ACSM - answers ??

@Soldier_Why / @napier or any passing Mod with the Power Of GreySkull:

any chance of merging this thread with this onehttps://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/temporary-halt-to-acsm-11-issue.294917/page-3#post-9948429 ?

as it seems a touch odd to have 2 very similar threads running in tandem.
 
SW,

812 days on qualifying tours (NI, Iraq, Afghan and North Africa (GSM 08)). All qualifying time deducted (30, 7, 30, 45). Tours between 93 - 2014, I don't reckon anything , the MODMO deduction of days was not policy at the time of award for the first three and at best can deduct 45 days for the 4th. However, an individual may have decided ad hoc to deduct all Initial Qualifying Service because he /she considered it double medalling. It isn't double medalling as the ACSM is neither a campaign medal or a medal for meritorious service.

I have over the last few years obtained numerous documents through FOI requests and it all boils down to one persons interpretation of double medalling. I tried a service complaint but it was ruled out of time as I hadn't raised it within 3 months after reaching the end of the unwritten complaints /appeal procedure in regards to the ACSM via the MOD MO and DBS secretariat. An appeal at all levels done internal to the MOD MO which allowed them to mark their own homework.

The fight to get the reinstatement of days goes on........ And the scale of refused applications (ACSM 11) for all ex and serving personnel is at around 40% of total applicants compared to about 3% of ACSM 94 applications. so thousands of people could be in the same boat!
 
Last edited:

Soldier_Why

LE
Moderator
SW,

812 days on qualifying tours (NI, Iraq, Afghan and North Africa (GSM 08)). All qualifying time deducted (30, 7, 30, 45). Tours between 93 - 2014, I don't reckon anything , the MODMO deduction of days was not policy at the time of award for the first three and at best can deduct 45 days for the 4th. However, an individual may have decided ad hoc to deduct all Initial Qualifying Service because he /she considered it double medalling. It isn't double medalling as the ACSM is neither a campaign medal or a medal for meritorious service.

I have over the last few years obtained numerous documents through FOI requests and it all boils down to one persons interpretation of double medalling. I tried a service complaint but it was ruled out of time as I hadn't raised it within 3 months after reaching the end of the unwritten complaints /appeal procedure in regards to the ACSM via the MOD MO and DBS secretariat. An appeal at all levels done internal to the MOD MO which allowed them to mark their own homework.

The fight to get the reinstatement of days goes on........ And the scale of refused applications (ACSM 11) for all ex and serving personnel is at around 40% of total applicants compared to about 3% of ACSM 94 applications. so thousands of people could be in the same boat!
Many thanks for this, and I can see where your frustration comes from.

The JSP (JSP 761) does say that the qualifying period for the OSM Afghanistan does not count towards the ACSM 11 (para 8A1.16a), although I caveat that by saying I have no idea when or if this has been amended - it certainly was not the case when I got mine way back in 2012/13.

It would appear however that even discounting the qualifying days for Afghanistan (30) and GSM 08 (45) you would still have broken the 720 day mark. It looks to me that if you can convince them to simply include the qualifying dates from your NI tour that you would be quids in.

I agree that this sucks mate and definitely looks like some jobsworth adhering to the letter (if not the spirit) of the rules.

Good luck buddy and I hope you get some success with this.
 
SW,

812 days on qualifying tours (NI, Iraq, Afghan and North Africa (GSM 08)). All qualifying time deducted (30, 7, 30, 45). Tours between 93 - 2014, I don't reckon anything , the MODMO deduction of days was not policy at the time of award for the first three and at best can deduct 45 days for the 4th. However, an individual may have decided ad hoc to deduct all Initial Qualifying Service because he /she considered it double medalling. It isn't double medalling as the ACSM is neither a campaign medal or a medal for meritorious service.

I have over the last few years obtained numerous documents through FOI requests and it all boils down to one persons interpretation of double medalling. I tried a service complaint but it was ruled out of time as I hadn't raised it within 3 months after reaching the end of the unwritten complaints /appeal procedure in regards to the ACSM via the MOD MO and DBS secretariat. An appeal at all levels done internal to the MOD MO which allowed them to mark their own homework.

The fight to get the reinstatement of days goes on........ And the scale of refused applications (ACSM 11) for all ex and serving personnel is at around 40% of total applicants compared to about 3% of ACSM 94 applications. so thousands of people could be in the same boat!
Agreed it wasn't policy at the time, but was amended. The GSM 08 and medals issued subsequently have a caveat that qualifying time doesn't count towards the ACSM. I agree, it completely sucks and serves no purpose - apart from to deny medals - the sole purpose of the qualifying criteria being reduced was to increase medallic recognition (because its cheaper than op allowance).
 

jg505

Old-Salt
FWIW, I initially joined Arrse to ask about the ACSM 94, just before I deployed on H12, in 2010.

