This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-229T 
entitled 'Military Personnel: Considerations Related to Extending 
Demonstration Project on Servicemembers' Employment Rights Claims' 
which was released on October 31, 2007.

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:

Testimony:

Before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. Senate:

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT: 
Wednesday, October 31, 2007:

Military Personnel:

Considerations Related to Extending Demonstration Project on 
Servicemembers' Employment Rights Claims:

Statement of George H. Stalcup: 
Director: 
Strategic Issues:

GAO-08-229T: 

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-08-229T, a testimony before the Committee on 
Veterans’ Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study:

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 
(USERRA) protects the employment and reemployment rights of federal and 
nonfederal employees who leave their employment to perform military or 
other uniformed service.

Under a demonstration project from February 8, 2005, through September 
30, 2007, and subsequently extended through November 16, 2007, the 
Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) share 
responsibility for receiving and investigating USERRA claims and 
seeking corrective action for federal employees. 

In July 2007, GAO reported on its review of the operation of the 
demonstration project through September 2006. This testimony describes 
the findings of our work and actions taken to address our 
recommendations. In response to your request, we also present GAO’s 
views on (1) factors to consider in deciding whether to extend the 
demonstration project and the merits of conducting a follow-up review 
and (2) options available if the demonstration is not extended.

In preparing this statement, GAO interviewed officials from DOL and OSC 
to update actions taken on recommendations from our July 2007 report 
and developments since we conducted that review.   

What GAO Found:

Under the demonstration project, OSC receives and investigates claims 
for federal employees whose social security numbers end in odd numbers; 
DOL investigates claims for individuals whose social security numbers 
end in even numbers. Among GAO’s findings were the following: 

* DOL and OSC use two different models to investigate federal USERRA 
claims, with DOL using a nationwide network and OSC using a centralized 
approach, mainly within its headquarters.  
* Since the demonstration project began, both DOL and OSC officials 
have said that cooperation and communication increased between the two 
agencies concerning USERRA claims, raising awareness of the issues 
related to servicemembers who are federal employees. 
* DOL did not consistently notify claimants concerning the right to 
have their claims referred to OSC for further investigation or to bring 
their claims directly to the Merit Systems Protection Board if DOL did 
not resolve their claims. 
* DOL had no internal process to routinely review investigators’ 
determinations before claimants were notified of them. 
* Data limitations at both agencies made claim outcome data unreliable. 

DOL officials agreed with GAO’s findings and recommendations and are 
taking actions to address the recommendations. In July 2007, DOL issued 
guidance concerning case closing procedures, including standard 
language to ensure that claimants (federal and nonfederal) are apprised 
of their rights, and began conducting mandatory training on the 
guidance in August 2007. In addition, according to DOL officials, 
beginning in January 2008, all claims are to be reviewed before the 
closure letter is sent to the claimant.  These are positive steps and 
it will be important for DOL to follow through with these and other 
actions. 

If the demonstration project were to be extended, it would be important 
that clear objectives be set. Legislation creating the current 
demonstration project was not specific in terms of the objectives to be 
achieved. Clear project objectives would also facilitate a follow-on 
evaluation. In this regard, GAO’s July 2007 report provides baseline 
data that could inform this evaluation. Given adequate time and 
resources, an evaluation of the extended demonstration project could be 
designed and tailored to provide information to inform congressional 
decision making. GAO also presents potential benefits and limitations 
associated with options available if the demonstration project is not 
extended. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-229T]. For more information, contact 
George H. Stalcup at (202) 512-9490 or stalcupg@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Chairman Akaka, Senator Burr, and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results from our review of 
a demonstration project established by the Veterans Benefits 
Improvement Act of 2004 (VBIA),[Footnote 1] related to servicemember 
rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 
Act of 1994 (USERRA),[Footnote 2] which protects the employment and 
reemployment rights of federal and nonfederal employees who leave their 
employment to perform military or other uniformed service. USERRA also 
prohibits discrimination in employment against individuals because of 
their uniformed service, obligation to perform service, or membership 
or application for membership in the uniformed services. USERRA further 
prohibits employer retaliation against any individual who engages in 
protected activity under USERRA, regardless of whether the individual 
has performed service in the uniformed services. USERRA applies to a 
wide range of employers, including federal, state, and local 
governments as well as private sector firms. The demonstration project 
authorized the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) along with the 
Department of Labor (DOL) to receive and investigate certain federal 
employee USERRA claims. DOL's Veterans' Employment and Training Service 
(VETS) investigates and attempts to resolve USERRA claims. In July, we 
issued a report responding to a mandate in VBIA on our evaluations of 
the demonstration project.[Footnote 3] Our report focused on agency (1) 
processes, (2) outcomes, and (3) major changes during the demonstration 
project.

