This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-289 
entitled 'Military Disability Retirement: Closer Monitoring Would 
Improve the Temporary Retirement Process' which was released on April 
13, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

April 2009: 

Military Disability Retirement: 

Closer Monitoring Would Improve the Temporary Retirement Process: 

GAO-09-289: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-289, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Service members found unfit for duty due to a service-related illness 
or injury may be eligible for military disability retirement. When 
their disability is not stable, however, they may be placed on the 
military’s Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) and granted 
temporary benefits for as long as 5 years. GAO was asked to respond to 
concerns about TDRL caseloads, management, and impact on 
servicemembers. To address these concerns, we analyzed TDRL data; 
interviewed military officials; reviewed laws, regulations, and other 
relevant documents; and conducted 12 focus groups with temporary 
retirees. This report examines (1) recent trends in the TDRL caseload 
size, (2) recent trends in the characteristics of those placed on the 
TDRL, (3) disability retirement outcomes for TDRL placements, (4) the 
adequacy of TDRL management, and (5) the adequacy of information 
provided to TDRL retirees. 

What GAO Found: 

TDRL caseloads within the Department of Defense (DOD) grew by 43 
percent, from 9,983 in fiscal year 2003 to 14,285 in fiscal year 2007. 
Growth in caseloads could be attributable to a combination of increases 
in the number of cases going through the military’s disability 
evaluation system, higher TDRL placement rates, and low numbers of 
cases removed from the TDRL relative to new cases added to the list. 

DOD-wide, servicemembers placed on the TDRL in each calendar year from 
2000 through 2007 varied little with respect to their military status, 
years of service, and disabilities. In each of these years, most TDRL 
placements had been active duty personnel, although the small 
proportion who had been reservists grew considerably. Most TDRL 
placements in each year also had fewer than 20 years of service and, 
over time, their average years of service declined. The disabilities 
most prevalent among TDRL placements were musculoskeletal, mental, or 
neurological in nature. Among those with mental and neurological 
disabilities, the incidence of post traumatic stress disorder and 
conditions related to traumatic brain injury increased substantially 
across the services. 

Although the experiences of temporary disability retirees varied, some 
outcomes were more common than others. DOD-wide, very few who were 
placed on the list between calendar years 2000 and 2003 returned to 
military service. Further, about half received a final determination 
within 3 years and, of those who ultimately received permanent 
disability benefits, 73 percent had final disability ratings that were 
no different than their initial ratings. Finally, only 7 percent of 
TDRL placements, DOD-wide, received a final disability rating that 
qualified them for permanent disability payment amounts higher than 
their TDRL payments. 

DOD and the services do not effectively manage key aspects of the TDRL 
process. The military does not systematically examine physical 
evaluation board (PEB) stability decisions for accuracy and consistency 
or routinely compile information on TDRL outcomes to better inform its 
assessments of stability. According to TDRL administrative staff, 
ensuring that medical reexaminations are done in TDRL cases at least 
once every 18 months is often a challenge. However, the military does 
not monitor the extent to which this requirement is met. Moreover, 
there is limited use of nonmilitary physicians to perform 
reexaminations, which could reduce burdens on medical treatment 
facilities. Finally, military procedures do not ensure consistent 
enforcement of TDRL rules. 

Information about the TDRL that the services provide is not always 
clear or complete and can be difficult to access. PEB findings forms 
provided to temporary retirees do not fully explain why service members 
are placed on the list or what is required of them. Temporary retirees 
reported that counseling related to PEB decisions was inconsistent and 
lacking in follow-through. Information from military pamphlets, 
brochures, fact sheets, and Web sites is often incomplete or difficult 
to find. Temporary retirees participating in our focus groups expressed 
considerable confusion about and dissatisfaction with their limited 
access to information and points of contact. 

What GAO Recommends: 

To improve TDRL management, DOD should evaluate the quality and 
consistency of TDRL decisions and take steps to ensure timely 
reexaminations and final disability determinations. The services should 
also provide adequate information about the TDRL to temporary retirees. 
Finally, the Congress may wish to reconsider the 5-year maximum for the 
TDRL. DOD concurred with each of our recommendations and provided 
technical comments that we incorporated in our report as appropriate. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-289]. For more 
information, contact Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-7215 or 
bertonid@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

TDRL Caseloads Have Grown for a Combination of Reasons: 

The Characteristics of TDRL Placements Have Changed Somewhat in Recent 
Years: 

DOD and the Services Do Not Provide Sufficient Management Attention to 
Key Aspects of the TDRL Process: 

TDRL Information Is Not Always Adequate or Accessible to Temporary 
Retirees: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Additional Data Tables: 

Appendix III: Sample Army Form: Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings 
(DA Form 199): 

Appendix IV: Sample Navy Form: Findings of the Physical Evaluation 
Board Proceedings: 

Appendix V: Sample Air Force Form: Findings and Recommendations of the 
USAF Physical Evaluation Board (AF Form 356): 

Appendix VI: Comments on the TDRL from Disabled American Veterans: 

Appendix VII: Comments on the TDRL from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans 
of America: 

Appendix VIII: Comments on the TDRL from the Military Officers 
Association of America: 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: TDRL Placement Rates, by Service, Fiscal Years 2003 through 
2007: 

Table 2: Proportion of Annual TDRL Placements with Less Than 20 Years 
of Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Table 3: Total Number of Individuals Placed on the TDRL, by Service, 
Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Table 4: Selected Characteristics of Military Treatment Facilities 
(MTF) Contacted: 

Table 5: Percent of Focus Group Participants from Each Service: 

Table 6: TDRL Information Sources Reviewed: 

Table 7: DOD-wide Disability Evaluation System Determinations, Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 8: Disability Evaluation System Determinations, by Service, 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 9: Number of Individuals Placed on and Removed from the TDRL, DOD-
wide, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 10: Number of Individuals Placed on and Removed from the TDRL, by 
Service, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Table 11: Number and Percent of TDRL Placements Who Had Been 
Reservists, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Table 12: Number and Percent of Reservists Receiving a Disability 
Evaluation System Determination, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001 through 
2007: 

Table 13: Mean Number of Years of Military Service for TDRL Placements 
Who Had Been Active Duty and Reserve Military, DOD-wide, Calendar Years 
2000 through 2007: 

Table 14: Mean Number of Years of Military Service for TDRL Placements 
Who Had Been Active Duty and Reserve Military, by Service, Calendar 
Years 2000 through 2007: 

Table 15: Percent of TDRL Placements with a Residual of a TBI as a 
Disabling Condition, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Table 16: Percent of TDRL Placements with Residual of a TBI Diagnosis, 
among Those with Any Disabling Neurological Conditions and Convulsive 
Disorders, by Service Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Table 17: Percent of TDRL Placements with PTSD as a Disabling 
Condition, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Table 18: Percent of TDRL Placements with a PTSD Diagnosis, among Those 
with Any Disabling Mental Disorders, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 
through 2007: 

Table 19: Final Disability Determinations as of August 2008 for TDRL 
Placements, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2003: 

Table 20: Number of Months until TDRL Placements for Calendar Years 
2000 through 2003 Received a Final Determination, by Service: 

Table 21: Initial Disability Ratings for TDRL Placements, DOD-wide, 
Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Table 22: Changes in Disability Ratings and Estimated Changes in 
Monthly Cash Payments, for Temporary Retirees Placed on the TDRL, DOD- 
wide, in Calendar Years 2000 through 2003 and Subsequently Transferred 
to the PDRL: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Final Disability Determination Process for TDRL Cases: 

Figure 2: TDRL Caseloads, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001 to 2007: 

Figure 3: Total DOD-Wide TDRL Caseloads and Numbers of Cases Added to 
and Removed from the TDRL, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Figure 4: Prevalence of Types of Disabling Conditions among 
Servicemembers, DOD-wide, Placed on the TDRL in Calendar Years 2000 
through 2007: 

Figure 5: Status of Calendar Years 2000 through 2003 TDRL Placements, 
as of August 2008: 

Figure 6: Number of Months until Final Disability Determination for 
Each Service's TDRL Placements, Calendar Years 2000 through 2003: 

Figure 7: Use of TDRL Determinations Relative to Other Types of 
Military Disability Determinations, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001 
through 2007: 

Figure 8: TDRL Reexamination Process: 

Figure 9: Example of Calculation of Disability Rating Contained in a 
PEB Findings Form: 

Abbreviations: 

DMDC: Defense Manpower Data Center: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

FAQ: frequently asked questions: 

OEF: Operation Enduring Freedom: 

OIF: Operation Iraqi Freedom: 

MTF: military treatment facility: 

PDRL: Permanent Disability Retired List: 

PEB: physical evaluation board: 

PEBLO: Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer: 

PTSD: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: 

TDRL: Temporary Disability Retired List: 

TBI: Traumatic Brain Injury: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

VASRD: Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

April 13, 2009: 

The Honorable Darrell Issa: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Issa: 

Since the beginning of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, 
the number of servicemembers entering the military disability 
evaluation system has grown, along with concerns that the system may 
not serve returning wounded warriors very well. Recent evaluations by 
GAO and others have found a number of problems,[Footnote 1] including 
lengthy case processing times, inadequate staff training, 
inconsistencies in disability ratings, and confusion and distrust on 
the part of servicemembers who must navigate the system. In an effort 
to streamline military disability determinations, the Department of 
Defense (DOD) is currently engaged in a joint pilot with the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (VA) to test the use of VA medical examinations to 
inform military disability decisions, but significant challenges to 
addressing weaknesses in the military's overall disability evaluation 
system remain. 

The Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) is one aspect of this 
system that is currently receiving increased attention. Servicemembers 
may be placed on the TDRL if they are found to be medically unfit for 
duty (disabled) by a military Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), but 
their service-related illnesses or injuries are not stable enough for 
the PEB to assign them a permanent disability rating. A determination 
assigning servicemembers to the TDRL temporarily retires and provides 
them with disability retirement benefits for up to 5 years while they 
wait for their disabling medical conditions to stabilize. Once a 
permanent disability rating can be assigned, depending on the rating 
and the servicemember's years of military service, the PEB may place 
those on the TDRL on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL), 
grant them a one-time severance payment, or find them fit to return to 
military service.[Footnote 2] 

Questions have been raised about the TDRL process, including whether it 
is administered appropriately and consistently across all services, 
whether the military provides adequate support and guidance to 
servicemembers who are placed on the list, and whether individuals may 
be staying on the list longer than necessary. To better understand the 
TDRL process and the issues surrounding it, this report provides 
information on (1) recent trends in the TDRL caseload size, (2) recent 
trends in the characteristics of servicemembers placed on the TDRL, (3) 
disability retirement outcomes for TDRL placements, (4) the adequacy of 
TDRL management, and (5) the adequacy of information provided to 
temporary retirees. 

To determine trends in TDRL caseload size, we analyzed data from DOD's 
Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File and administrative data 
maintained by PEBs in the Air Force, Army, and Navy. Data from these 
files were also used to determine the characteristics and TDRL outcomes 
of all those placed on the list each calendar year from 2000 through 
2007. We also reviewed and discussed with DOD officials the results of 
their own recently issued study of the TDRL, which also examined TDRL 
retirees' characteristics and outcomes.[Footnote 3] Based on 
information we obtained from the military about how the data in these 
files were collected and what measures were taken to assure their 
quality, we determined that these data were adequately reliable for the 
purposes of this study. To assess the adequacy of TDRL management, we 
reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and procedures. In addition, we 
interviewed military officials who are responsible for implementing 
these requirements across the services, including PEB members, Medical 
Command representatives, and PEB Liaison Officers (PEBLO) from military 
medical treatment facilities across the services--specifically, at 
three Air Force, four Army, and three Navy facilities. We assessed the 
adequacy of existing TDRL procedures relative to internal control 
standards for the federal government and the requirements of the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. To assess the adequacy 
of information provided to servicemembers who are placed on the TDRL, 
we also reviewed each service's PEB decision forms and other written 
materials, as well as information available on the services' Web sites. 
We also obtained the experiences and views of TDRL retirees across the 
services by conducting a series of 12 focus groups in June and August 
2008 with individuals who were on the TDRL. Focus groups were conducted 
in Norfolk, Va., Quantico, Va., San Antonio, Tex., and Killeen, Tex., 
because collectively, these areas provided us with access to a large 
pool of temporary retirees from each of the services. 

We conducted this review from March 2008 to April 2009 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 
based on our audit objectives. Additional information about our 
objectives, scope, and methodology is provided in appendix I. 

Background: 

The TDRL was established under the Career Compensation Act of 1949 to 
allow for temporary disability retirement pay and benefits for any 
servicemember who would be eligible for disability retirement benefits, 
were it not for the fact that their disability was not of a permanent 
nature. In 1986, the law was amended to allow the military to place 
individuals on the TDRL if it is determined that their disabilities 
could be of a permanent nature but are not stable enough to rate their 
severity. Under this criterion, a disability is considered not stable 
if the medical evidence indicates its severity will probably change 
enough sometime within the next 5 years to warrant an increase or 
decrease in the disability percentage rating. For example, cancer is a 
condition that may be determined to be permanent and stable when the 
disease has progressed to the point where treatments are unlikely to 
cure it, or determined to be permanent and unstable when the disease is 
being treated and the prognosis remains uncertain. 

Consistent with how the military administers its overall disability 
evaluation system, DOD gives each service responsibility for 
administering its own TDRL process. DOD provides some guidance for 
administering the TDRL, but gives the services broad latitude. 
Therefore, each service has established more detailed guidance for its 
own day-to-day processes related to the TDRL. The services have their 
own staff, or TDRL units, that oversee and process TDRL cases. Figure 1 
depicts the TDRL decision process in detail. 

Figure 1: Final Disability Determination Process for TDRL Cases: 

[Refer to PDF for image: flow-chart] 

Each service’s Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) decisions: 

Placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL): 
* Physical exam at least once every 18 months; 
* Removed after 5 years TDRL; 

Is the member fit for duty? 
Yes: Removed from the TDRL; 
No: Disability is stable? 
- No: Retain on TDRL to be re-evaluated; 
- Yes: Continue; 

What is the disability rating? 

0-20%: 
Member’s years of equivalent service, greater than or equal to 20 
years: Separated with monthly disability retirement benefit; 
Member’s years of equivalent service, less than 20 years: Separated with
lump sum disability severance; 

30% or higher: 
Placed on Permanent Disability Retired List. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of figure] 

To qualify for permanent disability retirement benefits, or placement 
on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL), a servicemember must 
have a service-related medical condition that renders him or her unfit 
for duty. The condition must be compensable,[Footnote 4] and the 
severity of the condition, expressed as a percentage rating, must be 30 
percent or higher.[Footnote 5] Typically, the percentage disability 
rating dictates the amount of monthly disability retirement payments to 
which a servicemember is permanently entitled.[Footnote 6] If, based on 
the medical evidence, the PEB determines that a servicemember's 
disabling condition is unstable--that the condition's current 
percentage rating could change within the next 5 years--the PEB will 
place the servicemember on the TDRL.[Footnote 7] In effect, placement 
on the TDRL postpones a final determination of the percentage rating 
and the associated monthly disability payments to which the retiree may 
eventually and permanently be entitled. 

Once placed on the TDRL, temporary retirees must undergo periodic 
medical reexaminations and evaluations by a PEB at least once every 18 
months. Under the law, assignment to the TDRL must end with a final 
determination at the end of 5 years, or sooner if the results of a 
medical reexamination indicate that the temporary retiree's condition 
is of a permanent nature and stable or the servicemember's rating drops 
below 30 percent. Typically, temporary retirees receive medical 
reexaminations in conjunction with PEB determinations. These 
examinations are usually conducted at military treatment facilities 
(MTF). Each service's TDRL administrative unit is responsible for 
determining when temporary retirees are due for medical reexaminations, 
notifying them of upcoming medical reexaminations and arranging for the 
examinations at MTFs, and following up with temporary retirees who fail 
to keep appointments. Temporary retirees are required to make sure the 
appropriate service's TDRL unit has their current address. Temporary 
retirees are also required to report for medical reexaminations at 
appointed times and places. Typically, reexaminations are scheduled by 
the relevant service's MTF that is nearest to the TDRL retiree's place 
of residence. If a temporary retiree is unable to keep an appointment, 
he or she is required to make alternate arrangements to complete the 
medical reexamination. If temporary retirees refuse or fail to report 
for required reexaminations, the services have the authority to 
terminate their temporary disability retirement pay. 

The benefits that servicemembers are entitled to while on the TDRL are 
similar to those for servicemembers who are placed on the PDRL. In most 
cases, the amount of TDRL monthly payments are calculated in the same 
way as PDRL monthly cash payments: retirees with fewer than 20 years of 
service receive their base pay at retirement, multiplied by the 
assigned percentage rating for their disabling medical conditions; 
[Footnote 8] servicemembers with 20 or more years of service receive 
the higher of either their base pay at retirement, multiplied by either 
their assigned percentage rating, or 2.5 times their years of service--
whichever is higher. Regardless of years of service, temporary retirees 
with a disability percentage rating of 50 percent or less are entitled 
to no less than 50 percent of their base pay at retirement. Both TDRL 
and PDRL monthly cash payments are subject to a cap of 75 percent of 
servicemembers' base pay and are subject to income taxes.[Footnote 9] 
In addition to receiving cash payments, temporary retirees are entitled 
to other military retirement benefits, including health insurance 
coverage for themselves, their spouses, and eligible dependents, and 
access to discounted goods and services through military exchange 
facilities. Finally, temporary retirees are also eligible to apply for 
VA disability compensation, which is not subject to income taxes. The 
military benefits of both permanent and temporary retirees are reduced, 
however, by the amount of VA benefits they receive.[Footnote 10] 

Evolving Purpose of the TDRL: 

While the Career Compensation Act of 1949 does not cite a specific 
purpose for the TDRL or state a rationale for the eligibility threshold 
of 30 percent, a 1948 report of the Advisory Commission on Service Pay 
(the Hook Commission), upon which much of the act was based, suggests 
that the TDRL may have been established as a means of "minimizing the 
loss of trained, experienced service members who, given additional 
time, might recover sufficiently to return to" the military.[Footnote 
11] Meanwhile, a recently issued report by DOD suggests that the 
purpose of the TDRL has also evolved into a vehicle to safeguard the 
interests of servicemembers whose conditions may develop into more 
serious permanent disabilities.[Footnote 12] The report also notes that 
other means might be used to accomplish the current purposes of the 
TDRL and suggests that changes may be warranted, including reducing the 
maximum tenure on the TDRL and establishing standardized guidance for 
classifying impairments as "permanent and stable." 

TDRL Caseloads Have Grown for a Combination of Reasons: 

TDRL caseloads grew DOD-wide by 43 percent from fiscal years 2003 
through 2007. Growth in TDRL caseloads could be related to a 
combination of increases in the number of cases going through the 
military's disability evaluation system, higher TDRL placement rates, 
and low numbers of cases removed from the TDRL relative to numbers of 
new cases being added to the list. 

TDRL Caseloads Grew from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007: 

While DOD-wide TDRL caseload size declined slightly from fiscal years 
2001 through 2003, it grew steadily from 9,983 cases in 2003, to 14,285 
cases in 2007, an increase of 43 percent. (See figure 2.) Air Force and 
Marine Corps caseloads had the highest rate of growth during this time 
(72 percent each), and the Army's caseload grew by 54 percent. The 
Navy's also grew during this time, but only by 14 percent. 

Figure 2: TDRL Caseloads, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001 to 2007: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Navy TDRL caseload: 4,094; 
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 1,753; 
Army TDRL caseload: 3,550; 
Air Force TDRL caseload: 881; 
Total: 10,278. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Navy TDRL caseload: 3,967; 
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 1,663; 
Army TDRL caseload: 3,554; 
Air Force TDRL caseload: 886; 
Total: 10,070. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Navy TDRL caseload: 3,884; 
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 1,659; 
Army TDRL caseload: 3,617; 
Air Force TDRL caseload: 823; 
Total: 9,983. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Navy TDRL caseload: 4,065; 
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 1,796; 
Army TDRL caseload: 4,105; 
Air Force TDRL caseload: 829; 
Total: 10,795. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Navy TDRL caseload: 4,284; 
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 2,042; 
Army TDRL caseload: 4,736; 
Air Force TDRL caseload: 962; 
Total: 12,024. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Navy TDRL caseload: 4,374; 
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 2,458; 
Army TDRL caseload: 5,124; 
Air Force TDRL caseload: 1,128; 
Total: 13,084. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Navy TDRL caseload: 4,438; 
Marine Corps TDRL caseload: 2,858; 
Army TDRL caseload: 5,576; 
Air Force TDRL caseload: 1,413; 
Total: 14,285. 

Source: Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File. 