RAF lads who had the ACSM 94, for sole service in N.I, did not have their qualifying period deducted from their qualifying time but did have any time out of the province (courses, etc) deducted from their qualifying time. Clearly as this time was recorded on their SAMA movement record.

There was also some concern that leave/R&R would be deducted from qualifying time, but I don't know if this was ever the case.

I fully concur with the comments above, the initial medal qualifying period was most definitely included in your overall qualifying time. If it didn't, I would not have qualified for my ACSM 94, as I think I only ended up on around 1100 days in total. If you removed the NI GSM and my OSM qualifying periods, I would have missed out on the ACSM 94 by about 30 days.

Again, as commented above, the JSP has been changed at some time. I distinctly remember reading the ACSM 94 qualifying example, in SROs and GAIs, as it mentioned Lebanon, and it did not say that the individual medal qualifying period would be deducted from your overall qualifying time.

It's really disappointing if this new criteria is based solely on cost cutting, but it does leave me with two final questions:

1. If the initial medal qualifying period is to be deducted from your overall qualifying time, then surely this can only be deducted once. For example, if you did two Afghan tours, then once you'd qualified for the OSM, on your first tour, then the whole of your second tour should count As you already have the medal there can be no argument for medal 'double dipping'.

2. From what I can see, the ACSM is not an operational medal but more of a Long Service medal (only my perception). If this is the case, then surely, based on the new argument of medal double dipping, any qualifying time spent on tour, where your service days away get you an OSM/ACSM, then should these days be removed from your LS&GC medal qualifying time? In theory, when I qualified for my NI GSM, and these days went towards my ACSM, they were also included in my LS qualifying time, was I actually medal 'triple dipping'.

Ok, I appreciate that question 2 is playing devils advocate, but I do hope that this issue is sorted and all the guys/gals, who have had their qualifying period removed from their qualifying time, get it reinstated.
 
FWIW, I initially joined Arrse to ask about the ACSM 94, just before I deployed on H12, in 2010.

RAF lads who had the ACSM 94, for sole service in N.I, did not have their qualifying period deducted from their qualifying time but did have any time out of the province (courses, etc) deducted from their qualifying time. Clearly as this time was recorded on their SAMA movement record.

There was also some concern that leave/R&R would be deducted from qualifying time, but I don't know if this was ever the case.

I fully concur with the comments above, the initial medal qualifying period was most definitely included in your overall qualifying time. If it didn't, I would not have qualified for my ACSM 94, as I think I only ended up on around 1100 days in total. If you removed the NI GSM and my OSM qualifying periods, I would have missed out on the ACSM 94 by about 30 days.

Again, as commented above, the JSP has been changed at some time. I distinctly remember reading the ACSM 94 qualifying example, in SROs and GAIs, as it mentioned Lebanon, and it did not say that the individual medal qualifying period would be deducted from your overall qualifying time.

It's really disappointing if this new criteria is based solely on cost cutting, but it does leave me with two final questions:

1. If the initial medal qualifying period is to be deducted from your overall qualifying time, then surely this can only be deducted once. For example, if you did two Afghan tours, then once you'd qualified for the OSM, on your first tour, then the whole of your second tour should count As you already have the medal there can be no argument for medal 'double dipping'.

2. From what I can see, the ACSM is not an operational medal but more of a Long Service medal (only my perception). If this is the case, then surely, based on the new argument of medal double dipping, any qualifying time spent on tour, where your service days away get you an OSM/ACSM, then should these days be removed from your LS&GC medal qualifying time? In theory, when I qualified for my NI GSM, and these days went towards my ACSM, they were also included in my LS qualifying time, was I actually medal 'triple dipping'.

Ok, I appreciate that question 2 is playing devils advocate, but I do hope that this issue is sorted and all the guys/gals, who have had their qualifying period removed from their qualifying time, get it reinstated.
Your second point is spot on...playing the rules when it suits. I've spent in excess of 1000 days on ops but no ACSM....
 

jg505

Old-Salt
Your second point is spot on...playing the rules when it suits. I've spent in excess of 1000 days on ops but no ACSM....
That's just wrong. It does make you wonder who makes these decisions. For example, if it was a cost savings decision, then surely the easy way to cut costs would not to have issued the LS&GC to officers, or reduce the time to earn a bar.

