This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-77 
entitled 'Veterans' Reemployment Rights: Department of Labor Has 
Higher Performance Than the Office of Special Counsel on More 
Demonstration Project Measures' which was released on November 25, 
2014. 

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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

November 2014: 

Veterans' Reemployment Rights: 

Department of Labor Has Higher Performance Than the Office of Special 
Counsel on More Demonstration Project Measures: 

GAO-15-77: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-77, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

USERRA protects the employment and reemployment rights of workers who 
leave civilian jobs to perform military or other uniformed service. 
VBA directed DOL and OSC to establish a second demonstration project 
for investigating and resolving USERRA claims filed against federal 
agencies. Congress established the demonstration project to facilitate 
a review of relative agency performance and mandated GAO to report on 
relative performance across a number of areas specified in the VBA. 

This report assesses agencies' relative performance using VBA 
performance metrics - case outcomes, customer satisfaction, 
timeliness, cost, and capacity. 

To determine agencies' relative performance, GAO analyzed agency data 
on the aforementioned metrics. GAO reviewed VBA requirements and 
relevant guidance, and interviewed agency officials. In addition, GAO 
also conducted tests on each agencies' cost and accounting data to 
ensure agreed upon cost components were reflected in the totals. 

What GAO Found: 

Demonstration Project Performance Between August 2011 and August 2014, 
the Department of Labor (DOL) demonstrated relatively higher 
performance than the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) on three of five 
performance metrics in the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (VBA).The 
relative performance was influenced—to a varying extent—by a number of 
factors, such as the investigative approach. 

Case Outcomes (as of July 31, 2014): OSC provided relief to about 26 
percent and DOL provided relief to about 20 percent of its claimants. 
DOL resolved 308 (or 97 percent of the 319) Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) cases, and OSC 
resolved 366 (or 84 percent of the 434) cases it received. OSC 
received a greater number of cases due to a requirement to investigate 
27 cases involving a prohibited personnel practice (PPP) and to the 
random assignment of cases from servicemembers with odd social 
security numbers. GAO did not evaluate the appropriateness of agencies'
 case outcomes. Although the agencies had 10 months to prepare, OSC 
officials stated they had limited capacity to investigate and resolve 
claims during the first six months of the demonstration project. In 
fiscal years 2013 and 2014, both agencies closed about as many cases 
as received. 

Customer Satisfaction: On a survey sent to claimants and administered 
by OPM, DOL respondents reported higher average satisfaction on every 
question than OSC respondents, with pronounced differences in scores 
on timeliness, access to staff, and overall experience. For example, 
66 percent of DOL's respondents (n=100) were satisfied with overall 
customer service, whereas 34 percent of OSC's respondents (n=151) were 
satisfied. In light of the low survey response rates, GAO conducted 
additional statistical analyses to control for potential bias and 
ensure conclusions could be drawn from survey results. Differences in 
satisfaction between agencies persisted after controlling for 
variables such as case outcome and timeliness. 

Timeliness: DOL's average investigation time of closed cases was about 
41 days and OSC's was about 151 days. GAO examined factors potentially 
influencing timeliness, such as OSC's responsibility to investigate 
cases involving a PPP, and whether relief was obtained for claimants. 
GAO found these factors were not primary contributors to OSC's 
relatively longer average times. Agencies have different policies for 
extending case investigation timeframes. Officials from OSC said they 
allow for open-ended case extensions, whereas DOL does not.
Cost: DOL spent about $1,112 per case, whereas OSC spent about $3,810. 
The relative difference in agencies' costs was affected by factors 
such as the number of hours dedicated to case investigations and pay 
levels, among others. 

Capacity: The agencies demonstrated different capabilities to 
investigate and resolve cases in areas such as staffing, training, and 
information technology. For example, DOL had 31 staff investigating 
USERRA demonstration project, and other nonfederal USERRA or veterans' 
preference cases. These DOL investigators had an average annual 
demonstration project caseload of five. OSC had 7 staff investigating 
demonstration project cases, with an average annual caseload of 28. 
GAO could not determine relative performance on agency capacity due to 
the lack of a specific and comparable metric. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that any agency chosen to investigate USERRA claims 
continue efforts to collect claimants' survey satisfaction 
information, and to consider efforts to increase the survey response 
rate. DOL agreed with GAO's recommendations. OSC neither agreed nor 
disagreed with GAO's recommendations, and disagreed with GAO's 
findings regarding agencies' relative performance. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-77]. For more 
information, contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-2717 or 
jonesy@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DOL Has Relatively Higher Performance Than OSC for More Demonstration 
Project Performance Measures: 

Customer Satisfaction Can Provide Meaningful Feedback for Service 
Improvements: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: USERRA Demonstration Project Customer Satisfaction Survey 
Administration and Instrument: 

Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate Analysis of Customer 
Satisfaction Data: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Office of Special Counsel: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: The Office of Special Counsel Resolved a Greater Proportion 
of Cases in Favor of the Claimant: 

Table 2: On Average, DOL Received Higher Scores on Claimant 
Interaction with Staff and Overall Satisfaction with Customer Service 
and Investigation: 

Table 3: DOL Has More Investigative Staff with Generally Lower Pay 
Levels While OSC Had Less Investigative Staff with Higher Caseloads: 

Table 4: Survey Response Rates at DOL and OSC: 

Table 5: Case Processing Time for Responders and Non-Responders, by 
Agency and Overall: 

Table 6: Discrimination Allegations for Responders and Non-Responders, 
by Agency and Overall: 

Table 7: Favorable Outcomes for Responders and Non-Responders, by 
Agency and Overall: 

Table 8: Agency Reported Outcome by Respondent Perception of the 
Outcome: 

Table 9: Responses to 15 Satisfaction Items on the USERRA Survey 
Questionnaire, by Agency: 

Table 10: Odds and Odds Ratios Indicating Differences in Satisfaction 
at DOL and OSC before and after Adjusting for Whether the Outcome Was 
Favorable, Case Processing Time, and Whether Discrimination Was 
Alleged: 

Table 11: Odds and Odds Ratios Indicating Differences in Satisfaction 
at DOL and OSC Before and After Adjusting for Whether the Outcome Was 
Favorable, Case Processing Time, and Whether Discrimination Was 
Alleged: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: USERRA Claims Processing under the Demonstration Project: 

Figure 2: Department of Labor Closed About As Many Cases As It Opened: 

Figure 3: Office of Special Counsel Received More Cases Than It Closed 
During the Early Years but the Gap Narrowed During the Later Years: 

Figure 4: Department of Labor Respondents Were More Likely to Express 
Satisfaction: 

Figure 5: Department of Labor Respondents Were More Likely to Express 
Satisfaction: 

Figure 6: Department of Labor Resolved Cases Faster: 

Figure 7: Office of Special Counsel Had a Greater Proportion of Cases 
Open More Than 90 Days: 

Figure 8: OSC Uses ADR Process to Mediate USERRA Cases to Offer 
Claimants Additional Resolution Options: 

Figure 9: OPM 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey Instrument: 

Abbreviations: 

ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOL: Department of Labor: 

DOL-VETS: Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training 
Service: 

MSPB: Merit Systems Protection Board: 

NVTI: National Veterans Training Institute: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

OSC: Office of Special Counsel: 

OSC 2000: Office of Special Counsel case tracking system: 

PMF: Presidential Management Fellow: 

PPP: prohibited personnel practices: 

SSN: Social Security number: 

UIMS: USERRA Information Management System: 

USERRA: Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 
1994: 

VBA: Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010: 

VBIA: Veterans Benefit Improvement Act of 2004: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 25, 2014: 

The Honorable Bernie Sanders: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Richard Burr: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jeff Miller: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Michael Michaud: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: 
House of Representatives: 

Over the next 4 to 5 years, more than a million servicemembers are 
expected to leave the military and transition into civilian life, 
according to the Department of Defense.[Footnote 1] In making this 
transition, some servicemembers will face significant challenges 
reentering the workforce and maintaining employment. Many factors--
such as workplace absences due to overseas deployments, translating 
military skills to civilian job requirements, and employers' lack of 
awareness regarding reemployment rights--can contribute to the 
difficulties servicemembers face when seeking a return to the civilian 
workforce. 

To protect the employment and reemployment rights of federal and 
nonfederal employees when they leave their civilian employment to 
perform military or other uniformed service, Congress enacted the 
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 
(USERRA).[Footnote 2] USERRA applies to a wide range of employers, 
including federal, state, and local governments as well as to private-
sector firms. Among other rights, servicemembers who meet the 
statutory requirements are entitled to reinstatement to the positions 
they would have held if they had never left their employment (or 
reinstatement to positions of similar seniority, status, and pay). 

As part of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004 and the 
Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (VBA), Congress established two 
demonstration projects between the Department of Labor (DOL) and the 
Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The first demonstration project was 
implemented from February 8, 2005, through December 31, 2007. The 
second demonstration project was implemented from August 9, 2011, 
through August 9, 2014. 

Claims filed under USERRA from servicemembers have remained relatively 
steady over time despite ongoing efforts to improve outreach to 
employers and improve agencies' training and guidance. Between fiscal 
years 2008 and 2012, servicemembers filed more than 1,400 employment 
and reemployment claims each year (in 2013, the number of claims fell 
to fewer than 1,300). In addition, in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, more 
than 200 USERRA claims were filed against federal executive agencies. 

VBA mandated us to report on the relative performance of DOL and OSC 
across a number of areas specified in the act. This assessment of the 
2011-2014, 36-month demonstration project (1) covers agencies' 
relative performance under performance metrics including case 
outcomes, customer satisfaction, timeliness, cost, and capacity as 
mandated by VBA; and (2) identifies actions agencies can take to 
improve satisfaction on customer service.[Footnote 3] To assess 
agencies' relative performance, we reviewed the requirements of the 
demonstration project set forth in VBA and compared final agency 
performance data on case outcome, timeliness, customer satisfaction, 
and cost. We also analyzed agency data to provide comparative 
descriptions of capacity. In conducting our work, we obtained data on 
case tracking, customer satisfaction, cost, and capacity from DOL, 
OSC, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from the beginning 
of the USERRA demonstration project in August 2011 to July 2014. 

To assess case outcomes and timeliness, we reviewed and analyzed data 
from DOL's case tracking system (the USERRA Information Management 
System) and OSC's case tracking system for demonstration project cases 
opened between August 9, 2011 and July 31, 2014. To assess customer 
satisfaction, we reviewed and analyzed data and narrative responses 
from the USERRA customer satisfaction survey, which was administered 
by OPM on behalf of both agencies. To assess demonstration project 
costs, we reviewed and analyzed cost and accounting data from DOL and 
OSC, including supporting documentation such as the number of hours 
dedicated to demonstration project cases. We assessed the reliability 
of data on case outcomes, customer satisfaction, timeliness, and cost, 
and determined the data we used to evaluate the relative performance 
of agencies was sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. 

We reviewed and analyzed information on agencies' capacity based on 
factors identified in the VBA mandate such as staffing levels, grade 
level, training, education, and caseload. We also reviewed DOL's and 
OSC's unique characteristics that enable them to investigate and 
resolve claims. We interviewed key officials involved with the USERRA 
demonstration project at DOL and OSC. We also reviewed pertinent 
reports, guidance, plans, relevant federal laws, directives, and other 
documents. 

To identify actions agencies can take to improve customer service, we 
analyzed agency customer satisfaction data and compared results to 
customer service principles and guidance outlined in executive orders 
and the Office of Management and Budget guidance. We also interviewed 
agency officials about their views on related procedures and practices 
that worked well or needed improvement. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to November 2014 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
These 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 the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Under USERRA, an employee or applicant for employment who believes 
that his or her USERRA rights have been violated may file a claim with 
the DOL's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (DOL-VETS), which 
investigates and attempts to resolve the claim. If DOL-VETS cannot 
resolve the claim and the servicemember is a federal government 
employee or applicant to a federal agency, DOL is to inform the 
claimant of the right to have his or her claim referred to OSC for 
further review and possible OSC representation before the Merit 
Systems Protection Board (MSPB).[Footnote 4] DOL is also to inform the 
claimant that he or she may file a claim directly with MSPB. 

The Veterans Benefit Improvement Act of 2004 (VBIA) established a 
demonstration project for the period February 8, 2005, through 
December 31, 2007, during which OSC was authorized to receive and 
investigate certain USERRA cases while DOL remained in an 
investigative role for others.[Footnote 5] In 2007, as mandated by 
VBIA, we evaluated the demonstration project and made recommendations 
to DOL to help establish internal controls for case review, claimant 
notification, and data management.[Footnote 6] Specifically, we found 
that the data DOL used to track case investigation time and the data 
DOL and OSC used to track case outcomes were not reliable to monitor, 
track, and report on the agencies' performance. Further, we found the 
data for reporting outcomes were not reliable at either DOL or OSC. 
This adversely affected Congress's ability to assess how well federal 
USERRA claims were being investigated as well as to assess whether 
changes would be needed in the future.[Footnote 7] To improve the 
USERRA process, we recommended that the Secretary of Labor develop an 
internal review mechanism for all unresolved cases before they are 
closed and claimants are notified. We also recommended establishing 
internal controls to ensure the accuracy of data entered into DOL's 
case tracking database. DOL agreed with and implemented our 
recommendations. 

Congress passed the VBA which directed DOL and OSC to establish a 
second demonstration project (36-month duration) for receiving, 
investigating, and resolving USERRA claims filed against federal 
executive agencies. Procedures in the second demonstration project 
were similar to those in the first demonstration project. DOL and OSC 
each received claims and were authorized to investigate and seek 
corrective action for those claims. 

Specifically, DOL is authorized to investigate and seek corrective 
action for those claims filed against federal executive agencies if 
the servicemember's Social Security number (SSN) ends in an even 
number. OSC is authorized to investigate and seek corrective action 
for USERRA claims against federal executive agencies if the 
servicemember's SSN ends in an odd number. If a claim does not contain 
an SSN, DOL will assign a claim number based on the date of the month 
the claim is received. For example, claims filed on an odd-numbered 
date will be assigned an odd case number and forwarded to OSC. Claims 
filed on an even-numbered date will be assigned an even case number 
and be investigated by DOL. Also, under the demonstration project, OSC 
is authorized to handle any "mixed claims" in which a claimant files a 
USERRA claim against a federal executive agency and also brings a 
related prohibited personnel practice claim. There are 13 prohibited 
personnel practices (PPP) including discrimination, retaliation, or 
unauthorized preference or improper advantage.[Footnote 8] 

VBA mandated us to evaluate how DOL and OSC designed the demonstration 
project and assess their relative performance during and at the 
conclusion of the demonstration project. Figure 1 depicts USERRA 
claims processing under the demonstration project. 

Figure 1: USERRA Claims Processing under the Demonstration Project: 

[Refer to PDF for image: processing illustration] 

Claimant submits claim (Form 1010) electronically or hard copy: 

Department of Labor (DOL)/Veterans' Employment and Training Service 
(VETS): 

90 days: Investigative process under the demonstration project: 

1. Odd-numbered claim?[A] 
Yes: Refer odd-numbered cases to OSC[A]; 
No: Even-numbered claim investigated[A]. 

2. Claim resolved? 
Yes: Claimant is notified of resolution; 
No: Claimant is notified that claim is unresolved and of right of 
referral to OSC. 

60 days: Referral phase under Uniformed Services Employment and 
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA): 

3. If claimant requests referral to OSC, VETS investigator prepares
memorandum of referral (MoR). 

4. VETS regional office reviews MoR. 

5. DOL Solicitor conducts legal review, prepares analysis and 
representation recommendation; 
Continue to #5 under Office of Special Counsel (OSC) process. 

Office of Special Counsel (OSC): 

90 days: Investigative process under the demonstration project: 

1. Odds-numbered or prohibited personnel practice (PPP[A]) cases 
screened for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation. 

2. Mediation offered: If parties agree, case is mediated. 

3. Claim resolved? 
Yes: Claimant is notified of resolution; 
No: Case is investigated. 

4. Claim resolved?
Yes: Claimant is notified of resolution; 
No: Claimant notified of investigation results and of right to have 
OSC consider claim for possible representation before Merit Systems 
Protection Board (MSPB). 

60 days: Referral phase under Uniformed Services Employment and 
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA): 

5. OSC reviews investigative file. 

6. OSC determines claim has merit? 
Yes: OSC attempts resolution, including offering representation before 
MSPB; 
No: Claimant informed of OSC decision and of option to file claim with 
MSPB without OSC representation. 

Source: GAO (data); Art Explosion (image). GAO-15-77. 

[A] If, during initial processing or investigation phase, DOL personnel 
identify a possible PPP case, DOL and OSC will jointly determine at 
what point, if at all, the case should be transferred to OSC for 
investigation. 

[End of figure] 

Our previous reports on USERRA included recommendations to improve 
data quality and develop comparable data and processes to facilitate 
evaluating agency performance. In June 2011, we reported on the 
methods and procedures that DOL and OSC had agreed to establish for 
the demonstration project. We recommended that both agencies take a 
number of steps to ensure a comparable process and collect 
sufficiently reliable data.[Footnote 9] In response to our 
recommendations, DOL and OSC entered into an interagency agreement 
with OPM to establish and regularly administer a customer satisfaction 
survey.[Footnote 10] The customer satisfaction survey provides 
comparable information and includes a survey plan and protocols for 
contacting respondents in line with the recommendation from our 
demonstration project design assessment. Furthermore, by the start of 
the demonstration project in August 2011, both agencies established a 
cost accounting system to collect and track actual time spent 
investigating demonstration project cases. 

In September 2012, we reported an interim assessment of the 
demonstration project.[Footnote 11] At that time, we reported that 
both DOL and OSC had established methods and procedures that would 
allow them to report comparable and reliable performance data for the 
demonstration project, as required by VBA. We also identified 
additional actions that agencies could take to improve the quality of 
the customer satisfaction and cost data. Specifically, we recommended 
that DOL and OSC take additional steps to increase their customer 
satisfaction survey response rates and address any potential survey 
response bias. We also recommended that both agencies establish and 
document procedures for compiling and reporting the cost data during 
the demonstration project. 

In response to our 2012 recommendations to increase survey response 
rates and to address potential response bias, the agencies agreed to 
conduct additional outreach to claimants by providing an initial 
survey notification, and contracted with OPM to conduct a nonresponse 
analysis. OPM provided a nonresponse analysis to agencies in April 
2013. In response to our recommendation that agencies establish and 
document procedures for compiling and reporting cost data, DOL 
provided written instructions to its staff on methods for reporting 
its time and related costs, developed written procedures for tracking 
and reporting costs, and implemented a quarterly audit of cost 
information. 

OSC did not implement our recommendation to document procedures for 
compiling and reporting cost data. Specifically, according to OSC's 
USERRA Unit Chief, the agency established, but did not document, 
procedures for compiling the cost data associated with the 
demonstration project. OSC officials explained that in lieu of 
documenting their procedures, they held a training session with staff 
to discuss the method they use to track and report the time and costs 
associated with demonstration project cases. However, standards for 
internal control in the federal government require that internal 
controls and all transactions and other significant events be clearly 
documented, and the documentation should be readily available for 
examination. The documentation should appear in management directives, 
administrative policies, or operating manuals, and may be in paper or 
electronic form. 

DOL Has Relatively Higher Performance Than OSC for More Demonstration 
Project Performance Measures: 

OSC Resolved a Greater Proportion of Cases in Favor of the Claimant 
and DOL Resolved More of the Cases it Received: 

During the demonstration project, DOL resolved more of the cases it 
received. Between August 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, DOL received 319 
demonstration cases and OSC received 434 cases. Of the cases received, 
OSC closed 366 cases, or 84 percent. DOL closed 308 cases, or 97 
percent. OSC had 68 demonstration project cases remaining open, and 
DOL had 11 cases remaining open at the end of July 2014. 

We identified two factors that may explain why OSC received more 
demonstration project cases than DOL. One factor is the presence of 
more odd versus even social security numbers of claimants, and the 
second is OSC's responsibility to investigate and resolved all cases 
that involve a PPP.[Footnote 12] Most cases were randomly assigned to 
each agency by using the last digit of the claimant's SSN. OSC 
received more cases based on this assignment. In addition, OSC was 
required to handle all cases that involved a PPP, which contributed to 
27 more cases being assigned to OSC. These 27 cases amounted to about 
7 percent of OSC's total claims and 23 percent of the 115 additional 
cases that OSC received (see table 1). 

From fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2014, DOL closed about as many 
cases as it opened, as shown in figure 2. DOL received more than 100 
cases during fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and closed about the same 
number each year. Because the demonstration project began near the end 
of fiscal year 2011, both agencies received a smaller number of cases 
during that period. Furthermore, the demonstration project ended about 
2 months prior to the end of fiscal year 2014. 

Figure 2: Department of Labor Closed About As Many Cases As It Opened: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Cases received: 18; 
Cases closed: 5. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Cases received: 114; 
Cases closed: 113. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Cases received: 101; 
Cases closed: 102. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Cases received: 86; 
Cases closed: 89. 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor UIMS case tracking data (8/9/2011 to 
7/31/14). GAO-15-77. 

[End of figure] 

OSC received more cases than it closed in the first two fiscal years 
of the demonstration project, which included less than 2 months of 
fiscal year 2011 and all of fiscal year 2012. Agency officials 
explained the agency had limited capacity to investigate and resolve 
claims during the first 6 months of the demonstration project. During 
this time, the agency reported it was hiring new staff, negotiating a 
reimbursement agreement with DOL, and expanding the capabilities of 
its USERRA Unit to handle demonstration project cases. As such, 
according to OSC officials, the agency had a limited capacity to 
investigate and resolve claims during this time. However, agencies had 
about 10 months to prepare and assemble the resources required to 
implement the project. VBA established the requirement for the 
demonstration project on October 13, 2010 (the date VBA was enacted), 
and the demonstration project began on August 11, 2011. As shown in 
figure 3, between the beginning of fiscal year 2013 and the end of 
July 2014, OSC closed the same number of cases as it received. 

Figure 3: Office of Special Counsel Received More Cases Than It Closed 
During the Early Years but the Gap Narrowed During the Later Years: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Cases received: 28; 
Cases closed: 1. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Cases received: 149; 
Cases closed: 108. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Cases received: 129; 
Cases closed: 136. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Cases received: 128; 
Cases closed: 121. 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor UIMS case tracking data (8/9/2011 to 
7/31/14). GAO-15-77. 

[End of figure] 

OSC Resolved a Greater Proportion of Cases in Favor of the Claimant: 

Officials from OSC and DOL hold similar views on their investigative 
role under USERRA and told us they view their roles as that of 
impartial investigators. Specifically, officials from both agencies 
told us that their role is to determine if a claim has merit, and if 
so, to resolve the claim appropriately. Importantly, we did not 
independently assess the quality of agencies' case investigations to 
determine if DOL and OSC arrived at the appropriate case outcomes. As 
such, we were not able to determine the relative performance of 
agencies for this measure. 

Between August 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014, OSC obtained relief for 
claimants in about 26 percent, or 94, of its demonstration project 
cases. DOL obtained relief for claimants in about 20 percent, or 62, 
of its cases (see table 1). OSC officials told us that their ability 
to close a greater proportion of cases resulting in relief for 
claimants is partially attributable to their expertise on federal 
sector employment matters, the quality of their work, and the 
composition of their investigative team, which is largely staffed by 
attorneys. DOL officials told us their goal is to obtain the correct 
case outcome, even if it is not in favor of the claimant. DOL 
officials also expressed concern that associating higher performance 
with case outcomes that provide relief for claimants may create an 
incentive to pursue relief for cases that do not warrant corrective 
action. 

Table 1: The Office of Special Counsel Resolved a Greater Proportion 
of Cases in Favor of the Claimant[A]: 

Department of Labor; 
Number of Cases Received: 319; 
Number of Cases Closed: 308; 
Number of Cases Resolved In Favor of Claimant: 62; 
Percent of Cases Resolved In Favor of Claimant: 20.1%. 

Office of Special Counsel; 
Number of Cases Received: 434; 
Number of Cases Closed: 366; 
Number of Cases Resolved In Favor of Claimant: 94; 
Percent of Cases Resolved In Favor of Claimant: 25.7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOL's USERRA Information Management System and 
OSC's case tracking system data. GAO-15-77. 

[A] The case information presented in table 1 may vary somewhat from 
information reported in conjunction with our nonresponse analysis 
reported in appendix III, because the data presented in the table were 
updated from agencies following our nonresponse analysis. Furthermore, 
our nonresponse analysis is based on data provided by OPM, rather than 
case tracking data collected directly from agencies, as shown in this 
table. 

[End of table] 

We worked with agencies prior to the demonstration project to develop 
a method to ensure that case outcomes could be described in a 
consistent manner, and a comparison could be made at the conclusion of 
the demonstration project. Accordingly, in August 2011, agencies 
developed a cross-walk of case resolution codes to facilitate a 
comparison of case outcomes. In our interim report issued in September 
2012, we reported case outcomes based on this cross-walk. This final 
review also relies on the cross-walk for the purpose of comparing 
agency case outcomes. 

