USS AFDL-5

Evidence

16 evidence entries recorded; each entry has a stable permalink (#ev-1 … #ev-16).

1. [1]NavSource Naval History, 'AFDL-5 ex AFD-5 (1944 - 1946)' Service Ship Photo Archive page (navsource.net/archives/09/28/2848.htm, last updated 4 April 2014) [other_primary]

   Locator

   Page header chronology block; image table (minesweeper photo caption); awards block; DANFS note

   Finding type

   vessel_history

   Finding

   NavSource Service Ship Photo Archive chronology: AFD-5 'laid down, date unknown, at Morgan City, LA. by Chicago Bridge and Iron'; 'Delivered and placed in service as AFD-5 in January 1944'; 'Redesignated AFDL-5, 1 August 1946'; 'Placed out of service, date unknown'; 'Struck from the Naval Register, date unknown'; 'Transferred to Taiwan in 1958 named Kim Men, active in service'. Awards: American Campaign Medal, WWII Victory Medal (no Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal - unlike Pacific-deployed sisters). Photo-documented: 'AFD-5 with a minesweeper in her dock, date and place unknown. US Navy photo from DANFS.' 'There is no DANFS history available for AFD-5 / AFDL-5 at NavSource.' No officer roster carried (unlike sister AFDL-3's page).

   Verification

   partial

   Role

   supporting

   Documentation level

   ship_specific

   Accessed

   2026-09-20

   Study period

   1944-1958 (US); 1958 onward (ROCN)

   Population

   AFD-5 dock crew (1944-1958); ROCN dock crew (1958- )

   Limitations

   Secondary compilation and the strongest located service-history source for this hull: the redesignation date independently matches the BuSandA-documented 1946 class-wide reclassification (ev-03) and the transfer/year/name agrees with two shipbuildinghistory tables and a Jane's-style ROCN fleet listing (ev-02, ev-07). But the builder city, delivery month, awards, and all milestone fields rest on this source's reporting - no NVR registry page, no DANFS entry, and no contract document exists to check them against. The '1,900 tons' lifting capacity in its spec block is the 288-ft lengthened-dock figure, inconsistent with its own 200-ft length spec - treated as spec-block error, not asserted (ev-03). No asbestos information.

   Atlas source

   true

   Evidence ID

   ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-01

2. [2]shipbuildinghistory.com (Tim Colton compilation), 'US Navy Dry Docks AFDB AFDM AFDL ARDM ARD YFD' table (updated 2019-06-11) and 'Chicago Bridge & Iron' yard table (updated 2021-08-07) [other_primary]

   Locator

   auxafd.htm AFDL block row 'AFDL 5'; shipyards/emergencylarge/chicagobridge.htm row 'AFD 5/AFDL 5 ... 1/44 ... To Taiwan 1958'

   Finding type

   vessel_history

   Finding

   Independent-compilation corroboration of the build/disposal record: the shipbuildinghistory Navy floating-drydock table lists 'AFDL 5 | Chicago Bridge | Morgan City LA | 800 | 200 | Jan-44 | To Taiwan 1958 as Kim Men, active', and the Chicago Bridge & Iron yard table lists 'AFD 5/AFDL 5 | U.S. Navy | Floating Dock, Light | delivered 1/44 | To Taiwan 1958' - agreeing with NavSource on builder, city, delivery month, foreign transfer, and ROCN name.

   Verification

   partial

   Role

   supporting

   Documentation level

   ship_specific

   Accessed

   2026-09-20

   Study period

   1944; 1958

   Limitations

   A second secondary compilation agreeing with NavSource - meaningful corroboration of the milestone chain, but both compilations trace to overlapping Navy register/trade sources and neither cites a contract document. The Morgan City attribution is applied uniformly across AFD-1 through AFD-11 in this table, which reads as a yard-level assumption rather than per-hull documentation; the sister-hull precedent (AFDL-2's Morgan City attribution corrected to Eureka, CA via NARA photos) counsels flagging, not asserting. The two shipbuildinghistory tables disagree with each other on delivery months for several sisters (e.g., AFD-6: Feb-44 in the yard table vs Mar-44 in the drydock table; AFD-8: Apr-44 vs Jan-44; AFD-11: Jul-44 vs Jan-44) - AFD-5's Jan-44 is consistent across both. No asbestos information.

