What you will get, sooner or later, is a reply to your FOIA request.\u00a0 (If you don’t, you need to refile it!)<\/p>\n
Yeah, I know:\u00a0 “No sh!t, Sherlock – I figured that much out already.”\u00a0 (smile)<\/p>\n
Seriously \u2013 what you will get in the reply to a FOIA inquiry varies.\u00a0 I\u2019m going to discuss a few common responses you might get from the National Personnel Records Center.\u00a0 I\u2019m not going to attempt to discuss replies from state National Guard FOIA offices, as (1) I haven\u2019t submitted many of those, and (2) from the few replies I\u2019ve seen, their formats seem to vary.<\/p>\n
And on occasion, I still get replies in formats, or with things attached, that I’ve never seen before.\u00a0 So what follows is definitely not<\/span> comprehensive.<\/p>\n What You Won\u2019t Get<\/span><\/p>\n First, let’s discuss what you won’t get.<\/p>\n You won\u2019t get the individual\u2019s complete OMPF unless they authorized you in writing to receive it (or they\u2019re dead and you\u2019re their next of kin).\u00a0 The only pertinent exception here is if the record is more than 62 years old (e.g., they\u2019ve been completely discharged from he military for 62 years or longer).\u00a0 Then, supposedly you get a copy of the individual’s complete file – but you’ll have to pay a fee (see the previous article).<\/p>\n You also won\u2019t in general get anything containing an individual\u2019s PII (e.g., SSN, home of record address, etc . . . ).\u00a0 Any documents you receive that originally contained PII\/other non-releasable information will have that info redacted.\u00a0 Or at least that info is supposed to be redacted; on rare occasions, NPRC misses something they should redact.\u00a0 Their clerks are human, after all.<\/p>\n You also won\u2019t get a complete DD214 showing characterization of service and\/or reentry codes and “lost time”.\u00a0 You may (or may not) get a copy of the individual in question’s DD214 (FOIA replies concerning Navy and USMC personnel sometimes seem to include one) – but if so it will have that information redacted.\u00a0 For some reason, the type of discharge, reentry code, and lost time isn\u2019t considered public record information.\u00a0 (IMO that info should<\/em> be publicly releasable, but it\u2019s not.)<\/p>\n What You Will Get<\/span><\/p>\n What you will<\/span> get is a transcription or photocopy (or some of each) of the publicly-releasable information<\/span><\/a> that is contained in the copy of the individual’s OMPF stored in Federal archives.\u00a0 If other items are specifically requested you may – or may not – get PII-redacted copies of those other documents as well.<\/p>\n Don’t worry.\u00a0 What you get will generally be sufficient to prove, to a reasonable degree of certainty, whether or not someone is making a false claim of military service, decorations, or qualifications.<\/p>\n In this article, with two exceptions I’ve redacted the names of individuals on documents I’ve used as examples.\u00a0 The exceptions are ones that were previously posted here at TAH about people we all “know and love”.<\/p>\n Item 1:\u00a0 The Cover Letter<\/span><\/p>\n For a FOIA inquiry submitted to NPRC, you should get at least a cover letter in their reply. I\u2019d recommend keeping this \u2013 it has their internal request number on it.\u00a0 You’ll need that if you decide to file a follow-up request and\/or dispute their denial of some information you think is in the file and should be released to you.<\/p>\n The NPRC cover letter will generally be in one of three forms:<\/p>\n (1) A cover letter saying, in effect, \u201cyou didn\u2019t send us enough information to find anything\u201d.\u00a0 Here’s an example<\/a>.\u00a0 (Most examples in this article are in Adobe PDF format.)<\/p>\n The key here is caveat in the first paragraph \u2013 e.g., that the reply does NOT mean the individual never served in the military.\u00a0 A reply of this type is not<\/span> definitive proof the individual on whom you filed the request never served in the US military.<\/p>\n You may get this if you didn\u2019t send NPRC enough information to unambiguously identify the individual in question.\u00a0\u00a0 Reportedly NPRC has tightened up their policies recently on what constitutes \u201cenough\u201d information (supposedly they now require complete name,DOB, place of birth, branch of service, and approximate dates of service if SSN is not provided).\u00a0 I wouldn\u2019t be surprised if this is now their \u201cdefault\u201d reply when a request has less than the required amount of info \u2013 even if the name is something as oddball as \u201cChristophos Constantine Cornholio Polychronopolis\u201d.<\/p>\n (2)\u00a0 A cover letter that strongly implies the individual never served, but doesn\u2019t outright say that.