Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Sign in to follow this  
Derek Robertson

Interpretation of remarks

Recommended Posts

Derek Robertson

Can anyone tell me what the following information means on an MIC?

The line above stated that the soldier was discharged on 28/8/17 as no longer fit for duty.

post-31-1088503017.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ali Hollington

Where on the MIC was it?

Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Robertson

It was in the "remarks" box - here's the slightly expanded view.

Another point is that as this soldier was dicharged as no longer fit (and the family evidence I have suggests that this was due to wounds) where would I find any entitlement to or mention of a SWB?

post-31-1088504447.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Tulloch-Marshall

Derek - the medals were returned to the War Office as undeliverable - the reference is paragraph 1743 of King's Regulations 1912. If they were not claimed within 10 years they were to be sent to the Ordnance Stores at Woolwich to be broken-up.

regards - Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patrick ODwyer

I often see the numbers 7941 following on this type of remark. Does anyone know the meaning of this number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek Robertson

Broken up !! :( Ohhh nooooooooooo

Tom,

In your opinion from what you can see off the MIC, do you think that the 1914-15 Star was received by the soldier?

And if the Victory and BWM were returned, is there a precedent for them to be re-issued to a descendant? :ph34r:

post-31-1088507720.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patrick ODwyer

Can I just say further to my last contribution that I think the 7941 refers to a re-issuing / re-delivery after an initial failure to deliver - only I can't prove that is what it means - can't find a reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ian Bowbrick
Derek - the medals were returned to the War Office as undeliverable - the reference is paragraph 1743 of King's Regulations 1912. If they were not claimed within 10 years they were to be sent to the Ordnance Stores at Woolwich to be broken-up.

regards - Tom

Tom is correct in what he says.

HOWEVER there are instances where medals which are marked like this on the MIC suddenly appear on the market for sale. If they were later claimed this would be marked on the MIC..............what is more likely is that medals marked for disposal were sometimes pocketed by those involved for sale (remember the BWMs are solid silver) or for some other purpose.

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Tulloch-Marshall
do you think that the 1914-15 Star was received by the soldier? And if the Victory and BWM were returned, is there a precedent for them to be re-issued to a descendant?

Derek - on the face of it the Star was issued. Really needs a check of the actual medal rolls to see if there are any supplementary notes ref re-issue of the BW&V. Claiming issue by relatives now is a non-starter.

Also, as his discharge 28/8/17 is noted as KR para 392xvi (no longer physically fit) there is always a chance of a "split card" for the issue of a Silver War Badge, maybe under an incorrect spelling or initials instead of his forenames.

regards - Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...