For today's hearing, I will discuss:

* USERRA claims processing under the demonstration project for 
servicemembers of federal executive branch agencies,[Footnote 4]

* the findings of our work and actions taken to address our 
recommendations, and:

* considerations related to extending the demonstration project.

For our July 2007 report, we reviewed relevant documentation and 
interviewed knowledgeable DOL and OSC officials on their policies and 
procedures for processing federal employees' USERRA claims under the 
demonstration project. We also reviewed and analyzed data from VETS's 
database, the USERRA Information Management System,[Footnote 5] and 
OSC's case tracking system, OSC 2000,[Footnote 6] from the start of the 
demonstration project on February 8, 2005, through fiscal year 2006. We 
also assessed the reliability of selected data elements on federal 
employee claims from VETS's database and OSC's case tracking system by 
tracing a statistically random sample of data to source case 
files.[Footnote 7] We did not assess the quality of the claims' 
investigations or the quality of the outcomes of those investigations. 
Considerations related to extending the demonstration are based on our 
knowledge of the demonstration project and requirements for effective 
program evaluation. We conducted our work for this statement in October 
2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.

USERRA Claims Processing under the Demonstration Project:

Under a demonstration project established by VBIA, from February 8, 
2005, through September 30, 2007, and subsequently extended through 
November 16, 2007,[Footnote 8] OSC and DOL share responsibility for 
receiving and investigating USERRA claims and seeking corrective action 
for federal employees. While the legislation did not establish specific 
goals for the demonstration project, the language mandating that GAO 
conduct a review suggested that duplication of effort and delays in 
processing cases were of concern to Congress.[Footnote 9]

The demonstration project gave OSC, an independent investigative and 
prosecutorial agency, authority to receive and investigate claims for 
federal employees whose social security numbers end in odd numbers. 
VETS investigated claims for individuals whose social security numbers 
end in even numbers. Under the demonstration project, OSC conducts an 
investigation of claims assigned to determine whether the evidence is 
sufficient to resolve the claimants' USERRA allegations and, if so, 
seeks voluntary corrective action from the involved agency or initiates 
legal action against the agency before the Merit Systems Protection 
Board (MSPB).[Footnote 10] For claims assigned to DOL, VETS conducts an 
investigation, and if it cannot resolve a claim, DOL is to inform 
claimants that they may request to have their claims referred to 
OSC.[Footnote 11]

OSC's responsibility under USERRA for conducting independent reviews of 
referred claims after they are investigated but not resolved by VETS 
remained unchanged during the demonstration project. Before sending the 
referred claim to OSC, two additional levels of review take place 
within DOL. After OSC receives the referred claim from DOL, it reviews 
the case file, and if satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to 
resolve the claimant's allegations and that the claimant is entitled to 
corrective action, OSC begins negotiations with the claimant's federal 
executive branch employer. According to OSC, if an agreement for full 
relief via voluntary settlement by the employer cannot be reached, OSC 
may represent the servicemember before MSPB. If MSPB rules against the 
servicemember, OSC may appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit. In instances where OSC finds that referred 
claims do not have merit, it informs servicemembers of its decision not 
to represent them and that they have the right to take their claims to 
MSPB without OSC representation. Figure 1 depicts USERRA claims' 
processing under the demonstration project.

Figure 1: USERRA Claims Processing under the Demonstration Project:

[See PDF for image]

This figure depicts two related flow charts: DOL/VETS formal 
investigative process and OSC formal investigative process. Portions of 
the processes are characterized as one of the following: Investigative 
process under the demonstration project; or Referral phase under USERRA.

