Department of Defense (DoD)

Freedom of Information Act

Program Report 

for

Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 

Prepared By: 

Director of Administration and Management 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 

ANNUAL REPORT 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 

(Report Period: October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 During fiscal year (FY) 2006, a total of 79,266 public requests for records under the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were completed by the Department of Defense (DoD). In 

the processing of these cases, DoD fully denied 2,390 and partially denied 12,886 on the basis of 

FOIA exemptions. Of those exemptions, 8% were for classified information; 10% for internal 

rules and practices; 10% for statutory exemptions; 6% for proprietary data; 7% for deliberative 

material; 40% for privacy information; and 22% for law enforcement investigations. 28,538 

requests could not be filled in whole or in part for other reasons, such as lack of records, referral 

to another agency, or lack of specificity sufficient to identify the requested records. There were 

747 actions taken on appeals of denied requests: 23 granted, 111 partially denied, 324 fully 

denied, and 289 not filled for other reasons cited above. 

The total DoD operating cost associated with the processing of requests during this report 

period was $66,877,030. The average cost of processing a single case during this period was 

approximately $843.70. Fee collections for records provided to the public amounted to 

$518,002.00 (.8% of total program cost). 

i
Table of Contents 

Basic Report Page

Item I. Basic Information Regarding the Report 1

Item II. How to Make a FOIA Request 1

Item III. Definitions of Terms and Acronyms Used in the Report 2

Item IV. Exemption 3 Statutes 5

Item V. Initial FOIA/Privacy Act Requests 8

 Part A. Numbers of Initial Requests 8

 Part B. Disposition of Initial Requests 8

Item VI. Appeals of Initial Denials of FOIA/PA Requests 10

 Part A. Numbers of Appeals 10

 Part B. Disposition of Appeals 10

Item VII. Compliance with Time Limits/Status of Pending Requests 11

 Part A. Median Processing Times for Initial Requests Processed During

the Year 

11

 Part B. Status of Pending Requests 12

Item VIII. Comparison With Previous Year 12

Item IX. FOIA Staffing/Costs 12

Item X. Fees Collected From Public 13

Item XI. FOIA Regulation and Fee Schedule 13

Item XII. Report on FOIA Executive Order Implementation 14

 Part A. Description of supplemental/modification of agency 

improvement plan 

 Part B. Report on agency implementation of its plan, including its 

 performance in meeting milestones, with respect to each 

improvement area 

14

 Part C. Identification and discussion of any deficiency in meeting plan 

 milestones 

16

 Part D. Additional narrative statement regarding other executive orderrelated activities 18

 Part E. Concise descriptions of FOIA exemptions 19

ii
 Part F. Additional statistics: 

1. Time range of requests pending, by date of request 

2. Time range of consultations pending with other agencies, by 

date of initial interagency communication 

20

 Part G. Attachments: Agency improvement plan with modification 20

iii
Item I. 

Basic Information Regarding the Report

A. Title, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted with questions about the 

report: 

Write to: Chief, Defense Freedom of Information Policy Office 

 1950 Defense Pentagon 

 Washington, DC 20301-1950 

Telephone: (703) 696-4689 

Name of Incumbent Chief, Defense Freedom of Information Policy Office: Mr. Will 

Kammer

Name of Person who prepared this report: Mr. Stephen L. Fisher 

B. The electronic address (Universal Resource Line, URL) for this report is: 

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/

C. You may obtain a paper copy of this DoD Annual FOIA Report for Fiscal Year 2006 by 

writing to the above address. A FOIA request is not necessary. Please include a mailing 

address. 

Item II. 

How to Make a FOIA Request

The DoD Freedom of Information Act Handbook provides general information about the 

FOIA Program within DoD and provides basic information about how to submit a FOIA request. 

This document also contains DoD Component addresses, a brief description of expected 

response times, and the reason why some requests are not granted. The DoD Freedom of 

Information Act Handbook can be found at:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/foiapam3.pdf

1
Item III. 

Definitions of Terms and Acronyms Used in the Report

A. Agency-specific acronyms. 

1. Defense Freedom of Information Policy Office: DFOIPO 

2. Defense Intelligence Agency: DIA. 

3. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (formerly National Imagery and Mapping Agency 

or NIMA): NGA. 

