Subscribe to email updates
Today’s blogger is Stephanie Stork, a summer 2013 intern in the Archives I Reference and Processing Sections who worked with Navy records.
Working at the National Archives this past summer as an intern with the Old Navy/Maritime Reference staff allowed me to work with an array of exciting documents, which I’ve come to appreciate as artifacts of their own time. One of the projects included writing an enhanced descriptive aid of the Division of Naval Intelligence Administrative Files 1927-1944 (RG 38, entry 85). It was with this series that I wished for a time machine, especially in the specific case of two files spanning 1928-1933. I wanted those involved to know, like myself, what the future would bring, specifically the events of December 7, 1941.
The first file (see 8 images under “Fukunaga File” below) is comprised of correspondence from 1933 and 1934 between the Director of Naval Intelligence and Lieutenant H.L. Spain of the U.S. Naval Reserve, who took it upon himself to send a letter to the department with an attached newspaper article entitled “U.S. Customs Seize Cargo of Japanese ‘Fake War’ Books.” This article, which appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser on December 14, 1933, chronicled Honolulu Customs’ seizure of copies of a Japanese book of fiction authored by Lt. Commodore K. Fukunaga of the Japanese Naval Reserves, entitled, An Account of the Future War Between Japan and the United States. As the Honolulu Advertiser reported, this work of fiction set its storyline along the idea of a future war between the United States and Japan in 1936, in which a Japanese fleet surrounds the island of Oahu and captures Hawaii. The article reported that in Fukunaga’s book, “American cruisers and warships are described in great detail throughout the yarn and are properly named,” and that, “One incident related tells of a Japanese submarine which was dispatched to lay mines at the entrance to Pearl Harbor, but which fails to return.” The news article then moves on to mention the book’s emphasis on airplane bombings, and that “Later on the opinion is expressed that the enemy fleet has been sunk…”,
Another document (from a second file, see images under “Ishimura File” below) I came across in the same archival box is a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Navy from a Mr. Ralph B. Mazar. This letter, forwarded to the Navy Department on December 12, 1941, included Mazar’s translations of a select number of paragraph’s from a Japanese publication issued in 1928 entitled War Is Inevitable. This publication, bearing the imprimatur of the emperor and authored decades earlier by Commander Toto Ishimura, notably mentioned resentment towards the United States, and stated “Surprise will be the keynote of our initial attack. Fabian tactics will be our naval guide. In the opening hours of the War the Japanese Navy will sink and disable a goodly number of American warships.” Mazar went on to note that the book had a “Mein Kampfian touch” to it, and that Ishimura wrote “Within seventy-two hours after our first surprise attack, half of the American Fleet will be sunk or crippled, army and navy personnel will be demoralized, population of the United States will be stunned.”
There is no crystal ball in which one can tell the future. Judging past actions with knowledge from the present is unfair, but there are times when one cannot help but look back in history and wish that those in the past could have known what future decades would bring.
Note: All documents from each file have been posted with this blog for context and researcher convenience.
References: RG 38, Division of Naval Intelligence Administrative Files 1927-1944, Box 35. File: A7-1/OQ/Fukunaga, Kyosuki
Fukunaga File Page 1
Fukunaga File Page 2
Fukunaga File Page 3
Fukunaga File Page 4
Fukunaga File Page 5
Fukunaga File Page 6
Fukunaga File Page 7
Fukunaga File Page 8
RG 38, Division of Naval Intelligence Administrative Files 1927-1944, Box 35. File: A7-1/OQ/Ishimura, Toto (1941)
Ishimura File Page 1
Ishimura File Page 2
Ishimura File Page 3
Ishimura File Page 4
Today’s post is written by Dr. Greg Bradsher and is the first in a series featuring real life Monuments Men.
The forthcoming movie, The Monuments Men, has focused great attention on the Monuments Men (and women) and their work during and after World War II. Of course the movie cannot tell the story of the over 300 individuals involved in Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives (MFA&A) work, so it focuses on three: George Stout, James Rorimer, and Rose Valland, played by George Clooney, Matt Damon, and Cate Blanchett, respectively. Over the course of the next two months, I thought it would be illustrative to discuss some of the lesser known individuals. I thought I would start with British archaeologist Sir Leonard Woolley, in part, because on my bookshelf is a book by Woolley that I often referenced when pursuing my interest in clay tablet archives. I was aware of Woolley long before I was aware of the Monuments Men, and was quite surprised when I learned the role he had played during World War II in preserving cultural property with the Monuments Men.