The flow charts depict the following data:

DOL/VETS formal investigative process: 
Claimant submits claim to VETS; 
VETS investigates claim for those with even SSNs: 
Investigative process under the demonstration project:
Is claim resolved after investigation? 
If yes, claimant is notified. 
If no, claimant is notifited of closure of claim and right to referral 
to OSC.
Referral phase under USERRA: 
Does claimant request referral of OSC? 
If no, claimant may file with MSPB.
If yes, VETES investigator prepares memorandum of referral;
VETS regional office reviews;
DOL REgional Solicitor reviews, prepares analysis, and sends case file 
to OSC; 
OSC reviews case file;
Does OSC determine the claim has merit? 
If no, claimant is notified of closure of claim and of right to file 
with MSPB.
If yes, OSC attempts resolution, including representation before MSPB. 

OSC formal investigative process: 
Claimant submits claim to OSC; 
OSC investigates claim for those with odd SSNs[a]: 
Investigative process under the demonstration project:
Is claim resolved after investigation? 
If yes, claimant is notified. 
If no, claimant is notifited of closure of claim and right to file with 
MSPB. 
If no, claimant is notified of OSC's willingness to represent before 
MSPB.  

Source: GAO (data), PhotoDisc (images). 

Note: VBIA did not change VETS's formal investigative process or the 
referral phase under the demonstration project. 

[A] OSC is also authorized to handle any USERRA claim where OSC has 
authority to handle a related claim--that is, one alleging a related 
prohibited personnel practice--brought by the USERRA claimant. 

[End of figure]  

Key Findings on the Demonstration Project and Actions Taken to Address 
Recommendations: 

Under the demonstration project, VETS and OSC used two different models 
to investigate federal employee USERRA claims. Both DOL and OSC 
officials have said that cooperation and communication increased 
between the two agencies concerning USERRA claims, raising awareness of 
the issues related to servicemembers who are federal employees. In 
addition, technological enhancements have occurred, primarily on the 
part of VETS since the demonstration project. For example, at VETS, an 
enhancement to its database enables the electronic transfer of 
information between agencies and the electronic filing of USERRA 
claims. However, we found that DOL did not consistently notify 
claimants concerning the right to have their claims referred to OSC for 
further investigation or to bring their claims directly to MSPB if DOL 
did not resolve their claims. We also found data limitations at both 
agencies that made claim outcome data unreliable. DOL agreed with our 
findings and recommendations and has begun to take corrective action. 

Agencies Used Two Models for Processing USERRA Claims: 

Since the start of the demonstration project on February 8, 2005, both 
DOL/VETS and OSC had policies and procedures for receiving, 
investigating, and resolving USERRA claims against federal executive 
branch employers. Table 1 describes the two models we reported DOL and 
OSC using to process USERRA claims. 

Table 1: Characteristics of DOL's and OSC's USERRA Claims' Processing 
Models: 

Characteristic: Structure of office; 
DOL: Nationwide network with over 100 investigators working together on 
fact-finding at VETS's offices in each state, six regional offices, and 
one national office; 
OSC: Centralized USERRA Unit within OSC headquarters with the Unit 
Chief, three investigators, and three attorneys working together on 
fact-finding and legal analysis at the time of our review.[A]. 

Characteristic: Responsibilities of staff; 
DOL: Investigators process both federal and nonfederal USERRA and 
veteran's preference claims,[B] provide outreach and education to 
servicemembers (at mobilizations and demobilizations) and employers 
(federal and nonfederal), and respond to informal requests for 
information; 
OSC: Investigators and attorneys process federal employees' USERRA 
claims, process prohibited personnel practice claims filed by 
servicemembers, and provide outreach and education to employees and 
employers. 

Characteristic: Investigative approach; 
DOL: Investigators are to investigate and attempt to resolve claims, 
prepare an investigative plan for claims taking more than 30 days, and 
send a letter notifying claimant of the determination. For referrals, 
investigators prepare a memorandum of referral with supporting 
documentation. Attorneys from the Office of the Solicitor are available 
for consultations during an investigation if an investigator has a 
question or needs legal assistance, but attorneys are not assigned to 
every case[C]; 
OSC: Investigators or attorneys are to investigate and attempt to 
resolve claims, prepare a summary of investigation with supporting 
documentation, and provide a detailed letter to each claimant (and for 
a claim with merit, to the agency) containing the factual and legal 
basis for its conclusions. 

