Mr. John Greenewald Dear Mr. Greenewald: NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000 Serial: MDR-73494 This responds to your request of24 July 2013 to have previously released and redacted classified records pertaining to Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) currently posted on the Internet at p://www.nsa.gov/public info/declass/ufo/index.shtrnl reviewed for declassification. With the exception of the enclosed document, we cannot locate unredacted copies or the original documents that were previously reviewed and released to the public. The one document we were able to locate has been reviewed under the Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13526 and is enclosed. We have determined that some of the information in the material continues to require protection. Portions redacted from the document were found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with E.O. 13526. The redacted information meets the criteria for classification as set forth in Section 1.4 subparagraphs (b), (c), and (d) and remains classified TOP SECRET as provided in Section 1.2 ofE.O. 13526. The withheld information is exempt from automatic declassification in accordance with Section 3.3(b)(3) and (6) of the Executive Order. In addition, Section 3.5(c) ofE.O. 13526 allows for the protection afforded to information under the provisions of law. Therefore, information that would reveal NSA/CSS functions and activities has been protected in accordance with Section 6, Public Law 86-36 (50 U. S. Code 3605, formerly 50 U.S. Code 402 note). You may consider this a denial of your request for declassification of the above referenced document. You may also consider NSA' s inability to locate the other requested records a denial of your request. Since your request for declassification has been denied you are hereby advised of this Agency's appeal procedures. Any person denied access to information may file an appeal to the NSA/CSS MDR Appeal Authority. The appeal must be postmarked no later than 60 calendar days after the date of the denial letter. The appeal shall be in writing addressed to the NSA/CSS MDR Appeal Authority (DJ5), National Security Agency, 9800 Savage Road, STE 6881, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6881. The appeal shall reference the initial denial of access and shall contain, in sufficient detail and particularity, the grounds upon which the requester believes the release of information is required. The NSA/CSS MDR Appeal Authority will endeavor to respond to the appeal 60 working days after receipt of the appeal. Please be advised that "UFO's," "extra-terrestrials," and "paranormal activities" do not relate to NSA's mission or function. NSA documents that have been located in searches for "UFO" documents generally fall into one of two categories. The first of records includes foreign intelligence reports that contain words such as "unidentified aircraft" or "unidentified (flying) object" or words to that effect. These are simply terms that are used to describe conventional aircraft or objects (possibly weather balloons) that were not identified as such at the time of the report. The second category of "UFO" documents includes items written by NSA employees with an interest in UFOs, or open source publications (magazine/newspaper articles) that were placed into "agency" files by employees. These records are subject to the provisions only because they became "agency records" once they were placed into official agency Sincerely, BLAKE C. BARNES Declassification Services RequestiD: 0000675200 UNCLASSIFIED TRANSMITTAL OF MATERIAL FROM (RETURN ADDRESS) Type: OMAL Submitted 20140722 MR. JOHN GREENEWALD DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE This transmittal may NOT be downgraded upon removal of the JOHN GREENEWALD NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY enclosure(s). 9800 SAVAGE ROAD This transm ittal may NOT be declassified upon removal of the FORT MEADE MARYLAND 20755-6000 enclosure(s). PHN#: NONE PROVIDED ATIN: CERNE,PHYLLIS LOUISE WRAPPED COMSEC SUBMITTED SHIPPING MODE PACKAGE CT - First Class UNCLASSIFIED TITLE/DESCRIPTION OF ITEM QTY TOT COST MFG SERIAL# BARCODE CLASS. UNCLASSIFIED YOUR REQUEST OF 24 JUL 2013. DESIG ACCT STATEMENT APPROVAL Applicable HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS (UNCLASSIFIED) MR. JOHN GREENWALD. NO PHONE PROVIDED. REQUESTED BY CERNE.PHYLLIS LOUISE urfcLASSIFIED DO NOT STAMP RECEIPT PORTION WITH CLASSIFICATION ReauestiD: 0000675200 (Please sign and return immediately. Avoid tracer action) Tvoe: OMAL RETURN TO FROM is hereby acknowledged for the material or documents listed under DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE JOHN GREENEWALD this Request NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY MR. JOHN GREENEWALD 9800 SAVAGE ROAD (Typed or Printed) MEADE MARYLAND 20755-6000 ATIN: CERNE.PHYLLIS LOUISE PHN#: NONE PROVIDED NAME (Typed or Printed) SIGNATURES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Plaintiff, Civil Action No. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Defendant. State of Maryland IN CA~lERA AFFIDAVIT OF EUGENE F. YEATES Eugene F. Yeates, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Chief, Office of Policy, of the Nati6nal j: Security Agency (NSA). As Chief, Office of Policy, I am responsible for processing all initial requests ~ade pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for NSA records. statements he~ein are based upon personal knowledge, upon my ;. personal review of information available to me in my official ; ~apacity, and upon conclusions reached in accordance therewith. (U) This affidavit supplements my unclassified affidavit: executed on September 30, 1980 regarding all documents which have been located by NSA pursuant to plaintiff's FOIA request but j! which have been withheld wholly or in part by NSA. this affidavit in camera for the purpose of stating facts, which cannot be publicly disclosed, that are the basis for exe.mpting the records from release to the plaintiff. WCCO). At the beginning of each paragraph of this affidavit, the letter or letters within parentheses designate{s) the degree of sensitivity of information the paragraph contains. eclassified and Approved for Release by NSA on 07-21-2014 pursuant to E.O. 13526, MDR 1 SECRET or TOP SECRET. Th~ symbols "(SC)" and "(TSC)" stand foi "SECRET CODEWORD" and "TOP SECRET CODEWORD", respectively. "CODEWORD" refers to one of the distinctive five-letter words used to identify the source of the information as communications intelligence (COMINT)~ to distinguish between COMINT categories and sub-categories, and to facilitate the application of reguia- li tions for the dissemination and use of COMINT. The codewor~ il "UMBRA" appearing in conjunction with the TOP SECRET classifica- I! tion at the top and bottom of each page of this affidavit, is .jj the codeword applicable to Category III (the highest category) 1'1: COMINT. Documents revealing sensitive details about the pro- du~tion of COMINT must bear the classification and codeword I! appropriate to the highest category or sub-category of COMINT II to which they relate, even though they may not contain COMINT i: as sucn. The symbol "CCO", which stands for the caveat "HANDLE j: VIA COMINT CHANNELS ONLY", is used to designate information ~ ~ related to COMINT or COMINT activities, which, although it doei -!!--~not require codeword protection, must be kept within COtvliNT I! channels, i.e., disclosed only to persons eligible to !; receive corn NT itself. THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS (l!i~- In processing the plaintiff's FOIA request, a jl total of two hundred and thirty-nine documents were located li in NSA files. Seventy-nine of these documents originated with other government agencies .~nd have been referred by NSA to those agencies for their direct response to the plaintiff. One document, which I addressed in paragraph 20c of my public affidavit, was erroneously treated as part of the subject matter of plaintiff's FOIA request. It is an account by a person I assigned to NSA of his attendance at a UFO symposium and it cannot fairly be said to be a record of the kind sought by the I plaintiff. Another document, discussed in paragraph 20d of my public affidavit, was recently declassified and released to ! plaintiff. Two additional non-COMINT records have been released to the plaintiff with the exempted material deleted. The deletions in these documents are e~plained below: A document entitled UFO Hypothesis and Suryival QQ~stions was released tothe plaintiff with the deletion on page seven of the name of the employee who prepared the draft and a deletion of a reference to his NSA component. As I explained in pa::agraph 20, sub-paragraph a, of my open affidavit, information about NSA's organization or employees is protected from disclosure by Public Law 86~36 and, therefore, ! exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3). The second non-COMINT document is a three page undated, unofficial draft of a monograph with a four page appendix by the same agency employee who authored the draft referenced in sub-paragraph a, above. This document was discussed in paragraph 20b of my public affidavit. entitled UFO's and the IDtelligence C9~unity Blind Spot to Surorise or Deceptive Data. frn this document, the author discusses what he considers to be a serious shortcoming in the Agency's COlHNT interception and reporting procedures _:...-the ina_bility to respond correctly to surprising information. or - deliberately deceptive data. He uses the UFO phenomena to illustrate his belief that the inability of the u.s. intelli- gence commuriity to process this type of unusual data adversely affects u.s. intelligence gathering capabilities. in this document were made as follows: All of the title after UFO; which addresses the perceived shortcoming, ,'and all of paragraph one, which discusses the employee's perception of the negative implications of the handling of UFO phenomena as it demonstrates what he believes is the less than optimum ability of the intelligence community to process and evaluate highly unusual data. As I stated in my public affidavit (paragraph 20b), the type of candor that is reflected in this record must be encouraged especia~ly in an intelligence Agency where the most meaningful suggestions regarding ways to promote the efficiency of the critical Agency mission will of necessity come from within. Public disclosure of such information, especially when it advances a novel theory, could have the effect of stifling such i candor by-the risk of diminution of professional standing the employee runs if subsequently found wrong. Thus, this matter was deleted pursuant to 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(5). Paragraph three of this document uses a signals intelligenc~ operation against ----------~------ to illustrate the author's point. This paragraph contains information about SIGINT activities that is currently and properly classified and, thus, is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(l}. The material in this paragraph