'Services no longer...' as Boy Soldier 1916

[Hati]

Just requiring some confirmation from those more knowledgable than I.

My Step Uncle was discharged as a 'Boy' on 25 January 1916, having just 17 years of age; his 'Services no longer required, para 392 (xxv)f Kings Regs', following him enlisting in 1913, into his father's regiment.

Would this have been due to conscription being introduced during this time?

What is interesting is that he was not called up, (there is no mention indicating that, from his own service records) when 18 in January of 1918?

Thanks for any help

[spof]

The reference to Para 392 means he was awarded a Silver War Badge to prove he had done his bit despite not being in the Army. According to this site, 392(xxv) would suggest that as a Boy, he was bit naughty!

[Hati]

Thanks for that info, poss three x seven day forfete of pay, in three months for three different offences seen him off eh!!

[RussT]

Just to be clear, I don't think being discharged under KR Para 392 always meant receiving an SWB. Only under certain sections of Para 392 e.g. xvi was that the case.

List of sections here:

http://www.military-researcher.com/KR392.html

Russ