Disability Evaluation of Military Servicemembers







Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



On February 18, 2007, the Washington Post published the first in a series of articles describing
problems with outpatient medical care and other services provided at the Walter Reed Army
Medical Center (WRAMC). The series noted, among other things, concerns about the processes
used to evaluate disability in injured military servicemembers. Both the Department of Defense
(DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) conduct disability evaluations and assign
disability ratings to servicemembers or veterans under their respective authorities. An individual’s
disability rating, from either department, affects the scope of pay and benefits for which he or she
is eligible, and the cost to the respective department of providing such benefits.
There are significant differences between the disability evaluations performed by DOD and VA,
as well as civilian disability evaluations conducted by the Social Security Administration (SSA)
and workers’ compensation programs. Most notably, the DOD disability evaluation is focused on
the effect of any disabling condition on the performance of the servicemember’s duties in the
military, while the other three systems evaluate the impact of a disability on gainful employment
in the civilian economy.
Congress has followed recent news reports with interest, and several legislative initiatives are
under consideration. For example, H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007,
passed unanimously in the House on March 28, 2007. The Senate version of H.R. 1538, the
Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July
25, 2007. The bills included numerous provisions to improve or streamline medical care and
benefits processing for returning injured servicemembers. Title XVI of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2008 (H.R. 4986, P.L. 110-181), contains provisions from both versions
of H.R. 1538 related to the care and transition of injured servicemembers.
This report is intended as a primer to describe disability evaluation in general, including
evaluations used by DOD and VA, as well as civilian evaluations used by the SSA and by
workers’ compensation programs. Next, the DOD and VA disability rating processes are
described, respectively, in greater detail. Finally, recent congressional and executive actions and
recommendations regarding DOD and VA disability evaluations are described. This report
emphasizes the disability evaluation systems at DOD and VA, with illustrative comparisons made
to civilian systems when appropriate. It will be updated as warranted.






Backgr ound ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of Disability Evaluation..................................................................................................3
Department of Defense (DOD) Disability Evaluation..............................................................3
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability Evaluation.....................................................4
Social Security Administration (SSA) Disability Evaluation....................................................5
Workers’ Compensation (WC) Disability Evaluation...............................................................5
The DOD Physical Disability Evaluation System...........................................................................7
Initial Medical Treatment of Injured Servicemembers..............................................................7
Steps in the Disability Evaluation Process................................................................................8
Overvi ew ....................................................................................................................... ...... 8
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)......................................................................................9
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).......................................................................................9
Assistance to Servicemembers During Disability Evaluation..........................................10
Outcomes of the DOD Disability Process.........................................................................10
Issues of Timely and Consistent Processing.....................................................................12
VA Disability Evaluation...............................................................................................................12
Recent Congressional and Executive Actions...............................................................................14
Figure 1. Steps in the DOD Physical Disability Evaluation System...............................................9
Appendix. Definitions of U.S. Military Servicemembers and Veterans........................................18
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................21






On February 18, 2007, the Washington Post published the first in a series of articles describing
problems with outpatient medical care and other services provided at the Walter Reed Army 1
Medical Center (WRAMC). WRAMC, a Department of Defense (DOD) facility in Washington,
DC, is one of several Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) providing medical care to injured
servicemembers returning from combat theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
Intense media scrutiny followed the Washington Post series. News reports have, in general,
observed that medical care provided to returning servicemembers is good or excellent, but noted
evidence of problems with infrastructure and cleanliness in both DOD and Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. In addition, reported problems have included complex
administrative systems, delays and errors in DOD’s processing of retirement and other benefits
for those servicemembers who separate from the armed forces, the transitioning of eligible
servicemembers to veteran status, and VA’s processing of veterans’ benefits. Reports have also
mentioned understaffing and inadequate training of case workers who assist servicemembers and
veterans with benefits processing and other aspects of their return to civilian life. Some reports
have, however, been problematic in their descriptions of the respective roles of DOD and VA in
providing health care and other benefits to injured servicemembers, or in their descriptions of the 2
health care and other benefits systems in the two departments.
Recent reports have spotlighted problems faced by some returning injured OEF/OIF
servicemembers. However, DOD and VA do not apply their disability evaluations differently to
OEF/OIF servicemembers than to other servicemembers and veterans. Also, less than half of each
department’s disability evaluation caseloads involve OEF/OIF personnel. Nonetheless, the added
number of OEF/OIF cases and, in particular, their complexity, do appear to have strained the 3
capacity of the disability evaluation systems in the two departments.

1 Dana Priest and Anne Hull, “Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration at Army’s Top Medical Facility,” Washington Post,
February 18, 2007.
2 Among other discrepancies, several news reports mistakenly referred to soldiers at WRAMC asveterans. For
example, on February 20, 2007, The Seattle Times reprinted the second article in The Washington Post series,
describing conditions at Mologne House on the WRAMC campus, under the headlineInjured Vets Now Battle for
Benefits.” See the first of two text boxes in this report for a definition ofveteran.”
3 In the DOD, 11% of disability evaluations involve personnel injured in war, while 89% involve servicemembers
transitioning to disability retirement. See the testimony of Gordon R. England, Deputy Secretary of Defense, before a
joint hearing of the Senate Committees on Armed Forces and Veterans’ Affairs on the DOD and VA disability rating
systems and the transition of servicemembers from the DOD to veteran status, April 12, 2007, at http://armed-
services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=2690. In the VA, 54% of all claims are claims reopened for worsening of
chronic conditions. See the testimony of Ronald R. Aument, Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of
Veterans Affairs, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Hearing on the Impact of OEF/OIF on the VA
Claims Process, Statement, March 13, 2007, at http://www.va.gov/OCA/testimony/hvac/sdama/070313RA.asp.