Characteristic: Oversight; 
DOL: There is no required internal review of investigative findings and 
closure letters prior to closure letters being sent to the claimant; 
VETS senior investigators are to review claims taking longer than 90 
days and a random sample of 25 percent of all closed claims and 10 
percent of all open claims at the regional level; 
OSC: At the time of our review, the USERRA Unit Chief provided ongoing 
guidance, reviewed all work products in a case, and reviewed and 
approved the letter notifying the claimant of OSC's determination and, 
in a case with merit, the letter to the agency, prior to sending the 
letters. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: VBIA did not change VETS's formal investigative process or the 
referral phase under the demonstration project. 

[A] Since our report was issued, OSC now has seven attorneys and two 
investigators.  

[B] Under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998, Pub. L. 
No. 105-339 (Oct. 31, 1998), an individual who believes his or her 
preference rights have been violated may file a complaint with VETS 
within 60 days after the alleged violation, and if VETS's efforts do 
not result in resolution of the complaint, the individual may appeal 
the matter to MSPB, 5 U.S.C. § 3330a.  

[C] An official from DOL's Office of the Solicitor said that attorneys 
from the office are only assigned when contacted by VETS investigators 
or when a regional office is contacted by the public. He added that an 
attorney from the Office of the Solicitor is assigned to every case 
that is a referral, which involves a legal review of a completed case 
file. 

[End of table] 

VETS Is Taking Action to Help Ensure That It Consistently Notifies 
Claimants of the Right to Referral: 

Once a VETS investigator completes an investigation and arrives at a 
determination on a claim, the investigator is to contact the claimant, 
discuss the findings, and send a letter to the claimant notifying him 
or her of VETS's determination. When VETS is unsuccessful in resolving 
servicemembers' claims, DOL is to notify servicemembers who filed 
claims against federal executive branch agencies that they may request 
to have their claims referred to OSC or file directly with MSPB. Our 
review of a random sample of claims showed that for claims VETS was not 
successful in resolving (i.e., claims not granted or settled), VETS (1) 
failed to notify half the claimants in writing, (2) correctly notified 
some claimants, (3) notified others of only some of their options, and 
(4) incorrectly advised some claimants of a right applicable only to 
nonfederal claimants--to have their claims referred to the Department 
of Justice or to bring their claims directly to federal district court. 
In addition, we found that the VETS USERRA Operations Manual failed to 
provide clear guidance to VETS investigators on when to notify 
servicemembers of their rights and the content of the notifications. 
VETS had no internal process to routinely review investigators' 
determinations before claimants are notified of them. According to a 
VETS official, there was no requirement that a supervisor review 
investigators' determinations before notifying the claimant of the 
determination. In addition, legal reviews by a DOL regional Office of 
the Solicitor occurred only when a claimant requested to have his or 
her claim referred to OSC. A VETS official estimated that about 7 
percent of claimants ask for their claims to be referred to OSC or, for 
nonfederal servicemembers, to the Department of Justice. 

During our review, citing our preliminary findings, DOL officials 
required each region to revise its guidance concerning the notification 
of rights. Since that time, DOL has taken the following additional 
actions: 

* reviewed and updated policy changes to incorporate into the revised 
Operations Manual and prepared the first draft of the revised Manual; 

* issued a memo in July 2007 from the Assistant Secretary for Veteran's 
Employment and Training to regional administrators, senior 
investigators, and directors requiring case closing procedure changes, 
including the use of standard language to help ensure that claimants 
(federal and nonfederal) are apprised of their rights; and: 

* began conducting mandatory training on the requirements contained in 
the memo in August 2007. 

In addition, according to DOL officials, beginning in January 2008, all 
claims are to be reviewed before the closure letter is sent to the 
claimant. These are positive steps. It is important for DOL to follow 
through with its plans to complete revisions to its USERRA Operations 
Manual, which according to DOL officials is expected in January 2008, 
to ensure that clear and uniform guidance is available to all involved 
in processing USERRA claims. 

Number of Claims and Average Processing Time under the Demonstration 
Project: 

Our review of data from VETS's database showed that from the start of 
the demonstration project on February 8, 2005, through September 30, 
2006, VETS investigated a total of 166 unique claims. We reviewed a 
random sample of case files to assess the reliability of VETS's data 
and found that the closed dates in VETS's database were not 
sufficiently reliable. Therefore, we could not use the dates for the 
time VETS spent on investigations in the database to accurately 
determine DOL's average processing time. Instead, we used the correct 
closed dates from the case files in our random sample and statistically 
estimated the average processing time for VETS's investigations from 
the start of the demonstration project through July 21, 2006--the 
period of our sample. Based on the random sample, there is at least a 
95 percent chance that VETS's average processing time for 
investigations ranged from 53 to 86 days. During the same period, OSC 
received 269 claims and took an average of 115 days to process these 
claims. We found the closed dates in OSC's case tracking system to be 
sufficiently reliable. 