DOL and OSC both tracked the disposition of closed cases to determine 
if cases had been resolved in favor of the claimant, and in some 
cases, to track the type of corrective action agreed to, or to provide 
the reason a case was not resolved in favor of the claimant. 
Specifically, OSC uses the case resolution codes "dispute resolved," 
"corrective action," and "complainant declines corrective action 
offered" to identify cases resolved in favor of the claimant, whereas 
DOL uses the resolution codes "claim granted," "claim settled," and 
"merit - not resolved." A number of case resolution codes, including 
OSC's "corrective action declined by claimant" code, were not included 
in the cross-walk of case resolution codes. Because these codes were 
not included in the cross-walk, we had to rely on agencies' 
determination of whether certain cases were resolved in favor of the 
claimant. Specifically, OSC's totals include 3 cases in which 
corrective action was declined by the claimant, or about 3 percent of 
the 94 cases the agency resolved in favor of the claimant. DOL's 
totals include 7 cases that had merit, but which were not resolved, or 
about 11 percent of the 62 cases the agency resolved in favor of the 
claimant. According to OSC officials, the code "corrective action 
declined by claimant" indicates that the agency offered resolution but 
the claimant declined it. According to DOL officials, the code "merit, 
not resolved" indicates that the claim was meritorious, but the agency 
did not offer resolution, or the claimant declined the resolution that 
was offered. 

Agency officials from OSC told us that the relief provided to 
claimants included, but was not limited to, initial job offers, 
reinstatement, promotions, restored benefits, accommodations for 
service-connected disabilities, back pay, USERRA training for federal 
officials, and systemic changes to agency policies and procedures to 
better comply with USERRA. For example, OSC officials explained that 
they investigated a claim by a National Guardsman who worked for the 
Defense Commissary Agency and claimed he was improperly denied 
reemployment upon returning from a tour of duty. OSC investigated the 
claim, determined the claim was valid, and intervened with the agency 
to identify appropriate corrective action. According to OSC, the 
agency agreed to reinstate the individual to his former position, 
restore his benefits and seniority, and provide him with back pay. 

Agencies also identified cases that were not resolved in favor of the 
claimant, and provided a reason, or disposition, to explain why. For 
example, some cases were not resolved favorably because the claimant 
withdrew the claim, investigators determined the claim had no merit, 
there was insufficient evidence to support the claim, or the claimant 
failed to supply evidence for further action, among other reasons. 

Respondents Reported Greater Customer Satisfaction with DOL: 

DOL received higher scores from respondents than OSC on every question 
asked on the customer satisfaction survey administered by OPM. 
However, the response rates of the surveys were low, which can 
potentially affect the conclusions that can be drawn from the survey. 
Specifically, 32 percent of claimants responded to DOL's survey, while 
42 percent responded to OSC's survey. In light of the low survey 
response rates, we conducted additional statistical analyses to 
control for potential bias and ensure conclusions could be drawn from 
survey results. Our analyses revealed that differences in satisfaction 
scores for each question remained statistically significant and 
pronounced even after controlling for variables that could affect the 
claimants' views of the customer service provided. These variables 
include case investigation time, whether the claimant indicated that 
the case was resolved in his or her favor, and whether discrimination 
was alleged by the claimant. For a more detailed explanation of these 
analyses and their findings, see appendix III. 

Side bar: 

USERRA Customer Satisfaction Survey: Select Narrative Responses: 

"[A DOL investigator] provided timely updates in regards to the steps 
she was taking to determine the disposition of the case." 

"[I] would like to be kept informed [by OSC] of what is going on." 

Source: OPM survey. 

[End of side bar] 

The differences in scores between the two agencies were especially 
pronounced on questions relating to timeliness, access to staff, and 
overall experience. Narrative responses to the survey provided 
additional detail on aspects of agencies' USERRA investigations that 
respondents said were working well, and areas that may require 
improvement. Select narrative responses are provided throughout this 
section to highlight certain aspects of agencies' customer service. 
More details on the survey's administration and survey instrument can 
be found in appendix II. 

Our analysis found that a higher percentage of DOL respondents agreed 
with survey statements and expressed satisfaction with DOL's service 
than did OSC respondents. Figures 4 and 5 display the percentage of 
DOL and OSC respondents who expressed satisfaction with various 
elements of customer service and the case investigation by responding 
to survey statements. 

Figure 4: Department of Labor Respondents Were More Likely to Express 
Satisfaction: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Percentage who agreed with survey statements: 

Statement: The staff are courteous: 
Labor: 82% (n=100); 
Office of Special Counsel: 65% (n=149). 

Statement: The staff are competent: 
Labor: 68% (n=98); 
Office of Special Counsel: 37% (n=144). 

Statement: The staff are professional: 
Labor: 83% (n=100); 
Office of Special Counsel: 51% (n=148). 

Statement: The staff provides consistently good service: 
Labor: 64% (n=92); 
Office of Special Counsel: 29% (n=143). 

Statement: The staff policies and procedures are customer friendly: 
Labor: 63% (n=92); 
Office of Special Counsel: 35% (n=145). 

Statement: I have adequate access to staff for advice and assistance: 
Labor: 66% (n=96); 
Office of Special Counsel: 31% (n=147). 

Statement: The staff keep me informed of significant case developments: 
Labor: 67% (n=100); 
Office of Special Counsel: 31% (n=149). 

Statement: I know whom to contact if I have additional questions: 
Labor: 71% (n=100); 
Office of Special Counsel: 43% (n=149). 

Statement: The staff responded to my questions in a timely manner: 
Labor: 76% (n=100); 
Office of Special Counsel: 32% (n=148). 

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Personnel Management customer 
satisfaction survey data. GAO-15-77. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 5: Department of Labor Respondents Were More Likely to Express 
Satisfaction: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Percentage who were satisfied: 

Statement: Thoroughness of investigation: 
Labor: 54% (n=92); 
Office of Special Counsel: 24% (n=139). 

Statement: Clarity of written communication: 
Labor: 69% (n=97); 
Office of Special Counsel: 39% (n=145). 

Statement: Clarity of verbal communication: 
Labor: 69 (n=100); 
Office of Special Counsel: 40% (n=142). 

Statement: Customer service: 
Labor: 66% (n=100); 
Office of Special Counsel: 34% (n=151). 

Statement: Investigation of complaint: 
Labor: 55% (n=101); 
Office of Special Counsel: 25% (n=151). 

Statement: Results of investigation: 
Labor: 43% (n=101); 
Office of Special Counsel: 25% (n=150). 

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Personnel Management customer 
satisfaction survey data. GAO-15-77. 

[End of figure] 

Side bar: 

USERRA Customer Satisfaction Survey: Select Narrative Responses: 

"[The DOL investigator] went above and beyond the call of duty to help 
me." 

"OSC has very dedicated measures and personnel in place offering sound 
advice and service along every step of the process." 

Source: OPM survey. 

[End of side bar] 

A portion of both DOL respondents and OSC respondents expressed some 
dissatisfaction with the thoroughness of the investigation, as figure 
5 shows. One respondent wanted DOL "to be more proactive and actually 
contact the individuals that are committing the wrongdoings and 
getting away with affecting the veterans that want to work." One OSC 
respondent wanted OSC to "investigate cases better and conduct 
interviews before they make their final decisions and not follow by 
only what the employer says." 

As depicted by the average scores on the customer satisfaction survey, 
the largest reported difference in satisfaction with customer service 
between DOL and OSC is agency timeliness and the smallest reported 
difference in satisfaction with customer service between DOL and OSC 
is staff courteousness. Survey responses also showed that claimants 
felt that DOL better kept claimants informed and provided better 
access to staff, as well as better satisfying claimants in regards to 
the overall investigation of the claim. Claimants' responses were 
coded on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing a "strongly disagree" 
or "very dissatisfied" response, 3 representing a neutral score, and 5 
representing a "strongly agree" or "very satisfied" response. 
Therefore, the higher the average score, the more positive respondents 
felt about agency performance. Table 2 depicts the average scores on 
the customer satisfaction survey for select survey questions and a 
table with all the average scores can be found in appendix III. 

Table 2: On Average, DOL Received Higher Scores on Claimant 
Interaction with Staff and Overall Satisfaction with Customer Service 
and Investigation: 

Question: The staff is courteous; 
DOL Mean: 4.21; 
OSC Mean: 3.64; 
Difference (DOL-OSC): 0.57. 

Question: I have adequate access to staff for advice and assistance; 
DOL Mean: 3.79; 
OSC Mean: 2.63; 
Difference (DOL-OSC): 1.17. 

Question: The staff responded to my questions in a timely manner; 
DOL Mean: 4.10; 
OSC Mean: 2.61; 
Difference (DOL-OSC): 1.49. 

Question: The staff kept me informed of significant case developments; 
DOL Mean: 3.82; 
OSC Mean: 2.52; 
Difference (DOL-OSC): 1.30. 

Question: Satisfaction with customer service; 
DOL Mean: 3.70; 
OSC Mean: 2.50; 
Difference (DOL-OSC): 1.20. 

Question: Satisfaction with investigation of complaint; 
DOL Mean: 
3.35; OSC Mean: 2.13; 
Difference (DOL-OSC): 1.21. 

Question: Survey Sample Size; 
DOL Mean: n=101; 
OSC Mean: n=151. 

Key: 1 represents a score of "strongly disagree" or "very 
dissatisfied" and 5 represents a score of "strong agree" or "very 
satisfied". 

Source: GAO Analysis of OPM Customer Satisfaction Survey Data. 
GAO-15-77. 

[End of table] 

Side bar: 

USERRA Customer Satisfaction Survey: Select Narrative Responses: 

"Upon making the complaint [to DOL] an investigator was quickly 
appointed." 

"[I] was never able to reach [the] OSC case worker directly. I had to 
leave voice mail and email messages and wait for a call back which 
would be 3-5 days." 

Source: OPM survey. 

[End of side bar] 

In light of low survey response rates, we identified variables 
available for both respondents and nonrespondents that might affect 
satisfaction and conducted additional nonresponse and multivariate 
analyses to control for these variables. We found the differences in 
satisfaction scores for each question remained statistically 
significant and pronounced even after we took account of, and 
controlled statistically for, variables that could affect the 
claimants' views of the customer service provided. These variables 
include the differences across agencies in case investigation time, 
whether the claimant indicated that the case was resolved in his or 
her favor, and whether discrimination was alleged by the claimant. For 
example, our analysis of the survey responses revealed that more 
individuals whose cases were not resolved in their favor responded to 
OSC's surveys than to DOL's. We also found that case outcome 
significantly affected respondents' mean satisfaction score. To 
account and control for these factors, we conducted multivariate 
regression analyses of survey responses, and calculated adjusted 
average scores that correct for sources of response and nonresponse 
bias. Specifically, this analysis showed that the likelihood (or odds) 
that DOL respondents agreed with statements or expressed satisfaction 
with DOL was two to more than six times higher than the likelihood (or 
odds) that OSC respondents agreed with or expressed satisfaction with 
OSC. For example, the likelihood of DOL claimants agreeing that the 
agency responded to questions in a timely matter was 6.6 times higher 
than the likelihood of OSC claimants agreeing that the agency 
responded to questions in a timely manner. For adjusted customer 
satisfaction scores, and a more detailed explanation of these analyses 
and their findings, see appendix III. 

DOL Investigated and Resolved Cases Faster Than OSC: 

DOL's average case investigation time was more than three times faster 
than (or about 27 percent of the time used by) OSC's case 
investigation time. As shown in figure 6, between August 9, 2011, and 
July 31, 2014, DOL's average investigation time for closed cases was 
about 41 days, whereas OSC's average investigation time was about 151 
days. Case investigation time varied over time. Both agencies 
experienced an increase in the average time to investigate cases 
between fiscal years 2011 and 2013. In fiscal year 2013, DOL's average 
investigation time was about 48 days, and OSC's average investigation 
time was about 168 days. Between fiscal year 2013 and the end of July 
2014, OSC's average investigation time remained about the same at 167 
days, and DOL's average investigation time fell to about 43 days. 

Figure 6: Department of Labor Resolved Cases Faster: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 vertical bar graphs] 

Average case investigation time: Number of days: 
Agency: Labor: 41 (n=308); 
Agency: Office of Special Counsel: 151 (n=366). 

Average case investigation time: Number of days: 

Fiscal year 2011: 
Agency: Labor: 34 (n=5); 
Agency: Office of Special Counsel: 7 (n=1). 

Fiscal year 2012: 
Agency: Labor: 34 (n=113); 
Agency: Office of Special Counsel: 111 (n=108). 

Fiscal year 2013: 
Agency: Labor: 48 (n=102); 
Agency: Office of Special Counsel: 167 (n=366). 

Fiscal year 2014: 
Agency: Labor: 41 (n=308); 
Agency: Office of Special Counsel: 151 (n=121). 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor UIMS and Office of Special Counsel 2000 
case tracking data (8/9/2011 to 7/31/14). GAO-15-77. 

[End of figure] 

As of July 31, 2014, OSC had a substantially greater proportion of 
demonstration project cases with investigation times greater than 90 
days, when compared with DOL. As shown in figure 7, about 56 percent 
of OSC's cases were open more than 90 days, with about 32 percent of 
cases between 30 and 90 days. At DOL, about 9 percent of cases were 
open more than 90 days, with 45 percent of cases between 30 and 90 
days. Under USERRA, DOL is required to investigate and attempt to 
resolve USERRA claims within 90 days of receipt, unless the claimant 
agrees to an extension. Under the demonstration project, the same 90-
day time limit also applies to OSC. Both agencies explained that they 
requested extensions from the claimant for cases requiring more than 
90 days to investigate. 

Figure 7: Office of Special Counsel Had a Greater Proportion of Cases 
Open More Than 90 Days: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts] 

Office of Special Counsel case timeliness: 
More than 90 days: 56%; 241 cases; 
Less than 30 days: 12%; 53 cases; 
Between 30 and 90 days: 32%; 140 cases. 

Labor case timeliness: 
More than 90 days: 9%; 28 cases; 
Less than 30 days: 46%; 148 cases; 
Between 30 and 90 days: 45%; 143 cases. 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor UIMS and Office of Special Counsel 2000 
case tracking data (8/9/2011 to 7/31/14). GAO-15-77. 

[End of figure] 

OSC received extensions for investigations that, at times, lasted 
longer than 1 year. OSC officials explained that they sometimes 
received open-ended extensions from claimants to provide additional 
time as necessary to complete their investigation. DOL officials told 
us their policy does not allow for open-ended extensions; rather, each 
extension provides claimants with a date certain by which the 
investigator must either complete the investigation or request an 
additional extension. As of July 31, 2014, OSC had a total of 48 cases 
that had been open for more than 1 year, which represents about 11 
percent of the 434 total cases they received. At this time, DOL had no 
cases that had been open for more than 1 year. 

Of the 48 OSC cases taking more than 1 year to close, 16 were still 
open at the end of July 2014. Of the 32 cases closed, 6 were resolved 
in favor of the claimant, or about 19 percent of these cases. As such, 
the resolution rates for cases open for more than 1 year, that were 
resolved in favor of the claimant, are slightly lower than the 
favorable resolution rates for all of the agency's demonstration 
project cases (which was about 26 percent for all closed cases). OSC 
officials noted that cases open longer than 1 year are often the most 
complex cases, and therefore take longer to investigate even if they 
are ultimately not resolved in favor of the claimant. 

Factors Potentially Influencing Timeliness. OSC officials provided a 
few potential explanations for their agency's relatively longer 
average case investigation time. For example, OSC officials said that 
claimants may withdraw their cases and pursue relief on their own at 
any time. But many prefer that the agency complete its work and 
attempt to resolve their claim, even if it takes a significant amount 
of time. Unlike DOL, OSC does not terminate its investigation if the 
claimant receives representation by private counsel that is also 
involved in the case. A DOL official told us the agency may terminate 
these cases if private counsel investigations interfere with their 
case investigation. OSC and DOL did not collect information that would 
allow analysis of timeliness for cases where outside counsel was 
involved. Therefore, we are unable to determine if this was a primary 
contributor to the agency's average investigation time. 

DOL officials attributed their relatively faster case investigation 
time to factors such as, 

* their institutional structure, which includes staff in field 
locations that are available to immediately investigate cases across 
the country; 

* the USERRA-specific training provided to staff; 

* standard operating procedures and related guidance on timely 
completion of case investigations; and: 

* the composition of their staff, which includes many veterans who are 
dedicated to the agency's mission to assist servicemembers. 

Furthermore, DOL officials said supervisors reinforce the importance 
of timeliness and closely monitor cases to ensure timely resolution. 
DOL officials acknowledged that some cases take longer than 90 days to 
resolve, but these should be exceptions. 

As required by VBA, OSC receives all USERRA cases that involve a 
prohibited personnel practice (PPP). DOL does not handle cases that 
involve a PPP. OSC officials explained that these cases are often more 
complex and may take more time to investigate and resolve than other 
cases because they often involve multiple allegations and can require 
much more extensive fact-finding and legal analysis before a 
determination or resolution can be reached. To determine if these 
cases contributed to OSC's relatively longer case investigation times, 
we calculated the average case investigation times for cases that 
included a PPP allegation and compared it to the average case 
investigation time. We found that during the demonstration project, 
OSC closed 24 cases involving a PPP allegation, or about 7 percent of 
all closed cases. The average investigation time for these cases was 
201 days, which is about 50 days longer than the average case 
investigation time for OSC's demonstration project cases. As such, on 
average, PPP cases take about 34 percent more time to investigate than 
the average case. Although these cases do take more time to 
investigate, due to the relatively small number of PPP cases, and 
because 50 days falls within the normal variation of case 
investigation time at OSC, we have concluded that PPP allegations were 
not a primary contributor to the relatively longer case investigation 
times between OSC and DOL. 

We also considered the potential relationship between case outcome and 
timeliness. We found that DOL investigations for cases resolved in 
favor of the claimant took longer to investigate, on average, than 
cases with an unfavorable outcome; whereas, at OSC, the average case 
investigation times were about the same. At DOL, the average 
investigation time for cases that were resolved in favor of the 
claimant was about 64 days, and for cases not resolved in favor of the 
claimant was about 35 days (with an average of 41 days for all cases). 
At OSC, the average investigation time for cases resolved in favor of 
the claimant was about 150 days, and for cases not resolved in favor 
of the claimant was about 151 days. While favorable case outcomes are 
associated with longer case investigation times at DOL, they do not 
appear to be a contributing factor to case investigation timeliness at 
OSC. 

DOL's Case Investigation Costs Were Lower Than OSC's: 

On average, it cost DOL about three times less (or about 29 percent of 
the cost) to investigate demonstration project cases than OSC. The 
relative difference in agencies' costs was affected by factors such as 
the number of hours dedicated to case investigations and pay levels, 
among others. For example, we found that OSC used more than twice the 
number of staff hours, on average, per case, than DOL. We did not 
evaluate OSC's demonstration project costs prior to August 12, 2012, 
because these cost data were incomplete and we were not able to assess 
their reliability. 

As we recommended in our preliminary assessment of the demonstration 
project's design, DOL and OSC established cost accounting systems by 
the start of the demonstration project on August 9, 2011, to collect 
and track actual time spent investigating USERRA demonstration project 
cases.[Footnote 13] While the cost accounting systems developed at 
each agency differ somewhat in the way they track time spent, both 
systems track actual salary, benefits, and indirect cost components by 
applying an hourly rate that includes those components for each 
specific employee who works on, and tracks time spent on, 
demonstration project cases. We conducted tests on each agencies' cost 
and accounting data to ensure these cost components were accurately 
reflected in their total costs. To determine the total cost, agencies 
multiplied the hourly rate for all personnel who participated in the 
demonstration project, by the total time spent working on USERRA 
demonstration project investigations. Agencies also tracked indirect 
miscellaneous costs, such as shipping, and included these costs to 
their totals. 

OSC was not able to provide us with complete cost information for the 
demonstration project in time for us to analyze the complete set of 
data and assess its reliability. On August 12, 2012, OSC changed the 
methodology it used to track and report costs during the demonstration 
project to be more consistent with the approach used by DOL. As such, 
we are not evaluating demonstration project costs at OSC prior to that 
date, and are only able to report on the cost information that we 
received, and assessed for reliability. 

Between the beginning of the demonstration project on August 9, 2011, 
and July 31, 2014, DOL investigated 319 claims at a total cost of 
$354,712. During the period for which we have comparable and reliable 
data, from August 12, 2012, to August 1, 2014, OSC's demonstration 
project costs totaled $1,055,377. Importantly, these totals include 
costs for both closed and ongoing cases during the periods described. 
Because 79 demonstration project cases were still open at the end of 
July, and due to the incomplete information received from OSC, the 
final cost of the demonstration project was not known at the time of 
this product's issuance. 

Of the 319 claims investigated by DOL, the agency closed 308. As such, 
there were 11 demonstration project cases still open. The total cost 
of $354,712 covers all 308 closed cases, and work completed on the 11 
open cases during this period. On average, the agency spent $1,112 on 
each case investigated during the demonstration project. The agency 
reported that demonstration project staff dedicated 6,579 hours to 
investigate demonstration project cases, or about 21 hours for each 
case received during this period. DOL officials explained that their 
total cost does not include some costs from support staff, case intake 
processing, and for managers who assisted, as needed, with some 
demonstration project activities. DOL officials explained that they 
did not track these costs because it was not practically feasible, and 
the agency would have incurred these costs regardless of their 
participation in the USERRA demonstration project. 

To compare agencies, we also linked OSC's cost information to the 
number of cases that were opened and closed during the period for 
which comparable and reliable cost information was available. Between 
August 12, 2012, and August 1, 2014, OSC opened 277 cases and closed 
275 cases. As such, OSC spent about $3,810 for each case that it 
opened during this period, or about $3,838 for each case that the 
agency closed during this period. Furthermore, the agency reported 
that demonstration project staff dedicated 14,864 hours to investigate 
demonstration project cases, or about 54 hours for each case received 
during this period. On average, this is more than double the number of 
hours spent per case, at DOL. The total cost of $1,055,377 covers the 
investigation costs of all cases worked during this period, and is not 
necessarily limited by the cases that were opened and closed during 
this time. 

Each Agency Demonstrated Differential Capabilities to Investigate and 
Resolve Cases: 

VBA refers to five criteria for consideration when evaluating DOL's 
and OSC's capacity to investigate federal USERRA claims: staffing 
levels, caseload, training, education, and grade level. In addition, 
agencies provided their view of other distinguishing characteristics 
that enhance their ability to effectively and efficiently investigate 
and resolve USERRA claims. We could not determine relative performance 
on agency capacity due to the lack of a specific and comparable metric. 

DOL Has More USERRA Dedicated Staff, While OSC Has More Cases Assigned 
Per Investigator and Higher Graded Staff: 

During the demonstration project, DOL had more staff available to 
investigate cases with lower average USERRA caseloads than OSC. OSC's 
investigative staff generally had higher pay levels (or higher pay 
grades) than DOL. Both agencies' staff had varying levels of education 
and experience. 

During the demonstration project, DOL had 31 staff investigating 
demonstration project cases, and other nonfederal USERRA or veterans' 
preference cases.[Footnote 14] OSC had 7 staff investigating 
demonstration project cases.[Footnote 15] According to DOL officials, 
their investigators have varying levels of education and provided no 
specific information. Rather, DOL officials suggested that the level 
of investigators' experience, can serve as a proxy for education, as 
will be discussed later. Of OSC's seven investigators, five are 
attorneys with Juris Doctor degrees (J.D.), one has a Master's degree, 
and one has a Bachelor's degree. OSC has had additional staff 
throughout the demonstration project, as well as a part-time 
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) specialist--also with a J.D. and 
a Master's degree in Conflict Analysis and Resolution--from OSC's ADR 
unit. OSC also employed six legal interns who were J.D. candidates and 
two different Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) with J.D.s during 
the demonstration project. The PMFs were full-time employees and were 
responsible for investigating cases, whereas some of the interns 
worked part-time and some worked full-time and provided case intake 
and research support and were not assigned cases to investigate. On 
average, these individuals served for periods of 3 to 6 months each. 

Table 3: DOL Has More Investigative Staff with Generally Lower Pay 
Levels While OSC Had Less Investigative Staff with Higher Caseloads: 

DOL Investigators; 
Number of Staff who Investigated Demonstration Project Cases: 31; 
General Schedule (GS) Pay Range[A]: GS12-13; 
Average Annual Caseload[B]: 5. 

OSC Investigators[C]; 
Number of Staff who Investigated Demonstration Project Cases: 7; 
General Schedule (GS) Pay Range[A]: GS 11-14; 
Average Annual Caseload[B]: 28. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOL and OSC information. GAO-15-77. 

[A] The General Schedule classification system is a mechanism for 
organizing work, notably for the purposes of determining pay, based on 
a position's duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements, 
among other things. 

[B] These figures represent the average number of cases an 
investigator would have been assigned over a 12-month period. We 
calculated weighted averages because the number of staff at both 
agencies was not always constant and the demonstration project was not 
ongoing for the entirety of fiscal years 2011 and 2014. 

[C] This number includes a supervisor who also investigated cases. It 
does not include the part-time ADR specialist who supports the USERRA 
Unit. 

[End of table] 

DOL's investigators were assigned an average of about five 
demonstration cases per investigator per year during the demonstration 
project. Demonstration project investigators had other 
responsibilities such as other nonfederal USERRA or veterans' 
preference cases, and the average demonstration project caseload 
varied by year. The average demonstration project caseload at DOL 
ranged from an average of about seven cases per investigator in 2012 
to an average of about four cases in fiscal year 2014. The agency's 
investigators did not work solely on demonstration cases during the 
demonstration project. They were assigned other non-demonstration 
cases as well, as will be discussed later. 

