Military Disability Retirement
Closer Monitoring Would Improve the Temporary Retirement Process Gao ID: GAO-09-289 April 13, 2009Service members found unfit for duty due to a service-related illness or injury may be eligible for military disability retirement. When their disability is not stable, however, they may be placed on the military's Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) and granted temporary benefits for as long as 5 years. GAO was asked to respond to concerns about TDRL caseloads, management, and impact on servicemembers. To address these concerns, we analyzed TDRL data; interviewed military officials; reviewed laws, regulations, and other relevant documents; and conducted 12 focus groups with temporary retirees. This report examines (1) recent trends in the TDRL caseload size, (2) recent trends in the characteristics of those placed on the TDRL, (3) disability retirement outcomes for TDRL placements, (4) the adequacy of TDRL management, and (5) the adequacy of information provided to TDRL retirees.
TDRL caseloads within the Department of Defense (DOD) grew by 43 percent, from 9,983 in fiscal year 2003 to 14,285 in fiscal year 2007. Growth in caseloads could be attributable to a combination of increases in the number of cases going through the military's disability evaluation system, higher TDRL placement rates, and low numbers of cases removed from the TDRL relative to new cases added to the list. DOD-wide, servicemembers placed on the TDRL in each calendar year from 2000 through 2007 varied little with respect to their military status, years of service, and disabilities. In each of these years, most TDRL placements had been active duty personnel, although the small proportion who had been reservists grew considerably. Most TDRL placements in each year also had fewer than 20 years of service and, over time, their average years of service declined. The disabilities most prevalent among TDRL placements were musculoskeletal, mental, or neurological in nature. Among those with mental and neurological disabilities, the incidence of post traumatic stress disorder and conditions related to traumatic brain injury increased substantially across the services. Although the experiences of temporary disability retirees varied, some outcomes were more common than others. DOD-wide, very few who were placed on the list between calendar years 2000 and 2003 returned to military service. Further, about half received a final determination within 3 years and, of those who ultimately received permanent disability benefits, 73 percent had final disability ratings that were no different than their initial ratings. Finally, only 7 percent of TDRL placements, DOD-wide, received a final disability rating that qualified them for permanent disability payment amounts higher than their TDRL payments. DOD and the services do not effectively manage key aspects of the TDRL process. The military does not systematically examine physical evaluation board (PEB) stability decisions for accuracy and consistency or routinely compile information on TDRL outcomes to better inform its assessments of stability. According to TDRL administrative staff, ensuring that medical reexaminations are done in TDRL cases at least once every 18 months is often a challenge. However, the military does not monitor the extent to which this requirement is met. Moreover, there is limited use of nonmilitary physicians to perform reexaminations, which could reduce burdens on medical treatment facilities. Finally, military procedures do not ensure consistent enforcement of TDRL rules. Information about the TDRL that the services provide is not always clear or complete and can be difficult to access. PEB findings forms provided to temporary retirees do not fully explain why service members are placed on the list or what is required of them. Temporary retirees reported that counseling related to PEB decisions was inconsistent and lacking in followthrough. Information from military pamphlets, brochures, fact sheets, and Web sites is often incomplete or difficult to find. Temporary retirees participating in our focus groups expressed considerable confusion about and dissatisfaction with their limited access to information and points of contact.
RecommendationsOur 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:GAO-09-289, Military Disability Retirement: Closer Monitoring Would Improve the Temporary Retirement Process
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-289
entitled 'Military Disability Retirement: Closer Monitoring Would
Improve the Temporary Retirement Process' which was released on April
13, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2009:
Military Disability Retirement:
Closer Monitoring Would Improve the Temporary Retirement Process:
GAO-09-289:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-289, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Service members found unfit for duty due to a service-related illness
or injury may be eligible for military disability retirement. When
their disability is not stable, however, they may be placed on the
military‘s Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) and granted
temporary benefits for as long as 5 years. GAO was asked to respond to
concerns about TDRL caseloads, management, and impact on
servicemembers. To address these concerns, we analyzed TDRL data;
interviewed military officials; reviewed laws, regulations, and other
relevant documents; and conducted 12 focus groups with temporary
retirees. This report examines (1) recent trends in the TDRL caseload
size, (2) recent trends in the characteristics of those placed on the
TDRL, (3) disability retirement outcomes for TDRL placements, (4) the
adequacy of TDRL management, and (5) the adequacy of information
provided to TDRL retirees.
What GAO Found:
TDRL caseloads within the Department of Defense (DOD) grew by 43
percent, from 9,983 in fiscal year 2003 to 14,285 in fiscal year 2007.
Growth in caseloads could be attributable to a combination of increases
in the number of cases going through the military‘s disability
evaluation system, higher TDRL placement rates, and low numbers of
cases removed from the TDRL relative to new cases added to the list.
DOD-wide, servicemembers placed on the TDRL in each calendar year from
2000 through 2007 varied little with respect to their military status,
years of service, and disabilities. In each of these years, most TDRL
placements had been active duty personnel, although the small
proportion who had been reservists grew considerably. Most TDRL
placements in each year also had fewer than 20 years of service and,
over time, their average years of service declined. The disabilities
most prevalent among TDRL placements were musculoskeletal, mental, or
neurological in nature. Among those with mental and neurological
disabilities, the incidence of post traumatic stress disorder and
conditions related to traumatic brain injury increased substantially
across the services.
Although the experiences of temporary disability retirees varied, some
outcomes were more common than others. DOD-wide, very few who were
placed on the list between calendar years 2000 and 2003 returned to
military service. Further, about half received a final determination
within 3 years and, of those who ultimately received permanent
disability benefits, 73 percent had final disability ratings that were
no different than their initial ratings. Finally, only 7 percent of
TDRL placements, DOD-wide, received a final disability rating that
qualified them for permanent disability payment amounts higher than
their TDRL payments.
DOD and the services do not effectively manage key aspects of the TDRL
process. The military does not systematically examine physical
evaluation board (PEB) stability decisions for accuracy and consistency
or routinely compile information on TDRL outcomes to better inform its
assessments of stability. According to TDRL administrative staff,
ensuring that medical reexaminations are done in TDRL cases at least
once every 18 months is often a challenge. However, the military does
not monitor the extent to which this requirement is met. Moreover,
there is limited use of nonmilitary physicians to perform
reexaminations, which could reduce burdens on medical treatment
facilities. Finally, military procedures do not ensure consistent
enforcement of TDRL rules.
Information about the TDRL that the services provide is not always
clear or complete and can be difficult to access. PEB findings forms
provided to temporary retirees do not fully explain why service members
are placed on the list or what is required of them. Temporary retirees
reported that counseling related to PEB decisions was inconsistent and
lacking in follow-through. Information from military pamphlets,
brochures, fact sheets, and Web sites is often incomplete or difficult
to find. Temporary retirees participating in our focus groups expressed
considerable confusion about and dissatisfaction with their limited
access to information and points of contact.
What GAO Recommends:
To improve TDRL management, DOD should evaluate the quality and
consistency of TDRL decisions and take steps to ensure timely
reexaminations and final disability determinations. The services should
also provide adequate information about the TDRL to temporary retirees.
Finally, the Congress may wish to reconsider the 5-year maximum for the
TDRL. DOD concurred with each of our recommendations and provided
technical comments that we incorporated in our report as appropriate.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-289]. For more
information, contact Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-7215 or
bertonid@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
TDRL Caseloads Have Grown for a Combination of Reasons:
The Characteristics of TDRL Placements Have Changed Somewhat in Recent
Years:
DOD and the Services Do Not Provide Sufficient Management Attention to
Key Aspects of the TDRL Process:
TDRL Information Is Not Always Adequate or Accessible to Temporary
Retirees:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Additional Data Tables:
Appendix III: Sample Army Form: Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings
(DA Form 199):
Appendix IV: Sample Navy Form: Findings of the Physical Evaluation
Board Proceedings:
Appendix V: Sample Air Force Form: Findings and Recommendations of the
USAF Physical Evaluation Board (AF Form 356):
Appendix VI: Comments on the TDRL from Disabled American Veterans:
Appendix VII: Comments on the TDRL from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
of America:
Appendix VIII: Comments on the TDRL from the Military Officers
Association of America:
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: TDRL Placement Rates, by Service, Fiscal Years 2003 through
2007:
Table 2: Proportion of Annual TDRL Placements with Less Than 20 Years
of Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Table 3: Total Number of Individuals Placed on the TDRL, by Service,
Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Table 4: Selected Characteristics of Military Treatment Facilities
(MTF) Contacted:
Table 5: Percent of Focus Group Participants from Each Service:
Table 6: TDRL Information Sources Reviewed:
Table 7: DOD-wide Disability Evaluation System Determinations, Fiscal
Years 2001 through 2007:
Table 8: Disability Evaluation System Determinations, by Service,
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007:
Table 9: Number of Individuals Placed on and Removed from the TDRL, DOD-
wide, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007:
Table 10: Number of Individuals Placed on and Removed from the TDRL, by
Service, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007:
Table 11: Number and Percent of TDRL Placements Who Had Been
Reservists, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Table 12: Number and Percent of Reservists Receiving a Disability
Evaluation System Determination, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001 through
2007:
Table 13: Mean Number of Years of Military Service for TDRL Placements
Who Had Been Active Duty and Reserve Military, DOD-wide, Calendar Years
2000 through 2007:
Table 14: Mean Number of Years of Military Service for TDRL Placements
Who Had Been Active Duty and Reserve Military, by Service, Calendar
Years 2000 through 2007:
Table 15: Percent of TDRL Placements with a Residual of a TBI as a
Disabling Condition, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Table 16: Percent of TDRL Placements with Residual of a TBI Diagnosis,
among Those with Any Disabling Neurological Conditions and Convulsive
Disorders, by Service Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Table 17: Percent of TDRL Placements with PTSD as a Disabling
Condition, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Table 18: Percent of TDRL Placements with a PTSD Diagnosis, among Those
with Any Disabling Mental Disorders, by Service, Calendar Years 2000
through 2007:
Table 19: Final Disability Determinations as of August 2008 for TDRL
Placements, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2003:
Table 20: Number of Months until TDRL Placements for Calendar Years
2000 through 2003 Received a Final Determination, by Service:
Table 21: Initial Disability Ratings for TDRL Placements, DOD-wide,
Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Table 22: Changes in Disability Ratings and Estimated Changes in
Monthly Cash Payments, for Temporary Retirees Placed on the TDRL, DOD-
wide, in Calendar Years 2000 through 2003 and Subsequently Transferred
to the PDRL:
Figures:
Figure 1: Final Disability Determination Process for TDRL Cases:
Figure 2: TDRL Caseloads, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001 to 2007:
Figure 3: Total DOD-Wide TDRL Caseloads and Numbers of Cases Added to
and Removed from the TDRL, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007:
Figure 4: Prevalence of Types of Disabling Conditions among
Servicemembers, DOD-wide, Placed on the TDRL in Calendar Years 2000
through 2007:
Figure 5: Status of Calendar Years 2000 through 2003 TDRL Placements,
as of August 2008:
Figure 6: Number of Months until Final Disability Determination for
Each Service's TDRL Placements, Calendar Years 2000 through 2003:
Figure 7: Use of TDRL Determinations Relative to Other Types of
Military Disability Determinations, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001
through 2007:
Figure 8: TDRL Reexamination Process:
Figure 9: Example of Calculation of Disability Rating Contained in a
PEB Findings Form:
Abbreviations:
DMDC: Defense Manpower Data Center:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FAQ: frequently asked questions:
OEF: Operation Enduring Freedom:
OIF: Operation Iraqi Freedom:
MTF: military treatment facility:
PDRL: Permanent Disability Retired List:
PEB: physical evaluation board:
PEBLO: Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer:
PTSD: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder:
TDRL: Temporary Disability Retired List:
TBI: Traumatic Brain Injury:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:
VASRD: Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 13, 2009:
The Honorable Darrell Issa:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Issa:
Since the beginning of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom,
the number of servicemembers entering the military disability
evaluation system has grown, along with concerns that the system may
not serve returning wounded warriors very well. Recent evaluations by
GAO and others have found a number of problems,[Footnote 1] including
lengthy case processing times, inadequate staff training,
inconsistencies in disability ratings, and confusion and distrust on
the part of servicemembers who must navigate the system. In an effort
to streamline military disability determinations, the Department of
Defense (DOD) is currently engaged in a joint pilot with the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) to test the use of VA medical examinations to
inform military disability decisions, but significant challenges to
addressing weaknesses in the military's overall disability evaluation
system remain.
The Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) is one aspect of this
system that is currently receiving increased attention. Servicemembers
may be placed on the TDRL if they are found to be medically unfit for
duty (disabled) by a military Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), but
their service-related illnesses or injuries are not stable enough for
the PEB to assign them a permanent disability rating. A determination
assigning servicemembers to the TDRL temporarily retires and provides
them with disability retirement benefits for up to 5 years while they
wait for their disabling medical conditions to stabilize. Once a
permanent disability rating can be assigned, depending on the rating
and the servicemember's years of military service, the PEB may place
those on the TDRL on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL),
grant them a one-time severance payment, or find them fit to return to
military service.[Footnote 2]
Questions have been raised about the TDRL process, including whether it
is administered appropriately and consistently across all services,
whether the military provides adequate support and guidance to
servicemembers who are placed on the list, and whether individuals may
be staying on the list longer than necessary. To better understand the
TDRL process and the issues surrounding it, this report provides
information on (1) recent trends in the TDRL caseload size, (2) recent
trends in the characteristics of servicemembers placed on the TDRL, (3)
disability retirement outcomes for TDRL placements, (4) the adequacy of
TDRL management, and (5) the adequacy of information provided to
temporary retirees.
To determine trends in TDRL caseload size, we analyzed data from DOD's
Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File and administrative data
maintained by PEBs in the Air Force, Army, and Navy. Data from these
files were also used to determine the characteristics and TDRL outcomes
of all those placed on the list each calendar year from 2000 through
2007. We also reviewed and discussed with DOD officials the results of
their own recently issued study of the TDRL, which also examined TDRL
retirees' characteristics and outcomes.[Footnote 3] Based on
information we obtained from the military about how the data in these
files were collected and what measures were taken to assure their
quality, we determined that these data were adequately reliable for the
purposes of this study. To assess the adequacy of TDRL management, we
reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and procedures. In addition, we
interviewed military officials who are responsible for implementing
these requirements across the services, including PEB members, Medical
Command representatives, and PEB Liaison Officers (PEBLO) from military
medical treatment facilities across the services--specifically, at
three Air Force, four Army, and three Navy facilities. We assessed the
adequacy of existing TDRL procedures relative to internal control
standards for the federal government and the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. To assess the adequacy
of information provided to servicemembers who are placed on the TDRL,
we also reviewed each service's PEB decision forms and other written
materials, as well as information available on the services' Web sites.
We also obtained the experiences and views of TDRL retirees across the
services by conducting a series of 12 focus groups in June and August
2008 with individuals who were on the TDRL. Focus groups were conducted
in Norfolk, Va., Quantico, Va., San Antonio, Tex., and Killeen, Tex.,
because collectively, these areas provided us with access to a large
pool of temporary retirees from each of the services.
We conducted this review from March 2008 to April 2009 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives. Additional information about our
objectives, scope, and methodology is provided in appendix I.
Background:
The TDRL was established under the Career Compensation Act of 1949 to
allow for temporary disability retirement pay and benefits for any
servicemember who would be eligible for disability retirement benefits,
were it not for the fact that their disability was not of a permanent
nature. In 1986, the law was amended to allow the military to place
individuals on the TDRL if it is determined that their disabilities
could be of a permanent nature but are not stable enough to rate their
severity. Under this criterion, a disability is considered not stable
if the medical evidence indicates its severity will probably change
enough sometime within the next 5 years to warrant an increase or
decrease in the disability percentage rating. For example, cancer is a
condition that may be determined to be permanent and stable when the
disease has progressed to the point where treatments are unlikely to
cure it, or determined to be permanent and unstable when the disease is
being treated and the prognosis remains uncertain.
Consistent with how the military administers its overall disability
evaluation system, DOD gives each service responsibility for
administering its own TDRL process. DOD provides some guidance for
administering the TDRL, but gives the services broad latitude.
Therefore, each service has established more detailed guidance for its
own day-to-day processes related to the TDRL. The services have their
own staff, or TDRL units, that oversee and process TDRL cases. Figure 1
depicts the TDRL decision process in detail.
Figure 1: Final Disability Determination Process for TDRL Cases:
[Refer to PDF for image: flow-chart]
Each service‘s Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) decisions:
Placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL):
* Physical exam at least once every 18 months;
* Removed after 5 years TDRL;
Is the member fit for duty?
Yes: Removed from the TDRL;
No: Disability is stable?
- No: Retain on TDRL to be re-evaluated;
- Yes: Continue;
What is the disability rating?
0-20%:
Member‘s years of equivalent service, greater than or equal to 20
years: Separated with monthly disability retirement benefit;
Member‘s years of equivalent service, less than 20 years: Separated with
lump sum disability severance;
30% or higher:
Placed on Permanent Disability Retired List.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
To qualify for permanent disability retirement benefits, or placement
on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL), a servicemember must
have a service-related medical condition that renders him or her unfit
for duty. The condition must be compensable,[Footnote 4] and the
severity of the condition, expressed as a percentage rating, must be 30
percent or higher.[Footnote 5] Typically, the percentage disability
rating dictates the amount of monthly disability retirement payments to
which a servicemember is permanently entitled.[Footnote 6] If, based on
the medical evidence, the PEB determines that a servicemember's
disabling condition is unstable--that the condition's current
percentage rating could change within the next 5 years--the PEB will
place the servicemember on the TDRL.[Footnote 7] In effect, placement
on the TDRL postpones a final determination of the percentage rating
and the associated monthly disability payments to which the retiree may
eventually and permanently be entitled.
Once placed on the TDRL, temporary retirees must undergo periodic
medical reexaminations and evaluations by a PEB at least once every 18
months. Under the law, assignment to the TDRL must end with a final
determination at the end of 5 years, or sooner if the results of a
medical reexamination indicate that the temporary retiree's condition
is of a permanent nature and stable or the servicemember's rating drops
below 30 percent. Typically, temporary retirees receive medical
reexaminations in conjunction with PEB determinations. These
examinations are usually conducted at military treatment facilities
(MTF). Each service's TDRL administrative unit is responsible for
determining when temporary retirees are due for medical reexaminations,
notifying them of upcoming medical reexaminations and arranging for the
examinations at MTFs, and following up with temporary retirees who fail
to keep appointments. Temporary retirees are required to make sure the
appropriate service's TDRL unit has their current address. Temporary
retirees are also required to report for medical reexaminations at
appointed times and places. Typically, reexaminations are scheduled by
the relevant service's MTF that is nearest to the TDRL retiree's place
of residence. If a temporary retiree is unable to keep an appointment,
he or she is required to make alternate arrangements to complete the
medical reexamination. If temporary retirees refuse or fail to report
for required reexaminations, the services have the authority to
terminate their temporary disability retirement pay.
The benefits that servicemembers are entitled to while on the TDRL are
similar to those for servicemembers who are placed on the PDRL. In most
cases, the amount of TDRL monthly payments are calculated in the same
way as PDRL monthly cash payments: retirees with fewer than 20 years of
service receive their base pay at retirement, multiplied by the
assigned percentage rating for their disabling medical conditions;
[Footnote 8] servicemembers with 20 or more years of service receive
the higher of either their base pay at retirement, multiplied by either
their assigned percentage rating, or 2.5 times their years of service--
whichever is higher. Regardless of years of service, temporary retirees
with a disability percentage rating of 50 percent or less are entitled
to no less than 50 percent of their base pay at retirement. Both TDRL
and PDRL monthly cash payments are subject to a cap of 75 percent of
servicemembers' base pay and are subject to income taxes.[Footnote 9]
In addition to receiving cash payments, temporary retirees are entitled
to other military retirement benefits, including health insurance
coverage for themselves, their spouses, and eligible dependents, and
access to discounted goods and services through military exchange
facilities. Finally, temporary retirees are also eligible to apply for
VA disability compensation, which is not subject to income taxes. The
military benefits of both permanent and temporary retirees are reduced,
however, by the amount of VA benefits they receive.[Footnote 10]
Evolving Purpose of the TDRL:
While the Career Compensation Act of 1949 does not cite a specific
purpose for the TDRL or state a rationale for the eligibility threshold
of 30 percent, a 1948 report of the Advisory Commission on Service Pay
(the Hook Commission), upon which much of the act was based, suggests
that the TDRL may have been established as a means of "minimizing the
loss of trained, experienced service members who, given additional
time, might recover sufficiently to return to" the military.[Footnote
11] Meanwhile, a recently issued report by DOD suggests that the
purpose of the TDRL has also evolved into a vehicle to safeguard the
interests of servicemembers whose conditions may develop into more
serious permanent disabilities.[Footnote 12] The report also notes that
other means might be used to accomplish the current purposes of the
TDRL and suggests that changes may be warranted, including reducing the
maximum tenure on the TDRL and establishing standardized guidance for
classifying impairments as "permanent and stable."
