CWGC Open Case Files

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

On 02/09/2020 at 21:17, Tom Lang said:

is 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.

 

5 hours ago, Tom Lang said:

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

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

 

Hello Tom - Last complicated army case I dealt with generated the following response from the CWGC to me early in 2016 - " ... With regard to your concerns raised in this letter [my last letter to them} please allow me to explain that your case now rests solely with the MoD and the Commission are yet to receive their final adjudication. To clarify, the MoD are the deciding authority on all British ID cases. ..." etc.

 

 

On the one hand I do have a dog in the (bigger) fight - but at the same time your case isn't my hill to die on. So the current situation is that CWGC RFC / RAF cases are dealt with by the MoD Air Historical Branch (trust me, they are) but the CWGC Army cases aren't dealt with by the Army Historical Branch but go to a museum which is a registered charity. What do the Army Historical Branch do for a living then ?

 

On 29/08/2020 at 22:00, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

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" ...).

 

Stet

Tom

[Tom Lang]

On 03/09/2020 at 17:26, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

 

Hello Tom - Last complicated army case I dealt with generated the following response from the CWGC to me early in 2016 - " ... With regard to your concerns raised in this letter [my last letter to them} please allow me to explain that your case now rests solely with the MoD and the Commission are yet to receive their final adjudication. To clarify, the MoD are the deciding authority on all British ID cases. ..." etc.

 

 

On the one hand I do have a dog in the (bigger) fight - but at the same time your case isn't my hill to die on. So the current situation is that CWGC RFC / RAF cases are dealt with by the MoD Air Historical Branch (trust me, they are) but the CWGC Army cases aren't dealt with by the Army Historical Branch but go to a museum which is a registered charity. What do the Army Historical Branch do for a living then ?

 

 

Stet

Tom

It's a deliberate plan to confuse all. That's nothing new for the 'busy' mandarins in the bowels of Whitehall.

Thanks meanwhile.

Tom.

[Tom Lang]

On 03/09/2020 at 17:26, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

 

Hello Tom - Last complicated army case I dealt with generated the following response from the CWGC to me early in 2016 - " ... With regard to your concerns raised in this letter [my last letter to them} please allow me to explain that your case now rests solely with the MoD and the Commission are yet to receive their final adjudication. To clarify, the MoD are the deciding authority on all British ID cases. ..." etc.

 

 

On the one hand I do have a dog in the (bigger) fight - but at the same time your case isn't my hill to die on. So the current situation is that CWGC RFC / RAF cases are dealt with by the MoD Air Historical Branch (trust me, they are) but the CWGC Army cases aren't dealt with by the Army Historical Branch but go to a museum which is a registered charity. What do the Army Historical Branch do for a living then ?

 

 

Stet

Tom

I meant to add...

The first paragraph on the NAM's website (see link above) states:

"The Museum took on this role in 2013 and, apart from a short break in 2017, has carried it out since then."

I told you about those mandarins, didn't I?

Tom.

[T, Fazzini]

Sgt Meikle  Story

https://www.larkhallwarmemorial.com/home/other-soldiers-found/meikle-andrew-m-m-lsgt-s3145-9th-gordons/

 

Possible case for In From the Cold? Link at http://infromthecold.org/

 

By any chance does his death record/obituary give cause of Death...?

 

Hope this is helpful....at least his name listed on his community War memorial...or a Book of rembereance ....in local church...Prehaps listed with the Roll of Honor British Legion Chapter

 

Taps........

Edited 6 September , 2020 by T, Fazzini
add info

[Borden Battery]

I believe the late Richard Laughton (Great War Forum member and CEF Study Group-Administrator) would be pleased if some of the members from both discussion Forums took up the collective challenge of continuing his work.  For those who "Gave All", a proper ID documentation of their final resting place would provide a fitting Remembrance of their sacrifice.  A standard of research has been set, a format established and a current list of candidates is waiting to be addressed.  Words are nice but actions are better.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, one likes to imagine "Having Gone West",  Richard is now having either tea or rum with some of the fellows he has assisted in completing a final identification. He leaves behind his Family and his new Grandchildren.

 

Borden Battery - one of the Moderators on the CEF Study Group

[Guest]

On 12/09/2020 at 14:28, Borden Battery said:

I believe the late Richard Laughton (Great War Forum member and CEF Study Group-Administrator) would be pleased if some of the members from both discussion Forums took up the collective challenge of continuing his work.  For those who "Gave All", a proper ID documentation of their final resting place would provide a fitting Remembrance of their sacrifice.  A standard of research has been set, a format established and a current list of candidates is waiting to be addressed.  Words are nice but actions are better.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, one likes to imagine "Having Gone West",  Richard is now having either tea or rum with some of the fellows he has assisted in completing a final identification. He leaves behind his Family and his new Grandchildren.