When Is a Discharged Servicemember Classified as
a “Veteran” for the Purposes of VA Benefits?
Not all discharged servicemembers are considered “veterans” for the purposes of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits and
programs. In order to be eligible for most VA benefits, it is necessary for the discharged servicemember to be
classified as a “veteran,” or in some circumstances, the survivor of a veteran.
Federal statutes define “veteran” as a “person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was
discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.” [38 U.S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)].
The VA largely bases its determination of veteran status upon military department service records. In addition to the
member’s service records, other factors affect his or her classification as a “veteran” and may affect future benefits.
These factors include:
Discharge criteria: (38 U.S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)).
Active military, naval or air service: (38 U.S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)).
Whether the service was during “time of war:” (38 U.S.C. § 101(6)-(11); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2).
Minimum active-duty service requirement: (38 U.S.C. § 5303A 38, C.F.R. § 3.12A).
After it has been proved that the discharged servicemember meets these criteria, he or she is considered to be a
“veteran,” and may be eligible for certain benefits relating to health care, education, and other services provided by
the VA.
See the Appendix for definitions of U.S. military servicemembers and veterans.
(Information provided by Douglas Reid Weimer, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, CRS.)
Some news reports and other sources have asserted that the DOD underrates disability. In both the
DOD and VA systems, disability ratings range from zero (least severe) to 100% (most severe), in
increments of 10%. Generally, if an injured servicemember has served in the military less than 20
years, a DOD disability rating of 20% or less entitles the servicemember to a single lump-sum
severance payment and no additional military benefits, while a rating of 30% or greater may,
subject to certain other conditions, make the individual eligible for certain lifelong military
benefits such as retirement pay and health insurance for the servicemember and his or her family.
Hence, in most cases, a disability rating of 30% or greater yields a more favorable benefits
package for the servicemember, and a higher and longer-term cost for the department. For
veterans under the VA system, in comparison, a service-connected disability rating of 10% or
more provides a monthly disability compensation payment whereas a disability rating of 30% or
more provides additional disability compensation for a spouse and dependents. (The amount of
monthly disability compensation depends on the disability percentage rating.) In addition, unlike
the DOD disability evaluation, VA disability ratings may, over time, be revised as a veteran files a
claim (or claims) for changes in disability status related to prior military service.
This report describes disability evaluation in general, including evaluations used by DOD and
VA, as well as civilian evaluations used by the Social Security Administration and by workers’
compensation programs. Next, the DOD and VA disability rating processes are described,
respectively, in greater detail. Finally, recent congressional and executive branch actions and
recommendations regarding military disability evaluation are described. This report emphasizes
the disability evaluation systems at DOD and VA, with illustrative comparisons made to civilian
systems when appropriate.






There are significant differences between the disability evaluations performed by the DOD, the
VA, the Social Security Administration (SSA), and workers’ compensation programs (WC). There
are differences in process and, more importantly, fundamental differences in the basis for
evaluation in each of the systems. This may result in different rating outcomes from each system,
which can affect the financial condition of the disabled applicant and the future costs incurred by
the benefits provider. A brief overview and comparison of the four systems is provided below.
More detailed descriptions of the DOD and VA systems are presented later in this report.
Some have proposed combining or linking different disability evaluation programs to improve
outcomes or other problems with program performance. (For example, proposals to consolidate
the DOD and VA disability systems, or to have the VA conduct disability evaluations of DOD
personnel, are discussed in the final section of this report, “Recent Congressional and Executive
Actions.”) However, attempts to combine or link existing disability evaluation systems may be
difficult and may not be desirable, given the different purposes of each system.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has designated as high-risk the federal disability
programs at SSA and VA, which rate disability based on civilian employability. GAO says that
these systems are based upon outmoded concepts of disability, and fail to optimize opportunities 4
that would allow disabled beneficiaries to return to productive work.
The DOD disability evaluation is focused on the effect of any disabling condition on the
performance of the servicemember’s duties in the military. The evaluation can be viewed as a
two-step process. The first step is to determine if the applicant (servicemember) is fit for military
duty. The second step, for applicants found to be unfit, is the rating of service-connected
disability.
Several factors are taken into account to determine a servicemember’s fitness for duty, including
• whether or not the servicemember can perform his or her required duties (based
on office, grade, rank, or rating);
• whether or not the servicemember is medically prevented from taking the
required physical fitness test;
• the impact on deployability of the servicemember and his or her unit; and
• whether or not an alternative job specialty for the servicemember is feasible.
If a servicemember is found unfit for duty, the servicemember can be placed on the Temporary
Disability Retired List (TDRL, which requires a reevaluation in the future), or permanently
released from military service. Prior to release, DOD examines those service-connected physical
impairments that rendered the soldier unfit, and provides a disability rating. For soldiers with
multiple diagnosed physical impairments, each is potentially ratable, provided that DOD finds

4 Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Modernizing Federal Disability Programs,” in High Risk Series: An
Update, GAO-07-310, p. 83, January 31, 2007.





