It's a good question.
I alluded to that earlier. What's important is not necessarily the numbers, but if cases are returned for the same reasons over a period of time, that means there are no mechanisms in place to recognize what are the weaknesses or the challenges of the board. For me and our team, what's important is the fact that these weaknesses at that end might even be present at the front end of the adjudication process.
Again, 100% is a target more than a standard, I would think. I know that in all our own performance reports we always put down 80% or 90%. I don't know of anybody who puts 100% and hopes to achieve that.
The important thing is why decisions are returned. We should eliminate these ones. I'll use as an example the recognition of medical evidence at its proper value. That should not return. It should be something that, over a period of time, when the decisions are sent back from the Federal Court, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the BPA, and the department should be looking at. They should be saying that they need to clean up that aspect of it. That would eliminate one common denominator.