August 1, 2018
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Office of Assistant Secretary for Information & Technology
810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
(005R1C) VACO
Washington, D.C. 20420
E-mail: vacofoiaservice@va.gov
Re:

Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear FOIA Officer:
I write on behalf of Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”), a nonprofit strategic
oversight group committed to ensuring that government decision-making is open, honest, and fair.1
In carrying out its mission, CoA Institute uses investigative and legal tools to educate the public
about the importance of government transparency and accountability.
On July 25, 2018, a group of eight Democratic Senators, led by Ranking Member Jon Tester
of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, wrote to then-Acting Secretary Peter O’Rourke
to express concern over the possible politicization of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) at
the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”).2 These senators requested various records concerning
the involvement of political appointees in the FOIA decision-making process, as well as other
“sensitive review”-type policies. The senators concurrently wrote to the VA’s Inspector General to
request “an assessment of the role that political appointees play in the FOIA process, what types of
oversight exist to ensure employees are providing all responsive material, and who makes
determinations about what is or is not responsive to a request[.]”3
Despite previous claims by the VA Office of Inspector General that there has not been
regular political interference leading to the delay of FOIA requests,4 the public has long known of
internal practices at the VA that likely contribute to FOIA politicization. In August 2007, for
1

See CAUSE OF ACTION INST., About, www.causeofaction.org/about (last visited Aug. 1, 2018).

Letter from Hon. Jon Tester, Ranking Member, U.S. S. Comm. on Veterans’ Affairs, et al, to Peter O’Rourke, Acting
Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (July 25, 2018) (attached as Exhibit 1); see also Office of Sen. Jon Tester, Press Release,
Tester Doubles Down on Fight to Protect Veterans from Political Agendas at VA (July 25, 2018), available at
http://bit.ly/2LIIMIl.
3 Letter from Hon. Jon Tester, Ranking Member, U.S. S. Comm. on Veterans’ Affairs, et al, to Hon. Michael J. Missal,
Inspector Gen., Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (July 25, 2018) (attached as Exhibit 2).
4 See Letters from Hon. George J. Opfer, Inspector Gen., Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, to Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Ranking Member, U.S. S. Comm. on Finance, & Hon. Darrell Issa, U.S. H.R. Oversight & Gov’t Reform Comm. (Sept.
9, 2010) (on file with CoA Inst.); see also Letter from Linda A. Halliday, Deputy Inspector Gen., Dep’t of Veterans
Affairs, to Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, U.S. S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs (Sept. 18, 2015)
(on file with CoA Inst.).
2

 VA FOIA
August 1, 2018
Page 2
example, the agency issued a directive concerning the processing of “high visibility” or “sensitive”
FOIA requests that implicate potentially embarrassing or newsworthy records. 5 Intra-agency
politicization only worsened during the Obama Administration.6 An October 2013 memorandum
instructed all Central Office components to clear FOIA responses and productions through Jim
Horan, Director of the VA FOIA Service, who is still part of the leadership in the Office of Privacy
and Records Management.7 This clearance process imposed a “temporary requirement” for front
office review—although it is unknown whether the practice continues—and entailed a “sensitivity
determination” leading to unnamed “specific procedures.”8
Although “sensitive review”—including the heightened scrutiny of FOIA requests from
news media requesters and the pre-disclosure review of potentially embarrassing records by political
appointees—is not a new phenomenon, that such a practice continues to exist, at the VA and other
agencies, raises questions of fundamental fairness and impartial administration of the FOIA.
Pursuant to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, CoA Institute requests access to following agency
records for the period of January 20, 2017 to the present10:
9

1. All records, including but not limited to communications, memoranda, guidelines,
procedures, processing metrics, and tracking tables, concerning “sensitive review” FOIA
processes, including any process for the handling of “politically charged” or “high visibility”
requests or those submitted by representatives of the news media. The scope of this item
includes any records defining or describing the sensitive review process.
2. All communications between (i) the VA’s Office of Privacy and Records Management,
Office of FOIA Service, and/or Office of General Counsel, and (ii) the Office of the White