[End of figure] 

Caseload Growth Has Been Related to Increases in New Disability Cases, 
Higher TDRL Placement Rates, and Relatively Few Removals from the List: 

A combination of factors contributed to the growth in TDRL caseloads 
between fiscal years 2003 and 2007.[Footnote 13] TDRL caseloads grew 
along with an increase in cases going through the disability evaluation 
system as a result of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. 
The number of disability evaluation system cases DOD-wide grew from 
about 16,500 in 2003, to about 20,000 in 2007, an increase of 21 
percent. (See appendix II, table 7.) Each service also experienced an 
overall growth in disability evaluation system cases during this 
period. (See appendix II, table 8.) 

Higher TDRL placement rates--the number of placements on the TDRL in a 
given year relative to the number of all cases receiving a disability 
determination that same year--also contributed to the growth in TDRL 
caseloads.[Footnote 14] (See table 1.) 

Table 1: TDRL Placement Rates, by Service, Fiscal Years 2003 through 
2007: 

Service: Air Force; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 7%; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 7%; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 10%; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 10%; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 15%. 

Service: Army; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 15%; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 14%; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 14%; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 15%; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 18%. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 19%; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 23%; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 28%; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 34%; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 38%. 

Service: Navy; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 27%; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 24%; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 27%; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 30%; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 31%. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 15%; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 16%; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 16%; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 18%; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 21%. 

Source: GAO analysis of PEB data from each service. 

[End of table] 

The increase in TDRL placement rates was most significant for the Air 
Force and the Marine Corps. Marine Corps and Navy placement rates were 
also consistently much higher than rates in the other services. 

Finally, the growth in the TDRL caseload DOD-wide may also be due, in 
part, to the relatively low numbers of cases removed from the TDRL, 
compared with the numbers of new cases added to the list each year. 
(See figure 3.) In fiscal year 2003, there were 18 more cases placed on 
the TDRL than were removed from the TDRL that year. By 2007, this 
difference grew to 1,442 more cases placed on than removed from the 
TDRL. Within each service, the difference between the numbers of cases 
added to and removed from the TDRL varied over time. (See appendix II, 
tables 9 and 10.) 

Figure 3: Total DOD-Wide TDRL Caseloads and Numbers of Cases Added to 
and Removed from the TDRL, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
TDRL caseload: 10,283; 
TDRL placements: 2,659; 
TDRL removals: 2,924. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
TDRL caseload: 10,070; 
TDRL placements: 2,625; 
TDRL removals: 2,671. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
TDRL caseload: 9,983; 
TDRL placements: 2,480; 
TDRL removals: 2,462. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
TDRL caseload: 10,795; 
TDRL placements: 3,170; 
TDRL removals: 2,015. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
TDRL caseload: 12,024; 
TDRL placements: 3,665; 
TDRL removals: 2,646. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
TDRL caseload: 13,084; 
TDRL placements: 3,672; 
TDRL removals: 2,848. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
TDRL caseload: 14,285; 
TDRL placements: 4,207; 
TDRL removals: 2,765. 

Sources: PEB data from each service and the Defense Manpower Data 
Center Retired Pay File. 

[End of figure] 

The Characteristics of TDRL Placements Have Changed Somewhat in Recent 
Years: 

DOD-wide, servicemembers placed on the TDRL in each calendar year from 
2000 through 2007 varied little with respect to their military status, 
years of service, and most prevalent disabling conditions. In each of 
these years, most TDRL placements had been active duty personnel, 
although the small proportion who had been reservists grew considerably 
between 2000 and 2007. Most TDRL placements in each year also had fewer 
than 20 years of service and, over time, their average years of service 
declined, DOD-wide. The disabilities most prevalent among TDRL 
placements have consistently been musculoskeletal, mental, or 
neurological in nature. Among those with mental and neurological 
disabilities, the incidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 
and residual conditions related to traumatic brain injury (TBI) 
increased substantially across all of the services. 

Most TDRL Placements Have Been Active Duty Personnel, though the 
Proportion Who Were Reservists Grew Significantly: 

Eighty-four percent of all servicemembers placed on the TDRL in 
calendar years 2000 through 2007 were active duty military. The percent 
of TDRL placements who were reservists grew DOD-wide, from about 8 
percent in 2000, to about 21 percent in 2006. (See appendix II, table 
11.) This overall increase appears to have been driven primarily by the 
Army, where the proportion of reservists among TDRL placements nearly 
tripled from 12 percent in 2000, to 35 percent in 2006. 

Although the majority of servicemembers placed on the TDRL have been 
active duty military, the overall number of reservists placed on the 
TDRL, though small, has generally been increasing over time. This 
increase is consistent with the activation of reservists needed for 
military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which in turn, added to 
the number of reservists who entered the disability evaluation system 
during this time.[Footnote 15] (See appendix II, table 12.) 

Most TDRL Placements Have Had Fewer Than 20 Years of Service, and Their 
Average Years of Service Has Declined: 

DOD-wide, the vast majority of TDRL placements have had fewer than 20 
years of service. This has changed little over time. Across the 
services, this proportion ranged from 91 percent for the Navy and Air 
Force, to 99 percent for the Marine Corps. (See table 2.) 

Table 2: Proportion of Annual TDRL Placements with Less Than 20 Years 
of Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Service: Air Force; 
Calendar year: 2000: 94%; 
Calendar year: 2001: 94%; 
Calendar year: 2002: 91%; 
Calendar year: 2003: 95%; 
Calendar year: 2004: 94%; 
Calendar year: 2005: 95%; 
Calendar year: 2006: 97%; 
Calendar year: 2007: 96%. 

Service: Army; 
Calendar year: 2000: 96%; 
Calendar year: 2001: 96%; 
Calendar year: 2002: 95%; 
Calendar year: 2003: 95%; 
Calendar year: 2004: 96%; 
Calendar year: 2005: 97%; 
Calendar year: 2006: 97%; 
Calendar year: 2007: 98%. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Calendar year: 2000: 94%; 
Calendar year: 2001: 95%; 
Calendar year: 2002: 97%; 
Calendar year: 2003: 96%; 
Calendar year: 2004: 97%; 
Calendar year: 2005: 98%; 
Calendar year: 2006: 99%; 
Calendar year: 2007: 99%. 

Service: Navy; 
Calendar year: 2000: 91%; 
Calendar year: 2001: 94%; 
Calendar year: 2002: 91%; 
Calendar year: 2003: 93%; 
Calendar year: 2004: 95%; 
Calendar year: 2005: 95%; 
Calendar year: 2006: 96%; 
Calendar year: 2007: 95%. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Calendar year: 2000: 94%; 
Calendar year: 2001: 95%; 
Calendar year: 2002: 94%; 
Calendar year: 2003: 94%; 
Calendar year: 2004: 96%; 
Calendar year: 2005: 96%; 
Calendar year: 2006: 97%; 
Calendar year: 2007: 97%. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center 
Retired Pay File. 

[End of table] 

Additionally, the average years of service decreased from 8 years among 
TDRL placements in calendar year 2000, to 6 years for placements in 
2007. (See appendix II, table 13.) In each service, the average 
decreased by 1 or 2 years. The overall decline among TDRL placements 
who had been Marine Corps reservists was particularly pronounced. Their 
average years of service decreased from 13 in 2000, to 4 in 2007. (See 
appendix II, table 14.) The decline in average years of service is 
likely associated, at least in part, with the increasing numbers of 
reservists on the TDRL, who typically take longer to accumulate years 
of service than active duty servicemembers. 

There Has Been Little Change in the Prevalence of Certain Types of 
Disabling Conditions: 

Between calendar years 2000 and 2007, there has been little change in 
the types of disabling conditions most common among servicemembers 
placed on the TDRL each year. Over this period, the most prevalent 
disabilities, DOD-wide, have largely fallen into 1 of 3 out of 15 
possible disability categories in the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD): (1) the musculoskeletal 
system, (2) mental disorders, and (3) neurological conditions and 
convulsive disorders.[Footnote 16] (See figure 4.) 

Figure 4: Prevalence of Types of Disabling Conditions among 
Servicemembers, DOD-wide, Placed on the TDRL in Calendar Years 2000 
through 2007: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

VASRD category: Musculoskeletal; 
Percent of cases: 33%. 

VASRD category: Neurological and convulsive; 
Percent of cases: 27%. 

VASRD category: Mental; 
Percent of cases: 24%. 

VASRD category: Respiratory[A]; 
Percent of cases: 13%. 

VASRD category: Digestive; 
Percent of cases: 7%. 

VASRD category: Genitourinary; 
Percent of cases: 4%. 

VASRD category: Cardiovascular; 
Percent of cases: 4%. 

VASRD category: Endocrine; 
Percent of cases: 4%. 

VASRD category: Special senses; 
Percent of cases: 4%. 

VASRD category: Hemic and lymphatic systems; 
Percent of cases: 2%. 

VASRD category: Skin; 
Percent of cases: 2%. 

VASRD category: Infectious diseases/immune/nutritional; 
Percent of cases: 2%. 

VASRD category: Auditory; 
Percent of cases: 2%. 

VASRD category: Gynecological/breast; 
Percent of cases: 1%. 

VASRD category: Dental/oral; 
Percent of cases: 0.2%. 

Source: GAO analysis of PEB data from each service. 

Note: Each TDRL retiree may have more than one disabling condition. 

[A] Asthma accounted for the largest proportion of respiratory 
disorders among annual DOD-wide TDRL placements in calendar years 2000 
through 2007. 

[End of figure] 

For DOD-wide placements in each calendar year from 2000 through 2007, 
the most common musculoskeletal disabling condition was degenerative 
arthritis, accounting for 24 percent of all musculoskeletal 
disabilities. Many of the other disabling conditions in this category 
were unspecified, although the combination of various types of spinal 
injuries accounted for about an additional 30 percent of 
musculoskeletal disabilities. 

The most common neurological conditions and convulsive disorders among 
TDRL placements were migraines and residuals of TBI,[Footnote 17] each 
accounting for 16 percent of all types of disabilities within this 
category.[Footnote 18] In recent years, the DOD-wide number of TDRL 
placements due to a residual condition from TBI[Footnote 19] has 
increased fourfold, DOD-wide, from 63 in 2000, to 274 in 2007. (See 
appendix II, table 15.) The incidence of residuals of TBI, as a 
percentage of all neurological conditions and convulsive disorders 
among TDRL placements grew from 10 percent in 2000, to 21 percent in 
2007. (See appendix II, table 16.) The Army experienced the greatest 
increase in TBI residuals cases--from 9 percent, to 26 percent--as the 
proportion of all neurological conditions and convulsive disorders 
among TDRL placements. 

The most common mental disorder among TDRL placements in calendar years 
2000 through 2007 was PTSD, which accounted for 26 percent of all 
mental disorders.[Footnote 20] The number of TDRL placements with PTSD 
increased dramatically, DOD-wide, from 44 in 2000, to 672 in 2007. (See 
appendix II, table 17.) PTSD incidence, as a percentage of all mental 
disorders among TDRL placements, also grew, DOD-wide, from 8 percent in 
2000, to 43 percent in 2007. (See appendix II, table 18.) The Marine 
Corps experienced the greatest increase--from 6 percent, to 52 percent. 

According to some DOD officials, the increase in TBI residuals and PTSD 
among TDRL placements may be due to the increasing numbers of 
servicemembers returning from military operations in Afghanistan and 
Iraq with these conditions. The increased incidence of these disabling 
conditions among TDRL placements could also be attributed to growing 
acceptance of PTSD as a disabling condition and more concerted efforts 
to identify residuals of TBI.[Footnote 21] 

Very Few TDRL Placements Returned to Military Service, Half Received a 
Final Determination within 3 Years, and Many Received a Final 
Disability Rating Identical to the Initial Rating: 

While there are variations in TDRL results across the services, some 
outcomes for this group were more common than others. Specifically, 
very few TDRL placements between calendar years 2000 and 2003 returned 
to military service. Further, about half received a final determination 
within 3 years or less. Finally, only 7 percent of TDRL placements, DOD-
wide, received a final disability rating that would have resulted in 
permanent disability payment amounts higher than their TDRL payments. 

Very Few TDRL Placements Returned to Military Service: 

DOD-wide, only 1 percent of those placed on the TDRL in calendar years 
2000 through 2003 eventually returned to military service. More than 80 
percent were determined to be permanently disabled. Of these, 5,465 
were placed on the PDRL. The remaining 2,315 received a lump sum 
severance payment for their disability because their final rating was 
lower than 30 percent and they had fewer than 20 years of military 
service.[Footnote 22] Another 9 percent of these placements received no 
military disability benefits after they were removed from the TDRL. 
(See figure 5.) 

Figure 5: Status of Calendar Years 2000 through 2003 TDRL Placements, 
as of August 2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Permanent Disability Retirement List (PDRL): 59%; 
Severance for permanent disability: 25%; 
No military disability benefits: 9%; 
Awaiting a final disability determination: 3%; 
Death: 3%; 
Returned to military service: 1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File. 

[End of figure] 

It should be noted that of all those placed on the PDRL, nearly 10 
percent (1,004) did not receive a final disability determination until 
some time after they were removed from the TDRL. As a result, they 
experienced a gap in benefits that, in 18 percent (176) of these cases, 
lasted longer than 6 months.[Footnote 23] 

Each service's distribution of outcomes for those placed on the TDRL in 
calendar years 2000 through 2003 differed somewhat from the 
distribution DOD-wide. (See appendix II, table 19.) Specifically, the 
Marine Corps and Air Force returned about 4 percent of temporary 
retirees to military service, while the Army and Navy returned less 
than one half of one percent of their respective TDRL retirees to 
active duty. 

About Half Received a Final Determination within 3 Years: 

About half (46 percent) of all those placed on the TDRL, DOD-wide, in 
calendar years 2000 through 2003 received a final determination on 
their case within 3 years.[Footnote 24] (See appendix II, table 20.) 
The amount of time spent waiting for a final determination varied by 
type of determination and by service. We found that, DOD-wide, final 
determinations placing temporary retirees on the PDRL happened somewhat 
sooner (median time, 56 months) than final determinations returning 
temporary retirees to civilian status with either no military 
disability benefits or with severance for a disability (median time, 60 
months). We also found that TDRL placements from the Air Force tended 
to receive final determinations in fewer months than TDRL placements 
from other services. (See figure 6.) For example, by 36 months after 
placement on the list, the percent of temporary retirees from the Air 
Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy who had received their final 
determination and were removed from the list were 83 percent, 57 
percent, 25 percent, and 22 percent, respectively. 

Figure 6: Number of Months until Final Disability Determination for 
Each Service's TDRL Placements, Calendar Years 2000 through 2003: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Months after placement on the TDRL: 0; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 100%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 100%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 100%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 100%. 

Months after placement on the TDRL: 10; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 96.1%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 97.9%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 99%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 99%. 

Months after placement on the TDRL: 20; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 59.9%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 71.9%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 97.7%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 98.1%. 

Months after placement on the TDRL: 30; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 28.6%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 52.4%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 81.4%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 79.4%. 

Months after placement on the TDRL: 40; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 15%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 40.8%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 76.1%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 74.1%. 

Months after placement on the TDRL: 50;	
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 9.7%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 30.1%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 64.9%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 57.8%. 

Months after placement on the TDRL: 60;	
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 4.5%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 17.8%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 42.2%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 30.6%. 

Months after placement on the TDRL: 70;	
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 1.3%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 2.9%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 4.1%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 2.9%. 

Months after placement on the TDRL: 80; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Air Force: 1.2%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Army: 1.1%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Marine Corps: 2.6%; 
Percent remaining on the TDRL, Navy: 1.1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center 
Retired Pay File. 

[End of figure] 

The law provides that a temporary retiree can spend no more than 5 
years on the TDRL and must receive a final determination upon the 
expiration of 5 years, in cases where the individual remains on the 
list for the full 5 years. However, we found that about 12 percent of 
TDRL placements in calendar years 2000 to 2003--1,163 cases--did not 
receive a final determination within the 5 years, although they were 
removed from the TDRL and their temporary retirement payments were 
discontinued. While most of these individuals--735--were eventually 
placed on the PDRL, none received monthly disability retirement 
payments between the time they were removed from the TDRL and the time 
they were placed on the PDRL. The amount of time that individuals spent 
waiting for a final determination in some cases was significant. For 
example, of the 1,004 cases that were first removed from the TDRL and 
then subsequently placed on the PDRL, there were 176 (18 percent) who 
waited longer than 6 months between being removed from the TDRL to 
being placed on the PDRL, and very few received any military disability 
payments during this period.[Footnote 25] 

When asked about these cases, DOD officials reported that extra time is 
needed to reach a final determination in some cases. For example, if 
TDRL placements who have been on the list nearly 5 years are having 
trouble scheduling a medical reexamination for their final 
determination, it may take an extra month or two before a final 
determination can be made. Also, DOD officials stated that they need 
the flexibility to allow some to remain on the TDRL more than 5 years 
because their disabilities are still not stable to rate at 5 years. 
Nevertheless, as stated earlier, a final determination must be made 
upon the expiration of 5 years on the TDRL, at which time disability is 
considered to be permanent and stable by statute. 

Final Disability Ratings for More Than Half Were Identical to Initial 
Ratings: 

Final disability ratings for temporary retirees determine whether 
retirees are ultimately eligible for a disability severance payment or 
permanent disability retirement. Final disability ratings also help 
determine the amount of permanent monthly payments TDRL placements are 
eligible for.[Footnote 26] DOD-wide, for those placed on the TDRL in 
calendar years 2000 through 2003 who were ultimately placed on the 
PDRL, 73 percent were assigned a final disability rating that was no 
different from their initial disability rating. [Footnote 27] (See 
appendix II, tables 21 and 22.) In other words, in these cases, the 
severity of disabilities when placed on the TDRL was no different from 
their severity when removed from it. Because one would expect to find a 
difference between the initial and final ratings when disabilities are 
determined to be unstable, the appropriateness of the TDRL placement 
decision in cases where initial and final ratings are identical could 
be called into question. 

Another 14 percent of those ultimately placed on the PDRL received a 
final rating that was lower than their initial one, indicating that 
their disabilities were less severe when they left the TDRL than when 
they were placed on it. Finally, 13 percent received a final rating 
that was higher, indicating that their disabilities were more severe 
when they left the TDRL. The differences between initial and final 
disability ratings for temporary retirees in each of the service 
branches who were placed on the PDRL were generally similar to the 
differences among these temporary retirees DOD-wide. 

Relatively Few Ultimately Qualified for PDRL Payments Higher Than Their 
TDRL Payments: 

According to military officials, being on the TDRL provides additional 
time for the military services to determine an individual's final 
disability rating, which could result in more accurate payments. 
Although we could not determine whether differences in initial and 
final ratings resulted in more accurate payments, we estimated that for 
the 5,465 TDRL placements that were placed on the PDRL, 7 percent would 
have received higher monthly disability retirement payments, 20 percent 
would have received the same disability payments, and 73 percent would 
have received lower payments, based on their final ratings. Lower 
permanent disability retirement payments were either due to a decrease 
in the disability rating or to the fact that PDRL payments are not 
subject to the TDRL minimum payment provision.[Footnote 28] For 
example, a temporary retiree with an initial rating of 40 percent who 
is moved to the PDRL with a final rating of 40 percent would receive 
PDRL payments lower than their TDRL payments. 

Of the 3,190 TDRL placements that were ultimately determined not to be 
eligible for permanent disability payments, 73 percent received a 
disability severance payment,[Footnote 29] and 26 percent had their 
disability benefits terminated when they were removed from the TDRL. 

DOD and the Services Do Not Provide Sufficient Management Attention to 
Key Aspects of the TDRL Process: 

DOD and the services do not effectively manage key aspects of the TDRL 
process. While TDRL determinations vary considerably across the 
services, neither DOD nor the services systematically examine PEB 
stability decisions for accuracy and consistency, although these 
decisions determine whether servicemembers are placed or retained on 
the TDRL. They also do not routinely compile information on TDRL 
outcomes that could better inform PEB determinations related to the 
stability of disabilities. Despite indications that the services face 
challenges providing medical reexaminations at least once every 18 
months as required by law, none monitor the extent to which this 
requirement is met. Moreover, although TDRL reexamination requirements 
can place burdens on TDRL retirees and MTFs, the use of examinations by 
nonmilitary physicians to reduce these burdens is limited. Finally, the 
services lack procedures to ensure consistent enforcement of TDRL 
rules. 

TDRL Placement and Retention Decisions Are Not Systematically Analyzed 
for Accuracy and Consistency: 

One of the primary goals of any disability evaluation system is making 
accurate and consistent disability determinations. In order to meet 
this goal, there should be appropriate policies, procedures, and 
control mechanisms in place to ensure that no one is placed or retained 
on the TDRL who does not meet the criteria established by law. Such 
policies, procedures, and control mechanisms are an important part of 
an effective system of internal controls. 

