Reason for Discharge

[SophieTopDog]

My dad enlisted in the 3rd Carabiniers - Cavalry of the Line  on the 16th January 1931.
I received copies of his military records and it states that he was discharged on the 4th May 1931, with the reason “Not likely to become efficient having less than 6 months service”
There is another word after service that I cannot read.
Then a reference that looks like “32/0 (via) K.A.
Can anyone interpret this reference please?
I have seen other posts relating to similar discharges and know that the phrase is a bit of a catch all for many excuses to discharge.
This discharge did not stop his enlistment in 1940, when he was promoted to corporal after three months.
A year later he was discharged with Defective Vision 70%.
I suspect that his poor vision may have been the reason for his discharge in 1931, so would be grateful if the attached discharge notice could be interpreted.

[SophieTopDog]

Second image

[ShaunJ]

It's Para 370 (vi a) Kings Regulations. It'll be the 1928 edition of KR which I haven't been able to find but Para 370 will give a long list of reasons that a soldier can be discharged. I'm guessing that this one will be something along the lines of "unlikely to become an efficient soldier, and having less than 6 months service"

[SophieTopDog]

OK Thanks for the information
It doesn’t look like I will be able to clarify further, as I have all his service record and that is all the information that I have.

[SophieTopDog]

Although perhaps the (vi a) in Para 370 might be informative, or am I just clutching at straws😇

[Crumblie]

There is a suggestion online that says it refers to making a false statement of age on enlistment, what age was he in 1931?

[SophieTopDog]

When he joined up in 1931, he would have been 16 years 9 months.
On the records I have received, his year of birth is shown as 1912, not 1914 and his age as 18 years 9 months.
It appears that he knocked two years off his age to join and was found out.
I have a photograph of him in his uniform at that time and have always thought that he looked very young.

[hanes teulu]

As referred to by Shaun it's "para 370" - but the 1928 version King's Regs (and later) is not available on line.
On the basis that the paragraph nos. change but the content remains very much the same I always have a look at the 1912 King's Regs -
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044048604474&view=1up&seq=1

Search under "unlikely" - check page 86

A condensed list, again 1912
http://military-researcher.co.uk/KingsRegs1912/Para392Introduction.html

 

[ShaunJ]

Para 370 of KR 1928 became Para 383 in KR 1935 and it's likely that (vi a) stayed much the same: