I just don't see the problem with the existing language. The existing language says, “that proper vetting was either not done or this individual's military record was ignored”. In other words, either the research wasn't done or the research was done but the results of that research were ignored. The existing language, I think, is inclusive of all possibilities. It doesn't say that his record was ignored. It says that either the proper vetting wasn't done or his record was ignored.
I don't see the need for the change. It does seem like wordsmithing at this point, but I think the existing language is better.