K. W. Kabeiseman
DMA

Edward J. Obloy
NSA

Louis Bonanni

Gerald Young

Director, DLA-G

General Counsel

Chief of Staff

Deputy Director

14

21



5. No DoD Component may require advance payment of any fee, i.e., payment before work
is commenced or continued on a request, unless the requester has previously failed to pay fees in a
timely fashion, or the agency has determined that the fee will exceed $250.00. As used in this sense,
a timely fashion is 30 calendar days from the date of billing (the fees have been assessed in writing)

by the Component. ~

6. Where a Component estimates or determines that allowable charges that a requester may
be required to pay are likely to.exceed $250.00, the Component shail notify the requester of the
likely cost and obtain satistactory assurance of full payment where the requester has a history of
prompt payments, or require an advance payment of an amount up to the full estimated charges in
the case of requesters with no history of payment.

7. Where a requester has previously failed to pay a fee charged in a timely fashion (i.e.,
within 30 calendar days from the date of the billing), the Component may require the requester to
pay the full amount owed, pius any applicable interest, or demonstrate that he has paid the tee, and
to make an advance payment of the full amount of the estimated fee before the Component beings
to process a new or pending request from the requester. Interest will be at the rate prescribed in
Section 3717 of Title 31, U.S.C.A., and confirmed with respective Finance and Accounting Offices.

8. After ail work is completed on a request, and the documents are ready for release,
Components may request payment prior to forwarding the document er tilt teen
histdry on the requester, or if the requester has previously failed to pay a fee in a timely fashion
(Le., within 30 calendar days from the date of the billing). In the case of the latter, the provisions of
b.7., above apply. Components may not hold documents ready for release pending payment from
requesters with a history of prompt payment.

9. When Components act under subparagraphs 1-7 above, the administrative time limits of
the FOIA (1e., 10 working days from receipt of initial requests, and 20 working days from receipt of
appeais, plus permissable extensions of these time limits) will-begin only after the Component has
seis grunaness 10 pay fees and satistaction as to category determination, or fee payments (#

10. Components may charge for time spent searching for records, even if that search fails to
locate records responsive to the request, or if records located are determined to be exempt from
disclosure. In practice, if the Component estimates that search charges are likely to exceed $25.00
it shail notify the requester of the estimated amount of fees, uniess the requester has indicated in
advance his willingness to pay fees as high as those anticipated. Such a notice shail offer the
requester the opportunity to confer with Component personnel with the object of reformulating the
request to meet his or her needs at a lower cost.

sea eS uesters. Fees shail be limited to reasonable standard charges for document
and du; when records are requested for commercial use. Requester must
Tensorably deecribe the records sought (ewe paragraph 1-07)

1. The term “commercial use’ request” refers to a request from, or on behaif of one who
seeks information for a use or purpose that furthers the commercial, trade, or profit interest of the
requester or the person on whose behalf the request is made. In determining whether a requester
property belongs in this category, Components must determine the use to which a requester will
put thedocuments requested. Moreover, where a Component has reasonable cause to doubt the
use to which a requester will put the records sought, or where that use is not clear from the request
Itself, Components should seek additional clarification before sssigning the request to a specific
category.

2. When Components receive a request for documents for commercial use, they should
assess charges which recover the full direct costs of searching for, reviewing for release, and dupli-
cating the records sought. Commercial requesters (uniike ottier requesters) are-not entitied to two
hours of free search time, nor 100 free pages of reproduction of documents. Moreover, commerciat
Ce ar ere et are erties toe canner cr ecuston of foce based upon an savertion that
disclosure would be.in the public interest. However, because use is the exciusive determining
Criteria, it is possible to envision a commercial enterprise making a request that is not for commer-
cial use. It Is also possible that a non-profit organization could make a request that is for commer-
cial use. Such situations must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

d. Educational institution R: Fees shail be limited to only reasonabie standard charges
for document duplication (ex: lain charges fore ret 100 pages) wen the request made by
an educational institution whose purpose is scholarly research. Requesters must reasonably
describe the records sought (see paragraph 1-507). The term “educational institution” refers to a

pre-school, a public or private elementary or secondary school, an institution of graduate higher
35 :


CHAPTER VI
FEE SCHEDULE
Section 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
6-100 Authorities

‘The Freedom of information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), a8 amended; by the Freedom of Information
Reform Act of 1986; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 35); the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C.
552a); the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (31 U.S.C. 1 et. seq.); the Budget and Accounting
Procedures Act (31 U.S.C. 67 et. seq.); the Defense Authorization Act for FY 87, Section 954, (P.L.
99-661), as amended by the Defense Technical Corrections Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-26).

6-101 Application

a. The fees described in this chapter apply to FOIA requests, and conform to the Office of
Management and Budget: Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines. They
reflect direct costs for search, review (in the case of commercial requesters), and duplication of
documents, collection of which is 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 instruc-
tion 7230.7 [reference (r)], which does not supersede the collection of fees under the FOIA.
Nothing in this chapter shall supersede fees chargeable under a statute specifically providing for
setting the level of fees for particular types of records” [5 U.S.C. 552 (a)(4)(A)(vi)] means any sta-
tute that enables a government agency such as the Government Printing Office (GPO) or the

fi
that when documents that would be responsive to a request are maintained tor distribution by
agencies operating tee schedule programs such as the GPO or NTIS, they inform
requesters of the steps necessary to obtain records from those sources.

b, The term “direct costs” means those expenditures a component actually makes in searching
for, reviewing (in the case of commercial requesters), and duplicating documents to respond to an
FOIA request. Direct costs include, for example, the salary of the employee performing the work
(the basic rate of pay for the employee plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits), and the costs
of operating duplicating . These factors have been included in the fee rates prescribed at
Section 2 of this Chapter. Not included in direct costs are overhead expenses such as costs of
space, heating or lighting the facility In which the records are stored.

c. The term “search” inciudes ail time spent looking for material that is responsive to a request.
Search aiso includes a page-by-page or line-by-line identification (If necessary) of material in the

example,
tine-by-line searches when duplicating an entire document known to contain responsive informa-
tion would prove to be the less expensive and quicker method of complying with the request. Time
‘spent reviewing documents in order to determine whether to apply one or more of the
exemptions is not search time, but review time. See paragraph 6-101 e. for the definition of review,
‘and paragraph 6-201 b. for information pertaining to computer searches.

@. The term “duplication” refers to the process of making a copy of a document in response to
an FOIA request. Such copies can take the form of paper copy, microfiche, audiovisual, or machine
readable documentation (e.g., magnetic tape or disc), among others. Every effort will be made to
insure that the copy provided is in a form that Is reasonably useable by requesters. If it is not possi-
ble to provide copies which are clearly useable, the requester will be notified that their copy is the
best available and that the agency's master copy will be made available for review upon appoint-
ment. For duplication of computer tapes and audiovisual, the actual cost, including the operator's
time, shail be charged. In practice, it a component estimates that assessable duplication charges
are likely to exceed $25.00, it shail notify the requester of the estimate, uniess the requester has
indicated in advance his willingness to pay fees as high as those snticipated. Such a notice shall
offer a requester the opportunity to confer with Component personne! with the object of reformulat-
ing the request to meet his or her needs at a lower cost.

@. The term “review” refers to the process of examining documents located in response to an
FOIA request to determine whether one or more of the statutory exemptions permit withholding. It’
also includes processing the documents for disciosure, such as excising them for release. Review
does not include the time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the application of
‘exemptions. It should be noted that charges for commercial requesters may

31 .



ITEM 10(a)
AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS

(New Categories or segregable portions of records now being released). ”

NONE


Ttem4

Number of Appeals and Results
Number of Appeals

Reporting Activity Granted Granted Denied |

in Part Totals*
OSD/JS 7 22 10 I 39
DEPT ARMY 22 46 185 I 253
DEPT NAVY 21 93 169 i} 283
DEPT AF 13 56 179 1 248
DCA t) 0 0 1 0
DCAA 0 6 | 9
DIA o 5 18 i] 23
DIS (i) 0 2 i 2
DLA 3 9 9 | 21
DMA 0 0 1 i} 1
DNA 0 ) 0 I 0
NSA/CSS 3 6 14 i} 23
DoD Totals 72 237 593 | 902



qepartment of Justice FOIA Annual Update Seminar, 11-12 October 1988, 16 hours;

* Department of Justice FOIA for Attorneys and Access, 24-25 October 1988, 16
hours and Department of Justice Advanced FOIA Seminar, 21 December 1988, 8
hours.

DEPT NAVY

Naval activities in the Washington, DC area report attendance at FOIA training seminars
sponsored by the DoD, Chief of Naval Operations, American Society for Access
Professionals, Office of Personnel Management, Department of Justice and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Graduate School. Many naval activities are including
PA/FOIA training for new employees in indoctrination classes and through supervisor
training classes.

DEPT AIR FORCE

Air Training Command developed "Guidelines for Processing FOIA Requests," which is
a compilation of samples for all facets of procsessing requests. Air Reserve Personnel
Center published an information management guide pamphlet which includes a chapter
providing FOIA guidance. Personnel attended various FOIA training seminars and
conferences throughout the year sponsored by the Department of Justice, GSA, and
the Office of Personnel Management. Records managers conducted workshops and
provided training throughout their major commands and subordinate units, to FOIA
managers and functional area records managers. Air Force distributed copies of 1988
Department of Justice Case List to all 34 Air Force FOIA managers for their reference
and use in training.

DCA

Advanced Freedom of Information Seminar (DECCO FOIA Coordinator) sponsored by
Department of Justice, 21 December 1988.

DCAA

FOIA Training sponsored by Central Region, 30 and 31 January 1988.
DIA

FOIA Update and Review Training sponsored by RTS-1B (8 separate sessions).