TDRL Caseloads Have Grown for a Combination of Reasons:
TDRL caseloads grew DOD-wide by 43 percent from fiscal years 2003
through 2007. Growth in TDRL caseloads could be related to a
combination of increases in the number of cases going through the
military's disability evaluation system, higher TDRL placement rates,
and low numbers of cases removed from the TDRL relative to numbers of
new cases being added to the list.
TDRL Caseloads Grew from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007:
While DOD-wide TDRL caseload size declined slightly from fiscal years
2001 through 2003, it grew steadily from 9,983 cases in 2003, to 14,285
cases in 2007, an increase of 43 percent. (See figure 2.) Air Force and
Marine Corps caseloads had the highest rate of growth during this time
(72 percent each), and the Army's caseload grew by 54 percent. The
Navy's also grew during this time, but only by 14 percent.
Figure 2: TDRL Caseloads, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001 to 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 2001;
Navy TDRL caseload: 4,094;
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 1,753;
Army TDRL caseload: 3,550;
Air Force TDRL caseload: 881;
Total: 10,278.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Navy TDRL caseload: 3,967;
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 1,663;
Army TDRL caseload: 3,554;
Air Force TDRL caseload: 886;
Total: 10,070.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Navy TDRL caseload: 3,884;
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 1,659;
Army TDRL caseload: 3,617;
Air Force TDRL caseload: 823;
Total: 9,983.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Navy TDRL caseload: 4,065;
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 1,796;
Army TDRL caseload: 4,105;
Air Force TDRL caseload: 829;
Total: 10,795.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Navy TDRL caseload: 4,284;
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 2,042;
Army TDRL caseload: 4,736;
Air Force TDRL caseload: 962;
Total: 12,024.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Navy TDRL caseload: 4,374;
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 2,458;
Army TDRL caseload: 5,124;
Air Force TDRL caseload: 1,128;
Total: 13,084.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Navy TDRL caseload: 4,438;
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 2,858;
Army TDRL caseload: 5,576;
Air Force TDRL caseload: 1,413;
Total: 14,285.
Source: Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File.
[End of figure]
Caseload Growth Has Been Related to Increases in New Disability Cases,
Higher TDRL Placement Rates, and Relatively Few Removals from the List:
A combination of factors contributed to the growth in TDRL caseloads
between fiscal years 2003 and 2007.[Footnote 13] TDRL caseloads grew
along with an increase in cases going through the disability evaluation
system as a result of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
The number of disability evaluation system cases DOD-wide grew from
about 16,500 in 2003, to about 20,000 in 2007, an increase of 21
percent. (See appendix II, table 7.) Each service also experienced an
overall growth in disability evaluation system cases during this
period. (See appendix II, table 8.)
Higher TDRL placement rates--the number of placements on the TDRL in a
given year relative to the number of all cases receiving a disability
determination that same year--also contributed to the growth in TDRL
caseloads.[Footnote 14] (See table 1.)
Table 1: TDRL Placement Rates, by Service, Fiscal Years 2003 through
2007:
Service: Air Force;
Fiscal year: 2003: 7%;
Fiscal year: 2004: 7%;
Fiscal year: 2005: 10%;
Fiscal year: 2006: 10%;
Fiscal year: 2007: 15%.
Service: Army;
Fiscal year: 2003: 15%;
Fiscal year: 2004: 14%;
Fiscal year: 2005: 14%;
Fiscal year: 2006: 15%;
Fiscal year: 2007: 18%.
Service: Marine Corps;
Fiscal year: 2003: 19%;
Fiscal year: 2004: 23%;
Fiscal year: 2005: 28%;
Fiscal year: 2006: 34%;
Fiscal year: 2007: 38%.
Service: Navy;
Fiscal year: 2003: 27%;
Fiscal year: 2004: 24%;
Fiscal year: 2005: 27%;
Fiscal year: 2006: 30%;
Fiscal year: 2007: 31%.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Fiscal year: 2003: 15%;
Fiscal year: 2004: 16%;
Fiscal year: 2005: 16%;
Fiscal year: 2006: 18%;
Fiscal year: 2007: 21%.
Source: GAO analysis of PEB data from each service.
[End of table]
The increase in TDRL placement rates was most significant for the Air
Force and the Marine Corps. Marine Corps and Navy placement rates were
also consistently much higher than rates in the other services.
Finally, the growth in the TDRL caseload DOD-wide may also be due, in
part, to the relatively low numbers of cases removed from the TDRL,
compared with the numbers of new cases added to the list each year.
(See figure 3.) In fiscal year 2003, there were 18 more cases placed on
the TDRL than were removed from the TDRL that year. By 2007, this
difference grew to 1,442 more cases placed on than removed from the
TDRL. Within each service, the difference between the numbers of cases
added to and removed from the TDRL varied over time. (See appendix II,
tables 9 and 10.)
Figure 3: Total DOD-Wide TDRL Caseloads and Numbers of Cases Added to
and Removed from the TDRL, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Fiscal year: 2001;
TDRL caseload: 10,283;
TDRL placements: 2,659;
TDRL removals: 2,924.
Fiscal year: 2002;
TDRL caseload: 10,070;
TDRL placements: 2,625;
TDRL removals: 2,671.
Fiscal year: 2003;
TDRL caseload: 9,983;
TDRL placements: 2,480;
TDRL removals: 2,462.
Fiscal year: 2004;
TDRL caseload: 10,795;
TDRL placements: 3,170;
TDRL removals: 2,015.
Fiscal year: 2005;
TDRL caseload: 12,024;
TDRL placements: 3,665;
TDRL removals: 2,646.
Fiscal year: 2006;
TDRL caseload: 13,084;
TDRL placements: 3,672;
TDRL removals: 2,848.
Fiscal year: 2007;
TDRL caseload: 14,285;
TDRL placements: 4,207;
TDRL removals: 2,765.
Sources: PEB data from each service and the Defense Manpower Data
Center Retired Pay File.
[End of figure]
The Characteristics of TDRL Placements Have Changed Somewhat in Recent
Years:
DOD-wide, servicemembers placed on the TDRL in each calendar year from
2000 through 2007 varied little with respect to their military status,
years of service, and most prevalent disabling conditions. In each of
these years, most TDRL placements had been active duty personnel,
although the small proportion who had been reservists grew considerably
between 2000 and 2007. Most TDRL placements in each year also had fewer
than 20 years of service and, over time, their average years of service
declined, DOD-wide. The disabilities most prevalent among TDRL
placements have consistently been musculoskeletal, mental, or
neurological in nature. Among those with mental and neurological
disabilities, the incidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
and residual conditions related to traumatic brain injury (TBI)
increased substantially across all of the services.
Most TDRL Placements Have Been Active Duty Personnel, though the
Proportion Who Were Reservists Grew Significantly:
Eighty-four percent of all servicemembers placed on the TDRL in
calendar years 2000 through 2007 were active duty military. The percent
of TDRL placements who were reservists grew DOD-wide, from about 8
percent in 2000, to about 21 percent in 2006. (See appendix II, table
11.) This overall increase appears to have been driven primarily by the
Army, where the proportion of reservists among TDRL placements nearly
tripled from 12 percent in 2000, to 35 percent in 2006.
Although the majority of servicemembers placed on the TDRL have been
active duty military, the overall number of reservists placed on the
TDRL, though small, has generally been increasing over time. This
increase is consistent with the activation of reservists needed for
military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which in turn, added to
the number of reservists who entered the disability evaluation system
during this time.[Footnote 15] (See appendix II, table 12.)
Most TDRL Placements Have Had Fewer Than 20 Years of Service, and Their
Average Years of Service Has Declined:
DOD-wide, the vast majority of TDRL placements have had fewer than 20
years of service. This has changed little over time. Across the
services, this proportion ranged from 91 percent for the Navy and Air
Force, to 99 percent for the Marine Corps. (See table 2.)
Table 2: Proportion of Annual TDRL Placements with Less Than 20 Years
of Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Service: Air Force;
Calendar year: 2000: 94%;
Calendar year: 2001: 94%;
Calendar year: 2002: 91%;
Calendar year: 2003: 95%;
Calendar year: 2004: 94%;
Calendar year: 2005: 95%;
Calendar year: 2006: 97%;
Calendar year: 2007: 96%.
Service: Army;
Calendar year: 2000: 96%;
Calendar year: 2001: 96%;
Calendar year: 2002: 95%;
Calendar year: 2003: 95%;
Calendar year: 2004: 96%;
Calendar year: 2005: 97%;
Calendar year: 2006: 97%;
Calendar year: 2007: 98%.
Service: Marine Corps;
Calendar year: 2000: 94%;
Calendar year: 2001: 95%;
Calendar year: 2002: 97%;
Calendar year: 2003: 96%;
Calendar year: 2004: 97%;
Calendar year: 2005: 98%;
Calendar year: 2006: 99%;
Calendar year: 2007: 99%.
Service: Navy;
Calendar year: 2000: 91%;
Calendar year: 2001: 94%;
Calendar year: 2002: 91%;
Calendar year: 2003: 93%;
Calendar year: 2004: 95%;
Calendar year: 2005: 95%;
Calendar year: 2006: 96%;
Calendar year: 2007: 95%.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Calendar year: 2000: 94%;
Calendar year: 2001: 95%;
Calendar year: 2002: 94%;
Calendar year: 2003: 94%;
Calendar year: 2004: 96%;
Calendar year: 2005: 96%;
Calendar year: 2006: 97%;
Calendar year: 2007: 97%.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center
Retired Pay File.
[End of table]
Additionally, the average years of service decreased from 8 years among
TDRL placements in calendar year 2000, to 6 years for placements in
2007. (See appendix II, table 13.) In each service, the average
decreased by 1 or 2 years. The overall decline among TDRL placements
who had been Marine Corps reservists was particularly pronounced. Their
average years of service decreased from 13 in 2000, to 4 in 2007. (See
appendix II, table 14.) The decline in average years of service is
likely associated, at least in part, with the increasing numbers of
reservists on the TDRL, who typically take longer to accumulate years
of service than active duty servicemembers.
There Has Been Little Change in the Prevalence of Certain Types of
Disabling Conditions:
Between calendar years 2000 and 2007, there has been little change in
the types of disabling conditions most common among servicemembers
placed on the TDRL each year. Over this period, the most prevalent
disabilities, DOD-wide, have largely fallen into 1 of 3 out of 15
possible disability categories in the Department of Veterans Affairs
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD): (1) the musculoskeletal
system, (2) mental disorders, and (3) neurological conditions and
convulsive disorders.[Footnote 16] (See figure 4.)
Figure 4: Prevalence of Types of Disabling Conditions among
Servicemembers, DOD-wide, Placed on the TDRL in Calendar Years 2000
through 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
VASRD category: Musculoskeletal;
Percent of cases: 33%.
VASRD category: Neurological and convulsive;
Percent of cases: 27%.
VASRD category: Mental;
Percent of cases: 24%.
VASRD category: Respiratory[A];
Percent of cases: 13%.
VASRD category: Digestive;
Percent of cases: 7%.
VASRD category: Genitourinary;
Percent of cases: 4%.
VASRD category: Cardiovascular;
Percent of cases: 4%.
VASRD category: Endocrine;
Percent of cases: 4%.
VASRD category: Special senses;
Percent of cases: 4%.
VASRD category: Hemic and lymphatic systems;
Percent of cases: 2%.
VASRD category: Skin;
Percent of cases: 2%.
VASRD category: Infectious diseases/immune/nutritional;
Percent of cases: 2%.
VASRD category: Auditory;
Percent of cases: 2%.
VASRD category: Gynecological/breast;
Percent of cases: 1%.
VASRD category: Dental/oral;
Percent of cases: 0.2%.
Source: GAO analysis of PEB data from each service.
Note: Each TDRL retiree may have more than one disabling condition.
[A] Asthma accounted for the largest proportion of respiratory
disorders among annual DOD-wide TDRL placements in calendar years 2000
through 2007.
[End of figure]
For DOD-wide placements in each calendar year from 2000 through 2007,
the most common musculoskeletal disabling condition was degenerative
arthritis, accounting for 24 percent of all musculoskeletal
disabilities. Many of the other disabling conditions in this category
were unspecified, although the combination of various types of spinal
injuries accounted for about an additional 30 percent of
musculoskeletal disabilities.
The most common neurological conditions and convulsive disorders among
TDRL placements were migraines and residuals of TBI,[Footnote 17] each
accounting for 16 percent of all types of disabilities within this
category.[Footnote 18] In recent years, the DOD-wide number of TDRL
placements due to a residual condition from TBI[Footnote 19] has
increased fourfold, DOD-wide, from 63 in 2000, to 274 in 2007. (See
appendix II, table 15.) The incidence of residuals of TBI, as a
percentage of all neurological conditions and convulsive disorders
among TDRL placements grew from 10 percent in 2000, to 21 percent in
2007. (See appendix II, table 16.) The Army experienced the greatest
increase in TBI residuals cases--from 9 percent, to 26 percent--as the
proportion of all neurological conditions and convulsive disorders
among TDRL placements.
The most common mental disorder among TDRL placements in calendar years
2000 through 2007 was PTSD, which accounted for 26 percent of all
mental disorders.[Footnote 20] The number of TDRL placements with PTSD
increased dramatically, DOD-wide, from 44 in 2000, to 672 in 2007. (See
appendix II, table 17.) PTSD incidence, as a percentage of all mental
disorders among TDRL placements, also grew, DOD-wide, from 8 percent in
2000, to 43 percent in 2007. (See appendix II, table 18.) The Marine
Corps experienced the greatest increase--from 6 percent, to 52 percent.
According to some DOD officials, the increase in TBI residuals and PTSD
among TDRL placements may be due to the increasing numbers of
servicemembers returning from military operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq with these conditions. The increased incidence of these disabling
conditions among TDRL placements could also be attributed to growing
acceptance of PTSD as a disabling condition and more concerted efforts
to identify residuals of TBI.[Footnote 21]
Very Few TDRL Placements Returned to Military Service, Half Received a
Final Determination within 3 Years, and Many Received a Final
Disability Rating Identical to the Initial Rating:
While there are variations in TDRL results across the services, some
outcomes for this group were more common than others. Specifically,
very few TDRL placements between calendar years 2000 and 2003 returned
to military service. Further, about half received a final determination
within 3 years or less. Finally, only 7 percent of TDRL placements, DOD-
wide, received a final disability rating that would have resulted in
permanent disability payment amounts higher than their TDRL payments.
Very Few TDRL Placements Returned to Military Service:
DOD-wide, only 1 percent of those placed on the TDRL in calendar years
2000 through 2003 eventually returned to military service. More than 80
percent were determined to be permanently disabled. Of these, 5,465
were placed on the PDRL. The remaining 2,315 received a lump sum
severance payment for their disability because their final rating was
lower than 30 percent and they had fewer than 20 years of military
service.[Footnote 22] Another 9 percent of these placements received no
military disability benefits after they were removed from the TDRL.
(See figure 5.)
Figure 5: Status of Calendar Years 2000 through 2003 TDRL Placements,
as of August 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Permanent Disability Retirement List (PDRL): 59%;
Severance for permanent disability: 25%;
No military disability benefits: 9%;
Awaiting a final disability determination: 3%;
Death: 3%;
Returned to military service: 1%.
Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File.
[End of figure]
It should be noted that of all those placed on the PDRL, nearly 10
percent (1,004) did not receive a final disability determination until
some time after they were removed from the TDRL. As a result, they
experienced a gap in benefits that, in 18 percent (176) of these cases,
lasted longer than 6 months.[Footnote 23]
Each service's distribution of outcomes for those placed on the TDRL in
calendar years 2000 through 2003 differed somewhat from the
distribution DOD-wide. (See appendix II, table 19.) Specifically, the
Marine Corps and Air Force returned about 4 percent of temporary
retirees to military service, while the Army and Navy returned less
than one half of one percent of their respective TDRL retirees to
active duty.
About Half Received a Final Determination within 3 Years:
About half (46 percent) of all those placed on the TDRL, DOD-wide, in
calendar years 2000 through 2003 received a final determination on
their case within 3 years.[Footnote 24] (See appendix II, table 20.)
The amount of time spent waiting for a final determination varied by
type of determination and by service. We found that, DOD-wide, final
determinations placing temporary retirees on the PDRL happened somewhat
sooner (median time, 56 months) than final determinations returning
temporary retirees to civilian status with either no military
disability benefits or with severance for a disability (median time, 60
months). We also found that TDRL placements from the Air Force tended
to receive final determinations in fewer months than TDRL placements
from other services. (See figure 6.) For example, by 36 months after
placement on the list, the percent of temporary retirees from the Air
Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy who had received their final
determination and were removed from the list were 83 percent, 57
percent, 25 percent, and 22 percent, respectively.
Figure 6: Number of Months until Final Disability Determination for
Each Service's TDRL Placements, Calendar Years 2000 through 2003:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Months after placement on the TDRL: 0;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 100%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 100%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 100%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 100%.
Months after placement on the TDRL: 10;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 96.1%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 97.9%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 99%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 99%.
Months after placement on the TDRL: 20;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 59.9%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 71.9%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 97.7%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 98.1%.
Months after placement on the TDRL: 30;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 28.6%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 52.4%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 81.4%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 79.4%.
Months after placement on the TDRL: 40;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 15%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 40.8%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 76.1%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 74.1%.
Months after placement on the TDRL: 50;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 9.7%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 30.1%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 64.9%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 57.8%.
Months after placement on the TDRL: 60;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 4.5%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 17.8%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 42.2%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 30.6%.
Months after placement on the TDRL: 70;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 1.3%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 2.9%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 4.1%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 2.9%.
Months after placement on the TDRL: 80;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 1.2%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 1.1%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 2.6%;
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 1.1%.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center
Retired Pay File.
[End of figure]
The law provides that a temporary retiree can spend no more than 5
years on the TDRL and must receive a final determination upon the
expiration of 5 years, in cases where the individual remains on the
list for the full 5 years. However, we found that about 12 percent of
TDRL placements in calendar years 2000 to 2003--1,163 cases--did not
receive a final determination within the 5 years, although they were
removed from the TDRL and their temporary retirement payments were
discontinued. While most of these individuals--735--were eventually
placed on the PDRL, none received monthly disability retirement
payments between the time they were removed from the TDRL and the time
they were placed on the PDRL. The amount of time that individuals spent
waiting for a final determination in some cases was significant. For
example, of the 1,004 cases that were first removed from the TDRL and
then subsequently placed on the PDRL, there were 176 (18 percent) who
waited longer than 6 months between being removed from the TDRL to
being placed on the PDRL, and very few received any military disability
payments during this period.[Footnote 25]
When asked about these cases, DOD officials reported that extra time is
needed to reach a final determination in some cases. For example, if
TDRL placements who have been on the list nearly 5 years are having
trouble scheduling a medical reexamination for their final
determination, it may take an extra month or two before a final
determination can be made. Also, DOD officials stated that they need
the flexibility to allow some to remain on the TDRL more than 5 years
because their disabilities are still not stable to rate at 5 years.
Nevertheless, as stated earlier, a final determination must be made
upon the expiration of 5 years on the TDRL, at which time disability is
considered to be permanent and stable by statute.
Final Disability Ratings for More Than Half Were Identical to Initial
Ratings:
Final disability ratings for temporary retirees determine whether
retirees are ultimately eligible for a disability severance payment or
permanent disability retirement. Final disability ratings also help
determine the amount of permanent monthly payments TDRL placements are
eligible for.[Footnote 26] DOD-wide, for those placed on the TDRL in
calendar years 2000 through 2003 who were ultimately placed on the
PDRL, 73 percent were assigned a final disability rating that was no
different from their initial disability rating. [Footnote 27] (See
appendix II, tables 21 and 22.) In other words, in these cases, the
severity of disabilities when placed on the TDRL was no different from
their severity when removed from it. Because one would expect to find a
difference between the initial and final ratings when disabilities are
determined to be unstable, the appropriateness of the TDRL placement
decision in cases where initial and final ratings are identical could
be called into question.
