5 Replies Latest reply on May 14, 2020 4:07 PM by Rebecca Collier

    Seeking information about NC1-AU-80-26

    Elliot Schneider Navigator

      Hello, I just read the NC1-AU-80-26, referring to MICRODIS 4108 regarding Perm Order Record Set. I need clarification -- were all Army Records microfilmed in this fashion? If so, what FY annual transfers would have this impacted? Were those records prior to this disposition or any records going forward from the date of this disposition? Lastly, if the were microfilmed would they send to FRC upon retirement of those records or did they keep in Fort Huachuca. Thanks

        • Re: Seeking information about NC1-AU-80-26
          Rebecca Collier Ranger

          Dear Mr. Schneider,

           

          Thank you for posting your request on History Hub!

           

          We were unable to locate a copy of Job NC1-AU-80-26. Without a copy of this, we are unable to respond to the questions about it or what you inferred from it. Please provide us with a copy in order to assist you better.

          1 person found this helpful
              • Re: Seeking information about NC1-AU-80-26
                Rebecca Collier Ranger

                Dear Mr. Schneider,

                 

                Thank you for posting your follow-up request on History Hub!

                 

                According to the Request for Records Disposition Authority (Job No. NC1-AU-80-26) dated 14 February 1980, it was a request by the Records Management Division of The Adjutant General’s Office of the Army to allow the US Army Communications Command at Fort Huachuca, Arizona to microfilm the records labeled as “Permanent Order Publications Records Set” and dispose of the originals after the microfilm had been checked for completeness. One silver halide microfilm set and one diazo or vesicular copy were considered permanent and would be sent to the Federal Records Center in 5-year blocks when the oldest record was 25 years old. The US Army Communications Command at Fort Huachuca could make a copy for their own use and were to destroy that copy when no longer needed. The request was approved by the Acting Archivist of the United States on May 2, 1980.

                 

                Segments of the Army were allowed to microfilm the Permanent Order Publications Records Set. It does NOT mean ALL segments of the Army chose to microfilmed these records.

                 

                We hope this is helpful.

                1 person found this helpful
                  • Re: Seeking information about NC1-AU-80-26
                    Elliot Schneider Navigator

                    Does this mean that I can find this in the NARA online catalog under Permanent Order Publications Records Set” and if so would it be under The AG RG 407 under microfilmed. Since records I would seek are older than 25 years old would College Park Maryland have them or Suitland? Lastly, were there any dossier or SF 115 for these records. Thanks

                      • Re: Seeking information about NC1-AU-80-26
                        Rebecca Collier Ranger

                        Dear Mr. Schneider,

                         

                        Thank you for posting your 2nd follow-up request on History Hub!

                         

                        Until about 1986, the Records Management Division of the Adjutant General’s Office of the Army held the records management function. Instead of NC1-AU-80-26 being an accession job, it was a request from the Records Management Division to the National Archives to allow the U.S. Army Communications Command at Fort Huachuca to microfilm records with the TAFFS file number 227-16, Permanent Order Records Set Files. It was not a requirement that all units of that command would microfilm the records.    

                         

                        If they did microfilm the records, one silver halide microfilm set and one diazo or vesicular copy were considered permanent and would be sent to the Federal Records Center in 5-year blocks when the oldest record was 25 years old. They would have been sent with the rest of the paper records probably as part of Record Group 338.

                         

                        We hope this is helpful.

                         

                        1 person found this helpful