united-states privacy military
Is Steve Bannon&#39;s Navy Personnel file protected information and if so, does USA Today bear legal culpability for obtaining and publishing it?
<p>I was reading USA Today article about Bannon, and one statement piqued my interest:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Bannon’s military personnel file, <strong>obtained by USA TODAY</strong>, shows he was regularly promoted during his seven years of service.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The quote directly linked to downloadable document of the file.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Are personnel files of former servicepeople considered private information that is not supposed to be made public? (i'm almost certain it's "yes" but don't know the precise legal rationale).</p></li>
<li><p>If so, does USA Today obtaining it make it in any way legally culpable? (on one hand, possession of stolen goods makes one legally culpable, on the other hand, Pentagon Papers showed that this concept probably doesn't always apply to information).</p></li>
<li><p>Either way, my main question is, does USA Today <strong>publishing</strong> it make it in any way legally culpable, either in criminal court, or in possble civil litigation?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Not sure if it matters greatly, but at cursory look, <strong>the file has not been scrubbed of any information, so whatever PII/personal info was in it, would still be in it</strong></p>

<p>Some parts of his personnel file are improper to disclosure, although mere data on his history of promotions is probably not among those private parts of the file, as his rank would be widely available information displayed on his uniform every single day and probably publicized in every public communication he had with anyone. Every promotion is a commissioned officer is actually printed in an act of Congress, since all commissioned officer promotions must be approved by Congress.</p>

<p>In any case, generally speaking, in U.S. law, liability for disclosure of classified information extends only to the person who improperly obtained that information, not to the person who published it, as the Pentagon Papers case attests.</p>