 

Borden Battery - one of the Moderators on the CEF Study Group

 

    Very much so. I have a cataract operation this coming week- so am going round in a fog at the moment (No change there then!) but I have an outstanding look-up at the National Archives,Kew for Richard still to do- an officer file for an officer of The Devonshire Regiment.  When I can see again, then I would be happy to "do" some officer files at Kew to continue the fantastic work Richard did. It would be a remembrance which I feel sure would fit in with his wishes .  I hope that the work will continue- I hope further (which I am sure is the case anyway) that Richard's layout of his work for submissions can be posted here sometime as it seems to me-from what he did post- that he was methodical and thorough-and that his way of doing submissions is the almost perfect template for such things.

 

 

[Tom Lang]

On 05/09/2020 at 18:57, T, Fazzini said:

Sgt Meikle  Story

https://www.larkhallwarmemorial.com/home/other-soldiers-found/meikle-andrew-m-m-lsgt-s3145-9th-gordons/

 

Possible case for In From the Cold? Link at http://infromthecold.org/

 

By any chance does his death record/obituary give cause of Death...?

 

Hope this is helpful....at least his name listed on his community War memorial...or a Book of rembereance ....in local church...Prehaps listed with the Roll of Honor British Legion Chapter

 

Taps........

All the documentation and records I have available for Sgt Meikle were submitted to CWGC who have accepted the case and submitted this to the NAM.

The Cause of Death was "Pneumonia (Double)" and the attending doctor showed on his death record that he had sustained this for 22 days.

A snippet is attached.

Tom.

[Andrew P]

On 12/09/2020 at 21:28, Borden Battery said:

I believe the late Richard Laughton (Great War Forum member and CEF Study Group-Administrator) would be pleased if some of the members from both discussion Forums took up the collective challenge of continuing his work.  For those who "Gave All", a proper ID documentation of their final resting place would provide a fitting Remembrance of their sacrifice.  A standard of research has been set, a format established and a current list of candidates is waiting to be addressed.  Words are nice but actions are better.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, one likes to imagine "Having Gone West",  Richard is now having either tea or rum with some of the fellows he has assisted in completing a final identification. He leaves behind his Family and his new Grandchildren.

 

Borden Battery - one of the Moderators on the CEF Study Group

Hi Borden Battery

 

I hadn't been aware of Richard's passing so thanks for the update.  Had corresponded with him a few times on the unknowns and Australians in the CEF.

Very sorry to hear this.

 

Regards

Andrew

[Tom Lang]

22 hours ago, Tom Lang said:

All the documentation and records I have available for Sgt Meikle were submitted to CWGC who have accepted the case and submitted this to the NAM.

The Cause of Death was "Pneumonia (Double)" and the attending doctor showed on his death record that he had sustained this for 22 days.

A snippet is attached.

Tom.

I should add that the location of Sgt. Meikle's death was "Glenlee Lodge" (shown on the death record) which was used at that time as a TB Hospital.

Tom.

[Matlock1418]

On 13/09/2020 at 18:56, Tom Lang said:

All the documentation and records I have available for Sgt Meikle were submitted to CWGC who have accepted the case and submitted this to the NAM.

The Cause of Death was "Pneumonia (Double)" and the attending doctor showed on his death record that he had sustained this for 22 days.

On 06/09/2020 at 00:57, T, Fazzini said:

Sgt Meikle  Story

https://www.larkhallwarmemorial.com/home/other-soldiers-found/meikle-andrew-m-m-lsgt-s3145-9th-gordons/

Having just come across this thread and this case ... Some closure for us on GWF on the case of Sgt Andrew MEIKLES/3145, Gordon Highlanders ... The Larkhall Memorial site, link copied above, has been updated = the non-comm case application was rejected ... from the site:

Further Update.

I received the following email from the CWGC.

13 Oct 2022
Essentially the National Army Museum (the 'relevant military Service Authority') rejected my submission.
---------------------
"Thank you for your submission of Non-Commemoration Case 9557, S/3145 Lance Serjeant Andrew Meikle MM. Please accept our apologies for the extensive delays you have experienced in reaching an outcome with this case. I am replying through the message thread where this Non-Comm case was originally submitted.

