A. Title, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted with questions about the report:
Write to: Chief, Program Management Division
Telephone: (703) 695-4773
Name of Incumbent: LTC D. E. Campbell, U. S. Army.
B. The electronic address (Universal Resource Line, URL) for this report is:
b. Department of the Navy: Dept Navy. The United States Marine Corps, USMC, is a part of the Department of the Navy.
c. Department of the Air Force: Dept Air Force.
a. Defense Contract Audit Agency: DCAA.
3. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Combatant Commands, and Defense Agencies/Activities not listed above: OSD/JS.
b. Referrals. The request was referred to another DoD Component or Federal Agency for action.
c. Withdrawn. The request was withdrawn by the requester.
d. Fee-Related Reason. The requester is unwilling to pay fees associated with the request; the requester is past due in the payment of fees associated with a previous FOIA request; or the requester disagrees with a fee estimate.
e. Records not Reasonably Described. The request could not be acted upon since the record had not been described with sufficient particularity to enable the DoD Component to locate it by conducting a reasonable search.
f. Not a Proper FOIA Request for Some Other Reason. The requester has failed unreasonably to comply with legitimate procedural requirements which are not not fee-related.
g. Not an Agency Record. The requested information was not a record within the meaning of the FOIA.
h. Duplicate Request. A request for the same information by the same requester. This includes identical requests received via different means (e.g., electronic mail, facsimile, mail, courier) at the same or different times.
i. Other. Any other reason a requester does not comply with published rules, other than those mentioned above.
2. Initial Request: A request to a federal agency for access to records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
3. Appeal: A request to a federal agency asking that it review at a higher administrative level a full denial or partial denial of access to records under the Freedom of Information Act, or any other FOIA determination such as a matter pertaining to fees.
4. Processed Request or Appeal: A request or appeal for which an agency has taken a final action on the request or the appeal in all respects.
5. Multi-track processing: A system in which simple requests requiring relatively minimal review are placed in one processing track and more voluminous and complex requests are placed in one or more other tracks. Requests in each track are processed on a first-in/first out basis. A requester who has an urgent need for records may request expedited processing (see below).
6. Expedited processing: An agency will process a FOIA request on an expedited basis when a requester has shown an exceptional need or urgency for the records which warrants prioritization of his or her request over other requests that were made earlier.
7. Simple request: A FOIA request that an agency using multi-track processing places in its fastest (nonexpedited) track based on the volume and/or simplicity of records requested.
8. Complex request: A FOIA request that an agency using multi-track processing places in a slower track based on the volume and/or complexity of records requested.
9. Grant: An agency decision to disclose all records in full in response to a FOIA request.
10. Partial grant: An agency decision to disclose a record in part in response to a FOIA request, deleting information determined to be exempt under one or more of the FOIA's exemptions; or a decision to disclose some records in their entireties, but to withhold others in whole or in part.
11. Denial: An agency decision not to release any part of a record or records in response to a FOIA request because all the information in the requested records is determined by the agency to be exempt under one or more of the FOIA's exemptions, or for some procedural reason (such as because no record is located in response to a FOIA request).
12. Time limits: The time period in the Freedom of Information Act for an agency to respond to a FOIA request (ordinarily 20 working days from proper receipt of a "perfected" FOIA request).
13. "Perfected" request: A FOIA request for records which adequately describes the records sought, which has been received by the FOIA office of the agency or agency component in possession of the records, and for which there is no remaining question about the payment of applicable fees.
14. Exemption 3 statute: A separate federal statute prohibiting the disclosure of a certain type of information and authorizing its with holding under FOIA subsection (b)(3).
15. Median number: The middle, not average, number. For example, of 3, 7, and 14, the median number is 7.
16. Average number: The number obtained by dividing the sum of a group of numbers by the quantity of numbers in the group. For example, of 3, 7, and 14, the average number is 8.
Item IV. Endnotes
1 Dubin v. Department of the Treasury, 555 F. Supp. 408, 412 (N.D. Ga. 1981), aff'd, 697 F.2d 1093 (11th Cir. 1983) (unpublished table decision); NTEU v. OPM, No. 76-695, slip op. at 4 (D.D.C. July 9, 1979).
2 Chenkin v. Department of the Army, No. 93-494, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20907, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 1994), aff'd, 61 F.3d 894 (3d Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision); Colonial Trading Corp. v. Department of the Navy, 735 F. Supp. 429, 431 (D.D.C. 1990); see also American Friends Serv. Comm. v. DOD, No. 83-4916, 1986 WL 10659, at *4(E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 831 F.2d 441 (3d Cir. 1987).
3 Winter v. NSA, 569 F. Supp. 545, 548 (S.D. Cal. 1983); see also Gilmore v. NSA, No. C 92-3646, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7694, at **26-27 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 1993) (finding that information on cryptography currently used by NSA "integrally related" to function and activity of intelligence gathering and thus protected).
4 Church of Scientology v. IRS, 484 U.S. 9, 15 (1987); Aronson v. IRS, 973 F.2d 962, 964-65 (1st Cir. 1992) (finding that IRS lawfully exercised discretion to withhold street addresses pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(m)(1)); Long v. IRS, 891 F.2d 222, 224 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that deletion of taxpayers' identification does not alter confidentiality of § 6103 information); DeSalvo v. IRS, 861 F.2d 1217, 1221 (10th Cir. 1988); Grasso v. IRS, 785 F.2d 70, 77 (3d Cir. 1986); Long v. IRS, 742 F.2d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 1984); Ryan v. ATF, 715 F.2d 644, 645 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Currie v. IRS, 704 F.2d 523, 527-28 (11th Cir. 1983); Willamette Indus. v. United States, 689 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1982); Barney v. IRS, 618 F.2d 1268, 1274 n.15 (8th Cir. 1980) (dictum); Chamberlain v. Kurtz, 589 F.2d 827, 843 (5th Cir. 1979).
5 Meeropol v. Smith, No. 75-1121, slip op. at 53-55 (D.D.C. Feb. 29, 1984), aff'd in relevant part & remanded in part sub nom. Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1986). But see General Elec. Co. v. NRC, 750 F.2d 1394, 1401 (7th Cir. 1984) (concluding that provision concerning technical information furnished by license applicants lacked sufficient specificity to qualify as Exemption 3 statute).
6 Founding Church of Scientology v. NSA, 610 F.2d 824, 828 (D.C. Cir. 1979); Hayden v. NSA, 452 F. Supp. 247,252 (D.D.C. 1978), aff'd, 608 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
7 CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 167 (1985); see also Minier v. CIA, 88 F.3d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding that agency properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records concerning deceased person's alleged employment relationship with CIA); Maynard v. CIA, 986 F.2d 547, 554 (1st Cir. 1993) (stating that under § 403(d)(3) it is responsibility of Director of CIA to determine whether sources or methods should be disclosed); Krikorian v. Department of State, 984 F.2d 461, 465 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (same); Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755, 761 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (same); Hunt v. CIA, 981 F.2d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding agency's "Glomar" response to request on foreign national, because acknowledgement of any records would reveal sources and methods); Knight v. CIA, 872 F.2d 660, 663 (8th Cir. 1989) (same); Levy v. CIA, No. 95-1276, slip op. at 14-17 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 1995) (same), aff'd, No. 96-5004 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 15, 1997); Roman v. Dailey, No. 97-1164, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6708, at **10-11 (D.D.C. May 11, 1998) (concluding that agency properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to agency personnel and spy satellite programs); Blazy v. Tenet, 979 F. Supp. 10, 23-24 (D.D.C. 1997) (protecting intelligence sources and methods located in requester's personnel file), summary affirmance granted, No. 97-5330 (D.C. Cir. May 12, 1998); Andrade v. CIA, No. 95-1215, 1997 WL 527347, at **3-5 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 1997) (holding intelligence methods used in assessing employee fitness protectible); Earth Pledge Found. v. CIA, 988 F. Supp. 623, 627 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding agency's "Glomar" response proper because acknowledgement of records would generate "danger of revealing sources"), aff'd per curiam, 128 F.3d 788 (2d Cir. 1997) (unpublished table decision); Campbell v. United States Dep't of Justice, No. 89-CV-3016, 1996 WL 554511, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 1996) ("CIA director is to be afforded ‘great deference’ by courts determining the propriety of nondisclosure of intelligence sources"); cf. Linder v. DOD, 133 F.3d 17, 25 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("[C]ourts must give `great deference' to the Director of Central Intelligence's determination that a classified document could reveal intelligence sources and methods and endanger national security.") (non-FOIA case).
8 Minier, 88 F.3d at 801; Roman, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6708, at **10-11; Blazy, 979 F. Supp. at 23-24; Earth Pledge Found., 988 F. Supp. at 627-28; Campbell, 1996 WL 554511, at *6; Kronisch v. United States, No. 83-2458, 1995 WL 303625, at **4-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 1995); Hunsberger v. CIA, No. 92-2186, slip op. at 3 (D.D.C. Apr. 5, 1995); Rothschild v. CIA, No. 91-1314, 1992 WL 71393, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 1992); Lawyers Comm. for Human Rights v. INS, 721 F. Supp. 552, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); Pfeiffer v. CIA, 721 F. Supp. 337, 341-42 (D.D.C. 1989).
9 Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, No. 89-142, slip op. at 30-35 (D.D.C. July 28, 1995) (protecting information from export license application under Export Administration Act as Exemption 3 statute even though statute had lapsed and its provisions were extended by executive order); Africa Fund v. Mosbacher, No. 92 Civ. 289, 1993 WL 183736, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 1993) (holding that Export Administration Act protection applied to agency denial made after Act expired and before subsequent reextension); Lessner v. United States Dep't of Commerce, 827 F.2d 1333, 1336-37 (9th Cir. 1987) (construing statute as effective in 1987).
A. Numbers of initial requests.
B. Disposition of initial requests.
* Note: See table later.
A. Median processing time for requests processed during the year (FY 1998).
B. Status of pending requests (as of: 30 Sep 98).
A. Staffing levels (expressed in work years).
B. Total costs (including staff and all resources).
C. Additional Department of Defense FOIA documents and hyperlinks, including a copy of this report in portable document file format, can be found by accessing the following Universal Resource Locator (URL):