Major Bibliographical References 1. Kingman, Bradford, The History of Brockton, Syracuse, 1895 2. Plymouth County Registry Deeds 3. Mercantile Illustrating Co. Brockton and Its Points of Interest, New York, 1895 4. Board of Trade Manual of the City of Brockton, Brockton, 1899 (See continuation sheet) 10. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated property - 6120 sf Quadrangle name Brockton UMT References A ORAAN M ALGE NUU UIM NOT VERIFED B Quadrangle scale 1:25000 119 Zone CLL EL 3731861 Easting Lu d a da col Northing HALu LLL 1LLL Zone Easting Northing DLULIL LuLI FLU LL LEL LILILLL LLIL Lilu Verbal boundary description and justification The Howard Building occupies part of the block bounded by Main Street to the east, High Street to the south and Legion Parkway to the north.
It is bounded by the Lyman Block (83-91, Main Str) to thernorth and the Goldthwaite (99-103 Main St.) to the List all states and counties for properties overlapping state or county boundaries south. state code county code state code county code 11. Form Prepared By Edward Halligan, Preservation Planner, with Miguel Gomez-Ibanez, Endevor, Inc. name/title Architects organization Massachusetts Historical Commission date March 31, 1980 street & number 294 Washington Street telephone 727-8470 city or town Boston, Massachusetts state 12.
State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89 665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria andprocedures set forthbythe Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service.
State Historic Preservation Officer signature Palum ZWeslouki title Executive Director, Massachusetts Historical Commission date 2/25/82 For HCRS use only I hereby certify that this property is included in the National Register Entered in the National Register date ~Keeper of the National Registe Attest: Chief of Registration date 4/15/82 GP O 938 835 FHR-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTOR Y -- NOMINATION FORM FOR HCRS USE ONLY RECEIVED MAR 18 1982 DATE ENTERED CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 9 PAGE 1 5. Greenough g Company Brockton G Bridgewater Directory, Boston 18/2-1909 6. Caldwell, WH, Brockton, Historical, Descriptive, & Picturesque, Brockton, 1090 7. J.D. Hali & Co. Brockton Commercial Bulletin, Vól.
1, Brockton 1894 - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FOR NPS USE ONLY RECEIVED MAR 1 8 1982 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES PROPERTY MAP FORM DATE ENTERED APR1 332 SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -. ENCLOSE WITH MAP NAME HISTORIC Howard Building AND/OR COMMON same LOCATION CITY. TOWN -_VICINITY OF COUNTY STATE Brockton Plymouth MA EJF MAP REFERENCE SOURCE SCALE Sketch Map no scale DATE March 1980 REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL MAPS 1. PROPERTY BOUNDARIES 2. NORTH ARROW 3. UTM REFERENCES - PAVED~ iliL!i _1//i HIGH STRERT CURTIS BVXG GOLOTHWAITE HOWARD ELocK LYMAN PROCK LEGION PARKWAY MAINSTREET NOKTH IATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Intrad Statos Dopartmant ef the Iataria lational Park Service EYALUATION / RETURN SHEET SENT - DEUSION REBCHED TO TEFER Working No. Fed. Reg.
Date: Date Due: Action: resubmission nomination by person or local government owner objection RENOVAL LTeN ACCEPT- - RETURN 1483 REJECT yFodoral Agoncy:. appeal Substantive Roview: - sample _ request appeal - NR decision Reviower's comments: HERE APPEARS PO AAJE BEER A SERIOUS LOSS Recom. /Criteria REMOVE DE HISTORIL INTEGRIT PODA BEFORE THE REHABILLTATON Reviewer _ DOUGAL HIS WAS COMPBUNDED BY TEE RHABILITATION IN Discipline HISTONY LOtKHI MORE DRIGINAA FABRIK WAS REMOVED Date _ 1,1983 - continuation sheet AND THE BUILDING -EALLICR -Nomination returned for: Ws technicade oprections Cied belMENTED APPRARANCE. - substantive reasons discussed below 1. Name 2. Location 3. Classification Prasant Uas walle Aoqsteltton 4. Owner of Property 5. Location of Legal Description - 6. Représentation in/Existing Surveys hes taie property beon dosarmined oligibta1 7.