The accuracy and consistency of decisions to place servicemembers on 
the TDRL are particularly important because of the significant impact 
these decisions have on the military and on servicemembers' lives. 
According to military officials, placing servicemembers on the TDRL 
provides an opportunity for the military to recover some of its 
investment in recruitment and training by returning servicemembers to 
duty, and provides more time to make an appropriate disability 
determination in cases where a condition is likely to improve or 
deteriorate. Despite these potential benefits, many military officials 
noted that the TDRL is administratively burdensome and contributes to 
the workload of an already overburdened disability evaluation system. 
For servicemembers, benefits of being on the TDRL may include 
potentially higher disability payments or returning to military 
service. Conversely, many focus group participants said that being on 
the TDLR limited their ability to move forward in their lives, and they 
expressed confusion, uncertainty, and a sense of being adrift while on 
the TDRL. 

To ensure uniformity in military disability case processing and 
decision making, DOD requires each service to establish a quality 
assurance process. However, decisions related to the stability of 
disabilities for rating purposes--a key criterion for initially placing 
servicemembers on the TDRL--are not systematically examined within or 
across the services. For their part, the services do review some 
individual cases to ensure that the medical evidence supports the 
determination.[Footnote 30] However, they do not compare TDRL 
determinations made in cases with similar disabilities and other 
characteristics.[Footnote 31] 

Military officials we spoke with acknowledged that instability is 
defined broadly and can be open to different interpretations by the 
PEBs. Specifically, some military officials said that predicting 
whether or not a disability rating may fluctuate within 5 years is not 
always easy and can involve considerable professional judgment. In 
fact, our analysis shows that some services have been classifying 
disabilities as "unstable" more often than other services. TDRL 
determinations have consistently accounted for a larger proportion of 
all PEB determinations in the Navy and Marine Corps than in the other 
services. (See figure 7.) Specifically, between fiscal years 2001 and 
2007, TDRL determinations constituted 27 percent of all Navy PEB 
determinations and 26 percent of all Marine Corps PEB determinations. 
In contrast, TDRL determinations accounted for 15 percent of all Army 
PEB determinations and 11 percent of all Air Force PEB determinations. 

Figure 7: Use of TDRL Determinations Relative to Other Types of 
Military Disability Determinations, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001 
through 2007: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Percent of all PEB decisions per branch of service: 

Service: DOD; 

Fiscal year: 2001: 
TDRL: 17.6%; 
PDRL: 4.5%; 
Separated with severance: 53.3%; 
Found fit: 24.6%. 

Fiscal year: 2002: 
TDRL: 16.7%; 
PDRL: 5.2%; 
Separated with severance: 53%; 
Found fit: 25.1%. 

Fiscal year: 2003: 
TDRL: 15%; 
PDRL: 5.2%; 
Separated with severance: 57%; 
Found fit: 22.8%. 

Fiscal year: 2004: 
TDRL: 15.9%; 
PDRL: 4.4%; 
Separated with severance: 62.4%; 
Found fit: 17.3%. 

Fiscal year: 2005: 
TDRL: 15.9%; 
PDRL: 5%; 
Separated with severance: 59.9%; 
Found fit: 19.1%. 

Fiscal year: 2006: 
TDRL: 18.4%; 
PDRL: 5.4%; 
Separated with severance: 55.9%; 
Found fit: 20.2%. 

Fiscal year: 2007: 
TDRL: 21.1%; 
PDRL: 6.7%; 
Separated with severance: 52.3%; 
Found fit: 19.8%. 
			
Service: Air Force: 

Fiscal year: 2001: 
TDRL: 16.3%; 
PDRL: 9.7%; 
Separated with severance: 16.4%; 
Found fit: 57.7%. 

Fiscal year: 2002: 
TDRL: 10.5%; 
PDRL: 9.4%; 
Separated with severance: 27.8%; 
Found fit: 52.2%. 

Fiscal year: 2003: 
TDRL: 7.4%; 
PDRL: 9.5%; 
Separated with severance: 33.3%; 
Found fit: 49.9%. 

Fiscal year: 2004: 
TDRL: 7.4%; 
PDRL: 9.2%; 
Separated with severance: 40.8%; 
Found fit: 42.6%. 

Fiscal year: 2005: 
TDRL: 9.7%; 
PDRL: 11.6%; 
Separated with severance: 38.5%; 
Found fit: 40.3%. 

Fiscal year: 2006: 
TDRL: 10.4%; 
PDRL: 12.4%; 
Separated with severance: 34.3%; 
Found fit: 42.9%. 

Fiscal year: 2007: 
TDRL: 15.1%; 
PDRL: 15.1%; 
Separated with severance: 31.6%; 
Found fit: 38.2%. 
			
Service: Army: 

Fiscal year: 2001:	
TDRL: 15.1%; 
PDRL: 3.7%; 
Separated with severance: 72%; 
Found fit: 9.2%. 

Fiscal year: 2002:
TDRL: 16.2%; 
PDRL: 3.5%; 
Separated with severance: 71.3%; 
Found fit: 9%. 

Fiscal year: 2003:
TDRL: 14.5%; 
PDRL: 4.1%; 
Separated with severance: 74.2%; 
Found fit: 7.2%. 

Fiscal year: 2004:
TDRL: 14.4%; 
PDRL: 3.8%; 
Separated with severance: 75.7%; 
Found fit: 6%. 

Fiscal year: 2005:
TDRL: 13.5%; 
PDRL: 3.6%; 
Separated with severance: 75.3%; 
Found fit: 7.6%. 

Fiscal year: 2006:
TDRL: 14.8%; 
PDRL: 3.9%; 
Separated with severance: 72.1%; 
Found fit: 9.2%. 

Fiscal year: 2007:
TDRL: 17.7%; 
PDRL: 5.3%; 
Separated with severance: 68.2%; 
Found fit: 8.8%. 
			
Service: Marines: 

Fiscal year: 2001: 
TDRL: 17.5%; 
PDRL: 1.5%; 
Separated with severance: 61.6%; 
Found fit: 19.4%. 

Fiscal year: 2002:
TDRL: 19.8%; 
PDRL: 1.6%; 
Separated with severance: 63.3%; 
Found fit: 15.3%. 

Fiscal year: 2003:
TDRL: 19.5%; 
PDRL: 1.7%; 
Separated with severance: 64.2%; 
Found fit: 14.7%. 

Fiscal year: 2004:
TDRL: 23.2%; 
PDRL: 1.5%; 
Separated with severance: 56.6%; 
Found fit: 18.8%. 

Fiscal year: 2005:
TDRL: 28.3%; 
PDRL: 2.4%; 
Separated with severance: 45.9%; 
Found fit: 23.5%. 

Fiscal year: 2006:
TDRL: 34.4%; 
PDRL: 2.9%; 
Separated with severance: 46.1%; 
Found fit: 16.7%. 

Fiscal year: 2007:
TDRL: 38%; 
PDRL: 1.8%; 
Separated with severance: 44.4%; 
Found fit: 15.7%. 
			
Service: Navy: 

Fiscal year: 2001:	
TDRL: 24.6%; 
PDRL: 3.4%; 
Separated with severance: 40.8%; 
Found fit: 31.2%. 

Fiscal year: 2002:
TDRL: 25.7%; 
PDRL: 5.8%; 
Separated with severance: 36.1%; 
Found fit: 32.4%. 

Fiscal year: 2003:
TDRL: 26.7%; 
PDRL: 3.7%; 
Separated with severance: 39.8%; 
Found fit: 29.8%. 

Fiscal year: 2004:
TDRL: 24.3%; 
PDRL: 3.7%; 
Separated with severance: 40.9%; 
Found fit: 31.1%. 

Fiscal year: 2005:
TDRL: 27.3%; 
PDRL: 2.9%; 
Separated with severance: 37.6%; 
Found fit: 32.1%. 

Fiscal year: 2006:
TDRL: 29.7%; 
PDRL: 2.8%; 
Separated with severance: 37.1%; 
Found fit: 30.5%. 

Fiscal year: 2007:
TDRL: 30.9%; 
PDRL: 1.7%; 
Separated with severance: 33.3%; 
Found fit: 34%. 

Source: GAO analysis of PEB data from each service. 

Note: See appendix II, table 8 for numbers of placements by service. 

[End of figure] 

Another possible explanation for why some services classify 
disabilities as unstable more often than other services, according to 
DOD officials, is that there may be greater incidence of disabilities 
in some services that are more likely to be unstable. Currently there 
are no data available from either DOD or the services that could be 
used to determine why placement rates vary. Further, DOD does not 
compare PEB instability decisions across the services. As a result, DOD 
and the services have no way of knowing the extent to which the 
military is making consistent decisions. 

Furthermore, although most TDRL disability ratings did not change even 
after several years on the list, DOD and the services do not routinely 
compile and study how TDRL outcomes are related to different types of 
disabilities, even though this information could help inform future 
TDRL placement and retention decisions.[Footnote 32] For example, such 
information could shed additional light on which conditions are more 
likely to change over time and which ones are not. Meanwhile, 
participants in our focus groups often questioned the appropriateness 
of their placement on the TDRL, and the perceived unfairness of TDRL 
placement and retention decisions was a theme that emerged in each of 
our focus groups. Some of the military physicians we spoke with also 
questioned the value of having placed individuals with certain 
conditions, such as certain types of cancer, on the TDRL. For example, 
we were told that in one case, a cancer patient whose cancer had 
metastasized was placed on the list, even though he was not expected to 
recover. 

The Services Do Not Track Periodic Medical Reexaminations for 
Timeliness: 

Officials that we spoke with in each of the services told us that TDRL 
medical reexaminations do not necessarily occur every 18 months, as 
required by law. As previously noted, an effective system of internal 
controls would include policies, procedures, and mechanisms to help the 
services ensure that the requirements of the law are being met. 
However, the services do not collect data needed to know how often and 
why TDRL medical reexaminations are late or fail to occur, nor have 
they established performance measures or goals to guide the timely 
processing of TDRL reexaminations. 

The services' procedures for tracking TDRL cases and enforcing the 
statutory requirements are roughly similar. (See figure 8.) Each 
service assigns someone from their TDRL administrative unit to monitor 
when a TDRL case is due for a reexamination and to forward the details 
of the servicemember's case, including which medical tests need to be 
performed, to the MTF located nearest to the most current address on 
file for the temporary retiree. Typically, the MTF is notified 2 months 
before the reexamination is due, to allow the MTF time to schedule the 
examinations and forward orders to the temporary retiree, and to allow 
the temporary retiree to make other arrangements, if needed. 

Figure 8: TDRL Reexamination Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

TDRL section: Determine when re-evaluation is needed; 
Notify Medical treatment facility that exams are needed. 

Medical treatment facility: Collect medical evidence; 
Confirm appointments with TRDL retiree. 

TRDL retiree: attend appointments; 
Undergo examinations at Medical treatment facility. 

Medical treatment facility: send medical evidence to:
Physical evaluation board. 

Physical evaluation board: Decide to retain or remove TDRL retiree from 
list; 
Communicate decisions and findings to TRDL retiree. 
Provide notification of decision to TRDL section. 

Sources: GAO analysis of TDRL procedures; Art Explosion (images). 

[End of figure] 

The services do not track the extent to which TDRL reexaminations occur 
every 18 months, as required. However, late or missed TDRL medical 
reexaminations are not uncommon, based on our interviews with staff at 
MTFs, PEB officials, and focus group discussions with temporary 
retirees.[Footnote 33] When asked about the reasons for late or missed 
TDRL reexaminations, military officials and administrative staff 
responsible for scheduling them in each of the services offered several 
possible reasons. They cited temporary retiree noncompliance, such as 
failure to update contact information or to attend scheduled 
appointments, as an obstacle to completing examinations on time. They 
also acknowledged that the MTFs cannot always schedule examinations on 
time. This may be because they do not always receive the reexamination 
package far enough in advance from TDRL administrators or because 
appointment slots for certain medical specialties, particularly mental 
health, are limited. Staff at MTFs across the services also reported 
that TDRL cases are not always given the appropriate level of priority 
when appointments are scheduled.[Footnote 34] Nevertheless, without 
better data, the services cannot effectively identify and address the 
reasons for delayed or missed reexaminations. 

There Is Only Limited Use of Nonmilitary Physicians to Reduce Burdens 
Associated with TDRL Reexaminations: 

To better leverage limited resources and expedite TDRL case processing, 
current service procedures allow MTF's to rely on the results of 
medical examinations performed by civilian and VA physicians to meet 
reexamination requirements. However, staff at most MTFs we contacted 
said that they knew of few instances in which the military allowed TDRL 
reexaminations to be conducted by nonmilitary physicians to reduce the 
travel burden on a temporary retiree, or to ease MTF workloads. 

Generally, TDRL administrators refer temporary retirees to the closest 
MTF that has all medical specialties needed to evaluate their case. 
However, many temporary retirees do not live near an MTF with all 
needed medical specialties. Staff at some MTFs reported that, among 
those for whom they schedule TDRL reexaminations, between one-quarter 
to one-half travel more than a few hours to be examined-- despite 
having easier access to nonmilitary physicians. One MTF staff member we 
spoke with described a case in which a temporary retiree from the Navy 
traveled by car for nearly 10 hours--approximately 460 miles-
-from Sacramento, Calif., to Camp Pendleton Hospital in southern 
California. In another case, an MTF staff member described a case in 
which an Army retiree drove for nearly 8 hours--approximately 480 
miles--from Wisconsin to Ireland Community Hospital in Fort Knox, Ky. 
Lengthy travel can be particularly burdensome for those who experience 
pain as a result of their medical conditions or for those who have 
limited finances or inflexible employment situations.[Footnote 35] 
Moreover, according to some MTF staff, some temporary retirees have 
told them that they fear losing their job if they miss work to keep a 
medical appointment for a TDRL reexamination. 

s noted, the limited availability of appointment slots for certain 
medical specialties and a lack of priority in scheduling at some MTFs 
can contribute to delays in completing TDRL reexaminations. This may be 
a result of rising MTF workloads, caused by increasing numbers of 
injured servicemembers returning from combat and increasing disability 
caseloads. 

Despite travel burdens for some temporary retirees and difficulties in 
completing timely TDRL reexaminations at MTFs in the face of heavy 
workloads, the use of nonmilitary physicians to help prepare TDRL 
medical examination reports has been limited, according to MTF staff. 
Military officials said that this is because VA and civilian 
physicians, who are not subject to DOD requirements, are not always 
familiar with military disability evaluation requirements and may not 
include information that the services need to make a determination 
about whether a temporary retiree should be removed from the TDRL. 
However, military officials said that this could be addressed by 
providing clearer guidance to nonmilitary physicians on how to prepare 
TDRL reexamination reports. It should be noted that one VA hospital is 
already conducting medical examinations for three MTFs as part of the 
joint DOD-VA disability evaluation pilot[Footnote 36]. 

The Services' Procedures Do Not Ensure Consistent Enforcement of TDRL 
Rules: 

DOD requires temporary retirees to submit to a periodic medical 
examination at least once every 18 months. In addition, the services 
require temporary retirees to provide them with current contact 
information to facilitate these examinations. Although the services do 
not collect data on the extent to which temporary retirees fail to 
comply with reexamination requirements, MTF staff in each service 
reported problems with temporary retirees not showing up for scheduled 
appointments. Some MTF staff that we spoke with said that canceled TDRL 
appointments due to temporary retirees' failure to show up happened in 
relatively few cases each month, while others said that this happened 
much more often. 

Although DOD and military service regulations allow for suspending TDRL 
pay if temporary retirees fail to satisfy these requirements, the 
procedures in place across the services are insufficient to ensure that 
these provisions are enforced consistently. For example, when temporary 
retirees fail to update their contact information, each service's 
procedures specify what TDRL staff should do to locate and contact 
them, but do not clearly specify at what point these efforts should be 
discontinued. In addition, when temporary retirees fail to keep 
appointments for medical reexaminations, these procedures allow for 
rescheduling them, but do not specify how many appointments the 
retirees can miss before TDRL monthly payments are stopped or what 
constitutes a valid reason for missing an appointment. As a result of 
the lack of specificity, the number of steps taken at different MTFs to 
locate and encourage temporary retirees to go to their reexaminations 
before sending these cases back to TDRL administrators for a stop-pay 
decision may vary widely. 

Service officials said that the flexibility they have in making stop-
pay decisions allows them to consider extenuating circumstances, 
including the potential impact that temporary retirees' disabilities 
may have on their ability to comply. For example, those with certain 
brain injuries or mental health conditions may have trouble remembering 
what they are required to do while on the TDRL. Stopping pay in these 
circumstances may be unfair to the temporary retiree, particularly when 
servicemembers have dependents who rely on these benefits. However, DOD 
regulations do not provide guidance to the services on permissible 
exceptions. 

TDRL Information Is Not Always Adequate or Accessible to Temporary 
Retirees: 

Information about temporary disability retirement that the services 
provide to those they place on the TDRL is not always clear or complete 
and can be difficult for TDRL retirees to access. The official PEB 
findings forms, themselves, do not fully explain the reason for an 
individual's placement on the list or what is required of the TDRL 
retiree. Counseling provided by PEBLOs was reported to be inconsistent 
and lacking in follow-through, while the information contained in the 
services' pamphlets, brochures, and fact sheets was not always 
complete. Military Web sites that might have provided more thorough and 
ongoing information were also incomplete or difficult to find. TDRL 
retirees participating in our focus groups expressed considerable 
confusion about and dissatisfaction with their limited access to 
information and contacts. 

PEB Findings Forms Lack Important Information about the TDRL and Can Be 
Confusing: 

A PEB findings form is used to document each PEB disability decision. A 
copy of this form is also given to servicemembers to notify them of the 
PEB's decision in their case. In addition to indicating the decision, 
each service's PEB findings form provides basic information about all 
disabling conditions--how each is related to military service, a 
disability rating for each disabling condition, and an overall rating--
and the servicemember's years of qualifying service. When the decision 
is made to place a servicemember on the TDRL, the PEB findings form can 
lack important information about the TDRL, and the information that is 
provided can be confusing. (See apps. III, IV, and V for examples of 
each service's PEB findings form.) For example, in TDRL cases, the 
services are not required to explain the following on the findings 
form: 

* Why disability retirement benefits were granted temporarily rather 
than permanently--specifically, that the PEB was unable to determine, 
based on the medical evidence at that time, what the servicemember's 
permanent disability rating should be. 

* When a final disability decision will be made--specifically, that the 
PEB will determine the servicemember's permanent disability rating when 
the medical evidence shows that the disabling condition has stabilized 
or when the TDRL retiree has been on the list for 5 years, whichever 
comes first. 

We examined a limited number of actual PEB findings forms that 
temporary retirees had received. None clearly explained why the 
servicemembers were granted temporary versus permanent disability 
retirement, when they could expect to receive a final disability 
decision, or which disabling conditions have been determined to be 
unstable. Further, the Army's finding form does not specify for a TDRL 
determination which, if any, of the listed conditions is considered 
permanent and stable. It does, however, include standard language about 
the servicemember's duty to keep the Army informed about their current 
mailing address and to report for medical reexaminations associated 
with PEB determinations, as well as when the servicemember's first TDRL 
reexamination is likely to occur. In contrast, the Air Force, Marine 
Corps, and Navy PEB findings forms do not include information about the 
servicemember's responsibilities while on the list or when their first 
reexamination is likely to occur, but they do indicate that the 
servicemember has a medical condition that may be permanent. 

In some cases, the information in PEB findings forms is presented in a 
way that makes it difficult for servicemembers to understand, 
regardless of the disability decision made in their case. Based on the 
information contained in their PEB findings forms, some TDRL retirees 
in our focus groups found it difficult to understand how ratings for 
individual disabling conditions are combined into a single overall 
disability rating. For example, one Army PEB findings form that we 
reviewed presented the equation, shown in figure 9, to demonstrate how 
one servicemember's overall disability rating had been calculated. 

Figure 9: Example of Calculation of Disability Rating Contained in a 
PEB Findings Form: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

CR: 50 + 40 = 70 + 20 + 76 + 20 + 81 + 10 + 85 = 90 percent. 

Source: Copy of Army PEB findings form received from a temporary 
retiree. 

[End of figure] 

Although the equation includes all of the percentage ratings for each 
of the servicemember's rated conditions, it is not clear as to how the 
numbers correspond to each percentage rating and how each of the listed 
percentages logically results in the final placement rating. 
Furthermore, many TDRL retirees in our focus groups indicated their 
difficulty in understanding this information. 

