Discharged having made false answer on attestation KR 1935 para 383(iii)

Discussion in 'Searching for Someone & Military Genealogy' started by cymruchick, Sep 20, 2017.

  1. cymruchick

    cymruchick Member

    Hello,

    Just researching my father's military service and have obtained his service record from the army. Although I was aware that he served in the Northamptonshires during WW2, I was suprised to find his attestation for the Cheshires dated 9th June 1936. Even more suprised to then see that his was discharged after only 44 days for "having made false answer on attestation KR 1935 para 383(iii)".
    To the best of my knowledge his attestation is 100% correct. I've looked up this regulation and do not fullly understand it. What is meant by the Civil Power? Is this the civil police? If so, has my dad got a criminal record?! Scandal time?!

    Any help greatfully received.
     
  2. Tricky Dicky

    Tricky Dicky Don'tre member

    KR 1935 para 383(iii)

    When a soldier has been convicted
    either by court martial or
    the civil power under Section 33
    or Section 99 of the Army Act
    ;
    or disposed of summarily by
    his CO. under para. 561, the
    brigade commander will decide
    whether he is to be retained in
    the service or not, except in the
    case of a soldier whose previous
    service discloses that he is or
    has been in receipt of a disability
    pension. In all such
    cases, the question of retention
    Or discharge will be referred,
    together with the man's documents,
    through the usual channels
    to the Under-Secretary
    of State, The War Office, for
    decision. The application for
    discharge will be made on A,F.
    B 130, on which full details of
    the case will be recorded and
    to which the conduct sheets and
    copies of civil convictions (if
    any) will be attached.


    Seems you may need to check further into the Army Act Sections 33 or 99 to see what they say.

    So perhaps he was convicted for some thing in civvy life prior to joining up, which may be why you know nothing about it

    Intrigue indeed
    TD
     
  3. cymruchick

    cymruchick Member

    I have looked at both section 33 and 99 and they just reiterate para 383, nothing to elighten me. So you read it as the Civil Power being the police & civil justice system?
     
  4. Richelieu

    Richelieu Well-Known Member

    Civil power does simply mean the civil authorities i.e. the criminal justice system, but this may not be that sinister. It may mean that your father simply declared that he was free to join-up when he was not. For instance, he could still have been apprenticed in some trade and therefore obligated to fulfil that contract: could that fit? Was he even of age? Sight of the ss.33 & 99 may be helpful: can you point us to a digital copy of the Army Act or perhaps post copies of the relevant sections?
     
  5. Charley Fortnum

    Charley Fortnum Dreaming of Red Eagles

    If I recall, one other similar example we saw here was of a chap who went AWOL from the Navy to join the Army (or was it vice-versa?). Either way, he had to lie about key details to do so--obviously.
     
  6. timuk

    timuk Well-Known Member

    I think your best bet is to go through his attestation again with a fine tooth comb and see if you can spot the wrong answer otherwise you may be making a mountain out of a molehill. Army Act Section 33 is the charge of making a false answer on attestation. KR1935 para 383(iii) is the administrative instructions on what to do when someone has been found guilty under Section 33. As stated you can be found guilty of the charge in three ways: a. by court martial, b. by civil authority or c. by Commanding Officer. From the information provided there is no indication which of these three convicted. In view of the time scale my money would be on a summary conviction by the Commanding Officer. In other words the Regiment found a false answer on the attestation, probably fairly minor, and just kicked him out.
    Tim
     
  7. cymruchick

    cymruchick Member

    Many thanks for all your replies.
    I have once again read through the attestation. There are a couple of minor points which although technically incorrect, surely are not grounds for discharge. My father was born in Shotton, Flintshire. The form states Shotton near to the town of Chester, Cheshire. The attestation was signed in Chester. Being born in Wales, would that had excluded him from joining the Cheshire's? Also his mother was Welsh, and the form states English. (Being Welsh myself, I think he should have been shot on the spot for this!) Was he trying to avoid joining the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, which his father had served in? Shotton is really a boarder town, so lots of people are born one side and then go to school on the other, etc. Also the boundary of the town his mother was born it, has regularly changed from Flintshire to Cheshire in the past.
    Other than this the only other points that I can possibly think maybe incorrect are if he had a criminal record and failed to declare it or if he was serving an apprenticeship at the local steelworks. As far as I know he started work there aged 14 straight from school. He never mentioned working anywhere else. He was correctly stated as 20yrs 1mth when he applied to the Cheshire's, so I would think his apprenticeship if it existed, would have been up by then.
    Think it's looking like my dad had a secret...
    Any further thoughts?
     
  8. cymruchick

    cymruchick Member

    Sorry, meant to attatch the Regs that I copied onto a word doc.

    Army Act 1881

    33. False answers or declarations on enlistment.

    Every person having become subject to military law who is discovered to have committed thefollowing offence; that is to say, To have made a wilfully false answer to any question set forth inthe attestation paper which has been put to him by or by direction of the justice before whom heappears for the purpose of being attested,shall on conviction by court-martial be liable to suffer imprisonment or such less punishment as isin this Act mentioned



    99. Recruits punishable for false answers.

    (1.) If a person knowingly makes a false answer to any question contained in the attestation paper,which has been put to him by or by direction of the justice before whom he appears for the purposeof being attested, he shall be liable on summary conviction to be imprisoned with or without hardlabour for any period not exceeding three months.(2.) If a person guilty of an offence under this section has been attested as a soldier of the regularforces, he shall be liable, at the discretion of the competent military authority, to be proceededagainst before a court of summary jurisdiction, or to be tried by court-martial for the offence.
     
  9. Tricky Dicky

    Tricky Dicky Don'tre member

    Maybe in 1936 they were more 'picky' about who they took on. Whereas perhaps when he joined the Northamptonshires, in (I dont know what year) 1939/40 WW2 had started and the need for men was greater than someone who in 1936 had made possibly a silly error on his form.

    If you know when he was attested into the Northants were the regulations the same as earlier??

    TD
     
  10. Richelieu

    Richelieu Well-Known Member

    I doubt that any minor mistakes in the attestation would have been the cause - the offence is that of ‘wilfully’ giving false answers; and the recruiter would presumably have been familiar with Shotton’s location and whether it represented a problem.

    I had 7 years in mind for the length of an apprenticeship - Wikipedia indicates that they varied over time and between trades. If 7 years is correct, and if your father was indeed apprenticed, this would mean that he jumped the gun somewhat when joining the Cheshires with still a year or so to go. Many apprentice records have survived so it may be worth contacting local history groups and museums for advice.
     
    Tricky Dicky likes this.
  11. cymruchick

    cymruchick Member

    My dad joined the TA's in 1941 and was subsequently transferred int the Northamptonshires. The TAs attestation form was different and does not ask if you have ever been convicted by the civil power. I'll check out the apprenticeship line and if that doesn't solve it, look at researching court records. Many thanks for everyone's help on this, it's good to talk!
     

Share This Page