End of the day, and whilst ex RAF, what's more important, a LS&GC medal to a RAF zob, who has never left his desk, or the proper recognition to soldiers who do repeated Op tours.

Like I say, I hope you can get it sorted, best of luck.
 
At a guess, I don't think is this an cost saving exercise. Proper cost savings go after £8 figure costs, and the business case that introduced the ASCM would have an associated funding line.

I think someone might be using the excuse of cost to deny it because they have a philosophical objection to people getting medals "they're not entitled to".
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
then surely the easy way to cut costs would not to have issued the LS&GC to officers,
If only. That was a terrible decision that needs to be reversed, ideally before I become eligible for mine in a couple of years. LS&GC should be a soldiers award; Officers can prove their good conduct by still being employed.
 
Last edited:
If only. That was a terrible decision that needs to be reversed, ideally before I become eligible for mine in a couple of years. LS&GC should be a soldiers award; Officers can prove their good conduct by still being employed.
Thus speaks a man with a regimental entry...
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Thus speaks a man with a regimental entry...
Not me guv. I've never broken the 11th commandment so my LS&GC will arrive in my cornflakes when the time comes.

I just feel quite strongly that meeting the bare minimum standard required of Officers shouldn't earn you a medal.
 
If only. That was a terrible decision that needs to be reversed, ideally before I become eligible for mine in a couple of years. LS&GC should be a soldiers award; Officers can prove their good conduct by still being employed.
As an officer I agree for what it's worth.
 
long service medal for ORs is 68% of a full (22 yr career); therefore officers should not be eligible until serving 23yrs(ish)years
 
At a guess, I don't think is this an cost saving exercise. Proper cost savings go after £8 figure costs, and the business case that introduced the ASCM would have an associated funding line.

I think someone might be using the excuse of cost to deny it because they have a philosophical objection to people getting medals "they're not entitled to".
possible. or possibly a combination of both. Funding through life would have been estimated by a forecast of xx medals being awarded through life; by changing the criteria the same amount of money goes further and goes further. But agreed - it is a piffling small amount (£25?? x 5000) in the grand scheme of things.
 

Canuck_Jock

Old-Salt
The management of the ACSM has been a utter mess. Best summed up by these stats from the gov.uk site: ACSM 1994  Rejection rate: 5%, ACSM 2011 Rejections 40%

For over 20 years, all service counted. Simple, a 6 month op tour counted as 6 months accumulated service. The problem arose when, from what I have read, a single Civil Servant decided that somehow including the 30 days or so qualifying time for the qualifying campaign medal (eg. first 30 days of NI, Iraq Medals, etc) constituted ‘double medaling.’ That it happens all the time e.g. with campaign, long service, jubilee medals, didn’t quite click with this unknown Sir Humphrey.

So, in December 2014 the order was issued to MoD Medals Office (MoDMO) to start deducting the initial qualifying service (IQS) for each of the qualifying campaign medals. So 30 days was deducted from your NI, Iraq, Afghan, etc. Now, your 6 month op tour was now only worth 5 months accumulated service. PRESTO! Now you see it, now you don’t.

But, if you had qualifying accumulated service prior to December 2014, then could you carry it all forward? No. MoDMO also started to RETROSPECTIVELY deduct your IQS from all tours even before December 2014, too. PRESTO! Now you see it, now you don’t.

I know what question we might all be asking….if the title of the medal is the ACCUMULATED campaign service medal then surely (the hint is in the title) I could carry forward ‘unrecognised accumulated campaign service’ (direct quote, ironically, from both the current JSP 761). Much the same way as our LSA is accumulated, it should go up, not down? No. MoDMO won’t let you keep what you have already earned. All ACSM assessments deduct IQS, even service earned before 2015. MoD has effectively rolled back the odometer on your accumulated service. Perhaps it should be called the DE-ACCUMULATED campaign service medal?

Ah! I hear you say. I earned my 720 days prior to the change in December 2014 – so I qualified for the medal before the change? Umm, no. PRESTO! By the magic of MoD’s infinitely flexible interpretation can now tell you that you never really qualified because you never applied in time. Qualified? Fake news! The rule change in December 2014 effectively UN-QUALIFIED those who met the criteria.

That MoD never publicly announced such a fundamental change, nor made transitional arrangements for those who had accumulated campaign time, or who had actually reached 720 days qualification, is surprising. The medal is now effectively the UN-ACCUMULATED campaign service medal.

So, thanks to some faceless Sir Humphrey, the good intention of reducing the ACSM qualification from a 6 op tour medal to a 4 op tour medal - has been completely undone. Cheers, Jack.