PEBLO Counseling Is Not Always Useful: 

DOD requires that servicemembers evaluated by a PEB be provided 
counseling about the significance and consequences of their PEB 
disability determination and any associated rights and benefits. For 
temporary retirees, this should occur at the time a PEB places them on 
the list and when any subsequent decisions to retain them on the list 
are made. In practice, each service provides this counseling through a 
PEBLO.[Footnote 37] PEBLOs have a critical role in helping temporary 
retirees understand what it means to be placed on the TDRL. According 
to focus group discussions, however, PEBLO counseling was not 
necessarily thorough or consistent. It involved meeting one-on-one with 
a PEBLO in some cases and participating in a group meeting in others. 
While some focus group participants knew of someone they could call if 
they needed information about the TDRL, many did not. Moreover, the 
counseling that temporary retirees receive also appears to vary across 
services. Air Force and Navy procedures allow for PEBLO counseling to 
be available at any time throughout the disability evaluation process, 
while the Army requires only that counseling be provided at specific 
times in the process. Although officials from each of the services told 
us that temporary retirees are provided with a point of contact, the 
lack of access to someone who could answer their questions was a 
repeated theme in our focus groups. 

There are several reasons why the quality of PEB counseling may vary 
across the services. In a previous report,[Footnote 38] we found that, 
although each service employs PEBLO counselors in accordance with DOD 
rules, each places them in a different organizational unit, provides 
them with different levels of training, and begins the counseling 
process at different points in the disability evaluation process. 

In each of our focus groups, the quality of counseling was a common 
theme, and not all participants remembered receiving counseling at the 
time they were placed on the TDRL. Although some participants in each 
of our focus groups said that counseling had been helpful, the 
prevailing opinion across all groups was that it did not meet their 
needs and that it was not helpful. 

Additional Information about the TDRL Is Not Always Complete or Easily 
Accessible: 

In addition to what appears on the PEB findings form and what is 
provided by PEBLOs, each of the services provides information about the 
TDRL through written handouts.[Footnote 39] However, the additional 
material provided by the Air Force and Navy does not always address 
what temporary retirees indicated was confusing or of most importance 
to them. Specifically, the Air Force and Navy material does not always 
include information about the overall disability evaluation system, 
stability of disabilities, the consequences of not complying with TDRL 
requirements, or what the eventual outcome of a TDRL case might be. It 
also does not always provide a correct point of contact for questions 
temporary retirees might have about the TDRL after they have read 
through this additional material. The information the Air Force and 
Navy have developed includes general information about the TDRL 
process. The Air Force's one-page fact sheet offers a broad explanation 
of why a servicemember may be placed on the TDRL, the rights and 
responsibilities of TDRL retirees, and points of contact for general 
questions about retired pay. It does not provide specific information 
servicemembers may need about the TDRL, such as who servicemembers may 
notify when they need to report changes to their addresses and phone 
numbers. The Navy also has a brochure that answers seven questions 
about TDRL pay and benefits, and like the Air Force fact sheet, offers 
a broad explanation of why a servicemember may be placed on the TDRL 
and the rights and responsibilities of temporary retirees. The Navy 
brochure also provides a list of administrative offices that temporary 
retirees may contact about pay and benefits; however, the phone number 
listed for TDRL information was not working when we called it.[Footnote 
40] Additionally, while some MTF staff reported that paying for travel 
costs up-front can be an issue for temporary retirees with limited 
finances, the Navy brochure does not mention that temporary retirees 
may request an advance payment for travel costs prior to incurring 
them. Lastly, the Air Force and Navy materials do not explain that in 
addition to loss of monthly pay, noncompliance with TDRL requirements 
may also result in a loss of health insurance, including coverage for 
family members. 

n contrast, the Army provides temporary retirees with a frequently 
asked questions (FAQ) sheet, with answers to 25 questions about why a 
servicemember is placed on the TDRL, their rights and responsibilities 
while on the TDRL, potential final determinations, and points of 
contact servicemembers can go to for answers to their questions about 
the TDRL. The Army has also developed a handbook that describes the 
entire disability evaluation process and includes basic information 
about the TDRL.[Footnote 41] 

Information on the TDRL was also generally available on service Web 
sites, but we found that it was not easy to locate and was often 
incomplete. None of the services' home pages included a direct link to 
TDRL information, and simple searches for TDRL information on each of 
these pages did not lead directly to TDRL information. A more lengthy 
search of the services' individual Web sites eventually led to 
information about the TDRL, although the amount of information varied 
by branch. On the Army's Web site, information on the TDRL could be 
found by accessing a link to the Army's Physical Disability Evaluation 
System handbook. Although the Navy's printed TDRL brochure offered a 
Web address for TDRL information, the address was not available when we 
attempted to access it. However, the Bureau of Naval Personnel Web page 
included a TDRL information page that offered a series of links to 
relevant regulations, potential final determinations for temporary 
retirees, and likely reexamination time frames. A phone number was also 
provided on this Navy Web page, but it was the same, nonworking phone 
number provided in the Navy's printed brochure. The Air Force Web site 
included a brief summary of the TDRL, but lacked information about 
noncompliance with TDRL requirements and the 5-year limit on receipt of 
temporary retirement benefits. 

Based on the results of our focus groups with temporary retirees, in 
particular the gaps in information we found in the PEB findings forms 
and lack of a specific TDRL point of contact, appear to result in 
confusion about the TDRL and dissatisfaction with placement on the 
list. In most of our focus groups, there was confusion about why 
participants had been placed on the TDRL or what participants might 
expect throughout the TDRL process. In some cases, participants were 
unable to reconcile what they knew about the TDRL with the 
circumstances in their individual case. Specifically, there was little 
understanding across our focus groups of the concept of stability and 
how it applied to their particular disabilities. Furthermore, in 
several focus groups, participants said that they had learned what they 
were required to do while on the TDRL through their own initiative, 
largely relying on contacts with colleagues or their own research to 
obtain information about the purpose of TDRL reexaminations and 
decisions to retain them on the TDRL as opposed to receiving permanent 
disability. 

Conclusions: 

The growth in TDRL caseloads further taxes limited resources available 
to the military disability evaluation system, which is already 
struggling to efficiently process increasing numbers of cases involving 
ill and injured servicemembers. Processing TDRL cases adds to the 
complexity of this system and to its cost. The TDRL process also has a 
significant impact on servicemembers' lives. If not managed effectively 
and efficiently, it can deprive servicemembers of timely, appropriate, 
and fair disability determinations, and prevent many from moving on 
with their lives after incurring service-related disabilities. 

There are several indications that the services' management of the TDRL 
is problematic. Currently, DOD's quality assurance procedures do not 
take advantage of available data on outcomes in past TDRL cases to 
avoid postponing final disability determinations for servicemembers 
with disabilities whose severity is unlikely to change. Current quality 
assurance procedures also do not provide for the systematic review of 
TDRL placement decisions. Therefore, the DOD has no way of knowing 
whether these placements are appropriate or consistent. Further, DOD 
does not have effective mechanisms for holding staff accountable for 
the timeliness of TDRL reexaminations or otherwise ensuring the overall 
efficiency of TDRL case processing. Without a system for monitoring the 
timeliness of reexaminations, a clear policy for addressing 
noncompliance, and a strategy for leveraging nonmilitary resources to 
complete reexaminations, DOD cannot avoid sometimes lengthy delays in 
final determinations in TDRL cases. Further, by failing to make a final 
determination as soon as temporary retirees are removed from the TDRL, 
the services are denying some temporary retirees benefits to which they 
are entitled. Finally, inadequate information on PEB finding forms 
about why individuals are placed on the TDRL and little or no access to 
a point of contact that can address temporary retirees' questions about 
the process, make it less transparent. This may generate distrust and 
frustration among many temporary retirees and affect their ability and 
willingness to comply with TDRL requirements. Without a better 
understanding of the information needs of temporary retirees and more 
proactive contact with them, DOD is missing an important opportunity to 
remove potential obstacles to temporary retirees' compliance with TDRL 
requirements. 

In addition to the TDRL management issues we identified, the outcomes 
we found in TDRL cases raise questions about the list's design and 
purpose. In most of the cases we reviewed, the temporary retiree 
received a permanent disability rating well before the 5-year TDRL 
limit, which suggests that the current TDRL time limit could be 
shortened. With only 1 in 100 temporary retirees returning to active 
duty, the TDRL also does not appear to be a very effective mechanism 
for meeting the needs of the military. Finally, most temporary retirees 
received a final rating equal to or lower than their initial one, and 
very few were eventually eligible for higher permanent disability 
payments. As a result, the TDRL simply postponed the inevitable for 
many with service-related disabilities and delayed their transition 
from military to civilian life. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To ensure that TDRL placement and retention decisions are appropriate 
and consistent, the Secretary of Defense should take the following two 
actions: 

* Direct the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army, and Navy to better 
inform their decisions about whether or not to place or retain someone 
on the TDRL by taking into account data from past TDRL cases on 
outcomes for particular types of disabilities; and: 

* systematically review the appropriateness and consistency of each 
service's PEB decisions regarding the stability of disabilities. 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

To ensure that TDRL reexaminations occur at least once every 18 months, 
the Secretary of Defense should take the following four actions: 

* Direct each service to track and periodically report on the 
timeliness of medical reexaminations in TDRL cases; 

* develop DOD-wide standards and goals for the timeliness of TDRL 
reexaminations; 

* establish a clearer policy specifying how the services should enforce 
the requirements that temporary retirees submit to periodic 
reexaminations and notify TDRL administrators when they have a change 
of address; and: 

* expand the use of nonmilitary physicians for conducting TDRL 
reexaminations, in accordance with DOD guidance. 

To prevent unnecessary delays in permanent disability determinations 
for temporary retirees and gaps in the receipt of disability benefits 
they are entitled to, the Secretary of Defense should take the 
following action: 

* Direct the services to ensure that temporary retirees receive a final 
determination upon expiration of their 5 years on the TDRL, as required 
by law. 

To ensure that temporary retirees receive adequate information to 
understand why they are placed on the list and the importance of 
complying with TDRL requirements, we recommend that the Secretaries of 
the Air Force, Army, and Navy take the following three actions: 

* Assess the adequacy of information they provide regarding the TDRL, 
including the information contained on their PEB findings forms and 
other materials, and provided by PEBLOs, and make improvements where 
needed; 

* take steps to encourage ongoing contact between temporary retirees 
and TDRL administrators by, for example, maintaining a working and 
easily accessible TDRL administrative telephone hotline for temporary 
retirees; and: 

* improve access to Web-based information about the TDRL. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Given the low number of temporary retirees who return to the military, 
the high proportion who eventually become eligible to receive permanent 
military disability retirement benefits, and the added cost to the 
military of administering TDRL cases, the Congress may wish to consider 
shortening the current 5-year maximum tenure on the TDRL. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD and the services for review 
and comments. DOD provided written comments, which are reproduced in 
appendix IX. DOD indicated that it concurs with each of our 
recommendations, with comments in a few cases. 

With respect to our recommendation that DOD establish a clearer policy 
for how the services should enforce TDRL requirements for temporary 
retirees, DOD commented that the services provide servicemembers 
directions regarding TDRL requirements that they must comply with, and 
that it is not reasonable to assume that DOD can keep track of every 
change of address if temporary retirees fail to keep the information 
current. We agree. However, our recommendation calls for DOD to 
establish more specific guidelines on when and what action should be 
taken in response to temporary retirees' failure to comply with TDRL 
requirements, and is intended to ensure equitable treatment in all 
cases of noncompliance across the services. 

DOD noted that our recommendation to expand the use of nonmilitary 
physicians for conducting TDRL reexaminations should include a 
statement that nonmilitary physicians should be "trained in and will 
accept examinations of individuals using VA-approved templates." DOD 
also indicated that "use of non-military physicians should also include 
specific reference to reexaminations at non-military and non-VA 
facilities given training and qualification consistent with Title 10 
and Title 38, USC." We believe that our recommendation falls within the 
services' current authority to use reports of medical examinations from 
nonmilitary physicians and facilities under DOD Instruction 1332.38, 
which assigns the responsibility for assuring the adequacy of these 
examinations to MTFs. In addition, this instruction currently 
encourages physicians performing reexaminations for the TDRL to use 
VA's physician's guide. Our recommendation is not suggesting a change 
to the underlying guidelines prescribing the use of nonmilitary 
physicians; rather, we are recommending that use of nonmilitary 
physicians should be expanded. In response to DOD's comments, we have 
added the phrase "in accordance with DOD guidance" to our 
recommendation. 

Finally, DOD concurred with our recommendations for ensuring that 
temporary retirees are provided easier access to military personnel who 
can answer their TDRL questions and to Web-based TDRL information. It 
also commented that both are readily available to temporary retirees. 
While we acknowledge the services' current efforts in this area, they 
do not appear to be enough to meet the needs of temporary retirees. The 
results of our review of the accessibility of TDRL points of contact 
and Web-based information, as well as temporary retirees' reports of 
difficulty accessing both, indicate a need for improvement in these 
areas. 

DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the 
report as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix X. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Daniel Bertoni: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

The objectives of our review were to examine (1) recent trends in the 
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) caseload size, (2) recent 
trends in the characteristics of servicemembers placed on the TDRL, (3) 
disability retirement outcomes for TDRL placements, (4) the adequacy of 
TDRL management, and (5) the adequacy of information provided to 
temporary retirees. 

Identifying Trends in TDRL Caseload Size: 

To identify trends in TDRL caseload size, we examined data provided by 
the Department of Defense's (DOD) Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) 
on the size and makeup of each service's annual TDRL caseload for 
fiscal years 2001 through 2007. More specifically, we compared TDRL 
caseload sizes in the last month of each fiscal year (September) over 
time, both within and across the services. We also compared the 
relative proportion of former active duty and reserve servicemembers in 
the annual TDRL caseload over time. 

To determine what could have contributed to the growth in TDRL 
caseloads, we compared the trend in TDRL caseload size to the trend in 
the (1) number of cases that received disability evaluation system 
determinations, (2) TDRL placement rate, and (3) number of cases 
removed from the TDRL each year,[Footnote 42] for fiscal years 2001 
through 2007. We obtained these data from: 

* the Air Force Military Personnel Data System; 

*the Army Physical Disability Case Processing System; and: 

*the Joint Disability Evaluation System, which captures Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB) case data for the Navy and Marine Corps. 

To assess the reliability of each of these systems, we reviewed 
documentation related to each that provided information such as record 
layout, data dictionary, how data were collected and stored, measures 
taken to ensure data quality, and screens used to extract the data we 
required. We also interviewed military personnel knowledgeable about 
each system to obtain more detailed information about the system and 
the data in it. Based on our assessment, we determined that data from 
each of these systems were sufficiently reliable for our analyses. 

Determining the Characteristics of TDRL Placements: 

To identify the characteristics of individuals placed on the TDRL each 
month from January 2000 through December 2007 (see table 3), we 
analyzed monthly transaction-level data DMDC had extracted for us from 
its Retired Pay File,[Footnote 43] a database containing information on 
individual retirees from the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. 

Table 3: Total Number of Individuals Placed on the TDRL, by Service, 
Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Service: Air Force; 
Calendar year: 2000: 334; 
Calendar year: 2001: 382; 
Calendar year: 2002: 314; 
Calendar year: 2003: 281; 
Calendar year: 2004: 318; 
Calendar year: 2005: 439; 
Calendar year: 2006: 514; 
Calendar year: 2007: 685; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: 1,311; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: 3,267. 

Service: Army; 
Calendar year: 2000: 961; 
Calendar year: 2001: 1,039; 
Calendar year: 2002: 1,054; 
Calendar year: 2003: 999; 
Calendar year: 2004: 1,549; 
Calendar year: 2005: 1,771; 
Calendar year: 2006: 1,553; 
Calendar year: 2007: 1,764; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: 4,053; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: 10,690. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Calendar year: 2000: 314; 
Calendar year: 2001: 315; 
Calendar year: 2002: 305; 
Calendar year: 2003: 328; 
Calendar year: 2004: 516; 
Calendar year: 2005: 615; 
Calendar year: 2006: 827; 
Calendar year: 2007: 800; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: 1,262; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: 4,020. 

Service: Navy; 
Calendar year: 2000: 676; 
Calendar year: 2001: 788; 
Calendar year: 2002: 628; 
Calendar year: 2003: 612; 
Calendar year: 2004: 734; 
Calendar year: 2005: 788; 
Calendar year: 2006: 880; 
Calendar year: 2007: 855; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: 2,704; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: 5,961. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Calendar year: 2000: 2,285; 
Calendar year: 2001: 2,524; 
Calendar year: 2002: 2,301; 
Calendar year: 2003: 2,220; 
Calendar year: 2004: 3,117; 
Calendar year: 2005: 3,613; 
Calendar year: 2006: 3,774; 
Calendar year: 2007: 4,104; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: 9,330; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: 23,938. 

Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File. 

[End of table] 

To determine the characteristics of temporary retirees placed on the 
TDRL in calendar years 2000 through 2007--including disability rating 
percentages, their years of service, and the proportions who were 
formerly active duty servicemembers and reservists--we analyzed data 
for these individuals the DMDC extracted for us from their Retired Pay 
File. 

To identify disabilities among temporary retirees placed on the TDRL in 
calendar years 2000 through 2007, we obtained the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) diagnostic 
codes associated with each temporary retiree's case from the services' 
PEBs, and grouped these disabilities under the appropriate disability 
categories provided in the VASRD. 

Determining TDRL Outcomes for Those Placed on the List: 

We focused many of our analyses of TDRL outcomes on individuals placed 
on the list in calendar years 2000 through 2003. At least 5 years (the 
maximum amount of time someone can spend on the TDRL) had elapsed since 
these individuals had been placed on the list, so a final disability 
determination should already have been made in each case.[Footnote 44] 

To determine what final PEB disability determinations were for TDRL 
placements from calendar years 2000 through 2007, we examined monthly 
transactions from January 2000 through August 2008 for each case, 
contained in the data we received from DMDC, to identify movement off 
the TDRL due to (1) placement on the PDRL, (2) separation from the 
service, (3) death, or (4) return to active duty.[Footnote 45] We 
counted the first of these pay actions encountered after the date of 
placement on the TDRL as the final disability determination in that 
case. We examined data we had received from the relevant PEB in each 
case to determine which of those separated from the service had 
received a disability severance payment and which had been separated 
with no disability benefits. 

We also used the same DMDC monthly transaction data to determine how 
long after placement on the TDRL temporary retirees received a final 
disability determination. We counted the number of months, from the 
month the individual in each TDRL case was initially placed on the 
list, to the month that the individual was first removed from the TDRL 
due to (1) placement on the PDRL, (2) separation from the service, (3) 
death, or (4) return to active duty. In 1,004 cases, a separation from 
the service action was followed in 1 or more months by a placed on the 
PDRL action. In these cases, the time it took to receive a final 
disability determination was based, instead, on the month in which 
placement on the PDRL occurred. 

Finally, data from the DMDC Retired Pay File on the initial and final 
disability percentage ratings for TDRL placements in calendar years 
2000 through 2003 were used to identify how these ratings differed, if 
at all. To determine the amount of monthly benefits individuals would 
receive, we multiplied the disability rating as a percentage of base 
pay.[Footnote 46] Thus, we looked at the disability rating and applied 
the following pay guidelines to determine what percentage of base pay 
TDRL retirees would be eligible to receive: (1) TDRL payments are a 
minimum of 50 percent of base pay; (2) the PDRL is not subject to any 
minimum payments; and (3) for both the PDRL and the TDRL, the maximum 
payment is 75 percent of base pay. We then compared the percentage of 
base pay individuals would be eligible for while on the TDRL verses the 
percentage they would be eligible for on the PDRL. From here, we could 
determine the number of TDRL retirees whose monthly payments would 
increase, decrease, or stay the same once they moved to the PDRL. 

To assess the reliability of data from DMDC's Retired Pay File, as well 
as the TDRL caseload data we received from the DMDC, we performed 
initial tests and checks on the data to verify that records matched our 
selection criteria and were sufficiently reliable for our analyses. We 
obtained documents from the military on the Retired Pay File edit file 
layout, the record layout of the pay file, the definition of the data 
variables, how the data in this file were collected, and the measures 
taken to assure data quality. We also conducted interviews with DMDC 
staff to obtain more specific information regarding the data, such as 
how they are stored and maintained and how they should be interpreted 
and used. Based on our assessment, we determined that these data were 
sufficiently reliable for our analyses. 

In addition to our own analysis, we reviewed and discussed with DOD 
officials the results of their recent study of the TDRL, which also 
examined TDRL retirees' characteristics and outcomes.[Footnote 47] 

Assessing the Adequacy of TDRL Management: 

To assess the adequacy of TDRL management, we reviewed relevant laws, 
regulations and procedures to determine: 

* how TDRL decisions were made, monitored, and evaluated; 

* how reexaminations for TDRL were arranged and tracked for timeliness; 

* what use was made of reexaminations by nonmilitary physicians to 
reduce the burden on MTFs; and: 

* how TDRL requirements for temporary retirees were enforced. 

