June 18, 2003
Ms. Lee Ellen Helfrich
Attorney at Law
Lobel, Novins & Lamont
1275 K Street, NW
Suite 770
Washington, DC 20005-4048
Dear Ms. Helfrich:
By letter dated May 9, 2003, to the NASA Administrator, you appealed, on behalf of your
client, Ms. Leslie Kean, an initial determination under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., issued by Ms. Sharon S. Holgerson, FOIA Officer at NASA
Headquarters. Your client’s initial request, dated January 31, 2003, sought “all data of
whatever form including correspondence, telegraphic, electronic, photographs, scientific
reports, analyses or tests such as metallurgic analysis, collection records, interviews with
civilians . . .” relating to a Kecksburg incident in December 1965, or Acme; NASA fragology
files for 1962-1967; and any records on Richard M. Schulherr, Project Moon Dust, “Cosmos
96,” and “NASA’s involvement of the recovery of the satellite, parts or debris thereof,
anywhere in the United States or Canada.”
In response to your client’s request, a search was conducted at the NASA Headquarters
History Office, and no responsive records were determined to exist. You have appealed this
determination on a number of grounds.
You state that it is clear that documents on this topic are, or were, in the Agency’s
possession or control because you have enclosed three with your appeal letter and, therefore,
question the reasonableness of NASA’s search. One document appears to be a list of NASA
files in storage at the Federal Records Center, including one entry entitled “Moon Dust.” A
second document appears to be a description of “Cosmos 96,” printed from a NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center Web site, and dated May 6, 2003. The third document is a memo dated
May 7, 1968, from R. M. Schulherr, who was apparently a NASA employee, to C.N. Jones,
on “Moondust from Columbia.” Your research indicates that there are also a substantial
number of documents related to fragology that were created by NASA, and you question why
the only installation apparently contacted by NASA in processing your client’s request was the
NASA Headquarters History office. You note that you were informed on April 7, 2003, by
Ms. Kellie Robinson of the FOIA Office that a previous FOIA request had been received
concerning the same events, and documents were located and released. NASA’s initial
determination issued to your client did not reference or disclose the existence of the previous
FOIA requests, nor cite any reasons for not disclosing the correspondence, nor provide any
segregable portions of those documents. Therefore, you seek copies of the earlier FOIA
requests relating to the same information and NASA’s responses to those requests.