48



ITEM 10(d) Optional
Other Information (Opinions) or Recommendations

on Administering FOIA

Of the 1,977 requests completed in the Office of the Secretary of Defese, the -
following table categoriezes the requesters by percentage of the total case load:

CATEGORY PERCENTAGE
Business Firms 15
Congress 1
Foreign 1
Individual : - 37
Law Firms : 18
News Media 2
Research 2
Special Interest 21
Students 1
Other 2
100

46


Uni Journeymen and Apprenti. Local 598
Vv. ted -Assoct of the Army, U.S. District Court, Western
District of Washington, Case File Number 85-375dLQ, filed 13
May 1985. Plaintiff labor union local sought copies of the
certified payrolls submitted by two contractors performing
work on the Corps of Engineer’s McNary Dam project. The
complaint alleged that one request for records was denied
and the other request was never answered by the Army. The
court granted plaintiff’s complaint. On 14 September 1988,
it was decided not to appeal the adverse decision.

Wynn v. United States, Case File 87-5133, U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia filed 27 April 1987.
Plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to conduct a
proper search following his FOIA request. Plaintiff also
filed the following other FOIA complaints: CA 87-0533, CIS;
CA 87-0554, INSCOMP: CA 87-0555, Information Access Office
(Edginton); CA 87-0557, Crime Records Center; CA 87-569,
ACSI; and CA 87-0574, Secretary of the Army. On 27 June
1988, the court ruled in favor of defendant. Case was
appealed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, Case File Number 88-5247. On
20 December 1988, the court granted the government’s Motion
for Summary Affirmances of the consolidated appeal of all
Plaintiff’s FOIA cases. The court ruled that the Army was
entitled to prevail because the searches conducted were
adequate and therefore reasonable.

Roofers and Waterproofers AFL-CIO Local 190 v. Department of
the Army, Case File Number A85-311, U.S. District Court for
the District of Alaska filed 28 June 1985. Plaintiff sought
disclosure of payroll records. Release was denied based on
a determination that the payroll records were confidential
business information exempt from release. On 12 November
1987, the court enjoined the Department of the Army from
releasing to plaintiff any information contained in the
weekly certified reports submitted by intervenor, Walsky
Construction Co., Inc., except for the names and hourly
rates of pay of all workers whose names appeared on the
reports.

General Dynamics Corp. v. Department of the Army, Case File
Number 86-0522-FFF, U.S. District Court of California, filed
9 January 1986. Plaintiff alleged that it made two FOIA
requests and that the Army failed to repond to them within
the 10-day period provided for in the Act. Plaintiff sought

18


education, an institution of undergraduate higher education, an institution of professional educa-
lon, and an institution of vocational education, which operates a program or programs of scholarly

e. Non-Commercial Scientific institution Ri Fees shail be limited to only reasonabie
tor document e: for the first 100 pages) when the
seauest is made by anon-commercial scientific institution whose purpose is scientific researeh,
Rewuesters must ressonably describe the records sought (see paragraph 1-507). The term “nor
. Reciivercia! scientific institution” refers to an institution that is not operated on a “commercial”
Corie a defined In subparagraph c., above, and which is operated solely for the purpose of Con
aang scientific research, the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product
or industry.

Components shall provide documents to requesters in subparagraphs d, and e.. above for the
cost of dupiication alone, excluding charges for the first 100 pages. To be eligible for inclusion in
thane categories, requesters must show that the request is being made under the auspices of 8
guaittying institution and that the records are not sought for commercial use, but in furtherance of
sCholarty (from an educational institution) or scientific (from a non-commercial scientific institu-
tion) research.

g. of the news media. Fees shail be limited to only reasonable standard charges
fn ener ieeton (excluding charges for the first 100 pages) when the request is made by &
representative of the news media. Requesiers must reasonably describe the records sought (see
paragraph 1-507). .

that actually employed
by It A publication contract would be the clearest proot, but components may also look to the past
publications record of a requester in making this determination.

2. To be eligible for inclusion in this category, a requester must meet the criteria in subpara-
graph 1., above, and his or her request must not be made for commercial use. A request for records
supporting the news dissemination function of the requester shail not be considered to be a
Tequeat that Is for a commercial use. For example, a document request by a newspaper for records
relating to the investigation of a defendant in a current criminal trial of public interest could be pre-
sumed to be a request from an entity eligible for inclusion in this category, and entitled to records
at the cost of reproduction alone (excluding charges for the first 100 pages).

t. All Other. Components shail charge requesters who do not fit into any of the above

category of requester, as well as the aforementioned categories of requesters may be eligible fora
waiver or reduction of fees If such is in the public interest as defined under paragraph 6-103 a.
(See also paragraph 6-104 c.2.).

6-105 Aggregating Requests,

eny such requests and charge accordingly. One element to be considered in determining whether @
pellet would be reasonable is the time period in which the requests have occurred. For example, it

36



DNA

NSA/CSS

VADM John T. Parker,
USN, Director

Mr. Gerald R. Young,
Deputy Director

LTC Samuel D. McKinney,
USA, Public Affairs
Officer

Mr.Richard W. Gronet,
Director of Policy


DNA

NSA/CSS

DMA Instruction 5400.7

DNA Instruction 5400.7B

NSA/CSS Regulation 10-9, 9 Feb 82

29

32 CFR
295, pg
7358, Vol
53, No.
45, pg
7358, 8
Mar 88;
amended 16
Mar 88, pg
8629

32 CFR
291, Vol
53, No.
56, pg
9435, 23
Mar 88

Pending
Revision
32 CFR
299, 1 Jul
85


ITEM 7

COURT OPINIONS AND ACTIONS TAKEN

OSD/JS

Crowell _ and Moring v. Department of Defense, et al, Civil
Action No. 87-3432, D.C.C., 12 January 1989. Plaintiff
sought to compel the Inspector General, Department of
Defense to release documents pertaining to the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service’s solicitation and
bidding records that it had concerning sale of surplus
explosives. Documents were withheld pursuant to exemption
7(A) and 7(D) for an ongoing criminal investigation. The
court ruled in favor of the Inspector General, Department of
Defense on 29 January 1989.

National Security Archive v. DOD, Civil Action No. 86-3454,
D.C.C., 16 June 1988. The National Security Archive filed
suit against DOD for not recognizing them as a preferred
FOIA requester, i.e., an “educational institution" and a
“representative of the news media". DOD maintained that
under the Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986, this
organization qualified as the "other" type of requester.
Summary judgment in favor of DOD was issued on 16 June 1988.
Case is now on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C.C.

Herbert L. Fenster vy. Department of Defense, Civil Action
No. 88-1189, D.C.C., 2 May 1988. Plaintiff sought access to
all documents written or used by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition in determining that a fixed-price
contract is appropriate for the HARM low-cost seeker
full-scale development program. After the lapse of 10
working days, plaintiff filed this instant suit. Documents
were provided during the course of litigation. Joint
stipulation for dismissal filed 29 July 1988.

Washington Post v. Department of Defense, Civil Action No.
84-2403, D.C.C., 15 April 1988. Plaintiff filed litigation
to obtain classified and deliberative information regarding
trips to El Salvador in 1981 and 1982 by two key Department
of Defense officials. Motion for summary judgment in favor
of defendant granted 15 April 1988.

15


challenged DOD and DON 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 potential 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. Stay
is pending decision of two other similar cases. FAlzone
originally filed suit against DON on 6 November 1985. The
next action was due on 30 August 1988.

Wallace-Hoskins Corp. v. Department of the Navy, R86-796
(D.Md.). Plaintiff sought an injunction directing the Navy
to cease withholding portions of a personal injury/death
report regarding the 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. IP82-1507C (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 Investigative Command as
a part of routine field liaison between the two 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.

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.

Hayes International Corp. v. Department of the Navy, No.
86-T-1129-S, (MD Ala.). Plaintiff brought action against

Navy on 1 October 1986 seeking release of various documents
related to an aviation mishap. We contend that plaintiff

21



i rvil v rtmen: f Defense, Case
File Number C88-2528, U.S. District Court, Northern District
of Ohio filed 17 July 1988. Plaintiff sought réview of Army
Material Command’s denial of commercial information.
Plaintiff wanted to include the information as part of its
disappointed bidder suit before the GAO. The commercial
information concerned a contract for the manufacture of
plunger and bushing assemblies for diesel injectors. On 30
September 1988, the case was dismissed with prejudice after
plaintiff was furnished some of the information requested.

nv. Offi of th n nden: un. , Case File
Number 87-2028, U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, filed 22 July 1988. Plaintiff, a defendant in
U.S. v. Lyndon LaRouche, et al., alleges that the Army
failed to respond to a FOIA request. On 28 July 1988, the
court granted the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Spiegel _v. Department of the Army, Case File Number
87-0115LA, U.S. District Court, Western District of
Kentucky, filed 25 February 1987. Plaintiff requested
documents under FOIA from the Corps of Engineers concerning
performance of affirmative action plans over a 10-year
period. On 19 August 1988, the court granted the
government’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Campbell _v. Secretary of Agriculture, Case File Number
88-0860, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
filed 28 April 1988. Plaintiff sought any and all agency
records relating to the adverse effects caused by
hydroelectric energy transmission lines and substations.
Plaintiff also sought a FOIA fee waiver. On 28 September
1988, the court ruled in favor of the defendants.

George v. Department of Defense, Case File Number C871315A,
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, filed 27
October 1987. Plaintiff challenged the Army’s denial of his
FOIA request for an appraisal report prepared in connection
with the Army’s lease of property to a sailing club at Lake
Lanier, Georgia. The report was denied based on Exemption 5
of the FOIA, which authorized withholding "inter-agency or
intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be
available by law to a party... in litigation with the
agency. On 4 October 1988, the complaint was dismissed
without: prejudice.

17


Item 9

FEE SCHEDULE AND FEES
COLLECTED

The fee schedule on pages 31 through 39, reprinted from Chapter 6, DOD
Regulation 5400.7-R, June 1987, establishes standard costs collectible
by Department of Defense Agencies.

$1,144,998.01 was collected from the public for making records available
during the year 1988 (see item 10(b), page 42 for agency totals).