   Atlas source

   true

   Evidence ID

   ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-02

3. [3]Bureau of Yards and Docks, 'Building the Navy's Bases in World War II,' Chapter IX Floating Drydocks (official Navy history, HyperWar transcription), pp. 209-210 (type definitions), 218 (AFD design description); uswarships.jounin.jp AFDL list [other_primary]

   Locator

   Chapter IX 'Auxiliary Floating Dock' paragraph (design description), 'Types of Floating Drydocks' section (1946 reclassification); uswarships.jounin.jp/afdl.htm AFDL-5 row

   Finding type

   vessel_history

   Finding

   Built as AFD-5, a Bureau of Yards and Docks AFD-type 'Auxiliary Floating Dock' - 'the 1,000-ton one-piece steel docks designed by the Bureau, intended for docking minesweepers, patrol craft, and similar vessels' - 'of the trough type, 200 feet long and 64 feet wide, with a clear width inside the wing walls of 45 feet... entirely of welded steel construction... fully self-contained, with diesel electric power plants, and contained limited repair facilities'; construction 'distributed among five contractors, using six different plants, of which three were on the East Coast, one on the Gulf Coast, one on the West Coast, and one on the upper Mississippi.' Under the 1946 floating-drydock nomenclature revision 'the AFD's became AFDL's' (Auxiliary Floating Drydock Little, less than 10,000 tons); NavSource dates this hull's redesignation 1 August 1946, and the Japanese uswarships.jounin.jp compilation independently repeats '1946/8/1' reclassification to AFDL-5.

   Verification

   verified

   Role

   supporting

   Documentation level

   ship_specific

   Accessed

   2026-09-20

   Study period

   1943-1946

   Limitations

   The class design description and the 1946 blanket AFD-to-AFDL reclassification are official Navy-history facts applied to this hull via the NavSource-dated redesignation (corroborated by a second independent compilation). The 200-ft dimensions and the standard design identify this dock as a standard 1,000-ton AFD, not one of the five 88-ft-lengthened 288-ft conversions (identified in secondary compilations as AFD-7, -12, -22, -23, -26) - so the '1,900 tons' lifting capacity in NavSource's spec block is treated as a spec-block error, not asserted. Nuance: the wartime meaning of 'AFDL' was Lengthened; AFD-5 was never a wartime-AFDL and carries the 'Little' letter only by the 1946 reclassification. No asbestos information in the source.

   Atlas source

   true

   Evidence ID

   ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-03

4. [4]Naval Vessel Register QUICKFIND inactive-vessels list ('N' page, 'NO NAME' entries), NAVSHIPSO/NAVSEA - Internet Archive capture 2016-09-27 [other_primary]

   Locator

   QUICKFIND inactive list, 'NO NAME' AFDL block - AFDL 5 absent between AFDL 2 and AFDL 8; AFDL 11 foreign-transfer row for contrast; Wayback CDX search for SHIPSDETAIL_AFDL_5* returned no captures

   Finding type

   historical_record

   Finding

   Registry absence finding: the NVR QUICKFIND inactive-vessels list (1,503 records, captured 2016-09-27) contains NO entry for AFDL-5 - the 'NO NAME' AFDL block runs AFDL 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 37-45 with named docks (Endeavor, Dynamic, Ability, Adept, Undaunted, Reliance) filed under their names. Sister AFDL-11's 1971 foreign transfer DOES appear ('Disposed of, hull transfered to foreign government (not SAP)', 12/01/1971) - so the register does record foreign disposals where they fall inside its window. AFDL-5's absence is consistent with a 1958 disposal predating the digital register; no SHIPSDETAIL page or other NVR capture for AFDL-5 was located.