each physical impairment to be separately unfitting.5 DOD and VA use the same rating table, the
Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (often referred to as VASRD or SRD, described
in the Text Box below) to determine the disability percentage. This disability percentage is one
factor used to determine if the service member receives a lump-sum payment upon discharge
(based on a rating of 20% or lower), or an annual pension and possibly other lifelong benefits
(based on a rating of 30% or higher).
Once the ratings determination is made and accepted by the servicemember, no further changes to
the evaluation, percentage rating, lump-sum payment, or pension are made in the future. The
military disability evaluation process does not look at the individual servicemember’s current,
future, or potential earnings or earnings capacity in evaluating disability.
The Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD)
A schedule of ratings was first officially developed in 1921. In 1924, a schedule was adopted that attempted to
incorporate a veteran’s occupation, with ratings in 1% increments. However, because the only job held by many
veterans was their military occupation, the schedule was deemed unworkable. Two editions of a ratings schedule
were published in 1933, with different levels or grades of disability (the first had 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%, while the
second had 10 grades from 10% to 100%). The current basic schedule is the 1945 Schedule for Rating Disabilities,
which was reprinted in 1957. When several laws related to veterans were combined in 1958 by P.L. 85-857, which
created the Veterans Affairs, the Administrator was given the authority to develop a schedule of ratings for disability,
and to periodically update the schedule based on experience. The VASRD last underwent a thorough review and
revision for all body systems in the early 1990s (revisions for 11 of the 15 body systems were finalized as of April
2007).
The VASRD is contained in 38 C.F.R. Chapter 1, Part 4. While some sections are descriptive of the injury and the
ratings, others are schedules. For example, for removal of ribs (diagnostic code 5297), the scheduled rating
percentage is as follows:
More than six: 50%
Five or six: 40%
Three or four: 30%
Two: 20%
One, or resection of two or more ribs without regeneration: 10%
The VA evaluates a qualified individual’s disability based on the likely prognosis—the progression
of severity of the disability over time—and the effect of the disability on employability within the
civilian job market. A qualified individual is generally a former servicemember with active-duty 6
service in the military who has been discharged under conditions other than dishonorable. The
DOD’s central consideration in disability evaluation, namely, fitness for military duty, is not
relevant for the VA’s evaluation.
The VA evaluates all medical conditions or illnesses that the veteran (the former servicemember)
incurred during military service, and preexisting medical conditions or illnesses that were

5 Each individual condition must, independently of the others, result in unfitness for duty.
6 For more information on eligibility, see CRS Report RL33113, Veterans Affairs: Basic Eligibility for Disability
Benefit Programs, by Douglas Reid Weimer.





aggravated by military service.7 The resulting disability percentage rating (based on the VASRD)
determines the level of monthly disability compensation, eligibility for other benefits and also
plays a role in determining the veteran’s position in the priority system for VA medical care. In 8
order to receive disability compensation, an individual must be rated at least 10% disabled. In
contrast to the DOD system, the veteran can be reevaluated if new or newly recognized medical
conditions or illnesses occur and are determined to have been caused or aggravated by military
service. A veteran may, upon reevaluation, receive a different percentage ranking than he or she
received initially. (Though such a reevaluation may yield a disability payment that is a larger or
smaller, the former outcome is much more common.)

The Social Security Administration (SSA) evaluates individuals to determine their eligibility for
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.
SSDI benefits are available to persons with disabilities who are below the retirement age and who
have paid into the Social Security system through payroll taxes, while SSI benefits are available 10
to children and adults with disabilities who have limited assets and income. In order to qualify
for either SSDI or SSI benefits based on disability, a person must have a medically determinable
impairment that is expected to last at least one year or result in death, and that renders the person
unable to perform his or her previous work or any other work that exists in significant numbers in
the national economy.
There are no percentage ratings or partial disability determinations for SSDI or SSI benefits.
SSDI benefit amounts are based on an individual’s career earnings covered by Social Security. All
SSI recipients receive the same basic monthly federal benefit; this benefit is reduced by any
earned or unearned income the recipient receives in a month, and is augmented by any 11
supplement paid by the recipient’s state.

Workers’ compensation (WC) is an employer-provided benefit. Generally, an employer, under
state laws, must purchase WC insurance to provide medical care and compensation for the work-
related injuries or illnesses of employees. In general, WC provides, subject to limitations in state
laws, medical coverage and payments for lost wages. State laws specify a percentage of the
worker’s usual wage (66 and two-thirds percent, in most cases) to be paid during periods of work-

7 For more information on the disability process, see CRS Report RL33323, Veterans Affairs: Benefits for Service-
Connected Disabilities, by Douglas Reid Weimer.
8 A veteran can receive a 0% rating for a service-connected disability.
9 This section was prepared by Scott Szymendera, Analyst in Disability Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division, CRS.
10 For more information on the SSDI and SSI programs, see CRS Report RL32279, Primer on Disability Benefits:
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), by Scott Szymendera.
11 For 2008, the monthly federal SSI benefit is $637 for an individual and $956 for a couple; 44 states and the District
of Columbia offer a state supplement to some SSI benefits.
12 This section was prepared by Edward Rappaport, a former (retired) staff member of the Domestic Social Policy
Division, CRS. For questions on Workers Compensation, please contact Scott Szymendera, Analyst in Disability
Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division, CRS.





related total, but not necessarily permanent, disability.13 In addition, for all work injuries, the
employer is responsible for full payment of all necessary medical treatment until the point of 14
“maximum medical improvement” is reached. Various forms of cost control (e.g., utilization
review) may be used, and disputes can be referred to an administrative proceeding conducted by
the state labor department or equivalent agency.
Medical evaluations for WC may be done by the employee’s personal physician or one specified
by the insurance carrier, with disputed results again appealable to a state agency. As noted, total
disability is compensated by a percentage of lost wages for as long as the disability persists
(though with some time limits or reductions in amount at retirement age in some states). The
various jurisdictions evaluate partial disability in many different ways, which have been
classified by some analysts into three basic models:
• Impairment rating: An assessment is made of the worker’s proportionate loss of
general physical and/or mental functioning compared to a hypothetical “whole
person.”
• Loss of earning capacity: An estimate is made of the maximum level of earnings
the worker can attain in his or her present condition compared to his or her
previous earnings. This takes into account education, age, state of the local job
market and other particulars of the case.
• Actual wage loss: Post-injury earnings are subtracted from the pre-injury rate of
earnings. However, additional criteria are usually applied in order to assure that 15
the loss of earnings is fully caused by the injury.
Most jurisdictions also make distinctions among types of injury. For example, there may be
benefit limitations applied to mental injury versus physical injury, or occupational disease versus
traumatic injury. Most states also list specific types of injuries (called “scheduled” injuries)—
usually loss of body parts or functions such as vision or hearing—and specify a standardized
benefit. For example, loss of an arm could be compensated by six years of payment at two-thirds
of one’s normal wage.
State governments, insurers and employers generally place a high priority on return to work,
whether it is to the original job, a light duty assignment, or with a new employer. This strategy is
usually the most cost-effective, and, arguably, preferred by most workers. Accordingly, vocational
rehabilitation is included in all WC systems and, indeed, a worker may lose his or her WC
payments if not participating in a prescribed rehabilitation program.
In addition to WC, some employers offer private disability insurance to cover disabilities that
may not be caused by work injuries. Under these policies, the employee makes premium
payments (the employer may or may not contribute to the premiums) for insurance to provide a

