Hayes International Corp. v. Department of the Navy, No. 86-T-1129=S (MD Ala). Plaintiff brought action against
Navy on T October 1986 seeking release of various documents related to an aviation mishap. We contend that
plaintiff failed to show that he had appealed and exhausted his administrative remedies. Settlement talks are
ongoing. Motion for protective order has been filed to prevent discovery.

Lind v. Department of the Navy, No. 80-033 (D. HI.). Plaintiffs, representatives of various public interest groups,
seek three Navy Weapons Evaluation Facility, Albuquerque, NM, reports of accidents and incidents involving nuclear
weapons. Navy maintains they are classified and exempt from disclosure. In February 1984, the Navy moved
for summary judgment. This motion was denied in April 1985 and the case was set for trial in November. In
September 1985, after additional review by the Navy of the requested documents, portions were released and
a motion was made to vacate trial date. This motion, along with summary judgment as to a segment of the material,
was granted in October 1985. Navy was ordered to prepare a detailed Vaughn index of the reports, indicating
application of FOIA Systems Command authorized total release and Navy entered into a settlement agreement.
Upon further review Naval Sea Systems Command authorized total release and Navy entered into a settlement
agreement. Upon further review by the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, documents were deemed still to be classified
and the Navy attempted to rescind the settlement. On 18 December 1985, plaintiff moved for specific performance.
On 10 February 1986, the court denied plaintiff's motion and allowed the Navy to rescind the settlement. In June
1986, the court granted, in part, the Navy's motion for summary judgment and required additional submission
concerning remainder of the document. Plaintiffs have moved for award of attorney's fees. Decision on both
motions is currently pending.

Lacy v. Department of the Navy, No. M83-2727 (D. Md.). Plaintiffs sought an injunction directing the Navy to cease
withholding from them certain photographs relating to an aircraft accident involving Bureau Number 138929, which
crashed near Patuxent River, MD, on 26 January 1980. The photographs are contained within the Mishap
Investigation Report (MIR). The Naval Safety Center denied access to the photographs under (b)(5), since disclosure
would reveal the deliberative or decision-making process of the investigator/photographer. On 6 July 1984, a
Memorandum and Order in favor of plaintiff was issued. The amount of attorney’s fees is still unresolved. Plaintiff
is not actively pursuing this case.

Badhwar v. United States Air Force, et. al., Civil No. 84-0154 (D.D.C.). Case involves a Freedom of Information
Act request by associates of columnist Jack Anderson, who seek a large quantity of a Mishap Investigation Report
(MIR) related to information from the military services. At issue is the obligation to relase three particular portions
of the MIR: (1) statements of witnesses, (2) findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and (3) segregable factual
material from documents found to be otherwise exempt.

Vietnam Veterans of America et. al., v. Department of Navy et. al., No. 86-0357 (D.D.C.). FOIA litigation commenced
by two veterans organizations (represented by Bart Stichman) against Navy and Army. Action seeks publication
or indexing of JAG opinions promulgated since 4 July 1967 that are subject to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) or (a)(2). Plaintiffs
contend that certain opinions are either statements of general policy, final opinions, or policy and interpretations
that have been adopted by the Navy/Army and, therefore, under that statute, must be published in the Federal
Register or made available in a public reading room.

A motion for summary judgment was filed 27 October 1986, contending that only documents promulgated
concerning subject matters under the JAG’s specific cognizance can be subject to FOIA (a)(1) or (a)(2). Of those
categories of documents, most opinions are predecisional, internal, and advisory, having no precedential or
authoritative value. Cognizant JAG divisions have reviewed their documents to extract those that are subject to
the provision. Discovery has been stayed. At a hearing on 11 December 1986, the court indicated its inclination
to deny our motion for summary judgment. After oral argument, however, the matter was taken under advisement,
and presently remains decisional, as to both discovery and summary judgment.

Newport Aeronautical Sales v. Department of the Navy, D.D.C. No. 86-3409, filed 11 December 1986. Plaintiff brought
suit alleging improper denials of various FOIA requests by the Naval Sea Systems Command. Plaintiff contends
that technical manuals were not properly classified and were improperly withheld under Exemption (b)(3) as they
are not subject to withholding under 10 U.S.C. 140c, the Technical Data Act.

Solar Turbines, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, D.D.C. No. 86-2284, filed 19 August 1986. Plaintiff brought suit
because the Naval Sea Systems Command failed to issue a timely response. On 20 November 1986, the court granted
a stay until 31 July 1987 to allow NAVSEA an opportunity to furnish the administrative processing of the request.

Aerojet Techsystems Co. v. Department of the Navy, D.D.C. No. 86-1635, filed 12 June 1986. Plaintiff brought suit

because the Naval Sea Systems Command failed to issue a timely response. Stipulation of voluntary dismissal
dated 8 October 1986.



Item 5{a)
Exemptions Invoked on Appeal Determinations

Exemptions by Number (552(b))

sw

Reporting Activity
OSD/OJCS
DEPT ARMY
DEPT NAVY
DEPT AF
DCA
DCAA
DIA

=
wo
a

8a

a
bay

SCOONSCONO MOUS ity
=

Nosnccohoa Basse
NOOCOOCONOC OSA NAN
coomonwoSGass
NO=@=-=020 oR EB alo
8
SeSODDOCCCOOOOSCleaA
Se[o7OoOOSC COO eGo ce o

oooroo}]0

NSA/CSS

DoD Totals 128

nN
a

131

8
a
NS

116

Percent of 15% 3% 15% 37% 4% 13%
Total

*Totals do not agree with Item 4 because of cases where two or more exemptions were cited.



CHAPTER VI
FEE SCHEDULE
Section 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS

6-100 Application

The fees described in this chapter apply to FOIA requests. They reflect direct search and dupli-
cation costs, collection of which are permitted by the FOIA. They are neither intended to imply that
fees must be charged in connection with providing information to the public in the routine course of
business nor are they meant as a substitute for any other schedule of fees, such as DoD Instruction
7230.7 (reference (q)).