Another 14 percent of those ultimately placed on the PDRL received a
final rating that was lower than their initial one, indicating that
their disabilities were less severe when they left the TDRL than when
they were placed on it. Finally, 13 percent received a final rating
that was higher, indicating that their disabilities were more severe
when they left the TDRL. The differences between initial and final
disability ratings for temporary retirees in each of the service
branches who were placed on the PDRL were generally similar to the
differences among these temporary retirees DOD-wide.
Relatively Few Ultimately Qualified for PDRL Payments Higher Than Their
TDRL Payments:
According to military officials, being on the TDRL provides additional
time for the military services to determine an individual's final
disability rating, which could result in more accurate payments.
Although we could not determine whether differences in initial and
final ratings resulted in more accurate payments, we estimated that for
the 5,465 TDRL placements that were placed on the PDRL, 7 percent would
have received higher monthly disability retirement payments, 20 percent
would have received the same disability payments, and 73 percent would
have received lower payments, based on their final ratings. Lower
permanent disability retirement payments were either due to a decrease
in the disability rating or to the fact that PDRL payments are not
subject to the TDRL minimum payment provision.[Footnote 28] For
example, a temporary retiree with an initial rating of 40 percent who
is moved to the PDRL with a final rating of 40 percent would receive
PDRL payments lower than their TDRL payments.
Of the 3,190 TDRL placements that were ultimately determined not to be
eligible for permanent disability payments, 73 percent received a
disability severance payment,[Footnote 29] and 26 percent had their
disability benefits terminated when they were removed from the TDRL.
DOD and the Services Do Not Provide Sufficient Management Attention to
Key Aspects of the TDRL Process:
DOD and the services do not effectively manage key aspects of the TDRL
process. While TDRL determinations vary considerably across the
services, neither DOD nor the services systematically examine PEB
stability decisions for accuracy and consistency, although these
decisions determine whether servicemembers are placed or retained on
the TDRL. They also do not routinely compile information on TDRL
outcomes that could better inform PEB determinations related to the
stability of disabilities. Despite indications that the services face
challenges providing medical reexaminations at least once every 18
months as required by law, none monitor the extent to which this
requirement is met. Moreover, although TDRL reexamination requirements
can place burdens on TDRL retirees and MTFs, the use of examinations by
nonmilitary physicians to reduce these burdens is limited. Finally, the
services lack procedures to ensure consistent enforcement of TDRL
rules.
TDRL Placement and Retention Decisions Are Not Systematically Analyzed
for Accuracy and Consistency:
One of the primary goals of any disability evaluation system is making
accurate and consistent disability determinations. In order to meet
this goal, there should be appropriate policies, procedures, and
control mechanisms in place to ensure that no one is placed or retained
on the TDRL who does not meet the criteria established by law. Such
policies, procedures, and control mechanisms are an important part of
an effective system of internal controls.
The accuracy and consistency of decisions to place servicemembers on
the TDRL are particularly important because of the significant impact
these decisions have on the military and on servicemembers' lives.
According to military officials, placing servicemembers on the TDRL
provides an opportunity for the military to recover some of its
investment in recruitment and training by returning servicemembers to
duty, and provides more time to make an appropriate disability
determination in cases where a condition is likely to improve or
deteriorate. Despite these potential benefits, many military officials
noted that the TDRL is administratively burdensome and contributes to
the workload of an already overburdened disability evaluation system.
For servicemembers, benefits of being on the TDRL may include
potentially higher disability payments or returning to military
service. Conversely, many focus group participants said that being on
the TDLR limited their ability to move forward in their lives, and they
expressed confusion, uncertainty, and a sense of being adrift while on
the TDRL.
To ensure uniformity in military disability case processing and
decision making, DOD requires each service to establish a quality
assurance process. However, decisions related to the stability of
disabilities for rating purposes--a key criterion for initially placing
servicemembers on the TDRL--are not systematically examined within or
across the services. For their part, the services do review some
individual cases to ensure that the medical evidence supports the
determination.[Footnote 30] However, they do not compare TDRL
determinations made in cases with similar disabilities and other
characteristics.[Footnote 31]
Military officials we spoke with acknowledged that instability is
defined broadly and can be open to different interpretations by the
PEBs. Specifically, some military officials said that predicting
whether or not a disability rating may fluctuate within 5 years is not
always easy and can involve considerable professional judgment. In
fact, our analysis shows that some services have been classifying
disabilities as "unstable" more often than other services. TDRL
determinations have consistently accounted for a larger proportion of
all PEB determinations in the Navy and Marine Corps than in the other
services. (See figure 7.) Specifically, between fiscal years 2001 and
2007, TDRL determinations constituted 27 percent of all Navy PEB
determinations and 26 percent of all Marine Corps PEB determinations.
In contrast, TDRL determinations accounted for 15 percent of all Army
PEB determinations and 11 percent of all Air Force PEB determinations.
Figure 7: Use of TDRL Determinations Relative to Other Types of
Military Disability Determinations, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001
through 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Percent of all PEB decisions per branch of service:
Service: DOD;
Fiscal year: 2001:
TDRL: 17.6%;
PDRL: 4.5%;
Separated with severance: 53.3%;
Found fit: 24.6%.
Fiscal year: 2002:
TDRL: 16.7%;
PDRL: 5.2%;
Separated with severance: 53%;
Found fit: 25.1%.
Fiscal year: 2003:
TDRL: 15%;
PDRL: 5.2%;
Separated with severance: 57%;
Found fit: 22.8%.
Fiscal year: 2004:
TDRL: 15.9%;
PDRL: 4.4%;
Separated with severance: 62.4%;
Found fit: 17.3%.
Fiscal year: 2005:
TDRL: 15.9%;
PDRL: 5%;
Separated with severance: 59.9%;
Found fit: 19.1%.
Fiscal year: 2006:
TDRL: 18.4%;
PDRL: 5.4%;
Separated with severance: 55.9%;
Found fit: 20.2%.
Fiscal year: 2007:
TDRL: 21.1%;
PDRL: 6.7%;
Separated with severance: 52.3%;
Found fit: 19.8%.
Service: Air Force:
Fiscal year: 2001:
TDRL: 16.3%;
PDRL: 9.7%;
Separated with severance: 16.4%;
Found fit: 57.7%.
Fiscal year: 2002:
TDRL: 10.5%;
PDRL: 9.4%;
Separated with severance: 27.8%;
Found fit: 52.2%.
Fiscal year: 2003:
TDRL: 7.4%;
PDRL: 9.5%;
Separated with severance: 33.3%;
Found fit: 49.9%.
Fiscal year: 2004:
TDRL: 7.4%;
PDRL: 9.2%;
Separated with severance: 40.8%;
Found fit: 42.6%.
Fiscal year: 2005:
TDRL: 9.7%;
PDRL: 11.6%;
Separated with severance: 38.5%;
Found fit: 40.3%.
Fiscal year: 2006:
TDRL: 10.4%;
PDRL: 12.4%;
Separated with severance: 34.3%;
Found fit: 42.9%.
Fiscal year: 2007:
TDRL: 15.1%;
PDRL: 15.1%;
Separated with severance: 31.6%;
Found fit: 38.2%.
Service: Army:
Fiscal year: 2001:
TDRL: 15.1%;
PDRL: 3.7%;
Separated with severance: 72%;
Found fit: 9.2%.
Fiscal year: 2002:
TDRL: 16.2%;
PDRL: 3.5%;
Separated with severance: 71.3%;
Found fit: 9%.
Fiscal year: 2003:
TDRL: 14.5%;
PDRL: 4.1%;
Separated with severance: 74.2%;
Found fit: 7.2%.
Fiscal year: 2004:
TDRL: 14.4%;
PDRL: 3.8%;
Separated with severance: 75.7%;
Found fit: 6%.
Fiscal year: 2005:
TDRL: 13.5%;
PDRL: 3.6%;
Separated with severance: 75.3%;
Found fit: 7.6%.
Fiscal year: 2006:
TDRL: 14.8%;
PDRL: 3.9%;
Separated with severance: 72.1%;
Found fit: 9.2%.
Fiscal year: 2007:
TDRL: 17.7%;
PDRL: 5.3%;
Separated with severance: 68.2%;
Found fit: 8.8%.
Service: Marines:
Fiscal year: 2001:
TDRL: 17.5%;
PDRL: 1.5%;
Separated with severance: 61.6%;
Found fit: 19.4%.
Fiscal year: 2002:
TDRL: 19.8%;
PDRL: 1.6%;
Separated with severance: 63.3%;
Found fit: 15.3%.
Fiscal year: 2003:
TDRL: 19.5%;
PDRL: 1.7%;
Separated with severance: 64.2%;
Found fit: 14.7%.
Fiscal year: 2004:
TDRL: 23.2%;
PDRL: 1.5%;
Separated with severance: 56.6%;
Found fit: 18.8%.
Fiscal year: 2005:
TDRL: 28.3%;
PDRL: 2.4%;
Separated with severance: 45.9%;
Found fit: 23.5%.
Fiscal year: 2006:
TDRL: 34.4%;
PDRL: 2.9%;
Separated with severance: 46.1%;
Found fit: 16.7%.
Fiscal year: 2007:
TDRL: 38%;
PDRL: 1.8%;
Separated with severance: 44.4%;
Found fit: 15.7%.
Service: Navy:
Fiscal year: 2001:
TDRL: 24.6%;
PDRL: 3.4%;
Separated with severance: 40.8%;
Found fit: 31.2%.
Fiscal year: 2002:
TDRL: 25.7%;
PDRL: 5.8%;
Separated with severance: 36.1%;
Found fit: 32.4%.
Fiscal year: 2003:
TDRL: 26.7%;
PDRL: 3.7%;
Separated with severance: 39.8%;
Found fit: 29.8%.
Fiscal year: 2004:
TDRL: 24.3%;
PDRL: 3.7%;
Separated with severance: 40.9%;
Found fit: 31.1%.
Fiscal year: 2005:
TDRL: 27.3%;
PDRL: 2.9%;
Separated with severance: 37.6%;
Found fit: 32.1%.
Fiscal year: 2006:
TDRL: 29.7%;
PDRL: 2.8%;
Separated with severance: 37.1%;
Found fit: 30.5%.
Fiscal year: 2007:
TDRL: 30.9%;
PDRL: 1.7%;
Separated with severance: 33.3%;
Found fit: 34%.
Source: GAO analysis of PEB data from each service.
Note: See appendix II, table 8 for numbers of placements by service.
[End of figure]
Another possible explanation for why some services classify
disabilities as unstable more often than other services, according to
DOD officials, is that there may be greater incidence of disabilities
in some services that are more likely to be unstable. Currently there
are no data available from either DOD or the services that could be
used to determine why placement rates vary. Further, DOD does not
compare PEB instability decisions across the services. As a result, DOD
and the services have no way of knowing the extent to which the
military is making consistent decisions.
Furthermore, although most TDRL disability ratings did not change even
after several years on the list, DOD and the services do not routinely
compile and study how TDRL outcomes are related to different types of
disabilities, even though this information could help inform future
TDRL placement and retention decisions.[Footnote 32] For example, such
information could shed additional light on which conditions are more
likely to change over time and which ones are not. Meanwhile,
participants in our focus groups often questioned the appropriateness
of their placement on the TDRL, and the perceived unfairness of TDRL
placement and retention decisions was a theme that emerged in each of
our focus groups. Some of the military physicians we spoke with also
questioned the value of having placed individuals with certain
conditions, such as certain types of cancer, on the TDRL. For example,
we were told that in one case, a cancer patient whose cancer had
metastasized was placed on the list, even though he was not expected to
recover.
The Services Do Not Track Periodic Medical Reexaminations for
Timeliness:
Officials that we spoke with in each of the services told us that TDRL
medical reexaminations do not necessarily occur every 18 months, as
required by law. As previously noted, an effective system of internal
controls would include policies, procedures, and mechanisms to help the
services ensure that the requirements of the law are being met.
However, the services do not collect data needed to know how often and
why TDRL medical reexaminations are late or fail to occur, nor have
they established performance measures or goals to guide the timely
processing of TDRL reexaminations.
The services' procedures for tracking TDRL cases and enforcing the
statutory requirements are roughly similar. (See figure 8.) Each
service assigns someone from their TDRL administrative unit to monitor
when a TDRL case is due for a reexamination and to forward the details
of the servicemember's case, including which medical tests need to be
performed, to the MTF located nearest to the most current address on
file for the temporary retiree. Typically, the MTF is notified 2 months
before the reexamination is due, to allow the MTF time to schedule the
examinations and forward orders to the temporary retiree, and to allow
the temporary retiree to make other arrangements, if needed.
Figure 8: TDRL Reexamination Process:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
TDRL section: Determine when re-evaluation is needed;
Notify Medical treatment facility that exams are needed.
Medical treatment facility: Collect medical evidence;
Confirm appointments with TRDL retiree.
TRDL retiree: attend appointments;
Undergo examinations at Medical treatment facility.
Medical treatment facility: send medical evidence to:
Physical evaluation board.
Physical evaluation board: Decide to retain or remove TDRL retiree from
list;
Communicate decisions and findings to TRDL retiree.
Provide notification of decision to TRDL section.
Sources: GAO analysis of TDRL procedures; Art Explosion (images).
[End of figure]
The services do not track the extent to which TDRL reexaminations occur
every 18 months, as required. However, late or missed TDRL medical
reexaminations are not uncommon, based on our interviews with staff at
MTFs, PEB officials, and focus group discussions with temporary
retirees.[Footnote 33] When asked about the reasons for late or missed
TDRL reexaminations, military officials and administrative staff
responsible for scheduling them in each of the services offered several
possible reasons. They cited temporary retiree noncompliance, such as
failure to update contact information or to attend scheduled
appointments, as an obstacle to completing examinations on time. They
also acknowledged that the MTFs cannot always schedule examinations on
time. This may be because they do not always receive the reexamination
package far enough in advance from TDRL administrators or because
appointment slots for certain medical specialties, particularly mental
health, are limited. Staff at MTFs across the services also reported
that TDRL cases are not always given the appropriate level of priority
when appointments are scheduled.[Footnote 34] Nevertheless, without
better data, the services cannot effectively identify and address the
reasons for delayed or missed reexaminations.
There Is Only Limited Use of Nonmilitary Physicians to Reduce Burdens
Associated with TDRL Reexaminations:
To better leverage limited resources and expedite TDRL case processing,
current service procedures allow MTF's to rely on the results of
medical examinations performed by civilian and VA physicians to meet
reexamination requirements. However, staff at most MTFs we contacted
said that they knew of few instances in which the military allowed TDRL
reexaminations to be conducted by nonmilitary physicians to reduce the
travel burden on a temporary retiree, or to ease MTF workloads.
Generally, TDRL administrators refer temporary retirees to the closest
MTF that has all medical specialties needed to evaluate their case.
However, many temporary retirees do not live near an MTF with all
needed medical specialties. Staff at some MTFs reported that, among
those for whom they schedule TDRL reexaminations, between one-quarter
to one-half travel more than a few hours to be examined-- despite
having easier access to nonmilitary physicians. One MTF staff member we
spoke with described a case in which a temporary retiree from the Navy
traveled by car for nearly 10 hours--approximately 460 miles-
-from Sacramento, Calif., to Camp Pendleton Hospital in southern
California. In another case, an MTF staff member described a case in
which an Army retiree drove for nearly 8 hours--approximately 480
miles--from Wisconsin to Ireland Community Hospital in Fort Knox, Ky.
Lengthy travel can be particularly burdensome for those who experience
pain as a result of their medical conditions or for those who have
limited finances or inflexible employment situations.[Footnote 35]
Moreover, according to some MTF staff, some temporary retirees have
told them that they fear losing their job if they miss work to keep a
medical appointment for a TDRL reexamination.
s noted, the limited availability of appointment slots for certain
medical specialties and a lack of priority in scheduling at some MTFs
can contribute to delays in completing TDRL reexaminations. This may be
a result of rising MTF workloads, caused by increasing numbers of
injured servicemembers returning from combat and increasing disability
caseloads.
Despite travel burdens for some temporary retirees and difficulties in
completing timely TDRL reexaminations at MTFs in the face of heavy
workloads, the use of nonmilitary physicians to help prepare TDRL
medical examination reports has been limited, according to MTF staff.
Military officials said that this is because VA and civilian
physicians, who are not subject to DOD requirements, are not always
familiar with military disability evaluation requirements and may not
include information that the services need to make a determination
about whether a temporary retiree should be removed from the TDRL.
However, military officials said that this could be addressed by
providing clearer guidance to nonmilitary physicians on how to prepare
TDRL reexamination reports. It should be noted that one VA hospital is
already conducting medical examinations for three MTFs as part of the
joint DOD-VA disability evaluation pilot[Footnote 36].
The Services' Procedures Do Not Ensure Consistent Enforcement of TDRL
Rules:
DOD requires temporary retirees to submit to a periodic medical
examination at least once every 18 months. In addition, the services
require temporary retirees to provide them with current contact
information to facilitate these examinations. Although the services do
not collect data on the extent to which temporary retirees fail to
comply with reexamination requirements, MTF staff in each service
reported problems with temporary retirees not showing up for scheduled
appointments. Some MTF staff that we spoke with said that canceled TDRL
appointments due to temporary retirees' failure to show up happened in
relatively few cases each month, while others said that this happened
much more often.
Although DOD and military service regulations allow for suspending TDRL
pay if temporary retirees fail to satisfy these requirements, the
procedures in place across the services are insufficient to ensure that
these provisions are enforced consistently. For example, when temporary
retirees fail to update their contact information, each service's
procedures specify what TDRL staff should do to locate and contact
them, but do not clearly specify at what point these efforts should be
discontinued. In addition, when temporary retirees fail to keep
appointments for medical reexaminations, these procedures allow for
rescheduling them, but do not specify how many appointments the
retirees can miss before TDRL monthly payments are stopped or what
constitutes a valid reason for missing an appointment. As a result of
the lack of specificity, the number of steps taken at different MTFs to
locate and encourage temporary retirees to go to their reexaminations
before sending these cases back to TDRL administrators for a stop-pay
decision may vary widely.
Service officials said that the flexibility they have in making stop-
pay decisions allows them to consider extenuating circumstances,
including the potential impact that temporary retirees' disabilities
may have on their ability to comply. For example, those with certain
brain injuries or mental health conditions may have trouble remembering
what they are required to do while on the TDRL. Stopping pay in these
circumstances may be unfair to the temporary retiree, particularly when
servicemembers have dependents who rely on these benefits. However, DOD
regulations do not provide guidance to the services on permissible
exceptions.
TDRL Information Is Not Always Adequate or Accessible to Temporary
Retirees:
Information about temporary disability retirement that the services
provide to those they place on the TDRL is not always clear or complete
and can be difficult for TDRL retirees to access. The official PEB
findings forms, themselves, do not fully explain the reason for an
individual's placement on the list or what is required of the TDRL
retiree. Counseling provided by PEBLOs was reported to be inconsistent
and lacking in follow-through, while the information contained in the
services' pamphlets, brochures, and fact sheets was not always
complete. Military Web sites that might have provided more thorough and
ongoing information were also incomplete or difficult to find. TDRL
retirees participating in our focus groups expressed considerable
confusion about and dissatisfaction with their limited access to
information and contacts.
PEB Findings Forms Lack Important Information about the TDRL and Can Be
Confusing:
A PEB findings form is used to document each PEB disability decision. A
copy of this form is also given to servicemembers to notify them of the
PEB's decision in their case. In addition to indicating the decision,
each service's PEB findings form provides basic information about all
disabling conditions--how each is related to military service, a
disability rating for each disabling condition, and an overall rating--
and the servicemember's years of qualifying service. When the decision
is made to place a servicemember on the TDRL, the PEB findings form can
lack important information about the TDRL, and the information that is
provided can be confusing. (See apps. III, IV, and V for examples of
each service's PEB findings form.) For example, in TDRL cases, the
services are not required to explain the following on the findings
form:
* Why disability retirement benefits were granted temporarily rather
than permanently--specifically, that the PEB was unable to determine,
based on the medical evidence at that time, what the servicemember's
permanent disability rating should be.
* When a final disability decision will be made--specifically, that the
PEB will determine the servicemember's permanent disability rating when
the medical evidence shows that the disabling condition has stabilized
or when the TDRL retiree has been on the list for 5 years, whichever
comes first.