<\/a><\/p>\n IMO, the key here is the part where they say they \u201cconducted extensive searches of every records source and alternate records source at this Center” (or words to that effect).\u00a0 While not a legally a “slam dunk”, to me this type of reply strongly implies that NPRC had enough information for a definitive match \u2013 and found nothing.\u00a0 IMO, it means that the guy\/gal more likely than not didn\u2019t serve UNDER THAT NAME or USING THAT SSN.\u00a0 However, a post-service legal name change and\/or service while using another SSN might still be possible.\u00a0 It’s also possible that NPRC goofed – e.g., “fat fingered” something when searching for the records.<\/p>\n A second, IMO stronger variant of this type of reply may say that they’ve also checked external entities like the FBI<\/a> and got nothing.<\/p>\n However, as with the first case – this is also not by itself definitive.\u00a0 You can’t necessarily rule out service under another name and\/or using another SSN.\u00a0 Or NPRC simply could have goofed – e.g., maybe the person doing the search misspelled the name or reversed 2 digits in the SSN or Service\/Serial Number.<\/p>\n (3)\u00a0 A cover letter saying, in effect, \u201cwe found those records<\/a>\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 Obviously, this is what you want to see.\u00a0 It’s definitive proof that the individual in question did serve in the US military – and that the Federal archives have records on them.\u00a0 I’ve seen both one page and two-page variants of this type of letter; both are included here.<\/p>\n On rare occasions, the cover letter may list information about the individual\u2019s assignments, decorations, qualifications, etc . . . . However, in general those items are provided on another attachment or on multiple attachments.<\/p>\n If you asked for specific items they feel they can’t send you without the veteran’s consent or proof that you’re next-of-kin, you may get this variant of NPRC cover letter<\/a>.\u00a0 Sometimes asking again and politely explaining that you’re asking for a PII-redacted copy of something that documents publicly-releasable information (like award orders) will help if that’s the case. But if you’re asking for something that’s not releasable to the general public – like the type of discharge – that will almost certainly be a “NO GO”.<\/p>\n Finally, if the records were affected by the 1973 NPRC fire, you may get a cover letter that looks like this<\/a>.<\/p>\n These aren’t the only possible NPRC cover letters you might see; I keep seeing new versions and variants periodically.\u00a0 But these or similar variants seem to cover the great majority of cases.\u00a0 They (or something similar) will probably cover most replies you’ll see.<\/p>\n Item 2:\u00a0 NA Form 13164<\/span><\/p>\n The second item you will see in virtually all cases when NPRC locates the records in question is National Archives Form 13164 (NA 13164).\u00a0 On rare occasions, the cover letter may contain the information instead \u2013 but those are in my experience fairly rare and generally seem generally to come from other sources vice NPRC.\u00a0 I’ve only seen a handful of those.<\/p>\n Information releasable under the FOIA will be either transcribed to the NA 13164, provided as attachments, or both.\u00a0 If a person only had a single, relatively uneventful term in the military, the NA 13164 may be all you get besides a cover letter.<\/p>\n The NA Form 13164 looks like this<\/a>.\u00a0 (This is an example of where the NA 13164 is all you get besides a cover letter.)<\/p>\n If there are attachments, the NA Form 13164 will look like this<\/a>, with one or more boxes saying “see attached” or words to that effect.\u00a0 The attachments should be extra material that expands on (or contains in full) the information for the blocks indicated.<\/p>\n Most of the information provided on the form will be self-explanatory.\u00a0 Two items that require care, however, are the \u201cRank\/Grade\u201d block and the \u201cTranscript of Court Martial Trial\u201d block.\u00a0 The former is the rank at time of discharge.\u00a0 While the rank in the “Rank\/Grade” block is generally the highest rank or grade held (or for a retiree, their retired grade), that is not a guarantee. The individual could have served at a higher grade, but been reduced administratively or via court-martial prior to discharge; if so, that fact won\u2019t be noted on the NA Form 13164 (it may be present in or reasonably inferable from other information provided as attachments, but there\u2019s no guarantee that will be the case).<\/p>\n Secondly, an individual who served successfully as an officer but who is administratively reduced during a drawdown and reverts back to enlisted status – or who has a break in service and returns to service as an enlisted guy\/gal – retires at the highest grade successfully held.