It seems to have been customary to couple a Sig Sgt (or more than one, up
to three, at least, depending on size and deployment of the signal
organization) to an officer in assignments (the Sgt serving as the tech
specialist and supervisor/trainer of the detailed privates), and I
interpret the refs in Duvall's papers to mean that Buchanan was his Man
Friday (or one of them) until around Aug of '63 under an appointment as
Sig Sgt, meaning separated from former parent unit (even if the home unit
record keeper continued to account for him in absentia). I can find no
record that a "regular sergeant" was detailed with that rank to the Signal
Corps, so, absent info to the contrary, a ref to "Sgt" in records of the
Sig Corps makes him a "Sig Sgt" to me. He clearly aspired to a commission,
and, absent vacant billets in the small Sig Corps, he seized on
opportunity to get into a line unit and left sig svc around fall of '63.
Where available, I do pay attention to pay records, and find such mundane
info as commutation of rations and/or quarters-type info useful to
determine presence and status at a given time period (such as during a
campaign). I have noted several cases in which there was mutual confusion
between Sig Corps officer and detailed man's parent unit over who was to
furnish clothing or the like, or who was to pay. Given the sparse records
of the Signal Corps, that's the game I have to play. I'd glad in this
instance that it seems to be mutually rewarding -- such is the nature of
these exchanges. Thanks again.
Dave Gaddy