13 Workers compensation payments are tax-exempt.
14 Maximal medical improvement is the greatest degree of cure likely to be achieved with further medical services.
15 Reville, Robert T. et al., An Evaluation of California’s Permanent Disability Rating System, Appendix A, Santa
Monica CA, RAND Corp, Institute for Civil Justice, 2005, at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/
RAND_MG258.pdf.





replacement for lost income in the event of an injury or illness that prevents him or her from 16
working.

In general, when a solider is injured on the battlefield, such as in the OEF/OIF conflict theaters,
he or she is stabilized in theater by a combat medic/lifesaver and then moved to a battalion aid
station. If the servicemember has serious injuries, he or she is transferred to a forward surgical
team to be stabilized, and then moved to a combat support hospital and further stabilized for a
period of about two days. If the servicemember needs more specialized care, he or she is
evacuated from OEF/OIF conflict theaters and brought to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
(LRMC) in Germany for treatment. Most patients arrive at LRMC 12 to 48 hours after injury. In 17
general, servicemembers remain in Germany for a period of about four to five days. Length of
stay at in-theater medical facilities is determined by the stability of the patient and the availability
of medical evacuation aircraft.
After further stabilization at LRMC, seriously injured soldiers are evacuated to the United States.
They arrive at an Echelon V (highest level of care) Military Treatment Facility (MTF), such as
WRAMC, or the National Naval Medical Center (NNMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. Catastrophic
burn patients are flown to the Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) at Fort Sam Houston,
Texas. BAMC has also established a specialized amputee rehabilitation center.
Injured servicemembers remain hospitalized as inpatients as long as required for optimal medical
care and treatment. When hospitalization is no longer required and the patient is ambulatory, the
servicemember may transition to outpatient status. Depending on the severity of the
servicemember’s injuries, lengths of stay in inpatient and/or outpatient facilities may be
considerable, lasting months or sometimes years. Nonetheless, the individual remains a member
of the military—not a veteran—unless or until he or she separates from military service.
Generally, servicemembers do not undergo medical assessments for disability evaluation until it is
felt that the progression of their medical condition has reached a plateau. Until this occurs, active-
duty servicemembers whose injury or illness prevents them from working in their assigned unit 18
during recovery and rehabilitation are placed on “Medical Hold” status.

16 Five states (California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island) and Puerto Rico have Temporary Disability
Insurance (TDI) programs that provide limited non work-related disability benefits. In most cases, these benefits cover
up to a half-year or year of disability.
17 Tenuta, Joachim J., “From the Battlefields to the States: The Road to Recovery. The Role of Landstuhl Regional
Medical Center in US Military Casualty Care,” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, vol. 14,
(2006), S45-S47.
18 See, for example, Army regulation 40-400, “Medical Services: Patient Administration.” Reserve component
personnel who have an illness or injury that prevents their deployment or return to duty with their unit are placed on
medical holdover” status.





The DOD has well-established criteria for the medical qualifications and physical aptitude of 19
those desiring to enlist or be appointed in the military. For servicemembers who become
potentially unfit for further service due to injury or disease, DOD has a process to evaluate their
fitness for retention in the Armed Forces. DOD has granted the Army, Navy and Air Force some 20
latitude in tailoring disability processes to their specific requirements. The determination of
fitness is individualized and based, in addition to medical criteria, upon a soldier’s ability to
perform the duties of his or her primary military occupation speciality (MOS) or officer speciality
at a minimum level of competence, taking into consideration rank and current duty position.
Consequently, two servicemembers with comparable medical conditions, but different MOSs, may
receive different fitness determinations if the medical condition affects duty requirements in
different ways.
In general, if a military commander or physician determines that an active or reserve military
servicemember may be physically unfit for return to duty, the servicemember is referred to a
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). If the MEB finds that the individual does not meet medical
fitness standards, the case will be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The PEB’s role
is to determine whether a soldier can reasonably perform his or her military duties, and if not, to
determine the severity of the soldier’s physical or mental disability and rate it accordingly. The
disability rating determines if the soldier is retained in the service, separated with or without
separation pay, permanently retired, or placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL).
(These outcomes are discussed in greater detail later in this report.) The PEB process incorporates
informal, formal, and appeals procedures. Throughout the process, military personnel must be
provided with trained counselors to advise and assist. The steps in this process—MEB, PEB, and
appeal—are referred to as the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES), which is diagramed
in Figure 1. Each branch of the Armed Forces oversees its own PDES processes and procedures.

19 Department of Defense Directive 6130.3, Physical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment and Induction, May 2,
1994.
20 Department of Defense Directive 1332.18, Separation or Retirement for Physical Disability, November 4, 1996
(certified current as of December 1, 2003), at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133218p.pdf.