6-101 Fee Assessment
a. Minimum fees shall not be charged.

b. | When direct search and duplication costs for a single FOIA request total less than $30.00,
fees should be waived automatically. The DoD Components, however, may set aside the automatic
waiver provision when, on the basis of good evidence, the Component can demonstrate that waiver
of fees is not in the public interest. Multiple requests from a single requester or from those acting in
behalf of a single requester in an effort to take advantage of the waiver may create a situation in
which waiver should be denied by the Component.

c. Decisions to waive or reduce fees that exceed the automatic waiver threshold shall be
made on a case-by-case basis. The following circumstances, however, describe the most common
circumstances in which waiver or reduction of fees are most likely to be warranted.

1. No record is located or all records are denied. However, fee charges are appro-
priate if the requester insists upon a search and agrees to such fees after being informed that the
search is likely to be nonproductive or that the records are all likely to be exempt from release.

2.  Arecord is voluntarily created to preclude an otherwise burdensome effort to
provide voluminous amounts of available records including additional information not requested.

3. The records are to be made available in response to a news media requester whose
requests under this regulation are reasonable in scope and frequency.

4. The record is for a nonprofit public interest group and the subject of the requested
record is known to be of wide public interest, and furnishing the information can be considered as
primarily benefiting the general public.

5. A previous denial is reversed in whole or in part and the search and reproduction
costs involved are not substantial.

6-102 Computation of Fees

The fee schedule contained in this chapter is used to compute the search and duplication costs
associated with processing a given FOIA request. Search fees shall be computed based on time
actually spent. Neither time-based nor dollar-based minimum charges for search and duplication are
authorized.

Section 2
COLLECTION OF FEES AND FEE RATES

6-200 Collection of Fees

Collection of charges and fees need not be made in advance of rendering the service unless
the costs are expected to exceed the fee waiver threshold and the requester has not indicated a
willingness in writing to pay. It frequently is more practical to collect charges and fees at the time
of providing the service or property to the recipient when the requester specifically states that the
cost involved shall be acceptable or acceptable up to a specified limit that covers anticipated costs.
Collection of fees in advance is an appropriate requirement only when the requester has not agreed
in writing to pay the anticipated fee or has not honored previous commitments to pay fees that
‘were owed an agency or component.

19



Item

Item

Item

Item
Item
Item

Item

Item 10

Item 11

CONTENTS

Initial Determinations Resulting in not Providing
All or a Portion of Record Requested

Initial Determinations
A. Exemptions Invoked
B. Statutes Invoked
C. Other Reasons
(Description of “Other Reasons”)
initial Denial Officials by Participation

A. Exemption Denials
B. Other Authority Denials

Number of Appeals and Results

Appeal Determinations

A. Exemptions Invoked

B. Statutes Invoked

C. Other Reasons

Participation of Appellate Authorities

Court Opinions and Action Taken

FOIA Implementation Rules and Regulations
Fees Schedule and Fees Collected
Administrative Efforts

Availability of Records

Calendar Year Costs and Fees Collected
Time Limit Extensions by Agency

. Internal Memoranda (number and availability)

Other Information or Recommendations on
Administering FOIA

mOOmD

FOIA Instructional and Education Efforts

Page

Hawn

NO

10
11

12
14
17
18

21
22
25
26
27



Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Defense Contract Audit Agency, et al., D.D.C. 86-1157, filed 25 April 1986. Plaintiff filed
suit to compel release of an audit report, alleging agency failure to respond in a timely manner. Pending decision.

Daniels Manufacturing Corp. v. Department of the Navy, ND CA 85-291-Civ-T-10. Exemption (b)(4) - whether qualified
products lists (QPL) documents submitted by company were commercial information submitted in confidence
which would result in competitive harm if released. Court order of 2 June 1986 sustained government's denial

in part and granted plaintiff's request in part. Court concluded neither party prevailed and therefore awarded
no costs.

Electro-Methods Inc. v. Department of the Navy, D.D.C. 84-2100. Exemption (b)(3), 22 CFR 125, USDRE memo of
31 March 1980, and 10 U.S.C. 140c. Whether unclassified drawings fell under the FOIA or instead are subject to
Arms Export Control Act. Action dismissed with prejudice on 28 January 1986, but plaintiff granted attorney fees
of $7,600.

Teresa Falcone v. John Lehman, D. Mass. CA 85-3264WD. Plaintiff filed suit 25 August 1985 after receiving a “no
records” response to her FOIA and PA request. The Department of the Navy has filed a motion to have the case
dismissed. We are awaiting the court's decision.

Dale E. Boyce v. Department of the Navy (United States Marine Corps), No. 86-2211 (C.D. CA). Filed 8 April 1986.
Plaintiff filed suit under the FOIA seeking access to a transcript of an arbitration hearing. The motion for summary
judgment argued January 1987. Pending decision.



Item 10 B
Calendar Year Costs and Fees Collected

Annual

Reporting Activity Annual Cost* Fees Collected
OSD/OJCS 614,152 9,530
DEPT ARMY 3,252,441 167,679
DEPT NAVY 2,712,264 1,644,961
DEPT AF 3,606,039 151,616
DCA 39,289 3,822
DCAA 44,173 1,286
DIA 240,625 1,470
DIS 13,420 1,652
DLA 824,124 164,963
DMA 28,856 713
DNA 32,559 0
NSAICSS 339,479 0
DoD Totals 11,747,421 2,147,692

*Based on reporting procedures established March 16, 1977, to capture a “best estimate” cost of administering
FOIA as amended. The cost outline on the following pages provides a breakdown by DoD reporting agencies.



Item 9

FEE SCHEDULE AND FEES
COLLECTED

The fee schedule on pages 19 and 20, reprinted from Chapter 6, DoD Regulation 5400.7-R,
- December 1980, establishes standard costs collectible by Department of Defense Agencies.

$2,147,692 was collected from the public for making records available during the year 1986
(see Item 10B, Page 22, for Agency totals).