5 See Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, Assistant Sec’y for Info. & Tech., “Processing High-Visibility/Sensitive FOIA Requests
(WebCIMS 380797) (Aug. 30, 2007).
6 See Eliana Johnson, The Obama Administration’s Newly Political Approach to FOIAs, NAT’L REV. (June 9, 2015),
http://bit.ly/2Lz2Mcl (“Agency documents also indicated that . . . the Department of Veterans Affairs has ha[s]
sensitive-review procedures, though it’s unclear whether political appointees are involved in the process.”); see also CoA
Inst., Press Release, “CoA Institute Sues Treasury for ‘Sensitive’ Records Concealed from Public Disclosure” (Nov. 1,
2016), available at https://coainst.org/2NZ598U (“According to information obtained from various agency inspectors
general, similar sensitive review policies have been used at . . . the Department of Veterans Affairs.”).
7 Mem. from Stephen W. Warren, Exec. in Charge & Chief Info. Officer for Info. & Tech., Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, to
Under Sec’ys, Assistant Sec’ys, and Other Key Officials regarding Release of FOIA Information (VA IQ Folder
7413064) (Oct. 31, 2013) (attached as Exhibit 3); see also “Leadership,” Office of Privacy & Records Mgmt., DEP’T OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS, http://bit.ly/2OzlzWH (last visited Aug. 1, 2018).
8 Id.
9 For purposes of this request, the term “record” means the entirety of the record any portion of which contains
responsive information. See Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, 830 F.3d 667, 677
(D.C. Cir. 2016) (admonishing agency for withholding information as “non-responsive” because “nothing in the statute
suggests that the agency may parse a responsive record to redact specific information within it even if none of the
statutory exemptions shields that information from disclosure”).

The term “present” should be construed as the date on which the VA begins its search for responsive records.
See Pub. Citizen v. Dep’t of State, 276 F.3d 634 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

10

 VA FOIA
August 1, 2018
Page 3
House Counsel concerning the processing of FOIA requests containing “White House
equities.”11
3. All communications between (i) the VA Office of Privacy and Records Management, Office
of FOIA Service, and/or Office of General Counsel, and (ii) the VA Office of Inspector
General concerning any audit, investigation, inspection, evaluation, or inquiry into the
involvement of non-career officials in the FOIA process (e.g., reviewing or approving
proposed FOIA productions, etc.). The time period for this item of the request is September
1, 2015 to the present.
As set forth in the VA’s FOIA regulations, CoA Institute respectfully requests that portions of this
request be referred to other VA Central Office components, including the Office of the General
Counsel or the Office of Inspector General, as necessary.12
Request for a Public Interest Fee Waiver
CoA Institute requests a waiver of any and all applicable fees. The FOIA requires the VA to
furnish the requested records without or at reduced charge if “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 and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the
requester.”13
In this case, the requested records will unquestionably shed light on the “operations or
activities of the government,” namely, the VA’s policies for handling “sensitive,” “high visibility,” or
“politically charged” FOIA requests. Such “sensitive review” FOIA processes have led to
impermissible politicization at other agencies, and they have prompted multiple congressional
investigations and FOIA lawsuits.14 The public has a right to view these records. Disclosure is
likely to “contribute significantly” to public understanding because, to date, the records have not

See White House FOIA Obstruction, COA INST., http://bit.ly/2r0hBub (last visited Aug. 1, 2018); see also Mem. from
Gregory Craig, Counsel to the President, The White House, to All Exec. Dep’t & Agency Gen. Counsels regarding
Document Requests (Apr. 15, 2009), available at https://coainst.org/2uz2NWT.

