While not required, the tables on the pages that follow provide additional
information for DoD components.

15


Item V.

Initial FOTA/PA Access Requests

A. Numbers of initial requests.

1. Number of requests pending as of end of preceding fiscal year (1 Oct 99): 10,843!

2. Number of requests received during current fiscal year (FY 2000): 97,266
3. Number of requests processed during current fiscal year (FY 2000): 96,479
4. Number of requests pending as of end of current fiscal year (30 Sep 00): 11,630

B. Disposition of initial requests.
1. Number of grants: 56,836

2. Number of partial grants: 11,551

3. Number of denials: 2,367
a. Number of times each FOIA exemption used (counting each exemption once per
request).
(1) Exemption 1: 1,251
(2) Exemption 2: 1,196
(3) Exemption 3: 1,342
(4) Exemption 4: 1,075
(5) Exemption 5: 1,933
(6) Exemption 6: 7,265

(7) Exemption 7(A): 229
(8) Exemption 7(B): 20
(9) Exemption 7(C): 3,638

' The Annual Report for FY 1999 (Line V.A.4) noted 11,407 pending requests. During the preparation of
this report, five hundred sixty four pending requests were over reported for FY 1998 due to some defense agencies
conversion to automated tracking systems. They have been deducted this year in this line item.


61

Table for Item V., Part B., Number 4.
Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations for Nondisclosure

Component i:

OsD/JS 404} 954°
Dept Army 2,890! 3,203!
Dept Navy 3,218 1,766,
Dept Air Force 2,227 2,806)
DCAA 27 24!
IDFAS 166 167:
DIA 215 52!
pss aq 3
DISA 36 115;
DLA 1,865: 361
DTRA 23! 27;
NIMA 26 |
NRO 34) 1
NSA/CSS 272) 146:

OIG, DOD

236
639:
626:
880°

a

133°

326
133

16} 15, 64
a7 419 277
169} 93 234
a 103, 109
0 0 0
62 13 0
0 0 2
0: a! 0

: 0 6

7 54 205
2! 3 8:
0: 3 21

3 ru 0,

0 15° 31.

28
809
349

46

aooon

1,777
9,498
6,786
6,257
70
1,327]
279
37
195)
2,686
88|

93

. 39
859

Note: See Item III., Definitions of Terms and Acronyms Used In Report, for definitions of categories below:

Anpwne

. No records.

. Referrals.

. Withdrawn.

. Fee-Related Reason

. Records not Reasonably Described.
. Not a proper FOIA Request for Some Other Reason.

7. Not an Agency Record.
8. Duplicate Request.
9. Other (See next page).


This Page

Was

Intentionally Left Blank

(Printed Paper Version Only — Not Used for Electronic Edition)

iv



Table for Item V., Part A.

Numbers of Initial Requests

Component 206 00

\OSD/JS 1,932 3,313 2,921 2,003
Dept Army 2,748 33,651 33,532 2,867
[Dept Navy 848 21,286 20,743 1,391
(Dept Air Force 1,783. 14,994 15,357 1,420
IDCAA 21 157 167 11
DFAS 279 4,030 4,015 294|
[DIA 1,581 951 835 1,697
(DSS 33 138 158 13
DISA 67 482 415 134
IDLA 567 16,175 16,303 439
IDTRA 102 240 180 162)
NIMA 49 232 213 68)
NRO 40 117 121 36)
INSA/CSS TAT 1,180 1,195 732)
OIG, DOD 46 320 324 42)

‘0

Notes: The fiscal year (FY) period covered by this report is FY 2000,
1 October 1999 through 30 September 2000.

Total cases processed may exceed number of cases received
due to processing backlogged cases during the report period

16


Table for Item VI., Part A.

Numbers of Appeals

ponen

OSD/JS

Dept Army 254 290
Dept Navy 265 390
Dept Air Force 122 132
DCAA 6 6
DFAS 3 3
DIA 39 29
DSS 7 7
DISA 3 3
DLA 17 20
DTRA 0 0
NIMA 4 4
NRO 10

NSA/CSS 53

Note: Total cases processed may exceed number of cases received
due to processing backlogged cases during the report period

22


81

Table for Item V., Part B., Number 3.