We have now received an adjudication decision from the relevant military Service Authority and been instructed that this individual does not qualify for commemoration as a Commonwealth war casualty, according to CWGC’s eligibility criteria. The case was rejected by the Adjudication Board based upon the presented evidence, which determined that the cause of death could not be connected to military service. It was clear that Lance Serjeant Meikle was discharged from the Army due to wounds received, but the location of the gunshot wound injury could not be directly attributed to him contracting pneumonia three years afterwards.

We appreciate this may make for disappointing news. We nevertheless value your patience and hope that you can understand the need to apply our criteria consistently, in line with the decisions that military authorities came to at the time, to ensure that everyone is treated equally. If you require further clarification, please contact us.

Kind Regards,

[name edited for privacy]

Case Officer (Commemorations)".

M

Edited 19 August by Matlock1418
typo

[thetrenchrat22]

The open case list is still showing as June 2021

on Facebook, the Belgian Schoolboy (he must be out of short trousers by now) Michael who over years has submitted an number of cases and been successful in many

put on a post a week or so ago, about a couple of cases he had accepted for a couple of WW2 cases and there CWGC numbers were in the eight hundreds 

Where I’m still waiting for updates in the 400 and 500 which were submitted between 2017 and 2019

 

alan

[Matlock1418]

2 minutes ago, thetrenchrat22 said:

The open case list is still showing as June 2021

I don't think many of us would be / are surprised at that revelation! 

I'm none the wiser for my submitted cases  - just trying to wait patiently in hope that they haven't been lost one way or another. In hope 

CWGC et al would do themselves, and all other interesterd parties like us, a great favour in keeping it fairly up to date in the public realm [always presuming they keep such details up to date at their end].

Hey ho!

M

[Tom Lang]

56 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Having just come across this thread and this case ... Some closure for us on GWF on the case of Sgt Andrew MEIKLE S/3145, Gordon Highlanders ... The Larkhall Memorial site, link copied above, has been updated = the non-comm case application was rejected ... from the site:

Further Update.

I received the following email from the CWGC.

13 Oct 2022
Essentially the National Army Museum (the 'relevant military Service Authority') rejected my submission.
---------------------
"Thank you for your submission of Non-Commemoration Case 9557, S/3145 Lance Serjeant Andrew Meikle MM. Please accept our apologies for the extensive delays you have experienced in reaching an outcome with this case. I am replying through the message thread where this Non-Comm case was originally submitted.

We have now received an adjudication decision from the relevant military Service Authority and been instructed that this individual does not qualify for commemoration as a Commonwealth war casualty, according to CWGC’s eligibility criteria. The case was rejected by the Adjudication Board based upon the presented evidence, which determined that the cause of death could not be connected to military service. It was clear that Lance Serjeant Meikle was discharged from the Army due to wounds received, but the location of the gunshot wound injury could not be directly attributed to him contracting pneumonia three years afterwards.

We appreciate this may make for disappointing news. We nevertheless value your patience and hope that you can understand the need to apply our criteria consistently, in line with the decisions that military authorities came to at the time, to ensure that everyone is treated equally. If you require further clarification, please contact us.

Kind Regards,

[name edited for privacy]

Case Officer (Commemorations)".

M

Thanks M.

I should have done this a while ago.

Tom.

Edited 19 August by Tom Lang

[clive_hughes]

Hi folks,

I am in the process of submitting a "Non-commemoration" case to the CWGC.  Having tried to send the evidence through twice via their website automated form and the associated email address, it seems that I may be blocked because I haven't agreed to all site cookies (I agreed to essential ones, and have subscribed to Guest status with acceptance of notifications from them, but this doesn't seem to be enough for me to be allowed to email them).  

However, I have determined to send the evidence anyway just using my own email and their e-address, bypassing their website.  I'm keen to lay it out properly, so would welcome an idea of a template of the sort used by the late great Richard Laughton, or other format.  If absolutely everything documentary was sent, it would amount to 23 service record images, 1 headstone image, 1 death cert. pdf, and up to 8 dependants pension card images.  I'm sure the latter can be cut down (only one card has cause of death mentioned), but your advice would be invaluable as I haven't done this before.

Clive 

[Matlock1418]

13 minutes ago, clive_hughes said:

I am in the process of submitting a "Non-commemoration" case to the CWGC.  Having tried to send the evidence through twice via their website automated form and the associated email address, it seems that I may be blocked because I haven't agreed to all site cookies (I agreed to essential ones, and have subscribed to Guest status with acceptance of notifications from them, but this doesn't seem to be enough for me to be allowed to email them).  

