LS&GC Medal Eligibility
In his post No 62 on this thread, Leon suggested that a way forward might be for the MOD to issue a certificate to veterans who satisfied all of the criteria relating to the award of the appropriate Long Service and Good Conduct Medal (LS&GC Medal) so that they could, if they wished, purchase one at their own expense, saving the Government from much of the costs.
At present, JSP (Joint Service Publication) 761 Part 1 (V5.0 Oct 16) prescribes in paragraph 5B.01 subparagraph c. "Officers who left the Regular Forces prior to 29 July 2014 are ineligible for the medal". In order that Leon's suggestion might become a viable solution, this subparagraph will have to be removed and replaced - so what would then be a suitable alternative? Presumably, above all else the need would be to preserve the 'worth' of the medal in the eyes of all recipients past, present and future by retaining the existing Qualifying Conduct and Service requirements (paragraphs 5B.02 and 5B.04 respectively, 5B.03 being 'Reserved'), yet with subparagraph c. amended to accommodate those Regular Service officers who have already retired.
The proposal to allow retired RS officers to purchase the appropriate LS&GC Medal might be challenged by those who value the fact that it should be awarded by HM The Queen in a manner similar to all other official medals, and that to obtain one by other means could run counter to established practice. Whilst I could understand this objection, I would point out that there is nothing new about individuals who believe they are entitled to a medal applying for it by submitting the MOD Medal Application Form: this can be used by those applying on their own behalf, on behalf of relatives who are still alive, and for those who are deceased. If successful, then entitlement to the medal is affirmed and in due could it is made available.
So what would be so different about receiving a statement of entitlement that would allow the claimant to purchase the medal and then wear it in full compliance with the regulations? I understand that it is not uncommon for persons who have already received medals from purchasing duplicates that they then display and wear whilst the originals are kept in a safe place and worn only on special occasions. This process could just as easily be followed to obtain an 'original' - once entitled to do so. From my perspective, the critical point is entitlement to wear this medal, for however much I might feel entitled but not possess such entitlement, I would never purchase and wear it unless so entitled, for that would be not only quite improper but also in breach of regulations.
Acceptance of these proposals by the Government should overcome the sense of grievance felt by many who consider that they have missed out unfairly by the ineligibility clause, yet facilitate a solution at minimal expense to public coffers. Of course, many potential claimants might never wish to claim an entitlement to the appropriate LS&GC Medal, and the relatives of those who might have deserved it but are now deceased might not have an interest in obtaining one, which means that the burden of extra work to be undertaken by the Medal Office might not be excessive, and costs contained accordingly.
If the stark ineligibility clause were to be removed, then perhaps it might be replaced by something along the lines of, "Officers who left the Regular Forces before 29 July 2014 are ineligible for the automatic award of the medal. Those who retired before this date and satisfy all other relevant criteria may request a statement of entitlement that will allow them to purchase this medal at their own expense and wear it on suitable occasions."
Just to restate what this is all about: nothing about LS&GC Medals (I include all three versions in this description) addressed in the JSP are 'new', save that the Government took steps to rectify the anomaly by which RS officers had been denied medallic recognition of their voluntary, long and honourable service to their Queen and Country (nothing whatsoever to do with campaigns or risk and rigour). And yet the Government specified a date, arbitrarily it would seem, that excluded many who could claim to have deserved it on equitable terms in former years. My wish and that of others, it is now clear, is that a way should be found to overcome this barrier.
Once a new Government has been formed I have every intention of bringing my arguments to the notice of those who might bring about change and rectify this yet-to-be-completed anomaly. (I had written to the Minister of State in July 2015 before the amendment to the JSP was published, but a fresh approach to a new Government might be fruitful.) I shall also suggest that in addition to taking advice on this matter from Very Senior Officers in the Armed Forces who, having already qualified for medals, might not so easily understand the sentiments and articulate the views of those of us who have no medallic recognition from our Nation, any advisory committee should include representatives from the latter group.
One can but try!