18



PARTICIPATION OF APPELLATE AUTHORITIES

Item 6

(Those Responsible for Denials in Whole or in Part)

(Cont'd)

Title

No. of Instances
of Participation

DCAA

John Van Santen
DMA

Edward J. Obloy
DIA

R.W. Schmidt
RADM, USN

DLA

MG D.P. Litke
MG, USAF

MG. S.R. Musser
MG, USAF

DNA

LTG John L. Pickitt
LTG, USAF

NSA/CSS
Robert E. Rich

MG Thomas J. Flynn
Acting FOI
Appeals Authority

C.R. Lord

Assistant Director, Resources

General Counsel

USN Deputy Director

Deputy Director

Deputy Director

Director, Defense Nuclear Agency

Deputy Director, NSA/CSS
FOI Appeals Authority

Chief of Staff, NSA/CSS

Deputy Director, NSA/CSS
FOIA Appeals Authority

13

Exemption Other

8 4
2 0
38 0
3 3
5 6
2 0
2 0
1 0
6 1



“OTHER REASONS” DESCRIBED

Transferred Request (Appeal):

This category applies when responsibility for making a determination or a decision
on categories listed below is shifted from one Component to another
Component/Agency.

Lack of Records:

This category covers situations wherein the requester is advised the agency has
no record, or has no statutory obiligation to create a record.

Failure of Requester to Reasonably Describe Record:
This category is specifically based on Section 552 (aX3XA) of the FOIA.
Other Failures by Requesters to Comply with Published Rules and/or Directives:

This category is based on Section 552 (a('3XB) of the FOIA and includes instances
of failure to follow published rules concerning time, place, fees and procedures.

Request (Appeal) Withdrawn by Requester:

This category covers situations when the requester asks an agency to disregard
the request (or appeal) or pursues the request outside FOIA channels.



Item 11
FOIA INSTRUCTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS

DoD The lack of funds for a Department-wide training/educational program
continues as a major concern and hampers the overall effectiveness and
management of the DoD FOIA Program. The programmed rotation of
personnel in key positions and normal rotation of other personnel
demand constant training/educational efforts. Components are directed,
within their available resources, to conduct their own
training/educational programs. The educational programs are to be
targeted toward all members of the Component, developing a general
understanding and appreciation of the DoD FOIA program, whereas the
training programs are to be focused toward those personnel who are
involved in the day-to-day processing of FOI requests. The overall
training/educational objective, when considering the limitation of funds,
is adequate and the Components’ efforts are essential in maintaining the
level of expertise to efficiently administer the Defense program.

OSD/OJCS Newly assigned personnel in the FOIA Program Director's Office
routinely attend conferences sponsored by OPM and other organizations.
Briefings, orientations, and staff visits between Component Agencies
encourage the participation of FOI personnel to attend FOI conferences,
symposia and seminars presented by Federal and private organizations.
During April 1986, the Directorate for Freedom of Information and
Security Review, OASD (Public Affairs) conducted two four-hour training
sessions on FOIA statutory provisions and request processing
requirements for all OSD/OJCS Components.

DEPT ARMY The Department of the Army FOIA coordinators inform Army personnel
of the provisions of the Act on a continual basis. FOIA points of contact
are available throughout the Army at all times to answer questions,
provide guidance and resolve problems concerning the Act. Personnel
responsible for administering the FOIA Program attend FOIA seminars
and workshops throughout the year.

DEPT NAVY A representative from OP-09B30, in conjunction with a member of the
Defense Privacy Board, conducted PA/FOIA training sessions during the
year at naval activities in Seattle, Washington and for commands in the
Washington, DC area. Naval activities in the Washington, DC area report
attendance at FOIA training seminars sponsored by the Chief of Naval
Operations, American Society for Access Professionals, Government
Affairs Institute, Office of Personnel Management, and the Department
of Justice. Several naval commands have conducted FOIA training
designed specifically to their needs. For example, the Naval Security and
Investigative Command conducts periodic training for students attending
the NIS Special Agent School; the Navy Finance Center conducts
periodic FOIA overviews/seminars for its disbursing officers and clerical
personnel; and the Naval Military Justice School periodically presents a
one-hour orientation on PA/FOIA. Additionally, many naval activities are
including PA/FOIA training for new employees in indoctrination classes
and through supervisor training classes.

DEPT AF Air Force has a 24-minute film designed to create an interest in and an
understanding of the Freedom of Information Act. The film has received
wide viewing throughout the Air Force and will continue to be viewed.
Personnel attend FOIA Workshops sponsored by OPM and major air
commands. The FOIA is the subject of briefings at various conferences
throughout the Air Force.

28



Item 10 C

Time Limit Extensions by Agency
i} W & Ul

Reporting Unusual Circumstances Court TOTAL
Activity Location Volume Consultation Involvement
OSD/OJCS 94 30 1273 1 1398
DEPT ARMY 0 5117 131 4 5252
DEPT NAVY 57 1735 83 0 1875
DEPT AF 47 134 153 0 334
DCA 0 0 0 0 0
DCAA 2 3 1 1 7
DIA 0 0 0 0 0
DIS 22 5 11 1 38
DLA 100 50 151 1 302
DMA 2 5 10 0 7
DNA 0 0 0 0 0
NSA/CSS 0 0 0 0 0
DoD Totals 324 7079 1813 8 9223



Item 2a)
Exemptions Invoked on Initial Determinations

Exemptions by Number (552(b))

Reporting Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Total*
OSD/OJCS 158 7 10 48 97 ~—s«66 87 OO 0 473
DEPT ARMY 337 45 281 «#577 757 842 «+9022 OF OO 3,461
DEPT NAVY 89 44 27 210 322 589 296 oO 1 1,578
DEPT AF 177 108 «449 «6879 «1,106 «352 438—CiCitiéie 3,109
DCA 10 0 Oo 24 0 1 0 0 oO 35
DCAA 0 2 #1 13 21 2 n oOo oO 70
DIA 191 2 16 8 12 21 0 o 0 250
DIS o 2 2 1 5 36 5 0 0 50
DLA 1 #5 1 94 8914 9 0 0 213
DMA 2 0 oO " 5 2 0 0 0 20
DNA 4 1 0 "1 0 0 0 o oO 16
NSA/CSS 11200-11195 8 6 25 0 oO 0 357
DoD Totals 1.081 247 302 1,884 2,420 1,950 1,748 0 1 | 9.630
Percent of N% 3% 3% 19% 25% 20% 18% 0% 1%| 100%

*Totals may not agree with Item 1 because of cases where two or more exemptions were cited.