Figure 1. Steps in the DOD Physical Disability Evaluation System
Source: Adapted from GAO, Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely
Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members, GAO-06-362, p. 7, March 31, 2006, derived from DOD
documents.
Note: The DOD Physical Disability Evaluation System also includes an appeals process, not depicted in this
figure.
The MEB, usually composed of two to three physicians, is conducted to first document the
medical status and duty limitations of servicemembers referred to it. The board reviews medical
information and the determination of whether an injury is service-connected. MEBs may be
formal or informal, and may permit appeals based on service guidelines. Importantly, the MEB
does not make a conclusion of unfitness, recommend a disability percentage rating, or make a
determination regarding separation or retention in the service. MEB results are forwarded to the
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for disability rating and retention or separation decisions.
The PEB is usually composed of both physicians and officers within the servicemember’s chain
of command. PEBs can also be conducted on a formal or informal basis. The informal PEB is





used if the servicemember has not requested a personal appearance and only a documentary
review is required. The formal PEB is required when the servicemember has requested a personal
appearance before the board, with or without legal representation or other advisory assistance.
Using the medical assessment provided by the MEB, the PEB first determines whether the
servicemember meets medical standards for retention in the service. The determination has a
presumption of fitness. That is, the servicemember is presumed to have been fit until the injury or
illness occurred. This is because the servicemember was examined prior to entering the service,
and periodically afterward, including prior to deployment. If a servicemember is deemed unfit for
duty, the PEB determines if the disability is service-connected and assigns a disability rating
based on fitness for military service. Formal PEBs require a written record that is made available
to the servicemember, and servicemembers can appeal the findings and recommendations of the
PEB. Final results are forwarded to appropriate personnel authorities for final approval, as
delegated by the secretary of the respective service branch.
DOD provides trained counselors for servicemembers being evaluated in the disability process to
assist with the MEB, PEB, and other required processes. These individuals are commonly
referred to as Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officers, or PEBLOs. However, the GAO has
noted inconsistencies among the military services (Army, Air Force, and Navy) in when the 21
PEBLOs entered the disability process and the adequacy of their training. Assistance is also
available from new programs established by DOD and the services to support severely disabled 22
OIF/OEF servicemembers.
For the injured servicemember, there are five potential outcomes from the disability process.
These are described below. For those who are separated as a result of a disability, benefits
provided will vary depending on years of service, a determination of whether the disability is
service-connected, and the percentage disability rating. Servicemembers with less than 20 years
of service who are separated with disability ratings of 30% or greater may be eligible for lifelong
benefits, including retirement pay and health insurance for the servicemember and his or her
family. Servicemembers separated with disability ratings of 20% or less do not receive lifelong
benefits, but instead receive a single lump-sum severance payment.
The possible outcomes of the military disability process are as follows:
Servicemembers may be found fit for duty and retained. In some cases, based on the physical
limitations resulting from an illness or injury, a servicemember may be reclassified into a
different job category.

21 GAO, Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for
Reserve and Active Duty Service Members, GAO-06-362, March 31, 2006.
22 See CRS Report RS22366, Military Support to the Severely Disabled: Overview of Service Programs, by Charles A.
Henning.





Servicemembers who are found unfit but whose condition is unstable (i.e., the condition may
improve or worsen over time) may be placed on the TDRL for a maximum of five years. While
on the TDRL, periodic reexaminations are required (normally every 18 months). Based on the
reexaminations and a determination of stable condition, the retiree could be found fit for duty,
could have his or her disability rating lowered and be separated with severance pay, or could be
permanently retired. While on the TDRL, servicemembers receive monthly retired pay (not to
exceed 50% of base pay), and are eligible for all retiree benefits and programs, but are not
required to perform any military duties.
Disability benefits are not available if the injury or illness was incurred while not on duty (i.e., is
not service-connected), or as a result of willful misconduct.
Eligibility for this outcome is based on a finding of unfitness and a disability rating of less than
30%. The amount of severance pay is determined by multiplying the monthly basic pay at the
time of discharge by twice the number of years of active service. The maximum payment is two
years of basic pay.
Servicemembers who are determined to be physically unfit and have a disability rating of 30% or
greater generally will be retired, even though they may have less than 20 years of active duty. The
disability retirement pay calculation differs somewhat from the normal longevity retirement
calculation. It is computed by multiplying the basic pay of the retired grade by the greater of the
percentage of the disability, or 2.5% multiplied by the number of years of service. The maximum 23
benefit under either computation cannot currently exceed 75% of basic pay.
Retired servicemembers with service-connected disabilities may also be eligible for VA disability
compensation. Until recently, military retired pay was offset by any VA compensation received.
However, the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act now allows some military retirees to
receive both VA and military retirement compensation, if the individual was retired with more 24
than 20 years of service. Generally, military retired pay is taxable. Exceptions are (1) if the
disability pay is for combat-related injuries or (2) if the servicemember was in the military, or so
obligated, on September 24, 1975.

23 See CRS Report RL33449, Military Retirement, Concurrent Receipt, and Related Major Legislative Issues, by
Charles A. Henning.
24 Ibid.





The goal of DOD disability policy is that the physical disability evaluation process will be 25
conducted in a “consistent and timely manner.” However, DOD has given the services the
latitude to set up their own processes, so inconsistencies would appear to be inevitable. While
standards or common schedules such as the VASRD are used, these may be subject to
interpretation and/or misapplication.
DOD has also established timeliness standards for case initiation and processing. All
servicemembers must be referred for evaluation within one year of the diagnosis of their
condition if they are unable to return to duty. In addition, DOD allows 30 days to complete the
MEB process and 40 days to complete the PEB process. GAO has found that DOD has not
monitored compliance by the services with DOD directives on disability evaluation, or exercised 26
oversight over the training of disability program staff. The Army Inspector General, in a recent
inspection of the Army disability system, found that the Army was not meeting the DOD 27
timeliness standards.

