accumulated campaign service medal

THE topic of the Accumulated Campaign Service Medal (ACSM) is one which just won’t die. To quote Brig Mike Griffiths, Talkback (December), “great care is given to the formulation of medal policy” and “medal policy is approved at the highest levels”.

Given those statements, how was the decision arrived at to exclude Borneo, South Arabia, Malay Peninsula and other campaigns (which qualified for the General Service Medal (GSM) 1962) from inclusion in the criteria for the award of the ACSM?

The GSM 1962 was in place for duty in Northern Ireland and multiple tours generated an ACSM – as will be the case for more recent operational campaigns.

It would have been logical to begin the ACSM from the date of introduction of the GSM 1962. There are numbers of ex-Servicemen still alive who feel aggrieved at having their campaigns (some multiple) relegated as they have been.
Should this not be reconsidered, an omission acknowledged and action taken to correct it? – J Campbell, Malacca, Malaysia.

Lt Col (Retd) Peter Lockyer, SO1 Medal Office, responds: The ACSM was introduced to take account of multiple tours of duty in Northern Ireland.
It was instituted in January 1994 to recognise aggregated service since August 14, 1969 in those theatres where the GSM 1962 with clasp had been awarded. The start date for the award, which would have been chosen by the then chiefs of staff, being the date Op Banner began.

Time to honour wounded

AN article in my regimental magazine, submitted from the regimental HQ of the Queen’s Own Rifles of Canada, detailed the creation and approval of a Sacrifice Medal.

The story stated: “The medal will be awarded to military personnel, members of allied forces or Canadian civilians working under the authority of the Canadian Forces, who have suffered wounds or death caused by hostile action, on or after October 7, 2001.”

Qualification for the medal falls into the two distinct categories of “wounding” and “death”. Suffice to say that the criteria for these are straightforward to understand and are not ambiguous in any way.

If Her Majesty can grant the soldiers and civilians of Canada with such a medal, then why not for members of the British Armed Forces? I put it to readers of Soldier – be they serving or civilian, private or general – that our beloved and much-respected Queen has never been approached with such a request.

I would also suggest that if she was made aware by members of the Services of the desire for such a medal that she would not hesitate to authorise one.

Some reading this will argue that the recently struck Elizabeth Cross [issued to the families of those killed on operations] is the British equivalent of such an award.

Not so. This decoration [pictured below] is not awarded to Service personnel, but to the next of kin in recognition of their loss.

Let’s be perfectly frank in the glorious medium that is Soldier and with the wide and diverse audience that regularly reads it – there are a vast number of Service personnel who have been injured on current operations by hostile forces or action.

Calls for a decoration similar to the Sacrifice Medal are not about glorification. Nor are they about adding another medal to those who no doubt already have a chest full. Part of the Army’s ethos is “doing the thing right, because it’s the right thing to do”. A Sacrifice Medal is the right thing and is certainly the right thing to do.

These fine men and women deserve a medal to show at appropriate times that they have been injured by the “enemy” in the course of their given duty, while protecting the interests of their people, the policies of their Government and the good name that they do it under, Queen Elizabeth.

If it’s ok for Canada, it’s ok for Great Britain. Get a grip and make it happen! – WO2 M Istead, 2 PWRR.

not awarded the golden jubilee medal

I WRITE in response to the soldier who said he felt cheated at not being awarded the Golden Jubilee Medal (Talkback, February). How does he think civil servants, who are also crown servants, feel?

This was not a medal issued for a campaign, but was a decoration to acknowledge individuals’ allegiance to the Queen. Unlike the writer, who did not have the qualifying five years of service to the crown in 2002, I had 23 years to my name and to miss out felt like a slap in the face.

Something, be it a medal or badge, to acknowledge our commitment and hard work behind the scenes in supporting the Armed Forces would have been appreciated. – Name and address supplied.

decoration a gift from the queen

TO those who have commented that Princes William and Harry should hand back their Golden Jubilee Medals, I would like to point out that the decoration was a gift from the Queen.

Her Majesty elected to award the medal to those in the Armed Forces and emergency services and it was the organisations who set the five-year qualifying rule.

The medal was also awarded to all members of the royal household – including all footmen, butlers, chefs and the lord lieutenants of counties – and it was for this reason that the princes received the decoration.

Members of the royal family, irrespective of what they do, have always been issued with coronation/jubilee medals. As an example, Prince Charles and Princess Anne both received the Coronation Medal in 1953, despite only being aged five and two-and-a-half at the time. – Gerry F Smith, Ardersier, Inverness.

criticism on awards

THERE was much criticism when the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal was awarded to only those military personnel who were in uniform and with a minimum of five years service on the anniversary date.

