Self-inflicted wound. Army Order

[TEW]

Is anyone aware of an Army Order relating to SIWs. I've seen Sue's list of SIW types admitted to CCS but spotted a diary entry in 6 ADMS that reads:

Visited 17 FA Amb re a SI wound sent to CCS, Pt. was one of [.....] Bn. who injured his head with a pick & this was thought not to be a SI but accidental wound. Explained to OC who should have known that under the army order he had no option but to consider it a SI. It is for the FGCM to determine if it was purposefully or carelessly inflicted.

wo95/1592/2 part 3 4/12/1915

Same diary has a fair bit on injuries to hand or fingers being filtered out as SIWs except of course for the officer with hand wound who had time off at rest camp.

Interested to see how the Army Order was worded ie was it a list of injury types? Don't think that all cases IDd as SIW by FAs/CCSs were automatically sent for FGCM, many were discharged back to unit.

Same diary also mentions filtering out 'true shell shock from the shell funk cases' but that can be another story.

TEW

[kevinrowlinson]

You could see whether AO 495 of 1914 sheds any light on this.

Kevin

[themonsstar]

This is from the front page of a SIW file (MH106)

[TEW]

Thanks to both for those, something to go on.

Not sure if the ADMS actually means an Army Order, as opposed to an order he received from Corps or Army level. From what he said it sounds as if only a FGCM could determine if an injury was accidental or SI.

He also had plenty to say about a man with trench foot, wanted to find out if he had correctly applied ointment, reading between the lines I think by not applying ointment or doing so poorly may have constituted a SIW.

Have been seeing some disparaging remarks from COs of CCSs which makes it appear all SIWs were presumed guilty until proved innocent. Kept under guard in compounded enclosure, SIWs given punishment duties in public as a deterrent, afforded less protection during shelling.

Not good if you have a genuine accident and find yourself under guard in camp with numerous hand injuries.

TEW

[CGM]

If you have a look at the first line under INSTRUCTIONS in #3 you will see " 1. These forms are to be completed in all cases of accidental OF* self-inflicted injuries....."

*(please read this as OR - it must be a typo as the copy I have states OR which makes much more sense)

This form was for the preliminary investigation into any injury which caused a soldier to be absent from duty (as stated above).

It was a report on accidental or self-inflicted injuries.

Signed statements of evidence from witnesses could be called for and a decision as to accidental or self-inflicted made at this stage.

If classed as accidental no further action would be taken. (If you look in 3. above it says "Where it is intended to take disciplinary action....).

CGM

[Ron Clifton]

I believe that the normal procedure was for an inquiry by the CO, or sometimes a formal Court of Inquiry within the unit, rather than an automatic court martial. The latter step would only be taken if there was strong evidence of a deliberate act, or of gross carelessness, and the CO felt that it was beyond his own disciplinary powers to deal with appropriately.

Ron

[David Filsell]

Not sure if you are indicating preferential treatment for officers with the comment:

"except of course for the officer with hand wound who had time off at rest camp"

However I strongly suspect that no sound CO or MO would have been no any bit less strict with officers than with other ranks

[stiletto_33853]

Indeed

[TEW]

Not sure if you are indicating preferential treatment for officers with the comment:"except of course for the officer with hand wound who had time off at rest camp"However I strongly suspect that no sound CO or MO would have been no any bit less strict with officers than with other ranks

Yes, I probably was. In context there is a a big paragraph on 'suspicious' hand/finger wounds and all such must be considered possible SI.

Shortly later an officer came in with wound to hand and sent to rest camp.

For all I know there may have been personal reasons. Lt. Col. SIlver came in for a lot of flak from ADMS and was reported to DDMS. When ADMS found Silver in CCS/FA with sprained ankle following riding accident he made a point of making a diary entry to the effect and that Silver was 'very quiet and had nothing to say'.

Also an officer cashiered for drunkenness.

CGM, I thought OF could be a typo.

I've seen a figure of just under 4000 CMs for SIW, given the amount I've been seeing as admitted to SIW camps at CCSs that's probably a small percentage of those initially considered to be SIW.

I'll find and quote the remarks made about SIWs from CCS

Thanks

TEW

[stiletto_33853]

TEW,

A good percentage of the officers court martialed were for being drunk, this just one page for 1916.

[CGM]

I believe that the normal procedure was for an inquiry by the CO, or sometimes a formal Court of Inquiry within the unit, rather than an automatic court martial. The latter step would only be taken if there was strong evidence of a deliberate act, or of gross carelessness, and the CO felt that it was beyond his own disciplinary powers to deal with appropriately.

Ron

I believe that is what the above form was used for.

The example I have finished with this entry:

To D.A.G.

GHQ 3rd Echelon

Forwarded for record.

This casualty should be reported as (replaced with) is classified "injured acc".

(Sgd) L. C. PARKER Captain

Staff Captain for A.A.G.

for D.A.G.

[ss002d6252]

I believe that is what the above form was used for.

The example I have finished with this entry:

To D.A.G.

GHQ 3rd Echelon

Forwarded for record.

This casualty should be reported as (replaced with) is classified "injured acc".

(Sgd) L. C. PARKER Captain

Staff Captain for A.A.G.

for D.A.G.

I've certainly seen courts of inquiry in service records whcih appear to be the initial step in determining if there was a case to answer for an injury. If they found it to be self-inflicted then the next step would be a court martial, if required.

Craig

[TEW]

Head man of 36 CCS in Jan 1917 seemed to have strong views.

WO95/344/9

27/1/1917. Opened for SIW cases. Took in 108 from 55 CCS.

31/1/1917 36 CCS, Heilly

The position of a medical unit acting as special hospital for self inflicted cases is a

very ill defined one. It is of course responsible to the AMS for treating the cases as

patients. But - under existing conditions it seems to be regarded as a penitentiary and as

such responsible to the A Branch. I submit that the two cannot co-exist as [dictators]?

of the unit policy.

A man found guilty and sentenced by a FGCM for willfully shooting himself - ie shamefully

casting away his arms in face of the enemy - serves an inadequate sentence in the comfort

of hospital conditions, his wound usually preventing him doing any labour.

The punishment awarded entirely fails in its objective of being deterrent to others.

On the contrary, a man who willfully injures himself to get out of the firing line achieves his

purpose and at a very much smaller price than he is ready to pay. In addition, it is

probable that many men who have incapacitated themselves are acquitted by FGCM owing to

insufficient evidence and these men will presumably draw wound benefits. A very much more

sharply defined line of treatment for men who have willfully injured themselves is indicated,

at present such cases are treated as leniently almost as those who have accidentally

(perhaps by disobedience of standing orders) been put out of action.

Lt. Co. Thompson RAMC OC 36 CCS

TEW