   Verification

   verified

   Role

   negative_finding

   Documentation level

   ship_specific

   Accessed

   2026-09-20

   Study period

   registry record through 2016

   Limitations

   The absence is itself the finding, but it is weaker evidence here than for a hull of unknown fate: AFDL-5's foreign transfer is independently documented to 1958, which precedes the register's digital window - so the absence corroborates rather than discovers. It does not establish the exact strike or transfer dates. No asbestos information.

   Atlas source

   true

   Evidence ID

   ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-04

5. [5]National Archives and Records Administration, Special List 44 by Ship Numbers (RG 24, Bureau of Naval Personnel deck logs) [other_primary]

   Locator

   sl-44-ship-number.pdf, AFD block (starts 'AFD-15'; no AFD-1 through AFD-14, and no AFD-5/AFDL-5 entries) - text-extracted and verified this session

   Finding type

   historical_record

   Finding

   NARA Special List 44 (List of Logbooks of U.S. Ships, Stations, and Miscellaneous Units, 1801-1947) contains no deck-log entries for AFD-5 or AFDL-5: verified directly from the by-number PDF, the AFD block runs AFD-15, AFD-18 through AFD-21, AFD-25 through AFD-30, AFDL-21, AFDL-29, AFDL-32 - sister docks such as AFD-25 have listed logs, so the absence is specific to this hull; the dock's wartime logs may have been kept under station administration or not retained.

   Verification

   verified

   Role

   negative_finding

   Documentation level

   ship_specific

   Accessed

   2026-09-20

   Study period

   1944-1947 coverage

   Limitations

   SL-44 covers 1801-1947 only, so post-1947 logs would not appear here regardless; the absence means no hull-level wartime log series was indexed for this dock. Her undocumented wartime station prevents naming the plausible parent-station records (RG 181 and successor RGs, unsearched). Absence from the list is a record-availability finding, not proof no logs were kept - and no asbestos content would be implied by any logbook in any case.

   Atlas source

   true

   Evidence ID

   ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-05

6. [6]National Archives and Records Administration, Ship Plan Index (archives.gov/research/cartographic/ship-index) [other_primary]

   Locator

   Ship Plan Index AFDL-5 row: 'AFDL-5 | AFDL-5 | 385 | Microfilm | 63531026'

   Finding type

   historical_record

   Finding

   NARA Cartographic Ship Plan Index holds a plan for AFDL-5: entry 'AFDL-5 | AFDL-5 | 385 | Microfilm | 63531026' (RG 385, Naval Facilities Engineering Command records) - the same microfilm NAID cited for sister docks across the AFDL-1 through AFDL-46 block, i.e., a shared reel of AFDL-type plans and a potential machinery-layout/materials source.

   Verification

   verified

   Role

   archival_lead

   Documentation level

   context_only

   Accessed

   2026-09-20

   Study period

   1943-44 design era records

   Limitations

   Record-holding mapping only - the microfilm was not retrieved or read (no reproduction spend authorized). Whether the plan set contains insulation or materials schedules is unknown until surveyed. Nothing in this row is an asbestos finding.

   Atlas source

   true

   Evidence ID

   ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-06

7. [7]newton.com.tw '台灣海軍' Jane's-style fleet compilation (ROCN auxiliary vessels section); NavSource AFDL-5 page (ev-01); shipbuildinghistory auxafd table (ev-02) [other_primary]

   Locator

   台灣海軍 page, 輔助艦船 (auxiliary vessels) list - '金門 (KIM MEN) 浮動船塢' entry distinct from 服務5/服務6 rows

   Finding type

   vessel_history

   Finding

   Taiwan service corroboration and fleet context: a Jane's-style ROCN auxiliary-fleet listing carries '金門 (KIM MEN) 浮動船塢' (Kim Men floating dock) as a distinct named dock among ROCN auxiliaries - listed separately from the numbered FO WU docks (服務5/FO WU 5 = ex-US ARD-9; 服務6/FO WU 6 = ex-US ARD-22 Windsor; HAY TAN class = ex-US Loftis design), confirming the ROCN operated a named dock Kim Men alongside, and distinct from, its larger numbered ex-US repair docks. NavSource (page updated April 2014) and shipbuildinghistory (through 2019) both carry the hull as 'active in service' in ROCN.

