Great Grandad had two service numbers

[Aaron Nelson]

Hi Pals,

The MIC card for my Great Grandfather has him with two service numbers.

First number is (TF) 701492 then underneath that on the card second number listed as 161399.

Does this mean he may have served with two units ????

I have a copy of his paybook, on the paybook you can clearly see the number 161399 written in the original space for service number, then that has clearly been crossed out, and the Tf 701493 number written above it.

So it appears that his service number changed, and this was manually adjusted on his paybook.

My questions is, does having two numbers have any significance. I know for certain he served in 330th Brigade RFA. This Brigade moved to France in March of 1917. Did he serve in another unit with the number 161399 ????Prior to March 1917??

Any advice or clarification on the above would be greatly received.

Thanks Aaron.

[KONDOA]

Aaron,

His MIC shows that his first number was 701492, superceded by 161399.

This would tend to indicate him being re-enlisted or re- assigned for some reason.

Do you actually have his MIC and do the numbers match those shown here?

If you know he was not wounded , disabled etc for a period of time it may be related to the army of occupation numbers ie transferred to a nn TF unit after Nov 1918.

Roop

[welshdoc]

If you look at this post it covers your question the 7****** is the newer post 1917 number

 

 

[Aaron Nelson]

Hi Kondoa,

Thanks for your response.

Here is the Mic received from National Archives.

My GG MIC is the top right hand corner one.

Also, as mentioned earlier it appears on his paybook the 161399 number was crossed out, with the 701492 number written above it. I am unsure if he was wounded, although I doubt it. He never mentioned he was wounded in his life, that however does not rule that possibility out.

cheers Aaron.

[Aaron Nelson]

trying MIC attachment again....

[KONDOA]

If you look at this post it covers your question the 7****** is the newer post 1917 number

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...topic=52844&hl=

Both are post 1917 numbers and the precedence shown on the MIC is that 7*** was his first number and 1**** his second.

However there is another remark in those columns on his mIC which is not legible and may be a clue .

Roop

[Aaron Nelson]

Kondoa,

In the far right side of the remarks box it has three number written vertically and they are underscored. The numbers are 17 5 61. The 17 and the 5 are underscored. I will try to show it here as shown on the MIC. Like so

17

---

5

---

61

I have no idea what that means or its significance, perhaps 17th May 1961 ????

Also attached is a pic showing his paybook, you can clearly see where the number 161399 was originally wirtten in space for service number, then crossed out and 701492 written above it. I know that contradicts the info shown on the MIC. Any explanation for this would be appreciated, what Im really trying to establish is whether he served in a unit prior to 330th Brigade.

I was very lucky to have a copy of this paybook, it wa my starting point for my research. The paybook also states he was 24 years and 6 months old at enlistment, that means around October 1916.

thanks Aaron.

[nfh249]

Could it be that the numbers are listed in reverse order on the MIC? I'm sure I've seen a few for the East Riding Yeomanry where the original pre-1917 four digit number is listed after (ie below) the later 6 digit number. Depends on the clerk???

Regards,

Neil

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

Aaron further to PM,I see your post of Paybook entry states "A" Battery 330 Bde,so that would suggest that the "31st" Battery you mentioned refers to another RFA Brigade.

The Date reference{17/5/61} in the remarks column of your MiC refers;most probably to a clerical use of the Card by the AMO for either an internal check or an enquiry by the Recipient or Family,{possibly for amendment of an error in naming or replacement??}

[Aaron Nelson]

Kondoa,

Some more info, a researcher has finally come back to me with some info on my man. He had this to say about the two service numbers.

" In your original enquiry you said that the number 161399 had been crossed out and the number 701492 substituted, yet the way the roll is set out is in the format which is the norm when the number in the extreme left hand column (vis 161399) is the second number to be issued.

The number 701492 fits in with the 1916-17 renumbering of the Territorial Force in that the 1st RFA Brigade of the East Lancashire Division were allocated the unique number range 700001 – 705000, so that’s ok. Looking at the sequence of the 161--- numbers on the same and adjacent pages to Wilfred’s entry I think that what has in fact happened is simply a glitch in the records office methodology and the 161--- numbers are the “pre new issue” numbers for 1st Bde of the East Lancs Division. I cant prove that without the service records for one or more of those men, but the more I think about it the more I think that’s what has happened."

Kondoa, do you agree with the reckoning above, would that explain the apparent numbers being in the reverse order?? The pages he refers to above are the medal roll pages he looked up for me.

Also, does anyone know why soldiers were renumbered in the first place ??

cheers Aaron.

[KONDOA]

Morning Aaron

The suggestion is plausible but !! Medal entitlements were sanctioned at different dates and each should reflect the Reg No at the time of award , however the record referred to by your researcher would appear to be the composite list rather than the individual roll which may provide better information. Do you have your mans medals, if so how are they numbered?

Roop