MOD ALREADY TRANSFERRING WW2 SERVICE FILES TO UK NATIONAL ARCHIVES 2021

Starting to go round in circles here.

The piece you quote is for Section 41 (no sub paragraph) of FOI Act 2000 and states all information exempt - nothing about medical only.

They also gave the opening date of 2026 when they could open to you under present rules.

I suspect this is the 100 year after DoB and complies with an application without proof of death

"To open a record, it must first be located and checked. For those records relating to individuals born less than 100 years ago we will require provide proof of death, in order to consider if information can be released from the record. Suitable forms of evidence are an official death certificate or published obituary."

Ross

 

Hi Ross,

Okay apologies I understand it a bit better now, I’ll have another look at it in 2026.

Thanks for your help

 

This quote triggered me to have another look in Discovery. I struggled to find any index as to what record sets are available so I tried a bit of creative(?) searching. Note: Discovery is still stating for Army service records to contact MOD even though their own minutes state they have received 3 million of the records as at Sept 22.

Using the search terms "service record" and the timeframe 1925-49 and I got 797,768 records and most were not Army service records.

I tried again using "service number" and the timeframe 1925-49 and I got 423,756 records.
Of these 178,359 were German record cards of British and Commonwealth POWs. I doublt these have service records attached but would be of interest if you were researching a POW.
5,048 were Directorate of Military Operations and Intelligence - Escapees and POWs repatriated (British and Commonwealth), again not sure if it would include the individual service records. WO208
52,397 Register of Shipping and Seamen, would be of interest if you are researching a merchant seamen. BT391.
56,562 Regiment of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers REME, this was the first set of service records made available around a year ago so nothing new. WO420
37,022 Infantry Over Age other ranks. This appears to be regular army personnel who went on the reserve list after 1945 but were discharged as over age before the expiration of their time on the reserve list. It is a mix of regiments so may be worth checking if your research interest is regular army. WO422
344 Women's Services in East Africa Nurses and other ranks WO427
94,242 Selected Smaller Corp other ranks WO421.
War Office: Selected Smaller Corps Other Ranks: Service Records;
This series consists of 94,242 service records of soldiers (but not officers) who served in 12 different smaller units/corps of the British Army during the Second World War and immediately after, and who were discharged from the armed forces as over age before their time expired.
Individuals may have served in other regiments/corps during the course of their military careers (details of which will be recorded on their service record), but this series contains those whose service ended in one of the following:

• Army Air Corps Royal
• Army Veterinary Corps
• Royal Military Police (or Corps of Military Police)
• Royal Army Pay Corps
• Royal Army Physical Training Corps
• Military Provost Staff Corps
• Royal Corps of Army Music
• Royal Army Education Corps
• Royal Pioneer Corps
• Intelligence Corps
• Officer Training Corps
• Non-Combatant Corps

And I hit the jackpot.. My father started WW2 in The Buffs but after 3 months was transferred to the CMP for the rest of his time in service. He is listed in the series but his record is closed, however I have submitted a FOI request to have it opened. So from despairing that it may be years before I can see his records, I may be one of the lucky people to get earlier access.

 

I am pleased you are getting somewhere. Researching at Kew onsite or online often reminds me of a scene from the film "Shakespeare In Love", because obstacles are thrown in the researcher's path by "the plague" and Kew's constant rebranding, rebuilding, curious digitisation strategies, delays in dealing with the service records accession, threats to reduce the budget, etc.. But it all turns out well: "It's a mystery."

Beyond the above, Kew wants to attract a new audience by becoming a party and event venue, so this is relevant:

Lambert: "This time the boots are coming off."
Phillip Henslowe: "What have I done Mr. Fennyman ?"
Hugh Fennyman: "The theatres have all been closed down by the plague."
Henslowe: "Oh....that."
Fennyman: "By order of the Master of the Revels."

Henslowe:...." Mr. Fennyman, allow me to explain about the theatre business. The natural condition is one of insurmountable obstacles on the road to imminent disaster."

Fennyman: "So what do we do?"

Henslowe: "Nothing. Strangely enough, it all turns out well."

Fennyman: "How?"

Henslowe: "I don't know. It's a mystery."

