Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[Deborah180]

Hello,

I'm trying to decipher the Service Record of Frederick Puckett (snippet attached) who signed up with the Royal Navy in 1910. All seems to be going well for him until 1914 when there is a Question of Conduct with regards to theft, but I don't know what the abbreviations, N.L. 5103,  mean in the remarks column underneath the Q of C entry  I know he was discharged "Service no longer required" following the incident. 

I have few questions:
a)  Am I correct in thinking he served 60 days imprisonment - I can't quite make out the abbreviations for this entry
b)  It seems he received a 2nd class medal? for conduct - would this have still been issued despite his question of conduct?
c)  Why would he be discharged as SNLR and not for theft?  Would his previous conduct and superior ability have a bearing on this?

I understand that to some, these may be fairly basic questions but this is an area I'm not familiar with, I'm looking forward to learning more, I'm finding it quite fascinating.

Thanks for reading, any help or guidance is much appreciated.

[PhiloNauticus]

In answer to your queries:
1 -  Yes, he served 60 days in prison
2 – Not a medal… punishment.  He was ordered to be treated as “Second Class for Conduct”.  This was a punishment for ratings whose Conduct did meet the required standards, and he was subject to a stricter regime.  It was given in cases of dishonesty or gross insubordination. It meant that they could be ordered to carry out extra duties at any time ; would have to carry out one hours drill every day during the Dog Watches ( - late afternoon); not allowed any leave ; pay reduced by one-sixth; promotion was blocked.  This would normally be for a set period, after which, if they have shown themselves to be well behaved, the restriction could be removed.
3 – SNLR is just a standard naval expression meaning Services No Longer Required – the reason for that is shown as Theft. 

The abbreviations – not sure what Q L C stands for 
The other ref: NL 5103 would just be a letter reference, dated 27 March 1915, which evidently stated that it was approved for him to be discharged from the service for Theft.    A Clerk has then noted that he will be discharged on expiry of his sentence.

[Deborah180]

Thank you so much for your response, it is very helpful.  I'm amazed at how much information can come from so little.  You have certainly given me much more insight in this Ratings "Career" in the the Navy, and his behaviour! 

[Deborah180]

Another thought I've just had - would this offence and subsequent discharge have a bearing on any Pension he should have received? 

Thanks
Deborah

[PhiloNauticus]

Deborah

Your man would not have been entitled to a pension.   

1: In those days you had to have served for 22 years to qualify for what was termed the "Long Service Pension" - as he had only served for four years, he fell well short.

2: Even if he had served his time, his discharge for theft would have disqualified him.

The Royal Navy has a laid-down set of rules covering everything you could possibly think of, of how to do things and what you cannot do etc.  These are known  as King's (or Queens) Regulations and Admiralty Instructions (KR & AI or QR & AI).   The current edition dates to 2017, but back in 1914 it would have been the new edition of 1913:

see: https://archive.org/details/kingsregulations01greaiala/page/n5

in which it states:

(page 675) paragraph 1934. Long Service Pensions to Men. Any person…  who shall be discharged after 22 years' service on any account other than for misconduct, shall receive a pension

(page 678) para. 1941. When not entitled  …  A person dismissed with disgrace, with ignominy, or from His Majesty's Service, or for offences, or by sentence of a court-martial, shall not be entitled to any pension …