Exemption (b)(2) is often cited to protect sensitive information related to internal rules, processes, and management of an agency, particularly when disclosure would risk circumvention of those rules. In the original release of the document, these redactions appeared throughout, obscuring details of how JPOTF headquarters operate during psychological operations (PSYOP), including its organizational structure, training methodology, and mission-related tasks.

The 2016 re-review of the document resulted in a full release with no redactions. This version, now available for download below, includes significant information previously withheld. The document, titled “Joint Psychological Operations Task Force Headquarters Master Training Guide,” provides comprehensive guidance for military leaders on training and organizing PSYOP units.

One of the most significant sections now fully visible is the description of how JPOTF integrates with other military components. For example, the document now reveals that the JPOTF coordinates closely with Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and various intelligence agencies to conduct strategic, operational, and tactical PSYOP. It emphasizes the importance of intelligence, communications systems, and psychological analysis in crafting effective operations designed to influence foreign groups and governments.

In addition, sections dealing with command relationships and operational procedures for PSYOP missions were initially obscured but are now fully visible. The 2024 release includes details about the approval process for PSYOP, which must be authorized by the National Command Authorities or, in some cases, delegated to combatant commanders. The newly available text also outlines specific mission objectives for different types of PSYOP operations, such as influencing adversary military tactics and undermining hostile leadership morale.

The FOIA release letter noted that the Joint Psychological Operations Task Force Headquarters Master Training Guide was officially cancelled on January 26, 2004, and no subsequent version has replaced it. While this document is no longer in use, it is likely that other, more detailed PSYOP training manuals exist, which the public has yet to access. These could provide even greater insight into modern psychological operations and their evolving tactics.

Despite being no longer on the books, the release of this training manual provides a clearer view of how JPOTF units are trained and deployed, offering additional insight into aspects of U.S. military operations that were previously redacted. The details about psychological warfare techniques, organization, and strategic objectives, now available in full, offer a more complete understanding of these operations for public examination.

For those interested, the full unredacted document, FOIA case 16-F-1727, can be viewed below.

###

Document Archive

FOIA Victory: Full Disclosure of Military Psychological Operations Training Document [331 Pages, 67MB]

The post FOIA Victory: Full Disclosure of Military Psychological Operations Training Document first appeared on The Black Vault.

The FOIA response, dated March 15, 2024, revealed that the Joint Staff conducted a search and located nine pages determined to be responsive to Johnson’s request. These documents pertain to  guidance issued on May 19, 2023, which outlines procedures for reporting and handling material related to UAPs.

On X, Johnson wrote a few “quick observations” about the document released, and highlights some key areas worth noting. With permission, that post written is republished here:

On May 19, 2023, the Joint Staff (J3, Operations; J36 Homeland Defense Division) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disseminated to all unified military commands worldwide a set of uniform procedures to be followed for gathering data and reporting on contemporary military encounters with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), using a detailed standard reporting template.

I have now obtained a copy of that Pentagon message. I believe that its detailed contents are being made public here for the first time (if the GENADMIN message has previously been published, that publication has not come to my attention).

The message was designated as “GENADMIN Joint Staff J3 Washington DC 191452ZMAY23 Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Reporting and Material Disposition.” It was disseminated as “Controlled Unclassified Information,” or “CUI.”

Journalist Brandi Vincent (@BrandiVincent_) referred in passing to the existence of this message in a DefenseScoop article dated August 30, 2023 (“Hicks takes direct oversight of Pentagon’s UAP office; new reporting website to be launched”). I promptly asked Pentagon press officer Susan Gough to release a copy to me, but Gough replied, “I cannot provide a copy of the message to you, as it contains information that’s not publicly releasable.”

On August 31, 2023, I filed a FOIA request for the GENADMIN message. The Department of Defense Freedom of Information Division has now released the 9-page document to me (response letter dated March 15, 2024, received by me on March 18), with only minimal redactions. After redacting my personal information, I am now making the complete FOIA release available at the link below. (The image merely shows the first page of the document; click on the link to download the complete PDF.)

INITIAL OBSERVATIONS

Among the noteworthy aspects I see in the May 2023 Joint Staff communication:

— An introductory paragraph states: “The U.S. government has observed UAP in or near the territory and/or operating areas of the United States, of its allies, and of its adversaries, and observing, identifying, and potentially mitigating UAP has become a growing priority for US policymakers, lawmakers, and warfighters. The potentially ubiquitous presence of UAP defines the national security implications of those anomalies, which range from operational hazards and threats to technological and intelligence surprise to adversaries’ strategic miscalculations. It is imperative that DoD provide UAP incident, incursion, and engagement…reporting, data, and material for the Department’s detection and mitigation of potential threats; exploitation of advanced technologies; and informing policymaker and warfighter decisions.”