Description sondtttor excaller good teie ietertorate .ruins unexpoe Chack em _ uneitered _ aitered Chack ene _ origenal sne - moved doro - corto tho proses and ertginal (11 ksowe) plyaleal eopocreno summary paragraph completeness clarity alterations/integrity dates boundary selection 8. Significance Perter Araas ol 54 summary paragraph completeness clarity applicable criteria justification of areas checked -. relating significance to the resource context relation ship of integrity to significance justification of excepticn -*.i3e.P2.. other ne:Tos ioUs er 9. Major Bibliographical References 10. Geographical Data hareago of amtnatad propenty - badrangi VNIT Rote Verbal de ondary de juetinte aties PARY 11. Form Prepared By 12.
State Historic Preservation Officer Certification Tiee ovetuated sigrificence of thle property wttrtn ine state _ tate Hlataric Prosarvetton Officer etgneture 13. Other Maps - Photographs Other Questions concerning this nomination may be directed to Date_ Phone: 202 272 -3504 Signed - Comments for any Item may be continued on an attached sheet NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 82004969 EVALUATION/ RETURN SHEET Property:_ HOWaRD Block State, County: - MA Plymouth Federal Agency: Working No. 3- 18.82-812 Fed. Reg. Date; e 83 Date Due:_ 4/15/82 Action: 4/15/82 resubmission Entered in the - RETURN nomination by person or local government National Register - REJECT_ owner objection photos appeal maps Substantive Review: - sample -_request - appeal - NR decision Reviewer's comments: Recom.
/ Criteria - Reviewer Discipline_ Date _ see continuation sheet -Nomination returned for: _ -technical corrections cited below _substantive reasons discussed below 1. Name 2. Location 3. Classification Category Ounership Xubitc Acoueiettion 4. Owner of Property Status bccoselble Prosent Use 5. Location of Legal Description 6. Representation in Existing Surveys hes thle property been determined eligibte? yes -n 7. Description Conditien excelient good fair deteriorated ruins unexposed Chock one .unaltered altered Check one original site moved date - sscribe the prosent and eriginal (i known) phrysical apoerance summary paragraph completeness clarity alterations/integrity dates boundary selection 8.
Significanco Perted arass of Significance Chack and huatity balon Spocific dates Btatement ol Signifteaneo ('n ene peragraph) Buflder/ Archhee summary paragraph completeness clarity applicable criteria justification of areas checked relating significance to the resource context relationship of integrity to significance justification of excepticn other 9. Major Bibliographical References 10. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated property Quedrengle namo - UMT Roterences Verbel boundery doscription and justificatien 11. Form Prepared By 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The ovaluated significance of this property within the state is: netional .atate local Btate Historic Preeervation Officer aignature date Btle 13.
Other Maps Photographs Other Questions concerning this nomination may be directed to _ Signed Date Phone: 202 272-3504 Comments for any Item may be continued on an attached sheet ANNO-DOMINH892 BROCKTON CEN NO LEFT TURN DRUGS DRUGS hOfessional PHARMACY IDEXL 27 endevor inc 77 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET - BOSTON - MASSACHUSETTS 02114 - 617/523-7040 January 26, 1982 RECEIVED Jhi ieo love MASS. HIST. COMM. Ms. Patricia L. Weslowski Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission State Historic Preservation Officer 294 Washington Street Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Weslowski: Re Goldthwaite Block Howard Block Lyman Block This will confirm that the owners of the above referenced project are firmly in accordance with having our buildings listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
We believe that this nomination as well as designation would act us to assist us in preserving these buildings. In addition, it will act as a significant factor in the revitilization of downtown Brockton. Again I would like to reconfirm enthusiastically our listing of our buildings for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. If you have any questions I would be very happy to appear in person or to do whatever is necessary to assist your organization in the completion of this important work. Yours very truly, Gilbert V. Boro Managing General Partner Brockton Centre Associates GVB/kf MAR 18 NATIONAL EOISTER =/To) CC : Miguel Gomez-Ibanez Ray Faulkner Gerard F. Doherty, Esq.
