Please use the report below to answer the following question.

Q1. Based on this report how can you use this content for academic assignment?  

Q2. How could this content be helpful to the Department of veterans affairs?

The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) submitted a report to the Congressional Committees with the following title: Defense Health Care: Improved Monitoring and Supervision Required of Servicemember Separations for Non-Disability Mental Disorders. According to the findings of the analysis, there is a compelling need for an improved monitoring and tracking system for former service members who were medically dismissed from the military due to a mental-related condition that was unrelated to their disability. There is a wide variety of grounds for which a member of the armed forces may be released from active duty. Problems relating to one's mental health, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), have recently been brought to the attention of the general public. Veterans who have been honorably discharged from the armed forces are eligible to participate in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) program, provided that they satisfy the necessary conditions. Because hundreds of service members from each of the four branches of the military are let go on a monthly basis, there is a pressing need to be able to keep tabs on those who have been let go for disabilities related to their military service as well as those who have been let go for disabilities that are not related to their military service. Personality disorder is one type of mental ailment that does not qualify as a disability and is the reason that many people get released from their military obligation.

In 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) came to the conclusion that there was insufficient oversight exercised by the four branches of the armed forces to ensure that the requirements for separating a service member who was diagnosed with a personality disorder were being adhered to in the appropriate manner. As a result of the finding in 2008, the Department of Defense has revised its policies and procedures regarding the circumstances under which a service member may be discharged from the military for reasons unrelated to a disability involving their mental health. The phrase "condition, not a disability" is mentioned in the context of three of the four branches of the armed forces in the report. In particular, the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Navy are called out for their use of this overly wide separation code. They go on to say that because of the usage of a general separation code, it is not possible to identify and keep tabs on service members who have been discharged due to a mental ailment that is not associated with a handicap.

One of the specifics that are mentioned by the GAO is the fact that the branches of service have not been keeping up with the updating of their policies for separating service members. As a result, their policies are out of date, which in turn is causing problems for many service members who have been discharged but are not receiving the appropriate benefits that are afforded to them. According to the General Accountability Office (2015), "DOD officials acknowledged that they have not compelled the military services to perform any examination of their compliance with DOD's separation standards for any non-disability mental illnesses to determine whether they are being followed" (p. 20). The Department of Defense (DOD), on the other hand, maintains that it is not their obligation to have control of the process of separation followed by each department; rather, the DOD asserts that each branch is accountable for their own process of separation.

The report is comprehensive and very well written; it tells the reader all they need to know about the situation, including who was involved, when it happened, and why. Each branch of the armed forces is given a comprehensive breakdown of its findings and recommendations in the report. The report is laid out in a manner that is simple to read and comprehend, with the salient facts being walled in on the margins of each page.

If I were a high-ranking official in the government, I'd want to take a look at the report's findings and the recommendations it makes for ways to make improvements. The higher-ranking authorities are interested in the particulars, namely how it relates to the scope of their work. If I were in charge of the Army, for instance, I wouldn't be interested in learning particular about any of the other departments of the government; rather, I would be interested in learning specifics about the Army itself. If there are any recommendations that are unique to the Army, I would like to be aware of them so that I can begin the process of putting those changes into effect and making improvements. My concern would not be directed toward the other divisions in terms of how well they performed or what kinds of adjustments they need to do.

I feel that the report should have been distributed to each of the four branches of the armed forces, and I also believe that the process for distributing the report was carried out appropriately. It was helpful to have a memorandum attached that explained the drafted report, so I was glad that you included one. A conference call with the Department of Defense could have also been used to disseminate the report. The purpose of this would have been to ensure that all four branches of the armed forces had the same understanding of the situation. This would have allowed them to collaborate on developing a system that meets the requirements of the Department of Defense as a whole.