–Reports on UAP incidents are to be transmitted upwards with 96 hours, but any “UAP engagement reports” within 12 hours. A “UAP engagement is a kinetic or non-kinetic response to a UAP, intended to deny, disrupt, or destroy the phenomenon and/or its object(s).”

— The ultimate nexus of collection and analysis of these reports is the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).

— The reporting procedures in the Joint Staff message apply only to detections or encounters “that demonstrate behaviors not readily understood by sensors or observers…[that]include but are not limited to phenomena that demonstrate apparent capabilities or material that exceed known performance envelopes.” The UAP reporting procedures described in this guidance do NOT apply to “incidents, incursions, and engagements by identifiable, non-anomalous phenomena (e.g., sUAS and other capabilities or materials that do not exceed known or predicted performance envelopes);” such incidents will instead “continue to be reported through established processes and mechanisms.”

— The reporting matrix seeks 11 categories of information– among these, any UAP-displayed “anomalous characteristics/behaviors (e.g., no apparent control surfaces, extreme acceleration/direction change, detection by certain sensors but not others),” and any “UAP effects on equipment (e.g., mechanical, electrical controls and weapons systems and whether persistent or transitory”).

— AARO will coordinate the handling of any UAP “objects and material of incidents, intrusions, and engagements,” but “recovery and transfer of identifiable, non-anomalous items of foreign origin…continue to be managed by the DoD FMP [Foreign Material Program].”

— The military commands are to “enable deployment of special sensors within the AoR [area of responsibility]for the detection, observation, and identification in sensitive areas, and during testing or deployment of special capabilities.”

ADDITIONAL CONTEXT

On its website, AARO calls the military reporting system defined in the May 2023 GENADMIN “Current Operational UAP Reporting.” In a briefing for selected journalists on March 6, 2024, AARO Acting Director Tim Phillips said that AARO is receiving “approximately…anywhere between 90 and a 100-110 a month” through such channels.

Phillips also told the journalists, “We’re trying to work out the command and control, the mechanisms on how other government entities can report UAP incidents to us. We’ve received a number of reports from Department of Homeland Security and their aircraft reporting to us that we follow up on.”

As for civilian pilots, the AARO website states, “AARO receives UAP-related Pilot Reports (PIREPs) from the Federal Aviation Administration.”

The UAP reporting system for contemporary military-associated UAP events, as set forth in the May 2023 Joint Staff message, is separate and distinct from the AARO “secure reporting” system for receiving reports “from current or former U.S. Government employees, service members, or contractor personnel with direct knowledge of U.S. Government programs or activities related to UAP dating back to 1945,” which is accessible through a portal on the AARO website.

AARO does not yet employ any system for receiving UAP observation reports from the general public.

###

Document Archive

UAP Reporting and Material Disposition Reporting Procedures Released [13 Pages, 5.2MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [5.04 MB]

The post UAP Reporting and Material Disposition Procedures Released first appeared on The Black Vault.

Although the information disclosed in the document is extremely minimal, it paves the way for further FOIA requests by The Black Vault and provides a glimpse into the work done by AARO and its organizational structure. The list does not include crucial details such as dates, times, or locations of the events, nor does it indicate whether the cases remain unidentified.

The number of cases listed in the index reflects close to the number revealed in the 2022 UAP report, indicating that from the 30 August 2022 data cut-off point as indicated in the report, to the 6 December 2022 data cut-off point of the list released under the FOIA, AARO logged one additional case worthy of cataloguing:

AARO, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, was established to investigate, analyze, and assess UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) incidents and reports. The office’s primary goal is to determine any potential threats these phenomena may pose to national security, as well as to identify their origin and nature. Despite the limited information released in the document, it highlights the fact that the Pentagon is actively addressing the UFO / UAP issue.

The Black Vault will utilize the case serial numbers to file new FOIA requests in pursuit of additional details regarding specific cases. While the lack of information may be disheartening, the release of the document is a small, but positive step toward greater transparency and understanding of UAP encounters and how investigations of those are handled.

As new information is uncovered and released, the public’s understanding of these mysterious phenomena will hopefully continue to grow. In the meantime, researchers and enthusiasts are left to speculate about the full contents of the 511 cases listed as everyone awaits further disclosure.

###

Newly Released Document Reveals Index of UFO Cases at the Pentagon’s AARO [3 Pages, 1.5MB]

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Download [1.53 MB]

The post Newly Released Document Reveals Index of UFO Cases at the Pentagon’s AARO first appeared on The Black Vault.

Shortly after The Black Vault published that story, the DoD explained further on who they felt was to blame.

And that’s when the story gets more bizarre.

That explanation has remained unpublished, until now, and has revealed a much larger potential problem when it comes to document preservation within the DoD.

Although the deleted e-mails may not seem out of the ordinary to some; it is. Buried within mounds of “records disposition schedules,” documented proof (File Number: 102-12.1) shows that this information should have been retained by the DoD until at least the year 2024, if not, possibly even being mandated to be retained indefinitely. The schedules also make no reference to individual employees being solely responsible for records retention after they resign or leave the department.

According to the official word from the DoD, it’s the employee’s responsibility to adhere to document preservation protocols and do their own data backups. So in this case, that would be Elizondo. However, actual evidence to that fact is non-existent, and when asked, the DoD would not or could not supply it for this article.

When this story first broke, it fueled speculation by the public that this is the most recent tactic by the DoD in a well-orchestrated “smear campaign” to discredit Elizondo and his story. Throughout the past three and a half years, the Pentagon has issued numerous statements calling into question Elizondo’s claims; the program he says he directed; and even Elizondo himself.

Without being able to cite any “authority” that allowed the obliteration of Elizondo’s e-mails, the DoD has finally issued another response to The Black Vault in order to explain what happened.

Yet, that clarity only produced more questions than answers.

The Three Month Journey for Clarity

After OSD FOIA Case 19-F-1903 was closed and the outcome exposed that Elizondo’s files were destroyed, The Black Vault immediately began seeking further clarification. After two months of waiting for those answers, The Black Vault ended the waiting game and decided to publish the original story on May 27, 2021. However, the pursuit for clarity continued thereafter, and a week after publishing, a new letter came on June 3 (despite it being dated May 7).

In a letter from Stephanie L. Carr (signed by Stephen L. Fisher), Chief of the FOIA division within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), they outline what is called a “journaled account,” and describe the process that needs to take place in order for information to be retained for “ten years.” In order to formulate this response to The Black Vault, OSD coordinated with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the “record custodian” of Elizondo’s e-mail box, as they operate the DoD’s Enterprise Email (DEE) system.

“If they left the DoD entirely in 2017 and haven’t used their @mail.mil email since then they (emails) would be gone unless the user was Journaled,” the letter explained. “A Journaled account is an optional DoD Enterprise Email (DEE) service that provides Mission Partners the ability to retain all messages and their attachments sent to and from selected Journaled mailboxes. While not required for all end-users, it is recommended for high ranking and other designated individuals whose email may contain official records which are subject to legal and regulatory requirements. Messages in Journaled accounts are preserved for 10 years.”

In other words, it is up to the employee or individual departments themselves to “journal” their accounts in order to save the data. However, there is one potential problem with the entire explanation given in this instance: it wouldn’t apply. Or at least, it shouldn’t.

The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)

Although DISA operates the technology that allowed Elizondo (and the untold number of other DEE users throughout the DoD) to have e-mail (and gain access to numerous other functions), the rules and procedures set forth for record management by DISA would not overwrite OSD protocols that are in place for their own records.

Although it can get massively confusing, it is indisputable that up until October 4, 2017, Elizondo worked within a component of OSD called the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSD(I)), which was renamed in 2019 to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (OUSD(I&S)). And as technically an OSD employee prior to his resignation, the numerous “record disposition schedules” written and adhered to by OSD directly, would trump any other agency’s when it came to the preservation of Elizondo’s e-mails.

DISA has their own “records management program” and their procedures are just that, their procedures. And yes, those would dictate how long they would keep a copy of Elizondo’s e-mail box after he retired, and a set of procedures dictate when DISA would delete Elizondo’s files on the DISA operated DEE system. But that would only apply on the DISA operated DEE system and Elizondo’s e-mail box. When it came to the contents of the e-mail box, since they were technically OSD records; OSD’s policies and procedures would apply and trump DISA’s. DISA would be completely authorized to delete the box; OSD would then be dictated by their own schedules on when their copies should/could be wiped out.

