervisors; employer policies and organizational structures,
including information about who makes employment decisions; circumstances
surrounding the alleged USERRA violations; and witness statements.
However, if ombudsmen efforts do not resolve the complaints and the
servicemembers elect to file formal DOL complaints, the ESGR officials
cannot transfer information from their database directly to DOL's
database, and DOL investigators do not have access to the ESGR's database.
As a result of this inability to share information, VETS investigators
sometimes start their investigations with nothing more than the basic
information included on the formal complaint form, and they later contact
servicemembers and employer representatives to request the exact same
information that was previously provided to the ESGR ombudsmen. These
duplicative efforts slow complaint processing times, increase the times
that servicemembers must wait to have their complaints fully addressed,
and may frustrate servicemembers or employers. Likewise, DOL cannot
transfer information from the VETS database to DOJ, OSC, or even to DOL's
solicitors' offices, and people in these other offices do not have access
to the VETS database. As a result, officials in these other offices may
contact the servicemember or employer and again request information that
had been previously provided to the ESGR or VETS.

46 Shortly before we ended our review, VETS began identifying the
complaints that had gone to the ESGR prior to coming to DOL.

Page 34 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

    Reliance on Paper Files Limits Ability to Efficiently Address and Oversee
    Complaints

As complaints are referred from one office to another, agencies are unable
to efficiently process complaints because they are forced to create,
maintain, copy, and mail paper files due to the incompatible data systems.
For example, when a servicemember asks a VETS investigator to refer his or
her complaint to DOJ or OSC, the investigator cannot electronically
transfer the complaint information to the requisite offices. Instead, the
investigator prepares and mails a paper complaint file to a VETS regional
office where the file is reviewed, added to, and then mailed or hand
carried to a DOL solicitor's office. The solicitor's office then reviews
the file, adds a legal opinion concerning the merits of the complaint, and
mails the file to OSC or DOJ. Because VETS investigators cannot
electronically transfer information when they refer complaints, they face
the administrative burden of maintaining both paper and electronic
complaint files that contain much of the same information.

This reliance on paper files results in increased complaint processing
times and can limit managers' abilities to provide effective and timely
oversight. When complaint numbers are large, managers can exercise more
efficient and effective oversight of electronic complaint files that are
stored in automated systems with query capabilities than of geographically
dispersed paper complaint files. Of the four federal agencies we reviewed,
only the agencies that deal with large numbers of complaint files-DOD and
DOL-had electronic complaint files that were stored in automated systems
with query capabilities that facilitate oversight. However, DOL still
considers its paper complaint files its official records, and the VETS
operations manual outlines management oversight and internal control
procedures that focus on reviews of the investigators' paper files.
Because the paper files are located in VETS offices in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, paper file reviews take longer than
electronic file reviews, and managers can lose visibility of paper case
files. For example, during our visits to two regional VETS offices, we
judgmentally selected 64 complaints and asked to review the paper
complaint files to compare the data in those files to information in the
VETS automated system. Officials located 6047 of the 64 paper files we
requested, but 8 weeks after our visit to one office, officials were still
unable to locate the

47 We actually reviewed 59 paper complaint files because one of the files
we were given to review contained the wrong complaint number. Officials
later located the correct file but we did not review it.

Page 35 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

    Segmented Responsibilities and Lack of Visibility Impedes Ability to Monitor
    and Report the Extent to Which Complaints Are Efficiently and Effectively
    Addressed

other 4 files and concluded that the files had been misplaced or lost.48
In addition, our review of data from the VETS automated database
identified a number of issues that warranted management attention.
However, the VETS reviews of sample paper files had not addressed the full
scope of these problems in a timely manner. For example, we were able to
quickly identify more than 430 complaints that had been closed and then
reopened, and we were also able to identify that a large portion of these
reopened cases occurred in a single region, many with a single
investigator.49 If VETS oversight procedures had focused on electronic
file review rather than paper file review, corrective action could have
been taken sooner on cases that were improperly closed.50

The ability of agencies to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the
complaint process is hampered by a lack of visibility and by the
segmentation of responsibility for addressing complaints among several
different agencies. From the time informal complaints are filed with the
ESGR through the final resolution of formal complaints at DOL, DOJ, or
OSC, no one has visibility over the entire process. The segmented
complaint resolution process means that the agency officials who handle
the complaint at various stages of the process generally have limited or
no visibility over the other parts of the process for which they are not
responsible. This prevents any one agency from monitoring the length of
time it takes for a servicemember's complaint to be fully addressed, and
leads agencies to focus on output figures for their portion of the
complaint process rather than on overall federal responsiveness to
complaints. As a result, agencies have developed goals that are oriented
toward outputs of their agency's portion of the process rather than toward
results for an

48 Agency officials told us that they had "reconstructed" the four missing
files, but we did not review the reconstructed files.

49 Officials from this region claimed that they were aware of problems
with reopened cases in their region and had addressed the problem.
However, one case was closed and reopened six times before the problem was
addressed. We did not review all of the more than 430 reopened cases to
verify whether or not the cases had been reopened properly or whether
problems with reopened cases had been corrected in this region or in DOL's
other regions.

50 During our review of 59 paper complaint files, we reviewed 28 reopened
complaints. We found that some of these complaints were closed and then
reopened for valid reasons. However, other case closures simply stopped
the processing time clock without addressing the servicemembers'
complaints. For example, one case was closed while the investigator was
waiting to receive information from an employer. Another was closed to
allow the investigator time to consult with the solicitor's office.

individual servicemember's complaint. For example, agency goals address
complaint processing times at different stages of the process,51 but
agencies do not measure a result of primary concern to servicemembers- the
elapsed time between the bringing of a complaint to a federal agency and
the complaint's final resolution. Due to the incompatibility of agency
systems and the lack of visibility across agencies, we were not able to
track the entire elapsed time that servicemembers wait to have their
complaints fully addressed. However, the VETS database attempts to capture
processing times from the time a servicemember files a formal complaint
until the time the complaint is finally resolved by VETS, DOL's
solicitor's office, DOJ, or OSC.52 To highlight the difference between
agency focuses on processing times and servicemember concerns with elapsed
times, we reviewed complaints that had been closed and later reopened by
VETS investigators.53 Between October 1, 1996, and June 30, 2005,
servicemembers filed 10,061 formal complaints with DOL. More than 430 of
these complaints were closed and later reopened, and 52 of the 430
complaints were closed and reopened two or more times. For example, one
investigator opened a complaint file on September 30, 2001, and then
closed and reopened the complaint six times before finally referring the
complaint to the VETS regional office on September 9, 2002. We analyzed
the processing times and elapsed times for the 52 complaints that had been
closed and reopened two or more times and found substantial differences
between the figures. DOL's system assigned separate complaint numbers to
the 52 complaints each time the complaint was opened or reopened. 54 As a

51 For example, one VETS goal is to close 85 percent of USERRA complaints
within 90 days of the date the complaints were filed. However, a complaint
may still need to go to DOJ or OSC for final resolution after it has been
closed by the VETS investigator. In addition, DOJ's Assistant Attorney
General has directed that, where the Civil Rights Division believes
representation is warranted, a representation recommendation should be
made within 90 days of receipt of the meritorious referral from DOL.
Furthermore, the 90 days does not count any time that the ESGR spent
trying to resolve the complaint.