In general, once DOD separates a servicemember from active military service,28 the 29
servicemember becomes eligible to obtain various benefits administered by the VA. This section
of the report provides information about the veterans disability evaluation process.
The veterans disability evaluation process begins with application for veterans’ disability
compensation payments. The VA disability rating determines the level of monthly disability
compensation payments available to the veteran and his or her spouse and children. In addition,
the priority system for veterans’ health care services is based in part on the VA disability rating.
An application for disability compensation requires information related to the veteran’s military
service and medical condition. A veteran must have been in active service and be discharged
under conditions other than dishonorable. The veteran must also have a current medical condition
that is service-connected (i.e., in general, incurred as a result of, or aggravated by, active 30
service).
For servicemembers who have been discharged from the military, the VA has access to DOD
discharge data to determine veteran status, as well as access to military medical records.
However, a veteran making an initial claim for disability compensation some years after

25 DOD Instruction 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, July 10, 2006.
26 GAO, Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for
Reserve and Active Duty Service Members, GAO-06-362, March 31, 2006.
27 U.S. Army, “Army Inspector General Details Findings on Soldier Disability System, press release with link to full
report, March 12, 2007, at http://www.army.mil/news/jumparchive/newsreleases/.
28 A veteran (former servicemember) has received a DD 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
form.
29 See CRS Report RL33985, Veterans’ Benefits: Issues in the 110th Congress, coordinated by Carol D. Davis.
30 Lower-income wartime veterans who are elderly or have a nonservice-connected disability may apply for a VA
pension. The pension benefits are offset by income from other sources.





discharge, or making a claim for an additional disability some time after an initial disability
rating, may encounter more problems in providing the required documentation. For example, a
veteran filing a claim for a disability 15 years after service may need to contact, or have the VA
contact, several physicians who have treated the veteran for the medical condition over the period
(15 years) since the veteran was discharged from the military. In addition, a veteran out of the
military for a number of years may have to rely on the VA or DOD to conduct a search of stored
paper documents for the needed discharge or medical documentation.
Once all of the documentation needed for the application is complete, a veteran may undergo a
compensation and pension examination at a VA facility at the veteran’s convenience (some
examinations are done under contract outside of VA facilities). The compensation and pension
examination is not a complete examination of all body systems and is not focused on diagnosis
and treatment. The focus of the examination is the body system(s) covered by the veteran’s claim
for disability or pension and is designed to provide information specific to determining a
disability rating. The information gathered during the examination is then reviewed by a ratings
specialist using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) to determine the
disability rating for the veteran. The VA ratings are done in increments of 10%, with a scale of 0% 31
to 100%. The finding is then reviewed by a different rating specialist as a means of confirming
the rating. A letter is sent to the veteran explaining the rating and the basis for the rating. The 32
veteran has the right to appeal a rating determination.
The veteran’s disability evaluation is based on the impact of the disability on civilian
employability. The VASRD rating can be viewed as a measure of the average impact on civilian
employment of the disability. However, the evaluation does not take into account a veteran’s
current earnings or potential future earnings in determining disability payments. The evaluation
may take into account the individual unemployability of a veteran if the veteran claims that he or
she cannot work as a result of the disability, or if the disability is of such a nature that there is a
presumption of unemployability. The payment levels are established in law based on the disability
percentage and whether the veteran has a spouse or dependents. An additional payment can be
made, if needed, for aid and attendance.
Problems have been noted with the veterans disability evaluation process. Because the evaluation
is done at the local level, the VA Inspector General has noted that there are unwarranted 33
geographic variations in disability ratings. Also, GAO has recommended that the department do
more monitoring with respect to the process, particularly of the regional medical centers reports, 34
to ensure consistency in disability determinations.
The VA’s claims process also has a large backlog. Currently OIF/OEF servicemembers, 35
particularly those recuperating in MTFs, are the VA’s first priority in claims processing. This

31 For more detail on the VA disability process, see CRS Report RL33323, Veterans Affairs: Benefits for Service-
Connected Disabilities, by Douglas Reid Weimer.
32 For information on the appeal process, see CRS Report RL33704, Veterans Affairs: The Appeal Process for
Veterans Claims, by Douglas Reid Weimer.
33 Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General, Review of State Variances in VA Disability
Compensation Payments, Report No. 05-00765-137, May 19, 2005.
34 Government Accountability Office, VA Disability Benefits, Routine Monitoring of Disability Decisions Could
Improve Consistency, GAO-06-120T, October 20, 2005.
35 In addition to having VA claims counselors at major MTFs to assist severely injured servicemembers going through
the DOD disability evaluation process and transitioning out of military service, the VA operates a Benefits Delivery at
(continued...)





may extend the processing time for claims by other veterans. The size of the claims backlog is
related to the increase in the number of claims. According to the VA, the number of compensation
and pension claims has increased from 467,524 at the end of 2004 to 643,655 at the end of 36
2007. The department attributes the increase in claims to several factors, including (1) the large
size of the military’s active-duty force; (2) the aging of the veteran population; and (3) increases
in the number and complexity of conditions claimed. The department has also expanded outreach 37
efforts that have contributed to the increase in claims.

Congress has followed recent news reports with interest, and several legislative initiatives are
under consideration. For example, H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007,
passed unanimously in the House on March 28, 2007. The Senate version of H.R. 1538, the
Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July
25, 2007. The bills included numerous provisions to improve or streamline medical care and
benefits processing for returning injured servicemembers. Several provisions address disability
evaluation. These include (1) a requirement that DOD standardize training and caseload limits for 38
staff who are involved in its disability evaluation system; (2) assurance of the availability of
medical personnel to advise servicemembers who are undergoing DOD disability evaluation; (3)
criteria to clarify certain aspects of the DOD disability evaluation; and (4) a joint DOD/VA study
and report to Congress on the disability evaluation systems used by each department,
recommendations for improvement, and the feasibility of consolidating the two systems. Title
XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 (H.R. 4986, P.L. 110-181), contains
provisions from both versions of H.R. 1538 related to the care and transition of injured
servicemembers.
The Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission, established by Congress in 2004, is charged with,
among other things, evaluating the DOD and VA disability evaluation and compensation 39
systems. Following the Washington Post series, the commission’s Chairman, Retired Lieutenant
General James Terry Scott, testified before Congress regarding preliminary findings of the
commission’s work. He noted that he was testifying as an individual and not on behalf of the 40
commission, and that the commission had not reached conclusions at that time. Scott’s

