Sheilia Helm

Verlin Dickman

Tain Riley

Alexander Fox

Theodore W. Makarewicz
Toni M. Gaines

Neal T. Jaco

G. V. Bryant

C. A. Hennies

Marvin E. Mitchiner, Jr.
Alan F, Jones

James A. Pongonis
Witiam Benson

Bruce H. S. Anderson

Newton L. Klements

Deputy Director, Civilian Personnel
Directorate, US Amny Personnel Command

General Counsel, Anny and Air Force
Exchange Service

Director, Command, Control, a
Communications and Computers, US Army
Forces Command -

Director, Command, Control,
Communications and Computers, US Army
Forces Command

Chief, Contracting Division, US Army
Forces Command

Acting Principal Assistant Responsible for
Contracting, US Amny Forces Command

Commander, Community and Family
Support Center

Principal Assistant Responsible for
Contracting, Health Services Command

Commanding General, US Amy Safety
Center

Commanding General, US Amny Safety
Center

Deputy Commander, US Anny Safety
Center

Deputy Chief of Staff for Contracting, US
Amny Training and Doctrine Command

Division Counsel, US Army Corps of
Engineers

Division Counsel, US Amny Corps of
Engineers

17

60

19

41

32

26

32

68

36

107

10



Item 5(c)

Other Reasons Cited on Appeal Determinations
Component. Category* Total
z 2 3 4 5 6 oy

osp/3s 20 0 0 z 4 oT 25
DEPT ARMY 5 8 5 2% 3 o | 45
DEPT NAVY 34 5 o 19 7 o | 65
DEPT AIR FORCE 0 C) C) 0) t) o | C)
DCA t) 0) 0) t) C) o | C)
DCAA C) C) C) C) 0) o | 0)
DIA 1 0 0 0 C) o | 2
pis t) 0) t) C) t) o | 0
DIA 1 ) 0 1 Cy) 1 1 3
DMA 0 0 0) t) C) 1 | 1
DNA C) t) t) 0) C) o | 0)
NSA/CSS 0 C) t) 0. C) o | C)
OIG, pop ) 0 0 () C) o | C)
DoD Totals 61-413 5 45" id 277 140

* Types of Categories

L Transferred A

2. Lack of Records

(See page 8 for full description of "other reasons", )

38



Defense Logistics Agency

Charles McCausland Director
Brady M. Cole Deputy Director
Charles R. Henry Deputy Director Acquisition Management
Defense Mapping Agency
Stanley O. Smith Chief of Staff
David W. Saunders Director, DMA Combat Support Center
Kermit A. Sande Associate General Counsel, DMA
Hydrographic Topographic Center
Andrew H. Deranger Associate General Counsel, DMA
Hydrographic Topographic Center
Defense Nuclear Agency
Marvin C. Atkins Deputy Director
William Kahn Director, Theater Nuclear Forces Policy
ASD(SP)
National Security Agency/Central Security Service
Richard W. Gronet Director of Policy
Office of the inspector General, DOD
Dominick D. Wasielewski Assistant Director

David C. Stewart

Deputy Director

34

33

298

180
35



Hunninen y, 88-1624 TPJ (D.D.C.). On 14 June
1988, plaintiff filed suit (also alleging a Privacy Act violation) to compel release of
documents withheld by the Department of Justice. One Document was referred by the
FBI to the Army which determined that the document was properly classified and
therefore denied release. On 30 December 19838, the Parties agreed to = stipulated
dismissal of the case, with each party bearing its own costs and fees. As a condition
of the stipulation, the Army agreed to provide plaintiff with a letter stating that the
Pages withheld contained no mention or reference to the plaintiff.

Ini: y, No. CIV-89-1003-P (W.D. Okla.).
Plaintiff, the successful bidder on a contract for Tefuse disposal at Ft. Hood, Texas,
brought this "reverse FOIA" action to enjoin the Army from disclosing their
performance proposal, which was submitted as Part of their bid. On 5 June 1989, the
Parties stipulated to the dismissal of the case.

Michael W, Owens v. Paul L, Babiak et, al, MO. 89-1140 (8th Cir.). On 27 July 1988,
plaintiff sued the Commanding General of the Amny Personnel Center for Tefusing to
disclose his ex-wife’s address. On 22 November 1988, the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the complaint for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies and plaintiff appealed. On 8 February 1989, the court ~
dismissed the appeal, finding the issues raised as lacking in merit and legally frivolous.

P ve A No. 88-1859 (D.D.C.). On7 July
1988, plaintiff filed suit seeking Production of documents related to the specifications
for a grass paver to be used in the performance of a government contract. On 28
March 1989, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The defendant, however, will
pay attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $1,500.00 in full satisfaction of
plaintiff’s claim for costs and fees.

ames Andrew Thomas v. Department o Army, No. 88-c-1539-E (N.D. Okla). On
16 November 1988, plaintiff filed suit, alleging that the Army improperly denied

e A ica e Army, et. al., No. 88-5347 (D.C.
Cir.). On 7 February 1986, Plaintiffs filed suit to compel the Army and Navy to
publish or make available The Judge Advocate Generai (TIAG) opinions for public
inspection and copying under FOIA. Plaintiffs also requested that defendants be
Tequired to maintain and make available for public inspection and copying current
indexes to TJAG opinions. On 24 May 1989, the decision that there was no duty to
index and publish the opinions was affirmed.

i y, CIV 88-0808 (D.D.C.)
Plaintiff filed 21 April 1989 Tequesting documents concerning closed, unproductive



Karl Jackson

John Woodworth

Darel Johnson

G. A. Deegan

J. EL McNeill

Manual Briskin

Maurice White
Michael Sterlacci
Millard E. Addison

Dominick Wasielewski
John C. Rudder, Jr.
Richard Goetze, Jr.

Bradley C. Hosmer

Jeanne B. Fites

Hansford T. Johnson
Maynard C. Anderson

Ted Daniel

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
European and NATO Policy

Director European Policy, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense, European and NATU
Policy

Vice Director, Joint Staff

Assistant General Counsel (International &
Intelligence)

Assistant General Counsel (Fiscal &
Inspector General)

Staff Attorney, General Counsel
Assistant General Counsel (Legal Counsel)

Assistant Director, Scientific Investigation,
Inspector General

Assistant Deputy Director, Inspector
General

Director, Information Operation Support,

Inspector General

Joint Staff, Vice Director
Joint Staff, Vice Director

Principal Director, Resource Management
and Support ‘

Director, Joint Staff

Assistant Under Secretary of Defense,
Counterintelligence and Security

Directorate for Management, Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs

11

14

15

47

13



‘OT wey ze 0 Teuuoszedey

“S°TINP Tom ewr3-g7xed 70 OTFI-TINZ poubtese Teuuosredqy

00699 '9¢ £2690 ‘ze 08°Loz‘te 00°LTLteze SFTANE #3 WIZ PeIZeTTOD yuncEY -g
Os'P6B’TEZS = Se-eor'zcEg 26-29 '798 €2°189 LT OS*I96°AZT'TS = AT RIGA T euoTIeg “#3800 Tey -y
Xxeumg “A
00-0$ 00-0 00°0¢ 00°0¢ 00°66 Peswocorg sasenbey eutanoy 30 3800 ar
00"so6s 00°0¢ SL-ezzg 1)" toe ‘Ts 00°0z6 ‘ETS #3900 xeqI0/BuTy20dey TeR0y, -5
(-090 ‘ze3ndao ‘Teaex3
e6e380d ee yons 8827T Jo buyzrodey
00°08 00°0¢ 00°0¢ 00°s¢ 00-099 "eg Arequnqon) #3809 Bupyeredo 70990 “a
00° teTs 00°0¢ SL'S¥S 82" 6SE¢ 00°z6z ‘Tg (882 a® peandaca) peeqreso(¢)
00°08 00°0¢ 00°0¢ 00°zg 00-eveg e9n(z)
00 pzeg 00-08 00-EeTs €t-see‘te 00°sze ‘ng Tevorzeredo (tT)
#3900 Burqrodey -y
93800 xeTI0/Suy3x0deq -r17
00° Los ‘9¢ 00°S6e‘tT¢ ST°sow'tg ts-sos¢ OOrOZL"ETZe §— #3805 PeqeTeY-eseD z0qI9 JO TeRQ0, +g
oo-sz¢ 00°08 00°0¢ 96-0¢ 00°En eg _ SPICoeY pequyzg -q
00°08 00°0¢ 00°0¢ 00°08 00°ses ‘eee SoTIONpordey eyoTzor0TR “5
00° R06 ‘Pg 00° P09 se St Lee'te €9°"vose 00° tps ‘os¢ Boy ONpordey +g
00°eLs ‘ts 00° t66 ‘s¢ 00"a9¢ 00°0¢ 00sv0’zTTS CSTE Torweg zeqndeoy -y
93800 PeqeTey-eee sem “rr
Os'zer’veze = Se-exo'tREs §—-z0-ex6 'c9g Sz-pez’stg OS “zze‘L60¢ #3909 Teuwosreg Terr -g
Os"968 ‘png SL°vTz‘e9¢ T8"S6t ‘erg Se"pso’eg Os" ¥9S6L1¢ (852 38 peandaco) peeqreug x
00°SE9 ‘ecg 00°29 ‘6s¢ SL“WLZ ‘Sze Ov" Loe ‘s¢ 00°L18‘etzy (s)-3 arm (1)-9 Tea0z ‘a
‘THLOL L500 women
00°€en ‘ag 00°0$ SL-voL’t¢ SZ°tee't¢ 00-0zz ‘ezg SeTITATION TEI (s)
00°Iss ‘Tg 00-ote¢ L9°s9z'1¢ 00°tts¢ 00°z66‘TI¢ boTaerederg wi04/eouepuodserz5 (7)
00°S69 ‘Dg 00°0¢ €8-9Ty's¢ 00°o0t ‘tg 00°909 ‘azg Teaoaddy 9 voyqeupproen (¢)
00°ez6 ‘6eg 00°926 ‘seg 00°z66 ‘etg S9-oTes 00° p66 ‘9c¢ Sapetoxy 9 neyamg(z)
00°8z0 pg 00-90 ’zz¢ 0s" s6e'T¢ OS"pT9 ‘te 00°soz ‘6g ‘ ®STE Wrves (1)
ev (se30G eToPeyS wes)
Fx06ey29 fq 93000 amoquey Peqeeriez ‘5
Oo'ts6’ozts = oo-etz‘erzg L¥-e0S ‘uzg 00°21 ‘9¢ 00° TH» ‘eos (perepteucy sepern) 83200 qeeluen -q
tet S's sz zo 8€'0z sezeeKuen peqentzez -y
| 93809 teuucereg-7
Qoq_‘s10 882/VSN wa wa via SNTLLNO Is00

SHONIOY ONLLYOMTH CPC AA CALS I00 SEL ANY S1S00 HVAA UVONTTV
(Paw0D) (or wy

71


c. The term "search" includes all time spent looking for material that is Tesponsive
to a request. Search also includes a page-by-page or line-by-line identification (if
necessary) of material in the document to determine if it, or portions thereof are
responsive to the request. Components should ensure that searches are done in the
most efficient and least expensive manner so as to minimize costs for both the
Component and the requester. For example, Components should not engage in
line-by-line searches when duplicating an entire document known to Co.iain responsive
information would prove to be the less expensive and quicker method of complying
with the request. Time spent teviewing documents in order to determine whether to
apply one or more of the statutory exemptions is not search time, but review time.
See subparagraph 6-101, e., for the definition of review, and subparagraph 6-201, b.,
for information pertaining to computer searches.

form that is reasonably useable, the Tequester shall be notified that their Copy is the
best available and that the agency’s master copy shall be made available for review upon

including the operator’s time, shall be charged. In practice, if a Component estimates :
that assessable duplication charges are likely to exceed $25.00, it shall notify the

Tequester the opportunity to confer with Component personnel with the object of
reformulating the request to meet his or her needs at a lower cost.

