The Foreign Service Journal, September 2008

have worked in this field for years, even decades. There are even indi- viduals who have done such FOIA review work as WAEs for longer than their active-duty careers. Any given request can elicit a small number of documents or a massive stack of paper in the hundreds or even thousands of pages. Computerized search software based on key words and adapted for FOIA processing can generate huge amounts of material. One of the most useful elements of the software program (when it works correctly) informs the reviewer whether a document has already been released and, if denied in whole or part, the particulars (date, rationale) for the denial. To save time and effort, prior to embarking on a major case, a review- er (particularly if the case is “old”) may seek to determine whether the requester still desires the material. There have been instances when the requester had completely forgotten the request, or the project for which it was requested had long gone by the wayside. Each FOIA case is handled by two separate officers to provide the equiv- alent of check and double-check. The second, generally a more senior or experienced officer, reviews for accu- racy and compliance with the declas- sification rules and procedures. In examining a case, each element of each document requires a decision: release in full; deny in full; release in part. For each of the latter two cate- gories, a specific reason must be cited. The most obvious substantive reasons to deny material are that it might still cause damage or that the sources can- not be revealed. Another is that the contents are elements of the “deliber- ative process.” Recent material (within five years, as a rule of thumb, or longer if the issue is sensitive) is referred to the country desk for its agreement if release is recommended. As a desk officer, I recall refusing to clear for release an assortment of telegrams written by an ambassador — even though that individual was the requester. It was an easy call: the individuals cited in the telegrams were still politically active and would not have appreciated their relation- ship with the U.S. government being made public. Some documents are particularly complex, with multiple agencies and even foreign governments having equities in the information that need to be consulted regarding whether they will agree to its release. Having finished recommenda- tions, the initial reviewer transfers the case to a senior reviewer, who again checks the decisions on each docu- ment. As the referral process can be time-consuming, the requester is pro- vided with the information that can be immediately released and a status report of what has been denied or referred to other agencies. Thus, the results of a request can dribble back to the requester over a period of months. A denial by an FOIA reviewer, however, does not necessarily end the case. Every requester enjoys a right of appeal, and it is a far from hopeless venture. In FY 2007, 110 appeals were processed (of 390 received). S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 61 Even release of the most complete material, however, does not necessarily quell controversy.