It's a very good point. "Turncoat" implies some reversal of allegiance, doesn't it? If there was never any dedication to either side, only a mandated and ill-motivated participation in both armies, the term "turncoat" would not apply?
I've been using that term because, when I first began investigating John Frank more than a decade ago, I was told by some of his living descedants that he was a "turncoat," as well as a "traitor," a "womanizer," a "drunken wife-beater," and a man who abandoned his family the day his son (my great grandfather) was born. I discovered little evidence for any of these allegations except that of possible "turncoat" - he really DID serve in the VA 48th, really WAS captured and paroled, and really settled in WV after the war with his new family with claims (his, or his children's) of having served in the Union army. Then again, I'm aware that he was hospitalized with "rheumatism" at least twice for many months early in his Confederate service, and was at least once AWOL, so I've often wondered if he wasn't a very reluctant soldier malingering to avoid warfare.
Again, what brings me to this webpage is the mention by a grandson years later of his having headed to Illinois with his first family after the war, when they split up and the wife and kids returned to VA. Unable to find any record of his Union service, I'm chasing admittedly wild leads. . .
I continue to appreciate greatly your help and suggestions.