DOD has explicitly given the services the responsibility to set up their own  processes for some aspects of the disability system and has given the  services much room for interpretation. Each service has implemented its  system somewhat differently. DOD and the Services Have Established Policies That Result in Different Experiences with the Disability System for Reservists

The laws that govern the military disability system and the policies and  guidance that DOD and the services have developed to implement the laws  can result in different experiences with the disability system for reservists. Twenty Years of Service Requirement for Disability Retirement

Because they are not on duty at all times, reservists take longer to accrue  the 20 years of service that may be needed to earn the monthly disability  retirement benefit when the disability rating is less than 30 percent. DOD Has Guidance in Place to Promote Consistent and Timely Decisions, but Does Not Adequately Oversee Key Aspects of the Disability System

DOD has policies and guidance to promote consistent and timely disability  decisions, but is not monitoring whether the services are compliant. Neither DOD nor the services systematically determine the consistency of  decision making, which would be a key component of quality assurance. Finally, DOD is not exercising any oversight over training  for staff in the disability system, despite being required to do so. DOD Requires All Services to Use a Common Ratings System and Multiple Reviewers and Convenes a Disability Council

To encourage consistent decision making, DOD policies require that  service members’ case files undergo multiple reviews and federal law  requires that disability ratings be based on a common schedule. Data on years of service and preexisting conditions were not available for  this analysis, however, factors that influence disability benefit decisions. Finally, we were unable to compare processing times for reserve and  active duty disability cases because we found that Army data on  processing times were not reliable. Army Reservists Received Disability Ratings Similar to Their Active Duty Counterparts, but Reservists May Be Less Likely to Receive Benefits

Before controlling for factors that could account for differences in the  outcomes of the Army disability evaluation system for reserve and active  duty soldiers, our analysis of Army data indicates that, from 2001 through  2005, reservists were assigned slightly higher disability ratings, but  received benefits less often than active duty soldiers. Nonetheless, the statistics the Army provided indicate that  disability cases reviewed between fiscal years 2001 and 2005 took  consistently longer than those of active duty soldiers. In addition, it may take longer for  reservist cases to go through the system. Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that all service members—both active duty and reserves— receive consistent and timely treatment within the disability evaluation  process, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following  five actions  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;  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;    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;    evaluate the appropriateness of current timeliness goals for the  disability process and make any necessary changes; and    assess the adequacy of training for MEB and PEB disability evaluation  staff. Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our report were to determine: (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 rating and benefit decisions for  active and reserve component members, and (3) how disability rating and  benefit decisions, 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.
Why 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.

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.