Item 1

Initial Determinations Resulting in not
Providing all or a Portion of Record Requested

Total Demands Reasons
Completed Completed
Public Reportable Statutory

Reporting Activity Requests Requests* Exemptions + Other = Total
OSD/OJCS 2,168 3,402 382 915 1,297
DEPT ARMY 22,986 30,852 2,665 1,624 4,289
DEPT NAVY 25,578 28,329 1,312 3,801 5,113
DEPT AF 23,178 25,296 2,202 3,666 5,868
DCA 555 555 35 0 35
DCAA 257 368 70 160 230
DIA 2,152 1,621 250 155 405
DIS 258 258 47 78 125
DLA 13,975 13,975 213 204 417
DMA 208 208 17 42 59
DNA 160 161 16 43 59
NSAI/CSS 465 511 226 201 427
DoD Totals 91,040 105,536 7,435 10,889 18,324

“}.reportable request is that portion of an FOI request resulting in a single record or group of records pertaining to one general subject area
being acted upon by one Initial Denial Authority (IDA) who concludes that a single type of determination applies, Exenoler A single public
request that requires the action of three IDAs in determining if a record under their jurisdiction is to be released would be counted ae thras
reportable requests.



Item 7

Court Opinions and Action Taken

OSD/OJCS

Kurz-Kasch v. DoD, Civil Case No. C-3-86-316 (Southern Dist. of Ohio, Western Div). Plaintiff sought DoD records
concerning on-going criminal investigation of plaintiff's activities. Government motion for summary judgment
granted on 17 January 1987.

DEPT NAVY

Stokwitz v. Department of the Navy, Civil No. 85-2532 G(CM) (S. D. Cal.). Plaintiff sought a copy of a reopened
Naval Investigative Service (NIS) investigation concerning his discharge as Navy OGC attorney. Portions of the
report were withheld to protect the privacy of third parties mentioned in the report. The plaintiff filed a motion
to compel discovery by taking depositions of NIS agents. Government motions in opposition to discovery and

for summary judgment were granted. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied on 29 October 1986. Appeal
period has expired.

Quarles v. Department of the Navy, Civil No. 85-3395 (D.D.C.). Plaintiff seeks all information submitted to the
Secretary of the Navy concerning his decision on Gulf Coast Homeporting. Government motion for summary
judgment was filed 23 December 1985. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a Vaughn index of all information
considered by the Navy in making the decision. He asserted that the Navy unilaterally narrowed his request. Case
awaiting decision since March 1986.

Falzone v. Department of the Navy, No. 85-3862 (D.D.C.). Plaintiff, a real estate agent from Pensacola, Florida,
challenged DoD and Department of the Navy FOIA policy that mandates withholding of names and duty addresses
of active duty service-members stationed overseas or with deployable or sensitive units. On 16 October 1986, the
court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment recognizing that the potential for terrorist attacks
and threats against those service members justifies such withholding. On 21 November 1986, the court denied
plaintiff's motion to amend the decision and reemphasized that, considering the threat pote: to service
members, release of the requested information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of their privacy. Falzone
filed a notice of appeal on 1 December 1986.

Offutt v. Department of the Navy, Civil Action No. R86=796 (D.MD.). Plaintiff sought an injunction directing the Navy
to cease withholding portion of a personal injury/death report regarding a fatal accident at David N. Taylor Naval
Ship R&D Center, (i.e., the accident investigator's assessment of cause factors, discussion of possible case factors,
and recommendations to prevent future accidents). Access was denied under exemption (b)(5), since disclosure
would reveal the deliberative process of the investigator. Cross-motions for summary judgment are pending.

Wallace-Hoskins Corp. v. Department of the Navy, Cv-86-7707 TJH (Kx) (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiff sought an injunction
directing the Navy to cease withholding portions of a personal injury/death report regarding a 1981 industrial
accident at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, (i.e., the accident investigator's assessment of cause factors and
recommendations). Access was denied under exemption (b)(5), since disclosure would reveal the deliberative
process of the investigator. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is pending.

Kimberlin v. Department of the Navy, No. 1P82=1507C (S.D. Ind.). Plaintiff, an inmate at the Federal Penitentiary
in Terre Haute, Indiana, brought suit under the FOIA, seeking a document consisting of two pages which pertained
to him. The information in the document was gathered by the FBI and furnished to the Naval Security and agencies.
Plaintiff is not now, and has not been, the subject of a NIS investigation. The information was withheld at the
request of the FBI, as they do have an ongoing investigation regarding the plaintiff, and the information on the
two-page document is also contained in their investigatory files. Plaintiff filed suit against the FBI seeking their
files. The suit was filed in the same court and on the same day as the suit against the Navy. The Navy should
be dismissed as a party defendant since the record is not a Navy “agency record”. A motion for summary judgment
was granted. Plaintiff has appealed to the seventh circuit from the Entry and Memorandum of Decision entered
on 21 September 1983. The appeal is pending seventh circuit action.

Guy T. Black v. Department of Labor, No. C812530 (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiff brought suit against the Navy and other
agencies seeking investigatory records about himself. Upon receipt of the original FOIA request, Black was
informed that the Navy maintained no such files. He viewed the response as a denial of his request and he then
filed suit. A motion for summary judgment was filed by the Navy and the case is currently pending. The court
has indicated that upon Black’s receipt of documents from the Department of Labor, the case will be dismissed.

