MOR Records Project

[Norfolk Nan]

It would be useful to know if they are still working through what must be an enormous pile of outstanding applications.

[AdrianBruce]

... wouldn't it be sensible to suspend the service as they are unable to operate it properly, and concentrate on the transferral?

Possibly illegal under Freedom of Information to suspend it??? I also wonder how much it's all woven in with the "proper" personnel / Human Resources / Pensions need to extract service papers - it might be difficult to disentangle requests for papers of recently deceased personnel from genealogy requests.

[AntonyM]

I spoke to the office who deal with RAF records a few weeks ago ( about a query I had on a record they supplied). They did say that the on-line system, as demonstrated some time ago, had been delayed by lockdowns but was still going forward and in beta testing, and they hoped might go-live in "the next few months" (with the RAF being the first available).

[VALLMO9]

I have a question: If and when this project happens, would it mean that an unrelated person to me can go to the TNA and request my grandfather's military service record (which covers dates 1915-1935)? And if so, would his military record be intact or contain mandatory redactions? Just curious.

[AdrianBruce]

... If and when this project happens, would it mean that an unrelated person to me can go to the TNA and request ...

That's a $64,000 question. Based on the TNA News Release found by Thunder - I would say that we cannot answer your question. If the unrelated person can supply a DC now, then they can access the records now. If it's over X years since the death, they can get the full details now. Further variations depend on when your GF was born...

Logically, the current confidentiality algorithms should be carried forward into the TNA's system. How, you may ask? "Dunno" - massive shrug of shoulders... That's why I wouldn't trust anything they say, because I don't think TNA have the faintest idea. It may be that they reserve the right to change the confidentiality requirements anyway from those applied by the MoD. I'd certainly question those current requirements because they make no sense to me - but that's possibly because the MoD is too idle to explain their justifications.

[Thunder]

I wonder how long it will take TNA to work out how they are going to work these transfers out, it is disappointing that the RAF appear to be the first set of records, I suggest that it is a much smaller set than the Army. I do have doubts that they are 500,000 files from the First World War. I take all of what TNA and MOD with a very large pinch of salt. Hopefully the release of the minutes of the User Advisory Group at TNA for June 2001 due to be released this month on TNA's website might share some light on the issue.

Regarding Anthony M's question anyone should be able to access his grandfather's file once it is open assuming he was born no later than 1905 but as the 115-year-rule would apply until then from the date of his birth. Not too sure what happens with records going as far as 1935 as third-party data protection might apply.

[VALLMO9]

Regarding Anthony M's question anyone should be able to access his grandfather's file once it is open assuming he was born no later than 1905...

Actually it was my question. At any rate, my grandfather was born in 1897. I was just curious, as his military service papers number about 30 pages. If there are redactions, would they include his (second) wife and childrens' names, etc?

[AdrianBruce]

... If there are redactions, would they include his (second) wife and childrens' names, etc?

We have absolutely no idea. I can say, however, that if he died before September 1996, then anyone can get the full story now. To totally remove that access will surely cause complaints.

If they follow the bit that says: "closure will apply until 115 years past the date of birth of the individual", then anyone can get full access in the future.

What messes it up is that the above phrase is immediately followed by "Whether or not the material can be open to all or closed fully or in part will be assessed on this basis or upon request under relevant data protection and freedom of information laws." This makes no grammatic sense because they've already said that closure applies until 115. Full stop. Thereafter, the records, according to that first sentence, should be open. If they'd said "Whether or not the material can then be open to all or closed fully or in part ...", then it would make grammatic sense.

[Thunder]

Regarding Anthony M's question anyone should be able to access his grandfather's file once it is open assuming he was born no later than 1905...

Actually it was my question. At any rate, my grandfather was born in 1897. I was just curious, as his military service papers number about 30 pages. If there are redactions, would they include his (second) wife and childrens' names, etc?

Sorry I got you mixed up. I would expect (hope) that his second wife and children's names to be opened, it is information that should be ine public domain but sometimes TNA make strange decisions.

[Thunder]

... If there are redactions, would they include his (second) wife and childrens' names, etc?

We have absolutely no idea. I can say, however, that if he died before September 1996, then anyone can get the full story now. To totally remove that access will surely cause complaints.

If they follow the bit that says: "closure will apply until 115 years past the date of birth of the individual", then anyone can get full access in the future.

What messes it up is that the above phrase is immediately followed by "Whether or not the material can be open to all or closed fully or in part will be assessed on this basis or upon request under relevant data protection and freedom of information laws." This makes no grammatic sense because they've already said that closure applies until 115. Full stop. Thereafter, the records, according to that first sentence, should be open. If they'd said "Whether or not the material can then be open to all or closed fully or in part ...", then it would make grammatic sense.

The issue is whether the later information might include some information which is separate from the main individual whose information is closed for 115 years, e.g. issues like adoption which happened less than 100 years ago would be an example.