Legal Meets Practical: Accessible Solutions

Baffling Move by CVE Makes VetBiz Process Much Harder

by Sarah Schauerte

Today I received an email from the Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE). I wasn’t surprised, as I had recently heard of many veterans advocates and organizations receiving similar ones.

I simply hoped it wasn’t true. This new development hurts every veteran applying for VetBiz verification that needs guidance.

Here’s what the email said:

“Dear Ms. Schauerte

CVE is highly supportive of the Verification Counselor program as this program provides a valuable service to Veterans who are going through the application process. CVE provides responses to counselor inquiries as a means to inform applicants about the Veterans First Contracting Program. However, 5 CFR § 2635.702(c) prohibits agency endorsements of any product, service or enterprise. Accordingly, CVE’s resources are not available to certified Verification Counselors who are currently accepting fees for their counseling services. CVE Certified Counselors found to be charging a fee will be removed from the VETBIZ website.

A review of organizations listed on the VETBIZ website was conducted. Your website (https://legalmeetspractical.com/va-vetbiz-verification-program/va-vetbiz-applications/) indicates a fee is being charge for Verification Counselor services. In light of this, your name has been removed from the VETBIZ website as a CVE Certified Counselor.

Kind regards,
Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE).”

Here’s the issue.  I never charge for initial consultations and am always happy to help with questions (which is what being a counselor entails – note that the CVE stated that “a fee is being charge[d] for Verification Counselor services, but that is inaccurate). I chose this career for a reason – I am a veterans advocate and I care about the veterans. However, I cannot work for free, always, and afford to live. As such, I charge if I am spending hours upon hours putting together a VetBiz application or a request for reconsideration. This is helpful for both me and for veterans – I am able to make a living doing something about which I am passionate, and veterans receive much-needed guidance.

In reality, this change will likely affect me little because I am easy to find through my website. I appreciate being listed, but it’s not necessary.
However, veterans who are relying on the CVE’s website to find a counselor will have difficulty. That is incredibly frustrating because the VA is completely misconstruing the regulation [5 CFR § 2635.702(c)] it relies upon in removing “paid” counselors. This statute states: “An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise.” No individual employee is involved in this situation, and a review of the case law shows cases where an individual government employee was acting, not a department as a whole.
Further, listing counselors on the CVE’s website or providing answers to their questions (inquiring into the regulations, to relay to veterans) in no way endorses them. The CVE disagrees with this – I saw one response to a “fee-based” counselor’s question where the response was essentially, “sorry, we can’t give you an answer. That would be an endorsement.” If the CVE still thought that posting the counselors online constitued an “endorsement,” it could spend thirty seconds posting a disclaimer stating that the listing does not constitute an endorsement.
Last, the statute goes on to provide an exception to the general rule against endorsement: “(No agency employee may endorse except…) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency’s mission.” (5 CFR 2635.702(c)(2)). This exception applies!
Here, these counselors have received training by the CVE in order to become qualified as counselors, and they must pass an examination prior before being listed on the website. They are also in most cases not charging a fee – I don’t know of any counselor who charges a veteran who calls with questions about the VetBiz process. I myself have fielded about ten calls over the last few months, and I never charge for those types of initial consultations. Now, because of the CVE’s application of this regulation, veterans will have far fewer resources to turn to in attempting the verification process.
If the counselors being removed were ones that always charged a fee, I could to a degree see where the VA is coming from (even if it was still misapplying the regulation). However, this isn’t the case.
This development is a huge step backwards, and I urge veterans and advocates to contact Tom Leney, the Executive Director for Veterans and Small Business Programs, at [email protected]. I also ask you to please pass this article on.
Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click on the link sent to your email to activate your subscription!  

One Response to “Baffling Move by CVE Makes VetBiz Process Much Harder”

  1. I have absolutely fairh in the Veterans Administration from wither their Health care or their Vet Biz activities. My thoughts are that they should be called Veterans Last. We need a change of government now.

Mission Statement

My mission is to provide accessible, high-quality legal services to small business owners and to veterans. I will strive to clearly communicate, understand objectives, and formulate and execute effective legal solutions.

Disclaimer

No Attorney-Client Relationship

This website is maintained exclusively for informational purposes. It is not intended to provide legal or other professional advice and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the lawyer or her clients. Viewing this site, using information from it, or communicating with Sarah Schauerte through this site by email does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Non-Reliance

Online readers should not act nor decline to act, based on content from this site, without first consulting an attorney or other appropriate professional. Because the law changes frequently, this website's content may not indicate the current state of the law. Nothing on this site is meant to predict or guarantee future results. I am not liable for the use or interpretation of information contained on this website, and expressly disclaim all liability for any actions you take or fail to take, based on this website's content.

Links

I do not necessarily endorse and am not responsible for content accessed through this website's links to other Internet resources. Correctness and adequacy of information on those sites is not guaranteed, and unless otherwise stated, I am not associated with such linked sites.

Contacting Me

You may email me through the email address provided by this site, but information you send through email or this website is not secure and may not be confidential. Communications will not be treated as privileged unless I already represent you. Do not send confidential information until you have established a formal attorney-client relationship with me. Even if I represent you, please understand that email security is still uncertain and that you accept all risks of such uncertainty and potential lack of confidentiality when you send us unencrypted, sensitive, or confidential email. Email from me never constitutes an electronic signature, unless it expressly says so.