Our analysis of the caseload showed, over the course of the 
demonstration project, OSC averaged about 28 cases opened per employee 
each year.[Footnote 16] OSC officials told us each non-supervisory 
USERRA Unit investigator or attorney generally has between 10 and 20 
open cases on his or her docket at any given time, and that the number 
per fiscal year fluctuates based on the complexity and timing of each 
case. When the demonstration project began, OSC had four attorneys 
staffed to its USERRA Unit to investigate and resolve cases, including 
the Unit Chief. Beginning in the spring of 2012, OSC began hiring 
other investigators and temporary staff to help with the caseload. 
OSC's average caseload ranged from an average of 39 cases per attorney 
per year during part of fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to 20 cases per 
attorney per year during part of fiscal year 2012.[Footnote 17] 
Similar to the DOL investigators, OSC investigators had additional 
responsibilities during the demonstration project. 

DOL and OSC Staff Received Case Investigation and Resolution Training: 

DOL investigators receive formal USERRA-specific training as well as 
training on conducting investigations, according to DOL officials. The 
investigators must complete an online training and a 2-week class at 
the National Veterans Training Institute (NVTI) before investigating 
cases, and have additional training and professional development 
opportunities. The online training class has four components and NVTI 
focuses on USERRA basic training and investigation training. 
Specifically, investigators are trained on USERRA and its regulations, 
claim processing, determining eligibility for USERRA, USERRA remedies, 
contacting employers and claimants, negotiation skills and techniques, 
investigations and evidence, resolution conferences, negotiations, 
interviewing methods and techniques, types of respondents, credibility 
of witnesses/witness statements, and confidentiality and ethics. In 
addition, DOL investigators receive on-the-job mentoring and shadowing 
prior to independently investigating cases. According to DOL 
officials, additional training opportunities are contingent on the 
training budget. Some investigators took DOL investigative training 
while also participating in external training classes through 
organizations such as the Army Inspector General School. 

OSC does not have a formal USERRA training program for its staff 
because, according to OSC officials, a majority of the current USERRA 
staff has experience from the previous demonstration project. However, 
many USERRA Unit staff received formal training on ADR techniques for 
USERRA investigations. Specifically, OSC's ADR Unit conducted training 
on mediation, conflict resolution, beginning negotiation, and advanced 
negotiation that was attended by USERRA Unit staff. To help employees 
understand the documentation needed to perform case investigations, 
OSC provides its new USERRA employees with several training materials, 
including a PowerPoint slide presentation, a sample correspondence, 
copies of relevant laws and regulations, and a series of written 
training modules that include fact sheets, flow charts, common 
scenarios, and questions and answers on USERRA law. According to OSC 
officials, these training materials are given to new employees to use 
for background information and to reference when performing casework, 
and are periodically updated to reflect recent court decisions and 
legislative changes. The USERRA Unit Chief and other experienced 
members also provided on-the-job training and mentoring to interns, 
PMFs, and a law clerk during the demonstration project. The USERRA 
Unit also has a number of training modules that cover different common 
scenarios that the USERRA Unit staff can access. These modules are 
periodically updated as new cases come up and during an annual review 
of USERRA-related cases. 

DOL Has More Investigators with More Experience and Information 
Technology Infrastructure Benefiting USERRA Investigations: 

DOL has been investigating USERRA claims since the USERRA law was 
passed in 1994, and its investigators have experience investigating 
these claims. Among all of DOL's current investigators, 41 percent 
have less than 5 years of experience, 41 percent have 5 to 10 years of 
experience, and 19 percent have more than 10 years of experience at 
the agency.[Footnote 18] The investigators who worked on demonstration 
project cases had an average of 8.9 years of experience. 

In addition to the relatively large demonstration project staff at 
DOL, investigators also investigate numerous claims annually. The 31 
investigators who worked on demonstration cases were assigned an 
average of about 15 USERRA cases (demonstration and non-demonstration) 
per investigator per year during the time they were employed by DOL. 
Overall, all current DOL investigators have been assigned an average 
of about 11 USERRA cases per year since 1996 when the agency began 
tracking these claims.[Footnote 19] According to DOL, its larger pool 
of investigators is a benefit because USERRA work will not be affected 
due to individual staff availability or turnover. There will be other 
DOL investigators who can step in to perform the USERRA work as needed. 

DOL said the agency is investing in its USERRA Information Management 
System electronic case tracking database through upgrades that will 
enhance its capabilities and transform the case tracking database into 
a case management system. According to DOL officials, the upgrades to 
the database will better protect the personally identifiable 
information in the case files, allow for better oversight of case 
investigations, and increase the efficiency of case processing. DOL 
plans on making this investment regardless of the results of the 
demonstration project because federal USERRA cases only represented 
about 20 percent of all USERRA cases over the past 2 years. 

DOL has an online system called the elaws advisor that assists 
potential USERRA claimants. The elaws advisor has a logic and decision 
tree function that asks claimants questions and provides information 
on USERRA to enable potential claimants to decide if they think their 
claim is valid and provides claimants information on how to file a 
claim. According to DOL officials, this online system has reduced the 
number of phone calls received, improved communication, and enabled 
claimants to more easily submit claims. 

OSC Uses Alternative Dispute Resolution to Facilitate Resolution and 
Has Additional Responsibility to Represent Claimants: 

OSC Alternative Dispute Resolution. According to OSC officials, in 
September 2012, OSC updated its mediation process after conversations 
with stakeholders, agency counsel, and servicemember organizations, 
including the Employer Support of Guard and Reserve and now uses a 
mediation-based ADR program to help claimants and agencies resolve 
USERRA claims. According to OSC officials, the program follows the 
requirements of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 for 
conducting federal agency mediations.[Footnote 20] OSC designed and 
implemented a USERRA-focused ADR program to provide additional 
resolution process options (such as mediation) for servicemembers who 
filed USERRA claims and the agencies against whom the claim is filed. 
The ADR process is voluntary, but if parties agree to use it, OSC 
mediators bring them together in a confidential, nonadversarial 
environment to find a mutually satisfactory resolution to the dispute. 

As such, the ADR process relies heavily on mediation, a process 
through which a neutral third party works with the disputing parties 
to open lines of communication, explore interests, and, through this 
process, find a mutually satisfactory resolution to the dispute. OSC 
officials told us the ADR process gives servicemembers the opportunity 
to resolve their claims with more carefully tailored results that may 
better meet their needs than strict legal remedies. OSC officials 
explained that it uses a small number of core mediators who have a 
combined 50 years of experience, education, and training in dispute 
resolution who are generally not USERRA Unit employees. Figure 8 shows 
OSC's ADR and case investigation process. 

Figure 8: OSC Uses ADR Process to Mediate USERRA Cases to Offer 
Claimants Additional Resolution Options: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration] 

1. Refer odd-numbered cases to Office of Special Counsel: 

2. Cases simultaneously assigned for investigation and reviewed for 
potential alternative dispute resolution (ADR): 
ADR is not offered or parties decline: go to #3; 
ADR is appropriate: go to #4. 

3. Case is investigated: 
Case referred for ADR during investigation: go to #4; 
If no settlement occurs: return to #4. 

4. Mediation offered; if parties agree, case is mediated. 

5. If settlement occurs, case is closed. 

Source: Office of Special Counsel. GAO-15-77. 

[End of figure] 

According to agency officials, since September 2012, OSC has used the 
ADR process for 19 demonstration cases, settling 17 of the 19 cases, 
or 89 percent. Some of the settlements have resulted in systemic 
changes in agencies' policies and procedures that will impact other 
servicemembers, such as a change to a form for a federal agency so 
that "extended absence" forms now include a category for extended 
absence to perform military service, which OSC believes will better 
ensure that servicemembers receive their full USERRA entitlements 
following service. 

OSC's Legal Experience. Furthermore, OSC officials attribute their 
ability to handle USERRA claims to their expertise on the federal 
workforce and federal personnel law; training and experience in 
investigating, resolving, and litigating federal employment claims, 
including USERRA and PPPs; well-established relationships with federal 
agencies; and an expanded ADR program. OSC also has the responsibility 
of deciding whether or not to represent a claimant before the Merit 
Systems Protection Board (MSPB). OSC officials told us that OSC has 
had this responsibility since 1994 and has successfully resolved 
dozens of these cases without litigation in USERRA cases before MSPB. 

Three of the five attorneys in the USERRA Unit have between 3 and 7 
years of experience handling the USERRA cases referred from DOL and 
deciding whether or not to offer claimants representation in front of 
MSPB, according to OSC officials. In addition, five of the seven 
employees who worked on current demonstration project cases also 
worked on cases received during the prior demonstration project from 
2005 to 2008. 

OSC IT Infrastructure. OSC officials also stated that they are 
investing in updates to their primary case tracking database, OSC 
2000, and are developing a system whereby all case files will be 
retained digitally. This will reduce waste and make the assignment of 
cases more efficient. OSC officials noted that they updated OSC's 
official website to include a complaint dashboard where prospective 
claimants can select the type of claim they would like to file with a 
brief description of the type of violation each claim is--USERRA or 
the other types of cases OSC investigates. OSC officials told us they 
also added functionality on their website enabling prospective 
claimants to file claims online. 

OSC Received Reimbursement from DOL for Demonstration Project Costs. 
In January 2012, DOL and OSC entered into an interagency agreement 
that provided OSC with reimbursement for demonstration project costs. 
This agreement was signed more than a year after Congress passed VBA 
and about 5 months after the start of the demonstration project. This 
agreement was based on a similar interagency agreement that was 
negotiated in 2005 during the first USERRA demonstration project. 
According to agency officials, the reimbursement rates were based on 
the rates agreed to in 2005 and adjusted upward for inflation. DOL 
reimbursed OSC between $3,184 and $3,379 per demonstration case it 
closed depending on the fiscal year the case was referred to OSC. 

Customer Satisfaction Can Provide Meaningful Feedback for Service 
Improvements: 

Customer Satisfaction Survey Ends: 

DOL and OSC no longer receive feedback on customer satisfaction now 
that the demonstration project has ended. During the demonstration 
project, OPM administered the customer satisfaction survey, analyzed 
the survey data annually, and provided each agency the quantitative 
data results and qualitative comments respondents provided. Both 
agencies have reported gaining insights on improving service to 
claimants based on information provided through the survey. For 
example, both agencies used information collected from survey 
respondents and survey analysis provided by OPM to make incremental 
improvements in their USERRA demonstration project operations. 
Specifically, DOL officials told us that they used survey information 
to improve their communication with claimants. DOL officials said they 
now engage in more telephone and email interactions with claimants. 
OSC officials also took actions to improve their customer service 
based on survey results by providing earlier and more frequent contact 
with claimants (at least once a month), informing the claimant of the 
preliminary determination via phone before mailing the determination 
letter, and establishing a goal to respond to claimant emails and 
phone calls within 1 business day. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has emphasized the 
importance of setting customer service standards, regularly soliciting 
customer feedback, and using the feedback they receive to improve 
their services. To this end, OMB established a cross-agency priority 
goal aimed at adopting customer service best practices. According to 
this priority goal, government programs that directly serve the public 
can benefit from understanding customer expectations and service 
needs, and regularly evaluating and improving program effectiveness in 
meeting those needs. One way to accomplish this is by conducting 
customer satisfaction surveys and analyzing the results to identify 
opportunities to improve service. 

The customer satisfaction survey for the USERRA demonstration project 
ceased on July 28, 2014--the survey was created to support the USERRA 
demonstration project. Neither DOL nor OSC has an ongoing agreement 
with OPM to continue administering the customer satisfaction survey 
for USERRA claimants. Also, neither agency has developed other plans 
to continue the customer satisfaction survey. 

The amount spent on the survey represents slightly more than 5 percent 
of DOL's total investigation costs, and about 2 percent of OSC's 
investigation costs between August 2012 and August 2014. The cost to 
administer the customer satisfaction survey was $20,000. As previously 
discussed, DOL spent $354,712 on investigating demonstration cases and 
OSC spent more than $1,055,377 on investigating demonstration cases. 
Agencies used survey results to make adjustments but the survey ended 
in July 2014. Such a feedback mechanism will provide agencies an 
opportunity to enhance customer service. 

Low Response Rates Limit Agency Efforts to Make Service Improvements: 

Both agencies had a low response rate to the customer satisfaction 
survey. As of July 28, 2014, DOL had 101 claimants respond for a 
response rate of 32 percent and OSC had 151 claimants respond for a 
response rate of 42 percent.[Footnote 21] Of the 101 DOL respondents, 
69 provided narrative comments on the final two questions. Of the 151 
OSC respondents, 135 provided narrative comments on the final two 
questions. 

A high response rate increases the likelihood that the survey results 
reflect the views and characteristics of the target population, 
whereas a low response rate can be an indicator of potential 
nonresponse bias, which would be detrimental to the accuracy of the 
results of a study in a variety of ways. OMB guidance recommends that 
executive branch agencies should try to achieve the highest practical 
rates of survey response. Moreover, OMB suggests that when survey 
response rates are less than 80 percent, agencies conduct a 
nonresponse analysis to identify potential limitations to the data. 

As we recommended in 2012, agencies undertook additional efforts to 
increase the response rate, included providing claimants with an 
initial notification of the survey; however, agencies did not pursue 
other methods to increase response, such as by contacting respondents 
over the phone or providing more than two additional follow-up 
notifications, because they did not want to aggravate claimants with 
repeated follow-up requests.[Footnote 22] 

Conclusions: 

We analyzed agencies relative performance on the five demonstration 
project metrics outlined in the VBA, including case outcomes, customer 
satisfaction, timeliness, cost, and capacity. Based on our analysis, 
DOL demonstrated relatively higher levels of performance than OSC on 
most of these performance metrics. Specifically, DOL demonstrated 
higher levels of customer satisfaction and resolved cases in about one-
third of the time and for about one-third of the cost, on average; 
whereas OSC resolved a greater proportion of cases in favor of the 
claimant. The relative difference in agencies' costs was affected by 
factors such as the number of hours dedicated to case investigations 
and pay levels, among others. However, there are other considerations 
affecting agency performance, such as differing resource levels, 
staffing levels and qualifications, and case review and investigative 
approach. Our report provides Congress with agencies' relative 
performance information that may help inform the policy decision on 
the future responsibilities of the two agencies for the processing of 
USERRA claims against federal executive agencies. 

In response to our past recommendations, DOL and OSC worked together 
to establish and administer a customer satisfaction survey that 
solicited feedback on service provided to claimants. The customer 
satisfaction survey concluded on July 28, 2014, and, although DOL and 
OSC undertook additional efforts to increase the response rate, the 
response rate remained low. Agencies do not have plans to administer a 
customer satisfaction survey in the future. Agencies officials at both 
agencies told us they benefited from the information collected during 
the survey, and used survey information to make improvements in their 
operations to better serve claimants. Without ongoing access to 
customer satisfaction information, both agencies will be unable to 
track satisfaction levels over time, and may miss opportunities to 
receive feedback from servicemembers and make additional improvements 
to federal USERRA operations in the future. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that any federal agency designated to investigate future 
USERRA claims against federal executive agencies take the following 
two actions: 

* Continue administering a customer satisfaction survey, whether 
administered by OPM or the agency, so the agency investigating federal 
USERRA claims can receive consistent feedback and improve service to 
claimants. 

* Undertake efforts to increase the response rate of the customer 
satisfaction survey if it continues to be administered, so more 
tenable conclusions can be drawn from its data. Such efforts may 
include follow-up phone calls to nonrespondents, additional email 
notifications requesting participation in the survey, or making the 
survey easier to complete and submit. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOL and OSC for review and 
comment. DOL concurred with our two recommendations and said it is 
committed to continuous improvement of the USERRA program. DOL 
comments are reprinted in appendix IV. In response to our 
recommendations, DOL stated it has plans to continue a customer 
satisfaction survey for USERRA claimants in fiscal year 2015 and will 
take steps to maximize response rates. Recognizing the need for 
continuous improvement, DOL added that the agency invested in an 
electronic case management system for implementation in fiscal year 
2015. DOL also provided technical comments which we incorporated as 
appropriate. 

In its written comments, OSC did not say whether it agreed with our 
two recommendations and expressed concerns about our characterization 
of performance data and conclusions. OSC's comments, including 
examples of case outcomes, are reprinted in appendix V. OSC also 
provided technical comments which we incorporated as appropriate. 

OSC expressed a concern that we ignored its efforts and successes in 
securing relief for veterans. OSC characterized the report as 
containing unreliable data, unsupportable conclusions, and a 
subjective assessment of relative performance. Our report presents a 
fair, balanced, and objective portrayal of relative performance 
between OSC and DOL. We worked with both agencies to develop an 
approach for collecting and reporting comparable performance data 
since the beginning of the demonstration project in 2011. Our report 
acknowledges the complexity of assessing relative performance for the 
performance metrics outlined in VBA. As we report, performance can be 
affected by factors such as the investigative approaches used by 
agencies, case type, and other factors. Where appropriate, we have 
provided additional information or clarification to ensure that the 
performance information is viewed in the appropriate context. 

Our response to the specific points raised by OSC are as follows. 

OSC expressed several concerns with our analysis of case outcomes. OSC 
commented that we diminished and obscured performance information 
regarding case outcomes. OSC also claimed we abdicated responsibility 
by not providing a qualitative assessment of case outcomes based on 
summary case information. Our report provides clear information 
regarding the number of cases received and closed, as well as the 
percentage of cases resolved in favor of the claimant. It was not our 
intention to assess the merits of agencies' case outcomes. At the 
beginning of the demonstration project, we made clear to OSC that it 
would be inappropriate for us to review case files and make an 
independent determination of the merits of agencies' case outcomes. 
Moreover, as previously stated, we worked with agencies prior to the 
demonstration project to develop a method to ensure that case outcomes 
could be described in a consistent manner, and a comparison could be 
made at the conclusion of the demonstration project. While we did not 
attempt to assess the merits of agencies' case outcomes, our report 
provides examples of specific relief claimants received and 
information on the types of outcomes OSC achieved. 

OSC objected to our inclusion of 7 cases from DOL that were decided in 
favor of the claimant, but did not result in the claimant receiving 
relief. To address this concern, our report provided additional 
details to describe our treatment of such cases. We had to rely on 
agencies' determination of whether certain cases were resolved in 
favor of the claimant because certain case outcomes were not included 
in the cross-walk. Specifically, as we report, OSC's totals include 3 
cases in which corrective action was declined by the claimant, or 
about 3 percent of the 94 cases the agency resolved in favor of the 
claimant. DOL's totals include 7 cases that had merit, but which were 
not resolved, or about 11 percent of the 62 cases the agency resolved 
in favor of the claimant. According to OSC officials, the code 
"corrective action declined by claimant" indicates that the agency 
offered resolution but the claimant declined it. According to DOL 
officials, the code "merit, not resolved" indicates that the claim was 
meritorious, but the agency did not offer resolution, or the claimant 
declined the resolution that was offered. 

OSC expressed several concerns with our analysis of agency cost data. 
OSC stated that the cost information presented is unverifiable. We 
believe the cost information presented in our report is reliable. We 
took steps to assure the reasonableness of cost figures reported by 
agencies. We conducted tests on each agency's cost and accounting data 
to ensure appropriate cost components were accurately reflected in 
their total costs. We independently reviewed supporting documentation 
and verified that the cost information was reasonable. For more 
details regarding our analyses and data reliability assessments, see 
our scope and methodology in appendix I. 

OSC stated that DOL's total costs are incomplete because the total 
cost and hours reported constitute only about 105 hours per year, per 
DOL investigator, or about 5 percent of the 2,088 annual hour work 
schedule. OSC's statement is based on the false assumption that the 31 
DOL investigators who worked on USERRA demonstration project cases, 
worked on them full time. We have added language to make clear that 
DOL investigators had other responsibilities. Specifically, we added 
information explaining that DOL's investigators also worked on other 
nonfederal USERRA or veterans' preference cases. OSC also speculated 
that the average annual caseload of 15 USERRA demonstration and non-
demonstration project cases comprised DOL investigators' full 
workload. As we clarified, investigators also worked on veterans' 
preference cases, which are not included in this average annual 
caseload figure. Furthermore, we did not collect information on the 
time spent on non-demonstration project cases or other duties. Thus, 
we cannot draw conclusions about the average time, or proportion of 
time, dedicated to non-demonstration project related work activities. 

OSC stated we reported that neither agency tracked the costs of 
individual cases, and so were unable to report the cost of closed 
cases. However, we reported the total cost and the average cost for 
investigating a case during the demonstration project. 

OSC stated that, in 2012, we requested that the agency change its 
methodology for tracking costs to be more consistent with DOL. In 
2011, at the beginning of the demonstration project, we recommended 
that agencies establish comparable methods and procedures for tracking 
and reporting demonstration project costs. We did not suggest a 
specific method or approach for agencies to follow, but asked that 
agencies agree to a comparable approach that would facilitate a 
relative comparison of costs at the conclusion of the demonstration 
project. Agencies implemented this recommendation, which enabled us to 
provide comparable cost information for both agencies in this report. 

OSC expressed concern that we failed to put the customer satisfaction 
survey results in the proper context. OSC stated that we did not 
expand on the limitations and potential biases of the survey data 
until the end of our report. We recognize the low survey response rate 
throughout the report and identified the actions we took that enabled 
us to draw conclusions about the survey. Our analyses revealed that 
differences in DOL and OSC satisfaction scores for each question 
remained statistically significant and pronounced even after 
controlling for variables that could affect the claimants' views of 
the customer service provided. However, we made minor adjustments in 
the Highlights page language to clarify that, due to the low response 
rate, we undertook additional statistical analyses to control for 
potential sources of bias. 

OSC stated that we failed to include OPM concerns about biases in the 
survey data. OPM's conclusions were based on a nonresponse analysis 
conducted in 2013, and not the final analyses provided in this report. 
OPM's analyses did not control for variables that could affect 
claimants' views of the services received from each agency. 

OSC stated that our decision to report the raw (not adjusted) customer 
satisfaction survey scores in the body of the report is misleading. 
OSC said that we reported adjusted scores only in appendix III. We 
reported on both raw and adjusted scores in our report. Both the 
actual and adjusted scores demonstrate, with a high degree of 
confidence, that DOL's respondents were more satisfied than OSC's 
respondents. 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and to 
the Special Counsel, and other interested parties. This report will 
also be available at no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions on this report, please contact me at (202) 
512-2717 or jonesy@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 VI. 

Signed by: 

Yvonne D. Jones: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (VBA) required us to undertake a 
final assessment of the demonstration project and provide a report to 
Congress 90 days after the end of the demonstration project. This 
report (1) assesses agencies' relative performance under VBA 
performance metrics including case outcomes, customer satisfaction, 
timeliness, cost, and capacity; and (2) identifies actions agencies 
can take to improve service. 

To assess the agencies' relative performance, we reviewed the 
demonstration project requirements set forth in VBA and compared final 
agency data on case outcomes, timeliness, customer satisfaction, and 
cost. We also reviewed information on agency capacity including 
staffing levels, grade level, training, education, and caseload. The 
demonstration project period began on August 9, 2011, and concluded on 
August 9, 2014; however, to ensure we met the mandated reporting 
deadline, this report includes data collected through the end of July 
2014. We also provided comparative and descriptive explanations of 
agency capacity. 

Case Outcomes and Timeliness. To assess case outcomes and timeliness, 
we analyzed data from the Department of Labor's (DOL) case tracking 
system (the USERRA Information Management System, or UIMS) and the 
Office of Special Counsel's (OSC) case tracking system (OSC 2000) for 
demonstration cases opened between August 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014. 
We also reviewed relevant agency documents and interviewed DOL and OSC 
staff. We assessed case tracking data to identify the number of cases 
received, the number of cases resolved in favor of the claimant, and 
those not resolved in favor of the claimant. To identify the number of 
cases received, we removed duplicate and non-unique claims from both 
agencies, and totaled the number of claims received and resolved each 
fiscal year. As such, our case totals may vary from the number of 
cases reported by agencies in prior Uniformed Services Employment and 
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) progress reports issued to 
Congress. To determine the cases resolved in favor of the claimant, we 
reviewed the agencies' cross-walk of case outcomes to identify 
corresponding case closure dispositions and case closure codes. We 
also interviewed agency officials. DOL uses the resolution codes claim 
granted, claim settled, and merit - not resolved, to identify cases 
resolved in favor of claimants. OSC uses the codes dispute resolved, 
corrective action, and complainant declines corrective action offered. 
To assess the timeliness of cases, we calculated the average case 
investigation time for each fiscal year and for all demonstration 
project cases closed between August 9, 2011, and July 31, 2014. We 
also calculated the average age of demonstration project cases that 
were open as of July 31, 2014. In addition, we grouped cases into one 
of three categories based on the investigation processing times for 
both open and closed cases-cases open less than 30 days, cases open 
between 30 and 90 days, and cases open more than 90 days. We also 
considered factors that may have contributed to timeliness of case 
resolution, such as whether the case was decided in favor of the 
claimant, and whether the case involved a prohibited personnel 
practice. 

To assess the reliability of agency case tracking data, we reviewed 
agency documentation on any significant operational or case management 
changes occurring since our last report, issued in September 2012. We 
tested the data for missing entries, errors, duplicate entries, and 
other logic testing. We also reviewed related agency documentation, 
including our previous reports, and interviewed DOL and OSC staff. We 
determined that internal controls for the demonstration project had 
not changed substantially since our past reviews. We generally found 
low rates of missing data or erroneous dates pertinent to our 
analysis. For cases in which we found missing information or dates or 
Social Security numbers out of sequence, we followed up with the 
agency and, as appropriate, updated our analysis files with corrected 
information. For example, we found that OSC had received a number of 
demonstration project cases from claimants who did not provide a 
Social Security number, and which had an even-numbered opening date. 
According to the demonstration project procedures agreed to by both 
agencies, OSC was authorized to accept claims that did not have a 
corresponding Social Security number, if they were filed on an odd 
date, whereas, DOL would accept cases filed on even dates. We asked 
OSC about this discrepancy, and officials there explained that for 
some cases that did not have a corresponding Social Security number, 
the agency received claims on an odd numbered day, but did not enter 
the claim into their case tracking system until the next day. OSC 
provided us with the correct case opening date for these cases. DOL 
officials told us they followed the agency's existing USERRA 
operations manual during the demonstration project to ensure data 
reliability and validity, while OSC drafted a data reliability plan 
specifically for the demonstration project. Based on the collective 
results of our data reliability assessment, we consider the data 
elements we assessed in DOL and OSC case tracking databases to be 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of evaluating relative 
performance of DOL and OSC during the demonstration project. 

Customer Satisfaction. To assess customer satisfaction, we analyzed 
data, results, and narrative responses from the USERRA customer 
satisfaction survey. Surveys were sent by each agency to claimants 
upon resolution of their cases. Survey data were collected 
independently by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The survey 
data collection ended July 28, 2014, for our reporting purposes. 
Agencies entered into an agreement with OPM to administer the 
satisfaction survey and provide interim reports providing customer 
satisfaction performance information. Because the response rate to the 
survey was low, we performed additional analyses including 
multivariate and nonresponse analyses to understand what conclusions 
could be drawn from the data and which variables might affect the 
results. For a detailed description of the analyses completed and 
their findings, see appendix III. We also interviewed agency officials 
at OSC, DOL, and OPM to gather supporting documentation including the 
survey instrument and other relevant information to facilitate our 
analyses of the customer satisfaction survey data. Furthermore, we 
reviewed relevant documents, such as interim survey reports and the 
interagency agreement between DOL and OPM for the survey 
administration, and the statement of work between DOL, OSC, and OPM 
for survey responsibilities. 

We assessed the reliability of the customer satisfaction survey data 
by testing the data for missing entries and errors, and employing 
other logic testing. We reviewed OPM documentation and interviewed 
OPM, DOL, and OSC staff. In addition, OPM described and provided 
supporting documentation of the procedures it has in place to ensure 
data reliability and validity, including running checks on the data 
for completeness. Based on the collective results of our data 
reliability assessment, we consider data provided by OPM on the 
customer satisfaction survey to be sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of evaluating relative performance of DOL and OSC during the 
demonstration project. 

Agency Costs. To assess demonstration project costs, we reviewed and 
analyzed cost and accounting data from DOL and OSC, including 
supporting documentation such as the number of hours dedicated to 
demonstration project cases. While the cost accounting systems 
developed at each agency differ somewhat in the way they track time 
spent, both systems track actual salary, benefits, and indirect cost 
components by applying an hourly rate that includes those components 
for each specific employee who works on, and tracks time spent on, 
demonstration project cases. To determine the total cost, the agencies 
multiplied the hourly rate for all personnel who participated in the 
demonstration project by the total time spent working on USERRA 
demonstration project investigations. We also interviewed DOL and OSC 
staff responsible for collecting and reporting cost information. 

DOL provided cost and accounting data for the full demonstration 
project for the period August 9, 2011, to July 31, 2014. OSC provided 
complete and comparable cost data for the period August 12, 2012, to 
August 1, 2014, or about 24 months out of the 36-month demonstration 
project. OSC officials explained that they did not provide complete 
and comparable cost data prior to August 12, 2012, because the agency 
changed its process and methods for tracking and reporting data to be 
more consistent with the process and methods used by DOL. Prior to 
August 12, 2012, OSC tracked the costs of each case and reported costs 
of closed cases. After August 12, 2012, OSC began collecting and 
reporting costs for all demonstration project cases worked, including 
cases that were still open, and stopped tracking costs on a case-by-
case basis. On September 4, 2014, OSC provided us with additional cost 
information for demonstration project cases that were investigated 
between May 2012 and August 12, 2012. This data was received about 
three weeks after the deadline we established for submitting cost and 
performance information. OSC also provided cost and accounting 
information for cases that were closed between August 2011 and May 
2012. This data was incomplete because it excluded costs incurred for 
cases that remained open during this period. We did not include these 
data in our assessment of demonstration project costs because these 
data were incomplete, or not directly comparable to DOL costs. Thus, 
we determined we did not have sufficient time to verify the 
reliability of all of the data prior to our congressionally mandated 
reporting deadline. 

We assessed the reliability of DOL's and OSC's USERRA cost accounting 
systems by testing the data for missing entries and errors, employing 
other logic testing, reviewing DOL and OSC documentation, and 
interviewing agency staff. Furthermore, we determined that agencies 
developed steps for ensuring the reliability of cost data, including 
developing USERRA operations manuals, providing instructions to staff 
entering the data, and describing the steps for reviewing the data 
after entered by staff. 

Because OSC did not implement our recommendation to document 
procedures for compiling and reporting cost information, we also 
conducted a limited trace-to-file process to determine whether the 
agency's reported monthly costs accurately reflected the time and cost 
reported by employees. Specifically, we identified a random sample of 
five individual time and cost lines from the master cost and 
accounting spreadsheet and compared the totals to the agency's time 
and cost records for those months. During this assessment, we 
identified an error in the hourly rate of an employee used to 
determine demonstration project costs. OSC corrected this error and 
provided us with an updated time and cost spreadsheet. We then 
conducted a second trace-to-file sample of five randomly chosen 
individual time and cost lines and determined the data were 
sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

We also performed a data check on the DOL cost data. We used the 
annualized cost rates for a number of investigators to manually 
calculate their total demonstration project costs for, and compared 
our results to, DOL's reported total costs for these investigators. 
Based on this check, we found the data to be sufficiently accurate. 
Based on the collective results of our data reliability assessment, we 
consider the DOL and OSC cost accounting data to be sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of evaluating relative performance of DOL 
and OSC during the demonstration project. 

Agency Capacity. To describe agencies' capacity, we analyzed agency 
data on staff levels, grade levels, training, education, and caseload. 
We also reviewed agency documentation, and interviewed agency 
officials about factors impacting agency performance and capacity. To 
determine the average caseload of DOL investigators who worked on 
demonstration cases by fiscal year, we divided the number of 
demonstration cases opened per fiscal year by the number of 
investigators who worked on demonstration cases during that year. To 
determine DOL's overall average caseload per fiscal year for the 
entire length of the demonstration project, we took the average 
caseloads for each fiscal year and used them to create a weighted 
average--weighing each fiscal year by the number of months the 
demonstration project was ongoing--because demonstration cases were 
not investigated for the entirety of fiscal years 2011 and 2014. We 
also calculated the average caseload of all active DOL investigators 
by 1) dividing the number of cases all active DOL investigators were 
assigned by the number of years they had been investigating cases to 
calculate the average caseload of all active investigators and then 2) 
dividing the sum of the individual investigators' averages by the 
total number of active investigators to calculate the overall average 
caseload for all active DOL investigators. 

To determine the average number of cases opened by OSC staff members 
investigating claims, we calculated the average number of cases opened 
per staff member for each period of time that had a stable amount of 
staff. Specifically, each time a new staff member was hired or a staff 
member left OSC, we created a new time period to better capture the 
number of cases opened per staff member. Finally, we used these nine 
averages to create a weighted average based on the number of months in 
the time period to calculate the average number of cases opened per 
staff member investigating claims at OSC. In addition, we reviewed 
agency documentation and testimonial evidence, as well as analyzed 
agency data, to describe DOL's and OSC's staffing levels, training 
programs on USERRA investigations and general investigation 
techniques, and the agencies' views on their unique qualifications to 
investigate claims. 

To identify actions agencies can take to improve service, we analyzed 
agency customer satisfaction data and compared results to customer 
service principles and guidance outlined in executive orders, Office 
of Management and Budget guidance, and the governmentwide performance 
plan at [hyperlink, http://www.performance.gov]. We also interviewed 
agency officials about their views on related procedures and practices 
that worked well or needed improvement. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to November 2014 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
These 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 the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: USERRA Demonstration Project Customer Satisfaction Survey 
Administration and Instrument: 

The Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 includes customer satisfaction as 
one of five performance metrics to be used to assess the relative 
performance of the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of Special 
Counsel (OSC) during the Uniformed Services Employment and 
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) demonstration project. In 
response to our previous recommendation, both agencies agreed on the 
method by which customer satisfaction data would be collected. 
Specifically, the agencies agreed to administer a customer 
satisfaction survey, and entered into an interagency agreement with 
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to collect survey data and 
provide regular reports to agencies with comparative performance 
information. Furthermore, with cooperation from agencies, OPM 
developed a survey plan and developed protocols for contacting 
respondents.[Footnote 23] 

The customer satisfaction survey was provided to all claimants whose 
cases were closed between the start of the demonstration project on 
August 9, 2012, and July 28, 2014. OPM established an end date for 
collection of survey data of July 28, 2014, for reporting purposes. 
The customer satisfaction survey was initially sent via an email link 
on April 19, 2012, 8 months after the start of the demonstration 
project, to all claimants whose cases had been closed since August 9, 
2011. Since then, DOL and OSC have sent the survey on an ongoing basis 
after cases are closed. 

When the survey began in April 2012, DOL and OSC emailed the claimants 
a link to the customer satisfaction survey, followed by a reminder 
emailed one week after case resolution. Two weeks following the 
initial notification, DOL and OSC sent a hard-copy reminder to 
claimants with the survey link. However, our interim report on the 
demonstration project found the response rate to the customer 
satisfaction survey was low for both agencies and recommended that DOL 
and OSC take actions to increase the response rate.[Footnote 24] In 
response, beginning on May 20, 2013, both agencies provided claimants 
with an initial notification that a survey would be provided to them 
upon completion of their cases and requesting their participation in 
the survey. In addition, both agencies sent claimants two follow-up 
emails. 

The survey allows respondents to report their satisfaction regarding 
several aspects of their experiences with DOL and OSC, as shown in 
figure 9. The survey included nine statements regarding claimants 
experience, and provided respondents the option to respond to 
statements by selecting "strongly disagree," "disagree," "neither 
agree nor disagree," "agree," "strongly agree," or "no basis to 
judge." The survey also included four categories for the respondents 
to express their level of satisfaction with the service provided by 
selecting "very dissatisfied," "dissatisfied," "neither," "satisfied," 
"very satisfied," and "no basis to judge"; and one question for 
respondents to express their level of satisfaction with the complaint 
form used to file USERRA claims. The survey included two open-ended 
questions allowing respondents to describe what went well and what 
needed to change about their agency experience. In addition, the 
survey asked claimants to self report the outcome of their case and 
their military affiliation. Figure 9 shows the survey instrument OPM 
used to collect customer satisfaction data. 

Figure 9: OPM 2012 Customer Satisfaction Survey Instrument: 

[Refer to PDF for image: survey data] 

Customer Satisfaction Survey: 

Part 1: Background Information: 

1. Which of the following best describes the outcome of your complaint?
My complaint was decided in my favor; 
My complaint was decided partially in my favor; 
My complaint was not decided in my favor; 
Do Not Know. 

2. What is your military affiliation?
National Guard: 
Reserves: 
Active Duty Military: 
Other-Please Specify: 

Part 2: Customer Experiences: 

3. The OSC/DOL staff are courteous.
Strongly Disagree: 
Disagree: 
Neither Agree: 
Strongly Agree: 
No Basis to Judge: 

4. The OSC/DOL staff are competent.
Strongly Disagree: 
Disagree: 
Neither Agree: 
Strongly Agree: 
No Basis to Judge: 

5. The OSC/DOL staff are professional.
Strongly Disagree: 
Disagree: 
Neither Agree: 
Strongly Agree: 
No Basis to Judge: 

6. OSC/DOL provides consistently good service.
Strongly Disagree: 
Disagree: 
Neither Agree: 
Strongly Agree: 
No Basis to Judge: 

7. OSC/DOL policies and procedures are customer friendly.
Strongly Disagree: 
Disagree: 
Neither Agree: 
Strongly Agree: 
No Basis to Judge: 

8. I have adequate access to OSC/DOL staff for advice and assistance.
Strongly Disagree: 
Disagree: 
Neither Agree: 
Strongly Agree: 
No Basis to Judge: 

9. The OSC/DOL staff keep me informed of significant case developments.
Strongly Disagree: 
Disagree: 
Neither Agree: 
Strongly Agree: 
No Basis to Judge: 

10. I know whom to contact at OSC/DOL if I have additional questions.
Strongly Disagree: 
Disagree: 
Neither Agree: 
Strongly Agree: 
No Basis to Judge: 

11. OSC/DOL staff responded to my questions in a timely manner.
Strongly Disagree: 
Disagree: 
Neither Agree: 
Strongly Agree: 
No Basis to Judge: 

12. How satisfied are you with the following products and services:
Very Dissatisfied: 
Dissatisfied: 
Neither: 
Satisfied: 
Very Satisfied: 
No Basis to Judge: 

a. Thoroughness of investigation
Very Dissatisfied: 
Dissatisfied: 
Neither: 
Satisfied: 
Very Satisfied: 
No Basis to Judge: 

b. Clarity of written communication
Very Dissatisfied: 
Dissatisfied: 
Neither: 
Satisfied: 
Very Satisfied: 
No Basis to Judge: 

c. Clarity of verbal communication
Very Dissatisfied: 
Dissatisfied: 
Neither: 
Satisfied: 
Very Satisfied: 
No Basis to Judge: 

The E-1010 (complaint) form is well designed and easy to use. (Non-
evaluation item)
Very Dissatisfied: 
Dissatisfied: 
Neither: 
Satisfied: 
Very Satisfied: 
No Basis to Judge: 

Part 3: Overall Satisfaction and Comments: 

13. Overall, how satisfied are you with the customer service provided 
by OSC/DOL? 
Very Dissatisfied: 
Dissatisfied: 
Neither: 
Satisfied: 
Very Satisfied: 

14. Overall, how satisfied are you with OSC's/DOL's investigation of 
your complaint?
Very Dissatisfied: 
Dissatisfied: 
Neither: 
Satisfied: 
Very Satisfied: 

15. Overall, how satisfied are you with the results of the 
investigation?
Very Dissatisfied: 
Dissatisfied: 
Neither: 
Satisfied: 
Very Satisfied: 

16. Use the following space to describe what OSC/DOL is doing well. 
(2000 characters): 

17. Use the following space to describe what you would like to see 
OSC/DOL change. (2000 characters): 

Source: OPM. GAO-15-77. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Nonresponse and Multivariate Analysis of Customer 
Satisfaction Data: 

In light of the low response rates to the customer satisfaction 
survey, we performed additional analyses including nonresponse and 
multivariate analyses to understand what conclusions could be drawn 
from the data and which variables might affect the results. We found 
pronounced differences in customer satisfaction between the two 
agencies as indicated by each of the 15 survey questions. In all but 
one of the questions, differences persist even after taking into 
account differences in the favorability of the outcomes of the claims, 
case processing times, and whether discrimination was alleged. 

Nonresponse Analysis. Satisfaction with the Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) claims process 
at the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of Special Counsel 
(OSC) is measured by responses from participants to 15 questions on an 
exit survey which is completed voluntarily and electronically after 
participants completed the process. Table 4 shows that the overall 
response rate to the survey was low (37.2 percent) and that the 
response rate was higher at OSC (41.6 percent) than at DOL (32.2 
percent). 

Table 4: Survey Response Rates at DOL and OSC: 

Agency: DOL; 
Response Status: 
Non-Responders: 213; 67.8%; 
Responders: 101; 32.2%; 
Total: 314; 100.0%. 

Agency: OSC; 
Response Status: 
Non-Responders: 212; 58.4%; 
Responders: 151; 41.6%; 
Total: 363; 100.0%. 

Agency: Total; 
Response Status: 
Non-Responders: 425; 62.8%; 
Responders: 252; 37.2%; 
Total: 677; 100.0%. 

L[2] (Independence) = 6.44 with 1 df, P = .01162.8%. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data. 
GAO-15-77. 

[End of table] 

The low overall response rate and the significant difference in 
response rates across the two agencies are potentially troublesome 
inasmuch as responders and non-responders may differ with respect to 
their satisfaction with the investigation of their claims or differ on 
other characteristics that affect satisfaction. To the extent that 
such differences exist, estimates of the level of satisfaction in the 
two agencies and the differences in satisfaction between them may be 
biased. We do not know whether responders and non-responders differ 
with respect to their satisfaction with the investigation of their 
claims, since only the responders provided information about their 
satisfaction by responding to the survey. However, responders and non-
responders can be compared on three characteristics that might affect 
satisfaction, using data that the agencies provided us with--namely, 
the time it took for their cases to be investigated, whether 
discrimination was alleged as part of their claim, and whether the 
claim was settled in favor of the claimant. These comparisons, both 
within each of the two agencies and overall, are shown in tables 5, 6, 
and 7. 

Table 5 shows that overall (or when both agencies are combined, in the 
bottom panel of the table) responders were significantly more likely 
to have lengthy processing times (more than 90 days) and less likely 
to have short processing times (1 to 30 days). This overall difference 
was statistically significant. While differences between responders 
and non-responders within each agency were not statistically 
significant, the tendency for there to be fewer responders than non-
responders with short processing times is evident in each agency. 

Table 5: Case Processing Time for Responders and Non-Responders, by 
Agency and Overall: 

Agency: DOL; 
Response Status; 

Case Processing Time (in days): 1-30; 
Non-Responders: 110; 52.1%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 31-90; 
Non-Responders: 82; 38.9%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 91+; 
Non-Responders: 19; 9.0%; 
Total: 
Non-Responders: 211; 100.0%. 

Responders: 
Case Processing Time (in days): 1-30; 
Responders: 40; 39.6%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 31-90; 
Responders: 53; 52.5%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 91+; 
Responders: 8; 7.9%; 
Total: 
Responders: 101; 100.0%. 

Case Processing Time (in days): 1-30; 
Responders: 150; 48.1%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 31-90; 
Responders: 135; 43.3%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 91+; 
Responders: 27; 8.7%; 
Total: 
Responders: 312; 100.0%. 

L2(Independence) = 5.23 with 2 df, P = .073. 

Agency: OSC; 
Response Status; 

Case Processing Time (in days): 1-30; 
Non-Responders: 39; 18.4%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 31-90; 
Non-Responders: 79; 37.3%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 91+; 
Non-Responders: 94; 44.3; 
Total: 
Non-Responders: 212; 100.0%. 

Responders: 
Case Processing Time (in days): 1-30; 
Responders: 19; 12.6%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 31-90; 
Responders: 53; 35.1%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 91+; 
Responders: 79; 52.3%; 
Total: 
Responders: 151; 100.0%. 

Case Processing Time (in days): 1-30; 
Responders: 56; 16.0%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 31-90; 
Responders: 132; 36.4%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 91+; 
Responders: 173; 47.7%; 
Total: 
Responders: 363; 100.0%. 

L2(Independence) = 3.20 with 2 df, P = .202. 

Agency: Overall; 
Response Status; 

Case Processing Time (in days): 1-30; 
Non-Responders: 149; 35.2%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 31-90; 
Non-Responders: 161; 38.1%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 91+; 
Non-Responders: 113; 26.7; 
Total: 
Non-Responders: 423; 100.0%. 

Responders: 
Case Processing Time (in days): 1-30; 
Responders: 59; 23.4%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 31-90; 
Responders: 106; 42.1%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 91+; 
Responders: 87; 34.5%; 
Total: 
Responders: 252; 100.0%. 

Case Processing Time (in days): 1-30; 
Responders: 208; 30.8%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 31-90; 
Responders: 267; 39.6%; 
Case Processing Time (in days): 91+; 
Responders: 200; 29.6%; 
Total: 
Responders: 675; 100.0%. 

L2(Independence) = 11.26 with 2 df, P = .004. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data. 
GAO-15-77. 

[End of table] 

Table 6 shows that discrimination allegations overall and within each 
agency did not, strictly speaking, differ significantly between 
responders and non-responders. But, differences approached 
significance in each agency (.05 < p < .10) and showed that fewer 
responders than non-responders had alleged discrimination as part of 
their claim. 

Table 6: Discrimination Allegations for Responders and Non-Responders, 
by Agency and Overall: 

Agency: DOL; 
Discrimination Alleged; 

Response Status: No; 
Non-Responders: 90; 42.7%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Non-Responders: 121; 57.3%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Non-Responders: 211; 100%. 

Response Status: No; 
Responders: 54; 53.5%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 47; 46.5%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Responders: 101; 100%. 

Response Status: No; 
Total: 114; 46.2%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Total: 168; 53.8%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Total: 312; 100%. 

L2(Independence) = 3.21 with 1 df, P = .073. 

Agency: OSC; 
Discrimination Alleged; 

Response Status: No; 
Non-Responders: 29; 13.7%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Non-Responders: 183; 86.3%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Non-Responders: 212; 100%. 

Response Status: No; 
Responders: 32; 21.2%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 119; 78.8%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Responders: 151; 100%. 

Response Status: No; 
Total: 61; 16.8%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Total: 302; 83.2%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Total: 363; 100%. 

L2(Independence) = 3.51 with 1 df, P = .061. 

Agency: Overall; 
Discrimination Alleged; 

Response Status: No; 
Non-Responders: 119; 28.1%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Non-Responders: 304; 71.9%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Non-Responders: 423; 100%. 

Response Status: No; 
Responders: 86; 34.1%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 166; 65.9%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Responders: 252; 100%. 

Response Status: No; 
Total: 205; 30.4%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Total: 470; 69.6%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Total: 675; 100%. 

L2(Independence) = 2.66 with 1 df, P = .103. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data. 
GAO-15-77. 

[End of table] 

Table 7 shows that overall, and for each survey question, agency 
responders were significantly more likely than non-responders to have 
their claims decided in their favor. Because of the very sizable 
differences here and somewhat smaller differences between responders 
and non-responders in processing time and discrimination allegations 
in the analyses of the differences in satisfaction, we used 
multivariate models to adjust the agency differences for case 
processing time, whether discrimination was alleged, and whether the 
outcome was favorable. In those analyses however, we used a survey 
measure derived from the respondents, rather than the indicator 
provided by the agency, to indicate whether their claim was decided 
upon favorably. While the two different indicators are very strongly 
associated (see table 8) the association is not perfect. We believed 
it would be more informative to adjust for what respondents thought 
was the outcome of their claim at the time of the survey rather than 
what the agency told us was ultimately the outcome. 

Table 7: Favorable Outcomes for Responders and Non-Responders, by 
Agency and Overall: 

Agency: DOL; 
Favorable Outcome: 

Response Status: No; 
Non-Responders: 184; 87.2%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Non-Responders: 27; 12.8%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Non-Responders: 211; 100%. 

Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 67; 66.3%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 34; 33.7%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Responders: 101; 100%. 

Response Status: Total; 
Responders: 251; 80.4%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 61; 19.6%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Responders: 312; 100%. 

L2(Independence) = 17.88 with 1 df, P < .001; 

Agency: OSC; 
Favorable Outcome: 

Response Status: No; 
Non-Responders: 172; 81.1%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Non-Responders: 40; 18.9%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Non-Responders: 212; 100%. 

Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 106; 70.2%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 45; 29.8%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Responders: 151; 100%. 

Response Status: Total; 
Responders: 278; 76.6%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 85; 23.4%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Responders: 363; 100%. 

L2(Independence) = 5.81 with 1 df, P = .016; 

Agency: Overall; 
Favorable Outcome; 

Response Status: No; 
Non-Responders: 356; 84.2%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Non-Responders: 67; 15.8%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Non-Responders: 423; 100%. 

Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 173; 68.7%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 79; 31.3%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Responders: 252; 100%. 

Response Status: Total; 
Responders: 529; 78.4%; 
Response Status: Yes; 
Responders: 146; 21.6%; 
Response Status: Total: 
Responders: 675; 100%. 

L2(Independence) = 21.83 with 1 df, P < .001; 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data. GAO-15-
77. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Agency Reported Outcome by Respondent Perception of the 
Outcome: 

Respondent Perception of the Outcome: Favorable; 
Agency Reported Outcome: 
Not Favorable: 14; 18.7%; 
Favorable: 61; 81.3%; 
Total: 75; 100.0%. 

Respondent Perception of the Outcome: Don't Know; 
Agency Reported Outcome: 
Not Favorable: 46; 82.1%; 
Favorable: 10; 17.9%; 
Total: 56; 100.0%. 

Respondent Perception of the Outcome: Not Favorable; 
Agency Reported Outcome: 
Not Favorable: 107; 94.7%; 
Favorable: 6; 5.3%; 
Total: 113; 100.0%. 

Respondent Perception of the Outcome: Total; 
Agency Reported Outcome: 
Not Favorable: 167; 68.4%; 
Favorable: 77; 31.6%; 
Total: 244; 100.0%. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data. GAO-15-
77. 