\u00a0 It\u2019s thus possible for a guy\/gal to have a final rank of E6 or E7 on a NA Form 13164 and legitimately retire at an officer grade.\u00a0 It\u2019s not terribly common, but it does happen.<\/p>\n Lastly, don’t read too much into the comments in the “Transcript of Court Martial Trial” block of the NA 13164.\u00a0 Common entries are “NA” or “N\/A”, “Not applicable”, “Not available”, and “Not in file”, or similar language.\u00a0 They all seem to be used interchangeably.\u00a0 In particular, I don’t think “Not in file” or “Not available” implies anything one way or the other about whether the individual was or was not ever tried by court-martial.\u00a0 I think the term used there is generally due to the personal preference of the technician preparing the request.\u00a0 Best I can tell, they all seem to mean “there’s no transcript of trial in that file” – and that’s all.<\/p>\n Item 3:\u00a0 Attachments<\/span><\/p>\n Attachments to the NA 13164 are variable as hell.\u00a0 Typically, they\u2019re PII-redacted portions of documents from the individual\u2019s OMPF \u2013 e.g., DA Form 20 or 2-1, USMC \u201cpage 3\u201d, redacted orders\/award certificates, a photograph, letters, etc . . . .\u00a0\u00a0 (On occasion, a USMC or USN FOIA may have a heavily redacted copy of the individual’s DD214 – see this article about the Chippendale SEAL<\/a> for an example.)<\/p>\n Representative copies of what you might see are provided here:<\/p>\n Example Army attachments<\/a>.\u00a0 This is an unusually detailed set of Army attachments.<\/p>\n Example USMC attachments<\/a>.\u00a0 This is representative of what’s commonly provided for USMC attachments.<\/p>\n
![also checked external entities like the FBI<\/a> and got nothing.<\/p>\nHowever, as with the first case – this is also not by itself definitive.\u00a0 You can’t necessarily rule out service under another name and\/or using another SSN.\u00a0 Or NPRC simply could have goofed – e.g., maybe the person doing the search misspelled the name or reversed 2 digits in the SSN or Service\/Serial Number.<\/p>\n(3)\u00a0 A cover letter saying, in effect, \u201cwe found those records<\/a>\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 Obviously, this is what you want to see.\u00a0 It’s definitive proof that the individual in question did serve in the US military – and that the Federal archives have records on them.\u00a0 I’ve seen both one page and two-page variants of this type of letter; both are included here.<\/p>\nOn rare occasions, the cover letter may list information about the individual\u2019s assignments, decorations, qualifications, etc . . . . However, in general those items are provided on another attachment or on multiple attachments.<\/p>\nIf you asked for specific items they feel they can’t send you without the veteran’s consent or proof that you’re next-of-kin, you may get this variant of NPRC cover letter<\/a>.\u00a0 Sometimes asking again and politely explaining that you’re asking for a PII-redacted copy of something that documents publicly-releasable information (like award orders) will help if that’s the case. But if you’re asking for something that’s not releasable to the general public – like the type of discharge – that will almost certainly be a “NO GO”.<\/p>\nFinally, if the records were affected by the 1973 NPRC fire, you may get a cover letter that looks like this<\/a>.<\/p>\nThese aren’t the only possible NPRC cover letters you might see; I keep seeing new versions and variants periodically.\u00a0 But these or similar variants seem to cover the great majority of cases.\u00a0 They (or something similar) will probably cover most replies you’ll see.<\/p>\nItem 2:\u00a0 NA Form 13164<\/span><\/p>\nThe second item you will see in virtually all cases when NPRC locates the records in question is National Archives Form 13164 (NA 13164).\u00a0 On rare occasions, the cover letter may contain the information instead \u2013 but those are in my experience fairly rare and generally seem generally to come from other sources vice NPRC.\u00a0 I’ve only seen a handful of those.<\/p>\nInformation releasable under the FOIA will be either transcribed to the NA 13164, provided as attachments, or both.\u00a0 If a person only had a single, relatively uneventful term in the military, the NA 13164 may be all you get besides a cover letter.<\/p>\nThe NA Form 13164 looks like this<\/a>.\u00a0 (This is an example of where the NA 13164 is all you get besides a cover letter.)<\/p>\nIf there are attachments, the NA Form 13164 will look like this<\/a>, with one or more boxes saying “see attached” or words to that effect.\u00a0 The attachments should be extra material that expands on (or contains in full) the information for the blocks indicated.<\/p>\nMost of the information provided on the form will be self-explanatory.