Charles Leonard Woolley, born April 17, 1880, graduated from Oxford, and then traveled to the Continent, where he improved his knowledge of French and German. He started archaeological work in Great Britain in 1907. Before World War I he spent three years with T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”) doing archaeological work in the Middle East. The two entered military service in the fall of 1914, and Woolley was commissioned and placed in the Intelligence Service in Egypt, where the French awarded him the Croix de Guerre for his work. A ship on which he was sailing in the summer of 1916 hit a mine and Woolley was rescued by a Turkish vessel, at which time he became a prisoner of war. In the autumn of 1918 he was released from captivity. Captain Woolley in 1919 was ordered back to Syria as a Political Officer with the temporary rank of Major with the joint Anglo-French occupation. Once there he started his archaeological work, time permitting from his military duties. By the end of 1919 he was released from military duty and began his full-time archaeological work. In 1929 he published a preliminary version of what was to become the most widely read book ever on an archaeological subject: Ur of the Chaeldees. Agatha Christie, famous for her detective novels and mystery writings, arrived in Mesopotamia in the late autumn of 1928, where she met Woolley. She would marry his assistant in 1930 and in 1936 she published one of her “Poirot” stories, Murder in Mesopotamia, based on her impressions of Mesopotamia and her first experience of an archaeological dig. The conclusion of the Ur excavations in 1934 resulted in Woolley publishing Volume II of Ur Excavations which brought forth more public excitement and knighthood for him in 1935. He then returned to the Middle East for three years before going to India in the fall of 1938, and then back to the Middle East in February 1939.
On September 4, 1939, under emergency regulations, Woolley was re-commissioned with the acting rank of captain and posted to the Intelligence Division at the War Office. There he handled intelligence regarding the Middle East. Woolley was pleased in 1940 when his friend Anthony Blunt (who had published a book on Poussin’s drawings just before the war), returned from France where he had served with British counterintelligence and settled in at The Security Service (MI5). They had frequent discussions regarding art and the danger of artistic treasures falling into the hands of Nazi leaders or being destroyed by bombing. Blunt’s contact in the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Kim Philby, was also known to Woolley, who knew his famous father, Harry St. John Philby, who had served in Mesopotamia before going off to Transjordan and Saudi Arabia between the wars. In 1942 Woolley befriended film producer Roy Boulting who sought him out for information about the Middle East as he suspected that an important battle might be about to start. Out of his assistance and guidance came Desert Victory, winner of a 1943 special Academy Award.
Soon after his encounter with Boulting, Woolley was transferred to a new directorate, Public Relations, and was again given the temporary rank of Major. The work was not demanding, and Woolley used his free time to work on a project he had begun in 1941, organizing a card-index of British monuments and fine arts, so that in the event of loss or war damage, the records could be easily traced for restoration purposes. Prime Minister Winston Churchill began to take a personal interest in Woolley’s work. A year later he was transferred to the Civil Affairs Directorate, where he provided liaison with the Military Intelligence Directorate regarding keeping watch on Nazi looting of cultural treasures. Three times during 1943 Churchill called Woolley to Downing Street and Chequers to hear about his work.
In 1943, with the help of the intelligence agencies, and various individuals, Woolley built up a record of the world’s most important treasures, together with files on those paintings and sculptures known to have been concealed by friendly governments and agents, or stolen or damaged by occupying forces.
In June 1943, a group of museum directors in Britain was so concerned about cultural treasures in Italy that it put out an urgent call for the protection of monuments there. The War Ministry responded by setting up an Archaeological Advisory Branch of the Army Staff within Civil Affairs, with “minimum strength.” It consisted of Woolley, his secretary Lady Woolley, and a clerk. During the summer and fall Woolley was at first informally and later more officially asked to give advice as questions arose, but the entire responsibility for action rested with the Civil Affairs Officers who, he would later write, had plenty of other things to occupy their minds and possessed no technical knowledge. Thus, he was pleased when his appointment was officially published in October, at which time he was named Archaeological Adviser to the Directorate of Civil Affairs and given the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. This meant, he wrote in March 1944, that “Monuments and Fine Arts” was directly represented on the Staff.
