IanA Posted 16 April , 2019 Share Posted 16 April , 2019 I have just found a couple of my relatives in the pension record site set up by the WFA. Harry Abernethy (who was killed in 1917) was still described as 'missing' which is not all that odd but the thing which puzzles me is the record for my grandfather and avatar on this forum. He was badly wounded in 1917 but recovered to be sent back to his battalion. In 1918, the Irish Guards were deployed to locate the German advance near Le Paradis and he was shot in the knee which disabled him for the rest of the war and beyond. The thing which I find completely strange is that his wound was described as being "30% attributable by Service". It does appear that he would have been far more likely to get a machine gun bullet in the knee if he'd been a civilian! Can anyone make sense of this? Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 16 April , 2019 Share Posted 16 April , 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, IanA said: I have just found a couple of my relatives in the pension record site set up by the WFA. Harry Abernethy (who was killed in 1917) was still described as 'missing' which is not all that odd but the thing which puzzles me is the record for my grandfather and avatar on this forum. He was badly wounded in 1917 but recovered to be sent back to his battalion. In 1918, the Irish Guards were deployed to locate the German advance near Le Paradis and he was shot in the knee which disabled him for the rest of the war and beyond. The thing which I find completely strange is that his wound was described as being "30% attributable by Service". It does appear that he would have been far more likely to get a machine gun bullet in the knee if he'd been a civilian! Can anyone make sense of this? Ian If I understand what you mean Ian, it would be better read with a comma "30%, attributable by Service" . i.e 30% disabled and the injury attributable to service. Craig Edited 16 April , 2019 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanA Posted 16 April , 2019 Author Share Posted 16 April , 2019 1 hour ago, ss002d6252 said: If I understand what you mean Ian, it would be better read with a comma "30%, attributable by Service" . i.e 30% disabled and the injury attributable to service. Craig A reasonable assumption but he is described as '20% disabled'. The family story was that they were going to take his meagre pension away unless he gave permission for them to amputate his leg. He refused to give permission and was still using it at the age of 84. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 16 April , 2019 Share Posted 16 April , 2019 1 minute ago, IanA said: A reasonable assumption but he is described as '20% disabled'. The family story was that they were going to take his meagre pension away unless he gave permission for them to amputate his leg. He refused to give permission and was still using it at the age of 84. Ian Can you link to the record, please. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanA Posted 16 April , 2019 Author Share Posted 16 April , 2019 1 minute ago, ss002d6252 said: Can you link to the record, please. Craig I don't think I can unless you are a WFA member but then you could access it yourself. It wont allow me to save an image - at least I can't see a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 16 April , 2019 Share Posted 16 April , 2019 Just now, IanA said: I don't think I can unless you are a WFA member but then you could access it yourself. It wont allow me to save an image - at least I can't see a way. What's his service number, please Ian ? (I have Fold3) Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 16 April , 2019 Share Posted 16 April , 2019 If you're querying the % amount there was a late war drive/need to get %s down for soldiers about to be discharged and to reduce the % for those already discharged. There may have been unofficial instructions to try not to assign more that a 20% disability on discharge. Pretty much everyone I've seen records for discharged from Seale Hayne are at 20%, they may increase and in one case to 60% before a miraculous drop to 0%. It may sound harsh to us an amputee would be in the 20% - 30% range of disability for maybe 6 months and once recovered from the operation and managing with false leg, crutches etc would then find himself deemed as having 0% disability. Not having an amputation for a knee injury would worry the Pension dept. as it could work out that the disability % would increase over the whole life span and they may end up paying for an 80% disability for 60 years. Amputation cost them much less and cured the disability! TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 16 April , 2019 Share Posted 16 April , 2019 An indication of award from MoP guidance. As TEW points out the pension was assessed on the level of disablement, allowing for adaptations and aids. It wasn't unusual for pension rates to decrease as men adapted to the disability or slowly recovered. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanA Posted 16 April , 2019 Author Share Posted 16 April , 2019 1 hour ago, ss002d6252 said: What's his service number, please Ian ? (I have Fold3) Craig He is Edward Glendenning 8356. The exact wording of the 30% figure is: "State whether attributable to or aggravated by Service". Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 16 April , 2019 Share Posted 16 April , 2019 It's just the way it's written - the space on the card is to note the % and whether or not the service aggravated or caused the injury. The % is as a % of overall disability rather than a % of the injury that was attributed to service. The pension was awarded in April 1919 at 30% and then re-assessed in April 1920 after a year. It was dropped to 20% but marked as conditional, which means that it hadn't fully stabilised enough to give a final level of disability. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanA Posted 16 April , 2019 Author Share Posted 16 April , 2019 Thanks Craig. I now get it. The layout of the card could have been clearer but I don't suppose they ever imagined folks trying to make sense of it all a 100 years in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 16 April , 2019 Share Posted 16 April , 2019 4 minutes ago, IanA said: Thanks Craig. I now get it. The layout of the card could have been clearer but I don't suppose they ever imagined folks trying to make sense of it all a 100 years in the future. Agreed - if they had though it would have removed the fun... Craig 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