ss002d6252 Posted 22 March , 2017 Share Posted 22 March , 2017 (edited) I must be missing something bleedingly obvious here but why was he discharged as time expired on 20 Oct 1915 ? - in theory this should have been 12 + 1 years after starting his period of service but it isn't. Why not ? He was only retained for about 6 months after his 12 year period ended as he was released to the reserves on 7 April 1910. He should have been finished his 5 reserve commitment + 1 year on 07 April 1916. He was however discharged as time-expired on 14 Oct 1915 (note added to record on 20 Oct 1915), 6 months earlier than expected. When you look at the 'total engagement' time given they do actually take the time from the date of desertion in to account, what they don't take it in to account for is 'pensionable service' - they obviously had different criteria for counting 'total engagement' and 'pensionable service' . Craig Edited 22 March , 2017 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeClarke Posted 22 March , 2017 Share Posted 22 March , 2017 Hi Craig, Not that I think I can help, but your links do not work, Regards Graeme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 22 March , 2017 Share Posted 22 March , 2017 Nor here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 22 March , 2017 Author Share Posted 22 March , 2017 40 minutes ago, GraemeClarke said: Hi Craig, Not that I think I can help, but your links do not work, Regards Graeme 15 minutes ago, johnboy said: Nor here. Presumably you're not seeing the images ? They show ok for me but I can see they've not attached properly as images to the post so I've tried attaching them again. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 22 March , 2017 Share Posted 22 March , 2017 Craig When Grumpy and I wrote a series of articles on the Reservists we did some forensic work on the weekly data for the RWF and the terms of service men were serving under going back 12 years prior to Aug 1914. We were perplexed by the appearance of a few men in categories of 'terms of engagement' that had long since expired i.e "3 & 9" men on the rolls more than 3 years after the terms had changed to "7 & 5". The only explanation was that these were men who had deserted, been caught and started their service again on original terms of engagement. I wonder if original terms of engagement back in 1896 stipulated 6 months potential extra service rather than 12 months? The War Office's right to retain a man for longer than his original terms must be enshrined in the terms of engagement. If these changed it might explain the 6 months gap as he would have been serving out his 12 years commitment under the original terms. If it did change I suspect it changed when the split between colour and reserve service changed. There might be an AO that relates to this. The only other explanation might be that the terms were different for the Guards compared to the Line Infantry. My speculation. This seems less likely.... I have dozens of Grenadiers who were DTE on my database. If you need the list to do some spot checking against any surviving records I can post the list here or email it to you. I would trawl the data myself but I am half way through the 1915 Star roll (4,700 names) so I am rather tied up. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 22 March , 2017 Author Share Posted 22 March , 2017 1 minute ago, QGE said: Craig When Grumpy and I wrote a series of articles on the Reservists we did some forensic work on the weekly data for the RWF and the terms of service men were serving under going back 12 years prior to Aug 1914. We were perplexed by the appearance of a few men in categories of 'terms of engagement' that had long since expired i.e "3 & 9" men on the rolls more than 3 years after the terms had changed to "7 & 5". The only explanation was that these were men who had deserted, been caught and started their service again on original terms of engagement. I wonder if original terms of engagement back in 1896 stipulated 6 months potential extra service rather than 12 months? The War Office's right to retain a man for longer than his original terms must be enshrined in the terms of engagement. If these changed it might explain the 6 months gap as he would have been serving out his 12 years commitment under the original terms. If it did change I suspect it changed when the split between colour and reserve service changed. There might be an AO that relates to this. Martin Thanks Martin - at least he's not the only strange one out there, it does suggest perhaps that there was a policy at play somewhere. The standard 12 month is shown on the attestation form (B217) so it must either be subject to the army discretion of 'a period not exceeding 12 months' or it was changed for some men (I can't recall anything in the Army Returns about it but I'd have expected a big change to terms of service to be noted). It's possible it was simply left to the individual regiment/battalion to determine if they would stick to the full 12 months or not based on need. It does appear he had been in hospital suffering illness at some point so perhaps that was part of the decision process somewhere - I shall try a few other options and see what turns up. Quote I have dozens of Grenadiers who were DTE on my database. If you need the list to do some spot checking against any surviving records I can post the list here or email it to you. I would trawl the data myself but I am half way through the 1915 Star roll (4,700 names) so I am rather tied up. When you get a chance could you email me please and I'll have a look through them. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_history_buff Posted 28 June , 2020 Share Posted 28 June , 2020 I have a general question on "pensionable service". If you were a pre-war regular, you served your time for 12 or so years. If you were lucky you were Time Expired and hopefully you avoided conscription. (Perhaps your medical assessment on the last day "revealed" you were no longer fit for service.) With regard to the aforementioned scenario: At some point in the future, notwithstanding the fact that 21 years of service have not been undertaken, would some form of deferred income become available, as calculated upon "pensionable service"? If "yes" to the above, when did this commence, and did the person have to wait until the age of 55 to get an army pension? I have been asked a question about a pre-war regular. He served just over 12 years with the colours. He was eventually admitted as an in-Pensioner to Chelsea in 1926 and died shortly thereafter. He had been in receipt of a Chelsea out-pension since 1921, which surprised me as he had not served what I believed to be the requisite 21 years with the colours.@FROGSMILE, I have seen that you have followed the evolution of terms of service, and wondered what you knew about "pensionable service". Was there a postwar revision of the 21 year rule, in terms of eligible service for pension? Thanks, Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 28 June , 2020 Share Posted 28 June , 2020 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said: I have a general question on "pensionable service". If you were a pre-war regular, you served your time for 12 or so years. If you were lucky you were Time Expired and hopefully you avoided conscription. (Perhaps your medical assessment on the last day "revealed" you were no longer fit for service.) With regard to the aforementioned scenario: At some point in the future, notwithstanding the fact that 21 years of service have not been undertaken, would some form of deferred income become available, as calculated upon "pensionable service"? If "yes" to the above, when did this commence, and did the person have to wait until the age of 55 to get an army pension? I have been asked a question about a pre-war regular. He served just over 12 years with the colours. He was eventually admitted as an in-Pensioner to Chelsea in 1926 and died shortly thereafter. He had been in receipt of a Chelsea out-pension since 1921, which surprised me as he had not served what I believed to be the requisite 21 years with the colours.@FROGSMILE, I have seen that you have followed the evolution of terms of service, and wondered what you knew about "pensionable service". Was there a postwar revision of the 21 year rule, in terms of eligible service for pension? Thanks, Keith You will probably need to consult the Royal Pay Warrant of that period for chapter and verse, some iterations of which are archived online. There is a minimum Pensionable Service of 12-years that has existed for a long time, and that gave a reduced payment, although I don’t know when it commenced. A term of 21-years was needed for full pension as you have said. My understanding is that all eligible pensioners received their pension commencing immediately upon discharge. That principle existed for a very long time, but ceased upon the demise of the 1975 Pension Scheme. I was among the group to receive the last of these pension packages, despite the best and determined efforts of the Treasury/MOD to get me and others to give it up in exchange for the new scheme, which has also now been changed. I am very pleased to enjoy the same kind of immediate pension that my forebears did. Edited 28 June , 2020 by FROGSMILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_history_buff Posted 28 June , 2020 Share Posted 28 June , 2020 Thanks for the prompt answer. I have been able to find an older Warrant dating from 1899, via the FIBIS wiki, so will be reading this https://archive.org/details/royalwarrantfor00offigoog/page/n283/mode/2up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now