52 As noted earlier, the dates in the VETS system do not always match the
dates in the other systems.

53 VETS procedures specify that if the servicemember provides the
investigator with additional evidence for the initial complaint filed, the
existing complaint is re-opened and the information is added. However, if
the servicemember lodges a new issue, a new complaint is opened.

54 Reopened complaints are assigned a complaint number, which begins the
same as the original complaint number but which contains a "R" on the end
of the number to indicate that it is a reopened complaint. Complaints that
are reopened twice contain a "R2" at the end, those that are reopened
three times a "R3," etc.

                                  Conclusions

result, the system recorded the average processing time as 103 days.
However, from the servicemembers' perspectives, it took much longer for
DOL, DOJ, and OSC to address their complaints.55 The servicemembers who
filed the 52 complaints actually waited an average of 619 days from the
time they first filed their initial formal complaints with DOL until the
time the complaints were fully addressed by DOL, DOJ, or OSC.56 Because
agency officials do not have visibility over the entire complaint
resolution process and no one has information about the time it takes
federal agencies to fully address servicemember complaints, the Secretary
of Labor, Attorney General, and Special Counsel cannot evaluate the full
range of administrative or legislative actions that may be necessary to
effectively implement USERRA, and the Secretary of Labor's annual report
to Congress cannot be as accurate and complete as required.57

Informal and formal complaint data from the agencies responsible for
enforcing and implementing USERRA do not support the analysis needed to
determine if employer compliance with USERRA and support for the act's
purpose has improved since passage of the act in 1994. The responsible
agencies collect data and some insight may be gained from DOL's formal
complaint numbers. However, the numbers from DOJ and OSC are small and
cannot be used to fully explain the relationship between complaints and
USERRA compliance or employer support, and DOD's data collection effort is
so new that meaningful trends cannot yet be identified using informal
complaint data. Complaint data alone may not accurately reflect the
problems servicemembers are experiencing transitioning between their
federal service and civilian employment. The vast majority of surveyed
National Guard and Reserve members who experienced USERRA-related problems
did not seek assistance for their problems. The survey data do not lend
themselves to the analysis needed to determine if

55 We collected information on the 52 complaints in July 2005. At that
time, DOL had closed 24 complaints, DOJ and OSC had closed 20 complaints,
4 complaints were still open at DOL, and 4 complaints were open at DOJ or
OSC.

56 Because dates in the VETS system do not always match the dates in other
systems, the calculated processing and elapsed times may not be accurate
for complaints that have been referred from the VETS investigator to DOJ
or OSC. Therefore, the figures presented here should not be considered
precise reflections of processing times or elapsed times. The figures are
presented because they are the best data available to illustrate the
difference between the agencies' focuses on outputs and the
servicemembers' concern with results.

57 38 U.S.C. S: 4332 (2005).

the problems were resolved to the servicemember's satisfaction. DOD
periodically conducts these surveys to identify issues that need to be
addressed or monitored. However, questions on the surveys vary from year
to year and have not always included those pertaining to USERRA compliance
and employer support. Periodic, projectable surveys of the servicemembers
who are covered by USERRA could provide DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC with a
means to determine whether or not USERRA compliance and employer support
is improving and thus, USERRA's purpose-to minimize employment
disadvantages that can result from service in the uniformed service-is
being achieved.

Employer violation of USERRA is often attributed to employers' lack of
knowledge about the law's requirements. Having a means to identify the
civilian employers of servicemembers who are covered by USERRA is
essential to effectively and efficiently target the agencies' educational
outreach efforts. DOD has made progress establishing a civilian employer
database. However, DOD has not taken steps to enforce its requirement for
National Guard and Reserve members to enter and maintain their civilian
employer data. Until complete employer information is obtained, agency
outreach efforts are likely to be reaching some employers who do not have
any servicemember employees, while neglecting other employers who do have
servicemember employees.

Currently, DOD's ESGR, DOL's VETS and solicitors' offices, DOJ, and OSC
all operate their own automated systems for tracking USERRA complaints.
Officials from each agency have access to their own system but they cannot
access complaint information in the automated systems of the other
agencies, and complaint data cannot be electronically transferred from one
system to another. As a result, officials from different agencies
sometimes spend time collecting information that has already been provided
to another agency. This slows the complaint resolution process. In
addition, because data systems are incompatible, formal referrals from
VETS investigators to DOJ or OSC must be accompanied by a paper file,
which is first routed through a VETS regional office and a DOL solicitor's
office. The creation, maintenance, and transfer of these paper files add
to complaint processing times and the time servicemembers wait to have
their complaints addressed. As long as agency systems remain segmented and
incompatible and referral information is passed through the mail,
complaints will continue to be processed inefficiently.

VETS investigators are geographically dispersed across the country and
they maintain both paper and electronic USERRA complaint files.

  Recommendations for Executive Action

Managers with the requisite level of authority can have virtually instant
access to every electronic complaint file from every investigator across
the country. However, DOL considers its paper complaint files its official
records. As a result, the VETS operating procedures and internal controls
are geared toward the review of the paper complaint files. These paper
reviews are time consuming. In addition, paper files can be misplaced or
lost when they are moved from office to office. Until VETS switches to
electronic files, investigators will continue the inefficient practice of
maintaining duplicate records and managers will be limited in their
ability to provide timely oversight and effective corrective actions for
any problems that arise.

