Closed lpciferri closed 5 years ago
Notes 6/4:
Changed "VSO attorney/employee" references to "VSO representative" throughout; VSO reps are generally not attorneys, and because there is also the other question of access for non-VSO representatives that may be attorneys (which I also added), did not want to have confusion there.
Re: scope - Reader:
Re: scope - Private attorneys:
LRP presentation to Chairman 3/29/2018: Informal Hearing Presentations for Chair_March29_2018.pptx
8/16 - @lowellrex, @nicholasholtz, and @laurjpeterson met to discuss rollout plans
Queue overall launch and rollout plans live here
@lowellrex @mdbenjam - these are the VSOs that write IHPs, and therefore will be the organizations where the Board assigns tasks to, and where they complete the IHP task:
Armed Forces Services Corporation, Room 2W.240J
American Legion (AL), Room 2E.102B
American Red Cross (ARC), Room 2W.240K
American Veterans (AMVETS), Room 2W.240G
Blinded Veterans Association (BVA), Room 2W.240M
Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Room 2E.250J
Fleet Reserve Association (FRA), Room 2W.240C
Marine Corps League (MCL), Room 2W.240I
Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA)
Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH), Room 2W.240P
National Veterans Legal Services Program, Inc. (NVLSP), Room 2W.240H
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), Room 2W.210C
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Room 2E.450K
**Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), Room 2W.220F
Wounded Warrior Project (WWP), Room 2W.240S – VSO-Flexi Desk
Added NCOA (Non Commissioned Officers Association)
~Catholic War Veterans (CWV), Room 2W.240D~ No IHPs received since May 2015.
~Navy Mutual Aid Association (NMAA), Room 2W.240J~ No IHPs received since Dec 2015
Reference: https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/dsva-vacols/issues/33
RAMP appeal VSOs as of 9/5/2018. Bolded = co-located VSO that writes IHPs
direct_review | evidence_submission | hearing | total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
**AMERICAN LEGION | 5 | 1 | 21 | 27** |
**AMVETS | 1 | 1 | 2** | |
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' SERVICES | 1 | 1 | ||
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 3 | 3 | ||
**DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS | 8 | 5 | 10 | 23** |
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN SERVICE | 1 | 1 | ||
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 | 1 | ||
MISSOURI VETERANS COMMISSION | 1 | 1 | ||
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BLACK VETERANS, INC | 1 | 1 | ||
NATIONAL VETERANS ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA, INC | 1 | 1 | ||
NEW YORK DIVISION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 | 1 | ||
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 | 1 | ||
SOUTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS SERVICES | 1 | 1 | ||
TEXAS VETERANS COMMISSION | 3 | 1 | 6 | 10 |
**VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE US | 3 | 1 | 4 | 8** |
**VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA | 3 | 3** | ||
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 | 1 | ||
Grand Total | 25 | 10 | 59 | 94 |
@nicholasholtz do you know if National Association for Black Veterans, Inc is a VSO that writes IHPs?
progress here: https://dsva.slack.com/archives/C6E41RE92/p1536181765000100
I don't see NCOA in BGS. But besides that here are the organizations I'm going to add:
Vso.create(name: "Armed Forces Services Corporation", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "armed-forces-services-corporation", participant_id: "2452332")
Vso.create(name: "American Legion", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "american-legion", participant_id: "2452327")
Vso.create(name: "American Red Cross", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "american-red-cross", participant_id: "2452407")
Vso.create(name: "American Veterans", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "american-veterans", participant_id: "2452322")
Vso.create(name: "Blinded Veterans Association", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "blinded-veterans-association", participant_id: "2452334")
Vso.create(name: "Disabled American Veterans", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "disabled-american-veterans", participant_id: "2452340")
Vso.create(name: "Fleet Reserve Association", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "fleet-reserve-association", participant_id: "2452343")
Vso.create(name: "Marine Corps League", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "marine-corps-league", participant_id: "2452359")
Vso.create(name: "Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "maryland-department-of-veterans-affairs", participant_id: "2452360")
Vso.create(name: "Military Order of the Purple Heart", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "military-order-of-the-purple-heart", participant_id: "2452362")
Vso.create(name: "National Veterans Legal Services Program", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "national-veterans-legal-services-program", participant_id: "2452368")
Vso.create(name: "Veterans of Foreign Wars", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "veterans-of-foreign-wars", participant_id: "2452411")
Vso.create(name: "Vietnam Veterans of America", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "vietnam-veterans-of-america", participant_id: "2452415")
Vso.create(name: "Wounded Warrior Project", role: "VSO", feature: "vso_queue", url: "wounded-warrior-project", participant_id: "20388167")
Counts as of 9/20/18.
