R.O. 137 of 1910

[Derek Atherton]

Hi there,

Can anyone explain (or point me to an explanation) of why someone would be “discharged as undesirable under R.O. 137 of 1910".

The person in question served for only 49 days but did receive a pension!

Derek

[Peter Goodey]

The person in question served for only 49 days but did receive a pension!
Now that is a puzzle. I'm not looking for an argument but might there be any chance of having misinterpreted something? What was the source of the information?

[Peter Goodey]

Or is it the WO 364 stuff on Ancestry?

[Derek Atherton]

Peter,

The source of information is British Army WW1 Pension papers which Ancestry have just put online. One page is entitled STATEMENT OF THE SERVICES OF…. His name and number are then handwritten. Below are handwritten his dates and place of service as follows

Corps: East Yorks
Regt or Depot: 8th
Rank: Private

07 Oct 14 Attested
10 Oct 14 Posted
24 Nov 14 Discharged as undesirable under R. O 137 of 1910

Total service towards Pension 49 days.

Although handwritten it is very clear and readable.

He saw the medical officer on 07 Oct who passed him “fit for general services Infantry East Yorks”.

Does that help you to help me in any way?

Derek

[Peter Goodey]

Does that help you to help me in any way?

No, sorry. It was only the "did receive a pension" that caught my attention. Do the papers specifically say he was awarded a pension? Having pensionable service isn't the same as actually being awarded a pension.

Does RO stand for Regimental Order? Perhaps you need to ask the regiment.

[uksearch]

What was his full name...so that we can take a look at the records.

UK

[Terry Reeves]

Derek

I think that that should be AO (Army Order). An "A" can sometimes look like an "R" when handwritten.

Terry Reeves

[Derek Atherton]

UK,

His full name was THOMAS CHERRY No 13407 East Yorks Regiment enlisted at Sunderland 07 Oct 1914 age 30 years 9months.

He was born 19 Dec 1883 at Castle Eden Durham.

Hope it helps!

Derek

[Peter Goodey]

As Terry says, it is clearly A.O. 137

You should be able to track down Army Orders at the National Archives - possibly in WO 123. WO 123/52 might be worth trying.

[Derek Atherton]

Many thanks to all - sorry I'm late thanking you all, I've been away!

On viewing at Kew, there was a paragraph about “belonging to a group not approved by the Army” which was a possibility, but who he was involved with I will never know.

Again, thanks for all your inputs - appreciated!

Derek