4. National Security Agency: NSA. 

5. National Reconnaissance Office: NRO. 

6. Office of the Secretary of Defense: OSD 

7. Prisoner of War/Missing in Action: POW/MIA. 

B. Other agency acronyms. 

1. Central Intelligence Agency: CIA. 

C. “Other Reasons” cited on initial and appeal determinations. 

1. No Records. A reasonable search of files failed to identify records responsive to the 

request. 

2. Referrals. The request was referred to another DoD Component or Federal Agency for 

action. 

3. Withdrawn. The request was withdrawn by the requester. 

4. Fee-Related Reason. The requester is unwilling to pay fees associated with the request; 

the requester is past due in the payment of fees associated with a previous FOIA request; or 

the requester disagrees with a fee estimate. 

5. Records not Reasonably Described. The request could not be acted upon since the record 

had not been described with sufficient particularity to enable the DoD Component to locate it 

by conducting a reasonable search. 

6. Not a Proper FOIA Request for Some Other Reason. The requester has failed 

unreasonably to comply with legitimate procedural requirements which are not fee-related. 

2
7. Not an Agency Record. The requested information was not a record within the meaning 

of the FOIA. 

8. Duplicate Request. A request for the same information by the same requester. This 

includes identical requests received via different means (e.g., electronic mail, facsimile, 

mail, courier) at the same or different times. 

9. Other. Any other reason a requester does not comply with published rules, other than 

those mentioned above. 

D. Common terminology. 

1. Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) request: A FOIA request is 

generally a request for access to records concerning a third party, an organization, or a 

particular topic of interest. A Privacy Act request is a request for records concerning 

oneself; such requests are also treated as FOIA requests. 

2. Initial request: A request to a Federal Agency for access to records under the FOIA. 

3. Appeal: A request to a Federal Agency asking that it review at a higher administrative 

level a full denial or partial denial of access to records under the FOIA, or any other 

adverse FOIA determination. 

4. Processed request or appeal: A request or appeal for which an agency has taken a final 

action on the request or the appeal in all respects. 

5. Multi-track processing: A system in which simple requests requiring relatively minimal 

review are placed in one processing track and more voluminous and complex requests are 

placed in one or more other tracks. Requests in each track are processed on a first-in/first 

out basis. A requester who has a compelling need for records may request expedited 

processing (see below). 

6. Expedited processing: An agency will process a FOIA request on an expedited basis 

when a requester has shown a compelling need or urgency for the records which warrants 

prioritization of his or her request over other requests that were made earlier. 

7. Simple request: A FOIA request that an agency using multi-track processing places in its 

fastest (nonexpedited) track based on the volume and/or simplicity of records requested. 

8. Complex request: A FOIA request that an agency using multi-track processing places in 

a slower track based on the volume and/or complexity of records requested. 

9. Grant: An agency decision to disclose all records in full in response to a FOIA request. 

10. Partial denial: An agency decision to disclose a record in part in response to a FOIA 

request, deleting information determined to be exempt under one or more exemptions 

3
under the FOIA; or a decision to disclose some records in their entirety, but to withhold 

others in whole or in part. 

11. Denial: An agency decision not to release any part of a record or records in response to 

a FOIA request because all the information in the requested records is determined by the 

agency to be exempt under one or more of the FOIA exemptions, or for some procedural 

reason such as no record is located in response to a FOIA request. 

12. Time limits: The time period in the FOIA for an agency to respond to a FOIA request 

(ordinarily 20 working days from proper receipt of a "perfected" FOIA request). 

13. "Perfected" request: A FOIA request for records which adequately describes the records 

sought, which has been received by the FOIA office of the agency or agency component 

in possession of the records, and for which there is no remaining question about the 

payment of applicable fees. 

14. Exemption 3 statute: A separate federal statute prohibiting the disclosure of a certain 

type of information and authorizing its withholding under FOIA subsection (b)(3). 

15. Median number: The middle number, not the average number. For example: of 3, 7, and 

14, the median number is 7. 

16. Average number: The number obtained by dividing the sum of a group of numbers by 

the quantity of numbers in the group. For example: the average of 3, 7, and 14 is 8. 