We examined a limited number of actual PEB findings forms that
temporary retirees had received. None clearly explained why the
servicemembers were granted temporary versus permanent disability
retirement, when they could expect to receive a final disability
decision, or which disabling conditions have been determined to be
unstable. Further, the Army's finding form does not specify for a TDRL
determination which, if any, of the listed conditions is considered
permanent and stable. It does, however, include standard language about
the servicemember's duty to keep the Army informed about their current
mailing address and to report for medical reexaminations associated
with PEB determinations, as well as when the servicemember's first TDRL
reexamination is likely to occur. In contrast, the Air Force, Marine
Corps, and Navy PEB findings forms do not include information about the
servicemember's responsibilities while on the list or when their first
reexamination is likely to occur, but they do indicate that the
servicemember has a medical condition that may be permanent.
In some cases, the information in PEB findings forms is presented in a
way that makes it difficult for servicemembers to understand,
regardless of the disability decision made in their case. Based on the
information contained in their PEB findings forms, some TDRL retirees
in our focus groups found it difficult to understand how ratings for
individual disabling conditions are combined into a single overall
disability rating. For example, one Army PEB findings form that we
reviewed presented the equation, shown in figure 9, to demonstrate how
one servicemember's overall disability rating had been calculated.
Figure 9: Example of Calculation of Disability Rating Contained in a
PEB Findings Form:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
CR: 50 + 40 = 70 + 20 + 76 + 20 + 81 + 10 + 85 = 90 percent.
Source: Copy of Army PEB findings form received from a temporary
retiree.
[End of figure]
Although the equation includes all of the percentage ratings for each
of the servicemember's rated conditions, it is not clear as to how the
numbers correspond to each percentage rating and how each of the listed
percentages logically results in the final placement rating.
Furthermore, many TDRL retirees in our focus groups indicated their
difficulty in understanding this information.
PEBLO Counseling Is Not Always Useful:
DOD requires that servicemembers evaluated by a PEB be provided
counseling about the significance and consequences of their PEB
disability determination and any associated rights and benefits. For
temporary retirees, this should occur at the time a PEB places them on
the list and when any subsequent decisions to retain them on the list
are made. In practice, each service provides this counseling through a
PEBLO.[Footnote 37] PEBLOs have a critical role in helping temporary
retirees understand what it means to be placed on the TDRL. According
to focus group discussions, however, PEBLO counseling was not
necessarily thorough or consistent. It involved meeting one-on-one with
a PEBLO in some cases and participating in a group meeting in others.
While some focus group participants knew of someone they could call if
they needed information about the TDRL, many did not. Moreover, the
counseling that temporary retirees receive also appears to vary across
services. Air Force and Navy procedures allow for PEBLO counseling to
be available at any time throughout the disability evaluation process,
while the Army requires only that counseling be provided at specific
times in the process. Although officials from each of the services told
us that temporary retirees are provided with a point of contact, the
lack of access to someone who could answer their questions was a
repeated theme in our focus groups.
There are several reasons why the quality of PEB counseling may vary
across the services. In a previous report,[Footnote 38] we found that,
although each service employs PEBLO counselors in accordance with DOD
rules, each places them in a different organizational unit, provides
them with different levels of training, and begins the counseling
process at different points in the disability evaluation process.
In each of our focus groups, the quality of counseling was a common
theme, and not all participants remembered receiving counseling at the
time they were placed on the TDRL. Although some participants in each
of our focus groups said that counseling had been helpful, the
prevailing opinion across all groups was that it did not meet their
needs and that it was not helpful.
Additional Information about the TDRL Is Not Always Complete or Easily
Accessible:
In addition to what appears on the PEB findings form and what is
provided by PEBLOs, each of the services provides information about the
TDRL through written handouts.[Footnote 39] However, the additional
material provided by the Air Force and Navy does not always address
what temporary retirees indicated was confusing or of most importance
to them. Specifically, the Air Force and Navy material does not always
include information about the overall disability evaluation system,
stability of disabilities, the consequences of not complying with TDRL
requirements, or what the eventual outcome of a TDRL case might be. It
also does not always provide a correct point of contact for questions
temporary retirees might have about the TDRL after they have read
through this additional material. The information the Air Force and
Navy have developed includes general information about the TDRL
process. The Air Force's one-page fact sheet offers a broad explanation
of why a servicemember may be placed on the TDRL, the rights and
responsibilities of TDRL retirees, and points of contact for general
questions about retired pay. It does not provide specific information
servicemembers may need about the TDRL, such as who servicemembers may
notify when they need to report changes to their addresses and phone
numbers. The Navy also has a brochure that answers seven questions
about TDRL pay and benefits, and like the Air Force fact sheet, offers
a broad explanation of why a servicemember may be placed on the TDRL
and the rights and responsibilities of temporary retirees. The Navy
brochure also provides a list of administrative offices that temporary
retirees may contact about pay and benefits; however, the phone number
listed for TDRL information was not working when we called it.[Footnote
40] Additionally, while some MTF staff reported that paying for travel
costs up-front can be an issue for temporary retirees with limited
finances, the Navy brochure does not mention that temporary retirees
may request an advance payment for travel costs prior to incurring
them. Lastly, the Air Force and Navy materials do not explain that in
addition to loss of monthly pay, noncompliance with TDRL requirements
may also result in a loss of health insurance, including coverage for
family members.
n contrast, the Army provides temporary retirees with a frequently
asked questions (FAQ) sheet, with answers to 25 questions about why a
servicemember is placed on the TDRL, their rights and responsibilities
while on the TDRL, potential final determinations, and points of
contact servicemembers can go to for answers to their questions about
the TDRL. The Army has also developed a handbook that describes the
entire disability evaluation process and includes basic information
about the TDRL.[Footnote 41]
Information on the TDRL was also generally available on service Web
sites, but we found that it was not easy to locate and was often
incomplete. None of the services' home pages included a direct link to
TDRL information, and simple searches for TDRL information on each of
these pages did not lead directly to TDRL information. A more lengthy
search of the services' individual Web sites eventually led to
information about the TDRL, although the amount of information varied
by branch. On the Army's Web site, information on the TDRL could be
found by accessing a link to the Army's Physical Disability Evaluation
System handbook. Although the Navy's printed TDRL brochure offered a
Web address for TDRL information, the address was not available when we
attempted to access it. However, the Bureau of Naval Personnel Web page
included a TDRL information page that offered a series of links to
relevant regulations, potential final determinations for temporary
retirees, and likely reexamination time frames. A phone number was also
provided on this Navy Web page, but it was the same, nonworking phone
number provided in the Navy's printed brochure. The Air Force Web site
included a brief summary of the TDRL, but lacked information about
noncompliance with TDRL requirements and the 5-year limit on receipt of
temporary retirement benefits.
Based on the results of our focus groups with temporary retirees, in
particular the gaps in information we found in the PEB findings forms
and lack of a specific TDRL point of contact, appear to result in
confusion about the TDRL and dissatisfaction with placement on the
list. In most of our focus groups, there was confusion about why
participants had been placed on the TDRL or what participants might
expect throughout the TDRL process. In some cases, participants were
unable to reconcile what they knew about the TDRL with the
circumstances in their individual case. Specifically, there was little
understanding across our focus groups of the concept of stability and
how it applied to their particular disabilities. Furthermore, in
several focus groups, participants said that they had learned what they
were required to do while on the TDRL through their own initiative,
largely relying on contacts with colleagues or their own research to
obtain information about the purpose of TDRL reexaminations and
decisions to retain them on the TDRL as opposed to receiving permanent
disability.
Conclusions:
The growth in TDRL caseloads further taxes limited resources available
to the military disability evaluation system, which is already
struggling to efficiently process increasing numbers of cases involving
ill and injured servicemembers. Processing TDRL cases adds to the
complexity of this system and to its cost. The TDRL process also has a
significant impact on servicemembers' lives. If not managed effectively
and efficiently, it can deprive servicemembers of timely, appropriate,
and fair disability determinations, and prevent many from moving on
with their lives after incurring service-related disabilities.
There are several indications that the services' management of the TDRL
is problematic. Currently, DOD's quality assurance procedures do not
take advantage of available data on outcomes in past TDRL cases to
avoid postponing final disability determinations for servicemembers
with disabilities whose severity is unlikely to change. Current quality
assurance procedures also do not provide for the systematic review of
TDRL placement decisions. Therefore, the DOD has no way of knowing
whether these placements are appropriate or consistent. Further, DOD
does not have effective mechanisms for holding staff accountable for
the timeliness of TDRL reexaminations or otherwise ensuring the overall
efficiency of TDRL case processing. Without a system for monitoring the
timeliness of reexaminations, a clear policy for addressing
noncompliance, and a strategy for leveraging nonmilitary resources to
complete reexaminations, DOD cannot avoid sometimes lengthy delays in
final determinations in TDRL cases. Further, by failing to make a final
determination as soon as temporary retirees are removed from the TDRL,
the services are denying some temporary retirees benefits to which they
are entitled. Finally, inadequate information on PEB finding forms
about why individuals are placed on the TDRL and little or no access to
a point of contact that can address temporary retirees' questions about
the process, make it less transparent. This may generate distrust and
frustration among many temporary retirees and affect their ability and
willingness to comply with TDRL requirements. Without a better
understanding of the information needs of temporary retirees and more
proactive contact with them, DOD is missing an important opportunity to
remove potential obstacles to temporary retirees' compliance with TDRL
requirements.
In addition to the TDRL management issues we identified, the outcomes
we found in TDRL cases raise questions about the list's design and
purpose. In most of the cases we reviewed, the temporary retiree
received a permanent disability rating well before the 5-year TDRL
limit, which suggests that the current TDRL time limit could be
shortened. With only 1 in 100 temporary retirees returning to active
duty, the TDRL also does not appear to be a very effective mechanism
for meeting the needs of the military. Finally, most temporary retirees
received a final rating equal to or lower than their initial one, and
very few were eventually eligible for higher permanent disability
payments. As a result, the TDRL simply postponed the inevitable for
many with service-related disabilities and delayed their transition
from military to civilian life.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that TDRL placement and retention decisions are appropriate
and consistent, the Secretary of Defense should take the following two
actions:
* Direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to better
inform their decisions about whether or not to place or retain someone
on the TDRL by taking into account data from past TDRL cases on
outcomes for particular types of disabilities; and:
* systematically review the appropriateness and consistency of each
service's PEB decisions regarding the stability of disabilities.
[Refer to PDF for image]
[End of figure]
To ensure that TDRL reexaminations occur at least once every 18 months,
the Secretary of Defense should take the following four actions:
* Direct each service to track and periodically report on the
timeliness of medical reexaminations in TDRL cases;
* develop DOD-wide standards and goals for the timeliness of TDRL
reexaminations;
* establish a clearer policy specifying how the services should enforce
the requirements that temporary retirees submit to periodic
reexaminations and notify TDRL administrators when they have a change
of address; and:
* expand the use of nonmilitary physicians for conducting TDRL
reexaminations, in accordance with DOD guidance.
To prevent unnecessary delays in permanent disability determinations
for temporary retirees and gaps in the receipt of disability benefits
they are entitled to, the Secretary of Defense should take the
following action:
* Direct the services to ensure that temporary retirees receive a final
determination upon expiration of their 5 years on the TDRL, as required
by law.
To ensure that temporary retirees receive adequate information to
understand why they are placed on the list and the importance of
complying with TDRL requirements, we recommend that the Secretaries of
the Air Force, Army, and Navy take the following three actions:
* Assess the adequacy of information they provide regarding the TDRL,
including the information contained on their PEB findings forms and
other materials, and provided by PEBLOs, and make improvements where
needed;
* take steps to encourage ongoing contact between temporary retirees
and TDRL administrators by, for example, maintaining a working and
easily accessible TDRL administrative telephone hotline for temporary
retirees; and:
* improve access to Web-based information about the TDRL.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Given the low number of temporary retirees who return to the military,
the high proportion who eventually become eligible to receive permanent
military disability retirement benefits, and the added cost to the
military of administering TDRL cases, the Congress may wish to consider
shortening the current 5-year maximum tenure on the TDRL.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DOD and the services for review
and comments. DOD provided written comments, which are reproduced in
appendix IX. DOD indicated that it concurs with each of our
recommendations, with comments in a few cases.
With respect to our recommendation that DOD establish a clearer policy
for how the services should enforce TDRL requirements for temporary
retirees, DOD commented that the services provide servicemembers
directions regarding TDRL requirements that they must comply with, and
that it is not reasonable to assume that DOD can keep track of every
change of address if temporary retirees fail to keep the information
current. We agree. However, our recommendation calls for DOD to
establish more specific guidelines on when and what action should be
taken in response to temporary retirees' failure to comply with TDRL
requirements, and is intended to ensure equitable treatment in all
cases of noncompliance across the services.
DOD noted that our recommendation to expand the use of nonmilitary
physicians for conducting TDRL reexaminations should include a
statement that nonmilitary physicians should be "trained in and will
accept examinations of individuals using VA-approved templates." DOD
also indicated that "use of non-military physicians should also include
specific reference to reexaminations at non-military and non-VA
facilities given training and qualification consistent with Title 10
and Title 38, USC." We believe that our recommendation falls within the
services' current authority to use reports of medical examinations from
nonmilitary physicians and facilities under DOD Instruction 1332.38,
which assigns the responsibility for assuring the adequacy of these
examinations to MTFs. In addition, this instruction currently
encourages physicians performing reexaminations for the TDRL to use
VA's physician's guide. Our recommendation is not suggesting a change
to the underlying guidelines prescribing the use of nonmilitary
physicians; rather, we are recommending that use of nonmilitary
physicians should be expanded. In response to DOD's comments, we have
added the phrase "in accordance with DOD guidance" to our
recommendation.
Finally, DOD concurred with our recommendations for ensuring that
temporary retirees are provided easier access to military personnel who
can answer their TDRL questions and to Web-based TDRL information. It
also commented that both are readily available to temporary retirees.
While we acknowledge the services' current efforts in this area, they
do not appear to be enough to meet the needs of temporary retirees. The
results of our review of the accessibility of TDRL points of contact
and Web-based information, as well as temporary retirees' reports of
difficulty accessing both, indicate a need for improvement in these
areas.
DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the
report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional
committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix X.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Daniel Bertoni:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
The objectives of our review were to examine (1) recent trends in the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) caseload size, (2) recent
trends in the characteristics of servicemembers placed on the TDRL, (3)
disability retirement outcomes for TDRL placements, (4) the adequacy of
TDRL management, and (5) the adequacy of information provided to
temporary retirees.
Identifying Trends in TDRL Caseload Size:
To identify trends in TDRL caseload size, we examined data provided by
the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC)
on the size and makeup of each service's annual TDRL caseload for
fiscal years 2001 through 2007. More specifically, we compared TDRL
caseload sizes in the last month of each fiscal year (September) over
time, both within and across the services. We also compared the
relative proportion of former active duty and reserve servicemembers in
the annual TDRL caseload over time.
To determine what could have contributed to the growth in TDRL
caseloads, we compared the trend in TDRL caseload size to the trend in
the (1) number of cases that received disability evaluation system
determinations, (2) TDRL placement rate, and (3) number of cases
removed from the TDRL each year,[Footnote 42] for fiscal years 2001
through 2007. We obtained these data from:
* the Air Force Military Personnel Data System;
*the Army Physical Disability Case Processing System; and:
*the Joint Disability Evaluation System, which captures Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB) case data for the Navy and Marine Corps.
To assess the reliability of each of these systems, we reviewed
documentation related to each that provided information such as record
layout, data dictionary, how data were collected and stored, measures
taken to ensure data quality, and screens used to extract the data we
required. We also interviewed military personnel knowledgeable about
each system to obtain more detailed information about the system and
the data in it. Based on our assessment, we determined that data from
each of these systems were sufficiently reliable for our analyses.
Determining the Characteristics of TDRL Placements:
To identify the characteristics of individuals placed on the TDRL each
month from January 2000 through December 2007 (see table 3), we
analyzed monthly transaction-level data DMDC had extracted for us from
its Retired Pay File,[Footnote 43] a database containing information on
individual retirees from the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
Table 3: Total Number of Individuals Placed on the TDRL, by Service,
Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Service: Air Force;
Calendar year: 2000: 334;
Calendar year: 2001: 382;
Calendar year: 2002: 314;
Calendar year: 2003: 281;
Calendar year: 2004: 318;
Calendar year: 2005: 439;
Calendar year: 2006: 514;
Calendar year: 2007: 685;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: 1,311;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: 3,267.
Service: Army;
Calendar year: 2000: 961;
Calendar year: 2001: 1,039;
Calendar year: 2002: 1,054;
Calendar year: 2003: 999;
Calendar year: 2004: 1,549;
Calendar year: 2005: 1,771;
Calendar year: 2006: 1,553;
Calendar year: 2007: 1,764;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: 4,053;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: 10,690.
Service: Marine Corps;
Calendar year: 2000: 314;
Calendar year: 2001: 315;
Calendar year: 2002: 305;
Calendar year: 2003: 328;
Calendar year: 2004: 516;
Calendar year: 2005: 615;
Calendar year: 2006: 827;
Calendar year: 2007: 800;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: 1,262;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: 4,020.
Service: Navy;
Calendar year: 2000: 676;
Calendar year: 2001: 788;
Calendar year: 2002: 628;
Calendar year: 2003: 612;
Calendar year: 2004: 734;
Calendar year: 2005: 788;
Calendar year: 2006: 880;
Calendar year: 2007: 855;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: 2,704;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: 5,961.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Calendar year: 2000: 2,285;
Calendar year: 2001: 2,524;
Calendar year: 2002: 2,301;
Calendar year: 2003: 2,220;
Calendar year: 2004: 3,117;
Calendar year: 2005: 3,613;
Calendar year: 2006: 3,774;
Calendar year: 2007: 4,104;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: 9,330;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: 23,938.
Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File.
[End of table]
To determine the characteristics of temporary retirees placed on the
TDRL in calendar years 2000 through 2007--including disability rating
percentages, their years of service, and the proportions who were
formerly active duty servicemembers and reservists--we analyzed data
for these individuals the DMDC extracted for us from their Retired Pay
File.
To identify disabilities among temporary retirees placed on the TDRL in
calendar years 2000 through 2007, we obtained the Department of
Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) diagnostic
codes associated with each temporary retiree's case from the services'
PEBs, and grouped these disabilities under the appropriate disability
categories provided in the VASRD.
Determining TDRL Outcomes for Those Placed on the List:
We focused many of our analyses of TDRL outcomes on individuals placed
on the list in calendar years 2000 through 2003. At least 5 years (the
maximum amount of time someone can spend on the TDRL) had elapsed since
these individuals had been placed on the list, so a final disability
determination should already have been made in each case.[Footnote 44]
To determine what final PEB disability determinations were for TDRL
placements from calendar years 2000 through 2007, we examined monthly
transactions from January 2000 through August 2008 for each case,
contained in the data we received from DMDC, to identify movement off
the TDRL due to (1) placement on the PDRL, (2) separation from the
service, (3) death, or (4) return to active duty.[Footnote 45] We
counted the first of these pay actions encountered after the date of
placement on the TDRL as the final disability determination in that
case. We examined data we had received from the relevant PEB in each
case to determine which of those separated from the service had
received a disability severance payment and which had been separated
with no disability benefits.
We also used the same DMDC monthly transaction data to determine how
long after placement on the TDRL temporary retirees received a final
disability determination. We counted the number of months, from the
month the individual in each TDRL case was initially placed on the
list, to the month that the individual was first removed from the TDRL
due to (1) placement on the PDRL, (2) separation from the service, (3)
death, or (4) return to active duty. In 1,004 cases, a separation from
the service action was followed in 1 or more months by a placed on the
PDRL action. In these cases, the time it took to receive a final
disability determination was based, instead, on the month in which
placement on the PDRL occurred.
Finally, data from the DMDC Retired Pay File on the initial and final
disability percentage ratings for TDRL placements in calendar years
2000 through 2003 were used to identify how these ratings differed, if
at all. To determine the amount of monthly benefits individuals would
receive, we multiplied the disability rating as a percentage of base
pay.[Footnote 46] Thus, we looked at the disability rating and applied
the following pay guidelines to determine what percentage of base pay
TDRL retirees would be eligible to receive: (1) TDRL payments are a
minimum of 50 percent of base pay; (2) the PDRL is not subject to any
minimum payments; and (3) for both the PDRL and the TDRL, the maximum
payment is 75 percent of base pay. We then compared the percentage of
base pay individuals would be eligible for while on the TDRL verses the
percentage they would be eligible for on the PDRL. From here, we could
determine the number of TDRL retirees whose monthly payments would
increase, decrease, or stay the same once they moved to the PDRL.
