Using his given authority, Vice Admiral Monroe delineated the respective responsibilities of DNA and the military services in a 13 February 1978 memorandum directed to the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force. DNA, he emphasized, would "organize and direct the overall effort," while each military service would be responsible for NTPR research pertinent to that service and for followup communications with service personnel (6). DNA coordinated its approach with DOE and CDC in meetings held during March and April 1978. Representatives from DNA explained the NTPR program to DOE/NVOO and its contractors at a 9 March 1978 meeting. DOE hosted a meeting on 4 April 1978 that was attended by representatives of the DOD NTPR, National Archives, REECo, LANL, NAS/NRC, and each DNA contractor organization. The discussion focused on methods for identifying and obtaining records on atmospheric nuclear weapons testing (7). An 8 June 1978 memorandum, drafted by Vice Admiral Monroe, directed tHe NTPR teams toward consistency in research. following information on test participants: It asked them to collect the "1) Full name (no initials), 2) Branch of service (if civilian, service/contractor/laboratory affiliation), 3) Unit or ship (at time of test), 4) Grade, rank, or rating (at time of test), 5) Service serial number(s), 6) Social security number, 7) Date of birth, 8) Shots participated in, 9) Radiation exposure data, in as much detail as possible (e.g.: total atmospheric test exposure; exposure by radiation type; exposure by shot, series, or time period; badge issue and turn-in dates; bioassay data; etc.), 10) Sources of above data elements." The memorandum also required the teams to research individual medical records, which would be a major effort involving considerable time. The rationale for this records search was as follows (8): First, the searching, explored. purpose of NTPR effort could scarcely be considered thorough, or even competent if this basic source is not Second, radiation exposure data is so central to the NTPR, and recorded information elsewhere is known to have such limitations, looked. that no potential source can be over- Third, since future research efforts (epidemiological, claims, etc.) will, in many cases, retrace this same ground, knowledge even of absence of information in medical records will be of considerable value. Finally, an understanding of the Services’ past success or failure in recording exposures will be important in devising new systems.