39681, Gunner Andrew LEWIS, 111th Heavy Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery

Andrew Lewis was the son of Walter William and Alice Rebecca Lewis. He was born in Bramford in 1894. In 1911 the family were living at Parish Pond Row (“The Row” today) and Andrew was a horseman on a farm. On the 22nd August 1913 he had enlisted in the Royal Garrison Artillery as Gunner No 39681.
On enlistment Andrew had a fresh complexion, grey eyes and dark brown hair. He was just over 5ft 6ins tall and weighed 137lbs.
He crossed to France on the 4th October 1914 and remained there until 27th January 1916. After a few months at Home he was posted to East Africa from the 25th May 1916 until 28th November 1917. He spent another few months back on the Home front probably being treated for malaria. He returned to France on 14th September 1918 where he received a gunshot wound in the shoulder blade on 20th October 1918. There is a note on the file to say that his brother Sergeant H F Lewis enquired which hospital he was being treated at. Andrew was discharged on 15th April 1919 due to the wound received but also he had previously suffered a hernia and no doubt had the lasting effects of malaria. He was awarded a Silver War Badge No B173290. Andrew had a colourful army life with a number of minor offences such as being absent from parade, absent without leave and causing a disturbance. For these he received a number of days “confined to barracks”, reprimands and periods of detention. As a result he was given only a “fair” character when demobbed which caused him some problems when he applied for a job with the post office. He was trained as a telephone operator while in the army which would explain his chosen form of employment when leaving. There are indications that the army did change his character to “good” although the record is badly damaged. It is not known if he did get the job or what happened to him after the war.
His name appears on the School Roll of Honour as serving with the 2nd Suffolk but there is no evidence on his record to that effect and this is, therefore, assumed to be a mistake.