Specifically, we interviewed military officials and staff from each 
service involved in the TDRL process, including PEB members and 
physicians, Medical Command representatives, staff in each service's 
TDRL administrative office or unit, Physical Evaluation Board Liaison 
Officers (PEBLO), and staff at selected military treatment facilities 
(MTF) responsible for scheduling and monitoring the completion of TDRL 
reexaminations. We assessed the adequacy of what we learned about the 
management of the TDRL based on (1) our review of TDRL laws, 
regulations, and other written policies and guidance; (2) the results 
of our interviews; and (3) its consistency with internal control 
standards for the federal government and the requirements of the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. 

For our discussions with PEBLOs, we selected MTFs across the services. 
We also considered geographic diversity and facility size when 
selecting these facilities. The information we obtained from PEBLOs at 
these facilities is testimonial in nature and not intended to reflect 
the practices, experiences, or opinions of PEBLOs at MTFs, in general. 
(See table 4.) 

Table 4: Selected Characteristics of Military Treatment Facilities 
(MTF) Contacted: 

MTF: United States Air Force Academy Medical Facility; 
Service: Air Force; 
Geographic region: West; 
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 10-15 cases. 

MTF: Wright Patterson Medical Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base; 
Service: Air Force; 
Geographic region: North; 
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 20-45 cases. 

MTF: Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base; 
Service: Air Force; 
Geographic region: South; 
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 20-50 cases. 

MTF: McDonald Army Health Center, Fort Eustis; 
Service: Army; 
Geographic region: North; 
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 24 cases. 

MTF: Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston; 
Service: Army; 
Geographic region: South; 
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: > 25 cases. 

MTF: Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood; 
Service: Army; 
Geographic region: South; 
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: > 25 cases. 

MTF: Ireland Community Hospital, Fort Knox; 
Service: Army; 
Geographic region: North; 
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 15-20 cases. 

MTF: Navy Medical Center, Portsmouth; 
Service: Navy; 
Geographic region: North; 
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: > 25 cases. 

MTF: Navy Hospital, Camp Pendleton; 
Service: Navy; 
Geographic region: West; 
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 1-2 cases. 

MTF: Navy Hospital, Jacksonville; 
Service: Navy; 
Geographic region: South; 
Average monthly TDRL caseload[A]: 20-30 cases. 

Source: Interviews with MTF staff. 

[A] Estimate provided by officials at each MTF. 

[End of table] 

To help assess the adequacy of TDRL management, we also examined the 
experiences and views of temporary retirees from the Air Force, Army, 
Marine Corps, and Navy. To obtain this information, we conducted a 
series of 12 focus groups in June and August 2008 with individuals who 
were on the TDRL. Three focus groups were conducted at each of four 
locations--Norfolk, Va.; Quantico, Va.; San Antonio, Tex.; and Killeen, 
Tex. These locations were selected because each provided a large pool 
of temporary retirees from which to draw focus group volunteers. 
Together, these locations also enabled us to obtain the perspectives of 
temporary retirees from each of the services. 

To recruit volunteers for these focus groups, we obtained a list of 
temporary retirees who resided within a 50-mile radius of each location 
from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. We attempted to 
contact each temporary retiree on the list to invite them to 
participate in a focus group conducted in their area. A total of 57 
temporary retirees participated in these focus groups. (See table 5.) 

Table 5: Percent of Focus Group Participants from Each Service: 

Service: Air Force; 
Percent of total focus group participants: 12%. 

Service: Army; 
Percent of total focus group participants: 49%. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Percent of total focus group participants: 9%. 

Service: Navy; 
Percent of total focus group participants: 30%. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Percent of total focus group participants: 100%. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

Focus group participants had a wide range of characteristics. They had 
an average of 12 years of military service, ranging from a minimum of 
2, to a maximum of 28 years. About three-quarters had been active duty, 
and about one-quarter had been in the reserves. About one-quarter had 
served in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom. 

To obtain information from the focus groups, we established a standard 
protocol to facilitate the discussions. Each focus group covered 
several major topics, including the overall disability evaluation 
process, placement on the TDRL, periodic reexaminations while on the 
TDRL, and advantages and disadvantages of being placed on the list. A 
GAO facilitator led each discussion to keep participants focused on the 
specified issues within discussion time frames. With the consent of 
focus group participants, we recorded each discussion and had each 
recording professionally transcribed.[Footnote 48] 

To summarize the results of our focus groups, we identified themes 
participants raised that were common to more than one group. We 
verified our analysis to ensure its reliability. While we identified a 
number of common themes across the 12 focus groups, our results cannot 
be generalized to the universe of all temporary retirees. 

Finally, we contacted six veterans' service organizations to obtain 
their views about the TDRL process and how it affects servicemembers 
placed on the list. We obtained written comments from the Disabled 
American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association, and 
the Military Officers Association of America. [Footnote 49] (See 
appendices VI, VII, and VIII.) 

Assessing the Adequacy of Information Provided to Temporary Retirees: 

To assess the completeness, clarity, and accessibility of information 
provided to individuals placed on the TDRL, we reviewed each service's 
PEB findings form and other written materials, as well as information 
available on the services' Web sites. (See table 6.) 

Table 6: TDRL Information Sources Reviewed: 

Service: Air Force; 
PEB findings forms: Findings and Recommended Disposition of United 
States Air Force Physical Evaluation Board, (AF Form 356, October 
1995); 
Brochures, pamphlets, and handbooks: Temporary Disability Retirement 
List Fact Sheet; 
Web sites (electronic information): [hyperlink, 
http://ask.afpc.randolph.af.mil/main_content.asp?prods3=285&prods2=66&pr
ods156]. 

Service: Army; 
PEB findings forms: Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, (DA 
Form 199, June 1997); 
Brochures, pamphlets, and handbooks: Temporary Disability Retired List 
Frequently Asked Questions; [hyperlink, 
http://www.pdhealth.mil/downloads/TDRL_FAQs.pdf]; 
Web sites (electronic information): [hyperlink, 
https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/TAGD/Pda/pdapage.htm]. 

Service: Army; 
PEB findings forms: Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings, (DA 
Form 199, June 1997); 
Brochures, pamphlets, and handbooks: Army Physical Disability 
Evaluation System (PDES); [hyperlink, 
https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/Active/TAGD/Pda/pdesystem.htm]; 
Web sites (electronic information): [Empty]. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
PEB findings forms: Findings of the Physical Evaluation Board 
Proceedings; 
Brochures, pamphlets, and handbooks: [Empty]; 
Web sites (electronic information): [hyperlink, 
http://www.npc.navy.mil/channels].
[hyperlink, http://209.85.173.132/search?sourceid=navclient-
menuext&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woundedwarriorregiment.org%2FWWR.aspx]. 

Service: Navy; 
PEB findings forms: Findings of the Physical Evaluation Board 
Proceedings; 
Brochures, pamphlets, and handbooks: Temporary Disability Retired List 
Brochure; 
Web sites (electronic information): [hyperlink, 
http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp].
[hyperlink, 
http://www.npc.navy.mil/CareerInfo/Retirement/DisabilityRetirements/]. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

The specific topics we looked for in PEB findings forms and other 
written materials, and on a service's Web site were (1) the purpose of 
the TDRL, (2) definitions of "stability" and "permanency," (3) rolls 
and responsibilities of temporary retirees while on the list, (4) 
ramifications of noncompliance with TDRL requirements, and (5) 
potential final disability determinations. 

We also obtained information from our focus groups about the types of 
information they needed and wanted about the TDRL, their sources for 
information about the list, and the adequacy of the information they 
received. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Additional Data Tables: 

Table 7: DOD-wide Disability Evaluation System Determinations, Fiscal 
Years 2001 through 2007: 

Determination: Placed on the PDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 686; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 825; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 860; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 875; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,156; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,076; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 1,338; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 7. 

Determination: Placed on the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 2,659; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 2,625; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 2,480; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 3,170; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 3,665; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 3,672; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 4,207; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 21. 

Determination: Separated; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 8,040; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 53; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 8,335; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 53; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 9,440; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 57; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 12,463; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 62; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 13,787; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 60; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 11,148; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 56; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 10,424; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 52. 

Determination: Found fit; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 3,713; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 25; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 3,951; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 25; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 3,774; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 23; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 3,463; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 4,390; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 19; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 4,032; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 20; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 3,944; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 20. 

Determination: Total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 15,098; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 15,736; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 16,554; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 19,971; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 22,998; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 19,928; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 19,913; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 100. 

Source: Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Disability Evaluation System Determinations, by Service, 
Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: Placed on the PDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 288; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 394; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 418; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 294; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 550; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 513; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 695; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 15. 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: Placed on the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 484; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 440; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 325; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 237; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 459; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 429; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 695; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 15. 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: Separated; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 487; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 1,161; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 28; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 1,471; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 33; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 1,305; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 41; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,831; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 39; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,413; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 34; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 1,454; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 32. 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: Found fit; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 1,714;
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 58; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 2,183; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 52; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 2,203; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 50; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 1,365; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 43; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,914; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 40; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,768; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 43; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 1,758; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 38. 

Air Force total: 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 2,973; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 4,178; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 4,417; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 3,201; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 4,754; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 4,123; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 4,602; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 100. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: Placed on the PDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 263; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 250; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 321; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 431; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 467; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 412; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 556; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 5. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: Placed on the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 1,075; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 1,166; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 1,147; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 1,638; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,763; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,543; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 1,844; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 18. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: Separated; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 5,128; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 72; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 5,127; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 71; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 5,849; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 74; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 8,584; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 76; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 9,816; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 75; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 7,538; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 72; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 7,099; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 68. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: Found fit; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 659; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 649; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 571; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 685; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 996; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 964; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 912; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 9. 

Army total: 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 7,125; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 7,192; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 7,888; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 11,338; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 13,042; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 10,457; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 10,411; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 100. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: Placed on the PDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 28; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 28; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 29; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 33; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 1; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 52; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 2; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 68; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 39; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 2. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: Placed on the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 326; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 18; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 342; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 20; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 342; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 19; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 521; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 23; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 626; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 28; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 820; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 34; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 817; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 38. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: Separated; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 1,145; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 62; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 1,096; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 63; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 1,126; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 64; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 1,271; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 57; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,015; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 46; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,098; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 46; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 955; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 44. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: Found fit; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 360; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 19; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 265; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 257; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 422; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 19; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 519; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 23; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 397; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 338; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 16. 

Marine Corps total: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1,859; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 1,731; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 1,754; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 2,247; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 2,212; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 2,383; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 2,149; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 100. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: Placed on the PDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 107; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 153; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 6; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 92; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 117; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 4; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 87; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 83; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 3; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 48; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 2. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: Placed on the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 774; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 25; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 677; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 26; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Number: 666; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2003: Percent: 27; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Number: 774; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2004: Percent: 24; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Number: 817; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2005: Percent: 27; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Number: 880; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2006: Percent: 30; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Number: 851; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2007: Percent: 31. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: Separated; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 1,280; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 41; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 951; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 36; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 994; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 40; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 1,303; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 41; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 1,125; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 38; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 1,099; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 37; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 916; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 33. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: Found fit; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 980; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 854; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 32; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 743; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 30; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 991; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 31; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 961; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 32; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 903; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 30; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 936; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 34. 

Navy total: 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 3,141; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 2,635; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 2,495; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 3,185; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 2,990; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 2,965; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 2,751; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 100. 

Source: Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Number of Individuals Placed on and Removed from the TDRL, DOD-
wide, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Placed on the TDRL: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 2,659; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2,625; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 2,480; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 3,170; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 3,665; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 3,672; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 4,207. 

Removed from the TDRL: 
Fiscal year: 2001: 2,924; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 2,671; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 2,462; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 2,015; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,646; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,848; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 2,765. 

Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data. 

[End of table] 

Table 10: Number of Individuals Placed on and Removed from the TDRL, by 
Service, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2007: 

Air Force: Placed on the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 484; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 440; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 325; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 237; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 459; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 429; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 695. 

Air Force: Removed from the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 98; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 307; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 298; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 192; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 226; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 286; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 190. 

Army: Placed on the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1,075; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 1,166; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 1,147; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 1,638; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,763; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,543; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,844. 

Army: Removed from the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 1,001; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 1,117; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 1,027; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 912; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,114; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,199; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 1,217. 

Marine Corps: Placed on the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 326; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 342; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 342; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 521; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 626; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 820; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 817. 

Marine Corps: Removed from the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 515; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 413; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 401; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 341; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 335; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 426; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 457. 

Navy: Placed on the TDRL; 
Fiscal year: 2001: 774; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 677; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 666; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 774; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 817; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 880; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 851. 

Navy: Removed from the TDRL;
Fiscal year: 2001: 1,310; 
Fiscal year: 2002: 834; 
Fiscal year: 2003: 736; 
Fiscal year: 2004: 570; 
Fiscal year: 2005: 971; 
Fiscal year: 2006: 937; 
Fiscal year: 2007: 901. 

Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data. 

[End of table] 

Table 11: Number and Percent of TDRL Placements Who Had Been 
Reservists, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Service: Air Force; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 35; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 11; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 95; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 25; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 35; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 11; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 36; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 13; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 49; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 15; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 89; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 20; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 74; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 14; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 56; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 8; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 469; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 14. 

Service: Army; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 118; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 12; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 102; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 10; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 148; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 14; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 158; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 16; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 436; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 28; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 550; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 31; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 541; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 35; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 486; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 28; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 2,539; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 24. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 8; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 3; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 11; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 9; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 3; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 12; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 22; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 25; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 66; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 8; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 105; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 13; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 258; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 6. 

Service: Navy; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 28; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 44; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 6; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 30; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 5; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 65; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 11; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 79; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 11; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 81; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 10; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 111; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 13; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 67; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 8; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 505; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 9. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 189; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 8; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 252; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 10; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 222; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 10; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 271; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 12; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 586; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 19; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 745; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 21; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 792; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 21; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 714; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 17; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 3,771; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 16. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center 
Retired Pay File. 

[End of table] 

Table 12: Number and Percent of Reservists Receiving a Disability 
Evaluation System Determination, by Service, Fiscal Years 2001 through 
2007: 

Air Force: [Empty]. 

Service: Air Force; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 417; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 546; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 13;
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 659; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 15; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 500; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 787; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 665; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 16; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 549; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 12; 
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Number: 4,123; 
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Percent: 15. 

Service: Army; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 523; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 699; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 1,303; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 17; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 3,710; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 33; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 3,601; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 28; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 2,814; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 27; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 2,454; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 24; 
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Number: 15,104; 
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Percent: 22. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 100; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 5; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 120; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 128; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 7; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 210; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 229; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 224; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 213; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 10; 
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Number: 1,224; 
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Percent: 9. 

Service: Navy; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 280; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 294; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 308; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 12; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 333; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 10; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 328; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Percent: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 225; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 8; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 154; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 6; 
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Number: 1922; 
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Percent: 10. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Number: 1,320; 
Fiscal year: 2001: Percent: 9; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Number: 1,659; 
Fiscal year: 2002: Percent: 11; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Number: 2,398; 
Fiscal year: 2003: Percent: 14; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Number: 4,753; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 24; 
Fiscal year: 2005: Number: 4,945; 
Fiscal year: 2004: Percent: 22; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Number: 3,928; 
Fiscal year: 2006: Percent: 20; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Number: 3,370; 
Fiscal year: 2007: Percent: 17; 
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Number: 22,373; 
Fiscal years 2001-2007 total: Percent: 17. 

Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data. 

[End of table] 

Table 13: Mean Number of Years of Military Service for TDRL Placements 
Who Had Been Active Duty and Reserve Military, DOD-wide, Calendar Years 
2000 through 2007: 

TDRL placements: Active Duty; 
Calendar year: 2000: 8; 
Calendar year: 2001: 7; 
Calendar year: 2002: 8; 
Calendar year: 2003: 7; 
Calendar year: 2004: 7; 
Calendar year: 2005: 6; 
Calendar year: 2006: 6; 
Calendar year: 2007: 6. 

TDRL placements: Reserve; 
Calendar year: 2000: 10; 
Calendar year: 2001: 10; 
Calendar year: 2002: 10; 
Calendar year: 2003: 9; 
Calendar year: 2004: 7; 
Calendar year: 2005: 7; 
Calendar year: 2006: 6; 
Calendar year: 2007: 6. 

All TDRL placements; 
Calendar year: 2000: 8; 
Calendar year: 2001: 8; 
Calendar year: 2002: 8; 
Calendar year: 2003: 7; 
Calendar year: 2004: 7; 
Calendar year: 2005: 7; 
Calendar year: 2006: 6; 
Calendar year: 2007: 6. 

Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File. 

[End of table] 

Table 14: Mean Number of Years of Military Service for TDRL Placements 
Who Had Been Active Duty and Reserve Military, by Service, Calendar 
Years 2000 through 2007: 

Air Force: TDRL placements, Active Duty; 
Calendar year: 2000: 11; 
Calendar year: 2001: 9; 
Calendar year: 2002: 10; 
Calendar year: 2003: 8; 
Calendar year: 2004: 9; 
Calendar year: 2005: 8; 
Calendar year: 2006: 7; 
Calendar year: 2007: 8. 

Air Force: TDRL placements, Reserve; 
Calendar year: 2000: 8; 
Calendar year: 2001: 8; 
Calendar year: 2002: 8; 
Calendar year: 2003: 7; 
Calendar year: 2004: 7; 
Calendar year: 2005: 8; 
Calendar year: 2006: 6; 
Calendar year: 2007: 6. 

Air Force: All TDRL placements; 
Calendar year: 2000: 10; 
Calendar year: 2001: 9; 
Calendar year: 2002: 9; 
Calendar year: 2003: 8; 
Calendar year: 2004: 9; 
Calendar year: 2005: 8; 
Calendar year: 2006: 7; 
Calendar year: 2007: 8. 

Army: TDRL placements, Active Duty; 
Calendar year: 2000: 7; 
Calendar year: 2001: 7; 
Calendar year: 2002: 7; 
Calendar year: 2003: 7; 
Calendar year: 2004: 7; 
Calendar year: 2005: 7; 
Calendar year: 2006: 7; 
Calendar year: 2007: 6. 

Army: TDRL placements, Reserve; 
Calendar year: 2000: 11; 
Calendar year: 2001: 11; 
Calendar year: 2002: 10; 
Calendar year: 2003: 9; 
Calendar year: 2004: 7; 
Calendar year: 2005: 7; 
Calendar year: 2006: 6; 
Calendar year: 2007: 6. 

Army: All TDRL placements; 
Calendar year: 2000: 8; 
Calendar year: 2001: 7; 
Calendar year: 2002: 8; 
Calendar year: 2003: 7; 
Calendar year: 2004: 7; 
Calendar year: 2005: 7; 
Calendar year: 2006: 7; 
Calendar year: 2007: 6. 

Marine Corps: TDRL placements, Active Duty; 
Calendar year: 2000: 6; 
Calendar year: 2001: 5; 
Calendar year: 2002: 5; 
Calendar year: 2003: 5; 
Calendar year: 2004: 5; 
Calendar year: 2005: 5; 
Calendar year: 2006: 5; 
Calendar year: 2007: 5. 

Marine Corps: TDRL placements, Reserve; 
Calendar year: 2000: 13; 
Calendar year: 2001: 9; 
Calendar year: 2002: 8; 
Calendar year: 2003: 10; 
Calendar year: 2004: 7; 
Calendar year: 2005: 5; 
Calendar year: 2006: 4; 
Calendar year: 2007: 4. 

Marine Corps: All TDRL placements; 
Calendar year: 2000: 6; 
Calendar year: 2001: 5;
Calendar year: 2002: 5; 
Calendar year: 2003: 5; 
Calendar year: 2004: 5; 
Calendar year: 2005: 5; 
Calendar year: 2006: 5; 
Calendar year: 2007: 5. 

Navy: TDRL placements, Active Duty; 
Calendar year: 2000: 9; 
Calendar year: 2001: 8; 
Calendar year: 2002: 9; 
Calendar year: 2003: 8; 
Calendar year: 2004: 8; 
Calendar year: 2005: 7; 
Calendar year: 2006: 8; 
Calendar year: 2007: 8. 

Navy: TDRL placements, Reserve; 
Calendar year: 2000: 8; 
Calendar year: 2001: 9; 
Calendar year: 2002: 8; 
Calendar year: 2003: 8; 
Calendar year: 2004: 7; 
Calendar year: 2005: 8; 
Calendar year: 2006: 8; 
Calendar year: 2007: 8. 

Navy: All TDRL placements; 
Calendar year: 2000: 9; 
Calendar year: 2001: 8; 
Calendar year: 2002: 9; 
Calendar year: 2003: 8; 
Calendar year: 2004: 8; 
Calendar year: 2005: 7; 
Calendar year: 2006: 8; 
Calendar year: 2007: 8. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center 
Retired Pay File. 