Exemptions Invoked on Initial Denials

8) pier
OSD/JS 173) 30 79 51 1 0 0 i} 521)
(Dept Army 309) 720) 154) 459 153 1 0 0 8,996
Dept Navy 106} 121] 158) 247 39 19 0 0 4,021
Dept Air Force 134] 112] 385) 216] 512) 1,073 28 4 587 100 32 12 i) 0 3,195)
DCAA 0 0 0 5 7 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
DFAS 0 0 0 6 8 45 0 0 13 0 0 Ui) 0 0 72,
(DIA 210) 156) 111 3 3 54 0 0 0 0 0 i} 0} 0) 537
Dss 0 12 0 0) 9 20 0 0 5 3 0: 0 0 0 49
DISA 0 2) 16 6 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0 35)
DLA 0 9 6 37 14 45 q 0 29) 0 5 0 0) 0 152)
DTRA 7 7 24 24 4 6 t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NIMA 7 1 2 0 2 8 0 i} 0 0 0 0 0 0
INRO 39 0 42 2 1 12 0 0 0 0 1 ) 0 0
NSA/CSS 264 24) 364) 11 14 51 2 0 0 8 14 ) 0 0
OIG, DOD 2 2 1 8| 15 51 46 0 134 10 3 0 0 0

DOD:

* Please note: 1. More than one exemption may be used to deny information on any single request.
2. Rounded to nearest whole percentage point which is sometimes zero, 0%.


Item VIII.

Comparison With Previous Year

(Optional, Not Used)

Item IX.

Costs/FOIA Staffing

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

1. Number of full-time FOIA personnel: 297.76
2. Number of personnel with part-time or occasional FOIA duties: 592.45
3. Total number of personnel: 890.21

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

1. FOIA processing (including appeals): $35,243,410.00
2. Litigation-related activities (estimated): $1,283,261.00
3. Total costs: $36,526,671.00

13


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, of 3, 7, and 14, the average number
is 8.


87

Table for Item IX.

FOIA Staffing/Costs

Component “ i Cost |) ‘opram Cost|
lOSD/JS 13.58 28.31 41.89 2,413,414 35,740 2,449,154
Dept Army 78.65 223.56 302.21 10,197,877 946,333 11,144,210)
Dept Navy 73.25 240.88 314.13 "10,072,296 50,686 10,122,982
Dept Air Force 56.3 70.32 126.62 7,605,878 47,171 7,653,049
DCAA 2.25 ) 2.25 293,099 0 293,099
IDFAS 13 12.7 25.7 318,411 25,800 344,211
DIA 8 0 8 465,069 10,500 475,569)
IDSS 3 0 3 184,804 0 184,804)
DISA 0 2.83 2.83 201,570 0 201,570
IDLA 15.73 5.75 21.48 1,223,467 38,000 1,261,467]
DTRA 7 0 7 555,287 0 555,287
NIMA 1 7 8 180,518 0 180,518)
NRO 5 0 5 390,201 0 390,201
INSA/CSS 17 0 17 882,247] 129,031 1,011,278}
259,273 0 259,273
43,



St

Table for Item VI., Part B., Number 4.
Other Reasons Cited on Appeal Determinations for Nondisclosure

Comp : | Total
losD/JS 6| 11! 10: 0; 2. 0} 0! 0; 2 31
Dept Army BL 1| 85° 0: 0; 0: 0: 0} fr) 137
Dept Navy 65 14) 88; 1 3! 8, 3! 3 199]
Dept Air Force 0 o! 4: 0 0! 0! 1 0 5
IDCAA oY o| of 0 0| ol 0 ) 1
IDFAS 0} 0, 0! 0; 0; ol 0 0 0
DIA 2 0; 0! 0. 0, 0: 0: 0 2
IDSs 0 0 0} 0: 0 ol 0, 0 0
DISA 1 ol | 0! ol o| 0) 0 1
DLA 2 2 1) 0 1 9} : 0 6
DTRA 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0
INIMA 0} o 0 t) 0. 0 0 ft)
INRO 1 0 0 0! 0} 1 0 2
INSA/CSS 26 ‘| 2 0 0j 0 0 30
OIG, DOD 3 0 ry 0 0) 0 0 3
al

Note: See Item III., Definitions-of Terms and Acronyms Used In Report, for definitions of categories below:

. No records.

