VA Regional Office AFGE LOCAL 520 PO BOX 1778 COLUMBIA, SC 29202 January 26, 2014 Chairmen, Ranking Members,

Members of the US House and Senate Committees of Veterans Affairs / Dear Committee Members: AFGE Local 520, the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit of VARO Columbia, SC, wants to address the most important element of the VBA transformation - people. Here are a few quotes from the opening statement of Honorable Jeff Miller, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearing on 03/20/2013: Focusing on People: A Review of VA's Plans for Employee Training, Accountability, and Workload Management to Improve Disability Claims Processing ^ "Although much emphasis is placed on the process and technology components, I believe that the "people" component may be the most important. There are thousands of men and women who, on a daily basis, work through the growing backlog of claims and their efforts should not go unacknowledged. Nonetheless, the more people VA hires to process claims, the worse the department's productivity is. S So, Under Secretary Hickey, we are here today to have an honest discussion about the people who make up VBA - from file clerks to RO directors to VA central office management, and on how you intend to transform this workforce through better accountability and workload management practices. S This is simply unacceptable, so again, we are here today to explore how the people who make up VA can prevent this scenario from happening... " Here are a few quotes from the opening statement of the witness testimony of The Honorable Allison Hickey, Under Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Hearing on 03/20/2013: Focusing on People: A Review ofVA's Plans for Employee Training, Accountability, and Workload Management to Improve Disability Claims Processing (emphasis added) S We very deliberately put our employees - our people - at the forefront of our transformation plan, as they are the heart of our mission and absolutely critical to achieving the Secretary's goal of completing all claims in 125 days at 98 percent accuracy in 2015. Our dedicated employees, 52 percent of whom are Veterans

themselves, have embraced our transformation efforts and are the key to our success. In order to have the best-trained, most efficient, and highly skilled workforce, we focused our "people" initiatives on strengthening the expertise of our workforce - changing the way we are organized and our employees are trained to do the work. S . . . . We appreciate the budgetary support provided by the Committee in recent years that allowed us to increase staffing. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals these numbers regarding the number of FTEs assigned to all VBA field stations' Veterans Service Center (VSC) and the Resources Center (RC) comparing the beginning of FY11 (October 1, 2010) and FY14 ending December 14,2013.

VSC RC TOT

FY14 FY11 DIFF 11,079.0 9,292.0 (1,787.0) 272.9 1,050.6 777.7 11,351.9 10,342.6 (1,009.3)

A comparison shows that FTEs were shifted from the VSCs to the RCs. However, there was still a decrease of 1,009.3 FTEs for VBA field stations. The build-up of RCs was to support the brokering of claims (a cover up of ineffective leadership or understaffing at VAROs) from one VARO to another. Excerpts from the article, Want to know why Wilmington's VA compensation case backlog keeps growing? So would we, Delwareonline, January 24, 2014, will add context to the failure and confusion of "brokering" and VBA's response to the question, (emphasis added) > "Today marks the 38th day since I asked the Dept. of Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C., for an on-the-record official to discuss why disability compensation cases were being transferred from Baltimore and Philadelphia to Wilmington and other northeast Veterans Benefits Administration offices last year, increasing Wilmington's backlog - which continues to grow despite an overall national trend in the opposite direction. > On Dec. 17, a VA public affairs officer in Washington offered me an off-therecord background briefing on the issue. That means I couldn't quote anything said. More to the point, it meant that I might learn a lot but that VA was not going to offer up an official to publicly account for the growing backlog at Wilmington. > Agencies in Washington love to offer background to reporters, who will often take it in the absence of nothing to give their readers. Backgrounders, however, lack the credibility the words gain coming from an identifiable public official from an agency. > In VA's case, it's the height of arrogance - and a lack of responsiveness that is an insult to every veteran left waiting at Wilmington.