14



Item 2(c)
Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations

Category*

Reporting Activity 1 2 3 4 5 Total
OSD/OJCS 414 259 68 114 66 921
DEPT ARMY 656 629 145 151 43 1,624
DEPT NAVY 2,104 867 223 219 470 3,883
DEPT AF 497 1,868 317 598 386 3,666
DCA 0 0 0 0 0 0
DCAA 114 34 6 0 6 160
DIA 6 135 12 2 0 155
DIS 0 59 0 7 2 78
DLA 109 222 84 64 126 605
DMA 20 7 0 0 5 42
DNA 18 24 0 0 1 43
NSA/CSS 23 72 0 102 4 201
DoD Totals 3,961 4,186 855 1,267, 1,109 | 11,378

“Types of Categories

1. Transferred Request
2. Lack of Records
3. Failure of Requester to Reasonably Describe Record
4. Other Failures by Requesters to Comply with Published Rules and/or Directives
5. Request Withdrawn by Requester
(See following page for description of each category)



6-201 Search Fees

a. Manual Search

Type Grade Hourly Rate ($)
Clerical E9/GS8 and below 8
Professional 01-06/GS9-GS-15 16
Executive 07/GS16/ES1 and above 26

b. Computer search is based on direct cost of the central processing unit, input-output
devices, and memory capacity of the actual computer configuration.

c. Actual cost of transporting records or personnel to the search site may be included.

6-202 Duplication Fees

pee Cost per Page (*)
inted Material 01
Office Copy 10
Microfiche 25

6-203 Audiovisual Documentary Materials

Search costs are computed as for any other record. Duplication cost is the actual direct cost of
reproducing the material, including the wage of the person doing the work. Audiovisual materials
provided to a requester need not be in reproducible format or quality.

6-204 Other Records

Direct search and duplication cost for any record not described above shall be computed in the
manner described for audiovisual documentary material.



OF
INFORMATION ACT
PROGRAM

CY 1986

SUMMARY OF THE REPORT
TO CONGRESS

_ PREPARED BY:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
(PUBLIC AFFAIRS)
DIRECTORATE FOR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
AND SECURITY REVIEW



Item 3

Initial Denial Officials by Participation
(Agency Reports List Names and Titles)

(Cont'd)
B. Other Authority Denials*
Number of Officials Categorized Total
Agency by Instances of Participation Officials*
Number of Instances
1 2-3 45 6-10 11-40 41+
OSD/OJCS 3 6 8 7 7 2 33
DEPT ARMY 0 1 0 3 9 5 18
DEPT NAVY 68 65 26 16 3300¢=«W7 225
DEPT AF 0 1 0 2 1 9 13
DCA 0 (1) 0 0 0 ) 0
DCAA 0 0 0 2 4 1 7
DIA 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
DIS 0 0 0 i) 0 1 1
DLA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DMA 2 0 0 1 2 0 5
DNA 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
NSAI/CSS 0 0 0 0 0 () 0
DoD Totals 73 73 4 31 58 936 305

*Other category determination processing is not limited to statutory exemption denial authorities.



Item 3

Initial Denial Officials by Participation
(Agency Reports List Names and Titles)

A. Exemption Denials

Number of Officials Categorized Total
Agency by Instances of Participation Officials*
Officials Number of Instances
Authorized 1 230 45 610 1140 41+
OSD/OJCS 119 18 13 4 10 3 2 50
DEPT ARMY 23 0 2 0 4 8 10 24
DEPT NAVY 315 54 29 6 19 19 5 132
DEPT AF 141 13 10 4 2 13 10 52
DCA 1 0 ) 0 1 1 0 2
DCAA 7 3 3 0 1 1 0 8
DIA 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 8
DIS 1 0 0 ) 0 0 1 1
DLA 47 10 7 1 5 5 0 28
DMA 11 3 1 0 0 0 0 4
DNA 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
NSAI/CSS 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
DoD Totals 668 102 65 19 42 52 30 312

*Total officials may exceed number authorized due to Personnel turnover.



Item 10E (Optional)

Other Information (Opinions) or Recommendations on
Administering FOIA

Of the 2,062 requests completed in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the following table
categorizes the requesters by percentage of total case load:

Category Percentage
Business Firms 18
Congress 2
Foreign 2
Individual 32
Law Firms 15
News Media 13
Research 1
Special Interest 14
Students 1
Other 2

100



Item 10 D

Internal Memoranda
(Including Directives not Published in Federal Register)

No. of No. Available

Reporting Activity Memoranda to Public

OSD/OJCS

DEPT ARMY

DEPT NAVY

DEPT AF

DCA

DCAA

DIA

DIS

DLA

DMA

DNA

NSA/CSS

=

eoepr ooooooaon=

SCOmccDGD COC OBNDN

DoD Totals 25 22



Item 2(b)
Statutes Invoked on Initial Determinations

Number of Times DoD
Statute by Agency Total*

DEPT ARMY
NSA/CSS

OSD/JCS

N | DEPT NAVY
8 | DOD TOTALS

& | DEPT AF
DCAA
DIA
Dis
DLA

10 USC 140c, as added by
Public Law 98-94,
Section 1217

10 USC 2487 1

12 USC 3403 1

18 USC 793

18 USC 794

18 USC 798

18 USC Section 1905 1

20 USC Section 1232G 1

28 USC 1498 1

42 USC 2162 7 4 11

50 USC 402 note, 1 4 1 3 1 130 140
Section 6, Public
Law 86-36

50 USC 403d(3) 2 13 83 98

National Security Act 1 1 2
of 1947, Section
102(d)(3), CIA Act
of 1949

np

22.44

Agency Totals 10 1 27 50 1 6 2 1 248 356

*Total may not agree with 552(bX3) exemptions because of cases where two or more statutes
were cited.



