CWGC Open Case Files

[laughton]

That is one big spreadsheet but more or less what they were sending me for some time until they stopped, no reason why?

 

Just so I remember, I saved the page as a "Webpage, Complete", then I opened that file with Excel, copied the rows of data and then pasted it back in another spreadsheet as "match destination", NOT as a excel format. I have uploaded that early version to the Shared MediaFire site.

 

My cases are marked as red.

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/87ftmf039skjzkr/match_destination_-_richards_red.xlsx/file

 

• I would suggest that you download the file and read it in Excel rather than with the browser!
• Not all the files are listed at this time - March and April ones 2020 for sure not listed.
  • Lieutenant James Hamilton Spence Jonchery-sur-Vesle British Cemetery Plot 1 Row C Grave 4 (5 April 2020 - CWGC Case No. xxx)
  • Serjeant Wood Guards Cemetery Windy Corner Cuinchy Plot 7 Row H Grave 39 (19 March 2020 - CWGC Case No. xxx)
  • Company Serjeant Major Traill Zantvoorde British Cemetery Plot 4 Row B Grave 11 (9 March 2020 - CWGC Case No. xxx)
• I also see some of the MIS-ID files are not listed, but other later ones are?
• Case 471 Lewis is missing. So is #431 McGhan and Prior.
• Some like Case #84 Soule are shown as rejected although accepted in part.
• Yahoo! My first case #309 for Jenkins was accepted, they just never told me.

 

This is a PDF version:

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/oz5fgvn2eedxfeq/match_destination_-_richards_red.pdf/file

 

[Tom Lang]

Richard,

Your post caught my interest, and your list is amazing.

I'd like your clarification on a case I have with the CWGC, and I'd like your explanation of 'Open'.

My Case is CWGC ref: ARMY 9557,  S/3145 Lance Serjeant Andrew Meikle, MM.

Over a year ago I submitted my request, and this was 'accepted' by the CWGC in August last year (2019).

Their email intimated that my case would be submitted to the 'appropriate service authority' [in this case The National Army Museum].

Do you consider my case as 'open' or 'closed' as applies to the CWGC?

Kindest Regards,

Tom.

P.S. Your post has prompted me to request an 'update' from CWGC.

[Tom Lang]

Richard,

The CWGC have replied to say that the National Army Museum are still adjudicating my case for S/3145 Lance Serjeant Andrew Meikle, M.M., 9th Gordon Highlanders.

Kindest Regards,

Tom.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

On 24/08/2020 at 16:24, Tom Lang said:

The CWGC have replied to say that the National Army Museum are still adjudicating my case for S/3145 Lance Serjeant Andrew Meikle, M.M., 9th Gordon Highlanders.

 

Is it possible just to verify that absolutely - "CWGC have replied to say that the National Army Museum are still adjudicating ..."

Tom

[Tom Lang]

1 hour ago, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

Is it possible just to verify that absolutely - "CWGC have replied to say that the National Army Museum are still adjudicating ..."

Tom

I received an email reply from the CWGC and that is the information they gave.

But I don't know how to verify with the N.A.M.

[micks]

Tom

 

The National Army Museum is only used to verify the recorded evidence which you have submitted to the CWGC.  This process does not take one year so I therefore have to assume that the commission is covering up for someone who has forgotten about your report. 

 

In 2015 I submitted a case regarding the grave of an unidentified Corporal from the Leicestershire Regiment who is buried in Harlebeke New British Cemetery. I heard nothing until January of this year when I received an email from the CWGC asking if I intended to resubmit my report. I replied by stating that I had not been informed that my case had been rejected. Apparently at a later stage some one else had provided a " very similar " submission which the commission had chosen to approve. It would appear that my original report has now been sent forward with this second submission.

 

I have had interactions with the CWGC over the past six years while submitting a large number of reports of which twenty one have so far been approved. However this contact has also provided me with an insight into the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's lack of transparency and a some what dishonourable manner in which they undertake some of their work.

 

 

[thetrenchrat22]

Only recently I was made aware that no cases were received at the NAM from the CWGC from July 19 to Jan 20.  
 