The responsibility for enforcing and implementing USERRA is complex,
involving several federal agencies. A single complaint can start at DOD
and flow through three different DOL offices before finally being resolved
at DOJ or OSC. The segmented complaint resolution process means that the
agency officials who handle the complaint at various stages of the process
generally have limited or no visibility over the other parts of the
process for which they are not responsible. As a result, agency officials
have not addressed complaint processing issues that cut across federal
agencies or set outcome-oriented goals. Instead, agencies have focused
their goals on outputs from their particular portions of the complaint
process rather than focusing on overall federal responsiveness to USERRA
complaints. Meanwhile, the servicemember knows how much time is passing
since the initial complaint was filed. Under USERRA, specific outreach,
investigative, and enforcement roles are assigned to DOD, DOL, DOJ, and
OSC. However, no agency has visibility over the entire complaint process.
Therefore, it is difficult for the responsible agencies to achieve their
common goal-to minimize the employment disadvantages that can result from
service in the uniformed service, and the time servicemembers wait to have
their complaints fully addressed-which is of great importance to
servicemembers. Furthermore, the Secretary of Labor's annual reports will
not provide Congress with a complete and accurate picture of USERRA
violation patterns or the legislative actions that may be necessary to
effectively implement the act.

To gauge the effectiveness of federal actions to support USERRA by
identifying trends in USERRA compliance and employer support, we recommend
that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to include questions in DOD's periodic Status of
Forces Surveys to determine

Page 40 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

  Matter for Congressional Consideration

     o the extent to which servicemembers experience USERRA-related problems;
     o if they experience these problems, from whom they seek assistance;
     o if they do not seek assistance, why not; and
          * the extent to which servicemember employers provide support
            beyond that required by the law.
          * To more efficiently and effectively educate employers about
            USERRA through coordinated outreach efforts, which target
            employers with servicemember employees, we recommend that the
            Secretary of Defense take the following two actions:
     o Direct the service secretaries to take steps to enforce the
       requirement for servicemembers to report their civilian employment
       information and develop a plan to maintain current civilian employment
       information.
     o Direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs to share
       applicable employer information from DOD's employer database with DOL,
       OSC, and other federal agencies that educate employers about USERRA,
       consistent with the Privacy Act.

To increase agency responsiveness to servicemember USERRA complaints, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Labor, the
Attorney General, and the Special Counsel develop procedures or systems to
enable the electronic transfer of complaint information between offices.

To reduce the administrative burden on VETS investigators and improve the
ability of VETS managers to provide effective, timely oversight of USERRA
complaint processing, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the
Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training to develop a
plan to reduce agency reliance on paper files and fully adopt the agency's
automated complaint file system.

To encourage agencies to focus on results rather than outputs, to improve
federal responsiveness to servicemember complaints that are referred from
one agency to another, and to improve the completeness and accuracy of the
annual USERRA reports to Congress, Congress should consider designating a
single individual or office to maintain visibility over the entire

Page 41 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights

                      Agencies Comments and Our Evaluation

complaint resolution process from DOD through DOL, DOJ, and OSC. For
example, the office or individual would track and report the actual time
it takes for federal agencies to fully address servicemember USERRA
complaints.

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD, DOL, and OSC generally
concurred with our findings and recommendations to their respective
agencies. DOJ reviewed a draft of this report and had no comments on this
report. DOD deferred to DOL, DOJ, and OSC regarding our recommendation for
the agencies to develop procedures or systems to enable the electronic
transfer of complaint information between agencies. DOL and OSC commented
on our matter for congressional consideration that Congress should
consider designating a single office to maintain visibility over the
entire conflict resolution process.

In DOD's written comments, the department concurred with our
recommendation for the Secretary of Defense to include questions on
servicemembers' employment issues in DOD's continuing Status of Forces
surveys that would address (1) the extent to which servicemembers
experience USERRA-related problems; (2) from whom the servicemembers
sought assistance if they experienced such problems; (3) if they did not
seek assistance, why not; and (4) the extent to which the servicemembers'
employers provide support beyond that required by law. DOD stated that the
department's May 2004 Status of Forces survey asked a series of questions
about reemployment after activation that included the areas addressed in
our recommendations. We disagree. For this report, we used results from
the May 2004 survey that showed at least 72 percent of the Selected
Reserve members who had experienced USERRA-related problems never filed a
complaint, informal or formal, to seek assistance in resolving the
problem. However, the survey did not cover all the areas addressed in our
recommendation. For example, the survey did not ask those servicemembers
who had experienced USERRA-related problems and never filed a complaint,
informal or formal, why they did not seek assistance in resolving the
problem. We believe that this would be valuable information, if gathered
regularly, to gauge the effectiveness of federal actions to support USERRA
by identifying trends in compliance and employer support. DOD also stated
that, at the request of DOL, it has agreed to include the series of
questions about reemployment after activation in future surveys. OSC
generally concurred with this recommendation, but had no specific comment.
DOL did not comment on this recommendation.

DOD also concurred with our recommendation for the Secretary of Defense to
(1) take steps to enforce compliance with servicemembers' reporting of
their civilian employer information and maintain employer information, and
(2) share employer information from the database with other federal
agencies that educate employers about USERRA. DOD stated that the first
objective of this recommendation had already been accomplished. We
disagree. In our report, we noted that compliance with the requirement to
enter Selected Reserve member employment information into the database has
risen substantially during this review- from 13 percent in October 2004,
to 58 percent in April 2005, to 73 percent in August 2005. We also noted
that compliance varies by component, with the Army Reserve and the Marine
Corps Reserve each having the lowest percentage of compliance-66 percent.
Further, we noted that compliance rates are substantially lower for the
Individual Ready Reserve and the Inactive National Guard-about 24 percent.
Individual Ready Reserve and Inactive National Guard members are subject
to be recalled to active duty. About 9,500 Individual Ready Reserve
members were called to duty between September 11, 2001, and June 30, 2005.
Outreach to employers of Individual Ready Reserve members may be even more
important than outreach to Selected Reserve members' employers. Individual
Ready Reserve members do not participate in regular drilling and their
employers may be unaware of the employees' military obligations and USERRA
rights. As the war on terrorism continues, DOD may rely more upon
Individual Ready Reserve members. DOD also noted that enforcement of
compliance is a high priority and is already monitored. As noted in our
report, responsible officials told us that as far as they knew, the
military departments had not enforced the requirement for servicemembers
to comply with reporting their civilian employer information by subjecting
any member to punishment or administrative action for failing to comply.
We believe DOD has more to accomplish in this area. With regard to the
second objective of this recommendation, DOD stated that it is working
collectively with DOL and the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure
that their respective systems facilitate consistent reporting
capabilities. OSC generally concurred with both objectives of this
recommendation, but had no specific comments. DOL did not comment on this
recommendation.