To best illustrate proof of this, OSD’s 100 Series schedule outlines specifically e-mails on the DEE system, and how they are to be retained:

If DISA’s policies and procedures applied in this case, than no OSD schedule would exist that outlined the above. Why? Because DISA would manage the records and their retention solely. However, that is not the case as indicated here with documented proof.

As of the writing of this article, and in the months of research that went into it, no DISA program, policy, or procedure was found that showed they were the sole proprietor of records on behalf of any agency and that they would be responsible for each individual agency’s record retention schedule along with adhering to it. That process remains the responsibility of the individual AGENCY itself, and in this case, OSD would be mandated to maintain Elizondo’s emails and contents thereof, until at least 2024.

A Massive Legal, Historical, and Retention Issue Exposed

The discovery of this has now shed light on another potential issue within the record keeping practices of the DoD. That is, despite a written schedule that mandates the preservation of sensitive information, it may not be followed properly and valuable documentation is likely being lost to the delete key.

There is a large public interest in Elizondo’s history with UFOs, and many focus their frustration that the information pertaining to this, and the program known as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (or AATIP), is lost for good.  However, away from UFOs, Elizondo has a provable history that stretches far beyond unidentified aerial phenomena.

In his resignation letter, Elizondo signed it as the, “Director, National Programs Special Management Staff (NPSMS).” This office, in which very little is known publicly, has become a focal point for The Black Vault to hone in on to attempt to fully understand the scope of it.

First discovered in August of 2019, The Black Vault dug up court transcript documents regarding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), considered to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

In this 2017 military court transcript, KSM’s attorney David Nevin made reference to the NPSMS, and called them the “SAP Access People.” It appeared by the dialogue between Nevin and the judge presiding over the case, that the NPSMS controlled the Special Access Program (SAP) access for the defense team’s interpreter. That access was required for the interpreter to hold that position, and it was the NPSMS that would orchestrate it.

In another part of the proceedings, a second transcript revealed that, “The NPSMS is the office responsible for administering the special access program for the Office of Military Commissions.”

With the involvement of the NPSMS in this matter, and coupled with the fact that Elizondo was the Director of it, it is likely Elizondo’s e-mails, chat transcripts, calendars, etc., would potentially be legal evidence involved in the still active trial of KSM.

This is just one example from the minimal information that is known about the NPSMS, and it happens to tie into one of the biggest trials that is underway post the 9/11 attacks. If the NPSMS were involved with SAPs, and their objective as an office was to facilitate access to highly sensitive programs, technology, and would communicate extensively about such issues; one would think that is considered “historically significant” and more importantly, a legal concern for preservation, in case it played a role in a legal proceeding as evidence.

However, this issue may stretch beyond just Elizondo’s e-mails and calendars. The confusion, and lack of clarity, when dealing with records retention is alarming. There are extensive schedules written by OSD that outline how, and why, records are kept and for how long. Yet, it appears these are not being followed, since no one in the FOIA office, nor the office of public affairs for OSD, could cite any reasonable “authority” to destroy these records.

It begs to ask the question, how much more is being lost?

Over the course of the past five weeks, The Black Vault attempted to get additional information about this issue from the Public Affairs office within the DoD by writing Susan Gough, a Pentagon spokesperson who has been tasked to answer all questions about Elizondo, UAPs, and related matters.

The first attempt was on June 7, 2021, and over the course of five weeks, The Black Vault sent six follow-ups regarding this issue, and although some were acknowledged with claims information would be forthcoming, nothing ever came.

The last attempt was on July 14, just days prior to this article being published. This was a last attempt which outlined to the DoD that the story was moving forward; it would be published by the end of the week; and it was stated exactly what was being reported to ensure that if there was any inaccuracy or misinterpretation, it could be corrected prior to publishing.

The final follow-up stated the following:

“Hello Sue,

I am going to just go ahead and finish this final article update on this issue. I’ve waited some time to add any additional comment or supply additional information as, but understand if OSD does not want to add any additional information or comment.

I just can’t find any supporting documentation about the deletion of emails, and the responsibility of the employee to do it, which seems to be the stance I received from the FOIA team.

I feel the story here is just that, the confusion about records retention and the loss of potentially important documentation. To know that Luis Elizondo’s position would be actively engaged in situations like the trial of KSM, it’s hard to believe that stuff is wiped out if he doesn’t appropriately push a button. As an advocate for preservation and transparency (in that order), it’s a bit of a concern that if information is destroyed that easily, what else may be being lost?

