In 2007, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) received presidential direction to conduct a joint program to modernize and improve the disability evaluation and compensation process for wounded, ill, and injured Soldiers. VA and DoD collaborated to develop the Integrated Disability Evaluation System(IDES).The goals of IDES are to:• Reduce the overall time it takes a Soldier to progress through the IDES process, starting at the time of referral to the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and ending upon receipt of VA benefits or return to duty (RTD);• Utilize a single examination process that meets the needs of VA and DoD; and• Increase transparency of both the military disability evaluation system and VA claims processes for wounded, ill, and injured Soldiers and their families.The IDES process identifies all medical and/or psychological conditions that impact military occupational function for the purposes of determining fitness for duty and entitlement to military and/ or VA disability compensation. The core IDES process is standardized to ensure that each Soldier, Command, and the Army Staff understand their critical contributions to case processing. Accountability measures based on the minimum necessary standards are in place at all levels across the Army. This guidebook clarifies the processes, roles and responsibilities, and standards measured at each IDES step.The IDES Guidebook is intended solely to provide MTFs and their personnel with a description of IDES practices and procedures. The IDES Guidebook should not be construed or referenced as an authoritative source for IDES regulations or policy. In-text citations refer to authoritative IDES policy and regulations. Readers should always seek out these authoritative sources when necessary and should not, in any case, cite to the IDES Guidebook as Department of the Army policy.

In Feb. 2007, a series of articles in ¿The Washington Post¿ about conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center highlighted problems in the military¿s disability evaluation system (DES). Subsequently, the Dept. of the Army, the DoD, and the VA undertook initiatives to address concerns with the DES. In 2007, the Army took steps to streamline its process, and DoD and VA began piloting a joint evaluation system to address systemic concerns abut timeliness and the potential inefficiency of having separate DES. This report examines: (1) recent actions by the Army to help servicemembers navigate its DES; and (2) the status, plans, and challenges of DoD and VA¿s efforts to pilot and implement a joint DES Includes recommendations. Illustrations.

The joint U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)-Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Integrated Disability Evaluation System is the process by which DoD determines fitness for duty and separation or retirement of service members because of disability. Service members who are evaluated for disability undergo a comprehensive medical examination to document all medical conditions and receive a disability rating for every condition documented during the exam. DoD and the VA use these ratings to determine the amount of disability compensation service members receive if they are determined to be unfit to continue serving and consequently medically discharged. Proposals for reforming the DoD compensation system have been considered in the past, but a rigorous evaluation of what those alternatives might look like and how they would affect service member benefits and costs to DoD has not been conducted. In this report, the authors describe their evaluation of four hypothetical alternative disability compensation approaches that would support a simpler disability evaluation process: compensating based on the current objectives of the DoD system (and using current benefit formulas), compensating on the basis of a military career, compensating on the basis of unfitting conditions, or compensating similar to U.S. allies. Each alternative reduces reliance on disability ratings for determining DoD disability compensation and focuses primarily on a single decision about whether a service member is fit to perform his or her duties. The authors evaluate the potential effects of each alternative on service member compensation, processing times, end strength, lost skills and experience, and readiness.