Good Conduct

[Peterhastie]

Was the award of Good Conduct Badges recorded anywhere else, other than a mans service record.

The attached record has what appears to be a serial number, 209410 referring to his military character.

He was granted his first GC badge, 4.6.1918.

[RNCVR]

Recorded on his ADM 188.  I was unable to access link you posted.

[horatio2]

32 minutes ago, RNCVR said:

Recorded on his ADM 188.  I was unable to access link you posted.

Likewise - best not to assume that all GWF members are signed up to Ancestry. No indication of service - RN or army? - makes life difficult.

Edited 20 December , 2022 by horatio2

[RNCVR]

Agree @horatio2, but that ON appears to be an RN ON, Seaman branch likely, & the OP stated GC badge so I am thinking his subject is RN.

@Peterhastie pls post his ADM 188 (or whatever the document is) & we will be able to assist you.

[Peterhastie]

He was DVR, T4/143291, RASC.

[RNCVR]

1 minute ago, Peterhastie said:

He was DVR, T4/143291, RASC.

That number different from the one you quoted in original post.  However, I am unable to assist you but surely a forum mate will be along to help you out.

[Peterhastie]

I never said it was his number, I said it was to do with his Military Character, possibly his GC badge.

[RNCVR]

209410 is deffo an RN  Official Number but of course does not necessarily mean he was RN.  Apologies if I have offended you, just trying to assist you. I won't comment again.

[Matlock1418]

16 hours ago, Peterhastie said:

The attached record has what appears to be a serial number, 209410 referring to his military character.

I can't access that earlier link to Ancestry so would be very helpful if you could please supply the entry as an abstract [fairly large abstract please so we can see the entry in its fuller context]  TIA

1 hour ago, Peterhastie said:

He was DVR, T4/143291, RASC.

MIC in the name of George SCOTT

M

[FROGSMILE]

2 hours ago, Peterhastie said:

I never said it was his number, I said it was to do with his Military Character, possibly his GC badge.

I’ve never heard of a serial number relating to a soldier’s good conduct badge Peter, so I’m puzzled as to where you’ve got such an idea from.  In the regular army a GCB was simply an inverted stripe worn on the cuff (originally right cuff until 1881, when it was moved to the left cuff).  The GCB was recorded on the soldier’s service record via publication (an announcement) on unit (e.g. battalion) ‘Part Two Orders’.  These were the orders that dealt with pay, individual qualifications, merits, awards, and movements, all in relation to specific dates (commencement, etc.).   They were published by the unit, initially processed by administrative staff at the expeditionary army’s base, and then onward to the Pay and  Records Offices in Britain.  The only serial number necessary was the regimental number of the soldier concerned. 

Edited 20 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[TullochArd]

"I never said it was his number, I said it was to do with his Military Character, possibly his GC badge." ...... but it might be due to his Army number:

Army Order 338 of August 1920 stated that army numbers would be issued from this date as one continuous series. (see LLT link below) 

1- 294000 were allocated to the RASC. Is it possible that (ASC) T4/143291 may have continued post War service as (RASC) 209410?

Post War an assessment of Military Character is usually summarised on Service Records on discharge or on the qualification for a GC Badge.  If (ASC) T4/143291 became (RASC) 209410 he would have been assessed as 209410 and his Service Record annotated as such.

New British Army numbers issued in 1920 renumbering - The Long, Long Trail (longlongtrail.co.uk)

Edited 20 December , 2022 by TullochArd

[butler]

Looking at the service record, he was transferred to Cl Z AR and so would be unlikely to have been issued an Army Number with the renumbering in 1920

I believe the line 'Mil Char:-   ser no 209410' was written at the dispersal unit at Ripon and I think relates to a message number sent to his previous unit asking for the grade of his military character. The reply, when received was written below as VG and initialed. 

 

[TullochArd]

43 minutes ago, butler said:

Looking at the service record, he was transferred to Cl Z AR and so would be unlikely to have been issued an Army Number with the renumbering in 1920

....... unless he was one of the 74,930 men, including a disproportionate number of former (R)ASC soldiers, who opted to continue service under Army Order 4/19 of 1919 and was selected to do so. 