I believe that there is now only 1 person at the NAM looking at the army cases.  I have 4 cases, which have gone from the CWGC to the NAM in 2019 and all these relate to cases I submitted in 2017 

 

Alan

Edited 26 August , 2020 by thetrenchrat22

[micks]

Hi Alan

 

I hope all is well. It has been a long period of time since we last communicated.

As always there appears to be a disparity between the cases and the period of time which it takes for them to move through the system. For me I.D Case # 375 L/Serg Cottrell took a long time to be viewed by the CWGC but then only six months for it to go past the NAM and then be approved by the JCCC in March 2020. Many of my other cases which have come through this year were originally submitted in 2017/18.  However if you are correct then this means that the system will almost grind to a halt in the coming years.

 

[thetrenchrat22]

Mick, 

 

I’m fine.  With the update of the CWGC website and the current cases which now appear is useful 

 

however, it does beg the question, as I have noted that there are cases on the list, which either have rejected or case accepted.  Which are after cases I have submitted back in 17, 18 and 19.  Even more so, a couple of cases I’ve made notes on, have been submitted by someone else.  
 

ive not anything this year, as I’m working from home.  If I had been furloughed, I would have been looking at cases.  As a Key Worker, I’m working from home until further notice 
 

Alan 

[tharkin56]

Can you see somewhere on the CWGC pages if there open cases or resolved case, I did a download a few years ago and did another one about six months ago after comparison, learning look ups there was one more on the list, where the date of death had been changed. If there anywhere you can see the associated evidence, case reference etc that led to the change in date of death. Thanks 

[micks]

Alan

 

Yes, I agree the inclusion of the case list is a handy conclusion on the website although it doesn't appear to be one hundred percent complete. Also the format could be improved as it does't provide very much information as to why a case was rejected. 

 

I am in a similar position to you. I have only submitted four cases in the past eighteen months although my reason isn't work

related. I enjoy the research and the purpose behind the endeavour but for now I have just run out of steam. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tharkin56]

https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/commemorations/open-case-files/

 

would this stand out as a wrong date of death if you look at the GRU file, the concentration record, and his MIC its ten days out and simply a translation.

I have his NA file somewhere as well

 

https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/191000/T S CHARLESWORTH/

[thetrenchrat22]

2 hours ago, tharkin56 said:

https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/commemorations/open-case-files/

 

would this stand out as a wrong date of death if you look at the GRU file, the concentration record, and his MIC its ten days out and simply a translation.

I have his NA file somewhere as well

 

https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/191000/T S CHARLESWORTH/

I can see, where you coming from on this.  From 1st July 1916 to 10th July 1916 is a big gap.  What does his service records state. 

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

22 hours ago, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

Is it possible just to verify that absolutely - "CWGC have replied to say that the National Army Museum are still adjudicating ..." Tom

 

20 hours ago, Tom Lang said:

I received an email reply from the CWGC and that is the information they gave. But I don't know how to verify with the N.A.M.

 

This is the point where I began to be "confused"  - please bear with me. - So the CWGC are currently saying that your case is being adjudicated by the National Army Museum. Can I presume that they have made no mention of the Army Historical Branch at the Ministry of Defence or the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre (JCCC)) ?

 

12 hours ago, micks said:

Tom

The National Army Museum is only used to verify ...

... I have had interactions with the CWGC over the past six years while submitting a large number of reports of which twenty one have so far been approved. However this contact has also provided me with an insight into the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's lack of transparency and a some what dishonourable manner in which they undertake some of their work.

 

Can I firstly just mention that being clear as to which post / poster you are replying to will help avoid confusion creeping in. I am "Tom" with a post above but your reply is not to me. Clarity always beats confusion  - With regards to your second point " I have had interactions with the CWGC ..." - well I have recently had a three year struggle getting a case through the system - Bertis Jeffs and Ernest Haxton RFC - and I'd have to say that I was very much less than happy with, as you say above, the "... manner in which they undertake some of their work ..." See later notes.

 

9 hours ago, thetrenchrat22 said:

Only recently I was made aware that no cases were received at the NAM from the CWGC from July 19 to Jan 20.  I believe that there is now only 1 person at the NAM looking at the army cases.  

 

Again, I'm confused by current references to adjudication being  carried out by the National Army Museum and not the the Army Historical Branch at the Ministry of Defence or the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre. Are we sure about this ?