   Verification

   partial

   Role

   supporting

   Documentation level

   ship_specific

   Accessed

   2026-09-20

   Study period

   1958-~2000 fleet listing; active claims to 2019

   Population

   ROCN dock crew and repaired-vessel crews (1958- )

   Limitations

   Tertiary fleet compilation corroborating that a dock named Kim Men served in the ROCN auxiliary fleet (listing vintage ~1999-2000); it does not tie the name to hull AFDL-5 by serial, does not give a homeport or pennant, and cannot verify current status. The 'active in service' claims in NavSource and shipbuildinghistory are secondary assertions without a dated ROCN source; present-day (2026) status is unverified. No asbestos information.

   Atlas source

   true

   Evidence ID

   ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-07

8. [8]聯合報 (UDN), '左營軍港沉船奇觀 放棄打撈的美籍老船塢服役逾70年' (2025); 中天新聞 (CTI) and 風傳媒 (storm.mg) May 2025 incident reports; 立法院 oversight record on the No. 6 dock replacement program; NavSource USS Windsor (ARD-22) page (09/67/6722.htm) [reputable_press]

   Locator

   CTI report: '海軍保修指揮部所屬左營後勤支援指揮部第6號浮塢...70年歷史...沉沒於左營軍港'; UDN report; ly.gov.tw Detail.aspx?nodeid=45775&pid=223042 (第六號浮塢建造至今已逾70年); navsource 09/67/6722.htm (ARD-22 leased to Taiwan 1971, redesignated Fo Wu 6)

   Finding type

   historical_record

   Finding

   Disambiguation against a current-event false attribution: the ROCN floating dock that flooded and settled ('坐底') at Tsoying naval base during ballast testing in May 2025 was the No. 6 dock (第六號浮塢 / FO WU 6) - identified by NavSource as ex-USS Windsor (ARD-22), a 3,500-ton ARD-12-class dock leased to Taiwan 1 June 1971 and sold under SAP 19 May 1976 - NOT this hull. Press accounts of that incident (70-year-old US-transferred dock, ~3,000-ton-class docking capacity, Tsoying) concern a different, larger ex-US dock and are not evidence about Kim Men/AFDL-5.

   Verification

   verified

   Role

   correction

   Documentation level

   context_only

   Accessed

   2026-09-20

   Study period

   2025 incident; dock histories 1944-2025

   Population

   ROCN Tsoying base personnel (2025 incident, other hull)

   Limitations

   Carried to prevent a current-event misattribution: the May 2025 Tsoying sinking is about the No. 6 dock (ex-ARD-22), a different and larger dock - media descriptions of 'the old US-transferred dock' do not refer to AFDL-5/Kim Men. One press claim that the No. 6 dock 'participated in 823-artillery-battle-era repairs' (1958) predates that dock's own 1971 arrival in Taiwan and reads as loose journalism; not used. No asbestos information; nothing here is an asbestos finding for this hull.

   Atlas source

   true

   Evidence ID

   ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-08

9. [9]NavSource AFDL-5 (2848), Waterford ARD-5 (09/67/6705), and ABSD-5/AFDB-5 (09/67/6749) pages; Wikipedia 'USS ABSD-5' article; shipbuildinghistory auxafd table [other_primary]

   Locator

   NavSource 09/28/2848.htm (this hull); 09/67/6705.htm (ARD-5); 09/67/6749.htm (ABSD-5); shipbuildinghistory auxafd.htm ABSD/AFDL blocks

   Finding type

   historical_record

   Finding

   Name-collision exposure documented: three unrelated U.S. Navy floating docks carried the number 5 - (a) this hull, AFD-5/AFDL-5 (200-ft, 800-ton-displacement, 1,000-ton-class trough dock, to Taiwan 1958 as Kim Men); (b) USS ARD-5, later Waterford (482-ft, 4,200-ton ARD-2-class ship-form repair dock, Pacific Bridge Co., Alameda CA - transferred to Chile as Talcahuano); and (c) USS ABSD-5/AFDB-5 (825-ft, 90,000-ton nine-section advance base dock - also built by Chicago Bridge & Iron at Morgan City, LA, same builder and same build window as this hull - scrapped 1997). Indexing or citation by '...-5 drydock' without hull-type resolution will collide.