DOD deferred to DOL, DOJ, and OSC regarding our recommendation for the
Secretary of Defense, along with the Secretary of Labor, the Attorney
General, and the Special Counsel, to develop procedures or systems to
enable the electronic transfer of complaint information between agencies.
DOD stated that the department only tracks "informal inquires," not
complaints that are filed with DOL, with possible referral to the DOJ or
the OSC. Therefore, establishment of a complaint database would fall
within the purview of those agencies. DOD noted that it would support the
sharing of USERRA information received by DOD with responsible agencies.
We note that DOD's system can contain extensive ombudsmen notes and
details about informal complaints, not just inquires for information that
are tracked separately, and would be beneficial and time saving to DOL if
an informal complaint becomes a formal complaint filed with DOL. DOL
concurred with this recommendation and noted that DOL has initiated
internal discussions on ways in which DOL offices can ultimately use one
electronic case management system. DOL stated that the department will
work closely with DOD, DOJ, and OSC in advancing an electronic shared
system configured to fit the agencies' responsibilities under USERRA. OSC
also concurred with this recommendation, noting that OSC's ability to
enforce USERRA has not been adversely affected by the transfer of
information by other than electronic means. Nevertheless, OSC noted that
the office was dedicated to improving USERRA services to servicemembers
and thus generally concurred with the recommendation, although OSC
indicated that the development of USERRA-specific electronic files may
require additional funding from Congress.

DOL concurred with our recommendation for the Secretary of Labor to
develop a plan to reduce agency reliance on paper files and fully adopt
the agency's automated complaint file system. DOL noted that the
establishment of such electronic files would enhance DOL's ability to more
efficiently and effectively share documents and other case-specific data
with other agencies, thus advancing accomplishment of our recommendation
for DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC to develop procedures or systems to enable the
electronic transfer of complaint information between agencies.

DOL and OSC commented on our matter for congressional consideration that
Congress should consider designating a single office to maintain
visibility over the entire complaint resolution process from DOD through
DOL, DOJ, and OSC. DOL noted that the mandated OSC demonstration project
is ongoing, and therefore, it would be premature to make any suggestions
or recommendations for congressional or legislative action until the pilot
has been completed. However, DOL stated that its office is uniquely suited
to provide an overview of the entire complaint resolution process. OSC
supported our matter and stated that OSC has unparalleled experience and
expertise in administering federal sector employment complaints and
prosecuting meritorious workplace violations before the Merit Systems
Protection Board. OSC believes that their office is the best qualified to
be the overseer. DOD did not comment on this matter. We believe that the
Congress is the best qualified to determine the identity of the overseer
and the timing of this matter for congressional consideration.

DOD, DOL, and OSC's written comments are reprinted in their entirety in
appendixes VII, VIII, and IX, respectively. All the agencies also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days
from the date of this letter. We are sending copies of this report to the
Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Labor; the Attorney General; the
Special Counsel; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force;
the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-5559 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report
are listed in appendix XI.

Sincerely yours,

Derek B. Stewart Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

To assess whether the federal agencies that support or enforce USERRA have
data that indicates the level of compliance with USERRA, we gathered and
analyzed data from DOL, DOD, DOJ, and OSC. Specifically, we obtained
historical data on the numbers of formal complaints handled by DOL and
then analyzed the data to determine whether the data showed any trends and
whether it was sufficient to demonstrate overall USERRA compliance or
employer support. We also analyzed the annual numbers of formal complaints
referred from DOL to DOJ and OSC between fiscal year 1997 and the third
quarter of fiscal year 2005 to determine whether there were trends in the
total referrals, or the referrals to either agency.1 We also followed up
on our 2002 report2 to determine whether the ESGR had improved its
collection of informal complaint data. We interviewed the ESGR
headquarters officials and ombudsmen who handled informal complaints. We
observed training for the ESGR's new database and we observed data entry
procedures at the ESGR's Customer Support Center. In addition, we analyzed
DMDC's projectable Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Component Members,
which was conducted in the spring of 2004. This survey included more than
20 questions about servicemember employment and USERRA-related issues. We
also analyzed results from the Reserve Officers Association's annual
surveys of Fortune 500 companies, which asked about policies that support
servicemember employees. We discussed the agency data related to USERRA
compliance or employer support, along with the practices and methods used
to collect these data, with responsible officials from the

     o Department Of Labor, Washington, D.C.;
     o Department Of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training Service, Field
       Offices in Memphis, TN, and Norfolk, VA; and regional offices in
       Philadelphia, PA; and Atlanta, GA;
     o Department Of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, D.C.; and
       Regional Offices in Philadelphia, PA, and Atlanta, GA;
     o Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;

1 Data analysis was performed using DOL's database, which became
officially operational beginning fiscal year 1997.

2 GAO, Reserve Forces: DOD Actions Needed to Better Manage Relations
between Reservists and Their Employers, GAO-02-608 (Washington, D.C.: June
13, 2002).

Page 46 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights Appendix I Scope and
Methodology

     o Office of Special Counsel, Washington, D.C.;
     o Department Of Defense, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve,
       Arlington, VA; and
          * Department Of Defense, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve,
            Customer Service Center, Millington, TN.
          * We also discussed these issues with
          * The ESGR's State Ombudsmen Coordinators from AR; IL; KY; MD; TN;
            UT; and Washington, D.C.,
          * and with officials who were present at
     o The ESGR's Basic Ombudsman Training Session held in Meridian, MS.

To gauge the impact of the ESGR's ombudsmen program, we conducted a survey
of ombudsmen nationwide. We wished to survey all ombudsmen who were
available to handle servicemember complaints as of April 6, 2005 (the
"target" population). To do this, we obtained the list that the ESGR was
using to assign USERRA complaints to ombudsmen on that date (the "study"
population), which presumably included all of the individuals who were
available to handle complaints. We conducted seven pretests of our
ombudsmen questionnaire prior to administering the survey. During the
pretests we asked the ombudsmen whether (1) the survey questions were
clear, (2) the terms used were precise, and (3) the questions were
unbiased. We made changes to the content and format of the final
questionnaire based on pretest results.