4
Item IV. 

Exemption 3 Statutes Invoked 

Court 

Upheld? Statute Types of Material Withheld Under Statute 

No 5 USC §574(j) Administrative Dispute Resolution Act 

No 10 USC §128 Authority to Withhold Unclassified Special Nuclear Weapons 

Information 

Yes1 10 USC §130 Authority to Withhold Unclassified Technical Data with Military 

or Space Application 

No 10 USC §130(b) Personnel in Overseas, Sensitive or Routinely Deployable Units 

No 10 USC §130(c) Nondisclosure of Information: Certain Sensitive Information on 

Foreign Governments and International Organizations 

Yes2 10 USC §424 Protection of Organizational and Personnel Information for DIA, 

NRO, and NGA 

No 10 USC §455 Maps, Charts, and Geodetic Data; Public Availability 

No 10 USC §457 NGA Operational Files 

No 10 USC §618(f) Action on Reports of Selection, Generally for Promotion, Boards 

No 10 USC §1102 Confidentiality of Medical Records 

No 10 USC §2305(g) Protection of Contractor Proposals 

No 10 USC §2371(i) Research Projects: Transactions Other Than Contracts and Grants 

No 16 USC §470w-3 National Historic Preservation 

Yes3 18 USC §798(a) Communications Intelligence 

No 22 USC §2778(e) Sec 

38(e) 

Control of Arms Export 

No 31 USC §3729(d) False Claims Act Civil Action for False Claims against the U.S. 

Yes4 41 USC §253b(m)(1) Disclosure of Contractor Proposals 

No 42 USC §290dd-2 Confidentiality of Patient Records 

Yes5 42 USC §2162(a) Restricted Data (Atomic Energy), Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

5
Court 

Upheld? Statute Types of Material Withheld Under Statute 

No 42 USC §2168(a)(1)(C) Formerly Restricted Data (Atomic Energy), Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954 

Yes6 50 USC §402 Note Sec 6 NSA Functions and Information 

Yes7 50 USC §403-3(c)(7) 

National Security Act of

1947, Subsection 

102(d)(3), as amended 

Intelligence Sources and Methods 

Yes8 50 USC §403(g), Section 

6 of the CIA Act of 1949 

CIA Functions and Information 

No 50 USC §421 Protection of Identities of U.S. Undercover Intelligence officers, 

agents, informants, and sources 

No 50 USC §435 Note Sec 

1082 

Disclosure of Information Concerning US Personnel Classified as 

POW/MIA During Vietnam Conflict (McCain “Truth Bill”) 

Item IV. Endnotes 

1 Chenkin v. Department of the Army, No. 93-494, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20907, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 1994), 

aff’d, 61 F.3d 894 (3d Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision); Colonial Trading Corp. v. Department of the 

Navy, 735 F. Supp. 429, 431 (D.D.C. 1990); see also American Friends Serv. Comm. v. DOD, No. 83-4916, 

1986 WL 10659, at *4(E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 1986), rev’d on other grounds, 831 F.2d 441 (3d Cir. 1987). 2 Larson v. Department of State et al. No. 1:02CV01937, (D.D.C. Aug. 10, 2005). 

3 Winter v. NSA, 569 F. Supp. 545, 548 (S.D. Cal. 1983); see also Gilmore v. NSA, No. C 92-3646, 1993 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 7694, at **26-27 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 1993) (finding that information on cryptography currently used 

by NSA “integrally related” to function and activity of intelligence gathering and thus protected). 4 Hornbostel v. Department of Interior, 305 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2003). 5

 Meeropol v. Smith, No. 75-1121, slip op. at 53-55 (D.D.C. Feb. 29, 1984), aff’d in relevant part & remanded in 

part sub nom. Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1986). But see General Elec. Co. v. NRC, 750 F.2d 

1394, 1401 (7th Cir. 1984) (concluding that provision concerning technical information furnished by license 

applicants lacked sufficient specificity to qualify as Exemption 3 statute).

6 Founding Church of Scientology v. NSA, 610 F.2d 824, 828 (D.C. Cir. 1979); Hayden v. NSA, 452 F. Supp. 

247,252 (D.D.C. 1978), aff’d, 608 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 7 CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 167 (1985); see also Minier v. CIA, 88 F.3d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding that

agency properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records concerning deceased person’s alleged 

employment relationship with CIA); Maynard v. CIA, 986 F.2d 547, 554 (1st Cir. 1993) (stating that under § 

403(d)(3) it is responsibility of Director of CIA to determine whether sources or methods should be disclosed); 

Krikorian v. Department of State, 984 F.2d 461, 465 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (same); Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755, 

761 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (same); Hunt v. CIA, 981 F.2d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding agency’s “Glomar” 

response to request on foreign national, because acknowledgement of any records would reveal sources and 

methods); Knight v. CIA, 872 F.2d 660, 663 (8th Cir. 1989) (same); Levy v. CIA, No. 95-1276, slip op. at 14-17 