   Verification

   verified

   Role

   correction

   Documentation level

   context_only

   Accessed

   2026-09-20

   Study period

   1943-1999 across the three hulls

   Limitations

   Collision-mapping only - guards against merging this record with ARD-5 or ABSD-5 material (the ABSD-5 case is the highest risk: same builder, same city, same year, same suffix number, but an 825-ft sectional dock, not a 200-ft unit dock). No asbestos information.

   Atlas source

   true

   Evidence ID

   ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-09

10. [10]Bureau of Yards and Docks, 'Building the Navy's Bases in World War II,' Ch. IX (design description of the AFD type); era asbestos framing per Corn & Starr (see ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-11) [other_primary]

    Locator

    Chapter IX, 'Auxiliary Floating Dock' paragraph (diesel-electric power plants, self-contained, limited repair facilities)

    Finding type

    asbestos_application

    Finding

    Class/era inference only: the AFD design carried a diesel-electric power plant, ballast/pumping machinery, and limited repair facilities within a welded-steel trough dock built in 1943-44 for the U.S. Navy - a period when Navy construction specifications and supply routinely included asbestos-containing gaskets, packing, electrical insulation, millboard, and thermal insulation for machinery and piping. The dock's documented mission - docking minesweepers, patrol craft, and similar small vessels - placed its crews in sustained contact with era hulls whose own insulation suites commonly contained asbestos; ROCN-era service (1958 onward) continued the same occupational pattern.

    Verification

    inferred

    Role

    supporting

    Documentation level

    class_or_era

    Accessed

    2026-09-20

    Study period

    1943-44 construction era; service to present (reported)

    Population

    Construction trades (CB&I yard, 1943-44); dock crews, USN (1944-1958) and ROCN (1958- ); crews of vessels under repair

    Limitations

    Design-level inference, not a hull record - the BuSandA history does not mention asbestos and does not name this dock. Asbestos presence aboard AFDL-5 is inferred from era construction practice and onboard machinery, not proven; a non-propelled floating dock had a far smaller machinery and inhabited-space footprint than a steam vessel, and its asbestos loading would correspondingly be lower. Establishes nothing about quantity, condition, presence aboard the hull, individual exposure, or causation.

    Atlas source

    true

    Evidence ID

    ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-10

11. [11]Corn, Jacqueline Karnell, and Jennifer Starr, 'Historical perspective on asbestos: Policies and protective measures in World War II shipbuilding,' American Journal of Industrial Medicine 11(3):359-373 (1987) [other_primary]

    Locator

    Abstract and article, AJIM 11(3):359-373

    Finding type

    asbestos_application

    Finding

    Peer-reviewed historical study documents that asbestos was used extensively as a fireproofing and insulating material in U.S. shipbuilding during WWII - the program and era under which this Navy-contracted floating dock was built - with wartime demand driving unprecedented asbestos utilization aboard government and contract hulls.

    Verification

    verified

    Role

    context

    Documentation level

    class_or_era

    Accessed

    2026-09-20

    Study period

    1940s era documented; article 1987

    Population

    WWII shipyard workers and vessel crews (class context)

    Limitations

    Program/era-level scholarly documentation of asbestos use in WWII shipbuilding generally; does not name this dock, does not address floating drydocks specifically, and does not establish that asbestos was or remains aboard this hull, nor quantity, location, condition, exposure, or causation.