This criteria continues to cause great resentment among veterans. There were many who had served far longer than five years who did not get awarded the medal because they left the military just before its issue.

Clearly, the same anger will surface once again should a similar criteria be used for the Diamond Jubilee Medal.

To be fair, avoid more criticism and, more importantly, show appreciation to all those who serve, I would ask that serious consideration be given to awarding the Diamond Jubilee Medal to all those who have served during the Queen’s reign. – Maj (Retd) Sean Pollock, Toronto, Canada.

‘Shame on petition-pooping naysayers’

I RECENTLY received an electronic petition calling on 10 Downing Street to put a stop to MPs receiving a medal for visiting Afghanistan. I declined to sign as I found it an extraordinarily pompous and small-minded cause.

By 2004, 211 of the 435 US congressmen had visited American troops in Iraq to show their support. After four years in Helmand province, Parliament can offer only an embarrassing proportion of visitors.

However, those that come to theatre do so beyond the call of duty. They do so at often greater risk than many Service personnel deployed at Kandahar Airfield and I found them to be genuinely interested and concerned for what they could do to help, some offering significant influence and funding.

There is no purely military solution to Afghanistan and every effort by MPs to further enfranchise the institution of Parliament in this bloody endeavour should be recognised; by a medal if that’s what it takes.

Well done those MPs who have been bothered to visit any troops anywhere and shame on the petition-pooping naysayers. None of whom, I suggest, have written to their MPs asking them to show support to the deployed UK civil/military effort through a Parliamentary visit. – Maj I Ballantyne, R Signals.

golden jubilee medal

HAVING re-enlisted in the Grenadier Guards after being in civvy street for six years, I recently returned to reading Soldier.

Some of the Talkback letters over the past few months regarding the award of the Golden Jubilee Medal have really struck a chord with me.

I was serving around the time the decoration was introduced, but did not receive it due to the qualifying criteria [five years’ service in either the Regular or Territorial Army].

How can it be fair to gift Princes William and Harry with the medal and yet overlook those Service personnel who were actually in uniform at the time of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee?

Either the gifted medals should be withdrawn or the eligibility criteria should be extended to include all those who were serving in 2002. As things stand I feel cheated. – Name and address supplied.

"no valid reason for balkans veto"

IN Brig Mike Griffiths’s reply to my letter, “No valid reason for Balkans veto”, and that of a soldier serving in Lashkar Gah, “Campaign confusion” (December), he stated that medal policy is decided at the very highest level within the MoD.

No doubt this is the case, but there is one higher authority – Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

Should the Queen not have the final say on matters such as extending the eligibility criteria for the Accumulated Campaign Service Medal [right] to include time served in Bosnia; whether or not UK personnel should be issued with a National Defence Medal, or whether eligible veterans should be allowed to officially wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia? I am not asking for a referendum on these medal legacy issues, but it would be nice to know whether Her Majesty was actually consulted on these matters and furnished with the full facts.

Finally, the brigadier quite rightly suggests that we should all look forward [to ensure repeat service in Afghanistan is suitably recognised]. However, avoiding future anomalies and unfair medal policies should not be used as an excuse to forget the past. – A former Regular soldier.

veteran's badges sold on market stalls

I AM writing in response to the letter in December’s issue of Soldier regarding Veteran’s Badges being sold on market stalls.

The badge is issued by the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency in recognition of a person’s service in the Armed Forces and has been extremely well received with more than 700,000 issued to date.

As the badge is gifted to the individual, it then becomes their property. Regrettably, this means that a small number of recipients choose to sell their badges, in the same way that some veterans sell their medals.

While we would never condone this action, there is no practical or legal way of preventing it. However, we do log the details of all genuine recipients so that multiple badge requests cannot be made. – Clare Ellis, Editor Veterans World, SPVA.

Medal motion seconded

Royal reward: Soldiers from 4th Battalion, The Rifles were presented with their Op Herrick medals by The Duchess of Cornwall at a ceremony in Bulford late last year. Serving as part of the Election Support Force, the riflemen endured a successful but gruelling five-month tour in southern Afghanistan. Three soldiers from the battalion were killed in action.
Picture: Sgt Dan Harmer, RLC

THE response given by Lt Col (Retd) Peter Lockyer to the letter appealing for a second award for troops in Afghanistan, “Herrick heroes deserve double acclaim” (January), was accurate only in so far as it was confined to Malaya.