GWF chum Ron Clifton tells us: "Meanwhile, the necessity for refilling at an early date the depleted ranks of the old Regular Army in order to provide overseas garrisons and reserves at home having become evident, an Army Order was published on 10 December 1918 authorizing the re-enlistment of serving soldiers for periods of, approximately, two, three or four years. Bounties of £20, £40 and £50 respectively were given, in addition to any pension, bounties or gratuities due on account of war or other services, to men re-enlisting for these periods. This Army Order, which became Army Order 4 of 1919, was subsequently further extended by Army Orders 124 and 125 of 1919, of which the former slightly modified the conditions and of which the latter applied them so modified to men serving as members of Overseas Contingents. Re-enlistments under Army Order 124 were closed by Army Order 329 (published on 27 Sept 1919) from the date of its receipt in the various commands. The total number of men re-enlisted under these Army Orders, with bounty, was 74,930."

[Peterhastie]

28 minutes ago, TullochArd said:

....... unless he was one of the 74,930 men, including a disproportionate number of former (R)ASC soldiers, who opted to continue service under Army Order 4/19 of 1919 and was selected to do so. 

GWF chum Ron Clifton tells us: "Meanwhile, the necessity for refilling at an early date the depleted ranks of the old Regular Army in order to provide overseas garrisons and reserves at home having become evident, an Army Order was published on 10 December 1918 authorizing the re-enlistment of serving soldiers for periods of, approximately, two, three or four years. Bounties of £20, £40 and £50 respectively were given, in addition to any pension, bounties or gratuities due on account of war or other services, to men re-enlisting for these periods. This Army Order, which became Army Order 4 of 1919, was subsequently further extended by Army Orders 124 and 125 of 1919, of which the former slightly modified the conditions and of which the latter applied them so modified to men serving as members of Overseas Contingents. Re-enlistments under Army Order 124 were closed by Army Order 329 (published on 27 Sept 1919) from the date of its receipt in the various commands. The total number of men re-enlisted under these Army Orders, with bounty, was 74,930."

Would these men subsequently appear in the "UK, Military Discharge Indexes, 1920-1971". Although, there's no entry for 209410.

[MaureenE]

4 hours ago, Peterhastie said:

Would these men subsequently appear in the "UK, Military Discharge Indexes, 1920-1971". Although, there's no entry for 209410.

The Ancestry description of this database says 

"These lists comprise the names and service numbers of those who were discharged from the armed forces after 1920, and born before 1901".

You would expect those who satisfy these two conditions to be listed, although I believe that the database, which originates from the Ministry of Defence is not 100% complete.

[TullochArd]

7 hours ago, Peterhastie said:

Would these men subsequently appear in the "UK, Military Discharge Indexes, 1920-1971". Although, there's no entry for 209410.

I would have thought so too but MaureenE has kindly explained why this may not be the case.  

Where to go next?

I'm pretty much 100% satisfied that 209410 does not refer to a file reference.  Using 209410 to record GC Stripes as the 209410th entry on an organisational manual database seems an impossible feat of clerical management for the time......and we would certainly have see evidence of such an effort elsewhere.

The fact that 209410 is a new RASC number and a significant number of RASC/ASC were re-enlisted immediately after the War remains a strong contender in my view.  Maureene's explanation suggests a reason we havn't found it yet. 

It's out there somewhere Peter. Have you checked out if there is any detail available for either side of (RASC) 209410 regarding discharges?

 

Edited 21 December , 2022 by TullochArd

[kenf48]

If you go back from his first attestation from you will see he re-enlisted for 90 days Home Service on the 12th April 1921, initially as a gunner then discharged as bombardier from 319 Bty RFA 78 Lowland Brigade 52 Lowland Division

There is an anomaly in that the date of marriage is first shown as 1896 then on re-enlistment as 1906 but the T4/number is shown as '134291' by him but is overwritten in full in the later documentation.

His Army No for the Emergency given as LRA/220

I can see no other reference to "Ser No 209410" It's an odd term on Statement of Services and may be as suggested an administrative number  rather than an Army number. Though what it refers to may remain a mystery, it appears to be in a different hand to the Character Reference as 'VG'.