To assess the reliability of data from DMDC's Retired Pay File, as well
as the TDRL caseload data we received from the DMDC, we performed
initial tests and checks on the data to verify that records matched our
selection criteria and were sufficiently reliable for our analyses. We
obtained documents from the military on the Retired Pay File edit file
layout, the record layout of the pay file, the definition of the data
variables, how the data in this file were collected, and the measures
taken to assure data quality. We also conducted interviews with DMDC
staff to obtain more specific information regarding the data, such as
how they are stored and maintained and how they should be interpreted
and used. Based on our assessment, we determined that these data were
sufficiently reliable for our analyses.
In addition to our own analysis, we reviewed and discussed with DOD
officials the results of their recent study of the TDRL, which also
examined TDRL retirees' characteristics and outcomes.[Footnote 47]
Assessing the Adequacy of TDRL Management:
To assess the adequacy of TDRL management, we reviewed relevant laws,
regulations and procedures to determine:
* how TDRL decisions were made, monitored, and evaluated;
* how reexaminations for TDRL were arranged and tracked for timeliness;
* what use was made of reexaminations by nonmilitary physicians to
reduce the burden on MTFs; and:
* how TDRL requirements for temporary retirees were enforced.
Specifically, we interviewed military officials and staff from each
service involved in the TDRL process, including PEB members and
physicians, Medical Command representatives, staff in each service's
TDRL administrative office or unit, Physical Evaluation Board Liaison
Officers (PEBLO), and staff at selected military treatment facilities
(MTF) responsible for scheduling and monitoring the completion of TDRL
reexaminations. We assessed the adequacy of what we learned about the
management of the TDRL based on (1) our review of TDRL laws,
regulations, and other written policies and guidance; (2) the results
of our interviews; and (3) its consistency with internal control
standards for the federal government and the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
For our discussions with PEBLOs, we selected MTFs across the services.
We also considered geographic diversity and facility size when
selecting these facilities. The information we obtained from PEBLOs at
these facilities is testimonial in nature and not intended to reflect
the practices, experiences, or opinions of PEBLOs at MTFs, in general.
(See table 4.)
Table 4: Selected Characteristics of Military Treatment Facilities
(MTF) Contacted:
MTF: United States Air Force Academy Medical Facility;
Service: Air Force;
Geographic region: West;
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 10-15 cases.
MTF: Wright Patterson Medical Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base;
Service: Air Force;
Geographic region: North;
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 20-45 cases.
MTF: Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base;
Service: Air Force;
Geographic region: South;
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 20-50 cases.
MTF: McDonald Army Health Center, Fort Eustis;
Service: Army;
Geographic region: North;
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 24 cases.
MTF: Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston;
Service: Army;
Geographic region: South;
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: > 25 cases.
MTF: Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood;
Service: Army;
Geographic region: South;
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: > 25 cases.
MTF: Ireland Community Hospital, Fort Knox;
Service: Army;
Geographic region: North;
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 15-20 cases.
MTF: Navy Medical Center, Portsmouth;
Service: Navy;
Geographic region: North;
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: > 25 cases.
MTF: Navy Hospital, Camp Pendleton;
Service: Navy;
Geographic region: West;
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 1-2 cases.
MTF: Navy Hospital, Jacksonville;
Service: Navy;
Geographic region: South;
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 20-30 cases.
Source: Interviews with MTF staff.
[A] Estimate provided by officials at each MTF.
[End of table]
To help assess the adequacy of TDRL management, we also examined the
experiences and views of temporary retirees from the Air Force, Army,
Marine Corps, and Navy. To obtain this information, we conducted a
series of 12 focus groups in June and August 2008 with individuals who
were on the TDRL. Three focus groups were conducted at each of four
locations--Norfolk, Va.; Quantico, Va.; San Antonio, Tex.; and Killeen,
Tex. These locations were selected because each provided a large pool
of temporary retirees from which to draw focus group volunteers.
Together, these locations also enabled us to obtain the perspectives of
temporary retirees from each of the services.
To recruit volunteers for these focus groups, we obtained a list of
temporary retirees who resided within a 50-mile radius of each location
from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. We attempted to
contact each temporary retiree on the list to invite them to
participate in a focus group conducted in their area. A total of 57
temporary retirees participated in these focus groups. (See table 5.)
Table 5: Percent of Focus Group Participants from Each Service:
Service: Air Force;
Percent of total focus group participants: 12%.
Service: Army;
Percent of total focus group participants: 49%.
Service: Marine Corps;
Percent of total focus group participants: 9%.
Service: Navy;
Percent of total focus group participants: 30%.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Percent of total focus group participants: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Focus group participants had a wide range of characteristics. They had
an average of 12 years of military service, ranging from a minimum of
2, to a maximum of 28 years. About three-quarters had been active duty,
and about one-quarter had been in the reserves. About one-quarter had
served in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom.
To obtain information from the focus groups, we established a standard
protocol to facilitate the discussions. Each focus group covered
several major topics, including the overall disability evaluation
process, placement on the TDRL, periodic reexaminations while on the
TDRL, and advantages and disadvantages of being placed on the list. A
GAO facilitator led each discussion to keep participants focused on the
specified issues within discussion time frames. With the consent of
focus group participants, we recorded each discussion and had each
recording professionally transcribed.[Footnote 48]
To summarize the results of our focus groups, we identified themes
participants raised that were common to more than one group. We
verified our analysis to ensure its reliability. While we identified a
number of common themes across the 12 focus groups, our results cannot
be generalized to the universe of all temporary retirees.
Finally, we contacted six veterans' service organizations to obtain
their views about the TDRL process and how it affects servicemembers
placed on the list. We obtained written comments from the Disabled
American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association, and
the Military Officers Association of America. [Footnote 49] (See
appendices VI, VII, and VIII.)
Assessing the Adequacy of Information Provided to Temporary Retirees:
To assess the completeness, clarity, and accessibility of information
provided to individuals placed on the TDRL, we reviewed each service's
PEB findings form and other written materials, as well as information
available on the services' Web sites. (See table 6.)
Table 6: TDRL Information Sources Reviewed:
Service: Air Force;
PEB findings forms: Findings and Recommended Disposition of United
States Air Force Physical Evaluation Board, (AF Form 356, October
1995);
Brochures, pamphlets, and handbooks: Temporary Disability Retirement
List Fact Sheet;
Web sites (electronic information): [hyperlink,
http://ask.afpc.randolph.af.mil/main_content.asp?prods3=285&prods2=66&pr
ods156].
Service: Army;
PEB findings forms: Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, (DA
Form 199, June 1997);
Brochures, pamphlets, and handbooks: Temporary Disability Retired List
Frequently Asked Questions; [hyperlink,
http://www.pdhealth.mil/downloads/TDRL_FAQs.pdf];
Web sites (electronic information): [hyperlink,
https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/TAGD/Pda/pdapage.htm].
Service: Army;
PEB findings forms: Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, (DA
Form 199, June 1997);
Brochures, pamphlets, and handbooks: Army Physical Disability
Evaluation System (PDES); [hyperlink,
https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/TAGD/Pda/pdesystem.htm];
Web sites (electronic information): [Empty].
Service: Marine Corps;
PEB findings forms: Findings of the Physical Evaluation Board
Proceedings;
Brochures, pamphlets, and handbooks: [Empty];
Web sites (electronic information): [hyperlink,
http://www.npc.navy.mil/channels].
[hyperlink, http://209.85.173.132/search?sourceid=navclient-
menuext&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woundedwarriorregiment.org%2FWWR.aspx].
Service: Navy;
PEB findings forms: Findings of the Physical Evaluation Board
Proceedings;
Brochures, pamphlets, and handbooks: Temporary Disability Retired List
Brochure;
Web sites (electronic information): [hyperlink,
http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp].
[hyperlink,
http://www.npc.navy.mil/CareerInfo/Retirement/DisabilityRetirements/].
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
The specific topics we looked for in PEB findings forms and other
written materials, and on a service's Web site were (1) the purpose of
the TDRL, (2) definitions of "stability" and "permanency," (3) rolls
and responsibilities of temporary retirees while on the list, (4)
ramifications of noncompliance with TDRL requirements, and (5)
potential final disability determinations.
We also obtained information from our focus groups about the types of
information they needed and wanted about the TDRL, their sources for
information about the list, and the adequacy of the information they
received.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Additional Data Tables:
Table 7: DOD-wide Disability Evaluation System Determinations, Fiscal
Years 2001 through 2007:
Determination: Placed on the PDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 686;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 5;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 825;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 5;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 860;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 5;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 875;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 4;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,156;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 5;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,076;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 5;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 1,338;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 7.
Determination: Placed on the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 2,659;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 18;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 2,625;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 17;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 2,480;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 15;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 3,170;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 16;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 3,665;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 16;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 3,672;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 18;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 4,207;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 21.
Determination: Separated;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 8,040;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 53;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 8,335;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 53;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 9,440;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 57;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 12,463;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 62;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 13,787;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 60;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 11,148;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 56;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 10,424;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 52.
Determination: Found fit;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 3,713;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 25;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 3,951;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 25;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 3,774;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 23;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 3,463;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 17;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 4,390;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 19;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 4,032;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 20;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 3,944;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 20.
Determination: Total;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 15,098;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 15,736;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 16,554;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 19,971;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 22,998;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 19,928;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 19,913;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 100.
Source: Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data.
[End of table]
Table 8: Disability Evaluation System Determinations, by Service,
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007:
Service: Air Force;
Determination: Placed on the PDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 288;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 10;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 394;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 9;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 418;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 9;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 294;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 9;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 550;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 12;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 513;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 12;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 695;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 15.
Service: Air Force;
Determination: Placed on the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 484;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 16;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 440;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 11;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 325;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 7;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 237;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 7;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 459;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 10;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 429;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 10;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 695;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 15.
Service: Air Force;
Determination: Separated;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 487;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 16;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 1,161;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 28;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 1,471;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 33;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 1,305;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 41;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,831;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 39;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,413;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 34;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 1,454;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 32.
Service: Air Force;
Determination: Found fit;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 1,714;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 58;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 2,183;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 52;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 2,203;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 50;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 1,365;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 43;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,914;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 40;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,768;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 43;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 1,758;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 38.
Air Force total:
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 2,973;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 4,178;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 4,417;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 3,201;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 4,754;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 4,123;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 4,602;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 100.
Service: Army;
Determination: Placed on the PDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 263;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 4;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 250;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 3;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 321;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 4;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 431;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 4;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 467;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 4;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 412;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 4;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 556;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 5.
Service: Army;
Determination: Placed on the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 1,075;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 15;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 1,166;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 16;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 1,147;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 15;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 1,638;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 14;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,763;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 14;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,543;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 15;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 1,844;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 18.
Service: Army;
Determination: Separated;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 5,128;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 72;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 5,127;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 71;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 5,849;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 74;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 8,584;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 76;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 9,816;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 75;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 7,538;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 72;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 7,099;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 68.
Service: Army;
Determination: Found fit;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 659;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 9;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 649;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 9;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 571;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 7;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 685;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 6;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 996;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 8;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 964;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 9;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 912;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 9.
Army total:
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 7,125;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 7,192;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 7,888;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 11,338;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 13,042;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 10,457;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 10,411;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 100.
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: Placed on the PDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 28;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 2;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 28;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 2;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 29;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 2;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 33;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 1;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 52;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 2;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 68;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 3;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 39;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 2.
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: Placed on the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 326;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 18;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 342;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 20;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 342;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 19;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 521;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 23;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 626;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 28;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 820;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 34;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 817;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 38.
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: Separated;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 1,145;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 62;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 1,096;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 63;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 1,126;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 64;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 1,271;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 57;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,015;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 46;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,098;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 46;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 955;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 44.
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: Found fit;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 360;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 19;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 265;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 15;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 257;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 15;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 422;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 19;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 519;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 23;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 397;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 17;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 338;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 16.
Marine Corps total:
Fiscal year: 2001: 1,859;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 1,731;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 1,754;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 2,247;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 2,212;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 2,383;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 2,149;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 100.
Service: Navy;
Determination: Placed on the PDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 107;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 3;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 153;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 6;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 92;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 4;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 117;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 4;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 87;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 3;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 83;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 3;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 48;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 2.
Service: Navy;
Determination: Placed on the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 774;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 25;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 677;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 26;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 666;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 27;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 774;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 24;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 817;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 27;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 880;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 30;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 851;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 31.
Service: Navy;
Determination: Separated;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 1,280;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 41;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 951;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 36;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 994;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 40;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 1,303;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 41;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,125;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 38;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,099;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 37;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 916;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 33.
Service: Navy;
Determination: Found fit;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 980;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 31;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 854;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 32;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 743;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 30;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 991;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 31;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 961;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 32;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 903;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 30;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 936;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 34.
Navy total:
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 3,141;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 2,635;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 2,495;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 3,185;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 2,990;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 2,965;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 100;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 2,751;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 100.
Source: Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data.
[End of table]
Table 9: Number of Individuals Placed on and Removed from the TDRL, DOD-
wide, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007:
Placed on the TDRL:
Fiscal year: 2001: 2,659;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2,625;
Fiscal year: 2003: 2,480;
Fiscal year: 2004: 3,170;
Fiscal year: 2005: 3,665;
Fiscal year: 2006: 3,672;
Fiscal year: 2007: 4,207.
Removed from the TDRL:
Fiscal year: 2001: 2,924;
Fiscal year: 2002: 2,671;
Fiscal year: 2003: 2,462;
Fiscal year: 2004: 2,015;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,646;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,848;
Fiscal year: 2007: 2,765.
Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data.
[End of table]
Table 10: Number of Individuals Placed on and Removed from the TDRL, by
Service, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007:
Air Force: Placed on the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: 484;
Fiscal year: 2002: 440;
Fiscal year: 2003: 325;
Fiscal year: 2004: 237;
Fiscal year: 2005: 459;
Fiscal year: 2006: 429;
Fiscal year: 2007: 695.
Air Force: Removed from the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: 98;
Fiscal year: 2002: 307;
Fiscal year: 2003: 298;
Fiscal year: 2004: 192;
Fiscal year: 2005: 226;
Fiscal year: 2006: 286;
Fiscal year: 2007: 190.
Army: Placed on the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: 1,075;
Fiscal year: 2002: 1,166;
Fiscal year: 2003: 1,147;
Fiscal year: 2004: 1,638;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,763;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,543;
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,844.
Army: Removed from the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: 1,001;
Fiscal year: 2002: 1,117;
Fiscal year: 2003: 1,027;
Fiscal year: 2004: 912;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,114;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,199;
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,217.
Marine Corps: Placed on the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: 326;
Fiscal year: 2002: 342;
Fiscal year: 2003: 342;
Fiscal year: 2004: 521;
Fiscal year: 2005: 626;
Fiscal year: 2006: 820;
Fiscal year: 2007: 817.
Marine Corps: Removed from the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: 515;
Fiscal year: 2002: 413;
Fiscal year: 2003: 401;
Fiscal year: 2004: 341;
Fiscal year: 2005: 335;
Fiscal year: 2006: 426;
Fiscal year: 2007: 457.
Navy: Placed on the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: 774;
Fiscal year: 2002: 677;
Fiscal year: 2003: 666;
Fiscal year: 2004: 774;
Fiscal year: 2005: 817;
Fiscal year: 2006: 880;
Fiscal year: 2007: 851.
Navy: Removed from the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: 1,310;
Fiscal year: 2002: 834;
Fiscal year: 2003: 736;
Fiscal year: 2004: 570;
Fiscal year: 2005: 971;
Fiscal year: 2006: 937;
Fiscal year: 2007: 901.
Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data.
[End of table]
Table 11: Number and Percent of TDRL Placements Who Had Been
Reservists, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Service: Air Force;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 35;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 11;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 95;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 25;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 35;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 11;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 36;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 13;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 49;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 15;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 89;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 20;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 74;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 14;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 56;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 8;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 469;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 14.
Service: Army;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 118;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 12;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 102;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 10;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 148;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 14;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 158;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 16;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 436;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 28;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 550;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 31;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 541;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 35;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 486;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 28;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 2,539;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 24.
Service: Marine Corps;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 8;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 3;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 11;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 9;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 3;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 12;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 22;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 25;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 66;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 8;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 105;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 13;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 258;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 6.
Service: Navy;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 28;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 44;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 6;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 30;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 5;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 65;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 11;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 79;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 11;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 81;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 10;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 111;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 13;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 67;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 8;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 505;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 9.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 189;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 8;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 252;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 10;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 222;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 10;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 271;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 12;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 586;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 19;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 745;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 21;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 792;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 21;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 714;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 17;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 3,771;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 16.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center
Retired Pay File.
[End of table]
Table 12: Number and Percent of Reservists Receiving a Disability
Evaluation System Determination, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001 through
2007:
Air Force: [Empty].
Service: Air Force;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 417;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 14;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 546;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 13;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 659;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 15;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 500;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 16;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 787;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 17;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 665;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 16;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 549;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 12;
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Number: 4,123;
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Percent: 15.
Service: Army;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 523;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 7;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 699;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 10;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 1,303;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 17;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 3,710;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 33;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 3,601;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 28;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 2,814;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 27;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 2,454;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 24;
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Number: 15,104;
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Percent: 22.
Service: Marine Corps;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 100;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 5;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 120;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 7;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 128;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 7;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 210;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 9;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 229;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 10;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 224;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 9;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 213;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 10;
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Number: 1,224;
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Percent: 9.
Service: Navy;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 280;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 9;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 294;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 11;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 308;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 12;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 333;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 10;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 328;
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 11;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 225;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 8;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 154;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 6;
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Number: 1922;
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Percent: 10.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 1,320;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 9;
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 1,659;
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 11;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 2,398;
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 14;
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 4,753;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 24;
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 4,945;
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 22;
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 3,928;
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 20;
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 3,370;
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 17;
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Number: 22,373;
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Percent: 17.
Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data.
[End of table]
Table 13: Mean Number of Years of Military Service for TDRL Placements
Who Had Been Active Duty and Reserve Military, DOD-wide, Calendar Years
2000 through 2007:
TDRL placements: Active Duty;
Calendar year: 2000: 8;
Calendar year: 2001: 7;
Calendar year: 2002: 8;
Calendar year: 2003: 7;
Calendar year: 2004: 7;
Calendar year: 2005: 6;
Calendar year: 2006: 6;
Calendar year: 2007: 6.
TDRL placements: Reserve;
Calendar year: 2000: 10;
Calendar year: 2001: 10;
Calendar year: 2002: 10;
Calendar year: 2003: 9;
Calendar year: 2004: 7;
Calendar year: 2005: 7;
Calendar year: 2006: 6;
Calendar year: 2007: 6.
All TDRL placements;
Calendar year: 2000: 8;
Calendar year: 2001: 8;
Calendar year: 2002: 8;
Calendar year: 2003: 7;
Calendar year: 2004: 7;
Calendar year: 2005: 7;
Calendar year: 2006: 6;
Calendar year: 2007: 6.
Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File.
[End of table]
Table 14: Mean Number of Years of Military Service for TDRL Placements
Who Had Been Active Duty and Reserve Military, by Service, Calendar
Years 2000 through 2007:
Air Force: TDRL placements, Active Duty;
Calendar year: 2000: 11;
Calendar year: 2001: 9;
Calendar year: 2002: 10;
Calendar year: 2003: 8;
Calendar year: 2004: 9;
Calendar year: 2005: 8;
Calendar year: 2006: 7;
Calendar year: 2007: 8.
Air Force: TDRL placements, Reserve;
Calendar year: 2000: 8;
Calendar year: 2001: 8;
Calendar year: 2002: 8;
Calendar year: 2003: 7;
Calendar year: 2004: 7;
Calendar year: 2005: 8;
Calendar year: 2006: 6;
Calendar year: 2007: 6.
Air Force: All TDRL placements;
Calendar year: 2000: 10;
Calendar year: 2001: 9;
Calendar year: 2002: 9;
Calendar year: 2003: 8;
Calendar year: 2004: 9;
Calendar year: 2005: 8;
Calendar year: 2006: 7;
Calendar year: 2007: 8.
Army: TDRL placements, Active Duty;
Calendar year: 2000: 7;
Calendar year: 2001: 7;
Calendar year: 2002: 7;
Calendar year: 2003: 7;
Calendar year: 2004: 7;
Calendar year: 2005: 7;
Calendar year: 2006: 7;
Calendar year: 2007: 6.
