Summary
The House Committee on Armed Services report that accompanies the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2006 directs GAO to review results of the military disability evaluation system. In response to this mandate, GAO determined: (1) how current DOD policies and guidance for disability determinations compare for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and what policies are specific to reserve component members of the military; (2) what oversight and quality control mechanisms are in place at DOD and these three services of the military to ensure consistent and timely disability decisions for active and reserve component members; and (3) how disability decisions, ratings, and processing times compare for active and reserve component members of the Army, the largest branch of the service, and what factors might explain any differences.
Policies and guidance for military disability determinations differ somewhat among the Army, Navy, and Air Force. DOD has explicitly given the services the responsibility to set up their own processes for certain aspects of the disability evaluation system and has given them latitude in how they go about this. As a result, each service implements its system somewhat differently. Further, the laws that govern military disability and the policies that DOD and the services have developed to implement these laws have led reservists to have different experiences in the disability system compared to active duty members. For example, because reservists are not on active duty at all times, it takes longer for them to accrue the 20 years of service that may be needed to earn monthly disability retirement benefits. While DOD has issued policies and guidance to promote consistent and timely disability decisions for active duty and reserve disability cases, DOD is not monitoring compliance. To encourage consistent decision making, DOD requires all services to use multiple reviewers to evaluate disability cases. Furthermore, federal law requires that reviewers use a standardized disability rating system to classify the severity of the medical impairment. In addition, DOD periodically convenes the Disability Advisory Council, comprised of DOD and service officials, to review and update disability policy and to discuss current issues. However, neither DOD nor the services systematically determine the consistency of disability decision making. DOD has issued timeliness goals for processing disability cases, but is not collecting information to determine compliance. Finally, the consistency and timeliness of decisions depend, in part, on the training that disability staff receive. However, DOD is not exercising oversight over training for staff in the disability system. While GAO's review of the military disability evaluation system's policies and oversight covered the three services, GAO examined Army data on disability ratings and benefit decisions from calendar year 2001 through 2005. After controlling for many of the differences between reserve and active duty soldiers, GAO found that, among soldiers who received disability ratings, the ratings of reservists were comparable to those of active duty soldiers with similar conditions. GAO's analyses of the military disability benefit decisions for the soldiers who were determined to be unfit for duty were less definitive, but suggest that Army reservists were less likely to receive permanent disability retirement or lump sum disability severance pay than their active duty counterparts. However, data on possible reasons for this difference, such as whether the condition existed prior to service, were not available for our analysis. GAO did not compare processing times for Army reserve and active duty cases because GAO found that Army's data needed to calculate processing times were unreliable. However, Army statistics based on this data indicate that from fiscal 2001 through 2005, reservists' cases took longer to process than active duty cases.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
Robert E. Robertson
Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income Security
(202) 512-9889
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To ensure that all service members--both active duty and reserves--receive consistent and timely treatment within the disability evaluation process, the Secretary of Defense should require the Army, Navy, and Air Force to take action to ensure that data needed to assess consistency and timeliness of military disability rating and benefit decisions are reliable.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and is taking various steps toward that end. The agency has been holding Disability Advisory Council (DAC) meetings on a quarterly basis to facilitate oversight of the disability evaluation system and advise DOD. DOD will identify ways to convene ad hoc working groups to address GAO's recommendation. In addition, the agency will revise and republish guidance contained in DOD issuances to ensure they are more relevant to advances in medical science, patient management, and current events. Finally, the agency will strengthen its disability management section (include letting a contract) to facilitate policy formulation and management.
Recommendation: To ensure that all service members--both active duty and reserves--receive consistent and timely treatment within the disability evaluation process, the Secretary of Defense should require these services to track and regularly report these data--including comparisons of processing times, ratings and benefit decisions for reservists and active duty members--to the Under Secretary of Personnel and Readiness and the Surgeons General.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and planned to implement it. The agency noted that the Service Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RAs) should also be included in the reports. The Physical Disability Evaluation System portion of the Disability Evaluation System includes a personnel and medical component. The M&RAs oversee both the medical and personnel components. In 2007, DOD reinstituted and maintains a quarterly schedule of Disability Advisory Council (DAC) meetings that includes a focus on oversight and revisions to policy and process to ensure consistency and accuracy of the DES. The agency also convenes working groups of technical experts to address specific GAO and Department leadership recommendations. The products and recommendations of the work groups help inform the revisions of policy for formal coordination. The Department's policy for disability separation and retirement is under revision. Each of the Military Departments has also initiated internal reviews of responsibilities and operations to DES.
Recommendation: To ensure that all service members--both active duty and reserves--receive consistent and timely treatment within the disability evaluation process, the Secretary of Defense should determine, based on these reports, if ratings and benefit decisions are consistent and timely across the services and between reservists and active duty members and institute improvements to address any deficiencies that might be found.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and has been taking various steps toward that end. The agency has been holding Disability Advisory Council (DAC) meetings on a quarterly basis to facilitate oversight of the disability evaluation system and advise DOD. DOD will identify ways to convene ad hoc working groups to address GAO's recommendation. In addition, the agency will revise and republish guidance contained in DOD issuances to ensure they are more relevant to advances in medical science, patient management, and current events. Finally, the agency will strengthen its disability management section (include letting a contract) to facilitate policy formulation and management.
Recommendation: To ensure that all service members--both active duty and reserves--receive consistent and timely treatment within the disability evaluation process, the Secretary of Defense should evaluate the appropriateness of current timeliness goals for the disability process and make any necessary changes.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and is taking various steps toward that end. The agency has been holding Disability Advisory Council (DAC) meetings on a quarterly or as needed basis to facilitate oversight of the disability evaluation system and advise DOD. DOD will identify ways to convene ad hoc working groups to address GAO's recommendation.
Recommendation: To ensure that all service members--both active duty and reserves--receive consistent and timely treatment within the disability evaluation process, the Secretary of Defense should assess the adequacy of training for MEB and PEB disability evaluation staff.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and is taking various steps toward that end. The agency has been holding Disability Advisory Council (DAC) meetings on a quarterly or as needed basis to facilitate oversight of the disability evaluation system and advise DOD. The Department is also coordinating a directive-type memorandum to address recent requirements in law associated with training, certification, and oversight reporting mechanisms.