    Atlas source

    true

    Evidence ID

    ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-11

12. [12]Keller v. Dravo Corp., 441 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 1017, 92 S.Ct. 679, 30 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972) [court_record]

    Locator

    Opinion at 441 F.2d 1243-44 (vessel-status holding); reporter citation cross-verified via multiple case-law databases (CourtListener API unavailable this session - see search_ledger)

    Finding type

    litigation_documented

    Finding

    Litigation-posture context for the vessel type (not this hull, not asbestos): Fifth Circuit doctrine holds that 'as a matter of law, a floating dry dock is not a vessel when it is moored and in use as a dry dock' - Keller v. Dravo Corp., 441 F.2d 1239, 1244 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 1017 (1972), following Atkins v. Greenville Shipping Corp., 411 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1969) and Chahoc v. Hunt Shipyard, 431 F.2d 576 (5th Cir. 1970). Workers injured on moored floating drydocks were accordingly confined to Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act remedies rather than vessel-owner negligence/unseaworthiness theories.

    Verification

    verified

    Role

    context

    Documentation level

    class_or_era

    Accessed

    2026-09-20

    Study period

    1969-1972 (doctrine); applies to moored-dock operations

    Population

    Floating-drydock workers generally (type context)

    Limitations

    Doctrinal context for the vessel type only - an LHWCA/admiralty vessel-status ruling, not asbestos litigation, not naming this hull, and not an exposure finding. Relevant to how injury claims by drydock crews were channeled; the Keller court expressly declined an absolute rule that a floating drydock can never be a vessel. Citation verified against reporter text reproduced in case-law databases; a direct CourtListener pull remains an open lead.

    Atlas source

    true

    Evidence ID

    ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-12

13. [13]Batch-603 search ledger (this record): CourtListener API v4 attempt (HTTP 429); web-indexed court-document sweeps (site:courtlistener.com, RECAP storage, asbestos/mesothelioma terms) [other_primary]

    Locator

    search_ledger rows sl-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-11 through sl-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-13

    Finding type

    historical_record

    Finding

    Litigation and name-collision sweep: fresh CourtListener API v4 queries for 'AFDL-5'/'AFD-5' were blocked (HTTP 429, shared daily quota, ~15h reset) and deferred per the backoff rule; web-indexed court-record sweeps returned no opinion or docket naming this dock - 'AFD-5'/'AFDL-5' collides with non-vessel strings (AFD abbreviations, the unrelated ARD-5 and ABSD-5 docks, claim/exhibit numbering). A law-firm aggregator page lists 'USS AFD-5' on a vessel-name marketing list - a non-qualifying source barred under batch rules, noted for completeness, not cited. Any future name hit requires hull resolution before classification.

    Verification

    partial

    Role

    negative_finding

    Documentation level

    ship_specific

    Accessed

    2026-09-20

    Study period

    2026-09-20

    Limitations

    Sweep partially blocked - the live CourtListener API quota was exhausted before any query ran, so no fresh docket-level search of this hull was possible; the web-indexed sweep is a weaker instrument. Absence of a located pleading is not proof no claim ever existed. No asbestos opinion naming this dock was found by any instrument used.

    Atlas source

    true

    Evidence ID

    ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-13

14. [14]Batch-603 search ledger (this record): NavSource 09/28/2848.htm; shipbuildinghistory auxafd/chicagobridge tables; uswarships.jounin.jp AFDL list; BuSandA Ch. IX; NARA SL-44 and Ship Plan Index; NVR QUICKFIND; newton.com.tw ROCN fleet list; Taiwan press/legislative records; web-indexed litigation sweeps [other_primary]

    Locator

    search_ledger rows sl-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-01 through sl-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-16

    Finding type

    historical_record

    Finding

    No qualifying ship-specific asbestos record located: no asbestos survey, abatement contract, materials schedule, hazmat disclosure, or docketed case naming AFD-5/AFDL-5 (or ROCN Kim Men) was found in the public sources searched - the NavSource page, both shipbuildinghistory tables, the NARA indexes, the BuSandA type history, the ROCN fleet listings, and the Taiwan press records contain no asbestos or insulation-material statement, and no DANFS entry exists for this hull.