11

See 38 C.F.R. § 1.555(a), (c).
5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii); 38 C.F.R. § 1.561(n)(2)(i)–(ii); see also Cause of Action v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 799 F.3d 1108,
1115–19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discussing proper application of public-interest fee waiver test).
12
13

See, e.g., Johnson, supra note 6; COA INST., GRADING THE GOVERNMENT: HOW THE WHITE HOUSE TARGETS
DOCUMENT REQUESTERS (Mar. 18, 2014), available at http://coainst.org/2AEWiE2; see also EPA responds to House OGR
Democrats, arguing FOIA “sensitive review” originated with the Obama Administration, COA INST. (July 19, 2018),
https://coainst.org/2O2NMUJ; EPA Chief of Staff describes agency’s sensitive review process for “politically charged” FOIA requests,
COA INST. (July 16, 2018), https://coainst.org/2muw1BU; New Records Reveal the FAA Has Been Tracking FOIA Media
Requesters, COA INST. (May 16, 2018), https://coainst.org/2mZ6aSO; NOAA Records Demonstrate Expansion of Sensitive
Review FOIA Procedures, COA INST. (Mar. 12, 2018), http://coainst.org/2tFnLp5; Politicizing FOIA review at the EPA and
Interior, COA INST. (Dec. 19, 2017), https://coainst.org/2O1MucF; DHS Watchdog Claims Political Appointees No Longer
Politicizing FOIA, COA INST. (Oct. 20, 2017), http://coainst.org/2j9dbT7; CIA too busy for transparency, COA INST. (Aug.
11, 2016), http://coainst.org/2iDH0qO; White House and Treasury Department Politicize FOIA, COA INST. (June 24, 2013),
http://coainst.org/2A4igPr; FOIA Follies: HUD Flags Sensitive Freedom of Information Act Requests for Extra Scrutiny; Political
Appointees Involved, COA INST. (July 31, 2013), http://coainst.org/2kbV4Ix.
14

 VA FOIA
August 1, 2018
Page 4
been made publicly available. CoA Institute intends to educate the interested public about the
processing of “sensitive” FOIA requests at the VA.
CoA Institute has the intent and ability to make the results of this request available to a
reasonably broad public audience through various media. CoA Institute staff has considerable
experience and expertise in other areas of government oversight, investigative reporting, and federal
public interest litigation. Its professionals will analyze the information responsive to this request,
use their editorial skills to turn raw materials into a distinct work, and intend to share the resulting
analysis with the public, whether through CoA Institute’s regularly published online newsletter,
memoranda, reports, or press releases.15 Additionally, CoA Institute is a non-profit organization as
defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and, accordingly, it has no
commercial interest in making this request.
Request to Be Classified as a Representative of the News Media
For fee purposes, CoA Institute also qualifies as a “representative of the news media.”16 As
the D.C. Circuit has held, the “representative of the news media” test is properly focused on the
requestor, not the specific request at issue. 17 CoA Institute satisfies this test because it gathers
information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn raw
materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. Although it is not required
by the statute, CoA Institute gathers the news it regularly publishes from a variety of sources,
including FOIA requests, whistleblowers/insiders, and scholarly works. CoA Institute does not
merely make raw information available to the public, but rather distributes distinct work product,
including articles, blog posts, investigative reports, newsletters, and congressional testimony and
statements for the record. 18 These distinct works are distributed to the public through various
media, including CoA Institute’s website, Twitter, and Facebook. CoA Institute also provides news
updates to subscribers via e-mail.
15 See Cause of Action, 799 F.3d at 1125–26 (holding that public interest advocacy organizations may partner with others to
disseminate their work).
16

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II); 38 C.F.R. § 1.561(b)(7).

17

See Cause of Action, 799 F.3d at 1121.