Woolley visited Algiers, Sicily, and Italy during November and December to observe first hand Monuments, Fine Archives, and Archives (MFA&A) operations. While on this visit he advised certain modifications to the program, which, he later wrote, were on the whole, had been approved and put into force. As a result of his report following his visit to Italy, and for other reasons, on December 29, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his capacity as Commander in Chief, issued AFHQ [Allied Forces Headquarters] General Order No. 68, regarding measures to be taken to preserve historical and cultural treasures. It noted that “The prevention of looting, wanton damage and sacrilege of buildings is a command responsibility. The seriousness of such an offense will be explained to all Allied personnel.” On that same day he also addressed a letter to his army commanders instructing them regarding cultural property:
Today we are fighting in a country which has contributed a great deal to our cultural inheritance, a country rich in monuments which by their creation helped and now in their old age illustrate the growth of the civilization which is ours. We are bound to respect those monuments so far as war allows. If we have to choose between destroying a famous building and sacrificing our own men, then our men’s lives count infinitely more and the buildings must go. But the choice is not always so clear cut as that. In many cases the monuments can be spared without any detriment to operational needs. Nothing can stand against the argument of military necessity. That is an accepted principle. But the phrase “military necessity” is sometimes used where it would be more truthful to speak of military convenience or even of personal convenience. I do not want it to cloak slackness or indifference. It is a responsibility of higher commander to determine through AMG [Allied Military Government] Officers the locations of historical monuments whether they be immediately ahead of our front lines or in areas occupied by us. This information passed to lower echelons through normal channels places the responsibility on all Commanders of complying with the spirit of this letter.
These two documents would serve as the basis for the statement of further policies of MFA&A operations.
In January 1944, Woolley successfully recommended the appointment of Geoffrey Webb, Slade Professor of Fine Arts at Cambridge, as adviser to Chief of Staff to Supreme Allied Commander (COSSAC) on all matters relative to Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives. Webb built up the Monuments Men organization increasingly during the spring of 1944 in preparation for the cross-channel invasion of the continent. Woolley, meanwhile, would continue his work at the War Office, providing advice and helping establish policies and procedures that would guide the Monuments Men in their work on the continent in 1944 and 1945.
For more information on Woolley’s MFA&A activities see the Security Classified General Correspondence, 1943-July 1949, General Records, Civil Affairs Division, Records of the War Department General and Special Staffs, RG 165 and the Monuments, Fine Arts & Archives Section, Operations Branch, G-5 Division, General Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), Allied Operational and Occupation Headquarters, World War II, RG 331. Also useful, particularly regarding his work in Italy, see his Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Branch of Civil Affairs, War Office: A record of the work done by the military authorities for the protection of the treasures of art & history in war areas (His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1947).
TAGS Allied Forces
, Allied Military Government
, Anthony Blunt
, Cate Blanchett
, Dwight D. Eisenhower
, Geoffrey Webb
, George Clooney
, George Stout
, Greg Bradsher
, James Rorimer
, Matt Damon
, Monuments Men
, RG 165
, RG 331
, Rose Valland
, Sir Charles Leonard Woolley
, T. E. Lawrence
, Winston Churchill
, World War II
Recently, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), a federal agency charged with planning for the Washington, DC area, released a draft study regarding the height of buildings inside the District of Columbia. The city of Washington, DC does not have skyscrapers like New York or Chicago, because of a law limiting tall buildings. This height limitation seemingly once was extended to Arlington, Virginia, a city-county which prior to the Civil War, was part of the District of Columbia.
