New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
VSOs #5581
Comments
Notes 6/4: Scope
Questions
Rollout questions
Project schedule
|
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 RAMP appeals pilot scope - October 2018
Rollout plans
Comms
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:
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
@nicholasholtz do you know if National Association for Black Veterans, Inc is a VSO that writes IHPs? VSOs with Evidence and Direct Review RAMP appeals needing access for October
|
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:
|
Counts as of 9/20/18.
|
Disaggregated by docket.
|
@lowellrex @mdbenjam @amprokop - FYI, the chairman does not want to adhere to VSO turnaround times for October pilot anymore. From Andrea MacDonald's email:
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:
|
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:
|
Sat with DAV user 10/16. 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:
Feature Requests
|
Chatted with @lowellrex about VSO queues 10/30:
|
Draft Plan for rolling out Caseflow to more VSOsBackgroundThere 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. VSO functionalityBoth IHP-writing and non-IHP writing VSOs
Only IHP-writing VSOs
Goals:
Out of scope before February:
Suggested phases:
Questions and Unknowns
@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. 😄
|
@laurjpeterson I think this looks good, and I think your assumptions are on the mark. @nikitarockz re:
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 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 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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: