Oig Mailroom Report - Sept 30 2009

[carlie]

Department of Veterans Affairs

Office of Inspector General

Audit of

VA Regional Office

Claim-Related Mail Processing

Report No. 08-01759-234

September 30, 2009

VA Office of Inspector General

Washington, DC 20420

http://www.veteranaid.org/docs/mailaudit.pdf

[Wings]

Department of Veterans Affairs

Office of Inspector General

Audit of

VA Regional Office

Claim-Related Mail Processing

Report No. 08-01759-234

September 30, 2009

VA Office of Inspector General

Washington, DC 20420

http://www.veteranaid.org/docs/mailaudit.pdf

OIG is calling it "mail amnesties" LOL !!! ~Wings

[ArmyTexas]

That report just gets you mad. Even though they found all of these problem, the majority of the problems were not intintional. What a load of #$%. The below happens when you let your own management quality control check themselves. It's like giving the fox the key to the chicken coop and wondering why the coops are empty and the foxes are crapping out feathers. Waco inspects itself and finds on 2 errors in 1,680 claims, VAIG inspects and finds 9 erros in 60 claims. Maybe the QC should be contracted out to an independent group. This report makes me feel all warm a fuzzy about my pending claim at Waco!

At the Waco VARO, the VARO quality review team conducted the reviews. _{A quality review checklist was used by the VARO that included a test for date of claim accuracy. The VARO’s quality review of 1,680 claims during FY 2008 identified only two errors.} In contrast, our review identified 9 (15 percent) of 60 claims established during June 1, 2008 through July 31, 2008, with date of claim inaccuracies.

[ArmyTexas]

Please look at the last several pages where the IG gives their recommendations. The VA response is basically could you please change this working or phrase because it's really making us look as bad as everyone already thinks.

With this same attitude that they have to minimize the damage, no wonder WACO only found 2 errors. Anymore and they would have amended it anyway back to the 2.

[carlie]

Please look at the last several pages where the IG gives their recommendations. The VA response is basically could you please change this working or phrase because it's really making us look as bad as everyone already thinks.

With this same attitude that they have to minimize the damage, no wonder WACO only found 2 errors. Anymore and they would have amended it anyway back to the 2.

EXACTLY - The last few pages with the comments section.

Boo - Hoo - please omit this so we don't look as poorly.

jmho,

carlie

[Vync]

My VARO, Montgomery, AL, was 82.8% compliant in 2008 and placed #37, which is just two above the national average. At least they didn't come in last. Washington D.C. came in last (#58) and was 34.2% compliant. I hope I never have to send anything there...

[jbasser]

Did anyone read the responses?

What a fiasco, The VBA acts like they are in denial.

J