[End of table] 

Multivariate Analysis. To discern whether there are differences in 
participants' satisfaction between the two agencies and whether they 
persist after taking account of case processing times, whether 
discrimination was alleged, and whether the outcome of the claim was 
favorable, we undertook two different analyses. In the first set of 
analyses we treated responses as if they were interval-ratio measures, 
scored them from 1 ("strongly disagree" or "very "dissatisfied") to 5 
("strongly agree" or "very "satisfied"), and averaged the scores 
across all respondents in each agency for each of the 15 items 
separately. We then calculated the differences between the two 
agencies in these average scores across each of the items, and tested 
the significance of those differences using t-tests (when we estimated 
raw or unadjusted differences) and F-statistics (when we estimated 
differences after adjusting, or effectively holding constant, the 
three aforementioned confounds).[Footnote 25] 

In the second set of analyses we treated responses as categorical, and 
because of the small sample size and our desire to look at agency 
differences before and after adjustment, we collapsed response 
categories to contrast unfavorable responses (reflecting disagreement 
or dissatisfaction) with favorable responses (reflecting agreement or 
satisfaction). We then calculated the odds on responding favorably in 
the two agencies and odds ratios reflecting the differences between 
them, and tested the significance of these differences using chi-
square statistics. We then reestimated these odds ratios and re-tested 
the difference between agencies in the odds on responding favorably to 
each of the 15 items after taking account of the processing times, 
discrimination allegations and whether the outcome of the case was 
favorable or unfavorable to the claimant.[Footnote 26] 

Table 9 shows the wordings to the 15 survey items, and the percentages 
of respondents at the two agencies who responded to them in different 
ways. Using a five-point Lickert scale which ranged from "strongly 
disagree" to "strongly agree" for the first nine items and from "very 
dissatisfied" to "very satisfied" for the last six items in the table. 

Table 9: Responses to 15 Satisfaction Items on the USERRA Survey 
Questionnaire, by Agency: 

The staff are courteous: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 9.0%; 
Disagree: 4.0%; 
Neither: 5.0%; 
Agree: 21.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 61.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 12.8%; 
Disagree: 10.1%; 
Neither: 12.8%; 
Agree: 28.9%; 
Strongly Agree: 35.6%; 
N: 149. 

The staff are competent: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 9.2%; 
Disagree: 8.2%; 
Neither: 14.3%; 
Agree: 16.3%; 
Strongly Agree: 52.0%; 
N: 98. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 22.9%; 
Disagree: 21.5%; 
Neither: 18.8%; 
Agree: 11.8%; 
Strongly Agree: 25.0%; 
N: 144. 

The staff are professional: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 9.0%; 
Disagree: 3.0%; 
Neither: 5.0%; 
Agree: 26.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 57.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 17.6%; 
Disagree: 12.8%; 
Neither: 18.9%; 
Agree: 20.9%; 
Strongly Agree: 29.7%; 
N: 148. 

The staff provides consistently good service: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 10.9%; 
Disagree: 9.8%; 
Neither: 15.2%; 
Agree: 13.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 51.1%; 
N: 92. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 28.7%; 
Disagree: 25.9%; 
Neither: 16.1%; 
Agree: 8.4%; 
Strongly Agree: 21.0%; 
N: 143. 

The staff policies and procedures are customer friendly: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 14.1%; 
Disagree: 13.0%; 
Neither: 9.8%; 
Agree: 18.5%; 
Strongly Agree: 44.6%; 
N: 92. 

OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 23.4%; 
Disagree: 20.0%; 
Neither: 21.4%; 
Agree: 13.8%; 
Strongly Agree: 21.4%; 
N: 145. 

I have adequate access to staff for advice and assistance: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 12.5%; 
Disagree: 9.4%; 
Neither: 12.5%; 
Agree: 17.7%; 
Strongly Agree: 47.9%; 
N: 96. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 32.0%; 
Disagree: 23.8%; 
Neither: 13.6%; 
Agree: 10.9%; 
Strongly Agree: 19.7%; 
N: 147. 

The staff keep me informed of significant case developments: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 12.0%; 
Disagree: 8.0%; 
Neither: 13.0%; 
Agree: 20.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 47.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 37.8%; 
Disagree: 22.4%; 
Neither: 9.1%; 
Agree: 11.9%; 
Strongly Agree: 18.9%; 
N: 143. 

I know whom to contact if I have additional questions: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 15.0%; 
Disagree: 6.0%; 
Neither: 8.0%; 
Agree: 21.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 50.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 26.8%; 
Disagree: 19.5%; 
Neither: 10.7%; 
Agree: 21.5%; 
Strongly Agree: 21.5%; 
N: 149. 

The staff responded to my questions in a timely manner: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 11.0%; 
Disagree: 4.0%; 
Neither: 9.0%; 
Agree: 16.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 60.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 35.1%; 
Disagree: 20.3%; 
Neither: 12.2%; 
Agree: 13.5%; 
Strongly Agree: 18.9%; 
N: 148. 

Satisfaction with thoroughness of investigation: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 22.8%; 
Dissatisfied: 10.9%; 
Neither: 12.0%; 
Satisfied: 12.0%; 
Very Satisfied: 42.4%; 
N: 92. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 54.7%; 
Dissatisfied: 15.8%; 
Neither: 5.8%; 
Satisfied: 7.9%; 
Very Satisfied: 15.8%; 
N: 139. 

Satisfaction with clarity of written communication: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 11.3%; 
Dissatisfied: 6.2%; 
Neither: 13.4%; 
Satisfied: 19.6%; 
Very Satisfied: 49.5%; 
N: 97. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 29.0%; 
Dissatisfied: 15.2%; 
Neither: 16.6%; 
Satisfied: 18.6%; 
Very Satisfied: 20.7%; 
N: 145. 

Satisfaction with clarity of verbal communication: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 11.3%; 
Dissatisfied: 4.1%; 
Neither: 15.5%; 
Satisfied: 19.6%; 
Very Satisfied: 49.5%; 
N: 97. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 31.7%; 
Dissatisfied: 12.7%; 
Neither: 15.5%; 
Satisfied: 17.6%; 
Very Satisfied: 22.5%; 
N: 142. 

Satisfaction with customer service: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 14.0%; 
Dissatisfied: 7.0%; 
Neither: 13.0%; 
Satisfied: 27.0%; 
Very Satisfied: 39.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 43.7%; 
Dissatisfied: 9.9%; 
Neither: 12.6%; 
Satisfied: 19.9%; 
Very Satisfied: 13.9%; 
N: 151. 

Satisfaction with investigation of complaint: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 23.8%; 
Dissatisfied: 9.9%; 
Neither: 10.9%; 
Satisfied: 18.8%; 
Very Satisfied: 36.6%; 
N: 101. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 55.6%; 
Dissatisfied: 13.9%; 
Neither: 5.3%; 
Satisfied: 11.9%; 
Very Satisfied: 13.2%; 
N: 151. 

Satisfaction with results of investigation: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 30.7%; 
Dissatisfied: 11.9%; 
Neither: 14.9%; 
Satisfied: 18.8%; 
Very Satisfied: 23.8%; 
N: 101. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 56.7%; 
Dissatisfied: 8.7%; 
Neither: 9.3%; 
Satisfied: 12.7%; 
Very Satisfied: 12.7%; 
N: 150. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data. GAO-15-
77. 

[End of table] 

The results of the first set of analyses are shown in table 10. The 
first column of numbers (N) shown in the table indicates the numbers 
of respondents to each item in the two agencies. The second column of 
numbers shows the average or mean response to each item. 

Table 10: Odds and Odds Ratios Indicating Differences in Satisfaction 
at DOL and OSC before and after Adjusting for Whether the Outcome Was 
Favorable, Case Processing Time, and Whether Discrimination Was 
Alleged: 

The staff are courteous: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 9.0%; 
Disagree: 4.0%; 
Neither: 5.0%; 
Agree: 21.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 61.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 12.8%; 
Disagree: 10.1%; 
Neither: 12.8%; 
Agree: 28.9%; 
Strongly Agree: 35.6%; 
N: 149. 

The staff are competent: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 9.2%; 
Disagree: 8.2%; 
Neither: 14.3%; 
Agree: 16.3%; 
Strongly Agree: 52.0%; 
N: 98. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 22.9%; 
Disagree: 21.5%; 
Neither: 18.8%; 
Agree: 11.8%; 
Strongly Agree: 25.0%; 
N: 144. 

The staff are professional: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 9.0%; 
Disagree: 3.0%; 
Neither: 5.0%; 
Agree: 26.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 57.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 17.6%; 
Disagree: 12.8%; 
Neither: 18.9%; 
Agree: 20.9%; 
Strongly Agree: 29.7%; 
N: 148. 

The staff provides consistently good service: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 10.9%; 
Disagree: 9.8%; 
Neither: 15.2%; 
Agree: 13.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 51.1%; 
N: 92. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 28.7%; 
Disagree: 25.9%; 
Neither: 16.1%; 
Agree: 8.4%; 
Strongly Agree: 21.0%; 
N: 143. 

The staff policies and procedures are customer friendly: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 14.1%; 
Disagree: 13.0%; 
Neither: 9.8%; 
Agree: 18.5%; 
Strongly Agree: 44.6%; 
N: 92. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 23.4%; 
Disagree: 20.0%; 
Neither: 21.4%; 
Agree: 13.8%; 
Strongly Agree: 21.4%; 
N: 145. 

I have adequate access to staff for advice and assistance: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 12.5%; 
Disagree: 9.4%; 
Neither: 12.5%; 
Agree: 17.7%; 
Strongly Agree: 47.9%; 
N: 96. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 32.0%; 
Disagree: 23.8%; 
Neither: 13.6%; 
Agree: 10.9%; 
Strongly Agree: 19.7%; 
N: 147. 

The staff keep me informed of significant case developments: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 12.0%; 
Disagree: 8.0%; 
Neither: 13.0%; 
Agree: 20.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 47.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 37.8%; 
Disagree: 22.4%; 
Neither: 9.1%; 
Agree: 11.9%; 
Strongly Agree: 18.9%; 
N: 143. 

I know whom to contact if I have additional questions: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 15.0%; 
Disagree: 6.0%; 
Neither: 8.0%; 
Agree: 21.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 50.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 26.8%; 
Disagree: 19.5%; 
Neither: 10.7%; 
Agree: 21.5%; 
Strongly Agree: 21.5%; 
N: 149. 

The staff responded to my questions in a timely manner: 

Agency: DOL; 
Strongly Disagree: 11.0%; 
Disagree: 4.0%; 
Neither: 9.0%; 
Agree: 16.0%; 
Strongly Agree: 60.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Strongly Disagree: 35.1%; 
Disagree: 20.3%; 
Neither: 12.2%; 
Agree: 13.5%; 
Strongly Agree: 18.9%; 
N: 148. 

Satisfaction with thoroughness of investigation: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 22.8%; 
Dissatisfied: 10.9%; 
Neither: 12.0%; 
Satisfied: 12.0%; 
Very Satisfied: 42.4%; 
N: 92. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 54.7%; 
Dissatisfied: 15.8%; 
Neither: 5.8%; 
Satisfied: 7.9%; 
Very Satisfied: 15.8%; 
N: 139. 

Satisfaction with clarity of written communication: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 11.3%; 
Dissatisfied: 6.2%; 
Neither: 13.4%; 
Satisfied: 19.6%; 
Very Satisfied: 49.5%; 
N: 97. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 29.0%; 
Dissatisfied: 15.2%; 
Neither: 16.6%; 
Satisfied: 18.6%; 
Very Satisfied: 20.7%; 
N: 145. 

Satisfaction with clarity of verbal communication: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 11.3%; 
Dissatisfied: 4.1%; 
Neither: 15.5%; 
Satisfied: 19.6%; 
Very Satisfied: 49.5%; 
N: 97. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 31.7%; 
Dissatisfied: 12.7%; 
Neither: 15.5%; 
Satisfied: 17.6%; 
Very Satisfied: 22.5%; 
N: 142. 

Satisfaction with customer service: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 14.0%; 
Dissatisfied: 7.0%; 
Neither: 13.0%; 
Satisfied: 27.0%; 
Very Satisfied: 39.0%; 
N: 100. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 43.7%; 
Dissatisfied: 9.9%; 
Neither: 12.6%; 
Satisfied: 19.9%; 
Very Satisfied: 13.9%; 
N: 151. 

Satisfaction with investigation of complaint: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 23.8%; 
Dissatisfied: 9.9%; 
Neither: 10.9%; 
Satisfied: 18.8%; 
Very Satisfied: 36.6%; 
N: 101. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 55.6%; 
Dissatisfied: 13.9%; 
Neither: 5.3%; 
Satisfied: 11.9%; 
Very Satisfied: 13.2%; 
N: 151. 

Satisfaction with results of investigation: 

Agency: DOL; 
Very Dissatisfied: 30.7%; 
Dissatisfied: 11.9%; 
Neither: 14.9%; 
Satisfied: 18.8%; 
Very Satisfied: 23.8%; 
N: 101. 

Agency: OSC; 
Very Dissatisfied: 56.7%; 
Dissatisfied: 8.7%; 
Neither: 9.3%; 
Satisfied: 12.7%; 
Very Satisfied: 12.7%; 
N: 150. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data. GAO-15-
77. 

[A] OF = Whether the Outcome Was Favorable; CPT = Case Processing Time; 
DA = Whether Discrimination Was Alleged; Shading indicates differences 
that are statistically significant (P < .05). 

[End of table] 

The average responses at DOL on all items except the last 
(satisfaction with the results of the investigation) tended to be 
favorable, with mean scores above 3.0. This score indicates that 
respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, or were neither satisfied 
nor dissatisfied. At OSC, this was true only for only a couple of the 
15 items (the staff were courteous and the staff were professional). 
Moreover, average scores for every one of the 15 items were 
significantly higher at DOL than at OSC. The differences (shown in the 
third column of numbers in the table) ranged from roughly half a point 
to more than a full point.[Footnote 27] 

The estimates from our multivariate regression models show that these 
differences remain sizable and significant even after we take into 
account (1) whether the outcomes of the different claims in the two 
agencies were decided favorably or unfavorably, (2) the case 
processing times, and (3) whether discrimination was alleged. So while 
the average responses on all items were decidedly higher (reflecting 
greater satisfaction) when cases were decided in the claimant's favor 
than when claims were not settled in the claimant's favor (these 
analyses are not shown, but are available on request), the differences 
in satisfaction between agencies were only slightly attenuated when 
the outcome of the claim was taken into account (or held constant). 
[Footnote 28] The same was true when the other two factors (case 
processing times and discrimination allegations) were statistically 
controlled. 

The results of the second set of analyses are shown in table 11. In 
these analyses, the 15 satisfaction items are treated categorically. 
The table shows (in the first two columns of numbers) the numbers of 
respondents in each agency who responded unfavorably (by not agreeing 
or not expressing satisfaction) and favorably (by agreeing or 
expressing satisfaction) to each item.[Footnote 29] While it is common 
to make comparisons across groups (in our case the two agencies) by 
converting the numbers to percentages and looking at differences in 
those percentages, we chose instead to calculate odds and to look at 
their ratios. 

Odds are estimated by calculating, for each item in each agency, the 
number of favorable responses relative to the number of unfavorable 
responses. For example, with respect to the "staff are courteous" 
item, the odds on agreeing at DOL were 82/18 = 4.56, while the odds on 
responding favorably at OSC were 96/53 = 1.81. While less common than 
percentages or probabilities, these odds have an equally 
straightforward interpretation. They imply that at DOL there were more 
than four respondents who agreed the staff were courteous for every 
one that felt otherwise, while at OSC there were slightly less than 
two respondents who agreed the staff were courteous for every one that 
felt otherwise. The ratio of these two odds (in the "odds ratio" 
column of the table), which for this item is 4.56/1.81 = 2.52, 
indicates that the odds on agreeing that staff are courteous were more 
than twice as high at DOL as at OSC. 

As can be seen by looking down the "odds ratio" column, the odds on 
responding favorably are higher at DOL than at OSC for every one of 
the items, in all cases by at least a factor of two and in some cases 
by factors of 4 or 6. These sizable differences are in all cases 
statistically significant and mirror the findings from the first set 
of analyses. Additionally, and as we also saw in the first analyses, 
the large differences reflected by these ratios do not go away when we 
control for differences across agencies in whether claims were settled 
favorably, in processing times, and whether discrimination was 
alleged. Under the "Odds Ratio, Adjusted for" heading, the agency 
ratios are the same odds ratio we see in the column to the left of it. 
But here, it has been adjusted by taking account of the differences 
across agencies in whether claims were decided favorably, in case 
processing times, and in whether discrimination was alleged.[Footnote 
30] So even (for example) when we control for or take account of the 
fact that respondents whose claims were decided favorably were more 
likely to agree that "staff are courteous," and even after we allow 
for whatever differences there are in favorable and unfavorable claims 
across the two agencies, we find that respondents at DOL were twice as 
likely as those at OSC to give favorable responses to the item 
involving "staff are courteous." And, similarly, DOL respondents were 
more likely to give favorable responses than OSC respondents to every 
other item, by factors ranging from roughly 2 to more than 6. The only 
item on which respondents did not differ after adjustment was the 
final item in the table, pertaining to satisfaction with the results 
of the investigation. For that item the difference between agencies in 
respondents expressing satisfaction (odds ratio = 1.84) was not 
significant after controlling for whether the investigation yielded an 
outcome that was favorable or unfavorable to the claimant. 

In sum, there are very big differences in satisfaction between the two 
agencies indicated by every one of the 15 items. All but one of the 
differences persists even after we take account of differences in the 
two agencies in the favorability of the outcomes of the claims, case 
processing times, and whether discrimination was alleged. The 
percentages of satisfied claimants in both agencies may be somewhat 
biased by the low response rates to the survey. But, our analyses 
suggest that the differences between agencies, and the lower overall 
satisfaction among claimants at OSC, do not appear to be accounted for 
by differences in the outcomes of the claims, or the case processing 
times, or allegations of discrimination. 

Table 11: Odds and Odds Ratios Indicating Differences in Satisfaction 
at DOL and OSC Before and After Adjusting for Whether the Outcome Was 
Favorable, Case Processing Time, and Whether Discrimination Was 
Alleged: 

The staff are courteous: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 100; 
Mean: 4.21; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 0.57; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 0.46; 
CPT: 0.58; 
DA: 0.46. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 149; 
Mean: 3.64. 

The staff are competent: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 98; 
Mean: 3.94; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 0.99; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 0.84; 
CPT: 0.95; 
DA: 0.90. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 144; 
Mean: 2.94. 

The staff are professional: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 100; 
Mean: 4.19; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 0.87; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 0.76; 
CPT: 0.89; 
DA: 0.76. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 148; 
Mean: 3.32. 

The staff provides consistently good service: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 92; 
Mean: 3.84; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 1.17; 
OF: 1.02; 
CPT: 1.00; 
DA: 1.03. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 143; 
Mean: 2.67. 

The staff policies and procedures are customer friendly: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 92; 
Mean: 3.66; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 0.77; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 0.61; 
CPT: 0.81; 
DA: 0.68. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 145; 
Mean: 2.90. 

I have adequate access to staff for advice and assistance: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 96; 
Mean: 3.79; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 1.17; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 1.01; 
CPT: 1.04; 
DA: 1.09. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 147; 
Mean: 2.63. 
for[A]: DA: [Empty]. 

The staff keep me informed of significant case developments: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 100; 
Mean: 3.82; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 1.30; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 1.16; 
CPT: 1.22; 
DA: 1.25. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 143; 
Mean: 2.52. 

I know whom to contact if I have additional questions: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 100; 
Mean: 3.85; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 0.94; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 0.82; 
CPT: 0.81; 
DA: 0.88. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 149; 
Mean: 2.91. 

The staff responded to my questions in a timely manner: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 100; 
Mean: 4.10; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 1.49; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 1.36; 
CPT: 1.25; 
DA: 1.48. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 148; 
Mean: 2.61. 

Satisfaction with thoroughness of investigation: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 92; 
Mean: 3.40; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 1.26; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 0.95; 
CPT: 1.14; 
DA: 1.17. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 139; 
Mean: 2.14. 

Satisfaction with clarity of written communication: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 97; 
Mean: 3.90; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 1.03; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 0.83; 
CPT: 0.97; 
DA: 0.95. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 145; 
Mean: 2.87. 

Satisfaction with clarity of verbal communication: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 97; 
Mean: 3.92; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 1.05; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 0.87; 
CPT: 0.92; 
DA: 0.94. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 142; 
Mean: 2.87. 

Satisfaction with customer service: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 100; 
Mean: 3.70; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 1.20; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 1.04; 
CPT: 1.02; 
DA: 1.12. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 151; 
Mean: 2.50. 

Satisfaction with investigation of complaint: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 101; 
Mean: 3.35; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 1.21; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 1.00; 
CPT: 1.06; 
DA: 1.16. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 151; 
Mean: 2.13. 

Satisfaction with results of investigation: 

Agency: DOL; 
N: 101; 
Mean: 2.93; 
Difference (Unadjusted) (Unadjusted): 0.77; 
Differences, Adjusted for[A]: 
OF: 0.52; 
CPT: 0.71; 
DA: 0.74. 

Agency: OSC; 
N: 150; 
Mean: 2.16. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM customer satisfaction survey data. GAO-15-
77. 

[A] OF = Whether the Outcome Was Favorable; CPT = Case Processing 
Time; DA = Whether Discrimination Was Alleged; Shading indicates 
differences that are statistically significant (P < .05). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training: 
Washington, D.C. 20210: 

November 3, 2014: 

Yvonne Jones: 
Director: 
Strategic Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Dear Ms. Jones: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report 15-77: "Veterans Reemployment 
Rights: Department of Labor has Higher Performance Than the Office 
o/Special Counsel on More Demonstration Project Measures." The report 
evaluates the relative performance of the Department of Labor (DOL) 
and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in investigating complaints 
alleging that a federal employer violated the Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). 

DOL's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) is proud of its 
USERRA investigative program. Approximately one in five of the USERRA 
complaints filed over the past two years involve a federal employer; 
the remaining 80 percent involve state or private sector employers. As 
highlighted in the table below, the report found that DOL performed 
extremely well in the critical areas of customer satisfaction, 
timeliness, and cost, and compared very favorably in its capacity to 
investigate and resolve cases. 

Table: DOL and OSC Performance Metrics: 

Percentage of Respondents Satisfied with Overall Customer Service: 
DOL: 66%; 
OSC: 34%. 

Average Investigation Time of Closed Cases: 
DOL: 41 days; 
OSC: 151 days. 

Average Case Investigation Cost: 
DOL: $1,112; 
OSC: $3,820. 

Percentage of Cases Resolved: 
DOL: 97%; 
OSC: 88%. 

Source: GAO Analysis of DOL, OSC, and OPM Information. GAO-15-77. 

[End of table] 

VETS is particularly gratified by the positive feedback from the 
veterans and members of the uniformed services whose complaints we 
investigated. Customer service is integral to our work and an 
important element in the intensive training provided to our USERRA
investigators. Our customer satisfaction scores indicate that our 
claimants are satisfied with our service throughout the investigation 
process, even in cases that are not resolved in their favor. 

VETS believes it is important that federal investigations remain 
impartial until the merits of a claim are determined. Our 
investigators are trained to keep the claimant involved throughout the 
investigation, explaining the status, process, and critical issues so 
that claimants can assist investigators in identifying important 
information and so that the outcome of the investigation does not come 
as a surprise when claimants receive formal notification. 
Additionally, our investigators succeed because they are part of a 
full-service, veteran-oriented organization that is in tune with the 
needs of veterans broadly, not only with respect to reemployment 
rights but also with respect to transitioning to the civilian 
workforce, training and retraining, and securing employment. Because our
investigators in their daily work are broadly involved with veteran 
issues and programs, they are even more effective in resolving USERRA 
investigations. We concur with GAO's recommendations regarding the 
customer satisfaction survey. VETS plans to continue a customer 
satisfaction survey for USERRA claimants in FY 20 IS, and will take
steps to maximize response rates. 

DOL is committed to continuous improvement of our USERRA program, and 
have integrated lessons learned in the course of the demonstration 
project to both federal and non-federal investigations conducted by 
the agency. Additionally, in FY 2014, VETS invested in an electronic 
case management system that will be customized and implemented in FY 
2015. This investment will allow senior investigators, agency
leadership, and the Office of the Solicitor greater oversight of and 
collaboration with our investigators. 

We look forward to continuing in this most important mission. 

Respectfully, 

Signed by: 

Keith Kelly: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Office of Special Counsel: 

Office of Special Counsel: 
1730 M Street, NW, Suite 300: 
Washington, DC 20036-4505: 

October 30, 2014: 

Yvonne D. Jones: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Re: OSC Comments on GAO Draft Report GAO-15-77: 

Dear Ms. Jones: 

Congress charged the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with 
assessing the relative performance of the Office of Special Counsel 
(OSC) and the Department of Labor (DOL) during the 36-month 
Demonstration Project established by the Veterans' Benefits Act of 
2010, Pub. L. No. 111-275. Under the project, OSC and DOL shared
responsibility for investigating and resolving complaints against 
federal agencies under the Uniformed Services Employment and 
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which protects veterans and service 
members from discrimination and provides for their reinstatement to 
civilian jobs upon completion of duty. This letter constitutes OSC's
official comments to GAO's report. 

Introduction: 

OSC secured relief for 94 veterans during the period evaluated by GAO. 
We fought to ensure that service members received compensation and 
other relief for any unlawful harm they faced due to their military 
commitments. In thirteen of these cases, the results we obtained led 
to system-wide changes within agencies to prevent USERRA violations 
from recurring. 