Many have challenged this as being unfair, but no avail. Most people get a competely different justification from any others, and sometimes contradicting other justifications. So, the MoD cannot coherently justify its own decision, but at the same time interprets regulations to suit its decision.

Given all previous JSPs and AGAIs explicitly allowed counting of IQS towards ACSM qualifying time, WTF MoD??

But maybe, if you can’t take a joke, you shouldn’t be in a khaki suit…. :frustrated:
 
Genuine question - has anyone written to Johnny Mercer about this? This is precisely the kind of thing that’d get him very excited...
 

jg505

Old-Salt
The management of the ACSM has been a utter mess. Best summed up by these stats from the gov.uk site: ACSM 1994  Rejection rate: 5%, ACSM 2011 Rejections 40%

For over 20 years, all service counted. Simple, a 6 month op tour counted as 6 months accumulated service. The problem arose when, from what I have read, a single Civil Servant decided that somehow including the 30 days or so qualifying time for the qualifying campaign medal (eg. first 30 days of NI, Iraq Medals, etc) constituted ‘double medaling.’ That it happens all the time e.g. with campaign, long service, jubilee medals, didn’t quite click with this unknown Sir Humphrey.

So, in December 2014 the order was issued to MoD Medals Office (MoDMO) to start deducting the initial qualifying service (IQS) for each of the qualifying campaign medals. So 30 days was deducted from your NI, Iraq, Afghan, etc. Now, your 6 month op tour was now only worth 5 months accumulated service. PRESTO! Now you see it, now you don’t.

But, if you had qualifying accumulated service prior to December 2014, then could you carry it all forward? No. MoDMO also started to RETROSPECTIVELY deduct your IQS from all tours even before December 2014, too. PRESTO! Now you see it, now you don’t.

I know what question we might all be asking….if the title of the medal is the ACCUMULATED campaign service medal then surely (the hint is in the title) I could carry forward ‘unrecognised accumulated campaign service’ (direct quote, ironically, from both the current JSP 761). Much the same way as our LSA is accumulated, it should go up, not down? No. MoDMO won’t let you keep what you have already earned. All ACSM assessments deduct IQS, even service earned before 2015. MoD has effectively rolled back the odometer on your accumulated service. Perhaps it should be called the DE-ACCUMULATED campaign service medal?

Ah! I hear you say. I earned my 720 days prior to the change in December 2014 – so I qualified for the medal before the change? Umm, no. PRESTO! By the magic of MoD’s infinitely flexible interpretation can now tell you that you never really qualified because you never applied in time. Qualified? Fake news! The rule change in December 2014 effectively UN-QUALIFIED those who met the criteria.

That MoD never publicly announced such a fundamental change, nor made transitional arrangements for those who had accumulated campaign time, or who had actually reached 720 days qualification, is surprising. The medal is now effectively the UN-ACCUMULATED campaign service medal.

So, thanks to some faceless Sir Humphrey, the good intention of reducing the ACSM qualification from a 6 op tour medal to a 4 op tour medal - has been completely undone. Cheers, Jack.

Many have challenged this as being unfair, but no avail. Most people get a competely different justification from any others, and sometimes contradicting other justifications. So, the MoD cannot coherently justify its own decision, but at the same time interprets regulations to suit its decision.

Given all previous JSPs and AGAIs explicitly allowed counting of IQS towards ACSM qualifying time, WTF MoD??

But maybe, if you can’t take a joke, you shouldn’t be in a khaki suit…. :frustrated:
You are absolutely correct. It's just wrong that a faceless civil servant, who has probably never served, can have such a massive impact on, not only the award of a medal, but the morale of HM Armed Forces.

I have the ACSM 94, and I'm ex RAF so, why are you asking, should I be bothered in the current ACSM deliberations?

Here's why, because I hate to see an injustice. Individuals of all services, have easily qualified for an ACSM but, for some faceless civil servant, are denied said medal.

So here we go. Write to your MP, questioning the decision to change the ACSM qualification.Ask that your question be raised at PM questions, failing that, raise your question with the Secretary of Defence. It's only by making waves, that we will drown this faceless civil servant ****.
 
Last edited:
I got an ACSM 94 with a bar and sufficient days remaining for a ACSM 2011 - I should therefore be awarded an other medal

Archie
 

jg505

Old-Salt
I got an ACSM 94 with a bar and sufficient days remaining for a ACSM 2011 - I should therefore be awarded an other medal

Archie
From what you've said, yes you should, and I've seen plenty of individuals who have both ACSMs.
 
Top