Item 8
FOIA IMPLEMENTATION RULES OR REGULATIONS

Agency Document Identification CFR Ref.
OSD/OJCS DoD Directive 5400.7, 24 Mar 1980 32 CFR 286
1 July 1980
DoD Regulation 5400.7R, Dec 1980 32 CFR 286
Change 2, 28 Sep 1982; Change 3, 1 July 1980
6 Dec 1982
DEPT ARMY AR 340-17, 1 Oct 1982 32 CFR 518
1 July 1980
DEPT NAVY SECNAVINST 5720.42C, 1 Oct 1982 32 CFR 701
14 July 1980
DEPT AF AFR 12-30, 15 Dec 1982 32 CFR 806
1 July 1980
DCA DCA Instruction 210-225-1, 32 CFR 287
19 Dec 1980 1 July 1980
DCAA DCAA Regulation 4510.5, 32 CFR 290
29 Aug 1977, Change 1 1 July 1980
DCAA Instruction 5410.8, 27 Aug 1981 32 CFR 290
1 July 1980
DIA DIA Regulation 12-39, 24 Aug 1981 32 CFR 292
1 July 1985
DIS DIS Regulation 01-12, 2 Oct 1981 32 CFR 298
1 July 1985
DLA DLA Regulation 5400.14, 2 Feb 1981 32 CFR 1285
6 April 1987
DMA DMA Instruction 5400.7, 22 Apr 1981 32 CFR 295
1 July 1985
DNA DNA Instruction 5400.7, 29 July 1980 32 CFR 291
1 July 1985
NSA/CSS NSA/CSS Regulation 10-9, 9 Feb 1982 32 CFR 299
1 July 1985
7



“Burpunos 0} enp ppe you Aew seunBi4 :e10N

“GI UeYL seYR0 JouUOSIEd,,
“SeANp [Oj euN-Wed 40 eLU)-\INy peuBlsse jeuuosseg,

OLb'L 982'L Tee gLo'LSL L96‘rv9"L 6L9'Z9L oEs'6 SIGN 64} Wo Pe}dE//0D JUNOWIY “g
‘979'0bz ELl'bb 682'6E 6£0'909'E v92'ZLL'% Lep'7a2’e ZSL'bLo IIL nayp | SUORIEG ‘s3S09 [8301 "Y
Aswsuiuing Aj
000° 0 0 SLZ'LSL ‘y69'L9 9980p LeS‘eL 81809 19y10/Bupodey 18301 “D
(936 “seynduwios ‘jenen
‘eBexsod se yons swiey 30 Bupiodey
0 0 0 pOr'SLL Leo’Zt GLO'bZ Le AseyunjoA) $1809 Bunesedg 104y30 *g
00v 0 0 790°L €66'8 69e'E OM (%Gz 38 peyndwiog) peayseng (¢)
0 0 o ose’L 6E9'OL VSG ciyL 498f (Z)
009'L 0 0 668'97 Lee’ 0zs'ZL 887 jeuonesedo (L)
$1809 Buiodey “y
s1s09 saO/BuRIOdeY III
6ay'9L 92 e6b'y 889'002 9ze’96L Lys Wee vel'zL 83809 perejoy-ese9 40420 40 16301 "y
aly 0 0 zee'9 78'0e 86r'e vee sps0cey peIuiig ‘Gg
6 0 r i618 BLL LaL'ez siz uoponposdey e4yoyouo1W “D.
L99'8 92 6el'b 69€'E0L €SZ'ELL sO 0662 uononpoidey “g a
v62'L 0 yse seo’ze ve0'Lz Love Leev ‘euilL youeeg Jeyndwiog “y
83809 poiwjoy-0sey J0NIO ‘11
99L'zee 806’ey 96L'vE Lez‘esz’e £88'909'7 ££0'066'Z ZBL’ Ley 1809 JeuUOsseg 16104 “4
eep'vp 78L'8 696'9 892'099 4£3'008 100'863 99L'e8 {%9z 38 pe;ndwoy) pesys0ng “y
eeL'LLh 9ZL'se LER Le e£0'€09'7 OLS‘E00' oc0'z6e'e gz9'7se ‘Ol pue gi 12301 “Gd
Zlb've eee ces'bh 890'SbL ZOL'LvE OLL'Olb 865°2S ‘TWALOL LSOD YNOHNVW
60S'2 oO est Les'9v 8c6'tb Ls2"eL eve LL SOPIANIY 40430 ()
Lwe'z 0 ov0'z £69'06 SbL'6y 910's8 zaL'b uonesedeig suu0yjesuepuodseii03 (p)
20k 0 9zu'L 69a'g9z 198'29 008'8S 89y'bL ferouddy g uopeUIps005 (¢}
yz8'oL 0 690'E Lop’ect £2068 8ZL'6L GLL'ES Buysioxy B MelneHy (Z)
92'S ez'z Syy's 896'E9L ves‘ L6 tzg‘ozL LLZ’oL ull, Youeeg (L)
+«(S@28y @INpeYydg 204)
AsoBeie2 Aq $3802 snoyuew peyeuinsy “2D
Lze'epL €00'8€ 000'9L 996'298'L¢ 80v'999'L$ ELE'SL6'LS LE6'80E (peseprsuog sepeip) sis05 seeAueW “g
00'S ee" os" €90°98 82'v9 oe 828 sSieohuey poyewnsy “y
83809 JeuUosied |
vid vvoa vod dv 1daq AAWN 1d3qG AY 1d30 soro/aso 3NITLNO LSOO0