VSO Name | Count |
---|---|
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS | 48 |
AMERICAN LEGION | 47 |
TEXAS VETERANS COMMISSION | 19 |
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE US | 15 |
INDIVIDUAL | 13 |
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 11 |
INDIVIDUAL | 8 |
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 7 |
VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA | 6 |
INDIVIDUAL | 5 |
INDIVIDUAL | 4 |
SOUTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 3 |
INDIVIDUAL | 3 |
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 2 |
AMVETS | 2 |
INDIVIDUAL | 2 |
INDIVIDUAL | 2 |
NEW YORK DIVISION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 2 |
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 2 |
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 2 |
INDIVIDUAL | 2 |
INDIVIDUAL | 2 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN SERVICE | 1 |
NATIONAL VETERANS ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA, INC | 1 |
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BLACK VETERANS, INC | 1 |
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' SERVICES | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
AGENT OR PVT ATTY-EXCLUSIVE CONTACT NOT REQUESTED | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
MISSOURI VETERANS COMMISSION | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS SERVICES | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 |
Disaggregated by docket.
VSO Name | Direct Review | Evidence Submission | Hearing | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS | 13 | 10 | 25 | 48 |
AMERICAN LEGION | 10 | 2 | 35 | 47 |
TEXAS VETERANS COMMISSION | 5 | 2 | 12 | 19 |
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE US | 4 | 2 | 9 | 15 |
INDIVIDUAL | 11 | 2 | 13 | |
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 4 | 7 | 11 | |
INDIVIDUAL | 4 | 4 | 8 | |
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA | 6 | 6 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
INDIVIDUAL | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
SOUTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
INDIVIDUAL | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
AMVETS | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
INDIVIDUAL | 2 | 2 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
NEW YORK DIVISION OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 2 | 2 | ||
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 2 | 2 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 2 | 2 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN SERVICE | 1 | 1 | ||
NATIONAL VETERANS ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA, INC | 1 | 1 | ||
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BLACK VETERANS, INC | 1 | 1 | ||
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' SERVICES | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
AGENT OR PVT ATTY-EXCLUSIVE CONTACT NOT REQUESTED | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
MISSOURI VETERANS COMMISSION | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS SERVICES | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 | ||
INDIVIDUAL | 1 | 1 |
@lowellrex @mdbenjam @amprokop - FYI, the chairman does not want to adhere to VSO turnaround times for October pilot anymore.
From Andrea MacDonald's email:
She indicated RAMP is too soon to hold VSOs to IHP limitations. She suggested we could encourage VSOs participating in RAMP to test the limitations which will be enforced later on a phased in basis. She confirmed 30 days for AODs and 45 for all other cases.
My response:
It sounds like she does not want to hold VSOs accountable for the 30 or 45 day time frame starting October 1. This means that Caseflow should prevent distributing cases needing IHPs to judges even if it goes beyond 30 or 45 days.
Re: Caseflow - we don't yet have functionality for VSOs to send cases back to the Board through Caseflow. What I'd recommend to track VSO turnaround times until we have that is:
Re: Caseflow - we don't yet have functionality for VSOs to send cases back to the Board through Caseflow.
I think we're most of the way there. VSO employees can mark tasks complete in their queues now, so I think the only thing left to do is modify the query we use to determine which cases are ready for distribution to judges. It's possible @mdbenjam or @amprokop has already modified the assignment code to properly handle this case (I'm not familiar with where in the code that happens), but if not then I can take that on.
@lowellrex @mdbenjam @cmgiven @nicholasholtz
@nikitarockz is tracking which specific VSO users are in the process of getting VSO access to Caseflow in issues in the appeals-pm repo
For now, we have a few users in flight for the following VSOs
@cmgiven - let us know if any RAMP appeals for other VSOs come in so Nicholas can initiate their access with Nikita
URLs:
appeals.cf.ds.va.gov/organizations/pva
appeals.cf.ds.va.gov/organizations/american-legion
appeals.cf.ds.va.gov/organizations/disabled-american-veterans
appeals.cf.ds.va.gov/organizations/vietnam-veterans-of-america
https://appeals.cf.ds.va.gov/organizations/veterans-of-foreign-wars
Sat with DAV user 10/16. Confirmed that all users from PVA, DAV, American Legion, and VVA have been able to log into Caseflow. VFW users at a conference this week. AMVETS users have yet to get CSEM access.
i observed Tom Wendel, DAV, using VSO Caseflow today and noticed a few things! Will create tickets after this, and we can discuss prioritization when we discuss org queues/tasks later today:
/queue
page and see New, Pending Action, On Hold tabsFeature Requests
Chatted with @lowellrex about VSO queues 10/30:
Add Submit IHP task
so VSOs can assign only cases needing IHPs to individuals. RAMP appeal VSOs as of 11/06/2018
There are two types of VSOs - VSOs that write IHPs (often referred to as co-located) and VSOs in the field that do not write IHPs. Some examples:
All types of VSOs currently have access to VACOLS, and will need access to Caseflow. They have VBMS, so do not need Reader at this time.