However, I have determined to send the evidence anyway just using my own email and their e-address, bypassing their website.  I'm keen to lay it out properly, so would welcome an idea of a template of the sort used by the late great Richard Laughton, or other format.  If absolutely everything documentary was sent, it would amount to 23 service record images, 1 headstone image, 1 death cert. pdf, and up to 8 dependants pension card images.  I'm sure the latter can be cut down (only one card has cause of death mentioned), but your advice would be invaluable as I haven't done this before.

In my opinion the method of approach to CWGC/NAM/JCCCl and the case format/style aren't important - though leading them through your thought process may assist your case's cause - but the evidence is crucial. 

CWGC et al quite typically won't accept interpretation but require clear B/W evidence [an example of interpretation they will not accept = The MoP paid out a pension(s) to a dependant(s) on behalf of the Nation - QED he must have died from a cause related to the war.  Shocking really since the MoP will undoubtedly have had more access to records etc. back then and often paid out for many years - and they were subject to audit and scrutiny etc.  But now apparently it seems the CWGC et al opinion is "the MoP made errors" - appears a shabby get-out excuse to me - as if the military and I/CWGC haven't made errors in their commemorations too - and how audited are they?]  I think the MoP are to be generally considered pretty reliable but apparently not by CWGC et al.

Obviously others may have a different opinion.

M

[PRC]

3 hours ago, clive_hughes said:

I am in the process of submitting a "Non-commemoration" case to the CWGC.  Having tried to send the evidence through twice via their website automated form and the associated email address, it seems that I may be blocked because I haven't agreed to all site cookies

I use Mozilla Firefox as my browzer, and the last couple of times I tried submitting a case the "captcha" picture at the bottom to prove I wasn't a robot went "walkies" - unbeknownst to me. (The "click all squares with a traffic light, etc" test).

So the webform kept telling me that I hadn't completed all the information and wouldn't let me progress. First time I jumped on another machine, used Microsoft Edge and there was the picture. Second time, when I knew it should be there, I just refreshed and refilled the information and found the picture waiting for me.

3 hours ago, clive_hughes said:

If absolutely everything documentary was sent, it would amount to 23 service record images, 1 headstone image, 1 death cert. pdf, and up to 8 dependants pension card images.  I'm sure the latter can be cut down (only one card has cause of death mentioned), but your advice would be invaluable as I haven't done this before.

I'm sure there are better ways to do it, but I use a word document, insert all the service \ discharge records and pension cards one to a page and inevtably end up with a document 20-25Mb large if not bigger. However when I then pdf it it is seldom more than 2-6Mb and leaves me with only one document covering all those elements to submit. It doesn't have to be Word - I'm sure Google docs and its Apache equivalent have similar functionality.

Thats the short version  - what I actually do is have a coversheet, an introduction and summary table page, and then each subsequent page is split into two. The top section contains the relevant original page \ pension card with an identifier - nothing more sophisticated than Service Record Page 1 or Pension Card 2.

I've cropped the images to get rid of the unnecessary background and blank margins, to maximise visibility on the page. I use a basic piece of photography software but in the past have used Microsoft Paint just to do the cropping.

The second smaller box is an extract of the key points on the page \ card - who it relates to, service number, date of discharge, cause of discharge, occupation, next of kin, etc - but only if shown on that actual page \ card.

The introduction just states the documents being included, along with their sources (sometimes both the burnt and unburnt records have survived as well as the pension cards, so I'd distinguish them as Service (S), Discharge (D) and Pension Cards (PC). For Service \ Discharge I also note that they have been included in the order they are available on the source website and therefore the information can appear contradictory. Hence the need for a summary table.

For the summary table I first take all the key points and fashion them into some sort of rough chronology. For each key point I'll then reference the relevant pages and cards that support it. I'll then try to focus on the top 30 that will really assist anyone reviewing the case to come to a conclusion. Usually that will involve merging separate points. That final list then goes into the document as the table. Points that distract from the case are not ignored but are addressed upfront.

Sounds complicated but I could have done one in much the same time as it's taken me to write this - I'm a slow typist

Most recent submission attached as an example.

Cheers,
Peter

John William Jakes Service, Discharge and Pension Card records v1.1.pdf

[clive_hughes]

PRC, thanks very much for that explanation of how you condense the images etc. into a word doc converted to pdf.  It makes sense, though being a bit of a tech dinosaur it'd take me rather longer than it would in your case!  Worth trying.