(D.D.C. Nov. 16, 1995) (same), aff’d, No. 96-5004 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 15, 1997); Roman v. Dailey, No. 97-1164, 

1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6708, at **10-11 (D.D.C. May 11, 1998) (concluding that agency properly refused to

confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to agency personnel and spy satellite programs); Blazy v. Tenet, 

6
979 F. Supp. 10, 23-24 (D.D.C. 1997) (protecting intelligence sources and methods located in requester’s 

personnel file), summary affirmance granted, No. 97-5330 (D.C. Cir. May 12, 1998); Andrade v. CIA, No. 95-

1215, 1997 WL 527347, at **3-5 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 1997) (holding intelligence methods used in assessing 

employee fitness protectible); Earth Pledge Found. v. CIA, 988 F. Supp. 623, 627 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding 

agency’s “Glomar” response proper because acknowledgement of records would generate “danger of revealing 

sources”), aff’d per curiam, 128 F.3d 788 (2d Cir. 1997) (unpublished table decision); Campbell v. United States 

Dep’t of Justice, No. 89-CV-3016, 1996 WL 554511, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 1996) (“CIA director is to be 

afforded ‘great deference’ by courts determining the propriety of nondisclosure of intelligence sources”); cf. 

Linder v. DOD, 133 F.3d 17, 25 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“[C]ourts must give ‘great deference’ to the Director of 

Central Intelligence’s determination that a classified document could reveal intelligence sources and methods and 

endanger national security.”) (non-FOIA case). 

8 Minier, 88 F.3d at 801; Roman, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6708, at **10-11; Blazy, 979 F. Supp. at 23-24; Earth 

Pledge Found., 988 F. Supp. at 627-28; Campbell, 1996 WL 554511, at *6; Kronisch v. United States, No. 83-

2458, 1995 WL 303625, at **4-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 1995); Hunsberger v. CIA, No. 92-2186, slip op. at 3 

(D.D.C. Apr. 5, 1995); Rothschild v. CIA, No. 91-1314, 1992 WL 71393, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 1992); Lawyers 

Comm. for Human Rights v. INS, 721 F. Supp. 552, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); Pfeiffer v. CIA, 721 F. Supp. 337, 

341-42 (D.D.C. 1989). 

7
Item V. 

Initial FOIA/PA Access Requests

A. Numbers of initial requests. 

 1. Number of requests pending as of end of preceding fiscal year (1 Oct 05): 14,7911

 2. Number of requests received during current fiscal year (FY 2006): 82,691 

 

 3. Number of requests processed during current fiscal year (FY 2006): 79,266 

 4. Number of requests pending as of end of current fiscal year (30 Sep 06): 18,216 

B. Disposition of initial requests. 

 1. Number of grants: 35,452 

 2. Number of partial denials: 12,886 

 3. Number of total denials: 2,390 

a. Number of times each FOIA exemption used (counting each exemption once per 

request). 

(1) Exemption 1: 1,963 

(2) Exemption 2: 2,524 

(3) Exemption 3: 2,664 

(4) Exemption 4: 1,438 

(5) Exemption 5: 1,698 

(6) Exemption 6: 9,698 

(7) Exemption 7(A): 447 

(8) Exemption 7(B): 39 

(9) Exemption 7(C): 4,501 

(10) Exemption 7(D): 430 

 1

 This number differs from the number reported at the end of the 2005 report due to more advanced counting 

methods. This figure is believed to be more accurate than that reported last year. 

8
(11) Exemption 7(E): 55 

(12) Exemption 7(F): 47 

(13) Exemption 8: 2 

(14) Exemption 9: 0 

 4. Other reasons for nondisclosure (total): 28,538 

a. No records: 7,301 

b. Referrals: 10,436 

c. Request withdrawn: 2,761 

d. Fee-related reason: 723 

e. Records not reasonably described: 714 

f. Not a proper FOIA request for some other reason: 2,330 

g. Not an agency record: 1,007 

h. Duplicate request: 1,394 

i. Other (total): 1,872 

(1) Electronic referral: 58 

(2) Insufficient address/information: 551 

(3) Lacked 3rd party waiver: 216 

(4) Publicly sold documents : 16 

(5) Direct National Personnel Records Center referral: 220 

(6) Non-attribution: 14 

(7) Improper referrals: 53 

(8) National Archives referral: 19 

(9) Not agency issue: 725 

9
Item VI. 

Appeals of Initial Denials of FOIA/PA Requests

A. Numbers of appeals. 

 1. Number of appeals received during fiscal year (FY 2006): 1,010 

 

 2. Number of appeals processed during fiscal year (FY 2006): 747 

B. Disposition of appeals. 

 1. Number denied in full: 324 

 2. Number denied in part: 111 

 3. Number completely reversed (granted): 23 

 a. Number of times each FOIA exemption used (counting each exemption once per 

appeal). 

(1) Exemption 1: 103 

(2) Exemption 2: 35 

(3) Exemption 3: 83 

(4) Exemption 4: 37 

(5) Exemption 5: 82 

(6) Exemption 6: 122 

(7) Exemption 7(A): 9 

(8) Exemption 7(B): 0 

(9) Exemption 7(C): 83 

(10) Exemption 7(D): 6 

(11) Exemption 7(E): 1 

(12) Exemption 7(F): 3 

(13) Exemption 8: 0 

10
(14) Exemption 9: 0 

 4. Other reasons for nondisclosure (total): 289 

a. No records: 82 

b. Referrals: 12 

c. Appeal withdrawn: 37 

d. Fee-related reason: 6 

e. Records not reasonably described: 6 

f. Not a proper FOIA request for some other reason: 14 

g. Not an agency record: 2 

h. Duplicate request: 1 

i. Other2 (specify): 129 

Item VII. 

Compliance With Time Limits/Status of Pending Requests

A. Median processing time for requests processed during the year (FY 2006). 

 1. Simple requests. 

 a. Number of requests processed: 64,749 

 b. Median number of days to process: 17.0 

 

 2. Complex requests. 

 a. Number of requests processed: 13,809 

 b. Median number of days to process: 51.5 

 2

 Other reasons were appeals not submitted within required time frame and improper address. 

11
 3. Requests accorded expedited processing. 

 a. Number of requests processed: 708 

 b. Median number of days to process: 0 

 B. Status of pending requests (as of September 30, 2006) 

 1. Number of requests pending: 18,216 

 2. Median age of above cases in days: 73 

Item VIII. 

Comparison With Previous Year

Number of initial expedited requests received (FY 04) 1057 

Number of initial expedited requests granted (FY 04) 841 

Number of initial expedited requests received (FY 05) 528 

Number of initial expedited requests granted (FY 05) 411 

Number of initial expedited requests received (FY 06) 955 

Number of initial expedited requests granted (FY 06) 708 

Item IX. 

FOIA Staffing/Costs

A. Staffing levels (expressed in work-years). 

 1. Number of full-time FOIA personnel: 397.63 

 2. Number of personnel with part-time or occasional FOIA duties: 426.54 

 3. Total number of personnel: 824.17 

 

12
B. Total costs (including staff and all resources). 

 

 1. FOIA processing (including appeals): $64,181,063 

 2. Litigation-related activities (estimated): $2,695,967 

 3. Total costs: $66,877,030 

Item X. 

Fees Collected From Public

A. Total amount of fees collected by the agency for processing requests: $518,002.00 

B. Percentage of total costs: .8% 

 

Item XI. 

FOIA Regulation and Fee Schedule

A. The Department of Defense (DoD) Freedom of Information Act Program Regulation, DoD 

 5400.7-R, September 4, 1998, which provides guidance regarding administration of FOIA 

Program within the DoD, can be found at:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/540007r_090498/54007r.pdf

B. The Fee Schedule is Chapter 6 of the above regulation and as modified at: 

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/foiafees.pdf

C. Additional Department of Defense FOIA documents and hyperlinks can be found by 

 accessing the following Universal Resource Locator (URL): 

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/ 

13
Item XII. 

Report on FOIA Executive Order 13392 Implementation

A. The Director of Administration and Management (DA&M) submitted Modification #1 to the 

DoD FOIA Improvement Plan on November 2, 2006. A copy of the Plan is at enclosure 1 

and the Modification is at enclosure 2. Both Plan and Modification can also be found at: 

http://www.dod.mil/odam/DFOIPO/ExecutiveOrder13392.html. This Modification identifies 

and implements specific initiatives to reduce the overall DoD FOIA backlog beginning in 

fiscal year 2008. 

B. The DoD FOIA Improvement Plan identified four areas for improvement, each with specific 

objectives and milestones. Those areas are Organizational Structure and Manning; Training; 

Technology; and Resources/Backlog. Modification #1 added five additional milestones 

which were all within the Resources/Backlog improvement area. 

