Abbreviation on record

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

I have an abbreviation on a gunner's records - "Discharged S.M.R. 5-9-19".

S.M.R. meaning supernumerary ? - Can that be right or is it maybe something else ?

(I've never before seen "S.M.R." for a supernumerary man. The entry is typed and quite clear).

Any ideas ? - thanks - Tom

[shaymen]

Service Medical Records....just a thought.

[Northern Soul]

Surplus to Military Requirements?

Andy

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Surplus to Military Requirements?

Andy

Andy ............................................... and for my next trick, I'll try to wake up

(that's what happens when you have co-codamol 30/500 for breakfast !)

thanks - Tom

[findabetterole]

Tom.. I think your SMR, is actually... or should have been... S.N.L.R = Service No Longer Required.

This has several meanings, but in todays Armed Forces it indicates that the individual was a complete P**t! A danger not only to himself, but to others around him. Also, he may have been a totally useless soldier. During my lengthy service career, I only came across this designation six times, and in all cases, the individual had a charge sheet.... in volumes!

Seph

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Seph - Looking at your suggestion of SNLR on the www I found the following, which maybe adds something to your explanation >

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index...19135319AAwc4nU

However >

1) - was this "SNLR" in use circa WW1 and immediately after ?

2) - the "SMR" note which I found was typed and clear.

As things stand I'm pretty convinced that Andy is correct. (Any printed / official sources would be useful).

regards - Tom

[Ron Clifton]

Hello all

I think that WW1-period discharge records did not quote a reason explicitly, but referred to a particular sub-secion (in Roman numerals) of the appropriate paragraph (392) of King's Regulations. A common one was 392(xvi), "no longer physically fit for military service." Is there such a reference associated with SMR in this case?

There might be a semantic difference between "surplus to militaryt requirements" e.g. his unit was being broken up or reduced, and "services no longer required" with the implication mentioned by Bootnecks!

Ron

[stevem49]

Tom.. I think your SMR, is actually... or should have been... S.N.L.R = Service No Longer Required.

This has several meanings, but in todays Armed Forces it indicates that the individual was a complete P**t! A danger not only to himself, but to others around him. Also, he may have been a totally useless soldier. During my lengthy service career, I only came across this designation six times, and in all cases, the individual had a charge sheet.... in volumes!

Seph

I think you will find that it means that they are no longer fit for service in the regulars or as a reservist. Therefore their term of engagement has changed. Medical discharges would also be SNLR.

As you only came across it 6 times, then I presume that you were not a medic

Steve M

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Hello all I think that WW1-period discharge records did not quote a reason explicitly, but referred to a particular sub-secion (in Roman numerals) of the appropriate paragraph (392) of King's Regulations. A common one was 392(xvi), "no longer physically fit for military service." Is there such a reference associated with SMR in this case?

There might be a semantic difference between "surplus to militaryt requirements" e.g. his unit was being broken up or reduced, and "services no longer required" with the implication mentioned by Bootnecks!

Ron

Ron - There is no reference to King's Regulations para 392 and the man was not a Silver War Badge Recipient.

I'm still of the opinion that Andy is correct and I'd have to say that my money is on this SNLR being a product of WW2 or later ................... well, not WW1 at least.

I think we've probably reached the stage with this that some official documentation needs to be quoted.

regards - Tom

EDIT - found new info - see later posting

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

.............. I think we've probably reached the stage with this that some official documentation needs to be quoted.

EDIT - found new info - see later posting

Have found my copy of King's Regs 1912 (incl ammendments to Aug 1914) and - lots of "types" of discharges in 392 of course - but "the" expression does (essentially) appear in para xxv - "His services being no longer required"

But - with the exclusion of boys, this clause is "Only applicable to (a) a soldier who cannot be discharged under any other heading" (part quote of clause), and matters such as being "unsuitable" for duty and "misconduct" etc have already been covered by earlier KR 392 clauses (see ix, xi, xii, xiii, xix, etc).

In practical terms that looks to be "SNLR" as Seph mentioned earlier, - but what does it cover that isnt covered by other clauses in 392 ?

I'm still convinced that Andy is correct with "SMR", so where does that originate ?

regards - Tom

[Northern Soul]

I'm still convinced that Andy is correct with "SMR", so where does that originate ?

regards - Tom

My suggestion was a guess - nothing to formally substantiate it per se.

Andy.

[SteveE]

My suggestion was a guess - nothing to formally substantiate it per se.

I believe Andy is correct and that SMR is "Surplus to Military Requirements". The sub-paragraph xvia was added to xvi by Army Order 86 of March 1918.

Regards

Steve

[findabetterole]

Medical discharges would also be SNLR. As you only came across it 6 times, then I presume that you were not a medic

Steve M

Medic!... Me!.... Gawd No! I nearly faint at the sight of a sawing needle, never mind a hyperdermic The few times I came across the SNLR term for release from the service, was when acting as Guard Commander, or detailed as a Prisoner Escort. I know some terms may have changed between The Great War and now, but most of the meanings are the same. I gave my assumption due to these criteria, and the fact that... although clearly typed as SMR, it could have been an honest typing error... which can and does happen. SMR and SNLR being very similar in looks and speach... it may have been overlooked.

Seph

[Nigel Gordon]

Hi Tom,

Though not abbreviated, my Great Uncle’s service records reflect what you have been discussing. It says on his Army Form B.103 Casualty Form – Active Service

“Discharged being Surplus to Military Requirement not having suffered impairment since entry into the service.” Then it looks like “Para 329 xxv of KR”

I can only surmise the reason for his discharge, but believe that it had something to do with the lateness of his call up to the RWK’s and the fact that he had spent 12 years in the Royal Navy, leaving in March 1913.

Regards

nigel

[Guest Rundberg]

It should probably be King´s Regulations 1912, paragraph 392 XXV, which states;

"His service being no longer required". A good site on the subject is: http://www.forrestdale.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KingsRegs1912/Para392Introduction.html

Regards,

Chris

[Thwaitie]

Thanks to all for the information. As all other ill-health discharges from the same regiment are clearly marked with a reference to "Para. 392 XVII K.R.", then S.M.R. looks most likely to Surplus to Military Requirements, especially as we are talking 1919 discharges.

Once again, many thanks to Forum members.