Rejected Volunteer

[willyam]

Hopefully this is not too convoluted!

I am trying to find out if a man who volunteered in 1915 & who was rejected on medical grounds (i.e. he failed to pass the medical examination) would, at the point of rejection, have been issued with some form of paperwork confirming this.

What I have in mind is a scenario whereby this man, whose physical impairment was not visibly obvious, would possibly have been subsequently challenged by either official or non-official persons as to why he was not in uniform.

When so challenged, would he have been able to produce some formal documentation to explain his situation?

Willyam

[jim1]

An interesting question & I can't say I know the answer, however in 1915 a civilian couldn't be challenged by any authority (which was usually the police) as all men were volunteers.
There were those who were "white feathered" & this prompted the introduction of the Silver War Badge in 1916 which was worn on the lapel to indicate a man had served & had been discharged (even if he didn't get past basic training).
At this time conscription was introduced & many men who had been rejected were now being called up, sometimes going straight into Reserve or serving in some other capacity either at home or abroad.
After the disasters of the Somme & Passchendaele it's difficult to see how a man with no visible signs of impairment could avoid National Service.
If this did happen he would have been given a medical certificate (discharge document) by the MO at the time of joining which (if he had any sense) would have carried with him as by this time (1916) he could be challenged.
There were also men who were required at home involved in vital war work & they wore a badge indicating this, so a man rejected as unfit for service may have been involved in war work & worn one of these.
Having said all of that a man would join first & then get his medical & upon rejection receive a discharge document & as such qualify for the SWB as far as I'm aware.

[MaxD]

Hansard reports a Commons debate in March 1916 which centres around a "proof of rejection" following medical rejection.  It seems this was a paper signed by a doctor or magistrate. This would be the cert referred to by jim1 I imagine.

MaxD

[jim1]

Not exactly Max but I think you have it. I would have thought that the MO would have issued a medical certificate in 1915 rather than a doctor or magistrate but after conscription that would make sense.

[willyam]

Thanks to you both for your helpful thoughts.

It does all seem that things will have been a bit difficult for those men who wanted to enlist but could not.

For my part, my inquiry was somewhat stimulated by having driven through Ranville & across Pegasus Bridge just 2 days before my first post.

Additionally, I am still struggling with the recently-discovered (and previously unknown) knowledge that several of my ancestors were on active service during WW1.

Willyam

[MaxD]

You know where to come if you need help with any of them!

MaxD