[End of table] 

Table 15: Percent of TDRL Placements with a Residual of a TBI as a 
Disabling Condition, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Service: Air Force; 
Calendar year: 2000: 0.6; 
Calendar year: 2001: 0.3; 
Calendar year: 2002: 1.0; 
Calendar year: 2003: 0.4; 
Calendar year: 2004: 0.3; 
Calendar year: 2005: 0.7; 
Calendar year: 2006: 0.6; 
Calendar year: 2007: 0.1; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 0.5. 

Service: Army; 
Calendar year: 2000: 2.2; 
Calendar year: 2001: 3.9; 
Calendar year: 2002: 3.6; 
Calendar year: 2003: 4.5; 
Calendar year: 2004: 3.9; 
Calendar year: 2005: 6.8; 
Calendar year: 2006: 7.8; 
Calendar year: 2007: 8.4; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 5.6. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Calendar year: 2000: 4.6; 
Calendar year: 2001: 5.6; 
Calendar year: 2002: 9.0; 
Calendar year: 2003: 6.9; 
Calendar year: 2004: 4.6; 
Calendar year: 2005: 6.0; 
Calendar year: 2006: 8.6; 
Calendar year: 2007: 12.0; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 7.8. 

Service: Navy; 
Calendar year: 2000: 4.1; 
Calendar year: 2001: 2.9; 
Calendar year: 2002: 2.6; 
Calendar year: 2003: 3.1; 
Calendar year: 2004: 2.9; 
Calendar year: 2005: 2.8; 
Calendar year: 2006: 3.1; 
Calendar year: 2007: 3.4; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 3.1. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Calendar year: 2000: 2.8; 
Calendar year: 2001: 3.3; 
Calendar year: 2002: 3.7; 
Calendar year: 2003: 4.0; 
Calendar year: 2004: 3.4; 
Calendar year: 2005: 5.1; 
Calendar year: 2006: 5.9; 
Calendar year: 2007: 6.7; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 4.6. 

Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data. 

[End of table] 

Table 16: Percent of TDRL Placements with Residual of a TBI Diagnosis, 
among Those with Any Disabling Neurological Conditions and Convulsive 
Disorders, by Service Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Service: Air Force; 
Calendar year: 2000: 3; 
Calendar year: 2001: 1; 
Calendar year: 2002: 4; 
Calendar year: 2003: 2; 
Calendar year: 2004: 1; 
Calendar year: 2005: 3; 
Calendar year: 2006: 3; 
Calendar year: 2007: 1; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 2. 

Service: Army; 
Calendar year: 2000: 9; 
Calendar year: 2001: 16; 
Calendar year: 2002: 14; 
Calendar year: 2003: 19; 
Calendar year: 2004: 13; 
Calendar year: 2005: 21; 
Calendar year: 2006: 23; 
Calendar year: 2007: 26; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 19. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Calendar year: 2000: 15; 
Calendar year: 2001: 18; 
Calendar year: 2002: 25; 
Calendar year: 2003: 20; 
Calendar year: 2004: 13; 
Calendar year: 2005: 21; 
Calendar year: 2006: 24; 
Calendar year: 2007: 31; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 22. 

Service: Navy; 
Calendar year: 2000: 12; 
Calendar year: 2001: 9; 
Calendar year: 2002: 9; 
Calendar year: 2003: 10; 
Calendar year: 2004: 9; 
Calendar year: 2005: 9; 
Calendar year: 2006: 10; 
Calendar year: 2007: 12; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 10. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Calendar year: 2000: 10; 
Calendar year: 2001: 12; 
Calendar year: 2002: 13; 
Calendar year: 2003: 14; 
Calendar year: 2004: 11; 
Calendar year: 2005: 16; 
Calendar year: 2006: 19; 
Calendar year: 2007: 21; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 16. 

Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data. 

[End of table] 

Table 17: Percent of TDRL Placements with PTSD as a Disabling 
Condition, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Service: Air Force; 
Calendar year: 2000: 1.2; 
Calendar year: 2001: 2.1; 
Calendar year: 2002: 4.0; 
Calendar year: 2003: 4.2; 
Calendar year: 2004: 3.7; 
Calendar year: 2005: 7.3; 
Calendar year: 2006: 16.1; 
Calendar year: 2007: 8.2; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 6.7. 

Service: Army; 
Calendar year: 2000: 2.8; 
Calendar year: 2001: 2.2; 
Calendar year: 2002: 2.0; 
Calendar year: 2003: 2.7; 
Calendar year: 2004: 7.3; 
Calendar year: 2005: 11.2; 
Calendar year: 2006: 16.0; 
Calendar year: 2007: 25.0; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 10.3. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Calendar year: 2000: 1.3; 
Calendar year: 2001: 0.7; 
Calendar year: 2002: 0.3; 
Calendar year: 2003: 0.6; 
Calendar year: 2004: 3.2; 
Calendar year: 2005: 13.2; 
Calendar year: 2006: 18.7; 
Calendar year: 2007: 17.2; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 10.1. 

Service: Navy; 
Calendar year: 2000: 1.5; 
Calendar year: 2001: 0.8; 
Calendar year: 2002: 1.5; 
Calendar year: 2003: 0.8; 
Calendar year: 2004: 3.0; 
Calendar year: 2005: 4.8; 
Calendar year: 2006: 4.2; 
Calendar year: 2007: 4.9; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 2.9. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Calendar year: 2000: 2.0; 
Calendar year: 2001: 1.5; 
Calendar year: 2002: 1.9; 
Calendar year: 2003: 2.1; 
Calendar year: 2004: 5.3; 
Calendar year: 2005: 9.7; 
Calendar year: 2006: 13.9; 
Calendar year: 2007: 16.5; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 7.9. 

Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data. 

[End of table] 

Table 18: Percent of TDRL Placements with a PTSD Diagnosis, among Those 
with Any Disabling Mental Disorders, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 
through 2007: 

Service: Air Force; 
Calendar year: 2000: 3; 
Calendar year: 2001: 5; 
Calendar year: 2002: 10; 
Calendar year: 2003: 9; 
Calendar year: 2004: 8; 
Calendar year: 2005: 17; 
Calendar year: 2006: 28; 
Calendar year: 2007: 21; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 15. 

Service: Army; 
Calendar year: 2000: 11; 
Calendar year: 2001: 8; 
Calendar year: 2002: 8; 
Calendar year: 2003: 10; 
Calendar year: 2004: 28; 
Calendar year: 2005: 39; 
Calendar year: 2006: 48; 
Calendar year: 2007: 53; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 33. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Calendar year: 2000: 6; 
Calendar year: 2001: 4; 
Calendar year: 2002: 2; 
Calendar year: 2003: 3; 
Calendar year: 2004: 15; 
Calendar year: 2005: 51; 
Calendar year: 2006: 60; 
Calendar year: 2007: 52; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 38. 

Service: Navy; 
Calendar year: 2000: 6; 
Calendar year: 2001: 3; 
Calendar year: 2002: 6; 
Calendar year: 2003: 3; 
Calendar year: 2004: 14; 
Calendar year: 2005: 20; 
Calendar year: 2006: 18; 
Calendar year: 2007: 20; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 12. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Calendar year: 2000: 8; 
Calendar year: 2001: 5; 
Calendar year: 2002: 7; 
Calendar year: 2003: 7; 
Calendar year: 2004: 20; 
Calendar year: 2005: 33; 
Calendar year: 2006: 41; 
Calendar year: 2007: 43; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 mean percent: 26. 

Source: GAO analysis of Air Force, Army, and Navy PEB data. 

[End of table] 

Table 19: Final Disability Determinations as of August 2008 for TDRL 
Placements, by Service, Calendar Years 2000 through 2003: 

Calendar year: Service: PDRL: [Empty]; Calendar year: Service: PDRL: 
[Empty]; Calendar year: Service: PDRL: [Empty]; Service: PDRL: [Empty]. 

Air Force: [Empty]. 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: PDRL; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 184; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 55; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 183; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 48; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 151; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 48; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 159; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 57; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 677; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 52. 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: Severance for permanent disability; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 102; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 31; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 155; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 41; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 115; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 37; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 78; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 28; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number:450; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 34. 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: No military disability benefits; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 17; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 5; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 14; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 7; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 6; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 2; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 44; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3. 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: Separated with unknown severance status; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 0; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 1; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent:0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 1; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 2; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A]. 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: Return to active duty; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 3; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 11; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 3; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 16; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 5; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 16; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 6; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 46; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 4. 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: Died before final determination; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 25; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 8; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 16; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 19; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 6; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 11; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 4; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 71; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 5. 

Service: Air Force; 
Determination: No final determination; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 3; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 3; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 5; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 10[A]; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 4; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 21; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 2. 

Air Force total: 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 334; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 382; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 314; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 281; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 1,311; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 100. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: PDRL; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 577; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 60; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 663; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 64; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 619; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 59; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 549; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 55; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 2,408; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 59. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: Severance for permanent disability; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 273; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 28; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 287; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 28; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 328; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 31; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 255; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 26; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 1,143; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 28. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: No military disability benefits; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 57; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 6; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 57; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 6; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 67; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 6; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 95; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 10; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 276; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 7. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: Separated with unknown severance status; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 10; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 4; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 0; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 14; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A]. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: Return to active duty; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 7; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 6; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 3; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 3; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 9; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 1. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: Died before final determination; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 26; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 3; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 18; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 26; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 3; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 25; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 3; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 95; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 2. 

Service: Army; 
Determination: No final determination; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 11; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 4; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 11; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 72[B]; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 7; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 98; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 2. 

Army total:
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 961; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 1,039; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 1,054; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 999; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 4,053; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 100. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: PDRL; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 176; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 56; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 181; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 58; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 172; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 56; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 160; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 49; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 689; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 55. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: Severance for permanent disability; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 79; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 25; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 78; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 25; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 71; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 23; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 71; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 22; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 299; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 24. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: No military disability benefits; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 30; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 10; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 36; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 11; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 39; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 13; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 52; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 16; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 157; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 12. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: Separated with unknown severance status; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 0; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 2; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 2; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A]. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: Return to active duty; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 12; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 10; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 3; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 15; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 5; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 9; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 3; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 46; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 4. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: Died before final determination; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 12; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 8; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent:3; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 4; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 9; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 3; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 33; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3. 

Service: Marine Corps; 
Determination: No final determination; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 5; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 2; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 2; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 27[B]; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 8; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 36; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3. 

Marine Corps total: 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 314; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 315; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent:100; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 305; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent:100; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 328; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 1,262; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent:100. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: PDRL; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 451; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 67; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 508; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 65; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 420; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 67; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 312; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 51; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 1,691; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 63. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: Severance for permanent disability; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 102; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 15; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number:124; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 16; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 98; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 16; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 99; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 16; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 423; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 16. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: No military disability benefits; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 79; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 12; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 119; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 15; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 74; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 12; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 95; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 16; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 367; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 14. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: Separated with unknown severance status; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 3; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 6; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 4; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 1; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 13; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A]. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: Return to active duty; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 0; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 1; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 0; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 1; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A]. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: Died before final determination; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 27; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 14; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 11; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 19; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 3; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 71; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3. 

Service: Navy; 
Determination: No final determination; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 14; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 23; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 3; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 18; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 3; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 83[B]; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 14; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 138; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 5. 

Navy total: 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 676; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 788; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 628; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 100;
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 612; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 2,704; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 100. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Determination: PDRL; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 1,388; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 61; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 1,535; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 61; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 1,362; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 59; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 1,180; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 53; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 5,465; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 59. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Determination: Severance for Permanent Disability; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 556; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 24; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 644; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 26; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 612; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 27; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 503; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 23; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 2,315; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 25. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Determination: No military disability benefits; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 183; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 8; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 226; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 9; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 187; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 8; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 248; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 11; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 844; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 9. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Determination: Separated with unknown severance status; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 13; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 4; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 9; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 5; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 31; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 0[A]. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Determination: Return to active duty; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 22; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 27; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 35;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 28; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 1; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 112; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 1. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Determination: Died before final determination; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 90; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 4; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 56; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 60; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 3; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 64; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 3; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 270; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3. 

Service: DOD-wide total; 
Determination: No final determination; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 33; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 32; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 36;
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 192[B]; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 9; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 293; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 3. 

DOD-wide total: 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 2,285; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 2,524; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 2,301; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 2,220; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Number: 9,330; 
Calendar years 2000-2003 total: Percent: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center 
Retired Pay File. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

[A] Value is less than 0.5 percent. 

[B] Our data request from DMDC yielded Retired Pay File records through 
August 2008. Thus, 138 (6 Air Force, 54 Army, 14 Marine Corps, and 64 
Navy) of the cases shown as still on the TDRL in the 2000 through 2003 
cohort had less than 5 years worth of data in our dataset. It is 
possible that some of these cases could have had final dispositions 
before or at 5 years that occurred after August 2008 and were not 
captured in our analysis. 

[End of table] 

Table 20: Number of Months until TDRL Placements for Calendar Years 
2000 through 2003 Received a Final Determination, by Service: 

Months: 12 or less; 
DOD-wide: Number: 551; 
DOD-wide: Percent: 6; 
Air Force: Number: 88; 
Air Force: Percent: 7; 
Army: Number: 411; 
Army: Percent: 10; 
Marine Corps: Number: 17; 
Marine Corps: Percent: 1; 
Navy: Number: 35; 
Navy: Percent: 1. 

Months: 13 to 24; 
DOD-wide: Number: 2,559; 
DOD-wide: Percent: 27; 
Air Force: Number: 790; 
Air Force: Percent: 60; 
Army: Number: 1,293; 
Army: Percent: 32; 
Marine Corps: Number: 132; 
Marine Corps: Percent: 11; 
Navy: Number: 344; 
Navy: Percent: 13. 

Months: 25 to 36; 
DOD-wide: Number: 1,205; 
DOD-wide: Percent: 13; 
Air Force: Number: 212; 
Air Force: Percent: 16; 
Army: Number: 595; 
Army: Percent: 15; 
Marine Corps: Number: 172; 
Marine Corps: Percent: 14; 
Navy: Number: 226; 
Navy: Percent: 8. 

Months: 37 to 48; 
DOD-wide: Number: 1,182; 
DOD-wide: Percent: 13; 
Air Force: Number: 94; 
Air Force: Percent: 7; 
Army: Number: 533; 
Army: Percent: 13; 
Marine Corps: Number: 212; 
Marine Corps: Percent: 17; 
Navy: Number: 343; 
Navy: Percent: 13. 

Months: 49 to 60; 
DOD-wide: Number: 2,670; 
DOD-wide: Percent: 29; 
Air Force: Number: 88; 
Air Force: Percent: 7; 
Army: Number: 808; 
Army: Percent: 20; 
Marine Corps: Number: 550; 
Marine Corps: Percent: 44; 
Navy: Number: 1,224; 
Navy: Percent: 45. 

Months: More than 60; 
DOD-wide: Number: 870; 
DOD-wide: Percent: 9; 
Air Force: Number: 18; 
Air Force: Percent: 1; 
Army: Number: 315; 
Army: Percent: 8; 
Marine Corps: Number: 143; 
Marine Corps: Percent: 11; 
Navy: Number: 394; 
Navy: Percent: 15. 

Months: No final determination as of August 2008; 
DOD-wide: Number: 293; 
DOD-wide: Percent: 3; 
Air Force: Number: 21; 
Air Force: Percent: 2; 
Army: Number: 98; 
Army: Percent: 2; 
Marine Corps: Number: 36; 
Marine Corps: Percent: 3; 
Navy: Number: 138; 
Navy: Percent: 5. 

Months: Total; 
DOD-wide: Number: 9,330; 
DOD-wide: Percent: 100; 
Air Force: Number: 1,311; 
Air Force: Percent: 100; 
Army: Number: 4,053; 
Army: Percent: 100; 
Marine Corps: Number: 1,262;
Marine Corps: Percent: 100; 
Navy: Number: 2,704; 
Navy: Percent: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center 
Retired Pay File. 

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Our data request from DMDC yielded Retired Pay File records through 
August 2008. Thus, 138 (6 Air Force, 54 Army, 14 Marine Corps, and 64 
Navy) of the cases shown as still on the TDRL in the 2000 through 2003 
cohort had less than 5 years worth of data in our dataset. It is 
possible that some of these cases could have had final dispositions 
before or at 5 years that occurred after August 2008 and were not 
captured in our analysis. 

[End of table] 

Table 21: Initial Disability Ratings for TDRL Placements, DOD-wide, 
Calendar Years 2000 through 2007: 

Disability rating: 0-20 percent; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 11; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 0[A];
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 11; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 10; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 4; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 8; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 9; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 5; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 7; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 0[A]; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 65; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 0[A]. 

Disability rating: 30 percent; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 1,124; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 49; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 1,357; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 54; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 1,230; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 53; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 1,137; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 51; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 1,677; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 54; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 1935; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 51; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 1,913; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 51; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 2,026; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 49; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 12,399; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 52. 

Disability rating: 40 percent; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 480; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 21; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 523; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 21; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 501; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 22; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 504; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 23; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 682; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 22; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 835; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 23; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 826; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 22; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 944; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 23; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 5,295; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 22. 

Disability rating: 50-70 percent; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 360; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 16; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 359; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 14; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 294; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 13; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 309; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 14; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 389; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 12; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 512; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 14; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 694; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 18; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 806; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 20; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 3,723; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 16. 

Disability rating: 80-90 percent; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 39; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 41; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 36; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 31; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 1; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 57; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 61; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 78; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 2; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 74; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 2; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 417; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 2. 

Disability rating: 100 percent; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 271; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 12; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 233; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 9; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 230; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 10; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 235; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 11; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 304; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 10; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 261; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 7; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 258; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 7; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 247; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 6; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 2,039; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 9. 

Disability rating: Total; 
Calendar year: 2000: Number: 2,285; 
Calendar year: 2000: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2001: Number: 2,524; 
Calendar year: 2001: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2002: Number: 2,301; 
Calendar year: 2002: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2003: Number: 2,220; 
Calendar year: 2003: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2004: Number: 3,117; 
Calendar year: 2004: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2005: Number: 3,613; 
Calendar year: 2005: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2006: Number: 3,774; 
Calendar year: 2006: Percent: 100; 
Calendar year: 2007: Number: 4,104; 
Calendar year: 2007: Percent: 1000; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Number: 23,938; 
Calendar years 2000-2007 total: Percent: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center Retired Pay File. 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

[A] Value is less than 0.5 percent. 

[End of table] 

Table 22: Changes in Disability Ratings and Estimated Changes in 
Monthly Cash Payments, for Temporary Retirees Placed on the TDRL, DOD- 
wide, in Calendar Years 2000 through 2003 and Subsequently Transferred 
to the PDRL: 

Change in disability rating from initial placement on the TDRL to final 
placement on the PDRL: 

Estimated change in monthly disability payments: Monthly cash payments 
decreased; 
Disability rating increased: 102; 
Disability rating decreased: 756; 
No change in disability rating: 3,141; 
Total: 3,999. 

Estimated change in monthly disability payments: Monthly cash payments 
increased; 
Disability rating increased: 382; 
Disability rating decreased: 0; 
No change in disability rating: 0; 
Total: 382. 

Estimated change in monthly disability payments: No change in monthly 
cash payments; 
Disability rating increased: 216; 
Disability rating decreased: 23; 
No change in disability rating: 835; 
Total: 1,074. 

Estimated change in monthly disability payments: Total; 
Disability rating increased: 700; 
Disability rating decreased: 779; 
No change in disability rating: 3,976; 
Total: 5,455[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Defense Manpower Data Center 
Retired Pay File. 

[A] We were not able to calculate a difference in ratings for 10 of the 
temporary retirees that were placed on the PDRL because data on their 
final ratings were missing. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III Sample Army Form: Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings 
(DA Form 199): 

Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings: 		 

For use of this form, see AR 635-40; the proponent agency is USAPDA. 
	
1. Name: (Last, First,	Middle Initial): 

2. Rank: 

3. PEED: 
BASD: 

4. Social Security Number: 

5. PMOS: 

6.Branch/component: 

7. The PEB Consisted Of The Individuals Indicated In Exhibit A: 
Date Convened: 
At (Location including ZIP Code): 

8. The Board Considered The Member's Condition Described In The 
Records. Each Disability Is Listed Below in descending order of 
significance. 

VA Code	(a): 

Disability Description (b): 

c. Intentional misconduct, willful neglect or unauthorized absence: 

d. While entitled to basic pay (Incurred or aggravated): 
		
e. In LD in the time of national emergency or after 14 Sep 78 (Incurred 
or aggravated): 
		
f. Proximate result of performing duty: 

g. Recommended	disability percentage: 
			
9. The Board Finds The Soldier Is Physically Unfit And Recommends A 
Combined Rating Of: 

And That The Soldier's Disposition Be: 

10. If Retired Because Of Disability, The Board Makes The Recommended 
Finding That, 

A. The Soldier's Retirement _____ based On Disability From Injury Or 
Disease Received In The Line Of Duty As A Direct Result Of Armed 
Conflict Or Caused By An Instrumentality Of War And Incurring In Line 
Of Duty During A Period Of War As Defined By Law. 

