Reason for Discharge

[RobertWA]

The Australian army records for a WW1 soldier show that he joined on 11^th January 1915 and was discharged 10 days later, on 21^st January 1915.  The reason stated is “Refusing to comply with Circl. WL 14467.”

 

On a later page is the entry “Discharged from 21 – 1 – 1915 (Circular)  WL 14467.”

 

He later, on 3^rd November 1916, rejoined, and served overseas. He was discharged on 6^th August 1919.

On his second enlistment papers, for the question “Have you ever been rejected as unfit for His Majesty’s Service?  If so, on what grounds?” he answered “Yes  (Glands)”

 

What does the original discharge reason mean, and why did it not disqualify him from rejoining? 

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Robert

 

[ss002d6252]

I would guess that the recruiting standards were lowered and what didn't qualify in 1915 did in 1916. It wasn't unusual, as the need for soldiers increased, to see standards lowered.

 

Craig

[RobertWA]

Thanks Craig, but can you shed any light on the reason for the first discharge?  What does Circular WL 14467 mean?

 

Robert

[ss002d6252]

The circular, without knowing exactly, sounds like it either set the recruiting standards or dealt with a specific medical situation.

 

Glands could either mean he had some problem, perhaps  swollen glands, that suggested he may have an infection or it might be shorthand for glandular fever.

 

It certainly wasn't uncommon for men to pass the initial medical and then something to come to light in the next few days that led to discharge.

 

Craig

[RobertWA]

Thanks Craig,

 

Robert

[Matlock1418]

On 06/02/2021 at 07:59, RobertWA said:

What does Circular WL 14467 mean?

On 06/02/2021 at 09:43, ss002d6252 said:

The circular, without knowing exactly, sounds like it either set the recruiting standards or dealt with a specific medical situation.

Think I have recently read in another thread here on GWF that refusals to have vaccination [for typhoid] and/or to have a re-vaccination, was a potential cause for discharge.

Perhaps that was being covered.

???

:-) M

[kenf48]

Speculative but the refusal to be inoculated was my first thought too.  The AWM has an index of Circulars but they do not appear to have been digitised.  Don’t know the current situation in Australia vis a vis the pandemic but you will probably find it easier to contact the AWM than we will from the U.K.

 

 

[RobertWA]

Thanks both,

 

I have sent my query to the AWM - hopefully they can sort it for me.

 

Robert