Edward Fish ETTE ENTRIES IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES STATE MASSACHUSETTS APRIL 15, 1982 Date Entered Name Camp Atwater Lyman Block Curtis Building Goldthwaite Block Howard Block Location North Brookfield Worcester County Brockton Plymouth County Brockton Plymouth County Brockton Plymouth County Brockton Plymouth C6unty Notified Honorable Edward P. Boland Honorable Brian J. Donnelly Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Honorable Paul E. Tsongas Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, NPS North Atlantic Regional Office, NPS State Historic Preservation Officer Mrs. Patricia L.
Weslowski Executive Director, Massachusetts Historical Commission 294 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 For further information, please call the National Register at (202) 272-3504 2 = MAR 1983 W.Buaskon 3.15:83 Caliueio 3/16/23 MEMORANDUM To: Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places Fromi Regional Director, MARO Subject: Howard Block, 93-97 Main Street, Brockton, MA Tne Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of the National Park Servic has concluded its review of the Historic Preservation Certification Application for this building which was listed on the NationalRegister on April 15, 1982. We have denied Certification of Rehabilitation under Part 2 of the application (see enclosed letter). The extent of change which this building has undergone raises serious questions about the historic integrity of the building.
We do not believe that the building meets the National Register criteria for evaluation because of this loss of historic integrity. We are bringing the matter to your attention at this time sinc we are unsure whether the information fran the Part 2 -application was included in the nomination and whether the nomination substantive professional review. SEHEE The rehabilitation work described in the Historic Preservation Certification Application includes the construction of a new brick front wall and new windows from the second-floor level to the fourth-floor ciling of this four-story building. While this new wall is similar in material and overall proportions to the historic appearance, it is noticeably different in a number of important respects. Ihe fourth floor windows, as reinstalled, are the same height as those an the second and third floors.
The Part 1 application describes the additional height of the fourth floor (and thus of these windows) as due to the presence of an assembly room for the Odd Fellows Hall on this floor. This aspect of the history and significange of the building is not conveyed by the reconstructed front wall. The new wall is also constructed with an obvious construction joint. Ihe new + brick is not keyed into the old brick, but is laid up against a continuous vertical joint.If the new brick had been keyed into the old brick, the division between new and old fabric would have been obscured and the restoratlon would have been more convincing.
The replacement windows chosen for the upper floors of the front wall are also inappropriate for this building., Since there were no windows in this wall prior to this rehabllitation, we have used the historic photographs as a guide in evaluating the historic character of the building. These photographs show the second and third floor window openings to' be filled with one over-one dbubie- hung sash of equal size with meeting rails located at mid-point of the window openings. Since the fourth floor window openings were taller than those on the Lower tloors these openingswere filled with three equal-sized triple-hung sash with meeting rails located at third points of the window openings. Ihe regularity of sash divisions within a variety of window sizes helped to establish the historic character of this building.
The replacement windows installed are guite different fram these historic windows.Ihe lower operable Bash is much amaller than the fixed upper sash, Eilling less than one-third of the window opening. In several cases this lower sash 18 filled with a yentllation grille. The large fixed upper pane in combinatian with' the small lower sash creates an irreguler rhyth that dominates the sirple architectural character of this min elevation. The choice df a window configuration with simllar-sized upper and lover sash would not have had such a detilmental ef fect on the historic character of the bulläing. Beyond the issues of historical accuracy in the front facade there s the issue of the historlc integrity af the overall buliding. Very little historlc fabric actually survives the changes this building has undergone, including this most recent rehabilitation.