Lambert: "Shall I kill him, Mr. Fennyman?"
Crier: "The theatres are reopened. By order of the Master of the Revels: the theatres are reopened."
Frees: "Mr. Fennyman, Mr. Tilney has reopened the playhouses."
Henslowe: "If you wouldn't mind..."

Fennyman: "Where's the play?"

Henslowe: "Oh it's coming...."

Fennyman: "It's coming."

 

On this and other forums there is starting to be a spate of messages about requests to the TNA being returned as "Closed File" especially for Army Service Records.

Occurred to me that it may be that members and those making one off enquiry should try to use the FOI that Paul has being doing and reporting back for on RAF Commands Web site on receipt of a Closed File statement.

RAF Casualty Packs 1939-45 Public Access - Page 32

As you can see rakes of RAF Accident files that were Closed status have been changed to Open in response to FOI requests to remove/redact the relevant pages.

He is putting in batches of request on the "long tail" and getting astounding results suggesting that most records can be redacted if the TNA is requested to do so.

Something a few champions may like to do for the Army Records to open up more for the near future casual enquiry cases that do not come through the forum ?

Ross

 

A very interesting thread on the RAF Commands site, thank you for the link. I am sorry to read that there were 55 cases of files in Air 81 "missing at transfer", although a few have been found since.

So "Long tail" can mean that if a person requested a file from the Air Historic Branch, which file is now in series AIR 81, in modern times, then that was the only reason for lengthening the period of closure: closure rules applied, not to the date of the wartime event, but to the date of the modern enquiry of the AHB. Is that right ?

John

 

Yes John,

Where someone wrote to the RAFAHB asking for details of an accident - like I did for a few to aid publication of the Coastal Losses book - the letter would have been added to the file.

On transfer to TNA it fails the TNA Publication rule on "living person" and so is listed as Closed +110 years from letter. What Paul and others do is to request a redaction of the file. TNA reviews - removes the living person pages to a Closed Addendum and then Opens the Redacted File.

In a way this was what Disclosures do to a service record - They do a review for publication (as set out by MoD rules of Publication) - redact personal info such as Medical and Penal if not in response to the Subject of the Record - and living persons references, then release the redacted portion to the applicant as Open.

For RAF records the standard rules of MoD publication result in a blanket redaction of Trade Mustering but if you ask for a review at time of application then on individual cases a decision is made as to redaction. In all the cases I have asked for the auto redaction has not been applied subject to this review.

Looking at the latest returns from TNA where a death certificate etc has been supplied and all normal MoD rules met the standard answer seems to be Record Closed.

I'm coming to the conclusion that this is because TNA are not doing the first stage of redaction that disclosures do for an application.

Given the results from the AIR81 series to MoD records I strongly think that the method of an FOI in response to Closed should be tried to ask TNA to split the file into Open section and redacted Closed Addendum.

What's your take on the situation?

Ross

 

Thanks, Ross. Your suggestion for many FOI applications is very helpful. Kew wants to know what "demand" there is.

Minutes of the four Kew "committees" ( Advisory Group, Directors, Non-Executive Directors or Board, User Advisory Forum ) which have discussed the MOD service records recently have not been very forthcoming. As your experts on RAF Commands know, the "FOI Centre" tends to be discussed by the Advisory Council. The last time there was some useful discussion of the subject was some time ago ( but bear in mind it can take up to nine months for minutes to appear on the Kew website), in November 2020, viz:

"5. Ministry of Defence (MoD)
5.1 Members asked TNA how it proposed to deal with the large number of FOI requests which would accompany the transfer of the records. Ms Lucy Fletcher responded that the focus would be on transferring open collections to begin with. Longer term there were ongoing discussions with the FOI centre to consider service provision, but it would be difficult to predict the level of demand. The initial transfers would help predict what resources would be needed.
5.2 Members asked when the public would be apprised of this transfer. Ms Fletcher noted TNA was working to establish a communication plan, with a focus on managing expectations and this could be brought back to Council. There were however, already references to the project in various public documents.
5.3 Members queried TNA’s progress with digitisation and commercial partnerships for this project. Ms Fletcher said there had been conversations with potential commercial partners, but it would be necessary to have the initial records to develop this further.
5.4 Representatives from MoD joined the meeting to discuss written updates on the transfer of service personnel records.
3