The ombudsmen surveys were conducted using self-administered electronic
questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web. The survey questionnaire
consisted of 12 questions, and asked ombudsmen how many USERRA complaints
they had received and personally resolved. (App. V contains a copy of the
survey and the survey results.) On May 3, 2005, we used a list supplied by
the ESGR headquarters to send E-mail notifications to 831 ombudsmen in 54
states and territories to inform them that a survey would be forthcoming.
Then, on May 9, 2005, we activated the survey, sending each of the 831
members of the study population a unique password and username by E-mail
so they could enter and complete the Web-based questionnaire. To encourage
ombudsmen to respond, we sent two additional E-mail messages over the
following 3 weeks. Those

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

ombudsmen who were unable to complete the survey online were given the
option to respond via fax, phone, or mail. We closed the survey on June 9,
2005.

Although all members of the study population were surveyed, not every
member replied to our survey. Specifically, 618 of the 831 members of the
study population replied. In addition, 52 of the 618 respondents were out
of scope because they indicated they were not serving as volunteer
ombudsmen as of April 6, 2005. Table 2 contains a summary of the survey
disposition for the surveyed cases. The response rate for our survey was
74 percent. 3

             Table 2: Data from GAO's Survey of the ESGR Ombudsmen

Ombudsmen in the study population                                      831 
Ombudsmen replying to the survey                                       618 
Ombudsmen replying who were out of scope                                52 
In scope respondents                                                   566 
Response rate                                                   74 percent 

Source: GAO.

We obtained responses from volunteer ombudsmen across the country.
Although the response rate of ombudsmen differed somewhat across states,
we have no reason to expect that the responses on the issues studied in
our survey would be associated with the ombudsmen's states. Therefore, our
analysis of the survey data treats the respondents as a simple random
sample of the population of the ESGR volunteer ombudsmen across the
country.

Assuming that the respondents constitute a random sample from the study
population, the particular sample of ombudsmen we obtained was only one of
a large number of such samples that we might have obtained. To recognize
the possibility that other samples might have yielded other

3 This response rate (number of in scope respondents/estimated total
number of in scope ombudsmen in the study population) is calculated using
the RR3 response rate formula from the American Association for Public
Opinion Research. In this formula we assumed that the percentage of
nonrespondents who were within the scope was the same as the percentage of
the respondents who were within the scope.

Page 48 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights Appendix I Scope and
Methodology

results, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular
sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval. Unless otherwise
noted, the percentage estimates from the survey have a margin of error of
plus or minus 3 percent or less with a 95 percent level of confidence. All
numerical estimates other than percentages have a margin of error of plus
or minus 14 percent or less of the value of those numerical estimates with
a 95 percent level of confidence, unless otherwise noted.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors,
commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in
how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information
that are available to respondents, or in how the data are entered into a
database or were analyzed, can introduce unwanted variability into the
survey results. We took steps in the development of the questionnaire, the
data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these nonsampling
errors. For example, social science survey specialists designed the
questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff with subject matter
expertise. Then, the draft questionnaire was pretested to ensure that the
questions were clearly stated and easy to comprehend. When the data were
analyzed, a second, independent analyst checked all computer programs.
Since this was a Web-based survey, most respondents entered their answers
directly into the electronic questionnaire. This eliminated the need to
have the data keyed into a database, thus removing an additional source of
error. A GAO analyst entered responses into our database from those
ombudsmen who were unable to complete the survey on-line and responded via
fax, phone, or mail. All these data were independently verified by a
second analyst to ensure their accuracy.

We also assessed the reliability of the data from the May 2004, Status of
Forces Survey of Reserve Component Members, by (1) interviewing agency
officials from

     o the Defense Manpower Data Center, Washington, D.C., and
     o the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, Washington,
       D.C.,

who were knowledgeable about the data, (2) reviewing existing information
about the data and the system that produced them, and

(3) performing electronic testing of required data elements. The response
rate for the survey was 39 percent. To the extent that respondents and
nonrespondents had different opinions on the questions asked, the

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

estimates from this survey have the potential to be biased. DOD has
previously conducted and reported on research to assess the impact of
response rate on overall estimates. DOD found that, among other
characteristics, junior enlisted personnel (E1 to E4), servicemembers who
do not have a college degree, and members in services other than the Air
Force, were more likely to be nonrespondents. We have no reason to believe
that potential nonresponse bias not otherwise accounted for by DOD's
research is substantial for the variables we studied in this report. All
percentage estimates cited from the survey have sampling errors of plus or
minus 2.3 percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted. The at least
72 percent of National Guard and Reserve members who never sought
assistance for their USERRA problems represents the lower bound of a 95
percent confidence interval around a point estimate (77 percent) that has
a plus or minus 5 percent margin of error. Ranges cited from the survey
represent a 95 percent confidence interval around point estimates. We used
the weighting factors and the sampling error methodology provided by the
Defense Manpower Data Center to develop estimates and sampling error
estimates, and determined that the data from the May 2004 Status of Forces
Survey of Reserve Component Members were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report.

To asses the efficiency and effectiveness of federal educational outreach
efforts, we reviewed Section 4333 of Title 38 of the United States Code to
determine which agencies have outreach responsibilities under USERRA. We
interviewed agency officials to determine whether their agencies had any
significant educational outreach efforts. Although only two of the four
agencies we reviewed had outreach responsibilities under the law-DOD and
DOL-officials from three agencies said that they had significant outreach
activities-DOD, DOL, and OSC. We obtained information about each agency's
activities, and analyzed the available outreach figures for individual
programs and total agency outreach. Because DOD has at least nine
different formal outreach programs, we devoted an entire appendix (app.
IV) to the details of DOD's programs. We also followed up on issues
related to the collection of servicemember employer information, which we
raised in our 2002 employer support report.4 Specifically, we reviewed
DOD's policy memoranda that were issued after our 2002 report and which
mandated that Ready Reserve members supply information about their
civilian employers. We also monitored and analyzed figures that showed

4 GAO, Reserve Forces: DOD Actions Needed to Better Manage Relations
between Reservists and Their Employers, GAO-02-608 (Washington, D.C.: June
13, 2002).

Page 50 GAO-06-60 USERRA Employment Rights Appendix I Scope and
Methodology

servicemember rates of compliance with the estimates from this survey on
these reporting requirements. These compliance figures covered each of the
reserve components and various reserve categories.

