SPOF, on 28 July 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:
As Alan says, it was quite common to withdraw men for munitions work. Have a look at hte war diary for August-November 1915 and you'll see it reported regularly.
His service record on Ancestry (starting at p792 under Pem if you want to browse to it) shows the findings of the Court of Inquiry on 22/2/16 and lists the kit he was issued and was still outstanding. There is a blank page after that but I suspect that the Army went to his NoK - his mother - and found out he was under age hence the recording of his date of birth on the front of his service record and was quietly thrown out of the Army.
When he turned 18 in Sept 1916 he would have become liable to serve under the Military Service Act or, more likely, volunteered to get in under an alias. The most likely A or Arthur Evans on CWGC with the Worcesters is 203998 Pte A Evans from the 1/7 Worcesters killed on 9/10/17 and buried at Tyne Cot Cemetery. The only other one without any additional information to eliminate them is 29588 Pte A Evans of 1st Worcesters kiled on 12/8/16 but that is probably too soon after his earlier escapades to be re-enlisted, trained up again and sent to the front even if he could get away with joining up again stiull under age.
If you try a new post wiht 1/7 Worcestershire Regiment in the title maybe someone who knows about the Regiment will be able to help.
Thank you for this. Your insight is very useful - ultimately I may be able to determine which of the two is the correct one by comparing the grave inscriptions with those on his
I've looked a bit more closely at the "demobilized for munitions work" issue - unfortunately, the war diary entries prior to 1st December lack any detail on this, but working with the information for December 1915 and January 1916:
Arthur ran away on the 18th Dec and the war diary for that day says "two men demobilized for munitions work"
He was caught in London on the 20th and was then detained somewhere for 21 days - so he was probably back on the 11th/12th Jan. The war diary for the 12th January says "one man returned from munitions work". On the 13th January he also received a 15 day detention for not complying with an order on the 12th Jan.
He deserted on the 31st January - again the war diary says "one man demobilised for munitions work"
Soldiers were demobilised for munitions work on 6 of the 62 days that the diary covers. Soldiers returned from munitons work on 4 of the available 62 days.
The probability that this is a coincidence (assuming all days equally likely) is very small - maybe 6/62 x 4/62 x 6/62 or about 0.06 percent (a very small fraction of 1% !). I have assumed all days equally likely here and I have assumed Arthur returned from detention on the 12th (it could have been the 11th) but the answer is so small that this won't alter the argument.
i.e this is almost certainly a cover up - and Arthur was probably not the only one who ran away from this battallion at this time. Is it likely that the pages for the following few months were removed because they contained too many courts of inquiries into desertions ?
Thanks again for your help,