In his July 2007 memo discussed above, the Assistant Secretary for 
Veteran's Employment and Training also instructed regional 
administrators, senior investigators, and directors that investigators 
are to ensure that the closed date of each USERRA case entered in 
VETS's database matches the date on the closing letter sent to the 
claimant. 

Data Limitations at Both Agencies: 

We found data limitations at both agencies that affected our ability to 
determine outcomes of the demonstration project and could adversely 
affect Congress's ability to assess how well federal USERRA claims are 
processed and whether changes are needed. At VETS, we found an 
overstatement in the number of claims and unreliable data in the VETS's 
database. From February 8, 2005, through September 30, 2006, VETS 
received a total of 166 unique claims, although 202 claims were 
recorded as opened in VETS's database. Duplicate, reopened, and 
transferred claims accounted for most of this difference. Also, in our 
review of a random sample of case files,[Footnote 12] we found: 

* the dates recorded for case closure in VETS's database did not 
reflect the dates on the closure letters in 22 of 52 claims reviewed, 
so using the correct dates from the sample, we statistically estimated 
average processing time, and: 

* the closed code, which VETS uses to describe the outcomes of USERRA 
claims (i.e., claim granted, claim settled, no merit, withdrawn) was 
not sufficiently reliable for reporting specific outcomes of claims. 

At OSC, we assessed the reliability of selected data elements in OSC's 
case tracking system in an earlier report and found that the corrective 
action data element, which would be used for identifying the outcomes 
of USERRA claims, was not sufficiently reliable.[Footnote 13] 

DOL Has a Lengthy Two-Phase Review Process before Claims Are Referred 
to OSC: 

We separately reviewed those claims that VETS investigated but could 
not resolve and for which claimants requested referral of their claims 
to OSC. For these claims, two sequential DOL reviews take place: a VETS 
regional office prepares a report of the investigation, including a 
recommendation on the merits and a regional Office of the Solicitor 
conducts a separate legal analysis and makes an independent 
recommendation on the merits. From February 8, 2005, through September 
30, 2006, 11 claimants asked VETS to refer their claims to OSC. Of 
those 11 claims, 6 claims had been reviewed by both a VETS regional 
office and a regional Office of the Solicitor and sent to OSC.[Footnote 
14] For those 6 claims, from initial VETS investigation through the 
VETS regional office and regional Office of the Solicitor reviews, it 
took an average of 247 days or about 8 months before the Office of the 
Solicitor sent the claims to OSC.[Footnote 15] Of the 6 referred claims 
that OSC received from DOL during the demonstration project, as of 
September 30, 2006, OSC declined to represent the claimant in 5 claims 
and was still reviewing 1 of them, taking an average of 61 days to 
independently review the claims and determine if the claims had merit 
and whether to represent the claimants. 

Considerations Related to Extending the Demonstration Project: 

You asked us about factors that could be considered in deciding whether 
to extend the demonstration project and to conduct a follow-up review. 
If the demonstration project were to be extended, it would be important 
to have clear objectives. Legislation creating the current 
demonstration project was not specific in terms of the objectives to be 
achieved. Having clear objectives would be important for the effective 
implementation of the extended demonstration project and would 
facilitate a follow-on evaluation. In this regard, our report provides 
baseline data that could inform this evaluation. Given adequate time 
and resources, an evaluation of the extended demonstration project 
could be designed and tailored to provide information to inform 
congressional decision making. 

Congress also may want to consider some potential benefits and 
limitations associated with options available if the demonstration is 
not extended. Table 2 presents two potential actions that could be 
taken and examples of potential benefits and limitations of each. The 
table does not include steps, such as enabling legislation that might 
be associated with implementing a particular course of action. 

