A federal trial court has decided to allow a fed to go forward with a claim that the Defense Contract Audit Agency violated the Privacy Act when it allowed unauthorized officials to view his psychiatric records.

As part of maintaining a security clearance for his job at the Department of Defense, the fed was required to undergo periodic background investigations. During one investigation, the fed disclosed that he had received psychiatric treatment, and he signed a release allowing certain agency officials to review the records.

After the investigation was completed, the file was forwarded to the Regional Director for the fed's region. Because the fed's psychiatric record was in the file, an instruction on the file envelope explained that it was to be opened only by the Regional Director. According to the fed, however, his immediate supervisor and a security officer opened the envelope and read his psychiatric record, despite this instruction.

When the fed filed suit, DOD filed a motion to dismiss it. DOD did not deny that these officials reviewed the file. Instead, DOD claimed that a "need to know exception" and a "routine use notice" authorized them to review the file. But the court held that the question of whether they were authorized to review the file is a question that must be answered at a trial. In addition, the court held that the fed may be entitled to damages if he can show that an "intentional or willful" violation of the Privacy Act occurred. As a result, the court denied DOD's motion to dismiss the case.

Case is: O'Donnell v. United States, Case No. 04-00101 (E.D.Pa. 2006).