Army: TDRL placements, Reserve;
Calendar year: 2000: 11;
Calendar year: 2001: 11;
Calendar year: 2002: 10;
Calendar year: 2003: 9;
Calendar year: 2004: 7;
Calendar year: 2005: 7;
Calendar year: 2006: 6;
Calendar year: 2007: 6.
Army: All TDRL placements;
Calendar year: 2000: 8;
Calendar year: 2001: 7;
Calendar year: 2002: 8;
Calendar year: 2003: 7;
Calendar year: 2004: 7;
Calendar year: 2005: 7;
Calendar year: 2006: 7;
Calendar year: 2007: 6.
Marine Corps: TDRL placements, Active Duty;
Calendar year: 2000: 6;
Calendar year: 2001: 5;
Calendar year: 2002: 5;
Calendar year: 2003: 5;
Calendar year: 2004: 5;
Calendar year: 2005: 5;
Calendar year: 2006: 5;
Calendar year: 2007: 5.
Marine Corps: TDRL placements, Reserve;
Calendar year: 2000: 13;
Calendar year: 2001: 9;
Calendar year: 2002: 8;
Calendar year: 2003: 10;
Calendar year: 2004: 7;
Calendar year: 2005: 5;
Calendar year: 2006: 4;
Calendar year: 2007: 4.
Marine Corps: All TDRL placements;
Calendar year: 2000: 6;
Calendar year: 2001: 5;
Calendar year: 2002: 5;
Calendar year: 2003: 5;
Calendar year: 2004: 5;
Calendar year: 2005: 5;
Calendar year: 2006: 5;
Calendar year: 2007: 5.
Navy: TDRL placements, Active Duty;
Calendar year: 2000: 9;
Calendar year: 2001: 8;
Calendar year: 2002: 9;
Calendar year: 2003: 8;
Calendar year: 2004: 8;
Calendar year: 2005: 7;
Calendar year: 2006: 8;
Calendar year: 2007: 8.
Navy: TDRL placements, Reserve;
Calendar year: 2000: 8;
Calendar year: 2001: 9;
Calendar year: 2002: 8;
Calendar year: 2003: 8;
Calendar year: 2004: 7;
Calendar year: 2005: 8;
Calendar year: 2006: 8;
Calendar year: 2007: 8.
Navy: All TDRL placements;
Calendar year: 2000: 9;
Calendar year: 2001: 8;
Calendar year: 2002: 9;
Calendar year: 2003: 8;
Calendar year: 2004: 8;
Calendar year: 2005: 7;
Calendar year: 2006: 8;
Calendar year: 2007: 8.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center
Retired Pay File.
[End of table]
Table 15: Percent of TDRL Placements with a Residual of a TBI as a
Disabling Condition, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Service: Air Force;
Calendar year: 2000: 0.6;
Calendar year: 2001: 0.3;
Calendar year: 2002: 1.0;
Calendar year: 2003: 0.4;
Calendar year: 2004: 0.3;
Calendar year: 2005: 0.7;
Calendar year: 2006: 0.6;
Calendar year: 2007: 0.1;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 0.5.
Service: Army;
Calendar year: 2000: 2.2;
Calendar year: 2001: 3.9;
Calendar year: 2002: 3.6;
Calendar year: 2003: 4.5;
Calendar year: 2004: 3.9;
Calendar year: 2005: 6.8;
Calendar year: 2006: 7.8;
Calendar year: 2007: 8.4;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 5.6.
Service: Marine Corps;
Calendar year: 2000: 4.6;
Calendar year: 2001: 5.6;
Calendar year: 2002: 9.0;
Calendar year: 2003: 6.9;
Calendar year: 2004: 4.6;
Calendar year: 2005: 6.0;
Calendar year: 2006: 8.6;
Calendar year: 2007: 12.0;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 7.8.
Service: Navy;
Calendar year: 2000: 4.1;
Calendar year: 2001: 2.9;
Calendar year: 2002: 2.6;
Calendar year: 2003: 3.1;
Calendar year: 2004: 2.9;
Calendar year: 2005: 2.8;
Calendar year: 2006: 3.1;
Calendar year: 2007: 3.4;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 3.1.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Calendar year: 2000: 2.8;
Calendar year: 2001: 3.3;
Calendar year: 2002: 3.7;
Calendar year: 2003: 4.0;
Calendar year: 2004: 3.4;
Calendar year: 2005: 5.1;
Calendar year: 2006: 5.9;
Calendar year: 2007: 6.7;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 4.6.
Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data.
[End of table]
Table 16: Percent of TDRL Placements with Residual of a TBI Diagnosis,
among Those with Any Disabling Neurological Conditions and Convulsive
Disorders, by Service Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Service: Air Force;
Calendar year: 2000: 3;
Calendar year: 2001: 1;
Calendar year: 2002: 4;
Calendar year: 2003: 2;
Calendar year: 2004: 1;
Calendar year: 2005: 3;
Calendar year: 2006: 3;
Calendar year: 2007: 1;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 2.
Service: Army;
Calendar year: 2000: 9;
Calendar year: 2001: 16;
Calendar year: 2002: 14;
Calendar year: 2003: 19;
Calendar year: 2004: 13;
Calendar year: 2005: 21;
Calendar year: 2006: 23;
Calendar year: 2007: 26;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 19.
Service: Marine Corps;
Calendar year: 2000: 15;
Calendar year: 2001: 18;
Calendar year: 2002: 25;
Calendar year: 2003: 20;
Calendar year: 2004: 13;
Calendar year: 2005: 21;
Calendar year: 2006: 24;
Calendar year: 2007: 31;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 22.
Service: Navy;
Calendar year: 2000: 12;
Calendar year: 2001: 9;
Calendar year: 2002: 9;
Calendar year: 2003: 10;
Calendar year: 2004: 9;
Calendar year: 2005: 9;
Calendar year: 2006: 10;
Calendar year: 2007: 12;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 10.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Calendar year: 2000: 10;
Calendar year: 2001: 12;
Calendar year: 2002: 13;
Calendar year: 2003: 14;
Calendar year: 2004: 11;
Calendar year: 2005: 16;
Calendar year: 2006: 19;
Calendar year: 2007: 21;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 16.
Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data.
[End of table]
Table 17: Percent of TDRL Placements with PTSD as a Disabling
Condition, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Service: Air Force;
Calendar year: 2000: 1.2;
Calendar year: 2001: 2.1;
Calendar year: 2002: 4.0;
Calendar year: 2003: 4.2;
Calendar year: 2004: 3.7;
Calendar year: 2005: 7.3;
Calendar year: 2006: 16.1;
Calendar year: 2007: 8.2;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 6.7.
Service: Army;
Calendar year: 2000: 2.8;
Calendar year: 2001: 2.2;
Calendar year: 2002: 2.0;
Calendar year: 2003: 2.7;
Calendar year: 2004: 7.3;
Calendar year: 2005: 11.2;
Calendar year: 2006: 16.0;
Calendar year: 2007: 25.0;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 10.3.
Service: Marine Corps;
Calendar year: 2000: 1.3;
Calendar year: 2001: 0.7;
Calendar year: 2002: 0.3;
Calendar year: 2003: 0.6;
Calendar year: 2004: 3.2;
Calendar year: 2005: 13.2;
Calendar year: 2006: 18.7;
Calendar year: 2007: 17.2;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 10.1.
Service: Navy;
Calendar year: 2000: 1.5;
Calendar year: 2001: 0.8;
Calendar year: 2002: 1.5;
Calendar year: 2003: 0.8;
Calendar year: 2004: 3.0;
Calendar year: 2005: 4.8;
Calendar year: 2006: 4.2;
Calendar year: 2007: 4.9;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 2.9.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Calendar year: 2000: 2.0;
Calendar year: 2001: 1.5;
Calendar year: 2002: 1.9;
Calendar year: 2003: 2.1;
Calendar year: 2004: 5.3;
Calendar year: 2005: 9.7;
Calendar year: 2006: 13.9;
Calendar year: 2007: 16.5;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 7.9.
Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data.
[End of table]
Table 18: Percent of TDRL Placements with a PTSD Diagnosis, among Those
with Any Disabling Mental Disorders, by Service, Calendar Years 2000
through 2007:
Service: Air Force;
Calendar year: 2000: 3;
Calendar year: 2001: 5;
Calendar year: 2002: 10;
Calendar year: 2003: 9;
Calendar year: 2004: 8;
Calendar year: 2005: 17;
Calendar year: 2006: 28;
Calendar year: 2007: 21;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 15.
Service: Army;
Calendar year: 2000: 11;
Calendar year: 2001: 8;
Calendar year: 2002: 8;
Calendar year: 2003: 10;
Calendar year: 2004: 28;
Calendar year: 2005: 39;
Calendar year: 2006: 48;
Calendar year: 2007: 53;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 33.
Service: Marine Corps;
Calendar year: 2000: 6;
Calendar year: 2001: 4;
Calendar year: 2002: 2;
Calendar year: 2003: 3;
Calendar year: 2004: 15;
Calendar year: 2005: 51;
Calendar year: 2006: 60;
Calendar year: 2007: 52;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 38.
Service: Navy;
Calendar year: 2000: 6;
Calendar year: 2001: 3;
Calendar year: 2002: 6;
Calendar year: 2003: 3;
Calendar year: 2004: 14;
Calendar year: 2005: 20;
Calendar year: 2006: 18;
Calendar year: 2007: 20;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 12.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Calendar year: 2000: 8;
Calendar year: 2001: 5;
Calendar year: 2002: 7;
Calendar year: 2003: 7;
Calendar year: 2004: 20;
Calendar year: 2005: 33;
Calendar year: 2006: 41;
Calendar year: 2007: 43;
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 26.
Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data.
[End of table]
Table 19: Final Disability Determinations as of August 2008 for TDRL
Placements, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2003:
Calendar year: Service: PDRL: [Empty]; Calendar year: Service: PDRL:
[Empty]; Calendar year: Service: PDRL: [Empty]; Service: PDRL: [Empty].
Air Force: [Empty].
Service: Air Force;
Determination: PDRL;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 184;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 55;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 183;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 48;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 151;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 48;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 159;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 57;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 677;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 52.
Service: Air Force;
Determination: Severance for permanent disability;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 102;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 31;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 155;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 41;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 115;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 37;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 78;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 28;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number:450;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 34.
Service: Air Force;
Determination: No military disability benefits;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 17;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 5;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 14;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 7;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 6;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 2;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 44;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3.
Service: Air Force;
Determination: Separated with unknown severance status;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 0;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 1;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent:0[A];
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 1;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 2;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A].
Service: Air Force;
Determination: Return to active duty;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 3;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 11;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 3;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 16;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 5;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 16;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 6;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 46;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 4.
Service: Air Force;
Determination: Died before final determination;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 25;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 8;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 16;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 19;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 6;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 11;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 4;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 71;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 5.
Service: Air Force;
Determination: No final determination;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 3;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 3;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 5;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 10[A];
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 4;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 21;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 2.
Air Force total:
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 334;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 382;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 314;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 281;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 1,311;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 100.
Service: Army;
Determination: PDRL;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 577;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 60;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 663;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 64;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 619;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 59;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 549;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 55;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 2,408;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 59.
Service: Army;
Determination: Severance for permanent disability;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 273;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 28;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 287;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 28;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 328;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 31;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 255;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 26;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 1,143;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 28.
Service: Army;
Determination: No military disability benefits;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 57;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 6;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 57;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 6;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 67;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 6;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 95;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 10;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 276;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 7.
Service: Army;
Determination: Separated with unknown severance status;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 10;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 4;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 0;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 14;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A].
Service: Army;
Determination: Return to active duty;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 7;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 6;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 3;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 3;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 9;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 1.
Service: Army;
Determination: Died before final determination;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 26;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 3;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 18;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 26;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 3;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 25;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 3;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 95;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 2.
Service: Army;
Determination: No final determination;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 11;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 4;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 11;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 72[B];
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 7;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 98;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 2.
Army total:
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 961;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 1,039;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 1,054;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 999;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 4,053;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 100.
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: PDRL;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 176;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 56;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 181;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 58;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 172;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 56;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 160;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 49;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 689;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 55.
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: Severance for permanent disability;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 79;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 25;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 78;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 25;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 71;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 23;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 71;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 22;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 299;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 24.
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: No military disability benefits;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 30;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 10;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 36;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 11;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 39;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 13;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 52;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 16;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 157;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 12.
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: Separated with unknown severance status;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 0;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 2;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 2;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A].
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: Return to active duty;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 12;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 10;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 3;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 15;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 5;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 9;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 3;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 46;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 4.
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: Died before final determination;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 12;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 8;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent:3;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 4;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 9;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 3;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 33;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3.
Service: Marine Corps;
Determination: No final determination;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 5;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 2;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 2;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 27[B];
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 8;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 36;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3.
Marine Corps total:
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 314;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 315;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent:100;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 305;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent:100;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 328;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 1,262;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent:100.
Service: Navy;
Determination: PDRL;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 451;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 67;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 508;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 65;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 420;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 67;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 312;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 51;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 1,691;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 63.
Service: Navy;
Determination: Severance for permanent disability;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 102;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 15;
Calendar year: 2001: Number:124;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 16;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 98;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 16;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 99;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 16;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 423;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 16.
Service: Navy;
Determination: No military disability benefits;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 79;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 12;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 119;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 15;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 74;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 12;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 95;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 16;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 367;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 14.
Service: Navy;
Determination: Separated with unknown severance status;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 3;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 6;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 4;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 1;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 13;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A].
Service: Navy;
Determination: Return to active duty;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 0;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 1;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 0;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 1;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A].
Service: Navy;
Determination: Died before final determination;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 27;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 14;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 11;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 19;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 3;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 71;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3.
Service: Navy;
Determination: No final determination;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 14;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 23;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 3;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 18;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 3;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 83[B];
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 14;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 138;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 5.
Navy total:
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 676;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 788;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 628;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 612;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 2,704;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 100.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Determination: PDRL;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 1,388;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 61;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 1,535;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 61;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 1,362;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 59;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 1,180;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 53;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 5,465;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 59.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Determination: Severance for Permanent Disability;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 556;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 24;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 644;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 26;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 612;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 27;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 503;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 23;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 2,315;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 25.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Determination: No military disability benefits;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 183;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 8;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 226;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 9;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 187;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 8;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 248;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 11;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 844;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 9.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Determination: Separated with unknown severance status;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 13;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 4;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 9;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 5;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 31;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A].
Service: DOD-wide total;
Determination: Return to active duty;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 22;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 27;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 35;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 28;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 1;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 112;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 1.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Determination: Died before final determination;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 90;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 4;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 56;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 60;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 3;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 64;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 3;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 270;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3.
Service: DOD-wide total;
Determination: No final determination;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 33;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 32;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 36;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 192[B];
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 9;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 293;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3.
DOD-wide total:
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 2,285;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 2,524;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 2,301;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 2,220;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 9,330;
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center
Retired Pay File.
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
[A] Value is less than 0.5 percent.
[B] Our data request from DMDC yielded Retired Pay File records through
August 2008. Thus, 138 (6 Air Force, 54 Army, 14 Marine Corps, and 64
Navy) of the cases shown as still on the TDRL in the 2000 through 2003
cohort had less than 5 years worth of data in our dataset. It is
possible that some of these cases could have had final dispositions
before or at 5 years that occurred after August 2008 and were not
captured in our analysis.
[End of table]
Table 20: Number of Months until TDRL Placements for Calendar Years
2000 through 2003 Received a Final Determination, by Service:
Months: 12 or less;
DOD-wide: Number: 551;
DOD-wide: Percent: 6;
Air Force: Number: 88;
Air Force: Percent: 7;
Army: Number: 411;
Army: Percent: 10;
Marine Corps: Number: 17;
Marine Corps: Percent: 1;
Navy: Number: 35;
Navy: Percent: 1.
Months: 13 to 24;
DOD-wide: Number: 2,559;
DOD-wide: Percent: 27;
Air Force: Number: 790;
Air Force: Percent: 60;
Army: Number: 1,293;
Army: Percent: 32;
Marine Corps: Number: 132;
Marine Corps: Percent: 11;
Navy: Number: 344;
Navy: Percent: 13.
Months: 25 to 36;
DOD-wide: Number: 1,205;
DOD-wide: Percent: 13;
Air Force: Number: 212;
Air Force: Percent: 16;
Army: Number: 595;
Army: Percent: 15;
Marine Corps: Number: 172;
Marine Corps: Percent: 14;
Navy: Number: 226;
Navy: Percent: 8.
Months: 37 to 48;
DOD-wide: Number: 1,182;
DOD-wide: Percent: 13;
Air Force: Number: 94;
Air Force: Percent: 7;
Army: Number: 533;
Army: Percent: 13;
Marine Corps: Number: 212;
Marine Corps: Percent: 17;
Navy: Number: 343;
Navy: Percent: 13.
Months: 49 to 60;
DOD-wide: Number: 2,670;
DOD-wide: Percent: 29;
Air Force: Number: 88;
Air Force: Percent: 7;
Army: Number: 808;
Army: Percent: 20;
Marine Corps: Number: 550;
Marine Corps: Percent: 44;
Navy: Number: 1,224;
Navy: Percent: 45.
Months: More than 60;
DOD-wide: Number: 870;
DOD-wide: Percent: 9;
Air Force: Number: 18;
Air Force: Percent: 1;
Army: Number: 315;
Army: Percent: 8;
Marine Corps: Number: 143;
Marine Corps: Percent: 11;
Navy: Number: 394;
Navy: Percent: 15.
Months: No final determination as of August 2008;
DOD-wide: Number: 293;
DOD-wide: Percent: 3;
Air Force: Number: 21;
Air Force: Percent: 2;
Army: Number: 98;
Army: Percent: 2;
Marine Corps: Number: 36;
Marine Corps: Percent: 3;
Navy: Number: 138;
Navy: Percent: 5.
Months: Total;
DOD-wide: Number: 9,330;
DOD-wide: Percent: 100;
Air Force: Number: 1,311;
Air Force: Percent: 100;
Army: Number: 4,053;
Army: Percent: 100;
Marine Corps: Number: 1,262;
Marine Corps: Percent: 100;
Navy: Number: 2,704;
Navy: Percent: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center
Retired Pay File.
Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Our data request from DMDC yielded Retired Pay File records through
August 2008. Thus, 138 (6 Air Force, 54 Army, 14 Marine Corps, and 64
Navy) of the cases shown as still on the TDRL in the 2000 through 2003
cohort had less than 5 years worth of data in our dataset. It is
possible that some of these cases could have had final dispositions
before or at 5 years that occurred after August 2008 and were not
captured in our analysis.
[End of table]
Table 21: Initial Disability Ratings for TDRL Placements, DOD-wide,
Calendar Years 2000 through 2007:
Disability rating: 0-20 percent;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 11;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 11;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 10;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 4;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 8;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 9;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 5;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 7;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 65;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 0[A].
Disability rating: 30 percent;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 1,124;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 49;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 1,357;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 54;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 1,230;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 53;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 1,137;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 51;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 1,677;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 54;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 1935;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 51;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 1,913;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 51;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 2,026;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 49;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 12,399;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 52.
Disability rating: 40 percent;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 480;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 21;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 523;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 21;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 501;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 22;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 504;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 23;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 682;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 22;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 835;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 23;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 826;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 22;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 944;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 23;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 5,295;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 22.
Disability rating: 50-70 percent;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 360;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 16;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 359;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 14;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 294;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 13;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 309;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 14;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 389;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 12;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 512;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 14;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 694;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 18;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 806;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 20;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 3,723;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 16.
Disability rating: 80-90 percent;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 39;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 41;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 36;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 31;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 1;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 57;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 61;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 78;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 2;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 74;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 2;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 417;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 2.
Disability rating: 100 percent;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 271;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 12;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 233;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 9;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 230;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 10;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 235;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 11;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 304;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 10;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 261;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 7;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 258;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 7;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 247;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 6;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 2,039;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 9.
Disability rating: Total;
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 2,285;
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 2,524;
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 2,301;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 2,220;
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 3,117;
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 3,613;
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 3,774;
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 4,104;
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 1000;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 23,938;
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File.
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
[A] Value is less than 0.5 percent.
[End of table]
Table 22: Changes in Disability Ratings and Estimated Changes in
Monthly Cash Payments, for Temporary Retirees Placed on the TDRL, DOD-
wide, in Calendar Years 2000 through 2003 and Subsequently Transferred
to the PDRL:
Change in disability rating from initial placement on the TDRL to final
placement on the PDRL:
Estimated change in monthly disability payments: Monthly cash payments
decreased;
Disability rating increased: 102;
Disability rating decreased: 756;
No change in disability rating: 3,141;
Total: 3,999.