COA INST., EVADING OVERSIGHT: THE ORIGINS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE IRM CLAIM THAT ITS RULES DO NOT
HAVE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT (2018), http://coainst.org/2mgpYAu; CoA Inst., Documents Reveal Special Interest Groups
Lobbied HUD for Mortgage Settlement Funds (Aug. 8, 2017), http://coainst.org/2yLaTyF; CoA Inst., The GSA Has No
Records on its New Policy for Congressional Oversight Requests (July 26, 2017), http://coainst.org/2eHooVq; COA INST.,
SENSITIVE CASE REPORTS: A HIDDEN CAUSE OF THE IRS TARGETING SCANDAL (2017), http://coainst.org/2y0fbOH;
COA INST., INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: PRESIDENTIAL ACCESS TO TAXPAYER INFORMATION (2016),
http://coainst.org/2d7qTRY; James Valvo, There is No Tenth Exemption (Aug. 17, 2016), http://coainst.org/2doJhBt;
CoA Inst., CIA too busy for transparency (Aug. 11, 2016), http://coainst.org/2mtzhhP; Hearing on Watchdogs Needed: Top
Government Investigator Positions Left Unfilled for Years Before the S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs, 114th Cong. (June
3, 2015) (statement of Daniel Z. Epstein, Cause of Action Inst.), http://coainst.org/2mrwHr1; COA INST., 2015
GRADING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT CARD (2015), http://coainst.org/2as088a; Hearing on Potential Reforms to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform, 114th Cong. (Feb. 27, 2015) (statement
of Daniel Z. Epstein, Exec. Dir., Cause of Action Inst.), http://coainst.org/2lLsph8; Cause of Action Launches Online
Resource: ExecutiveBranchEarmarks.com (Sept. 8, 2014), http://coainst.org/2aJ8sm5; COA INST., GRADING THE
GOVERNMENT: HOW THE WHITE HOUSE TARGETS DOCUMENT REQUESTERS (2014), http://coainst.org/2aFWxUZ; see
also CoA Institute, Newsletters, http://causeofaction.org/media/news/newsletter/.
18

 VA FOIA
August 1, 2018
Page 5
The statutory definition of a “representative of the news media” contemplates that
organizations such as CoA Institute, which electronically disseminate information and publications
via “alternative media[,] shall be considered to be news-media entities.”19 In light of the foregoing,
numerous federal agencies have appropriately recognized CoA Institute’s news media status in
connection with its FOIA requests.20
Record Preservation Requirement
CoA Institute requests that the disclosure officer responsible for the processing of this
request issue an immediate hold on all records responsive, or potentially responsive, to this request,
so as to prevent their disposal until such time as a final determination has been issued on the request
and any administrative remedies for appeal have been exhausted. It is unlawful for an agency to
destroy or dispose of any record subject to a FOIA request.21
Record Production and Contact Information
In an effort to facilitate document review, please provide the responsive documents in
electronic form in lieu of a paper production. If a certain portion of responsive records can be
produced more readily, CoA Institute requests that those records be produced first and the
remaining records be produced on a rolling basis as circumstances permit.
If you have any questions about this request, please contact me by telephone at (202) 4994232 or by e-mail at ryan.mulvey@causeofaction.org. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
____________________________
RYAN P. MULVEY
COUNSEL

19

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).

See, e.g., FOIA Request No. 2018-HQFO-01215, Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (July 10, 2018); FOIA Request No.
CFA2018-05, U.S. Comm’n for Fine Arts (June 25, 2018); FOIA Request F-133-18, U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev. (Apr. 11,
2018); FOIA Request 18-HQ-F-487, Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin. (Apr. 11, 2018); FOIA Request 1403076-000,
Fed. Bureau of Investigation (Apr. 11, 2018); FOIA Request 201800050F, Exp.-Imp. Bank (Apr. 11, 2018); FOIA
Request 2016-11-008, Dep’t of the Treasury (Nov. 7, 2016); FOIA Requests OS-2017-00057 & OS-2017-00060, Dep’t
of Interior (Oct. 31, 2016); FOIA Request 2017-00497, Office of Personnel Mgmt. (Oct. 21, 2016); FOIA Request
092320167031, Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs. (Oct. 17, 2016); FOIA Request 17-00054-F, Dep’t of Educ. (Oct.
6, 2016); FOIA Request DOC-OS-2016-001753, Dept. of Commerce (Sept. 27, 2016); FOIA Request 2016-366-F,
Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau (Aug. 11, 2016); FOIA Request F-2016-09406, Dept. of State (Aug. 11, 2016).

20

21 See 36 C.F.R. § 1230.3(b) (“Unlawful or accidental destruction (also called unauthorized destruction) means . . .
disposal of a record subject to a FOIA request, litigation hold, or any other hold requirement to retain the records.”); 38
C.F.R. § 1.560; Chambers v. Dep’t of the Interior, 568 F.3d 998, 1004–05 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“[A]n agency is not shielded from
liability if it intentionally transfers or destroys a document after it has been requested under the FOIA or the Privacy
Act.”); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 34 F. Supp. 2d 28, 41–44 (D.D.C. 1998).

 EXHIBIT
1

JON TESTER, MONTANA,
CHAIRMAN RANKING MEMBER
JERRY MORAN. KANSAS PATTY MURRAY, WASHINGTON
JOHN BODZMAN, ARKANSAS BERNARD SANDERS, VERMONT
SHERROD BROWN. OHIO

DEAN HELLER, NEVADA
BILL CASSIDY. LOUISIANA RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, CONNECTICUT
MAZIE K. HIRONO, HAWAII

MIKE ROUNDS, SOUTH DAKOTA 
1 JOE MANCHIN WEST VIRGINIA
antaraorsrarw 93"] Eli 
COMMITTEE ON AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510

JOHNNY ISAKSON, GEORGIA,

July 25, 2018

Peter O?Rourke

Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20420

Acting Secretary O?Rourke,

As a Department that frequently highlights its transparency, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) must also place a high priority on timely responses to Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests from the media, veterans, and other citizens. As you know, this process must be
free from in?uence or interference by political appointees. Documents, emails from government
servers, and other material that is responsive must be provided to the requestor, regardless of
whether it is politically advantageous, embarrassing, or could shed light on errors or failures.

We are aware that the vast majority of FOIA requests that come to the Department are
from veterans or family members of veterans seeking medical records, and that those generally
are handled appropriately at local facilities. However, for those 01A requests that come to VA
central of?ce that require signi?cant document production and/ or emails sent from government
accounts, we would ask that you answer the following questions:

Who in the Department is responsible for ensuring appropriate and complete response to FOIA
requests? Additionally, please provide the same information for each administration and staff

of?ce.

- Who is responsible for searching and pulling emails or other documentation for responsive
material? How does the Department ensure that an employee provides a complete production of
responsive materials? What accountability is there for an individual who does not provide
responsive material? If a OIA Of?cer or FOIA staff believes they are not receiving full
cooperation from employees, please describe the process in place for the FOIA staff to ensure
they receive responsive information.

Please provide an outline of the process, including for each step in the process, the individuals
or individual positions responsible for managing it and the length of time it takes to do so. In
particular, how does the Department ensure thorough responses when responsive materials are
held by different organizations?

- Prior to responding to a FOIA, is there a noti?cation period provided to any internal audiences?
If so, please provide the list of positions who currently receive the noti?cation and any instances
from 2017 or 2018 in which they have requested an outgoing response be held.

 Please describe any internal reporting that is provided to Department or administration and staff
of?ce leadership regarding the timeliness of FOIA productions. Please provide examples of
reports or other documents provided to Department-level leadership for 2017 and 2018.

0 Who in the Department, as well as each administration and staff of?ce is responsible for
determining what is included and excluded in the ?nal production, as well as redactions and the
appropriateness of those redactions??

- What role do any political appointees play in the 01A process whether at the Department or
subordinate level?

0 Please provide information regarding the Department?s actions to improve timeliness and
thoroughness in responding to requests. Does the Department or its subordinate entities utilize
any multi?track systems related to request complexity or use any other mechanisms to provide
quicker responses?

Please provide the following information for the 10 oldest outstanding requests and 10 oldest
appeals: date received, administration or office, whether the requestor is an organization or
individual, whether a partial disclosure has been made, and the basis for denial.

- Please provide the average length of time for providing FOIA responses from FY 2016, FY
2017, and FY2018 disaggregated by administration and staff office.

- How are requesters able to track the status of their pending requests?
Please provide information about whether or not there has been any increase in the number of
or complexity of requests received by the Department or its administrations or staff of?ces, and

how the Department has responded to ensure these requesters do not experience long waits.

- Please provide information about how the Department determines whether FOIA Officers or
staff are adequately trained and resourced.