. Referrals.

. Withdrawn.

. Fee-Related Reason

. Records not Reasonably Described.

. Not a proper FOIA Request for Some Other Reason.

DAnPkwne

7. Not an Agency Record.

8. Duplicate Request.

9. Other:
Appeal not submitted within required
time frame - 5 instances.


Item ITI.

Definitions of Terms and Acronyms Used in the Report

A. Agency-specific acronyms or other terms.
1, The Military Departments.
a. The Department of the Army: Dept Anny.

b. Department of the Navy: Dept Navy. The United States Marine Corps, USMC, is a
part of the Department of the Navy.

c. Department of the Air Force: Dept Air Force.

2. Other Defense Agencies and Activities.

a. Defense Contract Audit Agency: DCAA.

b. Defense Finance and Accounting Service: DFAS.

c. Defense Information Systems Agency: DISA.

d. Defense Intelligence Agency: DIA.

e. Defense Logistics Agency: DLA.

f. Defense Security Service: DSS. Formerly Defense Investigative Service, DIS.

g. Defense Threat Reduction Agency: DTRA. Formerly Defense Special Weapons
Agency, DSWA.

h. National Imagery and Mapping Agency: NIMA. Formerly Defense Mapping Agency,
DMA.

i. National Security Agency/Central Security Service: NSA/CSS or NSA.
j. National Reconnaissance Office: NRO.

k. Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense: OIG, DoD.

3. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Combatant
Commands, and Defense Agencies/Activities not listed above: OSD/JS.



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, Program Management Division (PMD)
Directorate for Freedom of Information & Security Review
1155 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1155

Telephone: (703) 695-4773

Name of Incumbent Chief, PMD: LTC J. F. Deming, U. S. Army

B. The electronic address (Universal Resource Line, URL) for this report is:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/OOreport/
C. You may obtain a paper copy of DoD’s Annual FOIA Report for Fiscal Year 2000 by writing

to the above address and asking for a copy. A FOIA request is not necessary. Please include
a mailing address.

Item II.

How to Make a FOIA Request

The Department of Defense (DoD) Freedom of Information Act Handbook provides
basic information about how to make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and general
information about the Freedom of Information Act Program within the Department of Defense
(DoD). This document also contains DoD component addresses, a brief description of 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



. Total amount of fees collected by the agency for processing requests: $666,362.64

B. Percentage of total costs: 1.8%

Item XI.

FOIA Regulations (Including Fee Schedule)

. The Department of Defense (DoD) Freedom of Information Act Program Regulation, DoD
5400.7-R, September 4, 1998, which provides guidance regarding administration of the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program within the Department of Defense (DoD), can
be found at:

http://web7.whs.osd.mil/htm1/54007r.htm
. The Fee Schedule is Chapter 6 of the above regulation.

. Additional Department of Defense FOIA documents and hyperlinks can be found by
accessing the following Universal Resource Locator (URL):

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



10.

11.

12.

14.

15.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

Partial grant: 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 of the FOIA's
exemptions; or a decision to disclose some records in their entireties, but to withhold
others in whole or in part.

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's exemptions, or for some
procedural reason (such as because no record is located in response to a FOIA request).

Time limits: The time period in the Freedom of Information Act for an agency to
respond to a FOIA request (ordinarily 20 working days from proper receipt of a
"perfected" FOIA request).

. "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.

Exemption 3 statute: A separate federal statute prohibiting the disclosure of a certain
type of information and authorizing its with holding under FOIA subsection (b)(3).

Median number: The middle, not average, number. For example, of 3, 7, and 14, the
median number is 7.


0

Table for Item V., Part B., Number 4., Supplemental

"Specific" Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations for Nondisclosure

lOSD/JS

Dept Army 322: 15 23, 14, 245) 17 ; 113 809)
Dept Navy 142! 10 ‘ 157! fj 26) 12; 2 349
Dept Air Force H 5. : ' 5
DFAS , 15: 2! \ 29° 46
DIA : 4 ! ‘ 4
DTRA | 5! | | ‘ ; | 5
NIMA 25: ' | 24 49
NSA/CSS | |

DOD

Note: See Definition of terms on the following page.