Roughly thirty years ago the NCPC, with the National Park Service (NPS) and the Commission of Fine Arts, represented the government in Civil Case No. 78-872-A, United States of America v The Board of Supervisors of Arlington County, et al. In the series Rosslyn Skyline Files, 1952-2001 (Record Group 66 Records of the Commission of Fine Arts, entry P9, National Archives Identifier 7479878), are legal papers regarding this court case about then proposed changes to the northern Arlington skyline. Within the depositions, transcripts, exhibits and copies of court filed papers, the Commissions provided arguments for maintaining a height limit, and expressed concerns about what would be lost. Several of the exhibits are images of old Rosslyn with square boxes, representing the proposed buildings, superimposed upon them.
The relationship the District of Columbia has with the United States government is very different from other municipalities. Because of the District’s unique situation, the ability for various agencies to limit the city’s building height is more obvious than its ability to influence neighboring jurisdictions in Virginia. The defendants, the Board of Supervisors of Arlington County, in the series’ court documents, challenged the notion of the NCPC, the NPS, and the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) having any jurisdiction in the area of Virginia development. The CFA presented evidence of how changes to the skyline would impact the visuals regarding the Iwo Jima monument which fell under their jurisdiction.
This series may be of interest to local historians, urban planners, and academics interested in changing city landscapes. The United States government was unsuccessful in the court case and developers did go on to build at least two distinctive towers in the 1980s. Researchers who investigate this series may determine if the federal government’s concerns were valid and apply this knowledge to the proposed changes to height limit within the District of Columbia.
Today’s post is written by Dr. Greg Bradsher.
During the past several weeks there has been international interest in the revelations about some 1,400 works of art, some allegedly acquired from looted Jewish collections, found in a Munich, Germany apartment. Most, if not all, of the works found in Cornelius Gurlitt’s apartment had previously been in the possession of his father, Hildebrand, and some of them had been in possession of the Wiesbaden Central Collecting Point before being returned to Hildebrand Gurllit.
Many of the relevant records held by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) relating to Holocaust-Era Assets, including those relating to Hildebrand Gurlitt and to relevant art works in the Wiesbaden Central Collecting Point, are accessible at www.fold3.com.
As time permitted during the past several weeks I have searched in various series that had not been digitized looking for additional records relating to Gurlitt. I was unsuccessful. However, on Friday, November 22, after talking to a reporter and then going back and looking at the Restitution Research Records of the Munich Central Collecting Point on www.fold3.com, I realized that a file had been created by the War Crimes Office of the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Third Army, with the designation 3JA187, that might contain relevant records. My colleague, Sylvia Naylor, was eager to go on one of my Friday afternoon adventures looking for something new. We could not find the file. Later in the afternoon, however, I found in the SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces, Record Group 331) Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives records in file AMG 295, a semi-monthly report on MFA&A activities of the U.S. Third Army for the period ending April 30, 1945, in which Captain Robert K. Posey reported that Karl Haberstock and Hildebrand Gurlitt had been located and would be questioned.
On Monday morning, November 25, I thought we should take a look at two boxes of the staff of the Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality (within the National Archives Collection of World War II War Crimes Records, Record Group 238) that might contain information on Gurlitt and/or file 3JA187.
I had walked by these two boxes, then simply labeled “Art Treasures,” for years and would periodically take a look in them and would always come away with the opinion that there were unique documents, including photographs, relating to World War II-era art looting, of whose existence researchers were generally unaware. So this past summer, after Dr. Naylor had described the record series from which the two boxes came, we thought about digitizing the records, with the intention of getting the scanned documents linked to “Reference Documents Received from American and Foreign Sources, 1945 – 1947” (National Archives Identifier 6106845) and to the International Research Portal for Records Related to Nazi-Era Cultural Property that is hosted by NARA. But we never seemed to find the time to start that digitizing project.
As I opened one folder, labeled 3JA187, simultaneously Sylvia saw in another folder an index to a report that indicated information about Gurlitt was contained in Exhibit No. 17 to the report. We pulled the appropriate box and began the scanning process.
The report, captioned “Report of Information of Alleged War Crimes,” was prepared by the Office of the Commanding General of the U.S. Third Army and sent to the Deputy Theater Judge Advocate, War Crimes Branch, on September 4, 1945. The report begins:
The location of various art depots of the Germans in the Third Army territory prompted the investigation by this headquarters of the seizure of art treasures by the Germans during their occupation of France, Poland, Belgium and Holland, as a war crime in violation of Articles 46 and 56, Annex to Hague Convention No. IV of 18 October 1907.