> Last summer, VA told me that a major reason for the growth at Wilmington was that 774 cases were "brokered" - government-speak for transferring cases from one VBA to another - to Wilmington from Baltimore (262) and Philadelphia (512) during fiscal year 2013. (I was also told by the Philadelphia Regional Office that 300 cases with pending appeals were sent to Philadelphia because Wilmington lacked a proper review officer.) According to e-mails provided by the Philadelphia Regional Office, Baltimore brokered cases to five other VBA offices as well. Its backlog fell between March 30 and mid-November from 15,661 to 6,608." > It's apparent that VA doesn't want to talk about this. > My most recent query on the backlog issue topic was sent to VA in Washington Nov. 19. That got an immediate reply: "We'll find out." On Nov. 25,1 was sent some background on the practice of brokering and a promise that "we're checking now to see who could be available to talk." On Dec. 3,1 asked again for that interview. On Dec. 17,1 was sent a note with an apology for not getting back to me "last week," and the background briefing offer. I countered that I wanted an accountable official who could talk on the record. The frustration of reporter Bill McMichael not receiving information from VA should not be any surprise to the Committees. However, AFGE Local 520 would like to provide this information. The FOIA request shows that Wilmington VSC lost 4.9 FTEs between FY11 to FY14. Wilmington DE 24.9 20.0 (4.9)

Moreover, it also shows that Philadelphia VSC lost 67.9 FTEs between FY 11 to FY14, but its RC gained 58.1 FTEs. Furthermore, it shows the Baltimore VSC lost 31.2 FTEs. Philadelphia PA Baltimore MD 287.9 ; 152.8 220.0 ! 121.6 : (67.9) (31.2)

24.0

82.1 !

58.1

Therefore, brokering claims to Wilmington make no business sense and taking FTEs from the VSCs to staff RCs makes even less business sense. There has been so much talk about the increase of staffing at the VBA. However, the FOIA request shows a different picture. Here is a more detailed account by Areas and VAROs.
VSC VSC FY14 FY11 DIFF 2,129.2 1,704.8 (424.4) 152.8 121.6 (31.2) 102.1 104.0 (1.9) 94.5 106.6 (12.1) 287.7 228.2 (59.5) RC RCFY 14 DIFF FY11 41.0 244.6 203.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.6 ! 59.6
...

Eastern Area Baltimore MD Boston MA Buffalo NY Cleveland OH

Detroit MI Hartford CT Indianapolis IN Manchester NH New York NY Newark NJ Philadelphia PA Pittsburgh PA Providence RI Togus ME White River Jet. VT Wilmington DE Southern Area Atlanta GA Columbia SC Huntington WV Jackson MS Louisville KY Montgomery AL Nashville TN Roanoke VA San Juan PR St. Petersburg FL Washington DC Winston Salem NC Central Area Chicago IL Des Moines IA Fargo ND Houston TX Lincoln NE Little Rock AR Milwaukee WI Muskogee OK New Orleans LA Sioux Falls SD St. Louis MO St. Paul MN Waco TX Wichita KS Western Area

181.3 180.9 59.0 88.0 176.4 159.0 36.0 31.0 168.9 156.1 89.9 75.0 220.0 287.9 144.8 93.4 135.0 72.3 123.0 71.0 22.0 20.7; 24.9 20.0 3,405.8 2,936.8 322.5 414.0 240.1 375.5 89.3 109.6 193.4 150.8 177.1 156/T 230.2 202.4 345.3 283.0 300.2 261.1 122.2 110.8 786.3 638.0 9.0 8.0^ 434.5 383.3 2,964.6 2^13.2 185.0 155.0 105.0 77.2 40.0 36.0 380.1 387.2 137.1 101.4 171.8 142 A 221.3 133.3 181.5 311.6 130.2 145.0 47.0 42.8 227.2 195.0 272.8 179.7 631.8 476.6 88.9 75.0 : 2,449.4 2,124.8
4

(0.4) (29.0) (17.4) (5.0) (12.8) (14.9) (67.9) (51.4) (62.7) (52.0) (1.3) (4.9) (469.0) 91.5 (135.4) (20.3) (42.6) (21.0) (27.8) (62.3) (39.1) (11.4) (148.3) (1.0) (51.3) (651.5) (30.0) (27.8) (4.0) 7.1 (35.7) (29.4) (88.0) (130.1) (14.9) (4.2) (32.2) (93.1) (155.2) (13.9) (324.6)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 124.8 0.0 39.0 65.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 54.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.2

24.0 ...
...