30


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/JS
J. Daniel Howard Assistant Secretary of Defense

(Public Affairs) 7 3
Fred S. Hoffman Principal Deputy Assistant

Secretary Defense (Public Affairs) 11 2
William E. Hart Deputy Assistant Secretary Defense 2 0

(Public Affairs)
William M. McDonald Director, Freedom of Information

and Security Review 0 4

DEPARTMENT ARMY
Susan J. Crawford General Counsel 344 62
DEPARTMENT NAVY
RADMED. Stum- Judge Advocate General (JAG) 82 7
baugh, USN
RADMH.D.Camp- JAG : 4 0
bell, USN
RADM, W. L. Acting JAG 5 0
Schachte,USN
CAPT J. L. Hoff- Acting JAG 214 8
man, USN

12



Ttem 2(c)
Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations

Category*

Reporting Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Total*

osD/JS 662 492 87 31 109 23 I 1,404
DEPT ARMY 1,254 1,178 196 480 320 309 { 3,737
DEPT NAVY 3,317 2,109 594 754 120 361 i} 7,255
DEPT AIR FORCE 815 2,809 333 852 701 464 i} 5,974
DCA 3 11 1 5 6 2 I 28
DCAA 544 26 4 3 333 0 i] 910
DIA 7 222 2 4 1 0 I 236
DIS 33 98 13 20 2 33 1 199
DLA 246 4464 157 69 187 145 I 1,268
DMA 16 15 0 1 5 0 i 37
DNA 5 14 1 2 24 3 i 49
NSA/CSS 38 73 t) 93 18 i) 1 222
DoD Totals . 6,940 7,511 1,388 2,314 1,826 1,340 | 21,319

*Types of Categories

1. Transferred Request

2. Lack of Records

3. Failare of Requester to Reasonably Describe Record

4. Other Failures by Requesters to Comply with Published Rules and/or Directives
5. Request Withdrawn by Requester

6. Not an agency record

(See following page for description of each category.)



, ITEM 8
FOIA IMPLEMENTATION RULES OR REGULATIONS

AGENCY DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION CFR.REF.

OSD/JS DoD Regulation 5400.7-R "DoD Freedom of 32 CFR
Information Act Program" 286, Vol
52, No.
-— 132, pg
25976, 10
Jul 87

DEPT ARMY AR 340-17 Pending
Revision
32 CFR
518, 1 Jul
80

DEPT NAVY SECNAVINST 5720.42D : 32 CFR
701 Vol
53, No.
248, pg
52139, 27
Dec 88

DEPT AIR FORCE AFR 12-30 Pending
: Revision
48 CFR,
No. 69, 8
Apr 83

DCA DCA Instruction 210-225-1 Pending
Revision
32 CFR
287, 1 Jul
80

27


Sherry A. Sullivan v. Department of Navy, Civil No.
87-0305-B (N.D. Me.). Plaintiff filed action on 25
September 1987, which seeks access to information maintained
in Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence
Agency, Department of State, Department of the Treasury/U.S.
Customs, U.S. Air Force, Immigration and Naturalization
Service, Defense Intelligence Agency, U.S. Army Intelligence
and Security Command and Naval Security and Investigative
Command files, concerning the disappearance of her father,
while piloting a plane to Central America. Navy files
contained one pertinent document which mentioned plaintiff’s
father. A portion of this document was withheld which
consisted of a name and service number for another person.
The Navy was unable to contact the person for a release. A
litigation report was provided to the Department of Justice
on 2 November 1987. The Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned
will attempt to delete the Navy from the action when the
answer is filed. A second delay in responding was granted
since so many agencies are involved.

Pototsky v. BGEN Cates, Department of Navy; Civil No.
87-0833, D.D.C: Plaintiff filed instant action on 13
November 1987, seeking access to an "investigation to
inquire into the circumstances connected with allegations
made by Captain Peter G. Pototsky against Major Roy N.
Sifers regarding violations of the UCMJ which occured during
the month of September 1984". A motion to dismiss was filed
on 3 December 1987, for lack of proper service of the
parties. The plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition on
18 December 1987. A draft answer to the complaint was
provided to the U.S. Attorney, which claimed the documents
are exempt from dislcosure under (B) (5), (6) and (7). The

DON’s motion for summary judgment was granted on 10 June
1988.

Caryl A. Potter III, Esquire v. Department of Navy, C.A. No
88-1850, filed 6 July 1988. Plaintiff filed suit because
NAVSEA failed to issue a timely response on 2 of 4 pending
document requests. Court ordered a stay of proceedings.

Projec ili ro! epartmen: £N

D.D.C. No 88-2130, filed T august 1988. Plaintiff filed
complaint for Injunctive Relief seeking production under the
FOIA of NAVSEA records and a fee waiver or a reduction of
fees. Defendant has filed motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff filed cross motion. A hearing is set for 17
February 1989.

24



ftem 1
Initial Determinations Resulting in not
Providing ail or a Portion of Record Requested

Completed Completed |
Public Reportable | Statutory

Agency Requests Requests* | Exemptions + Other = Total
osD/Js 2,366 4,975 | 434 1,404 1838
DEPT ARMY 20,536 21,728 | 2,765 3,737 6502
DEPT NAVY 31,967. 35,151 | 2,756 7,255 10011
DEPT AIR FORCE 25,417 28,680 | 2,643 5,974 8617
DCA 395 395 | 17 28 45
DCAA 377 710 «| 40 420 460
DIA 1,188 1,861 | 276 236 512
DIS 372 357 | 72 166 238
DLA 15,221 18,757 | 181 1,268 1449
DMA 125 133 | 20 37 57
DNA 105 189 | 67 49 116
NSA/CSS 631 + 638 | 237 222 | 459
DoD Totals 98,700 113,574 9,508 20,796 30,304

* A reportable request Is that portion of an FO! 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. Example: 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 as three reportable requests.



ITEM 1

ITEM 2

ITEM 3

ITEM 4

ITEM 5

ITEM 6

ITEM 7

ITEM 8

ITEM 9

ITEM 10

CONTENTS

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

Initial Determinations

(a) Exemptions Invoked
(b) Statutes Invoked
(c) Other Reasons
(Descriptions of “Other Reasons")

PAGE

1

Om WNh

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

FOI Implementation Rules and
Regulations

Fees Schedule and Fees Collected
Administrative Efforts

(a) Availability of Records

(b) Calendar Year Costs and Fees
Collected

(c) Time Limit Extensions by Agency

(d) Other Information and Recom-
mendations on Administering
FOIA

ITEM 11 - FOIA Instructional and Educational

Efforts

10
11

12

15
27

30

40

41
45
46

47



CAPTR.C.

Deputy Assistant JAG (General Litiga-

Berkley,USN _ tion)

CDR, R. W. Scholz, Acting DAJAG (General Litigation)

USN

J. Wilcox Acting General Counsel

L. L. Lamade General Counsel (Designate)

DEPARTMENT AIR FORCE

Steven A. Deputy Administrative Assistant

Thompson Office of the Secretary of the
Air Force

Robert J. Administrative Assistant to the

McCormick Secretary of the Air Force

DCAA

John van Santen
DIA

Gordon Negas

L. A. Prombain
RADM Schmitt
DIS

John F. Donnelly
DLA

LTG W. M. Russo
MGH.N. Campbell

RADMD. W. McKin-
non, Jr.

MG C. R. Henry

Assistant Director, Resources

Executive Director
Acting Executive Director

Deputy Director

Director, DIS

Director, DLA

Deputy Director, DLA
Deputy Director, DLA
Deputy Director, DLA

13

19

247

20

62

13


Item 2(b)
Statutes Invoked on Initial Determinations

Statute Number of Times by Agency
osD/ AIR | DOD
JS ARMY NAVY FORCE DIA DNA NSA | Total*

10 usc 128 0 t) () 2 0 0 o | 2
10 usc 130 5 0 21 61 0 5 o | 92
10 USC 140c, as 0 i) 0 6 C1) 0 o | 6

added by Public I

Law 98-94 I
10 usc 1102 1 3 3 #14 0 0 o | 21
18 USC 798 11 o 619 0 0 o 58 | 88
22 USC 2778, 0 0 ) 1 ti) t) of 1

Section 38 I
42 USC 2162 4 o 614 1 0 22 of 41
42 USC 4528 0 Vy) 6 0 0 QO oo 6
50 USC 402 note, 2 6 2 2 0 0 195 | 207

Section 6,Public |

Law 86-36 |
50 USC 403 (d) (3) 1 UY) 0 () 28 1 84 | 114
IG Act of 1978 1 tt) 0 0 0 0 ool 1

as amended by i}

Public Law

95-4524
Agency Totals 25 9 65 87 28 28 337 | 579

* Totals may not agree with 552(b)(3) exemptions because of cases where two or more exemptions were cited.


to enjoin the Army from further delay in the release of the
documents and to prevent the transfer of the documents to
the Justice Department for use in the criminal fraud
prosecution of plaintiff. On 30 March 1988, the parties
entered into a Settlement Agreement and the court approved a
Joint Stipulation of Dismissal.

Army Times Publishing Company v. Department of the Army,
Case File Number 87-2866, U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, filed 23 October 1987. Plaintiff
requested the production of a magnetic tape listing the
name, pay grade, and installation, including state and zip
code, of all active duty Army personnel within the
continental United States. Plaintiff alleged that the tape
was improperly withheld under Exemption 2 of the FOIA. On 2
May 1988, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The
court order, however, does not require release of
information concerning personnel assigned to "sensitive or
routinely deployable units." The Court further held that
the tape is not information "related solely to the internal
personnel rules and practices of the agency" deserving
protection under Exemption 2. It also found that the
release of the information is in the "public interest".
Bevis v. Department of the Army, Case File Number 87-1893,
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed 13
July 1987. The Initial Denial Authority determined that
plaintiff’s FOIA request for the documents abve was exempt
from disclosure under Exemption 1 of the FOIA. OGC denied
the plaintiff’s appeal, stating that the IDA’s reply should
be considered as a refusal to confirm or deny the existence
or nonexistence of the requested information. On 16
September 1988, the court granted defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, finding that the Army had complied with
its obligations under FOIA and acted in good faith.

NAVY

Turbines, In D x vy, D.D.C. No
86-2284, filed 19 August 1986. Plaintiff brought suit
because NAVSEA failed to issue a timely response. On 20
November 1986, the Court granted a stay until 31 July 1987
to allow NAVSEA to complete administrative processing of the
request. On 19 October 1987, the Court ordered NAVSEA to
process certain documents according to a 90 day schedule.