[Peterhastie]

4 hours ago, TullochArd said:

I would have thought so too but MaureenE has kindly explained why this may not be the case.  

Where to go next?

I'm pretty much 100% satisfied that 209410 does not refer to a file reference.  Using 209410 to record GC Stripes as the 209410th entry on an organisational manual database seems an impossible feat of clerical management for the time......and we would certainly have see evidence of such an effort elsewhere.

The fact that 209410 is a new RASC number and a significant number of RASC/ASC were re-enlisted immediately after the War remains a strong contender in my view.  Maureene's explanation suggests a reason we havn't found it yet. 

It's out there somewhere Peter. Have you checked out if there is any detail available for either side of (RASC) 209410 regarding discharges?

 

Good shout, Although

Not sure if I've done this properly but there are no numbers in that range in the 2093**,2094**, 2095** in the "UK, Military Discharge Indexes, 1920-1971". about 45 or so with five digits or less and letter prefixes, T, W, D, and M. which i believe are R.A.S.C.

1 hour ago, kenf48 said:

If you go back from his first attestation from you will see he re-enlisted for 90 days Home Service on the 12th April 1921, initially as a gunner then discharged as bombardier from 319 Bty RFA 78 Lowland Brigade 52 Lowland Division

There is an anomaly in that the date of marriage is first shown as 1896 then on re-enlistment as 1906 but the T4/number is shown as '134291' by him but is overwritten in full in the later documentation.

His Army No for the Emergency given as LRA/220

I can see no other reference to "Ser No 209410" It's an odd term on Statement of Services and may be as suggested an administrative number  rather than an Army number. Though what it refers to may remain a mystery, it appears to be in a different hand to the Character Reference as 'VG'.

Thanks ken48.

[kenf48]

Having looked at the record on FMP the award of ther GC badge was noted at the time on the AF B213 (Weekly Field Return)

See:-

This appears to be the only reference to his GC Badge (the next entry - also entered on A.F. B213) refers to a period of leave.

I think we have to assume the Statement of Service form is water damaged. There is a duplicate Statement of Service Forms forms set but no reference to the number on that copy, which is in fact almost  blank.  I you squint under the number on the FMP set there is a possibility of another stamp.

and for completeness all  images courtesy of FMP

 

[Matlock1418]

17 minutes ago, kenf48 said:

As I don't have access to Anc or FMP it is good to now see an image of the entry.

Post-dating his transfer to the ZAR and his Statement as to Disability on Army Form Z. 22 - My opinion is that 209410 was a later Army Service Number [as others have earlier also suggested]

M

[kenf48]

5 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

My opinion is that 209410 was a later Army Service Number [as others have earlier also suggested]

The problem with that hypothesis is there is no indication he re-enlisted until April 1921 (when he was working in a shipyard).

Accepting the number is in the series issued to the RASC as a consequence of AO 338 August 1920 he, as has previously been noted was transferred to the Class Z Reserve on the 14th October 1919. This Reserve was abolished in March 1920.  He has papers showing he re-enlisted in April 1921 which are overwritten with his original number T4/143291. 

It begs the question why does the "Ser No 209410" not appear elsewhere on his record if he did re-enlist?

I've already note his re-enlistment number to the Lowland Division under the Emergency Provisions on 12th April 1921. If he was re-enlisted and allocated a number post August 1920 why is this not shown on the re-enlistment papers?

[butler]

Looking at Service records on Ancestry with the surname of Smith and serving in the ASC for men who were transferred to Cl Z at the end of the war, the first five I found all record a number under the discharge stamp which is either shown as 'Ser No' or on some of them is shown as 'Serial No' 

If he had reenlisted I would expect it to be shown under the discharge stamp as he would no longer be in Cl Z AR, and I would expect it to show his new service number/unit, date of  reenlistment and possibly terms of reenlistment.

As previously stated I believe the number to relate to a message sent in relation to his completion of discharge

[TullochArd]

16 hours ago, kenf48 said:

It begs the question why does the "Ser No 209410" not appear elsewhere on his record if he did re-enlist?

........ a yet to be connected rogue Service Record perhaps?  The 1914-18 one that we know and love and the, maybe soon to be released, 1919-23 still held by the Veterans Agency?

The following explains a similar scenario:

Re-enlisting into the army in 1919 - The Long, Long Trail (longlongtrail.co.uk)

Regarding 209410. kenf48 points out "Though what it refers to may remain a mystery, it appears to be in a different hand to the Character Reference as 'VG'."  Following on from this undisputed factual observation, and as indicated in the link above, there may be a un-connected 209410 Service Record. As such, I wish to revise my earlier suggestion that 209410 may be directly related to the character reference.  I believe I am wrong. In the light of the new evidence I'd offer the character reference is the last entry as T4/143291 and 209410 is cross reference to another file......the latter added as continuity well after the event.

To say why there would be two files and why they might not join up we have to look no further than what was happening in the Army, and the RASC in particular, at this time.

By the way, would the 1921 Census shed any light on this?  I'd follow up on that but I'm wintering over in Southern Spain and am a bit detached from passwords and the like (sorry had to get that one in )

[kenf48]

 

12 hours ago, TullochArd said:

Two Service Records?  The 1914-18 that we have seen and the, soon to be released, 1919-23 still held by the Veterans Agency?

Yes, two records, or to be more accurate two sets of attestation papers for both his 1916 mobilisation and his 1921 enlistment in the Home Defence Force under the Emergency Powers Act.

There is, unfortunately no evidence in any of the extant service records, which includes duplicates apparently created before the record was water damaged in the Arnside Warehouse fire, that he re-enlisted under the enhanced enlistment scheme as described in the link kindly provided to the LLT.

On the contrary, the timeline suggests he did not do so and therefore was not serving when soldiers were allocated a personal number as a consequence of an Army Order dated August 1920.  The purpose of which was to create a personal identifier and a number he would carry throughout his service.

The Time line for this soldier post-Armistice:-

Repatriated from BEF (Rouen) 11th September 1919

Whilst still serving eligible to apply to re-enlist (cited link)

He did not do so  and was discharged to Class Z Reserve 4 October 1919. Protection certificate shows T4/143291

Not eligible for re-enlistment until April 1920 as shown on link cited 

August 1920 serving soldiers re-numbered, including the RASC

The minimum service on re-enlistment was two years

Therefore barring ill health he would, had he re-enlisted been serving in the RASC, with a new number until at the earliest April 1922.

In fact on the 12th April 1921 he enlists for 90 days in the RFA as part of the Defence Force (interesting rhetorical question were the authorities prepared to use artillery against their own population).

 

Images courtesy Ancestry

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/other-aspects-of-order-of-battle/defence-force-1921/

His occupation is shown as shipworker and he gives the regimental number 134291 and at some point by an unknown hand a correction is scrawled across the papers.

As previously noted he was allocated the number LRA/220 The Defence Force was recruited solely for Home Service unlike those who re-enlisted under the 'Bounty Scheme'.

The short answer is we do not know on the evidence of his surviving records what the notation 'Ser No 209410' refers to.

If it was his Army number why does he give his first number (transposed) on the 1921 attestation? If he was still serving in April 1921 when he gives his occupation as shipyard worker he would not be eligible for enlistment in the HDF. As Chris notes on the LLT 'the lure of Army pay during the strike may have been an incentive' (to re-enlist).

EDIT Taking a lead from @butler above I thought I would look at some other records to see they more explicit

The first one seen was for M/319256 Foster shows "Serial No" in full and although faded on the original a partial rubber stamp 494???

It does therefore appear this number relates to discharge to Class Z Reserve The whole entry reading:-

"AF Z22 RECIEVED    (Statement as to disability)

No Claim

Serial No. 494???

????Clear and then what appear to be initial '?CS""

As previously stated we don't know what it refers to but it was clearly an administrative process conducted at the Discharge Centre Ripon.

Image FMP

 

 

 

 

 

[TullochArd]

1 hour ago, kenf48 said:

The short answer is we do not know on the evidence of his surviving records what the notation 'Ser No 209410' refers to.

....... and with that the story would appear to end.