"
No... we only categorize ""standard biographical information"" (year of birth/death, religious affiliation, national identity, etc.) and those things that are related to what ""makes the subject notable"".  In Graham's case his masonic credentials are not what ""make him notable"". It does not really matter what Graham may have valued or what he was proud of... What matters is what sources (such as historians) think is of value.  If there are sources that discuss his Masonic credentials, and talk about how they affected Graham's life and his achievements, then he would be Categorized. 
The truth is, being a 32nd degree Mason is not that noteworthy... any 3rd degree Mason can become one... all it takes is paying an initiation fee, and spending one afternoon watching the degree ceremony being performed as a play.  In fact, you don't even have to take the 4th - 31st degrees as a prerequisite (you can jump right from being a 3rd degree to being 32nd).  Now, if Graham had been a 33rd degree things would be a bit different... that degree is somewhat rare and is a special award given for service.  
As for being elected Master of a lodge, even that is not that notable... most lodges elect a new Master every year, and since there are tens of thousands of lodges in the US alone, this means that there are literally hundreds of thousands of Past Masters in the US.  In smaller lodges, it is not uncommon for every member of the lodge to have a turn as Master.  Now... if Graham had been elected Grand Master of an entire Masonic jurisdiction things would be different... state or national level Masonic office is somewhat notable (there are only hundreds and not thousands each year), and that is the level of notability that deserves categorization.
All that said, both facts are interesting bits of biographical trivia, and probably should be ""mentioned in passing"".  The place to do so is in the main body of the text.   "