Case presently open for negotiations on processing latest
document requests.

19



FREEDOM
OF
INFORMATION ACT
PROGRAM

CY 1988

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



00°8Z0 ‘9nz
00°L80 ‘TSS ‘ts

00°826 ‘6ST

00°6Zb ‘6ZT
00°OTT‘S
00°0
00°6ER ‘bz

00°z9z ‘8zz
00°9€0'8
00°Sz9 ‘ST
00°SbS‘OLT
00°9S0 ‘ee

00°ORL‘OT‘E
00°ShTbS6
00°898 ‘6z8

00°9€S ‘SL

00°68z ‘TET
00° Tz ‘zTz
00° ELL ‘6EZ
00°9S0‘TLT

00° bz ‘9Se ‘ZS .

SuFpuncz oj enp ppe jou Aew sernStg :e30N

“aI weyR TeyZ0 TeuuCSIedyy

“seTanp Tog ewfy-jzed zo eurp3-TINZ peubysse Teuuosredy

8b LZ6 ‘TTD £9°0S6 ‘68T Lb eos ‘ZT OFTANd SYR WoIZ pePeETTOD ywmouwy “¢
BOOZE ‘ObE'DS S9'980'LEZ'DS LL OG ‘6LES III n7y3 I suozyoeg ‘s3s0D TeIOL ‘W

Te‘sLb ‘ze €€°SE6 ‘OT T9"898/
L9°97L‘9 berpoe‘z zy tbe
€Z°6ET'S 6S°0L0‘8 bp szt’
8T'se9's Se°9T6‘T 00°L8z ‘1
€L°LZ6/bT 00°99¢ ‘oe SL*oTe"
ZL°¥Z0 ‘907 oe 9bE ‘Ssz 6S" Usb’
ZL 286'b 60°L66'D STOTT

SL B8p'ere

st° Le°ese’
00° wt eye’!
p9O'66T‘Se6’E ET 66E’ere’E sg°8T9’!
€66€0 ‘LEL €8°619 ‘69L ZL eee!
ps" esp ‘zs9 be ost ‘ear 06 "p19

Axeums AT

L $380D reqI0/buTyrodey TeI0L “DO ~
((038 ‘xeqndwoo ‘Teaeza
e6esod se yons suet zo buTqodey
z Axeympoa) sqsop bupqezedo z69q20 “a
T (asz ae pegnduop) peeqzeno(e)
€ zesp(z)
T ‘TeuoT3e3edo (T)
8809 bupqrodey “yw
$9809 20q30/6upyz0dey ‘IIT

89 89809 pezeTeY-eseD TEYIO JO TeIOL “TZ
sprocey peqwyzd ‘a
woFRONpordey SYOFIOIOTH *D
TT uopjonpozdey “a
9g eur, yorees reqndwoD “y
83800 PeITeY-EseD TEUIO “IT
BLL 83800 Teuuoszeg TeIOL “a
Sst (gSz ye peqndwoo) peeyzeno *Z

BL (gs) maya (T)°d TRICE “a
: ‘TWIOL LSOO YOOHNYW

$€£°909 ‘9b 99°19 ‘9z Op POT ‘L seTaTATIOW 20430(s)
9$°960'SL Eb'ZTO‘LL 97° p09 ‘S uoFqerederg w10g/eouspucdsezz00 (p)
€S*LYT ‘BL 86°29 ‘06 SE*PLSET Teaoiddy 9 uoTzeuTp1005(E)
€6°6EE ‘OOT Te*sso‘90T 9L°Z0E ‘OF Suystox" 3 AeTpAeU(Z)
Lt €9z 'ZS€ ob'eTB‘eee‘T ET "6Z0‘TZ euFy yorees (T)

LT‘90L‘s6b‘Z$ Qb'BES‘6BS‘z$ 96

*61Z‘

xx (S032a STHPeYDS eeg)
RroBeqea Aq sysop rnoyuey pezeuy as” *D
bess (pezepysucg sepezp)s3s0p zeehuen “a

Ly’ pot 66°98 6T'TLT ze°oT xszeekuey peqeuypasa ‘W
8380p Teuuoszeg’T
aw taaq ZAWN Lda AWaY_ Lda sc/dso, NITINO LSOD

SAIONSDV ONLLAOdaa GOd Ad Ga.LOATIOO Sas GNV SLSOO YUVA UVONATVO

42



Item 3(a)
Initial Denial Officials by Participation
(Agency Reports List Names and Titles)

Exemption Denials
Number of Officials Categorized
Agency by Instances of Participation

OFFICIALS NUMBER OF INSTANCES | Total*

AUTHORIZED 1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11-40 41+ | Officals
OSD/JS | 64 20 25 8 2 8 0 | 63
DEPT ARMY 32 7 7 0 3 7 9 | 33
DEPT NAVY 312 11 24 21 26 34 9 | 125
DEPT AF 132 22 24 10 24 25 21 | 126
DCA 2 te) i) i) 0 1 0 | 1
DCAA 10 2 5 0 1 1 0 | 9
DIA 1 te) ti) 0 0 0 1 | 1
DIS 1 te) 0 0 0 ti) 1 i} 1
DLA 45 6 6 7 1 5 1 1 26
DMA 13.0 1 1 () 14 o | 16
DNA 3 2 0 i) t) Ui) 1 | 3
NSA/CSS 3 0 (i) ) 1 0 2 | 3
DoD Total 618 70 92 4a7 58 95 45 I 407

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


“OTHER REASONS" DESCRIBED

1. 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.

2. Lack of Records:

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

3. Failure of Requester to Reasonably Describe Record:

This category is specifically based on Section 552 (a) (3) (A)
of the FOIA.

4. Other Failures by Requesters to Comply with Published Rules
and/or Directives:

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

5. 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.

6. Not an Agency Record:

This category indicates the requested information is not an
agency record.



6-203 Review Time (in the case of commercial requesters)

ae Grade Rate($)

. and below 1
Professional ~ 01-06/GS9-GS15 3
Executive 07/GS16/ES1 and above 45
6-204 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 materiais
Provided to a requester need not be in reproducible format or quailty. °
6-205 Other Records

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

6-206 Costs for Special Services .

Complying with requests for special services is at the discretion of the Components. Neither
the FOIA, nor Its fee structure cover these kinds of services. Components may, therefore, recover
the costs of special services requested by the requester after agreement has been obtained in writ-
Ing trom the requester to pay for one or more of the following services:

&. Certifying that records are true copies.

b. Sending records by special methods such as express mail, etc.

. Section 3
COLLECTION OF FEES AND FEE RATES FOR TECHNICAL DATA

6-300 Fees tor Technical Data

a. Technical data, other than technical data that discloses critical technology with military or
space application, if required to be released under the FOIA, shail be released after the person
requesting such technical data pays ail reasonable costs attributed to search, duplication and
review of the records to be released. Technical data, as used in this Section, means recorded
intormation, regardiess of the form or method of the recording of a scientific or technical nature
{including computer software documentation). This term does not include computer software, or
data incidental to contract administration such as financial and/or management information.
Department of Defense Components shail retain the amounts received by such a release, and it
shall be merged with and available for the same purpose and the same time period as the
appropriation trom which the costs were incurred in complying with request. All reasonable costs
a8 used in this sense are the full costs to the Federal Government of rendering the service, or fair
market value of the service, whichever is higher. Fair market value shall be determined in
accordancé with commercial rates in the local geographical area. in the absence of a known
market value, charges shail be based on recovery of full costs to the Federal Government. The full
cost shail include all direct and indirect costs to conduct the search and to duplicate the records
responsive to the requesi. This cost is to be differentiated from the direct costs allowable under
Section 2 for other types of information released under the FOIA.

b, Waiver. Components shall waive the payment of costs required in paragraph a. above, which
are greater than the costs that would be required for release of this same information under Section
2 of this Chapter if:

1. The request is made by a citizen of the United States or a United States corporation, and-
such citizen or corporation certifies that the technical data requested is required to enable it to
submit an offer, or determine whether it is capable of submitting an offer to provide the product to
which the technical data relates to the United States or a contractor with the United States.
However, Components may require the citizen or corporation to pay a deposit in an amount equal
to not more than the cost of complying with the request, which will be retunded upon submission
of an offer by the citizen or corporation;

38


Wanda J. Johnson v. National Security Agency, Civil No.
86-2546, D.D.C. This suit was filed by a contractor
employee for security polygraph tapes and charts. A Motion
for Rehearing was filed on 9 July 1987, summary judgment
affirmed 10 August 1988.

Maureen Frances rn v IA al., Civil No.

* 88-00602, C.D.CA. On 4 February 1988, plaintiff filed suit
seeking records on Father Carney and his activities in
Nicaragua and Honduras. An ex parte, en camera declaration
was filed on 4 January 1989.

