disclosure would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Under § 552(b)(6), it is proper to begin the analysis by examining the privacy in terests implicated by disclosure of the requested documents. Courts have held that a government employee has at least a minimal interest in his or her employment history and record of job performance, not only because of the embarrassment from possible negative disclosures, but also because of the compilation of personal information found in such records. See Stern, 737 F.2d at 91. In the present case, the privacy interest at stake is significantly greater because the requested file is the result of an investigation that led initially to a recommendation for imposition of nonjudicial punishment. See Hunt, 972 F.2d at 288 (<HOLDING>). Even though Major Buxton was ultimately
holding that a government employee has a privacy interest in any file that reports on an investigation that could lead to the employees discipline or censure holding that the regulations prohibit only monetary discipline of exempt employees holding that individual has privacy interest in medical information including diagnosis holding presumptive lead plaintiff inadequate due to unrelated fraud investigation recognizing an individuals privacy interest in not having his or her identity revealed in the context of a criminal or national security investigation