On enlistment or moblisation

[roughdiamond]

Hi folks

Looking at the service of 54166 Pte James McFarlane Scottish Rifles as you'll see in other posts. I found he has no surviving service record and neither do the men around his number up to 54189, in addition none of them are listed on CWGC as KIA, I did however with the help of Susan find pension records for 2 men, 54167 Pte Daniel Boyle and 54171 David Selkirk.

That's the background, now the meat of the question.

Both Pte Boyle and Selkirk were Mobilised 25/06/1918, but Boyle enlisted 02/03/1916 age 20 and Selkirk 19/02/1916 age 18 (Derby scheme/Conscripted men?). So the question is were their Army numbers issued on Enlistment in 1916 or on mobilisation in 1918.

I'm inclined towards the latter, but my Wife's friend believes her Dad served in 1917 even though he's only one number below Boyle and 5 below Selkirk, am I right in assuming she's mistaken? She said her Dad spoke about his service rarely, but he did talk about killing lice.

It turns out Selkirk didn't arrive in France to join the 8th Bn till 08/11/1918, this may explain why none of the 12 men in the 24 number spread I looked at were KIA, they simply didn't make it to the front line before the Armistace? Selkirk was pensioned out because of an inflamed Kidney, Boyle didn't make it to France, he was pensioned off with "Chronic Feeblemindedness" during training.

Any suggestions would be welcome.

One more thing, Pte Boyle has a MIC on the NA's but didn't make it out of the UK, would it be for a SWB?

Hope no one nodded off while reading this

Thanks

Sam

[SteveE]

Pte Boyle has a MIC on the NA's but didn't make it out of the UK, would it be for a SWB?

Sam

It is, reference on card is SWB List D/A/1588.

Regards

Steve

[Stebie9173]

Number is allocated on mobilisation, so a man with number 56788 and a man with number 56789 could have dates of enlistment of say 1-12-1915 and 31-2-1918.

Also bear in mind that Training Battalion numbers may well have been issued when the recruit was mobilised and went through a Training unit, and then the later numbers issued on transfer (either in England when transferred to a Regimental Reserve battalion, or in France upon transfer overseas).

Steve.

[purley]

Both Pte Boyle and Selkirk were Mobilised 25/06/1918, but Boyle enlisted 02/03/1916 age 20 and Selkirk 19/02/1916 age 18 (Derby scheme/Conscripted men?). So the question is were their Army numbers issued on Enlistment in 1916 or on mobilisation in 1918.

Sam

It all depends om what you describe as 'enlisted' - I would suggest that a more correct term would be 'registered and attested' In this case a man would merely have notified the authorities that he existed and was eligible to serve. He would not have actually joined up until he was mobilised and sent to a regimental depot where he would have received his first number. By the end of 1917 men rarely served under their first number asd they would be posted to a Training Reserve Regiment (and get a number like TR/8/15647) before being posted to the regiment that was the 'father' of the TR regiment (getting another number) and then on to the battalion in which he would serve (usually a completely different regiment and another new number)

Thus for most men joining after 1916 they are likely to have had at least four numbers and it is only by seeing his full papers that you can find two or three of them.

It does seem a bit unusual for there to be two years between attestation and mobilisation but he could have been in a reserved occupation and it was not until April 1918 tjhat most of the exemptions had been lifted.

regards

John

[roughdiamond]

Not too sure how this will appear but I've posted Selkirks Cusualty form below, he was a "Haulage Motorman", Boyle a "Miner", in both cases their age on enlistment and enlistment date are shown as the 1916 date, and in both cases "service reckoned from" is 25/06/1918, there is an entry on Boyle's casualty form as there is on Selkirk's "Called for service 25-6-18".

[roughdiamond]

Boyle's form, his age might actually be taken on 25/06/1918 rather than on his enlistment date as Selkirks is.

[roughdiamond]

Something I reckon these 2 records show is that because Boyle didn't make it out of the UK, his number was clearly issued to him during training, the fact that Selkirk's number is 4 from Boyle's, service is reckoned from the same date and both went to the 4th Bn for training shows they must have been in the same "batch".

As for changing numbers when they joined their operational units, Selkirks number stayed constant from training to joining the 8th Bn in France rather than changing, indeed from a 24 number spread I looked at 11 men seem to have kept their number and it went to their operational Cameronians Bn's with them, I can only surmise the other 12 Men either did not complete training or were posted to other Regiments where they'd have been given a new number.

Sam

[Graham Stewart]

Have to go with Purley and that the AF B.103, wasn't ammended to include the new phrase "attested" on the introduction of conscription and "enlisted" remained on the Form. However note the phrase across the Form - "Service reckons from" and the fact one date is crossed out and then substituted by another date - your reckonable date of service begins from the day you cross the threshold of your Depot.

What's interesting to me is the "from whom received - NSMB", which in my opinion isn't a military unit at all, but probably may stand for "National Service Medical Board", who would have medically examined them on attestation and given them "Category A"(fit for active service) status.

[roughdiamond]

What's interesting to me is the "from whom received - NSMB", which in my opinion isn't a military unit at all, but probably may stand for "National Service Medical Board", who would have medically examined them on attestation and given them "Category A"(fit for active service) status.

Sounds like your on the money there Graham, this from the Imperial War Museum: -

http://collections.i.../ConWebDoc.4431

Still leaves my original question open though, but I'm still of the opinion the men were given their numbers when they "crossed the threshhold of the depot" and McFarlane was with Boyle and Selkirk on that date. Also those who stayed with the Cam's kept their number from training when they went to operational units.