The report includes sworn statements by Robert Scholz; Bruno Lohse; Gisela Limberger; Gusta Rochlitz; Karl Kress; Guenther Schiedlausky; Karl Haberstock; Ernst Buchner; Walter Fleischer; Adolf Weinmuller, Hermann Voss; and Hildebrand Gurlitt. Appendices to the report contain a collection of documents; summary of facts of evidence in the report; an Office of Strategic Services (OSS) report on the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR) and five OSS interrogation reports; an ERR roster; an alphabetical list of names of persons in the ERR with summary of acts as to each; a list of agencies investigating art looting; a listing of art dealers and others involved in confiscated art; and other similar documentation. Appendix XIV to the report provides a listing of witnesses interrogated and their present locations and a list of reports on wanted individuals.
Sylvia and I did a page-by-page comparison of the report on Gurlitt that is available in the Restitution Research Records of the Munich Central Collecting Point. What we found was an English language version that matched up with what is online, with the minor exceptions of dates and locations next to signatures. There was also the original German language version, signed in ink by Gurlitt at the bottom of the pages. We were surprised to see in the original German language version of the section listing Gurlitt’s acquisitions some handwritten additions made by Gurlitt that were apparently not included in either of the English language versions of the report (that in the file and that online). There was no reason given for the omission. When we finished I reminded Sylvia that once again it always pays to look at an original version of a document, because one might be surprised by what is found. In this instance, what we found was new, and it will be up to researchers to determine the importance.
Below are the two pages from the report: Report of Information of Alleged War Crimes,” prepared by the Office of the Commanding General of the U.S. Third Army and sent to the Deputy Theater Judge Advocate, War Crimes Branch, on September 4, 1945, Reference Documents Received from American and Foreign Sources, 1945 – 1947, National Archives Collection of World War II War Crimes Records, Record Group 238. [Double-click on either image to enlarge.]
TAGS Adolf Weinmuller
, Bruno Lohse
, Captain Robert K. Posey
, Cornelius Gurlitt
, Einsatzstab Reich
, Ernst Buchner
, Gisela Limberger
, Guenther Schiedlausky
, Gusta Rochlitz
, Hermann Voss
, Hildebrand Gurlitt
, International Research Portal for Records Related to Nazi-Era Cultural Property
, Judge Advocate General
, Karl Haberstock
, Karl Kress
, Munich Central Collecting Point
, Office of Strategic Services
, Office of the Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality
, Reference Documents Received from American and Foreign Sources
, Restitution Research Records
, RG 238
, RG 331
, Robert Scholz
, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces
, U.S. Third Army
, Walter Fleischer
, War Crimes Branch
, War Crimes Office
, Wiesbaden Central Collecting Point
, World War II War Crimes Records
The Know Your Records series aims to inform our readers of the types of records in our holdings, the information found in those record types, and the process by which researchers can request/get access to these records.
Know Your Records: U.S. Navy Muster Rolls/Personnel Diaries
U.S. Navy muster rolls and personnel diaries are among the most popular U.S. Navy records in our holdings, along with U.S. Navy deck logs. Archivists here at Archives II frequently consult these records to answer researcher requests. We discussed deck logs in a previous post. Today let’s take a look at U.S. Navy Muster Rolls and Personnel Diaries!
U.S. Navy Muster Rolls/Personnel Diaries – What they are:
Information found on muster rolls and in the personnel diaries may be helpful in identifying the ship, station or activity to which an officer or enlisted man was attached, as well as significant status changes that may have occurred during their service.
Muster Rolls are lists of naval personnel formerly attached to a ship, station or other activity. These reports are generated quarterly. Information usually available on muster rolls includes:
- Name of enlistee
- Rating (occupation/specialty)
- Service number
- Date reported for particular duty or on board
- Date of enlistment
- Name of ship, station, or activity
- Ship number or other numeric designation
- Date of muster roll
Personnel diaries are the U.S. Navy equivalent of the morning rosters found in U.S. Army records. These personnel diaries were compiled monthly. They record significant status changes, including reporting to or transferring from the activity; being promoted or demoted; departing for or returning from periods of leave, and temporary attached duty. Information usually available on personnel diaries includes:
- Name of enlistee
- Date of the change
- Explanation of the change
Nuances of Muster Rolls
- For the period of 1939-1956, muster rolls list the names of enlisted personnel only. Some of the rolls do include the original place of enlistment.
