sorry for another post re this topic, but I have gone through as many on here as I could find, as well as other groups and can't find anything on the section above. My grandfather enlisted, was discharged under the section above and then pretty much straightaway rejoined the same regiment RWF and went to Burma. if anyone could enlighten me re the above section I would very much appreciate it
That is confusing, the overall section is relating to age - does the entry mention a year for the Kings Regs, I have looked at the 1940 version - can you check in case I need to look at a different edition. I'll double check the entry in case I am cross reading entries somehow
The para relating to under age in WW1 was 392 (vi). In the 1935 regs para 390 (v) refers to buying oneself out so it would appear it is important to know which version of the regulations is being quoted.
I believe it would be the 1940 version as the record was 1940-41? but i'm a complete novice at this so any advice welcome!
Unfortunately I don't have a 1940 copy. However I have found a reference to another member of the RWF who was discharged in 1940 and re enlisted (although not in the RWF) which also quotes 390 (v) a WW2 & KOREAN WAR Fusilier M H Sisson Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, late Welch Fus, RA & Warwk Fus Medal group awarded to Fusilier M. Korea 1950-54, unnamed as issued, good very fine, see pictures for condition British troops crossing the Rhine 1945 Miles Hamilton Sisson was born in Liverpool in 1924. After British army was defeated in the battle for France he attested for the Royal Welch Fusiliers on 26 July 1940, but was discharged under Kings Regulations Para 390 (v) (a) on 23 December 1940 (services no longer required). He could well have been discharged as under age.
But the 1935 version doesn't have any subsections to 390(v) so doesn't tie in with the note of 390(v)a - although from the date of birth the 1940 version doesn't seem right either
he went pretty much straight back in the same unit and he wasn't discharged until 1955 - trust me to get the tricky one!
I wasn't suggesting the reference was to the 1935 regs merely using them as an example of how the para numbers change from issue to issue. Of course the clerk who wrote the reference on the card could simply have got the para number wrong - good old fashioned clerical error! Given that there was another 390 (v) in the RWF in the same month (and one whose birth date fits) could it be a case of a miss transcription between records?