S3IDN3DV ONILYOdSY GO”d Ad 031937109 S334 GNV S1SOD YV3A YVGNA1IVD



Agency
Abbreviation

OspD/OJCcS

Dept. Army

Dept. Navy

Dept. Air Force

DCA

DCAA

DIA

DIS

DLA

DMA

DNA

NSAI/CSS

Department of Defense

FOI Appeal and Program Officials
Appellate Program
Authority Official

Hon Robert B, Sims.
Asst SecDef Public Affairs

General Counsel
Secretary of the Army

Judge Advocate General/
General Counsel for
Secretary of the Navy

Mr. Robert J. McCormick
Admin Asst to the Secretary
of the Air Force

LTG W.D. Powers, USAF
Director

Mr. John H. van Santen
Asst Director, Resources

LTG Leonard A. Rosenberg, USAF
Director

Mr. Thomas J. O’Brien
Director

LTG Vincent M. Russo, USA
Director

Mr. Edward Obloy
General Counsel

LTG John L. Pickitt
USAF, Director

Mr. Robert E. Rich
Deputy Director

Mr. William M. McDonald
Director, FOI and Security
Review, OASD/PA

Mr. J.R. Edgington
Chief, Information Access Branch
of DAIM-FAR-RA

Mrs. Gwendolyn R. Aitken
PAIFOIA Coordinator
Naval Records Division OPNAV

Ms. Ann Turner
OPR for Freedom of Information
Documentation Systems Division

Mr. John T. Whealen
General Counsel

Mrs. Connie Miller
Records Administrator

Mr. Robert C. Hartzog
FOIA Officer

Mr. Dale L. Hartig
Chief, Information/Public Affairs

COL G.A. White, USAF
‘Staff Director, Administration

Mr. Del Malkie
Director, Public Affairs

LTC Carlton W. Brown, Jr., USA
Public Affairs Officer

Ms, Julia B. Wetzel
Director of Policy



Item 5(b)
Statutes Invoked on Appeal Determinations

Number of Times DoD

Statute by Agency Total*
>
4 =
S 2 u g
rs) q 2«¢ Oo
=~ bE Fok >
a)
o Gg o & £ &
io} a a a a 2
10 USC 140c, as added by 2 9 11
Public Law 98-94,
Section 1217
18 USC 798 5 5
18 USC 3403 Sect 1905 1 1
42 USC 2162 1 1
42 USC 2163 1 1
50 USC 402 note, 7 7
Section 6, Public
Law 86-36
50 USC 403d(3) 2 2 5 9
Agency Totals 2 1 2 #11 2 7 35

*Total may not agree with 552(bX3) exemptions because of cases where two or more statutes
were cited.

10



Item 6

PARTICIPATION OF APPELLATE AUTHORITIES
(Those Responsible for Denials in Whole or in Part)

No. of Instances

Name Title of Participation
Exemption Other
OSD/OJCS
Robert B. Sims Assistant Secretary of Defense 9 0
(Public Affairs)
Fred S. Hoffman Prifcipal Deputy ASD (Public Affairs) 9 0
DEPT ARMY
Susan J. Crawford General Counsel 173 18
DEPT NAVY
T.E. Flynn Judge Advocate General 36 1
(RADM, USN)
H.D. Campbell Judge Advocate General 7 1
(RADM, USN)
L. Slater Acting Judge Advocate General 52 1
RADM, USN
L. Hoffman Acting Judge Advocate General 5 0
CAPT, USN
W.A. Kjos Deputy Judge Advocate General 0 31
(Litigation)

A.R. Philpott Acting Deputy JAG (Litigation) 0 13
CDR, USN
W.W. Skallerup, Jr. General Counsel 39
H. O'Neill Acting General Counsel 13
SES
DEPT AF
Steven A. Thompson Dep Administrative Asst 224 0

DCA

Secretary of the Air Force

Lt Gen Winston D. Powers Director 11

u



Department of Defense

Reporting Agencies under the Freedom of Information Act

Agency
Abbreviation Agency Agency Head
ospioJcs Office of the Secretary of Defense Hon Caspar W. Weinberger
{Including the Organization of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Dept. Army Secretary of the Army Hon John O. Marsh, Jr.
Dept. Navy Secretary of the Navy Hon John Lehman
Dept. Air Force Secretary of the Air Force Hon Edward C. Aldridge, ur.
DCA Defense Communications Agency LTG Winston D. Powers, USAF
DCAA Defense Contract Audit Agency Mr. William H. Reed
DIA Defense Intelligence Agency LTG Leonard H. Perroots, USAF
DIS Defense Investigative Service Mr. Thomas J. O'Brien
DLA Defense Logistics Agency LTG Vincent M. Russo, USA
DMA Defense Mapping Agency MGEN Robert A. Rosenberg, USAF
DNA Defense Nuclear Agency LTG John L. Pickitt, USAF
NSA/CSS National Security Agency LTG William E. Odom, USA

Central Security Service



Item 10A

Availability of Records
(New Categories or segregable portions of records now being released)

NONE

a



CY 1986 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
ANNUAL REPORT
Highlights

A total of 91,040 public requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were
Processed during 1986 by the Department of Defense. This compares with an average annual case load
of 72, 059 for the years 1975-1985, the reporting period since the act was amended, and is roughly 26%
above average. Nine thousand two hundred and twenty-four cases required time limit extensions —
324 for location, 7079 for volume, 1,813 for consultation, and eight due to court involvement.

The Department of Defense initially granted approximately 80% of the requests. There were 7,435
requests denied on the basis of FOIA exemptions. Of these initially denied requests, 1 of 10 was
because continued classification was warranted; 1 of 30 was because the record requested was an
internal memorandum; 1 of 33 was because of statutory exemption; 1 of 5 was because the
information requested was considered Proprietary data; 1 of 5 was because the record requested
involved investigatory data; and 1 of 5 was because information requested involved personal privacy.
An additional 10,889 requests could not be fulfilled in whole or in part for other reasons, such as lack
of record requested, transferral to another agency, or lack of specificity sufficient to identify the
requested records. There were 759 appeals of denied requests, 91 appeals were fully granted, 292
partially granted, and 376 again rejected.

Administrative costs associated with these requests were approximately $11,747,421, somewhat

more than the $8,121,403 average for the 1975-1985 period. The average cost of Processing a single
case during 1986 was approximately $130. Fee collections for records provided to the public amounted
to $2,147,692.

Questions regarding this report should be addressed to the Director, Freedom of Information and
Security Review, OASD (Public Affairs), Room 2C757, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1400.



Item 11

FOIA INSTRUCTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS
(Cont'd)

DCAA Responsible individuals in all regional offices and Headquarters principal
staff elements have access to Headquarters FOIA program manager for
purposes of clarifying/understanding Agency-wide policies and

- procedures, obtaining additional guidance, as well as discussing real or

hypothetical situations for purposes of expanding knowledge. In

addition, all field audit managers have access to responsible individuals
in regional offices and Headquarters FOIA program manager for
purposes of clarifying/understanding Headquarters policy and
procedures, obtaining additional guidance, as well as discussing real or
hypothetical situations for purposes of expanding knowledge. Field Audit

Offices visited by Regional FOIA Officers to discuss the requirements of

the FOIA with the FAO Managers, FAO FOIA Monitors, and key office

personnel.