1. Organizational Structure and Manning. This area contains three objectives: optimal 

organizational placement of FOIA Offices; standardized job series and grade levels: and 

standards for contracting of FOIA functions. 

a. Optimal organizational placement of FOIA Offices. Two milestones for 2006 

were met for the first objective. On June 29, 2006, the DoD FOIA Public Liaisons 

were tasked to provide data on the organizational placement of FOIA Offices within 

the DoD and recommendations on their optimal placement. DFOIPO conducted an 

analysis of the data and determined that the current organizational placement of the 

FOIA Offices within the Military Departments and the Combatant Commands is 

generally not optimal. On December 29, 2006, the DA&M issued memoranda 

requesting they review the current placement of their FOIA Offices within their 

organizational structure. These memoranda also instructed the Military 

Departments and Combatant Commands that optimal placement of their FOIA 

Offices is alignment within the offices of the Administrative Assistant or Chief of

Staff, respectively. 

b. Standardized job series and GS levels. To meet the first milestone for the second 

objective, on July 19, 2006, DFOIPO requested the DoD FOIA Public Liaisons to 

provide input for establishing standard criteria for position descriptions, grade 

levels, and performance standards for FOIA Officers. DFOIPO met the remaining 

milestone on September 21, 2006, by providing the DoD Components standard DoD 

FOIA Officer position descriptions that will enable the proper justification of grade 

levels commensurate with their duties and responsibilities. Additionally, these 

position descriptions will assist senior officials in developing suitable performance 

standards for their FOIA Officers. 

c. Standards for contracting of FOIA functions. Three milestones were met for this 

objective. On August 4, 2006, DFOIPO requested the DoD FOIA Public Liaisons 

14
provide data on the use of contractors within their respective FOIA Offices. After 

obtaining a legal review of the applicability of outsourcing FOIA activities, 

DFOIPO developed a DoD standard identifying inherently governmental FOIA 

functions and those which could be accomplished by contractors. The standard was 

published on January 19, 2007.

2. Training. This area contains two objectives: develop a DoD FOIA resident training 

program and develop a DoD FOIA online training capability within a newly created 

DFOIPO Website. 

a. Develop DoD FOIA resident training program. Three milestones for 2006 were 

met for this first objective. On July 19, 2006, the first two milestones were 

accomplished when the DoD FOIA Public Liaisons were requested to identify their 

resident training requirements and to study the feasibility of adding or increasing 

FOIA training to Military Judge Advocate General School curricula. The feasibility 

studies showed that all of the schools included the FOIA somewhere in their 

curricula. However, any increase in FOIA training at these schools would be 

problematic because it would result in the reduction of some other critical subject 

within the curricula and may involve increased funding. The final milestone for 

2006 was accomplished on December 19, 2006, when a concept for a FOIA Officer 

Certification Program was developed. This concept will be implemented upon 

deployment of FOIA training. 

b. Develop a DoD FOIA online training capability within a newly created 

DFOIPO Website. The initial milestone for this objective was met with a July, 

2006, budget submission. 

3. Technology. There are three objectives in this area: analyze FOIA software for expanded 

use in streamlining DoD FOIA processes; standardize DoD FOIA Websites to enable 

better public access; and conduct a feasibility study for a DoD wide electronic network to 

expedite FOIA processing. 

a. Analyze FOIA software for expanded use in streamlining DoD FOIA 

Processes. This objective had two milestones for 2006. On July 19, 2006, DoD 

FOIA Public Liaisons were provided with a list of FOIA software vendors for 

dissemination throughout their Components. Additionally, on that date, the FOIA 

Public Liaisons were asked to assess FOIA software use and applicability. The 

responses to this tasking indicate that the DoD FOIA Offices use a variety of 

software tracking tools, ranging from simple spreadsheets to complex off the shelf 

programs that provide document management, case tracking, and onscreen 

redaction. The two primary reasons for FOIA Offices not having the software tools 

they need are funding and security concerns. 

b. Standardize DoD FOIA Websites to enable better public access. Two 2006 

milestones for this objective were met. DFOIPO has established its own Website, 

and on September 29, 2006, DFOIPO published standards for DoD FOIA Websites. 

15
c. Conduct a feasibility study for a DoD wide electronic network to expedite 

FOIA processing. To meet the milestone for this objective, an Integrated 

Processing Team (IPT), composed of representatives from DFOIPO, the DoD 

Components, and information technology (IT) specialists, was formed to study this 

issue. The IPT had its initial meeting on November 28, 2006.