To asses how efficiently and effectively DOD, DOL, DOJ, and OSC addressed
servicemember complaints, we obtained and analyzed information about
complaint processing practices, including applicable guidance,
regulations, or operations manuals. We also obtained and reviewed the
memorandums of understanding between DOL and DOJ, OSC, and the ESGR. To
further analyze the entire process, we gathered and analyzed information
about how the agencies share information from USERRA complaint files with
one another. We exported data from the VETS USERRA Information Management
System and analyzed the data to look for trends in processing times. We
specifically focused our analysis on cases that had been closed and later
reopened, and on cases that had been referred from DOL to DOJ or OSC. We
performed multiple sorts of the entire data set, and data subsets, to
determine whether there were any common characteristics in complaint files
from the group of complaints that remained open for long time periods, or
in the complaint files from the group of complaints that were quickly
resolved. For example, we sorted complaint data by: type of employer,
regional office, type of servicemember, and type of complaint. We used
many of the other more than 70 data fields to perform data sorts but much
of our analysis did not yield reportable results because substantial
amounts of information were missing for certain data fields. However, our
analysis of date fields was not hampered by missing data and we were able
to calculate elapsed times and processing times from the available data.

We assessed the reliability of formal complaint data provided by DOL, DOJ,
and OSC by (1) reviewing existing information about the data and the
systems that produced them and (2) interviewing and obtaining written
responses from agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We compared
data obtained from DOJ and OSC to that captured in the DOL USERRA
Information Management System. We also compared data drawn from DOL's
USERRA Information Management System at different time periods to
determine the consistency of the data. In addition, where available, we
compared information from 59 hard copy complaint files to data recorded in
the DOL system to assess how accurately information was being entered into
the database. We also discussed informal complaint data and its
reliability with knowledgeable ESGR officials. On the basis of these
assessments, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

for the purposes of this report, though agency data systems had some
limitations that we discussed in the report.

We conducted our work from October 2004 through August 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Professional Backgrounds of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen

Between May 9, 2005, and June 9, 2005, we surveyed the ESGR's volunteer
ombudsmen who were available to handle servicemember complaints as of
April 6, 2005. We received a 74 percent response rate to our survey.
Tables 2 shows that about 58 percent of the volunteer ombudsmen were
employed in full-time jobs, and about 30 percent were retired.

    Table 3: Employment Status of the ESGR's Ombudsmen (as of April 6, 2005)

Employment status                                               Percentage 
Employed full-time                                                      58 
Employed part-time                                                      11 
Retired                                                                 30 
Not retired or employed                                                  1 
Total                                                                  100 

Source: GAO.

Note: Estimated percentages have a margin of error of plus or minus 3
percent with a 95 percent level of confidence.

Table 3 shows the distribution of ombudsmen by their primary employers.
About 44 percent worked for the government or military, and about 56
percent worked for private employers, including the approximately 21
percent who were self-employed.

Appendix II Professional Backgrounds of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen

  Table 4: The Primary Employers of the ESGR's Ombudsmen (as of April 6, 2005)

Primary employer                                                Percentage 
Military                                                                15 
Federal government (non-military)                                        9 
State government                                                        11 
Local government                                                         8 

                         Total government employers 44a

Large private sector firms                                              18 
Small businesses                                                        11 
Non-profit or charitable organizations                                   6 
Self employed                                                           21 

Total private employers

                                Grand total 100

Source: GAO.

Note: Estimated percentages have a margin of error of plus or minus 3
percent with a 95 percent level of confidence.

aThe government and military figures add to 44 percent rather than 43
percent due to rounding.

In addition to the general background employment questions, our survey
asked respondents to specify their occupations or backgrounds that they
felt were particularly relevant to their ombudsmen duties. The responses
were varied and showed that many of the volunteers hold or had previously
held paid positions that required: leadership, skillful negotiation,
extensive interactions with different types of people, or knowledge of
laws and regulations or military operations and procedures. In the
information that follows, we have grouped the responses and provided some
examples of the occupations the ombudsmen thought were particularly
relevant. The ombudsmen said that they had held

     o Legal positions ranging from paralegals to attorneys, assistant
       attorney generals and a wide range of judges-administrative law,
       municipal, district, superior court, and state supreme court;
     o Dispute or resolution positions as mediators, negotiators,
       arbitrators, facilitators, and grievance officers;

Appendix II Professional Backgrounds of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen

     o Counseling positions as veterans' career/employment, vocational
       rehabilitation, and recruitment/retention counselors;
     o Political positions ranging from local mayor and city council
       positions to lobbyist and state legislature and senate positions;
     o Military positions in the active Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine
       Corps; and in the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard, the Air
       National Guard, the Air Force Reserve, the Naval Reserve, the Marine
       Corps Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve;
     o Federal government positions in the Departments of: Defense, Justice,
       Homeland Security, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Education, Health and
       Human Services, Interior, Corrections, Energy, Agriculture, Treasury,
       and in the U.S. Postal Service;
     o State and local government positions in the Departments of Military
       Affairs, Environmental Management, Public Safety, and Aviation; and in
       the Adjutant General's office;
     o Education positions ranging from teachers and college professors, who
       taught mediation and communications, to principal, school
       superintendent, and college president positions;
     o Law enforcement positions as police officers, supervisors, or chiefs;
       state troopers, marshals, investigators, and as a liaison between the
       military and a major city police department that employs more that 500
       Guard and Reserve members;
     o Religious positions as chaplain and deacon;
     o Business and management positions as labor relations specialists,
       negotiators, human resource managers, public affairs officers, owners,
       general managers, directors, presidents, vice-presidents, and CEOs;
       and
     o Trade organization positions as union officers or shop
       steward/negotiators.