82.1

78.9 ...
232.1

62.3 76.1

33.2 60.5 ...

446.2 ...

61.9

134.0

48.0 i 34.7 i 167.6 !

112.6

0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.1 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.0 0.0 107.3 0.0 23.3 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.2 0.0 40.5 0.0 0.0 391.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.0 0.0 107.0 0.0 0.0 20.1 34.7 167.6 0.0 60.4

Albuquerque NM Anchorage AK Boise ID Denver CO Ft. Harrison MT Honolulu HI Los Angeles CA Manila RP Oakland CA Phoenix AZ Portland OR Reno NV Salt Lake City UT San Diego CA Seattle WA

77.0 36.0 59.5 195.1 49.8 64.0 189.1 84.0 233.1 220.9 184.8 79.9 198.6 334.0 443.6

(6.3) 70.7 32.9 (3.1) 0.2 59.7 8.5 _203.6 5.2 55.0 66.4 2.4 210.7 21.6 76.0 (8.0) 252.2 19.1 210.5 . (10.4) 164.(F (20.8) 69.4 (10.6) (63.9) 134.7 (70.5) 263.5 255.5 (188.1)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.2 11.0

...

... ... ...

48.6 ...

64.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0

There has been also much talk about the digitization of records to increase productivity. The Benefits Delivery at Discharge records have been digitized since 2008. Therefore, claims processors have been using digitized records to process BDD claims since that time. Furthermore, the number of FTEs has increased from 226.8 FY 11 to 371.5 in FY14.

Eastern Area Pittsburgh PA Southern Area Winston Salem NC Central Area St. Louis MO Western Area Salt Lake City UT San Diego CA TOTAL

BDD FY BDD FY14 DIFF 11 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 121.0 107.9 228.9 228.9 ; 121.0 i 107.9 4.0 6.0 10.0 6.0 10.0 : 4.0 10.7 112.9 123.6 41.9 110.6 68.7 62.0 13.0 i (49.0) 144.7 225.9 371.5

Despite the digitization of records and increase in staffing, MMWR as of January 18, 2014 shows that there are 11,106 claims pending; the average days pending is 123.0; the over 125 days is 42.7% and the average days to complete FY to date is 207.8. Moreover, with the drawdown of Afghanistan breathing upon VBA's neck and only 371.5 FTEs, these claims will increase and the work will be shifted to some other place that cannot handle the workload.

As a footnote, Quick Start Claims which are handled by Winston-Salem and San Diego BDD sites, shows that there are 7625 claims pending; the average days pending is 104.2; the over 125 days is 31.2% and the average days to complete FY to date is 149.4. Most importantly, the VBA's goal of these programs is to deliver benefits at discharge and eliminate these claims from bleeding into the regular inventory. Furthermore, these claims are not accounted for in the Compensation Rating and Pension Bundle. AFGE Local 520 would like to discuss the issue of people on a micro-level using VARO Columbia as an example of the staffing problem that is created by VBA not defining the positions required by each VARO and allowing VAROs to make their own staffing determinations. Moreover, this was addressed over a decade ago. VBA's Claims Process Improvement Task Team Report dated November 30, 2001 states, "The most effective way to measure performance is to ensure effective measurement systems are in place. To be effective, those systems must be measuring the same things. This cannot happen if each RO is allowed to organize the claims process differently from other ROs and create, post and fill positions different from those used in other ROs. Uniformity in decision-making and standardization in RO organizational structure are musts ". "Any deviation from the model (other than those specifically indicated in the implementation plan, including (but not limited to) changes in position description, creation of additional positions or changes to grade structure should only be permitted based upon a specific request to the Under Secretary. Continuous monitoring of the process must include meaningful site visits on a regular basis." Of course, this policy was implemented in words only. For example, for over a decade, the Columbia VARO used Veterans Service Representatives (GS10 & 1 Is) as fulltime GS5&6 Claims Assistants while denying GS4 Veterans-employees and some with college degrees the opportunity to advance. Here is confirmation. VARO 319 Memorandum dated September 13,2002, Director Carl Hawkins, stated, o "3. OFO has informed each office that the CPI Task Force Report is a guideline. ... According to OFO, management is not required to place into effect all or any of these positions and should be based upon the local office's needs and staffing levels. o 4. On August 21, 2002, we again received confirmation from OFO that the Claims Assistant and Super Senior positions should be filled as local resources permit and at the station's discretion. Discussions with many other directors indicate their plans are consistent with Columbia's. o 6. With regard to the Claims Assistant position, we are staffed with sufficient VSRs to perform CAPS maintenance and other duties described in that position description."