    Verification

    verified

    Role

    negative_finding

    Documentation level

    ship_specific

    Accessed

    2026-09-20

    Study period

    2026-09-20

    Limitations

    Absence of a located public record does not prove absence of asbestos aboard - a 1943-44 self-contained Navy dock with diesel-electric machinery and repair shops is era-consistent with retained asbestos-containing materials, and because she is reported still in ROCN service there is no disposal-era survey or museum disclosure to consult; ROCN maintenance records are not public. Does not establish presence or absence; does not establish or defeat any exposure claim or legal eligibility.

    Atlas source

    true

    Evidence ID

    ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-14

15. [15]NARA Ship Plan Index entry 'AFDL-5 | 385 | Microfilm | 63531026'; NARA RG 24/RG 181 logbook scope per Special List 44 absence; NavSource photo credit 'US Navy photo from DANFS'; EO 9843/PL-512 transfer-authority framework (ev-16); ROCN navy.mnd.gov.tw unit histories [other_primary]

    Locator

    Ship Plan Index AFDL-5 line; sl-44 index absence for AFD-5; navsource.net/archives/09/28/2848.htm photo caption; navy.mnd.gov.tw/aboutus/Partner_Info.aspx?AID=30143&ID=30090

    Finding type

    historical_record

    Finding

    Archival leads (not retrieved): (a) NARA cartographic Ship Plan Index holds an AFDL-5 plan on microfilm, NAID 63531026 (RG 385) - a potential materials/machinery-layout source; (b) the NARA still-photographs holding that produced the dated construction photos correcting sister AFDL-2's builder attribution may hold equivalent AFD-5 construction photos - the direct path to settling the Morgan City attribution; (c) the NHHC/DANFS illustration file behind the NavSource 'minesweeper in her dock' photo may carry an original caption with date/place - the only located path to a wartime station; (d) the 1958 transfer instrument (Mutual Defense Assistance Program/Security Assistance records, Navy-to-ROCN transfer files) would document the transfer date and terms; (e) Navy Registers 1944-1958 may hold officer rosters for this dock; (f) ROCN 保修指揮部 (Maintenance Command) and 左營/馬公 base records are the plausible holdings for the dock's Taiwan service and present status - not publicly accessible.

    Verification

    unverified

    Role

    archival_lead

    Documentation level

    context_only

    Accessed

    2026-09-20

    Study period

    1943-2026 records

    Limitations

    Record-holding mapping only - no document-level retrieval performed (no reproduction spend authorized; none of these holdings are digitized in the located indexes). Whether any contains asbestos-specific information for this dock is unknown until surveyed. Nothing in this row is an asbestos finding.

    Atlas source

    true

    Evidence ID

    ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-15

16. [16]Executive Order 9843, 'Authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to Transfer Certain Vessels and Material and to Furnish Certain Assistance to the Republic of China' (implementing PL 512, 79th Cong., 1946) - text via the American Presidency Project [federal_register]

    Locator

    EO 9843 text (floating-drydock transfer authorization clause)

    Finding type

    historical_record

    Finding

    Transfer-program statutory context: Executive Order 9843 (1947) implemented the 79th Congress's China-aid authorization (Public Law 512), expressly empowering transfer to the Republic of China of 'floating drydocks of capacity sufficient to accommodate any vessel or craft disposed of under authority of this Act' - the statutory pattern under which the 1958 dock transfer to Taiwan sits, and which the naming Kim Men (金門, the Kinmen/Quemoy islands shelled in the August-October 1958 Second Taiwan Strait Crisis) fits contextually.

    Verification

    verified

    Role

    context

    Documentation level

    context_only

    Accessed

    2026-09-20

    Study period

    1946-1958

    Limitations

    Statutory/mechanism context only - documents that floating-drydock transfers to the ROC were an authorized category of US naval aid; it does not document this hull's specific 1958 transfer (which postdates the 1947 order and likely ran under successor MAP/Security Assistance authorities), the transfer date, or the naming rationale. The crisis-timing coincidence (transfer year = Kinmen shelling year) is context, not evidence of causation. No asbestos information.

    Atlas source

    true

    Evidence ID

    ev-uss-afdl-5-afdl5-16