Matlock, I agree that the evidence presented is crucial and that it has to go beyond even the fact that the soldier is mentioned by name on several war memorials locally.  His death was caused by a medical condition that was only recognised after he joined his unit in the UK.  To be exact it wasn't caused by, and didn't result from, his military service; but one official document states the death was "Aggravated by active service", which is a category listed by the CWGC as one they can consider for non-comm. cases.  I will be in touch on this matter if you'd care to review the material.

Thank you both,

Clive

 

 

 

Edited 20 August by clive_hughes
Word change

[Matlock1418]

27 minutes ago, clive_hughes said:

Matlock, I agree that the evidence presented is crucial and that it has to go beyond even the fact that the soldier is mentioned by name on several war memorials locally.  His death was caused by a medical condition that was only recognised after he joined his unit in the UK.  To be exact it wasn't caused by, and didn't result from, his military service; but one official document states the death was "Aggravated by active service", which is a category listed by the CWGC as one they can consider for non-comm. cases.  I will be in touch on this matter if you'd care to review the material.

Have looked at your PM and replied - without seeing the WO file I am a bit in the dark but if you are relying on the MoP and War Memorials then I think it is a no-goer at this  stage.  The CWGC have history of not accepting MoP as good evidence - see my comment above [from personal replies from the CWGC]  and no matter how many war memorials name him.

I have suggested you first make a quick e-mail enquiry of CWGC just to see if any previous attempt at comm has been made before [and to find any reason if so and rejected] - probably a much quicker and less effort to get a preliminary answer anyway.  Then taking it further would obviously be your choice.

M

Edited 20 August by Matlock1418
tweak

[PRC]

38 minutes ago, clive_hughes said:

To be exact it wasn't caused by, and didn't result from, his military service; but one official document states the death was "Aggravated by active service", which is a category listed by the CWGC as one they can consider for non-comm. cases. 

Do you have a thread on the go for this individual?

If not rather than accidentally hi-jacking the thread might be worth asking the admins to hive these posts off into it's own thread and titled for the soldier concerned.

You can then post the document you are relying on to prove aggravated and others can comment on what's needed, if anything to bolster the case.

Cheers,
Peter

[clive_hughes]

OK Peter,

Will deal direct with Matlock henceforth.

Clive

[Matlock1418]

Just now, clive_hughes said:

Will deal direct with Matlock henceforth.

No pressure on me then?? 

Happy to assist more, if I can. 

M

[John(txic)]

Clive,

 

I echo PRC's approach.  When submitting, I prepare a single A4 page in Word (Ronald Regan would approve) summarising his service, and setting out why I believe Criteria 5.1 for Commemoration has been satisfied.

 

Do not e-mail a submission: you will just get a reply telling you to complete the appropriate form on their website.

[Matlock1418]

2 hours ago, John(txic) said:

I echo PRC's approach.  When submitting, I prepare a single A4 page in Word (Ronald Regan would approve) summarising his service, and setting out why I believe Criteria 5.1 for Commemoration has been satisfied.

I agree an initial short BLUF approach is useful [bottom line up front - the military like that!] - a few short sentences - bullet pointed - I have too used a Word document approach - just then added the evidence as reduced image sizes pasted onto further pages each with further detailed individual commentry. 

The PDF method is useful if you have a lot of evidence/large document file size.  My W10 OS / MS Office uses the print/save as PDF in order to convert, ready for attaching to my e-mail.

2 hours ago, John(txic) said:

Do not e-mail a submission: you will just get a reply telling you to complete the appropriate form on their website.

Things may have changed recently but an e-mail has worked many times for me in the past. 

I recognise "in the past" and of course things may have changed! [for the better ??] I found it a 'challenge' in the past, but by all means try their system - if it will work for you.

If I did have to use their system in the future I think I would recommend getting all your application argument and evidence prepared up front in a Word document, PDF or similar so that you can just attach as a single combined file [rather than lots of separate pieces] and send in that way - so CWGC can't lose any of the pieces of your jigsaw [Of course if they lose the lot then you are up the creek whichever way - and you probably won't ever know about it or be able to check progress because they don't publish their ongoing/completed cases at the moment - here's hoping for improvement on that].

After all CWGC/NAM/JCCC are supposed to be professionals, compared to us amateurs, so should be able to work it all out - I just wish they could do it faster and keep us all better informed of progress.

M

[John(txic)]

Indeed, Matlock, I also used to send an e-mail with attachments.

However, about 3 months ago I received an almost immediate response telling me to use the form on the website.  No other approaches would be considered.