\u00a0 Two items that require care, however, are the \u201cRank\/Grade\u201d block and the \u201cTranscript of Court Martial Trial\u201d block.\u00a0 The former is the rank at time of discharge.\u00a0 While the rank in the “Rank\/Grade” block is generally the highest rank or grade held (or for a retiree, their retired grade), that is not a guarantee. The individual could have served at a higher grade, but been reduced administratively or via court-martial prior to discharge; if so, that fact won\u2019t be noted on the NA Form 13164 (it may be present in or reasonably inferable from other information provided as attachments, but there\u2019s no guarantee that will be the case).<\/p>\nSecondly, an individual who served successfully as an officer but who is administratively reduced during a drawdown and reverts back to enlisted status – or who has a break in service and returns to service as an enlisted guy\/gal – retires at the highest grade successfully held.\u00a0 It\u2019s thus possible for a guy\/gal to have a final rank of E6 or E7 on a NA Form 13164 and legitimately retire at an officer grade.\u00a0 It\u2019s not terribly common, but it does happen.<\/p>\nLastly, don’t read too much into the comments in the “Transcript of Court Martial Trial” block of the NA 13164.\u00a0 Common entries are “NA” or “N\/A”, “Not applicable”, “Not available”, and “Not in file”, or similar language.\u00a0 They all seem to be used interchangeably.\u00a0 In particular, I don’t think “Not in file” or “Not available” implies anything one way or the other about whether the individual was or was not ever tried by court-martial.\u00a0 I think the term used there is generally due to the personal preference of the technician preparing the request.\u00a0 Best I can tell, they all seem to mean “there’s no transcript of trial in that file” – and that’s all.<\/p>\nItem 3:\u00a0 Attachments<\/span><\/p>\nAttachments to the NA 13164 are variable as hell.\u00a0 Typically, they\u2019re PII-redacted portions of documents from the individual\u2019s OMPF \u2013 e.g., DA Form 20 or 2-1, USMC \u201cpage 3\u201d, redacted orders\/award certificates, a photograph, letters, etc . . . .\u00a0\u00a0 (On occasion, a USMC or USN FOIA may have a heavily redacted copy of the individual’s DD214 – see this article about the Chippendale SEAL<\/a> for an example.)<\/p>\nRepresentative copies of what you might see are provided here:<\/p>\nExample Army attachments<\/a>.\u00a0 This is an unusually detailed set of Army attachments.<\/p>\nExample USMC attachments<\/a>.\u00a0 This is representative of what’s commonly provided for USMC attachments.<\/p>\nExample very old USAAC\/USAF attachments<\/a>.\u00a0 Very unusual.\u00a0 This file was one affected by the 1973 NPRC records fire.\u00a0 I’d guess these are actually secondary records drawn from other-than-routine sources that were used to reconstruct the file after-the-fact.\u00a0 (I’ve seen at least one other set of attachments where the photocopied originals literally appeared to have fire damage around the edges.)<\/p>\nExample Navy attachments may be seen in the link earlier in the article regarding the Chippendale SEAL.\u00a0 That example shows both a redacted DD214 (sometimes the Navy and\/or USMC provide one) and a typical Navy attachment.<\/p>\nAs you can see from the above, the specific documents provided as attachments will vary from service to service, from era to era, and from request to request.\u00a0 There really is no way to anticipate what will be attached to the NA Form 13164 – if anything.\u00a0 I’ve seen photos and certificates of training, letters, award certificates, eval extracts (but not whole evals), and pay book entries.<\/p>\nIn short:\u00a0 the attachments to a FOIA reply are kinda like Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates.\u00a0 You never know what you’ll get.\u00a0 (smile)<\/p>\n. . .<\/p>\nThat’s all for today.\u00a0 The next – and last – article in the series will cover interpreting results and some other \u201cdogs and cats\u201d that don\u2019t fit elsewhere.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"What you will get, sooner or later, is a reply to your FOIA request.\u00a0 (If you … The FOIA Process: Part 5 \u2013 So, What Will I Get?<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":623,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[478],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-none"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39532","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/623"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=39532"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39532\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=39532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=39532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=39532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/09\/William-BlakeFOIA-2.png){kind=link}