(...continued)
Discharge (BDD) program. Under the BDD program, which is available at certain military installations around the
world, the VA begins processing servicemembers’ claims for benefits prior to separation from the military. See the
statement of Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs, before the Senate
Committee on Veterans Affairs, hearing on VA Claims Adjudication Process, March 7, 2007.
36 Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefit Administration, Monday Morning Workload Report, December
27, 2004, and December 31, 2007, at http://www.vba.va.gov/reports/mmwr/.
37 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Hearing on the Impact of OEF/OIF on the VA Claims
Process, Statement of Ronald R. Aument, Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs, March
13, 2007, at http://www.va.gov/OCA/testimony/hvac/sdama/070313RA.asp.
38 Currently, each of the services specifies its own training requirements.
39 The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004, P.L. 108-136, 38 U.S.C. §1101 note. See
http://www.vetscommission.org/index.asp.
40 Statement of Lieutenant General James Terry Scott, USA (Ret.), Chairman, Veterans’ Disability Benefits
Commission, before a joint hearing of the Senate Committees on Armed Forces and Veterans’ Affairs on the DOD and
VA disability rating systems and the transition of servicemembers from the DOD to veteran status, April 12, 2007, at
(continued...)





testimony included preliminary data on outcomes of DOD and VA disability ratings, as well as
preliminary analyses of variations in ratings between services within DOD and between DOD and
VA ratings. Scott posited possible explanations for variations, noting that the DOD services and
the VA each tailor their disability evaluation standards to different missions, and, consequently,
comparability of ratings is not necessarily expected. Scott also testified that the DOD has an
incentive to assign disability ratings at less than 30% because they avoid lifetime payment of
benefits, and made a number of recommendations, including a long-term realignment of
responsibilities in which the VA is responsible for rating the disability of injured servicemembers.
The Commission issued its final report on October 11, 2007. In its report, the Commission made 41
113 recommendations, designating 13 of them as priority recommendations. Recommendations
were made in the following broad categories:
• disability evaluation and compensation;
• determining eligibility for benefits;
• appropriateness of the benefits;
• appropriateness of the level of benefits;
• survivors and dependents;
• disability claims administration;
• transition; and
• establishing an executive oversight group to implement recommendations.
In response to the news stories about WRAMC and other problems experienced by returning
servicemembers, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates formed an Independent Review Group
(IRG), established as a subcommittee of the Defense Health Board, to review and, within 45 days,
report upon and provide recommendations regarding any critical shortcomings and opportunities 42
to improve rehabilitative care, administrative processes, and the quality of life of patients. The 43
IRG issued its final report on April 12, 2007. The report commented on the complexity of the
DOD Physical Disability Evaluation System and the widespread perception that it is unfair to
service personnel. The IRG recommended, among other things, a statutory remedy that would, for
all personnel, place DOD in charge of fitness-for-duty determinations and VA in charge of 44
disability assessments. On May 2, 2005, Secretary Gates announced the formation of an internal

(...continued)
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2007/April/Scott%2004-12-07.pdf.
41 VDBC full report, pp. 378-395, and executive summary, pp. 12-15. One commissioners separate views on four of
the Commission’s recommendations are published as Appendix L in the full report.
42 See http://www.ha.osd.mil/DHB/default.cfm. Secretary Gates also established a DOD website to provide a
centralized location for news articles pertaining to health care problems at WRAMC. See http://www.defenselink.mil/
home/features/2007/walter_reed/.
43 Independent Review Group on Rehabilitative Care and Administrative Processes at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center and National Naval Medical Center, Rebuilding the Trust, April 2007, at http://www.ha.osd.mil/dhb/
recommendations/2007/IRG-Report-Final.pdf.
44 Ibid., pp. 28-34.





oversight committee, chaired by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, that will ensure that 45
recommendations of the Independent Review Group are implemented.
On March 6, 2007, President George W. Bush directed VA Secretary Jim Nicholson to establish
an interagency task force on returning servicemembers to examine the range of federal services
available to these individuals, gaps in those services, and possible corrective actions. The Task 46
Force report was submitted to the President on April 19, 2007. Among other recommendations,
the Task Force advised the development of a joint DOD/VA disability evaluation process.
Also on March 6, 2007, the President issued an executive order establishing the President’s 47
Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors. The Commission was
charged, among other things, with evaluating the coordination, management, and adequacy of
disability benefits provided to returning injured servicemembers by federal agencies, as well as
by the private sector. The President named former Senator Bob Dole and former Department of
Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala to co-chair the Commission. The
Commission issued its report on July 30, 2007. In its report, the Commission made six broad
recommendations, each with several specific action steps directed to the Congress, DOD and/or 48
VA, and published a matrix of the 23 action steps in its main report. The six broad
recommendations are as follows:

1. implement comprehensive recovery plans for returning injured servicemembers;


2. restructure the military and veterans disability and compensation systems;


3. improve care for people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain
injury (TBI);

4. strengthen support for families;


5. transfer patient information across the DOD and VA systems; and

6. support Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) until its closure.49


On March 12, 2007, the U.S. Army Inspector General provided congressional committees with a
report on the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System, detailing findings of military medical 50
and personnel policies, procedures, and services for injured soldiers. The inspection—which

45 Baker III, Fred W., “Gates Puts Punch Behind Fixing Wounded Warrior Care,” American Forces Press Service, May
2, 2007, at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=33033.
46 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,Task Force Report to the President on Returning Global War on Terror
Heroes,” April 2007, at http://www1.va.gov/taskforce/.
47 White House, “Executive Order: Establishing a Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors
and a Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes,” press release, March 6, 2007.
48 President’s Commission on Care for Americas Returning Wounded Warriors report, p. 28, chart.
49 CRS has prepared a Congressional Distribution Memorandum that compares key recommendations of two
Commissions discussed in this report. See Comparison of Selected Recommendations of the President’s Commission on
Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors and the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission, by Christine Scott
and Sara A. Lister, November 15, 2007.
50 U.S. Army, “Army Inspector General Details Findings on Soldier Disability System, press release with link to full
report, March 12, 2007, at http://www.army.mil/news/jumparchive/newsreleases/.





