Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members Page: 2 of 64
This report is part of the collection entitled: Government Accountability Office Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
GAO
aAccountabiity Integrity-Reliability
Highlights
Highlights of GAO-06-362, a report to
congressional committeesWhy GAO Did This Study
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.
GAO recommends the Secretary of
Defense improve oversight of the
military disability evaluation
system, including providing
guidance to the services to collect
reliable data to allow for an
adequate assessment of the system.
In its comments, the Department of
Defense agreed with our
recommendations, indicating the
department will implement them
all.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-362.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robert E.
Robertson at (202) 512-7215 or
robertsonr@gao.gov.MILITARY DISABILITY SYSTEM
Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure
Consistent and Timely Outcomes for
Reserve and Active Duty Service
Members
What GAO Found
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.United States Government Accountability Office
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
United States. Government Accountability Office. Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members, report, March 31, 2006; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc295817/m1/2/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.