B. Evidence Of Record Reflects The Soldier ______ A Member Or Obligated 
To Become A Member Of An Armed Force Or Reserve Thereof, Or The NOAA Or 
The USPHS On 24 September 1975. 

C. The Disability _____	Result From A Combat Related Injury As Defined 
In 26 U.S.C. 104. 

11. Exhibits (identify each): 

12. Typed Name, Grade, Branch Of President: 

Signature: 

Date: 

DA FORM 199, JUN. 97. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Sample Navy Form: Findings of the Physical Evaluation 
Board Proceedings: 

Findings of the Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings: 

RECONSIDERATION: 

Ref. #: 

Date Printed: 

Page 1: 

Personnel Data: 

1. Name: 
2. SSN: 
3. Rate/Rank: 
4. Service: 
5. Desig. 
6. LOS: 

Physical Evaluation Board: 

7. The Board convened at: NCPB, Washington DC, to consider the MedBoard 
originated at: San Diego, CA. 

Board Membership Consisted of: 

Civ., CORB, Signature: 

Capt., USN, Medical Officer: 

Findings: 

8. Finding: 

9. Recommended Disposition: 

10. Combined Disability Rating: 

Diagnoses And Ratings: 

Category I: Unfitting Conditions: 

VA Diagnostic Codes: 

Disability Rating or Reason if not rated: 

Category III: Conditions that are not separately unfitting and do not 
contribute to the unfitting condition(s): 

Additional Findings: 
11. a. The disability was incurred while entitled to receive basic pay. 

b. The disability did not occur during a period of unauthorized 
absence. 

c. The disability is not the result of intentional misconduct or 
willful neglect. 

d. The disability did occur after 14 Sep 1978. 

12. The disability may be permanent. 

13. The disability did not result from a combat related injury as 
defined by Title 26 U.S. Code Section 104(b)(3). 

14. All board members concurred. 

President, PEB. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Sample Air Force Form: Findings and Recommendations of the 
USAF Physical Evaluation Board (AF Form 356): 

Findings And Recommended Disposition Of	USAF Physical Evaluation Board: 

Date: 

Informal: 
Formal: 

1. The Board Convened At: Randolph AFB TX 78150-4708, Per Attached 
Orders (Exhibit A). 

2. A Quorum Was Present As Indicated On Exhibit A. 

3. Exhibits Attached: A, B. 

4. Member's Name (Last, First, Middle Initial):	 

5. Grade: 

6. SSN: 

7. Years Of Service Under 10 USC 1208: 

8. Component: 
REG AF: 
USAFR: 
ANG: 

9. Findings Concerning Individual Defects Or Conditions: 

Column A - Include degree of severity.	 

Column C - Enter "Yes" for in line of duty, "M" for intentional 
misconduct, "N" for willful neglect, "A" for incurred during a period 
of unauthorized absence, or "NA." 
		
Columns B and D - Enter "Yes", "No", or "NA". 

Columns E and F - Self-explanatory. 
					
A. Diagnosis: 
					
Category I - Unfitting Conditions Which Are Compensable And Ratable: 
None: 					
Current Rating:	00					
Less Aggravating/contributory Factors: -00: 
Combined Rating: 00. 
					
Category II - Conditions That Can Be Unfitting But Are Not Currently 
Compensable Or Ratable:					
None: 
					
Category III - Conditions That Are Not Separately Unfitting And Not 
Compensable Or Ratable: 					
None: 

B. Incurred while entitled to receive pay: 

C. Line of Duty (Applies only if Item 9B is yes): 

D. Proximate results of performing military duty (Non-RAD, USAFR and 
ANG only): 

E. Disability rating (percent): 

F. VA Diagnostic Center: 
			
10. Additional Findings: 

A. Member Is Unfit Because Of Physical Disability: 
Yes: 
No: 
NA: 
	
B. Disability Was Incurred In Line Of Duty In Time Of War Or National 
Emergency Or After 14 September 1978: 
Yes: 
No: 
NA: 
	
C. Disability Was The Direct Result Of Armed Conflict Or Was Caused By 
An Instrumentality Of War And Incurred In Line Of Duty During A Period 
Of War: 
Yes: 
No: 
NA: 

D. Disability Was The Direct Result Of A Combat Related Injury: 
Yes: 
No: 
NA:
	
E. Degree Of Impairment	Is: 
May Be Permanent: 

11. Compensable Percentage: 

12. Recommended Disposition: 

13. Overcomes Presumption Of Fitness: 
Yes: 
No: 
Na: 

14. Signature Of PEB President Or PEB Representative: 

Separation/retirement Date: 

15. Remarks: 

Clinics For TDRL Evaluations: N/A. 

Board Member #1: Initials:
Comments: 

Board Member #2: Initials:
Comments: 

Board President: Initials: 

Comments: 

Findings And Recommended Disposition Of USAF Physical Evaluation Board,
dated _____, pertaining to: 

Continuation of Item 9, Findings concerning individual defects or 
conditions: 

A. DIAGNOSIS: 
B. 
C. 
D. 
E. 
F. 
					
Continuation of Item 15, Remarks: 

AF Form 356, Oct 95 (Previous Edition Is Obsolete). 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments on the TDRL from Disabled American Veterans: 

DAV: 
Disabled American Veterans
"Building Better Lives for America's Disabled Veterans" 
National Service And Legislative Headquarters: 
807 Maine Avenue, Sw: 
Washington, D.C. 20024-2410: 
Phone (202)554-3501: 
Fax (202)554-3581: 

December 4, 2008: 

Delivery via E-mail: 

Mr. Mark E Ward: 
Senior Analyst: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
441 G Street, NW Rm. 5928: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Ward: 

This letter serves as our feedback for consideration in the GAO review 
of policies and processes regarding the Temporary Disability Retired 
List (TDRL). Based on your GAO review, I reached out to several offices 
engaged in the DES system and have summarized three comments to each 
question in the tables below for your consideration. 

> What are the advantages & disadvantages of TDRL to Service Members? 

Advantages: 

No. 1: The main advantage of being placed on TDRL is the condition has 
not stabilized. This additional time allows	the service member to 
become stable and be rated appropriately. During this time frame 
conditions may become worse with additional secondary problems arising 
or may become better and allow the service member to return to duty. 

No.2: The Service Member will incur all military retirement privileges, 
to include I.D. card, base exchange and commissary privileges, TRICARE 
benefits, and participation in the Survivor Benefit Plan. 

No.3: The retired pay of a TDRL member is the same as that of a member 
permanently retired for disability. Exception: While on the TDRL, the 
member does not receive less than 50 percent of the amount of monthly 
basic pay or RPB to which entitled at time of retirement. Except for 
cost of living increases, a TDRL member's retired pay will not change 
until removed from the list for permanent disposition. This is true 
even if the percentage rating changes following periodic examination. 

Disadvantages: 

No. 1: It places the service member in limbo for 18 months. Being that 
this is "all new" to the service member, he/she has no clue what will 
happen to them. Instead of getting on with their lives, they will 
always have the uncertainty of what is going to be the final outcome. 
There is no reason to be placed on TDRL, the service member has 
probably been dealing with his/her medical problem for at least 6 to 12 
months even before it goes to a medical evaluation board. If the 
Service member hasn't improved by then, they more than likely won't. 
Therefore, just make it permanent. 

No. 2: As every case is unique, my experience is some service members 
become slightly better while on TDRL. The main concern is that the 
disability percentage falls under the 30% rate and the service member 
is severed. Meanwhile, the service member is still considered unfit and 
no longer has military medical benefits. 

No. 3: We always have to wonder what's going to happen during our re-
examination. To go through the medical evaluation board process all 
over again and not be on Active Duty is stressful to say the least. You 
never know what's going to happen. This process goes on for 5 years, if 
they find it necessary. So, you have another set of doctors who don't 
know your case specifically, making a decision on your life. Also, we 
are not afforded CRDP like the 20 year retirees. We served our country 
just like they did, some in battle. We did not ask to be injured, 
especially with Combat Related Injuries. We did not choose to leave the 
service; the decision was made for us. CRDP would be a great added 
benefit for those on the TDRL, especially if their injuries preclude 
them from finding gainful employment. 

What are the advantages & disadvantages of TDRL to Service Members, 
families? 

Advantages: 

No. 1: The first and obvious one would be that they get to use the same 
facilities they did while being in the military. This would make it 
almost transparent to them. My children are familiar with the BX, the 
Commissary, etc. They also get the benefit of using the same health 
insurance and in most cases can see the same doctors. Because of this, 
my children now have a pediatrician that knows their name and their 
history. We don't have to see a different one every time. 

No. 2: The primary advantage for families when service members are 
placed on the TDRL is the opportunity for them to assist the service 
member in recuperating and potentially returning to duty. TDRL does 
reduce the number of stressors and distractions that the service member 
is exposed to, allowing for a more singular focus on recovery. 

No. 3: Continued income; availability of TRICARE coverage for family, 
(at some military locations, privatization of post/base housing may 
allow retired members and their families to remain in place allowing 
children to remain in their schools); access to on-base employment. 

Disadvantages: 

No. 1: The monetary issues that come with a significant reduction in 
compensation. The reduction in pay can prove difficult to manage. 

No. 2: Service members typically relocate, often to their home of 
record as noted above. In these circumstances, 	additional stress may 
be placed not only on the spouse and children but also on members of 
the extended 	family. This burden may be difficult as the spouses 
tries to manage the household, the military member's recovery (physical 
therapy, medications, appointments, etc.) and any work outside the home 
in an effort to obtain additional income to make ends meet, etc. 

No. 3: A majority of service members don't return to active duty, but 
are instead separated because, although their conditions may have 
stabilized, they are no longer fit for duty. Usually they receive a one-
time lump sum payment because separated from the military under a 
Discharge With Severance Pay category with a 0%, 10% or 20% disability 
rating and receive a lump sum payment. This is the more likely outcome 
as these conditions typically stabilize at a lower disability rating 
than when first injured. On occasion, if the disability rating is 30% 
or greater, they may be permanently retired and receive monthly 
compensation for their lifetime. 

How well is the re-evaluation process administered for those on TDRL? 

Advantages: 

No. 1: Service Members are not adequately informed on the importance 
between evaluations of continuing to receive treatment and keeping 
accurate records of symptoms and treatment from military clinics, 
military treatment facilities (MTFs), VA clinics and medical centers, 
and civilian treatment facilities. Also, many service members are 
working and don't understand the importance of continued treatment, 
albeit sometimes it's difficult to take off work. This lack of 
treatment and documentation makes it easy for the military to reduce 
an evaluation to less than 30%, which leads to "fit for duty" or 
"disability severance pay." 

No. 2: The requirement for 18 month reevaluations lays an additional 
burden on the member to travel to a military treatment facility for a 
reexamination with a doctor that they may not have seen before and 
therefore have no established therapeutic relationship. This makes it 
more difficult for the service member to disclose information to the 
doctor which impacts the accuracy of the medical opinion the physician 
is required to provide the Disability Evaluation System. This adds 
further complexity to the recovery. 

No. 3: I see no problem with the overall process; perhaps it is not 
briefed well enough to the service member and his/her family. It seems 
tome that the service member has enough to worry about on what is going 
on with their care and the decision of the PEB to concern themselves 
with what will happen in 18 months time. 

In closing, we (DAV) appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback for 
your consideration. Please know we are available for consultation and 
hope you find this document helpful as we work together Building Better 
Lives for our Nation's Disabled Veterans and their Families. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Edward R. Reese. Jr. 
National Service Director: 

ERR: ejh: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments on the TDRL from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans 
of America: 

IAVA: 
Iraq And Afghanistan Veterans Of America: 
308 Massachusetts Ave NE: 
Washington DC 20002: 
Phone: 202-544-7692: 
Fax: 202-544-7694: 

Advantages and Disadvantages of the TDRL to Service Members: 

(1) What are the advantages of being placed on the TDRL for service 
members? 

a. The primary advantage to TDRL is the protection that it provides to 
injured servicemember if they are able / willing to return to active 
service. Typically, if one returns to the military after a long break 
in service, they re-enter with reduced rank and pay due to various 
administrative and professional obstacles during the period of 
separation. TDRL provided protections in rank and pay while the 
servicemember undergoes recovery and treatment. 

b. In some cases, placement on TDRL may allow a service member time to 
resolve medical issues that have previously been found unfit for duty 
so they may return to Active Duty status after re-evaluation. 
Sometimes, when a service member is assigned to a Warrior Transition 
Unit for an extended period of time, they do not feel like they are a 
part of the military any more. They may be assigned a job they did not 
sign up for, nor enjoy doing. TDRL gives them the freedom to convalesce 
in a way they feel is most beneficial to their recovery. 

c. If a service member is entitled to VA compensation at a greater rate 
than their military pay, and they feel VA is able to adequately provide 
their medical care, they can elect to receive VA compensation. 

d. If the service member is ready to utilize such VA benefits as 
Compensated Work Therapy, Independent Living Services, or the 
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program, they are able to 
access these services. Active Duty service members are allowed limited 
access to VA benefits and programs. 

e. Allows for the permanent retirement or separation without going 
through the administrative steps of returning or appointment to active 
duty to initiate the retirement/separation process. 

(2) What are the disadvantages of being placed on the TDRL for service 
members? 

a. Service members are placed on TDRL because their medical condition 
has not stabilized for rating purposes. Even though these individuals 
often require ongoing medical treatment and rehabilitation, they have 
access to fewer health care options on TDRL. While on Active Duty, a 
service member can be treated for most anything at a military treatment 
facility (MTF), a private facility, or a VA medical center. Once 
retired, however, TRICARE coverage is more limited. In the case of TBI, 
cognitive therapies necessary for rehabilitation are not covered at 
all, unless the service member is on Active Duty. This limits the 
service members' options for specialty care mainly to VA medical 
centers which may not always be the best option for that service 
member's needs. 

b. Service members that are placed on TDRL following acute care do not 
have the same psychosocial advantages as those that are allowed to 
continue on Active Duty for intermediate rehabilitation. Becoming 
severely disabled is a life altering event. Removing a service member 
from a familiar environment while they are trying to adjust to their 
new life can be further devastating. It is important to be among peers 
and feel like a service member during recovery. 

c. When a service member is placed on TDRL they are caught between two 
worlds. They are still accountable to DOD, but do not receive any of 
the benefits, such as creditable years toward retirement, CRSC, or 
coverage under Title 10. 

d. If a service member is placed on TDRL, as opposed to being 
permanently retired, their disability rating may be lowered upon re-
evaluation. 

Advantages and Disadvantages of the TDRL to Service Members' Families: 

(3) What are the advantages of being placed on the TDRL for service 
members' families? 

a. Provides a mechanism for servicemembers to access DOD care and 
recovery while they are on temporary retirement. Their families are not 
beholden to live on or adjacent to military installations, but in their 
homes of record if they so choose. 

(4) What are the disadvantages of being placed on the TDRL for service 
members' families? 

a. When a service member is placed on TDRL, they are considered retired 
for most purposes. The family is no longer eligible for base housing or 
schools. When a service member is severely wounded, the entire family 
goes through their own grief. Being removed from their community, 
culture, and support network can be further devastating to a family 
trying to adjust to their new situation. 

b. If the service member needs to travel to an MTF or a TRICARE 
facility for follow on medical treatment after being placed on TDRL, 
neither the family member caregiver, nor the service member's 
dependents are eligible for Non-Medical Attendant orders as they would 
be on Active Duty status. 

c. A service member on TDRL may be required to report to an MTF 
multiple times for re-evaluation appointments over a period of time up 
to five years. If the service member is unable to travel unattended, 
this responsibility often falls on a family member. These evaluations 
are not scheduled at the convenience of the family member, can result 
in lost wages, and jeopardize their employment. 

Administration of the TDRL Process: 

(5) How well is the re-evaluation process administered for those on the 
TDRL? 

a. Service members are placed on TDRL because their medical condition 
has not stabilized for rating purposes. At the time of placement on 
TDRL the full extent of their injuries are still unknown and others may 
still be undiagnosed. A service member is only re-evaluated for the 
conditions for which they were placed on TDRL. Any new injuries or 
issues that surface afterward are not added to the final board even if 
they were caused by the same mechanism of injury. A service member 
should have a complete re-evaluation of all body systems and any issues 
related to the cause of injury should be added to the final board. 

b. There are concerns about what constitutes a stable condition vs. a 
controlled condition. The potential of long term aliments such as 
diabetes or arthritis can become much more sever over time. While the 
conditions can be controlled long term, the potential for a serious 
increase in disability is always there while their rating cannot be 
adjusted. If an injury or ailment persist throughout the 5 year TDRL 
process, and it is controlled through a method of treatment or 
medication, is it truly stable? Disability ratings are done at the 
point of "stability" not based on the potential for future 
debilitation. 

c. The effects of TBI and PTSD do not factor well in to the TDRL model. 
While there procedures are being currently reviewed and revised within 
the DOD and VA systems, the system was set up for physical medical 
conditions and do not fit well with mental or neurological conditions. 

d. Often, a service member is sent to an MTF closest to their home of 
record for re-evaluation, not a center of excellence for their 
particular disabilities. The quality of an evaluation can impact a 
rating decision and contribute to inconsistent results. 

e. Service members need to be educated about the TDRL re-evaluation and 
board process. They should be explained their rights and assigned an 
advocate that will ensure their board is handled properly, particularly 
in the case of a service member that is not competent to participate in 
proceedings on their own. DOD should not assume the family member is 
capable of handling the proceedings for the service member and provide 
legal counsel when necessary. 

f. Legal counsel should be made available to the service member or 
their family when the re-evaluation is initiated, not after the appeal 
process is already under way. 

Other Issues: 

(6) What, if any, other issues regarding the TDRL has your organization 
identified? (You may also attach any reports, studies, or testimony 
regarding the TDRL as part of your response to these questions.) 

a. In the Army, an MEB is initiated when either optimal care has been 
met or a doctor determines the Soldier will not return to Active Duty. 
This causes a lot of inconsistency and inequity. Seriously injured 
soldiers, who may have the potential to continue on Active Duty, are 
not retired as quickly as severely injured soldiers, who clearly will 
not. Optimal care should be met in all cases whenever possible. When it 
is not, severely injured service members should be given a reasonable 
amount of time for their condition to stabilize, so they may take 
advantage of benefits under Title 10, allow their family to adjust to 
their new situation, and fully understand their options before the 
MEB/PEB process begins. While it is not the mission of DOD to provide 
long-term care, allowing this period of time shows compassion, and 
reflects the enormous sacrifice made by these service members and their 
families. 

b. The current regulations are a disincentive for DOD to allow severely 
injured service members to defer placement on TDRL, not only because of 
the cost of coverage under Title 10. Time on TDRL is not creditable 
towards retirement, nor can a service member collect CRSC until they 
are permanently retired. By placing a service member on TDRL, DOD can 
reduce their creditable years toward retirement, and at the same time, 
do not have to pay them CRSC for up to five years. In many cases, DOD 
will not have to pay the service member anything during that time, 
since they are eligible to receive VA compensation on TDRL. 

c. Each service member's circumstances are unique and should be 
evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a Warrior 
Transition Unit, TDRL, or PDR is the best option for their individual 
needs. 

[End of section]: 

Appendix VIII: Comments on the TDRL from the Military Officers 
Association of America: 

MOAA: 
One Powerful Voice! 
Military Officers Association of America: 
201 N. Washington Street: 
Alexandria, VA 22314-2539: 
800.234.6622 phone: 
[hyperlink, http://www.moea.org] 

February 25, 2009: 

Mark E. Ward, Senior Analyst: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
441 G Street, NW Room 5928: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Ward: 

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Temporary Disability 
Retirement List. On behalf of the Military Officers Association of 
America (MOAA), I would like to provide the following responses to your 
questions as well as what we believe should be the overall philosophy 
for disabled service members and their families. 

Advantages and Disadvantages of the TDRL to Service Members: 

(Q1) What are the advantages of being placed on the TDRL for service 
members? 

Answer: There is an advantage to the service member to be placed on the 
TDRL; specifically, the TDRL provides the service member a temporary 
retirement status for up to five years with many of the same retiree 
benefits as if the member had retired for 20 years of service even 
though they have an unfitting condition that is still unstable. Once a 
member's condition stabilizes, the TDRL will provide an opportunity for 
the service member to return to duty if their condition improves to the 
point where they are deemed "fit for duty". 

The member will also be in receipt of retired pay calculated at a 
minimum of 50% of their basic pay or based on their years of service, 
whichever is more beneficial. Finally, the TDRL gives the service 
member the opportunity to file a claim for VA benefits and assistance, 
and in some cases, be eligible to receive both VA compensation and 
retired pay (CRSC or CRDP). 

