In article <Y7idnV2oYujoXCzanZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Tara" <NOtnlarkinSPAM@iparagon.net> wrote: > "R. Scanlon" <rscanlon@naisp.net> wrote in message > news:rscanlon-06C5C0.21385111022008@news.verizon.net... > <snip> > > What was "General Service"? (I couldn't cajole Google into > > giving me much useful) > > > > Probably depends on the context. I seem to recall seeing this used to > describe both job type and enlistment type. Could mean he had no special job > rating, kind of the equivalent of "foot soldier." Or it could mean a regular > enlistment, not anything like a commission or attached to a special > division. > > > What is a Navy I.O.? (Another Google miss here) > > > > Again, context. Could be Intelligence Officer, Issuing Officer, Intercept > Officer. > > > Does the liberal use of aliases suggest anything? Perhaps > > running away from home to join the service (he was born > > 1859, therefore 17 at the time, and yes, his name really is > > John Doe)? > > No clue on this one. It certainly suggests something was out of the ordinary > but it could be anything from running from the law to just enjoys lying. I > have a few ancestors that just seemed to enjoy messing with the authorities > when it comes to telling them personal info. Thanks, Tara. The period of General Service is distinct from the terms he served in two numbered regiments; it had been my experience up until now that a soldier was always associated with a regiment, but apparently that's not true. And also up until now I'd never seen cavalry, infantry, and naval service combined in one career. A propensity for lying doesn't seem inconsistent here, especially considering some of his behavior later on. I guess it's time to start ordering CMSRs and see what's to be seen.