U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART IV— GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS › Chapter CHAPTER 57— RECORDS AND INVESTIGATIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— INFORMATION SECURITY

38 U.S.C. § 5721

Purpose

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar

The purpose of the Information Security Program is to establish a program to provide security for Department information and information systems commensurate to the risk of harm, and to communicate the responsibilities of the Secretary, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, other key officials, Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cyber and Information Security, and Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs as outlined in the provisions of subchapter III of chapter 35 of title 44 (also known as the “Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002”, which was enacted as part of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–347)).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2024–2025 · leading case: Gerald A. Lechliter v. Denis McDonough (Vet. App. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gerald A. Lechliter v. Denis McDonough (Vet. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “at 9435; see 38 U.S.C. § 5721 . Effective in July 2022, VA's final rule amended §§ 1.”
Crandall v. McDonough (E.D. Pa. 2024). · cites it 2× “The Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Security Act of 2006 Does Not Create a Private Right of Action that Plaintiff Can Pursue: It would appear that Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim under the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of…”
Ballentine v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2024). “This statute is part of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (VHBITA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 5721–28, which requires the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect…”
Kenneth Crandall v. Denis McDonough (3rd Cir. 2025). “2 The District Court construed Crandall’s complaint as asserting a claim under the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, 38 U.S.C. § 5721 et seq. The Court rejected the claim because it discerned no private right of action 2 Whistleblower…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.