Dvr T4/233678 H Clarkson ASC - missing from CWGC ?

[ss002d6252]

I have come across this man -

Driver T4/233678 Henry Clarkson, Army Service Corps. Died of suicide on 01 October 1916 at Swalwell, Gateshead.

I can't, at present, see him on CWGC.  Am I missing him somewhere ?

(I have the newspaper death report and his effect's records)

Craig

[Perth Digger]

He's not in SDGW, Craig. The coroner's inquest, in Newcastle Journal, 5 October 1916, shows he joined the ASC on 4 September 1916 and was sent to Bradford. He got leave from 23 to 25 September and left home for Bradford on the 24th. Found hanging in a shed at his home. 

 

I wonder if he'd completed all the necessary forms? 

 

Would his wife and six children have been eligible for a pension?

 

Mike

Edited 18 August , 2019 by Perth Digger
New query

[ss002d6252]

There would most likely have been a pension entitlement originally but I couldn't find a ledger entry so it's either missing or something happened to end any claim.

 

I thought it odd too that there was no apparent SDGW entry for a 1916 death.

 

Craig

[Perth Digger]

Isn't there a mention on another thread that CWGC came to rely very heavily on SDGW for its basic data? If the latter missed it, so too might the former.

 

It occurred to me that he might have been called up, attested, but had some ailment that needed treatment before he was formally taken on the strength. That might explain why he was given leave so quickly. 

 

Mike

Edited 18 August , 2019 by Perth Digger

[corisande]

I have done a pretty large research of all the British soldiers who died in Ireland. The ones missing from CWGC tended to be the dodgy deaths some suicides, some escaping from arrest, deserters, etc

 

I would suspect in the case of this man here that someone felt that he did not deserve a CWGC grave, and just did not fill in the forms

 

IFTC can get him added if you have the proof

 

@Terry_Denham may drop by here

 

 

[PaulC78]

In From the Cold put this man forward today.

[Matlock1418]

16 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

In From the Cold put this man forward today.

For those others that are interested he has a pension card at WFA/Fold3

https://www.fold3.com/image/668452704?terms=233678

"Suicide caused by active service"

And the MoP paid out,

Well done IFCP for presenting - To me he seems likely to be / should be recognised.

:-) M

 

[PaulC78]

This case has now been rejected, no reason given as yet but I suspect it comes down to insufficient evidence.

[Perth Digger]

Insufficient official evidence, Paul? Newspaper evidence presumably not trustworthy enough (as we all know). But to have a pension record would seem convincing (unless it can't be definitely linked to this man).

Thanks for trying.

Mike

[Matlock1418]

14 hours ago, PaulC78 said:

This case has now been rejected, no reason given as yet but I suspect it comes down to insufficient evidence.

We await the fully transparent explanation/communication from CWGC et al. = well perhaps maybe??

Hope you will post here for us to consider.

A shame - worth trying though.  Perhaps after a review of the above it might be worth another look/attempt through their appeals process [they do have one - don't they???]

M

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

On 18/02/2021 at 18:34, Matlock1418 said:

"Suicide caused by active service"

The pension authorities not exactly hedging their bets were they?

[PaulC78]

6 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

Hope you will post here for us to consider.

A shame - worth trying though.  Perhaps after a review of the above it might be worth another look/attempt through their appeals process [they do have one - don't they???]

If a reason is given I will of course share it here.

There is an appeals process, but you would need to provide new evidence that would help the case. You cannot simply appeal because you don't understand, like or agree with the decision that's been made.

Edited 12 October , 2022 by PaulC78

[Matlock1418]

14 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

There is an appeals process, but you would need to provide new evidence that would help the case. You cannot simply appeal because you don't understand, like or agree with the decision that's been made.

That there is such a process is not transparently advertised [In fact when I asked about it I was largely ignored by CWGC]

Of course you first need to know in detail how/why a rejection was arrived at [and that was also obscure/largely ignored too]

The challenge is that CWGC don't offer any active engagement in the discussion of the evidence, facts, documents [and perhaps their omissions] and various interpretations [by them/the others involved in evaluating a submission and an applicant] along the way.  There is no opportuitly for cross-examination.

Nor at the end do they commonly do so either, so they make it very hard to determine if an appeal might be worth undertaking/feasible.  

Don't get me wrong, I really do hope you get some decent fuller feedback from CWGC et al. - and we look forward to seeing it.