GAO's report largely ignores the positive, real-life impact of OSC's 
efforts to protect service members. While OSC and DOL each 
demonstrated clear strengths in our respective enforcement efforts, 
GAO presents an assortment of unreliable data and unsupportable 
conclusions in forming a subjective characterization that DOL had higher
performance than OSC on more program measures. Importantly, GAO's 
depiction also fails to take into account OSC's significant advantage 
in securing relief for veterans—-arguably the most important criteria 
in evaluating this project. Had GAO focused more on actual relief for 
service members, the title of GAO's report very well could have been: 

As discussed in detail below, OSC processed more cases and achieved a 
higher number and percentage of outcomes in favor of service members 
by a wide margin. OSC obtained over 50 percent more positive case 
outcomes than DOL, despite first having to establish the necessary 
infrastructure to receive, investigate, and resolve USERRA cases, 
which has long existed at DOL. Indeed, OSC achieved these results 
using a staff of seven employees with an average annual caseload of 
28, while DOL had a staff of 31 employees with an average annual 
caseload of five. 

OSC Successes during the USERRA Demonstration Project: 

OSC resolved 366 USERRA complaints and assisted 94 veterans in obtaining
relief, including job offers, back pay, promotions, reinstatement, and 
restoration of benefits. In more than a dozen cases, OSC obtained 
broad, systemic relief, including changes to agency policies, forms, 
and practices as well as USERRA training for federal managers and 
human resources staff. These agency-wide remedies are particularly
beneficial because they help the federal government meet its 
obligation to be a model employer by improving compliance with USERRA 
and better deterring and preventing future violations. 

Below are some examples of the favorable results OSC achieved for 
service members during the project, including by using an expanded 
mediation program, which achieved positive case resolutions in 18 out 
of 20 cases mediated.[Footnote 1] 

* Change in Agency Policy – A Reservist from Florida employed by the 
Drug Enforcement Administration was improperly required to provide two 
days of advance notice and a written explanation supporting her leave 
requests before being permitted to report for military duty. After 
OSC's investigation, the agency granted the service member's leave 
requests and, with OSC's assistance, revised its leave and attendance
policies to comply with USERRA. 

* Reinstatement for Guardsman – A National Guardsman and cashier at 
the Defense Commissary Agency in California was improperly denied 
reemployment upon returning from a seven-month tour of duty, and told 
to apply for unemployment benefits. OSC intervened, and the agency 
agreed to reinstate him to his former position, restore his benefits 
and seniority, and provide him with back pay. 

* Job for Injured Veteran – A returning injured Iraq war veteran from 
New Jersey was not reemployed in his former civilian technician job 
for the U.S. Army because the Army claimed that it had no record he 
had left his job for military service. OSC located the service 
member's former supervisor, confirmed that the service member had 
given proper notice, and secured a civilian position with appropriate 
seniority, pay and benefits for the service member. 

* Restored Job Offer – A National Guardsman was offered a job in 
Oklahoma with the Department of Homeland Security, but he could not 
attend the initial training because it conflicted with an upcoming 
deployment. As a result, the agency rescinded its job offer. OSC 
resolved the case by obtaining the agency's agreement to reinstate
the offer and place the service member in the next available training 
that did not conflict with his deployment. 

* Assistance for Disabled Veteran – A federal employee and National 
Guardsman from Florida was denied reasonable accommodations for his 
military-related injury. When his workers' compensation claim was 
denied, he was forced to use personal leave. During mediation, both 
agency counsel and the service member's supervisor communicated how 
much the agency valued the service member and his work. OSC mediated a 
settlement that included a new job series for the veteran, as well as
training, save pay, and moving expenses. 

* Expanded Promotional Opportunities – While working as a police 
officer for the U.S. Mint in Pennsylvania, a Reservist was called to 
active duty for two years. During his absence, the agency issued 
vacancy announcements for Sergeant positions, but he was not notified 
or given an opportunity to apply. OSC contacted the agency, which
agreed to schedule the service member for the next Sergeant's exam, 
provide him with priority consideration for the next Sergeant vacancy, 
and implement a mechanism whereby service members are notified about 
and permitted to apply for promotional opportunities while they are 
absent performing military duty. 

* Increased Pay for Displaced Veterans – Three disabled veterans at 
the U.S. Postal Service in Texas were improperly not paid the required 
“out of schedule” premium pay after they were transferred and had 
their work schedules changed. OSC contacted the agency, which agreed 
to review the schedule changes and compensation of all affected 
employees, including several other veterans, to ensure that they each
received the pay to which they were entitled. 

GAO's Subjective and Inaccurate Evaluation of the USERRA Demonstration
Project: 

OSC has significant concerns about the accuracy, emphasis, 
objectivity, and overall quality of GAO's assessment. Congress asked 
GAO to evaluate OSC's and DOL's performance in several areas, 
including case outcomes, costs, customer satisfaction, and capacity to 
conduct USERRA investigations. As stated, we recognize DOL's strengths 
in processing cases quickly and believe its larger staff was used to
generate efficiencies in this area. However, major flaws in GAO's 
report raise serious questions about the value of the report as a 
means of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each agency. Our 
specific concerns are discussed in further detail below. 

1. Case Outcomes: GAO's report diminishes and obscures the single-most 
important factor in evaluating relative performance for federal-sector 
USERRA cases. 

The question of how many service members are assisted, and what 
specifically is accomplished on their behalf, is of critical 
importance in evaluating relative performance under USERRA. GAO's own 
quantitative analysis of case outcome data should be straightforward: 
OSC received and completed more cases, and achieved a higher number 
and percentage of positive case outcomes for service members during the
project. 

Specifically, OSC received 434 cases and resolved 366; DOL received 
319 cases and resolved 308; OSC obtained relief for service members in 
94 cases (26%), while DOL did so in 62 cases (20%).[Footnote 2] These 
numbers are a clear indication of higher performance. 

Properly measuring performance on case outcomes necessarily has a 
qualitative aspect as well. Unfortunately, GAO abdicated this 
responsibility, stating, “[W]e did not independently assess the 
quality of agencies' case investigations to determine if DOL and
OSC arrived at the appropriate case outcomes.” GAO's incomplete 
assessment is troubling given that congressional requesters explicitly 
asked GAO to compare case outcomes. To assist with this analysis, OSC 
provided GAO with summaries of the allegations and specific relief 
obtained for each case it resolved favorably for veterans during the 
relevant time period. OSC also suggested numerous ways in which the
qualitative data could be objectively measured, such as the number and 
frequency of cases in which systemic corrective actions were achieved, 
and the number and frequency of cases in which service members 
received back pay, new job opportunities, promotional opportunities, 
job training, or other remedies tailored to ensure successful and 
lasting integration into the civilian workforce. Unfortunately, GAO 
conducted no such evaluation, refused to incorporate any of the 
suggested measures, and did not request or receive any comparable data 
from DOL to adequately assess case outcomes. 

After GAO indicated it was unable and unwilling to conduct any 
qualitative assessment of case outcomes, OSC suggested that examples 
of case resolutions be included to explain the specific relief 
obtained for veterans in select cases. GAO initially committed to 
including several summaries, then reneged, and ultimately included one
brief case description. 

GAO's failure to fully address case outcomes may stem from a fundamental
misunderstanding of what constitutes a favorable outcome for a service 
member. In its report, GAO increased DOL's number of positive case 
outcomes from 55 to 62 by including seven cases that DOL determined 
had merit, but did not necessarily result in any relief for the 
service member or a verifiable offer by the agency to take corrective
action (“merit-not resolved”). These seven cases represent 11% of 
DOL's total 62 positive case outcomes reported by GAO; without these 
cases, DOL's overall corrective action rate is 18% (not 20%), which is 
the rate GAO used in its earlier draft reports. In contrast, OSC's 94 
positive case outcomes (a 26% corrective action rate) include only
cases where we either secured full relief for the service member (91 
cases) or an offer of full relief from the agency that the service 
member declined (three cases). 

Simply identifying a case as having merit does not constitute 
obtaining a favorable outcome for a service member; indeed, in those 
cases the agency has not ameliorated or even sought to address the 
harm to the veteran. By failing to recognize this important 
distinction, and including as positive resolutions cases in which the 
service member may not have received anything, GAO has not responded 
to Congress's mandate to appropriately assess case outcomes. 

2. Cost: GAO's analysis is based on incomplete and unverifiable data. 

OSC raised numerous questions about the reliability of the cost data 
in GAO's report. Given the wide disparity in relative costs to 
complete a case, it appears that DOL and OSC were not reporting the 
same information. However, after repeated assurances from GAO that 
OSC's questions would be addressed, GAO never did so. As it stands
now, the overall value, objectivity, and accuracy of the cost 
information in GAO's report is highly questionable. 

According to GAO's report, DOL completed its share of federal USERRA 
claims with the equivalent of one full-time employee in each year 
covered by the project. Specifically, GAO's report states that DOL 
completed all of its project casework, over a three-year period, at a 
total cost of $354,000 (or $118,000/year—the equivalent of one full-
time employee). This number does not appear credible, as DOL had a 
staff of 31 investigators assigned to these cases, and an additional 
14 senior investigators overseeing their work.[Footnote 3] 

The total expenditures reported by GAO are highly unlikely given the 
large number of DOL staff and supervisors assigned to the project. 
They are unrealistic when considered in context with the reported 
information on each employee's overall annual caseload. According to 
GAO, “the 31 [DOL] investigators who worked on demonstration cases 
were assigned an average of about 15 cases (demonstration and 
nondemonstration) per investigator per year.” GAO's report also 
indicates that project cases represented about one-third of each 
investigator's annual caseload, or “about five demonstration cases per 
investigator per year during the demonstration project.” Finally,
GAO notes that DOL averaged “21 staff hours per case.” 

When these aggregate numbers are broken down, the end result is that 
each DOL investigator worked only 105 hours per year on project cases, 
or about 5% of the 2,088 hours that a full-time federal employee is 
expected to work on an annual basis. Moreover, taking GAO's reported 
cost data at face value, it seems that each DOL investigator works 
only 315 hours per year on all cases, or about 15% of an average work 
year of 2,088 hours for a full-time employee in the federal 
government. As stated, GAO's cost analysis is not credible. Indeed, 
their reported cost data strongly suggests that each DOL investigator 
was idle for 85% of their annual work hours. 

Finally, OSC is perplexed by GAO's conclusion that “neither agency 
tracked cost data in a way that allows costs to be traced back to 
individual cases; therefore, we were not able to calculate the total 
and average amount spent on closed cases.” We agree that each agency's 
cost data should be traced back to individual cases. This is the best
way to verify the total number of hours and costs associated with each 
case. During the first year of the project, OSC established a 
procedure that tracked costs to specific cases. OSC provided this cost 
data to GAO for its 2012 evaluation, which GAO analyzed and deemed 
reliable in report number GAO-12-860R. Nevertheless, GAO requested in 
2012 that OSC change its cost methodology to be more consistent with 
DOL's system, which cannot track cost data back to individual cases. 
OSC complied with GAO's request and raised concerns about the 
verifiability of this method—the same concerns that GAO now seems to 
raise in this report. Had GAO allowed OSC to continue with its earlier
methodology, and required DOL to develop a similar approach, both 
agencies would have provided better and more verifiable data to GAO, 
allowing for more credible conclusions in this important area. 

3. Customer Satisfaction: GAO's assessment of customer satisfaction is 
not reliable because it fails to address the significant limitations 
to the data upon which its conclusions are based. 

During the course of the project, we received positive feedback from 
individual service members, their representatives, and federal 
agencies. A sampling of their comments is below: 

I was extremely pleased with my investigator and happy to have someone 
so thorough and knowledgeable about the process. Her feedback and 
understanding of my issues was outstanding and resulted in my claim 
being resolved! 

OSC has very dedicated measures and personnel in place offering sound 
advice and service along every step of the process. Especially good 
marks to [OSC investigator] who was very courteous and whose knowledge 
was very useful. 

OSC is very thorough and effective. I believe that they take each 
matter seriously and treat each individual with respect and fairness. 

[OSC investigator] did a wonderful job. The entire process was simple 
and easy ... I have recommended the process to others and all have 
been very pleased. 

Thanks again to both [OSC mediators] for hosting the mediation and 
making [it] a refreshing, open and frank discussion among reasonable 
people. The mediation clearly laid the groundwork for [agency] and I 
to come to an agreement. 

[From agency representative] The experience with [OSC's mediators] was
entirely professional and productive. I think the claimant and the 
agency did this the right way (with your help) given our relative 
perspectives and interests. 

Notwithstanding this positive feedback, a small number of customer 
satisfaction survey respondents reported lower levels of satisfaction 
with OSC. However, GAO failed to put these numbers in proper context. 
Despite an extremely small sample size, low response rate, and several 
biases in the customer satisfaction survey data, GAO relied heavily on 
the data to draw dubious conclusions about relative customer 
satisfaction levels at DOL and OSC, stating that the differences 
between the two agencies' scores are “pronounced.” 

In terms of sample size and response rate, there were only 252 (out of 
a possible 677) respondents to the customer satisfaction survey. Thus, 
the overall response rate was 37%, far below the Office of Management 
and Budget's accepted benchmark response rate of 80%, which GAO cited 
in several meetings with OSC and DOL but fails to highlight in the 
report. Although GAO admits that the low response rate “can potentially
affect the conclusions that can be drawn from the survey,” it does not 
expand on the significant limitations and potential biases regarding 
the survey data until the very end of the report, in an appendix: 

A high response rate increases the likelihood that the survey results 
reflect the views and characteristics of the target population, 
whereas a low response rate can be an indicator of potential 
nonresponse bias, which would be detrimental to the accuracy of the 
results of a study in a variety of ways. (p. 35) 

The low overall response rate and the significant difference in 
response rates across two different agencies is potentially 
troublesome inasmuch as responders and nonresponders may differ with 
respect to their satisfaction levels with the investigation of their 
claims or differ on other characteristics that affect satisfaction. To 
the extent that such differences exist, estimates of the level of 
satisfaction in the two agencies and the differences in satisfaction 
between them may be biased. (Appendix II, p. 49) 

In addition, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which developed 
and implemented the customer satisfaction survey, expressed its 
concerns about other biases in the survey data. GAO was provided with 
OPM's feedback, but failed to include it in the report. According to 
OPM: 

At DOL, respondents were more likely to have their case settled 
favorably than nonrespondents. Of all the cases settled within the 
survey timeframe, only 19% had an outcome that was favorable to the 
client. However, 35% of survey respondents had an outcome in their 
favor. The results were [statistically] significant… [Thus], customers 
with favorable case outcomes are overrepresented in the DOL survey
results. The patterns of responding could mean that OSC's lower scores 
on the Customer Satisfaction Survey compared to DOL may be partially 
attributable to OSC having a higher percentage of respondents with 
cases involving retaliation or discrimination, which may lower 
satisfaction levels, and to DOL's overrepresentation of respondents 
who had a favorable case outcome, which may inflate satisfaction
levels.[Footnote 4] 

GAO states that it conducted additional analyses to account for 
potential biases in the customer satisfaction survey data. 
Nonetheless, GAO includes the raw (not adjusted) customer satisfaction 
survey scores in the report. The adjusted scores, which reduce the
differences between OSC's and DOL's customer satisfaction survey 
ratings, are included in an appendix to this GAO report at pp. 56-57. 
GAO's decision to report the raw, unadjusted data is misleading and 
undermines the report's value as a means of assessing relative 
customer satisfaction levels at OSC and DOL. 

While we strive to achieve a high level of customer satisfaction in 
every USERRA case we investigate and seek to resolve—and we 
acknowledge the lower level of customer satisfaction in the 37% of 
responding cases—it is critical that GAO provide the proper context 
for analyzing this data. 

Conclusion: 

Although we remain deeply troubled by the shortcomings of GAO's 
evaluation, we at OSC are honored to have the opportunity to assist 
service members in restoring, resuming, and rebuilding their civilian 
lives following uniformed service. We look forward to further dialogue 
with Congress and the Department of Labor on these important issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Carolyn N. Lerner: 

Appendices: 

Comments from the Office of Special Counsel: Footnotes: 

[1] To review all 94 positive case resolutions, see Appendix 1, 
“Summaries of OSC Positive Case Resolutions during the USERRA 
Demonstration Project,” and Appendix 2, “Summary of OSC Mediated
USERRA Settlements during the Demonstration Project.” Both documents 
were provided to GAO during its evaluation. 

[2] As explained below, the correct positive case resolution rate for 
DOL is 18% (or 55 cases), as stated in GAO's original draft report. 

[3] GAO's original draft report included 14 senior investigators as 
part of DOL's staff handling cases during the project. However, all 
references to the additional staff were removed from the final report. 

[4] From “Final Report for Customer Satisfaction Survey Non-Response 
Analyses,” U.S. Office of Personnel Management, April 2013, at pp. 4-5 
(emphasis added). 

Appendix 1: 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel: 

Summaries of OSC Positive Case Resolutions During the USERRA 
Demonstration Project: 

This document provides case summaries of OSC's positive resolutions 
during the USERRA Demonstration Project, broken down by types of 
relief: (1) systemic relief and training; (2) reemployment and related 
benefits; (3) initial hiring and other discrimination; (4) promotion and
other injunctive relief; and (5) monetary relief and other benefits. 
Some resolutions involved multiple types of relief, but are listed 
only once in the section constituting the primary form of relief. We 
have highlighted in bold particularly illustrative examples of the 
various types of relief that OSC secured for service members. Note 
that these case summaries are in addition to the 18 cases resolved 
through OSC's Alternative Dispute Resolution process, as described in 
Appendix 2, “Summaries of OSC Mediated USERRA Settlements During the 
Demonstration Project.” 

Systemic Relief and Training: 

Florida: An Air Force Reservist employed by the Drug Enforcement 
Agency (DEA) was required to provide two days of advance notice and a 
written explanation supporting her leave requests before being 
released from her civilian position to perform military duty. After 
OSC investigated the case, the service member's leave requests were 
granted, and OSC assisted the agency in revising its leave and 
attendance policies to comply with USERRA. 

North Carolina: A Navy Reservist, who was terminated from a civilian 
position with Marine Corps Community Services during her probationary 
period, alleged that her Reserve obligations played a role in her 
termination. Because the Reservist had found other employment and did 
not wish to return to the agency, the agency agreed to change her 
termination to a voluntary resignation, to pay her a lump sum to 
compensate her for her lost income while she found a new job, and to add
USERRA awareness training to its annual supervisor training curriculum. 

Iowa: A member of the Army National Guard was tentatively offered a 
position on a special project with the Department of Agriculture 
(USDA). Even though the claimant notified the USDA of his military 
obligations during the interview process, his new supervisor insisted 
that he was not permitted to be absent during his first year on the 
job, and in particular stated that he would have to move his annual 
training dates if he wanted the position. Although the claimant 
ultimately accepted a position with a different agency, OSC provided 
specific written guidance to the USDA regarding its obligations to 
service members under USERRA during the initial hiring process, and 
ensured that this information was communicated to the individuals 
involved in that process. 

California: A National Guardsman and police officer with the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) indicated that the agency refused 
to allow him to use paid leave for his military duty and failed to
provide him adequate notice of transfers to different shifts and duty 
locations. After OSC intervened, the VA agreed to permit the Guardsman 
to use paid leave for future military duty, provide him with better 
notice of changes to his schedule, and arrange for USERRA training at 
his VA facility. 

South Dakota: The claimant alleged that the Department of the 
Interior, National Park Service failed to rehire him as a part-time 
seasonal employee following his service in the Army National Guard.
After OSC investigated and determined that the claimant likely would 
have been rehired for a short period of time had he not performed 
Guard duty, the agency agreed to settle his complaint by providing him 
a lump sum payment for lost wages and providing USERRA training for 
its staff. 

Indiana: The claimant was a member of the Army Reserve and also worked 
as a criminal investigator for the U.S. Army. His managers and 
supervisors constantly required that he provide advance written
notice of military service, despite the fact that verbal notice is 
sufficient under USERRA. After OSC became involved, the agency trained 
its human resources office and other management officials regarding 
USERRA's guidelines for advance notice and documentation of military 
service. 

New Jersey: The claimant is a member of the Coast Guard Reserve who 
works as a police officer for the U.S. Mint. When he was recalled to 
active duty, the agency issued vacancy announcements for Sergeant and 
Lieutenant positions, but he was not notified or given the opportunity 
to apply. OSC contacted the agency, which agreed to resolve his 
complaint by scheduling him for the next Sergeant's promotional exam, 
providing him with priority consideration for the next Sergeant's
vacancy after the exam, and implementing a mechanism whereby service 
members are notified of and permitted to apply for promotional 
opportunities while absent due to military duty. 

Texas: Three disabled veterans alleged that the U.S. Postal Service 
improperly failed to pay them “out of schedule” premium pay after 
transferring them and changing their work schedules. OSC contacted the 
agency, and it agreed to review the schedule changes and pay of all 
affected employees, including the claimants and several other 
veterans, to ensure that they received the pay to which they were 
entitled. (This summary reflects relief for multiple claimants.) 

Reemployment and Related Benefits: 

New Jersey: After returning home, an injured Iraq war veteran was not 
reemployed in his former job as a technician for the U.S. Army because 
the agency had no record that he had left his job to perform military 
service. OSC located his former supervisor, who confirmed that the 
service member had informed him of his military service. OSC then 
secured the veteran a civilian position with appropriate seniority, 
pay, and benefits for the service member. 

Massachusetts: A member of the Army National Guard was a regular 
letter carrier with the U.S. Postal Service. While deployed, he was 
reassigned to a new location because his position was being “excessed.”
 The new location would significantly increase his commute time to 
work. Upon his return from military service, the claimant discovered 
that a less senior coworker had been given a temporary position at the 
original location because he had been notified of that option when his
position was “excessed.” Because the claimant was deployed at the 
time, he was not aware of that option. When OSC contacted the agency, 
it agreed that if the claimant had been given the opportunity to bid 
on the temporary position, he would have received it based on his 
seniority. The agency then placed the claimant in a temporary position 
at his original location, resolving his complaint. 

Puerto Rico: An employee of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
and member of the National Guard, returned from military service to 
find that, during her deployment, she was not given proper credit 
toward a within-grade pay increase or accrual of annual and sick 
leave. At OSC's request, DHS agreed to adjust her benefits to the 
correct levels. 

Georgia: A U.S. Postal Service worker was denied leave for an upcoming 
deployment with the Air Force Reserve after providing his supervisor 
with verbal notice and his military orders. The agency then demanded 
that he quit his deployment and return to his job or be fired. OSC 
contacted the agency, which rescinded its demand and made all the 
necessary changes to ensure the employee was approved for military 
leave and will be reemployed properly upon his return. 

North Carolina: After a six-month deployment, an Air Force Reservist 
and police officer with the U.S. Army contacted his supervisor to plan 
his transition back to work. Shortly thereafter, the agency advised 
him that he was AWOL and needed to return to work immediately even 
though he was still well within the 90-day return period provided for 
under USERRA. OSC resolved the case by having the agency rescind the 
AWOL charges and reinstate the Reservist. 

Georgia: The claimant was employed as a GS-13 technician with the U.S. 
Air Reserve. After a one-year Active Guard/Reserve tour, she sought 
reemployment in her former position, but the agency notified her that 
the position was being eliminated. The agency instead placed her in a 
different GS-13 position that she believed was of a lesser status than 
her former position, in violation of USERRA. OSC contacted the agency 
and negotiated a settlement whereby the agency agreed to reassign her 
to a new GS-13 position of similar status to her former position in a 
different location, and pay her relocation expenses. 

Maryland: The claimant was a member of the Air Force Reserve and 
employee at the VA. After an extended deployment, he attempted to 
contact the agency several times about returning to work, but could 
not get an answer regarding his reemployment. After OSC intervened, 
the agency promptly reemployed the claimant, thereby resolving his 
claim. 

Maryland: An air traffic controller (ATC) with the Federal Aviation 
Administration suffered service-connected injuries during a two-year 
deployment with the Army Reserve. As a result, she was unable to 
continue to perform ATC duties and requested assistance in finding an 
appropriate position to accommodate her disabilities. After the agency 
told her to find something on her own, she served on a six-month 
detail. When that detail ended, she found a new, permanent position, 
but it came with a significant pay cut and extended her time for 
retirement eligibility. After OSC opened its investigation, the 
parties executed a settlement agreement whereby the agency assigned 
claimant to a higher-rated position, increased her base pay to the 
level she had in the ATC position, and paid for her to attend a 
leadership development program. 

California: After two deployments, an Army Reservist who worked at a 
VA facility was reemployed into the same career field and pay grade, 
but in a position with lesser duties. The claimant also alleged that 
he was not permitted to make up appropriate contributions to his 
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). OSC found that the Reservist was not 
properly reemployed and that his inability to make up his TSP 
contributions was in violation of USERRA. At OSC's request, the agency 
moved the Reservist into an appropriate position and allowed him to 
make up his TSP contributions. 

California: After returning from deployment, a Reservist who worked as 
a civilian with the U.S. Navy was laid off for budgetary reasons, 
effective 40 days after her return. OSC informed the agency that 
USERRA prohibits terminating a service member's employment, except for 
cause, for six months following a period of service lasting more than 
30 days. At OSC's request, the agency agreed to provide the Reservist 
with back pay for the remainder of the protected period (140 days), 
give her a lump sum payment for all the paid leave she would have 
accrued, and allow her to make up contributions to her TSP. 