Department of Defense (DoD)

Freedom of Information Act

- Program Report
for

Fiscal Year (FY) 2000

Prepared By:

The Directorate for Freedom of Information
and Security Review (DFOISR)



l fa : sMiate
No 22 USC §2778(e) Sec Control of Arms Exports
38(e) of the Arms Export
Control Act
No 31 USC §3729(d) False Claims Act
31 USC §3730(b)(2) Civil Actions for False Claims (specifies that materials related to
civil complaints filed by private individuals on behalf of the U. S.
Government under the False Claims Act will remain under seal
for at least 60 days and shall not be served on a defendant until
the court so orders).
No 35 USC §181-188 Secrecy of Certain Inventions and Withholding of Patents
No 35 USC §205 Confidentiality of Inventions Information
No 41 USC §423 Procurement Integrity
Yes> | 42 USC §2162(a) Restricted Data (Atomic Energy), Atomic Energy Act of 1954
No 42 USC §2168(a)(1)(C) | Formerly Restricted Data (Atomic Energy), Atomic Energy Act of
1954°
Yes® | 50 USC §402 Note Sec | NSA Functions and Information
6, P.L. 86-36
Yes’ | 50 USC §403-3(c)(6) Intelligence Sources and Methods
National Security Act of
1947, Subsection
102(d)(3), as amended
Yes® | 50 USC §403(g), Section | CIA Functions and Information
6 of the CIA Act of 1949
No 50 USC §421 Protection of Identities of US Undercover Intelligence Officers,
Agents, Informants and Sources
No 50 USC §435 Note Sec | Disclosure of Information Concerning US Personnel Classified as
1082, P.L. 102-190 POW/MIA During Vietnam Conflict (McCain “Truth Bill”)
Yes’ | Rule 6(e), Federal Rules | Grand Jury Information Intrinsic to Jury’s Internal Working

of Criminal Procedure

Process.

Item IV. Endnotes

T Dubin v. Department of the Treasury, 555 F, Supp. 408, 412 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 697 F.2d 1093 (11 Cir. 1983)
(unpublished table decision); NTEU v. OPM, No. 76-695, slip op. at 4 (D.D.C. July 9, 1979).

? 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.


Item IV.

Exemption 3 Statutes Invoked

Yes’ | 5 USC §7114(b)(4) Civil Service Reform Act — Representation Rights and Duties,
Labor Unions

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

Yes’ | 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 §424 Protection of Organizational and Personnel Information for DIA,
NRO, and NIMA

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

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 §1506(f) Debriefing of a Missing Person Returned to U.S. Control During
the Period Beginning on July 8, 1959, and ending on February 10,
1996 :

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

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

No 10 USC §2640(h) Authority to Protect Safety-Related Information Voluntarily
Provided by an Air Carrier

No 12 USC §3403 Confidentiality of Financial Records

No 15 USC §1, PL 105-271 | Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act

No 15 USC §3705(e)(E) Centers for Industrial Technology - Reports of Technology
Innovations

No 16 USC §470w-3 National Historic Preservation

Yes? 18 USC §798(a) Communications Intelligence

Yes* | 18 USC §5038 Interviews of Juveniles in Criminal Defense

No 21 USC §1175 Drug Abuse Prevention/Rehabilitation



Table for Item VII., Part B.

Status of Pending Requests

OSD/JS 2,003 310|
Dept Army 2,867 18
‘Dept Navy 1,391 45
(Dept Air Force 1,420 87)
DCAA 11 30)
DFAS 294 197)
(DIA 1,697 812)
DSS 13 11
DISA 134 108}
DLA 439 18
DTRA 162 107
NIMA 68 13
NRO 36 345
INSA/CSS 732 182
OIG, DOD 42 30)

87,

Note: The number of calendar days, not work days, elapsed between the date requests were
perfected and the date indicated (30 September 2000) is reflected in the above
median calculations.