An example of two medals being awarded for the same campaign relates to the Brunei Revolt at the end of 1962.

The General Service Medal (for members of the Army and Royal Air Force) and the Naval General Service Medal (for Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel) were awarded with a Brunei clasp for the Revolt from December 8 to December 23, 1962.

Thereafter, the campaign service medal was awarded to all three Services and, to reflect the development of the conflict, a Borneo clasp was attached.

Those involved in the initial thrust who stayed in theatre beyond Christmas 1962 received two medals for the same active service, as did those who returned for subsequent tours.

When the Accumulated Campaign Service Medal (ACSM) was instituted I doubt that it was envisaged just what the Armed Forces would face in the future.

Given the exceptionally difficult circumstances encountered in Afghanistan, and Iraq previously, it might be appropriate to review the eligibility criteria for the ACSM.

Alternatively, an emblem – reflecting repeat six-month tours – could be issued to adorn both the ribbon and medal of the Operational Service Medal. – Wg Cdr Colin Cummings, Yelvertoft, Northants.

Herrick heroes deserve double acclaim

IT STRIKES me as odd that personnel who serve in Afghanistan and are awarded the Operational Service Medal (OSM) and the Nato Isaf medal are only allowed to wear the former. The latter is considered as a keepsake, on the grounds that a British campaign medal has been issued for the theatre.

During the Korean War eligible troops were awarded a campaign medal and the UN Korea Medal, and personnel were given permission to wear both. With that in mind, can anyone explain the logic being applied to the Afghan theatre?

I often see Op Herrick being referred to as the toughest campaign the Army has fought since Korea.

If that is the case then surely our boys and girls deserve to wear two gongs. No one could dispute that they have earned the right to do so.

There are a few other examples of double decorations being awarded for the same operation and of their recipients being granted permission to wear both.

I believe a number of personnel serving in Malaysia during the transition from the 1918 General Service Medal (GSM) to the 1962 GSM received, and were allowed to wear, both campaign medals.

More recently, personnel who served in Bosnia during the switch from a UN to a Nato-led mission were given two medals and were again allowed to display both on their uniforms.

Surely the intensity of the campaign in Afghanistan provides reasonable justification for a double award. After all, is this not the “war of our generation”, just as Korea was to those fighting in the 1950s? – Name and address supplied.

Lt Col (Retd) Peter Lockyer, Medal Office, responds: Admittedly these are examples of double decorations.
Korea was as a result of the UN being a fledgling organisation with no history or precedence of issuing medals. Consequently, the UK chose to recognise the conflict and authorised a medal. The UN medal was unexpected.
Malaya is different. It is most unlikely that a person would receive two medals for the same campaign, even with a change of monarchs. However, it is possible that a GSM 1918 with clasp Malaya was awarded for service prior to July 1960, and then later the same recipient earned the GSM Malay Peninsular for service between August 1964 and June 1965.
The rationale was somewhat stretched in the Balkans when the UN mandate was handed over to Nato. At the time it was considered to be two separate campaigns.
For Afghanistan the OSM was instituted to recognise the service of our soldiers. Thereby, as opposed to an unnamed Nato medal, the decoration issued is silver and engraved with the service details.
This award has the added bonus of automatically allowing time to be accrued towards the Accumulated Campaign Service Medal.

queen issuing medals to family

HOW mean of Terence Wise (Talkback, November) to suggest that there was something wrong in the Queen issuing members of her own family – including Princes Harry and William – with the Golden Jubilee Medal.

Princess Anne has a long history of service to the Armed Forces, including the Women’s Royal Naval Service, Royal Navy and The Blues and Royals.

And so what if, like many in the Services and the majority of the population, Prince Edward is not up to the standards of a Royal Marines Commando. Most people would say “good on him” for trying. He continues to hold many Royal appointments, including with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Royal Wessex Yeomanry.

In fact, every member of the Royal family does their bit in support of our Servicemen and women, their families, veterans and Service charities, not just in the UK but across the Commonwealth. If they are awarded medals as they do this, they should wear them with pride. – John Warner, Alsager.

disgusted that badge is sold by traders

I AM extremely disgusted that the Veteran’s Badge is being sold by traders in various markets in the north west.

I was awarded the badge for 37 years of service and was, up until recently, proud to wear it in public, at reunions and on parades. Not so now that is has been made a mockery of by those selling the badge for £8-£15 to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

Those responsible for issuing the Veteran’s Badge [pictured above] should stand up and be counted and prevent this from happening. – Benny Ball, Shotton and Deeside Branch, Royal Welch Fusiliers Comrades Association.