26



Suppunoz 03 enp ppe jou Aew seandza :e90n

“aI ueyZ TeYIO TeuuOsIedy»

"seTanp Tog ewpy-yzed ro ewTy-TINz peubysse Teuuosszed,

SL*09T 00°S6T‘T 00°962 ‘9T S6°EbT OFTANa ey} WoIZ PEeETTOD ywnouy “a
ZE"8zS ‘POS Oo" mhz ‘E6zS CO" 966 'ZTTS BB “LED ‘8S TIT NIYI I suofyDes ‘sqs0D TeI0L “Ww
Xxewung ‘Ar
00°0 00°696‘Z 00°0 0070 89809 zey30/bupyodey TeI0% *D
‘ . ('03@ ‘zeqnduwoo ‘Teaex3
‘eBeqsod se yons sweqy jo 6uypjiodey
00°0 00°0 00°0 00°0 Azeymyoa) 3809 Supyeredo 20430 “a
00°0 00°b6S 0070 00°0 (sz 3e peandaog) peeqzeno(e)
00°0 00°0 0070 0070 xesp (2)
00°0 oo'sLe’z 00°0 00°0 Teuoyaeredo (T)
89809 Gutzrodeu ‘vy
$3809 1ey30/bufqiodey “IIT
sv'ses 00"BES ‘9z 00°8s€'S Be "s8e'9 83809 peeTeYy-eseD e430 JO TeIOL “T
SL*O9T 00°LSz 0070 00°0 sprocey pequyza ‘d
00°0 00°T9 00°0 00°0 woTyoNpordey SYTIOIOTH “OD
00"sE 00°080‘L 00"sse’s ge"sze’s woyjonpordey “¢
OL*z6€ 00° OT 6T 00°0 00°09 . eur yorees zeqndwoy “y
89809 peqeTey-eseo zeq30 “IT
06° S6 ‘BE 00°LEL‘E9z 00°8e9 ‘LOT os"zs0‘e 8480p Teuuosieg TeI0] “a
eT Tle ‘L 00°LPL ‘2S 00°T6p‘E 0s*Z09 (ez 3 peandmo) preyreno “gz
SL" yee‘Z 007640 ‘80 00° 996 ‘ET 00°0sb‘z (s) "> nrua (tT) ‘Dd TeIeL ‘a
‘IWZOL LSOO WOOHNYN
os"ses 00° THO 'T 00°0 00°99T seTaTATIN 76430(s)
St’ TeT 00°6€0‘S 00°0 00°08. woTqezedezg wr0g/eouepucdserz09 (p)
0070 00°69S‘8 00°0 00°0 Teaorddy 9 uof32uTpr000(€)
0070 00°PT9 ‘TZ 00°L60‘8 $9°6€6‘Z buystoxa 3 eTaey(Z)
00°89T/Z 00°9T8 ‘TT 00°498's 00°T60‘T euFy yorees (T)
ax (8032a ETNPEYDS ea)
Axobeqeo Aq $3809 rnoyveq peqewy3sa “OD
00°009 ‘9z$ OO"TT6‘Z9T$ 00" EBT ‘06S 00°0$ (pezepfsuca sepez5) s3s09 aveAuEH “a
S@'t os" 09°€ 00°0 sszeeKuew peqewyasa “W
83809 Teuuoszed‘T
stq> vid wo vou SNITLOO Is0o
(panep)

SAIINSOV ONLLAOTAY God AG GALLO 100 Sal GNV SISOO YVHA VENT IVD

43



Pan Am World Svcs., Inc. v. USA, D.D.C. Civil No. ;
88-0304-RDL. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Denied 9 March 1988.

Reeves, Robert L., Jr. v. DOJ, CAC & USAF, USDC D, HI, Civil
No. 78-0329. Dismissed 12 May 1988.

Tannehill, James II _v. USAF, USDC CO, Civil No. 87-1395.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss granted 23 May 1988.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration denied 17 June 1988.

Whitson, Joseph D. v. USA & USAF, USDC WD, TX, Civil No.

SA-86-CA-1173. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
granted 25 February 1988.

DIA

Van Atta v. DIA, Civil Action 87-1508, 3 June 1987, D.D.Cc.
Requester sought classified information pertaining to POWs.
Summary judgment in favor of DIA, 6 July 1988.

ffi f In n: unsel Civil
Action 372 =3038, 20 July 1987, D.D.C. Requester sought ~
electronic surveillances records on himself. Partial
summary judgment in favor of DIA, 20 July 1988, as no
records were located.

NSA/CSS

egar orkala v. National urity Agenc ntral
Security Service, Doc. No. 88-5001 (3d Cir). In January
1988, Korkala appealed the order from the New Jersey
District Court which granted summary judgment. Plaintiff
filed suit seeking communications between the U.N.
Mission/Embassy of Uganda or Libya and various individuals.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court’s order on 5 May 1988, dismissing the case.

Paul Goldstein v, Office of Independent Counsel, et al.,
Civil No. 87-2028, D.D.C. Plaintiff was seeking government
documents from twelve federal agencies pertaining to the
investigation and/or electronic surveillance of certain
individuals, groups, and organizations. A Motion for
Rehearing was filed on 9 July 1987, partial summary judgment
was granted on 28 July 1988 which dismissed the case against
NSA.

25


Ttem 2a)

Exemptions Invoked on Initial Determinations

Exemptions by Number [552(b)]
Reporting Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Total*
OsD/Js 218 #4430 25 #27 145 «92 48 () ool 598
DEPT ARMY 197 1012 9 170 515 1231 609 0 ool 3743
DEPT NAVY 200 618 65 252 445 783 587 0 Oo 4 2950
DEPT AIR FORCE 200 884 87 432 756 582 793 i) o1 3734
DCA t) ) Oo 417 0 3 0 0 ool 20
DCAA 2 5 o 15 25 4 7. #0 o | 58
DIA 251 #83 28 5 7 42 6 U1) ol 422
pis 7 #38 0 62 24 #417 56 i) ol 204
DLA 0 oi 0 124 #+%52 12 6 Vy) ol 205
DMA 4 4 1 4 5 8 0 i) ol 26
DNA 41 5 28 14 5 5 0 0 ool 98
NSA/CSS 112)0=«:210 «231 8 11 32 3 i) 0
DeD Totals 1232 2713 474 1130 1990 2811 2115 ) Oo | 12058
Percent of |
Total 10% 22% 4% 9% 17% 23% 18% 0% 0% | 100%

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


Washington Post v. Department of Defense, Civil Action No.
84-2402, D.C.C., 11 April 1988. Plaintiff filed litigation

seeking disclosure of classified and deliberative documents
pertaining to U.S. foreign policy in Central American, Cuba
and the Caribbean. A motion for summary judgment was
granted in favor of defendant granted 15 April 1988.

ARMY

Parnell _v. Recruitment and Placement Branch of the Civilian
Personel Office, Civil Court 88-C0143S, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiff requested under
FOIA the names of other employees who sought voluntary
downgrades with their respective grade, step, and salary
levels prior to and after the downgrade. All the
information was provided except for the names of the
individuals involved in the various downgrade actions. The
names were not released because the privacy interests of the
other downgraded personnel outweighed any public interest in
disclosure. The parties entered into a settlement agreement
in which plaintiff received $400 attorney fees, plus court
costs.

Moran v. Doctor, Case File 88-1837, D.D.C. Plaintiff filed a
pro se suit against LTG Doctor, the Department of the Army
Inspector General, in his individual capacity, seeking
release of an IG investigation addressing the cancellation
of a position for which plaintiff had been selected. on 3
October 1988, the court dismissed the complaint without
prejudice, finding that a government agency is the only
proper party~defendant in a FOIA action.

Moore _v. Department of the Army, Case File Number 88-00114,
U.S. District Court, Hawaii filed 26 February 1988.

Plaintiff sought release of a 15-6 Investigation and the
Commander’s Inquiry relating to the death of her husband at
the Tripler Army Medical Center. The complaint was
dismissed on 27 May 1988.

McAllister v. Johnson, Civil Action 86-1692, U.S. District
Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania filed 28 November
1986. Plaintiff alleged improper withholding of requested
military police records concerning his daughter. On 24
March 1988, court granted government’s dispositive motion.

16


denying relative significance under this factor. It is possible to envisage an informative issue
concerning the current activities of the DoD, based upon historical documentation. Requests of this
nature must be closely reviewed consistent with the requester's stated purpose for desiring the
records and the potential for public understanding of the operations and activities of the DoD.

(il) The informative vaiue of the information to be disclosed. This factor requires a close
analysis of the substantive contents of a record, or portion of the record, to determine whether
disclosure is meaningful, and will inform the public on the operations or activities of the DoD.
While the subject of a request may contain information which concems operations or activities of
the DoD, it may not always hoid great potential for contributing to a meaningful understanding of
these operations or activities. An example of such would be a heavily redacted record, the balance
of which may contain only random words, fragmented sentences, or paragraph headings. A
determination as to whether a record in this situation will contribute to the public understanding of
the operations or activities of the DoD must be approached with caution, and carefully weighed
against the arguments offered by the requester. Another example is information already known to
be in the public domain. Disclosure of duplicative, or nearly identical information already existing
in the public domain may add no meaningful new information conceming the operations and
activities of the DoD.

(lil) The contribution to an of the the iblic to

result from di re. key is

. disclosure will inform, or have the potential to inform the public, rather than simply the individual
requester or smail segment of interested persons. The identity of the requester is essential in this - .
situation in order to determine whether such requester has the capability and intention to
disseminate the information to the public. Mere assertions of plans to author a book, researching a
particular subject, doing doctoral dissertion work, or indigency are insufficient without
demonstrating the capacity to further disclose the information in a manner which will be

” informative to the general public. Requesters should be asked to describe their qualifications, the
nature of their research, the purpose of the requested information, and their intended means of
dissemination to the public.

(Iv) The of the contribution to In applying this factor,
components or disclosure on a current
subject of wide pubiic interest be unique in contributing previously unknown facts, thereby
enhancing public knowledge, or will it basically duplicate what is already known by the general
public. A decision regarding significance requires objective judgment, rather than subjection .
determination, and must be applied carefully to determine whether disclosure will likely lead to a
Se Te eter naden t eeertant orate bees a ane value judgments 28 to
whether the information is important enough to be made public. _

2. Disclosure of the information “Is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.”

(i) The existence and nitude of ¢ commercial interest. If the request is determined to be
of a commercial inlareat. Components should address the magnitide of that interest to determine if

the requester's identity and circumstances of the request. In such situations, the provisions of
paragraph 6-104 apply. Components are reminded that in order to apply the commercial standards
of the FOIA, the requester’s commercial benefit must Clearly override any personal or non-profit

(il) The primary interest in disclosure. Once a requester’s commercial interest has been
determined, nents should then determine if the disclosure would be primarily in that
interest. This requires a balancing test between the commercial interest of the request against any
public benefit to be derived as a resuit of that disclosure. Where the public interest is served above
and beyond that of the requester's commercial interest, a waiver or reduction of fees would be
appropriate. Conversely, even if a significant public interest exists, and the relative commercial
interest of the requester is determined to be greater than the public interest, then a waiver or

commercial interest as business organizations; however, their inherent role of disseminating news
Roe eee cue can ordinarily be presumed to be of a pri interest. Therefore, any
commercial interest becomes secondary to the Serving the public. Similarly,
scholars writing books or engaged in other forms Se en teucareh nay teeeurice 8
commercial benefit, either directly, or indirectly (through the institution they represent); however,
normaily such pursuits are prima ily undertaken for educational purposes, and the application of a

32


fee charge would be inappropriate. Conversely, data brokers or others who merely compile
government intormation tor marketing can normaily be presumed to have an interest primarily of a
commercial nature.

d. Components are reminded that the above factors and-examples are not all inclusive. Each
fee decision must be considered on a case-by-case basis and upon the merits of the information
provided in each request. When the element of doubt as to whether to charge or waive the fee
cannot be clearly resolved, Components should rule in favor of the requester.

e. In addition, the following additional circumstances describe situations where waiver or
reduction of fees are most likely to be warranted:

1. A record is voluntarily created to preciude an otherwise burdensome effort to provide
voluminous amounts of available records, including additional information not requested.