was requested by the Secretary of the Army in April 2006—found that policies varied between
VA, DOD, and Army regulations; that training for personnel assisting soldiers was not
standardized; and that current information-management databases were inadequate. The report
also noted that cases are often more complicated than in the past because of the types of combat
injuries soldiers now sustain, and found that because of this and an increased patient volume, the
Army currently does not meet its own case-processing time standards or those of the DOD.
In November 2007, the VA and DOD announced that they had begun a one-year pilot program for
a single physical for disability evaluations. The pilot program is being conducted at the three
MTFs (Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, and
the Malcolm Grow Medical Center at Andrews Air Force Base) in the Washington, D.C. area.
Under the pilot program, the VA will be conducting the physical examination used by both the VA
and DOD for disability ratings. Both the VA and DOD will use the results of the single physical
examination. The military will determine if any condition makes the servicemember unfit for duty
and will use the VA rating for the condition in determining the military disability rating.







Federal statutes define various components of, and types of service in, the United States
military—for those currently serving and for those discharged or released from service. This
section provides a list of relevant definitions. Different services and benefits provided by the
federal government (such as medical, educational, and financial) may be available to the
servicemembers based upon the type of military service that the servicemembers provide or have
provided.
The term “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.52

“National Guard” means the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard.54
The term “Army National Guard” means that part of the organized militia of several states and
territories, active and inactive, that is a land force, is trained and has its officers appointed under
Article 1, § 8, cl. 16 of the Constitution, and is supported by federal funds and federally
recognized. The Army National Guard is a state rather than a federal entity.
The term “Army National Guard of the United States” means the reserve component of the Army, 55
all of whose members are members of the Army National Guard.
The term “Air National Guard” means that part of the organized militia of the several states and
territories, active and inactive, that is an air force, is trained and has its officers appointed under

51 Appendix prepared by Douglas Reid Weimer, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, CRS.
52 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4).
53 Ibid., § 101(c).
54 Ibid., § 101(c)(1).
55 Ibid., § 101(c)(3).





Article 1, § 8, cl. 16 of the Constitution, and is supported by federal funds and federally 56
recognized. The Air National Guard is a state rather than a federal entity.
The term “Air National Guard of the United States” means the reserve component of the Air 57
Force, all of whose members are members of the Air National Guard.
The term “reserve,” with respect to an enlistment, appointment, grade, or office, means 58
enlistment, appointment, grade, or office held as a reserve of one of the armed forces.
The term “reserve active-status list” means a single list for the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine
Corps, respectively, that contains the names of all officers of that armed force except warrant 59
officers who are in an active status in a reserve component and are not on an active-duty list.
The term “active duty” means full-time duty in the active military service of the United States.60
It includes full-time training duty, annual training duty, and attendance, while in the active
military service, at a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of the 61
military department concerned. Such term does not include full-time National Guard duty.
The term “active duty for a period of more than 30 days” means active duty under a call or order 62
that does not specify a period of 30 days or less.
The term “active service” means service on active duty or full-time National Guard duty.63

56 Ibid., § 101(c)(4).
57 Ibid., § 101(c)(5).
58 Ibid., § 101(c)(6).
59 Ibid., § 101(c)(7).
60 Ibid., § 101(d)(1).
61 Full-time national guard duty is considered state service rather than federal service.
62 10 U.S.C. § 101(d)(2).
63 Ibid., § 101(d)(3).





The term “active status” means the status of a member of reserve component who is not in the
inactive Army National Guard or inactive Air National Guard, on an inactive status list, or in the 64
Retired Reserve.
Federal statutes define other duty statuses: “full-time National Guard duty,”65 “active Guard and 6667
Reserve Duty,” and “inactive-duty training.”
The servicemember usually leaves the United States military service at the time of his or her
discharge or release from military service. At that time, the servicemember’s status changes, and
his or her eligibility for various benefits and services may change.
Not all discharged service members are considered “veterans” for the purposes of Veterans
Affairs benefits and programs. It should also be considered that services and benefits provided to
a servicemember during his or her military service may not be available after his or her
discharge.
In order to be eligible for most VA benefits, it is necessary for the discharged servicemember to
be classified as a “veteran,” or in some circumstances, the survivor or the dependent of a veteran.
It should also be considered that available benefits may vary for “veterans” and for fully retired
members of the armed services.
Within the context of the VA, a “veteran” is defined as a “person who served in the active
military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions 68
other than dishonorable.” The VA largely bases its determination of veteran status upon military 69
department service records.
In addition to the member’s service records, other factors affect his or her classification as a 70
“veteran,” and may affect future benefits. These include discharge criteria, a requirement of

64 Ibid., § 101(d)(4).
65 Ibid., § 101(d)(5). See note 11.
66 Ibid., § 101(d)(6).
67 Ibid., § 101(d)(7).
68 38 U.S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d).
69 See CRS Report RL33113, Veterans Affairs: Basic Eligibility for Disability Benefit Programs, by Douglas Reid
Weimer.
70 Ibid., at 3-4.





“active military, naval or air service,”71 whether the military service was during time of war,72 73
and the length of duty requirement.
After it has been proven that the discharged servicemember meets these criteria, he or she is
considered to be a “veteran” who may be eligible for certain benefits relating to health care,
education, and other services provided by the VA.
Christine Scott Charles A. Henning
Specialist in Social Policy Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
cscott@crs.loc.gov, 7-7366 chenning@crs.loc.gov, 7-8866
Sidath Viranga Panangala Scott Szymendera
Analyst in Veterans Policy Analyst in Disability Policy
spanangala@crs.loc.gov, 7-0623 sszymendera@crs.loc.gov, 7-0014


71 Ibid., at 4-6. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d).
72 Ibid., at 6-7. See 38 U.S.C. § 101 (6)-(11); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2.
73 Ibid., at 7.