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 Tequesters 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

53



Item 9
Fee Schedule and Fees Collected

The fee schedule on pages 52 through 66, reprinted from Chapter 6, DoD
Regulation 5400.7-R, July 1989, establishes standard costs collectible by
Department of Defense Agencies.

$1,443,655.52 was collected from the public for making records available during
the year 1989 (see item 10(b), page 68 for agency totals).

$1



are primarily undertaken for educational Purposes, and the application of a fee charge
would be inappropriate. Conversely, data brokers or others who merely compile
government information for marketing can normally 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 a=d upon the
merits of the information provided in each Tequest. 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.

¢. 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 preclude 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 shall 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 shall:

(i) Notify the requester that he should provide additional justification to
warrant the category claimed, and that a search for Tesponsive records will not be
initiated until agreement has been attained Telative to the category of the Tequester.
Absent further category justification from the requester, and within a reasonable
Period of time (i. e., 30 calendar days), the Component shall render a final category
determination, and notify the Tequester of such determination, to include normal
administrative appeal rights of the determination. .

(ii) Advise the requester that, notwithstanding any appeal, a search for

Tesponsive records will not be initiated until the Tequester indicates a willingness to pay
assessable costs appropriate for the category determined by the Component.

S7



organization if they can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through
that organization, even through not actually employed by it. A publication contract
would be the clearest proof, but Components may also look to the past publication
record of a requester in making this determination.

2. To be eligible for inclusion in this Category, a requester must meet the
criteria in subparagraph 6-104, g.1., above, and his or her Tequest must act be made
for commercial use. A request for records Supporting the news dissemination function
of the requester shall not be considered to be a request 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
Presumed 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).

h. Components shall charge requesters who do not fit
into any of the above categories, fees which recover the full direct cost of searching
for and duplicating records, except that the first two hours of search time and the
first 100 pages of duplication shall be furnished without charge. Requesters must
reasonably describe the records sought (see paragraph 1-507). Requests from subjects
about themselves will continue to be treated under the fee provisions of the Privacy
Act of 1974 (reference (gg)), which Permit fees only for duplication. Components are ~
reminded that this category of Tequester may also be eligible for a waiver or reduction
of fees if disclosure of the information is in the Public interest as defined under
subparagraph 6-103, a., above. (See also subparagraph 6-104, c.2.).

6-105 Aggregating Requests

Except for requests that are for a commercial use, a Component may not charge
for the first two hours of search time or for the first 100 pages of reproduction.
However, a requester may not file multiple requests at the same time, each seeking
Portions of a document or documents, solely in order to avoid Payment of fees. When
a Component reasonably believes that a Tequester or, on rare occasions, a group of
Tequesters acting in concert, is attempting to break a request down into a series of
Tequests for the purpose of avoiding the assessment of fees, the agency may aggregate
any such requests and charge accordingly. One element to be considered in determining
whether a belief would be reasonable is the time period in which the Tequests have
occurred. For example, it would be reasonable to Presume that multiple requests of
this type made within a 30 day period had been made to avoid fees. For requests made
over a longer period; however, such a Presumption 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
Tequesters are acting in concert and are acting specifically to avoid payment of fees. In
no case may Components aggregate multiple requests on unrelated subjects from one
requester.

61



Item 8

FOIA Implementation Rules or Regulations
COMPONENT DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION CFR. REF,
OSD/IS DoD Regulation 5400.7-R "DoD Freedom 32 CFR 286, Vol 54,
of Information Act Program" No. 155, pg 33190,
14 Aug 89
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 AFR 12-30 Pending Revision. 32 ;
FORCE CFR 806, Vol 48,
No. 69, pg 15248, 8
Apr 83
DCA DCA Instruction 210-225-1 Pending Revision. 32
CFR 287, 1 Jul 80
DCAA Freedom of Information Act Program; 32 CFR 290, Vol 54,
Defense Contract Audit Agency, (DCAA No. 142, page 31014,
5410.8) 26 Jul 89
DIA DIA Regulation 12-39 32 CFR 292, Vol 53,
No. 128, pg 25157, 5
_ Jul 88
DIS DIS Regulation 01-12 32 CFR 298b, Vol
53, No. 185, pg
36968, 23 Sep 88
DLA DLA Regulation 5400.14 32 CFR 1285, Vol

49

53, No. 143, pg
27962, 26 Jul 88;
amended 3 Oct 88, pg
38716



J. D. Taylor

J. S. Zayicek

J. E. Taylor

T. A. Meinicke

C. R. McGrail

R. H. Spector
F. L. Lewis

L. F. Norton

J. P. Oppenhuizen

R. G. Stewart, Jr.

J. T. Zimble
H. J. T. Sears
R. B. Hadler

P. M. Hekman
E. W. Hosken

G. H. Strohsahl
D. J. Nash

J.R. Ives

H. P. Cruz

Director, Aviation Plans/Requirements
Division

Head, Strike/Air Surface Warfare Branch

Director, Politico-Military Policy & Cur-ent
Plans

Director, Strategic & Theater Nuclear
Warfare

Assistant Deputy, Chief of Naval
Operations (Naval Warfare)

Director, Naval Historical Center
Commander, Naval Safety Center
Acting Commander, Naval Safety Center
Deputy Commander, Naval Safety Center

Special Assistant for Legal Affairs, Navy
Recruiting Command

Chief, Bureau of Medicine & Surgery
Commander, Naval Medical Command

Commander, Naval Medical Command
Southwest Region

Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command
Staff Judge Advocate, Naval Air Systems
Command

Commander, Pacific Missile Test Center
Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command

Commander, Pacific Division
Executive Officer, Public Works Center,
Guam

21

25
42

93
167



Item 6

Participation of Appellate Authorities
(Those Responsible for Denials in Whole or Part)

Name Title Number of
Instances
OSDNS
Pete Williams Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public 4
Affairs)
J. Daniel Howard Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public — 4
Affairs)
Fred S. Hoffman Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of 3
Defense (Public Affairs)
Department of the Amy
Matt Reres Special Assistant to the General Counsel 1
(Fiscal Law & Policy)
Darrell Peck Deputy General Counsel (Military and Civil 276
Affairs)
Emest M. Wilcher Acting Deputy General Counsel 1
Jimmy D. Ross Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics 1
Anthony H. Gamboa Deputy General Counsel (Acquisition) 10
Thomas W. Taylor Deputy General Counsel (Installations 3
& Operations)
Thomas F. Kranz Principal Deputy, General Counsel : 44
Department of the Navy
John J. Geer Acting Judge Advocate General (General 42
Law)
J. L. Hoffman, Jr. Acting Judge Advocate General (Civil Law) 80

39



Eo v6zs

“@°I UeTy xeM0 TeuuCSrTe4,,

“SeFaNP IOd ewt3-37ed x0 “ATI-TINZ peubtece Teuucszedy

00682 ‘TS ve" T6E ‘9g 00°0zL$

OFTAMA 043 WORZ PeWeTTOD yuNcEY -g,

69684 ‘os¢ SL°LSS‘E6z$ = ca"PPR este = Se-stz ‘ers AI ATW I su0Tq7eg ‘e600 Tex0r -y
Axewmmsg -,
00°0¢ 00°08 00°0$ 00°0$ Peesecorg eqsenbey eurynoy zo 3205 ‘AI
00°08 OS"Le9 ‘zg 00°00€s 00°08 300 ZeTI0/Buyyrodey Te, --
. e6ej20d WONs ewezy zo butqrodey
00°08 00°08 00-o0e¢ 00°0¢ Azeqmpon) #3009 Suyzeredg 7°10 “a
00°08 os" cece 00°0¢ 00-08 (esz 3@ pegndmon) peeqreso(e)
00°08 00°0¢ 2 0"08 9008 ment}
00°0¢ 00-ost’ 00° 00°0: Tevoyzeredo (1
#3909 SuTjz0dey -y
0780 TeqI0/Supyzodeq -r1r
ep sang 00'ete ‘zzg S9°zE6 ‘Ng 00°zes’s¢ $7890 PeqeTea-ee"D eTI0 JO Terr “gz
€0-vezs 00°eTs 66°Ste ‘ze 00°0¢ Sprocey pequyza -q
sz-sze 00°91 00°0$ 00°08 woTaonpardey eqotzor0 TR “5
06" PTTS 00°tss ‘6g €LeLe'1s 00°zes ‘se woTjoOnposdey -q
Sz-zs¢ 00-veL ‘z1¢ EL zeze 00°0¢ NTE ToIweg zegndeoy -y
$29CD Peqetey-eeny serI0 “17
90°€0€ ‘ose St"tss’eoze = ge-ztz‘este = su-eeo ‘ere #2000 Temereg Teq0r -g
19°090 ‘org St-otL ‘ese Lv'z09 ‘oes SL"9zL ‘zg (asz 30 peandaco) peeqresg =
SP-LST’ss 00068 ‘ss¢ 06 "969 ‘Le 00°L06 '9¢ (s)°5 army (1)-9 Te203, -
‘INZOL ISCO ‘WOORWN
00°08 00-ost‘T¢ 00°02 00°08 SeTITAFIOW 7030 (5)
00°osz ‘tg 00°zSL ‘ng $008 00°s94 ‘zg voyzerederg aay 9 wraemenn
S6°Le9 ‘Es 00° tos ‘org 00° 00" Leze Teaorddy 9 wop3eupprcon (¢:
00°08 00'eve ‘6zg St-e96 ‘zg 00°6es‘z¢ Buystorg 9 neqaey(z)
os-etze 00°PPO ‘OTS S9°90L ‘98 00°9TE ‘TS F ©STE yreeg (1)
vs (e038 eTNpeqDS weg)
Arobeqe fq 93800 anouwiy pesemtaeg “5
00°80 ‘seg OO"TS6 ‘este — oo-see‘HTTe 00-000 ‘Pg (Perepteucg eepers)eqscy zeekiey -g
et » sy To sezeokuey pequatisz -y
£390) Teuuosreg-+
sia wa woa wa 2MYLLA0 £800
SHONSOV ONLLAOITY CO AM CELLS TIOO SHCA ANY S1LS00 HVA UVaNGTTYD

(PawoD) (OT way

70



Agency
Abbreviation

Department of Defense

FOI Appeal and Program Officials
Appellate Program
Authority Agency Head

OSD/JS

Dept Army

Dept Navy

Dept Air Force

DIA

DIS

DLA

DMA

Hon Pete Williams, Asst
Secretary of Defense (Public
Affairs)

Ms. Beth A. Wilkinson,
General Counsel

RADM E. D. Stumbaugh,
USN, Judge Advocate

. Craig S. King,
General Counsel of the Navy

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

LTG John T. Myers, USA,
Director

Mr. John H. van Santen,
Asst Director, Resources

Mr. Gordon Negus,
Executive Director

Mr. John F. Donnelly,
Director

LGen Charles McCausland,
USAF, Director

Mr. Edward Obloy, General
Counsel

MG Gerald G. Watson, USA,
Director

Director, Freedom of
Information and Security Review

Mrs. E. M. Miley, Chief,
Information Branch, Freedom of
Information & Privacy Act Div,
HQUSAISC-P (ASQNS-OP-F)

Mrs. Gwendolyn R. Aitken,
PA/FOIA Branch, Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations

Mrs. Anne Turner, Air Force
Access Programs Manager, Office
of the Secretary of the Air Force

Mrs. Susan Chadick, General
Counsel

Mr. Dave Henshall, Management
Analyst

Mr. Robert C. Hardzog, Chief,
FOIA Office

‘Mr. Dale L. Hartig, Chief,

Information/Public Affairs

COL Gary C. Tucker, USA, Staff
Director, Administration

Mr. David L. Black, Director,
Public Affairs

LTC Samuel D. McKinney, USA,
Public Affairs Officer



ITEM 10(d) Optional
Other Information

Of the 2,385 requests completed in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
following table categorizes the Tequesters by percentage of the total case load:

CATEGORY PERCENTAGE
Business Firms 20
Congress 1
Foreign 1
Individual 31
Law Firms 15
News Media 10
Research 1
Special Interest 13
Students 1
“ Other 7
. —
100
: 73



Item 10(c)

Time Limit Extensions by Agency
. Zz II 6 IIr
Component. Unusual Circumstances Totals
Location Volume Consultation Tavolvement
OsD/JS 25 359 1384 tC) 1,768
DEPT ARMY 39 45 18 ) 102
DEPT NAVY 29 184 28. 3 244
DEPT AIR FORCE 8 693 207 to) 908
DCA 0 106 ) 0 106
DCAA 2 6 7 0 15
DIA ) () 0 (i) )
pDIs 0 Vy) ) Vy) )
DLA 179 177 34 t) 390
DMA 3 2 12 0 17
DNA 1 0 3 0 4
NSA/CSS 1 ) ) 0 1
OIG, DOD t) 0 ti) i) 0
DoD Totals 287 1,572 1,693 3 3,555
|
72



Carl R. Smith

Leo W. Smith

R.D. Smith
Linwood H. Snell
Joseph K. Stapleton
James E. Stoucker

R. Kenneth Srum

Robert E. Tafares
D. W. Thompson
Carl E. Van Pelt

Brian E. Wages
Denis L. Walsh

Claudius E. Watts, IIT

W. E. Weber

Billy L. Williams

Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, HQ US Air
Force

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and
Operations, HQ US Air Force

Commander, San Antonio Air Logistics
Center, Air Force Logistics Command

Assistant Chief of Staff, HQ US Air Forces
in Europe

Deputy Inspector General, Office, Secretary
of the Air Force

Director of Information Management, HQ
Tactical Air Command

Acting Director of Information
Management, HQ Air Force Systems
Command

Vice Commander, Air Force District of
Washington

Chief of Staff, HQ Air Force Logistics
Command :

Deputy Military Assistant to the Secretary
of the Air Force

Chief of Staff, HQ Pacific Air Forces

Vice Commander, Oklahoma City Air
Logistics Center, Air Force Logistics
Command :

Comptroller of the Air Force, HQUS Air
Force

Acting Commander, Air Force Computer
Acquisitions Center, Air Force
Communications Command

Chief, Administrative Communications and
Records Management Division, Directorate

32

46

96

13

28

17

14

26



C. Eugene Reinke

Claude T. Bagley

Kathy Kurke

Alan Shapiro

Kathleen M. Miller

Robert G. Kulvich

Alen K. Ono
Terry L. Hare

Jeramiah C. Moll

David Borland

Ronald H. Griffith

Howard C. Eggleston

Larry G. Lehowicz

William H. Forster

Division Counsel, US Army Corps of
Engineers

Division Counsel, US Army Corps of
Engineers

Assistant Counsel for Research and
Development, US Army Corps of Engineers

Division Counsel, US Amny Corps of
Engineers

Principal Assistant Responsible for
Contracting, US Amny Southern Command
Director, Administrative Operations
Support Directorate, Information Systems

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel
Principal Assistant Responsible for
Contracting, Military Traffic Management
Command

Chief, Plans Division, Office of the Director
for Information Systems for Command,
Control, Communications and Computers

Director, Information Systems Selection
and Acquisition Agency

Deputy Director, Operations and Security ,
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and
Plans

Director, Space and Special Weapons,
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and
Plans

Director of Training, Deputy Chief of Staff
for Operations and Plans

Director, Force Requirements Integration
Deep Operations, Deputy Chief of Staff for
ions and Plans

18

31

107

28

16



D. K. Oermann
J. K. Duncan
G. W. Jones

P. J. Jones

R. M. Franklin

D. R. Oliver, Jr.
D.C. Larson
R.K.U. Kihune
S. A. Rose

E. B. Baker, Jr.

R. C. Newman

S. K. Chadwick

J. Higginson
H. R. Molinengo, I

R. W. Jesberg

Adjutant, Marine Corps Combat
Development Command, Quantico, VA

Management Assistance Officer, Marine
Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC

Staff Judge Advocate, Marine Corps
Recruit Depot, Parris Island, SC

Commanding Officer, Marine Aviation
Training Support Group, Naval Air Station,
Pensacola, FL

Commanding General, Marine Corps
Research Development and Acquisition
Command

Commander Submarine Force, US Pacific
Fleet Representative, West Coast

Commander, Naval Air Force, US Pacific
Fleet

Commander, Naval Surface Force, US
Pacific Fleet

Force Judge Advocate, Naval Air Force, US
Adantic Fleet

Commander Amphibious Group 3

Staff Judge Advocate, Commander Patrol
Wings, US Pacific Fleet

Commander, Naval Surface Group Mid
Pacific i

Commander, Naval Surface Group, Long
Beach, CA

Staff Judge Advocate, Patrol Wings
Atlantic, Brunswick, ME

Commander, Helicopter Wings Adlantic,
Jacksonville, FL

24

50

11

14



C. C. Lautenbacker
D. M. Bennett .

J. H. McCoy

P. E. Misiaszek

J. L. Johnson

J. Lair

T. J. Johnson

D. R. Sackett, Jr.
R. L. Shaffer

J. M. Seeley

W. E. Daeschner

M. E. Chang

J. L. Hoffman, Jr.
F. E. Saalfeld

R. J. Jones

R. Suarez

R. Felton
E. M. Straw
R. L. Wemsman

D.N. Rogers

Deputy and Chief of Staff for Managemeny/
Inspector General, US Pacific Fleet

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and
Plans, US Pacific Fleet

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and
Plans (Acting), US Pacific Fleet

Fleet Judge Advocate, US Naval Forces,
Europe

Commander Second Fleet

Chief of Staff, Sixth Fleet
Commander, US Naval Forces, Marianas
Commander, US Naval Forces, Japan
Auditor General of the Navy

Acting Compwroller of the Navy

Commander, Navy Accounting and Finance
Center

Naval Inspector General

Assistant Judge Advocate General Civil Law
Director, Office of Naval Research
Assistant Vice Chief of Naval Operations

Deputy Director, Command and Control
Systems

Director, Naval Civilian Personnel Center
Director, Materiel Division

Head, Ordnance Materiel Management
Branch

Deputy Assistant Chief of Naval Operations
(Air Warfare)

20

82
44

15



of Information Management, HQ Air
Training Command

Walter A. Willson Assistant General Counsel, Civilian
Personnel and Fiscal Office, Secretary of
the Air Force

Norman C. Wood Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence, HQ

: US Air Force -

J.D. Wood Vice Commander, San Antonio Air Logistics
Center, Air Force Logistics Command

John Wren Attomey Advisor, Office of the Assistant
General Counsel, Office, Secretary of the
Air Force

M. J. Zickert Chief of Staff, HQ Air Force Operational
Test and Evaluation Center

Defense Contract Audit Agency

Sophie Emami Chief, Information Resources Management
Branch

H. Della Bernarda Regional Director, Eastern Region

Robert Matter Regional Director, Northeastern Region

Joel Valenzuela Regional Director, Central Region

Robert Hubbard Regional Director, Southwestern Region

William H. Kraft, Jr. Regional Director, Mid-Auantic Region

Bernard Topf Regional Director, Western Region

Defense inteligence Agency
Robert C. Hardzog Chief, FOLA Office
Defense Investigative Service
Dale L. Hartig Chief, Information and Public Affairs

33

17

14

347

59



Department of the Army

Milton H. Hamilton
Stanley H. Hyman
Clyde E. Jeffcoat
Bruce G. Hall

Virgil A. Richard
Robert H. Buker
Alcide M. LaNoue
Jean V. Smith
Ronald M. Holdaway
William A. Aileo

James C. Gleaseon

Adrian J. Gravelle

Jack F. Lane, Jr.
William J. Lehman

Robert E. Murray

Administrative Assistant to the Secretary
of the Army

Commander, US Arny Intelligence and
Security Command ?
Director, Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Financial Management)

>

Deputy Director, Finance and Accounting,
Assistant Secretary of the Army

Deputy Director, Finance and Accounting,
Assistant Secretary of the Army

Deputy Surgeon General, Office of the
Surgeon General

Deputy Surgeon General, Office of the
Surgeon General

Principal Assistant Responsible for
Contracting, US Amny Medical Research and
Command

Development
Commander, US Anny Legal Service Agency

Chief, Litigation Division, Office of the
Judge Advocate General

Chief, Procurement Fraud Division, US
Judiciary Army Legal Services, Office of the
Judge Advocate General

Acting Commander, US Army Claims
Service

Commander, US Amny Claims Service

Chief, Administrative Law Division, Office
of the Judge Advocate General

Executive Officer, Office of Assistant Judge
Advocate General

15

20
773

18

67
41

11

11
31



8. After all work is completed on a request, and the documents are ready for
release, Components may request payment before forwarding the documents if there is
no payment history on the requester, or if the requester has previously failed to pay a
fee in a timely fashion (i. ¢., within 30 calendar days from the date of the billing). In
the case of the latter, the previsions of subparagraph 6-104, b.7., above, apply.
Components may not hold documents ready for release pending payment from
requesters with a history of prompt payment. oe

9. When Components act under subparagraphs 6-104, 1 through 7, above, the
administrative time limits of the FOIA (i.e., 10 working days from receipt of initial
requests, and 20 working days from receipt of appeals, plus permissible extensions of
these time limits) will begin only after the Component has received a willingness to pay
fees and satisfaction as to category determination, or fee payments (if appropriate).

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 shall notify the requester of the estimated
amount of fees, unless the requester has indicated in advance his or her willingness to
pay fees as high as those anticipated. Such a notice shall 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. .

c. Commercial Requesters, Fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges
for document search, review and duplication when records are requested for commercial
use, Requesters must reasonably describe the records sought (see paragraph 1-507).

1. The term "commercial use" request refers to a request from, or on behalf
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 Tequest is
made. In determining whether a requester properly belongs in this category,
Components must determine the use to which a requester will put the documents
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 assigning the

Tequest 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 duplicating the records sought. Commercial requesters
(unlike other requesters) are not entitled to two hours of free search time, nor 100
free pages of reproduction of documents. Moreover, commercial Tequesters are not
normally entitled to a waiver or reduction of fees based upon an assertion that
disclosure would be in the public interest. However, because use is the exclusive
determining criteria, it is possible to envision a commercial enterprise making a request
that is not for commercial use. It is also possible that a non-profit organization could

59



Other Reasons Cited on Initial Determinations

Ttem 2(c)

Component. Category* * Total
1 2 3 4 5s 6 f]

osD/3s 785 «338 82 72 183 30° 7 1,490

DEPT ARMY 1,649 1,774 1,022 679 520 496 | 6,140

DEPT NAVY 2,501 1,914 516 605 982 287 I 6,804

DEPT AIR FORCE 1,280 3,002 4100-787 813 653 | 6,946

DCA 2 1 0 0 13 o | 16

DCAA 28 15 4 5 84 0 i] 136

DIA 8 132 6 5 1 5 ot 157

prs 13 Cl) 8 to) 0 a7 ] 68

DIA 294 480 129 205 267 101 ! 1,476

DMA 5 17 1 3 1 9 | 36

DNA 7 18 Cy) 6 3 1 | 35

NSA/CSS 107 107 ) 123 23 0 I 360

OIG, DoD 17 20 4 8 5 2 1 56.
7 DoD Totals 6,696 7,817 2,182 2,498 2,694 1,631] 23,718

*Types of Categories

1. Transferred Request

2. Lack of Records

3. Failure of Requester to Reasonably Describe Record
4. Other Failures by Requesters to
5. Request Withdrawn by Req

6. Not an Agency Record .

(See following page for description of each cai

tegory.)

Comply with Published Rules and/or Directives
juester



Donald L. Lamberson

Lester C. Layman, Jr.

Bruce J. Lotzbire
Dominick R. Martinelli
James P. McCarthy

R. P. McCoy

Glenn E. Messerli
David W. Milam

Monte B. Miller
James W. Mock, III

Denis R. Nibbelin
Joseph A. Panza, Jr

F. W. Pillet

C. W. Powell

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Research,
t and Acquisition, Office,

Secretary of the Air Force

Acting Director of Information

Management, HQ Air Force Systems

Command

Chief of Staff, HQ US Air Forces in

Europe

Chief of Staff, Satellite Space Division, Air

Force Systems Command

Deputy Chief of Staff, Programs and
Resources, HQ US Air Force

Vice Commander, HQ Air Force Logistics
Command

Chief of Staff, Munitions Systems
Division, Air Force Systems Command

Chief of Staff, Aeronautical Systems
Division, Air Force Systems Command

The Surgeon General, HQ US Air Force
Acting Chief of Staff, HQ Electronic
Security Command

Director of Information Management, HQ
Air Force Systems Command

Assistant Chief of Staff, HQ US Air Forces
In Europe

Acting Vice » San Antonio Air
Logistics Center, Air Force Logistics
Command

Commander, HQ Air Force Operational Test
and Evaluation Center

30

78

29

80

15

13

16



AWN

3. Review Time

Ie Grade Hourly Rate($)
Clerical E9/GS8 and below 13.25
(Minimum Charge) 8.30

Professional and Executive (To be established at actual hourly rate prior to review: A
minimum charge will be established at 1/2 hourly rates).

d. Other Technical Data Records
Charges for any additional services not specifically provided subparagraph 6-300,

c., above, consistent with DoD Instruction 7230.7 (reference (r)), shall be made by
Components at the following rates:

- Minimum charge for office copy (up to six images)
. Each additional image
- Each typewritten page....................-
Certification and validation with seal,each......

Hand-drawn plots and sketches, each hour or fraction ¢!

66



Item 10(b)*

Calendar Year Costs and Fees Collected

Component. Annual Cost Fees Collected
OsD/38 $1,135, 403.12 $23, 825.55
DEPT ARMY $5,964,375.09 $430,856.58
DEPT NAVY $5,248, 332.44 $482,829.45
DEPT AIR FORCE $4,253,958.75 $250,965.00
DCA $19,215.75 $720.00
DCAA $158, 444.83 $6,391.84
DIA $293,557.75 $1,289.00
prs $50,789.49 $294.03
DIA $1,125, 961.50 $231,717.00
DMA $17,681.23 $1,207.80
DNA $67,672.92 $2, 469.27
NSA/CSS $352, 468.75 $6, 669.00
OIG, DoD $231,894.50 $4,421.00
DoD Totals $18,919, 756.12 $1, 443, 655.52
* Based on reporting procedures established March 16, 1977, to capture a"
estimate" cost of administrating FOIA as amended. The cost outline on the following

Page provides a breakdown by DoD reporting agencies.

68



00°S96‘osz¢
SL°8S6‘ESZ ‘DS

OO'ETT'Iz$

SZ9L3'961S

00°08
SZ"STE ‘seg
00°0¢

00° t9z ‘ESTs

OS"ZtL ‘sou es
OS’ ZeT esse
00° Tee ‘tees

00°0Se ‘Les

00°904 ‘vETS
00°OLT ‘96TS
00° TLE ‘zeze
00°089 ‘OLTS

00°62 ‘ost ‘ze
99°16

S¥°6z8 ‘zens
DP ZEE‘eRz Ss

66°SE8 ‘oETS

SE“SLO’ZETS

zs" 0sz ‘seg
LOOT ‘6S
00°L99 ‘zg
98°ZT0 ES

€9°PL9 ‘SEES
86°Lzz'6g
SL°6z0'9¢
ST°Z9S ‘etze
SL-¥S0‘OOTS

8 '9PL’ON9 DS
O€ PL ‘6z6¢
00°994 ‘99S¢

00°STL‘¥Sg
00°vEO ‘Tes
00°vES ‘TOTS
00°€04 ‘sote
00°09L ‘€0z$

OT Tsz’zLt’eg
To°90T

9s"9S8 ‘ERs
60°SLE‘¥96 ‘sg

69° TS8’9zNg

'S9°6ZE Ses

92°SL9 ‘Sze
88 °0E6 ‘tI¢
GE 992 ‘98

ZT LLY TS

TT ESES

sve
68°66 ‘6g

68°STP ‘ost

0€"6L0'666 ‘as
98°STe ‘666s
TS" 2S€‘6z9¢

ZL" vez" TLe
96°vES ‘06g
LE-ESO'IzT¢
26" L9L‘zETS
bs The etzg

€6 O16 ‘69e ‘eg
eveer

"aI UeUQ TeqIC YeuuoszEgs

J SOTRNP Jog ewya-a7ed zo ewTy-TINz peubyeee TeuucsrTeds

SS"Sze'ezg OFTaNg eqQ worz PeHCTTON qunouy -q
ZT EOW'SET'TS = AT mITqA FT sUTQDeg "e200 TeOL ‘y

Xremmg ‘A
ez°zst ‘ozs Pessecora syeenbey eupanoy zo 3805 “AI
ee-eots #39CD xeq30/buyy20dey Ter “5

e6eq80d or pan
Se ons swe3t 30
00°LT¢ Arequnqon) 93809 Suyzexedg 70730 “a
@C"LTS (sz 3 pegndaoy) peeqrean(e)
ooeee an
00°€9: Tevopzeredo (1!
#3809 Butqrodey -y

O€“9€0 ‘Tze S29CD PEQETCY-e8ED 3ETIO Jo TERE a

T9°069¢ Sprcoey pequyza “a
Sz"69¢ woTaonpordey eqTzoroTR ‘5
€z"Let‘cte voTaonpordey -q
Tz"680'e eurL Yorveg zeyndg -y
#3900 peqetey-esey zeqI9 “rr
2L°OTT'v60'TS #300 Teuwoexeg Tex0r +4
9t°zze ‘etzg (Sz qe peqndeco) preqreng -z
SE-eT9 ‘LOTS (s)°d am (t)-o Te20z -a
‘TWLOx s00 wnoMN
Itzs6 ‘ets S°TITAFIOY 20770 (s)
SZ"PTL ‘98 voraeredera w1ros/eouspuodsexz05(p)
92° LO9 ‘TEs Teaorddy 9 wop3eutpr000(¢)
29° 26L ‘ese Suyetorg 3 mepaey(z)
Te-zss ‘peg FTL yorveg(T)

moan MY Lad XAWN Lama

€2-0L9 ‘zg (pereptewg sepezn) 3909 zeeKueR “a
90°9T sereokuen peyerrjea -y
#3900 Teuuosreg'y

7

8e/050 ANTTIO0 1500

SAIONIOV ONLLYOMTH Cd AM CLIT 100 SGU GNV SISOD UVAA UVENEIVD
(PWD) (QOL UE]

69


J. B. Culpepper

William A. Davidson

John W. Davies

Jack L. Diekman

Larry D. Dillingham

Brett M. Duba

Robert J. Dzur

R. D. Eaglet

Belinda A. East

Larry G. Ellis

Richard L. Ferro

S. M. Figenshu

Charles E. Fox, Jr.

Charles L. Fox

Executive Assistant, Sacramento Air
Logistics Center, Air Force Logistics
Command

Deputy for Security and Investigative
Programs, Office, Secretary of the Air
Force a

Commander, Air Force Computer
Acquisitions Center, Air Force
Communications Command

Director of Information Management, HQ
Tactical Air Command

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff Personnel,
HQUS Air Force

Deputy Director, Office of Legislative
Liaison, Office, Secretary of the Air Force

Director of Information Management, HQ
Tactical Air Command

Assistant Deputy, Office of the Assistant
Secretary (Acquisition) , Office, Secretary
of the Air Force

Director of Information Management, HQ
Air University

Chief of Staff, Air Force Flight Test
Center, Air Force Systems Command

Commander, Air Force Computer
Acquisitions Center, Air Force
Communications Command

Executive Assistant, Sacramento Air
Logistics Center, Air Force Logistics
Command

Vice Commander, Ogden Air Logistics
Center, Air Force Logistics Command

Chief of Staff, HQ Pacific Air Forces

27

46

27

33

48°

14

32

12

30

30



Ttem 1

‘___ Initial Determinations Resulting in Not
Providing All or a Portion of Record Requested
Completed Completed |
Public Reportable | Statutory

Component. Requests Requests* | Exemptions + Other = Total
OSD/Js 2,794 4,244 1,208 1,490 2,698
DEPT ARMY 41,968 43,416 3,206 6,140 9,346
DEPT NAVY 32,228 35,101 2,033 5,552 7,585
DEPT AIR FORCE 26,119 27,912 2,431 6,944 9,375
DCA 532 532 37 16

|
|
I
'
|
DCAA 309 309 | 53 136
DIA 1,172 1,739 | 347 157
prs 258 355 | s9 68
DIA 12,968 17,169 | 173 1,476 1,649
DMA 138 138 «| 13 36
DNA 144 144 | 34 35
NSA/CSS 628 635 | 298 360
OIG, DOD 237 296 | 215 56
DeD Totals 119,492 131,989 | 10,107 22, 466 32,573

* A 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, 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.



Agency Appellate Program

Abbreviation Authority Agency Head

NSA/CSS Mr. Gerald R. Young, Dr. Richard W. Gronet, Director
Deputy Director of Policy a.

OIG, DOD Mr. Morris B. Silverstein, Mr. David C. Stewart, Director,

Asst IG, Criminal
Investigation, Policy and
Oversight

Investigative Support Directorate


James O. Smyser
Stephen D. Smith
D. Craigin Shelton, Jr.
E. Darden Baines

William F. Ward
Paul L. Babiak

Bobby R. Sanders
Edward J. Korte
Anthony L. Wagner
Don E. Lappin

Earl T. Hilts
Terrance Reininger

John E. Metcalf

Wilbur L. Hardy
R. Dennis Duffie

Joseph E. Galbraith

Chief, Administrative Law Division, Office
of the Judge Advocate General

Acting Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office
of the Judge Advocate General

Acting Chief, Office of Administrative
Service, National Guard Bureau

Chief, Advertising Support Center, National
Guard Bureau

Chief, Army Reserve

Commander, US Amny Reserve Personnel
Center

Acting Commander, US Army Reserve
Personnel Center

Command Counsel, US Arny Materiel
Command -

Deputy Command Counsel, US Army
Materiel Command

Chief, General Law/Contract Affairs
Division, US Army Materiel Command

Supervisory Attomey, US Army Materiel
Command

Chief, Flight Test Division, US Army
Materiel Command

Chief Counsel, US Aimy Materiel Command

Director, Crime Records Center, Criminal
Investigation Command

Chief of Staff, US Army Personnel
Command

Director, Civilian Personnel Directorate, US
Amny Personnel Command

16

23

28

22

38

119

21

1040

153

49



Item 2(b)
Statutes Invoked on Initial Determinations

Statute Number of Times by Agency "otal*

OsD/ AIR NSA/OIG |
JS ARMY NAVY FORCE DIA DIA DNA CSS DOD |

10 usc 128 2 5 1
10 usc 130 4 2 6 53 4 2
10 usc 1102 13 1 6
18 usc 793 1
18 USC 794 1
18 USC 798 9
21 USC 1175
22 USC 2751 1
22 USC 2778,Sec 38
31 USC 3729(d) 2
41 USC 423 6
42 USC 290dd-3
42 USC 2161-2165 4
42 USC 2162 8 33
42 USC 4528
50 USC 402 Note, 3 1 277
Section 6,Public
Law 86-36
50 USC 403 (d) (3) 1 #36 98
IG Act of 1978 1
as amended by
Public Law
95-4526

8
7
20

eRe

2 2 100 113
2 -

w
NH FW

w nN
NNeAKRNORN

!
!
!
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
!
1
1
'
|
|
|
!
|
'
|
t
(
I
1
!
|
|
|

f
Agency Totals 40 15 44 87 36 300140477) «a | 727

* Totals may not agree with 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3) exemptions because of cases where
ted.

two or more exemptions were cited.



H. H. Lewis

R. M. Rohrbach
T.C. Kelley

J. E. Henderson

F. D. Schlesinger

G. B. Estes

S. A. Martinelli
R. P. Dillman
D. E. Bottorff
L. M. Smith
C.D. Gee

F. L. Filipiak

P. D. Butcher

J.C. Weaver

L.T. Holloway.

E. A. Lyle

K.C. Malley
E. D. Conner
V. C. Smith

Commanding Officer, Construction
Battalion Center, Gulfport, MS

Commanding Officer, Southern Division

Commanding Officer, Public Works
Center-Naval Air Station, San Diego, CA

Commanding Officer, Engineering Field
Activity, Northwest, Washington

Commanding Officer, Engineering Field

Activity, Southwest

Officer in Charge of Construction, Trident
Commanding Officer, Chesapeake Division
Commanding Officer, Northern Division
Commander, Adantic Division

Commander, Western Division

Vice Commander, Naval Resale and Services
Supply Office :

Commanding Officer, Spare Parts Control
Center

Commander, Military Sealift Command

Commander, Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Command

Vice Commander, Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Command

Command Counsel, Naval.
Telecommunications Command

Director, Strategic Systems Programs
Vice Chief of Naval Education and Training

Vice Chief of Naval Education and Training

22

11

13

19

10
32

19

25



FREEDOM
OF

INFORMATION ACT

PROGRAM
CY 1989

REPORT TO CONGRESS

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



Department of Justice moved for stay of Proceedings pending an outcome of Schwaner
appeal. Plaintiff filed motion for summary judgment 28 April 1989. Case stayed 11
May 1989. Dismissal approved on 19 June 1989,

te CA. No. 88-00602. Plaintiff sought
information concerning priest who dies in Honduras in 1983. Received court order
dismissing Department of Navy on 29 September 1989. oe

CA. No. 3:88-3140-16. Portions of

the Judge Advocate General Manual ([AGMAN) withheld concerning auto accident,
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed appeal at 4th Circuit on 21 June 1989.

v. CA. No. 86-T-1129. Plaintiff sought
documents concerning aircraft mishap of C-131. Decision denying attorney fees
granted 13 February 1989.

CA. No. 88-0046-B. Plaintiff sought information
pertaining to former husband, alleged CIA agent who disappeared over Cuba in 1961.
Small amount of personal information withheld from the NIS report. Case was
dismissed on 7 September 1989.

nt of CA. No. C-1-87-1006. Plaintiff Tequested
personnel, courts martial, incarceration and investigative records. Referral made to
various naval activities. No records found and case dismissed on 12 January 1989,

CA. No. CA3-88-0348. Plaintiff appealed for
copy of JAGMAN (Judge Advocate General Manual) findings of fact. Navy’s motion
for summary judgment granted 18 May 1990.

a ans of America (\ rE avy, CA. No. 860357.
Plaintiff sought all JAG opinions. Motion for summary judgment denied 4 June 1987;
Navy’s cross motion for summary judgment made on 8 May 1988, Judge entered
summary judgment for defendants on 6 September 1988. D.C. Circuit affirmed 30
May 1989. VVOA did not seek certificate. Case closed 11 September 1989.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

magnetic tapes containing the names, Tanks, and military addresses of all Air Force
personnel. Armed Forces Relief and Benefit Association (AFRBA) planned to use the

45



Item 3
Initial Denial Officials by Participation
Name Title Number of
Instances
OSD/JS

Alvin Tucker Deputy Comptroller, Assistant Secretary of 3
Defense, Comptroller

Carl L. Putnam Special Assistant to the Comptroller, 2
Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Comptroller

William Turner Executive Assistant to the Comptroller, 2
Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Comptroller

Cynthia Kendall Deputy Comprroiler, Assistant Secretary of 3
Defense, Comptroller

D. O. Cooke Director, Administration and Management 15

David J. Berteau Deputy Assistant Secretary, Resource 24
Management and Support

William O’Donnell Executive Assistant, Assistant Secretary of 3
Defense, Command , Control,
Communications, & Intelligence

Barbara S. Pope Deputy Assistant Secretary, Family, 2
Support, Education and Safety

David Newhall Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for 4
Health Affairs

Anthony W. Gray Deputy Director, InterAmerican Region 1

Carl W. Ford Deputy Principal Assistant Secretary, 3
International Security Affairs

Lawrence Ropka Deputy Principal Assistant Secretary, 2

International Security Affairs



"OTHER REASONS" DESCRIBED

1, Transferred Request or 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/Federal 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 or 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 FOLA channels.
6. Not tan Agency Record

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



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

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

ii) Educational or = ial Sci fituti ia
Requesters must indicate a willingness to pay duplication charges in excess of 100 Pages
if more 100 pages of records are desired. :

(iii) 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 shall be so informed. -

4. In the situations described by subparagraphs 6-104, 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 that an estimate is often difficult to obtain prior to an actual search,
Tequesters 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
Tequester’s agreed amount shall not be charged without the Tequester’s agreement.

5. No DoD Component may require advance payment of any fee; i. e., payment
before work is commenced or continued on a Tequest, unless the requester has
previously failed to pay fees ina 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 shall
notify the requester of the likely cost and obtain satisfactory assurance of full
Payment where the requester has a history of prompt payments, or Tequire an advance
Payment of an amount up to the full estimated charges in the case of Tequesters with
no history of payment.

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

58



National Security Agency/Central Security Service

Gerald R. Young Deputy Director
John P. Devine Chief of Staff
Office of the inspector General, DOD

Morris B. Silverstein Assistant Inspector General for Criminal
Investigations Policy & Oversight

Stephen A. Whitlock Assistant Inspector General for Special
Programs

41

20



Daniel R. Holoviak

J. W. Hopp
Everett G. Hopson
T. Howard

David W. Hubbard
Ralph E. Hudson
Ronald W. Iverson
Jay J. Jaynes
Chris L. Jefferies
James C. Jeske
Roger A. Jones

Karen R. Keesling

Stephen E. Kelley
Roy G. Kennington

Arthur Y. Kishiyama

Deputy Chief of Staff Information
Management, HQ Air Force Office of
Special Investigations

Commander, Ogden Air Logistics Center,
Air Force Logistics Command .

Chief, General Law Division, Office of the
Judge Advocate General, HQ US Air Force

Commander, Sacramento Air Logistics
Center, Air Force Logistics Command

Director of Information Management, HQ
Air University

Deputy Chief of Staff, HQ Air Force Office
of Special Investigations

Vice Commander, Air Force Military
Personnel Center

Commander, HQ Air Force Technical
Applications Center

Director of Information Management, HQ
Military Airlift Command

Director of Information Management, Air
Force Communications Command

Staff Judge Advocate, HQ Strategic Air
Command

Acting Assistant Secretary Manpower and
Reserve Affairs Office, Secretary of the Air
Force

Chief of Staff, Air Force Communications
Commander, Air Force Engineering and
Services Center

Chief of Staff, Electronic Systems Division
Air Force Systems Command

29

15

14

37
24
180

37

59



lists to mail solicitations to military personnel offering the sale of their group
insurance programs. They stated use of the lists for mailing solicitations was critical
to their ability to attract new members, to minimize administrative expenses, and to
continue to offer it’s services and Programs to military personnel at lower costs.
AFRBA withdrew the FOIA suit and a Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on 19 June
1989,

ae

M; y, i US.D.C.CD., CA. Civ.
No. 88-00602. On 4 February 1988, plaintiff and the family of the late Father
Carney filed a complaint seeking to uncover facts known to the United States
Government about the alleged capture, torture, and execution of Father Carney by
members of the Honduran Armed Forces in September 1983. Air Force participation
in this matter was limited to only a few hundred withheld documents or portions of
documents. On 18 August 1989, pursuant to a joint stipulation, the Air Force was
dismissed as defendant by court order.

js oration 1 ems 1 F, U.S.D.CD.C.,
Civ. No. 89-0032 (SS). On6 January 1989, plaintiff submitter filed a suit to enjoin
the Air Force from releasing information Concerning submitter’s projected staffing
levels and cost per house, which were incorporated into the contract from submitter’s
Proposal. Submitter claimed that release of this information would allow competitors

the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. On 27 February 1989, the court
Concurred with a stipulation for dismissal.

September 1982 between the National Archives and Records Service (NARS), a part of
the General Service Administration, and the United States Air Force. (NARS is the
Predecessor to NARA.) The subject request was sent to NPRC, and, to our
knowledge, has never been transferred to either of the Air Force components named in
the agreement as recipients of such referrals, the Air Force Military Personnel Center
and the Air Reserve Personnel Center. On 16 August 1989, the court dismissed the
case.

46



James H. Frampton
Cecil W. Fry
Bernard A. Gardetto
Samuel W. Gereg

R. F. Gillis

David M. Goodrich
Harvey Greenberg
Frederick P. Hallsworth
George B. Harrison
Eckbert M.
Hartung-Schuster
John E. Haseltine

Wayne R. Heinke

Larry D. Hellikson

Paul F. Heye

Fred M. Hicklin, Jr,

John M. Hoffman

Acting Staff Judge Advocate, HQ Swategic
Air Command

Chief, Information Release Division, HQ Air
Force Office of Special Investigations

Deputy Assistant Comproller, HQ Air
Force Accounting and Finance Center

Acting Chief of Staff, Munitions Systems
Division, Air Force Systems Command

Commander, Warner Robbins Air Logistics
Center, Air Force Logistics Command

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Programs

. and Resources, HQUS Air Force

Acting Staff Judge Advocate, HQ Strategic
Air Command

Director of Information Management, HQ
Air Training Command

Chief of Staff, HQ US Air Forces Europe

Chief of Staff, HQ Air Force Inspection
and Safety Center

Acting Deputy Inspector General, Office,
Secretary of the Air Force

Director of Information Management, Air
Force Space Command

Chief of Staff, Air Force Contract
Management Division, Air Force Systems
Command

Commander, HQ Air Force Service
Information and News Center

Director of Information Management, HQ
Tactical Air Command

Acting Chief of Staff, Air Force Flight
Test Center, Air Force Systems Command

28

53

436

83

75

23

63

13



c. Fee Rates

1. Search Time
(i) Manual Search
Type Grade 2
Clerical E9/GS8 and below 13.25
(Minimum Charge) 8.30

Professional and Executive (To be established at actual hourly rate prior to search. A
minimum charge will be established at 1/2 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 subparagraph 6-300, c.1. (i), above) for the
computer operator and/or programmer determining how to conduct, and subsequently
executing the search will be recorded as part of the computer search.

2. Duplication
Type Cost
Aerial photographs, $2.50
specifications, permits,
charts, blueprints, and
other technical documents
Engineering data (microfilm)
a. Aperture cards
(i Silver duplicate negative, per card 75
When key punched and verified, per card 85
(ii) Diazo duplicate negative, per card : -65
" “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

65


Item 2(a)

Exemptions Invoked on Initial Determinations
Component Exemptions by Number (5 U.S.C. 552(b)) _ Total*
a. 203 40°83 "6 7 8 3 |
osD/3s 865 59 36 «92-196 122 -43—~=~«SC aS
DEPT ARMY 245 522 15 204 634 958 628 0 0 | 3,206
DEPT NAVY 143 343, 44 250 383 573 679 0 0 | 2.418
DEPT AIR FORCE 219 513° 87 635 770 536 922 0 0 | 3/sa2
DCA 5 0 0 32 2 2 0 0 oy 39
DCAA 2 7 0 ©32002200« 7: «(13 0 59
DIA 254 108 3606 8 «611 0 2003 kg 440
Drs 3°33 0 9 20 12 29 0 o | 106
DIA o S 3 120 39 5 8 oO of 180
DMA 4 0 0 6 2 3 0 60 oY 15
DNA a ae. ee a en er ee | 39
NsA/CSS 149-19 292-19 220 277k | 535
OIG, DoD o 4 42 17°116 «70 185 20 (oY 473
Ded Totals 1903 1683 538 1405 2216 2340 2417 0 0 | 12/502
Percent of T
Total 15¢ 138 4% 118 188 198 198 08 o8 | 100%
* Totals may not agree with Item 1 because of cases where two or more
exemptions were cited.


Robert B. Rosenkranz

Louis J. Del Rosso

John J. Yeosock

John R. Greenway

John O. B. Sewall

James D. Smith

William W. Crouch

Daniel W. Christman

John W. Foss

Gordon R. Sullivan

Department of the Navy
E. G. Cammack

W. E. Cohen

P. W. Hanley

Director, Operations, Readiness and
Mobilization, Deputy Chief of Staff for

Operations and Plans

Director, Space and Special Weapons,
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and
Plans :

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans

Director, Strategy, Plans and Policy, Deputy
Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans-

Director, Operations, Readiness and
Mobilization, Deputy Chief of Staff for

Operations and Plans

Director, Operations, Readiness and
Mobilization, Deputy Chief of Staff for

Operations and Plans

Deputy Director of Strategy, Plans and
Policy, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and
Plans

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and
Plans

Director, Contracts & Business
Management, Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (Shipbuilding & Logistics)

Special Assistant for Legal Matters,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Shipbuilding & Logistics)

Public Affairs Officer, US Atlantic Fleet

19

10

11



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 signifi Eth ibuti blic und ding, In
applying this factor, Components must differentiate the relative significance or impact
of the disclosure against the current level of public knowledge, or understanding which
exists before the disclosure. In other words, will disclosure on a current subject of
wide public interest be unique in contributing previously unknown facts, thereby
enhancing public knowledge, or will it basically duplicate what is already known by the

disclosure will likely lead to a significant public understanding of the issue.
Components shall not make value judgments as 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 magnitude i te If the request is
determined to be of a commercial interest, Components should address the magnitude
of that interest to determine if the Tequester’s commercial interest is primary, as
opposed to any secondary personal or non-commercial interest. In addition to
profit-making organizations, individual Persons or other organizations may have a
commercial interest in obtaining certain records. Where it is difficult to determine
whether the requester is of a commercial nature, Components may draw inference from
the requester’s identity and circumstances of the request. In such situations, the
provisions of paragraph 6-104, below, 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 interest.

(i) The primary interest in disclosure, Once a Tequester’s commercial
interest has been determined, Components should then determine if the disclosure
would be primarily in that interest. This Tequires a balancing test between the
commercial interest of the request against any public benefit to be derived as a result
of that disclosure. Where the public interest is served above and beyond that of the
Tequester’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 reduction of fees would be inappropriate. As examples, news media
organizations have a commercial interest as business organizations; however, their
inherent role of disseminating news to the general public can ordinarily be Presumed to
be of a primary interest. Therefore, any commercial interest becomes secondary to the
Primary interest in serving the public. Similarly, scholars writing books or engaged in
other forms of academic research, may recognize a commercial benefit, either directly,
or indirectly (through the institution they represent); however, normally such pursuits

56



b. Computer Search

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

6-202 Duplication
Cost per Page (¢)
BO sed material 02
Office copy 15
Microfiche 25
Computer copies Actual cost of duplicating
(tapes or printouts) the tape or printout (includes

Operator’s time and cost of the tape)

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

Type Grade Hourly Rate($)
Clerical E9/GS8 and below 12
Professional 01-06/GS9-GS/GM15 25
Executive 07/GS/GM16/ES1 and above 45

6-204 Audiovisual Documentary Materials

6-205 Other Records

Direct search and duplication cost for any record not described above shall be
computed in the manner described for audiovigual 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.
Therefore, Components may recover the costs of Special services requested by the
Tequester after agreement has been obtained in writing from the requester to pay for
one or more of the following services:

a. Certifying that records are true copies.
b. Sending records by special methods such as express mail, etc.

63



Item S(a)

Exemptions Invoked on Appeal Determinations
Exemptions by Number (5 U.S.C. 552(b))
Component. Exemptions Total*
, 02 3 eS ST

OsD/38 i ee ee er ee 14

DEPT ARMY 32340 S13, 97 100 56 0 | ag

DEPT NAVY SQ 41 17 0 7 99 73 36 #20 0 | 3ar

DEPT AIR FORCE 2203008 25 110 52 59 0 0 | 306

DCA o 9 09 @ 09 0 0 0 of 0

DCAA ee a ee 7

DIA a ae ee 2 46

prs + 3 0 2 2 0 2 69 oY 10

DIA o 9 0 4 9 2 9 0 0 3 14

DMA 9 0 9 6 0 0 0 6 of 0

DNA ee | 3

NSA/CSS a ee a ee 53

orG, DoD o 2 0 0 7 5 13 9 oj 27

DoD Totals 165 1230 61 54330235 169 0012187

Percent of I

Total isu 1180 58 58 298 218 ise 08 08 1008

* Totals may not agree with item 4 because of cases where two or more

exemptions were cited.

36



Item 5(b)
Statutes Invoked on Appeal Determinations

Ded
Statute Number of Times by Agency Total*
AIR NSA/ |
OSD ARMY NAVY FORCE DNA DIA css |
10 uSC 128 2 ! 2
10 usc 130 8 3 | 11
10 usc 618¢ 1 | 1
10 usc 1102 5 3 1 if 9
18 usc 798 19 | 19
42 use 2011 1 1 1
42 USC 2161-2166 1 | 1
42 USC 2162 (d) 2 2 1 4
50 USC 402 1 23 | 24
Note, Section 6, 1 0
Public Law 86-36 I
50 USC 403(d) (3) 1 5 171 23
50 USC 403(g) 1 1 1
Agency Totals Q 5 17 8 2 5 59 | 96

* Totals may not agree with 5 U.S.C. 552
two or more exemptions were cited.

((b)(3) exemptions because of cases where

37


Chapter VI
FEE SCHEDULE
Section 1

GENERAL PROVISIONS ian

6-100 Authorities -

The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), as 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

and Guidelines, They reflect direct Costs for search, review (in the case of commercial
Tequesters); 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 Instruction 7230.7

Statutory-based fee schedule Programs such as the GPO or NTIS, they inform

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 Tequest. Direct costs include, for example, the
salary of the employee Performing the work (the basic Tate of pay for the employee
Plus 16 percent of that rate to Cover benefits), and the costs of operating duplicating

52



J.W. Bitoff Commander, Combat Logistics Group 1,
Oakland, CA

W. P. Houley Commander, Submarine Group Two, Naval
Submarine Base, Groton, CT

J. W. Partington Commander, Strike-Fighter Wings, Atlantic

A.E. Reider Commander, Naval Base, Philadelphia, PA

J. W. Bitoff Commander, Naval Base, San Francisco,
CA

S. K. Chadwick Commander, Naval Base, Pearl Harbor, HI

W. N. Johnson Commander, Naval Base, Charleston, SC

J. W. Adams Commander, Naval Base, San Diego, CA

Department of the Air Force

Edward Ackermann Acting Director of Information
Management, HQ Military Airlift Command

Gary M. Alkire Commander, Air Force Commissary Service

JR. Allen Commander, Oklahoma City Air Logistics
Center, Air Force Logistics Command

Ty J. Andersen Director of Information Management, HQ
Tactical Air Command

Eddie L. Anderson Director of Information Management, HQ
Military Airlift Command

Henry C. Aulwarm Vice Commander, Air Force Engineering and

oe Services Center

E. Darden Baines Chief, Admin Services Division, National
Guard Bureau

Wayne E. Balthun Director of Information Management, HQ
Air University

Virgil F. Batten Chief of Staff, HQ Air Force Reserves

25

10

42

17

14

24

16



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."

(i) The subject of the request, Components should analyze whether the

subject matter of the request involves issues which will significantly contribute to the
public understanding of the operations or activities of the Department of Defense.
Requests for records in the possession of the Department of Defense which were
originated by non-government organizations and are Sought for their intrinsic content,
rather than informative value will likely not contribute to public understanding of the
operations or activities of the Department of Defense. An example of such records
might be press clippings, magazine articles, or records forwarding a particular opinion
or concern 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 Department of Defense; however, the age of a particular record shall
not be the sole criteria for denying relative significance under this factor. It is Possible
to envisage an informative issue concerning the current activities of the Department of
Defense, 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
Department of Defense.

(ii) i i i i i This factor
requires a close analysis of the substantive Contents of a record, or portion of the
Tecord, to determine whether disclosure is meaningful, and shall inform the public on
the operations or activities of the Department of Defense. While the subject of a
Tequest may contain information which concerns Operations or activities of the
Department of Defense, it may not always hold 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 Department of Defense must be approached with caution, and carefully

(iii) js

The key element in determining the applicability
of this factor is whether disclosure will inform, or have the potential to inform the
public, rather than simply the individual requester or small 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 dissertation work, or indigency are insufficient



Section 3

COLLECTION OF FEES AND FEE-RATES FOR TECHNICAL DATA

6-300 Fees for Technical Data a

a. Technical data, other than technical data that discloses critical technology with
military or space application, if required to be released under the FOIA, shall be released
after the person requesting such technical data pays all reasonable costs attributed to
search, duplication and review of the records to be released. Technical data, as used in
this Section, means recorded information, regardless 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. DoD
Components shall 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
from which the costs were incurred in complying with request. All reasonable costs as
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 accordance with commercial rates in the local geographical area. In the
absence of a known market value, charges shail be based on Tecovery of full costs to
the Federal Government. The full costs shall include all direct and indirect costs to
conduct the search and to duplicate the records Tesponsive to the request. This cost is
to be differentiated from the direct costs allowable under Section 2 of this Chapter
for other types of information released under the FOIA.

b. Waiver, Components shall waive the Payment of costs required in
subparagraph 6-300, 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
Tequire the citizen or corporation to Pay a deposit in an amount equal to not more
than the cost of complying with the tequest, which will be refunded upon submission
of an offer by the citizen or corporation;

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

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

64



Agency
Abbreviation

Department of Defense

Reporting Agencies
Under the Freedom of Information Act
Agency
Agency Head.

OSD/JS

Dept Army
Dept Navy

Dept Air Force
DCA

DCAA
DIA

DIS
DLA

DMA
DNA

NSA/CSS

OIG, DOD

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

Office of the Inspector General,
Department of Defense

Hon Richard B. Cheney

Hon Michael P. W. Stone

Hon H. Lawrence
Garrett, III

Hon Donald B. Rice

LTG John T. Myers,
USA

Mr. William H. Reed

LTG Harry E. Soyster,
USA

Mr. John Donnelly

LGen Charles
McCausland, USAF

MGen Robert F.
Durkin, USAF

MG Gerald G. Watson,
USA

VADM William A,
Studeman, USN

Hon Susan Crawford



fraud investigation. Defendant claimed exemption 5 and 7d. The court denied the
plaintiff's request.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

creta

al Electric Co n (FI V, Frank Carluccj ry of fal.

. 2d 1530 (D.C. Cir. 1989). On7 February 1989. U.S. Court of Appeals for ie
District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the summary judgment of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia that the Navy’s release of Federal
Electric’s allegedly Proprietary and confidential cost data was lawful and did not harm
Federal Electric in competing for a new government contract, The court reached its
decision based on a finding that the release did not Prejudice FEC in a solicitation it
was competing for and reached no conclusion as to whether the Navy complied with
applicable statutes and regulations.

y. CA. No. 88-091 CRR. In a 30 October 1989
decision, the court ruled that the Navy properly withheld audits under Exemption 5
which protects the deliberative Process.

CA. No. 88-0094, filed 5 January 1989,
D.C.D.C. Decision involving NAVSEA withholding under exemption 7, "compiled for
law enforcement Purposes.” Processing one contract every two weeks (12 contracts).
NAVSEA has made Tesponsive releasable documents available. Raytheon will come in
some time after 1 January 1990 to review and copy.

y, CA. No. 89-2481 JHG, filed 5 September 1989,
D.C.D.C. Case involved the Naval Air Systems Command’s Proposed release of bottom
line pricing by Raytheon of options under Sidewinder, AIM-9R Missile contract.
Plaintiff ’s motion for summary judgment granted on 22 December 1989. Based upon
a finding that release of these bottom-line prices Poses a likelihood of substantial
competitive harm to Raytheon, summary judgment was entered in favor of Raytheon.

CA. No. 86-2284 SS. Judge Stanley
Sporkin. Solar Turbines Sought release of documents under FOIA for use in a
multimillion dollar claim. Consent Order agreeing to $12,000.00 in attomey fees and
Costs and to processing of FOIA Tequest for any five RACER documents within four
months from réceipt was signed by parties and Judge Sporkin on 12 May 1989.

A y Relief and Bene ssociation (AFRBA) v, Departmer ise, et,
al, CA. No. 89-0689, 15 March 1989. A requested lists of service Personnel
from ail services, Requests denied under (b)(2). Plaintiff never appealed Navy denial.

44



Item7
Court Opinions and Actions Taken

Development. et.al., C. A. 87-1548,
Tequested copies of DoD FOIA Annual

U.S.D.C. D.C,, November 17, 1989 pees

Reports since inception of the Report. Defendant advised that the Reports had been
made available to Congress and were also in the Public Reading Room. Defendant
considered this to be in the public domain, and therefore denied plaintiff's Tequest for a
fee waiver. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on November 16, 1989. Decision

to appeal pending.

A y. De of je Ai ce 2 he Navy - 89-0689,
U.S.D.C. D.C., March 15, 1989, Plaintiff filed suit for defendant’s refusal to release
servicemens’ names and duty addresses, Information was withheld pursuant to 5 USC
552 (b)(2) and (b)(6). Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed suit June 19, 1989,

National Security Archive v, DoD, C. A. 86-03454 U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. D.C.,
August 1988. Plaintiff appealed district court’s decision that the National Security
Archive was not entitled to Preferred fee Category status as an educational or news
media requester. On July 28, 1989, appeals court Tuled that the Archive was not an
educational institution, but was entitled to preferred fee Category status as a
Tepresentative of the news media. Petition of certiorari filed (Supreme Court docket
89-1204).

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

v. No 89-4219 (E.D. La.). On 12 October
1989, plaintiff, a retired attorney, filed suit to compel release of all records of a
therapeutic project concerning plaintiff’s involuntary telepathic ansmissions (“thought

Projections"). Plaintiff alleges that the project was initiated in 1944 and continues to

42



ITEM 1a)
Availability of Records

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

NONE

67



George Bader

Daniel F. Janssen

Deborah Vinson

Lois Ryan

J.T. Kavanaugh

Mervyn E. Hampton

Arthur Fajans

Nicholas Krawciw

Fred Gordon

Frederick C. Smith

David Hilty

Seth Cropsey——

William Kahn

Geneese Gottschalk

Principal Director, European and NATO
Policy, Under Secretary of Defense, Policy

Assistant Director Management Operations,
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization

Associate Director, Resource Management
Director, Strategic Defense Initiative
Organization

Director, Support Services, Strategic
Defense Initiative Organization

Senior Military Assistant, Under Secretary
of Defense, Acquisition

Assistant for Administration, Under
Secretary of Defense, Policy

Director, Security Plans and Programs,
Under Secretary of Defense, Policy

Director of NATO Policy, Under Secretary
of Defense, Policy

Director Inter American Region, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Inter
American Affairs

Director, Near East and South Asian
Affairs, Assistant Secretary of Defense,
International Security Affairs

Assistant Director, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Near East and South
Asian Affairs

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Special
Operations Low Intensity Conflict

Director, Theater Nuclear Forces Policy,
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Executive Assistant, Operational Test and
Evaluation

12

28



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. [f
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 Teceiving 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 Tequest, finds it
necessary to refer the request to a subordinate office, another DoD Component, or

d. For the Purposes of these restrictions, the word "pages" refers to Paper copies
of a standard size, which will normally be "8 1/2 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 or 100 Pages of
computer printout; however, might meet the terms of the restriction.

unit, input-output devices, and memory capacity equal $24.00 (two hours of equivalent
Search at the clerical level), amounts of Computer costs in excess of that amount are
chargeable as computer search time.

6-103 Fee Waivers

b. When assessable costs for an FOIA Tequest total $15.00 or less, fees Shall be
waived automatically for all Tequesters, regardless of category.

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

54



make a request that is for commercial use. Such situations must be addressed on a
case-by-case basis.

d. i ituti Fees shall be limited to only reasonable
standard charges for document duplication (excluding charges for the first 100 Pages)
when the request is made by an educational institution whose purpose is scholarly
research. Requesters must reasonably describe the Tecords sought (see paragrap.c
1-507). The term "educational institution" refers to a pre-school, a public or private
elementary or secondary school, an institution of graduate high education, an
institution of undergraduate higher education, an institution of professional education,
and an institution of vocational education, which operates a program or programs of
scholarly research.

sought (see paragraph 5-107). The term “non-commercial scientific institution" Tefers
to an institution that is not Operated on a "commercial" basis as defined in
subparagraph 6-104, c., above, and which is operated solely for the purpose of
conducting scientific research, the results of which are not intended to Promote any
Particular product or industry.

f. Components shall provide documents to requesters in subparagraphs 6-104, d. ~
and e., above, for the cost of duplication alone, excluding charges for the first 100
Pages. To be eligible for inclusion in these Categories, requesters must show that the
Tequest is being made under the auspices of a qualifying institution and that the records
are not sought for commercial use, but in furtherance of scholarly (from an
educational institution) or scientific (from a non-commercial scientific institution)
Tesearch.

1. The term "representative of the news media" refers to any person actively
gathering news for an entity that is organized and Operated to publish or broadcast
news to the public. The term "news" means information that is about current events
or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities
include television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large, and publishers
of periodicals (but only in those instances when they can qualify as disseminators of
"news") who make their products available for purchase or subscription by the general

methods of news delivery evolve (e. g., electronic dissemination of newspapers through

telecommunications services), such alternative media would be included in this category.
In the case of "freelance" journalists, they may be regarded as working for a news

60



Donald DeCort

Joseph C. Lutz
Joseph Quincannon
G. A. Stansell
Wayne R. Heinke
Bartley Lagomarsino
Jospeh Blackstead
Carl Akins

J. P. Hoar
J. W. McGuinness

Stevan B. Richards
Frank Haynes.
Richard R. Lane

Terry G. Kemp

Legal Advisor, Special Operations
Command, Joint Service Operations
Command

Chief of Staff, Headquarters, US Special
Operations Command.

Deputy Chief of Staff, Naval Special
Warfare Command :

Director of Information Management, US
Space Command

Director of Information Management, US
Space

Deputy Director, Department of Defense
Dependent Schools

Director, Department of Defense Dependent
Schools - Germany Region

Director, Department of Defense Dependent
Schools - Adantic Region

Deputy Director, Civilian Health and Medical
Program of the Uniformed Services

Chief of Staff, US Central Command
Deputy Chief of Staff, US Central
Command

Director, Manpower, Personnel and
Support, US Pacific Command

Acting Director, Manpower, Personnel and
Support, US Pacific Command

Acting Director, Manpower, Personnel and
Support, US Pacific Command

Attorney-Advisor, US Southern Command

14

32

512

105



Table of Contents

DoD Reporting Agencies Under the Freedom of Information Act
DoD Freedom of Information Act Appeal and Program Officials

Item 1 - Initial Determinations Resulting in not Providing All or a Portion
of Records Requested

Item 2 - Initial Determinations

(a) Exemptions Invoked

(b) Statutes Invoked

(c) Other Reasons

Description of "Other Reasons"

Item 3 - Initial Denial Officials by Participation
Item 4 - Number of Appeals and Results
Item 5 - Appeal Determination

(a) Exemptions Invoked

(b) Statues Invoked
(c) Other Reasons

Item 6 - Participation of Appellate Authorities
Item 7 - Court Opinions and Action Taken
Item 8 - Freedom of Information Act Implementation Rules and Regulations
Item 9- Fee Schedule and Fees Collected
Item 10 - Administrative Efforts
(a) Availability of Records
(b) Calendar Year Costs and Fees Collected

(c) Time Limit Extensions by Agency
(d) Other Information

bo) OYAN

35

36
38
39
42

31

67
68
72
73



Item 4

Number of Appeals and Results

Component Number of Appeals * total

Granted Granted Denied |

din Part I
osD/3s 3 7 4 14
DEPT ARMY 75 46 191 I 312
DEPT NAVY 21 76 176~—COI 273
DEPT AIR FORCE 15 40 178 1 233
DCA t) 0 0 I 0
DCAA 4 2 2 1 8
DIA 1 13 18 if 32
prs 0 0 10 1 10
DIA 4 5 | 18
DMA 0 C) 1 | 1
DNA ) ) 3 t 3
NSA/CSS 1 4 21 i} 26
OIG, DoD t) 7 3 i} 10
DeD Totals 124 200 616 1 940

35


R. W. West, Jr.

C. J. Vanarsdall, IIT
J.C. Runyon

W. A. Coomes

C. M. LeGrand
R. E. Coyle

R. A. Spofford
H. L. Stoller
R. J. Davis

J. E. Koehr

W. G. Carson

D.G. Amey
E. J. Godfrey
BH Haka
J. E. Cassity
J. P. Brickley

D. V. Shuter

Superintendent, Naval Postgraduate School
Deputy to the President, Naval War College
Inspector General, Naval Intelligence
Command

Deputy Commander for Plans, Policy and
Security Programs, Naval Investigative
Service Command

Legal Counsel, Naval Military Personnel
Command

Legal Counsel, Naval Military Personnel -
Command

Deputy for Operations, US Naval Academy
Judge Advocate, Naval Reserve Force
Commandant, Naval District Washington
Commander, Naval Oceanography Command

Deputy Chief of Staff (Installation and
Logistics), HQ Marine Corps

Director, Manpower Management
Information Division, HQ Marine Corps

Commanding General, Headquarters Fleet
Marine Force Pacific, Camp Smith, HI

Commanding General, Marine Corps Base,
Camp Pendleton, CA

Commanding General, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Albany, GA

Commanding General, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Barstow, CA

Commander, Marine Corps Air Bases
Western Area, El Toro, CA

23

23

639

98

197

10

13

11

26

39

19



CY 1989 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
ANNUAL REPORT

SUMMARY

A total of 119,492 public requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) were processed during 1989 by the Department of Defense. This, compared
with an average annual case load of 74,393 for the years 1977-1988, the reporting
period since the act was amended, is Toughly 61% above average. Three thousand, five
hundred and fifty-five cases required time limit extensions - 287 for location, 1572
for volume, 1693 for consultation and 3 for court involvement.

The Department of Defense initially denied 10,107 out of 119,492 requests on the
basis of FOIA exemptions. Of those initially denied requests, 15% were for classified
information; 13% for internal rules and Practices; 4% for statutory exemption; 11%
for proprietary data; 18% for deliberative material; 19% for privacy information; and
19% for law enforcement investigations. An additional 22,466 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 940 appeals of denied Tequests, 124 of which were fully granted, 200
Partially granted, and 616 denied.

The total DoD operating costs associated with these requests were $18,919,756.12.
The average cost of Processing a single case during 1989 was approximately $158. Fee
collections for records provided to the public amounted to $1,443,655.52.

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



i y. H U.S.D.C. KS. Civ. No. 87-1213-C. Suit was

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

v, Civ No. 87-5141, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. FOIA/PA case
where plaintiff asked for all information on herself. DIA searched records with
negative results. DIA granted summary judgment in June 1989,

US. v. Jack Terrell, Civ No. 88-6097, U.S.D.C. Southern District of Florida. Christic
Institute filed a request for information concerning CMAG (Civilian Military Assistance
Group). DIA on initial Tesponse located no record. DIA separated from suit in
September 1988,

i i i ‘Civ. No. 83-4916 (ED PA), Suit filed 11
October 1983 upon denial of appeal for requested DTIC tecords. On appeal, 3rd

Civ. No. 87-3432, U.S.D.C.D.C. Suit filed 17
December 1987 after denial of appeal for DRMS sales records seized by DCIS. By
decision dated 12 January 1989, district court upheld the agency’s denial.

Civ. No. 89-0968 (U.S.D.C. WD. MO.). Individual filed suit

Thomas Filmore v, DLA,
On 23 October 1989: case dismissed voluntarily without Prejudice on 27 November
1989.

47



L.G, Pugh

James D. Quinn

Daniel S. Rak

Joseph C. Ramsey, Jr

Stephen F. Ramsey
Donald A. Riggs

Thomas E. Ruffini

Norman F. Samuelson

James G. Sanders

D. Craigin Shelton, Jr.

Jay D. Sherman

John F. Shiner

Larry G. Shockley

Elwyn D. Shumway

Charles P. Skipton

Executive Assistant, Warner Robins Air
Logistics Center, HQ Air Force Logistics
Command

Executive Director, US Air Force Scientific
Advisory Board, HQ US Air Force

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Acquisition

Management and Policy, Office, Secretary
of the Air Force

Commander, HQ Air Reserve Personnel
Center

Chief of Staff, HQ US Air Force Academy

Deputy Inspector General, Office, Secretary
of the Air Force

Chief of Staff, HQ Air Force Office of
Special Investigations

Deputy Director of Information
Management, HQ Air Training Command

Deputy Surgeon General, HQUS Air Force
Acting Chief, Administrative Services
Division, National Guard Bureau

Vice Commander, HQ Air Force Technical
Applications Center

Deputy Chief, Office of Air Force History,
HQUS Air Force

Acting Deputy Director, Office of
Legislative Liaison, Office, Secretary of the
Air Force

Chief of Staff, Air Force Military Personnel
Center

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics
and Engineering, HQ US Air Force

31

36

15

15

15

61



R. C. Berkley Acting Judge Advocate General (General

Law)
H. D. Bohaboy Acting Judge Advocate General (Operations
& Manpower)
L. L. Lamade General Counsel
C.S. King General Counsel
H. J. Wilcox Acting General Counsel
Department of the Air Force
Steven A. Thompson Deputy Admin Assistant, Office, Secretary
of the Air Force
William A. Davidson Acting Deputy Admin Assistant, Office,
Secretary of the Air Force
Defense Contract Audit Agency
John van Santan Assistant Director Resources
Defense Intelligence Agency
Gordon Negus Executive Director
Lewis Prombain Assistant Executive Director
Defense Investigative Service
John F. Donnelly Director
Defense Logistics Agency
Charles McCausland Director
Brady M. Cole Deputy Director
Charles R. Henry Deputy Director Acquisition Management
Defense Nuclear Agency
J. T. Parker Director

40

33

81

10

200

18

28

10



Billy J. Bingham

John H. Birkern
Michael P. Blaisdell
Gene Boesch

William P. Bowden
Charles G. Boyd
Virginia L. Brassfield
Wesley Brown
Anthony J. Burshnick
H. Cronin Byrd

H. N. Campbell
Thomas A. Cardwell, III
Robert D. Clark

Roscoe M. Coughill

Harry W. Crooks

Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff, 11
Intelligence, HQ US Air Force

Deputy Commander for Resources, HQ Air 22
Force Intelligence Agency

Chief of Staff, HQ US Air Force Academy + - 4
Acting Deputy for Security and - 4

Investigative Programs Office, Secretary of
the Air Force

Commander, Oklahoma City Air Logistics 7
Center, Air Force Logistics Command

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff Plans and 2
Operations, HQ US Air Force

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 1
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)

Chief of Staff, HQ Electronic Security 31
Command

Deputy Chief of Staff Plans and Operations, 1
HQUS Air Force

Acting Inspector General, Office, Secretary 1
of the Air Force

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff Logistics 3
and Engineering, HQUS Air Force

Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff Studies and 1
Analysis, HQ US Air Force

Vice Commander, HQ Alaskan Air Command 26
Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff Systems 2

for Command, Control, Communications
and Computers, HQUS Air Force

Acting Chief of Staff Munitions Systems 1
Division, Air Force Systems Command

26



James H. Binns
James W. Morrison
William A. Wright

Francis E. Cartwright

D. B. Hansen

W. B. Bergman III

Eleanor Spector

W. M. McDonald

Roy S. Woods, Jr.

C. E. Adolph
Craig I. Fields
Richard L. Dunn
Ronnie H. Register

Vincent D. Kern

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense, International Security Policy

Acting Assistant Deputy Under Secretary,
Soviet and East European Affairs

Military Assistant, Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Production and Logistics

Senior Military Assistant, Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Production and
Logistics

Director, Base Closure and Utilities
Division, Assistant Secretary of Defense

Director, Logistics, Planning and Analysis,
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Production
and Logistics

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Procurement,

Assistant Secretary of Defense, Production
and Logistics

Director, Freedom of Information and
Security Review

Chief, Congressional Actions and Internal
Reports, Directorate of Programs
Integration

Deputy Director, Defense Research and
Engineering, Operational Test & Evaluation

Director, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency

General Counsel, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency

Deputy Director for Management, Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency

Director, Africa Region, Assistant

Secretary of Defense, International Security
Affairs

10

12

12

10



6-106 Effect of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (P, L, 97-365)

The Debt Collection Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-365) provides for a minimum annual
Tate of interest to be charged on overdue debts owed the Federal Government.
Components may levy this interest penalty for any fees that remain outstanding 30
calendar days from the date of billing (the first demand notice) to the Tequester of the
amount owed. The interest rate shall be as prescribed in 31 U. S. C. 3717 (reference
(ff). Components should verify the current interest Tate 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 Tespective 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 shall be used to Compute the search, review (in
the case of commercial requesters) and duplication costs associated with Processing a
given FOIA request. Costs shall be computed on time actually spent. Neither
time-based nor dollar-based minimum charges for search, review and duplication are

Section 2

COLLECTION OF FEES AND FEE RATES

6-200 Collection of Fees

Collection of fees will be made at the time of providing the documents to the
Tequester or recipient when the requester Specifically states that the costs involved
shall be acceptable or acceptable up to a 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

6-201 Search Time
a. Manual Search
Type Grade Hourly Rate ($)
Clerical E9/GS8 and below 12
Professional 01-06/GS9-GS/GM15 25
Executive 07/GS/GM16/ES1 and above 45

62



NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE

M: Civ. No. 88-00602-MRP (C.D.CA). On
11 August 1986, plaintiff filed suit seeking records on U.S. foreign policy regarding
Cuba. Motion for Summary Judgment was heard on 4 January 1989. The court
dismissed NSA, along with six other defendants, from the the case. .

y, Civ. No. 87-3349-NHJ. (D.D.C.) Plaintiff filed
suit seeking World War II information from several federal agencies. Judicial relief was
sought from NSA’s initial denial of his fee waiver request. After becoming aware of
his credentials as a journalist, the fee waiver was granted in March 1989. The court
dismissed NSA from the case 22 May 1989.

y, i Civ. No. H-85-85-6322
(S.D.TX.). Plaintiff sought records on U.S. foreign policy regarding Cuba. The court
granted the Government’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in January 1989
which dismissed NSA from the case.

48



COMPONENT DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION

CFR. REF,

DMA

DNA

NSA/CSS

OIG/DOD

DMA Instruction 5400.7

DNA Instruction 5400.7B

NSA/CSS Regulation 10-9, 9 Feb 82

Office of the Inspector General Freedom
of Information Act Program

50

32 CFR 295, 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

Pending final rule. 32
CFR 284, Vol 54,
No. 51, page 11237,
17 Mar 89



Ronald Adams

James P. Brown
Leon J. Schachter
John Stremple
Marilee Fitzgerald
Glenn A. Rudd
Charles W. Brown
Stephen D. Bryen
George Cole

James F. Lemon
Paul W. Hanley

John E. Millward

Willian J. Ruberry

Walter J. Bryde, Jr

Thomas P. Barrett

Executive Assistant to the Director,
Directorate Defense Research and

Engineering

Director, Directorate for Industrial
Security Clearance Review

Acting Director, Directorate for Industrial
Security Clearance Review

Director, Department of Defense Dependent
Schools

a.

Staffing Branch, Department of Defense
Dependent Schools

Deputy Director, Defense Security
i Agency

Director, Defense Security Assistance
Consultant, Defense Technology Security
Administration

The Executive Secretary of the Department
of Defense, Executive Secretary

Executive Secretary, Department of Defense

Public Affairs Officer/FOIA Officer, US
Atlantic Fleet

Commander, Caribbean Regional Operations
Center, Key West, FL

Vice Chairman, Armed Services Board of
Contract Appeals

Director, Personnel and Administration, US
European Command

Director Personnel and Administration, US
European Command

13

22

14

18

18