2. A previous denial of records is reversed in total, or in part, and the assessable costs are
not substantial (e.g. $15.00-$30.00).

_ 6-104 Fee Assessment

a. Fees may not be used to discourage requesters, and to this end, FOIA fees are limited to
standard charges for direct document search, review (in the case of commercial requesters) and
duplication.

b. in order to be as responsive as possible to FOIA requests while minimizing unwarranted
costs to the taxpayer, Components shail adhere to the following procedures:

1. Analyze each request to determine the category of the requester. If the Component
determination regarding the category of the requester is different than that claimed by the
requester, the component will:

(1) Notify the requester that he should provide additional justification to warrant the
Taegan” Ciakmed! and that @ search for responsive records will not be initiated until agreement has
been attained relative to the category of the requester, and within a reasonable period of time (i.¢., 30
calendar days), the Component shail render a final category determination, and notify the
requester of such determination, to include normal administrative appeal rights of the
determination.

(il) Advise the requester that, notwithstanding any appeal, a search for responsive records
will not be initiated until the requester indicates a willingness to pay assessable costs appropriate —
for the category determined by the Component.

2. Requesters must submit a fee deciaration appropriate for the below categories.

()_ Commercial, Requesters must indicate a willingness to pay all search, review and
duplication costs.

(1) Educational or Noncommercial Scientific Institution or News Media. Requesters must
indicate a willingnes to pay duplication charges in excess of 100 pages if more than 100 pages of
records are desired.

(lil All Others. Requesters must indicate a willingness to pay assessable search and
duplication costs if more than two hours of search effort or 100 pages of records are desired.

3. If the above conditions are not met, then the request need not be processed and the
requester shali be so informed.

4. In the situations described by b. 1. and 2. above, Components must be prepared to provide
an estimate of assessable fees if desired by the requester. While it is recognized that search
situations will vary among Components, and tht an estimate is often difficult to obtain prior to an
actual search, requesters who desire estimates are entitled to such before committing to a
willingness to pay. Should Component estimates exceed the actual amount of the estimate or the
amount agreed to by the requester, the amount in excess of the estimate or the requester’s agreed
amount shall not be charged without the requester's agreement.

34


DIS

FOIA Briefings sponsored by Office of the Secretary of Defense and Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Basic Agent Course sponsored by DOD Special Investigations and FOI/PA
Personnel Training Course sponsored by Defense Intelligence Service.

DLA

FOIA training for Attorneys and Access and Annual Update Seminar on FOIA spon-
sored by Justice Department was conducted. Office of Personnel Management
sponsored FOIA/PA training on three different occasions.

DMA

Office of Personnel Management sponsored FOIA and Privacy Act Update training and
DMA sponsored several Instructor Supervisory Training classes.

DNA

Several FOIA courses were sponsored and conducted by DNA PAO and Office of the
Secretary of Defense.

NSA/CSS

FOIA for Attorneys and Access Professionals and Annual Update Seminar on the FOIA
was sponsored by Deparment of Justice.

49


failed to show that he had appealed and exhausted his
administrative remedies. Plaintiffs conducting discovery
which was to be completed by 2 September 1987. Motion to
supplement the record was filed in December 1987. A motion
for summary judgment was granted on 14 June 1988.

Lind v. Department of the Navy, No. 80-0338 (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 exemptions to the remaining withheld portions. Upon
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
still’ deemed 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.
The plaintiffs moved for award of attorney’s fees, and
$15,000 was granted on 20 January 1987. The Government will
seek an appeal. The DON’s motion for a summary judgment was
partially granted on 16 February 1988.

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 granted on 21 June 1988. No indexing
is required.

22


Department of Defense
FOI Appeal and Program Officials

General Counsel

Agency Appellate Program
Abbreviation Authority Agency Head
OSD/JS HON J. Daniel Howard, Mr. William M. McDonald
Asst Sec Def Public Director, FOI and
Affairs Security Review, OASD/
PA
Dept Army General Counsel Mrs. E. M. Miley,
Acting Chief, Infor-
mation Branch, HQUSAISC
(AS-OPS-MRA)
Dept Navy Judge Advocate General/ Mrs. Gwendolyn
. R.Aitken,
General Counsel for PA/FOIA Coordinator
Secretary of the Navy
Dept Air Mr. Robert J. McCormick, Mrs. Anne Turner,
Force Admin Asst to the OPR for Freedom of
Secretary of the Air Information, Info Mgmt
Force Division
DCA LTG John T. Myers, USA Mr. John T. Whealen,
Director General Counsel
DCAA Mr. John H. van Santen, Mrs. Elizabeth Kenny,
Asst Director, Resources Program Analyst
DIA Mr. Gordon Negus, Mr. Robert C. Hardzog,
Executive Director FOIA Officer
DIS Mr. John F. Donnelly, Mr. Dale L. Hartig,
Director Chief, Information/
Public Affairs
DLA LTG Charles McCausland, COL James J. Singsank,
USAF, Director USA, Staff Director,
Administrator
"DMA Mr.Edward Obloy, Mr. David L. Black,

Director, Public
Affairs


Item 10(0)*
Calendar Year Costs and Fees Collected

Reporting Activity Annual Cost Fees Collected
osD/J3s $879,944.77 $12,503.47
DEPT ARMY 4,287,086.65 189,954.63
DEPT NAVY 4,340, 320.08 411,927.48
DEPT AIR FORCE 4,551, 087.00 246,028.00
DCA 8,437.88 143.95
DCAA - 107638 16,296.00
DIA 293,244.00 1,195.00
pis 44,528.32 160.75
DLA 1,189,176.82 256,625.05
DMA 22,800.89 3,588.68
DNA 92,982.17 3,666.00
NSA/CSS 341,562.00 2,909.00
DoD Totals $16,158, 808.58 $1,144,998.01

*Based on reporting procedures established March 16, 1977, to capture a "best
estimate" cost of administrating FOIA as amended. The cost outline on the followin;
Page provides a breakdown by DoD reporting agencies. .

4l



2. The release of technical data is requested in order to comply with the terms of an
international agreement; or,

3, The Component determines in accordance with paragraph 6-103 a. that such a waiver is in
the interest of the United States.

c. Fee Rates.
1. Search Time
() Manual Search . .
Ty Grade Hourly R
Cerca ES/GSS and below ee
(Minimum Charge) 8.30

Professional (To be established at actual hourly rate prior to search. A minimum charge will be
established at ‘2 hourly rates) ~

(ii) Computer search is based on the total cost of the central processing unit, input-output
devices, and memory capacity of the actual computer configuration. The wage (based upon the
scale in (1), above) for the computer operator/programmer determining how to conduct, and
subsequently executing the search will be recorded as part of the computer seach.

2. Duplication
Type.

Cost
Aerial Photographs, Specifications, Permits, $2.50
Charts, Blueprints, and other technical documents

Engineering data (microfilm)
a. Aperture cards

()) Sitver duplicate negative, per card 75
When key punched and verified, per card 85
(il) Diazo duplicate negative, per card 85
When key punched and verified, per card 75
b. 35mm roll film, per frame 50
¢. 16mm roll film, per frame 45
d. Paper prints (engineering drawings), each 1.50
e. Paper reprints of microfilm indices, each 10
3. Review Time
ee Grade . Hourty Rate(s)
E9/GS8 and below 1
(Minimum Charge) . 8.30

Professional (To be established at actual hourly rate prior to review. A minimum charge will be
established at ' hourly rates)

d. Other Technical Data Records .
Charges for any additional services not specifically provided above, consistent with reference
(r), shail be made by Components at the following rates:

1. Minimum charge for office copy (up to six images)
3. Each typewritten page .. sees
4. Certification and validation with seal, each ....
5. Hand-drawn plots and sketches, each hour or fraction thereot

39



Item 5(a)
Exemptions Invoked on Appeal Determinations
Exemptions by Number [552(b)]

Reporting Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Total*
osD/JS 12 4 te) 1 12 4 8 0 o | 41
DEPT ARMY 16 61 2 17° «102 96 50 0 0 | 344
DEPT NAVY 55 55 6 1 75 74 58 0 o | 324
DEPT AIR FORCE 5 69 10 32 102 51 55 t) 0! 324
DCA 0 0 0 i) i) 0 0 0 ae | 0
DCAA 1 t) to) 0 1 1 4 0 o | 7
DIA 23 4 2 t) 1 4 0 0 oi! 34
pis 4 5 Uv) 1 4 4 8 0 0! 26
DLA 0 1 0 7 13 3 3 0 o | 27
DMA 0 0 0 0 1 t) 0 0 o 4 1
DNA 0 ti) ti) te) to) i) 0 0 o | i)
Nsa/csS 17 3 #419 0 0 5 2 2 o | 48
DoD Totals 133° 202 «39 «59 «311 4242 188 2 o | 1176
Percent of Hy

Total 11% 17% 3% 5% 26% 21% 16% 0% Os | 100%

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


Item 5(c)
Other Reasons Cited on Appeal Determinations

Category*

Reporting Activity 1

ix}

3

rs
wo
a

I Total*

osb/Js 10
DEPT ARMY
DEPT NAVY
DEPT AIR FORCE
DCA

DCAA

DIA

DIS

DLA

DMA

DNA

NsaA/CSS

PR

eooKrco0COhe

ce
ecoceec ooo MNO
eeoCOOCOOOPNK
ecooKrFeecoOOMONW
ecocoeoC Or SoH

DoD Totals 60

»
a
w
cr)
ix)
e
ry
n
rX)
w
x
a

*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

6. Not an agency record

(See page 5 for full description of "other reasons". )

1



under the Freedom of Information Act

Agency
Abbreviation

Department of Defense
Reporting Agencies

Agency

Agency
Head

OSD/JS

DEPT ARMY

DEPT NAVY

DEPT AF

DCA

DCAA

DIA

DIS

DLA

DMA

DNA

NSA/CSS

.Office of the Secretary of

Defense (Including the
Joint Staff)
Secretary of the Army

Secretary of the Navy

Secretary of the Air Force

Defense Communications Agency

Defence Contract Audit Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
Defense Investigative Service

Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Mapping Agency

Defense Nuclear Agency

National Security
Agency/Central Security
Service

Hon Frank C.
Carlucci, III

Hon John
O.Marsh, Jr.

