Thank you, sir.
Since about July I've been working with the new evidence-based model for adjudications, which is to accelerate. What we are also doing is working with our colleagues at CAF to use the military occupational codes so that we can start identifying.... I think they use new terminology now. They keep calling it MOC, but I think it has different initials now.
If you've been an infantryman or woman and have humped however many thousands of miles, it would be reasonable to assume certain injuries. We're working with the military institute of research to ask what we could expect to see, and we want to put that information to adjudicators when they're looking at the file: is this a reasonable injury to expect?
We're not quite there yet. With PTSD we're much more advanced, because it's easier to link a little bit to some things. We're looking right now at musculoskeletal injuries in knees and shoulders—the back is more complicated, to be honest—because you have had the packsack on for.... We're working on this and working with our colleagues at CAF to see what the job description of a certain person is and what the most common injuries are that link to it.
What we have done for PTSD is run it against our system and ask how often we would approve it. If you have a 99% approval rate for a certain injury to an infantryman or woman.... There's a certain logic.
We're working on it. We're not quite there yet, but we're working on it.