5.5 They summarised the update and confirmed a financially viable plan for transfer had been found. The next phase would be to implement the framework for the transfer process alongside a communication plan.
5.6 Members were reassured that progress had been made although had concerns over the transfer of the service personnel records.
5.7 DECISION: The Council thanked MoD for joining the meeting.
5.8 POST MEETING NOTE: Following the meeting an amendment to the Service Personnel report, and explanation of this amendment was circulated to all members of the Council. The amendment was noted by members."

The full minutes are here:

https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/advisory-council-minutes-2020-11.pdf

My "take" on the general subject is that 100 years means 100 years, not 115 years.

"The number of centenarians in the UK rose to its highest ever level in 2020, reaching 15,120, an increase of almost a fifth from last year."

Estimates of the very old, including centenarians, UK - Office for National Statistics

I was sorry to see this item appearing in the Director's minutes for last December 1st, except that it fits my post 64 analogy of Kew as a public entertainment space with mysterious ways:

"8. Reception Desk
8.1. LO, DA, MN and MS joined the meeting. EJA introduced the item. EJA presented an initial proposal to make changes to the foyer so that public visitors were greeted by a more welcoming environment.
8.2. ET discussed the item.
8.3. Decision: ET supported the proposal.
8.4. Action: EJA to work on a more detailed, costed proposal and bring back to ET at a future meeting."

Full minutes here: https://tna-cdn-live-uk.s3.eu-west-...ts/executive-team-meeting-minutes-2022-12.pdf

John

 

And now we have the Schrödinger's AIR 81s which are simultaneously opened and closed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :

 

Good int it!

This was one where it was open with closed addendum - the closed addendum is up for automatic review.

Amusing thing is that the Form 1180 accident card was a index card that had partial info from the Casualty File P350637/39 extracted and transcribed for easy reference.

As this document does not have living persons info it can be obtained from other sources than the TNA. In most cases the info that general researchers want is in the F1180 making access to AIR81 irrelevant.

All that is missing on the F1180 is the names of the other two crew and which one of the two was injured.

However internet research today is all about finding the one source holy grail rather than farming together lots of smaller references to form the whole.

Ross

 

The Board was under its old Chair, the one who used to go on about "what we are trying to achieve" without actually defining what that was - hopefully opening records timeously - when they minuted this in January 2022, which was optimistic about H.M. Treasury's resources:

{ NEBMs=Non Executive Board Members}

"9.0 MoD Service Personnel Records Transfer – Quarterly Project Update
9.1 The Board received a major project update on the transfer of circa 10 million Ministry of Defence (MoD) service personnel records to The National Archives for strategic oversight and assurance.
9.2 LF introduced the report and thanked the NEBMs for their participation in the Working Group and the opportunity to set out to them the size and complexity of the project. GMR provided an update on the procurement of a project partner, including estimated timescales.
9.3 RS asked where the NEBMs can specifically add value and contribute to the project. In response, LF noted that support with developing and testing access arrangements for the records would be particularly welcomed.
9.4 Assurances were provided on the funding for the project, including support from HM Treasury for multi-year budgeting and on our relationship with MoD, which is set out in a memorandum of understanding. Commercial opportunities and information rights issues were also noted.
9.5 The Board:
(i) Received and noted the progress update;
(ii) Agreed that the records should be released in tranches; and
5
(iii) Endorsed the next steps set out in the report, relating to Board engagement and oversight.
Action by: LF/AF"

https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/board-minutes-2022-01.pdf

I cannot find any further reference to "Quarterly Updates." Publication of Board minutes was limited to those up to mid 2022 until very recently, but the whole of 2022's Board minutes were published by last week.

The "memorandum of understanding" between DCMS and MOD could read:

" Clause the First. Retention instruments will be sought and tranches devised in accordance with commercial opportunities.

Clause the Second. All citizens are deemed to live until 115 years of age. {NHS please note: must do better, may extend to 120 years of age.}

Clause the Third. Information rights: all records to be opened and closed immediately.

Witnesses: Larry the Cat, Downing Street ( Paw mark ).
Palmerston the Cat (retired 2020 ), Foreign Office, ( Paw mark ).
Notary: Schrödinger's Cat, no fixed abode."

Dated: The Year of the Plague."

 

John has just nudged me to explain a bit on the MoD pages for applying for a service record that appeared in the last week or so.

Get a copy of military service records

"Fees
It costs £30 to apply for each record, which is non-refundable. The fee covers research and administrative costs.

There’s no fee if you were the person’s spouse or civil partner at the time of their death, or a parent if there was no spouse or civil partner.

From 1 April 2023 it will be free to apply for a military service record from the MOD. You’ll need to pay the £30 fee if you submit an application before 1 April."

This is the announcement that MoD is waiving the need - as of 1st April - for an up front £30 fee.

If no record is found - no fee
If record transferred to TNA - no fee from MoD but statement of where the record now resides
If record still with MoD - you will get a request for £30 debit card payment from Mod and get an email copy of record on payment.

This has been hinted at for a bit by RAF Disclosures staff but needed to wait for formal announcement.

Also on the latest Gov.Uk page is what seems a change of policy from the TNA on WWI service records - with details of how to do an FOI

This system looks like the formal way to request the redacted release of a Closed Service record for a service person with DoB before or during 1939.

Request MOD Personnel Records

Fill your boots!

Ross

 

Damn, I peaked too soon, applied for uncle’s and cousin’s records just this afternoon.

 

"And now we have the Schrödinger's AIR 81s which are simultaneously opened and closed"

TNA says database error for automatic opening of a large number of various files - they are open - closed banner with FOI is bug from Discovery for Jan 2023 process.

Ross

 

Hopefully that will be fixed very soon. I couldn't order them onsite last week either.

 

Anyone have any idea about how much is removed from service files before they are opened to the public? Clearly stuff is being redacted but I wonder how much (if any of course) is simply being removed and destroyed.

I occasionally have a look at RCAF and RAAF casualty files and it seems to me that the more recently digitised files are thinner than they used to be and contain less of what might be considered to be 'personal' in any way.

 

Have a look at Scots Guards service files on findmypast. Most files have almost 100 different documents (some duplicates/triplicates so whole file is often 200+ documents).

I’ve noticed that Canadian casualty files on Ancestry do have omissions when compared to the “sample” of casualty files originally made available about 10 years ago. Omissions include paternity orders made against personnel who had fathered children whilst overseas. Civilian inquest papers have also been removed in relation to accidental deaths and suicides etc.

I’ve no idea what the Canadian/Ancestry rationale is but I expect files held by UK MOD will have been culled over the past 75 years or so while perhaps Brigade of Guards file storage space was more plentiful than MOD - additionally Scots Guards files were likely retained in full as they were consulted by the Regimental Association when post service requests for help were made. Files on findmypast contain copies of the correspondence - some sad tales.

Steve

EDIT TO ADD

The Scots Guards files also contain a number of service files for men who were transferred into the Regiment in 1944/45 after several years service in non Guards units.

Perusal of those files will give a good indication of the paperwork held in a non Brigade of Guards conscript service file on post war demobilisation.

 

Well for Wartime RAF Other Ranks Service Records we can say what was removed and destroyed in UK up to transfer to TNA.

In 1943/44 the List of document types and retention times had been laid down in the Public Record Office Act, 1877 and updated in 1927.

From King’s Regulations and Air Council Instructions
<
For Documents in the RAF Record Office:
22 Service Documents of Airmen:-
(a) Certificates of service – Fifteen years after the airman becomes non-effective.
(b) Miscellaneous Record Sheets – Fifteen years after the airman becomes non-effective.
(c) Trade Index Cards – Fifteen years after the airman becomes non-effective.
(d) Medical History Envelopes and documents.. ..Fifteen years after the airman becomes non-effective.

23 Conduct Sheets:-
Fifteen years after the airman becomes non-effective.

24 Technical Qualification forms:-
(a) Results of courses of instruction and examinations – Five years after the airman becomes non-effective.
(b) Certificates of passing out – Five years after the airman becomes non-effective.
(c) Choice of Trade – Five years after the airman becomes non-effective.
(d) Character and Trade Proficiency – Five years after the airman becomes non-effective.
(e) Technical History Sheets – Five years after the airman becomes non-effective.

For Documents in RAF Units
19 Nominal Rolls of temporary importance:-
One year
[Nominal Rolls of Units and others giving important information will be preserved.]

Note:-A Ledger Sheet is maintained which gives the full details of the airman’s service, particulars of marriages, and births of children, medical history, trade particulars, &cc; and it is proposed that this Ledger Sheet shall be permanently preserved. It is considered that this record will be sufficient to deal with all future enquiries.

For the purpose of this Schedule the term “becomes non-effective” should be deemed to be the date on which an airman is taken off the strength of the Royal Air Force, or R.A.F. Reserve, whichever is the later.
>

So after 1 year documents held on the unit were destroyed and headings transferred onto a Ledger Sheet for permanent retention.

After 5 years the contents of Form 280 were destroyed and the “contents wrap” retained
After 15 years the Form 280 was to destroyed.

The only document to be preserved was the Ledger Sheet or to give it it’s RAF Form Number: Form 543.

So this remove and destroy sequence was in operation from 1927 - no good whinging at MoD today for this history.

We also know what made up a Form 280 Service Record

<From King’s Regulations and Air Council Instructions for the Royal Air Force 1943

Section II – The Certificate of Service

2130

Preparation for Recruits:-

The Officer i/c Records will, as soon as the attestation of a recruit has been approved, prepare a certificate of service (Form 280) for him from the attestation paper. He will enter on the certificate the airman’s full name, official number, date and place of birth, age on entry, occupation in civil life, trade in the RAF, religious denomination, details of his engagement in H.M. forces, if married the particulars of the marriage, and the airman’s personal description. The form will then be forwarded to the unit to which the airman is posted with his other service documents.

2131

Documents to be enclosed in Form 280:-
The following documents relating to an airman will be kept enclosed in his certificate of service as and when their preperation for him becomes necessary.

(a) Record of trade test (flimsy of Form 167).
(b) Deleted
(c) Absent voter’s card (Form 514).
(d) Miscellaneous record sheet (Form 125).
(e) The original service certificate, or an authenticated copy thereof, of an airman who transferred from the RN, RM or Royal Naval Air Service to the RAF.
(f) A Form 200 prepared by the Officer i/c Records from his military documents, for an airman who transferred from the Army, including Royal Flying Corps, to the RAF.
(g) The Form 280 of a discharged airman who re-enlists.
(h) Deleted
(j) A certificate awarded under the provisions of para 251. (Long Service and Good Conduct Medal – Certificate to Ex-Naval Ratings – Ross)
(k) Service and general conduct sheets (Forms 120 and 121)
(l) Publications (Personal Issues) Card (Form 506)

Pins will not be used in attaching documents to the certificate of service.>

More about Form 280

This document formed the wrapper for an airmans Record of Service as well as being a contents/index to all enclosed documents.

In researching the service of an airman it is the prime source document that can be obtained.

Innsworth used to occasionally provide a photocopy of the Form 280 to a serviceman on request but in recent times disclosure is mainly Form 543A which contains an edited subset of the detail entered on the corresponding Form 280.

Form 280 was kept very remote, group headquarters copied a sub set and created another Form 1580 for use as field form but units did very little to administer records using the Form 747 Casualty Form as a means of transmitting POR for all men, fit as well as casualty. The bones of info in Form 747 were extracted at group and the info altered onto Form 1580 there.

The RAAF Records of service preserved and available from NAA were not subject to the Public Record Office Act and so were not culled in the timescales given - A RAAF Service Record is an example of Form 280 with contents intact.

Ross

 

Thanks for this Ross. I wonder if it's the case though that correspondence with relatives asking for further information about their loved one for example might be removed from a file.

 

Re: #72.I'm confused. I was in agreement with Ross's analysis but now I've seen that 'requesters will no longer be required to pay the administration fee from 1st April 2023'. Nothing about being charged later if they find the Record.
Requests for personal data and service records: a detailed guide

Tim