Hon William L.
Ball, III

Hon Edward C.
Aldridge, Jr.

LTG John T.
Myers, USA

Mr. William H.
Reed

LTG Harry E.
Soyster, USA

Mr. John
Donnelly

LTG Charles
McCausland,
USAF

MGEN Robert
F. Durkin,
USAF

VADM John T.
Parker, USN

VADM William
A. Studeman,
USN


initial review. Components may not charge for reviews required at the administrative appeal level of
‘an exemption already applied. However, records or portions of records withheld in full under an
exemption which is subsequently determined not to apply may be reviewed again to determine the
applicability of other exemptions not previously considered. The costs for such a subsequent review
would be properly assessable.

6-102 Fee Restrictions -

a. No fees may be charged by any DoD component if the costs of routine collection and
processing of the fee are likely to equal or exceed the amount of the fee. With the exception of
requesters seeking documents for a commercial use, Components shall provide the first two hours
of search time, and the first one hundred pages of duplication without charge. For example, for a
request (other than one from a commercial requester) that involved two hours and ten minutes of
search time, and resulted in one hundred and five pages of documents, a Component would
determine the cost of only ten minutes of search time, and only five pages of reproduction. If this
processing cost was equal to, or less than the cost to the Component for billing the requester and
processing the fee collected, no charges would result.

b. Requesters receiving the first two hours of search and the first one hundred pages of
duplication without charge are entitled to such only once per request. Consequently, if a
Component, after completing its portion of a request, finds it necessary to refer the request to a
subordinate office, another DoD Component, or another federal agency to action their portion of
the request, the referring Component shail inform the recipient of the referral of the expended
amount of search time and duplication cost to date.

c. The elements to be considered in determining the “cost of collecting a fee” are the
administrative costs to the Component of receiving and recording a remittance, and processing the
fee tor deposit in the Treasury Department's special account. The cost to the Treasury to handle
Such remittance is negligible and shail not be considered in Components’ determinations.

d. For the purposes of these restrictions, the word “pages” refers to paper copies of a standard
size, which will normally be “8 x 11” or “11 x 14”. Thus, requesters would not be entitled to 100
microfiche or 100 computer disks, for example. A microfiche containing the equivalent of 100 pages ©
oF 100 pages of computer printout; however, might meet the terms of the restriction.

e. In the case of computer searches, the first two free hours will be determined against the
salary scale of the individual operating the computer for the purposes of the search. As an example,
when the direct costs of the computer central processing unit, input-output devices, and memory
capacity equal $24.00 (two hours of equivaient search at the clerical level), amounts of computer
costs in excess of that amount are chargeable as computer search time.

6-103 Fee Waivers —

a. Documents shall be furnished without charge, or at a charge reduced below fees assessed
to the categories of requesters in paragraph 6-104 when the Component determines that waiver or
reduction of the fees is in the public interest because furnishing the information is likely to
contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the Department of
Defense and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

b. When direct costs for the FOIA request total $15.00 or less, fees shall be waived
automaticalty for all requesters, regardless of category. .

c. Decisions to waive or reduce fees that exceed the automatic waiver threshold shall be made
on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the following factors:

1. Disclosure of the information “is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute
significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.”

(The subject of the request, Components should sneiyze whether tre subject mares of
the request which will significantly contribute to the public understanding of the
operations or activities of the DoD. Requests for records in the possession of DoD which were
originated by non-government organizations and are sought for their intrinsic content, rather than
informative vaiue will likely not contribute to public understanding of the operations or activities of
the DoD. An example of such records might be press clippings, magazine articles, or records
forwarding a particular opinion of concem from a member of the public regarding a DoD activity.
Similarly, disclosures of records of considerable age may or may not bear directly on the current
activities of the DoD; however, the age of a particular record shall not be the sole criteria for -

32


Todd Shipyards Corp v. Defense Contract Audit Agency, et
al., D.D.C. No. 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. Defendant
claimed exemption (b) (7) (A). Court held defendant justified
in not releasing audit report. Plaintiff filed motion for
reconsideration. Defendant did not oppose motion. _ Court
denied motion. Case closed on 23 June 1988.

Todd Shipyards Corporation v. Defense Contract Audit Agency
and Naval Sea Systems Command, C. A. No 87-2041TJH, filed 31

August 1987. Plaintiff brought suit requesting the Court to
order the defendants to make available documents requested
under FOIA to plaintiff. NAVSEA processed the audit reports
referred by DCAA. With respect to the request directed to
NAVSEA, it has filed a motion to stay proceedings. Status
call is scheduled for 10 April 1989.

oloni Trading Cor v. Departmen £ the Navy, D.D.C.
87-1406 GHR, filed 22 May 1987. Plaintiff filed suit to
compel release of unclassified government-owned technical
data pursuant to FOIA, Small Business Act, and Armed
Services Procurement Act. Motion for summary judgment is
due 1 February 1989.

Alan Washburn v. Department of the Navy, D.D.C. 87-2283SSH,
filed 17 August 1987. Plaintiff brought suit alleging Navy
failed to respond to his FOIA request. Navy responded that
plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies,
ie., Navy never received an FOIA request; the plaintiff knew
the correct address for his FOIA request; and, the address
the plaintiff alleges he sent the request was improper. The
documents were subsequently released, and the Navy advised
the court that plaintiff has been provided the documents he
requested. Case dismissed on 27 June 1988.

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. On 27 May 1987,.the court remanded
back to the Navy for reprocessing the request. Motion for
summary judgment was granted on 29 July 1988.

Falzone v. Department of the Navy, No. 85-3862, D.D.C.

Plaintiff, a real estate agent from Pensacola, Florida,

20


CY 1988 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
ANNUAL REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS

A total of 98,700 public requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
were processed during 1988 by the Department of Defense. This, compared with an average
annual case load of 69,534 for the years 1977-1987, the reporting period since the act was
amended, is roughly 7% above average. Five thousand one hundred forty three cases required
time limit extensions - 343 for location, 2575 for volume, 2174 for consultation and 51 for
court involvement.

The Department of Defense initially denied 9,508 out of 98,700 requests on the basis of
FOIA exemptions. Of those initially denied requests, 10% were for continued classification;
22% for internal rules and practices; 4% for statutory exemption; 9% for proprietary data;
17% for deliberative material; 23% for privacy information; and 18% for law enforcement
investigations. An additional 21,319 requests could not be filled in whole or in part for other
-Teasons, such as lack of records, referral to another agency, or lack of specificity sufficient to
identify the requested records. There were 902 appeals of denied requests, 72 of which were
fully granted, 237 partially granted, and 593 denied.

The total DoD operating costs associated with these requests were $16,158,808.58. The
average cost of processing a single case during 1988 was approximately $371. Fee collections
for records provided to the public amounted to $1,144,998.01.

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.


Suppunez 03 enp ppe jou Aew seanbty :e30N

"aI ueyA eyIO TeuUCSsIOdys

‘seyanp Jog eupz-yzed 10 euTy-TINgz peubysse Teuuoszedy

00°606 ‘Z 00°999'€ a9°88s‘€ S0°Sz9 ‘9Sz OFTAMa SY Worzy pePeETTOD qmouy ‘a
0o°z9s‘THE$ —-LT"Z86 ‘76S 68008 ‘2z$ ZB°OLT‘EBT'T$ IIL NxYR I suopyDes ‘s3s0D TeIOL “W
Axewung “AT
00°0 00°0 zp'sse'T 00°00T 89809 r0y20/fuyqrodey TeI0L ‘D
(°990 ‘zeqndmoo ‘Teaez3
‘e6eqsod se yons suezq zo but qrodey
00°0 00°0 zg°99L 9T'OLS‘9 Kzeymyon) sysop bupqezedo 2eq30 ‘a
0070 00°0 Lt68s €0°PTE‘T (%sz 3e pegndioa) peeyzeno(e)
00°0 00°0 00°SL 96°986‘T zen (Z)
00°0 00°0 ve'96E Lt69z'e Teuoypaezedo (T)
83809 buyarodey ‘w
8809 rey30/bupyxodey “IIT
00° Esz ‘TT 80°ZsE'Z Te"Tzk LT" L06 ‘6D #4809 pezeTeY-eseD TeUIO JO TeIOL “T
00°0 00°0 99°€% ssset‘z sprocey pequyzd “a
00°0 00°0 00°0 Te'pIt ‘sp woTzonpordey SYDFIOIOTH “D
00"€08'L g0°6ST'Z 0€*T99 90°LEL*LL uopzonpordey “a:
00'osp‘E 00°E6T St9E $2698 ‘TZT euty yorees reyndwoD ‘Ww
: 84809 peITeY-eseD TeYIO “IT
00°60 ‘Oe 60° 0€9 ‘06 92°bzL ‘Oz 8Z"STL ‘OES #3809 Teuuoszed TeI0L “E
00°290‘99 ZO'9ZT ‘BT Se"poT'y SO°EbT ‘98T (SZ 3 pogndu) peeyzeno ‘a
00°L6Z‘b9 Lo*pOS ‘ZL Tw6Lb'L z8*zsz ‘ose (g) "9 nya (T)"D TeIOL “a
‘TMLOL ZSOO UNOHNYH
00°0 B€"Z0E'b Ty9ps‘T 6L°ST9 ‘ze seTaTaTIW 70q90(s)
00916 ‘Z og °Tet‘T Sz" 80L 69°80T ‘Oz uoyqeredeza wros/eouepuodse2209(p)
00°0 $6°T9S‘S SL°oT2‘T 09°€T0 ‘PT Teaorddy 3 vofyeUTpI00D (Ee)
00° PLP ‘Ze 0S"99L ‘TZ 00°00 ‘Z ee "OTe ‘98 Buystoxa 3 MeTACd (Zz)
00°Lb8 ‘Ez bo tpL'z 00°900'% 19°86T ‘LOT euTL yorVes(T)
4x (8898Y ETHPEqOS Seg)
Axo607e9 Aq 3805 anoquen peqeuy3eg “OD
0070S6‘66TS 00° 000 ‘LES 00°00T ‘6s Ty6te ‘vers (pezepysuop seperp) sysop avekuen “a
02's 00°T oz" vz0z ssrvokuey peqrurasd ‘W
8380p Teuucsied’I
SSO/WSN yng wa via ANTILNO IS0o »
(Pawo)

