Skipman Posted 17 August , 2021 Share Posted 17 August , 2021 This is stamped on a page of an RFA officer "This file will in no circumstances be seen by the person to whom it relates." Is this unusual? I don't see anything in the file that is particularly sensitive (it could have been removed?) Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 17 August , 2021 Share Posted 17 August , 2021 I see that above the stamped message are the words "Med Board". I suspect that there is something in the file which reflects badly on the officer, presumably some medical reference. I don't know whether this was routine where medical records were concerned, or whether there was something peculiar to this case which made it necessary to preserve medical secrecy. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 17 August , 2021 Author Share Posted 17 August , 2021 2 minutes ago, Ron Clifton said: "Med Board". I suspect that there is something in the file which reflects badly on the officer, presumably some medical reference. Ron Thanks Ron. Yes Medical Board but I don't see anything untoward, unless Fever NYD was a bit 'iffy'? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kath Posted 17 August , 2021 Share Posted 17 August , 2021 NYD = Not Yet Diagnosed ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 17 August , 2021 Author Share Posted 17 August , 2021 7 minutes ago, Kath said: NYD = Not Yet Diagnosed ? Yes but I wondered if it might have been due to an indescretion, he was married? Then again, they could hardly want to hide that from him, he would know. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matlock1418 Posted 17 August , 2021 Share Posted 17 August , 2021 I think your suspicion is that the file has also been later 'weeded' is likely to be the case. Interesting but frustrating! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 17 August , 2021 Author Share Posted 17 August , 2021 12 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said: I think your suspicion is that the file has also been later 'weeded' is likely to be the case. Interesting but frustrating! :-) Yes probably. What could there have been in the file that they did not want the officer (under any circumstances) to know. He survived the war and had a very interesting life and career. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 17 August , 2021 Share Posted 17 August , 2021 If they went to the trouble of having a stamp made with that phrase surely they intended to do a lot of stamping with it. Could the stamp be much later? It seems to relate to the whole file not necessarily just the stamped page. Might have given reasons for pension being reduced, declined or halted. Wasn't really aware that Mr X could have turned up and ask to see his record. There's usually dates of weeding on the front cover, sometimes with more detail. I can see that something was destroyed. TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 18 August , 2021 Author Share Posted 18 August , 2021 Thanks TEW. It could be as you suggest, who knows. Attached the first page of his file. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackblue Posted 18 August , 2021 Share Posted 18 August , 2021 I've haven't seen this one before, but the fact they had a stamp made may mean it was not an unusual inclusion as TEW says. Might it be a standard caveat for Med Board files? On the other hand does NYD indicate suspected malingering perhaps? If so looks like he was clever enough to miss 1 July! Tim D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mk VII Posted 18 August , 2021 Share Posted 18 August , 2021 Not Yet Diagnosed was used as a euphemism for PTSD, which was earlier termed 'shellshock'. Most of the witnesses to the Southborough Committee after the war agreed that the term shellshock should never have been used, and it was most regrettable that it had become current. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 18 August , 2021 Author Share Posted 18 August , 2021 47 minutes ago, Mk VII said: Not Yet Diagnosed was used as a euphemism for PTSD, which was earlier termed 'shellshock'. Most of the witnesses to the Southborough Committee after the war agreed that the term shellshock should never have been used, and it was most regrettable that it had become current. Thanks Mk VII I suppose that's possible. No word of that anywhere, or in any newspaper reports. He won MC later. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 18 August , 2021 Share Posted 18 August , 2021 I had NYD down as simply that and no more. NYDN is 'not yet diagnosed nervous' which has could have some overlap with a shell-shock diagnosis. Shell-shock has some overlap with PTSD but the two are not the same. This officer's record states 'NYD Fever' which is more likely to be along the lines of trench fever. Nine nights in hospital and back at duty. I doubt any of this is to do with the stamp. The stamp overlies the ink regarding the 1930 destruction so it post dates that. A typeface expert could probably say more but that stamp and the 'KEPT' stamp look modern-ish to me, and presumably the 'Closed' stamps are late. TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matlock1418 Posted 19 August , 2021 Share Posted 19 August , 2021 On 18/08/2021 at 06:48, Skipman said: Attached the first page of his file. From this cover page = This file certainly seems to have had quite a lot of attention May to August 1915. The annotation R/pa I believe stands for Returned/put away [i.e. filed again, after most likely after being extracted and then consulted elsewhere than the records office] :-) M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matlock1418 Posted 19 August , 2021 Share Posted 19 August , 2021 (edited) Trying to explain the need for a rubber stamp [as has been suggested before - presumably the high number of cases, or a need to make them especially distinctive??] ... Could it possibly have been a suggestion(s) of potentially being a "Malingerer"? Or "Fraudulent condition" - Or discussions around or words/ideas to something like that effect? Not the sort of thing you would