The FORGOTTEN Veterans Act directs the Secretary of Defense to expand the Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record (ILER) to capture all toxic exposures (including domestic incidents), related medical encounters, and occupational/environmental monitoring so that the data is available to VA when service members separate. It requires DoD to mark service records where there was a potential for toxic exposure, while protecting classified locations, and gives designated DoD/VA clinicians, epidemiologists, and benefits specialists access to the ILER.
Separately, the bill establishes presumptions that members of the Armed Forces and DoD civilian employees stationed at facilities on the Department of Energy’s covered‑facility list were exposed to toxic substances, classifies the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) as a location where contamination occurred, and amends VA statutes to treat certain NTTR service as radiation‑risk activity and to add lipomas and related tumor conditions to the list of presumptive conditions for covered veterans. These changes shift evidentiary burdens in VA claims, require DoD identification and record‑keeping steps, and create operational and privacy tradeoffs for DoD and VA implementers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires DoD to expand the ILER to record all toxic exposures, associated medical encounters, and environmental monitoring and to flag service records where potential exposures occurred (with protections for classified locations). It establishes a presumption of toxic exposure for personnel assigned to facilities on the DOE EEOICPA covered‑facility list, designates the Nevada Test and Training Range as contaminated, and amends VA law to add certain presumptive conditions tied to NTTR service.
Who It Affects
Active duty service members and veterans who served at the Nevada Test and Training Range or at DOE‑listed facilities, DoD civilian employees, DoD and VA healthcare providers, epidemiologists, disability evaluation specialists, and the Air Force office charged with identifying affected personnel.
Why It Matters
By creating statutory presumptions and enriching exposure records, the bill lowers evidentiary hurdles for many VA claims and centralizes exposure data that VA and DoD need to adjudicate claims and conduct research. That changes how claims are proven, increases administrative and IT responsibilities for DoD/VA, and sets a model for treating domestic ranges and DOE facilities as presumptively hazardous.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill takes two parallel approaches: better documentation up front, and legal presumptions later. On the documentation side, it directs the Secretary of Defense to broaden the ILER so the record captures ‘‘all’’ toxic exposures while in service, including exposures occurring inside the United States.
The expansion specifically demands all‑hazard occupational data, identification of environmental hazards (including later findings from monitoring), and medical encounter information tied to exposures—diagnoses, treatments, labs, and identified medical concerns. The ILER must be made available to DOD and VA clinicians, epidemiologists, researchers, and VA disability specialists to improve evaluation and benefit determinations.
On the presumptions side, the bill ties eligibility to two lists: the DOE’s Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) covered‑facility list and a categorical designation of the Nevada Test and Training Range. Personnel—both service members and DoD civilian employees—who were stationed or employed at facilities on the DOE covered list are presumed to have been exposed to toxic substances.
The Secretary of the Air Force must treat the Nevada Test and Training Range as a location where contamination occurred, identify everyone stationed there since January 27, 1951, and set up a process for members and veterans to provide documentation; the bill instructs the Air Force to try to identify individuals proactively and not to require veterans to submit proof to be identified.The bill also amends title 38 to treat certain NTTR service as a radiation‑risk activity for VA’s statutory framework and adds lipomas and related tumor conditions to the list of presumptive conditions for veterans who meet the NTTR service criteria. Practically, that means if a veteran establishes covered NTTR service under the statute’s terms, VA must apply the presumptions when adjudicating service connection for the enumerated conditions.
Throughout, the bill acknowledges classified locations by permitting a simple checkbox in service records to indicate potential exposure without disclosing classified site names, and it limits ILER availability to DoD/VA staff and authorized researchers rather than opening records broadly.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires DoD to expand the Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record to document all toxic exposures, including exposures inside the United States, and to include both occupational/environmental monitoring data and medical encounter records tied to exposures.
It creates a presumption that service members and DoD civilian employees stationed at any facility on the Department of Energy’s EEOICPA covered‑facility list were exposed to toxic substances.
The Secretary of the Air Force must classify the Nevada Test and Training Range as a location where contamination occurred and establish a process to identify personnel stationed there dating back to January 27, 1951, without requiring veterans to provide proof.
The bill amends 38 U.S.C. so that specified NTTR onsite participation is treated as a radiation‑risk activity and adds lipomas and tumor‑related conditions to the list of presumptive conditions for covered NTTR veterans.
DoD and VA must make ILER data available to DoD/VA healthcare providers, epidemiologists/researchers, and VA disability evaluation and benefits specialists, while protecting classified site identities via a checkbox mechanism in service records.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expand ILER to capture toxic exposures and related medical data
This section mandates that the ILER record ‘‘all’’ toxic exposures of service members, including exposures that occurred in the United States, and to include both environmental monitoring results and all‑hazard occupational data. It also requires ILER entries for medical encounters tied to exposures—diagnoses, treatments, and laboratory data—as well as flagged medical concerns. Practically, DoD will need to modify ILER data schemas, intake workflows, and privacy controls so that clinicians and benefits adjudicators receive structured exposure‑linked medical records when a service member separates.
