That's not so. The system in place is one based on entitlement. A person may contact the department, but may not be able to justify his request. That person must provide some proof in order to receive a service. Obviously, the person must be a veteran, an incident must have taken place to cause his disability and that incident must have occurred while he was on duty. In others words, the request must be backed up by supporting evidence.
Occasionally, people do not come prepared with all of the documents they need to support their application for a disability pension. Between 60% and 70-% of applications are accepted right way. In the remaining 30% of cases, some proof is lacking, either a medical report or account confirming that the disability is the result of an accident or incident that occurred in the line of duty. These veterans then turn to us and ultimately get a hearing before the Board and an opportunity to present their case.
From this point onward, the system becomes considerably more sophisticated. An independent member examines the evidence, weighs the credibility of the testimony—because by law, the veteran must be given the benefit of the doubt—and then grants, or denies a pension based on the evidence adduced. The success rate at this stage if 60%. The next stage, the final stage, is the appeals process. The current success rate at this level is approximately 30%. Basically, we're working with a system that has been around for 90 years, one that involves the department and the appeals process.
If you consider the overall structure and if you compare Veterans Affairs to other agencies that award compensation for bodily injury, you have to admit that the system in place at Veterans Affairs is working. In the final analysis, perhaps 10% or 15% of applicants fail to obtain anything. One has to look at the overall system and ask if it works well and if the veteran benefits. In my opinion, the system does work. It is sometimes slow, but occasionally, we need to stirs things up a little.