Appendix III

                         Department of Labor Form 1010

OMB NO. 1293-0002 (EXP 03/31/2007) VETS/USERRA/VP Form 1010 (REV 2/99)

 ELIGIBILITY DATA FORM: For claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and
 Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and/or claims under the Veterans' Preference
(VP) provisions of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 U.S.
         Department of Labor, Veterans' Employment and Training Service

  PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT

    Section I: Claimant Information

______________________________________________
       Last Name First Name M.I.
. Employer or Prospective Employer's Name:
       _______________________________________________________________________
ears? ? Yes ? No If YES, explain in Comments box
       at end of this claim form.
________________________________________
_________________________

If Claim Concerns Reemployment Following Service
21. Was Prior Notice of Service ? Yes  ? No (If "No," Explain in Comments)
Provided to Employer?                  
22. (a) Who Provided Notice of                                             
Service to Employer?                       ? Self ? Other (name):

(b)
           Was the Notice of Service: ? Written ? Oral ? Both

(c)
           Date Notice of Service was given to Employer:
           _______________________

_______________
                 at what pay rate? ________________________
             in this complaint will be utilized by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) to
initiate an investigation of alleged violations of the Uniformed Service
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and/or the Veterans'
Preference (VP) provisions of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of
1998 (VEOA). Potential claimants should keep in mind that it is unlawful
to "knowingly and willfully" make any "materially false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statements or representation" to a federal agency. Violations
can be punished under Section 2 of the False Statements Accountability Act
of 1996 by a fine and/or imprisonment of not more than 5 years. 18 U.S.C.
S: 1001.

I certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I authorize the U.S. Department of Labor to contact
my employer or any other person for information concerning this claim.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C., Section 552(b) of the Privacy Act, I consent to the
release of the above information and any records necessary for the
investigation and prosecution of my claim.

SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________________________
DATE: _________________________________ Persons are not required to
response to the collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor,
Veterans' Employment and Training Service, Room-S1316, 200 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210.

  PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

The primary use of this information is by staff of the Veterans'
Employment and Training Service in investigating cases under USERRA or
laws/regulations relating to veterans' preference in Federal employment.
Disclosure of this information may be made to: a Federal, state or local
agency for appropriate reasons; in connection with litigation; and to an
individual or contractor performing a Federal function. Furnishing the
information on this form, including your Social Security Number, is
voluntary. However, failure to provide this information may jeopardize the
Department of Labor's ability to provide assistance on your claim.

  Continue in Comments box &/or use additional sheet(s) to explain items if
  needed - Sign and date form (above)

OMB NO. 1293-0002 (EXP 03/31/2007) VETS/USERRA/VP Form 1010 (REV 2/99) -
Page 2

Appendix III Department of Labor Form 1010

           Explain your claim in detail - List all remedies you seek

     Use additional sheet(s) if needed - Initial & date each page at bottom

                                   Comments:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

  INITIALS: ____________ DATE: ____________

OMB NO. 1293-0002 (EXP 03/31/2007) VETS/USERRA/VP Form 1010 (REV 2/99) -
Page 3

Appendix IV

                            DOD's Outreach Programs

The ESGR has responsibility for most DOD outreach programs but DOD also
has a public affairs campaign that encourages employer support of
servicemember employees. In past years, the ESGR's focus was on educating
servicemembers concerning their employment rights. In fiscal year 2005,
the ESGR shifted its focus to educating employers. The new focus better
aligns with the ESGR's mission-to gain and maintain support for employee
military service from all public and private employers of the men and
women of the National Guard and Reserve. To fulfill its mission, the ESGR
has developed and implemented a number of employer outreach efforts. In
addition to the ESGR's "statement of support" and awards programs, which
were discussed in the body of this report, the ESGR has a number of other
outreach programs that are discussed below. Some of these efforts are well
underway, others are relatively new.

The ESGR Outreach  o  Mass Market Outreach. This ESGR effort has used
public service advertising and mass marketing to make employers and the
general

  Programs

public aware of the importance of employer support for Guard and Reserve
members who are called to military service, and the role that the ESGR can
play in encouraging supportive employer relations.

     o Strategic Partnerships. Through these partnerships with the national
       headquarters and local chapters of the Chamber of Commerce, Society
       for Human Resource Management, National Federation of Independent
       Business, Small Business Administration, and Rotary Club, the ESGR
       strives to educate employers about USERRA, the ESGR organization, and
       the different ways employers can support their servicemember
       employees. The ESGR uses a variety of media, trade show, and speaking
       opportunities to reach this target audience. The ESGR's goal was to
       reach at least 430 local chapters of these groups in fiscal year 2005.
       As of July 2005, the ESGR had met with 250 of its strategic partners.
     o Industry Segment Outreach. This outreach effort is focused on leaders
       in industries that employ significant numbers of reserve component
       members. For about 5 years, DOD leaders have met regularly with key
       officials from the airline industry to discuss concerns that arise as
       the military and industry share the same personnel resources. In
       fiscal year 2005, the ESGR planned to hold three similar symposiums
       with (1) law enforcement, (2) fire and safety officials, and

(3) city and municipal leaders. However, none of the other symposiums had
taken place when we ended our review in August 2005.

Appendix IV DOD's Outreach Programs

     o Federal Government Outreach. USERRA states that the federal government
       should be a model employer. The ESGR is encouraging the 17
       cabinet-level departments and 81 independent federal government
       agencies to sign the ESGR statements of support as a means to
       demonstrate their commitment to their servicemember employees. The
       ESGR established a goal to have10 federal government agencies sign
       statements of support in fiscal year 2005. As of August 2005, a total
       of 20 federal agencies had signed statements of support.
          * 5-Star Program. In the past, the ESGR's outreach efforts were
            focused on simply asking employers to sign statements of support
            for their National Guard and Reserve members. The statement of
            support simply stated that employers would fulfill their
            obligations by complying with USERRA. Currently in its first
            year, the 5-Star Program seeks to get employers more actively
            involved in the management of their National Guard and Reserve
            employees. The five steps of the 5-Star Program are to
               * sign a statement of support,
               * review employer human resource policies with respect to
                 employer support,
               * train supervisors and managers on USERRA,
               * provide "above and beyond" human resource policies, and
               * advocate for National Guard and Reserve members.
     o Bosslifts. Bosslifts are usually 2- to 3-day outreach events where
       employers, civic leaders, and legislators are taken to Guard or
       Reserve units to observe Guard or Reserve members in action. These
       events present employers with opportunities to directly observe the
       technical, organizational, team building, and leadership skills of
       their employees. They also provide employers with opportunities to
       observe military training, some of which may be directly related to
       their employees' civilian jobs. Each ESGR state committee is
       programmed for one nationally sponsored bosslift each year. However,
       based on the size and distribution of its reserve component
       population, California is programmed for two bosslifts. Additional
       committee-sponsored bosslifts are authorized and encouraged. Some
       state committees sponsor and fund bosslifts using state funding.
     o Employer Briefings. Employer briefings provide a forum for local
       employers, unit commanders, the ESGR members, and community leaders to
       meet, network, and discuss issues that arise from employee

Appendix IV DOD's Outreach Programs

participation in the National Guard and Reserve. The meeting site can be a
local restaurant, hotel, service club, Chamber of Commerce, National Guard
Armory, Reserve Center, or military installation. This is a local-level
1-day activity funded at the state level.

