March 15, 2012
Ms. Kimberly Walton, Assistant Administrator
Office of Civil Rights & Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler
Engagement
Transportation Security Administration
601 South 12th Street
East Building, E7-121S
Arlington, VA 20598-6033
Appeal on FOIA Case Numbers: TSA-08-0573 and TSA-10-0415
Dear Ms. Walton,
This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.
On June 19, 2008 (TSA-08-0573), I filed a Freedom of Information Act
request for all records on disciplinary actions taken against federal air
marshals. After nearly two years had passed, I filed another request on
March 19, 2010 (TSA-10-0415) for “a copy of the Federal Air Marshal
Service misconduct database managed by the operational integrity
division.”
Nearly another two years passed before I finally received a response to
both requests dated January 20, 2012. The letter said the records “are
being released in their entirety.”
However, the records were grossly incomplete, which I would only later
find out after extensive conversations with and misstatements by the
FOIA office. The records I received on paper (despite a specific request
to receive them electronically) contained only two columns – allegation
and disposition. I immediately followed up with Aeron Pineiro, the
operations manager at the FOIA office, because I believed that I did not
receive the full database, as there were no dates, field offices, etc.
included.

 Ms. Pineiro informed me she would look into it and responded on
February 29, 2012, that the database did indeed contain only two
columns. When I pressed her on this, she replied on March 1, 2012,
that the program office told her they didn’t include the dates because I
did not specifically ask for them.
It has been 939 business days since my request was received by your
agency. This period clearly exceeds the 20 days provided by the
statute. The TSA has established a pattern of ignoring FOIA rules
regarding deadlines and the requested format for the records. Now,
they are also trying to ignore the content of the request by placing a
new narrow interpretation on the records I am seeking, which has
already been clarified in numerous conversations that took place years
ago.
I hope that you will review the requests and agree that this new
interpretation is semantics and a parsing of words.
Although my 2008 request stated that I was specifically looking for the
incident, allegation, narrative, and disciplinary action, it is clear that I
did not mean this to be exclusive, but instead illustrative of what kind
of information I was looking for. This was included as a good-faith effort
to avoid bogging down the FOIA office with dealing with names of air
marshals, which I realize are protected from disclosure.
The first sentence says “I am requesting records on disciplinary
actions taken against federal air marshals since Jan. 1, 2007.” There is
no limitation on “records” and I clearly mention my interest in dates.
The second sentence begins with the phrase “each incident,” again
making it clear that I am seeking all records. The phrase that the TSA
program office appears to be relying on in denying me the additional
database columns is in support of the next sentence, “I realize that
names of air marshals are protected from disclosure but believe that
the integrity of the service and how discipline is handled is of great
public interest in light of the recent reports by KPRC-TV in Houston,”
which dealt with several air marshals being arrested for drunken
driving.
In my 2010 request, I again included a note stating that I was not
seeking identifying information about air marshals but rather “merely
seeking data on the allegations of misconduct that have occurred and
the resulting disciplinary actions.” Again, it is clear that I included this
statement as a good-faith effort to avoid bogging down the FOIA office
clearly excluding information that the FOIA exempts. That is why I
asked for “a copy of the Federal Air Marshal Service misconduct
database” and not a report, query or segment from the database.

 In addition, I have had numerous conversations over the last four years
with various FOIA officers clarifying that I was looking for all records
and/or the whole database on federal air marshal misconduct, save for
air marshal names or anything that was specifically exempt under
FOIA.
My conversations began in June 2008 with Kevin Janet as I periodically
checked in on the status of the initial request. After not receiving a
response for more than a year, I received a letter from the TSA FOIA
office in October 2009 asking if I was still interested in the records. I
wrote back that I was. After receiving no response again, I filed a new
FOIA request in March 2010 asking for the misconduct database
maintained by the operational integrity division.
I finally reached Amanda Statz at the FOIA office in March 2010 to
check the status of the 2008 request and was told that she hoped to
have the information in the next few days to complete the processing.
This was followed up with more conversations over the past two years
with the TSA FOIA office regarding the 2008 and 2010 requests.
In each conversation, it was clear that I was seeking all records and/or
the whole database on air marshal misconduct and not just two
columns. This is why I was surprised when new FOIA officers reviewed
the request and provided only two columns. If the new FOIA officers
had any confusion as to what records I was seeking, they could have
simply contacted me to clarify as previous FOIA officers had already
done on this very same FOIA request.
I ask that you remedy this situation by providing me with an electronic
copy of the misconduct database including all rows and columns unless
there is a FOIA exemption for withholding a specific column or row. In
an effort to resolve this issue, I am glad to negotiate for a narrower set
of fields to expedite the request.
I have waited patiently for nearly four years now as the FOIA office has
ignored nearly all deadlines required by law. Moreover, such columns
as the date are important to provide context to the data that has
already been received and in order for the public to adequately assess
government policy and operations, which is the underlying intent of the
Freedom of Information Act.
As I have made this request in the capacity of a journalist and this
information is of timely value, I would appreciate your expediting the
consideration of my appeal in every way possible. In any case, I will

 expect to receive your decision within 20 business days, as required by
the statute.
Please contact me if you have further questions so that we may
resolve this issue.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely yours,

Michael Grabell
Reporter, ProPublica
(917) 512-0217

One Exchange Plaza 23rd Floor New York, New York
10006 212-514-5250 propublica.org