4. Resources/Backlog. This area contains three objectives: determine the manpower 

required to reduce measurable backlogs in FOIA Offices; fund in fiscal year 2008 

additional FOIA personnel staffing required to reduce backlogs; and concentrate on 

initiatives that will reduce DoD FOIA backlog by 10% annually beginning in FY 2008. 

a. Determine manpower required to reduce measurable backlogs in FOIA 

Offices. Two milestones for 2006 were met to accomplish this objective. On June 

29, 2006, DoD FOIA Public Liaisons were asked by DFOIPO to provide data on all 

FOIA Offices that routinely have backlogs greater then 50 cases. Using this data, 

DFOIPO determined the resources necessary to reduce the backlog by 10% per year 

over a five year period within these targeted FOIA Offices. 

b. Fund additional FOIA personnel staffing required to reduce backlogs in fiscal 

year 2009 and beyond. Two milestones for this objective were accomplished. In 

June, 2006, DFOIPO submitted a budget request to increase its staffing, and a 

funding request was submitted to increase resources (staffing and technology) for 

those DoD FOIA Offices identified during the accomplishment of the previous 

objective. 

c. Concentrate on initiatives that will reduce DoD FOIA backlog by 10%

annually beginning in fiscal year FY 2008. Five milestones for this objective 

were accomplished. On September 18, 2006, two were accomplished when the 

Agency Chief FOIA Officer submitted a funding request for FY 2008 to address the 

backlog within the OSD FOIA Office and to address the backlogs within the 31 

DoD FOIA Offices that routinely have backlogs of over 50 cases. On November 

17, 2006, DFOIPO met with the requester having the largest backlog within DoD to 

lay the foundation for future discussions concerning the reduction of this backlog. 

On December 18, 2006, the OSD FOIA Office documented the process to reduce 

the backlog of major requesters by at least 10% by the end of calendar year 2007. 

On December 29, 2006, this Office established a process whereby its ten oldest 

FOIA cases continuously would be identified, addressed, and closed within six 

months of identification.

C. All 25 improvement area objectives projected for completion in 2006 have been completed. 

Fourteen were completed within the projected milestone dates and 11 exceeded projected 

milestone dates. Milestone completion dates were generally extended due to the need for data 

calls out through the DoD Components to FOIA Offices worldwide. Additionally, some

complex FOIA improvement initiatives required thorough coordination with other staffs 

within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Below is a list of the 11 milestone deficiencies 

16
with the projected date of completion cited in the DoD FOIA Improvement Plan and the 

actual completion date: 

1. DFOIPO memorandum published recommending where DoD Components should place 

their FOIA Offices. 

a. Plan date: September 15, 2006. 

b. Completion date: December 29, 2006. 

2. DoD Components requested to provide input and recommendations on job series and 

grade levels for FOIA personnel. 

a. Plan date: July 14, 2006. 

b. Completion date: July 19, 2006. 

3. DFOIPO publishes standard position descriptions for DoD FOIA Personnel. 

a. Plan date: September 15, 2006. 

b. Completion date: September 21, 2006. 

4. DFOIPO obtains legal review on the applicability of outsourcing an activity’s FOIA 

responsibility. NOTE: Extensive DoD General Counsel interest in this initiative was 

evident during coordination due to the significant legal implications in determining 

inherently governmental functions in the FOIA process. 

a. Plan date: October 16, 2006. 

b. Completion date: December 21, 2006. 

5. DFOIPO issues standards for contracting FOIA operations in DoD. NOTE: Following 

the legal review of proposed FOIA inherently governmental functions, other OSD staff 

offices and DoD Component FOIA Offices expressed interest in this issue, thus 

additional coordination was conducted prior to their publication. 

a. Plan date: December 15, 2006. 

b. Completion date: January 19, 2007. 

6. DoD Components requested to identify their resident training requirements and their 

plans to provide this training. 

a. Plan date: July 17, 2006. 

b. Completion date: July 19, 2006. 

17
7. Military Services requested to study the feasibility of adding/increasing FOIA training to 

JAG school curriculum.

a. Plan date: July 17, 2006. 

b. Completion date: July 19, 2006. 

8. Concept for FOIA Officer Certification Program approved. 

a. Plan date: December 15, 2006. 

b. Completion date: December 19, 2006. 