 

There is another very important point here. People keep referring to the CWGC checking / verifying / investigating ID submissions (however you want to describe the process undertaken by them). This, by their own admission, is not correct - certainly not in the way that most people would understand checking / verifying / investigating etc. What the CWGC  look at is restricted to what is in their own archives, so probably the vast bulk of the material in ID submissions is not even considered by them.

Tom

[Tom Lang]

On 26/08/2020 at 14:13, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

 

This is the point where I began to be "confused"  - please bear with me. - So the CWGC are currently saying that your case is being adjudicated by the National Army Museum. Can I presume that they have made no mention of the Army Historical Branch at the Ministry of Defence or the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre (JCCC)) ?

 

 

Can I firstly just mention that being clear as to which post / poster you are replying to will help avoid confusion creeping in. I am "Tom" with a post above but your reply is not to me. Clarity always beats confusion  - With regards to your second point " I have had interactions with the CWGC ..." - well I have recently had a three year struggle getting a case through the system - Bertis Jeffs and Ernest Haxton RFC - and I'd have to say that I was very much less than happy with, as you say above, the "... manner in which they undertake some of their work ..." See later notes.

 

 

Again, I'm confused by current references to adjudication being  carried out by the National Army Museum and not the the Army Historical Branch at the Ministry of Defence or the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre. Are we sure about this ?

 

There is another very important point here. People keep referring to the CWGC checking / verifying / investigating ID submissions (however you want to describe the process undertaken by them). This, by their own admission, is not correct - certainly not in the way that most people would understand checking / verifying / investigating etc. What the CWGC  look at is restricted to what is in their own archives, so probably the vast bulk of the material in ID submissions is not even considered by them.

Tom

 

This is a snippet from the original reply I received from the CWGC Aug 1st, 2019:

"Thank you for your email and evidence to support the possible commemoration of S/3145 Lance Serjeant Andrew Meikle, MM.
I can confirm that this has been reviewed/logged (please see our reference above) and will be forwarded in due course to the appropriate service authority (in this case the National Army Museum) who are responsible for adjudicating on UK Army casualties not currently recorded by the Commission. As with all such submissions, it should be noted that the acceptance of this casualty for commemoration is dependant on there being sufficient evidence to prove (to the authority's satisfaction) that his death was service attributable.
We will of course let you know as soon as the final adjudication comes through, however please be aware that it is likely to be several months before we hear anything. This is due to a large increase in cases received over the First World War Centenary period which has resulted in a significant backlog awaiting approval.  
In the meantime, we will of course keep you informed of any developments relating to your case and if you have any questions or require clarification on anything please do not hesitate to contact us again."

 

I sent an email asking for an update on Aug 23, 2020.

This is a snipped part of the email I received from CWGC Aug 24, 2020:

"Thank you for your email regarding Andrew Meikle.
This case is currently with the Army adjudicator at NAM. Unfortunately, I cannot say when we will receive a reply, however as they are still working through the large backlog it is likely to be some time yet (they can also taking varying lengths of time to resolve and additional research may be required in some cases which may further delay things).  
Please be reassured that this is still in the system and I will be in contact as soon as decision has been made.
Thank you for your continued patience and my apologies for the delay."

 

Kindest Regards,

Tom.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

6 hours ago, Tom Lang said:

 

This is a snippet from the original reply I received from the CWGC Aug 1st, 2019:

"... will be forwarded in due course to the appropriate service authority (in this case the National Army Museum) who are responsible for adjudicating on UK Army casualties not currently recorded by the Commission. ..."

 

I expect that "someone" will have an interesting response to this; but my understanding is that "the appropriate service authority" for the British Army is the Army Historical Branch (AHB) at the Ministry of Defence. Again, as I understand the structure, if the AHB approve a case they pass it to the MoD Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre (JCCC)) who then instruct the CWGC with regards to commemoration. The snippet above shows the CWGC referring to The National Army Museum as "the appropriate service authority". The NAM is a museum - a registered charity (No 237902).

 

On a very old USA TV programme they used to say "Confused? You won't be, after this week's episode of...Soap." - Well I'm still confused 

(And as for "transparency" ...).

