If you read my latest blog entry, you know I plan to publish recommendations for fixing this broken PDES system. One thing that has always gnawed at me is that the PEBs very rarely have cases remanded to them to fix errors. One of the cornerstones of succes in military activities is feedback.
When you are training, or engaging in operations, after the event there is a review of what should have happened, what actually happened, and steps to improve performance next time. This type of After Action Review/Lesson's Learned has been credited with greatly improving the performance of our military over the years. The feedback provided and improvement in results is equally applicable to most activities and certainly can be applied to the performance of rating officials at the Physical Evaluation Boards. However, currently there is very little feedback provided on rating decisions.
The closest analagous process is at the VA. This quote from the Veterans Benefits Manual illustrates the impact of feedback on rating determinations:
" 13.1.4 Rates for Success in Appealing to the BVA Before and After Judicial Review, and Present Caseload
The BVA's decision-making statistics reflect the impact that judicial review has had on BVA decisions. During the period between FY 1982 and FY 1991, the BVA's annual allowance rate (i.e., the percentage of BVA decisions granting the relief that the RO had previously denied) was static, ranging from 12.8 percent to 14.4 percent. Beginning shortly after the CAVC published its first volume of decisions, the BVA's allowance rate steadily increased, from 13.8 percent in FY 1991 to 19.9 percent in FY 1996, and to an unprecedented high of 27.7 percent in FY 2002. Beginning in FY 2003, the allowance rate has dipped (to a low of 17.1 percent in FY 2004), and the current allowance rate (for FY 2006) is 19.3 percent.
An even greater increase occurred in the annual rate at which appeals resulted in a remand to the RO, typically for development of additional evidence. During the period from 1980 to 1990, typically 20 percent of all appeals were remanded to the RO. In 1992, the remand rate jumped to 50.5 percent, and for much of the 1990s, the remand rate was well over 40 percent. This significant increase is directly attributable to the effects of CAVC decision making. Most remands are deemed necessary by the BVA to ensure that the agency complies with the Court's rulings interpreting the VA's obligation to assist the claimant in the development of the case... Then, with the enactment of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), the BVA's remand rate began to again increase as appeals (particularly those appeals that the BVA might have denied as "not well grounded" before enactment of the VCAA) were sent back to VA regional offices for evidentiary and procedural development. This increase is reflected in the BVA's statistics for FY 2001, which reveal a remand rate of 48.8 percent."
What this says to me is that after the publication of judicial cases directing the VA to take certain actions, the allowance rate (which, I think you can equate to cases that were in decided in error by the Regional Office) nearly doubled. With the enactment of the VCAA, the remand rate (signalling that there was an error in the case) also at least doubled.
In the PDES, remands or reversals are relatively rare (mainly because the hurdles and time neccesary to go through administrative and/or judicial appeal make many people give up). When they do occur, it is almost alway so long after the original decision that the PEBs have no feedback or learning experience from the remand or reversal (because the PEB members tenure is relatively short).
What this says to me is that to improve ratings at the PEB, there must be a timely feedback system to let them know when they have done something incorrectly or have failed to get the neccesary evidence to decide a case. Note, that this would work both ways, letting the PEB know when they have acted correctly as well. The end result is fair and consistent ratings.
When you are training, or engaging in operations, after the event there is a review of what should have happened, what actually happened, and steps to improve performance next time. This type of After Action Review/Lesson's Learned has been credited with greatly improving the performance of our military over the years. The feedback provided and improvement in results is equally applicable to most activities and certainly can be applied to the performance of rating officials at the Physical Evaluation Boards. However, currently there is very little feedback provided on rating decisions.
The closest analagous process is at the VA. This quote from the Veterans Benefits Manual illustrates the impact of feedback on rating determinations:
" 13.1.4 Rates for Success in Appealing to the BVA Before and After Judicial Review, and Present Caseload
The BVA's decision-making statistics reflect the impact that judicial review has had on BVA decisions. During the period between FY 1982 and FY 1991, the BVA's annual allowance rate (i.e., the percentage of BVA decisions granting the relief that the RO had previously denied) was static, ranging from 12.8 percent to 14.4 percent. Beginning shortly after the CAVC published its first volume of decisions, the BVA's allowance rate steadily increased, from 13.8 percent in FY 1991 to 19.9 percent in FY 1996, and to an unprecedented high of 27.7 percent in FY 2002. Beginning in FY 2003, the allowance rate has dipped (to a low of 17.1 percent in FY 2004), and the current allowance rate (for FY 2006) is 19.3 percent.
An even greater increase occurred in the annual rate at which appeals resulted in a remand to the RO, typically for development of additional evidence. During the period from 1980 to 1990, typically 20 percent of all appeals were remanded to the RO. In 1992, the remand rate jumped to 50.5 percent, and for much of the 1990s, the remand rate was well over 40 percent. This significant increase is directly attributable to the effects of CAVC decision making. Most remands are deemed necessary by the BVA to ensure that the agency complies with the Court's rulings interpreting the VA's obligation to assist the claimant in the development of the case... Then, with the enactment of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), the BVA's remand rate began to again increase as appeals (particularly those appeals that the BVA might have denied as "not well grounded" before enactment of the VCAA) were sent back to VA regional offices for evidentiary and procedural development. This increase is reflected in the BVA's statistics for FY 2001, which reveal a remand rate of 48.8 percent."
What this says to me is that after the publication of judicial cases directing the VA to take certain actions, the allowance rate (which, I think you can equate to cases that were in decided in error by the Regional Office) nearly doubled. With the enactment of the VCAA, the remand rate (signalling that there was an error in the case) also at least doubled.
In the PDES, remands or reversals are relatively rare (mainly because the hurdles and time neccesary to go through administrative and/or judicial appeal make many people give up). When they do occur, it is almost alway so long after the original decision that the PEBs have no feedback or learning experience from the remand or reversal (because the PEB members tenure is relatively short).
What this says to me is that to improve ratings at the PEB, there must be a timely feedback system to let them know when they have done something incorrectly or have failed to get the neccesary evidence to decide a case. Note, that this would work both ways, letting the PEB know when they have acted correctly as well. The end result is fair and consistent ratings.