(Q2) What are the disadvantages of being placed on the TDRL for service 
members? 

Answer: The major disadvantage is that the service member is no longer 
on "active duty" and forfeits the compensation, allowances, and special 
pays that they had been receiving to include access to on-base housing 
or housing allowances. Additionally, they lose "active duty"-level 
TRICARE/dental benefits for themselves and their family members; 
however, are eligible to receive retired-level TRICARE benefits. 

Also, in some cases when the member files for VA compensation, the VA 
compensation amount offsets dollar-for-dollar their disability retired 
pay and are eligible to receive treatment in VA medical facilities. 

Advantages and Disadvantages of the TDRL to Set-vice Members' Families: 

(Q3) What are the advantages/disadvantages of being placed on the TDRL 
for service members' families? 

Answer: There is very little "advantage" to the family of a service 
member being placed on the TDRL. Their lives end up being placed in a 
temporary status waiting for a final decision from the Service to 
either return their spouse to active duty or permanently retire them. 
The "limbo status" is further exacerbated as they lose their access to 
base housing (or the housing allowance), active duty TRICARE medical 
care and access, and the stability provided by several base support 
programs - on base schools, day care, youth centers, etc. Additionally, 
in some few cases, the family will lose their eligibility/access to 
special programs such as the ECHO program, spouse preference, or even 
family medical leave (if they are a working spouse). 

Administration of the TDRL Process: 

(Q4) How well is the re-evaluation process administered for those on 
the TDRL? 

Answer: We have not received any positive or negative feedback on the 
TDRL's eighteen month re-evaluation process. 

Other Issues: 

(Q5) What, if any, other issues regarding the TDRL has your 
organization identified? (You may also attach any reports, studies, or 
testimony regarding the TDRL as part of your response to these 
questions.) 

Answer: The TDRL is designed to assist the Services more than the 
service member, The Services can place a service member off of active 
duty and off their end strength temporarily with the outside chance of 
bringing the member back on active duty if their condition stabilizes 
and is no longer unfitting. The Services cut their costs, while the 
service member and their family must wait up to five years for a final 
disposition. 

For the service member wishing to continue to serve their country, this 
course of action may be beneficial, But for the families who wish to 
move on to the next chapter of their lives, the TDRL process creates 
more family instability rather than stability. 

Overall philosophy: In general, the Services should strive to retain 
the member on active duty as long as there is a reasonable prospect for 
stabilizing their condition within some reasonable period (possibly 12 
months). This provides needed continuity for the family during a time 
when the focus needs to be on the health of the member rather than on 
fear of "what will happen to me on a range of pay and benefits and 
eligibility issues if we make this or that decision" and the 
trepidation of making a bad decision based on misunderstandings or 
misinformation. 

Being placed on disability retirement (temporary or permanent) entails 
some significant implications for treatment of the member and family to 
the extent the member still requires a treatment regimen, and 
especially if cognitive therapy is required. When a member is 
disability retired: 

A. TDY payments to family caregivers ceases; 

D. Eligibility for subsidized family dental coverage ceases; 

C. TRICARE Standard coverage beneficiary cost-sharing (for both the 
member and family members) rises from 20% to 25%; 

D. For certain severely disabled service members, they must begin 
paying Meditate Part B Premiums (almost $100 a month) in order to stay 
eligible for TRICARE (as second payer to Medicare); 

E. Those needing cognitive therapy can find themselves in a bind, since 
TRICARE will pay for this care for retirees only if the VA doesn't have 
it reasonably available (there is high potential for each department 
disagreeing over who makes this determination and what the definition 
of "reasonably available" means. 

We believe strongly that these kinds of discrepancies demand a fix to 
make people who are forced into medical retirement for service-caused 
conditions eligible for active duty-level care and benefits (including 
cognitive therapy, family health and dental coverage, and per diem for 
caregivers) for at least three years after leasing active duty. 

Again, thank you for your inquiry and if you need further assistance, I 
can be reached by phone at (703)838-8123 or by email at mikeh@moaa.org. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Col. Michael F. Hayden, USAF (Ret): 
Deputy Director, Government Relations: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense: 
Personnel and Readiness: 
4000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000: 

Mr. Daniel Bertoni: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 25, 2009: 

Dear Mr. Bertoni, 

This letter provides the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the 
GAO draft report, GAO-09-289, "Military Disability Retirement: Closer 
Monitoring Would Improve the Temporary Retirement Process," dated March 
12, 2009 (GAO Code 130839). 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to collaborate with the GAO 
in identifying areas within the administration of the Temporary 
Disability Retired List (TDRL) for emphasis to better support our 
Service men and women as they more fully recover and rehabilitate from 
a wound, illness, or injury. 

Each of the Military Departments has processes and organizations in 
place to support the needs of Service members placed on the TDRL. As 
with any support mechanism, these work best when accessed by those in 
need. 

The Department supports the recommendations contained in the report 
except as noted. Specific comments are provided in the attachment to 
this letter. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Keith W. Meurlin, Maj Gen, USAF: 
Acting Director: 
Transition Policy & Care Coordination Office: 

Attachments: As stated: 

GAO Draft Report - Dated March 12, 2009: 
GAO CODE 130839/GAO-09-289: 

"Military Disability Retirement: Closer Monitoring Would Improve
the Temporary Retirement Process" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to better 
inform their decisions about whether or not to place or retain someone 
on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) by taking into account 
data from past TDRL cases on outcomes for particular types of 
disabilities to ensure that TDRL placement and retention decisions are 
appropriate and consistent. 

DOD Response: Concur with comment. While common conditions may lead to 
similar outcomes, it is always necessary to recognize that individuals 
with one similar condition may have differing additional conditions 
that could lead to variances in final outcomes and dispositions. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Secretaries of the Army. Navy, and Air Force to 
systematically review the appropriateness and consistency of each 
Service's physical evaluation board (PEB) decisions regarding the 
stability of disabilities to ensure that TDRL placement and retention 
decisions are appropriate and consistent. 

DOD Response: Concur. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct each Service to track and periodically report on the timeliness 
of medical reexaminations in TDRL cases to ensure that TDRL 
reexaminations occur at least once every 18 months. 

DOD Response: Concur. Based in part on input from DASD (HA), the 
Department will both direct the Military Departments to conduct 
reexaminations at no longer than an 18 month interval, but also support 
reexaminations within a shorter duration based on Congressional 
guidance (e.g., six months for PTSD) or the time duration recommended 
by the treating physician. 

Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
develop DOD-wide standards and goals for the timeliness of TDRL 
reexaminations to ensure that TDRL reexaminations occur at least once 
every 18 months. 

DOD Response: Concur. Please see the response to Recommendation 3, 
above. 

Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
establish a clearer policy specifying how the services should enforce 
the requirements that temporary retirees submit to periodic 
reexaminations and notify TDRL administrators when they have a change 
of address to ensure that TDRL reexaminations occur at least once every 
18 months. 

DOD Response: Concur with comment. Each of the Departments provide 
Service members specific directions regarding the requirement for 
periodic reexaminations and the importance of maintaining current 
contact information. It is not reasonable to assume that DoD can keep 
track of every change of address if an individual on the TDRL fails to 
submit same to the Military Departments' TDRL section. 

Recommendation 6: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
expand the use of non-military physicians for conducting TDRL 
reexaminations to ensure that TDRL reexaminations occur at least once 
every 18 months. 

DOD Response: Concur with comment. This recommendation should include 
the statement that the non-military physicians are both trained in and 
will accept examinations of individuals using VA-approved templates. 
Additionally, usage of non-military physicians should also include 
specific reference to reexaminations at non-military and non-VA 
facilities given training and qualification consistent with Title 10 
and Title 38, USC. 

Recommendation 7: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Services to ensure that temporary retirees receive a final 
determination upon expiration of their five years on the TDRL, as 
required by law to prevent unnecessary delays in permanent disability 
determinations for temporary retirees, and gaps in the receipt of 
disability benefits to which they are entitled. 

DOD Response: Concur. Each Service member on the TDRL is entitled (and 
encouraged) to engage with the VA to initiate benefits for which they 
are eligible. These benefits can be obtained well before reaching the 
expiration of TDRL eligibility. The DoD will work with the Military 
Departments to identify administrative process improvements that will 
reduce or eliminate instances where a Service member exceeds the five 
year tenure on the TDRL prior to receiving a final disposition. The 
Department also intends to pursue a legislative change to Section 
1210(e), Title 10, USC, to address the variances introduced into the 
TDRL process due to differing interpretations of the phrase "permanent 
and stable". Existing medical terminology uses the wording "maximum 
medical improvement" to identify decision points and status during the 
course of care and recovery. Use of this phrase throughout Chapter 61 
of Title 10, USC, instead of the word `stable' would better reflect how 
an individual's condition is assessed by medical caregivers, and reduce 
the possibility of an individual exceeding the current allowable 
duration on the TDRL. 

Recommendation 8: The GAO recommends that the Secretaries of the Army, 
Navy and Air Force assess the adequacy of information they provide 
regarding the TDRL, including the information contained on their PEB 
findings forms and other materials, and provided by PEB Liaison 
Officers, and make improvements where needed to ensure that temporary 
retirees receive adequate information to understand why they are placed 
on the list and the importance of complying with TDRL requirements. 

DOD Response: Concur. While addressed to the Secretaries of the 
Military Departments, DoD will strive to ensure that Service members 
placed on the TDRL receive information that provides an explanation of 
both the TDRL and the specific medical condition(s) that led to that 
placement. 

Recommendation 9: The GAO recommends that the Secretaries of the Army, 
Navy and Air Force; take steps to encourage ongoing contact between 
temporary retirees and TDRL administrators by, for example, maintaining 
a working and easily accessible TDRL administrative telephone hotline 
for temporary retirees to ensure that temporary retirees receive 
adequate information to understand why they are placed on the list and 
the importance of complying with TDRL requirements. 

DOD Response: Concur. Please see the response to Recommendation 5. 
There are multiple Service-level efforts in place to provide 
information regarding the TDRL to Service members. Each of the Military 
Departments have telephonic contact numbers in place, as well as 
specific e-mail addresses available to provide information, support, 
and guidance. 

Recommendation 10: The GAO recommends that the Secretaries of the Army, 
Navy and Air Force improve access to Web-based information about the 
TDRL to ensure that temporary retirees receive adequate information to 
understand why they are placed on the list and the importance of 
complying with TDRL requirements. 

DOD Response: Concur. Again, please consider the responses to 
Recommendations 5 and 9. Information regarding why an individual may be 
placed on the TDRL, what the requirements are once placed on the list, 
and points of contact to address questions or problems are readily 
available from each Military Department. DoD will work with each 
Service to ensure that the information available from each of these 
sources is current and accessible. 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Daniel Bertoni, (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Clarita Mrena (Assistant Director), Regina Santucci (Analyst-in- 
Charge), Salvatore Sorbello, Mark Ward, John Fisher, and Susan 
Bernstein made major contributions to this report. Walter Vance, 
Beverly Ross, and Anna Maria Ortiz assisted with study design and data 
analysis; James Rebbe and Doreen Feldman provided legal advice; Almeta 
Spencer assisted with study processing; Mimi Nguyen and Armetha Liles 
assisted with graphics; and Holly Dye assisted with editing. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Traumatic Brain Injury: Better DOD and VA Oversight Can Help Ensure 
More Accurate, Consistent, and Timely Decisions for the Traumatic 
Injury Insurance Program. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-108]. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 
2009. 

Military Disability Systems: Increased Supports for Servicemembers and 
Better Pilot Planning Could Improve the Disability Evaluation Process. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1137]. Washington, D.C.: 
September 24, 2008. 

DOD and VA: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Improve Care 
Management and Disability Evaluations for Servicemembers. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-514T]. Washington, D.C.: February 
27, 2008. 

VA Health Care: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Screening and Evaluation 
Implemented for OEF/OIF Veterans, but Challenges Remain. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-276]. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 
2008. 

DOD and VA: Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Improve Health Care 
and Disability Evaluations for Returning Servicemembers. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1256T]. Washington, D.C.: September 
26, 2007. 

Military Disability Evaluation: Ensuring Consistent and Timely Outcomes 
for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-561T]. Washington, D.C.: April 6, 
2006. 

Military Disability Systems: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure 
Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service 
Members. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-362]. 
Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See GAO, Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to 
Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty 
Service Members, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-362] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2006); and Military Disability System: 
Increased Supports for Servicemembers and Better Pilot Planning Could 
Improve the Disability Evaluation Process, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1137] (Washington, D.C.: Sep. 24, 
2008). 

[2] Servicemembers on the TDRL may be separated without compensation in 
rare cases involving noncompensable medical conditions that are 
diagnosed after they have been placed on the list. 

[3] DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 
Readiness), Report to Congress, The Temporary Disability Retired List 
(TDRL): An Assessment of its Continuing Utility and Future Role 
(Washington, D.C., Oct. 2, 2008). 

[4] Generally, a condition is compensable if the disability is of a 
permanent nature and stable, is not the result of misconduct or willful 
neglect, was incurred in the line of duty, and the servicemember is 
entitled to basic pay or has an authorized absence. 

[5] Servicemembers must be referred to the disability evaluation system 
for a determination of whether they are fit for duty by their service 
command. This referral is made after other options for retaining the 
servicemember, including reassignment in a limited duty capacity, have 
been exhausted. Servicemembers with 20 or more years of service are not 
subject to the 30 percent minimum rating. 

[6] Eligible servicemembers may choose to receive retirement payments 
based on years of service instead, if this would result in higher 
payments. 

[7] An exception is made when the servicemember has an unstable 
condition rated at 80 percent or higher and the condition is not 
expected to improve enough to lower their rating to less than 80 
percent. In this case, the servicemember would be placed on permanent 
disability retirement. 

[8] Eligible servicemembers may choose to receive retirement payments 
based on years of service instead, if this would result in higher 
payments. 

[9] Benefits may be nontaxable if the service's PEB determines that the 
compensable injuries are combat-related. 

[10] This offset is being progressively eliminated for military 
retirees with at least 20 years of service who have a VA disability 
rating of 50 percent or greater. 

[11] The Hook Commission had recommended that the first 5 years of all 
disability retirements be subject to periodic physical examinations 
through age 60, which would have been in keeping with the Army's 
efforts to institute a system that would allow for adjusting the amount 
of retirement pay based on changes in the degree of disability over 
time. 

[12] DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 
Readiness), The TDRL: An Assessment of its Continuing Utility and 
Future Role. 

[13] We did not test for statistical associations between these factors 
and the growth in TDRL caseload. 

[14] Placement on the TDRL is one of several disability evaluation 
outcomes. The other potential outcomes are placement on the PDRL, 
separation with or without a one-time severance payment, and being 
found fit to return to military service. 

[15] For a more detailed discussion of the numbers of reservists 
referred to the disability evaluation system relative to active duty 
servicemembers, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-362]. 

[16] Disabling conditions the VASRD classifies as respiratory disorders 
were also relatively more prevalent among annual placements on the 
Army's TDRL. The prevalence of respiratory disorders, in general, has 
declined from 30 percent among Army TDRL placements in 2000 to 12 
percent in 2007. 

[17] Until October 23, 2008, "Residuals of Traumatic Brain Injury 
(TBI)" in the VASRD was referred to as "Brain Disease Due to Trauma." 

[18] Other common neurological conditions and convulsive disorders 
included epilepsies (12 percent), sciatic nerve (11 percent), and 
multiple sclerosis (8 percent). 

[19] A TBI in and of itself is not considered a disability based on the 
VASRD. There are three main areas of residual dysfunction that may 
result from a TBI and have profound effects on functioning: cognitive, 
emotional/behavioral, and physical. 

[20] Other common mental disabilities include major depressive 
disorders (23 percent), bipolar disorder (15 percent), and dementia due 
to head trauma (14 percent). 

[21] For servicemembers with PTSD, starting in 2008, the VASRD applies 
an automatic disability rating of not less than 50 percent, but 
requires that a follow-up examination be scheduled within a 6-month 
period, instead of every 18 months. 

[22] For 31 individuals who were placed on the TDRL between calendar 
years 2000 and 2003 and then removed from the list, it was unknown if a 
severance payment was made. 

[23] The law states that "the Secretary concerned shall make a final 
determination of the case of each member whose name is on the temporary 
disability retired list upon the expiration of five years after the 
date when the member's name was placed on that list. If, at the time of 
that determination, the physical disability for which the member's name 
was carried on the temporary disability retired list still exists, it 
shall be considered to be of a permanent nature and stable." 10 U.S.C. 
§ 1210(b). 

[24] Among those starting on the TDRL in calendar years 2004 to 2007, 
50 percent have already received a final disposition of PDRL by month 
48, which is earlier than the median of 56 months for those placed on 
the list in 2000 through 2003. 

[25] Three individuals who were first removed from the TDRL and 
subsequently placed on the PDRL received severance payments. 

[26] Eligible servicemembers may choose to receive retirement payments 
based on years of service instead, if this would result in higher 
payments. 

[27] We were not able to calculate a difference in ratings for 10 of 
the temporary retirees that were placed on the PDRL because data on 
their final ratings were missing. 

[28] Monthly cash payments for temporary retirees can be no lower than 
50 percent of the individual's base pay at the time of retirement. 

[29] These were cases where the individual had less then 20 years of 
service and received a final rating below 30 percent. 

[30] DOD policies require that servicemembers' case files undergo 
review by multiple reviewers, and federal law requires that the 
services use, to the extent feasible, the VASRD. In addition, DOD 
periodically convenes a Disability Advisory Council comprised of 
service officials to review and update disability policy and to discuss 
current issues. For more information, see GAO-06-362. Among the 
services, only the Army conducts post disposition quality reviews to 
determine whether the medical evidence supports the disposition 
decision made in each case. 

[31] The Army has implemented a statistical program that analyzes its 
disability system database and identifies the VASRD codes that have the 
greatest degree of face inconsistency among its three PEBs. 

[32] The recent DOD report to Congress from the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), The TDRL: An Assessment 
of its Continuing Utility and Future Role, was prepared in response to 
a statutory requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-181, sec. 1647). Although this report 
presents some information about outcomes and years spent on the TDRL 
across the services, it does not compile information on the TDRL 
outcomes associated with different types of disabilities. 

[33] In two cases that we encountered during the course of this review, 
temporary retirees who had been on the list for over 3 years had not 
had any reexaminations. 

[34] According to military officials, MTF staff at the clinics where 
TDRL retirees need appointments often do not understand that although 
TDRL members are retirees, DOD regulations state that they have the 
same priority for appointments as active duty members. 

[35] According to military officials, the services provide 
servicemembers with the option of arranging air travel through a 
military travel agency, which requires no cash outlay from the 
servicemember. In addition, service officials told us that they have 
mechanisms to provide up-front financial assistance upon request, but 
servicemembers must request this assistance. 

[36] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1137]. 

[37] Each service requires its PEBLOs to provide counseling to TDRL 
retirees. PEBLOs are responsible for explaining the significance of 
particular PEB findings or documents TDRL retirees receive and are 
expected to find answers to retirees' questions if they cannot answer 
them. 

[38] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-362]. 

[39] Appendix I contains a list of the materials and Web sites we 
reviewed. 

[40] This information is as of January 2009. 

[41] U.S. Army, Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES). 

[42] Total removals from the TDRL each year included cases in which the 
servicemember was (1) placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List 
(PDRL); (2) separated from the military, either with severance or 
without any disability benefits; (3) deceased; or (4) found fit for 
duty. 

[43] The Retired Pay File documents every pay action taken in each 
temporary retiree's case within a specified time frame. 

[44] A full 5 years' worth of data were not available for 138 of the 
293 cases in our 2000 through 2003 cohort whose status in August 2008 
was "awaiting a final disability determination." It is possible that 
some of these cases could have had final dispositions before or at 5 
years that occurred after August 2008 and were not captured in our 
analysis. 

[45] We saw that in a small number of cases, the first removal codes 
could be followed by subsequent TDRL or PDRL activity. Due to the 
complexity of this small number of cases, we decided to characterize 
the outcomes as first movement off the TDRL. 

[46] For estimates of monthly cash payments, we only looked at 
temporary retirees' disability ratings. We did not assess if years of 
service multiplied by 2.5 would result in higher monthly retirement 
payments. 

[47] DOD, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 
Readiness), Report to Congress, The Temporary Disability Retired List 
(TDRL): An Assessment of its Continuing Utility and Future Role 
(Washington, D.C., Oct. 2, 2008). 

[48] Information that could identify any participant was left out of 
the transcripts to protect participants' privacy. 

[49] We also contacted the National Military Family Association, the 
Reserve Officers Association, and the Reserve Enlisted Association. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

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

Contact: 

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

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: