NASA FOIA 21-HQ-F-00500

. 2
Your client’s interest in the information concerns her investigation into the U. S.
Government’s reaction to events that were deemed confidential forty years ago. You assert that
“the public’s interest now lies in the historical significance of these events, including an
evaluation of government decisions, such as a ‘confidential’ classification . . . . There was a
reason that NASA and other federal agencies, including the military, took an active interest in
events like the one in Kecksburg and it is now time to evaluate why.” Moreover, you seek
“access to the identities of the people involved. . .”, stating that it is a crucial part of your
client’s research and evaluation. To support your request, you cite case law holding that “FOIA
Exemption 6 does not justify the withholding of information regarding individuals, particularly
where the privacy interest is minimal and the public interest in disclosure is strong. The
balance of interests under Exemption 6 ‘instructs the court to tilt the balance in favor of
disclosure.’ Getman v. NLRB, 450 F.2d 670, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1971.)”
Finally, you make an additional request for documents that were not incorporated in your
client’s initial letter to the FOIA office. These include “(1) a description of the search
conducted regarding her request and any documentation (e.g., e-mails) related thereto; (2) a
copy of NASA’s draft affidavit on FOIA searches or, in lieu thereof, a copy of affidavits that
have been filed on NASA’s behalf in FOIA disputes; (3) copies of the relevant information
management manuals, memoranda, etc., that would have governed the transfer or disposal of
documentation during the early 1960s, and including the transfer of the files listed in Exhibit 3;
(4) copies of the relevant information management manuals, memoranda, etc., that would have
governed the retention, transfer or disposal of FOIA requests at the time that any earlier request
was processed; (5) all documentation relating to NASA’s processing of any earlier request(s),
and (6) copies of instructional or procedural memoranda, manuals, etc., relating to the process
for conducting investigations, such as ‘fragology,’ that were in force in the 1960s.”
Your appeal has been reviewed pursuant to NASA FOIA regulations, 14 CFR Part 1206.
This process has involved a review of the initial determination, the search conducted at NASA
Headquarters, and your statement of appeal. I conclude that, based on the circumstances of this
particular FOIA process, the search may not have been fully adequate, especially because only
the NASA History Office was asked to conduct a search on behalf of the Agency. I will,
therefore, remand this case to the FOIA Office and direct that the original request be sent to all
NASA Centers for further processing in accordance with this appeal.
With respect to the issue you raised about previous FOIA requestors that, in the past, were
provided information on the same subject, a new search was conducted in the NASA
Headquarters FOIA Office for all responsive records. These documents will be reviewed for
releasability under the FOIA, and the Headquarters FOIA Office will issue an initial
determination in this regard. One of these documents, which I am releasing to you herewith,
is a letter dated March 28, 1996, from the Washington National Records Center to the NASA
Records Manager. It states that the National Records Center could not locate the two boxes
identified as fragology files, with the accession number 255-68A-2062 (and included in your
appeal letter as documents that should have been located as responsive to your client’s request).
However, NASA will initiate a new search to include these NASA files that may be located at
the Washington National Records Center or other NASA archives. These searches will be
conducted on an expedited basis, to the degree possible, given that retrieval of any historical
documents from NASA archives, stored in remote locations, takes additional time.