North Carolina: The claimant is an employee of the U.S. Army and 
member of the Army Reserve. After completing active duty, she timely 
requested reemployment, but the agency impermissibly delayed it by two 
weeks. Shortly thereafter, the claimant returned to active duty for 
one year. When she later returned to work, she received a counseling 
statement with her military orders attached, discovered that the 
agency had automatically paid out 19.5 hours of annual leave despite 
her request to be placed on unpaid leave, and imposed a $2,000 debt 
against her that it could not justify. OSC negotiated a resolution 
with the agency whereby it agreed to compensate claimant for the two 
weeks during which she should have been reemployed, restore her 19.5 
hours of annual leave, remove the counseling statement from her 
personnel file, and waive the $2,000 debt. At the claimant's request,
the agency also agreed to work with her on a lateral transfer to a 
different work unit. 

California: At the end of the claimant's duty with the Navy Reserve, 
he made a timely request for reemployment in his civilian position 
with the U.S. Navy. However, after initially confirming his requested 
start date, the agency delayed his reemployment another six weeks 
because his pre-service position was no longer available. OSC 
facilitated a settlement agreement under which the agency agreed to 
provide the claimant with back pay and restore his seniority and other 
benefits as of the date he should have been reemployed six weeks 
earlier. 

California: A National Guardsman who was a cashier at the Defense 
Commissary Agency was improperly denied reemployment upon returning 
from a seven-month tour of duty, and told to apply for unemployment. 
OSC intervened, and the agency agreed to reinstate him to his former
position, restore his benefits and seniority, and provide him with 
back pay. 

Virginia: An employee of the Office of Personnel Management was a 
member of the Army Reserve. Upon returning from an active duty 
deployment to Afghanistan, she had service-connected disabilities that 
required time off from work for treatment, and her doctor prescribed 
that she telework full time. When she made a request for 
accommodation, her supervisor declined approval to telework because 
she was still “in training.” After OSC's investigation began, the agency
addressed her concerns to her satisfaction, and the claim was resolved. 

Puerto Rico: A member of the Air National Guard was away from his 
civilian position with the U.S. Postal Service for approximately nine 
months for military duty. After being injured, he received treatment 
in a military medical facility. Following his release, he was cleared 
to return to work with certain restrictions. He timely applied for 
reemployment, but was told that agency headquarters would have to 
approve his reemployment before he could return to work. Shortly after 
OSC commenced its investigation, the agency promptly reinstated him. 

Pennsylvania: The claimant was employed as a chief business officer 
with the VA, before leaving to perform military duty. While he was 
away on military duty, a coworker sent him a new job announcement 
indicating that the agency was advertising his position. He soon 
discovered that the agency had moved him to a different position, 
albeit at the same pay level, as a Community Living Center 
administrator. However, this position had significantly different 
duties, and unlike his former position, it had no supervisory 
authority. After OSC contacted the agency regarding the claimant's
allegations, it addressed his concerns to his satisfaction, and the 
claim was resolved. 

Initial Hiring and Other Discrimination: 

Minnesota: A member of the Air Force Reserve was a human resource 
specialist at the VA. After being appointed to a new position, her 
direct supervisor made negative comments about her qualifications and 
military service, refused to act on her requests to transfer to 
another unit, and placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). 
After OSC intervened, the agency offered to find her a new position 
under a different supervisor and rescind the PIP, which she agreed to 
as a satisfactory resolution to her complaint. 

Minnesota: A member of the Air Force Reserve was a staffing supervisor 
for the VA. After being promoted to a position in a new office, she 
reported to a different supervisor who made disparaging comments about 
her work performance and military affiliation. After OSC intervened, 
the parties reached a settlement whereby the claimant moved to a 
different position within the agency and received a monetary award. 

Florida: A National Guardsman and civilian U.S. Air Force pilot 
alleged that the agency discriminated against him because of his 
military obligations and disclosures of management wrongdoing. 
Specifically, the agency removed him from flight status and initiated 
a Command Directed Investigation (CDI) against him. OSC investigated 
and, after finding evidence to substantiate his allegations, requested 
that the agency take corrective action. Because he did not wish to 
return to the agency after his latest deployment, the agency agreed to 
restore his flight status and rescind the CDI, correct his personnel 
records and provide him a neutral job reference, and pay him a lump 
sum to cover his transition period to a new job. 

Puerto Rico: A member of the Air National Guard is employed by the 
Transportation Security Administration. The claimant has a service-
connected disability, for which he requested a reasonable 
accommodation. His accommodation request was denied, and he was placed 
on four different periods of light duty, after which the agency placed 
him on leave without pay and instructed him not to return to work 
until he was cleared to perform all normal functions of his position. 
After OSC investigated, he reached an agreement with the agency to 
return to duty with appropriate accommodations, resolving his claim. 

Missouri: The claimant, a member of the Army Reserve, applied for a 
special agent position with the Department of State. After receiving 
an offer to attend a training class, he was mobilized and requested a 
deferral pending his return from military duty. Upon his return, he 
was placed on a wait list and passed over for new openings, rather 
than being given priority consideration based on his prior offer and 
deferral due to his military service. After OSC began investigating, 
the agency reinstated its job offer, resolving the claim. 

Texas: An Army Reservist and special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Firearms alleged that, due to his military obligations, 
he received a lower performance rating and award than his work 
merited. OSC investigated and found evidence supporting claimant's 
allegations. At OSC's request, the agency conducted a review of his 
performance appraisal, made revisions, and gave him an additional 
performance award. 

Florida: An Air Force veteran with service-connected disabilities and 
investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration alleged that he 
was denied reasonable accommodations, such as the ability to telework. 
After OSC began investigating, he was transferred to a different 
office with a new supervisor, which resolved the claim to his 
satisfaction. 

Italy: A service member received a tentative job offer for a customs 
and border clearance agent position at the U.S. Army in Vicenza, 
Italy. However, after he informed the agency that he was in the middle 
of a 10-month active duty deployment to Afghanistan, the agency 
rescinded the job offer. At OSC's request, the agency extended the 
service member a new employment offer. 

Oklahoma: A National Guardsman was offered a job as an immigration 
enforcement agent with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but 
he could not attend the initial training because it conflicted with an 
upcoming deployment. As a result, DHS rescinded its offer of 
employment. OSC resolved the case by obtaining DHS's agreement to 
reinstate the employment offer and place the service member in the 
next available training course that did not conflict with his 
deployment. 

Wisconsin: A disabled veteran working for the Department of 
Agriculture alleged that his supervisor put negative comments in his 
mid-year performance review due to his veteran status and disclosures
of management wrongdoing. OSC contacted the agency, which offered to 
remove the negative comments from his review. 

Georgia: The claimant worked as a civilian attorney for the U.S. Army'
s Warrior Transition Brigade in Georgia. He was also a member of the 
Air National Guard. He drilled for the Guard in Ohio because when he 
relocated for his civilian position, there were no available Guard 
slots in Georgia. He alleged that his supervisor treated him 
negatively when the supervisor found out that the claimant was a Guard 
member, including accusing him of timecard fraud on his drill days,
demanding that he provide documentation of his drill duties, and 
placing him on extended administrative leave to “investigate” the 
alleged fraud. During OSC's investigation, the claimant entered into a 
settlement agreement whereby he resigned in exchange for attorneys' 
fees and a lump sum payment. 

Florida: The claimant is a U.S. Navy veteran who worked as a surgeon 
at the VA. He alleged a hostile work environment based on several 
instances of co-workers making negative remarks to veterans based on 
their military service. After OSC contacted the agency, the parties 
reached a settlement under which claimant agreed to retire from the 
agency in exchange for monetary compensation. 

Texas: A member of the Army Reserve and a civilian employee at the 
U.S. Army alleged that the agency planned to transfer him from his 
current work site to a new facility in order to limit the number of 
service members at any one site. After OSC opened its investigation, 
the agency withdrew the proposed transfer action, thereby resolving 
the claim. 

Missouri: The claimant was a civilian employee with the Department of 
Labor. After working at the agency for one year, he gave notice that 
he would be joining the Army National Guard and would soon depart for 
18.5 weeks of training. Thereafter, he alleges that his performance 
ratings were lowered and that he was not promoted from GS-11 to GS-12. 
According to the claimant, these actions were motivated by his new 
Guard membership. During OSC's investigation, the claimant and the 
agency entered into a settlement agreement through his union, the 
terms of which are confidential. 

California: The claimant was a member of the Navy Reserve who applied 
for a position with the Department of Veterans Affairs. After being 
selected for the position and beginning to take the required steps to 
complete the hiring process, he was placed on active duty orders for 
one year. After notifying his prospective supervisor of his upcoming 
deployment, however, the agency indicated that it was rescinding his 
job offer. OSC contacted the agency, which stated that it never 
intended to rescind the job offer, that the email stating such had 
been sent in error, and that it was committed to hiring claimant as 
soon as he returned from his military obligations. 

New Mexico: A Marine was deployed overseas when he applied and was 
tentatively selected for a nuclear transport courier position with the 
Department of Energy. However, his tentative selection was withdrawn 
when he was unable to complete a required drug test within 30 days due 
to his overseas deployment. At OSC's request, the agency agreed to 
restore the service member's tentative selection for the position and 
reschedule him for his pre-employment drug testing so that he could
proceed with the employment process. 

South Carolina: A member of the Air Force Reserve who worked for the 
VA alleged that the agency discriminated against him based on his 
Reserve duty by failing to award him performance bonuses and by making 
him work mandatory overtime during time periods in which he had 
weekend military obligations. During OSC's investigation, the agency 
agreed to settle the matter by paying the claimant a lump sum and 
agreeing to limit his mandatory overtime to better accommodate his
military duty. 

Germany: The claimant is a disabled veteran employed with the U.S. 
Army & Air Force Exchange Service. He alleged that he was passed over 
for a promotion due anti-military animus by his supervisors. During OSC'
s investigation, the parties agreed to mediation pursuant to an Equal
Employment Opportunity complaint, and the case was settled on 
confidential terms. 

Pennsylvania: After applying for a position with DHS, an Army veteran 
alleged that the agency disqualified him because he did not reside 
within the local commuting area, which he alleged was improper because 
that area was not defined in the job announcement. After OSC began its
investigation, the agency agreed to accept his application and 
consider him for the position. 

Germany: A member of the Army Reserve was offered a position with the 
NATO Special Operations Headquarters in Mons, Belgium. The offer was 
withdrawn after the claimant notified the agency that she would be on 
active duty for seven months. OSC intervened, and the agency agreed
to reoffer the claimant the position for a later “report to duty” date 
that was compatible with the end date of her military service. 

Florida: An Army veteran employed by the U.S. Postal Service in a 
temporary position alleged that she had received an unfair performance 
evaluation based on her veteran status, which prevented her from being 
re-hired by the agency. After OSC investigated, claimant's supervisor 
completed a new evaluation for her, resolving her claim. 

Arizona: A member of Air Force Reserve and employee with the VA 
received “Outstanding” performance ratings for several years. After 
the claimant's performance rating dropped to “Excellent,” and then 
further to “Fully Successful,” he addressed the issue with the rating 
official and asked how he could improve his performance. The official 
replied that he needed to “prioritize between the military and his VA 
job” and that if he completed fewer work orders than his peers due
to his absences for military duty, he should “make it up on his own 
time.” OSC contacted the agency regarding these allegations, and it 
changed his 2013 rating from “Fully Successful” to “Exceptional,” 
resolving the claim to his satisfaction. 

Promotion and Other Injunctive Relief: 

North Carolina: A member of the Coast Guard Reserve worked for the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Following his deployment, he applied 
and interviewed for a promotion, but was not selected. He alleges that 
he was asked repeatedly about his military service and that his 
supervisors assigned him more tasks than coworkers who were not Guard 
or Reserve members. During OSC's investigation, the parties agreed to 
mediation pursuant to an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint, and 
the case was settled on confidential terms. 

Minnesota: A member of the Air Force Reserve claimed he was not 
reemployed at the proper seniority level and pay grade when he 
returned from active duty to his civilian job at the VA. OSC 
investigated and determined that the employee would have been promoted 
had he not been absent, and as a result of OSC's action, the agency 
retroactively promoted him to the appropriate position. 

Florida: A member of the Army Reserve was employed as a GS-11 civilian 
with the Army Combat Readiness Center. While he was deployed to 
Afghanistan, all GS-11 employees in his department were promoted to 
the GS-12 level. Although he was also eligible, he was not considered 
for the same promotion because the agency failed to notify him of the 
opportunity while he was deployed. When his deployment ended, he 
returned to the GS-11 position. After OSC intervened, he was 
retroactively promoted to the GS-12 level with an effective date of 
his first workday back from deployment, and received back pay from the 
same date. 

Indiana: A member of the Army Reserve was employed with the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers. During a three-year overseas deployment with the 
agency, he received a permanent promotion, with a step increase, from 
his original position as a welder to a construction representative 
position. Upon his return from military duty, however, neither his 
promotion nor his step increase had been implemented. As relief, he 
sought either the construction representative position or another 
overseas deployment with the agency. During OSC's investigation, the 
agency offered him another overseas deployment, to which he agreed in 
resolution of his claim. 

Indiana: The claimant, a federal air marshal and Army Reservist, 
suffered injuries while on active duty, which prevented him from 
returning to his civilian position upon his release from active duty.
At the agency's direction, the claimant applied for and received a 
disability annuity from the Office of Personnel Management. After 
convalescing from his injuries and being cleared by his physician to
return to work, he requested reemployment with the agency, but was 
refused. After a period of unemployment, he was hired by the VA. With 
OSC's assistance, he agreed to settle his claims with the agency in 
exchange for a lump sum payment to compensate him for the gap in his 
employment. 

Colorado: A Federal Aviation Administration employee was denied a 
promotion because of his membership in the Air Force Reserve. OSC 
negotiated a resolution wherein the agency agreed to retroactively 
promote the employee, provide him with appropriate back pay, and make 
the necessary adjustments to his TSP. 

Florida: A member of the Army National Guard was a part-time flexible 
carrier with the U.S. Postal Service. After returning from one year of 
active duty, the claimant discovered that his replacement had been 
converted to a full-time permanent carrier position. After OSC opened 
its investigation, the agency entered into a settlement agreement 
whereby it converted the claimant to a full-time permanent carrier 
position with a retroactive start date, and provided him with the 
associated back pay and benefits. 

California: A police officer with the U.S. Army returned from 
deployment as a Reservist to find that his colleagues had been placed 
in a new position description and promoted, while he had not. After
OSC intervened, the agency agreed to promote him to a higher grade, 
retroactive to the date he would have been promoted had he not been on 
active duty; provide him with the back pay associated with the 
retroactive promotion; and place him in the correct position 
description and command structure with his colleagues. 

Massachusetts: Contrary to USERRA, the U.S. Air Force extended an 
employee's time-in-grade requirement for a promotion by the length of 
his absence for Army Reserve duty. OSC's intervention resulted in the 
agency agreeing to promote the Reservist to the higher grade, 
retroactive to the date he would have been promoted had he not been 
deployed, and to provide him with the back pay associated with the 
retroactive promotion. 

Oregon: Upon her return from active duty, an Air Force Reservist was 
told by the Department of Energy that it would not promote her because 
of her military service. OSC negotiated a resolution wherein the 
agency agreed to promote the Reservist to a higher grade, retroactive 
to the date she would have been promoted had he not been on active 
duty; issue her corresponding back pay based on the retroactive 
promotion date; and reassign her to another organization within the 
agency that would enable her to receive the additional experience and 
training necessary to be promoted to the next higher grade level. 

Iowa: A National Guard member was hired into a new position with the 
U.S. Postal Service, which required her to complete a 90-day 
probationary period. When she returned from Guard duty, the agency 
told her that her probationary period would be extended by the number 
of days she was absent for such duty. OSC contacted the agency and it 
resolved the matter by crediting her Guard duty toward her 
probationary period. 

California: A member of the Coast Guard Reserve and employee with the 
Food and Drug Administration took two weeks off to fulfill her annual 
drill responsibilities. Upon her return to work, the claimant's 
supervisory duties had been greatly reduced and several of her 
subordinates had been reassigned to different departments. After OSC 
began its investigation, the claimant's supervisor addressed her 
concerns, and the case was resolved to her satisfaction. 

New York: A member of the Air Force Reserve and an employee at the VA 
alleged that his within-grade pay increase was improperly delayed by 
the amount of time he spent on military duty. During OSC's 
investigation, the agency voluntarily resolved the matter by back-
dating the claimant's pay increase and providing applicable back pay. 

Virginia: A member of the Virginia National Guard and a housekeeper 
with the VA was promoted to an electrician position, pending a 
physical exam. Shortly after accepting the position, the claimant
took military leave and was unable to complete the required physical 
exam until the day of his return, one day after his official start 
date for the new position. The delay in scheduling his physical
exam caused his “effective” start date for pay purposes to be delayed. 
After OSC intervened, the agency agreed to correct the effective date 
to the date he would have started the new position had he not been 
prevented from taking the physical exam due to his military service. 

Ohio: The claimant is an employee of the VA and member of the Army 
National Guard. While on military duty, he became eligible for his 
within-grade pay increase, but the pay increase was not processed 
because he was absent performing military service. Additionally, he 
had requested to use a specific number of hours of paid military leave 
and annual leave to cover his absence, which the agency paid out, but 
when he returned to work, the agency audited his payroll account and
erroneously believed that he had been “overpaid,” generating a debt of 
roughly $2,000. The agency began garnishing his paychecks to recover 
the amount. After OSC contacted the agency, it waived the debt, 
processed his within-grade pay increase and made it retroactive, and 
provided him with back pay and compensation for the garnished wages. 

Monetary Relief and Other Benefits: 

Georgia: The claimant was a U.S. Postal Service employee and a member 
of the Air Force Reserve. Prior to performing two separate periods of 
military duty, he submitted a leave request slip to use 16 hours of 
sick leave and 64 hours of paid military leave for various absences 
from work. However, he was instead charged as being AWOL for both the 
16 hours of sick leave and 64 hours of military duty. After OSC became 
involved, the agency removed the AWOL charge from his records and paid
him for the appropriate periods of sick leave and military leave.
Ohio: A member of the Army Reserve employed by the Pentagon Force 
Protection Agency was selected for a three-year Active Guard and 
Reserve position. Despite the claimant filling out a detailed 
checklist before his tour began, the agency did not take appropriate 
actions to stop claimant's health insurance, life insurance, and TSP 
loan repayment deductions, resulting in a debt being collected from 
him. After OSC opened an investigation, the agency resolved his benefits
issues to his satisfaction. 

Maryland: A member of the Coast Guard Reserve was an employee with the 
VA. When he was called to active duty, he requested to use his 
remaining paid military leave and then be placed on military leave 
without pay. Upon his return, he discovered that the agency had not 
followed his instructions and he unsuccessfully attempted to resolve 
the issue with various agency officials. After OSC intervened, the 
parties reached a settlement agreement whereby the claimant received 
proper credit for his military service and monetary compensation. 

Oregon: A member of the National Guard was working at a U.S. Army 
chemical depot that was scheduled to close. As a result of his Guard 
duty, his job-transfer options were more limited than those of his 
colleagues, he was denied access to a Priority Placement Program 
(PPP), and he was scheduled to be discharged several months before the 
depot actually closed (in contrast to many of his co-workers). OSC 
contacted the agency, which agreed to allow the service member to remain
employed at the depot until it closed and placed him in the PPP with 
his colleagues. 

New York: A member of the Army Reserve was a supervisory employee for 
the Transportation Security Administration. He was deployed on active 
duty, for which he used 15 days of paid military leave. However, the 
agency later rescinded the leave as being impermissibly issued. The 
following year, he again was denied paid leave. OSC contacted the 
agency, which agreed to adjust his leave balance and restore the pay 
that it had erroneously collected. 

Virginia: A commissioned officer with the Army Reserve JAG Corps was 
employed by the Social Security Administration. After receiving his 
commission, he went on military duty to satisfy a mandatory six-month 
training requirement. He requested to use 30 days of paid military 
leave to cover part of that period, but only 15 days were approved 
based on a technicality. To make up the difference, he used 15 days of 
annual leave. After OSC intervened, the agency agreed to permit the
use of the additional 15 days of military leave and restore his annual 
leave. 

South Carolina: A veteran with 34 years of combined active duty and 
Reserve military service was denied full credit for that service 
toward her federal civil service retirement from her training 
specialist position with the U.S. Army. As a result, seven months 
after she retired, her annuity payments were cut in half despite her 
efforts to ensure that the time was properly credited. After OSC 
contacted the agency, it agreed to take the necessary steps to restore 
her full retirement credit and ensure that she again received the full 
annuity payments to which she is entitled. 

California: The claimant was a member of the Army Reserve who worked 
at the VA. She requested to use three days of paid military leave and 
two days of annual leave for the days she was performing military 
duty. However, because she could not produce documentation of her 
military duty to the agency's satisfaction, she was instead placed on 
leave without pay. After OSC contacted the agency regarding her 
allegations, the agency took steps to provide her with the leave to 
which she was entitled. 

Germany: The claimant was performing Reserve duty in Germany while on 
unpaid leave from his civilian job with the U.S. Border Patrol. During 
this time, he was offered a civilian position with the U.S. Army in 
Germany. However, the Army considered him a “local hire” and therefore 
refused to provide him with a living quarters' allowance, even though 
his presence in Germany was due to his military orders. While OSC was 
investigating, the Army offered to provide him a living quarters'
allowance, and the claim was resolved. 

North Carolina: An Army Reservist and a civilian employee for the U.S. 
Army, was scheduled to be relocated from Georgia to North Carolina, 
and to receive Relocation Incentive pay after 12 months of service at 
the new location. After relocating her family and purchasing a 
residence, she was put on active duty orders for one year. Upon her 
return, she was initially denied the Relocation Incentive pay. During 
OSC's investigation, the Acting Commanding General approved her 
request for Relocation Incentive pay, and her claim was resolved. 

California: The claimant was an Army Reservist and a civilian police 
officer with the U.S. Marine Corps. While away on 15 days of Reserve 
training, his orders were extended for 36 days, exhausting his paid 
leave at his civilian job. The agency placed him on regular leave 
without pay, not leave without pay for military duty, which could 
adversely affect his seniority and benefits. After OSC opened its 
investigation, the agency properly characterized claimant's leave 
without pay to ensure that he would receive his full entitlements 
under USERRA. 

Texas: The claimant, whose Navy Reserve unit is located in Florida, is 
an employed in Texas by the U.S. Army. Because of the distance between 
his Reserve unit and his civilian position, the claimant requires 
significant travel time to perform military duty. Although he provided 
notice of his military drill dates as well as an airline ticket 
receipt for his travel to his unit in Florida, the agency only 
approved military leave for the dates the claimant was performing 
military duty, and not for his day of travel. After OSC contacted the 
agency and explained USERRA's guidance regarding travel to and from 
military duty, the agency credited the claimant with the appropriate 
military leave and the claim was resolved. 

California: A Navy Reservist employed with the Department of Defense 
went on active duty for six months, and upon his return, the agency 
improperly coded his absence as regular (non-military) leave without 
pay. As a result of this coding error, one week each of annual leave 
and sick leave were deducted from his paid leave balances. After OSC 
intervened, the agency re-coded his military leave and adjusted his 
leave balances, resolving his claim. 

Alabama: An Air Force Reservist employed with the Defense Contract 
Management Agency alleged that the agency improperly charged him for 
health insurance premiums while he was deployed and was garnishing his 
paycheck to recover the amount of the premiums. During OSC's 
investigation, the agency resolved the claim by reimbursing him for 
the erroneous collections. 

[End of Appendix 1] 

Appendix 2: 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel: 

Summaries of OSC Mediated USERRA Settlements During the Demonstration 
Project: 

Below are summaries of the facts and resolutions reached in cases 
resolved through OSC's USERRA mediation program during the 
Demonstration Project. The USERRA mediation program was developed 
through a thorough dispute systems design process. The program generated
positive outcomes in 18 out of 20 cases, described below. In order to 
protect confidentiality required in federal agency mediations required 
by the Administration Disputes Resolution Act of 1996, we have omitted 
the identity of the Claimants and the agencies in these mediations. 

Mediation Case Summary #1: 

A member of the Air Force Reserve filed a claim of USERRA 
discrimination, alleging that the agency refused to afford him rights 
and benefits of employment given to other employees. The employee 
asserted that the most blatant example of this related to the storage 
of his belongings. The employee was on a one-year assignment for his 
agency when he was deployed to Afghanistan. Before leaving, the 
employee communicated with the agency to determine how to arrange for
storage of his belongings between the time his deployment ended and 
the training for his next agency assignment began. The agency 
responded that there was no administrative mechanism in place to 
provide for the storage of the claimant's belongings and, 
consequently, the claimant would be required to cover the cost. He 
noted that other employees transferring from one assignment to another 
without an intervening deployment would have been entitled to storage 
of belongings during training. 

The claimant requested relief in the form of reimbursement of his 
storage expenses, movement of his belongings to the agency's storage 
facility for the remainder of his training period before the next
scheduled assignment, and modification of agency policies to 
accommodate the needs of reservists who are faced with similar 
challenges. Through mediation, the claimant shared his perspective on
the difficulties he encountered with navigating the bureaucracy 
before, during, and after deployment. The agency acknowledged these 
challenges and provided perspective on the changes that they were
making to ensure that employees who are deployed would not face 
similar challenges upon their return. Settlement was achieved, with 
the claimant agreeing to withdraw the claim in exchange for the agency 
reimbursing the claimant for the storage costs incurred upon return 
from deployment, and disseminating information to the agency's 20,000 
employees about a change to agency policy of instituting 
administrative mechanisms to cover the storage costs for military 
reservists. 