want circulating to an officer, especially if unproven!!! ??? :-) M Edited 19 August , 2021 by Matlock1418 expand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipman Posted 20 August , 2021 Author Share Posted 20 August , 2021 whatever it was it doesn't seem to have affected his career? Wounded shrapnel ball thigh Second-Lieutenant 24/4/1915, wound healed well but strained muscle other leg, rejoined unit as Lieutenant on 28/8/1915, by 3/12/1916 was acting Adjutant for short time. MID July 1917, MC 1/1/1918 Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matlock1418 Posted 20 August , 2021 Share Posted 20 August , 2021 55 minutes ago, Skipman said: whatever it was it doesn't seem to have affected his career? Wounded shrapnel ball thigh Second-Lieutenant 24/4/1915, wound healed well but strained muscle other leg, rejoined unit as Lieutenant on 28/8/1915, by 3/12/1916 was acting Adjutant for short time. MID July 1917, MC 1/1/1918 Fair play to him - He did well - Perhaps another reason not circulate whatever material in front of him later. ?? Interesting, but frustrating! :-) M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exXIX Posted 23 November , 2021 Share Posted 23 November , 2021 I notice several times 'AG6' and 'AG4a' is this a medical reference or a fitness level...I would agree with TEW, he suffered a mental illness between May June of 1915? the records of which were destroyed in 1930...Interesting document... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 23 November , 2021 Share Posted 23 November , 2021 I've recently seen another rank & file record where the man wrote a polite letter to OC Records asking for copies of his medical sheets to hand them over to a hospital he was in for the same ailment that got him discharged . This was post-war & post-discharge. He received a polite reply which had to decline his request as that information did not belong to him. Possible of course his pension could be raised or the private doctor might find malpractice within the records or other legal implications could have arisen. TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 16 December , 2021 Share Posted 16 December , 2021 On 23/11/2021 at 19:16, exXIX said: I notice several times 'AG6' and 'AG4a' is this a medical reference or a fitness level...I would agree with TEW, he suffered a mental illness between May June of 1915? the records of which were destroyed in 1930...Interesting document... The acronyms refer to administrative departments of the Adjutant General branch of the War Office (AG -responsible for Personnel Administration). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exXIX Posted 25 December , 2021 Share Posted 25 December , 2021 On 16/12/2021 at 11:46, FROGSMILE said: The acronyms refer to administrative departments of the Adjutant General branch of the War Office (AG -responsible for Personnel Administration). Ah thanks for that, every little nugget of info surprises and informs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 25 December , 2021 Share Posted 25 December , 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, exXIX said: Ah thanks for that, every little nugget of info surprises and informs... It’s long forgotten now, but back then the staff responsibilities were divided into three, very clear, and by the standards of today, simple divisions. At the top was ‘G’ for general staff (those who determined operations), then next was ‘A’ for adjutant general (all aspects of personnel administration), and then finally, was arguably the most important, ‘Q’ for quarter-master general (all aspects of logistics). These three staff divisions were present in every unit, and every formation headquarters. Officers referred to G, A and Q instinctively. It was the military speak of the age, and not swept away until NATO and the Cold War. Oh for such simplicity and straightforwardness of mind today… Edited 25 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exXIX Posted 25 December , 2021 Share Posted 25 December , 2021 2 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said: It’s long forgotten now, but back then the staff responsibilities were divided into three, very clear, and by the standards of today, simple divisions. At the top was ‘G’ for general staff (those who determined operations), then next was ‘A’ for adjutant general (all aspects of personnel administration), and then finally, was arguably the most important, ‘Q’ for quarter-master general (all aspects of logistics). These three staff divisions were present in every unit, and every formation headquarters. Officers referred to G, A and Q instinctively. It was the military speak of the age, and not swept away until NATO and the Cold War. Oh for such simplicity and singularity of mind now…. Without a doubt, it must have been the creation of the MOD that subsequently disorganised the systems of dept's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 25 December , 2021 Share Posted 25 December , 2021 (edited) 1 minute ago, exXIX said: Without a doubt, it must have been the creation of the MOD that subsequently disorganised the systems of dept's... Partly that, but much more an ascendance and dominance of the US and desire to create a language common to a great many allied nations within NATO. Edited 25 December , 2021 by FROGSMILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolly Posted 4 January , 2022 Share Posted 4 January , 2022 On 25/12/2021 at 19:34, exXIX said: Without a doubt, it must have been the creation of the MOD that subsequently disorganised the systems of dept's... In the British Army, the G, A and Q Branches lasted until the mid-1980s, the Task Force went to the South Atlantic in 1982 with appointments such as Brigade Major, DAA&QMG, etc. in the various HQs. As part of the reorganisation job titles changed and the three functional responsibilities were sub-divided into nine: personnel, intelligence, current operations, logistics/medical, planning, communications, training, resource management and civil affairs. It was a NATO-led thing. 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