DIA The briefing and training of new coordinators and analysts directly
involved in administering actions connected with the FOIA is
accomplished on an “as requested” basis.

DIS New agents receive formal instruction regarding the provisions of FOIA
and its implementation by DIS. Headquarters personnel have received
detailed on-the-job training and present training programs to other field
and staff elements as needed. Extensive formal training has not been
necessary due to the centralized organization of the FOIA mission in
DIS.

DLA Headquarters and field elements attended numerous training programs
which included seminars by the Department of Justice, DoD Legal
Education Institute, USDA Graduate School, American Society for
Access Professionals, and the Defense Logistics Agency.

DMA DMA attorneys attended a seminar in July. The seminar was conducted
by the American Society of Access Professionals.

DNA FOIA briefings are held annually for DNA personnel involved in FOIA
requests. Additionally, a FOIA briefing is given to new personnel.

NSA/CSS An FOI/PA seminar was held by NSA/CSS to update the Agency focal
points on the requirements of the laws. In addition, two NSA/CSS case
workers and an attorney attended the Legal Education Institute’s FOIA
Annual Update Seminar.

29



“Burpunos 03 enp ppe you Aew sein6i4 :930N

“g] ueyy seyio jouUOsied,,
‘sennp [O04 euAaued 40 ewWp-1IN} peuBlsse jouUOsied,

269'LpL'z 0 ele 296'PaL zg9'L ‘aygnd ey) wo04 peye}|o9 yunoUly “g
Ley'cbe' Le eas'ze 958'8z vel'ves ozb‘eL IIL Pau | SUORdeg ‘SISO [BOL “Y
‘Aiewwing Al
v86'6EE ) Sve v86'9 oor sisog 10420 /Buysodey [6301 *D
(938 ‘seyndusod ‘janes
‘eBeisod se yons sway! 30 Bupsodey,
796’ LEZ 0 a ggz'L 0 AlequnjoA) $3809 Bupesedyg 18430 “8
vLg'lz C) z8L 9b0'L 8 (G2 32 perndwoD) peeyserd (€)
oge'pL 0 zw eee 0 4887) (2)
Oze'LL C) 99 ose’e ze teuopesedg (1)
sysog Bunsodey "vy
sisog seyro/Buyodey Il
602'er8 08s 896 ZOL'92L oes’ s1809 peyejoy-esed 18NI0 40 [2101 “4
990°Sz 0 t Lis‘sz 996 spiooey paruid “GC
tec’es 0 v GLL'St 0 uononposdey ayoyouo}Wy “D
s0L'998 ey zaz geo'sL SUL uononpoidey “a
999'26¢ “et 1st Lya'ze 6c eu Yyorees seyndwog "W 3S
S1SOD perejay-eseD 404y30 I
822'v95'0L 6L6'LE epy'le 80'169 O6L'LL s1s0g jeuuosied [2301 ‘4
9ve'ZLL'Z 96e'9 68y'S Loz'seL e7'7 (Gz 38 pernduiog) peeyieng “3
ee’ Lay's £89°97 ae'Lz Lee’zag za6'8 ‘O1 pue gi 18301 “a
Sbe'6L'L 8909'S 060'6 oge'9ez z96'8 W1LOL 1809 UNOHNYW
9€0'S6L ezz'L bl £80'6 999'2 sepIARoY 40410 (9)
Lov’ L9z og9 9g8'L tso'zz 26h uonesedeig sutsogjeouepuodseu05 (p)
SeL'eap “ait £96'2 SoL'eb obs'L lenouddy & uopeulps009 (¢)
9za'eey zbe'L 906'L zee'se s08'e Guys}oxg #B MeIneH (2)
Lyv'098 9ze gz'e 969'pEL SbL'L oul, YouReg (1)
a«(823ey @INpeYS 9e:)
AoBaxe9 Aq 83809 snoyuR|W peyewNsy ‘O
£e0'8€9'9 SLL‘OZ 9s'zh Lap’ L9e 0) (paiepisuog sepeip) siso9 szeAueW “a
ee'89z se sz" zz 00" «SieeAueW peyewinsy "Vy
$1809 JeuUOsIeg |
(e301 SSO/VSN vNG VING wid sia ANITLNO LSOD
(Psu09)

S3ION3DV ONILYOd3aY GOd Ad G3.L93T109 S344 GNV SLSOD YV3A YVONI1V9



Item 4
Number of Appeals and Results

Number of Appeals

Reporting Activity

Granted Granted in Part Denied Total
OSD/OJCS 3 21 12 36
DEPT ARMY 13 105 86 204
DEPT NAVY 19 72 80 171
DEPT AF 52 73 149 274
DCA 0 3 8 11
DCAA 1 2 1 3
DIA 0 5 34 39
DIS 0 0 0 0
DLA 3 9 5 17
DMA 0 1 1 2
DNA 0 1 1 2
NSA/CSS 0 0 9 9
DoD Totals 91 292 386 769



Item 5{c)
Other Reasons Cited on Appeal Determinations

Category*
3

=
nS
cy
a

Reporting Activity Total
OSsD/OJCS
DEPT ARMY
DEPT NAVY
DEPT AF
DCA

DCAA

DIA

DIS

DLA

DMA

DNA
NSA/CSS

=

eceooooj=po0c0o mane
eoooeooeooc ano
SCOOCOOCOOCOOCOONNO
eesseoscoooaan

DoD Totals 27

3S
a
&
3
8

*Types of Categories
1. Transferred Appeal
2. Lack of Records
3. Failure of Requester to Reasonably Describe Record
4. Other Failures by Requesters to Comply with Published Rules and/or Directives
5. Request Withdrawn by Requester.
See Page 5 for full description of “other reasons”.

11