Federal Reports

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a national review to determine whether Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) staff assigned correct effective dates on claims for compensation benefits with an intent to file (ITF). The ITF allows claimants the opportunity to provide minimal information related to the benefit sought and gives them up to one year to submit a complete claim. The submission date of an ITF is important because VA may use the date of receipt as an earlier effective date for paying benefits. The OIG found that VBA staff did not always assign correct effective dates for compensation benefits with ITF submissions from March 24, 2015, to September 30, 2017, resulting in $72.5 million in improper payments. Most of the errors occurred during the initial period of ITF implementation, and the OIG found that 43 percent of cases were assigned incorrect effective dates. This was largely due to a lack of standard operating procedures, inadequate procedural guidance for electronic ITF submissions, deficient and delayed training, and a lack of functionality in the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). VBA has since reduced the number of incorrectly dated claims to 4 percent. The OIG recommended that the Under Secretary for Benefits prioritize the modernization of the ITF system and consider integrating ITF submissions into the VBMS. The OIG also recommended a special review of veterans’ claims with ITFs submitted during the troubled period.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed Veterans Benefits Administration’s (VBA’s) denied claims related to veterans’ military sexual trauma (MST) to determine whether staff correctly processed the claims according to VBA policy. Some service members are reluctant to submit a report of MST, particularly when the perpetrator is a superior officer. Victims may have concerns about the potential for negative performance reports or punishment for collateral misconduct. There is also sometimes the perception of an unresponsive military chain of command. If the MST leads to posttraumatic stress disorder, it is often difficult for victims to produce evidence to support the occurrence of the assault. VBA policy, therefore, requires staff to follow additional steps for processing MST-related claims so veterans have additional opportunities to provide adequate evidence. Based on its sample, the OIG estimated that VBA staff incorrectly processed about 1,300 of the 2,700 MST-related claims denied during the review period April 2017 through September 2017. This may have resulted in the denial of benefits to veterans who could have been entitled to receive them. The OIG determined multiple factors led to the improper processing and denial of MST-related claims, including lack of reviewers’ specialization and no additional level of review, discontinued special focus reviews, and inadequate training. The OIG made six recommendations to the Under Secretary for Benefits including that VBA review all approximately 5,500 MST-related claims denied from October 2016 through September 2017, take corrective action on those claims in which VBA staff did not follow all required steps, assign MST-related claims to a specialized group of claims processors, and improve oversight and training on addressing MST-related claims.

The agreed-upon procedures (AUP) review of AmeriCorps grant funds to SerVermont, Vermont’s State Service Commission and two subrecipients identified questioned Federal costs totaling $122,551, questioned matching costs of $38,746, questioned Education Awards of $40,342 and compliance findings. The majority of the questioned costs were caused by deficiencies with National Service Criminal History Checks. The costs tested were incurred between April 15, 2015 and August 31, 2017.SerVermont concurred that the auditors found noncompliant NSCHCs at the Commission and the two subrecipients but disagreed on the related questioned costs. The Corporation will resolve the report’s findings and recommendations.

At the request of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Supply Chain, we examined the labor and labor markup rates included in a contract TVA has with a contractor. Our examination objective was to determine if the contract's labor and labor markup rates were fairly stated for a planned 5-year contract extension.In our opinion, the contract's labor and labor markup rates were fairly stated. Specifically, the contract's labor markup rates were supported by the contractor's actual historical costs, and the contractor's proposal to update the contract's wage ranges was reasonable. (Summary Only)