Can anyone understand army speak please?

[jaywit]

This comes from this thread in the Common Room.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=424952.new

The problem is as follows.
Charles Young, his record is in WW1 Pension records on Ancestry with birth parish shown as Islington.
This man is an enigma, he attested in WW1 but was discharged after 3 months at home, he appears medically fit and we are trying to work out why he was sent home.
It says on the record something like
 'Discharge approved under Para 154(111) (c) SR?Regs
authority W O letter General Number 2559 (a?92b)'

Can anyone please explain what that may mean? Thank you

[jds1949]

Soldiers who were discharged on medical or fitness grounds were discharged under Para 392, so clearly it wasn't that. Two possibilities spring to mind:
1. he was commissioned, in which case he would be discharged from his original unit to be sent elsewhere or
2. he was engaged in some form of essential war work.

You could try posting this query on the Great War Forum http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?

Lots of very knowledgeable and helpful people on that site.

jds1949

[liverpool annie]

Lots of very knowledgeable and helpful people on this site too !! 

What was his occupation Jaywit  ? ( I just looked at your reference but its 22 pages !!  )

Annie 

[jds1949]

That is very true and I would be very upset if anyone thought that I was suggesting otherwise,

jds1949

[forester]

Hello jaywit,

Charles Young was discharged "considered unfit for service within 3 months of enlistment"

This is the equivalent of King's Regulations Para 392 (iii) (c).

From what I can make out, in 1914 there were seperate Regulations for both the Territorial Force and Special Reservists. The reasons for discharge, however, are essentially tabulated in the same way.

Phil

[Daisypetal]

Hi,

Looking through Charles YOUNG'S pension records, his medical history gives his vision as 6/18 in both eyes. I think this is quite poor vision,

http://www.rootschat.com/links/07py/

I wonder if he didn't meet the minimum visual standards, these look like the current ones,

http://www.aop.org.uk/uploaded_files/army.pdf


Regards
Daisy

[km1971]

The answer to Question 11 is quite interesting - he had previous experience with the RWF and was discharged on 'termination of engagement'. If this was 1900 to 1913 (which is likely) there may be an original set of papers in Kew in WO97. If you cannot get to Kew Findmypast will be putting them online 'by 2011'. He may have only spent 7 years in uniform with the rest of his 12 years being in the 1st Class Army Reserve.

FindMyPast will also be putting Militia Attestation Papers (WO96) online after WO97. A high %age of men joined the Militia first before committing to 12 years as a Regular.

There were separate KRs covering Regulars, Special Reserve/Militia and Territorials. the 3rd Bn were SR hence the use of their regs.

Ken

[moogaloo]

Hi,

Looking through Charles YOUNG'S pension records, his medical history gives his vision as 6/18 in both eyes. I think this is quite poor vision,

http://www.rootschat.com/links/07py/

I wonder if he didn't meet the minimum visual standards, these look like the current ones,

http://www.aop.org.uk/uploaded_files/army.pdf


Regards
Daisy


This would make sense, him having poor eyesight.  Two of my brothers had very poor eyesight too.  They never had to enlist though so it wouldn't be as crucial for them to have good eyesight.  x x

[moogaloo]

Lots of very knowledgeable and helpful people on this site too !! 

What was his occupation Jaywit  ? ( I just looked at your reference but its 22 pages !!  )

Annie 

His occupation was Journeyman Slater Annie.  x x