also concerns the organization ~I;-an-'1 operational activities and functions of NSA directed against r . -IThis material is exempt from disclosure under l! 5 u.s.c. 552(b) (3) \'lhich exempts from release under the FOIA matters specifically exempted from disclosure by another statute. j As noted in paragraph 20, sub-paragraph b of my public affidavit, j\ Public Law 86-36 provides that no law shall be construed to require disclosure of the organization or any function of the NSA or any information with respect to activities thereof. Paragraph four of the memorandum states the conclusions and recommendations of the author. ~Yhile it talks of the ability of the Agency employees to deal with unusual phenomena it is not responsive to the plaintiff's request I; regarding UFO or UFO phenomena . I~ any event, as I stated in my public affidavit (paragraph 20b), the subject matter of that paragraph is exempt from disclosure because it contains the employ~e's specific recommendations for addressing the problem of responding to surprise material. For the reasons stated in sub-paragraph (1) above, these recommendations are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(S). One specific recom- rnendation suggests an operational approach to solving the problem which reveals NSA activities and is, therefore, exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 u.s.c. 552{b)(3) as explained above. (4) The final deletion is in appendix A, paragraph 10 of this report. This section talks about deceptive communications t ;3.ctics used by the Vietnamese against u.s. forces and does not include any reference to UFO or UFO phenomena and is, therefore, j; not responsive to plaintiff's request. Nonetheless the subject matter of sub-paragraph 10 is currently and properly classified. Thus, even if it were deemed to be within the scope of plaintiff's! request, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 u.s.c. 552 COtUNT REPORTS 5. (~eO) The remaining one hundred and fifty-six records being withheld are communications intelligence ( cmHNT) reports. which were produced between 1958 and 1979. For purposes o~ my discussion here, these records are organized into three groups based upon the source of the report. a. One hundred and fifteen of these reports were produced by the signals intelligence organizations of foreign j: governments. These COMINT reports are_provided to NSA unde r ji var:: ious arrangements for sharing COMINT information. The j! couhtr ies who. collaborate with NSA in SIGINT activities are designated either Se<:ond party or third party sources -- depending on the nature d the relationship. (1} Twoof the record&at issue here were produced by second party source,~--------------------~ .I! United States has extremely close intelligence ties wJ th both I ll these nations dating back to World War II. The repor lL _.L .1 lwas provided to NSA under a formal agreement N governing collaboration in COMINT I Mutually agreed upon rules governing the security protection afforded to CONINT are applied uniformly by i our two governments. The relationship between NSA and the l governed by a similar agreement. One hundred and thirteen reports were provided to NSA by third party sources. The relationships with these sources have developed more recently and are more tehuous than I second part\~n::e::n:::se COMINT reports originated from I SIGINT operations which were conducted jointly by the United States and a foreign government. Under such an arrangement the 1! United States in exchange for the sharing of technology and COMINT information. i! c. The remaining thirty-nine COMINT documents were li produced by NSA or relate to NSA SIGINT operations. That is, I! these reports originated at NSA itself or in field sites under the operationa l and technical control of NSA. (\:l) 'All of the COP1INT reports are in either message or l summary format. A report in message format contains a single underlying communication presented in a classic cable format, i.e., the verbatim text of the particular transmission, preceded and followed by "externals" consisting of: data about the sender and the recipient; the dates and times of transmission; and other technical information.; A summary, as the label suggests, provides in summary term the contents of a single message~or of a small nun1ber of related intercepted communications, often accompanied by some technical data -7. (6+ One hundred and fifty-four of the one hundred and fifty-six COMINT reports are based wholly upon intercepted I communications of foreign governm~nts transmitted on non-public "government net" -communications links or systems. Of the t~o reports not included in this ictal, one report is the text of a commun~catl.on transmitted E>v eciiR300tle11'3'(aM.OOlali communications common carrier. I have described the distinction between these two kinds of communications facilities in my public affidavit at paragraph 10. The other record which is not based on intercepted communications from "government net" facilities, ji is a description of an incident purpo~ted-to hav~been learned from u.s. interception and analysis o uban air d~fense j communications. 8 ~(f-!:lTl!-t:S~C:-t)-The COMINT reports originated by second and I third party sources can be further described in terms of i! sources and intelligence targets as foilows: a. Second anqThird.Party COMINT Reports Hhich :!'_ar.get Cqmmunications Tfansmitted onl ~- munications F.~cilities. One second party report, in summary The pilbts of the two aircrafts report a "phenomena" in the sky Three third party reports a