We look forward to better understanding the process for FOIA productions within the
Department, and to clarify the roles and responsibilities of those participating in the productions.
We are especially interested in any oversight mechanisms that may be in place to ensure that
responsive emails are turned over by employees.

Thank you for your timely response.

Sincerely,

57/517? 

Jon Tester Richard Blumenthal
United States Senator United States Senator

 

 

 

United States Senator

an: 

 

Heidi Heitkamp
United States Senator

741/4;

Tim Kaine
United States Senator

 

MW

Tannr?uckworth
Unite States Senator

Mazi'? K. Hirono
United States Senator

 

Eliza eth Warren
Unit States Senator

 

 

EXHIBIT
2

JOHNNY ISAKSON, GEORGIA, JON TESTER, MONTANA.
RANKING MEMBER

CHAIRMAN
JERRY MORAN. KANSAS PATTY MURRAY, WASHINGTON
JOHN BOOZMAN. ARKANSAS BERNARD SANDERS, VERMONT
DEAN HELLER, NEVADA SHEHFIOD BROWN, OHIO
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, CONNECTICUT

BILL CASSIDY, LOUISIANA HIRONO HAWAII
JOE MANCHIN MLWESTVIRGINIA
DAM SULLIVAN, ALASKA
COMMITTEE ON AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510

July 25, 2018

Honorable Michael I. Missal
Inspector General

Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20420

Mr. Missal,

Recent events at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have raised questions about
the extent of political in?uence that exists over what should be nonpolitical and non?partisan
processes. One of these processes is the review of documents requested through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) process.

This longstanding disclosure requirement by Federal Agencies allows citizens to demand
transparency from their government. In many cases, this is the mechanism through which family
members have access to medical records of their loved ones. In other cases, it is the route
through which media and other interested parties get answers and information after their requests
to VA about policies and initiatives have gone unanswered.

The Committee has recently been told of concerns about the role of political appointees
in the OIA process, and their refusal to turn over emails from their government accounts that
would be considered responsive. As a result, we are interested in getting an assessment of the
role that political appointees play in the FOIA process, what types of oversight exist to ensure
employees are providing all responsive material, and who makes determinations about what is or
is not responsive to a request, and therefore, what is provided.

We request that you and your team look into this process at VA, to ensure that all
responsive material is being provided, regardless of whether it is politically advantageous,
embarrassing, or could shed light on errors or failures.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

- 065:" 

Jon Tester Richard Blumenthal
United States Senator United States Senator

 

 

WW

Tamm uckworth

 

 

 

United States Senator Unite States Senator
.  
b. ?aw
Heidi Heitkamp Mazi'e K. Hirono
United States Senator United States Senator

 

 

Tim Kaine Eliza eth Warren
United States Senator Unit States Senator

 

EXHIBIT
3

Date:

Department of
Veterans Affairs
OCT 3 1 2013

Memorandum

From: .

Executive in Charge and Chief Information Officer for Information and
Technology (005A)

sub):

Release of FOIA Information fVA IQ Folder 7413064)

To:

Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and Other Key Officials
1. Effective immediately, all responses to FOIA requests by VACO offices
and field components will be reviewed by the designated officials prior to
release to the public. This guidance will be reviewed in 90 days.
2. The designated officials are:
VBA FOIA Officer for VBA Release
VHA FOIA Officer for VHA Release
NCA FOIA Officer for NCA Release
Director, VA FOIA Service for all staff offices.
3. This temporary requirement to review FOIA releases does not apply to
first and third party Privacy Act requests.
4. The purpose of the review will be for sensitivity determination after the
request has been perfected and .responsive records have been identified.
Each of the designated review offices will develop specific procedures for
review for their respective components. All field components are expected to
follow these procedures.
5. The designated officials are required to approve FOIA requests prior to
the release by the responsible office. Under no circumstances will a FOIA
Officer release records without approval of the designated officials.
6. For additional information or any questions, please contact John Buck at
202~632~7385; john.buck1@va.gov or Jim Horan at 202-632-7453;
james. horan@va.gov .

. Warren
f Staff (OOA)