27


97

Table for Item VII. Part A.

Median Processing Times
for
Initial Requests Processed During the Year

OSD/JS 2,668

Dept Army 33,532 25,139] 16 7,816 32 577

Dept Navy 20,743 16,522 15 4,101 40 120

Dept Air Force 15,357] - 13,262 12 2,033 53 62

IDCAA 167 25 0 0 0

DFAS 3,746 89 246 163} 23

DIA 330 30 485 400 20 60
DSS 27 5 119 35 12 3
DISA 359 90 56 40 0 0
DLA 15,974 15 329 29 0 0
IDTRA 7 5 173 97 0 0
INIMA 103 37 110) 90 0 0
NRO 82 10 39 122 0 0
INSA/CSS 1,127] 29 65 1,318 3 16
OIG, DOD 275 56 49 150) 0 0

3D Total T9788) 25.0] 15,872

Note: The number of calendar days, not work days, elapsed between the date requests were
perfected and completed is reflected in the above median calculations.


4. “Other Reasons” Cited on Initial and Appeal Determinations.

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

request.

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

action.

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

. 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.

e. 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.

f. Nota Proper FOIA Request for Some Other Reason. The requester has failed

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

g. Not an Agency Record. The requested information was not a record within the

meaning of the FOIA.

h. 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.

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

those mentioned above.

B. Basic terms, expressed in common terminology.

1.

2.

3.

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 conceming
oneself; such requests are also treated as FOIA requests.

Initial Request: A request to a federal agency for access to records under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).

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 Freedom of Information
Act, or any other adverse FOIA determination.


Table for Item V., Part B.

Disposition of Initial Requests

196
13,586
41

148

19
148
48

201

141

340
726
§12
344

30
83
15
12
13

12
26
195
46

1,477

9,475
6,766,
6,257
70
1,327
279
37
195
2,678
88

80

39
793

89

22,203
15,750
167|
4,030
835
158}
423
16,394
187|
248)
121)
1,337

Component:

OSD/JS 2,921
[Dept Army 33,532
‘Dept Navy 20,743
‘Dept Air Force 15,357
IDCAA 167
DFAS 4,015
DIA 835
DSS 158
DISA 415
IDLA 16,303
DTRA 180
INIMA 213
INRO 121
INSA/CSS 1,195,
OIG, DOD 324

3

3

324)

* Please Note: 1. More than one action can be taken on each Initial Request.

2. Multiple "Other" actions can be taken on a single Initial Request.

See page 19, "Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations for

Nondisclosure."

17


Table for Item VI., Part B.

Disposition of Appeals

Compo 3 1 Full

OSD/JS 62 5

Dept Army 290 2 17 134 137 290
Dept Navy 390 20 72 155 143 890
Dept Air Force 132 3 25 99 5 132}
DCAA 6 2 2 1 1 6
DFAS 3 0 0 3 0 3
DIA 29 0 165 12 2 29
DSS 7 0 4 3 0 7
DISA 3 0 1 1 1 3
DLA 20 4 9 4 6 23)
DTRA 0 0 0 0 0 0}
INIMA 4 0 0 2 2 4
NRO 9 0 5 2 2 9)
INSA/CSS 81 3 8 40 30 81
OIG, DOD 22 0 17 2 3 22
DOD : £058)

* Please Note: 1. More than one action can be taken on each Appeal.
2. Multiple "Other" actions can be taken on a single Appeal.
See page 25, "Other Reasons Cited on Appeal Determinations for
Nondisclosure."

23


Supporting Tables
Tables for Item V. Initial FOLA/PA Requests

Part A. Numbers of Initial Requests

Part B. Disposition of Initial Requests

Part B. Number 1. Exemptions Invoked on Initial Denials

Part B. Number 2. Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations for
Nondisclosure

Tables for Item VI. Appeals of Initial Denials of FOLA/PA Requests
Part A. Numbers of Appeals
Part B. Disposition of Appeals
Part B. Number |. Exemptions Invoked on Appeal Denials
Part B. Number 2. Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations for
Nondisclosure

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

Part A. Median Processing Times for Initial Requests Processed During the Year
Part B. Status of Pending Requests

Table for Item IX. FOIA Staffing/Costs

iii

15

16
17
18
19

22

24
25

26
27

28


(10) Exemption 7(D): 583
(11) Exemption 7(E): 248
(12) Exemption 7(F): 32
(13) Exemption 8: 0
(14) Exemption 9: 0
4. Other reasons for nondisclosure (total):

a. No records:

b. Referrals:

c. Request withdrawn:

d. Fee-related reason:

e. Records not reasonably described:

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

g. Not an agency record:

a

. Duplicate request:
i. Other (specify*):

* Note: See table on page 20.