Other DOD Outreach o  Defense Advisory Board. In August 2003, the          
                         Secretary of Defense                                 
                         created a defense advisory board composed of 15 to   
Efforts               25 industry public                                   
                         and private sector leaders to act as consultants     
                         without compensation.                                
                         The board was established for up to 3 years and      
                         provides advice to the                               
                         Secretary of Defense about issues concerning Reserve 
                         component                                            
                         members and their civilian employers. It also        
                         recommends policies and                              
                         priorities for employer support actions and          
                         programs. The board meets                            
                         at least twice a year at the call of the National    
                         Chairman, and as needed                              
                         to address emergent issues. In March 2005, this      
                         board met with both the                              
                         Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. Board     
                         members included a                                   
                         state governor, a major city fire chief, and         
                         representatives from                                 
                         employer associations, higher education, and the     
                         airline, information                                 
                         technology, aircraft repair, transportation, public  
                         relations and public                                 
                         affairs, defense and aerospace systems, investment   
                         banking, and food                                    
                         industries.                                          
                         America Supports You. This is a nationwide program   
                      o  launched by                                          
                         DOD's public affairs office to recognize citizens'   
                         support for military                                 
                         men and women and to communicate that support to     
                         members of the                                       
                         Armed Forces at home and abroad. Participants can    
                         join the team at                                     
                         www.americasupportsyou.mil, share their stories of   
                         support with the                                     
                         nation and troops, and download program materials.   
                         In turn, military                                    
                         members will access the Web site and learn about     
                         America's support for                                
                         their service. In addition to personal stories of    
                         support, the Web site has                            
                         a section that recognizes employer support for       
                         servicemembers and                                   
                         particularly for servicemember employees.            

Appendix V

GAO's Survey of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen Including Results

This appendix presents a facsimile of the actual questions asked in our
survey of the ESGR ombudsmen along with aggregate responses. The results
presented have been weighted to correspond to the universe of the ESGR
ombudsmen. See appendix I, Scope and Methodology, for a detailed
discussion of this process.

Appendix V GAO's Survey of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen Including
Results Appendix V GAO's Survey of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen
Including Results

If you received any "other training related to your Ombudsman duties",
what was included in that training and at what specific location(s) did
that training take place?

5. Since becoming an ESGR Ombudsman, what is the total number of cases
that you have handled?

(Enter number. If none, enter zero.)

Total cases handled

Minimum = 0 cases Maximum = 2,000 cases Mean = 51.4 cases Total = 37,684
cases N=735 Please indicate whether the number you entered in question 5
above was an... (Select one answer.)

N=727

                    44% EUR Exact number (from records or memory)             
                    56% EUR Estimate                                          
                        EUR No response                                       

6. Since becoming an ESGR Ombudsman, what is the total number of cases
that you have personally resolved, that is that you brought to closure
yourself? (Enter number. If none, enter zero.)

Note: Do not include cases that were dropped or referred to other offices,
i.e., Department of Labor, Veterans' Employment and Training Service or
ESGR national headquarters or state coordinators.

Number personally resolved Minimum = 0 cases Maximum = 1940 cases

Mean = 40.6 cases Total=29,816 cases N=735

Please indicate whether the number you entered in question 5 above was ...
(Select one answer.) N=725 50% EUR Exact number (from records or memory)

50% EUR Estimate EUR No response

7. On average, how many hours do you spend in a typical week on your ESGR
Ombudsman duties? (Enter number.)

Hours Minimum = 0 hours Maximum = 45 hours Mean = 3.7 hours N=730

Appendix V GAO's Survey of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen Including
Results

Apart from your work as an ESGR Ombudsman, we are interested in finding
out a few things about your current employment, or if you are retired,
your former employment.

8. Other than your work as an ESGR Ombudsman, are you currently employed
full-time (35 hours or more per week), employed part-time (34 hours or
less per week), retired, or not currently employed?

(Select one answer.)

N=742 58% EUR Employed full-time 11% EUR Employed part-time 30% EUR
Retired 1% EUR Not currently employed, but not retired EUR No response

9. Other than your work as an ESGR Ombudsman, which one of the following
best describes your primary employer? (If you are not currently employed
or retired, answer for your former primary employer.) (Select one answer.)

N=730 15% EUR Military (Answer question 9a below.) 9% EUR Federal
government (non-military) (Answer question 9a below.) 11% EUR State
government (Answer question 9a below.) 8% EUR Local government (Answer
question 9a below.) 18% EUR Corporation or large private sector firm 11%
EUR Small business 6% EUR Non-profit or charitable organization 21% EUR
Self-employed EUR No response

9a. If you answered military, federal government (non-military), state, or
local government in question 9 above, in what branch of the military or
specific government agency are/were you employed?

10. Other than your work as an ESGR Ombudsman, which one of the following
best describes your current primary occupation? (If you are not currently
employed or retired, answer for your former primary occupation.) (Select
one answer.)

N=703 2% EUR Military - attorney/JAG 12% EUR Military - non-attorney
officer 6% EUR Military - enlisted 16% EUR Nonmilitary - attorney 64% EUR
Nonmilitary - not an attorney (Answer question 10a below.) EUR No response

Appendix V GAO's Survey of the ESGR's Volunteer Ombudsmen Including
Results

                                  Appendix VI

                        DOL's USERRA Information Poster

                                  Appendix VII

                    Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Defense

                                 Appendix VIII

                     Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Labor

                                  Appendix IX

                  Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix IX Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix IX Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix IX Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix IX Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix IX Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix IX Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix IX Comments from the Office of Special Counsel

Appendix X

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Derek B. Stewart, (202) 512-5559 or [email protected]

  GAO Contact

In addition to the contact named above, Brenda S. Farrell, Assistant

  Acknowledgments

Director; Renee S. Brown; Jonathan Clark; Michael J. Ferren; Stuart M.
Kaufman; Susanna R. Kuebler; Mary Jo Lacasse; Ronald La Due Lake; Susan J.
Mason; Jennifer R. Popovic; and Irene A. Robertson made significant
contributions to the report.

  GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                             Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Contact:

To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

  Public Affairs

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***