King's Regulations?

[ThrelfallYorky]

Hunting around a very distant descendant of a distant rellie, found his WWI records online - he joined up as a late teenager, but spent only a very short time in the RAMC, and although apparently well-behaved, was soon discharged - his records quoted " Para 392 (iii cc).
Anybody any knowledge about this? As far as we know, he didn't marry in later life, in case that may be relevant.....

[jim1]

unlikely to make an efficient soldier if my memory is correct.

[jim1]

The full monty
(iii) Not being likely to become an efficient soldier
(cc) Recruits with more than three months service considered unfit for
      further military service

[ThrelfallYorky]

Ah, thanks. The words "Unlikely to make an efficient soldier" were actually written in the records, immediately prior to the reference I gave - I'd wondered if the wording of the actual para/clause might have made more clear the reason why he was unlikely to make an efficient soldier. (He was only 5'2", so quite small, and - I'd've thought, barely capable of heaving loaded stretchers around. ) Thank you for clarifying for me that the reference was merely making formal the comment.

[jim1]

Unlikely anything to do with his height. There were several Bantam Batts. around in 1914 for men under the minimum of 5'3".

[ThrelfallYorky]

He was recruited to the R A M C.

[Bookbox]

You now have your answer, but for general reference the causes of discharge appearing in King's Regulations 1912, para. 392,  are listed here ...
http://www.military-researcher.co.uk/KingsRegs1912/Para392Introduction.html

[ThrelfallYorky]

Wow! Thank you, Bookbox, a very interesting read!

[Mancpal]

I've spent the last couple of months searching literally hundreds of army service records and in terms of height your man seems about average for the era. I'm only 5'8" and would have been one of the taller ones and I've not come across a single soldier yet that has a stated height above 5'10".
After 25 yrs of searching I only recently discovered my grandfather had been discharged at the end of October 1914 under the same Kings Regulation. It didn't stop him joining the Mcr Pals two months later with whom he stayed until disabled at the end of 1917. One reason I understand that falls under this particular category is a lack of discipline, others are poor eyesight, poor teeth, flat feet etc. As the war moved on and the hierarchy realised how many recruits would be needed it seems more border line cases would be accepted rather than rejected and I believe a sizeable number of these rejects re-enlisted and were deemed acceptable later in the war

Regards

Simon