This is a partial reproduction which speaks for itself.

(EDITED) Testimony By Mr. Ronald B. Abrams Before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Nov 08, 2007)
Joint Executive Director
National Veterans Legal Services Program: http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=8823

VA managers are evaluated by how many end products they produce, how quickly they can take credit for end products, how many employees they need to produce these end products, and lastly, the quality of the work in the office they manage.  Because it is in the best interest of the VA managers to complete as many cases as quickly as they can,  the interests of VA managers in many cases stands in opposition to the interests of claimants for VA benefits.

Responsibilities of VA managers that protect the fairness of the adjudicatory process--such as “control” of claims, supervisory review of unnecessarily delayed claims, thorough development of the evidence needed to decide a claim properly, recognition of all of the issues involved, provision of adequate notice, documentation that notice was given, and careful quality review -- all adversely affect the productivity and timeliness statistics (that is, how many decisions on claims are made final within a particular period of time) for the VA manager. Consequently, proper attention by VA managers to their legal obligations very often adversely affects the statistics upon which their performance is rated. 

I want to emphasize that most premature VA adjudications are caused by ROs seeking work credit.  If the claimant should appeal, the RO can earn another work credit for work to process the appeal. Here is an example of how this system can be manipulated. Suppose:

In January 2005, a veteran files a claim for service connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The veteran indicates he has symptoms of PTSD and alleges that he engaged in combat during service. (In order to obtain service connection for PTSD the evidence must show that the veteran suffers from PTSD, that he or she experienced a stressor (a traumatic event) in service, and that the stressor is linked by a medical expert to the stressful event.)[4]
Before the RO verifies that the veteran engaged in combat, in an effort to obtain quick work credit, the RO schedules a VA examination (VAE).

The examination is promptly conducted and the VA medical examiner, although noting symptoms of PTSD, refuses to diagnose PTSD because the veteran’s alleged stressor is not verified by the evidence of record.
The RO then denies the claim because the veteran does not have the claimed condition.

 An end product (work credit) is then taken by the RO in April 2005.
 
In the same month, the veteran is notified by the VA that his claim is denied because he does not have PTSD. The veteran, in an attempt to prove his claim, hires a private psychiatrist who accepts the veteran’s allegation regarding the stressor and diagnoses PTSD. The veteran, after paying the doctor, then submits this private medical opinion to the RO (within the one-year appellate period).

Upon receipt of the new evidence the RO sets up a new end product but promptly denies the claim because the RO finds there is insufficient evidence of the alleged stressor.

 The RO then informs the veteran of its decision and takes credit for a second end product in July 2005.
 
Within one year of the original denial, in December 2005, the veteran submits several “buddy statements” (lay statements) that support the conclusion that he engaged in combat. The RO then erroneously denies the claim because in the opinion of the RO, the first VA examination was more probative than the private medical opinion and therefore the veteran does not suffer from PTSD.

 The RO takes a third end product in March 2006.
 
In March 2006, the veteran submits a notice of disagreement. The RO establishes another end product and when the case is reviewed by a Decision Review Officer (a VA hearing officer) a new VA examination is ordered. The DRO informs the VA examiner to accept the fact that the veteran engaged in combat during service.  The VA examiner then concludes that the current PTSD is linked to the combat the veteran experienced in service. This process takes quite a while.
The DRO, in January 2007, grants service connection for PTSD retroactive to January 2005.

 A fourth end product is then claimed by the RO.

The VARO was really entitled to only one end product for this work. But, because of premature adjudications and flat-out errors in judgment by the RO, the RO was able to claim four work credits.

 The RO was also able to show that these four actions were completed in a faster time than what it really took to adjudicate this claim. From the veteran’s point of view it has taken the VA 24 months to adjudicate his claim. However, the RO is not unhappy. The RO, during this two year period, has earned four end products (work credits). The end products claimed by the RO also show that it took only 6 months on average (instead of the 24 months it really took for the claim to be adjudicated) to adjudicate these claims. Therefore, the VA manager gets to claim three unearned work credits and to show an erroneously low time period to adjudicate these claims.

That would help the manager earn a promotion and a bonus for such “productive” work.