Firstly thank you for posting James’s Certificate of Service, it is always better to see the complete picture rather than trying to comment on just one or more displaced abbreviations, as in the original thread.
The content of the remarks column reads:
NL 16447/18 To be discharged SNLR after punishment awarded him.
CG to be recovered as far as is possible & B to be withdrawn.
5/4/18
NL 166447/18 is possibly the log of HMS Benbow. It would normally record any disciplinary matters, crimes and punishments carried out onboard or reference to transfer shore for any crimes that couldn’t be dealt with locally.
SNLR Services No Longer Required;
CG Clothing Gratuity;
& B I don’t know what the “B” is for, as it comes after clothing gratuity it could be bedding.
Although it’s very likely to have been related to his punishment, being discharged as SNLR is NOT being discharged for misconduct, it was that the RN didn’t need or want him.
You said, “I also assume that either the punishment mentioned in the remarks or the fact that he did less than two years service is the reason for not being eligible for a war gratuity.”
Without service at sea or overseas, the minimum length of qualifying service for a RN War Gratuity was 6 months; periods less than 6 months qualified if part was sea service or overseas.
As he spent 13 months on HMS Benbow and she was present in support, albeit not engaged, at the 2nd Battle of Heligoland 17 Nov 1917; that would have given him qualifying service on two counts.
One disqualification clause to the receipt of a War Gratuity was:
“Ratings discharged for misconduct, or other causes within their own control in the nature of misconduct;”
So it would appear whatever his “crime” was, it was used to remove his War Gratuity entitlement under, “or other causes within their own control in the nature of misconduct”. It's possible at his hearing, he was asked or he told them he didn't want to continue to serve in the Navy and it was a convenient to use that reason.
There are a couple of things about his record that are worthy of note.
He was less than 2 months under 18 when discharged and although at his previous assessment [would have been Dec 1917] his conduct was given as Very Good (VG), his ability [measured at his Boy 1st Class rate] was only Moderate (Mod), which was low. At 17 ½ a B1Class would normally have gained enough skills to be uprated to Ordinary Seaman, that would then put him on track to be rated as Able Seaman at or shortly after the start of his agreed period of Continuous Service at 18.
We don’t know what his “naval crime” was and although records of Naval Courts Marshal are held at the National Archives, I can’t see a boy, who could ask to leave anytime before the start of his [adult] continuous service, being court marshalled, so I suspect the only place, if any you will find mention of his crime & punishment would be in the ship’s log.
The logs of HMS Benbow (catalogued without the HMS prefix) are in document series ADM 53 at the National Archives, Kew, none are available online.
To see what’s available from
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ > advance search
Enter Benbow, reference ADM 53, add year of interest.
As I said earlier, he wasn’t actually discharged for misconduct so it wouldn’t have any significant effect on his future employment.
Being under 18 and recorded as being in the RN, he wouldn’t be liable for conscription when first discharged and even when he became 18, under the terms of the Military Service Act, it would have been his responsibility to inform the authorities he was no longer in the RN and eligible for call up.
Edit: for Courts Marshal and court-marshalled read Courts Martial and court-martialled; Senior Moment!