Co-located/IHP-writing VSOs have more access in VACOLS than Field/non-IHP writing VSOs, who have read-only VACOLS access.
Out of scope before February:
Small number of users from IHP-writing VSOs with evidence submission and direct review RAMP appeals - in progress
All IHP writing users from IHP-writing VSOs with evidence submission and direct review RAMP appeals - in progress
Create CSEM function for non-IHP writing VSOs for their "read only" access. This can probably be used by the Private Bar as well.
Implement whatever is needed for that read-only VSO view.
Initiate access for all other VSOs (could be ~1500 field VSO reps)
@nicholasholtz @lowellrex @sneha-pai @marvokdolor-gov @nikitarockz - i'd love your feedback on the above plan for more VSO users to get access to Caseflow.
My main questions for you:
I see no harm in an aggressive rollout schedule for VSOs, both in increasing number of users that belong to a given VSO and the number of total VSOs that have queues in Caseflow (with the caveat that non-IHP writing VSOs will only be able to view their cases through search until #7905 is merged).
My thoughts and beliefs. 😄
When should each of these phases take place, knowing that now that we have given access to some (1-3 users) from IHP-writing VSOs, requests to expand that access have been coming in.
Are the goals and time frames I've listed above correct?
All IHP-writing VSOs have access to Caseflow to view RAMP/AMA appeals by February 14th Yes, I feel like this makes sense and is do able.
All other VSOs have access to Caseflow to view RAMP/AMA appeals by February 14th - field offices currently have read-only VACOLS capabilities) With this being about 1,500 users, this may be a stretch since everyone will have to submit paper work. SInce these users will be read only, I feel like we have time to push it out a bit. I am thinking the focus should be on the IHP writing ISO users to meet the 2/14 goal.
Do you agree that BVA should be involved in initiating access for VSOs as I've listed?
BVA CSEM Initiator can only submit requests for those considered a part of BVA. For all other VSOs (field) not at station 101, their specific station CSEM Initiator will have to provide them access. I have been working with OBPI. They have agree to help with any user access that is required at other stations since we can't directly submit those requests in CSEM. This will be same process we used when we rolled out access to Certification users who are across all stations.
@laurjpeterson I think this looks good, and I think your assumptions are on the mark.
@nikitarockz re:
All other VSOs have access to Caseflow to view RAMP/AMA appeals by February 14th - field offices currently have read-only VACOLS capabilities) With this being about 1,500 users, this may be a stretch since everyone will have to submit paper work. SInce these users will be read only, I feel like we have time to push it out a bit. I am thinking the focus should be on the IHP writing ISO users to meet the 2/14 goal.
Should we ask BVA to initiate getting all of the non IHP-writing VSOs access to Caseflow, proactively? Yes, beginning in January will be a good time since it will be after the holidays and it might take a while for all users to submit their forms.
I think this might have been a typo - the non-IHP-writing VSOs will be out in the field, and would not be initiated by BVA, correct?
@nicholasholtz @nikitarockz - thank you!
I think this might have been a typo - the non-IHP-writing VSOs will be out in the field, and would not be initiated by BVA, correct?
I meant that we would reach out to field VSOs and initiate the process of getting them CSEM access. Someone from BVA or the Caseflow team would get updated VSO contacts from Nick U and reach out to each VSO contact asking for the list of people that need access, their CSS IDs, and all CSEM required forms.
I think this is something that we could initiate, right @nicholasholtz?
I don't know enough to provide any substantive feedback here, but happy to help with the emails out to VSOs.
Discussion with @nikitarockz to kick off planning and CSEM access for co-located/IHP-writing VSOs and field VSOs
co-located_vso_employees.xlsx field_vso_employees.xlsx
Question thread with Jed - https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/dsva-vacols/issues/47
closing, knowledge docs/base will be stored in the wiki, here: https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/caseflow/wiki/VSOs
Background
Veterans Service Organizations have the following overall goals:
Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) currently access their appeals work in VACOLS. They also have access to the Veteran's claims folder in VBMS. (Note: they want access to Reader.)
Under AMA, they will still be writing IHPs. The Board does not need to wait for an IHP to be submitted, though it currently tends to wait.
If a Veteran has chosen the Direct Review lane under AMA, meaning they are not submitting any new evidence, the Board has a goal timeframe of deciding the case within 365 days from the NOD date. This timeframe will take precedence over waiting for the IHP to be submitted.
Goals
Assumptions
Phases and User stories
At any point
Hearings
Informal Hearing Presentations (IHP)
This is likely where the bulk of the functionality lives.
Open Questions
Resources