14/15 Star. L/26670. Ernest Cotterill. R.F.A.

[GWF1967]

Hi, I have a skimmed and renamed 1914/15 Star to Gnr. Ernest Cotterill, L/26670 R.F.A.  I had assumed it to be a replacement for a lost medal until I checked his MIC, which states he was ineligible for the star, despite listing the date he went overseas as 30/12/1915. If he’d served in a different theatre then I would have presumed the date given was when he left the UK and that by the time he’d arrived in theatre it would be past the cut off date, but two days seems a long time if only crossing the channel. Can anyone offer an explanation for the ineligibility and self award please. 

[charlie962]

He was reported died of wounds in the Daily Casualty List of 10/11/17. 

But he survived and was discharged June 1918, as his service file tells us. But then he was recalled and served briefly at the Exp Bty, Portion.

Here's service per Findmypast 

Note he was wounded then gassed in 1917 and an accidental eye injury 1918.

Lots to work through in that interesting record. Maybe the answer there?

Charlie 

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBM%2FWO363-4%2F7295493%2F23%2F400

 

 

 

[charlie962]

Note he attested and served with D/164 Rotherham Bty RFA. 

Old thread on bde here 

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/241399-164th-bde-royal-field-artillery/#comment-2424978

 

Edited 26 February , 2023 by charlie962

[charlie962]

An example, Fogg L/26483, has entry date 31/12/15 and gets his star. I've not checked his unit. 

Update..

Fogg was B/164 Bde and his service record shows similar to Cotterill.

Does make Cotterill look badly treated. Close study of war diary needed?

Edited 26 February , 2023 by charlie962

[TEW]

The EF/9 reference bottom right of MIC is a correspondence file which can include eligibility.

Scroll down:

https://warrecordsrevealed.com/medal-cards-understanding-the-file-numbers-used-by-medal-branch-in-the-cards-rolls/

The correspondence file won't exist anymore but no doubt it held the answer.

An original star to him was made so the RFA records and the medal office believed he was entitled to it. The Star may even have been sent out to him.

At some point his eligibilty was questioned.

If he had been sent the medal the RFA records would demand its return with threats of further action.

Equally possible the RFA records held onto the medal pending further correspondence, subsequently returning it to the medal office.

With the date of entry showing eligibility I have no idea why he was not entitled to it.

Looking at Taffrail he has a para c for service that does not qualify:

Service of a temporary and special nature in ships of war or theatres of operations EG. Casual inspection and enquiries, purchase of material, passage etc.

Para b says: service at shore bases or depots except those within active military operations.

Could there be depots in France that were not within the theatre?

TEW

[GWF1967]

2 hours ago, charlie962 said:

He was reported died of wounds in the Daily Casualty List of 10/11/17. 

But he survived and was discharged June 1918, as his service file tells us. But then he was recalled and served briefly at the Exp Bty, Portion.

Here's service per Findmypast 

Note he was wounded then gassed in 1917 and an accidental eye injury 1918.

Lots to work through in that interesting record. Maybe the answer there?

Charlie 

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=GBM%2FWO363-4%2F7295493%2F23%2F400

 

 

 

Thank you, I'd missed his service record;  FMP have him indexed as V/26670.  Nothing leaps out on first look, I'll clean up the images and have another read once I've taken my good lady shopping. 

 

19 minutes ago, TEW said:

The EF/9 reference bottom right of MIC is a correspondence file which can include eligibility.

Scroll down:

https://warrecordsrevealed.com/medal-cards-understanding-the-file-numbers-used-by-medal-branch-in-the-cards-rolls/

The correspondence file won't exist anymore but no doubt it held the answer.

An original star to him was made so the RFA records and the medal office believed he was entitled to it. The Star may even have been sent out to him.

At some point his eligibilty was questioned.

If he had been sent the medal the RFA records would demand its return with threats of further action.

Equally possible the RFA records held onto the medal pending further correspondence, subsequently returning it to the medal office.

With the date of entry showing eligibility I have no idea why he was not entitled to it.

Looking at Taffrail he has a para c for service that does not qualify:

Service of a temporary and special nature in ships of war or theatres of operations EG. Casual inspection and enquiries, purchase of material, passage etc.

Para b says: service at shore bases or depots except those within active military operations.

Could there be depots in France that were not within the theatre?

TEW

Thanks for digging TEW, I'll have a read through.

[David Porter]

The RFA Record Office were meticulous when it came to medal entitlement. A/164, C/164 and D/164, plus 17 men of 168th Brigade RFA landed at Havre on January 1, 1916, so are ineligible for the 1914-15 Star. As Fogg was in B/164, which landed earlier, he got the medal. I've found that men who subsequently transferred to the Labour Corps were not subject to such rigorous scrutiny and also got the 1914-15 Star. Also it seemed normal practice at the RFA Record Office to note date of embarkation on the MIC and in the Rolls before being checked. Hence the confusion with Ernest Cotterill and why he thought an injustice had been done.             

[GWF1967]

1 minute ago, David Porter said:

The RFA Record Office were meticulous when it came to medal entitlement. A/164, C/164 and D/164, plus 17 men of 168th Brigade RFA landed at Havre on January 1, 1916, so are ineligible for the 1914-15 Star. As Fogg was in B/164, which landed earlier, he got the medal. I've found that men who subsequently transferred to the Labour Corps were not subject to such rigorous scrutiny and also got the 1914-15 Star. Also it seemed normal practice at the RFA Record Office to note date of embarkation on the MIC and in the Rolls before being checked. Hence the confusion with Ernest Cotterill and why he thought an injustice had been done.             

Thank you for the clarification David, I'd assumed it was his embarkation date rather than date of arrival.

[David Porter]

Here are the details from WO 95/4030-4

[charlie962]

It's tough. Part of the same brigade, embarked same day but landed different days due to shipping holdups..

I bet a lot of his colleagues did the same? Of course they had to source the stars.

[TEW]

The relevant 14-15 Star roll has many men who have Star Returned Authy. EF9/4105 as per Cotterill. His entry (double strike through) is one of five on that page. There are two more ineligible but under another authority.

Ancestry link here.

This part of the roll roll must have 40 men who were ineligible under the EF9/4105 spread over ancestry pages 172-210 and maybe more.

Perhaps cross checking with more service files might shed some light on the matter. There are many more ineligible men under other authorities.

I've just noticed his Star was returned with a CRV dated 1931. The roll was compiled Sept 1919. Not sure what that delay relates to unless it's the medal office or RFA records keeping them for ten years before returning for destruction.

TEW

[charlie962]

2 hours ago, TEW said:

Perhaps cross checking with more service files might shed some light on the matter.

David Porter has set the case pretty clearly. 

Yet another example crossed out on same page is Howsam L/26668. He too was D/164.

So we have these men who volunteered back in June 1915, set off before the end of the year but refused that extra medal. The Brigade took its first casualties in Jan 1916. However the Brigade didn't fight 1914 nor 1915.

It's more the fact that part of the Brigade got the Star and part didn't that makes it seem unfair.  

A very interesting case and very understandable. 

 

Edited 26 February , 2023 by charlie962

[TEW]

Howsam's MIC explains it then. The date of entry on the MICs is incorrect.

His is under a different authority though.

TEW 

[charlie962]

15 minutes ago, TEW said:

The date of entry on the MICs is incorrect.

Not the first time. But then the dates on the service records are also incorrect!

[charlie962]

B/164,(and the BAC) the lucky ones, had the following timing.

29/12/15 arrived Southampton and embarked immediately on SS Archimedes.

30/12/15 remained on board at Southampton, Sailed 4.30pm.

31/12/15 arrived Le Havre 2am and disembark 7am. 

Edited 26 February , 2023 by charlie962

[charlie962]

Here's a copy letter men received, courtesy Findmypast

[charlie962]

Sheffield DT, 13/4/1922. Courtesy Findmypast.

Perhaps 'fed up' was Cotterill?

Edited 26 February , 2023 by charlie962

[GWF1967]

1 hour ago, charlie962 said:

 

It's more the fact that part of the Brigade got the Star and part didn't that makes it seem unfair.  

A very interesting case and very understandable. 

 

It does indeed seem harsh.

Bobbing about  in a French port rather than standing on a French dock seems a very fine line to draw. 

[GWF1967]

7 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

Edited 26 February , 2023 by GWF1967

[charlie962]

You now have some excellent notes to explain a most unusual renamed medal!!

[GWF1967]

Thanks for posting the letter Charlie, that’s a great find. 

[TEW]

Not sure of the CRV date now, it maybe June 21 which tallies with the letter. Good find that letter!

Not surprised he obtained another Star.

TEW

[GWF1967]

1 minute ago, charlie962 said:

You now have some excellent notes to explain a most unusual renamed medal!!

I can understand why he hunted down a replacement. It must have been something to grumble about if and when  they met up post war. 

[charlie962]

Surely someone must have ratted on the late arrivals?

To issue the medals and then a year later ask for them back is disgraceful. To send the police out just compounds bureaucratic shame.

Edited 26 February , 2023 by charlie962

[GWF1967]

3 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

Surely someone must have ratted on the late arrivals?

To issue the medals and then a year later ask for them back is disgraceful. To send the police out just compounds bureaucratic shame.

To put it mildly.
I sent a copy of the first letter to my son who bought the medal for me. He sent a reply to ask what would happen if a man didn’t return it.
I was just replying when I saw part two!