Item VI.

11,466
9,163
2,595

757
1,975
896
781
938

1,509

Appeals of Initial Denials of FOIA/PA Requests

A. Numbers of appeals.
1. Number of appeals received during fiscal year (FY 2000):
2. Number of appeals processed during fiscal year (FY 2000):
B. Disposition of appeals.

1. Number denied in full:

10

896

1,058

473


g. Not an agency record: 4
h. Duplicate request: 4
i. Other (specify*): 5

* Note: See table on page 25.

Item VII.

Compliance With Time Limits/Status of Pending Requests

A. Median processing time for requests processed during the year (FY 2000).
1. Simple requests.
a. Number of requests processed: 79,788
b. Median number of days to process: 25
2. Complex requests.
a. Number of requests processed: 15,872
b. Median number of days to process: - 69
3. Requests accorded expedited processing.
a. Number of requests processed: 819

b. Median number of days to process: 3

B. Status of pending requests (as of: 30 Sep 00).
1. Number of requests pending: 11,309

2. Median age of above cases in days: 87


Table of Contents

Basic Report
Item I. Basic Information Regarding the Report
Ttem II. How to Make a FOIA Request
Item III. Definitions of Terms and Acronyms Used in the Report
Item IV. Exemption 3 Statutes
Item V. Initial FOLA/PA Requests
Part A. Numbers of Initial Requests
Part B. Disposition of Initial Requests
Part B. Number 1. Exemptions Invoked on Initial Denials
Part B. Number 2. Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations for
Nondisclosure
Item VI. Appeals of Initial Denials of FOIA/PA Requests
Part A. Numbers of Appeals
Part B. Disposition of Appeals
Part B. Number 1. Exemptions Invoked on Appeal Denials
Part B. Number 2. Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations for
Nondisclosure

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

Part A. Median Processing Times for Initial Requests Processed During the Year
Part B. Status of Pending Requests

Item VIII. Comparison With Previous Year (Optional, Not Used)
Item IX. FOIA Staffing/Costs
Item X. Fees Collected From Public

Item XI. FOIA Regulation, Including Fee Schedule

ii

E
po
CD NM ee Io

ouveyw

10

10
10
11
11


1

Item V., Part B., Number 4., Supplemental (Continued)

“Specific” Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations for Nondisclosure Explained

Electronic Referral: Requested information available on Internet and the requester was apprised of the Internet address.

Insufficient Address/Info: The requester provided an insufficient or inaccurate address and could not be contacted. The requester
did not respond to inquiry from the FOI Office requesting clarification of their request.

Lacked 3d Party Waiver: A third party (e.g., an attorney) making a request on behalf of someone else failed to provide an
authorization from the requester which would allow the third party access to the requester’s records.

Publicly Sold Document: Requested material was available through cash sales and the requester was advised how to purchase.
Direct NPRC Referral:| Requested concerned military service records of former service members. Requests were returned to the
requester along with blank a form SF-180 and suggestion that they complete the form and submit directly to the National Personnel

Records Center (NPRC) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), St. Louis, MO.

Non-Attribution: The agency’s involvement in a referral action would itself compromise national security matters which are
properly classified.

Improper Referrals: Referrals were returned to the referring agency/activity without action for correction because they were
incorrect or incomplete.

NARA Referral: Requested records were no longer under control of the referred agency. Requesters were directed to contact NARA
directly.