Estimated change in monthly disability payments: Monthly cash payments
increased;
Disability rating increased: 382;
Disability rating decreased: 0;
No change in disability rating: 0;
Total: 382.
Estimated change in monthly disability payments: No change in monthly
cash payments;
Disability rating increased: 216;
Disability rating decreased: 23;
No change in disability rating: 835;
Total: 1,074.
Estimated change in monthly disability payments: Total;
Disability rating increased: 700;
Disability rating decreased: 779;
No change in disability rating: 3,976;
Total: 5,455[A].
Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center
Retired Pay File.
[A] We were not able to calculate a difference in ratings for 10 of the
temporary retirees that were placed on the PDRL because data on their
final ratings were missing.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III Sample Army Form: Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings
(DA Form 199):
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings:
For use of this form, see AR 635-40; the proponent agency is USAPDA.
1. Name: (Last, First, Middle Initial):
2. Rank:
3. PEED:
BASD:
4. Social Security Number:
5. PMOS:
6.Branch/component:
7. The PEB Consisted Of The Individuals Indicated In Exhibit A:
Date Convened:
At (Location including ZIP Code):
8. The Board Considered The Member's Condition Described In The
Records. Each Disability Is Listed Below in descending order of
significance.
VA Code (a):
Disability Description (b):
c. Intentional misconduct, willful neglect or unauthorized absence:
d. While entitled to basic pay (Incurred or aggravated):
e. In LD in the time of national emergency or after 14 Sep 78 (Incurred
or aggravated):
f. Proximate result of performing duty:
g. Recommended disability percentage:
9. The Board Finds The Soldier Is Physically Unfit And Recommends A
Combined Rating Of:
And That The Soldier's Disposition Be:
10. If Retired Because Of Disability, The Board Makes The Recommended
Finding That,
A. The Soldier's Retirement _____ based On Disability From Injury Or
Disease Received In The Line Of Duty As A Direct Result Of Armed
Conflict Or Caused By An Instrumentality Of War And Incurring In Line
Of Duty During A Period Of War As Defined By Law.
B. Evidence Of Record Reflects The Soldier ______ A Member Or Obligated
To Become A Member Of An Armed Force Or Reserve Thereof, Or The NOAA Or
The USPHS On 24 September 1975.
C. The Disability _____ Result From A Combat Related Injury As Defined
In 26 U.S.C. 104.
11. Exhibits (identify each):
12. Typed Name, Grade, Branch Of President:
Signature:
Date:
DA FORM 199, JUN. 97.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Sample Navy Form: Findings of the Physical Evaluation
Board Proceedings:
Findings of the Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings:
RECONSIDERATION:
Ref. #:
Date Printed:
Page 1:
Personnel Data:
1. Name:
2. SSN:
3. Rate/Rank:
4. Service:
5. Desig.
6. LOS:
Physical Evaluation Board:
7. The Board convened at: NCPB, Washington DC, to consider the MedBoard
originated at: San Diego, CA.
Board Membership Consisted of:
Civ., CORB, Signature:
Capt., USN, Medical Officer:
Findings:
8. Finding:
9. Recommended Disposition:
10. Combined Disability Rating:
Diagnoses And Ratings:
Category I: Unfitting Conditions:
VA Diagnostic Codes:
Disability Rating or Reason if not rated:
Category III: Conditions that are not separately unfitting and do not
contribute to the unfitting condition(s):
Additional Findings:
11. a. The disability was incurred while entitled to receive basic pay.
b. The disability did not occur during a period of unauthorized
absence.
c. The disability is not the result of intentional misconduct or
willful neglect.
d. The disability did occur after 14 Sep 1978.
12. The disability may be permanent.
13. The disability did not result from a combat related injury as
defined by Title 26 U.S. Code Section 104(b)(3).
14. All board members concurred.
President, PEB.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Sample Air Force Form: Findings and Recommendations of the
USAF Physical Evaluation Board (AF Form 356):
Findings And Recommended Disposition Of USAF Physical Evaluation Board:
Date:
Informal:
Formal:
1. The Board Convened At: Randolph AFB TX 78150-4708, Per Attached
Orders (Exhibit A).
2. A Quorum Was Present As Indicated On Exhibit A.
3. Exhibits Attached: A, B.
4. Member's Name (Last, First, Middle Initial):
5. Grade:
6. SSN:
7. Years Of Service Under 10 USC 1208:
8. Component:
REG AF:
USAFR:
ANG:
9. Findings Concerning Individual Defects Or Conditions:
Column A - Include degree of severity.
Column C - Enter "Yes" for in line of duty, "M" for intentional
misconduct, "N" for willful neglect, "A" for incurred during a period
of unauthorized absence, or "NA."
Columns B and D - Enter "Yes", "No", or "NA".
Columns E and F - Self-explanatory.
A. Diagnosis:
Category I - Unfitting Conditions Which Are Compensable And Ratable:
None:
Current Rating: 00
Less Aggravating/contributory Factors: -00:
Combined Rating: 00.
Category II - Conditions That Can Be Unfitting But Are Not Currently
Compensable Or Ratable:
None:
Category III - Conditions That Are Not Separately Unfitting And Not
Compensable Or Ratable:
None:
B. Incurred while entitled to receive pay:
C. Line of Duty (Applies only if Item 9B is yes):
D. Proximate results of performing military duty (Non-RAD, USAFR and
ANG only):
E. Disability rating (percent):
F. VA Diagnostic Center:
10. Additional Findings:
A. Member Is Unfit Because Of Physical Disability:
Yes:
No:
NA:
B. Disability Was Incurred In Line Of Duty In Time Of War Or National
Emergency Or After 14 September 1978:
Yes:
No:
NA:
C. Disability Was The Direct Result Of Armed Conflict Or Was Caused By
An Instrumentality Of War And Incurred In Line Of Duty During A Period
Of War:
Yes:
No:
NA:
D. Disability Was The Direct Result Of A Combat Related Injury:
Yes:
No:
NA:
E. Degree Of Impairment Is:
May Be Permanent:
11. Compensable Percentage:
12. Recommended Disposition:
13. Overcomes Presumption Of Fitness:
Yes:
No:
Na:
14. Signature Of PEB President Or PEB Representative:
Separation/retirement Date:
15. Remarks:
Clinics For TDRL Evaluations: N/A.
Board Member #1: Initials:
Comments:
Board Member #2: Initials:
Comments:
Board President: Initials:
Comments:
Findings And Recommended Disposition Of USAF Physical Evaluation Board,
dated _____, pertaining to:
Continuation of Item 9, Findings concerning individual defects or
conditions:
A. DIAGNOSIS:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Continuation of Item 15, Remarks:
AF Form 356, Oct 95 (Previous Edition Is Obsolete).
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments on the TDRL from Disabled American Veterans:
DAV:
Disabled American Veterans
"Building Better Lives for America's Disabled Veterans"
National Service And Legislative Headquarters:
807 Maine Avenue, Sw:
Washington, D.C. 20024-2410:
Phone (202)554-3501:
Fax (202)554-3581:
December 4, 2008:
Delivery via E-mail:
Mr. Mark E Ward:
Senior Analyst:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
441 G Street, NW Rm. 5928:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Ward:
This letter serves as our feedback for consideration in the GAO review
of policies and processes regarding the Temporary Disability Retired
List (TDRL). Based on your GAO review, I reached out to several offices
engaged in the DES system and have summarized three comments to each
question in the tables below for your consideration.
> What are the advantages & disadvantages of TDRL to Service Members?
Advantages:
No. 1: The main advantage of being placed on TDRL is the condition has
not stabilized. This additional time allows the service member to
become stable and be rated appropriately. During this time frame
conditions may become worse with additional secondary problems arising
or may become better and allow the service member to return to duty.
No.2: The Service Member will incur all military retirement privileges,
to include I.D. card, base exchange and commissary privileges, TRICARE
benefits, and participation in the Survivor Benefit Plan.
No.3: The retired pay of a TDRL member is the same as that of a member
permanently retired for disability. Exception: While on the TDRL, the
member does not receive less than 50 percent of the amount of monthly
basic pay or RPB to which entitled at time of retirement. Except for
cost of living increases, a TDRL member's retired pay will not change
until removed from the list for permanent disposition. This is true
even if the percentage rating changes following periodic examination.
Disadvantages:
No. 1: It places the service member in limbo for 18 months. Being that
this is "all new" to the service member, he/she has no clue what will
happen to them. Instead of getting on with their lives, they will
always have the uncertainty of what is going to be the final outcome.
There is no reason to be placed on TDRL, the service member has
probably been dealing with his/her medical problem for at least 6 to 12
months even before it goes to a medical evaluation board. If the
Service member hasn't improved by then, they more than likely won't.
Therefore, just make it permanent.
No. 2: As every case is unique, my experience is some service members
become slightly better while on TDRL. The main concern is that the
disability percentage falls under the 30% rate and the service member
is severed. Meanwhile, the service member is still considered unfit and
no longer has military medical benefits.
No. 3: We always have to wonder what's going to happen during our re-
examination. To go through the medical evaluation board process all
over again and not be on Active Duty is stressful to say the least. You
never know what's going to happen. This process goes on for 5 years, if
they find it necessary. So, you have another set of doctors who don't
know your case specifically, making a decision on your life. Also, we
are not afforded CRDP like the 20 year retirees. We served our country
just like they did, some in battle. We did not ask to be injured,
especially with Combat Related Injuries. We did not choose to leave the
service; the decision was made for us. CRDP would be a great added
benefit for those on the TDRL, especially if their injuries preclude
them from finding gainful employment.
What are the advantages & disadvantages of TDRL to Service Members,
families?
Advantages:
No. 1: The first and obvious one would be that they get to use the same
facilities they did while being in the military. This would make it
almost transparent to them. My children are familiar with the BX, the
Commissary, etc. They also get the benefit of using the same health
insurance and in most cases can see the same doctors. Because of this,
my children now have a pediatrician that knows their name and their
history. We don't have to see a different one every time.
No. 2: The primary advantage for families when service members are
placed on the TDRL is the opportunity for them to assist the service
member in recuperating and potentially returning to duty. TDRL does
reduce the number of stressors and distractions that the service member
is exposed to, allowing for a more singular focus on recovery.
No. 3: Continued income; availability of TRICARE coverage for family,
(at some military locations, privatization of post/base housing may
allow retired members and their families to remain in place allowing
children to remain in their schools); access to on-base employment.
Disadvantages:
No. 1: The monetary issues that come with a significant reduction in
compensation. The reduction in pay can prove difficult to manage.
No. 2: Service members typically relocate, often to their home of
record as noted above. In these circumstances, additional stress may
be placed not only on the spouse and children but also on members of
the extended family. This burden may be difficult as the spouses
tries to manage the household, the military member's recovery (physical
therapy, medications, appointments, etc.) and any work outside the home
in an effort to obtain additional income to make ends meet, etc.
No. 3: A majority of service members don't return to active duty, but
are instead separated because, although their conditions may have
stabilized, they are no longer fit for duty. Usually they receive a one-
time lump sum payment because separated from the military under a
Discharge With Severance Pay category with a 0%, 10% or 20% disability
rating and receive a lump sum payment. This is the more likely outcome
as these conditions typically stabilize at a lower disability rating
than when first injured. On occasion, if the disability rating is 30%
or greater, they may be permanently retired and receive monthly
compensation for their lifetime.
How well is the re-evaluation process administered for those on TDRL?
Advantages:
No. 1: Service Members are not adequately informed on the importance
between evaluations of continuing to receive treatment and keeping
accurate records of symptoms and treatment from military clinics,
military treatment facilities (MTFs), VA clinics and medical centers,
and civilian treatment facilities. Also, many service members are
working and don't understand the importance of continued treatment,
albeit sometimes it's difficult to take off work. This lack of
treatment and documentation makes it easy for the military to reduce
an evaluation to less than 30%, which leads to "fit for duty" or
"disability severance pay."
No. 2: The requirement for 18 month reevaluations lays an additional
burden on the member to travel to a military treatment facility for a
reexamination with a doctor that they may not have seen before and
therefore have no established therapeutic relationship. This makes it
more difficult for the service member to disclose information to the
doctor which impacts the accuracy of the medical opinion the physician
is required to provide the Disability Evaluation System. This adds
further complexity to the recovery.
No. 3: I see no problem with the overall process; perhaps it is not
briefed well enough to the service member and his/her family. It seems
tome that the service member has enough to worry about on what is going
on with their care and the decision of the PEB to concern themselves
with what will happen in 18 months time.
In closing, we (DAV) appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback for
your consideration. Please know we are available for consultation and
hope you find this document helpful as we work together Building Better
Lives for our Nation's Disabled Veterans and their Families.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Edward R. Reese. Jr.
National Service Director:
ERR: ejh:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments on the TDRL from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
of America:
IAVA:
Iraq And Afghanistan Veterans Of America:
308 Massachusetts Ave NE:
Washington DC 20002:
Phone: 202-544-7692:
Fax: 202-544-7694:
Advantages and Disadvantages of the TDRL to Service Members:
(1) What are the advantages of being placed on the TDRL for service
members?
a. The primary advantage to TDRL is the protection that it provides to
injured servicemember if they are able / willing to return to active
service. Typically, if one returns to the military after a long break
in service, they re-enter with reduced rank and pay due to various
administrative and professional obstacles during the period of
separation. TDRL provided protections in rank and pay while the
servicemember undergoes recovery and treatment.
b. In some cases, placement on TDRL may allow a service member time to
resolve medical issues that have previously been found unfit for duty
so they may return to Active Duty status after re-evaluation.
Sometimes, when a service member is assigned to a Warrior Transition
Unit for an extended period of time, they do not feel like they are a
part of the military any more. They may be assigned a job they did not
sign up for, nor enjoy doing. TDRL gives them the freedom to convalesce
in a way they feel is most beneficial to their recovery.
c. If a service member is entitled to VA compensation at a greater rate
than their military pay, and they feel VA is able to adequately provide
their medical care, they can elect to receive VA compensation.
d. If the service member is ready to utilize such VA benefits as
Compensated Work Therapy, Independent Living Services, or the
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program, they are able to
access these services. Active Duty service members are allowed limited
access to VA benefits and programs.
e. Allows for the permanent retirement or separation without going
through the administrative steps of returning or appointment to active
duty to initiate the retirement/separation process.
(2) What are the disadvantages of being placed on the TDRL for service
members?
a. Service members are placed on TDRL because their medical condition
has not stabilized for rating purposes. Even though these individuals
often require ongoing medical treatment and rehabilitation, they have
access to fewer health care options on TDRL. While on Active Duty, a
service member can be treated for most anything at a military treatment
facility (MTF), a private facility, or a VA medical center. Once
retired, however, TRICARE coverage is more limited. In the case of TBI,
cognitive therapies necessary for rehabilitation are not covered at
all, unless the service member is on Active Duty. This limits the
service members' options for specialty care mainly to VA medical
centers which may not always be the best option for that service
member's needs.
b. Service members that are placed on TDRL following acute care do not
have the same psychosocial advantages as those that are allowed to
continue on Active Duty for intermediate rehabilitation. Becoming
severely disabled is a life altering event. Removing a service member
from a familiar environment while they are trying to adjust to their
new life can be further devastating. It is important to be among peers
and feel like a service member during recovery.
c. When a service member is placed on TDRL they are caught between two
worlds. They are still accountable to DOD, but do not receive any of
the benefits, such as creditable years toward retirement, CRSC, or
coverage under Title 10.
d. If a service member is placed on TDRL, as opposed to being
permanently retired, their disability rating may be lowered upon re-
evaluation.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the TDRL to Service Members' Families:
(3) What are the advantages of being placed on the TDRL for service
members' families?
a. Provides a mechanism for servicemembers to access DOD care and
recovery while they are on temporary retirement. Their families are not
beholden to live on or adjacent to military installations, but in their
homes of record if they so choose.
(4) What are the disadvantages of being placed on the TDRL for service
members' families?
a. When a service member is placed on TDRL, they are considered retired
for most purposes. The family is no longer eligible for base housing or
schools. When a service member is severely wounded, the entire family
goes through their own grief. Being removed from their community,
culture, and support network can be further devastating to a family
trying to adjust to their new situation.
b. If the service member needs to travel to an MTF or a TRICARE
facility for follow on medical treatment after being placed on TDRL,
neither the family member caregiver, nor the service member's
dependents are eligible for Non-Medical Attendant orders as they would
be on Active Duty status.
c. A service member on TDRL may be required to report to an MTF
multiple times for re-evaluation appointments over a period of time up
to five years. If the service member is unable to travel unattended,
this responsibility often falls on a family member. These evaluations
are not scheduled at the convenience of the family member, can result
in lost wages, and jeopardize their employment.
Administration of the TDRL Process:
(5) How well is the re-evaluation process administered for those on the
TDRL?
a. Service members are placed on TDRL because their medical condition
has not stabilized for rating purposes. At the time of placement on
TDRL the full extent of their injuries are still unknown and others may
still be undiagnosed. A service member is only re-evaluated for the
conditions for which they were placed on TDRL. Any new injuries or
issues that surface afterward are not added to the final board even if
they were caused by the same mechanism of injury. A service member
should have a complete re-evaluation of all body systems and any issues
related to the cause of injury should be added to the final board.
b. There are concerns about what constitutes a stable condition vs. a
controlled condition. The potential of long term aliments such as
diabetes or arthritis can become much more sever over time. While the
conditions can be controlled long term, the potential for a serious
increase in disability is always there while their rating cannot be
adjusted. If an injury or ailment persist throughout the 5 year TDRL
process, and it is controlled through a method of treatment or
medication, is it truly stable? Disability ratings are done at the
point of "stability" not based on the potential for future
debilitation.
c. The effects of TBI and PTSD do not factor well in to the TDRL model.
While there procedures are being currently reviewed and revised within
the DOD and VA systems, the system was set up for physical medical
conditions and do not fit well with mental or neurological conditions.
d. Often, a service member is sent to an MTF closest to their home of
record for re-evaluation, not a center of excellence for their
particular disabilities. The quality of an evaluation can impact a
rating decision and contribute to inconsistent results.
e. Service members need to be educated about the TDRL re-evaluation and
board process. They should be explained their rights and assigned an
advocate that will ensure their board is handled properly, particularly
in the case of a service member that is not competent to participate in
proceedings on their own. DOD should not assume the family member is
capable of handling the proceedings for the service member and provide
legal counsel when necessary.
f. Legal counsel should be made available to the service member or
their family when the re-evaluation is initiated, not after the appeal
process is already under way.
Other Issues:
(6) What, if any, other issues regarding the TDRL has your organization
identified? (You may also attach any reports, studies, or testimony
regarding the TDRL as part of your response to these questions.)
a. In the Army, an MEB is initiated when either optimal care has been
met or a doctor determines the Soldier will not return to Active Duty.
This causes a lot of inconsistency and inequity. Seriously injured
soldiers, who may have the potential to continue on Active Duty, are
not retired as quickly as severely injured soldiers, who clearly will
not. Optimal care should be met in all cases whenever possible. When it
is not, severely injured service members should be given a reasonable
amount of time for their condition to stabilize, so they may take
advantage of benefits under Title 10, allow their family to adjust to
their new situation, and fully understand their options before the
MEB/PEB process begins. While it is not the mission of DOD to provide
long-term care, allowing this period of time shows compassion, and
reflects the enormous sacrifice made by these service members and their
families.
b. The current regulations are a disincentive for DOD to allow severely
injured service members to defer placement on TDRL, not only because of
the cost of coverage under Title 10. Time on TDRL is not creditable
towards retirement, nor can a service member collect CRSC until they
are permanently retired. By placing a service member on TDRL, DOD can
reduce their creditable years toward retirement, and at the same time,
do not have to pay them CRSC for up to five years. In many cases, DOD
will not have to pay the service member anything during that time,
since they are eligible to receive VA compensation on TDRL.
c. Each service member's circumstances are unique and should be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a Warrior
Transition Unit, TDRL, or PDR is the best option for their individual
needs.
[End of section]:
Appendix VIII: Comments on the TDRL from the Military Officers
Association of America:
MOAA:
One Powerful Voice!
Military Officers Association of America:
201 N. Washington Street:
Alexandria, VA 22314-2539:
800.234.6622 phone:
[hyperlink, http://www.moea.org]
February 25, 2009:
Mark E. Ward, Senior Analyst:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
441 G Street, NW Room 5928:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Ward:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Temporary Disability
Retirement List. On behalf of the Military Officers Association of
America (MOAA), I would like to provide the following responses to your
questions as well as what we believe should be the overall philosophy
for disabled service members and their families.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the TDRL to Service Members:
(Q1) What are the advantages of being placed on the TDRL for service
members?