M

Edited 12 October , 2022 by Matlock1418

[PaulC78]

The reason for rejection given by JCCC is as follows:

Quote

SER states War Gratuity was inadmissible.  SER and his service number on the widow’s pension card are only evidence, which by themselves do not confirm active service.  The account provided by his widow in the newspaper is unsubstantiated.  Without independent verification he was serving when he died, the case is rejected.

[ss002d6252]

1 hour ago, PaulC78 said:

The reason for rejection given by JCCC is as follows:

SER states War Gratuity was inadmissible.  SER and his service number on the widow’s pension card are only evidence, which by themselves do not confirm active service.  The account provided by his widow in the newspaper is unsubstantiated.  Without independent verification he was serving when he died, the case is rejected.

It's pretty easy to refute that particular refusal, in my opinion.

He'd not be in the SER unless he'd qualified via having been in the Army (as is also shown by the monies paid to the widow). The reason it was inadmissible is that he had less than 6 months of service (which was one of the exceptions against receiving a war gratuity under AO17 of 1919) - his number was allocated only in Sep 1916. See T4/233670, Hadley, H - allocated on 08 Sep 1916.

 

The pension that was paid to his widow was awarded in March 1917, the standard 26 weeks past the date of death. (Separation Allowance continuing for the first 26 weeks before pension). In April 1917 we can see that the widow's pension was increased under the recently introduced (1 April 1917) RW - that would be Article 11.

At the time of the 1917 RW a pension would be paid only where 11(a), 11(b) or 11(c) were met. Either way, a widow's pension in April 1917 required the death to be caused by or associated with military service.

Craig

[Perth Digger]

So the pension card is not 'independent verification'? Does the CWGC think that the Pensions Department paid military pensions out to women whose husbands were not in the military? Or do they think that the Department was bending the rules to help the widow?

[PaulC78]

They don't dispute that he served in the army, only that the evidence does not conclusively show that he was on active service at the time of his death.

[ss002d6252]

2 minutes ago, PaulC78 said:

They don't dispute that he served in the army, only that the evidence does not conclusively show that he was on active service at the time of his death.

For the widows pension he has to have hit one of the criteria under Article 11, so death in service or after discharge & related to service. I'm not sure how they can argue around that point ?

Craig

[Perth Digger]

How about his entry in Soldiers' Effects? 

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/60506/images/42511_6129999_0051-00113?treeid=&personid=&rc=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=gXk2039&_phstart=successSource&pId=599523

 

Mike

Clarkson, Henry.pdf

[ss002d6252]

Just now, Perth Digger said:

How about his entry in Soldiers' Effects? 

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/60506/images/42511_6129999_0051-00113?treeid=&personid=&rc=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=gXk2039&_phstart=successSource&pId=599523

 

Mike

Clarkson, Henry.pdf 1.59 MB · 0 downloads

The SER unfortunately doesn't itself prove the issue at the point of death. The SER often notes 'died after discharge' but not always, so by itself it's not always diagnostic on whether he was serving or not at the time of death. If he'd served long enough to have got paid an amount, and you know his date of enlistment, it can be used to work forward in some cases, but not always and not in this case.

Craig

[Matlock1418]

4 hours ago, PaulC78 said:

SER states War Gratuity was inadmissible.  SER and his service number on the widow’s pension card are only evidence, which by themselves do not confirm active service.  The account provided by his widow in the newspaper is unsubstantiated.  Without independent verification he was serving when he died, the case is rejected.

Can't see how that washes.

The CWGC et al. don't seem to understand that the MoP was fullfilling its obligations under the terms specified by national law.

And they were independant from the WO, Admiralty etc.

Likely handling a lot more of the nation's cash than I/CWGC - So if the MoP paid out then they had to be sure the necessary qualifications had been reached.

If the MoP were sure then surely this should be accepted - or else all MoP records should be rejected as according to CWGC "they made mistakes" [from other correspondence] - and thus so should all other decisions and documents from other organisations that made mistakes be rejected too - so including CWGC, WO, Admiralty etc. etc. = unsubstainable argument = ???

Somehow this subject has to be put back to CWGC et al. and at least discussed/explained in full detail with them - The matter need a proper airing with them.

The question is: How does that discussion arise???

M

Edited 25 October , 2022 by Matlock1418
punctuation and usual typo

[Perth Digger]

Sorry, useless at acronyms. Just worked out what SER is.

[ss002d6252]

Just now, Perth Digger said:

Sorry, useless at acronyms. Just worked out what SER is.

Actually, I've just noticed it isn't one of the abbreviations that have the pop-up explanation (like MIC). I'll have to add it.

Craig