However, this email was received after the VARO Memorandum. Email Subject: CPI and Directors Flexibility, dated October 4, 2002, from Mike Walcoff, VBAVACO's which he stated, "Where the CPI models calls for Sr. Authorizer and Claims Assistant positions, stations will be required to fill them. We are getting Tables of Organization from every station and will review their staffing."

After this email, the VSC's organizational chart was changed to reflect 9 Claims Assistant positions and the 5 Senior Veterans Representative positions. However, only one of the Claims Assistant positions was filled and the other Claims Assistant positions were removed as of December 15,2004. The greater issue is this violation of the staffing policy for the Claims Assistant position was reported to the former and current VA Chain of Command to include the VA Secretary and Presidential staffers. However, it was allowed to continue. As a footnote, if VA treats its own Veteran-employees this way, does anyone believe they are concern about our Nation Veterans? Furthermore, they are currently 9 Veterans Service Representatives (GS10 & 1 Is) who have been denied the opportunity to hone their skills and use those skills to process claims according to their position description. When four Senior VSR GS12 employees retired in 2008 and 2009, their positions were not backfilled. Therefore, it deprived senior certified VSR GS1 Is the opportunity to advance and provide the necessary training and guidance needed for junior VSRs. Despite the fact the MMWR as of January 18, 2014 shows that nonrating end products have climbed to a record 10,020 with 6635 (66.8%) over 125 days, the nonrating team is staffed with 8 employees, one GS13 Coach, and one GS12 Assistant Coach. There are only 4 Decision Review Officers DRO to conduct De Novo reviews, certify claims to BVA, and conduct local hearings. Furthermore, they spend mandatory overtime working regular claims inventory. As a footnote, the VARO Columbia office was given this recommendation in December 2001, during a VBA Compensation and Pension site visit. "Recommendation 1 - Columbia has too many appeals and remands. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on reducing the appellate workload on station, especially the remands. Division management should fill three more DRO slots..." There were two DRO positions in December 2001. A third was added in February 2002 after the site visit. In early 2006, two additional temporary positions were posted and filled. However, they were terminated in May 2006. In December 2006, another permanent DRO was filled.

Another permanent DRO position was added in 2008. There were a total of five DRO positions filled by 2008. Now, there are only four DROs. AFGE Local 520 records show that there were 3201 appeals pending in August 2002. The MMWR, as of June 3, 2006, shows that there were 3221 pending appeals. The MMWR, as of June 2,2007, shows that there were 2837. The MMWR, as of June 5,2010, shows that there were 3326. The MMWR, as of January 18, 2014, shows that the pending appeals inventory have reached 7545. Here is a little context and the reason a standardization of Table of Organization is needed at the VBA. A VBA FOIA response as of November 15,2010 for the number of DROs and FTEs by stations produced this information.
Duty Station 355 - San Juan Regional Office 319 - Columbia Regional Office 304 - Providence Regional Office 308 - Hartford Regional Office 452 - Wichita RO 358 - Manila Regional Office Tot DROs 7 5 4 4 4

FTEs 149.28 318.86 149 108.2 108 141

AFGE Local 520 has an appeal pending with the VA General Counsel because VBA has failed to provide the information regarding a FOIA request for a by name listing of various positions in the VBA by station. It is totally indigenous for VBA to declare they care about Veterans when a VARO is allowed to understaff the Appeal teams for Veterans who have been waiting the longest. Furthermore, they not only allowed it to be understaffed, but mandated the shifting of its limited resources to work regular claims. However, despite the decrease in the VSC's FTE, it is staffed with four Assistant Veterans Center Managers (GS14s), 12 Supervisory VSRs GS13s, 6 Supervisory VSRs GS12s and one File Supervisor GS6. One of the GS12s is the Assistant Coach of Training, a position that was recently created due to an apparent performance issue at the Supervisory VSR GS13 level. There are 137 Veterans Service Representatives and 86 Rating Veterans Service Representatives assigned to VARO Columbia. The following numbers show the FY11 to FY14 FTEs.

vsc
Columbia SC

vsc
RC11 RC14 DIFF 39.0 i 62.3 i 23.3

FY11 FY14 DIFF 375.5 I 240.1 I (135.4)

AFGE Local 520 submitted a FOIA request for the organization chart for all VAROs and was surprised that OFO does not keep a copy of them. Therefore, one must conclude that how VAROs are staffed is not a concern to the VBA. How can VBA measure performance without ensuring that VAROs are staffed properly? As previously stated, this was addressed by VBA over a decade ago. This is one reason VBA has to broker claims and changed the MMWR again. The MMWR has been changed 3rd time in less than a year (effective dates: July 15, 2013, October 21, 2013, and January 16, 2014). Now, there is a distinction between the Station of Origination (SOO) and a Station of Jurisdiction (SOJ). This concept of a National queue sounds good in theory, but will only allow the continued poor staffing of VAROs, a lack of accountability of VBA and VARO leadership, and place severe stress on any VARO that is really performing their jobs well. The understaffing of VAROs is one reason that the VBA has spent of 153,297,189 million dollars on overtime since FY12 and is a major contributor to the unmanageable workload below. Pending Over 125 Days 122,867 60.17% 2,338 29.18% 256,689 60.86% 293,256 71.31% 58,285 78.9% 97,467 56 .2% 830,902 23,331 28,285 34,501 2,730 88,847 48.46% 39 .5% 98 .6% 48 .5%

Original Entitlement - Veterans

Original Entitlement - Survivors Supplemental Entitlement Award Adjustments Program Reviews Compensation Other Total Appeals Pending
TOTAL COMPENSATION VAROs

204,216 8,012 421,739 411,264 73,905 173,291 267,669 1,560,096 48,142 71,538 34,993 5,625 45,013 15,063 220,374 1,780,470

Original Entitlement Pension Award Adjustments Program Reviews Pension Other Total Burials Pending Total Accrued Pending TOTAL PENSION PMCs

919,749

It is imperative that VAROs are staffed properly with a sufficient numbers of Veterans Service Representatives, Rating Veterans Service Representatives, and Decision Review Officers. Moreover, they must be trained and utilized to do the job they are getting paid to do.

When the OFO does not maintain and review the Table of Organization of VAROs, how can they ensure that there is a sufficient number of employees in the correct positions to process claims timely and accurately? The problems of VBA are not only processes and technology, but the most critical element of the claims process - trained employees and in sufficient numbers to be efficient. AFGE Local 520 knows the end goal of the VBA's technology and that is to eliminate employees. Employees can accept the fact that competent technology will reduce the number of employees needed to do the job. However, this future does not exist in VBA now. Therefore, VBA must provide what is needed now to sustain and improve the claims process. Moreover, if it is not provided now, Veterans and their survivors, employees, and taxpayers will continue to pay an irrevocable price. AFGE Local 520 will continue to safeguard the public interest and contribute to the effective conduct of public business as required by law. Therefore, we will continue to chime in weekly on this most critical subject with objective evidence" because Veterans have earned the right to have a claims processing system that works for o//pf them and employees can only effectively serve them if they are provided with the leadership, processes, people systems and workplace culture that are conducive to providing timely and accurate decisions. Finally, as administrator for the agency after World War II, Bradley said: "We are dealing with Veterans, not procedures; with their problems, not ours."

Ronald Robinson President (803) 647-2385 (Ofc) (803) 239-7682 (Cell) rbnsnrnld@yahoo.com www.seniorvsr.com Employees Putting Veterans 1s
CF: President Obama VA Secretary Shinseki President AFGE President NVAC 60 Minutes

NY Times Washington Post Center for Investigative Reporting The Washington Examiner VA Watchdog

10