Tom

[Tom Lang]

20 hours ago, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

I expect that "someone" will have an interesting response to this; but my understanding is that "the appropriate service authority" for the British Army is the Army Historical Branch (AHB) at the Ministry of Defence. Again, as I understand the structure, if the AHB approve a case they pass it to the MoD Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre (JCCC)) who then instruct the CWGC with regards to commemoration. The snippet above shows the CWGC referring to The National Army Museum as "the appropriate service authority". The NAM is a museum - a registered charity (No 237902).

 

On a very old USA TV programme they used to say "Confused? You won't be, after this week's episode of...Soap." - Well I'm still confused 

(And as for "transparency" ...).

Tom

Tom,

I'm still learning as always. The original Post caught my eye and I was curious as to 'open' and 'closed' cases.

I am sure that I am one of many who submit these cases.

My previous experience has been to submit cases where the CWGC records do not show the correct information.

This 'recent' case is for a man (an M.M. recipient) who is not (yet) commemorated by the CWGC.

I'm not completely familiar with what appears to be a complex distribution of Departments and Groups involved in the process.

Can you please advise where and who I should contact for clarity (if any)?

Kindest Regards,

(this) Tom.

Edited 30 August , 2020 by Tom Lang
To add photo.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

3 hours ago, Tom Lang said:

... I'm not completely familiar with what appears to be a complex distribution of Departments and Groups involved in the process.

Can you please advise where and who I should contact for clarity (if any)?

 

Tom - there is a general CWGC contact form here >

https://www.cwgc.org/contact-us/

Good luck with that - please post any response you get.

Tom

[Tom Lang]

19 hours ago, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

Tom - there is a general CWGC contact form here >

https://www.cwgc.org/contact-us/

Good luck with that - please post any response you get.

Tom

I'm familiar with their Contact Page, but I was thinking more of the suggested AHB and/or JCCC mentioned above.

I'll have a rummage around the internet and see where I get.

I'll keep you up-to-date.

Kindest Regards,

Tom.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

2 hours ago, Tom Lang said:

I'm familiar with their Contact Page, but I was thinking more of the suggested AHB and/or JCCC mentioned above.

 

Tom - It would surprise me if any of the various MoD "service authorities" would deal with you directly and the JCCC would not become involved until a case is approved. Having said that don't allow this to put you off exploring these possible direct routes of contact.

Tom

[Tom Lang]

46 minutes ago, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

Tom - It would surprise me if any of the various MoD "service authorities" would deal with you directly and the JCCC would not become involved until a case is approved. Having said that don't allow this to put you off exploring these possible direct routes of contact.

Tom

Tom,

I have just sent an email to AHB.

Watch this space.

Kindest Regards,

Tom.

[Tom Lang]

On 31/08/2020 at 14:41, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

Tom - It would surprise me if any of the various MoD "service authorities" would deal with you directly and the JCCC would not become involved until a case is approved. Having said that don't allow this to put you off exploring these possible direct routes of contact.

Tom

I sent an email to the AHB and they replied:

"Thank you for your request. Unfortunately I’m afraid this is not a matter for Army Historical Branch as we are not the appropriate Service Authority for these cases. Your initial information was correct and this is a process that is managed by CWGC, with the National Army Museum acting as the adjudicators. As such we are unable to give you any updates and, as far as I understand it, CWGC remains the main point of contact for requests and updates".

Kindest Regards,

Tom (this Tom).

[Tom Lang]

On 29/08/2020 at 16:00, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

Well I'm still confused 

(And as for "transparency" ...).

Tom

Tom,

Hopefully this will clear your 'confusion' and bring everything into focus...

Tom.

[Tom Lang]

18 hours ago, Tom Lang said:

Tom,

Hopefully this will clear your 'confusion' and bring everything into focus...

Tom.

Hopefully this link will add to my knowledge and continue to clear the 'confusion.

It's all new to me.

Tom.

https://www.nam.ac.uk/collections/war-graves-adjudication-unit

[Tom Lang]

On 25/08/2020 at 15:04, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

Is it possible just to verify that absolutely - "CWGC have replied to say that the National Army Museum are still adjudicating ..."

Tom

I think that my response from the CWGC and the NAM 'absolutely' verifies this situation.

I'll just have to sit back for a while longer.

Kindest Regards,

Tom.

https://www.nam.ac.uk/collections/war-graves-adjudication-unit