- For rosters of officers serving aboard commissioned U.S. Navy ships during the period 1939-1956, researchers must consult the deck logs of the ship; however, the National Archives does not have custody of officer rosters of Navy units and shore establishments.
- From March 1957 onwards, the muster rolls include lists of officers AND lists of enlisted personnel.
Muster rolls/Personnel Diaries from 1971 onward utilize social security numbers as service numbers and therefore are subject to privacy restrictions (see below).
What they are not:
Muster rolls do not provide daily lists of naval personnel formerly attached to a ship, station, or other activity. They will not tell you the daily whereabouts of a sailor during their service.
Muster rolls/personnel diaries do not contain current addresses of former naval personnel or their survivors.
Requesting Muster Rolls/Personnel Diaries from 1939-1970:
If you are interested in requesting information from or copies of U.S. Navy Muster Rolls/personnel diaries for the period 1939-1970, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Reproductions of muster rolls/personnel diaries from 1939 through 1970 can be reproduced only on DVD. Paper copies are not available. A number of images may be illegible due to the poor quality of the original which was transferred to us by the Department of the Navy. The original paper records were destroyed by the Navy after filming.
Requesting pre-1939 Muster Rolls/Personnel Diaries:
Muster rolls/Personnel diaries prior to 1939 are maintained by NARA’s Archives I Reference Section (RDTR1), National Archives Main Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20408-0001. To request muster rolls/personnel diaries prior to 1939, please contact email@example.com.
Requesting Muster Rolls/Personnel Diaries from 1971-1982:
As mentioned above, muster rolls/personnel diaries from 1971-1982 use Social Security numbers as service numbers, and are therefore subject to privacy restrictions. This means that requests for these records must be submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Submitting a FOIA request for Muster Rolls/Personnel Diaries
- Begin your request with the following: “Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) I hereby request access to U.S. Navy Muster Rolls.” Failure to do so will delay the processing of your request.
- Provide the following information:
- Activity code (if known)
- Ship/Base or Unit designation(s)
- Beginning and End date of interest
- Type of information sought (more than one may be indicated)
- Both Officer and Enlisted
- Quarterly Roster entries
- Personnel Diary entries
- Both Quarterly Rosters and Quarterly Diaries
- The name(s) of specific person(s) (if applicable)
- Your contact information
- Be as specific as possible. A narrow timeframe/specific information will expedite the processing of your request.
If you are requesting muster rolls/personnel diaries for a claim, it is also beneficial to fill out and submit a Certification of Identity form with your request. Doing so will allow the release of private information to you that would otherwise be withheld if requested by a third party.
Please send your request to Martha Wagner Murphy, Chief, Special Access/FOIA Staff, National Archives at College Park, 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 5500, College Park, MD 20740-6001. You may also submit your request via email to specialaccess_FOIA@nara.gov.
Requesting Muster Rolls/Personnel Diaries Post-1982
Post-1982 muster rolls and personnel diaries are still in the custody of the U.S. Navy. To request access to this material, please contact the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-00J6), 5720 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38055.
Muster Rolls/Personnel Diaries online
Muster rolls for the World War II era are available online via www.ancestry.com. Search their catalog for the collection “U.S. World War II Navy Muster Rolls, 1938-1949.” There is a fee for this service. An institution in your area may provide free access to ancestry.com. Or you may view these records online at one NARA’s facilities for free. For the nearest NARA location, please consult our web page at http://www.archives.gov/locations/
, enlisted men rosters
, Freedom of Information Act
, Know Your Records
, Muster Rolls
, naval personnel
, officer roster
, online access
, Personnel Diaries
, privacy restrictions
, record types
, records online
, Report of Changes
, U.S. Navy
, United States Navy
, World War II Navy Muster Rolls