Mediation Case Summary #2: 

A member of the Army Reserve filed a claim of USERRA discrimination, 
alleging that he paid health insurance premiums while deployed because 
he was informed that if he did not, he would lose his insurance and 
would not be able to get it back right away. Additionally, the agency 
included notices in the claimant's file that indicated that he was 
absent for an extended period due to illness or injury—-rather than 
deployment. The claimant was concerned that these notices would 
negatively impact his promotion and career prospects. The claimant 
requested relief in the form of a refund of the insurance premium 
payments and the removal of the extended absence forms from his file.
Through mediation, the claimant and the agency discussed what had 
transpired and considered the claimant's concerns about the record in 
his file. They also heard the claimant's concern that he did not want 
this to happen to any other service members in the future. Settlement 
was achieved, with the claimant agreeing to withdraw the claim in 
exchange for the agency removing the documents in the claimant's file 
regarding extended absence due to illness or injury; reimbursing the 
claimant for health insurance payments he made while deployed; and 
changing the agency-wide form so that “extended absence” forms would 
now include a category for extended absence to perform military 
service. 

Mediation Case Summary #3: 

A member of the Army Reserve filed a claim of USERRA discrimination. 
The claimant alleged that his agency violated USERRA when it did not 
provide him the training and tools that he needed to reintegrate into 
his job after his deployment. The claimant asserted that because of 
this, his work performance suffered and he was subjected to reprimands 
and lowered performance evaluations. The claimant, who was not working 
for a period while this matter was being addressed, requested relief 
in the form of a return to work, the removal of reprimands from his 
file, adjustments to his evaluations, and the provision of training 
and tools to help him to do his work effectively. The agency shared 
the interest in getting the claimant back to work and creating a work 
environment that promoted success for the employee and quality service 
for the clientele that the agency serves. With these goals as 
guidelines, the claimant and the agency brainstormed ideas for a 
mutually beneficial solution. Settlement was achieved, with the 
claimant agreeing to withdraw the claim in exchange for the agency 
returning the claimant to work under a different supervisor, providing 
training and tools for the claimant to do his job, providing the 
claimant a new performance plan, establishing a clean performance 
record for the claimant, and considering the claimant's within grade 
increase within thirty days of the claimant's return to work. 

Mediation Case Summary #4: 

A member of the Air Force National Guard filed a claim of USERRA 
discrimination alleging that the agency failed to provide reasonable 
accommodations for his military-related injury. Although he
loved his job, his injury prevented him from continuing. He had 
requested retraining for another position within the agency that he 
could do, but his supervisor instead advised him to submit a worker's 
compensation claim and took the claimant off duty while the claim was 
pending. Unfortunately, his worker's compensation claim was denied, 
and the claimant was then forced to use personal leave when his 
injuries prevented him from performing his duties. 

In this case, mediation with a collaborative educational component 
reaped tremendous rewards. The agency believed that since they did not 
have a job in the claimant's city that would suit him, their USERRA 
obligation was met. Once the agency's attorney spoke with an OSC 
USERRA subject matter expert, they were comfortable creating a new job 
in another city within the broader region that the claimant could do 
with his physical limitations. At mediation, both agency counsel and the
claimant's upper level supervisor communicated how much the agency 
valued the claimant and his work. Through mediation, the location, 
pay, and nature of the new job were negotiated to fit the needs of 
both parties (the agency was under severe budget restrictions; the 
claimant preferred to stay within the state and did not want to lose 
pay while training in a new job series). The claimant left the
process extremely excited about his new position. 

Mediation Case Summary #5: 

A member of the Navy Reserve filed a claim of USERRA discrimination, 
asserting that his supervisor approved his leave on the condition that 
he continue to do his agency work while deployed. The claimant 
asserted that the most blatant example of this was when his supervisor
required him to leave a military base-—while on Navy orders—-and 
travel to a neighboring town to perform civilian duties. The claimant 
requested relief in the form of payment for time spent completing 
civilian work, which he typically had to complete very late at night 
or very early in the morning due to the time differences. Through 
mediation, the claimant and agency discussed their concerns, reviewed 
the claimant's documentation to support his claim, and explored 
creative options to address the claimant's concerns. Both the claimant 
and the agency wanted to put this matter behind them and move forward 
in a productive way. Settlement was achieved, with the claimant 
agreeing to withdraw the claim in exchange for the agency compensating 
the claimant for his civilian work during his deployment in the amount 
of $132,733. Given that the supervisor at issue had retired, the 
claimant was excited to move forward with new management, and expressed
contentment with the settlement. The claimant noted that he 
appreciated the “refreshing, open, and frank discussion” in mediation. 
The agency expressed appreciation for the opportunity to work
collaboratively with the claimant to resolve the matter early in the 
process. 

Mediation Case Summary #6: 

A member of the Navy Reserve filed a claim of USERRA discrimination 
and hostile work environment. The claimant asserted that his first 
line supervisor, upon learning of the claimant's impending six-month 
absence due to military duty, rated the claimant “unacceptable” on a 
mid-year performance appraisal. The claimant noted that he had never 
encountered performance issues in the past. Second, he recounted 
difficulties concerning his leave requests for military duty. The 
claimant requested relief in the form of reassignment to another 
office within the agency (away from his present supervisor) and review 
and adjustment of the appraisal rating (from “unacceptable” to “meets 
expectations”). Through mediation, the claimant and the agency 
discussed each other's concerns, learned more about the applicability 
of USERRA to the claim, and brainstormed ideas for finding a mutually 
acceptable resolution. Settlement was achieved, with the claimant 
agreeing to withdraw the claim in exchange for the agency changing the 
claimant's performance rating, working with the claimant and an HR 
representative to create a professional development plan for the
claimant, approving the claimant's participation in an upcoming 
management class, and approving the claimant's detail to another 
office within the agency. 

Mediation Case Summary #7: 

A member of the Air National Guard filed a claim of USERRA 
discrimination, asserting that his first-line supervisor lowered his 
performance ratings in response to a recent deployment to Afghanistan. 
The claimant had received the highest rating in four of five 
categories in his previous rating cycle. Yet upon returning to work 
after deployment he was rated lower in four of five performance areas, 
despite receiving no feedback on performance-related concerns in the 
timeframe between the two reviews. The claimant requested relief in 
the form of improved communication with the first line supervisor, a 
process by which the first-line supervisor would flag performance
concerns when they are identified, and justification for the lower 
performance ratings. Through mediation, the claimant and the agency 
discussed perspectives on and concerns about the performance review 
and engaged in open dialogue about how to improve future communication 
and enhance the working relationship. Settlement was achieved, with 
the claimant agreeing to withdraw the claim in exchange for the agency 
reassessing the claimant's performance appraisal and providing 
justification for his rating in each performance area, alerting the 
claimant to any future performance concerns in a timely fashion, 
conducting communication “check-ins” on a regular basis, and 
instituting a process for the claimant to raise and manage performance 
concerns with those under his supervision. 

Mediation Case Summary #8: 

A member of the Navy Reserve filed a claim of USERRA discrimination. 
The claimant asserted that his agency violated USERRA when it 
terminated his “excepted service” position while he was deployed. 
Although the claimant signed a Memorandum of Understanding providing 
that his position was a time-limited “not-to-exceed” appointment, his 
expectation was that the position would be renewed because the agency 
had done so the past two years. The claimant requested relief in the 
form of reinstatement of his position so that he could continue to add 
value to the federal workforce. The agency asserted that its hands 
were tied on reinstatement because the funding for the position (which 
came from another agency) was no longer available. Through mediation, 
the claimant and the agency brainstormed ideas for a mutually 
beneficial solution. Settlement was achieved, with the claimant 
agreeing to withdraw the claim in exchange for the agency arranging and
covering the costs of the claimant's attendance at a week-long Career 
Seminar for Military Personnel, providing USERRA training for agency 
personnel, drafting and making available a letter of recommendation 
for the claimant; and providing a lump sum payment of $60,000 to the 
claimant. 

Mediation Case Summary #9: 

A member of the U.S. Army Reserve filed a USERRA discrimination claim 
alleging that since he joined the U.S. Army Reserve he has been denied 
the opportunity to advance at his job. The claimant alleged that he 
has not been able to move beyond part-time status for over fifteen 
years; during this time he had been deployed and on active duty four 
times. He also requested a retroactive Cost of Living Allowance. 
According to the claimant, his managers told him that he had not been
promoted because he was deployed when the full-time jobs were 
announced, and that his absence also prevented him from qualifying for 
the COLA others received. The claimant also raised issues concerning 
leave and military leave related to his military service. 

Mediation in this case entailed a rich discussion between the parties 
along with USERRA education. OSC mediators worked with the parties to 
help them understand the USERRA requirements pertaining to promotions 
and COLA and the all the complaint was fully resolved. In particular, 
the claimant was promoted into a new, full-time job—a goal he had 
sought for over a decade. 

Mediation Case Summary #10: 

A member of the Air Force Reserve filed a claim of USERRA 
discrimination. The claimant, who had always received high performance 
ratings, alleged that the agency lowered his performance rating from 
“exceeds” to “meets” in four categories with the only major difference 
from the prior year's performance period being that the claimant was 
away on active duty for four months during that year. In mediation, 
the claimant was able to express a sense of feeling “overlooked” after
returning from deployment. After actively contributing as part of his 
military unit, he was not receiving enough assignments in his civilian 
job to keep him busy, despite requests for more to do. The claimant 
requested relief in the form of a more accurate performance rating and 
a different performance rater for the future. Through mediation, the 
agency representative was able to communicate that the agency viewed 
the claimant as a highly effective and valuable employee. The agency 
acknowledged that it had erred by taking the claimant's absence from 
the office due to deployment as a negative factor in the performance 
evaluation rating. After the discussion, the claimant felt comfortable 
with his supervisor and no longer felt it necessary to change 
performance raters. Thus settlement, education in USERRA's 
requirements, and a renewed working relationship were all achieved 
through the mediation. In addition, the claimant's performance rating 
was increased from “highly effective” to “exemplary” and he received 
the corresponding performance award bonus of $425. 

Mediation Case Summary #11: 

A member of the Army National Guard filed a claim of USERRA 
discrimination and hostile work environment. The complainant alleged 
that management would not change his work schedule to accommodate his 
weekend drill schedule without a memorandum from his military unit. In 
addition, the claimant alleged that his military leave wages from a 
previous tour of duty were wrongly garnished by the agency. 

The claimant requested relief in the form of being able to request 
schedule changes without a memo from his unit, an end to the alleged 
anti-military attitude in the workplace, and repayment for the 
military leave wrongly garnished. Mediation allowed both the claimant 
and his manager to spend a concentrated time listening and better 
understanding each other's concerns. They cleared up 
misunderstandings, demonstrated a willingness to listen and 
communicate, and re-established trust. Both parties expressed relief 
at the dissipation of tension and repaired work relationship. 

In the settlement the agency agreed to a cash payment of $250, 
returned wrongfully garnished pay, and agreed to arrange for USERRA 
law training for managers in their facility. Moreover, the claimant 
and his supervisor agreed upon a process for discussing and 
integrating his drill and work schedules with the help of higher level 
supervisors if necessary. 

Mediation Case Summary #12: 

A veteran, who returned from serving in the Air Force, filed a claim 
of USERRA discrimination and hostile work environment. The claimant 
alleged that upon reemployment he was given little to no work, was 
given a letter of reprimand, and was generally treated poorly by his 
supervisor. Settlement was achieved, with the claimant agreeing to 
withdraw the claim in exchange for the agency assigning claimant to an 
alternate supervisor, holding disciplinary action in abeyance, 
providing a letter of referral, providing the claimant with a mentor, 
and providing supervisory training to the claimant's supervisor. 

Mediation Case Summary #13: 

A member of the Army Reserve filed a claim of USERRA discrimination, 
alleging that he was not selected for promotion by the agency because 
he was away on active duty. While the claimant was on active duty, 
though, other employees and subordinates in similar departmental 
roles, who were hired around the time the claimant was hired, received 
promotions to higher grade levels. The claimant requested relief in 
the form of receiving retroactive promotions with back pay. Through
mediation, the claimant and the agency counsel and management 
representatives were able to discuss misunderstandings of facts and 
misapplications of USERRA law in a timely and efficient manner without 
a lengthy investigation and prosecution of the matter. Settlement was 
achieved, with the claimant agreeing to withdraw the claim in exchange 
for the agency promoting the claimant to a higher position and 
providing training opportunities to the claimant to enhance his 
professional development. 

Mediation Case Summary #14: 

A member of the Army National Guard filed a claim of USERRA 
discrimination, alleging that he was incorrectly charged military 
leave and annual leave whenever he had a drill weekend. Because of
this, the claimant had lost 110 hours of annual leave. Additionally, 
the claimant asserted that he was not earning the appropriate number 
of hours of sick leave in each pay period. The claimant requested that 
annual leave for the drill periods in question be restored and a 
reconciliation of his sick leave balance to account for what he should 
have earned. The claimant also wanted to make sure that this would not 
happen to anyone in the future. Through conciliation, the agency was
educated about leave provisions under USERRA. Settlement was achieved, 
with the claimant agreeing to withdraw his complaint in exchange for 
the agency restoring his annual leave and adjusting his sick leave 
allocation. 

Mediation Case Summary #15: 

A member of the Air Force Reserve filed a claim of USERRA 
discrimination and hostile work environment. The claimant's primary 
concerns centered on the nature and level of his job duties. Through 
mediation, the claimant and the agency representatives were able to 
discuss the claimant's underlying fundamental concern about his career 
advancement. They discussed ways to increase open communication 
between them, and the agency agreed to help the claimant identify and 
discuss with management positions that might be a good match for him. 
The agency also agreed to advise higher-level supervisors that 
claimant's annual appraisal should be based solely on performance as a 
civilian employee and must not be affected by his military service. 
Finally, the agency increased the claimant's annual leave as required 
by a Presidential directive. 

Mediation Case Summary #16: 

A member of the Navy Reserve filed a claim of USERRA discrimination, 
asserting that his agency did not reemploy him in his temporary 
manager position upon his return to work—-instead, another
employee was still in his prior position. However, the facility where 
the claimant had worked was in the process of being closed while the 
complaint was processed. Given this, the claimant requested relief in 
the form of monetary compensation. Through mediation, the claimant and 
the agency discussed their concerns and heard from a USERRA subject 
matter expert to better understand the applicability of USERRA to this 
matter. Settlement was achieved, with the claimant agreeing to 
withdraw the claim in exchange for the agency changing the termination 
date of the claimant's employment (to coincide with the closure of the 
facility), providing pay and employment benefits consistent with the 
change of termination date, providing one week severance pay, and 
placing the claimant on a reemployment priority list for one year from 
the date of the agreement. 

Mediation Case Summary #17: 

A member of the National Guard filed a claim of USERRA discrimination, 
alleging that after sustaining a service-connected disability, his 
agency did not work with him effectively to find a position to 
accommodate him. The agency asserts that it did attempt to accommodate 
the claimant, through providing agency job opportunities, but these 
opportunities were rejected by the claimant. In the USERRA claim, the 
claimant requested relief in the form of back pay. Through mediation,
the parties discussed the issues and explored the interests of the 
claimant in remaining close to home and in focusing on restoring his 
health. In light of this discussion, settlement was achieved, with the
claimant agreeing to withdraw the claim in exchange for the agency 
providing him with two additional months of pay, followed by four 
months of leave without pay, at the end of which the claimant would 
separate from the agency. The agency also agreed to provide the 
claimant with resources and assistance to complete workers' 
compensation and federal disability retirement applications and to 
arrange training in USERRA responsibilities (provided by OSC) for key 
staff in this 45,000-person agency. 

Mediation Case Summary #18: 

A former member of the Army Reserve filed a claim of USERRA 
discrimination, alleging that his agency refused to provide him with 
military leave and harassed him regarding his military service. The 
employee, who retired from the Army with a permanent disability, 
planned to submit a federal disability retirement package but was 
concerned that the military leave issue would not be resolved
before he left the agency. The claimant sought relief in the form of 
payment for fifteen days of military leave and, if possible, promotion 
from a GS-11 to a GS-12. Through the process, the claimant learned 
about a debt he had incurred due to the agency's payment of his health 
care premiums for a period of time. In mediation, the parties explored 
the applicability of USERRA to this claim and the primary needs of the 
parties. The claimant was anxious to complete his retirement 
application and focus on the needs of his family. The agency was 
anxious to resolve the dispute and fill the claimant's position at an 
already overburdened agency facility. OSC mediated a settlement in
which the claimant agreed to voluntarily separate from the agency in 
exchange for the agency paying the claimant a lump sum amount of 
$2,656 to cover the health care premium related debt—of which the 
claimant was unaware until the mediation, paying the claimant for 
fifteen days of military leave, and providing the claimant with 
assistance on his federal disability retirement application. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-2717 or at jonesy@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Signora May (Assistant 
Director); Peter Beck (Analyst in Charge), Dawn Bidne, Karin Fangman, 
Paul Kinney, Donna Miller, Cynthia Saunders, Douglas Sloane, and Lou 
V. B. Smith made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Transitioning Veterans: Improved Oversight Needed to Enhance 
Implementation of Transition Assistance Program. GAO-14-144. 
Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2014. 

Veterans' Reemployment Rights: Department of Labor and Office of 
Special Counsel Need to Take Additional Steps to Ensure Demonstration 
Project Data Integrity. GAO-12-860R. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2012. 

Veterans' Reemployment Rights: Steps Needed to Ensure Reliability of 
DOL and Special Counsel Demonstration Project's Performance 
Information. GAO-11-312R. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2011. 

Military Personnel: Considerations Related to Extending Demonstration 
Project on Servicemembers' Employment Rights Claims. GAO-08-229T. 
Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2007. 

Servicemember Reemployment: Agencies Are Generally Timely in 
Processing Redress Complaints, but Improvements Needed in Maintaining 
Data and Reporting. GAO-11-55. Washington, D.C.: October 22, 2010. 

Military Personnel: Improvements Needed to Increase Effectiveness of 
DOD's Programs to Promote Positive Working Relationships between 
Reservists and Their Employers. GAO-08-981R. Washington, D.C.: August 
15, 2008. 

DOD Financial Management: Adjudication of Butterbaugh Claims for the 
Restoration of Annual Leave or Pay. GAO-08-948R. Washington, D.C.: 
July 28, 2008. 

Military Personnel: Federal Agencies Have Taken Actions to Address 
Servicemembers' Employment Rights, but a Single Entity Needs to 
Maintain Visibility to Improve Focus on Overall Program Results. GAO-
08-254T. Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2007. 

Military Personnel: Considerations Related to Extending Demonstration 
Project on Servicemembers' Employment Rights Claims. GAO-08-229T. 
Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2007. 

Military Personnel: Improved Quality Controls Needed over 
Servicemembers' Employment Rights Claims at DOL. GAO-07-907. 
Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2007. 

Office of Special Counsel Needs to Follow Structured Life Cycle 
Management Practices for Its Case Tracking System. GAO-07-318R. 
Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2007. 

Military Personnel: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of 
Reserve Employment Issues. GAO-07-259. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 
2007. 

Military Personnel: Federal Management of Servicemember Employment 
Rights Can Be Further Improved. GAO-06-60. Washington, D.C.: October 
19, 2005. 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel's Role in Enforcing Law to Protect 
Reemployment Rights of Veterans and Reservists in Federal Employment. 
GAO-05-74R. Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2004. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Over each of the next 4 years, the Department of Defense estimates 
that approximately 170,000 to 185,000 active duty servicemembers will 
separate from the military and about 60,000 National Guard and Reserve 
members will be demobilized and deactivated from active duty. GAO, 
Transitioning Veterans: Improved Oversight Needed to Enhance 
Implementation of Transition Assistance Program, GAO-14-144 
(Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2014). 

[2] In addition to those serving in the armed forces and the Army and 
Air National Guards (when engaged in active duty for training, 
inactive duty training, or full-time National Guard duty), USERRA 
covers the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and other 
persons designated by the President in time of war or national 
emergency. 

Pub. L. No. 103-353, 108 Stat. 3149 (Oct. 13, 1994), codified at 38 
U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335. USERRA is the most recent in a series of laws 
protecting veterans' employment and reemployment rights going back to 
the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. Pub. L. No. 783, 54 
Stat. 885, 890 (Sept. 16, 1940). 

[3] Pub. L. No. 111-275, § 105, 124 Stat. 2864, 2868-70 (Oct. 13, 
2010). 

[4] OSC is an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency with 
the primary mission of protecting the employment rights of federal 
employees and applicants for federal employment. 

[5] Pub. L. No. 108-454, §204, 118 Stat. 3598, 3606-08 (Dec. 10, 
2004). Under VBIA, the demonstration project was originally scheduled 
to end on September 30, 2007, but through a series of extensions ran 
through December 31, 2007. 

[6] See GAO, Military Personnel: Improved Quality Controls Needed over 
Servicemembers' Employment Rights Claims at DOL, GAO-07-907 
(Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2007). 

[7] GAO-07-907. 

[8] 5 U.S.C. § 2302. 

[9] GAO, Veterans' Reemployment Rights: Steps Needed to Ensure 
Reliability of DOL and Special Counsel Demonstration Project's 
Performance Information, GAO-11-312R (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2011). 

[10] OPM is acting as survey administrator. 

[11] GAO, Veterans' Reemployment Rights: Department of Labor and 
Office of Special Counsel Need to Take Additional Steps to Ensure 
Demonstration Project Data Integrity, GAO-12-860R (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 10, 2012). 

[12] There are 13 prohibited personnel practices including 
discrimination, retaliation, or unauthorized preference or improper 
advantage. 5 U.S.C. § 2302. 

[13] GAO-11-312R. 

[14] DOL is responsible for investigating claims alleging a federal 
agency failed to apply veterans' preference in hiring or during a 
reduction-in-force. 

[15] Six DOL investigators who worked on demonstration project cases 
are no longer active investigators. In addition, DOL has 81 other 
investigators--for a total of 106--qualified to investigate USERRA 
claims and DOL officials told us these investigators were available to 
conduct demonstration case investigations, as needed. According to 
OSC, one of the investigators who worked on demonstration project 
cases is no longer an active OSC investigator. 

[16] OSC did not assign and track their demonstration case assignments 
in a way that enabled them to report the exact number of cases 
assigned per investigator per fiscal year. So, we calculated the 
number of cases opened per OSC USERRA Unit investigator or attorney as 
a proxy. These figures were calculated by using case tracking data to 
identify the number of cases assigned to OSC over time, alongside 
corresponding employment data, to determine the number of 
investigators employed during specific time periods. According to OSC 
officials, OSC's USERRA Unit Chief and one other employee did not 
regularly receive cases to investigate, but were assigned cases on an 
ad hoc basis. We included these two employees in our calculations 
because they did receive cases to investigate. 

[17] These caseload averages represent the average caseload if the 
staffing levels had remained constant for the entire fiscal year. 
However, because OSC had temporary staff and other staff who came and 
left the USERRA Unit, we were unable to calculate the exact average 
caseload per fiscal year. 

[18] As mentioned previously, DOL has 106 investigators that can 
investigate USERRA claims. 

[19] DOL has investigated USERRA cases since the law's 1994 inception, 
as well as investigating prior cases under the predecessor Veterans' 
Reemployment Rights Act. 

[20] Pub. L. No. 104-320 , 110 Stat. 3870 (Oct. 19, 1996). 

[21] Response rates were calculated based on survey information 
provided by OPM on July 28,2014. We received updated case information 
from each agency after this date. As such, there may be a difference 
when calculating the response rate using the case outcome data 
presented above, versus the information provided by OPM. 

[22] GAO-12-860R. 

[23] GAO, Veterans' Reemployment Rights: Steps Needed to Ensure 
Reliability of DOL and Special Counsel Demonstration Project's 
Performance Information, GAO-11-312R (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2011). 

[24] GAO, Veterans' Reemployment Rights: Department of Labor and 
Office of Special Counsel Need to Take Additional Steps to Ensure 
Demonstration Project Data Integrity, GAO-12-860R (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 10, 2012). 

[25] The adjusted estimates of agency differences and the F-statistics 
associated with them are from ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression 
models that regressed the scores on each item for all respondents on 
agency, and on (one at a time) case processing time, discrimination 
allegation, and favorability of the outcome. 

[26] The adjusted odds ratios for these analyses where responses are 
treated as categorical are derived from logistic regression models in 
which the odds on responding favorably are regressed on agency (again 
a dummy variable as above) and on (one at a time) case processing 
time, discrimination allegation, and favorability of the outcome. 

[27] Shading in the table indicates differences which are 
statistically significant at the .05 level. 

[28] For example, the unadjusted difference between agencies in the 
mean score on the "staff are courteous" item was 0.57, while the 
adjusted differences (or differences after taking the outcome of the 
claim into account) was 0.46. Many of the differences were slightly 
smaller after adjusting for these different factors, but every one of 
them remained statistically significant. 

[29] Respondents in the "Not Agree" and "Not Satisfied" categories 
include both those who disagreed or were dissatisfied and those who 
were in the "Neither" category. 

[30] Because of the small size of the sample, we controlled for these 
three different factors one at a time, in different logistic 
regression models. 

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, 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 
website, [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. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548. 

[End of document]