9. FOIA software standards, commercial options, and vendors defined. 

a. Plan date: July 14, 2006. 

b. Completion date: July 19, 2006. 

10. Publish standards for improving DoD Websites. 

a. Plan date: September 22, 2006. 

b. Completion date: September 29, 2006. 

11. Form integrated processing team to conduct a feasibility study for a DoD wide electronic 

network to expedite FOIA processing.. 

a. Plan date: October 2006. 

b. Completion date: November 28, 2006. 

D. Several significant Executive Order activities were accomplished prior to the submission of 

the DoD FOIA Improvement Plan: 

1. The DA&M, a direct report to the Secretary of Defense, was appointed DoD Agency 

Chief FOIA Officer by the Deputy Secretary of Defense on January 11, 2006. 

2. The Defense Freedom of Information Policy Office was formally established on January 

25, 2006. 

3. DoD FOIA Public Liaisons were appointed by the DA&M for each DoD Component and 

FOIA Requester Service Centers were identified throughout the Department. 

4. DFOIPO contracted a recognized expert in the administration of Federal Agency surveys 

to develop a unique instrument to capture data electronically from FOIA Officers at DoD 

headquarters, major command, and installation levels. To be specific, there were 548 

FOIA Office respondents to the survey out of an estimated total potential population of 

18
600 DoD FOIA Offices, with individual data collected from over 1200 military, civilian, 

and contract personnel performing FOIA functions. The contractors who administered 

the survey indicated that this survey generated an extraordinarily high response rate, a 

likely reflection of the high level of interest from DoD personnel who process FOIA 

actions. In addition to receiving revealing responses from the specific questions posed in 

the survey, a significant amount of relevant information was also collected from the 

analysis of responses to open-ended questions that prompted candid comments, 

recommendations, and insights. The survey instrument collected specific data on the 

following FOIA issues: 

• Identification of methods of communication with requesters 

• Identification of methods of FOIA request tracking/control 

• Primary redaction methods 

• Percentages of requests associated with Initial Request categories 

• The impact on backlog of various categories of processing time 

• The current backlog in the office of the respondent 

• The average number of initial requests received by the respondent’s office per year 

• Job satisfaction issues including perceived expertise and understanding of FOIA 

• Resources, including personnel, equipment, and IT support available to respondent 

• Respondent’s perception of leadership, teamwork, and cooperation 

• Level of customer service from respondent’s office 

• Obstacles impeding timely FOIA processing 

• Respondent’s recommendations to improve the FOIA process 

• Position levels of FOIA staff in respondent’s office 

• Type of FOIA training received (if any) within respondent’s office during the year 

This survey data from 548 FOIA Offices enabled the development of the DoD FOIA 

Improvement Plan to be based on empirical data. The objectives in the Plan, therefore, 

concentrate on those measures that will, in fact, improve customer service and reduce 

backlog. 

 

E. Concise descriptions of FOIA exemptions: 

(b)(1)--records currently and properly classified in the interest of national security; 

(b)(2)--records related solely to internal personnel rules and practices; Two profiles – 

Low and High. 

Low – Records qualifying under the Low (b)(2) profile are those that are trivial and 

housekeeping in nature for which there is no legitimate public interest or benefit to be 

gained by release, and it would constitute an administrative burden to process the 

request in order to disclose the records. 

High – Records qualifying under High (b)(2) are those containing or constituting 

statutes, rules, regulations, orders, manuals, directives, instructions, and security 

classification guides, the release of which would allow circumvention of these 

19
records thereby substantially hindering the effective performance of a significant 

function of DoD. 

(b)(3)--records protected by another law that specifically exempts the information 

from public release; 

(b)(4)--trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a private 

source which would cause substantial competitive harm to the source if disclosed; 

(b)(5)-- inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters containing information 

considered privileged in litigation; 

(b)(6)--records which if released, would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of 

personal privacy; 

(b)(7)--investigatory records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes; 

(b)(8)--records for the use of any agency responsible for the regulation or supervision 

of financial institutions; and 

(b)(9)--records containing geological and geophysical information (including maps) 

concerning wells. 

F. Additional statistics: 

1. Time range of requests pending, by date of request: 

March 10, 1991 – September 30, 2006 

2. Time range of consultations pending with other agencies, by date of initial interagency 

communication: 

May 3, 1993 – September 30, 2006 

G. Attachments: 

1. DoD FOIA Improvement Plan, June 14, 2006 

2. Modification #1 to DoD FOIA Improvement Plan, November 2, 2006 

20