Ross wrote, “Once the service person has been deceased for over 25 years the full service record is open to access from anyone regardless of kinship on payment of the fee.”

This is not quite accurate. Yes, once the 25 year period has been surpassed, a service record is open to anyone, but not a “full service record.”

The “full service record” — that is, the two to four forms (four for an officer) released for the princely sum of 30 pounds — is only sent to kin (and maybe only to true next-of-kin). A non-relative will only receive a heavily redacted record.

My experience is only with airmen who died in the war (thus, the CWGC listing is proof of death, so the 25 year period does not apply). Let me give an example. Three years ago I gambled and requested the file of F/Lt Edward Stanley, a 159 Sqn Liberator pilot killed over Rangoon on 29 Feb 1944. They gladly took my money and blocked out info. And the accompanying letter is a classic example of bureaucratic gibberish. An excerpt:

As notified within the MOD FOI Publication Scheme information contained in a record of Service which is not within the Department’s description of the information it will disclose under the publication scheme, for example medical or disciplinary information, is exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 40 (personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) as its disclosure would breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – (the right to a private and family life). The application of these exemptions is in recognition of MOD’s duty of care.

I have disclosed some information as part of the Department’s release under the publication scheme and this is therefore exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of the section 21 (reasonably accessible information). There is, however, additional information on the record which has not been provided. Since it has not been provided under the publication scheme it cannot be regarded as being exempt from disclosure under section 21 and unless there are other statutory grounds for withholding it the Department has a duty to provide it. I have therefore assessed the information to consider whether it should be released and find that the following substantive information should not be disclosed to you is as follows:

a. Subject’s civil occupation before joining the RAF
b. Subject’s home address
c. Name, address and relationship of the next of kin
d. Subject’s religion
e. Subject’s conduct and disciplinary assessment
f. Subject’s annual proficiency and character assessment
g. Subject’s medical records.

It is deemed a reasonable expectation to hold the above information as confidential until the point at which such records go fully into the public domain in The National Archive by virtue of the Public Records Act. This is when it is assessed that the record relates to a subject whose age is likely to exceed 100 years based on a batch sample of records.

MOD therefore believes that section 40 applies to personal data contained in the record of service of someone other than the applicant, section 41 applies to all the information contained in the records of service except where it is exempt by virtue of section 21 because MOD has publicly stated it will release this information or where it is exempt by virtue of section 44 (section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that provides for the right to a private life).

Accordingly, I consider that:

a) the provision of information relating to the above serviceman’s religion, address of his family home, details of his next of kin would breach section 40 and 41 of the Act and be an invasion of privacy of any remaining immediate family members (section 44)

b) the disclosure of the subject’s medical, conduct and disciplinary assessment and his annual proficiency and character assessment would similarly invade their privacy (section 44) and would breach section 41 of the act.

That said, I have no difficulty in enclosing a copy of the actual record you requested, suitably redacted for the reasons explained above.

The records officer forgot to add “GIMME THAT 30 POUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!”

Dem’s da rules, so the officer was just doing her job. Understood…but…the geniuses who came up with the rules are flatliners devoid of souls.

Attached are the four photocopied pages of Edward Stanley’s record I received. That’s 7.50 pounds per page…minus the cost of copypaper, an envelope, and postage to America! For a non-commissioned airman, I think only two pages are released…which ups the per-page fee to 15 pounds!

The above wording is identical to that received by a close UK friend who, two years ago, requested the personnel file of the killed-on-ops airman she has determined, with 90% confidence, is her birth father. She cannot legally prove it, though. Consequently, the RAF people sent her a heavily redacted record, while scooping up her 30 pounds. She was devastated that they would not even reveal the man’s eye color and hair color. She had hoped this simple, HARMLESS information would either support her case or disqualify the airman as her father. There is a complaint/appeals process, but, sadly, she felt emotionally distraught and lost her will to fight.

Mike, apologies for going off on a tangent. Really, it would be in your family’s best interest to have a niece request the records, in order that you will receive maximum information, not a heavily redacted version. Either way, though, you will get the key information which will reveal whether or not Ralph was trained as a Wireless Operator. (Thanks for explaining that postings to training units will be included in the records, Mike Currill. I knew they were as of two years ago, but I didn’t know if the rules had changed again.)

Regards,

Matt