SGIDNGOV ONLLAOdTa Gd Ad GLLOGT1OO SAA GNV SESOO UVAA AVGNATVO

44



DIA

DIS

DLA

DCAA Regulation 4510.5, 29 Aug 77,Change 1

DCAA Instruction 4510.8, 27 Aug 81

DIA Regulation 12-39

DIS Regulation 01-12

DLA Regulation 5400.14

28

Pending
Revision
32 CFR
290, 1 Jul
80

Pending
Revision
32 CFR
290, 1 Jul
80

32 CFR
292,
Vol 53, No.
128, pg
25157, 5
Jul 88

32 CFR
298b, Vol
53, No.
185, pg
36968, 23
Sep 88

32 CFR
1285, Vol
53, No.
143, pg
27962, 26
Jul 88;
amended 3
Oct 88, pg
38716


would be reasonable to presume that multiple requests of this type made within a 30 day period
had been made to avoid tees. For requests made over a longer period; however, such a presump-
tion becomes harder to sustain and Components should have a solid basis for determining that
aggregation is warranted in such cases. Components are cautioned that before aggregating
requests from more than one requester, they must have a concrete basis on which to conclude that
the requesters are acting in concert and are acting specificiaily to avoid payment of fees. In no case
may Components aggregate multiple requests on unrelated subjects from one requester. .

6-106 Effect of the Debt Coltection Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-365).

The Debt Collection Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-365) provides for a minimum annual rate of interest to
be charged on overdue debts owed the Federal Government. Components may levy this interest
penaity for any fees that remain outstanding 30 calendar days from the date of billing (the first
demand notice) to the requester of the amount owed. The interest rate shail be as prescribed in
Section 3717 of Title 31 U.S.C.A. Components should verity the current interest rate with respective
Finance and Accounting Offices. After one demand letter has been sent, and 30 calendar days have
lapsed with no payment, Components may submit the debt to respective Finance and Accounting
Offices for collection pursuant to the Debt Collection Act of 1982.

6-107 Computation of Fees

‘The fee schedule in this chapter shail be used to compute the search, review (In the case of
commercial requesters) and duplication costs associated with processing a given FOIA request.
Costs shail'be computed on time actually spent. Neither time-based nor dollar-besed minimum
charges for search, review and duplication are authorized.

Section 2
COLLECTION OF FEES AND FEE RATES
6-200 Collection of Fees |
recipient when the requester specifically states that the costs involved shail be acceptable or accep-
table up to specified limit that covers the anticipated costs. Collection of fees may not be made in
advance unless the requester has failed to pay previously assessed fees within 30 calendar days

from the date of the billing by the DoD Component, or the Component has determined that the fee
will be in excess of $250 (see paragraph 6-104).

6-201 Search Time

a. Manual Search
Type Grade. —Hourty Rate($) _
Clerical E9/GS8 and below 12
Professional 01-06/GS9-GS/GM15 2
Executive 07/GS/GM16/ES1 and above 4s

b. Computer Search ;

Computer search is besed on direct cost of the central processing unit, input-output devices,
and memory capacity of the actual computer configuration. The salary scale (equating to para-
graph a. above) for the computer operator/programmer determining how to conduct and subse-
quently executing the search will be recorded as part of the computer search.

Type , Cost per Page (¢)
Pre-Printed material 02

Office copy 15

Microfiche 23

Computer Actual cost of duplicating the tape

copies
(tapes or printouts) or printout (Includes operator's time and
cost of the tape)

37


John Jenoriki v. Department of Navy, D.D.C. NO 88-1593,
filed 29 July 1988. Plaintiff brought suit because the
NAVSEA would not process his FOIA request due to his failure
to agree to pay search fees and because his request was too
broad. Court found no records had been withheld as
plaintiff failed to make a proper FOIA request at the agency
level. Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.

Federal Electric Corporation v. Caspar Weinberger, et. al.,
D.D.C. No 187-1747. On 29 February 1988, DON released data
plaintiff considered "proprietary" to a FOIA requester.
Plaintiff brought suit alleging violations of the FOIA.
Suit was dismissed without prejudice on basis it was not
ripe for adjudication. Case was appealed and argued on 17
November 1988. The decision is pending.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Alamo Aircraft Supply, Inc., v. Weinberger, et. al., D.D.C.,
Civil Number 87-1167. Motion to dismiss 9 February 1988.

Reconsideration dated 9 March 1988 and Appeal dismissed 29
June 1988.

Astreon Corp v. USAF, D.D.C. Civil Number 87-3408.
Stipulated Dismissal dated 6 May 1988.

CC Distributors, Inc v. USAF, USDC SD, TX, Civil No.
C-84-264, Settled - stipulation and order 5 August 1988.

Christensen, et. al. v. Estavilla, et. al., USDC, WD, WA,
Civil No C-88-275-T. Voluntary dismissal dated 26 September

1988 and dismissal court dated 16 September 1988.

Goldstein, Paul v, Ofc. of the Independent Counsel, et. al.,
D.D.C., Civil No. 87-2028. Motion of Summary Judgment
granted 28 July 1988.

Honeycomb Co. of Am v. USAF, D.D.C., Civil No. 87-1536.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Dismissal granted 26 Octoer 1988.

Lawrence, Noah D. v. USAF, USDC, ED, VA, Civil No.
87-1153-A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss granted 31 March
1988.

Lockheed v. SAF/Aldridge, USDC ND, CA, Civil No. 87-20820.
Notice of Dismissal by Plaintiff 3 February 1988.

National Standards Assn. Inc. v. USAF, D.D.C. Civil No.
88-0172. Stipulation of Dismissal 15 April 1988.

25


Ttem 3(b)
Initial Denial Officials by Participation
(Agency Reports List Names and Titles)

(cont’d)
Other Authority Denials*
Number of Officials Categorized
Agency by Instances of Participation
NUMBER OF INSTANCES i} Total*
Agency L 2-30 4-5 6-10 11-40 41+ i} Officals
OSD/JS 10 8 6 6 19 8 | 57
DEPT ARMY - 0 0 0 20 53 15 ! 88
DEPT NAVY 13 13 7 17 37 24 | 1121
DEPT AF le) 2 1 1 4 17 ] 25
DCA 3 cy) 0 0 1 tt) i} 4
DCAA 0 1 0 2 5 2 i} 10
DIA 0 0 to) 0 0 1 I 1
bDIs ti) ) 0 0 Q 1 I 1
DLA 1 3 1 2 9 6 1 22
DMA 2 0 1 1 2 t) 1 6
DNA ti) 0 ) t) 0 1 1 1
NSA/CSS ) 0 i) 0 1 2 if 3
DoD Totals 29 27 16 49 131 77 | 329

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


Item 10(c)

Time Limit Extensions by Agency
Reporting Activity bd II & III
Unusual Circumstances Court. Totals

Location Volume Consultation Involvemen

15 109 1,226 5 1,355
30 56 135 11 232
44 836 100 18 998
41 700 258 13 1,012
0 28 0 0 28
6 11 . 13 ) 30
87 188 89 2 366
4 1 0 0 5
116 194 308 2 620
0 2 6 0 8
0 ) 31 0 31
0 450 8 0 458
343 - 2,575 2,174 51 5,143

45



Ttem 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 demand constant training/educational
efforts. Components are directed, within their available resources, to conduct their
own training/educational training programs. The educational programs are to be
targeted toward all members of the Component, 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 maintain-
ing the level of expertise to efficiently administer the Defense program.

OSD/JS

Newly assigned personnel in the FOIA Program, Director’s Office routinely attend
FOIA conferences and training sessions sponsored by OPM and other organizations.
Briefings, orientations, and staff visits between components encourage the participa-
tion of FOI personnel to attend FOIA conferences, symposia and seminars presented by
Federal and Private Organizations. During April 1988, 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/JS Components. The Directorate also travelled to Headquarters, European
Command and conducted a two-day FOIA class to staff personnel during October
1988.

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. The FOIA training
sessions were attended by Army FOIA personnel as follows: Department of Justice
10th Annual Symposium on FOIA,16 hours; 16-17 August 1988, Department of
Justice FOI Seminar, 8 hours, September 1988, Department of Justice Department of
Justice FOIA for Attorney and Access Professionals, 7-8 June, 12 hours; Department
of Justice Introduction to the FOIA for Nonspecialists, 21 June 1988, 8 hours;
Department of Justice advanced FOIA Seminar, 21 December 1988, 8 hours;

47


Item 5()
Statutes Invoked on Appeal Determinations

Statute Number of Times by Agency
AIR | DOD
ARMY NAVY FORCE NSA DNA DIA | Total*
10 usc 130 ) ) 5 i) 0 0 i 5
10 Usc 1102 2 3 3 i) 0 ) ] 8
18 USC 798 ) ) 0 17 ti) 0 ] 17
42 USC 2011 t) 3 ) i) 0 0 | 3
50 USC 402 0 0 0 o 18 t) | 18
note, Section 6, 1
Public Law 86-36 I
50 USC 403 (d) (3) i) () (i) 15 0 2 i 17
!
|
i
|
Agency Totals 2 6 8 32 18 2 1 68

*Totals may not agree with 552(b)(3) exemptions because of cases where two or more exemptions were cited.

10