New storefronts were installed across the ground floor. Replacement windows and grilles similar to those used on the front facade were/ installed in window openings on the rear. Some of these windows were blocked up with new masonry.An entirely new structural system, with new finishes, mechanical and electrical systems, and new fire stairs were constructed within the masonry she1l, A small amount of masonry on the front wall and the masonry of the rear wall are all that survive of this building's historic fabric. If the nomination for this building did not receive substantíve professional review, prior to listing, we request, that that review now take place. If a.+ substantive zeview did take place we request that the nominatlon be re evaluated in "light of the new Information contained in the Part 2 application.
It is our opinion that the bullding should be removed from the National Register, intas accordance with National Register regulations 36 CFR 60.15(k) and with Bistoric: Preservation Certification regulations. 36 CFR 67.6(1). If you need eny additional information on the project or have any questions concerning our review of the project, please contact William Brookover of this office at (215); 597-8068. James W. Coleman, Jr. Trasees 7/25/8 Jfor Nelar 7/25/83 JUL 28 1983 F78(424) Gilbert V. Boro Managing General Partner Brockton Center Associates 77 North Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Dear Mr.
Boro: PROPERTY: Howard Block, 93-97 Main Street, Brockton, Massachusetts CONTROL NUMBER: 0257-82-MA-82-0260 TAXPAYER'S IDENTIPICATION NUMBER: 092-30-2129 My review of your appeal requesting reversal of the decision of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, denying certification for the rehabilitation work on the Howard Block has been concluded. This appeal was made under Department of the Interior regulations 36 CFR Part 67.10 for purposes of Federal historic preservation tax incentives contained in section 2124 of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, section 701 (f) of the Revenue Act of 1978, and section 212 of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 198). I want to thank you and your associates for providing, in your letter of May 2, 1983, a complete written account of the factors involved in your rehabilltation decisions, and for meeting with me in Washington on June 22.
After carefully considering the facts of the case, 1 have determined that the historic character of the Howard Block has not been maintained through the rehabilitation and that the project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabillitation." The March 18 decision of the regional office, therefore, is hereby sustained. My decision to sustain the regional office's denial of certification is that the rebuilding with entirely new materials of the second through fourth floors of the primary facade to an approximation of its nineteenth century appearance is not sufficient to preserve the historic character of the Howard Block. I realize that most of the character defining features of this building--the fenestration, brickwork and storefront-were elther altered or missing at the time of your rehabilitation.
In my opinion, the nineteenth century integrity of this building has been so seriously eroded, even before your rehabilitation, as to raise doubts concerning the appropriateness of its continued listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As the building presently exists, the only remaining historic fabric is the rear wall, two party walls (which have been sandblasted to remove the plaster, thus altering their historic appearance), portions of the structural system, the cornice and quoins, and some of the brick along the sides of the primary facade. Gilbert V. Boro 2 Because of the building's condition prior to your rehabilitation, great care was necessary to preserve the remaining fabric and historic appearance of the building.
Replacement of these missing architectural features should have been based on the accurate duplication of their nineteenth century apearance, as is stated in Standard 6. As a result of your rehabilitation, the brickwork does not match the visual appearance of the remaining original brick along the sides and cornice, the new brick is not keyed into the original brick, the fourth floor windows have been reduced in height, and the new, ornamented window lintels on the third and fourth floors do not match the originals. The one-over-one replacement sash featuring a smaller lower sash with a horizontal meeting rail at the lower third of the window opening, and window air conditioners also differs from the historic window treatment. The cumulative effect of these reconstructed features and the new window treatment alters of the overall character and appearance of the building.
Therefore, the rehabilitation does not meet Standards 2 and 6 and cannot be a certified rehabiltation. Should you become involved in furture rehabilitation projects of historic buildings, I strongly urge you to contact the appropriate National Park Service Regional Office early in the planning stage. As the Department of the Interior regulations state, my decision is the final administrative decision regarding rehabilitation certification. Sincerely, (sgd) Ernest A, Connally Ernest Allen Connally, Chief Appeals Officer CC:MA-SHPO bcc: MARO-Harrison SOL-Hanslin, Main Interior, Rm. 6542 424-Connally, 1100 L St., Rm. 5111 424-Johnson [424-BASIC FILE RETAINED IN 424 FNP:JTRAVERS:mg:7/22/83:343-9585 (JT 2, "Boro2") bCc: NR. THOMAS, PACKARD & CO. MIRRORS. HOWARD BLOCK CARPETS. FURNITURE ANDUPHOLSTERY HOWARD BLOCK, MAIN STREET. - c.
1900 16 United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 IN REPLY REFER TO: H32(413) Memorandum To: Regional Direetor, Mid-Atlantic Region From: Keeper of the National Register Subject: Howard Block, 93-97 Main Street, Brockton, Massachusetts This is in response to your March 24, 1983 memorandum requesting a review of the nomination file for the Howard Block. The Howard Block was listed in the National Register having had only a technical review. After completing a substantive professional review of the nomination we have determined that, based on the information provided in your memorandum, there is sufficient reason to question the eligibility of the property in the condition in which it was nominated. Since our file does not contain the historic photograph refereneed in your memorandum we have requested it from Cindy McLeod of your staff.
If after receipt of the photograph and further review of the file we conelude that the property should be removed from the National Register, we will proceed in accordance with National Park S ervice regulations 36 CFR 60.15 and notify you when the action is complete. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT memorandum DATE: June 6, 1983 Jine 6, REPLNOF: B111 Brookover, Architect, MARO SUBJECT: Howard Block, 93-97 Main St., Brockton, MA Bruce MacDougal, Architectural Historian, NR, WASO Enclosed is a copy of our memo to the Keeper of the National Register dated March 24, 1983. Hope this gets to you in time. We look forwadd to your response. - Regards, Bil Beoken Bill Brookover OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10 (REV. 1-80) GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6 5010-114 *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1982 0 - 361-526 (7290) PM 3183 H32 (413) AUG 4 1983 Ms.
Valerie Talmage Acting Executive Direetor, Massachusetts Eistoricel Commission 294 Washington Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Dear Ms. Talmage: This is in regard to the nomination to the National Register of the Howard Bloek, Broekton, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. The iid-Atlantie Regional Office of the National Park Service requested that we review the nomination file for the above property to determine if, in light of recent information on the property contained in an applieation for "Certifieation of Rehabilitation", the property may have been listed in the National Register in error. The nomination received oniy a teehnieal review by this office before it was listed in April of 1982. As a result of the Region's request, wecondueted a substantive review of the nomination.
Basedon the informationprovided in the nomination and by theregion, attached, the building appears to have lost a substantial amount of arehitectural integrity in the course of remodelling in the twentieth century. Almost all of the facade was removed and replaced by a wood and glass eurtain wall leaving original masonry only above the fourth foor windows (ineluding the cornice) and at each of the ends of the facade. Further, in the course of the recent rehabilitation more of the remeining original fabrie of the buliding was removed. We concur with the Region's opinion sustained by Dr.
Connally in his denial of the owner's recent appeal that most likely too little of the historie fabrie of the building survived for it to retain its integrityof materials and workmanship feeling andassociation and that this loss of historie fabrie makes the eligibility of the bullding under National Register Criteria for Evaluation highly guestionable. Also, the recent rehabllitation, while replacing the later faeade with a faeade similar in appearance to the original, did not gestore the iacade to its doeumented earlier appearance as shown by the cirea 1885 and cirea 1900 pnotographs. Since it appears likely that the Howard Block was listed in the National Register in error, we requestthat you review the flle in light of current information on the property and request removal in accordance with 36 CFR 60.15. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
If you would like to diseuss it with us further, please call Bruee MeeDougal at 343-9536. Sineerely, Carol D. Shull (Sgd.)) Carol D. Shull Chief of Registration National Register of Historie Places Interagency Resourees Division Enclosure cc: Mid-Atlantie Region bec:413 Reading File Record Center FNP:BMaeDougal:mdj:06/13/83 Sys. 8 (Nom.) #8022 Basie File Retained in NR ARTMENT United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 March 3. IN REPLY REFER TO: F78(424) FEB 171984 Mr. Gilbert V. Boro Managing General Partner Brockton Centre Associates 77 NorthWashington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Dear Mr.Boros PLIWOUTH COUNTY PROPERTY: Howard Block, 93-97 Main Street, Brockton, Massachusetts CONTROL NUMBER: MA-82-0260 TAXPAYER'S I.D.
NUMBER: 092-30-2129 Your letter of November 9, 1983, requesting reconsideration of my decision dated July 28, 1983, to sustain the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office's denial of certification for the rehabilitation of the Howard Block has been carefully considered. This response also aknowledges our subsequent telephone conversations on November 28, December 12 and December 13 of last year, when you offered to make changes in the work done on the Howard Block in order to reopen the case. As stated in my letter of July 28, 1983, the rehabilitation of the Howard Block was denied certification because the rebuilding of the facade did not accurately duplicate the historic appearance of the building.
Standard 6 of the Secretary's "Standards for Rehabilitation" requires that replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplication of features, substantiated by physical, historical or pictorial evidence. As indicated in our telephone conversation, l am willing to reopen the case provided it is your intention to effect such changes in the facade of the Howard Block as to bring it into conformance with Standard 6. The purpose of the further work would be a faithful reproduction of the facade in its state of circa 1900. 1 am aware from previous acquaintance with your project that there exists a very clear frontal photograph of the building that documents its unaltered appearance at about that date. Further work that would accurately recapture that appearance would be consistent with the historic character of the building.
As 1 mentioned in our telephone conversations, requirements for such work include the following: Enlarging the window openings in the fourth story to their original dimensions; installation in all windows above the first story of sash that match the originals (or those illustrated c. 1900) in composition, configuration of meeting rails and muntins, color, and all other visual aspects; reconstruction of the first-floor storefront to its appearance of circa 1900. The other concerns expressed in my earlier letter will be considered in reviewing any plans and specifications you may submit. Mr. Gilbert V. Boro 2 Until plans and specifications are developed to meet the conditions outlined above, 1 do not believe a meeting in Washington, D. C. with me or the staff of the Preservation Assistance Division would be useful.
Instead, I suggest you forward a revised Historic Preservation Certification Application, along with proposed plans and specifications for the changes to the facade of the Howard Block, to the Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC 20240. Your submission will be carefully reviewed. If a meeting with you is necessary to discuss whether the proposed revisions meet the Secretary's Standards, you will be so advised directly. As a final matter, 1 must point out that I am willing to consider certification of an altered rehabilitation project under these conditions only because of the special circumstances of the Howard Block, particularly, its listing in the National Register subsequent to completion of your rehabilitation project.
If it proves possible to certify an altered project, such certification will not be considered as generally endorsing the listing of buildings in the National Register which are substantially lacking in historic integrity nor the appropriateness of certifying similar rehabilitation projects. Should you have any guestions concerning the conditions outlined in this letter please call Ward Jandl on 202-343-9584. Sincerely, (sgd) Ernest A. Connally Ernest A. Connally, Chief Appeals Officer cc: MA-SHPO LNR-Howard Block, Brockton, MA. Date ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP TO: (Name, office symbol, room number, building, Agency/Post) 1. JEAN 10/10 Initials Date 3.
Action Approval As Requested Circulate Comment Coordination REMARKS File For Clearance For Correction For Your Information Investigate Justify Note and Retumn Per Conversation Prepare Reply See Me Signature TE NOMINATIEN PHOTOGKAPHS ARE MISSINT. DO YOU HAVE? 11:00 DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposais, clearances, and similar actions FROM: (Name,org.symbol, Agency/Post) Room No.-Bidg. BNUE Phone No. 5041-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) Prescribed by GSA * U.S.G.P.O.: 1983 -421-529/320 FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.206 - I doit tnoro what happened to the NR photo. I've been through the file trice. I had there copier made df-how's this? Oean.
Block