Men Demoted for 'Inefficiency'

[Jim_Grundy]

I've come across some instances in the past of men losing both temporary and substantive ranks on grounds of 'inefficiency' and often wondered about the specific grounds for such action. One example is 253421 Pte. George Chambers, Labour Corps, formerly 7722 A/Sgt. 8/Royal Scots Fusiliers (and 2404 Pte. 2/Royal Scots Fusiliers in South Africa, a participant in the mess that was Colenso). He was reduced to Pte. whilst attached to the 118th Coy., Chinese Labour Corps in July 1918; a not particularly great ending to an army career that began in 1888.

George Chambers' health had certainly suffered during the war and he'd been wounded whilst serving at Salonica in September 1916. Could that have played its part? There are no reasons stated in his service record and, although appreciating that it would be nothing but speculation to make any links to this case, has anyone ever come across any specific justification for reducing a man in rank in this manner?

Regards,

Jim

[joseph]

Jim,

If he was reduced it would be for misconduct or inefficiency. It would be possible looking at his length of service that he was appointed Acting /Sgt when he was attached to the Chinese Labour Corps and was reduced because of health, there should be some indication why, in his documents as it would certainly affect his pay.

Regards Charles

[Jim_Grundy]

Jim,

If he was reduced it would be for misconduct or inefficiency. It would be possible looking at his length of service that he was appointed Acting /Sgt when he was attached to the Chinese Labour Corps and was reduced because of health, there should be some indication why, in his documents as it would certainly affect his pay.

Regards Charles

Thanks, Charles.

He appears to have been back to substantive Cpl. by the time he was with the Chinese Labour Corps and reduced in rank only several months later. The cynic in me thinks he used to gamble with his Chinese workforce - as well all know 'all' Chinese did! - and he was punished for that. Sadly, there's absolutely no evidence for precisely why. Perhaps he was just getting past it, nearing 50 as he was at the time.

Regards,

Jim