Controlled access and service‑record flags for potential exposure
The bill limits ILER access to specific authorized users: DoD and VA clinicians, epidemiologists/researchers within those departments, and VA disability/benefits specialists. It also requires DoD to document in service records whether a member served where there was a potential for toxic exposure. For classified sites the statute anticipates a non‑descriptive indicator (a checkbox) to avoid revealing sensitive locations. Implementers will need to reconcile transparency for claims with classification rules and to implement role‑based access controls to protect sensitive data.
Presumption of exposure for personnel at DOE covered facilities
This section establishes a statutory presumption that service members and DoD civilian employees who served or worked at a facility on the DOE’s EEOICPA covered‑facility list are presumed to have been exposed to toxic substances. The bill does not define a separate list; it adopts the DOE list by reference. That linkage makes the presumption administratively straightforward but ties eligibility to the scope and timeliness of DOE’s list.
Designate Nevada Test and Training Range and identify affected personnel
The Secretary of Defense must classify the NTTR as a site where contamination occurred and the Secretary of the Air Force must set up a process to identify all service members and former members stationed there since January 27, 1951. The Air Force must permit submission of documentation from veterans but is instructed to proactively identify affected individuals and not require veterans to prove stationing. This shifts identification responsibility toward the service, but operationalizing it requires legacy personnel searches, records digitization, and outreach.
VA statutory changes: radiation‑risk activity and presumptive conditions
These sections amend title 38 to (1) treat certain NTTR onsite participation as a radiation‑risk activity for purposes of existing VA statutory frameworks and (2) expand the list of presumptive conditions to include lipomas and tumor‑related conditions for covered NTTR veterans. The changes modify statutory definitions and add a specific presumptive condition tied to covered service, which will alter VA adjudication by shifting proof burdens for those conditions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Veterans across all five countries.
Explore Veterans in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Veterans and former service members who served at the Nevada Test and Training Range since January 27, 1951 — they gain presumptive treatment for certain conditions (including lipomas and related tumors) and statutory recognition that may simplify claims.
- Service members and civilian employees who worked at DOE‑listed facilities — the DOE EEOICPA linkage creates a broad presumption of exposure that can expedite VA claims and reduce documentation requirements.
- VA clinicians, disability examiners, and benefits specialists — they get improved access to ILER exposure and medical encounter data, which can speed adjudication and reduce evidentiary gaps in complex exposure claims.
- DoD and VA researchers and epidemiologists — expanded ILER entries and access rights enable better population‑level exposure tracking and research into health outcomes linked to specific ranges and facilities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Defense — must update ILER systems, ingest legacy records, establish new workflows, and implement access controls and classification‑safe indicators, creating IT, personnel, and records‑management costs.
- Department of Veterans Affairs — faces increased presumptive claims and potentially greater benefit outlays and workload, requiring staffing and procedural adjustments to process claims relying on ILER and presumptions.
- Air Force administrative offices — required to run a retroactive identification program for NTTR personnel back to 1951, including outreach and verification, which will consume personnel and record‑search resources.
- Taxpayers — expanded presumptions and broader adjudication of exposure‑related conditions will likely increase VA benefit payments and program costs.
- Service members’ privacy and classification handlers — protecting classified service locations while enabling claims will require careful legal and technical safeguards and thus impose compliance costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between easing and speeding veterans’ access to benefits through presumptions and richer exposure records, and protecting national security, privacy, and fiscal integrity: making it easier for veterans to obtain VA benefits risks revealing classified service details or increasing benefit outlays, while maintaining strict verification preserves security and program budgets but perpetuates barriers for exposed personnel.
The bill leaves key implementation details to DoD and VA, which creates several operational unknowns. It does not set firm timelines, funding streams, or technical standards for expanding ILER, so agencies must decide how to map legacy personnel and medical records into the new fields, how to standardize environmental monitoring inputs, and how to fund the IT and personnel work.
The statute’s direction to make ‘‘all efforts’’ to identify NTTR personnel and not require veterans to submit proof is administratively generous but vague; in practice, DoD record completeness dating back to 1951 is uneven, and proactive identification will be time‑consuming and imperfect.
There are also legal and evidentiary tensions. Adopting the DOE EEOICPA list by reference is administratively neat but means the scope of the presumption depends on another agency’s determinations and update cadence.
The bill’s protected checkbox for classified locations solves disclosure risks but could limit a veteran’s ability to show precisely where exposure occurred, creating friction in complex claims. Finally, broadening presumptions and expanding ILER access improves claimants’ access to benefits and research but raises privacy and civil‑liberties questions about who can view exposure and medical records and how long such data is retained and used.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.