I am in no way trying to paint any one, or any agency, in a bad light. Rather, I’d like to shed light on a story I feel is very important, hence why I have politely pushed for answers from you to ensure accuracy on this.

I appreciate any last minute clarity on this. I have the FOIA office’s letter of approved language from before, but just want to make sure if I publish that with the interpretation that employees are to blame if disposition schedules are not followed, that I am not going against what any updated official stance is on this (or related) matters.

Thank you so much for your time. I publish Friday morning.”

As of the writing of this article, no response or even acknowledgement ever came.

This saga, and this story, is the culmination of years worth of work by The Black Vault. Although the intent was to seek out information about Elizondo and his connection to UAPs over the course of eight different FOIA cases; what was revealed was an even bigger issue about document preservation, destruction, and the lack of adherence to a set of published protocols to ensure information is properly saved.

There are numerous questions that were posed throughout the past few months, with no answers being given. This would include:

1. If an individual employee is responsible for document preservation, where is that outlined in the record disposition schedules?
2. Why are DISA schedules being cited, when clearly OSD schedules outline specifically e-mails from a DEE system, and how they are supposed to be retained?
3. What are the repercussions for an employee “not adhering” to the protocols to backup their own work?
4. Is there ANY oversight to the long list of DoD personnel that have varying schedules they need to adhere to?
5. What happens if a person leaves the department abruptly? There is no team there to ensure their information is properly saved to adhere to schedules?
6. How many other employees/personnel are not properly adhering to schedules, and how much data is truly being lost?

Multiple FOIA requests were filed to seek out some of the answers to the above. However, the alarming issue, is the above should be able to be addressed quickly or in a somewhat timely manner. Instead, no one The Black Vault reached out to, could contribute anything beyond the written and approved statements above. And with documented proof, it appears that those explanations that took months to get, would not even apply in this situation.

This article is published with hopes that someone, somewhere, will see the importance of this issue, and take note that the historical information and even legal evidence is being lost.

To what extent? It seems that likely… no one really knows.

###

Luis Elizondo was unavailable for comment for this article.

The post Data Destruction Reveals Larger Issue with DoD Records Retention first appeared on The Black Vault.

This week, multiple photographs and a video, was “leaked” to the general public by George Knapp at MysteryWire.com and Jeremy Corbell from ExtraordinaryBeliefs.com. The Pentagon has now confirmed to The Black Vault via e-mail, that the photos and videos leaked this week, all were taken by Navy personnel.

“I can confirm that the referenced photos and videos were taken by Navy personnel. The UAPTF has included these incidents in their ongoing examinations,” said Susan Gough, Pentagon Spokesperson. “As we have said before, to maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to potential adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examinations of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP.”

However, Gough refused to confirm whether they remain “unidentified,” or are used as training material for identifiable objects, or remain unknowns. “I have nothing further for you beyond what I provided,” Gough stated. No additional information was provided.

The post Pentagon CONFIRMS Recent UAP / UFO Leaks as Genuine first appeared on The Black Vault.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). At the root, the FOIA truly is a remarkable thing. It gives the right to anyone the ability to request information from the United States government, and in many cases, actually receive what they requested. Although utilizing the act proves to be quite the challenge, and there is a lot of room for record requests to be denied, it allows the people to hold the U.S. government and military accountable. Above all else, it offers a window into a shadowed past marred by secrecy and deceit, and it allows every day people to reveal secrets that no one in the public realm has ever heard before. It’s a powerful tool, and one The Black Vault is built upon.

But should the FOIA process be “controlled” by those more concerned with optics, rather than Freedom of Information? Should the Public Affairs office of an agency invade the FOIA office of the same, in an attempt to control the release of information? Such a scenario may seem like a clear intrusion on the rights afforded to the public by the law, but a newly released document obtained via the FOIA reveals that at least with one topic, they are doing just that.

The topic? Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) or more commonly referred to as UFOs.

The record was obtained by Marc Cecotti, a FOIA researcher who blogs about his experience at his site called The Parallax. It was one e-mail out of a string released, as obtained from the Naval Safety Center (NAVSAFECEN) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The e-mail was sent on July 10, 2020, in response to internal banter about a media enquiry.

Written by retired Navy Captain Joseph Gradisher, who now serves as the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare (OPNAV N2/N6), the e-mail reveals that the public affairs office of the Department of Defense (DOD) is operating as a last set of eyes to oversee FOIA releases about UAPs.