Table 2: Examples of Potential Actions and Potential Benefits and 
Limitations with Respect to Processing Federal USERRA Claims: 

Potential action: Return to pre-demonstration status (i.e., DOL 
receives and investigates all claims); 
Potential benefit: DOL has an infrastructure in place; All USERRA 
claims, federal and nonfederal, would be processed by the same agency; 
Potential limitation: DOL is taking a number of actions to correct 
deficiencies in notifying servicemembers of their rights and to 
implement controls to help improve the quality of the data on the 
number of cases, outcomes, and the time to investigate claims. The 
effectiveness of these actions has not been determined. 

Potential action: Give OSC authority to receive and investigate all 
federal claims; 
Potential benefit: OSC has institutional experience from enforcement of 
statutes to protect federal employees from prohibited personnel 
practices, which according to OSC, are similar to USERRA claims. This 
eliminates two extra reviews at DOL under current system for referrals 
of federal claims; 
Potential limitation: OSC would need to "stand up" a more robust 
infrastructure to handle all USERRA cases, which may include hiring and 
training additional staff as well as additional operating expenses. A 
significant increase in the number of claims to be processed may also 
necessitate a change to the oversight structure that OSC used during 
our review of the demonstration project, which relied heavily on the 
actions of one individual. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table]  

At a time when the nation's attention is focused on those who serve our 
country, it is important that employment and reemployment rights are 
protected for federal servicemembers who leave their employment to 
perform military or other uniformed service. Addressing the 
deficiencies that we identified during our review, including correcting 
inaccurate and unreliable data, is a key step to ensuring that 
servicemembers' rights under USERRA are protected. While DOL is taking 
positive actions in this regard, it is important that these efforts are 
carried through to completion. 

Chairman Akaka, Senator Burr, and Members of the Committee, this 
concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any 
questions that you may have. 

For further information regarding this statement, please contact George 
Stalcup, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-9490 or 
stalcupg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
testimony. Individuals making key contributions to this statement 
included Belva Martin, Assistant Director; Karin Fangman; Tamara F. 
Stenzel; Kiki Theodoropoulos; and Greg Wilmoth. 

[End of section]  

Footnotes:  

[1] See section 204 of Pub. L. No. 108-454, 118 Stat. 3598, 3606-3608, 
38 U.S.C. § 4301 note. 

[2] Pub. L. No. 103-353, 108 Stat. 3149, 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4334. 

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

[4] USERRA rights extend to servicemembers who are federal employees, 
prior employees of, and applicants to federal executive branch 
agencies. Servicemembers include members of the National Guard and 
Reserves. For purposes of this testimony, we are using the term 
servicemember, although individuals who are not servicemembers (or who 
have merely applied to become a servicemember) may also be protected by 
USERRA's discrimination and retaliation prohibitions.  

[5] The USERRA Information Management System is a Web-based case 
management and reporting tool implemented by VETS in October 1996 that 
allows for automated collection and investigator input of information 
regarding USERRA claims and generation of reports for analysis of 
USERRA operations and outcomes. 

[6] OSC 2000 was implemented by OSC in July 1999 and was designed to 
capture and record data from the initial filing of a claim until the 
closure and archiving of the case file and allows for queries that 
create a number of management and workload reports.  

[7] The period of the sample was from the start of the demonstration 
project on February 8, 2005, through July 21, 2006. Unless otherwise 
stated, the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 
review. 

[8] See section 130 of Pub. L. No. 110-92 (Sept. 29, 2007). 

[9] See section 204 of Pub. L. No. 108-454, 118 Stat. 3598, 3606-3608, 
38 U.S.C. § 4301 note.  

[10] An independent, quasi-judicial agency in the executive branch, 
MSPB serves as the guardian of federal merit principles. 

[11] DOL is also to inform claimants that they may file a complaint 
directly with the MSPB. If DOL/VETS cannot resolve nonfederal USERRA 
claims, DOL is to inform claimants that they may request to have their 
claims referred to the U.S. Attorney General. The Department of Justice 
prosecutes nonfederal sector USERRA claims. 

[12] The period of the random sample covered February 8, 2005, through 
July 21, 2006.  

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

[14] The remaining five claims were still at DOL as of September 30, 
2006. 

[15] Because of the data limitations concerning the reliability of 
investigations' closed dates in VETS's database, it was not possible to 
isolate the length of time for the two additional reviews.  

[End of section]  

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, DC 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@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: