Frank Bailey. 1907-1942

[Racheal Kibble]

hi. im looking for some help regarding TA Army regulations in 1933.
Frank Bailey attested for the royal artillery in 1924.
he was discharged from service 18 may 1933 under para 199- (possibly time served?)
he rejoined in october 1939 for the R.A.S.C and is commemorated at Alamein Memorial, Egypt, died 11 june 1942.

The TA army regulations dont seem to be online so i cant find out exactly what para 199 says/means. He obviously wasnt injured as he was allowed to re-sign up.

can anybody help? tia
racheal

[whiteout7]

Being an Army territorial in "Peace" time is not like being at War 24/7. You only have to appear for a certain number of weeks in a year and learn your duties. Also you volunteered to go overseas.

Frank Bailey didn't resign up. He signed up for something completely different: War
This time Frank Bailey would have had to go overseas when ordered.

Paragraph 199 could just refer to his release from the Territorial Army it looks like her served alot longer than he was required to as well since 4 years was the minimum.

How old was he in 1939? He may have been concripted into the R.A.S.C (meaning he had no choice)


 




 

[Racheal Kibble]

Hi whiteout.
Frank would have been 32 in 1939 and the record says he re-signed on 18 October 1939, so before conscription I think.

And yes, it looks like he served 9 years with the TA during peace years. I'd just like to find out if possible what that para 199 meant.

[rosie99]

This article in 'Hansard'  mentions Discharge para 199 and the TA  - you may find it helpful

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1935/may/21/territorial-army-gunners-discharge

[MaxD]

The paragraph covers situations which could be brought together under the catch all term "services no longer required".  The specific reason under that paragraph could be related to his conduct or also to his medical situation  In the Hansard discussion it seems to relate to his terms of service.

His service record may show the reason behind that paragraph being chosen to cover his discharge.  The paragraph on its own will not.

For comparison check out the causes of discharge in the similar Kings Regulations for the Army in 1913, http://military-researcher.co.uk/KingsRegs1912/Para392Introduction.html
Though I can't show the TA regs they would have had similar provisions.


MaxD

[Racheal Kibble]

Thank you Rosie for the Hansard link, that was interesting reading.

And MaxD, I cant see anything in the service record on FindMyPast that gives any clues, I guess for now I will just record him as time served, until I find more info.

[MaxD]

I hadn't looked at the original.  You had it right in your first post, the clue is in column 5 which shows he signed up for 4 years so 1926-1930, time expired.  All except one on the same page served their 4 years so in this case, not related to conduct etc.


His records should still be with the MOD abd should include this spell of service.


MaxD