Gradisher writes:

“Also, generally speaking, we let the normal FOIA process work as it is supposed to but we have been requesting that FOIA offices coordinate with us on UAP-focused FOIA responses before they hit ‘reply’ so that new terms/language/etc. aren’t introduced that complicate the overall messaging efforts.”

The question then arises, what messaging effort is underway that needs to be controlled? If the true spirit of the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Act is being upheld, wouldn’t the truth be the only only message that has an effort behind it?

The e-mail received by Cecotti reveals an interesting debate. On one hand, it’s not surprising, as the mere job of a public affairs office is to control a message. But on the other hand, it intrudes on the root of why the general public has a freedom of information. The truth in this process should be the only “messaging effort” any government employee should worry about.

After all, that is the true spirit of why the FOIA was enacted in the first place back on July 4, 1967. So why do UFOs get a seeming special treatment with public affairs oversight?

###

Note: The other great revelation with the e-mail is the admission that a “Security Classification Guide” or SCG exists for the UAP topic. On a hunch, The Black Vault filed for this very document back in January of 2021, and requests for the SCG remain open to both the Navy and OSD. The Black Vault will publish those findings when the FOIA request is responded to.

The post When Freedom of Information and Public Affairs Collide On The UFO Issue first appeared on The Black Vault.

The CEO of the corporation, Tom DeLonge, said in an Instagram post (which he later deleted) that he worked up an “established credibility” between TTSA and OSD. 

The Black Vault then filed a second time for documents on TTSA within OSD, having previously been told no records existed in 2018.

They found four pages within OSD that dealt with TTSA. Every page was not releasable as they said they were all about a “decision making process” or known as exemption (b)(5).

The previous “no record” response could still have been legitimately “no records.” Why? I submitted it in October of 2017 on a hunch after seeing Luis Elizondo, and his testimony, claiming to be a former employee of OSD. OSD’s denial was in August of 2018. The four pages could theoretically have been created after August 2018.

What’s it all mean and what’s in the four pages?

Is it about the CRADA? Is it about the UAP Video Leak investigation? Who knows… It will, for now, remain a mystery.

###

The post Department of Defense Exempts Records on To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science first appeared on The Black Vault.

Beginning in 1969, the Journal of Defense Research (JDR) has published defense related classified research, development and experimentation. The intent is to selectively rake available the peer refereed results of classified research and to serve as an archival Journal of this information to be used by future researchers.

Below, you will find various documents released about this publication.

Document Archive

Cumulative Index of the Journal of Defense Research papers, 1969 – 1983 [65 Pages, 16.8MB]

Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Journal of Defense Research (JDR), August 27, 1985 [20 Pages, 1.1MB] – The task force concludes that pursuant to some changes the Journal of Defense Research (JDR) should be continued. The JDR is ‘mission essential’ as a classified research tool: is not duplicated by available source as DTIC; and does not present an unacceptable security risk. With respect to security issues and concerns about duplication with the DTIC data bases, our findings are base upon recommendations made to the task force by the Deputy Administrator, DTIC; and the Principal Director, Counter-Intelligence and Security Policy. As scientists and engineers engaged in research for the Department of Defense, the task force recognizes the mission essential nature; that is, the utility and uniqueness of an achieved, referred journal. Being the only classified journal of its type, the JDR is used to communicate ideas amongst the defense community and is a basic tool for researchers. Almost every professional discipline, including law, medicine, the physical sciences, etc., uses referred, archived journals such as the JDR as a fundamental research tool.

The post Journal of Defense Research first appeared on The Black Vault.

The following documents have been released by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff.  They include all correspondence between members of Congress, and their office.

Document Archive

Congressional Correspondence Logs

Congressional Correspondence Log, 2007 and 2009 [1,011 Pages, 199.6MB]

Congressional Correspondence Log, 2012 [368 Pages, 69.8MB]

All Congressional Correspondence Letters

Incoming congressional correspondence (all Members) February 2009 – July 2009 – Document Release 1 [361 Pages, 192.8MB]

Incoming congressional correspondence (all Members) February 2009 – July 2009 – Document Release 2 [265 Pages, 141.8MB]

Incoming congressional correspondence (all Members) February 2009 – July 2009 – Document Release 3 [147 Pages, 79.7MB]

The post Congressional Correspondence with the Office of the Secretary of Defense first appeared on The Black Vault.