Answer: There is an advantage to the service member to be placed on the
TDRL; specifically, the TDRL provides the service member a temporary
retirement status for up to five years with many of the same retiree
benefits as if the member had retired for 20 years of service even
though they have an unfitting condition that is still unstable. Once a
member's condition stabilizes, the TDRL will provide an opportunity for
the service member to return to duty if their condition improves to the
point where they are deemed "fit for duty".
The member will also be in receipt of retired pay calculated at a
minimum of 50% of their basic pay or based on their years of service,
whichever is more beneficial. Finally, the TDRL gives the service
member the opportunity to file a claim for VA benefits and assistance,
and in some cases, be eligible to receive both VA compensation and
retired pay (CRSC or CRDP).
(Q2) What are the disadvantages of being placed on the TDRL for service
members?
Answer: The major disadvantage is that the service member is no longer
on "active duty" and forfeits the compensation, allowances, and special
pays that they had been receiving to include access to on-base housing
or housing allowances. Additionally, they lose "active duty"-level
TRICARE/dental benefits for themselves and their family members;
however, are eligible to receive retired-level TRICARE benefits.
Also, in some cases when the member files for VA compensation, the VA
compensation amount offsets dollar-for-dollar their disability retired
pay and are eligible to receive treatment in VA medical facilities.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the TDRL to Set-vice Members' Families:
(Q3) What are the advantages/disadvantages of being placed on the TDRL
for service members' families?
Answer: There is very little "advantage" to the family of a service
member being placed on the TDRL. Their lives end up being placed in a
temporary status waiting for a final decision from the Service to
either return their spouse to active duty or permanently retire them.
The "limbo status" is further exacerbated as they lose their access to
base housing (or the housing allowance), active duty TRICARE medical
care and access, and the stability provided by several base support
programs - on base schools, day care, youth centers, etc. Additionally,
in some few cases, the family will lose their eligibility/access to
special programs such as the ECHO program, spouse preference, or even
family medical leave (if they are a working spouse).
Administration of the TDRL Process:
(Q4) How well is the re-evaluation process administered for those on
the TDRL?
Answer: We have not received any positive or negative feedback on the
TDRL's eighteen month re-evaluation process.
Other Issues:
(Q5) What, if any, other issues regarding the TDRL has your
organization identified? (You may also attach any reports, studies, or
testimony regarding the TDRL as part of your response to these
questions.)
Answer: The TDRL is designed to assist the Services more than the
service member, The Services can place a service member off of active
duty and off their end strength temporarily with the outside chance of
bringing the member back on active duty if their condition stabilizes
and is no longer unfitting. The Services cut their costs, while the
service member and their family must wait up to five years for a final
disposition.
For the service member wishing to continue to serve their country, this
course of action may be beneficial, But for the families who wish to
move on to the next chapter of their lives, the TDRL process creates
more family instability rather than stability.
Overall philosophy: In general, the Services should strive to retain
the member on active duty as long as there is a reasonable prospect for
stabilizing their condition within some reasonable period (possibly 12
months). This provides needed continuity for the family during a time
when the focus needs to be on the health of the member rather than on
fear of "what will happen to me on a range of pay and benefits and
eligibility issues if we make this or that decision" and the
trepidation of making a bad decision based on misunderstandings or
misinformation.
Being placed on disability retirement (temporary or permanent) entails
some significant implications for treatment of the member and family to
the extent the member still requires a treatment regimen, and
especially if cognitive therapy is required. When a member is
disability retired:
A. TDY payments to family caregivers ceases;
D. Eligibility for subsidized family dental coverage ceases;
C. TRICARE Standard coverage beneficiary cost-sharing (for both the
member and family members) rises from 20% to 25%;
D. For certain severely disabled service members, they must begin
paying Meditate Part B Premiums (almost $100 a month) in order to stay
eligible for TRICARE (as second payer to Medicare);
E. Those needing cognitive therapy can find themselves in a bind, since
TRICARE will pay for this care for retirees only if the VA doesn't have
it reasonably available (there is high potential for each department
disagreeing over who makes this determination and what the definition
of "reasonably available" means.
We believe strongly that these kinds of discrepancies demand a fix to
make people who are forced into medical retirement for service-caused
conditions eligible for active duty-level care and benefits (including
cognitive therapy, family health and dental coverage, and per diem for
caregivers) for at least three years after leasing active duty.
Again, thank you for your inquiry and if you need further assistance, I
can be reached by phone at (703)838-8123 or by email at mikeh@moaa.org.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Col. Michael F. Hayden, USAF (Ret):
Deputy Director, Government Relations:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Personnel and Readiness:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
Mr. Daniel Bertoni:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
March 25, 2009:
Dear Mr. Bertoni,
This letter provides the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the
GAO draft report, GAO-09-289, "Military Disability Retirement: Closer
Monitoring Would Improve the Temporary Retirement Process," dated March
12, 2009 (GAO Code 130839).
The Department appreciates the opportunity to collaborate with the GAO
in identifying areas within the administration of the Temporary
Disability Retired List (TDRL) for emphasis to better support our
Service men and women as they more fully recover and rehabilitate from
a wound, illness, or injury.
Each of the Military Departments has processes and organizations in
place to support the needs of Service members placed on the TDRL. As
with any support mechanism, these work best when accessed by those in
need.
The Department supports the recommendations contained in the report
except as noted. Specific comments are provided in the attachment to
this letter.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Keith W. Meurlin, Maj Gen, USAF:
Acting Director:
Transition Policy & Care Coordination Office:
Attachments: As stated:
GAO Draft Report - Dated March 12, 2009:
GAO CODE 130839/GAO-09-289:
"Military Disability Retirement: Closer Monitoring Would Improve
the Temporary Retirement Process"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to better
inform their decisions about whether or not to place or retain someone
on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) by taking into account
data from past TDRL cases on outcomes for particular types of
disabilities to ensure that TDRL placement and retention decisions are
appropriate and consistent.
DOD Response: Concur with comment. While common conditions may lead to
similar outcomes, it is always necessary to recognize that individuals
with one similar condition may have differing additional conditions
that could lead to variances in final outcomes and dispositions.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretaries of the Army. Navy, and Air Force to
systematically review the appropriateness and consistency of each
Service's physical evaluation board (PEB) decisions regarding the
stability of disabilities to ensure that TDRL placement and retention
decisions are appropriate and consistent.
DOD Response: Concur.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct each Service to track and periodically report on the timeliness
of medical reexaminations in TDRL cases to ensure that TDRL
reexaminations occur at least once every 18 months.
DOD Response: Concur. Based in part on input from DASD (HA), the
Department will both direct the Military Departments to conduct
reexaminations at no longer than an 18 month interval, but also support
reexaminations within a shorter duration based on Congressional
guidance (e.g., six months for PTSD) or the time duration recommended
by the treating physician.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
develop DOD-wide standards and goals for the timeliness of TDRL
reexaminations to ensure that TDRL reexaminations occur at least once
every 18 months.
DOD Response: Concur. Please see the response to Recommendation 3,
above.
Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
establish a clearer policy specifying how the services should enforce
the requirements that temporary retirees submit to periodic
reexaminations and notify TDRL administrators when they have a change
of address to ensure that TDRL reexaminations occur at least once every
18 months.
DOD Response: Concur with comment. Each of the Departments provide
Service members specific directions regarding the requirement for
periodic reexaminations and the importance of maintaining current
contact information. It is not reasonable to assume that DoD can keep
track of every change of address if an individual on the TDRL fails to
submit same to the Military Departments' TDRL section.
Recommendation 6: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
expand the use of non-military physicians for conducting TDRL
reexaminations to ensure that TDRL reexaminations occur at least once
every 18 months.
DOD Response: Concur with comment. This recommendation should include
the statement that the non-military physicians are both trained in and
will accept examinations of individuals using VA-approved templates.
Additionally, usage of non-military physicians should also include
specific reference to reexaminations at non-military and non-VA
facilities given training and qualification consistent with Title 10
and Title 38, USC.
Recommendation 7: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Services to ensure that temporary retirees receive a final
determination upon expiration of their five years on the TDRL, as
required by law to prevent unnecessary delays in permanent disability
determinations for temporary retirees, and gaps in the receipt of
disability benefits to which they are entitled.
DOD Response: Concur. Each Service member on the TDRL is entitled (and
encouraged) to engage with the VA to initiate benefits for which they
are eligible. These benefits can be obtained well before reaching the
expiration of TDRL eligibility. The DoD will work with the Military
Departments to identify administrative process improvements that will
reduce or eliminate instances where a Service member exceeds the five
year tenure on the TDRL prior to receiving a final disposition. The
Department also intends to pursue a legislative change to Section
1210(e), Title 10, USC, to address the variances introduced into the
TDRL process due to differing interpretations of the phrase "permanent
and stable". Existing medical terminology uses the wording "maximum
medical improvement" to identify decision points and status during the
course of care and recovery. Use of this phrase throughout Chapter 61
of Title 10, USC, instead of the word `stable' would better reflect how
an individual's condition is assessed by medical caregivers, and reduce
the possibility of an individual exceeding the current allowable
duration on the TDRL.
Recommendation 8: The GAO recommends that the Secretaries of the Army,
Navy and Air Force assess the adequacy of information they provide
regarding the TDRL, including the information contained on their PEB
findings forms and other materials, and provided by PEB Liaison
Officers, and make improvements where needed to ensure that temporary
retirees receive adequate information to understand why they are placed
on the list and the importance of complying with TDRL requirements.
DOD Response: Concur. While addressed to the Secretaries of the
Military Departments, DoD will strive to ensure that Service members
placed on the TDRL receive information that provides an explanation of
both the TDRL and the specific medical condition(s) that led to that
placement.
Recommendation 9: The GAO recommends that the Secretaries of the Army,
Navy and Air Force; take steps to encourage ongoing contact between
temporary retirees and TDRL administrators by, for example, maintaining
a working and easily accessible TDRL administrative telephone hotline
for temporary retirees to ensure that temporary retirees receive
adequate information to understand why they are placed on the list and
the importance of complying with TDRL requirements.
DOD Response: Concur. Please see the response to Recommendation 5.
There are multiple Service-level efforts in place to provide
information regarding the TDRL to Service members. Each of the Military
Departments have telephonic contact numbers in place, as well as
specific e-mail addresses available to provide information, support,
and guidance.
Recommendation 10: The GAO recommends that the Secretaries of the Army,
Navy and Air Force improve access to Web-based information about the
TDRL to ensure that temporary retirees receive adequate information to
understand why they are placed on the list and the importance of
complying with TDRL requirements.
DOD Response: Concur. Again, please consider the responses to
Recommendations 5 and 9. Information regarding why an individual may be
placed on the TDRL, what the requirements are once placed on the list,
and points of contact to address questions or problems are readily
available from each Military Department. DoD will work with each
Service to ensure that the information available from each of these
sources is current and accessible.
[End of section]
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Daniel Bertoni, (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Clarita Mrena (Assistant Director), Regina Santucci (Analyst-in-
Charge), Salvatore Sorbello, Mark Ward, John Fisher, and Susan
Bernstein made major contributions to this report. Walter Vance,
Beverly Ross, and Anna Maria Ortiz assisted with study design and data
analysis; James Rebbe and Doreen Feldman provided legal advice; Almeta
Spencer assisted with study processing; Mimi Nguyen and Armetha Liles
assisted with graphics; and Holly Dye assisted with editing.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Traumatic Brain Injury: Better DOD and VA Oversight Can Help Ensure
More Accurate, Consistent, and Timely Decisions for the Traumatic
Injury Insurance Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-108]. Washington, D.C.: January 29,
2009.
Military Disability Systems: Increased Supports for Servicemembers and
Better Pilot Planning Could Improve the Disability Evaluation Process.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1137]. Washington, D.C.:
September 24, 2008.
DOD and VA: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Improve Care
Management and Disability Evaluations for Servicemembers. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-514T]. Washington, D.C.: February
27, 2008.
VA Health Care: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Screening and Evaluation
Implemented for OEF/OIF Veterans, but Challenges Remain. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-276]. Washington, D.C.: February 8,
2008.
DOD and VA: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Improve Health Care
and Disability Evaluations for Returning Servicemembers. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1256T]. Washington, D.C.: September
26, 2007.
Military Disability Evaluation: Ensuring Consistent and Timely Outcomes
for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-561T]. Washington, D.C.: April 6,
2006.
Military Disability Systems: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure
Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service
Members. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-362].
Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See GAO, Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to
Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty
Service Members, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-362]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2006); and Military Disability System:
Increased Supports for Servicemembers and Better Pilot Planning Could
Improve the Disability Evaluation Process, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1137] (Washington, D.C.: Sep. 24,
2008).
[2] Servicemembers on the TDRL may be separated without compensation in
rare cases involving noncompensable medical conditions that are
diagnosed after they have been placed on the list.
[3] DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness), Report to Congress, The Temporary Disability Retired List
(TDRL): An Assessment of its Continuing Utility and Future Role
(Washington, D.C., Oct. 2, 2008).
[4] Generally, a condition is compensable if the disability is of a
permanent nature and stable, is not the result of misconduct or willful
neglect, was incurred in the line of duty, and the servicemember is
entitled to basic pay or has an authorized absence.
[5] Servicemembers must be referred to the disability evaluation system
for a determination of whether they are fit for duty by their service
command. This referral is made after other options for retaining the
servicemember, including reassignment in a limited duty capacity, have
been exhausted. Servicemembers with 20 or more years of service are not
subject to the 30 percent minimum rating.
[6] Eligible servicemembers may choose to receive retirement payments
based on years of service instead, if this would result in higher
payments.
[7] An exception is made when the servicemember has an unstable
condition rated at 80 percent or higher and the condition is not
expected to improve enough to lower their rating to less than 80
percent. In this case, the servicemember would be placed on permanent
disability retirement.
[8] Eligible servicemembers may choose to receive retirement payments
based on years of service instead, if this would result in higher
payments.
[9] Benefits may be nontaxable if the service's PEB determines that the
compensable injuries are combat-related.
[10] This offset is being progressively eliminated for military
retirees with at least 20 years of service who have a VA disability
rating of 50 percent or greater.
[11] The Hook Commission had recommended that the first 5 years of all
disability retirements be subject to periodic physical examinations
through age 60, which would have been in keeping with the Army's
efforts to institute a system that would allow for adjusting the amount
of retirement pay based on changes in the degree of disability over
time.
[12] DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness), The TDRL: An Assessment of its Continuing Utility and
Future Role.
[13] We did not test for statistical associations between these factors
and the growth in TDRL caseload.
[14] Placement on the TDRL is one of several disability evaluation
outcomes. The other potential outcomes are placement on the PDRL,
separation with or without a one-time severance payment, and being
found fit to return to military service.
[15] For a more detailed discussion of the numbers of reservists
referred to the disability evaluation system relative to active duty
servicemembers, see [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-362].
[16] Disabling conditions the VASRD classifies as respiratory disorders
were also relatively more prevalent among annual placements on the
Army's TDRL. The prevalence of respiratory disorders, in general, has
declined from 30 percent among Army TDRL placements in 2000 to 12
percent in 2007.
[17] Until October 23, 2008, "Residuals of Traumatic Brain Injury
(TBI)" in the VASRD was referred to as "Brain Disease Due to Trauma."
[18] Other common neurological conditions and convulsive disorders
included epilepsies (12 percent), sciatic nerve (11 percent), and
multiple sclerosis (8 percent).
[19] A TBI in and of itself is not considered a disability based on the
VASRD. There are three main areas of residual dysfunction that may
result from a TBI and have profound effects on functioning: cognitive,
emotional/behavioral, and physical.
[20] Other common mental disabilities include major depressive
disorders (23 percent), bipolar disorder (15 percent), and dementia due
to head trauma (14 percent).
[21] For servicemembers with PTSD, starting in 2008, the VASRD applies
an automatic disability rating of not less than 50 percent, but
requires that a follow-up examination be scheduled within a 6-month
period, instead of every 18 months.
[22] For 31 individuals who were placed on the TDRL between calendar
years 2000 and 2003 and then removed from the list, it was unknown if a
severance payment was made.
[23] The law states that "the Secretary concerned shall make a final
determination of the case of each member whose name is on the temporary
disability retired list upon the expiration of five years after the
date when the member's name was placed on that list. If, at the time of
that determination, the physical disability for which the member's name
was carried on the temporary disability retired list still exists, it
shall be considered to be of a permanent nature and stable." 10 U.S.C.
§ 1210(b).
[24] Among those starting on the TDRL in calendar years 2004 to 2007,
50 percent have already received a final disposition of PDRL by month
48, which is earlier than the median of 56 months for those placed on
the list in 2000 through 2003.
[25] Three individuals who were first removed from the TDRL and
subsequently placed on the PDRL received severance payments.
[26] Eligible servicemembers may choose to receive retirement payments
based on years of service instead, if this would result in higher
payments.
[27] We were not able to calculate a difference in ratings for 10 of
the temporary retirees that were placed on the PDRL because data on
their final ratings were missing.
[28] Monthly cash payments for temporary retirees can be no lower than
50 percent of the individual's base pay at the time of retirement.
[29] These were cases where the individual had less then 20 years of
service and received a final rating below 30 percent.
[30] DOD policies require that servicemembers' case files undergo
review by multiple reviewers, and federal law requires that the
services use, to the extent feasible, the VASRD. In addition, DOD
periodically convenes a Disability Advisory Council comprised of
service officials to review and update disability policy and to discuss
current issues. For more information, see GAO-06-362. Among the
services, only the Army conducts post disposition quality reviews to
determine whether the medical evidence supports the disposition
decision made in each case.
[31] The Army has implemented a statistical program that analyzes its
disability system database and identifies the VASRD codes that have the
greatest degree of face inconsistency among its three PEBs.
[32] The recent DOD report to Congress from the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), The TDRL: An Assessment
of its Continuing Utility and Future Role, was prepared in response to
a statutory requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-181, sec. 1647). Although this report
presents some information about outcomes and years spent on the TDRL
across the services, it does not compile information on the TDRL
outcomes associated with different types of disabilities.
[33] In two cases that we encountered during the course of this review,
temporary retirees who had been on the list for over 3 years had not
had any reexaminations.
[34] According to military officials, MTF staff at the clinics where
TDRL retirees need appointments often do not understand that although
TDRL members are retirees, DOD regulations state that they have the
same priority for appointments as active duty members.
[35] According to military officials, the services provide
servicemembers with the option of arranging air travel through a
military travel agency, which requires no cash outlay from the
servicemember. In addition, service officials told us that they have
mechanisms to provide up-front financial assistance upon request, but
servicemembers must request this assistance.
[36] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1137].
[37] Each service requires its PEBLOs to provide counseling to TDRL
retirees. PEBLOs are responsible for explaining the significance of
particular PEB findings or documents TDRL retirees receive and are
expected to find answers to retirees' questions if they cannot answer
them.
[38] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-362].
[39] Appendix I contains a list of the materials and Web sites we
reviewed.
[40] This information is as of January 2009.
[41] U.S. Army, Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES).
[42] Total removals from the TDRL each year included cases in which the
servicemember was (1) placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List
(PDRL); (2) separated from the military, either with severance or
without any disability benefits; (3) deceased; or (4) found fit for
duty.
[43] The Retired Pay File documents every pay action taken in each
temporary retiree's case within a specified time frame.
[44] A full 5 years' worth of data were not available for 138 of the
293 cases in our 2000 through 2003 cohort whose status in August 2008
was "awaiting a final disability determination." It is possible that
some of these cases could have had final dispositions before or at 5
years that occurred after August 2008 and were not captured in our
analysis.
[45] We saw that in a small number of cases, the first removal codes
could be followed by subsequent TDRL or PDRL activity. Due to the
complexity of this small number of cases, we decided to characterize
the outcomes as first movement off the TDRL.
[46] For estimates of monthly cash payments, we only looked at
temporary retirees' disability ratings. We did not assess if years of
service multiplied by 2.5 would result in higher monthly retirement
payments.
[47] DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness), Report to Congress, The Temporary Disability Retired List
(TDRL): An Assessment of its Continuing Utility and Future Role
(Washington, D.C., Oct. 2, 2008).
[48] Information that could identify any participant was left out of
the transcripts to protect participants' privacy.
[49] We also contacted the National Military Family Association, the
Reserve Officers Association, and the Reserve Enlisted Association.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