Not Agency Issue: Requested documents did not pertain to the agency.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
ANNUAL REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2000
(Report Period: October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During fiscal year (FY) 2000, a total of 96,479 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, the Department of Defense fully denied 2,367 and partially denied 11,551 out of 97,266
requests on the basis of FOIA exemptions. Of those exemptions, 7% were for classified information; 6%
for internal rules and practices; 7% for statutory exemptions; 6% for proprietary data; 10% for
deliberative material; 39% for privacy information; and 24% for law enforcement investigations. Thirty
thousand and eighty (30,080) 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 1,058 actions taken on appeals of denied requests (39 granted, 193 partially denied,
473 fully denied, and 357 not filled for other reasons, as mentioned earlier).

The total DoD operating cost associated with the processing of requests during this report period
was $36,526,671.09. The average cost of processing a single case during this period was approximately
$378.60. Fee collections for records provided to the public amounted to $666,362.64 (1.8% of total
program cost).


144

Table for Item VI., Part B., Number 3.

Exemptions Invoked on Appeal Denials

OSD/JS
‘Dept Army
Dept Navy
Dept Air Force
DCAA
DFAS

DIA

DSS

DISA

DLA
DTRA
NIMA
INRO
INSA/CSS
OIG, DOD

a |) ee) 0 0 0 0 0
20] 19} «3! 1] 42] 85 2 o| 65 9) out
3 6| 3] 84) 107 16 2] 70 3 0
9} 1, 6 5] 40} 40 1 o} at 1 0
0 o| =i oo 1 0 0 1 0 0
Cr) |) a) rs | ) 0 0 0 0 0
22) 22! 15] of of o 0 0 0 0 0
0 1] of =o] sk 0 0 2 0 0
o} 1 o| =6of Sofa ol 0 0 0 0
o} 61} of af ai 0 0 1 0 0
Cr) |) ) ) ) 0 0 0 0 0
0) ) re) |) rr) 0 0 0 0 0
7 1] 5f oof Sofa 0 0 0 0 0
32) 0) 34, 1] of 2 0 0 0 0 0
i] 0 ee) ee) 2) o| 15 2! 0

coooooseooooo ores

ecoeoeooseco ooo oo of

jooooooooooeoesoo so

13)
266)
301
124

* Please note:
2

1. More than one exemption may be used to deny information on any single appeal.
. Rounded to nearest whole percentage point which is sometimes zero, 0%.


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).

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).

* McDonnell v. United States, 4 F.3d 1227, 1251° (3d Cir. 1993) (holding state juvenile delinquincy records outside
scope of statute).

5 Meeropol v. Smith, No. 75-1121, slip op. at 53-55 (D.D.C. Feb. 29, 1984), affd 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 (7° Cir. 1984) (concluding that provision concerning technical information furnished by license applicants

jacked sufficient specificity to qualify as Exemption 3 statute).

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).

CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 167 (1985); see also Minier v. CIA, 88 F.3d 796, 801 (9" 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 (1* 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 (Cg 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 (8" 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, 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).

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. $52, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); Pfeiffer v. CIA, 721 F. Supp. 337, 341-42 (D.D.C. 1989).

° Astley v. Lawson, C.A. No. 89-2806 D.C.C. January 11, 1991. (Grand jury information but only to the extent that the
documents reveal the internal workings or the deliberations of the grand jury. Documents extrinsic to the jury’s
internal working process do not qualify.



2. Number denied in part: 193

3. Number completely reversed (granted): 39
a. Number of times each FOIA exemption used (counting each exemption once per

appeal).

(1) Exemption 1: 94
(2) Exemption 2: 52
(3) Exemption 3: 72
(4) Exemption 4: 14
(5) Exemption 5: 181
(6) Exemption 6: 255

(7) Exemption 7(A): 21
(8) Exemption 7(B): 2
(9) Exemption 7(C): 175
(10) Exemption 7(D): 15
(11) Exemption 7(E): 11
(12) Exemption 7(F): 10
(13) Exemption 8: 0
(14) Exemption 9: 0

4. Other reasons for nondisclosure (total):

a. No records: 158
b. Referrals: 30
c. Appeal withdrawn: 190
d. Fee-related reason: il
e. Records not reasonably described: 6
f. Not a proper FOIA request for some other reason: 9

11